Focus

CBK's moves for remaining in power

Is there a connection between the proposals for an interim administration for tsunami work in the north and east, a referendum to abolish the executive presidency, formation of......

More.... 

> India's role in South Asia (.....World Affairs)

> Where has all the money gone?

CBK's moves for remaining in power

Is there a connection between the proposals for an interim administration for tsunami work in the north and east, a referendum to abolish the executive presidency, formation of a constituent assembly, periodic appeals for national unity and the implementation of the devolution package? It does appear that they are all linked together for the survival of Chandrika Kumaratunga in the seat of supreme power, extending into the dim, distant future.

Consider the latest announcement that the government has agreed to 'a joint mechanism'- an euphemism for an interim administration - for distribution of tsunami aid together with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. At one time it appeared that the government was prepared for an interim administration with the LTTE on tsunami work which would be worked on and end up in the implementation of the LTTE proposals for an Interim Self- Governing Administration (ISGA). Strong public reaction against support for the ISGA resulted in the government saying that what was intended was an interim administration for tsunami work. What this 'joint mechanism' is has not been spelt out at the time of writing these comments.

Political agenda?

While it is agreed that the people of the north and east who are adversely affected by the tsunami should receive aid and assistance immediately, a question arises whether the government's decision was motivated by humanitarian considerations or the political agenda of President Chandrika Kumaratunga.

President Kumaratunga, it will be recalled, was bitterly opposed to the relationship of the UNF government of Ranil Wickremesinghe with the LTTE. She accused that government of endangering national security by ignoring the military build-up of the LTTE in the north and east. She took over the ministries of defence, interior and media. Finally she dissolved parliament and campaigned strongly against the UNF's complacency towards the LTTE and the ISGA proposals. Her party together with its coalition partner, the JVP, won the April 2, 2004 elections on the anti-LTTE platform. But since then she has not lifted a finger to curb the terrorist activities of the LTTE, even though they have built an air strip in the jungles of Iranamadu and have acquired light aircraft. Now she agrees to work together with the LTTE on tsunami relief work.

The government's coalition partner, the JVP is like the mouse that roared. It breathes hell fire and brimstone and vows that it will not permit the government to work with the LTTE, but remains in the government enjoying the perks of being government parliamentarians.

Whatever President Kumar- atunga's humanitarian motivations may have been, there are compelling political reasons for this delayed decision, 10 weeks after the tsunami wreaked havoc in the north and east.

Donor pressure

The most compelling reason appears to be pressure applied on her by the 'international community'- the aid donors. The tsunami resulted in a moratorium on international debt - which accounts for a signification proportion of the budget - being granted. But the donor countries to which this debt is owed are pressurising the government to commence tsunami relief work immediately as well as get the peace negotiations with the LTTE going soon. This boost in foreign financial assistance together with the US$ 4.5 billion pledged at the Tokyo donor conference are necessary, if she is to survive politically by winning elections or swaying referenda she proposes, in her favour - for political survival. Thus, all that bluster, the Vihara Maha Devi postures struck during the election campaign, are being thrown to the winds and she is prepared to work with the LTTE. The same organisation that even attempted to assassinate her.

At the end of this year, her second term of office as President ends. But she contends that she has another year more because of having herself sworn-in for a second time. Come December, she has to decide whether to give up the presidency or continue for another year. In either event, she cannot run for the presidency again and if she remains in politics she will have to play second fiddle to her successor even if her government is returned to power. To circumvent all that, she is attempting to have the constitution changed and the executive presidency abolished. She obviously intends becoming the executive prime minister with full executive powers

President Kumaratunga's call for referenda once again, and for a change to a federal form of government as well as the abolition of the executive presidency could thus be traced to this desire to survive in power, as long as she can. The desire of politicians to remain in power can be understood, but not by violating an existing constitution, wrecking the political order and creating chaos at the expense of the nation. In most countries such as the United States the presidency is limited to two terms. In Britain, a prime minister does not seek more than three terms. Only hereditary monarchs can continue in office for life. Dictators declare themselves, presidents for life , but rarely do even they die with their jackboots on. They are thrown out of power before that.

Consensus necessary

Throwing out an existing constitution and violating its basic principles can result in absolute chaos. Such changes must receive the consensus of all sections of the people. The 1972 Sri Lankan constitution drawn up by a formidable legal pundit but opposed by the representatives of the Tamil people is partly the cause for the present chaotic state of this country. The 1978 constitution was also enacted on almost the same basis - on the presumption that if the ruling party had more than a two-third majority, they represented the will of the people. The present government is far short of a two-third majority and any kind of legal jugglery deployed would be opposed by the people.

Sri Lanka's three constitutions enacted within 50 years with so many amendments have come to be treated jocularly by constitutional experts and have been referred to at times not as constitutions but as periodicals. If the proposed strategies for another change of constitution go through, it will indeed reduce this country to the status of 'a failed state', or a banana republic.

And should all this be done for the glory of one individual?

Much was said last week about the sovereignty of Sri Lanka, following an interview by Sri Lanka Country Head, World Bank, Peter Harrold. What he said is currently in dispute but had he considered the LTTE to be of equal status as the sovereign state of Sri Lanka, he deserved everything he got. However, his critics missed the point that a statement like this from a diplomatic representative or an official of an international organisation was inevitably forthcoming, considering the tolerance extended towards diplomats and officials in their dealings with the LTTE.

Diplomats and international officials are given accreditation on certain conditions and are not expected to engage or interfere in the internal politics of this country. But since the signing of the ceasefire agreement (CFA) it has been an 'open sesame' into the den of the most ruthless band of terrorists the world has known in recent times.

High ranking officials such as Commissioner for External Affairs, European Union, Chris Patten and various visitors to this country in addition to diplomats stationed in Colombo have been meeting, discussing, granting assistance in one way or another to the LTTE, as they please. They seem to be more in sympathy with this band of terrorists who are proscribed in some of their own countries than the freely elected governments of Sri Lanka.

Having come into the Sri Lankan peace process, wittingly or unwittingly, they now seem to consider that they have a right to interfere in Sri Lankan politics internally as well as externally. Perhaps in this age of 'limited sovereignty' - the doctrine preached by those like British Prime Minister Tony Blair - they may be considering Sri Lanka a 'failed state' and think they have a right to interfere the way they do in some African states. There have been public demonstrations against the activities of such diplomats and officials, but both governments have remained absolutely mute. It was only when Peter Harrold was reported to have made this statement that Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar thought it fit to condemn it.

Nowhere in the CFA has it been said that that diplomats have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of this country. In 1971, the entire North Korean Embassy staff in Colombo was expelled by the government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. J.R. Jayewardene in 1980 expelled young US Diplomat Ken Scott, who is alleged to have spoken out of turn at a cocktail party. Most political observers thought that President Jayewardene's action was too severe, but it appears that at the beginning of his term as President, he wanted to send a message to diplomats of all countries and selected the most powerful country of all to convey his message: 'Don't interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka.' But what action has anyone taken about diplomats and international officials who break the rules of protocol and hobnob with dreaded terrorists?

Peter Harrold is supposed to have said that LTTE's proscription has been lifted and therefore he had been dealing with them.

Wake up call

Does our neighbour, India permit foreign diplomats to engage themselves without restraint with terrorist groups there such as leaders of the United Liberation Front of Assam or the Dukran-e-Milat outfit in Jammu and Kashmir? It is only when it is reported that the World Bank Director in Colombo has more or less granted the LTTE the same status as the Sri Lankan government that we lotus-eating Sri Lankans woke up and screamed.

To be considered a sovereign state, however small or weak it may be, a state must be defiant and protect its sovereignty even more than the big and powerful. Now, with the government working together with the LTTE through a 'joint mechanism' our friendly foreign nations may see no reason not to walk all over us and be at Kilinochchi permanently.

 Both the government and the opposition must develop stronger spines when dealing with the LTTE. We can talk peace, but when airstrips are built and planes acquired by a terrorist group, something more has to be done than writing screaming headlines that the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is alarmed by the reports. We should have sounded that alarm much earlier ourselves.

But when leaders of Sri Lanka place protection of their political careers over safeguarding the national interests of the country, why bother about the sovereignty of the nation?

India's role in South Asia

The report in the pro LTTE publication Sudar Oli ( reproduced in some English language dailies) about Pakistan offering assistance to combat the threat of the LTTE developing air power, in all probability, is a multi purpose trial balloon floated by the LTTE. The report which said that the offer made during the recent visit of Pakistan's Air Chief Marshal Kaleem Saadat is aimed at to (1) determine whether such an offer was made while inviting a response from both Sri Lankan and Pakistani governments (2) foul up Indo-Sri Lanka relations and (3) involve the United States in the issue because it is said that the offer has the blessings of the US.

India is hypersensitive to activities of foreign powers, especially Pakistan, in South Asia. It is alleged that the Indo-Sri Lanka defence agreement is being held up because India wants the use of Pallaly air base only for its use, excluding all other foreign powers. Thus, the purpose is to pre-empt not only the possible entry of Pakistan but also foul up Sri Lanka's relations with New Delhi.

US-Indian relations

In last Sunday's Foreign Affairs column, we pointed out to India's concern on the entry of foreign powers to this region. We quoted an article in the journal Focus, published in New Delhi, which reflects the Indian government's foreign policy by Prof. Suryanarayan. The article pointed out at the policy of isolation of Sri Lanka (after the withdrawal of the Indian troops from Sri Lanka) by successive Indian governments which resulted in external powers playing a big role in India's southern neighbourhood. The article said: "The increasing American interest, with Japan working in tandem with the United States are not only pointers to greater American involvement but also evidence of India's neglect of the immediate neighbourhood."

Geopolitics has undergone drastic changes since the days of Indira Gandhi. India's ally, at that time, the Soviet Union with which it had a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation - a virtual defence treaty - is no more. The hidden hand - United States - is now clasped very warmly by all Indians.

India that objected in the 1980s even to the establishment of a VOA relay station in Sri Lanka completely somersaulted in its relations with the United States within a decade.

Following 9/11 India saw a big opening in its fight against terrorism. Indian analysts have pointed out that after the attack on the Twin Towers, even before the United States requested for assistance, "India within two days offered all logistical help and even offered staging grounds for operations. The reason was that India considered what she described as cross-border terrorism originating from Afghanistan and coming through Pakistan. Thus when the US declared war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was seen as the best that could happen to India which was plagued by terrorism in Kashmir which it considered as originating from Afghanistan. However, India miscalculated on the developments consequent to 9/11 on US-Pak relations.

Prof. V. P. Dutt, former MP and expert on international affairs in an article says: 'India forgot the geopolitics of the region... It was not India but Pakistan that the US needed to operate against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan... On the one hand USA continued to assure India that Washington was opposed to all forms of terrorism including Kashmir and kept pressing Pakistan to lower the terrorist camping but only up to a point. ...India was slow to realise that America could not abandon Pakistan under the present circumstances and in the foreseeable future. In the process India became heavily dependent on the United States in its war on terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere in India. The erosion in foreign policy can be traced to these developments.'

It is not only the war against terrorism that has brought India and the US close together but trade and economic links bind them even closer. When the US threatened sanctions against India following the explosion of nuclear bombs, Indian analysts laughed off the threats pointing out that the US software industry alone was heavily dependent on Indians who were exporting big time from Bangalore.

Big power

India wants big power status in the world. It wants a seat in the expanded Security Council of the UN. For that it has to have American support. Its economy is expanding. Its exports today are over the US$ 40 billion mark and two way trades with international trading regimes is over US$ 90 billion. It is claimed that the people living below the poverty line in India had dropped from 40 per cent to 26 per cent in the period 1980 - 2000. Some Indian analysts also see India as the regional power in South Asia playing a dominant role in patrolling and securing the sea lanes across the Indian Ocean, which was visualised by the Indian military strategist K. M. Pannikar at the dawn of Indian independence. India now makes no bones of wanting big power status and to be the regional power in South Asia.

But economies of other nations too are expanding and is led by China with whom India has to compete with. China wants to be a South Asian power as well and wants to expand its interests in South Asia.

A Chinese professor in international Affairs, Sun Xun at the PLA University of Foreign Languages in a paper presented to the Regional Centre of Strategic Studies points out that in the context of the great changes in global politics since the Cold War, new alignments and realignments are taking place in the Asia Pacific region including South Asia. China perceives Asia as its natural cultural domain and is taking strategic steps to enhance its role as a big power. China is not happy in the emerging unipolar world order with the US as the remaining superpower. China's geographical proximity and its vast size and enormous resources have made it a prominent factor in South Asia as in the old days. He points out that the South Asian strategic configuration has not yet been finalised and the realignment of forces are still going on. The old differences are still not removed and new conditions are still emerging. This will have unpredictable effects on China, he concludes.

Indian realigning

Indeed new realignments are taking place in South Asia and there appears to be still some old differences remaining. This is perhaps evident in India's concern about the presence of foreign powers on its southern borders - Sri Lanka. However, despite the close political and economic links that are being forged between India, America and other developed nations who are involved in the Sri Lankan peace process, India still appears to be concerned about their presence and role here even though these Western powers have been at pains to keep India informed of whatever developments that are supposed to be taking place.

This situation has been the result of Sri Lanka's folly for internationalising an internal issue that should have been resolved by ourselves. Now, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar wants India to play the key role but Norway that came in as a facilitator for getting peace talks going is now the peace monitor and peace broker as well. Where do we go from here?

Where has all the money gone?

Rs. 750 million received so far says Treasury Secretary P.B. Jayasundera. US $ 250 million worth of tsunami related funds and equipment says the Japanese Embassy in Sri Lanka. US $ 15 million as first tranche of US $ 150 million in total, asserts the World Bank. But according to the Head of the Republic and First Citizen, the government coffers are still like Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard. In yet another statement that had the country reeling (and this is fast becoming a weekly occurrence), President Chandrika Kumaratunga managed in one fell swoop to severely embarrass Treasury officials and have the donor community most interested to find out what the devil is happening to money that's pouring into the country.

"According to initial assessments, Sri Lanka needs Rs. 16 billion to rebuild infrastructure alone after the tsunami. Even though various organisations and countries have pledged to give us this money, none of it has been received yet. Some people say that the government has received huge amounts of money which it is hiding from the people. But I would like to say with responsibility that up to date the government hasn't received even five cents of the money pledged."

- President Chandrika Kumaratunga speaking at a foundation stone laying ceremony of a model town in Yayawatte, Tangalle on Tuesday, March 15.

Perhaps the Chief Justice is right after all. Brake oil maybe in order to rein in the Presidential tongue.