{"id":94961,"date":"2019-11-08T17:16:04","date_gmt":"2019-11-09T00:16:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=94961"},"modified":"2019-11-08T17:16:04","modified_gmt":"2019-11-09T00:16:04","slug":"mcc-acsa-sofa-with-us-incompatible-with-international-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2019\/11\/08\/mcc-acsa-sofa-with-us-incompatible-with-international-law\/","title":{"rendered":"MCC, ACSA, SOFA with US incompatible with international law"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Tamara Kunanayakam, Former Ambassador\/Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n

[T]here is no friendship when nations are not equal,<\/em> when one has to obey another and when one only dominates another.\u201d<\/em> -Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India Closing Speech at the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, 1955<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Acquisition and Cross Servicing\nAgreement<\/em> (ACSA), the\nStatus of Forces Agreement<\/em> (SOFA) and Millennium\nChallenge Compact<\/em> (MCC) are agreements integral to US national security and\nself-defense strategies, whose goal is American Self-Preservation<\/em>,\u201d an ideology incompatible with the Charter\nof the United Nations and international law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MCC<\/em><\/strong>,\ncrude and dogmatic alignment with US National\nSecurity Strategy<\/em> <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A clarification of MCC\u2019s role in America\u2019s\nnational security and \u2018self-defense\u2019 strategies is required. The alignment is crude and\ndogmatic, designed to advance US influence globally\nand secure allies and partners by imposing upon developing countries, mostly\nthose branded failed states<\/em>,\u201d\nfundamental political, legal and economic reform of the state apparatus\nand a \u2018rule of law<\/em>\u2019 that benefits US\ninterests in the long-term. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MCC\u2019s central role was ‘codified’ in the\n2002 National Security Strategy<\/em> of US\nPresident George W. Bush, which for the first time contained the\ncontroversial doctrine of \u2018pre-emptive<\/em>\u2019 war. It elevated development aid\nto the level of defense and diplomacy as one of the three pillars of the global\nWar on Ter<\/em>ror<\/em>.\u201d The current President\u2019s 2017 National\nSecurity Strategy<\/em> (NSS) links US military strategies to the imperative of\npolitical and economic reform, claiming consolidation of its military\nvictories<\/em>\u201d were made possible only\nbypolitical and economic triumphs built on market economies and fair\ntrade, democratic principles, and shared security partnerships\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most novel\nand coercive features of MCC is the ‘pre-emptive’ method used to administer aid\n\u2013 it will reward countries that have\ndemonstrated real policy change and challenge those that have not to implement\nreform<\/em>.\u201d Before receiving\naid, the country must successfully pass 16 eligibility criteria devised by the\nBush Administration ranging from civil liberties to ‘days to start a business<\/em>.’ In a March 2018 speech on US-Africa\nrelations, the then US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, described the\ncoercive essence of MCC that goes far above and beyond the particular project\ntargeted. Referring to a $524 million compact signed with Cote\nd\u2019Ivoire to improve its education and transportation sectors, Tillerson\ndeclared, This was only possible after\nthe country had implemented policies to strengthen economic freedom, democratic\nprinciples, human rights, and to fight corruption. Spurring reforms before a\ndollar of U.S. taxpayer money is even spent is the MCC\u2019s model<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2017 National Security Strategy<\/em> reaffirms MCC as a coercive tool to\nbring fragile<\/em>\u201d and developing\ncountries under America\u2019s influence to counter Russia and China, by achieving radical transformation of\nthe recipient State, based on free-market principles, privatization, and good\ngovernance: “We already do this through the\nMillennium Challenge Corporation, which selects countries that are committed to\nreform and then monitors and evaluates their projects<\/em>.” MCC is “a\nmodel to achieve greater connectivity<\/em>” in the so-called Indo-Pacific. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is notable that unlike the MCC of the Bush era, the Trump Administration will no longer provide MCC assistance\u201d in the form of “grants,” but “loans.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

American self-preservation\nand the right of self-defense<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US-Sri\nLanka \u2018defense\u2019 agreements, which logically flow from the infamous US-led Human\nRights Council resolution 30\/1, are explicit recognition by the Ranil\nWickramasinghe regime of America\u2019s global leadership and its hegemonic status,\nwhich commit the country to a global unilateral system for America\u2019s \u2018self defense\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US\nview of \u2018self-defense<\/em>\u2019 is rooted in \u2018self-preservation\u2019<\/em> and not on some\nreciprocal relationship between equal subjects of international law, but on\ncombatting a threat to its own interests. It is based on the ideology of \u2018American Exceptionalism<\/em>\u2019 that arrogates\nto itself exclusive prerogatives and special responsibilities for global\ngovernance, which continue to guide US national security and defense strategies.<\/em> The US\nPresident\u2019s 2017 National Security\nStrategy<\/em> (NSS) and the 2019 Indo-Pacific\nStrategy Report<\/em> (IPSR),bothaffirm US global leadership is grounded in the realization that American\nprinciples are a lasting force for good in the world<\/em>.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The notion of American Exceptionalism<\/em> was best\nexpressed by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “If we have to use force, it is because we\nare America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further\nthan other countries into the future.<\/em>” In May 2015, the then US\nSecretary of State, John Kerry, claimed America\u2019s leadership of the\n\u2018Indo-Pacific\u2019 because we have<\/em> a strong economy and an ability to be able to\nproject<\/em>\u201d. It is the worldview of a global hegemon that sees itself destined\nby divine providence for full-spectrum domination – air, maritime, land, outer\nspace, and cyberspace, and full-spectrum force (2017 NSS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, self-preservation\u201d and self-defense\u201d was used by Nazi Germany\nto occupy neutral Belgium, neutral Norway, neutral Netherlands, neutral\nDenmark, neutral Luxembourg, and Poland. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doctrine of pre-emptive, preventive wars<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2002 US National Security Strategy<\/em> (NSS) under\nPresident Bush introduced the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive<\/em> and preventive<\/em>\nwar, using the 9\/11 terrorist attacks as a pretext, which provided the new\nenemy in the form of terrorism. The existence of terrorists, described as the\nunknown unknown<\/em>,\u201d by the then Defense Secretary Donald\nRumsfeld, served to justify a unilateral right to pre-emptive and preventive use of force in\n\u2018self-defense\u2019 against states even before an armed attack<\/em>\u201d occur. <\/em>The\nUS argument was an act of violence by the terrorists\namounted to an armed attack<\/em>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Afghanistan,\nfor 18 years, the US continues to claim self-defense, extending the right to\npreventing the return to power of the Taliban. Such unilateral intervention is expressly forbiddenby the UN\nCharter and unequivocally rejected by both the International Court of Justice\nand the Security Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US justifies\nthe illegal act by an abusive interpretation of the right of self-defense<\/em>\u201d in Art. 51 of the UN Charter, the only\nexception in the Charter to the use of unilateral force. Contrary to US\nclaims, however, self-defense under the Art. 51 is permitted only under narrowly\ndefined conditions: (a) it is an armed attack<\/em>\u201d; (b) the armed attack\nactually occurs,<\/em>\u201d and is not just an\nimminent or potential threat<\/em>\u201d; (c) the\nstate using force was the object of an attack on its own territory, not\nelsewhere, as a sine qua non<\/em>; (d) it is a temporary right until\nthe Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international\npeace and security<\/em>\u201d; (e) it is proportional; (f) it does not affect the authority and primary responsibility of the Security\nCouncil; (g) it must be at the request of the victim; (h) the victim must request\nassistance from the state claiming to act in collective self-defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Committing\nSri Lanka to the logic of war, not the logic of peace<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2018\nUS National Defense Strategy<\/em> that\ntranslates into military terms the strategic objectives outlined in the US\nPresident\u2019s 2017 National Security\nStrategy<\/em> is based on the indefensible illogical logic that the surest way to prevent war is to be\nprepared to win one<\/em>,\u201d which is antipodal to the logic that drives the UN\ncollective security system \u2013 that war must be prevented at all costs to achieve\ninternational peace and security. The documents are\nreplete with bellicosity \u2013 enhancing  joint\nlethality<\/em>,\u201d credible\ncombat-forward posture<\/em>,\u201d forward\nforce manoeuvre<\/em>,\u201d forward deployment<\/em>\u201d\u2026\nIt is a clarion call to war, but not to any kind of war. It will be a more\nlethal war \u2013 more deadliness, more carnage and more destruction, to be fought\ntogether with a robust constellation of allies and partners.<\/em>\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\nmust be recalled that ACSA, SOFA, and MCC are part and parcel of the US concept\nof a Free and Open Indo Pacific<\/em>\u201d (FOIP), a sinister security system\nwhose objective is to impose on countries of two distinct regions and Oceans, a\nsingle US-led geographic\nand geopolitical order founded on rules determined by Washington. The concept\nnot only excludes China from the region as a\nhostile existential threat to US interests, but is aimed at putting in\nplace a networked security architecture<\/em>\u201d under US leadership to\nfight and win<\/em>\u201d a war against China. China as principal adversary is named\nin the 2017 National Security Strategy<\/em>, the\nPentagon\u2019s 2018 National Defense Strategy<\/em>, and 2019 Indo-Pacific\nStrategy Report<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\nentering into such US \u2018self-defense\u2019 agreements in the context of big power\nrivalry and the threat\nof war, the Ranil Wickramasinghe regime is\ncommitting Sri Lanka to the logic of war, not the logic of peace, a partner in\ncrime that poses a grave threat to regional and international peace and\nsecurity and drags Sri Lanka into a war not of its own making. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This warmongering\nvision of the \u2018global\u2019 order is shared by the ruling UNF Presidential candidate\nSajith Premadasa as reflected in his 2 October exchange with foreign diplomats\nat which he outlined his foreign policy objectives not in terms of Sri Lanka\u2019s national\ninterests, but in terms of Washington\u2019s FOIP strategy: open trade,\u201d\nfreedom of navigation,\u201d air and maritime connectivity,\u201d rules-based world\norder,\u201d and violent extremism\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However,\nit was unequivocally rejected by Sri Lanka\u2019s opposition party leaders, by\nletter of 9 August 2019 addressed to the Secretary General of Indian Ocean Rim Association<\/em>, demanding\nthat the UN Charter-based rule of law be restored in the Indian Ocean by, inter\nalia, implementing the UN Declaration of\nthe Indian Ocean as Zone of Peace<\/em>, which designates the Indian Ocean, for\nall time, as a zone of Peace, together with the airspace above and the ocean\nfloor subjacent thereto. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nDeclaration, it must be recalled, was adopted at the initiative of Sri Lanka,\njoined by Tanzania, backed by the Non-Aligned Movement. While preserving free and unimpeded use of the zone by the vessels,\nwhether military or not, for all nations in accordance with international\nlaw, it called on the “great powers<\/em>” to eliminate from the\nIndian Ocean “all bases, military\ninstallations and logistical supply facilities, the disposition of nuclear\nweapons and weapons of mass destruction and any manifestation of great power\nmilitary presence… conceived in the context of great power rivalry<\/em>,”\nand halt “further escalation and\nexpansion of their military presence in the Indian Ocean<\/em>.” The\nDeclaration also calls on littoral and hinterland States, the Permanent Members\nof the Security Council and other major maritime users of the Indian Ocean to\nenter into consultations to ensure that, inter\nalia<\/em>, warships and military aircraft would not use the Indian Ocean for any\nthreat or use of force against any littoral or hinterland State<\/em>.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Threat to peace and security <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka is\ncommitting itself not to defending its own national interests, its sovereignty,\nindependence and territorial integrity, but to combatting threats to US prosperity and security<\/em>,\u201d which are\nnamed in NSS and NDS as the revisionist\npowers<\/em>\u201d China and Russia, the rogue\nregimes<\/em>\u201d North Korea and Iran, and \u2018transnational terrorism.\u2019 None of the countries\nmentioned pose a threat to Sri Lanka\u2019s national interests. On the contrary, Sri\nLanka has excellent relations with all four countries within the framework of\nthe United Nations and close bilateral ties with China, Russia and Iran.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the\n\u2018defense\u2019 agreements involve the use of Sri Lanka\u2019s territory, airports,\nharbours, defense installations, and infrastructure, for transport of military\nequipment, training and joint operations with Sri Lankan forces, and other\nactivities, known and unknown, to enhance\njoint lethality<\/em>\u201d in preparation for an act of\naggression against one or more friendly states in the \u2018Indo-Pacific\u2019. In doing\nso, Sri Lanka will find itself a partner in crime and potential target\nof reprisal or retaliation, posing a grave threat to Sri Lanka\u2019s security. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was not so long\nago that British occupied Ceylon was targeted by Japanese bombs, during World\nWar II, characterized by the independence movement as an imperialist war, which\nresulted in the panicked fleeing of civilian population to India by boat. The\nJapanese military raids also took place on an Easter Sunday, in 1942.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The threat to Sri\nLanka\u2019s security will not only come from outside. When US forces are permitted\nto freely roam the land, in their vehicles, without permission, armed, in uniform\nand with impunity, Easter Sunday type carnage or protests against US occupation\ncould result in Sri Lanka itself becoming America\u2019s military target in the name\nof self-defense\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilateral\nagreements, inherently unequal<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The so-called\npartnership\u201d entered into with Washington is not between equals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilateral agreements between a global hegemonic power\nand a small developing country heavily indebted to international capital\nmarkets dominated by the power and highly dependent on its market for exports,\nare inherently unequal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the Bush Administration’s ‘War on\nTerror,’ which coincided with emerging powers challenging US hegemony, it\nhas increasingly resorted to preventive and pre-emptive unilateral\ninterventions imposing decisions on weaker states or to bilateralism with\nsignificantly weaker states to establish US-led collective defense systems\n(or collective self-defense<\/em>\u201d\nsystems), which allow Washington to modify international norms and rules or\nimpose decisions not in accordance with international law, thus, retaining its\nhegemonic status. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACSA, SOFA and MCC are\npre-existing institutional arrangements that are an integral part of the\nUS national security and national defense strategies\ndesigned for \u2018American Self-Preservation<\/em>\u2019\nto achieve strategic US goals and objectives grounded in the realization that\nAmerican principles are a lasting force for good in the world<\/em>\u201d (US\nNational Security Strategy, 2017). \u2018American\nSelf-Preservation<\/em>\u2019 is rooted not on reciprocal\nrelationships between equal subjects of international law, but on combatting a\nthreat to its own interests. Its sheer hegemonic power makes the principle of reciprocity impracticable\nin bilateral negotiations with weaker states such as ours, and it is illusory\nto believe that ACSA, SOFA and MCC can be “re-negotiated<\/em>” or “amended<\/em>”\nfor “mutual benefit<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, bilateralism is associated with the\ncommercial policies of Hitler\u2019s Germany; it is inherently discriminatory in\ncontrast to the system of collective security based on the UN Charter. The\nUS shift to bilateralism is also reflected in its free trade and economic\nagreements as an important tool to coerce or reward potential allies and\npartners to support its geopolitical agenda.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

International collective security v.\nUS-led collective \u2018self-defense\u2019 <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Washington\u2019s\nunilateral vision of a US-led global order for \u2018American Self-Preservation<\/em>,\u2019 justified by a divine mission, is\ndiametrically opposed to the universally recognised international order under\nthe UN Charter, based on sovereign equality and international cooperation, respect\nfor sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary\nto the US-led collective system for America\u2019s self-defense, the universally\nrecognised collective security system under the UN Charter seeks to prevent war\n\u2013 not make war \u2013 to achieve permanent universal peace based on equal rights and\njustice for all, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United\nNations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nUN collective security system is\na system without military alliances. It is based on\nmultilateralism, the duty to cooperate, and respect for the principle of sovereign\nequality of States. It expressly prohibits war, as it does the use\nof force or the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or\npolitical independence of any state and all forms of foreign interference and\nintervention in its internal affairs, including by the United Nations. The\nCharter expressly prohibits any unilateral or preventive action outside of the\nUN framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nprimary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security lies\nwith the Security Council, with member States agreeing that it acts on their\nbehalf in carrying out its duties. Despite being at the highest level of the\ninternational legal hierarchy, the Security Council is required to act in\naccordance with the Charter, and not violate fundamental norms of international\nlaw, customary international law, and treaties, in the accordance with the UN\nCharter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ngenerally binding international law obliges\nstates to resolve any dispute that may endanger international peace and\nsecurity through peaceful means, firstly by parties seeking a solution through\nnegotiation, enquiry, mediation,\nconciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or\narrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice<\/em>\u201d. Any member\nState or non-member may bring such a dispute to the attention of the Security\nCouncil or the General Assembly. Legal matters should be brought before the International\nCourt of Justice of which all UN members are ipso facto <\/em>parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role\nof regional arrangements is strictly limited to efforts toward pacific\nsettlement of local disputes before referring them to the Security Council. Regional\narrangements are forbidden from taking enforcement measures unless\nauthorised by the Security Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of\narmed force in the case of collective action is only permitted under the\nauthority and supervision of UN Security Council, and only once it has\ndetermined the existence of  threats to the peace, breaches of the peace,\nand acts of aggression<\/em>\u201d and that other measures would be inadequate or have\nproved to be inadequate to\n“maintain or restore international\npeace and security<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-Aligned Movement and Friendly\nRelations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nNon-Aligned Movement, of which Sri Lanka is a founder member, has contributed\nin no small measure to developing the universally recognised principles on which\nfriendly relations and cooperation among states must be based, including the landmark\nUN Declaration on Principles of International Law\nconcerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with\nthe Charter of the United Nations<\/em>, which is viewed as an authentic\ninterpretation of the Charter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Movement recognised that State sovereignty, sovereign equality and international\ncooperation are fundamental features of an international order that would\npermit weaker states to exercise greater leverage over their former colonial\nmasters, and, toward this end, focused every effort to enhancing the role of multilateralism,\npromoting a new international economic order based on justice and equality, and\nstrengthening the collective security system based on the UN Charter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The identity\nof the Non Aligned Movement is not determined by the existence of Great Power\nrivalry. It reflects the aspirations of newly independent states for an\nindependent stand, based on a shared history and a positive perception of their\nown identity and views. It is essentially an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist\nalliance to defend their collective interests, protect their freedom and\ndignity, prevent the restoration of Western domination, support the struggles\nof peoples still under foreign domination and occupation, promote the right to\ndevelopment, and advance universal peace. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their\nexperience had shown that wars and alien domination result only in\nexploitation, oppression, death and destruction, not peace nor development nor\nsocial progress. At all cost, a return to Western domination, recolonisation,\nand war had to be prevented, and the ambitions of the most influential founders\nof the Movement was to unite the newly independent states to bring their collective\nweight to bear on the side of international peace, against war. The Movement\nopposed military alliances and collective \u2018defense\u2019 pacts with Great Powers, especially\nin the context of rivalry between them, since they would be designed to serve Great\nPowers interests and allow them to intervene in their internal affairs. Such\npacts would only bring them closer to war and destruction, and strengthen the\nforces of war, not peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

India\u2019s\nPrime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking at the 1955 Asian-African Conference\nin Bandung, energetically opposed US-led collective defence pacts in Asia and\nthe Middle East, including the short-lived anti-Communist Southeast Asia Treaty Organization<\/em> (SEATO), primarily aimed against China. He argued\nmembership in such pacts would only result in demeaning oneself to a role of camp-follower of others<\/em>\u201d and hangers on<\/em>,\u201d and lead to the loss of freedom and individuality<\/em>\u201d: It is most degrading and humiliating to any\nself-respecting people or nation. It is an intolerable thought to me that the\ngreat countries of Asia and Africa should come out of bondage into freedom only\nto degrade themselves or humiliate themselves in this way.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nNon-Aligned Movement and the principles on which it is based remain valid in a world\nthat continues to be dominated by wars of aggression, foreign occupation and\ndomination, unilateralism, coercion, intervention and interference in the\ninternal affairs of sovereign states, and in which the victims are from the\nglobal south and the perpetrators, the US and its Western allies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri\nLanka\u2019s decision to go to war if necessary for the preservation of America\nagainst an emerging power identified with the developing world, and the threat\nthis poses to the interests of friendly nations and to the multilateral\ncollective security system that the Movement is committed to strengthening,\nwill result in the loss of Sri Lanka\u2019s credibility and its increasing isolation\nfrom the majority in the United Nations.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

An\nisolated country is more vulnerable and easy prey to a global hegemon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

International\nagreements incompatible with UN Charter are null and void<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

International agreements that are incompatible with the\ninternational obligations of the State under the\nCharter of the United Nations and impede the fulfilment of the purposes and\nprinciples of the United Nations, in accordance with the Charter, are null and\nvoid under international law. Besides, secret treaties are\nincompatible with the UN Charter and unenforceable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACSA, SOFA, and MCC violate Sri\nLanka’s sovereignty and undermine its ability to fulfil its international obligation\nto\nprotect its population and ensure respect for a broad range of\ntheir individual and collective rights: the right to determine the system best\nsuited for their needs and aspirations; the right to exercise permanent\nsovereignty over their wealth and resources, including maritime resources;\ntheir economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights; the right\nto development; the right to a clean and safe environment; and, the\nfundamental right to peace and to be free from war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sovereignty and its international corollary,\nsovereign equality of states, are non-derogable peremptory norms of general\ninternational law that form the basis of the United Nations Charter, which is\nakin to a world Constitution. An international treaty that\nviolates sovereignty is null and void and, hence, non-negotiable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the event of conflict between a State’s\nobligations under the Charter, which it is duty bound to fulfil in good faith<\/em>,\u201d and its obligations under any\nother international agreement, Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy\nclause, stipulates that it is their obligations\nunder the present Charter that prevail. Subsequent\ntreaties must conform to the Charter and are invalid if they impede the\nachievement of its purposes and principles, including its provisions concerning\ninternational peace and security, friendly relations among states,\ninternational cooperation, promotion of human rights and development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of\nTreaties, A treaty is void if, at the time of its\nconclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law<\/em>.\u201d\nThe Vienna Convention is a restatement of pre-existing\nlaw that the International Court of Justice applies as generally applicable\ninternational law having reached the level of customary international law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Toward\na new era of peace and prosperity in Sri Lanka and internationally <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

MCC, ACSA, and SOFA are incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as\ndeveloped in the landmark UN Friendly\nRelations Declaration<\/em> and in other international instruments, in accordance\nwith the Charter. If Sri Lanka is to pursue an independent foreign\npolicy that is in conformity with its international obligations, it cannot\nignore those principles.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from a bogus “partnership<\/em>” that involves\nsurrender of territory, institutions, infrastructure and resources to a foreign\npower to perpetrate acts of aggression against third states, thus also becoming\na partner in crime and a potential target for reprisals. There can be no\nbenefit to Sri Lanka from its armed forces\u2019 involvement in hostile acts against\nfriendly nations for \u2018American Preservation\u2019 There can be no benefit to Sri\nLanka from fanning existing bilateral hostilities that may lead to regional conflagration and pose a\nthreat to international peace and security. There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka\nif another terrorist attack in Sri Lanka with alleged international links turns\nthe US forces against our own people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there is to be change rather than continuity, every\neffort must be made to restore Sri Lanka\u2019s sovereignty and promote peace,\ndevelopment, and social justice, unequivocally rejecting externally imposed\nagendas to transform Sri Lanka into\na permanent aircraft carrier for Washington\u2019s hegemonic wars in the Indian and\nPacific Oceans. Western dominance must not be\nallowed to re-enter through the back door, taking the country and the region\ninto war, not peace, and into full spectrum domination\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a\ndemocratic and equitable international order<\/em>, Alfred de Zayas, in his full\nreport based on six years of work on the mandate, underlined the importance of\ninternational efforts to peace: In a\ncontext of increasing confrontation and competition among world powers, we must\nre-centre peace as a unifying multilateral objective, and we must ensure that\npropaganda for war and sabre-rattling are banned.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Tamara Kunanayakam, Former Ambassador\/Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva [T]here is no friendship when nations are not equal, when one has to obey another and when one only dominates another.\u201d -Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India Closing Speech at the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, 1955 Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA), the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[121],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tamara-kunanayakam"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}