Three Circles of Scrutiny and Win-Win Solutions

Dr Sarala Fernando

President Rajapaksa on his recent village walkabout to Meemure questioned why there was so much criticism on social media about environmental destruction, stating that he loved the environment and referred to specific projects of urban beautification undertaken during his previous tenure as head of the UDA. This view would probably have been received sympathetically in Meemure and the large gathering present amazed and happy that the highest in the land would have come down to visit their village .

The problem is that there are other larger unseen circles watching on, thanks to mass media, live tv coverage and internet commentaries, one representing the rest of the nation and the second, the international community, which may not be seeing things in this same light. In the national circle, questions are being asked on the wisdom of such large public gatherings , given that the rest of the nation is being asked to stay home, wear masks and social distance as the Covid crisis seems to be getting worse with new infections rising. As the economy contracts, unemployment grows and cost of living escalates, the national circle is skeptical, asking from where the funds are coming to build new roads, bridges, school buildings and drinking water systems etc promised to villages like Meemure and Deraniyagala. Normally such activities are provided for in the budget estimates and carried out depending on financial provision being made by the Treasury; but now it seems the whole administrative process is by-passed and bureaucrats denigrated who follow establishment guidelines. Does this indicate a collapse of the financial and administrative systems, which would be worrisome and demoralizing at a time of national crisis and fears of a national financial collapse sounded by the international community which has supported Sri Lanka over the years with investment, trade, development and humanitarian assistance even during the years of conflict?

During the village walkabout, the President interacts with the villagers and supports their preferred solutions. Yet at the national level, people are asking whether it is not the farmer but the forests and the animals that need protection? In one instance a farmer complained of the hundreds of deer attacking his crops but clearly this situation suggests the farmer is encroaching on a forest reserve. His solution, to put a wire fence right across the area is uneconomical compared to the value of the farmer’s produce. Moreover, grassroots activists are asking whether this type of sympathetic hearing to transgressing farmers will only encourage a sort of “open season” on protected animals and destruction of residual forests and habitats. Yet at the international level, and throughout this nation, every Lankan child is aware of the message of Mahinda Arahat to the King on Mihintale, reiterated every Poson Poya, urging the King to desist from hunting deer and reminding him that he is only the “guardian” of the natural heritage for future generations.

As a result of ignoring these deep rooted beliefs and traditions , a national movement is gathering around the country led by young people including monks and even indigenous (adhivasi) people campaigning across the country to protest the devastation of hitherto protected reserves, from the Knuckles to the flood plains of Polonnaruwa to Sigiriya to Sinharaja and Rambukkan Oya to Muthurajawela and Talangama wetlands. The Medirigiriya Divisional Secretary has been caught on camera with a group of people removing boundary stones in Somawathiya apparently with the backing of local politicians. At the national level, so many legal cases are being filed by environmental and citizen groups . Opposition is also building up against foreign investment projects in areas such as intensive agriculture and those building hotels favouring “adventure tourism” in ecologically sensitive areas. Even the proposed solar/wind power project with Chinese collaboration on three islands in the North have met with protests from inhabitants, fearful of getting caught up in a larger Cold War involving neighbouring India.

Yet this situation is reversible if only attention is paid to win-win solutions involving all three circles of public opinion, not only the village and local political pressures, but also the nation and the international community. Take the case of the rare Sri Lanka legume tree discovered near Daraluwa right in the path of an expressway construction. The species of Crudia zeylanica or Sri Lankan legume was discovered and named a new species in 1868 while the IUCN Red List of 2006 categorized the species as extinct; so did the National Red List of 2012, prepared by our Ministry of Environment. If the Government had spoken with one voice, heeded the many appeals around the country and diverted the expressway to protect the tree, it would have taken the wind out of the sails of the opposition now being carried far and wide on social media. Sri Lanka has an ancient heritage linked with Buddhism which calls for the protection of such rare trees as witnessed by the Sri Ma Bo at Anuradhapura, among the most precious icons of the Buddhist world.

Current policies of fast tracking local development projects ignoring environmentally sensitive areas are bound to fail because, at this time, the national and international levels are calling attention to global warming and climate change where Sri Lanka has been identified as one of the most vulnerable to extreme weather events. Compare the conflict in the three levels, local, national and international in this country, with Bhutan and Maldives in our region which are showing the way forward by protecting the pristine environment and controlling tourism, drawing both national and international acclaim. In India, the campaign to protect endangered tigers led by PM Modi has drawn global support, with unprecedented powers given to local rangers even to close roads to vehicular traffic.

Understandably, our President wants to move fast on solutions at the local level; take for example the rebuilding of Dighavapi, a noble task which would be applauded at all three levels of public opinion if its leadership had been entrusted to the Archaeological Department and the Central Cultural Fund (CCF) which has hitherto successfully managed the Sri Lanka UNESCO Heritage sites. The CCF pays attention to the local village masons and brick makers, drawing in the local communities to value the restoration as a national pride, sustainable approaches very much in consonance with global practices. The present “military” roll-out of this wonderful project is evoking skepticism in both the wider national and international circles. To find win-win solutions, the domestic anxiety must be balanced by sensitivity to the concerns of the wider national level and the international level. In doing so win- win solutions can emerge such as on the vexed issue of Muslim burials.

The conflict in the three circles of public opinion is most visible in the huge ongoing debate on the Sri Lanka issue and how it should be handled at the Human Rights Council. At the working level, so many have written in, academics and political leaders, citizens and corporate leaders; recently even the wife of a former Ambassador has written a book to defend her husband’s performance in Geneva.

Yet it must be said that many idealistic notions and theories of support to Sri Lanka from a “Global South” or a unified “Non Aligned Movement” or an ” Asian Consensus” are not realistic. Thalif Deen’s recent memoirs of the UN reveals the complexity, with specific examples of how cheque book diplomacy affects voting practices of small states. In political fora like the HRC, past colonial powers take the lead in exercising their influence over the former colonies; francophone Africa, for example, remains reliable partners of France and their representatives are often elected on UN bodies. Even within the Asian Group, there are two powerful members who sit as observers in the Western Group.

In the past, for many years, the Sri Lanka issue was dealt with out of public sight led by a professional Foreign Secretary and professional Ambassadors acting together under an agreed plan of action. This strategy enabled Sri Lanka to be an active elected member of the Human Rights Council and its predecessor the Commission on Human Rights until 2007 from which vantage position quid pro quos were exchanged and pressures could be diverted away from the Sri Lanka issue. In 2006 when the UK first broached the notion of a resolution against Sri Lanka , as Permanent Representative in Geneva, my instructions from Colombo were to make sure there was not even a reference in the official records. I remember briefing all the regional groups and the OIC on Sri Lanka’s fight against terrorism. At the Western group I remember ending my statement with the words: “if any draft on Sri Lanka was tabled, my instructions are to call for a vote and vote against”. No draft was officially tabled and all the lobbying done from the capital and Geneva out of the public gaze and without any humiliating public press appeals.

Since that time with the change of strategy from quiet diplomacy to one of offensive polemics to satisfy domestic pressures, Sri Lanka has lost the support of the international level and unable to win election to the Human Rights Council. Today, Sri Lanka is represented in both New York and Geneva by first time political Ambassadors who despite fine speaking competency, have little experience of how the UN works. The art of diplomacy is to create win-win outcomes through careful speech, making useful contacts, exchanging quid pro quos, listening to others for possible compromises. At the international level, there is still much goodwill for Sri Lanka for its longstanding record of democracy, economic and social achievements, its old civilization and multiracial roots. However, at this critical juncture, torn by the local pressures, ignoring the national circle, whither Sri Lanka which UN Secretary General Koffi Annan once applauded as a “constructive and engaged Member State”?

(Sarala Fernando, retired from the Foreign Ministry as Additional Secretary and her last Ambassadorial appointment was as Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva. Her Ph.D was on India-Sri Lanka relations and she writes now on foreign policy, diplomacy and protection of heritage).