“He could also have used the opportunity to thank the British government for having taken LTTE leader in the UK Shantan into custody, even if it was for transgressions of their law, that we considered it as support for the cause that we are fighting, namely to eliminate terrorism from our country. He could also have requested the British Minister to proscribe the LTTE front organizations, who on the pretext of collecting money for charity work are collecting funds for the proscribed LTTE to enable them to pursue the war. A request from from the government of Sri Lanka re these so-called charities is already on their table.”________________________________________
by K. Godage
(March 10, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Britain’s Secretary of State David Miliband’s statement on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of our independence truly shocked and disappointed me. He does not wish us well for the future neither does he congratulate us for having elected our leaders over the past 60 years and not gone down the road of the majority of countries that regained their independence from colonial rule. However flawed our democracy may be, our country still remains a democracy and not a dictatorship and is one which is ruled with the consent of the people, further, we are fighting this war to remain that way. Perhaps even more significant was that there was no reference at all in the statement to the fact that we are at present engaged in the same exercise, (which of course is their claim, though they went into Iraq knowingly on false pretenses) of putting an end to terrorism. This was indeed quite unbelievable. As our Ambassador in Geneva, Dayan Jayatilleke has pointed out, it does seem strange and amnesic for the Minister to denounce violence when they are themselves indulging in horrific violence against the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming ironically that they are seeking to end terrorism! Considering the occasion, the statement was in such poor taste and wholly unhelpful, so much so that many have wondered as to which side they are on.
Surprisingly there was no mention of terrorism but mention was made of the protection of civilian life (the extent of their concern for civilian life in Afghanistan and Iraq is brought to us on an hourly basis by Al Jaseera TV). There was no mention, leave alone a condemnation, of the LTTE’s terrorism, though the Minister should have known that the LTTE’s activities in the UK such as credit card frauds, money laundering, trading in narcotics and illicit weapons, and human smuggling, not to mention their close relations with Islamic militant groups such as Al Qaeda, all of which impacts on British security interests. These ‘operations’ of the LTTE are well known to British Intelligence. Speaking of British security interests, it should surely be known by the Minister that it was the LTTE which perfected the suicide jacket that is being widely used in the Middle East. One must concede to them that not only their organizational skills are beyond expectations but also that the improvised explosive devices perfected by them exhibit technological advancement unparalleled among terrorist groups and is quite an achievement.
The response to Minister Miliband should have come from our Minister of Foreign Affairs but not in the form of a public statement (megaphone diplomacy does not work) even though Miliband’s statement was a public one because of the occasion. Since no response came from the Minister, (neither did we hear that he had called in the UK High Commissioner or whoever is head of Mission and expressed his disappointment) perhaps the articulate Ambassador in Geneva Dayan Jayathileka took it upon himself to bell the cat. The ‘thinking feeling’ man he is, has with the best of intentions taken it upon himself to reply. His intentions would have been to expose the double standards and its hypocrisy and to also embarrass the Brits (that latter objective appears to have been achieved, that probably was why they have protested). Dayan’s reply to say the least was brilliant but the issue is whether this was the best way to handle this situation.
To my mind it would have been appropriate if the amiable Minister, who is travelling abroad at the drop of a hat, was to have gone to the UK and very quietly but firmly expressed the shock and disappointment of the people of this country to the British Minister at his statement and even told him that it was an insensitive one, which it was. He could also have used the opportunity to thank the British government for having taken LTTE leader in the UK Shantan into custody, even if it was for transgressions of their law, that we considered it as support for the cause that we are fighting, namely to eliminate terrorism from our country. He could also have requested the British Minister to proscribe the LTTE front organizations, who on the pretext of collecting money for charity work are collecting funds for the proscribed LTTE to enable them to pursue the war. A request from from the government of Sri Lanka re these so-called charities is already on their table.
The Minister, along with perhaps Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe, who has incidentally much credibility with the international community, could have canvassed British support for us to remain on the Human Rights Council, when its membership renewal comes up next month. They could have explained that it is not the policy of the government to violate the human rights of our own people, they could also have briefed Secretary Miliband on the actions that the government has taken to protect HR and to ensure, to the best of its ability in this war situation, where we are fighting the most brutal and best organized terrorist organization in the world, that the people are being protected and released from bondage, Secretary Miliband should understand this better than most as their troops are also fighting their deadly enemy in Afghanistan where, the militant and the civilian cannot always be distinguished, The situation in Iraq is much the same. Secretary Miliband could also have been briefed on the importance of ‘GSP Plus’ to ensure that this country does not plunge into chaos, which the British government certainly would not wish to see happen. (In this regard the articulate Minister Prof. GL Peiris should do the rounds of the important countries of the EU (the countries of the EU take the cue from the UK when it comes to matters relating to Sri Lanka) and canvass their support for GSP Plus; he unlike any other could also explain our past efforts to reach a negotiated settlement and why we have been compelled as a last resort to answer the LTTE in its own coin, with a view to ending terrorism in this country. The Minister would be able to convince his counterparts in EU countries that the government is committed to achieving a just and sustainable peace where the Tamil people and all other minorities would live as equal citizens in dignity and be able to decided on their own destiny to the furthest possible extent compatible with the security and territorial integrity of the country and that they would also have a say at the center in deciding on national policy.
The Minister Bogollagama could, had he gone, most definitely have used the opportunity to ‘demand’ that Britain extends positive, constructive and meaningful support to a fellow democracy in peril which, furthermore, is a country that has an organic relationship with the UK. If they do not help us now their friendship is meaningless to us.
The British Foreign Office had no reason to take exception to the remarks of Ambassador Dayan J except perhaps for the breach of appropriate protocol. But it should be recalled that Representatives of the United Kingdom have taken liberties with us which they would dare not have taken with India or for that matter any other country. Their High Commissioner at one time invited an LTTE leader to visit a British warship, where in the world would such a hostile act against a sovereign state seeking to safeguard its territorial integrity from a separatist terrorist group have been tolerated. British High Commissioners have taken unbelievable liberties (using subtle language of course) criticizing the government of the country. Diplomats do not usually do such things. Imagine if the British High Commissioner was critical of the Indian government of its handling of their problems in the North East of their country or of what happened in Gujarat last year, I can well imagine the reaction; he or she would have been given short shrift and declared Persona Non Grata. There certainly has been unacceptable interference in the affairs of this country due to three principal factors, our own vulnerability, the manner in which we have handled a domestic matter namely the ethnic issue and thirdly the manner in which we have managed our international relations. We do not seem to have a coherent foreign policy.
As for our relations with western countries we certainly do not need to be servile or subservient or to stooge, we should make an assessment of our needs or our self interest, and relate to them on that basis. We need to understand the power centers in this globalized world and make an assessment in terms of our situation. For their part they should respect the fact that this government was elected by the people and relate to it without prejudice.
Before I conclude I wish discuss the reference to ‘aggressive diplomacy’, it is perhaps only the US that could at present indulge in aggressive diplomacy or what was known as ‘gun boat diplomacy, we certainly cannot afford such a luxury; if we do so we do so at our peril. Diplomacy is persuasion and the approach needs to be discreet and subtle. I can without fear of contradiction recall how the late Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar (with whom I travelled many times to the US and the countries of the European Union, who were as critical of the human rights situation in the country at the time after the third Eelam war had commenced in 1995) transformed the critics into supporters. We need to reach out to our critics and adversaries and win them over; any other approach would be counter productive. If at all Lakshman Kadirgamar made a point it was that there is a difference between advocacy and diplomacy.
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment