Today’s New York Times (International Herald Tribune) demands that IDPs be allowed to leave, presumably now. However, they are not in a position to demand, and it is not as easy as it looks. First off, you don’t get anywhere demanding anything from this popular government. Like India, it pays to be diplomatic. By speaking quietly and giving big donations, India is helping the IDPs. By speaking loudly and coming empty handed, the Times is not. Furthermore, there are serious security and safety issues letting people go.
Tigers In The Midst
Any person with any sort of capability was in the LTTE economy. I personally know of pharmicists, teachers, translators and government servants who were ‘affiliated’ with the LTTE. Many people have told me they came north to ‘visit relatives’ just as the war starts, which I’m beginning to think is not entirely true. Many people did choose to move with the LTTE.
I don’t think a LTTE pharmacist needs to be too thoroughly screened. However, there are other levels of people who would have been fighting, and many were doing labor, forced or otherwise. For the country that won and then lost Afghanistan, they might want to consider the security issues. You can say that the cost (human rights, rule of law) is too high, but at least consider the issue as a rational one.
Empty Is The Fist
Furthermore, the real players in this game are diplomatic. India shapes things up on the low and then pledges money to resettle IDPs. The Times makes a bunch of public demands and allegations, but their ‘side’ doesn’t have the hard or soft power to back it up. Instead, it just inflames resistance here and makes it harder for local moderates to operate. It’s a pada show.
I think the Times/IHT need to take a page from Barack Obama and begin approaching the rest of the world as partners, not as vassals. As he said:
“America will not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance”
The Times is obviously not a government, but instead of lecturing it might be more productive if they supported the parts of Sri Lankan government that are working (security forces, medical teams, military engineers) and then offered constructive criticism. Based on respect.
Me personally, I think the government should let people with receiving families ‘post bail’ and go. I think everyone else should be given a choice, though the roads to most of the Wanni should remain closed till demining is done. I still think these Sri Lankans should have the choice. However, I don’t demand stuff because a) I’m not sure and b) it’s not constructive. But I do ask, diplomatically. I do try to support the institutions that work. Basically, I’m not a dick about it.
My message to the Times is, more generally, ‘What are you talking?’ In Sri Lanka that’s a phrase that comes up in many arguments. It refers not to the content but the tone, as in ‘why are you so rude?’ If the Times wants to actually help Sri Lanka beyond the casual rant then they may need to learn how to talk.
photo by Noodle Pie
It’s an editorial. And it’s not particularly inflammatory. Some things deserve to be criticized. For example, the imprisonment of 300,000 people. That the times chose to state as much is their prerogative. They aren’t negotiating with the Sri Lankan government. They are informing their readers of the newspapers opinion. Maybe politicians need to play political games. Newspapers generally don’t.
Fortunately Sri Lanka’s government will not bow down to foreign influence whether they use sticks or carrots. The dogs will bark but the caravan will be carrying on.
All the pressure brought at the tail end of war against terror came to nothing and nothing is going to work now either, not the IMF loan, not the GSP+ . What are they gonna do? Bring another resolution at the UN?
We have our friends who helps us with no questions asked. We’ll take what we get for nothing from the West but nothing more.
The West with their stupid democracy, human rights and all that useless bunkum are history. Now is the new beginning.
Thought u might appreciate this link:
http://ochaonline.un.org/Default.aspx?alias=ochaonline.un.org/srilanka
If you click on the last meeting schedule of 13th-17th July you can see the the ocha organised meetings for this week. One of the meetings is the “Mine Action coordination meeting”. The mine officer contact details are also written in the pdf. He might be a useful source of info about what the demining status is.
If people were to be allowed free movement, or to “post bail” – It looks like at least parts of the affected area is not mined, and available for re-settlement – unfortunately, the residents are in IDP camps, and new “settles” are being brought in.
This from Lankanewsweb, which I believe is banned in sri lanka
” The Director General of Sri Lanka Mahaweli Authority Dharmasiri de Alwis has told the state-owned Dinamina newspaper today that 2500 families will be settled in Nedunkarni in Mullaithivu district under the Welioya project of the Mahaweli L-zone. Each family will be granted one acre for paddy cultivation, half an acre for coconut growing and one acre for the home garden.
Nedunkarni is a Tamil dominated area centered by a small town and the residents are now internally displaced in camps in Vavuniya. Dinamina report does not mention anything about the ethnicity of the settlers in the new colonies.”
Wait, it’s not just the government, you don’t care about the rule of law either, do you? The rule of law demands that all 300,000 be released immediately.
Rule of law generally means what the law reads, not necessarily what we think it should read. Parliament recently voted to approve the Prevention Of Terrorism Act, as it does monthly. That law reads:
I don’t think they’ve justified the detention on this basis, but it’s not like the legal groundwork isn’t there. There isn’t a particular ceiling on this, but detention is pretty much ‘legal’ under this law, overriding the Constitution.
Do I believe in rule of law? Yes. I just think that realistically lifting emergency will take some time. 180 days even.
The tone of your pieces are beginning to sound more and more lethargic.
It’s a news paper for crying out loud. I don’t think they were making any demands. Just stating an opinion. And quite frankly I agree with what they say….as it seems you do too to some extent….however, just because it is US based media you’re attacking them in a manner that lacks any causality. Moreover, media tends to focus on critical reporting not writing bloody appraisals! Don’t you think Mahinda and co. are doing more than enough brain-washing?
Yes, the volunteers are amazing! The government needs to do its part to fix things…..there are no ifs or buts. Sure we are all grateful for that but now is not a time to be blowing sunshine up gov arses. It’s unacceptable that hundreds of thousands of people — purely tamil — have to go through this so that the LTTEers can be weeded out. Do you honestly bloody (excuse the language) think that they will be successful in completely detoxifying the nation of LTTE? Give me a break. The forces behind the terrorist group don’t even live in Sri Lanka.
I think there must be a way to let those who have relatives enjoy their liberties.
Now, to the issue of AID my friend. Sure, money flowing in during critical emergency situations is necessary and should be given unconditionally. But as a country we tend to think that it’s our ‘right’ to receive handouts from the world at large and fuck anyone who tries to rationalize with us without throwing some centimes into our coffers.
There is no need to try to knuckle and throw around dead weight. If the US and some others took you seriously maybe they would withdraw FDI, capital transfers, slap on some hefty trading barriers etc…..then what? Let’s only trade with China, India and a few others because they are fast emerging economies and are blowing the US out of the water in ‘growth’ terms. “I’m sure China loves us and wants what’s best for us” — oh please! China and co. have better things to worry about like what do about the trillions of US debt they hold. When push comes to shove none of the large wold powers are going to care about a small island economy. So, we can’t afford to be rude to anyone, we need all the trade and investment we can get.
Oh God. If you were a law student you’d get an F- for that last comment. I’ll let the one-liner on the theory of ROL go. Only. let me ask you to read up, if you want to not sound as unstudied next time, any of the established texts on the rule of law. You’ll find a general consensus that normative concerns cannot be divorced from ROL analysis.
As for the rubbishy assertion that pretty much any detention is legal under the PTA, overriding the Constitution, that’s just well, rubbish. The Supreme Court has struck down hundreds of PTA detention orders over the last thirty years, notwithstanding section 10, where they have held the DO to be inconsistent with Article 13 guarantees. Show me on judgment that says Article 13 is suspended in times of emergency, by the PTA and the ER, and I’ll give up legal practice. Furthermore, “written law” in Article 28 is defined by Article 170 of the Constitution, and it doesn’t include the Constitution. There are tons of other gaping errors with what you’ve said, but I’m not in court, and you’re not a lawyer.
Oh, ”suspicion” in section 9 has been interpreted to mean ”reasonable suspicion” by the apex court, and the court has, in developing their own ”arrest and detention” emergency jurisprudence, laid down the following rules. this is just off the top of my head, there are many many more restrictions.
1. the suspicion must be that of a reasonable nature, the test being that it should be more likely than not that the person committed an offence defined by the PTA as “unlawful activities”
2. the arresting officer must himself harbour this suspicion
3. the detention order must specify the offence that the person is suspected of having committed
4. a person cannot be arrested, and subsequently investigated to see whether his continued detention can be justified.
There are not 300,000 detention orders, because even this government, yes, not even this government is willing to say that they think all of these people are those who have committed PTA or ER offences, i.e- terrorists. To justify all these detention uder article 9, the Sec Def would have to satisfy court that he believes every single one of them to be a terrorist. In any case, all of this is academic. Where there is no detention order, the arrests and subsequent detention are ex facie illegal. These detentions are ex facie illegal. The rule of law demands they be released forthwith. So take my advice, and stop spouting bullshit ‘cut and paste’ opinions where you don’t have the reading or study to back it up. If the only fallout was that you ended up making a fool of yourself, it would be fine, but it’s more than that. You are one supporter more for this undemocratic, illegitimate government, and that is why I’ve indulged your amateurish pronouncements here.
I don’t think we have rule of law, I’ll concede that point. I think the detention is illegal. However, I don’t think this government is illegitimate. I support them as my government, though I don’t think I’ll vote or campaign for them.
Securing the release of the detainees isn’t so easy as calling ‘rule of law’ and waiting for the cavalry. I wish it was. The politics is very tricky, but I believe it will happen. I’m doing what I can to help.
Your tone isn’t exactly productive, but I guess I understand it. Attacking me personally or writing off everyone that doesn’t agree with you doesn’t really work unless you plan on overthrowing the government. From what I see things are loosening up and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. But I could be wrong. And so could you. It is possible to approach this issue through mutual respect.
Yes, we don’t have rule of law, because this government doesn’t care about the rule of law. If they don’t, I can only humbly ask (in the hope that you will this humble tone “productive’), pray what theory of legitimacy you use to grant this government that honour. If you aren’t using the social contract(which you can’t – because you concede the government doesn’t care about the rule of law), where’s the legitimacy? It’s interesting to observe the political degeneration of someone who used to write blog posts about Rawls, all because he wants to justify the sick slaughter of minorities.
Also, getting the detainees(I’m glad you use the term) released from the concentration camps isn’t easy because the politics is tricky because the government doesn’t care about the rule of law. If you think that making the bizarre and sick argument that the detention of 300,000 people in camps can be justified under the PTA is doing what you can to help, perhaps you need to think twice about the sort of help you’re doling out mate. For the record, it’s not a personal attack, but calling a spade a spade. You’ve spouted a load of rubbish here that was rubbish. You now realise that it was rubbish, I just called it out. Consider it my contribution to your political development. At least you now know that the Constitution cannot be suspended by a piece of legislation, and that dictatorships and democracies are on opposite poles of the spectrum of forms of government ;-) That alone renders my contributions here productive, does it not?
*contribution
The IDPs or the detainees were citizens of a de facto separate state that was in existence for the better part of three decades. They were being ruled by an organization who did not allow them the rule of law and the right or access to alternate opinions. They were existing inside a set up where survival, access to basic freedoms and amenities, livelihoods, wealth, social mobility, status, acceptance were all tied up with the LTTE. Their fabric of reality was woven by the LTTE. Unraveling the LTTE threads from the pattern is a complicated task. Maybe the whole pattern may have to be unraveled and rewoven. These people have to be repatriated. Returned to their place of origin; Sri Lanka from where they used to be; Elam. It’s a hard, long, weary road for the IDPs and for the government. The road will not be without serious hurts. But it has to be traversed at least some of the way.
It’s on the above grounds that the detention of 300 000 people in internment camps has to be understood or justified. The situation is unique in the history of this country. PTA does not cover this because the legislators of PTA never imagined a situation like this when they legislated. But all the same Indi’s argument is correct. The PTA does provide the basic legal frame work which enables one to say the rule of law exists in Sri Lanka today even though 300 000 IDPs are detained in welfare villages.
It’s funny. Aadhavan is trying to show that the rule of law doesn’t prevail in Sri Lanka because the detention of IDPs would fall outside the scope of the Law as defined and restricted by the discretion of Judges and jurisprudence of Courts.
The Law PTA was there. Then the courts interpreted it at their discretion to limit its scope. This is a classic example of judicial discretion in action isn’t it? This illustrates how Judicial discretion or Rule of Judges places itself on the other side of the versus from the Rule of Law to make Judicial Discretion Vs Rule of Law does it not?
Yes the PTA exists. But its scope has been restricted via judicial discretion. Detaining 300 000 of the populace in welfare villages internment camps will not fall within the restricted scope of the Act. Therefore the detentions are against the Rule of Law? Isn’t this an attempt to mislead indi because he is not a lawyer? Ask yourself this. If you go to courts on behalf of those detainees/IDPs/ suffering human beings will those previous apex court interpretations/jurisprudence re PTA be binding on the present Court? My guess is they will not be. Because the present situation is unique. The present detainees have not been arrested. They are refugees in the aftermath of war. To them the LTTE had not been just a terrorist organization. But the governing body, the dispenser of law and justice, the mainspring of survival, opportunities, wealth, social acceptance. The infiltration is not skin deep, not even bone marrow deep but cell deep. If the supreme court was asked to rule on the issue what sort of precedents would they consider? My guess is nothing local only international ones.
“These detentions are ex facie illegal. The rule of law demands they be released forthwith. So take my advice and stop spouting bullshit cut and paste opinions where you don’t have the reading or study to back it up.”
“But you are not a lawyer and I am not in court”
Aren’t these attempts to browbeat, intimidate and patronize a layman?
Aadhavan this is a complex situation. It has now entered the realm of normative jurisprudence. (Theory, philosophy, rationalizations, questions, moral issues underlying Law) And normative jurisprudence is the natural province of thinkers, visionaries, activists, change agents like indi right? Because the law ultimately comes from the society it governs and the realities and conditions and norms prevailing in that society. So it is not the exclusive realm of elitist lawyers with limited vision and agendas right?
Indi if Aadhavan has contributed in any way to your political development let it be in convincing you of the following;
If you are trying out for the slot of philosopher, visionary and change agent, backing off at the first appearance of a forthwith, an ex facie, a rule of law, a normative concern will not do.
And these phrases “Sick slaughter of minorities”, “the rule of law demands that all 300000 be released immediately”, “the bizarre and sick argument that the detention of 300000 people in camps can be justified by..” I will try to overcome my disgust at the mindset and ideology these phrases reveal. I have seen many analogies about what has happened in Sri Lanka floating about in cyberspace. I will give here the analogy that I think best fits the situation. Sri Lanka is like a patient who has successfully fought terminal cancer. The treatment has been radical and invasive. Under these circs you don’t expect to come out of hospital like you have been admitted for a simple appendectomy. You come out without your hair, without your looks, without your reproductive ability and without limbs even but glad to be alive knowing that as long as life remains hope also remains.