Midweek Review
War in Ukraine: US Indo-Pacific strategy suffers as India skips several votes
…bid to isolate China fails
By Shamindra Ferdinando
Washington’s emerging Indo-Pacific strategy suffered a destructive setback in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one of the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union.
India’s decision not to back the US-led efforts, inside the UN and outside against Russia must have surprised the Western powers.
Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ordered the offensive on February 24, just four days before the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council was to meet. The Russian offensive dominated the 49th sessions of the UNHRC, where, among the issues that had been taken up, was Sri Lanka’s alleged accountability issue.
Ironically UNHRC Chief Michelle Bachelet has turned a Nelsonian eye to all those horrific crimes that were committed by the West in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.. Then what about continuing unimaginable terror tactics, employed against civilians, in places like Yemen and Palestine? What are all these bleeding heart ‘independent’ Western media, liberals, I/NGOs, saying about such horrendous crimes? Next to nothing! But see how they feel for Ukrainians-always in a virtual frenzy!
War is a terrible thing anywhere as only fools and cold blooded Nazi types would wish for such suffering on any living being.
One-time top intelligence officer having been the head of the KGB in the former East Germany when the so-called Iron Curtain of the ex-Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, Putin, President of Russia since 2012, and previously from 2000 until 2008, in addition to being the Premier from 1999 to 2000 opened up a new front at a time the West was trying to finish off China by cornering and luring it into a quagmire over Taiwan the way they are trying to do to Russia over Ukraine. Sri Lanka has been caught up with the conflict between the West and China.
The much disputed yet understandable looking at it from her security perspective, the Russian move in Eastern Europe invariably compelled nuclear powers China, a permanent member of the five-nation UN Security Council and India, to take a common stand on Ukraine. Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Friday (March 4) that would have technically forced Putin to cease the offensive immediately and withdraw his forces. India and China skipped the vote whereas the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the text. United Arab Emirates, too, abstained.
In spite of heavy and relentless Western pressure, India didn’t bow to any of it and threw its weight behind the Western move against Russia. The Indian position on Russian offensive, the biggest ever ground action since the end of WW II undermined the four nation Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD) in the Asia-Pacific, aka the Quad, comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia. Meant to counter the growing Chinese political, military and economic power, the Russian invasion is the first real test for Quad. The failure on the part of Quad members to swiftly reach a consensus to oppose the Russian action in Ukraine would demoralise the grouping. That is the undeniable truth.
The Indian stand on Russian offensive should be examined taking into consideration its refusal to deploy ground troops in Iraq in support of the US-UK led 2003 invasion.
India reawakens as to her true friends
India abstained from three votes at the UN Security Council, two at the UN General Assembly in New York, two at the UNHRC in Geneva, and one at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.
Modi follows Indira’s stand
India has no option but to walk a diplomatic tightrope over war in Ukraine as it tried to balance its ties with Russia and the West. The US humiliated Narendra Modi before the whole world with a much publicised denial of visa in 2005, over his alleged role in anti-Muslim violence three years earlier in Gujarat state, where he was the Chief Minister.
More than 1,000 people were killed, mostly Muslims in that riot. The US swiftly changed its stance soon after the Modi-led BJP romped to victory at the 2014 General Election and Washington quickly forgot the Gujarat victims, with the obvious backing of the powerful Israel lobby in America and elsewhere. Israel, surrounded by a sea of enemies, barring the corrupt regimes there beholden to the West sees India as a natural counterbalance because of the almost unbridgeable Hindu-Muslim divide emanating from the time of the Moghul invasion of Bharat. So no wonder Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was the first world leader to fly to Moscow to appease the situation and it showed how worried ‘the never say die attitude’ state is.
The State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki declared that Modi would get a visa to the US once he took office and forms a government. Modi would be eligible for an A1 visa, said Psaki. She said: “We congratulate Narendra Modi and the BJP on its victory in winning a majority of seats in India’s historic national election, which saw more voters cast their ballots freely and fairly than in any election in human history. Secretary Kerry has also offered his congratulations, and looks forward to working with the BJP on expanding our shared prosperity and security.”
Over the years, the US-India relations reached new heights with India and the US extending nuclear cooperation partnership in late Oct 2020. New Delhi and Washington, in a joint statement issued on Nov 24, 2020, declared that the original agreement that had been signed on Nov 07, 2010 was extended in recognition and appreciation of ‘the strength of the enduring partnership between the two countries on matters of security and reaffirming the important contributions of the US-India nuclear and radiological security cooperation for the benefit of their citizens and the world.’
There is no doubt China is relieved by India’s position. China must have quite rightly ascertained India wouldn’t upset its relationship with Russia by siding with the West. Modi’s stand on the war in Ukraine is very much similar to that of Indira Gandhi as regards the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late Dec 1979. That war lasted 10 years. Having failed to achieve its objectives, the Soviet Union ended the disastrous mission in Feb 1989, a year before India terminated its military mission in Sri Lanka’s Northern and Eastern Provinces. India brought its military project to a successful end in March 1990, having compelled the then Sri Lankan government to introduce 13th Amendment to the Constitution in Nov 1987. That objective was achieved at gunpoint.
India’s statement at the interactive session on the OHCHR’s written report on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka reminded how New Delhi pursued the 80s strategy. India’s Permanent Representative in Geneva Ambassador Indra Mani Pande declared: “We will continue to urge the Sri Lankan Government for the early conduct of elections to the Provincial Councils in keeping with its commitment to devolution of power.”
The late J.N. Dixit, in his memoirs ‘Makers of India’s Foreign Policy’ discussed India’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and their military intervention in Sri Lanka. Having referred to its their disastrous 1962 war with China, the triumph over Pakistan nine years later and achieving much desired nuclear capability in 1998, Dixit, one-time Indian High Commissioner in Colombo (1985-1989) commented on policy decisions on Afghanistan and Sri Lanka. It would be better to read verbatim what Dixit, who also served as National Security Advisor said about Indira Gandhi. The comment should be examined against the backdrop of India’s refusal to join the anti-Russia camp. Had that happened, China, would have found itself in much more complicated and difficult situation over the Russian adventure in Ukraine.
Dixit stated: “She (Indira Gandhi) redefined the ideology of nonalignment more preciously in terms of the interests of the developing countries. The two foreign policy decisions on which she could be faulted are: her ambiguous response to the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan and her giving active support to Sri Lankan Tamil militants. Whatever the criticisms about these decisions, it cannot be denied that she took them on the basis of her assessments about India’s national interests. Her logic was that she could not openly alienate the former Soviet Union when India was so dependent on that country for defence supplies and technologies. Similarly, she could not afford the emergence of Tamil separatism in India by refusing to support the aspirations of Sri Lankan Tamils. These aspirations were legitimate in the context of nearly 50 years of Sinhalese discrimination against Sri Lankan Tamils.
In both cases, her decisions were relevant at the point of time they were taken. History will judge her as a political leader who safeguarded Indian national interests with determination and farsightedness.”
Obviously, Modi felt the same way as the late Indira Gandhi did when he came under tremendous pressure to abandon Russia. New Delhi must have weighed how their stand on the Ukraine war affected common front against China.
Some have questioned India’s strategy. Commentators and analysts have raised questions, particularly in the West, over whether the world’s largest democracy should have backed the West. But, India, as a mature democracy has taken a principled stand. Some interpreted New Delhi’s first statement at the UN Security Council that regretted repeated calls from the international community to give diplomacy and dialogue a chance had not been heeded. But, at the end India skipped votes on Ukraine much to the dismay of the US.
Among those who abstained along with India and China were Pakistan, Vietnam, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and Bangladesh. Altogether 35 countries abstained not because they endorsed the Russian aggression but didn’t want to back a coalition that was responsible for millions of deaths in various regions of the world. The 2003 US-UK led invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) exposed the duplicity of those countries preaching to other nations about accountability.
It would be pertinent to ask whether those countries which staged a walk out last week as the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was addressing the UN in Geneva felt the same way when Western powers invaded Iraq. Some sections of the media quoted Ukrainian Ambassador in Geneva, Yevheniia Filipenko, who led the walkout at UNHRC as having thanked those who took part in the stunt. The Ambassador is right. It is nothing but a stunt as the then US Ambassador Nikki Haley in June 2018 called it a cesspool of political bias.
Lanka takes another beating at Geneva sessions
The Geneva agenda made further progress at the ongoing sessions overshadowed by the war in Ukraine. The Sri Lankan delegation to Geneva comprised Foreign Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, Justice Minister Ali Sabry, PC, Foreign Secretary Admiral (retd) Jayanath Colombage. The delegation joined Sri Lanka’s Permanent Representative there, one-time The Island political correspondent C.A. Chandraprema.
Prof. Peiris, bitterly complained about the way the UNHRC has treated Sri Lanka and pursued a strategy severely inimical to the country. The Foreign Ministry quoted Prof. Peiris as having said: “In March 2021, the Council voted on Resolution 46/1 which was tabled without the consent of Sri Lanka as the country concerned. The consideration of this matter polarised and politicised this forum. In a startling departure from the mandate which the UN General Assembly originally conferred on this Council, operative paragraph 6 of this resolution refers to a so-called evidence-gathering mechanism, a measure that was strongly opposed by a number of countries. Such initiatives create disharmony both in the domestic and international arenas. It creates obstacles to reconciliation efforts, breeds hatred by reopening past wounds, and polarises society.”
However, Geneva repeated the same old accusations against the backdrop of Sri Lanka’s pathetic failure at least to set the record straight.
Daya Gamage, one-time US State Department employee and the author of ‘Tamil Tigers’ Debt to America: US Foreign Policy Adventurism and Sri Lanka’s Dilemma’ strongly condemned Sri Lanka’s response to the Geneva threat. In comments posted online, Gamage questioned the failure on the part of the Sri Lankan government, at least to remind Geneva how now vanquished Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) expelled the entire Muslim community from Sri Lanka’s Northern Province in Oct/Nov 1990, just a few months after India pulled out its troops from Sri Lanka. Gamage stressed that the expulsion of Muslims should have been dealt with as Sri Lanka was being accused of perpetrating genocide. The former US Embassy employee in Colombo said: “Anyone who reads the interpretation of ‘genocide’ in the UN Charter and other scholarly works can know what genocide means.”
The UK-led Sri Lanka Core Group comprising Canada, Germany, North Macedonia, Malawi and Montenegro continued its despicable strategy of persecution of this country for defeating the world’s “most ruthless terrorist organisation” against their sinister advice. That lot voted against Russia over the continuing war in Ukraine but didn’t find fault with the invasion of Iraq or military action against several other countries in the past. Canada recently unearthed hard evidence of genocide and other calculated human rights violations against its indigenous population plays a major role in the project to undermine Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka’s failure to challenge the very basis of unsubstantiated war crimes allegations in spite of Lord Naseby providing the required ammunition in Oct 2017 along with a significant US military statement (Lt. Colonel Lawrence Smith, US Defence Advisor, Colombo) in June 2011, over two years after the successful conclusion of the war is a point to ponder. Can there be an excuse for continuously failing to set the record straight in Geneva and New York. What prevents Sri Lanka from making a reference to Indian intervention at least on the basis of what Dixit stated in his widely read memoirs? Why can’t we remind the world Geneva proceeded with a contentious process based on unverified accusations that cannot be examined till 2031? Or point out the vast discrepancy in the number of dead (both civilians and combatants) as reported by the UN Colombo and the disputed Darusman report?
The current dispensation has caused countrywide chaos by extremely poor management of the national economy. There is no doubt the vast majority of people struggling to make ends meet have been deprived of the basic needs. Disruption of both fuel and gas supplies as well as daily countrywide power cuts have jolted the public. Having repeatedly promised a system change, the current government has caused gross human rights violation by depriving all communities of the basic needs. It would be a grave mistake on the part of the government to believe the crisis can be conveniently blamed on the Covid-19 global epidemic.
The Geneva didn’t receive the attention it required in the local media due to the war in Ukraine and unprecedented political crisis caused by sharp differences emerging within the SLPP-led ruling coalition. The rebel group made explosive accusations pertaining to Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa, who holds Sri Lanka and US dual citizenship, of pursuing a strategy to facilitate Western intervention. The rebel group compared the current situation with that of Indonesia in the 1960s that brought military dictator Suharto to power and resulted in butchering of possibly several hundred thousand innocents suspected of being Communist sympathisers.
Regardless of pompous declarations made, Sri Lanka has been encircled on the Geneva front with so-called evidence-gathering mechanism free to proceed. Perhaps, Sri Lanka should explore the possibility of presenting its case with all available evidence, including now unclassified wartime dispatches from the British High Commission in Colombo with fresh request to the UK as well as other key diplomatic missions to submit their wartime dispatches to the UN evidence gathering mechanism. Sri Lanka never used Wiki leaks revelations for its advantage.
Let me end this piece by reproducing a section of Wikileaks managed to secrete out of US diplomatic cables from Geneva. A cable dated July 15, 2009 signed by the then Geneva-based US Ambassador Clint Williamson cleared the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) of crimes against humanity during the Vanni offensive. The cable addressed to the US State Department was based on a confidential conversation Ambassador Williamson had with the then ICRC head of operations for South Asia, Jacque de Maio on July 9, 2009. Ambassador Williamson wrote: “The army was determined not to let the LTTE escape from its shrinking territory, even though this meant the civilians being kept hostage by the LTTE were at an increasing risk. So, de Maio said, while one could safely say that there were ‘serious, widespread violations of international humanitarian law,’ by the Sri Lankan forces, it didn’t amount to genocide. He could cite examples of where the army had stopped shelling when the ICRC informed them it was killing civilians. In fact, the army actually could have won the military battle faster with higher civilian casualties, yet it chose a slower approach which led to a greater number of Sri Lankan military deaths. He concluded however, by asserting that the GoSL failed to recognise its obligation to protect civilians, despite the approach leading to higher military casualties.”