Megaphone diplomacy?

I refer to Demos’ comment under the above heading in the Island of June 22 on my article and that of Kath Noble in The Island of June 15 and 17 respectively. There has been much confusion about what has been meant by what came to be called megaphone diplomacy. It referred to statements made both by bureaucrats and politicians that were abrasive and even abusive, transgressing outrageously the long-established norms of diplomatic communication. In my article of June 15 on the HRC Special Session I gave reasons why I thought that megaphone diplomacy was a thing of the past – though of course there may be occasional lapses. I must add that I have with me a statement by our Ambassador in Geneva which is cogent and forceful, but without the slightest touch of megaphone diplomacy though it was made in response to a provocative statement by HR Commissioner Navi Pillai. I have also the response of our Attorney General, which is admirable in carrying punch without being undiplomatic in the slightest way. So megaphone diplomacy is a thing of the past. Some, who are clueless on what diplomacy is all about, can of course resuscitate it, and bring disaster to Sri Lanka.

There seems to be a disposition to believe – or to want to believe – that objections to megaphone diplomacy means that one is pro-Western, and even servile to the West. That disposition was certainly shown towards me when I got involved in the controversy about megaphone diplomacy some months ago, and Demos seems to show it now. But what about the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Secretary who have never been guilty of megaphone diplomacy, nor Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe whose diplomatic performance has been impeccable except for a lapse on one occasion? And, above all, what about President MR who was evidently extremely reluctant to renew the term of office of the chief practitioner of megaphone diplomacy? Is he too pro-Western and servile to the West? I must state that I have spoken out against the West much more strongly than any of them.

Demos is wrong in thinking that genocide means “the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people”. Today, in accepted usage, it could mean the killing of only a part of them. JRJ was guilty of genocide against the Tamils in 1983, and later Premadasa was guilty of much greater genocide against his fellow Sinhalese. I hold that the Sinhalese, just like every other people under the sun, are capable of committing genocide.

Demos writes that Kath Noble being British could be expected to have a much greater insight into the psychological predispositions and ingrained prejudices of the Western mind than I could. That may or may not be so. Demos must allow for the possibility that a Western individual could be downright silly, or share those predispositions and prejudices. For instance KN could be Islamophobic. Demos must also bear in mind de Tocqueville, a Frenchman, who showed far greater insight into the condition of the Americans of his time than the Americans themselves.

But all that is by the way. What is germane to my purpose here is the fact that foreign policy is made and put into operation not by members of the public in the Western countries but by the mandarins in their Foreign offices and the politicians above them. I am stating a hard fact, not being elitist. I hold that I and many other Sri Lankans who have interacted for decades with that mandarin world are far better equipped to understand Western foreign policy than Westerners like Kath Noble. I presume that she has no first-hand experience of the rather esoteric world of diplomacy. Otherwise she could hardly have committed those babooneries – which I would define as “marginal grotesques” – in her article. Incidentally the word “babooneries” in the penultimate sentence of my letter under the heading Go home, Kath should have read “babooneries”,