EU statement: Some queries
Posted on June 16th, 2019
Editorial – Courtesy The Island
Time was when the European Union (EU) was known for treading cautiously with measured steps anent sensitive issues. Its responses used to be balanced and buttressed with solid facts and figures. But the EU seems to have departed from tradition if the recent statement issued by the EU mission in Colombo on the Sri Lankan media, among other things, is any indication.
The EU has accused the local media of repeatedly publishing ‘prejudiced and unsubstantiated allegations’. Here is the relevant excerpt: “We are deeply concerned by political and religious pressure being directed at Sri Lanka’s Muslim community which is undermining peace and reconciliation in the country. Prejudiced and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly published by media serve only to fuel intolerance.” (Emphasis added.)
The EU mission is being hauled over the coals, in some quarters, for its swipe at the Sri Lankan media. But we believe its right to express its opinion should be defended. The media is not infallible the world over. The ongoing controversy over a newspaper cartoon, in the US, is a case in point. A New York Times cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a guide dog leading US President Donald Trump has come to be considered anti-Semitic and evocative of Nazi propaganda. Heavy flak it drew has caused NYT to stop publishing political cartoons in its international edition as well. (The reference to Nazi propaganda reminds us of the World War II era, when many Swedish media outfits capitulated to Hitler.)
There are various allegations against the Sri Lankan media. But an organisation like the EU, which pontificates on international best practices, should be specific when it levels allegations instead of tarring all the Sri Lankan media with the same brush. It stands accused of having sought to give a turbo boost to the government’s alleged plans to muzzle the media through the new anti-terror laws which Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is all out to bring in, on the pretext of helping tackle terrorism more effectively. Whether the EU is guilty as charged, one may not know, but the government will definitely use its statement against the media. The proposed anti-terror laws have perturbed even some allies of the government such as the JVP, which has said the Counter Terrorism Bill is far worse than a time bomb. The EU is among those pressuring Sri Lanka to scrap the existing Prevention of Terrorism Act and adopt new anti-terror laws, and, therefore, it is thought to be promoting the government’s Counter Terrorism Bill.
The European human rights gods, as it were, have feet of clay. The issuance of the aforesaid EU statement almost coincided with a massive protest in Switzerland, where tens of thousands of women took to the streets against persistent inequalities affecting them. Equality has been enshrined in the Swiss Constitution, but women continue to be discriminated against. The protesters demanded equal pay. A similar situation is said to prevail in some other western countries as well.
It is puzzling why the EU delegation, at its meetings with government leaders, did not take up the issue of the deplorable polls postponements, which are antithetical to good governance and pose a grave danger to democracy. There have been no elections to eight Provincial Councils which stand dissolved. They are without elected representatives, as a result, and have been placed under Governors in contravention of the UNHRC Resolution (No: 30/1 of 01 October 2015), which ‘encourages the Government to ensure that all Provincial Councils are able to operate effectively, in accordance with the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka’. So much for the EU’s concern for democracy, people’s franchise and devolution!
Meanwhile, we find a section of the EU statement confusing. In the italicised sentence in the above-mentioned excerpt, the subordinate clause introduced by a relative pronoun—‘which is undermining peace and reconciliation in the country’—is seen to describe the antecedent, ‘Muslim community’. A grammarian may accuse the EU of having levelled a very serious allegation against the ‘Muslim community’! Is it a Freudian slip on the part of the EU, some of whose members are prejudiced against Muslims?
June 18th, 2019 at 4:13 pm
Toward Post Terror Stability In Sri Lanka: OpEd
EurasiaReview.com
June 18 (ER) A few weeks ago, a security expert who has studied the so-called Islamic State (IS) rightly said to this author, that “Your country was ‘staged’.” While the IS attempted to take credit for the attacks, they do not appear to have been directed by the group.
Those who perpetrated the attacks seem to have been influenced by the IS, but the precise manner and extent of it is unclear. Nonetheless, the claims of responsibility by the IS have had a significant impact on national morale in Sri Lanka due to their concurrence with geopolitical concerns the country faces. The Easter Sunday attacks worsen the prevailing crisis of national morale connected in significant ways to Sri Lanka’s position in relation to great power rivalry between the US and China.
Geopolitical Context
With the expansion of the geopolitical reach of global liberal hegemony, the Indian Ocean has been a vital highway of the global energy market. The US naval presence in the island of Diego Garcia, located equidistant from several littoral states of the Indian Ocean, has aided US liberal hegemonic foreign policy as a base for small and large missions carried out over the past few decades in the region. Many more future military expeditions may be carried out from this flexible strategic hub, projecting US military power in and beyond the Indian Ocean. However, in February 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that Diego Garcia, which has insofar been administered by the UK, be transferred to Mauritius, signaling the need for the US to consider exploring alternative locations in the Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, located less than 2000 kilometres from Diego Garcia and at the center of Indian Ocean sea lines of communications is Sri Lanka. While Sri Lanka took a non-aligned position in its foreign policy during the Cold War period, today, its foreign policy is multi-aligned, struggling to strike a balance in the context of great power rivalries and internal political disunity. Akin to a tight-rope walker without a pole, any significant measure of stability remains elusive.
Small nations have always owed their independence either to the international balance of power or rejection of imperial aspirations. For Sri Lanka, crucial is its position in the global balance of power between the US and a rising China, increasingly viewed by the US as a national security threat (as evidenced by recent US trade sanctions). Former US Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Robert Blake, highlighted this in his recent interview in Colombo, where he said, “First, my advice to America is that it should not ask the countries to choose between China and the U.S. They do not want to choose. They want to have good relations with the US, China, India and others.” Yet this cannot be achieved with US liberal hegemonic aspirations in the Indian Ocean. In this context, any Sri Lankan foreign security agreement with global powers should be vetted by Sri Lanka’s parliamentary body with inputs from national security researchers, for otherwise Sri Lanka might be unprepared for unanticipated national security implications in the future.
A rigorous process must avoid conjecture and unsubstantiated allegations, instead feeding careful observations and research inputs into the security establishment. The independence of Sri Lanka will be in jeopardy if the US or China take a decisive turn to pull Sri Lanka closer towards their respective orbits, such as in the past when China has sought to gain a decisive and permanent advantage. The recalibration towards achieving a balance by Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe was viewed as a threat by China, as certain policies made the island country vulnerable to US-led liberal hegemony. It is essential, then, for Sri Lanka to stabilise itself on the metaphorical tight-rope, especially given that the US has stated in its most recent National Security Strategy that its number one threat is China and Russia, and number two is the IS.
The Need to Uplift National Morale
National morale is the degree of determination with which a country supports the foreign policies of its government in times of peace or war. According to International Relations theorist Hans Morgenthau, it permeates all activities of a country including its military establishment and diplomatic service.
In 2015, the Sri Lankan government divided its portfolios, leaving the president with national security, and the opposition with external affairs. After the 30/1 UNHRC resolution (on promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in post-war Sri Lanka) and subsequent constitutional crisis, there was deep polarisation within the political establishment which triggered a national security threat which perhaps went unnoticed for some time, but whose instability was felt by the entire country from time to time. More recently, after the Easter Sunday attacks, the president flew to China to meet his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, while his Foreign Minister travelled to the US to meet US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Both left perhaps to bring in assistance from the two polarised camps.
This polarisation in the establishment harms the national morale of Sri Lanka. It threatens and limits the country’s power to carry its agenda forward or stabilise internal politics. In this vulnerable environment, the risk of external threats creeping in to take advantage is extremely real.
Read More:: ER (Source)