For decades, Sri Lankan leaders have treated the United Nations General Assembly as a stage for photographs and prestige, but history reveals that the real breakthroughs came from quiet diplomacy, strategic alliances, and pragmatic leadership—not from speeches in New York.
Since its admission to the United Nations in December 1955, Sri Lanka has viewed the General Assembly podium as a symbol of national prestige. Each September, leaders have flown to New York to deliver speeches, pose with world leaders, and present themselves as global statesmen. Yet, a closer look at history reveals that these appearances often achieved little in terms of tangible results. The real successes—foreign aid, trade concessions, and international support—were secured not through grandstanding at the UN but through quiet, skilled diplomacy managed from Colombo.
The story of Sri Lanka’s UN journey began with Prime Minister Sir John Kotelawala, who in the early 1950s pushed relentlessly for the country’s admission to the world body. The first application had been submitted by D.S. Senanayake shortly after independence in 1948, but the Soviet Union vetoed it on the grounds that Sri Lanka was not fully independent while British military bases remained in Trincomalee. For seven long years, Sri Lanka’s bid was stalled, caught in the middle of Cold War rivalries.
Sir John, determined to overcome these obstacles, appointed Esmond Wickremesinghe, father of future Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, as a special envoy. Esmond travelled to New York, lobbying tirelessly against the superpower vetoes that kept Sri Lanka out. Observing how both Washington and Moscow were rejecting membership applications based on their rival blocs, Esmond built coalitions with countries that were similarly excluded. He was assisted by R.S.S. Gunawardena, who became Sri Lanka’s first permanent representative to the UN. Together, they created enough diplomatic momentum to pressure both the United States and the Soviet Union into finally approving Sri Lanka’s admission.
The breakthrough came in December 1955, a major victory for Sir John’s government. However, he never got the chance to personally address the General Assembly, as he lost the 1956 election. That honor went instead to his rival S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who became the first Sri Lankan head of state to speak at the UN. Bandaranaike was preparing for a second address in 1959 but was assassinated shortly before his scheduled visit.
From then on, attending the UN became a highly symbolic act for Sri Lankan leaders. Regardless of whether they skipped other summits, the UN General Assembly was rarely neglected. In 2003, a dispute even broke out between President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe over who had the right to attend. Chandrika claimed it was the duty of the head of state, while Ranil insisted it belonged to the head of government. In the end, Ranil addressed the assembly in 2003, and Chandrika followed the next year.
Yet, not all presidents saw the UN as essential. J.R. Jayewardene, Sri Lanka’s first executive president, never once addressed the General Assembly during his ten years in power. In 1983, he travelled to New York but chose not to visit the UN Secretary-General’s office, instead focusing on strengthening ties with the Reagan administration at the White House. He may have viewed the annual speech as a waste of government funds that offered little real benefit.
President Ranasinghe Premadasa largely followed Jayewardene’s lead. He did speak once at the UN as Prime Minister in the late 1980s, when he proposed that 1987 be declared the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. The proposal was adopted, leading to global initiatives on housing—the first time a Sri Lankan leader had successfully influenced UN policy. But after becoming president, Premadasa never returned to the UN, likely for the same reason as Jayewardene: the cost outweighed the benefits.
Despite their absence from the UN stage, both J.R. and Premadasa achieved substantial international successes. Jayewardene secured foreign investment, created free trade zones, and developed tourism infrastructure. Premadasa, meanwhile, obtained garment quotas, triggering a garment industry boom that transformed Sri Lanka’s economy. His ambitious Janasaviya poverty alleviation programme won support from the World Bank, despite initial skepticism. These achievements were made not through speeches at the General Assembly but through deliberate policy, negotiation, and coordination with diplomats working from Colombo.
In contrast, leaders who regularly attended the UN General Assembly often returned home with little more than photographs. Since 1956, countless heads of state have flown to New York, delivered speeches, and shaken hands with other leaders, but few of these trips yielded lasting results. The stage became more about prestige than policy, with leaders eager to be photographed at the podium, stand beside the U.S. President, and add to their personal archives.
This tradition has continued unbroken, even under governments that promised radical change. The JVP-led administration, which came to power vowing to deliver system change, followed the same pattern. Like their predecessors, the new head of state travelled to New York, addressed the General Assembly, posed for photos, and returned home. For critics, this underscored how deeply entrenched the ritual has become, and how little it contributes to solving Sri Lanka’s pressing challenges.
The contrast is striking. On one side stand leaders like J.R. Jayewardene and R. Premadasa, who avoided the UN spotlight but delivered concrete results through trade deals, investment, and targeted reforms. On the other are leaders who prioritize the annual pilgrimage to New York but bring home little beyond ceremonial photographs. For many Sri Lankans, the question remains whether speeches at the UN truly advance national interests or simply satisfy political vanity.
Today, as the country faces profound economic and social crises, the debate over the value of attending the UN has gained fresh relevance. With resources scarce and public expectations high, the pressure is on leaders to prioritize tangible outcomes over ceremonial appearances. History suggests that speeches at the UN stage have rarely changed the course of the nation. Real progress has always depended on what leaders do at home and through quiet, persistent diplomacy abroad.
