Jackals hounding Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to London

“Colombo was aware of all the transactions mentioned above, were authorised by them and executed by the administrative staff at the High Commission. The discipline of career diplomats is such that Colombo is kept informed of everything and prior authorisation gained before any action.”
______________________________

by Deepak Sharma, New Delhi

(April 16, New Delhi, Sri Lanka Guardian) The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has polarised the Sri Lankan Diaspora community in the United Kingdom with politically active Tamil nationalists turning to the LTTE and the British authorities to represent their cause and the politically active Sinhalese nationalists expecting the Sri Lankan High Commission to represent them.

The Sinhalese nationalists are disappointed with the outgoing High Commissioner in the UK. They see their cause being championed by the likes of Dayan Jayathillake, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador in Geneva, whose brand of what is regarded as Rottweiler diplomacy raises a cheer in the Sinhala nationalist camp.

While Dayan Jayathillake is a political appointment, the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London is a professional career diplomat whose training in diplomacy is more the quiet initiatives of lobbying and persuasion, rather than waving a club threateningly from a cave.

The politically active Sinhalese nationalists do not see it this way, as for them quiet initiatives of lobbying is not visible and do not raise any cheers.

The High Commission in London initially tried to get all members of the Sri Lankan Diaspora community to participate, but according to High Commission and Tamil sources, some Sinhalese made speeches, which were hurtful to the Tamils present, and some of the Tamils walked out.

Since then, the High Commission does not engage with the politically active Sinhalese groups to the same extent, and they are understandably disappointed.

This disappointment constituted itself as various damaging articles being published in the press against the High Commissioner. There were allegations of financial impropriety, highlighting of costs involved in the purchase of a motor vehicle and the renting of a property.

These allegations were unsubstantiated and unreasonable.

Colombo was aware of all the transactions mentioned above, were authorised by them and executed by the administrative staff at the High Commission. The discipline of career diplomats is such that Colombo is kept informed of everything and prior authorisation gained before any action.

The articles attacking the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London while providing entertainment and pleasure for some, caused amusement to senior Foreign Ministry staff and even previous High Commissioners to London as they were aware of the procedures regarding the disbursement of expenditure, the dilapidated state of the official residence, and the motives of those writing such articles against professional career diplomats who cannot defend themselves.

The High Commissioners husband was also attacked alleging that he was to make commissions on a property transaction. Last month, lawyers served notice of intended prosecution on the editor of a newspaper in Colombo and a journalist in London, in relation to this issue.

There were press reports that the editor of the Asian Tribune was also opposed to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London and had attempted to get her replaced, because she was not cooperating with him.

A prominent Sunday newspaper also carried a story stating that the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to London had evaded a meeting requested by the Foreign and Commonwealth office. This story was completely false and even the British were amused.

Investigations have revealed that the source of this particular false story in the Sunday Newspaper was a senior civil servant based in Colombo. The identity of this source who had planted the false story was both disturbing and shocking.

To the credit of the Foreign Ministry, these inaccurate articles and mischievous initiatives did not result in any Diplomat based in London being reprimanded or being recalled to Colombo. The present High Commissioner who was previously the Deputy High Commissioner has served for approximately 5 and a half years in London, to the great consternation of the various groups who are opposed to her.

In praise of quiet diplomacy, it should be mentioned that it was during the present High Commissioners tenure that the LTTE chief in London, A C Shanthan was arrested and faced prosecution under the Terrorism Act 2000. These events were not accidental. It was also quiet diplomacy by Sri Lanka’s career diplomats that also put a lid on the TRO in the United States last year. But these initiatives are silent and cannot be given publicity, while recent developments in Geneva by self publicists are loud and popular among Sinhala activists.

The appointment of Dayan Jayathillake to Geneva has clearly raised the spirits of these groups of Sinhalese as they appreciate his brand of combative megaphone diplomacy. One wonders how Kadirgamar would have reacted to this style and the implications on Sri Lanka’s interests abroad.

Several countries have already complained about Jayathillake to Sri Lanka.

The latest country to comment about Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Geneva is Israel. When the issue of Sri Lanka’s controversial Ambassador was raised, the visiting Sri Lankan Premier defended by stating that Jayathillake had expressed his personal views. The Israeli’s politely pointed out that Ambassadors do not have personal views, but reflect the views of the state and suggested that the Ambassador to Geneva be replaced by a professional.

The terms of duty of both the Sri Lankan High Commissioner and the present Deputy High Commissioner in London were coming to an end this spring. The High Commissioner is scheduled to leave London in early May and the Deputy High Commissioner was scheduled to leave in April and was granted an extension till July because of the GCSE examinations of his children in London. If they were hoping for a quiet exit they were going to be disappointed, as a nightmare was about to unfold.

The British political establishment is under heavy pressure from its Tamil citizens because of the current politico military developments in Sri Lanka, and the British, in keeping with their democratic traditions have expressed displeasure at the deterioration of human rights in Sri Lanka and emphasised on the need for reconciliation. These British initiatives are democratic norms that should be understood and managed by Sri Lanka, but a statement on Sri Lanka’s independence day was to take an unsavoury turn.

On the anniversary of Sri Lanka’s 60th Independence, the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Rt Hon. David Milliband MP made a brief statement, emphasising the need for peace. He ended by stating “People in Sri Lanka need to find space to realize their many similarities, rather than becoming further polarized by their differences. A sustainable solution to Sri Lanka’s conflict can only emerge through a just political process involving all communities.”

Considering the pressure Britain is under from its Tamil citizens, and recent British initiatives against China over the Olympics and human rights in Tibet, it was a good statement and the last paragraph emphasized the need for reconciliation rather than separation.

Colombo did not take exception to Milibands statement, as the authorities in Colombo are aware of the sensitivities at play.

But, it seems Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Geneva, Dayan Jayathillake took exception to it and wrote an article criticizing the British foreign Secretary for not congratulating Sri Lanka on its 60th anniversary of independence.

This article, published in the Island and later the Tamilweek, was regarded as being highly inappropriate, dragging in Milibands father, Stalin, Lenin, the Emir of Afghanistan, 1848, the American Revolution, the Cromwellian Revolution, the Russian Foreign Secretary, Kobbekaduwa, Wimalaratna and many others.

The publication of Dayan Jayathillake’s article resulted in Colombo being bombarded with complaints. Previously, several other countries had also complained about Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Geneva.

We are not Russia, one senior official in Sri Lanka stated. “We need to maintain our preferential trading terms with the EU and antagonizing them is not going to help our national interests as only the LTTE would then emerge as the winners.”

Mr Jayathillake is convinced that his presidential mandate is to adopt a permanent Rottweiler mode. Dayan maintained that he issued his article because those in Colombo were not doing their job.

The Presidents office expressed displeasure at the Rottweiler journalistic initiative of Mr. Jayathillake who received a telephone call from Colombo.

Sinhalese activists unaware of the goings on behind the scene were thrilled with Dayan’s initiative and were blissfully unfamiliar of the damage caused by a permanent Rottweiler mode of diplomacy emanating from Geneva, when Sri Lanka has enough battles to fight on its plate already.

The Sri Lankan Foreign Secretary issued an instruction forbidding Sri Lankan diplomats from writing such articles while emphasizing that foreign policy is directed from Colombo and not from Geneva.

Later, Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to London apologized to the British Foreign and Commonwealth office over the incident. Sri Lanka has good relations with Britain and their regular interactions are cordial and civilized.

Statements made by Chilcott, Lord Moloch-Brown and Secretary Milliband should be regarded in their correct context of Britain’s democratic norms and its obligations to its Tamil citizens and should be managed at a competent level rather than launching on highly personalized reactive attacks, shooting the messenger, hoping that the message could be changed. Quiet diplomacy is far more effective in achieving results in this respect. The Presidents office understands these complexities, but it seems that others insist on waving clubs threateningly from caves.

Unfortunately the matter did not end there.

Another article was published in a web site attacking Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to London and her apology to the British Foreign and Commonwealth office in a most disparaging manner.

This article has been written under the name of Keerthi Godayaya, and while attacking the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in a most inappropriate manner, the insinuations are crude and unacceptable, making references to rape and whore.

The article by Keerthi Godayaya however praises Dayan Jayathillake and his unique brand of diplomacy.

The suspicions in the Sri Lankan establishment in London and Colombo are that Keerthi Godayaya is none other than Dayan Jayathillake. If Jayathillake is Godayaya, the article exposes serious psychological issues.

The award winning journalist Namini Wijedasa, writing last Sunday in the Lakbima newspaper has highlighted that e-mails have been sent from an address called api.slfs@yahoo.com attacking several Sri Lankan head of mission including the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to London and the Foreign Secretary. It is not clear if this e-mail is critical the Sri Lankan Ambassador to Geneva. The matter had been referred to the CID to investigate.

E mail and Internet activity is vigorously monitored by law enforcement authorities because of terrorism, pedophile and other criminal activity and it is relatively easy to trace e-mails and Web activity not only to the primary account, but even to the computer used.

Journalistic activity by Dayan Jayathillake has caused considerable embarrassment to Colombo. Colombo attempted to mend fences by dispatching GL Pieris to London who met Lord Brown. During the conversation the Jayathillake fiasco was hinted at by the British.

Pieris was followed to London by Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Bogollogama. The sale of western high tech weapons systems and spares that Sri Lankan forces depend on have been frozen and the prospect of withdrawal of preferential trading terms in the EU for Sri Lankan garment exports have become a distinct possibility.

Meanwhile another article attacking the Sri Lankan High Commissioner to London was published in an English newspaper in March.

This article was first published in the Asian Tribune on the 17th of March 2008 and promptly reproduced in a Sri Lankan English daily the following day titled “Heads to roll at Sri Lankan HC in London”.

The author has not disclosed his name and has written as special correspondent.

The Sri Lankan authorities in London and Colombo suspect that the author is Walter Jayawardene who works at the High Commission in London.

He would obviously deny it.

Before Jayawardene took up his position in London, he had boasted at a gathering in Los Angeles, that he was "being sent to London to clean up the mess" as perceived by Sinhala activists. This comment by Walter was communicated by another party to the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London.

On taking up duties in London, the Sri Lankan High Commissioner made it known to Walter of her knowledge about his comments about cleaning up London. She requested from him a media strategy to combat

LTTE propaganda in London, as this was his designated task at substantial cost to the taxpayer.

In the article published, the Special correspondent has stated that the London High Commission would be cleaned with many transfers in the spring.

This is misleading as no such clean up is taking place. There are no heads rolling as the special correspondent suggests. The terms of duty of these career diplomats are coming to an end this spring, and they are merely being re-posted to Colombo, before being sent to another destination. In fact the term of the Deputy High Commissioner has been extended.

Walter has been having problems at the High Commission from the outset.

The present High Commissioner had initiated regular staff meetings and

Walter was attending these meetings and was then writing articles in the Asian Tribune about selected items discussed. A group of staff members from the High Commission met with Walter and informed him that he should not be writing about what is discussed at staff meetings.

Since then the regular staff meetings were discontinued.

Walter has also been served with a letter from his superiors at the High Commission, seeking explanations for his conduct.

Jayawardene had also boasted to the High Commission staff that his appointment to London was linked to a defense effort and his links with the Sri Lankan Defense Secretary Gothabaya Rajapakse. Mr Rajapakse is unaware of such a defense effort other than Jayawardene telephoning Rajapakse and self publicizing himself that he is countering the LTTE by writing to the Asian Tribune and Mr Rajapakse politely stating well done.

Encouraged by his article attacking the High Commissioner being reproduced in the Daily Mirror, the Special Correspondent was to write another article, this time accusing that the Indian Intelligence agency RAW had infiltrated the Sri Lankan High Commision in London. This same article praised Walter Jayawardene. On this occasion the Daily Mirror did not carry the Special correspondents fiction.

For some, it seems that both Walter Jayawardene and Dayan Jayathillake were writing under different names and attacking the Sri Lankan High Commissioner in London and praising themselves, while being cheered on by their Sinhala supporters. It was a comedy that went too far.

Colombo, besieged by the West for Human rights violations was keen to maintain good relations with India and the prospect of a Sri Lankan diplomat based in London writing articles as special correspondent alleging that the Indian Intelligence agency RAW had infiltrated the Sri Lankan High Commission in London was an uncomfortable prospect.

While India speculated, Colombo informed the Asian Tribune to be cautious as to what it carried from the “special correspondent” and further more it was stated that the purpose of the special correspondents appointment to London at considerable cost to Sri Lankan taxpayer was not to write in the Asian Tribune.

Walter Jayawardene's appointment to London is a political one with misguided political patronage. It is unfortunate that recent political appointments to the Sri Lankan Foreign Service are conducting a damaging and corrosive campaign, attacking career diplomats who cannot defend themselves and undermining the Sri Lankan administration globally to further their personal agendas. They are in fact indirectly helping the LTTE gain milage over the Sri Lankan administration.

These popular elements are cheered on by Sinhala activists and they seem oblivious that they are undermining professionalism in the Foreign Service which the Oxford educated former Sri Lankan foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar tried so hard to nurture, to defend Sri Lanka’s interests abroad.

- Sri Lanka Guardian