Saturday Jul 06, 2024
Saturday Jul 06, 2024
Friday, 13 March 2015 02:13 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
China’s President Xi Jinping (2nd L) and President Mahinda Rajapaksa (R) unveil a plaque during the launch ceremony of a $ 1.5 billion project to build a port city on reclaimed land in the capital Colombo 17 September – Reuters/Dinuka Liyanawatte/Files
The political system of China is a far cry from the way how Sri Lanka is governed. We have a unique Constitution; a hybrid type of constitution with transplants from US British and French constitutions, whereas the Chinese system of governance is based on socialist principles but run by a single party – the Communist Party of China.
There is absolutely no transparency under the Chinese system of governance and dissent is never tolerated and there are no public consultations. There is only one political party and all decisions of the Government must be obeyed by the citizens and any resistance to decisions of the Chinese Government would be treated ruthlessly. In China there is no democracy, only the State policy. Obviously this cannot be imposed on Sri Lanka.
Never expect good governance from China?
The Government of Sri Lanka under President Maithripala Sirisena took the reins from the Rajapaksa regime that had all the hallmarks of an authoritarian and a dictatorial regime with no qualms for the rule of law and dissent.
President Sirisena and his team had an uphill tas
k of wresting power from the Rajapaksa regime. It was considered the most difficult electoral battle ever waged in Sri Lanka.
There were parallels in the style of governance in China and under Rajapaksa and were somewhat complimentary to each other’s. In China there is little or no respect for human rights, freedom of thought and expression and publication. Hence people are supposed to believe the Government version only.
Sri Lanka too had a similar system of governance and journalists have had a terrible time reporting news and had to impose a self-censorship over any news report that might anger the ruling regime then. In China there is no freedom for journalists and their activities are always monitored. The secret Police of China is very active in suppressing dissent.
The Port City Project was implemented through an unsolicited proposal from a Chinese State company and there had not been public consultation neither had there been any open discussion within the Cabinet.
There were no visible signs of good governance under the Rajapaksa administration, even the unlawful procedures too had been sanctioned by the Cabinet of Ministers owing to the fear that any action that goes against the will of the Rajapaksa regime would be interpreted as being ‘a threat,’ hence the then Ministers often had nasty surprises.
The very reason the Sirisena administration was catapulted to power was to reverse the decisions of the Rajapaksa administration. The Government of China should take into account the huge challenges the Sirisena Government is now supposed to confront which involves reviewing projects approved without any regard for the interests of Sri Lanka.
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has an uphill task of maintaining balance, integrity, diplomacy, transparency in Government decisions and the task of maintaining good relations with China for future FDIs.
The Prime Minister has an ambitious plan for creating one million employment opportunities but it is certainly not at the cost of hurting the country through projects which are going to damage the environment of Sri Lanka. His political acumen would be sufficient to deal with the matter and being an experienced politician, the people can rely on his discretion on the matter.
It would have been better had the Government appointed a Special Presidential Commission so that the decision to go ahead with the project or not would be left for the Presidential Commission and it would be seen to be a credible report in the eyes of foreign investors.
Since there will be an election in a few months’ time, the political ramifications of such a decision would be costly for the Prime Minister. The political opponents are poised to attack the Prime Minister for narrow political gains.
The task ahead of the Prime Minister is a very formidable one because he has to maintain a delicate balance which outweigh the (1) risk of SLFP publicly declaring that they would not halt the project if they are elected (2) potential economic damage any decision to halt the project would entail (3) cost of the diplomatic relations with China (4) the cost of claims by Chinese companies for the work undertaken thus far and the legal issues arising from the termination of contract (5) providing alternative employment opportunities for the people who rely on the project such as employees directly affected, employees of contractors who provide sand, gravel and heavy rocks and other indirect employees (6) attracting further foreign direct investments (FDI) from China and the precedent this might create (7) if the project is halted how would the government recreate its former Galle Face sight and the cost of undoing it.
China has not provided assistance for industrial development
The China has declared that it is willing to dole out $ 400 billion for the Silk Route Project infrastructure development for countries such as Maldives, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Seychelles, etc.., but anyone would accept that Sri Lanka has had enough of Chinese investments.
The leasing out a piece of reclaimed land adjacent to a berth built by China would cause a serious threat to national security of Sri Lanka and India. Sri Lanka is duty bound to honour the security concerns of India being our closest neighbour with whom we have had millenniums of historical relations.
Even without the express provisions of the Indo-Lanka Agreement, in which security guarantees are articulated, Sri Lanka is duty-bound to protect the interests of India given the current Chinese naval expansions in the Indian Ocean region and India too is beefing up its naval assets. The Government of Sri Lanka must take into account the current shifts in global power projections.
India is concerned about the rapid expansion of Chinese grand plans for the Indian Ocean. We must keep in mind that the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka depends to a large extent the strength of India. It would be prudent to take into account the rapid change of geopolitical aspects of the issue.
China has threated its neighbour Japan and Japan has made rapid strides in developing the Japanese Navy. China has claimed the sea in South China hurting the feelings of the people of Vietnam, Philippines and Japan. China has forcefully stationed an oil drilling platform in Vietnamese territorial waters and there were naval clashes in the sea.
The track record of China in the Pacific is very questionable. The track record of its investments in Africa too is very controversial. China seems to have had close dealings with authoritarian and dictatorial regimes in Africa in exchange for vital strategic commodities and taking control over mining companies.
If China is really interested in helping Sri Lanka, it must provide support for developing the industries in Sri Lanka and provide technical knowhow.
Can anyone predict world order in 5
years’ time – let alone
99 years?
Assume for instance if India disintegrates it would pose a serious threat to Sri Lanka and if there will be an islet with a 99-year lease for China, China might assert claim for the territory taking into account the weakening Union of India.
It would therefore be imperative to keep in mind that the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka (with a 99-year ownership of a piece of land given to China) would depend on the strength of the Union of India. Can anyone predict the world order in five years’ time let alone 99 years? Would it then be prudent to think of going ahead of this project?
Pertinent questions
If this project is halted, it would not be interpreted as being an ‘expropriation’ as the meaning of expropriation denotes conscious will of the host government to deprive or frustrate the project under a different set of parameters and factors. Here the issue is the project has been conceived and implemented without due regard for the laws of Sri Lanka and potential environmental and political consequences.
The Prime Minister has not questioned the merits of other good Chinese projects given this set of political decisions a tenable case of ‘expropriation’ by the Chinese companies cannot be maintained. Therefore the decision to halt the project would not affect the future FDIs from China or elsewhere.
Nevertheless, there has to be a credible and transparent inquiry on the matter for this issue to gain credibility in the eyes of the China in particular and to attract future FDIs.
When the 1978 Constitution was enacted, there wasn’t an islet. Would it not therefore entail a Constitutional amendment? (Ref; Supreme Court of India Landmark case In Re Berubari Union).
The Rajapaksa regime had not brought this Port City project islet concept under a legal framework. Was it left without a legal framework deliberately so that normal laws of Sri Lanka would not be applicable to this island in the hope that prostitution, casinos and gambling could be allowed so that tourist can be attracted for this project?
How did Chinese companies obtain political risk insurance and funding from Chinese banks for this project when there are obvious flaws in the project risks?
(The writer is a freelance journalist, a government affairs analyst and a registered member of the American Association of Political Consultants.)
