One of Asia’s oldest democracies might be in jeopardy. Sri Lanka’s presidential election next month is expected to bring to power another member of the Rajapaksa family, whose affinity for authoritarianism, violence and corruption is well-known. While Sri Lanka’s democracy survived the last test — an attempted constitutional coup by outgoing Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena a year ago — it might not survive a Gotabaya Rajapaksa presidency.
Gotabaya, as he is popularly known, is the frontrunner and previously served as Sri Lanka’s defense chief under his older brother former Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sirisena’s predecessor.
Mahinda’s decade-long tenure, which ended in 2015, was characterized by brazen nepotism, with the four Rajapaksa brothers controlling many government ministries and about 80 percent of total public spending.
By steadily expanding presidential powers, Mahinda created a quasi-dictatorship known for human-rights abuses and accused of war crimes.
Moreover, Mahinda’s pro-China foreign policy allowed for the swift expansion of Chinese influence in Sri Lanka — and rapid growth in Sri Lankan debt to China. It was the debt incurred during the last Rajapaksa presidency that forced Sirisena in 2017 to sign away to China the Indian Ocean’s most strategic port, Hambantota, along with 6,070 hectares of nearby land, on a 99-year lease.
This Hong Kong-style concession was modeled on the UK’s 19th-century colonial imposition on China.
There is little reason to doubt that Gotabaya would revive his brother’s corrosive legacy. Simply by becoming president, he could gain immunity from two lawsuits pending in US federal court over war crimes allegedly committed while he was defense chief.
With the Sri Lankan parliament’s restoration of presidential term limits prohibiting Mahinda from running again, Gotabaya renounced his US citizenship to become eligible to contest the election.
Mahinda in 2009 oversaw the end of Sri Lanka’s brutal 25-year civil war. However, he was no agent of peace. During the war’s final years, thousands of people — from aid workers and Tamil civilians to the Rajapaksa family’s political opponents — disappeared or were tortured.
The final military offensive against the Tamil Tiger rebels was, according to the UN, a “grave assault on the entire regime of international law,” with as many as 40,000 civilians killed.
According to a wartime military commander, Sarath Fonseka, Gotabaya ordered the summary execution of rebel leaders as they surrendered.
Despite the horrors they inflicted on Sri Lanka’s mostly Hindu Tamil minority, the Rajapaksa brothers became heroes to many among the country’s largely Buddhist Sinhalese majority. That emboldened Mahinda to step up efforts to fashion a mono-ethnic identity for a multiethnic country.
Renewing this approach, as Gotabaya is sure to do, would hardly ease the sectarian divide that triggered the civil war, let alone more recent tensions between the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka’s Muslims.
Those tensions increased sharply in April, when Muslim militants carried out a series of bombings on Easter Sunday that killed 253 people and wounded hundreds more.
Not only was this one of the deadliest terrorist attacks in history; it was also the first major Muslim militant attack that Sri Lanka, where Muslims constitute one-10th of the population, had ever experienced. However, that does not mean it was unforeseeable.
Sirisena admitted that defense and police officials had received an Indian intelligence report warning of an imminent attack and identifying the plotters, but that he had not seen it. Nor did Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe — the target of Sirisena’s attempted coup in October last year — receive the warning.
Sirisena abruptly fired Wickremesinghe and swore in none other than Mahinda Rajapaksa, before dissolving parliament to avoid a challenge. His actions were reversed when the Sri Lankan Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.
The Rajapaksas have already used the bombings to fan the flame of Sinhalese nationalism. Gotabaya has promised his supporters that, if elected, he would strengthen the intelligence services and reintroduce surveillance of citizens, to crush Muslim extremism.
The prospect of an alleged war criminal still wedded to extrajudicial methods becoming president rightly terrifies minority groups, the media and civil liberties advocates.
Yet there is more worrisome news. Gotayaba’s camp has also confirmed that, as president, he plans to “restore relations” with China.
Given Sri Lanka’s strategic location near the world’s busiest sea lanes, the implications of this pledge extend well beyond the island. Indeed, Sri Lanka could play a pivotal role in the struggle for maritime primacy between China and Indo-Pacific democratic powers — India, the US, Japan and Australia.
China’s “string of pearls” strategy has been encircling India by securing strategic military and commercial facilities along major Indian Ocean shipping lanes. Hambantota port, which Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) described as central to his Maritime Silk Road project, is a particularly valuable pearl.
At a time of growing international skepticism toward Xi’s Belt and Road Initiative, the Rajapaksa family’s potential return to power in Sri Lanka is welcome news for China, which hopes to turn the country into a military outpost.
However, it is bad news for practically everyone else. A Gotabaya presidency would block already delayed justice to victims of his brother’s regime, deepen ethnic and religious fault lines, and help China gain strategic supremacy in the Indo-Pacific region. Sri Lankan democracy appears more vulnerable than ever.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers