Columns

Was the Sri Lanka government’s decision to throw in its lot with the US-led initiative against the Houthis in the growing conflict in the Red Sea just a knee-jerk reaction or a considered, well-thought-out one?

If one might reverse the late Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s famous remark at the unveiling of his portrait at the Oxford University, the policy cake appears to have been swiftly baked abroad though the icing was put on at home.

It leads to a question that has troubled many foreign policy analysts and political commentators. Who really determines foreign policy in this “country like no other” and if so, is it the national interest that takes precedence or every government’s reliance on or burgeoning bilateral relationships with, leaders of nations near and far, particularly if they have a loose hold on their country’s purse strings?

It might be recalled that when Chinese research ships which India seemed to label “spy” ships asked to dock in Sri Lanka there were quite some consultations between the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry on whether to allow them in or not.

Now that the government has decided to deploy a naval ship in support of the US-led task force to combat Houthi attacks on Israeli ships carrying goods to other destinations, was our own foreign ministry consulted?

Or was it treated in the way that it has increasingly treated in recent years, more as a messenger conveying communications than one whose input on issues that involve foreign policy and international relations, be considered with serious intent?

In announcing the decision to deploy the naval vessel to the rather poorly supported US-led maritime coalition fighting the Houthis, President Wickremesinghe said that the cost to the country of this venture would be Rs 250 million for two weeks.

Does it mean we are going to be around just for a fortnight or would we spend more if this conflict is to escalate as current indications suggest?

Somebody appears to have done a mathematical calculation ahead of the announcement, though the austerity-driven people might well wonder what a cash-strapped country is doing spending so much money on an exercise that could end up in disaster or dawdling in the waters of the Red Sea or thereabouts doing some fishing.

Shortly after the presidential announcement a local newspaper reported quoting a naval source saying it was doing a feasibility study ahead of the deployment. One would have thought that feasibility studies are undertaken before not after such venturing out to what could be naval engagements.

More recent news indicates that the Navy is to deploy more than one ship which means a sizeable cost escalation.

Addressing a group of West Asian ambassadors a few days ago the President reportedly said the raison d’etre for Sri Lanka to deploy its navy is that threats to Red Sea shipping will cause shipping lines to use the longer Cape route around South Africa at enormous costs which the country cannot bear and so must help to ensure safe passage in the Red Sea area.

While there is an economic rationale, Sri Lanka is not the only country in South and Southeast Asia and in the East dependent on these major sea routes for the movement of vital goods and oil. Yet no other country in this region, bar Singapore and Seychelles which have agreed support yet not joined the US-led maritime coalition physically, not even Washington’s Quadrilateral alliance partner Australia.

Surely there are many other countries in the region which are more reliant on these trade routes than Sri Lanka and would wish for free passage. So why have they kept away from the US ‘rescue’ mission?

Sri Lanka’s policymakers seem to forget that once our naval vessels join the maritime coalition and enter the Red Sea they come under US command—US Task Force 153.

That is why European nations, save the UK, such as France, Italy and Spain have deployed vessels but they remain under their own command and not under the US.

We tend to forget as soon as a country becomes a part of the US-led task force, it is considered an enemy by the Houthis as anybody helping the US is considered an ally of Israel.

It is bad enough that the country’s foreign employment minister considers it a feather in his rather soiled cap that he had secured some 20,000 jobs for Sri Lankans in Israel to replace Palestinian workers. This would surely be noted as helping Israel, already before the International Criminal Court facing charges filed before it by South Africa, for genocide.

If this diplomatic faux pas just days before the Non-Aligned nations hold their summit in Uganda and a couple of months before the UN Human Rights Council meets in Geneva and Colombo is back on the dock, backfires on Sri Lanka there would be many who would have to pay the price come the vital elections this year.

Historically Sri Lanka, a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, has closely adhered to its policies and was a prominent player on the international stage steadfastly following NAM’s principles. It even hosted the NAM summit in 1976.

But not all Sri Lankan leaders had a commitment to NAM or much regard for it. Prominent among them was President Junius Richard Jayewardene whose cynical disinterest in the country’s foreign policy was amply illustrated during an interview that my New York Times Bureau Chief and I had with the Sri Lankan president at his residence in Ward Place.

My temporary Delhi-based Bureau Chief, whose name I forget for this was nearly 45 years ago, had asked me to arrange an interview with President Jayewardene who had taken over the chairmanship of NAM from Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike who was defeated in the 1977 general election paving the way for “JR” as he was called.

Following usual journalistic protocol I let the visiting NYT colleague ask his questions and waited my turn to ask some myself as I was hoping to squeeze out a good story for the Daily News which I was attached to.

I asked JR, known as “Yankee Dicky”, for his highly pro-American proclivities, whether he would go to strongly anti-American Cuba where the next NAM summit was being held some months later.

He seemed determined to go. “After all I must hand over the chairmanship to President Castro”, he said. Having got my story I pursued with more questions on some differences within NAM such as the issue of divided Cambodia and attempts to suspend Egypt from the movement when President Jayewardene suddenly told me “There are only two non-aligned countries in the world- the USA and the USSR” referring to the two superpowers.

That shook me and it even roused the NYT man who was having a quick shut-eye not particularly interested in NAM.

Perhaps realising it was a faux pas, JR quickly told me “Now don’t write that.” Still later as he walked us down the corridor to the portico of his residence, he put his arm round my shoulder and said “Now don’t write that. I will lose my job”. What job that was he never said.

There is more to that story but it is not relevant here. What is relevant is that though Sri Lanka had a hard-working foreign minister, Shaul Hamid, seriously committed to NAM, the governing UNP’s pro-US and conservative policies of old still persist.

With India also a founder member of NAM under Jawaharlal Nehru, now a strong ally of Washington and in a close embrace with Israel which is a major arms supplier to New Delhi now, it would not surprise some if gentle nudges from both capitals had any influence on Sri Lanka’s announced Red Sea adventure.

Time will tell, who knows?

(Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later, he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London.)