My recent visit to Sri Lanka, the country that I love most, fills me with dark foreboding as its vital interests are being systematically compromised by its buccaneering Foreign .

Minister Mangala Samaraweera

Dr Dayan Jayatilleka pointedly observed in a recent article, that Foreign Minister Samaraweera “poses an existential threat to the State’s sovereignty and security, and gravely jeopardizes political stability and governability.” So true.

Corridor chatter in Geneva continues to suggest that in his apparent schoolboyish and sycophantish eagerness to endear himself to the Western promoters of the UNHRC resolution of October 2015 on Sri Lanka and his naive rush to placate the expatriate Tamil groups, who are still pursuing the Ealamist agenda through other means with the apparent acquiescence of their patrons in the West, he conceded far more than what the drafters of the resolution had expected.

Incredibly, with scant regard for the provisions of the Constitution and the Sri Lankan Bar with its proud history, the Resolution that he agreed to cosponsor calls for a, “credible judicial process, with the participation of Commonwealth and other foreign judges, defence lawyers and authorised prosecutors and investigators…”. In many countries, compromising the national constitution with such audacity would have resulted in prosecution before the courts.

The Resolution is now being waved around by those demanding foreign judges (or at least foreign participation in the judicial process to lend it credibility!) to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Sri Lankan troops as they eliminated the reputedly invincible and ruthless terrorist LTTE to the undisguised relief and unmitigated gratitude of the nation. The brave soldiers who sacrificed everything for the nation are now being subjected to thoughtless villification and a dignified Bar is being discombobulated with doubts of self-worth. Among those calling for foreign judges or foreign participation are the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the regular cavalcade of visitors from Washington, the TNA and the Northern Provincial Council. With a little more respect for the memory of the thousands of youth who willingly gave up their lives to liberate Sri Lanka from the thirty year scourge of terrorism and protect the country’s sovereignty, the much higher number who were maimed for life in battle and the untold numbers of civilians who were killed, injured or had their loved ones obliterated during years of indiscriminate bombings by the LTTE, and a simple awareness of the diplomatic processes, Sri Lanka’s highest representative abroad had the opportunity to negotiate a better deal. What is more, there is ample evidence to suggest that the West was willing to accommodate Sri Lanka’s sensitivities to a greater extent to strengthen the newly elected administration of President Sirisena.

Part of the blame for the resolution’s schlocky content must be borne by those who advised the Foreign Minister, especially members of the Foreign Service, who let the Minister indulge his folly while keeping their counsel obsequiously mute. Many had been grand advocates of the previous administration’s cocky approach to diplomacy and the world.

What appears to emerge as the craven supplication of the Foreign Minister before the West’s glitzy alters from the beginning of his tenure is embarassing. He has mistaken the role of the Foreign Minister of defending and advancing the nation’s interests robustly and with quiet dignity for genuflecting at every opportunity. As they say in New York’s “Village” ‘A guy so ready to turn over and get his **** ******’. Sri Lanka’s timerous eagerness to please the West, causes bemused smirks in Western foreign ministries and irritation among its traditional friends.

Journalists based in Washington and New York have noted that, from the time he assumed office, he has taken upon himself to denigrate the previous leadership of the country before his Western counterparts, sometimes embellished with unsubstantiated tall yarns, perhaps in the naive and forlorn belief that his popularity among them would be enhanced. (One recalls his tales of the Rajapaksas siphoning off $50 billion to foreign tax havens or Mahinda Rajapaksa’s election campaign being funded by the Chinese). It is doubtful if this goal has been achieved as Western diplomacy itself is based on the continuity of a country’s interests. Badmouthing a previous leadership which could return to power at some point, with foreign counterparts, is certainly not “cricket” and not in the country’s best interests.

The reaction of the British leadership to the Chilcot Report on Tony Blair’s now largely discredited role in Britain’s participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq provides a salutory lesson to Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister. The former Prime Minister, Cameron, pointedly refused to state whether the invasion was “a mistake” or “wrong” and rejected calls for a Conservative Party apology for its role.

The West has always respected those opponents who behaved with dignity, in fact, from the time of Alexander the Great. When captive King Porus (Pauravas) was brought before him in chains, Alexander haughtily asked Porus how he would like to be treated. Porus responded “Like the king that I am”. Alexander had his chains removed and restored his kingdom to him. The Foreign Minister has not learned the fundamental rule of being the chief representative of the country overseas. I.e. to represent the country’s best interests with fortitude, dignity and quiet pride. For Minister Samaraweera, it may be too late.

Furthermore, from the time it assumed office, elements of the new leadership, especially Mr Samaraweera, went out of their way to offend China which steadfastly stood by Sri Lanka in its darkest days during the terrorist inspired conflict and later was liberal with its finances as the country struggled to rebuild. China resisted all efforts of NGOs and some Western countries to dilute its support for Sri Lanka even from the time of the presidency of Mrs Kumaratunga. The naive efforts to insult and shove aside China in the immature hope of winning brownie points in the West were being made at a time when Chinese business concerns were purchasing aerodromes in France (Toulouse, the base of Airbus), harbours in Greece (Piraes), iconic hotels (Waldorf), real estate and bonds in the USA and real estate, health care, mining, renewable energy assets, etc. in Australia, not to mention infusing extensive and dramatic economy changing investments into Latin America, Africa and Asia, including India. Oblivious to these seismic developments, the Foreign Minister cut a sad figure denigrating China in public, but when the truckloads of development assistance did not materialise from a cash strapped West, turned pathetically to China again seeking funding. China, of course, haughtily responded by declaring that it dealt with the state of Sri Lanka and not with a particular government.

Following the same ill conceived approach, the Foreign Minister chose to brazenly contradict the President on a crucial matter of national importance and with international implications. It was an unpardonable breach of protocol and propriety for the Foreign Minister to contradict the President of the country. President Sirisena had categorically declared on two successive occasions that there will be no foreign judges to investigate alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister had reiterated the same sentiment. The Foreign Minister insensitively declared that the matter was still being discussed and people were free to express their own views. The Foreign Minister having made damaging concessions in the UNHRC resolution, may have privately provided assurances to his foreign interlocutors and diaspora Tamil groups which did not accord with the sentiments clearly articulated by the President of the country and was now seeking to wriggle out or was injudiciously trying to box in the President. Either way, in any mature democracy, he would have been shown the door. The requirement for the Foreign Minister to adopt a consistent stance with the Head of State and the Prime Minister is not a matter of courtesy, it is an obligation.

Mr. Sumanthiran, MP (TNA) revealed at the Congressional Caucus in Washington, in the presence of Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United States, which the resolution adopted in Geneva, had been negotiated and they had settled for a hybrid model. Neither the Sri Lanka ambassador nor the Foreign Ministry has rebutted this assertion despite the clear statements made by the President of the country.

With the country’s economic situation becoming increasingly shaky, it is incumbent on the leadership of the government to present a predictable and unified stance to the world. The business community is seriously lacking confidence. FDI flows have begun to decline seriously. Foreign reserves are dwindling. The one rosy spot in the economy, the booming tourism industry, will disintegrate rapidly with just a single incident of ethnic unrest. The Foreign Minister’s unguided course through these troubled waters could very well provide the spark to ignite such ethnic unrest. There are large sharks in the neighborhood who would relish the thought of the country reverting to its violent past.

The majority community, especially those negatively impacted by recent IMF prescribed economic reforms, is increasingly feeling uncomfortable with these developments. Thousands of servicemen, including returned servicemen, are uncertain about their futures with the threat of war crimes investigations dangling over their heads while hardly any public comment has emanated from the leadership of the Government about the need to investigate those who funded and supported the LTTE’s horrific bombing campaign that killed and maimed thousands of civilians, dragged over 20,000 children in to jungle camps for military training and seriously desecrated the holiest Buddhist places of worship. Instead, the Foreign Minister publicly hob nobs with them discussing reconciliation, including judicial tribunals with foreign participation. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the most reasonable and erudite Prince Said, echoes the sentiments of the the expatriate Tamil community more stridently each time as the frequent traveller to Geneva, the Foreign Minister, seems incapable or uninterested in conveying a different perspective to him, including the constraints inherent in the Constitution.

The recent unrest in the Jaffna University should be a serious warning to the authorities. The actions of the Foreign Minister may have encouraged the renewed assertiveness of the extremist Tamil groups and contributed to fueling the clashes. The similarities with the isolated incidents of the 70s which the then authorities naively swept under the carpet to pander to communal sensitivities which later exploded in the bloodletting of 1983 and were conveniently exploited by the separatist groups to launch 30 years of horrific terrorism should not be ignored.

The oversensitive reaction of the authorities to the Jaffna university clashes is feeding the appetite of those seeking to sow the seeds of ethnic discord. At a time when Buddhist monks are being arrested on charges of inciting social and ethnic discord, a robust investigation to the clashes should have commenced immediately with as much publicity as possible and those responsible taken before the law. Such an action would have reassured all concerned that the law would prevail. The busing of Sinhala students away from Jaffna is a lily livered response that would encourage the extremists in the North and confirm the worst fears of the Southerners. This is no way to consolidate reconciliation. If an example of what should be done is required, one only needs to observe how the USA, the apogee of the Foreign Minister’s inspiration, is dealing with the current wave of Afro-American unrest. It is with a robust armed police presence and the strict enforcement of the law that the USA will seek to prevent the situation from getting out of control.

It may be a case of deja vu. But it is difficult not to notice the tinder of ethnic discord slowly piling up waiting for a single spark to ignite it. In the past separatist groups have deliberately and as a part of their strategy encouraged ethnic clashes to gather recruits to their cause.

It is also be difficult not to draw the conclusion that the UNHRC resolution was not really an attempt to consolidate human rights and restore good governance but a thinly disguised endeavour to destroy the iconic super hero status, especially of the victorious Sri Lankan soldier, and reduce it to the level of a common criminal. The Foreign Minister’s solicitous and breathless anxiety to comply with the demands of the West and the Tamil expatriate groups may well have contributed to realizing this goal.

When the country needs volunteers the next time, they may not be there!

Dr Keitel writes regularly on Sri Lankan issues to Asian Tribune –

– Asian Tribune –