The
Committee on Foreign Relations of the US presented an analysis on Sri
Lanka to the Senate on December 7, 2009, i.e. almost seven months after
the war on terrorism ended with the world’s most ruthless terrorist
outfit, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) being
comprehensively defeated by the Sri Lankan security forces. The document
was titled, ‘Sri Lanka: recharging US strategy after the war.’ It was
presented by John F Kerry and Richard G Lugar on behalf of the
Committee.
There was analysis and there
were recommendations to the Obama administration, international
financial institutions, the US Congress and the Sri Lanka Government.
The main concerns regarding Sri Lanka were about resettlement of the
internally displaced, i.e. the hundreds of thousands held hostage by the
LTTE and duly rescued by the Sri Lankan security forces at heavy costs
to personnel.
The rest of the
recommendations were nothing more than the usual noises about democracy,
nothing to make a song and dance about. No mention of ‘war crimes.’
Nothing of the need to haul Sri Lanka over the coals in Geneva, so to
speak, as has been the case since an intemperate and maverick diplomat
angered Israel and earned the wrath of Washington following heavy
lobbying by the Jewish lobby in the USA.
Indeed,
it brings to mind observations on Sri Lanka made by Lord Naseby, during
the course of an intervention in the House of Lords debate on the
‘Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, designed to
protect British troops from ‘vexatious charges’ (or, provision of
immunity for all excesses including crimes against humanity): ‘I made a
Freedom of Information Act inquiry because I was told by the UN that
there were 40,000 casualties. I asked the Foreign Office about Colonel
Gash’s independent dispatches, which took two years to obtain. They made
it clear that no war crimes were carried out in Sri Lanka.’
The
Kerry-Lugar submission also observed, ‘Real peace will not come
overnight to Sri Lanka and cannot be imposed from the outside.’ Such
wisdom seems to have been tossed out in deliberations regarding Sri
Lanka. Most importantly, the Kerry-Lugar report noted that the US focus
on IDPs and ‘civil society’ (quotes mine) as opposed to the economy and
security sector had isolated Sri Lanka economically and politically from
the West. The recommendation for the then administration included
support for Sri Lanka’s efforts in resettlement, reconstruction and
rehabilitation, and assistance for development in all parts of the
country. There is some mention of strengthening justice system by
supporting police reforms, but certainly nothing about war crimes
tribunals and the kinds of mechanisms that the US later pushed for at
the UNHRC.
Following a fairly
comprehensive analysis of geopolitical realities pertaining to the
region, the committee proposed that the Obama administration ‘take a
broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new
political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and U.S. geo strategic
interests.’ Such an approach, according to the Kerry-Lugar submission,
‘should be multidimensional so that U.S. policy is not driven solely by
short-term humanitarian concerns but rather an integrated strategy that
leverages political, economic, and security tools for more effective
long-term reforms.’
What happened though? The
US essentially sought to secure its strategic interests by concocting a
lie (as evidenced by the massive distance between the privileged
narrative on human rights and the observations embedded in the
Kerry-Lugar Committee, the International Red Cross and Colonel Gash),
leveraging it to harass the then Sri Lankan regime to a point that would
enable ‘regime change,’ i.e. to obtain strategic goals through a
US-friendly regime. It worked. Perhaps in order to ‘press advantage
home,’ the US used its Sri Lankan pawns to co-sponsor an anti-Sri Lanka
resolution.
And now
what? Well, the Kerry-Lugar thinking is certainly not being revisited.
Instead, it’s same-old, same-old. Well, not exactly, because the US of
2009 is not the US of 2021. The China of 2009 is not the China of 2021.
The veiled threats issued by the US mission and that of the principal US
ally, the UK, echoing the ‘tough words’ of the USA’s best friend in
Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, the chief of UNHRC, are all based on lies
agreed upon, lies which, the Kerry-Lugar committee, to be fair, had not
thought fit to conjure back in December 2009. There’s talk of pushing
for action in the UN General Assembly. There’s talk of sanctions.
There’s talk of the matter being taken to the Security Council.
Now
leaving aside the blatant disavowal of the principle of equality in
treatment (the UK, for example, was found guilty of war crimes by the
International Criminal Court and was let off ‘on account of
demonstrating genuine interest in implementing correctives’ even as that
country sought to provide constitutional cover for its forces who, let
us not forget, have a considerable track record as criminals against
humanity — the UK, ladies and gentlemen, will not be touched by
Bachelet), these threats will certainly have repercussions. Sri Lanka
will not be a happy recipient. However, leaving Sri Lanka with few
choices, the USA will essentially push the island nation into the
(waiting) arms of China and of course Russia.
So
there was and is a baby: US strategic interests. It was bathed in
toilet wash. The US and her allies have washed the baby so many times
that when the baby was thrown there was only bathwater left. Maybe it
seems warm. Maybe the preference for closed-noses and closed-eyes made
for a kind of oblivion. The US is wallowing in the gooey stuff.
We
don’t know where John F Kerry and Richard J Lugar are right now. Sri
Lanka, however, does know where China is. And it seems that the US has
not ‘taken a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that
appreciates new political and economic realities.’ The ‘humanitarian
concerns’ are no longer on the table, resettlement being done and dusted
years ago, reconstruction outstripping development in areas outside the
principle combat areas, democratization completed and livelihoods
restored to levels on par with any other part of the country. It’s been
‘short term human rights concerns’. Well, ‘concerns’ (within quotes).
Sri
Lanka will have to pay a price for refusing the inhabit the USA’s
version of Sri Lankan reality. Sri Lanka will be made to pay, rather.
The USA will also have to deal with some costs: the strategic baby that
Washington has tossed out in ill-willed and ill-conceived fixations with
bathwater.
0 comments:
Post a Comment