The government could not have known at the time that, after the April 21 attacks, a huge groundswell of anti-American sentiment would be generated led by warnings from the religious leaders, the Catholic Cardinal and the Buddhist leaders of Asgiriya and Malwatta. What are the reasons for this?
by Dr Sarala Fernando
The MCC may be a dead letter now with the passing of their self- imposed deadlines for Sri Lanka Government approval. In retrospect, the first mistake was made by the Sri Lanka government to put forward the agreements with the US as if they were in a "package", two security agreements ACSA and SOFA and the MCC which is an economic agreement, so soon after the April 21 attacks. At best, it may have been an attempt by the US to rescue a government seen as "friendly" which was in distress after the shock of the attacks and unable to handle the related financial losses and fall out of this new phase of terrorism. But with the government weakened by factional infighting, it should be no surprise that the gambit has misfired, with an Opposition gathering strength and waiting to discredit the government so close to a Presidential election.
Now it seems all those speaking in favour of MCC are being cast in the press, tv shows and social media as villains or "American agents" including two former Foreign Secretaries from the Sri Lanka Foreign Service who had led the pro-MCC lobbying. It is difficult to predict the fate of the US security agreements because the Opposition has gone so far out in its criticism that on both sides of the parliament there are calls for a return to non-aligned principles, friendship with all countries hence no joining of military pacts, non-stationing of military bases, etc.
The government could not have known at the time that, after the April 21 attacks, a huge groundswell of anti-American sentiment would be generated led by warnings from the religious leaders, the Catholic Cardinal and the Buddhist leaders of Asgiriya and Malwatta. What are the reasons for this? Al Jazeera recently carried an expose on the huge network of American bases and joint facilities around the world with special focus on a proposed US base on the Jeju island in Republic of Korea very close to the Chinese mainland, against which protests are being led by an aged Catholic priest. Interesting to note that protests against US military bases in the region and warnings against a US-China war are being led from the ground by Catholic priests despite the strained diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Beijing.
Should the comments here by the influential Catholic Cardinal against "arms merchants" be read in this same context? One article by a well known academic who had worked in the MCC as its only Sri Lankan resource person, had even gone so far as to suggest a US link with the April 21 attacks aimed at targeting the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. This line of thinking which seems absurd at face value, perhaps harks back to the early days of the US-Saudi Arabia relationship, the nurturing once of Osama bin Laden to fight communism in Afghanistan which has led to the spread of Wahabism around the globe; but the radicalization has mutated well beyond that as seen in the hate preaching coming out of Kattankudy. Adding fuel to the flames, a Sri Lankan Member of Parliament recently went so far to sugggest that the forthcoming Presidential election in Sri Lanka will be a contest between "the US and China".
The government failure to gauge the public sentiment is echoed by the failure of the US authorities and the MCC personnel whose attempts to "clarify" the genesis of the project have met with scathing public response, some comments on social media bordering on defamation. Public diplomacy is different from public relations and there are constant warnings to avoid what could be seen as "propaganda" – one should not be seen as arguing one’s case, rather is it not better to let others argue for you? Here however, the American Country Director of MCC has been taking the lead speaker slot and as a result those local think tanks organizing "friendly" panel discussions are now being roasted.
There is another point. Currently the main argument made by economists in favour of taking the MCC is that it is a grant of $480 million which should not be missed at a time when Sri Lanka having graduated from developing country status, is eligible only for loans. However, every one knows that foreign assistance is never "free" but comes with conditions, affecting goods, services and consultancies tied to the donor. There are many examples of such "gifts" from developed country donors especially in the health sector which are difficult to maintain and operate under existing hospital budgets and impossible to replace because of prohibitive costs.
While the economists are talking of growth, others are asking who really benefits from the MCC grant? If lands are valued at a higher level, does that empower the rural poor or does it increase the pressure to sell these lands to outsiders leading to increasing rural dis-empowerment and migration to the cities? Sri Lanka has not had to face a severe urban crisis in Colombo mainly because affordable rail and bus services are available enabling workers to travel daily to work from homes quite far away. Yet now we have one economist suggesting a Japanese style bullet train built within cement tunnels between Colombo and Trincomalee; he seems to believe that blocking thereby of access to common lands, forests and animal corridors is a "laughable" matter. Such a project will mainly benefit those foreign agents who see Sri Lanka as a "logistics" hub, where express connectivity for strategic goods would be required between the international airport in Katunayake with Trincomalee harbor and beyond.
The debate over the MCC has exposed the existing fissures in Sri Lanka society and in academia between the economists working mainly on theoretical frameworks/models and environmentalists, geologists, foresters and even rural specialists who warn of the dangers of the current infrastructure- led growth patterns and the need to take into account the threats to land, air, water and indigenous animal and plant resources in an era of climate change where Sri Lanka has been identified as the second most vulnerable country in the world. It is worth noting that at the recent Sri Lanka Economic Summit, it was a foreign speaker who warned Sri Lanka to protect what is its most valuable national asset, its environment and natural beauty.
Overall, the pity is that the poor public diplomacy over these bilateral agreements has put at risk the huge fund of goodwill built between Sri Lanka and the US over the years mainly through reliable public diplomacy pillars like people to people exchanges among places of learning, democratic institutions like the parliament, the press, the judiciary as well as in the fields of culture and the arts.
(The writer is a retired member of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service who has held ambassadorships and served in senior positions in the Colombo foreign office.)
Post a Comment