The more extreme elements in the Ministry of
External Affairs have at last put their cards on the table in the form
of an article by the wife of one of its rising stars. The same young
lady kindly gave me an opportunity to engage in a strong critique of the
viewpoints she represented, when she gratuitously attacked me some
weeks back.
What is astonishing is that this article is based on the premise that
countries like Cuba and Venezuela are anathema at present to Sri Lanka.
I suspect it will be news to President Rajapaksa that Cuba is a failed
state and that a positive view of Chavez ‘fundamentally undermines
everything Sri Lanka has stood for since it inherited a liberal
democracy post 1948’.
Certainly those countries have weaknesses which is why they should not
be absolute models for us. But the same applies to the countries to
which we are supposed to subscribe without question, if the article is
accurate in suggesting that Sri Lankan policy will now focus on its
‘relationships with its traditional liberal democratic allies’, ie the
West. It is claimed that this new departure is the reason that Tamara
Kunanayakam and Dayan Jayatilleka are being sidelined, while ‘a career
diplomat with proven ability to engage the West’ is now being sent to
Geneva.
Oddly enough, the article completely ignores the fact that the attack
on us as developed by the United States focused on what were seen as
inadequacies precisely with regard to what Tamara and Dayan also noted.
Their commitment to a pluralistic society with greater attention to
Human Rights has never been questioned.
It should also be noted that they have both consistently stressed the
need for both Reconciliation and truth telling. It was not they who
attacked me when, three years ago, I noted that there had been civilian
casualties, a position about which supposedly more ‘liberal democratic’
colleagues were in a state of denial.
What this latest policy statement of the Ministry of External Affairs
suggests is that its denizens have no understanding at all of foreign
policy. The West basically has three reasons for its continuing assaults
on us over the last few years. The first and the one publicly
proclaimed was the argument that Sri Lanka was violating Human Rights
consistently, and this had to be prevented.
The second was the pressure applied by the diaspora, which exercises a
disproportionate amount of influence on some government. Finally there
was the desire to bring Sri Lanka into its sphere of influence, and in
particular prevent China from gaining a strong foothold here.
Everybody knows, from the continuing support to dictatorships
provided they support the West, that the first is not the most important
consideration. Rather, Human Rights is used by strategists in the West
to promote their own interests, and this has become entrenched with for
instance the US government’s massive funding for its own pet causes
through the National Endowment for Democracy.
However we must also recognize that at least some of those who
promote Human Rights, and are therefore vociferous in their criticism of
the Sri Lankan government, genuinely believe that we violate these
systematically. Whilst this is not true, certainly violations occur. We
should work hard to stop this, not only because we owe it to our own
people, but also because such violations strengthen the feelings of
those who do care about Human Rights, and are grist to the mill of those
who make use of Human Rights to attack us.
The Ministry of External Affairs did nothing to promote Human Rights
when that subject was entrusted to it. The communications of the Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights were ignored, whereas when
Dayan was in Geneva and I was Secretary of the Ministry of Human Rights,
when we had one, we made sure that all letters were answered promptly.
My staff at the time, some of whom had been absorbed by the Ministry,
were badly treated, and it was only because the then Attorney General
and I pushed hard that we managed to produce the National Action Plan on
Human Rights that Cabinet finally adopted.
Similarly, with regard to the second reason for Western pressures,
while I believe that some elements in the diaspora are still committed
to the LTTE agenda, the vast moderate majority were ignored, which is
why many of them have now gone back to supporting extremism. Efforts to
engage were minimal.
It was only because of the efforts of our Honorary Consul in New
Zealand that arrangements were made for me to meet diaspora groups in
Australia and New Zealand , and the question they put was, why had this
not been done before?
Later, because of the indefatigable efforts of our Deputy High
Commissioner in London , and later the current High Commissioner,
similar arrangements were made there for wide ranging discussions with
the diaspora, along with media interactions.
In Chennai too, through the excellent connections established by our
Deputy High Commissioner there, a Tamil who has now been prematurely
transferred, I met several opinion makers who indicated that this should
have been done earlier.
I am sure there were other examples of this, though my interlocutors
were of the view that actual discussion and efforts to explain points of
potential difficulty had not occurred before. But my point is that
there should have been a systematic programme of engagement, and the
failure of the Ministry to have suggested something of the sort and
planned programmes was a pity.
Indeed it was left to positive thinking NGOs such as International
Alert to arrange tours for bright young Members of Parliament , to
engage with the diaspora and British Members of Parliament. The MPs who
went were unanimous in defending Sri Lanka even while disagreeing on
other matters, which was certainly food for thought for those in the
diaspora who believe that the government’s actions in getting rid of
terrorism are deplored by all those not in government.
Dayan in his own way has extended ties with all members of the
diaspora. But what then happens to him? When he engages bright young
Tamil staff, he is attacked for promoting Tigers, whereas Ministry
personnel who actually give contracts to Tiger agents get away scot
free.
The inbuilt prejudice against minorities of our so-called ‘liberal
democrats’ can be seen from the fact that there were efforts, three
years ago, to make me call the Tamil doctors in the North traitors and
LTTE agents, when I was interviewed about statements they had made. I
refused, and said that as far as I knew they were professionals who were
under tremendous pressure, which it is clear now has been understood by
all in government, including those who wished in the past to score
brownie points by attacking others.
Thus what I believe we should be dealing with rationally, the call
for a better Human Rights dispensation and reducing the pressures from
the diaspora (including through political reconciliation in Sri Lanka )
are ignored, and instead what is advocated is total adherence to Western
judgments and contempt for countries such as Cuba and Venezuela – and
implicitly China . S W R D Bandaranaike would be turning in his grave,
as would his widow, and Lakshman Kadirgamar, while I have no doubt that
the effects of this type of policy reversal would be to drive the
present President to an early political grave.
Sadly, I suspect the adherents of the current policy would not mind
this. After all, the nastier elements in the West have made no secret of
their desire for regime change, and given that, despite the current
policies of the Ministry of External Affairs, President Rajapaksa is not
likely to be a slavish adherent of the West, they will soon decide that
it would be best to have him replaced – and those in the Ministry of
External Affairs who declared that a military victory was out of the
question would do what was needed, having destroyed all possible
defences.
The proof that they will stop at nothing to destroy the President’s
defences and those of the country can be seen in the manner in which
they upset India , and continue to do this. I am aware that there was
much pressure on India from the West, and perhaps they would have
succeeded in getting India not to vote for us, but two blunders by the
so-called ‘liberal democrats’ certainly helped in the final decision, as
we have quite categorically been informed by Indian diplomats
The first was the publicizing of the claim that India had committed
to supporting us, which led to massive pressures in Tamilnadu. The
second was the denigration of Tamilnadu politicians, which naturally
increased the pressures on the Centre to stand by its own.
These pronouncements may well have been blunders, but it would make
sense for the Ministry to check on whether anyone were consulted before
they were made. I should add that I do not think those who made the
statements did so with deliberate intent to upset India , but that there
are others with such an agenda is now manifest.
The clear proof that there is a deliberate effort to drive a wedge
between India and Sri Lanka – and thus make us more dependent on the
confrontationalists of the West, who want India also in the same boat –
was the effort to deceive the President about the Indian Parliamentary
delegation.
A deliberate lie, which his more responsible Ministers had to refute,
was told him, which nearly led to the cancellation of his meeting with
the Indian delegation. Worse, he was also deceived about senior SLFP
Ministers, which I believe is designed to cut him away from his natural
base.
For what the article inspired by the extremists of the Ministry
ignores is that it is the SLFP that represents liberal democracy in Sri
Lanka , in accordance with the vision of its founder. He rejected the
urban capitalism of the UNP, but equally he rejected the doctrinaire
socialism of the Marxist parties.
He was like Nehru in this effort to follow a centrist path, but
later, their successors, who were both rejected by the West which wanted
total adherence or nothing, moved closer to the socialists in the
oppositional international politics that the Cold War engendered.
However, it should be noted that the basic principle of
Non-Alignment, which also involved building close ties with those Asian
countries that were not involved in Western military alliances, had also
been the policy of the UNP under Dudley Senanayake.
He too used brilliant minds such as Shirley Amerasinghe and Neville
Kanakaratne, from outside the foreign service, and also Gamini Corea, to
assert an independent perspective. These individuals, like Dayan and
Tamara, believed in pluralism and human rights, but not because these
were Western values (which indeed in those days they were emphatically
not).
It was only when J R Jayewardene replaced Senanayake as the leader of
the UNP that a different policy, going against the national consensus,
was established, and as we know this involved dismissing both Neville
Kanakaratne and Shirley Amerasinghe from their positions. The disasters
of the slavish adherence to the West that followed, which included
hostility towards India in those days, are well known.
Fortunately Jayewardene’s efforts to invoke Western military aid
against the Indians proved abortive – though my contacts in the British
Ministry of Defence told me that Mrs Thatcher had wanted to comply,
until the Foreign Office had dissuaded her.
Despite his initial anti-Indian rhetoric when Jayewardene’s foreign
policy was proved a failure in 1987, Premadasa as President also soon
saw the light, and used the services of Neville Kanakaratne to rebuild
relations with India.
However, though the Jayewardene excesses were avoided, following the
end of the Cold War, there were those in our Foreign Ministry who
thought that we had to accept Western models wholesale in a unipolar
world. But Mr Kadirgamar had a very different vision and, though at
times he found the Ministry more conservative, he revived commitment to
the Non-Aligned ideals of the party he had joined.
This did not mean anti-Western socialism, as had happened in the
seventies when confrontation was the order of the day. Rather, it meant
picking what was best from all models.
The West certainly has much to offer, and I believe we should work
together with idealists there, as opposed to practitioners of ruthless
self interest, to promote pluralism and Human Rights. But we should also
– and how can the President not do this, given his whole political
history? – follow other models with regard to ensuring better social
indicators, promoting equitable development and above all strengthening
regional groupings.
I do not know if the groupies who now run policy at the Ministry of
External Affairs will understand all this, or even bother to try to do
so. I don’t think it occurs to them that we have a duty to the Sri
Lankan people to move swiftly towards political reform that will empower
all our people and facilitate equitable development with input from
relevant stakeholders.
I don’t think it occurs to them that we have a duty to the Sri Lankan
people to ensure that their Rights are preserved and advanced. And I
don’t think it occurs to them that we have a duty to the Sri Lankan
people to preserve our sovereignty and make sure that we do not become a
tool for confrontational agendas.
That was what was planned in the eighties, when the enemy of the West
was India , and India intervened to prevent misuse of Trincomalee and
Iranawila, as the Annexe to the Indo-Lankan Accord makes clear. I hope
similar bases are not contemplated now, in theory against China , but
possibly to be used against India too in time if India develops into a
respected and independent leader of the Third World as Nehru dreamed.
But while I hope such stratagems are not needed in the world of
modern technology, we owe it to our people to ensure that this land is
not used for hostile moves against any other countries by anyone,
Western or Eastern or in between.
Improving relations with the West should be on the basis of
principles that we share, and Dayan and Tamara share those principles
and have the courage to say so unlike others who believe their political
careers might be blighted if they open their mouths.
And so, given the silence of these lambs, we have a situation where
we simply react to crisis after crisis, with no effort to develop
principled approaches to the world or to our own political difficulties.
Doubtless this will continue until the crisis gets so bad that change
will be essential. I can only hope that those who desire regime change,
against the democratic will of the Sri Lankan people, will not have
their way
Marine Environment Protection Authority Director General S R Samaratunga yesterday said they will take legal action against owners of the Cyprus flagged Bulk Carrier MV Thermopylae that has sunk within a range of six to eight nautical miles off the shores of Panadura.Samaratunga said they are taking steps to assess the extent of damage the ship has caused on Sri Lanka’s coastal environment with its oil spillage to the sea.
