By Austin Fernando
The European Union’s (EU) statement announcing its decision to consider withdrawing the GSP+ concession for Sri Lanka reiterates the crucial contents, i. e. alleged human rights violations and the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act- PTA), in the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) Resolution of October 2015, and the follow-up. The ‘Yahapalana’ government has been criticised for co-sponsoring the second resolution, but its critics seem to think that Sri Lanka had been free from UNHRC pressure before 2015.
Much water has flowed under the bridge since 2009, with the UNHRC, and the EU stressing the need for bringing about reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Concurrently, there have been interventions from other nations, too, e. g., the USA, Canada. This article attempts to explain why the 2015 UNHRC Resolution should be put in perspective so that we could address the consequential challenges and threats.
Even some intellectuals argue that UNHRC resolutions are baseless. Another school of thought maintains that we should get over the criticisms against Sri Lanka by adhering to acceptable standards/norms and reap the socio-economic benefits. Even if the resolutions are baseless, as claimed, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that they have been taken very seriously by the international community, whose opinion and decisions affect us politically, diplomatically, and economically.
Let’s revisit the pre-2015 Geneva situation.
Joint Statement by President Mahinda Rajapaksa and UNSG Ban-Ki-Moon
In the aftermath of the victory against LTTE in May 2009, UN Secretary-General (UNSG) Ban-Ki-Moon and President Mahinda Rajapaksa issued a Joint Statement on 23 May 2009, which was the initial step toward post-war reconciliation. The content of this statement is worth revisiting:
1. The visit reflected the close cooperation between Sri Lanka and the UN, and its commitment to work with the UN in the future.
2. The conflict over, Sri Lanka has entered a new post-conflict beginning and the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) faces many immediate and long-term challenges. The critical status offers opportunities for the long-term development of the north and for re-establishing democratic institutions and electoral politics after decades. The GOSL expressed its commitment to ensuring the economic and political empowerment of the northern people.
3. President and the SG agreed that addressing the aspirations and grievances of all communities and working towards a lasting political solution was fundamental to ensuring long-term socio-economic development.
4. The SG welcomed the assurance of President Rajapaksa stated in his statement in Parliament on 19 May 2009 that a national solution acceptable to all sections of people will be evolved. President Rajapaksa expressed his firm resolve to proceed with the implementation of the 13th Amendment, and to begin a broader dialogue with all parties, including the Tamil parties.
5. President and SG discussed a series of areas in which the UN will assist the ongoing efforts of the GOSL in addressing future challenges and opportunities.
6. Concerning IDPs, the UN will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to IDPs in Vavuniya and Jaffna. The Government will continue to provide access to humanitarian agencies. The Government will expedite the necessary basic and civil infrastructure, means of livelihood necessary for the IDPs for the earliest resumption of their normal lives. The SG welcomed the announcement by the Government expressing its intention to the planned dismantling of welfare villages.
7. The GOSL seeks the cooperation of the international community for mine-clearing.
8. The SG called for donor assistance towards the Common Humanitarian Action Plan jointly launched by the GOSL and the UN.
9. President Rajapaksa and the SG recognized many former child soldiers as an important issue. President Rajapaksa reiterated his firm policy of zero tolerance about child recruitment. In cooperation with the UNICEF, child-friendly procedures have been established for their “release and surrender”, and rehabilitation to reintegrate former child soldiers into society as productive citizens. The SG while appreciating the progress encouraged GOSL to adopt similar policies and procedures relating to former child soldiers in the north.
10. President Rajapaksa informed the SG regarding ongoing initiatives for rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants, in addition to the ongoing work by the Office of the Commissioner-General for Rehabilitation, and the National Framework for the Integration of Ex-combatants into Civilian Life under preparation, with the assistance of the UN and other international organizations.
11. Sri Lanka reiterated its strongest commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, in keeping with international human rights standards and Sri Lanka’s international obligations. The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.
The final consensual understanding (No; 11) was a carte blanche for the UN. Sections 1 to 10 are on the need to satisfy the needs of the affected with the help of the international community. Perhaps, in response to the alleged atrocities during the final phase of the conflict and/or out of its humanitarian concerns, the GOSL unilaterally made its proposals to the UNHCR on 27th May 2009.
11/1 Resolution 27 May 2009
This proposal, titled “Assistance to Sri Lanka in the promotion and protection of human rights” contained the following:
1 Welcomed the GOSL’s commitment to promote and protect human rights and encourage upholding human rights legal obligations.
2 Encouraged the GOSL to continue pursuing existing cooperation with UN agencies to provide basic humanitarian assistance
3 Encouraged the GOSL to continuously pursue cooperation with relevant UN organizations, to provide, to the best capabilities, with GOSL cooperation, basic humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons (IDPs).
4 Welcomed the announcement of the proposal to safely resettle the bulk of IDPs within six months and encouraged the GOSL to proceed with due respect for persons belonging to differing minorities.
5 Acknowledged the GOSL’s commitment to providing access, as appropriate, to international humanitarian agencies to ensure humanitarian assistance to the IDPs to meet their urgent needs and encouraged the Sri Lankan authorities to further facilitate appropriate work.
6 Encouraged the GOSL to its efforts towards the disarmament, demobilization, and rehabilitation of former child soldiers, their physical and psychological recovery, and reintegration into society, through educational measures, considering the rights and specific needs and capacities of girls, in cooperation with relevant UN agencies.
7 Urged the GOSL to strengthen activities to ensure that there is no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the enjoyment of all human rights.
8 Welcomed the continued cooperation between the GOSL, relevant UN agencies, and other humanitarian organizations to provide humanitarian assistance to the affected people and encouraged continued cooperation with the GOSL.
9 Welcomed the recent visits of the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of IDPs and encouraged continuous cooperation in the mobilization and provision of humanitarian assistance.
10 Welcomed the visit of the SG, and endorsed the joint communiqué issued after the visit and the understandings contained therein.
11 Welcomed the resolve of the Sri Lankan authorities to begin a broader dialogue with all parties to enhance the process of political settlement, and to bring about lasting peace and development based on consensus among and respect for the rights of all stakeholders and invited them to actively participate in it.
12 Urged the international community to cooperate with the GOSL in the reconstruction efforts, by increasing the provision of financial and development assistance, for poverty alleviation and underdevelopment and promotion and protection of all human rights.
The 11/1 Resolution contained constructive proposals originating from the quoted joint statement. Its contents concerning the aspirations of the Tamils and the position of the international community were ratified. The GOSL, which co-sponsored the proposals had to implement them. But it did not make good on its commitments, and even tried to justify its failure to do so.
Later, since some of the pledges were politically disadvantageous, some conveniently claimed that the joint statement was non-binding as regards the international human rights and humanitarian laws. They chose to ignore the internationally binding commitments in the joint statement and the endorsement of it by Section 10 in the above resolution.
The UNSG witnessing the delays in the implementation of the proposals appointed the Darusman Committee on Accountability in Sri Lanka, in June 2010. The Darusman Report was unfavorable for Sri Lanka. At the very outset, the purpose of the committee and the appointment of the members thereof were questioned by the GOSL. The inclusion of Yasmin Sooka as a member was questioned because she was considered sympathetic to the LTTE. GOSL resisted the Darusman Committee investigating Sri Lanka. Further, UNHCR High Commissioner Navaneethan Pillai was also ridiculed.
19/2 Proposal (2012-3-22)
However, the Darusman committee gathered information from diplomatic and other sources. When the proposals were not implemented, the matter was brought to the attention of the UNHCR through the resolution 19/2 on 22 March 2012, which was ratified on 3 April 2012.
By this time the report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Committee (LLRC) had been released. It had many constructive recommendations. Therefore, the new UNHRC resolution made three recommendations, of which two specifically referred to the LLRC recommendations:
1 Called upon the GOSL to implement the constructive recommendations of the LLRC Report and to take steps to fulfill its relevant legal obligations and commitments to initiate credible and independent actions to ensure justice, equity, accountability, and reconciliation to all Sri Lankans.
2. Requested GOSL to expeditiously present a comprehensive action plan detailing the steps government has taken and will take to implement LLRC recommendations and to address alleged violations of international laws.
3 Encouraged the UNHRC and special procedure mandate holders to provide in consultation and concurrence with the GOSL, advice, and technical assistance and requested the High Commissioner to present a report on such assistance at the 22nd Session.
The GOSL considered the LLRC Report a success, but did not implement its recommendations fully. This above-mentioned resolution reminded GOSL of the need to carry out the LLRC recommendations and pointed out the Rajapaksa government’s lack of commitment to doing so.
I recall a personal experience concerning the LLRC Report to show how Commission recommendations are treated by governments. It is about the Aranthhalawa Bhikku massacre. In an article I wrote in 2012 in the Colombo Telegraph, I said:
“The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) in its report at Section 8.72 said “Representations were also made before the Commission that the Government should order a full-scale probe into the Arantalawa massacre of 33 Buddhist monks, most of whom were Samaneras, on 2nd June 1987….” It appears that along with the other investigations recommended in the LLRC Report, this is also forgotten. As recommended in Section 5.107 of the LLRC Report for other affected, as “a matter of justice,” the plight of these priests “needs to be recognized by the State…” I pray it to be fulfilled after 25 years.”
My prayer was answered nine years later under another Rajapaksa government. The incumbent administration is to probe into the Aranthalawa Bhikku massacre. The Yahapalana did not pay attention to it. The present response is surely not due to UNHRC pressure; it may be to remind the public of the LTTE atrocities against Buddhists in time for the next Provincial Council elections so that the government could gain some political mileage therefrom. Curiously, no such interest has been envied in other human rights issues. (To be continued.)
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!
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.
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.
NON-ALIGNED and the NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT
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 CURRENT CONTEXT
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
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.
President instructs officials to vaccinate kids with Pfizer
SLT-MOBITEL donates fourth PCR machine to Matara District Hospital
Sumanthiran demands immediate due process against Lohan
7-billion-rupee diamond heist; Madush splls the beans before being shot
The Burghers of Ceylon/Sri Lanka- Reminiscences and Anecdotes
Unfit, unprofessional, fat Sri Lankans
Sports6 days ago
Killi; Sri Lanka’s Mr.Cricket
news3 days ago
Private member’s Bill deemed unconstitutional:Tissa says he only complied with ‘Bills Office’ request
Features5 days ago
Ivermectin – A possible win-win situation
news5 days ago
Govt. urged to stop foreign scholarships awarded on basis of ethnicity
Features6 days ago
Remembering Dr. Tissa Wickremasuriya
Features6 days ago
SRI LANKA SHOULD CLOSE DOWN MOST OF OUR OVERSEAS MISSIONS AS A STEP TOWARDS REDUCING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
Features6 days ago
A Visionary Ahead Of His Time
Features4 days ago
Commodifying ‘Discipline’ and Militarising Education