ASYMMETRICAL DIPLOMATIC TELEPHONE CALLS
The British High Commission in Sri Lanka has reacted sharply to the article entitled "To Geneva through London and Bombs" that appeared in "The Island" on 3rd May 2005. In that article I had referred to another newspaper, which had mentioned that Mr. Jack Straw, the then British Foreign Secretary had telephoned the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mangala Samaraweera on the retaliation attacks by the government in Sampur. A statement by Mr. John Culley, spokesman for the British High Commission was reported in the front page of "The Island" of 5th May 2006. In the statement Mr. Culley denies that Mr. Straw had a telephone conversation with Mr. Mangala Samaraweera, as I had stated in my column. However, he says that there was a telephone call from Ms. Craig, the Deputy High Commissioner, to Mr. Samaraweera, the main purpose of which was to pass on their official condolences on the attack on the army commander. Mr. Culley further sates that I could have checked with the High Commission on who spook to whom over the telephone.
The particular newspaper I had referred to was Sunday Times and the author of the relevant article was its political editor. The article in Sunday Times included the following: "But late that same day Samaraweera had received a telephone call from his British counterpart. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had inquired about the Air Force bombings and expressed his Government's concern over civilian casualties. That call came so fast from London that some of the Israeli-built Kfir jets had not even returned to base at Katunayake after their mission. He knew of civilian casualties even before the sorties had returned. But the irony of it was that our own Foreign Minister seated in Colombo did not know about the bombing raids, and promised to get back to Straw with the details. It was only at the evening's Cabinet meeting that Samaraweera in Colombo knew what Straw in London was privy to. Had Straw at least mentioned the blatant act of terrorism at Army Headquarters that nearly took the life of the Commander, Samarweera might have known he was talking of the situation in Sri Lanka."
It appears that Mr. Culley has written to the Sunday Times as well, but we are not privy to the full statement. The political editor has this to say in his column that appeared on 7th May 2005: "Meanwhile, the reference in this column last week to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw making a telephone call to his Sri Lankan counterpart, Mangala Samaraweera has drawn a response from John Culley, High Commission spokesman. He said there was "no conversation" between Mr. Straw and Mr. Samaraweera. 'There was a conversation between our Deputy High Commissioner Ms. Lesley Craig, and Mr. Samaraweera on 25 April. In this conversation, Ms. Craig passed on the condolences of the British government, including the personal condolences of Mr. Straw, over the attack on the army commander."
The political editor then goes on to give his interpretation on the issue of the statement by the British High Commission. He says: "The British government seemed to have been embarrassed over local media reports that seemed to say that the Air Force bombings over Sampur on April 25 and 26 immediately after the assassination attempt on the army commander were stopped after the British Foreign Secretary had urged his Sri Lankan counterpart to stop bombing civilians. The High Commission statement was at pains to make it clear that the 'main purpose' of the communication to Minister Samaraweera was to pass on the British government's official condolences at the attack on the army commander." However, the political editor had also said in his column on April 30, "Had Straw at least mentioned the blatant act of terrorism at Army Headquarters that nearly took the life of the Commander, Samarweera might have known he was talking of the situation in Sri Lanka."
We do not know whether in the statement sent to Sunday Times Mr. Culley mentions that the political editor could have checked with the High Commission on who telephoned whom. Sunday Times unlike The Island did not publish the statement by Mr. Craig on the front page, and refereed to it only in the column of the political editor. [Please see editor's note.] In any event the High Commission wants to emphasise that it was Ms. Craig and not Mr. Straw who telephoned Mr. Samaraweera, as reported by the political editor, and that Ms. Craig had asked for confirmation of reports which were coming from media sources that air strikes were taking place.
Now we do not know how the political editor came to know that Mr. Straw had given a telephone call to Mr. Samaraweera. The political editor must have had his own source and in his column on 7th May he does not regret having published his version of the telephone calls in the previous week. The only source we had in this regard was the column by the political editor who apparently stands firm by his report. However, the political editor writes that "The British government seemed to have been embarrassed over local media reports that seemed to say that the Air Force bombings over Sampur on April 25 and 26 immediately after the assassination attempt on the army commander were stopped after the British Foreign Secretary had urged his Sri Lankan counterpart to stop bombing civilians." Whether the High Commission was embarrassed by that "implication" or not, it is clear that the political editor and the British High Commission spokesman have got wires crossed.
Was Straw's telephone conversation with Samaraweera mere frabrication?
I doubt very much but I am prepared to accept the High Commission version that it was Ms. Craig and not Mr. Straw who telephoned Mr. Samaraweera. Then what would have happened? There are number of possibilities, but I do not want to analyse all of them in order to get at the truth. Instead, I shall merely state that, whatever the source of the political editor may be, I am reminded of a person who having received a telephone call from the security guard of a minister, on behalf of the minister, went bragging to his neighbours that "emathithuma had just spoken to him over the phone on some domestic matter". The poor neighbours and others who heard the story from the neighbours were prepared to accept that this particular person had received a call from the emathithuma. Of course, neither the neighbours nor the others telephoned either the minister or his security guard to check on the truth of the story.
Whatever the diplomats in the British High Commission may have to say on behalf of their country, the fact that Ms. Craig had asked for confirmation of reports on air strikes, is important for us. I am grateful to the British education I received at school, for training me to read between lines. Over the years, we have developed this method, and we not only read between lines, but read between words, especially when it comes to diplomatic statements. The diplomats after all are not expected to tell only the truth, and nothing but the truth, on behalf of their countries. They may leave out certain things sometimes unconsciously, of course while mentioning the truth, and it is up to the reader to try to read between lines (and words) to find out what had been left out perhaps inadvertently. In any event it is clear that there is no symmetry when it comes to the relationship between diplomats and the states. For example, would our High Commissioner or Deputy High Commissioner in London speak to the British Foreign Secretary, over the telephone, whenever there are reports in the media on bombing in Iraq. I doubt very much, and even if that happens, I do not think that anybody would speak or leak to the British press that the Sri Lankan Foreign minister had spoken to the British Foreign Secretary. It is important for us to remember this asymmetry arising out of western Christian colonialism, when we read between lines (and words). While the average citizen of Sri Lanka is supposed to know the name of the British Foreign secretary neither he nor the average citizen of Britain is expected to know the name of the Sri Lankan Foreign minister.
When we read between lines and words we are always reminded of the fact that it was the British who baptised and nurtured Tamil racism in this country. This brings us to our response to Mr. Elankesan, and we would explain what is meant by the terms Tamil racism, Tamil racist etc., used by us. Contrary to what Mr. Elankesan believes we do not consider all Tamils living in this country to be Tamil racists. I do not know how Mr. Elankesan came to that conclusion. There are some Tamils as well as Sinhalas who use such terms as Sinhala Chauvinism, Sinhala Chauvinist, but nobody would think that all Sinhalas are implied by the usage of those terms. Barring any telephone calls to our ministers, which are given publicity in the media, we will return to our response to Mr. Elankesan, next week, to discuss the involvement of the British in baptising and nurturing Tamil racism against Sinhalathva.
Professor Nalin de Silva
>
>
>