Sri Lanka polls: Winners and Losers

In a smart move, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has dissolved parliament and called for early elections in a bid to cash in on popular support even as the UNP and the SLFP are struggling to stay relevant 

By Col R Hariharan |India Legal| March 13, 2020

https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/winners-and-losers-92318

Sri Lankans will be voting to elect a new parliament in elections to be held on April 25. There is hectic political activity as the Election Commission will be receiving nominations from March 12 for a week. President Gotabaya Raja­paksa dissolved the parliament on March 2 and called for the elections six months early to cash in on the wave of popular support that helped him win the presidential poll in November 2019. He aims to win two-thirds majority for the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP)-led alliance, which fielded him, to push through his political and economic agenda.

Addressing a meeting of senior media members on March 8, Gotabaya said the government remained focused on removing the 19th Amendment to the constitution. The Amendment had taken away the president’s freedom of action. This had “created confusion and imbalances of power” and commissions established under the Constitutional Council “failed to be as independent as promised”. He cited the inability of the earlier president, Maithripala Sirisena, to replace the inspector general of police after the 2019 Easter Sunday terrorist attack as an example. He said “these constitutional issues could be ironed out”, and a new constitution formulated as set out in the manifesto. His other priorities include holding provincial council elections as soon as the parliamentary election is wrapped up.

Sri Lanka’s parliament has 225 members. Out of these, 196 are to be elected from 22 multi-member electoral districts using the proportional representation system. The remaining 29 seats will be allocated to the contesting parties and independent groups based on the proportion of their vote share.

Gotabaya seems to have uncannily timed the parliamentary election when the two grand old parties—the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)—are struggling to stay relevant after his thumping victory. Their cosy world of alliances has gone topsy-turvy after the presidential poll. Their bid to preserve their distinct identity is being dramatically seen in their battle for election symbols.

The SLFP led by Sirisena is playing second fiddle in the SLPP-led SLPNS alliance cobbled together by Basil Raja­paksa, brother of Gotabaya. Sirisena had to eat humble pie when the SLPNS did not agree to his plea to allow his partymen to contest the election on the SLFP symbol. Now they will be contesting on SLPP’s pohottuwa (lotus bud) symbol. In spite of Sirisena’s statement that the SLFP would help the alliance in getting a two-thirds majority, relations between the SLPP and SLFP leaders are far from cordial. The former president’s cavalier remarks about an SLPP leader’s local campaign in Sirisena’s stronghold of Polonnaruwa have triggered verbal skirmishes between the rank and file of both parties.

“Such remarks have not added to Sirisena’s credibility with the Rajap­aksas who have probably not forgotten his role in “ganging up” with the Ranil Wickre­mesinghe-led UNP to defeat Mahinda Rajapaksa in the 2014 presidential election and in the parliamentary election a year later. The Raja­pa­ksas are also unlikely to forget the double whammy delivered by Sirisena’s failed “constitutional coup” in Nove­mber 2018, installing Mahinda as PM after sacking PM Wickremesinghe but failing to muster support in Parliament. In any case, the Supreme Court held the president’s action unconstitutional and Wickremesinghe was back as PM.

The cumulative effect of Sirisena’s poor political leadership decisions seem to be catching up with the SLFP, now left as a bystander in the Rajapaksa-led coalition. Sirisena loyalist and former minister Duminda Dissanayake rema­rked: “How can we obtain a two-thirds majority in Parliament? There are people who go on saying do not vote for the others.” This reflects the uneasy state of the SLFP-SLPP alliance and could affect the second preferential votes of candidates fielded by the SLFP.

The first set of nomination papers of the SLPNS was signed on March 11 at an auspicious hour at Rajapaksa’s residence. Rajapaksa is set to contest from Kurunegala constituency; other senior leaders signed the nomination papers for most of the southern districts in the south. Later, Sirisena signed his application to contest from Polonnaruwa. In the north and east, the alliance is contesting under different symbols.

The leadership struggle within the UNP between Wickremesinghe and PM aspirant and deputy leader Sajith Premadasa has continued and there was even a tussle over election symbols. Though Premadasa wanted to contest as the UNP candidate and managed to muster the support of smaller political parties like the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress, All Ceylon Makkal Congress, Jathika Hela Urumaya and the National Democratic Front, his parleys with the UNP leader failed. He was left with no option but to opt for the telephone symbol before the Election Commission deadline of March 9 for switching symbols. The UNP informed the EC that it was ready to contest the election in all districts under the elephant symbol. This has left the rank and file of the UNP and its coalition allies confused. With the UNP a divided house on the eve of the election, the chances of the Sajith Premadasa-led JSB winning over the support of traditional UNP voters have diminished.

But the big question is will the SLPP alliance be able to secure two-thirds majority in the House? Rajapaksa won the presidential election with the Sinhala majority overwhelmingly voting in his favour, while minority Muslims and Tamils seem to have preferred Premadasa. The Sinhala majority preferred Gotabaya after the Easter Sunday terrorist attacks.  Presumably, a majority consider national security more important than other issues like structural reforms, ethnic reconciliation and good governance. With the consolidation of the Sinhala majority in favour of Gotabaya, the SLPP is likely to improve upon the 52 percent support of voters.

At the same time, Gotabaya’s negative attitude to devolution of powers and casual handling of some of the vexing issues of the Eelam war like accountability for war crimes and forcibly disappeared persons are likely to further delay the ethnic reconciliation process. Thus, ethnic polarisation appears to have gained a new lease of life. It is likely to continue to sway the voting pattern. So it is going to be difficult for the SLPP alliance to make inroads among Muslim and Tamil voters who had largely supported Premadasa.

However, Gotabaya’s style of leadership has shown him as a hands-on leader who works with clear goals and a structured approach to problems. In this respect, he is probably the most popular leader among the present crop of Sri Lanka leaders. If he can make a dent among minority voters, the SLPP alliance can manage to gain a two-thirds majority. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has demonstrated his mastery at this political game in his first tenure; but Gotabaya differs from his brother in many ways.

Can the president do it? In this context, the comment of Dumbledore in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is relevant: “It is not our abilities that show truly what we are, it is our choices.” This is true not only for the voter, but the president as well.

 

Sri Lanka Perspectives February 2020: Going back on UNHRC commitment

Col R Hariharan 

29-2-2020| South Asia Security Trends, March 2020  www.security-risks.com

President Gotbaya Rajapaksa fulfilled yet another election promise when Sri Lanka’s foreign minister Dinesh Gunawardena informed the 43^rd session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) meeting at Geneva that Sri Lanka was withdrawing from co-sponsorship of the UNHRC Resolution 30/1 on the country’s accountability for alleged human right violations committed during the Eelam War.

The foreign minister was referring to the Resolution on Promoting Reconciliation, Accountability and Human Rights in Sri Lanka, co-sponsored by the Sirisena government and adopted unanimously on October 1, 2015. In essence, the Resolution 30/1 called for a domestic internal inquiry, involving foreign expertise, on alleged human rights violations committed by Sri Lanka during the 26-year long war against the Tamil Tigers that ended in May 2009.

Gunawardena highlighted the progress made through the domestic processes during the difficult years after the war in demining, infrastructure development, rehabilitation of displaced people, return of private land under army occupation and reintegration of 12,000 former LTTE cadres.

In his speech, he elaborated on the following points that led to Sri Lanka’s decision to withdraw its sponsorship:

·      The previous Government had accepted the use of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Investigation on Sri Lanka (OISL) Report as the basis for Resolution 30/1. The report was based on unverified information and testimonies that vilified the security forces, though there was abundant evidence to the contrary in domestic reports such as the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and the Presidential Commission of Inquiry (Paranagama Commission) into complaints of alleged abductions and disappearances.

·      The Resolution 30/1 casts upon Sri Lanka obligations that cannot be carried out within its constitutional framework; and it “infringes the sovereignty of people” of Sri Lanka and “violates the basic structure of the Constitution.”

·      Procedurally, the previous Government had violated all democratic principles of governance by sponsoring the Resolution 30/1. The government sought no Cabinet approval to bind the country “to deliver on the dictates of an international body.” There was no reference to the Parliament on the process, undertakings and repercussions of such co-sponsorship. 

     The then President Maithripala Sirisena had stated that he was not consulted on the matter at that time.

·      

     The “dictated changes in the country” pursuant to 30/1 undermined the national interests and compromised security including weakening intelligence operations and related safeguards, “which are deemed to have contributed to the lapses that resulted in the Easter Sunday attacks last April.”

Presumably to soften the negative impact of walking out from earlier stand, the foreign minister said in spite of the withdrawal from co-sponsoring the resolution, “Sri Lanka remained committed to achieving the goals set by people of Sri Lanka on accountability and human rights towards sustainable peace and reconciliation.” 

Gunawardena added, “The government will set up a domestically-designed reconciliation and accountability process to achieve sustainable peace. Sri Lanka will continue to remain engaged with, and seek as required, the assistance of the UN and its agencies.”

Actually, after reneging its sponsorship for Resolution 30/1, Sri Lanka’s strategy behind expression of intent to set up a domestically-designed reconciliation and accountability process is not clear. Already it had established the LLRC and Paranagama Commission and their recommendations have been implemented only partially.

Similarly, the previous Rajapaksa government had held inconclusive talks on ethnic reconciliation with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). The Sirisena government had prepared a draft constitution to accommodate the Tamil aspirations as a part of the reconciliation process. All that was required was to take complete actions that are still in halfway house of implementation.  It would seem the promise to set up another domestic reconciliation and accountability process is more to satisfy international audience and buy time to delay follow up action by the UNHRC, than to address the issues domestically.  

The foreign minister is not wholly correct on his stated reasons for reneging on Sri Lanka’s commitment to the international human rights body:

·      Army committing war crimes: The Paranagama commission, constituted by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, while rejecting the UN estimate of 40,000 civilians killed during the conflict, found the allegations of Sri Lankan army committing war crimes credible. The commission called for an independent judicial investigation into war crimes allegations.

·      Evolving a consensus: After the government sponsored the UN resolution, it had drawn heavy criticism from the opposition. President Sirisena convened an all-party meeting to evolve a broad political consensus on a domestic mechanism as required by the resolution. That would indicate the President was reconciled to the implementation of Resolution 30/1 despite his expressed reservations.

·      Drafting of resolution: Former foreign minister Mangala Samaraweera who strategized Resolution 30/1, in a statement said that the decision to co-sponsor it was taken by the Sirisena government.  “The final text of the resolution was largely negotiated over the telephone, with the President (Sirisena) and I at the same hotel in New York and the Prime Minister in Colombo accompanied by the foreign secretary at the time.” Defending the resolution Samaraweera said it was a reassertion of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and regaining Sri Lanka’s lost respect and dignity among the international community once again. “It was an opportunity to prove that Sri Lankan justice is fully capable of ensuring credible accountability” the statement added.

Sri Lanka is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly Resolution 220A(xxi) which came into force from March 23, 1976.  Sri Lanka had ratified the ICCPR on June 11, 1980. So under Rome Statute, Sri Lanka is bound to implement Resolution 30/1, even after it has withdrawn co-sponsored it.  

At the all-party meeting in October 2015, the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF) leader R Sampanthan had asked President Sirisena to “build a process for Tamils to have confidence in the authority. Hold an impartial inquiry where the Tamils could place faith.”  By walking out of Sri Lanka’s own commitment to the UNHRC, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has pushed the reconciliation process back to square one. Unfortunately, this was not to be. Thus the hands of constitutionalists among Tamil polity has now been weakened  when it is essential for achieving meaningful ethnic reconciliation.

Sri Lanka’s action at Geneva has to be viewed in the context of the parliamentary elections to be held on April 25. President Gotabaya’s aim will be to get absolute majority in parliament for Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) led alliance Sri Lanka Nidhas Podujana Sandanaya which is contesting under the Pohottuwa (lotus bud) symbol. Former President Sirisena-led SLFPP has agreed to join the alliance and contest with Pohottuwa symbol.  President’s action in withdrawing Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of UNHRC Resolution 30/1 would reinforce his support among Sinhala nationalist segments and others who consider it as an affront to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

Thus Sandanaya alliance will be in a strong position to take on the United Naitonal Party (UNP) which has been wracked by continuing power struggle between the old order led by party chairman Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa the challenger. Sajith has formed a new coalition with the members of the UNP-led United National Front Coalition. But lack of clarity and affiliations between the rival leaders’ factions has weakened the opposition to Gotabaya considerably.

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  

Walking the tightrope

The Centre’s submission to the apex court that troops are not mentally ready to accept women in command may seem sexist, but will they be able to meet the tough physical challenges of the job?

By Col R Hariharan |India Legal | February 19, 2020

https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/women-commanders-armed-forces-walking-tightrope-88805

ALL troops won’t accept women commanders: Government to SC,”  “India’s soldiers not ready for women in combat”…these were some of the media headlines that flayed the government for being sexist in army selections. The centre had submitted to the Supreme Court that troops, mainly from a rural background “with prevailing societal norms” were not “mentally schooled to accept women in command”.

The case related to a few women officers (WOs) of the army challenging alleged gender discrimination in appointments and the army’s reluctance to accept them in combat arms like infantry and armoured corps and in command appointments. The government’s argument was criticised not only by the media and civil society activists but also by veteran army officers. Brigadier Rahul Bhonsle tweeted: “This claim is patently false. I had women officer commanding a signal company with great aplomb way back in 2003. Have things regressed further?”

In damage control mode, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared before the Supreme Court, said that the centre did not intend to advance the arguments that male officers cannot take orders from female officers. Appearing before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, he said that in his opinion “women must not strive to be equal to men. They are in fact above men in all respects and better than men”. He said there was no gender discrimination in matters of commissioning and appointments. None of the rules perpetuated this discrimination.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent’s argument was flawed as empirical data suggested otherwise. WOs were not on a par with male officers, she added. Justice Chandrachud, while questioning why women were not commissioned in the field, observed: “Two things are required to alter empirical data to rid any form of Gender Discrimination—administrative will and a change in mindset.”

Since 1993, the government has progressively opened up the three services for WOs in selected branches. At present, the number of WOs in the three services is—Army: 1,561; Air Force: 1,594 and Navy: 644. It works out to 3.8 percent, 13.09 percent and six percent, respectively. They are commissioned into the Army Service Corps, Ordnance, Army Education Corps, Judge Advocate General, Engineers, Signals, Intelligence, Electrical and Mechanical Engineering branches. The Army doesn’t allow women in combat roles like infantry, armoured, mechanised infantry, aviation and artillery.

In spite of the progress that the government has made so far, two operative paragraphs in its submission before the Supreme Court have drawn the ire of various sections of society. These are:

“x. Command appointments: Command of units entails setting personal example and leading from the front and Commanding Officers must do everything the troops were required to do. However, existing physical fitness standards of WOs are distinctly lower than their male counterparts. Composition of rank and file being male, predominantly from rural background, with prevailing societal norms, were not yet mentally schooled to accept WOs in command of units. Further, they also lack combat exposure in the form of infantry attachment and service with Rashtriya Rifles units.

“xi. Equal opportunity is for equals: It is submitted as apparent from the preceding paragraphs equality of WOs with male SSCOs does not exist. Some important issues are highlighted here:

“(a) Different physical standards: The physical standards for women are considerably different than men viz. in the Battle Physical Efficiency Tests (BPET). Excellent timing for males is 24 minutes 40 seconds while for women the excellent timing is 31 minutes 30 seconds, which is even below the failed standard for males i.e. 27 minutes and 30 seconds.”

It is evident that from the government point of view and presumably the armed forces’ one too, the two issues relating to WOs’ intake in combat arms are: doubts about the acceptance of women in command appointments by troops and their lack of physical standards required to lead men in combat.

Prof Srinath Raghavan, Senior Fellow at Carnegie India, was not far off the mark when he tweeted: “An extraordinary and regressive claim. Reminiscent of British Raj’s claim that Indian soldiers would never accept Indian commanders. Military training is about fundamentally reshaping norms and attitudes that soldiers bring from their social backgrounds.”

For trained soldiers “acceptance” is not an option; they have undergone rigorous regimentation to accept orders from the command. Social background is not such a big issue for the soldier within the unit as long as he is treated fairly. Those of us who have handled discontentment among troops, even bordering on mutiny, succeeded in defusing the situation only by showing them that the orders were fair and just, both in spirit and action. So the argument that women commanders may not be accepted by troops indicates the patriarchal mindset of policymakers, including political leaders, senior bureaucrats and commanders.

However, tough physical standards required in combat arms like infantry, armoured corps and artillery are a challenge. The experience of the US Army in throwing open infantry and other combat arm jobs to women soldiers would be useful to understand the professional complexities in implementing any blanket order on recruiting women. In January 2013, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered all services to open combat arms for women soldiers. The services were given three years till 2016 to make it happen.

The US Army was cautious in implementing the order, although the Marine Corps had already done so. General Robert Cone, commander, Training and Doctrine Command, explained this guarded approach in the November 2013 issue of Army magazine. He wrote: “We must do this right, lest we put women and our institutional credibility at risk…The combat readiness of our well-seasoned Army must remain the first priority.”

By 2013, the Marine Corps had already exposed women recruits to the physically demanding standards required to serve in the male-dominated infantry and special operations units after considerable research. Both the Marine Corps and the Army examined the issue of lowering physical standards required for these jobs before allowing women in combat arms. The Marine Corps maintained that women would have to meet the required performance-based standards if they wanted to serve in the infantry units.

According to General Cone, a survey of 2,500 soldiers revealed that across the Marine Corps and the army, everyone, including female soldiers and leaders, insisted the standards for service in combat units should not be lowered.

The general suggested that the demands of modern combat must be considered while setting recruiting standards. The army looked at the most physically demanding tasks artillerymen, engineers, infantrymen and armoured crews must perform to determine how to measure a soldier’s ability to perform them. The respective branches sent out teams to identify 31 tasks across these “closed” arms to establish performance standards for each task through actual performance of them by trained troops.

Perhaps our armed forces need to undertake such an exercise to determine physical fitness standards required for meeting the minimum operational standards (MOS) required for each arm. It should recruit persons meeting the MOS, regardless of gender. This time-consuming exercise should be undertaken with political and organisational support of the government and the services if they seriously want to lift existing restrictions on women’s entry in all branches of the armed forces.

How do WOs who served in the Army view their experience? Captain Lekshmy Natarajan, a veteran of the Intelligence Corps, firmly believes that man and woman “are not equal and is a point not worth debate or discussion”. She felt that men and women in the organisation should function just as man and woman “by complementing each other’s strengths” as in a family. She said that “women in uniform can no doubt perform any tasks given” with their intelligence and training, “but women officers in combat should be a discussion that shouldn’t be just one for global applause or to showcase that we are at par with the world”. She added that while “femininity may rejoice the bold decision of inducting woman combatants”, only the wearer would know where the shoe pinches. She cautioned that a lot of changes would be required to be made in policies as well as in the minds of men, whom these women are to command “in risky, dangerous and hostile terrain (hostility may not be entirely external)”. The WO induction (in combat arms) should only be initiated when the ground and the elements are thoroughly prepared. She acknowledged that there was a great shortage of officers in supporting arms. It is also a given that the married WO, who is also a mother, finds it extremely difficult to cope with bizarre postings and separation from spouse and children. So it makes sense to apply WO strengths in areas where they complement the system while performing their natural duties as women.

The fact is that sexual misconduct is the real elephant in the room. The US, UK and other countries, which have integrated women in all ranks of the armed forces, have found that the issue has snowballed into a major organisational conundrum not only for the armed forces but governments as well. This issue will loom large when women are inducted in large numbers in all ranks and branches of the armed forces. This will require rigorous re-examination of the Army Rules and Army Act.

In the US, a national group of sexual assault survivors is enlisting public support to convince the presidential candidates to sign “Protect Our Defenders” to commit to military justice reforms in cases of sexual assault and rape. Out of 15 candidates, so far 11 have signed the pledge to eliminate the chain of command prosecution authority in “non-military crimes like rape and murder”. As one would have guessed, President Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Joe Walsh and Mike Bloomberg have not signed the pledge.

While ensuring that women get their rightful place to serve in the armed forces before introducing any measure to improve gender equity, it should not weaken the fighting capabilities of the sword arms of national security. That is the bottom line.

Less visible dimensions

As China battles the crisis, other countries are scrambling to control the spread. India has well-developed biotech infrastructure with scientists experienced in infectious diseases by Col R Hariharan

India Legal |Top News of the Day| News| February 29, 2020

https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/news/the-less-visible-dimensions-90374?fbclid=IwAR3OzTCNd3lTJ9NdjCu_dZtpGudfD688wdj4MW1XBvnhQo0eDAVvdAHFHQE

The novel corona virus (COVID19) epidemic, which struck China’s Hubei province in December 2019, now has the potential to become a pandemic across the world, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO). According to WHO February 25 situation report, 80,239 people (including 908 new cases in the last 24 hours) in 33 countries have been affected by the virus. China topped the list of affected countries with 77,780 cases (518 new cases) with 266 deaths.

Only a week earlier, China’s President Xi Jinping’s statement to the Politburo of the CPC that the corona virus had not yet peaked, made a case for continuing with the strict centralised measures to control movement of people for work or travel. Chinese authorities, in an unprecedented move, have announced the postponement of the National Peoples’ Congress, the country’s parliament, after President Xi warned the corona virus as the “worst public health crisis facing the country” since founding of the PRC.

The just- concluded WHO-China joint mission has made a range of findings about the transmissibility and the severity of the disease and the impact of measures taken. Dr Tedros Adhanom, Director General of WHO, in a press briefing to release the report on February 24 said that in China the epidemic peaked and plateaued between January 23 and February 2. It is a small consolation to other countries like South Korea, Iran and Italy where the virus has rapidly spread, that the novel corona virus is declining steadily in China since February 2 as stated by the Director General.

The joint mission found the fatality rate in China was between 2 percent and 4 percent in Wuhan, the epicentre of the viral attack, and 0.7 percent outside Wuhan. People with mild attacks recovered in two weeks, while people with severe or critical disease recovered within three to six weeks.

The WHO is yet to describe the epidemic a “pandemic”. Usually, the geographical spread of the virus, the severity of disease it causes and the impact it has on the whole of society determine whether to call it a pandemic. In the words of Dr Adhanom, “For the moment we are not witnessing the uncontained global spread of this virus and we are not witnessing large-scale severe disease or death.”

In WHO’s assessment, the virus has the “pandemic potential.” Describing the current situation, the head of WHO added, “What we see are epidemics in different parts of the world, affecting countries in different ways and requiring a tailored response.” While the sudden increase in new cases was certainly very concerning, using the word pandemic now does not fit the facts, but it may certainly cause fear.

He said “this is not the time to focus on what word we use….we do not live in a binary, black-and-white world. It is not either-or. We must focus on containment, while doing everything we can to prepare for a potential pandemic.”

However, the world does not seem to care about the semantics describing the virus as epidemic or pandemic. The world view was reflected in CNN headlines of the virus story: “DOW plunges 1000 points on Corona virus fears; gains of 2020 wiped out”  and “Corona virus cases top as markets plunge in pandemic fears.” Summarising the global impact of the virus, South China Morning Post, the Alibaba-owned Hong Kong daily was more forthright. Its opinion piece was headlined “Whatever the trigger, a global financial melt-down is inevitable.”

In recent times, no other happening, let alone a virus attack, in a country has had such a huge worldwide impact. Even the 2009 H1Ni influenza outbreak in the US due to which over 60 million Americans were affected, resulting in 274, 304 hospitalisations and 12,469 deaths had such an effect.

While there had been outpouring of spontaneous sympathy for the Chinese people and all those affected by COVID19, countries have reacted with extreme caution in their response. Most countries, including India, have shut the door for transit of people and goods from and to China. The same restrictions are being applied to other frontline countries affected by viral attack in Iran, GCC, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Thailand.

As globally networked media kept track of the rapid spread of COVID-19, social media has gone on full throttle with real-time information interlaced with misinformation; quite a few even suggested home remedies and spells to tackle the virus threat. Social media audience were attracted in huge numbers to recycled stories speculating upon COVID-19 as China’s bio-weapon experiment gone wrong.

In particular a Tweet from Kyle Bass, a businessman, claimed "a husband and wife Chinese spy team were recently removed from a Level 4 Infectious Disease facility in Canada for sending pathogens to the Wuhan facility" was retweeted over 12,000 times. The tweet linked to CNBC News’ July 2019 report that the researcher and her husband (branded as “Chinese spies” in social media) and some of their graduate students were escorted out of the National Microbiology Lab (NML) in Winnipeg, amid RCMP investigation into what was being described as possible “policy breach” and “administrative matter.”  The conspiracy story that figured in a video on Chinese social media Tik Tok was watched more than 350,000 times. US Republican Senator Tom Cotton gave further credence to the speculation by persistently raising the possibility that the virus had originated in a high security biochemical lab in Wuhan.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a subsidiary of the state owned research body the Chinese Academy of Sciences, was opened five years ago after a decision was taken after the last deadly SARS corona virus attack in 2003. Scientists carried out virus research at the institute with the highest level of biological containment available in China.  According to a report in The New York Times, the lab came under spotlight in January 2020, after Chinese scientists said “the virus could have a connection to bats via an intermediary, such as some form of game” sold at a seafood market in Wuhan. This seems to have triggered the theories of novel corona virus originating from in game meat in the market.

China’s low international public credibility with a kernel of truth in the news report on two Chinese scientists working in PHAC and their visit to China probably resulted in the persistence of conspiracy theories    

According to January 27, CBC report, Dr Xiangguo Qiu, a medical doctor and virologist from Tianjin, China, came to Canada for graduate studies in 1966. Qiu continues to be affiliated with the university there and has brought many students to help in her work. She developed a treatment for deadly Ebola virus, which killed more than 11,000 people in Africa (2014-16). Her husband Keding Cheng works at the Winnipeg lab as a biologist. He has published research papers on HIV infection, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), E. coli infections etc. It said a month later, CBC discovered the scientists at the NML had sent live Ebola and Henipah viruses to Beijing on Air Canada flight on March 31. According to PHAC all federal policies were followed. However, the Agency would not confirm if the March 31 was part of the RCMP investigation.

Chinese government has tried to crack down upon social media posts on the viral attack. In spite of this, the quick spread of unverified information and misinformation even in the controlled society Chinese authorities has dramatically demonstrated social media’s enormous influence in conditioning public perceptions.

The moral of the story is: all government agencies have to learn to establish their credibility and develop the art of communicating to the public immediately to quell rumours and misinformation. There is a Chinese saying: “When the winds of change blows, some people build walls and others build windmills.” Unfortunately, the State, confronted with the challenges of social media will have to learn not only to build walls to ward off misinformation but also build windmills to take advantage of social media’s capability to develop a counter-narrative.

The international Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons (CPSBT) and their destruction, was signed on April 10, 1972, an came into force on March 26, 1975. It is now ratified by 180 countries.  The CPSBT is special because, unlike other international conventions based on Geneva Conventions or Rome Statute, it was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning an entire category of weapons listed as weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

India ratified the CPSBT on July 15, 1974. Since then India has improved its capabilities in biotechnology largely for peaceful use. The country has well developed biotech infrastructure with well qualified scientists experienced in infectious diseases and bio-containment laboratories including Biosafety levels 3 and 4. India has avowed not to make biological weapons. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) primary research lab is located in Gwalior, MP. Its work focuses on countering biological threats like anthrax, brucellosis, cholera, plague, small pox, viral haemorrhage fever and botulism. combat biological attacks which have the potential to redirected to prepare offensive agents also. 

The Indian armed forces are trained in handling nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) warfare. In 2003, after Al-Qaeda training manuals revealed that terrorists were trained in the production and use of toxins such as ricin, Indian security agencies also became concerned at the possibility of terrorists launching biological attacks. Since then much progress has been made on training troops on NBC warfare and handle biological attack of terrorists. India and the United States signed a new 10-year defence framework agreement on June 3, 2015. Its provisions include working cooperatively to develop defence capabilities, including in NBC protection. 

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