Accountability issues and India’s foreign policy considerations
April 9, 2014, 7:42 pm
Indian Navy
In the case of Sri Lanka, it ought to be clear that India is looking forward to remaining engaged with it so as to cooperating to resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. India would have run the risk of making sections within Sri Lanka increasingly hostile towards it by voting once again for the resolution. Such a decision would have eroded the possibility of continuing the bilateral engagement between India and Sri Lanka on resolving the latter’s conflict. However, as a result of abstaining India has ensured that the door will remain open to continuous bilateral engagement on the issues that matter most. But such a move is not tantamount to voting ‘against’ the resolution. This is a naïve construct that could backfire on Sri Lanka and should be avoided.
The ‘talk’ even regionally, and not only locally, currently, could very well be India’s recent decision to abstain when the third US-sponsored resolution on accountability issues in Sri Lanka was put to the vote at the UNHRC. India is on record as having abstained from voting on the resolution for what it saw as its ‘intrusive approach’ to issues in Sri Lanka, besides other reasons that relate more to Indo-Lanka relations, but no less important could be India’s foreign policy considerations in this context, although most of them have gone unsaid.
The ‘talk’ even regionally, and not only locally, currently, could very well be India’s recent decision to abstain when the third US-sponsored resolution on accountability issues in Sri Lanka was put to the vote at the UNHRC. India is on record as having abstained from voting on the resolution for what it saw as its ‘intrusive approach’ to issues in Sri Lanka, besides other reasons that relate more to Indo-Lanka relations, but no less important could be India’s foreign policy considerations in this context, although most of them have gone unsaid.
To be sure, a vote for the resolution could have been tantamount to endorsing an ‘intrusive approach’, on the part of the world community, to issues that are more of a domestic nature, and, therefore, have profound implications for a country’s status as a sovereign entity in the international sphere. However, the Sri Lankan government would be naïve in the extreme to believe that India, would, from now on ‘go soft’ or gloss over accountability-linked issues in Sri Lanka. Rejecting what is seen as an ‘intrusive approach’ to domestic questions, on the part of the international community, is what could be expected from a self-respecting country, and India has always been one, but this rejection should not be construed to mean that India would be blind to those issues in Sri Lanka which impinge on its national interest. Such an interpretation could prove highly misleading and is best not resorted to.
Besides, Sri Lanka should guard against misconstruing a country’s decision to abstain from voting in important international forums. Superficially, an abstention could mean that the country in question is non-committal on the issue that has come up for deliberation and voting. On the other, an abstention could be a tactical measure on the part of the country that uses this option. It could mean that the country choosing to abstain is preferring, for the time being, to keep its options open on the matter at hand. Such a position should not be seen as an endorsement and acceptance of the state of affairs which is under scrutiny by the deliberative body concerned. It could mean, on the contrary, that the abstaining state is choosing to explore all the possibilities that are opening-up for resolving an existing problem, rather than approach it dogmatically.
In the case of Sri Lanka, it ought to be clear that India is looking forward to remaining engaged with it so as to cooperating to resolve Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. India would have run the risk of making sections within Sri Lanka increasingly hostile towards it by voting once again for the resolution. Such a decision would have eroded the possibility of continuing the bilateral engagement between India and Sri Lanka on resolving the latter’s conflict. However, as a result of abstaining India has ensured that the door will remain open to continuous bilateral engagement on the issues that matter most. But such a move is not tantamount to voting ‘against’ the resolution. This is a naïve construct that could backfire on Sri Lanka and should be avoided.
It goes without saying that India has always been for a just and equitable solution to our conflict and this needs to be borne in mind by Sri Lanka’s ruling circles in particular. The latter would do well to work steadily towards fully resolving this country’s conflict by political means or risk losing India’s goodwill and cooperation.
Besides issues internal to Sri Lanka, India’s abstention is also explainable in terms of the latter’s foreign policy considerations. By seeking to remain engaged with Sri Lanka, India is aiming to curtail perceived Chinese influence over the Sri Lankan state. The Chinese input to what is seen as Sri Lanka’s development drive is considerable and it will be in India’s interests to contain China’s presence and influence in our part of the world, for, India, like China, is a global power and it should not come as a surprise if each of these powers is seeking to spread and stabilize its influence internationally.
Interestingly, China’s perceived widespread presence in South Asia is also increasingly drawing Japan into our part of the world. It is already featuring in some infrastructure development projects in Sri Lanka and is also marking a presence in development projects of the same nature in India’s North-East.
What needs to be focused on is that ‘business’ will be a prime consideration of these regional powers. It is unlikely that we would be witnessing inter-state tensions of the kind being seen currently in the East and South China seas, but there would probably be some keenness on the part of China, India and Japan to expand investment opportunities in South Asia.
India’s abstention, then, must be seen as also aimed at preventing Sri Lanka from coming under excessive Chinese influence. However, we are unlikely to see India and China entering into a tense relationship in South Asia on account of these efforts at influence-wielding. It is economic penetration that is primarily aimed at and the relationship is unlikely to be characterized by military tensions of any kind.
We, in South Asia, need to see the international relations of this region through perspectives that are independent and untainted by the sensationalism of the Western media. The China-India border is seen as bristling with military tensions by the latter media but the plain truth is that India and China have not ‘come to blows’ since 1962 and would not easily do so, considering that it is economics and not politics which is mainly moving international relations currently.
The fluctuating fortunes of the global economy are determined to a great extent by the economic health of China. There is hardly a country which is not touched by China in economic terms. Some 65 percent of China’s GDP is derived from global trade and it will be in the interests of both the developed and developing worlds to maintain amicable ties with China. Even the US and ‘G7’ are acutely conscious of these economic facts of international life.
However, Sri Lanka happens to be strategically located and is at the southern tip of India. If sections in India are continuing to see Sri Lanka as coming within India’s defence perimeter, they cannot be faulted, for, big powers from outside this region which establish a strong presence in Sri Lanka could be seen as posing a security threat to India. Thus, the compulsion is great for India to remain engaged with Sri Lanka.
No comments:
Post a Comment