Writing on the United Nations Security Council debate which, rather uncommonly, was thrown open to the entire membership of the world body tended to be somewhat acerbic in referring to Sri Lanka: "Even Sri Lanka, in one of those rare decisions to address the Security Council, took to the floor to welcome the Iraqi government's offer to allow UN arms inspectors into the country without any conditions.

According to correspondent Deen, Ambassador C. Mahendran, Sri Lanka's Permanent Representative to the UN, told the Council: "We hope that Iraq's decision will pave the way for the weapons inspectors to resume their work without further delay in that country towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction".

Unless Charlie Mahendran knows something that we don't know or has been lasciviously lapping up the Bush and Blair reports on all those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussain is hiding under his several beds in his numerous palaces, how does he know there are still such weapons to destroy?

If good old Charlie wants to keep it to himself and not share it with all those sceptics like Scott Ritter and others who for once believe the American intelligence community knows much more than those hot gospellers in the White House, that's fine.

After all, unlike many before him who seem to be overawed at participating in a debate or was all at sea without any guidelines from Colombo, Ambassador Mahendran made Sri Lanka's position on this sensitive issue quite clear.

Not only did we register our faith in the world body which was set up to keep peace in the world and act collectively if and when that peace was breached or threatened, but also eschewed war as an alternative to diplomacy.

Almost one month ago I asked what Sri Lanka's stand was on this crucial question, for the George W. Bush doctrine of waging unilateral- well maybe with a little help from Tony Blair- war would establish a dangerous precedent that would always be a threat to small sovereign states located near powerful neighbours or in regions dominated by paramount powers.

It was an issue on which the people had a right to know. For, if the government is to sacrifice long established principles for political expediency and abandon seeking a solution through the United Nations in favour of western war mongering, it would leave Sri Lanka and other small and medium nations wide open to the rapacity and bellicosity of big powers.

The only path open to small and medium states without the military might to stand up to powerful nations near and far, is the road to the United Nations. That is why it is necessary not only to support the world body but also buttress it by numbers when the UN is threatened by some permanent members of the Security Council.

This is why it is still important for countries such as ours to work with and through the Non Alignment Movement(NAM) and the G-77 on political and economic issues.

There will undoubtedly be some observers who will dismiss the non-alignment as an outdated movement whose rationale ceased to exist with the end of East-West confrontation and the last rites were performed on the Cold War.

It is true that the former military blocs no longer challenge each other and the ideological confrontation between capitalism and communism has ended. Ironically some of the former members of the Warsaw Pact, the communist military alliance, are now members of the western military bloc, Nato. Though the most prominent public face of non-alignment- keeping out of this global competition between East and West- has left the movement without its principal ideological base, it would be churlish to say that all its guiding principles and the basic issues raised at its birth, are equally moribund.When questioned about the threat of war over Iraq and whether Colombo would provide facilities for US forces, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe not only said it would not but also reiterated that nonalignment remained our foreign policy.

The UNP has never been particularly interested in foreign policy and so not especially concerned with nonalignment. In fact President Junius Jayewardene had a rather dim view of nonalignment, though foreign minister Shaul Hameed tried to keep it afloat by mooring Sri Lankan policy to it.It might be recalled that in 1982 the UNP took the shocking and unforgivable step of voting in support of the UK in the Falklands War when the non-aligned nations were vehemently critical of the Margaret Thatcher government. The only other country to support the UK was Oman.

Now that Sri Lanka has taken a stand in support of a United Nations role in the Iraqi issue as we had urged in our column and prime minister Wickremesinghe has stressed our continuing commitment to nonalignment, there remains the question arising from Thalif Deen's remark about our participation at the UN.

Why is Sri Lanka so reluctant to address the Security Council? Even when we had the opportunity to serve on the Council as the Asian member, the Chandrika Kumaratunga government indulged South Korea for a mess of potage.

What is the purpose in running a permanent mission at the United Nations if small countries do not make optimum use of the world body and make their voices heard. The fact that the world is dominated by a single superpower that is deluded enough to believe it has been given a mandate to run this planet, is all the more reason why other countries, especially small nations, must lend their voice to the growing collective against the new imperialism.

If silence is perceived to be golden, then it is better and cheaper to keep our permanent missionaries permanently at home, as some heads of missions also should.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

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