Sri Lanka - Ukraine, plus or minus UNHRC?

(MENAFN- Colombo Gazette)

By N Sathiya Moorthy

The double-quick meeting that Core Group envoys in Colombo had with Foreign Minister G L Peiris so soon after the 47th session of the UNHRC may be indicative of the predicament that both would be facing at the next session in September, where there will be a vote on Sri Lanka. The Core Group, where the 'outsider' US influence is predictable though the latter is formally to take over the leadership from the trans-Atlantic British ally after President Biden re-signed into the UNHRC, seems wanting a honourable way out.

In a way, for that to happen, they seem wanting some initiatives on which they would 'feel' convinced on Sri Lanka's human rights front, as under the predecessor regime, but not with the ruling Rajapkasas as yet. That would mean that the government would have to come up with some way out to address a part of the UNHRC concerns even partially, whatever it means to the Tamils back home.

Yet, for the Core Group UK leader to issue a travel advisory against the nation, and pegging it also on possibilities of terror-attacks is mischievous, unwarranted and irresponsible. At a time when nations are supposedly working together to end terrorism, if White Hall really had inputs as neighbouring India had passed on ahead of the Easter serial blasts in 2019, London should have shared it with Colombo, and not issue travel advisories that do not seem to have a basis.

In comparison, Canada, another active member of the Core Group, which again has Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora citizenry, hence voters, forming a critical electoral constituency in places, has based its travel advisory on real-life issues like the continuing economic crisis and forex issue. The latter is fair game compared to the former though even here the question arises if the Canadian advisory too owes more to domestic politics than domestic concerns for the post-Covid Canadian traveller.

Unrealistic expectations

Possibly, Sri Lanka has moved away from China, rather over-dependence on Beijing, when it re-embraced India for economic aid and also approached IMF, though after a lot of heated debate, which is not going to end any soon. It does not mean Colombo is going to dump Beijing. In economic and political terms, no government in Sri Lanka can do that without enough aid to repay all of China's debts, and adequate reassurance that Colombo would not require Beijing's veto-vote in the UNSC, or its diplomatic backing at the UNHRC and other international fora, if and when the nation is dragged there.

The same applies to Russia, which too has bee a trusted friend at the UN, and where like China, it too does not mix politics with human rights – or, use the latter as a ruse to stalemate, if not check-mate, non-abiding nations. Just now, the West, which constitutes the core of the UNHRC Core Group also wants Sri Lanka to condemn Russia on the Ukraine War. It is not going to be easy for Colombo, but then, Sri Lankans should feel happy that the West has suddenly feels the importance of their nation, whatever be the circumstances, whatever the motive.

Clearly, someone somewhere seems wanting to link Sri Lanka's position on Ukraine war to extraneous issues like UNHRC vote and IMF assistance. Or, that is what it looks like, and would remain so until greater clarity emerges. At the end of the day, IMF assistance, if not conditionalities, are as much political as they are economic, if not more of the former. It is obvious that an official team from the US, headed by U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, with focus more on these issues than possibly even on American investments in the country.

Symbolic backing

Definitely, circumstances beyond its own initiatives possibly have helped the government generate a certain goodwill in western governments. Rather, they are only test-flight on how Colombo would behave on issues of western interests whatever be the impact otherwise on the nation, per se. For instance, would and should Colombo endorse the western initiatives against Russia if it were going to harm the nation's interests even more?

Clearly, having pulled the sanctions-trigger against Russia as if Moscow were an Iran or Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea, the US-led West seems wanting to show up numbers beyond the western hemisphere. It's akin to the US first involved NATO in its 'global war on terrorism' post-9/11, and then signed up one small country after another, to a make-belief global consensus.

This time round, they seem wanting it on the political, diplomatic fronts, as if nations like Sri Lanka, far removed from the European theatre of war, would be making a direct contribution to shaking Russia and President Putin – when those bigger powers could not do it by themselves. But they want it all the same, indicating that something was rotten in their planning from the very start.

As if reacting positively, even if in a symbolic way, reports indicate that government has decided to do away with fertiliser imports from Russia and Belarus. It is unclear if the decision also owes to the government's current fascination for switching over from chemical to organic fertiliser. However, the decision would be tougher if Colombo were to ban other imports and exports, too. The nation may ill-afford export-ban in particular in these times of economic hardships, especially when read with Moscow's continuing political ban.

It looks as if the US imposed sanctions believing that Putin would not have thought it all out before firing the first missile at Ukraine. Western Europe followed, not because they respected or feared the US – but because they feared Russia and Putin. Yet, the clarity with which they all have kept NATO out of the war, that too when Ukraine's entry was the core issue, shows that they do not have stomach for an European War after 70 years of 'cold peace' after the Second World War.

One cannot argue that they are not fighting NATO's war for Ukraine because Ukraine was not yet a member of NATO – and also does not want to become one, as recent reports have shown – does not wash. Afghanistan was not a NATO member, nor was the 9/11 attacks an Afghan war on NATO. It was a resourceful terrorist outfit that took the world's mightiest of nations would not have been justification enough for NATO intervention.

Incidentally, only weeks earlier, on 24 July 2001, the LTTE had crippled Sri Lankan economy – as only the forex crisis has done now, and more – by targeting the Katunayake Airport. Of course, that was nothing compared to 9/11, where Osama bin-Laden had the cunning and audacity to cause a first-crash on the 'Twin Towers', which alone was an invitation for the global media to witness and record what followed. That they all had the grace and circumspection not to telecast what they saw and recorded went a long way in mitigating the all-American embarrassment of all times!

(The writer is Distinguished Fellow and Head-Chennai Initiative, Observer Research Foundation, the multi-disciplinary Indian public-policy think-tank, headquartered in New Delhi. email: )

MENAFN20032022000190011042ID1103879485