Sri Lanka and UNHRC resolution

Sri Lanka (SL) is a war-ravaged Asian country. The Northern and Eastern parts of SL are dominated by Tamil-speaking people (Tamils). The rest of SL is largely inhabited by Sinhalese. SL is a Unitary Republic. The Tamils have been fighting for devolution of powers to provinces. Their fight had been institutionalized with the formation of LTTE. SL had been in conflict with LTTE for more than three decades.

In 2009, SL army routed the LTTE from the Northern and Eastern parts of its mainland. It was a complete victory to the army with every ranking leader of LTTE is either killed or arrested and put behind bars. However, during the war, the army is alleged to have committed the violation of Human rights. And the International Community is demanding for settling the problem of Tamils amicably.

Moreover, after the war, the army marched to occupy the northern and eastern parts of SL with the objective of preventing any possibility of formation of LTTE-type organization. The SL government has permitted ex-servicemen to set up shops in these areas. Thus, intervention of army into the economic activities of the people has given death blow to the livelihoods of population.

LLRC report

In the aftermath of victory over LTTE, Mahinda Rajapakse, the Prsident of SL, constituted Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) to recommend on the steps to be taken to heal the wounds of war. LLRC submitted its final report on November 20, 2011. The main recommendations of LLRC can be outlined as below:

- take up seriously the investigation of cases of disappearances and abductions;

- act stringently to curb activities of illegal armed groups

- reduce the high-security zones;

- return private lands occupied by the military;

- set in motion a process of demilitarization, including the phasing out of the involvement of the security forces in civilian activities and the restoration of civilian administration in Northern Province.

Steps taken by SL post-war

Indeed, the SL government has taken significant steps to rebuild the infrastructure that the LTTE allowed to crumble to its advantage. Roads, communication, connectivity, education have been improved. However, it is to be noted that the SL government has done little to address the issue of provision of minority “rights” to Tamils, for which LTTE had been fighting. After the submission of LLRC report, the SL government has constituted 3 committees to implement of recommendations of LLRC.

UNHRC resolution

Despite the seemingly positive steps taken by SL government, United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has initiated a resolution against SL government. Why? The SL government, soon after the war in 2009, passed a resolution at UNHRC promising to evolve a political solution, by beginning with broader dialogue with all the parties, to the problem of tamils based on 13^th amendment (13^th amendment shall be discussed later). The SL government has gone back on its word. Even at the end of 3 years, no dialogue with all political parties, including Tamil National Congress, has been brokered successfully.

The SL government wants the matter to be discussed only at Parliament Select Committee (PSC). But PSC is a microcosm of SL parliament and since the representation on PSC is directly proportional to the representation in parliament, the TNC is bound to have less members of it on PSC and thus its contention is that any solution from PSC will not be in its favour. This intransigent stands by SL government and TNA have halted any progress towards seeking amicable political solution to the problem of Tamils.

The failure of SL government to keep its words has led to the initiation of resolution against it at UNHRC.

The UNHRC resolution

- Calls upon the government to implement the constructive recommendations made in the report of the LLRC and to take all necessary additional steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation for all Sri Lankans.

- Requests the government to present, as expeditiously as possible, a comprehensive report detailing the steps it has take, and will take to implement the recommendations of LLRC and address alleged violation of international law

- Encourages UN high commissioner for Human rights and relevant special procedures mandate holders to provide, in consultation with and concurrence of SL government, advice and technical assistance for the implementation of above mentioned steps.

The resolution has been passed in 47-member body with 24 countries voting in favour, 15 against and 8 abstaining from vote. India voted in favour of the resolution, i.e. against SL government.

India and UNHRC resolution

On the face, it appears that India voted against SL government because of the mounting pressure by an important constituent of ruling UPA, DMK. But this is not all the case. India voted against SL government when all Asian counterparts voted in favour is to be mooted deeply.

India supported Tamil cause in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It had trained LTTE troops in its homeland. It had offered food and medical assistance to LTTE. But SL government forged INDO-SRI LANKA accord in 1987. Accordingly, SL government agreed to the devolution of powers to provinces and the merger of Northern and Eastern SL and declaration of Tamil to be official language. This accord is termed 13^th Amendment. In return, Indian government agreed to establish order in SL and Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was dispatched to SL for this purpose. After 3 years of struggle with LTTE, India established interim peace.

However, SL government went back on its word. It is an irony to note that when SL government devolved some power to all provinces, the provinces for which INDO-SRI LANKA accord in 1987 was forged, North and East SL, did not get any power!

The SL government has falsely promised Indian government many times that it is committed to implement 13^th amendment.

India wanted to send a strong message to the SL that it wanted the latter to implement 13^th amendment. So it voted in favour of resolution, as against its convention not vote for any country-specific resolution.

However, India watered down a few provisions in the resolution. India insisted that the clause on reporting to UNHRC on the developments and the clause that insisted that SL accept the technical advice of UNHRC be deleted.

This seems to have actually kept India in bad books of both SL government and Tamils. While SL government is unhappy that India voted against it; Tamils are unhappy that India watered down the resolution.

(The inputs to this article have been borrowed from FRONTLINE April 20, 2012)

Safety at Kudankulam

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) has been in news for the opposition of public for the proposed commissioning of nuclear power plant there. The public outcry has been invigorated by the Fukushima disaster in June, 2011. In this context an article “Safety at the core of Kudankulam nuclear reactors” in The Hindu (dt March 11, 2012) highlights the safety measures undertaken by NPCIL. Here an attempt has been made to share the gist of that article.
Following safety measures have been undertaken by NPCIL to ensure the safety of the plant personnel, the public and the environment as a whole.
 The KKNPP has been built at 7.5 mteres above mean sea level. A shore protection bund has been constructed all along the shore to a height of 8 meters to the mean sea level. This would mitigate the probability of tsunami, tidal variation and storm surge collapsing the KKNPP and leading to Fukushima-like disaster.
 The plant has been fitted with Seismic sensors which safely shut down the reactor in case the seismicity exceeds the preset levels. This insulates the KKNPP from any likely earthquake.
 Passive heat removal systems have been instituted to provide cooling for the removal of decay heat using atmospheric air.
 The confinement of radio-activity within the building is of utmost importance. The reactor building has dual-confinement structure. The inner containment is a pre-stressed concrete structure with the thickness of 1.2 meters. The outer containment is a reinforced concrete structure with the thickness of 0.6 meters. These two barriers ensure that radio-activity does not reach the public domain.
 Hydrogen re-combiners have been placed extensively throughout the plant. These re-combiners would convert the hydrogen generated during any accident into water. This prevents any likely hydrogen-explosion within the containment as happened in Fukushima.
 A huge vessel weighing 101 tonnes has been installed at KKNPP. This would collect the molten core, cool it and maintain it in sub-critical state in the event of any damage to the fuel core.
 A special fish protection facility has been instituted at KKNPP. This would assist the fishes which come along the sea water used in cooling systems within the reactor site to go back to sea. This would conserve fish population in particular and bio-diversity in general.

Visit of Hilary Clinton to Myanmar

Myanmar, India’s neighbouring country, is one of the most impoverished nations in south-east Asia. The nation is conspicuous by the absence of democratic government. Military overthrew democratic government in 1962. Since then, the nation there has been mounting pressure from the west on the military government to encourage transition to democracy. This pressure was culminated in the imposition of economic sanctions on it by the West led by US.

Surprisingly, topsy-turvy seems to have happened in the US policy towards Myanmar. This was evident in the visit of Hiliary Clinton, US Secretary of State to Myanmar in December 2011. This reversal in the policy is attributed to the efforts of Obama’s administration to check the growing influence of China in the region. The visit has come in the wake of annulment of multi-billion dollar with China to build a hydro-electric project on R. Irrawady.

The US has assured that it would no longer impede the bank loans from IMF and World Bank. It is said that the US is viewing resources-rich Myanmar as an attractive investment avenue. The Myanmarese government is also contemplating a law giving easy terms to US companies with tax exemption upto eight years.

The repercussion of reversal of US stand is to be seen in the time to come by.

BMD successfully test-fired

A new feather to the cap of DRDO was added on February 10, 2012 when it successfully test-fired Ballistic Missile Defence(BMD) capability.

Indian BMD program was started to successfully foil any possible missile attack by Pakistan. It was launched in late 1990s when Pakistan test-fired Ghauri ballistic missiles.

Till date, DRDO has launched six BMD missions successfully.

On February 10, 2012, Prithvi missile took off from Integrated Test Range (ITR) off the Odisha coast at 10.10 am. It mimicked the trajectory of ‘attacker’ missile. The interceptor missile was launched from Wheeler insland off the Odisha coast and it successfully destroyed the ‘enemy Prithvi’ at 10.15 am at an altitude of 15 km. The interceptor is claimed to be of having capability to destroy missiles belonging upto 2000 km range. While the attacker, in this case, belonged merely to the range of 600 km.

DRDO says it needs ship-based platforms for launching interceptors far away from shores.