Recent media reports on the role of Sri Lanka's beleaguered Foreign Ministry and Foreign Service during the Summit of the Aeads of State of the SAARC region prompts me to write this letter. It was alleged that the Foreign Ministry, in particular, its Protocol Division was responsible for several organisational faux pa that embarrassed the Government that wanted the SAARC Summit to be a showpiece marking the celebration of Sri Lanka's Golden Jubilee Independence celebrations.

There was much ado about nothing in respect of the seating arrangements at the opening ceremony. Apparently most of the heat was generated by bruised egos of certain Ministers as a result of them not being allotted seats at the front of the hall. However, some of the more glaring shortcomings did not receive much press comment. Nevertheless, the partial failure of the 'sound system', snags in the lighting of the ceremonial oil lamp, the non-observance of serving etiquette with regard to drinks the mismanagement of invitations to the Minister's dinner, have justifiably evoked critical comment by those imitated in the nuances of Diplomatic Protocol.

Most of the criticism has been directed at those directly responsible for delegating duties. It has been alleged that the personnel asked were more or less square pegs in round holes because their appointments were based on criteria other than merit, competence, experience, etc.

However, there is also another dimension to the organisational faux pas at the SAARC summit. It can be contended that such problems go beyond recruitment to the Foreign Service, appointments in the Foreign Ministry and planning to the very foundations of diplomatic training involving the imparting of basic knowledge and diplomatic skills.

Diplomacy should not be cynically understood as merely an art of deception option just because a few may practice it in their daily lives. The importance of providing a solid foundation to diplomats need not be emphasised. Many Sri Lankans either studying or working abroad, particularly those in the latter category in the Middle East have little or no confidence in some of the consular services provided by our missions abroad.

There are many issues of public interest and many questions that arise from this. Is it not a fact that serving Foreign Service officers as well as new recruits undergo some form of in-service training, updating of knowledge and skills or apprenticeship in the art of diplomacy? Should not the rudiments of Protocol be imparted by the academies entrusted with such a task? Should not the Principle of accountability for such failures in Protocol be extended to the academies of diplomatic training and their administrations? Is it not a fact that a few months back there were chortles of laughter when it was revealed that some of our younger diplomats stationed abroad were unable to distinguish between some of the political actors involved in Sri Lanka's ethnic issue?

Perhaps these academics and their administrations are themselves inflicted with the same disease plaguing the Foreign Service and the Foreign Ministry? Particularly regrettable is that in our semifeudal political culture cronyism and sycophancy pays dividends. There are others who would contend that advising on the basics of diplomacy should be entrusted to those who are not only fair-minded but also who have the drive and the nuances of a changing global order. There should be no room for rewarding past achievements or for part-timing to pursue more lucrative activities.

Are there remedies? Perhaps the much needed restructuring of our Foreign Policy Organisation should begin with the establishment of an autonomous college having an interdisciplinary focus on Diplomacy. History, Law, Economies and International Politics as well as give some priority to postgraduate research. It should be administered by an independent board of academies and recently retired diplomats.

M. P. Abeysekera
Colombo.