For the right reasons or otherwise, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has dominated the news at home for some time now. This week, he succeeded in doing so abroad as well.
His 'private' visit to the United Kingdom was enveloped in controversy from the beginning. What seemed like a 'burning desire' to address the Oxford Union, one of the world's oldest debating societies, established in 1823, eventually took its toll. Sri Lankan leaders have considered speaking in its hallowed halls next only to addressing the UN General Assembly, even if the allure of addressing it is different from participating in its more famous and interesting evening debates.
First, there was the circulation of a wild rumour that the President would be arrested for alleged 'war crimes' following an application to the British courts by the Sri Lankan (Tamil) Diaspora. It was as if it was a fait accompli that the British courts would issue such an arrest warrant. The argument that any Head of State is afforded protection by way of 'sovereign immunity' under international law was disregarded.
Some years ago this would have been of no concern because a Foreign Minister like Lakshman Kadirgamar had, using his contacts from his Oxford days, regularly briefed senior British law lords, judges and Queen's Counsel privately on the situation in Sri Lanka. They, in turn, would have been prepared when pro-terror groups attempted to misuse the law. That kind of briefing is non-existent now.
Even more significant than the perceived threat of an imminent arrest was the clear signal the new British Government gave External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris in October that President Rajapaksa was unwelcome in Britain at this time. Minister Peiris failed to obtain any appointments with the British Establishment for his President. The Brits made sure the Sri Lankan President was not going to make an official visit to the country.
Then, the Minister was lectured to by his counterpart William Hague, and later, the British Prime Minister told the House of Commons there was no change in British foreign policy towards Sri Lanka despite a change of Government from Labour to the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition, i.e. that Britain is still insistent on a probe on the Sri Lankan Armed Forces'conduct in the last days of the 'war on terror' in the north-east of Sri Lanka in 2009, and the need for political devolution in its former colony.
'Wikileaks' did not have to tell us that these demands were the result of Britain's own domestic political compulsions with more and more Lankans, mostly Tamils, now becoming British voters.
More was to follow. The British Government was reluctant to provide VVIP protection because President Rajapaksa's visit then took the nature of a private visit. Mind you, it was not even to be classified a 'semi-official' visit. Grudgingly, the British Government agreed to provide only "appropriate diplomatic security". British Defence Secretary Liam Fox, a friend of Sri Lanka, was, therefore, forced to agree to meet President Rajapaksa only "in his private capacity", not as Defence Secretary of B ritain.
These were signals the diplomatic circuit ought to have recognized as diplomatic speak to tell the Sri Lankan President not to come.
There was also the muddied background of President Rajapaksa's Government refusing to permit David Browne, the special all-party envoy of the British Parliament to visit Sri Lanka in the immediate aftermath of the crushing of the LTTE and the hostile reception given to the then British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, when he visited Sri Lanka. Anti-Britain demonstrations were permitted within the High Security Zone near 'Temple Trees' while protesting university students on the other hand were given the police treatment when they dared to enter.
In these circumstances, the Ministry of External Affairs deserves the condemnation of all Sri Lankans for its inability to analyse the situation and forewarn the President of the impending dangers of a snub-in-waiting. There are reports that the Sri Lanka High Commission at least suggested a postponement. Whether the President wanted to go against advice is not known, but by all accounts, he seems to have swallowed a dead-rope given by his over-enthusiastic fan club of politicians, officials and hangers-on -- and Bell Pottinger the foreign PR firm hired at the cost of Sri Lankan tax payers.
The President's visit unnecessarily stoked the dying embers of a fire; it gave oxygen to the anti-Sri Lanka Diaspora. It also gave a handle to the Brits to get pay-back time for the ignominy heaped upon them over the past year and a half. They hit back earlier through the suspension of the GSP+ facility to Sri Lanka by ganging up with other European nations, and now, when the President was adamant that he should go ahead with the visit, he was suckered into a seeming trap.
The separate statements from the Oxford Union Press Officer (where is the President of the Union?) and the British High Commission in Colombo explaining what happened were a pathetic display of the deterioration of British drafting since they lost their Empire. Only a fortnight ago, the Queen was asked to place her signature to a congratulatory message to President Rajapaksa on his re-election (in January) but sent for his inauguration (in November).
The Oxford Union statement refers to the cancellation of the Sri Lankan President's address scheduled for last Thursday "due to the sheer scale of the expected protests". This is a terrible indictment on the British Police. In the US, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, arguably their worst enemy, was afforded enough security to enable him to address Columbia University students, but the British Police could not prevent a group of demonstrators coming to Oxford in freezing weather conditions. The High Commission, on the other hand, makes the astounding statement that the matter was for the Oxford Union and the Police, as if the British Police was an autonomous body like the Union.
That the snub was orchestrated by the British Establishment itself is obvious. The principles of democracy and free speech were sacrificed at the altar of political expediency. The fact that an extended version of the same (questionable) video depicting the Sri Lankan Security Forces allegedly shooting "Tamils", was released to and shown on a British 'independent' TV channel to coincide with the President's visit is no coincidence.
These are called "inspired leaks" in the media. That the British Establishment chose to ignore their own anti-terrorism law of 2000 which banned the LTTE and permitted demonstrators to carry their flag (an offence under section 13 (1) (b) of the 2000 proscription of the LTTE) and wave those flags under the noses of the British Bobbies is no accident. Neither is the fear of Moses that was put into the Oxford Union officials by the Police of a purported "sheer scale of the expected protests". By Gad Sir, not done, what.
British drafting may have lost its edge, but not its cunning. Yet, if the President wishes to take advice from political and diplomatic neophytes on the basis of some sense of misplaced loyalty and those who do not offer proper counsel, then there is little that can be done; but he must accept the consequences of his actions and know that it was not only he who ended with egg-on-face, but his countryfolk too faced some embarrassment in the process. |
E-mail