Playing ‘elle’ on a chessboard

The only cure for this disease is an Anti-Nepotism statute (or a chapter in the new Constitution), drafted by civil society, and presented for enactment to Parliament. Without this prophylactic, diplomatic disasters such as the outcomes at the High Commission on Human Rights Council and the treatment of the country as a pariah State would continue – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara  

In his first address to Parliament, the current president promised merit-based diplomatic assignments that would be a welcome break from the past. But the Government broke this promise soon after with appointments of the children not only of ministers but also of a leading Opposition politician appointed to various diplomatic posts. These appointments were not confined to children. Favourites such as friends, hagiographers, and assorted hangers-on got diplomatic postings, many to countries with which Sri Lanka has important or fraught relations. The lack of criticism from the main Opposition party shows that the political class sees nothing wrong with this practice. It is the dream of politicians to appoint their kith and kin to plum diplomatic posts

By Austin I. Pullé

In the mid-70s, Sri Lanka’s representative to the UN presided over a conference of all states. The outcome of the conference was one of the most important treaties, the Law of the Sea Convention. When the representative lost his job after the government changed, he had no official status enabling him to continue. But in an unprecedented move, foreign governments nevertheless kept him as the chairman. Four decades later, Sri Lanka’s representative to the UN, a very good lawyer, but unlike his predecessor, fails to get elected to the International Law Commission in the UN.

And thereby hangs a tale.

An analogy that helps assess the legitimacy of presidential conduct is to liken the country to a coconut plantation. The Sri Lankan people own the plantation. Article 3 of the Constitution enshrines the bedrock principle that this ownership can never be alienated or usurped. The President is the manager of the plantation, nothing less and certainly, despite sycophantic honorifics like ‘His Excellency’ and human pretzels abasing themselves by prostrating before him, nothing more. The plantation hires the manager on a five-year contract which is renewable only once. Despite this agency relationship of master (the People) and servant (‘Mr. President’ not ‘Your Imperial Majesty’), successive presidents, instead of diligently discharging their purely managerial duties have in the worst traditions of armed gangs forcibly acquiring the property of others in Colombo and elsewhere, have overcome the owners and captured the plantation. These usurpations are why Sri Lankan democracy continuously faces near death experiences.

Assume that the plantation sells diversified coconut products worldwide and has branches in many countries. Now let us imagine that the manager appoints his relations, school friends, and hangers on to important managerial jobs to these branches abroad, disregarding their lack of job qualifications, inexperience and incompetence. How long would the manager last without being booted out by the furious owners? Even the local ‘Stasi’ will take a break from interrogating a turbulent priest and summon this manager for an ‘interview’.

The practice of appointing unqualified persons as ambassadors and diplomats mirrors the conduct of the nepotistic manager. Just as the plantation requires competent management, the country needs the most able and trained men and women to promote and protect its interests in a globalised and increasingly complex world. The prevailing appointments practice does not acknowledge this need and robs those selected into the foreign service, by a highly competitive process, of their right to career development and advancement. 

In the economic sphere, effective commercial and economic diplomacy are vital to promote the Colombo Port City, encourage trade and tourism, and to attract much needed foreign investment. Finally, Sri Lanka’s once high reputation of its diplomats in the international community enjoyed in the ’70s needs to be restored so that the country’s brand can be rebuilt.

Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations considers the job of diplomats as ‘promoting friendly relations and developing mutual economic, cultural and scientific relations’. The Convention considers diplomacy by and large as an activity separate and distinct from that of politicians. But diplomats are not in an exclusive club. Senior mandarins from other services and well-qualified ex-politicians have also made useful contributions in international diplomacy. But without the professional core, outsiders cannot be good diplomats. Qualities of excellence, experience, good manners, education and effectiveness are what make a person a good diplomat.

Such qualities are hard to find in many ambassadorial and other diplomatic appointees. For instance, Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Myanmar, obviously without permission from the Foreign Minister, criticised the New Zealand prime minister who described a terrorist in NZ as a ‘Sri Lankan’. The garrulous Foreign Secretary announced, ahead of a critical vote at the UNHRC, that India would vote ‘no’ to defeat a proposed resolution. A president appointed his two first cousins as ambassadors in the capitals of the America and Russia, veto wielding members of the Security Council. The American authorities have indicted one cousin for fraud and other offences allegedly committed while he was working as the ambassador.

It is not the business of an ambassador to deliver uncouth observations about the actions of a prime minister of a foreign country, in this case a friendly country, much less to make irresponsible statements about foreign leaders. In any other country, the ministry would have promptly recalled an ambassador who breached rudimentary protocol. However, political appointees rightly consider themselves bullet-proof and therefore are untethered to norms of civility and international best practices. The professor Foreign Secretary also appears to be unaware that it breaches protocol to predict how a large state, with a history of interfering in the affairs of the country, would vote in an upcoming critical vote in a UN body. 

Before doing so, he should have imagined the reaction in Sri Lanka if an Indian bureaucrat predicted that Sri Lanka would support India on a Kashmir related UN resolution. This same professor goes, again in breach of accepted protocol, to the Russian embassy to plead for a negative vote in the UNHRC. No Sri Lankan professional diplomat would have committed these mistakes made by these learned individuals.

The reaction of NZ and India is telling. Normally, these states would have complained but they chose to remain silent. This indulgent silence shows that they do not hold Sri Lanka to a high standard. Many foreign chancelleries perhaps regard Sri Lanka as one of those countries that are in the scatological classification of states created by President Trump. These chancelleries must be both chuckling and wagging their heads in sorrow. Chuckling at the antics of these clumsy bumbling individuals in a field where elegance, courtesy and Cardinal Richelieu type statecraft are prized. 

Jewel in Sri Lanka’s crown

Sri Lanka’s foreign friends must also be shaking their heads in sorrow. They cannot but help remember the glory days of the once highly admired and respected diplomatic corps that regularly punched above its weight and created the Sri Lankan brand respected the world over. The diplomatic service was the jewel in Sri Lanka’s crown. But a jewel heist was not far away.

International diplomacy is like a continuous chess game played by grand-masters. For several decades now Sri Lanka has not used chess strategists, but has instead fielded ‘elle’ players in the chess tournament that is global diplomacy. No one should be surprised at the dismal results. UN Human Rights Council resolutions strongly critical of the country are passed with a vast majority of friendly states, who once would have supported the country, abstaining on the vote.

Normally, calls for the exercise of universal jurisdiction are made in relation to heinous crimes. These calls for the exercise of universal jurisdiction over Sri Lankan officials have become routine. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation put pressure on the Government to end its COVID-19 burial policy and the visiting Pakistani Prime Minister cremated the cremation policy. The Tamil diaspora continues to vent its incandescent fury on the Government and lobbies federal and regional legislatures for sanctions. Regardless of the success of these ventures, these initiatives continue to give publicity to Sri Lanka for the wrong reasons.

A professional cadre of trained diplomats can promote Sri Lanka’s economic interests, spike the guns of those who continue to put the country in their crosshairs, and gain respect in the international community. Making a throat slitting gesture in London was hailed in some quarters as an example of suave communication but this impulsive action caused a backlash that ended up in the English courts and had to be resolved with public funds. Defying a rival thug with an upraised sarong in an arrack fuelled brawl may be an effective and eloquent rhetorical device in the village but its equivalent in the global village earns the country only disdain, rejection and mockery.

The rot that festers to this day began decades ago. The first republican president appointed a lady to the High Commission in London so that she could care for her son studying at Oxford. His successor appointed his brother-in-law as ambassador to Sweden. But it was the fifth executive president who went on an appointments rampage justified by hubristic l’ etat c’ est moi delusions. He treated diplomatic appointments from the rank of ambassador to that of third secretary as his private possessions to be distributed according to his whims to relatives, hangers on and supporters. 

His successor memorably inserted his son to the delegation to the UN. The then permanent representative, the highly respected and qualified Ambassador Perera, was excluded from the delegation. Only Lukashenko, the dictator from Belarus, did a similar thing by including his 12-year-old son in the official delegation. Sri Lanka was then lumped with Belarus and its president with Lukashenko. What a branding disaster!

‘I can do whatever I wish’

The unarticulated justification for such conduct is the presidential declaration: “The country is my private property and I can do whatever I wish with it.”

In his first address to Parliament, the current president promised merit-based diplomatic assignments that would be a welcome break from the past. But the Government broke this promise soon after with appointments of the children not only of ministers but also of a leading Opposition politician appointed to various diplomatic posts. These appointments were not confined to children. Favourites such as friends, hagiographers, and assorted hangers-on got diplomatic postings, many to countries with which Sri Lanka has important or fraught relations. The lack of criticism from the main Opposition party shows that the political class sees nothing wrong with this practice. It is the dream of politicians to appoint their kith and kin to plum diplomatic posts.

When he adorned the highest academic post in the country, the Foreign Minister would have sacked any dean who ignored prize winners and substituted in their stead relations, cronies and children of friends. When he was Minister of Justice, he would have prevented the appointment of children of cronies, relations, and hangers-on as state counsel in the AG’s department who were not selected through the then recruitment process. But as Foreign Minister he appears powerless to prevent the back door entry to the foreign service. 

The diplo-brats who sneak in through the back door rob the legitimate foreign service officers of their due. These officers who joined after a competitive selection process are entitled to career advancement but the diplo-brats snatch postings from them. Instead of being nurtured and developed, the career foreign service are the stepchildren of a wicked stepmother.

A perception of incompetence of the country’s diplomats also encourages overreach by foreign countries. Little wonder that the Chinese embassy, perhaps because it considers itself the suzerain of Sri Lanka, felt entitled to punish the People’s Bank for obeying a court order. This would be an open and shut case of contempt of court if done by an entity that does not enjoy immunity. The commercial section in the Chinese embassy very well knows that the decision interdicting the payment of the letter of credit to the Chinese seller of ‘organic’ fertiliser was wrong in law and could politely have said so.

In documentary letters of credit governed by the UCP 600, a court cannot interdict payment unless that there is fraud. The buyer’s only remedy is to reject the goods and sue for damages under the applicable sale of goods contract governed either by the Convention on the International Sale of Goods law or another sale of goods law. In letter of credit transactions, because banks deal only with documents, they are not competent to evaluate the quality or quantity of the purchased goods. This is Trade Law 101. But no. Instead of advising the People’s Bank to appeal the decision, the dragon decided to extrude its claws and give the pipsqueaks a reality check. 

Blacklisting one of the country’s two flagship banks alarms nervous foreign sellers who would require local letters of credit to be confirmed by prime foreign banks. This adds to the costs paid by the Sri Lankan buyer and be a further drain on scarce foreign exchange.

No one would seriously think that the war with the LTTE would have been won if relations, cronies, and hangers on had staffed the officer corps of Sri Lanka’s armed forces. The last time this practice occurred in the world was during the Crimean War when rich Britons bought their commissions. The result? The six hundred charged into the ‘jaws of death, into the mouth of hell’ and were slaughtered. As Tennyson lamented, “Someone had blundered.”

The diplomatic corps, notice the implication of the word ‘corps’, are the army of soft power of the country. Unlike the armed forces, they are on the frontlines every day protecting and promoting the interests of Sri Lanka. A highly trained diplomatic service like Singapore can routinely get an appointment at the White House for the visiting Singapore Prime Minister. Acceptance as a matter of course in the Oval Office has a unique signalling function. It is more valuable than a dozen visits to heads of other states because the visits to the White House brands the country that enjoys such privileges as a significant participant in international affairs. 

Singapore diplomats have done a spectacular job of country branding despite its reputation for authoritarianism and human rights violations. Instead of brand maintenance, Sri Lanka’s leaders have engaged in a severe brand dilution project. The previous president used public funds to roam the world like a jobless vagrant with his family to attend every imaginable conference but could not get a look in at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Sri Lanka desperately needs to attract more foreign investment. Would the diplo-brats be able to explain the investment benefits of the Colombo Port City? Would a Singapore investor who asks whether, pursuant to the national treatment obligation in the free trade agreement between Sri Lanka and Singapore (FTA), she can work just like a Sri Lankan without an employment visa get an intelligible answer? How can these diplo-brats explain the status of the FTA in the internal law of Sri Lanka where Parliament has not converted the FTA provisions into law by legislation? Commercial diplomacy is vital where most countries court foreign investment, trade and tourism. This is a job for trained professionals not for untrained relations and cronies.

That the institutions of the Sri Lankan State are powerless to prevent appointments of incompetent bumpkins to important diplomatic positions as well as prevent the appointment of siblings and hangers on to State-owned enterprises signals the fundamental weaknesses in the Sri Lankan State. Instead of minting coins commemorating the Chinese Communist Party, Sri Lankan officials would do well to imitate appointment procedures of the Chinese Foreign Service which is perhaps the finest diplomatic service in the world. 

Emperors of various dynasties in China could have appointed their offspring from multiple concubines to plum diplomatic positions. But they were operating in a superior civilisation that cherished the benefits of a meritocracy. Some of the local emperors, who sometimes strut around without even loin cloths, should follow their example.

Politicians have managed to fool the general public into thinking that they enjoy an unfettered discretion to hand diplomatic appointments to whomever they want, regardless of qualifications, because these are the legitimate spoils of war. When will the public realise that the politicians are not fighting against each other but are in fact allies in this war? The war in question is not waged among opposing political camps but against the Sri Lankan people and the interests of the Sri Lankan State. 

The only cure for this disease is an Anti-Nepotism statute (or a chapter in the new Constitution), drafted by civil society, and presented for enactment to Parliament. Without this prophylactic, diplomatic disasters such as the outcomes at the High Commission on Human Rights Council and the treatment of the country as a pariah State would continue. When the State suffers setback after setback, dismayed citizens ruefully complain to each other that, “Someone had blundered.” The time is long overdue to do something other than rue.