When Mahinda Rajapaksa became President, he was the chairman of the Palestine Friendship Association. After he became President, Sri Lanka’s permanent representative to the United Nations abstained from a resolution in favour of Palestine at the United Nations. He abstained based on the advice of the then Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera. Mahinda learned later that Sri Lanka’s representative abstained from the resolution during the vote on November 17, 2006. The conflict between Mahinda and Mangala arose after this incident. Mangala’s decision regarding Palestine was one of the reasons Mahinda removed him from his position. In a statement to the media justifying Mangala’s dismissal, it was mentioned that Mangala had embarrassed him by abstaining on the Palestine resolution. Mangala responded by stating that the decision strengthened Sri Lanka’s relations with the United States.
A similar situation has occurred for the current President, Anura Kumara after he became President. After Anura’s presidency began, Chile proposed a resolution at the United Nations to condemn the restriction imposed on the Secretary-General of the United Nations from entering Israel. Initially, Sri Lanka did not assent to the resolution. However, after former opposition MP Imtiaz Bakeer Markar raised questions, Anura’s government decided to nod the resolution. When the resolution was published with 105 countries favouring it, Sri Lanka’s name was not among them. Sri Lanka’s permanent representative to the UN later stated that Sri Lanka had assented.
The JVP (Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna) and the National People’s Power (NPP) have always been parties that supported Palestine. Recently, in a statement, the NPP declared that it stands by the position taken by the UN Secretary-General on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The resolution brought to the UN after Anura became President aligns with the NPP’s stance. However, the initial refusal of Sri Lanka to abstain from the resolution is confusing.
This shows that there is a significant issue with the signals being sent by Anura’s government regarding foreign policy. After an opposition MP raised questions about the resolution, Anura’s government’s position became even more confusing. It is unclear whether the country’s foreign policy is being managed by the President and the government or by diplomats, based on this incident.
