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.