Sri Lanka Perspectives: December 2019

Col R Hariharan |31-12-2019| South Asia Security Trends, January 2020

www.security-risks.com

President Gotabaya starts with a bang

President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s actions in the first 43 days of rule showed he was determined to live up to the popular expectations as a man of action. This comes in sharp contrast to the earlier government which wasted nearly an year witb former President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe busy trying to politically outsmart each other.

President Rajapaksa has set his own style of functioning by picking qualified and experienced persons for heading state institutions rather than filling them with political appointees like his predecessors (including his brother Mahinda). His appointment of Dr PB Jayasundara, an economist, as secretary indicates that revamping the country’s economy would be his priority. Similarly he has chosen Dr DWD Lakshman, an economist not tainted by association with the Central Bank scam as the Governor of the Central Bank. As Indo-Pacific strategic issues are likely to increasingly figure in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, he has appointed former Navy Commander Admiral Jayanath Colombage as advisor in foreign affairs. 

Similarly, he has appointed Ms Prince Sarojini Manmatharajah Charles, a senior Tamil civil servant with vast experience as Northern Province Governor. During the conflict in 2009, Ms Charles did a commendable job was in charge of the refugee camps in Vavuniya, housing about 290,000 people from the war-torn districts of Vavuniya and Mullaitivu.

President Rajapaksa’s actions are largely in conformity with priorities spelt out in the run up to the presidential election: addressing national security concerns particularly relating to jihadi terrorism, tax cuts and incentives for small and medium enterprises, reduce inflation and beefing up economy and closely orchestrated actions to “curb corruption and prosecuting the corrupt.” There are also other structural revamps in the offing to revamp economy and strengthen security apparatus including the intelligence set up.  

Many of his actions would please the Sinhala nationalist segment that voted him to power. This was evident in the aggressive conduct of some of the fringe elements among Buddhist clergy against other religious minorities. On the other hand, there is a sense of déjà vu among civil society and minorities. 

In a statement, the National Peace Council (NPC) expressed its “concern” at some of the statements by the President. The NPC specifically touched upon three issues.  First related to his statement that development would be prioritized in resolving the ethnic conflict and that strengthening the system of devolution; the NPC said this was “not going to be the answer.”

The second issue was President Rajapaksa’s assertion that there was “no problem of missing persons to be resolved” and limiting it to those who fell on the battlefields. This is a long standing, vexing issue relating to people who went missing not only during the Eelam Wars but also the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurrection.  Successive governments had faced the issue without success. 

In 2016, the Sirisena government agreed to issue certificate of absence to relatives of over 65,000 to enable them to gain guardianship of their children and manage property of missing persons. In 2017, the government created the Office of the Missing Persons to  expeditiously deal with cases of missing persons and enforced dis-appearance.  Though President Rajapaksa had only restated the stand of the earlier Mahinda Rajapaksa rule which wished away the issue, he is likely to face political back lash not only at home but also internationally.

NPC’s last point related to the reported statement of minister Janaka Bandara Tennekone who had said the national anthem would be sung only in Sinhala and not in Tamil at the Independence Day celebrations on February 3, 2020. Fringe elements among the Buddhist clergy had welcomed the move. The singing of the national anthem in Tamil was unofficially dropped during Mahinda Rajapaksa rule. But it was restored when Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government came to power.  However, after a lot of criticism over the proposed move the President and PM Rajapaksa have clarified that no decision has been taken on the issue.  

Sri Lanka is required to repay $ 4.8 billion in debt in 2020. So President Rajapaksa’s main challenge will be how to revamp the economy while managing the debt burden. The state-owned the Sunday Observer in a source report said President Rajapaksa had created a new Bureau for National Policies and Plan Implementation. The Cabinet is said to have approved the proposal at its meeting on December 18. This development agency directly under the president will annul earlier state agencies like the National Economic Commission (NEC) and the Strategic Enterprise Management Agency (SEMA).

The Agency would be tasked to achieve the targeted economic growth rate of 6.5% of GDP for the period 2020- 2025. Ambitious targets have been set  to increase per capita income to over US $ 6500, and reduce unemployment to less than 4%, budget deficit to 4% of GDP and cut inflation to 5% respectively. President’s ceremonial speech when the parliament meets on January 3 is likely to focus on how he proposes to achieve his development agenda.

The opposition United Nationalist Party (UNP)-led National Democratic Front (NDF) is in disarray.  Sajith Premadasa, UNP presidential candidate, has accused some of the party leaders working to defeat him rather than help him get elected. The UNP’s internal power struggle between its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa is yet to be resolved though the former grudgingly agreed to Premadasa heading the party as leader of the opposition in parliament. 

The arrest of former ministers Dr Ranjitha Senaratne and Champika Ranawaka has irked the UNP leadership. Both the leaders were at the forefront of the campaign to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa when he contested the presidential electon in 2015. While Ranawaka was arrested on a case of accident of 2016 vintage, Senaratne was arrested in connection with a news conference he held two days before the presidential election. He produced two persons who claimed to be drivers of white vans which carried out abductions during the Rajapaksa rule. They also alleged that a large quantity of gold seized from the LTTE was illegally transported to Colombo. However, police investigations have revealed these were false allegations. Though both were released on bail, the arrests were probably intended to send a strong message to the opposition

On the international front, the President is tight rope walking between India and China on the one hand and keeping lines of communication open with the US on the other to access the IMF loan kitty. Rajapaksa’s statement while visiting India, terming the agreement with China on Hambantota Port as a “mistake” and it should be renegotiated had its fall out when he returned home. Speaking to foreign correspondents at a luncheon meeting he said there no need to renegotiate the agreement but the security aspects would need to be looked into. Perhaps the security aspect was behind the appointment of retired General Daya Ratnayake as Chairman of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA). We can expect Sri Lanka taking up the issue of redrafting some clauses of the agreement when the President visits Beijing in the third week of January 2020.

Though the President’s clarification on the issue of renegotiation was of some comfort to the Chinese, the embassy statement issued later chose to emphasize the President had made it clear that the Sri Lankan government would not re-negotiate the existing agreement on Hambantota Port and the commercial contract that was signed would not be changed due to change of the government. It reiterated that the security and control of the Port was entirely in the hands of Sri Lanka government and Navy.    

Tail piece: According to a Colombo media report Sri Lanka presidential secretariat was “making plans” to invite Prime Minister Narendra Modi as chief guest for the Independence Day celebrations on February 3, 2020. Yet another act of tight rope walking?

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, South Asia Analysis Group and the International Law and Strategic Analysis. Email: haridirect@gmail.com Blog:: https://col.hariharan.info  

Different Strokes

The killing of General Suleimani on President Donald Trump's orders would probably be classified as an act of terrorism if any country other than the US  had done it.

Col R Hariharan | Global Trends| India Legal January 13, 2020                              https://www.indialegallive.com/world-news/global-trends-news/different-strokes-82371 

The killing of Major General Qasem Suleimani, chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)’s Quds Force, considered Iran’s second most powerful leader, by US airstrike last Friday (January 3) in Iraq has taken West Asia to the brink of war. The US operation carried out on the orders of President Donald Trump triggered Iran’s retaliatory military response after three days of national mourning for the slain leader. The Iranians fired two dozen missiles targeting two American bases in Iraq, which do not seem to have suffered much damage.

According to National Interest,  the missiles were area weapons fired from 400 miles away on targets of a few square miles with minimal effect.  This would indicate Iran’s response was calculated to be symbolic to satisfy the masses, baying for revenge. President Trump’s national address on the attack also indicated, at least for the time being, that the US would leave the crisis simmering rather than burst into full-fledged war.  

While strategic analysts continue to debate the cause and effect of the latest US-Iran stand-off, it raises a number of uncomfortable questions on the legality of their conduct. The Quds Force, a part of the IRGC, led by General Soleimani, was responsible for extra territorial unconventional warfare and intelligence. The US designated it a terrorist organization in 2007 with   Canada, Egypt and Saudi Arabia following suit. 

The US had for long held General Suleimani and the Quds Force in its sights for carrying out terrorist attacks through local extremist groups in the Levant.  The US act of carrying out a drone strike to kill Soleimani in Iraq when he was on his way to Baghdad airport , on President Donald Trump's orders, for his alleged role in killing "millions of people," would probably be classified as an act of terrorism, if any country other than the United States had done it.

After the attack,  angry Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif in a tweet called the US action an act of international terrorism and said it was an extremely dangerous and foolish escalation. “The US bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism.

Can the US action be called terrorism? For long, the UN had difficulty in defining terrorism that is acceptable to all member nations.  However, since 1994, the UN General Assembly,  after adopting the 1994 UN Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism annexure to UN General Assembly Resoution 49/60 “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism” of December 9, 1994 uses the following political description of terrorism to condemn terrorist acts:

"Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.” 

By this UN definition of  terrorist act,  the killing of General Suleimani may fall under the above category of terrorist act.

Other than this, UN’s international conventions on anti-terrorist measures for various sectors, ARE based on operational definition of the specific type of terrorist act. These measures focus on action by non-state actors and adoption of a criminal law enforcement model under which states would cooperate in the apprehension and prosecution of those who committed the terrorist act.

Though the UN has had difficulty in defining terrorism, the US defines terrorism in Title 22 Chapter 38 U. S. Code § 256f as "premeditated, politically motivated, perpetrated against noncombatant targeted by sub national groups or clandestine agents."  So the act of killing Suleimani by using an air strike  may not pass muster in the US as an act of terrorism.

In April 2019, in a questionable move the US designated the IRCG, a constitutional entity of the Iranian government, a terrorist organization. This was said to have been opposed by the Central Intelligence Agency.  The IRCG is distinct from the Iranian army which is entrusted with national security. The IRCG’s role is protecting the Islamic system, to prevent foreign interference and coups by the military or other opposition movements. Evidently the US action was taken to check IRCG activities in Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, research professor of international dispute resolution, at the University of Notre Dame, in her comments to the CNN held that Trump’s decision to kill General Suleimani was not legal as it had the quality of an act of revenge, reprisal and punishment.  She cited the President’s Twitter that General Suleimani “was plotting to kill many more….but got caught…” and “he should have been taken out many years ago” and the Department of Defense press release calling the attack “a defensive action”.

Moreover, under the right of self-defence,  military attack is permitted under UN Charter Article 51 only “if an armed attack” occurs on the defending nation. The triggering action must be significant and the response necessary and proportionate to halt and repel the ongoing attacks. So Prof  O’Connell holds the killing of Suleimani cannot be justified by the law of self-defence.

Her comment “Trump is not the first president to carry out drone killings in violation of international law. He has taken the practice to a new level of lawlessness” says it all.

The writer is a military intelligence specialist on South Asia, associated with the Chennai Centre for China Studies

ஜெனரல் பிபின் ராவத் முப்படைகளின் தளபதியா?; கேள்வி & பதில்

கர்னல் ஆர் ஹரிஹரன்

ஜெனரல் பிபின் ராவத் CDS ஆக நியமிக்கப் பட்டதை பற்றி  ஒரு தமிழ் பத்திரிகையாளரின் கேள்விகளுக்கு நான் அளித்த விடைகளை கீழே அளித்துள்ளேன் :

1.   முப்படைகளுக்கும் ஒரே தளபதி' என்பதற்கான தேவை என்ன, இவருடைய பணி என்னவாக இருக்கும்?

போர் கலை 20-21ம் நூற்றாண்டுகளில் மகத்தான வளர்ச்சி அடைந்துள்ளது. சேடலைட் மற்றும் கம்பியூடர் ஆகியவற்றின் தொடர்ந்து அதிகமாகும் உபயோகம் உலக அளவில் செய்திகளின் பரிமாற்றத்தில் புரட்சி ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. ஆகவே தற்காலப் போரில் எதிரிகளை எதிர் கொள்ள முப்படைகளும் ஒருங்கிணைந்த சேவை செய்வதற்கான கட்டாயம் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது. அந்த ஒருங்கிணைப்பாளராக CDS செயல்படுவார். ஆகவே அவரை ராணுவ அல்லது விமான மற்றும் கடற்படைத் தலைமைத் தளபதிகளின் தளபதி என்று கூறுவது தவறு.

இந்திய எல்லையில் ஏற்பட்டுள்ள பாதுகாப்பு சூழ்நிலையில் பெரும் மாற்றங்கள் ஏற்பட்டுள்ளன. இதற்கு முக்கிய காரணம் இரண்டு அணு ஆயுத அரசுகள் - பாகிஸ்தான் மற்றும் சீனா - இணைந்து செயல்படுவதற்கான பாதுகாப்பு ஒப்பந்தங்கள் ஆகும். 

இதுபோலவ இந்திய பெருங்கடலில் சீன கடற் படையினரின் பிரவேசம் வலுத்து வருகிறது. இது இந்தியா மட்டும் அல்லாமல் மற்ற உலக வல்லரசான அமெரிக்கா மற்றும் அதன் நேச நாடுகள் மத்தியில் கலக்கத்தை ஏற்படுத்தியுள்ளது. 

ஆகவே தனியாக செயல்பட்ட இந்தியாவுக்கும் அமெரிக்காவுக்கும் முன்னெப்போதும் இல்லாத நெருக்கமான பாதுகாப்பு உறவுகள் சென்று பத்தாண்டுகளில் உருவாகியுள்ளது. ஆகவே இந்திய முப்படைகள் பல நாடுகளுடன் ஒருங்கிணைந்த பயிற்சி செய்து வருகின்றன. ஆகவே CDS இத்தகைய திட்டமிட்ட செயலாக்கங்களை உருவாக்குவதில் பாதுகாப்பு அமைச்சருக்கும் பிரதமருக்கும் ஆலோசகராக செயல்படுவார். 

2. தற்போது ஜனாதிபதி தான் முப்படைகளின் தளபதியாக உள்ளார். இந்தப் புதிய பதவி ஜனாதிபதியின் அந்தஸ்தை குறைக்கிறதா?

நான் ஏற்கனவே CDS முப்படைகளின் தளபதி அல்ல என்பதற்காகன காரணங்களை முதல் கேள்வியின் விடையில் அளித்துள்ளேன். ஆகவே CDS  பதவி ஒரு விதத்திலும் ஜனாதிபதியின் அந்தஸ்தை குறைக்காது. அதற்கு மாற்றாக ஜனாதிபதிக்கு தேவையான போது CDS-க்கு போர்நிலையைப் பற்றிய விளக்கம் கூறும் கடமையும் இருக்கும் என்பது என கணிப்பு. 

3. புதிதாக நியமிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள பிபின் ராவத், இராணுவத் தளபதியாக இருந்தபோது பல சர்ச்சைக்குரிய அரசியல் கருத்துகள் தெரிவித்ததாகவும், ஆளும் தரப்புக்கும் நெருக்கமானவர் என்கிற குற்றச்சாட்டு உள்ளது? இவரது நியமனத்தை நீங்கள் எப்படிப் பார்க்கிறீர்கள்?

அவர் 38 ஆண்டுகள் ராணுவத்தில் பல்வேறு அழுத்தம் மிக்க சூழ்நிலையில் அடிமட்டத்தில் ஆரம்பித்து உயர் பதவிகளில் பணியாற்றியவர். அவ்வாறு பணியாற்றும் பல்லாயிரக்கணக்கான ஆபீசர்களில் இருந்து ராணுவத் தலைமைப் பதவியில் பணியாற்றியவர். ஆகவே நான் அவரை மெத்தனமாக ஊடக முறையில் அவர் தனிப்பட்ட கருத்துக்களை விமர்சிக்க விரும்பவில்லை. 

4. பாதுகாப்பு படைகளின் அதிகாரம் ஓரிடத்தில் குவிவதாக இதன்மீது ஒரு பார்வை வைக்கப்படுகிறது. இதன்மூலம் மக்களாட்சிக்கு அச்சுறுத்தல், இராணுவ ஆட்சி வந்துவிடும் என்கிற குற்றச்சாட்டுகளுக்கு உங்களுடைய பதில் என்னவாக இருக்கும்? 

 இந்திய ஜனநாயகத்தைக் காப்பாற்ற சென்ற 70 ஆண்டுகளில் ராணுவப் படைகள் செய்த மகத்தான தியாகங்களை மறந்து அரசியல் ஒன்றே பிழைப்பு என்று செயல்படுவோர்களின் பிதற்றல் என்றே இந்தக் கருத்தைக் கூறுவேன். இந்திய ராணுவம் இன்றும் தனது முழுத்திறனுடன் செயல்படவிடாமல் இருப்பதற்கு இத்தகைய மனநிலையில் பதவியில் இருப்பவர்களே காரணம்.