The winding up speech of the Deputy Minister of Finance, G. L. Peiris at the end of the Second reading of the 1999 Budget in Parliament

Mr. Speaker, the speech by the Hon. R. J. G. de Mel winding up for the Opposition was full of rhetorical exhortations. In many of those exhortations there was a very large element of wishful thinking. Throughout his speech he made the wish the father to the thought. What he would like to happen he portrayed as actually happening. There was a central there that underpinned the latter part of his speech. He said that in the preparation of the budget there must be a balance between growth and equity. He spoke of the need for a socially oriented free market. Sir, the government could not agree more with those particular sentiments articulated by the Hon. R. J. G. de Mel I would like to present the house with the facts of the matter and to ask the question whether the kind of balance that was spoken of by the Hon. R. J. G. de Mal is not in fact reflected in the economic thinking of the Government? We are in a situation where there is escalating military expenditure. That is something that we have to live with. It is part of the priorities of national policy. In that situation last year we made provision for 44,000 million rupees as defence expenditures. There was an overrun and we ended up spending approximately 56,000 million rupees. For the year 1999 we have made provision for 17,000 million rupees. Notwithstanding the difficulties arising from that situation I would like to present to the House the details relating to the expenditure which has been undertaken by the Government with regard to development and in respect of welfare. The entire Budget has been structured on the premise that a perceptive balance has to be struck among these three components at elements of social policy. There is military expenditure, development expenditure and there is welfare expenditure. The Hon. R. J. G. de Mel is quite wrong when he says that the Government has put all its eggs in one basket and the Government has focused exclusively on the war to the neglect of both development and welfare. That is far from being the case.

Sir, the Hon. Imthiaz Bakeer Markar in a thought provoking speech which he made earlier today accused the Government of a lack of compassion. He said that it is not a "feeling Government". I would like to ask the Hon. Imthiaz Bakeer Markar whether the circumstances which I am about to focus upon do not present conclusive evidence of a caring, compassionate administration? No government in history has done so much for the teaching profession in this country. In 1995 we made very substantial increases in the salaries of teachers. I can see that Hon. W. J. M. Lokubandara taking a particular interest in this observation which is entirely appropriate because he discharged responsibilities in his time as Minister in charge of the subject of Education. These salaries increased by the margin of 40 to 50 per cent and we spent 3,400 million rupees a year on the increases for teachers and the total number of teachers who benefited from this very substantial salary increase amounted to 187,000 persons. Notwithstanding the difficulties emanating from the increased defence expenditure, we had the political will and the capability to find resources that were neceassy to affect so significant an increase in the salaries of teachers. That is because we were aware of the importance of education in terms of overall human development.

That is not all Mr. Speaker, we also made very substantial increase in the salaries of public officials and the Armed Forces. This was done in three stages in the years 1997 and 1998 and the increases were to the extent of 30 per cent to 50 per cent. It was necessary to spend Rs. 8000 million a year in order to achieve this objective. The overall wage bill of these categories increased from Rs. 29,304 million in 1994 to Rs. 50,446 million in 1998. We have therefore looked after the teachers, we have looked after the public servants, the Armed Forces and the Police.

We have not forgotten the pensioners Mr. Speaker. I refer to the Rs. 260 cost of living allowance arrears. These were paid in instalments and the total cost was Rs. 3752 million. During the last two years Mr. Speaker, we increased pensions by five per cent and this cost us Rs. 1776 million a year. I am giving the House these details to ask the question whether welfare has been neglected. In a particularly tight economic situation we have not neglected welfare, we have spent very substantial resources on welfare oriented expenditure in this country.

Also Mr. Speaker, with regard to loans to farmers we have utilized as much as Rs. 1778 million in order to write-off the loans which had been obtained by farmers, in order to make it possible for them to borrow once more from the banks of this country, in order to make their agricultural activities viable and productive. With regard to the fertilizer subsidy we have incurred expenditure to the magnitude of Rs. 1500 million and what is more Mr. Speaker, we have maintained that expenditure without interruption for a period of four years. I would like to ask the Hon. Imthiaz Bakeer Markar whether this evidence of a lack of compassion. The Hon. Ronnie de Mel spoke of neglect with regard to the development of infrastructure. I would like to give the House some details with regard to the expenditure which we have incurred in respect of the National Road Network, highways, bridges and the like. On an average Mr. Speaker, we have been spending Rs. 7000 million on the development of the country’s highways. The total investment in the development of highways for the period 1995 to 1998 was Rs. 22663 million. For the next year 1999 we have set apart Rs. 7687 million for the development of our roads. Seven hundred bridges have been constructed during the last three years.

We have done an enormous amount of work with regard small irrigation which is a great boon to the farmers. 612 small irrigation projects have already been completed Mr. Speaker and 223 projects are underway. The total expenditure during the last four years on the development of small irrigation in different parts of the island to Rs. 15,850 million. Mr. Speaker I believe that nothing else transforms human life to the extent that electricity does. One of the major achievements of this Government has been in the field of rural electrification. When the home in the village has the advantage of electricity the child can study in the night, he can further his educational activities and new vistas open up. That is exactly what we have achieved, in a somewhat difficult financial situation.

We have spent Mr. Speaker, Rs. 16,093 million on electricity projects and for the year 1999 we have set apart Rs. 1500 million for rural electrification. We have spent Rs. 15,000 million on housing loans. Water supply, housing and community services account for an expenditure of Rs. 25,442 million during the last four years. We have spent Rs. 3000 million on rehabilitation and Rs. 1500 million on reconstruction.

Speakers from the Opposition made much of and alleged failure on the part of the Government to commit sufficient resources in the sphere of health and education. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. During the period 1994 to 1997 to less than 1.54 per cent of GDP has been committed to expenditure on health. Central Government expenditure on health amounted to 1.44 per cent of GDP during the period 1994 to 1997. That has to be constrasted with 1.51 per cent of GDP during the period 1980 to 1990. So, when you compare the whole decade, 1980 to 1990 with the period, 1994 to 1997, there has been a considerable increase in the amount of money that was spent on health in this country. The provision for next year in regard to health amount to 2.8 per cent of GDP.

Now, I would like to stress Mr. Speaker, that these are not theories, but hard facts. Look at the number of doctors working in Government hospitals. Look at the number of nurses working in Government hospitals. Consider the number of hospitals and the increase in the number of hospitals during the last few years. In 1994 when we were elected to office, there were 4,047 doctors working in Government hospitals. In the year 1997 that figure has gone upto 5316 doctors. This is an increase of 31 per cent. In respect of nurses, Mr. Speaker, the figure was 13,060 in the year 1994. We had 13,060 nurses in 1994. That has gone upto 15,976 in 1997. So, that is an increase of 22 per cent. The number of Government hospitals has increased from 430 in 1994 to 494 in 1994.

I would say that is a very proud record with regard to expenditure on health.

Then Mr. Speaker, the position in respect of education is no less satisfactory. Let us look at the annual average of budgetary allocation for the entire education sector. For the period 1994 to 1997, 2.8 per cent of GDP was committed to expenditure on education. That is the same proportion, 2.8 per cent of the GDP during the period 1990 to 1993. Although the war became much more intense and greater resources had to be expended on the war, we did not in any way cut down the provision that was being made for expenditure on education. During the period 1994 to 1997, we spent much more on education than was spent in the more favourable economic environment that prevailed during the decade 1980 to 1990. From 1980 to 1990 2. 6 per cent of GDP was committed to education as compared with 2.8 per cent of GDP for the years 1994 to 1997. If follows Mr. Speaker, that during the last four years, we have spent much more on education than was the case for the entirety of 13 years period from 1980 to 1993.

I think, Mr. Speaker, with the progress with regard to higher education is very satisfactory. It is an achievement that the Government could be justly proud of. Let us look at the figures with regard to university admissions. In 1994 it was 7,849. In 1997 it was 9,787. That is an increase of 35 per cent. In the year 1998, 12,000 students were admitted to the universities in our country.

(Continued tomorrow)

Foreign affairs of our country are not the private fiefdom of anybody, it is a national issue
- Anura

UNP National list MP Anura Bandaranaike opening the debate on the Foreign Ministry vote in Parliament yesterday said

"Mr. Speaker, last year when I opened the debate on the votes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs I stated very clearly that Foreign Affairs had long been one of my principal interests and my participation at the opening of this Debate had been a tradition in my 21-year parliamentary career. I was thus not the slightest bit driven by any personal motives but was engaged in a lively debate on the politics being pursued and a critique of what I perceived to be a sad neglect of certain basic aspects of the management of our Foreign Office by someone who came to the portfolio with so many credentials. It was sad and disappointing that no point by point reply was given to me in the Debate last year, as is the tradition during the debate on the Thawakkal issue, the minister convertered his reply to me into a pathetic carnival of insults and innuendo fortunately for him he refrained from doing so last year during the Foreign Ministry Debate.

This is especially regrettable because we have had sanctimonious protestations about the need for bipartisanship in foreign policy. Be that as it may, we are now in the fifth year of the PA Government and Sri Lanka has once again assumed the Chairmanship of SAARC at a very critical moment when two principal countries in our neighbourhood have crossed the nuclear threshold, when the Asian financial crisis has through the inevitable contagion effect spread to other regions and when our ethic conflict has rapidly deteriorated while other conflicts including the chronic Northern Ireland conflicts, and the question of Palestine is well on the way to a peaceful resolution.

Last year, I bemoaned the fact that no discussion is encouraged in Parliament on foreign Affairs. I can understand the desire to conduct foreign policy free from our prying eyes, but this is a fundamental dereliction of a democratic duty. The Parliamentary Consultative Committee of which I am a member has seldom if ever met in the last year. The foreign affairs of our country are not the private fiefdom of anybody. It is a national issue. It is matter of the uttermost importance. At a time when there appears to be disagreements virtually on each & every political & National issue, at most times highly vitriolic; one of the very few areas the PA and the UNP can agree is on a broad consenses on F. Policy/Over the years and the decades the contentious policy differences that divided the Govt. and the Opposition have narrowed considerably, which is indeed, desirable and commendable. The Minister, a suave, intelligent personage, nattily dressed in Austin Reed suits, must seize this opportunity to work on building a consenses on the key issues, so that a majority of Sri Lanka can speak with ONE united voice on matters that effect our nation’s interests and integrity.

Yet, quite sadly I see no such attempt being made, either, by the Minister or his Ministry; they seem to be on a roller coaster ride for personal glorification, assisted ably by a byzantine, outdated, ex-foreign Ministry official sitting at Temple Trees; wrecking havoc on his ex-colleagues who have proved to be far superior to him in every sense of the word.

We do not want to read eulogistic accounts of the Minister’s many trips abroad through Press Releases or in the state run newspapers, organized by the Minister’s ‘hurrah boys’ in a bizarre kind of ventriloquist journalism. We have a right to be informed in parliament and to subject the activities of the Foreign Ministry to scrutiny. Look at what happens in other Parliaments even in our own South Asian region. And so, I begin by urging that this legislature be taken seriously despite the Minister’s lack of experience in this Assembly.

Let me move on to ambassadorial appointments. The Minister seems to have a penchant for septuagenarians . At the beginning of this Government I was constrained to deplore what I termed the "dinosaur diplomacy" reminiscent of Stephen Spielberg’s famed "Jurassic Park" some of dinosaurs seem to have sauntered out of that park into top ambassadorial appointment of persons who had long retired. As a consequence I even hurt the feelings of some dear friends. This policy continues amazingly despite the presence of some very competent people in the career foreign service. Some of our most important positions in North America and Europe have gone to political appointees well into their retirement. Is there no one else competent to take these jobs? Some of the appointees had taken permanent residence abroad. This must be a source of frustration for the youth of our country. And where is one of our brightest career men sent to? To languish in Katmandu ! He could have been appointed to New York in view of his rich UN experience or to Washington or to London or even to New Delhi. But no he is, like all others in the Foreign Service condemned as a "UNPer". Of course our loss is SAARC’s gain as indeed has happened before.

Let me speak of recruitment to the career-service: which I, had occasion to, point out was done only once in the Minister’s term. So what happens this year? The Minister remedies this with a vengeance. He appoints 25- twenty five persons mind you, on the results of one examination overriding, the objections of his officials who recommended 12 to 15. This mind you in a career with a total strength of about lOO. The fact that there are cadre vacancies-does not mean you fill them all in one fell swoop. An elementary knowledge of management will tell you that this creates a huge bulge in your career development with serious- consequences for the future. These 25 cannot all be of equal quality. We may have assured ourselves of better material if we had waited another year. But perhaps the, Minister was uncertain whether he would be here another year! The point simply is this you will have 25 competing for a small number of places in higher grades as they move up the rungs creating enormous frustration. The decision to appoint 25 was the Minister’s alone and so he must tell this House how he justifies this.

I have been given to understand that though a Diplomatic Training Institute was set up with much fanfare, the most recent batch of recruits to the foreign service are not being sent for training to the Institue. The institute must be strengthened with permanent staff and its teaching programme must cater to the needs of the country and the needs of the time. The quality of our Diplomats mut be improved and they should be on par with the best of them anywhere in the world.

This is a fine Institution which must be made use of.

I had the privilege of being the Chairman of the BMICH when Dr. Vernon Mendis, initiated this idea and because of his commitment, idealism and vast experience, he was the natural choice to head this Organisational as Chairman gave large amounts of funds from our depleted financial sources to start this Institute. The Prime Minister showed much interest as well. Make the max use of this Institute, which you are not doing at present.

Last year I also spoke of the need to appoint Honorary Consuls in several cities in North America and Latin America. Nothing has happened which is unexplainable! We are now told that an old recommendation of a former Ambassador who was persona non-grata with the Minister has been accepted belatedly and we have a career man appointed as Consul in Los Angeles where there is a large Sri Lanka expatriate community and where since September 1995 we have had no representation at all despite the great business opportunities that exist. Our man in Washington had interviewed many candidates including US businessmen for various consular positions and has now the embarrassment, as did his predecessor, to tell them that the Foreign Ministry has decided otherwise. Even if you decide that you can afford to have a consular post in LA what about Chicargo, Atlanta, Houston, Mexico City, Toronto and other important North American cities where we have important political and economic interests? What about some of the important Latin American capitals, which we only think about when we want votes for our candidature to various UN bodies? We obviously cannot afford to open our own diplomatic missions in all, these places. What kind of policy planning is this? Can I at least this year have the courtesy of a reply to this point? Why when we have the cost free facility of appointing Honorary Consuls, as other countries do here in Colombo, do we not do so? We require a cogent clear answer - not evasion. Before I address foreign policy matters let me refer to one last management issue. The Foreign Service deserves to have morale boosted considering what they have to put up with serving in difficult posts under trying conditions. Instead, they have to read in the newspapers that they are supporters of the opposition, that they are the leftovers of a past administration that packed the place with favourites and that their drafts of speeches are atrocious. Now if all this is true it contrasts with the compliments paid to the career officers after the SAARC Summit by the Head of State. And if is not true should there not be a denial issued? But through all this where was the Minister and what responsibility does he take, as he should, for the errors of his Ministry.

While the criticism poured forth? That is assuming that the seating fiasco at the SAARC Summit was in fact the mistake of the Foreign Ministry. We do not know because the Minister maintained a deafening silence. The concept of Ministerial responsibility seems to have been thrown out of the Foreign Office windows. This lack of loyalty and responsibility, is no different from what happened last year when the Foreign Affairs Adviser was allowed to attack the Additional Secretary of the Ministry, & our Ambassador in Washington, Mr. Dhanapala in the most disgraceful manner without being given the opportunity to respond. How can you command the loyalty of your people when you let them down so badly? This is the first time that the Foreign policy adviser to the President had been allowed To LAMBAST two of our top diplomats, Jayantha Dhanapala & Nihal Rodrigo in the national press and, not a word from the Minister.

Come on Mr. Minister:

A man of your calibre does not need to bow down in the fluctuating idioeyneracies of a frustrated former diplomat?

I promised to deal with policy issues and I will. Perhaps the most dramatic events in the year in our region were the underground nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan who are not members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or of the CTBT unlike all other SAARC members. The Government conscious of its friendly ties with both these countries and our geopolitical situation put out a cautiously worded statement as did Bangladesh and others in the region. Fair enough. But then what does our Foreign Minister do? In an effort to ingratiate himself into the favour of our neighbour (which not even our neighbours would have expected) he says he has ‘no objection’ to other countries going nuclear and the nuclear club being expanded! Now if he said he is powerless to prevent the nuclear threshold from being crossed by others I can understand that. But here is Sri Lanka having signed the NPT actually saying we should have more nuclear weapon states. Does the Minister seriously tell us that the world will be a safer place with not 5 nuclear weapon states but with 10 or 20? Does he realize what he is saying? When I was leader of the opposition from 1983 to 88 I had many a battle on the floor of this House, with Prime Minister R. Premadasa and my good friend Hon. A. C. S. Hameed, on our ever ¢hanging and unsteady policy towards India, which lead’ to chaos AND THE EMERGENCE AND THE TRAINING AND THE ARMING OF THE Tigers, not to mention the notorious dropping of food parcels by air, and the Indo—Lanka accord which was the final culmination.

In fairness to Mr. R.P. even though he asked the IPKF to leave Sri Lanka, which position the SLFP advocated most ardently evened out the rough edges of our relations with India specially on the prudent advise of Bradman Weerakoone his Foreign Policy advisor. Much of the damage that was done was undone. Of course, the Nehru and the Bandaranaike families have had the closest and the friendliest relations that subsequently extended to Indo-Lanka relations and we enjoyed a period of peace, friendship and mutual respect, which was quite unique!

Right throughout my political career, I have gone on record in Hansard and elsewhere that the cornerstone of our foreign policy was good relations with India, as Mr. A. C. S. Hameed, knows best! I have argued on the floor of this House for over 15 years that we must strive to minimize the mis understandings with India and build a solid foundation of relations based on mutual respect for each other’s integrity.

But and there is a big, BUT, there is absolutely no need for us to cow down or go on our bending knees to India or to anyone else;

At the expense of our national interest and self respect. India in fairness to her, does not expect this from us. My mother as Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister successfully negotiated two highly controversial matters with 2 Indian Prime Minister’s: the Indian Tamil question, and the Kachchativu problem, whilst maintaining our dignity and self respect. We did not go on our knees or compromise Sri Lanka. When the Minister says that he has no objection to India going nuclear, it was a statement made without thought, in a flight of extreme fancy, which is unexplainable from any stand point or any sense of logic or reason: or did this stupidity manifest in the mind of that ‘oracle’ the self appointed Canning, Metternich Palmerstone, Bismark and Kissinger all rolled into one, Mr. Jayantha Rajapakse?

No other SAARC nation made such astonishingly naive statement.

The well read minister might do well to remind himself of a Shakespearean quote from HAMLET: specially when dealing with Mr. Rajapakse.

Quote: "Give thy thoughts no tongue: Nor any unpropotioned/thought his act:

Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice, take each mans censure, but reserve thy judgment and this above all to thine own self be true".

Last year the Government claimed that it had made impressive headway in the pursuit of Foreign Policy objectives". Another year has passed and the time has come for us to examine whether this is true.

The Government made a great song and dance of the SAARC summit. We need go no further that to recall that it was no less a person than the President herself who described it as an organization disaster. According to a famed Foreign Service officer the Ministry had not totally fallen on its face, but what was interesting was that the Minister was reported to have remained silent all through the attack on Ministry officials by the President.

SAARC was given a new lease of life by President Premadasa. It was on the steam that he injected into the process that the SAARC is still running, there have been no new initiatives and no real movement or impact on the ground. The Government claimed after the last summit that SAPTA had got off the ground but this Government has already begun to undermine the whole exercise by seeking to enter into a new bilateral.

Trade Agreement which leaves out Pakistan. I wonder whether that country was even afforded the courtesy of being informed. What is the message we wish to send out to the other members of SAARC. India hasentered into bilateral Agreements with two of the LDC’s in SAARC but that does not offend the rules of the WTO but this Agreement is different, would the Government also enter into a similar Agreement with Pakistan and level the playing field for otherwise they would be disadvantaged when exporting to Sri Lanka.

The countries of ASEAN are going through much hardship today, but this is not forever, we must continue to relate to them closely both bilaterally and also by establishing a special relationship between SAARC and ASEAN. We must also work closely with them in international forums. I am happy that the Embassy in Manila has been reopened. It is an important capital and we share many interests and last but not least it has the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank. It is imperative that we have a meaningful presence there.

There is no question that SAARC is being undermined. What anyway has SAARC achieved during the past four years. SAARC missed a golden opportunity to play a serious role during the last Summit but its ‘ostrich policy’ prevented that. SAARC should have at least during the ‘Retreat’ discussed the most fundamental issue that faces the Sub-continent today which is the security of the Sub Continent. There is no question that all of us over one point two billion people have been affected by the two adversaries on the Sub Continent become Nuclear capable. It is still not too late for the president to re- focus SAARC’s activation to these questions of paramount importance, as she enjoys the respect and the confidence of her SAARC colleagues.

What about the much wanted ‘Economic initiatives’ taken by the Government, the many visits to foreign countries, with high powered business delegations? Did we have one return visit other than for those from the UK, thanks ‘to the good work done by High Commissioner S. K. Wickremasinghe. It was claimed that MOU’s were signed for business worth nearly 2 Billion US Dollars. And the boast was that these projects would provide direct employment for 50,000 workers. We were told that "Fortune Five Hundred" Companies were at our- door step, perhaps at the doorstep of the Castle in the air. Even the President addressed the Commonwealth Business Forum whilst in Edinburgh, but at the end of the day what have we to show? We all know the level of’ unemployment in this country. Has the Government made even the small dent in that? The answer is NO, so the Government has failed even on that score despite all the ‘ho-ha’. All sound and no substance, is perhaps the best description of the Government’s Foreign Economic policy, which the Minister has boasted loud about.

Have we over the past four years been able to combat, and eradicate the scourge of’ disinformation (sic), distortion and calumny about Sri Lanka." I must hasten to add that some effort has been made and’ for that you have made no major dent in that are either. The LTTEs campaign continues and has even expanded. If at all the LTTE is facing difficulties in some theatres it is only because the global drive against terrorism.

For instance the United States included them in the list of terrorist organizations on the basis of their Law which was enacted to protect the interest of US nationals and US interests. I must congratulate the Minister for his excellent timing of his visit to the US — he was in the right place at the right time!

On the subject of the global drive against terrorism, that is perhaps the only silver lining in what is otherwise a totally dark cloud. I must congratulate the Minister and his officials who we understand played a significant role in the successful adoption of the recent international Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. We have yet a long way to go to have a total commitment by the international community to fight Terrorism. That will happen only when our terrorist becomes their terrorists and their terrorists becomes our terrorists.

Is there no threat of nuclear terrorism with terrorist groups including the LTTE having a greater likelihood of gaining access to nuclear material, nuclear technology and the means to deliver nuclear devices? We are for nuclear disarmament according to the policy statement made in the UN but we have also no objection to there being more nuclear weapon states? What kind of logic is that? Of course we all deplore the double standards of the five nuclear weapon states who criticize India and Pakistan for acquiring nuclear weapons when they themselves hang on to theirs. But was there not a better way of saying that than telling the world you have "no objection" to countries acquiring nuclear weapons?

On the same issue while India and Pakistan conduct important bilateral talks with the USA on the nuclear issue our Minister is quoted in an USA based journal in response to the US approach to SAARC in the following terms "With the US everybody has to be careful. I don’t know what their agenda is. If their agenda is economic co-operation, environment and things like that then it is OK. But any question of nuclear tests and all this kind of nonsense — no, completely out". That is a direct quote from the Minister’s interview with India Abroad correspondent Aziz Haniffa. Now is this how we should be referring to the serious question of nuclear tests having signed the CTBT ourselves? If it is ‘nonsense’ is what is going on between India and the USA in their bilateral talks also ‘nonsense’? Surely with all the command of the language the Minister has he could have made a better choice of words?

Then there are our relations with the United Nations. I have read that our President failed to keep an appointment with the Secretary General and I do not know if this is true. If it is it comes on top of the churlish manner in which we treated his special envoy who was sent here with a letter to the President. Mr. Alvaro de Solto — who is even received in Myanmar at Head of State level when he goes there on an unpopular mission — was received perfunctorily by the Foreign Minister, given a lunch by the Foreign Secretary and then allowed to leave. It is true that India did not receive him although the Indian Press was critical of this. But Pakistan and Bangladesh received him at the highest political level. Surely India could not have objected to us receiving the Secretary General’s Special Envoy as a courtesy when he had a letter from the Secretary General for the President. We need the support of the Chief Executive Officer of this world body. We have editorials in the state owned media praising Kofi Annan’s work to counter terrorism and other causes when it suits us but we cannot extend basic courtesies to him. Perhaps the snub we got trying to get one of our people through the backdoor in an effort to block the well-deserved appointment of Jayantha Dhanapala as Under Secretary-General was still rankling. Now we hear that the Secretary General is visiting South Asia and that Sri Lanka despite being SAARC Chairman will not be included in the itinerary.

Another troubling issue is the fact that the US Peace Corps has left Sri Lanka. Of course the government took great care to ensure that this was not publicised but it is an indication that foreign governments are unhappy about the security situation in the country. This affects tourism and investment as well. The US Peace Corps decision was entirely due to the fact that the security of the Americans here could not be assured.

Let me conclude by referring to the sorry state of affairs in our New York mission, which has had such illustrious heads as Shirely Amerasinghe and more recently. H. L. de Silva? What do we find at the height of the General Assembly session but a sadly depleted mission? The Ambassador is hauled off to Washington by the Minister although his responsibilities are to the UN. Another diplomat is despatched to Havana to prepare for the Minister’s visit there. With yet another diplomat unfortunately having to go to hospital and a replacement to a diplomat transferred to Colombo still to come there was only a junior diplomat to cover the General Assembly and all the committees. What a sad day for Sri Lanka which had been represented so ably and so well in the UN. Then comes a crucial election for a place on the Human Rights Committee and despite fielding a strong and deserving candidate in H. L. de Silva we lose by a few votes. The question I pose is— was this due to inadequate canvassing by our mission at the ambassadorial level? Was it a tit-for-tat for a pervious election loss when H. L. de Silva was rightly concentrating on getting the country into ECOSOC and the fortunes of a particular individual had to take second place? We reject in seeing Mr. Rajah Goonesekera in the Sub-commission for Human Rights. We would have been still happier to see the great talents of H. L. de Silva serving the cause of human rights internationally in the Human Rights Committee if only our Foreign Ministry took his election seriously.

The Foreign Minister and the Washington mission must be congratulated on the forming of a Sri Lanka caucus in the US House of Representatives. This is no mean achievement and while of course the foundation was laid by others and the hard work was also done by Sri Lanka expatriates we do not begrudge the credit that must certainly go to the Minister and the Washington mission, and specially to Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, our former ambassador to the UN.

I realise the difficulties you may have in the matter of staffing but why can you not cast your net wide and recruit able people on contract, some could even be seconded from the private sector, you would of course have to ensure that those nominated are not persons whom some other institution wishes to get rid of. As for the staff in your missions, including some Heads of Missions are deadwood. We recently read of how a foreign service officer was caught at the airport trying to smuggles some passports, yet another had been caught smuggling sarees. I was sorry to learn that the man is yet in service. There must be a clean up of the service. Those who join should not automatically end up as ambassadors. There must be a weeding out mechanism and a system of work assessment and only the best must go up not everybody. As for some of your recent appointments as ambassadors. The less said the better.

I have digressed somewhat but let me get back to the important area of image buildings. This is not a task that can be undertaken by the Foreign Ministry alone. There must be better coordination and we must project one image and speak with one voice. Today we have Air Lanka having its publicity campaign, a separate on by the Tourist Board, the Foreign Ministry has its own programme, the Board of Investment hires yet a PR Company to project its version of Sri Lanka. The Tea Board I presume has its own programme too. This is not only a colossal waste of resources, it is also quite dangerous as was proved by the disastrous initiative of the Tourist Board, for which no one was held responsible at the end of the day. This is reflection of the manner in which this government conducts business —chaotic, is a mild word to use to describe the situation.

Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar’s execution of our Foreign Policy has been a subject of much criticism from me over the past 3 years. Yet, on one front, he has relentlessly persued an anti-LTTE policy and this says much, as he is a member of the Tamil community. He has run around the world many a time, to attempt to block the Tigers from operating freely from across the globe, specially Europe & the USA. His efforts no doubt, sincere and genuine are commendable, specially as he is placing his own life at great peril and has earned the eternal wrath of some of his own community.

Unfortunately, for the Minister all his genuine attempts at combating the Tigers have been partially negated by the cheer leaders and the hurrah boys of the Foreign Ministry, and the Govt. maintained media. Reading the Govt. press and TV we are made to belive that the Minister has really messed it up for the Tigers in South Africa. Let us take a brief look at some recent events.

If we are to go by what happened in the USA, after they banned the LTTE, for exampl has not prevented Wiswanathan Rarakumaran the org. legal advisor and Karuna the head of its US operations, from freely carrying on with their work. After the US ban the LTTE has not folded their tent and sought greener pastures. To clearly establish that such and such org. is a front organisation for the LTTE is not an easy task. To prove that monies collected by these front org. is being channelled for the war effort here, is harder. The problem is compounded by the fact that they can start new org. Or infilterate existing ones.

The banning of the Tigers by the US govt. has hardly made any serious dent in their operations, even though we Sri Lankans are more than grateful to the US govt. for their bold gesture!

The Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry believes wrongly that the Tigers are very worried about the anti-terrorism legalisation to be enacted by the UK that they planning on moving to Southern Africa bag and baggage in a mighty hurry!

So, the Ministers pre-emptive strike! Is this assumption correct? Judging by the US experience the answer is a clear NO. The British anti-terrorism legalisation mainly targets the Irish terrorists. There is no international targeting of the Tigers in the UK, so far. Will Britain like to lose the leverage they have of playing the ‘honest broker’ by antagonising them to that extreme extent? The answer is an unlikely NO. Even if the British bans the Tigers they will operate exactly in the same manner as they are doing in the USA, effective and clandestine!

Coming back to South Africa, it has been public knowledge that the connection between the Sri Lankan Tamil separatist movement and the ANC goes back to the mid 1970’s. You know that the LTTE has effectively generated South Africa in a meaningful way and I recall that in 1996 President Mandela sent a letter congratulating a LTTE front organisation.

This is in no way a reflection on President Nelson Mandela. I consider him as one of the greatest legends of this century a unique man, a man who has sacrificed his whole life to end the suffering of his people for their emancipation. Truly, a man of true greatness!

The Tigers have several legitimate org. all over South Africa overtly sympathetic and supportive. In terms of raising funds, lobbying, propaganda, arms purchases the LTTE is well entrenched, in South Africa, operating through a web of front organisations. When the LTTE has the resources and expertise to conduct intense training here why should they conduct training camps in far away South Africa and transport them all the way back here.

How strong is our mission in South Africa? Can a High Commissioner and one diplomatic officer envoy all the political, economic, consular and other work that needs to be done, leave alone tracking the Tiger? We must have a credible presence, otherwise there is no purpose."