India’s Volte-Face: Winners and Losers
Repost This Article
Image from LankaStandard
India’s hasty decision to support the United States of America led Resolution on Sri Lanka came as a big surprise. While a few rumours flagged the possibility of an India “for” vote a couple of days before the actual announcement by the Prime Minister, they were largely ignored. The prevailing orthodoxy was that India would likely abstain, and that the vote would carry with a narrow majority. That orthodoxy has now been questioned, and with India coming on board, the possibility of a landslide victory for the US is more likely. This brief piece sets out to identify the political “winners” and “losers” from the fallout of India’s decision, barring last minute twists in the tale. The merits of the Resolution are not discussed in this article. Its aspirations are rather more modest, and only seeks to identify the manner in which coming events will contribute to the image of specific political personalities and entities.
Winners
The United States of America and Hilary Clinton
The Obama presidency has been marked not merely by the transformation of US foreign policy doctrine, but also by a remarkable efficiency and competence in the handling of knotty foreign policy issues. America’s foreign policy has seen victory after victory – from the vanquishing of public enemy Osama bin Laden to the restrained behind the scenes work in Egypt, the multilateral Security Council authorized R2P effort in Libya and the junta’s apparent change of heart in Burma. Now, shortly after proclaiming that their foreign policy focus would shift to the Asia-Pacific region, the US are on the cusp of a major foreign policy coup. Netting India’s support for an opening gambit Resolution on India’s problematic neighbour – when all indications were that India would tread a different path – serve to burnish its credentials as the sole remaining superpower despite China and Russia’s growing aspirations.
Karunanidhi
Largely vilified in Tamil Nadu for his failure to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the central government to take a stronger message to Sri Lanka during the last stages of the war, Karunanidhi entered the “HRC19” debate later than his nemesis Jayalalitha. Having entered it, he relied on a familiar ruse, threatening to pull out of Congress if the centre failed to heed his call. A token fast was also thrown in for good measure. In 2009, Congress called his bluff and Karunanidhi was forced to take the fall. Public anger against his vacillation and lack of commitment to the wellbeing of Sri Lankan Tamils contributed to the landslide against him in Tamil Nadu state elections. This time around, Karunanidhi’s grandstanding appears to have paid off. He will bank on the expected volatility of the Tamil Nadu electorate to redeem himself as the saviour of Sri Lankan Tamils, restoring his fledgling image and his electoral fortunes.
Tamil National Alliance and Mr. R. Sampanthan
The TNA has been dogged by a growing creed of extremist Tamils in the diaspora and within Sri Lanka. Mr. R. Sampanthan in particular has been publicly ridiculed for his earnest efforts to retain the support of India, and to a lesser extent, the United States of America. Feeding on public anger against India within the Tamil community for its part in Sri Lanka’s war effort, criticisms of Mr. Sampanthan have focused on his supposed faith in India and the US. An India vote for the US resolution on Sri Lanka will help Sampanthan – and his close confidante M. A. Sumanthiran – portray themselves as clever diplomatic operators. The growing rapport between the US State Department and the TNA, and the TNA’s willingness to alienate vociferous elements within the Tamils for the sake of better relations with the United States and India, will appear to have paid dividends.
Losers
The Sri Lankan government and President Mahinda Rajapaksa
If India does vote against Sri Lanka at the Council, that vote will mark the successful alienation by the government of one of its strongest allies on the international stage. India supported Sri Lanka’s military, supported Mahinda Rajapaksa’s resolve to end militarily annihilate the LTTE, and supported Sri Lanka’s diplomatic efforts during and after the war to stave off international pressure on war crimes. However, India’s support did come at a small cost – that of a promise made by the government that the 13th amendment would be implemented in full and going beyond, that meaningful steps would be taken to devolve power. The government failed to deliver, risking censure from a regional power. Yet, the government very probably gambled that the China threat and the timorous apprehension that has characterized post-1987 Indian foreign policy would prohibit strong Indian action against Sri Lanka. This miscalculation will cost the government dearly.
India’s foreign policy Mandarins/ the South Block.
The decision by India to vote in favour of the US led Resolution appears to have been taken at the highest levels of India’s governing hierarchy. What was well-known prior to Dr. Singh’s announcement was that any decision taken by India would have to have had the concurrence of Sonia Gandhi. However, the course charted by India’s Kerala dominated foreign policy elite would have led directly to an abstention at best, and possibly a vote against. India’s hesitant foreign policy on Sri Lanka has hitherto sought and obtained a number of far-reaching commitments from the Rajapaksas, with very little to show besides the donation of few bicycles and houses in Northern Sri Lanka. However, India’s precarious position vis-à-vis Chinese intrusions into Sri Lanka and America’s roving eye resulted in foreign policy paralysis. The culmination of this impotent strategy was the public humiliation of External Affairs Minister S. M. Krisha recently, where his version of Rajapaksa’s commitments to India were publicly repudiated by the President. Yet, India unfailingly appeared to support a “no policy policy” on Sri Lanka. Noises were made about India’s “no country-specific resolution” policy at the Council. Retired Indian intelligence officials and others suggested publicly that India would and should abstain. Those views appear to have been overturned by a recent decision taken at the highest levels. India’s diplomats will now find themselves in unfamiliar territory – wielding a stick they never thought they had the strength to carry!
An issuance of postmortem report before death? Why hurry and for what purpose?
Thanks!
Brilliant analysis.
Would this resolution, if passed, codify the fact that the Sinhala people will never allow our Tamil brothers and sisters to live in peace.
Would it then mount pressure on Srilanka to face a East Timor type situation ?
If South Sudan is our guide with the inhabitants of the N and the East living abroad voting for separation, Would it then lead to Srilanka being split along pre-colonial lines ?
Over to the members of the forum for your views.
The big winners are the Tamil people regardless of the outcome of the vote. The essence of the Tamil struggle for 65 years has been to bypass Colombo and engage directly with the world. The fact that the GOSL is fighting tooth and nail to oppose the resolution should put a smile on the face of all Tamils, because it will force the US to spend valuable political capital, and call in favors from other heads of state. Once they do this, they are fully invested in the outcome in Sri Lanka, or as one US diplomat has already said “We are in it for the long haul”. That’s exactly what the Tamils have wanted for decades. The international arena offers beautiful concepts such as self-determination, human rights, independence referendums, conventions against genocide, while the domestic space only offers the same old false promises of the 13th amendment, endless parliamentary select commitees, and periodic visits by indian politicos bearing gifts of tractors and other “goodies”.
@vishvajith – I respond with a request.
Kindly rephrase your reference to the ‘Sinhalese people’
You are talking arrant rubbish. The Tamils live in thousands peacefully among the Sinhalese people in Wellawatte and other places.
Change your reference from ‘Sinhalese’ to say ‘ the Sinhala politicians’. That would be more correct. Sinhala as well as Tamil politcians have been responsible for this mess we are in.
I am pleased to join you and endorse your rebuff, Mr. P. de Silva. Thanks, Nithy!
Tamils live in hundreds-of-thousands peacefully among the Sinhalese in Jaffna, Mullaitivu and other places.
@Pandukabaya de Silva
Was it the Sinhala politicians or the Sinhala majority who were out on the streets protesting against the US in the past few weeks? Ha…ha…of course there were a few Muslims and Tamils including Muslim and Tamil religious leaders who were bribed, threatened or cajoled to join the protests…but the vast majority were Sinhala Buddhists.
As to the winners, it’s obvious. It’s the Tamils and the few Sinhalese, Muslims and Christians who believe in justice and equality for all ethnic groups and religions.
The losers are also obvious. The Rajapaksas’who have ideas of forming a dynasty and the Sinhala Buddhist racists and xenophobes who believe that Sri Lanka belongs only to them.
PresiDunce Bean seems to be furious. Used some unwanted “medicine”lately?
Thanks!
@Pandukabaya as recently during a high level visit of the Indian know alls, The president indicated if they move ahead with devolution of power they were finished.
This is the reality, not only to Rajapaksha but to any leader of Srilanka who think we must share power with all. Politicians play to the masses, it is the majority community which dictates who must be given what.
Rajapaksha, as well as our leaders of the past know/knew what is right, yet they couldn’t move the needle due to our “other” world view.
Hence my reference.
Dear Vishwajith,
What is right is to devolve power equitably.
The question is are the demands equitable?
If the demands are inequitable, is it hardly surprising to find such demands being opposed?
See the following links and determine for yourselves if defeating the ruthless and barbaric Tamil Tiger terrorists by the Sri Lankan government was justified or not :
http://www.spur.asn.au/ltteatro.htm
http://www.spur.asn.au/ltteatrp.htm
Devoneco et al…….
Please see this too…………….
http://nesohr.org/hrr/?show=all
“India’s hasty decision to support the United States of America led Resolution on Sri Lanka came as a big surprise” says the writer.
A “big surprise” eh? Really?
This was published six months back:
“…If, as some critical commentaries assert, India’s position has changed, or is changing, or might possibly change, from that of our May 2009 UN HRC victory, we must seek out the reasons and rectify them jointly.
We must certainly strive to countervail the mounting anti-Lankan opinion in Indian civil society and the media, militant opinion in Tamil Nadu and the lobbying of certain Western elements. We must secure Delhi’s support and swing Indian public and political opinion firmly over to Sri Lanka’s side. This cannot be done by purely verbal means but by policy reforms. As a UN based top official of Sri Lanka’s firmest, most powerful international friend told me once, ‘short of capitulating on or compromising its vital security interests, Sri Lanka must do what it takes to help its friends to help it’.”
(‘Defending and protecting Sri Lanka’, Daily Mirror, September 29th, 2011, my emphasis, DJ)
I can give you copious quotes from my GV pieces saying much the same thing, from three years back, even BEFORE Prabhakaran’s death…
DJ,
We still don’t know for sure whether India will abstain or vote in favor. We will find out soon enough.
And as I have said before, the UN is a largely impotent organization, and your chest thumping about your ‘win’ at Geneva 3 years back was unwarranted. The only interesting difference now is that the most powerful country is bringing up a resolution against you. It is a good time for all those people who overemphasized ‘China’s rising power’ to see where that will lead them.
The fact remains, however, that the Indian PM’s statement was a surprise; after all, just a couple of weeks back, Mahinda Samarasinghe was emphatic in saying that India fully backed SL.
That the ‘jokers’ of DMK and AIADMK were able to pressure New Delhi, forcing the Indian PM to make at least a hedged statement–’inclined’ …if ‘objectives are met’ — must surely have come as a surprise to Rajapaksa apologists like you.
Your quote from your own writing was just generic policy prescriptions; it didn’t anticipate that Rajapaksa’s buddy, N.Ram, is no longer there at the helm of The Hindu to shape opinion in your favor; it didn’t anticipate that India would get fed up with your thinly veiled threats about your playing the ‘China card’ too much. It failed to recognize that your ‘win’ over the LTTE was made possible by a fortuitous alignment of international forces that was temporary; that the time would come for your opponents to get the upper hand sooner or later. See what Sreeram Chaulia or Satish Chandra had to say.
Your ‘policy prescriptions’ fail to recognize that, if the mad Tiger could not fundamentally transform itself (and had to go), so is the mad Lion.
Dayan:
Way back, soon after the war-end and after the “praise” SL received in the UNHRC, you had mentioned in one of the interviews (Groundviews) that SL was making mistakes in not moving fast enough in devolution and peace moves. You had then suggested that if the issue moves from the European side to across the Atlantic, the consequences may be dire. (may be not the exact words but something to that effect). How more prophetic can that be?
Most Tamils, like most Sinhalese are moderates. Unfortunately SL ended up with extremist hard-core leaders. We had hoped the end of the war would mean a fair treatment of the Tamils. The penchant to lump Tamils with the LTTE with the intent to deceive did not go down well.
Soon after the war, having gone through nightmares and miseries, an live branch to the Tamils would have saved this regime from today’s misery. The problem with MR and his regime is – there is ABSOLUTELY no honesty in dealing with the Tamils. The bluff train was engaged throughout. Adding fuel to this was the penchant of some Sinhalese to lump the suffering Tamils with the LTTE – as if they had deserved the horror just for being born as Tamils. In short, MR did not honestly care for the Tamil population. He should have taken them into his confidence and honoured his promises, both during and after the war. Alas, he chose to bluff his way around. It is only when our pleadings with the regime fell on deaf ears and realised that it appears that this regime’s calculated intention was to inflict as much pain and misery as possible on the Tamils that we decided to move to international forums. The regime of MR has itself to blame for what it faces today, and it is going to get tougher from here. When we have a regime that has not even implemented fully the interim proposals of its own constituted LLRC, do I need to write more? What more, this very observation was made by the LLRC final report. How worse can this get?
Great comment Jansee. I couldnt agree more.
Oh sorry, that piece I quoted from, was written by me.
Perhaps sri lanka should have just approved those 50,000 houses that the indians wanted to build in the north-east. Less than 400 are completed today (and the final approval came in at the end of 2011, likely in response to the impending resolution) – this sort of thing can certainly cause exasperation and as some comments suggest – its been coming.
Now that the houses are approved they just need to get some land back from the military to build them on.
May be now the Rajapakse’s will finally start to play ball as no one is buying their version of ‘reconciliation in sri lanka’.
“Netting India’s support for an opening gambit Resolution on India’s problematic neighbour – when all indications were that India would tread a different path – serve to burnish its credentials as the sole remaining superpower “
“ …… wielding a stick they never thought they had the strength to carry!”
Brilliant, Obama and Hilary had managed to net the 37 votes that has the power to make or break the Congress led Indian coalition Govt by defeating it in the forthcoming Indian Budget vote.
Jayalalitha and co has been coerced by the US to toe the US line.
Does India have a history of formulating her foreign policy to US dictates?
How clever of Obama and Hilary.
OTC
“Jayalalitha and co has been coerced by the US to toe the US line.”
Sigh… evidence??
Wijayapala,
Sigh ….. Trust you to miss the satire.
Why do you think I asked the last question?
Does India have a history of formulating her foreign policy to US dictates?
OTC,
“Sigh ….. Trust you to miss the satire.”
You’re right, I missed it. But now I see it!
Wijayapala,
Very doubtful, given your proven one track mind and language limitations.
Hopefully your future challenges will prove me wrong.
Good Luck
The writer missed an important actor; China. Will not Sri Lanka government’s alienation from India constitute a win for China?
Samarajiva,
The US-Indian alliance’s message to SL is to stop playing the China card, or else…So Sri Lanka’s bluff about getting close to China will be called; the country cannot alienate both India and the US, and then hope to have a viable economy, or survive at international forums, with the support of just China and Russia. Look at Iran, North Korea and Syria and make up your own mind. Or try exporting to China all the textiles that the US imports from SL.
@Agnos
Well said Agnos. It’s a waste of time trying to explain what will happen to our economy if we alienate India and the US to Samarajiva senior or junior since both have have got onto the MR bandwagon.
Dr Jayatilleka’s recent claim on transcurrents that “Yes we can…defeat this ill-timed, patronising and hypocritical resolution” must be seen only as an excited pep talk, and not serious political analysis. Not to worry – Obama seems to have that effect on people.
Rohan Samarajiva – It’s not clear China wins at all. As my piece notes, America gains tremendously in the region in terms of influence and prestige. If the alienation continues, China may even be forced to cut and run – a la Libya. If Sri Lanka becomes a liability, it is unlikely the Chinese will stick around, so it’s not a clear win/loss situation for China.
too bad obama will loose the next election.
Firstly while I agree that that the Rajapaksa regime has been slow in many respects to reform the socio-political landscape, we must remember that a developing nation is just that, developing. A key failing is that a strong foreign relations type team was never put in place. We get the odd release from the Paris embassy (Dayan basically), but otherwise no great PR from within. Also I beleive that SL’s diplomatic strategy generally has been bad. Admission of unintentional civilian deaths were never really made.
However, it is absolutely true that a nation such as SL, having gone through what it has and it’s [colonial-meddled] history be given space to rebuild and reform in and of itself.
If there is an alternative then rajapaksa would have to wave goodbye at the next elections, simple, but I dont really see that at the moment.
What India has done here is gone against the grain out of all our neighbouring nations based on a principled stand – this is what stuck out to me most when looking at the results/voting patterns. I reiterate, all of SL’s neighbours voted in SL’s favour – apart from India. Why? Because of what is at stake for India – the crazy Tamil Nadu politicians and the DMK breakaway were too bigger issues to prioritise below SL.
Congress ultimately looked at itself, the opportunities and threats it faced – congresses survival did/does have a bearing on the way it voted today. At the same time with China on it’s doorstep, and the US eager to thwart China, who is of more ‘benefit’ to India? the US obviously with the common goals of thwarting China as well as increased co operation of some kind.
India does i’m sure realise that they have veered away from a principled stand, because tamil problems in SL and a reigniting of an LTTE would have a direct effect on TN, but when you weigh it all up, who cares about a small poor island of 20m people for the sake of a principled stand?
I fear the multilateral system of the UN is now dead.
Great comment Gnanam.
Not many seems to have the insight that you do.
Catching up on this thread…has’nt anyone got sick yet of DJ’s boastings about himself?? It seems the man can only talk about himself and can only quote himself, apart from the frequent name droppings! [Edited out] like these bedevil the Rajapaksa administration.
Forsooth, the man just wrote an entire article about his soothsaying abilities.