UKC

I'm interested in what people's thoughts are on whether the UK PM should be visiting Sri Lanka for this Commonwealth conflab in an attempt to raise awareness of the human rights abuses there, or whether he should refuse to go for the same reasons?

Seeing some of the reports from Columbo on the news yesterday, it was quite an eye-opener for me how far this beautiful country has slipped since the end of the civil war into being what appears to be an oppressed state.

I have had strong connections with SL in the past, with a long term ex who was Sri Lankan, and when I last visited (just before the Tsunami) I was struck by how friendly the people where, but also experienced some rather scary moments when we tried to visit her family's ancestral home in the North, and infact had to leave Trincomalee (SP?) in a hurry when our hotel was taken over by government troops.

From what I have heard from her since, many of her relatives were displaced or killed in the final months of the civil war there.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Guess you've got to be in it to win it so dough face is going. Whether he'll get anywhere is another matter...

"A direct meeting with Rajapaksa has now been scheduled but on Wednesday night, Keheliya Rambukwella, Sri Lanka's media minister, warned that Cameron could not make demands of Sri Lanka as if it were a colony.

He told the BBC: "We are a sovereign nation. You think someone can just make a demand from Sri Lanka. It can be a cordial request. We are not a colony. We are an independent state.""

From the Guardian.

In reply to balmybaldwin: The Sri Lankan civil war and it's aftermath is one of the great "missed" news stories of the last decade I think, at least in terms of its implications for human rights. I guess neither side were particularly attractive to outside support and because there was no obvious link to the "global war on terrorism" narrative that dominated the last decade, western media took very little interest.

Has the Canadian PM refused to go?

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, and the Indian PM it think... I haven't seen if any of the other big names in the Commonwealth (Aus, NZ) have said anything.

In reply to TobyA:

According to this report, the meeting is being boycotted by the Canadian and Indian PMs.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/sri-lanka-president-commonweal...

In reply to TobyA:

I agree Toby. It was very strange that the Sri Lankan government was basically given a free pass on this.

In reply to MikeTS:

Especially given their use of land mines (thankfully within clearly marked areas - at least the ones I saw were)

It was the months of indescriminate shelling (including iirc shelling refugee camps or "no fire zones")

A story from the time: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/18/tamil-tigers-killed-sri-lanka

And a more recent update: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/sri-lanka-slaughter-no-fire-zo...

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Didn't realise old Jug ears was going too, not sure what to make of the whole birthday celebration courtesy of this regime.

Looks like DC is getting some good exposure on the issues, but can anyone comment on what the coverage is like overseas?