The Foreign Ministry has told Iranian authorities that Sri Lanka will refrain from supplying food, water and medicine to the crews of about 20 Iranian vessels stranded off the island, and has advised the private sector not to supply them either.

The position is reported by the Daily Mirror in a report by Kelum Bandara, which describes the government as caught between its obligations at sea and its exposure to United States secondary sanctions.

The vessels are in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone but not in its territorial waters — a distinction that matters for what the state is required to do and what it may choose to do.

Iran’s case, and the instruments it cites

Iranian authorities have taken the position that Sri Lanka, as a member state, is obligated to assist the crews of ships waiting for provisions. They cite three instruments:

The Daily Mirror’s own characterisation of Article 98 of UNCLOS is that Sri Lanka is “legally entitled” to render such assistance to ships in humanitarian need. That framing — a permission — and Iran’s framing of the same body of law — a duty — are the two sides of the dispute as the filing presents them. This desk takes no position on which reading is correct, and no Sri Lankan legal opinion is quoted in the report.

Why the government says it cannot

The reason given is economic. Sri Lanka, described in the filing as a small country with a fragile economy, cannot resist American sanctions at this juncture because the United States is its single largest export destination, absorbing about 23 percent of Sri Lanka’s merchandise exports.

Former External Affairs Minister Prof. G.L. Peiris said Sri Lanka could not resist sanctions, but could raise its non-aligned policy collectively with other countries rather than attempting it alone.

The report also restates the US Embassy’s position, which this desk reported on 5 October: a spokesman said the United States is working with allies and partners to close off avenues for “illicit Iranian revenue,” and pointed to a 25 September press release stating that Washington has previously designated brokers, fuel suppliers and cargo certifiers for facilitating sanctioned vessels, and that providing fuel, food or provisions can expose companies and individuals to sanctions risk including civil or criminal penalties.

What is new here

Most of the surrounding facts have been reported before. Two things in Thursday’s filing have not.

A formal communication to Tehran. Earlier accounts described what the government had not done. On 4 October Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said that “as a government, we have not transported goods or provided supplies to those sanctioned vessels” — a statement of past conduct. Thursday’s report says the Foreign Ministry has informed the Iranian authorities that Sri Lanka will refrain from supplying them. That is a stated future position, communicated to the other government.

An advisory to private firms. Herath’s formulation on 4 October was that private companies “carry the responsibility to understand the prevailing situation and act responsibly” — a statement about where liability falls. Thursday’s report goes further: the ministry has advised the private sector not to supply the vessels. An advisory is a different act from a disclaimer of responsibility.

Read against the government’s assurance that no decision detrimental to the country would be taken and its repeated description of its stance as neutral and non-aligned, the filing describes a position that has hardened in practice.

The thread so far

The anchorage was first reported by this desk on 2 October, when service providers withdrew rather than risk secondary sanctions, leaving around 20 Iran-flagged tankers without supplies. The Foreign Ministry then said the US measures announced on 24 August were a global policy rather than a directive aimed at Sri Lanka. On 4 October Herath denied that Washington had pressured Colombo at all, putting about 19 Iranian vessels among roughly 47 ships of all flags outside the territorial limit and attributing their presence largely to navigation difficulties arising from the situation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Thursday’s count of “around 20” is consistent with those earlier figures.

Update, 9 October: a Foreign Ministry spokesman speaks, and the Iranian embassy says it knows nothing

A second verified newsroom has now filed on the government’s position. Hiru News carried an Associated Press account on Friday reporting that Sri Lanka has no immediate plans to help 19 Iranian ships anchored in international waters near the island with food, water and fuel running short.

It is a wire account rather than independent Sri Lankan reporting, and it does not describe the formal communication to Tehran that Thursday’s Daily Mirror filing reported. What it adds is a serving official, a position from the Iranian side, and a figure for how far out the ships are sitting.

A serving official, on the record. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Thushara Rodrigo — the same spokesman who set out the ministry’s reading of the US sanctions on 3 October — said Sri Lanka will put its national interest first before considering any help, and that the companies which supply ships are aware of possible US secondary sanctions. Thursday’s filing had quoted no serving official.

No US warning, according to Colombo. Rodrigo said there has been no communication from the United States warning of repercussions should Sri Lanka decide to help. That is consistent with Herath’s denial on 4 October that Washington applied any pressure, and it sits awkwardly beside the decision itself: on this account the government is withholding supplies in anticipation of sanctions exposure rather than in response to any demand.

How far out. Rodrigo put the ships 24 nautical miles from the coast — outside the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, consistent with Thursday’s “EEZ but not territorial waters” framing. Earlier accounts of the anchorage had placed it closer, around 15 nautical miles; the two figures have not been reconciled across filings.

Iran’s embassy. The Iranian Embassy in Colombo said it has no details on the matter — the first response of any kind from the Iranian side to appear in a verified filing.

The AP account also carries international affairs analyst Dayan Jayatilleka, who is not quoted elsewhere in this thread:

“But we are caught in a difficult situation… It’s clear to the world that we are not willingly refusing to assist but there are reasons that we have to be careful and to deliberate. What we can do is to observe international humanitarian laws.”

Jayatilleka drew a distinction the official accounts have not: “These are not warships. These are cargo ships which carried oil to China from Iran. If these ships come in for some reasons to our waters because they are attacked, we have a moral obligation to assist immediately.”

The wire account places the stand-off “nearly seven months after” the sinking of the Iranian naval ship IRIS Dena off Sri Lanka, which it attributes to a US torpedo attack and says killed 87 sailors. This desk reported the Deputy Defence Minister’s confirmation that a US submarine sank the vessel on 14 April, along with the departure of 240 Iranian sailors — 32 rescued from the Dena and 208 from the interned IRIS Bushehr. No death toll was given in that confirmation, and the figure of 87 is AP’s.

Not reported

The filing does not say when the Foreign Ministry communicated its position to Iran, in what form, or who delivered it. It does not say how the advisory to the private sector was issued, to whom, or whether it carries any legal force. It does not report any Iranian response to the communication. — answered in part, 9 October: the Iranian Embassy in Colombo told AP it has no details on the matter. No Iranian response to the communication itself has been reported.

It gives no account of the condition of the crews, how long they have been without resupply, how many people are aboard the vessels, or whether any has been resupplied from another source. It does not say whether the government has sought an exemption or licence from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or whether the question of a humanitarian carve-out has been raised with Washington at all. No serving official is quoted — the only named figure is a former minister. — answered, 9 October: Foreign Ministry Spokesman Thushara Rodrigo is quoted in the AP account, above. The US Embassy is still not quoted responding to the decision itself.

Still unreported after Friday’s filing: the condition and number of the crews, how long they have been without resupply, whether any OFAC licence or humanitarian carve-out has been sought, and why the stated distance of the anchorage differs between accounts.

No other verified newsroom had filed on this account at the time of writing. — Hiru News filed the AP account on 9 October. Ada Derana also carried the same wire story, but the domain has been returning CloudFront 403 errors to this desk for twenty days and could not be fetched to confirm a publication date, so it is not cited here.

Sources