All bluster ministry misses the bus

By Neville de Silva

There is an old Sinhala saying “Kateng bathala hitawanawa waage”. In translation it loses its pithiness and sarcasm. A direct translation into English would read “like planting sweet potatoes with the mouth.” The closest English saying that would convey something of the meaning of the Sinhala saying that comes immediately to mind is “all froth and no beer.”

I mention the Sinhala saying because we have heard so much in recent times about fighting terrorism and trying to galvanise the international community to join in this fight. We are told, and Foreign Minister Bogollagama had said this at the so-called international conference on counter terrorism that concluded in Colombo yesterday, that terrorism is a global phenomenon.

The logic of the argument is that terrorism in one country or region has global implications because of the trans-national nature of the terrorist threat. So terrorism needs to be fought globally, an argument that has obvious merit. But if we are taking up that position, and the current government’s agenda is very much focused on crushing terrorism, if not eliminating it altogether (a highly contentious issue) then we should make use of every opportunity and every available forum to do so.

If that is the objective, the crucial question is are we doing so? Have we explored every opportunity and available forum to press the case? This is a matter that devolves very much on the foreign ministry. Has the foreign ministry utilised the various forums in which Sri Lanka is a member to galvanise international action not just to draw attention to the problem but to take concrete, effective steps to combat terrorism?

The problem with the foreign ministry is that it has its top two persons who are out of their depths in the larger world of international relations and foreign affairs. The foreign minister travels around the world in such earnest haste that one would think some ecological disaster that would destroy our planet is imminent and he needs to see all the countries which constitute the United Nations — and some which are not — before apocalypse tomorrow.

What he does on these travels is another matter. "Does he keep all the appointments arranged for him generally at his behest? For instance, would he think it better to play tourist in Paris rather than keep an appointment with the French intelligence service DST or DGSE? Would he think a dinner on a river boat on the Seine more important than spending a mere 10 minutes or so with the Sri Lankan community at a reception?

Equally, what has Palitha Kohona done since his assumption of office as secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, sometimes confused with foreign secretary that in some countries amounts to a cabinet ranking? On or around the time he assumed office he spoke much about revamping the foreign service, how diplomats posted to various capitals must learn the language of that country and a lot more. What has happened since those homilies greeted us?

What happened to this great revolution that was to come with the Kohona incumbency? Today the only revolution is the posting of friends, relatives and incompetents to diplomatic positions and the downgrading of the foreign service to depths previously unknown. Bangkok will soon have an ambassador and a criminal lawyer as counsellor to the mission, both inexperienced in handling a situation where the Thai military is in power.

Will the demands made on career officers to be competent in languages apply equally to the political appointments that are now being made willy nilly to represent Sri Lanka in foreign capitals at expense to the tax payer? Bogollagama laid down the law that career officers must attain ‘credit worthiness’ by their attainments on the job. If competence is to be judged that way— and it is not always easy to show immediate tangible results in diplomacy unlike in a boutique where you could sell two bunches of bananas and get cash promptly for them — then will the same rules and requirements apply to the political appointees? How is their competence to be judged? And if they fail will they be recalled and more capable people sent to succeed them?

I have not seen it reported in the media but about three weeks ago President Rajapaksa is said to have summoned the foreign service officers to a meeting at which Kohona was also present. According to my informants in Colombo, the president wanted them to co-operate with their secretary and lend him their support.

If my information is correct—and I cannot vouch for it — the president had even joked saying that though Kohona had a long beard he was a nice chap, a non sequitur surely. The question is not whether he is a “nice” fellow or not. Is he capable of handling an important ministry such as the Foreign Ministry? If he is not getting the co-operation of officers under him one needs to ask why and where the fault lies — is it the man or his officials?

Judging by all that is being said in Colombo, would it not be better for the country to start with establishing a more functional and cordial relationship between the minister and his ministry secretary?Is it because of the dysfunctional nature of our diplomacy today that Sri Lanka has failed to raise its voice at the Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism (CCT) on which it has sat since its inception six years ago?

The CCT which was established shortly after 9/11 and following the Commonwealth Statement on Terrorism is chaired by Australia.
This committee which has now been transformed into a Standing Committee of the Commonwealth has not met since 2003. So I was told when I asked at a press briefing the Commonwealth Journalists Association had with head of the political division of the Commonwealth, Mathew Neuhaus.

The committee consists of 10 foreign ministers. Is it not curious that the panjandrums that run our foreign ministry today and speak volumes on terrorism giving lectures here and speeches there, did not even think about activating this committee to review the global situation on terrorism and discuss new strategies or call on member states to take more action domestically to deal with the problem?
There was an ideal opportunity to call a meeting when all the foreign ministers were attending the new sessions of the UN General Assembly beginning in September.

While our people were wining and dining at the Ritz Carlton — and probably exchanging words in the corridors — what could have been very useful from Sri Lanka’s standpoint, an opportunity to have a meeting of that committee after four years, went begging probably because neither of the two head honchos of the foreign ministry gave thought to it.

I could well understand why the previous administration did nothing to call a meeting of the CCT or even draw attention to it. That administration was a party to the ceasefire agreement (CFA) and naturally did not want an active committee in which Sri Lanka was a member. The more dormant the committee was the better it was for its hopes of achieving a political settlement.

But this government is charting a radically different course. It is consistently drawing attention to terrorism in its bilateral and multilateral meetings. So much so it organised this so-called international conference on counter-terrorism which for some reason appears to have been hurriedly done.

Whether there was any particular reason why it could not have been held next month or in January when it might have been able to have more qualified participants with international reputations I do not know. Moreover the intemperate remarks of Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle who called UN official John Holmes a paid agent of the LTTE and also cast aspersions on the UN secretary-general lost us high level participation. Eventually the conference seemed to have been left with second stringers and without the international media coverage the organisers expected.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) of which Sri Lanka is a member met in New York during the UN sessions. Had Sri Lanka been alive to the opportunity it could have asked the Australian chairman to summon a meeting in New York.

It did not. Why? Would meeting on the sidelines of the UNGA deprive Bogollagama of another trip abroad? Or was the foreign ministry’s top two just oblivious to the importance of holding such a meeting when the mandate of the committee is so wide and useful? Whatever the reasons, clearly the foreign ministry needs more professional hands on the tiller than new kinds of empire builders in this decolonised world.