Coughing up sovereignty, Yahapalana-style

Sovereignty is about authority. In usage it is about a people or a nation or a state being able to control affairs independent of outside influence.  In this globalized world there are no sovereign states, if you really think about it. 

What we have is the appearance of sovereignty even in the best of cases; if you think for example that the USA has it, then delve into the history of the US Federal Reserve and of course its present day operation.  

The truth is that if one digs deep enough ‘people’ as a collective have little say. It’s ‘some people’ who have authority or who exercise it on behalf of other people not necessarily identifiable as being part of those whose sovereignty is being discussed.  So what we have are degrees of sovereignty or states of sovereignty compromised in various ways. 

It’s a word that gets quite a bit of carry from time to time. We had the usurpation of sovereignty and the usurpers returning it without really letting go, putting in place a system, grooming loyal agents of sovereignty-retention and creating a culture of servility. They gave us democracy, a neat anesthetic that moreover had all the trappings of sovereignty without much substance. And they fixed us well and good with the Bretton Woods institutions. 

We had alignment, non-alignment and re-alignment.  We had J.R. Jayewardene opening doors ‘to the robber barons’ and later genuflecting before Indian hegemony, agreeing to (in Rajiv Gandhi’s words) ‘the beginning of the Bhutanization of Sri Lanka.’  The sovereignty-usurpers were invited and kept by successive governments. 

The words are fine. For example, three years ago, commenting on the US-authored UNHRC resolution which Sri Lanka co-sponsored, Rajitha Senaratne said ‘The US initiated resolution clearly recognizes sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.’ In effect it was a shameless agreement to force Sri Lankans to inhabit the so-called international community’s version of Sri Lanka’s reality.

Just the other day, we had Kabir Hashim using the word. He claimed that Mahinda Rajapaksa had not only accepted a bribe from China Harbor Engineering Company, but had violated the country’s sovereignty ‘by getting into a framework agreement with the Chinese company’ which by the way is owned by the Chinese state. The problem he says is that the framework ‘had clauses which denied Sri Lankan Navy the access to Hambantota Port.’ He adds that after Rajapaksa was defeated ‘Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe was able to change the agreement and see to it that Sri Lankan Navy had access to the Hambantota Port.’

When a country funds politicians of another country it is a problem, especially if there are benefits to the funding nation. China is not the first. We have it from John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, that the United States gave money to campaigns that sought to overthrow the government. That’s not a first for the United States of course, but let’s not get into all that.  It’s wrong. Period. 

Here’s the key question: is access of the Navy to Hambantota the only issue pertaining to sovereignty-loss? Would Hashim or anyone else in the Yahapalana Government care to detail the contents of the draft ‘Colombo International Financial City Law’?  

We are talking about 239 hectares leased for almost 200 years (99+99). Prime Minister Ranil Wickremasinghe who is also the Minister of National Policies and Economic Affairs is to be in charge of regulating the ‘financial hub’ that the government envisages the Colombo Port City to become. We are told that there’s an ‘Operations Office’ regulating the legal framework and the operations methodology to be pursued in bringing about the International Financial City.

Nothing of the legal framework has been made public so far. Now what if the entire agreement will come under British law with disputes to be resolved in British courts, outside the purview of Sri Lanka’s judicial system? What if there are clauses that require relevant lawyers, judges and professionals to be British qualified?

Let’s ask some more questions. 

Is it true that the US based multinational law firm Baker & McKenzie was hired to draft the laws, quite in contradiction of accepted procedure and indeed in violation of the constitution? Let us note here that Baker & McKenzie works lockstep with the US State Department and has been working with China to forge partnership agreements in Europe.

Is it true that the Chinese company paid them US $ 2.3 million for their services? Did this company operate out of Temple Trees and Cinnamon Grand Hotel in violation of the Rules of Supreme Court and in contravention of Article 169 (foreign lawyers cannot be employed)? Is it true that a local company funded by Chinese and US interests is advising the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development on these matters and that among the directors is a former Attorney General, former Chairman of BoI and a former Secretary to the Treasury who is also a senior advisor to the Prime Minister? What would that tell us about the levels at which treachery is being perpetrated? What would that tell us about the nature of the threat at hand?

Perhaps those in the know would share with the general public all relevant details so that we can come to informed conclusions regarding the true state of our sovereignty.  We do need to know because if, for example, this Law sanctions the annexing of any territory in Sri Lanka in a context where the same terms and laws referred to above are applicable, then Rajapaksa ‘coughing up a port’ is a mere tickle in comparison.  

Hypothetically, China could under this law annex the Trincomalee Harbor and trade operating right to India in return for, say, concessions in the South China seas, for example India’s drilling operations off the coast of Vietnam. Of course the President would have to ratify such a move, but then again since Independence we’ve had many leaders who were weak, corrupt, unimaginative and happily servile. We can reasonably expect that in the next 200 years there will be many leaders who through purchase or arm-twisting will sign relevant document to facilitate such annexing.  

For those who are puzzled by the China-US connection in all this, let’s offer some ‘bullet points’. Barrack Obama touching on foreign policy in his inauguration speech clearly stated that the USA and China will not be on a collision course any longer.  A top level team headed by Hillary Clinton hammered out the details of what was called ‘The pivot to China’ with Chinese counterparts. Part of the agreement was that China would control of the region and along with the USA would ‘globalize the world’ which is another way of saying ‘ensure that the super rich will continue to call the shots and become richer’.  It was about burying all vestiges of sovereignty and not just that of Sri Lanka.

As we said, our leaders have coughed up bits and pieces of sovereignty for decades, either for reasons of personal gain or because of ignorance, timidity and a marked reluctance to trust the people.  We’ve had outright invasion by the Europeans, retention through proxy post-1948, India playing schoolyard bully, the slick maneuvering through the Bretten Woods institutions and we’ve had democracy, that cost-effective anesthetic that lulls into complacency through the inducing of myopia.  The Colombo International Financial City Law may not facilitate guns-in-booty-out operations, but it could be a coughing up of sovereignty that’s unique in character and possibly of unprecedented proportion. 

Let’s see the document.  Kabir Hashim, sir, will you oblige? Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, sir, can we see the draft?

Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene. www.malindawords.blogspot.com

Read more

The NYT story exposed much more than it intended

If not the Rajapaksas, their supporters are certainly perturbed by the New York Times (NYT) article on wrongdoing regarding the China Harbour Engineering Company, which is one of China’s largest state-owned enterprises. The NYT piece has since been dismissed by the Rajapaksas, their spokespersons and the Chinese Embassy in Colombo.

The NYT has claimed that the company had paid large sums of money to the election campaign of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa.  The Chinese Embassy claims that there was no wrongdoing and that the company  was compliant ‘with the laws of the market from beginning to end, reflected by the principle of wide consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits.’

The NYT story emphasizes two concerns. First, that Rajapaksa was corrupt, and secondly, it was all a part of China’s strategy to have a port in the Indian Ocean, a key element of its ‘string of pearls’ strategy to control the seas.  

First let’s discuss these concerns and the self-righteousness of that newspaper. If ‘bribe’ is an issue, well then the NYT could have also written about the USA pumping bucks into an election campaign that would cough up a plaint president in Sri Lanka. 

Former Secretary of State John Kerry unapologetically acknowledged that the US did fund that campaign. It is also known that the State Department routinely funds agents and agencies in Colombo engaged in political activities whose objectives coincide with those of the USA. Do we even need to go into how the USA has helped install dictators, military juntas and other ‘friends’ in countries all over the world?  

The NYT never had a problem with such intervention. So the issue is not bribery but bribing those not in the good books of the USA, if indeed there was a bribe here. We need to keep in mind that companies do fund election campaigns of parties and politicians and that typically the bucks are sent to all takers. These are essentially investments, which is why legislation on campaign finance is so necessary and so regularly ‘back-burnered’ by politicians, the current lot included. Some funders get contracts, some get ports (the NYT would have us believe). 

The NYT hints that the Chinese interest was strategic more than commercial. If that be the case, then this government and especially Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is on the same page as Mahinda Rajapaksa with respect to ‘going along’ with China’s interest. One might say that Ranil’s collusion was more timid since Mahinda at least got some bucks out of the deal. No give and take, but just give. That is, IF the UNP directly or indirectly did not benefit from ‘the principle of wide consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits’.   

Why should the NYT be upset over China doing stuff that’s in China’s interest when the USA does the same? According to David Vine of the Politico Magazine, ‘despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined.’  

How many ‘cough up’ pieces have the NYT written over the years, one has to ask.  The NYT talks about a ‘debt trap’ as though it’s a Chinese invention. Well, that’s been part of the Bretten Woods doctrine for decades, and the USA has been the key mover and shaker in the ‘debt-for-coughing-up-whatever’ strategy.  To the peoples in whose names such coughing-up happens, the identity of the beneficiary is hardly important. Enslavement is not fun and the name of the slave-master is of little consequence. 

Now let’s get to the drama. A quick sweep of the chronology would help paint the true picture of this government’s clumsiness, this time dripping into media practice. The Daily News reported in July, 2015 that the CID was investigating a case where the China Harbour Engineering Company had given Rs. 149 million to the former President's election campaign. Again quoting CID sources, the Daily News said money had been obtained from HTPD Phase 02 013359190/19 account of the company, maintained at Standard Chartered Bank, Colombo. A person by the name of V.H.R.H. Francisco had obtained Rs. 89 million on December 12, 2014 and January 07, 2015 in three cheques.

What does the NYT say?  Here goes:

‘At least $7.6 million was dispensed from China Harbor’s account at Standard Chartered Bank to affiliates of Mr. Rajapaksa’s campaign, according to a document, seen by The Times, from an active internal government investigation. The document details China Harbor’s bank account number — ownership of which was verified — and intelligence gleaned from questioning of the people to whom the checks were made out.’  

What’s this ‘active internal government investigation’? The only investigation anyone knows about is the one referred to in the Daily News story. Probably the same source, we can presume.  Probably and not possibly, considering that among the contributors to the NYT article is a journalist who held a high post in the Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd (ANCL aka Lake House) which publishes the Daily News. 

The journalist was recently appointed as the editor of the Sunday Observer.  The journalists strong political loyalties to the current regime and strong antipathy to the previous are well known.  That’s not important here.  It’s the connection with the newspaper that ran the first story that matters. That’s what makes the NYT a re-hash and a cheap one at that.  

The excitement of the Rajpakasa loyalists now and their silence back in 2015 is strange. Are they indirectly saying that they are more effected by a NYT story than a Daily News story? Is it because the word of Lake House is not taken seriously by the voters anyway? Was it that back then, just after political fortunes hit an unexpected low, they were too down-and-out to respond? We don’t know.

What’s strange is that once the NYT’s rehashed story ‘broke’ it was not only the Rajapaksa loyalists who got excited. The Government went to town, ridiculously implying that because the NYT said it, it is serious, notwithstanding the fact that the Daily News had said virtually the same thing three years before! 

Then we have Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe calling for a CID investigation based on the NYT story.  So essentially, he’s asking the CID to investigate something the CID had already investigated. What happened to that investigation, though? What did the CID conclude? Did it not conclude anything of significance or did it find things that could embarrass certain individuals in the new regime?

If all this was not enough, we have another Act in the drama, that concerning ‘naming’ journalists. The NYT has sought to tutor the Rajapaksas about how to respond to media stories. 

The international editor of the NYT Michael Slackman said the politicians' actions appears intended to silence critics and curb press freedoms and ultimately deprive Sri Lankans of information in the public interest.’  They’ve said that instead of taking issue with the relevant journalists, concerns should be addressed to the editors of the particular media institutions. These sentiments have been echoed by the Foreign Correspondents’ Association (FCA) in Colombo. 

First of all, the only response that can directly be linked to the political group(s) that the Rajapaksas belong to was a media conference where two members of parliament (Kanchana Wijesekera and Dullas Alahapperuma) mentioned journalists who had contributed to the NYT story by name and called Minister Mangala Samaraweera to explain their alleged longtime loyalties to him. 

That’s a strange request. Loyalty is not at issue here. What’s at issue is the re-hash and the clumsiness of the entire process, starting from July 2015, both by the relevant media personnel and the government. One of those named, anyway, is a stringer for the NYT and in the case of this story only helped put the NYT correspondent in touch with relevant informants. Both Wijesekera and Alahapperuma seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, but to say, as the FCA has, that they ‘vilified the authors of the report without utilizing established channels to redress any grievance’ is downright silly.

Journalists have bylines. They take responsibility for the content they produce. They are morally and professionally bound to be ready for response.  Neither Wijesekera nor Alahapperuma threatened anybody.  That they were barking up the wrong tree is a different matter; for example, the spouse of one of the journalist, the ups and downs of the person’s professional life has nothing to do with either the journalist or the NYT or the Daily News report.  That said, some of the backers of the previous regime have in fact launched a nasty and threatening campaign against the said journalists. 

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) have also overreacted. They state, ‘politicians have every right to dispute the findings of a news report, but publicly singling out Dharisha Bastians and Arthur Wamanan is a worrisome development in a country noted for attacks on journalists and unsolved journalist murders.’  What the said politicians did was to name the journalists named in the NYT article. It’s not that there were dozens of journalists contributing to the article and that only these two were ‘singled out’.  

Interestingly, Mangala Samaraweera also joined the howling-in-horror circus, condemning ‘virulent personal attacks by individuals linked to the joint opposition and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) in a bid to intimidate journalists who worked on the NYT (New York Times) report, attacking them for doing their job.’ Virulent personal attacks? Really? ‘In a bid to intimidate?’ Oh well! 

Let’s talk about virulent personal attacks and bids to intimidate. On the same day that Samaraweera issued this statement, his it was revealed that his Coordinating Secretary Thusitha Haloluwa has launched as scathing attack on a journalist who had exposed financial irregularity in a state institution running into millions of rupees. The fact was exposed by SLVlog a month ago and was picked up by News 1st only three days ago.  is Samaraweera not bothered by the virulence and the intimidation?

The FCA is concerned about all journalists and apparently issues statements relevant to foreign correspondents or correspondents working for foreign media institutions. What does the CPJ have to say about Haloluwa, though? 

Samaraweera would also remember how in February 2016, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe launched a virulent and intimidating attack on Daily Mirror (naming its editor) and Derana. 

Here’s an excerpt: “Everyone from the Daily Mirror tagged along with Rajapaksa, and one of its writers Kesara Abeywardena had written an article saying I should resign from the party leadership. I am asking them to get in line with the new line of thinking, and I have given them sufficient time for it. If they cannot get in line, without writing lies they have the opportunity to leave. We won’t tolerate this.”

So Wickremesinghe thinks it’s up to him to fire journalists who don’t toe his line. That’s not the first time Wickremesinghe has launched virulent and intimidating attacks on the media. The FCA can remain silent. How about the CPJ? How about Samaraweera himself?  

The point is, are we supposed to talk about corruption, debt traps, coughing-up, media ethics, media-integrity, protection of journalists and such across the board, or are were supposed to be selective? The NYT, CPJ and Mangala Samaraweera seem to think ‘selective is best’. Well, that’s what the Rajapaksas were all about, weren’t they?  

The entire NYT story, what preceded it and what followed it, far more than ‘exposing’ the previous regime, has shown that this government, its loyalists and the journalists it uses, are morally corrupt, professionally inept and are two-tongued.  As for the NYT, let’s not even go there for it would be such a waste of time! 

malindasenevi@gmail.com

Read more