in Black & White with Milinda Morogoda

VIEWS (1233)

In this episode of ‘In Black and White’ Milinda Moragoda speaks with James Dauris, former High Commissioner of the United Kingdom in Sri Lanka, as he completes his term in country. He was also the Ambassador in Peru and served in Russia and Columbia. James Dauris speaks about his experience in conflict ridden Columbia and Peru and how they are dealing in a post-conflict setting and the lessons for Sri Lanka, including lessons post Easter Sunday from the UK, while he delves on Brexit and the challenges and opportunities thereof. 

MM: what made you become a diplomat having graduated from Cambridge as a lawyer?

James Dauris: Both my parents were lawyers, therefore I went to study law, which I enjoyed. I spent six years qualifying and working in the commercial world in London. But I decided that there was more to life than being a lawyer. There was more to the sort of life I wanted and hence I became a diplomat. One of the great joys and one of the things I found interesting about my career is the fact that every four years or so I change the country, I change the language I work in and the culture I am living in. I live and work with different people and I find that variety and opportunity very special and rewarding. I have no regrets.

It is strange that people often assume that geography is the dominant feature of what makes a diplomat’s job what it is. Before Peru I was in Colombia, and in Columbia, Peru and Sri Lanka you have three countries all of which are finding their way towards reconciliation after difficult internal conflicts.

MM: You were posted to Sri Lanka from Peru. What were the challenges of adjusting from a South American country to a South Asian
culture?

James Dauris: It is strange that people often assume that geography is the dominant feature of what makes a diplomat’s job what it is. Before Peru I was in Colombia, and in Columbia, Peru and Sri Lanka you have three countries all of which are finding their way towards reconciliation after difficult internal conflicts, so in many sense the core of what I was doing, at least part of my job both in Colombia and in Peru and now in Sri Lanka is very similar, which includes the challenge of working with and helping and sharing experiences with host governments and local organizations to help bring peoples together and help society move on, not least drawing on our experience of many decades of conflict in Northern Ireland.

MM: It is interesting that you pointed out Peru and Colombia’s conflicts and their reconciliation processes. They have had some successes and some setbacks. Are there any lessons that
Sri Lanka can learn?

James Dauris: In Peru and Columbia I see very different approaches that were being taken. Peru’s hope is essentially that if enough time is allowed to pass the memories and the hurt the conflict caused will pass away. Columbia has been much more direct and bold in saying that as a society we need to be honest about what happened and the suffering that was caused in order to bring people together. I hear different voices in Sri Lanka. I hear those who say that the best thing is for bygones to be bygones and move on. I also hear voices that say the best thing to do is to be honest about what has happened, because that process of honesty helps to heal wounds, rather than to open up wounds. There clearly is a division in the debate here. 

My own review is that there is only so much that you can look into, but it pays to be honest about the past, not least because that is a key to avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

MM: You said that Columbia and Peru pursued two different approaches. Was it dictated by culture or leadership?

James Dauris: I think it was largely dictated by leadership. The two circumstances are different. In Peru the conflict was a very political ideological one led by Sendero Luminoso and Abimael Guzman, where it did not have the elements of race and religion which characterize many internal conflicts. Columbia was a complicated mixture of left-wing idealism and bustles of drugs and I think it was a confluence of those competing left-wing and right-wing, political and non-political elements to a set of conflicts that were taking place at the same time, which made it particularly complicated in Colombia. But Columbia has talked more about the human rights problems it faced, including human rights problems associated with the armed forces that acted in ways that they should not have been doing and has been much more direct in saying that we need to look into what happened.    

MM: When you look at the Northern Ireland experience against the Columbian and
Peruvian experiences was there anything that helped to bring those experiences into the context of these two countries?

James Dauris: There is a similarity between Northern Ireland and Columbia in particular. As per the conflict in Peru which finished somewhat earlier was the challenge of negotiating and having talks with an illegal armed terrorist group, a challenge that a number of
Sri Lankan governments faced as well. 

When I look at the lessons from Northern Ireland and the Sri Lankan context one thing I see even today is how hard people are having to work even 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement to bring communities that were divided back together and it reminds me that reconciliation is not something that just happens, or happens with time, it needs a lot of people from both sides or if it is more than two sides to work together with determination to bring people together.

MM: As you rightly said our society is divided between the two views that you put forward with regard to Columbia and Peru. We need to have an honest discussion on these different perspectives. How could we reconcile these different views?

James Dauris: Discussion is the best way to move forward. Discussion and clear communication about why that discussion is necessary is useful, and an explanation that the purpose is not to get at any particular group, but rather to find ways that will put in place pieces of a puzzle in order to move forward. 

Sri Lanka is a fantastic country. It’s a relatively small island, but in this small island you have so much of many different things from the beaches, the culture, the animals, the history, the archaeology, the food and the people.

MM: You are at the end your term having worked in Sri Lanka for more than four years. What were the highs and the lows?

James Dauris: The high point was having spent four and a half years in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is a fantastic country. It’s a relatively small island, but in this small island you have so much of many different things from the beaches, the culture, the animals, the history, the archaeology, the food and the people. The real high is the opportunity to live and enjoy and to be friends with Sri Lanka. As for the low points, it’s not a particular question that I ask myself very often. I think more positively about the experience. It has been a wonderful four years living here and I look forward to
Sri Lanka’s bright future with confidence.  

MM: We had a tragedy on Easter Sunday, which we need to cope with after having coming out of a 30-year military conflict. Today we are facing a different set of challenges. If you look at the UK experience of dealing with extremism and dealing with radical Islam in particular, what could we learn in terms of security and how we look at reconciliation in the context of radicalization?

James Dauris: The events that happened on Easter Sunday were terrible; eight British nationals were among the many who died on Easter Sunday. I think one thing that we have learned from our own experience of terrorism in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and since we have had several attacks on British citizens including in London, is around the need to decide carefully what one needs to know, what intelligence to collect, what needs to be put in place to collect that intelligence and to work with communities to do that, and to have in place the mechanisms needed to bring intelligence that comes from different sources together, so that people are able to take a look at everything that is known and decide what it means and to put forward recommendations about what needs to be done about it. Part of what we have learned is the need to collect together intelligence and to share it with trusted international partners. The sort of terrorism that Sri Lanka experienced on Easter Sunday that we have experienced too often not only in the UK but also in a number of countries in Europe as well and elsewhere in the world is that an international problem demands international cooperation in order to forge solutions. It’s like two heavy pieces of a puzzle, it is only if you talk to other people who also have pieces of the puzzle that you can collectively workout what the picture looks like and understand what the pieces you hold mean or potentially mean. 

On the community side we have a problem with extremism in the UK too and we have a worrying number of British nationals who have gone off to Syria; many have died there, while some have returned or would like to return to the UK, and I think we all have questions within our countries, particularly within our communities what it is that they can do to reduce the risks of seeing often young and well educated people being drawn into doing things that all of us would agree are absolutely unacceptable. That there is a challenge around education and ambition and identifying what it is that makes people become vulnerable and responding to accordingly. Is it a sense of unfulfilled opportunity? For example, since people’s talents are not being used they have a sense that they are isolated from society. It is both at a national and community level that we need to be looking for answers.

MM: The individuals who were involved in the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka were from well to do families. From an aspirational point of view superficially one would think that it would not be the profile that you expect, but that seems to be the case the world over. What are the lessons from the UK in dealing with communities, with the danger of the tendency to overreact by profiling people and make them feel cornered? Since the UK has dealt with this aspect far longer than Sri Lanka what were the lessons and the challenges?

James Dauris: As a challenge we all need to learn something about particular individuals where specific people are propagating hate speech, propagating ideas that are designed to spread hatred. In that case they need to be addressed as particular challenges. There are issues we have learned around community leadership. There has been a discussion in
Sri Lanka already about the importance of reforms or change, change being led from within the community, so that it is not felt as being imposed, and it does not arouse or doesn’t risk arousing the same hostility, and that is helpful. 

We have also learned that modern terrorism is something that we would be unwise to say that we have defeated. We work hard to tell our public that we are confident that we are as well prepared as we can be; we have mechanisms in place to protect people and to prevent attacks, while we are particularly careful not to say that we have beaten the problem, because we know that we have not.

MM: In the last four years many things have changed in the UK and you would probably go back to a changed UK. Brexit is something that everyone is watching with great interest. Obviously something happened within UK society to make this drastic and radical move. Why did it happen? How would you explain what happened with Brexit and the United Kingdom?

Britain is ambitious about its role in the world. We look forward with confidence. We look forward as a member of the P5, the G7, the G8, the G20, and the Commonwealth. We are a seafaring island nation like Sri Lanka that has always thrived on trading with other countries.

James Duaris: In the referendum of course the fact was that more people vote for one answer to a question than the other answer to a question. I’m not sure whether each individual considered their vote in quite the same terms as the dramatic move that you have described. I’ve always thought that there were many different reasons people took into account, that is particularly influenced voters thinking on whether they were voting for or against the UK staying in the European Union. Of course the UK will stay in Europe. We are talking particularly about the European Union project. I think even since Britain joined the European Union in the 1970s, which is more than 40 years ago, there has always been and continued to be a division about the federal or more federalist aspirations of at least some people who have been in positions of leadership in the EU. I do think it is one of the important factors in the way that the country in the end decided to vote by a majority, which was this consideration about the balance of power between the European Center and national governments. It was also around a sense of democratic accountability. As it becomes difficult for any organization as it becomes bigger, more than two dozen different states, the challenge to that organization of persuading people who believe in the importance of choice.

MM: Was there a feeling among part of the population that they had been left out in the context of the economy, that they were not getting their fair share of the growth opportunities as a result of the integration at sub-national level?

James Dauris: Of course in any country there will be parts that are prospering at any time more than other parts. People may have laid responsibility in part for that situation on the European Union and within certain communities that is very probably the case. For example, the common fisheries policy has always been a very contentious project with Britain’s fishing communities. But at a general regional level people would hold national government as responsible as the European Union.     

MM: If you were to generalize was the result of the referendum a result of an emotional reaction or a logical reaction?

James Dauris: It’s hard to say. It depends on the approach each voter took when they voted.

MM: What are the opportunities and threats for Sri Lanka as a result of Brexit? 

James Dauris: Britain is ambitious about its role in the world. We look forward with confidence. We look forward as a member of the P5, the G7, the G8, the G20, and the Commonwealth. We are a seafaring island nation like Sri Lanka that has always thrived on trading with other countries. It is part of what a successful island needs to be about. Britain is determined and all of our political parties have made it clear about its determined ambition to succeed by reaching outwards after Brexit. 

The Commonwealth is an important element of how this will look like going forward for
Sri Lanka and the UK and the special relationship that exists with more than 50 members of the Commonwealth and their coming together around a core set of principles is an important point for all of us.

MM: Will the UK start dealing with every member of the Commonwealth to gauge the kind of trade and investment that could be created? 

A good starting point is to look at the World Banks’ Ease of Doing Business Index. Last year Sri Lanka came one hundredth, which was the bottom half of the table.

James Dauris: There is a whole set of trade negotiations which the UK will need to take forward after Brexit. British companies have long been investing in Sri Lanka. We have companies in Sri Lanka, which have been well established and familiar household names for more than a century. We are also seeing exciting new British investments and a good example for that is the investment by the London Stock Exchange, with employees close to a thousand in Sri Lanka, most of whom are working at the front end of a high-tech internationally competitive industry.

MM: Do you see high-tech rather than manufacturing as our niche?

James Dauris: It is wise for countries to look at more than one niche. The London Stock
Exchange experience and their success in recruiting people shows that there is an important opportunity, which Sri Lanka can develop. 

There is a general challenge for Sri Lanka in attracting investment and in terms of market liberalization. What you should be looking at is whether you should be opening your doors wide to skilled employees from other countries in order to encourage investors who will want to come in confidence that they can find enough software engineers or whatever it is that they are looking for.

MM: If you were running Sri Lanka what would be the three policy changes that you would make in order to make it easier for British investment?

James Dauris: A good starting point is to look at the World Banks’ Ease of Doing Business Index. Last year Sri Lanka came one hundredth, which was the bottom half of the table. 

Sri Lanka clearly needs to be in the top half. The two areas where Sri Lanka scored lowest was around confidence in the enforceability of contracts and in property law, which I think are two good points to start with. But, if I were to run Sri Lanka, I would try to look at the whole and say what steps we need to take in order to move up that table in order to make ourselves more attractive to foreign investors.

MM: You mentioned about human resources and the ability to import human resources. What side of capacity should we develop and what changes do we need to bring in our labor laws for foreigners to work here?

James Dauris: I believe the education system here clearly has many strengths, which I have discussed with undergraduates studying for degrees in a number of universities around the country. 

The challenge that they face is the problem of a lack of opportunity to learn good English. I do think that English is a really important key for any Sri Lankan who is aspiring to get a job with the sort of employer who is interested and has the ambition to engage internationally. 

A particular challenge I’ve seen and heard from the people I’ve talked to are in faculties that teach principally in Sinhala and Tamil. While it is good, the challenge there is to look at how to help equip undergraduates with English skills that they will need to compete at high levels when they leave. 

MM: Tourism is quite a promising area for
Sri Lanka. What could we do more to make it better?

James Dauris: Last year we had 250,000 British visitors to Sri Lanka. Easter Sunday attacks may have interrupted the growth that Sri Lanka expected to enjoy. We have a very significant number of British tourists coming here. I think Sri Lanka is doing well in tourism. 

I have a keen interest in conservation as well as in economic development and I think an important challenge for Sri Lanka is growing its tourist numbers, while also protecting many of the things that draw tourists here, such as protecting national parks, your heritage and the wildlife that makes Sri Lanka so special. It is important to make sure that there is enough thought given to that balance.

MM: Getting back to the UK what do you think has changed in the UK in the last four years? What do you think has really changed in the last  of people’s mindset? 

There is always a debate going on. There are always particular political parties, especially those that command widespread support nationally, but don’t command particularly high levels of support anywhere, both seeing an advantage from a move from the first-past-the-post electoral system to a proportional representation system.

James Dauris: I will be better placed to answer that question once I get back home and live there for a while. But, clearly Brexit has been a very important and dominating part of the political debate at home for much of the four years I have been here. You can see two things from reading the British newspapers; one is that the debate has dominated much of the political conversation, while there is also quite a widespread sense that there are other important issues that also need to be given attention to that, but have got a little bit squeezed out or pushed to a side. There certainly is a sense that moving on from Brexit is going to be helpful and healthy because it will enable attention across politics to return more to other subjects as well.

MM: Is there a reflection going on the aspect of majoritarianism, because if you look at the decision to leave the EU it was based on a majority decision although the gap isn’t that large. Northern Europe has greater focus on proportional representation where there is more consensus built, whereas in the UK there is a more confrontational approach to democracy. Is there a thinking in the UK now that the majoritarian view is the right view?

James Dauris: There is always a debate going on. There are always particular political parties, especially those that command widespread support nationally, but don’t command particularly high levels of support anywhere, both seeing an advantage from a move from the first-past-the-post electoral system to a proportional representation system. 

The majoritarian debate is perhaps most obvious in the UK in the recent years in the discussion in Scotland about its identity and self-government. The questions the Scots are asking not least in the Brexit context or the Scottish National Party is asking not least in a Brexit context, is about the nature of the Union, which is another question, which goes to the heart of the British Constitution and I am sure it will be continued to be debated going forward.