A neutral foreign policy in current context

The Foreign Policy statement as made by the President to Parliament should guide Sri Lanka in its relations with States because it is relevant and appropriate in the geopolitical context that currently exists 

The question that needs to be addressed is whether both neutrality and non-alignment could realistically coexist as policies to guide Sri Lanka in the conduct of its relations with other nationstates. Since neutrality is a defined policy that has a legal basis and has a history that precedes non-alignment, there is a need for the neutral state to conduct its relations with other states according to recognised codified norms with reciprocity. On the other hand, non-alignment was essentially a commitment to a set of principles by a group of countries that had emerged from colonial rule and wanted to protect their newly won independence and sovereignty in the context of a bipolar world

By Neville Ladduwahetty

During a recent TV interview, the host asked the guest whether Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is in ‘shambles.’ The reason for the question was perhaps because of the lack of consistency between the statement made by the President and the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry relating to foreign policy.

For instance, the first clear and unambiguous statement made by the newly-elected President during his acceptance speech delivered in Sinhala in the holy city of Anuradhapura in which the only comment in English was that his foreign policy would be neutral. This was followed during his address to Parliament titled: The Policy statement made by His Excellency Gotabaya Rajapaksa, President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka at the inauguration of the Fourth Session of the 8th Parliament of Sri Lanka on January 3, 2020, in which he stated: “We follow a neutral foreign policy.” 

However, the Secretary to the Foreign Ministry has on different occasions stated that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is “neutral and non-aligned”. Perhaps his view may have been influenced by the President’s manifesto, ‘Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour’, that stated that out of 10 key policies the second was a “Friendly, Non-Aligned, Foreign Policy”.

The question that needs to be addressed is whether both neutrality and non-alignment could realistically coexist as policies to guide Sri Lanka in the conduct of its relations with other nation-states. Since neutrality is a defined policy that has a legal basis and has a history that precedes non-alignment, there is a need for the neutral state to conduct its relations with other states according to recognised codified norms with reciprocity. On the other hand, non-alignment was essentially a commitment to a set of principles by a group of countries that had emerged from colonial rule and wanted to protect their newly won independence and sovereignty in the context of a bipolar world. 

The policy of non-alignment therefore, should apply ‘only’ to the members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Thus, non-alignment, being only a set of principles adopted by a group of like-minded sovereign states to protect and preserve their common self-interests, its conduct in respect of states outside the Non-Aligned Movement becomes unstated and therefore undefined. Neutrality instead, is a clear policy that defines how a neutral country such as Sri Lanka conducts its relations with other countries, and how other countries relate with Sri Lanka primarily in respect of the inviolability of its territory.

Non-Aligned and the Non-Aligned Movement 

A statement dated 22 August 2012 by the External Affairs Ministry of the Government of India on the historical evolution of the Non-Alignment Movement states: “The principles that would govern relations among large and small nations, known as the ‘Ten Principles of Bandung’, were proclaimed at that Conference (1955). Such principles were adopted later as the main goals and objectives of the policy of non-alignment. The fulfilment of those principles became the essential criterion for Non-Aligned Movement membership; it is what was known as ‘quintessence of the Movement until early 1990s’.” (Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, ‘History and Evolution of Non-Aligned Movement’, 22 August 2012).

“Thus, the primary objectives of the non-aligned countries focused on the support of self-determination, national independence and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States; opposition to apartheid; non-adherence to multilateral military pacts and the independence of non-aligned countries from great power or block influences and rivalries; the struggle against imperialism in all its forms and manifestations; the struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, racism, foreign occupation and domination; disarmament; non-interference into the internal affairs of States and peaceful coexistence among all nations; rejection of the use or threat of use of force in international relations; the strengthening of the United Nations; the democratisation of international relations; socioeconomic development and the restructuring of the international economic system; as well as international cooperation on an equal footing” (Ibid).

These commitments did not deter countries such as India from violating the very principles India committed to in Bandung. To start with, India undermined the security of Sri Lanka by nurturing and supporting the training of non-state actors in late 1970s. Having made Sri Lanka vulnerable, India proceeded to coerce Sri Lanka to accept the Indo-Lanka Accord under which India was committed to disarm the militants. Having failed much to its shame, India violated the principle of the right of self-determination when it compelled Sri Lanka to devolve power to a merged North-East Province. 

All these actions amounted to a complete disregard and the mockery of the lofty principles of NAM undertaken to protect India’s self-interest. What is clear from India’s actions with regard to Sri Lanka is that when push comes to shove, self-interest overrides multi-lateral commitments. 

In a similar vein Sri Lanka too, driven by self-interest, voted in support of UK’s intervention in the Falklands because of the debt owed by Sri Lanka to the UK for the outright grant given to construct the Victoria Hydro Power Scheme, although conscious of the fact that by doing so Sri Lanka was discrediting itself for not supporting the resolution initiated by NAM to oppose UK’s actions. These instances demonstrate that non-alignment as a foreign policy is subservient to self-interest thereby underscoring the fact that it cannot be a clear policy to guide how a State conducts itself in relation to other States. 

Commenting on the issues of limitations imposed by being a member of NAM Shelton E. Kodikara states: “For Sri Lanka as indeed for many of the smaller states among the non-aligned community, membership of the Non-Aligned Movement and commitment to its consensual decisions implied a widening of the institutional area of foreign policy decision-making, and collective decision-making also implied a limitation of the area of choice among foreign policy options…” (Foreign Policy of Sri Lanka, 1982, p. 151). 

Therefore, arrangements with common interests such as those by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) or Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) or any other group of countries with common interests, are mechanisms whose support and solidarity could be sought when needed to advance causes, as for instance when Sri Lanka advanced the concept of making the Indian Ocean a Zone of Peace, and later in 2009 did so in Geneva. 

Notwithstanding such advantages, the hard reality is that non-alignment does not represent a clear statement as to how a State conducts its relations with nation-states outside the Non-Aligned Movement. Therefore, it follows that non-alignment cannot be considered a statement of foreign policy by a State.

The current context

The statement by the Foreign Affairs Ministry of India cited above that the ‘quintessence’ of the principles of the non-alignment lasted until early 1990s, was because the bipolar world that was the cause for the formation of NAM had ceased to exist with the territorial break-up of one of the power blocks – the USSR. Consequently, the USSR lost its influence as a global power. In this vacuum what exists currently is one recognised global power with other powers aspiring to be part of a multi polar world. 

In the absence of recognised power blocks the need to align or not to align does not arise because Nation-States are free to evolve their own arrangements as to how they conduct their relations with each other. Consequently, the concept of non-alignment individually or collectively is a matter of choice depending on the particularity of circumstance, but not as a general foreign policy to address current challenges. 

With China attempting to regain its lost territory and glory as a civilisational State following its century of shame, the geopolitical matrix has changed dramatically. The economic gains of China the likes of which are unprecedented alarmed the Western world to the point that the US deemed it necessary to adopt a policy of Pivot to Asia thereby making the Indian and Pacific Oceans the focus for great power engagement. 

This shift of focus has caused new strategic security alliances such as the Quad to emerge to contain the growing influence of China among the States in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. With the Maldives joining India as the latest members of Quad, Sri Lanka has become isolated; a development that has brought Sri Lanka’s location in the Indian Ocean into sharp focus as being of pivotal strategic interest to great and emerging powers. 

It is in this newly formed geopolitical context that Sri Lanka has to formulate its Foreign Policy that necessarily must be fresh if Sri Lanka is to equip itself to meet the new challenges created by a coalition of States to contain the rise of China. One option is to join the Quad. This could mean Sri Lanka distancing itself from engaging with China. The other option is to engage with China to the exclusion of the Quad. Either of these options would cause Sri Lanka to lose its independence and the freedom to protect its core values and interests. Therefore, the choice is not to settle for either option. 

These unprecedented circumstances and challenges cannot be countered by harking back to the glory days of non-alignment, because major influences of the movement (NAM) such as India, have recently abandoned the original principles it subscribed to when it became a part of Quad. Therefore, although NAM still represents a body of likeminded interests with the ability to influence causes limited only to resolutions that further the interests of its members, it is not in a position to ensure the inviolability of the territory and the freedom of a State to make its own hard choices. 

It is only if a nation-state proclaims that its relations with other nation-states is neutral that provisions codified under the Hague Conventions of 1907 that would entitle Sri Lanka to use the inviolability of its territory to underpin its relations with other nation-states. Therefore, the Foreign Policy statement as made by the President to Parliament should guide Sri Lanka in its relations with states because it is relevant and appropriate in the geopolitical context that currently exists. 

Conclusion 

The foreign policy of a state is greatly influenced by its history and geography. Historically Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy has been one of non-alignment. Furthermore, Sri Lanka participated in the conference in Bandung in 1955; a date recognised as the beginning of the Non-Aligned Movement. Thus, although the geographic location of a State is well-defined, the significance of its location could dramatically be transformed by geopolitical developments. The staggering economic revival of China from early seventies under the leadership of President Deng Xiaoping whose philosophy was to hide capacity, bide time and never claim leadership, was perhaps the reason for China’s tremendous transformations both economic and social, to proceed relatively unnoticed. 

It was only with the announcement of President Xi Jinping’s policy of the Belt and Road Initiative announced in 2013, that the world came to realise that the power and influence of China was unstoppable. This policy resulted in China establishing its footprint in strategically located countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans by funding and constructing infrastructure projects. Sri Lanka happened to be one such country. The need for the US along with India, Australia and Japan to form a security alliance to contain the growing power and influence of China in the Indian and Pacific Oceans was inevitable.

India’s alliance with the US has shifted the balance in Asia causing China to be the standalone great power in Asia. As far as Sri Lanka is concerned this new dynamic compels Sri Lanka to make one of four choices. One is to align and develop relations with the US and its allies. Second is to align and develop relations with China. The third is be non-aligned with either. The fourth and preferred option is to be neutral not only with the quad and China, but also with all other states, and develop friendly relations individually with all states. 

The policy of Non-Alignment by a State is an external declaration of intent that a nation would not align itself with either a collective or individual centre of power such as the Quad or China, in the conduct of its relations. Neutrality by a State, instead, means not only a statement that it would be Neutral when conducting relations with collective or individual centres of power and other States, but also how such a State expects all States to respect its Neutrality; policy that would be in keeping with Sri Lanka’s unique strategic location in South Asia.   Thus, while the former works outwards the latter works both ways. More importantly, how Neutrality works is governed by internationally codified laws that are in place to guide reciprocal relations.