Rasika Jayakody (Daily News)
China’s Ambassador to Sri Lanka, Yi Xianliang, stirred up a hornets’ nest last week, by voicing his opinion on the Sri Lankan government’s position on the much-debated Chinese loans. The outspoken diplomat told Lankan reporters it was unfair for Sri Lanka to term loans given by China’s EXIM Bank ‘expensive’ and questioned the government as to why it had sought fresh loans from China if the interest rates were ‘too high’.
Chinese Ambassador Yi Xianliang , Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake , Former President Ranasinghe Premadasa
“I have noted that some media and ministers have described these loans as expensive. We maintain a regular interest rate of 2 percent, not only for Sri Lanka, but for other countries as well,” the Chinese envoy said, during his interaction with a group of Sri Lankan journalists.
“I have already spoken to Ravi Karunanayake, Sri Lanka’s Finance Minister, who has talked about this issue many times, publicly. All the Chinese business people complain to the Chinese government as to why loans are given to other countries at 2 percent. For them it is at least 5 percent. So, this is really unfair for Sri Lanka to call these rates expensive,” the Ambassador said.
The Chinese envoy’s controversial remarks caused ripples across the political circles. The government’s political opponents, including Opposition Parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila, interpreted them as an open attack on the national unity government.
They silently hoped that the Chinese envoy’s remarks would lead to a diplomatic battle of sorts between Sri Lankan and Chinese governments.
It was against this backdrop that Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake came up with a strong response to the Chinese envoy’s remarks.
“I reject the statement,” the Finance Minister said, and – asserting his interests – “I am the Sri Lankan Finance Minister, not the Chinese Finance Minister.”
“If he says they have not given loans with interest more than 2% we are happy – because then we have only have to pay 2% then.”
Background
It was common knowledge that the Rajapaksa administration, which fell out of power in January last year, strongly gravitated towards China for funding for large-scale development and construction projects.
The Chinese government reciprocated this show of filial devotion by lavishly spending on Sri Lankan projects, fuelled by the strategic importance of the island nation, located under the tip of India.
Many believed that Sri Lanka would turn its back on China after the new government’s ascension to power in 2015. Many political heavyweights said the Sirisena-Wickremesinghe government would pivot to traditional allies, the West and India.
However, the national unity government’s track record, over the past 16 months, has shown that the current administration is not inclined to gamble with its foreign policy.
Even while repairing the Sri Lankan ties with the West and India, the Sri Lankan government has worked closely with China on matters concerning economic development.
Both the Sri Lankan President and Prime Minister have visited China several times and conducted lengthy negotiations with the Chinese authorities on identifying areas in which both countries could work together over the course of the next five years.
The Sri Lankan government’s decision to proceed with the Chinese-funded port city project was, without doubt, the most important breakthrough in stalled Sri Lanka-Chinese bilateral relations in the new administration.
Earlier, in April, this year, former Central Bank Governor Arjuna Mahendran said the Chinese Yuan would be made convertible currency in Sri Lanka, once the China Bank began operations, in Colombo.
Mahendran was a member of the high-profile Sri Lankan delegation that visited China, in April, this year.
At the same visit, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe told a business forum in Beijing, China, that the Sri Lankan government was looking to contract at a public-private partnerships, with the government playing the role of regulator.
“We like to see Chinese entrepreneurs coming here and will offer a level playing field for them to carry on with their business without any hindrance,” the Prime Minister said.
This meant that China, an emerging global super power, was becoming an indispensable strategic partner to Sri Lanka: As much as China too was keen on “doing business” with Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka wanted China’s support.
In this context, the Chinese envoy’s contentious remarks on the government upset the current equation between Sri Lanka and China.
Therefore, many speculated that the Sri Lankan Foreign Ministry would summon the Chinese Ambassador to express the government’s displeasure over his remarks.
However, Foreign Ministry sources told the Daily News that the government did not intend to summon the Chinese envoy over the matter.
Although there was no direct interaction between the two parties on the issue, the Chinese envoy rang Esala Weerakoon,on Monday, to explain his version of the story.
During the telephone conversation, Weerakoon had told the Chinese Ambassador that the Sri Lankan government was always prepared and open to discuss any issue of concern, if necessary.
“It is not advisable to resort to hard diplomatic measures when resolving such measures. That’s why the Ministry adopted a soft approach to sort things out,” Weerakoon told one of his colleagues, on Tuesday morning.
The Chinese envoy was also scheduled to meet Sri Lanka Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera over dinner,on Tuesday night.
Foreign Ministry sources said the two parties would discuss the prevailing issues at the dinner, without media fanfare.
Sri Lanka, over the past six decades, has handled tense diplomatic issues with great caution and care.
One of the rare exceptions was the controversy surrounding former British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, David Gladstone, in 1991, under the presidency of Ranasinghe Premadasa.
Gladstone was expelled from Sri Lanka in 1991 by President Premadasa, who accused him of interfering in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.
It began with a seemingly trivial incident that started off as a routine police entry by Gladstone at the Dickwella Police station – where he recorded ‘having observed some irregularities during the local elections held on May 11, 1991’.
This police entry translated into a serious diplomatic issue involving President Premadasa and Gladstone, which culminated with the British High Commissioner’s expulsion from Sri Lanka.
David Gladstone was declared persona non grata by the Sri Lankan government, on May 27, 1991.
Aside from that, the Sri Lanka has been careful with handling issues with its powerful allies, without ruffling too many feathers.
Crossing the line
However, it is also important to assess if the Chinese Ambassador actually ‘crossed the line’ when he voiced his opinion on remarks by certain Sri Lankan ministers.
The Vienna Convention, signed in 1961, presents a robust framework for diplomats across the world to carry out their duties and operations.
Article 41 of the Vienna Convention outlines how a diplomat should deal with internal matters of the “receiving country”.
The article says:
“1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all pers ons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
2. All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.
3. The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.”
It can be argued that the Chinese envoy’s remarks on the Sri Lankan government’s position bordered on violation of Article 41 of the Vienna Convention.
However, the Sri Lanka government, possibly considering the country’s long-standing relations with China, decided to drop the matter, without much ado.
Interestingly, China has adopted a solid and uncompromising policy in terms of diplomatic lines and boundaries.
For instance, China’s environmental official recently criticised the US Embassy in Beijing for tweeting data on air-pollution in China – data collected by air-sensors at the Embassy’s premises.
Responding to the US Embassy’s act, the Chinese officials said that such practice was in breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). This, according to media, followed similar criticism by the Russian authorities of intensive blogging by the US Ambassador in Russia.
However, many who argued in favour of the US Embassy said it should re-assessed if the Vienna Convention, signed over 50 years ago, could stand the test of time, especially in the wake of the emergence of social media.
Diplomats across the world use social media as a devise to get their messages across. Traditional diplomatic boundaries on voicing opinion should be re-analysed with the demands of what they termed the social media age.
This may challenge Article 41 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifying that diplomats should act in accordance with the law of the receiving state and conduct their official business through the ministry of foreign affairs.
However, China’s response to the US Embassy’s tweets made it clear that the Asian giant was not open to this line of thinking.
Interestingly, China attempted to mitigate the impact of the issue by getting the Vice-Minister for the Environment to lodge the complaint against the US Embassy’s tweets.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stayed away from the matter, giving the indication that China was not ‘too serious’ about the issue.
It can be argued that the Chinese authorities decided to send a diplomatic signal (i.e. express uneasiness) without escalating the conflict.
On the other hand, the US officials too had an interesting response. They justified the sharing of air-pollution data on the basis of assisting American citizens in China; something they are entitled to do according to international law (Article 5e of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations – 1963).
An article by Jovan Kurbalija, a contributor to Diplo, said such cases illustrated the underlying tension between the traditional perceptions of diplomacy as strictly the representation of one country in another, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the view that diplomacy has the much broader task of engaging in local social and cultural dynamics, especially when it comes to protection of global values (e.g. human rights, environment).
Be that as it may, what matters at this point is the Chinese government’s rigid position on matters bordering on diplomatic tensions.
It is hard to believe that the Chinese Ambassador in Sri Lanka is unaware of his own country’s policies and practices. It is also impossible to assume that he is oblivious to the far-reaching consequences of raising diplomatic concerns through media.
Therefore, one has every reason to think that Xianliang’s remark on Sri Lanka was nothing short of a miscalculated salvo.
ThinkWorth 