In a conversation that underscores Sri Lanka’s precarious balancing act in the Indian Ocean, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Arun Hemachandra confirmed that the multisectoral committee tasked with operationalising the country’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for foreign research vessels remained undecided on the matter.
“There is still no final consensus on the SOPs,” Hemachandra stated. “The SOPs of the former Government were circulated, reviewed, and debated across institutions, but we have not moved forward on implementation yet. I must admit I am not a part of the committee, but there is no final decision yet.”
This indecision comes at a time when Sri Lanka’s maritime space, strategically located and increasingly contested, is drawing growing attention from global scientific missions, regional security actors, and policymakers alike. The absence of a codified, transparent process to govern the entry of foreign research vessels has left the island nation mired in diplomatic ambiguity and exposed to external pressures.
Promise of SOPs
The origins of Sri Lanka’s SOPs trace back to a period of heightened geopolitical tension in the Indian Ocean. In late 2022 and early 2023, several high-profile visits by foreign research vessels, most notably from China, sparked alarm bells in neighbouring India and provoked questions about the nature of maritime scientific activity within Sri Lankan waters.
Amidst rising regional scrutiny, then Foreign Minister Ali Sabry, PC led a policy push to create a standardised framework that would remove the guesswork and ad hoc diplomacy from such visits.
“The SOP was developed to establish transparent and uniform guidelines for the entry of foreign vessels, including research ships, into Sri Lanka,” said Sabry speaking to The Sunday Morning. “While research vessels were a key consideration, the SOP is not limited to them alone. It applies broadly to any foreign ships and even flights that arrive in Sri Lanka.”
Drafted in consultation with maritime legal experts and relevant domestic agencies, the SOPs provide a detailed process for submitting port entry requests. They include mandates for disclosure of equipment onboard, scientific objectives, Sri Lankan observer participation, data-sharing protocols, and post-mission reporting.
Crucially, the framework aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), emphasising principles of sovereignty, marine scientific research cooperation, and equitable benefit-sharing.
Why then a moratorium?
Despite the completion and internal circulation of the SOPs, the Government imposed a sweeping moratorium on all foreign research vessels instead of adopting the framework. The move appeared sudden but, as Sabry explained, was rooted in deeper institutional and geopolitical challenges.
“Sri Lanka lacked the technical and institutional capacity to vet or participate in these research missions,” he said. “We did not have the necessary expertise or designated authorities to assess what kind of research was being conducted, who from our side could participate, or who had the legal and administrative mandate to approve or monitor such missions.
“Additionally, some of these visits raised concerns and competing interests among international actors, which complicated our diplomatic position. Given Sri Lanka’s economic vulnerability at the time, particularly during critical discussions with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), we had to be cautious. Any misstep could have jeopardised international support for debt restructuring and economic recovery,” Sabry said.
The vacuum in scientific oversight capabilities coincided with a delicate moment in Sri Lanka’s foreign relations. The country was entering critical negotiations with the IMF to restructure its debt and required goodwill from multiple global stakeholders. Avoiding a regional flare-up was paramount.
“The moratorium was a strategic pause,” Sabry explained. “It was a decision not to offend either side while we built our internal competence and coordination. It was a temporary measure aimed at capacity-building in order to identify relevant Sri Lankan stakeholders, define national research priorities, and build the expertise required to responsibly engage with foreign research initiatives.”
A prolonged paralysis
The moratorium has since come to an end as of 31 December 2024 and the SOPs remain legally inert as of today. Despite the passage of time, successive administrations have neither revoked the SOPs nor ratified them, leaving Sri Lanka in a policy vacuum.
Hemachandra’s admission that the multisectoral committee, composed of officials from the Ministries of Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Ports; the National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA); and the Navy, is yet to reach an agreement and has not yet reached a final determination is quite telling.
In the absence of a clear framework, each foreign vessel request is processed on a case-by-case basis, filtered through multiple layers of informal communication between embassies and ministries.
Ministry of Defence Media Director and Spokesperson Col. Nalin Herath stated that the discussions on the SOPs were helmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the final decision had yet to be communicated.
Regional ripples
The lack of clarity has already begun to reverberate beyond Sri Lanka’s shores. Navy Spokesperson Captain Gayan Wickramasuriya confirmed that no research vessels had entered Sri Lanka in the past six months since the moratorium had ended and that no specific requests for the entry of research vessels had been received to date.
India, wary of the surveillance potential of certain Chinese research vessels, continues to press Colombo for transparency and coordination. Beijing, in turn, asserts that its maritime missions are consistent with international norms and purely scientific in intent.
Sri Lanka, lacking both a functioning SOP and independent verification mechanisms, is caught between these competing narratives. A source within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the Government feared that implementing the SOPs would be seen as taking sides in the India-China rivalry, hence the delay.
Expressing the conviction that transparency, not equivocation, was Sri Lanka’s strongest card, Sabry said: “I really don’t know the current Government’s plan regarding the SOPs. The SOP we developed was already in place and shared with the countries whose vessels had visited Sri Lanka over the past decade. It cannot simply be recalled.
“If the current Government has chosen not to proceed with it or to modify it, it may have its own reasons or strategic concerns. However, from our side, the framework was already developed and implemented during our tenure.”
The cost of inaction
At the core of Sri Lanka’s SOP stalemate lies a deeper identity crisis: how does a small State assert autonomy in a region dominated by great powers? How can it safeguard its waters without surrendering to fear or falling prey to opportunism?
A functioning SOP is not just a document; it is a declaration of intent. It says that Sri Lanka is prepared to engage, cooperate, and lead in setting norms for marine science and regional stability. The current vacuum is more than a missed opportunity; it is a strategic liability.