Columns

• Wrong diplomats appointed to the wrong places, lack of professionalism in the service
• Thundering resolution against Sri Lanka by Britain’s House of Commons, obviously provoked by Tamil Diaspora groups; ministry’s silence questionable
• As President prepares to present Budget tomorrow, he is also compelled to perform Foreign Ministry’s foreign policy tasks

By Our Political Editor

The official: You have reported that a UNHRC team is coming to Sri Lanka. Is this correct? HE the President wants me to find out.

Me: I know it is an accurate account. If you are in doubt, why don’t you ask the Foreign Ministry?

The official: I did ask them. They say they don’t know anything about it.

Me: I am not surprised. They will only know after such a delegation arrives in Colombo.

The official: I will have to keep HE the President informed. I would therefore have to confirm the exact situation. Anyway, thank you for what you told me. I will also check with Geneva.

I was part joking when I told the official that the Foreign Ministry would only become aware after the delegation arrived in Colombo. As for the other part, such an assertion is true. Most matters appear to be foreign to those in this key ministry, responsible for the conduct of the country’s foreign policy. The malaise that has gripped it has taken such a bad turn. It has taken President Ranil Wickremesinghe to personally initiate measures to keep himself informed and act on issues of importance on the foreign policy front. Never has a president taken on such responsibility. After all, a Foreign Minister is vested with that task. It has become necessary because a Foreign Minister has been busy otherwise, making statements and sound bites of heroic strides or glorious achievements, which have made one believe all was well.

The standards set by successive Foreign Ministers, including A.C.S. Hameed, the illustrious Lakshman Kadirgamar and Mangala Samaraweera, among them, have all been in vain. Bureaucratic mishandling, inaction and a lack of focus have contributed to a once vibrant ministry that produced world-class diplomats whose voices were heard, and their arguments appreciated. Making it worse has been the appointment as heads of Sri Lanka diplomatic missions of those who were the least familiar with the country’s foreign policy and diplomatic norms.

A delegation from the UNHRC’s Asia Pacific Section led by its head, Rory Mungoven, did arrive in Colombo. It was just days ahead of the 51st sessions of the UNHRC sessions. What transpired at these sessions is now history. A resolution on “Promoting reconciliation, accountability, and human rights in Sri Lanka” received the lowest ever vote of seven countries in Colombo’s favour or against the move.  Twenty countries voted for the resolution and twenty others abstained. Foreign Minister Ali Sabry made two trips to Geneva, one to make his address during the high-level segment and another during the voting time to canvass support. They made little or no difference. In fact, the single-digit number opposing the Resolution was extremely evident well before the vote and was reflected even in these columns. In this context, it is questionable whether Foreign Minister Sabry needed to undertake the second visit and return with such an abysmal result. Now, Himali Arunatilaka, Sri Lanka Ambassador to Nepal is being moved to Geneva to prepare for the 52nd sessions in March, next year. C.A. Chandraprema, appointed by ex-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, has already been recalled.

New French Ambassador Jean- Francois Pactet presenting his credentials to President Ranil Wickremesinghe at the Presidential Secretariat on Friday

Britain’s House of Commons resolution

The reverberations caused by this latest Geneva resolution — one is not sure how much the Foreign Ministry is aware of or not — are being echoed in different parts of the world. The most important was this week’s debate in Britain’s House of Commons on a motion on Sri Lanka. It said: “That this House is concerned by reports of increased militarisation and human rights violations in Sri Lanka, particularly during the country’s current economic crisis; calls upon the Government, as a key stakeholder of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to propose conditionalities on any IMF financial assistance for Sri Lanka during the current economic crisis, including that Sri Lanka carries out a Strategic Defence and Security Review to reduce its military spending and remove the military from engaging in commercial activities, that Sri Lanka meets the criteria required for Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus, and that Sri Lanka re-engages with the United Nations Human Rights Council process and fully implements resolution 30/1; and calls upon the Government to implement targeted sanctions against individuals who are credibly accused of committing war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.”

That the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tamils (APPG) was behind the move became clear with most speakers who are backers of the group making references to it in their speeches. Some even read from briefing notes given to them. What is strikingly noteworthy was the absence of a single British MP defending Sri Lanka. Was the Foreign Ministry and even the Sri Lanka High Commission in London unaware of such a debate which had been publicised weeks ahead; or have these two institutions changed their strategy to demonstrate indifference in instances of this nature? If they failed to secure speakers in defence, why did they not respond to some of the serious accusations even after the debate at least in the form of an official statement?

Russia's new ambassdor Levan Dzhagaryan presenting his credentials to President Ranil Wickremesinghe at Friday's ceremony to receive new envoys to Sri Lanka.

Just this week, Sri Lanka was in the news after 303 nationals were saved when a wooden boat in which they were sailing for a ‘better life’ in Canada sank in the high seas off Singapore. The Foreign Ministry’s armchair publicists were quick to declare they were “monitoring” the situation. Why did they fail to monitor what was going on in the UK’s House of Commons? The speeches not only resonated the outcome of highlights of the UNHRC resolution but also sought to establish that “genocide” had taken place in Sri Lanka during the separatist war and referred to a film screened at the House of Commons in July. In fact, the number of 169,796 as having lost their lives was upheld by some speakers while sourcing it to the United Nations Census, World Bank and the Truth and Justice Project, an NGO whose bona fides are questionable. In addition, they spoke of targeted sanctions. The names of two military officers, one retired and another still serving, figured in most speeches. Further, the British government’s stance to this call is that it “would not speculate on possible designations” in this instance, “since that would reduce their impact,” but will “keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.” As is now known, they are being probed by a special unit under the UNHRC.

Leo Docherty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth, and Development, wound up the debate. Here are edited highlights of his speech which gives one an insight into the British government’s policies, which include hard messages:

“Let me turn explicitly to the human rights situation. The comprehensive report issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which has been mentioned today, highlighted several profound concerns. There continues to be a lack of progress on basic human rights and post-conflict accountability. The report also highlights economic crimes and the link to a lack of accountability, and the need to ensure that the most vulnerable continue to receive support. For two years, provincial council elections have been delayed under the promise of electoral reform, denying a voice for local and minority groups.

“Protest leaders have been arbitrarily or unlawfully arrested and the state of emergency powers have been extensively used. The Government of Sri Lanka has made numerous commitments to the international community to address this situation. They have promised to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1978 and implement legislation that is compliant with international human rights standards. The Government has also promised to implement a proper accountability mechanism to establish truth, reconciliation, and justice. We will continue to call on Sri Lanka to make progress on human rights and accountability. We will continue to work with international partners to hold the Government of Sri Lanka to their promises. We have supported efforts to promote human rights and peace and reconciliation in Sri Lanka for many years.

“A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned sanctions. The Government would not speculate from the Dispatch Box on possible designations, since that would reduce their impact, but we keep all evidence and potential listings under close review.

“To conclude, the people of Sri Lanka are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis and they continue to face violations of human rights and barriers to justice. In response to the economic situation, the UK Government has provided direct humanitarian assistance and financial support through multilateral institutions, and we continue to pursue options for debt relief through all of this; ensuring that the poorest and most vulnerable continue to receive support at this time is critical.

“We will continue to support the Sri Lankan people in their pursuit of justice and accountability and of progress on human rights, including at the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka is an important and valued friend of the United Kingdom, and this Government will do all we can to help the Sri Lankan people to achieve the prosperous and peaceful future they deserve.”

It is interesting to note the position from the statement of the British Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Commonwealth and Development that “The international framework ensures that Sri Lanka remains on the international human rights agenda, and we believe that this diplomatic approach is the best to encourage progress. However, we recognise that sincere and sustainable progress on human rights and accountability must be led by the people of Sri Lanka.” This recognition of the role of the people of Sri Lanka is noteworthy. Further also notable is the British explanation on the call for conditionalities on IMF financial assistance being “the IMF only has the ability to impose conditionality linked to economic policy and not only political or human rights.”

Then the House of Commons proceeded to resolve after “question put and agreed to that:”

“That this House is concerned by reports of increased militarization and human rights violations in Sri Lanka, particularly during the country’s current economic crisis; calls upon the Government, as a key stakeholder of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), to propose conditionalities on any IMF financial assistance for Sri Lanka during the current economic crisis, including that Sri Lanka carries out a Strategic Defence and Security Review to reduce its military spending and remove the military from engaging in commercial activities, that Sri Lanka meets the criteria required for Generalised Scheme of Preferences Plus, and that Sri Lanka re-engages with the United Nations Human Rights Council process and fully implements resolution 30/1; and calls upon the Government to implement targeted sanctions against individuals who are credibly accused of committing war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.”

The subject of the debate and the decision reached make clear it is not a one-off event. In the process, the British government has spelt out a string of conditions. Until yesterday, there has been no formal response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to this aspect. Whether maintaining stoic silence in the wake of this development will help both the government and the country remains a critical question.

Foreign Minister Sabry has decided to recall into foreign service a host of career officers who are near retirement. A few have retired too. This is for overseas postings as heads of Sri Lanka diplomatic missions. The idea here is not to challenge their credentials or their competence. However, an all-important question arises because of this. Who was responsible for recruiting new talent for the career foreign service and training them? Obviously, have they not failed in their duty? On the other hand, what criteria are being followed in the selection of those who are career officers?

Take for example, A.M.J. Sadiq, now Ambassador to the Maldives, classed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a “C” grade posting. This career officer had previously served as an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Sri Lanka Ambassador to the Netherlands (Grade A station).  Why then was he posted to a lower station? This is whilst keeping a post of High Commissioner in Australia vacant at that time for more than a year. This was when ex-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa held office. It is no secret that most appointments had been made on political affinities and the casualties have been career officers. Not surprisingly, some political parties who want to join the government have included a diplomatic posting besides a cabinet portfolio as a condition. An example is how a non-career officer was posted to an A grade station — a large country. Until recently, he had been reporting mostly to non-official channels.

There is little doubt that President Wickremesinghe’s ambitious plans to formulate an ethnic reconciliation package before the 75th Independence anniversary in February next year will also be affected by an ineffective foreign service. Besides the conduct of foreign policy, even educating the outside world of the developments locally, particularly about reviving the economy, will not reach other important countries. It would be interesting and pertinent to ascertain whether the statements of President Wickremesinghe in this regard find their way formally to the Sri Lanka diplomatic missions abroad through the Foreign Minister.

Reconciliation process

The next move about ethnic reconciliation will get underway when President Ranil Wickremesinghe visits Vavuniya on November 19 and 20. He will open the Reconciliation Secretariat and meet Tamil political parties and groups to hear their views.

One of the key players in the ethnic reconciliation process will be the Tamil National Alliance (TNA). Its spokesperson Abraham Sumanthiran said yesterday, “We were not consulted or aware of a new Unit being set up at the Presidential Secretariat to fast-track reconciliation and to find a political solution to the ethnic conflict.” He was commenting on the revelation in these columns about a ministerial team meeting every week after the cabinet sessions to formulate a reconciliation programme. It was also revealed that a Secretariat has already been established in the Presidential Secretariat.

Sumanthiran said: “However we welcome the recent statements from the President who has expressed a willingness to resolve issues of Tamils. We will support his initiative as we have been doing for similar steps taken in the past. The President does not have to start from scratch in this process since enough consensus has been reached already during the period of 2015-2019 when the whole Parliament was constituted as a Constitutional Assembly. President Wickremesinghe was then Prime Minister under Yahapalana government. It was then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe who submitted the draft new Constitution to Parliament on January 16, 2019.

“There have been several similar attempts made in the past to resolve the ethnic question and we extended our fullest support. The Mangala Mooneinghe Committee came up with the report during President Ranasinghe Premadasa’s period; the 2001 Constitutional bill tabled by Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency, and the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) report that was submitted during President Rajapaksa’s time and most recently the draft new Constitution formulated by the Constitutional Committee in which both myself and our leader R. Sampanthan served as members when the whole Parliament was converted as Constitutional Assembly followed by a resolution submitted by then Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.

“When the 2001 Constitutional Bill was submitted by former President Kumaratunga, many politicians who are currently sitting members of Parliament were in government –President Rajapaksa was in the Cabinet along with ex-President Maithripala Sirisena, Ministers Nimal Sripala de Silva and ex-Minister Prof G. L. Peiris and all of them supported it. However, the UNP opposed it based on some transitional provisions related to the Executive Presidency which would allow the President to complete her full term but not devolution of powers.

“The new Constitution should fulfil the aspirations of Tamil-speaking people while it must be acceptable to all the people in the country.  Even in the draft Constitution (2019), we are not in agreement on some provisions but those can be resolved.  President Wickremesinghe has our full support even though we have been making our stand very clear over the years again and again. Now it’s up to him to put these words into action.”

Allowing the Foreign Ministry to ‘free wheel,’ with little or no checks and balances, whilst President Wickremesinghe must cope with a multitude of other national responsibilities is a daunting task for him. Tomorrow, he presents the government’s budget that comes amidst many of his efforts to resuscitate the country’s economy. That is beside his efforts to formulate a programme for ethnic reconciliation. As a prelude, the prices of diesel and kerosene were increased again from yesterday. Government sources hinted yesterday at a hike in taxes and a revision of taxes relating to companies.

Yoshitha under scrutiny

In another development this week, the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has begun an inquiry into the circumstances leading to how Yoshitha Rajapaksa, till recently Chief of Staff of former Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, was selected for foreign training stints. This was when he was serving in the Sri Lanka Navy. Several stakeholders linked to the selection process are to be questioned. CIABOC officials remained tightlipped on the ongoing investigation. One of the main overseas courses attended by Yoshitha Rajapaksa was at the Britannia Naval College better known as Dartmouth, an establishment of the Royal Navy in the UK.

At a time when Sri Lanka is struggling to recover from the worst economic crisis, it is imperative that the country has a robust foreign service that can professionally execute the country’s foreign policy. For such a mechanism, President Wickremesinghe will have to ensure that the foreign service is not a mere trophy for some to gain political mileage but an institution that would have to remain in the interests of the country and the people. In that respect, it is quite different from most other ministries.