Policy Alert #159 | February 22, 2018

Ahead of upcoming elections in the Maldives, the Maldivian Supreme Court overturned the highly contested convictions of exiled Former President Mohamed Nasheed and nine Members of Parliament from his political party on February 2nd. In defiance of the court order, President Abdulla Yameen suspended parliament, declared a state of emergency, and ordered the arrest of several political rivals, including two of the Supreme Court Justices. The crackdown has sparked protests from opposition supporters, concentrated in the country’s capital, Male. The Maldives, a small collection of islands in the Indian Ocean, are of strategic importance to both India and China, and both countries have been closely monitoring the situation. In this Policy Alert, RPI explores the Rising Powers’ stakes in the crisis as allegations of intervention fly on all sides.

 

MALDIVES
In an interview with The Indian Express, Maldives Ambassador to India Ahmed Mohamed clarified his government’s intentions in reaching out to “friendly nations.” The Maldives sent special envoys to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China following the declaration of emergency, but the lack of a meeting with India left many to speculate that the government was purposefully excluding India. Ambassador Mohamed explained that the Maldives had actively sought a bilateral meeting, but the Indian side that had declined due to scheduling conflicts: “During Thursday’s meeting between Indian Ambassador Akhilesh Mishra and our Foreign Secretary Ahmed Sareer, we once again requested India for a bilateral visit by a special envoy from our President. Unlike last time, when we had requested for a visit by a special envoy on a specific date, this time it has been kept open-ended, at a time convenient to the Indian government.” Mohamed also attempted to quell rumors that his government had requested military assistance from China, “The Indian envoy was told that the special envoy has not asked for any military intervention from China or any other country.” The ambassador further clarified his government’s concern for international appeals for foreign intervention in his country, and expressed concern that prominent Indian politicians, such as Yashwant Sinha, were advocating for India to intervene as it had in 1988.

Exiled Former President Mohamed Nasheed, who remains leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), called for India to intervene in the crisis: “We would like the Indian government to send an envoy, backed by its military, to free the judges and the political detainees, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, from their detention and to bring them to their homes. We are asking for a physical presence.” In a tweet, Nasheed requested a “physical presence” by the Indian government and military and for the US to freeze the financial assets of the current regime’s leadership. The former president accused Yameen of allowing China to conduct a massive “land grabbing” scheme in which the country had already attained sixteen Maldivian islands in an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review: “Without firing a single shot, China has grabbed more land than the East India Company at the height of the nineteenth century.” MDP Member of Parliament and lawyer Ali Hussain described the situation as dire for members of the opposition: “There is an imminent threat. […] The military takeover of the Parliament house and the Supreme Court shows that the President may order just anything he wants to be carried out.”

INDIA
In an official statement issued on February 6th, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) expressed India’s concerns with the political crisis in the Maldives: “We are disturbed by the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Maldives following the refusal of the Government to abide by the unanimous ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court on 1 February, and also by the suspension of Constitutional rights of the people of Maldives. The arrest of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and political figures are also reasons for concern.” Following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent phone call with US President Donald Trump, a White House press release mentioned that “[b]oth leaders expressed concern about the political crisis in Maldives and the importance of respect for democratic institutions and rule of law,” but there has not been an official release by the MEA regarding the conversation. On February 20th, the date on which the state of emergency was scheduled to be lifted, the MEA “expected” that the state of emergency would not be extended and advocated that the Maldives “quickly returns to the path of democracy and the rule of law so that the aspirations of Maldivian people are met and the concerns of the international community are assuaged.” Following the announcement that the state of emergency was extended, the MEA reiterated India’s concern with the crisis: “We are deeply dismayed that the Government of Maldives has extended the State of Emergency for a further 30 days. The manner in which the extension of the State of Emergency was approved by the Majlis in contravention of the Constitution of Maldives is also a matter of concern. […] It is important to ensure that all democratic institutions are allowed to function in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with the Constitution.”

Unnamed sources in the MEA reportedly explained to The Hindu that while it was true that India could not host a an envoy from the Maldives due to schedule conflicts, namely that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj were not in the country on the requested dates, the slight was also motivated by frustration with the current government’s handling of the crisis. “We have not seen any real action on the concerns stated by the international community and India,” the MEA source said. “Democratic institutions and the judiciary continue to be undermined and concerns ignored. These issues need to be properly addressed.”

Following the release of a Reuters article that described a possible deployment of Chinese naval ships toward the Maldives based on an article published by the Chinese outlet Sina, many Indian news sources erupted in alarm. In response, the Indian Navy explained that the movement was “routine in nature” and remained 2,500 nautical miles from the Maldives. Indian Navy Spokesperson Captain D.K. Sharma assured the press that they are closely monitoring the situation: “[The] Indian Navy has a robust maritime domain awareness and we have a clear picture of the happenings in the Indian Ocean Region.”

• Yashwant Sinha, a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (currently out of favor with the government), addressed the press outside his home and called for the government to intervene: “We need not ask any nation before we act. Like in Bangladesh’s case we have seen, if we act, world respects you. But if you don’t, they will take you as weak and you keep taking advice. […]That Chinese should come and right under our nose, in our backyard, play these games, India should not remain a mute spectator.”
• Happymon Jacob, Associate Professor of Disarmament and National Security at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, argued in his op-ed for The Hindu that India should stay out of the crisis. “New Delhi has very little moral, legal and political locus standi to justify an intervention in the Maldives. It’s at best an interested party whose best bet is diplomacy and persuasion,” Jacob explained.
• Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibbal expressed concerns about China’s role in the crisis, but urged patience: “There is a strong political case for intervention but not a legal one as yet. In the immediate future, political and economic pressure on Maldives should be put by like-minded countries that are already building understandings on security issues in the Indo-Pacific region in the background of China’s maritime ambitions, namely, India, US, Japan and Australia. With pressure, patience is needed.“
• C. Raja Mohan, Director of Carnegie India and consulting foreign affairs editor of The Indian Express, predicted that action in the crisis “would involve political mediation between the government and Opposition, the use of coercive diplomacy, and ultimately force, to restore order in Maldives.” “Such an intervention is likely to get considerable international support and some Chinese criticism. The moment, then, may indeed be ripe for a decisive Indian intervention in the Maldives,” Mohan concluded, and justified intervention by asserting that the responsibility to maintain order is “the burden of all major powers, especially in their own regions.”

CHINA
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Geng Shuang repeated China’s position of non-interference during a regular press conference on February 7th: “[W]hat is happening now in the Maldives falls within the internal affairs of that country. China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other’s internal affairs. [..T]he international community should play a constructive role on the basis of respecting the sovereignty of the Maldives rather than take actions that may further complicate the situation.” In an interview a few days later, Geng Shuang reassured a journalist with The Hindu that, “China will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Maldives.”

• Xinhua condemned Former Maldivian President Nasheed’s allegations that China was participating in “land-grabbing” activities in the country: “The ‘land grabbing’ rhetoric is not only fictitious but also irresponsible. […] China’s efforts and contribution to promoting the transition and upgrade of the Maldives’ economy and the improvement of the Maldivian people’s livelihoods have been greatly appreciated and welcomed by the Maldivian people.” Xinhua’s article cited glowing statements from current Maldivian officials about China’s investments and corrected statistics Nasheed had used.
• The nationalist Global Times took aim at Indian discourse that advocated intervention in the Maldives: “Political struggles are supposed to be internal affairs, and New Delhi has no justification to intervene in Malé’s affairs.”
• Sina, a technology conglomerate that includes the Chinese social media platform Weibo, published an article through its news service that boasted of the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s supremacy over the Indian Navy as it covered the deployment of several ships to the Indian Ocean. (The Reuters article summarizing the post in English is available here.)
• The independent South China Morning Post ran an editorial celebrating recent developments in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although the article does not mention the Maldives crisis specifically, the country signed both a bilateral free trade agreement with China and Memorandum of Understanding regarding the BRI in December 2017. The editorial’s closing lines appear to be a warning to New Dehli: “Countries that eye China’s growing power warily are bound to be cautious or even critical. Realising the plans will also not be easy. But Beijing has the resources and know-how, will and determination. By working together for a shared vision, all nations will benefit.“
• Another SCMP editorial criticized “unnecessarily provocative” actions by the navies of the United States and United Kingdom ahead of the anti-submarine frigate HMS Sutherland‘s “freedom of navigation” mission in the South China Sea scheduled for March 2018. The SCMP called on the UK and US to abandon their intimidation efforts: “A third of the world’s trade passes through the South China Sea, but China has never challenged cargo or passenger vessels. Foreign naval vessels aimed at flexing military muscle and able to spy are quite another matter. Britain and the US should give up their foolish adventurism and instead look to the example set by Southeast Asian countries, which have agreed with China on a framework for a code of conduct so that mishaps at sea can be avoided.”
• The China Daily colorfully echoed frustrations with the HMS Sutherland’s upcoming voyage by characterizing the UK as “a faithful poodle […] once again come barking to heel” for the US.

JAPAN
Following the initial declaration of a state of emergency in the Maldives, Japanese Foreign Press Secretary Norio Maruyama released a statement assuring the public that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was closely monitoring the situation and the safety of Japanese nationals in the country and Japan’s hope that “the situation will be resolved peacefully without resorting to violence.” In an interview with local press during his January 2018 trip to the Maldives, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Kono highlighted the Maldives as a key partner in promoting maritime security in the region: “Japan intends to further strengthen its relations with the Maldives, a maritime nation, under the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ which aims at making free and open maritime order, based on the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, international public goods to bring stability and equality for all countries. Specifically, Japan will work further to strengthen regional connectivity through quality infrastructure development and cooperation on maritime security.” In a joint training exercise between the coast guards of Japan and India that aimed to improve anti-piracy tactics in January, the Maldives and Sri Lanka participated as observers. Japan Coast Guard Commandant Satoshi Nakajima hailed the multilateral participation in the exercise: “Improved cooperation among the various nations will lead to saving the lives of Japanese citizens.” Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano, meanwhile, raised concern over the security implications of China using docks in island nations like the Maldives and Sri Lanka for nuclear submarines: “By investing money in facilities surrounding India…China is steadily expanding the network of its military bases. […] Our vital sea lanes run through the Indian Ocean as well as the South China Sea.”

• In an editorial, The Japan Times lamented that Foreign Minister Kono had apparently not clearly articulated Japan’s “values” during his visit in which he and Maldivian Foreign Minister Dr. Mohamed Asim “agreed on the importance of the rule of law to regional peace and prosperity and promised to promote bilateral cooperation in maritime security and safety. They also agreed to launch a dialogue to advance cooperation in a variety of fields. Democracy and the rule of law was likely not on that list; given the centrality of values to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s foreign policy that is a sad oversight.“
• The right-leaning Yomiuri Shimbun noted the relevance of massive amounts of Chinese investments in islands in the Indo-Pacific as “China seems to have the ulterior motive of utilizing the rights and interests tied to such ports and others for military purposes, thereby accelerating the oceanic deployment of the Chinese military.” The Yomiuri advocated for Japan to “demonstrate its presence by deepening its engagement in the country,” without any specific policy recommendations. Japan’s Self-Defense Force is limited in its ability to participate in overseas conflicts, but can provide non-combat support to its allies. On this matter, the Yomiuri  observed that “India is highly nervous” regarding China’s posturing during the crisis and that India had been in contact with President Trump to coordinate their handling of the situation.

RUSSIA
Russia’s response to the crisis was limited to a travel advisory for the islands that recommended Russian nationals to “thoroughly consider if they should travel to the Maldives before the state of emergency is lifted.”

• SputnikNews interviewed Alexei Kupriyanov, a Moscow-based foreign policy expert, on India’s dilemma in the crisis. Kypriyanov described India’s options as a no-win situation: “It could either resort to military force and alienate regional neighbors Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal and face an international backlash, or it could try to seek a peaceful deal with Yameen and then try to get rid of him during the next elections. In either case, India’s image would suffer.“
• In an article covering Nasheed’s appeals for intervention, SputnikNews emphasized the charges that led to the former president’s arrest and eventual exile, “According to the official charge, Nasheed committed a number of offenses under the law on terrorism. The arrest and imprisonment of the former president sparked condemnation from the international community, which believes that the procedure did not comply with the standards of adjudication.“

PAKISTAN
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a press release of the meeting between Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Foreign Minister Asim: “The Prime Minister stated that Pakistan firmly adheres to the policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries and will continue to adhere to the principles of the UN charter in this regard.”

SAUDI ARABIA
The Maldivian President’s Office reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had released a joint statement that “notes that these events are an internal matter and that the Governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hope for peaceful solutions to the current situation, through internal political dialogue between the parties concerned, without any external interference and within the Maldivian Constitution.”

UNITED STATES
The US State Department released a statement expressing its “disappointment” in the extension of the state of emergency. “The United States continues to call on President Yameen to end the state of emergency, uphold the rule of law, permit the full and proper functioning of the Parliament and the judiciary, restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people of Maldives, and respect Maldives’ international human rights obligations and commitments,” it read.

This Policy Alert is part of a project at the Rising Powers Initiative exploring the linkages between energy security and maritime strategies in the Indo-Pacific that is supported by the MacArthur Foundation.