In November 1917, as the Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Republic, Leon Trotsky was tasked to negotiate the nature of the peace with the German Imperial High Command. The delegation led by Trotsky, even as it was negotiating the terms of the peace treaty with the German Government in Brest-Litovsk that December, distributed leaflets to the German troops urging them to revolution. The Brest-Litovsk Treaty cost the Soviet Republic Finland, the Ukraine and its best grain lands.
Different times, different agendas, different
ideologies. Trotsky’s ‘leafletting’ was
not directly linked to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, but essentially the position
he had taken regarding the nature of peace won the day. The efforts of the Sri Lankan delegation were
in contrast trivial and their preferred outcome did not materialize. Trotsky had the blessings of his Government
which of course was not democratically elected and was therefore answerable to
the people on in terms of self-proclaimed representative legitimacy. The Sri Lankan delegation was made of
democratically elected representatives.
Whether they had the approval of the people, i.e. through the nod of the
Parliament and the Cabinet for this ‘side business,’ is therefore a legitimate
concern, especially if public funds were used to cover relevant expenses.
What’s common here is that in both
instances those who were politicking had their respective countries’ interest
at heart. Trotsky was plotting ‘world
revolution’. The Sri Lankan delegation,
in its wisdom, was probably inspired by concerns about the country’s economic
future. Both intentions were ‘noble’ in
that sense (let’s say for argument’s sake).
Both had something to do with the alteration of political boundaries, in
one case the ceding of territories controlled and in the other a landmass to
which there was no claim whatsoever. The
latter, then, in this sense was undoubtedly presumptuous.
The presumptions are not limited to
a land matter though and that’s what needs to be addressed. It is
no secret that this Government was doing its bit in the West’s anti-China
campaign, never mind the fact that China owns massive chunks of Western debt or
that China, according to the United National Party, was also active in the anti-Brexit
camp. What’s pertinent is that after
putting the country’s proverbial hand around the head as per the West’s bidding
or what turned out to be misplaced faith in the West, it finds itself touching
a nose called ‘Asia’. This ‘Asia’ is
essentially China and Japan – India, for all its friendly and big-player pretentions,
is an Asian ‘minor’ all things considered.
In short, the Government bet on the
West and lost. All the talk about GSP
Plus is nonsense simply because it is a) a highly overrated facility and b) we
don’t have it. Rushing into the as yet
mysterious ECTA with India on account of Brexit is not only a cheap trick but
one that exposes a kind of desperation that only a Government that is clueless can
have. Just the other day a group of
Indians, marketed laughably as ‘independent experts’, was here in Sri Lanka to sing
the praises of ECTA. If India is the
Government’s ‘PLAN B’ now that it has been made to eat humble pie with respect
to the West on account of Brexit, it only shows that lessons are not being
learnt.
The Indian (dead) rope trick aside,
however, it is a good thing that the Government has finally obtained a better sense
of global realities. Mending relations
with China cannot be too difficult. The Chinese have better things to do than
saying ‘hoo, hoo, we told you so!’ They
are in this for profit (just like the West and like India), so let’s have no
illusions about it. However, they won’t
do the ‘have the profit and eat the cake of political control’ that appears to
be the West’s (and India’s) preferred model of ‘Supporting Sri Lanka’. This is not to say that the Government should
snub India of course, but it pays to be honest and to refer realities. India is good to build a few houses and lay a
few miles worth of railway lines but that’s about it. Sure, you can have a trade pact but if good
business is about negotiating the best package and using whatever leverage one
has to push it through.
The West’s bargaining power was
dented by Brexit and whether or not it was the far right’s position that won is
irrelevant to Sri Lanka simply because ‘right’ or ‘left’, it’s all ‘wrong’ as
far as Sri Lanka is concerned when it comes to the West’s foreign policy
prerogatives. India certainly has more
power than Sri Lanka on all counts and there cannot be any agreement that yields
‘equal benefits’. We are talking of
crumbs here after all. India’s
bargaining power has to met with a chip called ‘The nature of Sino-Lanka
relations’.
This Government lost by going to the
weaker of the global economies. It can
lose all over again as it turns to the regional powers by betting on the weaker
of the Asian economies.
Finally, it should be kept in mind
that exercises such as politicking in some other country hoping to change
outcomes is not cost-effective. Sri
Lanka is not the Soviet Republic, Harsha De Silva is not Leon Trotsky, Britain
is not Finland. India is not a lesser
European Union, but China is certainly far larger on all counts than the EU and
North America put together. Dimensions
count whether we like it or not.
Ideally, of course, the long term plan
has to be SLexit as someone quit.
Britain has helped us a bit in the necessary unshackling. An Indian shackling as alternative would be
funny if it weren’t dangerous to economic as well as political interests of Sri
Lanka. A Chinese shackling cannot be
prettier but if some kind of fetter is inevitable, that has to be the pragmatic
choice (while we plot a sustainable SLexit from all forms of international bullying).
The above article was published in the Daily Mirror (June 30, 2016)
Malinda Seneviratne is a freelance writer. Email:
malindasenevi@gmail.com. Twitter: malindasene.
0 comments:
Post a Comment