Swiss Embassy employee’s case: A critique

The case of the alleged abduction and harassment of the Swiss Embassy employee is causing concerns at the level of bilateral diplomatic relations.

The details of the episode that have come out into the open indicate several involvements of a suspicious nature suggestive of ulterior motives.

Besides the realities surrounding it, certain steps reported to be contemplated as below by the Embassy have led to this escalation.

• The preparation to transport the alleged victim in an ambulance-assisted airplane immediately to Geneva for medical assistance;
• The employee refusing or evading to deal with the law enforcement authorities of Sri Lanka;
• The request made by her legal representative to the Courts to order the investigating officers to encounter her and obtain statements within the Swiss Embassy premises

If the Embassy concerns were only confined to nothing more than statements and or requests, things could have been resolved at a more subtle level.

While no one should attribute notions, there is every possibility of the Embassy getting alarmed based on what is reported to them by no other person than one of the employees. So the action and steps they considered feasible came in. 

The other side of the story is the involvement of the State authorities after it became an issue. The media play and public opinion following this created the controversy. Some quarters attempted to convert it to be a political blame-game, assigning it to appear as the beginning of an era of State-sponsored intimidation, while others claimed that it was a staged affair to disrepute the new Government. 

This spat was played out publicly through the media, print, as well as TV. Social media, too, picked up the issue with various parties giving vent according to their own agenda and interest.

The public campaign became more and more complicated when it rose to a vitriolic anti-government campaign launched by the political opponents and their henchmen to settle their grudge against the new leaders, making it an opportunity to attempt to establish their past defamations and allegations. Due to the reason that the Embassy had thrown its hat into the ring, the Government had to respond by breaking its silence.

The Government stepping in was a much-needed response not only to rebut the negative publicity campaigns but to clear the air as it was crucial to counter some baseless allegations against government policy. In such a situation, there cannot be any doubt that silence could construe an admission that the allegations are true and also to prove the Government’s defence on issues raised. 

The Government had to manage the issue in the interest of maintaining sensitive diplomatic relations with a country like Switzerland and at the same time ensure that the Government does not compromise its position on the enforcement of the laws of the country. 

While facing building pressure from different quarters, the law has to take its course amidst the possible fallout from the worst scenario. 

The episode in point has taken place outside the Embassy premises, involves a citizen of the country, and the question of the application of any diplomatic privileges or immunities do not arise under international laws or conventions. 

The law enforcement authorities have to initiate the process, following the normal sequence, starting with a formal complaint. As the investigations and the judicial process following it has now commenced, we could await the outcome before coming to conclusions. 

The public campaign became more and more complicated when it rose to a vitriolic anti-government campaign launched by the political opponents and their henchmen to settle their grudge against the new leaders, making it an opportunity to attempt to establish their past defamations and allegations

International precedents 

In the international scenario, such events are not rare, and there is an interesting case that happened in Singapore which can be quoted here to draw some similarities. 

In 1994, Singapore charged and indicted an American youth for offences he committed including vandalism.

He pleaded guilty to the charges of mischief and vandalism. Under the Singapore law, caning of a person convicted of vandalism is mandatory. This youth was sentenced to jail term of four months, fine of $3,500, and to be given six strokes of the cane. He appealed against the judgment but it was dismissed. He made an appeal to the then US President, expecting to activate the human rights groups and the US Government to initiate some kind of diplomatic intervention. But instead, President Clinton himself got involved and made a public statement as a protest against the caning punishment.

Singapore was caught up in a dilemma due to the situation being aggravated by a letter signed by 24 US Senators appealing for clemency. But for Singapore, caning was a mandatory punishment and even foreigners had been caned when they were convicted of such crimes before. 

But with a request coming from the leader of the most powerful country in the world, could Singapore change its stance?

After much debate, the Singapore cabinet did not agree to waive off the punishment but only to mitigate it by reducing the number of canings from six to four, only as a gesture of respect. This is how they concluded the matter: “We did not want to go out of the way to provoke the US or seriously damage bilateral relations. But at the same time, it concerned an issue of Singapore’s sovereign laws in Singapore, according to the law of the land, which were applicable to all.”

The events that preceded the final decision by Singapore were compelling and rather too blatantly biased against Singapore. 

The father of the convict was brought before a popular TV show in the US to make the episode dramatic in the public eye.

However, it is ironic that later on, when all things happened the Singapore way, Clinton himself had to agree and admit “you should have caned him more,” because years later, after the convict returned to US, he had several violations related to reckless driving and possessing drugs, etc. So, the lesson is we may have to stand up to intense pressure from powerful countries including global powers and may have to pay a high price; but Sri Lanka will have to preserve the sovereign right to enforce our laws without any discrimination, upholding our rights and independence.