Chinese Premier Li Keqiang seen here with Indian Premier Manmohan Singh.
 Picture Courtesy: dnaindia.com

The first foreign visit of the new Chinese Premier Li Keqiang to India was projected as being symbolic of the importance China placed on improving relations with its Asian neighbour but no immediate significant changes were apparent although the rhetoric indicated great potential. The agreement to step up bilateral trade now amounting to US$ 65 billion to US$ 100 billion by 2015 was one concrete achievement. The balance of trade is now much in favour of China and it has been agreed that this imbalance would be addressed. But differences between the two Asian behemoths remained unresolved.

Contentious issues

The border incursion of Chinese troops 19km across the Line of Actual Control (LAC) as alleged by New Delhi and an Indian camp set up in consequence within a stone’s throw of the Chinese Camp, generated much heat in New Delhi last month but the issue cooled down with the immediate visit of Indian Foreign Minister Kurshid Ahmed to Beijing followed by Li Keqiang visit.
The joint communiqué issued after the visit said that among other decisions, ‘special representatives will meet soon seeking early settlement agreement for a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable boundary settlement’. Talks for a settlement of the disputed 4000km boundary talks had been held since the two countries went to war in 1962 without much success and it can only be hoped that this time they will be lucky.
Contentious issues were kept out, perhaps diplomatically. The mention of the ‘One China Policy’ —Taiwan, Tibet, and Xingjian which all have shown separatist tendencies—being a part of China was not in the communiqué issued last week.
The mention of the ‘One China Policy’ was also avoided when the former Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao visited India the last time, commentators noted. The reason being Kashmir— New Delhi alleging that Chinese are involved in development projects in disputed Kashmir (Azad Kashmir controlled by Pakistan) and Tibet: the exiled Tibetan leader Dalai Lama being given exile in India since 1962 when he crossed over with his followers following the entry of Chinese troops into Tibet.
China claims Tibet is historically a part of China.
Not much has been revealed in the discussions on another contentious issue which India is deeply concerned; the proposed construction of three dams across the Brahmaputra River by China which would affect the flow of the river to India. The joint communiqué states: ‘Two sides will further strengthen cooperation on trans-border Rivers’.

Indo-China Bhai-Bhai

Indian commentators have noted that despite the Chinese euphoria on the visit and the India- China Bhai-Bhai, China’s close and strong relations with Pakistan will remain unaffected.A Chinese academic Prof. Hu Shisheng, Director of the South Asian and South East Asian Studies at China’s Institute of Contemporary Studies has been quoted: The next decade will be crucial for China- Indian relations with the new dispensation trying to strike a new strategic balance with New Delhi. The new type of power relations between China and India will be to live with differences, seek common developments reduce differences in bilateral relations.
China follows parallel diplomacy in dealing with India and Pakistan and developing Sino- Indian relations will not be at the cost of Sino-Pakistan relations and vice-versa.
A significant feature in talks of Li Keqiang with Indian leaders was that both countries stressed on bilateral issues being treated on a global perspective.  The Chinese leader as well as the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh spoke as global leaders and even went to the extent to declare that the ‘world was big enough for both countries’.

Global Power

India’s claim for a global reach however will be viewed in the perspective of its relations with the United States. Most commentators view the close relations between the United States and India; promoted by the United State, is with a view of containing China.  The strategy of containment is India together with Japan, Australia, Singapore, Philippines and other South East Asian countries while America under its new declared policy is making a strategic thrust into the Pacific region which also includes part of the Indian Ocean region.
Whether the new Indo-China declarations would be compatible with India visions of its new role as a provider of Security of the Indian Ocean is to be seen.  On Thursday Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaking at a ceremony for the laying of a foundation stone for Indian National Defence University declared Indias intentions of being ‘net provider of security in the Indian Ocean’.
‘India faces the entire spectrum of security challenges. This is inevitable as we live in a difficult neighbourhood which holds the full range of conventional, strategic and non- traditional challenges, he has said.
With the United States further expanding its presence in the Indian Ocean, the latest being a new naval base in the Maldives and the Chinese laying down its ‘String of Pearls’ strategy in the region including Sri Lanka too, whether there would be room for India to come in is to be seen.  There may not be enough space for India and China in the world as claimed by Indian and Chinese leaders in New Delhi last week.

By Gamini Weerakoon

Nawaz Sharif, the stocky 63-year-old businessman, performed the impossible last week by being elected for the third time a prime minister in a country where the political terrain is considered the roughest and most precarious in the entire world.

He has withstood allegations of corruption amounting to billions of dollars and rupees, gone through long periods of unpopularity, being thrown out of power and imprisoned with the threat of execution hanging over him and then flown out to Saudi Arabia to live as an exile but in a palace. With fluctuation of his political fortunes, he returned to lead his party, Pakistan Muslim League (N), to victory at the National Assembly elections last week. Although he does not have a clear majority in parliament, political commentators agree that he could secure that majority with the co-operation of independent candidates.

Such vicissitudes of political fortunes are quite common in Pakistan when considering the fate of some other leaders such as: the hanging of Prime Minister Zulficar Ali Bhutto; assassination of Zia-ul-Haq in a mid air explosion; assassination of Benazir Bhutto and booting out elected leaders by the army such as Benazir Bhutto (twice), Nawaz Sharif himself (twice) and Pervez Musharraf resigning from presidency following a threat of impeachment by opposition parties.

Zardari’s PPP- a lame duck

The ruling party the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) was a lame duck with the crumbling economy and widespread terrorism — an estimated 45,000 Pakistanis being killed by terrorism and the blatant bombing of villages in the North West Frontier by American Drone planes, despite widespread protests by Pakistanis.

The caretaker leader of the PPP, Asif Zadari who was elected president following the assassination of his wife Benazir, could not participate in the election campaign while holding office as president and the designated leader of the party, his son, young Bhilal Bhutto, a student in Britain kept away from the campaign. Commentators attributed his absence to a possible assassination attempt on him by the Taleban.

The leaderless PPP which had in the National State Assembly fared disastrously dropping from the 95 seats held to 31 by Tuesday and could even be the third ranking party in the House with Imran Khan’s party Tehreek-e-Insaf–PTI) coming second.

Imran Khan

The debonair former Pakistan cricket captain Imran Khan with his call for a ‘New Pakistan’ and an end to rampant corruption among politicians struck a tremendous chord of response among the people and was even tipped to be a front runner following the massive crowds he attracted to his election rallies.

Khan had been trying to break ground in Pakistan politics, virtually on his own, and made very little headway in his earlier attempts having failed to win even a single seat in the last National Assembly.

Dubbed by his critics as the ‘cricketing ‘Don Juan,’ he attracted the attention of young Pakistanis both at home and abroad. Imran declared that 80 per cent of Pakistani politicians were corrupt and that “he was not sure about the other 20 percent”.
When the results came in as the injured Khan lay in bed with fractured spine it became apparent that he had failed to reach a greater part of the electorate even though he had stirred up the youth in urban centres and abroad.

A segment of the urban middle class too backed him, commentators noted. Strangely, it was in the remote north western region that he scored heavily and is likely to lead a provincial administration in the region known as the Pakhtunkhwa situated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, populated by warrior like people the Pashtuns.

Imran came out well by strongly opposing the aerial bombing of the region by unmanned Drone planes, which resulted in heavy and indiscriminate civilian casualties.

The Americans found out Drones to be the best way to attack terrorist leaders of the Talebane rather than pursuing them on foot in this rugged terrain.It has been noted that Khan cannot speak a word of Pashtun but had communicated with these people. The people understand the language of the killer Drones, a Pakistani commentator has noted.

Challenges

Nawaz Sharif faces tremendous challenges as the president and is waving the olive branch at his former enemies and new rivals. He has invited Imran Khan ‘to play a cricket match’ and make up. Latest reports say that Khan has agreed to co-operate with Sharif in combating terrorism.

But a closer alliance will not go well with the image of Mr. Clean, Khan has built up.

Sharif will have to work out new deals the forces with whom he locked horns when in power that led to his downfall.
It was the army under the command of Pervez Musharraf that threw him out of power in a military coup. Musharraf after living in voluntary exile in London came back to contest the elections.

But the judiciary which opposed him and forced his resignation had ruled that he is ineligible to contest the election having thrown out the constitution when he seized power.

Musharraf is now said to be living under house arrest in Islamabad. The army may not back their former commander, but attempts to jail and humiliate him will not be to its liking.

The Taleban which is wreaking havoc in the country is Sharif’s other serious challenge.

The main expectations of those who voted for him will be the resurrection of the economy, which he has vowed to do. Sharif has many accomplishments as former president. The highway built from Lahore and Islamabad is one. He has now proposed a ‘bullet train’ to run across the country from Peshawar to Karachi.

Pakistanis will remember him for leading the country to the status of a nuclear power when under his leadership Pakistan exploded five Nuclear Tests bombs to India’s three. The most pressing problem however is more mundane: elimination of long power cuts which the country has to suffer each day.

The two year Syrian conflict which is estimated to have cost 70,000 lives so far, displaced tens of thousands of Syrians internally and sent thousands across its borders to neighbouring countries as refugees, threatened to engulf the Middle East into a regional conflict last week with Israel, Iran and the Hezbollah that represents Lebanese Shiite interests coming in.

American Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed in Moscow on Wednesday to hold a conference on Syria at the end of this month hoping that the Assad regime and Syrian rebels would agree to channel the conflict into diplomatic lines. But this proposal appears to be the wishful thinking of the outside powers, however powerful they may be.

Dithering Obama

The Israeli war planes bombing sites in Syria near its capital Damascus caused grave concern to Russia as well, Russia from the days of the Soviet Union having a near half century old tie with the ruling Assad family of Syria. The Israeli bombing also resulted in an uproar in Iran, Syria’s only ally in the Middle East which accused Israel of gross internal interference in Syrian affairs.

In the United States, President Barack Obama was feeling the heat with him being accused of ‘dithering’ and not re-asserting American leadership in the Middle East as a superpower. An American commentator last week accused him of being placed in a ‘geopolitical box, credibility at stake and with frustratingly few good options’.

Obama’s strategy has so far been not to ‘put American boots on foreign soil’ – save in Afghanistan where he had no option because his predecessor George W Bush had already invaded the country when Obama became president. Even in the intervention in Libya, he ‘led from the front’ getting NATO force to carry out the aerial attacks. In Syria he has made a show of non involvement, and is still not supplying arms to the rebel forces but Syria and Iran are alleging that there is a covert supply of arms as well as of military training given by the CIA.

The American president has been drawing much flak from Republicans such as Senator McCain who said that Obama’s warning to Iran about a ‘red line being drawn on use of chemical weapons’ being ‘written in invisible ink’.

Al Nusra

America’s reluctance to help the Syrian rebels against Bashar al Assad – no great friend of theirs – is the involvement of Jihadist, Jabhat-al-Nusra turning out to be the most aggressive and successful organisation of the Syrian rebel forces. It is linked to the Al Qaeda. USA and Britain are reluctant to supply lethal weapons to the rebels because of their fear of the arms going into the hands of the Al-Nusra. It is widely believed that the Al-Nusra is linked to the al Qaeda in Iraq, an allegation denied by the Syrian Al-Nusra leadership. The Al-Nusra has within its ranks trained Jihadist fighters from many theatres of Jihadist conflicts and has been very effective against the Assad forces being responsible for 57 of the 69 attacks carried out. The leader of the Free Syrian Forces (FSA) has appealed to America to remove Al-Nusra from the American list of Foreign Terrorist organisations but to no avail. Some American analysts have predicted that in the event of Assad’s fall, he will be replaced not by any forces in the FSA but the al Nusra who make no bones about the regime they want to set up — an Islamic state under Shariah law.

Change of US policy

On the other hand American’s are under pressure as John Kerry was at Rome with a meeting of Syrian rebels in Rome last week. The rebel forces are asking for a shift in the passive policy of the US and its Western allies. The Syrian Opposition forces are frustrated with the slow and tardy response and have asked for anti- tank weapons and anti- aircraft weapons systems to fight government forces that are mowing them down from the air and on land. The Assad forces are being resisted by the FSA at great cost to rebel forces and civilians.

Perhaps hamstrung by the fear of supplies of armaments falling into hands of the Al-Nusra; President Obama is pushing for a diplomatic settlement — an end to violence, the creation of a transitional government which would include the rebel groups and members of Assad’s government.

Russia and China too have been pushing hard for a diplomatic solution and the American push appears to have pleased them. Reports from Moscow noted that the Russians reacted to John Kerry much warmer than to his predecessor, the tough talking Hillary Clinton.
Can mediation of the big powers bring about peace among the two warring camps who want their leaders out? Bashar al Assad will never give up power nor will rebel forces that have made tremendous sacrifices want him.

The Chinese Army has set up a camp on April 15 in the disputed Indo-China border in the Himalayan Ladakh region which was soon followed up by the Indian army setting up its own camp just 500 meters (1600 feet away) to challenge the Chinese presence.
We describe it as a ‘Cold War’ because Sino-Indian tempers have remained cool even though border disputes cause extremely volatile situations ending up in wars like the Indo-China war of 1962.
So far this border dispute has not flared up into a major issue despite the Indian Ministry of External Affairs having asked the Chinese government to withdraw from the disputed territory. The Chinese government has denied it is violating Indian Territory and said that they are in occupation of its own territory. There are many disputed areas in the long Indo-Chinese border and several border talks have been held but without much success.

Line of Control

The dispute stems from the fact that the Indo-China border has not been clearly defined even after the 1962 war between the two countries and a so called de facto border has been given the nod by both countries but both have consistently accused each other of border violations without permitting armed clashes on the border or diplomatic flare ups.
Indian external Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid is scheduled to visit Beijing on May 9 and the new Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang is expected to visit India later on this month. Reports from New Delhi say that the border dispute has not put the visits in jeopardy.
With two new Chinese leaders President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang taking office only a few weeks ago, there is much speculation about the motivations and/or compulsions that made China to make this move. The disputed Ladakh area where the Chinese have set up their camp as well as the Aksai Chin region over which the two Asian countries warred in 1962, is a vast area strategically placed in the Himalayas between China, India, Kashmir, Pakistan and bordering Afghanistan.
Reports from New Delhi say that the Chinese camp is located in the Daulat Beg Oldi Sector in the Ladakh region it is said to be near the Karakoram Highway linking China to Pakistan.

New Chinese policy?

President Xi Jinping is reported to have told Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when they met in Durban last month that ensuring peace and tranquillity on the Indo-China border would be one of the three pillars of China’s foreign policy towards India.
But establishing a camp at a point which is described by some Indian commentators as ‘the deepest of incursions into Indian Territory’ the new Chinese leaders would have known, is not the best way of kicking off relations with India.
The hawks in the Indian media are furious at what they call the ‘timorous response’ of the Indian government to the ‘incursion’. The External Affairs Minister Khurshid has described the pitching of the Chinese Camp as ‘Mere acne on a beautiful face that can be removed with some ointment’. The hawks in the media are calling for more ‘muscular action’ without going into an ‘unwinnable war’.
The minister has rejected ‘doomsday predictions’ as being absurd for both countries pointing out to the years of hard work and investments that had gone into building up relations with China.

The importance of this relationship has been pointed out by Prime Minister Singh himself when he visited Beijing in 2011. He had said that ‘Indo-China relations had transcended bi-lateral dimensions to acquire global strength of significance’.
Apart from the demographic strengths of the two countries’ 36.7 per cent of the global population their economic growths have been phenomenal. In 2010, China’s economy grew by 10.5 per cent while India’s was 9.7 per cent while in the rest of the world the growth was only 4 per cent. The two-way trade between the two countries exceeds US$65 billion while China is India’s largest trading partner.

Irritants

All this rules out any form of belligerence between the two countries. No doubt here are irritants such as on the issue of Tibet where India has given residence to Tibetans including the Dalai Lama himself. There is India’s close relationship with the United States and how this works out as the US pushes into the Asia Pacific region to thwart the Chinese thrust will not work out in favour of the Sino-Indian relations.But it will be in the mutual interests of China and India to maintain good relations with each other.

The recent obsession of America with Sri Lanka, a little island far removed from its shores which has little interests to America either economically or geopolitically, is baffling, to say the least.

Even during the terrorist war when America imposed an arms embargo on Lanka, cordial relations existed between the two countries with an Israeli Interests Section established in the US embassy helping Sri Lanka to procure arms and a fair amount of foreign assistance coming in. The about-turn in US-Sri Lanka relations came about with the advent of Mahinda Rajapaksa as the president.

About-turn

‘After the landing of Indian troops in Lanka in 1987 Sri Lanka admitted the primacy of India’

At the time Rajapaksa emerged, the peace process was on with four Co-Chairs – US, Netherland, EU and Japan – presiding over the process. Rajapaksa instead decided on direct negotiations with the LTTE which flopped at the very first attempt. One correct decision he made – and the only correct decision – was to go for a military solution instead of a political settlement. [This writer pats himself on his back because throughout the 30-year conflict we in our comments on foreign affairs maintained that Velupillai Prabakaran did not want any kind of political solution but an outright grant of a separate independent Tamil state and we too rejected the punditry that ‘the war was unwinnable’.]

Even towards the end of the terrorist war it was known that the US was assisting Sri Lanka with information on LTTE moves. Earlier the US commenced the beginning of the end of the LTTE by proscribing it as a terrorist organization and placing the LTTE on the list of international terrorist organizations. Other western nations followed suit.

That India was the fons et origo of Sri Lankan terrorism is too well known. By the time of Rajapaksa becoming president, the Cold War was long over and the United States and India were drawing closer, the Soviet Union, India’s ally having disappeared. The Indian Middle Class that had emerged was quite an attractive market for western nations looking out for markets. And America tacitly granted India the status of the regional power of South Asia and later on as a nuclear power.

Regional Power

After the landing of Indian troops in Lanka in 1987 Sri Lanka admitted the primacy of India and we commenced kowtowing in New Delhi. This went on through successive political regimes here and even towards the end of the LTTE conflict. But after the ‘war’ was won the Rajapaksa regime ceased its obeisance’s towards New Delhi. That in our analysis was also the commencement of US – Lanka vituperation.

America had no hesitation in regarding India as the regional power in South Asia. It will be recalled that during the so called peace process, even though India declined to be a Co-Chair to the peace process, American, Netherlands, EU and Japan’s representatives after visiting Colombo invariably dropped in at New Delhi for ‘consultations’. It was apparent that all these key players acknowledged that whatever the settlement reached the New Delhi Raj could not be displeased.

The Rajapaksa regime on defeating the LTTE kicked away what was called the corner stone of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy – friendship with India. Their focus was more on the Sinhala electorate on which they had to depend to remain in power. Thus while still promising visiting New Delhi political potentates and South Block panjandrums to implement the 13th Amendment which India took great pains to insert into the Sri Lankan statute book, our leaders made public statements that the 13th Amendment would be dropped. Now the long delayed Northern Province Council elections appear to be on the cards but whether it will be held is in doubt. A TNA victory in the Northern Province Council election is a bygone conclusion and so is the demand they would make towards establishing a separate state. This situation is compounded by the violent anti Sinhala protests in Tamil Nadu with more than 65 million Tamils just a few miles across the Palk Strait, it is claimed.

India the proclaimed regional power in South Asia and now an accepted nuclear power naturally feels slighted by its Southern Liliputians. It does not have to interfere directly. All it does is to tell its buddies in Washington to put the screws on the Sri Lankan upstarts, which Washington is doing often and quite well. Hence the expressions of concerns by US State Department spokespersons on matters not of much concern such as attacks on media organizations or the shenanigans of the Lankan legal profession.

Of course Rajapaksa has a penchant of kicking into his own goal such as letting the Chinese to construct a harbour and airport two to three miles away from the main sea route from the Middle East to the far East and giving virtually a free run to the Chinese in the island which India considers as its backyard. America’s concern on Chinese intrusions need hardly be stressed.

Sri Lanka’s Brahma, the Creator and Destroyer of everything is in New Delhi and America does what the Brahma says.
This is indeed a far cry from the days when the late Professor Shelton Kodikara visited the US State Department [in the early eighties] and was told: ‘Sri Lanka does not appear on our radar screen’.

Terrorist attacks bring about varied reactions of people, even those far removed from the scene.

The Boston Marathon Bomb blast resulted in different reactions among varied categories of people, even in Sri Lanka.

A scene of the Boston bomb blast – World Affairs Photo

There was a smug look on the eternal anti-American baiters: Muslims aggrieved by American intrusions into Muslim countries; traditional Marxists opposed to capitalist America; pro government Sinhalese infuriated with American interference in Sri Lankan Affairs and the apolitical types who saw the Boston tragedy with much sympathy towards the innocent victims
The feeling among the American baiters was that poetic justice had been done. America the Global Policeman had been and is acting as the sole superpower in its own interest not giving much consideration to the interests of other nations and their people .This was the common feeling among anti-American Muslims who condemned the havoc brought about by President George W. Bush’s Global War on Terrorism. The invasion of Iraq and the continuing carnage even after the Americans pulled out of Iraq is a main cause of their ire.

Iraq after US pulls out

Recently a series of car bomb in Iraq caused the deaths of 42 Iraqis and injured 245 of them. In contrast the Boston Bomb killed three persons and injured 71, it was pointed out to us. But Americans had pulled out of Iraq and it was the internecine sectarian struggle that still keeps the blood flowing we said. The invasion was entirely for the wrong reasons — to find non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction — that sparked off the on going mayhem, it was argued.

Despite Bush’s successor having the name of Barack Mohammed Obama, he has not been able to improve the standing of America in Muslim countries. In fact Obama has generated even more hatred. The Black liberal Democrat did not support the invasion of Iraq. The Invasion of Afghanistan was before he took office as president. But Obama the Liberal Democrat is still caught in a bind created by his predecessor.

Liberalism expressed in election platforms melts like butter in the heat of presidential office. His promise to do away with Guantanamo Bay prison cannot be kept even in his second term in office and some prisoners captured in Afghanistan and brought to the prison are still there after 10 years without judicial trial.

Right now some of these prisoners are on hunger strike, protesting the conditions under which they are kept and demanding release much to the embarrassment of America, the world’s standard bearer of human rights.
Prejudice

The 9/11 attacks by the Al Qaeda resulting in the death of around 3,000 Americans in the worst possible way have worsened relations between America and its Western allies with the Muslim world. Any terrorist activity in a Western country is attributed to Muslims even without a trace of evidence. Reports indicate that there is much eagerness for those in the West to suspect a Muslim behind any possible terror attack. Soon after Boston attack the New York Post reported that the prime suspect is a Saudi. A former security adviser of George Bush Tom Townsend interviewed on CNN had remarked: We know one Saudi was wounded.

There is a certain amount of justification for this reflex action on Muslim guilt because many of those who have been apprehended were found with positive evidence on them such as the Yemeni Student who landed in Canada with explosives in his underwear.

Right wing suspects

The other suspects are right wing extremists. When the Murray Oklahoma Federal building was blown up, killing 168 innocent men, women and children immediate suspicions fell on Muslims. But it was done by a much-decorated white American infantryman Timothy McVeigh, who confessed that he had blown the building up by himself in retaliation to action by the FBI, Federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and Tanks of the National Guard being used top attack a Seventh Day Adventist Cult called the Davidians living and praying together in an isolated farm at Waco, Texas. Evidence shows that they had no links to terrorism. Eighty cult members were killed including 27 children. Psychiatrists had pronounced McVeigh to be perfectly sane. He was executed
The Waco incident took place in 1995, but since then and particularly after 9/11 fundamental rights of Americans suspected of terrorism have been drastically curtailed and the process is still going on. Suspension of the Habeas Corpus, torture of prisoners such as by water boarding and cherished rights of the people have been curtailed drastically in the name of terrorism. It has made mockery of the claim that America, the most powerful democracy, is the standard bearer of fundamental rights.

Last week a report commissioned by President Obama on the impact of major anti-terrorist legislative acts was released. It had concluded that in the wake of September 11 attacks, the United States had engaged in torture and that the Nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility.

The report (Constitutional Project) was a non partisan study commissioned by Obama as an alternative to a national commission to investigate September 11 counter terrorism programmes.

By Gamini Weerakoon

The death of Margaret Thatcher last week was observed more or less perfunctorily by Third World countries, but the changes she brought about in Britain and their fall out beyond her country’s shores, brought about irreversible radical changes internationally.

Victoria Dam

Margaret Thatcher and J. R. Jayewardene

In Sri Lanka, she has left her mark with the giant Victoria reservoir constructed with on outright grant of 750 million pounds sterling by the government of Britain.

J.R. Jayewardene, after his sweeping electoral victory in 1977 set about the Accelerated Mahaweli Diversion scheme which would provide power and irrigation to lands by the Mahaweli River as it flowed along into the sea at Trincomalee. Victoria was the second and the biggest dam thrown across the river. All this construction was possible in a matter of few years at minimal cost through assistance of donor countries — Sweden, Britain, Germany and the United States.

JR, who was of the same conservative rightist mold, as Margaret Thatcher went ahead with the Mahaweli project against much criticism and completed it in four years. Construction work was estimated to go on for 30 years under the plans of his predecessor Sirima Bandaranaike.

JR stood by Thatcher against criticism of the entire Third World when Britain took over the disputed Falklands Islands occupied by Argentina. Falkland Islands were far away from Britain in the South Atlantic in proximity to Argentina. Thatcher had been in power only for a short while when the Falklands issue came up and Britain was considered a dwindling power.The Sun had set over the British Empire decades ago and the glory of the empire had faded away. Britain was almost paralysed with trade unions virtually dictating to the government. It was fast receding into the status of an insignificant European power.

Pariah of the Non Aligned

Thatcher’s ability to withstand all pressures both at home and abroad and send the British navy to the Falklands and retake the Falklands occupied by descendants of loyal British settlers when Argentina took it over, raised the standing of Britain once again to a world power.

Sri Lanka was a leading country of the Non Aligned Movement at that having hosted the Non Aligned summit in 1976.But she was the only Non Aligned country that voted for Britain on the Falklands issue and came to be considered the ‘Pariah of the Non Aligned World’.

But JR only chuckled. He had got the Victoria dam free and the British firm Balfour Beatty built it. There were allegations made even in Britain that Dennis Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher’s husband had links to the constructing firm.

But that was not Jayewardene’s concern. He couldn’t care less about those allegations made and stood loyally by Britain.
This writer recalls that at one stage a well meaning scholar bureaucrat proposed that Victoria Dam be named as the Mahawahalkade Dam because it was the place the last King of Kandy was captured by the British. ‘Victoria will stay Victoria’, JR proclaimed firmly and the issue was no more.

Parallels

There are many parallels between the British and Sri Lankan leaders. While Margaret Thatcher withstood all opposition from the powerful trade union and socialist forces so did JR. Thatcher broke the back of the British trade union movement for it never to rise again. So did JR with the powerful trade union, which was directed in taking Sri Lanka towards a socialist economy.

J.R. Jayewardene in no time turned the Sri Lankan economy into a free market economy 10 years before India turned from a ‘Nehruvian Socialist economy’ to a free economy. The economic growth rates of both India and Sri Lanka since then have been phenomenal. J.R. privatized most of the state owned corporation, White Elephants, into private enterprises. So did Thatcher.

Listening to tributes paid to Margaret Thatcher revived our memories for we had forgotten that it was she who set the privatization movement to spread globally. One commentator pointed out it was Thatcher who privatized British Telecom, earlier all telecommunication institutions in the world being government owned and controlled. Today all such institutions are privately owned and managed.

The movement towards a free economy became contagious after Thatcher. India, China, Russia, Vietnam and most countries have followed suit save for North Vietnam and Cuba.

Margaret Thatcher is loved and hated in most countries. Even in Britain TV showed some former miners drinking champagne to her death. So it is with J.R. Jayewardene after his death although his achievements such as establishment of the free economy will stand in his memory.

Even today his creations the free economy and the executive presidency and many more remain unchanged, though reviled.
Margaret Thatcher was called the Iron Lady by a hostile Soviet Union press for her determined and inflexible ways. J. R. Jayewardene, we recall, being called the Man in the Iron Mask by the late lobby columnist and Editor Fred Silva, after JR sat stony faced without flinching an eyelid in parliament as leftist leaders were lambasting him.

These two truly ‘iron’ characters, did what they thought was right irrespective of the consequences. At times they were wrong but were prepared to take the consequences.

Daily reports of the escalation of tension in the divided Korean peninsula have resulted in predictions of: A nuclear apocalypse; A World War III, another Korean War or the highly charged situation defusing itself as it has happened often since the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953.

Young Kim Jong Un who took over the leadership of the Democratic Republic of Korea last year looks more like the British Schoolboy character of the 1950s, Billy Bunter, as he sits behind batteries of telephones, maps behind him showing paths of missile attacks directed at the United States and grim looking generals in khaki with him as he signs away directives that is giving the jitters to world leaders even though they believe that the chances of a military escalation are very remote.

Joint US – S. Korean military exercises

A Korean crisis usually erupts when the annual joint US-South Korean joint military exercises are held and right now the exercises are in progress. America usually has a huge military presence in the South Korean region and brings in additional armaments such as aircraft carriers and the latest of fighter jets not only to show its military might to North Korea but also to China. At times there have been skirmishes between the North and South such as in 2010 when North Korea sank a South Korea vessel a Corvette alleging that it has strayed into the North Korean waters. This was followed by the shelling of two dispute Islands between the two countries. But the usual heated rhetoric between North and South, tensions diffused.

This year Kim Jong Un escalated tensions as never before. He issued a statement threatening to bomb US and South Korean territory; moved its missile to the East coast after the North Korean military had been declared its intentions of attacking the United States. He said that the Yongbyon Nuclear complex would be reactivated to ‘ease electricity shortages and strengthen nuclear capabilities’. The reactor was shut down in 2007 following international talks that had stalled since then. On Wednesday he denied entry to South Korean workers who worked at the jointly operated Kaesong factory located six miles from the South Korean border in northern territory.

US spokes persons have doubted whether the North Korean missiles have the range to reach American territory of Guam and Hawaii in the Pacific and pointed out that it would take more than a year to reactivate the Yongbyon Nuclear complex having dismantled much of it after an international agreement. Nonetheless the US moved its defence Missile systems into Guam to rule out the vague possibility of the offensive missiles reaching their territory.

China

China, North Korea’s only ally and biggest donor of aid has been showing its displeasure over recent North Korean moves. It voted at the UN for sanctions against North Korea for violating UN resolutions. Last week China expressed serious concern at a meeting of ambassadors from America and South Korea. “In the present situation all sides must exercise restraint, remain calm and not take mutually provocative stands which could worsen the situation,” the deputy minister has said.

Russia

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that the situation is not mere bluster with the Pentagon dispatching two B-52 Stealth Bombers on a practice bombing run over the Korean peninsula. With the continuing military exercises there is a real risk of stumbling into a conflict he had noted. Political analysts have been querying the reasons behind the new Korean leader’s aggressive posture. It could be that as successor to his grandfather and father he has to make a departure from the pattern of events that have taken place since 1953. He may want a new agreement with the United States. However the strategies adopted by George W. Bush in1994 and Bill Clinton in 2005 for food, money and political recognition in return for denuclearisation of the nuclear programme and ultimate denuclearisation, won’t work.

Last week the Central Committee of The Workers Party of North Korea in a statement issued has made it clear that, “Nuclear weapons guarantee the ‘Nation’s Life’ and won’t be traded for dollars. It is apparent that nuclear weapons are the only cards that count in the hands of North Korean leaders”.

Perhaps they have learnt lessons from Muammar Gaddafi who dropped his nuclear programme under the influence of some western leaders. Had he possessed even a rudimentary nuclear weapon the Western Powers would have thought twice of forcing him out using military options?

Third World counties that are in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons will not give up their efforts easily. India and Pakistan persisted despite severe sanctions being imposed on them and are now virtually recognized as nuclear powers.
A strategy to make North Korea to come out of their hermit Kingdom, may work but not with them giving up the deadly weapons.

Predicting the strategies and political strategies of China from the days of Mao Zedong even to the present day have proved to be a much difficult task even to seasoned China Watchers and few or none appear to have been able to predict with a fair degree of accuracy the course of contemporary Chinese history. The Sino-Soviet split of the once united Marxist comrades, the inauguration of the Sino-American friendship when American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made a secret journey to Beijing to dawn a new chapter in international relations, the eruption of the Cultural Revolution and the emergence of Deng Ziao Ping as a the new leader of China transforming China from a backward socialist economy into a booming capitalist but still communist country, all defied predictions of the China watchers.

Jinping’s visit

No sensational political outcome is expected from the Chinese president’s Moscow visit last week but, speculation is rife on what the cooperation between these two powerful nations that are the two most significant of countries standing up to America and its allies will do. Attempts by Russia and China to prevent military intervention in Libya failed but right now they are firmly resisting sanctions being imposed on Assad’s regime in Syria and any attempts at military intervention.

Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow is important mainly because it has served to meet to a basic demand of the World’s fastest growing economy: Energy. Hours after his arrival in Moscow, he reached an agreement with Russia’s energy giant Rosneft to triple Russian oil exports to China from the 15 million tonnes last year to 45- 50 million tonnes (at an unspecified date) but likely to be around the 2018, Zachary Keck, reported in the journal, The Diplomat. Rosneft and the China National petroleum Oil Corporation (CNP) also signed agreements to jointly develop off shore blocks of oil in the Barents Sea and off shore deposits in Eastern Siberia.

Another Russian energy giant Gazprom was to finalise a deal to export 38 billion cubic meters of gas to China via Siberia.
China’s giant appetite for oil is evident from the projections made by British Petroleum which has forecast that over half of the ‘global liquid demands’ through 2030 will come from China and that China is already rivalling US in terms of oil imports. British Petroleum expects China and India to account for 94 percent of the net oil demand growth through 2030. By 2030 China will import 75 percent of the oil it consumes.

Land route avoid maritime threats

What appears to be most significant about Jinping’s Moscow visit is that China will not be subject controls of global sea lanes by the United States marine forces. Energy supplies will flow into China overland from Russia.
Analysts, however point out that China will keep its option open for oil supplies by sea as well and hence its rapid build up of naval power for expansion into the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

China’s ties with Russia has been on the make since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Russian Federation in 1991.The long Sino-Soviet border had been demarcated in 1991 and a Treaty of Good Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation signed in 2001. Last week’s visit is expected to open a special relationship between the two countries.
The formation of the Shanghai Cooperation Council has not only resulted in strengthening to Sino-Russian relationship but also strengthening regional cooperation. The Shanghai Cooperation Council Comprises: Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. The formation of a Central Asia Energy Club is on the cards.

China’s thirst for oil matches the dependence of the Russian economy on sale of oil and gas. The demand for Russia gas is on the decline in the West because of the ‘Shale energy revolution’ now on in the United States.

South China Sea

The close relationship between China and Russia may encounter problems with China’s push into the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Already relations between China and Japan have reached flash point over the islands in the South China Sea located between China and Japan. At the joint press conference in Moscow Xi Jinping raised this issue but Vladimir Putin had not taken up the issue.

These Japanese commentators have pointed out that this is in contrast to former president Dmitry Medvedev’s stance on the issue.  Medvedev had declared that China and Russia would support each other in the case if sovereignty and territorial integrity are involved. This implied that Russia would side with China kin the event of the disputed islands. The joint statement at last week’s press conference did not include that statement.

In Japan it has been interpreted that this position was adopted by Russia because of its need for Japanese assistance in the fields of technology for the development of Siberia.

The invigorated cooperation between Russia and China will be of particular importance as the United States makes its push to strengthen its economic and military power in the Asian region. India’s reaction to a China-Russian thrust into the Asian region with its close links to the United States is not known. Its projected trade turn over with China is expected to reach 1 billion dollars in the next few years.

The DMK godfather Muthuvel Karunanidhi has been making consistent protests to the UPA government that the attitude of the Indian government to Sri Lanka was not aggressive enough. Meanwhile competing interests in Tamil Nadu including the rival AIDMK for support of Sri Lankan Tamils against the Sri Lankan government, was building up tremendous pressure in this state with boycotts, closure of shops and schools and demonstrations in addition to the assault of a few visiting Sri L:ankans.
Stronger resolution

Two weeks ago the DMK chief made a demand from the Congress led coalition that a much stronger resolution should be moved against Sri Lanka with amendments moved by the Indian government. It should include the charge of ‘genocide’ against Sri Lanka and a similar resolution should be moved in the Lok Sabha before March 21, the day on which the resolution at the UNHRC sessions was to be moved. He was prepared to withdraw the resignation of his party if these moves were made, the DMK supremo demanded.
By March 19 UPA leaders met with the objective of moving a resolution in the Lok Sabha as demanded. However by March 21 the DMK pulled out of the UPA coalition. DMK leaders were furious that no amendments had been moved by India to the American resolution and argued that in fact the Indian government has further weakened the resolution.

Indian news commentators said that the United States had shot down Indian plans for further amendments saying that it was too late to make changes and that any revision would broaden the consensus reached among countries that were ready to vote against Sri Lanka.

Weak government

The withdrawal of the DMK from the UPA government and having 18 seats in the Lok Sabha and six in the Rajya Sabhahas considerably weakened the government although senior ministers such as P. Chidamparam has maintained that the government is absolutely stable. Kamal Nath, another senior minister has said that the government was neither lame nor a duck. India had drafted a strong resolution and sent it to Sri Lanka, he told a press conference.

With 18 DMK MPs pulling out of the UPA its strength is reduced to 224 seats but will have 281 MPs supporting it. It has been supported from the outside by 22 MPs from the Samajwad Party and 21 members from the Bahujana Samaj Party.
Both parties represent what have been described, as ‘outer Backward Castes’ and its leaders have often been mavericks. The SP is now led by the controversial Mulayalam Singh Yadev and the BSP led by an outstanding but maverick and controversial woman, Mayawathi who has been four times Chief Minister of the populous Uttar Pradesh. Mayawathi is well known for her controversial statue parks of Indian icons including herself built at state expense.

An Indian commentator has pointed out that these two parties will ‘play ball for its own compulsions’.

Early elections

The DMK pull out has resulted in speculation of early general elections being held, the scheduled date being May 2014. It could well be that elections may be advanced to October-December this year. Rahul Gandhi, Akilesh Yadev and Netish Kumar – all party leaders have called upon their youth wings to prepare for elections, India Today reported.

Early elections could result in financial destablilisation although there was no major financial hiccups after the DMK pull out last week.
Finance Minister P. Chidamparam in his budget proposals had made mention of financial consolidation like partial de-regulation of diesel price. It was also speculated that he may have speeded up on spending on certain welfare measures with the eye on general elections scheduled for next year. The proposed legislation on land acquisition and the Food Security Bill may get stalled.
With the Indian economic growth rate having moved down still further from 7 per cent, a fear among speculators is that global rating agencies may down grade the Indian economic performance further.

Indian politics has lost much of its lustre with the same old party veterans dominating the political scene. Only Rahul Gandhi is a notable entry but he is a reluctant leading debutante and has been in the background for some time.
There is some speculation that M. Karunanidhi who commenced this political turmoil might end up in a coalition once again even though he ruled out any such speculation last week. Since 1996 the DMK has been a constituent party in every coalition government, it has been pointed out.