TIGblogs TIG | TIGblogs GROUP TIGBLOGS LOGIN SIGNUP
ashroffali
ashroffali
« previous 5


WFP food packs meant for LTTE terrorists?
Related to country: Sri Lanka
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

A consignment of ready-to-use high protein biscuits belonging to the World Food Programme bound for Vavunia was apprehended by the Police in Medawachchiya on Saturday (26), the Media Center for National Security reports.
The stock of 39,800 Kilograms contained “BP-100 Compact Therapeutical” which has a shelf life of 4 years, concealed in 3 layer packs. The driver of the truck transporting the batch when questioned by police said that these were being transported to the WFP’s Vavuniya office with the approval of the Ministry of Health.
However, a senior official of the Ministry of Health told www.news.lk that the Ministry is not involved with the WFP or with any other organization in the transportation of biscuits or any other similar items.

Police sources from Medawachchiya said that initial investigations have revealed that High Protein Biscuits of this kind are used by combatants as rations, pointing out that even the security forces use similar biscuits, although with a different brand name.

Speaking to the Government official news web, an officer of the WFP- Sri Lanka branch said that Country Director has called for an immediate discussion with the WFP staff with regard to the incident, treating the matter very seriously.

The ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) is presently available in two forms: a cookie (BP100) and as a paste that comes in a sachet. The nutritional qualities of the RUTFs are similar to those of the therapeutic milk and the high concentration of nutrients in a small volume. RUTFs are typically distributed among children suffering from or prone to malnutrition and studies have revealed that typically children prefer the paste to the biscuit. In this instance it is the biscuit and not the sachet that was being transported.

The WFP maintains sub-offices or branches in all parts of Sri Lanka including several in conflict-ridden areas such as Vavuniya, Kilinochchi, Trincomalee, Jaffna, Mulaitivu, Batticaloa and Ampara

The truck carrying the items is belonging to the "Trico" Terminal Private Limited company.

Medawachchiya Police are conducting investigations.

January 29, 2008 | 2:17 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


CFA Abrogation: A Most Compelling Necessity - Ambassador Bernard Goonatilleke
Related to country: Sri Lanka
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

The abrogation of the cease fire agreement was a most compelling necessity, stated Sri Lankan Ambassador in Washington, Bernard Goonetilleke making an in-depth analysis before a Washington discussion group. He added that the past twenty odd years are testimony to the fact that Tigers only agree to negotiate as a mere ploy; to buy time to regroup, to replenish and to strengthen their fighting capability
When adequately ready to fight, they walk away from negotiations, as they have done at each series of talks. That was not all; they were brazen enough to take the lives of those who initiated two rounds of talks viz. the former Indian Prime Minister Gandhi and President Premadasa and very nearly took the life of President Kumaratunga, in all three instances employing suicide bombers. When things were no going their way, they blamed the international community as being partisan and unjust.

The full text of Ambassador Goonetilleke’s speech is given below:

I am privileged, to be able to share with you, some thoughts on Sri Lanka’s attempts at conflict resolution and peace negotiation with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or the LTTE, which, the FBI earlier this month introduced as, “one of the most dangerous and deadly extremists in the world.”

I regret that Dr. Peter Chalk, who was to speak on “The International Dimension of the LTTE,” could not be with us today. However, as intended, I shall focus on the Ceasefire Agreement, the peace process and the role of the international community, while Dr. Stanley Samarasinghe will speak on how Sri Lanka could realistically resolve the conflict.

You are aware that Sri Lanka is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy, in fact, one of the oldest democracies in South Asia. You are also aware that the LTTE shuns democracy, and intends, through terrorism, to establish a mono-ethnic, mono-political separate state in Sri Lanka’s north and east. This separate state will encompass approximately 30% of the country’s landmass, and is intended for Sri Lankan Tamils, who, according to the1981 census, comprise approximately 12% of the county’s population. The majority of these Tamils, incidentally, live outside the north and the east.

LTTE Leader, Prabhakaran in a speech on November 27, last year said, and I quote, “We are struggling only to regain our sovereignty in our own historical land where we have lived for centuries, the sovereignty which we lost to colonial occupiers.” The sovereignty he spoke of ended in 1560, when the Portuguese defeated Jaffna’s ruler, Cankili 1, more than 200 years before the U.S. declaration of independence. Note that Cankili’s rule at that time was limited to Jaffna, and did not extend to present day northern and eastern provinces.

The LTTE demand for a separate state, called “Tamil Eelam,” at best, can be described as “fictitious,” for there was never, at any time in Sri Lanka’s history, “a traditional Tamil homeland,” as the Vadukkodai Resolution of 1976, declared based on an erroneous claim by the first British colonial Secretary Hugh Cleghorn.

Sri Lanka is a small island, home to 20 million, similar in size to West Virginia, or is twice the size of the island of Hawaii. It has been home to many ethnic groups for over 2000 years, who migrated north to south and south to north over the years. Thus, the Sinhalese, Tamils, Moors, Burghers, Malays and other communities, too numerous to be listed, can all rightfully claim the island as their traditional homeland.

Sri Lanka’s Ceasefire agreement or the CFA and its recent abrogation have been very much in the news these days. My familiarity with the CFA runs back to the time of its presentation in draft form by Norway, to its signature in February 2002, to its implementation, or more to the point, its brazen violation by the LTTE, from day one. I recall my critical remark in early November 2005, that a glaring defect of the CFA was the inordinate haste of its conclusion, denying the opportunity, particularly to the Sri Lanka government, to deeply scrutinize it.

The eagerness to conclude the CFA with least delay, was due to the fact, that by Christmas 2001, the government had agreed to an informal ceasefire initiated by the LTTE, and Norway, in its wisdom, considered it desirable to have a formal agreement signed before the informal ceasefire began to unravel. In retrospect, at least some of the CFA’s shortcomings could have been addressed, if the parties had more time to consider the ramifications of individual articles of the agreement, including practicability of timelines indicated in the CFA.

On January 3, 2008, the government gave notice to abrogate the CFA, which became operational on January 17, 2008. Since then, many close observers of Sri Lanka’s conflict and the peace process, Co-Chairs of the Tokyo Donor Conference viz. Norway, Japan, the US and the EU, other friends of Sri Lanka and the civil society, have expressed concern. The sentiments commonly expressed have been that withdrawal from the CFA would escalate fighting, leading to heavy civilian casualties and violation of human rights, that there is no military solution to the conflict, that a solution can be found only through negotiation, and that parties to the conflict should return to the CFA.

First, the government’s notice of abrogation on January 3 was not out of the ordinary, as Article 4.4 of the CFA provided for either party to withdraw by giving 14 days notice to Norway. The government action to abide by the agreement, contrasts with the LTTE’s actions with respect to the previous truce, where the LTTE commenced hostilities following several hours of notice, on April 18 1995.

Second, the demand of a return to the CFA is like requesting a return to the make-believe world in which Sri Lankans lived since 2002. True, the CFA halted open hostilities and saved many lives. However, those who are familiar with the CFA would recall that the LTTE began violating the agreement willy-nilly, within weeks of signing it. By end April 2007, Tigers had amassed a catalogue of 3800 violations as determined by the Nordic monitors, as against some 300 minor violations by the government forces. I vividly recall how one of those initial violations took me to Kilinochchi for a meeting with late Tamilselvan. That encounter proved, beyond any doubt, how fickle the Tigers were, about upholding the nascent CFA. Throughout the CFA, they engaged in serious truce violations such as, assassinating moderate Tamil politicians, officials and members of the armed forces; murdering political opponents; engaging in suicide bombings; abducting civilians for ransom; and conscripting child soldiers, despite the tripartite agreement signed with the government and UNICEF. It was during this so-called “ceasefire,” that the Tigers assassinated foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, made two attempts to kill another Tamil minister, Douglas Devananda, using female suicide bombers, and employed yet another female suicide bomber in an attempt to assassinate the commander of the Sri Lanka Army. I wonder, which country, among those who ask Sri Lanka today to return to the CFA, would agree to continue with a charade of that nature, in the face of such grave provocations.

It is a fact that a ceasefire agreement existed until recently. However, the violations listed by Nordic monitors clearly establish that the Tigers never ceased firing. What remained of the CFA, until its recent abrogation, was an agreement on paper, rendered defunct by the Tigers, from day one. In this backdrop, it is ironical that, after the government served notice to withdraw from the CFA, the LTTE solemnly declared, it would uphold the CFA 100%! However, none of those critical of the government’s decision, thought it fit to ask the Tigers why they failed to uphold the CFA 100% since inception.

Third, critics predict that Sri Lanka’s withdrawal from the CFA would result in increased levels of violence. If the Tigers had been genuine about a negotiated settlement, they had a golden opportunity in November 2005, when President Mahinda Rajapaksa was sworn in as President of Sri Lanka. The President, in his inaugural speech, said, “I reaffirm my commitment & determination to pursue the peace process to achieve an honorable peace that will respect the aspirations of all communities in our country…. To achieve this noble goal, my Government will be ready to engage the L.T.T.E. in discussing a political solution, when the L.T.T.E. declares their readiness to resume negotiations, which they unilaterally abandoned.” Two days after the inauguration, Prabhakaran acknowledged President Rajapaksa as a pragmatic man and said that he would give him time to find a solution to the conflict.

Pause for a moment to examine the difference between the words and the deeds of the Tigers.

Eight days later, on December 5, 2005, the Tigers carried out their first claymore mine attack against the armed forces. This was followed by killing scores of civilians in isolated villages, bombing of a market place in Trincomalee, employing a suicide bomber to assassinate the Army Commander, killing the third most senior officer of the army and detonating claymore mines targeting a bus carrying civilian passengers, taking the lives of over 60 passengers.

Thus, sane thinking would indicate that it was not the abrogation of the CFA that would lead to increased violence, but it was the ever increasing violence and grave provocations that led the government to abrogate the CFA.

Fourth, Sri Lanka shares the view of its friends, the US included, that the conflict can only be resolved politically, not militarily. President Rajapaksa said so on the day of his inauguration, and has, since, repeated it many times. If you think that the political leadership says one thing, and the military is pursuing its own agenda, Army Commander Sarath Fonseka, said at a media briefing on January 12, 2008, and I quote, “Ultimately, any solution will have to be political. But there can be a political solution only after the LTTE has laid down arms.”

Fifth, on the subject of the CFA, Sri Lanka has attempted no less than six series of negotiations, since 1985. Of those, only the last three, in 1995, 2002/2003 and 2006 were conducted in an environment of CFAs. This demonstrates that a CFA, while being a useful tool, is not essential for negotiations, if parties to the conflict are serious about a resolution. What is essential is to conduct negotiations in good faith until a lasting solution to the conflict is agreed upon.

Finally, a “ceasefire” by its very definition, is a temporary measure, until it is replaced by a more permanent arrangement. Similarly, the CFA signed between the government and the LTTE was a temporary suspension of hostilities until negotiations were concluded. After the Tigers unilaterally moved away from negotiations in April 2003, it took Norway nearly three years to bring them back to the table. When they repeated their performance in October 2006, there seemed little prospect of their return. Neither can the government be confident that the Tigers would be any less fickle in future peace talks, than they have been during the last two decades.

Thus, it is regrettable that the international community has failed to understand the complex dynamics that have played out over nearly three decades in Sri Lanka. With the ease of the uninformed, some countries repeatedly call on the government and the LTTE, to shun hostilities and to resume peace talks. The reality is that Sri Lanka has attempted negotiations with the Tigers on six different occasions, viz., in 1985 at Thimpu with Indian mediation; in 1987 with Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi taking the lead; during 1989/90 with President Premadasa; in 1995 with President Chandrika Kumaratunga; during 2002/03 with Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe; and with President Mahinda Rajapaksa in 2006. The past twenty odd years are testimony to the fact that Tigers only agree to negotiate as a mere ploy; to buy time to regroup, to replenish and to strengthen their fighting capability. When adequately geared to fight, they walk away from negotiations, as they have done at each series of talks. That was not all; they were brazen enough to take the lives of those who initiated two rounds of talks viz. the former Indian Prime Minister Gandhi and President Premadasa and very nearly took the life of President Kumaratunga, in all three instances employing suicide bombers.

We ought to ask, then, how serious were the Tigers, when they sat at the negotiating table. I can authoritatively speak of the six meetings we had in Bangkok, Oslo, Berlin, and Hakone, between September 2002 and March 2003, as I was part of the government team. The LTTE insisted that the two sides focus on banal issues, or to borrow late Balasingham’s own words, “the existential problems” faced by the Tamil civilians in the north and the east first, and only after resolving them, to discuss issues leading to a settlement of the conflict. Our plea that we utilize the time to discuss both issues simultaneously fell on deaf ears.
Against this background of Tiger stonewalling, Norway made a valiant bid in Oslo, in November 2002, to persuade the leader of the LTTE delegation to agree on a compromise, where the LTTE agreed to the terminology “the parties agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self –determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking peoples, based on federal structure with an united Sri Lanka…” and, for the first time, agreed to initiate discussions on substantive political issues leading to a political solution, such as: Power-sharing between the center and the region, as well as within the center; Geographical region; Human rights protection; Political and administrative mechanism; Public finance; and Law and order. That was a refreshing breakthrough, given the tense atmosphere in Oslo the previous evening. That was also a landmark decision, as the LTTE agreed to climb down from its demand for a separate state, and the government agreed to a solution based on a federal structure, a concession successive governments failed to concede to the Tamil minority.

What followed thereafter is history. Opposition soon built up against the leader of the LTTE delegation in his own camp, and he abruptly ended a crucial visit to Wanni, following Prabhakaran pressurizing him to retract. He returned to London, a sick and broken man and went into isolation, severing all connections with the LTTE, Norway and the rest of the world. Later, he painstakingly tried to explain there was no agreement in Oslo for a solution based on a federal arrangement!

The final meeting held in Hakone, Japan, in March 2003, was an eye opener, as that meeting clarified beyond any doubt that the LTTE had reverted to its old position of not discussing any substantive issue to resolve the conflict. On par with the understanding reached in Oslo, the International Adviser on Human Rights, Ian Martin, presented a paper, and the late Balasingham came up with reasons why they could not agree to international monitoring of human rights. His response was that Sri Lanka’s national Human Rights Commission was equal to the task. When pressed to focus on other substantive issues agreed upon in Oslo, Balasingham sheepishly said he had no mandate to discuss any of those subjects, proving that he had been prohibited from engaging in discussing substantive issues by the LTTE leadership.

I have traced the history of negotiations, not to heap blame on late Balasingham, or even on the LTTE. All what I want to say is, that the LTTE had a clear strategy then, as it does now, and that is, to establish a separate state by hook or by crook, irrespective of the deaths it would cause to the Tamil people it claims to represent, and destruction to the country. After all, Prabhakaran has given permission to his cadres to kill him if he wavers from the commitment he made for a separate state. And, the slogan of the LTTE still remains “The thirst of the Tigers is the Homeland of Tamil Eelam.”

Against this backdrop, the question we ask from those who urge the government to seek a negotiated settlement is, are they asking us to negotiate with the LTTE once again? If the LTTE demand for a separate state is non-negotiable, what exactly are we going to negotiate with them? There are more questions. How can a democratically elected government hand over a part of its sovereign territory to an undemocratic entity like the LTTE, which engages in terrorism? What is the fate of the Muslim and Sinhala people, living in the areas claimed by the LTTE, as the traditional homeland of the Tamils?

Finally, we have to ask, who would guarantee that this time around, the LTTE will not walk away from the negotiating table. Some may even ask, if the players were different, for example, would the US negotiate with a terrorist group, which has used suicide bombers to assassinate one president, nearly killed another president, and assassinated several secretaries, including the Secretary of State? There are certain individuals, who try to draw parallels between the LTTE demands with the American demand for independence from Britain. However, in my view, the more appropriate comparison is to describe the LTTE to the secessionist Confederates, who tried to break away from the Union. As President Abraham Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861,“Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy."

Likewise, “Physically speaking, we can not separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them” Sri Lankan government too, being a representative entity like the Union, finds secession wholly unacceptable, and seeks friendship of all its citizens, and genuine peace, as President Lincoln did, where all citizens in the country can co-exist as equals in harmony, as they did for many centuries. Throughout the conflict, Sri Lanka’s friends have remained steadfastly supportive of a negotiated solution to the conflict.

The Tigers, however, see this involvement as being partial toward the government. In his Heroes Day speech in November 2007, referring to the role of the international community, Prabhakaran, said, “This partisan and unjust conduct of the international community has severely undermined the confidence our people had in them. And it has paved the way for the breakdown of the ceasefire and the peace efforts.”

Despite the stance of Tigers, Sri Lanka is indeed appreciative of the positive role played by the international community in the war on terrorism. The ban on the LTTE, first by India, the U.S., the U.K., followed by Canada and the 27 member EU, has helped dampen the Tigers’ increasing ability to raise funds for their war chest.

The U.S. ban on one of the LTTE front organizations, the Tamil Rehabilitation Organization (TRO) in November 2007, was a significant blow to the Tiger fundraising capabilities. This kind of international action is critical to make the Tigers realize they do not have an endless fount of resources to carry on a relentless terrorist campaign to achieve its major political objective, a separate state, by force of arms.

The international community also needs to persuade the LTTE to return to the negotiating table, and to hang in there until a satisfactory comprise is reached. Only such action will drive home the message that undemocratic methods of seizing power as the Tigers currently employ, are unacceptable to the civilized world.
The international community needs to be cognizant that democracies cannot take extra-constitutional measures, and, political solutions to conflicts require discussion, debate and compromise before consensus is reached.

As you may be aware, after deliberating for one and a half years, the All Party Representative Committee (APRC), comprising the political spectrum of the country, submitted its proposals for devolution to the President, two days ago. Complex arrangements for devolution and power sharing, that also involve constitutional changes and consultation of the people, are inevitably, an incremental process. It is necessary to remind the international community, that this is only a beginning of an evolving process, which requires its fullest and continuing support.

January 28, 2008 | 1:28 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Sri Lanka: 187,500 Internally Displaced Persons
Related to country: Sri Lanka
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

Updated figures of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in Sri Lanka as of 31 December 2007 of those IDP movements after 7 April 2006, has been established to be 187,850 persons. Of this number, 31,843 still remain in welfare centres or temporary accommodation centres, while 156,007 are said to live with friends and relatives. However, numbers given for Killinochchi, Mullativu and the Southern part of Jaffna cannot be verified.

This data is contained in a compilation published on 17 January 2008 by the Ministry of Resettlement and Disaster Relief Services, the Ministry of Nation Building and Development and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The table below lists the figures on a District wise basis:

District
IDPs in Welfare Centres and Temporary Accommodation Centres
IDPs with Friends and Relatives
Total

Jaffna
857
30,180
31,037

Kilinochchi
3,737
44,810
48,547

Mullativu
923
31,173
32,096

Mannar
9,660
13,884
23,544

Vavuniya
281
10,362
10,643

Trincomalee
3,753
2,218
5,971

Batticaloa
10,041
16,471
26,512

Ampara
87
5,608
5,695

Puttalam
2,371
551
2,922

Anuradhapura
-
486
486

Polonnaruwa
133
47
180

Gampaha
-
213
213

Kegalle
-
4
4

Grand Total
31,843
156,007
187,850



The government is committed to settling back all IDPs in their original homes. In the Eastern Province alone, over 108,000 IDPs have already returned to their homes since March 2007, and only 38,178 persons are living in welfare centres or temporary accommodation or with friends and relatives. Most of them have been held back due to the need for the clearance of landmines.

The settlement of IDPs back in their homes has been a voluntary process and it has been undertaken according to international standards. This has been acknowledged by the international community including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the World Food Programme(WFP).

January 28, 2008 | 1:28 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Terror Threats Weigh on U.N. Staff Abroad
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

The United Nations is living under the shadow of terrorist threats, forcing some of its field staff to work from the safety of their homes.

The attack on the U.N. premises in Algeria last month that claimed the lives of 17 staff members -- the second such attack after the August 2003 bombing of the U.N. compound in Baghdad -- has jolted the Secretariat in New York.

"With the United Nations increasingly becoming a target around the world, no efforts should be spared to protect its staff, beginning with an independent investigation and the transparent sincerity of its purpose," says the New York-based U.N. Staff Union.

Asked about the attacks, Ban Ki-moon told reporters last week: "As the secretary-general, I feel it very unfortunate and sad that the United Nations has become the target of terrorist bombings, already for the second time, after the terrorist bombing which happened four years ago in Baghdad."

''There may be many areas strategically where we will have to look at this issue," he said, expressing customary reticence in divulging some of the new security measures the United Nations plans to take.

Primarily, he said, the responsibility of protecting U.N. staff and premises falls on the host government.

"And we do expect that the host governments, wherever the United Nations operates, should provide adequate and necessary protection and facilities and measures. This is what I am going to discuss with (the U.N.'s 192) member states," said Ban.

The Secretariat is also involved in a war of words with the Algerian government, which is opposed -- primarily for political reasons -- to any independent investigation of the bombing.

The government also denies the charge that it ignored a U.N. request for stepped up security measures, including blocking off streets, before the bombing of the U.N. offices in the capital of Algiers.

Kemal Dervis, head of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), whose office was destroyed in the attack, says that in at least six countries, U.N. staff has been told to work at home because some of the U.N. agencies in the field have become more "explicit targets" of terrorist groups.

Dervis refused to identify the six countries, but admitted Algeria was one of them.

The threats against U.N. staffers have been directed both at officials and peacekeepers in countries such as Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

Osama bin Laden, described as the mastermind behind the terror attacks on the United States in September 2001, offered a reward of some 10,000 grams of gold for the lives of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and his Special Representative in Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi.

A senior U.N. official told IPS, "The United Nations means many things to many people." First, there is the political body, and then there is the Secretariat, and the various humanitarian agencies.

If the Security Council is accused of double standards or being biased, it's the big powers that are to be blamed -- not the U.N. staff in the Secretariat or in the field.

"Unfortunately, most people out there have failed to make the distinction between the United Nations as a political animal and the United Nations as a humanitarian organisation," he added.

If a U.N. office is targeted, it's the staff that takes a beating, not the member states, who trigger the political resentment in the first place.

Dervis said the victims in the Algerian attack were not soldiers who signed up for battle, "but people, mostly Algerians, who are working for peace, development and to alleviate human suffering."

"It's so saddening for me to see, with my own eyes, the impact of this attack on colleagues so committed to helping create sustainable livelihoods for Algeria's poor, supporting access to justice, strengthening the national parliament and promoting environmental protection," said Dervis, one of the most senior U.N. officials to visit the scene of the attack last month.

At a memorial service for U.N. staff members who lost their lives in Algiers, the secretary-general said: "What we remembered at today's ceremony was a savage loss inflicted on the entire United Nations family."

"Our colleagues worked at the United Nations in Algiers not to pursue a political mission, and definitely not to promote the interests of one group of nations or peoples over those of another."

Just after the bombing last month, the secretary-general also wondered whether the anti-U.N. sentiments were an indication of the failure to communicate the U.N. mission to people worldwide.

He said the United Nations must do even better in explaining to the public and the media the role of the world body, "wherever we operate -- why we are there, what we do, what we stand for and what we don't."

"We must make clear we are not there to represent the interests of any one group of nations over another. We must make clear that we are there to clear mines, build schools, run clinics, advance the rule of law, help protect the environment and help protect human rights."

In short, he said, "(we are there) to build better lives for the men, women and children we exist to serve," he declared.

January 28, 2008 | 1:28 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


Indian Congress urges banning of parties supporting LTTE
Related to country: India
Translations available in: English (original) | French | Spanish | Italian | German | Portuguese | Swedish | Russian | Dutch | Arabic

With the recent rise of LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu, the Congress Party has requested the State Government to take stern action against political parties and organizations supporting the proscribed terrorist movement.
Several incidents have been reported from Tamil Nadu where organizations and individuals openly and actively supported the LTTE terrorists through various channels.

Participating in a discussion on the motion of thanks to the Governor for his address to the assembly, senior legislator, C Gnanasekaran of the Congress Party cited reports that 102 LTTE cadres had infiltrated into the state during the last two years and that cases had been filed against 40 of them under the National Security Act, Indian media reports.

Recalling the recent arrest of LTTE intelligence wing leader Thambidurai Parameswaran and others, who allegedly attempted to procure arms and material for the LTTE, he questioned the "inaction" of the state's intelligence, sources said.

Stating that the LTTE had also killed several Tamils, Gnanasekaran wondered how some parties and organizations in the state were openly supporting the outfit.

Mr. Gnanasekaran requested the Government to ban such organizations and completely curb their activities in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere in India.

Meanwhile reiterating that Congress party would never forgive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) for "assassinating" former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, he urged the Tamil Nadu Government to take to steps to bring LTTE leader V Prabakaran to India to face trial in the assassination case.

January 26, 2008 | 9:26 AM Comments  0 comments
Tags:


« previous 5


ashroff ali's Profile

ashroff ali's Friends


Latest Posts
WFP food packs meant...
Terror Threats Weigh...
Sri Lanka: 187,500...
CFA Abrogation: A Most...
Indian Congress urges...

Monthly Archive
April 2007
May 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
December 2007
January 2008

Change Language


Filter By Type
Travel
Topics

Friends
'Yemisi
abeer alnajai
Ameera
Ameera
Amira Hassan el Hake3
amira helmy
Amy Macaskill
Anastasia Burlakova
Andie
andripradhana
Angie
Anita
Anna
Anu Jaanu
arabian smile
Arno
Arslan Jumaniyazov
Arundhaty Parida
Aun Hasan Ali
Azira Aziz
BaDeR
becca
Bernise Ang
Bow Uriyapongson
Camilla Noble-Warren
Carrie Todd
Cat
Cathtrine
Ceren Gergeroglu
cherry
Chrysalide13
conchita beonca
corochii olga
Cristina Remond
cyntia williams
Daikini
Danish Khan MCP, CompTIA A+ & CompTIA Network+ Certified Professional (webmaster@mdanishkhan.tk)
Earl B
Ediola
Emrah
Enas Abdel Hameed Rady
Erick Ochieng Otieno
Erina
esra
Eu
Fai Moh
Farah
Fatma S S
Faye
Fi McKenzie
Franziska Seel
Gabriele Cristina Piato
Gameela
giAnnA
Gracia!!
green circle
HALA .M
Hana
Hanna Sirén
Harini Dias Bandaranayake
harya
Hauwa Umar
Hind
i
Iddrisu Fadila
Ines ATTYA
Isis Lima Soares
Jaya Anderman Toiber
Jennifer Corriero
jessievanm
Jo
Jouni Y
Juliane
Karina
Katelyn Merrett
Katia Overko
Kirsten
Kristiina Meriläinen
Laouini Amel
Leana
Lei
Lika Kartsivadze
Lika Kartsivadze
Lisa Marika Jokivirta
Lisa Robinson
Lucia
luoluo eden
Madelaine Hamilton
Maitreyi Doshi
Maja Andjelkovic
Mar
MARBS
Margie Brand
Maria Paz Camina
Marie Tiwari
Marsi
Mary
Mazhar
Melina Laboucan-Massimo
Mia Haglund
Michelle Alphonso
Minh Thu Dang
MISSracquel
mogeshe
MOHAMED AHMED RADI ABOUARAB
Mohammad Obeidat
Mohammed A. Abed Albaki
mona gasim azzain
Montvai Eszter
NaBeeel
Naglaa
nancy
Nathalia Campos
neeta
Nguyen Thanh Huyen
NI NYOMAN ANNA MARTHANTI
Nora Marttila
Olesya Gook
Ooma
Patchi
Patrice J. Lee
Patricia Kumar
paula richardson
Quỳnh Diệp Ngô
Radha
Radwa O. Awad
Raimo Kaarna
Raphael Mlozoa
Raquel Aguirre
Rina
ritu mathur
Ritva Saarikettu
Robin Worley
Rosalyn Knapp
Saiyora
Sandi Rankaduwa
Sara Donají
Sarah S.
Sharifa
Shireen
siddiqua
Simone
Sonali
Stefanie
Stephanie Julmy
Strawberry
tiloma
tnf495
tobi
Tusye Agustina
UFJ
Ulrich Wilke
Vera
Wafa Nagib Sherwi
wesam hassan
www.genv.net
Yanina Lariza Hilario Solis
Yara Kassem
Yaz
Yinmin Chung
Zalex 100% xox
Zlatimira Colova
zmn Algroh
Zorica Vukovic
Весна


63862 views
Important Disclaimer