By Raj Gonsalkorale

Sri Lanka has to navigate its foreign policy within turbulent waters considering its pivotal location in the Indian ocean. Being the neighbor to India, a regional power which some consider an emerging superpower, and which shows a kind of political bi polarity, with shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels, often resulting from internal political dynamics, which in turn impacts on relationships with its neighbours. Indian investments in Sri Lanka are substantial and growing. Their concerns about their own strategic commercial interests and, security concerns are also growing on account of the interest on Sri Lanka by other players. The MOU they have signed with Sri Lanka perhaps is an indicator of their security concerns.

Being literally only a whisper away from the sea lane pathway of a country which many regard as already a superpower, China, and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s influence in Sri Lanka is certainly one irritant and a cause of worry for India.

BRI, a Chinese global infrastructure development strategy launched in 2013 which aims to connect Asia with Africa and Europe through massive investments in infrastructure projects like railways, roads, ports, and energy pipelines, has already invested in Sri Lanka. The Hambantota port project which is run by a Chinese company which has an 85% shareholding, and the Mattala airport, again built with Chinese funding. The Port city project which has granted a 99 year lease for 49 acres of land to China as compensation for reclaiming 660 acres of sea for Sri Lanka to set up its Port City (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59993386)

Secondly, the influence and interest that the US has in Sri Lanka, perhaps due to the interests that the two major rising powers India and China have on Sri Lanka, and which could impact on the US perhaps is a strategic concern for the US. It is possible that the recent renewed interest shown by US allies Australia and the UK, as well as Isreal, is perhaps a move to counter or at least exercise greater vigilance on what happens in Sri Lanka arising from Indian and Chinese interests. This perhaps is concerning for India.

The offering of 10,000 jobs for Sri Lankans in Isreal, the increasing Israeli presence in the country with tourist businesses apparently being set up with Sri Lankan partners, some say nominal partners, in order to meet legal requirements of the country regarding foreign ownership of commercial ventures, and the setting up of Chabad houses with reportedly four Chabad houses in Sri Lanka located in Colombo, Arugam Bay, Weligama, and Ella, is perhaps the establishment of a vigilance strategy at the least. The approximate number of Jewish nationals visiting the country as short term and long-term tourists is said to be around 25,000 annually, a steady increase over the last few years. Of course, the increasing presence and influence of Israel has been and continues to be of concern for many Sri Lankan Muslims, and others, who view this as a dilution of the strong and steady support Sri Lanka has always extended to the Palestinians, especially to those in Gaza who are being mercilessly persecuted by Isreal. No doubt this increasing Israeli presence and influence is a cause for concern for India as well.

In framing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, specifically its defence policy, which is integral to foreign policy, the signing of the recent MOU with India and the atmosphere of secrecy surrounding its detail, has raised concern amongst many in Sri Lanka. The unwillingness to be open ended about the entirety of the MOU has added fuel to the fire. It appears to be a short-sighted act on the part of a government which has prided in open government.

Having said this, the MOU also has to be viewed from the context of the other interests” described above, and examine and evaluate the strategic content and direction it entails from a long term perspective. Although to the best of the writers knowledge, the Sri Lankan government has not released details of this MOU, Economy Next (https://economynext.com/) had published what it has referred to as the detailed MOU on the 15^th of May 2025. This document titled Sri Lanka’s Defence Cooperation MoU with India by Shihar Aneezmay be viewed by following the link (https://economynext.com/sri-lankas-defence-cooperation-mou-with-india-220788/). Viewers are encouraged to view this document as it is an important document that potentially could have far reaching implications for Sri Lanka in the long term.  

Economy next states that It is a very detailed document with 12 articles and According to a text of the document obtained by Economy Next the nine-page defence cooperation MOU jointly signed by Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary Sampath Thuyacontha and High Commissioner to India Santosh Jha contains 12 articles ranging from scope of the cooperation to termination clause.

The Indian High Commission in Colombo declined to comment on the text of the MoU and said it cannot confirm the contents of MOU between two States, as that is strictly between official authorities of the two States and is subject to mutual confidentiality”. Sri Lanka’s Foreign Ministry also declined to comment on the contents in the MoU. But officials from both countries have indicated that the Defence Cooperation MoU has only formalized the already existing informal procedures related to the defence of both countries. The MoU has included topic such as exchange of personnel, training of defence personnel, exchanges other than training, cooperation in defence industry, technology, and research, financial arrangements, and protection of classified information among many others. It said the MoU will remain in place for five years, but both countries will have the right to terminate the MoU at any time with three months advance written notice to the other country”

While the writer is not conversant with MOUs between Sri Lanka and other countries, the extent of this MOU and its detail does raise some questions and concerns. Besides the 12 articles, there are 55 sub clauses in the document giving it perhaps the look of a document which is more than an MOU as what many understand as an MOU.  It does raise some speculation whether the many sub clauses in it gives it a flavour of a document which is more than mere understandings although article 1 of the document titled SCOPE OF COOPERATION lays the basis for the extent of cooperation between the two countries in defence related matters. This says When carrying out cooperation activities under this Memorandum of Understanding, the Parties commit themselves to respect the national and military laws and regulations of the Parties and the relevant principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, which includes sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity and inviolability, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the Parties and that neither Party shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security of the other”

The discussion on the MOU and its specifics is one thing, but its impact and implications on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy vis a vis the other interests” outlined earlier are another important matter. It is also common-sense prudence to acknowledge that India has originated and signed this MOU with Sri Lanka essentially in its own interests rather than Sri Lanka’s interests, although there are positives for Sri Lanka as well. On the one hand, a positive would be that other interested parties would get a clear message as to India’s role in Sri Lankan security and defence in the event of any overt or covert threat from any other interested party. On the other hand, relying solely on India for Sri Lanka’s defence and security, particularly as the MOU is based on the strategic vision of its current leadership, could be a negative if the political dynamics within India changes within the next five years (the duration of the current MOU), and the political interests of regional States becomes crucial when framing national priorities. Even presently and certainly in the past, the priorities of say Tamil Nadu has had, and probably still have a significant impact on relations with Sri Lanka which could have a bearing on the MOU, in particular on the Indian side.

While recognising the reality of India, it’s largeness and its economic and military power and its proximity to Sri Lanka, as well as its cultural links to Sri Lanka, it would be futile to criticise this MOU without considering several other factors that impact on the defence and security of Sri Lanka. No doubt, while the country’s foreign policy should be based on a Sri Lanka first” principle, it is easier said and done to do that considering the economically weak position the country is in, the interests that several other countries have in Sri Lanka and the advantages they entail to the country and the geopolitical considerations that the country has to consider when framing its foreign policy.  A country recovering very slowly from bankruptcy, a dysfunctional political and administrative system that is slowly attempting to recover from its mishaps including corruption at all levels, and which requires a very significant economic growth to lift it to a new economic height, and social structure realignment to ensure wealth and benefits are more equitably distributed, are factors to consider when framing its foreign policy from a more futuristic point of view where the future will be vastly different to the past and its players will not be the ones on the stage now.

Framing a Sri Lanka first foreign and defence policy will require a substantial balancing act and a cultural shift in how the country perceives its future and its relationships with the players that matter for Sri Lanka’s transformation. Past circumstances have changed and what may have been relevant and appropriate then, may not be so now as circumstances are different. However, while foreign investments are crucial for the country’s economic development, the balancing act between Sri Lanka’s long-term interests and economic interest needs to be within the framework of a strategic foreign policy which considers possible long-term consequences arising from such decisions. The following significant decisions are noted as ones that may have negative long-term consequences.

• The MOU signed with India. Concerns expressed, leaving aside politically motivated tirades, needs to be addressed. As noted in this article, the MOU could become a double-edged sword if political circumstances change in India.
• The decision taken in 2017 to grant a 99-year lease to China for 20 hectares of reclaimed land (49 acres), (It was a reversal of a previous decision to grant it freehold to China, but on Indian objections, it had been changed to a 99-year lease). Does the country know what China can and cannot do on this soil in the heart of Colombo? It is mentioned that the 20 hectares of land China holds within the Colombo Port City development in Sri Lanka is primarily intended for commercial and financial purposes within a designated special economic zone. China cannot use this land for military purposes as explicitly ruled out in the agreement, though there are ongoing concerns about potential future pressure on Sri Lanka to allow such use. 
• The 99-year lease for the Hambantota port and approximately 15,000 acres of surrounding land in Sri Lanka granted to a Chinese company, China Merchants Port Holdings in 2017. This land was leased as part of a broader agreement related to the port’s development and the establishment of a special economic zone.
• The agreement signed in 2020 by Sri Lanka and Israel to allow Israel to immediately hire 10,000 farm workers from Sri Lanka to replace 20,000 Palestinian agricultural workers who were banned from Israel and 8,000 foreign workers that fled Israel due to the war. In January 2024 the government of Sri Lanka also began talks with Israel to send an additional 20,000 Sri Lankans for jobs in the Israeli construction sector. In a multi racial country where Muslims play a significant role, the encouragement given to Israel which is an effective military super power with an ever widening reach in many countries but which has unleashed genocide in Gaza, could destabilise the social equilibrium in Sri Lanka.

Conclusion

The question to be asked is whether these decisions will be advantageous or not to Sri Lanka in the longer term, and whether future generations will have to face the consequences of the partisan decisions taken by the present generation politicians. The decision-making process related to such major issues needs scrutiny and a broader political decision-making process that brings in bi partisanship towards major foreign and defense policy decisions. In this context, while the detailed mechanics of operational aspects will have to be worked out, in principle consideration should be given to making the President the minister responsible for foreign policy and defense and including the Opposition leader in these areas for key policy decision making processes. Additionally, a parliamentary oversight committee comprising all parties represented in Parliament introduced to undertake oversight on behalf of the people of the country. It would be in the long-term interest of Sri Lanka for major such decision to be bi partisan exercises that would provide a greater degree of comfort and assurance to future generations that short term gain without considering long term consequences will be minimized.

The tenor and substance of such policy decisions have to be above partisan politics for the good of the country, and this would be the context for a Sri Lanka first policy on foreign affairs and defense. Key commercial decisions must be taken within such a broad framework as they have the potential to cause more harm than good in the longer term. The competing interests of key players who are important for Sri Lanka’s economic and social revival also require consideration and a strategic balancing act undertaken to ensure Sri Lanka does not end up as the loser in the longer term. Politics is far more sophisticated than it was in the past, and the political culture in the country and amongst politicians needs to change if it is to move up the ladder of economic strength and social equity and equality, and its security, assured through more collective decision making processes.