The scheduled visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Sri Lanka on 28th April at the invitation of the Sri Lankan President has now put to rest much of the speculation about recent Iranian commitment made during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s official visit to Teheran at the end of last year, to assist Sri Lanka in two important development programmes, to which the government has accorded priority, namely, the Uma Oya multi-purpose project and the expansion of the capacity of the Sapugaskanda oil refinery. That the main purpose of the visit is to inaugurate the Uma Oya project underscores on one hand that the Iranian commitment this time is not confined to words but, as he remarked during the Sri Lankan President’s visit, he wants to see that MOUs signed become reality. On the other hand, it underscores that the visit is a demonstration of friendship and mutual respect that the Iranian people have for Sri Lanka over a long period of time. That should lay to rest any misgivings one may harbor against the visit.

The visit of the Iranian President, whatever may be at the bottom of it, is of special significance, when looked at from the point of view of Iranian diplomacy. Official visits by heads of state to other countries are generally normal diplomatic events but they highlight special relations or circumstances. Visits outside by Iranian heads of state were very rare indeed and had been confined to very few countries and few occasions. President Rafsanjani, who was the President, to whom I presented my credentials, traveled very little. He visited Turkey, Sudan and Indonesia (for NAM Summit) and India on return. These marked very special relations at the time with the first two countries and a special circumstance in the case of Indonesia, namely, the NAM summit. Sri Lanka had just opened a new chapter with Iran at the time under President R.Premadsa who was looking forward to a period of close fruitful cooperation with Tehran. When I was selected by him as the first resident Ambassador he disclosed to me what his intentions were. So did his then Foreign Minister, the Late General Ranjan Wijeratne who kept up his promise to visit Tehran even after he relinquished office as Foreign Minister. All that I could arrange at the time both due to newness our renewed relations with Iran and short timing, was a special meeting between the two leaders on the sideline of the Summit.

President Rafsanjani opened a new chapter of relations with the outside world and his foreign visits though few, were demonstrative of these. The crisis in Kuwait when Iran opened her doors to refugees both from Kuwait and Iraq provided the opportunity for several European Foreign heads of states to communicate direct with the Iranian President. There were indications of some relaxation at the time, of the U.S. position over Iran during the refugee crisis encouraged by the way Iran responded to that human crisis but due to actions of extremists on both sides no significant breakthrough was achieved in relations with the U.S.

President Rafsanjani’s successor traveled outside the country a little more taking personal diplomacy a step forward but no progress was made towards improving relations with the U.S. The present President is seen travelling to more countries including the Gulf States. His visit to Iraq and earlier to Saudi Arabia (for Gulf Council meeting) are of special significance. He also paid a return visit to Venezuela whose controversial President visited Iran twice recently, first time just on the eve of the visit of President Kumaratunga and the second time soon after the visit of President Mahinda Rajapaksa. When Mrs.Sirima Bandaranaike visited Iran on invitation by the then Shah government, she also had in mind, the dire situation of the economy as she was cornered at that time by the Western aid donors over her domestic policies. I know how it was, having participated in two aid group meetings with Dr.H.A.de S. Gunasekera after the resumption of limited aid to Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka’s exchanges of visits with Iran have their own significance if one looks at the circumstances. Iran sought out the visits at a time when she was isolated on the nuclear issue. President Chavez’ and President Kumaratunga’s visit were seen as moral boosters, more in the Iranian context than in international context. The President who has been designated a hard-liner, may have needed such a boost up for local purposes. So did both Presidents Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa time their respective visits to coincide with Iran’s own concerns over international action over Iran’s nuclear ambitions with Sri Lanka’s own agenda arising from economic problems especially accentuated by rising oil prices. It may have been, as the saying goes, seen as a case of ‘friends-in-need’ on both side. What is wrong?

Sri Lanka was on a bad wicket over foreign aid, the annual pilgrimage with the ‘begging bowl’ to Paris having stopped with the last highly publicized but disastrous visit of the delegation personally led by the former President, Chandrika Kumaratunga, herself against much criticism, including from myself who had the experience of participation in these aid meetings for ten long years. Since then, foreign aid has been dangled in the face of Sri Lanka as a carrot to force this country to come to terms with terrorism whether these came in the form of Co-chairs (Akashi plan or otherwise), P-TOMS and now being spoken of in another front as GSP+).

I was one to write in support of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s visit to Tehran in the face of warnings issued by other parties over prospects of displeasing the Americans. I simply argued that our equation with Iran was different from that of the Americans. For that matter, even that of America’s European allies, except, perhaps, Britain, had been different. Every one of them is looking at Iran’s potential as a trading partner and a place for investment. If Europe is not ready, there is Japan, China, Korea and even India ready to profit. Even Australia cannot be excluded with her interest in Iran’s gold deposits and copper deposits which is one of the largest in the world, just to mention two of her lines of interest as I knew.

Iran is one of Sri Lanka’s major trade partners, importing the bulk of our bulk tea. I made it the number one direct importer of bulk tea during my three years, which gain even surprised Iran’s major trading partners.

The question posed at us, not by the U.S. or the West but by our own critics is Iran’s present situation over the nuclear issue. Sri Lanka’s concern over this issue may be different from those of the U.S. and European allies in matters of degree. We are interested in principles and not in the fallout of Iran joining the nuclear club to our defence or global interests. We are on the Board of Governors of the IAEA and that makes us follow IAEA guidelines. Should that be an obstruction to our developing bi-lateral cooperation with Iran in the fields of economics and trade? One cannot also overlook the duplicity over the nuclear issue when the U.S. put all arguments over non-proliferation aside, and not only accepted two countries which had not signed the non-proliferation treaty producing nuclear warheads but also, cooperating with India over higher technology. Iran is a country which signed the NPT and deserved to be handled differently. ‘Arrogance’ is anathema to Iranian people.

Unlike Venezuela, Iran has no developing-country-friendly oil pricing policy in general. She follows the OPEC rules closely. As mentioned in these columns on earlier occasions, Japan seemed to be a single country which received some concessionary terms on prices. I recounted how my attempts to obtain similar terms was stillborn because there was no support from concerned Ministries or the Petroleum Corporation at the time. There was no such problem then as Sri Lanka faces today over high oil prices. As a result, by and large, Sri Lanka has been looking to Iran as a milch-cow only during difficult times over the economy. The recent visits of President Kumaratunga and Rajapaksa underscored this and it suited the Iranian government.

But the usual diplomatic play hides these realities and puts the spin on propitious by bi-lateral relations! Though Kumaratunga visit failed to gain anything substantial, President Rajapaksa returned with more substantial results, namely, Iranian support for the Uma Oya project and improvement on the capacity of Sapugaskanda refinery to double its refining capacity. This is in addition to short term but vital facility of interest free extended credit for oil purchases and further low-interest extension of the facility for another three months.