Sunday Times 2
Stripping ourselves of long-held principles
Recent reports said one of Sri Lanka’s foremost diplomats of yesteryear and an Under Secretary-General of the United Nations, Jayantha Dhanapala, has been conferred the prestigious 2014 International Achievement Award for Nuclear Disarmament.
The international community has recognised Dhanapala’s indefatigable work over the years, especially during his tenure as under secretary-general for disarmament, to rid the world of nuclear and other dangerous weapons with an award previously conferred on two former heads of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros Ghali and Kofi Annan.
A rally in support of nuclear disarmament in London. Pic courtesy Guardian, UK
One would have expected Sri Lanka to take pride in Dhanapala’s achievement not simply because he is this year’s recipient but because the world has recognised that he has articulated with panache what has been, and should still be, an important plank of Sri Lankan foreign policy.
As a founder-member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the start of the 1960s Sri Lanka has stood steadfastly for world disarmament and advocated it vigorously on the international stage.
Space does not permit quoting NAM summit declarations on this. Suffice it to state that disarmament, especially by nuclear weapons states, has been a cardinal principle of the movement.
This was reiterated by the spokesman for NAM Indonesian Ambassador Dr. Desra Percaya this year too at the UNGA’s First Committee debate, where he reaffirmed NAM’s “principled position on nuclear disarmament, which remains its highest priority and on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects.”
Over the years Sri Lanka has stood by this NAM policy and has on several occasions articulated this quite eloquently at disarmament conferences.
It will be recalled that at the 1971 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Singapore, Sri Lanka presented a paper calling for the Indian Ocean to be declared a zone of peace.
This was followed up at the UN General Assembly in October 1971 when then Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike formally moved a resolution on declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace which was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly.
An important aspect of that proposal was that major world powers, especially nuclear weapons states, should stay out of the Indian Ocean and not bring superpower rivalry to the region.
While that proposal might have proved impractical especially in the light of resistance from the US which feared the intrusion of the Soviet Union into the region, Sri Lanka had a forward-looking foreign policy which was in consonance with the aspirations and policies of much of the emerging states of the global south as well as leading members of NAM such as Yugoslavia, Egypt and Cuba.
Sri Lanka was able to take such initiatives because there were strategic thinkers and analysts in and outside the foreign ministry who took the formulation of foreign policy seriously.
Shortly before Dhanapala’s award was reported, the Friday Forum of which he is a prominent figure, said in a statement that while previous Sri Lanka governments signed and ratified several treaties relating to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and their placement in outer space or the seabed, the current administration is “inexplicably” holding back the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Interestingly Sri Lanka signed the CTBT on 14th October 1996 shortly after it came up for signature. In the intervening 18 years Sri Lanka which had hitherto championed the cause of nuclear disarmament as well as the abolition of weapons of mass destruction, appear to have been numbed into inaction.
All these years we have not had any explanation from the government or the relevant ministry why a long-held policy appears to have been abandoned. If not abandoned, is amnesia the cause? Or could it be simple nonchalance.
Whatever the reason, an explanation is surely called for, especially in the light of another remark by the Friday Forum. It said that Sri Lanka failed to sign a joint statement by 155 states led by New Zealand on the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use” presented to the First Committee.
Reporting this, the Sunday Times quoted an “authoritative source” as saying that our permanent mission in New York had not brought to the notice of the External Affairs Ministry (EAM) that such a statement was being presented.
If the issue of ratification of the CTBT has been kicked into the long grass, the issue of the joint statement has been kicked all the way to New York which has acquired some notoriety recently.
Should we categorise this episode as tragedy or farce? The comment of the “authoritative source” suggests the fault is entirely that of the New York Mission.
Even if true, the explanation smacks of buck passing. The Forum pointed out that a similar joint statement was presented last year too with 125 member states signing it. Then too Sri Lanka had not signed it. Does that mean that in 2013 also our PR New York had failed to inform the EAM? Did the EAM then query about the lapse?
To say that Sri Lanka was not lobbied or approached by anyone is surely a ludicrous defence. If we missed out last year then it is all the more reason to be alert this year. One does not have to be a diplomatic Metternich to have taken the obvious step of sounding out foreign missions in Colombo or ask our missions abroad to contact last year’s signatories to ascertain whether a similar statement was expected this year.
It should not have been left to New York alone. Proactive diplomacy requires that an effort is made to find out. Surely our Canberra high commission could have been tasked to ask New Zealand which had taken the lead in presenting this joint statement? This is not some great secret to be kept under wraps
There are several questions to which answers are needed. Had we known about it would we have signed it? Why did New Zealand not approach us if it had approached 155 other member states? Is it because we had shown no interest in it last year and that is the reason we were not lobbied this time round?
So, on the one hand we have one of our own being internationally recognised for the excellent work he has done for the cause of disarmament and humanity.
On the other hand there is a government that appears to have removed disarmament from its foreign policy text. Why?