This
column focuses on local politics. As opposed to global affairs.
However, ‘local-global’ is, as sociologists would point out, a false
dichotomy. What happens or rather can happen here is by and large
determined by overarching global political and economic structures.
Local affairs don’t always shape global processes unless the particular
‘local’ enjoys privileged position in the overall structure, but they
can inform the manner in which particular countries or
country-collectives engage.
Let’s start with a few examples.
The
previous government was the darling of Western powers. The leaders
believed that the West would help. Then came Brexit. The leaders got the
jitters. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe suddenly opened his eyes
and saw ‘The East’. This, after seniors in that administration, before
and after the January 2015 election had made many disparaging comments
about China, as one would expect for their view of the world was largely
a matter of echoing the voice of Washington.
So, in essence, Britain sneezed and these ladies and gentlemen caught a cold.
That’s
one side of the coin. The USA-led section of the ‘international
community’ spared no pains to rubbish the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime. It
is no secret that Maithripala Sirisena’s campaign was actively backed by
the USA. The language of engagement with ‘Sri Lanka’ changed. The US
mission in Colombo, hell-bent on hauling Sri Lanka over the coals with
respect to largely inflated horror stories about the war, suddenly
wanted the local Tamil allies to go easy on human rights. Come 2019
November the tone changed. Now this is not strange. One does not deal
with known friends in the same way that one engages with perceived
enemies.
This week, the global touch was inescapable for
different but not unrelated reasons. A US story and an Indian story
dominated political headlines, the former on account of the assault on
Capitol Hill, Washington by supporters of Donald Trump and the latter
having to do with the visit by the Indian Foreign Minister Subramanyam
Jaishankar. The former is distant but makes for interesting comment
considering Washington’s use and abuse of democracy. Sorry, the term
‘democracy.’ So let’s start right there.
On Wednesday supporters
of Donald Trump, convinced that their champion had been robbed, gathered
outside the Capitol building. They forced entry into the chamber of the
House of Representatives wanting Congress to discard the results of the
November 3 election. Four died, one from gunshot injuries. Dozens were
arrested. Congress prevailed and Trump, in a predictably roundabout way,
grudgingly announced he would leave office.
Democracy is the
word here. An election was held. Sorry, a selection, for that’s
essentially the political process which produces presidents in that
country. Some claimed that there was jugglery. Some went to court. Court
dismissed these petitions. Now, in the name of democracy, a bunch of
irate Trump supporters (a minuscule minority of the voting population)
decided that Congress should submit to their will. Trump, remember, lost
the popular vote by a massive margin.
The entire carnival
showed up the farce that is US politics. First, the vast majority of
these ‘rebels’ were white. The way that the authorities responded was in
stark contrast to the way that the police reacted to peaceful protests
against white police brutality and racism over the past seven months.
Racism is what colors the ‘fabric’ and racism tore that cloth a long
time ago or rather, racism ensured that the threads would never make a
textile worth talking about.
Secondly, we have to measure this
against the standard US narrative on democracy and democratization
outside its shores. No country has prostituted these terms the way
Washington has. The US has invaded countries, mis-described rag-tag
agitators as ‘pro-democracy masses’ who were then funded and armed,
orchestrated military coups, supported the butchering of pro-democracy
protesters who had been duly called ‘insurgents’ and dropped bombs. All
in the name of democracy.
As a wit put it, ‘due to travel
restrictions, Americans had to invade their own country this year.’
Here’s another that’s making the rounds on social media: ‘The US has
invaded the US to spread democracy.’ And here’s the plum atop the
pudding: ‘The US is honestly just a comedy show to the rest of the world
right now.’
If only we could laugh! It’s no laughing matter to
the victims of systemic brutality and racism in the USA. It’s no
laughing matter to the recipients of ‘Democracy — US style.’
The
Biden administration will no doubt say ‘that’s all Trump stuff’ and
maintain the Washington Doctrine on International Affairs. Washington is
quiet now. That ‘little affair’ has been sorted out. Democracy, they’ll
say, has won the day. It will be business as usual. The US will resume
lecturing the world about democracy, peace, human rights, co-existence
and reconciliation. Representatives of the nations targeted will have to
swallow down the giggles, IF they do see the hypocrisy that is — let’s
not bet on that!
India. That’s the other big story. In your face
and all. But first a preamble. India is part of the Quad, i.e. the
shorthand for the Quadrilateral Security Dialog which includes the USA,
Japan and Australia. The purpose is to contain China’s rise, the ‘Asian
NATO’ as some call it, never mind that the USA is not part of Asia. The
big Sri Lankan story for the USA in recent times was the MCC Compact.
The Gotabaya Rajapaksa government didn’t play ball. The US Embassy in a
statement informed one and all that the deal was off. Chagrin was
written all over it. The local ‘friends’ warned of serious
repercussions. The UNHRC sessions are just weeks away. And we have
Jaishankar visiting Sri Lanka.
Jaishankar, a retired diplomat
and former Foreign Secretary, is well-known for working out ‘friendship’
with the USA and is mentioned for his role in the Indo-US civilian
nuclear agreement. Just the other day, he signed on behalf of India, the
Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement on Geospatial Cooperation
(BECA) with the USA. The two countries are the more vocal of the four
that make ‘The Quad.’ India, moreover, has expressed concerns about the
so-called Chinese footprint in Sri Lanka, never mind the bloodstained
Indian footprint courtesy the Indo-Lanka Accord of 1987. The IPKF left,
but the footprint remained. Jaishankar even mentioned it.
Sure,
he spoke of the sweetener in all the deals he made or wanted to make
with Sri Lanka in the pursuit of the eminently defensible ‘India First’
foreign policy of his government. He spoke of the Covid-19 vaccine. It
is, as yet, untested. It is not expensive. India will give some vaccines
FoC and some on a concessionary loan, most likely. Vaccine or not, only
0.5% of the infected will succumb to the virus. What’s the price Sri
Lanka has to pay, though? Why, the 13th Amendment or more!
Jaishankar,
addressing the media, used Eelam-speak. ‘A united Sri Lanka’ he said.
Now ‘unity’ cannot be legislated. A federal arrangement does not
necessarily mean unity and neither does a unitary system. Jaishankar
doesn’t know, hasn’t been told or knows and ignores the fact that the
two main candidates at the last presidential election, Gotabaya
Rajapaksa and Sajith Premadasa both pledged to uphold the unitary status
of the country. Almost 95% of the country’s voting population voted for
these two candidates.
Jaishakar doesn’t care. He has a script. He reads from it.
That’s a
lecture. He or rather India wants Sri Lanka to inhabit his/India’s
version of Sri Lanka’s reality. What’s the reality? The 13th is a white
elephant. Romesh De Silva, who heads the experts’ committee tasked to
draft a new constitution said as much about ten years ago. We have not
had Provincial Council elections in years. No one has complained. Things
could be better but no will argue that things are worse on account of
PCs remaining dissolved.
The Indian foreign minister met with
the President, Prime Minister and his Sri Lankan counterpart. It might
appear that his powwows with the leaders of Tamil parties and the Leader
of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa were cursory affairs but one
hesitates in concluding thus. After all, the proposals to the
constitution-drafting committee submitted by both the Tamil National
Alliance and the Thamizh Makkal Tesiya Kootani both want the unitary
character of the state undone. ‘Unity’ is the word both these entities
use. Just like Jaishankar.
India or rather Delhi has a political
issue to resolve in Tamil Nadu. There’s opposition to Delhi’s drive to
make Hindi a national language in that state. Tamil Nadu is ok with ‘One
India’ but not a ‘One India where Tamil could get diluted vis-a-vis
Hindi.’ Appeasing Tamils in Sri Lanka, perhaps Delhi believes, might
help sort out the political problem in the southern part of the country.
‘Help’ is the key word. It won’t be enough, but it’s not a stone that
they would want to leave unturned.
Any devolution that grants
control of parts of the country to Tamil political formations, they
might believe, would compromise the integrity of the Sri Lankan state.
The US could obtain by way of price an MCC Compact without an MCC
Compact, so to speak. We don’t know if Jaishankar murmured ‘Geneva’ in
his discussion with the president, prime minister and the foreign
minister, but certain things can be said in silence.
There would
have been talk of the contentious Eastern Terminal. India’s port
development operations in the Andaman Islands is not a secret.
Compromise the Colombo Port and Delhi is in easy sea-street.
There’s
more local play to this story. Sajith Premadasa appointed Dayan
Jayatilleke as his advisor on international affairs. Dayan’s
genuflection before India is legendary. Not surprisingly, in an article
published immediately after his appointment, Dayan responded to an
announcement by the Chinese Ambassador Qi Zhenhong, who said, ‘China
will promote the alignment of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) with
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour”
manifesto to promote economic and social engagement between the two
countries.
Now, there are two ways to interpret this statement.
One is to believe that whatever part of the BRI that’s promoted will be
framed by what’s pledged in Rajapaksa’s election manifesto. Nothing
wrong with that. Dayan worries that it’s the other way about. He asks
the legitimate question: ‘If President GR’s Sri Lanka has joined hands
with China to respond to challenging international and regional
situations according to a consensus between the two leaders, how will it
take a nonaligned, equidistant or balanced stand with regard to
US-China internationally and India-China regionally?’
He is the
international affairs guru of the Opposition Leader and therefore the
ball is in the court of Dinesh Gunawardena. He has to respond to this
question.
Dayan, in the same article (‘The Xi factor, Delhi’s
deterrence, and the Pakistan model’ in the Daily FT), berates the
government for postponing the PC elections. He worries about what the
new constitution would and would not do, never mind that we are yet to
see a draft and never mind that obtaining the two-thirds parliamentary
majority to get it passed will not be easy.
‘The new
Constitution will kill the 13th Amendment and the semi-autonomous PC
system, de-linking the Sri Lankan state from the Indo-Lanka Accord,
removing not only a counterweight to de facto military rule over the
island but also a buffer against any potential foreign presence in
Trincomalee contrary to the Accord’s Annexures.’
All this,
yes, all of it, is almost like a speech written in Delhi. Consider this
part: ‘a buffer against any potential foreign presence in Trincomalee
contrary to the Accord’s Annexures.’ That’s the Indo-Lanka Accord. The
annexures do talk of foreign presence but entities OTHER THAN INDIA! For
Dayan, India is not ‘foreign’. Her footprint is alright. Is India part
of Sri Lanka? Would Jaishankar respond to this question, ‘Yes, most
certainly!’? Of course not. The implication is that Sri Lanka is part of
India or rather India’s plaything. Pawn. There’s Indian hegemony
written all over Dayan’s and therefore Sajith Premadasa’s and the Samagi
Jana Balavegaya’s position on these matters.
And Jaishankar,
kindly, invites Sajith Premadasa to visit Delhi. Maybe he will also
facilitate a meeting between Prime Minister Modi and the likes of M.A.
Sumanthiran and C.V. Wigneswaran, a meeting that such politicians must
have requested repeatedly from Indian diplomats in Colombo who they meet
with frequently.
Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Ranil
Wickremesinghe although in desperately depleted circumstances has
chipped in with a request of his own. Yes, Jaishankar covered all the
bases, even those that have become politically redundant. Wickremesinghe
requested Jaishankar ‘to expedite the supply of the COVID-19 vaccine to
Sri Lanka.’ Yes, that’s the sweetener.
What’s the price and who
pays it? No one will ask Wickremesinghe. The likes of Premadasa need
not answer. The likes of Dayan Jayatilleke are not required to answer
and anyway, as has been the practice of this colorful commentator, he
will use one convoluted argument after another, replete with selective
examples from history and convenient quotes from theoretical texts to
conclude ‘it’s worth the price!’.
The Government on the other
hand, cannot beat around the bush. What’s the price you want us to pay
for India’s ‘amazing’ vaccine, Mister President? What was agreed on our
behalf and why?
Well, folks, that’s it for this week. A week
where the local was more-than-usually overshadowed by ‘the
international’ and where one half of ‘The Quad’ dominated. We’ve drawn
and quartered, but just in an analytical sense. We would not be
presumptuous to claim anything more!
malindasenevi@gmail.com
1 comments:
If people are the decision makers in a democracy people have spoken in no uncertain terms in Nov.2019 and in Aug. 2020.
Now all what the present Government has to do is to work according to the manifesto they put forward before the election!!
Post a Comment