Token cuts no more than a sick joke

Our regular contributor, Sanjeewa Jayaweera who’s written another article on economizing on our overseas missions in this issue of our newspaper has picked exactly the right word, “tokenism,” to describe what the government has done a few days ago to reduce Sri Lanka’s 67-strong overseas missions by three by closing the high commission in Nairobi and two consulates in Frankfurt and Cyprus. He had previously made the point that about half our embassies, high commissions and consulates must be closed, making a logical case for doing so in the context of the foreign exchange crunch and the consequent hardship Lankans are facing today. Diplomatic representation overseas is an expensive business and Jayaweera has dug out a number, an estimated USD 58 million, the country spends annually in maintaining this expensive luxury. How correct this is we do not know but it would be interesting to find out what this token saving after much huffing and puffing actually is.

It has frequently and correctly been said that we are a developing third world country with champagne tastes and a toddy income. There is no doubt that in the modern world all countries must have diplomatic representation where their interests so demand. That does not mean that missions must be established any and everywhere; wherever set up, they must meet realistic cost-benefit criteria. Given our economic circumstances particularly at present, the number of resident overseas missions we support is much more than sheer profligacy or extravagance. It is no less than an abomination. Singapore, for example, maintains 36 resident overseas missions against our 67, Jayaweera has said. This admirably led small city state is geographically much smaller than us, with a smaller population and with hardly any natural resources. But thanks to late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and, to a lesser extent, his successors, it has achieved its current prosperity wielding influence disproportionate to its size. None of our foreign ministers, with the exception of the late Lakshman Kadirgamar, has demonstrated the intellectual brilliance and effectiveness of the various foreign ministers of Singapore. The name of S. Rajaratnam, a Singaporean of Lanka descent, who was his country’s foreign minister from 1965 and 1980 comes readily to mind.

But we stray from the point we wish to make here – that we can’t afford the number of overseas missions our taxpayers are made to fund despite limited resources in Treasury coffers and a foreign exchange strapped economy unable to pay even for essential imports like food, medicine and fuel. Apart from the wasteful expenditure incurred funding several unnecessary overseas missions, particularly during the more recent post-Independence years, our rulers have made a pork barrel of positions in such missions making patronage appointments from top down at all levels. Successive governments are guilty of this sin. It will be a useful exercise to add up the number of progeny and spouses as well as relatives of various ministers, politicians and holders of influential positions in the government who have benefited from such postings. Some of them have behaved disgracefully and at least one is facing the music abroad at present.

Family members of powerful politicians and others able to influence them have been found sinecures in our overseas missions for different reasons – all of them bad and at taxpayer expense. In some instances it was for purposes of educating children abroad and sometimes to even look after political brats studying in foreign universities. As Jayaweera has said today, even the professional foreign service is doing little to make effective cuts on expenditure on overseas missions by limiting their presence to only places where they are absolutely essential. He has admitted that this may well be for reasons of self-interest. Professional diplomats too would not want to reduce the number of countries where they may be posted. It is already very late to effect the necessary economies and it is high time that a government, blaming everything on Covid, makes a serious effort to make essential economies not only in the number of our overseas missions but also in other areas of public expenditure. Cutting a few litres of fuel from what is allowed to ministers and adding five years to the period an MP must serve to qualify for a pension is laughable.

While cutting down on our overseas diplomatic presence, we have to maximize the potential of those we retain by staffing and funding them adequately to enable them to cover a broader compass. It is essential that we get the maximum mileage from what we have. A single mission in a region can adequately represent us in many countries if their resources are effectively deployed. Better use can also be made of honorary consuls but the right appointments must be made. We’re told that various economies are being made within our overseas missions including limiting funds permitted for representation. It is no secret that some diplomats spend allowances paid to them to entertain their own friends and relatives rather than those in the countries to which they are accredited who can be of assistance to us.

Given the necessary will, much can be done to limit public expenditure. How serious our rulers are in effecting economies can be seen in the various year-end bashes hosted at public expense, greeting cards flying like confetti from political office holders and complementaries not paid out of their own pockets that are as widely distributed now as in better years. The private sector has made many visible economies in these areas. But not the government. The band will continue to play while the ship sinks – nava gilunath band chune as the local idiom has it.