Johns have always interfered with our sovereignty: NBF

Accusing foreigners of interfering in this country’s affairs, the National Bhikkhu Front (NBF) president said that democracy was not something that was applicable only to white men.

In a press release the Ven. Dambara Amila Thera stated that the timing and conducting of elections in this country were the Elections Commissioner’s responsibilities in terms of the Constitution. Ordering, exerting pressure and influence by outsiders in the internal affairs of a country were against the principles of democracy. It was not worthy of the International Democratic Union to adopt the proposal by the Australian Prime Minister John Howard as it influenced the internal affairs of this country.

“The ‘Johns’ had repeatedly pressurised the sovereignty of this country -- John Doyle, Joh Westborg and John Howard are such Johns,” Ven. Amila Thera said.

The NBF also pointed out that the opposition leader had acted in an extremely childish manner.

“He is using a cat’s paw to quench his thirst for power. At a time when the people had lost confidence in him he is making an attempt to reinforce his power with the assistance of foreigners,” the Ven. Thera said, adding that as the whole world was aware, the International Democratic Union was an assembly of capitalists with the objective of putting its members in power in the respective countries. It knew that the Lankan Opposition Leader could be controlled by it, the NBF president said.

The Thera requested the Australian Premier to respect the democratic rights of the aborigines in his own country before interfering in the affairs of other countries.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/news/03.asp)

Tsunami-affected Muslims despair at illicit land grab by Kelum Bandara

Muslim families affected by the tsunami in Kinniya, Trincomalee, are seeking the intervention of President Chandrika Kumaratunga to settle the issue of encroachment by some people, on lands allocated for the relocation of Muslim families.

Sources from Kinniya told the Daily Mirror yesterday that 50 acres of land had been allocated for the resettlement of tsunami- affected Muslim families. However, a group of 52 families had now begun to encroach on the lands, without permission from the authorities concerned, leaving these Muslim families in the lurch.

“They have now begun to put up permanent houses, schools, wells and other facilities, including a cemetery. They are also supported by an NGO. Because of this invasion, we have doubts whether we would be relocated far away from the sea, affecting our livelihood as fishermen,” sources said.

These Muslim families are urging the President to look into this problem and work out a solution immediately. They are also urging the authorities concerned not to relocate them far away from the coastal belt because it can affect their livelihood as fishermen.

Kinniya was the most-affected area by the tsunami in the Trincomalee district, with around 1800 families being displaced.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/news/09.asp)

Police trying hard to clean-up Colombo city by Marisa de Silva

Initiated by the IGP -- with the primary objective of eradicating the new fast paced westernised culture being imitated by the city’s youth -- the “Colombo Clean-Up” operation, which kicked off last week, is now moving at full throttle within the Colombo Metropolitan area.

The Excise Department too is playing an important role in this project by coming down hard on authorised and unauthorised hotels and restaurants, to ensure that Excise regulations are not violated and to put an end to illegal operations at some of these establishments.

DIG Colombo, Pujith Jayasundera said so far the police had raided and forwarded to courts 763 cases of illegal activity, including 180 cases of heroin, 238 cases of marijuana, 91 cases of alcohol (short measure or adulterated) and 18 cases of prostitution.He said the clean-up operation would be carried out for a month, after which IGP, Chandra Fernando, would assess all the reports and decide whether this operation should be continued or not.DIG Jayasundera said prior to this operation in the Colombo city, a similar “clean-up” project had been successfully conducted in the Gampaha region so much so that President Chandrika Kumaratunga had in a letter commended the IGP and praised the police on a job well done.

He said similar clean-up programmes were also being carried out in Kegalle, Ratnapura, Matara and Galle. DIG Jayasundera said the Tourist Board was assisting them by providing information regarding licensed establishments and the police have had numerous discussions with the Tourist Board in the past as well where they had discussed the prevalence of unregistered establishments and the need to take strong action against them.

“Therefore, it’s now at the implementation stage”, he said. Tourist Board Director General S. Kalaiselvam said the Tourist Board generally assessed the quality and standard of a particular establishment prior to granting Board approval.

“Thereafter, the Board recommends the establishment to the Excise Department for the issuance of a liquor licence”, he said. Mr. Kalaiselvam said a liquor licence entitled a holder to serve liquor only till 11 p.m., but regrettably however, the Tourist Board had observed that some of these places did not adhere to this regulation and often served liquor even after the permitted time.

The Tourist Board Director General said it was essential to take action against unauthorised establishments as otherwise it was unfair by the establishments that pay taxes, as those who avoided paying taxes were able to keep their prices low.

He said the Tourist Board was fully supportive of this initiative and was giving its fullest cooperation to both the Excise Department and the police by providing them with the lists of registered establishments.

An Excise Department official said it had deployed eight teams comprising five to six officers each (including those recruited from the out stations), to conduct daily raids on restaurants and hotels, to ensure they function in keeping with excise regulations.

He said that on an average these teams managed to raid about 10 to 15 places each night and so far action has been taken against 42 of them while the others were carrying out their businesses in keeping with the rules and regulations stipulated in the licence.

The official said that although the general rule stated that no liquor could be served after 11 p.m., some 35 to 40 establishments had obtained permission to extend the cut-off time till 12 midnight or till 2 a.m. in certain other instances based on legitimate reasons, for instance, hotel guest requests.

The official said of the 42 establishments, 26 were authorised establishments and their licences had been temporarily suspended with letters of explanation asked for by the Excise Department. He said so far only three letters had been received.

“On receipt of these letters, the Finance Minister and the Excise Department will together decide on the course of action to be taken, whether a fine or cancellation of their licences”, the official said. He said until such time these places would remain closed. The remaining 16 hotels or restaurants raided being unauthorised establishments would be shut down and reports forwarded to courts for necessary legal action.

(http://www.sundaytimes.lk/050724/news/15.html)

Multiculturalism – The fall guy in the war on terror by Quintin Fernando in Melbourne

When I came to Australia in 1972, the White Australia Policy was in its last gasp. Al Grassby, the Minister of Immigration in the Whitlam government, which came to power in December 1972, drove the last nail in the coffin of the discriminatory policy when he declared in favour of Australia as a “multicultural society”. Since then multiculturalism has been a cornerstone of Australia’s social policy. In a new book, The Long Slow Death of White Australia (Scribe Publications), Gwenda Tavan traces the incremental demise of the deliberate policy, which effectively excluded non-white migrants from Australia between 1901 and 1972. (There were a few cosmetic changes in between). But is White Australia really dead? From 1972 to 1996, Australia was looked upon as the epitome of multiculturalism, thanks to leaders of all political persuasions and individuals who consciously promoted a more inclusive vision of Australian society. But, if the events of the past 10 years are anything to go by, “White Australia” has always remained just under the nation’s skin, waiting to surface whenever Australians suffered a bout of insecurity. Xenophobia resurfaced when terrorist planes plowed into the World Trade Centre in the US on 9/11 2001 and again when boatloads of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan arrived unannounced on the Australian horizon. The Bali bombing in 2002 led some to question the merits of multiculturalism. And now, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, multiculturalism is once more under assault. Perhaps the nation takes its cue from its leaders. The groundwork for the current “fear” of migrants, particularly those from non-English-speaking countries, was laid by the Howard government which came to power in 1996. John Howard is no admirer of multiculturalism. Even before Tampa appeared on the horizon, the coalition government had cut benefits to migrants, reduced the numbers to the annual refugee intake and family reunion schemes, and withdrawn much of the support to multicultural institutions. Howard also gave tacit support to the anti-Aborigine and anti-Asian views of Pauline Hanson in 1996. In 1999 he introduced temporary protection visas for asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees, rather than offering permanent visas, as had been the case until then. Australia became the only Western country with indefinite long-term mandatory detention, a system that has driven some detainees to madness. These policies have conditioned the nation into a xenophobic mind-set and a siege mentality. In the past three weeks, several media commentators and at least one academic have suggested that multiculturalism is somehow to blame for the London bombings and therefore poses a threat to Australia. Reminiscent of Pauline Hanson’s anti-Asian vitriol, Andrew Fraser, Professor of Law at Queensland’s Macquarie University told a TV current affairs programme that Africans and Asians should not be allowed into Australia. His reason? Sub-Saharan Africans have low IQ and are naturally prone to violence and the Asians are “too smart” for “ the Australian way”!!! Perhaps, he finds his own mediocrity threatened by his Asian peers in the academia. His backhanded compliment to Asians, however, fails to hide his blatant racism and his contemptible attitude towards non-whites. More disturbingly, in a phone-survey following the programme, 85 per cent supported his bigoted views. A senior columnist of the Melbourne Age, Tony Parkinson, says that the London bombings have shaken our faith in the future of multiculturalism. Pamela Bone, an associate editor of The Age goes even further to say that the “bomb blasts in the London Underground marks the death of multiculturalism” and calls for a “limit to the ethnic mix”. Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun suggests that Islamic terrorism is symptomatic of a deep-rooted Asian/African hatred of the West. ABC radio’s Terry Lane finds the concept of multiculturalism “ repulsive” and “ugly” and “assimilation (as opposed to the inevitability of integration over time) a beaut idea that works”. Perhaps, he would like an act of Parliament that would force newcomers to wipe their feet and erase all footprints and memories of their past lives as they enter Australia? The present debate is obviously focused on Muslim communities in Western countries including Australia. It is fair enough a debate in view of the events of the past 4 years. Every society has the right and obligation to take the necessary measures against those who preach hatred and perpetrate violence to justify their cause or ideology. And there is nothing more despicable than to kill and maim those in the very society that has given a person refuge from political oppression, ethnic persecution, religious intolerance and poverty in his or her own country. There are Islamic elements in Australia that preach hatred, distribute incendiary literature and even espouse violence in the name of the jihad. They, certainly, have no place in any democratic society. But not all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority, as political leaders rightly hasten to assure us after every terrorist attack, are decent, law-abiding citizens, going about their business like other ordinary people. There is no justification for blaming the Muslims diaspora for the acts of a tiny minority. Acts by Muslim individuals or groups are not exclusively and inherently Muslim. Rather they are symptomatic of much deeper and more complex political and global circumstances. But to imply that somehow multiculturalism is a threat to Australia’s security is to take the debate to the level of vulgarity. Australia has the world’s highest percentage of immigrants- one in four. With more than 240 nationalities, 180 languages and 8 faiths encompassing all the world’s major cultures, it has the most successful ethnic mix anywhere. Incidentally Muslims represent less than 2 per cent of the population. Some see multiculturalism as a faddish political experiment, a weakness created by social engineering. But it has actually developed almost organically over decades to become an integral part of Australian life. The country has been repeatedly built on the new foundations laid by each wave of migrants and has done well out of it. Strangely unremarked in the ill defined questioning of multiculturalism in Australia is the fact that it is taking place in response to terrorism in another, different country and without an attack having taken place on Australian soil. Perhaps we should consider whether our long unofficial tradition of multiculturalism and more recently, official policy, have helped protect us. When it works, and it certainly does, multiculturalism makes it more difficult for violent extremists to find the reserves for sympathy that facilitates acts of terrorism. It is important, nonetheless, that we not naively imagine that multiculturalism works magically on its own. Most political and community leaders have recognized that, when terrorists are testing national bonds, Australians must engage in active ideological resistance to the terrorists’ own deadly ideology of fundamental differences. But coercive assimilation is not and was not the answer. It has been tried and failed. In the context of extremist violence by alienated, angry young men, it is important to think through the possible consequences of subjecting migrants to a suspicious, conditional welcome, which requires them to renounce part of themselves in order to be accepted as full members of society. The natural human response to exclusion is resentment and, in extreme cases, violence. Multiculturalism does not divide Australia. If anything, it offers us the vehicle through which we can enter dialogue and have analytical and critical conversations that will enable us to grow together and build the kind of society to which we aspire.It celebrates diversity while promoting links between different cultures and people, all of whom broaden and enrich the country’s human capital, its collective wealth of ideas, wisdom and skill. There is, as Victorian Premier Steve Bracks noted last week, another strategic consideration. Human links fostered by multiculturalism extend beyond our borders to migrants’ countries of origin. Such links often precede and underpin the development of strong political and economic ties. The arrival of Chinese and Indian migrants (the largest groups in recent times) gives Australia a real human advantage in its relations with two emerging world powers. The most fearful impact of terrorism is that we lose faith in the protective power of our shared values of respect, understanding and tolerance, the human values that have done much to define Australia. This should not be allowed to happen. Those who aim to make Australia’s multiculturalism the fall guy in the war against terrorism, refuse to concede that Australia is an inclusive and plural society based on the recognition that we are, in essence, a land of indigenous peoples and migrants. Perhaps, they would want to wind back the clock to the racist policies of the 1950s. White Australia may not be quiet dead yet (http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/opinion/04.asp)

Grand gesture of Govt, LTTE bipartisanship can turn the tide by Jehan Perera

The swift implementation of the P-TOMS agreement has been put into question.

The agreement on tsunami recovery, crafted with such difficulty by the government and LTTE, needs to be revised to be consistent with the interim determination of the Supreme Court. Much will depend on whether the government's legal team can come up with a satisfactory response to the Supreme Court, which has stalled the full implementation of the agreement.

In the meantime, people on Sri Lanka's Ground Zero, where the tsunami struck, will have to remain patient in their sufferings while the country edges towards a breakdown of the ceasefire. It also remains to be seen whether or not the LTTE will engage in self-fulfilling prophecies that bring the worst nightmare of the people of the north east into reality. One of the self-defeating features of the LTTE's constant warnings about a possible return to war is that, sooner or later, they may feel impelled to deliver on their prophecy.

The P-TOMS agreement was reached by the government at great cost to itself. As a result of going ahead with the agreement the government lost its majority in Parliament.

The legal problems that the government is now having with implementing the agreement are due to constitutional restrictions which do not correspond to the needs of a country that is trying to re-unite itself, at least on a humanitarian issue.

The stalling of the agreement will lead to a further deterioration of the confidence that people in the north east have about the ability of the government to solve their problems. It will also erode their confidence in the efficacy of negotiations between the government and LTTE to end the ethnic conflict.

In addition, the impact that the stalling of the P-TOMS agreement, or its non implementation, would have on international opinion needs to be considered. From UN Special Representative on Tsunami Recovery, President Clinton, to foreign diplomats in Colombo, those who seek Sri Lanka's betterment have been looking with positive expectations towards the joint mechanism on tsunami recovery.

The international community stands ready to help Sri Lanka to make up for the lost years of its development due to war and tsunami. But they will certainly be disappointed if the country's political and other elites, who enjoy a high standard of living themselves, get caught up in their own in-fighting at the expense of their impoverished countrymen.

Possible offer

It will be easy to be disheartened and cynical about the present situation in the country. It took six long months for the government and LTTE to finally put their differences aside and negotiate an agreement on tsunami recovery.

It will take close upon another two months for the law to be decided on, when the Supreme Court makes its final determination on September 12. Judicial activism, where the courts challenge or support the power of governments to take their own decisions, can be a mixed blessing.

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court in the United States attempted to block the efforts of the government to take the country out of economic depression. On constitutional grounds, they obstructed the New Deal legislation of President Roosevelt.

On the other hand, in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court supported the Civil Rights legislation of President Johnson, which sought to integrate blacks and whites as equal citizens. President Roosevelt's method of dealing with the obstruction he faced from the Supreme Court was to appoint more liberal judges to the Supreme Court who effectively overturned earlier adverse rulings.

The case that is now pending before the Supreme Court offers both the court and the country an opportunity for both sides to be heard and a fair and wise verdict on the P-TOMS agreement to be reached. Hopefully, the final determination of the court will give people the satisfaction that a decision that is in keeping with the needs of the country has been made.

There is of course a possibility of the Supreme Court making final determinations on September 12 that would make the implementation of the P-TOMS agreement as it presently stands difficult. But a respectful and respectable way does exist for country to be speedily taken out of its crisis.

An offer by the UNP at this time that it will, if necessary, support a change in the constitution to enable the P-TOMS agreement to be implemented will be a confidence building measure to the people of the north east and indeed to people all over the country and internationally as well.

Such an offer will not harm the UNP's interests. On the contrary, the UNP will be helping the government to do what it might otherwise have to do by itself in the future. As the political party with the best chance of forming a government in the future, the UNP will be aware of how difficult it is for a single party to get rid of the obstacles to the peace process. A policy of positive bipartisanship on the peace process at this time would be a grand gesture that could restore the faith in the viability of the peace process and the growing maturity of the polity.

Tacit bipartisanship

At present Sri Lanka enjoys a tacit bipartisanship between the two major political parties, but it is more a negative type of bipartisanship than positive when it comes to action. It can be argued that today, in a theoretical sense, the two major parties have reached a bipartisan consensus on the two major issues relating to ending the war and the ethnic conflict. The first tacit bipartisan agreement is that that they are both agreed on a federal solution to the ethnic conflict.

The government agreed to a federal solution in its Constitutional Bill of 2000. Also the government's readiness for a federal solution has been repeatedly proclaimed since then by the President on the political stage. The UNP accepted a federal solution at the Oslo peace talks in December 2002, when it arrived at an agreement with the LTTE to explore a federal solution to the ethnic conflict.

In addition, with the signing of the P-TOMS agreement by the government, the need to work with the LTTE as a partner to end the civil war and to re-unite the country was affirmed. This was also done by the former UNP government in 2002 when they signed the Ceasefire Agreement with the LTTE.

There too, the need to treat the LTTE as a partner was accepted. Thus, it can be seen that there is a tacit bipartisanship between the government and UNP where it concerns both federalism as the solution, and where it concerns negotiating with the LTTE as a partner as the way to reach a solution.

Unlike in other politically developed countries, such as Britain, however, both of these parties have reached these milestones separately, without seeking or obtaining each other's explicit support. The best time to change the policy of tacit bipartisanship to explicit or positive bipartisanship is for the government and UNP to work together to make the P-TOMS agreement operational in as short a time as possible.

Today the country has President Chandrika Kumaratunga, in the last stages of her presidency, acting as a determined statesman in trying to take the peace process forward.

The ascent of Ranil Wickremesinghe to the leadership of the UNP spelled one major change for the better in the politics of the country that is most visible today. As opposition leader, Mr Wrckremesinghe is not resorting to the irresponsible practice of whipping up opposition to governmental initiatives to end the ethnic conflict through negotiated and political means. So far it has only been Mr Wickremesinghe who, as opposition leader, has chosen to forego narrow political advantage by not trying to win over die hard nationalists to his party by taking on the nationalist line.

But so far, not even Mr Wickremesinghe has been prepared to actually work together positively with the government to resolve the ethnic conflict. This is where politics in Sri Lanka needs to change, and the grand gesture needs to be made, if the country is to put its ethnic conflict behind it for good.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/opinion/01.asp)

Multiculturalism – The fall guy in the war on terror by Quintin Fernando in Melbourne

When I came to Australia in 1972, the White Australia Policy was in its last gasp. Al Grassby, the Minister of Immigration in the Whitlam government, which came to power in December 1972, drove the last nail in the coffin of the discriminatory policy when he declared in favour of Australia as a “multicultural society”. Since then multiculturalism has been a cornerstone of Australia’s social policy.

In a new book, The Long Slow Death of White Australia (Scribe Publications), Gwenda Tavan traces the incremental demise of the deliberate policy, which effectively excluded non-white migrants from Australia between 1901 and 1972. (There were a few cosmetic changes in between).

But is White Australia really dead?

From 1972 to 1996, Australia was looked upon as the epitome of multiculturalism, thanks to leaders of all political persuasions and individuals who consciously promoted a more inclusive vision of Australian society. But, if the events of the past 10 years are anything to go by, “White Australia” has always remained just under the nation’s skin, waiting to surface whenever Australians suffered a bout of insecurity.

Xenophobia resurfaced when terrorist planes plowed into the World Trade Centre in the US on 9/11 2001 and again when boatloads of asylum seekers from Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan arrived unannounced on the Australian horizon. The Bali bombing in 2002 led some to question the merits of multiculturalism. And now, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in London, multiculturalism is once more under assault.

Perhaps the nation takes its cue from its leaders. The groundwork for the current “fear” of migrants, particularly those from non-English-speaking countries, was laid by the Howard government which came to power in 1996. John Howard is no admirer of multiculturalism.

Even before Tampa appeared on the horizon, the coalition government had cut benefits to migrants, reduced the numbers to the annual refugee intake and family reunion schemes, and withdrawn much of the support to multicultural institutions. Howard also gave tacit support to the anti-Aborigine and anti-Asian views of Pauline Hanson in 1996. In 1999 he introduced temporary protection visas for asylum seekers found to be genuine refugees, rather than offering permanent visas, as had been the case until then. Australia became the only Western country with indefinite long-term mandatory detention, a system that has driven some detainees to madness.

These policies have conditioned the nation into a xenophobic mind-set and a siege mentality.

In the past three weeks, several media commentators and at least one academic have suggested that multiculturalism is somehow to blame for the London bombings and therefore poses a threat to Australia.

Reminiscent of Pauline Hanson’s anti-Asian vitriol, Andrew Fraser, Professor of Law at Queensland’s Macquarie University told a TV current affairs programme that Africans and Asians should not be allowed into Australia. His reason? Sub-Saharan Africans have low IQ and are naturally prone to violence and the Asians are “too smart” for “ the Australian way”!!! Perhaps, he finds his own mediocrity threatened by his Asian peers in the academia.

His backhanded compliment to Asians, however, fails to hide his blatant racism and his contemptible attitude towards non-whites. More disturbingly, in a phone-survey following the programme, 85 per cent supported his bigoted views.

A senior columnist of the Melbourne Age, Tony Parkinson, says that the London bombings have shaken our faith in the future of multiculturalism. Pamela Bone, an associate editor of The Age goes even further to say that the “bomb blasts in the London Underground marks the death of multiculturalism” and calls for a “limit to the ethnic mix”.

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun suggests that Islamic terrorism is symptomatic of a deep-rooted Asian/African hatred of the West. ABC radio’s Terry Lane finds the concept of multiculturalism “ repulsive” and “ugly” and “assimilation (as opposed to the inevitability of integration over time) a beaut idea that works”. Perhaps, he would like an act of Parliament that would force newcomers to wipe their feet and erase all footprints and memories of their past lives as they enter Australia?

The present debate is obviously focused on Muslim communities in Western countries including Australia. It is fair enough a debate in view of the events of the past 4 years.

Every society has the right and obligation to take the necessary measures against those who preach hatred and perpetrate violence to justify their cause or ideology. And there is nothing more despicable than to kill and maim those in the very society that has given a person refuge from political oppression, ethnic persecution, religious intolerance and poverty in his or her own country.

There are Islamic elements in Australia that preach hatred, distribute incendiary literature and even espouse violence in the name of the jihad. They, certainly, have no place in any democratic society.

But not all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority, as political leaders rightly hasten to assure us after every terrorist attack, are decent, law-abiding citizens, going about their business like other ordinary people.

There is no justification for blaming the Muslims diaspora for the acts of a tiny minority.

Acts by Muslim individuals or groups are not exclusively and inherently Muslim. Rather they are symptomatic of much deeper and more complex political and global circumstances.

But to imply that somehow multiculturalism is a threat to Australia’s security is to take the debate to the level of vulgarity.

Australia has the world’s highest percentage of immigrants- one in four. With more than 240 nationalities, 180 languages and 8 faiths encompassing all the world’s major cultures, it has the most successful ethnic mix anywhere. Incidentally Muslims represent less than 2 per cent of the population.

Some see multiculturalism as a faddish political experiment, a weakness created by social engineering. But it has actually developed almost organically over decades to become an integral part of Australian life. The country has been repeatedly built on the new foundations laid by each wave of migrants and has done well out of it.

Strangely unremarked in the ill defined questioning of multiculturalism in Australia is the fact that it is taking place in response to terrorism in another, different country and without an attack having taken place on Australian soil. Perhaps we should consider whether our long unofficial tradition of multiculturalism and more recently, official policy, have helped protect us. When it works, and it certainly does, multiculturalism makes it more difficult for violent extremists to find the reserves for sympathy that facilitates acts of terrorism.

It is important, nonetheless, that we not naively imagine that multiculturalism works magically on its own.

Most political and community leaders have recognized that, when terrorists are testing national bonds, Australians must engage in active ideological resistance to the terrorists’ own deadly ideology of fundamental differences.

But coercive assimilation is not and was not the answer. It has been tried and failed. In the context of extremist violence by alienated, angry young men, it is important to think through the possible consequences of subjecting migrants to a suspicious, conditional welcome, which requires them to renounce part of themselves in order to be accepted as full members of society. The natural human response to exclusion is resentment and, in extreme cases, violence.

Multiculturalism does not divide Australia. If anything, it offers us the vehicle through which we can enter dialogue and have analytical and critical conversations that will enable us to grow together and build the kind of society to which we aspire.It celebrates diversity while promoting links between different cultures and people, all of whom broaden and enrich the country’s human capital, its collective wealth of ideas, wisdom and skill.

There is, as Victorian Premier Steve Bracks noted last week, another strategic consideration. Human links fostered by multiculturalism extend beyond our borders to migrants’ countries of origin. Such links often precede and underpin the development of strong political and economic ties. The arrival of Chinese and Indian migrants (the largest groups in recent times) gives Australia a real human advantage in its relations with two emerging world powers.

The most fearful impact of terrorism is that we lose faith in the protective power of our shared values of respect, understanding and tolerance, the human values that have done much to define Australia. This should not be allowed to happen.

Those who aim to make Australia’s multiculturalism the fall guy in the war against terrorism, refuse to concede that Australia is an inclusive and plural society based on the recognition that we are, in essence, a land of indigenous peoples and migrants.

Perhaps, they would want to wind back the clock to the racist policies of the 1950s. White Australia may not be quiet dead yet.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/opinion/04.asp)

Mirusuwil trial recommences with a fresh bench

The Colombo High Court-at-Bar trying the Mirusuwil mass murder incident, in which five army personnel, including a Second Lieutenant, three Lance Corporals and a soldier, were indicted with murder of eight persons, fixed trial with a fresh bench for October 10.

The new High Court-at-Bar comprises of High Court Judges Upali Abeyratne (president), Deepali Wijesundara and Sunil Rajapakse.

The accused, R.M. Sunil Ratnayake, R.W. Senaka Munasinghe, T.M. Jayaratne, S.A. Pushpakumara and Gamini Munasinghe were charged on 19 counts, including unlawful assembly with common intention to cause injury and committing the murder of eight persons on December 19, 2000, at Mirisuwil.

The victims in this case are G. Raviwarman, S. Theiwakulasingham, W. Pradeepan, S Velwarajah, N. Jayachandran, K. Gnanachandran, G. Shanthan and W. Prasad.

Fifty-six witnesses were listed to give evidence along with 35 productions in connection with the trial.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/news/10.asp)

Govt. helping the LTTE gain Eelam: JHU by Damitha Hemachandra

The Jatika Hela Urumaya (JHU) yesterday protested the Government’s attempts to dilute the Sri Lankan Army by transferring and reappointing Army and Intelligence top brass to the Service pool, Administration and Foreign Service.

Reacting to the appointment of top Intelligence officer, Major General Kapila Hendavitharana as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Thailand, the JHU pointed out that the Government is supplementing the 22-year-old attempt by the LTTE to destabilise the sovereignty of Sri Lanka and gain Eelam in the North and East.

Highlighting previous cases, where the top brass of the Army had been transferred, giving into pressure by the LTTE and the TNA, JHU General Secretary Ven. Omalpe Sobitha Thera urged the Military and the public to rise against the sudden transfers of the top brass in the military, which would weaken the country’s military lineup.

“The LTTE continues to hunt down Military and Intelligence officers, while hiding behind a one-sided Cease-fire Agreement (CFA),” he said, adding that the Government move is assisting the LTTE.

The Ven. Thera also pointed out that the present inertness of the Sri Lankan Government, in defending the interests of Sri Lankan military, insults the 18,000 military personnel who died and the 25,000 who were disabled protecting the sovereignty of the country.

Meanwhile, North and East Sinhala Organisation (NESO), writing to the President and the Joint Military Operations Head, Rear Admiral Daya Sandagiri, also urged them to stop the lightening transfers of the top military and intelligence officials in the North and East, interrupting the present ground defence operations implemented by them.

They urged the President not to provide security to LTTE members while they are launching violent attacks against the Sri Lankan Army, Police and Sinhala, Muslim and Tamil civilians.

NESO also urged President Kumaratunga and Navy Commander Rear Admiral Sandagiri to grant approval for the armed forces to return fire in self defence when confronted by the LTTE and to provide weapons to unarmed intelligence members of the Sri Lanka Army.

While pointing out that the LTTE violence against innocent civilians in the North and East is increasing daily, NESO requested the Government to permit civilians to carry weapons for self defence.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/news/08.asp)

DPL moves to defuse flashpoint in East

Exactly two weeks ago, an armed group said to be 10 to 15 in number, dressed in black and their faces masked with black cloth, alighted from an ash coloured van near a cluster of buildings, once an agricultural centre, in Chelvanayakapuram in Trincomalee.

They ran towards a former dairy house, now an “office” of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in this Government controlled area. One of them lobbed a grenade whilst others followed with fire from Chinese built T-56 assault rifles. They poured several rounds of 7.62 bullets.

Within seconds, two guerrilla cadres, “Lt. Col.” Sebastian alias Pillai Jayachandran and Sinnavan alias Kumaran Master were killed. Sebastian, better known by his nom de guerre Dikkam, was a senior Sea Tiger leader in the Trincomalee district whilst his colleague was a fighting cadre. Also killed were two civilians, Koneswaran Muthaiah alias Konesh Master and Kulasingham Ausan. A fifth person, Chitra Velayutham Selvakumar was wounded. The attack took place not far off from a military checkpoint and the Police. One was located 250 metres northwards at the Third Milepost. Another, also some 250 metres to the west, was the Uppuveli Police Station.

Tiger guerrillas accused operatives of the Army’s Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI). They said the van carrying the attackers had its number plates concealed by twigs of Kohomba leaves. For a while, onlookers who saw the van and not the masked men inside thought it was headed on a pilgrimage to Kataragama. Vehicles carrying the devotees often had sprigs of the plant with medicinal values on the grill of their vehicles.

Reports reaching both the Joint Operations Headquarters (JOH) and Army Headquarters from Trincomalee gave details of this incident. But these reports said the incident was the work of an “unidentified group.” Senior Army officials who spoke to The Sunday Times on grounds of anonymity insisted that neither their intelligence arm nor other personnel were involved in the attack.

At least one suggested it could have been the work of the dissident Karuna faction, though the group has dwindled in numbers and had its ammunition stocks run low. Even if they were behind the attack, the source argued, the LTTE would not concede it because that would amount to giving credit and credibility to the dissident group as a formidable rival.

For the LTTE, this incident seemed the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back. On June 26 a claymore mine attack between Bo Aththa and Sewanapitiya along the Manampitiya -Batticaloa road narrowly missed an LTTE convoy. It was carrying their Ampara political wing leader Kuyilinpan and 39 other cadres from Kilinochchi to Batticaloa. S. Dharsha, an LTTE cadre sustained minor injuries. Four months earlier LTTE Ampara-Batticaloa political wing leader Ilayathambi Lingarasa alias Kowshalyan and a colleague were shot dead at Pillayaradi in Batticaloa. All these incidents in Government-controlled areas, the LTTE concluded, were the work of the military, its intelligence operatives and “a group of saboteurs under the name of Karuna.”

If the claymore mine incident near Welikanda prompted the LTTE to demand procedures to ensure safety of travel through government controlled areas for LTTE cadres, there was more anger at the response they received. Jayantha Dhanapala, Secretary General of the Peace Secretariat declared providing escorts “….. is a confidence building measure and not a right.” He said there would be one round trip per month (from Kilinochchi to Batticaloa and from Kilinochchi to Trincomalee) where armed escorts would be provided.

Pointing out that they would resort to their own “means and modes” of transport, the LTTE warned that this would push the Ceasefire Agreement into a “grave and complex situation.” That was a way of saying war would thus be inevitable.

To show that the warning was not mere rhetoric, LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran ordered a stepped up campaign to eliminate personnel of all state intelligence agencies in the East. Operatives of the country’s premier intelligence organisation, the Directorate of Internal Intelligence (DII) in the east were ordered to remain indoors. Personnel of the Army’s Directorate of Military Intelligence were told they required the permission of their superiors before they ventured out to meet informants.

In a separate development, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga tasked Major General Kapila Hendavitharana, now Director General of Military Intelligence (DGMI) for a temporary foreign assignment. This came amidst reports that Tiger guerrillas had planned to eliminate him first, before they killed Lt. Col. Tuan Nizam Muthaliff. They had mounted surveillance and found that he frequented a market area on Sundays. This is where the attack was to be carried out but he had gone abroad that week, as revealed in The Sunday Times (Situation Report) of July 10.
Maj. Gen. Hendavitharana, a former Director of Military Intelligence, was attached to the Joint Operations Headquarters (JOH). His post as Director General of Military Intelligence (DGMI) is to remain suppressed until his return to Colombo. However, retired Major General Chula Seneviratne, Chief of National Intelligence (CNI) is to overlook his responsibilities. A routine Posting Order on Thursday attaching Maj. Gen. Hendavitharana to Army Headquarters had fuelled wild rumours that he had been removed from his post.

It turned out that intelligence operatives in the East were not the only targets Tiger guerrillas were pursuing. They were taking on troops and policemen too raising fears in the defence establishment in Colombo that a retaliatory response would only trigger Eelam War Four. Never before has the fear of the resumption of hostilities been so apparent during the three year long ceasefire.

On July 12 two guerrilla cadres fired at an Army static guard point at the Anuradhapura junction in Trincomalee. Lance Corporal Bandara was injured. On the same day, guerrilla cadres lobbed a grenade at a Police truck travelling from Alles Garden to Trincomalee along the Nilaveli Road. An Inspector, a Sub Inspector, a Sergeant and ten policemen were injured. On July 13 a group of guerrilla cadres lobbed a grenade and opened fire at an Army guard point in Soorangal. Corporal Piyadasa of the National Guard was wounded. On the same day, another group lobbed a grenade and fired at an Army platoon deployed for security at a camp in Periyapalama where internally displaced persons are located. Privates Samantha, Maduranga, Vijekumar and Anusha were wounded.

Also on July 13, a group of guerrillas attacked a tractor carrying an officer and nine soldiers from Palathoppur to Pansalwatte detachment. They ambushed the troops from two directions, lobbing hand grenades and opening fire. Lt. Samarathunga, Cpl. Sunil Shantha, Cpl. Jayakody, L/Cpl. Karunasinghe, L/Cpl. Gnanadarshana, Pvt. Sugathadasa, Pvt. Wijesekera, Pvt. Kumaratunga and Pvt. Silva sustained injuries.

On July 14 Sub Inspector Sunil Ranjit Lokuhettige was shot and wounded in Tampalagamuwa. He was returning to a Police post when the incident occurred. On the same day, an unidentified person lobbed a grenade towards and Army truck. It exploded near a barber saloon injuring two civilians. On July 16, a picket detailed to secure the main supply route in Vantharamoolai (near Batticaloa) was fired at by Tiger guerrillas. Gunner Kandepola was killed. On July 18 Gunner Jinapala was shot at wounded at Mavedivembu in the Batticaloa district.

On July 21 a guerrilla lobbed a grenade at Special Task Force (STF) and Police personnel at a centre housing internally displaced persons at Akkaraipattu. Constables Ananda, Pathiraja and Ranjith were wounded. On July 21, four policemen on duty outside the Bank of Ceylon branch at Pottuvil were fired at. Reserve PC Weerasinghe was killed. Yesterday, guerrillas attacked a Police Post in Pottuvil killing one constable and wounding two. They also attacked a Police Post in Akkaraipattu wounding two policemen. The spate of incidents caused alarm at the highest levels of the Government.

The head of the Military Intelligence branch at the Army’s 22 Division Headquarters in Trincomalee, responsible for intelligence activity in the district, was immediately transferred to Colombo. This week, President Kumaratunga spoke to General Officer Commanding (GOC) 22 Division, Major General Sumith Balasuriya, an experienced officer, about the prevailing situation in the area and on other important matters.
This came amidst a number of other steps she took in her capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The Sunday Times learnt she has initiated a top level inquiry to ascertain who was responsible for the Chelvanayakapuram incident. The probe which was under way in Trincomalee this week was also trying to ascertain whether “a hidden hand” was behind the string of incidents in the East including grenade throwing in order to sabotage the peace process.

Some senior military top brass have been ticked off for not being aware of what was going on under their very nose. A state run Sunday newspaper even suggested that pro Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) recruits to the Army were behind attempts to trigger hostilities.

Here again, high ranking Army officials who spoke to The Sunday Times strictly on grounds of anonymity insisted neither the security forces nor other “outside elements” were behind the wave of incidents. “The series of grenade explosions was the result of civilians, trained by the LTTE, flexing their muscles. Civilian groups were being activated in a big way not only in the East but also in the Jaffna peninsula,” said one. In the case of the latter, large groups of civilians including drivers, conductors and three wheel taxi operators who received military training have grouped themselves in Jaffna.

“Troops have been reacting with extreme restraint and utmost caution under severe pressure and provocation. If a proper appraisal of the ground realities is not taken into consideration, the consequences could be unimaginable,” warned another. He said this situation was happening at a time when intelligence gathering work by state agencies was badly impeded. “Wrong reports on ground realities could only lead to wrong assumptions and faulty judgements that could irreparably harm national security interests,” he warned. He lamented that it had happened in the past but no lessons have been learnt.

President Kumaratunga had wanted to address senior officers of the Security Forces and the Police. They were to be summoned for a conference on Tuesday (July 26) but the meeting has now been put off for another date. She was expected to tell them of the need to protect the ceasefire and her Government’s commitment to continue with the peace process.

The defence establishment in Colombo that suspects a “hidden hand” over the recent developments was not the only party concerned. So were the Norwegian peace facilitators who were monitoring developments from Oslo although they did not apportion blame on anyone outside. They initiated a number of new measures.

The first to unfold was a statement from “Sri Lanka Peace Process Co-Chairs” issued by the United States Embassy in Colombo. It noted that an “escalation of violence resulting in the killing and injuring of persons associated with the Government of Sri Lanka, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and other political groups.”

“Unless security is guaranteed,” the statement warned “a central pillar of the Ceasefire Agreement will be undermined. If the Ceasefire Agreement ceases to function, the wider peace process would be gravely jeopardized and international support for that process would be deeply eroded.”

The thrust of the statement lay in their assertion that “the parties demonstrate the seriousness of their commitment to the Ceasefire Agreement by coming together to resolve outstanding issues and renew their commitment.” This is exactly what SLMM Head Hagrup Haukland and acting Norwegian Ambassador, Oddvar Laegreid tried to do when they spoke with S.P. Thamilselvan, LTTE Political Wing leader, in Kilinochchi.

They proposed to get Government and LTTE representatives for a meeting, either in Kilinochchi or in a “controlled area” like Omanthai to de-escalate the rising tension. “Let the Government forces first stop all their ceasefire violations and threats against LTTE fighters and behave reasonably. Let us see thereafter whether there is any possibility of having any direct talks,” declared Mr. Thamilselvan. The LTTE position was clearly spelt out in an interview he gave the Colombo based Tamil daily Sudar Oli after the talks with Mr. Haukland and party last Wednesday.

Answers he gave to questions posed by the newspaper give an idea of the LTTE thinking. Here are edited excerpts:
What subjects were discussed during talks?
The meeting was held to discuss the worsening crisis. We explained our stance.

Co-chairs of the peace process have called a halt to violence. Your comments:
It is the Government and the Security Forces that should behave properly. At a time when they have not taken any constructive measures to adhere to the ceasefire and rectify the situation, it does not appear to us that these efforts or that of the international community will be successful.
We have clearly and firmly asked for the implementation of clause 1.8 of the Ceasefire Agreement. This clause deals with the disarming of paramilitary groups. The armed groups functioning in our homeland should be removed.

Did the talks progress even in a small measure?
There has been no progress.

Did Norwegian facilitators put forward any proposal?
They want the two sides to meet and talk. It is impossible to have direct talks when our fighters cannot move around. Direct talks are possible only when goodwill is established. The Government and the Security Forces must create such a condition….

The Norwegian peace facilitators have not given up efforts to get the two sides to talk. Yesterday, Special Envoy Erik Solheim cut short a holiday in Switzerland to fly to Britain for a meeting with LTTE Chief Peace negotiator, Anton Balasingham. Joining him in London was Norway’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Hans Brattskar, who was on holiday in Oslo. The duo were due to discuss the proposal again for a meeting between the two sides to reduce tensions and urge LTTE leaders not to make provocative statements.

It is in this backdrop that Chief of Defence Staff and Commander of the Navy, Vice Admiral Daya Sandagiri, made an announcement to a conference of Principal Staff Officers (PSO) and Area Commanders at Navy Headquarters on Friday. He said that was the last conference he was chairing. He was quitting as Navy Commander on August 31 and a new incumbent would take his place. However, he did not name him.

It is not immediately clear whether Vice Admiral Sandagiri would continue as Chief of Defence Staff though he has readied a Navy bungalow at considerable cost for this purpose. It is likely that the Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Mohan Wijewickrema will be named the new Commander and Rear Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, the Chief of Staff. Vice Admiral Sandagiri also made reference to media reports about his overseas trips and the faulty guns from Royal Ordnance which the Navy purchased.

Whilst the Government looks for the “hidden hand” behind incidents in the east, the Norwegian peace facilitators and Co-chairs of the Peace Process are bent on de-escalating mounting tensions. For the Government, two key aspects continue to be ignored.

One is the military preparedness and a cohesive plan of action in the event attacks on Security Forces intensify. Second is the lack of any strong action against corrupt practices in military procurements, particularly urgently needed items, to ensure the lives of officers and men committed to protecting the country’s territorial integrity and sovereignty are safe. The vast majority are honest though a handful have emerged as billionaires or millionaires.

President Kumaratunga has publicly declared she cannot fight a war due to the lack of honest officers. It is now time she deals with those responsible since no one has been brought to book until now. Finding scapegoats after the event, as in the past, will be of no avail.

Comprehensive air training deal with India

The Sri Lanka Air Force (SLAF) is likely to accept a comprehensive air defence training package for its personnel from the Indian Air Force.
The move is prompted by the acquisition of air capability by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). As exclusively revealed in The Sunday Times (Situation Report) from time to time, the LTTE has constructed a runway capable of handling even a US built Hercules C-130 transport plane and acquired at least two fixed wing aircraft. One of them has been identified as a Czech built Zlin Z-143. Recent reports have revealed that the aircraft have been used during night time for training purposes.

A five-member team from the Sri Lanka Air Force was in India last month examining the training facilities available for air defence as well as equipment to counter air threats.

The team was led by Air Vice Marshal Channa Gunaratne, Director Planning at SLAF headquarters. The other members were Air Commodore Roshan Gunathilake, Director Operations, Group Captain Gagan Bulathsinhala, Base Commander, SLAF Base, China Bay, Group Captain Rohan Pathirage, Commanding Officer, Electronics and Telecommunications Wing, SLAF Base, Ratmalana and Group Captain Vijitha Gunaratne, Commanding Officer, SLAF at the Bandaranaike International Airport. The team met the Commander of Indian Air Force Air Chief Marshal Shashindra Pal Tyagi and other high ranking officials.

They visited the main IAF air defence facility in Lucknow, the capital of the state of Uttar Pradesh. There they saw air defence operations systems and how personnel are trained. They also visited Uterlai in the state of Rajasthan where they saw air defence equipment including radars.

Thereafter the team proceeded to Jalahalli in Bangalore, the largest training establishment of the Indian Air Force. It is from this base that the Indian troops launched the air drop of food supplies to the Jaffna peninsula in 1987. At present 20 SLAF personnel are undergoing training at this training facility in various fields including electrical and electronic courses.
The SLAF team’s visit to India came in the wake of talks President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga held with Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh during a three-day visit to New Delhi beginning June 2 this year.

Among other matters, both leaders had discussed the Tiger guerrilla acquisition of air capability. A joint statement issued at the end of the visit noted that “particular concern was expressed over the illegal acquisition of air capability.”

Before these high level talks in New Delhi, Indian External Affairs Minister Kanwar Natwar Singh declared that India is concerned about information that the LTTE had built an airstrip and acquired aircraft. He told the Chennai based The Hindu newspaper the LTTE was believed to be getting more aircraft.

The Government also circulated an aide memoire to several countries giving details of how the LTTE constructed a runway and acquired aircraft. The Government said this constituted a threat to the entire region and was in violation of the Ceasefire Agreement.

Though the SLAF team inspected air defence equipment, no decision has been made to procure them so far. However, the Government has obtained part of these needs, said to be more advanced than the ones manufactured in India, from another source.

<>A report from the SLAF delegation to India is learnt to have been sent to the Ministry of Defence. The latter is expected to finalise the training package for the Air Force.

(http://www.sundaytimes.lk/050724/columns/sitrep.html)

Co-chairs: The latest game in town

How many chairs make up the co-chairs? This is not a question in New Math nor Tara de Mel’s version of musical chairs with heads of schools. The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind- that is the wind blowing from the western world.

If I remember it started with the Norwegians grabbing the centre chair during the days when Professor G.L. Peiris roamed the world holding hands with Anton Balasingham who some called a doctor but was actually a rate veda.

Anyway there was this big semantic debate like in Socratic days between the professor and Kadirgamar on whether the Norwegians were “mediators” or “facilitators”. During this the Vikings being what they are, quietly pushed everybody off the main chair and sat themselves on it.
Whenever the much-loved game of cricket is played in our paradise isle with much gusto, raucous shouts of “hora umpire” are often heard. That is when the man who is supposed to control the game with magisterial portentousness takes sides, deliberately or otherwise.

This phrase is known to every Sri Lankan cricket lover. Doubtless those in the Indian subcontinent have other ways of dealing with biased umpires.
In the eyes of most Sri Lankans- except those local NGOs that are beneficiaries of Norwegian largesse in exchange for singing frequent hosannas to Oslo- the mediator/facilitator is another “hora umpire” foisted on us, like Australian umpire Darrel Hair a decade or so ago.

While our great peacemakers were yapping away hoping the Tigers would turn tail and come to the negotiating table with a more comforting tale to soothe our savage breast, they were taking the professor and his leader for a long ride.

Deluding themselves over their own intellectual power, the then peacemakers apparently called for chairs from Tokyo like Minister Mangala Samaraweera ( if media reports are to be believed) who finds that chairs from Japan are more suited to his sensitive posterior than those made in Moratuwa.

So entered Japan’s special envoy Akashi who started rushing around as though he was trying to get a permanent seat in the Security Council. While Akashi is trying to bring us peace, the land of the rising sun has still not signed a post-war peace treaty with Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union.

Nor have they extended a sincere and definite apology to the Chinese for the atrocities committed before and during the war- the massacre of some 300,000 Chinese in Nanjing, for instance.

So if special envoy Akashi pays homage to the Tigers in air-conditioned comfort in the wilds of Kilinochchii , it is perhaps because he is among kindred spirits. If he cannot always pay homage at Japan’s memorial to its war dead where convicted war criminals too are laid to rest, why he now has an equally exhilarating place.

Japan claimed a place at the main table possibly because Tokyo did not wish to leave it all to Norway and the European community at a time when it is contemplating a wider role on the international stage.

That left the sole super-power out of the game. Not for long though. The Ranil Wickremesinghe government with its subservience to the West thought by inviting more involvement by the international community in our imbroglio, he would build an international a “safety net” against the Tigers.So while Akashi was preparing for the great Tokyo meeting where the moola for peace was to be dangled as bait, Washington also decided to make its play.

Thus came the Spring-meeting in Washington, a precursor to Tokyo to which the Tigers were not invitedThe Tigers growled, bared their teeth and retired to their lair from whence they have not stepped out except to travel abroad courtesy the UNP’s travel service assured by the ceasefire or to violate that agreement through violence including numerous killings.
The trouble is that the centre stage is virtually empty. There are four chairs, an empty table and nobody to talk to. The main characters are not talking and the stagehands are shouting orders.

So what do the four co-chairs do? They play musical chairs taking turns to issue statements and sundry other threats that are patently one-sided.
The great international safety net has a big hole in the middle in the perception of many Sri Lankans who are tired of the four co-chairs behaving like the three proverbial monkeys.

Now it was Washington’s turn to issue a statement. I was yet to read it when I received an email from an eminent person who shall remain unnamed except to say that he is meticulous about the correct and logical use of language.

He posed an interesting question. How could there be co-chairs to a process? How indeed! One could have any amount of chairs at a conference or a meeting. But could one logically have chairs to a process? That probably accounts for the mess we are in right now.

The four-power statement, among other things, appealed to the government to “disarm all groups opposed to the LTTE”, and to “guarantee security to unarmed LTTE cadres in the country’s northeast.”
So disarm those who are opposed to the LTTE and leave them at the mercy of Tiger killing squads. The original thinker of this surely deserves a Nobel Prize for unadulterated rubbish.

Washington’s appeal for security is indeed rich coming from the world’s mightiest military power that cannot even provide security to the people it claimed to liberate from the evil Saddam Hussein.

According to two respected independent groups that conducted a detailed survey and published here last week, at least 24,865 civilians have been killed up to March 19 this year. Of them 37% died at the hands of American or other coalition forces including the UK.

It is an obligation of an occupying force to provide and ensure the security of the civilians. That the US and UK have failed to do. But they expect Sri Lankan’s security forces to guarantee, not simply ensure, the security of LTTE cadres when they cannot do so in Iraq or Afghanistan.Perhaps the US embassy in Colombo that issued the statement would like us to run our own Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib where all those opposed to the LTTE could be held and tortured until they pledge undying (if a pun might be permitted) loyalty to the Wanni Nayake.

Strange it is not that the Sri Lanka government must guarantee the safety of LTTE cadres but no such guarantee is demanded from the LTTE that it will eschew violence completely and not violate the ceasefire agreement as it has done some 3000 times, even ccording to the Monitoring Mission which Sri Lankans don’t trust to tell the truth.

Why is there no demand that the Tigers give free access to an Observer Mission to visit the sites where the LTTE is said to have airstrips?
Are these not the same big powers that urged the government to sign the P-TOMS and are now saying they cannot contribute the funds they promised. If their domestic law does not permit them to do so, why in heaven’s name did they press ahead with it and create so much political division. Or was that the real intention?

If they could pee on their own TOMS why should not the Sri Lankan people some of whom are doing just that by addressing the courts on it.
Cinemagoers of an earlier vintage might remember the comic characters the Three Stooges. It seems we have to deal with four stooges.

(http://www.sundaytimes.lk/050724/columns/london.html)

Informant shot dead

An army informant was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in the Thambalagamuwa area of Trincomalee last night.

He was identified as Dayananda, a former homeguard, who operated a van. He was shot dead at 7.45 p.m. while driving his van.

(http://www.sundaytimes.lk/050724/news/1.html)

LTTE opens fire on Navy off Trinco

LTTE cadres opened fire at a naval craft off the Trincomalee seas on Sunday morning.

Military sources said the Navy came under LTTE small-arms fire directed from un-cleared areas in Sampoor while troops were taking two Tiger surrendees to be handed over to the Trincomalee Harbour Police from the Muttur Jetty.

The LTTEers fired at least 30-40 rounds towards the craft. The two thirteen-year-olds were reportedly abducted by the LTTE about two months ago and given weapons training in a camp in Sampoor.

However, the teenagers had escaped and sought protection earlier on Sunday at the Naval detachment in the old jetty at Neidanagar.

Despite heavy troops refrained from retaliating since another passenger ferry was approaching the pier. This deliberate Tiger act aimed at provoking the troops was reported to SLMM.

(http://www.dailymirror.lk/2005/07/26/news/05.asp)