By Col R Hariharan
India-Sri Lanka relations
India and Sri Lanka signed seven agreements during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to New Delhi from June 8 to 11, 2010. The maiden visit after his re-election may be considered a success for the President as India barely touched upon sensitive issues like the UN advisory panel on human rights violations during the war and devolution of powers to Tamil minority in the interactions with the President and his delegation.
Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s statement that “a meaningful devolution package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would create the necessary conditions for a lasting political settlement” showed by and large India had accepted the Rajapaksa approach. India’s stress on rehabilitation issues of Tamils would indicate that its continued focus on this aspect rather than on resuming a dialogue on ethnic issues. The allocation of Rs 1000 crores as assistance to build 50,000 houses for people displaced due to the war and other assistance to improve communication and other infrastructure illustrate this.
In a bid to build closer relations both countries agreed upon taking a number of steps. These include improving interconnectivity with the introduction of Colombo-Tuticorin, Talaimannar-Rameswaram ferry services, Indian assistance to improve Palaly Airport and Kankesanthurai Harbour, and conducting a feasibility study for linking electricity grids of the two countries. India has also offered to extend the bandwidth to set up satellite-interactive terminals in Sri Lanka.
The joint statement issued after the meeting between the President and Indian Prime Minister indicated some cautious steps taken to build closer strategic relations. These include: India’s assurance to examine a Sri Lankan suggestion for establishing a joint information mechanism on the likely oil and gas fields straddling India- Sri Lanka maritime boundary; promotion of dialogue on security and defence issues including an annual defence dialogue; and promoting the use of space technology for a variety of services. The Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance on Criminal Matters and Agreement on Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners signed during the visit would provide for structural improvement to security and legal framework.
The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) proposal was not mentioned in the joint statement, although measures for developing “a framework for sustainable economic partnership and addressing outstanding issues” of the Free Trade Agreement found a place in the joint statement. This would indicate that CEPA would come up sooner than later. The agreement on establishing Indian consular presence in Jaffna and in Hambantota also should be viewed in the context of furthering trading interests rather than strategic linkages.
China-Sri Lanka agreements
Chinese Vice-Premier, Zhang Dejiang led a 30-member delegation to Sri Lanka on a three-day official trip close on the heels of President Rajapaksa's visit to India. It showed Sri Lanka’s careful balancing of relations between India and China.
During the visit Sri Lanka signed six agreements for enhanced cooperation in highways development, information technology and communications, development of maritime ports and the second phase of the Hambantota Port Development project (for which China has offered financial assistance of US$ 200 million) and maintenance of the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall built by China.
Vice Premier Zhang, when he met President Rajapaksa on June 12, also discussed the progress of projects including the Norochcholai Coal Power Project, the Hambantota Port Development and the Mattala International Airport.
International issues
Sri Lanka has reacted angrily to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s appointment of an expert panel to advise him on human rights violations in the final stage of the island’s civil war. The UN panel announced on June 22 is headed by former Indonesian Attorney General Marzuki Darusman, with Ms Yasmin Sooka, a former member of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Steven Ratner, an American law professor, as members. According to a UN spokesperson the advisory panel’s mandate was limited to advising the secretary general and it was “not a fact-finding or investigative body.”
President Rajapaksa rejected the UN move, and the External affairs minister G.L. Peiris called it “an unnecessary interference” and said the government should be given “a free space to make its own findings.” The government has also said it would not issue visa for the UN panel members to visit Sri Lanka. China, Japan, India and Russia had been generally supportive of Sri Lanka government move to investigate the human rights aberrations on its own while the West, particularly the EU and the United States had been for an international panel.
Although the issue has whipped up national sentiments among the people, both General Sarath Fonseka, army commander during the war who is under arrest now, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam’s US based activist and a member of the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam Rudrakumaran have offered to co-operate with the UN panel. This is likely to further embarrass the Sri Lanka government who see an international conspiracy to demean the country’s achievement in these moves.
As though to confirm this conjecture, the EU also announced on June 22 that it would extend GSP+ tariff concessions to Sri Lanka after August 15 for “a limited additional period, subject to a clear and written commitment” to undertake 15 specific actions it considered as related to human rights within a six-month period from July.
The 15 areas for action included implementation of the Sri Lankan constitution’s 17th Amendment, the repeal of emergency regulations, co-operation with UN human rights bodies, release of a list of detained LTTE combatants and other suspects, and an end to harassment of journalists.
Prof GL Peiris, External Affairs Minister, rejecting the conditions said the government would not “surrender decision making powers, very sensitive and crucial matters to any foreign government.”
This does not augur well for Sri Lankan exports, particularly ready made garments which are heavily dependent upon EU markets. In the coming months we can expect Sri Lanka government to scale down its rhetoric and take some action repair its international relations.
National budget
Sri Lanka budget for the current year, already delayed by seven months, aims to reduce the budget deficit to 8% as against last year’s 9.9% deficit. This would represent the biggest reduction in deficit in recent times. With a view to spur growth targeted at 7% this year the government halved the import tax on cars and cut levies on electronics goods in the run up to the budget. The government hopes to increase tax revenue to at least 17 percent of GDP over the medium term, from 14.5 percent in 2009.
However, its meagre increase in wages for government servants and levy of additional taxes on food articles are likely to stir up public protests.
Sri Lanka’s budget plans are apparently in conformity with the International Monetary Fund’s conditional loan to replenish Sri Lanka’s foreign exchange reserves. Under the IMF’s $2.5 billion loan programme, during the month the fund approved the release of fifth tranche of $ 408 million. This would indicate the IMF is satisfied with the government’s measures to tighten fiscal discipline.
Political moves
The government appears to have taken some action to use Kumaran Pathmanathan known better as KP, former international representative of the Tamil Tigers held in captivity, to build better relations with pro-LTTE Diaspora. In a carefully orchestrated move it allowed KP to visit North with a Diaspora delegation ostensibly to consider some rehabilitation project. In the coming months its political impact could be far reaching.
June 30, 2010
South Asia Security Trends Vol 4 No 6
Courtesy: www.security-risks.com
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Sunday, 4 July 2010
The Grateful Dead
This is not about any rock band of the same name as the title. I have been writing about the way people have chosen to ignore the war dead in this country. Many Indian soldiers in the heavens of warriors must be grateful they are dead. They have been spared of the ignominy politicians have been heaping upon soldiers, insulting the memories of their dead comrades. This piece is bout one more such instance.
In Bangalore, or Bengaluru to be politically correct, the Karnataka government has suddenly dropped the project for national memorial for war heroes - after completing 80% if earth work in work order if Rs 12.62 crores -that is about Rs 9 crores.
As the media reports said the government has taken a sudden U-turn on the decision to build a memorial to the 1971 Bangladesh war heroes at the Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park.
It had earlier resisted the pleas of residents of the Krishna Apartment Owners’ Association (KAOA) who were against the constuction as they felt it was eating into the "green lung" of the park in their midst. When the government refused to budge they approached the Karnataka High Court. However, after the High Court allowed the work to proceed, the Association had taken the issue to the Supreme Court. The apex court had scheduled the next hearing on the case on July 26.
The memorial was to be maintained by a trust chaired by the Chief Minister, with highranking army officers as its members.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP and chairman of the National Military Memorial Committee, commenting on the latest government move said “The decision could have been taken much earlier by the CM. This would have spared tremendous cost, money and time spent by many people of our city, and most importantly, spared the many families of martyrs and veterans the humiliation and trauma of this unseemly controversy.” But who cares for such niceties, Mr Chandrasekhar?
Apologising to the families of martyrs and veterans for "this unseemly and unfortunate controversy," he said he had been "subjected to many personal attacks during this whole episode by some socalled elite citizens of our city." But is it any surprise, with elitism creeping in the midst of political-bureaucracy-business mafia in power everywhere? Every issue is being used to exercise power and not achieve results. Chandrasekhar went on to "reassure families of these martyrs that a large majority of citizens have the greatest regard and respect for them and their loved ones...” We are delighted to hear such words; but with due apologies to him, they sound hollow when they are uttered in the wake of one more act of ignominy.
The Times News Network had speculated whether the cause for the government volte face was Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s recent outbursts against the Yeddyurappa government on the Lokayukta and tardy flood relief works. I will not be surprised if this is true. He would not be the first chief minister to do so to settle political scores.
Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has promised the legislative council to "look for new space far better than the present one." So we can expect the charade to continue for another two to three years before a site is selected. And the same people who took the botched decision earlier are supposed to act on this!
The work on the ground for the memorial has stopped at Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park. According to media reports the project engineer had said that all civil works were almost done. They quoted him as saying “We will have to pay as per the tenders finalized for the earth work completed till date." That is at least Rs 9 crores of public money down the drain. But who cares about public money, when the public themselves don't bother?
The KAOA secretary had some advice to the memorial committe. He asked it to identify "a bigger, better, non-controversial site in a place that’s accessible to all, taking the local residents along for their valuable suggestions and support." That is a lofty thought never applied to the way things are done in this country. As he said the process "most importantly, it should be transparent." Is he talking about government decision making in India? Opaqueness is the life blood of politicians and bureaucracy in this country.
I have always wondered why the government has to build memorials for the war dead in this country? Where is the civil society? They should take a look at the Matthew Hickley's 20 September 2007 report in the Daily Mail, UK.
Or they may take a look at the decision of the Westminster Council to permit the construction of an open style pavilion costing £ 3.5 million pounds for a memorial to the war dead of Bomber Command at the Piccadilly entrance to Green Park. The memorial, to be built by 2012, will commemorate the 55,573 crew of Bomber Command, with an average age of 22, who were killed in World War II.
But then, we are not living in the UK. The reality here is to forget the war dead and pander the nethas by making cut outs and statues out of public money. I suppose that is our culture.
In Bangalore, or Bengaluru to be politically correct, the Karnataka government has suddenly dropped the project for national memorial for war heroes - after completing 80% if earth work in work order if Rs 12.62 crores -that is about Rs 9 crores.
As the media reports said the government has taken a sudden U-turn on the decision to build a memorial to the 1971 Bangladesh war heroes at the Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park.
It had earlier resisted the pleas of residents of the Krishna Apartment Owners’ Association (KAOA) who were against the constuction as they felt it was eating into the "green lung" of the park in their midst. When the government refused to budge they approached the Karnataka High Court. However, after the High Court allowed the work to proceed, the Association had taken the issue to the Supreme Court. The apex court had scheduled the next hearing on the case on July 26.
The memorial was to be maintained by a trust chaired by the Chief Minister, with highranking army officers as its members.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, MP and chairman of the National Military Memorial Committee, commenting on the latest government move said “The decision could have been taken much earlier by the CM. This would have spared tremendous cost, money and time spent by many people of our city, and most importantly, spared the many families of martyrs and veterans the humiliation and trauma of this unseemly controversy.” But who cares for such niceties, Mr Chandrasekhar?
Apologising to the families of martyrs and veterans for "this unseemly and unfortunate controversy," he said he had been "subjected to many personal attacks during this whole episode by some socalled elite citizens of our city." But is it any surprise, with elitism creeping in the midst of political-bureaucracy-business mafia in power everywhere? Every issue is being used to exercise power and not achieve results. Chandrasekhar went on to "reassure families of these martyrs that a large majority of citizens have the greatest regard and respect for them and their loved ones...” We are delighted to hear such words; but with due apologies to him, they sound hollow when they are uttered in the wake of one more act of ignominy.
The Times News Network had speculated whether the cause for the government volte face was Rajeev Chandrasekhar’s recent outbursts against the Yeddyurappa government on the Lokayukta and tardy flood relief works. I will not be surprised if this is true. He would not be the first chief minister to do so to settle political scores.
Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa has promised the legislative council to "look for new space far better than the present one." So we can expect the charade to continue for another two to three years before a site is selected. And the same people who took the botched decision earlier are supposed to act on this!
The work on the ground for the memorial has stopped at Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park. According to media reports the project engineer had said that all civil works were almost done. They quoted him as saying “We will have to pay as per the tenders finalized for the earth work completed till date." That is at least Rs 9 crores of public money down the drain. But who cares about public money, when the public themselves don't bother?
The KAOA secretary had some advice to the memorial committe. He asked it to identify "a bigger, better, non-controversial site in a place that’s accessible to all, taking the local residents along for their valuable suggestions and support." That is a lofty thought never applied to the way things are done in this country. As he said the process "most importantly, it should be transparent." Is he talking about government decision making in India? Opaqueness is the life blood of politicians and bureaucracy in this country.
I have always wondered why the government has to build memorials for the war dead in this country? Where is the civil society? They should take a look at the Matthew Hickley's 20 September 2007 report in the Daily Mail, UK.
Or they may take a look at the decision of the Westminster Council to permit the construction of an open style pavilion costing £ 3.5 million pounds for a memorial to the war dead of Bomber Command at the Piccadilly entrance to Green Park. The memorial, to be built by 2012, will commemorate the 55,573 crew of Bomber Command, with an average age of 22, who were killed in World War II.
But then, we are not living in the UK. The reality here is to forget the war dead and pander the nethas by making cut outs and statues out of public money. I suppose that is our culture.
Tamil blog on Eelam Tamil issue
My e-mail interview in Tamil on Sri Lanka Tamil issue given to the Eelam Nation News website on June 29, 2010 has been uploaded in my Tamil blog.
To access it kindly click on the heading. Of course the interview is available at the website of the Eelam Nation News at www.eelamnationnews.com
To access it kindly click on the heading. Of course the interview is available at the website of the Eelam Nation News at www.eelamnationnews.com
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Dr Dayan Jayatilleka explains why for Sri Lanka, India is indispensable
Two of my recent Sri Lanka up dates in SAAG (also published in this blog) "Indian Concerns in Sri Lanka" on June 6th and "Sri Lanka: Much ado about few things" on June 17th relating to Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa's visit reproduced in Sri Lanka media appear to have ruffled the feathers of many in the Sinhalese lobby. They have questioned the very basis of India-Sri Lanka relations, which occupies a unique place in the sub continent. They are equating it with Sri Lanka -China relations which are altogether on a different plane.
I found Dr Dayan Jaya, well known political analyst and Left Wing intellectual, who served as Sri Lanka's permanent representative to the UN, Geneva, during the crucial period of the Eelam War IV, had eloquently explained why India is more indispensable for Sri Lanka than Sri Lanka is for India in a recent interview to Lakbimanews. And it was carried in the www.transcurrents.com on June 12, 2010. I am reproducing Dr Jayatilleka's interview here for readers benefit (though in my view Sri Lanka is also equally indispensable for India)courtesy Lakbimanews.
For India, Sri Lanka is not indispensable, but for Sri Lanka, India is indispensable
An Interview with Dr.Dayan Jayatilleka
By Rathindra Kuruwita
Question: President Mahinda Rajapaksa left for India recently and he is set to show his Indian counterpart a draft of the proposed Constitutional amendments. This is seen by many as a gesture of subjugation and their requests to open a Deputy High Commissioner’s office in Kandy and a consulate office in Hambanthota and their insistence of implementing the 13th Amendment are seen by many as attempts to impose their will on Sri Lanka?
Answer:You use the term ‘many’. Who are these ‘many’ and where are they? I have only seen criticisms voiced by the usual handful of Southern extremists, and some small political parties both in government as well as defeated ones. President Rajapaksa is a patriot and a realist, a pragmatist. The handful of critics may be patriots but they are not realists. When we antagonized India we could not win the war, but when we correctly managed relations with India, we won the war. If India had opposed us or not supported us, we may not have been able to win or withstand the Western moves to stop the war. There is a saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every relationship is reciprocal. Sri Lanka has to reciprocate for India’s support.
We must bear in mind that we still need that support because, though the hot war has been won by us, a cold war continues against us in the global arena.
We need India’s support to balance off those who are hostile to us or are influenced by the pro-Eelam trend in the Tamil Diaspora. India is our buffer with the USA. Delhi is under pressure to take a stand hostile to us, or to stop supporting us. That pressure comes from Tamil Nadu but not only from Tamil Nadu...from India’s civil society as well as some of India’s Western friends. If India stops supporting us, not even the Non Aligned Movement will defend us fully, because they take their cue from respected Third World states such as India.
If India allows Tamil Nadu or Kerala to become rear base areas once again for LTTE activity, we will have endless security problems. It is only someone who is deaf, dumb and blind to geo-political realities, who will not admit that India has a stake in our Tamil issue, simply because they have 70 million Tamils separated from our territory by a narrow strip of water. As for the 13th Amendment, I must say very clearly that this is the cheapest price to pay. It is simply a matter of letting the Northern and Eastern provincial councils have the same powers as enjoyed by the provincial councils in all other parts of the island for the last 20 years. If we don’t settle for the 13th Amendment now, we shall jeopardize our military gains and we shall probably have to pay a much higher price some years from now.
The request to open a consulate office in Hambantota seems to be an attempt to balance out the Chinese influence in the area. Wouldn’t this add to the already existing tension between the two super powers? And how would this tussle affect Sri Lanka?
We have to balance carefully between China and India. China is our most consistent and strongest single friend, but the reality is that even with its growing power, China is rather too far to come to our aid if our closest and only neighbor makes a move that is unfriendly to us. As we saw during the tsunami, India’s Navy can put a ring of steel around this island in hours, and even project her naval power up to Indonesia. China’s Navy has not yet developed such a capacity.
We must be aware of our strategic vulnerabilities. We must understand the limits of our China card. In the 1980s, J R Jayewardane’s UNP government thought that Sri Lanka can play the American card against India but he failed. Today, no one must have the opposite but similar illusion that we have a China card to play against India. Even China will not want to upset its relations with giant India, over little Sri Lanka. China did not come to its ally and our friend Pakistan’s aid during the Kargil crisis, when it was pushed back by India. China doesn’t want the West to entangle and entrap it in a tussle with India, which will prevent the onward rise of Asia as a whole.
Sri Lanka must realize that there is a miracle going on, namely the economic rise of Asia, which is propelled by two engines, China and India. It is bigger than the original Industrial revolution! If we plug into both these engines, we can rise with the rest of Asia. If not, we shall be left on the ground, like Myanmar. The man renowned as the Sage of Asia, Lee Kwan Yew, recently said that China and India are two great trees and that Singapore must find a spot in the shade where the branches of these two great trees intertwine. I think that is true, and good advice, for Sri Lanka too.
Although India can match China or the USA in meeting Sri Lanka’s economic needs, it cannot help us on the world political stage as do China or the USA who have UN veto powers. Your opinion please?
India is a member of G 20. It is also a member of many groupings of intermediate powers such as BRICS which consists of Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa. If India gives a green light the West, will move against us. The US hasn’t so far, because of its strategic partnership with India, which it needs in order to balance off China. As I said before, without India’s support we will not even get that of our ‘tribe’ the Non Aligned Movement. India has longstanding close relations with Russia, South Africa and Latin America. In fact, India is one of the few powers that have support in the West as well as the East, in the North and well as the South, while China and the USA are competitors who do not have support in some parts of the international system.
We must never forget that despite China’s goodwill, not a dog supported us when India went against us in 1987. Today, despite China’s political support, Sudan is before the International Criminal Court, because it was referred there by the Security Council and China did not block it. The basic reality is that Sri Lanka’s closest friend China is not closest to Sri Lanka physically, geographically! We must neither embarrass nor overburden our friend China nor must we place all our eggs in the Beijing basket.
It was China and Russia that helped us out in the United Nations in the recent past. And they can also assist us in the future as allegations of war crimes gather momentum. So are we jeopardizing their support by seemingly giving into the demands of the Indians?
Russia will not help us if India says not to. Take that from me. The US would have moved against us in the UN and more importantly the IMF last year, if not for India putting in a word in our favour. We have been operating under the Indian and Chinese umbrellas diplomatically, but if the Indian umbrella is furled up, nobody will back us. Our friends will start stepping away from us. This is the basic point: India is so big; it is such a vast market and so powerful an economic player; it is so vital strategically, that no one will take our side against India; no one will support us if India is known to be against us.
I can tell you that as far as certain key issues go, such as the Tamil question and a political settlement with the Tamils, there is no difference between the views of India, China, Russia and the USA! That is true of the Non-aligned countries as well. You noticed that we almost had a problem recently with a pro-Tamil Eelam infiltration and manifestation in revolutionary Venezuela! All these countries want us to settle the Tamil problem politically, by which they mean some kind of autonomy. No one supports Tamil Eelam and no one, not even the USA, has called for federalism, but everyone, and I mean all our friends, want us to solve this problem fast, by means of devolution of power. For India, Sri Lanka is not indispensable, but for Sri Lanka, India is indispensable. That is the cold reality. That is the hard fact.
Can we use the interest shown by all these powers, China, India, USA and the EU without eventually antagonizing one or more parties?
Of course, we can. Lakshman Kadirgamar did it. Before that, Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike did it. But we cannot keep saying no to every issue to everybody! And we cannot manage on our own! We must reach out to all, on all points of the compass. We must dialogue with all. Prof GL Pieris has the ability to do that, which he has proven with his successful US trip and meeting with Hillary Clinton. Once again, we have a foreign minister that every Sri Lankans and Sri Lankans everywhere can be proud of.
We must have a policy that defends our vital interests, and compromise on things that are not vital. We must safeguard our core strategic and security interests, while making concessions on tactical issues. Each of these powers has something we need and each of them needs something from us. In order to get what we need we need to give something, which sometimes means giving up something. We cannot have the kavum and eat it at the same time!
The first thing is to understand that we cannot live in isolation, like frogs in the well. If we try, we will crash economically and the Tamil Eelam forces waiting outside the country will triumph. We must also understand that we cannot have everything our way; we cannot negotiate with the rest of the world from a position of strength because we do not have such strength. To build up strength we must have good relations with the world and expand those relations, getting as much as we can and more importantly, learning as much as we can. Each of the global players or sectors you mentioned wants certain things from us, and we should give them whatever does not harm our core interest and our good relations with the other global player or friend. We can have a policy of good relations with all, but at the expense of none.
Since we have an external enemy working round the clock against us, namely the pro-Tamil Eelam section of the Tamil Diaspora, our international policy must be one of building the broadest global united front; the widest global partnerships. If we don’t isolate the Tamil Eelamists, they will isolate Sri Lanka! Here I must repeat what I said earlier: the one thing that all the players you mentioned - China, USA, India, EU, have in common is an urgent need to see Sri Lanka release and rehabilitate IDPs, reconstruct the North and east and arrive at a political settlement with the Tamil people based on some form of autonomy and self- administration. If we do that, we can remove or reduce the pressure on Sri Lanka on issues of war crimes etc. As a top Chinese diplomat and official once told me “You must help us to help you. Sri Lanka must give its friends something to help Sri Lanka with”.
One year after the defeat of the LTTE, what is Sri Lanka’s position in the world. Would you agree if I say, we have not properly used the opportunities given to us to improve relations with other countries? South Indian politicians and its population are still very much anti-Sri Lankan, a sentiment which was clear during the recently held IIFA. Elements of Tamil extremists have set up a transnational government and seem to have gained many sympathizers in the west?
One year after the victory in war, Sri Lanka is not where it should be, either in the world or internally. We have lost the war of opinion in the world’s media. If, as I had recommended, we had quickly followed up the military victory with the implementation of the 13th Amendment while the TNA was disoriented, we’d have been dealing with our ally Douglas Devananda. We lost that moment and momentum because of some small ideological caucuses of ultra nationalist pundits who have a dis- proportionate influence. Even after that opportunity was lost, there are things we could have done.
The government has made the same mistake as the Bush administration after the war in Iraq, namely the absence of a clear postwar plan and program for the area and primarily, the people. Our military did its job superbly, but who congratulates us internationally, one year after? No one, not even our friends defend us publicly when we are criticized! Why? Because, the politicians and the development ministries have not followed up the achievement of the military.
We fought and won a Just War (‘Saadharana Yuddhayak’), but the world looks at us and does not see a Just Peace (‘Saadhaarana Saamayak’) having resulted. What the world sees is something like an occupation of a foreign country or foreign people. Because we do not yet have a Just Peace, world opinion doubts whether it was a Just War to begin with! That is not a sustainable peace.
Simply put, if by today we had a Tamil Chief Minister and an elected Northern Provincial council, the IIFA partial boycott would not have been possible and furthermore, we may not have had this much international pressure on ‘war crimes accountability mechanisms’ either. If we could have shown results in the North, winning the Tamil people over with a fair and just peace, the rest of the world would have told those who criticize us to shut up.
I must also say that in the year after the war, Sri Lanka is losing, or has lost the battle for world opinion. I am not speaking only of the West. In a brand new book, the highly respected senior leader of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew says that though the Tamil Tigers have been killed, the problem has not been settled and that Sinhalese extremism will be unable to keep the Tamils, who are a ‘capable’ community, ‘submissive’. So it is not just the INGOs and the liberal west which is critical of our postwar policies, direction and situation.
Col. P. Hariharan in his article “India’s concerns in Sri Lanka: Update no. 199’ says that ‘the three things he (Rajapaksa) achieved in his first term of office - wiping out Prabhakaran and his Tamil Tigers, re-election for a second term with increased margin of votes and an unprecedented victory in parliamentary poll with 60% mandate from the voters - give him the confidence to talk from a position of strength to New Delhi.’ Do you think it’s an accurate description of the situation since it stands in contrast with many other commentators who claim that President Rajapaksa has no other option but to agree to everything that India puts on the table?
The only leaders who can talk from a position of strength to New Delhi are President Obama of the USA and President Hu Jin Tao of China, but they are both wise enough not to do so.
What can Sri Lanka do to overcome the challenges both locally and internationally in the coming years?
We must use our brains, and may I say our best brains. We must deploy our best talent to face the global challenge and fight the Cold War against Sri Lanka. We must rebuild our educational system to the point that we can produce those who can compete in the global arena and beat those forces hostile to us. We need to build up quality human resources. Today our external and internal relations are tied together. Our external relations depend in large measure on how we resolve our internal problem with the Tamils.
Remember that it is not a purely internal problem though we may like to think so. In the first place the world is globalised; humanity lives in the era of globalization, so there are no purely internal questions. In the second place the Tamils are spread not only in Tamil Nadu but throughout the world, from the USA to Malaysia and South Africa. We must learn from King Dutugemunu. He wiped out the armed Tamil challenge as manifested in a separate kingdom with a separate king and a separate army. He knew that with the Indian Ocean at our backs, we cannot tolerate two kingdoms with two rival armies on this small island.
However, the story tells us that after the victory he appointed a Tamil sub-king and allowed the people of the area to be governed according to their cultural norms and customs. As a wise strategist he didn’t try to control and dominate everything, nor did he try to change the basic character of the area he had liberated. What he implemented postwar, is another word for provincial devolution within a strong unitary state. King Dutugemunu was wise enough not to think of culturally colonizing the Tamils. We cannot wipe out the Tamils collective identity.
If they think we are doing so, they will resist peacefully. If we are seen by the world to crush non-violent Tamil civic resistance, not in the cause of Tamil Eelam or in support of the Tigers, but simply to protect their identity and ancestral homelands, then we will embarrass our friends and we shall have no one to back us. This is when the pro-Tamil Eelam Tamil Diaspora will have its day. Who knows what stand the big powers and the UN will take then? It is far better to have a timely political process and grant a measure of autonomy while the state is still on top.
[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, formerly Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, is currently a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies of the National University of Singapore. This interview appeared in Lakbima News.These are his personal views and do not reflect the views of the Institute.]
I found Dr Dayan Jaya, well known political analyst and Left Wing intellectual, who served as Sri Lanka's permanent representative to the UN, Geneva, during the crucial period of the Eelam War IV, had eloquently explained why India is more indispensable for Sri Lanka than Sri Lanka is for India in a recent interview to Lakbimanews. And it was carried in the www.transcurrents.com on June 12, 2010. I am reproducing Dr Jayatilleka's interview here for readers benefit (though in my view Sri Lanka is also equally indispensable for India)courtesy Lakbimanews.
For India, Sri Lanka is not indispensable, but for Sri Lanka, India is indispensable
An Interview with Dr.Dayan Jayatilleka
By Rathindra Kuruwita
Question: President Mahinda Rajapaksa left for India recently and he is set to show his Indian counterpart a draft of the proposed Constitutional amendments. This is seen by many as a gesture of subjugation and their requests to open a Deputy High Commissioner’s office in Kandy and a consulate office in Hambanthota and their insistence of implementing the 13th Amendment are seen by many as attempts to impose their will on Sri Lanka?
Answer:You use the term ‘many’. Who are these ‘many’ and where are they? I have only seen criticisms voiced by the usual handful of Southern extremists, and some small political parties both in government as well as defeated ones. President Rajapaksa is a patriot and a realist, a pragmatist. The handful of critics may be patriots but they are not realists. When we antagonized India we could not win the war, but when we correctly managed relations with India, we won the war. If India had opposed us or not supported us, we may not have been able to win or withstand the Western moves to stop the war. There is a saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Every relationship is reciprocal. Sri Lanka has to reciprocate for India’s support.
We must bear in mind that we still need that support because, though the hot war has been won by us, a cold war continues against us in the global arena.
We need India’s support to balance off those who are hostile to us or are influenced by the pro-Eelam trend in the Tamil Diaspora. India is our buffer with the USA. Delhi is under pressure to take a stand hostile to us, or to stop supporting us. That pressure comes from Tamil Nadu but not only from Tamil Nadu...from India’s civil society as well as some of India’s Western friends. If India stops supporting us, not even the Non Aligned Movement will defend us fully, because they take their cue from respected Third World states such as India.
If India allows Tamil Nadu or Kerala to become rear base areas once again for LTTE activity, we will have endless security problems. It is only someone who is deaf, dumb and blind to geo-political realities, who will not admit that India has a stake in our Tamil issue, simply because they have 70 million Tamils separated from our territory by a narrow strip of water. As for the 13th Amendment, I must say very clearly that this is the cheapest price to pay. It is simply a matter of letting the Northern and Eastern provincial councils have the same powers as enjoyed by the provincial councils in all other parts of the island for the last 20 years. If we don’t settle for the 13th Amendment now, we shall jeopardize our military gains and we shall probably have to pay a much higher price some years from now.
The request to open a consulate office in Hambantota seems to be an attempt to balance out the Chinese influence in the area. Wouldn’t this add to the already existing tension between the two super powers? And how would this tussle affect Sri Lanka?
We have to balance carefully between China and India. China is our most consistent and strongest single friend, but the reality is that even with its growing power, China is rather too far to come to our aid if our closest and only neighbor makes a move that is unfriendly to us. As we saw during the tsunami, India’s Navy can put a ring of steel around this island in hours, and even project her naval power up to Indonesia. China’s Navy has not yet developed such a capacity.
We must be aware of our strategic vulnerabilities. We must understand the limits of our China card. In the 1980s, J R Jayewardane’s UNP government thought that Sri Lanka can play the American card against India but he failed. Today, no one must have the opposite but similar illusion that we have a China card to play against India. Even China will not want to upset its relations with giant India, over little Sri Lanka. China did not come to its ally and our friend Pakistan’s aid during the Kargil crisis, when it was pushed back by India. China doesn’t want the West to entangle and entrap it in a tussle with India, which will prevent the onward rise of Asia as a whole.
Sri Lanka must realize that there is a miracle going on, namely the economic rise of Asia, which is propelled by two engines, China and India. It is bigger than the original Industrial revolution! If we plug into both these engines, we can rise with the rest of Asia. If not, we shall be left on the ground, like Myanmar. The man renowned as the Sage of Asia, Lee Kwan Yew, recently said that China and India are two great trees and that Singapore must find a spot in the shade where the branches of these two great trees intertwine. I think that is true, and good advice, for Sri Lanka too.
Although India can match China or the USA in meeting Sri Lanka’s economic needs, it cannot help us on the world political stage as do China or the USA who have UN veto powers. Your opinion please?
India is a member of G 20. It is also a member of many groupings of intermediate powers such as BRICS which consists of Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa. If India gives a green light the West, will move against us. The US hasn’t so far, because of its strategic partnership with India, which it needs in order to balance off China. As I said before, without India’s support we will not even get that of our ‘tribe’ the Non Aligned Movement. India has longstanding close relations with Russia, South Africa and Latin America. In fact, India is one of the few powers that have support in the West as well as the East, in the North and well as the South, while China and the USA are competitors who do not have support in some parts of the international system.
We must never forget that despite China’s goodwill, not a dog supported us when India went against us in 1987. Today, despite China’s political support, Sudan is before the International Criminal Court, because it was referred there by the Security Council and China did not block it. The basic reality is that Sri Lanka’s closest friend China is not closest to Sri Lanka physically, geographically! We must neither embarrass nor overburden our friend China nor must we place all our eggs in the Beijing basket.
It was China and Russia that helped us out in the United Nations in the recent past. And they can also assist us in the future as allegations of war crimes gather momentum. So are we jeopardizing their support by seemingly giving into the demands of the Indians?
Russia will not help us if India says not to. Take that from me. The US would have moved against us in the UN and more importantly the IMF last year, if not for India putting in a word in our favour. We have been operating under the Indian and Chinese umbrellas diplomatically, but if the Indian umbrella is furled up, nobody will back us. Our friends will start stepping away from us. This is the basic point: India is so big; it is such a vast market and so powerful an economic player; it is so vital strategically, that no one will take our side against India; no one will support us if India is known to be against us.
I can tell you that as far as certain key issues go, such as the Tamil question and a political settlement with the Tamils, there is no difference between the views of India, China, Russia and the USA! That is true of the Non-aligned countries as well. You noticed that we almost had a problem recently with a pro-Tamil Eelam infiltration and manifestation in revolutionary Venezuela! All these countries want us to settle the Tamil problem politically, by which they mean some kind of autonomy. No one supports Tamil Eelam and no one, not even the USA, has called for federalism, but everyone, and I mean all our friends, want us to solve this problem fast, by means of devolution of power. For India, Sri Lanka is not indispensable, but for Sri Lanka, India is indispensable. That is the cold reality. That is the hard fact.
Can we use the interest shown by all these powers, China, India, USA and the EU without eventually antagonizing one or more parties?
Of course, we can. Lakshman Kadirgamar did it. Before that, Mrs Sirimavo Bandaranaike did it. But we cannot keep saying no to every issue to everybody! And we cannot manage on our own! We must reach out to all, on all points of the compass. We must dialogue with all. Prof GL Pieris has the ability to do that, which he has proven with his successful US trip and meeting with Hillary Clinton. Once again, we have a foreign minister that every Sri Lankans and Sri Lankans everywhere can be proud of.
We must have a policy that defends our vital interests, and compromise on things that are not vital. We must safeguard our core strategic and security interests, while making concessions on tactical issues. Each of these powers has something we need and each of them needs something from us. In order to get what we need we need to give something, which sometimes means giving up something. We cannot have the kavum and eat it at the same time!
The first thing is to understand that we cannot live in isolation, like frogs in the well. If we try, we will crash economically and the Tamil Eelam forces waiting outside the country will triumph. We must also understand that we cannot have everything our way; we cannot negotiate with the rest of the world from a position of strength because we do not have such strength. To build up strength we must have good relations with the world and expand those relations, getting as much as we can and more importantly, learning as much as we can. Each of the global players or sectors you mentioned wants certain things from us, and we should give them whatever does not harm our core interest and our good relations with the other global player or friend. We can have a policy of good relations with all, but at the expense of none.
Since we have an external enemy working round the clock against us, namely the pro-Tamil Eelam section of the Tamil Diaspora, our international policy must be one of building the broadest global united front; the widest global partnerships. If we don’t isolate the Tamil Eelamists, they will isolate Sri Lanka! Here I must repeat what I said earlier: the one thing that all the players you mentioned - China, USA, India, EU, have in common is an urgent need to see Sri Lanka release and rehabilitate IDPs, reconstruct the North and east and arrive at a political settlement with the Tamil people based on some form of autonomy and self- administration. If we do that, we can remove or reduce the pressure on Sri Lanka on issues of war crimes etc. As a top Chinese diplomat and official once told me “You must help us to help you. Sri Lanka must give its friends something to help Sri Lanka with”.
One year after the defeat of the LTTE, what is Sri Lanka’s position in the world. Would you agree if I say, we have not properly used the opportunities given to us to improve relations with other countries? South Indian politicians and its population are still very much anti-Sri Lankan, a sentiment which was clear during the recently held IIFA. Elements of Tamil extremists have set up a transnational government and seem to have gained many sympathizers in the west?
One year after the victory in war, Sri Lanka is not where it should be, either in the world or internally. We have lost the war of opinion in the world’s media. If, as I had recommended, we had quickly followed up the military victory with the implementation of the 13th Amendment while the TNA was disoriented, we’d have been dealing with our ally Douglas Devananda. We lost that moment and momentum because of some small ideological caucuses of ultra nationalist pundits who have a dis- proportionate influence. Even after that opportunity was lost, there are things we could have done.
The government has made the same mistake as the Bush administration after the war in Iraq, namely the absence of a clear postwar plan and program for the area and primarily, the people. Our military did its job superbly, but who congratulates us internationally, one year after? No one, not even our friends defend us publicly when we are criticized! Why? Because, the politicians and the development ministries have not followed up the achievement of the military.
We fought and won a Just War (‘Saadharana Yuddhayak’), but the world looks at us and does not see a Just Peace (‘Saadhaarana Saamayak’) having resulted. What the world sees is something like an occupation of a foreign country or foreign people. Because we do not yet have a Just Peace, world opinion doubts whether it was a Just War to begin with! That is not a sustainable peace.
Simply put, if by today we had a Tamil Chief Minister and an elected Northern Provincial council, the IIFA partial boycott would not have been possible and furthermore, we may not have had this much international pressure on ‘war crimes accountability mechanisms’ either. If we could have shown results in the North, winning the Tamil people over with a fair and just peace, the rest of the world would have told those who criticize us to shut up.
I must also say that in the year after the war, Sri Lanka is losing, or has lost the battle for world opinion. I am not speaking only of the West. In a brand new book, the highly respected senior leader of Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew says that though the Tamil Tigers have been killed, the problem has not been settled and that Sinhalese extremism will be unable to keep the Tamils, who are a ‘capable’ community, ‘submissive’. So it is not just the INGOs and the liberal west which is critical of our postwar policies, direction and situation.
Col. P. Hariharan in his article “India’s concerns in Sri Lanka: Update no. 199’ says that ‘the three things he (Rajapaksa) achieved in his first term of office - wiping out Prabhakaran and his Tamil Tigers, re-election for a second term with increased margin of votes and an unprecedented victory in parliamentary poll with 60% mandate from the voters - give him the confidence to talk from a position of strength to New Delhi.’ Do you think it’s an accurate description of the situation since it stands in contrast with many other commentators who claim that President Rajapaksa has no other option but to agree to everything that India puts on the table?
The only leaders who can talk from a position of strength to New Delhi are President Obama of the USA and President Hu Jin Tao of China, but they are both wise enough not to do so.
What can Sri Lanka do to overcome the challenges both locally and internationally in the coming years?
We must use our brains, and may I say our best brains. We must deploy our best talent to face the global challenge and fight the Cold War against Sri Lanka. We must rebuild our educational system to the point that we can produce those who can compete in the global arena and beat those forces hostile to us. We need to build up quality human resources. Today our external and internal relations are tied together. Our external relations depend in large measure on how we resolve our internal problem with the Tamils.
Remember that it is not a purely internal problem though we may like to think so. In the first place the world is globalised; humanity lives in the era of globalization, so there are no purely internal questions. In the second place the Tamils are spread not only in Tamil Nadu but throughout the world, from the USA to Malaysia and South Africa. We must learn from King Dutugemunu. He wiped out the armed Tamil challenge as manifested in a separate kingdom with a separate king and a separate army. He knew that with the Indian Ocean at our backs, we cannot tolerate two kingdoms with two rival armies on this small island.
However, the story tells us that after the victory he appointed a Tamil sub-king and allowed the people of the area to be governed according to their cultural norms and customs. As a wise strategist he didn’t try to control and dominate everything, nor did he try to change the basic character of the area he had liberated. What he implemented postwar, is another word for provincial devolution within a strong unitary state. King Dutugemunu was wise enough not to think of culturally colonizing the Tamils. We cannot wipe out the Tamils collective identity.
If they think we are doing so, they will resist peacefully. If we are seen by the world to crush non-violent Tamil civic resistance, not in the cause of Tamil Eelam or in support of the Tigers, but simply to protect their identity and ancestral homelands, then we will embarrass our friends and we shall have no one to back us. This is when the pro-Tamil Eelam Tamil Diaspora will have its day. Who knows what stand the big powers and the UN will take then? It is far better to have a timely political process and grant a measure of autonomy while the state is still on top.
[Dr Dayan Jayatilleka, formerly Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, is currently a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies of the National University of Singapore. This interview appeared in Lakbima News.These are his personal views and do not reflect the views of the Institute.]
Monday, 21 June 2010
Chinese Interest in Hambantota, Chittagong Ports --- An Update
By B Raman
China, which is already meeting in the form of a soft loan from its Ex-Im Bank 85 per cent of the cost of construction (US $ 360 million) of the first phase of the Hambantota port in Southern Sri Lanka, has agreed to give another soft loan of US $ 200 million towards the cost of construction of the second phase due to start early next year. An agreement in this regard was signed by the concerned officials during the visit of Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang to Colombo from June 10 to 12, 2010. With this, the total Chinese funding for the project will come to about US $ 500 million, out of its total estimated cost of US $ one billion. The project being undertaken in three phases is expected to be completed by 2023. It is too early to say whether China will substantially fund the third and last phase too.
2. The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is trying to develop Hambantota in his home district into another Colombo with its own port as big and as modern as Colombo, its own international airport at Weerawila, its own oil storage facilities and refinery, its own tourist hub, its own international conference hall and its own complex of sports stadia to enable it to bid for the Asian Games one day. He is hoping that the Chinese will ultimately fund the major part of the cost of his Hambantota dream. He has also sought South Korean funding for the proposed international conference hall.
3. While China has readily expanded its financial commitment for the Hambantota project, it is still to make up its mind on the request from Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, made during her visit to China in March last for Chinese financial and construction assistance for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port. While the Chinese have agreed to consider her request sympa-thetically, they have not yet come out with a concrete project. Expectations that they would make a firm announcement during the just-concluded visit (June 13 and 14, 2010) to Dhaka by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping have been belied.
4. Local news agencies did report that during his talks with Sheikh Hasina, Mr.Xi “proposed to give assistance to Bangladesh for building a deep seaport in Chittagong and installing the country's first space satellite” and that “Beijing also agreed to quickly disburse its assistance for the Pagla Water Treatment Plant and the Shahjalal Fertiliser Factory”, but there was no official announcement. Briefing reporters on the outcome of the talks, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni said the Chinese side assured more investment in Bangladesh, and promised to reduce the bilateral trade imbalance by allowing more Bangladeshi products to have duty-free access to the Chinese market. She added that the Chinese agreed to help Bangladesh in ensuring food security and in combating militancy and terrorism. She also said that China also agreed to extend cooperation for the development of telecommunication and infrastructure in Bangladesh. While there was thus a mention of Chinese assistance for the development of infrastructure, there was no specific reference to the proposal for Chinese assistance for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port. The issue was formally raised by Sheikh Hasina with the Chinese leaders only in March and it is perhaps too early for the Chinese to come out with a formal proposal.
5. After Gwadar on the Mekran coast of Pakistan, the first phase of which has already been completed and the port commissioned, their focus has been on the early completion of the first phase of the construction of the Hambantota port and its commissioning by the end of this year and the start of the second phase. They are attaching equal priority to the timely completion of the Kyakpyu port off the Arakan coast in Myanmar, the construction of which started last year. While they are interested in taking up the project for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port, it does not as yet seem to enjoy the same priority as Gwadar, Hambantota and Kyakpyu, which, in their view, are important for ensuring their energy flows from West Asia and Africa. They do not seem to attach the same urgency to the Chittagong project from the point of view of their energy flows.
6. There are so far no indications of a Chinese interest in a naval base at Hambantota or Kyaukpyu or Chittagong. Their interest in a naval base at Gwadar remains strong. Retired Chinese naval officials have been underlining the importance of rest, refueling and re-stocking facilities for Chinese ships deployed in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden. Gwadar is attractive in this regard, but if the internal security situation in Balochistan where Gwadar is located remains unsatisfactory, Hambantota could become their fall-back choice.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, June 16, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3863.html
China, which is already meeting in the form of a soft loan from its Ex-Im Bank 85 per cent of the cost of construction (US $ 360 million) of the first phase of the Hambantota port in Southern Sri Lanka, has agreed to give another soft loan of US $ 200 million towards the cost of construction of the second phase due to start early next year. An agreement in this regard was signed by the concerned officials during the visit of Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang to Colombo from June 10 to 12, 2010. With this, the total Chinese funding for the project will come to about US $ 500 million, out of its total estimated cost of US $ one billion. The project being undertaken in three phases is expected to be completed by 2023. It is too early to say whether China will substantially fund the third and last phase too.
2. The first stage due to be ready by end 2010 will allow three ships to berth. The final stage, for which there is no offer of funding yet from China, is planned to accommodate more than 30 ships, which is the present capacity at Colombo. President Mahinda Rajapaksa is trying to develop Hambantota in his home district into another Colombo with its own port as big and as modern as Colombo, its own international airport at Weerawila, its own oil storage facilities and refinery, its own tourist hub, its own international conference hall and its own complex of sports stadia to enable it to bid for the Asian Games one day. He is hoping that the Chinese will ultimately fund the major part of the cost of his Hambantota dream. He has also sought South Korean funding for the proposed international conference hall.
3. While China has readily expanded its financial commitment for the Hambantota project, it is still to make up its mind on the request from Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, made during her visit to China in March last for Chinese financial and construction assistance for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port. While the Chinese have agreed to consider her request sympa-thetically, they have not yet come out with a concrete project. Expectations that they would make a firm announcement during the just-concluded visit (June 13 and 14, 2010) to Dhaka by Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping have been belied.
4. Local news agencies did report that during his talks with Sheikh Hasina, Mr.Xi “proposed to give assistance to Bangladesh for building a deep seaport in Chittagong and installing the country's first space satellite” and that “Beijing also agreed to quickly disburse its assistance for the Pagla Water Treatment Plant and the Shahjalal Fertiliser Factory”, but there was no official announcement. Briefing reporters on the outcome of the talks, Foreign Minister Dipu Moni said the Chinese side assured more investment in Bangladesh, and promised to reduce the bilateral trade imbalance by allowing more Bangladeshi products to have duty-free access to the Chinese market. She added that the Chinese agreed to help Bangladesh in ensuring food security and in combating militancy and terrorism. She also said that China also agreed to extend cooperation for the development of telecommunication and infrastructure in Bangladesh. While there was thus a mention of Chinese assistance for the development of infrastructure, there was no specific reference to the proposal for Chinese assistance for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port. The issue was formally raised by Sheikh Hasina with the Chinese leaders only in March and it is perhaps too early for the Chinese to come out with a formal proposal.
5. After Gwadar on the Mekran coast of Pakistan, the first phase of which has already been completed and the port commissioned, their focus has been on the early completion of the first phase of the construction of the Hambantota port and its commissioning by the end of this year and the start of the second phase. They are attaching equal priority to the timely completion of the Kyakpyu port off the Arakan coast in Myanmar, the construction of which started last year. While they are interested in taking up the project for the expansion and modernization of the Chittagong port, it does not as yet seem to enjoy the same priority as Gwadar, Hambantota and Kyakpyu, which, in their view, are important for ensuring their energy flows from West Asia and Africa. They do not seem to attach the same urgency to the Chittagong project from the point of view of their energy flows.
6. There are so far no indications of a Chinese interest in a naval base at Hambantota or Kyaukpyu or Chittagong. Their interest in a naval base at Gwadar remains strong. Retired Chinese naval officials have been underlining the importance of rest, refueling and re-stocking facilities for Chinese ships deployed in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden. Gwadar is attractive in this regard, but if the internal security situation in Balochistan where Gwadar is located remains unsatisfactory, Hambantota could become their fall-back choice.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group, June 16, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3863.html
Recommended Reading
China
1. The great China-Pak nuclear nexus by K Subrahmanyam, Times of India, June 21, 2010. URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/The-great-China-Pak-nuclear-nexus/articleshow/6072859.cms
2. Chinese alert in Xinjiang by B Raman, South Asia Analysis Group, June 19, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3868.html
Sri Lanka
1. Comments on appointment of UN panel:
a. Lanka and UN Chief in open battle Sunday Times,Colombo, June 20,2010
URL: http://sundaytimes.lk/100620/News/nws_01.html
b. UN-becoming of the UN Editorial, The Island, June 20,2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=news-section&page=news-section&code_title=55
2. Rejoinders on my comments on 'Who is ruling Sri Lanka'
a. India's Role by Ira de Silva, The Island, June 16, 2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=91
b. ‘Who runs Sri Lanka’: A reply to Col. Hariharan by Gamini Gunawardane,
The Island, June 20, 2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=391
1. The great China-Pak nuclear nexus by K Subrahmanyam, Times of India, June 21, 2010. URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/The-great-China-Pak-nuclear-nexus/articleshow/6072859.cms
2. Chinese alert in Xinjiang by B Raman, South Asia Analysis Group, June 19, 2010
URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers39%5Cpaper3868.html
Sri Lanka
1. Comments on appointment of UN panel:
a. Lanka and UN Chief in open battle Sunday Times,Colombo, June 20,2010
URL: http://sundaytimes.lk/100620/News/nws_01.html
b. UN-becoming of the UN Editorial, The Island, June 20,2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=news-section&page=news-section&code_title=55
2. Rejoinders on my comments on 'Who is ruling Sri Lanka'
a. India's Role by Ira de Silva, The Island, June 16, 2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=91
b. ‘Who runs Sri Lanka’: A reply to Col. Hariharan by Gamini Gunawardane,
The Island, June 20, 2010
URL: http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=391
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Sri Lanka: Much ado about few things
By Col R Hariharan
From Indian point of view the much hyped visit of Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa to New Delhi from June 8 to 11 can be summed up in one sentence as ‘much ado about few things,’ with apologies to Shakespeare.
Shorn of usual diplomatic fillers, the tangibles in the joint statement issued at the end of the visit were on three tracks. One set formalised projects already in the pipeline for sometime and included financial incentives from India to push them forward. The other set attended to easing structural arrangements (i.e., agreements, MoUs, statement of intentions) to promote better relations and trading arrangements. And the third set related to rehabilitation largesse from India.
But there was little or no animation of perennial issues discussed in the joint statement. There were very few hopeful signs to progress three gritty issues – rehabilitation, devolution, and strategic security. Overall, the impression created after the President’s visit is that India had tacitly agreed to let President Rajapaksa handle these issues at his own pace in his own style. I will be happy if those involved in the process prove me wrong.
The Indian Prime Minister making the inane statement that “a meaningful devolution package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would create the necessary conditions for a lasting political settlement,” creates the impression that sidelining of the Tamil issue appears to have been accepted. In the last three years India's representatives have said the same thing a number of times. And Sri Lanka's response had been more to buy time than make any real progress on the issue.
President Rajapaksa does not talk any more about the 13th amendment or even the 13th amendment +. So not surprisingly in the joint statement he made no commitment to implement the 13th amendment – which in any case has been pushed to the realms of relevance. The President merely “reiterated his determination to evolve a political settlement acceptable to all communities that would act as a catalyst to create the necessary conditions in which all the people of Sri Lanka could lead their lives in an atmosphere of peace, justice and dignity, consistent with democracy, pluralism, equal opportunity and respect for human rights. Towards this end, the President expressed his resolve to continue to implement in particular the relevant provisions of the Constitution designed to strengthen national amity and reconciliation through empowerment.”
Have we not been hearing similar dialogue for a long time now between Sri Lanka and India? It is difficult to understand how the mere repetition of implementation of13th amendment as a mantra from Indian side and the flowery rhetoric on democracy, pluralism et al from the Sri Lankan side are going to improve the lot of Tamils. Are we not thinking of any other options? Apparently not; otherwise it would have found a place in the joint statement.
So it is no wonder Tamils on both sides of the Palk Strait feel they have been let down very badly by India. The window dressing offered by arranging a meeting between the visiting President and the members of parliament from Tamil Nadu might satisfy the ruling coalition party leaders but not the people. The rhetoric and political manoeuvring on this count to be wearing thin as people are waiting to see visible action on all fronts from Indian side.
Of course, later in Chennai Home Minister P Chidambaram presumably on a mission to ‘enlighten’ Tamil Nadu on the takeaways, highlighted India’s allocation of Rs 1000 crores to build 50,000 houses for people in north and south left to fend for themselves. And he explained that the money would be directly given to householders through banks.
While this is laudable, the process of rehabilitation has remained good in parts like the proverbial curate’s egg. But what is the overall architecture for enabling the people ravaged by war to resume normal life and join the national mainstream? Without such an architecture bound by a time frame, accountability from both sides and integrated execution, these welfare measures tend to get dislocated, downgraded or even get hijacked. For instance, in the east infrastructure facilities have made good progress, but peoples struggle for livelihood continues as before.
When the Eelam War raged there were protests in Tamil Nadu by pro-Eelam and pro-Tamil Tigers segments of political parties on happenings in Sri Lanka. Then these were joined in by protests on human rights violations and humanitarian issues and war crimes. The protests were neither large nor spectacular. But they were there.
During President Rajapaksa’s visit this time - a year after the war - the protests have become significant because there is no Prabhakaran or war to give a boost to these protests. The protests had gathered sufficient public and media attention, even without the orchestration provided by the war.
The pro-Eelam leaders Vaiko and Nedumaran and about thousand followers courted arrest while protesting against the President’s visit. These protests have to be studied in sequence of Sri Lanka-centric events that have been happening. First there was pressure on film personalities to boycott the International Indian Film Awards function in Colombo. These were followed by protests in other forms in Tamil Nadu. There are indications of simmering discontent over Sri Lanka policy increasing into effervescence.
A Public Interest Litigation filed in the Madras High Court sought issue of directions to the government to arrest Sri Lanka Minister Douglas Devananda, who was part of President Rajapaksa’s entourage. The PIL alleged Devananda was a proclaimed offender, wanted in a slew of cases including murder in Tamil Nadu.
The moot point is the Tamil Minister, well known for his strong anti-Prabhakaran stance and equally strong support to the President, had visited India and Tamil Nadu a number of times even at the height of the Eelam War. And nobody thought of raising the issue on such occasions earlier. Why now, after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and decimation of its leadership? Clearly the PIL was aimed at embarrassing New Delhi and the visiting dignitary.
The other incident was more sinister. Thanks to alertness of railway staff, the Rock fort Express train going from Kumbakonam to Chennai escaped from accident after a metre-long portion of the railway track was found blown up at Sithani, about 25 km from Villupuram junction on the railway link to Chennai. The incident happened a day after President Rajapaksa flew out of New Delhi. High-power gel-type explosive device ignited by electric power had been used indicating familiarity with handling of explosives. It was powerful enough to create 80-cm crater and blow up the sleeper along with a piece of the rail. The Police were quick to suspect the Tamil Nadu Maoist elements and later the Tamil Tiger acolytes in the act of sabotage. Both are capable of organising the sabotage. Even though they failed to derail the train, with their act they have sent a strong message of their extreme frustration at India’s inability to respond to the Tamil problems in Sri Lanka.
During the Eelam War, there were a few instances of the LTTE elements and the Maoists coming together for mutual benefit. But caught between the turbulence of caste politics and the allure of Dravidian political idiom, Maoists were always weak force in Tamil Nadu. Even those few fell out with the all India body of the organisation in the eighties over the question of supporting Tamil nationalism. They could not survive as a cohesive entity in the face of the Tamil Nadu police dragnet. So they scattered and have become embedded in one or more of the half a dozen small Tamil political outfits.
These fringe outfits have diverse agendas, but are united in the struggle to preserve exclusiveness of Tamil identity and Tamil nationalism which they feel are threatened by New Delhi and Colombo. They are unhappy that even the Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi, who used to tacitly support the Tamil identity issue, has joined the national political mainstream and let them down.
It is doubtful whether the disparate groups can come together to form a mighty insurgent body in Tamil Nadu like the LTTE and wage war as Prabhakaran did. That may never happen. But they represent the extreme edge of the anger many Tamils are feeling over India’s failure to respond positively to attend to the Tamil grievances in Sri Lana. This is more so because India had vigorously championed their cause in the past. This feeling has many takers among Sri Lankan Tamils both at home and abroad.
Usually police are left to handle developments of extremism in a knee jerk reaction. However, in Tamil Nadu the approach has to be more nuanced. We need to pay serious attention to the issues that have generated the discontent and act to produce visible results in Sri Lanka. And political parties of Tamil Nadu have a large responsibility in suggesting and steering New Delhi to positive courses of action than merely acting as listening posts, playing politics.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group
URL:http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote589.html
From Indian point of view the much hyped visit of Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa to New Delhi from June 8 to 11 can be summed up in one sentence as ‘much ado about few things,’ with apologies to Shakespeare.
Shorn of usual diplomatic fillers, the tangibles in the joint statement issued at the end of the visit were on three tracks. One set formalised projects already in the pipeline for sometime and included financial incentives from India to push them forward. The other set attended to easing structural arrangements (i.e., agreements, MoUs, statement of intentions) to promote better relations and trading arrangements. And the third set related to rehabilitation largesse from India.
But there was little or no animation of perennial issues discussed in the joint statement. There were very few hopeful signs to progress three gritty issues – rehabilitation, devolution, and strategic security. Overall, the impression created after the President’s visit is that India had tacitly agreed to let President Rajapaksa handle these issues at his own pace in his own style. I will be happy if those involved in the process prove me wrong.
The Indian Prime Minister making the inane statement that “a meaningful devolution package, building upon the 13th Amendment, would create the necessary conditions for a lasting political settlement,” creates the impression that sidelining of the Tamil issue appears to have been accepted. In the last three years India's representatives have said the same thing a number of times. And Sri Lanka's response had been more to buy time than make any real progress on the issue.
President Rajapaksa does not talk any more about the 13th amendment or even the 13th amendment +. So not surprisingly in the joint statement he made no commitment to implement the 13th amendment – which in any case has been pushed to the realms of relevance. The President merely “reiterated his determination to evolve a political settlement acceptable to all communities that would act as a catalyst to create the necessary conditions in which all the people of Sri Lanka could lead their lives in an atmosphere of peace, justice and dignity, consistent with democracy, pluralism, equal opportunity and respect for human rights. Towards this end, the President expressed his resolve to continue to implement in particular the relevant provisions of the Constitution designed to strengthen national amity and reconciliation through empowerment.”
Have we not been hearing similar dialogue for a long time now between Sri Lanka and India? It is difficult to understand how the mere repetition of implementation of13th amendment as a mantra from Indian side and the flowery rhetoric on democracy, pluralism et al from the Sri Lankan side are going to improve the lot of Tamils. Are we not thinking of any other options? Apparently not; otherwise it would have found a place in the joint statement.
So it is no wonder Tamils on both sides of the Palk Strait feel they have been let down very badly by India. The window dressing offered by arranging a meeting between the visiting President and the members of parliament from Tamil Nadu might satisfy the ruling coalition party leaders but not the people. The rhetoric and political manoeuvring on this count to be wearing thin as people are waiting to see visible action on all fronts from Indian side.
Of course, later in Chennai Home Minister P Chidambaram presumably on a mission to ‘enlighten’ Tamil Nadu on the takeaways, highlighted India’s allocation of Rs 1000 crores to build 50,000 houses for people in north and south left to fend for themselves. And he explained that the money would be directly given to householders through banks.
While this is laudable, the process of rehabilitation has remained good in parts like the proverbial curate’s egg. But what is the overall architecture for enabling the people ravaged by war to resume normal life and join the national mainstream? Without such an architecture bound by a time frame, accountability from both sides and integrated execution, these welfare measures tend to get dislocated, downgraded or even get hijacked. For instance, in the east infrastructure facilities have made good progress, but peoples struggle for livelihood continues as before.
When the Eelam War raged there were protests in Tamil Nadu by pro-Eelam and pro-Tamil Tigers segments of political parties on happenings in Sri Lanka. Then these were joined in by protests on human rights violations and humanitarian issues and war crimes. The protests were neither large nor spectacular. But they were there.
During President Rajapaksa’s visit this time - a year after the war - the protests have become significant because there is no Prabhakaran or war to give a boost to these protests. The protests had gathered sufficient public and media attention, even without the orchestration provided by the war.
The pro-Eelam leaders Vaiko and Nedumaran and about thousand followers courted arrest while protesting against the President’s visit. These protests have to be studied in sequence of Sri Lanka-centric events that have been happening. First there was pressure on film personalities to boycott the International Indian Film Awards function in Colombo. These were followed by protests in other forms in Tamil Nadu. There are indications of simmering discontent over Sri Lanka policy increasing into effervescence.
A Public Interest Litigation filed in the Madras High Court sought issue of directions to the government to arrest Sri Lanka Minister Douglas Devananda, who was part of President Rajapaksa’s entourage. The PIL alleged Devananda was a proclaimed offender, wanted in a slew of cases including murder in Tamil Nadu.
The moot point is the Tamil Minister, well known for his strong anti-Prabhakaran stance and equally strong support to the President, had visited India and Tamil Nadu a number of times even at the height of the Eelam War. And nobody thought of raising the issue on such occasions earlier. Why now, after the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and decimation of its leadership? Clearly the PIL was aimed at embarrassing New Delhi and the visiting dignitary.
The other incident was more sinister. Thanks to alertness of railway staff, the Rock fort Express train going from Kumbakonam to Chennai escaped from accident after a metre-long portion of the railway track was found blown up at Sithani, about 25 km from Villupuram junction on the railway link to Chennai. The incident happened a day after President Rajapaksa flew out of New Delhi. High-power gel-type explosive device ignited by electric power had been used indicating familiarity with handling of explosives. It was powerful enough to create 80-cm crater and blow up the sleeper along with a piece of the rail. The Police were quick to suspect the Tamil Nadu Maoist elements and later the Tamil Tiger acolytes in the act of sabotage. Both are capable of organising the sabotage. Even though they failed to derail the train, with their act they have sent a strong message of their extreme frustration at India’s inability to respond to the Tamil problems in Sri Lanka.
During the Eelam War, there were a few instances of the LTTE elements and the Maoists coming together for mutual benefit. But caught between the turbulence of caste politics and the allure of Dravidian political idiom, Maoists were always weak force in Tamil Nadu. Even those few fell out with the all India body of the organisation in the eighties over the question of supporting Tamil nationalism. They could not survive as a cohesive entity in the face of the Tamil Nadu police dragnet. So they scattered and have become embedded in one or more of the half a dozen small Tamil political outfits.
These fringe outfits have diverse agendas, but are united in the struggle to preserve exclusiveness of Tamil identity and Tamil nationalism which they feel are threatened by New Delhi and Colombo. They are unhappy that even the Tamil Nadu chief minister Karunanidhi, who used to tacitly support the Tamil identity issue, has joined the national political mainstream and let them down.
It is doubtful whether the disparate groups can come together to form a mighty insurgent body in Tamil Nadu like the LTTE and wage war as Prabhakaran did. That may never happen. But they represent the extreme edge of the anger many Tamils are feeling over India’s failure to respond positively to attend to the Tamil grievances in Sri Lana. This is more so because India had vigorously championed their cause in the past. This feeling has many takers among Sri Lankan Tamils both at home and abroad.
Usually police are left to handle developments of extremism in a knee jerk reaction. However, in Tamil Nadu the approach has to be more nuanced. We need to pay serious attention to the issues that have generated the discontent and act to produce visible results in Sri Lanka. And political parties of Tamil Nadu have a large responsibility in suggesting and steering New Delhi to positive courses of action than merely acting as listening posts, playing politics.
Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group
URL:http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes6%5Cnote589.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)