Keep those diplomats away, please

By Neville de Silva

There appears to be some flap over a meeting between the Nissanka Udalagama Commission inquiring into 15 cases of killings and human rights abuses, and two foreign heads of missions. Criticisms-some of them quite strong- have been levelled at both, the Commission for entertaining the two diplomats believed to be the American Ambassador and the Canadian High Commissioner and the two diplomats themselves. To be fair one cannot really blame the two diplomats on this occasion. If they sought appointments with the Commission, it was left to the Commission to decide whether acceding to the diplomatic request would in anyway compromise its independence or would breach rules and regulations under which the commission was established.

If it was felt that such a meeting would be prejudicial to the independence and integrity of the Commission then it was surely left to the Commission to refuse the request . If however the meeting was for an innocuous purpose like providing logistical assistance for the smoother functioning of the commission of inquiry, then it would seem churlish to refuse such a meeting. As far as I understand, the commission is not a real judicial body. At best it is a quasi-judicial body, a commission that is trying to elicit the facts relating to a series of events most of them rather unsavoury and despicable. I would imagine that a judicial body would have punitive powers or at least whose findings or recommendations could lead to punitive action being taken by some other agent with the power to do so.

I suppose this incident attracted attention not only because of the nature of the Commission’s inquiries but also because of the accusations levelled by human rights organisations and even multilateral bodies over what is perceived as procrastination by the Sri Lanka government to bring the guilty to book. The Commission was also embroiled in a controversy over the presence of Devanesan Nesiah in it. Lawyer SL Gunasekera had objected to Nesiah’s presence because of his links with an NGO called the Centre for Policy Alternatives, an objection that the Commission subsequently rejected saying, I believe, it had no power to ask members to resign.

In reply to criticism over the meeting with the two diplomats, the Commission issued a short statement which did not help and actually fuelled more speculation because of the vagueness of the response. In its statement published in the local media the Commission said that it “wishes to correct misconceptions that have arisen with regard to the meeting. From time to time, the Commission meets delegates and members of the Diplomatic Corps on various matters of interest relating to the Commission. The discussion with the said diplomats was confined to some logistical matters relating to recording of evidence by video conferencing which the Commission had commenced early this year.”

Several questions arise out of this statement which I find not only cursory but also not entirely illuminating. Raising these questions is in no way intended to impugn the integrity of the Commission or to question its right to meet with whomsoever it wishes. What is in question is whether its interaction with the diplomatic representatives or for that matter any other foreign representatives other than those vital to the inquiry itself, is necessary and justified. After all the Commission was appointed by the President of the country and not by the President of the United States, or Queen Elizabeth 11 who is the head of state of Canada, though a Governor General represents her. The Commission is answerable to the president and through the president to the Sri Lanka people.

So when the Commission states that from time to time it meets members of the diplomatic corps it should have been incumbent on the Commission to say why it, as a whole or in part, needs to meet foreign diplomats, how the work of the commission in inquiring into happenings here is advanced by such interaction. Without such explanations to validate the meetings the public is left in some unfortunate limbo giving rise to speculation some of which was partly reflected by public responses in the media. The statement says that the Commission met with diplomats, among others, on “various matters of interest relating to the Commission.” Note the language. The meetings were not on matters of interest to the Commission but relating to the Commission.

The foregoing statement seems to imply that the meetings were sought by foreign diplomats about the workings of the Commission. So it would seem the matters were of interest to the diplomats and not to the Commission. If that assumption is correct, and the language of the Commission’s statement suggests that, why should we be pandering to the needs and requests of foreign diplomats? Note also that the statement says the meeting that has raised the ire of some persons, was confined to “some logistical matters” concerning video conferencing. Now if it was purely logistical then should such matters not be handled by the secretary to the Commission and other administrative staff rather than members of the Commission whose primary task is to inquire into the series of unfortunate happenings that have marred the image of the country rather than discussing logistical issues in which members of the Commission might not have the necessary competence and expertise.

The current contretemps raises a much larger issue of our interaction with the diplomatic corps. It seems that 60 years after independence and despite the constant refrain about our ancient culture and what not, we still seem to cringe in servility before a white face. Such subservience might have been expected and provided when we were under the rule of three European colonizers. Why we should continue to do so in the presence of some diplomatic representatives whose intellectual and cultural credentials might be very suspect, is difficult to understand.

We protest loudly about foreign interference in our internal affairs. Yet at the drop of a hat, we-that is both the government and the opposition- hold meetings with foreign diplomats to brief them on this that and the other as though their countenance is so very vital for our survival. Often these meetings are not attended by heads of missions or his/her deputy but some lowly representative who probably does not understand or does not want to understand the intricacies of the problems confronting us. We have drawn them to our bosom and having given them the attention and importance that some of them do not deserve, we next protest when the same individuals turn round and make speeches critical of this country.

It seems we have no sense of protocol, and who should meet whom and when. Only the other day a knowledgeable friend in London was reminding me how our diplomats are treated here and their counterparts are treated in Colombo. When High Commissioner Mangala Moonesinghe was to leave London at the end of his term, he was invited to tea at the foreign office by some relatively junior official. He was asked to invite up to six persons for the tea. In Colombo, on the other hand, the departing British High Commissioner-perhaps it was Linda Duffield- was feted by the then president and by the foreign minister and, I think, also by the prime minister.

In many countries I know heads of missions find it so difficult to get beyond the desk head or head of region in the respective foreign ministry. They hardly get to see the secretary to the ministry, let alone the minister. But I have seen during my newspaper days in Colombo, government ministers attending parties hosted by first secretaries and senior officials at dinners and lunches given by lowly second secretaries. We have demeaned ourselves to the extent that even the presidency is being devalued. Every passing Jane and Johnny is taken to meet the president. Just because Mahinda Rajapaksa is an affable and easily accessible individual is no reason to devalue the presidency.

The President should meet only with vitally important persons of standing, not every odd-bod who turns up in Colombo. It is time that we asserted ourselves as a nation and not let every Tom, Dick and Harry of a diplomat through the door.