FOREIGN POLICY -- THE PRO AND THE CON

It has to be a weasel of a political 'wanna-be' that complains about the President's current state-visit to Kazakhstan, but even so, the Karunanayakas of the opposition have found something objectionable about that journey. They are heard saying - fairly bellowing -- that the President visits 'small countries' and that therefore his visit to Kazakhstan represents some kind of political failure!

No prizes then for guessing why at least some of our opposition members are destined to sit forever on those opposite side benches.

The President of this country does not make friends internationally on the basis of 'big' or 'small'. It bears mention that neither does he base his political allegiances here in this country on the basis of 'big parties' or 'small alliances.'

That is because the current political credo is one of principle over mean advantage, and one of long term consideration over short term benefit. This was the same political philosophy that venerated and astute leaders of the past such as Nehru, Nasser and SWRD Bandaranaike swore by.

What's good for Pandit Jahwahlahrl Nehru cannot be bad for Mahinda Rajapaksa. The point these past leaders made was that the only power bloc that's worth aligning oneself to is the power bloc of a rainbow coalition of like-minded countries, because that is not a power bloc at all in the first place.

Avoiding the trap of falling in line with power blocs does not translate as not having excellent relations with the big powers that some sections of the opposition so desperately want us to genuflect before. Be it domestic or foreign policy, the general approach has been strikingly similar as far as this administration is concerned.

Equal weightage has been given to all entities, big and small, in the domestic arena, and on the larger stage of global relations. This has resulted in remarkable dividends, domestically and otherwise, and a good example is the support we get from countries in international forums, with Uganda and Kazakhstan being two nations among many that have expressed solidarity with us when the country has faced unfair measures internationally.

But the World Bank's full throated cheer for our growth rates, as reported in these spaces yesterday, reaffirms the fact that the international lending agencies and other powerful international bodies still dominated by the big powers absolutely identify with the gains we are making, and are supporting us all the way through to upper-middle income status.

If that is the case, what is the Karunanayake cavil about big and small, Canada vs. Kazakhstan, Uganda vs. United Kingdom?

The complaint is a sheer nonsense -- a flight of imaginative fancy that consoles stodgy sections of the opposition, that in long years of political atrophy, have now forgotten how to criticize constructively. Isn't it on the other hand elementary that no country would be credible on the world stage -- or respected - if her leaders seek to hobnob with statesmen of the 'rich -powerful and the large' only?

Wouldn't this also be similar to fraternizing ONLY with the big and powerful political parties, and the rich and powerful business tycoons domestically, which the President of this country does NOT do?

That's why those who peen/strut in order to teach the President a lesson in external affairs, should look beyond their noses so that they wouldn't be blinded by their own myopia. The fact of the matter is that the pragmatic foreign policy of the day of building a coalition of like-minded friends both in the developed and the developing world, has offered the state a bulwark of protection from all sides. If the big and the powerful gang up, there is always the big coalition of friendly fraternal nations to help us, but then, on the other hand, the rich countries do business with us because we do not succumb to the diktat of one power bloc or another. That's what's called confidence, something that can also be described as not being addle-headed as our self-appointed foreign policy critics are.