“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters”

Antonio Gramsci, (around 1930).

Reflection on W.B.Yeats poetry, composed in the immediate aftermath of World War I, during the Russian Revolution, and amid the Irish War of Independence:

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…

…And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.” (The Second Coming, 1919).

This mood of apocalypse hangs over the world today, more than two months since the start of the US/Israel war against Iran, with no end in sight. Leaders speak of the old world order as “ruptured” ( Canadian Prime Minister at Davos), “bent” or “gone for good”(WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala), so how should small developing countries navigate in the new era without the old framework of globalization, free trade, a rules based international order, reliance on UN led multilateralism?

The Canadian Prime Minister called for the middle powers to come together to offer an alternative global leadership, different coalitions for different issues based on common values and interests. Will this new global leadership benefit the developing countries? Despite the high rhetoric, we in Sri Lanka know that international human rights standards for instance, are applied selectively – Canada’s criticism of Sri Lanka’s conduct of its armed conflict has been coloured by their domestic politics where the Tamil migrant diaspora wields influence.

By contrast, the view from Beijing, which is receiving many high level visits these days, offers a more equitable stance on multilateralism emphasizing that developing countries should prioritize the right to economic development over civil and political liberties. Taking the lead, China has recently offered to remove tariffs on almost all African exports.

Some argue we should look to the past for guidance when Sri Lanka diplomacy “punched above our weight”. Yet, what is the relevance of discussing Sri Lanka’s leadership in the UN Law of the Sea Conference and on initiatives like IOPZ (Indian Ocean Peace Zone) when on March 4, a US nuclear submarine sank the Iranian Navy frigate IRIS Dena with a torpedo off our coast, causing over 100 deaths and leaving Sri Lanka to conduct a humanitarian operation search and rescue in the aftermath . In April, the US forces intercepted and fired upon the tanker Tifani carrying 300,000 tons of crude oil in the high seas, some 700 km south east of Sri Lanka. Where is the hope, let alone the guarantee of freedom of the high seas inscribed in UNCLOS art.87?

Why theorize endlessly over non-alignment and neutrality? As far back as 1956, SWRD Bandaranaike, the first Sri Lankan Prime Minister to address the UN General Assembly, suggested standards which still stand: “friendship towards all, enmity towards none,” and “dynamic neutralism,” advocating moral force over military power, peace, anti-colonialism and sovereignty.

NAM is still relevant as we see a less known principle being tested today in the Gulf countries which had hitherto sheltered under the US security umbrella. This NAM principle prohibits the joining of regional security arrangements and the stationing of foreign troops or foreign bases on your soil. Thus in 1957 the Sri Lanka government had abrogated the 1947 United Kingdom–Ceylon Defence Agreement, which had granted Britain access to military facilities including air and naval bases at Trincomalee, Katunayake (RAF Negombo), and Batticaloa. Some argue that Sri Lanka missed the opportunity to join ASEAN at its founding but at the time our leaders saw it as a regional security pact which targeted China.

Today, the stationing of foreign military personnel comes under the guise of the donation of defence equipment and needs for training/maintenance. Remember the controversy which broke recently over the Dornier aircraft project in the Maldives where some 67 foreign military personnel had to be recalled and replaced by technical personnel. Sri Lanka also has a Dornier project but how many foreign military personnel are attached and for how long, is not known, since recent bilateral defence agreements with India are shrouded in secrecy. Is it not preferable to try to build some consensus in Parliament with the Opposition on such vital agreements instead of secrecy which only builds suspicion and resentment of the Big Neighbour?

Foreign policy making in any integrated far- sighted manner has been crippled by the never ending natural and man-made disasters that have hit this island, a 30-year armed conflict, a tsunami, covid, economic bankruptcy. Yet Sri Lanka has emerged from it all due to its national resilience systems and sustained cooperation with the international community. It has continued to provide examples on development, from its universal health and education systems to a unique experiment today to reduce the size of the Cabinet of Ministers. Thus Vijitha Herath is the first Foreign Minister to also head key Ministries of Foreign Employment and Tourism. This experiment where the aim is to curtail expenditure and simplify Ministerial lifestyles is welcomed by foreign donors. However the problem is that it comes at the cost of efficiency.

This style of government requires a frank admission of our diminished ability to project power abroad even as the economic crisis and domestic needs are shrinking our diplomatic footprint. A sign of this is that professional diplomats heading key posts in Paris, Berlin and Beijing are returning home at the end of their terms while new appointments, defying the diplomatic convention, are still awaited.

Under these circumstances, can we expect a far-sighted independent foreign policy to take shape? Should we not accept the alternative of flexible forms of cooperation to prevail, “bandwagoning” or “hedging” with states as and when the need arises.

Yet, going into this new era, one thing is certain, Sri Lanka must first move towards a stronger domestic economy and national self reliance. Facing the “largest energy crisis in history” (Fatih Birol ,the head of IEA (the International Energy Agency) , the prioritization of energy and food security, trade and finance arrangements reducing the foreign leverage that enables coercion, sustainable development to face the global climate crisis, has to come to the forefront of domestic policy making , which will shape foreign policy.

In fact, some positive results have already emerged in Sri Lanka. On energy, the crisis in the Gulf has led the government to take action to reduce dependence on costly fossil fuels and harness natural resources such as the renewables, hydro, wind and solar. Finally the government has taken the policy decision to move on storage, commissioning the 12 new battery storage BESS projects with a domestic firm. This may lead to decentralizing the power grid and sharing of power within the country, enhancing energy self sufficiency without looking to foreign firms to build huge power plants and costly plans for electricity sharing through building a grid or under sea pipelines with the Big Neighbour.

As vigils gather to remember the 40^th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the worst nuclear plant accident the world has known, another major policy decision should be applauded, this government’s refusal of the nuclear power plant offer by Russia, heeding our local scientists who warn that the risks far outweigh the advantages.

What of the plans for a Trinco oil hub? Sri Lanka certainly needs to make better use of the Trinco tank farm given the present limited fuel storage at Kolonnawa and Muthurajawela. Yet why is refurbishing more of the tanks being coupled with the costly building of an oil pipeline to India? Such a pipeline laid through sensitive marine environments runs the risk of either accidental or deliberate sabotage. Who will pay for such damage, jeopardizing our domestic fisheries and tourism with adverse impacts lasting several generations?

This line of thinking would be heresy to some who argue that our future lies in linking up with our nearest Big Neighbour under a “connectivity” agenda. But while remaining grateful to India’s quick support to our requests in times of humanitarian need, we must think clearly of our own national interest in any investment or cooperation partnership. Already Indian foreign investment is capturing Sri Lankan companies and strategic port assets from the Adani joint cooperation in the Colombo Port to the more recent take over of Colombo Dockyard by India’s state-owned Mazagon Dock.

Colombo Dockyard which was a regional player and has been building ships and yachts for Europe and earning dollars – will it be now reduced to repairing dredging vessels and being paid in Indian rupees? The currency exchange scheme with India apparently is still one way, that is Indians can pay Indian rupees for goods and services in Sri Lanka but it seems Sri Lankans cannot pay for goods and services in India with Sri Lankan rupees. Direct currency exchange agreements are useful when reciprocal, avoiding the costly intermediary of the US dollar, an example being the old Asian Currency Union where Sri Lanka is able to settle outstanding balances by the end of the month.

On trade, many have been calling for Sri Lanka to enter into more free trade agreements (FTA) to address the current crisis by boosting exports. While the search for new markets must continue and exporters should be supported by the government, should they not first look into whether existing FTAs are fulfilling their goals? The Indian FTA for example is often shown as a success because bilateral trade had grown by leaps and bounds since it came into operation in 2000. Yet closer examination has shown that 80% of bilateral trade with India is conducted outside the FTA apparently due to non-tariff barriers, customs and regulatory forces as well as the unavoidable block at the nearest point, the Tamil Nadu factor.

Does the final solution lie in our building consensus on domestic policy despite the inherited system of confrontational politics? Our Nordic friends once pointed to the seating in our parliament which pits the Government against the Opposition, in contrast with the Nordic tradition of seating members according to the regions to promote cooperation within the region and planning together for the future. In this context, the recent decision to appoint a leading member of the Opposition as head of the Cricket Board is welcome. The new Board will be tested by the legal challenges to building a cricket stadium for Jaffna on Nanditivu island. This should be re-located to save Nanditivu’s pristine environment, special biodiversity and people’s traditional livelihoods.

(Sarala Fernando retired from the Foreign Ministry as Additional Secretary, her last Ambassadorial appointment was as Permanent Representative to the UN and International Organizations in Geneva. Her Ph.D was on India-Sri Lanka relations and she writes now on foreign policy, public diplomacy and protection of heritage).

by Dr. Sarala Fernando