US, China and the war in Sri Lanka
by Peter Symonds
Diplomatic skirmishing in the UN Security Council between the US and China over the war in Sri Lanka underscores their growing rivalry in every corner of the globe. Both powers are intent on staking out their claims in Colombo as the 25-year conflict on the island reaches its climax.
Last week UN Security Council members Austria, Mexico and Costa Rica, backed by the US and Britain, called for an informal briefing on the humanitarian crisis facing tens of thousands of people trapped by the war in northern Sri Lanka. China, supported by Russia, blocked the move declaring that it was "an internal matter" for Sri Lanka and was not a threat to international security.
[China's President Hu Jintao shakes hands with Sri Lanka's President Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sanya, Hainan province, April 10, 2008-Reuters pic]
None of this diplomatic posturing should be taken at face value. All of a sudden Washington has begun to express concern about the plight of tens of thousands of civilians caught in fighting as the Sri Lankan army closes in on the remaining pocket of territory held by the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
The US media is now peddling a similar line. The New York Times, for instance, published an article on Sunday about the plight of refugees and the "challenges of peace". American ambassador to Sri Lanka Robert Blake declared he was worried that the government was dominated by "certain hard-line Sinhalese elements" and appealed to President Mahinda Rajapakse to "reach out to the Tamil and Muslim communities".
The article described the "cold peace" in the island's eastern province, which has been firmly under army control since mid-2007. In Batticaloa, there are "army checkpoints in the town centre, armed thugs prowling back streets and continuing reports of abductions and disappearances."
Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the president's brother, justified such police state measures, saying: "The war is like a cancer. Even after curing a cancer, there is a period for radiation treatment. It is the same with the war on terrorism."
Until recently, however, the US has quietly backed President Rajapakse, the war and the military's gross abuse of democratic rights. But as the army made rapid advances into the LTTE's remaining territory from early January and the defeat of the LTTE appeared likely, the US made a tactical shift. It began to call for a "political solution" to the conflict—a deal, not with the LTTE, but with sections of the Tamil elite to temper the decades of anti-Tamil discrimination that gave rise to the war.
Washington's concern is that ongoing communal tensions will not only destabilise Sri Lanka, but neighbouring India, which has become America's key economic and strategic partner in the South Asia. New Delhi is worried about the potential for political unrest to spill over in southern state of Tamil Nadu where Tamils have historic ties with Sri Lanka. The "humanitarian" issue has been raised as a means of pressuring the Rajapakse regime to make concessions.
India and the US share another common concern—the growing influence of China in Sri Lanka. While India has had to be cautious in its support for the Sri Lankan war, China has provided military and financial aid to Colombo with no questions asked. Chinese sales of arms including fighter jets, sophisticated radar, anti-aircraft guns and other military hardware and munitions have helped tip the balance in the country's protracted civil war. Visiting last month, Defence Secretary Rajapakse thanked China for its "steadfast support" in strengthening the "war on terrorism".
China's decision to block a UN Security Council discussion was also welcomed by the Sri Lankan political establishment. An editorial in last weekend's Sunday Times denounced the mounting pressure "from the Western countries where there has been heavy lobbying by Sri Lankan expatriates and a group of international ‘bleeding hearts'. These moves in the UN, it declared, "have been shot down by Sri Lanka's steadfast ally in its war on terrorism—China."
Like the US, China's manoeuvring in the UN is guided by self-interest. Beijing conveniently forgot about its principle of "non-interference in internal affairs" when it came to the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Sri Lanka, it has used the argument to curry favour in Colombo by blocking a UN debate and to defend its unconditional support for the government and its criminal war.
The pay-off for Beijing has been a $US1 billion deal with Colombo in 2007 to construct a major port facility in the southern town of Hambantota. The first stage of the project, being built by Chinese corporations and largely with Chinese finance, is due to be completed at the end of 2010. When completed it will include a container port, a bunkering system, an oil refinery, an airport and other facilities that are expected to transform Hambantota into a major transshipment hub.
The importance of the project for China is obvious. Hambantota on the southern tip of Sri Lanka is just six nautical miles from the main east-west trade route across the Indian Ocean. Around 70 percent of China's oil imports is shipped via this sea lane from the Middle East through the Strait of Malacca to Chinese ports. Acutely aware that its shipping would be vulnerable in the event of any conflict, especially with the US, Beijing has been expanding its navy and developing a "chain of pearls"—port facilities along this trade route. Hambantota, like the Chinese-built port of Gwadar in Pakistan, is one such pearl.
The US and India are intent on countering China's strategy. Thus under the guise of humanitarian concern, India has sent a military medical team to Sri Lanka. Earlier this month the US proposed to send a Marine Expeditionary Brigade to northern Sri Lanka to evacuate refugees—an offer that appears to have been turned down.
Like the diplomatic posturing in the UN Security Council, none of these moves—by either side—is motivated by concern for working people in Sri Lanka who have born the brunt of 25 years of war. Rather the small South Asian island, like other parts of the world, is being drawn into the international rivalry that is intensifying as the global economic crisis deepens and foreshadows far more catastrophic conflicts. [wsws.org]
12 Comments
.."Washington's concern is that ongoing communal tensions will not only destabilise Sri Lanka, but neighbouring India, which has become America's key economic and strategic partner in the South Asia..."
USA, UK,RUSSIA, INDIA PAKISTAN and CHINA are all taking advantage of the communal tensions between the generations of Bunda and Kantha. Majority of the young generation from both communities have never interacted. Don't blame outsiders for your communal tensions. Acts of genocide by the current singhalese government will only lead to the destruction in every level.
You like it or not, within next 100 years, Sri Lanka will be divided into two nations. Same theory is applicable to India and China too. For this reason, India and China will use all available resources to keep Sri Lanka as one nation.
Mother India mother of all battles will be worried now about the chin deep chinthana with China
Siva
The Rajapakse Govt - obsessed with cornering everything within sight for self, kith and kin - with the wider interest of the country pushed into a lower scale should also be mindful of the future and their obligation to posterity. While MR’s Govt has the sovereign right to decide in due manner what is considered to be in the interest of all our citizens, this choice must be carefully weighed Vs the ground realities of the times and the region.
In today’s world global powers are constantly engaged in those pursuits that advance their current and future interests. Both players and objectives in this regard are subject to change. While, arguably, a decade or two ago neither China nor India were contenders to global leadership today they are. Tomorrow more so. We should be very careful in not falling prey to those machinations regional powers may set in motion in the pursuit of their short and long term goals.
During 1971 Mrs B made a grievous mistake in taking sides on the Indo-Pak conflict that remains indelibly in the minds of Indian foreign policy makers even today. After the ushering of his own govt JRJ - called “Yankee Dicky” with good reason - inebriated with power consequent to his landslide victory in 1977 - took a reckless personal anti-Indira and political anti-India stand. He wrongly felt the USA would stand by him against a pro-Russian Indira Gandhi in that bi-polar power struggle.
Sri Lanka continues to pay a heavy price from then to date. Both late Lankan leaders failed to recognize the hard lessons of the ground realities of the day. China’s plans to covet Sri Lanka within her bosom in the realization of what is vital to her future dubbed the “String of Pearls” should be viewed in perspective by GoSL political strategists. We do not have to consult India on everything. Simultaneously, we must do our best not to let India feel inhibited, insecure or feel we have been insensitive to her security interests. At the same time we need to retain China’s friendship and support.
They have been good to us and there when we needed them. It is a delicate path to traverse and needs men of good learning and diplomacy for the task - which the present administration woefully lacks. Fortunately the talent is there within the country but across the political divide.
The danger today is much of our critical decisions falling within the realm of our international affairs are influenced by naïve shallow men like Wimal Weerawansa and ilk whose folly in showing the door to the IMF has now made the President eat humble pie internally and externally. The essential quality of reading the future expected from his economic miracle-man Ajith Nivaard Cabraal now is consigned to the ranks of comedians.
The poor timing in raking up the Kachchaitivu minefield recently by MR’s Govt – when a do-or-die General Election is due in India in April – is indicative of the serious lack of experience and wisdom on the part of those handling the government’s foreign policy. In no time in recent history have we had so many friendly countries lined up in the opposite side – USA, UK, E/U as well as the UN
to the extent talks of Sri Lanka being ousted from the Commonwealth, some of our leaders cited for War Crimes, Genocide etc are all out in the open.
Our vital relationship with India is in doubt. In the interest of the country and all its people one hopes this administration - whose all round performance leaves much to be desired - will not leave its footmarks on future generations as well.
ISS
What then will be the US policy? China supports SL; no questions asked. Chinese/SL friendship goes back to the days of BMICH or even before that. What is the position of US? It has only given qualified support to SL. Can it ever hope to win SL against China - which has invested so much in SL - as will be expected in a crunch situation? It is clear to me the answer is; never. Sensing this, I think US is having second thoughts on SL policy, which was perhaps guided by the local super power India to a large extent. But now it sees Indian policy as one based on personal idiosyncrasies and not based on the strategic interests of the country, with which of course the US concurs. I won't be surprised if US/India come to the conclusion that they have to strongly support the Tamil cause to counter the Chinese influence in the Sinhala South. Of course various excuses and fronts will be put forward to exercise this policy.
While India has made impressive gains economically - higher agricultural and economic output – that made a tremendous contribution to the PQL of the average Indian, her achievements in the regional diplomatic front is less so.
China and Pakistan did not feature in the Lankan configuration, let’s say, a decade ago. Today, China has a strong and increasing presence in the shaky Island. Pakistan to a greater extent than previously. The downslide probably took place while Rajiv Gandhi was in the saddle –with Romesh Bandhari and General Krishna Sunderji grievously miscalculating both the local political scene and the failure to “finish up the tiny LTTE presence within 72hrs”
This lead to what some experts referred to as “Sri Lanka – India’s Vietnam” Both men had much influence on Rajiv which had something to do with the premature ouster of that experienced and astute Foreign Secretary A.P.Venkateshwaran on the Lankan issue. From the looks of it the Lankan question will become an increasingly stinging headache in the present and the immediate future to Indian policy makers in the South Bloc.
India must assemble the inherent intellectual capacity within her governing structure to come out with a successful formulae this time before either or both China and Pakistan add to her basket of woes in the added weight of the Lankan imbroglio.
ISS
A dwarf who plays with giants usually ends up getting crushed
thigs are going to come to a head very soon with srilanka having to decide between india and china. you cant be mistress to two heavy weights who are not friendly with each other. another alternative for srilanka is to go one step further and graduate from mistress to prostitute. all comers can get something nice provided the price is right. srilanka should not get a shock if china loses interest in her when india plays the taiwan card. china will think taiwan can give more pleasure than srilanka and if india wants srilanka so badly she can have it provided once in a way when china is traveling that way she is allowed to have a quick one.then india will start its tricks with srilanka and say you preferred china no so unless you now turn around and get on all fours you can go and have a bath.
The writer has a white skin he thinks he is superior and has the right to judge the governmnt of brown people.
He convieniently forget basic facts which are against the ltte.If the ltte lets the tamil people to leave the lttte held area suffering of the trapped tamis wiil be over in one day.Exept the sri lankan government no government in the world created no fire zone.On the other hand no guerilla movementin the world took their own people as captives to protect from the enemy.These so clled sole representatives of tamil don'tgive the food items send by the government.if sri lankan government follows genocide policies there can not be a single tamil in colombo east jaffna,or in wanni.Sri lankan government do whatever to protect tamis.It is proved by the fact that over 60000 tamils came to governmentares defying ltte shootings.
Those with imperial mentalities or bought by ltte can not see the truth.Sri lankan government is democratically elected government it has legal rights to protect the boundaries.No pundits in the foreign countries can not allienate this right.peter the fool,when you write the next article please study th history of ltte,the killings of ltte,ltte actions in ceasefire time .forceful boycot of last prsedential elections,present actions of ltte including firing from no fire zone actoins taken by government t reduce the casualities and treatment of Idps.Otherwise people who read thse article only think what afool are you.
This is how to do it... Make Allies and Friends. Prabhakaran did the very Opposite, attacking and Killing his Friends and Allies. Now he is Paying the Price
India will wait for decimation of LTTE.Once key leaders eliminated,India,irrespective of Cong/BJP, will force SL to devolute power to the tamils.SL will play china/pak card.But India will not rest until devolution of power takes place.We,Indian Tamils will make sure this happens.We were unable to force India with our serious efforts due to LTTE.We suffered LTTE's negative reactions ,damaging all our noble intentions of securing peace to our SL tamil brothers thru India.We cannot afford repating the same .
Once India secures devolution of power thru friendly/coercive diplomacy,India has no rights to expect friendly relations with SL permanently.China willbe given port facilities tobe used against India.We are aware of the deep rooted anti india attitude of SL people.However LTTE is no better.
As a result India will have to expand military capabilities to ward off southern thrust by china/pak gang.Both overt and covert options willbe analysed,if SL opts to use china/pak card against India as they did during 1971.Being a sovereign nation,we hope sense will prevail in their foreign policy formulation so as not to antagonise India.Economical alignment with china/pak is something India will never complain.But military tie up will surely be contested by India.
dear vp
"the writer has a white skin and thinks he is superior and has the right to judge governments of brown people". This quote of yours should be retracted if you are a decent fellow.i have gone through the article carefully. it is a superb one writen very professionally, without bias or emotion just stating the facts as happening in the international arena.i can see no sentences directly or indirectly critisising brown people or government of srilanka.you are suffering from a inferiority complex and need help.by the way does vp stand for velupillai prabaharan.if so i think you are beyond help anyway.
This author talks about Sri Lanka's "criminal war". How about the criminal wars conducted by the United States under the guise of " Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" killing few hundred thousand civialins and repeated bombing of Afgan-Pakistan border ignoring Pakistan's protests killing few hundreds of civilians. These countries are situated thousands of miles away from America and yet they come and commit mas criminal acts against those civilians. But Sri Lanka's is an internal civil war and the legitimate government has a right to defend the country's integrity and LTTE chief had caused the most inhumane, distardly terrorist acts on this country for three decades by killing people from all walks of life. These include innocent civilians (lot of children in border villages were massacered over many years), national leaders in Sri Lanka and India, sinhala politicians and lot of moderate tamil politicians. I don't think this author was bothered at all about those unfortunate events but to publish these one sided articles at the behest of his masters. This is a classic case of biased journalism.