Diplomacy that conveniently omits ethics

By Neville de Silva

Departing British High Commissioner Dominic Chilcott’s Dudley Senanayake memorial lecture earlier this month roused contrary responses from the Sri Lankan public. Some strongly supported Chilcott’s criticisms of Sri Lanka’s style of governance, the corruption that seems embedded in the country’s politics and the deteriorating standards of political conduct.One might surmise that much of the support was not only for what he said but also for saying it at a time when some feel that there are inherent dangers in such outspokenness if articulated publicly by Sri Lankans.

On the other hand there was even stronger criticism of Chilcott for using the opportunity to castigate Sri Lanka’s political leaders thus exceeding his role as a diplomat. Accusing him of interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, Chilcott was said to have violated diplomatic conventions and some even called for him to be declared persona non grata. The government refrained from what President Premadasa did when he asked the British Government to remove a former High Commissioner David Gladstone whose actions were a blatant interference in domestic affairs. In the event President Rajapaksa’s government did not travel the same road. It stopped short of such extreme action-declaring an ambassador PNG is extreme indeed. Instead Chilcott was summoned to the foreign ministry for what must surely have been a dressing down.

Last week this column commented on some of Chilcott’s observations, particularly with regard to his remarks about the peace process, the exclusion of shades of Tamil and Muslim opinion in the negotiations to reach a political settlement and his belief that the LTTE will never accept a “negotiated settlement that reinforces democratic values within a united Sri Lanka.” What irked most people who were critical of Chilcott’s “interference” was his remark that political aspiration for Eelam or a separate Tamil state was not “illegitimate.” This, one supposes, was one of the main issues raised by Foreign Secretary Palitha Kohona when he summoned Chilcott to the ministry. Reading the first part of his speech where he speaks of the “new diplomacy” it would be legitimate to argue that the British High Commissioner had anticipated accusations of interference in domestic matters and tried to provide a rationale for the criticisms that were to follow.

Chilcott goes to great lengths not only to underline the changing nature of diplomacy, especially in the last three or four decades but also to justify this new approach on the premise that the increasing interdependence of states over a wide range of issues and subjects makes this necessary and indeed inevitable. Chilcott says: “Another change is that international affairs are no longer exclusively about what happens between states. When domestic issues have an international dimension, those domestic affairs can be important for relations between states.” Later on he says: “Those who argue for the inviolability of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a country are swimming against the tide of history.”

Clearly we know where Chilcott is leading- a justification of his criticisms of the Sri Lanka government which appears to have the imprimatur of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for such a major speech would have had to be cleared by senior officials. The fact that the FCO later stood by Chilcott is proof of this. While Chilcott’s contention has far reaching legal and other implications, it would be foolish to try and discuss them in a short column. In any case it would require those better tutored in international law and international humanitarian law to discuss the deeper legal significance and what all this means in relation to the Vienna Convention on diplomatic practice, the UN Charter and other instruments that are relevant to the issue.

However it would be pertinent to look at some of the political and ethical issues raised by Chilcott’s new diplomacy. The first question of significance is this. Is the new diplomacy that the British representative is advocating for this day and age universally accepted as the correct approach? If not who has set the norms of conduct, the parameters for this new diplomacy? In the answers to these two questions would lie, I believe, the validity of Chilcott’s presumption. These lead to a further question. Do those who accept the new diplomacy apply their self-constructed norms evenly in all cases where such intervention (or interference) is justified as set out by Chilcott or are its advocates selective in their approach?The answers to them, to my mind, are important because one must be clear about the origins of this new diplomacy and whether norms of conduct are being imposed on some sovereign states by the more powerful-militarily, economically and diplomatically- states in the international community. Chilcott cites Sir Harold Nicholson’s book “The evolution of diplomatic practice” to show the evolving nature of diplomacy. Much of the more recent discourse on these issues has been dominated by western academics and institutions, mainly Anglo-American, and they have emerged as the norm-setters which those in the developing world in Africa, Asia and elsewhere are expected to follow.

True the 1948 Universal Declaration contains within it the “moral code, political consensus and legal synthesis of human rights” as one academic called it. Yet when the United Nations which drew up the declaration was established in 1945 there were only eight Asian countries among the 51 founding nations. Of these eight- China (Taiwan), India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and Syria, only three were really from Asia. Others were geographically in Asia but politically belonged to the Middle East. Today, Asia accounts for more than half the world’s population but has only one permanent member of the Security Council while the relatively smaller Europe has three and with the US, four western members.

It is this same unevenness and lack of equity that is manifest when those who advocate new diplomacy virtually impose norms of conduct and are ready to abandon institutionalised multilateralism when it comes to physical intervention in other sovereign states. The military intervention of NATO, of which Britain is a member, in Kosovo raises serious concerns although it has been argued that it was to stop ethnic cleansing. The intervention in Iraq without UN sanction is even more dangerous because it has created a precedent for a single State or a group of states- a coalition- to decide for themselves how and when to intervene on any flimsy prospectus in their self-interest.

So we go back to the original question I raised. Who decides on such norms of conduct? Could it be left to a handful of countries to establish ‘laws’ which other countries are expected to follow to the letter but exempt those who advocate them when they feel it necessary? One might recall here briefly the rejection by the Australian government of the right of the UN or any other external organisation to comment on the plight of the Aborigines and the “stolen generation” which was a deliberate attempt at the extermination of the culture of the Aboriginal people.

One more point about the new diplomacy and the right of intervention. When one of Chilcott’s colleagues, Craig Murray, ambassador in Uzbekistan, criticised President Islom Karimov’s government accusing it of systematic torture and even boiling two men to death, Murray was not only castigated, but, false charges framed against him and finally dismissed by the Foreign Office. Why? Because Uzbekistan had provided an airbase to the US and western allies for use in its “war on terror” against Afghan insurgents and US and UK did not want to lose that.Why has Chilcott’s colleague in Saudi Arabia not remarked publicly about human rights violations there or even bribery and corruption? After all an investigation into charges of bribery by a British arms manufacturer were dropped on the Prime Minister Tony Blair’s orders. Even if one finds the legal justification for the new diplomacy arguable how come its advocates forget the moral/ ethical dimension? Or rather forget it when it is convenient.