Save us please from this doctor piffle

By Neville de Silva

In biblical times it was considered a miracle when Balaam's ass suddenly spoke. It is no longer a miracle. It happens often enough.I was reminded of it on reading an interview with Palitha Kohona which appeared in a so-called newspaper published here for the Sri Lankan community and available free. I don't usually read news regurgitated several days later. But Newslanka has its uses. It is a requirement of the Harrow Council that all kitchen waste, including leftover food, be wrapped in newspaper before being put in the rubbish bin. I thought it was an appropriate receptacle for both the interview and the paper in which it appeared.

It just happened that a Sri Lankan here who, like his fellow countrymen, follows assiduously the haps and mishaps in modern Sri Lanka, drew my attention to it. Though for some reason known only to foreign secretary Kohona he does not mention me by name, but his allusions and remarks leave no doubt he is referring to comments I have made in some recent columns. Normally, I would have ignored such naivety as the consequences of the second coming of the puerile. But, one cannot let it pass as it concerns aspects of Sri Lankan foreign policy, counter terrorism, Commonwealth initiatives and a pathetic attempt to discredit what he does not understand.

For a person who has desperately needed to impress since he became foreign secretary early this year, it is a puzzling performance. Puzzling not because of his linguistic aberrations ("I stopped in London for almost less than a day") or because of the availability of some pliant interviewer with even less understanding of these matters than the interviewee and having his pearls of wisdom that "droppeth like the gentle rain" published here, away from the probing minds of Sri Lankan readers. Like water finding its own level Kohona has found his. If I had space enough and time, I would have quoted 'in extenso' the relevant question and Kohona's reply which meandered tortuously like some parliamentary speeches. Unfortunately a paraphrase would have to suffice.

Bowling a full toss, the interviewer called Sujeeva Nivunhella asks about the meeting that Bogollagama and Kohona had several months ago with Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon and about the observation that both did not seem to be aware of the Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism (CCT) when McKinnon mentioned it. That was a direct reference to what I had first mentioned on October 28 and November 11 and the foreign ministry's subsequent miserable attempts to deny it.

Here is Kohona in reply or part of it: "It is a whimsical tale. It is an imaginary tale. The Commonwealth Committee on Terrorism did not come up for discussion at that meeting. When this article appeared, the High Commissioner wrote to Mr McKinnon and asked him for a clarification and he said this matter was not discussed at that meeting. As to why this journalist got this impression I am not sure. Judging by some of the other things this journalist has been saying I suspect he has a private axe to grind and the truth doesn't get in the way of his personal objectives."

Kohona has either not read the letter from McKinnon's office or he cannot understand simple English. Or is it that he doesn't let truth get in the way of his objectives, to employ his own words?I challenge Kohona to point out where McKinnon's letter which is with me, says this matter was not discussed. Surely an illustrious school like S Thomas' College Mt Lavinia taught him enough English to comprehend a simple letter. Kohana distorts the truth and not for the first time. I never said the CCT was discussed. What I did say was that when the issue of terrorism was raised by Sri Lanka, McKinnon reminded them of the CCT and Sri Lanka's membership in it.

If Kohana and his ministry spin doctors have a problem of understanding English it is hardly my fault. I did not imagine the "tale". I quoted Commonwealth Secretariat sources and not McKinnon, as the ministry letter to the editor falsely claims. If it was imagined, why has he still not written to the editor denying its veracity? Surely he had word enough and time. While he and his ministry have not done so in Colombo he has talked to some rag elsewhere. So who has ignored or abandoned the truth?

On the McKinnon letter I asked whether the foreign ministry had breached accepted procedure by making that letter public, especially since it refused to release the High Commissioner's letter to McKinnon. When I raised it with the Commonwealth Secretariat the reply was: "Correspondence between the Commonwealth Secretariat and a member government is usually privileged and not meant for the public domain, except by mutual agreement."

Will Kohana or his pedestrian spin doctor who released the letter, tell us whether the ministry had the concurrence of the Secretariat to make the letter public or did so in a desperate but futile effort to contradict what was not an "imaginary tale" but one still not denied officially to this newspaper by either side.

Kohana cursorily dismisses the CCT and lauds the efforts of the United Nations where he worked in the section where treaties are registered in the same manner perhaps, as land deeds are registered in our land registry.

If the Commonwealth efforts are "nabal* and the UN must remain the centre of our focus in countering terrorism, why on earth are we pursuing such efforts in SAARC, ASEAN Regional Forum, IISS Asia Pacific Security Summit, Asian Corporation Dialogue and other international fora as the foreign ministry initiated letter sent to the editor through our High Commissioner in London, takes the trouble to underline? And why did the same letter emphasise the Sri Lankan proposal to the Commonwealth summit for a Colombo ministerial meeting which will examine counter terrorism measures since the CCT and the adoption of the Commonwealth Plan of Action of Terrorism?

This proposal was accepted by the Heads of Government at Kampala which referred to the CPAT and the CCT in para 34 of the final communiqué, a communiqué that was endorsed by President Rajapaksa. Is Kohana then saying that President Rajapaksa was wrong to have endorsed our own proposal and that he is opposed to this government's policy that obviously looks beyond the UN system to counter terrorism?

It is the "white" members of the Commonwealth (Australia. Britain and Canada) that have tried to devalue the CCT from its inception and are doing so even now. So when Kohana does the same, one is tempted to ask who is going along with the "White" Commonwealth, minister Bogollagama or Kohana? Kohana is also an Australian citizen. Is it that half of him that is getting in the way of his judgement and Sri Lanka's interests? Ego trips apart, there is an unfortunate lack of understanding how the Commonwealth functions and what Sri Lanka has subscribed to over the years.

It does not function like the UN as some of its small time bureaucrats who know little outside the UN system think. The criticism about our performance in Kampala has to be viewed in that context. As I've pointed out previously CMAG does not function like the UN Security Council or the CHOGM general assembly. There is no vote in either place and even if dissent is recorded as in CHOGM -an interesting example is over sanctions against South Africa (Kohana please learn), the final communiqué does not mention that. It is an internal recording process. On Pakistan, Bogollagama did oppose its summary suspension. But there was no way he could have swung the decision or gone further without compromising the very Harare principles, the fundamental values we have subscribed to since they were adopted.

Moreover there was the danger that if Sri Lanka pushed this matter too far when suspension was demanded by most CMAG members including some prominent ones, Colombo's hope of hosting the 2011 CHOGM and even the proposed ministerial meeting next year, could have run into serious opposition.

There is often a quid pro quo in diplomacy and one should know how far to go and when to go along with a consensus that could not change but where we did show our stand. So where was Kohana when all this was happening? What was his contribution, if any? What was his advice to the minister? Or did he just go along for the ride.

If I have an axe to grind I don't seem to be the only one-and that includes ministers, former diplomats and others including several newspapers.