A man who understood the need for the professional management of our foreign affairs was Lakshman Kadirgamar. Though a huge fuss was made after the assassination of Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, his statue still lies in an unopened crateA man who understood the need for the professional management of our foreign affairs was Lakshman Kadirgamar. Though a huge fuss was made after his assassination, his statue still lies in an unopened crate in the premises of the Institute named after him. Such is the manner in which we have shown our gratitude to one who served this country with distinction. His contribution/ nay his supreme effort on the country’s behalf is recognized by all sections of our people; those who seek to denigrate the Foreign Service do not know that his was not a lone effort, our heads of mission played a huge supporting role in Europe and the US, in having the LTTE proscribed.

The man who hides behind a pen name for obvious reasons no doubt, persists. He now says "I praised Dayan why should others get angry". I do not know of anyone getting angry over his praising Dayan, I too have acknowledged his work but have also referred to certain misadventures,’ but that is not the issue. The issue is this- how he comes to make sweeping comparisons with others and what is the basis of his statements. Whilst praising Dayan he states "at a time when most foreign service personnel were doing nothing substantial for the prospects of the country but are only helping their own interests while enjoying the perks ". The man has the effrontery to state that he "did not try to denigrate the Foreign Service but tried to appreciate Dr. Dayan Jayathileka’s substantial contribution during the past 3 crucial years" The man must have his head examined.

As Isseth Hussain inquires, on what basis does this man make these sweeping statements which are devoid of fact and downright stupid.

Yes I have read with interest my former colleague Isseth Husain’s letter in your issue of the 20th of March, it is almost as if there is a conspiracy to denigrate the Foreign Service and make out that merely because we do not hanker after publicity (and this is strictly prohibited in terms of the Establishment Code) that the members of the FS do no work but merely have a good time and that it is only those who blow their own trumpets who keep our flag flying and work for the country.

A series of letters from some persons who do not know or understand the work of a Diplomat, have been published in recent days denigrating the Foreign Service after I wrote on the matter of the transfer of Dayan Jayathileka and stated that he should be kept on for a further year, as, a head of Mission becomes really effective in the third year of his or her tour of duty. Apparently this new rule to bring back a head of mission after two years has been introduced to give legitimacy to the transfer of an Ambassador who, for good reason, had suggested that an exhibition of LTTE atrocities should not be held in winter in the country he is posted in; it appears that a misrepresentation of his position has resulted in his being recalled after two years. So a new rule has emerged out of that situation without regard to the investment made by the officer, out of government funds, to cultivate contacts to discharge his duties effectively.

The denigration of the Foreign Service in actual fact commenced in October of 2006 with the speech by the President to our heads of Missions who had been summoned to Colombo. Whoever that worked on the speech had an axe to grind and wrote into it unfair, unkind and absurd statements such as that Cuba had more than 2.5 million tourists a year (the fact that Cuba had no war on or a Diaspora bad mouthing the country or that travel advisories had been issued by western countries was forgotten) and the Foreign Service was to blame for not promoting tourism to the country. The FS was also blamed for the country not receiving foreign investment! The fact that the exaggerated accounts of a raging war in Sri Lanka and the adverse publicity overseas, was conveniently forgotten. In this regard it should be stated that it is often made out that the country has attracted X million USD investment but this is a huge hoax, for, what is being implied is that this X million USD is being invested in this country, whereas it is the invariably inflated value of the machinery; most investors even borrow the working capital from local banks! All we get out of the investment would be a few jobs.

There was also a preposterous call from certain self-seeking imbeciles to merge the Sri Lanka Foreign Service with the SL Administrative Service without realizing or understanding the need for specialization or that they are two distinct services performing different functions. It was sheer envy and a crude and transparent attempt to enter the Foreign Service by the back door by those who could not enter through the front door. They have by subterfuge pushed through a number of SLAS men far in excess of a token number agreed upon by an in-house committee. When the spoon is with them dish out to yourselves lavishly appears to be the practice.

It was thought at the time that the President made his speech in Colombo to heads of missions that he was intending to build a professional foreign service, as is found in other countries, in the manner that Lakshman Kadirgamar had sought to do, but what has happened since has been the absolute anti thesis of this; this government has sought to destroy the Foreign Service without understanding the importance of having its foreign relations handled by competent trained professionals. The Foreign Ministry has been transformed into a job agency to give positions in our missions to clueless friends and relatives; much harm has been done to our country as a result.

The character of international relations has so changed that it requires professionals to manage relations between countries. Our country is certainly one that has not realized this; this is most unfortunate as we are one country that needs to depend on professional diplomacy and good and efficient management of our foreign affairs more than most others. The encroachment of untrained clueless political appointees has not only set this country back but has jeopardized its security and national interests.

A man who understood the need for the professional management of our foreign affairs was Lakshman Kadirgamar. Though a huge fuss was made after his assassination, his statue still lies in an unopened crate in the premises of the Institute named after him. Such is the manner in which we have shown our gratitude to one who served this country with distinction. His contribution/ nay his supreme effort on the country’s behalf is recognized by all sections of our people; those who seek to denigrate the Foreign Service do not know that his was not a lone effort, our heads of mission played a huge supporting role in Europe and the US, in having the LTTE proscribed. I could speak with authority as I traveled with the Minister during this period to European capitals and the US. Our missions worked arduously to protect the image of the country in those difficult times.

To revert to the letter by Isseth Hussain, as he says without fear of contradiction, "the denigration of the Foreign Service comes from people who have never served in any of our missions abroad or in the Foreign Ministry, who know practically nothing about the work done by our professionals and have never checked on their records from those who may know something about it. Consequently they are in no position to make any comparative judgments about their work and ability and those of DJ". Isseth Hussain goes on to name the Foreign Service officers who have served with distinction in Geneva.

Yet another correspondent writing from Geneva in last Sunday’s edition of the Island had this to say, "Some commentators in Colombo seem to think that our previous Perm Reps did nothing when they were here and that it is only with the advent of Amb Jayathileka that Sri Lanka’s interests came to be protected. Let me, as one who has been here for years and was at one time attached to are mission, state that this is furthest from the truth, it is an insult to those perm Reps who slaved for the country before Amb J came out here. Minister Mahinda Samarasinghe who served in this Mission in the early eighties would testify to this. I shall name the greats who served here, all of them from the career Foreign Service –none of whom played to the gallery and sought publicity for their work. They worked in the best traditions of their profession and served with absolute distinction; I recall the names of the late Amb. Jayakody, Amb. Jayantha Dhanapala, Amb. Bernard Goonetilleke, Amb. Sarala Fernando; I also recall that the present PR in New York, Amb. Palihakkara who is reported to be doing an excellent job of safeguarding our interest but quietly once again, also served here in Geneva some years ago. They served here when Sri Lanka was up against the wall, perhaps in more difficult times than now. At that time not only the holier than thou Western countries with their double, or is it dubious, standards, but also a large number of pro LTTE NGOs were working against us and even organizing demonstrations outside the Palaise.

Amb. Dhanapala was in Geneva at the time of the program of 1983, when Sri Lanka’s name was mud on account of HR violations. It required much skill to convince those who were ranged against us that it was neither the work of the government nor of the Sinhala masses setting upon innocent Tamil citizens. It was Ambassador Dhanapala who also convinced the government in Colombo to get its act together, I know this for a fact as I was in the mission then. There were no resolutions condemning the country in the period that he was Ambassador. It was the same when Ambassador Goonetilleke was here; he too did our country proud as did Ambassador Palihakkara, they worked at a time when the LTTE was not banned and their NGOO were most active".