Power and Energy Minister Kanchana Wijesekara who was in Qatar with Environment Minister Nazeer Ahmed on June 30, said that Sri Lanka had decided to lift the ban on ‘Qatar Charity’ which had been imposed following the Easter Sunday terrorist attack that killed more than 260 men women and children. 

Sri Lankan authorities had named ‘Qatar Charity’ as a terrorist entity in 2019 and had accused the charity of funding terrorism related activities during the prominent case against lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah.

Interestingly, the two ministers were not in the oil rich West Asian country to discuss or announce anything related to terrorism, but on a mission as a part of their government’s desperate search for fuel, after the regular supply of petrol and diesel in the country totally collapsed weeks ago. Neither did they handle defence related activities in the country to make the announcement. It should have been announced first by the Defence Ministry of the country.

Hence, the general perception is that the announcement of lifting of the ban on the Charity exactly at a time when the two ministers were in Doha, Qatar in search of fuel, was a damage control measure by the government as a part of the its effort to woo the Qatari authorities for regular supply of fuel at least for several weeks. But the two ministers returned empty handed.

On what grounds the authorities decided that the ‘Qatar Charity’ was supporting terrorism before they decided to ban it, or the annulment of that decision is not clear. The decision to ban it was serious, as it is the main charity institute of the Emir of Qatar where thousands of Sri Lankans are working. Interestingly, it was transpired during the case against lawyer Hejaaz Hisbullah that the Charity was closely associated with the Sri Lankan Government and during COVID-19 (long after the ban) it has maintained a close relationship with the Sri Lankan Embassy in Doha. It also works closely with the United Nations and many other international organizations such as UNICEF.
Qatar Charity has a registered office in Sri Lanka with staff employed but none of whom were arrested despite the CID naming it as a terrorist organization. Despite all these facts the authorities should have had strong reasons to impose a ban on the main charitable arm of a foreign government, as it definitely would have repercussions. If they had such strong reasons what a folly on the part of the government to lift the ban despite the severity of the economic situation and just because Sri Lanka needs assistance from Qatar! 

Similarly, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had directed Transport Ministry to terminate the US$1.5 billion Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)-funded light railway transit (LRT) project with immediate effect on September 23, 2020. In a letter written to the ministry secretary, Secretary to the President P. B. Jayasundara said the project is “very costly and not the appropriate cost effective transport solution for the urban Colombo transportation infrastructure.”

This decision was taken amidst reports that Sri Lanka loses a billion rupees due to road congestion. And no discussion was held with the JICA prior to the termination of the project which would have hurt the Japanese government. However, in a recent letter to the Japanese government seeking assistance in the face of the economic catastrophe Sri Lanka is currently facing, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had expressed regret over the cancelation of the LRT project. It would also have definitely been seen as a damage control effort in the light of the government’s desperation to obtain international assistance and not as a genuine regret. Yet, no considerable assistance is forthcoming from Japan. Daily Mirror on Friday reported that Japan is of the view that there is a risk of financial assistance to Sri Lanka being mismanaged.
Also, the government in February last year abruptly decided to annul a trilateral Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) signed in May 2019 among the Governments of India, Japan and Sri Lanka for the development of Eastern Container Terminal (ECT) of the Colombo harbour with participation from these three countries. It announced, after a Cabinet decision on the annulment of the MOC that the ECT would be managed totally by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA), further straining the relationship with Japan.  

The decision to cancel the MOC on the ECT was taken following agitation by trade unions on the ground that ceding the terminal to foreign countries, especially to India would be detrimental to the country’s national security. However, later the government offered the western terminal of the same harbour to India with no agitation against it. 
These incidents show how poor the government is in respect of maintaining foreign relations. Even if the government decides to annul projects with other countries on sound grounds, decency of the decision lies on the way it is carried out. Doing so without an exchange of views with the relevant countries would be deemed to be undiplomatic and uncultured and sometimes would have repercussions immediately or later, as we witness now.