The Asia Progress Forum warns that the recent military attack by the United States and Israel on Iran has triggered a global emergency with severe implications for Sri Lanka’s economy, food security, and social stability.

There appears to have been no serious discussion of the unfolding crisis within government forums. The performance of the administration over the past year demonstrates not a coherent plan to address the structural roots of the crisis, but rather a pattern of adhoc measures designed only to manage its daytoday manifestations. This lack of foresight has left the country dangerously exposed.

The IMF’s Extended Fund Facility (EFF) has not provided a pathway out of our difficulties. Instead, it has exacerbated the suffering of working people through austerity measures, higher taxation, and cuts to essential services. The evidence is clear: this framework does not work for Sri Lanka. It has failed to stabilize the economy, failed to protect livelihoods, and failed to chart a sustainable future.

A Global Shock with Direct Local Consequences

The escalation of conflict in the Gulf imposed by US / Israel coalition on Iran threatens the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil, onethird of LNG supplies, and one third of the world’s seaborne fertilizer trades pass. The Asia Progress Forum warns that Sri Lanka will face:

This is not a distant geopolitical event. It is a direct threat to Sri Lanka’s economic stability, food security, and social cohesion.

National Emergency Plan: Key Measures

The Asia Progress Forum’s plan outlines urgent national, sectoral, and community-level actions.

1. Energy Security

*  Accelerate solar, wind, biomass, minihydro, and villagelevel algae biofuel production

*  Expand fuel storage in Trincomalee, Sapugaskanda, and regional storage complexes

*  Negotiate emergency petroleum supplies with India, Russia, Iran, and ASEAN

*  Build strategic reserves of fuel, fertiliser, and essential commodities

2. Streamlined Transport Services

To keep factories and offices functioning:

3. Food & Agriculture Security

*  Immediate establishment of a national rice buffer stock

*  Emergency fertiliser procurement (organic and inorganic)

*  Diversification into vegetables, pulses, and short-duration crops

*  Strengthening village-level grain banks and community storage

*  Expansion of domestic milk powder production using cow, buffalo, and goat milk

4. Protection of Migrant Workers

*  Activation of protocols for evacuation from dangerous situations and repatriation

*  Coordination with Gulf governments and international agencies

*  Reintegration support including housing, employment, and microfinance

5. International Coordination

*  Engagement with UN agencies and Red Cross

*  Diplomatic efforts to keep shipping lanes open

*  New Development Bank (BRICS BANK)/ Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank/ China/ India/ Russia support to buffer economic shocks

*  Regional cooperation through SAARC and BIMSTEC

A Call for Economic Sovereignty

The Forum emphasises that the crisis exposes the fragility of Sri Lanka’s dependence on global markets and IMF-driven austerity. It calls for a decisive shift toward economic sovereignty, including:

Economic sovereignty is not isolationism. It is resilience. The government should renegotiate with the IMF regarding repayment of loans as, given the rise in import costs and potential decline in remittance and tourism, Sri Lanka is very unlikely to meet debt servicing expectations.

Community-Level Preparedness

The plan urges households and communities to:

The Asia Progress Forum warns that Sri Lanka must act immediately to avoid a humanitarian and economic catastrophe. The Forum calls on the government, private sector, civil society, and citizens to work together as the country prepares for a period of global instability. Swift coordinated action can protect lives, livelihoods, and national stability. Sri Lanka must move onto a war footing, a state of maximum readiness, mobilisation, and intense preparation, to face this crisis. Moreover, we must recognise that the centre of gravity of the global economy has shifted to Asia, changing balance of forces of the international order. Sri Lanka must therefore reorient its geoeconomic strategy to align with the Global South.

The terms ‘nonalignment’ and ‘neutrality’ are being touted in local and global news due to Sri Lanka’s denial to Iran to dock three of its naval vessels in national harbors for an unplanned ‘goodwill visit’ between 9 and 13 March, and refusal to the United States to land two of its fighters at the civilian airport in Mattala between 4 and 8 March. Intriguingly, both requests were received on the same day, 26 February 2026, just 48 hours prior to the onset of hostilities.

Though Sri Lanka denied permission for the so-called ‘goodwill visit’ its Navy and Airforce rescued over 30 Iranian crew members and recovered over 80 bodies when their ship, the IRIS Dena was sunk by the US Navy and allowed another Iranian ship, the IRIS Bushehr to dock in Trincomalee as it claimed technical difficulties. This was done only after taking the ship under Sri Lankan control, by separating its sailors from the ship and bringing it to Colombo, thereby ensuring it no longer had any offensive military intent.

The Sri Lankan President in a press conference in Colombo on 5 March noted on the Iranian issue, “our position has been to safeguard our neutrality while demonstrating our humanitarian values.” As he further noted, “amidst all this, as a government, we have intervened in a manner that safeguards the reputation and dignity of our country, protects human lives and demonstrates our commitment to international conventions.” Explaining what he meant by neutrality, he noted, “we do not act in a biased manner towards any state, nor do we submit to any state … we firmly believe that this is the most courageous and humanitarian course of action that a state can take.” On the US issue, the President observed in Parliament on 20 March, “they wanted to bring two ​warplanes armed with eight anti-ship missiles from a base in Djibouti” and “we turned down the request to ⁠maintain Sri Lanka’s neutrality.”

In both incidents, in addition to reiterating Sri Lanka’s neutrality, the other point that has been emphasis+ed is Sri Lanka’s long-standing official position of ‘non-alignment.’ As the President noted in his parliamentary speech, “with two requests before us, the decision was clear… we denied both in order to avoid taking sides.” Suddenly, the concepts of neutrality and non-alignment are in the forefront of Sri Lanka’s political discourse after a considerable time, but it has emerged more in a rhetorical sense than at a considered policy position at the level of government thinking and popular acceptance.

I say this because two crucial concepts are missing in these conversations and pronouncements. These are ‘morality’ and ‘national interest’ even though they are irrevocably linked to the previous concepts which would be meaningless if adequate heed is not paid to the latter two. Let me be clear. I agree with Sri Lanka’s position with regard to both incidents and the diplomatic and statesman-like way both were handled. It brought to the fore something on which I have written about in the past. That is, the necessity and the reasonable possibility of smaller states to take clear positions when dealing with powerful countries. Sri Lanka has done so this time.

However, both neutrality and nonalignment cannot be taken out of context merely as terms. They must be situated in a broader historical and political context which can only be done if morality and national interest are not only brought into the equation, but also into policy and the public consciousness. Non-alignment as an international relations concept found its genesis at the time of the Cold War on the basis of which nations, which mostly consisted of former European colonies or what were known collectively at the time as the ‘Third World’, decided not to join major power blocs of the time, i.e. the US and the Soviet Union as well as former imperial centers.

At least, this was the official position and, in this sense, indicated a desire to follow an independent path stressing national sovereignty and national interest, rather than neutrality in the conventional sense. But in practice, even in the heyday of the Nonaligned Movement’s influence in the 1970s, many of its members were very clearly aligned to one or the other of the superpowers based on matters of political necessity and simple survival. The formal dictionary meaning of neutrality is, “not taking sides in a dispute, conflict, or contest, often implying a position of impartiality, independence, or non-participation.” These are the two rhetorical positions Sri Lanka took with regard to both incidents referred to above.

But both decisions should have been more specifically taken, and the local and global discourses emanating from them cautiously guided, based on principles of morality and national interest. These do not contradict nonalignment and neutrality in their general sense. Sri Lanka’s decision to not approve docking or landing rights to both warring countries in this context is correct. But where is morality? It is partly embedded in the President’s stated interest in ensuring no further lives were lost.

What is missing in this moral position however is the clearly articulated fact that the war against Iran by the US and Israel are illegal, immoral and contradicts all applicable international laws and conventions. Sri Lanka’s statements and what is publicly available on the President’s and the Foreign Minister’s reported conversations with Gulf leaders are inconsequential and bland. Despite Iran’s bleak track record when it comes to democracy and human rights within, the country has stood by Sri Lanka during the civil war years supplying weapons when very few states did, and also when Sri Lanka was named and shamed in the circus of the UN’s Human Rights Council for almost two decades. Taking a position regarding the illegality of the war against Iran does not mean Sri Lanka cannot be neutral or non-aligned. It could have still taken the same decision it has already taken. But it would have been able to do so from a moral high ground.

The other reason often given for harping on neutrality and non-alignment is the fear of being reprimanded by the mad men and women currently holding power in the US. But the Republican Party or President Trump are not the Caesars of the Roman Empire. Trump’s term ends in January 2029. The Republican Party is already feeling the negative consequences of the war at home. Given the chaos Trump has brought in, which has added to the cost of living of US citizens, the needless expenditure the war has burdened the US taxpayers with, and the US’s continued marginalisation in the international order, it is very unlikely any of the present practices (note: not policies) will be carried forward in the same nonsensical sense. This is precisely the time to take the moral high ground. If we do, and continue to do so, it will become apparent that we as a nation act upon principles and laws. Such continuity will earn the country respect in the global arena even though not necessarily make us popular. This is a crucial asset small nations must have when dealing with global powers. But this must be earned through consistent practice and not be the result of accidents.

This is also where national interest comes in as a matter of policy. Sri Lanka needs to reiterate not only for the present but also for the future that its decisions are based on national interest. This could include permitting the US or any other country to land or dock in a future conflict if it benefits us in terms of local defense. But such a decision should not be a decision forced upon us. This is not old-school nonalignment or neutrality. Instead, it is about taking a position – not a particular side – in the interest of safeguarding the national interest as a matter of principle and taking the moral high ground in international relations which will ensure both nonalignment and neutrality in a pragmatic and beneficial sense in the long term.

Our leaders and our people need to learn how to be pro-Sri Lankan both in domestic and global matters as a national operational principle.

According to a paper commissioned by Anthony Welch for the 2021/2022 UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report on “Non-state actors in Education Across Asia”, the rise of Transnational HE was underpinned by tensions between growth in demand, and, on the other hand, the inability or unwillingness of many governments to finance this expansion sufficiently (UNESCO & Welch, 2021). Globally, almost 70 million, or one in three of all students, are now enrolled in private HEIs (UNESCO & Welch, 2021). This pattern is similar and highly diverse in Asia where more than 35% of students are in the private sector.

However, enhance transparency in governance in Transnational education is of paramount importance as there is a corporate liability disregarded at a greater extent by the private HE mushrooming in this country. As Transnational Higher Education attracts many students, the responsibility of the relevant authorities should strengthen the integrity of governance of this sector and increase accountability.

On the other hand, corruption perception index in the 2025 (CPI) released by Transparency International, Sri Lanka, showed significant improvement, rising 14 places to rank 107th out of 182 countries, up from 121st in 2024. Despite such a movement ahead, accountability lies among the Private HEIs engaged in Transnational HE to prevent any risk leading to corruption.

Having considered the aforementioned scenario following cases, encountered in the recent past and I wonder what “higher education” do they offer.

Risk of corruption

An applicant, being a sole proprietor, has signed an agreement with another agent of private HEI in Nachchaduwa, Anuradhapura (Registered office), where operating office being the, Rathmalkatuwa, Inamaluwa, Kandalama, Dambulla, without looking at the agreements entered with the Foreign University by the respective agents. Sub agents are not aware on what conditions the principal foreign university has imposed, whether the respective university is authorised to offer such programmes in overseas. Have they been accredited in their countries by the accreditation authorities, despite their listing in the World Higher Education Database and Association of Commonwealth Universities. Whether these private HEIs are blacklisted organisations need to be checked with National Information Centres of the respective countries. All agents operating Transnational HE should be accountable and responsible as they are serving the poor students of this country who ultimately face consequences when they go on searching for employment opportunities. They are facing many issues with respective Qualification Frameworks operating in those countries.

Fake Credentials and Fabricating Documents

There are massive complaints regarding the issuance of fake certificates and forgery in Higher Education forwarded by many parties. Some organisations themselves print certificates without obtaining original certificates from the principal foreign university. Poor students do not know this situation of the higher education provider.

Call for State organisations to be aware of Transnational HE

There are many state organisations without proper verifications on credentials engage in recruitment of their employees just based on the listing of world higher education database and Association of Commonwealth Universities without further checking on the existence of such programmes in the respective countries with their accreditation authorities.

Recently while World Higher Education Database and UKEnic has clarified on the nonexistence of a respective university, there are instances where institutions that were accredited in the past but were not accredited now. The respective Universities in certain instances were listed and not currently listed due to non-acceptance by the accreditation authorities. Therefore, organisations need to be cautious about the accreditation of such universities in the respective countries as Sri Lanka is haunted by a massive network of agents and subagents of foreign HEIs operated as designated centres, appointed agents.

There are many ways to do Transnational education. There is distance education done with a local partner. There are several forms of arrangement in transnational education such as franchising arrangements, partnerships with local providers, either at the programme level or (occasionally) at the level of creating a whole new institution, branch campuses. However, there is a necessity of some kind of regulation as there is an escalation of fraud.

Overall regulations governing the operations of Transnational HE in Sri Lanka as a country aim to reach Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 4) was deemed as transparent and not fully understood by stakeholders, there are no local mechanisms to affirm and benchmark the quality of Transnational Education programmes to that of the local HE standards. There is a sense of flexibility in forging Transnational Education partnerships though the absence of regulations, which may over time negatively impact public perceptions of Transnational Education’s quality

Despite these circumstances there are countries that maintain their Agent network through proper training and licensing system to facilitate their regulation.

Transparency of Agents engaged in Transnational HE

A parent has made a complaint against a leading HEI for misleading through an unauthorised three-year degree programme (two-year top-up) and causing irreparable career damage and mental distress, wasting money and time. When she forwarded the matter to the Chief Executive, New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) for entry into the teaching profession, she was informed that the HEI concerned was not permitted to engage in such programmes overseas. The question is how the MOU was signed and how programmes were offered in Sri Lanka.

Where is the corporate liability and integrity in these activities?

by Dr. Janadari Wijesinghe