Foreign Policy priorities from the British Treasury
Prof Rajiva WIJESINHA
The Peace Secretariat deeply regrets the recent intervention by yet
another British Minister in what seems a resumption of the campaign by
some elements in British public life to harass Sri Lanka and its people.
Stephen Timms, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is reported to
have written to Members of Parliament to the effect that ‘The UK did not
support the IMF’s proposed Stand-By Arrangement. The UK believes that it
is not the right time for this programme to be taken forward’.
Growing hostilities
|
Stephen
Timms |
Sri Lanka is well aware that the more irresponsible of the British
were behind moves to save the LTTE in the middle of May. The statement
of a distinguished journalist, who is admittedly a strong supporter of
the Conservative Party, that the scurrilous reporting of the Times had
been sourced by the British Foreign Office was not entirely surprising,
though it must also be granted that more circumspect individuals such as
the DFID Deputy Minister and some of the MPs who visited were much more
positive about this country.
Sadly, perhaps because of renewed pressure on British politicians,
now from the LTTE rump that has control still of vast amounts of
illegally collected funds, the British Treasury has decided to get
involved in the on-again off-again persecution of this country.
Denigrating
The rump seems now to have coalesced around Pathmanathan, who is
wanted by Interpol for the unsavoury manner in which he collects money,
but who has been slipping in and out of Britain recently, and has also
been interviewed by Channel 4, which has faithfully been playing its
part in the denigration of Sri Lanka.
All this is very sad, because we are aware that there are elements in
Britain which would like to engage with the Sri Lankan Government in a
positive fashion, and contribute to the development of the country, and
in particular its North and East, so as to ‘secure long-term peace and
prosperity for Sri Lanka through reconciliation between its communities’
as Timms is reported to have sanctimoniously said.
Timms sadly seems to believe that this is what the UK alone wants,
not Sri Lanka, which he evidently assumes is thirsting for war and
penury and continuing antagonism between its people.
Certainly, not having studied the question, he has doubtless been
convinced that peace and prosperity and reconciliation can be achieved
only through the privileging of Pathmanathan, who had managed, doubtless
through his contacts in Britain, to send in shiploads of weapons to the
Tigers in the last couple of months, according to the latest article by
D B S Jeyaraj. That these weapons, along with the refusal by the British
Foreign Secretary to categorically demand that the LTTE surrender,
encouraged the Tigers to fight on, and keep so many thousands of our
citizens hostage, evidently matters not a whit to the more blackguardly
elements in a nation of shopkeepers.
What is sad is that such behaviour takes away from the saner approach
of British professionals in the field. Though I have no idea whether the
comment by one Western ambassador, that capitals do not always listen to
the views of their representatives on the ground, applies to the British
now in Sri Lanka, I believe the British High Commission here is much
more positive in its approach, and will try to dissipate the miasma of
suspicion that British behaviour in May roused.
A monolithic approach
The Americans, who were so reliable through much of our struggle
against terror, seem to have succeeded in dissipating the doubts roused
by some untoward statements earlier this year.
Though their abstention on the IMF loan has to be seen as part of the
monolithic approach to foreign relations that the West has adopted with
regard to Sri Lanka recently, they have not gone out on a limb as Timms
has done.
Unfortunately, as I found when I contrasted the different approaches
of the US and the UK at the Special Session in Geneva that was designed
to attach Sri Lanka, many Sri Lankans do not distinguish between these
two leaders as they see it of the Western World, and assume indeed that
Washington will follow the lead of London.
The Timms pronouncement then will damage the bridge building that is
so essential now. Ironically it was made in a context in which even the
Times seems to be mellowing. Though it had one article last week that
was typically harsh on Sri Lanka, another said ‘To deny any IMF
reconstruction funding now would particularly hit the cities in the
North and East that suffered most from the depradations of the Tiger
leadership’.
That seemed to indicate that the saner voices in the Foreign Office
were finally being heard, so it would be immensely ironic if the British
Treasury thought otherwise, with the LTTE, as Jeyaraj put it, no longer
having a presence in Sri Lanka, but hoarding its wealth in Western
capitals.
In the context of the generous assistance given us by so many other
countries, in the context of the commitments made by Sri Lanka to
friendly nations that consistently opposed terrorism whilst encouraging
us to pursue the pluralistic reconciliation that Timms seems to think
only he had thought of, the grudging approach of some Westerners can
only damage the inclusive future, in every sense, that we are working
towards.
One can only hope then that more enlightened nations, and even more
enlightened politicians in Britain, will rein in the myopic and
contribute actively to government efforts to ensure lasting peace.
The writer is Secretary General , Secretariat for Coordinating the
Peace Process |