After its grand opening on November 18, 2010, the Hambantota international port has rarely found its way into the news, and for good reason: The ‘Magampura’ port came under severe criticism, as it did not produce desired economic results.
The current government was forced to explore new ways in which to leverage the utility value of the Hambantota port to turn it into a profitable entity: This is why the government entered into a 1 billion $ debt-for-equity swap with a Chinese company.
Unfortunately, the woes of the Hambantota international port have not ended with this turn around in fortunes by way of Chinese assistance.
In a major turn of events last week, a group of employees at the port launched a protest campaign, bringing its operations to a standstill, and as the protest intensified, two merchant vessels were held hostage, plunging the government into a fresh debacle.
The protesters were demanding the government to reverse its decision to develop the Hambantota port through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with a Chinese company. They claim they would lose their jobs if the government entered into such an agreement.
They added a clause to their protest, however: In the event of a continuation of the PPP agreement with a Chinese company, they demand they are absorbed into the permanent cadre of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).
Holding hostage
The protestors obstructed the operations of merchant vessels berthed alongside the jetty and the adjacent facilities by using heavy machinery and gantry cranes to block the movement of ships.
The two ships directly prevented from moving were NYK Line’s car carrier the Hyperion Highway and the general cargo ship MV Hoyanger: The Hyperion Highway, a Japanese-owned vehicle carrier with over 7,000 vehicles bound for the Middle East, was prevented from leaving for nearly four days.
There is no gainsaying in the fact that holding a ship and its crew for ransom amounts to piracy – and aside from the financial loss incurred to the two ships the government has also had to pay damages: USD 400,000 is the demurrage charges for four days of non-operation.
It goes without saying that the situation necessitated immediate action to rescue the merchant ships and their crew, and it is against this backdrop that the Navy intervened to rescue the two vessels.
Navy intervention
Issuing a statement after the incident, the Navy said it had intervened in accordance to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, which ensures the security of all ports in Sri Lanka.
The ISPS Code holds the Navy as the competent authority relating to security at ports and harbours: The Code, which came into force in 2004, prescribes responsibilities to governments, shipping companies, shipboard personnel, and port/facility personnel to “detect security threats and take preventative measures against security incidents affecting ships or port facilities used in international trade.”
The ISPS Code was introduced after the 9/11 incidents in the United States, in response to perceived threats to ships and ports, across the world, and Sri Lanka had agreed to comply with while Mangala Samaraweera was Ports and Aviation Minister.
The official website of the Sri Lanka Navy also states the Navy is responsible for the implementation of the ISPS code in Sri Lanka:
“Owing to the terrorist activities where they have carried out attacks using suicide cadres against Naval units berthed at Trincomalee, Kankesanturai and Karainagar and many attempts against merchant ships off Kankesanturai and in Colombo Harbour, it has become essential to protect these harbours round the clock. Sri Lanka Navy is the Designated Authority for implementing International Ships and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code in Sri Lanka,” it said.
This shows the Navy did not go beyond its authority when it intervened to rescue the two merchant ships captured by the protestors at the Hambantota harbour.
Fresh controversy
However fresh controversy arose when Navy Commander Ravindra Wijegunaratne was seen assaulting a provincial journalist covering the protest. The footage of the incident went viral over the weekend, with many parties demanding action against the Navy Commander.
|
The protestors obstructed the operations of merchant vessels berthed alongside the jetty and the adjacent facilities by using heavy machinery and gantry cranes to block the movement of ships.
The two ships directly prevented from moving were NYK Line’s car carrier the Hyperion Highway and the general cargo ship MV Hoyanger: The Hyperion Highway, a Japanese-owned vehicle carrier with over 7,000 vehicles bound for the Middle East, was prevented from leaving for nearly four days.
There is no gainsaying in the fact that holding a ship and its crew for ransom amounts to piracy – and aside from the financial loss incurred to the two ships the government has also had to pay damages: USD 400,000 is the demurrage charges for four days of non-operation
 |
Among them is the Free Media Movement (FMM), which has demanded the government conduct an inquiry against the Navy Commander.
The FMM said the Navy Commander had used derogatory language on the journalist and attacked him while surrounded with armed navy officials, even while the journalist identified himself as the media covering the protest.
‘This incident has to be taken very seriously…,’ the FMM said in a statement. ‘…It is regrettable to see such non-professional conduct from a Navy Commander (when) an ordinary person with basic knowledge would not engage (in such conduct),’ the statement read.
‘This is black mark to the whole country.’
The government was quick to respond to the incident. Issuing a statement, Government Information Director General Dr. Ranga Kalansooriya said the government had initiated an inquiry into the alleged assault.
In the same statement, however, Kalansooriya went on to say that the journalist had violated basic ethics while covering sensitive conflict situations.
“It is highly expected that journalists adhere to the highest standards of ethical practices when covering these types of conflict situations,” he said.
This statement was greeted with mixed reactions by media and political circles.
Kalansooriya’s reference to the journalist’s conduct raised some concerns in the media fraternity: Many asked how it was that the government could claim the journalist had violated ethical practice, before the commencement of an inquiry.
The statement by the Government Information Department’s Director General made no comment on the conduct of the Navy Commander, who was caught on tape assaulting the journalist. This too earned the ire of some sections of the media fraternity.
If the journalist obstructed the Navy officers or attempted to break into the defence line, the Navy should have handed him over to the Police for further action. In this instance, it is clear that everyone has acted on the heat of the moment, without thinking of repercussions of their individual actions.
Political elements
The incident has also allowed the government’s political opponents to cash in on the situation. UPFA MPs Namal Rajapaksa and Wimal Weerawansa said in Parliament, on Saturday, that the government had deployed the Navy to attack protesters at the Hambantota harbour. Interestingly, this was the same group that vociferously defended the Army’s attack on protesters in Rathupaswala demanding clean drinking water.
The protest launched by the port workers has already caused a significant financial loss to the Sri Lankan government.
Speaking to reporters in Colombo, Ports and Shipping Minister Arjuna Ranatunga warned that major shipping lines may abandon the Hambantota Port if worker unrest continues.
“We are redirecting some of the ships coming to the Hambantota Port to Colombo. We are losing the rest. The damage by the protesters is severe,” the minister said.
“We are yet to witness and assess the damage to the 13-storied building which is under their control. It has been reported that they have encroached on the premises, shut down the CCTV system and electricity,” he said, adding that some of these protesters were former members of the ‘Nil Balakaya’.
“We are not sure whether they have damaged the computer system as well. The crane machines were damaged. Acts of vandalism of this nature cannot be accepted,” Ranatunga said, describing the protest as an act of sabotage”.
“We have let the law enforcement authorities to take things under their wings,” the minister said.
Ranatunga also said the protesters’ behaviour had shattered the confidence of Chinese investors who have shown willingness to develop the Hambantota port.
“How can I take responsibility of these workers? If the Chinese company asks us are these the kind of people you are going to recruit to the company, we would be speechless. These protesters were not in any way at a risk of losing their jobs due to the agreement signed between the government and the Chinese company,” Minister Ranatunga said, asserting that he was also against the privatization of the port.
“However, there are times we have to take certain steps for the sake of our people and the country. What happens in the Hambantota port agreement is not privatisation. We are trying to minimise the debt caused by the former regime. What would happen if the Chinese company gives up on the Hambantota port? Who is going to pay the debts? Namal Rajapaksa says it cost Rs. 400 million whereas the actual expenditure is Rs. 1,300 million. Where has the rest of the money gone? Mahinda Rajapaksa will not pay the debts on behalf of the government. We have come into this joint agreement to dodge the amount of debts that may crash upon our economy. We are already spending the profit we get from the Colombo port to pay the debts of Hambantota port. We cannot allow this to continue,” Minister Ranatunga said.
Responding to a question on the agreement on Hambantota port, Minister Ranatunga said that the initial agreement was signed on December 8.
“We are still trying to gain more benefits to our country before the last stage of signing the agreement. We have to complete the signing by January 8. The former agreement was to lease the Hambantota Port for 199 years, which we have now decreased to 99. We are trying our level best to decrease it to 45-50 years. We have won 50 percent of the demands that we made to the Chinese company. I shall be satisfied if we could win more benefits over to our side.” Minister Ranatunga said.
“We will resume work at the Hambantota Port by next week. The protesters receive food and other facilities, which shows that this is organised by some political figures. I again ask them to give up the protest, go home and come to work fresh the next day. We have thousands of applicants waiting to take up duties. We have requested from the Defence Ministry to provide us security to resume work at the Hambantota port. If the protesters want to, they can carry on their protests in a non-violent manner,” he added.
However, normalcy is yet to return to the Hambantota port as its workers continued their sathyagraha campaign for the seventh day. Minister Mahinda Amaraweera, a Parliamentarian representing the Hambantota district, has also intervened in attempt to resolve the issue but has failed to arrive at a final agreement.
Add new comment