Former Foreign Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris has levelled a serious charge against the present Government. His claim that Sri Lanka today lacks a coherent foreign policy is not a matter that can be dismissed lightly. For a country located at the heart of the Indian Ocean sea lanes, silence and indecision in international affairs carry consequences far beyond diplomacy. They affect the economy, national security and the country’s global standing.
Prof. Peiris’ criticism came in the wake of Sri Lanka’s muted response to the recent United States strike on an Iranian naval vessel in waters close to the region. Whether one agrees with his political stance or not, the larger question he raises deserves careful reflection. At a time when geopolitical tensions are intensifying across the Indian Ocean and the Middle East, Sri Lanka cannot afford to appear uncertain or disengaged.
There was a time when this country was recognised for its diplomatic initiative and moral authority on the world stage. In 1962, Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike convened a conference of non-aligned Nations in Colombo in an attempt to mediate the conflict between India and China during their border war. The so-called ‘Colombo Proposals’ sought a peaceful settlement and were accepted by India and considered in principle by China, demonstrating the remarkable diplomatic credibility that Sri Lanka then enjoyed.
That was not an isolated example. Sri Lanka also played a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement and advocated the idea of the Indian Ocean as a ‘Zone of Peace’ at the United Nations. These were not merely symbolic gestures. They reflected a foreign policy rooted in independence, neutrality, and principled engagement with global affairs.
Successive leaders also understood the importance of diplomatic initiative. Agreements such as the Nehru-Kotelawala Pact and the later Sirima-Shastri Pact attempted to resolve complex citizenship issues involving the “people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka”. These agreements were controversial, but they demonstrated that the country was willing to engage actively with its neighbours in addressing difficult political questions.
Even during periods of internal conflict, Sri Lanka maintained a presence on the global stage. Presidents and foreign ministers regularly used international platforms to articulate the country’s position and defend its interests. Whether through multilateral forums, regional diplomacy or bilateral engagement, the country sought to maintain relevance.
That tradition appears to have weakened in recent years.
The reasons are not difficult to identify. Sri Lanka’s devastating economic crisis has inevitably reshaped the country’s foreign relations. Today, the country depends heavily on external assistance from bilateral partners and international financial institutions. Debt restructuring negotiations, IMF programmes and emergency financial support from regional powers have inevitably reduced Colombo’s diplomatic room for manoeuvre.
Economic vulnerability can easily translate into political caution. Governments become reluctant to take positions that might upset creditors or strategic partners. The result is a foreign policy that appears reactive rather than strategic.
Another challenge lies in the growing rivalry between major powers in the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka finds itself navigating an increasingly complex relationship with India, China, the United States and other actors. Each of these powers has significant economic and security interests in the island. Balancing those relationships requires careful diplomacy, clarity of purpose and long-term strategic thinking.
Silence, however, is not a strategy.
A country that sits along one of the busiest maritime routes in the world cannot remain indifferent to developments in its surrounding waters. Nearly all of Sri Lanka’s trade passes through the sea lanes of the Indian Ocean. Instability in those waters directly threatens exports, shipping costs and the viability of the country’s ports.
This is why mechanisms such as the Colombo Security Conclave matter. Regional cooperation in maritime security, disaster response and strategic dialogue is essential for small States that must navigate great power competition.
But such initiatives only succeed when there is political leadership behind them.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy must be guided by several clear principles. First, the country must reaffirm its long-standing commitment to strategic neutrality while maintaining constructive relations with all major powers. Second, diplomacy must be closely aligned with economic recovery. Foreign policy should actively support trade expansion, investment attraction and maritime development.
Third, Sri Lanka must once again find its voice in regional and multilateral forums. Small States can wield influence when they articulate principled positions and act as honest brokers. The history of Sri Lankan diplomacy shows that this is not an impossible task.
Prof. Peiris may have delivered his remarks from the Opposition benches, but the underlying warning deserves attention.