David Miliband and Gordon Brown among parliamentarians at London conference of Global Tamil Forum

The diplomatic rift between London and Colombo has widened after Gordon Brown and David Miliband met delegates from a new worldwide Tamil union despite “strong protests” from the Sri Lankan government.

Miliband, the foreign secretary, used his address to the inaugural conference of the Global Tamil Forum at the Commons today to urge the Sri Lankan government to embark on a “genuinely inclusive political process”.

He also repeated calls for an investigation into allegations that both the Sri Lankan state and the Tamil Tigers violated international humanitarian law during last year’s fighting.

The British government’s decision to engage with the GTF has provoked “deep concerns” in Sri Lanka, which claims the organisation is a front for the defeated Tamil Tigers (LTTE).

The British acting high commissioner in Colombo, Mark Gooding, was summoned before the island’s foreign minister yesterday and urged to tell Miliband to cancel his address.

A spokesman for the Sri Lankan government said: “[Rohitha Bogollagama] … emphasised that foreign secretary Miliband, by participating at [the] GTF meeting in London, would unfortunately lend credibility to an organisation which is propagating the separatist agenda of the LTTE, and would be acting in a manner inimical to the national interest of Sri Lanka and its legitimate government.”

However, not only did Miliband go ahead with the address but Brown also held a private meeting with a group of delegates in the Commons.

A Downing Street spokeswoman confirmed the meeting had taken place but declined to comment further.

A Foreign Office spokesman said Miliband’s participation was part of the government’s ongoing efforts to bring about peace in Sri Lanka.

“The GTF publicly states that they are committed to the principles of democracy and non-violence,” he said.

“The UK will continue to engage with all Sri Lankan communities focused on achieving a lasting and equitable peace through non-violent means.”

The already-strained relations between the two countries deteriorated further last November after the UK and Australia blocked Sri Lanka from hosting the next biennial commonwealth heads of government meeting in 2011 in protest at Colombo’s military repression against the Tamil population.

Earlier this month, the EU suspended preferential trade benefits to Sri Lanka over concerns about its human rights record.

In his address to the Commons conference, Miliband urged the newly-elected Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, to use his mandate to bring about a political settlement between the island’s Sinhalese majority and its Tamil minority and take lessons from how other divided countries had healed their differences.

“If history is buried, reconciliation never happens,” he said. “That is why we continue to call as a government for a process to investigate serious allegations of violation of international humanitarian law by both sides in the conflict.

“If credible and independent, such efforts could make an important contribution to reconciliation between Sri Lanka’s communities.”

He also praised the Tamil diaspora for renouncing the violence and “countless atrocities” committed by the Tamil Tigers, adding: “The road ahead no doubt will be long and hard … but I think the founding commitment not just to a fully inclusive political process, but to support non-violence as the means to achieve it, is something that speaks to the deepest values of the Tamil people.”

The UN estimates that around 7,000 people died in the final months of the fighting that culminated in the defeat of the Tamil Tigers.

More than 250,000 Tamils were interned in government-run camps, where around 100,000 remain. A further 11,000 are being held on suspicion of rebel links.

The conference also heard from a number of MPs, including Simon Hughes, Ed Davey, Keith Vaz and Virendra Sharma.

Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, also called for an investigation into allegations of human rights violations and war crimes.

He warned the government in Colombo that it would be judged by the international community on its political and judicial reforms and the way it treated the media.

“The Sri Lankan government must reach out and recognise their mistakes from the past,” he said. “We believe that what we believe are war crimes should be investigated.”

The shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, who closed the conference, said “meaningful political reform and reconciliation should be an urgent priority” for the Sri Lankan government and called for the release of the internally-displaced Tamils still held in camps.

The GTF, led by Father SJ Emmanuel, a 75-year-old Catholic priest, said the organisation was democratic and non-violent organisation and adhered to “the principles of emancipation promoted by Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King”.

It is dedicated to winning Tamil self-determination and finding and bringing to justice those responsible for “the genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity” that had been perpetrated against the Tamils.

A spokesman for the GTF said Colombo’s reaction to its meetings with the British government was “typical” of the Sri Lankan state’s attitude.

“It obviously shows that they are not serious about finding a peaceful solution,” he added.

Related posts:

1. Surrendering Tamils were massacred by Sri Lankan government says human rights group
2. Sri Lankan government killed surrendering Tamil Tigers, says general
3. Sri Lankan government evicted UN diplomat during Tamil Tiger endgame

Despite its shortcomings, scrapping Sri Lanka’s trade benefits would only impede its progress towards liberal democracy

Are Sri Lanka’s problems caused by too much democracy? Western analysts were dismayed by President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s recent election victory over General Sarath Fonseka, who led the military defeat of the Tamil Tigers. Criticism of Rajapaksa’s government increased following Fonseka’s subsequent arrest on sedition charges. Such condemnation belies ignorance of the democratisation process and of the Sri Lankan experience.

Sri Lanka’s political development is incomplete and, viewed from the west, frustratingly slow in delivering our definition of liberal democracy. We naively overlook the inconvenient truth that democracy (at least the liberal kind we demand of friend and foe alike) is only for the tolerant and the trustful.

After a lengthy civil war caused by a brutal ethnic and religious divide, it is no surprise that Sri Lankan voters view their political candidates through an ethno-religious prism. As Iraq and Afghanistan also demonstrate, blending democracy with ethnic and religious strife is a recipe for disappointment at best, bloodshed at worst.

Sri Lanka’s ethnic problems aren’t caused by democracy but they are highlighted, and arguably exacerbated, by it. However, the nation’s economic and political problems are traceable to the folly of elected officials and the demands of an electorate steeped in democratic practises but not in liberal democratic culture.

In Paradise Poisoned, international development expert John Richardson explained that unaffordable bidding wars among Sri Lankan candidates and parties stemmed from “early successes in public health, mass education and provision of basic entitlements [that] conditioned citizens to view government, rather than the market, as the principal source of both benefits and employment”.

When President Rajapaksa entered office four years ago, fate dealt him a poor hand. He has played it imperfectly, hence his critics’ complaints over corruption and nepotism. Clearly, Rajapaksa’s winning margin over Fonseka would not have been so large without lopsided state media coverage and a campaign environment intimidating to opposition parties.

The thousands of Sri Lankans protesting against Fonseka’s detention notwithstanding, it would be wrong to assume that Rajapaksa is anything other than the country’s most popular politician. Independent election monitors found no evidence of major fraud in the presidential election. Although Fonseka was clearly the more popular among minority Tamil and Muslim voters, voting along traditional ethnic and religious lines put him at a huge disadvantage, as the Sinhalese majority overwhelmingly supported Rajapaksa’s leadership.

Looking forward, when one considers the progress made against domestic terrorism, as well as the visible green shoots of economic development, it is once again conceivable that Sri Lanka could eventually become south Asia’s Singapore, known more for its pro-business culture than for its suicide bombers.

Although difficult for some western progressives to stomach, our contribution to the advancement of human rights (including General Fonseka’s) in Sri Lanka, will stem from positioning ourselves as Rajapaksa’s pragmatic ally, rather than as his idealistic antagonist. In practice, we should encourage a figurative “neighbourhood effect”, that is, encourage Sri Lanka’s immersion in the league of politically mature nations whose democratic habits and freedoms, it can be demonstrated, strengthen rather than weaken politicians’ security in office.

In the west, therefore, our pragmatic position on Sri Lanka’s political development should be simply, “Do no harm”.

That is why, for example, the EU would be wrong to carry through on its threat to withdraw Sri Lanka’s valuable GSP+ trade benefits. Economic development is the true catalyst for Sri Lanka’s political maturation. By eliminating trade benefits, the EU guarantees not only substantial problems for the Sri Lankan economy in general, but significant economic hardship for the country’s poorest citizens. The greater the poverty, the harder it will be for a liberal democratic culture to take root in Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan conundrum – how to advance political development without punishing the economically disenfranchised – is identical to the one we face in our relations with countries such as Iran and Cuba. And the unappetising answer is the same: we should encourage unfettered trade with all nations because it benefits both our workers and those foreign workers we seek to empower, economically and politically.

There may be no such thing as too much democracy, but there is such a thing as too much democracy too soon. Liberal democracy, history teaches us, is an evolutionary development rather than an overnight phenomenon. For those impatient with Colombo, that is a critical lesson.

Related posts:

1. The unacceptable face of Tamil nationalism| Pradeep Jeganathan

Jon Snow (Comment, 5 February) does little to enlighten the reader to the issue to which the Sri Lankan government sought redress. Since Channel 4’s report on the refugee camps, many of the events in the report have been identified as innuendo. There is also the allusion that Sri Lanka does not take these sorts of allegations seriously. This is not true. The Sri Lankan government has commissioned extensive independent investigations of any alleged human rights abuse. What we do not welcome, when we are seeking to secure a permanent peace and reconcile all our people, is inflammatory and unproven sensationalism. This is why Sri Lanka sought, through due procedures set out by Ofcom, a verdict on the report’s fairness. Sri Lanka has not “exploited” the procedures or sought to “silence” C4. This has been supported by Ofcom’s director of standards, Chris Banatvala (Ofcom not exploited, Letters, 8 February).

Kapila Fonseka

Sri Lanka high commission

Related posts:

1. Letters: Ofcom not exploited
2. A watchdog exploited | Jon Snow
3. Channel 4 can’t play it both ways when it comes to the law

No related posts.

Supporters of President Rajapaksa battle opposition demonstrators in Colombo over General Fonseka’s detention

Government supporters threw stones at thousands of opposition activists demonstrating today against the arrest of their defeated presidential candidate in Sri Lanka’s capital.

Clashes began outside the country’s supreme court, where opposition supporters gathered to protest the arrest of former army chief Sarath Fonseka, who was taken into custody by military police on Monday on sedition charges.

The opposition says the detention is illegal and an attempt to harass them ahead of new parliamentary elections scheduled for 8 April.

Government supporters – who decided to hold a counter-rally at the supreme court – threw rocks and chased away the opposition demonstrators. Police were deployed in the area and did not intervene at first. But once opposition members started fighting back the police shot teargas at them.

“We were walking peacefully when we were attacked by government goons,” said Marina Abdeen, an opposition supporter.

An AP photographer said some opposition members had bloody head wounds. A hospital official, Pushpa Soyza, said three civilians and two policemen were treated for minor wounds.

Thousands of opposition supporters demanded Fonseka’s release while burning life-sized posters of the president, Mahinda Rajapaksa. They smashed coconuts, a local tradition based on a belief it could bring divine intervention to their cause.

The clash is the first salvo in what promises to be a bruising pre-election period leading up to the parliamentary poll. It follows an acrimonious presidential election in which Rajapaksa secured a landslide victory over Fonseka.

Opposition members said yesterday they would launch a series of countrywide protests following Fonseka’s detention.

Related posts:

1. Sri Lanka’s president Mahinda Rajapaksa dissolves parliament
2. Sri Lankans question new Tamil Tigers leader after arrest
3. Sri Lankan general held in crackdown

Decision comes day after arrest of opposition leader General Sarath Fonseka, whom he defeated in last month’s election

Sri Lanka’s president dissolved parliament today in a move aimed at consolidating his power after easily winning a second term last month.

Mahinda Rajapaksa’s decision to call for parliamentary elections came the day after the arrest of General Sarath Fonseka, the opposition leader he crushed in last month’s presidential poll. The stage is now set for elections to choose 225 MPs, with the date to be set by the elections commissioner.

Fonseka’s arrest on charges of sedition prompted opposition calls for nationwide protests and emotional appeals from his wife for his release.

Anoma Fonseka called on Sri Lankan “mothers, daughters and sisters” to “come together to do something” to free her husband. She told a packed press conference that Fonseka – the former four-star general who helped defeat the Tamil Tiger rebels last year – had been treated “like an animal” when he was arrested during a meeting of opposition parties at his campaign headquarters in Colombo.

“Today it has happened to myself but tomorrow it will happen to you so we have to do something. Is this a democracy in our country?” she said in emotional scenes broadcast widely in the region.

The Sri Lankan government responded with a statement saying that Fonseka would face a court martial on charges of conspiring against the president, describing the 59-year-old soldier turned politician as “hell-bent on betraying the gallant armed forces of Sri Lanka”.

A military spokesman, Major General Prasad Samarasinghe, denied that Fonseka was cut off from family or friends.

“Family members are allowed to see him and he has been allowed to obtain legal advice also,” he said.

Rauff Hakeem, an opposition politician who witnessed the arrest, said Fonseka was physically carried from his office by military police yesterday afternoon. Around 20 of Fonseka’s associates and allies are also reported to be in detention.

Though analysts expected a closer result, Rajapaksa won the 26 January election by a 17% margin. Election observers said they had not seen evidence of significant fraud despite claims of rigging by the defeated candidate.

Opposition to Rajapaksa is fragmented. Fonseka, who has been accused of involvement in human rights abuses as commanding officer of a series of offensives against the Tamil Tiger insurgents, led a varied coalition which included ultra-nationalist Sinhalese Marxists and former Tamil separatists.

“The only thing that united the opposition was a common desire to get rid of Rajapaksa,” said Alan Keenan, a senior analyst with the International Crisis Group. “Fonseka was a deeply flawed candidate but there is now no clear figurehead around whom people can rally.”

One consequence of the arrest, Keenan said, was that the opposition would face greater difficulties in the parliamentary elections, which have to be held by April.

A government minister, Keheliya Rambukwella, said Fonseka would be tried in a military court because the alleged offences had been committed while he was army chief.

“When he was the army commander and chief of defence staff and member of the security council, he had direct contact with opposition political parties, which under the military law can amount to conspiracy,” Rambukwella said. It is understood that the general may also face a second trial in civilian courts.

Local reporters in Colombo said that the atmosphere in the Sri Lankan capital was “deeply uneasy”.

Related posts:

1. President Mahinda Rajapaksa wins Sri Lanka election
2. Sri Lanka president Mahinda Rajapaksa wins election
3. Sri Lanka president Mahinda Rajapaksa takes lead in election

Related posts:

1. Pakistan police arrest suspect in attack on Sri Lankan cricket team
2. Sri Lankan police raid office of defeated presidential candidate
3. Sri Lankan general held in crackdown

Defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka to face coup attempt charge as row over election result takes dramatic turn

The defeated candidate in last month’s tense presidential election in Sri Lanka, General Sarath Fonseka, was arrested today at his office in Colombo and is to be charged with attempting a military coup to overthrow the government.

The sudden arrest of the 59-year-old former chief of Sri Lankan armed forces and the architect of their bloody but successful campaign against the Tamil Tigers last year, sparked fears of a widespread crackdown on opponents of the incumbent president, Mahindra Rajapakse.

A government spokesman confirmed that Fonseka had been arrested, saying he had been detained for “committing military offences”.

Later government minister Keheliya Rambukwella said Fonseka would be tried in a military court on charges of conspiring against the president and planning a coup while army chief.

“When he was the army commander and chief of defence staff and member of the security council, he had direct contact with opposition political parties, which under the military law can amount to conspiracy,” Rambukwella said.

“He’s been plotting against the president while in the military … with the idea of overthrowing the government,” he added.

Fonseka’s wife is reported to have confirmed the detention of her husband following an increase in the number of security forces deployed outside the hotel he used as an office during the day.

Allies of Fonseka described his arrest during the course of a p­lanning meeting with political allies. Rauff Hakeem, leader of the Muslim Congress party, told Reuters that the general had been “dragged away in a very disgraceful manner in front of our own eyes”.

Fonseka appears to have resisted arrest. Mano Ganeshan, an opposition member of parliament, said the general was “forcibly carried away” after having objected to being arrested by military police rather than civilian officials.

“He was humiliated and disgraced in the way he was handled. We were just flabbergasted,” Ganeshan said.

Fonseka, who has repeatedly alleged that the elections were fraudulently won by Rajapakse, was planning to campaign in parliamentary polls due to be held by April.

Speculation about the detention of the general had mounted over the weekend with Sri Lankan newspapers reporting on Sunday that Rajapakse had sought legal advice from government lawyers about trying his political rival in a military court.

Hours before his arrest, Fonseka, who himself has been accused of a range of human rights abuses during the fighting against the Tamil Tigers last year, had said he was prepared to give evidence at international tribunals investigating the 25-year-long civil war. “I am definitely going to reveal what I know, what I was told and what I heard. Anyone who has committed war crimes should be brought into the courts,” the BBC reported him as saying.

Related posts:

1. Top Sri Lankan general resigns and may challenge for presidency
2. Sri Lanka’s president Mahinda Rajapaksa dissolves parliament
3. Sri Lankan government killed surrendering Tamil Tigers, says general

Denial of injunction over Jackson show case flags up challenges for C4’s new chief executive

Channel 4 is in court for a documentary it aired last year on the pressing issue of the putative relocation of the Jacksons, the American musical family, to a seaside resort in Devon. Now it is not, as you may think, that the broadcaster is in the dock for wasting the public’s time and some of the earth’s dwindling resources on this criminal act of televisual inanity – rather it is a libel hearing revolving around accusations of elements of fakery.

In an attempt to make sure that the jury was not swayed by coverage of an initial hearing, C4 sought, but was denied, an injunction on reporting of the proceedings. The details of the alleged libel itself are so mind-bogglingly trivial as to not merit the effort of typing, save for comedic value. But the underlying principle is important.

When the already stressed system of reporting truly significant issues is further pressured by a rising number of libel actions, injunctions and superinjunctions, for a public service broadcaster to be seeking to curb reporting of a case in which it is involved is rather shocking. While one may have some sympathy with C4’s anxiety about a jury not approaching the case with entirely open minds, it is clearly wrong in principle for it to be seeking to injunct other media organisations.

Last week, Jon Snow wrote in the Guardian about a profoundly serious case of a Channel 4 News report that appeared to show men in Sri Lankan army uniforms carrying out summary executions. The report’s authenticity was challenged by the Sri Lankan government through complaints to Ofcom. Snow’s alarm over who should be allowed access to its complaints system deserves attention, as does the idea of a regulator so robust, fair and impartial as to render it unimportant who complains to it.

But the overarching link between the stupid matter of Tito Jackson’s thatched cottage and Snow’s reservations about Ofcom is one of press freedom, scrutiny and control. For C4 to be on both sides of the same argument simultaneously suggests there is immediate work for its new chief executive, David Abraham, to do when he arrives.

The issue gives him a taste of what life is going to be like in an arena that combines commercial imperatives, public service purpose and a far higher public profile. Even if C4’s future is as a more commercial entity, it is vital that media institutions not only advocate journalistic freedoms but that they behave in a way consistent with that.

Once, when Greg Dyke was the BBC’s director general, he chose not to hold a press conference for the publication of its annual review. You could sympathise with his unwillingness to be quizzed by the Daily Mail over croissant consumption at in-house breakfasts, but it was a completely wrong-headed decision for an institution employing thousands of journalists.

One can imagine Snow and his Channel 4 News colleagues wincing on learning their ultimate employer was spending money on trying to injunct the press. David Sherborne, barrister for the plaintiff in the libel action, noted it was unique in his experience to have a media organisation seeking such an injunction. It is quite possible, with all the other excitement going on at C4’s Horseferry Road HQ, that its programming and legal executives were asleep at the wheel when an injunction was proposed. The challenge for Abraham and his team is instilling a corporate culture making it impossible for such a situation to arise in the first place. Even if C4 loses its libel action, and even if the jury is swayed by the pre-trial coverage, that will still be less costly for the organisation in the long term than encouraging and supporting a culture of injunction and restraint.

Related posts:

1. Letters: Ofcom not exploited
2. A watchdog exploited | Jon Snow
3. Letters: Sri Lanka and C4

Jon Snow is absolutely right when he says that Ofcom’s complaints function must not be used by governments “to curb … investigative reporting [to] hide from public scrutiny” (A watchdog exploited, 5 February). But, contrary to the suggestion contained in your ­headline, Ofcom did not allow the Sri Lankan government to exploit our procedures, when it complained about Channel 4 News broadcasting footage of the apparent atrocities committed against the Tamils.

Ofcom has an excellent track record in defending freedom of speech for legitimate investigative journalism (for example, our decision in Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque).

In this Sri Lankan case, Ofcom did not take forward the Sri Lankan ­government’s fairness complaint and rejected its impartiality and accuracy complaint.

Ofcom has a statutory duty to ensure that broadcasters comply with the broadcasting code, irrespective of the identity of any complainant. As the Channel 4 News presenter points out – only parliament can change that.

Chris Banatvala

Director of standards, Ofcom

Related posts:

1. Letters: Sri Lanka and C4
2. A watchdog exploited | Jon Snow
3. Channel 4 can’t play it both ways when it comes to the law