Thoughts from London

In that 20-point list of demands the JVP presented to President Mahinda Rajapaksa as a precursor to it supporting the government, were a couple of matters that impinged strongly on our links with the rest of the world and with which countries Sri Lanka should have diplomatic relations.

In the late 1960s and 70s when the JVP was first espousing its ideology one detected a certain insularity particularly in its economic policies. It was inward-looking and appeared to shun much of the world unless they were countries wedded to its particular brand of socialism.

Though the old leadership of the JVP is long gone, disposed of one way or another, it seems that some of that insular thinking that characterised the early JVP has rubbed off on its current leaders.

Of course the later JVP, the one that unleashed anarchy in the streets in the late 1980s, acquired a nationalist character born out of its opposition to the presence of Indian troops in the north of the country.

Whether this was a convenient posture to cash in on the general dislike, if not anger, of people to the presence of foreign troops on their soil, is something that Somawansa Amarasinghe would be able to say if he is ready to reveal the truth about that dark period in our recent history.

What is intriguing about the JVP’s views on foreign relations as set out in its twenty commandments, is that the party, whatever its present ideology, has failed dismally to grasp the realities of today’s world and interstate relations.

One could understand, though not necessarily appreciate, its blend of Sinhala nationalism( some would say chauvinism) and an inward-looking philosophy that seems to diminish the need for wider contact with the world.

What is difficult to comprehend is the naivete that drives this ideological stance. The world has changed dramatically from the days when the JVP was advocating the uprooting of all the tea bushes and replacing it with manioc.

At least this is how JVP economic policies were characterised by the popular press and the critics in the old days when Rohana Wijeweera was at the helm of JVP affairs.

Whether we like it or not globalisation is upon us and whether the developing world will be able in the coming years to win some of its demands for fairer trade only the future will tell.

Right now the rich nations are calling the tune, resisting any concessions that would require changes to their own policies such as cutting down on subsidies to their own farmers and removing some of the barriers that inhibit free imports from the developing countries.

This is purely on the economic side of the equation. There is the other side of the coin, the political and military power exercised by many of the major nations of the world.

It is a fact of life that despite the developing countries being in the majority, effective power, be it political/diplomatic or economic, rests with the rich and big nations.

One does not have to hold a doctorate from Harvard- in any case Somawansa Amarasinghe is said to be somewhat condescending about higher education having learnt from a vicarious university experience I suppose- that this is today’s reality and no JVP magic wand is going to wish that away.

Now, one of the JVP’s demands is that Sri Lanka “maintain diplomatic relations only with Asian and other friendly countries who do not engage in activities that undermine our sovereignty.”

If a country’s diplomatic relations is to be constructed on such vague posturings, then interstate and multilateral relations are bound to be screwed up for we live in an increasingly interdependent world.

There is no need to engage in a semantic argument here, but the JVP’s demand does cause some confusion. Is it saying we should have diplomatic relations with Asian countries (all of them?) or only with Asian and other friendly countries that do not engage in activities that affect our sovereignty? Or is it all Asian countries and others only if they do no harm to sovereignty?

Should that be the sole criterion that determines our interstate relations?

Earlier on in its list of demands the JVP calls on all to “unite to fight separatist terrorism”.

That is indeed an interesting turn of phrase. Is the JVP opposed only to separatist terrorism and not to terrorism per se? Does it mean that terrorism as a political or other weapon is acceptable to the JVP and it should only be condemned if it is secessionist in intent?

If that is the obvious implication of its demand, then how many countries would be friendly enough to accept the position of a sovereign Sri Lanka government that not just condones terrorism but accepts it as a legitimate weapon.

It is this kind of wishy-washy thinking that leads one to conclude that either the JVP is not living in the real world or is engaged in jingoistic posturing that is likely to do further damage to Sri Lanka’s cause.

If Mahinda Rajapaksa is to accept these conditions as a precondition to the JVP’s support to bolster his parliamentary numbers, he would surely be cutting right across the grain of mounting international opinion.

The JVP is looking for friendly countries to join hands with. If its call to fight separatist terrorism and not terrorism in general is an intrinsic part of its credo then it will certainly be hard put to find those friendly countries.

Moreover the JVP calls for the abrogation of the Ceasefire Agreement (CFA) and withdrawing the facilitator role assigned to Norway.

Norway might not be everybody’s friend and it has certainly done much, along with its NGO cohorts in Colombo, to harm Sri Lanka’s cause.

But abrogating the CFA, however lopsided it might be and kicking out Norway are certainly not going to win friends abroad.

The truth is that we are a small country and however proud we are of our heritage and past achievements we cannot survive without international support, at least in an economic sense. We need international assistance and bilateral assistance if as the JVP urges, the country should undertake the war against the LTTE to establish the government right throughout the land.

But much of that assistance that is vital for the country’s economic sustenance would be in danger if the JVP’s demands on war, peace and international relations are met.

The JVP’s yardstick to assess a “friendly” country is whether it undermines our sovereignty or not.

What if some of the rich and powerful do not undermine our sovereignty but reject war as a solution to our current imbroglio, wish the CFA to continue and urge negotiations to start as preconditions to continued international support. Remember, even the EU’s limited ban on the LTTE needs to be re-examined after two years.

The JVP and others would consider this an unacceptable interference. But by the JVP’s own yardstick would it consider these friendly countries or not and would it have diplomatic relations with them?

This is not to say that we should necessarily bow to the dictates of rich and powerful nations. But that is not the issue here. What would be the JVP position vis-a vis diplomatic relations.

Should Sri Lanka break off relations with those we already have ties? The JVP could shoot off from the mouth. But Sri Lanka would be shooting itself in the head.