Foreign debt determines how free a country is to make its own decisions. The greater the debt, the more the country's priorities are shaped by the expectations of its lenders rather than the needs of the people. There is no need to explain this theoretically; Sri Lanka's experience speaks volumes.
Sri Lanka was once a country on its feet. Its tourism was strong, it produced most of its own food, its education and health indicators were good for its region. So it was not a failed country from the beginning. But over the years it embarked on big projects: ports, roads, energy investments... Much of this was done with foreign debt.
Borrowing was not the issue here. Governments borrow; there is nothing extraordinary about that. The problem was this: the debt borrowed did not go to areas that would earn foreign currency for the country, that could repay itself. In other words, the debt was borrowed, but no investments were made that would increase exports and generate regular income. There were flashy projects, but there was no money to repay that debt. The debt grew, and when the time came to pay it off, there was no money left in the coffers. This was the real cause of the crisis.
Then came the pandemic. Tourism ended. Foreign currency inflows stopped, but debt payments did not. Reserves melted. And on April 12, 2022, the Sri Lankan state was forced to say, ’We can no longer pay these debts“; it stopped foreign debt payments. This sounds like a technical statement, but the meaning is very clear: The state had become unable to turn the economy around on its own.
After that, the IMF stepped in. Money came but with conditions. Taxes were raised, public spending was cut. State discounts on electricity and fuel were abolished; prices skyrocketed and this increase was reflected directly on people's bills. Fuel queues formed, power cuts began, food prices skyrocketed. Protests spread, the government fell, the president fled the country.
It is necessary to pause here and say: my daughter, I am telling you, my daughter-in-law, you understand.
Nobody sent troops to Sri Lanka. The flag was in place, the parliament was open, there were elections. But the country could no longer act according to its own priorities. Decisions started to be made according to expectations from outside, not according to the needs of those inside.
At this point, debt is not just an economic burden; it becomes a matter of who decides. If you cannot make your budget according to your own social priorities, if you cannot determine your expenditures according to the needs of your own people, even if you are independent on paper, in reality your hands are tied. And this doesn't happen overnight. It happens silently. First it is called a “temporary measure”, then the phrase “there is no other option” becomes normalized. Ports, energy infrastructure, public companies change hands for cash inflows. The country seems to breathe in the short term but loses control in the long term.
Therefore, the saying “we can borrow but our independence will not be harmed” does not reflect reality. It will. Not all at once, but it happens. First the budget is tied, then politics is constrained, and finally society accepts that there is no other option. This is exactly what happened in Sri Lanka. Nobody entered the country at gunpoint, but the debts took away the country's right to decide what to prioritize.
It follows that political decision-makers must act responsibly. The economy is not an area to be managed by slogans or by saving the day. The society pays the price for wrong decisions, not the decision-makers. Therefore, economic decisions should not be made out of loyalty, but should be left to people with merit, who know what they are doing. Otherwise, it will not seem like the one who makes the mistake pays; we will pay the price all together.
In short, if a country does not want to surrender to imperialism, it does not need to talk big. It will use its debt wisely, direct it towards production, protect its strategic areas, keep the law and institutions intact. And it will not constantly accustom society to the idea that “there is no other option”. Because surrender often comes not by force, but by acceptance.
So it is not about borrowing.
The issue is how foreign debt is managed, for whose benefit it is used and what kind of burden it leaves for the future.
This is how imperialism works most of the time today:
Not with weapons, but with foreign debt, rules and a sense of helplessness.