by K. Godage
Did these so-called advisors not give thought to the fact that had just one of the many thousands of 'Lanka haters who had gathered in London done harm to our popular president, this country would have gone up in flames along with some foreign missions, and that would have set us back by a hundred years. The Diaspora and our enemies could not have wished for more.
These setbacks I suppose have resulted in the president doing something quite unprecedented —— appointing a monitor to keep an eye on the foreign ministry. This also serves to indicate that he has lost confidence in the ministry. Some may consider it a slap on the face of the foreign minister. But as a minister he is more concerned with policy and articulating that policy. He should not be involved in the day to day management of the ministry though he is of course answerable. The minister is at his brilliant best as a spokesman for our country; he is indeed our best advocate. This talent of his should be used for the benefit of the country to the maximum, but most certainly there is no excuse for having allowed the ‘disasters’ to occur.
This government has had one significant success in the all important area of foreign relations and that has been the management of our relations with the country which is most important of all to us - India. The credit for this should undoubtedly go the trio, Defence Secretary Gotabhaya, Minister Basil and Secretary to HE, Lalith Weeratunge. They ensured support for this country at the most critical time of the war.
The concession to establish a Consulate in Jaffna may perhaps be as a reward for the support we received. But we need to be absolutely wary. Whatever the government in Delhi, they would seek to appease the government in Tamil Nadu at our expense and their record speaks for itself.
Let me now refer to the issue of the visit of the UNSG’s panel. When the President had talks with Ban ki-Moon, no doubt for both parties to find an ‘escape route’ from the war crimes allegations which are being constantly fuelled by the Diaspora, should not notes have been taken and a statement or a press release issued on what had been agreed upon? The next step would have been to work out the logistics or modalities for the visit. Was any of this done? NO! Now who is responsible for this mishandling?
The manner in which it has been handled is wholly unprofessional. It is indeed a major issue for the image of the country and our own self-respect would suffer when the panel visits here and are not permitted to work according to their mandate. They are NOT coming here in response to the Public Notice of the LLRC and that must be clearly understood. The UNP meanwhile is seeking to embarrass the government by insisting that the panel be allowed to meet Gen. Fonseka; the pro-LTTE Tamil parties would seek to give evidence in camera. What a huge mess this is going to be!
Is there anyone in government who can think through an issue? Please Mr. President appoints people who understand what it is to MANAGE our foreign relations. The foreign ministry has to take responsibility for this mess up. It is their advice and not the advice of hangers-on that should have prevailed. Though the wretched 1972 Constitution transformed the Public Service into a bunch of lackeys who say ‘Yes Sir’ when a minister clears his throat, they do have a responsibility to place on record their professional advice and the political head has to take responsibility thereafter for what follows.
We have incurred the wrath of the West without good reason. They have no doubt prostrated themselves before the pro LTTE Diaspora and harmed us on their behalf but there were ways of handling the situation. There are many power centers in democratic countries and there is also the media.
Who incidentally is responsible for media relations in London? For instance the head of Channel Four should have been invited by the HC and he should have cultivated a relationship with him to ensure the hostile coverage of Lanka was ended. We have dealt with the media sympathetic to the Tamil cause and explained to them the genesis of the problem and sought their positive support and obtained it. Even in India in 1989 when almost the entire establishment was hostile after the IPKF was asked to leave, the then High Commissioner, the late Dr. Stanley Kalpage with the able assistance of the present Ambassador to the EU Ravinatha Aryasinha, who was in charge of media relations, ensured that we were not ‘roasted’ in the media.
We have in recent years had an amateurish approach to the management of our foreign relations. For instance those who surrounded the president at the time he came into office did not understand that Human Rights is a religion in the West after the second World War. Those who came here to investigate had a legitimate right to raise issues relating to the senseless killings in Trincomalee but what did the government do? They used foul language on respected UN officials and incurred the wrath of the international community. We had obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which we are a party to, to assist them. We should have engaged with them and said that it is NOT the POLICY of the government to violate HR and admitted that whoever was responsible had acted wrongly instead of seeking to indulge in a cover-up which has been exploited by the Tamil Diaspora.
As stated earlier, the one exception most fortunately for us has been the ‘practical approach’ to the management of our relationship with India. As for Europe and the rest of the world (and those involved in multilateral work), they are allowed to act on their own at most times. The other problem seems to be that we have too many players involved. The management of our foreign relations must be taken more seriously.
A group of experts such as former Secretaries of Foreign Affairs can be requested to act as a Think Tank. The age of ideology is behind us. We need to follow a pragmatic foreign policy to realize our goals. No doubt the Western countries who crudely sought to save the LTTE to win votes of the Tamil people living in their countries are not on good terms with the government and have by their myopic actions damaged relations with this country. Unfortunately for us we need them more than they need us; but that said they too must understand that they have other interests in our region which take precedence over the interests of the Tamil Diaspora.
They should take a page out of the US book. For much too long the State Department implemented a hostile policy at the behest of that LTTE sympathizer Robert Blake. But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took account of our being increasingly pushed into the arms of China by their hostility and took a greater interest in the management of policy towards Sri Lanka. As a result a dramatic change has taken place. As for the management of our relations with the US, should the government not think in terms of appointing a Sri Lankan who has good contacts with the US Government as our ambassador and staff the embassy with good professionals and require them to actively cover the House and the Senate, the Oval Office, the State Department, the media and the NGOs including Human Rights Watch?
Yes, we do need a good team and a professional leader. Likewise, we should understand that the countries of Europe and the EU are very important to us for a multitude of reasons and that we should engage with them too by drawing up a new policy framework for relating to the countries of Europe and the EU. This is a responsibility that the president owes this country. He cannot appoint any Haramanis or Juwanis to be an ambassador of this country and represent its people. We understand that he made an appointment to monitor the work of the ministry because it has failed to deliver the goods. But is this the answer? We hope the young monitor will be able to get the ministry to work as a team.
Finally I have no doubt that the president is aware that the one answer to the problems the Diaspora is causing is to win over the Tamil people of this country to whom this country also belongs and this can be done only by empowering them to decide on their own destiny to the furthest extent possible compatible with the territorial integrity, sovereignty and security of our country. Let us also for a start think in terms of appointing two vice presidents without portfolios - one a Tamil and the other a Muslim. That would indeed be a grand gesture towards recognizing our minorities.
The writer belonged to the Sri Lanka Overseas Service, served as Ambassador in Brussels and retired as Additional Foreign Secretary.
 In recent times we have experienced three setbacks in the execution 0f our foreign ...){kind=link}
Post a Comment