Author: TELO Admin

Minister of Foreign Affairs Dinesh Gunawardena has appealed to all member states of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to reject any resolutions against Sri Lanka.

He also said it is regrettable that despite the spirit of cooperation with the HRC and its mechanism, elements working against Sri Lanka intend to table another country-specific resolution based on the OHCHR report.

Foreign Affairs Minister’s remarks came during the 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) a short while ago. He delivered his speech through video technology.

The 46th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) commenced yesterday (February 22) in Geneva, Switzerland, and is scheduled to continue until March 23.

Core Group on Sri Lanka – consisting of UK, Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi, and Montenegro – plans to put forward a further resolution at the UNHRC session to promote reconciliation, accountability and human rights in the island nation.

The new resolution comes in line with a recent report published by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on human rights, reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet is due to present the relevant report during the session.

Full statement delivered by the Foreign Affairs Minister is produced below:

Madam President,
Madam High Commissioner,
Distinguished Ambassadors,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I address you today, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has published a report on Sri Lanka accompanied by an unprecedented propaganda campaign on that report.

Sri Lankan heroic armed forces militarily neutralized the LTTE in 2009 after three-decades of conflict. The Sri Lanka Government acted in self-defense to safeguard the unitary state, sovereignty & territorial integrity from the world’s most ruthless separatist terrorist organization.

The LTTE is the only terrorist organization in the world which has killed two world leaders: a serving President of Sri Lanka and a former Prime Minister of India extending its terror beyond the borders of Sri Lanka.

End of terrorism guaranteed the most cherished of all human rights – right to life of all Sri Lankans – Sinhala, Tamil, and Muslims.

Nonetheless hegemonic forces colluded against Sri Lanka in bringing an unsubstantiated resolution against Sri Lanka which was defeated by the support of friendly nations who remain by Sri Lanka’s side even today. Further resolutions were presented to this Council on purely political motives. In each instance Sri Lanka presented the procedural improprieties, and how such processes could set a dangerous precedent affecting all member states of the United Nations.

The Government which assumed office in Sri Lanka in 2015, in a manner unprecedented in human rights fora, joined as co-sponsors of Resolution 30/1 which was against our own country. It carried a host of commitments that were not deliverable and were not in conformity with the Constitution of Sri Lanka. This led to the compromising of national security to a point of reviving terrorist acts on Easter Sunday 2019 causing the deaths of hundreds.

The rejection of this resolution by the peoples of Sri Lanka was clearly manifested in the mandate received by His Excellency President Gotabaya Rajapaksa in November 2019. Based on this mandate I announced at the 43rd session of this Council that Sri Lanka would withdraw from co-sponsorship of the resolution. I also stated that Sri Lanka would remain engaged with the UN system including this Council.

We have provided detailed updates to the OHCHR in December 2020 as well as in January 2021 on the progress of implementation of commitments that Sri Lanka had undertaken such as continuity of the existing mechanisms, appointment of a special commission of inquiry headed by a Supreme Court Judge, achieving the SDGs, progress made in returning lands, demining and creating new avenues of livelihoods.

These steps have been taken even as Sri Lanka was battling the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic for the past one year. In spite of these challenges, we held a free and fair general election in August 2020 and elected a new Government with a two-thirds majority in one of Asia’s oldest Parliamentary democracies.

It is regrettable that despite the spirit of cooperation with the HRC and its mechanisms, elements working against Sri Lanka intend to table another country-specific resolution based on this OHCHR Report. This rejected report by Sri Lanka has unjustifiably broadened its scope and mandate further, incorporating many issues of governance and matters that are essentially domestic in any self-respecting, sovereign country.

I leave it to the members and observers of this Council to make their own judgment on whether Sri Lanka represents a situation that warrants the urgent attention of this Council, or if this campaign is essentially a political move that contravenes the very values and principles on which this Council has been established. Particularly at a time when legislation is enacted by some countries to protect their soldiers from prosecution in military operations carried out overseas, only points to duplicity and the hypocritical nature of their motives. This cannot but result in a significant loss of morale among countries engaged in the struggle against terrorism.

The Council must hold the scales even. Not going by hearsay, unilateral action or one-angled doubtful sources but adhere to its guiding principles. Insistence on such ever-expanding externally driven prescriptions notwithstanding our continuous cooperation and engagement with this Council can pose numerous challenges.

As the Council is aware this is a critical time to the entire world in the last hundred years where we need to be united in our efforts to overcome the Covid19 pandemic and to revive battered economies. I appeal to the members of this Council to take note of our continued engagement and cooperation on its merit and support us by rejecting any resolution against Sri Lanka. We believe that the extent to which the resources and time of this Council has been utilized on Sri Lanka is unwarranted, and carries a discouraging message to the sovereign states of the global South.

The need of the hour, in the face of an unprecedented pandemic, is solidarity rather than rancor and acrimony arising from divisions within this council. In view of the circumstances set out above, we urge that this resolution be rejected by the Council and be brought to closure.

May I conclude quoting the words of Lord Buddha,
“Siyalu sathwayo niduk wethwa, nirogee wethwa, suwapath wethwa”.

May all beings be safe,
May all beings be free from suffering.
May all beings be well and happy.

Thank you.

The connection between the people of Pakistan and Sri Lanka is rooted deep in history. Buddhism had flourished in areas that became Pakistan and the Muslims traders, in the early years of Islam, had been familiar with Serendib from where they took spices and gems to the Middle East and Europe.

This tradition of goodwill continued in the years after the two countries gained independence, when Sri Lanka also became the port of call on the 3,000-mile of ocean route between the two wings of Pakistan. On 4 February 1948, in a message on Sri Lanka’s independence, Quid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah aptly described the nature of Pakistan-Sri Lankan relations.

He said: “Pakistan has the warmest goodwill towards Ceylon, and I am sanguine that the good feeling which exist between our two people will be further strengthen as the years roll by and out common interests, and mutual and reciprocal handling of them, will bring us into still closer friendship.”

When the liberation war broke out in East Pakistan in 1971, and India had banned over-flights by Pakistani aircraft, the then SLFP Government in Sri Lanka led by Sirimavo Bandaranaike allowed Pakistani aircraft to refuel in Colombo 174 times. India felt betrayed by this because it had sent aircraft to help Sirimavo quell a left extremist uprising against her Government earlier that year.

Pakistan-Sri Lanka military ties became a critical factor in the prolonged war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). In 2000, when a LTTE offensive code-named ‘Operation Ceaseless Waves’ overran Sri Lankan military positions in the north, entered Jaffna and trapped government troops, Sri Lanka had sought Multi-Barrel Rocket Launchers and Pakistan airlifted them. In 2006, the LTTE tried to assassinate the Pakistan High Commissioner Bashir Wali Mohammad.

In April 2009, Sri Lanka requested $ 25 million worth of 81 mm, 120 mm and 130 mm mortar ammunition to be delivered within a month. During a state visit by President Asif Ali Zardari to Sri Lanka in November 2010, Sri Lanka evinced interest in purchase of Pakistani al-Khalid Main Battle Tanks, light weapons and ammunition, and the Sino-Pak joint venture product JF-17 Thunder aircraft.

Prime Minister Imran Khan also congratulated Gotabaya Rajapaksa, the newly-elected President of Sri Lanka, for winning elections and extended a cordial invitation to visit Pakistan at his earliest convenience, which the latter duly accepted.

Under United National Party (UNP) Governments as well as under the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) regimes, Sri Lanka has had friendly ties with Pakistan. The reason for this consistency is that Sri Lankan governments, irrespective of the party in power, feel a sense of unease vis-à-vis India.

Pakistan now trains Sri Lankan armed forces personnel and invariably supports Sri Lanka in international forums on the ethnic question but Pak-Lanka relations have failed to acquire an economic content. Sri Lanka was the first country to sign a Free Trade Agreement with Pakistan, which became operational from 12 June 2005.

Pakistan’s exports to Sri Lanka grew from $ 97 million in 2004 to $ 355 million in 2018 while, Sri Lanka’s exports to Pakistan grew from $ 47 million in 2004 to $ 105 million in 2018, almost double over the same period. However, the two way trade is only $ 460 million when the potential is more than $ 2 billion.

Since both President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Imran Khan are pledged to promote FDIs, various areas of investment will be discussed. Due to a lack of awareness, exporters do not make full use of the market potential and benefits under the free trade agreement. Additionally, Sri Lankan businessmen tend to stick to the existing markets. Both countries need to diversify their products through research, innovation, and value addition, adjusting according to the demands of each other’s market.

High Commissioner Khattak has also highlighted in his recent interview that Pakistani companies have invested in agriculture, Information Technology, textiles and construction/real estate development in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan construction and real estate industry is rapidly growing and the country has an import requirement of $ 600 million worth of cement annually from various countries. Pakistan already exports cement to Sri Lanka and has the capacity to increase its exports due to competitive pricing and good quality. This sector has a larger potential due to increased consumer spending on construction and real estate.

Similar case is with the sugar as Sri Lanka imports more than 90% of its annual sugar requirement. Sugar is one of the potential sectors where Pakistani investors can focus on in 2021. Because of strained relations between India and Pakistan betel leaves from India do not come to Pakistan. That place has been taken by Sri Lankan betel leaves.

Prime Minister Imran Khan will be the first Head of Government to visit Sri Lanka after President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa assumed office last year. Imran Khan’s proposed visit is significant in the context of India making vigorous efforts to strengthen their ties with Sri Lanka, which has assumed strategic importance in the Indian Ocean region.

Days after the Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019, T Yanadhan, a 28-year-old man born to Sri Lankan Tamil parents living in a refugee camp in Pavalathanur in Tamil Nadu’s Salem district, sought the collector’s permission to kill himself. Obligingly, he uploaded his petition on YouTube.

Yanadhan is not an Indian citizen. He’s not a Sri Lankan citizen. He’s not a citizen of any country, really. But India is the only state system he knows. His parents fled north Sri Lanka after the second phase of the civil war and never returned. Yanadhan was born in the refugee camp in India.

Yanadhan is one among 94,069 Sri Lanka Tamil refugees living in various parts of Tamil Nadu: most of them in 107 camps in 15 districts in the state. According to a report of the Ministry of Home Affairs, more than 3 lakh refugees entered India in different phases between 1983 and 2012 due to the ethnic conflict. While 99,469 were repatriated to Sri Lanka till 1995, some refugees left for other countries on their own. After 1995, there was no organised repatriation.

None of the refugees has voting or property rights in India. Most of them have lost them in Sri Lanka as well. Their last hope was the CAA. The law expedited citizenship for persecuted immigrants except Muslims from three neighbouring countries – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. It left out Sri Lanka. The CAA passed only because the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the ruling party in Tamil Nadu and once the biggest supporter of Tamils fighting for their identity in Sri Lanka, backed the law.

The AIADMK has one member in the Lok Sabha and had 11 members in the Rajya Sabha. When the Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha, all 11 AIADMK MPs voted for it. The Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 125 MPs voting in favour and 99 MPs voting against it. The law excluded refugee Tamils in India and the AIADMK gave the Centre a free pass.

Prof V Suryanarayan, an academic, an authority in Tamil politics in Sri Lanka and author of many books, including ‘The Refugee Dilemma’, says, “New Delhi is unfortunately adopting a different yardstick for Tamils. They (are ready) to give citizenship to those who have sought asylum from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. But those who have come from Sri Lanka are treated as illegal immigrants”.

Tamils fled Sri Lanka for India for a variety of reasons at different times, mostly to escape the violence. Some Tamils left from the tea plantations where they had been sent as indentured labour during British colonial rule, when the racial violence spread to those areas especially in the decade of the 1970s.

Many of those families have since returned. But the largest chunk of families came to India from north and east Sri Lanka to escape the civil war and also protect their children against forced recruitment by militant groups, especially the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). One such recruiter, Tamizhini, gives a poignant account of how child soldiers were forced into conscription by the LTTE in her biography published recently.

Yanadhan’s parents can apply for Indian citizenship if they give up Sri Lankan citizenship. But he was born in India as a refugee. There are, according to Prof Suryanarayan, around 25,000 such stateless people. They continue to be housed in camps where they get some financial assistance. They make a living doing odd jobs and working on construction sites. If they’d been back home, many of them would have been doctors and engineers. Some have tried to return but have scurried back to the camps, judging it safer to stay as refugees in India than in Sri Lanka.

Prof Suryanarayan says it is not an easy life, but it isn’t too difficult either. “True, they live in makeshift homes. But some of them have bought three-wheelers and mopeds. They get a small stipend and many have extended their homes to include a back yard where they can grow some vegetables,” he said. That said, at the end of the day, they’re still refugees.

When the AIADMK voted in favour of the CAA, it raised the issue of citizenship for these stateless Tamils. At the time, and later as well, Home Minister Amit Shah assured the House that dual citizenship would be considered. But the refugees are pragmatic: their quiver has no arrows any more.

And the reality is that for the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the capital of the country is still Colombo, not Jaffna as they hoped it would be. India, which promised to help them create their homeland, necessarily has to be a disinterested observer. So, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assurance in Chennai earlier this month while campaigning for the assembly elections that “India is always committed to ensuring that the Tamils in Sri Lanka lived with equity, equality, justice, peace and dignity” means little to them.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s meeting with Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) Leader Rauff Hakeem and All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMA) Leader Rishad Bathiudeen has been cancelled on security grounds.

Cabinet Spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella told reporters today that the decision to cancel the meeting was not politically motivated as assumed by many.

When inquired by a journalist on the cancellation of the meeting, he said this decision has not been taken by the Government.

Minister Keheliya Rambukwella said decisions pertaining to the Pakistan Prime Minister’s visit are drawn by the Political Advisory Committees from both countries, in which the Government has no involvement.

He pointed out that most decisions are taken based on security concerns pertaining to the visiting dignitary and the locations proposed for meetings.

Minister Rambukwella further said that not only the discussions with MPs Hakeem and Bathiudeen, but also a proposed visit to a sports complex has also been cancelled due to security reasons.

Responding to the cancellation of the meeting, MP Rauff Hakeem said almost all Muslim MPs representing all parties had requested for a meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan.

He said sadly it was an absurd and cowardly excuse not second to the excuse given by Parliament for canceling the visiting Prime Minister’s address to the House.

“Out of respect for the visiting Pakistan Prime Minister, whom we adore, I shall say no more,’ MP Hakeem Tweeted.

The cancellation of the requested meeting, comes on the back of last week’s announcement that Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s address to Parliament during his official visit to Sri Lanka has been cancelled.

Sergeant-at- Arms of Parliament, Narendra Fernando told Colombo Gazette that the Foreign Ministry had informed Parliament that the Pakistan Prime Minister’s visit to Sri Lanka will go ahead as scheduled, but his address to Parliament has been cancelled.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan will arrive in Sri Lanka today on a 02-day official state visit.

Khan, who will be the first head of state to visit the country since the Covid-19 pandemic, is to hold talks with President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and Foreign Minister Dinesh Gunawardena during the visit.

A US court has jailed a venture capitalist and political fundraiser who was recruited by Sri Lanka in 2014 to rehabilitate the country’s image in the United States.

The US Department of Justice said that Imaad Shah Zuberi was sentenced to 144 months in federal prison for falsifying records to conceal his work as a foreign agent while lobbying high-level U.S. government officials, evading the payment of millions of dollars in taxes, making illegal campaign contributions, and obstructing a federal investigation into the source of donations to a presidential inauguration committee.

In November 2019, Zuberi pleaded guilty to a three-count information charging him with violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) by making false statements on a FARA filing, tax evasion, and making illegal campaign contributions. In June 2020, Zuberi pleaded guilty in a separate case to one count of obstruction of justice.

“Mr. Zuberi flouted federal laws that restrict foreign influences upon our government and prohibit injecting foreign money into our political campaigns. He enriched himself by defrauding his clients and evading the payment of taxes,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Tracy L. Wilkison for the Central District of California.

Zuberi operated Avenue Ventures LLC, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm, and solicited foreign nationals and representatives of foreign governments with claims he could use his contacts in Washington, D.C., to change U.S. foreign policy and create business opportunities for his clients and himself.

US Justice Department documents noted that Sri Lanka hired Zuberi in 2014 to rehabilitate the country’s image in the United States, which had suffered because of allegations that its minority Tamil population had been persecuted.

Zuberi promised to make substantial expenditures on lobbying efforts, legal expenses, and media buys, which prompted Sri Lanka to agree to pay Zuberi a total of $8.5 million over the course of six months in 2014. Days after Sri Lanka made an initial payment of $3.5 million, Zuberi transferred $1.6 million into his personal brokerage accounts and used another $1.5 million to purchase real estate.

In total, Sri Lanka wired $6.5 million pursuant to the contract, and Zuberi used more than $5.65 million of that money to the benefit of himself and his wife. Zuberi paid less than $850,000 to lobbyists, public relations firms and law firms, and refused to pay certain subcontractors based on false claims that Sri Lanka had not provided sufficient funds to pay invoices.

Relatedly, Zuberi failed to report on his 2014 tax return millions of dollars in income he received from the Sri Lankan government. While his 2014 federal income tax return claimed income of $558,233, Zuberi failed to report more than $5.65 million he received in relation to the Sri Lanka lobbying effort. Zuberi’s tax evasion over the course of four years – 2012 through 2015 – caused tax losses ranging from $3.5 million to as much as $9.5 million.

A 13-year-old Sri Lankan boy has made an impassioned plea through an open message to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan seeking his intervention with regard to the Sri Lankan government’s mandatory cremation only policy.

Premier Khan is scheduled to arrive in the island on February 23.

Ammaar Rishad, in a video statement today (22), noted that it is “truly disrespectful” to deny the honour of burial to the dead, especially when there is no scientific proof of infection through burial, adding that only Sri Lanka has adopted the forced cremation policy.

Despite scientific evidence and recommendation of experts, Sri Lanka continues to defy any and all calls for burial rights, he said.

Leaders from many parts of the World including the British Parliament have conveyed their dismay and have urged the Government to allow burials for Covid victims, but nothing has materialized yet.

“It has been announced that Pakistani Prime Minister, Hon. Imran Khan will be arriving in Sri Lanka on a State visit on the 23rd of February. I had hoped that he would deliver an address in Parliament where our Parliamentarians could raise this burning issue with him, but the proposed Parliamentary visit was cancelled.

I am still hopeful that this message with the concerns of the Muslim and other communities can be conveyed to him through the power of the media. I am sincerely hopeful that Hon. Imran Khan will hear our cries and heed our request to address this issue with our President,” he added.