Diplomacy, international relations and foreign affairs

Diplomacy was known to the world as a sport of the kings. Historically it developed as an idealised role played by representatives from one country in another as a necessity arising out of the need of the warring states for establishing relationships for signing of peace treaties and bargaining and bartering land between states, etc. 

The practice of sending envoys by Chinese dynasties to different countries prevailed as far back as 2nd century BC. Historically the Chinese have been playing a pioneering role in sending emissaries as diplomatic envoys in connection with their maritime expeditions to India, Persia, Arabia, Egypt and East Africa. Later the concept of passports was developed under the Mongol Empire. 

During the Chandragupta Maurya period in India, the well-known adviser Kautilya (Chankya) enunciated a theory of diplomacy primarily with the objective of building alliances with rival kingdoms to checkmate the adversaries and make the envoys reside in the courts of the other kingdoms. These may be the reasons for calling diplomacy a sport of the kings!

The world has changed and the norms, practices and laws governing diplomatic relations between countries have developed into internationally enforceable laws. A convention on Diplomatic Relations was done at Vienna on 18 April 1961 which incorporates the principles to be abided by in this regard. 

The countries that agreed to the convention were committed to the following broad objectives;

“Recalling that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognised the status of diplomatic agents,

Having in mind the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

Believing that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

Realising that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

Affirm that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present constitution.”

The nature, outlook, functions and the objectives of diplomatic missions have since changed to suit the present-day requirements of the world. While they no more act as figure heads representing the head of the state, as during the monarchial days, todays diplomacy is required to play a proactive role to create diplomatic and economic space for the country they represent by taking the initiative towards international forums, and also to pursue free trade agreements while fostering strong bi-lateral relations.  Especially in the case of small countries it is important how they project themselves and interact with other countries. There are many areas to lay emphasis on such as, international agreements, international law, and interactions between the states to achieve the best in the national interest. Those diplomats who play this role mindfully can do quite a lot for a small country bringing credibility and being able to influence the decision making in the country’s favour, as the saying goes, “punching above its weight”.

Diplomacy is the medium for the promotion and preservation of the country’s interests through its relations with other countries by interactions through the United Nations and multilateral organisations.

Practical diplomacy

The essence of practical diplomacy is representation of one’s country abroad in the widest sense of the term which calls for a bona fide build of skills in various fields such as communication, and exposition, negotiating and debating, mastery of language, spokesman ship, alertness and quick reflexes combined with pleasing manners.

Sri Lanka has a proud record of noteworthy achievements to its credit in the history of international affairs. We have been the pioneers of several initiatives in many global forums espoused by renowned leaders in areas such as, Commonwealth, United Nations, and in the Non-Alignment arena. Late Prime Minister, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike pronounced the dictum of “dynamic neutralism” as the vision behind our foreign policy. He qualified this term in his own words as follows:

“Dynamic neutralism is not the kind of neutralism of just remaining on a side, of sitting on the fence, trying to get what you can from here and there. It is not so. It is something much more positive in my view. ‘Dynamic neutralism in that sense amounted to a positive commitment to promote peaceful settlement of international disputes, to arrest polarisation which was the primary source of tension by refraining from joining power blocs and spreading good will and understanding between nations so that in the course of time perhaps the world will find some stable state of society that will banish this ever constant and ever present danger of war.” There cannot be any doubt that such positive and firm commitments have paved the way for the leaders of our country following his policies to play dynamic roles in several international affairs boldly ‘punching above the weight’ in instances such as the Belgrade meeting in the pursuit of non –alignment 1961, Indo-China conflict ,1962, United Nations General Assembly adapting SL PROPOSAL to make Indian Ocean a Peace Zone 1971, Commonwealth Conference 1973, and the spectacular Non-Aligned summit in1976.

World under Trump influence

Donald Trump’s influence on the world affairs has become a significant factor in global politics so much so many feel it as a disruptive force. Obama administration squarely recognised the Asian countries in the regional relationships, emphasising trade promotion as the main strategic economic engagement of US while focusing more on non-controversial areas such as climate change. In contrast Trump has prioritised his engagements with South Korea and Japan as key partners, concentrating on the Trade imbalances and bi-lateral trade deficits with those countries. His main focus in Asia was centred round treating China as a strategic competitor and North Korea as a Nuclear Weapon State.

His launching of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy (FOIPS) emphasising closer relations with Japan, Australia and India appeared more to be a strategic move to meet the competition with other great powers in the Region such as Russia and China.

China’s role has been economically beneficial to the future of the Asian region. In the context of any evaluation, whether geographically, economically or demographically, Asia occupies an undeniable high position in the metrics in its present scenario as well as under any projected future assay. Asia accounts for about 60% of the world’s infrastructure spending on building cities, creating opportunities for the rural and migrant Labour. 

Asia is committed to urban development and up grading of cities thus promoting a service culture in place of manufacturing as the principal source of livelihood and employment. The economic diversification strategies of the region is undergoing a crucial change with a rising of tourism from Oman to Myanmar with the creation of new job opportunities in the hospitality industry. 

The intra-regional financial services and cross-border transactions are becoming more free and liberal. Dependable alternative options are becoming available to countries in the Asian region enabling them to free themselves from the perpetual life support from the IMF. Certain initiatives by China has given rise to a competitive environment in the economic plans of the countries in the region. Across Asia a jealous domain of healthy rivalry is fast emerging to beat each other in their urbanisation and other economic master plans. These are some of the many developments taking place in the Asian region.

Foreign relations

In today’s context foreign relations will have to be viewed differently. There is a continuing cold war which is silently contributing towards the building of power blocs with overriding tendencies going very much beyond the superficial economic wars. 

The most relevant in this regard are the current developments taking place in the Asian region. Countries like ours with high geographical strategic values have become the centre of focus and remain exposed to the escalating tensions between the two giants, US and China. Ironically these two are each other’s most important trading partners. In the global scenario their relationship is reckoned as a competition between an incumbent super power and a rapidly advancing new global power. Unless we take note of the realities we cannot help falling prey and getting crushed in between a global power struggle.

Nevertheless, the green side of the adventure is that their mutual interdependency for trading, economic and technological advancement has created spill-over beneficial effects to countries like ours in the generation of increased trade, spurring productivity and technological innovation. While the growing tensions is a matter for serious concern we have to take advantage of the healthy part of their relationship in the context of their contributions to an open world order, maintaining our “dynamic neutralism”. 

All challenges are directed towards a comforting future reassurance. This is a potential area for careful exploitation in the global scenario with meaningful innovations and interventions by a neutral country like Sri Lanka considered by all as important in the context of its strategic position. Our past experiences should be rehearsed and replayed under such circumstances.

Increasing threat of terrorism 

Another important factor is the increasing threat of terrorism which has assumed the proportions of a serious global issue. Big or small, all countries of the world are exposed to this danger and remain vulnerable with the effects spreading into all parts of the world. 

We have experienced the horror of some terrorist movements which has had its tentacles well spread across our social fabric. Virtual defeat of the Islamic State based in Syria in March 2019 has now spilled over to regional militants. 

There is an emergence of a new experience of ‘self-radicalisation”. It appears that this is not connected or linked to any single terrorist organisation. These militants appear to be heeding to the calls of interested parties to carry out ‘lone wolf’ type attacks using any methodology. Singapore detained an individual in 2015 who confessed that he planned to use knives to carry out attacks in public places, as well as to assassinate political leaders. It has become a growing menace and will continue to be a global issue. 

We have witnessed this ourselves, the violence, hate speech and intolerances associated with the recent episode attacking churches and hotels. Although some politicians here attempted to make out that the knives were collected for “grass cutting,” history and other global events prove otherwise. Countries should not be allowed to deal with this in isolation. We have to intervene proactively in the international arena to stimulate them to take adequate preventive collective action.

Our diplomacy and international relations have to be reviewed in this context. The direction of our foreign policy has to be formulated and considered under a broad vision and its application and manifestation in different areas will have to be carefully planned accordingly.

The structure and organisation of our diplomatic missions has to be reviewed and adjusted to meet the current needs. While the services of carrier diplomats have to be obtained to ensure the smooth running process, persons with other special aptitudes and versatilities have to be selected for appointment as envoys to represent the interests of the country. The role to be played by a diplomat in today’s context should be more centred on economic issues and geopolitics than to be a mere representative figure head.