Sri Lanka- Tamil Politics after P2P Protest By N Sathiya Moorthy

Though the so-called national media did not give it due coverage, the five-day Pothuvil-to-Polikandy multi-ethnic march of the Tamil-speaking people drew a decent crowd, recently. Equally important, it has quietly passed on the mantle of core Tamil politics from the well-entrenched older generation to the relatively younger ones, without anyone asking for it and anyone giving it. Yet, it did leave behind the North and East divide that the protest march was supposed to close as much as possible – and did do so at the level of the people, but not necessarily among the leaders.

In the forefront of the protest march were civil society organisations of the Tamil-speaking people, thus taking away at least some of the entrenched ego issues pertaining to various groups and individuals, especially from among the Northern ‘Jaffna Tamils’. History has conferred on Jaffna the self-styled title of being the ‘cultural capital’ of the Tamil-speaking people in the country. The Jaffna Vellars seem to have born with a chip on their shoulders – and that is what it took the protest march to challenge from within. It was not an issue, however, neither earlier, nor since, but it certainly was a message coming out of the march without anyone having to spell it out.

It was the first organised protest march of the kind, uniting the Tamil-speaking people of the North and the East, and traversing both regions/Provinces. The commencement-point Pothuvil is in the East, and the culmination-point Polikandy is a locality in the Northern Jaffna town. True to form, the protestors’ demands also highlighted issues affecting not only the Northern Tamils, or the larger Tamil community, but also those of the Muslims and Upcountry Tamils.

The memorandum did not stop with the usual war-induced demands like ‘disappearances’ and other war-crimes. It also included current issues of State high-handedness, including the continued deployment of the PTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act), which is a war era anachronism, and continuing ‘land-grabbing’ by the Sri Lankan State, but only of Tamil lands in the North, and none likewise from the Sinhala-Buddhist majority in the South, and so on.

For the first time ever, the protestors’ demands included the Muslim community’s call for freedom to bury their covid dead, which Sri Lanka alone has barred, citing localised health reports. Other nations, both Christian and Muslim, have allowed the burial of their dead. The all-important World Health Organisation (WHO), the UN affiliate, has approved of burial, after conducting detailed studies.

The memorandum had demands pertaining to the Upcountry Tamil estate labour, or ‘Tamils of recent Indian origin Tamils’, or simply ‘Indian Tamils’ or ‘Malayaha Tamils’. The Tamil term ‘Malayaham’ means ‘Upcountry’ or ‘Hill Country’. They have been demanding a higher wage for their labours for long, and the protestors’ memorandum demanded that they be paid LKR 1,000 as daily wages.

Initial success or what

The taste of the pudding is in eating, and some results flowing from the protests were visible – though they cannot be directly linked to the same. Of immediate interest is Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa’s declaration in Parliament that from now on Muslims in the country would be allowed to bury their dead. However, a day later, a junior minister under him, Sudarshini Fernandopulle, ‘clarified’ in Parliament that a final decision would be taken only after consulting Health officials. This in turn reflected a strain within the ruling Establishment, though it was unclear, at what level.

On the wage-rise for the estate Tamils, it was again Prime Minister Rajapaksa who facilitated a tripartite agreement between the management, labour unions and Government officials. It was a poll promise of his SLPP, both before the presidential elections in November 2019 and the parliamentary elections in August 2020. To the extent, the timing was just right, and the Tamil protestors’ demand seemingly included what possibly some of the organisers thought would be coming through, any time soon.

But the same cannot be said of the core Tamil demands, rather demands of the vocal Sri Lankan Tamil (SLT) community. Those demands are as old as the war and certainly the post-war period, now nearing 12 years. The P2P march as the Pottuvil-to-Polikandy protest has come to be dubbed, only underscored most of those long-pending demands. Successive Governments in Colombo have failed to make good their promises of their times. Those promises thus remain only as promises.

At the end of it all, the mainline Opposition SJB had extended support to the P2P protest, though it came after the success became known. Post-march, the JVP has said that the protest became necessary and its success became possible only because of the Government’s continued ‘high-handedness’ against the Tamil community / communities.

Unmindful of it all, the Government withdrew special security for TNA parliamentarian M A Sumanthiran, and replaced it with a lesser security-cover. Internal Security Minister, veteran naval officer, Rear Adm Sarath Weerasekara (retd), said in Parliament that he ordered withdrawal of top level security to Sumanthiran, as it was incongruous for those personnel to be protecting a politician who was protesting against the Government, they were sworn to stand by.

Show ahead of UNHRC

Minister Weerasekara said that the protest was aimed at the upcoming UNHRC session in Geneva, which was scheduled to take up the Sri Lanka ‘war crimes’ resolution for discussion, debate, vote – and thus further action. It indeed was one though the protest-organisers did not seek to highlight the same. To them, unifying the Tamil-speaking people seemed to have been the prime agenda – hence limited achievement.

Otherwise, the protestors demands, or at least those pertaining to the SLT community, has already been reiterated together by northern Tamil polity together, in their joint memorandum to the UNHRC, copies of which have been shared with foreign missions in Colombo. If the Tamils’ memorandum to the UNHRC was the first stage in which the otherwise eternally-divided Northern polity came together, the P2P march has become the logical next step. It involved the larger population – but did not stop with the Northern Tamil population, or the larger SLT population in the North and the East, thus skipping the interim step and fast-forwarding the integration process, as much.

Is it fast-forwarding, after all? Yes and no. The fact that the protest was organised by civil society organisations did not go unnoticed. The presence of individual leaders of the TNA especially and also of Gajendra Kumar Ponnambalam’s ACTC-TNPF apart, major Tamil and Muslim parties, as organisations, did not participate. It was good in a way, as it could well have stirred hidden institutional and individualistic egos. But that is not the issue.

The real issues is that the march did not seem to have had the whole-hearted blessings of the respective party leaderships, other than Gajan Ponnambalam’s ACTC-TNPF, or so it seems. Especially, Maavai Senathirajah, president of the mainstay ITAK leader of the three-party TNA, stayed away. It would have made a difference to the optics if he had at least issued a congratulatory message on the P2P march – but he did not.

Even on the question of the Government withdrawing Sumanthiran’s special security cover, his political mentor and TNA chair, R Sampanthan, alone seemed to have called the MP and expressed his concern. Or, that is what a section of the Tamil media has reported. So did PLOTE leader D Sithardhan. Others in the TNA hierarchy have maintained stoic silence, even as SJB and Muslim leaders have flagged the issue, both inside and outside Parliament. So much for SLT, rather TNA unity!

Where from here…

Whether they planned it or not, or wanted it or not, the P1P protest has thrown up the likes of TNA parliaemntarians Shanakiyan Rajamanickam, or ‘Shan’ for short, and Sumanthiran, by now the veteran international spokesperson of the TNA, with two terms in Parliament behind him, to the forefront than already. Both stood of in Parliament recently for taking up the ‘Muslim burial issue’, and so did Gajan Ponnambalam.

The three parliamentarians put the Muslim leadership to shame on this score, as the latter was found wanting, in their submissions in the House – and outside. It was this that brought droves of Muslim youth to the P2P protests, thus indicating their willingness to work with a credible next-generation SLT leadership, devoid of the blood stains of the past that the LTTE had inflicted on the community in 1990. The moderate Tamil leadership had looked the other way then – and since.

It did not stop there, though. There was a visible attack on Shanakyan’s vehicle in Jaffna. A section of the Diaspora social media has attributed it to Ponnambalam’s party men. Others have denied it. Another group on the social media had earlier charged Shan with attempting to hijack the protest from the commencement. He was shown carrying a banner, with his face and presence, in the protest. According to the critics, Tamil for long have used only the picture of ‘Thanthai’ Selva or slain Amirthalingam – rejecting all forms of self-promotion of every kind.

Other reports claimed that once the protests entered the North, Sumanthiran & Co, too, sought to literally push Shanakyan behind, denying him a place in the forefront of the protest march – and that much of additional photo op, for the whole world to see. This report, too, has been denied, and thankfully so – but not from Shan’s side, yet.

Yet, if the protest march has made news, it is for the simple reason that it happened. Then, it had the presence of not only Tamils from the East and the North, but also Muslims. No news report has identified the presence of any Upcountry Tamil leader of any rank, or even their members – though both the East and the Vanni area in the North have the community’s substantial presence, all the same.

As is not uncommon, Christian priests were shown participating in the march. So did some Muslim community leaders. From the Tamil side, Velan Swamigal has become the first religious face of the population, though in the past, the priestly Brahmin community has lent support and backing to the Tamil cause at one time, and the militant cause another – and the LTTE, as days went by. How and how far it is going to impact the larger Tamil unity is a question for which the answers will emerge only in due course.

(The writer is Distinguished Fellow and Head-Chennai Initiative, Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: [email protected] )

Former UN High Commissioner Pillay Says It’s Time for the Human Rights Council to Act on Sri Lanka

(Editor’s Note: This is the sixth article of a series on the likely spotlight to be placed on allegations of war crimes and other abuses in Sri Lanka during the next session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, beginning Feb. 22. The series includes voices from former U.N. officials, international NGOs, human rights litigators, and researchers. The full list will appear, as installments are published, at the end of the first article, Spotlight on Sri Lanka as UN Human Rights Council Prepares Next Session.)

Former U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says the Sri Lankan government has made clear it has no serious intention of pursuing accountability for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the country’s civil war that ended in 2009, and that as a result, the U.N. Human Rights Council must act. Successive high commissioners have made increasingly strong statements calling for a comprehensive process of accountability, she said, based on successive U.N. reports outlining what she describes as “credible evidence that the Sri Lankan state itself committed international crimes.”

“It is time for the HRC to make a drastic departure from its customary complacency over the failures of the Sri Lankan government and hold it to account,” Pillay said.

I interviewed the former high commissioner, who served from 2008 to 2014, about the role of her office in addressing the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka in the final stages of the war and since that time, and her views on what the council should do at its upcoming session.

The last six months of Sri Lanka’s civil war inflicted mass numbers of civilian casualties and caused international outrage. What was your role as high commissioner in responding to this crisis?

The last six months of Sri Lanka’s civil war in 2009 were played out live on world television screens. We watched the Sri Lankan army shoot to death the alleged leaders of the terrorist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), even as they raised white flags in surrender. We watched extensive aerial bombing of Tamil civilians and destruction of their homes, hospitals, and places of refuge. The onslaught continued well after the capture and killing of the alleged terrorists. We heard the last cries for help from doctors who were treating the injured in hospitals that were being shelled.

International humanitarian law (IHL) protects the lives of civilians in armed conflict. The two firm principles of “distinction” and “proportionality” of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols apply to both governments and non-state actors in all situations of armed conflict. Direct, indiscriminate, and disproportional military attacks violate the principle of proportionality where they exceed the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. Distinction dictates that parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Sri Lanka informed the international community that it was exercising its sovereign right to contain terrorism inside its territory; and so no international forum — not the U.N. Security Council, not the U.N. General Assembly, nor the Human Rights Council — addressed the situation until June 2, 2009 when, in my capacity as high commissioner for human rights, I placed the matter on the agenda of the Human Rights Council (HRC). I reported serious human rights violations to the HRC, including loss of thousands of civilian lives, rape and sexual violence against women and girls, and forced dislocation of Tamils. The HRC and U.N. bodies have a role in the protection of human rights in crisis situations. I recommended that the council establish an independent international inquiry into grave violations of International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

In the absence of national investigations, international inquiries establish the facts and determine whether there is evidence of the commission of international crimes. Commissions of inquiry established by national and international bodies make critical contributions by providing independent factual accounts of events to inform international action and ensure accountability for serious human rights crimes. If international experts find evidence of crimes, then states have a duty to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. International accountability mechanisms are considered appropriate when states are unwilling or unable to take action.

The Security Council set up commissions of inquiry in conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda before setting up the ad hoc international tribunals there, and mandated an inquiry into the Central African Republic. The General Assembly recently established the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) for the conflict in Syria and the Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/ISIL (UNITAD) in Iraq. The HRC established numerous international commissions of inquiry, including for Gaza, Syria, DPRK, Eritrea, and Libya, and ordered investigative reports on Sri Lanka and Ukraine.

There have been numerous U.N. reports about the atrocities committed during the conflict. How have you seen these used to advance accountability mechanisms in the case of Sri Lanka?

There have been numerous fact-based reports of atrocities committed during the conflict in Sri Lanka from the U.N., as well as credible reports from international and national NGOs and journalists. The U.N. reports serve as important levers to maintain the issue on the HRC agenda and are persuasive in motivating states to take action to protect against the excesses of the Sri Lankan authorities and to advance accountability mechanisms.

The U.S. ambassador to the HRC at the time, Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe, said that, “In light of the facts that came out in the report (of the U.N. Panel of Experts) the U.S. delegation simply felt compelled to help support a process of transitional justice in Sri Lanka.” The ambassador played an influential role in securing support for the early Sri Lankan resolutions, stating, “We felt that the clear and substantial evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the final days of the Sri Lankan civil war simply could not be ignored.”

In 2015, the Sri Lankan government co-sponsored a resolution with the U.N. Human Rights Council that laid out a comprehensive transitional justice framework for the country, including criminal prosecutions with limited international involvement. What is the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the council to ensure the government lives up to these kinds of commitments?

Successive high commissioners, including Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and the current high commissioner, Michelle Bachelet, together with independent U.N. experts, have made even stronger calls than I did in 2009, calling for a comprehensive process of accountability. All three U.N. reports on Sri Lanka (report of the UNSG’s Panel of Experts, the internal review report and the OISL report) state that there is credible evidence that the Sri Lankan state itself committed international crimes.

All of us drew attention to the failure on the part of the government of Sri Lanka to honor its own obligations and the undertakings it made to the HRC to set up any kind of judicial mechanism to prosecute international crimes, let alone a domestic process. We drew attention to growing authoritarianism, intrusion by the military into civilian activities, attacks on democratic institutions, and persisting violations of the rights of Tamils. We warned of recurrence and pressed for urgent action from the HRC.

What are the trade-offs between domestic versus international accountability mechanisms, and how have these played out in the Sri Lankan context?

The HRC has adopted the course of encouraging Sri Lanka to undertake domestic investigations and reconstruction initiatives. This is in accordance with international law, which places primary responsibility on the state concerned to undertake justice and accountability measures. The international community will only intervene when the state is unwilling or unable to comply. The 2015 HRC resolution was welcomed at the time as an example of comprehensive, domestic transitional justice, with the U.N. playing a supportive role. The resolution received the support of the Sri Lankan government, together with their repeated undertakings to comply in full.

Twelve years on from the end of the war, the Sri Lankan government has failed to make any meaningful progress towards accountability for international crimes, reparation for victims, or accountability for disappearances and land dispossessions. Only a single perpetrator was convicted — in 2015, Army Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake was sentenced for the murder of eight civilians including a 5-year-old child in 2000. Both conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in May 2019. Yet the president pardoned Ratnayake, in willful defiance of international law against impunity.

What do you think of the most recent OHCHR report’s recommendation to establish an international investigative mechanism for Sri Lanka to collect evidence for international or foreign prosecutions under principles of universal jurisdiction?

In her recent report, the high commissioner for human rights makes several recommendations to states to exercise collective international action. The HRC, as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, does not have authority to make a direct request to the Security Council for a referral of the Sri Lanka situation for investigation of international crimes by the International Criminal Court. The report invites individual member states to support such a referral.

The OHCHR report also calls for the exercise of universal jurisdiction by states, and recommends the establishment of an international investigative mechanism, such as the IIIM (the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism) and UNITAD (the U.N. Investigative Team for Accountability) established by the UNGA for Syria and Iraq. Such a body will ensure the collection and preservation of evidence for future investigations or prosecutions by states under the principle of universal jurisdiction. This is an important step in the preservation of evidence and will enable an ICC prosecution in the event of a Security Council referral, or in the event of the establishment of an international criminal tribunal or for national prosecutions. It is hoped that the threat of universal jurisdiction cases will move the Sri Lankan government to at least prosecute the emblematic cases.

We often talk about the need to end impunity, not just for victims of past crimes, but to improve human rights conditions in the present. To what extent is this what we are seeing in Sri Lanka today?

The high commissioner’s report paints a graphic picture of a rapidly deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka. Whereas previous reports of high commissioners recorded failures of compliance with HRC resolutions by the Sri Lankan government, the current report goes much further in detailing not just failures to act, but active obstruction by the government of any effort to secure justice and accountability. The alarm raised by the high commissioner to dangerous trends such as “exclusionary and majoritarian discourse,” giving rise to the risk of recurrence of grave violations of the past must be heeded.

Such a dire prediction of new violations to come from the failure of accountability for the past crimes was made by Zeid and I when we were in office. It is time for the HRC to make a drastic departure from its customary complacency over the failures of the Sri Lankan government and hold it to account for its non-compliance with HRC resolutions.

The bona fides of the government, in its commitment to establish a domestic judicial process for past crimes, was always in question, but is more so now with Gotabaya Rajapaksa assuming the office of the president. He was the minister of defense and commander of the armed forces during the conflict and is named in various reports as the individual most responsible for mass violations during the final attack in 2009. In my meeting with him in 2012, he proudly laid claim to having ended terrorism in Sri Lanka. His exploits are recorded in a book about him, titled “Gota’s War- The crushing of Tamil Tiger Terrorism in Sri Lanka.” Indeed, the LTTE was responsible for a reign of terror, but now that terrorism has ended, why is “Gota’s war“ continuing to be waged against human rights defenders and democratic institutions? (A copy of the book was gifted personally by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa to a high official in the South African Foreign Ministry, who in turn passed it on to me.)

How should the HRC address Sri Lanka at the upcoming meeting?

As the world watches in awe and respect, the swift action taken by the US Congress to impeach the departing strongman for insurrection and attacks on democratic institutions, lessons can be drawn for the HRC. It should similarly act decisively and accept the recommendations made by the HC for justice and accountability in Sri Lanka, and unequivocally hold the perpetrators of grave human rights violations against the Tamils accountable. “Gota’s war” against terrorism must not be allowed to become a war against the rule of law and International standards of conduct towards defeated peoples.

What do you think the United States can and should be doing at the forthcoming HRC session, since it is not a member of the council?

I referred above to the important lead taken by the U.S. in the adoption of the first resolutions against Sri Lanka in the HRC. Although the U.S. is not a member of the HRC and does not have the right to vote, it has the right to address the council as an observer state. There is a role for the U.S. to continue to press for justice and accountability even though President Trump withdrew from the council. The Biden-Harris administration should seize the opportunity to reinforce its support for justice and accountability and make known to the world its return to values-based leadership.

Source:justsecurity.org

India has its way on Chinese projects in North Sri Lanka – NewsIn

Though India failed to get the East Container Terminal (ECT) project in Colombo port, it is now well on the way to bagging the West Container Terminal (WCT) project and also three power projects in Jaffna. It has successfully convinced the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government that it will be unwise to ignore India’s interests in its relations with China.

After yielding to Sinhalese nationalist pressure not to give the ECT project to India, the Sri Lankan government offered the WCT in which the designated Indian party is to hold 85% stake. This is much higher than the stake offered to India and Japan (49%) in the case of the ECT. It also matches China’s stake in the adjacent Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT).

Meanwhile, another problem had arisen for India in Jaffna in Northern Sri Lanka. The Lankan government had decided to award three renewable energy projects there to a Chinese joint venture company MS/Sinosar-Etechwin. The power plants were to be set up in three islands off Jaffna, namely, Delft, Analativu, and Nainativu.The plants were to use a mix of solar, wind, and other renewables. The ADB was to give a loan of US$ 12 million for the project.

India strongly objected to the grant of the project to a Chinese company as one of the island locations was only 48 kms from Rameswaram. India feared that the Chinese would spy on India from there.

The Lankan government argued that the Chinese company was better qualified than the Indian party which had also tendered for the project, and that the ADB had sanctioned the deal and extended a loan of US$ 12 million. But this did not wash with India which continued to harp on the security threat to it.

While a section of the Lankan government felt that the India’s objection abridged Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and independence and therefore it deserved to be ignored, the dominant section felt that India’s case must be accommodated in the larger interest of having good relations with the Big Brother and only neighbor. Sri Lanka’s own security was heavily dependent on India, it was pointed out.

Indian Grant

The media on Sunday quoted Lankan Power Minister Dallas Allahaperuma as saying that the Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay had met him and offered an Indian “grant” of US$ 12 million for the three energy projects in Jaffna islands. India suggested that Sri Lanka could itself build the power plants with Indian collaboration of course.

Allahaperuma accepted the proposal and promised to put it up at the next weekly cabinet meeting. The minister also informed the media that the original plan to give the project to a Chinese company had not yet been put up in the cabinet.

“If we think of our citizens, receiving a grant is an advantage and it will also ease the burden on the Treasury, because if we go ahead with ADB funds, the Treasury will have to repay those in the future,” the Minister said.

On the Sri Lankan offer to get India’s help to build the West Container Terminal, there appears to be no visible movement. Sri Lankan officials and political leaders who want India-Lanka relations to be on an even keel want both the Indian and Sri Lankan governments to move quickly and start the work on the project. Any delay would activate the nationalist elements, who are basically anti-Indian, they fear. In fact, a port workers’ union leader has already told the press that the workers would go on strike if the WCT project is assigned to India.

Posted in Uncategorized

“President Works For 15 Hours A Day: I can’t Spend Long Hours At Work As Him” – Prime Minister

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa said President Gotabhaya Rajapaksa works 15 hours a day to serve the public.

Addressing a function in Beruwala, the Prime Minister said that was why the President could travel to villages looking into issues faced by the people.

“I don’t want to lie. I can’t work long hours as the President. It is up to the people to make good use of the leaders who give their best to the public,” he added.

He also added that the government was only able to govern the country properly for four hours due to the outbreak of the pandemic.

PM Narendra Modi Affirms India’s Support for Sri Lankan Tamils

Modi recalled the various welfare initiatives taken by the Centre in the housing and health sectors aimed at benefiting the Lankan Tamils, and said he was the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Jaffna (in 2015) in northern Sri Lanka.

rime Minister Narendra Modi on Sunday said his government has always taken care of the welfare of Sri Lankan Tamils and ”consistently” flagged the issue of their rights with the leaders in the island nation. India was always committed to ensuring that the Tamils there lived with equity, equality, justice, peace and dignity, he said here, after launching various government projects in railways and defence sectors.

Modi recalled the various welfare initiatives taken by the Centre in the housing and health sectors aimed at benefiting the Lankan Tamils, and said he was the first Indian Prime Minister to visit Jaffna (in 2015) in northern Sri Lanka. “Our government has always taken care of the welfare and aspirations of Tamil brothers and sisters in Sri Lanka. It is my honour to have been the only Indian PM to visit Jaffna.

Through development work, we are ensuring the welfare of the Tamil community,” he said. India has constructed 50,000 houses for displaced Tamils in north eastern Sri Lanka and another 4,000 in the plantation areas while “we hope to open soon” the Jaffna Culture Centre, he added.

“The issue of Tamil rights has also been taken up consistently with Sri Lankan leaders. We are always committed to ensuring that they (Tamils) live with equity, equality, justice, peace and dignity,” Modi said. The Sri Lankan Tamils issue has always had an emotional connect in Tamil Nadu and has often dominated the political space here. Modi also pointed to India”s efforts in railway projects for Jaffna and Mannar, air connectivity from Chennai to Jaffna and the initiatives in the health sector.

Posted in Uncategorized

Mass protest in Colombo to coincide with Pakistan PM’s state visit?

It is reported that the Muslim political parties in Sri Lanka have decided to stage a mass protest in front of the Presidential Secretariat if the government fails to issue a gazzette notification granting permission for the burial of Covid-19 victims before February 23.

The protest is scheduled to be held on the same day of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s maiden visit to Sri Lanka.

Prime Minister Khan is expected to hold bilateral discussions with key government officials and party leaders. He is also scheduled to address the Sri Lankan parliament and will become the third Pakistani head of state to do so after former President Gen. Mohammed Ayub Khan (1963) and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1975).

Leaders of Muslim political parties had called on the Pakistan High Commissioner and informed him that if the government of Pakistan fails to protest against the mandatory cremation policy and extends its support to the Sri Lankan government in international fora, they will stage a protest on the day the Pakistan Premier is scheduled to arrive in the island.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, releasing a report ahead of the upcoming United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) session in Geneva later this month, called for resolute measures by UN member states including targeted sanctions against the Sri Lankan government.

“I urge the international community to listen to the determined, courageous, persistent calls of victims and their families for justice, and heed the early warning signs of more violations to come,” Bachelet said in a damning report highlighting the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

With Sri Lanka likely to be featured prominently at the 46th session of the UNHRC, diplomatic sources said that the government is making a concerted effort to secure the support of member states including Pakistan.

Posted in Uncategorized

Sri Lanka in talks for US$4-5bn pipeline of swaps, credits except IMF: Central Bank

Sri Lanka is in talks for up to 5 billion US dollars of funding through swaps and loans outside of a program with the International Monetary Fund, and all debt falling due will be met, central bank officials said.

Governor W D Lakshman said required foreign exchange would be sourced from the market and gaps would be filled with swaps and loans.

“There are a number of negotiations going on, the details of which I am not going to come out, with overseas agencies to raise some of the required to raise foreign exchange inflows, through swaps and loans and that sort of mechanism,” Governor Lakshman said

“[There are] negotiations with overseas central banks, overseas banks and other agencies. Multilateral agencies are included though the IMF is not there in that list – yet.”

He said Sri Lanka was following a market oriented economy with state guidance, involving some controls and restrictions.

Such a framework would not be successful under an IMF program, he said.

Deputy Governor Dhammika Nanayakkara said around 4 to 5 billion US dollars in potential funding was in the pipeline.

The tenors ranged from around 1 to 8 years, and the price from 1 percent to around 6.5 to 7.0 percent.

Some of the funds would be precautionary.

“I do not say that the entire 4 to 5 billion is going to be utilized because as the Governor mentioned we will be looking at some of the requirements form the market as well,” Nanayakkara said.

Commercial banks were asked in late January to surrender about 10 percent of remittances converted to dollars by customers at market rates to the central bank.

In 2021 the central bank was targeting about 7.5 billion US dollars of remittances, up from 7.1 billion dollars in 2020.

“If 6 billion (dollars) has been converted to LKR that means 600 million is sourced from the market towards whatever obligation that is falling due,” he explained.

Analysts however had warned that rejection over-subscribed bids to Treasury auctions and turning inconvertible Treasury securities into convertible rupee bank notes by taking them into the central bank’s balance sheet will create forex shortages and make it difficult to general dollars.

Successful bond auctions at a market rate will crowd out imports through the domestic credit system and make dollars available to the Treasury. Injections would do the opposite.

Sri Lanka’s forex reserves had dropped to around 4.8 billion US dollar by January 2021 in the wake of the injections.

Governor Lakshman said Sri Lanka would maintain its unblemished record in debt repayments despite ‘doomsday predictions’.

The doomsday predictions were based on what and happened in the second half of 2010 decade, involving high depreciation, high inflation and high deficits despite rhetoric claiming that there was fiscal rationalization, he said.

“These are all being changed and we expect better results,” Governor Lakshman said.

Analysts have pointed out that the 2015 – 2020 economic framework also failed due to injections made largely through open market operations and a failed attempt at inflation targeting while running a pegged exchange rate, which triggered currency crises and consumption collapses.

A publicly articulated real effective exchange rate targeting exercise also ensured that the exchange rate did not bounce back, when credit collapsed.

Analysts have also argued that in the guise of inflation targeting which requires a floating rate where the reserves money is unchanged Sri Lanka had been selling dollars to peg and had been over-sterilizing interventions to target a call money rate with excess liquidity.

It has been argued that instead of targeting inflation, Sri Lanka is targeting interest rates as a final target triggering currency shortages.

Posted in Uncategorized

Army Chief refutes rumours of island-wide lockdown

Army Commander General Shavendra Silva has denied the rumours of a country-wide lockdown following the detection of the new coronavirus variant.

The Head of the National Operations Centre for Prevention of COVID-19 Outbreak (NOCPCO) said that discussions are currently being held on the necessary and essential steps needed to control the new variant.

While there are rumours of an island-wide lockdown that are propagated on social media and other media, the government has not arrived at such a decision as of yet, the Army Chief assured.

Meanwhile, the Secretary to the State Ministry of State Ministry of Primary Health Care, Epidemiology and COVID-19 Control Dr. Harsha de Silva stated that the decision of whether or not to impose a lockdown on the country will be taken based on the recommendation of experts.

Posted in Uncategorized

‘India does not care if Sri Lanka has IMF’

The Treasury categorically denies that India ever wanted Sri Lanka to go for an International Monetary Fund (IMF) programme if Sri Lanka was to seek financial assistance from India to service its upcoming external debt repayments.

Treasury Secretary S.R. Attygalle told The Sunday Morning Business that India never told Sri Lanka to go for the IMF programme, and that it is the rating agencies that would like to see Sri Lanka reaching out to the IMF.

According to Attygalle, despite being pushed out of the Colombo Port’s East Container Terminal (ECT) deal by the Sri Lankan Government, India is willing to assist Sri Lanka financially at any given time.

“India has not rejected anything. The $ 100 million credit facility for solar energy or rooftop facility, which our President requested from India, is ready now. Within a week or two we are going to sign the agreement. Even though it is for a rooftop project, still, it is credit from India,” he added.

However, local media reported that Sri Lanka recently settled its $ 400 million SWAP line that it obtained last year from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as further extension of the repayment time necessitated Sri Lanka to go for an IMF agreement, according to an Indian High Commission Spokesperson.

Meanwhile, Attygalle stated that it is completely up to Sri Lanka to decide whether the country should go to the IMF or not. Nevertheless, we learnt that Sri Lanka’s request to the IMF for a Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) was still under review.

Responding to an email sent by us, IMF Mission Chief of Sri Lanka Masahiro Nozaki stated the following.

“In April 2020, we received a request from the Sri Lankan authorities for emergency financial support under the Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI). Assessing relevant conditions for the RFI has taken longer than for other countries, due to Sri Lanka’s daunting economic challenges, high public debt, and parliamentary elections in August. We have sought but not reached (an) understanding yet on how to fulfil key requirements for the RFI, which include policies to continue ensuring debt sustainability. The authorities have a range of options to ensure debt sustainability, and the IMF stands ready to discuss all options with the authorities.”

Following the global outbreak of the pandemic in the first quarter of last year, the IMF received about 102 requests from countries seeking RFI support. As of mid-September, about 76 out of these 102 requests had been approved, according to the IMF. This means that Sri Lanka was among approximately 20 or 30 countries that were not granted RFI support as of September last year.

The 76 approved countries include a number of Asia Pacific countries such as Bangladesh, Mongolia, Myanmar, and Nepal. On 29 May, it approved the provision of $ 488 million under the RFI to Bangladesh, while on 26 June, it approved $ 237.7 million for Myanmar. On 3 June, it approved $ 99 million under the RFI for Mongolia. The total figure of approved funds under this facility was $ 31 billion by end-September.

In mid-August last year, Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) Governor Prof. W.D. Lakshman told The Sunday Morning Business that Sri Lanka will obtain emergency financial support under the RFI only if the support would be provided with no conditionality.

Meanwhile, a Citi Research report in December last year noted that Sri Lanka’s debt is on an unsustainable path, though the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) is in denial, and an IMF programme is essential to avoid a debt disaster. In its report titled “Sri Lanka Economics and Strategy View”, Citi noted that it cannot see a credible strategy for achieving debt sustainability and (external) repayment capacity.

“While officials continue to mention their willingness to pay, we cannot see a credible strategy for achieving debt sustainability and (external) repayment capacity beyond talking up their growth prospects and expecting this to attract FDI (foreign direct investment) and other portfolio equity inflows. The ability of financial repression to contain domestic borrowing costs is limited by rising debt ratios, still expected to grow amid a pro-growth 2021 Budget. We expect net FDI will finance about 40% of the current account deficit in 2021 FY, and the rest will not be wholly covered by official multilateral and bilateral lending, let alone commercial funding, in the absence of an IMF policy reform backstop.”

Govt. to sign swap deal with China for US$ 1.5 billion; India deal unlikely

Sri Lanka will next week sign an agreement with China’s Central Bank — the People’s Bank of China — for a swap arrangement amounting to US$ 1.5 billion.

The move came as the Government is looking at measures to bridge the gap of another US$ 1 billion. The Sri Lankan Central bank was expecting this from India, but it is now unlikely, a senior Central Bank official said.

Under the swap arrangement with China, the funds are expected to be made use of to maintain the foreign reserves and for imports from China, the official said.

The money is to be paid back within three and half years.

A currency swap is a transaction in which two parties exchange an equivalent amount of money with each other but in different currencies. The parties are essentially loaning each other money and will repay the amounts at a specified date and exchange rate.

Sri Lanka’s request to the Reserve Bank of India for a currency swap of US$ 1 billion has so far drawn no response and the facility was unlikely to be received now, the official said.

He said that in view of the shortfall, the Central Bank was taking other measures including negotiating similar swap arrangements with other countries while continuing with other measures such as reducing imports.

Vehicle import restrictions were among the measures and will be continued until further notice, he added.

The Chinese swap arrangement would be useful to maintain a balance throughout the year, he said.

Meanwhile, Sri Lanka plans to review eight trade agreements including two which have been stalled midway.

The controversial Indo-Sri Lanka Economic and Technology Cooperative Agreement (ETCA) and the China-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement which were stalled would be reviewed with the objective of renegotiating them, Trade Minister Bandula Guanwardena said.

The China FTA talks were halted in 2017 after six rounds of discussions while the ETCA was suspended in 2018 after 12 rounds of discussions.

Another trade agreement with Thailand would also be reviewed.

The India-Sri Lanka FTA effective from 2000 and the Pakista- Sri Lanka FTA effective from 2005 are among other agreements to be reviewed.

Mr Gunawardena said the objective of reviewing the agreements was to ensure that Sri Lanka benefited from the agreements currently in place as well the proposed agreements.

“If there are clauses which are not beneficial to the country, we need to revise them,” he said .

The minister said a Commerce Department team along with an expert committee would review the agreements.