Reported By:
| Edited By: Sumer Singh Boparai |Source: DNA |Updated: Feb 26, 2018, 08:15 AM IST
On February 5, the government of Maldives led by President Abdulla Yameen annihilated the fundamentals of democracy by declaring a state of emergency. The move came as a reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to release 12 opposition leaders who were arrested at President Yameen’s order, in an attempt to muzzle the growing dissent against his autocratic rule. In the wee hours of the morning, the military stormed into the Supreme Court premises and arrested the Chief Justice and an associate judge. To further stifle the voices of dissent the President ordered the arrest of his half-brother and former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Condemning the deplorable turn of events the exiled former President Mohammad Nasheed has said that this would “tantamount to declaration of martial law in the Maldives”. The recent series of events do not augur well for India, leaving it in a conundrum either to watch as a mute spectator or intervene and restore the rule of law.
Mohammad Nasheed has openly requested India to lead an international effort to reinforce rule of law in the island nation. There have been voices in the media drawing comparisons with India’s 1988 operation ‘Cactus’, wherein Indian military intervened and resolved the issue by restoring the rule of law. However, the 1988 situation was far different from the present issue at hand. In 1988, the intervention was backed by the legitimate government of the time and was against an armed militia. In the present scenario, while the Maldivian opposition has repeatedly requested India to intervene in the crisis, the government in Male has cautioned against any external intervention as it would tantamount to a breach of sovereignty. The Maldivian government’s stand has also been seconded by Beijing.
The United Nation Charter regulates the relations between the sovereign nations and the policy of interference and intervention. Article 2(4) stipulates that the States should refrain from using “force against territorial integrity or political independence of any State”. Furthermore, Article 2(7) restricts UN from interfering in Domestic relations of State until and unless there is a threat to international peace and security. In the present case, even though Yameen’s murder of democracy is extremely appalling, it does not qualify as a threat to international peace and security.
The principle of non-intervention was reiterated by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. the United States of America, which dealt with military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. The ICJ held the US violated the obligations under the Charter and emphasized that direct military action or indirect action (supporting contras or terrorist activities) would fall foul of the non-intervention principle embodied in Article 2(4) of the Charter. It was enunciated by the Court that, “the principle forbids all states or group of states to intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other states.” Finally, the Court observed that “prohibitive intervention” would include the use of direct military force or indirect military force in the form of supporting subversive or terrorist activities within another state.
India would not be able to intervene on the ground of humanitarian crisis. For that, they require an authorization from UN Security Council. Firstly, there are no such violations of human rights in the Maldives. Secondly, China being a permanent member of the UNSC and having vested interests in the island nation would veto any such proposal.
President Abdulla Yameen’s position has been bolstered by the growing support from Beijing in recent times. This appears to be a colossal threat to India’s influence over the affairs in the Indian Ocean Region. Control over the Maldivian government could be extremely beneficial for China in realizing its “String of Pearls” strategy in the Indian Ocean Region. In the recent past, there have been events, which elucidate the increasing influencing of Beijing in the island nation. In an unprecedented move by Beijing, the Chinese Military docked three naval warships in Male for a five-day goodwill visit including a joint military exercise between the two countries. In 2013, the Maldives government revoked Indian company GMR’s construction contract for the airport in Male, the same was subsequently given to a Chinese company. The Maldivian government has signed a free trade agreement with China in extreme haste without any proper dialogue or discussion in the parliament. The island nation is also an enthusiastic participant of China’s Belt and Road initiative. In 2015, ruling government proposed a strange Constitutional Amendment by virtue of which it could allow foreign ownership of territory in the Maldives. This was done with a binding condition that foreign investors would have to invest more than $ 1 billion and would also have to reclaim 70 per cent of the land from the sea. The main beneficiaries of this scheme would be China and Saudi Arabia. This is already visible with China and Saudi Arabia extensively investing in the Maldives.
The author is an advocate pursuing Masters in Law (International Law) at UC Berkeley
