I am pretty sure I am entitled to copyright the term "Globalisation-II" to describe a distinctly different second phase of globalisation which matured during the last decade. This trend first emerged as a Chinese economic miracle followed by Latin Americastep-by-step and now (after the Uruguayan elections) full-scale tilt to the left. Thereafter, lots of other chips have fallen into place, or sometimes just fallen around in a mess - the Indian economic take-off, Russia’s gas fuelled assertiveness, the Vietnamese economic miracle, and the new game in the Middle East (the rise of Iran to the foremost position, the American quagmire in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc). This new world is still intensely globalised - though linguistically, this sounds oxymoronic –perhaps even more so than a decade or two ago, but the economic, strategic and political dynamics are vividly different from pervious times. It is for this manifestly new, qualitatively morphed global ball game, that I coined the term Globalisation-II some years ago.

Playing with IrPaChIn

You are getting impatient with all this: What the devil is Irpachin? It is the Lankan version of the opening that small countries now have to stretch themselves and exploit the spaces and opportunities offered by Globalisation-II. And oh yes, it just stands for Iran-Pakistan-China-India, the parameter space of our particular version of the game. There is a short-term tactical and a longer term strategic dimension to the game and it is the latter that is my focus today. But first some words about the tactical side; sure the regime is milking the Ahamdinejad visit to the full. Any government would, so no surprise when photogenic young Mahmoud is held up as a magnet to Muslim swing-voters in the Eastern Province. And sure if the government wants to crow about two billion dollars in promised aid (Sapugaskanda refinery expansion and Uma Oya power project) as big victories, fair enough.

On the down side, the regime, cornered on human rights transgressions, hopes to deploy the opportunities opened by Globalisation-II for maleficent objectives such as a cover up. The new friends, it believes, will not breathe hard down its neck. This expectation is incorrect, as it will soon learn. India for one, is finding wanton neighbours a political embarrassment, and since Musharraf is now a lame duck, a democratising Pakistan is not a reliable partner in delinquency. The biggest shock is going to be China which has burnt its fingers badly in the flames of the Olympic Torch, not only because of Tibet but also because of mounting resentment over Burma, Darfur and its support for other African dictators. Hereafter China will be a great deal more cautious in choosing its bosom friends or lending its name to rights violators; last week it recalled a huge shipment of arms to Zimbabwe after being snubbed by several African littoral states. We are not rich in oil and minerals; hence we lack the basic prerequisites in exchange for which China is happy to abandon principles.

White-water rafting

This correspondent has long insisted in these pages that Iran has as much right to the bomb as America, France or Israel. For the life of me I cannot see why not, no one has provided an even remotely logical explanation. The Non-Proliferation Treaty is simply a cartel of the possessors against the empty handed and has neither moral substance nor legal lien on any country that wishes to renounce it. The argument that Islamic Iran is somehow more dangerous than the US which has twice dropped the bomb on tens of thousands of defenceless civilians is obscene. Nevertheless, I do not advice so positivist a stance for GoSL and I say this only to make clear that it is not reservations about Iran per se that motivate my cautious approach in the following paragraphs. (In any case Iran has not demanded the right to make the bomb, though it would be suicidal negligence of the security of its own people if it did not nuclear arm itself as soon as possible).

In taking advantage of Irpachin opportunities Lanka has to act with canny caution; indeed any small country has to balance on the trapeze between America and the EU on the one hand and its new friends at the other pole, because both sides will remain important for a long time more. This admonition is valid not only for the current Lankan Administration, but for all future governments, whatever their political hue. Get the balance wrong and we will fall off the high wire to hard ground with no safety-net in-between; so gently, gently, must be the watchwords, no use being abrasive. Why! Even President Ahamdinejad could well quote one of Persia’s great poets, old Khayyam, to remind us thus:

I am no supporter of either GoSL or the LTTE in their mad military misadventures, but for arguments sake consider what could happen if the government seriously upsets Washington’s strategic thinking - and there is no issue as serious as Iran for ringing these alarm bells. America has turned the screws hard on the LTTE, closed bank accounts, arrested supporters and entirely disrupted its supply chain. But what if it loosened these screws, just slightly, to teach the Rajapakses a lesson? The military balance will be fatally disrupted; for example, letting a few SAMs slip in - while the FBI looked the other way - would end GoSL aerial superiority with shattering consequences for ground troops.

The newspapers are filled with apprehension about GSP+, the EU’s preferential trade agreement on which some 200,000 jobs in the garment sector depend. To qualify, a good human rights record is a sine qua non. Is there any moral principle that prevents Lanka from adopting more stringent human rights standards and eliminating the impunity that violators now enjoy? None at all! (The moral "principles" of the loony-bin chauvinist fringe, such as the PNM, JHU et al are not worth a response).

The two examples I have selected are not adequate to do justice to the importance of keeping a quick witted balance between Chinese Stalinists, Iranian Islamists, the Pakistani Dictator and the Indian bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and Western capitalist-imperialist mature democracies, on the other. There are huge risks and opportunities, costs and returns on both sides, especially since our economy and security is still heavily dependent on the West. Also, perish the thought that it is hypocrites like Bush, Sarkosy, Merkel, Brown, and their regimes, that drive the human rights agenda in the West; no sir, it is the strength of public opinion in mature democracies. We are in deep and uncharted waters. Yes, indeed, there are new horizons towards which Lanka must steer the ship of state, but remember too we are still at the white-water rafting stage, so gently brother, gently pray.

Knee-jerk reactions

The way the government is behaving at the moment is like a man who has thrown caution to the winds and trusts to knee-jerk reactions. It is not as if this is a Chavez like revolutionary regime which has mobilised its people to carry through a programme of profound social transformations; it is not as if this government has a thought out a long-term foreign policy strategy. Old Khayyam was not averse to bold changes: