by Neville Ladduwahetty

The long standing Foreign Policy of Sri Lanka was Non-Alignment. However,
in the context of emerging geopolitical rivalries, there was a need to question the
adequacy of Non-Alignment as a policy to meet developing challenges.
Neutrality as being a more effective Policy was first presented in an article titled
Independence: its meaning and a direction for the future” (The Island, February
14, 2019). The switch over from Non-Alignment to Neutrality was first adopted
by former President Gotabaya and followed through by successive Governments.
However, it was the current Government that did not miss an opportunity to
announce that its Foreign Policy was Neutral.
The policy of Neutrality has served the interests of Sri Lanka by the principled
stand taken in respect of the requests made by two belligerents associated with the
Middle East War. The justification for the position adopted was conveyed by
President Anura Kumar Dissanayake to Parliament that Iran had made a formal
request on February 26 for three Iranian naval ships to visit Sri Lanka, and on the
same evening, the United States also requested permission for two war planes to
land at Mattala International Airport. Both requests were denied on grounds of
maintaining our policy of neutrality”.
WHY NEUTRALITY
Excerpts from the article cited above that recommended Neutrality as the best
option for Sri Lanka considering the vulnerability to its security presented by its
geographic location in the context of emerging rivalries arising from Pivot to
Asia” are presented below:
Traditional thinking as to how small States could cope with external pressures are
supposed to be: (1) Non-alignment with any of the major centers of power; (2)
Alignment with one of the major powers thus making a choice and facing the
consequences of which power block prevails; (3) Bandwagoning which involves
unequal exchange where the small State makes asymmetric concessions to the
dominant power and accepts a subordinate role of a vassal State; (4) Hedging,
which attempts to secure economic and security benefits of engagement with each
power center: (5) Balancing pressures individually, or by forming alliances with
other small States; (6) Neutrality”.

Of the six strategies cited above, the only strategy that permits a sovereign
independent nation to charter its own destiny is neutrality, as it is with Switzerland
and some Nordic countries. The independence to self-determine the destiny of a
nation requires security in respect of Inviolability of Territory, Food Security,
Energy Security etc. Of these, the most critical of securities is the Inviolability
of Territory. Consequently, Neutrality has more relevance to protect Territorial
Security because it is based on International Law, as opposed to Non-Alignment
which is based on principles applicable to specific countries that pledged to abide
by them
The sources of the international law of neutrality are customary international law
and, for certain questions, international treaties, in particular the Paris Declaration
of 1856, the 1907 Hague Convention No. V respecting the Rights and Duties of
Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, the 1907 Hague Convention
No. XIII concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War, the
four 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977” (ICRC
Publication on Neutrality, 2022).
As part of its Duties a Neutral State must ensure respect for its neutrality, if
necessary, using force to repel any violation of its territory. Violations include
failure to respect the prohibitions placed on belligerent parties with regard to
certain activities in neutral territory, described above. The fact that a neutral State
uses force to repel attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile
act. If the neutral State defends its neutrality, it must however respect the limits
which international law imposes on the use of force. The neutral State must treat
the opposing belligerent States impartially. However, impartiality does not
mean that a State is bound to treat the belligerents in exactly the same way. It
entails a prohibition on discrimination” (Ibid).
It forbids only differential treatment of the belligerents which in view of the
specific problem of armed conflict is not justified. Therefore, a neutral State is not
obliged to eliminate differences in commercial relations between itself and each of
the parties to the conflict at the time of the outbreak of the armed conflict. It is
entitled to continue existing commercial relations. A change in these commercial
relationships could, however, constitute taking sides inconsistent with the status of
neutrality” (Ibid).
THE POTENTIAL of NEUTRALITY

It is apparent from the foregoing that Neutrality as a Policy is not Passive” as
some misguided claim Neutrality to be. On the other hand, it could be dynamic
to the extent a country chooses to be as demonstrated by the actions taken recently
to address the challenges presented during the ongoing Middle East War.
Furthermore, Neutrality does not prevent Sri Lanka from engaging in Commercial
activities with other States to ensuring Food and Energy security.
If such arrangements are undertaken on the basis of unsolicited offers as it was, for
instance, with Japan’s Light Rail Project or Sinopec’s 200,000 Barrels a Day
Refinery, principles of Neutrality would be violated because it violates the cardinal
principle of Neutrality, namely, impartiality. The proposal to set up an Energy
Complex in Trincomalee with India and UAE would be no different because it
restricts the opportunity to one defined Party, thus defying impartiality. On the
other hand, if Sri Lanka defines the scope of the Project and calls for Expressions
of Interest and impartially chooses the most favourable with transparency,
principles of Neutrality would be intact. More importantly, such conduct would
attract the confidence of Investors to engage in ventures impartial in a principled
manner. Such an approach would amount to continue the momentum of the
professional approach adopted to meet the challenges of the Middle East War.
CONCLUSION
The manner in which Sri Lanka acted, first to deny access to the territory of Sri
Lanka followed up by the humanitarian measures adopted to save the survivors of
the torpedoed ship, earned honour and respect for the principled approach adopted
to protect territorial inviolability based on International provisions of Neutrality.
If Sri Lanka continues with the momentum gained and adopts impartial and
principled measures recommended above to develop the country and the wellbeing
of its Peoples, based on self-reliance, this Government would be giving Sri Lanka a
new direction and a fresh meaning to Neutrality that is not passive but dynamic.

Neville Ladduwahetty
March 26, 2026.