With a young government at the helm Sri Lanka is entering 2025 with much to gain, and significant risks to navigate. The coming few years will be fraught with many internal and external pressures which Sri Lanka needs to meet with foresight and planning.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake commenced his foreign visit, with the first to New Delhi last year, and this week he is in Beijing and met Chinese President Xi Jinping. A statement issued by the Presidential Media Division (PMD) stated that during the discussions, President Xi Jinping had emphasised China’s readiness to work closely with Sri Lanka in ushering in a ‘new era of development’. While Sri Lanka traverses through these difficult times, and looks ahead to an ever increasing area of geopolitical contents between global and regional powers, the importance of a robust, well-planned, clear and practical foreign policy becomes ever more evident.
However, unlike many countries, Sri Lanka does not have a ‘foreign policy document’ – or a written foreign policy paper which the external world can read and comprehend us through. Sri Lanka has neither published a foreign policy document, nor a national security/defence policy whitepaper.
Over the last few decades Sri Lankan lawmakers, diplomats and some of the few foreign policy experts the island has produced have spoken in favour of not having a ‘black and white’ foreign policy. Sri Lanka has long trumpeted a so-called ‘balanced foreign policy’, which the island’s political masters have stood on since the non-aligned era. Many have called on this policy to be revitalised, and a non-aligned approach by maintaining equitable relationships with major powers such as India, China, the US and European Union. They have also called for avoidance of over-dependence on any single country to preserve strategic autonomy and attract global foreign direct investment. The reluctance to have a foreign policy document perhaps stems from the old establishment’s view that a diplomat should be a jack of all trades – a representative who can juggle duties and requirements for Colombo in an overseas capitol. Also, proponents for the lack of a clearly articulated foreign policy document, argue that it offers Sri Lanka and our diplomats a degree of flexibility in the international area, which small States of the past found to be beneficial.
What such proponents have failed to grasp is that the world, diplomacy and global interactions have evolved significantly since the era of ‘non-alignment’. Even a brief analysis of how diplomacy is being used today globally will indicate that for a majority of countries, both large and small, diplomats and diplomacy is being more vital and one of specialisation. It seems that Sri Lanka, where the foreign policy-making circle remains small, and with political leaders who never really gave foreign policy its due priority, are going to miss the bus, as the world of diplomacy evolves.
One only needs to take a look at key foreign missions in Colombo, to see that they have more diplomats and analysts in their missions than Sri Lanka has in many of our missions in key capitals across the world. This is due to specialists being used, and analysis – be it political, economic, trade, cultural or security-related – being a cornerstone of their respective foreign policies.
Today, in 2025 with the changing ties of the international arena, and Sri Lanka in a very different place compared to where it was in the 1960’s and 70’s, the question: Should Sri Lanka formulate a foreign policy document? Has merit. With a paradigm shift in Colombo’s political landscape, many countries, even ones which have long-standing relationships with Sri Lanka, are finding it difficult to understand us, and our direction of governance. The recent circular which tightly regulates communication between State entities and foreign missions will only aggravate the issue. The State seems to have forgotten that diplomacy, while conducted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has a role for all government ministries and institutions. With debt restructuring nearly complete, a bailout programme from the IMF to follow to the letter, and need to attract foreign investments to boost Sri Lanka’s economic growth, Sri Lanka cannot afford ‘misunderstandings’ and must be able to face the many disruptions which can occur confidently with help from our friends and partners. Trust and transparency is key in such a situation.
Given the seriousness of the crisis Sri Lanka is navigating her way out of, and the turbulent nature of the international arena in the coming decade, it may be prudent for Sri Lanka to develop a foreign policy document, so that our national interest is not misread, or our actions misunderstood. Perhaps it is time to have clarity and continuity on Sri Lanka’s stance on key foreign policy issues.