FOREIGN ASSISTANCE CONUNDRUMS

Dr. Jehan Perera stresses that foreign aid must serve the entire citizenry

The Sri Lankan government is facing growing criticism from the opposition and public scepticism about its inability to enact policies that are necessary to revive the country’s economy.

Media narratives often highlight past mishaps or shortcomings of government leaders with many pointing to their inexperience in politics or public administration. The main frustration among the general population stems from the economic hardships they’re enduring.

Despite these challenges, the government still retains popular support due to its commitment to fight corruption. The belief that it is sincere about curbing past abuses remains strong.

However, there’s also disappointment that the promise to renegotiate the IMF agreement and alleviate the burdens faced by the people is yet to materialise.

The agreements signed by the previous government with the International Monetary Fund and international bondholders highlighted Sri Lanka’s weak negotiating position. These constraints have left the present government helpless and unable to deliver immediate relief.

Unrealistic expectations of external assistance have complicated matters. There were high hopes that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s state visits to India and China would have secured generous aid or investments to revive the economy. However, such expectations failed to consider the motivations of foreign powers and the pragmatic realities of international relations.

Nearly two centuries ago, Britain’s then premier Lord Palmerston declared: “We have no eternal allies; and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

His words, which emphasised that foreign policy is driven by strategic interests rather than fixed loyalties, remain relevant even today as Sri Lanka navigates its relationships with powerful nations.

Following World War II, victorious powers championed liberal values, and established institutions such as the UN, international human rights covenants, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These frameworks upheld democracy, justice and human rights as global ideals.

However, according to Prof. Oliver Richmond, a leading scholar on international relations, the liberal international order (LIO) is being eclipsed by an emerging authoritarian international order (AIO). The rise of countries such as China and Russia marks a shift toward a multipolar world, where state sovereignty and power take precedence over liberal ideals.

Richmond warns that neither the LIO nor AIO is equipped to deliver lasting peace. Both are driven by geopolitical interests rather than justice or equality.

However, he argues that the liberal order’s emphasis on human rights, pluralism and democracy offers a more sustainable and just path for ordinary people than the authoritarian focus on power and conflict management. Without a fairer and more inclusive approach, the global order risks greater instability and division.

In the wake of Dissanayake’s visits to India and China, hopes for substantial economic support have risen. India’s US$ 4 billion aid during Sri Lanka’s 2022 economic crisis and reports of 10 billion dollars in potential Chinese investments have sparked optimism. As regional economic giants, both nations have the capacity to aid Sri Lanka’s recovery significantly.

Nevertheless, these offers shouldn’t be seen as acts of great generosity. Instead, they need to viewed as strategic calculations that are rooted in their rivalry and competing interests.

India and China are seeking to expand their influence in Sri Lanka as it’s viewed as a critical geopolitical asset. Dissanayake has assured both countries that Sri Lanka would not compromise their security interests.

However, these assurances don’t guarantee that either country will prioritise Sri Lanka’s wellbeing over their own strategic goals. The country must adopt a pragmatic approach to foreign assistance, and carefully evaluate each offer based on its merits and potential impact on the nation’s long-term interests.

Assistance often comes with strings attached, whether in the form of political influence, economic dependency or security concessions. Sri Lanka’s leaders and citizens must be vigilant in ensuring that all agreements align with national interests and don’t undermine the nation’s sovereignty or stability.

To navigate these challenges, Sri Lanka must maintain a clear-eyed focus on its own priorities.

For Sri Lanka to emerge stronger, its leaders must adopt a strategic long-term perspective when evaluating foreign assistance. By prioritising national interests and ensuring that agreements serve the wellbeing of all citizens, ideally with bipartisan political support, the country can ensure sustainable development and protect its national sovereignty.