New Zealand’s Defense Diplomacy and Its Role in the Indo-Pacific

By Githmi Silva

In the discourse of International Relations, the Indo-Pacific has drawn plenty of attention for inevitable reasons. From its strategic location to thriving economies, the region holds significance in numerous ways. However, discussions about the Indo-Pacific often revolve around a handful of major players, such as India, China, Japan, and the United States. While these states undoubtedly shape the region’s political, economic and security landscapes, their dominance in the common narrative tends to overshadow the role of middle powers. New Zealand is one such middle power in the Indo-Pacific; a country despite its relatively small size, playing an active role in shaping regional politics. New Zealand’s commitment to security cooperation may not always be the focal point of regional security dialogues; still, it plays a crucial role in influencing the security outlook for smaller Indo-Pacific states. This article aims to explore how New Zealand’s defense diplomacy contributes to regional stability and influences the security dynamics of smaller nations in the region.

New Zealand’s Defense Policy

National security today is multifaceted. It goes beyond conventional threats and encompasses various non-traditional challenges, including climate change, mass migrations, pandemics, and counterterrorism. These issues not only directly impact national security but also create ripple effects that influence the broader region. In response, a country’s defense policy is shaped to tackle these evolving challenges, ultimately safeguarding both the state and its people while taking the broader picture into consideration.

Since gaining legal independence in 1947, New Zealand’s defense and security interests have expanded significantly, leading to ongoing adaptations and developments in its defense policy. According to the New Zealand Ministry of Defense (2023), New Zealand’s new defense strategy emphasizes three mutually reinforcing themes: understand, partner, and act. Defense Policy and Strategy Statement issued by the New Zealand Government in 2023, comprehensively taps the above themes; articulating how the country’s defense strategy is built on New Zealand defense’s professionalism as well as New Zealand’s relationship with the world.

In order to understand New Zealand’s approach to defense diplomacy, it is first necessary to decode the term itself. Although relatively new, defense diplomacy has become a pivotal tool for states in pursuing their security interests. There is no universally accepted definition of the term; however, it emerged in the post-Cold War era as a response to the political need to define the expanding roles of institutions under national defense ministries and to clarify their objectives in a newly "demilitarized" international environment. Thus, its origins lie in politics rather than academia; broadly serving as a means to support the implementation of national interests and to advance foreign and security policy objectives (Security and Defense Quarterly).

The term defense is often associated with military strength and rigid strategies, but the core of defense diplomacy is nonviolent. It serves as a form of soft power, allowing governments to advance their security interests through cooperation rather than coercion. In International Relations, the concept of power is generally classified into three categories: hard power, which relies on force and coercion to achieve national interests, soft power, in contrast, which uses diplomacy, culture, and partnerships to influence others, and smart power, a combination of both, leveraging military capabilities alongside diplomatic and other noncoercive strategies.

New Zealand is known for its rules-based order and modest stance in foreign relations. The New Zealand Defense Force plays a key role in peacekeeping, logistics, maritime security, and humanitarian efforts, demonstrating a strong soft power approach (Espia, 2024). However, New Zealand also employs more sophisticated strategies that go beyond traditional soft power. Despite not having a large military, New Zealand is part of strategic alliances with major global powers. This allows the country to contribute to international security while maintaining an independent foreign policy. New Zealand’s defense diplomacy is not just about maintaining peace but also about using strategic engagement and preventive measures to uphold stability in the region and beyond. Therefore in New Zealand’s case, defense diplomacy reflects characteristics of smart power; a balanced strategy that integrates persuasion with strategic military engagement.

New Zealand’s Role in Regional Security Frameworks

Although New Zealand maintains a modest and independent approach to foreign relations, it remains actively engaged in several major regional and global security frameworks. While the country is directly involved in certain security and military alliances, it also participates indirectly in others, even without formal membership.

●        New Zealand and ANZUS

Entered into force in 1952, ANZUS is a security treaty signed between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. In a turbulent geopolitical atmosphere during the Cold War, the ANZUS treaty was signed to strengthen regional security, particularly to avoid Japan’s resurgence and the spread of communism in the region. Signatories of the treaty believed that an armed attack in the Pacific area on one member would endanger the peace and safety of the others; thus, the parties agreed to sustain and expand their military forces to counter threats and to consult each other if their security in the Pacific was threatened (New Zealand History, 1952).

This tripartite security alliance contributed to stabilizing the Pacific's security during the Cold War period and strengthening defense capabilities; however, ANZUS took a detour towards the 1980s with New Zealand’s adherence to anti-nuclear policies. When New Zealand’s Labour Party came to power in 1984, the Government was committed to making New Zealand a nuclear-free country. As per New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy, the U.S. Navy could only visit New Zealand if it provided the New Zealand government with a clear assurance that its ships were nuclear-free, and this requirement conflicted with the U.S. Navy’s longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons aboard its vessels (Catalina, 2010). The contradictions, gradually made New Zealand withdraw from the ANZUS treaty, which makes a compelling case, considering it is the small and less powerful member of the treaty.

However, New Zealand’s move is not purely moral, it is also political and strategic. New Zealand's abandoning ANZUS did spark some tensions between the signatories; one could evidently argue it strained New Zealand - USA relations and reduced New Zealand’s influence in global security. Nevertheless given New Zealand’s geographical; and historical proximity with its neighbor Australia, geographic separation from the regions of potential conflict between the great powers, and its lack of any apparent direct threat to its territory prove that New Zealand did not make a wrong choice parting from ANZUS, but a strategic one (Jamieson, 1991). As a whole ANZUS did not evolve into a large-scale military alliance like NATO; regardless of pulling back from the treaty, up to date, Wellington does maintain security ties with both Canberra and Washington while not compromising its commitment to a nuclear-free Pacific.

●        New Zealand and Five Eyes Intelligence

Five Eyes Intelligence is a security alliance formed in 1946, between the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. For New Zealand, a nation with comparatively limited military power, being part of such a formidable intelligence network carries significant stakes. New Zealand’s role in Five Eyes up to date remains controversial. Its role has not been deeply analyzed in the academic discourse, nevertheless, debatable. New Zealand in some researchers' perspectives is the “phantom eye” of the group; its presence may not be as noticeable as the counterparts, yet it is there. Its relevance become much more crucial given its proximity to Australia and Southeast Asia, and New Zealand’s role in the group has made an impact on other parties.

For instance, during the 1987 Fiji coups, New Zealand failed to provide intelligence on the coup's likelihood or its aftermath, marking a significant setback for the alliance. Over the next two decades, New Zealand’s absence deprived Five Eyes of crucial intelligence in Southeast Asia, leaving gaps that the remaining members had to compensate for (Batter and Balls, 2023). New Zealand’s location in the South Pacific continues to be important for intelligence gathering; especially given the nature of contemporary security threats ranging from counter-terrorism to cyber threats. On the other hand, membership in Five Eyes is essential for New Zealand due to access to high intelligence, geopolitical leverage, and maintaining strong ties with Western allies to ensure regional stability.

●        New Zealand and ASEAN Regional Forum

ASEAN Regional Forum is a multilateral security dialogue in the Asia Pacific Region. This initiative was established in 1994 and it encompasses ASEAN Member states and 17 non-ASEAN members. The main objectives of the ASEAN Regional Forum (2023) include fostering constructive dialogue and consultation on political and security issues of common interest and concern; and making significant contributions to efforts towards confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region; considering these objectives New Zealand’s involvement once again is pivotal. Being part of the ASEAN Regional Forum, New Zealand contributes in sustaining ASEAN security centrality while providing humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, and nonproliferation and arms control mechanisms among others. The Foreign Policy standing of Wellington is different from ASEAN’s; nevertheless, given the complexity and importance of the Asia Pacific region, it is a must for Wellington to maintain a solid relationship with ASEAN. Under these circumstances, New Zealand continues to engage with ASEAN in the security pillar for mutual benefits.

How can New Zealand’s Defense Policy impact small Indo-Pacific States?

Determining whether New Zealand is a small power or a big power is certainly not straightforward. It can be understood and explained from various angles. In comparison to conventional major powers such as the USA, the UK, and China, New Zealand lacks key attributes to compete globally.  In terms of military and defense, it does not possess a strong military force and faces no direct security threats. However, it plays a crucial role in regional security by closely collaborating with larger states. This brings up the question: What distinguishes New Zealand, and what implications does this have for other small states in the region?

As mentioned earlier, New Zealand’s Defense Policy is carefully crafted to cater to the country’s national interest while also addressing broader regional interests. Despite not facing direct military threats, New Zealand is located in a region marked by political tensions, such as the South China Sea disputes. While New Zealand maintains an independent approach to foreign policy, it must also be prepared to navigate evolving security challenges in an increasingly uncertain world. New Zealand’s current defense policy acknowledges these unprecedented foreign policy challenges and implements a comprehensive, holistic approach to address them.

The Indo-Pacific region remains a battleground for Power competition among states, with China and India steadily expanding their influence while Western powers including the USA counterbalancing the power competition. Against this backdrop, Wellington attempts to play their game safe but at the same time, smart, following a nuanced approach with the USA, China, India, and its neighbour Australia; this mechanism allows New Zealand to strengthen their security ties with the Pacific neighbours ultimately. How exactly? This can be explained in several ways. As explained New Zealand is a part of many regional and international security alliances. Although New Zealand’s role in them can be controversial at certain points, involvement does leverage the country's geopolitical importance and contribute to strengthening regional security cooperation.

With the support of major powers, New Zealand engages actively in defense collaborations, training programs, and joint military exercises. In this regard, the role of the New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) should be emphasized since it functions as the main instrument of New Zealand’s defense diplomacy. The New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) primarily conducts offshore operations, including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), search and rescue (SAR), defense and diplomatic exercises, support for Antarctica, Building Partner Capacity (BPC) initiatives, surveillance and interception, counterpiracy efforts, and participation in UN peacekeeping missions (Espia, 2024). These actions have been effective in addressing both traditional and nontraditional security threats in the Indo-Pacific.

New Zealand's efforts in addressing non-traditional security threats have gained significant attention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. The New Zealand Defense Force (NZDF) was initially called upon to deliver humanitarian aid to families in need but was soon drawn into their biggest active deployment since 1999 (Greener, 2022). While providing vaccinations and humanitarian assistance at home New Zealand also expanded humanitarian assistance to other Pacific states; for instance, Fiji’s 2021 COVID-19 Outbrake. In this case, New Zealand provided Fiji with medical personnel, 100,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, other essential equipment, and economic support of 10 million New Zealand Dollars (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d). Speaking of nontraditional security threats New Zealand’s defense diplomacy also plays an active role in climate security and disaster response as well as cyber security and digital resilience. By being part of alliances like Five Eyes New Zealand contributes to tackling cyber security and related threats in the region.

While New Zealand’s military presence is not extensive, it maintains strong relationships with military-capable nations to promote capacity-building initiatives. These partnerships help strengthen the capacities of smaller Pacific states. Pacific Security Cooperation Program (PSCP), defense Training and Exchange Programs such as Exercise Milan in India, and Sri Lanka, and the Maldives Coast Guard Training Program can be noted as a few examples. New Zealand also pays careful attention to humanitarian assistance when it comes to maintaining security in the home and the region. The Mutual Assistance Programme is one of the key elements of Aotearoa New Zealand's contribution to peace and security in the region, significantly helping to foster strong and enduring people-to-people links over many decades (NZDF, n.d).

New Zealand’s defense policy and its role in regional security are not widely debated topics. As a smaller power, it lacks the impulse to assert dominance and tends to uphold a neutral foreign policy stance. However, its strategic importance in the region necessitates action to contribute to regional security when required. New Zealand’s actions in this regard have been subtle, yet influential. As mentioned in the article New Zealand follows a sophisticated approach to security. It is a part of several security alliances both directly and indirectly, however, Wellington is mindful not to take their core values of foreign policy such as the rule-based order for granted. Overall New Zealand has been consistently contributing to regional security cooperation, most importantly maneuvering the situations and acknowledging the geopolitical complexity in the region.

References

Batter, J., & Balls, M. (2023). The role of New Zealand in Five Eyes intelligence operations. Security Studies Journal. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02684527.2023.2212557#d1e200

Catalina, P. (2010). Nuclear-free New Zealand and ANZUS: Strategic implications in the Pacific. International Security Review, 15(3), 45-63. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/amycatalinac/files/catalinac_fpa.pdf

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d.). New Zealand’s response to Fiji’s COVID-19 outbreak. Government of New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/aid-and-development/humanitarian-action/support-for-fijis-2021-covid-19-outbreak

Espia, J. (2024). New Zealand’s defense strategy and the evolution of soft power in the Indo-Pacific. Strategic Affairs Quarterly, 29(1), 67-82. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3971772/smart-power-or-strategic-apathy-the-new-zealand-defence-force-and-the-politics/

Greener, B. (2022). New Zealand’s humanitarian and defense operations during COVID-19: A case study of military response in a crisis. Global Security Review, 38(2), 102-118. https://www.thekcis.org/publications/insights/insight-22

Jamieson, S. (1991). New Zealand’s strategic withdrawal from ANZUS: Geopolitical consequences and regional security realignment. Pacific Affairs Review, 23(4), 87-109. https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/23427/mcnair12.pdf

New Zealand History. (1952). The origins and development of ANZUS. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved from https://nzhistory.govt.nz/anzus-comes-into-force

New Zealand Ministry of Defence. (2023). Defence policy and strategy statement. New Zealand Government. Retrieved from https://www.defence.govt.nz/our-work/plan-and-assess/defence-policy-review/defence-strategy/#:~:text=Our%20strategy,-New%20Zealand%27s%20new&text=Act%20%E2%80%93%20Defence%20is%20more%20ready,humanitarian%20assistance%20through%20to%20combat

NZDF (n.d.). New Zealand Defence Force regional security initiatives. Retrieved from Security and Defence Quarterly. (2023). The emergence of defense diplomacy as a strategic tool in international relations. Defence and Strategy Studies, 14(2), 123-137.

BOER WARS: Comprehending the strengths of South Africa

By Githmi Koralage

Rainbow Nation, a country popularized as the Republic of South Africa (RSA) is located at the southernmost end of the Eurasian-African landmass. A unitary, parliamentary republic with an executive president, South Africa is often considered a middle power in the region. Despite the beauty of its landscape, and diversity in the society, culture, as well as environment, the world acknowledges the country as one that was once home to gruesome systemic racial-segregation; and apartheid. It garnered a negative perception, leading the general public all over the world to view them as a developing nation at the end of the spectrum. However, when observing its history, especially the creation of RSA, it is evident that South Africa is a country with strong, courageous, determined, warriors who cannot be toppled easily. It is specifically understood when studying the Boer War. Accordingly, this article discusses the Boer War, and what it says about the reality of South Africa.

Time Before the Boer War

The indigenous San and Khoikhoi people who lived in the modern-day South African region were joined by settlers from the North African continent from the 4^th century onwards. The continent and region were introduced to the Europeans with the Portuguese navigator Bartholomeu Dias traveling around the tip of Southern Africa in the 1480s. The first European to land on African soil was however Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama when he landed on Natal coast in 1497. In 1652, the Cape colony at Table Bay was founded by Jan Van Riebeeck, a representative from the Dutch East India Company. (BBC News, 2022) It was established to provide refreshments to the ships voyaging between the Netherlands and the East Indies (modern-day Indonesian region). With time a population of “free Burghers” emerged, and expanded the settlements northwards and eastwards from the Cape colony. These Burghers were known as “Trekboers” and increasingly became independent from the Dutch East India Company. (Williams-Wynn, 2021)

In 1795, the British invaded and captured the Cape colony. The occupation did not last for a long time, because of the signing of the short-lived Treaty of Amiens in 1803, which resulted in the British returning the Cape colony to the Netherlands. In 1806, the British reoccupied the colony as a strategic move, due to Emperor Napolean Bonaparte including the Netherlands as a part of his empire. Meanwhile, another fighting force, the Zulu kingdom, which lasted from 1816 to 1826, was expanding in the Eastern part of the Southern African region. (Williams-Wynn, 2021)

The Trekboers increasingly became dissatisfied with the British authority in the Cape colony. It was especially because 80% of those who had farms did not receive titles for their lands (Williams-Wynn, 2021). This resulted in them migrating further north, which became popularized as the “Great Trek”. The migrated communities established Orange Free State and Transvaal. The British granted the Transvaal limited self-governance in 1852, which was followed by a republic being established in Transvaal in the late 1850s. (BBC News, 2022)

The Indian population which comprised the South African population today also migrated to the region from 1860-1911, as laborers (BBC News, 2022).

The First Boer War

The Transvaal Rebellion/ the First Boer War spanned from 1880 to 1881. In 1867, diamonds were discovered in the Transvaal region. The year 1875 saw a surge in neo-imperialism. According to that, the British annexed Transvaal in 1877 and defeated the Zulus in Natal. The annexation of the Transvaal was met with passive resistance. It turned into armed resistance with time, and on December 16, 1880, the first fight of the war broke out between the British garrison in Potchefstroom and a 'commando' under General Piet Cronjé. The Boers turned out to be experienced marksmen. Their knowledge of the territory of the region also contributed significantly to their success. Further, the “commando” system that was established contributed to getting the upper hand for the Boers in the fight. The final battle of the war occurred in Majuba Hill, where the Boers emerged as the victors. On August 03, 1881, the Pretoria Convention was signed and the Transvaal was given independence with the British having its suzerainty. Accordingly, the British had control over Transvaal’s foreign affairs and internal rules related to the black community.  It was on February 27, 1884, that Transvaal finally earned its full internal independence, until the Second Boer War. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The Second Boer War

The discovery of goldfields in Witwatersrand in 1886 was a watershed moment in South African history. It made the struggling Boer Republic a potential political and economic threat to British supremacy. The failed scheme of Prime Minister of the Cape colony Cecil Rhodes to overthrow President Kruger of the Transvaal government during the Jamesson Raid ten years later flared up Afrikaner nationalism. The British colonial secretary Sir Joseph Chamberlain and the British High Commissioner in South Africa Alfred Milner were anxious that Kruger would unite South Africa under Afrikaners, which led to them being interested in getting involved in the domestic affairs of Transvaal. Milner agitated the English-speaking migrant workers for franchise rights, which President Kruger refused to grant. Instead, he gave ultimatums; disputes between the two states should be resolved through arbitration, British soldiers in the borders should be withdrawn, and troops bound for South Africa by ship should not disembark. British however rejected the ultimatum, which resulted in the breakout of the Second Boer War on October 11, 1899. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011) The war was marked as the bloodiest, longest, and most expensive war the British engaged in between 1815 and 1915 (History | South African Government, n.d.).

The course of the war, which was in favour of the Boers changed in February of 1900. After the British captured significant landmarks, Kimberly and Ladysmith, almost all Boer fronts collapsed, and the men were divided as some of the Boers joined the British. However, in August 1900, the military effort of Boer was revived under General Louis Botha. This revival lasted for two years and was known as the guerilla phase because of the application of the tactic of gathering swiftly to attack and dispersing quickly. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

End of the Boer War

Ending the Boer war with a clear-cut victory was not an easy task for the British. After the failure of the military methods, the British had to resolve to a different approach laced with strategy, tactics, brutality, and manipulation. In 1900, Lord Herbert Kitchener became Commander of the British Garrison, he integrated a three-fold strategy to end the Boer war. The first stage included the “scorched earth” policy, which deprived the guerillas of access to food and shelter. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The second stage was expanding “concentration camps”. These camps sheltered the families of the guerillas especially the women and children whose houses were burnt during the first phase. Black people were also confined to the concentration camps to prevent the guerillas from accessing food and to get free labour for the gold mines. The terrible conditions and bad administration of these camps led to the demise of 28,000 Boer women and children and at least 20,000 Black people. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011)

The third stage included building blockhouses and barbed wire defenses. These blockhouses known as the Kitchener Maginot Line contributed to stopping the disruption of railway lines and bridges. Further, it prevented the Boer commanders from reuniting their units for coordinated action. (Blockhouses of the Boer War, n.d.)

The strategies were successful. By 1902, the Second Boer War formally came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging.  As a result, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State were made self-governing colonies under the British Empire. (BBC News, 2022)

Revelations about South Africa

Boer wars reveal a deeper narrative about South Africa and its people than what is popularized. Even though Boers were of Dutch ancestry and white, we could say they have much ownership of the land of South Africa as the Black natives, because of the contributions they made to lay the foundation of South Africa.

The African continent is deemed a war-torn, underdeveloped, and less civilized continent. As a part of the continent, South Africa is viewed through the same lens by the masses. However, the Boer Wars challenge this perception by revealing qualities such as unity, pride, a sense of unique identity, intelligence, courage, perseverance, and resilience of the ancestors of the nation, the Afrikaners, and the native African clans. It was the reason why apart from using military capabilities, the British had to take measures to crush the soul of the Boer fighters, through policies such as scorched earth and concentration camps. Further, the victories of the Boers revealed their tactical intelligence and combat capabilities.

The advanced military weapons the Boers used were facilitated by Germany and France (Pom Poms in the Boer War, n.d.). This reveals that the Boers had the skill and ability to conduct stable foreign relations. During the war, both factions decided not to involve the Black community. However, the British started employing the Black community as soldiers. (BBC - History - the Boer Wars, 2011) Arguably this also played a part in deepening the racist attitude of the Boers, which shaped the policies of early South African governments and ultimately contributed to the establishment of apartheid.

Conclusion

The Boer Wars are more than just a conflict over territory. It is a testimony to how strong, courageous, and intelligent South Africans were and are. The legacy of these wars has impacted every aspect of the country. The most significant aspect of history is that South Africa is not a country that is easy to conquer. The strength displayed by its people, then and now, has made it stand firm against every adversity it has faced.

References

BBC - History - The Boer Wars. (2011, March 29). https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/boer_wars_01.shtml

BBC News. (2022, December 19). South Africa profile - Timeline. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14094918

Blockhouses of the Boer War. (n.d.). https://www.bwm.org.au/blockhouses.php

History | South African Government. (n.d.). https://www.gov.za/about-sa/history

Pom poms in the Boer War. (n.d.). https://www.bwm.org.au/pom_poms.php

Williams-Wynn, C. (2021). The Boers of Dutch Descent Under British Rule in South Africa [Review of The Boers of Dutch Descent Under British Rule in South Africa]. In Smart Surveyors for Land and Water Management - Challenges in a New Reality Virtually in the Netherlands. FIG e-Working Week 2021. https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2021/papers/ts_his/TS_HIS_williams-wynn_11143.pdf

AMERICAN POLICY FORMULATION, EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND REPERCUSSIONS FOR SRI LANKA

By Indoosan Shanthakumaran

Sri Lanka has experienced substantial consequences as a result of President Trump's executive orders, particularly in the realms of foreign aid, trade, and geopolitical dynamics. This article attempts to examine some of these critical factors.

1.     Reduction in Foreign Aid 

           ·         Ceasing Operations of USAID

Financial Impact: The termination of USAID operations has led to a considerable financial deficit for Sri Lanka. USAID has served as a pivotal source of financial support for a multitude of development initiatives, encompassing infrastructure, education, healthcare, and economic advancement.

Project Disruption: The sudden loss of funding has resulted in the cessation or reduction of numerous ongoing initiatives. For example, initiatives designed to enhance the resilience of communities to disasters, agricultural productivity, and water and sanitation have encountered substantial obstacles.

Capacity Building: USAID has been instrumental in the development of local institutions and communities' capacity. The absence of this support may impede development in areas such as institutional strengthening, transparency, and governance.

·         Impact on Humanitarian Efforts

Health and Education: USAID has played a critical role in the support of health and education initiatives in Sri Lanka. Particularly in rural and underserved regions, the withdrawal of this aid could result in a decrease in the caliber of healthcare services and educational opportunities.

Economic Development: By providing vocational training, promoting entrepreneurship, and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), USAID-funded programs have contributed to economic development. The cessation of these programs may result in a reduction in economic growth and job creation.

2.       Trade and Economic Policies

     ·         America First Agenda

Tariff Increases: Challenges have arisen for Sri Lankan exporters as a result of Trump's protectionist trade policies, which include increases in import tariffs. The US market is less competitive for Sri Lankan products due to the increased tariffs, which have a significant impact on key export sectors such as textiles, apparel, and tea.

Supply Chain Disruptions: Sri Lanka's trade relationships have been affected by the global supply chains that have resulted from the trade war between the United States and China. Increased costs and delays may result for Sri Lankan enterprises due to disruptions in the supply chain.

·         Impact on Foreign Exchange Inflows

Export Earnings: Sri Lanka's export revenues, which are a critical source of foreign exchange, may be diminished by the implementation of tariffs and trade barriers. The country's capacity to import essential products and services can be impacted by a decrease in export earnings, which can also strain its foreign reserves.

Investment Climate: Foreign investors may be discouraged from investing in Sri Lanka due to the unfavourable investment climate that can result from uncertainty in trade policies. Economic growth and development opportunities may be restricted by diminished foreign direct investment (FDI).

3.       Geopolitical Dynamics

     ·         Shift in US-Asia Relations

Strategic Rebalancing: Sri Lanka's geopolitical position has been influenced by Trump's strategy for Asia, which emphasizes strategic rebalancing and the utilization of military and economic capabilities. While maintaining its strategic autonomy, Sri Lanka must navigate these shifts.

Regional Alliances: Sri Lanka should strengthen regional alliances with countries such as India, China, and Japan in response to changes in US-Asia relations. It is imperative to maintain stability and protect economic and security interests by balancing these relationships.

Geopolitical Tensions: Sri Lanka's security environment may be affected by geopolitical tensions between key powers, including the United States, China, and India. In order to prevent becoming a battleground for regional rivalries, Sri Lanka must maintain a balance in its relationships.

4.       Policy Opportunities and Challenges

      ·         Renegotiation of US Role

New Partnerships: Sri Lanka has the opportunity to investigate new partnerships and alliances as a result of the renegotiation of the United States' role in global affairs. The diversification of Sri Lanka's economic and strategic options can be achieved by engaging with emerging economies and regional powers.

Policy Adaptation: In order to remain consistent with the changing global landscape, Sri Lanka must modify its policies. This encompasses the development of strategies to fortify diplomatic relations with critical partners, attract investment, and improve trade.

To sum up, the country faces both challenges and opportunities as it navigates the changing global landscape. Sri Lanka must prioritize economic diversification in order to alleviate the effects of Trump's economic policies. This encompasses the development of new industries, the expansion of export markets, and the improvement of domestic production. In order to navigate the uncertainty generated by evolving global dynamics, it is imperative to establish a strong geopolitical strategy. Sri Lanka must capitalize on its strategic location and establish robust relationships with both regional and global powers. 

FOREIGN POLICY BETWEEN LEBANON AND SRI LANKA: A Relationship shaped by Labour Migration

 

By Kalara Perera

Foreign policy, a country’s strategy and approach in managing its relations with other nations and international actors, is based on internal and external determinants. Labour migration is an external determinant that plays a significant role in shaping Sri Lanka’s foreign policy as a labour-exporting country. Sri Lanka is heavily reliant on remittances from migrant workers as a major source of foreign exchange earnings. Lebanon has been a long-term Sri Lankan labour migrant destination and her foreign policy towards Lebanon has been shaped by these ties. While Sri Lanka reaps the economic benefits of labour migration, it also has social and diplomatic consequences as it involves ensuring the wellbeing of the migrant domestic workers in their host country. Specifically, since labour migrants face severe challenges under Lebanon’s Kafala system, it limits their rights and legal protections. This article explores how Sri Lanka’s foreign policy toward Lebanon has evolved through the lens of labour migration, highlighting the opportunities and obstacles in ensuring both economic stability and migrant worker protection.

Historical context

Formal diplomatic relations between Sri Lanka and Lebanon were established in 1997. While the migration of domestic labourers take precedence in importance, Lebanon and Sri Lanka are trade partners and Sri Lankan peacekeepers are deployed in United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Sri Lankan labour migration to Lebanon can be traced back to the 1970s with the oil boom in the gulf region, mainly in the construction field. Following the end of the first Lebanese civil war, the demand for domestic workers in Lebanon grew, creating opportunities for Sri Lankan women to migrate as domestic workers. The peak of labour migration to Lebanon was in early 2000’s and labour migration pattern to Lebanon has been inconsistent due to external factors such as the second Lebanese civil war, the 2019 economic crisis in Lebanon, Covid-19 pandemic and the 2020 Beirut explosion.

The Kafala system

Labour migrants in Lebanon, similar to the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are governed by the Kafala system that has been followed by these countries since the 1950’s. The Kafala system requires each worker to be sponsored by a citizen of the host country, who is their employer. The employer is responsible for the worker’s legal status, visa and have complete agency in determining employment status. Under this system, migrant workers are not entitled to the labour rights enshrined in the labor laws in Lebanon, including those which determine their minimum wage and working hours. As a result, over the years, migrant workers have been subject to abuse under this system. It has made migrant workers extremely vulnerable to abuse as there is excessive powers given to employers and lack of protection towards migrant workers. There have been many reported instances of non-payment or delayed payment of wages, long working hours with no rest days, physical and psychological abuse and confiscation of passports by employers.

The Sri Lankan government has acknowledged these challenges faced by migrant workers and measures have been taken both on a national and international level. Locally the government has focused on minimizing the social impact due to women leaving their families behind and making the process of migrating more stringent rather than addressing the root causes of vulnerability. National-level mechanisms, such as the Family Background Report (FBR) and pre-departure training programmes, have been implemented to mitigate risks. However, these efforts have fallen short of providing comprehensive protection for migrant domestic workers. In addition, internationally there have been measures taken by labour exporting countries to address such issues.

Diplomatic Efforts and Limitations

On a diplomatic level, Sri Lanka has engaged in various efforts to address the plight of migrant domestic workers such as signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Lebanon. Such agreements aim to ensure better working conditions for migrant domestic workers but the lack of enforceability of MoUs and poor implementation mechanisms limits its effectiveness. Another effort at addressing these issues is through consular support. The Sri Lankan embassy in Lebanon provides various services through the labour welfare section which include a range of regulatory, legal, and welfare activities. The repatriation efforts made through the embassy were evident during critical junctures such as the 2019economic crisis, the civil war, Covid-19 and the Beirut explosion where the embassy made arrangements for migrant domestic workers to be repatriated to Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan embassy has also established safe houses to provide temporary shelter for abused workers. Despite these initiatives, the effectiveness of such measures remains limited due to structural barriers, including the stringent requirements of the Kafala system and resource limitations.

The Sri Lankan government has been unable to strongly advocate for the rights of Migrant Domestic Workers because of its over-reliance on foreign remittances. This dependency has placed Sri Lanka in a weaker bargaining position, as Sri Lanka cannot advocate for workers' rights at the cost of straining diplomatic relations and jeopardizing remittance flows. Such a situation was viewed during the 2018 Philippines diplomatic crisis with Kuwait over the abuse towards migrant domestic workers. In the post economic crisis, Sri Lanka is in an even more difficult position to bargain due to their vulnerable and fragile economic context. At large, it may appear that Sri Lanka's foreign policy prioritizes economic stability over the well-being of its migrant workers, creating a tension between national interests and human rights.

Looking Ahead

Labour migration is an important source of remittances for Sri Lanka, yet foreign policy towards host countries often fail to adequately protect the rights of migrant workers, who are the very source of the income. Sri Lanka needs to focus on developing its labour diplomacy, strengthen enforcement mechanisms of legal instruments, expand consular support and foster international cooperation, to turn this silent crisis into an opportunity for sustainable and equitable labour mobility.