- Strong political and policy leadership necessary
- Diverse range of stakeholder consultation needed
- SL will have to be sensitive to big power rivalries
- Listen to experts and review policies periodically
In its pursuit to create a robust and resilient national security architecture to meet future threats and challenges, Sri Lanka must act quickly to develop a culture of strategic thinking based on research and move to build policy consensus among stakeholders, to be successful.
The need for such an evolution in policymaking comes as Sri Lanka has embarked on a milestone review of its national security and defence establishment through the ‘Defence 2030’ review.
While it is unclear when the review will be completed and how the Government plans to enact its proposed recommendations, it is clear that the process will be a long and challenging one.
Vision, leadership, commitment
According to Kotelawala Defence University (KDU) Department of Strategic Studies Head Dr. Harinda Vidanage, developing a new national security architecture for Sri Lanka may take a long time to evolve.
He stressed that the process would require leadership, vision, cooperation, and commitment from political, policymaking, and the security practitioner communities.
“A national security architecture, though in theory sounds straightforward, may take a long time to evolve. It may also need broader, cross-institutional effort to formulate. Even for India to achieve an integrated national security architecture it took them some time. By 2020, India managed to integrate most of the national security architecture around the office of the Chief of Defence Staff.
“For Sri Lanka, it may take time, because we may need to bring together a lot of institutions which may not be functioning in alignment, as well as to find a pivot position for national security architecture. Will it be pivoted through the Chief of Defence Staff Office or the Ministry of Defence? I think that 2030 is not a bad idea to have a plan, but it will require a major effort by all stakeholders. It will require vision. It will also need a lot of commitment and leadership from the political and policymaking community. The support from the armed forces will also be needed. Cooperation is key,” Dr. Vidanage explained.
Echoing Dr. Vidanage’s thoughts, former Commandant of the National Defence College (NDC) Major General (Retd) Amal Karunasekara told The Sunday Morning that previous attempts at drafting a new National Security Policy (NSP) were been repeatedly disrupted due to changes in governments and their administrations, resulting in a lack of uniformity and consistency in the development of a single policy.
According to Karunasekara, reaching a consensus on a national vision with longitudes is essential to build national unity, to give the nation a clear direction, and to improve resilience and accountability.
“To develop a comprehensive NSP, it’s crucial to involve a diverse range of stakeholders and to follow a standard framework, which other countries have also done. While the drafting and approval of the NSP occur at the highest levels of authority, the assessment, research, and formulation phases must include expertise and input from all interested parties. This includes civil society organisations, academics who provide oversight, security sector personnel at every level who implement and experience the effects of NSP, and the Government, ministries, and Parliament, who oversee the entire process. The participation of all these actors is crucial for a robust and effective NSP development process,” Maj. Gen. Karunasekara said.
Understanding the threat spectrum
Both Vidanage and Karunasekara stated that Sri Lanka needed to conduct a comprehensive assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and the threat environment to formulate an effective national security architecture.
According to Karunasekara, to formulate a comprehensive National Security Policy, Sri Lanka must first identify a clear national vision to achieve the end state that the country envisages. Secondly, it should identify national values, interests, and security objectives according to the country’s national vision. Then, conduct a comprehensive study to identify the country’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and vulnerabilities. Thereafter, Sri Lanka will be capable of developing a framework for the NSP that includes the policy’s overarching goals, strategies, and implementation programme for the plans.
“Sri Lanka also needs to review and update its NSP periodically to ensure it remains relevant and effective in response to evolving threats,” Karunasekara opined, adding that a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the implementation of a National Security Policy was also needed.
Dr. Vidanage pointed out that Sri Lanka had not conducted a ‘net assessment’ of the threat spectrum, which is needed.
“We need to carry out a net assessment or a strategic assessment of our requirements and threats. Even in the post war context, this is yet to be done. Sri Lanka has also not consistently done well in our regional relations in the geo-politics area, in Indian Ocean power politics. This is because we haven’t done a strategic assessment to know where we are. This also applies to how we will create the kind of modern military which we envisage while we are dealing with the economic crisis. How will we rid ourselves of legacy platforms, systems, and issues? All of this has been missed so far because we haven’t yet done a strategic assessment on the matter,” Dr. Vidanage opined.
Maj. Gen. Karunasekara explained that Sri Lanka could not afford to address internal and external threats in isolation. He stated that Sri Lanka needed to develop policies to weather a range of common global threats, regional threats, and specific threats that target Sri Lanka.
When asked about the vulnerabilities that Sri Lanka needed to address, Karunasekara said that economic vulnerabilities due to external dependency, poor fiscal control, energy insecurity, and the lack of political and national consensus were key concerns. Further, pollution, climate change, complex Indian Ocean rivalries, and dwindling water resources were also listed as key vulnerabilities. He added that foreign influence operations, misinformation, and disinformation – particularly via nontraditional media – were significant vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed.
A model that fits SL
Since Sri Lanka is evolving its national security architecture for the first time since the end of the internal conflict in 2009, it is prudent for the island nation to select which models and practices to adopt in the future.
According to Dr. Vidanage, Sri Lanka should not aspire to have a national security architecture model after that of great powers and should look at the architecture of some middle power countries such as Malaysia, Estonia, Oman, Mongolia, and others, to form a concept as to what may be a good fit for the island nation.
“The national security architectures of great powers such as the US and India are well known. However, they are big powers and their previews are big too; so are their strategic interests, which are wide. I think we can take some fundamental lessons from them, but for Sri Lanka, I feel that we should look at some solid middle power nations. Malaysia is such a midrange country that is worthy of studying. Recently, Malaysia reviewed their national security systems. There are also countries like Estonia, Oman, and Mongolia, from which we can learn some lessons,” he explained.
Impact of great power, big power rivalry
Sri Lanka must also be cognisant of the impact of great power rivalry when evolving its future security and defence policies. Sri Lanka is already affected by great power rivalry in the Indian Ocean and needs to have robust policies to navigate such complex matters and related disruptions.
“One key matter we need to understand is that we are formulating our national security architecture for a small power, at a time when, even for the next 20-50 years, there will be big power rivalry. Small states, when generating their national security policies, have to be sensitive to big power rivalry and not only be focused on their domestic compulsions,” Dr. Vidanage cautioned.
He added that Oman, which due to its proximity had faced significant geo-political challenges and had historically also been impacted by great power rivalries and internal conflicts, had managed to maintain good stability and relations with its neighbourhood while meeting national economic and social targets and could provide Sri Lanka with some valuable lessons.
Understanding ‘national security’
However, drafting robust policies and endorsing strategies alone will not help sustain a resilient national security architecture, former Chief of Staff of the Sri Lanka Navy Rear Admiral (Retd) Y.N. Jayarathna told The Sunday Morning.
According to R. Adm Jayarathna, policy makers must develop a culture of listening to subject matter experts and must better understand what ‘national security’ entails.
“First and foremost, the political leaders must understand what ‘national security’ entails and where we stand as an island state; then the best minds who can analyse the ‘security thoughts’ must be given the task of managing the island state’s defence system. Periodic reviews are needed where top managers of the Government, such as the Security Council, must be ready to listen to the subject matter and the subject matter experts,” Jayarathna stressed.
He opined that a National Security Advisors’ Office should be introduced to design and implement a robust and futuristic defence and security architecture to ensure that the island state remains stable for economic development.
“Then the Government officials should be confident and bold enough to go and engage the world whether regional or extra-regional in meeting the State’s interests. The reason these Government officials do not go out and engage is either they are not sure of the Government’s policy or stand (as there are no published policies at present) or they lack confidence (due to not knowing the subject matter).
“Even though we draft and bring the robust and resilient system, if the implementation is not effective, we stand to lose in the eyes of the world. That is why the implementation tools (the officials) and the implementing authority (National Security Advisors’ Office) matters a lot,” R. Adm. Jayarathna opined.
Be proactive – regionally
According to Jayarathna, Sri Lanka’s security and defence interests need to take onboard the neighbourhood’s security interests and to some extent the extra-regional security interest as well, “...but not at the cost of our own interests”.
“Whilst many of our neighbours and extra-regional players may be able to help us in guiding this process, it is very important that the policymakers, politicians, and the top administrators of the country understand that the final say is with us and that we must decide what is best for Sri Lanka and its interest,” he added.