04-16-2004, 02:14 PM
<span style='color:red'>The Sunnis Of Iraq & The Tamils Of Eelam
By: Wakeley Paul
The dynamic of liberation as an excuse for intrusion and interventioninto the territory of another, never inspires prolonged gratitude from those whose territory is invaded. This reality has eluded both Bush in Iraq, andthose Sinhalese Buddhist propagandists, who cover up their Sinhala Buddhist expansionist designs into Tamil territory, by pretending that their nobler objective was to free the Tamils from their own rulers. Democracy involves voluntary choices; it is not an enforced discipline to be endured. Onecannot use the virtue of democracy to enhance well intentioned or illadvised imperialist objectives. Imperialist do gooders or opportunists,should instead, begin to realize the dispiriting effects of occupation, asensation that eludes the imperial intruder. The cardinal principle espousedby the U,N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva that there is no substitutefor self rule, is a concept that every imperialist with laudable or lopsidedgoals, should reach out to appreciate.
While the 9/11 committee ponders over the reasons for 9/11 disaster andseek to find answers to avoid a repetition of such a catastrophe, thepolitics of the situation in Iraq requires a different focus. Regardless of whether the reason for the invasion were WMDs*; or the humanitarian need tofree the Iraqis from the rule of a barbaric dictator; or the need to stabilize the middle east; the fact is the war was waged and won with consummate ease. It is the aftermath of the war that has been devastating tothe conqueror, causing everyone in their midst to tear their hair out todetermine what to do next. The crisis of arguments range from, whether theIraqis are ready to take over on June 30; to, who will take over; to theneed for a continuing American presence and for how long; to calls for moretroops; to a diminished or shared presence; all the way down to a hastened withdrawal. The bottom line that eludes everyone, is that the American prescription for the Iraqis is as off the mark as is the Sinhala Buddhist solution for the Tamils in Sri Lanka
The inexcusable explosion of expenditures in the name of an uncalledfor occupation of foreign territory ignores one fundamental recognition- thevalue and importance of Federalism, as a surrendered substitute for Independence. Just as the Sunnis will resent rule over them by theShi¹ites, the Tamils will reject Sinhala Buddhist domination over themselves. History is often propelled by violent minorities and disgruntled dissidents, and we have undisputed evidence of that here. Other well known examples are the French, American, Russian and Colonial revolutions of theworld.
The Americans gave the Turks a high degree of self governing authorityunder the proposed constitution; but failed to recognize the Sunni right tothe same. They are repeating the mistake the League of Nations made increating and recognizing the nation of Iraq; and the mistake the British made in treating it as an unified entity. The British blundered into thesame error when they left Ceylon as a single and indivisible nation. This inturn gave the radical Sinhalese Buddhists , the unsupportable belief thatthey had a proprietary claim to Tamil territory. They now wear this mythicalveil to rule out Independence as the solution to the incendiary situation inthe island. Today, the thought of granting even a Federal alternative to independence remains a reluctant concession even among Sinhalese moderates.
America has inflamed Iraq and converted it to an incendiary time bomb,by failing to recognize the Sunni right to be a self governing force. Theykeep deluding themselves into blaming outside forces or Saddam faddists forthe raging daily violence, forgetting that it requires local support toinflame these fires. The Sinhala Buddhist extremists suffer the same lack ofvision. They both dance to the same tune of satisfying twisted imperialistdesires. The Americans dream of imposing an unacceptable democracy upon theSunnis while the Buddhist monks and their ilk, insist upon shoving the samedown the throats of the Tamils & Muslims in the Northeast.
The JHU denounces Federalism, demands a de-merger of North & East, andinsists on the right of Sinhala Buddhists to impose their rule on an alienand alienated people. They and their allies, delude themselves intobelieving that they are a self sustaining power with no limits upon theirindependence, while ignoring the fact that they are an integral part of acash strapped economy. The SLFP by contrast, while making peace talks withthe Tamils their high priority, woo the JHU to join them in a desperate bidto form a meager majority in Parliament. They seem destined to drown themselves in their own bathtub of contradictions.
The two k1s, Kumaratunge & Kadirgamar have indulged in fading memories of Indian opportunism and imperial designs, by seeking to let them in; [i]tointerfere, [ii] to intrude upon and [iii] to infuse themselves into the SriLankan body politic.[See quotes in my article on Sinister Strategies] Onecan only hope that the JVP, who shared Mrs K1s desire to make Mr K their Prime Minister, will see through this veil of short sighted self aggrandizement on the part of this two faced twosome. The two K1s areyielding to the Jayawardena temptation of getting the Indians to helpneutralize the LTTE, but knowingly ignore what they will wind up with, by engaging in this dim visioned adventure. The two K1s do not seem to care about the fate of this divided nation, as long as they can clutch on to thewires of power, which seem to elude at every turn and every corner.
Without even a simple a majority in Parliament to satisfy their cravingfor control, they now want to amend the constitution to suit their ambitions**. She wants to be an all powerful all consuming Prime Minister; he to be her close and indispensable ruthless advisor. To this end, they areready to resort to an illegal recourse [ a constituent assembly] to accomplish their aims of amending the Constitution to deny the powerfulPresidency to the UNF leader ever again, while at the same time increasingher power as the intended Prime Minister. Their pretense of peace tocontinue war; their pretense of peace with nothing to offer; their pretenseof peace with a desire to conquer are the hopes and goals of this powerhungry pair Are the insidious objectives of these two shared by the Sinhalesepeople? May God forbid such folly and grant the average Sinhalese theability to see through the inverted patriotism that drives these twoswollen headed aspirants to attain indisputable power.
If the proposed sell out to the Indians were to materialize, theSinhalese will be consumed by Indian ambitions and subject to Indian selfinterest, while the Tamils will be left dangling in a world o fConstitutional uncertainty. The conflict could just spill over into aninconclusive conclusion for the moment.
The Sunnis will suffer the same fate until the Americans shake the treeof their misconceptions about Iraq; until they revamp their ideas and comeup with a tripartite solution. Sri Lanka in turn will remain anirreconcilable powder keg till a division of powers is finally accomplished.
* Weapons of mass destruction
** The Constitution mandates a 2/3 majority in Parliament, not 2/3 of theelectorates or electoral districts that voted, or even a majority in a Referendum without the preceding 2/3 majority in Parliament, for theConstitution to be amended. Mr K , the accomplished lawyer acknowledgedthat the reason for their wearing two hats and forming a constituent Assembly was that they did not have the required 2/3 majority votes inparliament to get a constitutional Amendment. They deliberately ignore thisin their latest propaganda to boost their non existent right to amend the Constitution, in an effort to divert attention from the fact hat they donot even command a simple majority in Parliament
Despite the fact that they are weak and vulnerable, , they have theaudacity to appoint a committee with Mr K as its head, to devise stratagems for illegally amending the Constitution. They indulge in a flurry of arguments that center on the fact that if not for the system of proportional representation, they would have had a 2/3 majority. Unfortunately forthem, they are governed by that system, which is one of their reasons forwanting to do away with it. In a last ditch effort to side step this constitutional impediment, they claim they contested the election promisinga change of the constitution; that they won 2/3 of the electorates andelectoral districts. They keep dwelling upon how they could have won a 2/3 majority without proportional representation; and that they therefore havea mandate from the people to change the Constitution. Echoes of the fraudthat was perpetrated on the country in 1972. Assumed mandates from thepeople are not the basis upon which the Constitution permits Constitutional change. The Constitution mandates first a 2/3 majority in parliament beforethere is a national referendum in the event a change in the structure of the Constitution is sought, not the other way around.
In order to cap this deliberate train of obfuscations, they indulged inthe ultimate in diversion, by ordering a referendum. By what authority tothey to do this? Parliament has not even convened for them to attempt totake such a step. One has rarely witnessed such a fireworks display ofdiversions to obviate the fact that they are a minority government withoutthe power to pass a simple item of legislation without begging for help.What brazenness impels these two psychopaths to talk of a Constitutional Amendment is not beyond understanding. It is consistent with their determination to wield power at any cost, despite the patent illegalitiesthat surround their efforts
I emphasize again, that the sole and exclusive national legislativebody under the 1978 Unitary Constitution is Parliament, not a figment oftheir imagination called a constituent Assembly. Such a body never had andnever can have national legislative power under this Constitution, nor didit have any such power under the Soulbury Constitution, which governed thecountry in 1972.
The Constitutional Court that validated the XIII Amendment of the Constitution, highlighted three fundamentals under that document [i] Thatthe Parliament could devolve power to subordinate and subservient, but notco-equal legislatures, [ii] That the Parliament could only delegate some,but not all of their powers to other institutions, and [iii] That the Parliament always retained the right to withdraw or modify what they devolved. The reason for these constraints on delegation of powers, was that Parliament and Parliament alone was the sole and supreme legislative body inthe land. It also follows from this, without saying, that they cannot delegate any legislative powers that they themselves do not possess. This would obviously be ultra vises the powers vested in them by the Constitution. They cannot therefore authorize a constituent assembly toamend the Constitution by a simple majority when they cannot do sothemselves. This simple axiom should be evident to the simplest of minds,leave alone a Constitutional lawyer of Mr K1s stature and experience.
What the two K¹s are endeavoring to do, is to try to bamboozle thepublic, as her mother did in 1972, with the assistance of another accomplished lawyer gone awry, Dr Colvin R de Silva. The SLFP seems to havea knack of attracting retired lawyers who are ready and eager abandon their ethical obligations and resort to downright dishonesty in order to attain their political goals. Mr K should not merely be despised as an unprinciple self centered politician; he should be disbarred as a an unethical lawyer.You can rest assured that in any other country with an active ethics committee, his shabby tactics as a lawyer in this matter could bequestioned. What saves him however from such an ignominious end, is hisintention to get the approval of the Constitutional Court. Barring this,combined with a relatively non vigilant ethics committee in Srl Lanka, hecould like President Clinton did for other reasons, face possible disbarmentfor deliberately and knowingly taking steps to side step the law and flout the Constitution. This is not a question of legal sophistry. It is a case of downright, bare faced dishonesty.
How the Constitutional Court will decide the issue will depend on whether they are judicially independent or politically swayed</span>
news.tamilcanadian.com
By: Wakeley Paul
The dynamic of liberation as an excuse for intrusion and interventioninto the territory of another, never inspires prolonged gratitude from those whose territory is invaded. This reality has eluded both Bush in Iraq, andthose Sinhalese Buddhist propagandists, who cover up their Sinhala Buddhist expansionist designs into Tamil territory, by pretending that their nobler objective was to free the Tamils from their own rulers. Democracy involves voluntary choices; it is not an enforced discipline to be endured. Onecannot use the virtue of democracy to enhance well intentioned or illadvised imperialist objectives. Imperialist do gooders or opportunists,should instead, begin to realize the dispiriting effects of occupation, asensation that eludes the imperial intruder. The cardinal principle espousedby the U,N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva that there is no substitutefor self rule, is a concept that every imperialist with laudable or lopsidedgoals, should reach out to appreciate.
While the 9/11 committee ponders over the reasons for 9/11 disaster andseek to find answers to avoid a repetition of such a catastrophe, thepolitics of the situation in Iraq requires a different focus. Regardless of whether the reason for the invasion were WMDs*; or the humanitarian need tofree the Iraqis from the rule of a barbaric dictator; or the need to stabilize the middle east; the fact is the war was waged and won with consummate ease. It is the aftermath of the war that has been devastating tothe conqueror, causing everyone in their midst to tear their hair out todetermine what to do next. The crisis of arguments range from, whether theIraqis are ready to take over on June 30; to, who will take over; to theneed for a continuing American presence and for how long; to calls for moretroops; to a diminished or shared presence; all the way down to a hastened withdrawal. The bottom line that eludes everyone, is that the American prescription for the Iraqis is as off the mark as is the Sinhala Buddhist solution for the Tamils in Sri Lanka
The inexcusable explosion of expenditures in the name of an uncalledfor occupation of foreign territory ignores one fundamental recognition- thevalue and importance of Federalism, as a surrendered substitute for Independence. Just as the Sunnis will resent rule over them by theShi¹ites, the Tamils will reject Sinhala Buddhist domination over themselves. History is often propelled by violent minorities and disgruntled dissidents, and we have undisputed evidence of that here. Other well known examples are the French, American, Russian and Colonial revolutions of theworld.
The Americans gave the Turks a high degree of self governing authorityunder the proposed constitution; but failed to recognize the Sunni right tothe same. They are repeating the mistake the League of Nations made increating and recognizing the nation of Iraq; and the mistake the British made in treating it as an unified entity. The British blundered into thesame error when they left Ceylon as a single and indivisible nation. This inturn gave the radical Sinhalese Buddhists , the unsupportable belief thatthey had a proprietary claim to Tamil territory. They now wear this mythicalveil to rule out Independence as the solution to the incendiary situation inthe island. Today, the thought of granting even a Federal alternative to independence remains a reluctant concession even among Sinhalese moderates.
America has inflamed Iraq and converted it to an incendiary time bomb,by failing to recognize the Sunni right to be a self governing force. Theykeep deluding themselves into blaming outside forces or Saddam faddists forthe raging daily violence, forgetting that it requires local support toinflame these fires. The Sinhala Buddhist extremists suffer the same lack ofvision. They both dance to the same tune of satisfying twisted imperialistdesires. The Americans dream of imposing an unacceptable democracy upon theSunnis while the Buddhist monks and their ilk, insist upon shoving the samedown the throats of the Tamils & Muslims in the Northeast.
The JHU denounces Federalism, demands a de-merger of North & East, andinsists on the right of Sinhala Buddhists to impose their rule on an alienand alienated people. They and their allies, delude themselves intobelieving that they are a self sustaining power with no limits upon theirindependence, while ignoring the fact that they are an integral part of acash strapped economy. The SLFP by contrast, while making peace talks withthe Tamils their high priority, woo the JHU to join them in a desperate bidto form a meager majority in Parliament. They seem destined to drown themselves in their own bathtub of contradictions.
The two k1s, Kumaratunge & Kadirgamar have indulged in fading memories of Indian opportunism and imperial designs, by seeking to let them in; [i]tointerfere, [ii] to intrude upon and [iii] to infuse themselves into the SriLankan body politic.[See quotes in my article on Sinister Strategies] Onecan only hope that the JVP, who shared Mrs K1s desire to make Mr K their Prime Minister, will see through this veil of short sighted self aggrandizement on the part of this two faced twosome. The two K1s areyielding to the Jayawardena temptation of getting the Indians to helpneutralize the LTTE, but knowingly ignore what they will wind up with, by engaging in this dim visioned adventure. The two K1s do not seem to care about the fate of this divided nation, as long as they can clutch on to thewires of power, which seem to elude at every turn and every corner.
Without even a simple a majority in Parliament to satisfy their cravingfor control, they now want to amend the constitution to suit their ambitions**. She wants to be an all powerful all consuming Prime Minister; he to be her close and indispensable ruthless advisor. To this end, they areready to resort to an illegal recourse [ a constituent assembly] to accomplish their aims of amending the Constitution to deny the powerfulPresidency to the UNF leader ever again, while at the same time increasingher power as the intended Prime Minister. Their pretense of peace tocontinue war; their pretense of peace with nothing to offer; their pretenseof peace with a desire to conquer are the hopes and goals of this powerhungry pair Are the insidious objectives of these two shared by the Sinhalesepeople? May God forbid such folly and grant the average Sinhalese theability to see through the inverted patriotism that drives these twoswollen headed aspirants to attain indisputable power.
If the proposed sell out to the Indians were to materialize, theSinhalese will be consumed by Indian ambitions and subject to Indian selfinterest, while the Tamils will be left dangling in a world o fConstitutional uncertainty. The conflict could just spill over into aninconclusive conclusion for the moment.
The Sunnis will suffer the same fate until the Americans shake the treeof their misconceptions about Iraq; until they revamp their ideas and comeup with a tripartite solution. Sri Lanka in turn will remain anirreconcilable powder keg till a division of powers is finally accomplished.
* Weapons of mass destruction
** The Constitution mandates a 2/3 majority in Parliament, not 2/3 of theelectorates or electoral districts that voted, or even a majority in a Referendum without the preceding 2/3 majority in Parliament, for theConstitution to be amended. Mr K , the accomplished lawyer acknowledgedthat the reason for their wearing two hats and forming a constituent Assembly was that they did not have the required 2/3 majority votes inparliament to get a constitutional Amendment. They deliberately ignore thisin their latest propaganda to boost their non existent right to amend the Constitution, in an effort to divert attention from the fact hat they donot even command a simple majority in Parliament
Despite the fact that they are weak and vulnerable, , they have theaudacity to appoint a committee with Mr K as its head, to devise stratagems for illegally amending the Constitution. They indulge in a flurry of arguments that center on the fact that if not for the system of proportional representation, they would have had a 2/3 majority. Unfortunately forthem, they are governed by that system, which is one of their reasons forwanting to do away with it. In a last ditch effort to side step this constitutional impediment, they claim they contested the election promisinga change of the constitution; that they won 2/3 of the electorates andelectoral districts. They keep dwelling upon how they could have won a 2/3 majority without proportional representation; and that they therefore havea mandate from the people to change the Constitution. Echoes of the fraudthat was perpetrated on the country in 1972. Assumed mandates from thepeople are not the basis upon which the Constitution permits Constitutional change. The Constitution mandates first a 2/3 majority in parliament beforethere is a national referendum in the event a change in the structure of the Constitution is sought, not the other way around.
In order to cap this deliberate train of obfuscations, they indulged inthe ultimate in diversion, by ordering a referendum. By what authority tothey to do this? Parliament has not even convened for them to attempt totake such a step. One has rarely witnessed such a fireworks display ofdiversions to obviate the fact that they are a minority government withoutthe power to pass a simple item of legislation without begging for help.What brazenness impels these two psychopaths to talk of a Constitutional Amendment is not beyond understanding. It is consistent with their determination to wield power at any cost, despite the patent illegalitiesthat surround their efforts
I emphasize again, that the sole and exclusive national legislativebody under the 1978 Unitary Constitution is Parliament, not a figment oftheir imagination called a constituent Assembly. Such a body never had andnever can have national legislative power under this Constitution, nor didit have any such power under the Soulbury Constitution, which governed thecountry in 1972.
The Constitutional Court that validated the XIII Amendment of the Constitution, highlighted three fundamentals under that document [i] Thatthe Parliament could devolve power to subordinate and subservient, but notco-equal legislatures, [ii] That the Parliament could only delegate some,but not all of their powers to other institutions, and [iii] That the Parliament always retained the right to withdraw or modify what they devolved. The reason for these constraints on delegation of powers, was that Parliament and Parliament alone was the sole and supreme legislative body inthe land. It also follows from this, without saying, that they cannot delegate any legislative powers that they themselves do not possess. This would obviously be ultra vises the powers vested in them by the Constitution. They cannot therefore authorize a constituent assembly toamend the Constitution by a simple majority when they cannot do sothemselves. This simple axiom should be evident to the simplest of minds,leave alone a Constitutional lawyer of Mr K1s stature and experience.
What the two K¹s are endeavoring to do, is to try to bamboozle thepublic, as her mother did in 1972, with the assistance of another accomplished lawyer gone awry, Dr Colvin R de Silva. The SLFP seems to havea knack of attracting retired lawyers who are ready and eager abandon their ethical obligations and resort to downright dishonesty in order to attain their political goals. Mr K should not merely be despised as an unprinciple self centered politician; he should be disbarred as a an unethical lawyer.You can rest assured that in any other country with an active ethics committee, his shabby tactics as a lawyer in this matter could bequestioned. What saves him however from such an ignominious end, is hisintention to get the approval of the Constitutional Court. Barring this,combined with a relatively non vigilant ethics committee in Srl Lanka, hecould like President Clinton did for other reasons, face possible disbarmentfor deliberately and knowingly taking steps to side step the law and flout the Constitution. This is not a question of legal sophistry. It is a case of downright, bare faced dishonesty.
How the Constitutional Court will decide the issue will depend on whether they are judicially independent or politically swayed</span>
news.tamilcanadian.com
<img src='http://kuruvikal.yarl.net/archives/PETBIRD1.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>