Photo courtesy of Ceylon Today
At the cusp of a significant political transformation, Sri Lanka stands at a crucial juncture in its history with an opportunity to reclaim and redefine its place among the community of nations. In the first part of my analysis in this series, I explored the roots of the political transformation both in terms of the historical forces that paved way to it and the deliberate political strategies and decisions that helped realise it. In the second part, I explored some of the essential ingredients and recipe for the national renaissance that the president had promised to spark using the momentum of this transformative moment in the island’s history for enduring change.
In this third and final essay in this series, I will explore Sri Lanka’s place in the global stage and argue that the options available for rebuilding its international reputation lies not in traditional power politics but in leveraging its unique characteristics through innovative policy making and moral leadership. This essay explores the intricate relationship between domestic and foreign policy, analyses Sri Lanka’s current geopolitical position and explore strategies for leveraging its unique characteristics on the world stage, all while drawing lessons from its rich history. I will be honest about both the forces that are reshaping the global order, the weakening of global institutions and Sri Lanka’s own limitations and relative strengths and weaknesses. In that context, I will highlight the unique advantages that come with being a small and weak nation in a hotly contested region of the world and how the country can leverage them to advance its own interests and contribute towards positive reform which can improve prospects of international peace and stability.
The foundation of foreign policy: domestic strength
A nation’s foreign policy is inextricably linked to its domestic capabilities and cohesion. Sri Lankan history is not unique among nations of similar size and background in that its strength and ascendency in the world stage has always coincided with periods of internal unity and cohesion and its demises with periods of internal conflict and division. Our suspicions of foreign influence and interference in internal matters are therefore not wholly unjustified. However, rather than blame others, Sri Lankans need to learn to accept the eternal truth in international affairs that the strength and efficacy of a country’s foreign policy and relations with other nations is founded on the strengths and cohesion of its domestic affairs.
What I mean by a strong domestic base is a political environment that fosters social cohesion and individual freedom, preserves cultural vitality, promotes economic resilience, guarantees institutional integrity, advances technological capacity and maintains a solid security framework. Sri Lanka’s history is replete with both positive and negative examples of the consequences of domestic policies on foreign relationships. The ancient civilisation of Anuradhapura, with its sophisticated infrastructure that was built over centuries and unifying Buddhist institutions, enabled the island to become a stable trading hub for merchants from both Europe and the Far East and exemplifies a period when domestic strength translated into global influence for long periods. Conversely, the fragmentation of power, internal conflict, plagues and rapid geographic shifts in the centres of power since the fall of Polonnaruwa left little time, resources or stable leadership to build and maintain the infrastructure on which strong kingdoms are founded on. Consequently, the island became vulnerable to Chinese and Indian interference and eventually to European colonisation.
A realistic assessment of Sri Lanka’s current geopolitical status is crucial for formulating an effective foreign policy strategy. As a small nation with limited economic and military capabilities, Sri Lanka may probably never harbour great power ambitions. However, its strategic location in the Indian Ocean grants it disproportionate importance in regional geopolitics. The country’s experience during the Cold War era, when it successfully maintained a non-aligned stance, has left such a strong impression on its foreign policy framework that decades after the end of the Cold War, Sri Lanka is still overzealous in reasserting the credentials of its non-aligned foreign policy. In consequence, it has failed to leverage its location, heritage, natural resources or valuable human capital to redefine its place in the world. Domestically, a gradual erosion of its policy and institutional framework has ceded most of its independence and influence in the world. The unstable a dangerous game of balancing and band with the two great powers in Asia, India and China, of successive regimes in recent decades has led to incursions into Sri Lanka’s domestic affairs by both these countries that will take many decades to wind back.
These recent missteps highlight not only the importance of a strong domestic policy framework as the bedrock on which Sri Lanka can construct meaningful and strategic relationships with other nations but also that the foreign policy of a country with a fragmented society, weak institutions or an unstable economy can never be decisive and can at best hope to be reactionary. Often, such countries can become incapable of even reacting to preserve their interests – their relations with other nations governed by dependency on external assistance to remain solvent and functional.
Understanding the global order: a nuanced perspective
The international system, often characterised as “anarchic” by political theorists, lacks a central governing authority. In this environment nations, particularly the ones who can project their military and economic power outside of their own borders, are compelled to act in ways that preserve and expand their influence because they stand to lose a great deal more if they don’t. This behaviour is not born of malevolence but rather of the systemic pressures inherent in the global order.
Great powers usually emerge over many centuries and are often built on the bedrock of ancient civilisations. The strength of their civilisational cultures enable them to unify vast populations and their heritage informs them about their place in the world as well and what they are capable of. The way their military and industrial strength has developed over the centuries of competition with rivals is explained in theories like offensive realism. Once attained, this power must be defended, sometimes through pre-emptive measures against potential rivals. In this complex interplay of power dynamics, smaller states like Sri Lanka can easily become collateral in the strategic manoeuvres of larger nations.
It is crucial for us to understand that negative historical experiences with countries such as Britain during colonial times or more recently with the US, India and China should not be interpreted as inherent hostility towards Sri Lanka. Rather, these interactions are often the result of our nation being positioned in both historic and geographic circumstances that made it vulnerable to exploitation in great power competitions.
The policy of Non-Alignment: a critical evaluation
Sri Lanka’s historical policy of non-alignment, while noble in intent, has faced significant challenges. Though non-aligned in theory, Sri Lanka’s de facto leaning towards the Soviet Union, influenced by India’s inclinations and political allegiances of some domestic power brokers, illustrated the difficulties of maintaining true neutrality. It wasn’t a stable policy either but one that oscillated between the two super powers depending on who was in power. This made it particularly problematic for India – the regional hegemon – who was not keen on the US who had naval superiority from dominating the Indian Ocean let alone establishing a base at a place such as Trincomalee. The interventions by India to warn, if not destabilise, Sri Lanka when the Jayawardene regime appeared to shift towards the US underscores the magnitude of those sensitivities and problems that arose from them.
Despite Sri Lanka’s stated policy of non-alignment, the Soviet Union, and later Russia, has been its most consistent source of support in international forums like the UN. As we witness the transition from a unipolar world dominated by the US to a multipolar order with emerging powers like China, the viability of non-alignment as a policy may come into question again. While it is extremely dangerous for a small and weak nation to pick sides in a great power rivalry, the failures associated with maintaining a policy non-alignment have been well established.
The erosion of global institutions
The current global order is witnessing a gradual erosion of international institutions, primarily because these organizations have failed to evolve in tandem with the shifting geopolitical landscape. This stagnation is particularly evident in the structure and functioning of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), often considered the world’s most powerful deliberative body.
The UNSC, established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II, remains dominated by its five permanent members (P5): the US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. These nations, victorious in WWII, were granted permanent seats and veto power, a privilege that has become increasingly controversial in the 21st century. This anachronistic structure fails to reflect the current global power dynamics, notably excluding rising powers like India, Brazil and a unified African representative.
The veto power wielded by the P5 has often led to paralysis in addressing critical global issues. For instance:
- In February 2023, Russia used its veto to block a US-sponsored resolution condemning its invasion of Ukraine.
- The US has repeatedly used its veto to shield Israel from criticism, blocking successive resolutions supported by a vast majority of nations calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
These examples illustrate how national interests of the P5 can override global concerns, undermining the UNSC’s effectiveness in maintaining international peace and security. Adding to this complexity is the fact that the P5 nations are also the world’s largest arms exporters. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), these five countries accounted for 76 percent of all arms exports between 2016-2020. This dual role as peacekeepers and arms suppliers creates a clear conflict of interest. This contradiction between their peacekeeping responsibilities and their economic interests in the arms trade further erodes the credibility of the UNSC and, by extension, the UN as a whole.
The inability to reform the UNSC, despite numerous proposals and widespread acknowledgment of its outdated structure, exemplifies the broader challenge facing global institutions. As the world becomes increasingly multipolar with emerging powers demanding greater representation, the failure to adapt threatens to render these institutions increasingly irrelevant in addressing global challenges.
This erosion of global institutions not only undermines international cooperation but also creates a power vacuum that can lead to increased global instability. For smaller nations like Sri Lanka, this trend is particularly concerning as it potentially diminishes the forums where their voices can be heard on the global stage.
For a small state like Sri Lanka, situated in the strategically vital Indian Ocean region, interactions with great powers must be approached with careful consideration and respect. Understanding their interests, perceptions and historical contexts is paramount. Our recent history of oscillating between India and China, driven more by the transient interests of ruling elites than by long term national strategy, serves as a cautionary tale.
Reframing our worldview: opportunities in smallness
As we reset our perspective on the global order, it is essential to recognise the unique advantages that a small state like Sri Lanka possesses. Our size and lack of great power ambitions afford us certain freedoms and flexibility in international relations.
Firstly, we must cultivate a nuanced view of superpowers and great powers, acknowledging both the challenges and benefits of their influence. Great civilisations invariably leave lasting impacts, often bringing cultural and technological advancements through the cross pollination of ideas. Our own colonial past, although bitter and painful, is a striking example of how this crosspollination can happen through conflict at an even deeper level than through trade.
Secondly, our position as a small state allows us to be more adaptable and innovative in our approach to international relations. Unburdened by the need to project military power or maintain global hegemony, we can focus on fostering connections and exchanging ideas that have the potential to transform the world.
Thirdly, we must understand that the tools and levers of international relations are every changing. The armies, naval fleets, traders and evangelical priests still help countries advance their interests in the world but the nature of their operation and constituent parts have evolved a great deal. In many ways, the playing field has been levelled and any given country can have means of projecting influence and power that are relatively out of proportion to the size of their population and economy.
Fourthly, it is worth remembering that it has always been in the interest of incumbent power to maintain the order and privileges which made them powerful. Change – whether it is in the form of UN reforms or nuclear disarmament – is not going to be initiated or even supported by those wielding disproportionate power in the status quo. Instead, it has always been those outside the circles of power who have disrupted the prevailing power structures and advanced the world forward. I must emphasise however that small states such as Sri Lanka would be most ill-advised to think of themselves as possible revolutionaries who could tear down the world order. But the point remains that the push for peaceful and enlightened reforms that are necessary for maintaining the peace and prosperity of the post-war global order must invariably come from a consensus of middle powers and even small nations like Sri Lanka.
Historically, small states have served as crucibles where influences from great civilisations mix and evolve. Sri Lanka’s rich cultural tapestry, woven from Indian, Western and indigenous threads, positions us uniquely to play a role as a cultural and intellectual bridge between diverse worldviews.
Conclusion: relevance, balance and innovation
As Sri Lanka navigates the complex currents of global politics, our path to influence lies not in traditional power politics but in leveraging our unique characteristics. By building on our domestic strengths, understanding the nuances of great power dynamics and embracing our role as a small but strategically significant nation, we can carve out a meaningful place in the international community.
Our ability to blend diverse influences, coupled with the freedom to innovate without the constraints of great power status, offers us unique opportunities to contribute to global dialogue and progress. As citizens, our role is to support policies that build on these strengths while navigating the challenges of our geopolitical environment.
In this era of global transformation, Sri Lanka has the potential to emerge not as a pawn in great power games but as a respected partner and valuable innovator in international affairs. By embracing this vision, we can help shape a future where our nation’s influence extends far beyond its shores, contributing meaningfully to the evolving tapestry of global relations.