Thoughts from London

Will our governments ever learn?
If the international sympathy and support that Sri Lanka gained immediately after the tsunami disaster appear to have been dissipated by a single act of indiscretion, it was the government's inept handling of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's brief visit to the country.

Eventually that visit turned into a propaganda weapon for the LTTE which quickly grasped and exploited it with the help of a sympathetic international media already fed on the story of discrimination in the distribution of relief aid.

The Foreign Ministry in a press release dated January 8 states that the local UN representative had proposed that Kofi Annan visits Hambantota, Ampara and Trincomalee.

"The Government whilst agreeing to these proposals also offered that Secretary General consider visiting Jaffna and Batticaloa, as well."
No mention then by either the UNDP Representative in Colombo or the Foreign Ministry of any visit to any other part of the country such as Mullaitivu.

So it would seem that a visit by Kofi Annan to Mullaitivu was never sought or offered. It would seem that Mullaitivu never figured except that the Foreign Ministry in a gesture of unexpected (or is it unusual) magnanimity offered "access and air transport" to take any member of the Annan delegation to visit the tsunami-affected areas including Mullaitivu.

It would appear that there was never a question of anybody in the UN asking for a visit to Mullaitivu or even suggesting it. That is what the Foreign Ministry statement issued by something called the Public Communications Division implies.

Then on January 9 President Chandrika Kumaratunga is quoted as saying something quite different. In a story datelined Colombo, the US network CNN, which is also seen by television viewers in Sri Lanka, said: "Sri Lanka's President says that she had no second thoughts asking UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to reconsider a planned trip to rebel-held territories in her country."

The crucial word here is "reconsider". Obviously one cannot reconsider something that has not been considered in the first place. Unless CNN got it wrong, and it has surely not ,to judge by what it says later, Annan or others close to him had indicated that a visit to "rebel-held areas" should be on the cards.

If that is not so then the word "reconsider" is meaningless. The fact that such a visit was considered but that the government put a damper on it is confirmed by two subsequent paragraphs, one of which is a direct quote from President Kumaratunga.

"Kumaratunga told CNN," the report continues, " the government had offered to take Annan to Jaffna, the capital of the rebel-held north, but not to other parts."

That is clear enough. Sorry no visits to other rebel-held areas. Exit Mullaitivu, or even Kilinochchi, from any planned visit. Then comes the crowning quote.

"The problem was about one part of the north which is entirely rebel held," she said. "That was the area that we advised the Secretary-General that it was better that he does not go."

Now if there was not even a hint of a visit to Mullaitivu, why offer unsolicited advice? So who are we to believe? Do we go along quietly with the Foreign Ministry's Public Communications Division (heaven only knows which public it communicates with!) or do we believe the President of the country?

If one reads the ministry press release carefully it is clear that it was not drafted by this so-called Public Communications Division or some ministry underling but that Foreign Minister Kadirgamar himself had a hand in it. One particular sentence hides more than it reveals.

It reads: "Following consultations with the relevant line Agencies and taking into account the security, programming and time considerations involved the UNDP Office and the Government authorities eventually agreed on an itinerary for the Secretary General……….."

Eventually agreed? Why, were there any disagreements, any differences, any suggestions. The Foreign Ministry might labour under the delusion that it has near divine capabilities. But the truth is that all this diplomatic obfuscation cannot hide the fact that there was a proposal, a suggestion, a desire or even a hint from Annan himself or his close aides to visit Mullaitivu or another key area held by the LTTE.

Questioned by the media Annan said that he would have liked to visit all tsunami-affected areas but that he was a guest of the Sri Lanka Government. Now how is one to interpret those words? Surely a seasoned UN Secretary-General would not have unthinkingly babbled as some of our leading politicians are wont to do.

The message that Annan was conveying was clear enough. He would have liked to go to some other areas too. But he was constrained by the fact that as a guest of a member-state he must be guided by the wishes and advice of its government.

Annan must surely remember that when he was to visit Sri Lanka previously there was some contention over whether he should visit the LTTE in Kilinochchi under pressure from the Tigers and their cohorts elsewhere, as there was this time too.

Perhaps Annan or his aides thought that since that proposed visit fell through because the idea of meeting the LTTE was struck down, this time it might be propitious as he was on a humanitarian mission.

This is not to argue that the government should have allowed the Secretary-General to meet the Tiger leaders knowing only too well the political and diplomatic capital the LTTE would make out of such a visit.

Despite all the death and destruction the Tamils in Mullaitivu and its immediate environs have suffered, there can be little doubt that to the LTTE the tsunami would have been a godsend had Annan visited the rebel-held areas.

It would have been hailed as a diplomatic triumph and a political recognition of the LTTE. International media coverage would have taken that message to the Tamil diaspora and the world.

That is what the Sri Lanka government feared. It might well have come up with arguments to show that there have been no precedents for a UN Secretary-General to visit armed separatist movements in countries where the conflict has not been resolved or there are no signs of resolution.

But that is not what this argument is about. It is the lack of a consistent position by the government where its presidential right hand does not seem to know what its foreign ministerial left hand is doing.

The inability to speak with a single, consistent voice at the highest levels of government shows the lack of co-ordination and clear thinking. This is compounded by the unfortunate fact that we lack competent persons in the presidential secretariat, foreign ministry and the media ministry who have the in-depth knowledge of foreign affairs, the international media and their respective interests and how to be proactive in dealing with the foreign media.

Placing obsequious flag wavers in positions of importance and others who would elevate themselves by carrying ministerial baggage or their spouses handbags might boost egos on both sides. But it certainly does not promote national interest or meet national concerns.

In the aftermath of our Black July some 11 years ago we learnt to our utter dismay that we had become an international pariah, largely because of the global media. We deserved that opprobrium for the callous, inhuman way in which we treated innocent Tamil people.

If we still have not learnt the lessons from that tragic happening and we still believe that any simpleton placed in a position of some power could deal effectively with an international media competing in the marketplace for news and information, then we are still living in cuckooland.

When we cannot even get our act together so as not speak in divergent voices, we are only feeding an un-satiated media that would love to slaughter us if they could. The basic problem is that our leaders, like the Bourbons of France, have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.

Back to Columns