MARKING MILESTONES AND MOVING MOUNTAINS? The balancing act that is foreign policy

Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena and
Russian President Vladimir Putin shaking hands at the Kremlin.

William J. Mozdzierz of the US State Department highlighted ‘the important steps that Sri Lanka has taken toward protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms,’ noting that ‘Sri Lanka’s co-sponsorship of this resolution is a testament to the Sirisena administration’s positive engagement with the international community.’ While an American representative was expressing these sentiments on a co-sponsored resolution in Geneva, President Sirisena himself was entering the Kremlin for bilateral talks with his Russian counterpart. A milestone may have been marked in which a Sri Lankan leader was being accorded a State Visit after forty three years, yet of greater significance was the fleeting moment in which once arch enemies were in support of a single state, at the same time.
The relationship between the United States of America and the Russian Federation is one that is best described, rather than defined. Two states which fought together for a sizable portion of the Second World War, parted ways to wage the much longer Cold War, pitted against each other in almost every conflict that existed on the planet. The animosity with which these two states, following distinctly diverse ideologies, systems of governance and trade, resorted to hostile stances saw countries involuntarily engulfed in a battle that spanned the world.

Formulation and adoption of foreign policy became, for a greater part of the twentieth century, a challenge, more for those other states than for the main protagonists. The dilemma was further complicated as decolonization swept most parts of Asia and Africa, and countries were re-emerging after centuries of foreign rule. Bereft of choice, states were forcibly engulfed in the Cold War, at least at its commencement. The summoning of the Colombo Conference in April/May 1954, although contested as to whether it was an idea of Ceylonese Prime Minister Kotelawala or one pushed by India’s Nehru, provided states with a much needed alternative. The conference brought together five Asian nations, notably Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, with each articulating a position of their own desire, while Indonesia identified the need for Afro-Asian solidarity.
The journey from Colombo, to Bogor and Bandung drew much attention, owing to the newly emerging stance being explored by countries of Asia and Africa. This third force wielded power, which has not, and unfortunately cannot be measured against Joseph Nye’s barometer of power. The American professor’s assessment of hard, soft and smart power leaves countries represented at Bandung bereft of any position on the power ladder, which Cline’ formula would otherwise help formulate.

Committed to neutrality, decolonization, promotion of peace and cooperation, the ten principles formed the basis upon which this third force would brace itself to counter the Americans and Russians, both of whom were eager to understand the nature of the organization which would come to fruition in Belgrade in 1961 as the Non-Aligned Movement. Becoming a corner stone of foreign policy for a significant portion of the global community, non-alignment remained within the armory of leaders and diplomats alike.

Whilst the Movement remains fluid permitting member states to choose their own interpretation of non-alignment, at their discretion, the United States of America remains a formidable force while Russia having seen the end of the Soviet Union, has within a span of less three decades rebound and returned to global power politics, with President Putin at the helm. The rivalry with which these arch rivals engaged each other, has it is argued, dissipated, if only within the realm of the media, which has shed light on connections between the respective administrations.

Irrespective of the veracity of such reports, attention is due on Sri Lanka. A small state, which has achieved major feats in the sphere of foreign policy, once mediating between India and China when the border issue threatened to see the explosion of war, is today straddling two giants once again. The accordance of a State Visit, while displaying confidence, brings into focus Russia’s continued interest in Sri Lanka, and more importantly her position. Ever since S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike chose to establish diplomatic relations in 1957, Russia has remained an ‘all-weather’ friend, defending Sri Lanka in numerous multilateral fora. Despite hostile, frosty relations that dominated foreign policy in the first years of independence wherein Russia chose to veto Ceylon’s entry into the United Nations, the countries, have since 1957, consolidated bonds of solidarity, while, quite interestingly Sri Lanka remained non-aligned for the most part.

This, it may be argued is the art of foreign policy. Cardinal Richelieu’s oft quoted remarks, that ‘diplomacy should be a continuous process aimed at creating durable relationships rather than attempting to make opportunistic advances’ remain the edifice of foreign policy formulation and execution. Whether it is the United States of America, the Russian Federation or even Sri Lanka, engagement, in a sustainable manner has been, is and will be the basis upon which mountains may be moved, and foreign policy successfully implemented.

- Editorial