Dear Mr. President, 

I had the opportunity to watch your recent interview at the 3rd Annual Indo-Pacific Islands Dialogue in Sep. 2023 hosted by a US think tank on the global politics in the Indo-Pacific region. It was OK at the first glance, but at a closer inspection, it was very painful to watch. Constantly breaking eye contact with the host and making your trademark hand gestures, you unfortunately failed to portrait that Sri Lanka is a serious country with serious ambitions. 

You however sent some Sri Lankans jubilant by proclaiming you are “Pro-Sri Lankan”, which is great on the paper. Under the façade of a victory, serious mistakes were made throughout the interview, which could potentially be very harmful to the country in coming years. What are these mistakes? 

Some concrete examples

If I may dissect your conversation:

Q1) The host firstly asked, “How do you see Sri Lanka’s interests in engaging with the world?” Mr. President, they ask this type of open-ended questions not to learn Sri Lanka’s interests, but to understand how sophisticated you are. They want to read your head. Without going into details, you could have given a short answer in one or two sentences. You could have gone into details if you were just the foreign minister or even the prime minister. But when you are the president, the person who is ultimately responsible for everything in Sri Lanka, exposing your thought process so easily is not a clever idea. 

Q2) Referring to non-align foreign policy, the host next asked: “It can be understood as a kind of hedging back and forth to extract as much as possible”. This is a seriously bad perception, and some might perceive this question as a bit offensive. A little more time and effort could have been spent to challenge the host for this question. For instance, you could have immediately asked the host to give a concrete example from the recent SL history, where in his opinion, SL hedged back and forth. By asking for an example, you could have learnt more about the host’s intention. Instead, you went into detailing quite unnecessary historical facts, and did not challenge the host on this point adequately.     

Q3) Another question came: “Give me a sense of more strategic view and how do you think about that chairmanship (referring to IoRA)?” The host specifically asked about a strategic view for IORA because Sri Lanka is going to take over the chairmanship of IORA soon. We all know big powers are increasingly trying to shape agenda in the region and all want countries like Sri Lanka to subscribe into the narrative that they create. As an outsider to your administration, I do not know what you have in your mind for Sri Lanka and IORA. However, without giving away sensitive information, if any, you could have used this question to establish yourself as a thinking man with your own views. You could have used some neutral, but important topics to shed more lights on and to draw attention away from the topics that others want you to focus. 

For instance, the drug smuggling in the Indian Ocean and more importantly the Burmese civil war. Over 85% of Burmese are Buddhists, and now they are killing each other. Sri Lanka is one of the few countries that Burmese trust, in any potential mediation in the future. Instead, you went on to criticise, in a complaining manner, the geopolitics of other countries specifically the policies of China and US in the region.   

Sri Lanka does not have military ambitions

Q4) In the absence of a relevant response, with a mild irritation, but masking it very well, the host then asked: “What are you going to accomplish in the region for Sri Lanka?”  Your response was “we were trying to do in Sri Lanka is for the country to develop”. Mr. President, the development is a priority, but it is not the only thing that Sri Lankans want for Sri Lanka. Because Sri Lanka is not a country but is a centre of a civilisation. You are not just a president but should be the main cheerleader for that civilisation. In this occasion, you were unable to show with sufficient gravity that Sri Lanka wants, not only to prosper, but also to preserve, safeguard, and strengthen their language, religion, culture, and values for many generations to come. In the absence of a clear articulation of Sri Lanka’s ambitions, the real danger is that others could try to impose their ambitions on Sri Lanka.     

Q5) The host next asked: “Over the next 3 to 5 years, what do you think the international financial institutions, World Bank and IMF can do to support the aspirations to get the economy stabilised and to invest in the way you would like to invest in the involvement in the region?” They may partly want to know what IMF could do more to support Sri Lanka’s economy, but they partly want to know how the West can intervene in Sri Lanka’s affairs, perhaps to counter the growing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka. These are the kinds of questions that should always be avoided answering in public. If it is necessary to answer, saying something vague and very high-level could have been sufficient. However, you went into details and said that: “Sri Lanka does not have military ambitions”. It is not clear why you thought this dimension should be brought forward at this point. 

Also, there is no such thing called military ambitions, but options. Countries have regular ambitions, and they may choose military options to achieve their regular ambitions. It is not prudent for you and for Sri Lanka to broadcast so loudly that you do not consider military as an option for conflict resolution, when so many countries that are serious about their future consider military as an important option. The writer is aware that you are encircled by people who advocate vehemently to dilute or even completely disband military. Mr. President, they will sooner or later will throw you and Sri Lanka under the bus. It is not prudent to listen to these utopian ideologies at this critical juncture.  

Q6) A filler question came next: “What are your three priorities in terms of economy?” This question is intended to check your reading of Sri Lanka’s economy. You did not go into details and completed the answer in couple of short sentences. I do not want to comment here whether your points were right or wrong, but the way you answered the question is good.

West is benefiting from the Ukraine war

Q7) The next question: “Do you see a role for Sri Lanka as a group spokesperson at some stage for articulating the special interests of islands?” You started the answer well, but quickly veered off to discuss about Quad and AUKUS. You could have answered this question formally and left more sensitive matters like Quad and AUKUS for close-door conversations. You instead ploughed through your views on these alliances, and dropped a bomb saying, “West is benefiting from the Ukraine war”. The host immediately challenged this point when he got the opportunity to talk next. The entire world saw you getting your arms crossed immediately. Your cheerful face vanished, and jaw dropped, and you went into a defensive mode. Big mouth youtubers and talk show hosts can say things like these, but clear evidence that a world leader is harbouring such view could be counterproductive for you and for Sri Lanka. If you strongly believe this claim, you could have avoided criticism by framing the statement not as your own view but as a general view among many people. Mr. President, you are keen to wade into world politics, but it could expose your innermost thoughts unless words are chosen carefully. 

Q8) The trickiest one: “Chinese research vessels and spy ships visit Sri Lanka and you have introduced standard operating procedure for foreign vessels. How effective is this given China’s significant geoeconomic presence in Sri Lanka?” It is abundantly clear that they have worries about the Chinese presence in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka’s ability to contain Chinese in an unlikely escalation. About three months ago in Paris, a correspondent from France24 also raised a similar concern about Chinese affairs in Sri Lanka. The reason is that they know Sri Lanka has a sizable armed force, but they seem to have concerns with the technological and operational capabilities of SL armed forces against technologically more sophisticated armies. You could have used this opportunity to give everybody, US, China and India, reassurance that you and Sri Lanka will not let any country use Sri Lankan soil against another country. This is exactly what Sri Lankans want too. 

Unfortunately, you failed to articulate this important message and even may have given substance to heighten their concerns by admitting that you do not know whether these research vessels can be used for spying or not. To ensure proper territorial integrity, SL armed forces should have the capabilities to know everything happening in SL and its territorial waters 24/7. If SL does not have such capabilities currently, this opportunity could have been used to ask for funding to bolster such capabilities of SL armed forces. It is a win-win solution for Sri Lanka. While giving so many reasons for suspicion, preaching non-align foreign policy, as you have been doing for many years, could lead to disastrous consequences for Sri Lanka. I invite you to study the reign of King Constantine 1 of Greece in 1st World War to learn the potential consequences of such suspicions.

What does a rule-based order mean for Sri Lanka? 

Q9) Another killer question came: “What does a rule-based order mean for Sri Lanka?” Mr President, this question is specifically designed to test your psychology. You emphasised the fact that rules that matter to Sri Lanka the most are the Freedom of Navigation (FoN) rule and the rules set by IORA. You went on to say that you would support a new freedom of navigation rule especially for the Indian Ocean region on conditions that both US and China should formally sign it and abide by the decision of the tribunal. On the one hand, it is always good to show signs that Sri Lanka is open for negotiation. On the other hand, the countries like US and China are so keen, and has very little hesitation, to go into formal treaties with countries like Sri Lanka. Because they know if they choose to break the treaty or not abide by the decisions of the tribunal, countries like Sri Lanka cannot defend or enforce these treaties and decisions. 

Therefore, there is a considerable risk of going into agreements with US or China, even a signed agreement, at this fast changing and highly volatile point in world history. The world history gives us countless examples of failed agreements, the Kandyan Treaty is one of them, and more recently the Munich Agreement in 1938 between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. Late US President Ronald Reagan once famously said, “No responsible president should ever rely on a piece of paper for his country’s safety.”           

Q10) The last curveball: “What do you think about the development of US-India relationship and what that means for Sri Lanka?” you said that “we got to live with that provided that there is no threat to our independence.” That is a good answer, but as all Sri Lankans know very well, we live in post Indo-Lanka accord. Indo-Lanka accord does not only mean 13A, but also means that if the President of Sri Lanka can be bullied sufficiently long and hard, any country can get anything done in Sri Lanka. This is a dangerous precedent, and as we all know, precedents matter. Until a new president sets new precedents in this regard, Sri Lanka is always in a weaker position. 

You could have added more gravity to your answer by saying that Sri Lanka is closely monitoring the developments, and further added that, not as your personal view but as a general view among Sri Lankans that, Sri Lankans do not accept any intervention from US or India, or from any other country for that matter, that threatens Sri Lanka’s independence. By framing your answer in this way as a general view, you could have masked your personal views on this matter.  If you fancy and time permits, though it is not necessary, you could have added a little more spice by saying that Sri Lankans will fight to the death for their independence against any country and you will always stand by the people in an event that threatens Sri Lanka’s independence.

In the history 

In Sri Lanka, the last prominent person who loved giving speeches overseas was Lalith Athulathmudali, the debate champion. Under President Jayewardene, as the Deputy Minister of Defence, his main duty was to bring the anti-terror campaign in the North to a successful conclusion as soon as possible, and more importantly, to bring Prabhakaran and his accomplices to justice. Instead, he was distracted travelling around the world, India, Bhutan, UK, Canada, giving eloquent speeches. He thought he can charm terrorists and their supporters into giving up Eelam. In 1985, to a cheering crowd from a diaspora organisation in the UK, Athulathmudali bragged about how he tried to persuade American newspapers for two-three hours to change their views on Sri Lanka’s war against terrorism. What a waste of time. 

Lalith Athulathmudali would have been a great Education Minister, but he was out of his depth at the Ministry of Defence. SL Army’s anti-terror campaign in the North had been dragging for too long with no sight of any party winning. So, India had no option, but to intervene imposing 13A on Sri Lanka. President Jayewardene and Sri Lanka paid the price for this appointment. A more energetic, charismatic, and focused Defence Minister at the time could have changed the course of Sri Lanka in the 80s and after, and also the legacy of President Jayewardene.

Final remarks

Mr. President, it is not prudent to give interviews at length like these in the first place. These little-known conferences organised by endowed organisations are there not to help anybody, but to help themselves. They may be able to pull a few strings in Washington or Brussels, but often they organise these gatherings to learn the thought process of people with power and to understand how sophisticated they are. If this occasion was deemed important, instead of participating yourself, you could have sent your foreign minister or a senior diplomat with firm instructions.    

You are presiding over a heated country that needs urgent and careful attention. Many youths up and down the country live in despair. In the absence of direction and hope, they seem to be seeking refuge in communism. In such a grim reality, Mr. President, alternative avenues for engagement with the West would be more effective and productive than spending so much time talking at length to people and organisations of this calibre, which can on the one hand, be a waste of your time, and on the other hand, easily be counterproductive. 

Yours sincerely,

Dushyantha A. Basnayaka 

(This article was published by the Daily Financial Times, Sri Lanka)