THOUGHTS FROM LONDON

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick out of the starting blocks. Shortly after the UNP-led UNFGG emerged as winner last Tuesday, he telephoned his counterpart-to-be, UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe, to congratulate him and hail the “wonderful performance” of his alliance.

It might, of course, be read as a pro-forma exercise in diplomatic courtesy and a sign of good neighbourliness. But the sea change in relations with India since Maithripala Sirisena assumed the presidency and paid his first official visit to New Delhi, indicates that a more cordial atmosphere between the two neighbours is more visible.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe meeting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the latter’s visit to Sri Lanka in March

It might be recalled that last March, Prime Minister Modi reciprocated by visiting Sri Lanka, the first bilateral visit by an Indian prime minister in nearly 30 years. Modi’s address to parliament, in which he mentioned the unacceptable “f” word — federalism — suggesting tangentially that it could be a possible solution to Sri Lanka’s devolution of power issue, might well have grated in some ears.

But on the whole the visit was a positive sign that bilateral relations are on the mend especially since the “yahapalanaya” government seemed to distance itself from the sharp pro-China tilt of the Mahinda Rajapaksa administration. When Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera said at one point somewhat ambiguously that Chinese submarines would not be allowed to dock in Colombo, a sour point with New Delhi which expressed its security concerns, it appeared that Sri Lanka was keen on a new beginning in Indo-Lanka relations.

A couple of days after Ranil Wickremesinghe emerged as the newly-elected prime minister he told the media that a new chapter was opening in Sri Lanka and “India would be a part of it.” These developments in the last seven months seem to seal the direction our foreign policy appears to be heading. It would therefore not be surprising at all if Wickremesinghe’s first official visit would be to India following in the footsteps of President Sirisena.

Understandably Wickremesinghe has to get his government in order first, with cabinet appointments to be settled and a national government put in place. So while a visit to our giant neighbour in the north is likely, what next is the vital question. Where will he head out next? Will it be China before he turns west or will China be sacrificed in order to cultivate the west?

If the bureaucrats that inhabit our foreign ministry have a useful head on their shoulders, the advice would be to head out east. Anybody who has looked at the history of Sino-Lankan relations would know that the two countries have had very warm and enduring relations from the time that the People’s Republic of China was born and the Chiang Kai-shek regime ended up in Taiwan.

The only spat was somewhere in 1967 during the time of Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake when on the ill-advice of the then permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs a consignment of lapel pins with a picture of Chairman Mao was confiscated by the Customs.

If I remember correctly Jayantha Dhanapala, one of our ablest diplomats, was a young officer and serving at our Beijing embassy when Chinese protested outside its premises over the rather puerile action of the Ceylon Government of the day.
An irate China said in a statement that “700 million (that was its population then) Chinese people will hit you on the head” or words to that effect.

Other than that, relations between the two countries have strengthened over the years to the point that when western countries and India were refusing weaponry to Sri Lanka fighting a war against separatists, China came to Sri Lanka’s assistance both with military hardware and diplomatic support on the international stage.

Moreover, the financial assistance China provided in the post-conflict years when others were turning their heads the other away cannot be forgotten, certainly not when debts have to be paid. President Sirisena has said on several occasions since coming to power that Sri Lanka is committed to a non-aligned foreign policy. During a meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry in Colombo last May Sirisena was quoted in the media as saying that “Sri Lanka will strictly follow a non-aligned foreign policy and the government would not allow the relations with one country to affect the relations with another country in any manner.”

Sirisena is a long standing member of the SLFP whose foreign policy was founded on a strong commitment to non-alignment which has been the bedrock of the country’s foreign policy most of our post-independence years. I remember when serving at our embassy in Bangkok, I had a long conservation with the then Health Minister Sirisena on the way from Bangkok airport. He was not only extolling the SLFP’s commitment to non-alignment from the days of Sirima Bandaranaike but also maintaining that Sri Lanka should be looking to Asia as our future lies there.

It is not just maintaining close relations with China that is important to Colombo. Strengthening our connections with the whole ASEAN region, making more use of UN agencies such as ESCAP which is committed to development, should be an essential adjunct of foreign policy.

Mangala Samaraweera is reported to have said during a visit to Japan that Sri Lanka’s foreign policy would be “omni- directional”. Nice phrase but what precisely does it mean. If it means that Sri Lanka will reach out to all nations and will treat each of them with equal consideration then a note of caution would not be inappropriate.

Would it not be advisable to sound out some of the one-time friends of the West, especially the US, if one is not already aware Washington’s global conduct? History is replete with examples of countries and leaders that Washington befriended only to let them down and turn against them when American interests required that friends be treated as enemies and enemies as friends. This of course has been a long time principle of western diplomacy in the classic words of Lord Palmerstone who said that Her Majesty’s government has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

Unfortunately those who can tell tales of American duplicity are dead, no doubt eliminated with Washington’s help. But still one can read about Manual Noriega, the one-time dictator of Panama who served the CIA but later fell from grace. Or maybe the more recent history of Saddam Hussein, once the darling of the US as long as he took on Iran’s revolutionary regime that was part of the “axis of evil.” Remember the Afghan Mujahideen, armed and trained to fight the Russians but discarded and attacked once the task was done. Need one go on?

The point is this. In the West administrations change, needs and interests change. One cannot expect a new administration that takes office to follow the same policy or even the same administration to do so if immediate needs require such change. To expect long term consistency in policy is myopic and to court disaster.

While reaching out to the world and making friends with all is admirable, small nations such as Sri Lanka, are safest when we are together with time-tested friends and those who, like us, have been adherents of non-alignment over the years, rather than obsequiously trailing behind those whose unreliability and readiness to sacrifice friends is firmly etched in history.
President Sirisena sees our future better served by close links with Asia. One hopes that in recalibrating out foreign policy Sri Lanka will not stray too far from that which has served us well.