The next time you buy some lingerie, a T-shirt or a pair of rubber gloves, you may want to reflect on this: they were probably made in Sri Lanka.Yup, you just thought you were buying some cheap clothing, but in reality, you have blood on your hands, because the Sri Lankan cause is the latest celebrity cause.
And like it or not, your purchase plays a role in the debate over how to respond to the Sri Lankan Government's successful but brutal military campaign against the Tamil Tiger rebels…
Forget Pakistan, Tibet, Iraq and Afghanistan – Sri Lanka’s where the cool kids now direct their energies:
Since 2005 Sri Lanka has been allowed to sell garments to the European Union without import tax as part of a scheme designed to help it to recover from the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004. That means its clothes are 10 per cent cheaper than those from China and other competitors - helping the island to earn at least $2.9 billion from the EU annually. Britain accounts for much of that.I’m tempted to say four years ought to be enough and that tax should now be reinstated.
But Jeremy would like this to be rescinded not because it’s no longer needed to stop a ‘human rights crisis’ but to punish the government (and therefore people) of a Third World country for an action in the past….
So the question facing British shoppers and holidaymakers is this: should they continue to support Sri Lanka's garment and tourist industries? Sadly, the answer must be no.According to whom, Jeremy? You?
Britain should welcome the defeat of the Tigers, a ruthless terrorist organisation that forcibly recruited children, pioneered the use of the suicide bomb and killed thousands of innocent people. But Britain must also condemn the Sri Lankan Government's conduct of the war - and take punitive action against it both to discourage other states from using similar methods, and to encourage proper reconciliation between the Tamil and Sinhalese communities. With the UN paralysed, economic sanctions are the only practical options left.So, ’pour encourager les autres’, we should take punitive action against a poor Third World country’s citizens for a war entirely within their own borders against a ruthless terrorist organisation?
When did that kind of thing become acceptable?
Many will ask why they should care: there are bigger conflicts in the world, and Sri Lanka's is mercifully confined to its own shores, with no risk that British troops might be deployed.Quite…
The response to that is simple: what about next time? Sri Lanka's war has been discrete only because it is an island; many other conflicts in have spilt across borders, forcing military intervention to prevent a humanitarian disaster or a greater conflagration.Ah, so, it’s a bit of pre-emptive punishment we are talking about here, is it?
Britain may have, in the eyes of the world, ceded much of the moral high ground over human rights when it shed civilian blood during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But that does not mean that Britain should abandon its role in defending international law that protects civilians in conflicts and holds governments accountable for their actions during war.You mean, it’s ok when it’s a cause you currently support?
In an ideal world the UN, not the EU, would take the lead.Ha ha ha ha!
As to whether Britons should visit Sri Lanka as tourists, well that's a matter of personal choice….Gosh, that’s awfully good of you, Jeremy!
But if it’s ok with you, I plan to make all my own decisions. Actually, I plan to do that even if it’s not ok with you….
9 comments:
Actually, reinstating the 10% tax will not only make the Sri Lankans poorer, it will make us poorer as well. We will wind up paying more for those same clothes.
This is what I can never understand about those who advocate protectionism. Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax. It might help our manufacturers make more money, but there are many more consumers than manufacturers (even if you include the handful of extra people who might get employed because of protectionist policies.) But that chances are that extra people won't get employed, because most places can ramp production up on the same number of employees. So the only people who REALLY benefit are the shareholders of the manufacturer.
And the aggregate is that more people in the UK (and in their trading partners) suffer because of protectionism than are helped by it.
It is PRINCIPAL that I only buy German, were possible. And bugger all to do with price, or creating jobs.
You forgot THAT one Obnoxio.
Von Brandenburg-Preußen
Look to the positive.
For years we have been led to believe that poverty is a major cause of war and conflict. Now that this war is over we are going to make them poorer as a penalty.
I presume that they now believe that wealth is a major cause of war.
Either that or they want to make them poor so that the fighting will resume.
My head hurts
I read that Jeremy Page article - it was terribly biased towards the Tamil Tigers. I don't know much about Sri Lanka or the conflict, but I know enough to recognise that the tactics employed are basically those of the Briggs plan as used by the British to great effect in Malaya.
The basic idea is to deprive the insurgents of basic resources including manpower.
The Briggs plan remains a very sound blueprint on how to defeat insurgency. The US failed to take heed of it in Vietnam and we're still ignoring it today in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sri Lanka fought the war against the LTTE using conventional counter terrorism tactics for 20 odd years with little impact. In 2006 they implemented a similar idea to the Brigss plan and three years later it's all over.
"This is what I can never understand about those who advocate protectionism. Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax."
That's because it's mostly about political posturing or social engineering by the back door.
Nothing to do with economic reality!
"My head hurts"
Yeah, I know that feeling!
"In 2006 they implemented a similar idea to the Brigss plan and three years later it's all over."
Exactly. It's almost as though he wants to punish the Sri Lankan government for pointing this out to everyone in clear and unequivocal terms, isn't it..?
"Protectionism costs the consumer more, every single one of us bears the direct and knock-on costs of that 10% tax."
A very simplistic view of protectionism. Protectionism isn't simply about "banning imports" or tariffs - it's about having control over who you trade with and how. The crucial issue is the balance of trade.
For more than a decade the trade deficit has been running at 4-5% of GDP while growth has been around 1-2%.
In real terms that means the wealth of the nation has been in decline. It's like getting a 2% rise when inflation is running at 4-5%.
We've papered over that with high property values (mostly driven by mass immigration increaing demand)and massive debt, but that is not sustainable.
We have to get to a position where the balance of trade is either positive or within the limits of GDP growth - i.e. if growth is running at 2% the trade deficit needs to be less than that. Then, and only then will you have a robust economy.
Stan
"In real terms that means the wealth of the nation has been in decline. It's like getting a 2% rise when inflation is running at 4-5%."
No - in real terms we gain. We've got the goods and services we want and those supplying us have bits of paper with Gordo's "promise to pay" on them. The purpose of exporting is not to put other people's currency or gold in the bank, it's so we can import the goods and services we want.
China is sitting on, what, $1.5 trillion. Big deal - they have bits of paper: the Americans have Chinese products. If China tried to cash in their dollar holdings, the dollar would collapse so they're stuffed. Who are the mugs then? China or the US?
"No - in real terms we gain. We've got the goods and services we want and those supplying us have bits of paper with Gordo's "promise to pay" on them."
And what is that Umbongo? Would it be "debt" by any chance? What got us into this econmic mess in the first place? What do you think would happen if the US defaulted on those debts? Or the UK? Have you any idea of what that would mean for us?
Besides which - that is the national debt, not the trade deficit. Not the same thing. National (or government) debt is money borrowed by the government to fund its spending programmes.
If we default on those we will not be able to get credit anywhere. What do you think that would mean for public services and taxes? How high do you think inflation would rise?
The trade deficit is the difference between what we sell to the rest of the world and what we import as consumers. It's real money - OUR money - which leaves this country for good. Or until we find someway to encourage it back in - which means reducing the trade deficit.
It's the elephant in the room of economics today - the one thing nobody talks about anymore even though it is massive and staring us in the face. Do you honestly believe that if your wages go up 2% but your costs rise 5% that you are better off? What will happen is that you'll eventually find yourself having to stick more and more of those costs onto credit cards or take out loans to cover expenses (i.e. increase your debt) - which is exactly what we have been doing for the last 15 years.
It can't go on forever.
Why is Sri lanka the centre of such aggresive interest?
do they have oil? Are they a strategic off shore island a la the UK?
Post a Comment