Foreign Policies of the Bandaranaikes from 1956 to 1965 with that of Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake from 1965 to 1970; A Comparative Study By T.A.H. Irasha Siriwardhane 1. Introduction From the inception of the British governance since 1976 including the coastal areas firstly and the whole country after the invasion of the Kandian Kingdom under the Governor, Robert Brownrigg in 1815 secondly, they introduced an umpteen of constitutional reforms namely, the Colebrook-Cameron reforms of 1833, CrewMcCallum reforms of 1910, Manning reforms of 1921, Manning-Devonshire reforms of 1924, Donoughmore reforms of 1931 and etc. With reference to the dominium status of the Ceylon and the recommendations of the Soulbury Commission to draft a new constitution, they gave the Internal Self Government while retaining some imperial safeguards in defense and external affairs and by the Ceylon Independent Act of 1947 conferred dominion status on the colony, whereby Ceylon was recognized as an autonomous entity with allegiance to the British Crown.1 Thus, from the elections for the parliament which was a bicameral one, the United National Party, a coalition of a number of nationalists and communal parties won the majority where is chose Don Stephen Senanayake as the Prime Minister.2 Sri lanka got independence on 4th February 1948 and from the Soulbury constitution a prime minister and the cabinet were selected from the political party which hold the majority in the parliament which held collective responsibility for executive functions where it was very similar to the British Parliamentary Cabinet system while the Governor-General as the head of the states as well as the nominal executive of the colony represented the British Monarch.3 Hence, under the same statutory political system, “Sinhala only within 24 hours”, the eye-catching slogan which contributed in large measure to the landslide victory of the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna in 1956 and the language issue came as a handy weapon to crush the opposition led by S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike‟s erstwhile rival Sir John Kotelawala because they (U.N.P) were highly influenced by the British traditions and the English Language.4 “Growth of nationalist power”, <https://www.britannica.com/place/Sri-Lanka/Growth-of-nationalist-power> accessed on 5th August 2018 2 ibid 3 ibid 4 J. Abeygunawardhana, “Was SWRD the architect of the Sinhala only legislation of 1956?”<www.srilankaguardian.org/2008/08/was-swrd-architect-of-sinhala-only.html?m=1> accessed on 5th August 2018 1 In such a political background within the country, it is very vital to analyze the external affairs of a country also in order to have an overall understanding about the diplomatic policies of the different political parties or of the politicians of different political parties impacted from the various situations, power blocks and international politics during and after the Cold-War subsequent to the World War II. “The withdrawal of the Western colonial power from most of the Third World created a vacuum of sort leaving various sub-system of the world open to super power influence and penetration. The newly independent states were affected by the global rivalry and tension depending on their geo-political setting. Therefore, if the cold war was characterized by the game - the two super power played viz., balance of power - the post-colonial era was also subjected to a kind of uneven imbalance (political, economic, military, etc.) which needed strategy to cope with. Thus the newly independent states had to find a role for themselves. They experimented with nonalignment as well as alignment to safeguard their security and counter super power interference. Hence, “It was the cold war and policy of the super powers that played a significant role in the decision making process and foreign policy formulation of small and weak states, while also imposing constraints on its foreign policy maneuverability and Sri Lankan foreign policy witnessed continuity as well as change depending on the changes occurring in international system as well as the changes in the regimes.”5 Therefore, from this analysis it is expected to discuss the foreign policies of the Bandaranaikes from 1956 to 1965 and of the Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake from 1965 to 1970 comparatively. 2. Foreign policies of the Bandaranaikes from 1956 to 1965  Foreign policy during the tenure of Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike: “S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike‟s first move was to break away from the dependence on Britain and the West and evolve an independent international outlook. Concerning the cold war climate, he advocated for the „middle path‟ in foreign policy approach and was influenced by Nehru and his model of non-alignment and convinced that Sri Lanka should follow the same path. He became an ardent advocate of the non-align movement and received acclamation as the man responsible for bring Sri Lanka into the non-align camp. Although, there is no denial of the fact that the genesis of NAM can be found in the statement of UNP prime minister too. But for Bandaranaike, NAM was the cardinal principle that guided his foreign policy.”6 He wanted Sri Lanka‟s foreign policy to be mostly pro-Ceylon other than anything and the foreign policy goal he sought was „friends of all and enemies of none‟.7 The more pragmatic side of his policy was regional cooperation and he even put forth the idea of a mutual defense scheme involving India, Pakistan, Burma and Sri Lanka.8 Because he criticized the “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 6 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 p 73 7 ibid p 74 8 ibid 5 Defense pact with Britain and the idea of Dominion status, soon after assuming the office of Prime Minister, he began negotiations to transfer the naval base at Trincomalee as well as the air base at Katunayake and those efforts were successful in 1957 being based on friendship with all nations and non-alignment necessitated such steps.9 The two sole reasons as per him for such a decision were that the military association with Britain could lead to Sri Lanka‟s involvement in any war between the two blocs and conscious of it geo-strategic location he realized that Sri Lanka was easily accessible to both Soviet Union and China besides the US.10 “Sri Lanka‟s relation with the US was cordial. In fact, the competition between the two super powers for aid saw Sri Lanka receiving financial aid from US too, which the UNP though pro-West could not achieve. Bandaranaike visited the US to clear the misunderstanding that occurred because of the Rice-Rubber pact with China and through his diplomacy prevailed upon America for assistance”.11 In 1957 the United States Operation Mission (USOM) and Sri Lanka government agreed to jointly undertake the survey of the Mahaveli Ganga River Valley project for harnessing of water for irrigation, flood control and electricity production, eventhough it was not implemented practically.12 Furthermore, in June 1958 the US and Sri Lanka signed the surplus agricultural commodities agreement with a view of expanding trade in agricultural commodities and under this agreement sale of rice to Sri Lanka amounted to $ 4.2 million, which was later raised to $ 6.3 million due to the addition of wheat flour. 13 Under the US-Ceylon Economic and Technical Cooperation Programme the US agreed for an additional assistance of Rs. 3.5 million also.14 Furthermore, there were allegation against the United States Information Centre at Jaffna for being engage in activities that was injecting communal feeling among the Tamils, and the 1958 language riots was also seen as US plot to overthrow Bandaranaike and help the UNP regain power.15 However, He decided in August 1957 that Sri Lanka mission would visit Soviet Union and People‟s Republic of China to view prospect for establishment of diplomatic relations and as a result, Sri Lanka established diplomatic missions in Moscow and Beijing and correspondingly the Soviet Union and China set up full-fledged embassy in Colombo also.16 He annulled the ban imposed by Kotelawala on communist literature from Soviet Union, China and other communist countries.17 In February 1957, Chou-En-Lai visited Sri Lanka followed by the Soviet cultural delegation visit in November of the same year and the Soviet Union and Sri Lanka agreed to the exchange of students and scholars and Sri Lankan were offered free travel to these countries.18 In 1958, Sri 9 ibid ibid 11 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 12 ibid 13 ibid 14 ibid 15 ibid 16 ibid 17 ibid 18 ibid 10 Lanka entered into an economic aid agreement with Russia and a credit of 142.8 million Rupees was granted to Sri Lanka at 2.5 per cent interest rate, which was repayable over a period of 12 years.19 Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany were also remarkable donors.20 Chinese aid also witnessed an upward swing and Sri Lanka received interest free loans to be repaid through Ceylonese rupee and industrial loans which was related to the supply of agriculture equipment and development of railway system and Chinese manufactured goods for meeting the consumption and basic needs of the people.21 Thus, these aids were very useful in economic aspects of Sri Lanka. During Mr. Bandaranaike‟s era, a numerous important international events such as Suez crisis and the Hungarian crisis were happened.22 Additionally, in 1956 Sri Lanka began to function as a member of the UN and it made its voice heard and presence felt at the international level.23 He visited UK and met the British foreign secretary and obtained an assurance from Britain that the naval and air facilities at Sri Lanka will not be used in connection to the Suez crisis and it led to build up a good image about Sri Lanka in the Arabic World.24 In the UN, Sri Lanka initiated proposal for resolution of the Hungarian crisis and was keen for restoration of peace and stability in Hungary without external interference.25 Eventhough it was a party to the five nation fact finding committee and subscribed to its finding, Sri Lanka made a „volte face‟ by not condemning the Soviet action and not voting in the UN resolution regarding that.26 Bandaranaike did not want to offend the socialist bloc as Sri Lanka tended to benefiting from it and he constructively asserted himself and enhanced the status of his country as one that stood for the ideals of peace, democratization and anti-colonialism, while also securing economic benefits and assistance from both the blocs.27  Foreign policy during the tenure of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike: After the tragic assassination of Mr. Bandaranaike in 1959 by a Buddhist monk called Buddharakkhitha thero, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike came into power and the foreign policy of next SLFP government from 1960-1965 led by her was also based on the above mentioned non-alignment policy.28 The party under leadership fared well 19 ibid ibid 21 ibid 22 ibid p 77 23 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 24 ibid 25 ibid 26 ibid 27 ibid 28 „Foreign policy of Bandaranaike regimes from 1956-1965 and UNP regime of 1965-1970‟, <http://www.academia.edu/24490118/Foreign_policy_of_Bandaranaike_regims_from_1956_1965_and_UNP_regime_of_1965_-1970?auto=download> accessed on 07th August 2018 20 in the July 1960 mid-term poll formed the United Front government a coalition of the SLFP and Communist parties.29 Mrs. Bandaranaike attempted to expand the non-alignment policy to a greater part of the world, starting from the regional level and the idea of setting a precise definition for non-alignment came forward and the first nonalignment summit was held on 5th June, 1961, in Belgrade.30 Being based on neutrality and co-existence, she made necessary arrangements to hold several non-alignment summits such as in Belgrade, Cairo, Lusaka and etc.31In such summits they discussed about liberation of still dependent countries, peaceful co-existence, peaceful settlement of disputes, not aligning with the military blocs, respecting the resolutions of the United Nations and giving support to UN and finally, promotion of mutual cooperation in trade, economic, scientific and cultural activities.32The non-alignment was believed to create a frontline defense and a means of national defense against external threats according to her and she mentioned that non-alignment is not synonymous with the concept of „third force in international politics‟, baring the meaning that non-aligned countries won‟t form a third bloc apart from the existing two.33 Promoting the concept of “nuclear free zone” she proposed that all NAM nations should take steps to close their ports and air field to ships and air crafts carrying nuclear weapons or are equipped with nuclear warfare materials.34 During the Indonesia-Malaysia conflict, it refused to give refueling facilities to Soviet air craft going to Indonesia as well as to UK and US air craft going to Malaysia.35However, it showed the characteristic of the coalition relationship with communist countries; particularly China progressed, while the relationship with US in particular was strained due the legislation of nationalization policy.36 Prioritizing the Commonwealth countries, she participated in the Commonwealth premiers meeting to discuss the problem of South Africa, Laos and Congo and asserted the strength of the Commonwealth as a unit and as an influencing force.37When the Britain was contemplating toward joining the European Common Market Sri Lanka expressed her anxiety with regard to the adverse effect it would have on the island as it would have to face tough competition and lose the preference it enjoyed, particularity over export of Tea of which UK was the largest buyer during the Bandaranaike era.38 29 ibid n(28) “Foreign policy of Bandaranaike regimes from 1956-1965 and UNP regime of 1965-1970”, <http://www.academia.edu/24490118/Foreign_policy_of_Bandaranaike_regims_from_1956_1965_and_UNP_regime_of_1965_-1970?auto=download> accessed on 07th August 2018 31 ibid 32 ibid 33 “Foreign policy of Bandaranaike regimes from 1956-1965 and UNP regime of 1965-1970”, <http://www.academia.edu/24490118/Foreign_policy_of_Bandaranaike_regims_from_1956_1965_and_UNP_regime_of_1965_-1970?auto=download> accessed on 07th August 2018 34 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 35 ibid 36 ibid 37 ibid 38 ibid 30 The relation with UK suffered a setback due the policy of nationalization that was brought about by the government and the policy had direct bearing on the British oil company, Shell, which was in operation in the island and had monopoly over import and distribution while the nationalization policy was undertaken with a view to reduce import cost and to save foreign exchange.39 Sri Lanka imported 80 per cent of its oil requirement and with the objective to procure oil at cheaper rate from other sources such as USSR, Romania and UAE it decided to set up the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and fix the prices of petroleum products because the government vested the corporation with the sole and exclusive rights of importing, exporting, selling and distribution of petroleum products.40 Because Mrs. Bandaranaike went ahead with her Socialist policy and in terms of the US imposed Foreign Assistance Act; aid to Sri Lanka was suspended although the surplus agriculture commodities agreement was signed in 1960 where the wheat flour amount $ 5.1 million was sold (the agreement was renewed again in 1962).41 The agreement for the Peace Corp programme was also signed in 1962 and the VOA agreement was extended for a period of 10 years while the USA and Sri Lanka renewed the agreement which enabled mutual exchange of scholars and the US provided facilities for research and higher education to Sri Lankan students in 1964.42 But the communist party and the UNP which was pro-West also, condemned the US action saying that aid was used as a political weapon to coerce Sri Lanka to accept its dictates undermining its sovereignty and self-respect.43 The visit of a goodwill mission from East Germany despite protest from British and French diplomats and threat from West Germany to suspend economic assistance sent wrong signals to the West and this was further accentuated by visit of Chou-En-Lai to Sri Lanka in 1964, and the induction of three Trotskyite ministers into the government.44In the problem of Tibet in 1962 Mrs. Bandaranaike did not stand against that stating that it is an internal problem of China and in Indo-China war she called a meeting of the NAM countries to explore means to bring China and India to the negotiating table and resolve the dispute where the mediatory role played by Sri Lanka was appreciated by both.45 In 1963, it entered into a Maritime agreement with China, which allowed commercial vessels to use Trincomalee harbor.46 China further offered economic aid in the form of good valued Rs. 75 million turning out to be the biggest donor to Sri Lanka and Russia continued with its economic aid programme which granted Sri Lanka an aid to the tune of Rs.83.4 million.47 The German Democratic Republic provided Sri Lanka with a credit of Rs. 200 million at 2.5 per cent interest rate for a period of 10 years.48 39 ibid ibid 41 ibid 42 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 43 ibid 44 ibid 45 ibid 46 ibid 47 ibid 48 ibid 40 Mrs. Bandaranaike directed the UN representative to use the good office of the UN to take suitable action with regard to the problem in Vietnam also.49 Sri Lanka became a signatory to the NPT in 1963 and refused the US seventh fleet to enter the Sri Lankan territorial waters and protested against its presence in the Indian Ocean.50 During the Cuban problem Sri Lanka pleaded for the restoration of peace and stability, further stating that Cuba had the right to self-determination without intervention by any world power.51 Thus, during the tenure of Mrs. Bandaranaike, she had followed many strategic diplomatic relations with many of the countries despite the fact that which power block that country representing is and it was a very farsighted foreign policy. 3. Foreign policy of Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake from 1965 to 1970 “Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake pursued the same policy of noninvolvement whilst maintaining friendly ties with the West laid down by his father, D. S. Senanayake and his government was critical of the U. S. presence in South Vietnam, the American bombing of North Vietnam, the Smith regime in Rhodesia and South Africa's control over South West Africa.”52 “The Prime Minister was strongly supportive of China's admission to the United Nations and his government maintained friendly relations with, and continued to receive aid from, the Soviet Union and China. As evidence of his desire to establish closer relations with the two leading communist states, he appointed former Marxists as ambassadors to the Soviet Union and China.”53 During this period, the tension between the two blocs was loosening up to some extent consequent to the Cuban Missile crisis and specially the split between the Soviet Union and the People‟s Republic of China, where China questioned Soviet Union‟s commitment to communist ideology.54 However, “the internal domestic scenario was not much congenial, as the suspension of aid by the US had affected its economy, profit from export were falling and the increasing cost of imports had an adverse impact on its balance of payment and consequently; unemployment, food shortage, increasing price of essential commodities and the Tamil issues were other pressures that loomed large.55Thus, he had to find solutions to overcome these issues particularly in that context. He pursued the issue of compensation and following an agreement with the oil companies; he thus resolved the vexed problem of compensation and assured the resumption of aid from the US.56 Despite US‟s own financial constraints following its war in Vietnam, it 49 ibid ibid 51 ibid 52 A. Jeyaratnam Wilson, “Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy - Change And Continuity”, <http://dlib.pdn.ac.lk/bitstream/1/3612/1/> accessed on 08th August 2018 53 ibid 54 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 55 ibid p 82 56 ibid 50 responded favorably to Sri Lanka‟s need.57 An Aid-Ceylon Group composed of US, Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, France and Holland, with India as an observer was organized by the World Bank in July 1965 and the committee accepted the World Bank estimate of US $ 50 million for Sri Lanka.58 Moreover, another five more aid programmes were accepted between 1965-69 and Sri Lanka received aid to the tune of Rs.2100 million as per that.59 Mr. Senanayaka visited the US in 1966 and appealed to the US government to consider credit to meet the need of unemployment, high cost of living and shortage of foreign exchange.60 Because of the pro-West policy during that time Sri Lanka was benefited much from the US and the USAID was to provide Sri Lanka with a loan worth $ 75 million while the Food-for-Peace agreement was signed ; granting 50 thousand metric tons of wheat flour and 5 thousand tons of com grain worth $ 4.1 million to Sri Lanka.61 Mr. Dudley Senanayaka was also able to secure IMF short term credit to the tune of Rs.723 million and the investment guarantee agreement with the US was signed.62„This move by the US was probably governed by its experience it encountered due to the nationalization policy during the previous government and during the office of Dudley Senanayake, the US turned out to be the largest source of assistance and as assistance from Britain, Germany and Japan was not forthcoming Sri Lanka depended heavily on the US for the revival of its economy‟.63 The unofficial visit of some commercial and sports delegation from Taiwan and unofficial visit to Taiwan by Sri Lanka team seemed to have caused some irritation between the two.64 China also did not withdraw any of its aid to Sri Lanka where the Rubber-Rice pact was renewed and China offered assistance for the establishment of a textile mill complex.65Sri Lanka was unable to develop its relationship with the Soviet Union during this period and he ordered 26 persons who were consulate staff of East Germany, North Vietnam, North Korea to leave the country on the ground that they were excess staff expressing a wrong message to the communist countries.66 Mr. Dudley Senanayaka respected the policy of non-alignment and the Bandung principles also.67 However, Sri Lanka was among the 17 NAM countries to appeal to the US and the Soviet Union to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the problem and end hostilities in the Vietnam crisis.68 During the Indo-Pakistan war Sri Lanka played a very special mediatory role and during the Indonesia-Malaysia conflict, it refused permission to 57 ibid ibid p 83 59 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 p 83 60 ibid 61 ibid 62 ibid 63 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 64 ibid 65 ibid 66 ibid p 84 67 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 68 “International determinants of sri Lanka‟s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> accessed on 06th August 2018 58 Indonesia to fly its military aircraft over Sri Lankan air space.69 Sri Lanka circulated a notice demanding all foreign missions in Sri Lanka to refrain from making any statement about any country with whom Sri Lanka has friendly and diplomatic relations.70 “In 1967 also during the crisis of the Arab Israel conflict it was a signatory to the US resolution that condemned Israel. Earlier, despite protest and call from the opposition to suspend diplomatic relations with Israel it desisted from naming Israel as aggressor. But latter in 1968, it did not have any reservation to disapprove the intervention in Czechoslovakia Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies.”71 During the tenure of Mr. Dudley Senanayaka, he shifted towards the West and had a deemphasis on the socialist countries, while not deviating from NAM in a nutshell.72 4. Comparison and Analysis Within the international scenario, there were two major power blocks and the cold war situation was unavoidable due to global politics within such a context. To stick with one power block could be a threat to politics, defense, economy and etc. and therefore, Mr. Bandaranaike was keen of being non-aligned with any power block. Basically there is an ideological difference apparently between the Bandaranaikes Governments and UNP governments with reference to the influence of Marxism and Capitalism respectively. During the Bandaranaike era, he expanded the diplomatic relations with the communist countries, non-aligned and Western countries also. Therefore, it is not fair to recognize that policy as a pro-communist one solely.73During the periods of Mr. and Mrs. Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka had intervened in international crises which arose in that period also explicitly showing its amicable role in the international platform balancing the relationships with all the states up to its level best. (i.e. Suez Canal issue).74 “Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake played a role which was slightly different from Bandaranaike‟s non-alignment policy and it marked a deterioration of in Sri Lanka‟s relations with China, indicating that UNP‟s primary approach to communism and relations with communist countries had changed little since the pre-1956 era.75 Mr. Dudley Senanayake followed an anti-communist foreign policy though the previous regime followed non-aligned policy without being partial to one power bloc and the UNP regime‟s ties were in line with the USA led western countries.76 During the Bandaranaike era, the Hungary crisis represents the adherence of non-alignment policy and that intervention was criticized by the international community mentioning that Sri Lanka did not take any immediate action as made in the Suez crisis 69 ibid ibid 71 ibid 72 ibid 73 „Foreign policy of Bandaranaike regimes from 1956-1965 and UNP regime of 1965-1970‟, <http://www.academia.edu/24490118/Foreign_policy_of_Bandaranaike_regims_from_1956_1965_and_UNP_regime_of_1965_-1970?auto=download> accessed on 07th August 2018 74 ibid 75 ibid 76 ibid 70 due to the friendly relationship with Russia.77 Mr. R.S.S. Gunawardena, the Sri Lanka representative at the UN was instructed by Mr. Bandaranaike not to vote for the resolution against Russia on Hungary invasion and on the other hand ; the relationship with China was proved by the intervention of Kashmir issue (1957) and Tibetan issue (1959).78 The United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council also have indicated that Sri Lanka never took either American or Russian side dogmatically while making decisions on complicated issues concerning Congo crisis with regard to the role played by Mrs. Bandaranaike.79The effort of Mrs. Bandaranaike to mediate the Sino-Indian crisis was failed due to the complex internal and external reasons. Compared to the above mentioned interventions, in 1967 in the war between Israel and Arab states; Mr. Dudley Senanayake refused to join in naming Israel as the aggressor.80 Mr. Dudley Senanayake also was in thought of that diplomatic relations should be severed because Israel was against the principle of friendship with all nations which was a vital factor of the policy of non-alignment in this issue.81 For all the international crises arose during his period, Mr. Senanayake expressed his view and had no active participation in those incidents.82 Mr. Dudley Senanayake as a capitalist and pro-western; supported US and did not take any special step to give a solution to the Vietnam crisis.83 The Sri Lankan government did not have any specific mechanism in dealing with such an international dispute like previous governments of Bandaranaike‟s and the only effort made by Mr. Senanayaka was to be presented or try to draw the attention of the international community in the issue. 84 Although Mr. Senanayake stated of a withdrawal of foreign troops from the Vietnam territory, he did not precisely mentioned US forces and further he rejected Mrs. Bandaranaike‟s proposal to have a non-aligned conference to discuss the Vietnam issue and to invite Marshal Tito for the conference where the latter provisions made by Mrs. Bandaranaike, after she took her office in 1970, she issued a policy statement of withdrawal of US and allied forces from the Vietnam territory and it was marked as a precise step to be taken morally and diplomatically correct.85 During the period of Mr. Bandaranaike, the external trade policy and even the foreign policy of Sri Lanka was not welcomed by the West, mainly by UK and USA and significantly import and export relations were made between the countries of Asia, including China, India, Pakistan, Burma and Japan and African countries of Egypt and South Africa apart from UK.86 Mrs. Bandaranaike‟s foreign policy was also non-alignment with power blocs and entered in to trade agreements with the communist countries such as the USSR, China and Yugoslavia, as well as also with the countries such 77 ibid ibid 79 ibid 80 ibid 81 ibid 82 ibid 83 ibid 84 ibid 85 ibid 86 ibid 78 as the UK, USA, Italy, Japan and India.87 But in 1964, the USSR and China were the significant states, which got the chance in establishing cordial trade relations with Sri Lanka.88 In contrast, during Mr. Senanayaka‟s period Sri Lanka‟s trade relations were further expanded in the region of Eastern Europe with 10% of her total external trade.89 The USSR was still remaining as the largest supplier of imports from this region because of the imports of petroleum products from the country and in 1966 China became the principle buyer of Sri Lanka‟s rubber witnessing the non-aligned policy of Mr. Senanayaka.90 The deterioration of the trade relations with the UK and USA was a prominent feature about his regime in 1966 and deterioration of the trade relations with the UK and USA was remarkable regarding Mr. Senanayake‟s regime.91Some bilateral agreements were signed by the Senanayake regime with the countries like, Syria, the UAR, China, Poland, Bulgaria, the USSR and Pakistan etc.92 However, Mr. Senanayake established and maintained trade relations as per the policy of non-alignment while the major relations were with China and USSR and his regime achieved an unexpected development and growth in the foreign trade sector.93 5. Conclusion The two regimes of Bandaranaikes from 1956-1965 and of Mr. Dudley Senanayake from 1965-1970 are slightly different from the ideological perspective of their two major political parties derived from the Socialist/Marxist/Communist theory and Capitalism (connected with Liberalism) which reflects two different political philosophical backgrounds also. Thus, these two parties in a context where Sri Lanka was a developing country and having so much of barriers in the political arena during the cold war, it was expected to play a very strategic diplomatic role in order to go with the flow of the international context. These two regimes have rendered a significant service through the best possible ways of those in such conditions. It is noteworthy that these two regimes were mostly non-aligned in international context witnessing the similarity of aforesaid two regimes apparently. However, in the intervention of the international crises Bandaranaike regime had achieved a significant place as well as a huge recognition in the international platform than Mr. Senanayake‟s government. But, in maintaining trade relations with all the countries despites the fact that from which bloc that country derives, Mr. Senanayake‟s government was more successful than Bandaranaike‟s government. In comparing and contrasting these regimes, since those have made a remarkable contribution to promote the image of Sri Lanka in diplomatic , economic, cultural and political relations baring similarities and differences in the activities of those neither Bandaranaike‟s regime‟s role, nor Mr. Senanayake‟s role cannot be underestimated considering the aforesaid detailed analysis particularly. 87 ibid ibid 89 ibid 90 ibid 91 ibid 92 ibid 93 ibid 88 Reference List 1. A. Jeyaratnam Wilson, “Sri Lanka's Foreign Policy - Change And Continuity”, <http://dlib.pdn.ac.lk/bitstream/1/3612/1/> 2. „Foreign policy of Bandaranaike regimes from 1956-1965 and UNP regime of 1965-1970‟, http://www.academia.edu/24490118/Foreign_policy_of_Bandaranaike_regims_from_1956_1965_and_UNP_regime_of_1965_-1970?auto=download 3. “Growth of nationalist power”,https://www.britannica.com/place/Sri-Lanka/Growth-of- nationalist-power 4. “International determinants of sri Lanka’s security”, <shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/72060/8/08_chapter%203.pdf> 5. J. Abeygunawardhana, “Was SWRD the architect of the Sinhala only legislation of 1956?”www.srilankaguardian.org/2008/08/was-swrd-architect-of-sinhala-only.html?m=1