Diplomatic norms are rooted in the principle of mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of host countries. These principles are enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which sets out the framework for diplomatic conduct worldwide. While diplomats are entitled to certain privileges and immunities, they are expected to operate within clearly defined boundaries — avoiding political activism, public commentary on domestic matters, and interference in internal governance.
However, in recent years, Sri Lanka has emerged as an outlier in how it permits foreign diplomats to act. With an increasingly permissive and unstructured approach, successive Governments have enabled foreign Embassies and High Commissions to engage in actions that would be deemed intrusive or unacceptable in other sovereign jurisdictions.
Analysts say that Sri Lanka has allowed foreign diplomats to breach protocol, including making political statements, holding press briefings, directly engaging with local media, setting up influence networks, and meeting Government officials without proper oversight. This laissez-faire diplomatic culture has greater implications on sovereignty, national security, and foreign policy autonomy.
Vienna Convention
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides the global blueprint for diplomatic behaviour. Under Article 41 of the Convention, diplomats must respect the laws and regulations of the host country and “have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs” of that country. Diplomats are permitted to carry out their functions only through official communication with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other channels permitted by the receiving state.
While this Convention is not without flexibility, it is clear in its intent: foreign envoys are not to cross boundaries into domestic political commentary, governance issues, or media manipulation. Yet, Sri Lanka appears to have offered fertile ground for these very violations.
Political comments by diplomats
One of the most glaring trends is the increasing boldness with which foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners issue public statements — often of a political nature — regarding Sri Lanka’s internal governance, electoral processes, judicial decisions, and even Constitutional matters.
For instance, envoys from some of the Western nations have commented on Sri Lanka’s judicial verdicts concerning human rights cases, the conduct and fairness of elections, Government appointments and removals, and Constitutional amendments and legislative reforms.
Such statements are often released through official Embassy social media handles or press releases, giving them significant visibility and impact. These remarks are frequently presented as advocacy for democracy or human rights, but they often align with the geopolitical interests of the diplomats’ home countries.
In many other States — including those issuing these comments — foreign diplomats would face formal diplomatic pushback or expulsion for such behaviour. In Sri Lanka, however, these statements rarely provoke more than muted criticism from minor political figures.
Media domination
Another deviation from standard protocol is the regularity with which diplomats in Sri Lanka hold press conferences or issue detailed press briefings, often on domestic issues. These events frequently see foreign diplomats addressing the local media in Colombo, commenting on Sri Lanka’s governance, economy, and law enforcement.
Some Embassies and High Commissions have even established Media Friendship groups and engaged with local media in public.
Such media engagements are not necessarily problematic in and of themselves. But when they are used as platforms to critique the Government, advocate for policy positions, or indirectly support certain political actors or narratives, they edge dangerously close to interference.
What is striking is the absence of any counter-measures or protocol enforcement by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, unfortunately. Is the MFA monitoring these diplomats engaging in the press, subjects they deal with the press, and the disciplinary steps if boundaries are crossed.
This lack of institutional response has given diplomats carte blanche to shape discourse with little restraint.
Influence operations
Several Embassies and High Commissions in Sri Lanka have gone a step further by actively fostering relationships with local journalists, editors, civil society actors, and media entrepreneurs, often through funding, training programs, and exclusive partnerships.
They sponsor journalism workshops under the guise of promoting “independent media”, create closed-door “media roundtables” with selected journalists, funding digital platforms that amplify narratives aligned with their own strategic interests, and establish rapid-response teams to counter online narratives critical of their foreign policy.
While promoting media literacy and ethical journalism is commendable, these activities — if not disclosed and regulated — can function as covert influence operations. The Embassies involved are not merely reporting on events but actively shaping how those events are interpreted domestically and internationally.
In Sri Lanka’s fragile media ecosystem, which is already under financial strain and often politically polarised, such foreign interventions can distort public discourse and democratic debate.
Meetings with Government officials
Diplomats routinely meet Heads of Ministries, Department Secretaries, Parliamentarians, and occasionally Provincial Administrators. While such meetings are common in international diplomacy, they are generally channeled through formal requests to the Foreign Ministry and governed by protocols.
In Sri Lanka, however, such meetings are often arranged informally — sometimes through personal connections or third-party NGOs. Reports suggest that some Diplomats meet Cabinet Ministers or Opposition leaders without notifying the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, some Embassies coordinate directly with Provincial leaders on development or reconciliation programs, and some High Commissioners have conducted field visits in sensitive regions (such as the North and the East) without adequate coordination with Colombo.
These practices bypass the State’s foreign policy apparatus and diminish the Central Government’s control over its diplomatic engagements. They also create the risk of diplomats influencing national policies or gaining intelligence without oversight.
Why diplomatic free play allowed?
There are several reasons why Sri Lanka has failed to rein in this growing diplomatic overreach:
a) Weak institutional capacity
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, over the years, seen a decline in institutional strength, funding, and strategic vision. Protocol enforcement mechanisms are often outdated or inconsistently applied, while foreign service officers are rotated rapidly, hampering continuity.
b) Dependence on foreign aid and debt relief
Sri Lanka’s economic crisis has heightened its dependence on international donors, lenders, and diplomatic goodwill. Western Embassies — especially those of the U.S., EU, and Japan as well as India — play a significant role in IMF negotiations, bilateral aid, and investment. This has created a climate of hesitancy among policymakers to confront or discipline envoys who cross the line.
c) Internal political divisions
Sri Lanka’s fractured political landscape means that Opposition parties often seek validation or support from foreign Diplomats to bolster their credibility. Governments, in turn, fear appearing hostile to “democracy-promoting” envoys and risk being painted as authoritarian. This political caution allows diplomatic impunity to flourish.
d) Cultural deference and historical inertia
There is a lingering post-colonial tendency in Sri Lankan diplomacy to treat Western envoys with undue reverence. This is compounded by the long-standing belief among some elites that foreign validation is necessary for global legitimacy, further weakening enforcement of sovereignty norms.
Diplomatic overreach
The long-term consequences of this unchecked diplomatic activism are significant. These include erosion of sovereignty, public distrust, precedent for hostile powers, and undermining local diplomacy.
When foreign Diplomats freely comment on domestic politics and influence narratives, the autonomy of national institutions is diminished. This will aggravate when perceptions are there that external actors are shaping national decisions. This can lead to increased polarisation and loss of faith in democratic processes.
If protocol violations by allies are tolerated, Sri Lanka may find it harder to confront similar behaviours from more adversarial states or covert actors. Adding to the woe is when foreign embassies overshadow Sri Lanka’s own diplomatic voice, the country loses control over its international image and engagements.
What other countries do
Many countries, including Sri Lanka’s South Asian neighbours, enforce much stricter diplomatic protocols. For instance, India has repeatedly summoned Ambassadors who commented on internal affairs and once expelled a U.K. Diplomat for political interference. Bangladesh issued strong demarches to Embassies that made comments on elections and human rights issues. Pakistan has restricted press access to diplomats and scrutinises meetings with political groups.
Even in liberal democracies such as France or the U.S., foreign diplomats are closely monitored and expected to operate strictly within set frameworks. Public commentary on domestic politics is considered a red line — and crossing it could mean expulsion or diplomatic freeze.
Sri Lanka, by contrast, has become overly permissive — even welcoming — of diplomatic activism.
What needs to be done?
The need of the hour is to restore protocol integrity and protect its sovereignty, Sri Lanka must take urgent action:
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) has to play a pivotal role in managing the country’s global relationships. For decades, it has suffered from underinvestment, politicisation, and a lack of modernisation. Strengthening this institution is crucial to reclaiming diplomatic sovereignty.
This begins with upgrading its operational capacity through professional training, investment in digital diplomacy infrastructure, and the implementation of updated protocols aligned with international standards. Equally important is the appointment of qualified, career diplomats — not politically motivated individuals — to senior positions. Professionalising the foreign service will ensure continuity, consistency, and credibility in Sri Lanka’s engagement with the international community.
Enforcing the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations — the core international treaty governing diplomatic conduct — is essential if Sri Lanka is to reassert control over its internal affairs. The Government must publish and disseminate a clear set of national guidelines defining acceptable behaviour for diplomats stationed in Sri Lanka. In cases of overreach, mechanisms such as formal warnings, demarches (official diplomatic protests), and public statements should be deployed.
In more serious or repeated cases, the Government must not hesitate to declare offending diplomats persona non grata — a legal right under the Convention — signalling that Sri Lanka will not tolerate interference masked as diplomacy.
To ensure that diplomatic engagement does not bypass national oversight, the MFA must coordinate and centralise all interactions between Foreign Diplomats and Government officials.
Currently, many such meetings take place informally, enabling Diplomats to advance their agendas unchecked. All such engagements — including field visits, political briefings, and development discussions — must be routed through the MFA.
A national registry should also be introduced to track Embassy-run media engagements and donor-funded programs, particularly those that involve local journalists, civil society groups, or Government institutions. This would enhance transparency and accountability.
Sri Lanka must also push for diplomatic reciprocity. While foreign Diplomats in Colombo enjoy significant freedom, Sri Lankan missions abroad often operate under constraints. Empowering Sri Lankan Embassies to act assertively, particularly in Western capitals, will help establish bilateral parity. At the same time, Colombo should deepen diplomatic ties with Global South nations — including those in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia — to diversify support and balance the often-intrusive tendencies of certain Western missions. Strategic Non-Alignment, paired with principled diplomacy, can restore leverage in multilateral and bilateral forums.
Finally, education and awareness are crucial. A large segment of Sri Lanka’s political class, media, and public often views foreign commentary as the Gospel, due in part to post-colonial inferiority complexes and media manipulation. The MFA, civil society, and academic institutions must invest in public education campaigns to build awareness of diplomatic norms and sovereignty. Politicians, in particular, should be trained to critically assess foreign statements and understand the motivations behind them. Only then can Sri Lanka maintain a sovereign foreign policy while still engaging globally on equal and respectful terms.
