Chinese Checkmate in Sri Lanka

A few supposed certainties about 2030, courtesy of the US Joint Forces Command Operating Report 2010: energy supply will be lucky to meet demand, and both China and India’s population growth isn’t going to stop. Acutely aware of its impending energy needs - only 40 million cars for 1.3 billion people - along with its competition, China’s strategy to avoid a crunch is easy to spot and hard to stop.

Sri Lanka appears to be checkmated on Beijing’s grand board.

Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa is no ordinary politician. A pure breed, Rajapaksa is part of a political dynasty with aspirations of resurrecting Sri Lanka as a strategic powerhouse. With prime geopolitical positioning and a powerful economic base, Rajapaksa could very well transform his vision into reality.

Enter China.

Already obsessed with securing its energy routes from Africa and the Middle East, Sri Lanka is a major piece of China’s plan to secure the Indian Ocean into the 21st century. The shipping lanes from the Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb to the Strait of Malacca run right by the island.

An estimated 15 million barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Malacca, according to the US Department of Energy, 25% of the world’s consumption. Some is headed to Japan and South Korea but most ends up in Chinese gas tanks. Thus both these figures stand to increase.

“The Chinese are laying down approximately 1,000 kilometers of four-lane highway every year, a figure suggestive of how many more vehicles they expect to possess, with the concomitant rise in their demand for oil,” reports the JOE. “The presence of Chinese “civilians” in the Sudan to guard oil pipelines underlines China’s concern for protecting its oil supplies...”

It's not just oil either. The Indian Ocean is omnipotent in Asian economics, carrying a substantial load of the world’s cargo.

These factors drive China’s quest for regional hegemony and could lead to military expansion. Though China appears certain to construct its own aircraft carriers, they may be a lighter type supported by Chinese friendly military ports such in Iran, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Constructing ports, oil infrastructure, and possibly airfields, this strategy would create a politico-military-economic chain from Iraq to Shanghai.

What China is playing for in Sri Lanka is obvious, but what about America? If China’s goal is expansion then America’s is reduction. Addition by subtraction, America (and India) cannot allow China to dominate Sri Lanka and the Indian Ocean by hegemony.

Though China hasn’t surpassed America as Sri Lanka’s leading partner in trade and foreign assistance, it has more raw potential. So much so that even with all its power America must remain quiet, resorting to Beijing’s “non-interference policy” of overlooking human rights allegations and abuses for the sake of economic gain.

Hard to say that’s a Chinese thing though.

Months have passed since former General Sarath Fonseka was unceremoniously carried away, imprisoned, and threatened with a court martialing. President Obama was one of the first to congratulate Rajapaksa after his election victory (just like Hamid Karzai), while no White House official has dared weigh in on Fonseka’s condition.

Given the first opportunity in weeks to make a statement, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley revealed what has become Obama’s response for fraudulent or suspicious elections: ignore them.

QUESTION: In Sri Lanka, election results have been announced and they have a new prime minister now, Jayaratne. What’s the message to the new Sri Lankan Government and prime minister?

MR. CROWLEY: I think our primary message to Sri Lanka is that there is – there appears to be a significant mandate coming out of this recent election and the government should use that mandate to help continue to – the healing process within Sri Lankan society to bring all elements of – to help Sri Lanka get past the recent conflict and move forward together.

QUESTION: Do you think things are moving in that direction in the –

MR. CROWLEY: We will continue to encourage Sri Lanka to use the power of this election ad the momentum coming out of this election, use it to best advantage.”

Fonseka was actually released from his detention to be sworn into the parliamentary seat he won while detained, which would sound nicer if his court martial date wasn't postponed again. He’s unlikely to receive a fair trial and indefinite imprisonment isn’t outside the range of possibility. Meanwhile his wife Anoma has allegedly joined the JVP, a Marxist political party with a violent history.

Transport Minister Dullas Alahapperuma recently warned, “We request Mrs. Anoma Fonseka to watch her step as she has joined a political group with a violent past. They have blood on their hands. We all know how they use violence for political gain. Therefore, Mrs. Fonseka should be very careful.”

Now some might wonder why Obama would use his own platform to cast the spotlight on Sri Lanka or Fonseka’s treatment, and they would have a point. He can’t spend all his time engaged in the workings of various foreign states, and neither Rajapaksa nor the Sinhalese people respond positively to what they see as hypocritical Western intervention.

But if America wanted to be a true friend to Sri Lanka it would explain how the conventional war has been won - and not the counterinsurgency.

Left disenfranchised and jobless, another insurgency out of the Tamils is inevitable if they aren’t engaged in a political resolution. Yet America is encouraging what could already be a tyranny of the majority. Consider whether this “mandate” both Sri Lankan and US officials glowingly speak is truly good for the overall unity of the country.

“The president has the mandate... he has said that he'll speak to all the parties. I am sure now that he has a majority [in the house]. He has plans to [implement] constitutional changes," said Mahinda’s brother Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s Defense Minister and one of five Rajapaksas in the government.

He dismissed speculation that his brother would seek more powers through constitutional reforms, saying, "He has all the powers; he doesn't need more powers."

Paikiasothy Savaranamuttu, a prominent analyst in Colombo, seized on this reality, saying he couldn’t understand why Rajapaksa perceives Fonseka as a threat.

"He is at the pinnacle of his power. Parliament does provide a forum for Fonseka but he might find it a rather difficult environment. He is only the leader of a minority party and even other members of the opposition are not going to necessarily be tremendously supportive."

The Tamils aren’t likely to receive any better treatment if that is how Rajapaksa, a de-facto king, is going to treat the lowly Fonseka.

Unable to defeat China materialistically, it’s hard to wonder if speaking on the Tamils and Fonseka’s behalf would actually pay off for the US in the long-term. Washington has no hope of competing with Beijing in a silent contest. Convincing Rajapaksa of doing the right thing - engaging the Tamils before it’s too late and giving Fonseka a fair trial - would bring real stability to Sri Lanka and allow for unimpeded economic growth.

And possibly undo China’s checkmate.

US Democracy Backtracking Around The World

US foreign policy is heading towards a critical mass. With the Obama administration losing control of Israel and watching error after error crop up in Afghanistan, a secondary group of suspects is threatening to overload the White House’s final years.

Their common denominator: backtracking democracies under America’s watch.

Sri Lanka

To President Mahinda Rajapaksa and his millions of supporters Sri Lanka is a shining beacon of democracy and economics, ready to forge a prosperous nation for all of its citizens. Seeing that Tamils were never treated like first class citizens, it’s difficult enough to believe a better future awaits them.

The latest poll results could be nails in the coffin.

Sri Lanka is winding up its parliamentary elections which saw 117 of 180 seats go to Rajapaksa’s United People's Freedom Alliance (UPFA) party, or 65%. 225 total seats are set to be filled, reducing UPFA’s total to 52%, but the majority of the rest, “will be picked from a national list on the basis of votes the parties receive countrywide.”

UPFA has more votes coming then. One official said the party expects it to pick up the seats necessary to cross the 66% threshold, opening the door for constitutional reform.

“I appealed to you to elect a strong parliament capable of crushing any challenge against the motherland,” Rajapaksa told his supporters. “You have presented the UPFA with its greatest ever victory in the three-decade history of the proportional representative system. I consider this as an endorsement of the ‘Mahinda Chintana’ policy.”

Tamils are presumably terrified of his policy.

Reports indicate that Thursday’ turnout was the lowest in Sri Lanka's post-independence history; just over half of Sri Lanka's 14 million registered voters cast ballots. Tamils were a significant reason why, with the vote in Jaffna, the north’s nerve center, estimated at 20%. A senior government politician attributed the low voter turn-out to the UNPers accepting defeat.

Rather than correct itself at this “defining moment,” that moment is long past. Tamil disenfranchisement already struck once in the presidential election and the parliamentary election just widened Sri Lanka’s political schism.

Unfortunately US inaction has forced Europe to apply economic pressure on Sri Lanka to hold an independent investigation into humans rights violations. The imprisoned, hungry-striking former general Sarath Fonseka raised no alarm in Washington.

Beijing is too deep in Colombo.

“The 2.5 million strong Tamil population cannot be wished away,” writes Sandeep Gopalan in The Huffington Post. “Unless the Sinhalese find a way to bring them back into the mainstream quickly, chances are that another cycle of separatist violence is only a few years away.”

We feel the same way as him except for his conclusion: “Sri Lanka must not miss this historic opportunity to establish a lasting peace after winning a just war against the LTTE.”

That is exactly what we fear has happened - the opportunity is gone. Our intention isn’t to denigrate Sri Lanka’s democracy and those who participate in it, but warn that their country is drifting back towards conflict, an insurgency different than the last but just as real.

Kyrgyzstan

A problematic aspect of US foreign policy is that Washington’s reaction to democracy isn’t universal. Two subgroups create a primary filter, whether elections and revolutions work for and against US interests. Silence, denial, or support is then chosen to implement those interests.

Silence wins out in Sri Lanka silence just as denial sounds from Kyrgyzstan. While the “conservative media” scolds Moscow’s hand, the “liberal media” is repackaging the same message with a democratic bow. Except questions abound whether this “democracy” the US media speaks of ever existed.

The latest propaganda from The New York Times on the Red revolution: “Kyrgyzstan needs to break the cycle. And the United States needs to help encourage the change.”

Because it did such a good job the first time. The NYT admits the White House, “was far too willing to overlook President Bakiyev’s brutal and corrupt ways - a fact the new leadership has bitterly criticized.”

So naturally, “The United States should be prepared to counter new efforts by Russia and China to persuade the new Kyrgyz leaders to evict the Americans. The Obama administration can prove its value as an ally by committing from the start to support democratic values and clean government. Kyrgyzstan’s new leaders say they are committed to both.”

The NYT concludes, “It’s certainly a pitch neither Moscow nor Beijing will make. It may help the Americans keep the base. It may even help Kyrgyzstan get a cleaner and more democratic government.”

The significance of this editorial isn’t its contradictions so much as the same contradiction are found in US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley’s press briefing.

“Let’s start with this point. The situation is ongoing. We will be governed by the facts. We will operate in accordance with U.S. law. I think one of the important factors by law is the question of a military coup. There’s no indication that the military or security services played any role or any meaningful role in what has happened in Kyrgyzstan. Our interest is in seeing a peaceful resolution and we will work with the government ministries and Kyrgyz officials to see the restoration of democratic rule as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: Was that democratic rule really there before?

MR. CROWLEY: We want to help Kyrgyzstan continue on a path towards effective democracy."

Unsatisfied with his responses, Crowley is asked again:

"QUESTION: But wait, just on that – but, I mean, do you believe that Kyrgyzstan was on a path to democracy before this whole incident? I mean, if you had a restoration of the status quo, would that be a return to democracy?

MR. CROWLEY: We have expressed our concerns about Kyrgyzstan and corruption within its government. We want to see Kyrgyzstan continue to develop on a path to democracy.

QUESTION: But was it on that path, I guess, is my – was it on the path before, like, last week?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, there – I mean, there was an election in Kyrgyzstan not so long ago. We stated our concerns at the time about the manner in which that election was conducted. At the same time, we recognize that there was a government in Kyrgyzstan and we have been dealing with that government. We are closely monitoring the situation. We are talking to all of the figures involved in this situation and we will continue to encourage them to resolve this in a peaceful way.”

This is really simple: the US government and media, embodied by The New York Times, are encouraging a democracy that America didn’t encourage. Yet they still believe Obama can out maneuver Russia and China.

Both Crowley and the NYT sweated to deny that democracy hasn’t gone well, ultimately cracking in the end, but they would probably deny that too. What they can’t deny is that Kyrgyzstan’s opposition just threw out America’s “democracy.” Why would they believe America could offer democracy now?


Their primary concern is Manas, then Kyrgyzstan’s people.

Kyrgyzstan has shades of Pakistan. We vividly remember the Bush administration pleading for “democracy” as Pervez Musharraf was finally toppled, just to keep its military operations up and running.

Sudan

Part of the explanation for Sri Lanka’s silence and Kyrgyzstan’s denial is that their geopolitical weight is relatively light compared to other hotspots. Kyrgyzstan would matter without Manas given Russia’s hand, but the air-base puts Bishkek on America's front pages.

Sudan inhabits the opposite end of the spectrum. A heavyweight capable of affecting swaths of Africa and linked to Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, Sudan demands action. Full speed ahead with what should be a disastrous national election.

“The National Elections Commission has confirmed that polling will begin, beginning on Sunday, April 11,” Crowley said at his Friday press briefing. “The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement, or SPLM, and the Umma National Party have announced that they have withdrawn some candidates from competition, but that others may continue. We view these elections as an important step in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended a 22-year war between North and South.”

We’re beginning to wonder if Crowley is in control of US foreign policy.

Other than America only President Omar al-Bashir and his supporters view Sunday’s election as an important step. With Sudan’s entire political opposition set to boycott the vote in the north, the only surer bet than chaos is Save Darfur’s venom headed the White House’s way.

Back in October Obama had warned, “Sudan is now poised to fall further into chaos if swift action is not taken. if swift action is not taken.” Six months later America is Bashir’s only international support, pushing an election the rest of the world is sounding the alarm on.

What a change.

“There are no choices in this election; the two parties are all going in one direction, toward power,” says Ahmed Sabiel, a political and risk analyst in Khartoum. “There is no clear strategy of how to keep the country together, or how to rule the country. There is no clear policy, and there is no clear objective. All the parties are just focusing on power.”

We’re expecting a mockery in Sudan. Former president Jimmy Carter arrived on Thursday, his first act being to “express regret” at the opposition’s decision to boycott. He failed to mention their conclusion that the election is rigged.

"We are glad that everything at this point is peaceful and many parties are participating, so we look forward to successful elections," Carter said. “We are hoping that it will be a fair and honest election, at least for the ones who are participating... There are about 16,000 candidates still involved in the election."

The Carter Center said last month that a short delay to the elections may be necessary because of logistical problems, “Bashir threatened last month to expel election observers after the Carter Centre called for the delay.”

And he still gets a thumbs up from Carter.

At the end of his briefing Crowley drops what is becoming an infamously hollow promise: “The United States will continue to raise concerns where we see them and... we will not hesitate to state when we think that these efforts fall short of international standards.”

This promise has failed in Afghanistan and Israel, and it’s already collapsed in Sudan.

"We expected a more constructive role from the international community, and Washington's backing of Al-Bashir came as something of an unpleasant surprise as far as we are concerned," conceded Farouk Abu Eissa, who oversees Sudan’s umbrella opposition. “The government is trying in vain to ‘save face.’”

But Eissa, SPLM presidential candidate Yasser Arman, and Umma Party leader Sadig Al-Mahdi, should have expected that America often puts expediency before democracy. And the result is usually instability.

Pakistan Isn't Sri Lanka (and Shouldn't Want to Be)

They came in droves, to prove the power of numbers applies equally to military force and democracy.

An estimated 700 tribal leaders and 3,000 elders had gathered in Peshawar for the National Peace jirga, organized by Amn Tehrik (Peace Movement), to call for stiffer action against the TTP, al-Qaeda, and their affiliates.

"We will not rest until we banish the terrorists from the whole tribal region," said Syed Alam Mehsud, a leading member of Amn Tehrik, which is composed of ethnic Pashtun intellectuals and professionals from the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

Amn Tehrik’s efforts are both admirable and wise. Reports mention that the group has no faith in America and Pakistan’s governments and is assuming a proactive strategy. Organizing such an event is dangerous in the present and future, but only through local support can Pakistan permanently dismantle the TTP and exile al-Qaeda.

“If we strengthen these councils and make them more functional, I believe it will win us half of the war,” said Salar Amjad Ali. “We, the Pashtuns, live for our culture and tradition and we die for it.”

The exact demands of Amn Tehrik go unsaid. One organizer, Sayd Alam Mehsud, said the jirga was meant to bring together people from the area, presumably to organize them further, but what then? Are they calling for Islamabad to arm them or simply fight harder?

“It should be a genuine military operation like the Sri Lankans did against the Tamil Tigers,” said Sayd Alam Mehsud, a powerful tribal leader.

Amn Tehrik must think carefully because Pakistan isn’t Sri Lanka - and it shouldn’t want Sri Lanka’s outcome anyway.

A number of differences stand out. One is Sri Lanka’s ethnic makeup, heavily skewed at 75% Sinhalese and only 10-15% Tamil. Sri Lanka’s ethnic breakdown provided the government with an unlimited mandate, of which one aspect was to wage war against the Tigers.

Pakistan is ethnically scattered, a reality that has contributed to instability in the FATA, Balochistan, and the Indian border. Though Pashtuns generally support a campaign against militants of their own ethnicity, overall the government hovers in mediocrity, weighted down by domestic crises, making large scale war more difficult to wage.

Then there’s a more obvious divergence - water. Being an island, Sri Lanka exploited its natural counterinsurgency advantage to consume all of its territory until the Tigers surrendered or were pushed into the sea. Pakistan suffers from a porous mountain border with Afghanistan, and its borders with Iran and India aren’t secure either.

Any Sri Lanka-like offensive will only push the TTP into Afghanistan.

Both of these differences feed back into the crux of Amn Tehrik’s dilemma. What is meant by a “genuine military operation?” Does Mehsud mean a sincere operation, as in Pakistan is faking its South Waziristan operation for US consumption? Does he mean more operations, such as in North Waziristan? Or does he merely mean “conventional?”

Sri Lanka’s advantages allowed it to wage a more conventional counterinsurgency than Pakistan is able to. Colombo’s majority support allowed it to avoid winning over the minority populace and thus deploy large scale formations and artillery to pound Tiger locations - and any civilians hiding or being held in the area.

Without having to worry about popular opinion Sri Lanka’s army was able to steam roll all the way to Jaffna. Conventional warfare allowed it to physically crush the Tigers. But Sri Lanka’s type of victory wouldn’t bring victory to Pakistan, and not just because the two conflicts deviate. Both are still counterinsurgencies and share fundamental properties.

Pakistan has been here before and sits in its present hole because overwhelming firepower was too often relied upon in the 2000’s. Conventional war didn’t bring stability to the FATA, it rallied the insurgency. Only when Pakistan began to fight smarter, with greater concern for civilians, more special-ops, and emphasizing social development, did momentum start shifting back in Islamabad’s favor.

Victory isn’t sealed in Sri Lanka. Though militarily and financially scattered, the Tiger’s spirit remains at large and splinter groups have already begun reconstituting for a potentially long fight ahead. As Tamil grievances have largely been ignored, a resurrected insurgency appears to be a matter of time.

Sri Lanka blew everything to pieces, a strategy many Americans favor in Pakistan judging by comments on news sites and blogs, but the reality is that Amn Tehrik has no use for Sri Lanka’s kind of military operation. It was exactly that - a military operation.

Conventional warfare, not counterinsurgency.

All Sri Lanka accomplished with its war is one dead militant group, the rising spirits of new ones, a train of human rights abuses with UN investigation in toe, a disenfranchised Tamil minority and their jailed opposition figure, even if he is the general who defeated the Tigers.

If Colombo formulates a political and social strategy to engage and reintegrate Tamils then victory in the true sense is indeed possible. But the present situation is unstable and if it persists another insurgency will spawn, a new battle in an old war.

We don’t want to assume too much of Amn Tehrik’s intentions, but we would advise them to support Pakistan’s present operations. More force quicker isn’t the answer. More could and should be done in time, but there’s no point in clearing all territory held by the TTP and other militants if it can’t hold or build it.

The operations we’re seeing are only Phase 1 in the grand strategy.

Pakistan should stay its course and gradually reoccupy lost ground in proportion to the level of control the government can reestablish. It must also enter Phase 2, the rebuilding phase, as soon as possible since most tribes have given Islamabad one final chance. National political reform, in regards to both the FATA and Balochistan, would serve as the final phase.

Letting the bombs fly like Sri Lanka might sound tempting, but it would destroy Pakistan’s counterinsurgency.

Is Relativity Real?

The embers still burn. Nearly nine months after Iran’s presidential election and protesters are again preparing to storm Tehran’s streets. Today marks the 31st anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution, expected to be a flash-point between pro and anti-government forces.

Cyber warfare is in effect.

President Obama, leery of being perceived as interfering with Iran’s electoral process, has been criticized for taking a hands off approach. Falsely we believe, as an aggressive approach towards Iran is futile. For now he’s consumed by pressuring China for sanctions, but he’s surely monitoring the situation through US intelligence and will likely make a statement soon.

Obama and his circle are busy preparing for a number of hands on approaches - if the time is right.

Unfortunately the time will never be right in Sri Lanka, or Afghanistan for that matter. These electoral specimens may appear dissimilar, but they share at least one commonality - US interest determining the value of their “democracy.” Paradoxically, the only real difference is America's response.

Gazing through Iran’s prism illuminates the numerous ways Washington manipulates foreign governments by staying silent.

Obama’s reaction to Iran represents the right choice strategically and morally. His many critics will fault him on a four day delay in his public reaction after the June election, but there was no use in rushing a response within a day or two. Though he might have been tentative he still spoke.

After violence spread he was able to freely express his opposition to Iran’s conduct - voting irregularities, media suppression, and oppressive force.

"What I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process,” Obama told the Green Revolution, “I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching."

Luckily for Obama the world isn’t watching Sri Lanka, relatively speaking, because those that rise up here will also be put down. Six days of silence have passed since his congratulatory message to President Rajapaksa on February 5th. The election was held more than two weeks ago, hailed a success because of low violence.

"I urge you to seize this opportunity to provide the leadership that will allow all Sri Lankans to come together and meet their aspirations to live in a country that is rooted in tolerance, respect for human rights, accountability, the rule of law, and freedom of the press- all elements essential for national reconciliation," Obama says in the letter.

But three days have passed since Sarath Fonseka, former Sri Lankan general and currant opposition candidate, was arrested without evidence and could be court martialed. One of the charges, conspiracy to commit a coup, has so far played out false. A second was Fonseka's alleged agreement to international investigations.

Obama would be on TV the next day had the same occurred to Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Instead the most America has mustered is State Department spokesman Philip Crowley’s unintentionally comical, "It's an unusual action to take right on the heels of an election.” He means to say America is a leading trade partner with Sri Lanka and must watch out for China.

Obama has applied the same wait and see strategy as with Iran, but with limited damage domestically or internationally. Republicans could care less as long as economic ties remain strong and most Sri Lankans, nearly 70%, are content with their government. Sri Lankan oppositional protesters carry the front story of CNN’s Asian section - while being blasted by water cannons,

Iranian protesters grace the home page.

But given the overall situation before and after the election, Sri Lanka's activity is equal to Iran and the moment for a timely response has already passed. Consistent low level violence in the run-up gave way to Sri Lankan opposition parties organizing a counter attack. Protests against Fonseka’s arrest have already begun and appear certain to see bloodshed.

Al Jazeera's Minelle Fernandez reported from Colombo, “When they [the opposition] were assembling, basically, there was a counter-demonstration that was put together by pro-government supporters. There was a lot of tension between both groups and clashes broke out."

It would be perfectly in bounds for President Obama to issue a public statement on Sri Lanka’s general state of affairs. He’s beyond late, afraid to come down on Rajapaksa, which could admittedly sway him to China’s side. But these are the types of actions necessary to restore America’s global image.

Sri Lanka’s dilemma extends beyond the election itself, for the most part “fair” and with unexpectedly low violence. The problem is complex in that the losers must be accommodated for the war to truly end.

"The recent end of the war creates a historic opportunity for Sri Lanka to heal the divisions of conflict, and build a society that offers equality and opportunity for all," Obama wrote in his letter, standard fare from US officials.

Except the war isn’t over. Divisions and tensions remain: Tamil society is still in rubble, 80,000 remain in camps, many of the returned without jobs and unregistered to vote, and an election that further segregated rather than healed the country. Tamil vote was down, but still voted for Fonseka 2 to 1.

A marginalized minority just became more marginalized.

Sri Lanka’s north isn’t post-war - it was and still is counterinsurgency. Until Tamils are successfully integrated into the island, either through autonomous status or national inclusion, the war is still happening.

A militancy of any form is liable to regenerate if the root of the conflict remains. Thus if America wants the Tigers to stay dead it should actually increase the pressure on Rajapaska to reform without delay. So far war crime allegations, human rights violations, and an ethnic breakdown that enables tyranny of the majority have failed to produce Washington's response to Iran.

At least EU nations have threatened to suspend Sri Lanka's preferential trade status because its human rights record.

But to watch Fonseka dragged off by his hands and feet and hear no clamor lays bear the polarity between Obama’s reaction to Iran and Sri Lanka. Too bad that the violence is going to rise and Fonseka may be endangered. Obama will be forced to respond eventually.

Then again he never gave a definitive and widely disseminated response to Afghanistan’s election and never suffered much damage with Americans focused on the economy. Eager to congratulate Hamid Karzai on the first morning, there would be no series of condemnation because no oppositional violence materialized.

Afghans for the most part pragmatically accepted a fraud riddled vote with low turnout. Abdullah withdrew in protest, but he wasn’t dragged away “like an animal,” in the words of Fonseka’s wife Anoma.

Obama has managed to escape criticism over his handling of Afghanistan and Sri Lanka’s respective elections, dwarfed as they are by Iran, yet he isn’t out of the woods. Like Iran, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka’s electoral outcomes have a good chance of creating instability over time. Eventually Karzai will come back to bite Obama, and failing to speak up now for Sri Lanka’s minority Tamils also comes with side-effects.

Naturally it’s unrealistic to expect America to treat every foreign state the same. Any given democracy has become subject to America’s needs, not necessarily those of the local people. This process is nothing new, states make decisions based on self interests. And yet relatively is not so real either.

Based on current and past examples America’s arbitrary definition of democracy isn’t a recipe for resolving conflict - or, for instance, countering China. Standing up for minorities in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka - to make a long list short - could produce more overall leverage against China than an offensive targeted on Iran, Taiwan, and North Korea.

The reality is that all human rights vacuums must be engaged if America is to revive its lofty image and regain preeminence in the world.

Sri Lanka's Election Commissioner Quits

That can't be a good sign.

Sri Lanka's COIN shortage

Sri Lanka’s election has a foul smell to it. Maybe President Mahinda Rajapaksa really did secure 58.8% of the vote and defeat his former general Sarath Fonseka. He just won a war, right? But the election is already sounding like a coronation.

"By all accounts, His Excellency Mahinda Rajapaksa has won the presidential elections as one only needs over 50 per cent of the votes," said sources from his presidential office.

Mobilization of state resources against him, combined with a quick count, has General Fonsek alleging a conspiracy. Either he would be arrested, he warned beforehand, or violence might break out. A peaceful and robust turn out, over 70% of Sri Lanka’s electorate coincided with Fonseka’s hotel being surrounded by his former soldiers.

A stand-off would make for a riveting spectacle and suggests some underhanded dealing did indeed occur. Rumors of a coup have circulated state media, propaganda for sure, and Rajapaska’s explanation for surrounding Fonseka - a search for army deserters - sounds sketchy. But Fonseka has a problem.

He had been expecting his final swing of momentum from the Tamil minority, who had mostly backed him. The AP reports, “turnout among the minority was dismal.”

This was our real worry going into the election, the Tamils either being harassed from voting or succumbing to apathy. Rajapaksa seems to believe the insurgency is over. It is not, and the surest way to keep it alive is political marginalization.

Naturally we’re keeping a few eyes on Colombo, being especially curious of the international reaction to any foul play.

Maoist Resurrection

The first official call for resistance has rang out from the jungle.

For months the specter of war loomed underneath a sluggish and chilly reconciliation. Commander Kones, Eastern District chief of the newly formed People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has a message for the Sri Lankan government.

“This war isn’t over yet.”

Many, including Octopus Mountain, have warned of such a scenario for months, but our advice doesn’t reach the ear of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Fortunately he must have already noticed the PLA, who Kones claims was formed four months ago after the government failed to address Tamil rights.

“There has been no solution for Tamils since the destruction of the LTTE [Tamil Tigers] in May,” he said. “So we have built and organized the PLA and are ready to act soon. Our aim is a democratic socialist liberation of the northeast for a Tamil Eelam.”

The idea of a Tamil Eelam still seems far fetched; regional autonomy is likely the highest realistic objective. Nevertheless, the PLA poses a legitimate threat to Sri Lanka’s stability and could have wide-ranging implications. Sri Lanka’s government and the international community need to get moving.

Reconstitution of the Tamil struggle through a new movement is a pragmatic solution to the disemboweled Tigers.

If Kones is to be believed, the PLA has 300 active members and expects to recruit 5,000 more from the 280,000 Tamil civilians recently freed from detention camps - the government’s nightmare come true. Commanded by a ten-man committee, Kones said former LTTE cadres can join provided that they swore their allegiance to the PLA.

“There are former LTTE members in the PLA now. The LTTE was an extremist organization that fought only for itself rather than the people’s needs. It is totally destroyed now and I don’t worry about it. We are socialist ideologues and we are trying to draw different Tamil groups together for a people’s struggle, a people’s war.”

Kones is promising a different style of fight, one that may evolve into true guerrilla warfare. The government is going to have a serious problem if the PLA runs a tight ship and focuses on military installations while avoiding civilian casualties and intimidation tactics.

The Tiger’s notorious reputation for conscription weakened the army’s cohesion and contributed to its defeat in battle.

“We are much more politically skilled than the LTTE ever were and know how to avoid the ‘terrorist’ label that they acquired,” Kones said. “Our enemy is simply the Government here, and we fight just for Tamil rights. We are not against the international community.”

To prove his point, the media savvy Kones turned a London Times interview from a jungle safe house into a global coming-out party.

The PLA has an opening if Sri Lanka’s government is slow to act or fails to. Provided that the PLA stays on target, there’s no reason to believe Tamils won’t support it. Not in large numbers, but relatively speaking, all it needs is several thousand committed members. And the PLA’s allegiance, if true, presents a menacing triangle for Asia and the West.

Commander Kones, now in his forties, told of his schooling at a camp in Uttar Pradesh, India, in 1983, where his trainers included fighters from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).

“We still have a relationship with the PLO, as well as Cuba and Indian Maoist groups,” he said. “They fight for their rights just as we do.”

Considering the situation in the Red Corridor, Kones’ boast is probably on every Western intelligence radar. India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh admitted that his country is losing the battle against the Naxalite rebels, estimated at 20,000 by one former RAW analyst and active in 20 of India's 28 states -

Maoists have been known to operate in formations as large as 300 fighters, who ambushed and killed 21 Indian policemen in July and 17 in October.

Territorial gains in West Bengal and Lalgarh prompted the massive Operation Green Hunt, the first serious attempt to destroy the CPI. Although the Communist Party of India’s violence might contradict the interests of the poor, its fight is no less steeped in poverty. Any attempt to smash the Naxalites by force alone will fail, just like with the Tamils.

“We will have an armed movement going in Calcutta by 2011, that's for sure," Maoist leader Kishenji said of a key objective since the movement’s beginning.

A spreading Maoist threat combined with a Tamil movement would be enough trouble, but Mohd Omar Madni, a suspected Maoist militant, recently disclosed links between Lashker-e-Taiba and Maoists in Jharkhand.

"He (Madni) revealed that LeT was acting in coordination with CPI (Maoists) in Jharkhand," the prosecutor told the court at his criminal hearing. "He has acted as conduit for LeT and provided training to recruits in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and sent them to India to carry out terror strikes.”

In case you didn’t hear, American officials are busy solidifying the link between LeT and al-Qaeda.

The idea of al-Qaeda infiltrating the PLA is far-fetched; if Kones doesn’t want to be labeled terrorists then he won’t welcome bin Laden’s crew. But the rest of the picture is heavy - potential coordination between the PLO, LeT, and Maoist elements in India, Cuba, and Nepal.

Colombo should be working the phones right now with local Tamil leaders, searching for solutions. The international community should get busy too. This isn't just Sri Lanka's problem, given the far-reaching strategic implications.

“Indeed, we want them to support us in pressurizing the Sri Lankan Government,” Kones said.

Until then, “We are getting stronger by the day, much stronger than any other group. The day of action is close.”

War Crimes Not Created Equal

Overwhelmed by isolation, Senator Jim Webb left Yangon with the only prize he could hope - John Yettaw. But his hands felt empty. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi Ha had been sentenced days before to three years hard labor and Webb’s appearance, the first by an American official in ten years, failed to undue her punishment.

Shocked by how low Myanmar had slipped since he first visited eight years ago, Webb attempted to formulate a strategy when he returned to Washington. In the process he stumbled upon a greater truth that applies the world at large.

“The United States needs to develop clearly articulated standards for its relations with the nondemocratic world,” Webb wrote in a NYT op-ed. “Our distinct policies toward different countries amount to a form of situational ethics that does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

America could use articulation with democratic and nondemocratic states alike. A current case in point - Sri Lanka.

Steady pressure is mounting on Colombo to speed up the release of Tamil refugees, promote political equality, and address accusations of human rights violations and war crimes. Government inaction and two unflattering reports from America and the EU fueled rumors that General Sarath Fonseka of the Sri Lankan army would be investigated by US officials while on vacation to see his family.

According to Al Jazeera, Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama said US authorities were trying to force Fonseka to testify “as a possible source” against Gotabhaya Rajapakse, the defense secretary and brother of Mahinda Rajapakse, the Sri Lankan president.

Finally the bluff was called, with the help of intense diplomatic pressure. A Foreign Ministry statement reported, “The Chief of Defense Staff General Sarath Fonseka left the United States this morning to return to Colombo. He was not subjected to any questioning prior to his departure by the United States Department of Homeland Security or any other agency of the US Government.”

America made the correct decision to let Fonseka go. The time to investigate Sri Lankan war crimes and interview key participates isn’t while they visit relatives, but the time must come eventually as America’s soft treatment has attracted scrutiny.

Sri Lanka is settling into the common pattern that Webb described: “distinct policies toward different countries.” Sure enough, in every direction we see, “a form of situational ethics that does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

Take Iran and Afghanistan's elections. President Obama withheld the hammer on Tehran because he was afraid to be seen as meddling, but still lobbed all the fire he could without crossing reds line, a policy that earned him scorn from the right.

Yet those same Republicans cast Dr. Abdullah into the garbage and are eager to begin Karzai’s second act. Obama responded by congratulating Karzai on his victory, one that Abdullah declared “illegal," and everyone is either happy or faking it. The difference between Iran and Afghanistan: Obama needs Karzai and not the Ayatollah.

Needs dictate America’s situational ethics more often than justice, creating the foggy diplomacy plaguing today’s world. She’s peeping under the blindfold.

Condemnation on human rights rings loudest where America's interests are fewest - Sudan, the DRC, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea - and where it needs leverage - China, Russia, Venezuela. Silence and condonation in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indian-ruled Kashmir, Kyrgyzstan, and Sri Lanka is the situational ethics that Senator Webb speaks of.

America allows Israel to wage disproportionate warfare against Hezbollah and Hamas despite the suffering of local populations, the opposite strategy proposed for Afghanistan. War crimes bounce off Israel like Superman for a simple reason: America needs Israel to prune Hezbollah and Hamas, to keep them in check, or it has no way to counter them.

Each time Israel hopes to finish the job, but it always comes up short for America.

Sri Lanka is of the same mold. America had no reason to halt the Sri Lankan army as it marched through Tamil territory and broke the Tiger’s back. The world, possibly through the UN, may have stopped Sri Lanka with a real effort, but in reality the West was rooting for the government. The Tigers had their hands all over Asia and war crimes were a necessary price to chop them off.

The opposite played out in Georgia during its war with Russia in 2008. American officials flocked to Tbilisi to portray Russia as a brute and Georgia as the poor victim. Even though both sides sparked the conflict, America supported Georgia with its full power because that was the need. Never mind that America is deliberately invading Russia's backyard.

The Iraq war is another possible example of need trumping justice.

Now, need is a pillar of realism. America’s actions could be perceived as correct through this prism, but it's weighed on an ends-over-means scale. The Iraq war will succeed or fail based on its long-term stability. The end of Afghanistan is beginning to outweigh the means of 9/11, courtesy of Hamid Karzai. Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be defeated regardless of force applied.

Sri Lanka is no different, the war will be judged on the end result. Many Tamil refugees summarize themselves in this thought, desiring “liberation,” as the government called it. Except the price was extremely high, exceeding Gaza, Lebanon, possibly post 9/11 Afghanistan in casualties. No one actually knows because Sri Lanka won’t allow a true outside investigation.

America would be wise to push for one through the UN, the only means available. Sri Lankan officials claim 41,685 people have been relocated to their homes, but that leaves over 250,000 in the squalor of Malik Farms. The government says it's weeding out hundreds of Tigers in disguise, but tales from the camps indicate an oppressive state.

“The government told these people it would look after them,” said Veerasingham Anandasangaree, a Tamil politician and staunch supporter of the war against the Tigers. “But instead they have locked them up like animals with no date certain of when they will be released. This is simply asking for another conflict later on down the road.”

Without political and social progress Sri Lanka will revert to a state of warfare. Maybe not to the same intensity, and the Tigers may take a lesser form, but the current situation is moving in the wrong direction. Speaking of realism, Sri Lanka will resist any attempt to investigate the war or issue punishments, opting for the Gaza route.

Yet the two conflicts swing wildly in America, from the moderately harsh reaction to Sri Lanka to condemning Goldstone in the House. US officials wouldn't dare think for a second of detaining an Israeli general.

This “does not translate well into clear-headed diplomacy.”

Not Until the Fat Lady Sings

The world hasn’t rejoiced like it would for the defeat of al Qaeda, and rightfully so. The military demise of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been followed by the caution of knowing that, though the battle may be over, the war is not. Not until the fat lady sings.

In Sri Lanka, the fat lady hungers for human rights, including political rights and equal political representation, the linchpin to peace. In understanding the LTTE, consider it as a relative of the Taleban in Pakistan and the PKK in Turkey rather than al Qaeda.

The Taleban and PKK are akin to the LTTE because they, in a round about way, are fighting for political representation. Having been invaded multiple times, the Taleban and PKK want states to protect themselves and their followers. Al Qaeda is purely ideologically driven; it has no concern for achieving political representation in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

The military defeat of al Qaeda would end without political reverberation, as it doesn’t fight for anyone’s rights. The Taleban and PKK have transitioned to political movements though, and their defeat on the battlefield is unlikely to end the underlying political wars. If Pashtuns and Kurds are continually marginalized, instability will spawn new militant organizations.

The same goes for the LTTE and the Tamils. As much as the West hates its methods, the LTTE isn’t fighting out of ideological hatred like al Qaeda. It isn’t fighting just to fight and it doesn’t despise human civilization. The LTTE wanted a state to protect and represent the minority it claimed to fight for.

Luckily the Sri Lankan government has shown signs of understanding this problem. Its own methods for waging war against the LTTE are controversial and could foster distrust among Tamils, but at the very least the government is saying the right things.

“Our motherland has been completely liberated from separatist terrorism,” said President Mahinda Rajapaksa. “Our intention was to save the Tamil people from the cruel grip of the rebels. We all must now live as equals in this free country.”

A separate Tamil state on the Sri Lanka island was unrealistic; this unachievable goal was the LTTE’s ultimate downfall. It may have been as unrealistic for Tamils to achieve equal rights with the Sinhalese majority, but a Tamil state was always further away than political representation. Now that a Tamil state has been squashed, Sri Lanka must demonstrate that the alternate path is a viable one.

If the Tamils are denied an outlet for their political struggle, they’ll return to military means.

Whether Rajapaksa lives up to his proclamation remains to be seen, but his conciliatory tone is a necessary beginning. He’s also in danger though, for to default on his promise of power-sharing with the Tamils would guarantee the LTTE's regeneration. Rajapaksa is in the complex position of having to placate the victims of his victory. He must correct the conditions that gave rise to the battle or else the war will keep burning.

“We have to have a discussion among ourselves, among the political leaders who represent the communities, and come up with a new Sri Lankan identity,” said Sri Lanka's opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe. “If any other community feels that they are still being discriminated (against) then we are only leaving room for trouble in the future.”

That most Sri Lankan leaders understand this dilemma is good news for the country and the international community, but knowledge alone is insufficient. Any harassment against the Tamils will have an exaggerated effect now that the LTTE is dismantled. Having lost part of their protection, the Tamils are at the mercy of the Sri Lankan government. With no one to protect their interests, the government will take full blame if the Tamil’s rights are violated.

The Tamils must not be provoked because uprisings could easily spark. Sri Lankan Defense spokesman Keheliya Rambukwella claims, “They [Tamils] are now used to a certain type of lifestyle; they quarrel with each other, and we need a law and order situation to be maintained. We will perhaps need another 40,000-50,000 (troops).”

Surrounding 250,000 refugees with Sri Lankan troops may not be the best place to start. The Sri Lankan government must be meticulous in engaging the Tamil minority. Military battles come and go in guerrilla warfare, but the political war will never end unless equality prevails. Make that lady sing, Sri Lanka.

Ice World

The numbers are in: 6,432 civilians dead, 13,946 wounded in the last three months. The UN report on Sri Lanka is shocking. A war that has killed 70,000 people has tacked on another 6,000 under the nose of the international community.

In a world of constant threats, the small island nation hasn’t flown under the radar; it has been completely ignored. Sri Lanka is out of the geopolitical orbit. Compared to hot spots like Palestine, Georgia, Kashmir and Somalia, Sri Lanka’s war is an inconvenience, a distraction from the Middle East and Africa.

American officials can be forgiven for having higher priorities, as can the world. Ignorance of Sri Lanka stems from the island itself - it has negligible influence beyond its borders, with no real connection to the rest of the world. Whether the Tamils overrun the island or the government crushes them all, the world will remain unchanged.

The world is dominated by self-interest. It cannot be denied in the individual or in the state. There is nothing wrong with self-interest because it appears to be as natural as water and fire. Without people caring about themselves, often above anything else, the world may not be able to function.

Humans need to be self-interested, which is why the world is often biased.

As much can be learned from what is spotlighted as from what isn’t. When Hezbollah and Israel went to war in July 2006, the world flew into an outrage, defending both sides with polarizing vigor. The war started on July 12th and by July 16th, America was fully engaged with the internationally community until the ceasefire. American officials constantly visited the region.

War in South Ossetia broke out August 8th, 2008; White House officials called for a ceasefire that day. Five days later, President Bush, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his side, denounced Russian escalation. Soon after the war ended, Rice gave a press conference in Tbilisi with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Both these events took the global media by storm as journalists flocked to the battlefields. Then, invaded by YouTube and Twitter, the war in Gaza took war reporting to a new level despite a media ban. The swiftness of information was matched by international fury; the UN called for a ceasefire on December 28th, 2008, one day after Operation Cast Lead was launched. Worldwide protests became routine and turned violent.

Meanwhile, war in Sri Lanka had been waged for months with no fanfare. If the UN is close to accurate, civilian deaths outweigh those in Lebanon, Gaza, and Georgia combined, with room for Pakistan’s estimated 2,155 civilian casualties in 2008. Kashmir recorded only 89 political victims last year.

Sri Lanka’s war is internal instead of international, but this difference is superficial. Two states aren’t involved, but two ethnicities at war is something the world gets involved with, or at least thinks it should.

The UN has dipped its hands into Sri Lanka, just not as deep as other conflicts. The UN Security Council has made several calls for a ceasefire, but only after months of fighting. When the Sri Lankan army began attacking Kilinochchi, the Tamil Tiger’s capital, on November 23rd, 2008, the UN and America had no immediate reaction.

America decided not to take a lead role in resolving the conflict, calling for the Tamil Tigers to lay down their arms on January 2nd, 2009. The State Department didn’t rushed to Colombo and President Obama has deferred to officials for comment. In February, the conflict still escalating, America released a joint statement with the EU calling for a ceasefire. The war continued unabated.

Media coverage and world reaction has been correspondingly weak. Somali pirates saw more face time than Sri Lankans ever will. Aside from isolated protests in states with large Tamil diaspora, like Britain, the war has passed by without incident. That is, until the death toll was released and shamed the world. Sri Lanka is finally news.

But the hour has passed. Minimal response has proven that Sri Lanka means the nothing. No terrorist threat to America or world peace will emerge from Sri Lanka. No narcotics trade threatens the fabric of American or European society. No resources are at stake and no allies will be lost. No ideological struggle exists between East and West. Besides the piling corpses, there is no reason to care about Sri Lanka.

Reality can freeze the heart, but truth isn’t supposed to be hot or cold, right or wrong. It is simply supposed to be.