Features
Coping with geopolitical challenges facing Sri Lanka
“… we find that an armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organized groups or between such groups within a State. International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed conflict and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities…. (and) in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved”.
by Neville Ladduwahetty
The most recent challenge that Sri Lanka has had to face was associated with UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/46/L.Rev.1. This Resolution was primarily based on the Report of the UN appointed Commissioner for Human Rights. Despite the objections raised the Sri Lankan government on grounds that the Report of the Commissioner violates the mandate granted by General Assembly Resolution 48/141 and that the Resolution itself violates the UN Charter and lacks “impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity”, the Resolution was adopted by the Human Rights Council on March 23, 2021.
The compulsion to go to such extremes and adopt a Resolution violating due process established by the UN, is driven by internal politics within countries that initiated the Resolution and by geopolitical interests of major powers.
Internal political compulsions are driven by the priorities of the Tamil minority concentrations resident in defined electorates in countries such as U.K., Canada, Germany and other European countries. When prospective Members of Parliament in these countries, regardless of which political party they represent, campaign for the votes of the Tamil minorities, they when elected, become the torchbearers for the priorities of the Tamil minorities, because it is their vote that decided whether they are elected or not. Consequently, since accountability for issues arising from the non-international armed conflict in Sri Lanka is the single-minded focus of the Tamil minorities, accountability has become a government policy for elected governments in these countries.
On the other hand, geopolitical compulsions are driven by a coalition of democracies forging security alliances such as the Quad, headed by the U.S. to contain China’s global expansion in the South China Sea founded on the Chinese claim of nine-dash line and its inroads into the Indian Ocean Rim countries in pursuit of their Belt and Road Initiative. These developments have energized the U.S. to adopt the policy of “Pivot to Asia” through the stated policy of forging a new Indo-Pacific Maritime Order.; a policy that is being relentlessly pursued by the U.S. in the form of forging alliances. the latest being the Maldives and the consequent isolation of Sri Lanka in this part of the Indian Ocean.
ADDRESSING INTERNAL COMPULSIONS
Internal compulsions are driven by the call to address accountability arising from issues relating to the non-international armed conflict within the time frame of signing the Ceasefire Agreement on February 22, 2002 and May 19, 2009 when the conflict ended. Having established the time frame, the next step is to establish the context in which to address accountability. In this regard, a context that would be acceptability to all concerned should be those established by the Panel of Experts appointed by the UN Secretary General, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and by the Appeal Court of the International Tribunal of former Yugoslavia.
The UN appointed Panel of Experts in their report stated: “There is no doubt that an internal armed conflict was being waged in Sri Lanka with the requisite intensity during the period that the Panel examined. As a result, international humanitarian law is the law against which to measure the conduct of both government and the LTTE”.
The Report of Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Sri Lanka (OISL) states: “Paragraph 182 of The OHCHR report states: “Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions relating to conflict not of an international character is applicable to the situation in Sri Lanka”.
Paragraph 183 goes on to state: “In addition, the Government and armed groups that are parties to the conflict are bound alike by relevant rules of customary international law applicable to non-international armed conflict”.
FURTHERMORE,
Defining what constitutes an armed conflict, the Appeals Court of the International Tribunal on former Yugoslavia (1995) in the case of Prosecutor v. Dusco Tadic stated: “… we find that an armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organized groups or between such groups within a State. International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed conflict and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities…. (and) in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved”.
Thus, it could justifiably be concluded that the context in which accountability issues should be addressed is International Humanitarian Law since the conflict in Sri Lanka was a Non-International Armed Conflict and the applicable law is International Humanitarian Law that acknowledges the derogation of Human Rights Law except for a defined few defined as the “hard core” of Human Rights during an officially declared emergency. Since these laws are codified in Additional Protocol II of 1977, issues relating to accountability should be addressed within the context of Additional Protocol II of 1077 that is acknowledged by the community of nations as a part of customary law.
Therefore, the task at hand is to evaluate any and all evidence of any violations of International Humanitarian Law as stated in the OISL Report, in the context of provisions in Additional Protocol II of 1977, subject to derogation of International Human Rights Law that is recognized by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and by Article 15 (7) and (8) of the Constitution during a declared emergency. In this regard, Paragraph 175 of the OISL Report states: “OISL notes that Sri Lanka has submitted a Declaration of a State of emergency dated 30 My 2000, derogating from articles 9 (2), 9 (3), 12 (1), 12 (2), 14 (3), 17 (1), 19 (2), 21 and 22 of the ICCPR. Measures taken pursuant to derogation are lawful to the extent they comply with the conditions set out in international human rights law…”.
In explaining the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law during armed conflict, the International Court of Justice has stated: “…. the Court considers that the protection offered by human rights conventions does not cease in case of armed conflict, save through the effect of provisions for derogation of the kind to be found in article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As regards the relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law, there are thus three possible situations: some rights may be exclusively matters of international humanitarian law; others may be exclusively matters of human rights law; yet others may be matters of both these branches of international law” (Applicable International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Framework – UN).
Considering the material presented above, it is recommended that a document should be prepared on the basis of principles of Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity on which is founded International Humanitarian Law an embodied in Additional Protocol II of 1977 that addresses any alleged violations stated in the OISL Report by a group nominated by the Ministry of Foreign Relations. Such a document should include material proposed by the international experts appointed by the Paranagama Commission together with material from Lord Naseby, as well as any other related material for distribution to all countries, in order to convey to them a perspective that thus far has not being presented at repeated sessions of the UN Human Rights Council and other International forums.
The mandate of the three Member Commission of Inquiry appointed by the President as part of the Domestic Mechanism to address accountability states: (a) “Find out whether preceding Commissions of Inquiry and Committees which have been appointed to investigate into human rights violations, have revealed any human rights violations, serious violations of the international humanitarian law and other such offences”. Since the mandate does not specify the criteria and the time frame that should be used to distinguish human rights violations from humanitarian law violations, it would be up to Commission to decide how to distinguish between the two types of violations bearing in mind that the two types of law are applicable over different time frames.
UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
The UNHRC 46/1 Resolution calls for the Office of the High Commissioner “to collect, consolidate, analyse and preserve information and evidence…to advocate for victims and survivors, and to support relevant judicial and other proceedings, including in Member States, with competent jurisdiction” (Paragraph 6). In short the evidence is gathered at a cost of US $ 2.8 Million to facilitate Member States to exercise universal jurisdiction. Thus far, universal jurisdiction has been exercised in regard to violations that come within the framework of a “Grave Breaches” regime that have occurred during certain internal conflicts that were governed by International Human Rights Law. However, in the case of Sri Lanka the conflict is categorized as a non-international armed conflict that is governed by International Humanitarian Law. Therefore, while the international community has accepted universal jurisdiction in the case of international armed conflicts along with Protocol I, the jury is still out as to whether it applies to non-international conflicts as in Sri Lanka as expressed by the ICRC comment cited below made to the General Assembly.
A document that addresses accountability from a Sri Lankan perspective would stand in good stead in the event a country or countries attempt to exercise universal jurisdiction relating to issues arising from the armed conflict. However, since the conflict in Sri Lanka was a non-international armed conflict the application of universal jurisdiction is fraught with fundamental issues as is evidenced by the statement of the ICRC to the UN General Assembly at its 71st session Sixth Committee, when it stated: “The updated commentaries also address other fundamental issues, such as the time frame for fulfilling the obligation to investigate alleged grave breaches and either prosecute or extradite those responsible; the challenges encountered by States when implementing universal jurisdiction; the state of international law today with regard to the potential immunities from jurisdiction and prosecution for alleged perpetrators of serious violations of IHL; and the possible applicability of the grave breaches regime to serious violations of IHL in non-international armed conflict” (emphasis added).
ADDRESSING GEOPOLITICAL COMPULSIONS
The strategic position of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean has been increasingly coming into focus with the conclusion of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. This, together with China’s policy to pursue its expansion founded on its Belt and Road Initiative has increased the focus on Sri Lanka. The need for the U.S. to contain China’s expansion in the South China Sea and in the Indian Ocean Rim countries has prompted the U.S. and its allies to build alliances such as the Quad that include India, Japan and Australia. India’s inclusion in the Quad was a recent development and an even more recent development was the Maldives entering into security related agreements with the U.S. and India.
This has isolated Sri Lanka. With the Quad attempting to extend its influence to countries East of the Malacca Straits, Sri Lanka’s isolation would be even greater. However, Sri Lanka would not be facing such isolation had it succumbed to U.S. pressures and signed the MCC Compact and SOFA after having signed ACSA. Although Sri Lanka managed to emerge ostensibly unscathed by not caving into U.S. pressure, its repercussions were experienced in Geneva. However, for all intents and purposes, the perceived isolation of Sri Lanka in the current context is bound to be taken advantage of by China to build even stronger bonds than those existing today. This is inevitable since China’s foot print is already well established in the Colombo Port City, the Colombo International Container Terminal and the harbour at Hambantota for the next 35 to 99 years.
It is most likely that the U.S., India and the rest of the Quad are going to extract a heavy price for the presence of China to the extent it has. This compels Sri Lanka to make hard choices similar to the ones that countries East of the Malacca Straits would have to face in the coming years. As for Sri Lanka, it cannot afford to offer planned infrastructure projects such as the West Container Terminal to India/Japan in the hope of appeasing one or more members to the Quad to balance the influence of China. This would amount dividing national projects between the Quad and China.
The way out for Sri Lanka to prepare the tender documents and call for open international bids in a transparent manner, and award the contract to the successful bidder regardless of geopolitical considerations. For instance, the solar power project in the three islands off the Jaffna peninsula should be awarded to China because China was chosen by the ADB as the successful bidder after addressing the security concerns of India, but Sri Lanka certainly need not abandon the project because of India’s concerns.
Since Sri Lanka’s stated Foreign Policy is Neutrality; and Non-Alignment, entertaining unsolicited bids for projects would amount to violating that policy. How Sri Lanka could live up to the promise of its stated policy and engage with all countries is to be open and transparent in the manner it implements its planned developments.
CONCLUSION
The challenges facing Sri Lanka, apart from the effects of COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the economy and the livelihood of the people are primarily from two sources. One is from internal pressures from the Tamil concentrations in defined electorates in countries such as U.K., Canada, Germany and other European countries that determine who gets elected to their respective Parliaments. Consequently, to these politicians the cause of their Tamil concentrations relating to accountability has become a policy for these governments. The second challenge is from geopolitical rivalries between major powers and others aspiring to be major powers attempting to control the Indo-Pacific Oceans. It was the role of the Oceans in maintaining the super power status of the U.S. that made US Navy Admiral Mahan to recommend to President Roosevelt the importance of oceans, especially the Pacific, to the U.S. The Indian Maritime Doctrine-2004 is based on this U. S. concept (Khan, May 23, 2010). The rivalry arose when China’s claims in the South China Seas and the concept of Belt and Road Initiative announced in 2013 were superimposed on the U.S. formulations.
The impact of these developments was the emergence of the Quad security alliance headed by the U.S. involving Japan and Australia and recently India, and even more recently the Maldives. The Quad started out as a humanitarian exercise to address the disaster following the 2004 tsunami. The transformation into a security alliance was to be expected in the wake of China’s claims. However, the impact of all these developments is to isolate Sri Lanka. What is recommended is a strategy for Sri Lanka to meet the challenges arising from the geopolitical rivalries in the Indo-Pacific.
The two recommendations presented above to overcome these challenges are: 1. To prepare a comprehensive document as suggested above that addresses the Internationally recognized Humanitarian Law violations as alleged by the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the OISL Report, in the context of Additional protocol II of 1977, and circulate and canvass through Sri Lanka’s Missions, all the Member States of the UN, in order to convey Sri Lanka’s perspective that hitherto has not been presented to the Human Rights Council or to any other international forum. 2. In keeping with Sri Lanka’s declared Foreign Policy of Neutrality and Non-Alignment, follow due process in the award of contracts relating to infrastructure projects by not entertaining unsolicited proposals from any quarter and call for international bids based on tender documents prepared in Sri Lanka independently or with external collaboration when necessary, without assigning them to designated entities based on geopolitical compulsions; an example being the West Container Terminal.
These recommendations are presented with a view to ensuring that Sri Lanka retains its independence, its sovereignty, its territorial integrity and develop as a free Nation State.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
