| by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne
( December 4, 2012, Montreal,
Sri Lanka Guardian) I read with deep
interest MP Professor Rajiva Wijesinha’s
undelivered speech in Parliament entitled “We Must Realize theImportance of Developing Coherent Policies” which was published in the Sri
Lanka Guardian of 3 December 2012. As a
professional who has served in the
United Nations for the past 23 years, during which I have had the privilege of
practicing the diplomacy of an
international civil servant with 191 member States, I see a lot of sense in Professor Wijesinha’s
points and I fully agree with him.
Professor Wijesinha concludes his
article by stating: “Those of us who saw them (Dr. Dayan Jayatellika and Ms.
Kunanayagam) in action may seem old fashioned in hankering after such genius,
given that our education system has declined since the days in which it could
produce such brilliant communicators easily. But we must strive for at least
something of those days, and I hope the Ministry will make use of its brightest
stars of recent years to give new ideals at which a younger generation should
aim”.
This makes eminent sense, but
what makes even more sense to me is the title of Professor Wijesinha’s speech
We Must Realize the Importance of Developing Coherent Policies.
Sri Lanka’s Foreign Policy?
The first step toward training
effective diplomats is to make them understand the foreign policy of Sri
Lanka. My understanding of Sri Lanka’s
foreign policy is that it follows non-alignment. The webpage of the Ministry of External
Affairs has a link to “foreign policy” which rattles off the history of Sri
Lanka and at the end gives what looks like its current foreign policy - which
is an extract of the thoughts of the President (Mahinda Chintana). It states: “I will follow a non-aligned, free
and progressive foreign policy. Priority will be given in the political,
defense, economic, trade and cultural spheres to the cordial and friendly
relationships that we already have with countries in the Asian region including
India, Japan, China and Pakistan”. If
this is the foreign policy of the country why is it restricted to Sri Lanka’s
closest neighbours?
I found that, at best, the text
in the website of the Ministry of External Affairs is ambivalent and
misleading.
True, in a fast changing world, it is not possible to define precisely the foreign policy of a nation. The implementation of foreign policy should be “antifragile” (not susceptible to vulnerability brought about by rigidity) and should be driven by a constant attempt to adjust and accommodate the changing conditions of the world. Thus foreign policy is necessarily an ever changing and evolutionary process. However, if such a thing as “foreign policy” is named, it should define a truly global direction and purpose. For example, India (another non-aligned nation) bases itself on a code of international conduct (called Panch Sheel) which has the following principles: mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; non-interference in each-other's internal affairs; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful co-existence.
Pakistan has clear principles of
foreign policy which are : peaceful co-existence; non-alignment; developing
relations with all countries of the world; supporting the right of
self-determination; de-weaponization; elimination of racial discrimination; establishment
of peace; good relations with neighbours;
and international and regional cooperation.
Training diplomats
Again, in the website of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as part of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy is the
statement from Mahinda Chintana: “I will
create a foreign service which has a correct awareness of our history, economic
needs and the cultural heritage”. The
President’s intention is absolutely appropriate and laudable. But this is just the start and is foreign
policy 101. Of course every Sri Lankan
diplomat has to be fully conversant with
our history, economic needs and the cultural heritage in order to represent the
country. However, diplomacy is not only
a history lesson or a lesson in economica.
Whoever developed this website and approved it has done the President a
grave injustice in representing his thoughts (chintana) as a foreign
policy. A foreign policy should
essentially serve to establish and develop relations with other countries.
To take Professor Wijesinha’s visionary
statement a bit further, Sri Lanka’s diplomats should be trained in the art of
diplomacy, which will essentially equip them to represent the country by
negotiation and established of common ground with others. For that we need to educate potential
diplomats on international relations and negotiations from high school level.
For example, I have a young
professional in my legal department who has been recruited after completing a
degree in what she calls “diplomatic school” where the teachers are all former
diplomats who have had hands on experience.
Diplomacy is not just theory but mostly practice. Diplomacy should be taught by people who have
not only had diplomatic triumphs but most importantly, who have made mistakes
on their job and learned from them.
Diplomatic Language
Diplomatic language is the
hallmark of the international community and the signature of a civilized
nation. However, language that is laced
with tact and discreetness should be applied in the world of international
politics and diplomacy. In my career in
the United Nations over the past two decades, I have learnt from my peers that
there are two cardinal principles in the use of diplomatic language. The first is that one never says another is
wrong, even if the latter is factually incorrect in his statements. The way around is to adduce reason so as to
make the other person realize he is wrong.
The second principle is that it is not what one says that matters but
how one makes another person feel.
Blunders committed through un-diplomatic language are sometimes just
amusing; but more often they are dangerous and may lead to miscommunication or
in the worst case, a break-down in diplomatic relations.
In the world stage, there
are three types of diplomatic agents as
stipulated in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 based
on three types of assignment: embassy,
consular, and international organization. The embassy is the primary diplomatic
presence established by one country in another that it recognizes. The chief
official of the embassy is the ambassador, who serves as his country's official
representative to the host country.
These diplomatic agents are
involved in two types of diplomatic relations.
The first is diplomatic relations between sovereign States. This is usually sustained through the foreign
service of each country and experience shows that in most instances the art of
diplomacy lies in what not to say than what to say.
The second type of diplomacy
concerns the United Nations and its relations with its member States. Throughout its history the United Nations has
played many key roles and parts. In both types of diplomacy, be it between
individual States or between the United Nations and a State, it is essential
that the decency of discourse is preserved through un-provocative language.
Diplomatic language is not a generic set of words or statements put together. Neither is there a formula for its
formulation. As Antonio Machado once
said “Traveller, there is no path. Paths
are made by walking”. Be that as it may, the seminal principle in diplomatic
language is that it should personify the practice of diplomacy, as the art and
practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or
states. Diplomatic language is usually associated with international diplomacy,
the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional
diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics and
culture. The language used in international treaties, which are essentially
negotiated by diplomats prior endorsement by national politicians, is a fine
example of diplomatic language.
The history of diplomacy explains
the origin and effects of foreign policies.
As was stated earlier, in the modern sense, diplomacy means “management
of international relations by negotiation”.
International Organizations within the United Nations umbrella are
considered managers of international relations and are therefore accorded diplomatic immunity, based on two headings:
functional immunity; and absolute immunity.
The former category is usually bestowed upon consuls and certain staff
at diplomatic missions and organizations whereas the latter category is granted
to full diplomats of ambassadorial rank.
Conclusion
Diplomats are primarily
negotiators who are skilled in the art of negotiation and in the science of
international relations. What diplomacy
achieves is reciprocity and mutual respect for the dignity of State and
office. One of the most famous quotes
attributed to diplomacy is “all war represents a failure of diplomacy”. Another is “Diplomacy is the art of letting
someone have your way”. Perhaps the most
relevant is one attributed to Otto von Bismark: “Be polite, write
diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of
politeness”.
 I read with deep interest MP Professor Rajiva Wije...){kind=link}