Global Geopolitics Net Sites
Sunday, October 26, 2008
© Copyright 2008 Malladi Rama Rao. All rights reserved.
By Malladi Rama Rao
Many commentators see in the present lows in the India-Sri Lanka relations a repeat of history – what had happened twenty one year ago, June 1987 to be precise, when President J R Jayewardene was in the midst of ‘Operation Liberation’ for Vadamarachchi. Delhi had airlifted a plane load of journalists to Rameswaram and sent them along with a ‘relief flotilla’ to Jaffna. Some of us, who were engrossed in catching up with the history of Rameswaram, missed the flotilla. The Indian diplomat, who was of the rank of a director in the foreign office, was amongst the ‘left out’. We caught up with the ‘journalists’ ship’ by hopping on to a barge.
Sri Lankan navy stopped the flotilla short of the maritime boundary. The Navy commander was very polite but did not mince words. “You cross the line. We will fire at you”, he told the Indian official, who, we felt, was not willing to take any risk what with so many journalists listening to them on the ‘open radio’. By the time the flotilla returned to the shores, it was past mid-night and we all missed our deadlines. Compensation of sorts came the next day afternoon by way of aerial food drop mission.
This incident comes back to mind because once again ‘humanitarian ‘ issues have become talking point in the India-Sri Lanka relations. And questions are being asked particularly in the Sri Lankan circles whether what had happened at the door step of Vadamarachchi will repeat at the gate way to Kilinochchi. India has not directly or indirectly asked Colombo to stop the Eelam War. Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagman has frankly conceded this point as recently as October 21 on the floor of Sri Lanka Parliament.
Vikitha Herath (JVP) asked him ‘what are the pressures created by India government on the Sri Lankan Government to stop the military operation against terrorism. Foreign Minister replied in the negative. Herath persisted (according to the transcript of the proceedings) by asking ‘What is the action taken by the Sri Lankan Government regarding such pressures’. Replied Bogollagama: “Doesn’t arise’. And categorically emphasized that the Government of Sri Lanka has not faced any kind of external pressure from any quarter regarding the operations by the security forces to defeat terrorism and disarm the LTTE.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa picked up the refrain the same day and it should have been sweet music to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Because the media and political verdict in Colombo is very harsh against him. Interacting with media heads and editors at Temple Trees, Rajapaksa said there was no demand from the Indian government to halt the military campaign when he spoke to Singh on telephone. A statement circulated later by President’s office said: “It is the primary responsibility of his government to look after all the citizens. He carries out this responsibility to the fullest especially with regard to the people who are temporarily displaced in the north, due to the ongoing military operations to defeat terrorism.’ The statement went on to quote President Rajapaksa to say, ‘There is a wrong impression created in Tamil Nadu that this not been done. This is furthest from the correct position. All these are our citizens and we take every measure to look after and provide for them.’
MISPLACED EUPHORIA
As some Colombo dailies noted, the tone was ‘conciliatory’. It was quite a contrast to the report aired on Sri Lankan Broadcasting Corporation’s main news bulletin on Oct 14. It reflected what has come to be identified as Sinhala-Buddhist euphoria and gave currency to the view that whatever be Tamilnadu compulsions and vote politics, Prime Minister Singh is a chicken in an elephant body and hence would like to do a Rajiv Gandhi. The all-party meeting convened by the President sent out the same message and declared its opposition to any Indian intervention.
Interestingly, at no point of the escalating Wanni war, India had called for an end to the military campaign. Its advice: try for a political solution which will be long lasting. And any solution should be within the frame work of unity and integrity of the island nation. This is what the Indian Prime Minister reiterated when Rajapaksa managed to speak to him last week end (after failing to meet him in New York on the sidelines of UNGA session).
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee elaborated the theme when he made a statement in Indian Parliament on Wednesday Oct 23. So much so, where is the question of India in general and Tamilnadu chief minister in particular orchestrating a campaign to bail out LTTE. In fact, any observer will agree that there is no change in the stand of Delhi and it is not music to Prabhakaran. That is why the high decibel propaganda emanating from Colombo that India is surrendering to the killers of her great son Rajiv is amusing to say the least.
Whatever be one’s political inclinations, it cannot be held against Karunanidhi that he is supporting the LTTE at the present juncture. The humanitarian concerns were first voiced by CPI, which is not known to be Tamil Chauvinist. Others including DMK chief picked up the issue. In all his recent public remarks, Karunanidhi only spoke about Tamils and Tamil race in the context of SL developments. “I am unable to sleep whenever I think of it. Let us avoid the racial genocide in Sri Lanka …”, he wrote in Murasoli, the DMK mouth piece.
One may turn around and ask what about his ‘ultimatum’ to Delhi and threat to withdraw his MPs if Delhi doesn’t act by Oct 28. It should be remembered that Indian Parliament has entered its slog overs with the talk of general election in early February. To that extent, Karunanidhi’s threat doesn’t hurt Manmohan Singh and influence his government’s policies.
Any how, there is continuity in India’s foreign policy whoever is in power in Delhi. It may be recalled Jayalalithaa Jayaram of AIADMK as the TN chief minister led a delegation to then Prime Minister Vajpayee on Sri Lanka issue. And the BJP led government articulated India’s concerns just the way the Congress led government is doing now. In other words, unlike in other democracies, India’s foreign policy is based on national consensus and is not dictated by coalition blues
DELHI-CHENNAI WAVELENGTH
Will Karunanidhi execute his threat spurred by his own local concerns in Tamilnadu? One intelligent guess is that he will not. His close aide T R Baalu, who is also a minister in Manmohan Singh government, has already said that they (DMK) have no intention to bring down the government. “We are not doing anything to help or save the LTTE. We only want to help the orphaned Tamils”, he said in Chennai.
Put differently, there is not much of a difference between Chennai and Delhi on issues related to Sri Lanka. There is a clear distinction between LTTE and ethnic Tamils wherever they may be living in the island nation.
India has umpteen options to make Sri Lanka realise that it is but an island by itself in today’s global village. Yet it chose to be the true friend in need, and not an adversity in distress. It also ignored Colombo’s half baked attempts to bring in other players into the SL theatre. That is not because of any magnanimity but because India knows its backyard and knows, if it comes to crunch, how to protect its interests and influence without much ado.
Obviously, most mainstream politicians and commentators in Sri Lanka have horribly failed to read the TN pulse and the Indian mood. They allowed themselves to be straight jacketed as before and started indulging in cheap talk like why not Colombo also fund fringe terror movements across India. And got carried away by pseudo-nationalism.
Like Sarath Fonseka, for instance. Since he is an army commander, the government, if not the defence minister, should have ‘checked’ his excessive exuberance. That did not happen.
A quiet requiem has been said for APRC and to the much talked about devolution package. There are enough signals that the ruling party will like to ride over the crest of Wanni war euphoria and secure a 2/3 majority in Parliament. Politicians have a tendency not to look beyond the immediate. They also tend to be economical in what they say and do as is the case now when a major humanitarian problem is rocking the north of their own country.
It defies logic why Colombo needed to be reminded of the heavy costs in terms of human suffering in the course of latest military campaign. The 2, 70, 000 Tamils caught in the conflict zone are Sri Lankans first and foremost.
Till Chennai first and then Delhi spoke up for these hapless people, Colombo refused to acknowledge their plight. Otherwise, it would not have ordered the exit of international relief workers (except the Red Cross).
It should have corrected its act when Sri Lanka was voted out of the Human Rights body of the United Nations. And worked to win over the Northern Tamils and removed their mistrust of the government agencies, the armed forces in particular. An element of empathy with them is essential as they are caught between the might of the state and the gun power of a non-state player. Turning ire on NGOs accusing them of indulging in anti-Sinhala propaganda doesn’t help.
TIME TO ACT
The situation in Sri Lanka is the subject of a recent debate in the British Parliament. The Minister for International Development, Michael Foster termed the situation as grave. As the intensity of fighting has risen, the space in which humanitarian agencies could operate has been constricted, he said, virtually echoing the sentiments of Delhi. Both he and members who took part in the debate were concerned over restrictions on the press in Sri Lanka as well as ‘harassment, physical attacks and even assassination’ of innocent persons.
Suffice to say, humanitarian concerns are something no civilised society can afford to ignore. It is not an issue that should be used to score political points either at home or across the Palk Strait in India. Instead of anti- Indian sentiment, what is needed is Colombo, Chennai and Delhi working together to help an estimated 150,000-200,000 people in the uncleared areas. Relief to them should not be tied to end of Wanni war. Firstly because, the LTTE is reportedly preventing them from coming down south. Secondly because, an end to the war is still not in sight (at the time of writing this article).
A senior SL politician (who is still around and active in the power circuit), once told me India is like an old lady whom Colombo should keep telling that she is looking beautiful. We both laughed at the analogy. That was three years back. I don’t know whether the government in Colombo subscribes to this view. What is however essential is that neither India nor Sri Lanka should make an enemy of each other.
About the Author
Malladi Rama Rao is an analyst and writer on the Indian political scene and geo-political and security issues of South Asia. He directs a Weekly Feature Service in English, Syndicate Features, in colloboration with his wife Vaniram. He is also the India Editor of Asian Tribune.
SYNDICATE FEATURES
B-308, Puneet Apts. B-10, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi; Ph -22617660 E-mail: syndicatefeatures@rediffmail.com
POLITICS: Is Cold War Rhetoric Back at the U.N.?
Global Geopolitics – Global News Blog – Global Politics Online – IPS
Monday, September 08, 2008
All rights reserved, IPS – Inter Press Service, 2008.
Analysis by Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Sep 8 (IPS) – When the United States and the former Soviet Union were on the verge of a military confrontation over Cuba during the height of the Cold War, the legendary U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson went eyeball-to-eyeball with Soviet envoy Valerian Zorin in the Security Council chamber.
As old U.N. hands would recall, Stevenson aggressively sought a response from Zorin over allegations of Soviet nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba.
”Yes or no?” Stevenson demanded, and added the punch line: ”And don’t wait for the translation”, as he pressed for an immediate answer from the Russian-speaking envoy.
Zorin turned to Stevenson and said, through a translator: ”I am not in an American court of law, and I do not wish to answer the question put to me in the manner of a prosecuting counsel.”
Stevenson famously responded he will wait for an answer ”until hell freezes over”.
Judging by the recent deadlock in the Security Council — over Kosovo, Iran, Myanmar (Burma), Zimbabwe, Sudan and most recently Georgia — one wonders whether the days of the Cold War are back in vogue. Or perhaps its political rhetoric?
In January last year, a Western-backed and U.S.-led move to castigate the Burmese government for human rights violations suffered a rare double veto, both from China and Russia.
And last month, history repeated itself when these two big powers exercised their vetoes again — this time to stall a resolution aimed at imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe.
The U.S.-Russian political confrontation in the Security Council has been intensified in recent weeks with the Russian invasion of Georgia, and Moscow’s subsequent decision to recognise the breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
When U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad sought a response from Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin on whether or not the Russians were bent on violating the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia, Churkin said he had already provided an answer to the question.
Maybe, he added rather sarcastically, the U.S. representative had not been listening when Churkin had given his response. ”Perhaps he had not had his earpiece on,” he added.
And when U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff recently blasted Russia for its perceived violations of international law and the U.N. charter during the invasion of Georgia, Churkin hit back with another dose of sarcasm.
”Did you find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?…And are you still looking for them?” he asked.
Speeches laced with sarcasm and personal insults are rare in the Council chamber. But is the United Nations now back to the days of the Cold War?
”The United Nations is not headed for a new Cold War,” predicts Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalist Project at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, and author of several studies on the United Nations.
As U.S. economic, political and diplomatic power has diminished around the world, she argued, military power has become ever more dominant as a viable tool of hegemony.
”The threat of U.S. unilateral military power continues to rise not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also with increasing U.S. military bases across the globe, as well as possible new interventions in Iran, in Georgia, in Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere,” Bennis told IPS.
Partly as a result of that rising militarism, and partly out of longstanding habit, she pointed out, governments around the world continue to treat the United States as if it were still an unchallengeable dominion.
”And in the United Nations, that means allowing Washington to continue to call the shots,” added Bennis, author of the recently-released ‘Understanding the U.S.-Iran Crisis: A Primer.’
”A return to the Cold War era? Not sure whether we can characterise it as such?” says an Asian envoy, who keeps close track of the state-of-play in the Security Council.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said it is a fact that the Security Council has not been functioning effectively for some time now.
”In my view, the last time it operated effectively was probably during the first Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the then Bush [Sr.] administration (1990-91) worked hard to put together an international coalition to take on Saddam Hussein,” he told IPS.
It was just after the Cold War and Washington was in less of an ”ideological mode”.
Maybe it was because they felt that they had won the Cold War and could now afford to be magnanimous without behaving in an overbearing and unilateral manner, he added. Or maybe they saw it as an opportunity to demonstrate true leadership and to work towards the preservation of a system where they remained at the top of the heap.
But, over time, especially in the last eight years, he argued, ”the Americans have become extremely ideological and unilateral in their approach — they are always right and you are either with them or you are seen to be against them. It’s all black and while with no grey issues.”
”This was evident during the run-up to the Second Gulf War — it blinded American planning and strategising, with them thinking that they would hailed as liberators in Baghdad,” he added.
Mouin Rabbani, contributing editor to the Washington-based Middle East Report, said that since 1990 the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council, has under U.S. domination (perhaps ”proprietorship” is a more accurate term) increasingly become an instrument for the marginalisation of international law.
The United States, he said, has also been undermining the consensus of the vast majority of its constituent states on a range of issues, as opposed to an institution that works to uphold international law and enforce the will of the international community.
”In this context, the prospect of a new Cold War at the global organisation is to be enthusiastically welcomed,” Rabbani told IPS.
”At the very least there will be some daylight between the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) and the U.S. National Security Council, and hopefully some dimunition of the role of the UNSC itself,” Rabbani said.
The Asian envoy said the ideological zeal of the United States and the West is also seen in the disturbing tendency by the ”West” to try to broaden the definition of what is a ”threat to international peace and security”.
While the U.N. Charter leaves some room for interpretation, he said, this definition of a ”threat” has generally been confined to wars and violence.
”Increasingly, what we are witnessing are attempts by the West to include all manner of transgressions as possible reasons that require Security Council action,” he said.
In the Zimbabwe case, he said, the argument was that democracy, elections, and human rights all fall under possible new definitions of ”threats”.
”This is the same sort of reasoning that we have seen the West try to apply to Myanmar over the political process and the humanitarian crisis,” he added.
While Russia and China are becoming more assertive, it is primarily on issues that bear directly on their own national interests, like preventing the UNSC from producing a lopsided resolution on Georgia.
The real issue remains unchanged — whether the United Nations is capable of reforming itself to become an effective international organisation.
”And here the joint interests of the U.S. and Russia are likely to converge to prevent this from happening, as in the past,” Rabbani added.
The Asian envoy said: ”I don’t see either side backing off for the time being. The West will continue to push the envelope and many amongst the Rest continuing to resist,” he added.