China’s contretemps on Sri Lanka’s human rights issues

Col R Hariharan

 

[This article may be read in continuation of the article “China cashing on India’s Sri Lanka woes” uploaded on November 7, 2013]

At the end of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meet (CHOGM) in Colombo on November 17, Sri Lanka President Rajapaksa is probably a happy man having seen through the prestigious event despite global media focus on Sri Lanka’s alleged war crimes issue and its fall out. Whether international community agrees or not, his supporters would claim his stewardship of the CHOGM in Colombo in spite of a strong international campaign against Sri Lanka for alleged war crimes and human rights aberrations as yet another ‘victory’ of their hero.

So it must have come as a mild shock for him when China’s foreign ministry spokesman called upon Sri Lanka to “make efforts to protect and promote human rights” while answering a media question on the issue of Sri Lanka hosting the CHOGM.

The spokesman added that this was an issue within the Commonwealth, “but at the same time I believe that on the human rights issue, dialogue and communication must be enhanced among countries…Due to differences in economic and social development of different countries, there could be differences on human rights protection. So what is important is that the relevant country should make efforts to protect and promote human rights while other countries in the world should provide constructive assistance.”

Though there was nothing spectacular in the statement, they assume significance because China made it at a crucial time when global focus was on Sri Lanka's human rights record. China had always felt “the Sri Lankan government and people were capable of handling their own affairs,” as China's foreign ministry spokesman explained in March 2012 when Sri Lanka was hauled up before the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on concerns over human rights violations. China believed that “dialogue and cooperation” as the fundamental way out for the human rights dispute in Sri Lanka. 

China had been the main supporter of a whole lot of countries like Sudan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka when hauled up in UN forums for their poor rights record. Contempt for international opinion on its human rights aberrations is one thing that China had long shared with Sri Lanka. Both countries have a chip on their shoulders about the Western world's hypocrisy in commenting on human rights record of other countries when they choose to ignore their own gross human rights violations committed during their fight against terrorism and extremism resulting in loss of innocent civilian lives. 

Basically, China is opposed using country-specific human rights resolution to apply pressure on erring nations which had generally been India’s stand. In May 2009 at a special session of the UNHRC, China joined hands with India to ensure the defeat of a resolution sponsored by Germany and 17 other nations asking Sri Lanka to ensure rights to minorities in their resolution. Instead China and India ensured the success of a competing Sri Lankan resolution congratulating it for wiping out a major terrorist threat!     

When the U.S. brought a resolution calling upon Sri Lanka to act upon alleged rights violations for the first time  at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) sessio in March 2012 , China saw it as a move to “impose pressure” on Sri Lanka. Before the resolution came up for voting, China strongly opposed the move claiming that Sri Lanka had made great strides in promoting human rights and national reconciliation process.  Significantly, India changed its stance and voted for the U.S. resolution on this occasion.

It should be noted that China’s strong support of Sri Lanka in 2012 came after Sri Lanka Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa visited Beijing earlier in the month. His meeting with Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie resulted in both countries pledging to deepen their strategic ties. The Chinese minister stressed that China would continue to support “Sri Lanka’s efforts in safeguarding state independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity,” which became a constant refrain since then.

Though China is agreeable to absorbing “rational human rights ideas from other countries” it does not accept the Western human rights ideas upholding that people were born equal as it feels people are not born equal and need to brought up to become so. Based on its own experience, China maintains human rights not only involve political rights but also economic and social rights.

At the same time, China wants be seen increasingly as a responsible global power and not merely as an economic and military giant. So in the past, whenever there is strong international pressure on critical issues, China has not hesitated to dilute its stand. For instance when there was world wide acclaim for Aung San Suu Kyi-led National League for Democracy’s landslide victory in Myanmar elections in 1990, China was the first country to send its ambassador to congratulate the NLD, though it never supported the movement for democracy. In keeping with international trends, China supported Myanmar’s 2008 “democratic” constitution and the 2010 multiparty elections despite its earlier stand of not interfering in internal affairs of the country. 

China’s national interest and peace and tranquillity in its neighbourhood seem to dictate its international conduct, rather than the strength of its foreign relations with smaller countries. Keeping such Chinese contretemps in mind, Sri Lanka must be worried about China’s unexpected statement on Sri Lanka’s human rights and wonder whether is having second thoughts on its unflinching support to Sri Lanka on the human rights question. And that may queer the pitch of Sri Lanka’s stand in the face of increasing international pressure on human rights issues.

As China is now a member of the UNHRC, its support will be crucial to Sri Lanka when it faces the U.S. sponsored resolution for the third time on its accountability over human rights aberrations at the UNHRC session in March 2014. So it is not surprising that Sri Lanka is already talking in terms of seeking China’s support, among others, when the U.S. resolution is tabled. Sri Lanka foreign office spokesman said, “We want all countries to support us including China who have maintained strong ties with us.” It is significant that China came in for special mention, while India was ignored perhaps as a hopeless case. Sri Lanka will be on tenterhooks to see how China handles the issue as a “responsible” member of the UNHRC when the U.S. resolution comes up in March 2014.

(Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, served with the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka as Head of Intelligence. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the South Asia Analysis Group. E-Mail: colhari@yahoo.com   Blog: www.colhariharan.org) 

Courtesy:

1.       South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 5607 dated November 21, 2013    http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1410

2.      Chennai Centre for China Studies C3S Paper No.2039 dated November 21, 2013 http://www.c3sindia.org/srilanka/3795

Perspectives on NSA’s global snooping

Col R Hariharan

[This is article contains points made by the author in two TV interviews on November 5, 2013  about  Edward Snowden’s disclosures on the NSA's worldwide clandestine surveillance of millions of telephone conversations.]

The astounding disclosures of whistleblower Edward Snowden about the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)’s massive data mining effort to access millions of communications of even friendly nations have sent shock waves across the world. It has exposed the vulnerabilities of increasingly net-worked electronic communication despite great progress in securing them against snooping.

Surveillance of electronic communication and wire tapping have a long and controversial history in the U.S.. After the 9/11 Al Qaeda attacks exposed serious gaps in the U.S. intelligence gathering efforts, the NSA launched PRISM - a massive electronic surveillance data mining programme in 2007. Its ostensible purpose was to trawl terror networks across the globe for information. However, the programme seems to have widened its scope well beyond its original purpose to eavesdrop on millions of communications of all kind everywhere, probably with official sanction.

At the start, the PRISM programme was being conducted within the ambit of the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA). The PAA removed the requirement of a warrant to conduct government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States mandated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Its authorisation of massive information gathering of public and private networks with an internal oversight procedure became controversial.

Though subsequently the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FISAAA) replaced PAA, the new act incorporated many provisions of PAA. After a lot of criticism, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review now provides the NSA a thin veneer of legality to conduct PRISM’s dubious snooping operations including wire tapping.

Strong anti-U.S. sentiments were triggered when The Guardian newspaper published the Snowden disclosures about the NSA's clandestine tapping of telephone conversations of leaders and heads of states of friendly powers like Brazil, France, Germany and India.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazil’s President Dilma Roussef took strong exception to the NSA’s perfidious conduct compromising the secrecy and security of their official and personal communications. The U.S. government's official sanction accorded to the programme terribly annoyed them. While the German Chancellor took it up directly with President Obama, the Brazilian President cancelled a much awaited official visit to the U.S.

The U.S. President, while visiting Germany on June 19, 2013 defended the PRISM programme describing it as “a circumscribed, narrow system directed at us being able to protect our people. His claim that "as a consequence [of the programme], we’ve saved lives” failed to impress the affected nations.  While Germany has taken it up at official level with the U.S., Brazil has called for an international conference in 2014 to discuss the issue.  How India will respond to Brazil’s initiative remains to be seen.

This is neither the first time the U.S. has spied upon friendly powers nor PRISM the only such operation.  According to Vikram Sood, former head of RAW, the U.S., UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada took part in project ECHELON to conduct electronic surveillance on its European allies among others. Then why PRISM has created such furore? Were Germany and Brazil overreacting? There are probably two reasons for it.

Snowden had disclosed that the NSA was also engaged in hacking civilian infrastructure networks including universities, hospitals and private businesses in other countries Documents leaked in the media showed that many technology companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Skype and Apple were roped in to participate in PRISM programme. According to media assessment 98 percent of PRISM data was based on Microsoft, Yahoo and Google. As most of the global internet communication passes through these U.S. based systems, probably the PRISM has evoked greater international concern.

A second aspect is intelligence programmes like PRISM should not be considered as mere intelligence gathering tools. They are part of nation’s overall cyber warfare capability. They would play a vital role in snooping, hacking, and compromising of communication networks of military and vital national infrastructure.

India’s reactions to PRISM have been curious and ambivalent. Initially the external affairs ministerial spokesman said any privacy violation of PRISM would be "unacceptable.” However, the Minister of External Affairs Salman Khurshid on the sidelines of the ASEAN regional forum meet on July 2, 2013 defended the programme. He said it was “not scrutiny and access to actual messages. It is only computer analysis of pattern of calls and emails that are being sent. Some of the information they got out of their scrutiny, they were able to use it to prevent serious terrorist attacks in several countries.” Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh’s subdued response to the issue during his meeting with the U.S President when he visited Washington after the Snowden disclosures drew a lot of criticism in India.  

The colossal data mining capability demonstrated by the NSA will have far reaching impact upon intelligence gathering worldwide. An important step towards denial of electronic snooping would be to reduce to the dependence upon the U.S. Global Positioning System (GPS) by developing indigenous regional navigation satellite system. So far only the U.S., Russia, and China have their own domestic satellite navigation system. It is heartening to note that India has taken the first step to overcome this weakness by launching the first of a cluster of seven IRNSS satellites in July 2013. This navigation system costing Rs 1600 crores will be made up of seven satellites named IRNSS-1A to IRNSS-1G. It will provide India's own domestic navigation system when completed by 2015-16.  

India had been using electronic surveillance as an effective tool of its national security effort for quite some time. It was electronic surveillance that successfully eavesdropped on General Pervez Musharraf’s conversation with Lt General Mohammed Aziz Khan during the Kargil War to confirm Pakistan army’s involvement in the conflict.  Pakistani terror groups like Lashkar-e-Tayabba (LeT) has been using social networks like FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube etc. for quite some time. And India is LeT’s main target. So, electronic surveillance will continue to be an essential arm in India’s battle against terrorism.  

The PRISM experience has shown extensive misuse of its capability in spite of oversight procedures in place. It also shows how the government can distort such operations to suit their political purpose. There are also moral, ethical and legal grounds on which clandestine wire tapping and related electronic data mining have been criticized. The whole PRISM episode has demonstrated the need for greater accountability, independent auditing and legislative monitoring of the entire chain of actions in surveillance programmes.

There is no doubt that electronic surveillance systems intrude upon individual’s right to privacy and curb his freedom of communication. While no democratic government can ignore such concerns, these have to be balanced against threats to national security from terrorism and globalised trafficking in arms, drugs and people. So India has no other option but to strengthen its electronic surveillance capability. At the same time, we need to tighten the accountability of intelligence agencies through independent auditing of their surveillance activities and effective oversight procedures.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No. 5598   dated 11 November 2013 http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/node/1399