TIBET: ‘STATUS QUO PLUS’ AS AN OPTION?

Global Geopolitics Net Sites
Monday, November 03, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

There is a note of increasing dejection in the post-Olympics statements and comments of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his spokesmen regarding the future of Tibet. His hopes that in the wake of the protest demonstrations in Tibet in March,2008, the international community will step up pressure on Beijing to reach an accommodation with him have been belied. The restrained post-March 2008 reactions of the international community have shown that the economic links of the West with China have become so strong that the West is not prepared to risk this linkage by over-focussing on the Tibet issue to the annoyance of China. Apart from proforma expressions of reverence for His Holiness and of support for the improvement of human rights in Tibet, the West is disinclined to do anything more. It has come to the realisation that it won’t be desirable to exploit Tibet as a card against China.
[Read more...]

Time to address trust deficit between Colombo and Tamils

Global Geopolitics Net Sites
Monday, November 03, 2008

© Copyright 2008 Malladi Rama Rao. All rights reserved.
Sunday, November 02, 2008

By Malladi Rama Rao

What a spat it was? It had turned upside down the logic of campaign journalists on either side of the Palk Strait. No surprise, therefore, all those in Colombo who have been painting a doomsday scenario of sorts between Chennai and Delhi have egg on their face and are groping for new theories to brazen out their jingoism that made the mistake of once again pitting the Sinhalese against the Tamils. Post-Basil mission to Delhi, the egg heads must realise that neither righteous indignation which is on display in abundance nor an orchestrated media campaign, for a few brownie points, which shows no let up, is a substitute for good governance, which is the only way to end the years of trust deficit between Colombo and Tamils.

Some commentators have termed India’s Sri Lanka policy as a farce. Some others have branded as tamasha DMK patriarch Muthavel Karunanidhi’s politics of ultimatum. Both schools of thought felt that Delhi and Chennai were trying to have the cake and eat it in their own way. Expecting Karunanidhi to reduce Manmohan Singh government to a minority just five-six months ahead of a general election, these critics had gone to the town declaring that Delhi was caught between the devil and the deep sea. They have obviously failed to understand, much less care to read, the fine print on coalition dharma. And also how adroitly the old Dravidian fox was outmanoeuvring his arch rivals – Jayalalithaa Jayaram of AIADMK and trusted follower turned political foe V Gopalaswamy alias Vaiko.

Karunanidhi had split Vaiko’s MDMK a couple of months ago. Now by regaining the Tamil centre space, he has marginalised the likes of Vaiko who are the ardent campaigners of LTTE. The icing on the cakes, as DMK faithful see it, is the arrest of Vaiko on charges of sedition and anti-national activities. The arrest should have come as a surprise to the India-baiters in Colombo.

Needless to say, these worthies have not understood the dynamics of democracy and the contours of an administration that swears by the Constitution in India. If they have any doubt they should listen to the recording of Pranab-Karunanidhi joint press conference in Chennai last Sunday.

Said Karunanidhi: “This issue (ethnic issue in SL) has been going on for 40-years; we cannot expect it to be resolved in four days”. Pranab Mukherjee, on his part, put the record straight saying India stands for countering terrorism with resolve. Put differently, it means India will do nothing to reduce the momentum of the SLA operations in Kilinochchi. .

Firstly, Pranab rejected the demand voiced by a section of TN politicians for withdrawal of non-lethal military support to the SLA like supply of radars and technical and personnel backup to keep operational these anti-aircraft radars. Secondly, he reasoned that the ‘help’ is in India’s interest. “Because, given the position of the Indian and Sri Lankan coastlines, the radar that was given would cover vital installations in Indian areas as well”, the Indian minister told a questioner, certainly as much to the delight as surprise of his SL friends.

There is substance, therefore, in the contention that the latest low in India-Sri Lanka relations is not because of any misunderstanding between Delhi and Chennai but because of forked tongues in Colombo. Consider these two facts – one about fishermen and the other about humanitarian aid.

The Basil mission to New Delhi has put in place some practical arrangements to deal with bona fide Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL). GOSL will designate sensitive areas along the Lankan coastline. These areas will be out of bounds for Indian fishing vessels. “Further, there will be no firing on Indian vessels. Indian fishing vessels will carry a valid registration or permit and the fishermen will have on person valid identity cards issued by the government of Tamil Nadu,”, a joint statement on fishing arrangements released on Oct 26 at the end of BR talks with the Indian foreign minister, said.

The fishermen issue has been a principal concern of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and most law makers from the state cutting across party-lines. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took up the issue personally two months back with President Rajapaksa on the sidelines of SAARC summit. These concerns have been met with more firings on the Indian fishermen. Undoubtedly, the latest agreement is the most practical way of dealing with what happens when illiterate fishermen cross the maritime boundary line. On its part the TN government is taking steps to equip fishing vessels with satellite based equipment to indicate their exact location on the high seas.

The Sri Lanka Navy has used the moral right to prevent pro-LTTE Indians from Tamil Nadu from assisting the Tigers with material that could be used in the war against Sri Lanka –batteries that can power improvised explosive devices, ball-bearings to add lethality, petrol, oil and lubricants and small arms and ammunition—to be indiscriminate and vindictive in its actions against the fisher folk. The proposed system of licenses would induce an element of inspection that would give the fishermen an opportunity to explain their presence and thus avoid being killed instantly on being sighted by the Sri Lanka Navy. So, there is room for optimism that there will be no ‘a flare up’ near Katchiativu. It will certainly lead to a cooling of political temperature in the State.

During Basil-Pranab talks, India had offered to send humanitarian aid – 800 tonnes of relief material- through the Red Cross as a gesture of goodwill. President Rajapaksa welcomed the Indian decision and also appreciated Tamilnadu’s offer to make an additional contribution to ‘this humanitarian endeavour’.

But his Essential Services Chief S. Divaratne doesn’t appear to share President’s enthusiasm. In fact, he shares the indignation expressed by a section of the Lankan leadership which sees in the Indian food aid a repeat of food air drop in 1987. “Sri Lanka is not an African state in need of food. We can even feed the poor people of India, if need be”, he told the media. His remarks are not contradicted till date. He also went on to add: The government has buffer food stocks in Kilinochchi and Mulaithivu with a surplus of rice in the Wanni. Even anti malaria drugs, medicines are constantly reaching the Wanni”.

Basic thrust of Basil-Pranab agreement and President Rajapaksa’s exclusives to select Indian dailies is that civilians would be spared in the course of Wanni war. But even before the ink on the Delhi agreement dried, three Tamillians – one of them a 50-year –old mother of three, living in the conflict zone were wounded in SLAF strafing of two civilian settlements in Kilinochchi and Paranthan. The victims belong to the ever increasing tribe of internally displaced persons from Mannar and Kilinochchi. A school with some 750 students was just 750 meters from the bombed site. This incident could be one of those hazards in a military operation but doesn’t help improve confidence levels.

At this point in SL history, who pushed whom to war is not material. What is germane is, as some SL commentators have also noted, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, while professing full commitment to political package, has allowed the Sinhala extremists to set an agenda that allows only for a military solution. Defeating the Tigers militarily may not be big deal. The war may at the best drag on for a few days or months; the army and air force have to work to a plan jointly and without indulging in their own games. But how is the government to control the large Tamil-speaking areas in the north that have been under LTTE domination for a decade or more. There is no plan in evidence.

Yes, the President promises that he himself will take charge of the political process and see it through politically. But he makes it clear that the current military operations are required to ‘free our own Tamil brothers and sisters from the cruel grip of terror and implement a just and enduring political solution based on the four ‘Ds’ — Demilitarisation, Democratisation, Development, and Devolution’. He also asserts that his first priority is Demilitarisation. “Without demilitarisation first, you won’t be able to achieve anything. No democratisation, no development, no devolution. It is useless to give them devolution when they are not ready to accept it or you can’t implement it”, the President told N Ram of The Hindu.

This assertion puts a fresh question mark on the future course of events promised by President’s emissary, Basil Rajapaksa to his interlocutors in Delhi. More over, the LTTE appears to demonstrate its ability to strike even when it has been hurt very badly. As the Stratfor experts say in their forecast, the Tigers will make a stronger attempt to carry out attacks inside Colombo ‘in an attempt to prove to their constituency that they are still viable’. From a military point, that is bad news. Also from a political point. Because it will give fresh lease to the Sinhala chauvinism and deepen the Faultlines further.

Ethnic SL Tamil diaspora has enormous financial and political clout; it is numerous in crucial Western countries. And they can provide the muscle to the LTTE for decades irrespective of the outcome of today’s military campaign. If the diaspora is to be checkmated and LTTE is to be given a knockout blow, MR, as President Mahinda Rajapaksa is addressed by his close circle, should look into the causes of anger of the Tamils with the Sinhala state with a sense of urgency and commitment. Rhetoric offers no solution. Certainly not banking on State created quislings like TMVP who have neither the reach nor vision.

RENEWED SUPPORT FOR SRI LANKAN TAMIL CAUSE IN TAMIL NADU

Global Geopolitics Viewpoints
Friday, October 10, 2008

Copyright © B. Raman – South Asia Analysis Group
www.southasiaanalysis.org

B.RAMAN

There have been signs of renewed support for the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils across the political spectrum in Tamil Nadu, except from the Congress (I), which continues to adopt an ambivalent attitude. This support has come not only from the traditional supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), but also from other parties such as the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) of M.Karunanidhi and J.Jayalalitha of the Anna DMK, the main opposition party. Even the Tamil Nadu branch of the Communist Party of India (CPI) has come out in support of the Sri Lankan Tamils.

2.Karunanidhi, who is generally not given to using strong or emotional language, has given emotional expression to his anguish over what he perceives as the continuing policy of the Government of Mahinda Rajapaksa of suppressing the Tamils. He has conveyed his concerns to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and stressed upon him the need to take up the matter strongly with Rajapaksa in order to stress upon him the importance of finding a political solution to the problems of the Tamils. He has convened an all-party meeting in Chennai on October 14,2008, to work out a common political approach to the Government of India.Jayalalitha has expressed her support to the right of self-determination of the Sri Lankan Tamils, but made it clear at the same time that her support to the Tamil cause should not be misconstrued to mean any change in her policy of strong opposition to the LTTE as a terrorist organisation.

3. It would be incorrect to view this renewed support as dictated by electoral considerations in view of the elections to the Lok Sabha which are expected in the next few months. Despite the increasing concern in Tamil Nadu over what is perceived as the anti-Tamil policies of the Rajapaksa Government, the Sri Lankan Tamil issue is unlikely to play any role in influencing the voters. Economic and internal security issues are likely to play a predominant role in the elections .

4. It would be equally incorrect for the LTTE leadership to view this as indicating a softening of the hostility to the LTTE after its role in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi in May,1991. The attitude towards an LTTE led by Prabhakaran continues to be as negative as it has always been since 1991. Any wishful-thinking by Prabhakaran that he and others who were responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi are likely to be rehabilitated in the eyes of vast sections of the people of Tamil Nadu, who are now hostile to them, will be belied. All political leaders except some die-hard supporters of the LTTE, who have taken up the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils with the Government of India, have made it clear that their support is for the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils and not for the LTTE headed by Prabhakaran.

5. The LTTE has been gratified by this renewed support for the Tamil cause and has been playing it up. However, there is no evidence to show that either the LTTE or its supporters in Tamil Nadu, who are in a small minority, had any role in this renewed support. This support has been triggered off spontaneously by heightened concerns over the policies of the Rajapaksa Government and by the statements of some officials serving under him such as Lt.Gen.Sarath Fonseka, the Chief of the Sri Lankan Army, Gothbaya Rajapakse, his brother, who is also the Defence Secretary, and Rohitha Bogollagama, the Foreign Minister, as well as by sorrow over what is perceived in Tamil Nadu as the double-faced policy of the Government of India on the plight of the Sri Lankan Tamils and over the lack of interest shown by Manmohan Singh in taking up the issue more vigorously with the Rajapaksa Government.

6. The continuing use of indiscriminate air strikes by the Rajapaksa Government against the Tamil civilian population in order to intimidate it into stop supporting the LTTE has come in for strong criticism. The closing of the doors by it for a political solution reached through talks with the LTTE has added to the anger in Tamil Nadu against the Rajapaksa Government. As the Sri Lankan Army presses its offensive to re-capture the territory still under the control of the LTTE in the Northern Province, increasingly disturbing statements have been coming from officials such as Fonseka highlighting the rights of the Sinhalese majority and playing down the legitimate rights of the Tamil minority. All these developments have caused concern in Tamil Nadu that under the pretext of crushing the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, the Rajapaksa Government, whose policies are seen as largely influenced by Sinhalese hawks, is seeking to crush the Tamils as a community by exploiting the favourable ground situation and the lack of interest in the international community in the developments in Sri Lanka. Very few in Tamil Nadu take seriously the assurances of Rajapaksa that after neutralising the LTTE as a terrorist organisation, his Government will initiate political measures for meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Tamil people.

7. At the same time, there has been a perceptible disenchantment in Tamil Nadu over what is seen as the lack of interest shown by Manmohan Singh in the problems of the Sri Lankan Tamils. He is being compared unfavourably with Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, who took a keen interest in the problems of the Tamils and did not hesitate to take up the matter strongly with the Governments then in power in Colombo. This disenchantment has turned into shock following reports of two Indian radar technicians being injured when two planes of the LTTE’s air wing bombed on September 9, 2008, a Sri Lankan military base in Vavuniya, which has been co-ordinating the military operations against the LTTE.

8. The Government of India had repeatedly assured the Government of Tamil Nadu that it would give only non-lethal military equipment to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces, which could not be used in offensive operations against the LTTE. It had justified its supply of radars to the Sri Lankan Air Force on the ground that these radars were meant for use to protect strategic targets in Colombo against LTTE air strikes. There was initial opposition in Tamil Nadu’s political circles to the supply of even the radars, but ultimately they were reconciled to it.

9. The information that the radars supplied by the Government of India were actually being used in the frontline areas and that two Indian technicians were helping the SLAF in their maintenance added to the concerns in Tamil Nadu and created a suspicion that New Delhi was not telling the truth to the Government of Tamil Nadu about the extent of the Indian assistance to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in their operations against the LTTE.

10. The fact that despite the entreaties of Karunanidhi, who has been a loyal supporter of the Manmohan Singh Government, the Prime Minister did not directly take up the concerns of the people and the political leaders of Tamil Nadu with the Rajapaksa Government and that he left it to M.K.Narayanan, his National Security Adviser, to handle the matter has further damaged the image of Manmohan Singh in the eyes of sections of the political class of Tamil Nadu.

11. The revival of support for the cause of the Sri Lankan Tamils is still largely confined to the political class. This has not yet found vigorous articulation among large sections of the public. It would be unwise to interpret this as indicating that public support for the Sri Lankan Tamil cause remains limited and can be managed.

12. Any fresh humanitarian disaster consequent upon the military offensive in the Northern Province could create in Tamil Nadu a situation similar to what had prevailed in the 1980s when Tamil Nadu became a rear base for supporting the struggle of the Sri Lankan Tamils against the Sinhalese. If this happens, any success of the Sri Lankan Army in its current operations to crush the LTTE might see only the end of one phase of the Tamil struggle and the beginning of another.

13. It is important for the Government of India to show a more visible and vigorous interest in working for ending at least the ruthless air strikes against the Tamils and for ensuring that the Tamil cause is not lost sight of. The Sri Lankan Government has every right to press ahead with its counter-insurgency operations in order to restore the Government writ in the areas now under the control of the LTTE, but its use of air strikes and its perceived indifference to the legitimate concerns of India and other members of the international community should not be accepted. (10-10-08)

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )

POLITICS: S. Ossetia and Abkhazia Seek Voice in Security Council

Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – IPS
Thursday, August 28, 2008

All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.

Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Aug 28  (IPS)  – Russia wants the U.N. Security Council to allow the leadership of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to take part in ongoing international talks over the future of their territories.

The two secessionist states are considered by Moscow as independent nations, but in the eyes of the United States and its Western allies remain an integral part of Georgia.

”This meeting can’t be fully valid without the representation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” said the Russian ambassador to the U.N., Vitaly Churkin, while addressing a Security Council meeting Thursday. The public meeting of the Council was called by its president at the request of Georgia.

In his speech, Churkin defended his country’s decision to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states and reiterated that Moscow was forced to do so as a result of Georgia’s breach of the six-point agreement to put an end to the armed conflict. The ceasefire agreement was brokered by France on Aug. 12.

Diplomats from the United States and the European Union deplored Russia for its move to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia and charged that Moscow’s act was in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law. They also reaffirmed their support for Georgia’s claim that both the regions were an integral part of its territory.

However, Russia seemed somewhat successful in having its point of view endorsed by some of the non-permanent members of the Council from the developing world. Indonesia and South Africa, for example, agreed with the Russian position on the failure of Georgia to abide by the Aug. 12 agreement.

”This agreement presented a good basis,” said South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, who thinks the situation has become ”complicated” because all the parties involved in the conflict did not accept it fully. Kumalo also supported the Russian demand for the inclusion of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia leadership in the talks.

Indonesia, another major developing country in the Council, expressed its frustration over the deadlock in diplomatic talks over the Georgian conflict and said it still ”welcomes” the six-point agreement between the parties.

The six-point agreement signed by the Russians and Georgians calls for the withdrawal of the Georgian forces to their permanent bases and the Russian military to ”the line prior to the beginning of hostilities,” meaning South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

In accordance with the agreement, the Russians have pulled out their troops from Georgia — but not from the separatist regions. Russia says it wants the world community to open a discussion of larger security and stability arrangements in the two regions.

But Georgia and its powerful Western allies insist that Russian forces leave all the disputed territories, a condition Moscow seems unwilling to accept.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ossetia and Abkhazia had become part of Georgia, although it was widely reported at the time that people in the two regions aspired to have their own sovereign states. The former Soviet constitution allowed the states to secede.

The Russians created their peacekeeping forces in the two regions in 1992 and 1994, following the Georgian military’s incursions in 1992 under the slogan, ”Georgia for Georgians.”

Moscow justifies its decision to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by citing the U.N. Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and other fundamental international instruments that recognise nations’ right to self-determination.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday he had tried to preserve Georgian unity for 17 years, but was forced to change course after the Georgian government carried out a massive military crackdown in South Ossetia early this month.

The Aug. 8 army action resulted in hundreds of deaths as well as the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

When asked for his response to the Russians’ call to include the South Ossetian and Abkhazian leadership in the U.N.-led talks, the U.S. deputy representative to the U.N., Alejandro Wolff, told IPS: ”We see no basis for inviting them and rewarding them.”

According to some unconfirmed reports, the Ossetian and Abkhazian leaders are eager to take part in the Security Council talks, but have failed to obtain visas from the U.S. embassy in Moscow.

Surprisingly, China, a giant power in the developing world that holds veto power in the Council, did not take part in the debate.

When asked to comment by a journalist, the Russian ambassador said: ”We have no complaint about our colleagues [from China].”

Churkin told the Security Council that Moscow was fully prepared to start negotiations with the leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to sign a bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation. The representatives of the two regions have already welcomed Moscow’s move to recognise their territories as independent countries.

Churkin said many members of the Council were supportive of the six-point agreement and that he felt optimistic about the outcome of the ongoing international talks. ”There’s discussion about the U.N. observers [in the regions],” he said. ”But we will have some more discussions.”

However, conversations with Western diplomats suggested there was no imminent resolution to the dispute over the Georgian situation. ”No, there is no hope of any breakthrough soon,” a French diplomat told IPS before stepping into the Security Council chamber to take part in the debate.