Pluses and minuses after Jan. 8

By Izeth Hussain-May 15, 2015

There are pluses to be counted in favour of the Government and minuses to be counted against it in its performance since the Jan. 8 elections. Its performance can be assessed like a glass of water as either half full or half empty. I would belong to the school of thought that sees the glass as half full because I bear in mind that since politics is the art of the possible there can be no perfection in it Furthermore, in politics the choice is not usually between the good and the bad but between the bad and the worse. Bearing all that in mind I would say that the glass of the government’s performance is three quarters full. Practically everyone will acknowledge that it has done its utmost to abide by its election pledges and where it has failed it has been because of circumstances beyond its control. We must all acknowledge also that we have witnessed a change of a revolutionary order: we have a President who has actually relinquished some of his powers. That, surely, was unimaginable with our past presidents.

One matter over which I am disappointed is that the government does not seem to be really in earnest about moving away from the model of conquest democracy that has been allowed to prevail in Sri Lanka for far too long. It is a form of democracy in which the victors at elections behave like conquerors over the Opposition and also over the people. The State, with all its resources, is seen as the legitimate possession of the government. We may see a change in that with the appointment of independent Commissions. What bothers me is the vengefulness shown towards the Opposition notables. That bears the stench of the conqueror and shows that the mentality of the conqueror has not been eradicated.

Another matter over which I am disappointed is that the government is not succeeding in moving towards a more consensual and less conflictual form of democracy than has been prevailing in Sri Lanka. As a result of the conqueror mentality shown by our rulers our politics have become essentially "politics as organized hatred" and the result has been a deep divisiveness within our society. In the mature democracies of the West the tendency is to have two mainstream parties, one left of center and the other centrist or right of center. There is much common ground between them, and consequently a high degree of consensuality.

When the Sirisena faction of the SLFP joined up with the UNP it seemed that it could be the beginning of an evolution towards the consensual democracy of the West. But the Rajapaksa faction is relentlessly establishing its ascendency over the Sirisena faction and retrogression to the polarised politics of the past seems inevitable. It is to the credit of the present government that it has understood the need for some degree of national unity, which is why it has wanted to establish a national government. But, it is not succeeding due to factors beyond its control.

At the present moment it appears that the alternatives facing us at the forthcoming general elections would be between a UNP government led by Ranil Wickremasinghe and one led by Mahinda Rajapaksa after a coming together of the Sirisena and Rajapaksa factions. A UNP government would stand for democracy while an SLFP government would be quasi democratic but essentially racist and neo-Fascist. A UNP government would have the opportunity to accomplish something of the greatest moment for the nation: the entrenchment of democracy so firmly that it will not break down for long periods as in the past, though it may suffer a temporary eclipse. I have in mind the accomplishment of India where democracy broke down only for a brief period of two years under Indira’s Emergency, and is today alive and vigorously kicking under a Government that tolerates the Hindutva ideology of the RSS. There is no reason why we should not match that splendid democratic accomplishment.

The most important reason why a UNP government could firmly entrench democracy – something that requires practice and not just legislation and the setting up of certain institutions – is that our political culture has been becoming democratic. The restoration of democracy in 1994 after seventeen long years was not preceded by anything like a people’s campaign for it. I wrote many articles stressing the importance of establishing a fully functioning democracy and that point certainly featured in other articles as well, but there was nothing like the civil society drive for it that preceded January 8. The reason why Sri Lanka’s democracy has been so vulnerable, why it could be so easily kicked to pieces by the likes of President JR, is that there was no clear commitment to it by the people. That commitment had to be shown on behalf of the people by the political class and the civil society. That was amply shown before January 8.

I think that the drive to establish a fully functioning democracy by the present government has been admirable and it certainly constitutes a major plus point for it. But, as a minority member, I have to raise the question what’s the point of it all if the minorities continue to be denied fair and equally treatment. Ever since de Tocqueville wrote his classic Democracy in America the idea has been commonplace in the West that democracy is not just the will of the majority, which would amount to a negation of democracy if there is no observance of the fundamental principles of democracy enshrined in the secular holy trinity of liberty, equality, and fraternity. But in Sri Lanka that idea seems to be alien even to the educated political class. I say this because some weeks ago a Tamil with a doctorate wrote in response to one of my articles that full democracy would have no part in the solution of the ethnic problem because it would amount to the will of the Sinhalese majority.

I want as part of the struggle for a fully functioning democracy, an integral part of it and not something ancillary to it, Race Relations Boards and the full panoply of the laws and regulations applying in the West in the struggle against racism. Otherwise, we will be having a Sinhala Constitution and Sinhala democracy. Both, as far as I am concerned, should be consigned to the dustbin.

At present a tsunami of support is continuing to build up for Mahinda Rajapaksa. It certainly is a minus point for the government, but is it due to any mismanagement, shortcomings, or misdeeds of the government? I don’t think so. It is clearly due to forces far beyond the control of the government. What we are seeing is a vigorous reassertion of identity politics. It is almost a world-wide phenomenon as can be seen from the fact that minorities are getting restive practically all over the world. But majorities can also get restive – a fact that minorities are apt to ignore – if they perceive or misperceive that their legitimate interests are under threat. Certainly behind what is called Sinhala Buddhist chauvinism there is a drive to bully and dominate the minorities. But, there is also, particularly among the Sinhalese masses, a deep sense of vulnerability, encapsulated in the phrase "a majority with a minority complex". MR, rightly seen as the savior of a united Sri Lanka, is profiting from both those factors.

The best antidote to identity politics could be a fully functioning democracy backed by a people with an authentic democratic political culture. In India Modi leads a BJP Government which espouses a soft version of the Hindutva ideology. Democratic India would not tolerate him and the BJP otherwise. In France Marie le Pen, in anticipation of coming to power, has much moderated the odious idiocies of her racist father. In Sri Lanka our salvation has to be through democracy, which makes it imperative that we correct its many imperfections. We must bear in mind H. L. Mencken’s dictum: the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.

izethhussain@gmail.com

Statement by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the anniversary of the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War

May 15, 2015

TORONTO – The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the sixth anniversary of the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War:

“Today, we solemnly reflect on the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. We remember the lives shattered and lost during more than twenty-six years of violent conflict, and the displacement of thousands of civilians after the war. I have met many Tamil-Canadians personally affected by the war. To them, I extend my deepest sympathies and support.

“Despite the end of the armed conflict six years ago, peace has not yet been achieved in Sri Lanka. Thousands of civilians continue to live in makeshift camps, families have lost their properties to the army, those who surrendered have not been accounted, and thousands of civilians are in prison without charge or conviction. Moreover, documented reports of sexual violence perpetuated by the Sri Lankan armed security forces continue to surface.

“The Liberal Party of Canada has been resolute in its calls for an international, independent investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the armed conflict. We await the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, scheduled to be released in September, and we earnestly hope that it will pave the path for accountability in Sri Lanka.

“On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary Caucus, I reaffirm our commitment to seeking accountability and justice for the many who have suffered the terrible consequences of this protracted war, and to working with the international community to pursue true and lasting peace on the island.”

Sri Lanka: Commemorations, President Sirisena and Reconciliation

A remembrance event in Jaffna, 15th May 2015 ( Photo: Tamil Guardian)

By Rev. Fr. S. J. Emmanuel.-16/05/2015

The 18th of May 2015 will be commemorated by all Sri Lankans as a turning point in the history of relations between the Sinhalese and the Tamils.

The end of the war between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE meant two entirely different things with different rationale to justify their actions. For the Government it was a victory over Tamil terrorism, end of a war and beginning of peace. But for the Tamils it was the culmination of another mass massacre of militants and civilians and the beginning of incarcerations and further militarization, robbing of lands and missing of persons.

Sri Lanka Commemorations, President Sirisena and Reconciliation by Thavam Ratna

Sri Lanka urges KSA to raise minimum wage of housemaids

RIYADH: MD RASOOLDEEN-Saturday 16 May 2015

Sri Lanka has requested the Kingdom to increase the minimum wage of SR900 set for its domestic workers because of the rising cost of living in the island.

Thalatha Atukorale, Minister of Foreign Employment, made this request when she met the First Secretary of the Saudi Embassy Misary Al-Thiyabi at her office in Colombo on Thursday. 

During the discussion with the Saudi official, she pointed out that with the cost of living rising globally, including the Kingdom, the need for a minimum wage has become important to keep up with daily expenses.

The minister said there are discrepancies in salaries paid to Lankan expatriate workers by various sponsors while adding that these anomalies could be rectified by introducing a minimum wage.

She has conveyed to the Saudi envoy, the desire of the government to begin talks with the relevant authorities in the Kingdom on the above issue.

According to Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment sources, the First Secretary has responded positively to the minister’s request and has said he would take steps to facilitate such talks.

Saudi Arabia currently employs the highest contingent of Lankan expatriate workers numbering over 500,000. This is close to one third of the country’s total migrant worker population.

According to an official from the Sri Lanka Bureau of Foreign Employment (SLBFE) , the minimum age limit for housemaids traveling to the Kingdom is 25. 

He said that housemaids who come for foreign employment are given a 21-day residential training course before being posted to overseas stations.

The Army & The Indo-Lanka Accord

By Rajan Hoole –May 16, 2015

Dr. Rajan Hoole

Law Enforcement and the Security Services: Politicisation and Demoralisation – 13

Having launched Operation-Liberation and taken over the Vadamaratchy sector, the Army was poised to take the rest of Jaffna. The population had mixed feelings. They were to varying degrees tired of the LTTE, bombing and shelling. The LTTE supporters left the Jaffna peninsula in droves, and the others hoped that the LTTE, which was then disorganised, would follow suit. India, which did not want to be cut out of the picture, air dropped food supplies over Jaffna on the 4th of June as a signal to the Government.

In early June, about the same time as the Indian airdrop, Jayewardene convened a meeting with the three officers who led the Vadamaratchy operation. They were Brigadier Denzil Kobbekaduwe and Colonel Wijaya Wimalaratne who were in charge of the two advance columns and Lt. Colonel Sunil Peiris who was in charge of the commandos. Sunil Peiris had landed on the east coast of Jaffna by night with 150 commandos and had dug in, forming a line cutting off Vadamaratchy from Thenmaratchy Division to the south. Some of the others present at the meeting were Ministers Athulathmudali (National Security) and Gamini Dissanayake, General Attygalle (Defence Secretary) and Ravi Jayewardene (Personal Security Advisor to the President).

Jayewardene announced that India was stepping in and told the three who conducted the operation that they had 48 hours to do what they wished and asked if they would like to move ahead and take the rest of Jaffna. Kobbekaduwe and Wimalaratne wanted to proceed. Sunil Peiris said that it was ‘futile’, since the units and the men needed time to recover. Then Jayewardene decided to call it off. Sinha Ratnatunga tells us that General Ranatunge, the JOC Chief, had earlier advised against proceeding. It is also interesting that this decision-making involved younger officers and retired officers. It does not appear to have involved the Army Commander. Here again the sharp difference of opinion among the younger officers on how much the fighting men could be pushed is of interest.

Once the Indian Peace Keeping Force arrived, the interests of the country and the Army would have been best served by maintaining a smooth working relationship between the two armies. But this desirable aim was vitiated by what had become in practice a diffused command structure and a lack of cohesion in the Sri Lankan Army, with the Commander’s authority subverted through political interference.Read More

Political picture becomes nuttier and fruitier

Editorial-May 16, 2015

Nobody, except President Maithripala Sirisena, knows when the incumbent Parliament will be dissolved. Various political players, of course, have their preferences often depending on astrological factors and other mumbo jumbo that too many of our politicians, past and present, have depended on. However that be, elections are due in the short term and the manner in which various events are panning out suggests every possibility that they would be sooner rather than later with many expecting Parliament to be dissolved some time this month. No sooner that happens - and President Sirisena is the sole determinant of when that will be - the constitution sets the timeframes for the relevant parameters. Nominations must be called on the 10th day following the proclamation of dissolution and close of the 17th day; the polling date will be not less than five weeks from the closure of nominations and not more than seven weeks thereafter.

Last week’s Supreme Court order on former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa’s fundamental rights application preventing his arrest before the conclusion of that case and the fixing of the next date of hearing for Oct. 6 provoked Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe to express his view that this order had prevented both him and the cabinet from responding to contentious averments in the petition before the parliamentary election. Wickremesinghe is on record saying that the president had said elections would be in September although there has been no clear public expression of a likely date by Sirisena. Wickremesinghe says that he could "easily and adequately" reply to the issues raised if given the opportunity. But the long date given by the court for the next hearing precludes him from doing so before the election. The prime minister is well within his rights making the observations he has on this score. Certainly a clear and early determination on whether the Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID) of the police now examining activities of several high profile personalities is legal or not would be most relevant to an election campaign.

However, his remarks about consulting Commonwealth judges on these matters would have, in our view, been best avoided. Most Lankans would not wish to see external pressure applied on matters concerning our courts although impeccable standards on the appointment and conduct of judges would be widely desired. This, unfortunately, has been sadly lacking in recent times. How quickly such consultations can be done and how soon an opinion could be obtained is also relevant. If such opinion suggests an error has been made, it is not for an external body to apply the correction. That would be matter for a fuller bench here to deal with. It has been reported that the premier will be consulting the attorney general on his concerns on this matter. That is perfectly in order. Depending on the AGs advice, further measures including consulting a fuller bench, could be taken if appropriate. It has been stated that a two-judge bench could not have given the order made in this case. If such order had been made per incuriam (literally through lack of care) it could presumably be revised. But it must be remembered that the available time line, certainly before the next election, will be extremely tight and whether these matters can be resolved in time for an election campaign debate seems most unlikely.

The decision of the court restraining the police from arresting Gotabhaya Rajapaksa does not halt ongoing investigations including questioning him further. Rajapaksa’s counsel told the bench that 10 persons under investigation who had been summoned to the FCID did not go home after questioning and the former defence secretary anticipated a similar fate. We are all too familiar with the police tactic of locking up suspects on Fridays so that they do not have to be taken to court before Monday. Anticipatory bail being sought by persons fearing arrest is not uncommon. Sometimes such applications are granted and at other times denied. Restraining the police from arresting a suspect, as has happened in the Gotabhaya Rajapaksa matter, is less common. Now that a fundamental rights action had succeeded in obtaining a restraining order on arrest, others under investigation will most likely seek the same relief. Whether such applications would be granted or not are open questions.

The resignation of one of the members of the Bribery Commission for "personal reasons" came hard on the heels of the Supreme Court’s restraining order on the arrest of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa. This, it seems, would not halt ongoing bribery investigations. However, it would not be possible to serve indictment on a suspect against whom there is prima facie evidence if the commission is not fully constituted. Now that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, duly certified by the speaker, is part of the basic law of the land, a Constitutional Council that could fill the vacancy in the Bribery Commission can be appointed. But the president is not likely to want to do that in a hurry or delay the dissolution of Parliament pending the appointment of the Council comprising mainly of MPs. It is therefore likely that no bribery indictments can be made before the next election.

These are obvious movements on the political chessboard and more are likely between now and the dissolution of Parliament and, possibly, till a new government takes office at the conclusion of the next election. Whether these are intended for the good of the nation or the interest of justice are matters on which most Lankans will take the cynical view.

World Happiness Report 2015: Why are Sri Lankans Unhappy? 

 

2015-05-12
The first World Happiness Report was published in 2012. The most recent one was published a few weeks ago. In both reports, Sri Lanka was ranked very low, lower than most countries in the world. In 2012, the country’s position was 137 out of 156 countries, whereas, this year the country has been ranked 132 out of 158 countries. All Asian countries except Cambodia and Afghanistan have done better than Sri Lanka. The country that came first is Switzerland, followed by several Nordic countries like Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Other countries that fell into the first ten are Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia. As is well known, all these countries are not only economically developed but have high levels of social development bolstered by long-standing welfare policies.

World Happiness Report 2015 Why Are Sri Lankans Unhappy by Thavam Ratna

Sri Lankan Airlines – Alleged Corruption – Accountability: Acid Test For TISL & ‘Friday Forum’

By Amrit Muttukumaru –May 16, 2015 

Amrit Muttukumaru

It is becoming clearer by the day that those concerned in the top management of Sri Lankan Airlines rapped for alleged corruption and abuse of power by the Weliamuna Report will go scot-free. This is because it is highly unlikely (almost impossible) that the long standing auditors and then high profile directors will ever be held accountable for any dereliction of duty. From all indications, Mr. J. C. Weliamuna and his team have let them off the hook! This is the ground reality in Sri Lanka. It is nauseatingly apparent that it is ‘BUSINESS AS USUAL’ for all concerned.

The Weliamuna Report which confirms the corruption and gross abuse of power the public has long suspected, has been SELECTIVE in allocating responsibility for this. Weliamuna is the Chairman of Transparency International Sri Lanka and previously its Executive Director. The positive feature of the report is that it has described the alleged corruption and abuse in lurid detail.

Based on the Prime Minister’s statement (which Weliamuna has not refuted) the report which castigates Chairman, Nishantha Wickramasinghe, Kapila Chandrasena (CEO) and some others in top management, questionably neglects to state that this took place UNDER THE WATCH of long standing auditors – Ernst & Young and its then Board of Directors which included corporate bigwigs – Susantha Ratnayake, Nihal Jayamanne PC, Sunil G Wijesinha, Sanath Ukwatte and Manilal Fernando – many of them also in its Audit Committee – some even as Chairmen!

While recommending “criminal investigations” into instances of alleged corruption which includes the entire re-fleeting process with brand-new aircraft costing $2.3 billion and “noting instances” where former Chairman Wickramasinghe and some others in top management should be “prosecuted” the report is apparently silent on any proposed punitive action against the airline’s auditors and Board of Directors for ANY NEGLIGENCE of fiduciary responsibility inimical to the PUBLIC INTEREST.  Read More

PM’s reaction to GR’s FR petition: SC ruling can’t be subject to foreign judges’ opinion - Prof. Peiris 

‘Invoking int’l org not a prerogative of Mahinda’s Camp’

By Shamindra Ferdinando-May 15, 2015

Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris, MP, yesterday strongly disputed Premier Ranil Wickremesinghe’s move to consult the Commonwealth as regards a recent Supreme Court ruling in respect of the fundamental rights petition filed by former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa.

 "This is truly an astonishing statement against the backdrop of what President Maithripala Sirisena said at Akurana also on the same day," Prof. Peiris told The Island yesterday.

 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (13) directed that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa could not be arrested until the full and final determination of the case.

After having declared open newly built Akurana Pradeshiya Sabha building, President Maithripala Sirisena stressed that the Supreme Court rulings in respect of fundamental rights petitions filed by Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and Central Province Chief Minister Sarath Ekanayake proved absence of political interference in judicial matters. He said the judiciary hadn’t been free during his predecessor, Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure.

Premier Wickremesinghe, however, reacted differently to the Supreme Court ruling the following day.

Addressing the National Consultative Summit on Media Reforms at the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute (SLFI), Premier Wickeremesinghe expressed serious concern over the Supreme Court fixing the next hearing of the former Defence Secretary’s petition for Oct. 6, thus denying his government the opportunity to respond to the allegations ahead of forthcoming parliamentary election. The Premier expressed shock and surprise that Gotabhaya Rajapaksa didn’t want to know the outcome of his FR petition sooner.

Premier Wickremesinghe asserted that Sri Lanka could consult Commonwealth Judges Association as well as Commonwealth Magistrates’ Association regarding the Supreme Court directive in this regard. He pointed out that President Maithripala being the current chair of the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister stressed that if given the opportunity, he could easily defend the government position.

Rajapaksa has moved the Supreme Court against investigations undertaken by the Police Financial Crimes Investigation Division (FCID). Gotabhaya Rajapaksa will report to FCID on May 20.

Prof. Peiris insisted that there could not be a role for foreign judges on a matter handled by Sri Lankan courts under any circumstances. Premier Wickremesinghe could not be unaware that Sri Lanka had abolished an earlier dispensation under which appeals were made to the Privy Council in London. "Now, we have a Prime Minister wanting to demean Sri Lanka by seeking to subject views of the highest court to opinion of foreign judges."

Prof. Peiris alleged that Prime Minister of a minority government had absolutely no respect for domestic mechanisms. "The people will soon have an opportunity to decide whether they want the current sordid state of affairs to continue."

The former law professor pointed out that as President Maithripala Sirisena and Premier Wickremesinghe had made wholly contradictory statements on the Supreme Court matter, the new administration should explain its stand on Prime Minister’s suggestion.

Alleging that Prof. Peiris was speaking on behalf of those who had been campaigning for former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s return to parliament, a senior government spokesman said that the grouping recently had called for the intervention by Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the World Bank in domestic matters. The spokesman alleged Mahinda Rajapaksa’s Camp was selective in opposing foreign intervention.

Those who had been opposed to Sri Lanka consulting Commonwealth had complained to World Bank in the wake of the Supreme Court dismissing fundamental rights petition filed against Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran, the spokesman said. The same group declared its intention to take up on-going police investigations into the conduct of members of parliament with Geneva-based IPU, he said. A section of the Opposition seemed to be thinking that invoking international community was a prerogative of theirs, he said. The previous government had secured the Commonwealth chair promising to uphold Commonwealth values, such as Latimer House Principles, was now taking a different approach, the spokesman said.

Banks to complain to FCID against Rajapaksas

Saturday, 16 May 2015

Complaints are to be lodged with the FCID against the politicans and finance ministry officials responsible for millions of rupees of financial fraud that had taken place at state banks during the Mahinda Rajapaksa regime.

New chairmen of these banks say financial regulations had been disregarded when granting loans to loyalists of the previous government.

Also, no steps had been taken to recover the loans given, no profits received from investments in the stock market made in an authoritarian manner.

Lankaputra Development Bank alone had given such loans amounting to more than Rs. 2,000 million, while the National Savings Bank and the Sri Lanka Savings Bank, formed on an order by Mahinda Rajapaksa, had released over Rs. 3,500 m and Rs. 1,000 m of loans respectively.

Bribery Commissioner resigns; new probes on hold

Justice L.K. Wimalachandra (L) and Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe

May 16, 2015

Justice L.K. Wimalachandra, a Commissioner of the Bribery Commission, has resigned with effect from Friday (15), the Director General of the commission Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe said.

He had resigned to allow the appointing of new commissions in line with the 19th amendment coming into force since yesterday, she told Ada Derana.

With regard to the functioning of the commission under these circumstances, the Director General said that if there are transitional provisions included in the 19th amendment to the constitution, then the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption can continue with the two Commissioners.

However, if there are no such transitional provisions included in the 19th amendment with regard to the commission, new investigations cannot commence until they get new directions from the commissioners, she said.

Ms Wickramasinghe further said that the present commission can function and continue the investigations that have already commenced but it cannot file action.

But all functions of the Bribery Commission can continue as per usual, if transitional provisions are included in the 19th amendment, she reiterated.  

The Director General of the Commission said that she has still not received an official copy of the 19th amendment and therefore she cannot comment on the future actions of the commission.

Justice Wimalachandra had served as the Commissioner of the Bribery Commission along with Dr. Jayantha Wickramaratne.

Why Are Chinese and Russian Ships Prowling the Mediterranean?

There are good, simple reasons for the joint naval exercises in the waters off Europe. But Moscow and Beijing also ain't above a little swagger.

BY JIM HOLMES-MAY 15, 2015

On May 11, nine ships from the Russian Navy and China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) kicked off 10 days of combined exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, for their first joint naval war games in European waters. What does this nautical confab, dubbed “Joint Sea 2015,” entail? “Maritime defense, maritime replenishment, escort actions, joint operations to safeguard navigation security as well as real weapon firing drill,” according to Sr. Col. Geng Yansheng, a spokesman for China’s Defense Ministry. The aim of the exercises is to “further deepen friendly and practical interaction between the two countries,” maintained the Russian Defense Ministry. Moscow added that the drills “are not aimed against any third country.”

Why Are Chinese and Russian Ships Prowling the Mediterranean by Thavam Ratna

Growing complexity of Middle East politics 

May 13, 2015, 6:30 pm

Palestinians ride their donkey-carts in the middle of rubble and destroyed buildings, on May 11, 2015, in the Eastern Gaza City Shujaiya neighbourhood, which were destroyed during the 50-day war between Israel and Hamas militants in the summer of 2014. AFP

Accordingly, it could be said that a plethora of security issues are standing in the way of the international community moving in the direction of a less fear-filled world. The UN system could not be expected to work faster towards a resolution of these questions on the basis of equity and fairplay because the principal organs of the UN are dominated by the major Western powers, who usually fight shy of going against the wishes of their allies in the Middle East.

To what degree could the Middle East problem be continued to be referred to as the ‘Arab-Israeli conflict’, as it is very often characterized? This question imposes itself on the political observer in view of the complex ways in which the conflict has developed over the years. The parties opposing Israel could no longer be loosely described as the ‘Arab camp’ because of the decisive role Iran has begun to play in the region. As should be known, Iranians bear no relation to the Arabs, from the viewpoint of ethnicity. Iranians were formerly referred to as Persians and the latter are seen as belonging to a different ‘racial stock’ to that of Arabs.

However, it must be quickly added that like most identities, ‘race’ and ‘community’ are social constructs and to the extent to which they are thus ‘constructed’, they do not stand-up to the rigours of scientific verification. Nevertheless, these identities are strongly championed by the simple-minded among humans. And they have a divisive impact on societies, and no better illustration do we have of this unwelcome tendency than the Middle East itself.

The Middle East has proved a political conundrum of the most extraordinary kind over the years but prior to the launching of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the conflict was of a lesser complexity mainly on account of the fact that the opponents of Israel in the Middle East constituted a more or less monolithic bloc and came to be known as the ‘Arab Camp’. However, we now have a powerful political actor in the form of Iran, which is opposed to Israel but being seen as a staunch advocate of Shiite Islam. However, a considerable number of Middle East states identify closely with Sunni Islam while being opposed to Israel.

These religious categories could not be dismissed as so much trivia because the Sunni-Shia divide has, in the Middle East and other Islam-majority regions, contributed towards intra-Islamic discord of the bloodiest kind. Cases in point are Syria and Iraq, where the IS, of Sunni origin, is savagely targeting Shiite Muslims and religious minorities.

Accordingly, it is a divided Islamic world that Israel faces currently, particularly subsequent to the 9/11 tragedy. It does not follow from this observation that Israel’s opponents were exemplarily united in times past, for example, in the three decades after the establishment of Israel. This was certainly not the case but the present denominational dimension to much of the turmoil in the Middle East, gives the conflict a complexity that would render it even more difficult to resolve.

If well known western political scientist Samuel Huntingdon’s famous thesis that the post Cold War world presents us with a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ featuring the West Vs Islam is to be looked at more closely, it could be said that he has captured some of the complexities which boggle the minds of the watchers of world political developments. However, the present divisions within the Islamic world tend to confound all positive projections with regard to inter-state politics in the Middle East. The question is: What is the shape of things to come?

While the fluidity of developments ‘on the ground’ does not enable the observer to make any definitive projections on this score, what seems fairly clear is that what we are having on our hands currently in the Middle Eastern theatre, and in some regions outside it, is more an intra-‘civilizational’ military confrontation which could render the main conflict increasingly difficult to resolve. After all, what is essentially at the heart of such conflicts is group identity and the latter is highly explosive in nature given that it relates more to emotion rather than reason.

While the IS backs Sunni-leaning oppositional forces in Syria and Iraq, Shia groups in some parts of the Middle East are rising against their Sunni rulers with powerful international backing, as is now happening in Yemen. Accordingly, bringing peace to the principal conflict zone in the Middle East would not prove easy unless these diverse identity groups are enabled to have a voice in the resolution of the main dispute. Even if they do have such a 'say', resolving the differences among these groups would prove an uphill task.

As a consequence of these complexities, the foremost project of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli dispute could begin to be considered a matter of secondary importance by the international community, including the West. Currently, the US is spearheading a military onslaught, along with the Saudi-dominated Gulf Cooperation Council, against the IS and its supporters in the Middle East. Considering that the West-led coalition is facing stiff military resistance, this confrontation could end in a military stalemate for the US. As a consequence, the main Mid-East conflict would remain unresolved for a further length of time and emotions on both sides of the divide would increasingly harden.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and scores of other Arab states are voicing their disapproval over the nuclear accord the West has shored-up with Iran. While the Arabs were hoping for a drastic scaling down of the Iranian nuclear capability, this has not happened and as a consequence, Arab fears over a perceived nuclear armed Iran have not eased. On the other hand, Israel too is on record as being unhappy over the nuclear deal.

Accordingly, it could be said that a plethora of security issues are standing in the way of the international community moving in the direction of a less fear-filled world. The UN system could not be expected to work faster towards a resolution of these questions on the basis of equity and fairplay because the principal organs of the UN are dominated by the major Western powers, who usually fight shy of going against the wishes of their allies in the Middle East.

Hopefully, the developing world, under the guidance of the Non-aligned Movement and similar organizations, would get its act together and bring pressure on the world community to work more swiftly and steadily towards bringing a degree of stability to the conflict zones just focused on. But prior to taking on these giant endeavours, NAM and allied forums need to wake-up and prove effective.