President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s official visit to Iran in November 2007 was undertaken amidst caution expressed by a wide circle of commentators here. A good section of the media even warned him of the possible repercussions on U.S.-Sri Lanka relations resulting from the visit. The issue raised by these circles, as Sri Lanka’s former senior diplomat, who was the country’s first resident Ambassador to Iran, explained through these columns, was not one between Sri Lanka and Iran but one between Iran and the United States. He was one who struck a positive note on the President undertaking that visit when he agreed with the bilateral reasons behind the visit and ignored the imagined ramifications it could have globally, especially, on Sri Lanka-U.S. relations. Those who expressed negative views on the visit quoted especially the likely fallout on our relations with the U.S. because of the latter’s stand on Iran processing uranium which has the potential of developing WMDS and other issues.

The varying view points expressed by the media and public commentators, like the former Ambassador to Iran, should have provided a basis for those who advise the President to take a balanced view on the priorities that President Rajapaksa should concentrate on during the visit. It strikes this writer, after reading the published material concerning the visit, that Presidential advisors including the Foreign Minister and Foreign Office advisors had not displayed the wisdom or the experience to advise the President to concentrate on bilateral issues alone during the tour staying clear of controversial issues like the nuclear issue and other global issues which could cause avoidable hi-cups elsewhere.

Diplomatic sources which have concentrated on Iranian affairs closely and the internet tell us that the Iranian government uses these state visits to get the visiting dignitaries to express solidarity with Iran on her evaluation of external issues in which the latter has stakes. Subscribing fully to Iran’s position on these occasions was one to be watched especially as international focus is centred on such statements. However, there was no indication that the President had received such advice to avoid falling into the trap laid by the Iranian hawks during this visit. The President had clearly stepped beyond bi-lateral issues to make a joint statement with the Iranian host touching on issues which did not relate to bilateral issues. One of these was the point included in the joint communiqué expressing Iran’s right to process nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. The diplomatic way to face such situations is to say that the two leaders discussed the issues without committing one way or the other. One could have even considered referring to the right of a country which has subscribed to the NPT to develop nuclear energy under conditions of transparency.

The problem here is not one of Iran’s right to follow such a course of action but the rhetoric in which the present Iranian leadership is engaged in, and the controversy over the degree of transparency which the Iranian government is prepared to concede which makes others suspect Iran’s intentions. This is what makes the situation complicated even for those who see the logic in Iran’s fundamental position over her rights to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If one were to make a balanced judgment, the position taken by Iran’s present leadership has not been helpful in difusing tension that has arisen over this issue. Inter-state relations require the employment of diplomacy but the way the present Iranian leadership has been going about with its rather abrasive rhetoric has caused difficulties even for Russia and China which counties have tried to prevent extreme action at the Security Council level.

It is because of this controversial situation that any remonstration of overt support to Iran’s position, which could be misinterpreted by Sri Lanka’s other bilateral partners, should have been undertaken with due reservation. What should be of uppermost importance for Sri Lanka was her self-interest and not another country’s interest.

Joint Communiqués

Iran watchers know very well, that like a few other countries which have serious internal conflicts, Iran is a country which feeds her millions with propaganda. As such, pronouncements on external issues on occasions of visits of foreign dignitaries has become routine there. One learns from the grape vine that during the visit of the former Prime Minister D. B. Wijetunge to Iran, an attempt was made by Iranian hawks to include references to external situations like those in Lebanon, Palestine, Zionism and Afghanistan in the joint communiqué issued on that occasion. But Prime Minister Wijetunge stubbornly refused to subscribe to anything which had no relevance to the purpose of his visit which was an economic one. The Iranian Foreign Office officials who tried to push these external elements into the Joint Communiqué were so disappointed that one had even asked if the Prime Minister was one without decision-making power. That unwanted remark, of course, had received the retort from a Sri Lankan official who had compared the situation of the Prime Minister to that of Iranian President, who too was not a head of state but a head of government.’ Every one here knows that was not a true comparison because our Prime Minister is not even a head of Government and the Iranian official was factually right.

In a situation where the world focus was directed at this time on Iran, it did not require special diplomatic skills to say that President Rajapaksa’s visit would be a cente of focus. As Joint Communiqués are put into shape by officials on the two sides, advisors to the President who worked behind the scene, should have had the courage and be forthcoming to see that the President avoided subscribing to a statement on the sensitive nuclear issue, whether or not the present Iranian government was right or wrong on that issue. Here was a lesson to learn from the former Prime Minister, Mr. D. B. Wijetunge. Whatever the latter’s political affiliations may be, his decision to concentrate on strictly bi-lateral matters during his visit to Iran even at the risk of displeasing the host, was a lesson in diplomacy which our present day Foreign Office officials and other advisors on foreign policy making seem to have been ignorant of.

These nuances in articulating foreign policy positions have to be kept in mind. That is an aspect that goes with professionalism in foreign policy advocacy. These considerations may be beyond the comprehension of our present Foreign Minister who seems to have mixed up foreign policy making with sartorial elegance like preference for Seville Row suits with the coloured handkerchief in the top pocket, his fondness to stay in most expensive hotels, and take his family members on his official tours as part of his official entourage.

That also may be unfamiliar territory to our present Ambassador to Iran the accolades paid to him through these columns by a certain resident from Kalmunai who went into a rapture exclaiming the gains made by the Ambassador and hence, the virtues of non-career diplomats notwithstanding. One could even ask if the Ambassador observed deliberate silence over the delicate issue. Those who ask questions about professionalism may be pleased to know that this type of situation arises especially when professionalism is lacking on the part of the person on the spot.