Chilcott, diplomat or meddler?

by Ravi Perera

Welcome to Thee, oh Viceroy, Mighty ruler of India,

Lo! Thousand eyes are eagerly waiting Thee to behold!

Over flowed are our hearts with joy transcendent,

Sanctified are we and our desires fulfilled;

And Nashipur is hallowed with the touch of thy feet.

Glorious and mighty is England's rule in India.

Blessed are the people that have a Ruler so benevolent.

Constant has been Thy aim to promote Thy subject's welfare;

Loving and protecting them like a kind hearted father;

Oh! Where shall we get a Noble Ruler like Thee!"

On the 10th of December 2007 a decidedly anglicized group of Sri Lankans gathered at the BMICH to listen to 48-year-old Dominick Chilcott, the High Commissioner for United Kingdom deliver the 10th Dudley Senanayake Memorial Lecture.

Considering that foreigners have delivered six of the previous nine lectures in this series, the choice of this particular speaker at a meeting held in the memory of a former Sri Lankan Prime Minister whose unexpected death in 1973 touched something deep in our national soul, should raise no eyebrows. The one distinction however being that the others were foreign guests invited to this country to speak in their private capacity, while Chilcott is an accredited ambassador enjoying the prestige and the immunity of a diplomat.

It is a long time since the imperial Viceroy was greeted by a Maharaja of India with the kind of shameless panegyrics quoted above. George Nathaniel Curzon, the recipient of that abject welcome by the then Maharaja of Nashipur, was not yet forty when appointed Viceroy in 1898.

In a speech at the Calcutta University's Convocation in 1905 Curzon patronizingly put it thus "I have always been a devoted believer in the continued existence of the native States in India, and an ardent well-wisher of the native princes. But I believe in them not as relics, but as rulers, not as puppets but as living factors in the administration..."

One will be foolish to aver that our leaders are faultless and the country without problems. We are far from that. In truth, those who were responsible for such things since 1948, while navigating our newly launched Ship of State have steered in to many icebergs and shoals in the unknown waters of an independent existence.

Admittedly, Sri Lanka's performance in the preceding 60 years has been medicore at best. The voter's discontent with the existing state of affairs is demonstrated by the closeness of our electoral contests and the persistent insecurity of those elected. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that all this ultimately reflects Sri Lanka's essential democratic nature, though flawed in several ways.

The question here however is not the right to debate the various problems facing the nation. But should the accredited High Commissioner of the United Kingdom play publicly at national issues of his host nation, however troubled, particularly in that superior manner that Chilcott assumed at the BMICH? It is exceptionally galling when the Ambassador represents a former colonial power responsible directly for the serious dislocations that took place in the old and fragile societies his forefathers trampled so rudely on, in the days of their imperial glory. Possibly it was as a justification for permitting himself to air personal opinions and prejudices in that style that Chilcott titled his speech "New Diplomacy for the New Century."

This former Naval man then goes on to pick an example from an old century to justify intervention in the affairs of another country, albeit asserting it to be "new diplomacy". Drawing from his nations vaunted maritime history, Chilcott justifies unprovoked intervention in matters concerning alien countries based on moral grounds. He argues that the British Navy in days gone by, acting on principle, intercepted foreign vessels transporting slaves, although the accepted international law at the time frowned on such action.

But was the then British policy consistently on high ground? In China the most populous country in the world, Britain cynically put profit before principle in what is commonly referred to as the Opium Wars.

Using its unequal military strength, Britain was able to force China to open its doors to the opium trade causing a devastating impact on that society.

Chilcott also chose not to enlighten his deferential audience on the progress of the "coalition of the willing" in the inhospitable sands of Iraq, an international intervention of global topicality. Here the interventionists went looking for weapons of mass destruction, apparently a terrible offence for a coloured man.

The occupying forces now look like the blind man looking for a non-existent black cat in a dark room.

It is obvious that Iraq is paying an appalling toll in death and destruction for the misguided adventure undertaken by the advocates of "new diplomacy." According to the loquacious diplomat, one of the factors provoking his interference in Sri Lanka's internal issues are the asylum seekers finding their way to the United Kingdom and the attendant problems that follow.

There is also the harassment of those domiciled there by fund raising efforts of the terrorists. While this is undoubtedly true it is incredible that a representative of Great Britain is taking up this issue.

For several centuries a majority of the human race had to put up with British aggression and blatant meddling in their countries in hopeless resignation.

From the Americas to Tasmania they violently occupied large areas of the world dispossessing the original settlers of their lands and homes. In comparison, the goings - on in the tiny Sri Lankan expatriate community in the UK seems a mere bagatelle. But, apparently not so, in the eyes of the advocates of new diplomacy.

There is another hazard in the methods of Chilcott's new diplomacy. Dudley Senanayake, the former Prime Minister on whom the accredited diplomat was discoursing died more than 30 years ago. According to many commentators the most remarkable event in Dudley Senanayake's long public life was the unprecedented mourning which followed his passing away. Only two years before that the electorate had decisively defeated his government giving a landslide victory to the opposition.

The grief witnessed countrywide at his death soon after, perhaps speaks more for the maudlin temperament of the voter than of their endorsement of Dudley's political leadership.

The lecture series commemorating the late leader had been started in 1989, with the inaugural lecture delivered by David Steel, a former leader of the British Liberal Party. In 1994 the KM de Silva and Wriggins brought out their impressively researched volume on J.R. Jayewardene, a leader of equal stature. Their description of the dark conspiracy behind the abortive coup of 1962 is essential reading for any one wanting to study the pressures and trials facing a fragile democracy.

According to the author's suggestion Dudley Senanayake's role in that shadowy event is not complimentary.

Had the British Ambassador researched his subject more thoroughly and dispassionately he may well have struck a less enthusiastic tone.

Chilcott's superficial research and the nose in the air manner of delivery, leaves us wondering whether old diplomacy known for its discretion, had more substance than the new, which seems to be distinguished by its ignorant impetuosity. Perhaps, Chilcott could serve the cause of his profession better if he limits himself to reading poetry at shopping malls and occasional forays in to cricket commentaries.

The latter occupation will ideally suit the Ambassador because it is said that in cricket, one is permitted to assume indecent postures!