Columns

So the government has turned down a request from Germany to co-sponsor a Consensus Resolution on Sri Lanka at the September session of the UNHRC.

As far as one can discern Foreign Secretary Admiral (Retd) Jayanath Colombage had said so at a media conference late last month. He was quoted as saying so by a state-run newspaper though I did not see this particular rejection of a German invitation mentioned in other despatches on this media conference.

Perhaps I missed it. Perhaps it was not reported in other newspapers. Perhaps it was mentioned only in state media outlets. Who knows these days when there is so much “fake news” circulating around the world.

Take, for instance, Putin’s view of the invasion of Ukraine as recorded by Russian media and Moscow’s blocking of news sources that do not call it a “military operation” or provide a different on-the -spot coverage of bombed and shelled cities, civilian apartment blocks flattened, hospitals and shelters where men, women and children have sought refuge, destroyed killing many civilians.

So where does truth lie? With Putin’s media, the modern day Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (News) or in dozens of other news channels including those from the Global South?

One is not at all sure whether Colombage mentioned when and where the German request was made, to whom and who in the government or which branch of the Executive, rejected it.

Perhaps the reporters did not think that such facts are important to flesh out the bare bone of his remark which seems to be a rather regular habit of foreign ministry panjandrums resident in Colombo or scattered in missions abroad.

Experience in the foreign ministry over the last 2 ½ years or so should have taught Secretary Colombage that loose tongues do take their toll. Surely he cannot forget his remark shortly before last year’s UN Human Rights Council sessions about an Indian assurance to support Sri Lanka at the Geneva sessions and then weeks later blaming a newspaper-“I think I was misquoted”- for perhaps misquoting him when the damage had already been done.

He was not the only retired admiral who cost Sri Lanka some support at the voting on the Sri Lanka resolution last year when he proposed the banning of the burka, the face covering worn by Muslim women, once again before the Geneva sessions. Here were two admirals lost at sea in the rather unfamiliar waters of international relations.

Colombage has now worked under two foreign ministers whose incursion into the field of mathematics would have shocked the ancient Egyptians who introduced the subject to the world when they claimed with great erudition that Sri Lanka had actually won the vote on Resolution 46/1 at last year’s UNHRC session.

In such an environment one needs to tread with extreme caution especially when ‘enemies’ from the Global North are said to be hunting for easy targets, quite often to cover up their own sins such as human rights violations in Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Immediately after last month’s “ interactive dialogue” on Sri Lanka in Geneva Foreign Minister GL Peiris claimed that 31 of the 45 countries that participated in it supported Sri Lanka, a claim faithfully echoed by his foreign secretary.

Such statements might be swallowed in toto by some faithful but unthinking party members and some Socratic intellectuals of Viyath Maga. Sadly there was little or no evidence to back such claims– particularly the texts of speeches that could have justified this contention.

Strangely this failure to provide proof comes from persons who vociferously  call for evidence when charges are levelled against Sri Lanka.

Fortunately for those who make such extravagant claims there was no vote at the end of the day. It was only a discussion/debate on an update by Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet on developments in Sri Lanka since the controversial resolution last year.

Another state-run newspaper quoted Colombage saying at the same media conference that Sri Lanka “was able to present the facts logically and precisely to counter the allegations levelled against the country.”

If this is logic then may the multiple deities help us all, though they may be busy right now trying to find gas, petrol, kerosene and electricity to make the nation run.

At the same media briefing he is reported to have said that the current report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights focused more on the “internal political affairs of a sovereign country rather than the alleged human rights abuses during the 30-year war period.”

Surely the foreign secretary must understand that for the last several years the UNHRC has been discussing resolutions on Sri Lanka and developments which impinge on the subject of human rights, relevant international laws domestic laws and actions that violate them and the rule of law, among others.

So what does he expect? If the subject for discussion is Sri Lanka and the resolutions concern Sri Lanka is the Human Rights Commissioner and the Council to discuss Putin’s Ukraine Concerto?

Last week when this column wrote on Foreign Secretary’s preparations for the September UNHRC sessions when a new resolution on Sri Lanka is bound to surface, we said that while Colombo should be the “war room” for this strategy planning, the front line would be our missions abroad, especially those in the capitals of the “Core Group” where such missions are present.

We also questioned whether all those who head those missions are fit for this purpose. A couple of days ago Minister GL Peiris was reported to have asked Lord Naseby who I have known for several decades and who has helped Sri Lanka on numerous occasions, whether the UK was antagonistic towards Sri Lanka.

That showed his concern about our bilateral relations, particularly because UK leads the “Core Group” on the Sri Lanka issue before the UNHRC. If the foreign minister is concerned about the state of relations, then a major part of the answer lies in the competence of our lead diplomats, especially the head of mission, to strive to improve relations, which calls for constant meeting and briefings to Foreign Office diplomats and often as possible to State Ministers, ruling party politicians and opposition MPs especially shadow ministers.

That calls for carefully crafted relationships not only with politicians and civic society groups but with the media not avoiding them or even shunning them, as one ruling Conservative Party Lord complained to me how he was treated shabbily after he was invited to a High Commission event.

Here is a Lord, whose name I do not wish to disclose, has been a visitor to Sri Lanka and has often spoken in support of Sri Lanka. That is just one instance

On the broader canvas does our mission keep in contact with the Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy or former shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry during her time? This is particularly important at a time when opinion polls show Labour ahead of the Conservatives by 10 points and could perhaps form the next government.

At a time when Sri Lanka has its back to the wall, public relations is a vital part of diplomacy especially with the UK playing the lead role on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. But try getting, for instance, the text of a public speech delivered to a ruling Tory caucus and one would be lucky to receive even an acknowledgment. There is more to be said but later perhaps.

As somebody once said “Facebook diplomacy” hardly benefits the country which is already cash strapped and cutting back on overseas mission.

Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London)