India must be most friendly with Sri Lanka, says US historian
Posted on March 23rd, 2013
BY S VENKAT NARAYANƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Special Correspondent Courtesy:ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Island
NEW DELHI, March 22: A renowned American military historian has advised India to keep its neighbours happy so that they donƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t look for defence and political alliances elsewhere. In particular, India must be the most friendly with Sri Lanka because of the latterƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s strategic location in the global maritime route.
Edward Luttwak, renowned American military strategist and author of “The Rise of China vs the Logic of Strategy,” said China is quarrelling constantly with its neighbours. India should avoid doing that for its own long term interests in the region, he said in an interview published in The Economic Times today.
Several strategic experts such as Robert Kaplan too have said that Sri Lanka is very important in the 21st century because “it is very close to the main sea lines of communication at a time in history when 90% of all commercial goods travel inter-continentally by sea.”
Luttwak said that India should not let domestic politics control its foreign policy on Sri Lanka. “Tamil politicians need to be contained for IndiaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s own national interest. Let others pursue the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”war crimesƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ track …or pay the consequences because a Sri Lanka under pressure from its huge neighbour India will seek a protective alliance with China,” he argued.
He cautioned India against yielding to domestic political pressures because it will lead to long-term consequences in the region.
The Chinese are building infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka, but it shouldnƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢t bother India much. At the same time, it will have to warn Lanka about any security ties. “That can be done by offering better options (which includes more investment by Indian private sector in that country),” he suggested.
He advised India not to repeat the mistake China is making by constantly quarelling with its neighbours.
“China is in the process of paralysing itself by quarrelling with all its neighbours, such as Vietnam, India, Japan, Taiwan and so on. If the United States had fought with its neighbours, it would have been fatal.”
“That is why the US never bullies Canada or Mexico … If the US had gone after Canada or Mexico by quarrelling over land, natural resources or for regional dominance, they would have had Soviet bases there!” Luttwak quipped.
The American is a renowned columnist and author of books as seminal as “The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire,” “The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire,” and “The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union.”
The Indian daily also recalled an earlier interview it ran with Kaplan, in which he had opined that both the US and India have not been paying sufficient attention to Sri Lanka. This opened the doors for Chinese strategic influence in the island-nation in recent years. Kaplan suggested that India and the US should peacefully compete with China in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar.
March 23rd, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Endia has done it!!
A RELATIVE of Endia rules SL. What more!
No matter how much anti-SL Endia is SL rulers (Endian RELATIVES) go behind Endia. Blood is thicker than water!
At least now can SL LEADERS pick friends from enemies? I don’t think so.
If MR is a relative of Endia (as he says), his brothers and other relatives are also relatives of Endia. These relatives rule SL – defence, economy, etc., etc.
This is the PATHETIC situation SL is in. China LOVES SL and continues to build ports, roads, airports, conference halls, factories, etc. while SL LOVES its enemy (Endia) and Endia ROBS SL’s fish, money, oil tanks, land, constitution, etc., etc. Nehru said Endia is the mother and SL is the son. If so this disgusting relationship is incest.
March 23rd, 2013 at 8:34 pm
Even if India is a relative of MR and all our politicians, so what? That is no excuse for them to harm us. Sri Lanka must distance itself from such toxic people and have closer relations with true friends.
March 24th, 2013 at 4:58 am
Only one resolution against SL and 13 countries voted for SL.
6 resolutions against Israel the next day and ONLY USA voted against!!!
Good for bloody USA. Got its OWN medicine SIX TIMES!!
A report that calls for boycotting West Bank settlement products and states that Israel could be brought before the International Criminal Court for Jewish building over the pre-1967 lines was approved Friday by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Only the United States voted against the report, which was penned by a three-member fact-finding mission.
Speaking before the vote the US said that it was troubled by the council’s biased and disproportionate focus on Israel.
Although the status quo is not sustainable and the US is committed to resolving the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it does not believe that reports such as the one completed by the fact-finding mission can help achieve that objective, the US said.
Israel cut its ties with the council when it formed the fact-finding mission last year.
The report stated that Israel had an obligation under international law not to transfer its population into the Palestinian territories, as it had done by constructing West Bank settlements.
“The Rome Statute establishes the ICC’s jurisdiction over the deportation or transfer, directly or indirectly, by the occupying power of parts of its own population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory,” the report stated.
The report explained that settlements violate international human rights laws and International Humanitarian Law.
Private companies that do business with the settlements also bear responsibility not to violate those laws, the report said. It asked them to take “all necessary steps” to ensure that they were respecting human rights, “including by terminating their business interests in the settlements.”
The council also passed another five resolutions against Israeli actions over the pre-1967 lines. These resolutions were filed under Agenda Item 7, which mandates that the council debate Israeli actions in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.
The United States, which alongside Israel opposes Agenda Item 7, voted against all the resolutions.
Other resolutions dealt with Israel’s military incursion into Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009, Israeli settlement building and Palestinian human rights including the right to self-determination. All the resolutions had near unanimous support in the council.
The resolution that members appeared to take issue with was one that called on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights. It passed by 29 votes, but there were 17 abstentions. Only USA voting against it.
Although the council dealt with human rights issues in Syria, Iran and Myanmar, it adopted more resolutions against Israel than any of those specified countries.
– jpost