A speech made
by Prof. Gamini Keerawella

I deem it indeed a great honour to be invited me to deliver the keynote address, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the global Fulbright programme. For that, first of all, I do thank the US–Sri Lanka Fulbright Commission and its Executive Director, Ms. Sandharsee Gunawardena for giving me this opportunity.

I thought I should make use of this occasion to reflect on my Fulbright experience, unpacking the true value of the Fulbright programme in the changed context from the perspective of an academic, coming from the global South who benefitted from the Fulbright scholar exchanges.

The Fulbright programme is considered the US flagship international exchange programme, founded in August 1946, just 11 month after the end of Second World War, initiated by Senator William Fulbright, with the support of President Harry Truman and the Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Still, the dust created by WW-II was not settled. At the end of the WWII, the United States emerged as the Superpower with a new global role and reach. It was in this context that Senator William Fulbright presented the Fulbright Bill to amend the Surplus Property act of 1944 to use the revenue from the sales of US war properties in other countries to fund the educational exchanges between the US and participating countries. This birth trait of the Fulbright programme gave rise to its unique feature: the bilateralism. It is reflected in many National Fulbright Commissions such as the US-Sri Lanka Fulbright commission. As a political visionary from the standpoint of US strategic interests, Senator William Fulbright believed that education and diplomacy would be invaluable tools of US foreign policy in the changed international context after the II World War.

Before long, the international politics in the Post-War world was determined by the global-scale, multi-faceted strategic completion between the United States and the Soviet Union, identified as the Cold War. The world politics was polarised into two poles, the Soviet and the Western. The de-colonisation process gave birth to another category in global politics termed as the Global South. The both superpowers were competing in the Global South each other for influence. In this context, the Fulbright programme became a key foreign policy tool of the United States. That is the origin of the Fulbright exchange programme.

During the last 75 years, the Fulbright programme expanded rapidly, changing its purpose and character. It has generated consequences and dividends, unexpected by its founders. The first country to sign Fulbright agreement was China in 1947; it was followed by Burma. Today, each year bout 800 scholars and ,000 US students receive Fulbright awards and go abroad while 4,000 foreign students and 900 scholars receive awards to come to US. In the past 75 years, over 310,000 Fulbright students, scholars and teachers benefitted by the exchange programme.

Before I reflect on my Fulbright experience, please permit me to reveal my background briefly to place it in a proper political and historical context.

I think I belonged to the first post-colonial generation in Sri Lanka, born after independence. I also represent the Post-1956 generation, a commonly used cliché to denote this generation 0The Children of 56. My parents were ardent supporters of the 1956 political change. To cut a long story short, we manifested the strengths and the weaknesses of the so-called Children of 56.

I come from a rural/village background and not really from urban. Educated from, K/Uduwa School, Galagedara up to the 5th grade, where my parents were teachers. From 6th grade, I moved to the Gampola Central College. My entire school education was in Sinhala medium. I gained admission to the University of Peradeniya in 1968.

We witnessed the evolution of post-colonial social and political environment in the country. We saw how the collapse of Bamumu Kulaya (Brown Sahibs) which coincided with the emergence and dominance of a new political class. During our teens, the youth political culture of the country was highly influenced by New Left political ideologies. The Cuban Revolution inspired our generation and Che Guevara was our hero.

Our worldview was shaped by the Anti-Vietnam War Movement and U.S. intervention in South-East Asia. The military coup in Chile against Elected President Salvador Allende and its CIA involvements further reinforced our anti-American sentiment. America is nothing but the US state, its corporate interests and the inner state. We did not see anything beyond ‘Ugly America’.

We were avowedly anti-American and uncritically anti-American. We had only straitjacket, stereotype image on America: The Yankee imperialism: threat to the world. The world was very simple: we were progressive and we wore red hats. The others were reactionary; they wore black hats.

I gained admission to the Peradeniya University in 1968. It was the heyday of the University of Peradeniya. The Sri Lankan universities at the time were centres of radical left politics.

In the academic sphere, we had a well-qualified academic staff. We followed the conventional British academic traditions. Disciplinary boundaries were very high; no inter-disciplinary dialogue at all. Academic hierarchy was also maintained rigidly.

In the sophomore year at the University of Peradeniya, I got involved in the youth front of the JVP. As a result, after the 1971 youth uprising I was arrested and detained in the Bogambara Prison. At the end of 1973, I was released from Bogambara. I resumed my undergraduate studies at the University of Peradeniya in 1974 and sat my final Examination in 1975. As I showed good promise in my BA (Hons.) examination, I was recruited to the academic staff of my alma mater in 1976. It was the turning point in my life.

I proceeded to Canada for my post-graduate studies in 1980. In 1982, I obtained my Maters from the University of Windsor, Canada, by presenting a thesis on the origins of the New Left in Sri Lanka and the 1971 uprising. I compared Sri Lankan New Left with the South American New Left. It helped me to examine critically my new-left influence.

For my doctoral studies, I enrolled myself to the University of British Columbia, Canada. I decided to combine Strategic Studies with History. I worked on the growth of Superpower Naval rivalry in the Indian Ocean and Sri Lankan Response. It was a unique experience and I went through real disciplinary metamorphosis there. I was in the Department of History. My supervisor was from the Department of Asian Studies; I took causes in International Relations from the Department of political science. My external supervisor was Prof Howard Wriggins, Professor of Political Science of University of Columbia, New York, from another country.

During my doctoral studies at UBC, I was introduced to the on-going academic discourse on ‘National Security’. By then, the theoretical parameters marked by the Realist School dominated the field of Security Studies were predominant. It was mainly state–centered and the security of the state in an anarchic international environment was the focal concern of the national security.

In the main stream of thinking, national security was defined as the protection of territorial integrity of the state vis-à-vis the threats originated from the external sources. The internal security of the state was taken for granted and, if there was any concern, it was dealt under the rubric of internal law and order problematic. In this strand of analysis, the national, security was nothing but the politico-military security of the state; the ‘hard’ military strategic security took precedent over the ‘soft’ economic dimension of security. In the Cold War context, the preoccupation of the discipline was mainly to analyse the central military strategic balance of the superpowers and their defense strategies. The concerns relating to the prevention of a nuclear war between the superpowers constituted the core of the international security studies. UBC is a great seat of learning and research. From University of British Columbia, I received the license to the world of academia, Ph.D.

In 1993, I won the Fulbright Post-doctoral Fellowshi to join the University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley is, no doubt, a unique university. It was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Power Movement of the 1960S. The impact of the Free Speech Movement and the Flower Generation was still visible at Berkeley. The research that I conducted during my Fellowship at Berkeley was ‘The Security of Small States in the Indian Ocean in the Post-Cold War context’.

In a vibrant academic environment at Berkeley, I was able to rethink the concept of national security. I myself deconstructed the Concept of National Security. What does ‘national’ in national security mean? What is security? What is national security? Can we equate National Security with State Security? What is really meant by security of the state? The real issue here is how to define the security of the state, going beyond narrow territorial confines. On the one hand, the state is a legal abstraction. On the other, it has a territorial basis and institutional framework of its own. The ideological basis of the state is the most important aspect of the state because it binds the territorial base with the human and institutional base with state. In addition, institutional set up of the state and human base of the state should also be taken into account.

The narrow definition of protection of territorial integrity from external threats is found to be inadequate in the face of new threat scenarios. In many third world states, the territorial integrity is challenged not externally but internally.

The territory is only one element of the state. The other elements of state including people and their security must also be taken into account in the security configuration.

As soon as people are taken as a referent object of national security, the analysis of threat and threat perceptions has to be invariably changed. The security building process involves the ability to meet and dispel threats and the reduction of vulnerabilities.

With the recognition of people as a reference of security, in its own rights, a variety of threats and vulnerabilities enter into the forefront of security analysis with different types of agents and sources of threat.

This line of thinking took me to the dual role of the state. One the one hand, State is the security provider; on the other hand it was a source of threat. Human rights, Rule of law, constitutionality and good governance become national security issues.

Berkeley experience under Fulbright Fellowship helped me to going beyond borders. It is not simply building connectivity crossing territorial boundaries. Indeed, crossing territorial boundaries are important. The territorial boundaries does not mean the physical territories. In our thinking, we are highly circumscribed by a small Island mentality. The besieged mentality in a small island is often presented ad patriotism. It is not patriotism. In order to get out of this besieged mentality you need to cross boundaries.

Crossing the pedagogic boundaries is equally important. Other two types of crossing boundaries are also equally important: First, Building connectivity, crossing theoretical borders within the discipline; Second, Building connectivity crossing disciplinary borders. It convinced me that symbiosis of approaches provides a new Synergy to view things from fresh perspective.

Further more, my Fulbright experience helped me to visualise the United States sans structures. In our undergraduate days we entertained a simple and monolithic view. In the world is of two categories: good and bad – Whit Hats and Black Hats mentality. Our earlier image of US was linked only to the set structure- The US State. It is true that State and society are inseparable entities. But I was convinced by my Fulbright experience to view ‘other America’ too. While admitting domination of corporate sector and the dominance of ‘inner state’, we need to pay attention to other social and political dynamics to understand complexity of US polity. It is not one colour Images. US is a country of many governments, many images, divers colors- just like proverbial bride’s gown; something green, something blue, something yellow and something green.

The most virulent critics of the US system can be found with the US. The vibrancy of US higher education institutions is remarkable. The most innovative

and radical thinking can be found in the US academic institutions. The Chicago school and writings of Jurgen Habermas is not an isolated example. The discourse on Gramsci, Foucault and Subaltern studies inspire Social Sciences in many key US academic institutions.

US system is complex and multifaceted. Internal dynamics of the system and checks and balances constituted an integral element of US system. This contributed to change the my lop-sided earlier view on America

US is not only the US State and its cooperate interests. The other-side of America is different. Fulbright experience helped me to separate US state and US society, to view the US people sans set structures. The US state, its apparatus and the US inner state constitute one dimension of America. There is other side of America, consisting great people US contribution to modern art and culture is great and we need view them delinking them with US state structures.

Contribution of US Musicians such as Garth Brooks, Elvis Presley, Eagles, and Michael Jackson reminds us the existence of other America. The great American poets such T. S. Eliot, Edgar Allan Poe, E.E. Cummings, Robert Frost reminds us the beauty of American culture alone with American Novelists such as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway. Mark Twain, Toni Morrison. John Steinbeck. While criticizing US state, its corporate interests and inner state, we enjoy US contribution to the culture of our age. Out attitude towards US state does not prevent us from enjoying US films such as Citizen Kane, The Godfather, A Space Odyssey, Gone with the wind, Lawrence of Arabia, The King and I and The Sound of Music.

In the new millennium, the significance of public diplomacy, such as the Fulbright scholar exchange program, must be viewed from a fresh perspective. The eclipse of utility of hard power and the increasing impotence of gunboat diplomacy highlights the soft power. In this context, not only the developments in the Wall Street but also developments in the main street are also come forward to determine the agenda of global politics. Referring to our backyard, the Indian Ocean, Robert D, Kaplan observed “for the first time since the Portuguese onslaught in the region in the early 16th century, West’s power there is in decline, however subtly and relatively. The Indians and the Chinese will enter into a dynamic great-power rivalry in these waters, with their shared economic interests as major trading partners locking them in an uncomfortable embrace. The United States, meanwhile, will serve as a stabilizing power in this newly complex area. Indispensability, rather than dominance, must be its goal”. Mobilizing US soft power potential is the best way to achieve ‘indispensability’.

The Fulbright exchanges highlighted the power of citizen diplomacy. Further, it gave the wider world an access to the positive contribution of the centers of leaning and knowledge, art and literature of the United States. Above all, it helped imaging US cans structures and building connectivity crossing many forms of boundaries. To conclude, I wish to quote Senator William Fulbright. He said on the occasion of 40th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in 1986, “Perhaps the greatest power of such intellectual exchanges is to convert nations into peoples and to translate ideologies into human aspirations. To continue to build more weapons, especially mote exotic and unpredictable machines of war, will not build trust and confidence”.