Sunday Times 2
Dilemmas of our foreign service in achieving national consensus on foreign policy
The thrust and parry of party politics after the recent local government election has to be seen in the background of the larger issues such as rising nationalism in the country and the impact of social media in spreading related violence. Apart from the loss of tourist income, has anyone taken note of the damage to the country’s image abroad at a time when Sri Lanka’s human rights record is in focus in Geneva? This article reiterates the need to have a national consensus on foreign policy, which is the face Sri Lanka presents to the world. From my days in Geneva I remember the confusion in the International Parliamentary Union (IPU) and other human rights forums when from time to time depending on the changes of government, MP’s now in opposition would come to complain of government behaviour although earlier they had been in government and were then defending government actions!
President Sirimavo Bandaranaike chaired the 86 member Non Aligned Movement in 1976. Pic Sirimavo Bandaranaike.org.
A key to presenting a coherent face to the world is the appreciation of the role played by the foreign service. However, recently a few articles have appeared in the newspapers critical of our diplomatic service and even government leaders at public meetings have voiced similar concerns. So where are these complaints coming from? Why is there such a difference in the manner in which the professionals were recognised and valued by the political leadership as in the era of the Bandaranaikes and why such scepticism now?
One response is that in the old days there were banners like non-alignment around which all parties could gather, enabling the forging of a broadly bipartisan foreign policy world view. This included standard positions such as friendship with all nations, Afro-Asian solidarity, non- participation in foreign military pacts, non-stationing of foreign military bases etc. Standing up for Vietnam in its conflict years or Japan in the post-war era, or China in the early years even in the face of defying the reigning superpowers of the time, brought Sri Lanka long term rewards and the reputation of a reliable friend. Today in the absence of a bipartisan consensus on policy directions, there is a real risk of divergent foreign policy approaches with changes of government testing these early credentials. Traditional instruments exist for such discussions like a draft White Paper prepared by the foreign ministry outlining future challenges and options which could be debated in Parliament and open to public scrutiny. Without an overall policy framework, scattered projects emerge like to define the “rules of the road” for the Indian Ocean. Should not the policy come first, and the projects emerge thereafter? For example, Sri Lanka has yet to see a policy framework for the Blue Economy which has become a catch-phrase in political speeches.
There is another problem in the lack of recognition of the value of the foreign service. Criticism of the foreign service could be inspired by “wannabees” or those aspiring for mission assignments who feel they could do a better job than the professionals. But the question is whether these aspirants could for example succeed at the highly competitive examination that guards the entry gate to the professional foreign service? Shouldn’t there be standards for lateral entry, which should be applicable to all? Compare how standard setting has increased with time within the foreign service, confirmation depending on achieving a higher education degree, proficiency in all the official languages and an assigned foreign language.
Entry to the foreign service is a keenly watched process which should result in the selection of the best candidates allowing for political factors such as the balance of ethnicity, regional distribution, and gender. Comprehensive training is not an issue given the ministry now controls two excellent training and research bodies in the Bandaranaike International Development Training Institute (BIDTI) and LKI while foreign offers abound. Among the difficulties today in getting the optimal use of the professionals is the huge workload that has arisen following the end of the armed conflict. New recruits have to be quickly mobilised to action even without adequate training due to the pressures of economic intelligence gathering, servicing of high level delegations, drafting of agreements etc. Opening and closing of new missions is another area which requires bipartisan consensus since any disruptions can only impact negatively on the country’s reputation.
Moreover, diplomacy is conducted now in the public eye, with public communications and protocol, being the frontline test of the ministry’s capabilities. Yet, traditionally the foreign service is a silent service, not given to recording their achievements, hence it takes courage for officers serving in these spots as outsiders are quick to criticise. The ministry has to make a conscious effort to highlight the achievements of its officers like for example in obtaining the EU GSP plus, rescue operations in war zones like Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, and persuading the EU to ban the LTTE.
Yet it is true that there is much dissatisfaction within the foreign service as there is criticism from outside. Talented young officers seem to be finding better opportunities elsewhere and leaving for international careers and academia. In the past, there was always a way found for such officers to go on secondment and return to the service later bringing back valuable experience gained but this practice no longer seems to operate except for political favourites. A transparent system needs to be put in place not just use of the cover of “exigencies of service” to block able officers seeking outside opportunities. For this to happen, recruitment needs to be expedited and cadre increased at the top where there is currently frustration due to the increase in non-career appointments now topping an all time high of over 60%.
This writer recognises that political appointees with national credentials can render outstanding diplomatic service, a characteristic being that these persons never sang their own praises, like G.P. Malalasekera or Mangala Moonesinghe. Two examples from the military are Srilal Weerasooriya whose friendship with Pakistan’s leader at the time brought quick help to the country at a crucial time and Anton Muttucumaru whose political reports from Egypt contained astute analysis. A close relationship with political leaders at home can bring positive results for the country like the entrusting of key UN negotiations to Shirley Amerasinghe and Neville Kanakeratne both of whom enjoyed the confidence of Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike – but both ambassadors faced the perils of changes of government and unpleasant challenges later. It is a lesson for our young diplomats too that they need to cultivate resilience in the face of the ever-changing political scenario in this country, keep their heads when dealing with the insider back-biting and poison pen letters which are rooted in our island society.
This article concludes by reiterating that the need of the hour is for the foreign ministry to push for a consensual foreign policy. We have already seen how accountability, devolution, ethnic issues and human rights which are essentially local competencies, have become adversarial foreign relations issues in the absence of domestic consensus. A strong professional foreign secretary, as there is now, could take the lead in persuading the political leaders that relations with India, China, Japan, the US and EU for example, should have bipartisan support with public transparency especially on environmental impacts, to avoid the controversies that are presently dogging huge projects like the Port City, Hambantota port and Trincomalee tank farm expansion. Moreover, a strong bipartisan platform is indispensable to handle the challenges of complex trans-continental enterprises like the Chinese Belt Road Initiative.
In this era of domestic political confusion, it is all the more important to keep our foreign policy stable and maintain our reputation as a reliable friend. Otherwise, some already see signs of big powers cultivating one or the other of the two major political parties, which rivalry will be to our cost.
(The writer is a retired Foreign Service diplomat.)