By George I. H. Cooke
Sri Lanka has now reached out to
the Russian Federation owing to the growing national crisis in the island
nation. A national crisis which involves foreign exchange, fuel, power, and of
course basic essentials which have been scarce at intervals in the past several
months. Yet the biggest crisis facing Sri Lanka is the lack of decisive
strategizing. The country is on the eve of its 75th anniversary of
independence in 2023 but has no clear idea where the nation will be in the next
couple of weeks let alone next year. Countries strategize by aiming for where
they want to be and what they want to achieve for generations to come, but Sri
Lanka has been left very much in the lurch due to poor decision making and
short-sighted policies of consecutive administrations, which have put personal
gain and party politics ahead of the country and its future.
Reflecting on 1931, when the
British deemed it suitable to foist universal franchise on the Ceylonese it is
possible to deduce that this was probably one of the biggest mistakes they
made, or it was perhaps done with a view to continuing the unhealthy policy of
‘divide and rule’. Many Ceylonese leaders themselves were not overly thrilled
with the prospect of universal franchise at the time, owing to their own
concerns. However, with the testing of the waters in Ceylon so early in the
last century, the island nation received, it can be argued, an early start over
the rest in Asia.
The pros and cons of that
decision can be long debated, but from independence onwards, the people of Sri
Lanka enjoyed the ability to elect leaders to lead the nation. Yet have the
people matured as a polity? Churchill himself opined that ‘the best argument
against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.’ While
the statement maybe deemed arrogant in some quarters, it is proven continuously
around the world. Just as leaders have focused on personal gain and party
politics, voters too have focused on personal gain instead of questioning
policy or seeking policy options, especially at times of elections, nor have
they held their representatives accountable for decisions taken.
Russia is in the throes of a
conflict and Sri Lanka did not defer the financial request despite this
situation. The insult is increased when news of Sri Lanka’s abstention at the
UN and information regarding the request are both made public at the same time,
giving rise to the notion that Sri Lanka abstained expecting assistance in
return. Russia is a country that has consistently supported Sri Lanka in the UN
Security Council ever since diplomatic relations were established 65 years ago,
and the position of Sri Lanka is justifiable but a lack of communication, or
effective explanation of the Sri Lankan stance has given rise to misperceptions.
Countries such as India and China
are quite probably dreading calls, requests for meetings or any form of
correspondence emanating from Sri Lanka. These two countries have been
continuously approached and have consistently responded positively to requests
that have been forthcoming from Colombo. Other countries must be hugely worried
when approached by Sri Lankan diplomats in their capitals, or when they are invited
to the Foreign Ministry in Colombo. A country which has had a long history
dating back thousands of years even sought assistance from Bangladesh which
came into existence just fifty years ago. Bangladesh is currently galloping
into the future as a result of effective and decisive strategizing. Turning to
countries far and wide and expecting them to keep Sri Lanka afloat only raises
the stakes against the country.
The abysmal point at which Sri
Lanka finds itself at present is not one from which the country can never hope
to return. It is reversible, thankfully. Yet the reversing needs to be done by
those who decided to progress this far down this road. Borrowing from other
countries, seeking currency swaps and begging around the world, has resulted in
Sri Lanka falling in esteem, respect and recognition, which has in turn eroded
investor confidence, damaged image and added to the woes of the island nation
on the world stage.
It is not only the pandemic that
is to blame. It is not only the lack of tourists in the last couple of years
that is to blame. It is not only the Easter Sunday attacks and the fear it
caused, that is to blame. It is not only the decades long conflict that ended
nearly 13 years ago that is to blame. Undoubtedly these developments and events
have all contributed to the current situation but it is clearly the lack of
strategizing by successive governments that has brought the island to this
abysmal point.
As a country, Sri Lanka is highly
dependent on the outside world, and has been from independence onwards. This is
true of most countries, owing to growing interdependence brought about through
trade, investment and financial interactions. Yet one of the key errors that were
made was in not focusing sufficiently on the apparatus that engages with the
outside world – the Foreign Ministry and Foreign Service. Since 1977 when J. R.
Jayewardene decided to appoint Sri Lanka’s first non-prime ministerial Foreign
Minister, in A. C. S. Hameed, the Ministry and Service have received
step-motherly treatment. There were slight gaps of exception, but against the
entirety of history those periods remain relatively brief.
Budgetary allocations for the
Ministry have been well below the requirements. Missions around the world have
been understaffed, or staffed with political appointees who have been highly
incompetent, except for a handful who went beyond the call of duty to enhance
Sri Lanka’s image globally. For a country that is highly dependent on the
outside world, it is clear that the institution tasked with international
engagement must be strengthened. Capacity development should have been a
crucial area of emphasis. Instead of sending Foreign Service officers for short
term all expenses paid courses in other countries upon receiving invitations
only, carefully constructed programmes in renowned international institutions,
aimed at improving quality and capability, should have been the focus. Such
programmes naturally require financial resources and this is just one reason why
the ministry requires a higher budgetary allocation. The list of possibilities
remains endless and it is understood that resources within the country are
limited, but excellence as an end result cannot be expected if mediocre input
is all the country can afford.
Despite these challenges the
progress made and achievements to date are highly praiseworthy. The Foreign
Service has been able to make this amount of progress owing mainly to
individual capabilities rather than collective synergy. However, those with
immense ability, are forced to function in a stifling environment. On the other
hand, the refusal on the part of the bureaucracy to step forward and explain
policy options, highlight concerns, and warn when peril is at hand, has collectively
resulted in misguided policy decisions. The entirety of the bureaucracy in Sri
Lanka has a responsibility to support a government in implementing its policies
but must also be able to flag issues, raise concerns and highlight pitfalls, as
otherwise it is the leadership that goes astray, taking the country with them.
In the year leading up to our 75th
anniversary of independence, Sri Lankans, and notably the state and private
sectors should be preparing for the future, instead all are grappling with the
present and completely unaware of the future. Can the situation get worse? It
can and it will. Adopting piecemeal measures to tide over daily activities,
waiting for ships to arrive and then hoping that sufficient dollars are
available to pay for fuel, or turning to our neighbours and seeking their
assistance on a daily basis is not the future that Sri Lanka or Sri Lankans
deserve.
Sri Lanka is rich in resources,
potential and opportunity. Strategizing for the future has been a key requirement
in the years gone by, and is undoubtedly the burning need of the hour. It is
not too late to do just that. Rather than continuously asking for fish, it is
time that Sri Lanka learns how to fish. Herein lies the importance of a
country’s Foreign Policy through which Sri Lanka must identify areas requiring
development within the country; draw up a clear national plan of action; seek
investment to suit the Sri Lankan plan; engage with technically advanced
countries and seek technology transfers especially in the energy sector; ensure
value addition within the country prior to natural resources being exported;
and most importantly guarantee that Sri Lanka comes first in policy formulation
and implementation.
Although the present predicament might
be thought to be a situation in which Sri Lanka is returning to an old policy,
of begging around the world, which Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra also highlighted
in a publication many decades ago, the question that begs answering is whether Sri
Lanka ever deviated from this policy!
