F O R E I G N A F FA I R S

82 – FEBRUARY 2012 – LMD

The formulation of theforeign policy of anycountry is a matter oflegitimate public con-cern. It should not bea specialised and eso-

teric exercise conducted insecret in the corridors of power.The knowledge relevant to itsformulation and executionshould be in the public domain,with the public invited to partic-ipate more actively in shapingthe foreign policy they want fortheir country.

It is a truism to state that for-eign policy must be based onthe bedrock of national interest.The former British PrimeMinister Viscount HenryPalmerston, speaking of 19th-century British foreign policyfamously said: “We have noeternal allies and no permanentenemies. Our interests are eter-nal, and those interests it is ourduty to follow.”

Sri Lanka may well adopt thesame position, except that theidentification of national inter-ests can vary among politicalparties and from time to timedepending on the internationalclimate and our domestic situa-tion. It is therefore essential thatwe have institutions that canhelp in this task. The ExecutivePresidency, the Cabinet, theMinistry of External Affairs,Parliament especially itsConsultative Committee onExternal Affairs, professionalcareer diplomats, the media,lobby groups including cham-bers of commerce and publicopinion are among the availableforeign-policy formulatingmechanisms in Sri Lanka. Theyshould ideally be cocoordinatedand used optimally to develop abipartisan foreign policy.

The pre-colonial history ofour country from ancient timesup to the early 19th century

bears witness to a polity thatmanaged its external relationswith survival skills and withpolicies firmly grounded in the

realities of power in the geopo-litical context of South andSouth-East Asia. Sri Lanka,then as now, was inextricablylinked with India; and while theadvent of Buddhism establishedfriendly ties with the MauryanEmpire in particular and NorthIndia in general, with the souththere was a more direct andfractious engagement. Tradeand commerce may have beenamong the motivations forSouth Indian invasions, apartfrom political and militaryobjectives.

The Sri Lankan kings focusedon achieving domestic stabilitythrough the development of aunique system of irrigated agri-culture, a flourishing entrepôttrade centred around Mantaiand the patronage of Buddhism.Disputes over succession to thethrone led some claimants torecruit the help of South Indianmercenaries and later to form

We have thus not been able to shed the burden of human-rights allegations and resume a normal foreign policy…

The writer is the President of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs and was UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs from 1998 to 2003. This article is based on a presidential address made on 4 July 2011,

at the 59th Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs in Berlin.

MED

IA S

ERV

ICES

PH

OTO

FILE

(IN

DR

A D

E SI

LVA

)

alliances with different SouthIndian powers.

In that sense, the Sri Lankankings were engaged in practis-ing the classic theory of balanceof power driven by a desire forsecurity, preventing a powerfulhegemon to rise in South Indiaby seeking a parity of compet-ing forces or a stable equilibri-um of power. Buddhism andtrade, on the other hand, provid-ed predominantly harmoniouslinks with other parts of Asia –especially China, Thailand,Burma and Cambodia withexchanges of pilgrims andrelics. Bilateral belligerentaction, such as the early 15th-century invasion of ChineseAdmiral Zheng He that did takeplace, was more the exceptionthan the rule.

Thereafter, with the decline ofSri Lankan polity and the driftsouth-west came the Portugueseconquest of the maritimeprovinces of the island. The for-eign-policy objectives of theSitawaka and Kandyan king-doms were focused on estab-

lishing relations with powerswho could rid Sri Lanka of thePortuguese. In that context, mis-sions from the Dutch werereceived, leading eventually tothe replacement of thePortuguese by the Dutch. Later,the British were to replace theDutch as a result of develop-ments in Europe; and with the1815 Kandyan Convention, theentire island went under foreigncolonial rule.

Perhaps the lesson of this peri-od, with the waging of wardecreasing as an instrument ofpolicy, is to maintain a course ofnon-alignment and friendshipwith countries that recognisedand respected Sri Lanka’s inde-pendence and sovereignty. Atthe same time, solidarity withAsian countries and with coun-tries that were victims of colo-nialism was an outgrowth of thispre-colonial experience. Thus,straddling UNP and SLFPadministrations, Sri Lanka par-ticipated actively in the 1950Colombo Plan initiative, the1954 Colombo Powers Confer-

ence and the 1955 BandungConference, leading logically tomembership of NAM when itwas born in 1961. Certainly, acommon thread linking ourancient period and the modernworld is a common antipathy tohegemonism in internationalrelations. Caution in relationswith India, especially with TamilNadu, remained as a strand offoreign policy, although not con-sistently maintained.

It is possible to trace an evolu-tion from balance of powerpolicies to non-alignment, as theSri Lankan state moved out ofcolonial dependence into themature exercise of moderndiplomacy to ensure its inde-pendence and stability. Thedecision not to join SEATO in1954 post independence or tojoin ASEAN in 1967 when theUNP was in power, stemmedfrom a basic instinct for non-alignment and an aversion topower blocs. The discourse ofour politicians is littered withcopious references to our glori-ous past. It would be salutary ifwe learned some lessons fromthat past, both in terms of goodgovernance and in the exerciseof foreign policy.

The decisive military defeat ofthe LTTE in May 2009 endedthree decades of a brutalisingconflict that had a cripplingeffect on the country’s foreignpolicy. In those years, whilefighting for the survival of SriLanka’s unity and territorialintegrity, we had to focus main-ly on defending our human-rights record, neglecting otherkey aspects of foreign policy. Innearly three years since then,peace, reconciliation, resettle-ment, rehabilitation, reconstruc-tion and development did fol-low – and must continue.Despite this, a determined sec-tion of the Sri Lankan Tamildiaspora with a separatist agen-da and some internationalhuman-rights groups have con-ducted a campaign for account-ability over the final stages ofthe conflict which has cloudedthe post-conflict period andembarrassed Sri Lanka interna-tionally. We have thus not beenable to shed the burden ofhuman-rights allegations andresume a normal foreign policy.

The Lessons Learned andReconciliation Commission(LLRC) has submitted its reportto the President. Though its rec-ommendations have still not

been implemented, they do offera unique opportunity of realis-ing the nebulous ‘home-grownsolution’ that the President hasconsistently advocated. Asimportantly, it offers an end toimpunity, if allegations of theviolations of internationalhumanitarian law and humanrights are investigated and pun-ished. That achievement canthen be successfully projectedabroad through a restructuredforeign-policy establishmentstaffed by trained and experi-enced career diplomats. Thismust include a return to tradi-tional areas of diplomacy suchas our contribution to interna-tional forums in development,trade, climate change, health,labour issues (especially migra-tion), women’s issues, humanrights, international law includ-ing international humanitarianlaw and disarmament, whilereasserting the prominent rolewe enjoyed in the past in theUnited Nations, NAM, theCommonwealth, SAARC, andother international and regionalforums. Failure to do so willresult in a concluded conflictbeing as much an albatrossaround the neck of the country’sforeign policy as when it ragedover the last 30 years.

The foreign-policy formula-tion and implementation (ofindependent nations), especiallyof the global south which hassuffered the experience of colo-nialism, cannot be outsourced topublic-relations firms or lobby-ists of the industrialised northhowever slick and well-connect-ed they may be. National libera-tion struggles such as in Indiaand South Africa were not wonby foreign mercenaries, but bybrave fighters from those coun-tries dedicated to freedom andindependence. The preservation,consolidation and developmentof democratic freedom, unityand independence through awell-conceived foreign policybased on durable national inter-ests – and implemented bytrained and disciplined profes-sionals – is the challenge facingus today.

Will we shirk it, or rise to it?

NOTE This article is based on a keynote address at the FirstInternational Conference on theSocial Sciences and Humanitiesheld at the University ofPeradeniya on 16 December last year

83 – FEBRUARY 2012 – LMD

A Foreign Policy for Post-Conflict Sri LankaJayantha Dhanapala looks back at historyand points to the need for Sri Lanka to base foreign policy on national interests and not on forces that do not respect its sovereignty

WANTED