• Foreign policy decisions ill-advised, made on political whims
• Countries can’t be approached only when it suits Sri Lanka
• Donor conference needs to be convened at earliest opportunity
• Int’l assistance not forthcoming as they do not see real change
• India has ensured SL remains relatively stable via assistance
• China engages with countries in its commercial capacity
• Countries hesitant to help under current leadership structure

By Marianne David Sri Lanka is struggling today due to the absence of a foreign policy, with the lack of foresight and comprehension of consequences resulting in the current crisis situation, asserted diplomatic historian and Awarelogue Initiative Initiator Dr. George Cooke. “Randomly reaching out to a few countries is not the solution of the hour. We need a multipronged approach that would see Sri Lanka launching a global appeal for assistance,” he emphasised, in an interview with The Sunday Morning. In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Dr. Cooke also spoke about failures on the diplomatic front, why countries were hesitant to assist us, the role of India and China and how their assistance differs, Sri Lanka’s turn to Russia, the status quo with Japan, Quad assistance, and the ongoing International Monetary Fund (IMF) and debt restructuring discussions. Following are excerpts of the interview: Given its ongoing economic crisis, Sri Lanka has been running all over for aid, hoping someone will come to its rescue. This gives rise to the question whether this country has a proper foreign policy. If yes, what is it? How would you explain our current approach? It is due to a lack of a foreign policy that Sri Lanka is struggling to get out of this situation. Sri Lanka has always adopted a policy of being a ‘friend to all, and enemy to none’. Where, then, did we go wrong? Lack of foresight and comprehension of consequences has resulted in the situation that we face today. Randomly reaching out to a few countries is not the solution of the hour. We need a multipronged approach that would see Sri Lanka launching a global appeal for assistance. Nothing short of a massive financial infusion will enable the country to emerge from the abyss that we are falling into on a daily basis. You recently said that ill-advised foreign policy decision-making and poor strategic foresight had eroded Sri Lanka’s traditional support base, depriving Sri Lankans of potential assistance from long-standing friends. How have we failed so spectacularly on the diplomatic front? Our policy towards many countries has been highly questionable. This is not just with one or two countries, but even with whole regions, as seen in West Asia. Foreign policy decisions have been ill-advised because they were made on political whims, bereft of meaningful engagement and understanding of consequences. The resulting silence from these countries is thus not surprising. We failed to sustain our diplomatic engagement. Countries can’t be approached only when it suits us. It must be a continuous form of engagement, especially when those countries face difficulties. We used to give token gestures of small amounts of financial assistance and some of our products, especially tea, in the past. That too has been done away with. Therefore, we cannot expect others to help us when we are facing issues. We have failed – and failed miserably. What immediate steps should Sri Lanka take to implement an effective foreign policy? A concerted plan of action must be immediately drawn up and implemented through the Foreign Ministry with the network of overseas missions. We need to reach out from our missions and also with missions in Colombo. Convening a meeting of the diplomatic corps and telling them about our woes is not the solution. We need to make individual requests to countries and seek their immediate assistance at this time. This can come through financial assistance, trade and investment opportunities, promotional activities in their countries, and much more. Further, a donor conference needs to be convened at the earliest opportunity. The former leader of a neighbouring country came forward to support Sri Lanka, but we are yet to see tangible action except for media reports about property being procured in that country. The donor conference will require comprehensive proposals for which international funding is sought. This must be worked on immediately if we want support. Countries can’t be expected to give us blank cheques or pour finances into our country. They have seen the depth of corruption and would not want to see their money lining individual pockets. Will countries advocate for us in the international arena given the ongoing political crisis, with the President refusing to step down despite months-long calls for his resignation and the appointment of a Prime Minister without a mandate? Do we not need a united front, for starters, and a stable government? Many countries are hesitant to come forward and assist because they do not see any change at the very highest positions of governance. This is quite clear to all. While the President does have a mandate to serve his full term, the situation has drastically changed from 2019 to date. He has admitted to wrong decision-making and there have been mass protests calling for his resignation, which is how democracies function. Sadly, people around leaders mislead them very often and this is another classic example of such a situation. However, this is where the leader must retain the right people, and not merely people who are willing to fulfil their every wish. It is for the greater good of the country that we must all work at this moment and a stable government is absolutely essential for us to go forward. At present we have a Prime Minister who is dependent on the President’s support, chiefly in Parliament, to continue in his position. In such a situation all roads lead back to the apex. To come out of the current national crisis we need massive amounts of international assistance which are not forthcoming as the international community does not see real change. While some countries seem willing to assist and are making all the right noises, thus far it’s really only India that has contributed to ease the ongoing crises. India has been a lifesaver for Sri Lanka, keeping this country afloat, while China seems to be dragging its feet. How do you see this? India has ensured that Sri Lanka remains relatively stable with the continuous assistance that has been forthcoming. We must never forget that if not for the Indian assistance we have been receiving, the situation in the island would have been far worse than it already is. India, as a responsible neighbour, is concerned that an escalation of the crisis in Sri Lanka will have repercussions in its own country. They don’t want boatloads of people landing on their shores seeking food and shelter, if the crisis worsens. India has faced such situations in the past and is very conscious of the possible consequences. India is going a step further and attempting to look at long-term solutions, especially in the energy sector. They are concerned that their help has limits. India is a developing country itself and assistance can come in the short term, but Sri Lanka has to get back on its feet and look at long-term solutions. This is why reforming the energy sector is vital at this stage and our failure to do so thus far has contributed to the crisis we are facing. China is a commercial partner. In the early 1950s when Ceylon signed the Rubber-Rice Pact and the Chinese wanted to get closer to us, we were at pains to stress that we were only interested in a commercial deal and nothing beyond that. This was even put down in writing by the leaders of the time. However, the positive returns from the Pact changed opinions and stances, resulting in a gradual warming towards China, with S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike establishing diplomatic relations in 1957. Chou En-lai and his era of Chinese assistance is no more. China is a rising power and engages with countries in its commercial capacity, which is what it is doing with Sri Lanka too. The Chinese leadership will work with any government in Colombo and is not concerned about individuals. They are interested in our location. From their perspective, it is clear that providing a deferment of loan repayments or writing off our loans is highly unlikely because it would set a precedent which would hamper China’s global engagement as other countries would seek similar concessions. Yet it is essential that we reach out to them. Statements from Colombo or meeting with the Ambassador alone are not sufficient. A high-level delegation should be sent to Beijing on an urgent basis. The time to do that was quite some time ago, but we didn’t. At least now we need to do that if we are to get some form of assistance from China. In January this year, the Chinese, sensing a deterioration of ties, sent their Foreign Minister to ease the situation over the fertiliser ship in particular. Shouldn’t Sri Lanka have been the partner who reached out to ease the supposed tension? Instead, it took the Chinese to make the effort. Sri Lanka’s links to China have been viewed rather negatively world over, especially by India, even as Chinese influence and growth rise in the region. Given the importance of India and China to Sri Lanka, how can we maintain both relationships in a favourable manner? Over the last several decades there have been numerous occasions on which we have balanced our relations with these two giants. Unfortunately, along the way, policy formulators have tried to choose one over the other, failing to understand that even those two countries work together at certain levels. As a small country, Sri Lanka needs both India and China and must work with each country in a more coordinated manner where we do not hold one against the other or portray either in poor light to the other. India and China are extremely diverse countries and we must respect that diversity and work with each accordingly. Failure to do so has had many repercussions in the past and unless we correct our policy, we will face those challenges in the years ahead as well. Is Sri Lanka turning to Russia a wise move at this point? Will Russia look on our requests for aid favourably given its own situation? Sri Lanka and Russia are marking 65 years of diplomatic engagement this year. Last year or the year before, were plans made to mark this anniversary? To explore a deepening of relations? Were invitations extended to the leaders of that country to visit Sri Lanka? What steps were taken to realise these plans if they existed? We have never had a Russian leader visit Sri Lanka. We have been appreciative of the support Russia has given us in the Security Council and things stopped at that point. Russia is not just our supporter in that body. There has to be a concerted effort to work closely with all countries and that includes Russia. Irrespective of Russia’s political ideology, its leaders, or its governance structure, what is important is that it is in Sri Lanka’s national interest to work closely with Russia. Sadly, once again, we have not done that, and have instead taken Russia for granted on numerous occasions. At present Russia is dealing with its own issues in its neighbourhood and our earlier request for assistance at the very onset of the situation in Ukraine was poorly timed. However, at present, as our crisis worsens, a delegation has been sent to Moscow. Russia will undoubtedly help, if it can, but very often it is our own delayed action that remains a key stumbling block. When engaging with countries, they must not feel that they are an option or an alternative. We must engage with countries in their own right and respect them for who they are, irrespective of how others perceive them. This is where national interest aligns with foreign policy. This is where we have failed. In the backdrop of the diplomatic disaster that was the cancellation of the LRT project, how do you view Japan’s current relationship with Sri Lanka? Japan is a country that has provided immense amounts of grants and loans in the past. It is a country that has aided our peace process, convened donor conferences on our behalf, and gone the extra mile to assist, simply because of the strong position we took in 1951 in San Francisco, yet we have shown scant regard for them. This was especially so during the cancellation of the monorail project and the East Container Terminal agreement. When these projects were cancelled, those who did the cancelling failed to look beyond those moments and did not realise or were not competent enough to realise the consequences of their ill-advised moves. Today we have little or no aid from Japan because of that reason. The same leader who was there when the projects were cancelled is there today. We should not be surprised that Japan is not willing to provide assistance to Sri Lanka or sustain individuals in any way. Will the Quad assist Sri Lanka? What will this mean for the country? Sri Lanka made another erroneous, politically-motivated move, when we turned down the MCC grant of $ 480 million and now have to be content with the $ 20 million that US President Biden pledged a few days ago. The US, as a key country in the Quad, has consistently expressed concern about Sri Lanka moving closer to China. Hopefully the Americans will offer more in the weeks ahead, as the current crisis is a golden opportunity for the US and the Quad to provide large-scale tangible assistance which will change the status quo. India has provided much support in the last several months and at this juncture could, together with the US, lead a collaborative plan of action to help Sri Lanka get through this crisis. It would augur well for the Americans and the Quad and become an example of how the Quad can move from statements to structured action. That would boost and encourage other countries, which are often bereft of choice. Given our history and current standing, will our foreign relationships work in our favour or hamper the debt restructuring process and our negotiations with the IMF? Negotiations with the IMF need to be engaged upon directly with them, which even India has been highly supportive of. However, we must not complicate our relations with the IMF by trying to adopt stances of others and attempting to look at diplomacy from the IMF lens or from the lens of another country or region. We must act in our national interest and reach out to as many countries as possible to ease our situation and extricate ourselves from this abyss that we have fallen into. Irrespective of where the help comes from, we need it and must appreciate it. While we can take note of concern if it is expressed, we must not anticipate concern because at the end of the day international financial institutions are dealing with all countries in some way or other. Sri Lanka is a country that counts centuries of international engagement. While the period from independence is understood to be the starting point for diplomatic engagement, in actuality the engagement stretches far back with many countries. What has Sri Lanka done to nurture these relations? How concerned have we been about engaging continuously with countries? And what measures have we taken in recent years to improve our relations? We have fallen short in all these areas and we are reaping what we have sown. Chiefly, the present leadership is reaping what it sowed in the last three years. Countries will help Sri Lanka and our historic links will remain intact, but they are hesitant to do so under the current leadership structure.