Features
Diplomatic plums: applaud the naysayers
by Sanjeewa Jayaweera
Several readers of the Sunday Island living in Sri Lanka and overseas reached out to me after reading my article “Sri Lanka should close down most of our overseas missions as a step towards reducing public expenditure.” Many expressed surprise about the number of overseas resident missions we have and the associated costs. The overriding message was, “we did not know.” To a large extent, that is one of the major causes of our current predicament.
Most of us exercise our vote once in five years, and that too in an imprudent manner and leave it at that. We feel that we have done our duty until the next election. After that, politicians are allowed to rule the roost. There is no public participation in debates involving how taxpayer money is spent. Although the media highlights corruption and wastage in government ranks, they quickly move on to the subsequent controversy and quietly forget the previous one.
Better Use of Honorary Consuls
A former High Commissioner’s suggestion is for GOSL (Govt. of Sri Lanka) to maximise the services of the many Honorary Consuls that we have appointed, to close down some of our overseas resident missions. It is an excellent idea if those in power are genuinely interested in curtailing public expenditure. According to our Foreign Ministry website, Sri Lanka has designated nearly 100 Honorary Consuls in various countries.
Many countries adopt the practice of appointing Honorary Consuls to represent their interests in another country. This practice is adopted to defray significant costs associated with establishing a resident overseas mission. An ambassador resident in a nearby country is then accredited to where an Honorary Counsel has been appointed.
As many as 68 countries have appointed Honorary Consuls in Sri Lanka. Many of those selected in Sri Lanka are well-known persons from the private sector who are undoubtedly commercially astute and competent in administrative matters. Therefore, one must assume that those Sri Lanka has selected to act as Honorary Consuls are also of good repute and capable of discharging their duties effectively.
As these are honorary positions, I believe GOSL does not make any payment as an allowance or reimbursement to cover expenses. However, I am confident that Sri Lankan taxpayers would not object to GOSL reimbursing costs or paying an allowance if we could significantly reduce public expenditure by closing down most of our overseas resident missions.
Do we need a Consulate General Offices in addition to Embassies?
I failed in my last article to mention that in addition to the 54 overseas resident missions, the GOSL maintains 13 Consulate General offices, of which 12 are in countries where we already have an Embassy/High Commission. The cost of these, too, is borne entirely by the GOSL. They are invariably staffed by persons posted from Colombo, although some of the junior positions at times are held by local staff of Sri Lankan origin.
The cost of maintaining this office in 2010 was estimated at Euro 600,000, which now is estimated to be around Euro 800,000. In addition to the Embassy in Berlin and the Consulate General in Frankfurt, Sri Lanka is also served by six Honorary Consuls of great competence. Most of those born in Sri Lanka now living in Germany are German citizens, as Germany prohibits dual nationality. Therefore, there is limited consular work that the six Honorary Consuls can easily handle. At present Honorary, Consuls are only permitted to act as a post box. It seems previous Ambassadors have submitted recommendations to close the Consulate General office in Frankfurt, paving the way for saving taxpayer money, but those in Colombo are in deep slumber.
An appointment causing consternation down under
A video circulated on social media is being widely discussed by for those in Sri Lanka and those living down under. The reason for a lot of this nit picking was that the person featured in the video speaking very poor English had been appointed as our High Commissioner to Australia. Unfortunately, I am unable to verify the authenticity of the video. I must hasten to say that I am not one to equate intelligence with a persons ability to speak good English. However, one assumes that a person posted to a country where English is the official language would be fluent in that language if they are to discharge their duties effectively. I will, however, not blame the individual designated as the High Commissioner for accepting a job responsibility for which he lacks communication skills.
The long-suffering taxpayers of this country need to ask who initially nominated this person to this post and how the established checks and balances failed. The Parliamentary Committee of High Posts, which includes opposition members, would have rubber-stamped the appointment. Why the opposition members did not publicly oppose the selection is a pertinent question. One can only presume that the idiom “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours” prevailed. Unfortunately, it now seems that some Members of Parliament, including those in opposition, are getting their children and relatives appointed to various positions in our overseas resident missions and do not want to rock the boat.
Dappula De Livera and Kumar Sangakkara declined DPL appointments
However, the Sri Lankan public needs to appreciate and applaud the former Attorney General Dappula De Livera for turning down his nomination as Sri Lanka’s High Commissioner to Canada. According to the media, he had stated that he would prefer to remain in Sri Lanka and serve the people. In my mind, there is no doubt that the former Attorney General would have had the requisite skills and competence to do an excellent job in a country where we have been much maligned. However, he chose to turn his back on a prestigious position which would have also entitled him to bring home an expensive car on his return. There is cause for hope that a few good people are still left.
I am reminded of the occasion when former President Sirisena, speaking at the ceremony held on the retirement of the great Kumar Sangakkara, shocked many, including the player, by announcing his appointment as our High Commissioner to the UK. It was evident that Kumar had not bee previously consulted. It needed all his diplomatic skills to turn down the assignment citing his lack of knowledge and expertise in international relations. What happened then is typical of the cavalier and irresponsible approach in appointing our Ambassadors and High Commissioners.
Another news item worthy of discussion and analysis is the retirement of Ravinatha Aryasinha, our Ambassador to the USA. That he is a competent career diplomat with an excellent reputation is a fact. He has served our country well. Although public servants need to retire when they turn 60, many of them continue to be retained by the GOSL, presumably on contract for many years. The fact that the GOSL did not offer an extension of service to Ravinatha is lamentable. That he was sent overseas for just eight months reflects that the GOSL is not committed to reducing public expenditure. It isn’t easy to comprehend how Professor Nalin de Silva was appointed as Ambassador to Myanmar when he was 76 years old whilst one of our best diplomats is being put to pasture at the relatively young age of 60.
I must conclude by stating that reducing the number of overseas resident missions is not the only way to reduce public expenditure. It is undoubtedly a low hanging fruit, but there are numerous other ways and means by which the GOSL can reduce wasteful spending.
