Sri Lanka’s foreign policy at crossroads
The full page article by Prof. G.L. Pieris asking whether Sri Lanka has a foreign policy at all today has had an unexpected response with the change of government. The government media carried an article on November 9 quoting our envoy in Russia as stating that President Putin is “President Sirisena’s favourite world leader…and once this crisis is settled we can move forward with agreements we have signed at a much faster pace…”.
Is this a new tilt to Sri Lanka’s foreign policy or was the envoy just expressing his personal appreciation to a benefactor? However, since diplomatic envoys are expected to represent their country and convey the views of the government, will this be taken as a sign of a changed course in Sri Lankan politics, away from the January 2015 pledge to strengthen parliamentary democracy and reduce the powers of the executive presidency? Are we then going back to the earlier Executive Presidential system? The Russian Foreign Ministry, being a fully professional and extremely well trained organisation, must be mulling the envoy’s comments, taking into account also Sri Lanka’s open media and the whistle blowers who have in the past pulled the rug from many big defence deals on account of unsuitability of equipment or commission paid.
The real fallout of the political crisis is on our tourism industry which was expecting a best-ever season with the global travel magazine Lonely Planet's and other international recommendations. Yet here we are once again faced with the old travel advisories and cautions from the past about political instability. It seems the crisis always comes at this time of the year recalling the tsunami or the LTTE attack on the Katunayake airport, both on the eve of the tourist season. It seems once again we will have to show resilience and build again that confidence which was bringing so much hope for that industry, jobs and resources. Once again our Sri Lankan visitors will fill the void and bring that welcome support to the country.
The deeper question, however, is why there is such a clash now after years of relative bipartisan foreign policy around rallying calls such as “non-alignment” and “friendship with all”. Why are old ideas of a “cold war” and resort to fears of “colonialism” “imperialism” “neo-colonialism” being stoked?
Some answers are to be found in the framework adopted by Prof. Shelton Kodikara for foreign policy analysis, comparing three levels, namely internal politics, the dyadic behaviour and the international system. Evidently, to obtain the best outcomes, there should be harmony between the three levels . However, the present divide could be attributed to the fact that the Ranil Wickremesinghe government concentrated too much on the level of the international system without paying sufficient attention to winning public confidence in its policies while the focus of the Joint Opposition was only on the internal politics with a view to destabilising the government, seemingly oblivious to international concerns. Yet, it is not too late, there are instruments to bring about a consensual foreign policy such as a White Paper or similar document to Parliament, whenever it resumes, for debate and decision on policy guidance in order to mark the reliability and good standing of our country, whichever government is in power.
The Kodikara framework also underlines the relevance of timing. The Wickremesinghe Government kept promising more jobs and rising incomes and to this end it seems the magic recipe was to conclude more FTAs and become an “aggressive free trader”. One was reminded of the wellknown quote attributed to former President J.R. Jayewardene, “Let the robber barons come”. The problem is that today we live in a different era where global disruptions from political movements, migration, technology innovation and climate change are creating confusion, fear and rising nationalism in the public (including in countries which previously led the movement for a liberal rules-based world order like the UK and US) -- a situation which the Joint Opposition had exploited fully.
The Wickremesinghe Government’s trade policy had revealed sharp differences of opinion between the academics and business. For example, take the constant refrain from the World Bank theorists suggesting there are opportunities for Sri Lankan exporters in the huge Indian middle class market, whereas Sri Lankan exporters, who have come a cropper on the many nontariff barriers at Tamil Nadu state level, know that theory and practice are far apart. One interesting argument aired in the media by a Sri Lankan international civil servant was that trade policy should be formulated by economists and academics and that professional lobby groups should not be “deal breakers”. Yet, these professional groups and business people will have to bear the brunt of the outcome of these trade deals; so, of course, they should be very much involved in the process. Another criticism was the use of Sri Lankan experts to drive trade policy and lead negotiations who are mainly retired or on secondment from international jobs and, therefore, not accountable to any local institution. Worse still, there are rumours that these intermediaries were being paid exorbitant salaries out of foreign grants which would seem they would be liable to push the agenda advanced by international agencies rather than work for the national interest.
In Singapore, the FTA negotiating team has continuity, being skilled government lawyers familiar with the new generation of highly technical drafts. Earlier, FTA negotiation came within the ambit of our Department of Commerce and its officials were experienced in identifying national interest, listening to the private sector and untangling business problems in a very practical way. The Indian FTA, for example, was anchored in long, careful study involving many stakeholders, to identify where gains were expected and if there were any “losers” how they could be compensated, including through, for example, putting in place anti-dumping measures. But the previous practice has been done away with in the interest of quick fixes for political gain. This is why many believe today that the Singapore FTA is a decoy for the hitherto blocked ETCA with India. Thus the recent invitation and red carpet treatment for Mahinda Rajapaksa in India is being interpreted as a clever move by Indian foreign policy makers to blunt future opposition.
Another interesting question is why Singapore, as an economic power house, should want to enter into a FTA with Sri Lanka, which is struggling in a political and economic mess? Both Sri Lanka and Singapore are port cities with strategic location in the proximity of important sea lanes in the IndoPacific area. Singapore may need to watch closely the development of ports in Sri Lanka with the entry of the China factor for any adverse impact on its own port assets. Singapore would want to obtain the best level of profitability and protection for its investments here. Their professionals are already grabbing the business from our locals in areas such as architecture, urban planning etc ,which some argue is fair enough as it will raise standards here, but on the contrary will it drive away our home talent and creativity to foreign lands?
However, one lesson to learn from Singapore is the value that their leaders have placed on incorporating heritage assets into policy planning for sustainable outcomes, even inventing where nothing existed before, covering sectors such as urban planning, conservation of buildings, setting up of parks and gardens with plants from all over the world and using sustainable methods for harvesting of water and renewable energy etc. Singapore has created from scratch a Botanical Gardens (with some help from Sri Lankan experts like Dr Joachim) and obtained UNESCO World Heritage status for it, while in Sri Lanka, we have the Royal Botanical Gardens in Peradeniya, with its rich history, unique collections of trees and plants and even historical botanical drawings, to which no one pays much attention.
This article argues that Sri Lanka needs to build a new sustainable foreign policy based on protection of its heritage assets. We parade our wealth of such resources, our elephants and whales, our biodiversity, our ancient sites and monuments in glossy advertisements to attract tourism, investment and commerce, yet how much of the resources obtained from these industries are devoted to protection of these heritage assets? Let us hope that as a new third force is emerging on our political scene under the stewardship of Prof. Peiris, in response to the in-fighting in the major political parties and public disillusionment over politicians blatant corruption and lack of moral values, some thought will be given to making a fresh beginning towards building such a sustainable foreign policy. At the same time the events in Saudi Arabia are a warning that even crown princes are not immune from international censure should they have “bloody hands”.
Another interesting question is why Singapore, as an economic power house, should want to enter into a FTA with Sri Lanka, which is struggling in a political and economic mess? Both Sri Lanka and Singapore are port cities with strategic location in the proximity of important sea lanes in the Indo-Pacific area. Singapore may need to watch closely the development of ports in Sri Lanka with the entry of the China factor for any adverse impact on its own port assets.