Musharraf manoeuvre and the messy make-over

By Neville de Silva

Minister Bogollagama attending the controversial CMAG sesions in Kampala

Some individuals are more sinned against than sinning, as the Bard said. I would not characterise Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama as one more sinned against because much of the sinning is the result of his own volition, particularly his predilection for publicity and his rather casual and uninformed approach to international diplomacy. If he had more capable spin doctors than some of those whose perfunctory performance in the field of journalism had bloated their egos more than their capabilities, Bogollagama might have been better advised on what to say and when to keep silent.

Lacking that advice, if not being complicit in some cases, Bogollagama was put under the media spotlight back home while he was thousands of miles away in Uganda.But then, in the great tradition of Madison Avenue, there are those who believe that any publicity is good publicity. While that might be savoured with relish by those who think thus, it does not always bring credit to the nation or the institution that one represents.

Much of the undue publicity and the embarrassment over the Commonwealth's suspension of Pakistan and Sri Lanka's role in it, might have been avoided if there was a greater understanding of how the Commonwealth and its decision-making process operates and the government had not been stampeded into precipitous action without a full grasp of the facts.

That was compounded by Bogollagama not having learned early in his incarnation as foreign minister that the desire for self promotion must sometimes be tempered with quiet diplomacy and bilateralism.Had his megaphone diplomacy been replaced in this instance of Pakistan's relations with the Commonwealth with a more calibrated diplomatic exercise, Sri Lanka might not have committed the kind of faux pas that makes us look rather silly on the international stage.

The crux of the problem was that for very good reasons Sri Lanka did not want Pakistan ostracised from the Commonwealth as the organisation's body mandated to do so -- the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) -- seemed to be threatening to do. President Musharraf was perceived to have broken the pledge to shed his military uniform by a specific date, as he had done before. His clinging to his military role along with his civilian position as president, was seen as violating fundamental political values of the Commonwealth which it was. But then there were murmurings of double standards, some times articulately more vigorously by African and Pacific nations.

As I have mentioned in a previous column Sri Lanka was beholden to Musharraf for the military and logistical support he had provided, particularly to this government in its military push against the LTTE. So Sri Lanka, a member of CMAG, was to ensure that it expressed support for Pakistan and that any blows against Islamabad were softened by our opposition to drastic action.

From the vantage point of London, the headquarters of the Commonwealth, it seems that Bogollagama did that consistently. But he is no Horatius and cannot and could not, hold the bridge single-handedly when some other members of CMAG were crying foul and double standards. I know that when Bogollagama called on the Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon during his first visit to London as foreign minister last March, the question of Pakistan did come up at the talks. Bogollagama's strong appreciation of Musharraf actually took the Commonwealth officials with some surprise.

Let me hasten to add that there is no need for the foreign ministry to write another letter through our high commissioner to the Commonwealth Secretary-General asking whether it was he who told me this bit of information also. Nor should the foreign ministry's spin doctor say, as he did falsely in the previous letter, that I have sourced my information to the Secretary-General. If he has not learnt by now the meaning of "sourced", I suppose he never will do so in this lifetime.

Sri Lanka's consistent policy on Pakistan might have been better appreciated and understood had Bogollagama refrained from issuing his own press release after the CMAG meeting in New York in September. In it he said he had "welcomed the progress recorded in the democratic progress in Pakistan" and had taken the view that with "these positive developments Pakistan could soon be taken off the CMAG agenda."Either the minister was badly briefed or he does not take briefings seriously-more likely the latter- for he could not have been more wrong in not being able to read the emerging situation in Pakistan. By suggesting that Pakistan be taken off the CMAG agenda Bogollagama adroitly stuck both his feet in it .If the intention was to show Musharraf that we supported Pakistan, it could have been done discreetly and bilaterally.

Having taken up such a pro-Pakistan stand in New York and having told the world about it, Bogollagama found himself painted into a corner at the CMAG extraordinary meeting on November 12 in London as Pakistan politics had taken a serious turn with Musharraf's stranglehold on Pakistan tightening even more.

When he attended the London meeting he was faced with strong condemnation of Pakistan by some CMAG members especially from Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean demanding Pakistan's suspension.Sri Lanka along with Malaysia, UK and Canada were less inclined to go along with that and wanted Musharraf given more time as the promised date to shed his uniform was Nov 15, as McKinnon himself told us at lunch.

It was this counter view that helped CMAG put off the suspension until the ministers met again ten days later to review whether Musharraf had acceded to the five conditions the group had laid down. The problem, to my mind, was again the subsequent press release issued by Bogollagama after the meeting. It opened with the words "Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama has expressed satisfaction on (sic!) the outcome" of the meeting.It suggested that he had gone along with CMAG's ultimatum to Musharraf- do as we say or else… The truth is that CMAG decisions are usually taken on the basis of consensus not on a vote. It is in a sense like cabinet collective responsibility. Ministers might differ or even oppose some proposals but once decisions are taken they need to stand by them.

This is not the system at the UN General Assembly or its security council which function on a voting system. This is a consensual approach.The same thing happened in Kampala when CMAG decided to suspend Pakistan under tremendous pressure from the same members as in London but with the UK and Canada changing their tune.Though Bogollagama stood by Sri Lanka's earlier position, this time round it was overawed completely.When the CMAG decision made the international news media, Sri Lankan leaders thought that Bogollagama had supported the suspension, without a clear understanding of how CMAG works.

The next thing we know is of an emergency cabinet meeting to reiterate Sri Lanka's opposition to Pakistan's suspension, remarks that an earlier cabinet meeting had decided on this stand but it had not been recorded in the minutes of the meeting because the cabinet secretary had already left the meeting when the decision was taken or something like that and admission of "miscommunication" by the deputy foreign minister (or whatever the designation) Bhaila, in this world of technological advances and mobile communications.

Two matters arise here. Firstly, had the foreign minister discussed Sri Lanka's stand before attending CMAG in London or on his return, with President Rajapaksa and worked out a definite strategy or position in the light of the critical meeting in Kampala?Why on earth should there be an emergency cabinet meeting in Colombo when President Rajapaksa was already in Kampala and quite clearly in a position to articulate Sri Lanka's support for Pakistan and call for Musharraf to be given time to mend his ways?

As an aside one might ask how it was that the news about Bogollagama's imagined failing reached all the Sunday newspapers in Colombo. Is there some unknown 'reporter' lurking somewhere in the stratospheric political circles?