Features
The dilemmas of multilateralism
By Uditha Devapriya
Jim Hacker: Surely we are committed to the European ideal!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Really, Minister!
Jim Hacker: If not, why are we pressing for an increase in membership?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: For the same reason. It’s just like the United Nations, in fact. The more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Jim Hacker: What appalling cynicism!
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. We call it diplomacy, Minister.
— “Yes, Prime Minister”
The last week has been very busy for President Ranil Wickremesinghe. First he travelled to Cuba, in time for the G77 Plus China Heads of State Summit in Havana from September 15 to 16. Largely dismissed by the Western press, the Summit saw the participation of delegations from more than a hundred countries across the Global South. Speaking at the Summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres reiterated the importance of South-South cooperation in light of developments like vaccine hoarding by rich countries. President Wickremesinghe, meanwhile, made use of the event to strengthen ties with Cuba.
Wickremesinghe’s next destination was New York, where he attended the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly and made a speech on Thursday, September 21. On the sidelines he attended a number of events, including a Conference on Sustainable Development Goals, and met with several officials, including USAID Administrator Samantha Power. He also took part in a business roundtable discussion organised by the Business Council for International Understanding and the Sri Lankan Embassy in the US.
More crucially, he took part in a programme, the third Annual Indo-Pacific Islands Dialogue, which focused on island nations in the Indian Ocean. At the event, hosted jointly by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation of Japan, he observed that such countries are reluctant to take sides in big power rivalries, especially in hotly contested oceans such as the Indo-Pacific.
He contended that Sri Lanka does not wish to take sides or get embroiled in conflicts between superpowers, emphasising that the island will only look up to its national interests. He also noted that military alliances such as Quad and AUKUS have only provoked big power rivalries in the region and violated the rules-based setup of organisations like ASEAN, APEC, and IORA.
Predictably, the Western press has taken to depicting Wickremesinghe’s comments as some kind of balancing act. Foreign Policy, for instance, notes his critique of Western military alliances and his rejection of claims that China is sending spy vessels as “music to China’s ears”, adding that “Wickremesinghe likely wanted to reassert his government’s neutral position by signalling that Colombo values its relations with Beijing as well.
” Foreign Policy may be reading too much between the lines and into Wickremesinghe’s motives here, but it is reflective of how the Western foreign policy establishment has viewed his statements. In any case, it’s not just political and business initiatives that he has limited his engagements to in the city: he also met with Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs for Meta, and elaborated on the government’s controversial new anti-online hate speech initiatives.
In his speech on Thursday, President Wickremesinghe reflected on how he saved democracy last year by preventing a takeover of the parliament. False modesty aside, he also dwelt on the economic reforms he instituted and how these have gone a long way in “rebuilding trust and confidence between the people and the government.” The disconnect between the two of course remains, but at the General Assembly the President seemed content in saying that Sri Lankans “are already witnessing the positive outcomes of these measures in their daily lives.
” He then reiterated his belief, which I believe he takes to be his government’s view, that global challenges require solutions beyond borders. What emerged from the speech essentially was a tribute to multilateralism and to the necessity of working “in solidarity with the developing world” in combating issues like climate change.
These visits and speeches have taken place against the backdrop of simmering domestic tensions, instigated by a particularly inconvenient documentary on the Easter bombings. Yet by all accounts, on the foreign policy front, Ranil Wickremesinghe seems to have scored a hit or two. Feted by one world leader after another, he has depicted himself as a champion of small states and island nations, not to mention solidarity in the Global South.
There remains a disconnect, however, between aspiration and reality. Wickremesinghe will no doubt reflect on these values and principles when he addresses future forums abroad, particularly in the West. But how practical are they for Sri Lanka, a small state that has been pushed against its will into the same big power contests he wishes us to avoid?
Wickremesinghe’s advocacy of multilateralism and his critique of Western military alliances is certainly a breath of fresh air. In contrast to his uncle, J. R. Jayewardene, he has made a case against Western intervention in the Global South. Without over praising him, it must be acknowledged that no other national leader has articulated as clear and concise a critique of outfits like AUKUS and Quad as he has.
But the world of today is not the world of the 1980s. The vision for multilateralism the President has sided with, and touts himself as a champion of, is more complex than the ideologies of the Cold War, including non-alignment. As I have frequently contended elsewhere, multilateralism means different things to different people today. What vision of multilateralism, then, should Sri Lanka embrace?
The Sri Lankan government and foreign policy establishment have, thus far, avoided this question. Admittedly, this question is not easy to answer, still less resolve. Yet it must be answered, and it must be resolved. The flipside to multilateralism is that different countries and different groupings want to align it with their national interests.
Hence India, while championing multipolarity at even the recent G77 Summit, has refused to back a BRICS currency, partly because it wants to enthrone the rupee and partly because it does not wish to enthrone a unit of exchange within a bloc that is fundamentally dominated by its arch-rival China. President Wickremesinghe may declare, again and again, that Sri Lanka will not side with big powers in the region. But there are big power contests within the multilateral setup that he champions. How is Sri Lanka to navigate those waters?
It is this point that the mainstream Western press has picked up in its dismissals of the G77 Summit. Talking to the National Public Radio in the US, for instance, one correspondent observed that nothing concrete came out of the gathering, adding facetiously that “the most concrete thing… is that the G-77 plus China agreed to declare September 16 as the Day of Science, Technology and Innovation in the South.
” It was also this point that India picked up when it called on member states to speak as one “without getting distracted by bilateral issues.” It is questionable to what extent India itself has abided by this principle. But I think the point is well taken. Unless the Global South casts aside internal dissensions, as seen even in the Left-dominated Latin America, there can be no hope for multipolarity.
Sri Lanka’s lunge towards multilateralism did not begin with Ranil Wickremesinghe, nor will it end with him. Over the last year or so he has presented himself as a champion not just of the Global South, but also of specific concerns such as climate change. At COP27 he went as far as to fault industrialisation in the West for the problems of climate change in the Global South.
It is not fair to dismiss such sentiments lock, stock, and barrel. Yet they must also be put in perspective. At a time when the country’s assets, specifically State assets, are being auctioned off to everyone and anyone, it paradoxically might make sense to advocate these values, so as to attract the highest bidder. This is being somewhat cynical, to be sure. But it is in line with the Sri Lankan government’s economic reforms.
While all this is going on, however, the government has omitted to mention which vision of multilateralism it intends on advocating. As President Wickremesinghe wraps up his visit to New York and the UN General Assembly and returns home, the world will doubtless have their eyes on him. For Sri Lankans, though, he will remain the divisive, ambivalent figure he always has been. In that light, it would help if the government became a little more specific in its grand designs for foreign policy. This is asking for the bare minimum.
The writer is an international relations analyst, independent researcher, and freelance columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
