Untitled Document

Nothing to say, keep mum
Had it not been for my friend Professor Nihal Jayawickrama, I would have missed some amusing reading that appeared in this newspaper on April 7. On his return from Colombo, he faxed me a letter to the editor headlined "Thoughts from Colombo" by Methsiri Cooray of Colombo which was purportedly a reply to my comments two Sunday's earlier about the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) and inquiring about Sri Lanka's stand on the most critical issue at that meeting which was Zimbabwe.

My questioning arose out of some media reports appearing several days after the conference saying that Sri Lanka and India had, jointly or severally, prevented the break up of the 54-nation Commonwealth over the Zimbabwe issue. Since Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando had taken along Sri Lankan journalists - at the tax payers expense - the fundamental question I raised was why had not the local journalists - and indeed other media - splashed this Sri Lankan achievement, for achievement it was - if true.

After all if we had been instrumental in saving a 50-odd year old organisation from splitting over the controversial issue of the suspension of Zimbabwe for undemocratic behaviour of its government in the run up to the presidential elections, then it was major news and a feather in the cap of Sri Lanka. Reader Cooray says it is the privilege of a minister to take the media along. That's fine as long as there is no reciprocal obligation cast on the media to play Wagnerian spear carriers to whatever aria the minister and the country might sing, compromising the media's fundamental task of responsible and accurate reporting. My grouse was with the Sri Lankan press corps - never mind the world media - which appeared to have missed the story? If so, it was a terrible indictment on the quality of local journalism. On the other hand, if the media actually missed such a historic achievement by Sri Lanka, the Foreign Ministry would surely have issued statements trumpeting how it saved the day for the Commonwealth.

But this makes no difference to my substantive argument on Zimbabwe, CHOGM and Sri Lanka's role. Mr. Cooray, like Pontius Pilate, asks a question and supplies his own answer. In doing so, he violates a cardinal principle of journalism - he asks me to name my sources. He questions my conclusion that had Sri Lanka played such a critical role in saving the Commonwealth those who attended the conference and those who covered it would have recorded and reported it.

He contends that I had not spoken to any Sri Lankan or Third World journalist but probably someone "closer to his exiled home in the UK or from a white member of the Commonwealth who could not have been quite objective or balanced". To begin with, this is the first time I've heard that homes are exiled. Had I known this I would have applied for a visa to physically move my house from Colombo to London.

Logically then to contradict me, Mr. Cooray must have been actually participating at CHOGM with other leaders of Commonwealth countries or he has it first-hand hearsay - that is from someone who actually participated. If so, at what stage in the proceedings did Sri Lanka save the Commonwealth from this premature demise that one Sri Lanka journalist mentioned almost as an after thought? It could not have been at the plenary because Sri Lanka spoke only on the subject of terrorism. The only other occasion was the Retreat, during which the heads of government meet privately.
If Mr. Cooray has ever attended a CHOGM as I have he would have understood how the conference is structured.

Since Mr. Cooray claims that western media do not praise Third World foreign ministers, I would have expected him to bolster his vainglorious arguments with a sheaf of reports from the Third World media, which actually say what he has been at pains to establish. Can Mr. Cooray point to any official statement that proves his point? If I was so wrong why did not Mr. Cooray provide the evidence to buttress his words that "saner counsel led by Sri Lanka and India prevailed"? Because, despite all the Thoughts from Colombo, the evidence is as non-existent as his thoughts are empty.

For Mr. Cooray's edification let me quote from our own Foreign Ministry release titled "Statement on the situation in Zimbabwe" issued on 21 March after Zimbabwe was suspended and more than two weeks after CHOGM. It read: "In Coolum, Sri Lanka helped to avoid a polarisation of views and assisted in reaching the Coolum consensus on Zimbabwe". Note the words "helped" and "assisted". It does not say that Sri Lanka saved the Commonwealth from breaking up. It does not say that Colombo played a lead role in reaching the consensus. The Foreign Ministry statement is a measured, carefully worded one, not overplaying Sri Lanka's role but saying it helped in reaching the consensus.

That is precisely why my sources had not heard that we had stood at Coolum like Horatius across the Tiber slaying all those who wanted to split the organisation, as belated Sri Lankan media reports tried to make out.

Back to Columns