Within 48 hours of the state media heralding the triumphant return of President Mahinda Rajapaksa after settling a dispute in the neighbouring Maldives, came the news of one of the worst comedowns in the country's recent history as far as its external relations are concerned; the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon recalling his envoy in Colombo for 'consultations' - diplomatic speak for telling the host they are not impressed with what has happened.
The UN Chief's decision was the logical consequence of Tuesday's melodramatic storming of the UN compound in Colombo in protest of the appointment of a panel of experts to advise him on the circumstances behind the events during the last phase of the war against the LTTE last year.
It was only last week that we wrote on the country's growing foreign relations fiasco and how a former Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, the illustrious Lakshman Kadirgamar would have tackled this crisis. He would have most certainly defended his captain, and argued for the sovereignty and integrity of Sri Lanka, but not allowed matters "to go too far". We called for "cool heads" as well as quiet and skilled diplomacy. Instead, we saw the more accustomed megaphone-diplomacy.
The Government seemed caught in two minds whether to allow a prominent Cabinet Minister to organise a demonstration outside the UN compound in Colombo. The Police moved in swiftly to break it up but were later asked to withdraw. In certain Western capitals the protest-demo was portrayed as a "siege", and worse still, an attempt at holding UN staff "hostage". That the Government failed to anticipate the ramifications of such a scenario is unfortunate, to say the least.
The prime mover of the demo was Housing Minister Wimal Weerawansa. Unfair allegations are being made against him saying that he just wanted more 'Brownie points' with the powers-that-be or be a hero among the patriots. Minister Weerawansa would have entertained a genuine desire to protest against what he saw as the UN Chief's bias against Sri Lanka in the only way he knew. Brought up as a Marxist party cadre, the politics of agitation has been the credo all along. At least he deserves credit for his willingness to sacrifice his Cabinet portfolio for what he thought was right.
However, the Government has a bigger responsibility. It had already given the UN an assurance that nothing untoward would happen, and that Minister Weerawansa's verbal threats to agitate opposite the UN compound were not the view of the Government, and security measures would be in place.
A peaceful protest, even if it was outside the UN compound, would have been in order. It was when the UN staff was threatened with bodily harm with the possibility of damage to the premises that things went too far. It embarrassed not only the Government, but the people in international eyes.
Even countries like Russia and China which form the Government's new 'international safety net’ at the UN, will find it difficult to argue this brief, especially as it concerns the life and safety of international diplomats.
The External Affairs Minister's explanations were pathetic. He first said peaceful demonstrations were permitted in Sri Lanka, then he blamed the Opposition Leader and eventually the UN Secretary General himself.
Against the backdrop of these assurances of security being vitiated, and the Minister's statement defending what happened, very soon the word of the Government of Sri Lanka will be sorely tested. What ultimate benefits will this hara-kiri journey towards ranking Sri Lanka among the outcasts of the world bring to the people?
Our Political Editor and our news pages dwell on the fallout of this major foreign policy faux pas where we seem to be motoring along from one blunder to another. Is it not the External Affairs Minister's duty to counsel the head of state on the consequences of such political grandstanding?
A quarter of a century or so ago, Foreign Minister A.C.S. Hameed told President J.R. Jayewardene that he was wrong when the British High Commissioner in Colombo protested to the President that Sri Lanka had voted against Britain in a resolution at the UN over the Falklands war and the President ordered our envoy in New York to 'correct' the vote in favour of Britain, an unusual step in UN voting procedures.
Minister Hameed argued that Sri Lanka had voted with the Non-Aligned Movement bloc. President Jayewardene told him, "We are getting the Victoria dam free from the British - what do we get from Argentina or the Non-Aligned Movement?" The President may have been right or wrong. We were lumped with about a dozen states that voted with Britain. Argentina took its revenge later, at the instigation of India to spearhead human rights allegations against Sri Lanka in Geneva, but Minister Hameed did what he had to do.
As Foreign Minister, Mangala Samaraweera wrote what was a prophetic letter to President Rajapaksa on December 13, 2006 about the EU demands. Minister Kadirgamar would often counsel President Chandrika Kumaratunga. The Foreign Minister of a country must not be a mere hurrah boy of the Palace.
It is noteworthy that the Minister of External Affairs knew nothing of the slap that was coming from the US by way of a 'caveat' on Sri Lanka's labour laws if we wanted GSP duty concessions from the US until it hit us. This, despite the Minister visiting Washington a month ago. Or did the Minister know and not forewarn the Sri Lankan public? Either way it is a horrendous lapse on his part.
The Minister also refrained from informing the Sri Lankan people that he could not convince UN Chief Ban Ki-moon not to appoint that panel of experts. Surely, the country did not expect miracles from the Minister. Geo-political factors were too compelling for the UN Chief not to appoint this panel. His own re-election bid will come up next year with his first term ending December 31, 2011 and he wouldn't want to suffer the fate of one of his predecessors Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was not re-elected for a second term because he didn't get the backing of the West.
The West can 'gang up' for its own political goals. The EU slapped labour law standards in May 2008 against El Salvador, in 2006 against Belarus and in 1997 against Myanmar. It is human rights issues that the EU has brought against Sri Lanka, and coincidentally it is the US that is now breathing down with labour law standards.
The Government may still believe that mass support against this 'foreign interference' would keep it in power and place. It should know better how fragile this support could be when people start losing their jobs and means of income, and then begin blaming the Government for mishandling everything. |
E-mail