The Foreign Ministry’s decision to recall non-career diplomats is not only short-sighted but self-sabotaging. History has shown that, in times of national crisis, non-career diplomats have stepped in to achieve what their career counterparts could not.
by Luxman Aravind
Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has become synonymous with corruption, betrayal, and political cronyism. A retired high-ranking official described the Ministry as “one of the biggest cans of disgusting worms,” a “pit of snakes” where treachery reigns supreme. This is not hyperbole; it’s a stark indictment of an institution that should embody national loyalty but instead epitomises self-serving ambition. Career diplomats and political appointees alike have transformed Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps into a feeding ground for personal gain, with the interests of the nation falling by the wayside.
 |
| Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sri Lanka [File Photo] |
The selfish greed festering within the Ministry is staggering. Career diplomats, ostensibly appointed to serve the nation, have instead used their positions to bolster their private fortunes. Many have manoeuvred to establish their families comfortably overseas, raising an important question: how do government officials, on relatively modest salaries, afford luxurious lifestyles in Western countries? Their children thrive abroad, enjoying lives bankrolled by public funds, while these diplomats, whose contributions are minimal at best, continue to reap rewards. For them, public service is not a duty—it’s a loophole to secure privilege.
Recent events illustrate the deeply political nature of these foreign appointments. A list of “political appointees” has recently surfaced in the media, revealing the Ministry’s bias. Numerous ambassadors, high commissioners, and heads of missions have been instructed to return to Colombo by December 1, mere two weeks after the upcoming parliamentary elections. Interestingly, some distinguished military officers and other government officials, who have honourably served the country, have been recalled, while certain politically secure figures—such as Sri Lanka’s ambassador to the United States—are conspicuously absent from the recall list. This glaring inconsistency screams of cronyism and raises an urgent question: who prepared this list? How were these individuals chosen, and what kind of vendetta fuelled this purge?
The answer is dishearteningly clear: personal vendetta and political calculations, not merit or service to the country, dictate the Ministry’s decisions. Among those recalled are highly respected military figures whose dedication to the country is unquestionable.
Consider the case of the Sri Lankan mission in Islamabad, for instance. Generals Anton Muthukumaru, H.W.H. Wijekoon, G.H. de Silva, and Srilal Weerasooriya each served with distinction, were honoured during their diplomatic postings, and allowed to complete their terms. Alongside figures like Air Chief Marshal Jayalath Weerakkody and Major General Jayanath Lokukatagoda, they were appointed for their expertise, not political affiliations. Most recently, Vice Admiral Mohan Wijewickrama, former Navy Chief of Staff and Eastern Province Governor, served as High Commissioner from 2020 to 2023, demonstrating exceptional integrity. None of these officials endured the humiliation of an early recall. For successive governments, retaining retired military commanders in Islamabad has been a deliberate, strategic choice aligned with critical national interests.
The case of Admiral Ravindra C. Wijegunaratne, however, is an exception—and a shameful one at that. Admiral Wijegunaratne, a former Navy Commander and Chief of Defence Staff who earned the prestigious Nishan-e-Imtiaz medal from Pakistan, was recalled after only ten months. In stark contrast to his predecessors, who were allowed to complete their terms, he was abruptly pulled back, a slap in the face for a man whose service to Sri Lanka is unmatched. His recall is not just an insult; it’s a blatant display of political vendetta. Unlike his predecessors, who enjoyed the respect they deserved, Admiral Wijegunaratne has been treated with contempt, his dignity trampled by bureaucrats and politicians acting out of sheer malice.
Adding to the outrage, this recall list omitted certain diplomats with questionable records but strong political ties. The Ministry’s decision to remove some ambassadors while sparing others reeks of cronyism. The embassy in the United States, for example, remains untouched, its politically favoured ambassador secure in a post protected by backroom deals. Meanwhile, Admiral Wijegunaratne, whose appointment strengthened ties with Pakistan—a crucial ally—has been sacrificed on the altar of petty politics. It is an act of disgrace, illustrating the Ministry’s systemic corruption and utter disregard for merit or service.
This political vendetta extends beyond Admiral Wijegunaratne and permeates Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps. In Cuba and Nepal, for instance, former military leaders, individuals with rich experience in defence and security, serve as ambassadors. These are not political appointments but strategic placements of individuals who understand the intricacies of security, an invaluable skill in regions where Sri Lanka has critical strategic interests. Both countries have benefitted from these appointments, as the former Air Force and Navy leaders posted there bring unparalleled expertise. However, these positions are precarious in a Ministry that views all non-career diplomats with suspicion and contempt.
Sri Lanka’s foreign missions have long been tainted by political interests, and this manipulation only deepens the crisis. Political appointees treat their posts as personal assets, exploiting public funds for private gain with shameless audacity. But the issue goes further: many so-called “career diplomats” are equally complicit, using their paper qualifications to climb the ranks without ever serving the nation’s interests. They may submit token reports to Colombo for annual appraisals, but their true contributions are virtually nil. In host countries, they engage minimally with the local community, foster no strategic ties, and build no beneficial networks. They are diplomats in title alone, filling their time with personal indulgences rather than advancing Sri Lanka’s interests.
The Foreign Ministry’s decision to recall non-career diplomats is not only short-sighted but self-sabotaging. History has shown that, in times of national crisis, non-career diplomats have stepped in to achieve what their career counterparts could not. Figures like Dr. Dayan Jayatilleka, who represented Sri Lanka during the civil war, understood the nuances of his role and advocated effectively for the nation on the world stage. Non-career diplomats often bring a level of expertise, pragmatism, and integrity sorely lacking among many career diplomats. The Ministry’s dismissal of these appointees is nothing short of suicidal; it’s as if they would rather protect their insular circle than allow capable outsiders to contribute.
The global norm supports the strategic use of non-career diplomats. Nations like India routinely appoint non-career professionals, providing them the freedom and authority necessary to serve effectively. In Sri Lanka, however, the Ministry’s bureaucratic elitism resents such appointments. Career diplomats, many of whom are unfit for their roles, view non-career appointees as threats to their privileged positions. This resentment breeds hostility, making it impossible for Sri Lanka’s foreign missions to operate as cohesive units. Instead, the Ministry is rife with scheming and backstabbing, leading one official to describe it as a “vicious pit of snakes” where personal vendettas are prioritised over national duty.
These early signs of immaturity and vindictiveness in the government’s foreign policy approach are alarming. The Ministry’s bias, its political patronage, and its continuous failure to prioritise competence over connections all signal a looming crisis for Sri Lanka’s foreign relations. If this government persists in manipulating the diplomatic corps to advance short-term political goals, it will jeopardise the nation’s stability and security. As Sun Tzu aptly stated, “In war, the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.” By treating diplomacy as a mere tool for political games, the Ministry is setting Sri Lanka up for failure on the international stage. Their petty battles may bring fleeting wins, but the cost will be borne by the Sri Lankan people, who deserve a foreign service that protects and represents their interests—not one that feeds off their sacrifice.
The Ministry’s toxic culture and the government’s disregard for meritocracy threaten not just Sri Lanka’s diplomatic reputation but its future. By prioritising personal vendettas and party loyalty over genuine talent and service, the Ministry has betrayed the public trust. Incompetent career diplomats and politically connected appointees will continue to squander public funds, indulge in self-promotion, and exploit their positions while the nation’s true interests are left to languish. The latest unjust recall and the humiliation endured by numerous dedicated non-career diplomats highlight the betrayal within the Ministry—a betrayal that poisons Sri Lanka’s future with each new act of political retribution.
Until the Foreign Ministry undergoes a drastic overhaul and shifts its focus to genuine merit, integrity, and national service, it will remain what it is today: a cesspool of corruption, manipulation, and incompetence. Without immediate reform, Sri Lanka’s diplomatic corps will continue to function as a private club for the well-connected, where public funds are squandered, and the nation’s reputation is tarnished. The Foreign Ministry, a “viper’s nest” as it stands, will keep poisoning Sri Lanka’s future one corrupt decision at a time, while the people pay the price of their leaders’ insatiable greed.
Post a Comment