​RK Nagar by-election sets gold standard for electoral corruption

COLONEL R HARIHARAN

It is a shame that Tamil Nadu, once the frontline state in development and governance, has set the gold standard in electoral corruption in the over-hyped RK Nagar by-election. The institutionalization of corruption in the electoral process appears to be complete. All political parties in future will have to factor this alarming rise in “cost” of harvesting votes for money, and ensure ingenious ways are found to keep out of reach of the long arm of law.

In the run up to the election, Indian (or is it Tamil?) jugaad came into full flow among the representatives of the three contenders – TTV Dinakaran, AIADMK and DMK – in “passing the buck” to the voter. The visual and electronic media reports showed techniques varying from rolling three Rs 2000 notes (so conveniently produced by RBI after DeMo) and passing it surreptitiously to the voter through a handshake or a back slap or tuck it in a bunch of bananas.

In forthcoming elections the “operational managers” of political parties in the RK Nagar by-election, who used ingenious ways to indirectly pay money to the voter can be useful in running tutorials for the benefit of politicians from other states. The impunity with which they flaunted their operations in the so-called TV sting operations, showed they believed they were beyond the pale of law.

But the real danger from the election was: people have become completely cynical about accepting money as an essential quid pro quo (no more an evil) for exercising their votes. We found during the election campaign, ordinary people discussing the going rate for votes in four figures, rather than considering the merits and demerits of candidates or political parties. Voting for money appears to be the done-thing.  Our maid watching the TV news on the election, said she hoped for a by-election soon in her area so that she would become richer by Rs 10,000! Even the middle class voter, who usually acts holier than thou, would probably line up in the next election to collect his largesse for voting for a political party.

Money for votes is nothing new in India. My father contested the district board elections in the 40s as a Congress party candidate. His opponent, a toddy contractor, from the Justice party, was my father’s patient. So soon after he won the election, he visited us to seek my father’s blessing. His unabashed advice to my father was: “Doctor Sir, you wasted your breath talking to these people about Gandhi and Nehru. You see, I beat them with silver chappal (silver rupee) and they voted me.”

Probably, he was exaggerating the use of money power in elections in those days. Democracy was in infancy then; people took pride in exercising their new found right to vote. They believed in the values of fair play, despite caste leaders’ clout. And many leaders with unimpeachable character were elected by popular vote, as some of them still do. Unfortunately, continuous exposure to political corruption has enabled cynicism and stoicism to replace ideology and commitment to democracy among the voters. Consumerism has vetted the appetite for making easy money. So elections are now marketed with attractive freebies, which has become a norm in Tamil Nadu elections. Combined with lack of accountability of administration and absence rule of law, electoral politics has come to mean picking the best of the bad lot. And money received gratis acts as the grease to the gear wheel to push the voter to join the process.

The RK Nagar results were a moment of truth to the EPS-OPS binary ruling the state. The surprise election of TTV Dhinakaran, has brought the man they were trying to wish away to the front rank among AIADMK pantheons. The manipulative leader from the Mannargudi group, showed he was a better manager of elections; he could win it even without the two leaves, the talisman which EPS-OPS group hoped would win them the elections. The duo, despite ruling the state and indulging in their own share of money-play, proved to be inept in getting through to the voter.

By now they would have realized that mere chanting of Amma’s name in every sentence they speak, was not enough to gain the trust of the voter. TTV Dhinakaran came out during the campaigning as an affable, cool and confident man who was in full control of the situation.  On the other hand, E Madhusudhanan, an octogenarian leader of the AIADMK candidate, looked and acted past his prime. 

All eyes are on the uneasy AIADMK coalition that rules from Fort St George, after Dhinakaran in his victory speech declared himself as the “true political heir” of the late J Jayalalitha. He has vowed to bring the EPS-OPS government “within three months.” He may well do it. The DMK coming third in the contest showed it has not been able to defuse the lingering effect of the late Amma’s shadow over Tamil Nadu politics.

The election of Dhinakaran could herald political realignment in the state. Already, defectors from the ruling faction have shown their readiness to jump the ship. Will he make a good chief minister, even if we ignore the cases pending against him? This is a difficult question to answer; I am reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said: “Elections belong to the people. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” So I suppose, as a resident of Tamil Nadu, I have to learn to sit on my blisters.

Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, has rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations. 

 

Will Aung San Suu Kyi face genocide charges over Rohingya crisis?

Top UN official has toughened stance over Myanmar's actions.

POLITICS | 6-minute read | 23-12-2017

 COLONEL R HARIHARAN @colhari2

United Nations human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, speaking to the BBC from the UN headquarters in Geneva, recently said he was not ruling out the possibility of genocide charges levied against Myanmar’s de facto leader and democratic icon Aung San Suu Kyi or the army chief Min Aung Hlaing.

He said: “Given the scale of the military operation, clearly these would have to be decisions taken at a high level [as the thresholds for proof were high]." He would not be surprised if Myanmar leaders were one day held accountable at an international court.

The UN rights chief added that even before the August-end resurgence of violence, he had personally called on Aung San Suu Kyi to intervene to bring these military operations to an end. “I appealed to her emotional standing… to do whatever she could to bring this to a close, and to my great regret it did not seem to happen.”

 International medical aid group Doctors Without Borders has said its field survey has revealed 6700 Rohingya were killed in the military crackdown from August to Sepatember 2017. 

United Nations human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, speaking to the BBC from the UN headquarters in Geneva, recently said he was not ruling out the possibility of genocide charges levied against Myanmar’s de facto leader and democratic icon Aung San Suu Kyi or the army chief Min Aung Hlaing.

He said: “Given the scale of the military operation, clearly these would have to be decisions taken at a high level [as the thresholds for proof were high]." He would not be surprised if Myanmar leaders were one day held accountable at an international court.

The UN rights chief added that even before the August-end resurgence of violence, he had personally called on Aung San Suu Kyi to intervene to bring these military operations to an end. “I appealed to her emotional standing… to do whatever she could to bring this to a close, and to my great regret it did not seem to happen.”

According to international medical aid group, Doctors Without Borders, its field survey has revealed that 6,700 Rohingyas were killed in the military crackdown from August to September 2017. 

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) in Dhaka has reported in the first week of December that Rohingyas have continued to flee Myanmar, even after Naypyidaw and Dhaka last month agreed upon a timetable for their return home in Rakhine state. International rights watchdog Human Rights Watch has reported that as late as December 2, there was evidence that Rohingya villages were still being damaged, contradicting Myanmar government’s assurances that violence had ceased before it signed the agreement with Bangladesh to start the repatriation process from January 2018.

This has caused concern to international observers since continued violence could lead to radicalisation of the Rohingya refugee population in Bangladesh and their counter-attacks on the Myanmar military could worsen the situation.

However, Myanmar leaders do not appear to be serious in responding to international concerns over the future of over six-and-a-half lakh Rohingya refugees which is causing heavy social and economic burden on Bangladesh. 

This was evident in Naypyidaw’s refusal to issue a visa to UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee, who was to visit Myanmar in January 2018 to find out procedures in place for the return of refugees and investigate increased fighting in Myanmar’s Kachin and Northern Shan areas.

Commenting on Myanmar’s refusal, Lee said, “They have said that they have nothing to hide, but their lack of cooperation with my mandate and the fact-finding mission suggests otherwise.” She added that she was disappointed, as Myanmar’s representative at Geneva Htin Lynn had told the UN Human Rights Council that they would cooperate.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) was adopted by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 260) in December 1948 and came into force on January 12, 1951. Till December 2017, 149 states have ratified or acceded to the treaty. Myanmar (then Burma) acceded to the genocide convention treaty on December 30,  1949 and ratified on March 14, 1956. So, Myanmar is obliged to take action in letter and spirit against genocide both in times of war and peace in accordance with the Genocide Convention.

The convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in the whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group". It was based on internationally recognised definition of genocide incorporated in the criminal legislation of many countries and also adopted by the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

According to the definition, acts such as killing members of the group, causing serious bodily harm or harm to mental health to members of the group, deliberately inflicting acts calculated to bring about physical destruction of the whole group or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group would constitute genocide.

However, the military junta, which came to power in 1962, never bothered about international treaty obligations. Its operations against Communist and over a dozen non-Bamar ethnic insurgent groups were notorious for gross human rights violations bordering on genocide.

In fact, the military junta, which ruled Myanmar till the 2008 constitution was enforced, had systematically worked to curtail the rights of indigenous population and Burmanise them. 

The seven judges of the Rome-based International Peoples Tribunal, after holding hearings on the Rohingya issue in London and Kuala Lumpur in September 2017, have held that Myanmar was fully responsible for genocide against the Rohingya people. The tribunal judgment was based on witness testimonials both in person and over videos, as well as a long list of well documented atrocities including systematic rape, murder and eradication of identity and culture, presented by a team of prosecution lawyers.

But the moot question is, can Aung San Suu Kyi and the Myanmar Army chief be charged for genocide as suggested by the UN Human Rights Chief?

Aung San Suu Kyi, the de-facto head of state, is holding the extra constitutional appointment of state counsellor specially created for her. Officially, only the foreign ministry is under her direct control. So, her status as head of state exists only as long as the army accepts it. As only the army controls the ministries of defence, border affairs and internal security as per the 2008 Constitution, it is doubtful whether she can be successfully prosecuted for genocide by the international tribunal.

This was not the first time Rohingya issue had drawn the attention of the world body; in the past collective UN action was decided more on considerations of real-politick than on humanitarian needs. So, UN’s punitive action against Myanmar over its conduct on the Rohingya issue will continue to be inconclusive and lukewarm because Myanmar is seen as critical to China’s growing influence in South and Southeast Asia.

The plight of Rohingyas is closely tied to the lack of full-fledged democracy in Myanmar. Unless the country’s 2008 Constitution is amended to abolish the reservation of one fourth of the seats in the legislatures for the army, its stranglehold on governance will continue. Under the circumstances, the plight of Rohingyas is likely to continue despite the loud global rhetoric on the issue.

Col R Hariharan, a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, has rich experience in terrorism and insurgency operations. 

Courtesy: India Today opinion portal Daily O  

https://www.dailyo.in/politics/rohingya-muslims-genocide-myanmar-un-human-rights-chief-bangladesh-suu-kyi/story/1/21328.html           

Chinese trick: Unviable port turns strategic asset

Hambantota To Bolster China’s Presence in Indian Ocean, Allow Entry to Indian Market

Colonel R Hariharan |Times of India| Chennai | 13 December 2017

China gaining operational of the port marks yet another strategic milestone in furthering President Xi Jinping’s ambitious 21^st Century Maritime Silk Road.  The Chinese control of port infrastructure assets already acquired in Gwadar in Pakistan and Djibouti (Horn of Africa) has strengthened its position in the Indian Ocean.

India’s inability to respond in time to arrest China’s growing power in Sri Lanka, particularly after President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ascent, is the flip side of the tale. During the Eelam war, India could not meet Sri Lanka’s request for supply of arms due to strong opposition from Tamil Nadu, and China stepped into meet the demands.

Hambantota is not the only strategically important infrastructure projects to be completed with Chinese aid. Other projects include the Colombo carrier terminal expansion and the Colombo reclamation project overlooking Colombo port, a vital hub of India’s shipping.

In 2006, I availed an invitation to meet Rajapaksa on issues affecting Sri Lanka.  When I had asked him why he offered the Hambantota project to China instead of India, he laughed and said that he had invited India first. When India didn’t respond for nearly a year, he approached China. I learnt later that India did not respond as the project was not economically viable.

India’s economic assessment has proved correct as both the Hambantota port and the Mattala airport are losing money. But strategically, India’s decision had proved costly. China took risk of making huge investments in economically unviable projects, to ensnare Sri Lanka into US$8 billion debt trap and leverage it to draw the island nation within its strategic orbit. China has shown that taking economic risks for gaining strategic advantage is what grand strategy is all about. After Hambantota proved a burden on Sri Lanka economy, China is enacting as the saviour by agreeing to the debt-equity swap on Hambantota project, while gaining control of it.

In July 2017, Sri Lanka signed an agreement with the state-owned China Merchants Ports Holdings Company (CMPort) which agreed to pay $1.12 billion for 85 percent share of Hambantota port for 99 years. After a hue and cry was raised at home over the unfavourable terms of the agreement, Sri Lanka renegotiated it, under which the CMPort (85 percent) and Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) (15 percent) became partners in the Hambantota International Port Group (HIPG) to develop the port to make it a commercially viable asset. 

India had been watching with concern China’s control of Hambantota port as it legitimizes its strategic presence within India’s sphere of influence in the Indian Ocean.  President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe after coming to power had tried to balance the relations with India, which were skewed in favour of China, under President Mahinda Rajapaksa. In response to India’s strategic concerns, they had assured that Hambantota port would not be permitted to be used as a military base.

Hambantota International Port Services Ltd. (HIPS), owned by HIPG (58 percent) and SLPA (42 percent) is, however, taking over common user facilities in Hambantota port including port security. This would indicate the near impossibility of excluding the Chinese from port security activities. But can a small country like Sri Lanka do much, if China rides roughshod over its objections to gain military advantage in times of Sino-Indian military confrontation?

China is now gaining not only a military advantage but also a commercial edge in South Asia. When China-Sri Lanka free trade agreement (FTA)  comes through, Chinese business is capable of using India’s FTA with Sri Lanka to gain backdoor entry into Indian markets. China has sprung a surprise by signing an FTA with Maldives, a country till now dependent on India for almost everything. When China’s FTA with Sri Lanka and Maldives fully bloom, Chinese goods flooding South Indian markets is a real possibility. Time India took a hard look at its military and commercial strategies as the Chinese behemoth is breathing down its neck.

The writer served as the head of intelligence with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka 

Myanmar: China’s new playground?

With Beijing mediating between Bangladesh and its neighbour, in allowing the return of Muslim refugees back to Rakhine state, is China assuming a bigger role in Myanmar in keeping with its image as a global power?

By Colonel R Hariharan | Global trends | Rohingya crisis | 
Courtesy: India Legal, 11 December 2017 www.indialegallive.com

The first-ever visit of Pope Francis to Myanmar to convey a message of peace and conciliation to the nation wracked by ethnic confrontation is perhaps the latest among international efforts to defuse the Rohingya crisis. This year, the Pontiff had appealed twice to Myanmar government to end the campaign of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya minority from his balcony overlooking the St Peter’s square in Rome. However, his failure to mention Rohingyas in his meeting with Myanmar’s de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi at Naypyidaw is significant. Perhaps, the fear that the use of R word would trigger anti-Christian backlash, rather than diplomatic nicety, prevented the Prince of Rome from specifically referring to Rohingya.

Myanmar’s allergy to the ‘R’ word is perhaps the essence of Rohingya problem. The international community alarmed after the number of Rohingya fleeing Myanmar swelled to 620,000 had taken a number of initiatives. These cover a wide range of issues. The UN-supported international humanitarian conference last month raised $344 million from donors to support aid efforts for the Rohingya refugees in Myanmar. India rushed hundred tons of food and clothing under Operation Insaniyat to enable Bangladesh to help the refugees and Sikh humanitarian organisations provided hands-on help. The UN Security Council issued a statement strongly condemning the violence that had caused Rohingya to flee while the US strongly condemned the Myanmar military excesses and threatened to slap additional sanctions upon military leaders.

CHINESE HAND

Among such interventions, China can claim credit for getting Bangladesh and Myanmar to sign an agreement on November 23, to allow the return of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslim refugees back to their homes in Rakhine state in Myanmar. The Chinese peace plan draws upon the detailed recommendations of Kofi Annan Commission (KFC) report on the Rohingya issue, submitted to Myanmar government in September 2017.  

 According to Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, the first phase of the three-phase plan was “to effect a ceasefire on the ground, to return to stability and order, so the people can enjoy peace and no longer be forced to flee.” The second and third phases would facilitate an orderly return of those who have fled to Bangladesh and “work toward a long term solution on poverty alleviation” to resolve the Rohingya crisis in the long term.

According to an AFP report, since the signing of the agreement a week ago, more than 3000 refugees have crossed over to Bangladesh. This would indicate that Myanmar has not adhered to the first phase of the plan and announced a ceasefire on the ground in Rakhine State and take steps to halt the out flow of refugees to restore normalcy in Rakhine State. China will be able to provide economic assistance to Rakhine State as part of the long solution only after conditions for safe return of the refugees are created.

ARMY STAND

But this is more easily said than done, because Myanmar armed forces chief Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, who controls ministries of border affairs, home and defence, has continued to maintain that the Rohingya problem was created by British colonialists. “They [Rohingya] are not the natives and the records prove that they were not even called Rohingya but just Bengalis” brought into Myanmar by the British during the colonial period.

He has forcefully denied the allegations of army atrocities committed against Rohingya, though UN rights bodies and international NGOs like the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have produced detailed reports on a host of violations committed by the army that triggered Rohingya exodus. The army’s internal investigation in November 2017 has absolved it of all wrongdoing during the Rakhine operations.

The army chief’s views are shared by many of the Buddhist majority, who have come out in support of the army operations in Rakhine state. On November 19, a group of “military supporters” organized an event in which thousands of people from adjacent regions gathered in Mandalay to show their solidarity with the military and “good” civil servants. They chanted slogans in support of General Min Aung Hlaing and the military, working towards the goal of “protecting Myanmar’s sovereignty and unity.” They also read out a message from the ultra-nationalist monk Wirathu, who had gained notoriety for anti-Muslim activism.

Perhaps Aung San Suu Kyi’s muted and cautious response to the Rohingya crisis is due to public opinion in support of the military.  Aung San Suu Kyi’s welcome speech at the inauguration of the Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers Conference at Naypyidaw on November 21 was carefully worded avoiding any reference to the Rohingya exodus. She said conflicts around the world gave rise to new threats and emergencies, citing how illegal immigration spread “terrorism and violent extremism, social disharmony and even the threat of a nuclear war.”

PEACE PLAN

Though China has suggested the three-point plan to defuse the Rohingya crisis, it is significant that it has not condemned the human rights abuses committed against them. Its approach is carefully calibrated to retain its involvement in the critical issue without irking Myanmar and Bangladesh, which are astride China’s strategic access to South Asia.

Usually, China prides itself in not interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. By assuming the role of a mediator between Bangladesh and Myanmar, is China assuming a bigger role in keeping with its strength as a global power? Is it in response to the strategic dynamics of the region? Answers to both questions are in the affirmative.  

A second aspect is China filling the space created by the US failure to suggest a suitable plan to enable its protégé Aung San Suu Kyi to handle the Rohingya crisis more effectively. The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who vacillated upon the issue during his visit to Myanmar earlier in the month, condemned ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in a strong statement on November 22.  He said “After careful and through analysis of available facts, it is clear that the situation in Northern Rakhine state constitutes ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya” and the US supported an independent investigation into what happened in Rakhine state. He added that the US would pursue actions including possible targeted sanctions. It is significant that Tillerson statement was made after China had announced its reconciliation plan.

Equally important is the failure of the ASEAN summit held mid-November to recommend concrete actions to resolve the Rohingya crisis. Apparently, the summit wanted to soft pedal the issue, though the UN Secretary General Antonio Guetteres cautioned ASEAN members of the consequence of bypassing the Rohingya issue might cause “regional instability and radicalization.”

INDIAN DIPLOMACY

India’s stand on the Rohingya crisis had been driven by its own strategic considerations, not dissimilar to China. Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his recent Myanmar visit had urged all stakeholders to find a solution that respects the country’s unity. Even as Bangladesh and Myanmar signed an agreement to implement the Chinese peace plan, Indian and Myanmar armies started on the first-ever counter-terrorism exercise in India, indicating India’s strategic priority.  It was yet an affirmation of India’s reluctance to get involved in defusing a potential confrontational situation between the two neighbours, looked upon as strategic allies.  

China assuming the role of a mediator in Myanmar is in keeping with its readiness to mediate in other confrontations in West Asia and even in South Asia between Pakistan and India. It demonstrates China’s desire to use its growing international influence to provide an alternative global narrative to the West.  Whether China succeeds or not in resolving the Bangladesh-Myanmar gridlock, by taking the initiative, President Xi Jinping is living up to his vision of China as a global power.

The writer is a retired Military Intelligence specialist on South Asia, and is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and International Law and Strategic Studies Institute.

Chabahar port set to change India’s strategic reach

By COLONEL R. HARIHARAN | Ceylon Today | Op-ed | 8 December 2017

Iranian president Hassan Rouhani inaugurated phase one of the US $ 1 billion southeastern extension of Chabahar port on the coast of Gulf of Oman on November 3. The port is poised to become a key strategic transit route from India to land-locked Afghanistan and Central Asia, by passing Pakistan. Already India had despatched 15ooo tons of wheat to Afghanistan through this port. At present, Pakistan does not allow transit of Indian goods to Afghanistan through its territory. After Chabahar becomes fully functional we can expect greater strategic convergence between India and Afghanistan, which have always enjoyed close relationship.

The Chabahar port route is closer by 800 km to Afghanistan than Karachi port, making it an attractive gateway for trading with not only Afghanistan, but also with Central Asian countries.  Chabahar port consists of two separate ports – Shahid Kalantari and Shahid Beheshti. The present project is the southeastern extension of Shahid Beheshti. India would have two berths for its exclusive use on completion of the project.

Undoubtedly, it is an Indian alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) linking China and Europe through Central and South Asia. However, Chabahar port project was conceptualised a decade and a half before BRI was taken up. India and Iran agreed to jointly develop Chabahar port, when Iranian President Mohammed Khatami visited New Delhi in January 2003. However, the project went into a limbo when international sanctions were slapped on Iran. It was taken up for construction when sanctions were lifted in 2013. Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed the bilateral port development pact with Iran when he visited Tehran in May last year.

India-Iran-Afghanistan Connectivity Agreement

On the occasion, the Indian PM also signed the India-Iran-Afghanistan connectivity agreement. This tripartite agreement plans to commit at least $21 billion to Chabahar-Hajigak (in Afghanistan) corridor including $85 million for port development by India. The $ 8 billion India-Iran MoU visualizes Indian industrial investment in Chabahar special economic zone. The development of $11 billion Hajigak iron and steel mining project in Central Afghanistan has been awarded seven Indian companies.

India has also made a commitment to Afghanistan for $2 billion to develop support infrastructure for Chabahar-Hajigak railway under construction.  Overall, the completion of the project is expected to boost two-way trade between India and Afghan and also provide direct access to Central Asia to both the countries.

The Chabahar port will also connect India to the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) link providing sea, rail and road access between India, Russia, Iran, Europe and Central Asia.  This project came alive after the lifting of sanctions on Iran.  According a report in Economic Times, the INSTC corridor is set to be operationalized from the middle of next month with a first consignment from India to Russia. The corridor is expected to function fully a few months thereafter in mid-January 2018.  As India and Russia enjoy close strategic security relations, its significance needs no emphasis.

Pakistan had always been concerned at India’s close strategic links with Afghanistan, considered as part of Pakistan’s strategic domain.  So India gaining better and direct connectivity to Afghanistan would be a matter of serious concern to Pakistan army. Considering this, Iran has tried to play down the strategic significance of the corridor, emphasizing its economic and development benefits to Central and South Asia.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan Mehdi Honardoost’s entire article on the inauguration of Chabahar port, published in Pakistan’s Express Tribune on December 6, does not refer to India’s role in the project, lest it irritates Pakistan’s acerbic views on India. The article pointed out the presence of Pakistan’s minister for ports and maritime affairs Mir Hasal Bizanjo and the chairman of the Gwadar Port at the Chabahar inaugural ceremony, and said the development of Chabahar Port was taking place simultaneously with that of the Gwadar Port under CPEC in Pakistan. Two ports were complementary to each other and every other perspective was “completely wrong and will be considered in line with the objectives of the enemies” of Iran and Pakistan.

China which is investing over $50 billion to build infrastructure connectivity between Gwadar port and Kashgar in Xinjiang province under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project, will be keenly watching the progress of the Chabahar project located 80 kms from Gwadar on the Makran coast. China had repeatedly been trying to persuade India to join the BRI, even suggesting some cosmetic changes in the name of CPEC after India refused to participate in the BRI as it passes through Indian territory occupied by Pakistan. Chances of Indian participation in the BRI have turned bleak as Chabahar project will be providing an alternate route for India to the regions serviced by the BRI.

However, India and China have shown maturity in handling their mutual relations notwithstanding occasional confrontations along the disputed borders. They have focused on positive developmental relations, while trying to peacefully resolve potential confrontations between them. This was evident when India Ports Global, which is developing the Chabahar facility, awarded contract worth Rs 380o million for supply of cranes to a Chinese company ZPMC, even as Indian and Chinese soldiers were locked in a standoff in India-Bhutan-China tri-junction.

So the Chinese reaction was not surprising to the inauguration of the Chabahar port. Answering a question on China’s views on the launch of the Chabahar project, as China was investing heavily in Gwadar port as part of  the prestigious CPEC project, the foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang declined to comment directly. He said, "As for the (Chabahar) port, I want to give you a principled answer. We welcome the development of friendly relations between the regional countries and conduct mutually beneficial cooperation. We hope the relevant cooperation can be conducive to maintaining regional peace and promoting regional stability and prosperity."

Does the Chabahar port project and India’s improved strategic reach and connectivity to Central Asia have any significance to Sri Lanka?

Of course, strategically India would increase its influence and strengthen its linkages with Russia and Afghanistan. The project will also have its own impact on the 21^st Century Maritime Silk Route of China in which Sri Lanka has a pivotal role in the Indian Ocean. As a country which enjoys very close, multifaceted relations with both India and China, Sri Lanka will be watching the developments closely.  According to the UN COMTRAD data Sri Lanka exports to Iran in 2016 was $173.46 million, with tea, coffee and spice forming 89 percent of the exports. With improved connectivity to Central Asia through Chabahar port probably there is scope to explore and open up new markets for exports and tourism in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI specialist on South Asia, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com  Blog:http://col.hariharan.info

Courtesy: Ceylon Today, Colombo, 8 December 2017 

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xP8lsNac7c0/WiotaC4iPPI/AAAAAAAARk4/lbcZjpo6uGYhnWoxVrTdNSM1893EX6eAwCL0BGAYYCw/h2048/20775.jpg

                                                                

Sri Lanka Perspectives - November 2017

Col R Hariharan | 30-11-2017

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, November 2017 Issue. www.security-risks.com

  

Sri Lanka PM’s visit to New Delhi

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited to New Delhi on November 23-24, 2017. During his talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj speeding up decisions related to India-Sri Lanka joint venture projects in Sri Lanka to solve “problems that have emerged” topped the agenda. 

The projects discussed included India developing the Trincomalee harbor including the Oil Tank farms project as well as the Indian bid to lease and manage the heavily loss making Mattala airport in Hambantota.

In April 2017, India and Sri Lanka had signed the Cooperation in Economic Projects agreement and had set up a Joint Working Group (JWG) to discuss the development of a port, petroleum and other industries in Trincomalee on the eastern seaboard. The Trinco Oil Farm Project under which the Indian Oil Corporation taking over more than 70 storage tanks in possession of Sri Lanka was to be sealed in April; however, the announcement was put off oil company employees went on a flash strike.

Indian aided projects in Sri Lanka have invariably been delayed for variety of political and bureaucratic reasons.  Bureaucracies on both sides of the Palk Strait are rigid and act slowly. Moreover, political corruption and financial priorities bedevil all projects in Sri Lanka as in other South Asian countries. 

With environmental priorities and land acquisition issues getting politicized, time delays are often the rule than the exception. These are more so, if India is involved in them due to hate India-love China lobbies at work.  But PM Modi is in a hurry to show results just as both President Sirisena and PM Wickremesinghe have political and economic compulsions to get going with the projects to trigger economic activity.

PM Wickremesinghe during his visit to New Delhi addressed the 5^th Global Cyberspace Conference. He said he was against state orchestrated blocks and restrictions on cyberspace and the national unity government was to facilitate unhindered access to the internet. He drew attention to his own experience as an opposition political activist before January 2015 when the government had blocked ISPs to prevent dissident voices from speaking freely online. Now “every segment of society was encouraged to speak freely online. As we understood it was one important way of building inclusivity not only on cyberspace, but also in society at large.”

Politics of local government elections

The local government (LG) elections have been delayed for long due to a lot of political, legal and bureaucratic confusion. The delay suited both the shaky ruling national coalition to resolve its internal differences and faction-ridden Sri Lanka Freedom (SLFP) trying to resolve factional differences to unitedly fight the LG polls. So the Election Commission’s notice announcing the holding of elections for 93 councils triggered hectic political activity across the national spectrum. 

The talks between the SLFP led by President Maithripala Sirisena and the Joint Opposition (JO) group loyal to former President Rajapaksa reached feverish, without yielding tangible results so far. 

Any compromise made by President Sirisena with the JO would, not only enable former President Rajapaksa to stage a comeback to national political mainstream, but also threaten the survival of the unity government. The United National Party (UNP both SLFP’s partner is concerned as the memorandum of understanding Siriena and Wickremesinghe had signed to jointly work together for the good of the country is due for renewal as it is set to expire in December 2017. This MoU paved the way for the two parties to jointly form the national unity government. The UNP would like to continue with the cohabitation formula for yet another term till 2025. 

Civil society fears such a compromise could put an end to the SLFP-UNP cohabitation government’s efforts to carry out further structural reforms for good governance (Yahapalana). Civil society also feels that if it happened pro-Rajapaksa elements would further delay the completion of investigations and prosecution of those involved in cases of massive corruption during the Rajapaksa regime. 

President Sirisena has assured a delegation of civil society representatives that the efforts to re-unify the SLFP ahead of the LG elections would not be at the cost of the national unity government. He had also assured that the terms set for unity by Rajapaksa were not acceptable to him. In response to their fears about the government not acting against cases of corruption, he assured them that he would establish presidential commissions, similar to the one that inquired into treasury bond scam, to probe state enterprises such as Sri Lanka Airlines.

Budget proposals

Finance Minister Mangala Samaraveera’s budget proposals for 2018 presented in parliament have generally been welcomed by media analysts. Highlights of the budget include liberalization of restrictive laws, promotion of exports, expansion of tourism, fiscal consolidation, fostering start-ups and opening up investments to achieve 5% growth in 2018.  The Budget aimed to achieving ambitious medium-term targets such as per capita income of $ 5000, one million new jobs, FDI inflows of $ 5 billion and doubling exports to $ 20 billion, as outlined in Vision 20-25.

The Excise and Customs Ordinance, Rent Act, Paddy Lands Act, Agriculture Lands Act, Shop and Office Employees Act and bankruptcy laws were among the list of laws the Government plans to either repeal or amend.  The minister said, “In 2018, we envisage GDP growth of 5%, inflation of around 6%, and we hope to achieve for the first time in almost six decades primary surplus of 1% of GDP and a Budget deficit of 4.5% of GDP.” Proposals for a “Blue-Green” economy include introduction of environmental safeguards and decision to phase out fuel vehicles by 2040.

Col R Hariharan, a retired MI officer, served as the head of Intelligence of the Indian Peace Keeping Force in Sri Lanka from 1987 to 90. He is associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies and the International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute, Chennai. E-mail: haridirect@gmail.com Blog: http://col.hariharan.info