Ali Sabri’s Foreign Policy Lectures Leave Colombo Puzzled: The Man Who Shifted Goalposts Now Preaches Strategic Spine
In Sri Lanka’s colourful theatre of political commentary, few spectacles are as entertaining as a former policymaker lecturing the government on how policy should be run—especially when his own record resembles a diplomatic zigzag rather than a strategy. The latest episode in this genre features former foreign minister Ali Sabry, who has recently emerged as an unlikely commentator praising the foreign policy conduct of the government led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the National People’s Power (NPP).
Sabry’s comments came in the aftermath of the dramatic maritime incident involving the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena, reportedly torpedoed in early March in the Indian Ocean by a United States submarine. Sri Lanka subsequently provided humanitarian treatment to injured Iranian sailors and offered limited naval protection to another Iranian vessel operating in the vicinity. The government framed its actions as consistent with international maritime obligations and humanitarian norms.
In a recent lecture and media commentary, Sabry applauded the government’s handling of the situation, arguing that Sri Lanka must pursue an “independent foreign policy” and resist external pressure from major powers.
The applause, however, has triggered raised eyebrows across Colombo’s diplomatic and policy circles.
Because critics are asking a very simple question: when exactly did Sabry discover the virtues of strategic independence?
The Hambantota Episode That Refuses to Disappear
To understand the skepticism surrounding Sabry’s remarks, one must revisit an episode that unfolded during the presidency of Ranil Wickremesinghe.
During that period, the Sri Lankan government granted permission for a Chinese research vessel—widely believed to be the surveillance ship Yuan Wang 5—to dock at the southern port of Hambantota International Port.
The vessel was already sailing toward Sri Lanka when Colombo suddenly changed course.
Permission was delayed.
Diplomatic messages became ambiguous.
And Beijing began asking questions.
Officials publicly claimed the government needed “more time” to review the request. Yet insiders later acknowledged that intense geopolitical pressure from external actors—particularly regional security concerns raised by India and Western allies—played a decisive role in the delay.
The result was a diplomatic embarrassment.
Sri Lanka had initially approved the visit but later appeared to retreat, effectively moving the goalposts mid-voyage. Beijing interpreted the move as a breach of trust, while analysts warned that Colombo had signaled vulnerability to external pressure.
At the centre of the decision-making process stood the then foreign minister: Ali Sabry.
Strategic Independence—Then and Now
Fast-forward to today.
Sabry now argues that Sri Lanka must stand firm against pressure from powerful nations and maintain a consistent foreign policy.
That principle, few diplomats would disagree, is fundamental for small states navigating the geopolitics of the Indian Ocean.
Yet critics point out the obvious contradiction.
During the Hambantota episode, Sri Lanka appeared to modify its foreign policy under pressure. The Chinese vessel was eventually allowed to dock, but only after a highly public diplomatic drama that strained relations with Beijing and exposed Colombo’s strategic vulnerabilities.
The contrast is striking.
Then: hesitation, delay, and policy reversal.
Now: lectures about geopolitical independence.
This sudden transformation has prompted policy analysts to ask whether Sabry’s current commentary is less about strategic doctrine and more about political positioning.
The Iran Factor
Sabry’s praise for the NPP government has focused particularly on Sri Lanka’s humanitarian response to the Iranian naval incident.
When the damaged Iranian frigate IRIS Dena was attacked in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka reportedly facilitated medical assistance for injured sailors and coordinated diplomatic communications regarding casualties.
Officials also ensured that another Iranian naval vessel operating in the region received limited logistical protection while navigating through nearby waters.
Sabry publicly supported these actions, describing them as consistent with international law and Sri Lanka’s long-standing maritime traditions.
Yet his critics detect another layer to the story.
They point to Sabry’s recently strengthened engagement with segments of Colombo’s Shia Muslim community, including networks associated with the Dawoodi Bohra tradition.
One religious institution often mentioned in Colombo discussions is the historic Bohra Takia Mosque, which has cultural and theological links with global Shia networks.
None of this is inherently unusual. Sri Lanka’s Muslim communities maintain diverse international connections.
However, critics argue that Sabry’s newfound enthusiasm for defending Iranian geopolitical interests deserves scrutiny—particularly given his previously cautious tone toward Tehran.
A Change of Tone
Diplomatic observers note that Sabry’s rhetoric toward Iran has evolved considerably over the years.
When his son was studying in the United States, Sabry reportedly adopted a markedly more critical tone toward the Iranian government and its regional policies. His public commentary during that period often aligned closely with Western diplomatic narratives.
Today, however, Sabry speaks approvingly of Sri Lanka’s engagement with Iran and praises the government for maintaining cordial relations with Tehran.
Such shifts may simply reflect changing geopolitical circumstances.
But in Sri Lanka’s intensely scrutinized political culture, sudden changes of tone rarely escape attention.
Calls for an Investigation
The more serious question now being raised concerns the Hambantota decision.
Several political commentators and civil society groups argue that the episode deserves formal investigation.
Their reasoning is straightforward:
-
Why was the Chinese vessel initially approved and later delayed?
-
What external pressures influenced the decision?
-
Did any political or personal considerations affect the policy reversal?
If the delay was purely geopolitical, analysts say, then the government at the time should transparently explain the decision-making process.
If other factors were involved, the public deserves to know.
Calls for an inquiry are not necessarily accusations of wrongdoing. Rather, they reflect a broader demand for transparency in foreign policy decisions that affect Sri Lanka’s strategic credibility.
After all, maritime diplomacy in the Indian Ocean is not a trivial matter. Ports such as Hambantota International Port occupy critical positions along global shipping lanes linking Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.
When Colombo signals uncertainty about its commitments, international partners take note.
The Question of Consistency
Foreign policy scholars often emphasize a simple principle: credibility is built through consistency.
For small states, this principle becomes even more important. A country like Sri Lanka must balance relations among competing powers—the United States, China, India, and emerging regional actors—while maintaining its sovereignty.
When policies appear to shift abruptly, it creates the perception that Colombo can be influenced by external pressure.
This perception is precisely what Sabry now warns against.
The irony, critics say, is that his own tenure as foreign minister produced one of the most visible examples of such policy volatility.
Colombo’s Political Theatre
Sri Lankan politics has always had a theatrical quality.
Former ministers become critics.
Critics become advisers.
And yesterday’s decisions become today’s lectures.
Sabry’s recent remarks therefore fit neatly into this tradition.
Yet they also highlight a deeper issue: the need for institutional memory and accountability in foreign policy.
When senior officials comment on current events, their own records inevitably become part of the conversation.
The Spinal Cord Test
Some commentators have framed the issue more bluntly.
If Sabry believes Sri Lanka must resist external pressure, they argue, then the public deserves an explanation for the Hambantota episode.
Was the decision a calculated diplomatic maneuver?
Or was it simply the result of geopolitical pressure applied behind closed doors?
Until those questions are answered, Sabry’s lectures on foreign policy independence risk sounding less like strategic guidance and more like political irony.
In Colombo’s bustling cafes and policy forums, the debate has taken on a sarcastic tone.
One veteran diplomat summed it up succinctly:
“Foreign policy is not about speeches after the fact. It is about decisions made when pressure arrives.”
And in the case of Sri Lanka’s former foreign minister, critics say the real question is not about Iran, China, or the United States.
It is about something far more basic.
Consistency.
Or, as some political observers in Colombo have put it with characteristic bluntness:
Perhaps the time has come to test the spinal cord of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy—and of those who claim to lecture others about it.