Connect with us

News

Experts at third LKI Foreign Policy Forum call for pragmatic reassessment of non-alignment in a shifting global landscape

Published

on

While the need to re-orient non-alignment to meet the changing global dynamics was regularly spoken of, Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) countries have failed to offer a cohesive strategic response and re-orientation, Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) Executive Director Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha said at the third LKI Foreign Policy Forum, titled ‘Reassessing Non-Alignment in a Polarised World,’ that was held recently in Colombo.

The forum, held on a quarterly basis, brings together experts to discuss contemporary foreign policy issues and to contribute to the development of a Sri Lankan perspective on foreign policy and international relations. Ahead of the Forum, Foreign Minister M.U.M. Ali Sabry, who delivered the opening address, observed that “non-alignment means not becoming a bystander” and “that you are not forced or coerced into a camp to take sovereign decisions”.

Moderating the session which featured four prominent experts in the field, LKI Executive Director Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinha, at the outset, emphasized the importance of understanding both – the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as an organization, and ‘non-alignment’ as a concept and foreign policy strategy.

He noted that for Sri Lanka, as it was to many member countries between the 1960s -1980s, NAM enabled the conceptualization/operationalization of important initiatives relevant to its membership, including the Indian Ocean Peace Zone, the Law of the Sea, a New International Economic Order, a New International Information Order and a developing country emphasis on global disarmament – many in which Sri Lanka was to play a prominent role. However, since the ending of the Cold War, non-alignment was to lose its influence in global affairs due to the diverse interests and alignments of its member states.

In recent times while the need to re-orient non-alignment to meet the changing global dynamics was regularly spoken of, NAM countries have failed to offer a cohesive strategic response and re-orientation, he observed.

Amb. Aryasinha suggested that while the voting patterns of NAM countries in the UN General Assembly during recent crises – particularly on Ukraine and the Gaza – provided an barometer to judge as to how non-aligned states were responding to issues in real-time, what the ingredients of a re-oriented non-aligned policy, however, required closer study.

The Executive Director of the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies (BCIS) Prof. Gamini Keerawella, who focussed on the evolution of the NAM, noted that it had three distinct phases where emphasis was on; first de-colonization, second on meeting the cold war challenges, and third in grappling with post-cold war dynamics. He cautioned against analysing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy in the early period, solely through the lens of non-alignment, referring to examples such as that Prime Minister D.S Senanayake’s neutrality was complemented by a defence agreement with the UK, and Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s non-aligned approach with permission for U.S vessels to access Sri Lankan ports. He emphasised that the disintegration of the Soviet Union did not necessarily mean a win for the U.S, and that emerging challenges have required a re-definition of foreign policy in non-aligned nations.

He cautioned that current Sri Lanka foreign policy, too, should not be analysed solely in terms of non-alignment, but must additionally take into account; the domestic, South Asian (mainly India related), Indian Ocean Region, and global contexts, as well.

Former Foreign Secretary and Chairman of the Pathfinder Foundation Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke referred to the emergence of multi-polarity on the international stage and the current outlook of the global economy where in the next decade, China, the U.S and India will be the three largest economies. He said countries like Sri Lanka cannot rely on the benevolence of these global economic powers and non-aligned countries must establish their own leverage for economic gain. He explained that it requires non-aligned foreign policy to be fine–tuned, and for the 120-strong Non-Aligned Movement to re-group and re-invent itself, rather than being passive.

He observed that in the case of Sri Lanka, while President Gotabaya Rajapaksa embraced neutrality and publicly declared this position at the inauguration ceremony in Anuradhapura in 2019, beyond expressing this intent, there had been limited follow up. Five years on, he argued that we must assume that Sri Lanka is continuing to pursue this position of neutrality and non-alignment. Amb. Goonetilleke highlighted how nations have shifted alliances based on their perceived self-interests without knowing the long-term consequences of such decisions. He reiterated the need for Sri Lanka to prioritise domestic interests and to ensure that a comprehensive foreign policy serves to empower the nation amidst shifting global dynamics.

Dr Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu, Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA), questioned “what non-alignment means in the modern day and what are you non-aligning against”. He challenged traditional notions of non-alignment, advocating for a more nuanced understanding in today’s geopolitical context. Rather than rigid ideological stances, he questioned whether pragmatic decision-making, such as voting based on self-interest, could be considered a form of non-alignment, citing Singapore’s foreign policy approach as a convincing example.

He also said NAM does not offer resolutions on challenges that arise from non-western interventions. As the balance of power is shifting towards China and India, Sri Lanka must assess its foreign policy based on what it can gain from engaging with the rest of the world, rather than basing it on the moral authority of non-alignment, which he argued no longer exists. Specifically regarding economic prosperity, he emphasised the need for Sri Lanka to pursue advancement through aligning with those countries that bring the greatest economic benefits, rather than sacrificing economic leverage, through adopting a non-aligned foreign policy.

Chief International Relations Analyst, Factum, Uditha Devapriya saw pragmatism as increasingly having come to define non-alignment, resulting in some contradictions and ambiguities even with respect to Sri Lanka. Observing that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy decisions omit valuable perspectives from the grassroots level, he said while southern perspectives place emphasis on engaging with bilateral partners, northern perspectives consider foreign policy to be a secondary concern behind the prioritisation of Tamil rights and recognition.

He further elaborated that the Sri Lankan people on the ground were deeply suspicious of being given aid with strings attached. He advocated for a proactive foreign policy strategy that takes consistent decisions that align with past policies, and has credibility both domestically and internationally. He urged that public opinion should influence these decisions and experts must engage more with policymakers so that decisions are sustainable and address broader challenges in the Global South.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Sajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action  

Published

on

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Alleging that the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) had betrayed the joint protest campaign, planned on 24 Sept., at Polduwa junction, against the enactment of the 22nd Amendment without securing public approval at a referendum, SJB trade union leader Ananda Palitha emphasised that SJB and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa should take remedial measures to restore the alliance against the NPP government.

Responding to The Island queries, the trade union activist said that he spoke on behalf of the vast majority of the SJBers who felt betrayed by the sudden declaration made by Colombo District SJB lawmaker S.M. Marikkar that they didn’t expect Opposition political parties’ participation, except that of the UNP.

Pointing out that at the behest of Premadasa, MP Marikkar belittled those who had pledged on 17 Sept. to join the SJB-led protest, Palitha emphasised the Opposition leader should be held responsible for restoring the shattered alliance. Palitha warned that the NPP, which was rapidly moving on a dictatorial path, would be the beneficiary of such treacherous actions.

When The Island raised the allegations pertaining to the 24 Sept. protest, Colombo District MP Premadasa said there was no basis for such claims. MP Premadasa called the accusations directed at him ‘rubbish.’

Palitha said that the pathetic failure on the part of the Opposition to genuinely challenge the authoritarian NPP should be examined, taking into consideration the government following an agenda almost 100 percent against the election pledges. Except the much touted anti-corruption campaign, the NPP reneged on all its election promises.

Recalling massive rice imports after having promised to stop the same in the run up to the national elections in 2024, Palitha alleged that the utterly corrupt NPP created an artificial shortage to enable import of large stocks of salt for their benefit. Massive earnings were made through commissions, Palitha said, urging the SJB to reiterate its commitment to the 17 Sept. pledge. According to him, the SJB’s irresponsible action sabotaged the joint Opposition agreement reached on the eve of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake completing two years in Office.

Palitha said that the disruption of a genuinely joint protest, at the last moment, caused irreparable harm to the Opposition. The unexpected eleventh hour declaration made by the SJB upset their efforts to organise a large scale two-day protest on 24 and 25 Sept. Palitha emphasised the responsibility on the part of the SJB leadership and its top management to spearhead an all-out campaign against the government. The former petroleum sector employee said that a strong and transparent campaign could undermine the NPP within as a section of its parliamentary group was deeply dismayed by the current policies and strategies.

Palitha, in his capacity as the trade union leader, invited the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) to join the trade unions’ protest on 25 Sept. to intensify pressure on the government. BASL President Rajeev Amarasuriya told The Island that they didn’t accept that invitation.

Former SLPP Kalutara District MP Sanjeewa Edirimanna said that the SJB was far more keen to organise a large-scale protest to counter the SLPP’s highly successful Anuradhapura rally held on 12 September than a genuine joint protest against the 22nd Amendment or the government. Edirimanna said that they realised that the SJB would probably join a joint protest campaign only after organising a gathering to counter the SLPP. According to him, the SJB hadn’t been honestly interested in a joint protest campaign. Instead, it sought to resist possible challenges from rival political parties, he said.

An aide to UNP leader and former President Ranil Wickremesinghe said that though the SJB announced they were welcome to join the 24 Sept. protest, the party never received an invitation. The official said that some UNPers joined the protest on their own though the party neither directed supporters to join or boycott the event. As the Janathawadi Joint Opposition decided against participating for want of formal invitations, the UNP, as part of that group, decided not to join the 24 Sept. protest.

Continue Reading

News

Police remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna

Published

on

Pictures grabbed from video footage show policemen removing the Thileepan statue in Nallur yesterday

By Norman Palihawadane

Police have removed a memorial statue of former LTTE member Rasaiah Parthipan, alias Thileepan, from the Thileepan Memorial Square in Nallur, Jaffna, following the conclusion of commemorative events, marking the 39th anniversary of his death.

The statue was removed in the early hours of yesterday (27), a day after the final day of the commemoration was held at the site.

CCTV footage from the memorial reportedly shows police officers removing the statue and taking it away in a vehicle.

Tamil National People’s Front (TNPF) Secretary and MP Selvarasa Gajendran alleged that more than 15 police officers arrived at the site, without prior notice, entered the premises wearing footwear, and forcibly removed the statue.

The reason for the removal and the legal basis for the police action had not been officially announced as of yesterday.

Thileepan, a former political wing leader of the LTTE, died in September 1987, after undertaking a hunger strike in Nallur, while making several demands of the Indian Government.

The memorial events, marking the 39th anniversary of his death, were held at the site on Saturday (26). A statue had been erected at the location in connection with the commemoration.

Continue Reading

News

NPP, Lal agree to disagree

Published

on

Lal

 By Shamindra Ferdinand

NPP Executive Committee member Lal Wijenayake said that he would continue with the ruling party though he disagreed with the 22nd Amendment, sans a referendum. That position wouldn’t be changed, lawyer Wijenayake said, adding that he would continue to support whatever action taken by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) to highlight the damaging consequences of the new amendment.

Wijenayake said so in response to The Island query whether he could continue with the NPP after having opposed the 22nd Amendment. When pressed for clarification, Wijenayake revealed that he received an opportunity to discuss the issue at hand with NPP and JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Declaring that he couldn’t reveal what transpired in his meeting with President Dissanayake, Wijenayake said the status quo would remain.

“They wouldn’t seek my removal from the party,” he said, adding he would remain in the Executive Committee, regardless of his unchanged position on the 22nd Amendment. Wijenayake ruled out the possibility of him joining joint Opposition protests against the government.

NPP General Secretary Dr. Nihal Abeyseinghe told The Island that those who urged the ruling party to allow its members to vote, according to their conscience, should know the entire government parliamentary group accepted the need for the 22nd Amendment. Yes, they voted according to their conscience, the Kalutara District lawmaker said, underscoring that regardless of the split in the NPP over the 22nd Amendment, the vote proved otherwise.

Of the 159-member NPP group, 158 voted for the controversial amendment where three Opposition MPs skipped the vote. Ravi Karunanayake and Faizer Musthapha of the New Democratic Front (NDF), led by Ranil Wickremesinghe, were among them. The other absentee Nayana Wasalathilake represents the SJB.

The NDF, which contested under the ‘Gas Cylinder’ symbol secured, five seats at the last parliamentary polls. The remaining three members, Anuradha Jayaratne, Rohitha Abeygunawardena and Chamara Sampath Dassanayake, voted against the 22nd Amendment.

Continue Reading

Trending