• SL lacks understanding and vision to effectively navigate geopolitical complexities
• Needs a better-resourced and equipped foreign policy mechanism, with relevant expertise and diverse views at the table

The new turbulent world order will be a difficult place for small states like Sri Lanka to navigate and secure our interests if the island does not prioritise an effective foreign policy mechanism and build necessary competencies, diplomatic historian and Awarelogue Initiative Initiator Dr. George Cooke told The Sunday Morning last week.

With the West Asia conflict, triggered by Israel and the US against Iran, still ongoing, and with efforts for ceasefire discussions in progress, Sri Lanka’s neutrality and commitment to the rule of law at sea will likely be put to the test again.

In an interview with The Sunday Morning, Dr. Cooke underscored Sri Lanka’s need to be ‘better prepared’ for external shocks as the country remains heavily dependent on external markets, energy supply, and tourism to stay afloat. He stressed the need for Sri Lanka to evolve its decision-making systems and discard entrenched thinking patterns that limit diplomatic and governance options.

Following are excerpts:

Last week, the Government moved to repatriate a majority of the Iranian sailors and cadets who were interned in Sri Lanka following the sinking of the warship IRIS Dena and the handover of another, the IRIS Bushehr. The departure of the Iranian ‘guests’ coincided with the failed first round of ceasefire talks between US and Iranian officials in Pakistan. Do you think Sri Lanka handled the affair well, given our geographic position, history, and circumstances?

Yes, as a country that respects international law, and is mindful of the need to avoid being drawn into others’ conflicts, Sri Lanka handled the situation well. The Iranians could have been repatriated much earlier, but formalities need to be followed as most of them had lost everything. Failed talks, which are hardly surprising, are not directly connected to Sri Lanka, whilst the safe return of the Iranians was, and as such, every measure was taken to assist them to return to their homeland.

The sinking of the Dena off Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, and in our contiguous waters (within 24 nautical miles), brought home to many Sri Lankans and the State the realisation that distant conflicts, which we are not a party to, are no longer that far. What are the key lessons for Sri Lanka from this episode in terms of governance and diplomacy?

A key lesson for all Sri Lankans is the importance of understanding international relations, and being conscious of the world around us and the impact it has on our daily lives. Whilst some study this sphere as an academic discipline, there are many who are completely ignorant about what occurs around us, even in our own neighbourhood. 

The sinking of the Dena was a wake-up call, along with the other impacts of the US/Israel-Iran conflict, as we have been too absorbed in day-to-day occurrences within the country. We are highly dependent on the outside world and need to be conscious of that fact, and must try to comprehend what is happening.

A key lesson for the State is to be prepared at all times for any eventuality. Conflicts anywhere cause problems everywhere, and as such the uncertain situation in West Asia is of critical importance to Sri Lanka. Every effort must be made to remain in close contact with those governments, and to make necessary short-, medium-, and long-term arrangements in Sri Lanka to respond to challenges that are already being experienced. 

Another key lesson for the State is to understand the complexities of diplomacy. Neutrality is not merely a word that is invoked at challenging times. It has a whole meaning of its own. We have been a non-aligned country for a significant period of our post-independence journey, but neutralism has its own meaning, with examples of Switzerland invoked frequently. 

When we rely on the US to buy the largest amount of our exports, and we happily receive ships and aircraft as gifts from them, we cannot claim to be neutral and veer away only in challenging times. That would be classified as opportunism. This is why we need to place much greater emphasis on comprehending our foreign policy, and not merely use terminology that is found internationally. We are in a unique position and need to be conscious of that position, and thus formulate and implement policy accordingly.

Do you think Sri Lanka has committed adequate resources to diplomatic and support services, such as linguists, international and maritime law experts, and country or region experts who are essential to ensure clear communications and negotiations during such crucial incidents? Do we need to improve our systems?  

We have much to improve. Sri Lanka sorely lacks such expertise in the decision-making process, and needs to ensure that those involved in formulating policy have a range of policies to pick from and implement, rather than being stuck with one way of thinking. 

This has been an unfortunate trend for much of this country’s foreign policy trajectory. You need varied voices at the table, representing those who are stakeholders in this diverse field. That is when the final decision becomes much richer and the best option for the well-being of the country is identified.

We do not need to look farther than our own neighbourhood, and we can see the resources that are devoted to their foreign policy mechanisms. They realise the significance of this field and do not compromise at all.

Our systems need to improve drastically. Thus far, with limited resources, both human and financial, much has been achieved, but we cannot keep going at this pace and hope that all will be fine with our international relations. If we want to merely survive, then we can continue doing things the way they have always been done. It will be harder in the future, but we will manage as we always have. However, if we want to soar, we must do much more. We must diversify policy formulation and implement well-crafted policies.

Given what transpired and continues to happen, do you think Sri Lanka should initiate a regional dialogue, through existing regional architecture or perhaps a new forum, about a common approach to conflicts in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR)? Perhaps a code of conduct for Search and Rescue (SAR), or humanitarian corridors/action?

Sri Lanka does not have the convening power that it used to possess. It almost seems like things that occurred in our history took place hundreds of years ago, when in fact it was unfolding on our shores a few decades back. We do not have the leadership or the bureaucracy to execute such regional gatherings, and have limited our ‘international’ meetings to routine matters only. 

There are two schools of thought on this matter. Either we are fearful of sticking out our heads and trying to be a peacemaker as we did in the past owing to concerns about the impact it would have on us, or we are completely ignorant of what we did, and the possibilities that exist for us to play a more decisive role in South Asia. 

An occasion on which Sri Lanka could have played a crucial role was in 2016 when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit was due to be held in Islamabad. A former President of Sri Lanka, who was instrumental in bringing the ‘Yahapalana’ Government to office, could have been sent to the disgruntled capitals to engage in shuttle diplomacy. 

She enjoyed a certain degree of acceptance and had been involved in bringing them together earlier, and could have done it again. However, we did not go down that path, and instead simply decided to turn down the invitation, after which the summit was postponed. A decade later, it remains uncertain as to when the Islamabad summit will ever happen. 

We have had opportunities to step forward and try to make the region a better place, but have not utilised some situations due to a lack of vision, a lack of interest, and most regrettably, a lack of understanding.

Given that Sri Lanka is a member of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and many issues related to Indian Ocean affairs, including security, are discussed at the forum, can it be a platform where member nations can formulate a common protocol or set of practices to deter conflict in the IOR? 

Yes, it can definitely be such a platform, but its member states, Sri Lanka included, are not using this ideal platform in the best interest of all. There are meetings and a few workshops, but regional cooperation is a lot more. There needs to be commitment on all sides and much deeper interest to ensure results which benefit the member states and their peoples. 

When Sri Lanka hosted the 23rd IORA Council of Ministers meeting in Colombo in October 2023, it was a meeting for foreign ministers, but did anyone ask how many foreign ministers from member states actually attended the meeting? This is the convening power that we lost quite some time ago and have not been able to recover as yet. What significant contribution did we make to the furthering of this organisation whilst we chaired it?

In recent days, it has been said that India might consider a summit-level gathering to mark the 30th anniversary of the IORA, as was done by Indonesia to mark the 20th anniversary. But the organisation needs momentum and meaningful engagement that yields results for the people of the member states. Whilst summits are helpful as they bring leaders together and result in their recommitment to the founding principles of such organisations, there needs to be large-scale follow-up and clarity of policy implementation.

This is why we need to strategise, which we sadly do not do.

If the State of Iran, the United Nations (UN) Security Council, or any international legal body asks Sri Lanka for an ‘incident report’ into the sinking of IRIS Dena, should Sri Lanka provide one?  

In such a scenario we would have to, wherein we would need to explain the measures taken by us on the SAR operation, rather than trying to explain how the incident took place. Given the significance of the incident, it is expected that preliminary reports have already been prepared, with all activities documented. This is for Sri Lanka’s own record and also in case the need arises internationally.

The first round of ‘ceasefire’ talks held in Pakistan earlier ended with no common ground reached. New rounds of talks have been announced. What are your thoughts on the realistic outcomes from continued negotiations, given the goals both parties had listed as conditions?

When the two sides are not meeting directly and are instead in different rooms speaking through a mediator, as was the case in Islamabad, we must not expect amazing results. It is very difficult in this scenario for these countries to sit down together, and that is understandable, but the ambiguity with which some of these countries operate is unfortunate and jeopardises the process completely. 

The most important attribute for talks is trust, and that trust is absent in this discourse. There is no inclusivity and instead there is severe disconnect among these countries. Unravelling the mess and misgivings that have been created is a long process.

Even if the US and Iran come to some consensus, do you think that, given the historical conduct of both Israel and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), they will uphold the terms of any agreement? What about the many proxy forces used by both Israel and Iran?

This conflict does not include only three countries and is instead an interwoven tapestry of travesty. Attempting to find a lasting solution is a herculean task and one which the aggressors should have thought about much more before launching the attacks of 28 February. 

Striking with the entirety of your might is not difficult. The sustenance of the operation is what is tough and the ending does not appear to be in sight at the moment. 

Whilst it has been stated that the Iranians have been decimated on all fronts, that is probably the furthest from the truth, as they manage to strike back and have continued to remain a huge threat to the Americans and Israelis. Why would they be a threat if they had been decimated? This is the complexity of conflict that only a few adventurous enough have experienced and many would shy away from, not for lack of courage but owing to their realisation of the severity of conflict and its after-effects.

The Israel-US war on Iran has drawn criticism for not being within the scope of international law and norms. Many traditional allies of the US and Israel have distanced themselves from the conflict. Do you see this military action as part of the continued decline of the multilateral and rules-based order which the world has grown to depend on since the 1990s?

Two out of 190-odd countries in the world are opting to alienate themselves from multilateralism, and the world is in flux. Yes, one of these countries is considered the remaining global superpower, but there are so many others who possess formidable power and their collective power is much greater. They realise it, yet there is hesitation. It is not a declaration of war, but instead a declaration of commitment to the principles upon which the UN was founded and nurtured for eight decades. The achievements of the UN are numerous and have made a positive impact on the world.

When looking back, it was Woodrow Wilson, a former American President who lent his thinking to the creation of the League of Nations after the Great War. Franklin Roosevelt, and then Harry Truman, played key roles in facilitating a uniting of nations, and that saw the birth of the United Nations Organization. Yet today there is one President who has a different perspective on multilateralism, and that should not erode the entire system. If it does, it would mean the arrangement was flimsy from the beginning and that is not how the UN has been structured. 

In the past, the UN secretary-general was a highly respected individual, who even at the height of the Cold War was acceptable to both sides and was able to deter them from taking unilateral action. Today the UN Secretary-General does not enjoy that same acceptance, and is also at the end of his second term and hence on his way home. António Guterres could do a lot more, but sadly he has not. He has got to be more assertive and bring countries together, rather than merely run the secretariat.

It is now up to member states to take action and rally countries together to avert a worsening of the catastrophic situation in the world. There is a lone Spanish Prime Minister who has the guts to take a stand, and a few others, like the Sri Lankan President, who have come close to such a stance, but there needs to be collective efforts, not individual moves. Leaders are too preoccupied by the need to pander to powerful entities, and hence do not realise their own power, which is the power of collective action.

Sri Lanka has held its ground on principles of neutrality and international law, particularly UNCLOS, in responding to this latest conflict between Israel/US and Iran. As such, if Sri Lanka upholds international law, it will have to resist the blockades or disruptions to the freedom of navigation of all commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz by any actor. In the past, Sri Lanka took a stand against the disruption to freedom of navigation in the Red Sea by Houthi rebels. As such, how should Sri Lanka respond to Iran and the US regarding their unilateral disruptions of the strait?

The most important point is that the Strait of Hormuz was not blocked by any country until this conflict began. This needs to be understood by all, and it was the attacks that led to Iran taking this measure. 

This is where Iran has bargaining power and is able to enforce a blockade to this date, despite the counterclaim that the Iranians have been decimated. They have not been decimated and still remain a force to be reckoned with, and that is not what the Americans and Israelis expected by this stage of the conflict.

At present, it is not in Sri Lanka’s interest to take a stance in contravention to any of these countries, and hence the country must adopt a policy of strategic non-alignment, through which we remain out of the picture. Blockades of all forms are not in keeping with international law, and whilst attention is focused on opening Hormuz, similar attention is also needed to open waterways around Cuba.

The latest American action to block access to Iranian ports is only worsening the problem, as the Iranians possess the ability to continue their blockade as well. This will further complicate connectivity for American allies in West Asia, who provided space for American presence in the region all these years. Furthermore, this action by the US is going to generate wider repercussions for countries further afield and the global impact will increase.