Palestinian Red Crescent personnel check an ambulance destroyed by Israeli attacks in Deir el-Balah in the central Gaza Strip yesterday. AFP

Sri Lanka, whose economic independence has been severely undermined due to its economic bankruptcy, has little freedom or external sovereignty to take a principled stance concerning the Palestinian cause.

States are expected to be law-abiding and uphold global justice. They must desist from committing crimes against humanity or being complicit in crimes against humanity. But in practice, most states act like ruffians, showing scant respect for the laws of warfare and international humanitarian laws.

In Gaza, international laws and international humanitarian laws are being violated with such impunity that one wonders whether genocide is the new norm in dealing with international disputes. What is worse, the United States, the so-called champion of a rules-based international order, has become the biggest accomplice in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, as it blankly refuses to even make a mild request to Israel calling for a ceasefire. One may say it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the United States to enter the morality-based political sphere.

Not only does the US adopt a morally reprehensible policy that has encouraged Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but it is also known to pressurise less powerful states to toe its pro-Israeli line. A case in point was its efforts to arm-twist several nations ahead of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, which partitioned Palestine in 1947. The resolution would not have found its passage if the US had not exerted undue economic threats and political pressure on countries such as Haiti, Liberia, and the Philippines, which wanted to vote against the resolution.

Sri Lanka is under pressure from the US to abandon the Palestinian cause it has been championing since independence, especially during the heydays of the Non-Aligned Movement. Also adding pressure on Sri Lanka is, it is believed, India, which has embraced Israel with warts, war crimes, and all.
This was evident in President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s speech to the UN General Assembly last year. He desisted from making a declaration supporting the Palestinians’ aspiration for freedom, thus veering away from the tradition almost all Sri Lankan leaders had followed.

In Sri Lanka’s post-independence political history, two leaders stand out for defying US pressure: Sirimavo Bandaranaike and Ranasinghe Premadasa. Ms. Bandaranaike’s pro-Palestinian policy was so solid that she became a household name in the Middle East. It was her pro-Palestinian policy that opened the Middle Eastern job market to Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is indebted to Ms. Bandaranaike for every dollar it earns from remittances from the Middle East.

Mr. Premadasa was also a courageous leader who did not bend in two to appease the US. When the 1991 UN General Assembly resolution 46/86 was sponsored by the US to nullify the 1975 resolution 3379, which rightly equated Zionism with racism, Washington sought Sri Lanka’s support. The then-US ambassador conveyed to Mr. Premadasa that President George H.W. Bush would like to speak to him. Mr. Premadasa, sources privy to the incident say, told the ambassador to tell his president not to waste his time. Referring to Sri Lanka’s Muslims, Mr. Premadasa said he had a responsibility to a section of his constituency whose aspirations he was duty-bound to fulfil. This was at a time when Mr. Premadasa depended on US quotas for his ambitious 200-garment factory programme.

On Mr. Premadasa’s instructions, Sri Lanka voted against the US-sponsored resolution, becoming the only non-Islamic and non-communist nation to do so. A year later, the US asked Sri Lanka for overflight permission for its warplanes that were being relocated from the Subic Bay naval base in the Philippines to the Middle East. Mr. Premadasa agreed, and the decision was also overwhelmingly supported by the United National Party’s Muslim ministers, parliamentarians, and local council members.

That was a time when Sri Lanka enjoyed freedom in foreign policy-making. Mr. Wickremesinghe was a prominent member of Mr. Premadasa’s cabinet. Though he stood by Mr. Premadasa during the impeachment crisis in 1991, he does not seem to have learned the then-president’s foreign policy-making art that incorporated principles and the aspirations of his constituency.
No wonder Mr. Wickremesinghe is taking a foolhardy decision to deploy Sri Lanka’s naval forces in the Red Sea to protect international navigation from attacks from Yemen’s Houthi forces. True, it is unlawful under international law to attack international merchant ships. But the Houthi action needs to be seen in the wider context of Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.

The Houthis decided to attack ships destined for and owned by Israel to pressure Israel to stop its genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people after they found all efforts short of a military option had failed to stop it. So, as far as the motive is concerned, the Houthis’ action is virtuous.

Moreover, in terms of relative moralism, right or wrong depends on the specific circumstances of the situation, and moral judgments cannot be made without considering the context.
The Houthis may be right or wrong, but why is Sri Lanka getting involved in a conflict that could turn into a major regional war? Its argument that the Red Sea crisis is inimical to Sri Lanka’s economy is fragile. Most war situations hurt vulnerable economies like Sri Lanka. Does it mean we need to get militarily involved in every theatre to undo the harm?
Besides, Sri Lanka does not have the type of naval craft capable of patrolling seas thousands of miles away from the country’s shores. Also, whatever vessels Sri Lanka deploys could become sitting ducks for Houthi drones and missiles unless our vessels get air cover from US fighter jets.

The government is putting Sri Lankan sailors in harm’s way, and going by the UN Security Council resolution adopted on Wednesday, the Red Sea situation is likely to aggravate into a major regional or global conflict. The US-sponsored resolution, among other things, encourages Member States to “support capacity-building efforts” of the Yemeni coastguard to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

Analysing the resolution’s text reveals a potentially dangerous situation unfolding. It could mean the relative peace in Yemen after 12 years of war will soon be shattered with the US-led coalition getting involved in the Yemeni war to reverse the war gains of the Houthis, who are the de facto rulers of Yemen.
The resolution is more than protecting navigation in the Red Sea; it is a US attempt to protect Israel’s economy, which is being dealt a devastating blow by Houthi attacks on ships linked to Israel. If Sri Lanka were to join the US-led coalition, it would imply the government’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, however much it defends its position by pointing out its UN General Assembly vote in support of a Gaza ceasefire. The moral question for Sri Lanka is: What is Sri Lanka doing to stop the genocide in Gaza?