Soul searching in India on vote in Geneva:
Investors show renewed confidence in Sri Lanka
Exactly
a week after the so-called ‘international community’ had its day at the
UNHRC, in the vote on the US sponsored resolution against Sri Lanka,
President Mahinda Rajapaksa had his say with an important message to the
world of the confidence that remains in this country.
Addressing a large foreign audience of export related business
persons at the launch of Expo Sri Lanka 2012, President Rajapaksa
underscored that the large foreign investor presence at the event was
both a strong and valuable vote of confidence in Sri Lanka, as well as
an expression of trust in the new opportunities for export trade in a
country that was famous for international trade from ancient days.
While many forces that were elated by the Geneva vote were working
hard to bring additional pressure in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan President
told the foreign audience that what is on show at Expo Sri Lanka 2012 is
proof that Sri Lanka is fully open to business. Talking in the idiom of
business and international politics he said that the large presence of
investors here showed the failure of the efforts of those who still
support the agenda of separatist terror that prevented development in
Sri Lanka for more than three decades.
‘Elder’ myopia
It was an important message at a time when one sees the Western
countries ganging up against Sri Lanka, with the lead given by Hillary
Clinton and the US State Department, while India makes excuses for its
support of the US move; and even the group of ‘Elders’ led by Nelson
Mandela seem ready to see only the pro-LTTE propaganda side of the
developments in Si Lanka.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa |
The unverified, unsubstantiated, unproven allegations against Sri
Lanka, by a non-UN Committee that masquerades as UN Advisors that
readily echoes the pro-LTTE lobby, remain in focus because they are so
hugely inflated as to blind even an elder such as Mary Robinson, former
President of Ireland, to demonstrate extreme myopia in her views on Sri
Lanka.
President Rajapaksa expanded on his theme in telling the investor
audience that, “You are here today, with a measure of confidence in Sri
Lanka that has not been diminished by false propaganda that is currently
spread by those who are trying to prevent investment flowing to our
country and the large international presence at this event is a clear
indication of the growing awareness in the world of the new investment
opportunities in Sri Lanka.”
“Sri Lanka is in the midst of peace won at great sacrifice. We are
progressing on the path of peace and reconciliation. Our government is
committed to walk that extra mile to establish permanent peace through
reconciliation. That is our commitment to our people and no one has to
tell us what to do,” President emphasized.
Dissent in India
That the efforts by New Delhi to show it was not acting against Sri
Lankan interests by its support for a country specific resolution
sponsored by the US, is not as widely accepted among those who study
Indian politics; both the “coalition compulsions" as stated by Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh, and the related foreign policy issues for
India.
There are strong concerns now emerging from opinion in several
sections of the Indian Media. On the one hand there is the criticism of
the centre in New Delhi giving in to domestic compulsions, without
considerations for the consequences of this vote for India's its own
record on Human Rights, while the other strong criticism is from the
Indian Foreign policy point of view.
The strongest criticism so far of the Indian move in Geneva came in
the Indian ‘Mail Online’ of March 29, headlined: “India’s UN ‘yes’ vote
was a wrong move on Sri Lanka”. Kanwal Sibal, a former Foreign Secretary
of India, said: “Many arguments can be made against our decision to vote
against Sri Lanka in the Human Rights Council in Geneva, a decision
highly questionable from the foreign policy point of view... In the case
of the vote on Sri Lanka, irrespective of the reality of the human
rights situation there, we have departed from our principled position on
these matters.’
He raises the important question whether, “In voting against Sri
Lanka on a Western sponsored resolution, have we now concluded that the
West's treatment of human rights issues has become universally
acceptable and even-handed in its treatment of friends and adversaries?”
Humanitarian issues
“Domestic compulsions seem to have outweighed foreign policy
considerations in this case. India and the West have been at odds on how
best to address the issue of human rights internationally. India shares
the view that the West uses the issue to embarrass, destabilise or
topple politically uncongenial governments.
India, until recently, has been under stress too (on Human Rights).
With improved India-US ties the US government now disregards periodic
reports from international human rights organizations on our alleged
human rights infringements in Jammu and Kashmir in particular, but the
issue has not disappeared.
Sibal states that: “Because the West uses the issue of human rights
selectively, targeting adversaries and protecting allies, India has
taken a principled position all these years at Geneva to oppose or
abstain on human rights resolutions against individual countries in the
Human Rights Commission and its re-incarnation under US pressure as the
Human Rights Council. Other key excerpts from this criticism of the
Indian vote include: "India has not believed in this name and shame game
played for cynical ends by powerful countries who claim the high moral
ground on humanitarian issues, but whose own international actions,
often hugely costly in human terms, are shielded from any formal censure
because of their dominant position. India also believes that the
principle of sovereignty of states and non-interference in their
internal affairs should be respected.
“While India shares the values of democracy, pluralism and human
freedoms with the West, it differs with it on the degree of activism to
spread these values worldwide.
“In India's thinking, promotion of values should not be a cover for
an aggressive promotion of self-interest. India does not want to be in
the business of shaping the global order according to the values it
espouses as a country, as that entails passing judgments on how
countries run their internal affairs and assuming burdens on behalf of
the citizens of a foreign country that rightly fall within the purview
of national governments.
“In the case of the vote on Sri Lanka, irrespective of the reality of
the human rights situation there, we have departed from our principled
position on these matters.
“The irony is that in the past we have stood on the side, explicitly
or implicitly, of China, Sudan, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, North
Korea, Iran, Syria and so on by voting against or abstaining on
resolutions. “And, if for delicate political reasons we do not want to
rock our relations with these countries by joining others in indicting
them, how will we justify in retrospect our vote against Sri Lanka?
...In voting against Sri Lanka on a Western sponsored resolution, have
we now concluded that the West’s treatment of human rights issues has
become universally acceptable and even-handed in its treatment of
friends and adversaries?
“That we amended the US/EU sponsored resolution to make it less
intrusive, more balanced and more respectful of Sri Lankan sovereignty
is not sufficient justification for joining with distant powers to pick
on Sri Lanka at Geneva. We should be in control of our relationship with
Sri Lanka instead of following the lead of others or seeking to achieve
our own political ends through them.
War crimes
“Our foreign policy risks becoming erratic and capricious if domestic
pulls become overly influential in shaping its direction," Sibal
concludes.
Also, the ‘Times of India’ of March 25 in a leading opinion piece by
Anahita Mukherji titled: “Sri Lanka on trial, but case against India”
referring to important cases of torture and custodial abuse of persons
in India, states:” The government might find itself in a very
uncomfortable situation if the UNHRC turned the spotlight on India - on
the mini Camp X-rays that exist in police lock-ups and the secret safe
houses, where people are kept in illegal detention.” “For a country that
does not believe it is at war, India's track record on human rights is
rather pathetic ...While India has a poor human rights record, Sardesai
(sociologist Nandini Sardesai) points out that no country in the world
is free of human rights violations. After all, the US, which moved the
UNHRC motion against Sri Lanka, is a well-known perpetrator of war
crimes in other countries.
Nepal, Bhutan and India may have a deceptively clean image, thanks to
the troubled neighbourhood they're in. But the Sri Lankan case has
opened a can of worms that may finally bring attention to its neighbours’
equally bad rights record.”
In this context it was important for President Rajapaksa to tell the
world through Expo Sri Lanka 2012 that: “As you can see at this event
and as you travel freely in our country and also as you interact with
your business partners and counterparts it will be very clear to you
that the period of conflict is now over.
“Friends, I will assure you that we will not allow forces of
separatism and terror to raise their ugly heads again, certainly not in
our motherland.
“Sri Lanka is in the midst of peace won at great sacrifice. We are
progressing on the path of peace and reconciliation. Our government is
committed to walk that extra mile to establish permanent peace through
reconciliation. That is our commitment to our people and no one has to
tell us what to do.” |