The “Great Game” was the name given to the contest for power and territory in Central Asia in the 19th century between two of the most powerful world powers at that time, the British and Russian empires. They moved their armies and entered into treaties with rulers of those areas, like on a chessboard, to safeguard their interests and weaken their rival. It was also in those times that the British Foreign Minister, Lord Parlmeston, made the oft quoted statement that “it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The analogy of the Great Game has been recalled at this time in the attempt of the most powerful country of the present time, the United States, to pacify the Central Asian territories, which include Afghanistan, in the face of the competing interests of other world powers that include Russia, China and India.

Sri Lanka’s governmental strategists appear to have a plan of their own to deal with the international pressure that is mounting in respect of the country’s adherence to international treaties pertaining to human rights. What had originally seemed to be an annoying noise being made by a few human rights organizations abroad, and the Tamil diaspora, is fast becoming an inter-governmental issue and possibly a test case of international politics. This is because it is no longer mere NGOs that are taking up the case of human rights violations in Sri Lanka, but the UN system itself headed by its Secretary General Ban Ki-moon , that is taking the lead. In the months and years ahead, Sri Lanka may become the example as to how far the international system will go to intervene within the affairs of a functioning sovereign state.

After the disastrous failure on the part of the international community to intervene to prevent massacres and war crimes as occurred in Rwanda close to two decades ago, the UN mandate has become progressively strengthened. Now it includes the ability to order humanitarian missions to intervene in the affairs of sovereign states in civil conflict, where the rule of law has broken down and the state has failed. This occurred most recently in Kosovo after the Serbian civil war. Other precedents were the case of Cambodia after the fall of the Pol Pot regime and East Timor after its breakaway from Indonesia. In the case of Sri Lanka, there is a concern that the UN is persisting in its interest in the affairs of the country, and may be building a case to send in an investigation and fact finding team into a sovereign state where the civil war has ended and the state is strong and dominant

THREE STRATEGIES

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon seems to be acting in accordance with his statement that he will form a committee of experts to adviSe him on Sri Lanka’s adherence to international treaties with regard to human rights. Such an expert committee was appointed by the UN in the case of East Timor as well, with three members being selected to report on the human rights violations by the Indonesian military and to recommend a course of action. There have been news reports in the Sri Lankan media that Japan’s special envoy to Sri Lanka, Yasushi Akashi, is one of the names under consideration by the UN Secretary General. It has also been reported that Mr Akashi has rejected the invitation, although there has been no independent confirmation of these reports.

The Sri Lankan government appears to be having three main strategies to deal with the issue of accountability on human rights issues to the international system that is under the supervision of the UN. The first is to affirm the principle of the equality and sovereignty of states which is the fundamental basis on which the United Nations was built. According to this principle no country or group of countries or the UN itself is entitled to sit in judgment on another country. The second strategy is to mobilize the support of similarly situated countries who may be vulnerable to similar fault finding. Last year Sri Lanka defeated a Western-backed motion in the UN Human Rights Council calling for an international human rights mechanism to be set up for Sri Lanka. Among the majority of non-Western countries that voted for Sri Lanka were India and China.

The third strategy that the government appears to have is to obtain the support of big powers and hope they can be relied on to support Sri Lanka in international forums, as happened in the UN’s Human Rights Council. At the present time Sri Lanka appears to have been successful in lining up Russia, China, India and Iran on its behalf. Both Russia and China are also members of the UN’s Security Council, which is its highest and most important body, with the power to order humanitarian interventions and impose the UN’s mandate on its member states. The Sri Lankan government would be hoping that Russia and China, with the veto power, would prevent any attempt by other world powers or by the UN to impose their will upon Sri Lanka.

DANGEROUS GAME

However, a reading of history would caution the government on relying too much on the friendship or perceived common interest it shares with other countries. The great powers that Sri Lanka appears to have successfully built relations with have interests of their own. As Lord Parlmeston observed nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests which are themselves subject to differing interpretations. The big powers may have a high regard for the present Sri Lankan government leadership, and value their relations with Sri Lanka due to its strategic location in the Indian Ocean. On the other hand, they each have rivalries with the others, and the Great Games they play with each other are likely to take precedence over Sri Lanka. The issue of Trincomalee harbour once caused tension between the United States, India and Sri Lanka. The issue of Hambantota harbour may likewise cause tension between China, India and Sri Lanka in the future.

Further, the use of the veto power in the UN’s Security Council by Russia and China to block action against Sri Lanka cannot be taken for granted. Both Russia and China are important stakeholders in the UN and the international system, and benefit by its existence. As global leaders they have obligations to play by its rules, and uphold the system, even though it may be unfair by smaller and less powerful countries. This can lead them to agree to incremental actions that are small steps to begin with, but which continue to grow. An example would be Sudan which is an oil rich country and of tremendous importance to oil importing countries. Despite having extensive trading and military ties with that country, neither Russia nor China exercised their veto powers to prevent the International Criminal Court from indicting President Omar Bashir of Sudan. While President Bashir remains safe inside Sudan as long as he remains in power, he cannot travel outside of Sudan for fear of being nabbed on the way.

In these circumstances, Sri Lanka needs to be wary of those who advocate that it plays a great game of its own, balancing off one global power against another. Instead Sri Lanka needs to strive to create its own domestic system of dealing with issues that excite international attention and which could be detrimental to the country’s sovereignty. The three principles on which such an alternative can be based would be first, to fashion it according to prevailing international standards that no one can find fault with; second, to have sympathetic and credible members of the international community on board who can be part of the system; and third, to have a mandate to promote national reconciliation. It is better to rely on our own conformity with international law and practices, than on the goodwill of other nations.