{"id":95102,"date":"2019-11-11T17:12:26","date_gmt":"2019-11-12T00:12:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=95102"},"modified":"2019-11-11T17:12:26","modified_gmt":"2019-11-12T00:12:26","slug":"mcc-acsa-sofa-with-us-incompatible-with-international-law-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2019\/11\/11\/mcc-acsa-sofa-with-us-incompatible-with-international-law-2\/","title":{"rendered":"MCC, ACSA, SOFA with US incompatible with international law"},"content":{"rendered":"

by\u00a0 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,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 Agreement<\/em> (ACSA), the Status 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\nideology incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations and international\nlaw.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

MCC<\/em><\/strong>, crude and\ndogmatic alignment with US National Security Strategy<\/em> <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A clarification of MCC\u2019s role in America\u2019s national security\nand \u2018self-defense\u2019 strategies is required. The alignment is crude and dogmatic,\ndesigned to advance US influence globally and secure allies and partners by\nimposing upon developing countries, mostly those 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 interests in the long-term. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

MCC\u2019s central role was ‘codified’ in the 2002 National\nSecurity Strategy<\/em> of US President George W. Bush, which for the first\ntime contained the controversial doctrine of \u2018pre-emptive<\/em>\u2019 war. It\nelevated development aid to the level of defense and diplomacy as one of the\nthree pillars of the global War on Terror<\/em>.\u201d The current President\u2019s\n2017 National Security Strategy<\/em> (NSS) links US military strategies to\nthe imperative of political and economic reform, claiming consolidation of its\nmilitary victories<\/em>\u201d were made possible only bypolitical and\neconomic triumphs built on market economies and fair trade, democratic\nprinciples, and shared security partnerships\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most novel and coercive\nfeatures of MCC is the ‘pre-emptive’ method used to administer aid \u2013 it will\nreward countries that have demonstrated real policy change and challenge those\nthat have not to implement reform<\/em>.\u201d Before receiving aid, the country must\nsuccessfully pass 16 eligibility criteria devised by the Bush Administration\nranging from civil liberties to ‘days to start a business<\/em>.’ In a March\n2018 speech on US-Africa relations, the then US Secretary of State, Rex\nTillerson, described the coercive essence of MCC that goes far above and beyond\nthe particular project targeted. Referring to a $524\nmillion compact signed with Cote d\u2019Ivoire to improve its education and\ntransportation sectors, Tillerson declared, 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\na coercive tool to bring fragile<\/em>\u201d and developing countries under\nAmerica\u2019s influence to counter Russia and China, by achieving radical\ntransformation of the recipient State, based on free-market principles,\nprivatization, and good governance: “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\nTrump Administration will no longer provide MCC assistance\u201d in the form of\n“grants,” but “loans.”  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

American self-preservation and the right\nof self-defense<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US-Sri Lanka \u2018defense\u2019 agreements, which logically flow\nfrom the infamous US-led Human Rights Council resolution 30\/1, are explicit\nrecognition by the Ranil Wickramasinghe regime of America\u2019s global leadership\nand its hegemonic status, which commit the country to a global unilateral system\nfor America\u2019s \u2018self defense\u2019.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US view of \u2018self-defense<\/em>\u2019 is rooted in \u2018self-preservation\u2019<\/em>\nand not on some reciprocal relationship between equal subjects of international\nlaw, but on combatting a threat to its own interests. It is based on the\nideology of \u2018American Exceptionalism<\/em>\u2019 that arrogates to itself exclusive\nprerogatives and special responsibilities for global governance, which continue\nto guide US national security and defense strategies.<\/em> The US President\u2019s 2017 National\nSecurity Strategy<\/em> (NSS) and the 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report<\/em>\n(IPSR),bothaffirm US global leadership is grounded in the\nrealization that American principles 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\nhave to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable\nnation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.<\/em>”\nIn May 2015, the then US Secretary of State, John Kerry, claimed America\u2019s\nleadership of the \u2018Indo-Pacific\u2019 because we have<\/em> a strong economy\nand an ability to be able to project<\/em>\u201d. It is the worldview of a global\nhegemon that sees itself destined by divine providence for full-spectrum\ndomination – air, maritime, land, outer space, and cyberspace, and\nfull-spectrum force (2017 NSS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, self-preservation\u201d and self-defense\u201d was\nused by Nazi Germany to occupy neutral Belgium, neutral Norway, neutral\nNetherlands, neutral Denmark, 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 Rumsfeld, served to\njustify 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 amounted to an armed\nattack<\/em>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Afghanistan, for 18 years, the US continues to claim\nself-defense, extending the right to preventing the return to power of the\nTaliban. 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 the illegal act by an abusive\ninterpretation of the right of self-defense<\/em>\u201d in Art. 51 of the UN\nCharter, the only exception in the Charter to the use of unilateral force.\nContrary to US claims, however, self-defense under the Art. 51 is permitted\nonly under narrowly defined conditions: (a) it is an armed attack<\/em>\u201d; (b) the armed\nattack actually occurs,<\/em>\u201d and is not just an imminent or potential threat<\/em>\u201d;\n(c) the state 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 the\nSecurity Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace\nand security<\/em>\u201d; (e) it is proportional; (f) it does not affect the authority and primary responsibility of the\nSecurity Council; (g) it must be at the request of the victim; (h) the victim must request assistance from the state\nclaiming to act in collective self-defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The 2018 US National Defense Strategy<\/em> that translates\ninto military terms the strategic objectives outlined in the US President\u2019s\n2017 National Security Strategy<\/em> is based on the indefensible illogical\nlogic that the surest way to prevent war is to be prepared to win one<\/em>,\u201d\nwhich is antipodal to the logic that drives the UN collective security system \u2013\nthat war must be prevented at all costs to achieve international peace and\nsecurity. The documents are replete with bellicosity \u2013 enhancing  joint\nlethality<\/em>,\u201d credible combat-forward posture<\/em>,\u201d forward force 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\nconstellation of allies and partners.<\/em>\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be recalled that ACSA, SOFA, and MCC are part and\nparcel of the US concept of a Free and Open Indo Pacific<\/em>\u201d (FOIP), a\nsinister security system whose objective is to impose\non countries of two distinct regions and Oceans, a single US-led geographic and geopolitical order founded on rules determined by\nWashington. The concept not only excludes China from the region as a hostile existential threat to US interests, but is aimed at putting in place a networked security\narchitecture<\/em>\u201d under US leadership to fight and win<\/em>\u201d a war against China.\nChina as principal adversary is named in the 2017 National\nSecurity Strategy<\/em>, the Pentagon\u2019s 2018 National Defense Strategy<\/em>,\nand 2019 Indo-Pacific Strategy Report<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By entering into such US \u2018self-defense\u2019 agreements in the\ncontext of big power rivalry 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\ninternational peace and security and drags Sri Lanka into a war not of its own\nmaking. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This warmongering vision of the \u2018global\u2019 order is shared by\nthe ruling UNF Presidential candidate Sajith Premadasa as reflected in his 2\nOctober exchange with foreign diplomats at which he outlined his foreign policy\nobjectives not in terms of Sri Lanka\u2019s national interests, but in terms of\nWashington\u2019s FOIP strategy: open trade,\u201d freedom of navigation,\u201d air and\nmaritime connectivity,\u201d rules-based world order,\u201d and violent extremism\u201d<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it was unequivocally rejected by Sri Lanka\u2019s\nopposition party leaders, by letter of 9 August 2019 addressed to the Secretary\nGeneral of Indian Ocean Rim Association<\/em>, demanding that the UN\nCharter-based rule of law be restored in the Indian Ocean by, inter alia,\nimplementing the UN Declaration of the Indian Ocean as Zone of Peace<\/em>,\nwhich designates the Indian Ocean, for all time, as a zone of Peace, together\nwith the airspace above and the ocean floor subjacent thereto. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Declaration, it must be recalled, was adopted at the\ninitiative of Sri Lanka, joined by Tanzania, backed by the Non-Aligned\nMovement. While preserving free and unimpeded\nuse of the zone by the vessels, whether military or not, for all nations in\naccordance with international law, it called on the “great powers<\/em>” to eliminate from\nthe Indian Ocean “all bases, military installations and logistical\nsupply facilities, the disposition of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass\ndestruction and any manifestation of great power military presence… conceived\nin the context of great power rivalry<\/em>,” and halt “further\nescalation and expansion of their military presence in the Indian Ocean<\/em>.”\nThe Declaration also calls on littoral and hinterland States, the Permanent\nMembers of the Security Council and other major maritime users of the Indian\nOcean to enter into consultations to ensure that, inter alia<\/em>, warships and military aircraft would\nnot use the Indian Ocean for any threat or use of force against any littoral or\nhinterland State<\/em>.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Sri Lanka is committing itself not to defending its own\nnational interests, its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,\nbut to combatting threats to US prosperity and security<\/em>,\u201d which are\nnamed in NSS and NDS as the revisionist powers<\/em>\u201d China and Russia, the rogue\nregimes<\/em>\u201d North Korea and Iran, and \u2018transnational terrorism.\u2019 None of the\ncountries mentioned pose a threat to Sri Lanka\u2019s national interests. On the\ncontrary, Sri Lanka has excellent relations with all four countries within the\nframework of the United Nations and close bilateral ties with China, Russia and\nIran.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the \u2018defense\u2019 agreements involve the use of Sri\nLanka\u2019s territory, airports, harbours, defense installations, and\ninfrastructure, for transport of military equipment, training and joint\noperations with Sri Lankan forces, and other activities, known and unknown, to\nenhance joint lethality<\/em>\u201d in\npreparation for an act of aggression against one or more friendly states in the\n\u2018Indo-Pacific\u2019. In doing so, Sri Lanka will find\nitself a partner in crime and potential target of reprisal or retaliation,\nposing a grave threat to Sri Lanka\u2019s security. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was not so long ago that British occupied Ceylon was\ntargeted by Japanese bombs, during World War II, characterized by the\nindependence movement as an imperialist war, which resulted in the panicked\nfleeing of civilian population to India by boat. The Japanese military raids\nalso took place on an Easter Sunday, in 1942.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The threat to Sri Lanka\u2019s security will not only come from\noutside. When US forces are permitted to freely roam the land, in their\nvehicles, without permission, armed, in uniform and with impunity, Easter\nSunday type carnage or protests against US occupation could result in Sri Lanka\nitself becoming America\u2019s military target in the name of self-defense\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The so-called partnership\u201d entered into with Washington is\nnot between equals. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bilateral agreements between a global hegemonic power and a\nsmall developing country heavily indebted to international capital markets\ndominated by the power and highly dependent on its market for exports, are\ninherently unequal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror,’ which\ncoincided 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 systems), which allow Washington to modify\ninternational norms and rules or impose decisions not in accordance with\ninternational law, thus, retaining its hegemonic status. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACSA, SOFA and MCC are pre-existing institutional\narrangements that are an integral part of the US national security and national\ndefense strategies designed for \u2018American Self-Preservation<\/em>\u2019 to achieve\nstrategic US goals and objectives grounded in the realization that American\nprinciples are a lasting force for good in the world<\/em>\u201d (US National\nSecurity Strategy, 2017). \u2018American Self-Preservation<\/em>\u2019 is rooted not\non reciprocal relationships between equal subjects of international law, but on\ncombatting a threat to its own interests. Its sheer hegemonic power makes the\nprinciple of reciprocity impracticable in bilateral negotiations with weaker\nstates such as ours, and it is illusory to believe that ACSA, SOFA and MCC can\nbe “re-negotiated<\/em>” or “amended<\/em>” for “mutual\nbenefit<\/em>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, bilateralism is associated with the commercial\npolicies of Hitler\u2019s Germany; it is inherently discriminatory in contrast to\nthe system of collective security based on the UN Charter. The US shift to\nbilateralism is also reflected in its free trade and economic agreements as an\nimportant tool to coerce or reward potential allies and partners to support its\ngeopolitical agenda.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Washington\u2019s unilateral vision of a US-led global order for\n\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,\nrespect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Contrary to the US-led collective system for America\u2019s\nself-defense, the universally recognised collective security system under the\nUN Charter seeks to prevent war \u2013 not make war \u2013 to achieve permanent universal\npeace based on equal rights and justice for all, in accordance with the\npurposes and principles of the United Nations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The UN collective security system is a system without military alliances. It is based on multilateralism, the duty to cooperate, and respect for\nthe principle of sovereign equality of States. It expressly prohibits war, as it does the use of force or the\nthreat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political\nindependence 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 primary responsibility for maintaining international\npeace and security lies with the Security Council, with member States agreeing\nthat it acts on their behalf in carrying out its duties. Despite being at the\nhighest level of the international legal hierarchy, the Security Council is\nrequired to act in accordance with the Charter, and not violate fundamental norms\nof international law, customary international law, and treaties, in the\naccordance with the UN Charter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The generally binding international law obliges states to resolve any dispute\nthat may endanger international peace and security through peaceful means,\nfirstly by parties seeking a solution through negotiation, enquiry,\nmediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional\nagencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice<\/em>\u201d. Any\nmember State or non-member may bring such a dispute to the attention of the\nSecurity Council or the General Assembly. Legal matters should be brought\nbefore the International Court of Justice of which all UN members are ipso facto <\/em>parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role of regional arrangements is strictly limited\nto efforts toward pacific settlement of local disputes before referring them to\nthe Security Council. Regional arrangements are forbidden from taking\nenforcement measures unless authorised by the Security Council. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of armed force in the case of collective action is\nonly permitted under the authority and supervision of UN Security Council, and\nonly once it has determined the existence of  threats to the peace,\nbreaches of the peace, and acts of aggression<\/em>\u201d and that other measures\nwould be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate to “maintain or\nrestore international peace and security<\/em>“.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

The Non-Aligned Movement, of which Sri Lanka is a founder\nmember, has contributed in no small measure to developing the universally\nrecognised principles on which friendly relations and cooperation among states\nmust be based, including the landmark UN Declaration on\nPrinciples of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation\namong States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations<\/em>, which is\nviewed as an authentic interpretation 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\nmultilateralism, promoting a new international economic order based on justice\nand equality, and strengthening the collective security system based on the UN\nCharter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The identity of the Non Aligned\nMovement is not determined by the existence of Great Power rivalry. It reflects\nthe aspirations of newly independent states for an independent stand, based on\na shared history and a positive perception of their own identity and views. It\nis essentially an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist alliance to defend their\ncollective interests, protect their freedom and dignity, prevent the\nrestoration of Western domination, support the struggles of peoples still under\nforeign domination and occupation, promote the right to development, and advance\nuniversal peace. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Their experience had shown that wars\nand alien domination result only in exploitation, oppression, death and\ndestruction, not peace nor development nor social progress. At all cost, a\nreturn to Western domination, recolonisation, and war had to be prevented, and\nthe ambitions of the most influential founders of the Movement was to unite the\nnewly independent states to bring their collective weight to bear on the side\nof international peace, against war. The Movement opposed military alliances\nand collective \u2018defense\u2019 pacts with Great Powers, especially in the context of\nrivalry between them, since they would be designed to serve Great Powers\ninterests and allow them to intervene in their internal affairs. Such pacts\nwould only bring them closer to war and destruction, and strengthen the forces\nof war, not peace.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

India\u2019s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking at the\n1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, energetically opposed US-led\ncollective defence pacts in Asia and the Middle East, including the short-lived\nanti-Communist Southeast Asia Treaty Organization<\/em> (SEATO), primarily aimed against\nChina. He argued membership in such pacts would only result in demeaning\noneself to a role of camp-follower of others<\/em>\u201d and hangers on<\/em>,\u201d\nand lead to the loss of freedom and individuality<\/em>\u201d: It is most\ndegrading and humiliating to any self-respecting people or nation. It is an\nintolerable thought to me that the great countries of Asia and Africa should\ncome out of bondage into freedom only to degrade themselves or humiliate\nthemselves in this way.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Non-Aligned Movement and the principles on which it is\nbased remain valid in a world that continues to be dominated by wars of\naggression, foreign occupation and domination, unilateralism, coercion,\nintervention and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and\nin which the victims are from the global south and the perpetrators, the US and\nits Western allies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sri Lanka\u2019s decision to go to war if necessary for the\npreservation of America against an emerging power identified with the\ndeveloping world, and the threat this poses to the interests of friendly\nnations and to the multilateral collective security system that the Movement is\ncommitted to strengthening, will result in the loss of Sri Lanka\u2019s credibility\nand its increasing isolation from the majority in the United Nations.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

International agreements incompatible with UN Charter are\nnull and void<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

International agreements that are incompatible with the\ninternational obligations of the State under the Charter of the United Nations\nand impede the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations,\nin accordance with the Charter, are null and void under international\nlaw. Besides, secret treaties are incompatible with the UN Charter and\nunenforceable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACSA, SOFA, and MCC violate Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and\nundermine its ability to fulfil its international obligation to protect its population and ensure\nrespect for a broad range of their individual and collective rights: the right\nto determine the system best suited for their needs and aspirations; the right\nto exercise permanent sovereignty over their wealth and resources, including\nmaritime resources; their economic, social, cultural, civil and political\nrights; the right to development; the right to a clean and safe\nenvironment; and, the fundamental right to peace and to be free from war. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sovereignty and its international corollary, sovereign\nequality of states, are non-derogable peremptory norms of general international\nlaw that form the basis of the United Nations Charter, which is akin to a world\nConstitution. An international treaty that violates sovereignty is null\nand void and, hence, non-negotiable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the event of conflict between a State’s obligations under\nthe Charter, which it is duty bound to fulfil in good faith<\/em>,\u201d and its\nobligations under any other international agreement, Article 103 of the\nCharter, the supremacy clause, stipulates that it is their obligations\nunder the present Charter that prevail. Subsequent treaties must conform to the\nCharter and are invalid if they impede the achievement of its purposes and principles,\nincluding its provisions concerning international peace and security, friendly\nrelations among states, international cooperation, promotion of human rights\nand 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 conclusion, it conflicts\nwith a peremptory norm of general international law<\/em>.\u201d The Vienna Convention\nis a restatement of pre-existing law that the\nInternational Court of Justice applies as generally applicable international\nlaw having reached the level of customary international law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

MCC, ACSA, and SOFA are incompatible with the purposes and\nprinciples of the United Nations, as developed 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 policy that\nis in conformity with its international obligations, it cannot ignore those\nprinciples.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from a bogus “partnership<\/em>”\nthat involves surrender of territory, institutions, infrastructure and\nresources to a foreign power to perpetrate acts of aggression against third\nstates, thus also becoming a partner in crime and a potential target for\nreprisals. There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from its armed forces\u2019\ninvolvement in hostile acts against friendly nations for \u2018American\nPreservation\u2019 There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka from fanning existing\nbilateral hostilities that may lead to regional conflagration and pose a threat\nto international peace and security. There can be no benefit to Sri Lanka if\nanother 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 a permanent aircraft carrier for\nWashington\u2019s hegemonic wars in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Western dominance\nmust not be allowed to re-enter through the back door, taking the country and\nthe region into 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 context of increasing confrontation\nand competition among world powers, we must re-centre peace as a unifying\nmultilateral objective, and we must ensure that propaganda for war and\nsabre-rattling are banned.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by\u00a0 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 Status […]<\/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-95102","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\/95102","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=95102"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95102\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}