From bluster to more bluff and blunder

By Neville de Silva

The letter from the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London in response to my comments last Sunday is intriguing, to say the least.

My column referred to what I considered the indiscretions and lapses by the Foreign Ministry under the current incumbents. I would have expected the foreign ministry in Colombo to write to the editor of this paper published in Colombo. After all, it concerned ministry panjandrums. Apparently, the Foreign Ministry does not believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. So the response comes all the way from our High Commission in London to Colombo.

This, I suppose, is a result of too much air travel in which the minister and his ministry secretary increasingly indulge in, even issuing statements from abroad. My own experience in interacting with diplomats and diplomatic missions in nearly 50 years including my university days, tells me that most often missions abroad do not reply to the media on matters concerning policy without reference to the ministries in their respective capitals.Certainly no Sri Lankan diplomat would, the exception would probably be ambassador Shirley Amerasinghe who had little respect for some of our politicians and officials. But no Sri Lankan diplomat today would do so without reference to the capital unless it was on some largely parochial issue. This letter therefore surely had at least the concurrence of the Foreign Ministry, if it did not initiate it.

I suppose the only tenuous justification for the high commissioner to write this is that I referred to a Commonwealth body and I mentioned a London press conference. But the High Commissioner's letter makes references to "SAARC, ASEAN Regional Forum, IISS Asia-Pacific Security Summit, Asian Cooperation Dialogue etc" all of which she could not have participated in and was probably made aware of, as it is certainly outside her remit. Then curiously the letter adds, "Even in the context of the Commonwealth……." Why "even"? It seems like an afterthought. Surely, if London is replying then the London-based Commonwealth should have figured prominently because that is what the London mission is best suited to talk about. If the justification is tenuous, the reply is a combination of irrelevance, casuistry and obfuscation. It states that I have "erroneously tried to portray that Sri Lanka has not been active in promoting initiatives on counter-terrorism through the Commonwealth and that it has failed to raise its voice at the CCT."

There is a legal dictum that those who come for equity must come with clean hands. Likewise, those who accuse others of being in error should desist from errors themselves. Nowhere in my column do I say that Sri Lanka has not been active in raising the issue of terrorism in the Commonwealth. Rather, news reports and columns I have previously written give the lie to that. Space does not allow me to quote them. But anybody who wishes to check the Sunday Times archives will find them on 23/9/2001, 30/9/2001 and again on 4/11/2001 in which I have mentioned the CCT, its composition, how UK and later Australia helped by Canada tried to downgrade it to officials level and how the Secretary-General rejected it. One also refers to the role played by Sri Lanka in trying to have terrorism very much on the Commonwealth agenda.

I made no comment on the Commonwealth in general though the letter accuses me of doing so. What I did say was that Sri Lanka had not raised its voice in the Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism (CCT) of which it is a member. The CCT has not met since the Abuja summit of 2003 when it was constituted as a Standing Committee. I referred to the CCT in the context of the question asking whether Sri Lanka has made use of "every opportunity and available forum" to press its case for combating terrorism regionally and globally. When I said "every opportunity" I meant every one of them. The CCT is surely the only body in the Commonwealth that deals essentially with terrorism and we have sat on it since 2001.

The obvious thing was to point out one single instance when Sri Lanka did raise its voice after November 2003. Instead, there is a deafening silence on that. Did the ministry in the last year make any attempt to summon that committee, because as the letter unconsciously concedes, it "could be convened by the Secretary-General or at the request of member governments as and when required." So, did Sri Lanka make a request? If so when? If not, why? Instead of providing that proof, the letter says I am "badly informed." Does it mean I have been badly informed or I am ill- informed?

Instead of illuminating to us the "bad" information, we are given a lesson in the recent history of Commonwealth summits and about the CCT etc, etc, etc. Six years ago I had already written about this committee. So I don't need a history lesson. As for the rest about Commonwealth summits etc, all that is on the web and one does not need a Columbus to discover that.

That edifying background is inconsequential at best and immaterial and irrelevant at worst. The issue is this. This year with the intensified crackdown on terrorism at home and mounting international criticism, there were opportunities to activate this essentially terrorism-mandated body. Bogollagama and Kohona were both in London last March, meeting the then Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett and Secretary-General McKinnon. Did they raise the question of the CCT (of which Britain is a member) and its seeming hibernation or even ask McKinnon about the progress on the Plan of Action to counter terrorism? Did either of them even suggest a New York meeting of CCT just like the other Commonwealth body CMAG which meets during the UN sessions? Without responding to that, the letter obfuscates, referring to the forthcoming CHOGM and how "a month ago" Sri Lanka made a proposal to have a ministerial level meeting in order to "brainstorm" on terrorism. It should be about nine months since the minister took charge. That is sufficient time to give birth. What we actually have is a proposal in early stages of gestation.

Surprisingly, the usually loquacious Bogollagama made no reference to that at the recently concluded anti-terrorism conference in Colombo. That is perhaps because it is still a mere draft. Whether it will get on to the summit agenda is a matter for the entire Commonwealth. My comments related to the CCT. That issue has not been answered with the ministry/High Commission doing what the squid does best when threatened -- blacken the water around it.

RIGHT OF REPLY

The following is a letter sent to The Sunday Times by Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner in London. Reference to Commonwealth initiatives on Terrorism in columnist Neville de Silva’s “Thoughts from London” column in the Sunday times – 21 October 07.

The attention of this Mission has been drawn to a reference made in the above article regarding Sri Lanka’s role in the Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism (CCT) The reference has erroneously tried to portray that Sri Lanka has not been active in promoting initiatives on counter terrorism through the Commonwealth and that it has failed to raise its voice at the CCT.

Unfortunately the writer appears to be badly informed about the subject matter. You may be aware that following the events of 9.11 the Commonwealth leaders issued a statement regarding terrorism on 25 October 2001 in which they stated “their resolve to act as a diverse community of nations to individually and collectively take concerted and resolute action against terrorism”

A Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism (CCT) was constituted at ministerial level comprising the following countries. Australia (Chair) the Bahamas, Canada, Malaysia, India, South Africa, Sri Lanka. Tanzania, Tongo and the UK. This committee was tasked with developing a Commonwealth Plan of Action on supporting Commonwealth countries in meeting the requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. At the CHOGM held in Coolum, Australia in 2002 the Report and the Plan of Action of the CCT was tabled and it was decided that the committee would meet annually to review progress. The Committee on Terrorism (SCT) which could be convened by the Secretary General or at the request of member governments as and when required. This decision was because it was felt that meeting on an annual basis at ministerial level was difficult though perceived in Coolum. While the SCT has not met since Sept 2003, the Secretary General has continued to implement the Plan of Action and at the 2005 Malta Summit HOG reiterated their concerns on global terrorism which is outlined in the relevant paragraph in the Malta Communique..

Sri Lanka has continued to advocate counter terrorism issues at international fora which include the SAARC, ASEAN Regional Forum, IISS Asia Pacific Security Summit (Shangri La Dialogue), Asian Cooperation Dialogue etc. In context of the Commonwealth, Sri Lanka has been at the forefront of discussions on this issue at respective CHOGMs and our position reflected in the final communiqués.

In context of the forthcoming CHOGM in November 2007, since last month Sri Lanka has proposed that a meeting at Ministerial level be convened next year in Colombo, in order to brainstorm issues of counter terrorism which take into account developments that have taken place since the Commonwealth Plan of Action was adopted in 2002, which the Standing Committee could subsequently re-examine in context of the Plan. Sri Lanka has proposed hosting this meeting of the SCT.

Sri Lanka views that such a high-level meeting could also serve to enhance the image of the Commonwealth as being more involved in an area of utmost global concern. This initiative is also envisaged to complement the process already in place on the said issue.

It is requested that adequate publicity be given in this regard.

Yours sincerely
Kshenuka Senewiratne
High Commissioner.