Shouldn’t little Lanka be proud of her conduct internationally?

This is to add a line to your Diplomatic Editor's article, which appeared in last week's The Sunday Times on the visits by Sri Lankan dignitaries to the USA for the UN General Assembly Sessions as well as for meetings with the US administration.

I agree with the writer that according to the news we see the level of appointments that had been secured do not paint the picture of a high profile visit both in New York and Washington. More so, it seems that the visit to Los Angeles could have been made as a private one with a meeting with Sri Lankans only. A leader of a country having an official programme in a provincial city does not sound good. Well, that is at least in the eyes of the common folks like us. The leader of my country paying a call on just a mayor of a city does not make me feel proud. Nevertheless, it is up to those who take decisions on what is best for the dignity and respect of our national leader.

However, as an old reader always following foreign news and news on the conduct of our foreign relations I think the last sentence of your Diplomatic Editor's report requires editing. It said that Sri Lanka is still a political nonentity. This is not befitting little Sri Lanka's prestigious record as a distinguished neutral member of the international community. From San Francisco to Ban- dung, from the Law of the Sea Conference to ICJ, from the NAM leadership at crucial times to various other multilateral fora, our contribution to the dealings of the international community exceeds our size, population and strength.

In short, Sri Lanka could take pride in the fact that despite her small size and relevant insignificance, she has continued to maintain a reasonably significant profile in her international conduct. It is sad that a paper under your editorialship said that. I trust you have a wide knowledge of international affairs. You will understand that the comment was not fair.

A.L. Perera, Mount Lavinia