The intensification of the government’s war effort from 2007 onwards led  to the deterioration in relations with sections of the international community, especially the countries of the European Union, which actively but unsuccessfully sought a negotiated political solution in place of war.  Issues of collateral damage to civilians, human rights violations and the absence of a viable political proposal, on the one hand, and of the failure of many Western countries to crackdown on LTTE activities in their countries, loomed large in creating a climate of mutual criticism.  The campaign in the UN’s Human Rights Council to commence an investigation into possible Sri Lankan war crimes marked the nadir of international relations.
 
Some of these countries had supported Sri Lanka's economic and human development for several decades. But they now appear to have decided to withdraw from Sri Lanka and focus their attention on other parts of the world.  Sweden has been the first to close its embassy.  The Swedish Foreign Ministry last week officially announced the closure of several diplomatic missions abroad, including that in Sri Lanka.  It stated that “At Sweden’s development cooperation review in 2007, a decision was taken to end its bilateral development assistance to Sri Lanka.”
 
However, the decision of the Swedish government to close its embassy in Sri Lanka from March next year will inevitably be seen in the context of Sri Lanka’s new conflictual relationship with sections of the international community.  The refusal of the Sri Lankan government to grant a visa to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt came as an unexpected rebuff to one of the country’s most long standing and faithful aid donors.  The appearance of rebuff was magnified when Mr Bildt’s counterparts from the United Kingdom and France were provided with the visas that were denied to him.
 
The three European foreign ministers had expressed the desire to visit Sri Lanka to assess the humanitarian crisis in the country in the aftermath it was in the midst of the war, not after, wasnt it? of the war, to alleviate which they were providing material assistance.  The Sri Lankan government’s explanation for denying Mr Bildt a visa was to say that they were overburdened by a flurry of foreign visitors, and meant no offence, but he would have to come later for a visit.   Another assessment was that the Sri Lankan government wished to put the international community on notice that it was dealing with a sovereign government that would not permit itself to be pressurized by external powers.
 
 
OTHER MESSAGE
 
In singling out the Swedish Foreign Minister for unfavourable treatment, the Sri Lankan government may have also been sending another message of protest.  Several months earlier Sweden announced that it would no longer be providing Sri Lanka with bilateral development assistance.  This announcement came at a time when Sri Lanka was under considerable pressure from sections of the international community with regard to human rights violations and the continuation of the war.  However, Swedish spokespersons took the position that their government’s decision had nothing to do with pressuring the Sri Lankan government, but was due to the fact that Sri Lanka had graduated to the rank of a middle income country, which did not require aid as in the past.
 
The closure of the Swedish embassy in Sri Lanka and the ending of Swedish bilateral programmes of development assistance will hurt the more rural and estate-based sections of Sri Lanka’s people who benefited from its targeted assistance and also its civil society that sustains the checks and balances of democracy.  Apart from targeting its aid programmes to reach marginalized communities, such as rural farmers and plantation workers, Sweden also contributed to civic groups engaged in promoting workers and human rights and also peace and good governance.  Such assistance may have been resented by sections within the government who view such checks and balances as part of an international conspiracy to weaken third world governments.  
 
After the end of the war, Sri Lanka stands poised for a leap forward that is unfettered by the heavy burden of battling an ethnic insurgency and regaining lost territory that amounted to nearly a quarter of the country’s land mass.  But instead of a liberalization of policies there is the danger of governance that is violative of the rule of law and is tightly centralized.  With internal checks and balances being inadequate to the task of ensuring the rule of law and justice, there is a need for external engagement with Sri Lanka that takes the form of constructive engagement.  The long awaited decision of the International Monetary Fund to provide the Sri Lankan government with a USD 2.6 billion loan may be seen as an action in this spirit.  
 
 
NOT TIMELY
 
Sri Lanka’s application for this loan from the IMF was pending for several months.  There were speculations that the loan might not be granted due to opposition from some of the IMF’s key decision making countries on account of the Sri Lankan government’s conflictual attitude towards the international community on issues of human rights and a political solution to the ethnic conflict.  However, there appears to have been a rethinking of the mandate of the IMF, which is to look into the economic prospects facing prospective borrower countries.  In terms of economic criteria, past performance in repaying loans and in generating future flows of income, Sri Lanka has a great deal of credibility, which is what finally appears to have prevailed.
 
If the IMF loan had not come, Sri Lanka’s economy would have suffered, and with it the economic conditions of the most needy sections of Sri Lanka’s population would most likely have worsened.  As the loan is being disbursed in quarterly installments, it means that there will be constant engagement between the Sri Lankan government and the IMF. The constructive engagement that now can take place between the government and IMF on economic issues can be an example that can open the space for similar constructive engagement on political issues also.  
 
On the other hand, it is unfortunate that the ongoing humanitarian and democratic crisis in the country should coincide with the more long term decision of Sweden and some other European countries with a long track record of supporting human rights throughout the world to phase out from Sri Lanka.  They need to reconsider their decision to withdraw, and give greater importance to the principle of solidarity especially at this critical time. While Sri Lanka may have graduated to being a middle income country by international standards, and its present government is confrontational with them, the principal of solidarity means not giving up on those who have been partners, until they have come fully out of their problems.