Connect with us

Features

The government’s foreign affairs

Published

on

One of my favourite Archie (from the comic strip) stories has Archie Andrews trying to land a job in the summer holidays. He finds one selling subscriptions to an encyclopaedia, for which he’s promised a 10% commission. Yet selling them isn’t easy; as he fumbles from one house to another, only to be rebuffed and rejected, he grows frustrated. Finally he decides to call it a day, and in doing so offers the reader his reason for throwing it all in: “After all, 10% of zero is zero.”

Taken and modified, that pretty much sums up our recent encounter in Geneva: with 22 votes for the resolution on Sri Lanka, 11 votes against, and 14 abstentions, it was a victory for the Core Group, not so much for us. Those 11 nays shouldn’t count; paraphrasing Archie, 23% of 47 is also zero.

You can view Geneva as either of two things: a battleground of powerful states (justifiably described as “human rights imperialists”) versus the little ones, or a platform for rights, ethics, ideals, and ideas. The two are not mutually contradictory, but the tactics resorted to in each case are.

If Geneva is a battleground of “big fish eat little fish”, you don’t bother with what comes from there: you claim victory even in defeat, and call for global solidarity against the human rights imperialists. If Geneva is a platform for universal ideals, on the other hand, you do all you can to score high, winning at the table through diplomacy what you win on the battlefield through the military.

The first strategy is what this government seems to be engaged in; the second, what the government before it was. I prefer the third: engaging with ideas while calling out on the humbuggery of human rights imperialism. You don’t do that by offering your sovereignty up for sale, nor can you do that by being inconsistent in your dealings with the world. You do it by engagement, by give-and-take and tit-for-tat, by winning friends over while operating from a moral high ground.

The Gotabaya Rajapaksa government and Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government have not converged on most things, but despite their contrasting approaches to every other issue, their way of handling the Geneva vote has brought us to roughly the same outcome: a prolongation of the inevitable. In the case of co-sponsorship – what Sirisena-Wickremesinghe opted for in March 2015 – it involved doing what Dayan Jayatilleka called “a Jihadi John” on the country’s sovereignty. In the case of the ‘whataboutery’ the present administration is indulging in, it involved letting domestic convulsions get in the way of foreign policy imperatives. Contrary to what Dinesh Gunawardena may say, Geneva 2021 hence was no different to Geneva 2015, the exception being that while 2021 turned the odds against us, Geneva 2015 had the faintest trappings of a pyrrhic victory.

I remember ridiculing Mangala Samaraweera’s attempt at toying with the results of the 2018 Local Government polls to “prove” that while the SLPP won the election, the anti-Rajapaksa vote compared to the August 2015 parliamentary election had risen. This, of course, was a classic case of big oranges and small apples, and it’s only fair to invoke the metaphor when another Minister does the same thing in a different context. For Dinesh Gunawardena has called Geneva a victory: he seems to think that 14 abstentions prove the majority chose to side with us.

Forget the spurious logic and the linguistic theatrics here. The fact is that Sri Lanka has traditionally relied on the Non-Aligned – hardly irrelevant, even in this day and age – and the G77 vote. Given the Left’s support for Palestine, Sri Lanka has also depended on IOC countries. Ergo, the strategy should be, and should have been, to canvass support from these blocs.

Such a strategy, as it stands, is two-pronged: you convert the man in the middle to your side, and you prevent the man who once stood for you from going to the middle. It’s easier to convert the neutralist; not so the guy who has pitched camp against you. That is not to say you shouldn’t try to convince the guy who’s going to vote against you, but it does mean that in the no-vote guys should be on the top of your list. Two rules: negotiate with them from their world, talk to them in their terms.

Viewed that way, and in all fairness to Minister Gunawardena, Geneva 2021 brought home a double defeat: based on the number of countries voting for the resolution (the highest since 2009), and on the ratio between the nays and the abstentions (the highest since 2009, when it stood at 6:29).

I still believe Dinesh Gunawardena is the best Foreign Minister we’ve had in years, and that’s saying a lot given how a great many consider his yahapalanist predecessors to have been of better stock. (For the record, they were not.) Geneva 2021 therefore didn’t as much reveal his failings as it did the limits within which he had to work, both inside the Ministry and outside.

The failure to canvass support from many of our traditional allies – especially those from the Islamic world – for me tells a lot about two things: a general failure to engage with the world, and a specific failure to reflect how we deal with other countries in how we deal with ourselves.

What we have ended up with instead is what I’d like to call a “foreign policy inversion”, where how we resolve local issues runs counter to how we interact with everyone else beyond our shores. As far as the decision of many Muslim countries to desist from voting for or against goes, this inversion has stemmed from one thing and one thing alone: the burial controversy.

I’m not talking about the months-long delay over granting permission for COVID-19 burials here; I’m talking about the dithering the government engaged in after it announced to the world that it would go back on its policy of mandatory cremations. This is unfortunate. You don’t win people over by telling them one thing and doing the opposite. Similarly, you do not let domestic convulsions and prejudices get in the way of promises made to other countries.

Yet such cardinal principles do not seem to have gone into the heads of those baying for blood over petty issues. Mahinda Rajapaksa understood it, only too well: that’s why he announced the u-turn over burials in parliament. But for the ultra-nationalists, foreign relations simply do not matter; as long as their prejudices transform into policy, the rest of the world can go where it wants. If effective foreign policy involves neither total give nor total take, hence, these guys want all take no give. That strategy has a name: zero-sum. The US engages in it, in some form. We are not the US.

Foreign policy inversion works in the short term. Not the long. The previous government committed a major blunder by relying almost totally on foreign support vis-à-vis Geneva; that did not help them at the ballot box. Ranil Wickremesinghe with the ceasefire agreement and Chandrika Kumaratunga with the P-TOMS arrangement made the same mistake; Geneva 2015 showed they hadn’t learnt the lessons of either encounter. The current government has turned the other way: by substituting the local for the global, it seems to believe that support from within can compensate for opposition from outside. That is not what helped us in 2009, and that is what helped us lose in 2021.

None of this is to say that we should measure the success of our diplomatic manoeuvring on the basis of Western benchmarks. That is why I disagree with those who take the regime to task over soliciting votes from “serious human rights violators”: Eritrea and Myanmar, to mention just two of them. Such critiques fall flat on their own logic for two reasons: one, because “serious human rights violators” are on the other side also, and two, because at the final vote, a great many of these “violators” ditched us and went to the other side. If we are to chart our foreign policy based on ideals and standards decided on and validated by the guys at the top, we’ll eventually get ourselves mired up in the duplicity those guys at the top are engaging in. One example will suffice. Brazil, a country known for “serious human rights violations”, led by a right wing militarist allied with the US, voted for the resolution and against us. Now, what does that tell us about the politics of human rights?

As things stand, there is a balance that needs to be struck, between the need to assert ourselves and the need to work and negotiate from a position of moral superiority. This balance must be kept by means of another: between the need to counter duplicity vis-à-vis outfits like the Core Group and the need to come up with a coherent strategy which converts those in the middle to our friends-in-arms. That is not going to be achieved by refusing to give anything or by expecting to get everything. On two issues the government must thus meet and defeat its critics: sharing power with the periphery constructively and pragmatically, and engaging with minorities. It is regrettable that the world expects more than we seem prepared to part with. Yet without giving anything, we risk losing everything.

 

The writer can be reached at



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition

Published

on

An Iranian attack on a neighbouring Gulf state. Image courtesy BBC.

Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.

Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.

Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.

However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.

For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.

Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.

Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.

Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.

In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.

For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.

Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.

It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.

It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.

From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.

Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.

Continue Reading

Features

Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA

Published

on

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga

Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.

“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.

Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.

He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.

“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.

The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.

He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.

Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.

In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.

“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.

He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.

The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.

Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.

In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.

However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.

“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.

He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.

“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.

Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.

“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.

 

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’

Published

on

The visually impaired who make up Bright Light Band in Awurudu attire

Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.

He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.

I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.

However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.

They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.

Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.

Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band

This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.

According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.

Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.

Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.

He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.

The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.

Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.

Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.

Continue Reading

Trending