Shooting ourselves in both feet

By Neville de Silva

Is it a sense of masochism that leads this administration to inflict pain upon itself? Or is it a misplaced feeling of bravado, a David versus Goliath mentality that impels it forward in the belief that it could slay the international giants that perceive as standing against Sri Lanka? The way we have undermined our relationships with other nations, multilateral organisations and non-state parties in the last couple of years speaks volumes either for Sri Lanka’s naivety or its misguided belief that whatever it does will be forgiven and forgotten by the world at large. If inter-state relations, and indeed relations with non-state actors, were so simple then our bravura performances on stage and screen that have won applause at home might even be justifiable. The basic problem is that those who applaud at home do not have votes in the councils of the world, certainly not at the United Nations in New York.

Whatever spin government spokesmen and its media might now try to give Sri Lanka’s pathetic but not entirely unexpected performance at the UN vote last week, after its brimming self confidence earlier on, the simple unadulterated truth is that we failed to secure a place in the UN Human Rights Council for a second term. No amount of sugaring our failure with new excuses and diversionary explanations is going to convince a perceptive public that we sought re-election simply to see how many votes we could muster. Sri Lanka sought re-election because it wanted a second term in the UNHRC and there was good reason for doing so from the government’s perspective.

There is and has been mounting criticism over Sri Lanka’s human rights record and I use the phrase in its broadest sense. We have managed so far to deflect anti-Sri Lanka resolutions and perhaps punitive action because we served in the Council. Another term as a Council member would have made it easier for us to try and do the same for another period of three years. Having lost that opportunity because of our own failings and our refusal to see the truth that no amount of abuse hurled at our detractors or critics is going to win friends and influence others in the wider world, we should now be ready to accept the result for what it is and not offer facile explanations that try to turn defeat into some sort of victory.

Writing in the news pages of this paper last Sunday I said that it would be a tussle between Sri Lanka and Pakistan for the fourth place open to Asia. As it turned out this anticipation was correct, Pakistan beating us to the last seat by 13 votes. That tussle for the last place encapsulates in a sense what has gone wrong in our relations with the rest of the world. There is no dividend in trying to labour the point that the majority of the UN membership voted with us. That is like shooting ourselves in the chest having deliberately shot ourselves in the feet.

The administration has first to accept defeat. The world at large did not approve of our conduct and was not convinced by the explanations offered in defence of such conduct. Having done that, it is necessary to ask the obvious questions. What went wrong, why do influential and powerful sections of the world community not see us in the same light as we see ourselves; who is or are responsible for this tendency to self destruct. Those who advocate introspection and self criticism should convince the administration to undertake this necessary task. Only when we have asked ourselves those questions and found answers to them even though they might be unpalatable to the leadership and others, could the government begin a reassessment of its strategies to reconnect with those sections of the world outside-state and non-state players- who are Sri Lanka’s growing battery of critics.

One thing is for sure. If this administration tries to circle the wagons and start shooting at every moving figure, as they used to in the old American way when they feared attacks by Indians, it will only worsen the situation and we will not see the inside of the UNHRC for a long time, except perhaps as observers. Right now there are signs that the administration is going to succumb to a laager mentality and see itself as being hemmed in. Such a posture would be more damaging in the long term.

It would take more than the space available for this column to discuss the problems facing the government in its international relations. The reason is that it has succeeded in antagonising different players in the international community- member states as well as civil society- and it is the cumulative effect of that adversarial impact that has been seen in various moves on the world stage to confront Sri Lanka and which have now culminated it in our being denied a place in the UNHRC.

One need also to recognise the fact that those whose task was to lobby support for us was given an unenviable mandate. One cannot blame Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama, Human Rights Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe and our diplomats abroad for the failure. Their task was made virtually impossible by the aggressive diplomacy followed by sections of this government and the unguarded statements that were made by some ministers, political parties and officials which were not only uncalled for but had seasoned diplomats and international civil servants astonished at the lack of tact and civility. On several occasions this column warned against this kind of bull- in-a ceramic- shop diplomacy and the damage it would do to Sri Lanka’s image. Hurling abuse, flinging uncorroborated accusations and raking up the past of other countries might win plaudits from the JHU, JVP and other overzealous ‘patriots’ from Hakmana to Hanguranketa, but they hardly enhance the country’s image or its case.

Spontaneous combustion has been the biggest failure of this administration in its international relations. The first lesson to learn- in fact it is so obvious that it need not have to be repeated- is that if you seek a place among other nations or other international organisations, you do not strike them in the jaw and then hold your palm out for their vote. That is precisely what this government has been doing. Instead of confronting its critics with reasoned argument and cogent answers, it has sought to let loose a barrage of abuse, probably going by some curious logic that the most effective reply is to clobber your critics. In military terms the best defence is offence. How else could one explain the invective that greeted remarks by Louise Arbour, the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner, or the unproven allegations made by Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle against John Holmes, the UN’s Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs. Fernandopulle not only called him a terrorist but one in the pay of the LTTE.

I said that the Sri Lanka-Pakistan battle for the fourth place encapsulated the case against us. When Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth for the second time last November, the Commonwealth gave it an ultimatum. Fulfil five conditions that would prove its good intentions with regard to restoring democracy, good governance, the rule of law, media freedom and political prisoners or remain suspended until you do so. Though President Musharraf and Pakistan made nationalistic noises, they moved towards fulfilling those conditions and the suspension was lifted recently with Sri Lanka speaking on Pakistan’s behalf. The lifting of the suspension showed the Commonwealth was satisfied with the actions taken. Pakistan was consciously moving to restore democracy and human rights and this helped it to show the UN membership that it was moving in the right direction and therefore was qualified to sit in the UNHRC.

On the other hand, Sri Lanka appeared to be moving in the opposite direction, or at least not moving in the direction that would convince the UN membership that it deserved to be re-elected. To some it seemed to be standing still and breathing fire at all. That is one major reason why Pakistan defeated Sri Lanka. But there are of course other reasons which I hope to discuss later. In the meantime the least the government could do is to ask itself very seriously whether its politicians and officials should be permitted to approach every issue with an open mouth.