Connect with us

Features

The relevance of institutions

Published

on

From left to right Dr Dushni Weerakoon Dr Harinda Vidanage Ravinatha Aryasinha Dr Jehan Perera H. M. G. S. Palihakkara

By Uditha Devapriya

On Wednesday, August 9, the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute (LKI) unveiled its inaugural Foreign Policy Seminar. Titled “Changing Global Dynamics: Implications for Sri Lanka”, it sought to address, and resolve, the many dilemmas the country was, and is, facing in light of various global issues, including the drive towards de-dollarisation and multilateralism. Featuring four panellists, drawn from four different yet somewhat related fields, the event was chaired, one could say hosted, by the LKI’s new Executive Director, Ravinatha Aryasinha.

The event coincided with the death anniversary of Sri Lanka’s foremost Foreign Minister, Lakshman Kadirgamar. Although, as I have outlined in another essay, Kadirgamar’s vision was thwarted by the very political forces and loyalties he served, there is no denying the mark he left on our foreign relations, for a decade if not longer. When people talk about Chandrika Kumaratunga’s foreign policy, it is actually Lakshman Kadirgamar’s policies that they invoke. It is no doubt one of the biggest ironies out there that those who undermined his concern for Sri Lanka’s security and sovereignty abroad, and for peace and unity at home, during his lifetime, can speak highly of his principles 18 years after his death.

In that light, institutions like the LKI serve a pivotal, if crucial, role. They address one of the more pressing problems facing this country now, namely the reduction of its state capacity. At a time when every other Sri Lankan’s dream is to leave Sri Lanka, and the public sector is facing the prospect of a massive shrinkage, it is becoming increasingly impossible to attract top minds to the public service. But a country’s mainstay is its public service, and no arm of that service is more important than the diplomatic and foreign policy apparatus. To attract the best, the State should appoint the best and pay the best salaries. It should also facilitate research. In that light, the LKI’s purpose cannot be underrated.

For these reasons, I was more interested in what the LKI had done than in the contents of its foreign policy seminar. Patronised by the State – the Foreign Minister happens to be the Chairman – the LKI is one of the few think-tanks that belong to the public sector, and by extension to the people. At a time when civil society has become associated with the non-public sector, the role of public sector think-tanks has become more important than ever.

The BCIS (Bandaranaike Center for International Studies) serves an equally important role, as do universities and institutions of learning. They are repositories of research, relevant because research backed by official patronage can ultimately help minimise Sri Lanka’s human resource shortfalls.

I myself work at a foreign policy think-tank, and I am aware that the State cannot fund institutions for long. This was true even before the crisis. The crisis, in that sense, merely aggravated a long-term decline. Yet public funds are paid by the people, and institutions dedicated to research facilitate policymaking. This is a two-way street: ultimately it is the people who patronise these institutions through the arms of the State, and it is up to the State to deliver on the funds it receives. Private think-tanks are beholden to their donors. That is not to say that such setups constrain these organisations, but there is a link, and an indelible one, between their aims and the aims of their sponsors. This is true of the bigger think-tanks especially. But not of State think-tanks. The latter are, unlike the non-public-non-private sector civil society outfits, ultimately owned by the public.

To be sure, all institutions tend to sway between good times and bad, between capable heads and incompetent hands. The LKI, together with the BCIS, fulfils an important mandate. There must be a consistent commitment to that mandate. To sustain such commitment, the heads of these bodies will have to conduct seminars, publish journals, and resist the urge to interfere.

Recently an institution dedicated to teaching leadership was launched within the premises of another older institution. One should doubtless welcome such initiatives, yet at the same time one wonders, and often fears, whether newer organisations will be pushed to replace older ones, despite the continuing relevance of the latter.

Under Ravinatha Aryasinha, the LKI can steer clear of these developments and stick to its mandate. A former Ambassador and a seasoned diplomat, Aryasinha has experience in the field. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he also has had experience as a journalist and a writer, and as an original thinker. Anyone can pass exams and “become” a diplomat, it is no longer as tough as it used to be. But very few possess the intellectual curiosity to write, to reflect, to speak with substance. The problem with our foreign policy establishment is that it is manned by too many bureaucrats, and too few original thinkers. Initiative, in that sense, has become a rarity, and Aryasinha is one of very few people who has it. But initiative is not enough, there must also be an environment conducive to it. In that respect, it remains to be seen if the wheels he has set in motion will be allowed to continue.

At the Foreign Policy Seminar, Harinda Vidanage, of the Centre for Strategic Assessment at Kotelawala Defence University, reflected on a tribute he penned on Lakshman Kadirgamar after his assassination. Prefaced by a reference to Zizek, it struck a plaintive if elegiacal note. When Vidanage went abroad, he remembered, it was that article, more so than any other academic piece, which his colleagues associated with him.

The lesson here is clear enough. Ultimately, it is what we communicate with the public that matters. If our foreign policy is to improve, and if institutions like the LKI and the BCIS are to progress, they must hence be manned by those who are aware of such needs. In Aryasinha, the LKI has got that kind of head. But what of other institutions, including those tasked with nurturing our youth for leadership? The jury, I think, is still out there.

The writer is an international relations analyst, researcher, and columnist who can be reached at udakdev1@gmail.com.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Removing obstacles to development

Published

on

President Dissanayake

Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.

There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.

More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.

RENEWED GROWTH

The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.

Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.

The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.

COMMITTED GOVERNMENT

The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.

There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.

By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.

by Jehan Perera

Continue Reading

Features

Revisiting Non-Alignment and Multi-Alignment in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy

Published

on

The 5th Non-Aligned Summit was held in Colombo in 1976. It was chaired by Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike, with 96 Heads of State/Government and their country delegations participating. Among the foreign dignitaries present on the occasion were Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, Kenneth Kaunda, President of the Republic of Zambia, Field Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia, Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, Colonel Gaddafi, President of Libya, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Archbishop Makarios President of Cyprus. (Image courtesy BMICH))

Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.

Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:

  • No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
  •  Economic engagement with all, dependency on none

: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.

 *   Diplomatic balancing

: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.

  • Leveraging multilateralism

: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.

  • Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty

: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.

Dangers of over-compartmentalisation

Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.

Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.

Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.

Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.

Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.

Limited multilateralism?

Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.

The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.

BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.

Non-alignment is not neutrality

Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.

Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.

Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.

The path forward

Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.

Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.

Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:

*  Reject compartmentalisation

: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.

* Embrace emerging platforms

: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.

* Take principled stands

: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.

* Promote South-South cooperation

: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.

By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.

(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)

by Vinod Moonesinghe

Continue Reading

Features

Nick Carter …‘Who I Am’ too strenuous?

Published

on

Cancellation of shows has turned out to be a regular happening where former Backstreet Boys Nick Carter is concerned. In the past, it has happened several times.

If Nick Carter is not 100 percent fit, he should not undertake these strenuous world tours, ultimately disappointing his fans.

It’s not a healthy scene to be cancelling shows on a regular basis.

In May 2024, a few days before his scheduled visit to the Philippines, Carter cancelled his two shows due to “unforeseen circumstances.”

The promoter concerned announced the development and apologised to fans who bought tickets to Carter’s shows in Cebu, on May 23, and in Manila, on May 24.

The dates were supposed to be part of the Asian leg of his ‘Who I Am’ 2024 tour.

Carter previously cancelled a series of solo concerts in Asia, including Jakarta, Mumbai, Singapore, and Taipei. And this is what the organisers had to say:

“Due to unexpected matters related to Nick Carter’s schedule, we regret to announce that Nick’s show in Asia, including Jakarta on May 26 (2024), has been cancelled.

His ‘Who I Am’ Japan tour 2024 was also cancelled, with the following announcement:

Explaining, on video, about the
cancelled ‘Who I Am’ shows

“We regret to announce that the NICK CARTER Japan Tour, planned for June 4th at Toyosu PIT (Tokyo) and June 6th at Namba Hatch (Osaka), will no longer be proceeding due to ‘unforeseen circumstances.’ We apologise for any disappointment.

Believe me, I had a strange feeling that his Colombo show would not materialise and I did mention, in a subtle way, in my article about Nick Carter’s Colombo concert, in ‘StarTrack’ of 14th January, 2025 … my only worry (at that point in time) is the HMPV virus which is reported to be spreading in China and has cropped up in Malaysia, and India, as well.

Although no HMPV virus has cropped up, Carter has cancelled his scheduled performance in Sri Lanka, and in a number of other countries, as well, to return home, quoting, once again, “unforeseen circumstances.”

“Unforeseen circumstances” seems to be his tagline!

There is talk that low ticket sales is the reason for some of his concerts to be cancelled.

Yes, elaborate arrangements were put in place for Nick Carter’s trip to Sri Lanka – Meet & Greet, Q&A, selfies, etc., but all at a price!

Wonder if there will be the same excitement and enthusiasm if Nick Carter decides to come up with new dates for what has been cancelled?

Continue Reading

Trending