A service to be proud of

Sri Lanka’s Foreign Service has often been tainted by politicisation, and the consequence has been diminishing presence and respect on the global stage.  Many remember with fondness the stature of personalities such as former Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar, and concede that since his demise the Foreign Service has descended into, as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) termed it in Parliament this week, the “Fraud Service,” and the “Porter Service.”

The former Government under Opposition Leader Mahinda Rajapaksa, was severely guilty of political appointees, with at least two of its most prominent appointees being wanted on serious investigations. The current Government has also failed to promote career servicemen, with representatives to all South Asian countries and several key allies such as China, Japan and Russia being political appointees.

The JVP, in a blistering criticism in Parliament, called on the Government to at least have a code of conduct for political appointees, after Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to Qatar A.S.P. Liyanage was photographed carrying the bags of Rajapaksa’s sons. Losing professionalism in the Foreign Service is a serious problem, especially for economic diplomacy, which this Government said it would champion when it came to power in 2015.

Diplomacy is an expression of the governance that a country dispenses to itself in its external relationships. As with the other forms of governance, it is rooted in the vision, efficacy, organisation and motivation of its people and institutions, including the leaders, the officials, and civil society at large. If Sri Lanka’s Foreign Service is seen as inefficient, corrupt, mismanaged and wasteful, then it is a reflection of the entire country.

This also costs Sri Lanka valuable relationships that could be used to attract investment, because in many instances foreign missions act as links to trade policy and connecting implementation agencies with specific agencies on the ground, such as the Board of Investment. An embassy is often the first port of call for companies interested in investing in that country, and their subsequent decisions are often based on their reception and relationships.   

Every country needs its State agencies to take initiatives to create viable, innovative public-private partnerships that are linked to embassies. The structures of foreign affairs and external economic management need to be integrated or harmonised. Countries that do not harmonise foreign affairs and trade expend a great deal of effort on turf disputes, on bilateral economic issues, and even more on multilateral tasks such as WTO affairs; they also fail to utilise their overseas diplomatic network in the best way possible for the exploitation of foreign trade and investments.

Embassies and commercial offices can especially play a key role in reaching out to new markets, and developing outlets for new export products. In contrast, mobilising FDI involves, first of all, sensitising potential foreign investors on the opportunities in the home country, and thereafter undertaking targeted promotion; the former produces the catchments of potential foreign investors, and the latter works to translate intention to action.

Part of the reason why some of Sri Lanka’s FDI projects come with so many transparency issues is because the Foreign Ministry plays almost no role in them. Sri Lanka’s top politicians needs to stop using the Foreign Service as a personal reward system, and let it be a genuine service provider for all Sri Lankans.