Former Minister of Finance and former Foreign Minister Ravi Karunanayake has not been active in the political arena after losing the election last August. There had been speculation that Karunanayake had either stepped down from politics or was planning a comeback with a new political movement. However, breaking his long silence, Karunanayake told the Daily Mirror that he was still very much active in politics. He also said that he is still a member of the United National Party (UNP). 
Excerpts of the interview

• I have gone through some turbulent times
• Party learning from mistakes and repositioning
• Focus of some in UNP was to remove Ranil, not Govt
• Current opposition an extension of Govt

To be very frank, I am a firm believer that the IMF is only there to help you when there is sunshine, and take the umbrella when the rain comes. So you need to deal with them in your own way. 

   Q     One question a lot of people are asking these days is, are you still involved in politics...

Yes, very much. In the sense that sometimes there are reflection for repositioning, correcting. Because the UNP had got a drubbing in the last election. And when you really look at it, is really a sad situation for the country in the sense that, the way the UNP got annihilated. And we look at the causes for that, I am sure it is even more saddening as to how it has happened.

   Q     So you are still a member of the UNP?

Well, UNP is my party. I have gone through some turbulent times. There have been some rough times, some unfair situations. I guess still there are certain rectifications that need to be done. And I guess we are in that process of learning through mistakes and trying to reposition the party to the wants of the people, 

   Q     The UNP lost when Ranil Wickremesinghe was party leader. He still is. And now we see him returning to Parliament. What is your take on his return to Parliament?

The problem is that we had a team that was more interested in, you know, displacing Ranil Wickremesinghe rather than displacing or keeping our opponents away from power. So the result was what we have seen. It basically took a toll on the people because there was infighting. And our attempt to bring in the then President later resulted in an animosity between the then President and the Prime Minister and that reflected on the people.

   Q     Could that issue have been avoided?

Yes, absolutely avoided. It was just mismanagement from both sides and distrust from both sides.

   Q     What is your take on the opposition? Not just any individual, but the opposition overall?

Well, if I say something it may be seen as sour grapes. There is an opposition. But there is no reflection from the opposition. It is just an extension of the Government.

   Q     What does the UNP hope to do in securing the support of some of its members who left after the last election?

That is our genuine intention. But the approach so far has been very poor. It lacks vision. That is why you will see there are times you need to be vocal and there are times you need to be silent and accept certain corrections. We will need to go through that phase. And that is the phase we are going through.

   Q     Are you expected to play a bigger role in the UNP in future?

Well, as I said, The UNP is my party, but it certainly has to go through some huge changes. That needs to be a more people oriented, more pragmatic and more human because there is no point having power and if the power doesn’t go down to the people. During the last two attempts when we were in Government, there were a very few people who were working for the people. It was more or less just one lot that had the benefit. But the people felt that they were estranged from this. I guess in introspect we see that that is the case.

   Q     What is your assessment of the Government? What do you think? I don’t think they’ve done something good for the country since then...

I must say that it is a very turbulent time for running any government. But still with that, there have been a lot of areas which could have easily been avoided. And I guess rhetoric has taken place. There are a few people who are trying to go along while the President is trying to steer a new approach, that’s his style. But I guess there should be consistency, coherency and, unanimity in that approach. That I don’t see.

   Q     How would you see the economic performance of the Government? You were Finance Minister at one time.  What is your take on the economy?

Is it is easy to be an armchair critic. At the time when we took office in 2015, I must say that there was a lot of togetherness at the start. But when success was coming, then you had people doing different things. But I must say the Prime Minister then and myself, we were a team led by our Secretary, Dr. Samaratunga and the office of the Finance Ministry, and there was tremendous success. Now, in today’s context, it is difficult to replicate, because of COVID and it is a global phenomenon. I mean, it is unfair. But still, there are many things that can be done. And I guess if the President’s intention is to be carried out, and then the ministers must play a much more professional approach.  A few are there but others have been found wanting.

   Q     Do you think some of the policy decisions that we have taken as far as the economy is concerned are correct? For example, the way we are dealing with the IMF and with some other countries?

To be very frank, I am a firm believer that the IMF is only there to help you when there is sunshine, and take the umbrella when the rain comes. So you need to deal with them in your own way. 

   Q     But didn’t the UNP Government have close dealings with the IMF?

No. Even in the UNP Government, the Prime Minister and I were thinking in one line, but some other politicians tried to get just what was prescribed by the IMF. And I must say that we were tough during that period. But after May 2017, I guess there was more leniency that was taking place and that had the officers pandering to the IMF. And I must say I appreciate the present government’s policy of being tough with the IMF. The IMF policies have to be adopted, whether you like it or not. But how you adopt it should be with the country first. And that is the difference. Just because they come and say and ensure that the budget deficit in X percentage of GDP it doesn’t have an answer in today’s case when Covid has virtually closed the world down. That’s how we did at that time when we took office in 2015. The IMF was happy because we were taking them on, but also delivering. 

   Q     The fuel pricing formula of the UNP Government is something that the IMF proposed.

I was not a believer of the fuel price formula policy. Because, if it goes up it, never comes down. So having formula every month was not something I was for.  

   Q     I also wanted to ask you about the Millennium Challenge Corporation agreement, which was something that your administration backed then, was pushing for and the current government has withdrawn from. How do you see this?

My sincere opinion was the government should have gone through the Millennium Challenge deal. They were trying to make a sand storm in a teacup. We were going to get a gift. There may have been strings attached. But what were the strings attached? The strings attached would have been ensuring good governance. So if that was what was going to be given to get, say US$400 to 500 million, I think it was an opportunity lost.

   Q     Do you think we are heavily focused on China to the extent that we are even sacrificing some opportunities that are coming our way?

My feeling is that this phobia between US, India, China, Japan and EU. I think we should basically give up. As a small little island, it is well placed. Our foreign policy should be friendly to all. Our interest should be the interest for the country and in the present context. So you must basically look at that particular moment what are good for the country. Our foreign policy should be commercial diplomacy. And to that extent, you can’t say No, I can’t take from that country, this country etc. What is good, go ahead and get it. Now, if you look at the real dynamics in the international trade, I put it down to three segments. One is economic trade, which basically relies on the US, EU because of market access and India, Japan, etc. But if we are looking for loans and investments that come in from China, it comes in from the EU, and multilateral agencies. So you can’t say I can’t deal with X because Y will get angry. We must stand for our principles and work fearlessly towards that. We must engage everybody. India is our closest friend. We must work with them.

   Q     But the concern is that some of these countries give us assistance with strings attached... 

What are those strings? If it is for good governance, what is the issue? If it is for democracy, what else?  Tell me which country gives you 
loans for nothing?

   Q     Well, it seems China will...

I don’t think so. But that is China. They are doing business. And we should make maximum economic gain out of that. Their Belt and Road Initiative should be good for the country. But that should not be injurious to India as well. After all, they have been close. They have been helping us. So without upsetting anybody, you must maximize the gains for the country. Singapore is a good example. They are doing business with every nation. We require India. We require China. We require the US.

The full interview appears on the Daily Mirror social media channels 
(Reporter’s note: Based on legal advise, the treasury bond scam was not discussed)