Ambassador Dayan Jayatilleka: A Balance Sheet

By Kalana Senaratne

(March 14, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) It was a curious and revolutionary decision taken by President Mahinda Rajapaksa, this decision to appoint Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka as our Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, in 2007.

A public intellectual, a political scientist and a most effective and eloquent communicator, the President would have certainly known on where Dr. Jayatilleka stood concerning issues relating to domestic politics and foreign policy. Subsequent to the appointment, there was a question that went unanswered; how long could he survive within the establishment? For, accommodating such men who are forthright, outspoken, articulate, and passionate about serving the country, was never Sri Lanka’s strong point. By being ‘unconventional’, by trying to ride against established and orthodox thinking, one also ran the risk of being punished for crimes not committed, or even of facing ‘penalties’ which were often disproportionate to the ‘offence’ committed.

Hence, I wasn’t surprised to learn recently that the term of Dr. Jayatilleka was running out, and that it would not be extended. ‘Dayan Returns Home’ said The Nation, on 22nd February 2009. The subtext, however, read: ‘a tenure that deserved an extension is cut short, unceremoniously’. That is why news of an otherwise obvious fact (i.e. of having to return home at the end of a term of service overseas) had wormed itself into the front page of a newspaper.

Accusations

Evidence available in the public domain point to two allegations leveled against him. The attempt is to show that Dr. Jayatilleka’s diplomatic tenure has been harmful to the interests of Sri Lanka, and that it will be so, if his tenure is extended beyond June, 2009. Two specific accusations are leveled in this regard: A) That he has been unable to counter adverse LTTE propaganda, and B) that his foreign policy perspectives and approach are antithetical to Sri Lanka’s foreign relations/national interests.

A) Inability to counter LTTE propaganda effectively

The most absurd accusation that can be leveled at Dr. Jayatilleka is this. Ever since he effectively dissuaded the various efforts made at the UN Human Rights Council of adopting a resolution concerning the alleged human rights situation in Sri Lanka by countering adverse propaganda aimed at tarnishing the image of a Government and the State, he has continuously advocated, through his statements and writings, of the need to defeat the LTTE, to ‘Cut it off and Kill it’ (as he put it once in an article). His role was to counter LTTE propaganda the way a diplomat based in Geneva is supposed to do, i.e. within the UNHRC, through effective and sustained briefing of the diplomatic community in Geneva, of the atrocities committed by the LTTE and the disciplined effort of the Armed Forces to defeat an undisciplined and barbaric terror outfit.

That is why the news item published on www.sinhala.net, titled ‘Diplomatic Donkeys in Geneva’ (23 Jan, 2009), doesn’t deserve comment. This accuses that the SL Mission in Geneva is infested with ‘nincompoops’, and that the diplomatic officials are like ‘the three proverbial monkeys who shut their eyes, ears and mouth with the objective of hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil’. The item also refers to a letter written by a Sri Lankan born Swiss-resident, one Eric K. Makawitage to the Foreign Minister (a copy of which had been leaked to the press, I presume, by Mr. Makawitage or the postman). In that, Mr. Makawitage accuses the Mission thus: ‘while LTTE and their sympathizers have demonstrated their extra ordinary support to their cause … more than 20 paid staff members of the Sri Lanka Mission with their spouses and dependents totaling up to 50 Sri Lankans are surprisingly silent!!’

This is then what a tiny minority of our expatriates, or our little ‘expatriate chieftain’ types, want our diplomats to do – to march down the streets, shouting, holding placards, screaming, along with their spouses, children, and the rest of the staff members. What poppycock!

B) Foreign Policy – perspective, approach and a ‘frothing’ Israel

The second accusation is the more serious one. It relates to the news item which reported that Israel was frothing over Dr. Jayatilleka’s scathing attack on Israel over the Gaza bombings, titled ‘Israel Frothing over Dayan Statement’ (Lakbima News, Jan. 25, 2009). The item reported that the Israeli Ambassador in New Delhi had flown in to Sri Lanka to complain about the statement made by Dr. Jayatilleka at the Human Rights Council, in Geneva.

Yet, this needs to be viewed in some perspective. Dr. Jayatilleka’s tone and tenor might not have been the most ‘diplomatic’ by conventional diplomatic standards. However, there’s something preposterous, something that smacks of double standards, of not maintaining that moral high ground, in trying to crucify him for speaking out against an issue such as the Gaza blitzkrieg in the way he did; especially when there seems to be no evidence to suggest that H.E the President panicked, as he did as regards that infamous case of Pakistan’s Commonwealth membership (which was again in fact an issue, the facts of which were incorrectly conceived and blown out of proportion by certain media outlets to attack the Government).

Also, consider ‘context’. We claim (and rightfully so) that our armed forces respect International Humanitarian Laws, and that we maintain a zero tolerance policy on civilian casualties. We claim that the West has no moral rights or integrity to preach about human rights (rightfully so, too). We also support the two-state solution, as regards Israel/Palestine, and H.E the President is a firm supporter of the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause (correctly so). We defy the USA and visit Iran, establish close ties, build a steady and strong friendship (rightly so) with a State which is not the best friend of USA/Israel. And then, we are knee-jerked, and cannot pick ourselves up to defend a diplomat who is seen to have been a bit forthright in his views about war crimes committed in Gaza by Israel – i.e. about the kind of crimes that the current Government or its armed forces would neither commit, nor tolerate, in Sri Lanka.

It is sad if ‘taking on’ Israel on an issue as grave as Gaza is considered to be the wrong course of action. Certainly, the assistance we receive from Israel on defence/military matters may be considerable, but fundamentally, there’s something utterly disturbing here, something that says that our moral rectitude is shaky and fickle. Are we to go ‘soft’ in the face of crimes that we, as a nation, abhor to the hilt, and especially of crimes committed on one of our closest friends, Palestine and its people? Do we weigh in our actions and analyse how our relationship with a particular state affects the relationship with another? How does our success in defeating terrorism in an ethical fashion fit in with the callously unethical manner in which Israel bombed and killed hundreds of innocent men, women and children, and bombed its infrastructure into smithereens?

Being principled on issues concerning foreign policy

It is here that Dr. Jayatilleka sorely lacks support. He conveys his message strongly, effectively. And the silencing of such men is unfortunate, but not uncommon or surprising - for there was some time ago, a similar attempt to silence Dr. Palitha Kohona, Foreign Secretary, when there were media reports about circulars flying around preventing him from issuing statements to the press – something he was (and is) doing with much aplomb and effectiveness.

But there is a different reason why a more serious attempt is being made at silencing Dr. Jayatilleka’s voice. He represents a clear shift in attitude, in approach. Some of the strong and indubitable policy perspectives he holds on to are: being principled on Palestine, blocking external intervention - in an era in which the West is not wholly averse to the break-up of sovereign States (and that in this regard, public criticism needs to be met publicly, openly), and being principally regionalist (bearing in mind the South Asian identity, the innermost of the set of concentric circles that form our foreign policy).

Now, this policy on the one hand broadly and necessarily means that attempts made at unduly frightening the State into submission will always be met squarely, clearly, directly, unequivocally. ‘Quiet diplomacy’ is not going to prove effective in such circumstances, for the pressure that is brought to bear on the State by disgruntled forces is serious, and the response that needs to go out against such undue pressurizing needs to be serious as well. There is then a firm understanding that our foreign policy, and the way we respond to situations inimical to our interests as a nation, need to be more in tune with the spirit of the circumstances we face today as a nation that is effectively defeating terrorism. Our foreign policy, our approach and the way it’s displayed and advocated needs to bear some relation to actuality. And I firmly believe that Dr. Jayatilleka cannot be punished for this.

In addition, especially with regard to the Israeli issue, I believe that a foreign policy of a country depends, to a very large extent, on the domestic state of affairs. The two cannot be isolated. At a time in history, when Sri Lanka is looked upon by many, with some measure of respect with regard to its success in countering terrorism, it is natural to rethink about what we, as a nation, stand for and who our closest friends are. We derive a lot of strength from our internal state of affairs at getting our voice heard in the international domain, and the strength we have today (the ‘actuality’ referred to above) lies especially in the ability to tell the world as to how to engage in countering and defeating terrorism, or even in carrying out humanitarian relief efforts, in a way that is different to the unethical and illegal way in which many others conduct armed conflict around the world. We need to practice what we preach and importantly preach what we practice, if it’s good and worthy. In this case, it means being able to speak without inhibition on Israel. It is this important shift in attitude and approach that is reflected in Dr. Jayatilleka’s work and writings, and especially in relation to the stance he takes concerning Israel.

Fighting a losing battle?
But I will pause here. Perhaps, in a sense, Dr. Jayatilleka has erred - by trying to go against the orthodox political view and attitude of certain issues relating to foreign policy, without much support from within. For he knows that foreign policy develops gradually, and a quick ‘revolution’ cannot be expected without a strong political backing, however meritorious that revolution might be. In a day and age when elections and votes take prominence over ideas and thoughts, public servants cannot be expected to hold sway over certain politicians – perhaps an unwritten axiom which applies to all those involved in the public service, fighting for ‘change’ that is desirable, necessary and more in tune with current realities. Certainly, revolutions initiated in Geneva will take sometime to materialize in Colombo.

Conclusion

President Rajapaksa approaches a moment when he has to retain his best men in key diplomatic capitals around the world. And at a time like this, when the march is not yet over, when the victory is not yet fully secured, when the innumerable threats facing the State have not yet evaporated, when the effective advocacy and communication of Sri Lanka’s message overseas is quintessential, we don’t go in search of a convincing advocate if we already have one. The focus, today and now, needs to be on whether he can defend Sri Lanka’s case in Geneva, not anything else. The question is simple: does President Rajapaksa want him in Geneva, or does he not? He was President Rajapaksa’s choice, and on this, it is the President who needs to answer.

Yet, in June, when a term comes to an end, he might walk out a free man, with the ability to speak out more frankly and freely about all this. All things weighed, Sri Lanka stands to lose much when that happens. There is then a noose which hangs from above and it dangles, not round the neck of Dr. Jayatilleka, but that of ‘Sri Lanka’. Let me add that there is also a sense of sadness that overwhelms me, of having to witness at a moment as this, a certain inability to galvanize the best of minds in furtherance of Sri Lanka’s national interests overseas.

- [The writer holds an LL.M degree from University College London (UCL). He can be contacted at kalanack@gmail.com]-Sri Lanka Guardian