Sri Lanka’s foreign policy sinks to new lows

This week the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s proclaimed annexation of four Ukrainian regions. The resolution called on the international community not to recognise any of Russia’s annexation claims and demanded its ‘immediate reversal.’ The resolution was supported by 143 countries and Sri Lanka was among 35 states that abstained with five, including Russia voting against. This marks yet another low point in our country’s international relations. 

Merely a week after a resolution was passed at the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka where only seven States among 47 in the Council supported the position of the Government, the vote at the UNGA demonstrates the inability of the Government to make a principled stand on a fundamental tenet of international law and global order that has prevailed for the last 77 years.

Sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation are cornerstones of the current world order established under the UN Charter. It prohibits States from the use of force against the “territorial integrity or political independence” of another State. The principle is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and has been recognised as customary international law. Conversely, this principle ensures that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression. The days of aggression and territorial expansion using military force were supposed to be a thing of the past after witnessing their devastating impact in two world wars. The only exception to this is when there is an authorisation by the United Nations Security Council for intervention.

In the first Gulf War in 1991 the United States-led coalition obtained such a sanction from the UNSC in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces. The attacks on Iraq during that conflict were therefore within the scope of international law. This was not the case in 2003 with the US-led invasion into Iraq and was deemed illegal.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has now gone beyond an invasion to an annexation of occupied regions. Recently President Vladimir Putin signed documents to make the eastern Ukrainian regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson part of Russia. The agreements were signed with the Moscow-installed leaders of the four regions and came after self-proclaimed referendums in the areas that were denounced as a sham by many democracies.

It is shocking that Sri Lanka cannot see the parallels or the implicit danger of diluting the principle of territorial integrity. Sri Lanka, for long years during our own bloody separatists’ conflict, demanded from the rest of the world to recognise our country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Even countries that found sympathy with the Tamil cause made it a specific point to acknowledge these principles. To this day Sri Lanka considers the violation of its air space by the Indian air force in June 1987 as a national humiliation. What Russia has done in Ukraine is akin to India invading the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, holding a referendum as to whether its citizens prefer to join the Union of India and proceeding to claim the Northern Province as an integral part of India. It is this kind of blatant aggression that has now been justified by Sri Lanka through its vote at the UNGA. 

Whatever the geopolitical arguments and the reasons for Russian insecurity that lead to its ill-conceived invasion there is no doubt that in this instance Russia is an aggressor that has invaded a sovereign, independent State without provocation or humanitarian necessity and has now illegally annexed territories in a blatant violation of international law. In the face of such a disruption to the global order, the Sri Lankan Government has demonstrated that it cannot and will not stand up for even the most sacrosanct of principles in international relations. How much further could Sri Lanka’s foreign policy sink before it hits rock bottom?