Thursday, October 10, 2024
Home Blog Page 253

Sri Lanka to ban burka and other face coverings

Sri Lanka has taken a significant step towards banning the burka and other face coverings in public, on grounds of national security.

Public Security Minister Sarath Weerasekara told the BBC that he had signed a cabinet order which now needs parliamentary approval.

Officials say they expect the ban to be implemented very soon.

The move comes nearly two years after a wave of co-ordinated attacks on hotels and churches on Easter Sunday.

Suicide bombers targeted Catholic churches and tourist hotels, killing more than 250 people in April 2019. The Islamic State militant group said it had carried out the attacks.

As the authorities tracked down the militants, an emergency short-term ban on face coverings was implemented in the majority-Buddhist nation.

Now the government is moving to re-introduce it on a permanent basis.

Mr Weerasekara told reporters that the burka was “a sign of religious extremism that came about recently”. He added that it was “affecting national security” and that a permanent ban was overdue.

“So I have signed that and it will be implemented very soon,” he said.

Mr Weerasekara also said the government planned to ban more than 1,000 madrassa Islamic schools which he said were flouting national education policy.

“Nobody can open a school and teach whatever you want to the children. It must be as per the government laid down education policy.

Most of unregistered schools “teach only the Arabic language and the Koran, so that is bad”, he said.

Hilmi Ahmed, vice-president of the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka, told the BBC that if officials have problems identifying people in burkas “there would not be any objection from anyone to remove the face cover for identity purposes”.

He said everyone had a right to wear a face covering regardless of their faith:”That has to be seen from a rights point of view, and not just a religious point of view.”

On the question of madrassas, Mr Ahmed stressed that the vast majority of Muslim schools were registered with the government:

“There may be… about 5% which have not adhered to the regulations and of course action can be taken against them,” he said.

The government’s planned moves follow an order last year making the cremation of Covid-19 victims mandatory, in line with the practice of the majority Buddhists, but against the wishes of Muslims, who bury their dead.

This ban was lifted earlier this year after criticism from the US and international rights groups.

Last month, the United National Human Rights Council session considered a new resolution on mounting rights concerns in Sri Lanka, including over the treatment of Muslims.

Sri Lanka is being called to hold human rights abusers to account and to deliver justice to victims of its 26-year-old civil war.

The 1983-2009 conflict killed at least 100,000 people, mostly civilians from the minority Tamil community.

Sri Lanka has strongly denied the allegations and has asked member countries not to support the resolution.

BBC.

Pic: Getty Images

Labour Party MP says that the challenges in Sri Lanka are well documented

The Sri Lankan President and his brother, the Prime Minister, face accusations of crimes against humanity for their role in killing thousands of their own people—Tamil civilians, at the end of the civil war, Siobhain McDonagh, a Labour Party MP who has represented London’s Mitcham and Morden constituency since 1997 told the Ilakku weekly in an interview.

See the full interview below:

Q: The current Sri Lankan government under Gotabhaya Rajapakse has withdrawn from the resolution 30/1 made in the UN Human Rights session  in 2015.

In such a backdrop, what strategy does the british government which is expected to play a leading role in the forthcoming 46th session of HRC plan to adopt in order to make sure that the SL government is held accountable for crimes committed during the genocidal war that came to an end in SL in 2009?

A: As a Labour MP and member of the opposition, I cannot confirm what action the Government will be taking. But on Thursday 11th February I will be bringing a cross-party debate to the floor of the House of Commons on the UK’s commitment to reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. A Government Minister will be responding in the debate and I hope will give clarity on the Government’s stance ahead of the upcoming UN Human Rights Council meeting.

Q: How would the Sri Lankan Tamils both within the country and outside act in order to exert pressure on the member countries of the HRC to take strong and effective measures to hold those accused of war crimes in Sri Lanka accountable for their crimes and mete out justice to the affected Tamil people

A: I would encourage them to contact their local and national representatives directly to ask what actions they will be taking in advance of the 46th session of the HRC.

Q: The current President of Sri Lanka, Mr.Gotabhaya Rajapakse has been appointing military leaders to important civil responsibilities. How would Britain, which excels  in parliamentary democracy respond to this worrying situation?

A: The challenges in Sri Lanka are well documented. Its President and his brother, the Prime Minister, face accusations of crimes against humanity for their role in killing thousands of their own people—Tamil civilians, at the end of the civil war. They have placed their closest allies in senior Government positions, including military commanders accused of war crimes and politicians accused of corruption, violence and common criminality. I will be raising this loud and clear at the upcoming debate in the House of Commons. How the UK responds to the ongoing injustice in Sri Lanka and in support of democracy, human rights and the rule of law will speak volumes for our leadership role on the international stage.

Pic: Irish world

The final draft resolution on Sri Lnaka has been submitted

The British led core Group of countries have prepared the final draft of the resolution on Sri Lanka to be submitted at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the quest for Tamils learns.

The resolution Calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfil its commitments on the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population and encouraging the Government to respect local governance, including through the holding of elections for provincial councils, and to ensure that all provincial councils, including the Northern Provincial Council are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka,

The resolution which has already been rejected by Sri Lanka, calls for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to enhance the monitoring and reporting on the situation of human rights in Sri Lanka, including on progress in reconciliation and accountability and to present an oral update to the Human Rights Council at its forty-eighth session as well as a written update at its forty-ninth session and a comprehensive report that includes further options for advancing accountability, at its fifty-first session, both to be discussed in the context of an interactive dialogue.

Military plane crashed – Four people died

Four people died and two more were injured after a military plane crashed while trying to land in Kazakhstan’s largest city Almaty, authorities said.

“According to preliminary data, four people died, and two injured were sent to the nearest hospital,” the emergencies ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

The An-26 military aircraft was travelling to Almaty from the capital Nur-Sultan, the ministry in the Central Asian country said.

Communication with the aircraft ceased at around 17:20 pm local time (1120 GMT) “during the landing approach at the Almaty airport,” the airport said, adding that the aircraft crashed at the end of the runway.

The cause of the crash was not immediately clear.

The Russian news agency Interfax reported that the plane belonged to Kazakhstan’s border guard agency.

Videos posted online showed plumes of smoke rising from the crash site.

ALJazeera.

Pic: Airline Inform.

Next presidential candidate could be decided in 2030

The Sri Lnakan minister of State,  Shehan Semasinghe says that the next presidential candidate for the Sri Lanka People’s Front can be decided in 2030 as Sri Lnakan President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa can rule the country for another eight and a half years.

“We have a lot of leaders. We will decide then. Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has just completed one and a half years in office. Then only one and a half years have passed from the ten year tenure. We have another eight-and-a-half years to go in our plan for 2030. Therefore, we will decide after 2030 who will be our next presidential candidate, ”he revealed.

Minister of State Shehan Semasinghe was responding to a query made by journalists in Colombo yesterday (12).

The Ten Stages of Genocide – By Dr. Gregory H. Stanton

Genocide is a process that develops in ten stages that are predictable but not inexorable. At each stage, preventive measures can stop it. The process is not linear. Stages may occur simultaneously. Logically, later stages must be preceded by earlier stages. But all stages continue to operate throughout the process.

➔ 1. CLASSIFICATION: All cultures have categories to distinguish people into “us and them” by ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality: German and Jew, Hutu and Tutsi. Bipolar societies that lack mixed categories, such as Rwanda and Burundi, are the most likely to have genocide.

The main preventive measure at this early stage is to develop universalistic institutions that transcend ethnic or racial divisions, that actively promote tolerance and understanding, and that promote classifications that transcend the divisions. The Roman Catholic Church could have played this role in Rwanda, had it not been riven by the same ethnic cleavages as Rwandan society. Promotion of a common language in countries like Tanzania has also promoted transcendent national identity. This search for common ground is vital to early prevention of genocide.

➔ 2. SYMBOLIZATION: We give names or other symbols to the classifications. We name people “Jews” or “Gypsies,” or distinguish them by colors or dress; and apply the symbols to members of groups. Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to dehumanization. When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups: the yellow star for Jews under Nazi rule, the blue scarf for people from the Eastern Zone in Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

To combat symbolization, hate symbols can be legally forbidden (swastikas in Germany) as can hate speech. Group marking like gang clothing or tribal scarring can be outlawed, as well. The problem is that legal limitations will fail if unsupported by popular cultural enforcement. Though Hutu and Tutsi were forbidden words in Burundi until the 1980’s, code words replaced them. If widely supported, however, denial of symbolization can be powerful, as it was in Bulgaria, where the government refused to supply enough yellow badges and at least eighty percent of Jews did not wear them, depriving the yellow star of its significance as a Nazi symbol for Jews.

➔ 3. DISCRIMINATION: A dominant group uses law, custom, and political power to deny the rights of other groups. The powerless group may not be accorded full civil rights, voting rights, or even citizenship. The dominant group is driven by an exclusionary ideology that would deprive less powerful groups of their rights. The ideology advocates monopolization or expansion of power by the dominant group. It legitimizes the victimization of weaker groups. Advocates of exclusionary ideologies are often charismatic, expressing resentments of their followers, attracting support from the masses. Examples include the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 in Nazi Germany, which stripped Jews of their German citizenship, and prohibited their employment by the government and by universities. Denial of citizenship to the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma is a current example.

Prevention against discrimination means full political empowerment and citizenship rights for all groups in a society. Discrimination on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion should be outlawed. Individuals should have the right to sue the state, corporations, and other individuals if their rights are violated.

➔ 4. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group. The majority group is taught to regard the other group as less than human, and even alien to their society. They are indoctrinated to believe that “We are better off without them.” The powerless group can become so depersonalized that they are actually given numbers rather than names, as Jews were in the death camps. They are equated with filth, impurity, and immorality. Hate speech fills the propaganda of official radio, newspapers, and speeches.

To combat dehumanization, incitement to genocide should not be confused with protected speech. Genocidal societies lack constitutional protection for countervailing speech, and should be treated differently than democracies. Local and international leaders should condemn the use of hate speech and make it culturally unacceptable. Leaders who incite genocide should be banned from international travel and have their foreign finances frozen. Hate radio stations should be jammed or shut down, and hate propaganda banned. Hate crimes and atrocities should be promptly punished.

➔ 5. ORGANIZATION: Genocide is always organized, usually by the state, often using militias to provide deniability of state responsibility. (An example is the Sudanese government’s support and arming of the Janjaweed in Darfur.) Sometimes organization is informal (Hindu mobs led by local RSS militants during Indian partition) or decentralized (jihadist terrorist groups.) Special army units or militias are often trained and armed. Arms are purchased by states and militias, often in violation of UN Arms Embargos, to facilitate acts of genocide. States organize secret police to spy on, arrest, torture, and murder people suspected of opposition to political leaders. Special training is given to murderous militias and special army killing units.

To combat this stage, membership in genocidal militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel and their foreign assets frozen. The UN should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres, and create commissions to investigate violations, as was done in post-genocide Rwanda, and use national legal systems to prosecute those who violate such embargos.

  1. POLARIZATION: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media. Laws may forbid intermarriage or social interaction. Extremist terrorism targets moderates, intimidating and silencing the center. Moderates from the perpetrators’ own group are most able to stop genocide, so are the first to be arrested and killed. Leaders in targeted groups are the next to be arrested and murdered. The dominant group passes emergency laws or decrees that grants them total power over the targeted group. The laws erode fundamental civil rights and liberties. Targeted groups are disarmed to make them incapable of self-defense, and to ensure that the dominant group has total control.

Prevention may mean security protection for moderate leaders or assistance to human rights groups. Assets of extremists may be seized, and visas for international travel denied to them. Coups d’état by extremists should be opposed by international sanctions. Vigorous objections should be raised to disarmament of opposition groups. If necessary they should be armed to defend themselves.

➔ 7. PREPARATION: Plans are made for genocidal killings. National or perpetrator group leaders plan the “Final Solution” to the Jewish, Armenian, Tutsi or other targeted group “question.” They often use euphemisms to cloak their intentions, such as referring to their goals as “ethnic cleansing,” “purification,” or “counter-terrorism.” They build armies, buy weapons and train their troops and militias. They indoctrinate the populace with fear of the victim group. Leaders often claim that “if we don’t kill them, they will kill us,” disguising genocide as self-defense. Acts of genocide are disguised as counter-insurgency if there is an ongoing armed conflict or civil war. There is a sudden increase in inflammatory rhetoric and hate propaganda with the objective of creating fear of the other group. Political processes such as peace accords that threaten the total dominance of the genocidal group or upcoming elections that may cost them their grip on total power may actually trigger genocide.

Prevention of preparation may include arms embargos and commissions to enforce them. It should include prosecution of incitement and conspiracy to commit genocide, both crimes under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention.

➔ 8. PERSECUTION: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity. Death lists are drawn up. In state sponsored genocide, members of victim groups may be forced to wear identifying symbols. Their property is often expropriated. Sometimes they are even segregated into ghettoes, deported into concentration camps, or confined to a famine-struck region and starved. They are deliberately deprived of resources such as water or food in order to slowly destroy them. Programs are implemented to prevent procreation through forced sterilization or abortions. Children are forcibly taken from their parents.  The victim group’s basic human rights become systematically abused through extrajudicial killings, torture and forced displacement.  Genocidal massacres begin. They are acts of genocide because they intentionally destroy part of a group. The perpetrators watch for whether such massacres meet any international reaction. If not, they realize that that the international community will again be bystanders and permit another genocide.

At this stage, a Genocide Emergency must be declared. If the political will of the great powers, regional alliances, or U.N. Security Council or the U.N. General Assembly can be mobilized, armed international intervention should be prepared, or heavy assistance provided to the victim group to prepare for its self-defense. Humanitarian assistance should be organized by the U.N. and private relief groups for the inevitable tide of refugees to come.

➔ 9. EXTERMINATION begins, and quickly becomes the mass killing legally called “genocide.” It is “extermination” to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human. When it is sponsored by the state, the armed forces often work with militias to do the killing. Sometimes the genocide results in revenge killings by groups against each other, creating the downward whirlpool-like cycle of bilateral genocide (as in Burundi). Acts of genocide demonstrate how dehumanized the victims have become. Already dead bodies are dismembered; rape is used as a tool of war to genetically alter and eradicate the other group. Destruction of cultural and religious property is employed to annihilate the group’s existence from history. The era of “total war” began in World War II. Firebombing did not differentiate civilians from non-combatants. The civil wars that broke out after the end of the Cold War have also not differentiated civilians and combatants. They result in widespread war crimes. Mass rapes of women and girls have become a characteristic of all modern genocides. All men of fighting age are murdered in some genocides. In total genocides all the members of the targeted group are exterminated.

At this stage, only rapid and overwhelming armed intervention can stop genocide. Real safe areas or refugee escape corridors should be established with heavily armed international protection. (An unsafe “safe” area is worse than none at all.) The U.N. Standing High Readiness Brigade, EU Rapid Response Force, or regional forces — should be authorized to act by the U.N. Security Council if the genocide is small. For larger interventions, a multilateral force authorized by the U.N. should intervene. If the U.N. Security Council is paralyzed, regional alliances must act anyway under Chapter VIII of the U.N. Charter or the UN General Assembly should authorize action under the Uniting for Peace Resolution GARes. 330 (1950), which has been used 13 times for such armed intervention. Since 2005, the international responsibility to protect transcends the narrow interests of individual nation states. If strong nations will not provide troops to intervene directly, they should provide the airlift, equipment, and financial means necessary for regional states to intervene.

➔ 10. DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern until driven from power by force, when they flee into exile. There they remain with impunity, like Pol Pot or Idi Amin, unless they are captured and a tribunal is established to try them.

The best response to denial is punishment by an international tribunal or national courts. There the evidence can be heard, and the perpetrators punished. Tribunals like the Yugoslav, Rwanda or Sierra Leone Tribunals, the tribunal to try the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, or the International Criminal Court may not deter the worst genocidal killers. But with the political will to arrest and prosecute them, some may be brought to justice.  When possible, local proceedings should provide forums for hearings of the evidence against perpetrators who were not the main leaders and planners of a genocide, with opportunities for restitution and reconciliation. The Rwandan gaçaça trials are one example. Justice should be accompanied by education in schools and the media about the facts of a genocide, the suffering it caused its victims, the motivations of its perpetrators, and the need for restoration of the rights of its victims.

© 2016 Gregory H. Stanton.

[1] President, Genocide Watch; Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington,Virginia 22201 USA

For education: Read The Ten Stages of Genocide handout

View powerpoint: Ten Stages of Genocide 2016 short version with Countries at Risk

View Prezi: The Ten Stages of Genocide: http://prezi.com/zhbb3vclrsjz/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

IMF on Sri Lanka’s request for support due to the pandemic

Recently responding to the 10 billion Yuan currency swap with the People’s Bank of China, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said it would continue to monitor the financial developments and economic policy in Sri Lanka.

The IMF stated that  it received a request from Sri Lanka for  emergency financial support to help fight the COVID-19 pandemic, however the assessment of the support had taken longer than other countries due to Sri Lanka’s intimidating economic challenges and high public debt.

“So we have sought, but not reached understanding, on how to fulfil the key requirements for what could be a rapid financing instrument which would include policies to continue ensuring debt sustainability to address the balance payment challenges including the COVID‑19 impact on tourism and to preserve international reserves. Indeed, Sri Lanka has relied on important restrictions since last year and recently introduced additional measures such as a requirement to convert 25% of export proceeds. We continue to closely monitor these economic policy and financial developments in Sri Lanka, including the recent agreement for a currency swap with the People’s Bank of China,” states an IMF spokesman. The IMF approved the extended Fund programme with the IMF in 2016, which had recently expired in June 2020.

UK should clarify its statement – TGTE

“No record of any five permanent members of the UN Security Council would use their veto power to block any attempt for Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICC”

The Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) has urged the United Kingdom to clarify its refusal to back initiatives to refer Sri Lanka to the International Criminal Court (ICC)on grounds of “insufficient UN Security Council support”.

The UK is persistent in taking the stand that Sri Lanka does not come under ICC jurisdiction as it is not a party to the Rome Statute, and that the idea of Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICC would not have the support of the required UN Security Council members.

“We like to point out that, had Sri Lanka been a party to the Rome Statute, the TGTE would have submitted evidence to the ICC prosecutor directly without the involvement of the Human Rights Council or for that matter, the UK government itself.”

We are also baffled by the UK government’s claim that there was not enough support in the Security Council for the option of Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICC. We say this because of the fact that the issue has not even been raised, let alone debated in the forum so far.

In fact, there is no record of any of the five permanent members of the Security Council indicating that they would use their veto power to block any attempt for Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICC.

Therefore, the UK government’s statement that there was “insufficient UN Security Council Support” is at best premature, and at worst baseless, if not outright mischievous.

“If the UK has information about any opposition within the UNSC to the idea of referral of Sri Lanka to the ICC, they should make the details public, which would go a long way to maintain UK’s own credibility as a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power.”

It is to be noted that the Hon Stephen Kinnock MP, Shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific, stated in his letter to Nigel Adams MP, the Minister of State for Asia, in relation to the UK Government’s presumed opposition at the Security Council that “two of the permanent members of the Security Council would likely veto such a referral were it to be tabled, but this is not an acceptable argument against trying.”

The UK government’s approach to the UN Security Council should not be determined simply by the veto-wielding intentions of two of its permanent members.

”We like to point out the fact that We hold the belief, as observed by the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken as well, in his article in Foreign Policy,that veto by two members of the Security Council would indeed galvanize all democratic powers to take action independent of the UN.”

The TGTE would like to point out here that even if the request by the Human Rights Council calling for the referral of Sri Lanka to the ICC were to be vetoed in the Security Council, such an act would not deprive the Human Rights Council its jurisdiction over other matters such as opening an office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in the North Eastern part of Sri Lanka etc derived from the Resolution.

The current High Commissioner for Human Rights,Madam Michelle Bachelet, in her Report dated 27th January 2021, has urged UN Human Rights Council Member States to take steps for referral of Sri Lanka to the ICC in view of the dire record of human rights violations in the country. A similar demand has been made by twenty former senior UN officials, including four former UN High Commissioners of Human Rights, nine independent UN experts and all members of the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Sri Lanka. In a joint statement on February 18, 2021 titled “Sowing the Seeds of Conflict” they said: “….the fact is that Sri Lanka has made its justice institutions unavailable to its own victims. Existing international avenues for accountability such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be considered”.

Tamil leaders in the island of Sri Lanka joined forces to send a letter to the UN Human Rights Council members on January 15, 2021, urging them to agree on Sri Lanka’s referral to the ICC. This stand was validated by tens of thousands of Tamils in a recent rally called Pothuvil to Polikandy (P2P) which was organized by the North-East Civil Society.

“Not referring Sri Lanka to ICC will not only open the doors for abusers of atrocity crimes to escape justice, but it will also embolden Sri Lankan political leaders and Security Force leaders to commit more international crimes against Tamil people without any hesitation, knowing well that they will not have to face justice” said P2P appeal.

The TGTE believes that even a putative vetoed referral of Sri Lanka to the ICC is better than the present clause in the draft resolution calling upon the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a domestic accountability process. Granting the responsibility to the same Sri Lankan state to investigate and prosecute such serious crimes is a blatant contradiction of the fundamental judicial principle that the accused cannot ever be the judge.

The harsh truth today is that the state of Sri Lanka, the government, its institutions, and the polity itself. are inextricably rooted in and operate with entrenched, pervasive racism. No wonder there is no space in the island of Sri Lanka for Tamils to obtain justice!

It is very unfortunate that UK, as a country that was in the forefront of creating the ICC, has today given in to self-doubt and an abandonment of its moral might by hesitating at the last moment to use this important platform to pursue justice for victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Not very becoming of a Global Britain!

The UK stumped China to become the top investor in Sri Lanka

While almost everyone was immersed in the pandemic, the United Kingdom (UK) stumped China to become the top investor in Sri Lanka in 2020.

Based on the data by the Board of Investment (BOI), the agency tasked with promoting the country for long-term job-creating investments, the UK accounted for the lion’s share of total foreign direct investment (FDI) to Sri Lanka in 2020, accounting for 24 percent.

FDI to Sri Lanka slumped in 2020, as cross-border investments took a battering, due to the widespread disruptions to businesses caused by the pandemic.

As a result, Sri Lanka reported US $ 548 million in total FDI in the nine months to September 2020, compared to US $ 793 million in the same period in 2019, the latest available data on direct investments by the Central Bank showed.

British-born financier and a member of Rothschild family, Nathaniel Rothschild, took a visit to Sri Lanka in January this year to explore the country’s suitability as a manufacturing base for an electronics venture.

China, which led the bilateral lenders in 2020, however retreated to the second place, accounting for only 12 percent of total FDI to Sri Lanka in 2020.

China has been heavily criticised for pouring loans into developing countries like Sri Lanka on mega infrastructure projects until they reach a point of no return in terms of repayment, eventually compelling those countries to convert such loans into equity, where China will effectively become owners of those national assets.

This scenario is popularly known as ‘China’s debt-trap diplomacy’, which the Chinese authorities vehemently deny.

Sri Lanka fell into this trap when it had to forgo a port built in Hambantota, although much of it was due to bad diplomacy by the government of that day. Meanwhile, India, Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively held the third, fourth and fifth spots as direct investors in Sri Lanka in 2020, with 11 percent and 8 percent each for the latter two.  Out of the total direct investments received in the nine months to September, the manufacturing sector accounted for US $ 157 million or Rs.30 billion in fresh investments. This is a significant pivot in investment flows from the non-tradable sector to the tradable sector, due to the conscious efforts by the policymakers to rebuild Sri Lanka’s industrial base. Services-oriented ventures attracted US $ 86 million in fresh investments in the same period in 2020.  Infrastructure attracted the largest amount of FDI of US $ 311 million during the nine months, triggered by the port-related developments that are ongoing.

The Daily mirror.

Stephen Kinnock says that the draft resolution is too vague and insufficiently robust

The British labour party parliamentarian and Shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific, Mr Stephen Kinnock says in his letter, written on 8th of March 2021, “the draft resolution is too vague and insufficiently robust, in terms of both its content and its tone. It fails to reflect the extent of the devastating impact of the human rights abuses that have been perpetrated in Sri Lanka, and it also falls far short of what is required in terms of tangible action.”

See the full letter below:

Nigel Adams MP
Minister of State for Asia
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
King Charles Street
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AN

08 March 2021

Dear Nigel,

RE: UK’s Draft Resolution on Sri Lanka for the UNHRC

I am writing to express my concerns about the draft resolution on Sri Lanka that the FCDO has tabled for approval by the UN Human Rights Council on 24 March.

As the ‘penholder’ on Sri Lanka the UK government has a particular responsibility to demonstrate moral and political leadership on this matter, but unfortunately it is clear judging by this draft resolution you are failing to rise to the challenge.

The draft resolution is too vague and insufficiently robust, in terms of both its content and its tone. It fails to reflect the extent of the devastating impact of the human rights abuses that have been perpetrated in Sri Lanka, and it also falls far short of what is required in terms of tangible action.

Our more specific concerns about the draft resolution are as follows:

1. It fails to incorporate the recommendations made by the High Commissioner in her report of 27 January 2021. We should be supporting the High Commissioner’s view that the principles of universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction apply, and that states should pursue investigations and prosecutions in their national courts. The alleged crimes of the Sri Lankan government and military clearly fall within the scope of international human rights and international humanitarian law, so it follows that there is a clear legal basis for international action. Moreover, it is beyond doubt that the Sri Lankan government and military will continue to deny, delay and evade accountability. Will the UK government therefore amend the draft resolution, to confirm that the principle of universal jurisdiction must be applied to the actions of the Sri Lankan government and military?

2. It fails to recommend the establishment of an International Independent Investigative Mechanism (III-M). It is clear that the current structures that are in place for the gathering and collation of evidence are not sufficiently resourced, but the draft resolution only makes vague reference to strengthening their capacity. This is simply not sufficient, and we urge you to amend the draft resolution to reflect the fact that an III-M is required.

3. It fails to recommend that this matter should be referred to the International Criminal Court. We fully acknowledge that two of the permanent members of the Security Council would likely veto such a referral were it to be tabled, but this is not an acceptable argument against trying. The UK government’s approach to the UN Security Council should not be determined simply by the veto-wielding intentions of two of its permanent members.

4. There is nothing in the draft resolution about prevention, and what action the UNHRC and its member states will take now to protect human rights defenders and others on the ground against reprisals and attacks. What steps will the UK government, as the penholder, be taking to ensure that this resolution leads to tangible measures to protect human rights defenders on the ground from the increasingly aggressive actions of the Sri Lankan authorities?

5. The draft resolution requests a report on accountability options in 18 months. This is an unacceptably long timeline. The evidence is clear and the UNHRC needs to take action now, rather than allowing the Sri Lankan government yet more time to obstruct and obfuscate. We would recommend that the draft resolution should be amended to request the report on accountability options within 6 months.

Turning now to a question that I raised in my letter of 11 December 2020, regarding the UK’s Global Human Rights sanctions regime (the so-called Magnitsky sanctions), which impose asset freezes and travel bans on those who are guilty of gross human rights violations. It is very difficult to understand why not a single senior Sri Lankan government minister, official or military officer has been designated under this regime. In his 6 January 2021 reply to my letter, Lord Ahmad stated that the government is keeping ‘all evidence and potential listings under review.’ Could you please explain why when it comes to Sri Lanka this review is taking so long, given the extent of the detailed evidence that is already widely available about the gross human rights violations that have taken place there?

We are aware of the fact that the Core Group on Sri Lanka will be meeting imminently, in order to discuss the draft resolution. I urge you to comprehensively re-write of the current draft so that it incorporates the proposed changes outlined above, thus enabling the Core Group to develop it into a document that is fit for purpose. Moreover, the chances of the resolution being approved by the UNHRC on 24 March will be enhanced if it is made more robust and substantial – the majority of member states want to do the right thing, and the UK government’s draft resolution could therefore be rejected if it is too weak and lacks in substance.

This is a test of the moral authority and consistency which you claim underpins the government’s ‘Global Britain’ strategy. The UK government owes it to the victims and survivors of the atrocities that have taken place in Sri Lanka to ensure that it rises to the occasion and shows the moral courage and leadership that is so urgently needed. In light of the high level of interest in this matter I shall be putting this letter into the public domain.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Kinnock MP
Shadow Minister for Asia and the Pacific

Pic: Getty images