The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Asia

  • Reflections on “Peace” in Afghanistan: Leaving a Misguided War and Choosing Not to Look Back

    Reflections on “Peace” in Afghanistan: Leaving a Misguided War and Choosing Not to Look Back

    Kahlil Gibran, the Lebanese-American poet, artist, writer and philosopher, famously said ‘History does not repeat itself except in the minds of those who do not know history’. In today’s generation very few know and understand history, and so it is most likely that very few will see that the recent US-Taliban peace deal has an eerie resemblance to the end stage of the Vietnam war. US Special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar signed a ‘historic’ peace deal on February 29, 2020 in Doha, capital of Qatar  paving the way for ending two decades of American military fighting in Afghanistan and their return. In the context of the US-Taliban peace deal that raises more questions than answers, TPF revisits an article written by Andrew J Bacevich few months ago. Comparing the two similar situations (US-Vietcong deal and US-Taliban deal) in a very incisive analysis, Andrew Bacevich raises very relevant observations. Effectively this means that the US is exiting after conceding defeat to the Taliban and abandoning the Afghan government that it supported all this while. It would be only a matter of time before the Taliban, with active support from Pakistan, dismantles whatever semblance of stable governance and democracy that has been built over the last 15 years in war-torn Afghanistan. TPF

    This article was first published in “TomDispatch.com”    The Peninsula Foundation is happy to republish this article with permission from ‘TomDispatch.com’.  TPF  

    Andrew J Bacevich

    When the conflict that the Vietnamese refer to as the American War ended in April 1975, I was a U.S. Army captain attending a course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. In those days, the student body at any of our Army’s myriad schools typically included officers from the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).

    Since ARVN’s founding two decades earlier, the United States had assigned itself the task of professionalizing that fledgling military establishment. Based on a conviction that the standards, methods, and ethos of our armed forces were universally applicable and readily exportable, the attendance of ARVN personnel at such Army schools was believed to contribute to the professionalizing of the South Vietnamese military.

    Evidence that the U.S. military’s own professional standards had recently taken a hit — memories of the My Lai massacre were then still fresh — elicited no second thoughts on our part. Association with American officers like me was sure to rub off on our South Vietnamese counterparts in ways that would make them better soldiers. So we professed to believe, even while subjecting that claim to no more scrutiny than we did the question of why most of us had spent a year or more of our lives participating in an obviously misbegotten and misguided war in Indochina.

    For serving officers at that time one question in particular remained off-limits (though it had been posed incessantly for years by antiwar protestors in the streets of America): Why Vietnam? Prizing compliance as a precondition for upward mobility, military service rarely encourages critical thinking.

    On the day that Saigon, the capital of the Republic of Vietnam, fell and that country ceased to exist, I approached one of my ARVN classmates, also a captain, wanting at least to acknowledge the magnitude of the disaster that had occurred. “I’m sorry about what happened to your country,” I told him.

    I did not know that officer well and no longer recall his name. Let’s call him Captain Nguyen. In my dim recollection, he didn’t even bother to reply. He simply looked at me with an expression both distressed and mournful. Our encounter lasted no more than a handful of seconds. I then went on with my life and Captain Nguyen presumably with his. Although I have no inkling of his fate, I like to think that he is now retired in Southern California after a successful career in real estate. But who knows?

    All I do know is that today I recall our exchange with a profound sense of embarrassment and even shame. My pathetic effort to console Captain Nguyen had been both presumptuous and inadequate. Far worse was my failure — inability? refusal? — to acknowledge the context within which that catastrophe was occurring: the United States and its armed forces had, over years, inflicted horrendous harm on the people of South Vietnam.

    In reality, their defeat was our defeat. Yet while we had decided that we were done paying, they were going to pay and pay for a long time to come.

    Rather than offering a fatuous expression of regret for the collapse of his country, I ought to have apologized for having played even a minuscule role in what was, by any measure, a catastrophe of epic proportions. It’s a wonder Captain Nguyen didn’t spit in my eye.

    I genuinely empathized with Captain Nguyen. Yet the truth is that, along with most other Americans, soldiers and civilians alike, I was only too happy to be done with South Vietnam and all its troubles. Dating back to the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the United States and its armed forces had made a gargantuan effort to impart legitimacy to the Republic of Vietnam and to coerce the Democratic Republic of Vietnam to its north into giving up its determination to exercise sovereignty over the entirety of the country. In that, we had failed spectacularly and at a staggering cost.

    “Our” war in Indochina — the conflict we chose to call the Vietnam War — officially ended in January 1973 with the signing in Paris of an “Agreement Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam.” Under the terms of that fraudulent pact, American prisoners of war were freed from captivity in North Vietnam and the last U.S. combat troops in the south left for home, completing a withdrawal begun several years earlier. Primary responsibility for securing the Republic of Vietnam thereby fell to ARVN, long deemed by U.S. commanders incapable of accomplishing that mission.

    Meanwhile, despite a nominal cessation of hostilities, approximately 150,000 North Vietnamese regulars still occupied a large swathe of South Vietnamese territory — more or less the equivalent to agreeing to end World War II when there were still several German panzer tank divisions lurking in Belgium’s Ardennes Forest. In effect, our message to our enemy and our ally was this: We’re outta here; you guys sort this out. In a bit more than two years, that sorting-out process would extinguish the Republic of Vietnam.

    Been There, Done That

    The course Captain Nguyen and I were attending in the spring of 1975 paid little attention to fighting wars like the one that, for years, had occupied the attention of my army and his. Our Army, in fact, was already moving on. Having had their fill of triple-canopy jungles in Indochina, America’s officer corps now turned to defending the Fulda Gap, the region in West Germany deemed most hospitable to a future Soviet invasion. As if by fiat, gearing up to fight those Soviet forces and their Warsaw Pact allies, should they (however improbably) decide to take on NATO and lunge toward the English Channel, suddenly emerged as priority number one. At Fort Knox and throughout the Army’s ranks, we were suddenly focused on “high-intensity combined arms operations” — essentially, a replay of World War II-style combat with fancier weaponry. In short, the armed forces of the United States had reverted to “real soldiering.”

    And so it is again today. At the end of the 17th year of what Americans commonly call the Afghanistan War — one wonders what name Afghans will eventually assign it — U.S. military forces are moving on. Pentagon planners are shifting their attention back to Russia and China. Great power competition has become the name of the game. However we might define Washington’s evolving purposes in its Afghanistan War — “nation building,” “democratization,” “pacification” — the likelihood of mission accomplishment is nil. As in the early 1970s, so in 2019, rather than admitting failure, the Pentagon has chosen to change the subject and is once again turning its attention to “real soldiering.”

    Remember the infatuation with counterinsurgency (commonly known by its acronym COIN) that gripped the national security establishment around 2007 when the Iraq “surge” overseen by General David Petraeus briefly ranked alongside Gettysburg as a historic victory? Well, these days promoting COIN as the new American way of war has become, to put it mildly, a tough sell. Given that few in Washington will openly acknowledge the magnitude of the military failure in Afghanistan, the incentive for identifying new enemies in settings deemed more congenial becomes all but irresistible.

    Only one thing is required to validate this reshuffling of military priorities. Washington needs to create the appearance, as in 1973, that it’s exiting Afghanistan on its own terms. What’s needed, in short, is an updated equivalent of that “Agreement Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam.”

    Until last weekend, the signing of such an agreement seemed imminent. Donald Trump and his envoy, former ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, appeared poised to repeat the trick that President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger pulled off in 1973 in Paris: pause the war and call it peace. Should fighting subsequently resume after a “decent interval,” it would no longer be America’s problem.  Now, however, to judge by the president’s Twitter account — currently the authoritative record of U.S. diplomacy — the proposed deal has been postponed, or perhaps shelved, or even abandoned altogether.  If National Security Advisor John Bolton has his way, U.S. forces might just withdraw in any case, without an agreement of any sort being signed.

    Based on what we can divine from press reports, the terms of that prospective Afghan deal would mirror those of the 1973 Paris Accords in one important respect. It would, in effect, serve as a ticket home for the remaining U.S. and NATO troops still in that country (though for the present only the first 5,000of them would immediately depart). Beyond that, the Taliban was to promise not to provide sanctuary to anti-American terrorist groups, even though the Afghan branch of ISIS is already firmly lodged there. Still, this proviso would allow the Trump administration to claim that it had averted any possible recurrence of the 9/11 terror attacks that were, of course, planned by Osama bin Laden while residing in Afghanistan in 2001 as a guest of the Taliban-controlled government. Mission accomplished, as it were.

    Back in 1973, North Vietnamese forces occupying parts of South Vietnam neither disarmed nor withdrew. Should this new agreement be finalized, Taliban forces currently controlling or influencing significant swaths of Afghan territory will neither disarm nor withdraw. Indeed, their declared intention is to continue fighting.

    In 1973, policymakers in Washington were counting on ARVN to hold off Communist forces. In 2019, almost no one expects Afghan security forces to hold off a threat consisting of both the Taliban and ISIS. In a final insult, just as the Saigon government was excluded from U.S. negotiations with the North Vietnamese, so, too, has the Western-installed government in Kabul been excluded from U.S. negotiations with its sworn enemy, the Taliban.

    A host of uncertainties remain.  As with the olive branches that President Trump has ostentatiously offered to Russia, China, and North Koea, this particular peace initiative may come to naught — or, given the approach of the 2020 elections, he may decide that Afghanistan offers his last best hope of claiming at least one foreign policy success. One way or another, in all likelihood, the deathwatch for the U.S.-backed Afghan government has now begun. One thing only is for sure. Having had their fill of Afghanistan, when the Americans finally leave, they won’t look back. In that sense, it will be Vietnam all over again.

    What Price Peace?

    However great my distaste for President Trump, I support his administration’s efforts to extricate the United States from Afghanistan. I do so for the same reason I supported the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. Prolonging this folly any longer does not serve U.S. interests. Rule number one of statecraft ought to be: when you’re doing something really stupid, stop. To my mind, this rule seems especially applicable when the lives of American soldiers are at stake.

    In Vietnam, Washington wasted 58,000 of those lives for nothing. In Afghanistan, we have lost more than 2,300 troops, with another 20,000 wounded, again for next to nothing. Last month, two American Special Forces soldiers were killed in a firefight in Faryab Province. For what?

    That said, I’m painfully aware of the fact that, on the long-ago day when I offered Captain Nguyen my feeble condolences, I lacked the imagination to conceive of the trials about to befall his countrymen. In the aftermath of the American War, something on the order of 800,000 Vietnamese took to open and unseaworthy boats to flee their country. According to estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, between 200,000 and 400,000 boat people died at sea. Most of those who survived were destined to spend years in squalid refugee camps scattered throughout Southeast Asia. Back in Vietnam itself, some 300,000 former ARVN officers and South Vietnamese officials were imprisoned in so-called reeducation camps for up to 18 years. Reconciliation did not rank high on the postwar agenda of the unified country’s new leaders.

    Meanwhile, for the Vietnamese, north and south, the American War has in certain ways only continued. Mines and unexploded ordnance left from that war have inflicted more than 100,000 casualties since the last American troops departed. Even today, the toll caused by Agent Orange and other herbicides that the U.S. Air Force sprayed with abandon over vast stretches of territory continues to mount. The Red Cross calculates that more than one million Vietnamese have suffered health problems, including serious birth defects and cancers as a direct consequence of the promiscuous use of those poisons as weapons of war.

    For anyone caring to calculate the moral responsibility of the United States for its actions in Vietnam, all of those would have to find a place on the final balance sheet. The 1.3 million Vietnamese admitted to the United States as immigrants since the American War formally concluded can hardly be said to make up for the immense damage suffered by the people of Vietnam as a direct or indirect result of U.S. policy.

    As to what will follow if Washington does succeed in cutting a deal with the Taliban, well, don’t count on President Trump (or his successor for that matter) welcoming anything like 1.3 million Afghan refugees to the United States once a “decent interval” has passed. Yet again, our position will be: we’re outta here; you guys sort this out.

    Near the end of his famed novel, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald described two of his privileged characters, Tom and Daisy, as “careless people” who “smashed up things and creatures” and then “retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness” to “let other people clean up the mess they had made.” That description applies to the United States as a whole, especially when Americans tire of a misguided war. We are a careless people. In Vietnam, we smashed up things and human beings with abandon, only to retreat into our money, leaving others to clean up the mess in a distinctly bloody fashion.

    Count on us, probably sooner rather than later, doing precisely the same thing in Afghanistan.

    Image Credit: www.upi.com

  • Then & Now: A Reflective Study of Development Initiatives in Bangladesh

    Then & Now: A Reflective Study of Development Initiatives in Bangladesh

        Yamuna Matheswaran                                                                               March 31, 2019/Analysis

    Towards the end of 2010, I travelled to Bangladesh with the rest of my graduate school cohort to study various developmental approaches within the country’s healthcare, garment, banking, and agricultural sectors. It was an enlightening trip–one that allowed me to understand not only the intricacies of international development but to also gain a more nuanced perspective of the country as a whole.

     

    “To understand Bangladesh, you have to understand the war.”

    – Omar Rahman, Professor, Independent University, Bangladesh

     

    Scores of Bangladeshis lost their lives in the struggle for independence in 1971 in what was then known as East Pakistan, and nearly 10 million crossed the border into India as the war waged on. They had no army, minimal weaponry and, realistically speaking, not much of a chance for survival against the genocidal tactics employed by the Pakistani Army–actions that its allies, the United States and China, refused to condemn. They fought back, however, and in doing so displayed the same extraordinary resilience that was demonstrated by its students during the Bengali Language Movement of 1952. On 16 December 1971, the new nation of Bangladesh was born.

    A street in Dhaka ©YamunaMatheswaran

    Taking a bus ride through the cacophonic streets of Dhaka, thoughts raced through my mind: how simultaneously similar and different Bangladesh was from my own home country of India, how accommodating its people were, and how–despite growing up in congested Indian cities–Dhaka’s traffic was the craziest thing I’d ever seen. It still is. After all, Dhaka has a density of 47,400 people per sq. km, and around 37,000 cars are said to be added to its roads every year.

    In 2017, Bangladesh’s population stood at approx. 164 million compared to 152 million in 2010. But the population growth rate has been in steady decline since 1986, and the implementation of various developmental approaches have contributed significantly to that decline. (Population Data from World Bank)

    An Overview of the Facts

    Bangladesh has its share of problems, and then some. For starters, there is the tangible dilemma of overpopulation. But unlike India, which is well on its way to becoming the most populated country on the planet, the total fertility rate in Bangladesh has been successfully lowered from nearly 7 births per woman in the late 60s to 2.104 in 2016. Even so, Dhaka remains one of the world’s most densely populated cities. And with increased longevity, concerns have arisen over the lack of facilities and infrastructure required to care for the country’s growing elderly population.

    All around Dhaka, construction sites are aplenty, and dust from these sites worsens the already noxious city air. It’s no surprise then that Bangladesh experiences issues of environmental degradation, while also being susceptible to the devastating impacts of climate change. Scores of people, including millions whose livelihoods depend upon agriculture, have been affected by the frequent cyclones, floods and droughts.

    Illustration ©YamunaMatheswaran

    The drainage systems aren’t too different from the ones in Indian cities, and heavy rains even for brief periods can disrupt normal life and cause flooding and waterlogging. Setbacks with the electricity supply, cases of arsenic poisoning in groundwater and ineffective methods of trash disposal are some of the issues that constitute the miscellany of Bangladesh’s woes. Political tensions, attacks on journalists and widespread problems of corruption hinder effective governance of the nation.

    In spite of these modern-day problems, Bangladesh is on the right track to eliminating extreme poverty by 2030. According to data from the World Bank, the percentage of the population living in extreme poverty ($1.90, 2011 PPP) fell below 14% in recent years, compared to over 40% in 1991-92. And while it still ranks among the poorest highly populated countries in the world, the GDP growth rate of Bangladesh hit an astounding 7.86% in 2018.

    In its less-than-fifty-years of existence, Bangladesh has pioneered breakthroughs in the fields of public health and microfinance, passed noteworthy drug policies, significantly improved aspects of agricultural production, and achieved unprecedented growth in its GDP largely attributed to the development of its garment industry. Notably, it has attained these goals by incorporating its women into the national economy by means of several women-centric initiatives. Institutions such as icddr,b, BRAC, and Proshika are models of the kind of development that is directed by the locals and is, hence, ultimately more sustainable.

    The Microfinance Revolution

    After Mohammad Yunus founded Grameen Bank in 1982, microfinance became a phenomenon in the developing world, providing small loans free of collateral, lifting thousands of people out of poverty and making businesspersons out of the extremely poor.

    women in rice fields
    Women working in rice fields ©pixabay

    Over the years, however, the field has been tainted by reports of corruption and mismanagement. Criticism has focused on the fact that loans are frequently issued to the poor with the sole purpose of reaping profits, thus overlooking the necessary supplementary steps. Does the borrower have a plan for increasing income generation with the help of the loan? Do they have the necessary qualities/resources for said business plan? Is the money in actuality utilised in income generating projects or elsewhere? Often borrowers, who are ill-educated about the various facets of microcredit loans, make use of the newly acquired capital to purchase goods, pay school fees, etc. With no increment in revenues, they inevitably enter into a vicious cycle of debt, and are forced to undertake another loan in order to repay the previous one. MFI collection agents and their coercion tactics have also been listed as a reason for an increase in suicides among borrowers.

    In contrast, Gonoshasthaya Kendra’s seasonal loans, which require the borrowers to start making repayments after the harvest, seem more logical. Nonetheless, researchers have pointed out that although microfinance might not have a transformative effect on the lives of people, it does have a positive impact. For one, increasing reliability of and access to credit leads to an increased sense of agency and freedom in one’s life.

    Pioneering Healthcare Initiatives

    From facilitating the local manufacture of drugs to offering affordable health insurance to poorer sections of society, Bangladesh has made extraordinary advancements in the public health sector.

    Set up in 1972, Gonoshasthaya Kendra (GK) was the first health centre in newly independent Bangladesh. It was established by Dr Zafrullah Chowdhury with the aim of making basic healthcare accessible to the rural population. Dr Chowdhury was also instrumental in the conceptualisation of the breakthrough National Drug Policy of 1982, which ensured the safety, availability and affordability of essential drugs. GK’s services have since expanded beyond affordable primary healthcare to include work education, nutrition, agricultural cooperatives, disaster management, rehabilitation and women’s empowerment. Hygiene and sanitation in many of GK’s wards has been a persistent issue however, and poses high threats of nosocomial infections.

    Routine checkup at a village health camp in Savar ©YamunaMatheswaran

    The International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b) originated in 1960 as the Cholera Research Laboratory in the sub-district of Matlab and was officially named icddr,b in 1978. Primarily a research institute, it has been credited with playing a key role in the discovery of oral rehydration therapy (ORS) to combat cholera and diarrhoea, the latter being a leading cause of infant mortality. The institute also focuses on neonatal care, treatments for tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS, and carries out meticulous demographic surveillance. At the time working on rotavirus vaccine trials, icddr,b’s clinical studies have since contributed to the development of affordable rotavirus vaccines. The institute relies on the funding it receives from several donors, since government expenditure on healthcare (as percentage of total GDP and budget) has reduced to a point where it is the lowest among 21 Asian countries, according to a 2018 United Nations survey.

    Cleanliness and technological resources of icddr,b’s hospital in Dhaka appeared to be far better than that of the GK hospital in Savar. However, doctors at icddr,b were quick to commend GK on its effective performance. It’s a matter of concern for GK, though, that a number of its students that graduate from its university, Gono Bishwabidyalay, choose to work for other institutions/hospitals, either for economic reasons or to pursue further specialization or be able to contribute to the research arena, leading to a shortage of doctors.

    The Façade of the Fashion Industry

    Bangladesh is the world’s second largest exporter of readymade apparel, second only to China. Garments constitute 80% of the nation’s earnings from exports, and in 2015, Bangladesh exported clothing worth over $26 billion, mainly to Europe and the United States.

    The garment industry has revolutionised Bangladesh’s economy and significantly impacted its society. A large majority of its workers are female; increased economic freedom has led to women bearing fewer children, thus contributing to declining fertility rates and tackling the dilemma of overpopulation. From the looks of it, it seemed like a win-win situation: the garment industry employed numerous people in developing countries, increased foreign investment and was responsible for an increase in the annual GDP growth rate. International brands now paid a fraction of the production costs that they used to, while oblivious buyers continued shopping at Zara, Forever 21, Russell Europe and Walmart, unaware that they were paying starkly different prices for clothes that had all been manufactured under the roof of the same factory.

    garment industry
    A garment factory in Bangladesh ©YamunaMatheswaran

    But the entire world got a reality check with the tragic Rana Plaza building collapse in 2013, which claimed 1,134 lives and was termed a “mass industrial homicide”. But long before that horrifying incident, workers had already been calling for liveable wages and safer work environments, and other deadly incidents had led to periodic loss of lives.

    On 12 December 2010, on our way to the airport, we drove past one of Bangladesh’s export processing zones and caught a glimpse of what appeared to be a peaceful protest against delays in the implementation of a wage hike. We later came to learn that the protest had turned violent, claiming at least three lives and leaving dozens of people injured.

    The factory we visited at the time, Knit Asia Ltd., boasted good working conditions and facilities including a free childcare centre and regular fire drills. It was one of Bangladesh’s leading garment manufacturers, and also owned the largest biological effluent treatment plant in the country.  However, that is more the exception than the norm.

    In 2010, Bangladesh’s garment workers received the lowest wages in the world – as little as $45 per month. That amounted to a measly $0.25 an hour, when compared to the hourly wages of $0.48 and $0.57 earned by workers in China and India at the time, respectively. From what I garnered, it cost Russell Europe $3 to manufacture a polo shirt in 2010, which was then sold for approximately $7.

    The profit made from the sale of a single piece of the polo shirt exceeded the factory worker’s daily wage.

    In 2019, minimum wage for garment workers in Bangladesh is approximately $95 (or 8,000Tk) a month. It was not enough to make a decent living then, and it still isn’t today, and workers are still fighting to be paid a living wage. Since consumer demand dictates how the garment industry functions, we as buyers have a responsibility to utilise this power to generate awareness and take a stand against inhumane practices by choosing ethical brands over fast fashion.

    The Role of Women in Development

    “Bangladesh shows what happens if you take women seriously as agents of development. It not only halved the rate of fertility within a generation, but also increased women’s influence within their own households. For the first time, wives controlled the size of families.” – Out of the Basket, The Economist (3 Nov 2012)

    women in sarees
    A village microfinance meeting ©YamunaMatheswaran

    The role of women in mainstream Bangladeshi society is a contradiction of sorts. Women are the principal participants in the microfinance sector, a majority of the paramedics that work in villages are female, and they constitute 80% of the workers in garment factories. Nearly every institution that we came into contact with – BRAC, GK, icddr,b, Proshika – had a project that focussed on empowering rural women. However, like in other countries rooted in patriarchy, sexual harassment is rampant, female enrolment rate in universities is low, and women do not enjoy the same freedom and social stature as men.

    Regardless, the empowerment of women is crucial to development. It has been demonstrated that women are more likely than men to spend their incomes/loans on the welfare of the entire family as opposed to squandering it on nonessential goods. Increasing women’s access to education and economic security also results in reduced birth rates, which ultimately alleviates myriad issues associated with overpopulation.

    To Harbour a Dream

    Upon the conclusion of our study tour, what stood out to me most was the hospitality of the people who went out of their way to ensure that we were comfortable and well-fed at all times, with plenty of tea and biscuits between meals. To this day, I remember my experience of travelling around Bangladesh fondly. The lessons that it has taught me in the field of development – about what works as well as what doesn’t – remain invaluable. Considering the number of NGOs that are at work in Bangladesh – reportedly over 2,500 – I wonder if collaboration might render them more effective.

    En route ©YamunaMatheswaran

    Nevertheless, this land that has been twice occupied and weathered innumerable floods and famines is a prime example of what locally pioneered methods of just and sustainable development can achieve.

    Working with iDE during the last few days of our tour provided the most tangible example of how something as simple and affordable as a treadle pump can truly empower families. How I’d love to hear that the bottle gourd-growing couple eventually realized their dream of travelling abroad! But the essential part is the fact that one is prepared to harbour a dream.

    Yamuna Matheswaran is a freelance writer, artist, and technical editor at TPF. She has a Master’s degree in International Studies from the University of Denver and is currently based in New Delhi.

  • Changing Paradigms of Political Canvas in Sri Lanka

    Changing Paradigms of Political Canvas in Sri Lanka

    The intransigent ethno-political emotional divide amongst the Sri Lankan society of 1980s manifested into a bloodiest insurgency with the Tamil separatists almost succeeding in carving out a separate Tamil Elam in the North and Eastern regions of the island nation. The political divide at that juncture was result of a racial cleavage between the Sinhala majority and oppressed Tamil minority which prompted the later to rebel in the face of socio-economic denials of all kinds.

    It was India who came to rescue of the Sri Lankan government of the day in 1987 to ensure territorial integrity of the country even at the cost of negative political repercussions within India. The India had to pay the price of this political outreach to Sri Lanka with life of Rajiv Gandhi, the prime minister who went out of way to help them in their hour of crisis. The deeply indebted Sinhala dominated Sri Lanka of 80s seem to be chartering a different trajectory now with self serving opportunist afflictions due to inducements of easy money from extra regional players, especially China.

    While encashing the apparent Chinese benevolence, the gullible Sri Lankan politicians seem to have ignored the basic dictum that ‘there are no free lunches’ in this world. And the slip is showing wherein the Sri Lankan political dispensation seems to have compromised on their territorial integrity by leasing out Habantota port and 15000 acres of land in lieu of repayment of Chinese loans. A precedence has been set for more such sovereign compromises in times to come for which India had fought a bloody battle against their own co ethnic insurgents.

    The motive of the ongoing political drama appears to be focused on facilitating the Chinese cause even if it amounts to tempering with the constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, there is a paradigm shift in political thinking with its doctrine of development through Chinese support which has obvious inherent centrifugal tendencies as against focus on internal economic consolidation. Instead of reclaiming the lost politico-economic ground to China post Habantota episode, a major part of Sri Lankan polity seem to be under compulsion to toe the Chinese lines due to debt diplomacy so cleverly orchestrated by the Chinese.

    The close scrutiny of Sri Lankan political conduct in the past hinges on the non accommodation of rival ethnic, social or political groups within the Sri Lankan society which seem to continue even today in some form or other. Earlier it was based on ethnic rivalry between Sinhala and Tamils, and now it is intra Sinhala dispensation vying for more political and money power in a political set up with opportunist tendencies. Despite a vibrant democratic political dispensation to take care of well being of its subjects, the island nation has witnessed spells of changing political priorities and concomitant societal upheavals in the recent times. The military driven turbulent ethno- political complexion of 80s gave way to consolidation of socio-political synergies alongside resolving the internal security issues for almost three decades.

    Subsequently, in the aftermath of subjugation of Tamil insurgency in 2009, the priorities changed to the much needed economic development of the nation. However, the tourist predominant economy had woeful inadequacies of infrastructure and public conveniences to tap the potential of the nation at par with other international tourist destinations close by. To do that, there was no money due to prolonged war effort which in turn prompted Sri Lankan polity to look outwards paving way for externally influenced politico-economic opportunism.

    Chinese concept of BRI suited both China as well as the Sri Lanka as a mutually beneficial mechanism to take care of each other’s interests. The BRI concept envisages development of communication and transportation net work, industrial and power corridors as part of Chinese grand game for their global economic expansion. As far as China is concerned all the countries in the Indian Ocean are important for Chinese geo political matrix as a response mechanism for the security of her economic interests. Chinese conduct when hyphenated with their ‘’String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean’’, and their defiant politico-military stance in the South China Sea speaks of their seriousness and sensitivities of their interest in the Indo Pacific region. Sri Lanka happens to be in a pivotal position to serve the Chinese geo political interests.

    In the given circumstances, close affiliation with the China is a win -win situation for Sri Lanka for their economic buoyancy and a politically strong anchor to stand by their side in the time of crisis. However, there are also apprehensions of negative fallouts of new found political bonhomie with an outsider with prospects of disturbing existing stable regional political equilibrium fully aligned with socio- cultural emotional bind of Indian legacy. Accordingly, there is an emerging pattern of an internal political divide amongst Sri Lankan parties and individuals believing in encashing the pragmatic opportunism as against continuation of stability through India centric regional cohesiveness.

    The Mahindra Rajpaksha during his premiership was given loans worth $ 6 billion for various infrastructural projects including Hambantota port. Later the dept trap diplomacy of China got highlighted in their demand of ownership of the port plus land adjacent to it. It, surely, has exposed the dubious ways of China which has prompted number of recipients of Chinese benevolence to revisit their commitments with them as regards to BRI scheme. Sri Lankan civil society is ceased with this Chinese conduct and there is a resistance to encouraging Chinese intrusion into Sri Lankan affairs beyond a point.

    The opponent Ranil Wickremasinghe, is known to be a proponent of the Indian lobby who had, recently , cancelled housing project of more than 50,000 houses in North and Eastern Tamil areas given earlier to China in favour of Indian companies. The Rajapaksha was brought back as the prime minister by the president through an untenable political move leaving the country in a political chaos. The parliament was dissolved paving way for fresh elections. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this unconstitutional move by the president. It was probably done as Rajapakshe, like his previous tenure, would facilitate better relationship with the China looking at their current political compulsions and national interests.

    What is happening in the Sri Lankan political canvas seem to have imprints of pro India vs pro China lobbies. The fact that there is an outstanding loan of almost $ 5 billion despite handing over the Hambantota port to them, China may be pulling the strings to bring in a political dispensation favourable to them to do their bidding. The way the democratic norms are being flouted do indicate a desperate situation precipitated by the looming economic catastrophe waiting to happen.

    The military geography of Sri Lanka has bestowed her with a unique location to take care of the most vulnerable security concerns of China with 70% of trade and 90% of energy supplies passing through the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it is obvious that China is here to stay as a permanent feature and to do that they seem to have acquired a substantial political space in the Sri Lanka. Whereas, the Sri Lanka seem to have lost out on her autonomy to some extent as there is a probability of China dictating their terms when they find the policies are not in sync with Chinese interests.

    The likely Chinese naval presence at Hambantota port barely few hundred miles from Indian shores is a security concern for India. The Chinese politico-military afflictions in Sri Lanka is likely to prompt the western powers also to further enhance their military presence closer to the Indian shores. It, obviously, would impact the Indian security matrix with the extra regional players milling around in the areas of Indian influence all this time. The new nomenclature of ‘Indo Pacific ‘ referring to erstwhile IOR and Asia Pacific is manifestation new US maritime doctrine as a response mechanism to Chinese geo political expansion. The increase in the US sponsored military diplomacy in the region and revival of Quad are all indicative of new global strategic grand games being unfolded closer to the Indian shores.

    India has no choice but to upgrade her military capabilities to take care of the inimical developments around her periphery both on land as well as maritime domain. It warrants looking beyond defensive doctrines and acquire offensive capabilities for optimum power projection in the areas of concern, besides defence of the island territories and international maritime obligations. Given the distances from the main land and bottle necks for shipping, China would always be militarily vulnerable in the Indian Ocean. It stands to an advantage for India which need to be factored in the design of the military doctrine and its political strategic outreach.

    The Sri Lanka needs to recall that they stand integrated today due to unflinching support by India in their hour of crisis and sacrifices made by the Indian soldiers to hold their country together. They should also appreciate that the India continues to be the stabilizing factor for Sri Lanka and a friend in need. China on other hand is here to exploit the Sri Lankan geographical space for their geo political motives sans any benevolent emotional connect. In fact, China has already usurped their strategically located land through their manipulative ways. If the Sri Lankan polity has not understood their game plan then they should be prepared for more such disintegrating moves as part of their dubious debt diplomacy. The Sri Lanka is in economic crisis and stands vulnerable which is reflective in their recent political conduct. In that, there seem to be tell tale signs of Chinese complicity in the ongoing happenings in the Sri Lankan political space which is not a good news.

    India, obviously, has not been pro active enough to sense the aspirations of her neighbours and propensity of China to exploit the political deficit on the strength of her deep pockets and liberal military outreach. The Sri Lanka has a great significance for Indian security and we need to take all the possible measures to neutralize the Chinese foot prints in the island nation. India fortunately has a large influence in the Sri Lankan society and reckonable political leverages which needs to be nurtured and exploited in our national interests. India as a responsible regional country need to go all out to extend a helping hand to Sri Lanka in her testing times as their political stability is essential to the Indian strategic interests.

    Lt Gen Rameshwar Yadav is an Indian Army veteran and former Director General, Infantry. The views expressed are his own. This article was published earlier in https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=122