• States that US informed about ‘emergency’ at sea via email, SL responded in line with int’l obligations
• Says other warring parties requested use of SL airports and ports, were turned down due to requests not being within scope of int’l law, rules of warfare
• IRIS Bushehr’s engine being repaired; warship will be interned in Trincomalee which has designated areas for naval activities
• SL will keep Iranian sailors under its supervision during internment period
• SL to move forward with Defence Review 2030 with changes made, plans to upgrade armed forces

The ongoing military action against Iran by allies Israel and the United States came close to home in the first week of March, with a US Navy submarine torpedoing an Iranian warship, the IRIS Dena, outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters on 4 March. The torpedo also sank Sri Lanka’s laidback attitude to geopolitics, thrusting the Government into its first serious foreign policy test, especially with another Iranian warship seeking refuge at the Colombo Port. 

The ensuing situation and how the Government handled it have been under scrutiny both domestically and internationally. According to the Government, Sri Lanka acted under its obligations to international law and its long-held diplomatic principles of neutrality. Addressing the nation, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake outlined the rationale for the decision of the State. 

The incident also exposed long-standing gaps in sovereign capacity for persistent situational awareness over the island’s maritime domain, especially the underwater domain. Sri Lanka has given permission for over 200 Iranian sailors to be interned in Sri Lanka under international law for the period of the conflict and moved to repatriate the remains of the 84 Iranian sailors who were killed during the attack.

In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Morning, Ministry of Defence Secretary Air Vice Marshal (Retd) Sampath Thuyacontha explained the Government’s approach to the delicate issue and revealed that other warring parties had also requested the use of Sri Lankan facilities, which had been turned down, like the one made by Iran for its auxiliary replenishment ship, the IRIS Bushehr, after the first ship was sunk, as the terms sought for its stay did not fall within the scope of international law.

Following are excerpts: 

Can you give some clarity on the timeline of the sinking of the Iranian warship, the IRIS Dena, and the subsequent search and rescue operation which Sri Lanka launched to save lives at sea? 

First, on the day of the incident (4), our Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) received an email from the US Indo-Pacific fleet at 0508 hours indicating that there was an emergency requirement south of Galle, around 19 nautical miles off our southern coast.

The location was outside our territorial waters and not an area which is restricted for vessels to travel – freedom of navigation is allowed. In this part of the sea, Sri Lanka has search and rescue obligations and has economic rights within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 

When the MRCC got the message about the emergency unfolding, our established procedures kicked in; we activated our emergency search and rescue mechanisms and responded immediately. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) was informed and in the loop. I directed the Sri Lanka Navy (SLN) to reach the area of the incident and report back. Six Navy vessels were dispatched for the search and rescue mission, including fast-attack craft and fast vessels like the SLNS Nandimithra and Rathnadeepa, which were attached to our Navy’s Southern Command. We also dispatched an Air Force maritime patrol aircraft to assist with the search and rescue mission. 

We knew that this was an attack and that the IRIS Dena had been sunk. Reports from the rescue mission confirmed our understanding, with reports of survivors and dead in the water. We moved promptly to save lives. That is our responsibility under international law. Sri Lanka is responsible for search and rescue in that part of the Indian Ocean. We are responsible under international law for the Flight Information Region (FIR) that has been entrusted to us.

There has been a lot of debate about the foreign warship being attacked so close to our waters. Did the US authorities, in their correspondence to the MRCC, indicate that they torpedoed the IRIS Dena?

They didn’t say anything about an attack. They notified us that there was an emergency situation at sea. That is the reporting procedure during conventional war. 

Once you neutralise or disarm any vessel or person involved in the war, the obligation of the warring parties is to inform that the impacted crew or persons are no longer capable of engaging in war and for them to be rescued. That is what the US did and we responded. We reacted quickly and saved lives. We recovered the remains of 84 deceased Iranian sailors.

The Navy responded to an emergency situation, but it was essentially rushing to the site of a combat sinking of a foreign warship and it managed to uphold Sri Lanka’s obligations by rescuing over 30 survivors. Will the SLN crews and vessels involved in the action be commended for their actions? 

We will have to think about that. That is part of the after-action process to see if there are any special considerations to be made. The SLN is a professional force; it is doing well in many areas, especially in countering narcotics trafficking. The three services are doing well. We are leading them correctly and we will give them due recognition.

What were the international legal considerations that played a part in the rescue and recovery effort with the IRIS Dena and the disembarking of Iranian sailors from the auxiliary vessel, the IRIS Bushehr? 

We extensively analysed the international and domestic legal considerations. We held multiple Security Council meetings and kept the Government fully informed about the developing situation and legal obligations. The President, as the Commander-in-Chief, was present and led these meetings. 

We analysed the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea when we acted. We acted based on our obligation to international law, our foreign policy principles, and the desire to save lives.

There are allegations, especially by some members of the Opposition, that the IRIS Dena warship made a request to call at one of our ports and that Sri Lanka’s delay in granting permission led to this outcome. Did the Dena seek permission to enter a port and what happened? What happened with the auxiliary vessel?

There was a request from Iran to dock three ships at the Colombo Port. We knew the situation in the Middle East was escalating, so we needed to analyse the situation. Also, the initial request was to allow the vessels to come into the Colombo Port and dock from 9 March, so we had time to consider.

When a request comes for any foreign warship to enter our ports, there is a procedure to follow and information to be verified. The request was to dock with effect from 9 March, so we had time to decide. In the meantime, the war between Israel, the US, and Iran had commenced. Once the attacks and military action commenced between those countries, there was a different rulebook to consider. 

Once the war started, a new request came asking for immediate access to our port. However, with an armed conflict ongoing, the docking of three ships – even if we had allowed them into Colombo Port – would have necessitated the vessels to vacate the port within 24 hours as per the laws of conflict and international law. This is clearly stated in international law. 

Subject to those conditions – 24 hours in and then vacate (the port) – we would have considered taking the vessels to our port, but that is not what happened. The Iranian request was to stay in port for more than that period (24 hours). 

You must understand that the Colombo Port is the heart of Sri Lanka’s economy; we can’t do anything to risk our national interest and stability. It is our duty to put our national interest first and Colombo is a commercial port.

Let me tell you this: there were requests from the rest of the warring parties involved in the conflict to call at our ports and airports. None of those requests were taken up at that time because of the situation with international law, which we need to follow.

When a request is made for a ship or an aircraft to visit one of our ports or airports, especially while the requesting parties are at war, there is a specific international law framework to follow. They need to clearly inform if the visit is for humanitarian purposes or a technical stop, etc., and they need to explain the requirement. As per the law, only 24 hours are allowed for such vessels and crafts to stay in port and they must vacate the port within that timeframe.

In this situation, however, the requests from the Iranian ships and the requests from the other warring parties to use our facilities came with a request to stay beyond 24 hours. The other warring parties wanted a prolonged stay in Sri Lanka for their military assets. That we cannot allow.

The Bushehr, for which the original request to enter Colombo Port was with effect from 9 March, then requested to call at the Colombo Port on the evening of the attack (4) and to stay for longer than 24 hours. The situation was complex and developing. 

Post the attack on the IRIS Dena, the IRIS Bushehr declared that it had an emergency and informed us that it had engine trouble. By that evening it had entered our territorial waters. Since it was in our territorial waters and had declared engine trouble, we needed to ensure no one attacked the vessel in our waters.

While all this was going on, we had ongoing diplomatic discussions with all parties at the highest level. The President was involved in these discussions, there was good coordination amongst the diplomatic missions, and as a Government, we did what was within the scope of law and in our national interest. We can’t allow a foreign vessel to be attacked in our territorial waters and we don’t want to see lives lost.

It is sad that even while Sri Lanka was handling a delicate diplomatic matter, there were those in Parliament and outside who tried to mislead the public with misinformation. Also, these are the very same Opposition figures who cry foul when we sign important Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with friendly nations in the region and beyond on defence training, humanitarian assistance and disaster response, and security programmes which have mutual benefits. 

They shout that our neutrality has been given away. How wrong they are. Take this incident, for example; we acted on our principles of neutrality and in accordance with our obligations under international law. The conspiracy theories which were disseminated by some irresponsible politicians about such MOUs and agreements have been proven wrong with this incident.

What is the current condition of the Bushehr? Has Sri Lanka taken the vessel over? And why was Trincomalee picked as the port to intern the vessel? 

At present, we are trying to repair the engine to get it underway. We are working with the crew of the vessel to make repairs. Why Trincomalee? Because it is our main naval base and because the other ports are mainly involved in commercial activities. At Trincomalee, we have designated areas for naval operations and we have room to keep the vessel anchored for the period of stay. This is a military affair; the Bushehr is a foreign military vessel, so Trincomalee is the best location for us to intern the vessel.

How will the repatriation of the Iranian sailors be handled?

All the sailors, including the injured ones, are interned at our military facilities. As per international conventions, we are not in a position to dispatch those sailors to Iran or any other place during the conflict period. They are under our supervision and stationed in our facilities.

What about the remains of the dead Iranian sailors?

We are repatriating the remains of the 84 Iranian sailors who lost their lives today (13). They will be repatriated on board a civil aircraft, from a third party, which was arranged in coordination with the Iranian mission. The aircraft will depart from the Mattala Airport.

This incident highlights gaps in Sri Lanka’s maritime domain awareness capabilities, especially in our underwater domain awareness, which has been a long-felt need. Will the Government address such gaps and ensure we have improved multi-domain situational awareness in our maritime domain?

Yes. Ideally the Navy should have the capability to detect and identify activity on the surface and underwater. This gap has been well known for some time. The Ministry of Defence is well aware of the gaps and the requirements. However, we need to prioritise what we can spend on. 

This (underwater domain awareness) issue is not the only issue which we need to focus on. The sinking of the IRIS Dena is a rare incident. At present, the likelihood of Sri Lankan vessels being targeted in an underwater attack in the conventional sense is remote. Sri Lanka has no desire to have a conventional conflict with any country and I don’t think there is any country that has such ill intentions towards us on the horizon.  

However, for national defence and for our naval capacity to be robust, we need to equip ourselves, especially to bridge the gaps in our situational awareness and monitoring. There are also capabilities which we need to look at in terms of airpower and land warfare.

The ongoing priority in defence spending is to make sure the existing assets and capabilities of the armed forces are sustained. Assets like aircraft, ships, and weapons need to be maintained and kept ready. That is the current focus. In time to come, we will move to acquire sonar and other advanced defence systems. We are considering such requirements.

Maintaining a military is an expensive affair and we are diligent about how we spend public funds. Nevertheless, we are well aware of the need to modernise and bring in new technology, which will be considered in the future, as it is needed to maintain national security. In due course, we will modernise. For example, to improve aerial maritime domain awareness and for counter-trafficking missions, we are considering acquiring some unmanned aerial systems to improve seaward surveillance and reconnaissance.

The Sri Lanka Navy had published a 2030 strategy with a planned fleet expansion. There was a Defence Review conducted in 2023–’24. Will the Government use the existing Defence Review and move to upgrade the armed forces?

The Government is considering the Defence Review 2030 which was done and we want to improve on the existing document. Our Government is of the view that we will likely need to make some changes to it, especially make some additions in areas of administration and recruitment. We are currently studying the review. 

We are also planning to draft an additional Terms of Reference (TOR) for recruitment; we need to motivate our youth to join the armed forces. We want the best of our youth to serve the nation, so we need to make joining up an attractive proposition for young men and women. It is difficult to find the right people for the armed forces, so we are rethinking how we approach that. We also want to improve our contribution to the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations. 

How can Sri Lanka improve regional security cooperation as global disruptions increase? Can the Government build on existing regional architecture, such as the Colombo Security Conclave and Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA)? 

The Colombo Security Conclave is one platform that can be used; it has been there for many years. As a new Government, we needed to study the existing frameworks on security cooperation, which takes some time. We are keen to improve regional cooperation on security-related matters, especially maritime security. Sri Lanka maintains good security dialogue with regional partners and extra-regional ones, and we will continue to build on them.

Allegations have been made that the Sri Lanka Navy Commander, who also attended the Indian Navy International Fleet Review (IFR) in Visakhapatnam, had invited the Iranian ships to come to our ports. What are your views about this allegation? 

The Navy Commander attended the Indian Navy IFR. It is customary for participating nations to invite other navies to visit them during such engagements. These are long-standing norms in defence and naval diplomacy. 

The Commander had extended an invitation to all participants to call on our ports; this is customary. This is done by many navies at such events. Mind you, there is protocol and procedure to follow when a specific invitation is issued or a request to visit a port is made. No specific invitation was issued to any particular navy during the IFR.

Also, even if an invitation is extended to a foreign navy or coast guard, there is still the standard diplomatic clearance procedure that needs to be followed for approval to be granted. The process must be followed and approval is only given following the host nation’s satisfaction with the parameters of the official request which is filed.