Shenali D Waduge

A penchant for prostrating before foreigners has become the bane of Sri Lanka’s leaders from politician to officials. However, there are protocols to be followed. Diplomats cannot poke their nose into the internal affairs of other nations. Diplomacy certainly has its savory moments. We recall Anura Bandaranaike then Tourism minister telling High Commissioner Nirupama Rao to mind her own business without getting too big for her slippers. Even the British High Commissioner David Gladstone was sent packing during the Premadasa presidency for interfering in local elections. Mahinda Rajapakse gave a right royal treatment to British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner who came huffing and puffing to stop the war on LTTE. Another incident arose when British HC Dominic Chilcott saw fit to visit newspaper editors as a show of solidarity marking another example of interfering in the domestic affairs of a sovereign nation. Interference was the hallmark of other envoys that included Robert Blake of US, Weerth of Germany, Solheim of Norway, Patricia Butenis and how could we forget Michele Sison. The latest to enter the fray is the Indian High Commissioner Y K Sinha who has seen fit to attack the Opposition obviously piqued by the anti-Indian slogans emerging among the Sri Lankan public against Indian invasion of Sri Lanka likely to follow the signing of ECTA. All it takes to ruin good relations between two nations is a diplo-mutt with a huge ego!

Majority of Sri Lanka’s current troubles are ‘made-in-India’ and it does sound bizarre when India steps in to resolve issues that India is responsible for creating. If India had not rushed in to carry Prabakaran to safety in 1987 every life lost since would have been saved. India’s behaviour continues to baffle us. They deny permission to Anton Balasingham to land but have tete-a-tete’s with TNA despite EU Election Monitors saying LTTE & TNA were one and the same. Rajiv Gandhi gets blown to smithereens but his daughter makes a much publicized visit to one of the convicts. India saves Prabakaran and Rajiv gifts his bullet proof vest but India denies entry to Prabakaran’s ailimg mother to India.

Every time the two inter-changing heads of Tamils Nadu bully the Indian Premier, the best way the Indian PM handles the situation is to turn and bully Sri Lanka. Both Tamils on either side of the Palk Strait have become a problem all because the British promised them their own state but defaulted and left giving them nothing.  The British empire is no more but the Indian Empire is fast expanding.

What Sri Lanka’s leaders from independence have failed to do is to have a tight Indian policy for Sri Lanka to adopt whatever government comes into power. At the rate things are happening in Sri Lanka we are likely to see a new constitution with every change of government making a mockery of democracy.

Be that as it may lets go back to 1987 and the Indo-Lanka Agreement. This was no mutual agreement. In fact no agreement with India is or has been mutual. Look at the ECTA or the land/rail bridge that India is monopolizing. It was an agreement shoved down Sri Lanka’s throat and there was no world body to shout ‘India, hold your guns, you are being unfair to a neighboring nation’. The JRJ Government did not even seek foreign support against India’s move.

Instead not only did Sri Lanka end up signing a one-sided accord, Sri Lanka ended up agreeing to even change its constitution to incorporate a 13^th amendment both of which were drafted in India and Dixit turned into a virtual military governor.  Of course the only man to show objection to India was a naval rating leaving Rajiv with a parting headache. Y K Sinha obviously is trying to turn himself into another Dixit.

Sri Lanka appears to have seasoned itself to Indian arm-twisting though it would have been nice to see Sri Lanka show the same pluck that Nicaragua did in taking the US to the ICC and winning the case too. Don’t we have all the facts that India was a state sponsor of terrorism? India’s best friends were jobless Sri Lankan Tamils whom they trained in armed militancy and ordered like dogs to destabalize Sri Lanka.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is the treaty that defines the framework of diplomatic relations between independent countries. 190 states have ratified the treaty. The treaty was adopted on 18 April 1961 and implemented in 1964. The treaty contains 53 articles of which key provisions include

• The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. Then the sending state must recall this person or the personal forfeits diplomatic immunity (Article 9)
• The premises of the diplomatic mission are inviolable and cannot be entered by host nation except with permission (Article 29). Host country is bound to protect the mission but can never search the premises nor seize documents or property (Article 24) Article 30 covers private residence of diplomats.
• Diplomatic bag can never be opened even on suspicion (Article 27)
• Diplomats cannot be arrested or held in detention (Article 29)

There is also the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. According to this treaty too

• The host nation can at any time and for any reason declare a particular member of the consular staff as persona non grata (Article 5) The sending state must recall this person or he/she too loses consular immunity.

The current issue revolves around an Indian High Commissioner who sees fit to interfere into the internal affairs of an independent country.

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states signifies that a state should not intervene in a dictatorial way in the internal affairs of other states.

The ICC judgement in favor of Nicaragua declared the element of coercion, which defines and indeed forms the very essence of prohibited intervention”.

Article 15(8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933 prohibits interference with the freedom, the sovereignty or other internal affairs, or the processes of the Governments of other nations”. Please send a copy to Mr. Sinha.

The Friendly Relations Declaration includes a whole section on ‘the principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”.

Returning to ICC judgement on Nicaragua the 1986 judgement declared the principle of non-intervention involves the right of every sovereign state to conduct its affairs without outside interference.” (ICJ)… the principle forbids all States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other states”. A state has the freedom of choice to decide on political, economic, social, cultural and foreign policy without intervention or interference from other states.

Additionally, the UN Charter Article 2.7 says nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII”.

As Camus said, how many more imbeciles behind counters with diplomatic airs do we have to deal with?

Shenali D Waduge

http://www.sriexpress.com/articles/item/959-life-abroad-diplomatic-controversies.html