Relevance of Non-alignment or ‘dynamic neutrality’ to SL’s foreign policy

There is considerable haggling in some local quarters on whether the concept of Non-alignment is of any relevance to Sri Lanka in particular and to the developing world in general. Going by some pronouncements in these sections the ideology of Non-alignment has seemingly ceased to be of importance to Sri Lanka as a basis of foreign policy formulation and implementation.

The time could not be more appropriate to probe whether this is really so. As to whether a developing country could dispense with Non-alignment as a foreign policy tool would depend primarily on the status it has achieved over the years in the international community. The Non-aligned grouping in world politics was at one time described, by some, as ‘The trade union of the world’s poor’.

In the early years of the sixties decade no descriptive label could have been more apt, considering that the Third World constituted veritably ‘The Wretched of the Earth’, going principally by economic criteria. That is, the majority of Non-aligned countries were among the poorest of the poor. Needless to say, Sri Lanka was among this bottom heap.

However, over the years, quite a few of these developing countries have proved ‘Engines of growth’ in the Southern hemisphere and have acquired for themselves First World status. That is, in economic terms, primarily, they are on par with the most vibrant economies of the West. Needless to say, one such one-time Third World country is India. Accordingly, India could afford to dispense with the concept of Non-alignment in the conduct of its foreign relations, although it is hard to see it doing so. But could Sri Lanka afford to do without the Non-aligned foreign policy strategy? This is the Question.

The stark fact is that Sri Lanka has collapsed over the past two years into absolute beggary. It cannot afford to strut around as if it cannot do without the international community’s material and financial help. While, dignity and integrity could come to be valued by some ruling sections in Sri Lanka, the latter cannot afford to say ‘No’ to financial assistance that is extended to it by well-meaning international quarters. We have arrived at the moment at which Sri Lanka’s day-to-day sustenance depends crucially on it accepting such assistance.

In other words, Sri Lanka is among the ranks of the poorest of the poor and needs to be a friend of all countries, lest it loses out on crucial development and other forms of assistance. To be precise, it needs to follow a Non-aligned foreign policy, since right now it cannot afford to fall out of favour with any country or international entity that could bail it out of its financial distress. It is today pathetically dependent on the IMF and the World Bank, but what choice does it have?

Accordingly, Sri Lanka cannot afford to dispense with Non-alignment or ‘dynamic neutrality’. The latter phrase was meant to be synonymous with Non-alignment when the policy was first forged by India, Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia, among other principal Third World countries, in the early sixties and no other phrase epitomizes Non-alignment in its essence.

The phrase denotes cordial, non-adversarial and constructive engagement with the world community and it goes without saying that such a policy suits Sri Lanka’s current needs best. In other words, Sri Lanka should be a friend of all and an enemy of none. The same goes for the rest of the poorest of the poor countries.

No doubt, Sri Lanka should argue out its case in the forums of the world in numerous issue areas but it would need to do some meticulous tight-rope walking, lest it offends potential helpers. This is Sri Lanka’s factual situation.

That the bi-polar world order no longer exists is of little relevance to countries as financially desperate as Sri Lanka. The simple truth is that the poorest of the poor need to be allies of all those who mean well by them in the world community and Non-alignment or ‘dynamic neutrality’ serves their interests best right now.

The question of Non-alignment and a host of other issues that have a decisive bearing on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy featured at a memorable, widely attended forum which was organized and conducted on August 9th at its auditorium by the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute of International Relations and Strategic Studies (LKI), Colombo, to mark the 18th death anniversary of Sri Lanka’s former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, which fell on August 12th.

The exceptional importance of the forum, which was titled, ‘The Changing Global Dynamics: Implications for Sri Lanka’, derived also from the fact it was designed by LKI as the first in a monthly series of such discussions which would take up foreign policy issues of the first importance to Sri Lanka.

In his welcoming remarks LKI Executive Director, Ambassador Ravinatha Aryasinghe lucidly outlined some key trends in changing global dynamics, and his observations set the stage for the wide-ranging, lively forum that unfolded. Some of these trends are: volatile global power politics, emerging pressures on the global economy, power rivalries in the Indian Ocean and the increasing significance of India.

The expert panel consisted of: Dr. Harinda Vidanage, Director, International Relations and Founding Director, Centre for Strategic Assessment of the Gen. Sir John Kotelawala Defence University, Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, Executive Director, Institute of Policy Studies, Sri Lanka, Dr. Jehan Perera, Executive Director, National Peace Council of Sri Lanka and Ambassador H.M.G.S. Palihakkara, former Foreign Secretary. Ambassador Aryasinghe moderated the forum.

Making the inaugural address, Minister of Foreign Affairs, M.U.M. Ali Sabry, among other things, highlighted the importance of Sri Lanka’s policy and decision makers making research-based and scientifically-oriented decisions and policy formulations. He stressed that technocrats and persons of professional competence needed to head our Finance and Foreign Ministries in particular.

Considering the crucial bearing it has on the future crafting of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy the question of Non-alignment has been dealt with at some length in this commentary but numerous were the insights of the first importance to foreign policy that the panelists threw-up in the course of their presentations. The Q&A that followed the presentations was thought-provoking and lively as well.

However, it could be of importance, in future forums, for experts and audiences to explore as to how strategic policy could be integrated into foreign policy, since the aim of both disciplines is to serve the national interest and none could be discussed in isolation from the latter. Besides, it struck this columnist that domestic policy cannot be isolated from foreign policy since they are thought to complement each other. Some deliberation on these questions is in order.