Connect with us

Opinion

Ukraine: Phantom invasion

Published

on

Russian troops near the Ukrainian border

By SANJA DE SILVA JAYATILLEKA

In the 21st century international political theatre, unnerving in the extreme, we were treated recently to how things are likely to be played out in the world when Great Powers flex their muscles in a context of a fluidity when the balance of forces is less than obvious. In this context, the recent Chinese-Russian convergence on many matters, including the future of the world order, increasingly looks like the emergence of a necessary corrective.

|As the US, Germany, France, Britain, Poland, Italy and other heads of state and/or foreign ministers of the NATO alliance rushed to Moscow for consultations at the highest levels, it looked like Europe was on the verge of war. The Western governments did their best to convince everyone that Ukraine was about to be invaded by Russia.

At a White House press conference, the press thought that after the Iraq experience, they needed a bit more evidence to accept the claim that an invasion of Ukraine was imminent. Jake Sullivan replied that in Iraq, they were trying to start a war, but this time they were trying to prevent one. Somehow, he succeeded in looking like they were trying to provoke one.

The Russians had been engaged in intense diplomacy with the US and European governments in an effort to ensure their existential concerns regarding NATO expansion right up to their borders were addressed. The US requested that their written response to Russian documents, containing their proposals, not be disclosed. It turns out that the US had rejected Russia’s proposals. Russia was deploying troops along their border with Ukraine and conducting military exercises on land and sea in a show of strength. It was clear that a show of strength was what it was.

Panic was being spread in the west by their governments. Announcements were made of travel advisories and requests for US citizens to leave before Russian bombs fell on civilian lives. Those who stayed would be on their own, they said, for their government would be unable to save them. Ukraine itself was asking people to calm down. They didn’t want their people leaving. Russia was assuring that they weren’t about to invade since their interest was in NATO powers taking their long-discussed security concerns into consideration and diplomacy was still on.

And yet, the world was being told that Russia would invade Ukraine before the Winter Olympic Games were over. “We are very clear…” the US said, that it is very likely that Ukraine would be invaded anytime. Only a couple of days ago, the British Ministry of Defence even published a military map with red arrows curving towards Ukraine, calling it “President Putin’s possible Axis of Invasion”.

It was “Deja Vu, all over again”.

What’s The Buzz?

What would India feel if Sri Lanka were to formally express the desire and aim to enter into a military alliance with the China? Should anyone consider how India feels? Aren’t we a sovereign country, and shouldn’t we be able to decide on our own security arrangements and with whom we ally militarily?

We have some indication of how that would go down with our closest neighbour. It’s not that long ago that a Chinese submarine was docked at one of our ports, followed by a flurry of diplomatic activity to reassure India that such a thing will not happen again. Sri Lankan leaders take pains to assure India that no activity will be allowed on either land or sea which threatens India’s security concerns.

NATO is a military alliance. Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Now it’s an independent country. Russia would like to keep it that way. They refer to agreements which promised that NATO would not come too close to its borders. Ukraine insisted that it wants to exercise its sovereign right to join the EU and NATO. As Russia objected in no uncertain terms, suddenly everyone involved started throwing their military toys out of their prams.

I don’t think the rest of the world panicked. They were thinking, where’s the adult in the room?

Long Table De-Escalation

Diplomacy was still on. European heads of state were visiting Moscow.

Anyone who knows anything about the Russian Federation knows that the Russians are serious people with serious weapons who are hardly likely to start a war without serious thought. They have a considerable number of well-developed strategic studies think-tanks with well recognised scholars, academics and intellectuals, and some regularly brief the Kremlin. Their impressive international defence conferences are a reflection of the depth and breadth of their thinking on all strategic matters. Their recent convergence on a number of areas with China, even though it didn’t stretch to any kind of strategic alliance, also ensures that any surprise unilateral military adventure is most improbable.

It was a matter of time before Russia, having drawn their lines in dark red, would let their well-practiced diplomacy take over, and de-escalate. This happened on the 14th of February when Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, well known around the world for his skilled diplomacy (also known to us Sri Lankans for his ability to speak Sinhala), sat at one end of a very long table with President Putin at the other, and informed his boss that not all diplomatic options had been exhausted and there was still room for negotiations. Very considerable social distancing didn’t take away from the seriousness of the event which the Western media described as choreographed, which it probably was. It made good theatre.

Foreign Minister Lavrov informed the President that he was not satisfied with the responses he received from his counterparts. “…They basically said the right of a state to choose unions and join or replace them overrides everything else and is not a subject for discussion, as it were. We are reminding the Americans and our other Western colleagues that this right, formalised in OSCE top-level decisions at the 1999 and 2010 summits, the Russia-NATO 2002 Rome Declaration, and the Lisbon Declaration of the 2010 Russia-NATO summit, is not unconditional. This right is directly conditioned by other points that were supported, let me repeat, as a package by consensus. The second part of the package basically says that each state’s right to choose alliances is limited by its own commitments not to enhance its security at the expense of any other state.”

It’s easy to spot the hypocrisy if one imagines Cuba, entering into a military alliance with Russia or China. The collective Western howl would certainly be heard in Colombo. Colombo would in any case not agree with that position. Our stated position is that we don’t presume to use the sovereignty argument without considering India’s perceptions of the impact on its security.

However, in the second part of his conversation, Minister Lavrov informs President Putin that the responses were constructive: “The second part is more constructive to a certain extent. It envisages rather specific measures to address the problems of land-based short and intermediate-range missiles after the Americans discarded the corresponding treaty, the INF. It also contains specific proposals on a range of measures to reduce military risks, confidence-building measures and military transparency.”

President’s question whether there was “still .. a chance of coming to terms with our partners” Minister Lavrov said “…as the head of the Foreign Ministry, I must say that there is always a chance.”

Minister of Defence Shoigu was next at the long table on the 14th of February. Defence Minister Shoigu is from the Buryat region of Russia which contains a Buddhist population. He heads a very well-trained army with impressive hardware coveted by many countries around the world, with our neighbour India being a valued customer.

He described the recent military exercises: “…the exercises involved drills against various types of hypothetical enemy attacks in all areas, including those of surface ships, submarines and of blue-water navies.”

Then comes a submarine story of their own, a bit different to ours. Minister Shoigu informs President Putin of a rogue submarine seen in their waters:

“During the Pacific Fleet’s operations, as part of an exercise near the Kuril Island of Urup, we detected a submarine, presumably that of the United States. Following almost three-hour operations, the submarine was expelled from the territory of the Russian Federation. Actually, it had ventured over four kilometers into Russian territorial waters, a large distance, by local standards. We conducted special operations three times and forced the submarine to leave Russia’s territorial waters.”

Oh dear. That wasn’t nice. I mean it wasn’t very nice into sneak into somebody else’s territorial waters. A bit like an invasion, which everyone panics about.

Minister Shoigu was understandably offended. “Such activity in the east is absolutely incomprehensible and unjustified. But I want to repeat once again that the exercises will proceed: some of them are over, others are nearing completion…”

And thus, the de-escalation began and soon may it be completed.

World Order

We have got an unexpected glimpse into ‘world order games’. When the dust settles, the players will have learnt the limits of their strengths and the imperative of compromise. The shape of this new understanding will spill over into all international relations, including into our region, whichever way one decides to describe it, the Indo-Pacific or Asia-Pacific.

Some players came off looking better than others. The British will want to forget the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Moscow and their Foreign Secretary’s faux pas with it. Not to be outdone, the British press provided the ammunition for the Russians to take the mickey, reporting that the “invasion” would take place at “3.00 am local time on Wednesday (0100 GMT)”! They cited “anonymous US intelligence officials as sources for the claim”. This being too tempting a target to overlook, the irascible Dimitri Peskov, President Putin’s Press Secretary, suggested that the Ukrainians set their alarms so as not to miss it!

But the critical importance of well-considered diplomacy intelligently conducted by competent persons was made clear to the world, and all efforts at ensuring the possession of such skills and persons able to conduct it without embarrassing themselves and their countries, may be the only way to avoid wars.

While the “invasion song” is still number 1 on the charts on NATO radio, the rest of the world, that is to say, most of the world, may have tuned-out. It sounds too similar to several previous chart-toppers.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

What is wrong with Sri Lanka?

Published

on

By Dr Laksiri Fernando

It is not the country per se, but the politicians and the people who are wrong. While politicians should take 70 percent responsibility, the people also should take 30 percent. It is true that these wrongs on the part of the politicians or the people are not limited to Sri Lanka. Even in a country like Australia where I now live, there are intermittent corruption, crime, gender abuse, killing, and misguided politics. However, the difference is extremely vast. Sri Lanka’s wrongs are perhaps 50 times higher than a country like Australia.

One may pinpoint this to the economic difference or development. There is some truth in it. However, the whole truth is not that. It is rooted in the political culture and social culture in general. That is one reason why Sri Lanka was not being able to develop after independence like Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, etc. India also has come to the forefront of development today. Sri Lanka became caught up in a vicious cycle where political culture prevented development, while underdevelopment influenced the political culture.

What is this political culture? It is mainly renovated feudalism with family at the core of politics that dominates the political culture. It is also the same in social culture, families dominating business, religion, entertainment, and the media. Only female members are set apart. It is in a way natural for members of a family to follow their fathers, brothers, or other close members. Or it can happen the other way around, fathers or uncles helping and promoting their siblings.

Even in America or the UK, this could be seen. The Kennedy family promoted members into politics. However, in Sri Lanka this is overwhelming, some families completely dominating politics and social arena. While the Rajapaksas are the most prominent example with abhorrent practices, the Bandaranaikes, the Senanayakes and the Jayewardenes (Ranil Wickremesinghe with links) were also playing the same game. In Australia, I have not come across this process. When John Howard was the Prime Minister, his brother Bob Howard continued to serve as an academic at the University of Sydney whom I used to meet often.

In 1995, I decided to come back to Sri Lanka to serve the country. I applied and got the appointment as the Director of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI) through a competitive interview. It was a great institute with many capabilities and the people working there were quite flexible and committed. However, when it came to filling vacancies and expanding the staff for new tasks, I came across political influences and pressures.

I managed to overcome them luckily as the SLFI came under the purview of Chandrika Kumaratunga as the President and as she did not make any interference at least in my case. However, I resigned and came back to Australia within six months as the situation was unbearable. People who tried to influence me were either top ministers or bureaucrats.

Again, when I finally came back in 1997, I first joined the University of Colombo before undertaking any other appointments. By that time, I had fairly learned how to overcome political influence. The university system was fairly reasonable (not completely) and on that basis it was possible for me to follow my impartial principles. However, there was at least one instance where a former friend of mine tried to blame me publicly, claiming that I myself asked for favours! It was heartrending.

Sri Lanka’s public service is large and widespread. There are around 1.5 million people working in its various institutions, departments, and branches. Although there is the Public Service Commission which is supposed to be independent, even in its appointments political and other influences are paramount. The most discriminated people in this service are Tamils, Muslims, and Women. Although there are over 15 percent of Tamils in the population, their presence in the public service is less than 10 percent. Apart from discrimination on the reason of ethnicity and gender, there are discriminations on the basis of caste, religion and region. The dissolution of Provincial Councils since October 2019 has enlarged these discriminations overwhelmingly.

It is mistakenly claimed that the ‘large state sector’ is the primary defect of Sri Lanka’s economy. It is not the size of the sector that has mattered but its inefficiency, incapacity, unproductivity, and sometimes duplication. In Australia, out of the total workforce, 20 percent are in the state sector. But it is sufficiently productive and provides necessary services even to private enterprises. In Sri Lanka, if we count 12 million as the workforce (adult population 14 million), the state sector comprises only around 12 percent.

The state sector undoubtedly should be restructured, and the workforces should be retrained or even dismissed. There is no point in keeping people like Sirimanna Mahattaya in the public service if we take an example from the teledrama, Kolam Kuttama (Funny Couple)! Even privatising certain (loss-making) state enterprises is in order. However, there are certain sectors and services that the state should hold on to. Education and Health are the most priory sectors among others, depending on national dialogues. It could allow the private sector to participate, but the state should not give up its primary responsibilities.

There can be other strategic sectors where the private sector could be allowed like the ports, airports, airlines, electricity, gas, oil, and even water, but the state should not give up its responsibilities completely. Public-Private partnership can be a model in certain areas in this respect.

The stagnation of the education sector has been a primary problem area in Sri Lanka now for a long time. This applies both to school education and university education alike. In the case of university education there have been some curricula and teaching methodology changes but those are not up to modern and current needs.

We still get a huge number of Arts students while the country’s need is in the direction of Science, Technology, Medicine, Nursing and Business Management. Those who come from the Arts streams in schools, if it is not possible to change in the short run, should be able to move to scientific areas, if capable. In Australia, there is no prohibition of changing the stream if the students show high capability in whatever area that they qualify in. School education should be totally reformed with emphasis on scientific and international knowledge.

The discarding of English education (since 1956), in my opinion, has been the major mistake that the country has committed in degrading the educational system, the economy, and the country’s international profile. In recent times young generations are trying to overcome these barriers through private education, tuition, and social media. However, this is mostly limited to the well to do. English should not be considered as a superior or imperial language, but a practical and international language.

While this short article, with word limits, confine to only few areas of ‘wrongs’ that Sri Lanka is committing, a possible conclusion is to call for an overall change in the political and economic system in the country. Those political leaders and parties responsible for the country’s present political and economic crisis should be completely ousted.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Plan to transform country into an export economy

Published

on

Dear Mr. President,

A Presidential Media Division statement, titled “Country set for rapid transformation into an export economy” quoted remarks made by you at the inauguration ceremony of a historic temple in Kegalle.

As a caring citizen I said, “three cheers”, happily thinking that at last, the country was on the correct governance path focusing on the creation of new strategic leadership options and policy changes to encourage present and new investors to produce tradable goods and engage in external services. I was delighted that the statement began with a reference that Sri Lanka can no longer continue to rely on borrowings (presumably external?) to address the imbalance between imports and exports, which if pursued will inevitably lead to another economic crisis within a decade.

As I read the rest of the statement, I noted that your plan for achieving such a transformation by holding discussions with the World Bank, ADB and the IMF to initiate a programme and passing two new laws in April. The only other reference even as a vague statement was in relation to implementing an agricultural modernisation programme, where you anticipated results only after 6-7 years. Are you planning in addition to leverage the National Trade Facilitation Committee (NTFC) and its Secretariat as a part of your implementation strategy[ii] ?

I am sure that many highly competent Sri Lankan trade economists (including those who have guided you in the past), will be able to advise you on more important winning strategic policy/implementation and change management options.

They would surely stress the relative importance of developing strategic networking options with supply chains in the region, assisting capable SME’s to upgrade quality/productivity, and enhancing public infrastructure productivity; along with the need to remove para tariffs, enhance ease of doing business, and one stop facilitation center benchmarking services in South Indian states. These can bring big gains, well before dreaming as your short-term goal, leveraging Free Trade Agreements with India, China, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and attempting a high jump by  joining RCEP.

Chandra Jayaratne

Continue Reading

Opinion

Solar and wind power projects

Published

on

There has been a delay in finalising the unit cost for the proposed 500 Mw wind power project initiated by India’s Adani Group. This is surprising and disturbing as there was a news item that the Cabinet had approved the payment of US dollar cents 14.6 per unit, nearly Rs. 50 in our local currency, without the knowledge of the Ministry for Power and Energy or the Ceylon Electricity Board. If so, what is the reason for the delay in going ahead with the construction of the Wind Power Project at Mannar? The snag may be that other private suppliers too are demanding the same payment as agreed with Adani Group.

As I handled this subject at the Ministry of Power and Energy, I still take interest therein, in my retirement. In my earlier letters to the press, I pointed out the negative aspects of wind and solar projects, mainly, Sri Lanka being an island with a limited land area of 65,610 sq. km, where land is required for agriculture as is seen by the desperate attempt of the government offering uncultivated land both state-owned and private to grow more food.

It is said that four to five acres of land is required to produce 1 Mw of electricity. If so, consider the land requirements for major solar parks. In addition, no plant life is possible under these solar panels, which has multiple effects on the atmosphere. The scenic beauty of this country, which attracts tourists will be lost and thereby foreign exchange which we desperately need. This goes for floating solar projects on hydro reservoirs and lakes which the government has already approved contracts to the private sector. In wind farms, there is the danger to birds and flying insects. It is also reported that due to the noise people cannot settle down in adjacent areas.

It is not my intention to discourage the projects to produce power from renewable sources of energy. I intend to make the authorities concerned seek alternative sites, along the sea coast, avoiding beaches frequented by tourists, rooftop solar panels in all buildings. Do not forget we are actively pursuing the connection of our grid to India and when this project materialises, the energy requirement of this country will be eased to a great extent.

It is strange the Ministers in charge of land and agriculture and also tourism have not objected to setting up solar parks and wind farms on land.

G. A. D. Sirimal

Via e-mail

Continue Reading

Trending