Indian American Leaders Come Out Strongly Against Trump Travel Ban

The passionate opponents include two newly elected members of the US Congress – Pramila Jayapal and Raja Krishnamoorthi – and Nisha Biswal and Manpreet Anand, who served as diplomats in the Obama administration.

The passionate opponents include two newly elected members of the US Congress – Pramila Jayapal and Raja Krishnamoorthi – and Nisha Biswal and Manpreet Anand, who served as diplomats in the Obama administration.

From left to right: Pramila Jayapal, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Sekar Narasimhan. Credit: Wikimedia

From left to right: Pramila Jayapal, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Sekar Narasimhan. Credit: Wikimedia

Washington: Indian Americans today showed their faith in an open, inclusive America by coming out strongly against President Donald Trump’s sweeping ban on citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, calling it unethical, unjust, unconstitutional and un-American. 

Widespread protests against Friday’s controversial executive order have roiled cities across the United States, with ordinary Americans flocking to major airports in support of travelers who have been stranded or turned away despite having valid visas and green cards.
 
Incredible scenes of people walking in extreme weather to register their opposition to Trump’s hastily crafted order are unfolding daily. Immigration lawyers are offering free services at airports, setting up desks on luggage carts.
 
But the ban has also unleashed new anger against non-white immigrants, including Indian Americans who have lived here as citizens for decades. Reports have come in about a 70-year-old Indian American citizen being strip-searched after a domestic flight and a grandmother being asked to show her “papers” as she walked in her neighbourhood. 
 
On Tuesday, key Indian Americans decided to speak out. The passionate opponents included two newly elected members of the US Congress – Pramila Jayapal and Raja Krishnamoorthi – and Nisha Biswal and Manpreet Anand, who served as diplomats in the Obama administration.  
 
Biswal said she “speaks as a practicing Hindu, as a proud American and as a former State Department official” that this ban will not “make us safer.” As assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, her portfolio included many Muslim-majority countries whose cooperation was crucial in the fight against terrorism.
 
Recalling the recent incidents where a long-time Indian American woman in Maryland was asked to show papers after a neighbour called the police about spotting a ‘suspicious’ person, Biswal asked, “Is this what we want for our mothers, grandmothers, sisters and fathers?”
 
The Chennai-born Jayapal, a fearless spokeswoman for progressive causes and a US representative from the state of Washington, said she will fight the “demonising and other-ising” of people with every tool in her toolbox as a Congresswoman. She said she fought to be on the House Judiciary Committee to make sure her voice is heard in Congress, where 240 Republicans outnumber 193 Democrats.
 
“People in my district are terrified. Anyone who defends this ban will be on the wrong side of history,” she said. Jayapal described the chaos at Seattle airport on the weekend where she helped legitimate travelers and immigrants. In one case, she said they had to literally stop a plane from taking off to rescue a Yemeni man who was being deported.
 
“I know what it’s like to fight for citizenship, to be denied a room because of the colour of my skin,” Jayapal said. The early-morning press conference against Trump’s executive order was the first expression by the 3.2 million-strong Indian American community that largely supports the Democratic Party.
 
It was also timed to pre-empt the Republican Hindu Coalition’s announcement of support for the ban expected on Wednesday. The RHC, led by industrialist Shalabh Kumar, has emerged as a key group in the new administration because of Kumar’s perceived proximity to Trump and large campaign donations.
 
“To the group calling itself the Republican Hindu Coalition, I say: shame on you. This group doesn’t honour Hindus. It doesn’t represent us,” Jayapal said.
 
Many community leaders point out that Indian Americans or Hindus are not insulated from this ban and the overall climate.
 
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi from Illinois, one of five Indian Americans now in Congress dubbed the “Fabulous Five,” said he was “sworn in to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to unify our country.”
 
“This executive order is an assault and serves only to divide Americans,” he said. He worked at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Saturday night to “free a dozen green card holders” from custody.
 
“It is appalling and shocking that legal residents would be stopped.” A person who had been here for 20 years and never left the US, went for a wedding and was stopped at the airport, Krishnamoorthi recounted.
 
The Department of Homeland Security has since clarified that green card holders are exempt from the order but the two days immediately following the order Friday caused enough misery for legitimate US residents returning home. 
 
The Democratic Party and especially its younger representatives have seized on the controversial ban to rally people and mobilise support. As Krishnamoorthi said, “This is not a time to agonise but to organise.”
 
Shekar Narasimhan, chairman of an organisation of Asian American and Pacific Islanders, said community leaders are planning to “demand” that the US Congress deny Trump the funds to implement the ban.
 
“This executive order is an American issue, not a partisan issue or a progressive issue,” he said.

Obama’s Disappointing Sri Lanka Policy

Washington could make it clear that increased military cooperation is off the table indefinitely and that bilateral ties are directly related to progress pertaining to the UN Human Rights Council resolution.

Washington could make it clear that increased military cooperation is off the table indefinitely and that bilateral ties are directly related to progress pertaining to the UN Human Rights Council resolution.

Nisha Biswal, US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs (R) and Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights (L) shake hands with Sri Lanka's minister of foreign affairs Mangala Samaraweera during their meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka July 12, 2016. Credit: REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte

Nisha Biswal, US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs (R) and Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights (L) shake hands with Sri Lanka’s minister of foreign affairs Mangala Samaraweera during their meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka July 12, 2016. Credit: REUTERS/Dinuka Liyanawatte

Sri Lanka’s compliance with a recent UN Human Rights Council (HRC) resolution on Sri Lanka was discussed in detail on June 29, during the HRC’s 32nd session. Significantly, the resolution – designed to heal the wounds of decades of war – was co-sponsored by Colombo last October.

Since longtime autocrat Mahinda Rajapaksa unexpectedly lost a presidential election in January 2015, the new government has assiduously worked to repair relations with a host of Western nations, especially the United States. And, while over the past 18 months some progress has been made, caution remains the order of the day.

Sri Lanka’s new government has taken the country in a less authoritarian direction. The passage of the 19th amendment to the constitution trimmed presidential powers that had been expanded on Rajapaksa’s watch. In June, a Right to Information bill was passed.

On the metric of rights, then, the new government is definitely better than the previous one. On the other hand, while Colombo now has a massive reform agenda, it’s not clear how much of it will ever be implemented. For example, corruption was a key reason why Rajapaksa lost the presidency. However, ongoing investigations still have not resulted in convictions or even many indictments. And, while Colombo is purportedly committed to transitional justice, those issues are not even being explained to the general public. Furthermore, people residing in the Tamil-majority Northern and Eastern Provinces still face a host of problems pertaining to militarisation, human rights violations and socioeconomic troubles. Colombo appears to be most invested in the possibility of a new constitution; whether such a document would satisfy the aspirations of the Tamil community remains an open question. In short, there are reasons to be worried that President Maithripala Sirisena’s legacy may be one of incremental change, not deeper reform.

UN high commissioner for human rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein delivered a diplomatic and thorough oral update on Colombo’s progress. Frankly, the high commissioner’s language could have been stronger and more critical. That being said, his remarks should leave no doubt that most of the resolution’s prescriptions – pertaining to national reconciliation, accountability for war time abuses, institutional reform and human rights – have yet to be implemented.

US Ambassador to the HRC Keith Harper spoke briefly about Sri Lanka.

“We thank the high commissioner for his interim report requested last September detailing the progress Sri Lanka has made, and the important work that remains. We look forward to receiving the full report next March. In the interim we encourage the government of Sri Lanka to make continued tangible steps in fulfilling their commitments reflected in resolution 30/1 and elsewhere to credible justice, accountability, and reconciliation mechanisms.”

Unfortunately, that’s all Harper had to say. A range of other nations came with stronger words, including Canada, Ghana and several European countries.

Let’s keep in mind that diplomatic pressure on Sri Lanka over the past several years (at the HRC and beyond) was largely due to efforts led by Washington. With what appeared to be moral clarity and a vision for lasting peace in a war-torn nation, the US spearheaded three resolutions on Sri Lanka at the HRC from 2012 to 2014. Admittedly, the US is not a member of the HRC this year; nevertheless, a stronger statement would have been welcomed.

Mangala Samaraweera, Sri Lanka’s foreign minister, also spoke on June 29. He did what he usually does, painting a wildly optimistic picture of the new government’s performance thus far.

Tellingly, on June 28, US ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives, Atul Keshap delivered a speech at the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce in Colombo. Keshap was unsurprisingly upbeat about America’s evolving bilateral relationship with Sri Lanka.

Here’s part of his prepared remarks:

“Today, ladies and gentlemen, it pleases me to report that American relations with Sri Lanka are at an historic high. As President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe lead their government in moving ahead with needed constitutional reform, national reconciliation, and fulfilling their United Nations commitments, the United States will remain steadfast in our support of efforts to rebuild the economy, advance good governance, and ensure that all Sri Lankans can enjoy equal rights, equal opportunities and the full benefits of post-conflict development and prosperity, regardless of their ethnicity or origins.”

The timing of Keshap’s speech, just a day before Colombo would go under the microscope of the Geneva-based HRC, will remind observers about a development that’s become increasingly clear since January 2015: human rights and accountability for alleged wartime abuses – matters which the US used to care deeply about – are no longer the priorities they once were for Washington. Keshap used similar language in a July 4th  message (to mark US independence day). “As fellow democracies bound by shared beliefs in universal freedoms, US-Sri Lankan relations are at a historic high,” he said.

Trade, aid, security cooperation and investment will probably shape the bilateral relationship in the months ahead. We’ll likely hear about how the difficult war-related matters will take time and that skepticism regarding Colombo’s plans is both unwarranted and unwise. We’ll almost certainly be reminded that the new government needs time and space to implement its ambitious agenda, but that more positive changes are sure to come. We may hear that there’s no need to worry that most of the reform agenda – from anticorruption efforts to transitional justice – still hasn’t been implemented. In essence, we’ll be asked to wholeheartedly agree with the Obama administration’s roseate assessment of the current state of affairs in Sri Lanka – and double down on an approach that’s based principally upon hope and naiveté, rather than an appreciation for the realities on the ground.

Nisha Biswal, US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs is visiting Sri Lanka this week. Tom Malinowski, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labour, is as well. According to a media note, “economic cooperation as well as democratic governance and reconciliation” are on the agenda.

The visit would be an auspicious time for the Obama administration to be open and honest about difficult war-related issues, including accountability and the broader transitional justice process. Instead of praising the Lankan government, Washington could make it clear that increased military cooperation is off the table indefinitely and that bilateral ties are directly related to progress pertaining to the HRC resolution. Unfortunately, Biswal and Malinowski are unlikely to be conveying messages of this nature. 

Taylor Dibbert is a New Leader at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, New York. The views expressed here are his own.