Two contentious issues that may never be resolved are disagreement between India and Sri Lanka over granting police and land powers to Provincial Councils, arm twisted by New Delhi into establishing them here along with the signing of the Indo-Lanka Accord following the infamous parippu drop over the North in 1987 and organized poaching by Tamil Nadu fishers, a problem that can be addressed only by India deploying its powerful Coast Guard, backed by the Navy, to prevent violation of Indo-Lanka maritime boundary.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

Sri Lanka is in a tight spot. Joint statements issued by India and Sri Lanka on Dec, 16, last year, and China and Sri Lanka on January 16, this year, following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visits to New Delhi and Beijing, respectively, underscored the daunting foreign policy challenges faced by the new Sri Lankan leader whose National People’s Power (NPP) secured a landslide victory at the Nov. 2024 parliamentary election, promising a literal sea change.

Dissanayake is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), a once rabidly anti-Indian political movement that waged two unsuccessful insurrections, in 1971 and 1987-1990. Under the JVP’s leadership, the NPP was formed in 2019, just ahead of that year’s presidential election.

Against the backdrop of an unprecedented political environment that had been created by the routing of existing major parties and the emergence of the NPP as the dominant political force here, the Asian giants are determined to consolidate their own separate position here. The joint statements emphasized their agenda.

The issues at hand cannot be examined without taking into consideration the strong and growing US-India relationship, in spite of the latter playing safe in the Russia-Ukraine war and the US-China conflict, as well as the US and India teaming up against Beijing. It appears, however, neither the US nor India trust each other. Their game plan is to try use the other for one’s own benefit in their current marriage of convenience. Washington, without doubt, considers both China and India are a threat to US hegemony.

Whether hapless Sri Lanka likes it or not, or regardless who wields political power here, the major powers won’t change their strategies. That is the unpleasant reality.

In the wake of President Dissanayake’s four-day visit to Beijing (January 14 to 17), a section of the Opposition engaged in the usual criticism of the NPP government, though they generally remained silent on the outcome of his New Delhi visit. China and India dominate major political parties represented in Parliament and the continuing political-economic-social turmoil facilitated their agenda. Our treacherous political party system is obviously incapable of addressing developing challenges. They have pathetically failed to reach consensus on national response to external interventions thereby allowing major powers to manipulate the country.

Having perused the two joint statements, the writer is of the view that in spite of Sri Lanka being party to both, they are contradictory and seem unrealistic to a certain extent. The bottom line is Sri Lanka cannot play ball simultaneously with China and India suspicious of each other. They are hell-bent on undermining each other and Sri Lanka is caught up in an utterly dangerous game. Sri Lanka is stuck in the China-India conflict and obviously there is no way out. Whatever Sri Lanka does may antagonize either party and Colombo seems helpless. The joint statements highlight Sri Lanka’s predicament. Nothing can be as absurd as Sri Lanka declaring a shared future with both India and China. In fact, the 34-point Indo-Lanka joint statement was headlined ‘Fostering partnerships for a shared future.’

While India based its relationship with Sri Lanka on the basis of Premier Narendra Modi’s ‘Neighborhood First Policy’ (read India first policy) and ‘SAGAR’ vision (Security and growth for all in the Indian Ocean region) meaning our giant neighbour is primus inter pares, China focused on what the joint statement described as deepening traditional friendship and advancing high-quality Belt and Road cooperation widely discussed as a massive China-led infrastructure project.

But unlike China, India being our giant neighbour she is overbearing and it would be wise of us to handle India with extreme care. Therefore allowing her to have a monopoly position in any part of our economy is asking for trouble to say the least.

Launched in 2013 the China project is also known as ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ (BRI) and ‘New Silk Road.’ The US and its allies are strongly opposed to the Chinese project, originally called ‘One Belt One Road’.

India strongly opposes any Chinese initiative here hence the joint statement issued following President Dissanayake’s visit must have disappointed New Delhi greatly. The truth is that the statement from Beijing questions the very basis of the joint statement issued on Dec. 16th last year. Regardless of Western and Indian pressure, Beijing has constantly advanced its own project here and elsewhere.

India’s main grouse is the sea and land-based China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that may give China a strategic advantage over India.

Key points in Jan. 16 statement

President Dissanayake’s delegation to Beijing included two Ministers – Foreign Affairs, Foreign Employment and Tourism Vijitha Herath, and Transport, Highways, Ports and Civil Aviation Minister and Leader of the House Bimal Rathnayake. Both are senior JVPers who stood by Dissanayake during the internal turmoil within that party during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure as the President (2005-2014).

President Dissanayake met President Xi Jinping, Premier of the State Council Li Qiang and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji.

In line with the overall Chinese approach, their focus was on Belt and Road cooperation. Against that background, the joint statement emphasized the pivotal importance of advancing what the Chinese called ‘high quality Belt and Road cooperation.’

They reiterated unwavering commitment to what the joint statement described as expanding China-Sri Lanka strategic cooperative partnership.

Then they also decided to sustain ‘close high-level exchanges in keeping with ‘strong strategic guidance’ given by the Chinese and Sri Lankan leaders.’

Sri Lanka repeated its longstanding commitment for ‘One-China’ policy or principle in line with the United Nations general assembly Resolution 2758 passed on Oct. 25th, 1971. In other words, that Resolution accepted Taiwan as an inalienable part of China. It would be pertinent to mention that India, too, accepted the ‘One-China’ principle but over the years refrained from reiterating its position. According to the joint statement, Sri Lanka fully backed all efforts by China to achieve national reunification.

Sri Lanka also assured that the country wouldn’t be a platform for anti-China activity and also backed Beijing in respect of issues related to Xizang (Tibet) and the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang regions where China is under Western fire over purported human rights violations.

The UN that often echo Western line saw its Human Rights Chief Volker Turk jumped to criticise Chinese actions in the above-mentioned regions and the Chinese alleged that the UNHRC strategy is meant to undermine China.

In the fifth paragraph of the joint statement with Colombo that dealt with the contentious Xizang and Xinjiang issues, China reiterated its ‘commitment to an independent foreign policy of peace’ whereas Sri Lanka repeated its pledge for ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy.’

Having been trapped in Chinese, Indian and Western machinations, declaration of ‘an independent non-aligned foreign policy, ‘seemed ridiculous.

The focus on Belt and Road cooperation was underscored with Sri Lanka’s acceptance of President Jinping’s flagship project key to economic and social development. Therefore, the reiteration of the pivotal importance of the Colombo Port City and Hambantota Port, both built by China, didn’t surprise anyone. However, eyebrows were raised that China and Sri Lanka entered into a Belt and Road cooperation plan meant to upgrade/strengthen the Chinese flagship project.

Once Gotabaya Rajapaksa told the writer how Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval pressed him to cancel major Chinese projects here. Responding to queries raised by the writer in Dec., 2016, Gotabaya Rajapaksa explained the dissimilarity between Doval and his predecessor Shivshankar Menon (January 2010 to May 2014) who had served as Foreign Secretary before receiving the appointment as NSA.

The former Defence Secretary said Menon, in his memoirs, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy had acknowledged the understanding between the Mahinda Rajapaksa government and India during the war and post-conflict period. However, Menon’s successor Ajit Doval had taken an entirely different stand vis-a-vis Sri Lanka, Rajapaksa said.

Rajapaksa said Doval called for the cancellation of the USD 1.4 bn Chinese flagship project, the Colombo Port City. In addition to that demand which Rajapaksa said was very unfair, India demanded that Sri Lanka take over the Colombo International Container Terminals Limited (CICT), a joint venture between China Merchants Port Holdings Company Limited (CMPH) and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA).

CMPH holds 85% of the partnership whilst the balance 15% is with the SLPA.

Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him that India wanted all Chinese funded infrastructure projects stopped and for Sri Lanka to have full control of the Hambantota Port. Rajapaksa quoted Doval as having told him: “Sri Lanka is a small country, you don’t need such development projects.”

Maritime issues, etc.

In addition to Sri Lanka seeking early implementation with China of what the joint statement called an agreed debt restructuring plan and early conclusion of a comprehensive free trade agreement, they dealt with maritime cooperation. They agreed to conduct regular bilateral consultations on maritime matters.

China and Sri Lanka decided to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Ocean Cooperation to pave the way for what the joint communique called Blue Partnership. The Blue Partnership is obviously an integral part of the Belt and Road Cooperation.

The joint statement conveniently refrained from making reference to the contentious issue of Chinese research vessels’ visit to Sri Lanka. Repeated Indian and US protests during the early phase of Ranil Wickremesinghe’s presidency (2022 July-Nov 2024) compelled the beleaguered leader to declare a moratorium on such foreign vessels. That decision was meant to prevent Chinese research vessels entering Sri Lankan waters. The Indian media had routinely categorized all Chinese research vessels as spy ships.

President Dissanayake’s government is yet to announce its stand on Wickremesinghe’s moratorium on such foreign ship visits. In spite of Minister Vijitha Herath’s declaration on Dec., 20, 2024, that a special committee would be established to implement a national policy in respect of foreign vessels seeking to enter Sri Lankan waters nothing has been heard so far of the proposed committee.

Regardless of repeated assurances that Sri Lankan territory won’t be used against India’s security interests, the Modi government is seriously concerned over Chinese moves here. India hardened its stance after the Yahapalana government (2015 January to 2019 November) leased the strategically located Hambantota Port on a 99-year lease to China in 2017. That increased Indian concerns as China consolidated its position here. It would be pertinent to mention that China secured what it wanted in spite of the Yahapalana government initially taking an extremely hostile position towards Beijing. The Yahapalana government went to the extent of suspending the Colombo Port City project in March 2015. But, China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) resumed the project in August 2016 after China and Sri Lanka settled differences over the project that was finalized in Sept. 2014 in the presence of President Jinping in Colombo.

Chinese leader Jinping with President Dissanayake

In addition to the USD 1.4 ban Colombo Port City project, China invested USD 1.2 bn in the Hambantota Port. But, President Disanayake’s Office claimed that it secured a fresh investment of USD 3.7 bn for a state-of-the-art oil refinery in Hambantota. That investment declared as the single largest FDI by the President’s Office is part of the Belt and Road cooperation.

However, the UNP has challenged the President’s claim, emphasizing that the agreement on an oil refinery with China was finalized in Nov. 2023 by President Wickremesinghe’s administration.

According to the UNP, Sri Lanka reached consensus on Chinese investment due to the delay in construction undertaken by a consortium that included Silver Park International (Private) Limited of Singapore (controlled by India’s Accord Group) and Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas. Interestingly, that agreement had been signed in March 2019 during Maithripala Sirisena’s presidency.

China hasn’t allowed domestic politics here to derail their plans. The Chinese strategy is on track. The Hambantota Port agreement and the proposed oil refinery at Mirijjawila are cases in point. Having signed a deal on the construction of a brand new international port at Hambantota during Mahinda Rajapaksa’s presidency, China secured the port for a mere USD 1.2 bn from the Wickremesinghe regime.

Later President Gotabaya Rajapaksa found fault with the Yahapalana administration for leasing the port to China. Declaring that the leasing of the Hambantota Port was a mistake, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, in his first interview as President with Nitin A. Gokhale, Editor-in-Chief of Bharat Shakti.in and SNI, in late Nov. 2019, said he wanted to renegotiate the deal. The Yahapalana deal covered the port and approximately 15,000 acres around it. China simply dismissed that notion about an agreement concluded with the previous Yahapalana regime. Since then no one dared to take up that issue. China obviously intends to consolidate its position in the South around Hambantota, just as India tightens its grip around Northeast Sri Lanka, which includes the world’s fourth largest natural harbour at Trincomalee earlier coveted by the US.

Post-Aragalaya developments

In the run-up to the presidential election last Sept, India indicated what it desired from the new President. On behalf of India, Pathfinder Foundation presented a comprehensive proposal meant to consolidate Indo-Lanka partnership to all presidential candidates.

During President Disanayake’s visit, India built up on the agreement Premier Modi finalized with President Wickremesinghe in July 2023. Like China, India, too, since the successful conclusion of the war in 2009, advanced its strategy, here, meticulously.

However, China never matched Indian financial assistance during the unprecedented crisis here. India provided assistance posthaste. According to Premier Modi, India extended grants and Lines of Credit worth USD 5 bn to Sri Lanka during the presidencies of Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe. In fact, NPP leader Disanayake in the run-up to the presidential election thanked India for unprecedented assistance provided in the hour of Sri Lanka’s need.

New Delhi also paid USD 20.66 mn to settle payments due from Sri Lanka for Indian projects here completed under operational Lines of Credit.

A major difference between India-Sri Lanka joint statement and China-Sri Lanka communique is the former’s focus on defence relations. During a joint media briefing with President Dissanayake in New Delhi Premier Modi declared that he and President Dissanayake decided to quickly finalize the Security Cooperation Agreement. However, the Indo-Lanka joint statement differed from Premier Modi’s declaration in respect of the proposed Security Cooperation Agreement.

According to the joint communique, India and Sri Lanka agreed to explore the possibility of concluding a framework agreement on defence cooperation. Under a section headlined ‘Strategic & Defence Cooperation’, the communique dealt comprehensively with Sri Lanka’s needs. India addressed the issues at hand while assuring backing for defence needs. But, entering into a Security Cooperation Agreement /Defence Cooperation Agreement as mentioned in the joint communique, cannot under any circumstances be taken by the government without having consensus with all political parties represented in Parliament.

India’s offer should be examined keeping in mind Sri Lanka never sought a defence agreement with any particular country, even during the difficult war to defeat LTTE terrorism that lasted for about 30 years, but somehow procured arms, ammunition and equipment as well as training from a wide range of suppliers, including China, Israel, Pakistan, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine as well as Russia. The matter is definitely bone of contention for obvious reasons.

Although India caused terrorism here in the ’80s and should be held responsible for massive death and destruction caused, the war couldn’t have been brought to a successful conclusion without New Delhi’s silent, but invaluable backing to defeat the LTTE during the final Eelam War (2006 Aug. to 2009 May). That is the hard truth. Many people may find that hard to accept. With the LTTE getting too big for its shoes, with subtle backing from the West, especially by turning a blind eye to its terror infrastructure like drug running and arms smuggling from their countries, India, too, was left with no other option, especially after it daringly assassinated its beloved former Premier Rajiv Gandhi on its own soil.