From the news reports appearing in the media, Dr. Senaratne seems to have concluded that this was as a result of a failure or breakdown in information policy.
Since I commented on this last Sunday, I was informed by some London residents that Minister Senaratne had been questioned by a number of Sri Lankans who he met during a visit to the Thames Buddhist Vihare.

Some of them had been critical of the MoU and the on-going peace process and this criticism had possibly led to the conclusion that misinformation or lack of information was at the heart of these comments. If that is so, to misconstrue genuine criticism-however unjustified it may appear to be-for lack of information and then try to formulate information policy on this basis is to confuse information with propaganda.

If those who criticised the government's decision to enter into a dialogue with the LTTE via the MoU were in error with regard to the facts, then certainly there is a need to draw attention to the facts. But if it is the interpretation of the facts that had got the good doctor hot under the collar, then one needs to tread carefully and ask several questions before rushing into smother people under mounds of information.

Among the basic questions that need to be asked is what would be the target audience; is it people living abroad or Sri Lankans at home? What is the vehicle through which this information will be disseminated? Is it the Mass Communication Ministry, the Foreign Ministry or some other medium? Is the message going to be the same for all, or will it be tailored to suit the audience it is aimed at?

Since Dr. Senaratne's current concern is apparently Sri Lankans abroad and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe has asked Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando to do something to rectify it, we wouldn't be far wrong in assuming that before long those living abroad will be 'educated' to their gills.

The previous government under President Chandrika Kumaratunga realised far too late that doctored news and information very often rebounds on those who try to spin too much. The censorship that the then government imposed on the news media and tried to alter the complexion of the news by using the blue pencil- or whatever weapon the so-called competent authorities wielded- ultimately backfired on the government.
Because the government tied itself up in knots with a censorship that took hours if not days to administer, the other side-in this case the LTTE- was able to tell their story and get publicity for it abroad before the government even woke up to the fact.
Even 30 years ago, when we did not have internet, mobile and satellite phones, journalists were still beating censorship. At a lunch hosted by a senior Sri Lankan diplomat during a visit I made to Cairo in 1970, the UPI correspondent excused himself during the main dish saying he had a flight to catch to Beirut.

Thinking that an important story was about to break I asked a prominent Egyptian journalist what the hurry was. He said the UPI man was flying to Beirut to file his story because of the censorship.He said most foreign correspondents would go across to Lebanon and file their stories there, thus evading the censorship.

The news story two Sundays ago that recalled Dr. Senaratne's experience, said that the Foreign Minister would shortly revamp the publicity divisions of all Sri Lankan foreign missions to bring the government's message home.

There was always a need to improve the quality of the information side of the foreign ministry, especially in some of the key missions abroad. What they lacked were communication specialists who understood the audience they had to cater to, the nature of the media in the host country and had good personal contacts with journalists, policy makers and those in institutions that influenced policy.

There needs to be constant interaction with persons in such positions. It is churlish to think that if you invite a journalist or an academic for a few beers followed by buth and chicken curry, they are going to be eternally grateful to Sri Lanka and always fly the Lion flag.

It would be short sighted to think that your external information policy should be tailored to serve your expatriates. To begin with they have sufficient sources of information today to know what is going on in Sri Lanka if they really wished to.
These sources would provide information much faster than the foreign ministry could send to the missions abroad and they could then inform the Sri Lankan community.
Moreover how is a mission to inform the Sri Lankan community in a country such as the UK where there are so many of them and scattered throughout the British Isles.
The only way to do so would be via a website. But every Sri Lankan mission cannot be expected to have its own website and to update the news like a media organisation which is manned much of the day and night.

To reach those people in protocol-conscious countries one needs to carry rank and an intellectual capacity that it will make meetings with them worthwhile for those they meet. It is hardly possible for a second secretary in a big capital to meet the foreign editor of a major newspaper or TV network. At such levels they are good for regular assignments or do the leg work for a proficient senior.

It is for the foreign ministry to feed the news to the missions abroad. Not send scraps of information or press releases which do not reach beyond the waste baskets of foreign editors. Most of all media releases must not only tell the news but not stray beyond accepted diplomatic practice and protocol. If proof of deviation from such basic norms is necessary then let me refer readers to a Media Release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on April 19.

It referred to Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando summoning to the ministry, the Russian Charge d'Affaires in Colombo to complain about physical attacks on some Sri Lankans in Moscow and to call for greater security for them. Seasoned diplomats or observers of the diplomatic scene might ask whether the Russian envoy should have been summoned or whether the point could have been otherwise made. That is not the point I wish to make. It was quite proper for the ministry to have issued a media release.

But the sting was in the tail. Talking about the attacks, the release went on to say: "According to these reports the Zimbabwe ambassador and the wife of the South African ambassador had also been attacked by these gangs". These references to the attacks on citizens of other countries-in this instance persons of high diplomatic rank- should surely have been avoided in a release by the foreign ministry.

Did the foreign ministry or whoever wrote this media release consult Harare and Pretoria to ascertain whether they had any objection to being mentioned in a Sri Lankan press release? If not on what basis did the foreign ministry refer to the attacks on the others. Did Colombo consider the fact that Zimbabwe and South Africa may not have wanted any publicity given to these incidents.

All this background might have been all right to pad up a newspaper story. But it is hardly the material of a foreign ministry release. If this is the kind of information that is going to fill the information lacuna of the Sri Lankan communities abroad or gaps in the knowledge of the foreign media, then it is better to do without it.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster