Opinion

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy amid Geopolitical Transformations: 1990-2024 – Part IV

Published

10 months ago

2025/04/10

Sri Lankan Foreign Policy since the End of the Cold War

By the end of the Cold War, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy priorities were predominantly shaped by its armed conflict with the LTTE, despite pivotal shifts in its regional and global geopolitical spaces. The significance of the country’s foreign relations was largely viewed through the lens of its strategic needs in the ongoing civil war, often overshadowing other broader regional and global developments.

The Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of 1987 and the subsequent establishment of the Provincial Council system under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution failed to bring lasting peace and merely perpetuated the vicious cycle of violence. Meanwhile, the uprising (1987-1989) led by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and its ruthless suppression deepened the political and social turmoil and tarnished the country’s democratic credentials, further constraining the government’s ability to focus and react to broad external strategic developments. As a result, the critical shifts occurring in South Asia, the Indian Ocean, and the global strategic environment after the Cold War were more or less overlooked in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy decisions.

Following the decisive military defeat of the LTTE in 2009, Sri Lanka underwent a significant shift in its politico-strategic needs, marking the beginning of a new phase in the country’s foreign policy. With the conclusion of the protracted civil war, a different set of issues came to the forefront and decided Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and geopolitical priorities. Accordingly, the evolution of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the post-Cold War era can be divided in two distinct phases, with the end of the war in 2009 acting as a pivotal turning point.

Enduring Crises and Foreign Policy

under President Premadasa

When Ranasinghe Premadasa assumed the presidency after a violence-ridden election, Sri Lanka was mired in multi-faceted crises. The Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF), initially deployed to supervise the Peace Accord, quickly found it embroiled in violent conflict with the LTTE in the North. Maneuvering the IPKF’s withdrawal without alienating India became a delicate and daunting challenge. Meanwhile, the brutal suppression of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) insurgency in the South only deepened the country’s instability and culpability, further intensifying international backlash over human rights violations.

Despite facing significant challenges, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy lacked coherence and strategic direction. The government’s foreign policy responses were often reactive, addressing events in isolation rather than within a broader strategic framework. Decision-making appeared to be driven more by immediate political considerations than by long-term objectives. As a result, Sri Lanka became entrapped in a foreign policy dilemma, struggling to manage multiple crises across various fronts simultaneously.

One of President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s key achievements was persuading/pressuring India to withdraw the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka in 1990. However, it also strained Indo-Sri Lanka relations in the short term. One of the key achievements of President Ranasinghe Premadasa was persuading India to withdraw the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka. However, this success came at the cost-damaging Indo-Sri Lanka relations.

During a public meeting on June 1, 1989, President Premadasa demanded the complete withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri Lanka by July 29, 1989, giving India just two months’ notice. India was taken aback by the manner in which this demand was made and made it clear that Sri Lanka could not impose a unilateral deadline. India was only prepared for a phased withdrawal and had limited options. In response, India made a misguided decision to train a Tamil National Army.

In an effort to pressure India into withdrawing the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka, President Premadasa sought to leverage the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). In July 1989, Sri Lanka boycotted the SAARC Ministerial-level meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan. Furthermore, Sri Lanka made it clear that it would not host the SAARC Summit scheduled later that year in Colombo. The Sri Lanka informed SAARC countries that the Summit could not precede in Colombo as long as the IPKF remained stationed in the country against its will (RavinathaAryasinha, 1997: 54)

After V.P. Singh of Janata Dal became Prime Minister of India in December 1989, the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) from Sri Lanka was expedited. In contrast to Rajiv Gandhi’s position, I.K.Gujral, the External Affairs Minister in the Janata Dal government, stated that “Tamil security is an internal matter of Sri Lanka.” He expressed hope that the Sri Lankan government had learned from the lessons of history and would no longer deny the country’s ethnic minorities their due rights (Sunday Times, 29 April 1990).

However, the rescheduled Summit for Colombo in 1990 was ultimately not held there. The Maldives insisted on hosting the summit in Malé, coinciding with the 25th anniversary of it becoming a Republic. The failure of the planned 1990 summit in Colombo also reflects the complex regional dynamics at the time.

After the withdrawal of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in 1990, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) swiftly reemerged as a formidable military and political force in the North and East of Sri Lanka, setting the stage for the onset of Eelam War II in June 1990. In the 1990s, parallel to the expansion of Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, the LTTE’s international influence grew significantly.

Its front organisations in Western countries became increasingly active, openly fundraising, pressuring host governments on behalf of the LTTE, and even facilitating the transportation of arms and supplies to the conflict zones in Sri Lanka. This growing international network of support posed a substantial challenge to the Sri Lankan government. Moreover, the LTTE frequently framed its actions as a response to alleged human rights violations by the Sri Lankan government, using this narrative to justify its activities and gain international sympathy and support. The complexities of this issue—encompassing both military confrontations and political maneuvering—posed a formidable challenge that required a comprehensive strategy and sharp diplomatic acumen.

The Premadasa administration failed to fully recognise the growing significance of the international public sphere and the increasing prominence of international human rights frameworks. These were often dismissed as instruments of the LTTE’s propaganda. The Sri Lankan government held a largely negative view of Western countries that raised human rights concerns, perceiving these countries as supportive of the LTTE. This perception, coupled with a failure to distinguish between the LTTE and the broader ethnic conflict, impeded the government’s ability to formulate an effective strategy in response to international criticism.

Despite his unconventional approach, President Premadasa recognised that the Foreign Ministry was in disarray, lacking direction amidst the decisive challenges facing the country. In response, he established a Foreign Affairs Study Group, chaired by Dr. Gamani Corea, to address the situation (Dayan Jayatilleka, 2017). The group completed its report on restructuring Sri Lanka’s foreign policy and diplomatic missions, but before it could be presented, President Premadasa was tragically assassinated. Following his death, President Wijetunga, the caretaker president, assumed office but hesitated to take any new initiatives on the matter.

Change Vision and Restructuring under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga

The efforts to instill a new policy vision and reshape the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) began after the People’s Alliance (PA) assumed power in 1995 under the leadership of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. By the time Kumaratunga assumed the presidency, the MFA was in disarray—lacking direction and burdened by excessive politicisation. To address this, President Kumaratunga appointed Lakshman Kadirgamar as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Drawing on his extensive experience as an international civil servant, Kadirgamar implemented reforms to streamline recruitment, promotions, and diplomatic postings, restoring some order to the MFA. At the same time, the government sought to bolster Sri Lanka’s democratic image on the international stage.

Strengthening the country’s credentials as a functional democracy was viewed as essential for garnering global support in addressing the LTTE military challenge. In this context, internal policy reforms were expected to provide strong backing to a foreign policy with a clear vision and direction.

The PA government marked a significant departure from the antagonistic stance of its predecessors towards international human rights bodies. Recognising the growing influence of the global public sphere on national policies, the PA government made a deliberate effort to engage with key international human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations. These engagements included open dialogues aimed at addressing concerns about Sri Lanka’s human rights situation.

The PA government’s commitment to international human rights standards and norms was demonstrated by its ratification of several major international human rights conventions. Additionally, the PA Government worked to strengthen domestic human rights institutions, particularly the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), further solidifying its dedication to human rights both within Sri Lanka and on the international stage. These efforts were seen as essential for two reasons: promoting domestic reconciliation and enhancing Sri Lanka’s international credibility.

In light of the geopolitical implications of India’s strategic rise and changes in the South Asian geopolitical landscape, developing strong ties with India remained a key achievement of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy under the People’s Alliance (PA) government. After decades of mutual suspicion,

accusations, and tensions, both countries recognised the importance of normalising their relations. President Chandrika Bandaranaike’s new vision and foreign policy approach provided a significant opportunity for a fresh start towards rapprochement. The Indian government’s diplomatic shift, marked by the Gujral Doctrine introduced by External Affairs Minister I. K. Gujral in 1996, further paved the way for improved bi-lateral relations. Indo-Sri Lanka relations had not been as cordial for decades as they were under President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. A key testament to the South Asian policy of the Kumaratunga administration was the 10th SAARC Summit held in Sri Lanka in 1998. During this summit, informal discussions between India and Pakistan, initiated through the personal efforts of President Kumaratunga, marked a critical development in the regional strategic context.

Under President Premadasa, Sri Lanka’s relations with Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, began to deteriorate rapidly. For a small country like Sri Lanka, which was grappling with a significant internal armed conflict with international Diaspora linkages, navigating the post-Cold War global strategic landscape became a critical challenge. Nearly two-thirds of Sri Lanka’s export market was tied to the West—primarily Britain, the United States, and the European Union. At the same time, the LTTE’s international headquarters operated from Western capitals. Given this, Sri Lanka paid a steep price for its adversarial stance toward these Western powers. In contrast, one of President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s notable achievements was her efforts to foster better relations with the West. By implementing internal democratic reforms and adopting the PA’s approach to the ethnic crisis, she created a more favourable environment for diplomatic engagement. This foreign policy shift paid off: In 1996, the United States resumed arms sales to Sri Lanka, and the US “Green Beret” corps began offering advanced training to the Sri Lankan security forces. This military support included specialized training missions by the US Navy SEALs, the US Air Force Special Operations Squadron, and the US Army’s Psychological Operations Group. The proscription of LTTE as a terrorist organization by the United States in October 1997, followed by similar designations from the United Kingdom in 2000 and Australia in 2001, dealt a severe blow to the LTTE international operations.

The dynamics of the crisis, however, posed significant obstacles to the continued implementation of this policy. Negotiations with the LTTE, which began in October 1994, collapsed on April 17, 1995, when the LTTE withdrew from both the talks and the ceasefire after four rounds of discussions. The hope of achieving a negotiated settlement with the LTTE was dashed within six months. The conflict with the LTTE once again became the central focus of foreign policy, but this time, the government’s
approach shifted from defensive to more assertive.

With the onset of Eelam War III, the government launched the Reviresa operation in November–December 1995 and regained control of Jaffna from the LTTE. In September 1996, the government conducted the Sath Jaya operation, which led to the recapture of Kilinochchi. However, the situation began to change in 1998. The government’s attempt to establish a land route to Jaffna failed, resulting in heavy human and material losses. By late 1998, military camps in Kilinochchi, Mullaitivu, and Elephant Pass fell to the LTTE. Between 1999 and 2000, the Sri Lankan government forces suffered continuous setbacks on the military front.

Similarly, the proposal for the devolution of power, which had been incorporated into a draft of the new constitution, became entangled in political debates with the United National Party (UNP). The country had shown readiness to accept devolution through widespread public awareness campaigns, such as the Sudu Nelum movement. However, when the proposal was only presented to Parliament in August 2000, it was rejected by the UNP. As a result, the People’s Alliance (PA) government was unable to fulfill one of its key political promises to both the Tamil people and the international
community.

In 1999, another attempt was made to resume talks with the LTTE, this time with the prospect of third-party facilitation. President Kumaratunga explored the possibility of securing international involvement, with potential facilitators including France, a joint Commonwealth team, and the Vatican. By March 2000, the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE agreed on Norway as the mediator. With Norwegian facilitation, a Ceasefire Agreement was drafted between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE, scheduled to be signed on April 11, 2001. However, two days before the signing, the LTTE
unexpectedly declared that they would not proceed with the agreement, without providing any explanation for their decision.

(To be continued)

by Gamini Keerawella

All News Advertisement

Opinion

A paradox of history

Published

10 hours ago

2026/02/16

Thilina Walpola

Shakespeare

There seems to be a striking similarity between ancient Greece and modern Britain. Both countries remain paradoxes of history. Greece was a small city state constantly at war with neighbouring countries. It did not have a big army, but it had considerable sea power. However, Greece was a leading state over the whole of the Mediterranean. In fact, Greece was once a super power in the Western world.

Britain was very powerful in the 19th century. British justice was administered in Africa, India and Ceylon. British factories flourished in many countries and schoolchildren started reading R.L. Stevenson’s ‘Treasure Island’ and the works of Rudyard Kipling. What Ralph Waldo Emerson said in the 1850s is still valid today. He said, “If there’s one test of national genius universally accepted, it is success; and if there be one successful country in the universe for the last millennium, that country is England. It is the best of actual nations.”

In World War I, Britain faced a crushing defeat. Eventually, the British Empire was reduced to a Commonwealth. World War II shattered the image of Britain further. Although Britain lost much of its power, it continued to be an influential country. Even after achieving independence, India retained English as an official language. The British parliament system is well established in many Commonwealth countries. Some people still wonder how England still exercises its influence over the minds of men and women.

Staying power

There are many powerful countries in the world today such as the United States, Russia and China. Although England is not a super power, she has staying power. According to Oliver Wendell Holmes, a good part of greatness is simply being there. For that matter, England has been there for many centuries. So far no other country has been able to defeat her. As a result, sometimes we wonder whether we can have a world without England.

England has had an unwritten Constitution for a very long time. Other countries have emulated her political institutions. The British people have an established church with complete religious freedom. Although there are social classes in Britain, there has been no major clash among them. Unlike in many other countries, there are only two leading political parties in England. When the Labour Party is in power, the government is not subservient to labour. Similarly, when the Conservative Party is in power, the government is not conservative.

Most British colonies in the East including India and Ceylon did not sever the cultural and emotional links with Britain and retain them even after achieving independence. India became independent in 1947, but she decided to retain English as an official language. By doing so, India produced a number of English writers such as R.K Narayan. However, Ceylon did not give English any official status and treated it as a link language. As a result, students paid less attention to learning English. They were made to understand that everything can be done by learning Sinhala and Tamil. We have failed to produce English writers in the calibre of J. Vijayatunga who wrote ‘Grass for my feet.’

Politically shrinking

The United Kingdom is politically shrinking. However, its influence vibrates throughout the world. English has brought many nations together. There is a common understanding among countries that share the English language and literature. William Shakespeare’s dramas are staged in countries such as China where English is not an official language. People have come to the conclusion that English has become a broker of ideas and institutions.

England is not an aggressive country. However, if provoked, it can deliver a mortal blow to its enemy. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher showed her mettle as the iron lady. Britain held the fort against the might of Napoleon Bonaparte who ruled France. The country can still boast of a heavy moral credit. The British stick to their international agreements. The power of England draws mainly from its language. British people say ‘It’s right’ when it is right’. When it is not right, they say, ‘It’s not right.’ Meanwhile English occupies a pre-eminent place in world languages. All the research work in many parts of the world is available in English. You can learn any subject easily through English.

Apart from the language, people respect British standards which are technical specifications and quality benchmarks developed by the British Standards Institution. The United Kingdom’s independent national standards body was established in 1901. It maintains over 37,000 standards covering industries such as construction, manufacturing and technology ensuring safety and reliability.

British English

Standard British English is the variety of English that has undergone codification to the point of being socially perceived as the standard language associated with formal schooling, language assessment and official print publications. For historical reasons dating back to the rise of London in the ninth century, the form of language spoken in London and the East Midlands became the Standard English used in schools, universities, literature and law.

British English functions as one of the two major foundational and standard varieties of the English language alongside American English. It serves as a primary reference point for spelling and grammar. It acts as a global standard, and international institutions are often defined by specific pronunciation.

Most Sri Lankan doctors primarily move to England for postgraduate training, higher specialisation and better career prospects. They are driven by superior training infrastructure, world-class facilities and globally recognised qualifications.

To sum up, when you think of learning an international language, there is no alternative to English. If you wish to read literature, you cannot ignore eminent English dramatists and poets such as William Shakespeare and John Milton. Many leading Sri Lankans like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike were Oxford University products. Therefore, English deserves to be made an official language in Sri Lanka.

karunaratners@gmail.com

By R.S. Karunaratne

Opinion

State Literary Awards only for the rich?

Published

10 hours ago

2026/02/16

Thilina Walpola

The Department of Cultural Affairs has once again called authors, and publishers to lodge their entries for selection of the prestigious State Literary Awards 2026.The criteria and conditions required and notified in the public domain, makes it mandatory for the literary work to be printed and published prior to submission for consideration of the awards. There is absolutely no provision for writers to submit their work in Manuscript form.

Where does that leave the financially impoverished writers who are talented, creative and wish to submit a well edited typescript of their work as manuscript for consideration of the State Literary Awards? In a literary environment that encourages a proliferation of self-published books of all forms and features presented by vanity publishers who have their eye on the purse of the author than on literary merit and artistic excellence, it is easy to show that you are an ” established writer” by spending your cash abundantly towards glossy covered books which the printing industry and fawning publishers will lap up with greed.

Even the Gratiaen Prize in Sri Lanka, sponsored by world-renowned Michael Ondaatje allows for Manuscript entries together with published books. Significantly, the manuscript entries that win the prize are assisted to publish their work which is part of the winnings. Many a young, aspiring writer with little funds who won the Gratiaen Prize on merit, but had submitted their entry in manuscript form have been thereby encouraged to submit their work on merit basis only.

It is a fact that the Commonwealth Short Story Prize, a massive state-supported initiative across 56 nations accepts only unpublished short fiction. Further, several countries in the world have established national or state level literary prizes that specifically accept unpublished manuscripts to provide equity in discovering new talent and supporting national literature without bias or favour. In Australia, Jamaica, Philippines, major national awards organised by the State for literature, specifically accept unpublished manuscripts for consideration.

Let’s face the truth. The printing costs are escalating. There is little demand in Sri Lanka for literary work in the English Language in particular. Traditional Publishing where the literary work is reviewed and assessed for talent and creativity and thereafter published is seldom found. The reviews and critical analysis of literary works are rare. But publishers make a pile by pandering to the vanity of aspiring writers who have the financial clout to pay their way through to being featured in prestigious award ceremonies and accolades. Thereafter, their substandard works get a further fillip by bearing the label of “Won the State Literary Award for Literature”! It is a cycle of literary charlatans and their pimps in the publishing industry for whom the price that is paid for publishing and not Meritocracy is the sine-qua-non.

Is this the level playing field promised by the NPP Government and their Marxist protagonists? A government that was voted into power on the platform of affording fair opportunity and equality seems to discriminate in favour of the Haves against the Have- nots in the cultural department to say the least! Anil Fernando

Opinion

Delivering on English

Published

10 hours ago

2026/02/16

Thilina Walpola

English literature offers a rich heritage of wonderful ideas and thoughts. The reader can be intellectually uplifted. It brings refreshing new vistas and stimulating new ideas. However, this English literature has to be first introduced to the student in order to fire up his or her interest and be made aware of this rich source of culture. Students of basic English as a second language work hard and learn all the hum-drum mechanics of the language, for which they get tested and graded. But importantly, nae crucially, this should be followed up with intellectual rewards for the students’ efforts – which, of course, is the enjoyment of the works of literature of the many great writers in the English language. This is the great payoff, the great dividend for all their efforts but this, apparently goes missing.

One of the obvious reasons for the lack of “follow through” may be lack of time allocated in the curriculum – or, perhaps, more darkly, the teachers’ own lack of knowledge of the great range of good reading materials produced by the countless generations of literary geniuses who have gone before. Such writers have laid down for us a heritage of glorious literary works in books and essays, all of which are to be found in any good library. It is thought that much of this good literature ought to be introduced to all students of English, “full stop,” as part of developing a knowledgeable and cultured society. (Isn’t that what we want?) Reading English literature should bring an intellectual enrichment to all those willing to drink from this Bacchanalian horn of plenty.

It must be said finally, that it can be fairly expected that most young people, especially those learning English as a second language, are totally unaware of the many outstanding pieces of writing that propel English to stand tall amongst the rest. That is, students need to be first introduced to great writings and have a spark of interest ignited in these great works of literature.

For example, by being introduced to “Daffodils,” a short descriptive poem by William Wordsworth, the student can get some very pleasant ideas to think on.

Do not overlook Conan Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes” detective stories, each one captivating the reader’s attention right to the end. It is by these short stories that the novice reader can first consolidate his power of reading.

For light reading Jerome K. Jerome’s book “Three Men in a Boat” is suggested. On one occasion he goes to the library suffering from a slight hay-fever (allergy) seeking a cure. He consults a book, “Lexicon of Pharmacology”, and recoils in horror as his symptoms fit most of those diseases described in the book! He concludes he cannot live much longer and staggers home to rest and recuperate! This is a well related tale in the book – although seemingly quite implausible!

Similarly, by having the poem meanings explained, e.g. “What is Life if Full of Care?” by William Henry Davis – how he regrets that we humans are always in a hurry, too busy to notice or see the delights of nature, and scenes of natural beauty, e.g., a young woman’s smile as she passes by; we have no time to make friends and even kiss her. Regrets! Explaining this to students would bring a certain intellectual insight.

John Keats’s poem, “Ode to Autumn” is another great work describing the ripening fruits of the autumn season and how nature as a living being, brings to fruition all the good things of a rural landscape quietly humming with warmth after a hot summer.

Again, it is likely necessary to explain to a young, Sri Lankan mind the meaning of the descriptive poetry found in this magnificent poem.

This is the real English to be tasted and then swigged at lustily in pleasure and satisfaction, not some writing airing historical grievances for children to study!

1970 British Cohort Study

It should be observed here that the ‘1970 British Cohort Study’ followed 70,000 people to examine various aspects of their lives. One result discovered was that if a young person reads a lot, it develops his/ her general intelligence no-matter his parents; it makes him smarter.

It was also noted that reading brings life-long benefits; it improves mood, it helps with social skills, increases empathy, reduces anxiety, protects against depression and slows brain decay, the study found.

But these days many young people never gain a great competence in reading English; the fear is that standards are falling. This is bringing poorer critical thinking, less depth of personality and less empathy for others which has the result of a more turbulent society.

People are urged to switch off their headphones and read more of what they like – try reading the newspapers!

Priyantha Hettige