(May 14, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Is it only us Sri Lankans that get lagged with diplomats who are absolutely unprofessional or undiplomatic in their conduct? Or is it that these diplomats once they arrive in Sri Lanka, want to fit in with the Sri Lankan political trends - "When in Rome do as Romans do" - and adopt an attitude of lawlessness and lack of honour, like most of the politicians in this country. Or is it sheer arrogance and the "white man" mentality that guide them to a course of conduct not befitting that of a diplomat?
How else can one explain the bizarre conduct of the U S Ambassador and the Canadian Ambassador, in meeting with the members of the Special Presidential Commission (vide The Island of 09.05.2008) - which is a judicial forum. What business is it of diplomats to seek appointments with judges who are sitting in judgment of cases which are of much importance to the entire nation, as the reputation of the country is at stake with our Armed Forces being accused of improper conduct in some of the cases.
Already even without an iota of incriminating evidence against the Armed Forces so far in the public proceedings, pronouncements have been made by the so called eminent persons (IIGEP) about "command responsibility"; how the head of the Armed Forces could be held responsible for charges not yet proved against the Armed Forces?
There have been threats that these cases will be taken before a World Forum. It is a popular speculation that ground work is being prepared by the western powers for foreign intervention by these proclamations and declarations. They desire a presence in our country- considering the economic potential of our country with discovery of oil deposits and minerals, not to mention of the dire need of the west for a military presence in the Indian ocean. These pronouncements add to the importance of the final findings of this all important Commission. It is likely that any findings adverse to the Armed Forces will be relied upon by the west to press their cause for intervention. With such sensitive issues before this judicial forum, why did the US Ambassador and the Canadian Ambassador, who are very much the flag carriers of the Western powers, seek to interfere with the Commission by meeting with the members of the Commission?
Were these diplomats completely unaware that this Commission is a judicial forum or is it that being aware of the importance of this Commission they sought to impose on the Commission their opinions or views on the cases heard by them? Or is it that this was merely a meeting to provide financial assistance to the Commission as speculated by some.
In fact, if these diplomats had the good intention of offering financial assistance to sustain the Commission, they must discuss their offer, not with the members of the Commission, but with the Appointing Authority- namely the President. There is no mandate in the warrant under which the Commissioners derive their powers, to embroil themselves with financial matters or seek financial assistance on behalf of the Commission. Nor do they have power to receive financial assistance from third parties on behalf of the Commission. I verily believe that expenses of the Commission are settled from the Consolidated Fund/ Treasury. Any discussion on financial assistance to the Commission therefore should have been with the President or the Government of Sri Lanka and not with the members of the Commission whose independence and integrity may be placed in jeopardy by involving themselves in matters of Finance; unless of course, the financial assistance offered is of a personal nature to the Commissioners – which is commonly known as a "bribe". I presume that the diplomats were not engaged in such a corrupt practice and this meeting took place, due to the lack of intelligent foresight or the mere ignorance of proper etiquette.
It is indeed a pity that the majority of the members in the Commission do not have experience in a judicial capacity. Our judiciary is one institution which has been extremely independent especially in the recent times and if the members of our judiciary were involved in the Commission they would no doubt have enlightened these diplomats on proper etiquette and refused to given them an appointment.
The conduct of these diplomats has raised doubts as to the motive behind these visits and the diplomats have shown how unprofessional and undiplomatic they have been in seeking such meeting. In fact it places the Commission in a precarious situation, with a probable blemish on their integrity and independence, in the eyes of the public. One wonders what value could be assigned to the findings of such a Commission, whether the final report issued by this Commission will be so tainted with controversy that it will end up in the dustbin, after a colossal waste of public funds and foreign aid.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment