|
|
|
| Sunday, 16 October 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Safeguarding national interest by J.Vitarana
Few days ago a writer had pointed out in a newspaper that both principal candidates contesting the Presidential elections had mentioned nothing about the foreign policy that would be pursued in the event of coming to power. This is a serious lacuna, he observed. We cannot but agree. Foreign policy is nothing but the extension of the domestic policy beyond state boundaries. It is presumed that the domestic policy guides the foreign policy and that the two should blend harmonically. The domestic policies are worked out to suit the national interest of each country. These policies have the objective of taking the country forward in all spheres. Basically, they should fulfill the aspirations of the people and satisfy their basic wants at least. For example, our national interest lies in ensuring for the people a square meal for which end we should develop our agriculture. It also demands that we enter into agreements with other countries so as to benefit from them. The objective of the foreign policy of all countries is to preserve their national interest. None can find fault with them. Hence it is necessary to identify what the national interest constitutes. This is not so simple. In the present context of globalization, national interest becomes a complex objective. It is definitely much more than preserving historical monuments. Nor could it be reduced to the oft-heard rhetoric of defending the territorial integrity or preserving the native tongue. Nor could it be reduced to fighting separatism or terrorism. Globalization that sweeps across the globe under the hegemony of transnational corporations (TNCs) does not respect national boundaries, economies or cultures. Its only objective is to establish the hegemony of TNCs throughout the globe. As Karl Marx said in the Communist Manifesto it brings even the most barbarian nations to civilization, meaning capitalist relations are superimposed on all countries with the market becoming the determining factor in the production, exchange and distribution of commodities, the universal unit of capitalism. Though the Presidential candidates have not spelt out their foreign policy one could get an understanding about it by analysing the performance of their parties in this field when they were in office. Since they are party candidates and not isolated individuals one could safely bet that they would carry on from where their last government stopped.As far as the UPFA is concerned its major policy in the sphere of foreign policy was known as non-alignment. One could recall how the founder of the SLFP, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike chartered this middle path policy on assuming leadership of the nation in 1956 doing away with the totally servile pro-West foreign policy of the preceding UNP governments. This policy has prevailed in the main up to now though with certain vacillations under the coalition governments led by the SLFP since then. Though paying lip service to non-alignment UNP governments tended to lean towards the West. The most pro-Western foreign policy was witnessed during the time of Ranil Wickremesinghe's last government that came to power in the year 2000. Let us recall some interesting instances. At the WTO talks held during its regime the Sri Lanka delegation was under an American Advisor. As a result Sri Lanka played a most shameful role of a US lackey in opposing the majority of developing countries that were fighting for better terms in world trade. One could also recall the infamous words of UNP Minister Milinda Moragoda that when the US Ambassador says something he does it without questioning. He also earned notoriety for singing hosannas to US global leadership when everybody else called it superpower hegemony. To cap it all Ranil Wickremesinghe defended US invasion of Iraq when addressing the UN General Assembly. Obviously he was acting against the national interest. One could also recall how his uncle, late President J.R. Jayawardene went against almost the entire developing world in supporting the UK in the Malvinas (Faulkland Islands) dispute between the UK and Argentina. The pro-West or anti-national credentials of this Uncle-Nephew-Party are unassailable, indeed! In contrast to Ranil Wickremesinghe the anti-imperialist national credentials of Mahinda Rajapakse, the other prominent Presidential candidate are beyond doubt. He was at the head of the Palestine solidarity movement in Sri Lanka, a fact recognised internationally. He had also been campaigning against the sale of national assets for a song by the UNP governments. As far as sovereignty of the country is concerned we could lose it without losing an inch of territory through various trade and other agreements with foreign powers. It is no secret that political independence cannot be maintained without economic independence. The struggle for economic independence entails earning the wrath of world powers as was demonstrated to us at the time of the nationalization of oil distribution companies during the regime of Sirimavo Bandaranaike. This does not mean that one should declare war against the West. On the other hand we should develop mutually advantageous relations with all countries while forging favourable links and alliances with those of our neighbours in order to collectively meet the Western challenge, especially in the field of international trade. The neoliberal policies followed by Sri Lanka during the last three decades has only widened the rich poor divide and made the poor more poor. Obviously pro-poor policies are required. Who is best suited to a pro-poor path of development- the UNP or the UPFA is the question that the voters will have to decide when they face the ballot on November 17. This is the question that will solve the country's future more than whether Sri Lanka remains unitary or not? The latter is superfluous in a sense. Already our Constitution has federal features. There are no absolutely federal or absolutely unitary states in the world today. The trend is for hybrid solutions. The earlier this is realised the better. In spite of loud claims that the UNP is for a federal solution, they have so far not even thought about the kind of federalism envisaged. Nor have they sought public opinion on it or made a serious study. The SLFP on the other hand is on record as presenting a draft Constitution in 2000 with more federal features, which the UNP sabotaged in Parliament by burning copies of it and playing hell there. It is deeds not words that count. |
|
|||||||||
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
