SHARE

Sunday, July 17, 2016

இன்றைய உலக முரண்பாடு பற்றி

THE BIG PICTURE 
 பரந்த பார்வை

அபரிமித அராஜக உலகமய உற்பத்திமுறையே உலகின் அடிப்படை முரண்பாடு


உலக மறுபங்கீடே உலகின் பிரதான முரண்பாடு.

உலகில் எந்த ஒரு நாட்டின்,தேசத்தின்,சோசலிச,
புதிய ஜனநாயக,தேசிய புரட்சி இயக்கமும்,

ஏற்றத்தாழ்வான பொருள் உற்பத்தி வளர்ச்சி காரணமாக

இனத்துவ,மதத்துவ விடுதலைப்
போர் இயக்கமும்,

இம் முரண்பாடுகளின்
வெளிப்படையும்,
அவற்றுக்கு கீழ்ப்பட்டவையுமே ஆகும்!


Friday, July 15, 2016

எந்தப்பாதையில் ஈழ மக்கள்?


சிங்களத்தின் இறைமைக்கு உட்பட்டதே சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றம்- அமெரிக்கா


“ஜெனிவா தீர்மானம் இலங்கையின் இறைமையை முழுமையாக மதிக்கிறது. சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம்.

தமது இறைமைக்குட்பட்ட வரையறைக்குள் இருந்து கொண்டே, பல்வேறு மட்டங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியும் என்று இலங்கை வாக்குறுதியைக் கொடுத்திருக்கிறது.



போர்க்குற்றங்கள் தொடர்பான சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம் என்று, அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் ஜனநாயகம்,  மனித உரிமைகள், மற்றும் தொழிலாளர் விவகாரங்களுக்கான உதவிச் செயலர் ரொம் மாலினோவ்ஸ்கி தெரிவித்துள்ளார்.

அமெரிக்க இராஜாங்கத் திணைக்களத்தின் தெற்கு மத்திய ஆசிய விவகாரங்களுக்கான உதவிச்செயலர் நிஷா பிஸ்வாலுடன் இணைந்து இலங்கைக்கு மேற்கொண்ட பயணத்தின் முடிவில் நேற்றிரவு கொழும்பில் செய்தியாளர்களைச் சந்தித்த போதே அவர் இவ்வாறு கூறியுள்ளார்.

போர்க்குற்றங்கள் தொடர்பான சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தில் வெளிநாட்டு நீதி்பதிகளை உள்ளடக்கும் விவகாரம் தொடர்பாக எழுப்பப்பட்ட கேள்வி ஒன்றுக்குப் பதிலளித்த ரொம் மாலினோவ்ஸ்கி,

“ஜெனிவா தீர்மானம் இலங்கையின் இறைமையை முழுமையாக மதிக்கிறது. சிறப்பு நீதிமன்றத்தின் கட்டமைப்பு மற்றும் உள்ளடக்கத்தை தீர்மானிப்பது, இலங்கை அரசாங்கத்தைப் பொறுத்த விடயம்.

தமது இறைமைக்குட்பட்ட வரையறைக்குள் இருந்து கொண்டே, பல்வேறு மட்டங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பைப் பெற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியும் என்று இலங்கை வாக்குறுதியைக் கொடுத்திருக்கிறது.

இலங்கை நீதிமன்றங்களின் மீதான அவநம்பிக்கைகளால் தான் இந்த வாக்குறுதி அளிக்கப்பட்டது. மீண்டும் நம்பிக்கையைக் கட்டியெழுப்புவது என்பதை இலக்காகக் கொண்டு தான், ஒட்டுமொத்த பொறுப்புக்கூறல் செயல்முறைகள் தொடர்பாகவும், இந்த வாக்குறுதி  புரிந்துணர்வு அடிப்படையில் கொடுக்கப்பட்டது.

நீதிமன்றங்களில் அனைத்துலக பங்களிப்பு  குறிப்பிடத்தக்க ஒரு விடயமாக இருக்கவில்லை.

ஏனைய நாடுகளுக்கு இலங்கை தனது நீதித்துறை நிபுணத்துவப் பங்களிப்பை வழங்கியிருக்கிறது. ஒருவேளை இலங்கையும் அதிலிருந்து பயன்பெறலாம்” என்றும் அவர் தெரிவித்தார்.

The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold

Pic ============         Added      ===============  ENB
The “New Cold War” is No Longer Cold: NATO Expands Military Presence along Russia’s Border, Lying All the Way to Barbarossa II

By Tony Cartalucci
Global Research, July 11, 2016 New Eastern Outlook 11 July 2016

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

From the ongoing refugee crisis triggered by NATO’s own global-spanning and ongoing military interventions, invasions, and occupations, to its continued expansion along Russia’s borders – violating every convention and “norm” that existed during the Cold War to keep it “cold,”

NATO has proven that it is to the populations it poses as protector over, in fact, their greatest threat.

In particular, the summit in Warsaw, Poland centered on NATO’s expanding military presence along Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as in Poland itself.

The summit also covered ongoing NATO involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, two nations so far beyond the Atlantic states the alliance allegedly was founded to protect, it would be comical if the consequences of their far-reaching meddling weren’t so serious.

Pic ============         Added      ===============  ENB
Belligerence Vs Balance 

Global peace and stability is tenuously maintained through a careful balancing act between conflicting centers of power. The story of human history is that of this balancing act being performed.

World War II, which gave way to the current international order we live in, came about because of a fundamental failure to maintain this balancing act.

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of World War II’s genesis, was the German military build-up along the then Soviet Union’s borders characterized by Berlin at the time as a means of collective defense for Europe, when in fact it was the lead up to a full-scale invasion known now as “Operation Barbarossa.” It is troublesome particularly because NATO is currently building up its forces in almost precisely the same areas and in almost precisely the same manner Nazi Germany did in the 1930s.

When German forces crossed into Russia on June 22, 1941, a potential balance of power meant to preserve Germany and the rest of Europe against perceived Soviet menace turned into a war that devastated both Europe and Russia.

The subsequent Cold War is an example of a balancing act of power being performed mostly with success. However, despite many common misconceptions regarding the Cold War, the mere existence of opposing nuclear arsenals and the concept of mutually assured destruction was not why balance was maintained.

Instead, balance was maintained by an immense framework, painstakingly constructed by both American and Soviet leaders, at the cost of both nations’ egos, pride, and interests and involved everything from agreements about the weaponization of space, to the composition and deployment of their nuclear arsenals, and even regarding defense systems designed to protect against nuclear first strikes.

There were also specific and complex agreements arranged over the deployment of troops along each respective center of powers’ borders, including the borders of nations that existed within their spheres of influence.

It was clear during the Cold War that both Washington and Moscow vied to expand their respective reach over the rest of the world, resulting in proxy wars everywhere from the Middle East to South America, and from Africa to Asia in a “low-intensity” bid – relative to all-out nuclear war – to gain the upper-hand.

Preceding and in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, tentacles of Western influence had finally prevailed, and reached deep within Russia itself, eroding not only Russia’s own institutions and national sovereignty, but unsettling the global balance of power that had existed for decades after World War II.

It was only during the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin that this trend was reversed and something resembling global balance reemerged.

It was clear that during the early 2000’s, whatever progress the US had made in dismantling the remnants of Soviet checks to its otherwise unlimited desire for global hegemony, would need to come to an end, and a new framework mirroring that of the Cold War, established to accommodate emerging global powers including the Russian Federation

But this is not what happened.



The New Build-Up 

Instead, under the administration of US President George Bush and continued under that of President Barack Obama, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was unilaterally withdrawn from by the United States.

Additionally, the United States –

Pic ===       Added      ===  ENB                                                  beginning in the 1990s and continuing until today as seen in Ukraine – has funded and backed various political coups across Eastern Europe under the guise of “promoting democracy,” installing client states along Russia’s borders. Attempts to undermine and overthrow governments continues in nations like Belarus and Azerbaijan, as well as the Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

Nations successfully overthrown and co-opted by Washington have been systematically turned against Russia economically, politically, and militarily. These nations are almost immediately folded into NATO’s military alliance. In 2008 for example, the US client regime in Georgia would invade the Russian-backed republic of South Ossetia, precipitating a full-scale Russian response in what many believe was a NATO attempt to test Russian resolve. It is reminiscent of Nazi-Soviet geopolitical jousting in Finland just before Operation Barbarossa commenced.

Ukraine, overthrown in a NATO-backed putsch between 2013-2014, has also taken a hostile posture toward Russia, and again, Western military aggression, seeking Ukraine as a vector through which to strike deeper at Russia is a direct replay of events that unfolded during World War II.

The story of NATO post-Cold War has been one of confrontation, not of fostering security or stability.

Instead of working on a new framework to establish global stability by recognizing a new emerging balance of power between East and West,

NATO has attempted to “race” in a reckless bid to expand its own influence as far and wide as possible before this balance of power establishes itself through the realities of military, political, and economic force

It appears that NATO may even be contemplating the destabilization and overthrow of the political order in Moscow itself with attempts to foster terrorism in Russia’s southern regions through massive NATO-backed conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the funding and support of hostile political fronts all across Russia.

A Gradient of Balance Versus a New Cold War 


Today, very easily, a gradient of balance can be established between North America, Europe, Russia, and Asia – where the best benefits of dealing with each other could be enjoyed by all. The only requirements would be first allowing Europe to develop a foreign policy that reflected the best interests of its own governments, people, and industry, and second, the ability for Washington, London, and Brussels to abandon their unrealistic designs toward global hegemony and opt instead for a more realistic balance of multipolar power.

NATO precludes all of this – effectively coercing Europe into a zero sum game with Russia, just as it had done during the Cold War.

Europe faces many threats. But none of them from Russia. It is flooded by refugees fleeing NATO wars. It is weathering instability in nations like Ukraine, whose political order was upended by NATO-backed political violence. And Europe is plagued by the irresponsible, reckless actions of prospective NATO members like Georgia, run by incompetent regimes installed by and for Washington’s best interests, not the stability and long-term interests of the European people.

Europe’s leadership has clearly demonstrated no interest in recognizing these realities. It will be up to the European people themselves to demand a more rational shift away from the various, intentionally manipulative strategies of tension NATO has cultivated, and toward a more sensible and independent relationship with the world beyond the Atlantic alliance.

There has been much talk of Britain’s leaving of the European Union. Perhaps it is time for the European Union to leave the long and corrosive influence of Anglo-American interests and institutions.

Until then, the people of Europe should examine closely the lessons of history of aggressive expansion toward Russia’s borders, the lies such expansion was predicated upon, and the consequences those lies had on the security and stability of Europe when finally they were exposed
through the unfolding conspiracy they were designed to obfuscate.

The wheel of history turns not because our hands are on it, turning it, but because our apathy and ignorance has prevented our hands from stopping it.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, espe14:44 14/07/2016cially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook
Copyright © Tony Cartalucci, New Eastern Outlook, 2016

Thursday, July 14, 2016

இங்கிலாந்தைக் கவ்வும் இருள்



Brexiteer Boris Johnson: Britain’s New “Undiplomatic Top Diplomat” Foreign Minister…

By Stephen Lendman Global Research, July 14, 2016

New UK Prime Minister Theresa May made key ministerial changes straightaway in office.

Notably she named former London mayor/leading Brexiteer proponent Boris Johnson as foreign minister, shifting incumbent Philip Hammond to finance ministerial duties.

David Cameron’s chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne was sacked, earlier seen as the favorite for Tory leadership, now out of government entirely.

Johnson is no stranger to controversy. Earlier he called Obama “the part-Kenyan president.” He complained about him allegedly removing a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office, attributing it to an “ancestral dislike of the British empire.”

He criticized Obama for pressuring Brits to stay in the EU, calling his meddling “outrageous and exorbitant hypocrisy,” adding:

“In urging us to embed ourselves more deeply in the EU’s federalizing structures, the Americans are urging us down a course they would never dream of going themselves.”

“That is because they are a nation conceived in liberty (sic). They sometimes seem to forget that we are quite fond of liberty (sic), too.”

“For the United States to tell us in the UK that we must surrender control of so much of our democracy (sic) – it is a breathtaking example of the principle of do-as-I-say-but-not-as-I-do. It is incoherent. It is inconsistent, and yes it is downright hypocritical.”

Last year, Johnson blasted Hillary Clinton, comparing her to Lady Macbeth. During her 2008 presidential campaign, he said

“(s)he’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.”

He recently said

“(t)he only reason (he) wouldn’t visit some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.”

Last year he called Vladimir Putin “a ruthless and manipulative tyrant.” Expect no improvement in UK/Russia relations.

These and other blunt comments hardly make good diplomacy. It remains to be seen how Johnson behaves as foreign minister.

Calling himself a One-Nation Conservative, he was Tory London mayor from May 2008 – May 2012, an MP from June 2001 – June 2008, then again since May 2015.

A leading Eurosceptic, he said Brexit won’t deny Britain access to European markets. “I cannot stress too much that Britain is part of Europe and always will. be,” he stressed.

One critic called him “genial to all…malicious towards most…with a light giggle…knows how to put the boot in.”

Does his appointment mean May intends sticking by her saying

“Brexit means Brexit, and we’re going to make a success of it. There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU.”

Don’t bet on it. Chances for Brexit are virtually nil because US, UK and EU monied interests won’t tolerate it.

Politicians notoriously say one thing and do another. Expect public opinion to be manipulated to oppose what’s now favored.

Britain will remain in the EU, perhaps with concessions granted acceptable to other members.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2016
========================================================



Tuesday, July 12, 2016

புதுமைப் பதிப்பக அறிமுகம் - கோவை

புதுமை பதிப்பகத்தின்
நூல்கள் அறிமுகக் கூட்டம்

         
நாள்: 23.07.2016, சனி, மாலை 5.00 மணி

இடம்: அண்ணாமலை அரங்கம், ஸ்டேட் பாங்க் ரோடு,சாந்தி திரையரங்கம் அருகில், கோவை.

புதிய காலனிய ஆதிக்கத்தின் கீழ் இந்தியா அடிமைப்பட்டு வரும் சூழலில், தேசிய இனங்கள், மொழிகள் ஒடுக்கப்பட்டு வரும் சூழலில், இந்து மதவெறி பாசிசமும் சாதி, தீண்டாமை ஒடுக்குமுறைகளும், பெண்கள் மீதான ஒடுக்குமுறையும் அதிகரித்து வரும் இன்றைய சூழலில் சுதந்திரம், ஜனநாயகம், சமத்துவம் காண்பதற்கான இலக்கியங்களைப் படைப்போம்.
 அணிதிரண்டு வாருங்கள், புதுமை பதிப்பகத்திற்கு ஆதரவு தாருங்கள்.

SL sells US$1.5bn sovereign bonds

இறைமை அடமானக் கடன்

ENB             $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   Cartoon Media

Debt for people; Money for corrupt ministers: SL sells US$1.5bn sovereign bonds*

Sri Lanka sells US$1.5bn in 5 and 10 year sovereign bonds
Jul 12, 2016


HONG KONG/COLOMBO July 12 (Reuters) - Sri Lanka priced its first dual-tranche sovereign bond after orders hit around $6.6 billion, more than four times the $1.5 billion offered, allowing it to issue the debt at a lower yield than initially offered.

The island nation priced a 5.5-year bond and 10-year bond after strong risk appetite for emerging market debt drew investors to its issue.

"It was luck. Had we gone last week, it (the yield) would have been much higher than this. The order book saw $6.6 billion and we got $1.5 billion in both bonds," Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake told Reuters on Monday.

The government sold the bonds to raise $500 million in a 5-1/2-year tranche and $1 billion in a 10-year tranche.

The $500 million 5.5-year bond priced at a yield of 5.75 percent and the $1 billion, 10-year bond at 6.825 percent, a source close to the deal told Reuters.

In early deals the new bonds due 2022 were trading at 100.375 cents on the dollar and those due 2026 at 100.625, slightly higher than the pricing level of 100.

Aggregate orders exceeded $6.6 billion as investors were attracted to a sovereign that has been one of the best performers in Asia this year.

The final guidance for the 5.5-year tranche was 37.5 basis points lower than initial guidance in the area of 6.125 percent and for the 10-year bond final guidance was 25 bps lower than the initial guidance of around 7.125 percent

In comparison, bonds due in 2021 and 2025 were trading at a yield of 5.5 percent and 6.6 percent respectively, before the new bonds priced.

"It may be absorbed given the lack of supply. We are yet to see if it will perform well in the secondary market, given the valuation," said a Singapore-based analyst ahead of the pricing.

He said the 10-year tranche looked fairly valued on the current levels and the 5-1/2-year bond yield would be attractive for investors as long as it did not fall below 6 percent.

Karunanayake earlier told Reuters the government saw an opportunity in the capital market through dual-tranche bonds.

"After the Brexit, investors are looking for safe havens and I think dual tranche is an opportunity to get these investors attracted to our bond deals."

Moody's assigned a provisional B1 rating to Sri Lanka's global bond offering, and said it expected to remove the provisional status when the issue closed and final terms were reviewed.

Asian sovereign bonds have rallied this year as investors looked for yields in a low rate environment. According to JACI benchmarks, dollar bonds issued by Sri Lanka produced total returns of 10.11 percent in the year to date, more than established issuers such as the Philippines.

A global fall in bond yields has gained momentum since Britain's vote to leave the European Union, with investor demand for safe haven assets pushing up bond prices.

German debt with maturities out to 15 years is yielding below zero and Dutch 10-year government bond yields fell below zero for the first time on Monday.

Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, HSBC and Standard Chartered are joint bookrunners for the Sri Lankan issue.

Last October, Sri Lanka sold a $1.5 billion 10-year bond at 6.85 percent.
---------------
* What is a 'Sovereign Bond'
A sovereign bond is a debt security issued by a national government. Sovereign bonds can be denominated in a foreign currency or the government’s own domestic currency; the ability to issue bonds denominated in domestic currency tends to be a luxury that most governments do not enjoy. The less stable of a currency denomination, the greater the risk the bondholder faces.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Italy support Sri Lanka. regain GSP Plus facility


Italy supporting Sri Lanka's bid to regain GSP Plus facility
July 10, 2016, 9:28 pm

By Hiran H.Senewiratne

"Italy is keen on promoting bilateral trade and investment with Sri Lanka; the reason being Sri Lanka is a main emerging market in the Asian region. Therefore, Italy is supporting Sri Lanka in its efforts to regain the European Union's GSP Plus trade facility, Charge D' Affairs at the Italian embassy in Sri Lanka Dr Giandomenico Milano said.

"At present both countries' total value of trade is around US $ 600 million and the balance of trade is overwhelmingly in Sri Lanka's favour. Therefore, we are looking at the possibilities to enter Sri Lanka to promote Italian automobiles and other high tech machinery, Dr. Milano told The Island Financial Review at the 17th Annual General Meeting of Sri Lanka-Italy Business Council held last Wednesday at Hilton Colombo Residencies.

He said that Italy, being a European Union country, is carefully looking at the EU decision on granting the GSP Plus to Sri Lanka, which would enhance trade and investment many fold. Today, if the trade and investment improved in both countries, the total value of trade of both countries could touch the US $ one billion mark within a short span of time, he said.

Milano said Italy's automobile industry is highly developed in the EU region. It manufactures top vehicle brands like Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Lamborghini and many more. "Therefore, Sri Lanka, being an emerging market in the region, could be an ideal market for Italian luxury automobile companies, Milano said.

"There was a significant increase from 2005 in exports between Sri Lanka and Italy, recording an impressive growth, mainly thanks to the GSP Plus concession. A steady growth of exports could be seen and we hope that such growth in bilateral trade will continue, with industrial and consumer retail customers in Italy, he said.

The leading markets for merchandise exports of Sri Lanka during 2015 continued to be the USA, UK, India, Germany and Italy, accounting for about 51 percent of total exports, while the main source of imports continued to be India, China, Japan, UAE and Singapore. They accounted for about 60 percent of total imports, Central Bank sources said.

Pakistan JF-17 Fighter Jet deal going through

The JF -17 is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China. The JF-17 can be used for aerial reconnaissance, ground attack and aircraft interception. Its designation 'JF-17' by Pakistan is the acronym for 'Joint Fighter-17'

Pakistan JF-17 Fighter Jet deal going through
By Gagani Weerakoon
2016-07-10

Sri Lanka will be shortly concluding the purchase deal with Pakistan for supply of 10 JF -17 Thunder multi-role Fighter Jets, developed in a joint Sino-Pakistan venture, with delivery expected early 2017.
Pakistan has stationed Brigadier Muhammad Bashir in Colombo to work out the details of the deal. That will include finance arrangements, sources confirmed.

The deal to purchase this stunning new multi-role fighter from the Pakistan Air Force was held in abeyance under mounting pressure from the highest levels in the Indian Government.

When the deal was first mooted it was expected to be inked in Colombo during Pakistani Premier Nawaz Shariff's visit in early January this year. The deal included the sale of 10 JF -17 s, each priced around US$ 35million through a special Line of Credit (LoC). But Shariff's visit ended with eight Pakistan-Sri Lanka agreements being signed in Colombo during the visit. None were related to defence cooperation or to the JF-17 deal.

SLAF Commander Gagan Bulathsinhala visited Pakistan last year for a reality check on the aircraft at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) in Kamra, where the PAC and China's Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) co-manufacture the fighters.
Ceylon Today last December revealed that the Sri Lankan Government was facing mounting pressure from its powerful neighbour India over this specific deal with Pakistan.

A highly placed source in the diplomatic corps said India came out strongly against the deal with the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) to purchase 10 JF-17 combat aircraft.

Indian National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, had personally expressed India's concerns in connection with the deal to President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Doval had personally telephoned President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe and told them outright that New Delhi was against the deal, warning that Sri Lanka will have to face serious repercussions if the deal was sealed with Pakistan.

Sri Lanka made a compromise offer to purchase three naval ships from India as suasion for India to desist from objecting to the deal with Pakistan. This, however, was not favoured by India, and New Delhi maintained the pressure instead.

The Sri Lankan Defence Ministry then asked India for 10 JF-17 aircraft or a similar fighter jet. India came up with a counter deal offering the SL Government a credit line to purchase alternative combat aircraft subject to the condition that Sri Lanka could buy the aircraft from any country other than Pakistan.

Pakistan however maintained a low profile and renewed their offer stating that they would give 10 F-7 combat craft free if Sri Lanka makes an outright purchase on the initial deal.

The finalisation of the deal was gradually put off following the low key visit of Indian Foreign Secretary Dr.Subrahmanyam Jaishankar to Colombo ahead of the Pakistan Premier's visit in January 2016.

The deal was apparently opened when former Air Force Commander Jayalath Weerakkody was serving as the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in Pakistan.

The JF -17 is a lightweight, single-engine, multi-role combat aircraft developed jointly by the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) and the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) of China. The JF-17 can be used for aerial reconnaissance, ground attack and aircraft interception. Its designation 'JF-17' by Pakistan is the acronym for 'Joint Fighter-17'

GSP Plus – EC shortens list of conditions

GSP Plus – EC shortens list of conditions

The European Commission has imposed upon Sri Lanka fifteen conditions in return for granting the GSP Plus trade concession — considerably whittled down from the list of 58 strictures it had originally slapped on.

The shorter list — which was first communicated to the Sri Lanka Government in June 2010 and to which the European Commission (EC) has now reverted — calls upon the Government to carry out such reforms as reducing the number of derogations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Sources close to the European Union said the shift from the longer list of 58 conditions to the revised one was “due to concerns about Sri Lanka’s economic health and about the legality and fairness of imposing new, more stringent, criteria on the new Government than what was required of the Rajapaksa Government”.

The shorter list was sent to the Government in June 2010, six months after the GSP Plus was withdrawn, stating that the preferences could be extended for a limited additional period subject to a clear commitment by Sri Lanka to fulfill all 15 conditions spelt out.

But in an official response to the European Commission sent that same month, the Sri Lanka Government contended that “the position taken up by the Commission involves the imposition of a series of conditions, the cumulative effect of which is clearly inconsistent with Sri Lanka’s sovereignty”.

When President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe assumed power, however, they started fresh negotiations through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And, in a marked departure from earlier policy, the current regime has already implemented several of the demands made by the EC in exchange for the GSP Plus concession. The Government has gone far enough in the process to be able to lodge its application for the GSP Plus, which it recently did.

The EC list urges the Government to ensure that the key objective of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, namely to provide for independent and impartial appointments to key public positions, is fully safeguarded; and to repeal those sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) which are incompatible with the ICCPR or amending them so as to make them clearly compatible with ICCPR.

It wishes the Government to respond to a significant number of individual cases currently pending before the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances; and to ensure journalists can exercise their professional duties without harassment. It calls upon the Government to take the legislative steps necessary to allow individuals to submit complaints to the UN Human Rights Committee under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and to the UN Committee against Torture (UNCAT) under Article 22.

The Optional Protocol establishes an individual complaints mechanism for the ICCPR; Article 22 allows State parties to recognise the competence of the Committee against Torture to hear complaints from individuals about violations of the Convention against Torture by a State party.

Additionally, the EU wants Government to repeal the remaining part of the 2005 Emergency Regulations — notably those concerning detention without trial, restrictions on freedom of movement, ouster of jurisdiction and immunity — and to repeal the 2006 Emergency Regulations. If the Government considers it essential to retain certain provisions which are compatible with the ICCPR or UNCAT, such as provisions concerning possession of weapons, “such provisions should be transferred to the Criminal Code”.

Among the EC’s conditions which the incumbent Government has announced its intention to comply with is the adoption of amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure. These provide for the right of a suspect to see a lawyer immediately following his or her arrest. The Government has already provided for the visits of several UN Special Rapporteurs. This was another stipulation. It is also finalising the first draft of the new counter-terrorism legislation to replace the PTA. Several other measures remain to be adopted.

However, the shorter list is considerably more lenient than the earlier one which the EU had conveyed to the Government. This had imposed more detailed and specific requirements complete with timelines for implementation.

They included revoking the PTA; expediting cases of remaining detainees; introducing a new Human Rights Action Plan (also in the shorter list); reviewing the status of Tamil diaspora organisations and individuals on the terrorist list; devolving power under a new Constitution; returning all private lands to owners in the North; adopting a policy of National Reconciliation and on National Resettlement; finalising the resettlement of all displaced persons; ratifying the Convention on Enforced Disappearances with accompanying legislation; and issuing certificates of absence.

They also comprised rehabilitation of all ex-combatants; amending the Code of Criminal Procedure to include the rights of detainees (also in shorter list); adopting new regulations for public disorder management by police; reviewing the Public Security Ordinance; and establishing an Office of Missing Persons. The Government is now implementing a mixture of both lists.

"சயனைட்" நாவல் - ஒரு பார்வை

  "சயனைட்" நாவல் - ஒரு பார்வை "தங்கமாலை கழுத்துக்களே கொஞ்சம் நில்லுங்கள்! நஞ்சுமாலை சுமந்தவரை நினைவில் கொள்ளுங்கள், எம் இனத்த...