Sri Lanka’s response to the sinking of an Iranian warship within our Exclusive Economic Zone met with a lot of criticism from local opposition parties. However, once we take out the politically-tinted glasses, what is noteworthy is that at a time of intense international tension, the Government did not overreact. We acted in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). We fulfilled humanitarian obligations. We avoided emotional rhetoric. That was the right course.

Sri Lanka has long prided itself on a non-aligned foreign policy. That tradition has served us well. It has allowed us to engage with competing powers without becoming a pawn in their rivalries. It has helped us preserve strategic space. However, we must be honest with ourselves. Non-alignment in 2026 cannot look like it did in the 1970s.

The global order has changed. The Cold War’s rigid bipolar structure has given way to a far more fluid and unpredictable system. The US remains militarily dominant. China has expanded its economic and naval reach. Russia is assertive. India is increasingly influential in the Indian Ocean. A number of middle powers are pursuing their own strategic interests. The competition is now maritime, technological, economic, and military.

In that context, the torpedoing of a foreign warship in close proximity to Sri Lanka’s waters is a reminder of where we sit geographically. The theatre of conflict may be the Middle East. The consequences are global. The Indian Ocean is no longer just a trade route. It is an active strategic space.

Sri Lanka cannot afford to treat such developments as isolated events.

Our decision not to take sides publicly was wise. A small State must be careful. We do not gain by inflaming tensions between larger powers. But neutrality must not mean silence on principles. If military action takes place within or near our Exclusive Economic Zone, we are entitled to clarity. We are entitled to insist that international law is respected. We are entitled to demand that our security environment is not destabilised without regard to our interests.

There is also a practical lesson. The incident exposed how vulnerable smaller States are in a contested maritime environment. If a major naval power can carry out an operation so close to our waters, we must ask whether our surveillance and maritime domain awareness capabilities are adequate. Non-alignment without capacity is fragile. We need stronger monitoring systems and closer information sharing with regional partners.

At the diplomatic level, Sri Lanka must move beyond reactive statements. We should work more actively with Indian Ocean littoral States to develop a common voice on the militarisation of our region. Multilateral platforms exist, but they are often underutilised. If we do not speak collectively, the strategic narrative of the Indian Ocean will be written by others.

At the same time, we must be realistic about power. India promotes its vision of regional security. The US advances its Indo Pacific strategy. China deepens its maritime footprint. Each has interests. Each will act in pursuit of them. Sri Lanka’s task is not to confront these powers, nor to align unquestioningly with any of them. It is to protect our sovereignty while engaging all sides.

That requires discipline at home. Foreign policy must not become a tool for domestic point scoring. In moments of international crisis, political leaders should avoid inflammatory language designed to satisfy short-term public sentiment. The Government’s measured approach in this instance was appropriate. It must become standard practice.

There is a further point that cannot be ignored. The Indian Ocean has never truly been a neutral space. From colonial rivalries to superpower competition, it has long been an arena of power politics. The idea that Sri Lanka can remain untouched by global conflict is unrealistic. Our location is both an advantage and a risk. It gives us economic opportunity, but it also places us along critical sea lanes that major powers will continue to contest.

The question, therefore, is not whether we remain non-aligned. We should. The question is how we define non-alignment in a world where naval deployments, submarine operations, and strategic competition are routine in our maritime neighbourhood.

Sri Lanka handled this episode with composure. That deserves acknowledgement. But composure is only the first step. The more important task is to ensure that our neutrality is supported by capacity, clarity, and a stronger regional voice.