Connect with us


Challenges to Pohottuwa in Geneva – II



By Austin Fernando

(Continued from Wednesday)


Normally the Attorney General’s (AG) Department prosecutes criminal cases. Since AG and its officials have appeared in legal proceedings, representing the military in local Courts and Geneva, it is not surprising that victims are questioning its impartiality. Therefore, they may vehemently demand the ‘Special Prosecutor’s Office (30/1). As regards this, there have been situations in other countries, where joint prosecutors’ or deputy prosecutors’ appointments were made. (SLTT: ‘Data on Criminal Accountability in Post-Civil War Societies: Implications for Sri Lanka’: Geoff Dancy/ Eric Wiebelhaus-Brahm)

However, regarding prosecutions, the Judicature Act (Section 41), read with the Supreme Court Rule (SCR) (Rule 70), restricts appearance in Courts to attorneys. Further legal issues in this regard are submitted by commentators. In terms of Supreme Court Rules 67 to 69, an ‘Attorney-at-Law’ is a person admitted to the Sri Lankan Bar. These stipulations restrict foreign lawyers’ right of audience before our courts. Additionally, the Code of Criminal Procedure limits prosecution to the AG or an Attorney of the AG’s Department. In the High Court and a Magistrate Court, only a State Counsel or a specially authorized pleader could prosecute. This effectively blocks international participation in prosecution. These restrictions constraint the establishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office unless laws and procedures are revised. Perhaps, the task before the legalists is to find ways and means of overcoming these restrictions by way of the revision of laws and procedures if the Accountability Mechanism (AM) is to be a reality.

Parliament blockades

I do not think it is easy for the government to establish an AM envisaged by the UNHRC. First, these legal constraints must be overcome by Parliament by amending laws. About 75% of parliamentarians are seen to have Sinhalese. Let’s face the political reality of legislating, when the law, however reasonable, projects ‘anti-Sinhala’ nuances.

Parliamentarians are not elected on considerations like knowledge, empathy, education, etc. Sadly, they win by sparking race, religion, caste, thuggery, pseudo-nationalism, media clout, and money. As Eastern Governor, I explained these to Prince Hussein, and believe he understood them. UN Special Procedure expert Pablo de Grief also advised GOSL should not be in a hurry to establish the AM or the Special Prosecutor’s Office. This status remains unchanged.

The answer may not be international investigations, but to find a compromise formula to abide by the constitutional obligations. A change seems to have occurred in the President’s approach. The government could explore the ways and means of convincing the majority in Parliament, if/when legislation is revised.

Changing scenarios

Recently, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa tweeted:

“We are committed to work with the @UN to ensure accountability & human dev. to achieve lasting peace & reconciliation. We are dedicated to resolving the issues within the democratic & legal frame to ensure justice & reconciliation by implementing necessary institutional reforms.” (Sunday Times)

I guess there has been a change in the President’s hard stance, which became evident at the War Hero Commemoration (2020), where he said he would not hesitate to withdraw Sri Lanka from any international organisation that continues to make baseless allegations and harass security forces. What he meant by ‘international organisation’ was the UNHRC, which is demanding that the so-called “baseless allegations” be proved in a court.

The President’s tweet and the aforesaid statement at the War Heros Commemoration are contradictory. Of course, pledges assuring “accountability”, “human development”, “lasting peace”, and “reconciliation”, “ensuring justice within a legal framework”, “institutional reforms,” etc., are hackneyed. The appointment of Prof. G. L. Peiris as the Foreign Minister was the second step, probably signaling flexible, sober strategizing. The third step was interventions by Minister Sabry and others. The fourth step was appointing the Advisory Board. As a next quick response PGLP may introduce the non-controversial TRC law because a draft is already available, and the Opposition cannot object. Its origin is theirs.

However, after presidential tweeting, the new doctrine may be to review and withdraw or amend earlier stances on UNHRC interventions, made by Minister Dinesh Gunawardena. Minister Gunawardena declared: “Sri Lanka rejects the High Commissioner’s Report because the allegations contained in the report were based on ill-founded premises, and the Minister said, “the trajectory that has emerged about the recommendations and conclusions reflects the preconceived, politicized and prejudicial agenda which certain elements have relentlessly pursued against Sri Lanka.” (UNHRC’ Interactive Dialogue’ 24-2-2021—emphasis added)

Then, “… we consider that the High Commissioner’s insistence in the current Report on the “full implementation” of the demands made on Sri Lanka in Resolution 30/1 indicates that the OHCHR fails to recognize the rational and legitimate concerns voiced by States that are seeking, in good faith, to address issues.” (UNHRC 27th February 2021—emphasis added)

The underlined sections in the above-mentioned excerpts are tantamount to a bitter complaint against the planned UNHRC partisanship and a bias against Sri Lanka; they will not please High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet. But President Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s tweet will certainly please her. It may please the UNHRC Core Group. The importance of the US Ambassador’s gestures is thus obvious. When the President softens his stand why cannot his Foreign Minister? If Prof. Peiris, whom I consider an experienced, knowledgeable, sober, capable negotiator, wishes to move on the new trajectory, he must overcome prejudices and be guided by the President’s stance.

Recently, Virakesari, Thinukural, and Thinakaran quoted Prof. Peiris as having refuted accusations against GOSL. Commentators have expressed different views on such denials. “In fact, the Presidential warrants appointing the said commissions of inquiry (e.g., Udalagama, Paranagama, Mahanama Thilakatratna) themselves ex-facie reflect the existence of allegations that merit investigation, despite which there is continuous and disingenuous, yet futile, denial.” She quoted the experiences of post-conflict states, e. g., former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, etc.. and added, “… stubborn denial does not make the allegations disappear but continue to enlarge with each passing day of inaction.” (SLTT: Page 127: Mahindaratna). Considering what the UNHRC Session 37, (A/HRC/37/23: paragraph 52) called on the Member States to explore actions for sake of accountability, (i.e., including universal jurisdiction), GOSL should be cautious.

Potential AM processes

To create a positive mindset on accountability, the government must prepare the public to accept an AM. This failed in the past and has no assurance for the future. One good example is how the victims were not made aware of the legal constraints of appointing foreign judges. Even the annoyance of victims at the inception and even now against the OMP (Thinakaran 27-8-2021) is another.

If GOSL agrees in principle to establishing an AM (currently unimaginable) one earlier restriction is eased by the ability to appoint judges, prosecutors, investigators from selected dual citizens making participation “in a Sri Lankan judicial mechanism” viable. I remember a quote from the Japanese Judge Motoo Noguchi, who discussed issues with me, sharing international experience in prosecutions. Quote: “Justice is inherent of domestic nature and ownership is important in the process. However, if this is impossible or extremely difficult with Sri Lankan nationals only, you would need the participation of foreign professionals.” Surmounting that ‘extreme difficulty’ is still open. This will need an evaluation of our judicial capacity and find ways to balance. Over to Minister Ali Sabry.

Therefore, regardless of the outcome of investigations or trials, if the domestic process is perceived as credible, then GOSL would meet the international and domestic obligations of accountability. The balanced approaches are feasible, but flexibility is a necessity, rather than sticking to one’s guns and demanding the pound of flesh! This applies to all stakeholders.

If the government is willing, this could be tried through several interventions. Anyhow, these steps may not be that easy, but it is up to Prof. Peiris to find a way out.

First, appointing a TRC, and executing the OMP, showcasing good performance could persuade the majority community to understand that TJ institutions are positive tools. Since there are no judicial mechanisms, they will be unrestricted with evidence and legal procedures.

Secondly, the media could create a public discourse on crimes, their horrendous nature, etc., and educate the public on accountability. This exercise will face stiff opposition from the groups who have strongly canvassed against the AM. Therefore, the personalities and institutions spearheading the AM will certainly matter. There is also the need to engage with the victims; this is a task especially for civic groups and clergy. Whatever happens in the operations should receive publicity through the media. Public support is an essential ingredient for success. The GOSL should harness the media support in the way they did during the conflict. Over to Minster Dallas Alahapperuma, an excellent, balanced media communicator!

Thirdly, this exercise does not produce immediate results and takes time to operate successfully. This will not be problematic since there is no commitment on the part of GOSL to act according to a timeframe. These sentiments resonate with UN Rapporteur Pablo de Grief.

Fourthly, the task of winning over the military security forces requires their participation in this exercise. It is only a handful of military personnel who are suspected of alleged violations. So, if untainted officers could be selected, it may be possible to educate them on the accountability process. Over time, certain assurances could be given in respect of a prosecutorial policy of focusing on the most serious and emblematic cases, offering mitigatory sentences for those cooperating with the prosecutors. They will reduce opposition from within the military and from society at large since the question of military personnel being sent to the gallows will not arise. Easier said than done! President’s commitment is essential.

Fifthly, any emblematic cases could be taken up in Courts with military participation. This may be difficult but the case of the rape and murder of Krishanthi Kumaraswamy and three others shows that such crimes were committed, and the Sri Lankan law enforcement and judicial processes can conduct investigations and prosecuting the perpetrators expeditiously, even during the war, with the help of the Military Police. So, why allow such issues to be internationalized? Mahindaratna has added, “This further demonstrates that, while politicians thrust the military to the forefront as an excuse to abstain from implementing the rule of law for wartime crimes, the military itself is not an obstacle for such processes.” (SLTT: page 129).

Sixthly, it will be useful to publicize the slow performance of similar international institutional arrangements to prove to the victims the need to find alternatives that provide much quicker reconciliatory approaches than the judicial process.

Engaging the clergy, civil society groups, and the District Administration personnel is recommended. Do not forget that these three groups stood by the affected during the war.

GOSL and these groups may make use of the examples of the International Criminal Tribunal in the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Extraordinary Chambers in the Court of Cambodia, and the International Criminal Court, where the numbers punished were smaller than complaints and the prosecutorial process was extremely slow. The difficulties in finding evidence, (though some hardliners claim to have trophy evidence), loss of documentation, the demise of witnesses, memory losses on events, etc. will lead to a similar situation in Sri Lanka as well.

Seventhly, while valuing the gains of accountability exercises like the revelation of criminal activity, endorsement of accountability for crimes, and respect for Rule of Law, etc., if the realization dawns that punishment cannot be meted out immediately, those demanding such action may opt for trade-offs such as human/economic development, reconciliation, normalization, etc.

However, the grief of victims does not vaporize quickly, and victims’ survivors will not promptly accept these arguments, and healing exercises should parallelly happen nationally, probably with the participation of all religious dignitaries. Additionally, reparation systems should be boosted generously. Over to you, Minister Basil Rajapaksa. Let it be stressed that no argument is peddled that the value of human lives could be assessed in terms of rupees and cents.


When the country faces grave problems internationally, the national political leadership should unite to fight its cause. Unfortunately, the Opposition and governments do not cooperate with genuine intentions. The Opposition need not wait for asking but must help voluntarily since what the government is sowing now will be reaped by the current Opposition politicians in the future. Even within the government also, coordination with the Opposition should happen committedly and genuinely.

If it is justice that Tamil politicians seek for the victims, they may be standing with the intentions of Prince Zaid Hussein. However, the process of achieving that goal must be based on reason, justice, and effective implementation, and not ethnic/religious/regional biases.

The success of finding a solution hinges on many factors, the most essential being the political commitment. It is expected of the government, victims, and all other stakeholders to overcome their biases. It is extremely difficult but needed because TJ is essential; the economy should not be crippled, and the country should remain stable. It will not be able to achieve this goal if the government and Opposition do not respect multi or bipartisanship relationships, collaborate and cooperate in the national interest.

I end this by quoting Kashmiri leader Farooq Abdullah, who said: “Diplomacy of give-and-take is a necessity in the current situation. If we show fists to them, they will double their fists and the result would be confrontation and conflagration that a nation reeling under the pandemic and severely crippled economy cannot afford.” This advice that was offered to India as regards its engagement with China applies to us since we have been showing fists at each other, though the crisis is domestic.

We may well remember what Mark Twain said: “The principle of give and take is the principle of diplomacy — give one and take ten.” I hope Prof. Peiris will do likewise. Best wishes, Sir!

(The writer could be contacted at


The Gem and Jewel of Pohottuva governance



What a gem of a minister he is!


Who else, State Minister Lohan Ratwatte, the gem and jewel of today.


He resigned from his Prison Portfolio, not having done anything wrong, as he says it. He has gone beyond the stuff of any politician. He truly deserves to be given the highest regard by the Saubhagya Strategists. Just think of any politician of today, especially from the Pohottuva Team, who will resign from a portfolio for not having done anything wrong, when those who have done so many blatant wrongs, keep glued to their portfolios?

What do you think should follow?

Surely, it is so simple. Get promoted to the Cabinet. Take the “State” off his ministerial title and swear him in as the Minister of Prison Reforms, etc,, and Gem and Jewellery Industry.

Do you think that is the strategy of the Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour of the Gotabaya Politics?

Why not? Promotion, elevation or unearned freedom is the very stuff of today’s Rajapaksa governance. We don’t forget the pardoning of former Staff Sergeant Sunil Ratnayake, convicted with death sentence, for the murder of eight Tamil civilians inlcuding three children, affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Come on. That is just one Saubhagya move.

OK. The next Saubhagya move was the pardoning and release of Duminda Silva, sentenced to death along with four others, over the murder of a rival politician and three others. He has also been appointed the Chairman, National Housing Development Authority.

Keeping with that trend of Saubhagya-Rajapaksa politics and governance, is it wrong to soon promote Lohan Ratwatte as a Cabinet Minister, giving him back the power over all prisons and prisoners, and the gem and jewellery industries, too.

But what about all these complaints about this Lohan man? Flying to the Anuradhapura Prison by helicopter, getting Tamil prisoners held there to kneel before him, holding this revolver against two of them ….

He says he has done nothing like that. He has visited the prison as the minister in charge, and never even touched a Tamil prisoner … Shouldn’t we believe such Ratwatte words? Should we not forget that the first public report on this came from a Tamil MP, Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam. Should we forget how the Ponnambalams have opposed the Sinhala Only politics of Sri Lankan progress?

Then what about all this talk of this Lohan minister’s visit to the Welikada Prison?

 C’mon, why must you believe such gallery nonsense, when there is no report from the Prison authorities?

It is not gallery nonsense, but the Stuff of the Gallows, with a beauty queen or cosmetics queen in his company.

Just remember that he went there too as the Minister of Prisons. As he says, he could go there at any time. That is the power of even a State Minister. The man who stopped the prison from burning, as he says it!

But, what about the gallows, of wanting to show it to his beauty/cosmetics queen?

I’m sure that Lohan R would have seen the opportunity to use the Welikada Gallows as a new tourist attraction.

What tourist attraction?

We are now in the process of reviving tourism, especially from Ukraine and Russia. They may like to see real gallows, and how it functions too. He may have been thinking of adding the Welikada Gallows as a special tourist attraction – where persons sentenced to death could be really hanged. There are many who applied to be hangmen when President Sirisena wanted the gallows to function again. They remain unemployed. Shouldn’t the gallows be revived to give more employment to future hangmen?

Just see the Saubhagya opportunity if the Welikada Gallows is promoted as a tourist attraction. How much would a ticket cost in dollars? Think how this would help Ajith Nivard Cabraal in his new plans to bring in more foreign exchange. This surely is the stuff of Lohan Ratwatte, apart from his continued interest in gems and jewellery.

But, surely didn’t he know that the UNHRC is now in session in Geneva. Has he not known anything about Michelle Bachelet, who is raising questions about Human Rights violations in Sri Lanka?

Now, now, don’t move into unwanted terrain. Human Rights and the Prevention of Terrorism Act are all being handled by Foreign Minister GL Peiris, with punditry of increasing question. You mustn’t try to put Lohan Ratwatte to the same rank of political and diplomatic punditry.

Just remember that Lohan Ratwatte is an elected SLPP – Pohottuva – politician. He is certainly one who likes both Gems and Jewellery. He was ready and fast in giving up Prisons and Prison Reforms, with no charges framed against him. There were only allegations about him, made by a Tamil and other Opposition MPs and such persons. Our system of governance and justice is far removed from what is known as the Rule of Law. It is the Rule of Power.

Let’s forget detainees in prisons (for many years), the so-called reports of a drunken minister with friends and beauty/cosmetic queen, just think of the Rule of Power – just now it is the Power of Lohan and Gotabaya.

When the President received Lohan’s letter of resignation from the Prison Sector, he was not asked to leave the Gem and Jewellery Sector too. He could look after and promote Gems and Jewellery, and remain the stuff of Pohottuva.

This is the Gem and Jewellery line of Rajapaksa Governance. Lohan Ratwatte has displayed his love for gems and jewellery. With his promotion to Cabinet status, will he be known as the “Muthu-menik Lohan Amathi, Sir”?  The true Gem of Pohottuva Politics and Governance!

Continue Reading


The wonder of youth



By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

The wonder of youth was best on display in the evening of 11 Sept., when two hugely talented teenagers, both unseeded, gave an amazing display of tennis in vying for the US Open title. Of course, I wanted Emma Raducanu, who represented GB, to win but had lingering doubts as her opponent, Leylah Fernandez was more experienced and had defeated players ranked 3, 16, 5 and 2, to reach the final. This was only the second Grand Slam Emma has played in, having to withdraw during the fourth-round match in Wimbledon due to breathing difficulties which made some wonder whether she had the mental grit to stand the rigours of tough competitions. She proved them wrong in a spectacular manner, reaching the final in an unprecedented way. She had to win three rounds to get into the tournament as a qualifier, and won the next six rounds, reaching the finals without dropping a set in any of the matches. By then, she had missed the return flight to the UK which she had booked as she never expected to be in the competition so long!

Sports are so commercialised that many Brits without Amazon Prime subscription were going to miss seeing the first British woman to play in a Grand Slam final after 44 years. Fortunately, in one of its rare good deeds, Channel 4 paid for screening rights and we could join over 9 million Brits on the edge of their seats for two hours. It was well worth it, as Emma won the final again in straight sets, creating yet another record by being the first qualifier ever to win a Grand Slam! In another rare gesture, Amazon had agreed to donate the fee for advancement of tennis for girls.

Emma Raducanu’s spectacular win was witnessed by Virginia Wade, the first winner of the US Women’s title in the open era in 1968, Arthur Ashe winning the Men’s. She was also the last British woman before Emma to win a Grand Slam; Wimbledon in 1977. Fortunately, Sir Andy Murray was able to break the even longer drought in Male Tennis by winning the US Open in 2012, 76 years after Fred Perry’s 1936 Wimbledon win.

It was very sad that Emma’s parents could not be there in person at the proudest moment of their lives due to quarantine regulations. Whilst shedding a tear of joy for Emma Raducanu’s ‘impossible’ victory, I was saddened to think of the wasted youth in Sri Lanka. How things changed for the worse in my lifetime continues to puzzle me.

We belong to a fortunate generation. We had excellent free education which we made full use of. We had good teachers, not ‘private tuition masters’! We could plan our future as we knew we could get a place for higher education as long as we got the required grades. Our progress in universities was not hampered by student’s unions controlled by unscrupulous politicians with warped thinking. I started my practice of medicine a few months after I turned 23 and was a fully qualified specialist by the time I turned 30. I was not one for sports but did writing and broadcasting. Therefore, I can look back at my youth with a sense of satisfaction.

Unfortunately, we lacked a political class with a vision. Perhaps, this happened because most of the politicians except those at the time of independence took to politics by exclusion than by choice. Lucky politicians got ministries, not because of competence or education, but on the basis of caste, creed, religion, etc. There were no shadow ministers in the Opposition and with the change of government another set of misfits became ministers. For some time, the status quo was maintained by senior administrators who were trained for the job after being selected following a highly competitive examination.

Anti-elite campaigners succeeded. Permanent Secretaries became secretaries and Ministers became permanent as long as they did not upset their bosses! No proper planning was done and the slippery slope started. Then came the terrorists; the JVP destroyed a generation of Sinhala youth and the LTTE destroyed a generation of Tamil youth. Now, there is a greater danger affecting some youth the world over––Islamic extremism.

When I started training postgraduate trainees from Sri Lanka in Grantham Hospital, the first thing I noted was their age and started diplomatically finding out why it had taken them so long to get into PG training. I was shocked at the unwarranted delays they faced which were not due to any fault of theirs. All of them were brilliant but the system had failed them. We need to reinstall discipline so that we have schools and universities functioning properly, ensuring valuable years in life are not wasted.

Perhaps, we need to get out of our insular attitudes. There may be some lessons to learn from studying the background of these two talented players. Leyla Fernandez, born in September 2002 in Quebec, Canada has an Ecuadorian father and a Filipino mother. Emma Raducanu was born in November 2002 in Toronto, Canada but moved to the UK when she was two years, with her Romanian father and Chinese mother. Three months before winning the US Open, she got an A star in Mathematics and A in Economics, in the A level examination whilst attending a state school.

These two teenagers, 23 years old Naomi Osaka, whose father is Haitian and mother is Japanese and 25-years-old Ashleigh Barty, whose father is of indigenous Australian descent and mother is of English descent, joined to form a ‘fab-four in women’s tennis, dawning a new era in tennis as the era dominated by the fab-four; Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic of the men’s game is drawing to an end. Considering their dexterity, women’s tennis may become more popular than men’s. Who knows!

It is well known that mixing of genes has an enhancing effect. It is also well established that inbreeding leads to many genetic defects. Perhaps, this is another reason why we should get rid of artificial divisions like caste. Although one would have expected that we would have a more enlightened attitude, the matrimonial columns of any newspaper give enough evidence that archaic institutions are still strong.

It is high time we stopped protecting archaic systems and moved forward. This will give an opportunity for the talents of our youth to be displayed and it is our duty to harness the wonder of youth for the advancement of the country.

Continue Reading


A neutral foreign policy in current context



By Neville Ladduwahetty

During a recent TV interview, the Host asked the Guest whether Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy is in “shambles”. The reason for the question was perhaps because of the lack of consistency between the statement made by the President and the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry relating to Foreign Policy. For instance, the first clear and unambiguous statement made by the newly elected President during his acceptance speech delivered in Sinhala in the holy city of Anuradhapura in which the only comment in English was that his Foreign Policy would be Neutral. This was followed during his address to Parliament titled: The Policy statement made by Gotabaya Rajapaksa, President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka at the inauguration of the Fourth Session of the 8th Parliament of Sri Lanka on January 3, 2020, in which he stated: “We follow a neutral foreign policy”.

However, the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry has on different occasions stated that Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy is “Neutral and Non-Aligned”. Perhaps, his view may have been influenced by the President’s Manifesto, “Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour”, that stated that out of 10 key policies the second was “Friendly, Non-Aligned, Foreign Policy”

The question that needs to be addressed is whether both Neutrality and Non-Alignment could realistically coexist as policies to guide Sri Lanka in the conduct of its relations with other Nation-States. Since neutrality is a defined policy that has a legal basis and has a history that precedes Non-Alignment, there is a need for the Neutral State to conduct its relations with other States according to recognised codified norms with reciprocity. On the other hand, Non-Alignment was essentially a commitment to a set of principles by a group of countries that had emerged from colonial rule and wanted to protect their newly won independence and sovereignty in the context of a bi-polar world. The policy of Non-Alignment therefore, should apply ONLY to the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Thus, Non-Alignment, being only a set of principles adopted by a group of like-minded sovereign States to protect and preserve their common self-interests, its conduct in respect of States outside the Non-Aligned Movement becomes unstated and therefore undefined. Neutrality instead is a clear policy that defines how a neutral country such as Sri Lanka conducts its relations with other countries, and how other countries relate with Sri Lanka primarily in respect of the inviolability of its territory.


A statement dated August 22, 2012 by the External Affairs Ministry of the Government of India on the historical evolution of the Non-Alignment Movement states:

“The principles that would govern relations among large and small nations, known as the “Ten Principles of Bandung”, were proclaimed at that Conference (1955). Such principles were adopted later as the main goals and objectives of the policy of non-alignment. The fulfillment of those principles became the essential criterion for Non-Aligned Movement membership; it is what was known as “quintessence of the Movement until early 1990s” (Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, “History and Evolution of Non-Aligned Movement, August 22, 2012).

“Thus, the primary objectives of the non-aligned countries focused on the support of self-determination, national independence and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; opposition to apartheid; non-adherence to multilateral military pacts and the independence of non-aligned countries from great power or block influences and rivalries; the struggle against imperialism in all its forms and manifestations; the struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, foreign occupation and domination; disarmament; non-interference into the internal affairs of States and peaceful coexistence among all nations; rejection of the use or threat of use of force in international relations; the strengthening of the United Nations; the democratization of international relations; socioeconomic development and the restructuring of the international economic system; as well as international cooperation on an equal footing” (Ibid).

These commitments did not deter countries such as India from violating the very principles India committed to in Bandung. To start with, India undermined the security of Sri Lanka by nurturing and supporting the training of non-state actors in late 1970s. Having made Sri Lanka vulnerable, India proceeded to coerce Sri Lanka to accept the Indo-Lanka Accord under which India was committed to disarm the militants. Having failed much to its shame, India violated the principle of the right of self-determination when it compelled Sri Lanka to devolve power to a merged North-East Province. All these actions amounted to a complete disregard and the mockery of the lofty principles of NAM undertaken to protect India’s self-interest. What is clear from India’s actions with regard to Sri Lanka is that when push comes to shove, self-interest overrides multi-lateral commitments.

In a similar vein Sri Lanka too, driven by self-interest, voted in support of UK’s intervention in the Falklands because of the debt owed by Sri Lanka to the UK for the outright grant given to construct the Victoria Hydro Power Scheme, although conscious of the fact that by doing so Sri Lanka was discrediting itself for not supporting the resolution initiated by NAM to oppose UK’s actions. These instances demonstrate that Non-Alignment as a Foreign Policy is subservient to self-interest thereby underscoring the fact that it cannot be a clear policy to guide how a State conducts itself in relation to other States.

Commenting on the issues of limitations imposed by being a Member of NAM Shelton E. Kodikara states: “For Sri Lanka as indeed for many of the smaller states among the non-aligned community, membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and commitment to its consensual decisions implied a widening of the institutional area of foreign policy decision-making, and collective decision-making also implied a limitation of the area of choice among foreign policy options…” (Foreign Policy of Sri Lanka, 1982, p. 151).

Therefore, arrangements with common interests such as those by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or any other group of countries with common interests, are mechanisms whose support and solidarity could be sought when needed to advance causes, as for instance when Sri Lanka advanced the concept of making the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace, and later in 2009 did so in Geneva. Notwithstanding such advantages, the hard reality is that Non-Alignment does not represent a clear statement as to how a State conducts its relations with Nation-States outside the Non-Aligned Movement. Therefore, it follows that Non-Alignment cannot be considered a statement of Foreign Policy by a State.


The statement by the Foreign Affairs Ministry of India cited above that the “quintessence” of the principles of the Non-Alignment lasted until early 1990s, was because the bi-polar world that was the cause for the formation of NAM had ceased to exist with the territorial break-up of one of the power blocks – the USSR. Consequently, the USSR lost its influence as a global power. In this vacuum what exists currently is one recognized global power with other powers aspiring to be part of a multi polar world. In the absence of recognized power blocks the need to align or not to align does not arise because Nation-States are free to evolve their own arrangements as to how they conduct their relations with each other. Consequently, the concept of Non-Alignment individually or collectively is a matter of choice depending on the particularity of circumstance, but not as a general Foreign Policy to address current challenges.

With China attempting to regain its lost territory and glory as a civilizational State following its century of shame, the geopolitical matrix has changed dramatically. The economic gains of China the likes of which are unprecedented alarmed the Western world to the point that the US deemed it necessary to adopt a policy of Pivot to Asia thereby making the Indian and Pacific Oceans the focus for great power engagement. This shift of focus has caused new strategic security alliances such as the Quad to emerge to contain the growing influence of China among the States in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. With the Maldives joining India as the latest members of Quad, Sri Lanka has become isolated; a development that has brought Sri Lanka’s location in the Indian Ocean into sharp focus as being of pivotal strategic interest to great and emerging powers.

It is in this newly formed geopolitical context that Sri Lanka has to formulate its Foreign Policy that necessarily must be fresh if Sri Lanka is to equip itself to meet the new challenges created by a coalition of States to contain the rise of China. One option is to join the Quad. This could mean Sri Lanka distancing itself from engaging with China. The other option is to engage with China to the exclusion of the Quad. Either of these options would cause Sri Lanka to lose its independence and the freedom to protect its core values and interests. Therefore, the choice is not to settle for either option.

These unprecedented circumstances and challenges cannot be countered by harking back to the glory days of Non-Alignment, because major influences of the movement (NAM) such as India, have recently abandoned the original principles it subscribed to when it became a part of Quad. Therefore, although NAM still represents a body of likeminded interests with the ability to influence causes limited only to resolutions that further the interests of its members, it is not in a position to ensure the inviolability of the territory and the freedom of a State to make its

A neutral

own hard choices. It is only if a Nation-State proclaims that its relations with other Nation-States is Neutral that provisions codified under the Hague Conventions of 1907 that would entitle Sri Lanka to use the inviolability of its territory to underpin its relations with other Nation-States. Therefore, the Foreign Policy statement as made by the President to Parliament should guide Sri Lanka in its relations with States because it is relevant and appropriate in the geopolitical context that currently exists.


The Foreign Policy of a State is greatly influenced by its History and Geography. Historically Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy has been one of Non-Alignment. Furthermore, Sri Lanka participated in the Conference in Bandung in 1955; a date recognized as the beginning of the Non-Aligned Movement. Thus, although the geographic location of a State is well defined, the significance of its location could dramatically be transformed by geopolitical developments. The staggering economic revival of China from early seventies under the leadership of President Deng Xiaoping whose philosophy was to hide capacity, bide time and never claim leadership, was perhaps the reason for China’s tremendous transformations both economic and social, to proceed relatively unnoticed.

It was only with the announcement of President Xi Jinping’s policy of the Belt and Road Initiative announced in 2013, that the world came to realize that the power and influence of China was unstoppable. This policy resulted in China establishing its footprint in strategically located countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans by funding and constructing infrastructure projects. Sri Lanka happened to be one such country. The need for the U.S along with India, Australia and Japan to form a security alliance to contain the growing power and influence of China in the Indian and Pacific Oceans was inevitable.

India’s alliance with the US has shifted the balance in Asia causing China to be the stand alone great power in Asia. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned this new dynamic compels Sri Lanka to make one of four choices. One is to align and develop relations with the US and its allies. Second is to align and develop relations with China. The third is be Non-Aligned with either. The fourth and preferred option is to be Neutral not only with the Quad and China, but also with all other States, and develop friendly relations individually with all States.

The policy of Non-Alignment by a State is an external declaration of intent that a nation would not align itself with either a collective or individual center of power such as the Quad or China, in the conduct of its relations. Neutrality by a State, instead, means not only a statement that it would be Neutral when conducting relations with collective or individual centers of power and other States, but also how such a State expects all States to respect its Neutrality; a policy that would be in keeping with Sri Lanka’s unique strategic location in South Asia. Thus, while the former works outwards the latter works both ways. More importantly, how Neutrality works is governed by internationally codified laws that are in place to guide reciprocal relations.

Continue Reading