Is Mangala getting 'Aligned' at the expense of the 'Non-Aligned?'

With the flying visit to Colombo by US Secretary of State John Kerry, Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera's priorities in foreign policy is become increasingly clear. He declared in a recent interview that his ambition is "somehow to get US president Barack Obama to visit Sri Lanka at one point or another."

This is while President Maithripala Sirisena has consistently maintained that his government's foreign policy is 'Non-Aligned.' The president repeatedly made this assertion during his foreign trips. It was reiterated in his address to the nation on reaching the deadline of the 100-Days programme. Samaraweera maintains that his intention is to 'move Sri Lanka's foreign relations back to the centre.' But the signals sent out in the international arena tell a different story. One example was the recent 60th anniversary commemoration of the Bandung Conference. Sri Lanka was not even represented by its Foreign Minister at the meeting of world leaders in Indonesia last month. Ceylon (Sri Lanka) along with India, Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar) and Indonesia, was one of the organisers of the historic 1955 Asian-African Conference -- the forerunner of the NonAligned Movement.

Is there a devaluation of Non-Alignment taking place in Sri Lanka's foreign relations? And is Samaraweera kicking into his own goal by undermining Sri Lanka's status within the NAM? On Monday, the 16th session of the UN Working Group on the Right to Development scheduled to start in Geneva had to be deferred because of the nonappointment of a chairperson-rapporteur. The chair for the last three years was Tamara Kunanayakam, former Sri Lankan ambassador to the UN. Kunanayakam's re-appointment was reportedly opposed by one country - - Sri Lanka. This move came as a shock not only to Kunanayakam but to all the member countries who, by all accounts, had been highly appreciative of her work as chair. There was no response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Sri Lanka Mission in Geneva, to queries on Sri Lanka's opposition to the appointment. Below are excerpts from an email interview with Kunanayakam on the disruption of the 16th session of the Working Group and its implications: 1. Briefly - what does 'Right to Development' mean for developing countries like Sri Lanka? What tangible benefits would accrue? "The right to development is a human right like any other human right. The ultimate goal of our work at the United Nations is to make it a reality for all people around the world, especially in the developing countries, which, because of their unequal position in the international order, are more vulnerable to external decision-making.

.... It is unique in that it brings together human rights and the duty of States to cooperate with each other, on the basis of sovereign equality, to create the conditions for their realisation - both at the national level and at the international level.

.... The principal architects of the Declaration on the Right to Development, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1986, were the newly independent States, expressing themselves through the Non-Aligned Movement.

However, as you know, because of the unjust international order and inequalities in the distribution of wealth and power, developing countries continue to face numerous obstacles. They do not have equal access to markets, technology, capital, and other resources. They do not have equal access to decision-making in the international trade and financial institutions. And their dependence on external markets and foreign debt, have made them even more vulnerable to political domination and external intervention, including IMF/World Bank conditional- ities, sanctions, embargoes, threats, etc.

.... You can imagine what the realisation of the right to development will mean to the 80% of humanity who live on less than US$ 10 a day, which is 95% of developing country population, according to a World Bank report." 2. I hear that the 16th session of the UN Working Group on the Right to Development that was scheduled to start in Geneva on Mon 27th April had to be unexpectedly deferred, owing to the non-appointment of a chairperson-rapporteur. It was the expectation of members of the Group that you, as the chair-rapporteur for the past 3-4 years, would be reappointed, but this did not happen. This was reportedly because the Sri Lanka Foreign Ministry had opposed your candidacy. Can you confirm this? "It is, indeed, very unfortunate that the UN Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development was forced to defer its 16th session, indefinitely. On the eve of its meeting, the NonAligned Movement was faced with an unprecedented crisis, with one of its members objecting to my nomination. We were given to understand that the objection came from Sri Lanka." 3. Why was the 16th session important?

"At this session, the Group was to consider an important document that I was asked by the Human Rights Council to prepare, with proposals for improving its effectiveness and efficiency. Due to opposition from some of the Western countries, particularly the United States, which was the only country voting against the Declaration, the international community has not been able to implement this human right. "

" .… The developing countries had hoped to use my document to make an important step forward by next year when the UN will be commemorating the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Right to Development." 4. What reason was given for your nonappointment? Were there other prospective candidates competing for the position? "No reasons were given. In fact, a number of developing country delegations asked me the same question.

I was chosen for my expertise on the right to development, a subject that I had worked on for more than 25 years, in fact, for most of my professional career. …. The position of Chairperson-Rapporteur was honorary and there were no political, financial or career advantages that went along with it. …." 5. How did other member states / groups of states react to this development? "It was very apparent that almost all were taken by surprise and that the developing countries saw it as a severe setback for the realization of the right to development, for the advancement of their interests, and for the unity of the Non-Aligned Movement. …."

See Sunday Times Online for the full interview.