External relations, the national interest and the growth of terror

August 5, 2015

A handout photo provided by the office of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani shows him listening during an interview broadcast live on state television in Tehran on August 2, 2015. AFP

Consequently, although Non-alignment, narrowly interpreted to mean non-attachment to the rival camps of the superpower confrontation of former decades, is clearly irrelevant to Sri Lanka’s present interests, Non-alignment, seen essentially as a policy of friendship with the rest of the world, is of the utmost importance to Sri Lanka.

If the observer is to learn how a country’s foreign policy dovetails almost perfectly with its national interest, then it is to Iran that she/he must turn. It was current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who stated on assuming office that foreign policy crafting is fundamentally different from the spouting of rhetorical propaganda by governments. In other words, foreign policy formulation is not a matter of ‘playing to local galleries’.

Indeed, foreign policy framing ought to have the specific purpose of serving a country’s national interest. The policy of Non-alignment, for example, should be seen as continuing to serve Sri Lanka’s national interest, although the Cold War confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union is now ‘history’. The reason for the adoption of this position is the need for Sri Lanka to relate on the most cordial terms with the totality of states, rather than align itself with this or that power or any special interest groups and camps. Clearly, a policy of friendship towards all countries serves Sri Lanka’s national interest well currently and it is to Non-alignment that this country must turn.

Hence, the continuing relevance of Non-alignment to Sri Lanka’s interests and, indeed, to those of most other developing countries. It ought to be obvious that it is such a policy which would help the developing world in attracting to itself the assistance of the international community. If foresight and common sense are to be Sri Lanka’s guiding factors in this context, it would continue to draw deeply on Non-alignment, interpreted as cordiality towards all states on account of the relevance of the good will of the world towards Sri Lanka in the promotion and achievement of the latter’s principal interests.

Accordingly, foreign policy formulation and implementation are of the utmost importance to national sustenance. These are functions that need to be carried out with the greatest seriousness by states and should not be confused with political populism and its rhetorical pronouncements, geared to please local constituencies. Needless to say, Lankan diplomacy should prove an effective facilitator of this country’s legitimate interests.

It would be premature to take up the position that Iran-US relations are advancing steadily down the road of normalization but the clinching of the nuclear deal recently between the countries should result in the defrosting of their relations to a degree. This could bring about a deescalation of tensions in the Middle East in particular.

Recent statements by the Iranian President give the world cause for some hope on this score. He was quoted saying that the ‘Iran deal could speed-up solutions in Syria and Yemen.’ He added that ‘diplomacy and engagement are the only way to solve serious political problems and end crises...The final solution in Yemen is political, in Syria the final solution is political. The agreement will create a new atmosphere. The climate will be easier.’

One could not have expected the former President of Iran to speak and reflect in these terms. This is an entirely new mindset and worldview on the part of President Rouhani, which could help considerably in defusing regional and global tensions.

The political leadership of the West in general and of the US in particular too would need to speak and act in the same terms if the present tensions in the Middle East and outside it are to be managed more effectively. It should be plain to see that Iran as a predominant influence in the world of Shiite Islam could play a principal role in getting militant Shiite groups to act in a more reconciliatory manner in resolving current confrontations in particularly the Middle East. The West would, therefore, do well to remain engaged with Iran.

Meanwhile, it is all too obvious that religious fanaticism and hatred, stemming from stepped-up identity politics, are turning increasingly brutal in the Middle Eastern and African theatres of conflict. If a tab is kept on the number of civilian lives lost in this unrelenting violence, the casual toll is likely to be unsettling. It would be appropriate for international organizations, such as the UN, to compile and publicize the number of such casualties every now and then, to remind the world about the astounding human cost of political terror.

There should be no hesitation on the part of the civilized world to term such carnage, stemming from identity politics, terrorism, on account of the shocking civilian casualty toll deriving from this species of violence. Increasingly, children and young lives are featuring as hapless victims of such bloodshed. Just the other day, in an eerie incident in the Cameroons, that has apparently gone unnoticed by a good part of the world, a 12 year-old-girl, who had a bomb strapped on to her, exploded, claiming more than a dozen lives. Some hands that ‘rock the cradle’, apparently, ‘rule the world’ with explosive hatred.

However, by the same token it must be pointed out that states too could perpetrate terror. Hence the term ‘state terror’.Either way, this species of political violence, which is indiscriminate and claims civilian lives in shocking numbers, needs to be condemned and unambiguously termed ‘terrorism’, pure and simple. States cannot trot out that highly contentious viewpoint that the national interest and even ‘development’ could justify the use of repressive force. There could be no trade-offs between human rights and ‘development’. Nor could state security and the national interest be defined in terms that would justify governments in using excessive coercive force on their civilian publics.

It is clear, then, that the current mindless violence in the Middle East and outside, and the issues arising from it, need to be focused on by world opinion and present international ‘discourse’. Such inhuman violence must be staunched without further delay through a collective effort of the civilized world. Containing violence of this nature needs to be high on the UN’s agenda and figure prominently in the programmes of work of the democratic world as well. The external relations of countries claiming to espouse humanity and their diplomacy need to focus strongly on these tasks if the well being of the world is to be served.