Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy: The Way to Go
By Dayan Jayatilleka, PhD
Foreign policy derives from a country's efforts to best represent its national interests in the world, and to rec oncile those national interests with existing yet chang ing international realities.
The challenge before Sri Lanka's current foreign policy is to cor rectly identify and defend the country's fundamental interests in a changing world. As a small coun try, our foreign policy should always be globalist. It should build bridges cross-regionally, reduce or diversify our dependence and give us more scope to engage in power-balancing. A concerted effort must be made to reach out at a high political level, to all three continents of the global South, and we must reaffirm our commitment to our traditional non-aligned foreign policy stance.
What are Sri Lanka's fundamental national interests? The defence of the nation's independence and national sovereignty and the restoration of territorial integrity are clearly funda mental to the country’s interests.
In concrete and contemporary terms, this translates itself into the eradication of the LTTE as a military enemy. In terms of foreign policy, this means obtaining external support for and limiting external opposition to, the elimination of the LTTE's military capacity.
In this struggle, we need the support of our neighbours, particularly the support of Asia's rising super-powers: India and China.
China is a reliable and long standing friend and shares our views on state sovereignty and secessionism. However, we also need the support of our closest neighbour- Asia's other rising power-India. A laissez-faire policy on her part would enable the LITE to operate relatively freely from or through Southern India. Given the simple realities of geography - India is a vast and very near neighbour; we will not be safe if India turns against us, or simply turns away from us.
For its part, the West has demonstrated that it is not averse to the fragmentation of existing states and the proliferation of new ones. The recent recognition of Kosovo by Western countries is a clear example of this. Moreover, other powerful phenomena, such as transnational capital, neo-liberal economic policies, international NGOs, the influential Tamil Diaspora, and the Sinhala and Tamil 'federalists" also give the West both incentives and instruments for undermining this nation's sovereignty.
The West therefore would consider the military victory of the Sri Lankan state over the LTTE an undesirable outcome and would prefer a negotiated settlement.
However, we Sri Lankans know from bitter and bloody experience that negotiations with the LTTE cannot lead to a settlement within a united Sri Lanka, and that entering negotiations would only give the Tigers a respite while debilitating the morale of our soldiers. Therefore, as long as the LTTE remains possessed of hostile intentions and a military capability, there will be a conflict between Western perception and policy on one hand, and the fundamental strategic and security interests of the Sri Lankan state on the other.
The answer to this does NOT reside in a foreign policy that is isolationist or even purely Asiatic (which is but a regional version of that isolationism). It resides rather in building as broad as possible a network of allies among those nations which privilege state sovereignty and oppose any attempts to weaken the state through external (interventionist) or internal (secessionist) means.
This means a foreign policy that is firmly anchored in Asia but not restricted to our home continent; a foreign policy that constantly renews its non-aligned credentials and character (reaching out to Latin America and Africa); and strengthens strategic ties with those states (chiefly but not exclusively Russia and China) that value state sovereignty and act as counterweights to the forces who would weaken sovereignty and the state.
Our foreign policy must constitute a set of concentric circles. The innermost circle will inevitably be our regional South Asian identity but this should be enveloped by considerations of our broader Asian identity. However our Asian identity too should in turn be surrounded by our developing country (G 77) and non-aligned identities, our Euro-Asian identification and finally by our character as a (legitimate, democratic) state fighting terrorism.
However, this last objective cannot be pursued unilaterally, and for the moment, the West refuses to treat us on the basis of this identification. Sri Lanka has to operate within this context and maximise the political space available to it while striving to prevail over the LTTE.
A foreign policy is only as good as those who represent and implement it, and if we are to secure the external strategic environment that will enable us to win the war-indeed to continue waging it - the principle of merit has to be rigorously observed or re-instituted.
However constructing this architecture is not the main challenge to Sri Lanka's foreign policy. That challenge springs from the changing, transitional nature of the world order. Today that world order is living through the effects of recent changes and current ones. We live in a period of history that is post-Cold War, and post 9/11, but also in the throes of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. We are living through an era that will see the end of uni-polar hegemony but not of uni-polarity since the US will remain the sole superpower, the resurgence of Russia and the rise of Asia led by the explosive economic rise of India and China. All this is known, if insufficiently digested, but it is not all, and the most dramatic changes may be yet to come.
It is probable that a new, positive cycle of world history will commence If Barack Obama wins the forthcoming US presidential elections. If he succeeds, be may not only legitimise and complete the liberal democratic revolution in the US metropolis and thereby hasten its globalization, he may also, being himself a synthesis of civilisations, pave the way for addressing clashes of civilisations.
That change, the paradigm shift represented by Obama, epitomising anti-discrimination, equality, multi-culturalism and meritocracy, is already underway in the USA and will eventually influence the world at large. Is the Sri Lankan mindset ready for such a change? Defending our vital interests in such an era of dramatic change will require nothing less than a change within our collective consciousness and identity. Our policy, profile and we ourselves will have to change. We shall have to evolve.
That is the main challenge before our decision makers and policy makers. Particularly those policy makers and diplomats responsible for conceptualising and managing our relations with our external environment in a changing world.
Dayan Jayatilleka is Sri Lanka's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva, and holds a PhD in Political Science from Griffith University, Brisbane. The views expressed in this article are his private ones.
This article first appeared in the Print Edition of: Montage August 2008
[H.E. Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka is Sri Lanka's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva]
4 Comments
Most of what you say would only make sense if the internal conflict within the island is resolved amicably between Tamils and Sinhalese. Such opportunities you foresee for Sri Lanka existed at least in the past two decades, despite intense super power politics. But, Sri Lanka was unable benefit from (or even exploit) those opportunities because it was mired in internal conflict, despite the fact Sri Lanka does have substantial pool of able intellectuals in many fields of human endeavour, who are frustrated by lack of political will.
The recently concluded Provincial Council polls spoke volumes about the quality politics that the little island had to endure. It was a competition between the President and Gen. Janaka Perera, claiming as to who murdered the most. No substantive political issue was discussed. Last week's edition of the Sunday Times editorial went to extent of pleading with politicians to review the way the Provincial Councils function. The editorial could not find a single good reason for continued existence of the Provincial Councils. It is probably not that the concept of Provincial Councils itself is wrong, but rather the manner in which it is implemented brings no benefit to the people of Sri Lanka. Rather, it is only promoting corruption and hooligans as politicians. What's worse is it is also the stepping-stone to enter national Parliament. Small wonder then there are murderers, cattle thieves, rapists and murderers in Parliament. That is a totally unacceptable situation.
Without sorting out the national politics and weeding out the undesirables sufficiently the little island of Sri Lanka would remain unable to 'bootstrap' itself out the present quagmire. Ultimately, it is Sri Lanka that has to sort out its politics - no one else can or would do it for them. Talk of end of the LTTE is obviously premature. If you asked the LTTE they would tell you that Eelam War IV has not even begun in earnest. Trying to hide behind the international community or finding other ways to wipe out the LTTE would only prolong the war, and aggravate present state of affairs. It is even worse when such an effort would only perpetuate war mentality, at the expense of ‘political thinking’. It is now an established fact that war mentality of the Sri Lankan State would never bring about intended outcome for the government. If the Sinhala politicians have not worked that out yet, that is only because of their political and moral bankruptcy.
Instead, the non-existence of a military solution to the national conflict should be fully accepted by not just the government but by the entire Sinhala Political Establishment. Search should begin without further delay for a negotiated political solution based on two states within the island. Once that process is begun, I believe that people’s mind would begin to search for ways of promoting better quality of politicians into every level of Sri Lankan politics. Very low standards in Sri Lankan politics is the debilitating affliction the poor little island suffers - if in doubt today’s (27/08/08) The Island editorial should stand testimony to that fact. But, the way to get over it is to openly go for a negotiated settlement based on two states and pull all the stops if you have to until you get a fine clutch of politicians not only into Parliament, but also into Provincial Councils and Pradeshia Sabas. Short of that Sri Lanka will never be able benefit from opportunities offered internationally, although you are absolutely right that there will be plenty opportunities to benefit from in the future.
The nation's independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity become meaningful only if the aspirations of the entire people of Sri Lanka are recognized and not when section of the people are marginalized for which federalism is the correct answer. It is not the question of having an attitude that federalism is separation and so squeeze the throat of everyone who raises the solution of federalism for the current issue.
It is not the West or the international NGOs or the Tamil and Sinhalese federalists who have undermined Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, but the ruling Sinhalese political leaders, who have a false assumption of federalism. Federalism is not division of a country but division of powers between the Federal government and the Provincial governments. Should there be a conflict within the division of powers, the Federal laws prevails by virtue of the doctrine of paramountcy. When Sri Lanka follows a blind policy, it is meaningless to talk about negotiations with the LTTE. Reliance in military victory will not alone give a broader Asian identity. Had the Sinhalese political leaders put the available solution of Federalism, then it could lend support for a broader Asian identity in carrying out the foreign policy.
If Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is to be based on building bridges cross-regionally, reduce or diversify our dependence and give us more scope to engage in power-balancing, first it should be mentioned that proper order is maintained at home without any discrimination. If foreign policy is based on bridging across the regions, proper Ambassadors should be placed and who should have a sound knowledge of international laws and international relations. Now if one looks at the appointment of some Ambassadors (both past and present), it is ridiculous to see how such unqualified persons could build bridge across the regions. Sri Lanka’s mindset at the moment is seen as destroying the Tamils from all quarters and the foreign policy is geared on the pretext of eradicating terrorism. Further the rift between the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Affairs Secretary, the manner of utilizing the President‘s Fund for the Foreign Minister all speaks of the clumsy handling of the foreign policy pertaining to the reaffirmation of Sri Lanka’s commitment to its traditional non-aligned foreign policy.
What was the foreign policy of Sri Lanka when it allowed Pakistan to refuel at Katunayake Airport when India went to rescue Bangaladesh in their independence war.
If China is a reliable and long standing friend and shares our views on state sovereignty and secessionism, what is their view on federalism to solve the current issue. China is a country with a different level of government where as the Sri Lanka is a democratic country and adapted to democratic way of life. It is a fact that major part of the finance and humanitarian assistance comes to Sri Lanka from the Western countries and the international NGOs. If democracy is firmly practiced in the form of federalism like in Canada good governance can be seen where all sections of the people are beneficiaries. (Pension for everyone, health facilities, special facilities for seniors and disabled persons) Canadian life is well suited for Tamils and Sinhalese. It should also suit the Sinhalese if they will consider its merits. The question is whether they want those benefits or wish to see a foreign policy geared in carrying the begging bowl for aid to every country. It is regret to observe that Sri Lanka relies on its military might to eradicate terrorism, instead of dealing with the available solution of federalism and recently the LTTE had pounced on them causing heavy loss at Trincomalee. The achievement of Sri Lanka has been a question mark. Failure to place the federal solution will only lead Sri Lanka to mould a clumsy foreign policy rather than giving abroader Asian identity.
A.Rajasingam
When a Permanent Representative to the UN thinks that federalism undermines sovereignty, what chance is there for 'political thinking'? Only war mentality can thrive.
Dayan Jayathilake in this article defines foreign policy of Sri Lanka in the following question and answer form
What are Sri Lanka's fundamental national interests? The defense of the nation's independence and national sovereignty and the restoration of territorial integrity are clearly funda¬mental to the country’s interests.
This definition is not valid even for a big country. He has not considered not only geo political realities but also the military, economic social, religious and cultural aspects of foreign relations as well as power and ideological relationships!
What about fundamentalism and the war against international terrorism?
He seems to be paranoid about LTTE.
Like a simpleton he seems to believe that the problems facing Sri Lanka could be solved with the death of Prabaharan,
like in a romantic novel at the end, the hero and heroine will get married and lead a happy and contented life thereafter.
Everybody knows very well that one day Prabaharan will have to die at least due to old age.
Should a country mobilize all their resources for this inevitable outcome?
Kills and get killed in thousands and millions and millions worth of property destroyed and in the process dragging the entire country in self destruction?
Further he seems to believe that the election victory of Barak Obama could change the world’s super power in any way.
Dayan with his dialectic mind could not foresee that whether Obama wins or not, there is not going to be any paradigm shift within or outside USA but slight changes within the framework of world capitalism under the modern term “Globalization”.
Have not the International capitalism and imperialism already convincingly defeated and destroyed Soviet Union without firing a shot and Red China is no longer red but is as capitalist as USA but without the much fancied capitalist democracy.
If at all any socialism is left in his beloved Cuba, it is only a matter of time before the inevitable will happen.
Dayan wants little Sri Lanka to play a major role in world politics rather than turning both the local and foreign policies to grab the opportunities for the economic development of the country and for the well being of the people of Sri Lanka.
This is what a prudent leader like Lee kuan Yew has done in Singapore and what any small country will do in similar circumstances rather than trying to oppress and destroy other nationalities and in the process destroying their much celebrated 2500 years long civilization?
We had seen how the big countries treat the sovereignty of the smaller countries. These big countries have spheres of influence where whatever they do is the international law!
India in Bangladesh and Sikkim, Soviet Union in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, Russia in Georgia, USA throughout the world including Kosovo, China in Vietnam,Laos, Cambodia and Tibet had shown scan disregard for the sovereignty of other countries.
By the by, Dr Dayan, What is your opinion about the recognition of South Ossetia by Russia?
Russia has done What USA and EU has done in Kosovo?and What is the implication for a country like Sri lanka?
Can we depend on these countries to defend our sovereignty?
Sovereignty and non interference in the internal affairs are left to international conferences and joint statements after meeting of world leaders.
Let us be realistic and share power within the country not only with the ethnic nationalities but also even with the opposition and have a vibrant foreign policy for the prosperity of the people as a whole!