Sunday Times 2
Diplomacy sans foreign policy and diplomats
Perhaps, the need for effective diplomacy has never been felt before by Sri Lanka as of today.
There are three crucial challenges: Human rights allegations made at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council; a strategic policy to meet calls of world powers and those in the region in their quests in Indian Ocean and the soaring debt crisis.
At Geneva, it appears that the Sri Lanka delegation has not been able to even make a dent on the biased report of the UNHRC chief Michelle Bachelet, despite claims that it is biased and is based not on real evidence but hearsay. The intransigent ‘core group’ comprising western nations and their subservient allies led by Britain have adopted Bachelet’s statement en masse and would be the main resolution presented against this country. Sri Lanka’s attempt this year, lacking evidence to quash allegations or provide diplomatic alternatives and lacking sufficient supporters in the council, has been like the Charge of the Light Brigade through enemy ranks.
In the words of Lord Tennyson;
Theirs is not to reason why
Theirs but to do and die
Could our delegation lacking diplomats of international stature or an acceptable coherent strategy be blamed?
The issue has dragged on for well over a decade but has Sri Lanka had a consistent policy on allegations made, through periods of successive governments?
The origin of this rot goes right back to 1983 when anti-Tamil riots broke out and Tamils fled the country by their thousands to the West and to India.
Our neighbour who built up a disorganised band of racist rebels into a formidable separatist terrorist fighting force, prevented their elimination by the Sri Lankan forces in 1987 with an invasion by a ‘Peace Keeping Force’. Our ‘friendly’ neighbour should be held answerable to our status quo at Geneva.
Furthermore, New Delhi, for many years, has led the diplomatic offensive together with the Tamil Diaspora against Sri Lanka, having it condemned in international fora for human rights violations. Today, the Tamil Diaspora has control of both major political parties in Britain and indications are that they will swing the new Biden Administration of the United States too against Lanka.
But what action did successive governments in power after 1983 take to salvage our image as a democratic peace-loving nation? The instrument that should have been deployed is diplomacy through our Foreign Ministry.
Instead, the Foreign Ministry was abused as an instrument for parochial matters — collection of funds for leaders in power and their party by appointments of businessmen who did not have the foggiest notion about foreign relations but boosted their egos strutting about as ambassadors. Real estate dealers, dubious business dealers formed a significant part of our diplomatic corps while professional diplomats took a back seat. Then came the sons and daughters of politicians without even basic qualifications who wanted to be ‘diplomats’ in our embassies in Western capitals. The behaviour and political record of their fathers, their educational qualifications and unsavoury reputations should per se have been factors for disqualification of the progeny but we are told that this practice is not yet eliminated.
Political stooging with dependable loyalty to those who matter are prime qualifications in today’s politics.
The only time where professionalism came into play was under Chandrika Bandaranaike with Lakshman Kadirgamar as foreign minister. Kadirgamar set about building a professional diplomatic cadre by recruiting qualified young professionals with knowledge of foreign languages and an aptitude for foreign affairs. But the unfortunate demise of Lakshman Kadirgamar ended all that.
To meet the tremendous international challenges that crop up before a nation, a foreign service obviously cannot be built in a year or two. It takes decades and is built up around legendary diplomats.
An outstanding example of that is the Soviet Union’s legendary diplomat Andrei Gromyko who became the foreign minister in 1957 and retired in 1988 as Chairman of the Presidium of the Soviet Union in 1988.
From the 1980s till recent times, Sri Lanka has had many retired internationally recognised diplomats who could have been made use of but the accent was on ‘this way that way brokers’ and real estate dealers. Should these ‘moneybags’ and the progeny of political stooges continue to be the backbone of Sri Lankan diplomacy?
(The writer is a former editor of The Sunday Island, The Island and a former consultant editor
of the Sunday Leader)