By
C.A.Chandraprema

John Kerry assumed duties as US Secretary of State on last Friday. It was also last week that three officials of the US State Department visited Sri Lanka and declared that the US will be sponsoring a procedural resolution against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council, plunging US-Sri Lanka relations to a new low.

Kerry has been a critic of the manner in which his predecessor Hillary Clinton handled Sri Lanka. In December 2009, he signed along with his colleague Senator Richard G.Lugar a US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report titled, “Sri Lanka: Re-charting US Strategy after the War”. This report stressed among other things, the following points:

“Sri Lanka’s strategic importance to the United States, China, and India is viewed by some as a key piece in a larger geopolitical dynamic, what has been referred to as a new ‘‘Great Game.’’ While all three countries share an interest in securing maritime trade routes, the United States has invested relatively few economic and security resources in Sri Lanka, preferring to focus instead on the political environment. Sri Lanka’s geostrategic importance to American interests has been neglected as a result.

“President Rajapaksa was forced to reach out to other countries because the West refused to help Sri Lanka finish the war against the LTTE. These calculations— if left unchecked—threaten long-term U.S. strategic interests in the Indian Ocean.

“The administration has consistently called for an end to human rights abuses, protection and rapid resettlement of IDPs, and genuine efforts towards reconciliation in part through statements from President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake. The State Department, under the leadership of its new U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Patricia Butenis, has demanded progress from the Government on eight benchmarks including improved conditions in the camps, return of IDPs, political progress, and de-mining. The Treasury Department abstained on the $2.6 billion IMF loan to Sri Lanka this summer because of humanitarian concerns. At Congress’s behest, the U.S. Government continues to suspend military aid to Sri Lanka and issued a report on incidents during the war that may have constituted violations of international humanitarian law.

“In Colombo, the U.S. approach is viewed by many senior government officials as heavy-handed and ‘‘shrill.’’ They no longer sense a strong partnership with the United States and view the relationship to be on a downward trajectory.

“There is a common view that American influence is waning, in part because of the tone of its messages. As one Western aid official told committee staff: ‘‘Sticks don’t work with the Sri Lankan Government. They need to hear coordinated, constructive messages that give them time to implement change without losing face.

“There is also concern that Western donors do not invest in projects that are government priorities such as big infrastructure projects and roads, allowing non-traditional donors like the Chinese to fill the vacuum.

“With the end of the war, the United States needs to re-evaluate its relationship with Sri Lanka to reflect new political and economic realities. While humanitarian concerns remain important, U.S. policy toward Sri Lanka cannot be dominated by a single agenda. It is not effective at delivering real reform, and it short changes U.S. geostrategic interests in the region.

Kerry’s 2009 report was ignored by both Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. Today, it’s not just US policy in Sri Lanka that’s in a shambles but US foreign policy the world over. The so called Arab Spring that was so avidly sponsored by Hillary Clinton has become an American nightmare with anti-Western regimes taking power in almost all the Arab countries that experienced revolutions. Kerry’s most formidable competitor for the job, Susan Rice, was frog-marched out of the running for having tried to cover up Clinton bungling in Libya which has turned from a well ordered dictatorship under Gaddaffi into a seething hot bed of anti-Western dissent with the rebels even killing a US Ambassador – something that Gaddaffi himself would not have dared contemplate let alone carry out. Kerry was not Obama’s first choice for the position of Secretary of State – he was forced to settle for Kerry because his favourite candidate had lost credibility. Just last week, a columnist writing to Fox News posed the following question:

“Two years ago North Africa and the Middle East were relatively calm and stable. Granted, some of the countries were run by dictators, but they were pro-American dictators. Most of them were in fact cooperating with us by sharing intelligence on terrorists and Islamic extremists. They were at peace with Israel. Some were even enjoying relatively high levels of economic growth, despite the economic downturn in much of the rest of the world. For example, Egypt’s economy was growing at nearly 8% immediately before they ousted President Mubarak. Today the entire region, from North Africa to the Middle East to the Persian Gulf all the way to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia is in upheaval. Another Arab-Israeli war threatens. Al Qaeda has expanded its reach and intensity throughout the region. Anti-Americanism is on the rise. What has gone wrong in just two short years?”

Now the question is whether Kerry will be able to reverse the rot that set in during the Clinton years – one aspect of which was the continuing deterioration in US- Sri Lanka relations. Kerry has been given the unenviable task of cleaning the Augean stables. It was the same gung-ho attitude that Clinton displayed in the Middle-East that was brought to bear on Sri Lanka as well. The mess that Clinton left behind in the Middle East will be very difficult to clean up and will be a lasting legacy of the Obama administration. However Kerry can put things right with regard to Sri Lanka merely with the stroke of a pen. All he has to do is to basically get America off Sri Lanka’s back and implement what he himself recommended back in 2009.

If American policy with regard to Sri Lanka does not change even after Kerry’s becomes Secretary of State, what happens then? As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, plan B already seems to be in operation. Last week’s cabinet reshuffle had only one noteworthy feature – the shifting of Champika Ranawaka away from the Power and Energy Ministry. This has fuelled much speculation with the opposition alleging that Champika had been blocking the Indian Sampur power plant and that he had been shifted out of the energy ministry to get the Sampur project off the ground and in exchange, India’s help is being sought at the UN-HRC sessions in Geneva in March. However, there appears to have been more reasons behind this move. Champika Ranawaka is the head of the JHU, a nationalist coalition partner of the government with an ideology and a programme of its own. One of the problems in him being at the power and energy ministry is his aversion to possible electricity tariff hikes in the future.

His replacement by a member of the ruling party proper, now obviates any ideologically driven objections to a tariff hike. The Indians had apparently complained to the president that Champika was blocking the Sampur coal power plant. The JHU story however is that they were not blocking it, but only insisting on the preparation of a proper feasibility study before the project commences. The third issue is the most important and relevant to the present discussion. The Chinese had been asking for the management of the Norochcholai coal power plant but Champika had been blocking it on the ideological grounds that a plant that makes such a large contribution to the national power grid should remain under Ceylon Electricity Board management and not under the control of some other party. The CEB too had been of the same opinion. Nationalist ideology would understandably not be comfortable with the power grid of the country being dependent on foreign managed power sources.

All this is going on while it was possible for Sri Lanka to largely remain independent among all the contending forces in the Indian Ocean – India, the western nations and China. If Champika opposed the handing over of the management of Norochcholai to the Chinese, it was not because he was anti-Chinese – not by a long shot – it was because his nationalist ideology stressed independence. So long as the USA keeps hounding Sri Lanka in international fora, Sri Lanka will move ever more surely into the Chinese orbit and the very notion of independence will disappear as a luxury that we cannot afford. There is a difference between a Sri Lanka that is friendly towards China but maintains cordial relations with the US and India as well and a Sri Lanka that is completely dependent on China for survival and has strained relations with both India and the US.COURTESY:SUNDAY ISLAND