War with political deal a must- Dhanapala

Describing himself as an extinguished Ambassador, a defunct Under Secretary General who also ran in the UN Secretary General stakes of 2006, Veteran Diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala is a man of vast experience, eloquence and zeal. He spoke to The Bottom Line of the highlights of a “humdrum career” that has spanned many decades and still exudes interesting insights.

What are the key things that you remember in your career?
Well I remember graduating from a period of relative calm as a diplomatic representative to being pitchforked in crucial times when terrorism had to be battled at the diplomatic front and so two of my greatest challenges with the LTTE was when I went as the Sri Lankan representative to the UN in Geneva in the immediate aftermath of the 1983 riots when Sri Lanka was launched into the headlines and in considerable ignominy for alleged human rights abuses. It took a great deal of skill to convince my interlocutors that this was not done by the government. There was also together with that a desire which I persuaded the government to adopt to have human rights training for our police and army, cooperate with the international community and a willingness to work with human rights entities since Sri Lanka was a signatory to all the Conventions at the time. This approach of constructive diplomacy was extremely successful. It prevented the issuing of any condemnatory statements against Sri Lanka in the human rights bodies during my entire posting for three and a half years. In spite of the fact that India was leading the pack of predators because this was the pre-1989 period.

The second instance was when I was appointed as US Ambassador where the LTTE was still not banned and they were very well organised in all States. So it was a great challenge for me professionally to enlist the support of the Sri Lanka Diaspora and work with all stakeholders including the Justice Department, FBI and the US Congress. I was able to get a Resolution passed, after much discussion with the House of Representatives, which condemned the LTTE atrocities and that was a major achievement for Sri Lanka. Thereafter I laid the groundwork for the banning of the LTTE and even though the official ban was issued after my term of office it was still a matter of deep satisfaction.

Do you feel that Sri Lankan diplomats were successful in countering LTTE propaganda?
The LTTE were very well organised and very well funded. The official representatives of the government suffered from two disadvantages. One was being the official spokesmen of the government credibility was often suspect. This normally happens. Even when the official spokesman tells the truth it is discounted while NGOs and private organisations tend to be believed more simply because they are perceived to be underdogs. That is simple human perception and requires a great deal of skill to overcome. Secondly, the official representatives had inadequate funding to overcome the huge propaganda machine of the LTTE. Despite repeated appeals, the entertainment allowance for most of the ambassadors and the funding for media and publicity remained stringent. It was through my personal initiative that a website was launched in Washington, which was the first of any Sri Lankan mission abroad. In 1995 this was a major breakthrough. So I think that with limited funding and tools the diplomats did a very commendable job and the proof of that is in the fact that most governments accepted the Sri Lankan position and even after I had retired the fact that many of these governments banned the LTTE, is a tribute to our official representatives.

In the post 9/11 era the world focused more on terrorism. How do you think that benefited Sri Lanka and did it negate the double standard situation that it was subjected to earlier?
There is no doubt that international terrorism hit the US devastatingly on 9/11 and did contribute to the overall atmosphere in which the west in general and the US in particular were more receptive to our message. Until you yourself encounter terrorism you do not realise its true impact. Of course prior to that the Oklahoma bombing in 1995 was another case in point where domestic terrorism caused a traumatic shock. That also assisted me. But that is not to say that there is necessarily a double standard because what was key to the perception to the international community of our terrorism was that it was an outgrowth of unmet grievances of minorities who felt that they had not been equitably accommodated in the democratic process. The fact that Sri Lanka is a functioning democracy had to be constantly pointed out; the freedom of the Tamil people to vote, worship and follow their own cultural pursuits had to be highlighted along with their equal language rights. So this perception was I think the main reason why there was not the same condemnation of LTTE terrorism in comparison with Al Qaeda terrorism. But I think that the true character of the LTTE emerged through successive atrocities and its own policy of not brooking any opposition and murdering democratic leaders as well as leaders of other countries. If we had a political solution, as repeatedly promised by the President I think that will fundamentally change the attitude of the international community.

Did the absence of a comprehensive political solution that could be practically implemented hamper your task?
It did. Because our argument would have been far more credible if we had proposals on the table. At the same time the very fact that the government was ready to undertake peace negotiations right up to the beginning of President Rajapaksa’s tenure where he had his delegation go to Oslo twice and have the LTTE rebuff that offer, I think has very strongly endorsed his position of having made an offer of peace before embarking on a military campaign.

Does our Foreign Service have the edge over the LTTE now?
There are two provisos to the military campaign. One was of course that we should have had a political solution on the table and it is never too late to present one. To say that it is coming is not sufficient, I think, if one had it on offer while the military campaign was going on it would have made our position in regard to the Tamil citizens stronger, quite apart from the international community because what matters first and foremost is our own citizens. The second aspect is to conduct the war within the framework of the human rights conventions that we ourselves have subscribed to. Now of course we realise that in war it is not possible to have zero civilian casualties and even though it was the President’s policy and even though we have gone the extra mile by providing aid and safety zones there have been civilian casualties. The fact that they have occurred in other countries is not relevant. What should be noted is that our citizens have also died and we need to minimise that. This is one aspect that the international community is now zeroing on, I do not think that there is any support for the LTTE anywhere, except for the lunatic fringe in South India but as far as we are concerned we have had our position vindicated.

What are your views on the politicisation of the Foreign Service?
First of all I condemn the political appointments that have been made, especially at the non-ambassadorial level because it undermines the institution of a career diplomatic service that is universal. Successive governments have used the Foreign Service as a dumping ground for political favorites and relatives and both parties of government are responsible for this. It is not just to condemn this government but to condemn all governments; as a consequence we have not built a foreign service with proper career prospects. We do however have a provision within the constitution given to the President to appoint a head of mission as he or she wishes. That prerogative rests with the President and we cannot take that away because it is a constitutional right. Indeed, there have been very able diplomats outside of the foreign service, take for example Shirley Amarasinghe who was from the Civil Service or Neville Kanakaratne, under whom I worked or Karu Jayasuriya who was briefly the Ambassador of Bonne along with many others. But they were all supported by a cadre of trained diplomats who got in through an examination, as I did, who were then subjected to intense training and went through the mill so that he could carve out his niche in the international foreign diplomat network, so that the web of contacts that you establish can be used for the benefit of your country. These are the perks of being a career diplomat. Now having the relatives of the government ministers appointed really undermines the credibility of these diplomats. Moreover the diplomats of other countries will know that they have not earned their positions and will disregard them. This also shatters the morale of the diplomatic service because the career prospects of the younger diplomats, who are not well paid in the first place, are neglected.

What do you feel needs to be done?
When I was President of the Foreign Service Association before the elections of 1994 we sent out an appeal to all contesting parties demanding that they appoint a greater percentage of Heads of Mission from the career service and also to ensure that the non-ambassadorial staff was all professionals. We had an excellent response and Former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar moved very swiftly to appoint around 70% of ambassadors from the cadre of career ambassadors. I do not recall, except for sending out a few journalists for external relations posts any other appointments and I firmly believe that we must go back to that period and perhaps improve on it.

The situation has worsened to the point that legal action has been taken by veteran diplomats. Do you believe that the situation calls for such drastic measures?

Since the courts are still deliberating on this matter I do not wish to comment on it but I think it clearly points to a feeling that we have reached the end of our tether, it is not simply a matter about what career diplomats think but what concerned citizens think about the management of Foreign Policy in Sri Lanka. We have a right to feel that our international concerns are affected.

Given the international concern over the civilian casualties do you feel that the lack of a purely professional diplomatic corps is putting Sri Lanka at a disadvantage?
That is undoubtedly so even though I would not put it only to that. The use of civilians as human shields has been understood by the international community as has been clearly noted in the remarks made by the UN Secretary General and other international leaders as well as India, which has tremendous pressure from certain groups in South India to contend with and I think there the government is well served. If you look at the representation of the government in key places it is served by career diplomats. In Delhi it is a career diplomat who has worked under me so I know first hand how professional he is. We have M. Palihakkara in New York a first class diplomat; we have Ravinath Ariyasena in Brussells. So in the key areas the government is relying on career ambassadors and God forbid that is changed in the future at a critical time, particularly when we have the GSP+ issue still pending. So we need people in these positions and of course we have other people elsewhere whom I do not want to comment on.

Recently the ambassador to Oslo was recalled for not heeding government orders. There are instances when the Ambassadors act against the wishes of the government and might be recalled. What are your opinions on this? Can an ambassador act independently? Is there any way that he can justify his actions? Have you faced such instances?

When I was in Washington the late editor of the Sunday Leader Lasantha Wickrematunge paid a courtesy call on me. I received him in my office and also invited him to a dinner at which a number of Americans were present and I felt that it was very important for me to demonstrate that Sri Lanka was in fact a functioning democracy and where an Editor who was fiercely critical of the government could be at the table of the ambassador of that government in Washington and I believe that I did score a number of plus points with the Americans who were present there that day. However, the rumour reached Colombo that I had had him to stay in my house as a guest and when I was asked about this on the telephone I denied he was a house guest but admitted that he was a dinner guest and explained my reasons, but what if he was? I had the right to choose who I had as my house guest and I was ready to come back home if it was felt that I had transgressed my rights as an ambassador. Similarly I believe that we must stand up for principle and ready to be challenged. In this particular instance I do not think that we should rush to conclusions. As I understand he had objected to holding a particular exhibition at winter time as it was unlikely that large crowds would attend and counselled that it would be better held at another time. I know this young man and have every confidence of his professional competence and the fact that he is being replaced by another professional, I think is therefore no indictment on the career diplomats but it is obviously for petty reasons this change is being made.

Should a more integrated service be provided where diplomats engage in developing trade ties?
It is my personal view that missions can no longer have separate departments and an integrated service is needed. This has been done in many countries, from UK to Australia these reforms have been made to integrate the commercial and political diplomats.

How do you view moves to integrate the Foreign Service with the Public Service?
If one looks at the international practice and if we actually want to be sticking out like sore thumbs, which is at times the perverse desire of some Sri Lankans we will be going against world trends where each country has a separate career Foreign Service. It is clear that these measures are being mooted for clearly unprofessional reasons. Where a highly specialised officer is needed, that can be dealt with separately. That is a separate issue and they are normally there because they are representing delegations.

Are there any additional sentiments regarding the Foreign Service?
Well I think that the young recruits that were taken into the service particularly in the Lakshman Kadirgamar era have been excellent. I have met them both here and abroad, many of them speak foreign languages and came into the service with those qualifications. I have been very impressed by their hard work and professionalism and I believe that if we continue to recruit people as Kadirgamar did without any political interference then we will continue to have a service which will be on par with the best in the world. Sri Lanka has the human resources to produce that, it is only political interference and corruption that is preventing that from happening. I urge whatever government is in power to make recruitments free of political bias, for them to be trained well and for them to be allowed to function in the best interests of the country.