Crimea And Geneva: Reverse Lessons For The Rajapaksa Regime And Diaspora Separatism
By Rajan Philips -March 9, 2014
Rajan Philips
What is happening in Crimea is what diaspora separatism would love to have happening in Sri Lanka. And Russia is one country that the Rajapaksa regime would be hoping to rely on to prevent northern Jaffna becoming a South Asian Crimea. But what Russia is doing in Crimea is almost a casual demonstration of the fulfillment of separatist aspirations, on the one hand, and an inconsiderate frustration of the textbook expectations of national sovereignty and security – in a country called Ukraine. At one point, Russia even invoked R2P of all things to justify its army getting out on the streets of Crimea, exercising its ‘Responsibility to Protect’ the Russians who are a minority in Ukraine but a majority within Crimea. Shoved virtually to the sidelines, notwithstanding all the puffed up rhetoric about diplomatic isolation and economic retaliation, are the West and the NATO – the flagship defenders of R2P and occasional promoters of separatist aspirations. Tough luck (more like, up yours), says Putin, grandson of Lenin’s cook, PhD in resource economics, possessed of his own – rather manic – sense of Great Russian history, and reinforced by KGB training.
Let us shift focus to Geneva, where the shoes are reversed and even mixed up. While Crimea exploded out of nowhere in the last fortnight, Geneva has been the stage for a slow moving drama (with year-long Acts and half-yearly Scenes) of undramatic resolutions that never rise up to the worst fears of the Rajapaksa regime or the best expectations of the diaspora groups. And in Geneva, it is the West that stands accused, by Russia among others, of trying to unnecessarily meddle in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs. But the West’s alleged meddling in Sri Lanka is nowhere near what Russia is doing in Ukraine. The leaked draft resolution for this
month’s UNHRC meeting is mostly incremental ‘muddling through’ from last year’s resolution. The draft changes are more about acknowledging developments in the past year than about radical action items for next year. Yet, the changes are enough to worry the Rajapaksa regime because the annual agony has started to sap the regime’s energy so much so there could be fatigue failure even without a regime change.
