Sunday Times 2
Look in the mirror Laura not over the shoulder
There was a time when diplomats posted to foreign capitals spent much time publicising their own countries. Showcasing, as it is called now, achievements at home was one of their responsibilities along with other official duties.
Today western diplomats have stood that practice on its head. They have latched on to something new. Their main task is to pass strictures on the country in which they serve.
Any occasion it appears is good enough to vent their spleen on their temporary host. Let it be “World Press Freedom Day” or some similar event that is commemorated by the UN or its affiliated agencies, by international NGOs or assorted bodies, these diplomats will seize the opportunity to criticise their hosts, directly or tangentially.
Usually they pick on small and vulnerable states and leave alone major powers because in an increasingly multipolar world the West lacks the diplomatic or economic clout to confront the big and the powerful.
Countries such as Sri Lanka provide easy pickings for British and US diplomats who find little to commend the country for and are ever ready to cast aspersions at every conceivable opportunity.
Those who have studied the diplomatic conduct — some might say machinations — of some western powers operating via their envoys in Colombo know only too well the negative and critical comments they have made publicly, particularly in the last decade or so.
What is interesting is that the chastisement of the host country is made at public events or to the media. In this way they attempt to create schisms in society, emphasising the negative in the hope that such criticism would spread disenchantment among the public where they serve.
It seems that the mantle of chief castigator of Sri Lanka once played by US ambassador Robert Blake and his German counterpart Juergen Wreeth is now worn by the British high commissioner and his staff of not too bright underlings from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Let me give an example of what I mean. After a visit to the east and the north of Sri Lanka recently, deputy high commissioner Laura Davies said in a tweet (perhaps twit might be considered more accurate in the circumstances)
“Very little has changed for the community in the Sabhapathipillai camp in the year since PM Cameron’s visit.”
Now any sensible person reading this would conclude that the British DHC had personal knowledge of the conditions in the camp since last November when David Cameron visited it.
One would assume that Davies had personally monitored the situation since then, reaching the conclusion which is contained in her tweet.
But this is terribly misleading. Laura Davies assumed duties in Colombo around August this year. Even if she had come along with Cameron it would have been a whistle stop visit during which she could hardly have made a proper assessment.
If at all she wants to make this point she should have been honest enough to have prefaced her comment with the words “I have been told” or “I understand” without misleading those who read her tweets including her colleagues, into believing that her comment is based on personal experience and knowledge.
This is not the first time that the British High Commission here has made misleading and inaccurate statements. When I was deputy high commissioner in London I had to protest to the Foreign Office about a comment made in a travel advisory alleging that military operations were going on in the north. I challenged the advisory’s use of language. After that intervention the travel advisory was amended, dropping the offending words.
One could pass off Laura Davies’s assessment as a minor infraction though one does expect some accuracy from diplomats especially when they are bent on passing public strictures.
What is more galling, however, is another observation by Laura Davies called “Looking over my shoulder” in which she complains that she was followed during her visit and she felt she was being watched alluding, one supposes, to this been the work of some State intelligence agency.
Let us assume this did happen. Why does Davies appear so shocked and even bewildered as though this is the first time she has heard of been watched or followed?
This is happening every day in her country. I am not talking of the CCTV cameras that saturate London and are continuously recording the movements of people. This not entirely a bad thing for it does help in the prevention and solving of crime.
I am referring to the privacy of the British public that is invaded each day and violated by the security services especially the Government Communications Head Quarters (GCHQ) which is authorised to “spy on the world” but does not stop at external monitoring of individuals and organisations.
Coming from a country that conspired with the National Security Agency of the US to intercept the communications and conversations of some of the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and bugged discussions Secretary-General Kofi Annan had with world leaders, it is ironic that Davies should complain like a peevish school girl.
Ms. Davies might remember that it was former international development minister Clare Short who resigned from the cabinet over Iraq and who exposed the bugging scandal telling the BBC that transcripts of private conversations Kofi Annan had in his New York office often landed on her ministerial desk.
The prime minister of the day Tony Blair refused to confirm or deny Clare Short’s accusations. He called her irresponsible. Blair, who took Britain into war after making misleading statements to parliament to win parliamentary approval for it, showed that he was privy to the bugging exercises.
In doing what British spooks did, often colluding with their US spies (read Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s memo to US diplomats), the UK and US violated three international treaties- the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations; the 1947 Head Quarters Agreement between the UN and the US and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
One of the current scandals is how the Metropolitan and regional police forces use the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which was intended to be used against terrorists and to curb terrorist acts, to indiscriminatingly and unlawfully target journalists to obtain their phone records and so reveal their confidential sources.
High Commissioner John Rankin who preaches homilies on the curtailment of press freedom in Sri Lanka and his faithful deputy remain totally mum on such violations.
Gavin Millar, QC, appearing for the Mail on Sunday, argued this was a violation of the rights of confidential sources of journalists which were enshrined under European law.
One could go on and on about the abuse of law and the dangerous treatment meted out to its own people while pro-forma sermons are delivered to us, if space permits.
Each country and each government has its warts and deficiencies and indeed violates its own laws. Sri Lanka is no exception. But Britain more than us, has a longer history of colonial exploitation and abuse of its subject people under its belt.
That is why I suppose British diplomats refrain from showcasing their achievements at home like diplomats earlier did. They are too ashamed to talk of the present in case others recall the past and dwell on the present.
Laura Davies likes to look over her shoulder not because she sees shadows behind her on the sands of Arugam Bay.
She is haunted by what she would see in the mirror. No verbal cosmetics could hide such a hoary reflection.