Rajpal's Column

Big powers that might not sleep 

Mr. Balachandran writes that the big powers with reference to the Sri Lankan conflict — India, the US and Britain — want the two involved parties to come to resolve the conflict. Sri Lanka perceives India, the US and Britain (at least in terms of this last country's capability of banning the Tigers if it wanted to) big players as far as the war is concerned.

Hats off to Mr. Balachandran for pointing that out. But the other and different issue is that the interests of the US and India, for instance, are not in reality co-terminus, even though the US government top echelon will never say so. 

As far as the US is concerned, the Lankan issue must be solved the way India wishes. With the US being very fond of Indian markets, Indian and US interests become inevitably co-terminus, even against the Indian wish on most matters. But, the Indians want to solve the conflict, particularly because India has no interest in prolonging a war that is nagging at its border more or less. If North Sri Lanka falls to the Tigers, what next? Kashmir? Mizoram? 

Even the US probably doesn't dislike the possibilities, for reasons that might be stated below. Also, India doesn't have a substantial arms trade. Now, Britain is one country that does. Countries with arms trades usually have a funny approach to armed conflicts. Wouldn't that embarrass the Indians, but yet why are the Indians always being bunched together with these powers, without respite? (Multiple choice answers: A). It doesn't help being big — and having a purchasing power tariff that's only fifth in the world. B & C ) Same as above A.) 

In the Chaiapas, the leader of a well known Mexican combatant group observed that it is easier to impose economic systems while there are ongoing wars. But he did not say that imposing economic systems is equal to the importance of maintaining established international trade lines. The trade for arms, for instance. Makes us wonder why those who are most vocal about solving conflicts, such as the Sri Lankan conflict, are the players that do the least to help in doing so? 

Take for instance the UK's Mr. Hain's statement here last week that it is a statement of fact that the LTTE has committed brutal terrorist acts. It is probably a statement of fact as self evident as saying the British are masters of hypocrisy and political double-speak. 

Mr. Balachandran's article, somewhere in the nether columns, makes it implicit that the British banning of the LTTE may somehow be tied with the Sri Lankan government's willingness to talk and arrive at a solution to the conflict. If one group is brutal, the rap should still be on the other. That's in Hain's world.

The Special Report 1

Editorial/ Opinion Contents