Washington's declining power reflected in Geneva vote

Interestingly, much of the first part of this perceptive analysis is devoted to Washington’s declining influence and power in Asia, particularly Southeast Asia, since America’s ignominious pull-out from Vietnam.

Chomsky’s comments were occasioned by America’s failure to commemorate the 50th anniversary of President John Kennedy’s decision to launch what Chomsky called the “most destructive and murderous act of aggression of the post-Second World War period: the invasion of South Vietnam”.

As Chomsky points out, that invasion later engulfed all of Indochina, “leaving millions dead and four countries devastated, with casualties still mounting from the long-term effects of drenching South Vietnam with some of the most lethal carcinogens known, undertaken to destroy ground cover and food crops”.

This rape, particularly following Henry Kissinger’s orders to eliminate “anything that flies or anything that moves”, is still to see any in the highest echelons of political power pay. 

Is it not surprising then that the US wields little moral or political authority in Asia when it tries to hold smaller and weaker countries accountable for offences that Washington has doubtless committed several times over and is still committing elsewhere in the world.

This waning influence was best seen a few days back in Geneva when the US won little support from Asia for an anti-Sri Lanka resolution it initiated at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

Washington, supported largely by Caucasian Europe, demanded, among other things, that the island nation account for alleged war crimes committed at the butt-end of a near three-decade  conflict with the secessionist Tamil LTTE, banned in over 30 countries as a terrorist organisation.

Washington’s moral high ground might have been less of a slippery slope if its own record of adherence to international law and abjuring of unilateral military action had been snowy white.

In the event, when the US-resolution, sponsored by 40 countries out of the 192 members of the United Nations, was put to the vote, 24 member-states supported the resolution. The other 23 states of the 47-member Council did not. 

Garnering 24 out of a possible 47 votes – a fraction over half – is hardly a triumph. This vote showed that when it comes to applying moral and humanitarian standards, the US has not only lost Asia but also other areas save Europe.

The support from Europe is understandable. It consists of traditional allies, members of the US-led Nato and countries that were involved in the CIA-operated “rendition” flights that took terrorist suspects to places of detention in Europe, or which used European airports or air space to fly them elsewhere in blatant violation of international law.

Of the 13 Asian member-states of the UNHRC, only India voted with the US. Significantly, four of the five founder-members of Asean currently members of the council did not support the US resolution. Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia did not vote with the US and its mostly Western co-sponsors. In fact, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines voted against, while Malaysia abstained. China was strongly supportive of Sri Lanka while the other major economic power Japan had no truck with the US effort to chastise Colombo, and said so quite candidly. 

As diplomats and observers here say, this does not speak highly for the prevailing power and influence of Washington in a part of the continent where its diktats once carried great diplomatic clout and were often readily accepted.

Bangkok is a useful observation post from which to witness shifting geo-political nuances in the region. It is also the headquarters of the biggest regional arm of the UN system. There is heightened diplomatic activity here, with a regular presence of high-level political figures or senior officials from foreign ministries that permit useful interaction.

Returning to Bangkok from Colombo shortly after the Geneva vote, I found myself at several diplomatic gatherings, all of them hosted by Asian nations, some of whom were very much involved in the Geneva sessions. These provided an opportunity to discuss why Washington failed to win support in this part of the world where it played patron saint not too long ago. Overall Asian support for Sri Lanka came from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, the Maldives, the Philippines and Thailand, with Malaysia abstaining but sympathetic.

There were other Asian nations to the West that also refused to bow to Washington, including US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan.

As diplomats and commentators say, there are several reasons for this turn of events. One is clearly the rise of China as a major political and economic power. Though Beijing has territorial disputes with some of its neighbours, it has proved to be a stabilising power in the region as opposed to the aggressive, aggrandising communist giant that Washington portrayed it as in the Cold War era.

Moreover, Asean, which was originally promoted by the US as a bulwark against the spread of communism and falling dominoes, has emerged as a strong collective voice on the international stage, able to stand on its own and embrace members of different political faiths.

Most of Asean’s original members have acquired self-confidence and are emerging economic powers. Their once-authoritarian regimes do not have to be propped up with US military and political power. They have embraced democracy and worked out their national imperatives.

Many saw in the US resolution a dangerous precedent where countries fighting terrorism or violent insurgencies will be asked to account for their actions like Sri Lanka was. 

The truth, however, is that many countries, including nearby Bangladesh, have only recently held or are holding such investigations into events of four and five decades ago. Most major powers have not done even this.

Chomsky was correct when he said that accountability was demanded only of the weak and the defeated. 

 

Neville De Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist.