“the federalisation of Indian foreign policy” under Modi

Prakash Nanda

“the federalisation of Indian foreign policy” under Modi
Prakash Nanda | Date:07 May , 2014

Prakash Nanda is a journalist and editorial consultant for Indian Defence Review. He is also the author of “Rediscovering Asia: Evolution of India’s Look-East Policy.”

Speech by Prakash Nanda at Australia-India Institute, University of Melbourne, on May 6, 2013

First of all, I am grateful to the Australia -India Institute for inviting me and providing a great opportunity to exchange my thoughts with some of the leading minds of Australia and friends
of India.    As you know this is the election time in India, though it is in the last stages. On May 16, we will know who will form the next government of India. However, it is widely expected that Narendra Modi of the BJP will be the one who will form the new government. At least that is what all the opinion polls that have been conducted so far do suggest.

Modi envisaged a grand design for achieving “India’s century” through a balance between the high road of peace and a no-nonsense toughness towards threats to national SECURITY.
Modi has been the chief minister of Gujarat, one of the developed states by Indian standard, for over 12 years now. He has won three consecutive elections. And now as a prime ministerial candidate, he is supposedly the most popular leader of India. But then the fact remains that Modi is an “outsider” to Delhi politics. I rather will use the word establishment in lieu of politics in the sense that Modi has no experience in the governance in Delhi. He has never been a member of Indian Parliament. Consequently, he has never been a central minister.

Therefore, in the event of becoming Prime Minister, Modi will be unique in the sense that he will be unlike his predecessors, all of whom had been either central ministers or members of parliament. In other words, Modi will directly catapult himself from a state or provincial level politics to occupy the most important political office of India, that of the Prime Minister.

Against this background, there are obvious limitations while talking about Modi’s foreign policy vision. Because, while much has been written about how Modi should manage his international relations were he to become Prime Minister, much less has been said by him on the subject. As it is, foreign policy seldom occupies an important position in political agenda during electoral campaigns, and this is true of many countries as well. 2014 in India is hardly any different. What I am going to do therefore is to construct a scenario based on what Modi has said or indicated on foreign policy in some of his election rallies and public ADDRESSES so far, including the most substantive speech he made in Chennai last October (18th) where he envisaged a grand design for achieving “India’s century” through a balance between the high road of peace and a no-nonsense toughness towards threats to national security. Of course, there is a section on foreign policy in the election manifesto of the BJP that was released last month. Though people do not attach much significance to the manifestoes, not only of the BJP but also of other political parties, I for one will like to take it seriously as I see a distinct impact of Modi in drafting it.

Before introducing Modi’s world view, it should be noted that we in India, and I think that it is a part of our strategic culture, love to keep things and policies as ambiguous as possible,

leaving them to many and different interpretations. Unlike the cases in many leading countries, our leaders hesitate to enunciate clear policies or doctrines having strategic implications. For instance, as a nuclear power, we do not have a nuclear doctrine in strict sense of the term; what we have indeed is a “draft nuclear doctrine” devised in 1999, some clarifications of which were “SHARED with the public”    in 2003 by the then Cabinet Committee on Security.   Similarly, we have had the so-called “Indira Doctrine” or “Gujral Doctrine”, which were actually named and popularized by late Professor Bhabani Sengupta. Of late, some admirers of our present Prime Minister have coined a term, “the Manmohan doctrine” to explain his emphasis on economic development as a driver for foreign policy and in shaping India’s strength, interests and relationships. But what is important to note here is that unlike in many leading democracies, Indian government does not come out with periodic strategic visions or white papers to emphasise clearly and coherently its blueprints of the manner, style and priorities as far as dealing with the outside world is concerned.

…foreign policy is the outcome of economic policy, and until India has properly evolved her economic policy, her foreign policy will be rather vague, rather inchoate, and will be groping…

The point that I am trying to make is that there has been a systematic effort, it seems at least to me, to keep Indian foreign policy as ambiguous as possible. And it has resulted in such a situation that more often than not, the Indian foreign policy is reactive to global developments, not proactive enough to make or create an event.  And I think this has been the situation since India became independent in 1947. Here I would like to quote India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech in the Constituent in December 1947. He said: “talking about foreign policies, the House must remember that these are not just empty struggles on a chessboard. Behind them lie all manner of things. Ultimately, foreign policy is the outcome of economic policy, and until India has properly evolved her economic policy, her foreign policy will be rather vague, rather inchoate, and will be groping… A vague statement that we stand for peace and freedom by itself has no particular meaning, because every country is prepared to say the same thing, whether it means it or not. What then we do stand for? Well, you have to develop this argument in the economic field. As it happens today; in spite of the fact that we have been for some time in authority as a government, I regret that we have not produced any constructive economic scheme or economic policy so far… When we do so, that will govern our foreign policy more than all speeches in this House”.

Of course, there is no disputing the fact that the broad objective of our foreign policy is to further our economic objectives by working for a benign external environment that will ensure the protection and PROMOTION of our territorial integrity, political and social systems of democracy and pluralism. Obviously, we do need a stable global order and a peaceful neighbourhood. We need an open and equitable international trading system; a secure financial system; reliable, affordable and secure energy supplies; and, food security. We need bilateral as well as international partnerships of technology and innovation to meet the extraordinary scale of our development challenges. And finally, we value our strategic autonomy, that is to take foreign policy decisions without being dictated by foreign powers.

All these foreign policy goals permanent ones and there has been a broad CONTINUITY in pursuing them by all the governments in Delhi, irrespective of their party-composition. And one can say with certainty that they will not undergo any fundamental changes under Modi either. What will happen in stead are some changes in the emphasis or prioritisation. But before elaborating them, I will draw your kind attention towards another vital aspect of Indian foreign policy which is likely see major changes under Modi if his recent speeches are any indication. That is the making of India’s foreign policy as such, involving the institutions, processes and practices.

Constitutionally speaking, foreign-policy is a subject that is the exclusive domain of the Central Government in India’s federal arrangement. The primary institutions for framing and implementing foreign policy are the external affairs minister, the bureaucracy attached to his ministry (Ministry of External Affairs) called the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and also the Prime Minister and his office. It is the Central Government that can declare war; conducts relations with foreign nations and international organisations; appoints and receives diplomatic and consular officials; concludes, ratifies, and implements treaties; and acquires or cedes territory.

…under the Manmohan Singh government, the base of Indian foreign policy-making has become the narrowest ever, with everything being controlled by the NSA and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Besides, it so happened that because of the complexities of the subject, only few individuals associated with the Central Government mostly dominated in interacting with the outside
world. During the Nehru era (Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister), India’s foreign policy making process was entirely controlled by the Nehru’s charisma and personality, although at times, he was helped by some of his chosen officials. This trend of the Prime Minister and some of his or her trusted bureaucrats monopolising the making the foreign policy without any proper institutional frameworks was further legitimised by Nehru’s successors such as Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and PV Narasimha Rao.

More or less, the same has been the trend under the non-Congress governments.  Atal Behari Vajpayee, India’s first BJP Prime Minister, carried out the Congress legacy. Though the Vajpayee government established the so-called National SECURITY Council and created a new post of National SECURITY Adviser (NSA), there is hardly any evidence that it was working the way it was intended. In a way, under Vajpayee the foreign policy making base became narrower than what it was even during the Congress regimes. It was totally dominated by the then NSA, a former Foreign Service official, who also happened to be the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister. Over the years, the NSA has become the czar of Indian foreign policy bureaucracy. My personal interactions with the senior officials of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and retired Foreign Secretaries suggest that under the Manmohan Singh government, the base of Indian foreign policy-making has become the narrowest ever, with everything being controlled by the NSA and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

Secondly,  with the rarest exception of the much talked about India-United States nuclear Agreement ,  the Indian Parliament has hardly witnessed  lively debates on foreign policy and security issues.  Parliament is usually informed of the government’s decisions on these issues.  As has been pointed out by union minister Shashi Tharoor, otherwise a reputed scholar of international affairs, only about 5% of questions posed in “Question Time” in Parliament concern foreign policy issues. If the Consultative Committee of Parliament for the MEA met rarely under Nehru and his immediate successors, today’s Standing Committee on External Affairs, according to Tharoor, generally spends its time meeting and greeting foreign delegations!

It is not only the Parliament of the world’s largest democracy that does not play an active role in the foreign policy or strategic matters. Another vital institution – the military – also has not been able to play any role. In fact, the military has been scrupulously kept at a self distance as far as providing inputs are concerned. As Stephen Cohen, one of the most perceptive scholars on Indian Military, says, “probably no military of equivalent importance or size (of India) has less influence over the shaping of policy at the highest level”. The chiefs of the armed forces are not present at the highest councils of government and nor are they routinely consulted about major foreign or even security policy issues.

The chiefs of the armed forces are not present at the highest councils of government and nor are they routinely consulted about major foreign or even security policy issues.

However, this over centralisation of foreign policy making has been coming under increasing challenges, of late. There are now growing demands for the “democratisation” of India’s foreign policy making base.

For instance, the West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s stance on the proposed Teesta water-sharing agreement or a pact on the exchange of enclaves with Bangladesh has weakened the central government and strained India’s ties with Bangladesh in the process.

In 2013, because of the pressure from both the ruling and opposition parties in Tamil Nadu, Manmohan Singh dropped the idea of attending the Commonwealth summit in Colombo. In fact, the Tamil Nadu factor also forced the central government vote against Sri Lanka in the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in 2013. This year, of course, there has been some course correction at the UNHRC meet; India abstained during a voting on a resolution that took the Sri Lankan government to task over its treatments of the Tamil minorities.

But the point to note here is the fact that the centralised foreign policy-making in India is being resisted by the federal elements. 

As a result, one is witnessing what is called “the federalisation of Indian foreign policy”. Of course, it will be wrong to say that in the earlier days, the state or provincial governments were totally neglected by the central government while formulating foreign policy.

At the height of the Sri Lankan civil war in 1987, when the then Rajiv Gandhi government decided to airdrop food in Jaffna in 1987,  it had reportedly ‘flown in’  the Tamil Nadu chief minister, MG Ramachandran, to Delhi for consultations.   (Prakash Nanda is a journalist and editorial consultant for Indian Defence Review.)

Similarly, while concluding the Farakka treaty with Bangladesh (SHARING the Ganga water between India and Bangladesh), the then Deve Gowda government in Delhi accorded considerable weightage to the suggestions of the then West Bengal Chief Minister, Jyoti Basu. However, all these were parts of the consultations; the central government took suggestions from the federating units but not necessarily was bound by them. In contrast, what is being witnessed today is that the States want to dictate what India’s foreign policy should be towards the countries which vitally affect them, particularly those that border them.

All told, the nature of Indian polity and governance is changing. Gone are the days of a single-party rule, a factor that facilitated the ruling party leader (the Prime Minister) to dictate foreign policy. This is an age of coalitions. And here, the regional parties are playing an important role. It so happens that most of the important regional parties that happen to govern the border states have important concerns with the neighboring countries that are different from the concerns seen from New Delhi. Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir may not look at Pakistan the same way that New Delhi does. West Bengal looks at Bangladesh differently from New Delhi. Tamil Nadu will like to have a policy towards Sri Lanka that is at odd with the view of New Delhi.  Besides, there are development-oriented chief ministers like Narendra Modi who are interacting directly with the foreign countries and players on issues such as loans and investment. They now travel abroad regularly.  Even otherwise, FREE TRADE agreements on agriculture and other industries that the central government negotiates with foreign governments can succeed only if the chief ministers of the states concerned agree. Naturally therefore the foreign policy of India is getting increasingly federalised. This development is getting further buttressed by the emergence of a series of new think-tanks, pressure groups and the educated middle class keen to shape public opinion on foreign policy issues.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/

Lanka seeks US, India, UK help to investigate financial fraud!

Lanka seeks US, India, UK help

March 1, 2015 17:59
Ranil

The Government has sought assistance from India, the United States and Britain to investigate large scale financial fraud committed by the former Government.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said that Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and Justice Minister Wijeydasa Rajapaksa have visited these countries to seek assistance from institutions there for the investigation.

“We have sought assistance from the World Bank, the US Justice Department, the major fraud investigations unit in London and the Indian Central Bank,” he said.

The Prime Minister said that the Government is being accused of failing to arrest top members of the former Government over corruption.

However he says no one can be arrested without enough evidence at hand and so a system has been put in place to first investigate the allegations.

“This is not like investigating a murder. We need time,” he added.

However he said the Government hopes to complete a major part of the investigations by April 23 when the 100 day programme of the Government ends.

Wickremesinghe said that the new Government cannot behave like the former administration and arrest people without having proper evidence.

The Prime Minister said that statements have already been recorded from people as part of the investigations and data is also being collected from several Ministries. (Colombo Gazette)

New Party To Back MR

New Party To Back MR
By Indika Sri Aravinda

A group of Parliamentarians, who fear that they will not receive nominations for the upcoming General Elections by the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) or the UPFA, are planning on forming a separate political party to CONTESTthe elections, political sources revealed.  It has also been revealed that the political leaders of certain parties in the UPFA alliance have held secret meetings in this regard. Accordingly it has been decided to nominate former president Mahinda Rajapaksa as the leader of this group.

It has also been revealed that the leader of the National Freedom Front Wimal Weerawansa and the leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Udaya Gamanpila will play a leading role in this alliance. It is reliably learnt that nearly 100 parliamentarians from 18 political parties from the UPFA have expressed their willingness to support this group. This group has also decided to refrain from issuing any statement to the media until the elections are announced.

Upon inquiry Kalutara District SLFP parliamentarian Vidura Wickremanayake stated that a whole group of parliamentarians including himself were prepared to take to the streets against the government and as the first step they would be staging a public rally in Horana today (01). He also warned the government that they will not be allowed to dance according to their own tune and that if they try he and his group know how to deal with them.

He said that the government claims that they will not give nominations to corrupt politicians, but pointed out that the government has already provided ministerial positions to several corrupt politicians. When contacted the leader of the Pivithuru Hela Urumaya Udaya Gamanpila said that he is still a member of the UPFA and if he does not receive nominations, he will obtain one from the 51 political parties REGISTERED with the elections department.

Gamanpila further stated that President Maithripala Sirisena had now become a political prisoner of the UNP and his group would take measures to bring in Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister.
He also alleged that opposition leader and SLFP member Nimal Siripala de Silva is trying to get the premiership, but he will not be able to achieve his goal.

Chief Minister Wigneswaran on Tamil aspirations:

Chief Minister Wigneswaran on Tamil aspirations:

‘Independence and corresponding power within a united country’

Northern Province Chief Minister Canagasabapathy Visuvalingam Wigneswaran PC shot to political prominence when he was plucked from retirement as a Supreme Court Judge by the Tamil National Alliance to be their leader for the war-battered, but staunchly independent, people of the North.

Today, after just 15 months as first Chief Minister of the Northern Province, he is a hugely popular leader in his own right and cuts a political image sharply distinct from the stereo-typical ‘Tamil nationalism’ that previously characterised the Tamil self-determination movement in its long journey through our post-colonial history.

After the enthusiastic Northern voter participation in the historic January 8 Presidential election, which ran counter to exhortations for a boycott by hardline secessionist elements within and without the country, Chief Minister Wigneswaran has emerged as a dynamic if controversial interlocutor between Tamil aspirations and national consensus.

The trilingual judge turned politician was interviewed by Silumina Editor Lakshman Piyasena.

Question: When you were appointed Chief Minister of the Northern Province there was a general impression in the country that a moderate Tamil intellectual who was different from politicians who arouse communalism had entered politics. But the recent Council resolution adopted under your leadership seems to have turned that impression upside down. That resolution said Tamils in Sri Lanka had been subjected to genocide under the government for a long time. Why did you bring in such a resolution as soon as President Maithripala Sirisena who pledged to foster national harmony and reconciliation came to power? What was the need for such a resolution?

Answer: First of all I must say that this was not a spontaneous resolution. For seven months the Provincial Council had discussions about bringing such a resolution. Every member SUPPORTED IT including even the Sinhala members. It was thereafter adopted unanimously.

The essence of the resolution is that CONTINUOUS injustice had been meted out to Tamils and if we are to build national reconciliation and go forward everyone should have an understanding about what happened in the country and the outside world too should know about it.

We can't move towards reconciliation unless we have a clear understanding about the injustice caused to Tamils. National unity could be achieved easily if the Sinhalese too know about the injustices carried out since Independence.

Q: Shouldn't you have given the new government a time limit to work towards harmony and reconciliation?

A: Two weeks before the adoption of the resolution the Deputy Minister of Defence visited the North and said Army camps would not be withdrawn from the North. This caused immense pain of mind and grief to the Tamil people. Tamils consider these camps as an obstruction to their normal daily routine. This had been a longstanding problem. Just think the pressure the Sinhalese in the South would have suffered if they had to CONTINUE living in such a situation. It is the suspicion caused among the ordinary Tamil public by this talk about camps which motivated Provincial Council members to expedite this resolution.

Q: Cannot another group consider the withdrawal of Army camps stationed according to the situation in a province where there had been terrorist activities for a long period as an irresponsible step?

A: As people's representatives we have a responsibility to listen to the grievances of the people. There is yet a 150,000-strong army stationed in the North. Tamil people who voted for President Sirisena expected to be relieved of that pressure first and foremost.

They wanted to get back the land occupied by the army camps. And obtain the release of their relatives held in these camps for no reason. These are problems disrupting ordinary community life in the North.

Moreover, the public witnessed what happened in the recent past. Karuna Amman who was responsible for the massacre of 600 policemen has been offered a post in the SLFP as a Vice President.

A poor man who offered him a meal is being held captive labelled as a terrorist.

Just think whether these issues will not cause a justifiable hatred and pain among the Tamil society. It is to change this situation that the Tamils voted for President Sirisena and elected a new government to power.

The speech made by the Deputy Defence Minister made the Tamils believe that the new government was acting according to the earlier system. The shattering of their hopes expedited this resolution.

Q: Cannot other Provinces also adopt resolutions of this nature arguing that Sinhala people were massacred by Tiger Terrorists?

A: I agree. Tiger terrorism caused untold hardship not only to Sinhalese but also to Tamils. I am fully aware of it. It makes me desist from taking any communal step that would harm the impression about me by the Sinhalese, as you mentioned earlier.

I wish to emphasise that this resolution had no communal undertones. I have no need to break that fair understanding made about me either. But this resolution raises a foundation needed to foster communal harmony to go forward after ending Tiger terrorism.

Tamils suffered injustice much before the advent of Tiger terrorism.

The 'Sinhala Only' Act of 1956, tearing up of the Tamil Special Provisions Act due to pressure exerted by Buddhist monks and introduction of standardisation for minority admissions to universities in 1971 are cross-roads we cannot forget. Let us all go for a genuine discussion about these things and come to an agreement.

It is then that the foundation needed to go forward in unison safeguarding mutual identities can be built. We have brought a resolution to motivate everyone to pay attention to these basic facts.

Q: There is a long history of communal incitement in out politics that suppress the understanding needed for national unity as pointed out by you. In such a situation cannot resolutions of this nature harm hopes for a united nation?

A: Your question has two sections. One is a united country and the other the raising of communalism in politics.

I will never for a moment deviate from the position that Tamil people's problems should be solved within a united Sri Lanka.

I CONTESTED the Provincial Council elections as the Chief Ministerial candidate too on the standpoint that our problems should be solved within a united Sri Lanka.

As a former Justice of the Supreme Court, I always speak with the understanding that the unity and territorial integrity of Sri Lanka should be protected. I also work with that understanding. There is no hope or aspiration whatsoever for a separate State.

The Sinhalese should understand that even in a united country we have differences endemic to us. We have a separate language and religion. We have a land with climatic differences. Everyone should understand that Tamil people should have an independence and a corresponding power suited for such differences within a united country.

The other factor is arousing communalism in politics. Actually this is happening not only in the North but also the South. I admit that there is a type of politics inciting people on both sides by talking of a bogus patriotism.

What we ought to do is to make a sincere attempt to resolve justifiable grievances and problems without pushing people towards communal politics. The Government should take the initiative towards it. The Provincial Council could also take the initiative for it.

Q: Someone can say that you brought a resolution of this nature to arouse communal feelings among Tamils for popularity's sake?

A: I wish to re-emphasise that this resolution was brought to draw the attention of the Sinhala people and the outside world towards the people of the North.

Q: Whenever the word Northern Provincial Council is mentioned, the South gets a feeling as if it is a path for a separate State. Don't you think that impression is further compounded when you speak of independence for Tamils?

A: The actual problem here is suspicion. Tiger terrorists wanted separatism. Therefore, it is justifiable for Sinhalese to entertain a fear about territorial integrity when looking at the North.

But just because of that is it fair to consider the Tamil people as terrorists. We have not infused the basis of Tiger terrorism to our type of politics we talk of the independence of Tamil civilian life within a united Sri Lanka.

The South must understand this. They should not look at the North with suspicion.

It is then that the people of the North will have confidence in the South. If not, how are we to move forward from here? But I want to emphasise one thing. There is no mutual suspicion among the Tamil and Sihhala ordinary public. It is the opportunistic politicians on both sides who create this suspicion.

Q: Former President Mahinda Rajapaksa had claimed that President Sirisena won the election with the help of Eelam votes and that he would have won if he, Mahinda had not granted voting rights to the North. What do the people in the North feel about that statement?

A: I consider it as a very grave statement harming the country's opportunity to mend fences among communities and take a united journey as one nation.

Earlier there were claims that the people of the North were with the Tigers. By doing so a wedge was created between the South and the North.

Today, they are trying to separate the people of the North saying they voted to bring a Sinhala leader to power. Isn't this real madness? When we put forward proposals for the rights of the Tamil people I call upon the Sinhala people concerned about it to think of this attempt to create divisions.

Please think according to your conscience and decide whether the country's unity is harnessed when one calls upon to look at Tamil problems in a fair manner or when this type of mean talk is made to arouse communal patriotism in the South.

Q: I wish to briefly deviate from this discussion. Vasudeva Nanayakkara is your relative. But he is one of the main characters supporting the activities taken by Mahinda Rakapaksa in arousing communalism in the South. Social websites had said while your relative is arousing communalism in the south you are arousing communalism in the north . . .

A: I wish to categorically state it will not arouse Tamil Communalism in any way. Vasu is a longstanding friend. That turned into a relationship when my son married his daughter.

That friendship and relationship is still steadfast but unless for a family need we hardly meet and talk to each other. We never discuss politics. All meetings and discussions are all about this friendship and relationship only.

Q: Grave political and social problems have occurred between various communities and religions in this world on the basis of cultural differences. How did the Sinhalese and Tamils who have many cultural affinities more towards such divisions? Do they need to go for such a division?

A: These two communities have been divided CONTINUOUSLY to satisfy political needs. I think that should not be so any more. That is how I engage in politics.

Both sides should understand past incidents. My stand is that this division should not be carried forward. It is difficult to correct the future unless you are aware of the past incidents.

I am now 75 years old. I spent most of life from childhood among the Sinhala people. What I understood was then there was no such division among the Sinhala populace which cannot be rectified. This is the same with Tamils.

The Sinhalese were avid listeners of Tamil songs. They viewed Tamil films, Northern people viewed Sinhala films and considered Gamini Fonseka and Vijaya Kumaratunga as idols.

There were people crazy for Sinhala films in the north this proves that we had no divisions in cultural context. The present generation is unaware of these matters. They witnessed war throughout life and formed a mentality that Sinhalese were causing an injustice to them.

The new generation in the south too is unaware of these things. They are wondering about any injustice caused to Tamils. Our responsibility today is to bring them together by mending this division.

Q: As much as opportunist politics disrupt communal harmony does not India's political role influence it too - specially the South Indian influence?

A: One country influencing another country is a common feature in world politics and is not a new thing. As a country what we ought to do is not to provide ammunition to it. During this war nearly 200,000 people escaped to India.

Those who went there started relating the ordeals their brethren faced during the War.

This helped to kindle feelings among south Indian people to the effect that Sinhalese did not give any room to the Tamils. Then a human problem occurred which could not be oppressed by anyone. The story does not end there.

The message spread throughout India and the whole world thereafter. It even went to Geneva. When a country's problems go to the outside world there are always countries or political forces trying to intervene and turn it to their advantage.

Just look at the postponement of the UNHCR resolution due in March to September. This is the type of behaviour of international politics.

But the people of the north do not like it. They think that the discussions about the injustice caused to them had been postponed.

This postponement may not do any good to the northern people. But another country may see this as a political advantage to it. This is the way with the world.

What the government must do is to prevent the problem caused to the country by it and do some justice without allowing the problem to go out to the world.

What I say is that the government should take the initiative to create natural harmony and reconciliation.

Translated by D.P. Wickremasingh

மகிந்த பலம் - நுகேகொட

இன்றைய யாழ்ப்பாணம் - ஒரு பார்வை

(அரசியல் அபத்தங்களுக்கு அப்பால்)- இன்றைய யாழ் மக்களின் ஒரு குறுக்கு வெட்டு அழகுக் காட்சி ஆவணம்

China moots trilateral cooperation with India, Sri Lanka

China moots trilateral cooperation with India, Sri Lanka
Press Trust of India  |  Beijing  February 27, 2015 Last Updated at 17:57 IST

China today proposed trilateral cooperation involving India and Sri Lanka for regional stability as the new government in Colombo sought to re-balance its ties with China, preferring to follow a "non-aligned" policy. 

"China is open-minded about trilateral cooperation between China, India (and) Sri Lanka," Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said during a joint press conference with Sri Lankan counterpart Mangala Samaraweera. 

"I want to say both India and Sri Lanka are China's cooperative partners in South Asia," Wang said. 

Samaraweera is the first Sri Lankan official to visit Beijing since president Mahinda Rajapaksa's defeat in polls this January. China made significant investments in Sri Lanka during Rajapaksa's tenure, raising concerns in India. 

Samaraweera's visit to China will be followed by new Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena's next month. 

New Govt. reshaping foreign policy

New Govt. reshaping foreign policy

Hardly has the country finished celebrating its 67th year of Independence from the yoke of four centuries of foreign rule, than her Foreign Minister jets off to Britain and then the United States of America, brief in hand, to plead the country’s case to be treated as a respectable member of the comity of nations.

Sri Lanka’s more recent foreign policy initiatives have been a total disaster. Towards the end of his term, even the former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, while proclaiming his achievements on many fronts, conceded that there were shortcomings in the running of his foreign policy. This was an understatement, and he was to blame for it himself as he interfered directly in appointments to the Foreign Service and allowed a nonplussed Minister and a freelance ‘Monitor’ to run the Foreign Office to the ground. On foreign policy per se, they veered away from Non-alignment, made enemies with the West, and angered India with their overtly pro-China stance.

This Government is now on a repair mission and the new Minister (though not new to the post) has a major task at hand. Having made his initial working visits to India and the European Union (EU), he proceeds to London and then to Washington where he will meet his counterpart. His final stop will be the United Nations where he is SLOTTED to meet the Secretary General. His predecessor in the job was afraid of visiting the US capital or New York and engaging the Americans and the UN. Used only to lecturing he could not listen to them, nor did he have the capacity to engage and counsel his interlocutors.

It was he who completely misread diplomatic signals and gave his president the ‘dead rope’ that the US would not sponsor a resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) in Geneva. This resolution calling for a probe into allegations of war crimes TARGETED the country’s political leaders and its Armed Forces. Foolishly trying to play hardball with the West, we lost vote after vote, pinning our hopes on China and Russia. We also adopted a crazy ‘Look Africa’ policy purely to win votes in Geneva. Today, that resolution is still on the table at the UNHRC calling for a ‘credible investigation’ on the last stages of the military campaign against the LTTE in 2009. A tentative effort no sooner this Government came to office to ‘dump the resolution’ was baulked at, and appears to have made no headway.

The new Government has rightly pledged to ensure the protection of those members of the Armed Forces who fought a blood-thirsty terrorist organisation, overcame it, and brought peace to this country.

This ‘war against terror’ was fought amidst Western pressure, lobbied heavily by the Sri Lankan Diaspora to stop the fighting and give a lifeline to the LTTE leaders. To former President Rajapaksa must go the credit for resisting that pressure and seeing to the end of that reign of terror. His successor, President Maithripala Sirisena, speaking at the Independence Day celebrations on Tuesday, paid a tribute to his predecessor for completing that onerous task. But ill-advised as he was, the former President adopted a wrongheaded policy to CONTINUE rubbing the West on the wrong side after the battlefield victory.

The country faced the consequence of the West’s wrath. In the US the Leahy Amendment of 2010 for the first time restricted aid to Sri Lanka tying it to good behavior on the human rights front. The EU sent 15 demands (which were ignored) prior to stopping GSP+ TRADE concessions to Sri Lanka. By offering a trade-off, the new Government has promised a “credible domestic investigation”. This was what the then Government ought to have initiated straightaway, but dragged its feet instead to bring the situation to where it is now. This promise will now have to be kept. Merely because the US Assistant Secretary of State visited Colombo this week and pledged to work together with the new Government, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs is visiting Washington next week to mend fences, the UNHRC resolution will not melt away so easily. But the moves will, hopefully help ease the tension between the West and Sri Lanka and a reasonable compromise would be to give the new Government time to get its act together, thus getting a postponement from the UNHRC sessions in March going deeper into the resolution.

The resolution can be laid by till September this year when the UNHRC meets again. By which time it is hoped, the heavy hand of the West/US will be taken off, reconciliation between the North and the Government in the South would be in better shape, and the country can move on from the bitter memories of the virtual ‘civil war’ of yesteryear.

In Washington next week, the Minister will have more on his plate to deal with than mending fences and dealing with the UNHRC resolution. Full engagement in the diplomatic, political, economic, trade and INVESTMENT spheres will need to be discussed.

It is an open secret that the former US Ambassador in Colombo reached out to the Opposition, especially the then Leader of the Opposition and thus moved away from an exclusive engagement with the former President in the belief that they (the Opposition) would somehow want to build up the relationship with the US if elected to office. The Rajapaksa Presidency saw this coming, but rather than defuse the moves and engage the US constructively, it jumped headlong into a policy of US bashing, accusing NGOs of being instrumental in ‘regime change’ measures and misreading the growing Indo-US axis. The US was in no doubt, it seems, that their Sri Lanka policy required to rebalance the outreach away from the Rajapaksa Administration.

While in Washington, the Minister might also want to study the expenses incurred in managing the embassy there over the years, and the cavalier way it was run. This mission at one stage did not have a single career diplomat in service. The transactions over the mission building were covered in scandal. US-based public relations firms were recruited to write even press releases, so pathetic was its capability. Lobbying firms were paid for by the Central BANK and from private addresses in Colombo. This newspaper has already catalogued these shady deals as they happened then.

But whatever the Foreign Minister agrees to in Washington, he will need to deliver in Sri Lanka. He cannot be seen to have capitulated in the face of Western pressure and sacrifice the Sri Lankan Armed Forces at the altar of diplomatic expediency. There is also the political cost factor; another election is due. Those who lost the recent elections are baying from the sidelines that a ‘sell-out’ is imminent. It would not be in the interest of the West to give that anti-West lobby the whip hand either. In New York, the Minister is also scheduled meet the US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Powers. It is a good move because her clout with the US President on the Sri Lanka issue is not to be under-estimated.

Sixty seven years ago, on the eve of Independence, the first Prime Minister of Lanka, D.S. Senanayake said in his Call to the Nation ; “Freedom carries with it grave responsibilities. Our acts and omissions henceforth are our own. No longer can we lay the blame for defects and errors in our administration on others”.

That is the price of freedom. With freedom comes responsibilities.

Source: Editorial 

New Sri Lanka gov't ends US lobbying contracts

New Sri Lanka gov't ends US lobbying contracts
Associated Press By MATTHEW PENNINGTON

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a sign of improving relations with the U.S., Sri Lanka has terminated lobbying contracts worth tens of thousands of dollars a month that the previous government had signed to help it win friends in Washington amid war crimes allegations, the nation's ambassador says.

The investment in lobbyists to foster political and economic ties had gathered steam last summer, in the dying months of the administration of then-President Mahinda Rajapaksa, but with little apparent benefit, as Sri Lanka's international isolation deepened over its refusal to credibly probe civilian deaths during the civil war that ended 2009.

But political change inside Sri Lanka itself has done the trick. There has been a turnaround in the U.S. relationship after new President Maithripala Sirisena won Jan. 8 elections and promised democratic reforms and accountability for human rights violations.

Sirisena was elected in large part because of public dismay over the rising cost of living on the South Asian island, where the monthly per capita GDP is about $540. Rajapaksa was also widely criticized for nepotism and alleged government corruption.

Washington-based lobbying groups are often hired by foreign governments to help win the ear of U.S. officials, lawmakers, media and other opinion-makers. Justice Department online records show Sri Lanka signed eight contracts with such groups from 2014, with monthly fees ranging from $5,000 to $75,000.

"The new government does not see a reason or requirement to have lobbying groups at this juncture," Sri Lankan Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam told The Associated Press on Friday. "To my knowledge, all those contracts have been terminated since the election of the new government."

Vinoda Basnayake of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP said soon after the election, the embassy informed his company that its $35,000 monthly contract was not being extended. Nelson Mullins was one of several groups hired to serve Sajin De Vass Gunawardena, a lawmaker who had advised Rajapaksa on foreign affairs. Basnayake said its fees for the last quarter had been paid in advance.

But Connie Mack, executive vice-president of Levick Strategic Communications LLC, said its client, Sri Lanka's central bank — whose chief has been replaced by the new government — was three months or $180,000 in arrears on payments for the contract it terminated Jan. 28. Mack said he planned to meet with the Sri Lankan ambassador soon to discuss the issue.

Kariyawasam, a career diplomat who became ambassador last July, told the AP he did not know if any payments to lobbyists were outstanding because he did not sign any of the contracts.

The Obama administration is keen to improve relations with Sri Lanka, which forged closer ties with China under Rajapaksa. The island lies off the coast of southeastern India, on sea lanes linking East Asia and the Middle East.

New Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera visited Washington this month, winning U.S. support for a delay in the publication of a U.N. investigation into the war. The report is politically sensitive in Sri Lanka because it could implicate elements of the nation's military that crushed the resistance of ethnic Tamil rebels.
==============

MODI TO VISIT Sri Lanka

India leader to visit Sri Lanka as pro-China policy ebbs
Associated Press

The new Sri Lankan president, Maithripala Sirisena, returned from a visit to India this week, his first trip overseas, and highlighted the improving ties that had soured because of Sri Lanka's closeness to China under the previous administration.

Sirisena won a surprise victory last month against former ally Mahinda Rajapaksa, who relied heavily on China for infrastructure projects and backing against human rights allegations at the United Nations.

China's increasing influence in Sri Lanka had made India anxious because it considers the Indian Ocean region to be its strategic backyard.

China has provided loans for an airport, sea port, highways and power plants in Sri Lanka, where it became the largest investor. The new government, however, announced it would investigate a $1.5 billion Colombo Port City project, constructed on an artificial island off Colombo, because of suspicions it was not transparent.

The deal was sealed last September when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Sri Lanka and won Colombo's support for a proposed maritime "Silk Road" linking China with Europe.

The late Rajiv Gandhi was the last Indian leader to visit Sri Lanka in 1987 to sign a peace pact to end an ethnic Tamil separatist rebellion still in its infancy. India sent peacekeepers to Sri Lanka as part of that agreement, angering the Tamil Tiger rebels whose suicide bomber assassinated Gandhi in 1991 at an election rally.

The rebels were crushed by the Sri Lankan military in 2009. China assisted Sri Lanka in the civil war by providing arms and later defended the country at the U.N. Human Rights Council against allegations of abuses in the civil war.

Former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Sri Lanka in 2008, but only to participate in a summit of South Asian leaders.
=================