by Neville Ladduwahetty

Following President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s visit, first to India and then to China, Foreign Policy analysts and Commentators of repute have cautioned the NPP government the need to exercise BALANCE particularly in respect of its relations with India and China. The question is how balancing could be the guiding policy in Sri Lanka’s relations with India and China, when balancing is only a strategy? For instance, is the prospect of a 200,000 barrels a day refinery by China in Hambantota to be balanced by a prospective refinery by India in Trincomalee even if it is not in Sri Lanka’s best interests? Is this what some commentators call “pragmatic balancing”?

Sri Lanka’s policy regarding relations with other countries is stated at times as Non-Aligned and neutral at other times depending on the occasion and the forum. In the Joint Statement with China, the Policy is Non-Aligned. During a press conference, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath made comments that undoubtedly amounted to “reaffirmation of Neutrality” according to a report in the Daily FT (Oct. 9, 2024). Such inconsistencies are not in the best interest of relations with India or China or with any other country. It is therefore imperative that the NPP government adopts a Policy and conducts its affairs in a manner that abides by the stated Policy if its credibility is to be respected

OBJECTIVES to PRECEEDE POLICY

However, whatever policy the NPP government adopts, what needs to be understood is the fundamental premise that prior to developing a Policy there has to be a clear and unambiguous Objective. For instance, the Foreign policy of India is often expressed as “Neighbourhood First”, and Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR). Such a policy would entitle India to realise its objective of being accepted as a Regional Power in South Asia and therefore recognised as a global power where its currency is internationally recognised, a place in the UN Security Council, etc., and other symbols of a global power. On the other hand, China’s objective is to become first among equals among global powers. The Policy to achieve such an objective is its Belt and Road Initiative.

Similarly, the US Declaration of Independence sets out its objective as being: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men ….”

It is therefore clear that the Objective of a Nation is a declaration of the goals the Peoples of a Nation craft for themselves. Therefore, Sri Lanka has to define unambiguously its Objectives. To state that Sri Lanka’s Objective should be based on Self-Interests is to state the obvious because Self-Interest is what drives Foreign Relations. Foreign Policy of a Nation is how it conducts itself in its relations with other Nations in the process of pursuing its Objectives. For instance, the Objective of the NPP Government is to create “A thriving Nation and a beautiful life”. Thus, having declared its Objective, the NPP government has to decide whether a Foreign Policy of Non-Alignment, Neutrality or any other would enable it to realise its stated Objective of a thriving Nation and a beautiful life.

On the other hand, balancing is not an objective nor is it a policy. It is only a Strategy that could be resorted to within the context of Non-Aligned or Neutral Policies. Thus, its application is limited in scope to specific countries such as India and China and to infrastructure projects as part of Balancing interests of geopolitical rivals at a cost to Sri Lanka’s national interests.

NON-ALIGNMENT v. NEUTRALITY in PRACTICE

From a security perspective, non-alignment does not guarantee territorial inviolability. On the other hand, a neutral state is protected by international law. Therefore, neutrality offers greater guarantees in respect of territorial inviolability. Furthermore, since Neutrality defines duties and responsibilities of a Neutral State, other Nations are forewarned of what to expect from Sri Lanka – in short there are no surprises nor is there a need to go out of its way to ensure the security of India or any other State. This fosters trust and credibility among nations. However, if any country decides to violate Sri Lanka’s territory for whatever reason, as it was when India violated Sri Lanka’s air space, Sri Lanka has to accept the fact that no one would be coming to its defence other than the protection of International Law.

The real test between Non-Alignment and neutrality is when it comes to infrastructure projects. Furthermore, under a Policy of Non-Alignment, infrastructure projects invariably become part of balancing and therefore end up with unsolicited proposals, as in the past. Attempts to balance the refinery in Hambantota by China that was reported to have been based on expressions of interest called for by Sri Lanka, with a possible Refinery in Trincomalee for India would be unsolicited and to different standards. A variation to the theme of unsolicited projects is to tempt Sri Lanka by funding projects that serve the interests of the funding agency and not that of Sri Lanka.

On the other hand, a policy of neutrality requires that strict and open procedures are followed in order to ensure that all are treated as equals. This makes it imperative for Sri Lanka to first define the scale and scope of the project and call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) from parties for evaluation in a transparent and open manner. Thus, practices that require a Neutral State to adopt fosters Credibility and Trust in the eyes of other Nations; characteristics critically needed to create a Thriving Sri Lanka. These characteristics together with reliance on International Law become the combined armory of a Neutral State such as Sri Lanka that is relatively small, but strategically located for aspiring Global Powers to go out of their way to foster abiding relations.

CONCLUSION

The foreign policy options explored and commented on by analysts, think tanks and during panel discussions are; Non-Alignment, Neutrality, Balancing and Self- Interest, etc., not realising that some proposed Policies, such as Balancing, are not Policies but Strategies. These explorations fail to define the objective that determines which policy to adopt as in the case of India, China and the USA cited above. Additionally, the context in which the Policy works, becomes a factor that shapes and Influences Policy. In the particular context of Sri Lanka, its strategic location that is akin to a key stone in the arch of Indian Ocean Rim countries in the geopolitical equation has molded Sri Lanka as a Nation State over Millennia to an extent that its geographical size has become a secondary factor.

In such a context, its security, and the goal set by the NPP government of a “Thriving Nation and a beautiful life” is best served by international law and the Soft Power of a neutral state that requires it to conduct its International Relations in an open and Transparent manner that ensures equality among Nations in a manner that fosters Trust and Credibility. The dividends from such an approach would foster a “Thriving Nation”.