The Red Sea Alliance: Not in our name!

By Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka

President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s decision to send a Sri Lankan Navy ship to the Red Sea was questioned in parliament by several Opposition lawmakers including the Leader of the Opposition, days after it was announced. It was clear that Parliament was not aware and no discussion had taken place before such a decision was made. Navy Capt. Wickramasuriya had reportedly said “The Sri Lanka Navy warship is being deployed as per the presidential order”.

Is it constitutionally possible for the President to unilaterally decide to send a warship to a conflict zone overseas, to join a US-led military enterprise which has implications for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy? How constitutional is it for an interim President with no mandate from us to involve our country riskily in an on-going clash (whatever the declared objective) in the Middle-East, at a massive financial cost to us citizens?

The sorry excuse of a response in parliament by State Minister for Defence, Pramitha Bandara Tennakoon, who declared that Sri Lanka, as a member of the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) had a global responsibility to fight against terrorism anywhere, regardless of the cost, was annoyingly unconvincing.

IORA has made no statement on the matter, and India itself is not joining Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG), preferring to send its ships under its own command, after one of its cargo ships was attacked.Our President’s stated reason that it was to prevent price hikes of goods as ships re-route, assumes a population in a state of stupor and stupidity, possibly through hunger.

State Minister Tennakoon was either untruthful or was ignorant when he assured that no extra cost would be incurred to the country as a result of this operation as the ships were already deployed in deep waters. Where exactly is the ship that’s due to sail docked at the moment? Is it already somewhere near the Red Sea? And if so, what is it doing out there? If not, and it’s just cruising around the island, wouldn’t it cost to get to the Red Sea and join the operation with 100 men on board and appropriately equipped to fight the Houthis? Or was the President economical with the truth when he said it would cost Rs 250 million every two weeks?

Did the State Minister of Defence inspect the warship “Vijayabahu”, which is set to sail into the turbulent waters of the Red Sea? Does it have the air defence capability and underwater detection capability, necessary for any vessel entering this conflict zone? Is it equipped to withstand the sophisticated IEDs used by the Houthi rebels? Have the 100 men due to sail in it been trained on the new generation of IEDs? Are they ready for the volatile waters of the Red Sea, a very different prospect from what they are used to?

The official statements only confirm that no proper thought had been given to the consequence of such a serious decision as contributing a warship to a dangerous conflict zone. We also appear to have lost our moral compass and taken a side in this conflict, as we align ourselves with an operation led by the US, when many other US allies have been reluctant to do so openly, given the merciless attacks by Israel on innocent Palestinian civilians while the US continues to supply weapons with which they do so.

For the record, we the people did not elect this President, the Pohottuwa parliamentarians did. This is on them.

Not on the same page

It is not a secret why Yemen’s Houthis attack Israeli-bound and Israeli-owned ships in the Red Sea. They have announced that it is to put pressure on Israel to stop bombing the Palestinians out of existence. The majority of the world is of one mind that there should be an immediate ceasefire, as the UNGA vote made manifest. The most recent UN Security Council vote made as clear as day that it was only the United States that stood in the way of the legal enforcement of that most desired outcome of a ceasefire, enabling instead the continued massacre of an entire people.

Threats and counter threats in the Red Sea indicate escalation and widening of the war as Yemen, the home of the Houthis, and Iran which reportedly backs the Houthis, could get involved, apart from Lebanon where Hezbollah is already exchanging fire at its border with Israel.

The US has not been able to convince America’s own allies to join the OPG, with several distancing themselves from it. The Guardian (UK) quotes an analyst from Chatham House, Farea Al-Muslimi, saying that neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia signing up to the coalition shows “heightened concerns in the Arab world about Israel’s intense bombing of Gaza, and Washington’s support for Israel.” (, 19 Dec 2023)

Military analyst Tom Freebairn writes in Defence and Security Monitor that “Though the Pentagon claimed a united effort made up of 20 nations, commitment from allies has seemed trepidatious, with almost half preferring to remain unnamed…” He points out that several key allies “including Turkey, Germany, Egypt, South Korea and Japan” are not participants. Instead, some important partners are acting on their own: “Some partners like Italy, India and France have opted to send ships to the region on their own initiative, distancing themselves from the U.S. umbrella.… even some close allies are hesitant to join the U.S. effort publicly.”

The analysis also raises a concern that should be paramount for all participants, including Sri Lanka: “The lack of a clear international mandate and reluctance from key allies pose challenges to the sustainability of Prosperity Guardian and the operation may require significant future corrections to reach policymakers’ intended aspirations.”

Fools rush in

What was the role of the Foreign Ministry in this decision, if any? Sri Lanka is joining a coalition of countries led by a great power in a fraught situation of alleged genocide (a charge about to be adjudicated by the World Court), against a group explicitly stating that their asymmetric military action was in direct response and an effort to stop the suffering and deaths of the Palestinian people, at a time when most of the world demands an immediate ceasefire, and our stated foreign policy is of non-alignment.

Such a decision clearly requires consideration of the consequences and consultation with those who are familiar with the regional issues, such as the Foreign Ministry.

This is especially so when the coalition we are to join has been described by a former Australian Ambassador as “The clumsy way that the US rushed to create this new coalition as in the Australian case where the USN so publicly requested an RAN ship for the group – circumventing the accepted normal intergovernmental procedures for such sensitive defence matters – and in the confusing way the USN spokesperson set out such a confused set of its objectives ()

So why did Ranil rush in where others feared to tread?

Did Sri Lanka’s successful operations against the Somali pirates inspire the decision to bravely and blindly set forth? There is a difference, as analysts point out, between that operation and the one in the Red Sea. Firstly, the Houthis fought the strong Saudi military to a stalemate and are in control of the capital Sanaa as most of Yemen’s territory, a rather more daunting prospect than the Somali pirates. Secondly, this operation has no international mandate, no global or regional support.

“The operations in Somalia received a clear international mandate, with all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council offering support, while no such coalition has manifested in the wake of the current situation. This owes to the intrinsically political nature of the Houthis’ attacks, with their express citation of the Israeli operation in Gaza as the cause for their escalation.

With the U.S. offering firm support to Tel Aviv during the war, many states are deeply hesitant to join an initiative that can be seen as taking a partisan side in the conflict. This is particularly true of Middle Eastern and North African states with broad public support for Palestine, and European countries with significant pro-Palestinian electorates.”

The Indian Express reports that the “general lack of enthusiasm perhaps also points to countries wanting to stay away from getting deeply embroiled in a global flashpoint, even as Israel continues its offensive.” That offensive is set to continue for most of 2024, with no end in sight yet.

Sky news reports Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles saying that they made the choice “to focus more on its own strategic concerns, saying, “We need to be really clear around our strategic focus, and our strategic focus is our region…” As such, Australia is not sending any warships. Why then is Sri Lanka?

In his article, Ambassador Williams makes the pertinent point that despite our hope that there will be a positive outcome for the “global economy and maybe, man in the street”, it will be “the large shipping companies and insurance networks who will benefit directly the most.” He wonders “how much national defence budgets will have to bear the cost of actually providing this protection!”

As increasingly impoverished citizens, some of us starving, that is indeed our question too, since we will be paying for it.