Monday, 30 March 2015 00:15
-
- {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
PRESIDENT Maithripala Sirisena’s visit to China last week yielded a mix bag of results. Valuable deals were struck through the signing of five Memoranda of Understanding between the two nations, extending cooperation in several fields. However, uncertainty continues to hang over the Port City project; at least in terms of the information that the ‘Yahapalanaya’ regime chooses to share in public forums.
Among the deals struck was a grant from the Chinese Government to establish a hospital, special laboratories and research facilities aimed at treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease – a condition which has become increasingly prevalent, particularly among Sri Lankans engaged in the agricultural sector – in addition to MoUs for cooperation and special aid in the fields of public health, water treatment, research and development in the coconut industry and the ongoing refurbishment of Sri Lanka’s Superior Courts Complex. Discussions also focused on the promotion of Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into Sri Lanka, while China also made an offer to train 2,000 young Sri Lankan scientists over the next five years.
These agreements are certainly powerful incentives for the new regime to strengthen its ties to China, but what did little Sri Lanka offer in return? Nothing out of the ordinary, it would seem. Sirisena reiterated Sri Lanka’s commitment to the One-China policy, a longstanding foreign policy stance which will result in a continuing refusal on the part of Sri Lanka to recognise the state of Taiwan. He also expressed interest in the Chinese 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, again another standard position to be expected of a country which is geographically positioned in the middle of this trade route, and which is now home to a Chinese-built port on its southern coast.
Strange then that the official communiqué following last week’s discussions was silent on the one sticking point which most would expect such a high-level State visit to China to resolve, namely the $ 1.4 billion Port City project. Indeed, the most puzzling aspect of Sirisena’s trip to China would have to be the initial report that the Port City project would be allowed to resume once problems regarding the project had been “sorted out” followed quickly by a hasty denial of the same from Deputy Foreign Minister Ajith Perera. No excuses were advanced for this serious miscommunication on such a crucial project by Sri Lankan authorities, which begs the question, what could the Sri Lankan delegation to China have stated that could lead to such a situation?
The first possibility: A complete miscommunication. Something was lost in translation which led Chinese Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs Liu Jianchao to believe that work on the project would be resumed when no such assurances had been extended. Stranger things have happened however given the importance of the Port City project, and the fact that this was no less than a Presidential visit to China, this seems either impossible, or if not, then a downright embarrassment.
Alternatively, if the Sri Lankan delegation’s response to Chinese queries on the Port City was the same unequivocal ‘maybe, wait and see’ that has been fed to the Sri Lanka public, then perhaps Jianchao’s statement could be considered Chinese strong-arming in an attempt to force the issue. This too would have worrying implications for Sri Lanka’s autonomy.
Finally, we must consider the possibility that what Jianchao stated was in fact what he was told, that the Port City project will go ahead once sufficient theatrics have been played out, signalling a disconcerting level of disingenuous behaviour from a regime that stormed into power on a platform of good governance, transparency and accountability.
