|
|
Sri Lanka bombs rebels, foreign donors urge peace
Full News Article
nale
Senior Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4082
Member Profile
|
27 Jun 2007 17:06:38 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Damayanthi,
No!
It is because,the CFA was soley the Tigers initiative facilitated by the IC.Now IC is in impasse.Do not know what to do.They cannot cut and run either.So,the advice given by Thamilchelvan is FOR THE IC and not to the sinhala staterorist govt.
If the IC wnts to do something concrete to bring peace to the area,which they say they want to,then the best and the only way is to implement the CFA formulated by the IC itself.
NAtional LEade/ELAN. |
Gaja
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 4481
Member Profile
|
27 Jun 2007 22:02:26 GMT Report for Abuse
|
In Oslo, Sri Lanka's main foreign donors -- the United States, the European Union, Japan and Norway -- said they were deeply concerned about the conflict.
If this were true and genuine then either the bombings on citizens in North and East would have been prevented or this is a declaration that these foreigners are powerless.
Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam from Australia
|
samanj
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1579
Member Profile
|
28 Jun 2007 05:43:31 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Donors and Co-chairs all hand in glove following a hidden agenda of their own.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Cuts in aid are being considered by the Co-chairs to pressure the Sri Lankan Government to halt its military offensive against the LTTE and take effective steps to curb the associated human rights violations. Paradoxically this is being considered in the background of a war that is being vigorously waged in Iraq and Afghanistan by some Co-chair members themselves (e.g. United States and NATO, the military arm of the European Union) in which thousands are dying and violations of every kind are being committed daily. Evidently, the contemplated action against Sri Lanka is because recipients of aid are expected to live up to higher standards than those practiced by Donors.
Sri Lanka is engaged in a war of liberation, evidence of which is clearly visible in the Eastern Province. The removal of the LTTE threat from the province has liberated hundreds of thousands from the oppression of the LTTE. With the resettlement of the temporarily displaced there is renewed hope that the people of the Eastern Province can resume normal lives, unlike the Peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan who have no such hope of leading normal lives for decades to come.
The entire Sri Lankan nation has been destabilized by the LTTE resulting in the denial of fundamental freedoms and the rights of the whole nation to better lives. A Government engaged in the pursuit of liberating such a nation cannot be faulted for the unintended consequences of its actions. That said, the Government should act in a manner to minimize human rights violations in order to prevent its own dehumanization, knowing full well that violations are unavoidable in zones of conflict. This was amply demonstrated in the strategies adopted by the Sri Lankan security forces in the liberation of Vakarai.
The motivation for a Government to conform to accepted norms of conduct during war should be to protect the honour and self respect of the society it represents not for the sake of ?qualifying? for aid. Using aid to pressure a country to conform to accepted norms is to ?buy? accepted behaviour. Such an approach may work in countries that have to depend on aid for survival. This is not the case with Sri Lanka because the quantum of aid today, particularly from the West, is relatively insignificant. Consequently, Donor nations are not in a position to dictate norms of conduct. Furthermore, the fact that Japan, one of the Co-chairs is committed to continue aiding Sri Lanka means that Japan?s assessment of the situation is different to that of the West. This underscores the need to maintain standards for their very own sake, and not for any other, such as aid.
It is reported that the International Crisis Group (ICG) based in Brussels is urging Sri Lanka?s donors to ?reassess? their aid to Sri Lanka in the light of human rights violations by the Government, the LTTE and other armed groups (The Sunday Times, June 17, 2007). The fact that a group in Brussels considers it necessary to ?reassess? the human rights situation in Sri Lanka for future aid, notwithstanding the decision by Japan, reflects how subjective these assessments can be despite the contribution from the West being much smaller than that from Japan.
For instance, according to the Annual Report (2006) of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, while the total for the Major Projects Financed by Foreign Lending during 2006 was $743million the contributions from the United States and the Republic of Germany were $100million and $55million respectively. These contributions amounted to 13.5% and 6.75%, respectively, of the total finance for Major Projects. The remaining 80% of the finances needed for major projects was funded by the ADB, Japan and syndicated loans from the Citicorp and HSBC. In terms of Sri Lanka?s GDP of $28billion, the funding for major projects by the United States and the Republic of Germany amount only to 0.36% and 0.18%, respectively. It must be noted however, that assistance from the United States and the Republic of Germany is not limited only to funding major projects. Aid is also being channeled to their favoured NGOs for the implementation of undeclared agendas of the Donors.
The entirety of Foreign Capital in the form of grants and loans in 2006 was $1.2 billion, which in terms of GDP is only 4.3%. This is only about one half of the total of Foreign Remittances of $2.33billion. With the likelihood of increased income from remittances, the impact of Foreign Aid on Sri Lanka would be insignificant to a point that its withdrawal could readily be made up by commercial loans or even aid from sources that do not have demands of compliance that are tantamount to interference in internal matters.
Despite the insignificance of the Foreign aid received by Sri Lanka as stated above, the popular perception is that Sri Lanka cannot survive without it. This myth is perpetuated mostly by the Western donors and by the NGOs set up by them to propagate their interests. By giving publicity to the myth of the importance of aid, donors and their agents have acquired the license to interfere in internal affairs and make an issue of violations of Human Rights despite the fact that every country without exception can be faulted for Human Rights violations of one sort or another because of the vastness of its scope. Foreign Governments have come to use Human Rights violations as an instrument to extend their agendas despite their own inability to live up to the required standards.
If Sri Lanka is to be free of such pressures the Government has to take a hard look at the scope and relevance of Foreign Aid in today?s context. If 80% of the funding for major projects is currently through sources that do not have preconditions, Sri Lanka should explore ways and means of funding of all major projects through such sources or devise means to attract local capital or capital of expatriates to fund its development activities. Another approach would be to use Public-Private Participation arrangements to develop infrastructure projects.
The need to explore such sources is of vital importance because aid is the carrot that is used to further the self interests of Donor countries. Consequently, aid comes at a price. Even grant monies are required to be directed to areas of interest identified by the Donor. This is the real world because the prime motive of aid in any form is to serve the self interest of the Donor. The most recent example of this was India?s gift of 2D Radar to Sri Lanka with disastrous consequences.
Why are the Co-chairs, with the exception of Japan, interested in halting the war on the pretext of curbing Human Rights violations? Spokespersons of the Co-chairs have stated that they want the violence to stop, but do not want the neutralization of the LTTE. Whose interests would be served by maintaining the capabilities of LTTE? And would the LTTE not be tempted to resort to violence if they retain their capabilities? Without wasting time to unscramble these contradictions or to explore the depths of Donor motivations, Sri Lanka should go ahead and plan its strategies with prudence, and pursue its own self interests with diligence.
Such a plan would envisage measures to secure and develop the Eastern Province to its full potential and to ensure political representation for the Peoples of the province by holding elections on a priority basis. The economic development of the Eastern Province in terms of its agricultural and industrial potential would add considerably to economic growth of the country. Furthermore, the uniqueness of its multiethnic character would serve to dispel images of intolerance and the province could become a model of coexistence. In the meantime, the Government strategy for the Northern Province should be not to focus on territory but to focus on measures to minimize the capabilities of the LTTE to commit violence to a point that either decommissioning becomes a natural precondition for negotiations, or the LTTE?s personal safety takes priority over their political agenda.
The commonly-held belief that Sri Lanka cannot survive without Foreign Aid has to be recognized as false. Despite the current Foreign Aid component for major Project Funding being insignificant, aid has given Donors the license to influence the direction of outcomes and define priorities relating to Sri Lanka?s internal issues including security issues that are of interest to the Donors both directly and indirectly through their agents - the NGOs. Therefore, Sri Lanka must explore fresh and innovative arrangements to raise capital for development in order to be free to pursue what is best for Sri Lanka.
What is best for Sri Lanka is to be guided by Napoleon?s dictat that ?The policy of a state is decided by its geography?. Thus, securing the Eastern Province and consolidating the Government of Sri Lanka?s writ by developing the economic potential of the province and empowering it politically by holding elections at all levels are in the nation?s best interest. By consolidating the separateness of the Eastern Province the current Government would be positioned to direct the solution to Sri Lanka?s national question in a form that would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the country.
Aid has given license for the Co-chairs to call on the Government to halt the war and for violence to stop without neutralizing the LTTE?s capabilities. With the realization that aid by itself does not carry sufficient clout to influence Government action, Donors have picked on Human Rights violations as the weapon to persuade the Government to carry out its dictates, undeterred by conscience regarding their own violations in this regard. However, the quantum of aid to Sri Lanka is not significant, and the country has reached a development threshold where it is now in a position to negotiate arrangements more beneficial to itself than has been possible in the past. One key requirement during such negotiations should be the freedom to fashion the ?self? of the nation in the image determined by the nation, and not in the image ordained by others.
In a column to the Washington Post (June 24, 2007), David Ignatius writes that three of America?s Foreign Policy gurus, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have a collective message: ?In a radically changing world, America needs to be less arrogant about its use of power and more willing to talk to other nationsâ?¦They all argue that this is a time when America needs to be out in the world - talking, yes, but even more, listening?. Over the last several decades, America has listened to the LTTE and the Tamil Diaspora. It is time that America listened to Sri Lanka
|
samanj
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1579
Member Profile
|
28 Jun 2007 05:56:22 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Donors and Co-chairs all hand in glove following a hidden agenda of their own.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
Cuts in aid are being considered by the Co-chairs to pressure the Sri Lankan Government to halt its military offensive against the LTTE and take effective steps to curb the associated human rights violations. Paradoxically this is being considered in the background of a war that is being vigorously waged in Iraq and Afghanistan by some Co-chair members themselves (e.g. United States and NATO, the military arm of the European Union) in which thousands are dying and violations of every kind are being committed daily. Evidently, the contemplated action against Sri Lanka is because recipients of aid are expected to live up to higher standards than those practiced by Donors.
Sri Lanka is engaged in a war of liberation, evidence of which is clearly visible in the Eastern Province. The removal of the LTTE threat from the province has liberated hundreds of thousands from the oppression of the LTTE. With the resettlement of the temporarily displaced there is renewed hope that the people of the Eastern Province can resume normal lives, unlike the Peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan who have no such hope of leading normal lives for decades to come.
The entire Sri Lankan nation has been destabilized by the LTTE resulting in the denial of fundamental freedoms and the rights of the whole nation to better lives. A Government engaged in the pursuit of liberating such a nation cannot be faulted for the unintended consequences of its actions. That said, the Government should act in a manner to minimize human rights violations in order to prevent its own dehumanization, knowing full well that violations are unavoidable in zones of conflict. This was amply demonstrated in the strategies adopted by the Sri Lankan security forces in the liberation of Vakarai.
The motivation for a Government to conform to accepted norms of conduct during war should be to protect the honour and self respect of the society it represents not for the sake of ?qualifying? for aid. Using aid to pressure a country to conform to accepted norms is to ?buy? accepted behaviour. Such an approach may work in countries that have to depend on aid for survival. This is not the case with Sri Lanka because the quantum of aid today, particularly from the West, is relatively insignificant. Consequently, Donor nations are not in a position to dictate norms of conduct. Furthermore, the fact that Japan, one of the Co-chairs is committed to continue aiding Sri Lanka means that Japan?s assessment of the situation is different to that of the West. This underscores the need to maintain standards for their very own sake, and not for any other, such as aid.
It is reported that the International Crisis Group (ICG) based in Brussels is urging Sri Lanka?s donors to ?reassess? their aid to Sri Lanka in the light of human rights violations by the Government, the LTTE and other armed groups (The Sunday Times, June 17, 2007). The fact that a group in Brussels considers it necessary to ?reassess? the human rights situation in Sri Lanka for future aid, notwithstanding the decision by Japan, reflects how subjective these assessments can be despite the contribution from the West being much smaller than that from Japan.
For instance, according to the Annual Report (2006) of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, while the total for the Major Projects Financed by Foreign Lending during 2006 was $743million the contributions from the United States and the Republic of Germany were $100million and $55million respectively. These contributions amounted to 13.5% and 6.75%, respectively, of the total finance for Major Projects. The remaining 80% of the finances needed for major projects was funded by the ADB, Japan and syndicated loans from the Citicorp and HSBC. In terms of Sri Lanka?s GDP of $28billion, the funding for major projects by the United States and the Republic of Germany amount only to 0.36% and 0.18%, respectively. It must be noted however, that assistance from the United States and the Republic of Germany is not limited only to funding major projects. Aid is also being channeled to their favoured NGOs for the implementation of undeclared agendas of the Donors.
The entirety of Foreign Capital in the form of grants and loans in 2006 was $1.2 billion, which in terms of GDP is only 4.3%. This is only about one half of the total of Foreign Remittances of $2.33billion. With the likelihood of increased income from remittances, the impact of Foreign Aid on Sri Lanka would be insignificant to a point that its withdrawal could readily be made up by commercial loans or even aid from sources that do not have demands of compliance that are tantamount to interference in internal matters.
Despite the insignificance of the Foreign aid received by Sri Lanka as stated above, the popular perception is that Sri Lanka cannot survive without it. This myth is perpetuated mostly by the Western donors and by the NGOs set up by them to propagate their interests. By giving publicity to the myth of the importance of aid, donors and their agents have acquired the license to interfere in internal affairs and make an issue of violations of Human Rights despite the fact that every country without exception can be faulted for Human Rights violations of one sort or another because of the vastness of its scope. Foreign Governments have come to use Human Rights violations as an instrument to extend their agendas despite their own inability to live up to the required standards.
If Sri Lanka is to be free of such pressures the Government has to take a hard look at the scope and relevance of Foreign Aid in today?s context. If 80% of the funding for major projects is currently through sources that do not have preconditions, Sri Lanka should explore ways and means of funding of all major projects through such sources or devise means to attract local capital or capital of expatriates to fund its development activities. Another approach would be to use Public-Private Participation arrangements to develop infrastructure projects.
The need to explore such sources is of vital importance because aid is the carrot that is used to further the self interests of Donor countries. Consequently, aid comes at a price. Even grant monies are required to be directed to areas of interest identified by the Donor. This is the real world because the prime motive of aid in any form is to serve the self interest of the Donor. The most recent example of this was India?s gift of 2D Radar to Sri Lanka with disastrous consequences.
Why are the Co-chairs, with the exception of Japan, interested in halting the war on the pretext of curbing Human Rights violations? Spokespersons of the Co-chairs have stated that they want the violence to stop, but do not want the neutralization of the LTTE. Whose interests would be served by maintaining the capabilities of LTTE? And would the LTTE not be tempted to resort to violence if they retain their capabilities? Without wasting time to unscramble these contradictions or to explore the depths of Donor motivations, Sri Lanka should go ahead and plan its strategies with prudence, and pursue its own self interests with diligence.
Such a plan would envisage measures to secure and develop the Eastern Province to its full potential and to ensure political representation for the Peoples of the province by holding elections on a priority basis. The economic development of the Eastern Province in terms of its agricultural and industrial potential would add considerably to economic growth of the country. Furthermore, the uniqueness of its multiethnic character would serve to dispel images of intolerance and the province could become a model of coexistence. In the meantime, the Government strategy for the Northern Province should be not to focus on territory but to focus on measures to minimize the capabilities of the LTTE to commit violence to a point that either decommissioning becomes a natural precondition for negotiations, or the LTTE?s personal safety takes priority over their political agenda.
The commonly-held belief that Sri Lanka cannot survive without Foreign Aid has to be recognized as false. Despite the current Foreign Aid component for major Project Funding being insignificant, aid has given Donors the license to influence the direction of outcomes and define priorities relating to Sri Lanka?s internal issues including security issues that are of interest to the Donors both directly and indirectly through their agents - the NGOs. Therefore, Sri Lanka must explore fresh and innovative arrangements to raise capital for development in order to be free to pursue what is best for Sri Lanka.
What is best for Sri Lanka is to be guided by Napoleon?s dictat that ?The policy of a state is decided by its geography?. Thus, securing the Eastern Province and consolidating the Government of Sri Lanka?s writ by developing the economic potential of the province and empowering it politically by holding elections at all levels are in the nation?s best interest. By consolidating the separateness of the Eastern Province the current Government would be positioned to direct the solution to Sri Lanka?s national question in a form that would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the country.
Aid has given license for the Co-chairs to call on the Government to halt the war and for violence to stop without neutralizing the LTTE?s capabilities. With the realization that aid by itself does not carry sufficient clout to influence Government action, Donors have picked on Human Rights violations as the weapon to persuade the Government to carry out its dictates, undeterred by conscience regarding their own violations in this regard. However, the quantum of aid to Sri Lanka is not significant, and the country has reached a development threshold where it is now in a position to negotiate arrangements more beneficial to itself than has been possible in the past. One key requirement during such negotiations should be the freedom to fashion the ?self? of the nation in the image determined by the nation, and not in the image ordained by others.
In a column to the Washington Post (June 24, 2007), David Ignatius writes that three of America?s Foreign Policy gurus, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft have a collective message: ?In a radically changing world, America needs to be less arrogant about its use of power and more willing to talk to other nationsâ?¦They all argue that this is a time when America needs to be out in the world - talking, yes, but even more, listening?. Over the last several decades, America has listened to the LTTE and the Tamil Diaspora. It is time that America listened to Sri Lanka
|
sunawij
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 716
Member Profile
|
28 Jun 2007 07:51:40 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Berty:
Its too bad man. You came a long way with a decent style, though many accused you of supporting LTTE TERRORISTS, and finally you too go down to the LOW level and calling filth.
My friend I am begining to lose the image I had abt you.
I have been noticing both you & PERA from the very begining and PERA had not changed his style a bit until now, I guess I am correct here. But what happened to you???
Now I have a big question mark abt you Berty. When you bash Sri Lanka troops from right to left, I didnt want to usher a word bcoz I had a good image on you.
Pls Berty dont fall in to the same category of cheap LTTE GOONS who are hooting in LNP with utmost hatred towards Sri Lanka & Sinhala community.
Why dontt have a COOL Jinger Beer and Chill out??
-_-
|
samanj
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1579
Member Profile
|
28 Jun 2007 16:29:18 GMT Report for Abuse
|
If the foreign donors have a real interest in the Sri Lanka peace, they must first and foremost NEUTRALISE the ltte.
Otherwise, forget the peace. |
Sintamus
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1241
Member Profile
|
28 Jun 2007 18:10:30 GMT Report for Abuse
|
Foreign Donors give aid, loan and arms and on top of them proscribe LTTE thereby give a blank cheque to bomb, kidnap, torture, starve and kill civilians.
Donors also make statements after statements but the abductions go on unabated.
Killings of MPs and Aidworkers - appoint commission
Abductions of civilians - appoint commission
Medding with evidences of investigations - appoint commission
Soldiers kidnap children to force them to join Karuna - appoint commission.
President Commission headed by former Chief Justice says 1045 abductions and 2095 killings are unaccounted for, more commission will be appointed to buy time.
Donors make statements but the govt appoint commissions.
Edited By - Sintamus - 28 Jun 2007 18:20:38 GMT |
|
Search All News and Discussions