One of the striking features of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy of the past few years is an almost pre conceived notion that Western countries are hostile to Sri Lanka.
Starting from this premise our foreign policy dealings have been unnecessarily antagonistic to the West thus not allowing us to engage with these countries in a manner beneficial to the country. This seems to be a continuation of the mindset that the Government has towards those who differ from it to be traitors. Those countries who express views at variance with Sri Lanka are perceived as those wanting to infringe Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and therefore their views should be summarily dismissed.
There are too many spokesmen, official and unofficial, on foreign policy matters. These spokesmen rant and rave from political platforms making a variety of allegations ranging from alleged conspiracies in the foreign embassies in Colombo, to describing high officials of the United Nations as terrorists.
It is axiomatic that every country designs and implements its foreign policy so as to further its own interests. Sri Lanka too is entitled to do so. But it cannot forget that it is part of the international community and has obligations towards the comity of nations. Being a small country its interests are best served by earning the respect of the world and holding the moral high ground.
While there is no denying the fact that western nations are guilty of major foreign policy blunders that have resulted in humanitarian disasters as in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel, it is also necessary to realize that over the years the West has to a great extent supported Sri Lanka’s campaign against the LTTE. The US, UK and the EU banned the LTTE and started tightening the screws on its fund raising in their countries.
 |
| A protest against a western embassy in Sri Lanka |
Since the Government began its ‘no turning back’ military campaign after the LTTE’s Mavil Aru fiasco, the West indirectly backed the Government by turning a blind eye to its successes on the battle-field. It is only in the closing stages of the fighting that the Western countries got activated.
Their call to the Sri Lankan government to call off the fighting when it was on the verge of victory without applying equal or more pressure on the LTTE to release the civilians being held hostage by them was both unrealistic and a strategic blunder.
The reasons for such a flurry of activity at such a decisive stage of the fighting are unclear. It may have been due to genuine humanitarian concerns, vis a vis the civilian population trapped in the fighting; it may have been due to pressure by panicking relatives of such civilians in the diaspora; it may have been due to heavy lobbying by LTTE sympathizers or it could have been a combination of two or more of the above reasons.
Such concerns of the western countries, whatever their motivations may have been, could best have been dealt with by engaging with them meaningfully and giving them the correct version of the situation. A skilful handling of an undoubtedly difficult situation would have helped to diffuse tensions between the West and Sri Lanka and also help us to paint the correct picture which was clouded by the absence of authentic information from the battlefield.
Addressing concerns raised internally in a positive manner too would have helped considerably to allay any fears that sections of the international community would have had. When one million Brits went on a march in London to protest against the Iraq war no one was called a traitor.
Lakshman Kadirgamar was one of the strongest critics of the Ceasefire Agreement of 2002. Yet not once did he use the word traitor or treachery to describe those who supported the CFA. By calling everyone who differed from the official point of view as traitors, the Government has lost the support of many who could have been valuable allies in the task of protecting Sri Lanka’s image internationally.
Another factor that works against Sri Lanka’s interests is that the services of the experts in the field are under utilized or not utilized at all. The experience and expertise of our Foreign Ministry officials have been undervalued despite them having faced and overcome many difficult situations in their dealings with the rest of the world.
After all it was with these same officials that former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar worked painstakingly to turn around a hostile international environment to one that was supportive of Sri Lanka. The national interest demands that the services of these officials be put to best use in Sri Lanka’s interests.
The writer can be contacted at javidyusuf@yahoo.com
| 
E-mail
