Muddling neutrality-based foreign policy

For a long time, post-independence governments in Sri Lanka enunciated their foreign policy regime based on non-alignment. The NPP Government, which is different from every other political administration since Sri Lanka gained Independence, has adopted a so-called principle of neutrality to guide its foreign policy. 

Leaders of the Government have emphasised this concept of neutrality to justify their actions in the wake of the conflict in the Middle East, which compelled the administration to make difficult and decisive decisions amidst the competing interests of parties—who are bilateral partners of Sri Lanka in terms of trade, defence, and migrant labour—associated with the war in West Asia.

Many observers believe foreign policy to be the Achilles’ heel of the JVP-inspired political coalition. For a political outfit which does not have much exposure in the arena of internationalisation, the absence of a full-time Cabinet Minister for Foreign Affairs is an additional drawback.

The island has been a longstanding friend of Iran, while the US is the most important trading partner. One cannot also ignore the assistance extended by Israel towards the elimination of the LTTE, which has brought dividends to all ethnic communities in the country. In light of such considerations, the conflict in the Middle East has posed a significant challenge to the Government, as the country has to navigate a highly complicated foreign policy environment characterised by conflicting geopolitical interests of the major global powers.

Does remaining neutral imply the Government would remain non-committal in relation to critical geopolitical issues? Is it a term used by the Government to hide its indecisiveness and unwillingness to take a firm stand on turbulent events that disrupt the international order, apart from causing serious economic and humanitarian pain to the world?

Sri Lanka’s decision to refrain from co-sponsoring the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution that condemned Iran’s egregious attacks on its regional neighbours last month, with the backing of close to 140 UN member states, would have been in alignment with this doctrine of neutrality. 

The UNSC resolution was adopted by the 15-member Security Council by a vote of 13 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (China and the Russian Federation). The Bahrain-led resolution was supported by, among others, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Malaysia. Evading condemnation of the excessive hostility of Iran was baffling, given the very clear and forthright stance that was expressed by countries like India and Pakistan that have maintained historically close ties with the Middle Eastern state.

Although many have condemned the US-Israel military aggression towards Iran, the response of the Islamic State has been viewed as disproportionate in view of its attacks against fellow neighbouring nations like the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Bahrain that are not involved in the conflict. Moreover, Iran’s actions to restrict the Strait of Hormuz, including charging fees to vessels, are widely considered illegal under international maritime law, specifically the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees unimpeded transit passage. Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic adviser to the UAE President, had claimed the Emirates was most exposed to Iran’s attacks compared to the rest of the countries, including Israel.

The foreign policy of any country is governed by self-interest, and the Government made a serious miscalculation by not expressing solidarity towards the UAE during the UNSC resolution. Approximately 350,000 Sri Lankan expatriates live and work in the UAE, and the community represents a key source of foreign remittances to the island. The Government should have used the UNSC resolution to denounce Iran’s attacks against neighbouring states in view of the threats posed to the lives of Sri Lankans who work in West Asia.

The President and Ministers need to adopt a more pragmatic and decisive stance in relation to key foreign policy decisions to safeguard the strategic economic and political interests of the country without hiding behind loosely defined theories that lack substance.