Lanka-Pakistan relations

It is axiomatic that the foreign policy of a country should by and large be a projection of the country’s interests. Nations big and small have time tested friends and allies who have come to each other’s assistance in their hour of need and it is of mutual interest and benefit that these relations be continued and be strengthened.

Sri Lanka, during its 52-year post Independence history has developed friendly ties with many nations. Of them Pakistan is ranked among the closest because it has come to the assistance of this country twice in recent times when Sri Lanka desperately needed assistance which many friendly nations were unable to provide.

It is in this context that the official visit of Pakistan’s Army Chief of Staff, Lt. General Begami Mohammed Yusuf Khan has to be viewed and Gen. Khan welcomed.

The first time it was in the mid-eighties when after the anti-Tamil riots, Sri Lanka was under severe criticism in the western world and even by neighbouring India. Moves were afoot to have Sri Lanka condemned at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. There appeared to be an arms embargo against this country with arms supplying nations refusing to sell arms to Sri Lanka. It was then that Pakistan and Israel came forward to help this besieged island.

The second occasion was mid last year when a force of around 45,000 government troops were trapped in the Jaffna peninsula and the terrorists racing ahead to capture Jaffna town. Apparently the much wanted defence equipment had not been purchased with the Treasury holding on the funds – as stated by the UNP leader Mr. Ranil Wickremasinghe – and the Sri Lankan government forces were being battered.

New equipment and two military commanders with proven track records, Maj. Gen Janaka Perera and Maj. Gen. Sarath Fonseka were able to rally a demoralised force and with the new equipment from Pakistan and Israel halted the onward rush and averted a massive disaster. While the country owes a great debt to the two commanders and the men for their heroic resistance, the response of the Pakistan government and military forces in supplying this equipment will go down in the history of this country.

What is significant is that while even the Maha Sangha made appeals to India – there was no response other than an offer of ‘humanitarian assistance’. New Delhi is hamstrung by what is known as the ‘compulsions in Tamil Nadu’ as what happened in 1987. Thus, the hard reality to be underscored is that it is only Pakistan among South Asian countries that can respond readily to a military crisis faced by a Sri Lankan government.

India has of course tried to make amends. On being betrayed by the LTTE it did deploy its troops against the terrorist organisation and was determined to eliminate them when the late Sri Lankan President Ranasinghe Premadasa stupidly ordered the Indian troops out of Sri Lanka. After last year’s crisis India has pledged a US$ million loan as well as donated a helicopter carrier to the Sri Lankan navy.

Close relations with Pakistan should not be a negative factor in Indo-Lanka relations. It will be recalled that in 1970, during the Bangladesh War, Pakistan military personnel passed through Colombo to then what was known as East Pakistan but Indo-Lanka relations were not affected. This was an outstanding achievement of Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s non- aligned diplomacy.

For almost one year on, Indo-Pakistan relations have been in a crisis and with it South Asian relations particularly of SAARC has gone into disarray. This is no doubt being regretted by South Asian countries. Sri Lanka as the current Chairman of SAARC has been attempting to rejuvenate the organisation without much success. It is indeed a pity that the SAARC charter prevents contentious issues between member nations being taken up at the SAARC summit because this would have been the best forum to break through the Indo-Pakistan deadlock.

Some advocates of Indo-Lanka relations advise Sri Lanka to not to tread on Indian toes having done so in the eighties and ‘learnt its lessons.’ ‘Positive neutrality’ is what they recommend. Others however see a contradiction in ‘positive neutrality’ as the late Indian statesman Krishna Menon observed: ‘There can be no more positive neutrality than there can be a vegetarian tiger’.

Close bonds between Sri Lanka and Pakistan and any other South Asian country need not impinge on Indo-Lanka relations. India, it will be recalled, has acted in its own interests such as being extremely anti-West during the Cold War and since then reversed its foreign and defence policies. Such an instance was of India’s great concern about Sri Lanka having an Israeli Interests Section in Colombo in the eighties. But two years after President Premadasa terminated relations with the Israelis – for local reasons and not so much Indian reservations – India established full diplomatic relations with Israel.

With the likelihood of coalition governments being a regular feature in New Delhi and they being subjected to ‘compulsions in Tamil Nadu’ extremely close relations with Pakistan is imperative.

Your comments to the Editor