Sri Lanka Perspectives – February 2017

Colonel R Hariharan                                                                                                             

Limelight again on Sri Lanka in UNHRC session

Sri Lanka is once again under of stress as the 34^th session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) commencing in Geneva in March 2017 when the Human Rights Commissioner will present his report on Sri Lanka’s follow up actions to meet the requirements of the UNHRC resolution of October 2015.  Sri Lanka had agreed to fulfilwithin two years the requirements of accountability on alleged war crimes and human rights abuses, creating institutions for transitional justice and carryout security sector reforms.   Sri Lanka is expected to seek extension of time as it has not been able to complete action on some of the key requirements, it. Though the TNA leader P Sampanthan had expressed his unhappiness with the government performance on the subject in parliament, are unlikely to oppose the government move.  

Pro-LTTE sections of the Tamil Diaspora have been trying to raise international support to oppose giving any extension of time to Sri Lanka at the UNHRC.  However, this  demand is unlikely to find much traction among international civil society organizations. The Human Rights Watch (HRW), which had been highly critical of Sri Lanka’s human rights record during President Rajapaksa’s rule, has commended the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government for the actions it had taken including ending the culture of surveillance, lifting media restrictions and reviewing all cases of those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and amending the constitution to ensure free functioning of national institutions.

However, HRW Asia Director Brad Adams in a statement has highlighted Sri Lanka’s failure in security sector reforms as required by the October 2015 resolution. He has drawn attention to a recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and inhuman treatment which had brought the focus on Sri Lanka’s ongoing “culture of torture” and failure to  abolish the draconian PTA , though the country’s war  with LTTE ended in 2009. He said police have continued to arrest and detain people arbitrarily. In his view, Sri Lanka leaders appeared “to be backtracking on key human rights issues including reforming the police” and it was crucial the HRC considered “closely” whether Sri Lanka made progress in commitments on transitional justice including security reforms. The UN body will also be considering the report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues on Sri Lanka.

As the HRW Asia director has pointed out, Sri Lanka had been dragging its feet on core issues of accountability like the creation of various institutions for transitional justice, particularly, the mechanism for war crimes which has been hanging fire over the issue of participation of foreign judges. The legislation on the creation of the Office of Missing Persons was passed in August 2016 but it is yet to fulfil its obligations to those affected. Nothing substantial has happened on a truth commission and reparations issues. President Maithripala Sirisena has been cautious in handling the touchy aspects of war crimes issue to fend off former president Rajapaksa who continues to whip up rightwing Sinhala sentiments to help his political comeback.  As a result, in spite of its professed good intent, the government has made only slow progress. These issues are likely to figure at the UNHRC session during the discussion on the Human Rights Commissioner’s report.  

Sri Lanka foreign affairs minister Mangala Samaraweera in his address to the UNHRC session is likely to explain the reconciliation efforts undertaken by the government so far and appeal for more time to fulfil its commitments made to the Council in 2015.   Sri Lanka’s request is likely to be favourably considered as the UN Secretary General Antonion Gutteras and the U.S., China, Japan, Australia etc have appreciated Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts.  Even the UK, unlike in the past when it had been critical of Sri Lanka’s reconciliation efforts, is likely to  support Sri Lanka after highlighting the unfulfilled commitments.

India’s preoccupation with Sri Lanka under the new dispensation now relates to bonding with the island neighbour on two vital aspects – finalising the economic and technology cooperation agreement (ETCA) still in limbo and firming up closer defence and security cooperation. China had been laying siege on Indian space in Sri Lanka on both the issues.  So India’s interest in Sri Lanka Tamils probably relates to rehabilitation efforts and devolution and equity for Tamils in the new constitution being finalized. With the constitutional polemics figuring prominently, it is not surprising the issue came up when Indian foreign secretary S Jaishankar met with the TNA leaders. He is reported to have told them he would take up the issue with the President and Prime Minister. However, it was probably a moment of truth for a section of   the TNA agitating for the merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces when he told them that India would not press Sri Lanka on the issue. He advised them to use the opportunities offered with the change of regime to secure the rights of Tamils. Given this backdrop, India is likely to support Sri Lanka’s request for extension of time as the major Tamil Nadu regional parties with their internal preoccupations  have been muted on the subject.

Follow up on LTTE plot to kill Tamil MP 

The arrest of five rehabilitated former LTTE cadres reported in January 2017 for allegedly plotting to assassinate MA Sumanthiran, moderate Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Member of Parliament, and recovery of claymore mines and ganja from their homes had triggered a lot of speculations about possible revival of the Tamil tigers’ activity in the island nation.  However, police have preferred to charge them only for possession of narcotics (ganja) and explosives and not under the PTA , when they were produced in the court.

There are three possible explanations for this: lack of clinching evidence except for uncorroborated or shaky confessional statement; the government not wanting to apply the PTA particularly as the UNHRC scheduled to meet in Geneva in March 2017; or as columnist DBS Jeyaraj states the government was not wanting to apply the PTA till it is revised to be less draconian (as required by the 2005 resolution.) Probably, all the three reasons are valid. However, till the LTTE overseas elements holed up among Tamil Diaspora community continue to stoke the embers of LTTE’s Eelam struggle in Sri Lanka, the government has no other option but to keep a wary eye on any suspicious separatist activity.

Written on February 28, 2017 

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info

In the Media: Resettlement in North – Muslims claim step motherly treatment

By Sulochana Ramiah Mohan, Ceylon Today, 15 January 2017 https://www.ceylontoday.lk/print20170101CT20170331.php?id=13118

Muslims of Sri Lanka claim step-motherly treatment while resettling them in various parts of the country as well as in the northern peninsula adding that little has been done to rectify the issue due to the lack of infrastructure and adequate funds while the matter is also allowed to prolong further. The Tamil speaking Northern Muslims as they are called, left their homes, lands and belongings and fled the area in October 1990 when LTTE leader V. Prabhakaran ordered them out in 24 hours saying the region is purely a Tamil homeland.

The expulsion came after a festering dispute the LTTE had with this community. The northern Muslims were seen as hindrance to the LTTE fight for a separate Tamil homeland. Several Muslims branded as military informants were murdered and their limp bodies later hanged on electrical posts. However there were also several instances when this community is alleged to have worked closely with the LTTE providing information on military movements in exchange for cash payments.

Colonel R. Hariharan, a retired Indian military intelligence and a specialist on South Asia and former Head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka, has a lot to say about the Muslims as he mingled with at close quarter.
He says that the LTTE expelled about 75,000 Muslims from Northern Province giving them just a few hours notice. The simplest explanation is 'ethnic cleansing' which is not wholly correct as Muslims had a long and cordial relationship with the Tamils on both sides of the Palk Strait. This relationship is the same in Tamil Nadu even today.

He tells Ceylon Today that the reasons for the expulsion of the Northern Muslims were both political and due to Tamil militancy.

History of the Muslims

Looking at the history of the Muslims, Col. Hariharan says their identity was encouraged by the British since 1932. But this community was led by the elite Malay-Arabic origin class who were regarded above the poorer Northern and Eastern Muslims who spoke Tamil. Tamil-speaking Muslims were mostly supportive of the TULF and the majority of them ignored the Eelam call.

"I think when the TULF lost relevance and militancy became the order of the day, the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) was formed in September 1981 and slowly it carved out a strong influence among Tamil –speaking Muslims".

He adds: "Until the SLMC was formed the Muslims had a good relation with the TULF and even participated in their programmes. But in 1983, events gave rise to militancy and the TULF's credibility among the Muslims eroded. It was a matter of survival for the Muslims who had to choose between the Tamil militants and the government. Despite this, some Muslim youth were inspired by the Tamil militant struggle.

"I remember a Jaffna Muslim was among the 13 LTTE leaders, some carrying personal arms, who were apprehended by the SL Navy while returning from India. The group later committed a mass suicide when attempts were being made to dispatch them to Colombo. The Muslim youth however did not die and was taken under SL Army protection," notes Hariharan.

"Tamil speaking Muslims were recruited to form various militias to defend themselves against the marauding LTTE in the East. They were also recruited by the Army since they proved to be valuable to Military Intelligence because they spoke and read Tamil and were conversant with Tamil culture. This led to suspicion about Muslims in the minds of the LTTE. "That's why even during the 2002 peace process, Prabhakaran promised a lot of things to Rauf Hakeem when he met him but never delivered on it.
"Muslims have mastered the art of tight rope walking between the different communities because they are a minority for whom their identity is bound inseparably with religion," the Indian military intelligence expert adds.

Muslims have been living for centuries in the Northern Province and speak only fluent Tamil. The Tamils were closely watching over this community to see what side they would favour when the war broke out. The subtle animosity between the two communities, with each fearing each other's presence continued. The Tamils turning to the LTTE and the Muslims running to the government forces for help when their life came under threat was a common occurrence.

Muslims were collectively accused of ganging up against the Tamils, first with the Sri Lankan State, then with 'Indian imperialism' as represented by the IPKF and since June 1990 again with the Sri Lankan state. In their media propaganda the LTTE repeatedly stressed that the majority of Muslims regarded the Tamils as their enemies and had indulged in atrocities against them. It is implied that whole Muslim villages acted as informers to the government forces. However the LTTE never claimed that the Muslims were murdered for their alleged connection to the State security agencies.
Muttur was one area that constantly had disputes between the Tamil and Muslim communities where youth from both sides were abducted or went missing creating communal tension.

Writer Rajan Hoole explains the fate of the Muslims in his piece 'Massacres of Muslims and what it means for the Tamils'. He says, when it came to be believed that the IPKF was there to stay, leaders from both communities co-operated with the IPKF. But because of the attitudes of the pro-Indian Tamil militant groups towards the Muslims, many Muslims helped the LTTE. The LTTE gained Muslim recruits and Muslims were then the mainstay of the LTTE's survival in the East. When the IPKF withdrew from most parts of the East in late 1989, the main victims of LTTE killings were Tamils. But friction with Muslims increased as the LTTE pushed its brand of authority. Greater discomfort developed as Muslim leaders politely reminded the LTTE of its pledges made to visiting Muslim representatives in India during 1987, promising autonomy for Muslim religious and cultural life.

After the war ended

Now the life of all communities witnessed the light at the end of the tunnel with the war coming to an end in 2009. The fact remains that since then the Muslims have progressed well in a short period of time.
Their business establishments are flourishing in every nook and corner of the big cities in the country except in the North which is still 'untouched'.

The Ranil-Maithri government was also their best choice after facing turbulence with the past regime. The sense of fear has by and large diminished and the govern-ment has taken strong steps to apprehend persons who cause religious tension.
Northern Provincial Council Chairman C. V. K. Sivagnanam told Ceylon Today that there are no stumbling blocks over resettling the Muslims in the region. He added there is no administrative hindrance to welcome them to the North.

He believes if they were rightfully living in the Northern Peninsula and can prove their properties no one is stopping them.

However he says that many have already returned to the North and have claimed their lands and are gradually settling there.

 The Northern Province Chief Minister C. V. Wigneswaran who is very particular about resettling persons said that out of the 4307 families which had obtained lands between 2013 and 2016, 73.02 per cent were Muslim, 25.66 per cent Tamil, and 1.32 per cent Sinhalese.

The President of the Muslim Council of Sri Lanka N. M. Ameen pointed out that by 2013, there were very few Tamils left to be resettled, as the government and the international community had prioritized the resettlement of Tamils after the war ended in 2009. Hence, in the settlement programme which took place after 2013, the percentage of Muslim families appeared to be high.

A senior retired lecturer in Geography, University of Peradeniya Dr. A. S. M. Nawfal talking to Ceylon Today explains the resettlement programme for the Muslims and the latest statistics about them which his research team had conducted.

Current status

Explaining the current status of resettling the Muslims of the North Dr. Nawfal says that in the Jaffna District already 10, 113 Muslim families have been resettled namely in Mullaitivu (there were 3,758 and 890 have been resettled), Kilinochchi (out of 826 families, 243 have been resettled), Jaffna (out of 7,528 families, 584 have been resettled) Mannar (out of 6,871 families 3, 426 have been resettled), Maanthai (out of 3,859 families, 463 have been resettled), Nanaattam (out of 1,753, 412 have been resettled ) and in Musali (out of 6,765 families, 4,095 have been resettled). The remaining numbers to be resettled is 21, 244. He adds that some 50 Muslim families had also sold their lands to Tamil buyers in the North and returned to their IDP camps.
In Silavathurai and Marichchikaddy thousands of private lands are occupied by the military. In Musali too, thousands of acres of paddy lands are still occupied by others, he notes.

Dr. Nawful says many Muslim families that fled the area due to the war are now in three fold. In 1990 a total of 837 families of Musali South have now increased to 2,137. Similarly 80 families in Pookulmis have increased to 230 families. In Mullikulam where there were 210 families the present count is 520.
When Kuwait based NGOs along with UN agencies such as UNICEF, UNCHR, OXFAM etc. constructed houses for the Muslims many suspected it to be an illegal settlement.

On the Willapattu issue he adds that dispute came when areas where people had lived were declared as the Wilpattu Forest System. Musali GS Division was linked to the forest unlike in the other areas.

Again in 2012 the government declared Marichchikaddy as another forest reservation area adjoining Veppal that extended towards the west and covered most of the area used by the Muslims and this is where the controversy remains, the senior lecturer explains.

According to him, more damage to the forest is done in the east of Wilpattu where more human encroachment is taking place. Notably, the catchment area of Wilpattu (inside the park) Kala Oya and the Moderagam catchment areas are encroached by humans thereby destroying the forest cover.

Similarly, in Jaffna, Dr. Nawfal urges the construction of roads and other infrastructure for Muslim areas. Muslims who earlier fled Jaffna have increased in big numbers. However they have not asked for more land but instead are seeking housing facilities and other apartments for their extended families, he noted.

Sri Lanka Perspectives – January 2017

Colonel R Hariharan                                                                                                                  Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, February 2017 issue                                     www.security-risks.com

LTTE plot to kill Tamil MP

Sri Lanka police’s Terrorism Investigation Department (TID) arrested in all five rehabilitated LTTE cadres for allegedly plotting to assassinate MA Sumanthiran, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Member of Parliament, known for his moderate views. The TID is reported to have recovered two Claymore mines and large quantities of cannabis from the homes of four of them arrested on January 14 and produced before Kilinochchi district court on January 20. According to Daily FT of Colombo a fifth person Vijayan was also subsequently arrested in the same case. 

Significantly, they were not arrested under the infamous Prevention of Terrorism Act but charged with possession of explosives and narcotics. They have been remanded to custody till February 13.  

Well known columnist DBS Jeyaraj in his blog says a former LTTE cadre Kulendran alias “Master” of Kilinochchi, one of the four arrested persons, had cultivated ‘Nallavan’ (pseudonym) a rehabilitated LTTE cadre in Kilinochchi; subsequently he offered Nallavan Rs 15 lakhs for killing  the Jaffna district MP Sumanthiran. Kulendran told him that some LTTE leaders overseas who would pay wanted this done and assured him safe passage overseas after he carried out the task.  Nallavan was horrified at the idea of killing the TNA MP who had impressed him and refused to do so.  

Subsequently, when Nallavan came to know the plan was to kill Sumanthiran when the MP came to Jaffna to address a cultural festival at Karaveddy on December 24.  Nallavan informed the police of the plot. President Sirisena was informed of the plot and he advised the MP to cancel the visit. Police verified Nallavan’s information and arrested the five persons based upon further investigations.

Though the political reaction to the alleged LTTE plot and arrest of the conspirators was on in keeping with their known stand on release of former LTTE cadres in particular and Tamil militancy in general, the incident raises important issues regarding the scope for revival of LTTE activities by its overseas echelons and supported by LTTE sympathizers among Tamil Diaspora. They had been vociferous in celebrating the LTTE and its mentor Prabhakaran to keep the Tamil Eelam demand alive. No doubt Sri Lanka government would continue to keep a close watch on such developments; India would also be vigilant to prevent such elements entering the country.

Progress of Chinese-aided mega projects

After wrestling with allegations of corruption, violation of environmental norms and bending the rules to favour Chinese investment companies investing and executing massive infrastructure projects finalized during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s rule, the Sirisena government seems to have to come to terms with them, even as Rajapaksa’s ambitious Hambantota port and Mattala airport projects continued to incur heavy loss.

Sri Lanka government formalized sweeping tax concessions offered to the prestigious Port City project (renamed as the Colombo International Financial City - CIFC) through gazette notifications submitted to the parliament on January 27. The project aims at creating an off shore financial centre to be constructed close to Galle Face Green, Colombo’s famous landmark.  

The concessions include exemption of income tax on the earnings of the Chinese company from the project for a period of 25 years. Foreigners working for the company also have been exempted from a number of levies including customs duty. 

 The prestigious $1.3 billion CIFC project was halted when President Sirisena came to power to vet all Chinese aided projects for alleged corruption and violation of environmental norms. This move annoyed the Chinese government. The Chinese made clear the terms of agreement were not negotiable.

The Sirisena government reworked the CIFC’s master plan and included it in the larger mega polis plan. A tripartite agreement for the revised project was signed in August 2016 by the Megalapolis and Western Development Ministry, Urban Development Authority and the China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC), exempting the Sri Lanka Port Authority which was a party to the earlier agreement.

The new master plan is considered more environment friendly as it will have 45 hectares of parks and 13 hectares of artificial beaches available in the reclaimed land.

Indian projects

Indian government has aided and executed a number of projects including infrastructure (rail, road, port and other public service facilities) and housing projects mainly to benefit the people affected by the Eelam war in Northern province. However, some of them also ran run into rough weather. 

For instance, the Sampoor coal-fired 500 MW thermal power project to be executed by the NTPC had been hanging fire for long. When the work started after a lot of foot dragging, Sri Lanka government had a relook at the project, when objections were raised on environmental grounds over the use of coal. Now, it wants the project to be based on liquefied natural gas instead of coal. The project is still pending approval from the Indian government for the proposed changes. 

Similarly, India’s involvement in the development of Trincomalee port is a long story that never materialized. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has now clarified that the Trincomalee harbour area would be developed as shipping, manufacturing and tourism complex with 175 sq km high end tourist resort area in its environ. Subarna Jurong, a Singapore-based infrastructure company is to prepare a master plan for the project.

Just like China’s CIFC project, Tata Housing Development Ltd’s $429.5 million One Colombo Project (OCP) to build a modern mixed development and housing project at Slave Island, a suburb of Colombo, also ran into rough weather over contractual terms. After a period of suspense, the project is now being executed after overcoming glitches in contractual terms. The government has given an eight-acre land in Slave Island and an income tax holiday for ten years and corporate tax exemption for six years for One Colombo Project Ltd, formed by THD jointly with the Urban Development Authority.

Written on January 31, 2017 

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info

In the Media: India’s aid to settle Sri Lankan Tamils on downslide

TNN February 2, 2017 

India’s financial support to Sri Lanka has reduced in the past two years. The actual support given towards rehabilitation of the internally displaced Tamils in the island nation is lower than that mentioned in the budget, Times of India reported.

In 2016-17, the budget estimate was ‘230 crore towards financial support for Sri Lanka, which includes reconstruction expenses for Tamil refugees, who returned home after the civil war ended. But the revised estimates show that the Centre is likely to transfer only ‘155 crore and in the next financial year, the allocation is estimated at ‘125 crore.

“There are many Tamil refugees, who are returning to Sri Lanka and they need help from India. The money allocated by India will be sanctioned only through its embassy and spent on roads, hospitals, schools or other infrastructure facilities,” a Sri Lanka Tamil minister, seeking anonymity, told TOI. Sri Lanka needs India’s support as many refugees are ready to return home, said Lanka expert Col R Hariharan. “Though many projects have been completed in North and East, the problems faced by Lankan Tamils is not over. Tamil Nadu must also raise its voice with the Centre for the welfare of refugees in the state,” said Col Hariharan. Getting refugees to remain in Tamil Nadu is no long term solution and they must be rehabilitated in their homeland. “Tamil Nadu must also speak about long term projects for Tamils in Lanka and this must also be debated in the assembly,” he said.

Courtesy: Times of India, February 2, 2017

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/aid-to-settle-lankan-tamils-on-downslide/articleshow/56926270.cms

China-US relations face turbulence in Chinese year of the Rooster

It will also impact New Delhi’s trade, security and infrastructure development relations with Beijing

POLITICS | 6-minute read | 30-01-2017

COLONEL R HARIHARAN @colhari2

With Donald Trump becoming the 45th US President, the US-China relations may enter turbulent times, though the Chinese year of the rooster – which began on January 28 - according to tradition signifies confidence. 

True to belief, the just ended year of the monkey has proved to be troublesome and chaotic for Beijing’s relations with Washington DC. 

Trump’s noisy entry at the helm of American power, living up to the GOP’s symbol of the elephant trampling the orderly ways of the US government is sure to disturb China’s “harmonious world”.  

President Trump has started the year of the Rooster with aggressive confidence on all fronts to fulfil his promise to make “America great again”.

In his inaugural address, he said “from this day forward, it’s going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families….We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.”

His speeches and actions have caused unease across the globe and more so in China and its trading community as the contours of emerging US policy are not clear.

Jack Ma, the founder of e-commerce giant Alibaba, who had met Trump earlier this month found him “open-minded.” 

Speaking at Davos 2017, Ma said they had discussed about small business, agriculture and trade between China and the US, with specific focus on how to create a million jobs in small business over the next five years.  

Ma said “we should give Trump some more time…He’s willing to listen.”

However, Jack Ma address at Beijing on January 27, seemed to be more realistic on China-US relations. He said despite an “overall optimistic” outlook on trade between the two economic giants, conflicts “will definitely be there.”

He warned of a big trade war between China and the US, if conflicts between them were not dealt with properly.

China’s uncertainty about Trump’s moves on strategic front was reflected in a recent comment of a PLA official quoted in the South China Morning Post. He said that the US re-balancing its deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, and its push to arm South Korea with THAAD missile defence systems were provocative “hot spots getting closer to ignition.” 

He had good reasons to be worried because during former US president Obama’s watch, China had successfully managed to flex its military muscles to buttress its territorial claims in the South China in the face of the US naval power in the Asia-Pacific. 

China also managed to threaten the durability of the US’ powerful strategic and trade alliances built over the years with key Asia-Pacific powers like Japan, South Korea, Australia and ASEAN. 

China has successfully lured even traditional US ally like the Philippines to avoid confrontation over territorial dispute, pacified regional challengers like Vietnam wooed by the US as well as imposed caution on ASEAN countries.

This had frustrated the US under Obama’s watch as it had struggled to come to terms with China’s unimpeded progress on other fronts of the power game.

China was already disturbed with Trump’s actions such as taking a congratulatory phone call from the Taiwan president soon after his election as well as comments of his defence secretary General “Mad dog” Mattis on the need for the US to reaffirm its commitment to Taiwan as they threaten China’s core interests on Taiwan.

On the other hand, Trump’s call to rework US’ strategic defence agreements with traditional allies like Japan and the NATO powers, has introduced a a lot of uncertainty not only in the minds of US’ Pacific allies like Japan, but also China.  

Under President Xi’s leadership China’s ambitious westward bound One Belt, One Road (OBOR) infrastructure initiative has continued to make progress, despite concerns about economic viability and opaqueness.

The OBOR project supported by 64 nations across three continents is helping China to shape new strategic paradigms and alignments in Central Asia and South Asia.

These are increasingly threatening to marginalise American influence in these regions.

In contrast, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), the US’ ambitious but controversial trade initiative to challenge China’s growth as global economic giant has ended in limbo after the US was unable to ratify it.

China should be happy that President Trump has withdrawn from the TPP on January 23 as it could end American plans to sign an agreement with the TPP partners on the lines of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement between the US and the European Union.

But Trump’s initiative to protect American industries by slapping on new tariffs and taxes on goods from China and Mexico have also added to China’s unease as it stands to lose the advantages it had gained from globalization.  For the time being, President Xi appears to be awaiting the  US president’s next move  as indicated by his speech at the World Economic Forum, at Davos 2017.

He spoke in vigorous defence of globalization and free trade. Though he did not name Trump or his bid for protectionist policies, Xi compared protectionism to “locking oneself in a dark room” while depriving light and air.

He cautioned countries pursuing their own interests at the expense of others.

“No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war,” he added.

President Xi said that economic globalization had become a Pandora’s Box for many, but it was not the cause of many global problems. 

For more than a decade the US and China have built strong, multifaceted relations in many fields which bind them together.  

Over the years, the two countries have mutually reinforced investments and trade between them.

So any radical change in the US trade policy with China could affect American business at home and abroad - as much as China.

President Xi is perhaps confident of evolving pragmatic working relations with the US, just as many American and Chinese businessmen also seem to think.  

Trump’s emerging China policy will also impact India’s trade, security and infrastructure development relations with China. Trump’s positive pronouncements on the future of US-India strategic cooperation, strengthened during the Obama days, would also be carefully watched by China.  

It will also be keenly observing developments on the changes in the US Afghanistan policy, as they have the potential to cramp China's strategic initiative with Russia and Pakistan to bring the Taliban and Afghanistan to the discussion table.   

The plate is full for both nations to develop a working equation on trade policies, strategic issues and other multilateral issues affecting the fortunes of not only China and the US, but many other nations, including India.

#Taiwan, #Donald Trump, #US-China Relations

The writer is a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia with rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations.

Courtesy: India Today Opinion portal DailO.in   http://www.dailyo.in/politics/china-us-relations-donal-trump-foreign-policy-taiwan/story/1/15384.html

Event report: C3S Round Table Discussions – Led by Prof. John Garver

C3S Report No: 0149/2016  dated December 1, 2016

Compiled by Asma Masood, Research officer, C3S http://www.c3sindia.org/economyandtrade/5854

The Chennai Centre for China Studies (C3S) and National Maritime Foundation- Chennai Chapter (NMF) held two Round Table Discussions (RTDs) from October 15-16 2016. They were led by Prof. John Garver, Professor Emeritus , Sam Nunn School of International Affairs , Georgia Institute of Technology. Col. R. Hariharan, Member, C3S moderated the sessions. Prof. John Garver’s profile can be seen at this link.

The sessions focused on ‘Implication of Rise of China’ and ‘Changing Strategic Landscape in South Asia – In the Backdrop of Chinese Initiatives’.

Prof. Garver expressed an interest in learning what Chennai’s strategic community perceived about India-China relations. According to him, China-Pakistan relations are mainly driven by the Indian angle. However China-Pakistan relations can be scarred by threat to CPEC from increasing insurgency in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The speaker added that India is a regional power, hence China engages with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives. India is not at the same level as China when it comes to linkages with these countries. China believes that India “belongs” in South Asia, on the same plane as Pakistan. China perceives U.S.A as its main rival. It is obvious as seen in China’s launch of a space lab and its Anti-Satellite (ASAT) capabilities. However China also views India and Japan as rivals.

Prof. John believes that India will attempt to block China’s relations with countries like  Maldives and Sri Lanka. Yet, India is not to blame for this ‘bad blood’. The concept of blame is not applicable in such scenarios.

On Russia-India-China relations, Prof. John studies China’s perspective as one which has common dissatisfaction with unipolarity of U.S.A. There is a joint opposition from Russia and China against U.S.A’s global influence. 

Nevertheless, China is not going to ally with Russia against the US. This is because China-US relations are vital, and Beijing will avoid any confrontation that can derail these ties. On the other hand, China will not challenge Russia in Central Asia, as Moscow’s economic and soft powers are very high in the region. Interestingly China fears a scenario where Russia will defect from Beijing and join Western democracies, leading to China being surrounded. It is similar for the Chinese view in case of Pakistan. In fact, China feared U.S- Russia relations would enhance under Yeltsin, whereby Moscow could have even joined NATO.

The subject of U.S.A’s strategic partnership with India was raised. In Prof. Garver’s view, these strategic partnerships are for U.S.A’s gain, in order to prevent China from growing the way of erstwhile militaristic Germany and Japan. Thus Washington D.C is supporting the growth of countries like India, Indonesia, etc. India is a multicultural and multiethnic democracy. The Indian diaspora in U.S.A is also a vital factor in Indo-US relations.

Prof. John Garver opined that there are Chinese who believe that U.S.A is in decline and China is ascendant. Eventually other countries may accommodate China. It will gain status of a pre-eminent power. China will seek friendly cooperation via multidimensional relations with all countries in the Indian Ocean, including India. However India will take umbrage at China’s friendship with Sri Lanka, Mauritius, etc. Nevertheless India will realize at a certain time that it cannot compete with China and will hence cooperate with Beijing. This is not a policy statement but an inherent belief. The question remains on whether India wants to accommodate a Sino-centric world order.

Prof. Garver added that India has “too weak a hand”. China does not need to resolve the border dispute, because according to Beijing, it is ‘Chinese territory seized by India’.

A query was raised on whether China’s government is capable of propelling the country to pre-eminent power status, given its domestic governance policies. Prof. Garver replied that the Communist Party of China (CPC) enjoys a high level of support domestically. This is so as performance is delivered. 1.36 billion people populate the economy of China and the government is able to extract power from these (human) resources. China also has a blue water navy. It has a permanent ongoing presence in the Indian Ocean since 2009. Its navy is primarily designed to defeat U.S.A in Taiwan. China is not seeking bases in the Indian Ocean yet, except for Djibouti. This is because Beijing needs the capability to defend them. It involves ammunition, fuel, aircraft carriers, etc. Someday, step-by-step, China will achieve these requirements. It is in China’s DNA to desire the status of an elite power.

A question was raised, asking if U.S.A should continue to advise Delhi on how to tackle the rise of China, and be more proactive in international relations. The answer according to Prof. Garver was that U.S.A wants multiple strong powers in Asia in order to deter China against war. U.S.A fears that China will engage in conflict like militaristic Germany had in the world wars. Washington D.C would like to encourage growth of India’s power to balance China’s power. There are commonalities between India and U.S.A: they are both multicultural and democratic.

Regarding geopolitics, it is not Japan, Britain, or France, but India which acts a great power. This is a significant factor to be considered. U.S.A is not prepared to ‘ally’ with India. America views India more as a friendly power. This is unlike France, which is seen by U.S.A as one if its oldest allies. U.S.A had once rejected India’s unique Iran stance, but pulled back because it is very understanding. It comprehends that India has its own interests, even with reference to China. It is significant that China is growing as a very powerful country. It population of 1.36 billion people has immense potential. They are well educated and the number of Chinese engineers is also high. China’s investments in science and technology are also increasing. While China is committed to a peaceful rise, there is a danger that a vacuum of power may come up which China can seize. The American view is that India should step up to fill the power vacuum if any, as it is a democratic country.

China views India as a geopolitical rival, since the inception of the Tibet issue. India also aligns with U.S.A and Japan, and has maritime partnerships with these countries. Prof. Garver believes that China wants to balance India because it thinks that Delhi has a tendency towards hegemony and recklessness, and thus must be kept in check. Besides, China thinks that India wants to check China in South Asia and in the Indian Ocean. This could lead to India blocking China’s friendly relations with states such as Sri Lanka.

One way China can keep India under check is a strong Pakistan. In fact, China does not manage alliances well, except with Pakistan. India explains the stability of China-Pakistan relations.  Sundeep Kumar S., Research Officer, C3S pointed out that Pakistan is a bridge to West Asia, thus explaining the true intent of China-Pakistan relations. Col. Hariharan, Member, C3S held the view that China engages with Pakistan to protect its overseas interests. Mr. L. V. Krishnan, Member, C3S expressed Beijing has ties with Islamabad mainly in order to counter global terrorism and terror rooted in Pakistan.

Prof. Garver recommended the following for India: That Delhi should cooperate with China on important issues such as climate change, WTO talks, etc. India should not interfere in the foreign policy of China. India should also accommodate China in the Indian Ocean region.

Prof. Garver’s talk was interspersed with insightful inputs from the members of the RTDs, in response to Prof. Garver’s queries. His question on the members’ views about China’s strategic interactions in the Indian Ocean was met with a prism of diverse responses. According to Admiral Mohan Raman (Retd.), until some years ago, China was looking at the Indian Ocean only to avoid possible problems in the Straits of Malacca. The second advantage is to enhance the economy of Western China which is not as developed as Eastern China. China is buttressing its communication channels, like it did in Africa (Djibouti). Beijing has made even Austalia an ‘economic slave’. If China’s SLOCs are choked, then even countries like Australia will fell the pinch. China’s activities depict a resurgence of the Chinese empire as in the 15th century. Now, countries like Myanmar and Bangladesh are not only under the military thumb but economic thumb of China.

Prof. Garver asked the forum whether it is easy to envision China as a pre-eminent economic power in the region and the status of India’s role in this context. Admiral Mohan Raman’s take is that despite India not being in China’s ballpark, either financially or militarily, India is on the right path to slowly becoming powerful in the economic, social and military domains. The GST Bill is one example of this progress. Other countries in the region will find that following a ‘slowcoach’ Indian model is more acceptable than an unpredictable China.

Col. Hariharan, Member, C3S, explained that the rise of China must be understood from the country’s deep sense of shame post the Opium wars. It was not a naval power until recently. There is a deep sense of nationalism in China. It wants to exit its navy’s domination [by the US] in the South China Sea and become a trans-oceanic power. This has led to its military modernization. The entry of China into Indian Ocean must be seen from an overall context. 

China wants to protect its interests abroad, as via the Djibouti base. Hambantota (Sri Lanka) is an economic example. However this does not imply the ‘string of pearls’ theory is valid, as China considers India to be of low competency. India has a narrower perspective. It is still a very powerful naval force in the Indian Ocean. This is not only to contain China. In reality India wants to be a more assertive in the region just as China wants to be a more responsible power. China is ambitious as it is ruled by a monolith party. However it fears insecurity. On the other hand India is a democracy which can defuse internal pressures with elections. 

Col. Hariharan added that we should not view China’s entry into the Indian Ocean as anti-Indian or anti-US moves. The concept of Maritime Silk Road is connected to that of the One Belt one Road, a project which was conceived in mid 20^th century, when the warlord of Xinjiang was made a general in the PLA and the province was integrated into China.

Prof. Garver’s posed a question on how India’s interests are impinged upon by a nationalistic China which has a modernized military. Captain Avtar Singh felt that India is going to contain China. Admiral Mohan Raman added that this containment could be done in the military sense, with an adversarial posture between India and China. India’s military capabilities are being enhanced to counter China’s design on India, not just on the border issue. The opinion of Mr. K. Subramanian, Member, C3S was that if U.S.A has a right to protect its own interests, so does China.

Prof. John Garver asked the RTD members what they thought of India’s role in China’s relations vis-à-vis Japan. Col. Hariharan quoted the Chinese media report on Prime Minister Modi’s recent Japan trip, that “India will never be a pawn of Japan.” Vithiyapathy P., Research Officer, C3S, took a stand that China is not pleased due to good relations between Japan and India. Sundeep Kumar S., Research Officer, C3S, expressed that China and Japan do have high economic linkages, yet there is disconnect between Tokyo and Beijing.

With regard to Indo-Chinese relations, Mr. Medrik Minassian, M.Phil Scholar, Madras Christian College highlighted that we should not forget the common player, the United States. The interests of the United States play an influencing role in shaping the actions of the countries of the region. This is mainly because of the U.S.A’s international position of strength in diplomatic, economic and military fields. India and China are the largest players in the region and see their interests clash with regard to this. They are trying to safeguard what is their own interest and also are filling up a vacuum that the recent decline of the United States influence has left in the geopolitical region common to India and China.

The issue of China’s claims on Arunachal Pradesh was discussed. Ms. Asma Masood, Research Officer, C3S, stated that India believes in a pragmatic, peaceful approach to the problem. India should continue its current stance of allowing dignitaries to visit Tawang. It has already been observed in the case of Richard Verma, US Ambassador to India and the Dalai Lama. India believes in sending such signals to China, rather than showing a provocative or offensive force.

The RTDS were concluded with Col. Hariharan giving the vote of thanks.