Blank cheques for paid advocacy

The recent ‘ mea culpa’ by British MP Ian Paisley for not disclosing to the House of Commons that he and his family accepted a ‘freebie’ holiday in Sri Lanka, and the punishment meted out to him by the Standards Committee of that country’s Parliament seem to have excited some local MPs. He was found guilty of “paid advocacy”.

One of these local MPs from the ruling coalition called for an inquiry on the matter to embarrass the previous Government which had engaged the British MP at the time. Some of these Sri Lankan MPs will go to any lengths to take a jab at their political opponents even if it means hanging to dry an MP who spoke on behalf of Sri Lanka before a multitude of MPs beholden to the Pro-Eelam lobby.

Freebies are offered by all countries, and Sri Lankan legislators accept them with both hands. One would have thought Sri Lankan Governments were not capable of such things. Therefore, one could give the previous Government some credit if they realised the need to lobby foreign legislators to speak up on behalf of this country, especially against a tide of negative comments triggered by anti-Sri Lanka groups in those countries.

Dr. Liam Fox, former British Secretary of State for Defence, also fell into difficulties of a similar nature. Though in that case it did not directly involve Sri Lanka, there were indirect references to his visits to this country. The pro-Eelam lobby actively involved itself in the targeting of Dr. Fox, who was, and remains, a friend of Sri Lanka. He was forced to resign from the Cabinet and abandon his quest at the time for the leadership of the Conservative Party, but has since bounced back as the Secretary of State for International Trade.

Local MPs mouthing platitudes about Governments in Colombo (which were their opponents) soliciting in questionable ways the support of foreign MPs comes in the very backdrop of foreign Governments doing exactly that with the political leaders in this country. All major political parties accepting Chinese lucre on the eve of the last Presidential election is an open secret now.

The fact that in Britain and many other advanced democracies, Parliaments have their own Standards Committees with powers to punish MPs for indiscretions and breaking their rules is something missing in Sri Lanka. That is quite apart from the lack of voluntary resignations or indictments in a Court of Law, despite overriding evidence that MPs have been for hire – “paid advocacy”, as the British have called it -- and taking kickbacks from interested parties, especially businessmen and foreign Governments.

The case of the British MP does not mean the previous Government got it right in lobbying foreign Governments and its legislators, the right way or the wrong way. It seems to have only rubbed them the wrong way. The pro-Eelam lobby at the time, and even nowadays, though arguably less intense, was streets ahead of the initiatives by Colombo which were largely Government-centric. In Washington and London, the key diplomatic posts have been without heads of mission for months, giving the rump pro-Eelam campaigners a free run on their turf.

Presidents and Foreign Ministers felt that meeting their counterparts, making speeches at forums abroad, photo opportunities with their counterparts and media statements for home audiences and local consumption were sufficient to win world opinion in their favour and kudos at home. On the contrary, the previous Government made enemy after enemy with its brusque, undiplomatic approaches, and its sheer incompetence to reach out when it mattered.

It did not galvanise the Sri Lankan Diaspora that was fighting a rearguard battle with a vastly outnumbered opposition lobby that was complaining of a fashionable issue that wins hearts easily – the systematic violation of minority rights abroad by a wicked, oppressive majority claiming superiority.

The unfortunate Mr. Paisley’s case was probably a solitary feather in that Government’s cap. But one swallow does not make a summer. The bigger issue that is worrying as far as Sri Lanka is concerned is not whether the likes of Mr. Paisley did their bidding on behalf of this country, but whether the authority to dispense ‘blank cheques’ was abused to the extent of personally benefiting those who had that authority. Apartments in Arlington, USA and Gregory’s Road, Colombo 7 and campaign funds for electioneering seem part of the exercise.

This newspaper published how for three consecutive years, the Auditor General queried the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) about nearly Rs. 2 billion paid in fees for foreign lobbyists, consultants and public relations agencies, especially in the United States. In 2014 alone, Rs. 1.4 billion was spent. Where did all this money go? Even the US Justice Department is investigating if there was money laundering that took place, with the funds often skirting through the Sri Lanka embassy in Washington DC.

The Central Bank was supposed to be the regulator of foreign exchange going out, but it became the perpetrator. One of the consultants retained was the scandal-hit former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) hired by the Central Bank. Just a few weeks back, the same Frenchman was in Sri Lanka and seen in the company of the same Central Bankers who hired him at the time. Where are the Government investigations on these connections?

Some of the public relations agencies hired merely wrote mundane media statements for embassy Avurudhu celebrations and the ambassador’s speeches. Recently, we had occasion to point out how a US firm was hired to obtain Congressional support for, inter-alia, foreign investment to Sri Lanka. The problem was that the firm was hired at a time when Congress was virtually on vacation as the US Presidential campaign was in full swing and no business was being conducted in Congress. It was the hard-earned money of the Sri Lankan worker in West Asia gone down the drain.

The Central Bank was the preferred channel for such payments in the past because its accounts do not go before Parliament. The paper trail covers the Central Bank at the time because orders for these transfers have been endorsed by ‘higher authorities’ – the same source that ‘looked after’ Mr. Paisley.

We also have the case of the dubious Pakistani-US national and influence peddler who was hired and monies sent to his personal account by the Central Bank. If Mr. Paisley performed, as the British Parliamentary committee referred to it “paid advocacy”, the problem is his for non-disclosure – not Sri Lanka’s. Sri Lanka’s problem is whether those who were authorised to recruit legitimate lobbying agents used the monies for the purpose it was meant, or did only part of their assignment and put the balance into their own pockets.