CONVERTING TRADE INTO POWER – The European Single Market at 30

Reflections on Europe Day 2023

by George I. H. Cooke

 

The impact of trade on countries that engage in it heavily internationally, and the overall effect it is having on international relations as a whole, continues to baffle. European historian, Norman Davis, points out that “Western Europe’s greatest success story lay in the realm of economic performance. The speed and the scale of economic resurgence after 1948 was unprecedented in European history, and unmatched in any part of the world except Japan. It was so unexpected and spectacular that historians cannot easily agree on its causes. It is far more easily described than explained.”

Herein lies the crucial argument for trade and its intensification, which the European Union, as the foremost model of integration, has been able to achieve. As the Union marks three decades since the establishment of the Single Market, it is prudent to reflect upon that which has been achieved individually by countries, and collectively by the region.

Geared towards facilitating the free flow of goods, services, people and capital, the depth of integration was first envisioned in 1957 through the Treaty of Rome. Considered to be well ahead of its time, the Treaty proposed the reduction of customs duties, establishment of a customs union, creation of a common market, as well as common transport and agricultural policies, and even envisaged the setting up of the European Commission, which is one of the most unique institutions in multilateral bodies.

It was the signing of the Maastricht Treaty on 7 February 1992, that led to the establishment of the Single Market on 1 January 1993 bringing together 12 EU countries, notably, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom. With the expansion of the Union, the Single Market now comprises of the 27 EU Member States and also includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, while Switzerland has a degree of involvement as well.

The European Commission highlights that the Single Market has been able to make three distinct shifts - ‘accelerating the transition to a greener and more digital economy; guaranteeing high safety and leading global technological standards; and responding to recent crises with unprecedented speed and determination” – but from an analytical point of view, it has made the European Union one of the strongest trading blocs, and boosted its currency globally. This translates to power on the world stage, that many other regions which have attempted integrating can only aspire to, and are yet to realise.

While the deepened integration might be questioned against the backdrop of the exit of the United Kingdom, it needs to be examined for the progress and impact made over the last three decades. Greece, is probably the EU member that has faced the most trying of financial times in recent years, hence the Greek Foreign Ministry’s assertation that “the seamless operation of the Single Market is a precondition for a strong economy that will benefit all Member States, citizens and businesses and that will meet the conditions of global competition,” is testimony to its resolute commitment to the Single Market. In contrast, Germany, seen as the foremost and strongest economy in the Union, has benefited immensely from the Market. The Bertelsmann Foundation notes that “Germany benefited most in absolute terms from the single market, earning an extra 86 billion euros ($96 billion) a year because of it.”

At first glance it appears that all countries are benefitting from the Single Market, but it is important to note that the advantages accrued vary from one member state to another, and is largely dependent on their size, economy and strength. There is relative gain with Germany for example gaining tremendously, and Greece gaining relatively less, but gaining nonetheless.

Arguments on the contrary claim that the Single Market remains an illusion, which is yet an ‘ongoing project’ despite its many decades of implementation. Fredrik Erixon and Rositsa Georgieva of The Five Freedoms Project, claim that “While the nature and profile of the Single Market, and its regulations, have changed over the years, they often have focused on the wrong issues, or on factors that would not change the nature of markets as such.” This observation relates specifically to the Services sector, with their further claim that “The piecemeal approach to reform, followed until now, has created a complex web of regulations, administrative rules, national discretion, and partial freedoms. Fractional and incomplete liberalization have reduced the potential gains.”

Similarly, highlighting the legal obstacles to implementation, Copenhagen Economics, points out that “the functioning of the Single Market is a shared responsibility between the EU and the Member States. Differences in interpretation and application of EU law are inevitable. Despite years of hard work and substantial real progress, we appear to be some distance from having a well-functioning Single Market, free from unjustified or inappropriate obstacles to free movement.”

Although three decades might not have yielded a completely consolidated system it does however indicate much progress that is yet to be achieved by other regional groupings. The EU Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton argues that the Single Market is “much more than just a legal framework – or indeed a market. We need to continuously preserve, improve and re-invent this formidable asset.” Breton calls for three crucial measures to ensure that progress. He notes that “first, by ensuring that the rules we have agreed collectively are also applied collectively. Second, by putting SMEs at the centre of Europe’s competitiveness. Third, by ensuring that people and businesses have access to the goods and services they need, when they need them.”

While Breton’s assertion contributes to the concept of the Single Market being an ‘ongoing project’ it indicates the need for collective action for any progress across the grouping. This collective action might not always be forthcoming owing to domestic developments as seen with Brexit, and its impact on the region in particular, and regionalism in general. While Brexit delayed deeper integration, it also raised the question over the amount of integration. However, the United Kingdom had first raised concerns about the European model two years after joining in the mid-1970s. Therefore, the example of the Brexit needs to be examined in different light. Of relevance however, is continuous call for collective action. If Member States pull in different directions, or differ largely over policy and its implementation, the model is on rocky ground.

Yet the acceleration of economic development across the region, the enhancement of trade, and the removal of barriers, has led to the Single Market remaining a firm foundation upon which countries are able to build solid cooperative mechanisms. The Single Market also causes a return to the basic understanding that those who trade are less likely to engage in conflict.

A decade ago, the Stanford Graduate School of Business focused on the research of Matthew O. Jackson and Stephen Nei, who suggested that “military alliances alone aren’t enough to stop nations from attacking one another, and also that the addition of multilateral economic trade creates a more stable, peaceful world.” In their paper on Networks of Military Alliances, War and International Trade, Jackson and Nei observed that “once you bring in trade, you see network structures densify…trade motives are essential to avoiding wars and sustaining stable networks.”

Member States of the European Union embarked on an ambitious programme of integration after the Second World War with trade remaining at the centre, but these members did not sacrifice defence either, and many are Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Thus, military alliances have not been completely forgotten or sidelined, but have been nurtured too, and especially so in the last three decades. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, NATO evolved, and this evolution is attributed to Member States taking concrete action to ensure their preparedness if and when required.

While Europe has been able to avoid war among its constituent, yet sovereign entities, it is today grappling with war on its border as Ukraine and Russia continue to engage violently. However, NATO not activating a no-fly zone over Ukraine despite demands for the same from Ukraine, has probably been the saving factor that has ensured that war has not spilt over into Europe, and in fact the entire world.

The collective military might, coupled with the trade prowess, has given the European Union a higher degree of power. Three decades after the Single Market came into operation it is relevant to question whether trade ensured the inclusion of power into the equation, especially in light of the strength of the currency of the EU, and its financial markets. A currency of several European member states used by approximately 340 million people daily, is today the second most widely used currency globally, with 60 partner countries or territories also using the currency in some form.

The 69^th plenary meeting of the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs (COSAC) is due to convene in Sweden next week. A background note for the session on the Single Market has been circulated prior to the meeting. It claims that “Over the last three decades, the single market has promoted healthy competition and created strong economies and industries across the continent. The removal of barriers for goods, services, capital and people has given us both better companies and more thriving countries, and has provided consumers with higher quality products at better prices. The single market also makes it easier to travel, study, work, live and retire in other member states…. The single market also contributes to the Union’s unique peace project as it has generated increased trade, closer contacts and greater mobility within the Union.”

Trade transposed a region that fought two world wars in the short span of two decades, and has managed to remain relatively peaceful and devoid of conflict for over seven decades. It is granted that challenges remain deeply entrenched, and much doubt is raised over collective action, but it is also true that the European model of integration remains unique and in a league of its own, well ahead of the rest. Davies’ claim remains accurate as the progress “is far more easily described than explained.”

 

 

SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE 2022: DEEPENING DIPLOMACY AND DEFENCE

GUEST COMMENTARY by Banura Nandathilake

On 12^th June, Asia Pacific’s leading forum for defence diplomacy - the Shangri-La Dialogue ended after a pandemic-induced three-year hiatus. While the Dialogue is procedurally focused on cultivating a sense of security community within the Asia Pacific, which it solely lacks, this year’s event concluded under the uncertain shadow of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the increasingly tenuous US-Sino relations.

The Shangri-La Dialogue is an intergovernmental security conference held in Singapore, by the London based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in collaboration with the government of Singapore. The Dialogue is chiefly attended by state actors such as Military chiefs, Defence and Foreign Ministers. However, non-state participants too, such as legislators, academic experts, distinguished journalists and business delegates attend the summit. Named after the host venue since 2002, the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore, the forum serves as a platform for debate, expression of views and discussion on specific issues through bilateral meetings. However, off the record meetings are also held, chaired by IISS, to advance policy goals more freely.

Apart from the host nation, participating countries for the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue included Australia, Cambodia, Brunei, Chile, France, Canada, China, India, Germany, Japan, Indonesia, Laos, South Korea, Myanmar, Mongolia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sweden, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Thailand, Vietnam, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Dialogue was attended by about 500 delegates from more than 40 countries.

Forum Proceedings

The 2022 Dialogue, as all previous sessions, was commenced by Dr John Chipman, the Director-General and Chief Executive of the IISS. This year’s keynote address was given by Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan, who set the overall tone for the dialogue - the need for security cooperation and collective action between state and non-state actors in the Asia pacific to counter growing threats in the region and beyond. Broad topics such as the US Indo-Pacific Strategy - a significant shift of resources from the Middle eastern theatre, Competition in a Multipolar world, Military Modernisation, Prescriptions for Myanmar and China’s vision for Regional Order were covered. 

US-China Relations - a String Pulled Taut

The 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue was a significant milestone in contemporary US-China relations. The forum facilitated a meeting between the U.S. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and the Chinese Defence Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe, the first face-to-face encounter since President Biden's inauguration in January 2021. Any hope or reassuring signs of reinstalling lines of direct communication were dispelled by the increasingly sparring headline speeches and subsequent conversations between the two nations, on topics ranging from the status of Taiwan, proceedings within the South China Sea and questions and concerns surrounding grave human rights violations within China.

The US primary criticism of China’s international conduct centred around the latter’s coercive and aggressive actions in the disputed South China Sea, wherein China has constructed man made islands within the shared seaway in an attempt to solidify its claim to the areas enclosed by a ‘9-dash line’ which is claimed by Beijing to grant it exclusive rights, despite non-recognition by international law. “Indo-Pacific countries shouldn’t face political intimidation, economic coercion, or harassment by maritime militias,” Secretary Austin asserted, as “the PRC’s moves threaten to undermine security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” He further reaffirmed the US position to defend its interests and those of its allies despite increased Chinese movement, mobilisation and pressure.

Secretary Austin’s Chinese counterpart's response was as headline jarring as his. Minister Wei Fenghe described his country’s position as one of self-defence in a global world of zero-sum, self-interested actors. Wei acknowledged his country’s increased nuclear and naval capabilities, in a speech peppered with warnings to tread carefully and avoid Chinese provocation. He further reaffirmed China’s strong stance of a rising great power, one of self-defence but also a crave for international legitimacy through recognition as a peaceful actor. Wei stressed that “It is a historic and strategic mistake to take China as a threat or enemy”. To ensure global peace and development, by virtue of China now being a great power, Wei called for a stop in attempts to “contain China, to stop interfering in China’s internal affairs, and stop harming China’s interests,” signalling that peace was conditional on China’s free reign. His speech further contained a stronger reiteration of the Chinese position on the disputed island of Taiwan - “If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China – let me be clear – we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end.”

Shared Ukrainian Costs

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated in this year’s Dialogue for the first time through a video link teleconference. Highlighting the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he urged the attendees of primarily Asian states to “remember that support and attention is not only for Ukraine but for (the greater Asia) as well, to ensure that our and your future is safe’’ in the contemporary globalised world. Despite Ukraine’s geographical distance from Asia, Russia’s invasion of his country has global implications, as the political, social and economic distance between countries are much shorter in the present than they ever were. Thus, the costs of war are shared between states, through trade interdependence, geopolitical institutions, and have direct effects such as rising global inflation.

Mr Zelenskyy further stressed that there are ideological costs, as “it is on the Ukrainian battlefield that the future rules of this world are being decided along with the boundaries of the possible.” His position drew clear parallels and a not-so-subtle nod to China's desire for Taiwanese reunification. The political alignments and the ideological divides of the attendee states were made abundantly clear as Prime Minister of Japan Kishida noted that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” further adding to the underlying tension of the Dialogue.

Collective Concerns of the Divided

Despite the lack of collective action on political qualms and tensions owing to non alignment of political compasses, the attendee states of the 2022 Shangri-La Dialogue remained receptive to prescriptions for collective concerns. The Dialogue served as a platform to tackle contemporary issues such as global underdevelopment and need of environmental security as a response to climate change, and the green defence agenda wherein the low-lying nations of Maldives, Polynesia and Micronesia were focused upon. The scope of prescriptions for global development and climate degradation are far beyond a single state, and collective action of all nations has shared global benefits. However, talks of nuclear disarmament were pushed by Prime Minister Kishida, who raised the potential for nuclear weapons of China, Russia and North Korea, to cause devastation more than that which was experienced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Despite such a statement representing a significant change in the security environment, as it differed from the zero-sum, negative peace structure of the past, it was not well received possibly as one nation may seek to gain more from the said action than the other.

Why They Do What They Do

Security forums such as the Shangri-La Dialogue would be those where one is likely to hear more bad news than good. However, the 2022 forum was not so much a “glass half empty but more of a vessel placed precariously close to the edge of a table, one small slip away from smashing to pieces” (Sachdeva, 2022). As New Zealand Defence Minister Henare noted, there existed “an underlying tension”.

Borrowing from the English School of International Relations (Buzan et al 2002, Bull 1977) would contribute to an apt analysis of the Shangri-La Dialogue. Great power interests define international aspirations and ambitions, even in regional institutions. The Dialogue subscribed to the broad tensions of the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the US-China hostilities. Military diplomacy and international institutions which are dominated by great power interests, and smaller developing states are more rule takers than agenda setters. Further, international and weak regional institutions would have little sway in changing great power behaviour and are platforms for great power machinations. Weak regional institutions and forums would have less stringent rules, and less enforcement of such rules which would serve as checks and balances to the power of larger states. Fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue, as opposed to stronger institutions such as NATO do “not provide much in the way of reassurance about the future trajectory of the relationship (between states) and only reinforces the sense that competition between the two powers is likely to linger thereafter” (Parameswaran 2019).

The fact that the sour relations between US and China continued on since the 2019 Dialogue, which was dominated by the subject of heightened U.S.-China competition serves to solidify the aforementioned understanding.

Despite such dire notions for international cooperation and mitigating global anarchy, the Shangri-La Dialogue represents a necessary, albeit insufficient platform for diplomacy and the peaceful resolution of differences between states. Institutions are only as strong as the rules that states are willing to enforce on themselves. However, institutions and fora such as the Shangri-La Dialogue are still important platforms which aim to resolve statist tensions through negotiated compromise and diffused reciprocity over hard power coercion and war (Keohane and Nye, 1977). The contemporary world is interconnected, with the space and time between events and reactions to such decreasing at an exponential rate. The contemporary world cannot afford to disregard the power of diplomacy for in the words of Henry Kissinger, despite animosities of history, diplomacy serves as means of restraining power.

 

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.  

 

 

 

COMPREHENDING KADIRGAMAR: THE RELEVANCE OF THE MAN AND HIS MISSION, A DECADE AND A HALF AFTER HIS DEMISE

Facets of Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy at the end of the 20^th century and its relevance in 2020

by George I. H. Cooke

A decade and a half after his assassination, Lakshman Kadirgamar remains an iconic figure whose presence, personality and policies were influential, not just from the perspective of an individual but more for a country and its relations with the world. As Sri Lanka sees the formation of a new cabinet in August 2020 in the wake of a General Election, it is fitting to reflect on that which has been, especially in the Foreign Policy arena, and the contribution of an individual, facets of which remain relevant to date.

At this juncture, an attempt is being made, to examine the challenges back in 1994 and the manner in which they were dealt with, and thereby reflect on the present and identify the concerns that lie ahead, and the means through which they can be addressed. This is being done with emphasis on three particularly aspects though numerous others exist.

While the formulation of foreign policy remains within the remit of the Executive branch of government, the minister assigned with the portfolio of foreign affairs is also answerable to the legislature. As such the Foreign Minister walks a fine line in having to work closely with the President of the country, and with Parliament, while also promoting issues of national interest, internationally. The network internationally includes the foreign missions based in Colombo and Sri Lankan missions across the world, leaders and counterparts of countries with which bilateral relations have been established, as well as international organisations to which the country has varied forms of involvement ranging from being a full member, to observer or dialogue partner.

The selection of an individual to undertake such a task remains challenging. Whilst the Prime Minister retained the portfolios of External Affairs and Defence from 1948 onwards, the process was altered when J. R. Jayewardene appointed A. C. S. Hameed, making him the first non-Prime Ministerial Foreign Minister. From then onwards, many have occupied the position and made noteworthy contributions to the sphere of diplomacy and foreign policy in Sri Lanka.

Foreign policy formulation and implementation remain crucial elements in any country. It is more critical in a country that, possessing much potential, has had to bear the brunt of violence, bloodshed and conflict and yet strive to reach out to the international community, fulfil responsibilities on the global stage and also remain a reliable and relevant player in the world. In 1994, it was a daunting task. It could be argued that in 2020, while the circumstances have changed, prejudices and biases on the part of influential stakeholders in the world, remain, and require a strategic approach.

The decision by President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in 1994, to bring Lakshman Kadirgamar into the political framework commenced a political journey of a little more than a decade. From those initial discussions, before she became Prime Minister, to the period that was to follow with many variations along the way, spanning almost the entirety of her presidency, the two personalities enjoyed a relationship which was unique in many ways, and hugely beneficial to the country. Her knowledge of the field of Foreign Affairs and his expertise and experience resulted in the creation of a highly conducive environment. Never before, or after has the country seen such a process of bonding between a president and foreign minister, as that which was evident during their time in office.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Addressing the fifty first session of Commission on Human Rights at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, in February 1995, Kadirgamar spelt out in detail the measures taken and those which were envisaged, in the human rights sector. The tone was set in that speech through which he explained the steps taken in the United Nations, and with influential global players and highlighted the commitments of the government in a transparent and unambiguous manner. Noting the concerns that had been raised over human rights, he expressed confidence that the mechanisms that had been initiated would change the discourse on Sri Lanka.

These measures included the rescinding of emergency regulations, the appointment of three commissions to investigate disappearances, the strengthening of the powers of the Ombudsman, the finalizing of plans for the establishment of a human rights commission and the ratification of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as well as the enactment of relevant legislation. He had also appointed a five – member group of experts from non-governmental entities to advise him and to ensure that he remained abreast of international developments in the arena of human rights.

That which was done in those opening months of the Kumaratunga presidency would change the tide, mend relations, and ensure stability in ties with crucial players in the world, the UN and its affiliated agencies but more importantly portrayed Sri Lanka in positive light as a country determined to make a worthy contribution and be counted in the world.

Fast forward to 2020, and Sri Lanka faces a plethora of issues internationally. It is the government of the day which is now being called upon to respond to these issues, ensure understanding prevails and guarantee Sri Lanka a position among equals. While Covid-19 caused a lull period of hibernation, the virus having taken its course, will begin to recede, but the challenges that Sri Lanka faces in the human rights arena in particular will resurface once again. It is here that a pragmatic approach becomes essential. Instilling confidence in the international community will be the biggest task of the new Foreign Minister, who will need to adopt measures akin to that which were undertaken two and a half decades ago. A proactive approach, wherein questions are answered before they are asked, measures are highlighted before they are raised, and action is justified before it is required would draw international attention but more importantly convey clarity of thought and deed.

This clarity in communication is a pressing need of the hour. Governments and their leaders failed in the past on several fronts due to their inability to communicate effectively and others succeeded owing to their ability to perfect the art of effective communication. The outline provided by Kadirgamar in 1995 cleared concerns that may have existed in the minds of the international community, conveyed genuineness of action and resulted in the adoption of a cooperative and consensual rather than coercive approach to human rights issues. It went further, in guaranteeing the people of Sri Lanka their due rights and instilled confidence in the government and its leadership.

A template was thus created by Kadirgamar. One which should be dusted, discussed and developed to address the challenges that lie ahead as Sri Lanka prepares to face the upcoming human rights sessions in Geneva. It is also noteworthy that Geneva might be a part of the UN system but it does not comprise the totality of the UN. Sri Lanka has enjoyed the best of relations with numerous UN organisations and agencies since before the country became a fully fledged member of the UN in New York in 1955. These bonds require due focus, adequate strengthening, and greater involvement by the country if Sri Lanka is to reap the benefits of multilateralism in 2020, a century after the world adopted this additional course of diplomatic engagement, with the establishment of the League of Nations.

Kadirgamar himself measured the effectiveness of the template he created in 1995, when he addressed the Human Rights Commission in March 2005, in what would become his last speech on that platform. He explained the ‘concerted and determined efforts to rebuild the nation’ after the tsunami; noting the ‘unreserved commitment towards promoting and protecting human rights both nationally and internationally’ based on ‘our national ethos derived from age-old traditions as well as our commitment to democracy and freedom’; the strengthening of the national human rights protection system ‘in line with Sri Lanka’s constitutional and international obligations as a party to seventeen international human rights instruments including all seven major human rights conventions and treaties; the zero tolerance policy on torture; and the establishment of human rights directorates in the three armed forces and police.

While it might be argued that Kadirgamar was responding to international concern, having to explain the course of action of the state, or defending the positions adopted by the country, it is also relevant to note that his expression of commitment to ‘engage with all members of the Commission on Human Rights to narrow differences, reach consensus and to ensure contribution to the common goal of promoting and protecting human rights’ created a highly conducive environment for the government to operate in. This had positive repercussions in other spheres of engagement of the state, and augured well for Sri Lanka, a country although considered small has been one which possessed and continues to possess vast untapped potential, which is often stifled in the international arena.

The process of reviewing a policy, its means of implementation and the outcomes originally desired, results in the activation of a highly effective mechanism. Often policies once formulated, are directed to be implemented and seldom reviewed to measure effectiveness. By taking stock internationally, Kadirgamar displayed transparency. This lucidity gave rise to a greater degree of openness which was appreciated, and which further consolidated the trust established by the government.

The situation of 2020 though varied in nature also pivots upon the building of trust, similar to that which was required in 1994. The government is called upon today to strengthen the network of allies that already exist, construct new bridges of connectivity and promulgate proactive measures, which would essentially build trust where it doesn’t exist or is relatively weakened. The ability of the government to reach out to the international community as a whole and directly address issues of concern, explain stances taken or those that would not be taken, and engage continuously with the wider spectrum of states with which irregular contact exists, would see a marked shift in Sri Lanka’s diplomatic engagement.

Sri Lanka needs to significantly assume a human rights position which includes forthright deliberation, strategic policies and concrete action, which is relentless in nature and unyielding in implementation.

REGIONALISM

Sri Lanka had joined the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in 1985 at its inception and when Kadirgamar entered the national fray in 1994, he identified the need to ‘secure South Asia’. Identifying three ingredients, Kadirgamar stated that political will was a primary factor, as was regional security and cooperation as well as the ability to talk freely and frankly to each other in the region. This approach which became a cornerstone of foreign policy formulation with regard to South Asia in the Kumaratunga administration was carefully nurtured and actively pursued by both the President and Foreign Minister in their dealings with their counterparts in SAARC.

In 2000, the Foreign Minister in discussing the immense amount of potential and boundless possibilities of SAARC opined that “It has to happen. We will overcome the problems that beset us now. There are problems that bedevil relations among some of us. They are intractable, but not insoluble. There is a vast reservoir of goodwill among all the peoples of our region which in time will propel the member states concerned to get together, to bury their differences and move SAARC along.”

He was speaking in the backdrop of numerous challenges that the organisation had faced. The first half of the 90s had seen practical steps being taken with the South Asian Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) signed in 1993, and activated in 1995; the establishment of the SAARC Trade Chamber; the setting up of the Association of SAARC Speakers and Parliamentarians; and the holding of subject specific Ministerial Meetings.

In 1997, on Sri Lanka’s proposal, member states agreed to ‘a process of informal political consultations’ to promote peace, stability, amity and accelerated socio-economic cooperation. Yet the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 shook the region but intense diplomacy by Sri Lanka and solid networks in the region resulted in the Colombo Summit being successfully concluded later that year. Here attention was focused on regional issues, their impact on individual countries and the growing challenges if the impact was not addressed at an initial stage. Pushing the need for a common approach Sri Lanka was able to positively influence stability and action in South Asia.

In the run up to 2020, SAARC appeared to be trying very hard to prove Kadirgamar wrong. His strong belief that problems can be overcome and that the goodwill of people will prevail and propel members forward, remains a guiding star for the South Asian region. Sri Lanka had a golden opportunity in 2016, when the Summit in Islamabad was on the verge of being postponed, to intervene on behalf of the region and all its members. The leadership at the time could have salvaged the Summit through shuttle diplomacy using the good offices of a senior Sri Lankan leader, acceptable to both India and Pakistan.  That opportunity was lost.

2020 has given rise to new opportunity. The rigours of the virus saw the initiation of a virtual summit in March by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The leadership responded to the crisis, deliberated on potential action and promised closer collaboration. The decision of Prime Minister Modi to revisit SAARC and thereby strengthen his neighbourhood policy, is a timely measure which requires concerted action by all, especially Sri Lanka. As a country that enjoys close ties with India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka must remain alert, available and active in thwarting any attempts to derail SAARC, or prove its irrelevance.

Neighbourhoods are important. This is especially so for small countries which co-exist with bigger ones. It is in the interest of South Asia to ensure closer collaboration, and equally necessary for Sri Lanka to play a pivotal role in promoting this closer collaboration. South Asia is an entity based on geography, which cannot be changed. Its potential effectiveness was highlighted at its inception, reiterated over the ensuring decades and is still relevant in 2020.

FOREIGN SERVICE

While the best of policies can be formulated it is in the implementation that they are truly tested. The process of formulation might have been the most efficient, but if the means of implementation falter, the endeavour will fail. The Foreign Service of Sri Lanka is the conduit through which foreign policy is implemented, and has possessed members who have made vast strides internationally which have resonated well and reflected Sri Lanka in the most positive of light.

Kadirgamar, being aware of the need for a strong, vibrant force to implement policy, painstakingly focused on the recruitment of such individuals. His ‘army’ had to do battle on many fronts in tackling an abundance of issues that beset Sri Lanka in the 90s. This force that he ventured to strengthen was to be the vanguard of Sri Lanka internationally tasked with being the first responders on the ground in capitals around the world.

Their failure would result in the failure of the administration’s policies. It would result in the breakdown of effective communication. It would halt the noteworthy measures adopted within Sri Lanka. It would also undermine him, as Foreign Minister and the efforts he was taking to champion the positions and stances of Sri Lanka. He gave due emphasis to this integral component in the cycle of foreign policy formulation and implementation. An examination of Kadirgamar’s time in office is not merely one in which a single person accomplished everything that happened, or one in which he and President Kumaratunga reaped the fruit of an effective foreign policy alone. The contribution of the Foreign Service was critical for them.

This contribution was ably supported with individuals drawn from outside the Service, who were credited for progress in their chosen fields and would, it was believed bring value to the foreign policy equation. Many shone, some may have not, which is a situation that is relatable to the Foreign Service as well. However of significance was Kadirgamar’s concentration on improving the Foreign Service and ensuring it possessed the capacity to face the growing challenges of the world in general, and Sri Lanka in particular.

In the current phase, the Foreign Service remains a crucial element in the armoury of the state. However the role played by the diplomat is rapidly changing and those in the Foreign Service and those responsible in recruiting officers need to realise that the era of the generalist is passing. Diplomacy needs specialists who are able to advise, create awareness, and draw attention to that which is occurring regional and beyond, but also be proactive in preparing for that which can occur. Being articulate is the need of the hour.

There was a time when diplomats were the main point of contact between leaders. They are not anymore. Leaders would rely on diplomats to convey messages, both verbal and written. They don’t anymore. Today leaders are talking, travelling, texting and tweeting with each other, resulting in the role of the diplomat changing drastically and causing the person to evolve to meet the changing times, or get left behind in the march of progress.

Education plays a pivotal role in enhancing specialization. While foreign ministries of neighbouring countries and regions focus heavily on improving the capacity of their diplomats, they do so through thorough programmes of education in International Relations, Foreign Policy and Diplomacy; skills development especially pertaining to negotiation and communication; as well as ensuring a sound understanding of the past and its intricacies, and the present and its unfolding developments. The consequential advancements and achievements they continuously make in the international arena are a testimony to that which they sowed.

THE ROAD AHEAD

Whilst President Gotabaya Rajapaksa steps out on a stable footing of governance following the victory of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna at the recently concluded general election, the need to focus on three crucial elements in the foreign policy arena remain relevant.

There will be economic challenges ahead, trade issues to contend with, and large power rivalry to steer away from, but most significant is the need to focus on the issue of human rights; promote a sound neighbourhood policy through an effective contribution to regionalism in South Asia, and through the numerous groupings that Sri Lanka is a party to; and convert the Sri Lanka Foreign Service from a force of the past to one that is equipped to be in the vanguard of Sri Lanka on the international stage.

Kadirgamar may have passed, but his presence, personality and policies permeate through periods, and remain relevant in foreign policy discourse in Sri Lanka, in South Asia and beyond.