By Ananda-USA
The NPC passing a resolution opposing the recent GOSL ban on Separatist Terrorist groups abroad, is CLEAR EVIDENCE of TREASON against Sri Lanka.
What is the GOSL still waiting for?
Declare it TREASON by UNREPENTANT DEDICATED TERRORIST SUPPORTERS, DISMISS the NPC, REPEAL the 13th Amendment as INIMICAL to Sri Lanka's National Security and Sovereignty, and ENFORCE the 6th Amendment by ARRESTING, PROSECUTING, CONVICTING and SEVERELY PUNISHING these terrorist hoodlums for their TREASONOUS activities during the last 30 years that is STILL continuing in FULL SWING!
What more EVIDENCE of TREASONOUS INTENT do you need?
It is CLEAR that empowering these SEPARATIST TRAITORS to CONSPIRE with Sri Lanka's enemies both WITHIN and WITHOUT, will ultimately DESTROY Sri Lanka.
GOSL ... uphold your duty to Defend and Protect the Nation and its People NOW!
......................
Northern PC passes resolution opposing Sri Lankan government's ban on pro-LTTE organizations
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 29, Colombo: The Northern Provincial Council in Sri Lanka has adopted a resolution against the government's decision to proscribe 16 international Tamil diaspora organizations alleged of functioning as LTTE front organizations.
The Council controlled by the major Tamil party, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) Monday passed 23 resolutions including a resolution demanding the government to withdraw the ban on the 16 overseas Tamil organizations.
The resolution moved by the Council member M.K. Sivajilingam has been passed unanimously.
However Provincial Councilor A. Jayathilaka has told local media that the UPFA members in opposition objected to the TNA resolution.
The government on April 01 signed the UN Resolution 1373, which sets out strategies to combat terrorism and to control terrorist financing.
Among the organizations proscribed are, the LTTE's Trans National Government of Tamil Eelam (TGTE) headed by New York lawyer Visuvanathan Ruthirakumaran, Global Tamil Forum (GTF), which is headed by Fr.SJ Emmanuel and active in Europe, and the UK-based British Tamil Forum (BTF).
The Tamil groups claims the government banned the diaspora groups to thwart the international investigation into Sri Lanka's alleged human right violations requested by the UN resolution.
Sivajilingam said that also a resolution to thank the countries that supported the US-sponsored resolution on Sri Lanka adopted at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last month.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Australia says co-operation with Sri Lanka to prevent people smuggling is a success
At least ONE country, Australia, recognizes that Sri Lanka has been, and wants to be, a good law-abiding supportive friend to other neighboring countries, despite all the BS that self serving advocates of illegal immigration in the Eelamist Tamil Diaspora have dished out!
They recognize the ESSENTIAL TRUTH: no country that allows its Laws to be Flouted at Will can LONG ENDURE!
Jayawewa, Sri Lanka! STAY THE COURSE!
.........................
Australia says co-operation with Sri Lanka to prevent people smuggling is a success
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 24, Canberra: The Australian government says it is engaging proactively and positively with Sri Lanka to prevent the illegal migration of people through the sea route and the measures taken in cooperation with Sri Lanka are successful in reducing the number of people illegally entering its borders.
In an interview with a radio program Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Scott Morrison said the Australian government is cooperating with Sri Lanka to ensure that the island nation has the necessary means to ensure the integrity of its borders, which ensure integrity of his country's borders.
He was responding to a media query about the patrol vessel gifted to Sri Lanka to assist the anti-people smuggling operations.
Australia Tuesday signed the deed for the transfer of one of the two Bay Class patrol vessels it promised to gift to Sri Lanka by the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he visited Sri Lanka last November to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Colombo.
The first of the two boats has already left Cairns port and the other one will be delivered in July, the Minister said.
Responding to the concerns regarding returning the illegal migrants back to Sri Lanka promptly, Morrison said the measure is to ensure that people don't take the dangerous sea voyage all the way to Australia.
He noted that thousands have been repatriated back to Sri Lanka and the international organizations such as UNHCR and IOM are there to provide assistance to the people.
"Well India is about 30km away and you can almost walk there on high tide. In Sri Lanka the UNHCR is there, other international organizations are there, the IOM, there have been thousands of people repatriated back into Sri Lanka over the last few years and it is many years since the Sri Lankan civil war ended now and what we're seeing is real progress," the Minister commented.
The Minister noted that large number of Sri Lankans have arrived through legitimate migration pathways as skilled migration and family migration and rubbished the suggestion that only resort people have in Sri Lanka to come to Australia is illegally by sea.
"We have a legitimate migration program and if people want to engage that legitimate migration program then the evidence is there that if you've got a skill and you've got a basis to be able to come here legitimately then that is being demonstrated to be possible," he said.
Dismissing the concerns expressed by the UNHCR on Australia's policy of turning back the illegal migrants without considering their cases, the Australian Minister said the policy is a success and it is not only good for Australia but also good for the region since the policy curtails the migration and prevents the deaths of the migrants at sea.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Attempts to revive Tamil Tiger terrorist organization in Sri Lanka surface
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 12, Colombo: Sri Lanka’s military authorities say there is a renewed attempt to revive the defeated Tamil Tiger terrorist organization Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the North to launch another phase of its struggle for a separate state.
The military in a statement reveled that information on several key suspects who were leading the campaign for resurgence of the LTTE surfaced in the general area of Pallai in the Jaffna Peninsula.
Investigations into the activities of former LTTE operatives have resulted in several arrests which in turn have led to recovery of arms, ammunition, explosives and other material that were in their possession.
Investigations have revealed that the local group was functioning under the instructions of Europe-based LTTE leaders Nediyawan and Vinayagam who were preparing the ground for another armed struggle.
Immediate objectives of the local group included the recovery or war like material dumped by the LTTE during retreat, re-establishment of LTTE intelligence network, regrouping of the potential cadre including those rehabilitated, collecting information on potential targets including in other provinces, the military said.
Military Investigations have revealed that the funds for the subversive activities came from Europe using an illegal money laundering scheme in the subcontinent known as Hawala system. It has been found that many safe houses, vehicles and other resources required for resurgence of the LTTE had been procured by the suspected LTTE leaders using this money.
Three local leaders in the attempted resurgence of the LTTE were identified as Sundaralingam Kajeepan alias Thevihan, who was involved in aerial attacks on Anuradhapura Air Base and Kollonnawa Petroleum Storage in year 2007, Selvanayagam Kajeepan alias Gobi, and Navarathnam Navaneethan alias Appan.
All three LTTE operatives were shot dead by the security forces during the Thursday night’s search operation in the general area of Nedunkerni in Vavuniya.
Investigators have trailed the three suspects and made several arrests of second and third level cadres who were under the command of the three leader. However the main three had remained elusive.
On March 13 when a team of police and army officers zeroed in on Gobi, the leader, who was taking shelter at the residence of the Tamil activist Balendran Jeyakumari, shot at the police and escaped.
A search in Jeyakumari’s residence had found A Menelab F-3 type mine detector, and therefore, Ms. Jeyakumari was placed under arrest on suspicion of aiding and abetting Gobi in his activities.
The general area where the three leaders -Thevihan, Gobi and Appan -were hiding was identified. On 10 April 2014 troops in a search operation in the jungle area off Padaviya recovered four backpacks containing rations, medicine, cloths, and other items believed to be used by the suspects.
The troops have surrounded the identified area and in the early hours of Friday, April 11 the three armed suspects who attempted to escape the area clashed with the troops in the cordon. All three were killed and two of the dead were later identified as Thevihan and Gobi. The third is yet to be identified, but is believed to be that of Appan.
Sri Lanka police said 65 persons including 10 women were arrested in the past month under suspicion of attempting to resuscitate LTTE. Sri Lankan authorities recently arrested a senior LTTE cadre called Subramaniam Kapilan a.k.a. Nandigopal when he arrived at the Colombo airport following his deportation from Malaysia.
The government on April 01 banned the LTTE and 15 other Tamil diaspora groups that are alleged of having terror links and involved in reviving the terrorist movement in the country.
Military Spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya said a volume of information on the whereabouts of the suspects came from the local people who did not approve of any attempt of resurgence of the LTTE and the information helped immensely in the investigations.
Judicial inquiry into the Friday’s incident is in progress, the Spokesman said.
Apr 12, Colombo: Sri Lanka’s military authorities say there is a renewed attempt to revive the defeated Tamil Tiger terrorist organization Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in the North to launch another phase of its struggle for a separate state.
The military in a statement reveled that information on several key suspects who were leading the campaign for resurgence of the LTTE surfaced in the general area of Pallai in the Jaffna Peninsula.
Investigations into the activities of former LTTE operatives have resulted in several arrests which in turn have led to recovery of arms, ammunition, explosives and other material that were in their possession.
Investigations have revealed that the local group was functioning under the instructions of Europe-based LTTE leaders Nediyawan and Vinayagam who were preparing the ground for another armed struggle.
Immediate objectives of the local group included the recovery or war like material dumped by the LTTE during retreat, re-establishment of LTTE intelligence network, regrouping of the potential cadre including those rehabilitated, collecting information on potential targets including in other provinces, the military said.
Military Investigations have revealed that the funds for the subversive activities came from Europe using an illegal money laundering scheme in the subcontinent known as Hawala system. It has been found that many safe houses, vehicles and other resources required for resurgence of the LTTE had been procured by the suspected LTTE leaders using this money.
Three local leaders in the attempted resurgence of the LTTE were identified as Sundaralingam Kajeepan alias Thevihan, who was involved in aerial attacks on Anuradhapura Air Base and Kollonnawa Petroleum Storage in year 2007, Selvanayagam Kajeepan alias Gobi, and Navarathnam Navaneethan alias Appan.
All three LTTE operatives were shot dead by the security forces during the Thursday night’s search operation in the general area of Nedunkerni in Vavuniya.
Investigators have trailed the three suspects and made several arrests of second and third level cadres who were under the command of the three leader. However the main three had remained elusive.
On March 13 when a team of police and army officers zeroed in on Gobi, the leader, who was taking shelter at the residence of the Tamil activist Balendran Jeyakumari, shot at the police and escaped.
A search in Jeyakumari’s residence had found A Menelab F-3 type mine detector, and therefore, Ms. Jeyakumari was placed under arrest on suspicion of aiding and abetting Gobi in his activities.
The general area where the three leaders -Thevihan, Gobi and Appan -were hiding was identified. On 10 April 2014 troops in a search operation in the jungle area off Padaviya recovered four backpacks containing rations, medicine, cloths, and other items believed to be used by the suspects.
The troops have surrounded the identified area and in the early hours of Friday, April 11 the three armed suspects who attempted to escape the area clashed with the troops in the cordon. All three were killed and two of the dead were later identified as Thevihan and Gobi. The third is yet to be identified, but is believed to be that of Appan.
Sri Lanka police said 65 persons including 10 women were arrested in the past month under suspicion of attempting to resuscitate LTTE. Sri Lankan authorities recently arrested a senior LTTE cadre called Subramaniam Kapilan a.k.a. Nandigopal when he arrived at the Colombo airport following his deportation from Malaysia.
The government on April 01 banned the LTTE and 15 other Tamil diaspora groups that are alleged of having terror links and involved in reviving the terrorist movement in the country.
Military Spokesman Brigadier Ruwan Wanigasooriya said a volume of information on the whereabouts of the suspects came from the local people who did not approve of any attempt of resurgence of the LTTE and the information helped immensely in the investigations.
Judicial inquiry into the Friday’s incident is in progress, the Spokesman said.
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
In Pictures: President welcomes Sri Lanka's WorldT20 Cricket Champions
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 08, Colombo:
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa welcomed the WorldT20 Cricket Cup winning Sri Lankan national team tonight at the Temple Trees.
The President congratulated the team and praised the players for bringing honor and fame to the country.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Say NO to Indian Interference in Sri Lanka's Internal Matters!
By Ananda-USA
April 6, 2014
The Congress Party's Election Manifesto is STILL PANDERING to Tamil Nadu politicians, despite its ally, the DMK, having abandoned the Congress Party in the upcoming elections.
Just a few days ago, Indian High Commissioner Y. K. Sinha was harping on the "full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers".
Sri Lanka really needs to KICK India out of INTERFERING in Sri Lanka's internal matters, and to DRIVE A SPIKE into the heart of this "DEVOLUTION" demand by REPEALING the 13th Amendment and IMPLEMENTING the 6th Amendment to the Constitution without DELAY.
As long as Sri Lanka CONTINUES to mollycoddle the Tamil Separatists and their India backers, and give them hope that through DEVOLUTION OF POWER under the 13th Amendment they can GAIN through BLACKMAIL in PEACE what they FAILED to WIN by VIOLENCE in WAR, Sri Lanka will FOREVER be pursued by India trying to PLEASE its Tamil constituency.
This MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE!
Irrespective of WHICH PARTY comes to power in New Delhi (and it appears that a COALITION led by the BJP will do so), Sri Lanka needs to not only to TELL India, but DECISIVELY KICK India, out of our country. BTW, if a BJP-led coalition comes to power, the AIADMK led by Jayalalitha will most likely be a part of it, and Sri Lanka's troubles with India could WORSEN!
One way of getting the MESSAGE ACROSS, is to DO UNTO as DONE UNTO: by inviting Indian Separatists from Kashmir, Assam and elsewhere in India to Sri Lanka for Discussions on their GRIEVANCES, offering to use "Sri Lanka's GOOD OFFICES" on a CONTINUING BASIS to MEDIATE with the Government of India. After all, just as Sri Lankan Tamils have kinfolk in India, we Sri Lanka Sinhalese have kinfolk ALL over INdia, and we have a STAKE in resolving their OUTSTANDING GRIEVANCES ... Don't we?
The current approach of accepting one-way INTEFERENCE in Sri Lanka by India MUST END; let us make it a TWO WAY STREET!
FIRST and FOREMOST, the GOSL must get India out of its involvement in Reconstruction and REhabilitation of the North and East of Sri Lanka. They are just BUILDING a FIFTH COLUMN among the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka. Limit Indians to ONLY THEIR EMBASSY in Colombo!
.........................
The Indian Elections: What The Congress Party Has To Say About Foreign Policy
By Alyssa Ayres
Forbes.com
April4, 2014
This post is part of a series on the Indian elections.
With India’s national elections about to kick off on April 7, politics dominates the media and private conversations alike. Most of the conversation focuses on the poll horse race, at this point heavily favoring the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to win more than 200 of the 543 seats in the lower house of Parliament and form a coalition government. (Click here to learn three things to know about the upcoming elections).
Foreign policy, however, has been largely invisible throughout this campaign cycle, except for the contributions of the two main regional parties in Tamil Nadu, which have a long-standing and special focus on Sri Lanka. Of the two main national parties, only Congress has released its official manifesto so far, putting its foreign policy platform on view for all. (The BJP appears to be in an internal squabble about its manifesto, which was slated for an April 3 release but now may not come out until next week).
Chief of India's ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi holds her party's manifesto for the April/May general election in New Delhi on March 26, 2014 (Adnan Abidi/Courtesy Reuters).
Chief of India’s ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi holds her party’s manifesto for the April/May general election in New Delhi on March 26, 2014 (Adnan Abidi/Courtesy Reuters).
The Congress Party manifesto provides some important insights into how the party views India’s role in the world, and indeed how the party views India itself. For Congress, foreign policy comes at the very end of its 50-page platform document, and occupies less than two pages. The most striking aspect for an American reader is the absence of any specific reference to the United States—not one mention.
While the document prioritizes India’s role as a “critical bridge between the developed world and developing world,” and refers by name to China, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Sri Lanka, there’s not a hint of any specific interest in furthering ties with the United States beyond doing so as part of “building peaceful, stable and mutually beneficial relations with all major powers” as prioritized at the top of the foreign policy platform.
What the platform does emphasize at the very top, however, are the party’s commitments to contribute to global challenges like “climate change and sustainable development, non-proliferation, international trade and cross-border terrorism.” Its second and third priorities focus on support for an Indian seat on the UN Security Council, and in combating global terrorism.
At that point the document turns to describing India’s unique role in the world—using the “critical bridge” language, but additionally highlighting the “cumulative heritage of Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM) and pledges to “continue to support the goodwill nurtured for decades amongst socialist countries.” These elements come as something of a surprise given that they have no counterpart language in the platform situating India as a rising power, or more fully describing India’s interests and partnerships with the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia or other powers with which India has strong ties. Given anticipation around the world for an India rising to global power, it’s worth noting that the Congress worldview appears focused on India as a “bridge” more than India as a “power.”
Within the region, as one might expect, the platform pledges to strengthen SAARC, resolve border differences with China, improve relations with Pakistan while “calibrating” according to Pakistani action in tackling terror and affirms support for Afghanistan’s peace process. The section on Sri Lanka is relatively detailed in comparison to other countries, committing to press for “full equality” for Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority as well as a credible inquiry into allegations of excesses at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009.
Although not included in the section on foreign policy, the Congress manifesto contains substantial attention to trade and economics, including a commitment to get back to eight percent growth, and a road map for the next half decade. The platform promises to promote “greater integration with the global economy” and encourage foreign direct investment.
The manifesto also pledges to “ensure that India has a globally competitive business and investment-friendly environment.” It specifically calls to improve India’s rank in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index from its current 134 to 75 within five years. These are welcome words for foreign investors and governments supportive of enhancing trade and investment ties. They also serve as an acknowledgement that recent years—in a Congress-led government—have dampened perceptions of India.
Outside observers will be watching to see how the foreign policy discussion in India evolves further during the coming weeks, especially after the BJP releases its manifesto. In an effort to focus on foreign policy positions in the Indian elections, Mumbai’s Gateway House convened a panel discussion April 1 (watch the video here) which featured representatives of the BJP, Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party. I was delighted to participate as a discussant with some thoughts on what Americans have in mind as they await the outcome in India. As the April 1 panel proceeded, it appeared as if the three parties represented had similar positions on trade, UN Security Council, China and other issues—so the coming weeks and more fully articulated statements from all the parties on their foreign policy positions will be helpful.
For now, the Congress Party’s platform puts into writing an approach to the region consistent with its years in government. It’s the framing of India’s role in the world, however, that officially presents some ideas that sit less comfortably alongside the notion of India as a rising global power.
...............................
India asks Sri Lanka to show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of power
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 05, Colombo: India has asked Sri Lanka to take forward the process of broader dialogue through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers.
Such move would greatly facilitate national reconciliation by building trust and confidence on all sides, India's top diplomat in Colombo said.
Indian High Commissioner Y. K. Sinha said New Delhi had also conveyed to Colombo on a number of occasions the need for expeditious steps towards genuine national reconciliation, including investigations into allegations of human rights violations, restoration of normalcy in affected areas, reduction of 'high security zones', satisfactorily addressing the issue of missing persons and the redressal of humanitarian concerns of the affected families.
Addressing the Foreign Correspondents Association in Colombo Friday, the Indian envoy said India's view is that the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka provided a unique opportunity to pursue a lasting political settlement within the framework of a united Sri Lanka, and acceptable to all the communities in the island, including the Tamils.
Welcoming the successful elections held for the Northern Provincial Council last year, the envoy urged both the government and the major Tamil party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to engage constructively, "in a spirit of partnership and mutual accommodation", so that the urgent needs of the people of the Northern Province are addressed with a sense of urgency and purpose.
"Only such a cooperative approach will pave the way for genuine reconciliation amongst the communities involved," Mr. Sinha said.
Speaking about the trade between the two countries and the number of development projects India has funded in Sri Lanka, the envoy expressed confidence that India-Sri Lanka relations will expand exponentially in the coming years.
"It is our hope that the Government of Sri Lanka, recognizing the critical importance of genuine reconciliation, acts with vision and sagacity. We will remain engaged and offer our support in a spirit of partnership and cooperation," the High Commissioner noted.
April 6, 2014
The Congress Party's Election Manifesto is STILL PANDERING to Tamil Nadu politicians, despite its ally, the DMK, having abandoned the Congress Party in the upcoming elections.
Just a few days ago, Indian High Commissioner Y. K. Sinha was harping on the "full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers".
Sri Lanka really needs to KICK India out of INTERFERING in Sri Lanka's internal matters, and to DRIVE A SPIKE into the heart of this "DEVOLUTION" demand by REPEALING the 13th Amendment and IMPLEMENTING the 6th Amendment to the Constitution without DELAY.
As long as Sri Lanka CONTINUES to mollycoddle the Tamil Separatists and their India backers, and give them hope that through DEVOLUTION OF POWER under the 13th Amendment they can GAIN through BLACKMAIL in PEACE what they FAILED to WIN by VIOLENCE in WAR, Sri Lanka will FOREVER be pursued by India trying to PLEASE its Tamil constituency.
This MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE!
Irrespective of WHICH PARTY comes to power in New Delhi (and it appears that a COALITION led by the BJP will do so), Sri Lanka needs to not only to TELL India, but DECISIVELY KICK India, out of our country. BTW, if a BJP-led coalition comes to power, the AIADMK led by Jayalalitha will most likely be a part of it, and Sri Lanka's troubles with India could WORSEN!
One way of getting the MESSAGE ACROSS, is to DO UNTO as DONE UNTO: by inviting Indian Separatists from Kashmir, Assam and elsewhere in India to Sri Lanka for Discussions on their GRIEVANCES, offering to use "Sri Lanka's GOOD OFFICES" on a CONTINUING BASIS to MEDIATE with the Government of India. After all, just as Sri Lankan Tamils have kinfolk in India, we Sri Lanka Sinhalese have kinfolk ALL over INdia, and we have a STAKE in resolving their OUTSTANDING GRIEVANCES ... Don't we?
The current approach of accepting one-way INTEFERENCE in Sri Lanka by India MUST END; let us make it a TWO WAY STREET!
FIRST and FOREMOST, the GOSL must get India out of its involvement in Reconstruction and REhabilitation of the North and East of Sri Lanka. They are just BUILDING a FIFTH COLUMN among the Tamil citizens of Sri Lanka. Limit Indians to ONLY THEIR EMBASSY in Colombo!
.........................
The Indian Elections: What The Congress Party Has To Say About Foreign Policy
By Alyssa Ayres
Forbes.com
April4, 2014
This post is part of a series on the Indian elections.
With India’s national elections about to kick off on April 7, politics dominates the media and private conversations alike. Most of the conversation focuses on the poll horse race, at this point heavily favoring the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to win more than 200 of the 543 seats in the lower house of Parliament and form a coalition government. (Click here to learn three things to know about the upcoming elections).
Foreign policy, however, has been largely invisible throughout this campaign cycle, except for the contributions of the two main regional parties in Tamil Nadu, which have a long-standing and special focus on Sri Lanka. Of the two main national parties, only Congress has released its official manifesto so far, putting its foreign policy platform on view for all. (The BJP appears to be in an internal squabble about its manifesto, which was slated for an April 3 release but now may not come out until next week).
Chief of India's ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi holds her party's manifesto for the April/May general election in New Delhi on March 26, 2014 (Adnan Abidi/Courtesy Reuters).
Chief of India’s ruling Congress party Sonia Gandhi holds her party’s manifesto for the April/May general election in New Delhi on March 26, 2014 (Adnan Abidi/Courtesy Reuters).
The Congress Party manifesto provides some important insights into how the party views India’s role in the world, and indeed how the party views India itself. For Congress, foreign policy comes at the very end of its 50-page platform document, and occupies less than two pages. The most striking aspect for an American reader is the absence of any specific reference to the United States—not one mention.
While the document prioritizes India’s role as a “critical bridge between the developed world and developing world,” and refers by name to China, Brazil, South Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Sri Lanka, there’s not a hint of any specific interest in furthering ties with the United States beyond doing so as part of “building peaceful, stable and mutually beneficial relations with all major powers” as prioritized at the top of the foreign policy platform.
What the platform does emphasize at the very top, however, are the party’s commitments to contribute to global challenges like “climate change and sustainable development, non-proliferation, international trade and cross-border terrorism.” Its second and third priorities focus on support for an Indian seat on the UN Security Council, and in combating global terrorism.
At that point the document turns to describing India’s unique role in the world—using the “critical bridge” language, but additionally highlighting the “cumulative heritage of Non-Aligned Movement” (NAM) and pledges to “continue to support the goodwill nurtured for decades amongst socialist countries.” These elements come as something of a surprise given that they have no counterpart language in the platform situating India as a rising power, or more fully describing India’s interests and partnerships with the United States, European Union, Japan, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia or other powers with which India has strong ties. Given anticipation around the world for an India rising to global power, it’s worth noting that the Congress worldview appears focused on India as a “bridge” more than India as a “power.”
Within the region, as one might expect, the platform pledges to strengthen SAARC, resolve border differences with China, improve relations with Pakistan while “calibrating” according to Pakistani action in tackling terror and affirms support for Afghanistan’s peace process. The section on Sri Lanka is relatively detailed in comparison to other countries, committing to press for “full equality” for Sri Lanka’s Tamil minority as well as a credible inquiry into allegations of excesses at the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in 2009.
Although not included in the section on foreign policy, the Congress manifesto contains substantial attention to trade and economics, including a commitment to get back to eight percent growth, and a road map for the next half decade. The platform promises to promote “greater integration with the global economy” and encourage foreign direct investment.
The manifesto also pledges to “ensure that India has a globally competitive business and investment-friendly environment.” It specifically calls to improve India’s rank in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index from its current 134 to 75 within five years. These are welcome words for foreign investors and governments supportive of enhancing trade and investment ties. They also serve as an acknowledgement that recent years—in a Congress-led government—have dampened perceptions of India.
Outside observers will be watching to see how the foreign policy discussion in India evolves further during the coming weeks, especially after the BJP releases its manifesto. In an effort to focus on foreign policy positions in the Indian elections, Mumbai’s Gateway House convened a panel discussion April 1 (watch the video here) which featured representatives of the BJP, Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party. I was delighted to participate as a discussant with some thoughts on what Americans have in mind as they await the outcome in India. As the April 1 panel proceeded, it appeared as if the three parties represented had similar positions on trade, UN Security Council, China and other issues—so the coming weeks and more fully articulated statements from all the parties on their foreign policy positions will be helpful.
For now, the Congress Party’s platform puts into writing an approach to the region consistent with its years in government. It’s the framing of India’s role in the world, however, that officially presents some ideas that sit less comfortably alongside the notion of India as a rising global power.
...............................
India asks Sri Lanka to show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of power
ColomboPage News Desk, Sri Lanka.
Apr 05, Colombo: India has asked Sri Lanka to take forward the process of broader dialogue through full implementation of the 13th Amendment and going beyond and show concrete movement towards a meaningful devolution of powers.
Such move would greatly facilitate national reconciliation by building trust and confidence on all sides, India's top diplomat in Colombo said.
Indian High Commissioner Y. K. Sinha said New Delhi had also conveyed to Colombo on a number of occasions the need for expeditious steps towards genuine national reconciliation, including investigations into allegations of human rights violations, restoration of normalcy in affected areas, reduction of 'high security zones', satisfactorily addressing the issue of missing persons and the redressal of humanitarian concerns of the affected families.
Addressing the Foreign Correspondents Association in Colombo Friday, the Indian envoy said India's view is that the end of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka provided a unique opportunity to pursue a lasting political settlement within the framework of a united Sri Lanka, and acceptable to all the communities in the island, including the Tamils.
Welcoming the successful elections held for the Northern Provincial Council last year, the envoy urged both the government and the major Tamil party Tamil National Alliance (TNA) to engage constructively, "in a spirit of partnership and mutual accommodation", so that the urgent needs of the people of the Northern Province are addressed with a sense of urgency and purpose.
"Only such a cooperative approach will pave the way for genuine reconciliation amongst the communities involved," Mr. Sinha said.
Speaking about the trade between the two countries and the number of development projects India has funded in Sri Lanka, the envoy expressed confidence that India-Sri Lanka relations will expand exponentially in the coming years.
"It is our hope that the Government of Sri Lanka, recognizing the critical importance of genuine reconciliation, acts with vision and sagacity. We will remain engaged and offer our support in a spirit of partnership and cooperation," the High Commissioner noted.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Asian giants, several Latin American and Asian countries firmly behind Sri Lanka in Geneva
TheDailyNews.com
April 4, 2014
Several Asian, Latin American and African countries including Asian giants Russia and China yesterday condemned the High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights Council for exceeding her mandate in calling for an International investigative mechanism for Sri Lanka and for policticising the UNHRC to cater to the geo-polical interests of certain powerful countries.
The Venezuelan representative said the High Commissioner’ s report was the outcome of a highly politicised process during which Sri Lanka was not listened to. The head of the Russian delegation said the international community should recognize the achievements that has been made by Sri Lanka and “we condemn this attempt of trying to use Human Rights as a way of settling political accounts and achieving geopolitical advantage”.
Excerpts of comments:
Cuba
Example of the politicization of double standards
The report presented by the Human Rights Commissioner today is another example of the politicization of double standards that have taken root in the Council. The concluding recommendations in the report reflects the imbalance that prevails when dealing with Human Rights situations in the South. Despite the flaws of this process the Government of Sri Lanka has demonstrated its genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights of its population. Sri Lanka has on several occasions made this Committee aware about the progress made and of different aspects of the national reconciliation process.
The Sri Lankan government has taken many measures and these have enabled them to make significant progress in the areas of rehabilitation, de-mining, resettlement, de-militarisation, reconstruction and development. All these measures are appreciable. The High Commissioners report does not acknowledge many achievements of Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process nor does it recognise we have a commitment to support it. The message been sent by this action to other countries is a very negative one. The imposition of a so-called independent investigation in the country which has become so fashionable in recent times, does not acknowledge the internal process carried out by Sri Lanka.
Some will argue that the treatment meted out to Sri Lanka and the resolution on Sri Lanka will have one purpose, which is to the scale up the dialogue with the Sri Lankan government. Now this argument is not a credible one. This is not an issue which requires the attention of the Council. The treatment given to Sri Lanka will have a negative impact on the national reconciliation process which Sri Lanka is experiencing today. Cuba shall continue to support efforts made by Sri Lanka to promote and protect human rights.
Venezuela
Sri Lanka is making definite progress towards its national reconciliation
The report was the outcome of a highly politicised process during which the country concerned was not listened to. The report recommends that an international independent investigation mechanism be established. Venezuela will vote against this. Sri Lanka is making definite progress towards its national reconciliation and has prepared a national action plan stemming from the report of the LLRC.
There are 144 recommendations currently being implemented in relation to rehabilitation of former combatants, resettlement, reconstruction etc. Poverty reduction in the former conflict affected areas have been kept on par with national levels. The overall poverty in the country has been reduced. Doing so Sri Lanka has gone beyond its MDG’s. There has been no appreciation for the major efforts made by the Sri Lankan government to honour its human rights commitment since peace returned to the country in 2009. The report does not reflect this properly. Sri Lanka continues to prove it is seriously committed to work with the council. Venezuela rejects the attempts to interfere in the domestic process of Sri Lanka. We must uproot these interventionist, selective and the demonstration of double standards. The council must support the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka.
Iran
The constructive engagement of Sri Lanka in the UPR mechanism as the most appropriate platform to address the human rights situations in all countries is admirable
We are of the view that the international community should support Sri Lanka in its endeavour to achieve full reconciliation. The council should appreciate the positive steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to host the official visit of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2013 and the effective measures taken so far to address the accountability issues.
The constructive engagement of Sri Lanka in the UPR mechanism as the most appropriate platform to address the human rights situations in all countries is admirable. We oppose the politicization of human rights issues and taking up country’s specific issues. In this regard the Human Rights Council should engage the country concerned in a constructive manner and contribute to the improvement of human rights situation on the ground.
Zimbabwe
Sri Lanka continues to make significant progress on the reconciliation process and has regularly updated the council on such progress
Zimbabwe wishes to lend its support to the Government of Sri Lanka’s efforts to implement the provisions of resolution 2231 which is about promoting reconciliation and accountability in the country. It is clear that Sri Lanka continues to make significant progress on the reconciliation process and has regularly updated the council on such progress.
The recommendations of the resolution 2231 was to request the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the LLRC.
However, the High Commissioners report goes beyond this mandate by making reference to and recommendations on extraneous issues and its call for an inquiry by an international mechanism to investigate the alleged violations.
Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the OHCHR and mechanisms of the councils should be commended. Its goodwill is evident by the facilitation of the High Commissioners visit in August 2013, pursuant to an invitation extended by the government in 2011. It has also continued its engagement with all procedures exemplified by the visit in December 2013 by the special rapporteur of of human rights of internally displaced persons.
Zimbabwe calls on the Council to reciprocate Sri Lanka’s good will by encouraging rather than condemning as it goes about fulfilling its obligations.
China
China supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
The Chinese delegation takes note the LLRC report in promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. China commends Sri Lanka efforts and achievements in promoting national reconciliation socio-economic development and promotion and protection of human rights including the efforts into investigating the allegation of violations of human rights and seeking justice. China welcomes the government of Sri Lanka to actually implement the recommendations of LLRC and put in place the National Action Plan to this end.
The Government of Sri Lanka has strengthened its cooperation with UN Human Rights mechanism and other relevant mechanism which should be recognized. China finds regrettable that the report fails to present comprehensively and objectively of the the achievements of the efforts by the Government of Sri Lanka It is only through constructive dialogue and cooperation that difference in the area of human rights can be settled and exerting pressure and confrontation make the issues more complicated.
China supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is convinced that the people of Sri Lanka have wisdom and capacity to solve their internal affairs. China requests all countries to respect the rights of the people and the government to deal with the internal affairs and understand the difficulties confronting Sri Lanka, give enough time and space to Sri Lanka to to implement international mechanism.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh recognizes Sri Lanka’s struggle to come out of the clutches of terrorism and bring peace and reconciliation to its people
Bangladesh recognizes Sri Lanka’s struggle to come out of the clutches of terrorism and bring peace and reconciliation to its people. We recognize the positive steps taken so far in spite of the difficulties in a post war situation. Given the enormity of the challenges, the progress made so far cannot be ignored.
My delegation recognizes also Sri Lankan government’s willingness to engage constructively with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms as shown by its extending invitations to several special rapporteur mandate holders while engaging with the other mandate holders and working groups.
We believe that due regard or recognition to the significant progresses made in the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka including the rigorous work undertaken since July 2012 in operationalising the recommendations of the National Action Plan for the implementation of the LLRC needs to be given by the Human Rights Council.
Considering its socio-economic constraints, which are common to many developing countries, Sri Lanka needs to be given the time and space and assistance and cooperation by the international community to implement its domestic process of reconciliation.
We also believe that any action taking in the promotion and protection of the human rights of the country must have the consent of that country, and based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and on the founding principles of universality, impartiality, non-selectivity which govern the work and functions of the Council as clearly delineated in GA resolution 60/251 and the IB package.
Having said that we also recognize that much remains to be done. We therefore while emphasizing on the need for a home grown political solution to this long standing dispute encourages Sri Lanka to look for durable solutions based on equity and inclusiveness. In doing so, we urge Sri Lanka to continue its efforts to uphold human rights.
Pakistan
Sri Lanka is a country with excellent democratic credentials
My delegation believes in a culture of engagement for ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights. We believe that country specific initiatives are confrontational counter productive and seriously undermines the spirit of cooperation and coordination on important human rights issues.
We believe that the High Commissioner’s report is not balanced and and some of the elements including the recommendation to establish an international inquiry mechanism exceed the mandate granted by the Human Rights Council Resolution 22 /1 to the High Commissioner. We are also disappointed over the discriminatory approach followed by the OHCHR with regard to placement of Sri Lanka’s comments in response to the report on the extra-net.
Sri Lanka is a country with excellent democratic credentials. It has successfully overcome 30 years of brutal terrorism by the LTTE with external support. Now is the time for the international community to help the people in Sri Lanka to heal their wounds and not penalize them for defeating the LTTE at the behest of the people still continue to align themselves with these terrorist forces. There is also a need to acknowledge the commitment and cooperation extended by the government of Sri Lanka to the entire human rights machinery.
Since the end of the terrorist conflict in May 2009 Sri Lanka has continued to regularly and voluntarily engage with the council and with the missions based in Geneva on the progress in their reconciliation process.
Pakistan lauds the progress achieved by Sri Lanka in implementing the national plan of action and recommendations of the LLRC. As part of this continued engagement the High Commissioner undertook a week long visit to Sri Lanka from August 25-31, 2013 on the invitation of the government.
The government of Sri Lanka arranged a comprehensive program and provided unfettered access during the visit .She must refrain from advocating a course of action that will exaggerate the challenges that the Sri Lankan people are trying to overcome after 30 years of terrorist and separatist violence.
The international community should act as a facilitator for peace and stability and be part of the solution rather than the part of the problem. There is a dire need to comprehend and comprehensively address the enormous challenges being faced by Sri Lanka rather than penalizing the country for rooting out terrorism from its soil.
Russian Federation
Sri Lanka has undoubtedly achieved significant success in achieving national reconciliation while upholding all kinds of rights of the population
Russia has consistently opposed addressing the matter of Sri Lanka by the Council because we do not see objective reasons for doing this. In this connection, we cannot agree to many of the assessments made in the High Commissioner’s report which lie beyond her mandate and which could be interpreted as interference into domestic affairs of the state. We would like to once again underline that reports of this kind are supposed to help the normalization of the situation and not lead to an escalation of tension.
Sri Lanka is open to dialogue and in existing problems the country is pursuing its cooperation with the UNHRC. The High Commissioner’s visit, in the course of which she had unimpeded access to all areas of interest to her is a confirmation of this. Sri Lanka has undoubtedly achieved significant success in achieving national reconciliation while upholding all kinds of rights of the population. We would like to underline the recent democratic elections in the North of the country which saw the Tamils in the lead. Incidentally, these elections were only possible now that the terrorism has been beaten.
We welcome the government’s adoption of further 53 recommendations of the LLRC and we call on Colombo to continue its work to implement the National Action Plan to implement the Commission’s conclusions. The fact that for four years now we have not seen any explosions is the most convincing demonstration of the fact that the government’s domestic policy is addressing the interests of all the people in the country. The international community should recognize the achievements that has been achieved by the country and we condemn this attempt trying to use human rights as a way of settling political accounts and achieving geopolitical advantage. We consider that the process of national reconciliation should take place and implemented by the Sri Lankans themselves without the imposition of any so called assistance from outside. In this connection we disagree with the new draft resolution because it is far beyond the matters of reconciliation and is a direct interference in to domestic affairs of a sovereign state.
Uganda
The international community to assist and appreciate the achievement made by Sri Lanka
Uganda has taken on the report of reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. We also take note that as a country which has emerged from decades long conflict, having defeated terrorism Sri Lanka has made commendable achievement in its effort at achieving reconciliation among its communities. There is need for the international community to assist and appreciate the achievement made by Sri Lanka and encourage Sri Lanka to continue to its persist rather than calling for international investigation. The report’s calls for an international investigation in to this situation has no basis.
We should be mindful that Sri land fought one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the world. We therefore welcome the commitment shown by the Government of Sri Lanka for continuous engagement with the UN Human Rights Council by facilitating the visits of a number of the Human Rights Council Special rapporteurs and mandate holders. This manifests the importance given by the Government of Sri Lanka for its domestic reconciliation procedure while engaging with international community.
Uganda believes that special consideration should be given to countries that emerge from long time conflicts. Uganda welcomes the implementation of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission recommendations through national action plan.
- See more at:
http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=features/asian-giants-several-latin-american-and-asian-countries-firmly-behind-sri-lanka-geneva#sthash.062laesG.dpuf
- See more at: http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=local/pakistans-bitter-pill-pillai#sthash.9J18uXXk.dpuf
In Favour – 23 countries – Total Population – 1, 166, 795 , 285
Against – 12 Countries – Total Population - 1, 928, 669,135
Abstentions – 12 Countries – Total Population – 1, 993 569, 625
Conclusion
The majority in terms of world’s population is with Sri Lanka
April 4, 2014
Several Asian, Latin American and African countries including Asian giants Russia and China yesterday condemned the High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights Council for exceeding her mandate in calling for an International investigative mechanism for Sri Lanka and for policticising the UNHRC to cater to the geo-polical interests of certain powerful countries.
The Venezuelan representative said the High Commissioner’ s report was the outcome of a highly politicised process during which Sri Lanka was not listened to. The head of the Russian delegation said the international community should recognize the achievements that has been made by Sri Lanka and “we condemn this attempt of trying to use Human Rights as a way of settling political accounts and achieving geopolitical advantage”.
Excerpts of comments:
CubaExample of the politicization of double standards
The report presented by the Human Rights Commissioner today is another example of the politicization of double standards that have taken root in the Council. The concluding recommendations in the report reflects the imbalance that prevails when dealing with Human Rights situations in the South. Despite the flaws of this process the Government of Sri Lanka has demonstrated its genuine commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights of its population. Sri Lanka has on several occasions made this Committee aware about the progress made and of different aspects of the national reconciliation process.
The Sri Lankan government has taken many measures and these have enabled them to make significant progress in the areas of rehabilitation, de-mining, resettlement, de-militarisation, reconstruction and development. All these measures are appreciable. The High Commissioners report does not acknowledge many achievements of Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process nor does it recognise we have a commitment to support it. The message been sent by this action to other countries is a very negative one. The imposition of a so-called independent investigation in the country which has become so fashionable in recent times, does not acknowledge the internal process carried out by Sri Lanka.
Some will argue that the treatment meted out to Sri Lanka and the resolution on Sri Lanka will have one purpose, which is to the scale up the dialogue with the Sri Lankan government. Now this argument is not a credible one. This is not an issue which requires the attention of the Council. The treatment given to Sri Lanka will have a negative impact on the national reconciliation process which Sri Lanka is experiencing today. Cuba shall continue to support efforts made by Sri Lanka to promote and protect human rights.
VenezuelaSri Lanka is making definite progress towards its national reconciliation
The report was the outcome of a highly politicised process during which the country concerned was not listened to. The report recommends that an international independent investigation mechanism be established. Venezuela will vote against this. Sri Lanka is making definite progress towards its national reconciliation and has prepared a national action plan stemming from the report of the LLRC.
There are 144 recommendations currently being implemented in relation to rehabilitation of former combatants, resettlement, reconstruction etc. Poverty reduction in the former conflict affected areas have been kept on par with national levels. The overall poverty in the country has been reduced. Doing so Sri Lanka has gone beyond its MDG’s. There has been no appreciation for the major efforts made by the Sri Lankan government to honour its human rights commitment since peace returned to the country in 2009. The report does not reflect this properly. Sri Lanka continues to prove it is seriously committed to work with the council. Venezuela rejects the attempts to interfere in the domestic process of Sri Lanka. We must uproot these interventionist, selective and the demonstration of double standards. The council must support the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka.
Iran
The constructive engagement of Sri Lanka in the UPR mechanism as the most appropriate platform to address the human rights situations in all countries is admirable
We are of the view that the international community should support Sri Lanka in its endeavour to achieve full reconciliation. The council should appreciate the positive steps taken by the Government of Sri Lanka to host the official visit of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in August 2013 and the effective measures taken so far to address the accountability issues.
The constructive engagement of Sri Lanka in the UPR mechanism as the most appropriate platform to address the human rights situations in all countries is admirable. We oppose the politicization of human rights issues and taking up country’s specific issues. In this regard the Human Rights Council should engage the country concerned in a constructive manner and contribute to the improvement of human rights situation on the ground.
ZimbabweSri Lanka continues to make significant progress on the reconciliation process and has regularly updated the council on such progress
Zimbabwe wishes to lend its support to the Government of Sri Lanka’s efforts to implement the provisions of resolution 2231 which is about promoting reconciliation and accountability in the country. It is clear that Sri Lanka continues to make significant progress on the reconciliation process and has regularly updated the council on such progress.
The recommendations of the resolution 2231 was to request the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the LLRC.
However, the High Commissioners report goes beyond this mandate by making reference to and recommendations on extraneous issues and its call for an inquiry by an international mechanism to investigate the alleged violations.
Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the OHCHR and mechanisms of the councils should be commended. Its goodwill is evident by the facilitation of the High Commissioners visit in August 2013, pursuant to an invitation extended by the government in 2011. It has also continued its engagement with all procedures exemplified by the visit in December 2013 by the special rapporteur of of human rights of internally displaced persons.
Zimbabwe calls on the Council to reciprocate Sri Lanka’s good will by encouraging rather than condemning as it goes about fulfilling its obligations.
ChinaChina supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
The Chinese delegation takes note the LLRC report in promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. China commends Sri Lanka efforts and achievements in promoting national reconciliation socio-economic development and promotion and protection of human rights including the efforts into investigating the allegation of violations of human rights and seeking justice. China welcomes the government of Sri Lanka to actually implement the recommendations of LLRC and put in place the National Action Plan to this end.
The Government of Sri Lanka has strengthened its cooperation with UN Human Rights mechanism and other relevant mechanism which should be recognized. China finds regrettable that the report fails to present comprehensively and objectively of the the achievements of the efforts by the Government of Sri Lanka It is only through constructive dialogue and cooperation that difference in the area of human rights can be settled and exerting pressure and confrontation make the issues more complicated.
China supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is convinced that the people of Sri Lanka have wisdom and capacity to solve their internal affairs. China requests all countries to respect the rights of the people and the government to deal with the internal affairs and understand the difficulties confronting Sri Lanka, give enough time and space to Sri Lanka to to implement international mechanism.
BangladeshBangladesh recognizes Sri Lanka’s struggle to come out of the clutches of terrorism and bring peace and reconciliation to its people
Bangladesh recognizes Sri Lanka’s struggle to come out of the clutches of terrorism and bring peace and reconciliation to its people. We recognize the positive steps taken so far in spite of the difficulties in a post war situation. Given the enormity of the challenges, the progress made so far cannot be ignored.
My delegation recognizes also Sri Lankan government’s willingness to engage constructively with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms as shown by its extending invitations to several special rapporteur mandate holders while engaging with the other mandate holders and working groups.
We believe that due regard or recognition to the significant progresses made in the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka including the rigorous work undertaken since July 2012 in operationalising the recommendations of the National Action Plan for the implementation of the LLRC needs to be given by the Human Rights Council.
Considering its socio-economic constraints, which are common to many developing countries, Sri Lanka needs to be given the time and space and assistance and cooperation by the international community to implement its domestic process of reconciliation.
We also believe that any action taking in the promotion and protection of the human rights of the country must have the consent of that country, and based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and on the founding principles of universality, impartiality, non-selectivity which govern the work and functions of the Council as clearly delineated in GA resolution 60/251 and the IB package.
Having said that we also recognize that much remains to be done. We therefore while emphasizing on the need for a home grown political solution to this long standing dispute encourages Sri Lanka to look for durable solutions based on equity and inclusiveness. In doing so, we urge Sri Lanka to continue its efforts to uphold human rights.
PakistanSri Lanka is a country with excellent democratic credentials
My delegation believes in a culture of engagement for ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights. We believe that country specific initiatives are confrontational counter productive and seriously undermines the spirit of cooperation and coordination on important human rights issues.
We believe that the High Commissioner’s report is not balanced and and some of the elements including the recommendation to establish an international inquiry mechanism exceed the mandate granted by the Human Rights Council Resolution 22 /1 to the High Commissioner. We are also disappointed over the discriminatory approach followed by the OHCHR with regard to placement of Sri Lanka’s comments in response to the report on the extra-net.
Sri Lanka is a country with excellent democratic credentials. It has successfully overcome 30 years of brutal terrorism by the LTTE with external support. Now is the time for the international community to help the people in Sri Lanka to heal their wounds and not penalize them for defeating the LTTE at the behest of the people still continue to align themselves with these terrorist forces. There is also a need to acknowledge the commitment and cooperation extended by the government of Sri Lanka to the entire human rights machinery.
Since the end of the terrorist conflict in May 2009 Sri Lanka has continued to regularly and voluntarily engage with the council and with the missions based in Geneva on the progress in their reconciliation process.
Pakistan lauds the progress achieved by Sri Lanka in implementing the national plan of action and recommendations of the LLRC. As part of this continued engagement the High Commissioner undertook a week long visit to Sri Lanka from August 25-31, 2013 on the invitation of the government.
The government of Sri Lanka arranged a comprehensive program and provided unfettered access during the visit .She must refrain from advocating a course of action that will exaggerate the challenges that the Sri Lankan people are trying to overcome after 30 years of terrorist and separatist violence.
The international community should act as a facilitator for peace and stability and be part of the solution rather than the part of the problem. There is a dire need to comprehend and comprehensively address the enormous challenges being faced by Sri Lanka rather than penalizing the country for rooting out terrorism from its soil.
Russian FederationSri Lanka has undoubtedly achieved significant success in achieving national reconciliation while upholding all kinds of rights of the population
Russia has consistently opposed addressing the matter of Sri Lanka by the Council because we do not see objective reasons for doing this. In this connection, we cannot agree to many of the assessments made in the High Commissioner’s report which lie beyond her mandate and which could be interpreted as interference into domestic affairs of the state. We would like to once again underline that reports of this kind are supposed to help the normalization of the situation and not lead to an escalation of tension.
Sri Lanka is open to dialogue and in existing problems the country is pursuing its cooperation with the UNHRC. The High Commissioner’s visit, in the course of which she had unimpeded access to all areas of interest to her is a confirmation of this. Sri Lanka has undoubtedly achieved significant success in achieving national reconciliation while upholding all kinds of rights of the population. We would like to underline the recent democratic elections in the North of the country which saw the Tamils in the lead. Incidentally, these elections were only possible now that the terrorism has been beaten.
We welcome the government’s adoption of further 53 recommendations of the LLRC and we call on Colombo to continue its work to implement the National Action Plan to implement the Commission’s conclusions. The fact that for four years now we have not seen any explosions is the most convincing demonstration of the fact that the government’s domestic policy is addressing the interests of all the people in the country. The international community should recognize the achievements that has been achieved by the country and we condemn this attempt trying to use human rights as a way of settling political accounts and achieving geopolitical advantage. We consider that the process of national reconciliation should take place and implemented by the Sri Lankans themselves without the imposition of any so called assistance from outside. In this connection we disagree with the new draft resolution because it is far beyond the matters of reconciliation and is a direct interference in to domestic affairs of a sovereign state.
UgandaThe international community to assist and appreciate the achievement made by Sri Lanka
Uganda has taken on the report of reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka. We also take note that as a country which has emerged from decades long conflict, having defeated terrorism Sri Lanka has made commendable achievement in its effort at achieving reconciliation among its communities. There is need for the international community to assist and appreciate the achievement made by Sri Lanka and encourage Sri Lanka to continue to its persist rather than calling for international investigation. The report’s calls for an international investigation in to this situation has no basis.
We should be mindful that Sri land fought one of the most ruthless terrorist groups in the world. We therefore welcome the commitment shown by the Government of Sri Lanka for continuous engagement with the UN Human Rights Council by facilitating the visits of a number of the Human Rights Council Special rapporteurs and mandate holders. This manifests the importance given by the Government of Sri Lanka for its domestic reconciliation procedure while engaging with international community.
Uganda believes that special consideration should be given to countries that emerge from long time conflicts. Uganda welcomes the implementation of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission recommendations through national action plan.
PAKISTAN’S BITTER PILL FOR PILLAI
Country specific resolutions confrontational
Direct interference in domestic affairs of a sovereign state
Pakistan on Wednesday cautioned United Nations Human Rights Council
High Commissioner Navy Pillai against taking action that will exaggerate
the challenges that the people of Sri Lanka are trying to overcome
after 30 years of separatist and terrorist violence.
During the interactive dialogue at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN Ambassador Zamir Akram said country specific initiatives are confrontational, counter productive and seriously undermine the spirit of cooperation and coordination on important human rights issues.
“We believe that the High Commissioner’s report is not balanced and some of the elements including the recommendation to establish an international inquiry mechanism exceed the mandate granted by the Human Rights Council Resolution 22 /1 to the High Commissioner. “She must refrain from advocating a course of action that will exaggerate the challenges that the Sri Lankan people are trying to overcome after 30 years of terrorist and separatist violence.
The international community should act as a facilitator for peace and stability and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. “We are also disappointed over the discriminatory approach followed by the OHCHR with regard to placement of Sri Lanka’s comments in response to the report on the extra-net”. “Now is the time for the international community to help the people of Sri Lanka to heal their wounds and not penalize them for defeating the LTTE, at the behest of the people still continuing to align themselves with these terrorist forces.
“There is a dire need to comprehend and comprehensively address the enormous challenges being faced by Sri Lanka rather than penalizing the country for rooting out terrorism from its soil. “Russia said it considers the process of national reconciliation should take place and implemented by the Sri Lankans themselves without the imposition of any so called assistance from outside”. “In this connection we disagree with the new draft resolution because it is far beyond the matters of reconciliation and is a direct interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state”. “We cannot agree to many of the assessments made in the High Commissioner’s report which lie beyond her mandate and which could be interpreted as interference into domestic affairs of a state.
We would like to once again underline that reports of this kind are supposed to help the normalization of the situation and not lead to an escalation of tension”. China said it regrets that the Hig Commissioner’s Report on Sri Lanka fails to present comprehensively and objectively the achievements of the Government of Sri Lanka .
“It is only through constructive dialogue and cooperation that differences in the area of human rights can be settled.”Exertintg pressure and confrontation makes the issue more complicated.
“China supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Cuba said the report presented by the Human Rights Commissioner is another example of the politicization of double standards that have taken root in the Council. The concluding recommendations in the report reflects the imbalance that prevails when dealing with Human rights situations in the South. Sri Lanka has on several occasions made this Committee aware about the progress made and of different aspects of the national reconciliation process.
The Sri Lankan government has taken many measures and these have enabled them to make significant progress in the areas of rehabilitation, Deming, resettlement, De-militarisation, reconstruction and development. All these measures are appreciable.
The High Commissioners report does not acknowledge many achievements of Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process. Zimbabwe said Resolution 22/1 was to request the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. However the High Commissioner’s Report goes beyond this mandate by making reference to and recommendations on extraneous issues.
Bangladesh said it believes due recognition and regard should be given to the significant progress made in the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka including the rigorous work undertaken since July 2012 in operationalizing the recommendations of the National Action Plan for the implementation of the LLRC.
During the interactive dialogue at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the UN Ambassador Zamir Akram said country specific initiatives are confrontational, counter productive and seriously undermine the spirit of cooperation and coordination on important human rights issues.
“We believe that the High Commissioner’s report is not balanced and some of the elements including the recommendation to establish an international inquiry mechanism exceed the mandate granted by the Human Rights Council Resolution 22 /1 to the High Commissioner. “She must refrain from advocating a course of action that will exaggerate the challenges that the Sri Lankan people are trying to overcome after 30 years of terrorist and separatist violence.
The international community should act as a facilitator for peace and stability and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. “We are also disappointed over the discriminatory approach followed by the OHCHR with regard to placement of Sri Lanka’s comments in response to the report on the extra-net”. “Now is the time for the international community to help the people of Sri Lanka to heal their wounds and not penalize them for defeating the LTTE, at the behest of the people still continuing to align themselves with these terrorist forces.
“There is a dire need to comprehend and comprehensively address the enormous challenges being faced by Sri Lanka rather than penalizing the country for rooting out terrorism from its soil. “Russia said it considers the process of national reconciliation should take place and implemented by the Sri Lankans themselves without the imposition of any so called assistance from outside”. “In this connection we disagree with the new draft resolution because it is far beyond the matters of reconciliation and is a direct interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state”. “We cannot agree to many of the assessments made in the High Commissioner’s report which lie beyond her mandate and which could be interpreted as interference into domestic affairs of a state.
We would like to once again underline that reports of this kind are supposed to help the normalization of the situation and not lead to an escalation of tension”. China said it regrets that the Hig Commissioner’s Report on Sri Lanka fails to present comprehensively and objectively the achievements of the Government of Sri Lanka .
“It is only through constructive dialogue and cooperation that differences in the area of human rights can be settled.”Exertintg pressure and confrontation makes the issue more complicated.
“China supports Sri Lanka to defend its national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Cuba said the report presented by the Human Rights Commissioner is another example of the politicization of double standards that have taken root in the Council. The concluding recommendations in the report reflects the imbalance that prevails when dealing with Human rights situations in the South. Sri Lanka has on several occasions made this Committee aware about the progress made and of different aspects of the national reconciliation process.
The Sri Lankan government has taken many measures and these have enabled them to make significant progress in the areas of rehabilitation, Deming, resettlement, De-militarisation, reconstruction and development. All these measures are appreciable.
The High Commissioners report does not acknowledge many achievements of Sri Lanka’s national reconciliation process. Zimbabwe said Resolution 22/1 was to request the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the LLRC. However the High Commissioner’s Report goes beyond this mandate by making reference to and recommendations on extraneous issues.
Bangladesh said it believes due recognition and regard should be given to the significant progress made in the reconciliation process in Sri Lanka including the rigorous work undertaken since July 2012 in operationalizing the recommendations of the National Action Plan for the implementation of the LLRC.
Who really supported the US Resolution against Sri Lanka?
Source: Daily Mirror
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
UN vote shows strains in Delhi’s diplomacy
By Ramesh Ramachandran
AsiaTimes.com
In a departure from its familiar voting pattern on UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolutions critical of Sri Lanka, India on March 27 abstained from a vote on a resolution approving an independent international investigation into war crimes and human-rights violations allegedly committed by the government of Sri Lanka during the 2009 civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE.)
The customary “explanation of vote” by the permanent representative of India to the UN offices in Geneva said, among other things, that:
1. “In asking the OHCHR [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ] to investigate, assess and monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the resolution
ignores the progress already made by the country in this field and places in jeopardy the cooperation currently taking place between the Government of Sri Lanka and the OHCHR and the Council’s Special Procedures. Besides, the resolution is inconsistent and impractical in asking both the Government of Sri Lanka and the OHCHR to simultaneously conduct investigations”;
2. “India believes that it is imperative for every country to have the means of addressing human rights violations through robust national mechanisms. The Council’s efforts should therefore be in a direction to enable Sri Lanka to investigate all allegations of human rights violations through comprehensive, independent and credible national investigative mechanisms and bring to justice those found guilty. Sri Lanka should be provided all assistance it desires in a cooperative and collaborative manner”; and
3. “It has been India’s firm belief that adopting an intrusive approach that undermines national sovereignty and institutions is counterproductive.”
After having voted for UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka in 2012 and 2013, India’s abstention this year on the resolution presented by the US early in March is indicative of a course correction in New Delhi’s engagement with Colombo. This is aimed at retrieving the ground lost in the intervening years, burnishing India’s credentials as a relevant player in the island nation’s affairs and signaling a return to bilateralism as the centerpiece of India-Sri Lanka ties (not necessarily in that order).
If India’s support for the resolutions in the previous years exposed an utter bankruptcy of ideas on how to engage with Sri Lanka (thereby implicitly admitting to a failure on the part of New Delhi either to influence the course of events or bring about the desired change in Colombo’s disposition), the abstention should be seen as a belated attempt to pull the relationship back from the brink. Of course, it helped that the reaction from the regional parties was muted this year, giving New Delhi extra room for maneuver, and enabling it in the process to regain its voice vis-a-vis the states on foreign policy matters.
It needs to be said here that India cannot claim to adhere to a consistent policy toward Sri Lanka. First, it nurtured the LTTE and burned its fingers in the process. Then it extended tacit support to Colombo – before, during and after the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in May 2009 – only later, in its wisdom, to support the UNHRC resolution piloted by the United States.
The 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting summit in Sri Lanka was in the news as much for the renewed focus on the rights record of the host nation as for the decision by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to take part in it. In his stead, it was left to External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid to lead the Indian delegation for the biennial event of the 53-nation Commonwealth. In a letter of regret that was hand-delivered to President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, Singh informed Rajapaksa of his inability to attend personally, but he did not assign any reasons for that.
Suffice it to say that a careful reading of the history of India-Sri Lanka relations would make it evident to just about anyone that India’s policy towards this island-nation in the Indian Ocean can be described as consistently inconsistent, and characterized by myopia and self-inflicted crises.
For the Ministry of External Affairs, what should be particularly worrying is the erosion in India’s standing in what it calls its sphere of influence. The recent debate over which way India should vote on a UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka is instructive to the extent that it illustrated how far India has come from being an influential actor in its neighborhood to being a marginal or fringe player.
Put simply (not simplistically), some of the key questions were: is it advisable for New Delhi to vote for the resolutions and risk losing whatever goodwill and leverage it might have had with Colombo? Should not all other options have been exhausted before India (figuratively) threw in the towel and (literally) threw in its lot with the West? Thursday’s abstention has partially answered that question.
However, there remains another worry. The protestations from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, and her rival, M Karunanidhi, patriarch of the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam party, over India’s vote on Sri Lanka in 2012, coming as they did a few months after West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee “vetoed” an agreement on sharing the Teesta River waters with Bangladesh, injected a certain degree of dissonance in the conduct of foreign policy. What fueled diplomats’ anxiety was the precedent that would be set if the center – India’s federal government – caved in or succumbed to India’s states on matters that fell in its realm.
Already, India’s engagement with Pakistan on one hand and China and Myanmar on the other are determined to an extent by the domestic conditions prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states respectively. Prime Minister Singh betrayed his frustration when he said in the Lok Sabha – India’s parliament – that difficult decisions were becoming more difficult because of coalition compulsions. He called for bipartisanship in the interest of the country.
At the same time, what cannot be denied is that there exists a view among a section of serving and former practitioners of diplomacy that devolution of foreign policy to more stakeholders would not be entirely unwelcome.
As a former foreign secretary told this writer: “Foreign policy today is made not only in New Delhi but elsewhere, too. There are multiple stakeholders and one cannot deny states a say in foreign policy if it relates to them.” In other words, it is argued that if the states assert their rights and/or seek more consultations, then the center must respect those sentiments.
Having said that, an impression seems to be gaining ground, erroneously at that, that foreign policy is the worst sufferer of this new phenomenon of the states having their say. A cursory look at recent years would show that the states have consistently been vocal on a host of other issues, too. The recent examples of certain states or regional parties opposing the policy of raising the cap on foreign direct investment in the retail sector is a case in point, as is the opposition to the center’s proposal for setting up a national counter-terrorism center. In some of these cases New Delhi chose to yield, albeit temporarily, but in some others it had its way.
Therefore, it would not be accurate to suggest that regional influences are wielding a “veto” over New Delhi. Also, it would not be fair either to paint the states as villains of the piece or to apportion all the blame for the center’s foreign policy woes to regional parties that are, or could be, aligned against it in the political arena.
For instance, the center accuses the West Bengal government headed by the Trinamool Congress party of scuttling a river-waters sharing agreement with Bangladesh. However, the Congress party, which heads the ruling coalition at the center and also in Kerala, is guilty of playing to narrow political sentiments, too. This was evidenced by the state government and party’s stand on two Italian marines who are facing murder charges for the deaths of two Indian fishermen off the Kerala coast.
On balance, it is time to reshape India’s neighborhood policy in a manner that reflects the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward in reshaping ties with countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Bhutan and Sri Lanka.
A reset is imperative, irrespective of which coalition forms the next government in New Delhi. India can ill afford a Pavlovian foreign policy. Equally, framing India’s foreign policy options as a binary choice can be self-defeating. There needs to be a dispassionate debate and a greater appreciation of various shades of grey.
AsiaTimes.com
In a departure from its familiar voting pattern on UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolutions critical of Sri Lanka, India on March 27 abstained from a vote on a resolution approving an independent international investigation into war crimes and human-rights violations allegedly committed by the government of Sri Lanka during the 2009 civil war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE.)
The customary “explanation of vote” by the permanent representative of India to the UN offices in Geneva said, among other things, that:
1. “In asking the OHCHR [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights ] to investigate, assess and monitor the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, the resolution
ignores the progress already made by the country in this field and places in jeopardy the cooperation currently taking place between the Government of Sri Lanka and the OHCHR and the Council’s Special Procedures. Besides, the resolution is inconsistent and impractical in asking both the Government of Sri Lanka and the OHCHR to simultaneously conduct investigations”;
2. “India believes that it is imperative for every country to have the means of addressing human rights violations through robust national mechanisms. The Council’s efforts should therefore be in a direction to enable Sri Lanka to investigate all allegations of human rights violations through comprehensive, independent and credible national investigative mechanisms and bring to justice those found guilty. Sri Lanka should be provided all assistance it desires in a cooperative and collaborative manner”; and
3. “It has been India’s firm belief that adopting an intrusive approach that undermines national sovereignty and institutions is counterproductive.”
After having voted for UNHRC resolutions on Sri Lanka in 2012 and 2013, India’s abstention this year on the resolution presented by the US early in March is indicative of a course correction in New Delhi’s engagement with Colombo. This is aimed at retrieving the ground lost in the intervening years, burnishing India’s credentials as a relevant player in the island nation’s affairs and signaling a return to bilateralism as the centerpiece of India-Sri Lanka ties (not necessarily in that order).
If India’s support for the resolutions in the previous years exposed an utter bankruptcy of ideas on how to engage with Sri Lanka (thereby implicitly admitting to a failure on the part of New Delhi either to influence the course of events or bring about the desired change in Colombo’s disposition), the abstention should be seen as a belated attempt to pull the relationship back from the brink. Of course, it helped that the reaction from the regional parties was muted this year, giving New Delhi extra room for maneuver, and enabling it in the process to regain its voice vis-a-vis the states on foreign policy matters.
It needs to be said here that India cannot claim to adhere to a consistent policy toward Sri Lanka. First, it nurtured the LTTE and burned its fingers in the process. Then it extended tacit support to Colombo – before, during and after the end of the Sri Lankan civil war in May 2009 – only later, in its wisdom, to support the UNHRC resolution piloted by the United States.
The 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting summit in Sri Lanka was in the news as much for the renewed focus on the rights record of the host nation as for the decision by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to take part in it. In his stead, it was left to External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid to lead the Indian delegation for the biennial event of the 53-nation Commonwealth. In a letter of regret that was hand-delivered to President Mahinda Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka, Singh informed Rajapaksa of his inability to attend personally, but he did not assign any reasons for that.
Suffice it to say that a careful reading of the history of India-Sri Lanka relations would make it evident to just about anyone that India’s policy towards this island-nation in the Indian Ocean can be described as consistently inconsistent, and characterized by myopia and self-inflicted crises.
For the Ministry of External Affairs, what should be particularly worrying is the erosion in India’s standing in what it calls its sphere of influence. The recent debate over which way India should vote on a UNHRC resolution on Sri Lanka is instructive to the extent that it illustrated how far India has come from being an influential actor in its neighborhood to being a marginal or fringe player.
Put simply (not simplistically), some of the key questions were: is it advisable for New Delhi to vote for the resolutions and risk losing whatever goodwill and leverage it might have had with Colombo? Should not all other options have been exhausted before India (figuratively) threw in the towel and (literally) threw in its lot with the West? Thursday’s abstention has partially answered that question.
However, there remains another worry. The protestations from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, and her rival, M Karunanidhi, patriarch of the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam party, over India’s vote on Sri Lanka in 2012, coming as they did a few months after West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee “vetoed” an agreement on sharing the Teesta River waters with Bangladesh, injected a certain degree of dissonance in the conduct of foreign policy. What fueled diplomats’ anxiety was the precedent that would be set if the center – India’s federal government – caved in or succumbed to India’s states on matters that fell in its realm.
Already, India’s engagement with Pakistan on one hand and China and Myanmar on the other are determined to an extent by the domestic conditions prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir and the northeastern states respectively. Prime Minister Singh betrayed his frustration when he said in the Lok Sabha – India’s parliament – that difficult decisions were becoming more difficult because of coalition compulsions. He called for bipartisanship in the interest of the country.
At the same time, what cannot be denied is that there exists a view among a section of serving and former practitioners of diplomacy that devolution of foreign policy to more stakeholders would not be entirely unwelcome.
As a former foreign secretary told this writer: “Foreign policy today is made not only in New Delhi but elsewhere, too. There are multiple stakeholders and one cannot deny states a say in foreign policy if it relates to them.” In other words, it is argued that if the states assert their rights and/or seek more consultations, then the center must respect those sentiments.
Having said that, an impression seems to be gaining ground, erroneously at that, that foreign policy is the worst sufferer of this new phenomenon of the states having their say. A cursory look at recent years would show that the states have consistently been vocal on a host of other issues, too. The recent examples of certain states or regional parties opposing the policy of raising the cap on foreign direct investment in the retail sector is a case in point, as is the opposition to the center’s proposal for setting up a national counter-terrorism center. In some of these cases New Delhi chose to yield, albeit temporarily, but in some others it had its way.
Therefore, it would not be accurate to suggest that regional influences are wielding a “veto” over New Delhi. Also, it would not be fair either to paint the states as villains of the piece or to apportion all the blame for the center’s foreign policy woes to regional parties that are, or could be, aligned against it in the political arena.
For instance, the center accuses the West Bengal government headed by the Trinamool Congress party of scuttling a river-waters sharing agreement with Bangladesh. However, the Congress party, which heads the ruling coalition at the center and also in Kerala, is guilty of playing to narrow political sentiments, too. This was evidenced by the state government and party’s stand on two Italian marines who are facing murder charges for the deaths of two Indian fishermen off the Kerala coast.
On balance, it is time to reshape India’s neighborhood policy in a manner that reflects the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward in reshaping ties with countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Bhutan and Sri Lanka.
A reset is imperative, irrespective of which coalition forms the next government in New Delhi. India can ill afford a Pavlovian foreign policy. Equally, framing India’s foreign policy options as a binary choice can be self-defeating. There needs to be a dispassionate debate and a greater appreciation of various shades of grey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
