Incensed by government servants’ “indifference” in controlling dengue that has claimed more than 180 lives in the island in recent weeks, the ebullient minister decided to take the law into his own hands and invited the media to record his “action” against errant officials. The victim’s plea that he was absent as his child was ill, fell on deaf ears. He was freed only after the media recorded the event.

A lady colleague who tried to save the official from public humiliation was sternly warned that she too would meet the same fate if she persisted with her protest.

Later, the official’s family members told Daily Mirror Online that the government servant had gone into hiding and they too feared for their lives. “We are all affected. We do not know what will happen to us,” a family member said.

When the matter came up in Parliament on Wednesday, Minister Silva flatly denied that he had tied the man to the tree. “I never tied anyone to a tree. I only untied a person who was tied to a tree,” he asserted, and waved a letter purportedly written by the official concerned, which said he had tied himself to a tree as a penance for neglecting his duties.

Earlier, Leader of the Opposition Ranil Wickremasinghe said the Minister was bringing disrepute to Sri Lanka internationally. Silva’s behaviour clearly contravened the Constitution of Sri Lanka, he said. Silva had on an earlier occasion clashed with the media and had also been beaten up by the employees of a state-owned TV station.

Meanwhile, the ruling United Peoples’ Freedom Alliance (UPFA) distanced itself from the conduct of Silva. “This was purely his (Silva’s) conduct and had nothing to do with the party. Therefore, I do not want to comment,” Daily Mirror Online quoted UPFA general secretary Susil Premajayanth as saying.

Stung by the Minister’s conduct, Samurdhi department officers have decided to suspend participation in dengue eradication programmes island-wide until disciplinary action was taken against him.

Source: Express News Service

The following explanation of the GSP is given by the European Union:

“The EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is a trade arrangement through which the EU provides preferential access to the EU market to 176 developing countries and territories, in the form of reduced tariffs for their goods when entering the EU market.

“The special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, known as GSP+, which offers additional tariff reductions to support vulnerable developing countries in their ratification and implementation of international conventions in these areas.

“GSP+ beneficiaries must also have ratified and effectively implemented 27 specified international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance.”

(Ref 1)

These statements give the impression that the EU has a strong ‘ethical’ standard. But in reality no country would qualify, if these “core labour standards” or “good governance” clauses were properly implemented!

Who benefits?

The GSP+ is one of many trade systems that have been developed by rich countries, and the international trade organisations that represent their interests, to increase their profits. None of the tariff relaxations or even ‘aid’ is based on a genuine approach aimed at improving living conditions and labour standards. Furthermore the GSP+ was only given for selected products that developed countries are interested in.

It is the legacy of imperialism that is to be blamed for the disastrous conditions in neo-colonial countries. Resources and labour continue to be plundered in these countries. Even so-called developed countries could not qualify with clauses such as ‘core labour standards’ or ‘good governance’.

However, workers and the poor suffer immensely in neo-colonial countries and tariff concessions and aid can help a very small layer of workers. But the main beneficiaries are the bosses and the rich. All the research shows that the gap between rich and poor countries continues to widen. The World Resources Institute summarised its findings as follows (Ref 2):

“In addition, the gap between rich and poor is widening, both within and among countries (25). In 1960, the richest 20 percent of the world’s population controlled 70 percent of global income. By 1993, they controlled 85 percent, and the share of the poorest 20 percent had decreased from 2.3 to 1.4 percent. These disparities are likely to increase for the next half century even if real economic growth rates in most developing regions significantly outpace those in the developed regions (26). Within many countries, income is also distributed inequitably.”

Many African and Asian countries rely on aid packages to save them from economic collapse. The poor countries’ ‘dependency’ makes them vulnerable to all kinds of exploitation. This dependency helps the so-called ‘donor’ countries to dictate neoliberal policies to maximise their profits. The local ruling classes also plunder the aid and, without remorse, implement what their masters in the multinationals and world trade organisations want. As a result labour rights are attacked and humanitarian crises are sharpened. Brutal attempts are made to suppress any mass movements that try to challenge these deteriorating conditions. In fear of labour revolt and mass movements local ruling classes arm themselves to the teeth with the help of their international counterparts. This is the situation in Sri Lanka too.

Neoliberal offensive and regional interest

J R Jayewardene, the leader of the viciously neoliberal United National Party (UNP) was behind the opening up of the country for a neoliberal offensive in the 1980s. He also established the executive presidency, increased defence budgets and brutally suppressed all labour revolts during and after the 1980 general strike. Since then, living standards have deteriorated rapidly and now Sri Lanka has joined the big queue for IMF loans.

The Sri Lankan government is expected to cut public spending and implement a wage freeze, if not a wage cut, to meet the IMF pressure to reduce the rocketing budget deficit which is estimated to be 11.3% (Ref 3). At the same time the Sri Lankan government has shown no sign of reducing its defence budget. Instead it aims to increase defence spending and has made a $300 million defence deal with the Russian government (Ref 4).

The Chinese government, which is also aiming to exploit Sri Lanka’s strategic shipping routes and natural harbours, helped the government in the recent brutal war on the Tamil population. This war saw at least 20,000 massacred in the last few weeks alone. Now the UN estimates that the Sri Lankan government murdered 40,000 Tamil-speaking people during the last few months of the war. Despite this brutality, the United Nations Human Rights Council immediately voted to congratulate the Sri Lanka government on its victory (Ref 5)! This vote was initiated by Sri Lanka and supported by China, India and even Cuba and Venezuela. It took a major campaign later to push the UN to consider a possible war crimes enquiry but it is unlikely that this will come to anything. And now the UN offices may be closed down.

Local regional interests in Sri Lanka’s resources have now overtaken western interests. The Chinese and Indian governments compete to control Sri Lanka’s ports, minerals and other economic benefits (Ref 6). China has overtaken Japan as Sri Lanka’s biggest donor. The fear that Sri Lanka is moving away from a so-called ‘western axis’ forces western governments to use the ‘humanitarian issue’ as a bargaining card. Western governments do not have any credibility as protectors of human rights. This is widely demonstrated in the rotten role they play in Iraq and Afghanistan, attempting to control the oil wealth. Governments of countries such as the UK and US are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and major humanitarian disasters around the world. The US government, for example, maintains a close relationship with the Saudi Arabian ruling class, which has no respect whatsoever for human rights. It is no secret that western governments use the need to act on ‘humanitarian abuse’ and trade sanctions as a method to achieve their economic objectives.

EU sanction and its background

The European Union’s sanction of the GSP+ concession to Sri Lanka should be understood against this background. Tamil Solidarity has highlighted the hypocrisy of the European Union in aiding Sri Lanka right through its brutal war. At the same time, we are quite aware that our campaign against the GSP+ would have been much more difficult if the interests of the EU in Sri Lanka were not at stake. However, the right wing in the west still argues that best way to deal with Sri Lanka is to give them more funds! For the Conservative Party in the UK, the war on terror by Sri Lanka is a just war. The secretary of state for defence, Liam Fox, argued for more funding and a better relationship with the Rajapaksa regime. Fox said: “The president won a huge victory and deserves congratulations” (Ref 7). However, fear of opposition from workers and the poor in the UK and around Europe push these right wing rulers towards at least ‘seeming to be defending human rights’ at times. This is what is reflected in the recent European Commission (EC) decision to withdraw GSP+ concessions to Sri Lanka.

EC debate on GSP+

Tamil Solidarity participated in the debate on the GSP+ tariff concession to Sri Lanka which took place on 14 January at the European Commission. As well as a Sri Lankan government representative, arguing the case for not withdrawing the GSP+, was Alisdair Gray, director of the British Retail Consortium in Brussels. Incredibly Gray argued that Sri Lanka is an “ethical and green producer”. The majority of the right-wing MEPs supported these arguments.

The Sri Lankan government’s argument on this issue can be summarised in the following way: 

a) There will be a loss of export earnings. It will reduce economic growth to address poverty.

b) At least one million people will face the danger of losing their jobs.

c) 99% of the workforce employed in the apparel sector and of those producing fish, bicycles, ceramics and rubber-based products etc are women. So withdrawal will affect the empowerment of women.

All the arguments centred on those three points (Ref 8). The document also maintained that the EU would lose out on exports as the “Opening-up of the Northern and Eastern regions for fishing, covering nearly 2/3 of sea of the island, will be a main source of livelihood in the post conflict-development efforts through further increase of fishery products from Sri Lanka to the EU”

Quite incredibly, the document also argues that: “Sri Lanka can be considered a model among developing countries with regard to its ethical trading practices. Sri Lanka is one of the few countries in Asia, where use of child labour has been banned through national legislation. Over 100 garment factories in Sri Lanka have been awarded with the ‘garments without guilt’ label by the International Certification Authorities for their adherence to providing better environment for workers.”

With regard to the humanitarian crisis, the Sri Lankan government representative claimed that:

a) Internally displaced people (IDP) welfare villages have been converted into open camps [!]

b) Former combatants have been released and sent for rehabilitation or held back for closer investigation.

c) There are no reports of killings or disappearances.

While denying any human rights abuse, the Sri Lankan government representative claimed that the ‘war context’, in which some mistakes may have been made, is now over! And now conditions are improving.

This Sri Lankan government representative also accused the ‘Diaspora’ of acting against democracy! He claimed “All the Tamil parties in Sri Lanka are actively participating in the ongoing presidential election, dismissing demands from Diaspora groups, such as Tamil Solidarity which is represented here today, to boycott the election.” This was an unfounded lie told in order to divert the debate and present TS as undemocratic. However, in our response, we explained that we did not lend our support in the presidential elections to either warmongering candidate, Mahinda Rajapaksa or former army general Sarath Fonseka. TS explained that instead we want people to vote for those who genuinely fight for the rights of the poor and the oppressed, like Siritunga Jayasuriya of the United Socialist Party. Siri has been fighting for workers’ rights and the right to self-determination for the Tamil-speaking masses consistently for decades (Ref 9).

Later, the Sri Lankan government representative stated that he was ‘disappointed’ and urged everyone to challenge his ‘statistics’. He also tried to dismiss TS’s argument as a “Diaspora view”. But all the so-called statistics he provided were false. Also he chose not to answer many human rights abuse related questions, including regarding the exposure of the Channel 4 video of the brutal execution of unarmed and bound Tamil prisoners.

The reality

The GSP+ was first given to Sri Lanka after it was hit by a tsunami in 2005. the tsunami devastated whole sections of the population, literally washing away both their homes and their livelihoods.Apart from tax concessions such as the GSP+, at least $2.2 billion was pledged by foreign donors. Millions were donated by individuals and through some organisations. Now five years have passed and there is no sign of any improvement for the victims (Ref 10). Transparency International reported that more than $1 billion is still unaccounted for. Thousands of people remain without adequate shelter. The majority of the houses built were in the southern province, a stronghold of the ruling party. Most of those homes are also occupied by ruling party supporters (Ref 11).

Women workers, as in many countries, do not get equal pay to the men and they work in harsh conditions. The government’s claim that these exploited women workers will lose their empowerment due to the GSP+ withdrawal is an absolutely ridiculous one.

It is also true that companies that benefit from the GSP+ will not be stopped from cutting jobs to protect their profits. However, the Sri Lankan economy, stretched by defence spending, had already seen major job losses. In the first quarter of 2009 more than 60,000 workers lost their jobs, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO). An official survey by the government’s statistics office said 155,000 industrial jobs were lost in the second quarter of 2009.

Even before the Tsunami, as early as 2002, the textile sector was facing crisis due to the Multi-Fibre Agreement (MFA), put in place by the United States and European Union to protect their ‘domestic markets’. As a result of the MFA phase-out alone, from 2004 to 2006 at least 130 factories have been closed and thousands of workers lost their jobs. But the overall export of garments has increased. While pushing small factories out of the market, the big factories continue to make huge profits. The Sri Lankan government has made no effort whatsoever to protect the jobs of small businesses or to protect the rights and conditions of workers in big companies, which have made huge profits.

ALaRM (Apparel industry Labour Rights Movement), set up with the help of Oxfam, has published reports and materials that clearly show how the Sri Lankan government, not only made no effort to protect workers’ rights and jobs, but also prevented any defence actions taking place. AlaRM explained that a comprehensive report, with a number of recommendations, was prepared on this issue by a taskforce that included the ILO. However this report was delayed and then blocked from publication due to the opposition from business groups and the government. ALaRM also reported that the board of investment was never keen on ‘this kind of research’ and continues to discourage the process (Ref 12). A majority of the workers who lost their jobs have not been paid any compensation. Despite 25,000 signatures collected from the workers by ALaRM and many other campaigns, the government refuses to take any action to properly compensate workers. There are reports that workers turned up to the factory in the morning to find out that it had been closed and all equipment moved out. Many workers are owed a month’s wages! No government body has come to the aid of these workers.

The pro-business Sri Lankan government also gives its full support to garment manufacturers in their clamp down on workers’ rights. They don’t allow any unions. Instead, with government recommendation, the employer appoints representatives to the so-called ‘workers’ council’ which has no power to take actions against the employer. The average wage of workers is around 5000 SRS (£25) which is not even enough to survive on. Even if they work overtime, which the majority do, as they simply cannot afford to live on the normal wage, they still earn a poverty wage. This is the reality of the garment industry.

With global demand falling, due to the acute world economic crisis, no boom is expected in the manufacturing sector. The textile sector has not recovered since the Tsunami which wiped out factories as it killed thousands of workers and their families. Now the economic Tsunami facing Sri Lanka and the world means huge job losses internationally. In Sri Lanka, at least one million jobs in the textile and related sectors are expected to go. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has warned that as many as 350,000 public sector jobs could be lost over the next five years.

And yet the government is not only refusing to cut the huge defence expenditure, it has moved to increase it. The estimated benefit of the GSP+ to the economy is much less than defence expenditure.

If the government is serious about ‘defending jobs’ and truthful about wanting a flourishing democracy and human rights, then it will immediately cut its huge defence expenditure and the huge sum of money wasted on ‘presidential care’. That is not to mention the millions lost due to the high level of corruption. Sunil Wijesinha, Director of Dankotuwa Porcelain Ltd, one of the companies cited by the government as affected by the GSP+ removal has accused the government of corruption (Ref 13).

It’s not rocket science to work out where the majority of the benefits that come from tax concessions and aid end up. That is why TS argues that aid must be sent directly to committees formed of the representatives of the people in the areas the aid should reach. Without such a safety mechanism, to ensure that the benefit will reach the most needy, any so-called ‘help’ will be hopeless.

No illusions in the EU

Having said that, there shouldn’t be any illusion in the EU, that the only reason it granted the GSP+ was to improve the conditions of workers! As we mentioned earlier, the profit motive of the capitalist governments who defend the interests of the richest in society is a driving force behind all EU decisions and its policies. The right wing within the EU continues to argue the case of brutal regimes such as that of Sri Lanka. In the debate in which TS participated, one right-wing MEP argued that: “I always smell this debate as a too British debate … There s a strong sense of a Tamil constituency in Britain that has somehow affected the possibility of an objective analysis of this issue.” It is true that the EU uses the opportunity to implement ‘protectionist’ measures, as the global economical slowdown affects the eurozone severely. However, the accusation that the Tamil constituency shaped the British decision is hilarious as it was the director of the BRC putting up a fight for the Sri Lankan government. A number of Conservative Party MEPs also supported that argument. But Joe Higgins, MEP for Dublin and honorary president of the Tamil Solidarity Campaign, pointed out that it is the government of Sri Lanka that is to be blamed for the withdrawal of the GSP+ as it continues to violate human rights and labour rights. He emphasised that we will not create a situation that can cause problems for the poor workers.

As Joe Higgins MEP pointed out, the Tamil Solidarity Campaign is dedicated to winning the rights of all workers and oppressed people in Sri Lanka. We will not act against the interests of the poor and the workers. That is why we pointed out that the EU action was “too little too late”. There should be a war crime investigation, including the active involvement of the victims in Sri Lanka and the independent labour movement outside.

On the question of aid we pointed out that TS is not against giving aid to the victims and poor. However, it must be channelled through an elected committee of workers and from the people who should benefit from the aid, rather than giving money to the government or big businesses. Through the government and big businesses there is little chance of aid or tax concessions reaching the needy.

References:

1. Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-agenda/development/generalised-system-of-preferences/)
2. The gap between rich and poor is widening. World Resources Institute (http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8659)
3. Budget Track. Lankabusinessonline.com 15 Feb, 2010 (http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?nid=275642011)
4. Sri Lanka President to sign $300 million loan deal with Russia, ColombopagesSat, Feb 6, 2010 (http://www.colombopage.com/archive_10/Feb1265473748CH.html)
5. A disgraceful vote which discredits the UN Human Rights Council. Times Online May 28, 2009 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6382331.ece)

(a)            India Worries as China Builds Ports in South Asia. By VIKAS BAJAJ. February 15, 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/business/global/16port.html)

1. Too many vested interests-Manny Thain, Tamil solidarity. November 11, 2009 (http://www.tamilsolidarity.org/?p=666)
2. There must be a civil trial for General Fonseka.Liam Fox. Dr Liam Fox MP, Wednesday, February 17 2010 (http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/Liam_Fox_There_must_be_a_civil_trial_for_General_Fonseka.aspx)
3. EU-Sri Lanka, GSP+ Concessions and its socio-economic impact. 09 November 2009. Sri Lankan government official document circulated to members of European Parliament.
4. TS Denies boycott accusation, http://www.tamilsolidarity.org/?p=854
5. Money Wave. By Mel Gunasekera.23 Dec, 2009 (http://www.lbo.lk/fullstory.php?nid=674151897)
6. SPC Polls 2009 Hambantota Backward and still neglected. Monday, 5 October 2009 (http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2009/10/48517.html)
7. ANALYSIS OF AN OXFAM INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN ON GARMENT WORKERS IN SRI LANKA. 2002 – 2007. Jeff Atkinson. Practitioner Fellow Institute of Commonwealth Studies. (We have not used direct quotes from this paper as we still awaiting author’s permission)
8. Authorities not listening, Lanka times http://www.lankatimes.com/fullstory.php?id=23114

The paper claimed that policing the protests against the brutal slaughter of Tamil people by the Sri Lankan government, which the hunger strike was part of, produced a £7 million bill for the Metropolitan Police. 

We in Tamil Solidarity immediately opposed this libellous and racist attack against the hunger striker and the demonstrators. In order to highlight this slander Parameswaran was invited to address a Tamil Solidarity meeting held in Queen Mary University on 17 October 2009.

He explained how he was on the receiving end of a racist smear campaign by the Daily Mail, which was also picked up by the London Evening Standard and the Sun. A video of the meeting was made available on the Tamil Solidarity website to help him circulate his answer to his attackers.

Unfortunately and unforgivably the leaders of some Tamil organisations joined the racist Mail in spreading its slanderous rumour. Their rotten politics also include support for the right-wing British government. In fact some still support the UK government’s cooperation with the Rajapakse government in Sri Lanka!

Some of the mainstream Tamil media and organisations were unable to see through the lies as they also wanted to sideline this dedicated activist in order to continue their politics of pandering to the right wing government and the media in the hope of getting them to report or act against the Sri Lankan government.

This flawed perspective is constantly challenged by Tamil Solidarity which instead aimed to organise uncompromising fighters against all kind of oppression in every country where they are present.

We repeatedly pointed out that we cannot appeal to those forces who are in the business of oppressing and exploiting minorities in the UK and who are engaged in brutal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the Mail has accepted that it systematically lied. It is clear that the Mail’s attack was not just aimed at Parameswaran, but was an attack on all Tamil protesters.

Instead of allowing protesters to be attacked, if we are serious about building the fightback against the oppressors, we must unite those forces that are fighting against oppression. Tamil Solidarity was set up to do just this.

Two people were injured in the attack on the independent station, Siyatha.

Siyatha’s owner left the country some months ago after reports emerged that he had also funded the opposition presidential candidate, Sarath Fonseka.

The government temporarily prevented Siyatha from covering official events and withdrew advertising from its newspaper, which has now closed down.

However, its broadcasts have not been critical of the government.

Witnesses told the BBC that about 12 masked men, most of them armed, stormed Siyatha’s premises in the city centre and went on a rampage early on Friday.

They threw petrol-bombs and destroyed much of the broadcasting equipment, forcing staff to kneel at gunpoint and assaulting two of them.

The BBC’s Charles Haviland in Colombo says the attack was reminiscent of an earlier firebombing of another TV station 18 months ago.

A US-based journalists’ rights organisation ranks Sri Lanka as the fourth-worst country for impunity in attacks on journalists.

The studies appear in a special section on children and disaster in the July/August issue of the journal Child Development.

The first study, by researchers at California State University, Los Angeles, Harvard School of Public Health, and Claremont Graduate University, looked at more than 400 Sri Lankan youths ages 11 to 20 who survived the tsunami.

Researchers who work in areas where people have been harmed by disasters often focus solely on the impact of direct exposure to the disaster, but this study argues that it is important to consider the role of everyday stressors that continue after a disaster.

The study also found that while war and disaster have had a direct effect on the youths’ psychological health, poverty, family violence, and lack of safe housing also represent major sources of continuing stress.

“By making sure not to miss the importance of ongoing stressors in youths’ daily lives, our study highlights the need for holistic policies and programs that focus on reducing these current stressors,” said Gaithri A. Fernando, Associate Professor of Psychology at California State University, Los Angeles, who led the study.

The second study was conducted by researchers at Bielefeld University, the University of Minnesota, the Vivo Foundation, and the University of Konstanz; Bielefeld University and the University of Konstanz are in Germany.

This study looked at almost 1,400 Tamil children aged nine to 15 living at home or in a temporary shelter for refugees.

Children in this study had been affected by both armed conflict and a natural disaster, and many also coped with domestic violence.

It also found that all of the adverse experiences contributed significantly to the children’s difficulties adapting. (ANI)

Last week alone saw one media outlet receive a threatening letter and the head of another charged with fraud by the supreme court after publishing stories critical of the government. And two international NGO workers involved in protecting journalists had their visas revoked.

The situation has been deteriorating for some time. According to Amnesty International at least 14 media workers have been killed in the country since 2006 and more than 20 are thought to have fled – more per capita than have left Iran. Arbitrary arrests, abductions and assassinations have been documented for over three decades. No one has ever been prosecuted for these attacks on the media.

In January last year, as the Sri Lankan army closed in on the last remaining pockets of resistance held by the LTTE, the government imposed a media blackout on the war zone. (It also denied humanitarian access to civilians trapped by the fighting and, like the rebels, displayed callous contempt for civilian life.)

Away from the killing fields, the local media suffered a sharp spike in attacks. Just days after independent broadcaster MTV was raided by gunmen, Lasantha Wickrematunge – editor of the Sunday Leader and prominent government critic – was assassinated in broad daylight in a high-security zone regularly patrolled by the army.

The end of the war has changed nothing. Phones are tapped. Emails hacked. Media outlets harassed and journalists threatened. One – Prageeth Eknaligoda – has been missing since January’s presidential election. Small wonder that so many journalists say they now resort to self-censorship.

And they are not the only ones who live in fear. NGO workers, lawyers, members of the opposition – the culture of impunity puts them all at risk. The state has also ramped up its vitriol against external critics: last week a cabinet minister began a hunger strike and orchestrated a siege of the UN offices in Colombo in response to the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, setting up a panel of experts to advise him on accountability for alleged war crimes during the final stages of the civil war last year. The minister has since ended his “fast to death” amid growing speculation that the protests were supported, if not sponsored, by the government.

All this is happening under the noses of the world’s press. While burning effigies of Ban draw the spotlight for a few days, Sri Lanka’s slow descent into dictatorship has mostly gone unnoticed. Global media coverage of the conflict in Sri Lanka during the past four years is about a tenth of that given to Iraq. In 2009, the New York Times and the Guardian devoted four times more space to the Israeli military offensive in Gaza (death toll 1,400) than the bloody end of Sri Lanka’s civil war (estimates range between 7,000 and 40,000 civilian dead). China Daily gave Gaza over six times the coverage, and the Independent Newspapers group in South Africa over 10 times. All papers ran more articles on Tiger Woods last year than on the Sri Lankan conflict.

This global silence plays into the hands of the Sri Lankan government’s apologists, both those who delude themselves and say, as one did in a meeting at London’s Frontline Club last week, that missing journalists have merely run off with mistresses, and those who are paid to delude others. The government has spent lavishly on public relations firms such as Bell Pottinger – which counts General Pinochet and Trafigura among its past clients – and its US subcontractor Qorvis, which also represents Equatorial Guinea’s unsavoury dictator. The pardoning on World Press Freedom Day of JS Tissainayagam, a journalist previously sentenced to 20 years’ hard labour, is part of this PR strategy.

All of us who care about universal values, and freedom of expression in particular, have a duty not to let Rajapaksa’s twisted version of events go unanswered. If we do so, we encourage other states to believe that they too can get away with the “Sri Lanka option” – using brutal methods to crush internal opposition, without regard for civilian casualties or international law. It has been reported that leaders from Colombia to Thailand have been following Rajapaksa’s “success” with great interest.

Those brave Sri Lankan journalists who continue to seek out and report the truth despite the high risk of “disappearance”, torture and assassination, surely deserve the support of their international colleagues. Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya’s murder has rightly been denounced around the world. Wickrematunge, who chillingly foretold his own death in an editorial published posthumously, should be no less well known. The Committee to Protect Journalists, a press freedom organisation, rates freedom of expression in Sri Lanka as lower than in Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, yet somehow the world – including the mainstream media world – does not seem to notice.

Surely it is time for that to change.

Edward Mortimer, guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 July 2010 17.00 BST

• Detention is a negative socialisation experience.

• Detention exacerbates the impacts of other traumas.

Dudley (2003) estimates that the rates of suicidal behaviours among men and women in these Australian detention centres are approximately 41 and 26 times the national average, respectively. Furthermore, male refugee claimants in detention have rates of suicidal behaviour that are 1.8 times higher male prison rates (Dudley, 2003). Steel et al. (2004) assessed parents and children who had been held in Australian immigration detention centres for approximately two years. All of the individuals met diagnostic criteria for at least 1 current psychiatric disorder; 26 disorders were identified among 14 adults, and 52 disorders were identified among 20 children. Mares and Jureidini (2004) confirmed these high levels of psychological distress among adults and children in detention and noted that there was very little support and few interventions provided in those settings. The detention setting places many obstacles in the way of clinicians servicing detainees and making significant improvements in such an impoverished environment is improbable. Refugees’ experiences of immigration detention have offered compelling evidence that detention has impeded efforts to address their mental health needs.

The Detention Health Advisory Group on which the APS is represented, is developing evidence-based policies and procedures in regard to the health and wellbeing of detainees, particularly around suicide and self harm issues. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). Studies examining the experiences of refugee claimants have also shown high rates of trauma, PTSD, and depression among this subgroup (Silove, 2002). One study, in which 51% of the sample had experienced torture, showed that, similar to other studies with refugees, combined PTSD and MDD was associated with considerable psychosocial disability (Silove et al., 2006). A host of other factors, including a number of policy-related variables like conflict with immigration officials, obstacles to employment and delays in processing of the refugee’s application, were associated with psychiatric distress (Silove, Sinnerbrink et al., 1999).

Particular emphasis has been placed on the psychological vulnerabilities of child refugee claimants who have been held in immigration detention. Thomas and Lau (2002) conducted an extensive review of local and international research into the mental health status of children and adolescents who were refugees or were detained in the course of claiming refugee status. Thomas and Lau concluded that symptoms of post-traumatic stress are common amongst child and adolescent refugees. Although symptoms vary across age groups, in preschoolers, they are generally manifested in very high anxiety, social withdrawal and regressive behaviours. In school-aged children, symptoms can include flashbacks, exaggerated startle responses, poor concentration, sleep disturbance, complaints of physical discomfort and conduct problems. In adolescents, symptoms may include acting out, aggressive behaviours, delinquency, nightmares, trauma and guilt over one’s own survival (Thomas & Lau, 2002, p. 3).

The studies they reviewed also offered evidence for a direct relationship between the level of pre-migration trauma to which young people were subjected and their levels of post-migration post traumatic stress. Children who were separated from parents or other caregivers were more likely to exhibit symptoms of depression. Thomas and Lau (2002) found evidence in the reported research for an inverse linear relationship between the time since the traumatic events occurred and young people’s level of post traumatic stress symptoms. Symptoms of traumatic stress decreased over time. However, they noted evidence in the research they reviewed which suggested those parents and other caregivers may underestimate young people’s levels of psychological stress and distress, and that young people’s levels of psychological dysfunction were related to levels of psychological dysfunction within their families. Their literature review provided strong evidence for the existence of co-morbid physical and psychological symptoms amongst young refugee claimants and for family separations and unaccompanied arrival having a negative influence on young detainees’ physical and psychological health and wellbeing.

The Australian Psychological Society’s submission (Allan, Davidson, Tyson, Schweitzer, & Starr, 2002) to the National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention reached a similar set of conclusions. The submission maintained that holding young people in immigration detention is a negative socialisation experience, accentuates developmental risks, threatens the bonds between children and significant caregivers, and limits educational opportunities. In addition, the detention experience has traumatic psychological impacts, reduces the potential to recover from pre-migration trauma, and exacerbates the impacts of other traumas.

The National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2004) found evidence in the submissions it received and in firsthand accounts of health professionals working with young refugee claimants in detention of: pre-migration trauma; negative impacts on young people of long-term detention; a compounding effect between that trauma and the impacts of detention; destructive effects of detention on families; a relationship between family functioning and young people’s mental health; alarming levels of suicidal ideation and acts of self harm amongst young detainees; alarming levels of MDD and PTSD amongst young detainees; diagnosis of other mental health problems, including anxiety, nightmares, bed wetting, dissociative behaviour, emotional numbing and a sense of hopelessness. Evidence also suggested that the levels of mental health care required by these young people could not be delivered effectively in a detention setting.

The inquiry concluded that: findings [on the incidence of MDD, PTSD and anxiety disorder amongst young detainees in an Australian detention centre] are consistent with the observations of a range of other experts about the impact of detention on asylum seekers. For example, a recent study from the United States finds that prolonged detention has a lasting negative health impacts [sic] on detainees (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2004, p. 392).

Finally, the inquiry concluded that “the education available to children in detention fell significantly short of the level of education provided to students with similar needs in the community”(p.636); that “On-site detention centre schools failed to develop a curriculum suited to the needs and capabilities of children in immigration detention” (p.636); and that “[children were inadequately assessed as to their educational needs, and there was insufficient reporting of [their] educational progress” (p.637).

RCNZ believes that New Zealand should take its own independent course in a policy based on humanitarian principles, and not follow the present direction of the Australian government. Australia has quite different asylum issues which are presently bound up in domestic politics related to their own upcoming elections.

There is scepticism regarding the statement made by the Prime Minister that remote New Zealand could be somehow be at risk for encountering a possible flood of boat people across the formidable Tasman Sea. Such a prospect seems highly unlikely. Even if a boat actually did ever reach our shores, then the East Timor solution would not be the best option.

We are also concerned about the appalling conditions in existing Australian asylum detention centres such as Christmas Island and believe that no New Zealand taxpayer funding should be applied to supporting a regional ‘transitional’ camp in East Timor. The so-called ‘Pacific Solution’ was eventually proven to be a failure, and the East Timor option is most likely to do so as well, and to have very limited actual deterrent value.

Under international law, any signatory to the UN Convention must receive and give due process under natural justice to all asylum claimants seeking refuge from persecution, war or torture. This must take place on a country’s own soil if an asylum seeker arrives in territorial waters. It is illegal and unethical to place asylum seekers in detention of a third party country.

RCNZ also is also concerned about the detrimental and damaging effects of long term detention on women and children particularly. Hard evidence regarding the exact nature and extent of the effects of detention is included in the enclosed attachment.

RCNZ is also very concerned about the reported statement of the Prime Minister that New Zealand may possibly accept a proportion of the boat people from Australia but apply that number within the small existing United Nations quota of 750. Such an ill-considered decision would predictably have quite unforeseen, damaging and unfair consequences for the high protection UN Quota Refugees who had been selected from the queue and welcomed for resettlement. It would also have the effect of most unfairly displacing family reunifications for former refugees who are now settled New Zealand citizens and who arrived legally as welcomed settlers.

“While respecting the right of citizens to demonstrate peacefully, preventing access to UN offices hinders the vital work being carried out by the United Nations each day to help the people of Sri Lanka,” UN spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters in New York. “The Government has provided assurances for the safety and security of our staff and for their full access to their offices,” he added. “We will be closely monitoring developments and trust these commitments will be honoured.”

Hundreds of people took part in the protests, which were reportedly led by Housing Minister Wimal Weerawansa and which called for an end to the UN advisory panel set up last month by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The three-member panel – comprising Marzuki Darusman of Indonesia, Yasmin Sooka of South Africa and Steven Ratner of the United States – is expected to wrap up its responsibilities within four months of starting work.

The protestors in conclusion of their protest, blocked the two entrances of the UN Colombo office, and obstructed the employees leaving the office premises, held a “Sathiyagiraha” in front of the UN office. Due to this the police and the protestors were on serious argument which later erupted to a clash. At this situation, Minister Wimal Weerawansa ordered the protestors to attack, hence one of the police officer was assaulted. At this situation, the police forcibly dragged the persons involved in “Sathiyagiraha” and removed them from the locality.

Wimal Weerawansa at this moment showed his severe condemn towards the incident, and even gave opinions against the police. It was visually able to observe that the Minister was pointing each of the police officer, and was scolding the police officers who were assigned for duty. Wimal Weerawansa said, that until Ban Ki Moon withdraws the expert panel, his protest will continue, and it will be later processed as hunger protest until death.

At this moment the Sri Lankan employees of the UN office who were unable to leave the office, as it was surrendered by the protestors, were safely removed from the premises by the Police. Even while the staff was leaving, the protestors began to hoot at them. Later in the evening the United Nation Organization’s foreign employees were safely removed from the office.

At this moment the protestors with the assistance of some performers carried fire torches showed their oppose. After all the incidents came to an end, Secretary to the External Affairs Romesh Jayasinghe arrived to the spot and had discussions with Wimal Weerawansa including the groups involved in the protest.