தமிழ் ஊடகங்கள் மூடிமறைத்த ஜெயா அரசின் செங்கல்ப்பட்டுக் கைதிகளின் மாவீரர் நினைவு மண்டபத் தகர்ப்பு!

TN Police thwart LTTE Martyrs' Day

 by Our Chennai Correspondent

Tamil Nadu Police have thwarted attempts made by Sri Lankan refugees to commemorate LTTE martyrs at the Chenkalpattu refugee camp on Tuesday (26).

A special police team stormed the camp and demolished the commemorative stone and removed all decorations put up in yellow and red inside the camp premises, reports from Chennai said.

The Special Chenkalpattu Camp, which houses around 100 Lankan refugees, was also thoroughly searched by the special police team, which had banned the commemoration.

The Sri Lankan refugees who had made arrangements for the commemoration chanted slogans against the Tamil Nadu Police and the Government of Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, for interrupting the commemoration ceremony.

Police officers responding to the Chenkalpattu Lankan refugees, said they would not be allowed to commemorate LTTE cadres as the outfit is proscribed in India, sources said.
=========

குறிப்பு: இந்தக் கோர நிகழ்வை, பண்பாட்டுப் படுகொலையை தமிழ் ஊடகங்கள் திட்டமிட்டு மூடிமறைத்து விட்டன. ஜெயா அரசின் செங்கல்ப்பட்டுக் கைதிகளின் மாவீரர் நினைவு மண்டபத் தகர்ப்பை மட்டுமல்ல, முள்ளி முற்றத் தகர்ப்பையும் இவை ஒருமித்து மறைத்து விட்டன.ஜெயா அரசின் சட்டமன்றத் தீர்மானங்களுக்கு செஞ்சோற்றுக் கடன் தீர்க்கும் பொருட்டு இந்த ஈனச்செயலை இவர்கள் செய்துள்ளனர்.இந்த சந்தர்ப்பவாத சமரச துரோகப் பாதை, இவர்கள் யாருக்கு சேவகம் செய்கின்றார்கள் என்பதைத் தோலுரித்துக்காட்டுகின்றது.

Will China leave Rajapaksa in the lurch?

Will China leave Rajapaksa in the lurch?

China's recent advice to Sri Lanka that she should improve on her human rights record, had apparently caused shockwaves to reverberate within the higher echelons of government, sources revealed. The magnitude of government's angst in relation to the statement issued by Chinese Foreign Ministry is easily
conceivable, when the subsequent clarification by the Chinese Embassy, is looked at in its proper perspective.

 The Chinese Embassy did not deny the statement of its Foreign Ministry, which advised the Sri Lankan Government to improve on its human rights record. The clarification by the Embassy merely states that the local media had twisted the statement issue by the Chinese Foreign Ministry. Those in the know of backroom manoeuvrings in such matters, may well surmise that the Embassy's statement could have been inspired by the government so as to dispel any doubts in the minds of the common masses who are somewhat conditioned to think that China will act as a safety net when the country is faced with hostile forces in the UNHRC.

A notable fact in this issue is that the Chinese statement on human rights in Sri Lanka comes right after it was admitted as a member of the UNHRC. Before it was elected to the UN body as a member, and when any motion was brought in condemnation of Sri Lanka's human rights record, China sprang to its defence
without any hesitancy. This apparent change of tact by China in relation to the human rights position of the country is rather enigmatic, at least in so far as the government is concerned.

Heavily dependent on China

It is no secret that the Rajapaksa Government depends heavily on Chinese goodwill to help it get out of trouble when serious human rights and war crimes allegations are brought against the country in the UNHRC. In fact, the government has been able to plant it in the minds of its supporters, purely by dint of repetition.

However, those opposing the government dislike China for protecting the Rajapaksa Government. The peoples' differing sentiments on this issue apart, one fact stands out clearly. It is that, Mahinda plays the China card internally or externally, exclusively for political advantage. Internally, it keeps his government strong as his supporters assume that he has the fullest backing from China. Externally, he uses it to chaste India when he deems it necessary to do so.

In light of the foregoing, it may not be too far from the truth if one were to think the statement of the Chinese Foreign Ministry was a body blow to the Rajapaksa Government. Ipso facto, India cannot be more comfortable when quietly savouring the developing scenario. So far, the mandarins of the Indian foreign office were in a quandary as to the possible outcome of India's tight squeeze on Sri Lanka, by voting for the UNHRC resolution at Geneva. They felt alarmed that India, by subscribing to a Western agenda against Sri Lanka on its human rights record, was losing its influence in South Asia, thereby giving an advantage to
China. But now that China has also taken up the call for the protection of human rights as an issue in Sri Lanka, India must feel vindicated. It is not irrelevant here to consider what made China issue a statement which could in all probability rattle the Rajapaksa Government. It reminds one of a parallel situation which arose during the presidency of J.R. Jayewardene. When the war was raging in the North during his tenure, India made an all out effort to sabotage Sri Lanka's war against the terrorists. What JR did then was to send his Finance Minister, Ronnie de Mel, to America, to get help for the country's war effort. Quite interestingly,
when Ronnie met the then American Secretary of State, he did a rather unusual thing. He led Ronnie to a map hanging on the wall of his office and showed him the distances between Sri Lanka, America and India. He advised him to tell his government to settle their contentious issues by mutual agreement.

How America saw the conclusion of the India-Sri Lanka Peace Accord at the time is described in the book titled, Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, as quoted below.

 US Interests

 "Was Indian dominance over Sri Lanka a loss to the US? The letters exchanged in the July 1987 Accord was a clear loss for the United States in the Indian Ocean region, but in spite of this implication, the US Government praised the Accord. The letters referred to the availability of ports, particularly Trincomalee, the Trincomalee oil tank farm deal, the broadcasting facilities and the presence of foreign military and intelligence personnel. Even though all of these concerned US interests in the region, US policy which is based on long-term strategic interests was to ignore and establish a strategic alliance with India. This explained the US reaction to the Indo-Lanka conflict and the ethnic crisis in Sri Lanka.

An official of the Bureau of Research and Intelligence of the US State Department, Washington D.C., informed the author that the letters of the Accord was a direct attack on American interests. The then US Ambassador in Colombo, James Spain, disagreed. He said: "(It) depends on which pair of glasses you put on.

Nobody wanted the facilities of the Indians, and the Indians were scared of." Commenting further on the Accord, Spain said: "Both the Sri Lankans and the Indians got what they wanted out of each other." When asked whether the Americans were aware of the Accord in advance, Spain said: "We first got to know about it when the ongoing discussions between the Voice of America and the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation were suddenly suspended."

India important to the US

At this time, America should have helped Sri Lanka, especially in view of the fact that it had agreed to provide certain requests made by America, namely facilitation of setting up of a VOA relay station in the country, and granting Trincomalee oil tanks leasing facilities to an American company. Due to Indian influence, America might have decided to withhold its support to Sri Lanka as India was more important to it. In like manner, if by any chance China was to be asked by India who would be more important to it from the two sides, there would be little wonder if it did not choose India over Sri Lanka. If India conveys to China directly, or indirectly through America, that it has no complaint against China having investment projects in Sri Lanka as long as it goes along with them in the matter of human right issues pertaining to the country, they would naturally prefer to work with India and the international community. This will be to China's advantage as it could then hold up its own human rights record in better light.

China's true commitment to human rights issues will be brought under the spotlight when the Sri Lankan case is brought to the UNHRC next March.

Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll

Even if the Iran deal fails, 49 percent want the United States to then increase sanctions and 31 percent think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want U.S. military force to be used against Iran.

 Reuters/Ipsos poll

Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll
BY MATT SPETALNICK
WASHINGTON Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49pm EST

(Reuters) - Americans back a newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran by a 2-to-1 margin and are very wary of the United States resorting to military action against Tehran even if the historic diplomatic effort falls through, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Tuesday.

The findings were rare good news in the polls for President Barack Obama, whose approval ratings have dropped in recent weeks because of the botched rollout of his signature healthcare reform law.

According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal reached between Iran and six world powers in Geneva last weekend, and 22 percent oppose it.

While indicating little trust among Americans toward Iranian intentions, the survey also underscored a strong desire to avoid new U.S. military entanglements after long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if the Iran deal fails, 49 percent want the United States to then increase sanctions and 31 percent think it should launch further diplomacy. But only 20 percent want U.S. military force to be used against Iran.

The survey's results suggest that a U.S. public weary of war could help bolster Obama's push to keep Congress from approving new sanctions that would complicate the next round of negotiations for a final agreement with Iran.

"This absolutely speaks to war fatigue, where the American appetite for intervention - anywhere - is extremely low," Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said. "It could provide some support with Congress for the arguments being made by the administration."

Tehran accepted temporary restrictions on its nuclear program in exchange for limited relief from tough economic sanctions under the Geneva deal, which the White House sees as a "first step" toward ensuring that Iran cannot develop an atomic bomb.

Obama and his aides are casting the Iran deal as the best alternative to a new Middle East conflict as they push back against skeptical lawmakers and close U.S. ally Israel who accuse Washington of giving up too much for too little.

A number of lawmakers, especially Republicans, have insisted they will try to enact stiffer new sanctions, which the Obama administration says would poison the negotiating atmosphere during the six months allotted to achieve a long-term accord.

But signs of significant public support for the Iran deal could give some of Obama's own pro-Israel Democrats, who may fear being branded as inadequately supportive of the Jewish state in the 2014 U.S. congressional elections, political cover to stick with the president.

SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL REMAINS HIGH

Reflecting deep suspicions over Iran's sincerity after more than three decades of estrangement between the two countries, the poll shows that 63 percent of Americans believe Tehran's nuclear program is intended to develop a bomb - although Iran says the project is only for civilian purposes.

Despite that, 65 percent of those polled agreed that the United States "should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened." Only 21 percent disagreed with the statement.

There was every indication, however, that American public support for Israel remained high despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's denunciation of the Iran deal as a "historic mistake" and new strains in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Fifty percent supported the notion that the United States "should use its military power to defend Israel against threats to its security, no matter where they come from." Thirty-one percent disagreed.

Even as the poll showed a moderately favorable response to Obama's attempt at rapprochement with Iran, the diplomatic breakthrough did not appear to have offered any immediate political boost at home to the embattled president. Foreign affairs rarely trump domestic matters in terms of presidential popularity.

"This might have an effect on some of the political dialogue," Clark said. "But I don't think it's a game-changer that's going to reverse the tide from the president's current pretty negative approval ratings."

A separate Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll on Tuesday showed Obama's approval rating languishing at 38 percent, with 56 percent disapproving of the way he is handling his job. He spent the past three days on a swing through Western states trying to recover lost ground over his flawed healthcare rollout.

The final outcome of Obama's Iran engagement strategy remains uncertain, but success would mean a big legacy-shaping achievement that might help to polish what is widely perceived to be a less than stellar foreign policy record.

But if the talks break down and Iran dashes to build an atomic bomb before the West can stop it, Obama could go into the history books as the president whose naivete allowed the Islamic Republic to go nuclear.

The precision of Reuters/Ipsos online polls is measured using a credibility interval. In this case, the poll - which was conducted from Sunday through Tuesday with 591 respondents - has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

(Reporting by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Alistair Bell and Peter Cooney)

Punish those who celebrated Mahavir – JHU

Sobitha helaurumaya

Punish those who celebrated Mahavir – JHU

Published on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 20:06

Ruling UPFA affiliate Jathika Hela Urumaya demands the government enforces the law and punishes those who had celebrated the LTTE heroes day and formulates new laws if the existing ones are inadequate to mete out the punishment.

In a statement, JHU leader Ven. Omalpe Sobhitha Thera says TNA MP S. Sridharan had made a nearly ½ hour speech in parliament in which he had referred to the birthday of Velupillai Prabhakaran and the LTTE heroes day, describing the slain LTTE chief as a national hero and a liberator.

Also, lamps were lit and red and yellow flowers offered at Karaveddi Pradeshiya Sabha in Jaffna to remember dead LTTE cadres, attended by TNA members.

The statement says that from time to time since the defeat of the Tamil separatist Tiger terrorism in 2009, the TNA and pro-LTTE groups had tried to hold such remembrances.

By now, the TNA, which serves as the LTTE’s front, has been bold enough to extend such acts to parliament.

Also north chief minister Vigneswaran had compared Prabhakaran to freedom fighter Keppetipola, while Suresh Premachandran called for a taking up of arms once again, says the Thera.

The military has been saying over and over again that it is illegal to hold LTTE heroes days and remembrances, while the police spokesman said the law would be enforced against those who hold such events.

The law should be enforced now to prevent a recurrence before it is too late, and the government has a responsibility to nip those attempts in the bud, the JHU leader adds.

Parliament: TNA MP condemned for lionising dead Tiger leader

 '' I request Sritharan to consider Sri Lanka as a country of one nation comprising several communities," Minister Dissanayake said.

MP.Sritharan

Parliament: TNA MP condemned for lionising dead Tiger leader

November 26, 2013, 9:20 pm
By Saman Indrajith

The government and the Opposition joined forces in Parliament yesterday to condemn a speech delivered by TNA Jaffna District MP S. Sritharan, praising the dead LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He said that Prabhakaran was a national hero and called upon Tamils to commemorate his death.

MP Sritharan was condemned by MPs of both sides for attempting to deliver the Mahaveera commemorative lecture in Parliament.

Sritharan, participating in the second reading stage debate on Budget 2014, read out from a piece of paper that he had brought into the Chamber. He was delivering his speech in the Tamil language. There were several MPs, on both sides, listening to Sritharan’s speech. After he had delivered a speech, lasting nearly

half an hour, on the life of Prabhakaran and justifying the LTTE’s violence, Higher Education Minister S. B. Dissanayake said the MP had violated the country’s laws. "I came here today to deliver a speech on the budget, but now I am compelled to talk about something else. Prabhakaran was a criminal who killed not

only Sinhalese but also Tamils. Who killed the leaders of EPDP, TULF, and TELO? It was Prabahakaran! He was the one who caused irrecoverable losses to the Tamil community by killing Tamil leaders such as Lakshman Kadirgamar and Neelan Thiruchelvam.

Prabahakaran also killed his own people who tried to surrender to the government."

Minister Dissanayake requested MP Sritharan not to fan the flames of racial hatred and not to depict a ruthless terrorist as a hero. Prabahakaran had killed so many innocent civilians and looted their monies and jewellery. It was very pathetic that MP Sritharan was calling for a Mahaviru Commemoration to mark

Prabhakarans’ birth anniversary. I request Sritharan to consider Sri Lanka as a country of one nation comprising several communities," Minister Dissanayake said.

UNP Kurunegala District MP Akila Viraj Kariyawasam, too, condemned Sritharan’s attempt.

Vanni District UPFA MP Hunais Farook, got up raising a point of order and requested the Chair to remove all Sritharan’s statements promoting ethnic and racial disharmony.

The presiding Member was Deputy Committee Chairman Chandrakumar Murugesu, representing Jaffna District. He ordered that all what MP Sritharan had mentioned, in violation of Standing Orders, of Parliament, be expunged from the Hansard.