Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a Non-Aligned, yet Multi-Aligned Foreign Policy:

by Ali Sabry, PC

In a world increasingly polarised by great-power rivalries, Sri Lanka must remain steadfast in its time-tested foreign policy doctrine: non-alignment. Our strategic location in the Indian Ocean, economic aspirations, and long-term stability demand that we engage with all global actors without becoming pawns in their geopolitical games.

The ongoing crisis in Ukraine offers a stark reminder of what happens when small and mid-sized nations get caught in the crossfire of major power struggles. For Sri Lanka, the lesson is clear: we must remain non-aligned yet multi-aligned, engaging with all, avoiding entanglements, and ensuring that our sovereignty is never compromised.

The Ukrainian Crisis: A Cautionary Tale for Small States

Ukraine’s tragedy is not just a distant war; it is a lesson in realpolitik for all small nations. Over the past two decades, Ukraine found itself on the fault line between NATO and Russia. By aligning too closely with one camp, it triggered existential fears in the other. When the crisis escalated, Ukraine was left to bear the full cost of war. its cities reduced to rubble, its economy in shambles, and millions of its people displaced.

Despite strong international support, Ukraine has suffered devastating consequences. The military and financial aid it has received has come at a tremendous cost, both in human lives and economic ruin. No amount of Western backing has spared Ukraine from becoming the battlefield of a larger geopolitical contest.

For Sri Lanka, the lesson is simple: never allow ourselves to become the battleground for someone else’s war. We must ensure that our sovereignty is non-negotiable and that our foreign policy choices are dictated solely by our national interests, not by the strategic ambitions of global powers.

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy: The Power of Equidistance

Sri Lanka has historically been a champion of non-alignment. From our role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to our principled stand at the 1951 San Francisco Peace Conference, we have long understood that small states wield the greatest power when they remain independent in their decision making.

Over the years, we have experienced the perils of veering too far in one direction. The late 1970s saw an excessive pro-Western tilt, leading to strained relations with India and regional instability. More recently, an over reliance on China in the early 2010s resulted in economic vulnerabilities and strategic imbalances. The anti-China rhetoric of 2015 cost us dearly, almost freezing Chinese investments and triggering a devastating economic slowdown that contributed to the financial crisis.

Every time Sri Lanka has moved too close to one power bloc, it has paid a price, whether in economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, or security threats. This is why our best path forward is non-alignment in politics but multi-alignment in economic and diplomatic engagement.

What Does a Non-Aligned Yet Multi-Aligned Foreign Policy Look Like?

1. No Military Alignments, No Foreign Bases

• Sri Lanka must firmly reject any attempt by external powers to establish military bases or exclusive defence arrangements on our soil. While we should engage in cooperative security dialogues, we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into power blocs that undermine our neutrality.

2. Economic Engagement with All, Dependency on None

• We should welcome investments from all corners, India, China, the U.S., the EU, Japan, and others, while ensuring that no single actor dominates our economic landscape. A diversified economic strategy will safeguard us from economic coercion and financial vulnerabilities.

3. Diplomatic Balancing

• Just as we engage with China on infrastructure, we must strengthen ties with India for regional security and trade, collaborate with the U.S. and Europe for technology and education, and maintain strong links with Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities.

4. Leveraging Multilateralism

• Sri Lanka must remain active in regional and global organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC, using these platforms to promote dialogue, trade, and security cooperation without taking sides in major power conflicts.

5. Resisting Coercion and Protecting Sovereignty

• Major powers will always seek to exert influence over small nations, forcing to take sides, whether through economic pressure, diplomatic maneuvering, or security agreements. We must have the political will to resist undue pressure and assert our sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

A Realistic Assessment of Our Size, Strength, and Interests

Sri Lanka is not a superpower. We do not have the economic or military clout to take sides in great power conflicts. But we do have strategic importance, a vital geographic location, and a respected voice in international diplomacy. If we play our cards wisely, we can turn our neutrality into an advantage, positioning ourselves as a hub for global trade, an honest broker in international disputes, and a bridge between competing powers.

We must recognise that aligning with any single power bloc, whether Western, Chinese, or otherwise, will only expose us to greater risks. Instead, a pragmatic, balanced approach will allow us to benefit from global partnerships while avoiding the pitfalls of dependency.

The Middle Path is the Best Path

Sri Lanka does not need to pick sides. We need to pick strategies that work best for our long-term stability, security, and prosperity. The world today is as divided as it was during the Cold War, and the lessons from Ukraine prove that small nations that fail to remain neutral pay the heaviest price.

Our path is clear: a foreign policy rooted in non-alignment, strengthened by multi-alignment, and guided by the unwavering principle that Sri Lanka’s future must be shaped by Sri Lankans not by external pressures.

As we move forward, we must do so unapologetically and with confidence, embracing the world, engaging with all nations, and ensuring that Sri Lanka remains sovereign, secure, and successful in an increasingly uncertain global order.

Gnana Moonesinghe, who passed away recently had a multi-faceted life although never a career. A woman of many interests – in literature, politics, diplomacy, journalism – she spanned these divides with great felicity and charm.

Gnana Coomaraswamy was born into a well-known Jaffna family. Her father was educated at Cambridge University in England and was a barrister. He pursued a career in education being principal of a leading Jaffna school. Gnana herself had an education in Colombo, and she entered the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya, from Ladies College, in 1955.

Her sister had married Dr. Kumaran Ratnam, who was once a Mayor of Colombo. Gnana married Mangala Moonesinghe, a lawyer and politician who was a descendent of Anagarika Dharmapala. Mangala Moonesinghe was MP for Bulathsinhala in 1965-1977. During that period, Gnana was heavily engaged in looking after that electorate and developed a close relationship with many of his constituents. She enjoyed being a politician’ s wife.

When Mangala was appointed High Commissioner in New Delhi in the 1980s, Gnana found another congenial and productive occupation. She was the perfect wife of a diplomat, and the couple enjoyed the diplomatic life in New Delhi and the high profile among the New Delhi circles. Mangala and Gnana developed a close relationship with Prime Minister, Gujaral of India. While in Delhi, Gnana produced a book – “Footprints of the Buddha”. After New Delhi, Mangala and Gnana had a couple of years in London as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner. On return to Sri Lanka, Gnana was engaged in domestic, political and civil society issues. She and Mangala had a particular interest in the ethnic issue. She was a regular contributor to the newspapers and particularly concerned with the politics of the time. She edited a book on Sri Lankan government structures some time during this period. She was a member of the Disputes Resolution Council of the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka.

It is 70 years since I first met Gnana. We both entered university at Peradeniya in 1955. From 1956-1959, Gnana and I read for a special degree in Economics. There were three young women and over 20 men reading for this course. Gnana specialised in political science. Only a very few of us are still around. It is a pleasure to have known Gnana all these long years. She leaves a son, Sanath who lives in the United States, and daughter Avanti ,who is married to Murtaza Esufally.

Leelananda De Silva

by Christopher White Vatican Correspondent

Pope Francis has written a sweeping letter to the U.S. bishops decrying the “major crisis” triggered by President Donald Trump’s mass deportation plans and explicitly rejecting Vice President JD Vance’s attempts to use Catholic theology to justify the administration’s immigration crackdown.

“The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defencelessness,” reads the pope’s Feb. 11 letter.

Since taking office on Jan. 20, the Republican president has taken more than 20 executive actions aimed at overhauling the U.S. immigration system, including plans to ratchet up the deportations of undocumented migrants and halt the processing of asylum seekers.

The pope’s letter, published by the Vatican in both English and Spanish, offered his solidarity with U.S. bishops who are engaged in migration advocacy and draws a parallel between Jesus’ own experience as a migrant and the current geopolitical situation.

“Jesus Christ … did not live apart from the difficult experience of being expelled from his own land because of an imminent risk to his life, and from the experience of having to take refuge in a society and a culture foreign to his own,” writes Francis.

While the letter acknowledges the right of every country to enact necessary policies to defend itself and promote public safety, the pope said that all laws must be enacted “in the light of the dignity of the person and his or her fundamental rights, not vice versa.”

The pontiff also goes on to clearly reject efforts to characterise the migrants as criminals, a frequent rhetorical device used by Trump administration officials.

“The rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality,” the pope writes.

Soon after Trump took office, Vice President JD Vance — a recent convert to Roman Catholicism — attempted to defend the administration’s migration crackdown by appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas’ concept of ordo amoris.

“Just google ‘ordo amoris,’ ” Vance posted on social media on Jan. 30 in response to criticism he received following a Fox News interview.

During that interview, Vance said: “You love your family, and then you love your neighbour, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritise the rest of the world.”

While not mentioning Vance directly by name, Francis used his Feb. 11 letter to directly reject that interpretation of Catholic theology.

“The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘Good Samaritan,’ that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception,” wrote the pope.

Since his election in 2013, Francis has become one of the world’s most vocal champions. His latest letter, however, marks a rare moment when the pontiff has directly waded into a country’s policy debates.

In the letter, however, he states that this is a “decisive moment in history” that requires reaffirming “not only our faith in a God who is always close, incarnate, migrant and refugee, but also the infinite and transcendent dignity of every human person.”

“What is built on the basis of force, and not on the truth about the equal dignity of every human being, begins badly and will end badly,” the pope warned.

In a brief post on social media, the U.S. bishops’ conference shared the pope’s letter with its online followers.

“We are grateful for the support, moral encouragement, and prayers of the Holy Father, to the Bishops in affirmation of their work upholding the God-given dignity of the human person,” read the statement.

(The National Catholic Reporter)