Sasanka Perera
(Initially published in the Sunday Observer, 3 November 2024: https://www.sundayobserver.lk/2024/11/03/news-features/36874/professionalising-the-foreign-service/)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
I have written about the state of affairs of Sri Lankan diplomacy as an outsider previously, the last time being in 2020. I thought of writing again as almost everything I had raised then remains largely unaddressed. Moving on from the challenges of our recent past, I look at the present juncture of our country as a moment of relative hope for a new beginning if we, for once, resolve to think and act smart. It is in this context I was aghast to hear one of the leaders of the NPP effectively reducing foreign relations to tourism-related matters in the run-up to the presidential election. It was further disconcerting that another NPP leader, after the election, remarked in the most run-of-the-mill fashion that the new government’s foreign relations would favour no one country but that all countries would be treated equally. It is evident that there is a lack of focused emphasis and essential expert reflection on foreign relations in the NPP election manifesto too. Is it not time we take our foreign relations more seriously? But this begs the question, as to whether the government or the public have a realistic assessment of where we currently stand in terms of the country’s foreign policy and the way we conduct our international relations.
During the last three decades, particularly during the Rajapaksa administration, Sri Lanka’s Foreign Service saw a significant nosedive. To my mind, the dilapidated state of the historic Senate Building where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is now housed, is an apt and symbolic representation of its inner workings and public persona. In real terms what this means is, the Foreign Service has been encroached by individuals purely based on their political and nepotistic connections, with little or no regard for requisite qualifications, expertise or experience. This is observed not only at ambassadorial level, but also right down to the junior levels in our overseas missions. The lists of political appointees in our overseas missions currently circulating on social media, which tend to be surprisingly accurate, is a telling example of what the real situation is at present. Compare this to the Indian Foreign Service where there are almost no political appointees. This of course does not mean it is entirely un-politicized. But that is a discussion for another time. The main reason for the sorry state of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service is that it has been problematically and parochially politicized over a long period of time, without any pushback. Consequently, it has also become highly inefficient. Adding to this are the wrongful recruitments over time. To its own detriment, this continuous tampering has been by and large silently accepted by the Foreign Service, making it perhaps the country’s least self-reflective government entity with no visible sense of self-respect.
Political appointments are a serious problem. Due to the appointment of completely unqualified individuals on political patronage, there are very few intelligent and well-trained personnel in our embassies in the major cities of the world who are able to proactively work in the country’s interest, when problems arise at the global level. Furthermore, it is also not apparent if there are officials in the Ministry who can advise their unenlightened political superiors without fear and stand their ground on principle. This situation has come about as a matter of simple personal survival and bread-and-butter purposes, owing to which both the larger interest of the Service and self-respect of officers have been clearly compromised.
The appointment of political henchmen (and henchwomen) to both senior and junior positions at missions abroad has been made at the expense of professional career officers who are made to languish by unduly delaying their own professional advancement. For example, the posts of Ambassadors and High Commissioners in countries such as Australia, India, Japan, the UK and the USA, to name only a few, are taken by political appointees with no specialized knowledge related to these countries. Indeed, were there no professional career officers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for these posts? What this does in the long term is to decimate the professional satisfaction of hard-working officers, the consequences of which is devastating to the Service.
I do not, in any way mean to say that all Foreign Service officers are worthy of the important positions they hold. Like in any service, there are always rotten eggs. My point is that it is necessary to professionalize the Foreign Service. Giving the due positions and responsibility to those who have a proven track record of capable work, taking initiative, and decisive decision-making on the job is essential. This does not entail offering plum positions to the darlings of political appointees or regular ‘yes’ men and women to the powers-that-be, however senior they may be in the Service.
Expertise
Beyond mere paper qualifications, what is crucial in professionalizing the Foreign Service is expertise and experience. These attributes do not come if the Service does not offer the kind of training and scholarships that are necessary to officers on a routine basis. For a professional and efficient Foreign Service to be sustained over time and to succeed, reliable teams with a sound knowledge of core countries and regions for Sri Lanka, such as China, India, US, ASEAN, European Union – just to name a handful – should be established. This is because when our country is in dire straits financially, economically and politically like at present, it is essential to have officers who can work well and have knowledge of the country in which they serve. This is a matter of knowing how bureaucracies in these countries take decisions, what their political biases and sensitivities are, and having a good sense of their diplomatic history in addition to cultivating personal connections to core officials in those countries.
It is indeed unfortunate that Sri Lanka Foreign Service officers in general have not contributed to the production of formal knowledge in global discourses in international relations, global politics, disarmament and security studies and so on from their own expertise. Therefore, it is no accident that not too many books or even research papers based on specific training and expertise have been produced by them even after retirement at the level of Foreign Secretary. Again, this is in stark contrast to India. What is sad is, even language proficiency is an issue in the service. Though officers may have passed exams to prove their ‘proficiency’ in a specific language, many do not have any functional skills in these languages, in some cases even in English, the link language of our country. This state of affairs also adds considerably to the relative lack of professionalism in the service.
It is in this context that the Foreign Service should be carefully professionalized beyond the obvious problems of politicization. This is a long-term project. But in the short term, it is essential to give appropriate place and responsibility to those who have shown to be capable.
Where is Protocol?
For some time, particularly ambassadors of powerful countries like China, India, the USA among others, and at times officials from these countries are seen to be stepping out of their boundary and accepted norms of diplomatic behaviour such as issuing public pronouncements on the internal matters of the country, and circumventing established diplomatic channels when dealing with government interlocutors. But the blame for this lies squarely with the Sri Lankan government which has allowed this practice to continue unabated. Even a cursory look into the recent past would indicate, these ‘diplomats’ often behave as if they run our country. And this can happen only in a country where officials and politicians do not have any sense of self-worth and a concern for national interest. It is also unfortunate that they are so unmindful of the fact that small countries like ours do not have to be subservient simply for being a smaller country. There is an entire corpus of literature that deals with precisely this aspect of foreign relations.
This may have transpired due to advice from regular Sri Lanka Foreign Service officers being routinely ignored even when offered in an environment where the Foreign Service has become weak, invisible and inconsequential in the context of the crony political system outlined above. This has also happened in a situation where political leaders who have succumbed to money and foreign political influences have been in power in this country for too long. Consequently, sacrificing national interest, they have bypassed regular systems and protocols for their own convenience. Because of this, they have worked with foreign political leaders and companies staking their own country’s needs. It is some of the deals that were made under these conditions that have now become political issues, one such example being the recent VFS visa case.
It is evident that established protocols in foreign relations globally are being circumvented willy-nilly in Sri Lanka. It is the duty of the present government to ensure that foreign embassy representatives strictly follow the current diplomatic procedures in place when dealing with local ministers and government officials. It should be mandatory for each and every request for meetings to go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Further, the relevant officials in the Ministry must be present in these meetings. This will not only allow for follow-up, but also ensure that the government is able to speak in one voice. Therefore, if a government agency receives a request for a meeting directly from an embassy or a foreign entity, it should be the responsibility of the concerned local agency to ensure that the request is channelled through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Unfortunately, even junior level officials of foreign embassies have direct access to high level government officials and political leaders. This has resulted in our Foreign Ministry, the Government of Sri Lanka and the country being routinely undermined and becoming relatively irrelevant in regional and global affairs. This kind of action is not possible in many countries, including those referred to above.
What Now?
Clearly, this situation must change. To begin with, all political appointees including those who have retired from the Foreign Service must be recalled – at all levels. There cannot be any exception to this fundamental position.
Looking forward, if the post-November 14 government can muster enough popular support, the narrow political appointment of ambassadors, high commissioners and other positions at missions abroad and to positions locally must not be allowed as a fundamental rule. This should encompass the appointment of Sri Lanka Administrative Service officers to the Foreign Service too. Civil administration and the foreign service are two very different entities and simply cannot jell purely based on matters of experience and expertise.
Ad hoc recruitment and lapses in training over time are also serious issues in the Ministry. It is impossible to run a professional foreign service with on and off recruitment and without in-service training. There should be annual recruitment based on an assessment of the actual needs (considering retirees, cadre positions in Colombo and in missions). Obviously, the sustenance of the Service depends on regular recruitment and rigorous training. To take India as an example, new recruits undergo carefully crafted and extensive training programs, including travel to the region and engagement with peers in neighbouring countries. Similar programs should sensibly be replicated in our country. There should also be an exit channel for those who fail at regular internal assessments before confirmation including failure in language expertise.
Owing to these long-term lapses, the Sri Lanka Foreign Service does not have adequate numbers of sensible and suitable officers to be appointed to all top positions in overseas missions. However, the answer to this is not bringing in retirees merely based on political cronyism. In such situations, selective and careful political appointments can be made to specific missions, but only on expertise and access to specific networks in the countries they are appointed to. It is essential that the procedure for such appointments should be part of law with clearly spelt out specifications, which it is not at present.
Considering the current juncture of the country, and looking towards the future, the new government must pay heed to the conditions and needs outlined above. As Noah Feldman has reminded us, “in an ideological age, diplomacy may seem weak and prosaic. But sometimes it is all we have.” In such times, our Foreign Service must be both professional and decisive, commanding the respect in the world of diplomacy.