Thoughts from London

Diplomats, diplomutts and court jesters
Fellow columnist Thalif Deen writing from his vantage point in New York's glass house mentioned last Sunday the gaffes of some of our diplomats and political hangers-on who have transformed our missions into off-shore job agencies.

Thalif Deen's pot shots were indeed a necessary reminder to governments to treat foreign policy-making and diplomacy seriously and not degrade our missions abroad into dumping grounds for political has-beens and mediocrities. His remarks are all the more important because with a change of government in Colombo, the lobbying and canvassing for diplomatic appointments, employing every ruse and every connection, have got into top gear.

From the pathetically unsuitable to the obviously incompetent, all enter the race for diplomatic jobs claiming to have supposedly helped in various, and often dubious, ways, the new party/parties in power.

If the present government falls for all the mythical stories related by those who have suddenly emerged from the woodwork, it would go the same way as its predecessor.

Some of the appointments made to our missions in the past two years by the UNF government show a crass disregard for the basic tenets of diplomacy and the image created of our country. The former foreign minister Tyronne Fernando's choice of words recently in attacking his own political party and its leader appears to be as impetuous as his choice of personnel to man our diplomatic missions at various levels was pernicious.

Still, some of the appointments as head of mission are indefensible and could not have been made by Mr. Fernando alone. It is more likely they were foisted on him by party leaders. Whoever was responsible for such foul deeds, the result is that Sri Lanka became a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. This blatant use of public funds to plant kith and kin of politicians and decrepit party faithfuls of yesteryear, to represent this country diplomatically in a fast changing world was, to say the least, reprehensible.

When did Sri Lanka ever have two deputy high commissioners in a single mission? One can understand if they were sent to a capital that was important to us. But to send two persons, one a retired surveyor and another an ex-politician to Canberra, was the height of lunacy. Even if the two were not later designated as deputy high commissioners, this additional appointment was surely not in the cadre.

Even more ridiculous was appointing a politician's mother-in-law to head a mission when she had no justifiable credentials for the job. This is not to say that political appointments per se are bad. Most countries do make such appointments. But then most often they select capable individuals, some with impeccable credentials who have the capacity to undertake the task of diplomatic representation with the seriousness and perspicacity it requires.

Not all political appointments are bad, just as not all career diplomats are good. The obviously bad political appointments are those that are given to individuals for services rendered even when those individuals have neither the intellectual capacity nor the necessary background and skills to carry out the task expected of them, thus becoming a burden on the career diplomats.

There are also political appointments that have a bipartisan acceptance. Mangala Moonesinghe who was appointed as High Commissioner to New Delhi by Chandrika Kumaratunga's PA government of 1994 and was kept on by Ranil Wickremesinghe's successor administration is an example. He was believed to have been successful in New Delhi and was reassigned to India after a short stay in London.

Reports from Colombo speak of frenetic activity as government leaders and influential party supporters and donors to party funds are lobbied for top diplomatic appointments in capitals where non-career diplomats and noted political appointees serve.

London is no exception.The stories doing the rounds about the lobbying for the High Commissioner's job here is hilarious, if not farcical. Two persons at least-one a woman- are moving desperately to get the top job here. Soliciting seems to come naturally to them, according to emails circulating. They are trying to oust a very senior and distinguished lawyer.

One of the hopefuls had apparently made noises about the new job even before the elections. The other was spotted in Colombo last week trying to make ministerial contacts.

Well, well. Somebody should inform them that the Court of St James is far removed from a magistrate or district court in Sri Lanka. To have such unknowns in a critical capital is to court disaster. Unfortunately journalists also add to the confusion in the aftermath of an election when jockeying for ambassadorial and other diplomatic positions reaches a frenzy with contenders resorting to the national past time of throat-cutting and back-stabbing.

So interested parties, including those in the foreign service nurturing one grouse or another, use the media in the hope that this would influence the selection process.

One recent news report in a Colombo paper was particularly interesting because of the penultimate sentence. Having said that among those who are to be recalled are our representatives in Canberra, Sydney, Indonesia, the UK, Netherlands, Russia and the Philippines it adds: "However Devinda Subasinghe is likely to be retained in Washington. Diplomatic sources commented that he was thought to have performed his task well, despite being a political appointee."

The "diplomatic sources" remain anonymous. Whoever they are they have not been diplomatic and should be sent to the back of the class or wherever they came from. There is a dangerous implication.

It means that others who are purportedly being recalled have not "performed" their tasks well. That is surely an insult to every single head of mission from the places mentioned and raises the question whether the unnamed diplomatic sources were privy to the work of all the missions. If it is not a bluff the sources could be easily identified as less than a handful would have access to all the information that makes such an evaluation possible.

That is not all. He is said to have performed well "despite being a political appointee," implying that no political appointee is capable of performing his task well. So what is this great job that our man in Washington is supposed to have done so well?

In fact he performed so well that Sri Lanka was on the side of the US in its illegal war against Iraq. This might have been inadvertent due to grammatical ignorance, but the public perception was that Sri Lanka had become a lackey of the US.

There was no grammatical mistake in Ravi Karunanayake's speech at the WTO meeting in Cancun where he clearly sided with Washington against the developing world.

This perceptible pro-Washington stance was not lost on the Sri Lankan voters including the Muslim community and those who opposed the Iraq war.

Back to Columns