inside the glass house

Small states' diplomatic slumber at UN
NEW YORK-- According to UN political folklore, the national identity of a diplomat can be deduced by how he reacts when introduced to an attractive woman either at a cocktail party or at the delegate's lounge.

The Britisher, apparently prim and proper in his mannerisms, would courteously strike up a serious conversation about the state of the world. The Frenchman would gently touch the woman's hand and gallantly plant a kiss on the back of her palm. The American would cut to the chase -- and in double-quick time, ask the woman for a dinner date.

And the Sri Lankan diplomat -- very much like his Soviet counterpart in the Cold War era -- would race to his office and cable his foreign ministry for instructions. But with a 10-hour time difference between Colombo and New York, what happens if the foreign secretary is fast asleep or the Foreign Ministry has pulled down its shutters for the day?

Faced with politically sensitive issues, most delegates who want to remain non-committal on a crucial UN vote come up with a standard excuse: "We are awaiting instructions from our capital."

Those instructions invariably do not arrive probably because they are transmitted by pigeon carriers in a world of hi-tech diplomacy. Or so one has to assume. The excuse for backing out of a vote or for abstaining on a vote is usually a cop-out by a country unwilling, in most cases, to displease a big power on whom it is dependent for economic or military aid -- or both.

When the late S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike attended his first General Assembly sessions in November 1956, in his capacity as prime minister, there were no lingering doubts about his credentials as head of government.

In a forthright speech to the Assembly, he dwelled not on domestic politics, but on matters that concern the world at large, primarily because the country was at peace. The two global issues he touched upon were hot political issues at that time: the Soviet invasion of Hungary and the nationalisation of the Suez Canal which prompted Israel, Britain and France to send troops into Egyptian territory.

The crisis was reminiscent of today's US military occupation of Iraq. Only the heroes and villains are different. Paradoxically, France is one of the few countries in the world which wants to dilute the US occupation of Iraq: a contention that has infuriated the Americans.

The Iraqis, who welcome the ouster of President Saddam Hussein, have complained that the current military occupation smacks of neo-colonialism -- and they want the Americans out.

In his speech to the Assembly, SWRD made the identical charge against the Soviet Union, Israel, Britain and France. "We of Asia who have suffered under imperialistic colonial rule for many centuries are, naturally, extremely sensitive toward anything approaching a resurgence of the spirit of imperialism and colonialism," he said.

"I hope we are wrong, but we feel strongly that the happenings in Egypt, and perhaps the echo of those happenings in Hungary, are a manifestation once again of a certain resurgence of the spirit of colonialism, the desire of a strong power to achieve its purpose and to impose its will, even by force, on a weaker power."

While calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops both from Hungary and Egypt, SWRD admitted the limitations of a small nation state which he was proud to represent.
"My country is a small one, a weak one and a poor one," he said, "but I venture to think that today, particularly in an organisation such as this, the service that a country can render -- that a member can render -- is not to be measured alone by the size of the country, its population, its power or its strength."

"This is an organisation which expresses itself most effectively by bringing to bear a certain moral force -- the collective moral force and decency of human beings," he told delegates.

But still, SWRD did plea a cop-out when he said that Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) had to abstain on a resolution condemning the Soviet invasion of Hungary because his Foreign Ministry officials were asleep at home at voting time at the UN.

The resolution, he said, was sent from the Security Council to the General Assembly in such a "desperate hurry" that "some of us had no opportunity to bring our minds to bear on the problem or even to send instructions to our representatives here as to how they were to vote."

"I was fast asleep in Colombo when an urgent cablegram from our Permanent Representative here was received by the Permanent Secretary, asking for instructions as a vote was going to be taken."

"I had not all the facts or data before me. I could not even get my office open in order to get such papers as were available there at that hour of the night. We are rather respectable in Colombo. We go to bed fairly early and we remain there till morning. What could I do," he asked.

In an age without cellphones and with hardly any night life in Colombo, what really could have happened under the circumstances. "We abstained from voting. That is how that abstention came about," he pleaded before the General Assembly.

Back to Columns