Revisiting Non-Alignment and Multi-Alignment in Sri Lanka's foreign policy

Former Minister Ali Sabry's recent op-ed, "Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy," published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka's foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry's articulation of a "non-aligned yet multi-aligned" approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka's historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics.

- BY VINOD MOONESINGHE

However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka's role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry's arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka's foreign policy.

Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:

• No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.

• Economic engagement with all, dependency on none: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.

• Diplomatic balancing: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.

• Leveraging multilateralism: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.

• Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry's emphasis on "diplomatic balancing" and "leveraging multilateralism" raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.

Dangers of over-compartmentalisation