EUROPE DAY: HOW REGIONALISM TRANSFORMED EUROPE

 70^th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris

By George I. H. Cooke

Whilst Europe Day is marked across the European Union on 9^th May each year in marking the anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, in which a former French Foreign Minister articulated the need for political cooperation across Europe to make war unthinkable, it is the steps taken thereafter and in particular the Treaty of Paris on 1951 that deserves due emphasis.

Considered to be the deepest form of integration experienced in modern world, the European Union has member States who have pooled resources, personnel, services and even sovereignty to emerge as a formidable force on the global stage. In April 1951, France, Italy, West Germany and the three Benelux countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands took a bold step of signing a treaty which came to be known as the Treaty of Paris. Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, the measures taken seventy years ago have borne fruit over the decades since then.

Whilst the treaty was expected to ensure stability in Western Europe as the Cold War had commenced and the rapid division of the world was taking place, the significant aspect of the Treaty was that countries were pooling their most important resources through this agreement in a bid to consolidate their positions, collectively. Seen as the precursor to the current day European Union, the Treaty of Paris was a harbinger of its time as it provided an example of integration, collective action and a sharing of resources which would ultimately benefit the signatories. The advantageous situation would then spread across the rest of the region too, and lead to the EU of today.

The treaty which came into force on 23^rd July 1952 and would end half a century later in 2002 revolutionized trade and regionalism, as it aimed to organize the free movement of coal and steel and more critically it opened access to resources of production.  Through the Treaty these countries witnessed the established of a common High Authority which was geared towards supervising the market, monitoring compliance with competition rules and also ensuring price transparency.

Given the animosity, destruction and tension that the Second World War had spawned the efforts made to collaborate at this juncture were laudable as the common market that was being created would give rise to economic expansion, generate employment and improve living standards, all of which was in a debilitated state following the travails of conflict that had been witnessed in the preceding years. Interestingly the Treaty ensured fair and equal access to the sources of production, and guaranteed prices whilst improving working conditions.

Institutionalization of the Treaty

The Treaty led to the creation of a series of institutions including a High Authority, an Assembly, a Council of Ministers and a Court of Justice, all of which ensured the implementation of the Treaty and adherence to that which had been pledged by member States. The High Authority, which is today’s European Commission was independent. This is the unique characteristic of even the Commission today where Commissioners though coming from countries across the EU, sit as Europeans as opposed to natives of their respective countries. This allows for decision making that is beneficial for the entirety of the Union. The lesson that could be derived from the European Commission is that in a regional grouping while the voices of all member States are relevant and crucial, it is the objective of ensuring that action is taken to promote the integration of the whole that matters the most. The model of the European Commission is the only one of its kind in existence today and is worthy of emulation given its reflection of the views of the whole, rather than its parts. This is where true synergy is harnessed.

Seven decades ago when the High Authority was established it became a supranational entity tasked with supervising the modernization and improvement of production, ensuring the supply of products under identical conditions, developing a common export policy and, from a labour perspective, was entrusted with the mandate of improving the working conditions in the coal and steel industries.  To ensure clarity of purpose and efficiency of service the Treaty also saw the creation of a Consultative Committee which comprised the key stakeholders in the Coal and Steel industry, notably the producers, workers, consumers and dealers, who were directly responsible and would have the task of ensuring the success or failure of the Treaty.

Further, the Treaty established the Assembly, which would lead to the European Parliament as we know it today, which at the time had 78 members, drawn from national parliaments. Whilst there were 18 representatives from Germany, France and Italy, 10 from Belgium and the Netherlands and 4 from Luxembourg, the supervisory power they possessed ensured guidance in keeping with national sentiments. Even the European Parliament which gradually transformed from a body of appointed individuals to one which consisted of elected representatives, displayed the potential of integration and collective decision making for countries which only a few years before had been at war which each other.

The Council that was formed led to the subsequent Council of the European Union that is in existence today, with 6 members at the time from the member States, and with a rotating presidency for 3 months. Geared towards ensuring smooth functioning of the action being taken by the High Authority, this was also the body that was responsible for the final decision making process.

Finally the Treaty also created a Court of Justice, which later transformed into the Court of Justice of the European Union with 7 judges to ensure that the Treaty was accurately interpreted and implemented.

Evolution of the Treaty

The Treaty of 1951 would see several amendments pursuant to discussions among member States who perceived the review as being necessary to keep the values and principles enshrined in the Treaty relevant and timely. While the Merger Treaty of 1965 brought together the European Coal and Steel Community with the European Economic Community and the Eurotom, there was also the Treaty of Greenland in 1984, the Treaty of the European Union in 1992, The Single European Act of 1986, the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and the most significant could be considered to be the Treaty of Rome of 1957 which truly moulded the EU into what it is today.

Taking Regionalism forward

Upon reflection of the journey taken by Europe from the Treaty of Paris onwards, it is evident that visionary decision making, clear strategizing and effective implementation of policy were highly essential and valuable attributes. The decision to pool the most important of resources, notably coal and steel and the creation thereby of an oligopoly controlled by the signatories of the Treaty would lead to integration in Europe which went beyond the economic dimension and gradually saw it progressing to its current state of being the deepest form of integration on the planet.

Whilst regionalism as a concept has evolved from its original form of being dependent on geography alone, to now embracing economics, finance, defence, language and even religion, the notion and potential of regionalism was first given meaning through the European Union. Other regional groupings aspire to progress accordingly but of essence is the need to develop indigenous models as opposed to attempting to emulate the same journey taken by the Europeans. The Coal and Steel Pact was of prime importance to the Europeans, and while economics and trade are crucial for all geographical regions, it is but one of the means through which integration can and should be achieved. Similarly the comparison of the EU with other regional groupings is unfair and irrelevant as the conditions, circumstances and context of Europe is vastly different to other regions.

From an Afro-Asian perspective, the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been able to make steady progress, and the African Union (AU) has also attempted deeper integration. However the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which is brimming with potential and has the ability to become a shining example of harnessing the value of collaborative action is far from where its founders expected it to be, owing chiefly to bilateral issues which are spilling over onto the regional table. Whilst this must be avoided for the sake of the whole, it needs to be a part of the past, as countries surge forwards to realize the potential of the 21^st century. Similarly the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is another grouping with much opportunity as it bridges SAARC and ASEAN, and brings together key countries who can achieve much more than is being experienced at present. Unfortunately the realization of potential has not reached fruition as member States still discuss the visionary potential and are slow to take concrete steps towards realizing that true value.

Whilst multilateralism continues to dominate the international sphere and augments bilateral engagement, models of regional groupings like the European Union which bring together a multiplicity of countries, need to be studied for what they have achieved and the mistakes they have made, analyzed for their progress and understood for the realization of scope in similar bodies elsewhere in the world, especially in Asia. The world of 1951 was vastly different from the one in which we exist today. Having come out of a deadly destructive world war, a few countries of Europe took the bold decision of cooperating to ensure stability, development and prosperity. The fruits of their endeavours are being felt decades later. It was the visionary leadership of the time to which the Europeans of today are thankful, as a region shattered by war, rose once again, and become a contender on the global stage as a collective unit, and not individual countries. This is the effect of collective action and as Europe Day is marked on 09^th May in commemoration of the Schuman Declaration, the lessons of the Treaty of Paris ring true today and are worthy of critical study, to promote stability, cooperation and prosperity.  

 

 

 

MULTIPLYING MULTILATERALISM - Strengthening Multilateral Diplomacy for strategic synergy

by George I. H. Cooke

In commemoration of the 65th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s membership in the largest multilateral forum, the United Nations, which is on 14th December 2020

Multilateralism is at the core of global governance. It has been in and through the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations that the core of multilateralism has been reposited. The UN marks its 75^th anniversary and over the last seven and half decades, the many agencies and organisation within its system have grown, and contributed immensely to the furtherance of global goals. Yet in the century ahead, the growth and integral value of the UN is being augmented by the presence and active participation of a plethora of groupings. These are not in competition with the UN, but instead complement cooperation, which is highly favourable for countries and their peoples. Having emerged in the second half of the last century, these entities are based on geography, politics, economics, finance and other factors of connectivity, and today embody the future of diplomacy.

The formalization of multilateralism a hundred years ago yielded overwhelming results. At the completion of a milestone and commencement of another century it is opportune to widen its understanding by strategizing diplomacy and deepening the synergy of its use. The inclusion of such measures in foreign policy provides innovative avenues for nation states, ensures strength for regional groupings and guarantees an enhancement of the world of diplomacy.

The placement of emphasis on multilateralism has been realized throughout the passage of time, as a means to garner greater support, build deeper awareness and promote harmonious engagement and existence. The multitude of groupings have contributed towards the realization of a semblance of co-existence and hence the ability to avoid the outbreak of a third world war or anything even close to it. Despite such efforts and the ability to stave off the challenges, they continue to abound. From nationalism and prolific movements, to global crises and pandemics, the doubt mounts, yet opportunity is even found in such situations.

The rise of nationalism in many parts of the world calls into question the potential of multilateral engagement and the prospects for countries to collaborate and compromise. The emergence of the far right in the legislative and executive arms of states appears to threaten the process of deepening and widening multilateralism as evidenced in numerous regions. The impact of multilateralism has however been ingrained in the fabric of the state. From preferential trading agreements to beneficial investment plans, and cooperative security measures to guaranteed support in times of difficulty, neighbours are realizing the need to rely on each other. This extends to those without common borders but instead share common interests, and who explore common solutions for common problems.

The era in which countries attempted to or indeed managed their affairs alone, if ever it existed, is certainly over. It ended a long time ago. Whilst the political rhetoric may attempt to persuade the populace to embrace nationalist stances, the practical aspect of governance proves the antithesis. Nationalism has risen, it has done so in the past too, but multilateralism hasn’t declined. Its superseding nature, advantageous positioning and promising returns have collectively made multilateralism indispensable on the planet.

When confronting global crises and pandemics, as 2020 revealed, countries have had to adapt to the new norm wherein their own safety may remain within their remit of control, but the onslaught of catastrophes is well beyond their capability to control. Therein assistance received and examples utilised often originate elsewhere. It is through the assistance received, be it material or technical, that the degree and depth of changes to dynamics occur at the national level. This is applicable largely to developing countries which have relied on international assistance in coping with the pandemic but also refers to situations in which developed countries have sourced medicine, equipment, and personnel from elsewhere to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. The examples derived from similar scenarios in other countries, either in learning from measures taken or not, have served all countries as they understand the ramifications of actions or the absence of such actions, through example.

Multilateralism has made the world more aware of the need to share. By sharing countries have been able to enhance their status, and improve their well-being. Whilst those possessing the wherewithal to share gain crucial positioning on the world stage, others are beneficiaries and have their well-being improved. Yet it is not limited to this equation alone. Situations abound where countries classified to be industrially poor yet resource rich, and those perceived to be financial giants but power in terms of resources, rely on each other. This dichotomy has thus spawned a deeper sense of cooperation.

The concept of one planet and one world is reiterated through every multilateral organisation. Their membership joins with the intention of contributing and receiving. Thus the building of consensus by means of giving and receiving make countries rely on each other. Though the degree of reliance maybe contested, it is still a relationship that is constructed and expanded. Given the synergy accrued from such relationships, it is possible to further grow such bonds ensuring positive returns.

The opportunities to be derived from those relationships are determined by each country and their representatives in policy formulation and implementation. Each country while possessing inherent strengths is responsible for ensuring the best returns for their respective country. It is here that strategizing becomes critical, and negotiation becomes the conduit through which strategized diplomacy is achieved.

Strategizing Diplomacy

In the decades ahead the demands of the planet will continue to increase with growing populations. The increasing presence on the globe will not be supplemented with increasing space for existence. Contending with the existing landscape would lead to aggravated conflict over a multiplicity of wants from food and water at the individual level, transcending onto the national, and thereafter causing constant consternation at the regional and global levels. Numerous other battles have the potential to arise and their effects would severely impact the progress of states, having a direct bearing on people once more.

How concerned are individuals of such eventualities? How prepared are governments for such developments? And how equipped is the world to face and overcome such challenges? Covid-19 generated much needed dialogue on the ability of countries to face such issues. It went beyond dialogue to ensuring that countries did cope, to the best of their abilities, with the unfolding effects. Yet questions exist from Andhra Pradesh to Ankara, and Wuhan to Washington on whether adequate, timely measures were taken, and are being taken, as the pandemic is far from over. Such discourse will continue well past the pandemic as the economic effects of it are gushing through societies around the world. The lesson to be derived is that no country, state or peoples can hope to remain immune or isolated when a crisis of this magnitude strikes the planet. Neither can a country battle the effects on its own.

The most strategic of tools in the armoury of a state, to assist its peoples and engage internationally, is its diplomacy and diplomatic machinery. Whilst arms and ammunition remain relevant to an extent, and finances and economic prowess stand them in good stead often, it is only through the skillful use of diplomacy that states are able to avert further contribution to impending disasters, avoid the devastating repercussions and evade human-constructed debacles or natural ones.

Of all aspects of policy formulation within a state, foreign policy needs to be included at the very core of decision-making given its pivotal nature. As an extension of domestic policy, it is foreign policy that enables a government to reach out, engage, consolidate and strengthen the goodwill a country enjoys on the world stage. Such goodwill is mandatory for co-existence as countries, though sovereign entities operate in collaboration with others and not in a vacuum. The promotion of this goodwill postulates well, especially at times of crisis and certainly in the growth of a country.

The conduit for garnering this goodwill is diplomacy, and more assuredly strategized diplomacy.  From the most powerful of states to tiny islands, or landlocked countries to economic powerhouses, the common denominator remains diplomacy. Whilst size and power matter to an extent, it is instead the quality of diplomacy, tenacity of diplomats and direction of policy that results in countries playing significant roles on the world stage. The resources at their disposal would understandably have an impact on their role but individuals with potential make the true difference.

St Lucia, an island in the Caribbean with a population of less than 200, 000 recruited Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe in 2001 to serve as deputy permanent delegate to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Possessing acumen and expertise she was instrumental in making Saint Lucia a country of great significance at this UN agency headquartered in Paris. From chairing several inter-governmental committees including the World Heritage Committee and the Independent External Evaluation Ad Hoc Working group, to heading the drafting group of the International Convention against Doping in Sport, the representative of Saint Lucia gave that country a place at the table. Serving in that position till 2016, the institutional memory and experience she gained, made her a pillar of the organisation and one to whom many other diplomats would turn to for advice and guidance. This accrued goodwill for the country she represented.

Saint Lucia’s choice of an individual resulted in the country gaining immense goodwill and the positioning of the country in a crucial arm of the UN system. Irrespective of the prospects of that country or its position on the global power ladder, Saint Lucia wasn’t subsumed within the greater machinations of a large organisation like UNESCO. Instead the choice of an individual to lead its cause made the difference and ensured effective engagement and the building of a positive image.

Positive Image

Countries are concerned about image. The desire to project a positive image is at the heart of diplomacy. Strategizing diplomacy to project that positive image becomes its very raison d'être. It is only through concerted diplomatic action and engagement that projections, alteration of perceptions, or even interaction can hope to be established. Diplomacy rests at the very heart of international relations. Possessing a systemic approach through the institutionalization of the field for centuries, diplomacy is at the vanguard of international issues. Being the peaceful and preferred option, its multifaceted construct, makes diplomacy in all its forms and manifestations the pivot of progress in the world.

Often countries struggle with three main causes for concern - reality, perceptions and resources. In conducting diplomacy, countries have to be mindful of understanding the reality themselves.  It is only when one comprehends the ground reality and is able to communicate its circumstances effectively is the challenge overcome. Similarly with perceptions, attempting to change them instantly is redundant given that perceptions are built up over a concerted period of time and will only be demolished over a similar period.

It is however mandatory that steps are taken through the diplomatic apparatus to deconstruct such perceptions, irrespective of the time involved, through repeated clarifications. Going further countries are called upon to be proactive rather than predominantly reactive. Waiting to respond to others narratives complicates messages and it is always better to commence the process rather than merely contribute to it.

In terms of resources a continuous increase and improvement of resources is essential for a comprehensive undertaking in diplomacy. Countries need to ensure that resources, in whatever form from individuals, infrastructure, and infusions of finance are devoted to the foreign policy sector. Budgets have to prioritize this sector as it is the most crucial in international engagement and will determine the success of numerous other sectors within the country, which rely on the outside world.

Irrespective of whether it is in understanding reality, clarifying perceptions or devoting more resources, it is the usage of personality that matters to the greatest degree. As evidenced with Saint Lucia, the choice of individuals ensures the success of strategized diplomacy or its dismal failure. While that which is formulated might be the most suitable, and timely action plans could be drawn up in strategizing diplomacy of a given country, it is the human resources involved in implementing it that play a most crucial role and cannot be compromised at any cost.

Generating growth

Through multilateral fora states are afforded the unique platform of being able to reach out to a diversity of countries, with which bilateral connectivity may not be strong. This arena gives policy formulators the ability to strategize in a manner which would accrue greater dividends and provide better visibility in their interactions.

The appointment of ambassadors singularly to regional headquarters that are located in many capitals increases momentum of interaction, helps a country realize its potential and more importantly guarantees visibility in that grouping. This visibility can transcend into tangible returns as the presence of an envoy on the ground has been proven to be far more valuable owing to the ability to network, rather than to have distant contact with a grouping.

Of those organisations in which states are categorized as Dialogue Partners or Observers it is essential that special attention is devoted if that state intends increasing its involvement and/or membership in the long term. Irrespective of the status of membership in such multilateral fora of significance is the seat at the table, and inclusion in the dialogue.

Countries that didn’t have direct connection with the British Empire, nor were colonized by Britain have gained membership in the Commonwealth. The rational is the ability to gain that much more by being a part of it, than being apart from it. Rwanda is one such country and will be hosting the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) once the pandemic recedes. The country is keen to be endorsed as an international conference destination and to change the perception that existed owing to its troublesome past. The opportunity to serve as the next Chair-in-Office will give Rwanda recognition within the Commonwealth and thereby attract tangible benefits, especially through the Commonwealth Business Forum which is set to take place on the sidelines of the summit.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has six Dialogue Partners of which Turkey drives the energy discourse within the grouping. Turkey is not a full member but has been instrumental in this sector since 2017 and has the opportunity of increasing momentum towards full membership. The contribution is being viewed in positive light from a political perspective, is bolstering energy cooperation and is aiding the country in its efforts to become an energy hub.     

The African Union (AU) in partnering with the United Nations through the Joint Task on Peace and Security has become the key to the success of peacekeeping operations. From the Central African Republic, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, South Sudan and the Horn of Africa, contention remains a critical factor yet the collaborative nature of work has seen a decrease in tension. Ethiopia has faced internal political issues but as host of the AU, member states have rallied around the country. From an Ethiopian perspective the steps taken by Haile Selassie in forming the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 is seeing affirmative action today.

The Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) at its inception in 1967 was deemed a grouping that would fail given the internal issues that the five founding members were facing as well as the animosity amongst these countries. Yet collective action facilitated change. The change has resulted in ASEAN being regarded today as one of the most progressive regional groupings and its members have gained immensely from the stability it brought to the sub-region, and from the peace that followed. Identified as the ‘Balkans of the East’ owing to the diversity and friction, the member states were able to alter such differences to their advantage through cogent policy formulation individually and collectively, and generate growth.  

Diversifying approaches

Through multilateral fora, states are at liberty to evolve innovative means of engaging in the world of diplomacy, though particular parameters do exist, to enable the sphere to be globally accepted. The freedom afforded countries makes it possible for them to adopt unique approaches. The diversification of the field and inclusion of new actors makes it more competitive and deserves attention in its totality if countries are going to remain relevant on the global stage.

Whilst culinary diplomacy is relatively new as a concept the deed has existed for a considerable period of time. The showcasing of gastronomic delights, through food exhibitions, not only introduces nationals of other countries to one’s own cuisine but more importantly generates a platform to present culture. Cultural exchanges or cultural diplomacy augments mainstream diplomacy as a soft power tool. Ranging from movies to music, and dance to drama, that which can be highlighted through cultural diplomacy remains limitless. Such forms extend to Public Diplomacy to reach people, and to further areas such as Military Diplomacy, and its varied off shoots, including Gunboat Diplomacy, Air Diplomacy, Maritime Diplomacy, as well as Religious Diplomacy, and its variant forms of usage notably Buddhist Diplomacy and Islamic Diplomacy in particular.

Similarly with more political forms of diplomatic engagement such as Shuttle Diplomacy complimenting the main diplomatic channels, branches dealing with science, sports, energy and economics all form deeply ingrained areas of diplomatic connectivity. Using these models in multilateral fora or basing multilateralism on such formats enables member states to explore hitherto tapped spheres and diversify their approach to diplomacy.

The characterization of diplomacy, with pioneering and widening scope of each and every sub-sect that exist to-date has given diplomacy opportunity as never experienced before. Through multilateral bodies states have the ability to promote themselves, support regional groupings they belong to, engage as widely as they wish by sharing best practices, undertake mutually beneficial arrangements, bolster existing cooperative mechanisms and establish new ones.

Multiplying multilateralism through strategized diplomacy ensures a synergic effect that will guarantee rich dividends for groupings and states alike, and most importantly ensure the prevalence of stability. States and their leaders have the option of either remaining static and volatile or synergized and stable. Though the effect of synergy remains elusive, at least from an International Relations perspective its effect when applied through multilateralism becomes more apparent and weighs heavily towards the effectiveness of the sphere.

In 2020, we mark the centenary of multilateralism. Stakeholders owe it to the founders of multilateralism to strengthen, strategize and synergize the scope of the field. With deeper engagement and wider collaboration, states will be able to reap a bountiful harvest, which would stand them in good stead in the years and decades ahead.

The time for action is here and now.

STRATEGIZING SRI LANKA’S FOREIGN POLICY IN 2018: IOR + 5G + 11P

Sri Lanka as an island has remained one of the most globally connected countries. Whilst expeditions were dispatched to the Roman Empire in some of the first international interactions, special envoys continued to traverse the world over the centuries. Likewise Sri Lanka attracted many traders and conquerors owing to resources and location. Numerous calls have been made to make Sri Lanka a hub in the Indian Ocean, but often we fail to realize that Sri Lanka was a hub of strategic importance. Traders from China, the Arab world, as well as the Portuguese, Dutch and British all found the island to be of considered importance and sought to control it to their benefit at varied periods. Making the island a hub is therefore not a new policy but one which needs to be revived. 

Reflection on that which has been becomes highly relevant at this juncture. Whether in terms of research or policy planning, foreign policy formulation needs the utmost attention given the international ramifications of each and every step taken and word uttered. Emphasis on research into how Sri Lanka strode the global stage, the measures undertaken, the international developments at the time, the tight balancing act that country had to follow, all become relevant as the country stands on the eve of its seventieth anniversary of independence.

Today Sri Lanka is a member, dialogue partner and observer of numerous organizations and groupings, yet the amount of leverage the country enjoys internationally, as a result of such affiliations, leaves much to be desired. For too long the island has remained static owing to developments within, but now with the conflict a near decade into history, it is time the country surges ahead, but it would only be able to do so with strategy, which it tends to lack at the most crucial of times.

FOREIGN POLICY FORMULATION    IOR + 5G + 11P

Identifying national interest remains at the core of decision making. Whether in negotiations over bilateral issues, staking a claim at the United Nations or through the plethora of multilateral platforms that Sri Lanka sits at, the prospect of going in with an agenda for success, rather than merely marking attendance, needs to top the list of priorities. Security remains critical, from defence of the island from outside interference; cyber attacks; protecting the maritime boundaries and resources; preserving peace, law and order within the island; ensuring a healthy population; securing sufficient food; avoiding economic downturns; promoting investment while protecting the environment. All of these dimensions of security are paramount for a country going forward.

Those involved in foreign policy formulation need to constantly retain the goal of ‘Sri Lanka-First’ irrespective of who or what they are dealing with. If Sri Lanka and her policy makers don’t put the country first, no one else will.

Sri Lanka needs a formula to effectively formulate and implement foreign policy, and one that would position the country to be where it intends in the next decade and thereon. The formula IOR + 5G + 11P draws on the strengths of the island vis-à-vis the Indian Ocean Region, five important groupings and eleven vital global partners.

IOR = INDIAN OCEAN REGION 

The immediate concern for the country is its larger neighbourhood. While Admiral Mahen observed the relevance of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) for its strategic importance before the outbreak of the First World War, it has only been in the last couple of years that Sri Lanka has begun seeking ways and means to enhance her presence.

Sri Lanka looks to other regions for trade opportunities, provides labour to some parts of the world, and draws upon significant investment from one global player, but the impact and prospects of the immediate neighbourhood have been long ignored. Regionalism has not, as yet, provided the prosperity that was envisaged in 1985. Through a process of restructuring whereby Sri Lanka would lay greater importance on all countries bordering the IOR, it would be possible to enhance interaction and trade which would be beneficial to the country.  

The Indian Ocean connects an estimated 47 countries in a wider region. As the focus of the twenty first century moves towards Asia and emphasis is also laid on the gradual rise of Africa, Sri Lanka stands to gain immensely through two sources. Location is paramount given the maritime connectivity the region affords the island, as it lies along international lines of connectivity, and secondly the economic gains from intense interactions across the region.

For effective maritime and economic policies to be implemented Sri Lanka’s foreign policy must be restructured to address the challenges of the day and harvest the opportunities of its geopolitical importance. Exactly in the centre of the IOR, Sri Lanka enjoys an excellent position to straddle two continents and regions, while remaining the conduit through which the world passes the Indian Ocean.

5G = FIVE GROUPINGS

Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)

The ASEAN region is growing. From its inception in 1967 to date the sub region has been able to secure development, prosperity and more importantly peace. Identified as an emerging hotspot, ASEAN brings together three republics, three constitutional monarchies, two communist states, a sultanate and a former military junta. This diversity remains a paramount challenge but one that is converted into an opportunity as they strive forge ahead. Whilst much can be learned from the ASEAN model of operation, it is the action of countries in the grouping that are worthy of emulation. Sri Lanka possesses the ability to go beyond mere emulation through the understanding of the challenges these countries faced, the ways they overcame them and look at creating a new space for advancement.  

With some of the best diplomats the country has to offer stationed in the ASEAN region the harvest needs to be increased but will only be achieved if the capital issues a clear, concise, strategic and pragmatic policy that needs to be implemented across the board. Sri Lanka forewent the opportunity of joining in 1967, but was accepted as a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) forty years later in 2007. The magnitude of the ARF remains untapped, with the uniqueness of the platform not understood.

Africa Union (AU)

A continent that has struggled for decades is seeing a wave of development, collaboration and progress with flourishing economies, a growing young population set to ensure a dynamic work force, high rate of urbanization and increased spending on infrastructure. The 55 member African Union is geared towards realizing African solidarity, bringing together countries which are distinct and diverse.

Having worked closely with countries across the continent from independence but specifically in the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement, Sri Lanka possesses much goodwill. Tapping into NAM contacts, building strong ties with the AU, and allowing that to trickle down into closer contact at the bilateral level would result in Sri Lanka being able to see tangible progress and concrete action with countries that shouldn’t be relied upon only at the time of a vote in the UN.

As Asia surges ahead, Africa isn’t too far behind. Despite concerns within, the continent is continuing its march towards prosperity. Sri Lanka as a neighbour in the IOR would do well to develop closer ties across the region and not just in Addis Ababa. The closure of African missions in Colombo and the closure of Sri Lankan missions in Africa would do little to improve relations, especially when the countries concerned are key players in the AU.

Commonwealth

The Commonwealth will see rejuvenation with Britain hosting CHOGM in 2018. The natural disaster in Vanuatu and their inability to host the summit in 2017, saw the offer of Britain to undertake the task at a time when Brexit negotiations are due to enter a critical stage. Auguring well for the decades old grouping that Britain created as the Empire commenced its decline, the Commonwealth has remained relevant despite caution being expressed even at its origins.

Countries gaining independence, including India and Sri Lanka were eager to enroll as members, despite the caution and doubt. Diversity has remained its strength with potential for cooperation, enhanced trade, and the creation of another forum for leaders to meet and interact. With a total landmass of its members covering almost a quarter of the world land area, an estimated population of 2.328 billion, a third of the world’s population, and including some of the world’s largest, smallest, richest and poorest countries, spanning five regions, the Commonwealth is expected to get a fresh boost during the Chair-in-Office of Britain.  

Determination to survive without an empire saw Britain bring everyone back through the Commonwealth; similarly today as they poised to leave the European Union, Britain would look to capitalize on the Commonwealth, improve its significance and ensure its relevance. Being the only international organization that brings together key stakeholders during the Heads of Government Meeting from government, youth, civil society and the business community, the Commonwealth is supported by an active network of more than 80 intergovernmental, civil society, cultural and professional organisations, which would do well to benefit Sri Lanka.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Remaining under the radar, the SCO is the next big step in the march towards realizing the Asian Century. Although only twenty years since its inception as the Shanghai Five, the SCO has expanded its membership to include India and Pakistan, a move that would strategically benefit all countries in South Asia. With countries like China and Russia cooperating in the fields of economics and more importantly, defence, the potential remains limitless. Adding India and Pakistan to the equation would ensure that two countries that don’t see eye to eye converge through the joint operations conducted thawing the animosity, which, in time to come would augur well for South Asian cooperation.

Sri Lanka is an observer of this organization. The country has been given an important seat in an organisation that is often compared to NATO given its potential and promise. Strategically Sri Lanka has the ability to work in partnership with Russia and China while also tapping into the Central Asian region, with which little or nothing is done. The forum provides an ideal platform for exploring bilateral ventures, attracting investment and garnering security in a range of spheres.

United Nations (UN)

As the key stage on which the entirety of the global community converges, the United Nations has retained its relevance for more than seven decades. It has done so through tact, coordinated planning and structured responses. The ability for its central body, the Security Council, to pull through the Cold War with it divergently opposed stances, is testimony to the longevity of the Organization.

Sri Lanka having been a member since 1955, chaired the Security Council in 1960 and the General Assembly in 1976. Sri Lankans have reached some of the highest positions in its varied organs and fulfilled globally acknowledged tasks, as with the Law of the Sea Conference. Shelter was highlighted, food security proposals have been rewarded and maritime safety advocated. These were some of the key areas in which Sri Lanka shone, not just in New York but throughout the UN system. Yet these achievements are relegated to days gone by.

Sri Lanka sits complacently today on the back benches of a system to which so much more can be contributed and from which that much more can be derived. The diverse organs of the UN offer member states plenty of fora through which they can collaborate, share best practices, and implement joint activities. The degree to which this is done at present remains questionable. One aspect is in the field of defeating terrorism. As a country that defeated terrorism on its soil, the contribution Sri Lanka can make to the international community in an era when terrorism dominates most international dialogue, is much greater, yet unfulfilled.

11P - ELEVEN PARTNERS - America, Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey

Sri Lanka maybe geographically identified as an island but the country is by no means isolated. The enhanced connectivity needs to be used to the benefit of all Sri Lankans. Sri Lanka needs to look at strategic partners in different regions. Being ‘friends’ with all is good, but Sri Lanka needs ‘best friends’ at this juncture. Key allies who will reach out on behalf of Sri Lanka in their respective regions resulting in a targeted approach of implementing foreign policy goals.

Whilst America, China and Russia remain obvious choices as key partners, Sri Lanka needs to identify movers and shakers globally. Turkey plays a dominant role in the international relations, South Africa is the leader in Africa, Canada is the most progressive country today with a multicultural diversity success story, Germany is the most prosperous nation in Europe, Qatar, the richest nation in the world, Japan, a constant strong supporter, Thailand, a historic partner in South East Asia, and Australia is the leader in the Pacific region. Through the consolidation of relations with these countries, Sri Lanka would open windows into regions.

PRAGMATIC STRATEGIZING

From 1948, Sri Lanka advocated a policy of ‘friends to all, enemies to none’, been a founder of the Non-Alignment Movement and developed deep ties with countries like China and Japan owing to incidents, like the Rubber Rice Pact and the San Francisco meeting, both of which were occasions when Sri Lanka was a true friend, and incidents that neither of those countries forgot as they rose in power and ability. However Sri Lanka cannot keep harping on such incidents and expecting countries to remain grateful forever.

2018 should not be a mere milestone of seven decades of independence but one at which foreign policy makers take stock of where we are and where we want to be at the eightieth anniversary and beyond. Until and unless Sri Lanka strategizes on using location, harnessing resources and striding the international stage, the country will remain disillusioned and relegated to a backseat on the global stage.

Emphasis on a process of pragmatic strategizing which takes cognizance of inherent challenges, proposes means by which they could be overcome and ensures that the island returns to its zenith in foreign affairs, should be the targeted approach of policy makers going into 2018. Implementers need guidance. The absence of an overall plan results in adhoc measures, taken in good faith, but yielding ineffective results due to the mismatch of goals.  A proper understanding of that which has been, and that which is, is critical to determine where a country is heading. That understanding can only be derived through effective research, clear analysis and pragmatic strategizing.The sooner Sri Lanka does it, the faster the country will prosper.

George I. H. Cooke

AWARELOGUE Editorial