Mahinda under mulberry fire

By Dilrukshi Handunnetti

A member of the group charged the opposition leader had failed to push the SLFP's case when the ruling UNF rejected the party nominee for a top parliamentary committee.

He said the SLFPers nominated Dilan Perera for the chairman post of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprise (COPE), but the government side rejected it and wanted Gampaha District SLFP parliamentarian Jeyaraj Fernandopulle who was finally appointed. 

The exercise raised doubts about the government's claim that it would give the main opposition a free hand to appoint heads of parliamentary committees, he said. "Mr. Rajapakse should have protested when the UNF rejected Mr. Perera. Some of us believe he was soft peddling many issues and sacrificing the SLFP's interests," he said.

Another criticism levelled against Mr. Rajapakse is that he did not support the protest in Parliament on the day of the budget. "The protest was totally ineffective because it did not have the full blessings of the opposition leader," the member charged.

When asked about these allegations, Mr. Rajapakse said he was unaware of any 'mulberry' group in the party and expressed confidence he had the fullest backing of the rank and file of his party. 

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of a stinging political defeat at the recent local council polls, the SLFP has resolved to replace at least 40 of its organisers in a major restructuring drive.

General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena said the central committee would appoint 15 committees to make recommendations by May 1 for the restructuring of the party. 

But Mr. Rajapakse said he was unaware of these proposed committees adding that this was a proposal that existed long before the local government elections.

SLMC seeks top posts in local bodies

By Nilika de Silva 

Mr. Hakeem told The Sunday Times the matter had already been taken up at a meeting with UNP General Secretary Senerath Kapukotuwa and a high-level meeting with the prime minister and other UNF leaders had been scheduled for Monday or Tuesday.

He said the 68 SLMC members, including 18 from the Kandy district, had been elected on the UNP ticket and the party believed vice chairman posts of some of the local councils should be given to its members.

Budget rhetoric and reality

By the Economist

Those who are strongly for the government find the budget a very favourable one, those opposed find it has nothing worthwhile. 

A second feature of our social milieu is that many people in high positions are not willing to say anything unfavourable about the government till of course they have some certainty that the government is likely to crash. 

A third feature is that what they say in public and what they tell you in private could be very divergent. The comments and views on this year's budget appear to exemplify this.

Strangely the IMF officials in Sri Lanka also appear to exhibit these cultural features, especially after a good cup of invigorating Ceylon tea! It is most likely that the IMF, that has reacted favourably in public, would not accept the figures presented in the Budget. 

A more realistic estimate may be called for on the basis of which the IMF would consider the release of the remaining tranches of the credit line promised to the previous government but withheld for rather obvious reasons. Our analysis must however be frank, forthright and even blunt. Like previous budgets this too is not likely to achieve the intended results. Containing the budget deficit to 8.5 per cent of GDP is inadequate, yet it is not likely to be achieved. 

What is likely to be achieved is a further increase in the public debt that the Finance Minister took great pains to paint as a heavy burden. 

If as the Minister points out the debt servicing cost per household was Rs. 23,000 when he took office, will it be any less at the end of the year? Impossible with a budget deficit of Rs. 135 billion and anticipated borrowing of Rs. 107 billion. In fact the actual borrowings are likely to be larger for several reasons.

There is an expectation of Rs. 21 billion from privatisation proceeds. Given the international economic environment and the lack of confidence in Sri Lanka, the sale of shares in public enterprises at worthwhile prices is most unlikely. 

There is also doubt that some of the taxation measures would rake in the estimated amounts. This is especially so with respect to the Value Added Tax (VAT) that might repeat the story of GST. There has been no great saving on public expenditure. Defence expenditure has been cut by only one billion rupees. 

Samurdhi continues to absorb a large sum. Understandably it is not possible to bring down public expenditure suddenly in the next nine months of the year. 

The fear is that in fact, as it often happens, the budgeted expenditures would be exceeded.

The corporate sector has waxed eloquent on the merits of the budget. The share market that the business community considers a barometer of investor confidence has however dipped in the first few days of trading after the budget. 

It is a budget that gives the corporate sector some relief in taxation through the removal of the surcharge and faster depreciation allowances. 

Promises of future reductions in company taxes sound sweet in the ears of company directors, but they are likely to keep their eyes open to see whether the out-turn of this budget would enable the government to fulfil these promises. 

The lower rates of taxation of smaller enterprises are indeed a useful innovation and could spur medium sized enterprises.

The rhetoric of the Budget Speech is attractive. It is however short on facts and figures that matter. A jury would have given a favourable decision on it. 

But the inadequate and unrealistic facts and figures do not lead us to think that the fundamental weaknesses in the public finances have been addressed. 

A more stable political situation, a more favourable global economy and a permanent peace are needed to achieve the stated objectives of the Budget 2002. 

US rejects world court for fear of partisan lawsuits

Washington insists that the treaty, which could come into force on July 1, does not have adequate safeguards to prevent the political prosecution of US servicemen and officials abroad. 

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the Bush Administration's Ambassador-at-large for war crimes, said at a briefing in New York that the US might withdraw its signature from the 1998 Rome treaty that creates the first permanent international court for crimes against humanity.

"The removing of signature, unsigning, is within the range of options that we are considering," Mr Prosper said. "A final determination has not been made as to the exact approach."

US opposition to the new court, which is likely to start work in its temporary buildings in The Hague next year, puts it at loggerheads with its European allies and most of the rest of the world.

Britain, in particular, has pressed for the court to start functioning as early as possible. So the threat of an "unsigning" would create fresh tensions between London and Washington.

"It is no secret that we hope that with time the US will come to see that its concerns over the ICC are misplaced and will join the UK in ratifying the statute," a Foreign Office spokesman said. British diplomats added that for the moment the two sides would have to "agree to disagree".

Hoping to maintain Washington's influence in negotiations, President Clinton signed the Rome treaty in his last days in office to meet a deadline of December 31, 2000. 

But he made clear that he would not present the treaty for ratification by the US Senate - a position reiterated by the Bush Administration.

Diplomats originally predicted that it would take up to a decade for the treaty to get the 60 ratifications required for it to enter into force. But states have been rushing to support the creation of the new court and the Rome treaty is now almost certain to take effect on July 1 after a spate of ratifications in the coming weeks.

So far, 56 countries, including Britain, have ratified the treaty. The last four needed are due to accede at a ceremony at United Nations headquarters on April 11.

To avoid a competition to become the 60th country to ratify, the UN's treaty section is organising the simultaneous accession of Cambodia, Ireland, Romania and Jordan, the only Arab country to join. A number of other countries, including Greece, Latvia, Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, might ratify at the same time.

The treaty's rapid entry into force puts the US in a quandary because American servicemen will immediately become subject to the new court's jurisdiction if they are accused of war crimes on the territory of a state that has ratified the treaty and US courts fail to prosecute.

US diplomats fought a long and ultimately unsuccessful battle to give the UN Security Council, on which the US has a veto, control over which prosecutions are brought.

"A US serviceman or a political official could be brought before the court for purely political offences and not for offences that might have been committed," Mr Prosper said.

Despite the broad jurisdiction spelt out in the court's statute, the Bush Administration argues that under the law of treaties a state cannot be bound by a treaty to which it is not a party.

"Unsigning" would signal its determination not to be bound by the court's statute. "We believe the statute is inconsistent with treaty law," Mr Prosper said. "Treaty law states that treaties are only binding on people who sign up to the treaty."

But rights activists say that "unsigning" the treaty would be largely symbolic because states are not bound by treaties they have signed until they have also ratified them, although they are required not to do anything contrary to the treaty's purpose and objective. Indeed, the Rome treaty contains a provision in Article 127 for states to withdraw from the treaty by notifying the UN Secretary-General, but does not envisage mere signatories trying to pull out.

"Announcing the withdrawal of signature, which is definitely unprecedented, is simply an empty gesture that in no way, shape or form affects their obligations to the court because they do not have any obligations to co-operate with the court as a non-state-party to the treaty," Richard Dicker, a legal expert at Human Rights Watch, said.

Republicans in both houses of Congress have sponsored legislative amendments to retaliate against allies who ratify the tribunal by cutting off military aid or even to authorise the use of force to free any American held by the court. - Times, London