Sri Lanka recently hosted the Pathfinder Foundation’s fifth Dialogue with Diplomats at Cinnamon Grand Colombo, focusing on “The Great Power Competition in the Indo-Pacific and its Impact on Small States in South Asia, with Special Reference to Sri Lanka.” This event brought together diplomats, experts, and local participants to discuss the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region and their implications for smaller states like Sri Lanka. The dialogue generated valuable debates and insights.
But as the author, I would like to offer another perspective to those engaged in the discussion surrounding this geopolitical event. In the context of the current geopolitical landscape, even a small, pocket-sized meeting can underscore the sensitivity and significance of such an event. It serves as an important reminder of the inherent risks that come with even minimal engagement in the great power competition.
For Sri Lanka, one of the most significant risks is the potential for strategic dependence. Even slight alignment with a major power could severely restrict Sri Lanka’s ability to make independent decisions. History has shown that such dependence often results in the erosion of sovereignty, turning smaller nations into mere pawns in a larger geopolitical chessboard. By aligning with one major power, Sri Lanka could find its foreign policy and domestic affairs influenced by external interests, compromising the nation’s autonomy and diminishing its ability to act in the best interests of its people.
Economic vulnerability is another pressing concern. Sri Lanka has long been susceptible to external economic influence, and over-reliance on foreign powers for aid, trade, or investment could open the door to economic coercion. Such dependency risks recreating a cycle of exploitation, reminiscent of colonial economic systems, where Sri Lanka’s economic sovereignty is compromised for the benefit of external powers. In today’s global order, this could jeopardize Sri Lanka’s economic stability and growth, pushing the country further from self-sufficiency and exposing it to external pressures that may not align with national interests.
Diplomatic isolation is another risk of becoming too aligned with any single power. Aligning too closely with one geopolitical bloc could alienate others, diminishing Sri Lanka’s influence in regional and international forums. The nation’s credibility and ability to advocate for its own interests would be significantly weakened, especially in forums where global cooperation on issues like human rights, trade, and security are crucial. By maintaining an independent foreign policy, Sri Lanka ensures that it can continue to build relationships with a variety of global actors, keeping its diplomatic options open and its national interests safeguarded.
Security is another area where Sri Lanka could face serious risks if it becomes entangled in the great power rivalry. The region has already become a focal point for escalating tensions between major powers, and Sri Lanka’s strategic location makes it vulnerable to military competition and conflict. The involvement of global powers in the Indo-Pacific could disrupt the delicate balance of Sri Lanka’s national security, leading to instability. Furthermore, involvement in security arrangements dictated by external powers might lead to compromises in national sovereignty, potentially exposing Sri Lanka to military conflict or unwanted interventions.
Internal divisions within Sri Lanka could also be exacerbated by foreign alignments. The country has a long history of political and ethnic divisions, and foreign influence could deepen these rifts. Competing factions within Sri Lanka might support differing foreign policies, leading to domestic instability. This internal disunity could ultimately weaken national cohesion and impede efforts to promote human rights, democracy, and social justice—foundational values for Sri Lanka as a sovereign nation.
Sri Lanka’s historical stance of non-alignment and strategic autonomy offers valuable lessons in navigating these complex geopolitical waters. Our membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has been instrumental in allowing us to maintain independence while avoiding entanglement in global conflicts. These lessons, drawn from our past, underscore the importance of remaining neutral and preserving the autonomy that has allowed Sri Lanka to maintain stability and sovereignty. The dangers of strategic dependence, both economic and political, are too great to overlook, and it is crucial that Sri Lanka avoids repeating the mistakes of other nations that have sacrificed their independence in pursuit of short-term geopolitical gain.
The potential consequences of missteps in the geopolitical arena are clear. History is filled with examples where small, seemingly inconsequential actions have led to catastrophic outcomes. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, for instance, triggered a chain of events that led to World War I. Similarly, the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939 marked the beginning of World War II. More recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has demonstrated how local conflicts can have far-reaching global impacts. These events serve as stark reminders of how small decisions in the realm of foreign policy can spiral into larger crises. For Sri Lanka, even minimal engagement in the great power competition could have unforeseen consequences that may be difficult to reverse once set in motion.
The growing geopolitical tension in the Indo-Pacific, particularly between the United States and China, further complicates Sri Lanka’s position. China’s rise as a global superpower has changed the balance of power in the region, with the U.S. viewing this shift as a direct challenge to its global hegemony. The growing U.S. interest in the region, driven by competition with China, has led to increasing pressures on smaller states, including Sri Lanka, to take sides. While partnerships with major powers can offer economic benefits, the costs of such alignments—particularly in terms of sovereignty—may outweigh the advantages.
One example of this is the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) agreement, which Sri Lanka abandoned in 2020 after widespread public opposition. The MCC agreement aimed to promote economic growth by improving infrastructure, but concerns over sovereignty, particularly the risk of foreign-controlled land grabs, led to its termination. This agreement was linked to other U.S.-Sri Lanka agreements, such as the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which could have potentially given the U.S. significant influence over Sri Lanka’s military and strategic assets. These agreements raised serious concerns about the erosion of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and the potential loss of control over its own resources and territory. The public opposition to the MCC agreement demonstrated the strong desire among Sri Lankans to protect the nation’s independence and avoid becoming embroiled in the global power struggles of larger nations.
Public discourse on sensitive geopolitical topics is also fraught with risks. While intellectual debates can provide valuable insights, openly airing discussions about strategic alignments can be misinterpreted by external powers, potentially escalating tensions. Sri Lanka’s internal political polarization further complicates matters, as factions within the country may seize on these debates to advance their own agendas, exacerbating domestic divisions. To avoid these risks, it is crucial that Sri Lanka takes a more measured and cautious approach to foreign policy discussions, ensuring that they do not undermine national unity or provoke unnecessary external pressure.
The dialogue hosted by the Pathfinder Foundation can be insightful, but it is crucial to remember that strategic discretion and caution are key to protecting Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and ensuring a stable future. This review is based on the article available at Lankaweb.
In conclusion, Sri Lanka must tread carefully during this period of great power competition. While it is important to engage with global powers, such engagement must not come at the expense of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty, security, and long-term stability. Strategic discretion and caution are essential to avoid the risks of entanglement in conflicts and power struggles that do not align with our national interests. The wisest course may often be to refrain from participating in a competition where the stakes are high, and where the potential consequences could be disastrous for our people and our future. By maintaining strategic autonomy and prioritizing national interests, Sri Lanka can safeguard its sovereignty and preserve its democratic values in an increasingly complex and polarized world.
As the Dhammapada wisely advises: “One is not called wise because one speaks much. One who is peaceful, friendly, and fearless is called wise.” Let us strive to be a nation that is peaceful, friendly, and fearless in the world.
By Palitha Ariyarathna
Geopolitical Analyst
Full Moon Poya Day, November 15, 2024