Minister and another killed in Bomb attack-04th Lead

Minister D.M.Dassanayake(54), has succumbed to his injuries while being treated at the Ragama Teaching Hospital after his vehicle was caught in an explosion en route to Parliament today morning at Ja Ela, on the main highway linking the Islands only international airport to the Capital.
"Minister succumbed to injuries while undergoing an emergency operation", hospital authorities said. Another person also died in the incident which injured another ten persons according to police.

Road side claymore mine was triggered when his luxury jeep was passing Rukmani Devi Statute near Ja Ela junction, police officials said.

Minister Dies

Minister D.M.Dassanayake has sucummbed to his injuries at the Ragama teaching hospital while he was underwent a surgery,hospital sources said.Awaits details

Maldavian President stabbed

Mauman Abdul Gayoom,the president of the Maldives was stabbed by a person when he visited an island north of Male,sources from Maldives confirmed.
A boy attacked him with a knife to his stomach,a presidential aide said.
According to initial reports,the president is safe,only sustained minor injuries.

Minister escaped,5 injured in a Bomb blast in Ja Ela

Minister for Nation Building,D.M.Dassanayake escaped with minor injuries when his motorcade caught in a powerful claymore mine blast at Ja Ela,on the main highway to the International airport from Capital Colombo.
At least 05 others injured in the attacked and admitted to the Ragama Hospital,according to military spokesman,Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara.
D.M.Dassanayake,who was infamous for his violent activities during the election period was on his way to Colombo from his hometown in Puttalam it is learnt.
Senior military officials said that the attack was most likely the "opportunity target"other than aimed at the minister concerned,who has no involvement in the separatist war,which claimed more than 70,ooo lives in three decades.

blast in Ja ela

minister escape in a bomb blast in Ja ela shortwhile ago.5 reported injured.awaits details

Ceasefires: When Concepts Give Way to Practical Failures

A ceasefire is a temporary cessation of violence that does not settle the larger conflict but is intended as a step in that direction. In other words, it is not peace but an act that may or may not lead to peace. Therefore, from the very outset, the parties involved in such an agreement, and those that expect peace (i.e. International Community, Human Rights groups etc), must realize its unpredictable outcomes. If a Ceasefire has lost its characteristics, it is only natural that parties may resort to war to settle their differences. If indeed such characteristics have been compromised, pointing fingers at one party alone, for the failure of a Ceasefire, maybe counterproductive in the long run.

In theory, a Ceasefire may contain the following characteristics;

1. Overcome the polarizing effects of violence.
2. Establish a baseline of trust.
3. Create an opportunity to gain support of all stakeholders.

The first characteristic is conditional upon a strong political commitment and concerted leadership from BOTH sides. It is also conditional upon the interests and commitment of international players. Unfortunately in the case of Sri Lanka, such commitment and leadership was lacking in both the local and international arena.

Trust among adversaries is a difficult proposition. Rousseau states that “Trust is a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another." Lewicki describe trust as "an individual's belief in, and willingness to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another.

Trust builds along a continuum of hierarchical and sequential stages. These hierarchical and sequential stages of building trust can be upset by ‘Trust Violations’ resulting in ‘blame games’. Trust violations occur when the trustors’ (i.e., the victim's) confident positive expectations of the trustee (i.e., the offender) are disconfirmed.

Gaining the support of all stakeholders is also limited to theory. Whilst many stakeholders may support a Ceasefire, those left behind may become spoilers, or simply lose interest as political commitment, leadership and trust among parties fade.

The Ceasefire concept has a long way to go. In fact, Ceasefires often create more problems than solutions. Relying on Ceasefires without clear commitment from one or more sides to a conflict and without a baseline of trust is a difficult proposition. If a ceasefire loses its vital characteristics, then it should be abrogated. In popular culture, a Ceasefire is deemed the solution to the problem. Sometimes it can be seen as a problem on its own merit. A Ceasefire may become problematic when it is;

1. Subject to manipulation by one or all sides in a conflict.
2. Freeze, and thus legitimize power and resource inequities between adversaries and within their respective constituencies.
3. Allow time for warring parties to reconstitute their forces, possibly set the stage for a more destructive conflict in the future.

In Sri Lanka, the latter observation is more the reality. Parties who withdraw from a Ceasefire do so when they reach a position of relative strength over its opponent. In three previous occasions, it was the LTTE that withdrew from the Ceasefire. Now it is the government’s turn. Those who wish to blame or point fingers at the government must realize three things.

1. The Ceasefire concept is an abstract desiring much evidence to support continued adherence (except in limited cases like Northern Ireland).
2. It has not always overcome the polarization effects of violence, failed to establish a baseline of trust and failed to include both stakeholders and spoilers alike and
3. Provided undue advantage to parties to become stronger militarily.