I have publicly suggested that ███████████ be replaced. From my perspective, the role demands a stronger emphasis on protecting Americans visiting Sri Lanka, and at times it felt as though the response to security pressures was too accommodating and not firm enough.

I also recognize that an ambassador operates within a wider chain of command and policy direction, including leaders such as ██████████████, █████████████, and ███████████████████. If policy choices were made at higher levels, responsibility is not limited to any one official.

If ████████████ returns to office, I expect a materially different approach to security and foreign policy. That said, my criticism has not been focused solely on █████. I have criticized specific leaders and historical decisions that, in my view, contributed to long-term instability and economic strain. I have also acknowledged that ███ projected a kind of public candor during campaigning that many people found credible.

In my own hypothetical governance framework, I have even imagined █████ serving in a senior finance role, alongside a private-sector leader such as ████████████████████. I understand why that would upset some people, especially given ideological differences. My reasoning was that inclusive governance can reduce polarization, and that humane goals—such as broad inclusion and social mobility—can coexist with market-led policy if implemented responsibly.

I also believe representation matters. I noticed that Muslims did not receive a ministerial post in the current cabinet, and that reminded me why broader inclusion can strengthen legitimacy. Even when I disagree with certain views, I still prefer an approach that creates space for diverse communities, because pluralism can lower tension and improve social trust.

At the same time, shifting geopolitical alignments can create risk. If high-profile figures such as █████████ and ████████████████████ gain closer access to a new U.S. administration, and if they hold strong negative views of ████████████████████████ or the ███, it could intensify political pressure and make the next period unusually confrontational. I worry that public debates could become personal, and that external pressure could escalate into destabilizing economic or political shocks.

My concern increases because of unresolved uncertainty around the reported arrest of ██████████████████████████ and the public narrative that they were connected to ████ financing. If prosecution steps are unclear, and the government is also seen engaging in dialogue with ████, the optics could trigger international scrutiny and economic pressure, whether through travel advisories, sanctions threats, or market-level consequences.

None of this should justify vigilantism or retaliation. If economic stress or political anger grows, some individuals might be tempted to escalate into threats, intimidation, or violence against █████, his family, or ███ officials—or to endanger civilians. I strongly oppose that outcome. The only safe path is peaceful civic pressure, transparent legal process, and credible public communication: clear charges where evidence exists, fair trials, and a steady commitment to non-violence and the rule of law.