- By Dr. Shanthikumar Hettiarachchi
- Sunday, 05 January 2014 00:00
- Sri Lanka’s foreign policy itself has changed and shaped in the context of the war it fought for thirty years. Foreign policy moved as the mode of the war and the abortive peace talks shifted from negotiation tables of Timpu to Oslo to the ‘tragic’Nanddikadal precincts of the Mullaitive district. (AFP)
The states big and small in all regional and international political, defense, trade and other alliances have almost a critical and an unprecedented impasse trying to hold on to a ‘traditional understanding of a foreign policy’. It would have been easy for a country developed or developing to define, maintain and make active reference to a specific area of a foreign policy when adhered or violated. One would ask when exactly in recent history that such a shift did take place? It might be difficult to identify a particular date, but some are of view that the fall of the Berlin Wall might help them to locate a real need for redefinition of foreign policy globally. The old cold war camps (Capitalist and Socialist) with defunct satellites functionaries of the US or USSR foreign policies or to act as extension of policies that did not make sense in the post 1989 winds of change. This does not mean that each individual country was not able to evolve its own policies indigenously. Each in their own way evolved and worked through to develop their relations with both friend and foe. It is in this context the real shift takes place with the 9/11 attacks on US soil by the Al Qaeda terror network. The world felt that there was ‘a clear and present danger’ in every single region of the world.
Sri Lanka’s Experience
As a small island nation, Sri Lanka too was part of the Cold War political landscape, but it shifted its position of allegiance and alliance to the global Right and Left, depending on the Right or Left wing political current leading to governance within. Its foreign policy too shifted accordingly and has a legacy of being both pro American and pro Russian intermittently. However, the Non Aligned Movement with the able leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, President Sukarno of Indonesia, Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah, and Yugoslavia’s President Josip Broz Tito. All five leaders were prominent advocates of a middle course for states in the ‘Developing World’. This world, whatever they meant for the first time, were able think hard on matters that pertained to their nations and people in the context of global changes they experienced. They had their first conference in 1961 in Belgrade under the leadership of Marshal Tito who wished a different model of governance and of course foreign policy. Its activities are of a less influence now even though they have had conferences every three to five years. Next is due in Caracas in Venezuela in 2015 and Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran assumed his position as its General Secretary which can spark new light on foreign policy and diplomacy. The 120 member states including Sri Lanka certainly has varying foreign policy frameworks. They probably differ among themselves. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy itself has changed and shaped in the context of the war it fought for thirty years. Foreign policy moved as the mode of the war and the abortive peace talks shifted from negotiation tables of Timpu to Oslo to the ‘tragic’Nanddikadal precincts of the Mullaitive district. It will continue to shift and those decision-makers need constant tab on this extremely important area that affects governance.
Diplomacy (CUM)
Foreign policy certainly moved from pre-war, war-time and post -war periods identifying country’s friends and foes on this island nation. No state today in the global context can function with a tailor made policy as such develops itself in different directions compelling states to act with uncertainties on the home front. Towards the end of the recent war was one such example where the war troubled masses cum the solution drained institutions held breaks on foreign policy directions for the first time in the terror ridden period of Sri Lanka to redirect its own course of action to end the war. Then of course the repercussions flooding from all quarters were obvious and required measured action.
Foreign policy is not an academic recipe neither it is a streetwise device to resolve issues. It today faces the most challenging course of history since World War II. Churchill’s policy was crystal clear so was his counterpart in the US to end the Nazi machine, foreign policy of both nations flew out of No. 10 Downing Street and the White House when they decided to bomb beautiful Dresden with no mercy. War displaces all policy, whether the US, UK Germany, France or Russia, they conveniently argue that war is extraordinary and that it’s normal to have collateral damage. BBC including Channel 4 and the CNN shamelessly the so called media pundits announce emphatically such as possible collateral damage when actors they support are at war. The debate on human rights violations is conveniently put in the backburner. The rights perspective reemerges once again when convenient to them. Then these actors become globally responsible rights protectors. Many watch this political discrepancy and diplomatic hypocrisy in dismay and repulsion
‘Nanny furor’
Foreign policy however formidable bilaterally, yet one sensitive incident can dent and derail all such bilateral relations if not handle with right diplomatic demeanor. The latest diplomatic and foreign policy stunt is the India and US ‘nanny furor’ in New York which led to the silly removal of security infrastructure around the US embassy in Delhi. It seems like an action of an enemy, not an angry friend. Delhi based American officials may not make a big public outcry about this for safety reasons. But unfortunately it will be remembered as a reckless move on the part of the Delhi ‘diplomacy’with immense local issues emanating within its own soil. States should be able to disagree with each other without jeopardizing life and limb both at the same time. Foreign policy if such exists authentically in any State then it must today be closely knitted with carefully and measured parameters of diplomacy. Foreign policy without right diplomacy is bound to derail. What states need today is highly skilled diplomats and not necessarily foreign policy gurus with lack of diplomacy. Foreign policy of a country may be skillfully drafted, but real execution happens through well trained diplomats. Global political landscapes today are run mostly by diplomats of all sorts within all state and non-state institutions. Today’s governance heavily depends on the levels of diplomacies willing to deploy for its own advantage, the victor in such a situation is the most skilled actor. In this game there are no experts forever as it was before. What one finds are multi-lateral dealings from the grassroots to the high powered political corridors of a state run strategy, but intricately linked to other economic and non state institutions. Global politics today more than ever determines the fate of foreign policy and diplomacy and all states must be aware of this volatile nature now ingrained in every nook and corner of each of their body polity.
As a small island nation, Sri Lanka too was part of the Cold War political landscape, but it shifted its position of allegiance and alliance to the global Right and Left, depending on the Right or Left wing political current leading to governance within. Its foreign policy too shifted accordingly and has a legacy of being both pro American and pro Russian intermittently. However, the Non Aligned Movement with the able leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, President Sukarno of Indonesia, Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghana’s President Kwame Nkrumah, and Yugoslavia’s President Josip Broz Tito. All five leaders were prominent advocates of a middle course for states in the ‘Developing World’. This world, whatever they meant for the first time, were able think hard on matters that pertained to their nations and people in the context of global changes they experienced. They had their first conference in 1961 in Belgrade under the leadership of Marshal Tito who wished a different model of governance and of course foreign policy. Its activities are of a less influence now even though they have had conferences every three to five years. Next is due in Caracas in Venezuela in 2015 and Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran assumed his position as its General Secretary which can spark new light on foreign policy and diplomacy. The 120 member states including Sri Lanka certainly has varying foreign policy frameworks. They probably differ among themselves. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy itself has changed and shaped in the context of the war it fought for thirty years. Foreign policy moved as the mode of the war and the abortive peace talks shifted from negotiation tables of Timpu to Oslo to the ‘tragic’Nanddikadal precincts of the Mullaitive district. It will continue to shift and those decision-makers need constant tab on this extremely important area that affects governance.
Diplomacy (CUM)
Foreign policy certainly moved from pre-war, war-time and post -war periods identifying country’s friends and foes on this island nation. No state today in the global context can function with a tailor made policy as such develops itself in different directions compelling states to act with uncertainties on the home front. Towards the end of the recent war was one such example where the war troubled masses cum the solution drained institutions held breaks on foreign policy directions for the first time in the terror ridden period of Sri Lanka to redirect its own course of action to end the war. Then of course the repercussions flooding from all quarters were obvious and required measured action.
Foreign policy is not an academic recipe neither it is a streetwise device to resolve issues. It today faces the most challenging course of history since World War II. Churchill’s policy was crystal clear so was his counterpart in the US to end the Nazi machine, foreign policy of both nations flew out of No. 10 Downing Street and the White House when they decided to bomb beautiful Dresden with no mercy. War displaces all policy, whether the US, UK Germany, France or Russia, they conveniently argue that war is extraordinary and that it’s normal to have collateral damage. BBC including Channel 4 and the CNN shamelessly the so called media pundits announce emphatically such as possible collateral damage when actors they support are at war. The debate on human rights violations is conveniently put in the backburner. The rights perspective reemerges once again when convenient to them. Then these actors become globally responsible rights protectors. Many watch this political discrepancy and diplomatic hypocrisy in dismay and repulsion
‘Nanny furor’
Foreign policy however formidable bilaterally, yet one sensitive incident can dent and derail all such bilateral relations if not handle with right diplomatic demeanor. The latest diplomatic and foreign policy stunt is the India and US ‘nanny furor’ in New York which led to the silly removal of security infrastructure around the US embassy in Delhi. It seems like an action of an enemy, not an angry friend. Delhi based American officials may not make a big public outcry about this for safety reasons. But unfortunately it will be remembered as a reckless move on the part of the Delhi ‘diplomacy’with immense local issues emanating within its own soil. States should be able to disagree with each other without jeopardizing life and limb both at the same time. Foreign policy if such exists authentically in any State then it must today be closely knitted with carefully and measured parameters of diplomacy. Foreign policy without right diplomacy is bound to derail. What states need today is highly skilled diplomats and not necessarily foreign policy gurus with lack of diplomacy. Foreign policy of a country may be skillfully drafted, but real execution happens through well trained diplomats. Global political landscapes today are run mostly by diplomats of all sorts within all state and non-state institutions. Today’s governance heavily depends on the levels of diplomacies willing to deploy for its own advantage, the victor in such a situation is the most skilled actor. In this game there are no experts forever as it was before. What one finds are multi-lateral dealings from the grassroots to the high powered political corridors of a state run strategy, but intricately linked to other economic and non state institutions. Global politics today more than ever determines the fate of foreign policy and diplomacy and all states must be aware of this volatile nature now ingrained in every nook and corner of each of their body polity.
– See more at: http://www.nation.lk/edition/news-features/item/24370-global-politics-shifting-foreign-policy.html#sthash.a8mbV7j8.dpuf
Shanthi, you are right to point out that we need our politicians to think global and not engage in small scale arguments like the ‘nanny furore’. We need leadership that has a big vision for peace with integrity.