" Will we be able to take off these psychological blinkers before it is too late? Or will we permit the Rajapakses to forge ahead with their constitutional reforms, empowering the Ruling Family and de-empower democracy, with our silence?"
.............................................................

BY TISARANEE GUNASEKARA
EXCLUSIVE TO SRI LANKA GUARDIAN

“What happened here was the gradual habituating of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret… And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier…and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it”.- Milton Meyer (They thought they were free: The Germans – 1933-45)

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian)Unlike Gregor Samsa, the main protagonist in Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, Sri Lankans will not wake up one morning to discover that they have become transformed, overnight and in their slumber, from citizens into subjects. Our fall from citizenship is more gradual and perceptible (for those who are not wilfully blind), a lengthy process which is happening with our consent, witting or unwitting. The constitutional amendments to remove presidential term-limits and enhance the powers of the presidency mark the defining moment in this semi-consensual process of de-democratisation.

Of course we will profess outrageous surprise and deny responsibility when, someday in the future, we become sensible of our fall from freedom to subjugation. And characteristically, we will seek to blame someone, anyone other than ourselves, for our collective fall – a task which would be made easier by the obvious culpability of that most ineffective UNP cum Opposition Leader in the history of Ceylon/Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe. Unarguably Wickremesinghe, the UNP and the opposition would be at fault, if they fail to defeat the proposed constitutional changes; but they would not be the sole culprits. Part of the blame cannot but accrue to us, as individuals and as a society, if we fail to acknowledge the danger inherent in the proposals to remove presidential term-limits while enhancing the powers of presidency and opt not to combat these anti-democratic measures with all democratic means at our disposal.

JR Jayewardene was the first executive president; the party he headed, the UNP, also enjoyed a colossal five-sixth majority in parliament. That combination gave him enormous power, power to make and power to unmake; it also inculcated in him a vision of his power which far outstripped his actual power. (He famously boasted that the only thing he, as the Executive President, cannot do is to change a man into a woman and vice versa. He was to discover that the limits of his power in actuality were more numerous and varied. He could not fight the Eelam war to a finish; he could not prevent an Indian intervention; he could not defeat the JVP insurgency.) His intelligence clouded by hubris, Jayewardene went on to make mistake after unavoidable mistake, until their cumulative weight undermined his own party and nearly destroyed the system.

Jayewardene may have acted as if his power would never end, but even in his most hubristic moments, he knew that his stint at the top would be a finite one because of the term-limit clause. He entertained some thoughts about a third term and toyed with the idea of a constitutional amendment, but was persuaded by his hand-picked General Secretary, Ranjan Wijeratne, to retire at the end of his second term. Wijeratne argued that only a Premadasa presidency would be capable of defeating the raging JVP insurgency and Jayewardene, in the final analysis a rational man, concurred. The fact that Jayewardene wanted power just for himself and not for his family and his total lack of dynastic ambitions made Wijeratne’s task easier. Had Jayewardene a family to promote and a dynastic project to secure, he may not have been amenable to Wijeratne’s appeal to reason and enlightened self-interest.

"If the opposition fails to launch a national protest campaign and the SLMC goes ahead with its shameless betrayal, Mahinda Rajapakse will be able to bulldoze his signature constitutional reform through parliament। Thus JR Jayewardene’s most important concession to democracy, the clause which limits a man from holding the powerful executive presidency to a maximum of 12 years, will be nullified. Once the term-limit clause is removed, Rajapakse will be in a far more unassailable position than any other leader in independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka."
.................................

Rajapakses, Forever

Mahinda Rajapakse wants power not just for himself, but also for his family. And he wants to be succeeded in some remote future by a kin, ideally a son or else a brother. He has both power hunger and dynastic ambitions. He has worked consciously and consistently, with remarkable ingeniousness, to concentrate more and more power in the hands of himself and his close and trusted relatives; he is also grooming his eldest son to succeed him. He does not want to go into uncelebrated, undistinguished, unremembered retirement, like JR Jayewardene and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. Nor does he want to see an outsider stepping into his shoes, thereby pushing his family back into the political margins. With a combination of hard work and good luck, he has secured the political heights for himself and his family and he is not about to let a mere constitutional impediment take it all away. His retirement at the end of the allotted two terms would undo both Familial Rule and Dynastic Project. If the rule of the Rajapakse Family is to continue and if Rajapakse is to be succeeded by his son, he needs to stay as President beyond his allotted two terms. The constitutional amendment to remove presidential term-limits was thus predestined, given the nature of Rajapakse rule.

The cabinet has approved the constitutional amendment, predictably. The old left whimpered and succumbed (both DEW Gunasekara and Tissa Witarana would prefer to end their days as cabinet ministers; every other consideration will be subsumed to this overarching desire). The Supreme Court is unlikely to place any serious impediment against the triumphal march of the Rajapakses. Hopefully, the opposition will file several cases in the courts, challenging the constitutional amendments and demanding that their adoption be subjected to not just a two thirds majority in parliament but also a national referendum. Even if the cases are lost, they will give the beleaguered opposition some breathing space, a little extra time to get its act together and launch a national campaign against these most anti-democratic proposals.

If the opposition fails to launch a national protest campaign and the SLMC goes ahead with its shameless betrayal, Mahinda Rajapakse will be able to bulldoze his signature constitutional reform through parliament. Thus JR Jayewardene’s most important concession to democracy, the clause which limits a man from holding the powerful executive presidency to a maximum of 12 years, will be nullified. Once the term-limit clause is removed, Rajapakse will be in a far more unassailable position than any other leader in independent Ceylon/Sri Lanka. He will not only hold the powerful executive presidency and enjoy an absolute majority in parliament; he will also be able to contest again, and again, as many times as he wants. This confluence will act as a powerful deterrent to any potential dissenters. After all, anyone who is tempted to challenge the Rajapakses is likely to think twice, given the fate of Sarath Fonseka; the likelihood of dissent will plummet to even greater depths, if the constitution is changed to permit Rajapakse to run again and again. Therefore, the moment to resist is now, before the cloak of permanent omnipotence is appropriated by Rajapakse.

The argument that if the electorate so desires, it will be able to vote out Rajapakse would have been credible had the 17th Amendment been in place। Had the independence of the bureaucracy in general and the police force and the elections commissioner in particular been assured constitutionally, free and fair elections would have been possible. But the Rajapakses deliberately killed the 17th Amendment and are now seeking to replace it with an amendment which will give back to the President the power of hiring and firing key top officials. According to media reports, the Constitutional Council will be replaced by a five member Constitutional Advisory Committee which will be appointed by the President; the ‘Independent Commissions’ apart from the Police Commission will be retained but once again the power to appoint these commissions will be given to the President. All appointments and transfers in the police service will be made by the IGP who, of course, will be appointed by the President. The President will also appoint the Elections Commissioner and other top officials. In other words, the new reforms are aimed at giving the President untrammelled and absolute power and permitting him to wield that power indefinitely. Logically can anything democratic or independent survive in such a lopsided setup?

Turning a Blind-eye

It is not only individuals who seek and obtain solace through denial; societies do so as well. Lankan society’s collective descent into denial preceded the election of Mahinda Rajapakse; indeed, it commenced with the Ranil Wickremesinghe-Vellupillai Pirapaharan peace process. As the LTTE abused the ceasefire in plain sight, accumulating money, weapons and recruits, murdering opponents and setting up symbols of independent statehood, government and society went into denial. Peace was then the only manthra and anyone who pointed out the anomalous nature of the Tiger conduct (using the time-space created by the peace process to prepare for war) was decried as a war monger.

A similar process is in evidence today. Mahinda Rajapakse and the Rajapakse Family are occupying more and more of the political and economic heights, as the Lankan society looks on, indifferently. The Rajapakse power-grab has become the elephant in the room. Our collective refusal to acknowledge reality has enabled the Rajapakses to extend and accelerate their power-accumulation. Take, for instance, the term-limit removal saga. The relevant constitutional amendment was proposed soon after the election. When the reaction to it from the polity (including from within the UPFA) turned out to be no so encouraging, the Rajapakses gave the impression of abandoning the idea. Instead the President offered to talk to the UNP about a new constitution. As is evident now, the entire exercise was a diabolically clever political manoeuvre; Rajapakse engaged Ranil Wickremesinghe in talks on a new constitution, while the constitutional amendments which would enable him to seek a third term and enhance the powers of the presidency were being drafted in secret. The President had previously taken the Attorney General’s Department and the Legal Draughtsman’s Department under his own wing, a move which obviously enabled him to keep the amendment drafting process under the wraps.

The Rajapakse power-grab has become the elephant in the room. Our collective refusal to acknowledge reality has enabled the Rajapakses to extend and accelerate their power-accumulation. Take, for instance, the term-limit removal saga. The relevant constitutional amendment was proposed soon after the election.
............................

Sometimes, it is better to look at what a leader does than what he says. The present and the future become perfectly explicable when one remembers the way Rajapakse watched with complaisance, time and again, as besotted or opportunistic supporters hailed him in the most extravagant of term, in songs and speeches. Only a man with a megalomaniac mentality could have tolerated such obvious drivel with placid equanimity. Rajapakse did not see anything untoward in being hailed as a king and a god, because that is how he sees himself, as a ruler for life whose will should be obeyed unquestioningly because he is infallible. What such a leader requires are not citizens but subjects, obedient and quiescent, if not worshipful. Once Rajapakse entrenches himself for the long haul, he will enact other constitutional amendments which will inexorably diminish democratic spaces and equate opposition to the ruling party and family with disloyalty to the state and the country. This may seem farfetched now, but every transformation the Rajapakses have implemented up to now seemed impossible before they happened. In fact, the Rajapakse revolution has been enabled by a collective psychological response on the part of the Lankan society which begins with dismissal and ends with indifference.

Will we be able to take off these psychological blinkers before it is too late? Or will we permit the Rajapakses to forge ahead with their constitutional reforms, empowering the Ruling Family and de-empower democracy, with our silence?

Statement issued by the Asian Human Rights Commission

(August 31, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Asian Human Rights Commission states that words are inadequate to express the magnitude of the folly contained in the suggested amendments to the Constitution of Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan government. Given the availability of a two thirds majority for the government these amendments will be passed. However, these amendments will take Sri Lanka completely outside the orbits of constitutionalism as it is understood by a liberal democracy. It also takes Sri Lanka outside the possibilities of the maintenance of the supremacy of the law. The distinction of legality and illegality will now be abolished by the Constitution itself.

In fact, what is proposed is not some constitutional amendments but the abolition of constitutionalism altogether. What this implies for the people of Sri Lanka in the future is hard to imagine or to describe. However, that the future holds possibilities of enormous disasters and catastrophes due to these amendments is not difficult to predict.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has consistently condemned the 1978 Constitution as an authoritarian constitution. The authorship of that constitution belongs to J.R. Jayewardene who also had a two thirds majority in parliament at the time that constitution was passed. Abuse of the power of the two thirds majority resulted in the creation of a system of constitution in which the president was placed above the law. The judiciary and the parliament were relegated to a secondary position. Much of what happened as catastrophes in Sri Lanka was the result of that constitution amendment. Much of what is described today as catastrophes that happened to Sri Lanka because of the LTTE was, in fact, a product of the irresponsible constitutional changes which were made by the 1978 Constitution.

The Asian Human Rights Commission has stated over and over again that the subsequent history of Sri Lanka would have been very different had these constitutional changes not been made.

Unfortunately instead of overcoming the problems created by the 1978 Constitution the course of action that is now being taken by the government is to go even far beyond the scope of the follies contained in that constitution. By the proposed 'amendments' Sri Lanka will create the ugliest form of governance that exists in the world today. The comparisons with those ugly regimes of Idi Amin and Suharto will be understatements.

From the point of view of retaining the legal framework of Sri Lanka and the protection of citizens from now on there will be no possibilities within the framework of law for this purpose. How the citizens can find any further protection is difficult to imagine. The 1978 Constitution brought such catastrophes as mass forced disappearances in the south, north and the east and the numbers of those disappearances are equal to the worst scenarios in the world. What these new amendments will bring in terms of such use of forced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the abuse of power, illegal arrest and detention is beyond imagination.

All citizens of Sri Lanka will suffer the consequences of these amendments. The Asian Human Rights Commission in its report to the Human Rights Commission of last year declared that abysmal lawlessness prevails in Sri Lanka and the citizens have zero status. This situation will only become worse now.

The future of governance in Sri Lanka will depend on a security apparatus. It will not depend on the president, the parliament or the judiciary. The people will become the victims of the security apparatus, the worst type of which the world has witnessed in the last 100 years.

The 17th Amendment was proposed in 2001 as an attempt to introduce checks and balances to even a low degree in the 1978 Constitution. That possibility is now completely removed with the suggested changes which are proposed through these amendments. The 17th Amendment is thus reduced to a joke and the idea of checks and balances are forever being abandoned in Sri Lanka.

What will be the situation of a country that abandons the idea of the supremacy of the law, the idea of checks and balances, the separation of powers and the idea of binding power by various means to avoid corruption? When all these principles are removed Sri Lanka will be one of the countries were none of the basic principles accepted in civilised society can operate.

Despite of Sri Lanka being a signatory to the UN conventions all the basic principles on which those conventions have been founded are being abandoned through these amendments. Sri Lanka's obligations and these amendments are completely incompatible. In the future as a result of these amendments Sri Lanka's declarations of allegiance to the international community will be a total farce.

by Stewart Sloan
(The views expressed are the author's own)

(August 31, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) I recently had the honour of editing a lengthy article about the outbreak and spread of dengue fever in Sri Lanka. It was an eye opener. I knew from my past research and studies that dengue is endemic and a real threat to the citizens of Sri Lanka. However, what I was blissfully unaware of is the government's seemingly total disregard of the very real danger this disease poses to the people and the lack of any real eradication programme.

This government, who only 15 months ago decisively defeated the LTTE has all the finances, resources and personnel available to start an immediate campaign for the control, if not eradication of this killer disease from the shores of its country. Why then are they not doing it? What possible excuse does the Rajapakse regime have for denying the people of the country their constitutional right to health?

Dengue eradication programmes have been instigated with success in many places around the world. Hong Kong started its eradication programme in the late 90s and by 2007 had wiped it out. Of course, a disease such as dengue can never be considered fully eradicated, but constant monitoring ensures that if it ever re-emerges it can be dealt with instantly.

How did Hong Kong eradicate dengue? They like many countries and territories around the world used the vector surveillance system and a special instrument known as an oviposition trap. The ovitrap, as it is known, has been used in conjunction with the vector surveillance system since the 1970s. Yet the ovitrap and the surveillance system are unknown in Sri Lanka. How can this possibly be the case? How can it be that the government of Sri Lanka, the government that successfully defeated the LTTE, with its suicide bombers and military might, cannot launch such a programme to save its people?

The vector system and the trap basically work in the following manner. Using the ovitrap in various locations or vectors, dengue carrying mosquitoes are trapped so that their existence in any one area can be detected. The vector system is then created so that the relevant authorities can maintain records on which areas are at risk so that concentrated efforts at eradication can be made. What is needed here is not an outlandish amount of money and hundreds of thousands of trained personnel. No new technology has to be developed or invented. It is readily available as is the assistance in setting up such a system.

Mervyn's private war on dengue

Much has been written in the Sri Lankan press in recent years about the exploits of Mervyn Silva. From his son's fight at a nightclub and Mervyn's attempt to storm the Canadian Embassy to obtain a visa for him, to his siege of the Sri Lanka Rupavahini Cooperation. And of course, more recently his alleged assault of a Samurdhi officer who he is supposed to have tied to a tree for failing to attend a dengue control conference. How is it possible that Mervyn Silva, the bully, the ruffian, the ruling regime's court jester is the only member of the Rajapakse government that believes strongly enough in the very real threat to the country that dengue poses?

Now Mervyn has been sacked from his position and thrown out as chief organiser of the Kalaniya constituency of the SLFP for this latest antic. The Sri Lankan public, once again is having a good laugh at him. After all, you can't go tying civil servants, no matter how junior to trees. But I suggest that if, in fact, Mervyn did tie this man to a tree he made another serious error; he tied the wrong person to the tree.

People are suffering and dying in a potential land of plenty. The war with the LTTE is over. The money used to build up the military might of Sri Lanka at a time when such might was needed should now be spent to eradicate dengue.

Are the Buddhist monks who marched for Mervyn's reinstatement the only people that can see what he was trying to do? No doubt it will come as a shock to many people to learn that they have to apologise to him.

Who should Mervyn tie to a tree next?

Sloan is the author of three novels and a collection of anecdotes about the Royal Hong Kong Police Force whom he served as a civilian from 1987 to 1997. He works as an editorial assistant for a regional human rights NGO in Hong Kong.

(August 31, Kuwait, Sri Lanka Guardian) The annual Ramadan celebrations jointly organized by the Sri Lankan .Embassy and the Sri Lankan Manpower Welfare Association ( SLMWA ) of Kuwait was held at the Embassy premises amid a gathering of over 1500 devotees belonging to all ethnic and religious denominations. The program of activities commenced on 27th evening continued till early hours of 28th morning which included special prayers, religious discourses, breaking - fast, Ifthar, Suhoor etc. The SLMWA members under the guidance of its President, Mr. Nelson Christopher made excellent arrangements for the occasion while staff of the Embassy volunteered to extend their fullest support and cooperation toward the success of this worthy endeavour.

The proceedings were conducted by two distinguished Islamic priests, namely, Mowlawi Al Hajj Kaleel and Mowlavi Al Hajj Abdul Haliq who were specially flown in from Sri Lanka with the courtesy of SLMWA. Mowlavi Kaleel, a member of the Advisory Council of the Multi Faith Forum of Sri Lanka is actively engaged in community services throughout the country. He was accompanied by Mowlavi Haliq, Vice President of All Ceylon Jamaithul Ulama and Lecturer at Grand Pass Arabic College, who himself has been a leading scholar and preacher in Islam. Addressing the gathering, Mowlavi Kaleel extended his greetings to those present and valued the commitment with which they have devoted themselves toward practicing religious deeds such as charity, magnanimity, tolerance, kindness and so on. He also lauded the excellent arrangements made by the organizers toward celebrating the cherished Ramadan rituals and customs in an atmosphere of peace and happiness. While praising Holy Prophet Muhammed for his compassion and benevolence showered toward followers, Mowlavi invoked blessings on all those present. In his sermons, Mowlavi Haliq stressed the significance of Islam for the mankind toward leading a spiritual life. He echoed the verses of the Holy Quran and enlightened the audience on the merits of observing Ramadan.

The Chief Guest, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador, Sarath Dissanayake in his brief remarks appreciated the presence of the Muslim priests for the sake of their fellow countrymen. He also spoke highly of the magnanimity of the Muslim community both here and in Sri Lanka for the social emancipation of their people and wished them a happy and peaceful Ramadan. The services rendered by the members of SLMWA and Embassy staff for the well being of Sri Lankans also have been commended.

The events came to a close with a “Suhoor” served at the end which was shared by all in a spirit of joy and togetherness. The program of activities was conducted simultaneously for males and females separately in keeping with rich traditions of Islam and Ramadan. By organizing events and festivals of this nature, the Embassy endeavours to promote wider engagement of Diaspora in socio - cultural activities, thus promoting unity and harmony among people of multi ethnic and religious backgrounds.

EDITORIAL
BY BASIL FERNANDO

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There is hardly any point in making any comment on these “amendments”, except to record a complete disassociation and express moral disgust.

What is proposed is not “ amendments”, but complete ABOLITION of what ever that is left of Constitutionalism, in a liberal democracy. Lord Donamore must the turning in his grave, unable even to graph what happened to what he described as an experiment when he proposal the universal franchise for Sri Lanka.

Those who have spent many decades hoping to end the colossal catastrophe called by 1978 constitution are now forced to recognize some thing much worse in magnitude of the evil. Those who campaigned for the reinstatement of the 17 amendment has to now to see, how that amendment has been reduced to a joke.

1978 constitution caused havoc on the nation. Both in the Sinhala dominated South and Tamil dominated North and East saw the terrible violence, irrationality, carnage and terror. These amendments will necessary bring a much worse experiences.
Now Sri Lanka has abandoned all the basic principles of modern civilization- checks and balances to prevent abuse of power, supremacy of law, rule of law, separation of powers, the independence of judiciary and the parliament, all the principles of accountability and transparency.

What then are the principles on which the political and the legal ‘system’ rest on now. None. None at all.

In fact, there is no ‘system’ any more. The President is every thing. There can be nothing more stupid than that.

Can a political “system” function in this manner? NO.

Then what will happen? That is simply beyond human imagination. Things which far more stupid than what one can imagine, more evil than can be imagined, more catastrophic than what any one can predict, will happen. That is inevitable now.

ONLY THING THAT IS PREDICTABLE IS THAT FOR MANY GENERATIONS TO COME PEOPLE WILL CURSE THESE EVENTS AND THEY WILL CURSE THEMSELVES FOR HAVING ALLOWED THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN.

Related Article: The last debate on the constitution

by B.Raman

(August 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) Kim Jong-il, General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of North Korea’s National Defense Commission, visited China from August 26 to 30,2010. This is his second visit to China this year. He had earlier visited China in May last. Underlining the significance of the visit, the "China Daily" said in an article: "Never before has Kim paid two visits abroad within a year."

2. The visit by train was first detected by the South Korean intelligence and reported by the South Korean media. Western news agencies picked up news of the visit from the South Korean media. The Chinese and North Korean authorities and the Government/party controlled media of the two countries maintained silence on the visit till the morning of August 30. On the morning of August 30, the Chinese media for the first time commented on the reports carried by the South Korean and Western media on the visit without confirming that he was in China. The confirmation came later that day on the Chinese Central TV after he had returned to North Korea. The TV reported that President Hu Jintao had met Kim Jong-il in Changchun, the capital of the Jilin province, on August 27. It carried visuals of the meeting between the two leaders and a report on a banquet hosted by Mr.Hu in honour of the North Korean leader.

3. Kim's visit was confined to Jilin and Heilongjiang, where he visited several agricultural and industrial establishments---- reportedly in order to learn from the Chinese experience in the modernisation of its economy. In this connection, the Chinese media referred to a visit earlier made by him ----without saying when--- to Vietnam to learn from its experience in modernisation. Kim visited a food processing factory, a high-speed train factory and an elementary school in Jilin where his father, the late Kim Sung-Il, had studied in the 1920s.

4. The "China Daily" reported on August 31 that during the talks with Kim President Hu emphasized that it was a basic experience of China's reform over the past three decades that economic development called for self-dependence but cannot be achieved without cooperating with the outside world. Hu reportedly said:”This is the inevitable path of the times that accelerates the development of a country.” According to Piao Jianyi, chief of the Center of Korean Peninsula Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Kim indicated that North Korea's development will be closely connected with cooperation with China. Piao was of the view that a major party meeting next month in Pyongyang might take important decisions concerning development, probably by drawing inspiration from China's experience.

5. Chinese analysts feel that an important objective of the visit was probably to brief the Chinese leadership on North Korean plans for launching a drive for the modernisation of the North Korean economy. Would that drive be as ambitious as that of China? Would North Korea open up to the outside world---particularly to the West--- as significantly as China had done post-1978? Or would the expected North Korean modernisation and opening-up be in North Korean colours----more gradual with continuing suspicion of the outside world? The answers to these questions are not yet available. They are unlikely to be available in adequate measure even after the coming party meeting next month. North Korea's evolution into a modern economy would most probably come about slowly and almost imperceptibly. There are no indications as yet that its leadership has overcome its paranoia of the West----particularly the US.

6. The second objective was to brief the Chinese leaders about what Kim called "the rising generation" and to reassure Beijing that the expected generational changes would not affect North Korean bonds with China. Kim was quoted as having stated as follows at the banquet hosted by President Hu: "With the international situation remaining complicated, it is our important historical mission to hand over to the rising generation the baton of the traditional friendship passed over by the revolutionary forerunners of the two countries as a precious asset so as to carry it forward through generations."

7. This strengthened speculation that at the party meeting next month Kim might officially indicate his plans for his succession which might involve the elevation of his youngest Swiss-educated son (27 years old) Kim Jong-Un. Why did Kim feel the need to reassure the Chinese that the "rising generation" will be as close to China as the present generation and the preceding one of his father? Was his visit to the Chinese school which his father had attended meant to emphasise the close links of his family with China and calm possible Chinese misgivings about the impact of the Swiss upbringing of Kim Jong-Un on future North Korean policies?

8. The third objective was to discuss with the Chinese leadership a possible return of North Korea to the six-party talks on its nuclear programme and the sequel to the sinking of a South Korean naval ship allegedly by North Korea in March last. The Xinhua news agency reported that Kim told Hu that North Korea remained committed to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that it "is not willing to see tensions on the peninsula." According to Xinhua, Kim said he wished to maintain close communication and coordination with China in pushing for an early resumption of the Six-Party Talks to ease the tension on the Korean Peninsula, and to maintain peace and stability there. It quoted Hu as telling Kim that maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula accorded with the common aspiration of the people, and China respected and supported positive efforts made by North Korea to ease the situation. The North Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), however, made no mention of the remarks attributed to Kim by Xinhua.

9. Despite these remarks, Chinese analysts are not optimistic about the chances of an early resumption of the Six-Party talks. The “China Daily” has quoted Zhang Liangui, Professor of international strategic research at the Central Party School, as saying as follows: "The US and the DRPK have different expectations on the talks. While the US seeks denuclearization of the peninsula, the DPRK wants to get the UN sanctions on it lifted.”

10. Chinese analysts described as a surprise Kim’s leaving Pyongyang for China when former US President Jimmy Carter was visiting the North Korean capital to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Mahli Gomes, who was sentenced in April to eight years in jail for entering the country illegally. Lü Chao, Director of the North and South Korea Research Center at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, said in an interview: "Carter has a good reputation in North Korea. Kim has met him before. But perhaps Kim missed this meeting on purpose to show his toughness and send a message that it will not bow to US pressure after a series of military drills between the US and South Korea."

11. Two interesting editorials carried by the Party-owned “Global Times” on the visit on August 30 and 31 are annexed. ( 31-8-10)

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt। of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

ANNEXURE (“ Global Times” editorials)

North Korea's reform and opening-up ( published on August 31,2010)

The fact that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il visited China last week was finally confirmed by the two governments Monday.

Although foreign media continues to speculate about Kim's "succession plan" and whether he brought his son along, there are signs that the North Korean leader is showing an increasing interest in the economy.

In his two visits within about a three-month span, Kim visited a number of cities that are on the frontier of China's booming market economy.

Earlier, he also visited Vietnam, and inspected Russian cities that were undergoing social transformations.

This points to North Korea having a strong interest in opening up and developing its economy. In fact, the country has made several experimental attempts in the past decade or two, including setting up a special economic zone and conducting currency reform.

It is hard to imagine that any country wants to stay poor and isolated. The international community should not marginalize North Korea out of prejudice.

China's rising economy is taking place just across a river from North Korea. There is no reason the North Korean leadership is not willing to learn from China.

Kim Jong-il's latest visit shows his attention to the economy has been growing.

The outside world complains that North Korea has shut itself in. But, they may think otherwise when they consider the existence of a South Korea-US alliance, and the fact that the media in South Korea, the US and Japan have been openly discussing how to overthrow the North's rule.

The West always sees North Korea as one of the world's major threats. But how could a country like North Korea be strong enough to launch a "suicide attack" against them?

Living in the shadows of South Korea, Japan and the US, North Korea has to wrap itself up tighter in order to fend off military threats, and threats of political and cultural infiltration.

North Korea's opening-up will help relieve tensions in Northeast Asia. But, the knot does not only lie on the North's side. Other countries in this region must redouble their efforts to untangle the knot.

These three nations should not bully North Korea any more. China should also try hard to pull North Korea out of its international turmoil.
If the US does not cooperate, South Korea and Japan will have to reconsider their roles. Do they really want to be trapped in a knot made tighter by the US?

China-North Korea's stable relationship ( published on August 30,2010)

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has become a hot topic in international news media over the past few days, as they speculate about Kim's "secret" trip to northeastern China, and his political mission.

With anonymous sources saying that Kim met with Chinese President Hu Jintao, and Kim likely asked Beijing to concur with North Korea's long-anticipated leadership change, Western media has also been trying to illustrate a "special" relationship between the two countries.

Actually, in today's China, the media seldom uses the word "special" to describe the two countries' relations. It does not necessarily mean China is deliberately shunning the long historical ties the two countries share.

Beijing has long made it clear that it aims to keep the peace on the Korean Peninsula via a normal China-North Korea relationship.

North Korea has become a marginalized member of Northeast Asia. When China, South Korea and Japan compete with each other and become further involved with each other's economies, the North is like a forgotten island.

Many in China have begun to complain that the isolated North Korea brings too much trouble for China in international relations, and the two countries' relationship should not go back to a "special" status.

However, as a result of historical and geopolitical reasons, the current China-North Korea relationship is not a simple one. This also explains why Kim Jong-il visits China frequently.

Every coin has two sides. The China-North Korea relationship gives other interested countries too much hope of bringing North Korea back to the negotiation table over the North's nuclear weapons program.

The other countries unrealistically expect China has a strong hand to teach its little brother a lesson when it gets naughty.

Perhaps they do not know that North Korea has a strong mind to make its own decisions. Also, China's diplomatic principle is to not interfere with another country's internal affairs.

However, North Korea is an active variable in Northeast Asia, and keeping a stable relationship with it will give China an edge in taking the initiative in international affairs in this region.

The seeming trouble made by North Korea is actually a reflection of Cold War mentalities that separate the Korean Peninsula into the North and the South, and the US has a big part in the region's confusion.

China is not a passive player in Northeast Asia. A stable relationship with North Korea does not mean China has to be an enemy of Japan, South Korea or the US.

As long as China carefully balances international relations in this region, the China-North Korea relationship will not become a negative factor, but a positive boost toward Northeast Asia's peace and prosperity.

China will continue to encourage and help North Korea open up to the world, which will be conducive to the peace in Northeast Asia.

(August 31, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka Guardian) According to the information we have received from the Women Foundation, Muna (not original name), a 16 year old domestic servant in Kathmandu, was badly beaten and raped by her employers on 18 August 2010 after being accused of theft. The victim, who has been working with her current employer since her childhood, is deaf and dumb (unable to speak).

On 17 August, her employers reportedly accused her of having stolen a piece of jewelry and brought her to Budha police station. She was kept in police custody for 24 hours, the maximum length that people can be kept in police detention before being brought before a judicial authority. Due to the lack of evidence, she was sent back to her employers' house on 18 August.

After Muna was sent back home, her employer's wife reportedly beat her up using stinging nettle. She also reportedly tore off Muna's clothes, poured kerosene on her body and continued to hit her with the nettle and with other objects. The employer's wife then locked Muna in a room with her husband for 2 hours. The husband then reportedly raped Muna who was unable to cry for help.

The alleged perpetrators then took the victim naked outside the house and told the neighbours that she was a thief.

The perpetrators then took the victim again to Budha Police Station where she was detained for another day. In spite of visible external injuries, showing that the victim had been subjected to ill-treatment and was in need of medical care, the police did not take her to the hospital and she was kept in custody without being provided with food, a proper bed or any medicine. The two alleged perpetrators were allowed to walk away unpunished.

Women's Foundation activists who have met with the victim on 19 August have reported that the victim's arms and back were covered with serious wounds and bruises and that her eyes were so swollen that she could not open them. Women Foundation activists have brought the victim to the Teaching Hospital in Kathmandu. The doctor estimated that she may suffer from internal injuries and recommended a CT scan and other tests. The victim was then hospitalized at Stupa Hospital until 27 August.

According to the Women's Foundation, the police first refused to register the case as a rape case and it is only after pressure from the human rights defenders that a rape case was eventually registered on 21August 2010 at Budha Police Station. The police then arrested the two alleged perpetrators but according to our information no further action has been taken yet to bring them to justice. Moreover, according to the information we have received, as of 27 August, the medical report, which will prove that rape took place has not been released.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In dealing with this case the Budha police have already shown a culpable negligence which has had an adversary effect upon the victim's situation and it is therefore likely that they will show the same carelessness in investigating the case.

First, the fact that the police rearrested Muna a second time after having released her less than 24 hours before because there was not enough evidence to justify her detention, without trying to determine whether there were more ground to justify her re-arrest is a culpable misuse of the article 24 of the Interim Constitution of Nepal which states that no one can be kept in detention for more than 24 hours without being brought before a judicial authority and amounts to arbitrary detention. Moreover, the fact that the police omitted to question the alleged perpetrators and let them walk away freely in spite of the injuries that the victim had sustained is an unacceptable act of negligence. Further, the victim's re-arrest has resulted in delaying the moment the medical examination of the victim has been conducted, therefore potentially destroying the evidence of rape and making it even more difficult for the victim to obtain justice.

Furthermore, the allegations that the police did not provide the victim with appropriate medical treatment despite of visible signs that she was injured and that they further failed to provide her with food are in contradiction with all national and international norms and standards.

The article 15-1 of the 1992 Police Act specifically quote taking 'the immediate and necessary action in case an arrested or detained person sustains an injury or falls ill' (article 15-1-h) and making 'the appropriate arrangement for ration or accommodation for persons who are arrested or detained' (article 15-1-i) as being an integral part of the duties of a police officer.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The criminal justice system in Nepal requires a deep transformation before being able to handle properly cases of sexual violence, as was acknowledged by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which expressed its concern in its 2010 report that 'legislative weaknesses and inadequate policing continue to make prosecutions for domestic and sexual violence extremely difficult'.

Examples of this 'inadequate policing' notably include police's refusal to provide protection to a victim of gender-based violence, police's reluctance to register a case, police's negligence in investigating it and arresting the perpetrators. Moreover the police's lack of sensitivity in dealing with such cases, rooted in the patriarchal mindset of the Nepalese society, adds additional hardships on the victim seeking redress.

Such an attitude adds itself to the social stigma that victims of sexual violence keep on facing and often discourages them from seeking redress and result in the impunity of the perpetrators which encourages further violence. According to the 2009 human rights annual report of the United States Department of State only 25% of rape victims who reported the crime to the authorities said that the government had arrested and convicted the perpetrator.

Source: Asian Human Rights Commission

by Rajpal Abeynayake

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Azim Premji, India’s second richest man said last week that he deplores the ‘splurge of money’ that has been going into India hosting the Commonwealth Games. The budget for the games is 17 times of what was originally estimated - a staggering 6 billion dollars when 1 billion of India’s people live on less than 1.25 $ a day.

But now cut to Sri Lanka, where the cabinet of ministers yesterday approved Sri Lanka’s bid for the Commonwealth games in 2018, to be held in Hambanthota, if the games are indeed awarded to this recovering country.

I for one would put my hand right up and say loud and clear that I am hoping and praying and doing my utmost to ensure that the games are not awarded to Sri Lanka, irrespective of what the host city is going to be.

If our Big Brother across the shores with nuclear power and the monstrous financial clout that could take the country into the G 20 league cannot afford them, we cannot afford them, beyond any reasonable doubt.

The hubris is preposterous, so preposterous that I hardly want to talk about it.

Total national expenditure

Upwards of US $ 6 billion which India is spending on the games can be compared with the 11.3 billion dollars which we spent as total national expenditure as reflected in the year 2010 budget.

So there we have it.

We want to spend more than half of what we are spending for an entire year on current estimates, to host the Commonwealth Games eight years from now.
It will be an optimistic estimate to think that the revenue position will improve so much by the year 2014 (by which time we will have to start spending to host the games in 2018) that we will be spending significantly less than half our annual current budgetary expenditure on the games.

Listen up folks — in other words we are poised to spend at least half of all the money we will spend is, sadly more than a quarter of it even by the most conservative estimate, to hold a two-week orgy of athletics which we no doubt will be told would be hugely profitable for Sri Lanka in terms of publicity gained —- and by extension therefore in terms of future investment prospects.

Mind-numbing

The audacity of it all is mind-numbing. Here we are on an IMF bailout loan of US $ 2.6 billion having also recently negotiated a 100 million USD loan from Libya.
Now we are trying to spend in four years time, much more than twice the amount of our current IMF borrowings to host the Commonwealth Games —- at a time when our education budget is a step motherly wretched 5.7 million USD.

We are estimating to start spending roughly 12,000 times the money spent on education now, in four years time, to host two weeks of games on behalf of a club of nations we have to keep reminding ourselves we are a member of.

The good thing here is that the awarding institution will laugh off our bid for the games when considering our economy, and our current budgetary expenditure as a country, even with potential for an average 6.0 growth factored in for each year from now, until the year we would start spending money on the games.

The awarding body would consider that this country is poised to spend around half of what it currently spends, to host these games in four years, and would therefore arrive at the correct conclusion that this is a nation that is rather curiously albeit hilariously trying to bite off much more than she could chew for putting on a hefty tamasha.

We are not getting the games, and that is a certainty, and thank God for whichever deity you pray to, for that.

No argument on this

There is no argument on this. Anybody who knows the basics of mathematics and that means the four-year old child on the street, would understand this.

The numbers speak for themselves — and anybody who says the picture is going to change drastically in four years time would be in the league of Mano Tittawella who said immediately after the tsunami that the then government would build upwards of 200,000 houses in two years, a target he missed by a mammoth 98% even though he told this writer at a press conference, when challenged, that his ‘mathematics is not linear’ as mine is.

Tittawella qualified for the double-boor award for his idiotic obduracy before what stared him in the face, coupled with the audacity to disparage the person who pointed out the obvious nature of the facts to him.

It has given me the satisfaction of being the person who laughed the last and the longest ... still laughing after six years.

This then is the extent of the hubris in bidding for the Commonwealth Games.

Schools are crumbling, hospitals are little more than cattle sheds, but it looks as if people will just not have enough to eat if we get the games।

I just think somebody up there has a great sense of humour.

by Jehan Perera

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The government’s decision to amend the Constitution to permit the incumbent President to seek office for more than two terms and to do away with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that limits the President’s powers of high level state appointments was not unexpected. In January this year President Mahinda Rajapaksa won a second term of six years. He won this election by a large margin, although under controversial circumstances in which the government utilized the state machinery to ensure his victory. The Opposition claimed electoral malpractice that extended to rigging of the count, but failed to furnish convincing evidence. However, most election monitors noted widespread violations of the election laws. One of the main infirmities of that election was the absence of an independent Election Commission with the power of corrective action, as mandated by the Constitution.

The violation of election laws and the progressive debilitation of the system of checks and balances in Sri Lanka’s democracy preceded President Rajapaksa. The promulgation of the so-called autochthonous or "home grown" Constitution of 1972 was a turning point. That Constitution put the Executive branch of government firmly in the saddle and made the positions of the Judiciary and Public Service subordinate to it. The unanimous passage in Parliament in 2001 of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was a belated recognition of the need to ensure checks and balances to the power of the Executive, which had got increasingly concentrated in the hands of the President. This constitutional amendment sought to ensure the independence of the Judiciary, Public Service, Police and Elections Commission in particular.

Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment was not fully implemented after 2003, first by President Chandrika Kumaratunga under whose government the amendment was made, and later under President Rajapaksa. It is being fully violated today and has become an international embarrassment to the government. A government that is intentionally violating the Constitution will fail any international test of good governance. This has led to severe penalties, such as the EU’s withdrawal of the GSP Plus tariff concession. One of the constitutional amendments being contemplated today is the abolishing of the 17th Amendment or its transmutation in a manner that will once again give the President the legal power to decide on who is to be appointed to those state institutions that can be a check and balance on his powers.

International Practice

Until the government announced its decision on constitutional reform, there was hope that a statesmanlike solution would be found. The talks that President Rajapaksa had with Opposition Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe only a few weeks ago appeared to be very promising. Media footage showed the two leaders and their teams of negotiators in warm and smiling settings. There were reports of agreements that included the abolishing of the institution of the Executive Presidency and its replacement with an Executive Prime Minister, as well as give and take on the issue of the implementation of the 17th Amendment. The changeover to an Executive Prime Ministerial system, in which the Executive would be subjected to the checks and balances of an empowered Parliament and Judiciary, seemed to be a viable option. President Rajapaksa himself had campaigned at the Presidential Election of 2005 on a platform that included the abolishing of the Executive Presidency.

Limits on the term of the President are found in most countries with a powerful Presidential system. The best known example is that of the United States where a President can only seek office for two terms of four years each. The reasoning is that absence of change in an office in which power is so concentrated is a recipe for abuse of power and possible dictatorship. The only U.S. president to serve beyond two terms was Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, first elected in 1932, who remained in office until his death in 1945. President Roosevelt’s long tenure in the White House prompted the opposition Republican Party to pursue passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1947, with the law going into effect in 1951. The rationale for the amendment was that it would prevent future presidents from attempting to claim dictatorial powers.

America’s first president, George Washington, could have stayed in office, perhaps for as long as he wanted to, since at the time the United States had no term limiting law and the highly popular President would have faced virtually no opposition. But after two terms, President Washington returned in 1797 to his farm in Virginia. He set an example of humility and country-before-self that continues to resonate in the American ethos. Term limits are also common in Latin America, where most countries are also presidential republics. The President of Mexico is limited to a single six-year term. The same holds true for Philippines in Asia. On the other hand, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was successful in getting the two term limitation on the presidency lifted through a referendum. Countries which operate a parliamentary system of government are less likely to employ term limits on their leaders. This is because such leaders rarely have a set term, enjoy less unilateral powers, and can only serve as long as they have the confidence of the Parliamentary majority which is a check and balance on them.

Public disquiet

The talks between President Rajapaksa and Opposition Leader Wickremesinghe were welcomed by most sections of civil society as the way forward for the country in facing the international and local challenges of post-war reconstruction and development. There were sceptics who pointed to the experience of 2006, where the same President and same Opposition Leader attempted to negotiate a bipartisan political position on the intensifying war and a political solution to the ethnic conflict. At that time President Rajapaksa did not have a solid majority in Parliament to govern effectively. Those talks gave the President the time and space to win over 17 opposition members to the government, which gave his government a decisive majority in Parliament. Unfortunately, it appears that history has repeated itself, with as many as 11 opposition parliamentarians giving their assent to cooperation with the government in giving it the required 2/3 majority in Parliament to effect constitutional change.

With the support of the defectors from the Opposition the government appears to have a safe margin to take it over the 150 votes in Parliament necessary to enact constitutional amendment. At the last General Election, the government alliance obtained 144 seats, and so it can now expect up to 155 votes in the 225 seat Parliament. There is speculation that more opposition parliamentarians will be waiting to support the government in the hope of accessing governmental patronage in the future. It is widely believed that the government is at the height of its popularity and strength, and will move swiftly to enact the constitutional amendments within the course of the coming month. However, there is also a possibility that the government may proceed more cautiously than anticipated. This is because there is little or no popular support for the proposed constitutional amendments.

A limited opinion poll conducted by a newspaper has revealed that 90 percent of those polled rejected the amendment of the two term limit on the Presidency. At the Presidential Elections of 1999 and 2005, the winning Presidential candidates, including President Rajapaksa, pledged to abolish the Presidency itself if elected. They both described it as the fount of evil due to the over concentration of power. Alliance partners of the government from the left parties have publicly expressed their disquiet over the proposed amendments which have not been placed before the people for debate and discussion. Countries with stable and successful political systems have engaged in mass education and public consultations for a considerable period of time prior to changing the Constitution. Venezuelan President Chavez was democratic enough, and confident of his personal popularity, to hold a referendum on the issue. Constitutional amendments that are hatched in secret, and do not have public acceptance and legitimacy, can be repealed in the same way tomorrow when the political balance changes.

by FS

(August 31, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), some brokers would say, let down the stock market this week. Expected to make a decision on abandoning the controversial price bands, the SEC took no such decision at the meeting of the commissioners on Wednesday, contrary to expectation that the bands would be lifted.

While the price bands initially rocked the market, hitting sharp lows in turnover levels and the index, there was a recovery which has been sustained with index and turnover levels returning to normalcy. If that is the case, is there a reason to return to the statesquo of a market sans price bands? There have been many arguments for and against the bands. However what cannot be disputed is that the SEC was compelled to enforce this rule due to casino-tye trading in the market where investors bought in the morning and sold or exited as the price rose or fell during the day.

While the trading became like a casino, investors to a point cannot be faulted because new rules encouraging day-trading were introduced by the Colombo Stock Exchange which in fact saw a surge in trades to never-before levels, partly also due to the buoyancy after the war ended.

But what became worrying to the regulators was that the bubble was going to burst at any time because many investors were buying and selling without any cash at hand. How? Obtain unlimited credit from brokers which is legitimate; buy a stock; sell it before the day is over, and make a cool profit without spending a cent! That’s like living in Disneyland!

It’s fine if everything works out that way. But if investors end up with huge losses, the losses pile up, debts pile up and chaos follows. There were times when some stocks traded on a single day were close to or higher than the total stocks available in the market which has happened before.
This plus market manipulation was what concerned regulators and – in the absence of tighter regulations to nab market manipulators or curb excessive trading in some stocks – the price bands were imposed.

That sequence of events is however now water under the bridge but the issues remain. Some concerned investors like K. Viknarajah, a veteran investor and long-time campaigner for good governance and ethics in the market, praised the 10% price bands, saying some steps had to be taken to control casino-type trading in a market where there is large-scale insider trading.

Viknarajah also raised the long-time issue of insider trading which continues despite close regulatory control. Insider trading is a huge problem, he argued, saying directors, auditors and some other influential stakeholders have access to inside information and some of them – not all - trade through related parties, a new way to circumvent the rules.

“Small, innocent shareholders don’t have such access and there’s no level playing field. Insider trading has been going on for a long time,” he told the Business Times. In the hot seat at the SEC is Indrani Sugathadasa, a respected public servant, who has since her recent appointment, stood firm to ensure fairplay in the markets. Her determination to stick to the rules is bolstered by the fact that she is the wife of Presidential Secretary Lalith Weeratunga, another respected public servant, providing added advantage is rejecting any attempt to influence decisions, a usual trait in many institutions – even the SEC - where name-throwing to get things done is commonplace.

Sri Lanka has all the laws to tackle crime – whether blue or white collar -, ensure good governance and create a decent, law-abiding society. But given the way our politicians behave or civil society and business leaders fail to raise their voice against discrimination and rights (perhaps for fear of offending the powers-that-be), full implementation of the law has always been an issue.

In this context, while we ‘doff our hat (in praise)’ to Ms Sugathadasa and her team for their initial efforts to bring sanity, decorum and governance to the markets, we hope the SEC would be courageous enough in cleaning up the stable before more funds start flowing into post-war Sri Lanka. The biggest challenge however is not in too much regulation which could scare off investors but in the right mix of being alert, free-market trades and tossing regulations when needed to ensure the markets are secure for everyone.

Struggling Over the Right to Struggle

by Neve Gordon

(August 31, Washington, Sri Lanka Guardian) On May 31, I joined some 50 students and faculty members who gathered outside Ben-Gurion University of the Negev to demonstrate against the Israeli military assault on the flotilla carrying humanitarian aid toward Gaza. In response, the next day a few hundred students marched toward the social-sciences building, Israeli flags in hand. Amid the nationalist songs and pro-government chants, there were also shouts demanding my resignation from the university faculty.

One student even proceeded to create a Facebook group whose sole goal is to have me sacked. So far over 2,100 people (many of them nonstudents) have joined. In addition to death wishes and declarations that I should be exiled, the site includes a call on students to spy on me during class. "We believe," ends a message written to the group, "that if we conduct serious and profound work, we can, with the help of each and every one of you, gather enough material to influence ... Neve Gordon's status at the university, and maybe even bring about his dismissal."

Such personal attacks are part of a much broader assault on Israeli higher education and its professors. Two recent incidents exemplify the protofascist logic that is being deployed to undermine the pillars of academic freedom in Israel, while also revealing that the assault on Israeli academe is being backed by neoconservative forces in the United States.

The first incident involves a report published by the Institute for Zionist Strategies, in Israel, which analyzed course syllabi in Israeli sociology departments and accused professors of a "post-Zionist" bias. The institute defines post-Zionism as "the pretense to undermine the foundations of the Zionist ethos and an affinity with the radical leftist stream." In addition to the usual Israeli leftist suspects, intellectuals like Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm also figure in as post-Zionists in the report.

The institute sent the report to the Israel Council for Higher Education, which is the statutory body responsible for Israeli universities, and the council, in turn, sent it to all of the university presidents. Joseph Klafter, president of Tel-Aviv University, actually asked several professors to hand over their syllabi for his perusal, though he later asserted that he had no intention of policing faculty members and was appalled by the report.

A few days later, the top headline of the Israeli daily Haaretz revealed that another right-wing organization, Im Tirtzu (If You Will It), had threatened Ben-Gurion University, where I am a professor and a former chair of the government and politics department. Im Tirtzu told the university's president, Rivka Carmi, that it would persuade donors to place funds in escrow unless the university took steps "to put an end to the anti-Zionist tilt" in its politics and government department. The organization demanded a change "in the makeup of the department's faculty and the content of its syllabi," giving the president a month to meet its ultimatum. This time my head was not the only one it wanted.

President Carmi immediately asserted that Im Tirtzu's demands were a serious threat to academic freedom. However, Minister of Education Gideon Sa'ar, who is also chairman of the Council for Higher Education, restricted his response to a cursory statement that any move aimed at harming donations to universities must be stopped. Mr. Sa'ar's response was disturbingly predictable. Only a few months earlier, he had spoken at an Im Tirtzu gathering, following its publication of a report about the so-called leftist slant of syllabi in Israeli political-science departments. At the gathering, he asserted that even though he had not read the report, its conclusions would be taken very seriously.

Although the recent scuffle seems to be about academic freedom, the assault on the Israeli academe is actually part of a much wider offensive against liberal values. Numerous forces in Israel are mobilizing in order to press forward an extreme-right political agenda.

They have chosen the universities as their prime target for two main reasons. First, even though Israeli universities as institutions have never condemned any government policy—not least the restrictions on Palestinian universities' academic freedom—they are home to many vocal critics of Israel's rights-abusive policies. Those voices are considered traitorous and consequently in need of being stifled. Joining such attacks are Americans like Alan M. Dershowitz, who in a recent visit to Tel-Aviv University called for the resignations of professors who supported the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israeli goods and divestment from Israeli companies until the country abides by international human-rights law. He named Rachel Giora and Anat Matar, both tenured professors at Tel Aviv University, as part of that group.

Second, all Israeli universities depend on public funds for about 90 percent of their budget. This has been identified as an Achilles heel. The idea is to exploit the firm alliance those right-wing organizations have with government members and provide the ammunition necessary to make financial support for universities conditional on the dissemination of nationalist thought and the suppression of "subversive ideas." Thus, in the eyes of those right-wing Israeli organizations, the universities are merely arms of the government.

And, yet, Im Tirtzu and other such organizations would not have been effective on their own; they depend on financial support from backers in the United States. As it turns out, some of their ideological allies are willing to dig deep into their pockets to support the cause.

The Rev. John C. Hagee, the leader of Christians United for Israel, has been Im Tirtzu's sugar daddy, and his ministries have provided the organization with at least $100,000. After Im Tirtzu's most recent attack, however, even Mr. Hagee concluded that it had gone overboard and decided to stop giving funds. The Hudson Institute, a neoconservative think tank that helped shape the Bush administration's Middle East policies, has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Institute for Zionist Strategies over the past few years, and was practically its only donor. For Christians United and the Hudson Institute, the attack on academic freedom is clearly also a way of advancing much broader objectives.

The Hudson Institute, for example, has neo-imperialist objectives in the Middle East, and a member of its Board of Trustees is in favor of attacking Iran. Christian United's eschatological position (whereby the Second Coming is dependent on the gathering of all Jews in Israel), includes support for such an attack. The scary partnership between such Israeli and American organizations helps reveal the true aims of this current assault on academic freedom: to influence Israeli policy and eliminate the few liberal forces that are still active in the country. The atmosphere within Israel is conducive to such intervention.

Nonetheless, Im Tirtzu's latest threat backfired, as did that of the Institute for Zionist Strategies' report; the assaults have been foiled for now. The presidents of all the universities in Israel condemned the reports and promised never to bow down to this version of McCarthyism.

Despite those declarations, the rightist organizations have actually made considerable headway. Judging from comments on numerous online news sites, the populist claim that the public's tax money is being used to criticize Israel has convinced many readers that the universities should be more closely monitored by the government and that "dissident" professors must be fired. Moreover, the fact that the structure of Israeli universities has changed significantly over the past five years, and that now most of the power lies in the hands of presidents rather than the faculty, will no doubt be exploited to continue the assault on academic freedom. Top university administrators are already stating that if the Israeli Knesset approves a law against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement for Palestine, the law will be used to fire faculty members who support the movement.

More importantly, there is now the sense among many faculty members that a thought police has been formed—and that many of its officers are actually members of the academic community. The fact that students are turning themselves into spies and that syllabi are being collected sends a chilling message to faculty members across the country. I, for one, have decided to include in my syllabi a notice restricting the use of recording devices during class without my prior consent. And many of my friends are now using Gmail instead of the university e-mail accounts for fear that their correspondence will in some way upset administrators.

Israeli academe, which was once considered a bastion of free speech, has become the testing ground for the success of the assault on liberal values. And although it is still extremely difficult to hurt those who have managed to enter the academic gates, those who have not yet passed the threshold are clearly being monitored.

I know of one case in which a young academic was not hired due to his membership in Courage to Refuse, an organization of reserve soldiers who refuse to do military duty in the West Bank. In a Google and Facebook age, the thought police can easily disqualify a candidate based on petitions signed and even online "friends" one has. Israeli graduate students are following such developments, and for them the message is clear.

While in politics nothing is predetermined, Israel is heading down a slippery slope. Israeli academe is now an arena where some of the most fundamental struggles of a society are being played out. The problem is that instead of struggling over basic human rights, we are now struggling over the right to struggle.

Neve Gordon is an Israeli activist and the author of and author of Israel’s Occupation (University of California Press, 2008).

by B.Raman

(August 31, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Government-controlled Xinhua news agency of China disseminated the following news on August 30,2010:

"The 5th Escort Task group of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA)- Navy, made up of two warships -- "Guanhzhou" and "Caohu" --- made a friendly call at Myanmar Yangon's Thilawa Port Sunday (August 29 ) afternoon.

"It was also the first time for Chinese naval warship to have called at Myanmar port.

"The five-day mission is aimed at promoting friendly relationships between the two armed forces of the two countries and exchange between the two navies.

"A grand ceremony was launched to welcome the Chinese warships amid rain, attended by Major Han Sein, Commander of Myanmar Navy Dockyard Base, Chinese Ambassador to Myanmar Ye Dabo and other embassy officials as well as representatives of Chinese companies, teachers and students based in Myanmar and local Chinese residents totaling about 200.

"After the ceremony, the warships were open to the visitors for viewing.

"During the call, the Chinese PLA escort task group will launch a series of exchanges with the Myanmar navy.

"Myanmar is the fourth country that the 5th Chinese PLA escort task group called on after completing its escort missions in Gulf of Aden and the waters off Somali coast.

"Prior to Myanmar, the escort task group had called on Egypt, Italy and Greece."

My comment: Why the two ships did not make a port call in Sri Lanka?

by B.Raman

(August 30, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The administration of President Barack Obama has called for a substantive dialogue without pre-conditions between His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Beijing on the Tibetan issue and called upon the Government of Nepal to honour its past commitment to allow the Tibetans the freedom of travel to India through Nepal.

Its annual report on Tibet submitted to the Congress on August 19 says inter alia: “Encouraging substantive dialogue between Beijing and the Dalai Lana is an important foreign policy objective of the United States. We continue to encourage representatives of the PRC and the Dalai Lama to hold direct and substantive discussions aimed at the resolution of difference, without precondition..... The US government believes that the Dalai Lama can be a constructive partner for China as it deals with the difficult challenge of continuing tensions in Tibetan areas. His views are widely reflected within Tibetan society, and he commands the respect of the vast majority of Tibetans. His consistent advocacy on non-violence is an important principle for making progress toward a lasting solution....China's engagement with the Dalai Lama or his representatives to resolve problems facing Tibetans is in the interests of both the Chinese government and the Tibetan people. Failure to address these problems will lead to greater tensions inside China and will be an impediment to China's social and economic development.”

The report has been submitted under the Tibet Policy Act 2002, enacted by the Congress during the George Bush Administration. The Act calls upon the Government to submit an annual report to the Congress on the negotiations between His Holiness and the Chinese authorities on the future of Tibet. The report should have been submitted in March last, but the Obama Administration delayed its submission, possibly because of its expectation that China would support strong action against North Korea for sinking a South Korean naval ship in March. The Obama Administration's unhappiness with Beijing's reluctance to support action against North Korea was earlier reflected in its decision to come out openly against the Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea and is now manifested in its decision to submit its delayed report on Tibet to the Congress and to use strong language in the report.

The report expresses Washington's disappointment with the lack of progress in the talks and adds: “We hope that another round will be scheduled soon and will include discussion that will lead to solutions to the problems that Tibet and its people face. We continue to urge both sides to engage in substantive dialogue and hope to see a tenth round of dialogue that will lead to positive movement on questions related to Tibetans’ lives and livelihood.”

Beijing has been consistently refusing to discuss with the emissaries of His Holiness deputed for these talks the future of Tibet and other Tibetan-inhabited regions. It has been insisting that these talks should be restricted to discussing the future of His Holiness to which His Holiness is not agreeable.

The Nepalese media reported on August 19 that during a meeting with the Nepalese Home Minister, Mr.Bhim Rawal, the previous day at Kathmandu, Mr.Atul Keshap, US acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, who was on a visit to Nepal, called upon the Nepal Government to honour its commitment of 1989 under an informal agreement to allow free passage for Tibetan refugees wanting to travel to India. The 1989 agreement, which was brokered by the UN, allows fleeing Tibetans free passage to Dharamsala in India through Nepal. Under Chinese pressure, the Government of Nepal has set up new security posts along the border with Tibet to prevent Tibetan refugees from crossing over into Nepal for going to Dharamsala. In June, the Nepalese border security authorities were reported to have handed over to the Chinese authorities three Tibetans who had crossed over into Nepal from Tibet. China has reportedly been funding the expenditure on the new border posts and has been pressing the Government to suppress anti-Chinese activities by the Tibetan refugees living in Nepal.

The Chinese have not yet reacted to these actions by the Obama Administration. During the forthcoming visit of President Obama to India in November, an exchange of views on the progress of the talks between His Holiness and Beijing should be on the agenda. The Government of India should take the initiative in proposing the inclusion of this item on the agenda. His Holiness should also be invited to any reception hosted by our President in honour of President Obama.

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”

by Apsara Fonseka

(August 30, Washington, Sri Lanka Guardian) Almost two weeks ago, after six whole months of illegal detention and many court cases, my father’s first court martial case convicted him of doing politics while in uniform.

I must say, this did not come as any surprise to us since we knew that the verdict was written by this regime a long time ago. We knew our father would be found guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. But the fact that we were not even given a chance to argue the case in court was not something we expected. Many probably don’t know that the case was heard and closed without even having our lawyers present – we did not even have a chance to bring forth our evidence.

I heard the Defence Secretary has started to ‘clean up’ the army.

This is the reason he had given for dishonourably discharging my father. His comment made me wonder if it was the panel or his verdict that was handed out in court. His comment sounded as if he knew what the verdict would be at the end. Anyhow, I sincerely hope that he will not stop with the army with this ‘clean up’. I hope the other forces too will see this ‘cleaning’. Especially because if this verdict is true, he surely cannot forget the fact that the President Rajapaksa’s second son and his nephew too did politics while in uniform.

No one can forget the fact that Yoshitha went around with the ‘Blue Brigade’, campaigning for his father. I’m not saying that was wrong, but that was definitely doing politics while in uniform because as far as I know, he still is a navy officer and I don’t see a court martial in the horizon for him. Then again, there were some difference between Yoshitha and my father. Firstly, my father is not a Rajapaksa and secondly, my father retired from his position before he went on into politics. So given these confusing definitions and convictions, I’m guessing that the true meaning of doing politics in uniform lies in who is the final arbiter of the decision.

I’m very interested to see what the Defence Secretary’s thoughts would be on this.
Many, including personnel in the military are disgusted with this conviction. One respectable officer went on to say that it was sickening to hear such verdicts against the General. They seem to think that if this was done to the highest ranking officer in the army, what kind of a guarantee would they have? While some believe no good deed goes unpunished, some others seem to believe the best way to survive or to get promoted inside the military is to certainly do politics ‘while’ in uniform. It seems fair to consider so, because wasn’t that what happened during the presidential election? Didn’t several high-ranking officers come on national television to campaign for the President? Were they not promoted? Were they not given high positions in organisations?

I personally don’t understand why the government wants to accuse others when they themselves wanted to bring my father into politics. I remember in one incident, the President himself asked my father to participate in a political meeting held down South. I also remember my father very clearly saying that he will not get on any stage while he was still serving the forces.

On many other occasions, I know many more government officials came to our home, while my father was still the CDS and asked him if he would like to join the government and do politics. Even government officials working abroad flew in just to do so. However, my father’s answer remained the same. So, why blame my father for coming in to politics when they clearly wanted him to join in the first place? I guess the answer is simple – He didn’t join ‘them’.

My father’s reaction to this verdict was priceless. He showed no worry regarding it. When I asked if he was saddened by the verdict and if he felt as if all his efforts and sacrifices were in vain, he merely smiled and said that these little obstacles would not affect him. He said that although the government had the power to take away his ranks, they will never be able to take away the pride and happiness he felt every time he achieved them. He said that no matter who takes what away, they could never take the memories he built as an army officer and that there will never be any regrets for serving his country.

I personally have no worries about my father losing his ranks. Neither does any member of my family. In fact, I really don’t think any Sri Lankan really cares about this verdict. It was simply another drama created for the whole world to see. My father wrote history and that can never be stolen or erased. He marked his name. He has scars to prove his work. He neither begged nor did favours to get where he did. He believes that actions always speak louder than words and that is what brought him all the respect and honour.

He didn’t run away to another country when things became dangerous or when governments changed. He faced all obstacles that came his way and he held his head up high through it all. So, just because some person gave a verdict to make another person happy and for someone to feel superior and strong, people will always remember. He will always be remembered as the army commander who was able to architect a plan to finish a war. That fact will not change. As the people say, he will always be the General of the public. Nothing or no one can change that fact.

My family and I, with many other Sri Lankans, will always honour and respect my father for all he has done for the country. So, it doesn’t matter. History has already been written and my father’s efforts will always be remembered. There is no power that can take that away.

Many already know the final outcome. The government will try to convict him before the next parliament period if not earlier. They will then sentence him to jail with an extended time period and will make sure he loses his seat in parliament. This is to be expected.

What is not known is how the people will react.

I hope we will always fight for democracy for the sake of our future.

We have nothing left if we have no say, except, to remember Mahatma Gandhi’s words: “You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”

Three high ranking customs men caught their pants down

(August 30, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) In our previous exposures of the above we reproduced the Attorney General’s opinion given to the Director General of Customs on 10-05-2010 which carried a warning that the AG would withdraw the action pending before the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal ruling favoring the Colombo Dockyard Ltd. This is despite the fact the company had already conceded guilt by making a special deposit of 95 million rupees with Customs, to apply against the final determination of the Customs inquiry that was pending against the Company.

Now we draw your watchful eye to the three dodgy minutes made on the AG’s letter [10-05-2010] by three of the most senior Customs men, one being the Deputy Director General [Enforcement] ZAM Jazeel and the other, the Director [Preventive] Thilak Perera, on 31-05-2010 and the final minute dated 23-06-2010 by Deputy Director of Customs Lalitha Weerasinghe, sealing the fate of the Dockyard scandal. You would observe that all these Customs men have totally dismissed the minute made by the OIC of the Customs Legal Affairs Unit, condemning the AG’s dodgy opinion which was clear deviation of his own opinion expressed to the DGC on 04-11-2009.

Three minutes by these Customs men, clearly demonstrate the surreptitious and hurried action taken by them to shut the case abruptly with no knowledge or consent of the new DGC Mrs Karunarathna. By then the new DGC had just taken over the office of the DGC from Sarath Jayathilake who had been involved in this scandal for a period of over 10 years.

It is evident from the minute made on the AG’s letter by the OIC Legal affairs, addressed to the Deputy DGC ZAM Jazeel that the AG, at the meeting held at the AG’s office on 04-11-2009, had advised the Customs to proceed with the Customs inquiry since the Court of Appeal ruling favoring the Colombo Dockyard Ltd does not preclude the holding of the Customs inquiry. Connivance of the ZAM Jazeel in the Dockyard scandal is clearly evident to any watchful eye, from his own admission by his minute on the AG’s letter. He simply concedes that he had failed to take any action to resume the Customs inquiry for a 6-month period since AG’s advice given on 04-11-2009 and hence order all officials down the line to close the case as per the AG’s irrational advice given to DGC on 10-05-2010.

However, with the appointment of Mrs S Karunarathna to the office of the DGC the tide has completely changed. She had taken a firm stand on this issue, challenging the dodgy opinion expressed by the AG Mohan Peiris to shut the case. Her decision also cancelled the improper action taken by the three Customs men, whose conduct suggest their apparent collusion in this day light robbery committed by the Colombo Dockyard Ltd. The Customs insiders believe that these three men had acted on the advice of the former DGC Jajathilake who had missed the opportunity to close the case before his sudden removal, solely due to the fact that the original case record had gone missing and could not be traced.

The new DGC’s letter sent to AG on 03- 08-2010 [see the image of the letter shown separately] demonstrates her stand that clearly goes against AG’s advice. Her stand is based on the consideration of the colossal revenue loss incurred by the government and also based on the sudden deviation of the AG’s own stand since his original opinion dated 04-11-2009. The new DGC had plainly informed the AG that the withdrawal of the Supreme Court action at this stage is inappropriate.

Now the concerned officers in the Customs are carefully monitoring what action would be taken against the three customs men against whom charges on corruption is looming for abuse of office for defrauding the government revenue. Their improper conduct also warrant dismissal from the Customs Service under the provisions of the of the Customs Ordinance [Section 137], and corruption charges under the Bribery and Corruption law.

Last Sunday, the print media [Sunday Leader] exposed the Secretary to the Treasury [ST] Dr Jayasundara’s double stand in this case, which is seen as an abuse of office of the ST by Dr Jayasundara to accommodate a revenue fraudster. Further to the media exposure of AG’s double standard in this scandalous affair and DGC’s firm stand notified to the AG to go ahead with the Dockyard Court action, we can reveal that Dr Jayasundara had summoned the DGC and a team of Customs officials involved in the case, and severely reprimanded them to comply with the AG’s advice and not pursue Court action against the Colombo Dockyard. However, the ST PB Jayasundara, who had learnt lessons from previous Court orders made against him with harsh penalties and strictures, that followed by his removal from the public service, had taken necessary precautionary measures not to give anything in writing confirming his dodgy directive to the DGC.

In this background, we can reveal that the Customs Officers Union has come forward to protect the interests of the Customs and the DGC. The union members have called upon the DGC Mrs Karunarathna to take proper action to safeguard the office of the DGC by taking the wrongdoers to task, irrespective of their positions held in the Customs Service. They have also urged the DGC to call for a written confirmation from the ST of his verbal directive given to abandon the Court action initiated against the Colombo Dockyard Ltd. The letter by the trade union, an image which is reproduced here, urges that such an action is a necessity as the directive given by the ST is not in the best interests of the protection of the government revenue.

Related Documents:-