Columns

The economic downturn in Sri Lanka unleashed a cascade of repercussions across society, particularly devastating for the impoverished and marginalised segments. Recovery from this wreckage seems like a distant prospect, casting a shadow over the country’s future. Amidst this turmoil, a political crisis has emerged, evident from the events post-April 2022.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe, assuming office following Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s resignation, has been focusing on measures aimed at bringing the economy to an even keel. His efforts encompass various measures, including restructuring the country’s debt and seeking assistance from the IMF. However, the economic frailty has also strained the country’s foreign relations, foreboding implications for the years ahead.

While sympathising with the government’s monumental task of trying to bring about economic revival, it’s evident that navigating the intricate geopolitics of the region is an unavoidable necessity. The intertwining of economic recovery with international relations is another area that has to be prudently handled.

Yet, the Government’s approach to foreign relations appears somewhat haphazard, lacking a coherent strategy. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry’s statements oscillate between notions of non-alignment and multi-alignment, blurring the lines of clarity. Despite attempts to elucidate a so called “multi-aligned” foreign policy, the distinction from non-alignment remains nebulous. The Minister often uses multi-alignment and non-alignment interchangeably, although on the face of it, it is clearly mutually contradictory.

An analysis of the Government’s stance on international issues reveals a leaning towards multi-alignment rather than non-alignment. For instance, its cautious stance on the Palestinian question and the Gaza conflict mirrors alignment with the United States and Israel, rather than an objective non-alignment position.

A close examination of the statements made by President Ranil Wickremesinghe and Foreign Minister Ali Sabry on the situation in Gaza shows a marked reluctance on the part of the Government to blame Israel for the killing of 30,000 civilians including 20,000 children. Whenever the Government refers to Gaza and the need for a ceasefire it shies away from wanting to use the word ‘condemn’ or any form of censure on Israel. While the United States and its allies continue to provide arms and other forms of assistance to Israel, Sri Lanka has no hesitancy in sending its citizens to Israel to fill vacancies created by the loss of employment of Palestinians due to Israel’s military campaign, thus helping to keep the Israeli economy afloat. Irrespective of which side one takes in the conflict one would have hoped that a caring Government will not put its citizens at risk by sending them to a volatile region where their safety cannot be guaranteed.

The difficulties faced by the Government in trying to rescue Sri Lankans who are held captive by armed groups in Myanmar should be a stark reminder of the burden that will fall on the Foreign Ministry in the event things go wrong for these workers in Israel.

The Government’s actions, such as sending Sri Lankan citizens to fill vacancies in Israel amidst conflict, raise concerns about their safety and underline the prioritisation of economic interests over humanitarian considerations of its own citizens.

Similarly, the dispatch of a naval vessel to defend against Houthi rebel attacks on ships en route to Israel raises questions about the coherence of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.

Moreover, the Government’s unwarranted involvement in the India-Canada diplomatic dispute, where Sri Lanka accused Prime Minister Trudeau of interference, highlights the erratic nature of its foreign policy.

A diplomatic spat between India and Canada which had nothing to do whatsoever with Sri Lanka saw the Foreign Minister make an ‘undiplomatic’ intervention accusing Prime Minister Trudeau of poking his nose into the affairs of other countries.

India-Canada ties had hit a new low after Justin Trudeau alleged India’s involvement in the fatal shooting of Khalistan Tiger Force chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry waded into the India-Canada diplomatic row and said terrorists had found safe haven in Canada and that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came out with the outrageous allegations without any proof.

He asked the Canadian PM not to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign country. “I don’t think anyone should poke their nose into other countries and tell us how we should govern our country.’

In sum, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy appears as befuddled as its political landscape in the lead-up to the impending Presidential Elections later this year. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)