When Foreign Affairs impact on domestic politics
JUN 18 2016
Away from the usual hurly-burly of politics, was an important focus on Foreign Policy, bringing out the interaction between domestic and foreign policy, especially in the context of a consensus coalition government, after a long period of authoritarian rule, which paid little attention to the importance of good foreign relations, and hardly ever to its discussion.
The discussion on “Sri Lanka in Global Affairs: The Journey since January 2015” organised by the Policy Evaluation Unit of the Presidential Secretariat and the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, saw the participation of Dr. Ram Manikkalingam, longtime activist for peace and reconciliation, currently Board Member of the Office of National Unity, and Professor at the University of Amsterdam as keynote speaker. The event was chaired by former Ambassador and Governor of the Northern Province H. M. G. S. Palihakkara, with a panel comprising, former Ambassador and political analyst Dr. Dayan Jayatillake, current Governor of the Eastern Province Austin Fernando, and Prof (Retd.) Jayadeva Uyangoda, Political Science of the University of Colombo, and civil society activist.
President Sirisena, who also participated, saw a useful study of the buildup of new foreign relations, the impact of domestic policy and necessities on current and emerging foreign relations, and developments in Geneva of current importance and for future trends in foreign policy.
Speaking after the keynote address and panelists’ views, President Sirisena said that strengthening democracy, freedom, human rights, and healing the wounds of war have been the key focus of the Government’s foreign policy over the past 18 months.
He rejected criticism of the Government for betraying the country and allowing foreign powers to dictate terms, stating there is no influence, directives of threats from any of Sri Lanka’s international partners. President Sirisena criticized his predecessor’s regime, compelled to call for early elections, two years ahead, because of the disastrous state of the country’s foreign relations and the huge debt crisis that prevailed.
No further term
He underscored that his decision making was not coloured by aspirations to return to power for a further term in office. He said some could be dissatisfied, that government was going too far or relief was not coming fast enough. He said people must understand where we are economically; the difficulties of the task of reconciliation, and how crucial it is for Sri Lanka to progress.
Keynote speaker Dr. Ram Manikkalingam, observed that the democratic revolution in Sri Lankan politics has had a far reaching impact of Sri Lanka’s standing in the word today, creating a major opportunity and responsibility for Sri Lanka to better navigate her affairs in the world.
He recalled moving to Europe in 2006, when Sri Lanka was in the throes of an intensifying war and Europe was at peace; when one could travel from Paris to Prague by land without meeting a single policeman or immigration agent, while in Sri Lanka you couldn’t go from Fort to Dehiwela without being stopped at least three times – if lucky, a half a dozen times if not.
Today, Sri Lankans can travel throughout the country without fear, or checked at every corner. It made him proud as a Sri Lankan to experience a country where there is neither violence, nor efforts to aggravate ethnic or religious polarization by our political leaders.
Manikkalingam said this is at a time when the world looks for a way to deal with three challenges - promoting security, protecting human rights and achieving economic prosperity; after failures to impose democracy and human rights through military interventions, and externally promoted revolutions in the Middle East.
Looking towards such progress, the world sees how Sri Lanka made the change: Through the ballot box, voting for democracy, creating a quiet revolution. He emphasized that Sri Lanka had never before seen such depth and breadth in a coalition, as that which won on January 8; no doubt assisted by the deep commitment of Sri Lankans to democratic choice at elections.
He saw three elements of President Sirisena’s thinking that might provide us with a way of exploring together what a specifically Sri Lankan flavour to international policy may look like. These included sharing our experiences – good and bad – both politically and militarily in dealing with violent extremism and creeping authoritarianism; identifying and sharpening in international politics a particular style of politics –working well with others in a coalition to achieve principled results; and, contributing to thinking and understanding about peace building, where Sri Lankan forces are today playing an increasingly prominent role, in the promotion of human rights, democracy, and sustainable development.
UNHRC - Rajapaksa failure
Referring to the situation with the UNHRC, Manikkalingam recalled that shortly after the war ended, President Rajapaksa signed a joint statement with UNSG Ban Ki Moon, committing Sri Lanka to deal with reconstruction, a political settlement and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. He noted that our failure to deal with these commitments seriously, put us under the spotlight in Geneva. All of the diplomacy we could muster – professionally and politically - could not make up for this substantive failure. The situation was made worse by aggravating ethnic polarization in the country, and worse, we also failed to gain credit for a very generous programme for rehabilitation for all the ex-LTTE combatants.
He said the President and Government have turned the situation around through domestic efforts at reconciliation, winning goodwill and understanding, convincing the world we are not trying to deny the presence of problems, but rather finding a decent way to deal with them; seeking to protect national sovereignty and the integrity of the armed forces, by dealing with human rights and IHL violations through a national process, while rejecting an international one, which has enabled Sri Lanka to protect the reputation and goodwill of the armed forces.
Asia centric realism
Dr. Dayan Jayatillake who followed had immediate praise for President Sirisena’s “Asia centric realism” or Asia Centric Middle Way, and expressed doubts whether foreign affairs were being implemented in keeping with this thinking.
He saw a dualism in the foreign policy, from what the President stated and what was being practised, which would not be in the national interest, and was strongly against any attempts to have any new or special mechanism in the judicial process against those from the armed forces, and stressed that in no other country in the world had there been such “special mechanisms”. He also saw a clear difference between the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of South Africa and what was being mentioned here, when the conditions were totally different.
He was against the very idea of any independent prosecutor and similar proposals coming from official quarters as being wholly different to the thinking and policy statements of President Sirisena, whom he urged to keep up and strengthen the Asia Centric Middle Way. He strongly questioned any thinking that our legal system and judiciary was in any way incompetent to meet the issues that faced the troops and people of this country, in a fight to achieve freedom from terrorism of a fascist ideology. He presented the often crude JO propaganda in a good academic and analytical way.
Ambassador Palihakkara at the Chair observed that the different views expressed by Dr. Jayatillake showed the essence of the Sirisena Administration’s belief in democratic dissent, not being an act of treason.
Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, saw three areas of government success, such as managing external relations through a strategy of policy flexibility; arresting Sri Lanka’s drift towards hard authoritarianism; and keeping opponents – the so-called Joint Opposition – at bay, preventing its growth to an imminent political threat to regime stability. He saw this government’s strength in the weakness of the loose coalition of its parliamentary opponents, who incidentally are MPs of the UPFA coalition, which President Sirisena himself heads.
He saw the government’s foreign policy activities, seemingly conducted through two centres, President’s office and Prime Minister’s office, as an interesting new development. In fact, re-negotiation of economic relations with China appears to have been undertaken by both the President and the Prime Minister, he said. (The full text of Prof. Uyangoda’s contribution is in the Daily News of June 16, 2016).
It was a most fitting conclusion to an evening of politics taken to a higher plane of debate, than the day- to-day antics in the political arena.
New JO tactics
The huge defeat of the No Confidence Motion against Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake was a major debacle to the JO, which in fact targeted the Government, and especially the SLFP (UPFA) members in the governing coalition. This defeat has made them intensify the attacks of the Governor, Central Bank, garnering support from key SLFP ministers in Government. The progress of these divisive moves by the JO needs strategic counter action to keep the unity of government intact.
The fight against corruption gets more intense with new action against Keheliya Rambukwella and Udaya Gammanpila, as well as further probes on Yoshitha Rajapaksa, and action on other areas of corruption by the Rajapaksa Regime, are yet to emerge.
The Government eased public fears by stating the FCID would not be shut down, but a more comprehensive and powerful bureau for Special Crimes Investigation would be set up by Parliament, as found in the UK and other democracies.
Amidst these trends in politics one has to record with regret the passing away of two leading left wing politicians – Alawi Mowlana and Somawansa Amarasinghe. The former had a long record in politics, especially as a trade union leader, and rose to be Vice-President of the SLFP, was a Cabinet Minister and Governor of the Western Province for nearly a decade. The latter was involved in the JVP uprisings, fled the country towards the end of the 2nd insurrection, and later emerged as the leader of the party, as it turned towards democratic politics; but finally left the party as it responded to civil society moves to defeat the Rajapaksa authoritarianism.
The discussion on “Sri Lanka in Global Affairs: The Journey since January 2015” organised by the Policy Evaluation Unit of the Presidential Secretariat and the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, saw the participation of Dr. Ram Manikkalingam, longtime activist for peace and reconciliation, currently Board Member of the Office of National Unity, and Professor at the University of Amsterdam as keynote speaker. The event was chaired by former Ambassador and Governor of the Northern Province H. M. G. S. Palihakkara, with a panel comprising, former Ambassador and political analyst Dr. Dayan Jayatillake, current Governor of the Eastern Province Austin Fernando, and Prof (Retd.) Jayadeva Uyangoda, Political Science of the University of Colombo, and civil society activist.President Sirisena, who also participated, saw a useful study of the buildup of new foreign relations, the impact of domestic policy and necessities on current and emerging foreign relations, and developments in Geneva of current importance and for future trends in foreign policy.
Speaking after the keynote address and panelists’ views, President Sirisena said that strengthening democracy, freedom, human rights, and healing the wounds of war have been the key focus of the Government’s foreign policy over the past 18 months.
He rejected criticism of the Government for betraying the country and allowing foreign powers to dictate terms, stating there is no influence, directives of threats from any of Sri Lanka’s international partners. President Sirisena criticized his predecessor’s regime, compelled to call for early elections, two years ahead, because of the disastrous state of the country’s foreign relations and the huge debt crisis that prevailed.
No further term
He underscored that his decision making was not coloured by aspirations to return to power for a further term in office. He said some could be dissatisfied, that government was going too far or relief was not coming fast enough. He said people must understand where we are economically; the difficulties of the task of reconciliation, and how crucial it is for Sri Lanka to progress.
Keynote speaker Dr. Ram Manikkalingam, observed that the democratic revolution in Sri Lankan politics has had a far reaching impact of Sri Lanka’s standing in the word today, creating a major opportunity and responsibility for Sri Lanka to better navigate her affairs in the world.
He recalled moving to Europe in 2006, when Sri Lanka was in the throes of an intensifying war and Europe was at peace; when one could travel from Paris to Prague by land without meeting a single policeman or immigration agent, while in Sri Lanka you couldn’t go from Fort to Dehiwela without being stopped at least three times – if lucky, a half a dozen times if not.
Today, Sri Lankans can travel throughout the country without fear, or checked at every corner. It made him proud as a Sri Lankan to experience a country where there is neither violence, nor efforts to aggravate ethnic or religious polarization by our political leaders.
Manikkalingam said this is at a time when the world looks for a way to deal with three challenges - promoting security, protecting human rights and achieving economic prosperity; after failures to impose democracy and human rights through military interventions, and externally promoted revolutions in the Middle East.
Looking towards such progress, the world sees how Sri Lanka made the change: Through the ballot box, voting for democracy, creating a quiet revolution. He emphasized that Sri Lanka had never before seen such depth and breadth in a coalition, as that which won on January 8; no doubt assisted by the deep commitment of Sri Lankans to democratic choice at elections.
He saw three elements of President Sirisena’s thinking that might provide us with a way of exploring together what a specifically Sri Lankan flavour to international policy may look like. These included sharing our experiences – good and bad – both politically and militarily in dealing with violent extremism and creeping authoritarianism; identifying and sharpening in international politics a particular style of politics –working well with others in a coalition to achieve principled results; and, contributing to thinking and understanding about peace building, where Sri Lankan forces are today playing an increasingly prominent role, in the promotion of human rights, democracy, and sustainable development.
UNHRC - Rajapaksa failure
Referring to the situation with the UNHRC, Manikkalingam recalled that shortly after the war ended, President Rajapaksa signed a joint statement with UNSG Ban Ki Moon, committing Sri Lanka to deal with reconstruction, a political settlement and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law. He noted that our failure to deal with these commitments seriously, put us under the spotlight in Geneva. All of the diplomacy we could muster – professionally and politically - could not make up for this substantive failure. The situation was made worse by aggravating ethnic polarization in the country, and worse, we also failed to gain credit for a very generous programme for rehabilitation for all the ex-LTTE combatants.
He said the President and Government have turned the situation around through domestic efforts at reconciliation, winning goodwill and understanding, convincing the world we are not trying to deny the presence of problems, but rather finding a decent way to deal with them; seeking to protect national sovereignty and the integrity of the armed forces, by dealing with human rights and IHL violations through a national process, while rejecting an international one, which has enabled Sri Lanka to protect the reputation and goodwill of the armed forces.
Asia centric realism
Dr. Dayan Jayatillake who followed had immediate praise for President Sirisena’s “Asia centric realism” or Asia Centric Middle Way, and expressed doubts whether foreign affairs were being implemented in keeping with this thinking.
He saw a dualism in the foreign policy, from what the President stated and what was being practised, which would not be in the national interest, and was strongly against any attempts to have any new or special mechanism in the judicial process against those from the armed forces, and stressed that in no other country in the world had there been such “special mechanisms”. He also saw a clear difference between the Truth & Reconciliation Commission of South Africa and what was being mentioned here, when the conditions were totally different.
He was against the very idea of any independent prosecutor and similar proposals coming from official quarters as being wholly different to the thinking and policy statements of President Sirisena, whom he urged to keep up and strengthen the Asia Centric Middle Way. He strongly questioned any thinking that our legal system and judiciary was in any way incompetent to meet the issues that faced the troops and people of this country, in a fight to achieve freedom from terrorism of a fascist ideology. He presented the often crude JO propaganda in a good academic and analytical way.
Ambassador Palihakkara at the Chair observed that the different views expressed by Dr. Jayatillake showed the essence of the Sirisena Administration’s belief in democratic dissent, not being an act of treason.
Prof. Jayadeva Uyangoda, saw three areas of government success, such as managing external relations through a strategy of policy flexibility; arresting Sri Lanka’s drift towards hard authoritarianism; and keeping opponents – the so-called Joint Opposition – at bay, preventing its growth to an imminent political threat to regime stability. He saw this government’s strength in the weakness of the loose coalition of its parliamentary opponents, who incidentally are MPs of the UPFA coalition, which President Sirisena himself heads.
He saw the government’s foreign policy activities, seemingly conducted through two centres, President’s office and Prime Minister’s office, as an interesting new development. In fact, re-negotiation of economic relations with China appears to have been undertaken by both the President and the Prime Minister, he said. (The full text of Prof. Uyangoda’s contribution is in the Daily News of June 16, 2016).
It was a most fitting conclusion to an evening of politics taken to a higher plane of debate, than the day- to-day antics in the political arena.
New JO tactics
The huge defeat of the No Confidence Motion against Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake was a major debacle to the JO, which in fact targeted the Government, and especially the SLFP (UPFA) members in the governing coalition. This defeat has made them intensify the attacks of the Governor, Central Bank, garnering support from key SLFP ministers in Government. The progress of these divisive moves by the JO needs strategic counter action to keep the unity of government intact.
The fight against corruption gets more intense with new action against Keheliya Rambukwella and Udaya Gammanpila, as well as further probes on Yoshitha Rajapaksa, and action on other areas of corruption by the Rajapaksa Regime, are yet to emerge.
The Government eased public fears by stating the FCID would not be shut down, but a more comprehensive and powerful bureau for Special Crimes Investigation would be set up by Parliament, as found in the UK and other democracies.
Amidst these trends in politics one has to record with regret the passing away of two leading left wing politicians – Alawi Mowlana and Somawansa Amarasinghe. The former had a long record in politics, especially as a trade union leader, and rose to be Vice-President of the SLFP, was a Cabinet Minister and Governor of the Western Province for nearly a decade. The latter was involved in the JVP uprisings, fled the country towards the end of the 2nd insurrection, and later emerged as the leader of the party, as it turned towards democratic politics; but finally left the party as it responded to civil society moves to defeat the Rajapaksa authoritarianism.
