Historically, Republican White House and Republican lawmakers in the US Congress take terrorism and countering/monitoring terrorism, policy decisions – however controversial they are – toward the prevention of the resurgence of terrorism, enacting stringent legislation to check terrorist movements – domestic or global – and advocating somewhat not-so-popular measures such as widespread electronic surveillance to curb the menace very seriously giving less importance to calibrating the balance between national security and civil liberties.

The Democrats, both in the White House and in the US legislature, do take countering and prevention of terrorism – domestic or global – seriously but perennially mix them with human rights, rule of law, good governance and democratic norms who take a painful effort to calibrate a proper balance between national security and civil liberties.

Then the United States has its public diplomacy arm that spreads globally to about 190-odd countries: the State Department.

Despite in real practice the White House effectively controls foreign policy decisions along with strategic communication and national security program, domestic or global, the state department plays a major role in representing the ‘ policy councils’ in the White House – Directorate of National Intelligence, National Security Council -in its overseas diplomatic dealings.

This is true whether a Republican or Democrat sits in the Oval Office.

But here’s catch: a very considerable majority of senior and mid-level officials in Washington’s State Department and a near-total of foreign service officers (FSOs) who represent the United States either under a Republican or Democratic presidents in overseas diplomatic posts are well-known for their liberal and libertarian views and mind-set.

But there is a little difference: But when the White House sets the tone – doesn’t matter whether the person sits in the Oval Office is a Republican or Democrat – giving clear indications of what it is serious and what it is not, the officials in the State Department take note and follow suit. In some policy matters the Oval Office is serious and in others it does not stress much importance leaving to the discretion of the State Department. And, the liberal and libertarian sentiments and mind-set of the State Department officials play a significant role in the areas of issues the White House has least interests.

When it comes to Bahrain’s human rights issues, the State Department officials are aware of America’s military operation in the Kingdom of Bahrain is more important than Bahrain’s human rights violations making it a secondary concern. And State Department officials do not override the concerns of the White House Directorate of National Intelligence and National Security Council hunting behind Bahrain’s human rights violations.

Naval Support Activity Bahrain (or NSA Bahrain) is a United States Navy base, situated in the Kingdom of Bahrain and is home to U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and United States Fifth Fleet. It is the primary base in the region for the naval and marine activities in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and formerly Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The State Department in its Annual Human Rights Practices report do mention Central Asian Kyrgyzstan’s blatant violation of human rights but is quite conscious of the fact that the White House value the operation and retention of a military base in that former Soviet republic.

Transit Center at Manas (formerly Manas Air Base and unofficially Ganci Air Base) is a U.S. military installation at Manas International Airport, near Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. It is primarily operated by the U.S. Air Force. The primary unit at the base is the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing.

The State Department officials dare not mix their libertarianism and liberal dogmatic views and mind-set in those areas which is interconnected with American ‘Global War on Terror’.

The approaches of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are compatible when it comes to Bahrain and Kyrgyzstan, and the State Department follows suit.

To these three groups, Sri Lanka is a different issue altogether.

Despite Sri Lanka’s strategic location, as Kerry-Lugar Senate Foreign Relations Committee Report noted in December 2009, former American ambassador to Colombo Jeffrey Lunstead was dead correct when he told the Senate Committee that Sri Lanka was never a priority to the United States.

And Washington State Department officials and their counterparts assigned to the Colombo diplomatic mission were and are aware of that reality to work with the professional activists within the Tamil Diaspora to highlight the ‘operation’ in the final months (Jan-May 2009) of the battle with the Tamil Tiger separatist/terrorists, allegations that Sri Lanka violated international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights (IHRL) law to facilitate Navi Pillay’s UN human rights office in Geneva to initiate investigations, and table resolutions connected to Sri Lanka’s human rights record.

Except Obama White House human rights official Samantha Power’s ‘single’ intervention in Sri Lanka issues the Executive Branch has given all liberty to the State Department to handle the issue, and has not interfered when the Congressional lawmakers aired their sentiments through resolutions.

In fact, the White House recently encouraged lawmakers to address a piece of legislation to allocate funds to Ukraine to which Obama put his signature making it official law.

The Republicans and Democrats in the US Congress, both in the House and Senate, have had perennial battles with the liberal and libertarian bunch of officials in the State Department in quite different ways; the Republicans opposing the manner in which the State Department handle strategically not vital countries like Sri Lanka; Democrats encouraging the State officials to take harder stance while working with human rights groups and Diaspora activists who are connected to human rights causes.

As noted at the outset, Democrats and Republicans in the US Congress take different approaches to terrorism and combating global terrorism.

These sentiments reflect very clearly in the two resolutions concerning Sri Lanka issues brought before the US Senate this year.

The Democratic Party has taken significant different approaches to post-war Sri Lanka issues. Since late it has been revealed that the Senate Republican approach is somewhat opposed to that of the Democrats.

This different approaches could be visibly seen when one compares the two resolutions presented last month, one by the Senate Democrats on February 6 (S.R. 348) and other by eleven Republican Senators on February 27 (S.R. 364), on issues connected to Sri Lanka which have gone global giving rise to a ‘global diplomatic insurgency’ reaching the UNHRC in Geneva this month, the Democrats taking a hard line approach advocating an international mechanism to probe and the Republicans advocating the Obama administration to work toward bringing Sri Lanka back into its orbit noting Sri Lanka’s strategic location, this nation’s importance in the Asian Region and its significant post-war economic development.

The Republican resolution does not mention an ‘international mechanism’ at all. The observations we made at the outset of this Political Note gives reasons for that.

The significance of the two Senate resolution is the February 6 one was dominated by the Democrats and the February 27 one was a total Republican resolution except one Democratic senator.

The significance is that the Senate Republican Resolution urges the Obama White House to recognize Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and maintain relations to safeguard it.

The February 27 Republican Senate resolution “calls on the United States Government and the international community to assist the Government of Sri Lanka, with due regard to its sovereignty, stability, and security”, and the most significant departure from the previous Democratic Senate, which advocated an ‘international mechanism’, is its call to establish” domestic mechanisms to deal with any grievances arising from actions committed by both sides during and after the civil war in Sri Lanka.”

The Republican resolution reminds the Obama administration and its State Department that (Quote) Whereas Sri Lanka is enjoying rapid economic growth as an important hub for shipping transport, technology, and tourism in the South Asia region;

Whereas Sri Lanka is of great strategic importance to the United States, due to its location, deep-water ports, and proximity to the world’s busiest shipping lanes, an importance noticed and pursued by other significant powers; and

Whereas Sri Lanka seeks to be a key United States partner in the fight against terrorism and Indian Ocean piracy (End Quote)

In contrast, the Senate Democratic resolution of February 06 called on the “US and the international community to establish an independent international accountability mechanism to evaluate reports of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other human rights violations committed by both sides during and after the war in Sri Lanka”.

While the Senate Democratic resolution castigated Sri Lanka, in contrast, the Republican resolution recognized what was fulfilled noting “Whereas the Government of Sri Lanka developed the National Plan of Action to implement the recommendations of the LLRC and has made significant progress within limited time in the implementation of the National Plan of Action, notably in the areas of demining, rehabilitation of ex-combatants, resettlement of displaced persons, improvements of infrastructure and social services in the North and East, as well as investigations into complaints regarding persons who have disappeared during the war”.
The Republican resolution acknowledged what Sri Lanka has been constantly saying that the reconciliation is a ‘long-term process’ and cannot be interfered by outsiders when it said “Whereas the Government of Sri Lanka expressed its commitment to address the needs of all ethnic groups and has recognized the necessity of a political settlement and reconciliation for a peaceful and just society, which is a long-term process that will need to be driven by the people of Sri Lanka themselves”.

This is the list of 16 US Senators who signed the February 27 Resolution, and there is ONLY ONE in this list who is not a Republican.

One other significant development is that the Republican front runner for his party’s nomination for the November 2016 presidential election is one of the signatories; Ted Cruz.

Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX]

Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT]

Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]

Sen. Blunt, Roy [R-MO]

Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]

Sen. Sessions, Jeff [R-AL]

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID]

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

Sen. Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY]

Sen. Roberts, Pat [R-KS]

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Sen. Cruz, Ted [R-TX]

Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN]

Sen. Coats, Daniel [R-IN]

Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Pollsters have predicted that there is a greater chance for the Republicans to wrest a majority in the Senate at this November mid-term elections. If that prediction comes true all the committees in the senate, including the most vital ones like foreign affairs, intelligence, judiciary and foreign appropriations, will be headed by the Republicans.

The great Latin American revolutionary and Cuba’s most famous thinker Jose Marti in 1894 said: –

– Asian Tribune –