Connect with us

Features

Revisiting Non-Alignment and Multi-Alignment in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy

Published

on

The 5th Non-Aligned Summit was held in Colombo in 1976. It was chaired by Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, with 96 Heads of State/Government and their country delegations participating. Among the foreign dignitaries present on the occasion were Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, Kenneth Kaunda, President of the Republic of Zambia, Field Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia, Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, Colonel Gaddafi, President of Libya, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Archbishop Makarios President of Cyprus. (Image courtesy BMICH))

Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.

Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:

  • No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
  •  Economic engagement with all, dependency on none

: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.

 *   Diplomatic balancing

: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.

  • Leveraging multilateralism

: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.

  • Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty

: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.

Dangers of over-compartmentalisation

Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.

Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.

Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.

Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.

Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.

Limited multilateralism?

Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.

The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.

BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.

Non-alignment is not neutrality

Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.

Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.

Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.

The path forward

Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.

Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.

Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:

*  Reject compartmentalisation

: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.

* Embrace emerging platforms

: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.

* Take principled stands

: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.

* Promote South-South cooperation

: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.

By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.

(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)

by Vinod Moonesinghe



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Mannar’s silent skies: Migratory Flamingos fall victim to power lines amid Wind Farm dispute

Published

on

Victims: Flamingos / Birds found dead in Mannar

By Ifham Nizam

A fresh wave of concern has gripped conservationists following the reported deaths of migratory flamingos within the Vankalai Sanctuary—a globally recognised bird habitat—raising urgent questions about the ecological cost of large-scale renewable energy projects in the region.

The incident comes at a time when a fundamental rights petition, challenging the proposed wind power project, linked to India’s Adani Group, remains under examination before the Supreme Court, with environmental groups warning that the very risks they highlighted are now materialising.

At least two flamingos—believed to be part of the iconic migratory flocks that travel thousands of kilometres to reach Sri Lanka—were found dead after entanglement with high-tension transmission lines running across the sanctuary. Another bird was reportedly struggling for survival.

Professor Sampath Seneviratne, a leading ornithologist, expressed deep concern over the development, noting that such incidents are not isolated but indicative of a broader and predictable threat.

“These migratory birds depend on specific flyways that have remained unchanged for centuries. When high-risk infrastructure, like poorly planned power lines, intersect these routes, collisions become inevitable,” he said. “What we are witnessing now could be just the beginning if proper mitigation measures are not urgently implemented.”

Environmentalists argue that the Mannar region—particularly the Vankalai wetland complex—is one of the most critical stopover sites in South Asia for migratory waterbirds, including flamingos, pelicans, and various species of waders. The sanctuary’s ecological value has also supported a niche with growing eco-tourism sector, drawing birdwatchers from around the world.

Executive Director of the Centre for Environmental Justice, Dilena Pathragoda, said the incident underscores the urgency of judicial intervention and stricter environmental oversight.

“This tragedy is a direct consequence of ignoring scientifically established environmental safeguards. We have already raised these concerns before court, particularly regarding the location of transmission infrastructure within sensitive bird habitats,” Pathragoda said.

“Renewable energy cannot be pursued in isolation from ecological responsibility. If due process and proper environmental impact assessments are bypassed or diluted, then such losses are inevitable.”

Conservation groups have long cautioned that the installation of wind turbines and associated grid infrastructure—especially overhead transmission lines—within or near sensitive habitats could transform these landscapes into lethal zones for avifauna.

An environmental activist involved in the ongoing legal challenge said the latest deaths validate earlier warnings.

“This is exactly what we feared. Development is necessary, but not at the cost of biodiversity. When projects of this scale proceed without adequate ecological assessments and safeguards, the consequences are irreversible,” the activist stressed.

The debate has once again brought into focus the delicate balance between renewable energy expansion and biodiversity conservation. While wind energy is widely promoted as a clean alternative to fossil fuels, experts caution that “green” does not automatically mean “harmless.”

Professor Seneviratne emphasised that solutions do exist, including rerouting transmission lines, installing bird diverters, and conducting comprehensive migratory pathway studies prior to project approval.

“Globally, there are well-established mitigation strategies. The issue here is not the absence of knowledge, but the failure to apply it effectively,” he noted.

The timing of the incident is particularly worrying. Migratory flamingos typically remain in Sri Lanka until late April or May before embarking on their return journeys. Conservationists warn that if hazards remain unaddressed, larger flocks could face similar risks in the coming weeks.

Beyond ecological implications, experts also highlight potential economic fallout. Wildlife tourism—especially birdwatching—contributes significantly to local livelihoods in Mannar.

 Repeated reports of bird deaths could deter eco-conscious travellers and damage the region’s reputation as a safe haven for migratory species.

Environmentalists are now calling for immediate intervention by authorities, including a temporary halt to high-risk operations in sensitive zones, pending a thorough environmental review.

They stress that protecting animal movement corridors—whether elephant migration routes or avian flyways—is a fundamental pillar of modern conservation.

As the controversy unfolds, one question looms large: can Sri Lanka pursue sustainable energy without sacrificing the very natural heritage that defines it?

Pathragoda added that for now, the sight of fallen flamingos in Mannar stands as a stark reminder that development, if not carefully planned, can carry a heavy and irreversible cost.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Weaponizing’ religion in the pursuit of power

Published

on

President Donald Trump; miscalculating in M-E / Ayatollah Khomeini; Architect of Iranian Revolution

A picture of US President Donald Trump apparently being prayed for by supporters, appearing in sections of the international media, said it all loud and clear. That is, religion is being flagrantly leveraged or prostituted by politicians single-mindedly bent on furthering their power aspirations.

Although in the case of the US President the trend took on may be an exceptionally graphic or dramatic form, the ‘weaponizing’ of religion is nothing particularly new, nor is it confined to only religiously conservative sections of the West. For example, in South Asia it is an integral part of politics. The ‘South Asian Eight’ are notorious for it and it could be unreservedly stated that in Sri Lanka, the latter’s ethnic conflict would be more amenable to resolution if religion was not made a potent weapon by ambitious politicians of particularly the country’s South.

The more enlightened sections of Christian believers in the US may not have been able to contain their consternation at the sight of the US President apparently being ‘blessed’ by pastors claiming adherence to Christianity. Any human is entitled to be blessed but not if he is leading his country to war without exhausting all the options at his disposal to end the relevant conflict by peaceful means.

More compounded would be his problem if his directives lead to the death of civilians in the hundreds. In the latter case he is stringently accountable for the spilling of civilian blood, that is, the committing of war crimes.

However, the US along with Israel did just that in the recent bombings of Iran, for instance. The majority of the lives lost were those of civilians. If the US President is endowed with a Christian conscience he would have paused to consider that he is guilty of ordering the taking of the life of another human which is forbidden in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, the ‘pastors’ praying over the US President should have thought on the above lines as well. May be they were in an effort to curry the President’s favour which is as blame-worthy as legitimizing in some form the taking of civilian lives. Apparently, the realisation is not dawning on all Christian conservatives of the US that some of these ‘pastors’ could very well be the proverbial false prophets and the latter are almost everywhere, even in far distant Sri Lanka.

However, the political reality ‘on the ground’ is that the Christian Right is a stable support base of the Republican Right in the US. Considering this it should not come as a surprise to the seasoned political watcher if the Christian Right, read Christian fundamentalists, are hand-in-glove, so to speak, with President Trump. But it is a scathing indictment on these rightist sections that they are all for perpetrating war and destruction and not for the fostering of peace and reconciliation. Ideally, they should have impressed on their President the dire need to make peace.

That said, political commentators should consider it incumbent on themselves to point out that religion is being ‘weaponized’ in Iran as well. Theocratic rule in Iran has been essentially all about perpetuating the power of the clerical class. The reasons that led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran are complex and the indiscreet Westernization of Iran under the Shah dynasty is one of these but one would have expected Iran to develop from then on into a multi-party, pluralistic democratic state where people would be enjoying their fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example.

Moreover, Iran should have taken it upon itself to be a champion of world peace, in keeping with its Islamic credentials. But some past regimes in Iran had vowed to virtually bomb Israel out of existence and such regional policy trajectories could only bring perpetual conflict and war. Considering the current state of the Middle East it could be said that the unfettered playing out of these animosities is leading the region and the world to ‘reap the whirlwind’, having recklessly ‘sowed the wind’.

However, religious fundamentalism-inspired conflict and war has spread well beyond the Middle East into almost every region since 1979, the year of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. So much so, knowledgeable opinion now points out that religious identity has come to replace nationalism as a principal shaper of international politics or “geopolitics”, as quite a few sections misleadingly and incorrectly term it.

Elaborating on the decisive influence of religious identity, the well known and far traveled Western journalist Patrick Cockburn says in his authoritative and comprehensive book titled, ‘The Age of Jihad – Islamic State and the Great War for the Middle East’ at page 428 in connection with the war in Chechnya ; ‘If nationalism was not entirely dead, it no longer provided the ideological glue necessary to hold together and motivate people who were fighting a war. Unlike the Islamic faith, it was no longer a belief or a badge of identity for which people would fight very hard.’ (The book in reference was published by VERSO, London and New York).

In his wide coverage of Jihadist Wars the world over Cockburn goes on to state that today a call from a cleric could motivate his followers to lay down no less than their lives for a cause championed by the former. The 9/11 catastrophe alone should convince the observer that this is indeed true.

However, as often pointed out in this column, there is no alternative but to foster peace and reconciliation if a world free of bloodshed and strife is what is being sought. Fortunately we are not short of illustrious persons from the East and West who have shone a light on how best to get to a degree of peace. Besides Mahatma Gandhi of India, who was the subject of this column last week, we have former President of Iran Mohammad Khatami, who made a case for a ‘Dialogue of Civilizations’ rather than a ‘Clash of Civilizations’.

The time is more than ripe to take a leaf from these illustrious personalities, for, the current state of war in the Middle East has raised the possibility of a war that could transcend regional boundaries. The antagonists are obliged to exhaust all the peaceful options with the assistance of the UN system. Besides, war cannot ever have the blessings of the sane.

Continue Reading

Features

Venerable Rahula Thera’s 35-year green mission and national Namal Uyana

Published

on

Venerable Rahula Thera

It was 35 years ago, on March 28, 1991, that Venerable Rahula Thera, then a young monk, embarked on a journey to the Na forest in Ulpathagama, Palagama, in the Anuradhapura District. Today, three and a half decades later, this mission stands as living proof of the enduring bond between Buddhist philosophy and the natural world.

Marking the 35th year of this green mission, Rahula Thera’s relentless dedication has transformed the National Namal Uyana into an environmental landmark admired not only across Sri Lanka but around the globe, as well.

When studying the life of Venerable Rahula Thera, one cannot ignore the profound connection between Buddhism and the environment. Buddhism is a philosophy deeply attuned to nature. The historical use of the sacred “Na Ruka” by all four Buddhas: Mangala Buddha, Sumana Buddha, Revata Buddha, and Sobhita Buddha — for enlightenment —demonstrates that from time immemorial, Buddhism has maintained a sacred bond with the Na tree. From the birth of Siddhartha to his enlightenment, the propagation of the Dharma, and even the great Parinirvana, all of these milestones unfolded in verdant, living landscapes.

Venerable Rahula Thera did not embark on the Namal Uyana mission seeking government support or personal gain. His commitment sprang from a deep devotion to the Buddha’s teachings on grove cultivation. A grove cultivator is one who spreads compassion for nature. As the Vanaropa Sutta teaches:

Venerable Rahula Thera reclaimed Namal Uyana which was then under the control of timber smugglers and treasure hunters. The term “Wanawasi” does not merely mean living in a forest; it signifies finding rest and enlightenment through nature, free from the destructive roots of greed, sin, and delusion.

Another defining aspect of Venerable Rahula Thera’s 35-year mission is the purification of the human mind. He has consistently taught the thousands who visit Namal Uyana that a person who loves a tree will never harm another human being. As the Dhamma proclaims:

It is important to remember that Venerable Rahula Thera devoted his life, without fear, speaking the truth and taking necessary action, tirelessly advancing the national mission he began. From 1991 to the present, he has worked with every government elected by the people, maintaining impartiality and independence from political ideology. Yet, he never hesitated to raise his voice fearlessly against any individual, of any rank or party, who committed wrongdoing.

Religious and Social Mission

The National Namal Uyana is not merely a forest; it is a magnificent heritage site, dating back to ancient times. Scattered across the landscape are boundary walls, the remains of ancient monastery complexes, and stone carvings believed to date back to the reign of King Devanampiyatissa. In earlier centuries, this sacred land had served as a meditation sanctuary for hundreds of monks. The name “National Namal Uyana,” by which this ecological and archaeological treasure is known today, was introduced by Venerable Rahula Thera in 1991. The government’s later recognition of the site as the National Namal Uyana stands as a significant achievement for both religion and national heritage.

Venerable Rahula Thera is a monk who has lived a life of renunciation. A striking example of this is his decision not to assume the position of Chief Incumbent of the National Namal Uyana Viharaya, instead entrusting the temple to the Ramanna Nikaya and its trustees. In doing so, he set a precedent for the contemporary Sangha. The Thera himself stated that he was merely the trustee of Namal Uyana, not its owner.

Legacy and Continuing Inspiration

The 35th anniversary of Venerable Wanawasi Rahula Thera’s arrival at Namal Uyana is not merely the commemoration of a period of time; it is a message of nature to future generations. Through his work, the Thera revived the ancient Hela tradition of loving trees and venerating the environment as something sacred. This religious and environmental mission remains unforgettable.

The revival experienced by Namal Uyana, after the arrival of Venerable Wanawasi Rahula Thera, is beyond simple description. Some of the major accomplishments achieved under his leadership include:

* Securing and protecting the largest Rose Quartz (Rosa Thirivana) reserve in South Asia.

* Restoring the Na forest spread across hundreds of acres, providing shelter to numerous rare plants and animal species.

* Transforming the area into a living centre for environmental education, offering practical learning experiences for thousands of schoolchildren and university students.

* Drawing the attention of world leaders and international environmentalists to Sri Lanka’s unique environmental heritage.

In recognition of his immense contribution to environmental conservation, Venerable Rahula Thera was honoured with the Presidential Environment Award and the Green Award in 2004—a significant moment in his life. Yet the Thera himself has always remained devoted to the work rather than the recognition it brings, making such appreciation even more meaningful.

Continue Reading

Trending