Sri Lanka receives about $900 million from Japan, about $600 million from China, and $250 million from India, per year.
It is common knowledge that Sri Lank in-exchange for military, political, and economic support has divided the island into several chunks and has forfeited its interests over several natural resources to concerned International parties. Sri Lanka has pawned Kankesanthurai (KKS) harbour and its environs to USA, Trincomalee and Kolannawa oil tanks to India, and Hambantota to China to name only a few projects. According to a Sunday Times report “Bilateral trade between India and Sri Lanka has increased from US $ 1497 million in 2004-05 to US $ 2590 million in 2005-06 and is valued at US $ 2462.28 million in 2006-07.With almost 15-20% of total Sri Lankan imports accounted for by India, Importantly India accounts for major portion of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Sri Lanka, with an investment of US $ 400-500 million. India is also the fourth largest investor in Sri Lanka.” (http://www.sundaytimes.lk/071118/FinancialTimes/ft308.html).
Japan in exchange for the monetary aid it provides has received Sri Lanka’s approval to exercise its monopoly in Sri Lanka’s growing tele-communication sector, among other industries. These are just a few of the tangible benefits GoSL has given away in return for the assistance from these respective countries. The island is 65,610 sq km in area of which Tamils are calling for a separate state to be established in a 19,509 sq. km area. The sea shore in the NorthEast, apparently close to 50% of the island’s seashore, is out of bounds for any long term projects because of the volatility. Increasing political tension is forcing the would-be investors to think twice. Several have already closed shops and left the country.
Now Sri Lanka has a problem. There is not much left in the island state to pawn. So, what can Sri Lanka do to stay afloat? Sri Lanka has found its answer. It is something only 193 states with International recognition in the world have. And, that is its vote. Sri Lanka has now resorted to selling its vote on various platforms in exchange for immediate returns. Sri Lanka’s membership in International forums such as the Commonwealth, UN, SAARC etc., is a direct benefit of its sovereignty. Fundamental principles that one might think would govern a state’s foreign policy are floated. What are the principles that guide Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, one might wonder. It is simply nothing more than monetary/military assistance in support of its war on Tamils.
And by pledging its support - with absolutely no regard for policy, outcome, or ethical and moral responsibility - to brutal dictatorships, Sri Lankan state has received in return abundant military, political, and economic support for its war on its own citizens. Such an irresponsible, opportunistic, unethical and reprehensible act can only be described as “diplomatic prostitution”.
This could be understood clearly by looking at its relationship with two countries, each with its own deplorable human rights records – Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan.
The Unholy Alliance: Iran and Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s relationship with Iran, even in the face of strong opposition from the USA, goes back to several years. Iran signed a preferential trade agreement and several memoranda of understanding with Sri Lanka in November 2004. This was when Chandrika Kumaratunge was at the helm in Sri Lanka. The political climate in which those agreements were signed, the Iranian aid given to Sri Lanka, and how Sri Lanka reciprocated gives one a very interesting insight into how Sri Lanka prostitutes itself in the diplomatic arena.
Before going into details of Sri Lanka-Iran alliance, it is important to understand the Iranian nuclear crisis. Immediately after 911 attacks on the WTC, countries that were thought to be the hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalism became US of A’s prime targets. Primary amongst them were: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMD) became the key words used by the USA and its allies in mobilizing support (local as well as International) in their war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The war on Iraq failed to unearth even one WMD is another matter altogether. But it is to be accepted that such a boisterous claim gave the USA led coalition the initial moral justification for the so-called “War on Terror”. They needed to build such a case against Iran.
Iran’s nuclear capability has been a disquieting issue for the policy makers at the White House and the Pentagon. USA and its allies therefore embarked on a campaign to outline the “clear and present danger” that Iran presented, the urgency in addressing that threat, and thus building a common consensus for any future attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran. They have done this campaign at several platforms, most importantly at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
IAEA was constituted in 1957. Sri Lanka is a founder member of the IAEA and continues to be a member. Currently there are 144 member states. The IAEA’s functions are guided by a Board of Governors. The B of G is composed of 35 member states. IAEA programs and budgets are set through decisions of its policymaking bodies - the 35-member B of G and the General Conference of all Member States.
Why it is important that one understands the IAEA’s mandate, structure and its Iranian program is because there lays the knot as to why Sri Lanka and Iran are cuddling right under the watchful eyes of the world.
There is concrete evidence as to how Sri Lanka has performed at the IAEA to act on behalf of Iran. There is also tangible evidence as to why Sri Lanka thus acted. And more importantly, what Sri Lanka received in return. Let me outline a few series of incidents to grasp the nature of this “unholy” alliance.
1. September 28, 2004 – Sri Lanka elected to IAEA Board of Governors. Canadian Ambassador Ingrid Hall is elected to serve as the Chair of the IAEA Board of Governors for the 2004-2005 working. More relevant to the topic in hand, Sri Lanka is also elected to the influential 35-member B of G of the IAEA in the same session of the General assembly. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12058&Cr=iaea&Cr1)
2. 14 November 2004 - In an effort to pacify the probable military action, Iran writes to the IAEA notifying the Secretariat that it had decided to continue and extend its voluntary suspension to include all enrichment related and reprocessing activities.
3. November 24, 2004 - B of G resolution on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomed the “fact that Iran has decided to continue and extend its suspension of all enrichment related and reprocessing activities” and requested that the “ the Director General to report to the Board on his findings, as appropriate.”
4. 25 November 2004 – Colombo, Sri Lanka - Sri Lanka, Iran sign bilateral agreements. While successfully concluding the bilateral agreement, President Kumaratunge is quoted as saying “We hold similar views and positions on many issues; during this visit we explored many areas of possible cooperation and reached agreements to work in those areas.” She also said that promoting Iranian investment in Sri Lanka, especially in joint ventures, would help both countries.
5. In passing, President Kumaratunge also mentions how Sri Lanka was a member of the B of G at IAEA. The report alludes to the potential role Sri Lanka could as follows: “The President pointed out that Sri Lanka is well aware of the issues concerning Iran and that the matter is currently under “very serious review”.
For his part, Iranian President Khatami offers to assist in Sri Lanka’s peace process and expresses confidence in Sri Lanka’s ability to resolve the conflict. “We are very appreciative of the Sri Lankan government’s effort to establish peace and stability in Sri Lanka, which has the capacity to develop by solving this problem that has retarded its economic development.” http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=1037.
The Iran issue took a turn for the worse as the IAEA starts to face difficulty in gaining access to nuclear facilities and thus renewing the call for an immediate and decisive action.
6. 13 June 2005 - Director General ElBaradei Reappointed, Cites Iran Verification Among Key Challenges. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline2.shtml#january05.
7. 11 August, 2005: IAEA Board Urges Iran: Suspend Uranium Conversion, Re-Instate Seals.
8. 24 September 2005 – Sri Lanka is again elected to the B of G and Votes against the IAEA resolution on the implementation of safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran. “The resolution finds that Iran´s failures and breaches constitute non-compliance and calls on Iran to return to the negotiating process. It was adopted by a vote of 22 in favour, 1 against and 12 abstentions.” The resolution was supported by Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Equador, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, USA and was opposed by Venezuela, which voted against it.
Sri Lanka on the other hand very conveniently chose to abstain along with Algeria, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Tunisia, Vietnam. (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/iran_timeline2.shtml#january05).
Anna Langenbach, Lars Olberg, and Jean DuPreez of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) and Monterey Institute of International Studies, in report titled “The New IAEA Resolution: A Milestone in the Iran-IAEA Saga” however clearly states the reason for the abstentions of the said countries - “These countries have had in former meetings a more sympathetic attitude towards Iran, which is also a NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) member.” So, it is clearly not difficult to understand where Sri Lanka’s loyalty lies.
Incidentally, it is also reported in this paper that Iranians were upset that “India, one of the countries Iran had counted on to counter the EU-3 proposal, also voted in favor of the resolution”.(http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_69a.html)
Thus, it is to be noted that even though the resolution was passed, Sri Lanka was able to register its solidarity with Iran’s nuclear development project. This did win some favors from Iran. However, lest it has not been clearly enunciated, Sri Lanka’s interest in preventing a war against Iran is very much of survival of its own self than anything else. Almost the entire supply (70%) of crude oil to Sri Lanka is from Iran. 20% of its tea is exported every year to Iran. A war in any form against Iran is going to be calamitous for Sri Lanka’s own survival.
The unholy alliance has not been restricted to the realms of nuclear armament program. Sri Lanka and Iran have been seen busily shaking hands in International forums.
9. Thursday, March 22, 2007 - Iranian Foreign Minister meets Sri Lanka President. “Iran’s Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki made a courtesy call on Sri Lanka President Mahinda Rajapaksa at the Temple Trees today evening.” This meeting occurred at a time when Iran’s President was facing difficulties in securing the green signal from the USA for his entry into the USA for the UN General Assembly meeting.
10. May 28, 2007 – Tehran - President Ahmadinejad in a meeting with Sri Lanka Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama had says that, "the two countries have common stances on regional and international issues which can develop mutual ties more and more." (http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0705295438005156.htm)
11. Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 6.00 GMT – Meeting with World Leaders – The PRIU website states that “President Mahinda Rajapaksa met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran met on the sidelines of the UNGA sessions in New York last Tuesday (25). The two leaders discussed the international situation and issues of common interest to both countries. The Iranian President told President Rajapaksa that Iran intends to establish an oil refinery in Sri Lanka in order to give some relief to the people affected by high price of oil in the world market.” (http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200709/20070927president_meets_world_leaders.htm)
The fact of the matter is there were not many leaders from the west or from other democracies who would have wanted to have photo opportunity with the Iranian President who were desperate for some International legitimacy/recognition. And, voila! Steps in the magnanimous Mahinda Rajapakse!
Incidentally it is to be noted that, the other so called “world leaders” that the 100 men contingent headed by President Rajapakse managed to schedule photo-opportunities were: President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine and Prime Minister Lorenz Gonshi of Malta. The UN visit has been otherwise rated by analyst as an utter failure.
12. Oct. 27, 07 - 'War on terror' is now war on Iran – This column in Asia Times illustrates the role of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in the economic, military, and political spheres of Iran while also pointing out the implications of the USA’s sanctions. “The US State and Treasury departments jointly announced the new sanctions, citing the Islamic Republic's defiance over its continued nuclear program and its alleged involvement with terrorist organizations. The new restrictions are unilateral and aim to prevent businesses and other groups both within and outside the US - but that do work within the US - from dealing with individuals who are part of any of the banks, military forces and other organizations in Iran that were named, including the IRGC.” (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ27Ak03.html)
Immediately after the LTTE attack on Anuradhapura, GoSL sought to capitalize on the gains made in the political arena and moved swiftly to request Iran’s military assistance, right under the nose of India and the rest of the world, disregarding all efforts by the USA to prevent them from doing so.
13. NOV.13, 2007 - Iran to Fund Sri Lankan Arms Purchases – B. Raman writes in his column, “Government of President Mahinda Rajapakse has requested the Government of Iran through a Malaysian Muslim of Indian/Sri Lankan origin for an urgent loan at low interest to enable it to purchase trainer and electronic surveillance aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles in replacement of those lost during the recent ground-cum-air attack launched by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) at the Anuradhapura air base of the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF). It has also requested Iran for the supply of oil and gas at concessional rates on credit. These requests are expected to be followed up personally by President Rajapakse during a planned visit to Iran shortly.” (http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/11/iran-to-fund-sri-lankan-arms-purchases.html).
14. November 16, 2007 - Banks in UAE put curbs on Iranian trade finance – It was reported that “UAE-based banks, both local and foreign, have mostly stopped issuing letters of credit (LCs) for trade finance involving Iran-based companies because of the widening US-Iran row, according to sources familiar with the situation.” And the news agency also reported that this measure was “forcing Iranian government and private companies to use cash to pay their business partners.” (http://archive.gulfnews.com/business/Banking_and_Finance/10167921.html).
Cash-crunched and with mounting efforts at International isolation, Iran chose to bail out Sri Lanka in return for long term bilateral business developments and for blind support for its policies, in the International arena, from the GoSL.
15. November 26 – Sri Lankan president: We support Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. Sri Lanka returned the favour immediately by pledging its support to Iran’s nuclear program. It was reported that President Mahinda Rajapakse, in a meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had said that his country “supports Iran’s inalienable right to use nuclear energy”. Referring to President Rajapakse’s visit as a “new chapter” Mottaki expressed “Iran’s readiness to cooperate in constructing power plants, refineries, irrigation projects and exporting engineering and technical services to Sri Lanka”
In addition to its support to Iran’s nuclear program, it also opened its doors wide for economic cooperation between the two countries and thus completely ridiculing the USA’s warnings.
- Maritime Merchant Shipping Agreement
- Bilateral agreement on mutual administrative assistance for the proper application of customs law and for the prevention, investigation and combating of customs offences
- Constructions of Umaoya multi purpose development project in Sri Lanka
- Expansion of oil refinery capacity in Sri Lanka
- Media Cooperation between Ministry of Mass Media and Information and the Iran Broadcasting
- MOU between Iran and Board of Investment (BOI0 of Sri Lanka and the Mostazafan Foundation of Iran to facilitate financial and technical cooperation
- MOU between Iran Chamber of Commerce and Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry of Sri Lanka
- MOU between Iran Chamber of Commerce and the National Chamber of Commerce of Sri Lanka
16. 29 November 2007- Iran and Sri Lanka sign eight MOUs – “Iran donated a massive sum of 1.5 billion dollars in financial assistance, with the two countries signing an MoU to develop programmes of oil refineries and irrigation projects in Sri Lanka,” (http://business.maktoob.com/News-20070423132737-Sri_Lanka_secures_1_5_bln_dlrs_in_aid_from_Iran.aspx)
The agreements signed include:
Opportunists to the core, the Rajapakse regime has clearly taken stock of the challenges faced by Iran: foreign exchange challenges (due to the US sanctions); political alienation (vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear project); an impending war. They have then cleverly manipulated the Iranians to score what they think are some immediate gains.
- 17. December 02, 07, London - European Union leaders met with Iran to arrive at a compromise. It has been reported that no positive results were arrived in that meeting. This can only lead to tougher sanctions against Iran to force it to comply with the IAEA requests.
Therefore, it is only going to get worse for Iran. And, for the myopic regime in Sri Lanka: the chickens will certainly come home to roost sooner than they would have expected.
Part 2 of Sri Lanka’s Diplomatic Prostitution: The Unholy Alliance between Sri Lanka and Pakistan
