|
Diplomacy
and tact vital ingredients for an effective Foreign Ministry
Retired
Additional Foreign Secretary, Former European Union Ambassador,
Nanda Godage talks about the flaws in the Foreign Ministry
and what the government needs to do to regain lost reputation
Q.
in your opinion, how should foreign affairs be
approached by the Government of Sri Lanka?
A. A new approach to the management of our foreign
relations is the most important and imperative need of the
times. After almost three years, I am certain that the government
cannot be happy with the state of our relations with the rest
of the world. The foreign policy of any country is, in the
first instance, intended to ensure its security and protect
its sovereignty and after that, to further the development
of the country. In the past three years, it is no secret that
we have lost the support of many former friends, primarily
due to a lack of coordination in the management of our foreign
affairs. There are far too many players speaking out on their
own on issues that should be the considered view of the government.
Q. So, do you feel that
the government has lost credibility?
A. Yes this government has been caught out, by not
speaking with one voice on many issues and hence doing damage
to its credibility.
Q. What were the significant
mistakes made in the past?
A. Former President J.R. Jayewardene made many mistakes
during his years as President, but to my mind, a horrendous
mistake he made in terms of the country’s interests and
security was the creation of a separate Foreign Ministry and
its separation from the Defence Ministry. In terms of the
problems facing us for the past three decades, it is imperative
that there be greater coordination between defence and foreign
affairs, it is not stated without reason that Diplomacy is
the first line of defence.
Q. What are the shortcomings
of the current administration?
A. When this government took office, it did not have
anyone in the political leadership who had any knowledge or
experience in the management of foreign relations, Prabhakaran
had ensured that. The only person who was experienced, knowledgeable
and able was the then Foreign Secretary Palihakkara, but he
chose early retirement because the neophytes were not prepared
to listen to his advice. Our record since is quite pathetic.
Q. Do you feel that the
government has acted imprudently in establishing foreign relations?
A. I feel that there is a massive lack of awareness.
It is a good thing to befriend China, India and Iran but we
need not antagonise others. Why can we not follow a policy
of neutrality with the powers in the West? We must maintain
relations with them, after all they are among the richest
countries in the world and most of our imports and exports
depend on them. They operate the World Bank, International
Monetary Fund and other donor agencies. We need their assistance
to lobby for loans and aid not to mention developing our diplomatic
ties.
Q. What were our biggest
blunders?
A. The manner in which we related to persons such as
the Under Secretary General of the UN John Holmes was downright
stupid. A responsible Minister even called him a terrorist
in the pay of the LTTE, perhaps the man expected the world
to believe him, we had made a hash of the meeting with the
US envoy Mark Boucher, who was said to have been well disposed
towards this country, and if that was not enough we took on
Ann Arbor and Alan Rock amongst others and vilified them.
There was no need to do this. Their ‘crime’ was
that they raised the matter of HR violations in this country,
a fact which cannot be denied. They should have been ‘handled’
with greater circumspection.
Q. How should they have
handled the situation?
A. I traveled out with Minister Kadirgamar many times
to the West when he doused flames that were enveloping the
country; it was at a time when the international community
had, as today, put us on the rack over HR violations. In this
regard, I wish to refer to two particular incidents, both
in Trincomalee, where our Armed Forces were NOT involved but
as a result of the Police not arresting the perpetrators who,
according to the respected Jaffna University Teachers for
Human Rights, were Muslim Home Guards (in the incident involving
the French NGO) and a small group of armed men (NOT members
of the regular Armed Forces) in the second incident where
a group of students were killed, the good name of the brave
men of our Armed Forces, to whom this country owes a deep
debt of gratitude, has been tarnished.
Q. What have been the
de-merits of government backed cover ups?
A. The image of the country has also suffered in the
process as a result of some misguided elements seeking to
indulge in a short sighted cover-up, jeopardising thousands
of jobs of garment workers and of others in this country besides.
Apparently we do not seem to have learnt from the infamous
Kokadaicholai incident; how could we, when there is no institutional
memory and the neophytes who came in to manage our foreign
relations and the rest of the new administration, had neither
experience nor knowledge of what had gone on before.
Q. So you feel that there
was no need for such a step by the government?
A. There is absolutely no doubt that, unlike in Chile
of Pinochet or in Argentina, it is not the policy of the government
to violate human rights, but, as the US and the EU themselves
know, such violations do sometimes happen during a disturbed
situation. But, this certainly is no excuse and our troops
have not deliberately indulged in HR violations. There was
no reason to indulge in any cover-up of something which we
were not responsible for, or, to shield anyone and to, in
the process, get tarred when the crimes alleged were not committed
at the insistence of the government. My thoughts go back to
the massacre at Kokadaicholai and the then government’s
efforts to shield the perpetrators and the fall out of that
crime; the whole country paid for a crime committed by a few.
Q. How can the government
brush up its reputation and by extension, that of the country?
A. The government needs on an urgent basis, to change
its approach to the management of our foreign affairs and
the securing of our national interests. The management of
a country’s foreign affairs requires not only a ‘professional’
approach to diplomacy but also a coordinated approach. The
management of foreign relations includes the conduct of our
relations with foreign countries, international organisations,
other international institutions, regional organisations and
business corporations. Today, besides bilateral diplomacy
there is the emergence of multilateral diplomacy, which is
another specialised field. The expansion, scope and substance
of diplomacy has enlarged to such an extent that it is most
complex and challenging. The mind boggling advancement of
communication technology only makes the task at hand of a
diplomat more demanding.
Q. What role should the
Foreign Ministry play in this new set up?
A. The Foreign Ministry itself would need to be restructured
for, after all this time and events, it is the same as it
was fifty years ago. The Ministry would be the implementing
arm of foreign political relations. This would certainly not
be the place to park friends and relations, no ‘Juwanis’
or ‘Haramanis’ could discharge the onerous duties
expected of our representatives abroad. In this regard, it
appears that many of those appointed to head missions by this
government seem to think that our principal function is to
look after Sri Lankan residents. Those who appointed them
knew nothing better.
Q. How are we viewed
by the rest of the world?
A. It is no secret that the country has isolated itself,
particularly from the economic and politically powerful West.
In this regard, I wish to state that when I requested certain
Ministers of this Government to intervene and speak to the
President, their common response staggered me; they stated
that ‘Foreign Affairs’ was the domain of Minister
Bogollagama and that they did not wish to intervene, surely
they understand the concept of Cabinet responsibility, or,
is it that they opt for the ‘Safe Mode’, whatever
it is they must realise that we, the people, have not abdicated
and that any portfolio is not a ‘Boodalaya’ of any
Minister, we, the people, and generations to come are affected
by the actions of any Minister and that we have a legitimate
right to concern ourselves with the working of any government,
particularly at a time when the watch-dog Opposition is naval
gazing and suffering from Epilepsy.
Q. Can you describe an
instance when you had to deal with the double standards employed
by the international community?
A. Before 1987, there were once 18 resolutions presented
to the European Union Parliament against Sri Lanka, regarding
HR violations, which were mainly inspired by the Tamil diaspora
in England. Nonetheless, we managed to soften these resolutions
by admitting our faults and offering explanation. It is more
effective by far to befriend them than to hurl accusations.
In 1987, India came on board and even when they violated our
sovereignty by flying over Jaffna and dropping food supplies,
there was no move to condemn them. Indeed, we had to lobby
with the assistance of Pakistan and Bangladesh for the release
of a statement simply stating ‘concern.’ At that
time, many European countries, including France and England
had strong economic ties with India and they were not prepared
to jeopardise that in favour of us. Till the Indian Peace
Keeping Forces (IPKF) left Sri Lanka in 1991, they did nothing
against the HR violations committed by the IPKF.
Q. Conversely, can you
detail an instance when positive diplomatic ties have benefited
Sri Lanka?
A. In 1991, President Premadasa wanted an additional
quota for the 200 garment factory programme and requested
me to lobby for extra funds. I told him that, given our dismal
HR track record; there was little hope of us even getting
the ‘roll over’ from the previous year, never mind
getting an addition. I insisted that he look at 32 proposals
made by Amnesty International and appoint a commission to
consider them. Under my instructions, he agreed to do so and
they managed to implement 31 proposals. I met up with the
Spanish Ambassador while I was lobbying and he led me to understand
that if we voted for them to obtain a Non Permanent Seat on
the UN Security Council, Sri Lanka would benefit. I called
Colombo to find that the Foreign Ministry had already pledged
our vote to Sweden and New Zealand. After repeated discussions,
President ordered the vote to be changed and Spain was elected
by one vote. With the lobbying of the Spanish Ambassador,
Sri Lanka was granted a 30% increase for the programme and
the President, in particular, was extremely pleased.
Q. How should the Foreign
Ministry be changed?
A. The Foreign Ministry should be tasked to build the
widest possible network of allies for this country by pursuing
a non-aligned foreign policy, particularly in the context
of the newly emerging Cold War. By this, I refer to the situation
in Georgia and the standpoint of America, which has again
strained relations with Russia.
Q. What more should the
Foreign Ministry do?
A. Besides international political relations, one would
need to follow the international economic situation, the monetary
and financial developments, promote educational and cultural
exchanges, scientific and technological cooperation, promote
trade, investment and tourism and above all, in our situation,
keep a tab on the activities of the LTTE abroad and report
on maters relating to national security. Conventional diplomacy
is today a thing of the past and the wide range of activities
(the expansion is both qualitative and quantitative) of a
State calls not for one single Minister, even if he be amiable,
articulate and presentable as the present incumbent, but it
calls ‘for a collegiate approach.’
Q. What are your suggestions?
A. I recommend that a Foreign Affairs High Council
be formed with the President in the chair, with Ministers
concerned with economic, trade, tourism, foreign investment
and finance, along with the Minister in charge of Foreign
Political Relations and Secretary Ministry of Defence (given
Ministerial rank as is enjoyed by the National Security Advisor
in India) to formulate our foreign policy. This High Council
should have its own Secretariat to monitor and coordinate
implementation of the decisions of the Council. The Secretariat
should compose of senior officials with at least ten years
experience in the relevant department or Ministry. The Secretary
General of such an entity should be a senior, mature, experienced,
public official of proven ability. The Secretariat should
function under the President himself. This is an imperative
in our present perilous situation. I do hope the President
would act to set up the Council in his own and the country’s
interest.
|
