Editorial

Not long ago, US President Donald Trump ambushed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House during a meeting and asked him, for the whole world to hear, “Are you trying to start World War Three?” That was while canvassing for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Overlooked for that prize, Trump has reserved the ‘honours’ for himself in starting what is looking much like WWIII.

The world is bracing for a prolonged war in West Asia, and countries such as Sri Lanka, particularly vulnerable to the vagaries of the conflict, are adopting emergency measures to meet the challenges ahead. Compounded already by a man-made coal crisis and an oncoming drought, an oil and gas shortage is not going to help this Government in the task.

The dangers loom of a 2022-2024 replay of rising costs; of living, insurance, power generation, inflation, shipping, fertiliser shortages, drops in tourist arrivals, remittances, and the retardation of economic activity. What will come to haunt the Government will be its own slogans while in opposition, asking, ‘What is a government there for?’ – other than to solve these problems. An unrelenting electorate will hardly take the ‘war’ as an excuse, however justifiable that may be.

This week’s sudden decision to raise the prices of fuel and gas, especially after the nation was reassured that adequate reserve stocks were available, was not taken lightly by the public. The overnight decision to take advantage of the war and blame world market prices will send the cost of living—and inflation—up immediately. The Petroleum Corporation chairman may have been embarrassed by the Government decision as it came no sooner than he had made such assurances, but unlike government politicians who habitually blame public servants for every misfortune, he made it worse by blaming the price hike on the people for panic buying—something the President said was a ‘natural’ thing to have happened.

Iran is a cornered tiger; but it does not have to lose to win. The US President, on the other hand, is confused if he’s won the war, as he said last week, or there’s ‘more to be done’, as he now says, and is unsure how to end what he began. It seems the US and Israel are no longer on the same page, with Israel egging him on to see to the total destruction of Iran, like they did together in Gaza. The Arab neighbourhood bears the brunt of Iran’s retaliation, with the US unable to provide them the security they were assured by the US bases in their countries.

The new Supreme Leader of Iran has issued his first defiant public statement calling out the Arab neighbourhood for hosting US bases and interests. Having lost almost his entire family in the first wave of US air strikes, he has nothing more to lose but his life. And despite the bold stand of the Spanish Prime Minister, Europe, as allies of the US, is being reluctantly dragged into the war.

The world is held to ransom with Iran’s retaliatory action on gas and oil installations in the West Asian and Gulf region. By closing the Strait of Hormuz, it has disrupted supplies to Asia and the Pacific in particular. And yet, in a clear demonstration that might and self-interests rule the world, the UN Security Council, the global body entrusted with maintaining international peace and security and upholding international law, chaired by the US this month, adopted a resolution initiated by Bahrain and co-sponsored by a large majority of countries, 135 in total, condemning Iran. No mention of the initial aggression by the US and Israel, or their accountability for the destruction, civilian casualties and humanitarian crisis unleashed all over the world!

Sri Lanka kept studiously away from signing the resolution displaying its strict neutrality after the criticism it faced over the Iranian warship incident that had a trace of partisanship. As a result, the Arab countries of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) will not view Sri Lanka’s sitting on the fence favourably. That, however, is the price of neutrality in such wars.

Hambantota: Will Lanka correct India’s MEA?

The US had just bragged about its cowardly attack on an Iranian warship, probably unarmed, and carrying mostly cadets in India’s self-proclaimed ‘backyard’. The US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had told the Wall Street Journal, “I want to remind everybody that this is an incredible demonstration of America’s global reach… something only the United States can do.”

In this backdrop, India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar made a controversial statement. Asked about India’s claim to be the ‘net security provider’ in the Indian Ocean, he refused to be drawn into what its strategic partner, the US, had done in its ‘backyard’ but responded that the ‘reality’ of the ‘ground or water situation’ in the Indian Ocean had to be taken into consideration—that foreign military powers operated in the area. He cited Diego Garcia (US/UK military base); Djibouti (Chinese military base); the (US) 5th Fleet in Bahrain—and then threw in “Hambantota” for good measure.

Sri Lanka has consistently maintained that it does not host foreign military bases and that Hambantota is a commercial port. To lump Hambantota along with the military bases in the Indian Ocean betrayed New Delhi’s view on Sri Lanka’s neutrality.

Arguably, Sri Lanka’s neutrality was compromised by the Yahapalana Government when it mortgaged the strategically important port to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) on a 99-year lease, not unaware of China’s ‘string of pearls’ plan. However, that does not qualify to be counted as a military base.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister opted to keep silent when the hostile comment was made in his very presence. One would have hoped the Foreign Ministry has, at least post-facto, corrected this misrepresentation by messaging the South Bloc in Delhi. Otherwise, by implication, Sri Lanka stands accused of militarising the Indian Ocean when it is credited with several initiatives like the Indian Ocean Zone of Peace proposal to the UN and the oft-quoted UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Seas) to ensure India’s ‘backyard’ is safe and peaceful.

This same Indian minister went unchallenged before when he made some adverse comments about the Kachchativu islet being within Sri Lanka’s sovereignty. Now comes this.