First of all, they would take into consideration the fact
that a country doesn’t exactly need to send warships to the Indian Ocean to
show friendship and thereby readiness to counter-punch if necessary. Secondly, the US is a declining power and the
upping of belligerence on the part of Washington would be recognized for what
it is: the angst of a nation that has lost its way and is losing its sway. Thirdly, the US can bark but it cannot bite;
a nibble or two is possible but Washington appears to be operating on the
premise that a threat is more effective than its execution.
Simply put there’s only so much that the kinds of moves the
USA is making against Sri Lanka can do, especially if the friends we are
talking about are China and Russia, subject to the caveat that ‘friendship’ is
diplo-speak for ‘agreement on furthering interests’ and that a price has to be
paid in tangible and apparent form without pussy-footing and shy-making. In other words Sri Lanka cannot play
‘placate’ with all and sundry; she must play pick and choose, and be cognizant
of the fact that in the past she has chosen poorly.
Just the other day India’s ‘Economic Times’ announced that
China has offered to finance a large portion of India’s infrastructure
development via loans. India is a big
market and China knows this. The flip
side is that India knows that China calls the shots; we are yet to read of
India offering China ‘investment that amounts of the latter’s infrastructure
spending through 2017’.
A counter-punch in Geneva, when such matters are considered
with due recognition of power realities and complexities, would only massage
some egos without even a guarantee of success.
The year 2009 was a different century, almost, and while the victory of
the pro-Sri Lanka resolution yielded tons of ‘Feel-Good’, it did little
else. One may argue that the Government
did not build upon it, but then again it seems (especially after that
‘victory’) that nothing the Government does add up to ‘enough’.
If Sri Lanka does not understand that the UN is skewed in
favor of the US and that there’s a lot of truth in the claim that it is but a
creature of that country, never mind one-off ‘victories’ courtesy fortuitous
configurations of membership and mood (context that does not exist at this
moment), Sri Lanka would not just lose but would have to pay for losing. No, there won’t be any knock-out punches thrown
but endless pinching by a bully is hardly something to cheer either, especially
since no God Father Nation can have the time and kindness of heart to swat the
bully’s hand each time it reaches out.
Geneva being met ‘head on’ is about being honest,
communicating effectively, saying ‘this is what we have done and can do,
period’. It is about erring on the side
of sobriety, which means recognizing the fact that the US initiative is likely
to win and yet canvassing support to defeat it.
It means, also, that what should be done locally is not what the US and
its cheering squad in Colombo made of NGO personalities and (quack) academics
wants Sri Lanka to do (open doors to subterfuge) but doing what it takes to
keep the people on the side of the Government (which, whether we like it or not
is and is likely to remain the principal bulwark against moves to destabilize
and invite anarchy).
And that’s about democracy.
It is about development that is people-focused not in rhetoric but
practice. It is ultimately about the
humility to admit error and redress wrongs.
It is therefore about mechanism to insulate citizens against brash,
belligerent, deceitful and thieving politicians. Now that would make for more
effective one-upmanship in Geneva and elsewhere.
msenevira@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment