POVERTY is threatening world stability. Economic refugees are everyday finding their way to Europe in increasing numbers. Economic degradation is provoking violent confrontations making improvement unattainable. People want to get rid of the scourge of hunger and underdevelopment. Instead, they are getting guns to kill each other. In this world of contradictions, between what people want and what they are offered, there is a consciousness building up to abandon guns in favour of peaceful talks. Human contacts are multiplied and open discussions leading to better understanding among nations are encouraged.

In its effort to eliminate conflict and avert war, the international community is struggling to preserve the

United Nations and the Security Council as the main forum to discuss, debate and reach conclusions on problems facing humanity. Diplomacy, rid of its gloss, can be effective in creating the environment, which will permit nations to develop and produce fruitful results. The world is a global village and without a policy of caring and sharing, nations will tear each other and only the strongest will survive.

Nurturing the links

The time when Palmerston, The British Foreign Secretary, could state «England has no permanent friend nor permanent foe, only permanent interest» is gone because such a policy has no place in our interdependent world. Whether we like it or not, the proclamation of interest exclusive of friendship is detrimental to small nations. Countries like Mauritius need both friends and business partners. The warmth that is cultivated between nations is indispensable for successful business negotiations. We agree that one cannot expect only to receive without being also ready to give. Preferential bilateral or multilateral trade agreements contain that element of sharing, because preferences do not work on a unilateral basis. No country is so altruistic as to sacrifice its own interests for the benefit of others. The statement of Lord Palmerston has become the credo of many countries. It is the rigid application of his policy of only permanent interests that are the causes of so many international turmoils. The failure of the Cancun meeting on world trade has its origin in the protection of the interests of the rich irrespective of their consequences.

Immediately after Independence, Mauritius had to establish priority in relation to countries from which it could derive the greatest benefit. Historical, cultural and business ties had laid the groundwork for priority and we set out to build upon it. By her graceful withdrawal as a colonial power, the United Kingdom had left a strong legacy of goodwill, which we had to exploit. Although independent, we dit not sever all connections with our erstwhile administrators. We kept the Queen as our Queen and brought an Englishman to be the Governor General. Whitehall was ever ready to advise us in the initial stage to find our way in the meandering alleyways of foreign relations. We upgraded our London Commission to High Commission and promoted the incumbent Dr Leckraj Teelock, later knighted, as High Commissioner. Dr Teelock was an old hand in the diplomatic circle of London and had friendly relations with some ministers and MPs. He was very useful later in our negotiations to join the first Lomé Convention.

Bearing in mind that our priority was economic, and has remained so to date, we turned towards Paris, because France was a leading member of the Common Market and the future of our sugar lay with that orga-nisation. It had become evident that Britain was acceding to the Common Market and could not let down the Commonwealth sugar producers. Nonetheless, France was important to us because of our special historical and cultural associations, and our loyal attachment to the French-speaking world. Not before long, she became the greatest donor of aid. The opening of a mission in Islamabad was dictated mainly by sentimental considerations for a section of our population. New Delhi was a different kettle of fish. Apart from blood, we also had a longstanding business connection. Our membership of the United Nations necessitated a diplomatic presence to service our mission. Washington, being the capital of the USA, a superpower, could not be left out. So our first steps in foreign relations were guided both by international obligations and national interests.

The African Dilemna

We live in a world where every now and then, we are confronted with conflicting claims by nations friendly to us. As we are bent on preserving our own neutrality, we often have to do some diplomatic acrobacy to steer clear of any involvement in their dispute. The Cold War between Washington and Moscow never interfered with our friendship for both the United States and the then USSR. On the problem of the Middle East, we have held fast to our position by insisting that Israel should respect Resolution 242 of the Security Council.

Nearer home, notwithstanding our strong condemnation of apartheid and our open financial assistance to the African National Congress, we continued to trade, in a very limited way, with the regime in Pretoria. To stall off a sudden increase in the cost of living we had no choice. Our location far from other sources of similar supplies was a disadvantage which was appreciated by our friends in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Fortunately for us, we were in the comfortable company of a few Eastern and Southern African nations including Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Mauritius started her independence adventure with two impediments: smallness of our territory and isolation in the Indian Ocean. In his farsightedness, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam who had good connections with African heads of States, took the wise decision of steering Mauritius to the membership of the OAU. Our membership of the Commonwealth and the OAU broke that isolation and gave the country a broadly-based platform to become an effective player on the international scene. Being two small islands, Mauritius and Rodrigues, our economy is fragile because of the absence of resources other than human.

To counteract that smallness, we had to undertake during the negotiations leading to Lomé a charm offensive in the capitals of the Common Market to explain the importance of sugar in our economy. The effort paid because we obtained the best possible deal and for several years after sugar provided the cushion to absorb the shock of loss of revenue resulting from bad weather. The lobby of Tate and Lyle did help because our raw sugar was badly needed to keep their refineries in operation.

The OAU had provided the forum to have discussions among African-Caribbean-Pacific (ACP) countries to strengthen their bonds in the run-up to Lomé in 1974. When the ACP delegates met the Europeans for the final phase of the negotiations, the latter had in front of them people who had done their homework and were speaking a common and coherent language. The patronising smiles, which characterised their attitude in the beginning, had given way to a serious mood. When finally the Lomé Convention was made public, it was immediately hailed as a model of North-South cooperation.

Our ambassador, Raymond Chasle, did a remarkable job and distinguished himself as a sound negotiator. There is always the assurance that negotiations are professionally conducted by seasoned diplomats rather than laymen. On the issue of sugar, Sir Guy Sauzier?s contribution was highly appreciated and his advice sought by even the West Indians and Fijians, who had their own experts. The Lomé Convention was a turning point in our industrial diversification. The Economic Free Zone received a new vigour and soon textile and knitwear factories began to appear. Within a few years, textile became the largest employer of labour. It was a period of great activity and Mauritius was quoted as a success story. But the honeymoon with textile did not last long. The me-nace of competition from low-cost countries of the East after the abolition of the Multifibre Agreement in January 2005 seared the Chinese operators who gradually began to close shop to look for new pastures elsewhere.

Asserting our sovereignty

Tourism has made a good start and the movement of foreign visitors prompted government to start our own airline. From a small company providing inter-island service, it soon grew up to an international carrier under the leadership of Sir Harry Tirvengadum. Air Mauritius became our flagship and our ambassador of goodwill advertising Mauritius not only as a tourist destination of prestige but also a safe haven for business where the rule of law and democracy offered the guarantee of security. It must be emphasised that our success was due in large part to the goodwill generated by the skilful management of our external relations.

I have been Minister of Foreign Affairs for four and a half years and High Commissioner in London. I must point out that the task of the Foreign Minister of a small country with no resources as a bargaining chip is not an easy one. As I have said earlier, I had at times to take an unequivocal posture and assert our sovereignty by a non-committal answer except on the merit of the case. Those were the defining moments when we had to behave in a way where even a small nation had a dignity to preserve by refusing subservience to any arm-twisting.

As the foreign policy of any party in power has to follow the same line of conduct i.e. safeguard and promotion of our interests, there could be no departure from that conduct by a change of regime except for the opening of new missions out of economic and reciprocal necessity. The mission in Beijing was long overdue. China is an important donor of aid and technical assistance and her request for a Mauritian diplomatic presence in her capital could not be ignored. But, for a country, the size and economy of Mauritius, she has by now more than her share of full-fledged embassies in the main capitals of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia.

In Europe: London, Paris, Brussels and Berlin. Consultate in Rome; in Asia: New Delhi, Islamabad, Kuala Lampur and Beijing; in Africa: Pretoria, Addis Ababa, Cairo and Antananarivo; in Australia: Canberra.

Each embassy is serviced by an ambassador. Those ambassadors are either political nominees or career diplomats. Without being derogatory to either category, I must say that whatever talents they have are being wasted. In some capitals transited frequently by ministers, their main function is to receive them at the airport and see them off. In one or two capitals visited very rarely by ministers or other VIPs, the ambassador complains of boredom. He feels that he is forgotten at the back of beyond. With a little training, he could be utilised profitably. Whatever the country where our missions are, there is always something interesting going on. The annual fair at Guangdong attracts traders from Mauritius and other parts of the world. Something useful can always be learnt from the range of products exhibited. We must remind ourselves that Chinese industrial products are now on the shelves of European departmental stores. China has shown herself all the time well-disposed to provide soft loans and technical assistance. We must cultivate closer relationship with her.

Both this government and the previous one have treated New Delhi as less important than London or Paris. India is among the seven industrial giants in the world. By posting a political novice just to get rid of a nagging problem is doing no justice to that vast country where only high-profile ambassadors amble along the corridors of ministerial offices. Thanks to Peter Craig, our mission in Washington is kept alive. Otherwise it is non-existent. Yet it is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world. Fortunately, Brussels has an efficient career diplomat as head. Trained by Raymond Chasle, he is as good as his predecessor.

The need for qualified staff

If we are to enlist the service of diplomats for economic promotion, let us make effective use of the available resources. It is time to think of posting candidates qualified in marketing and international law as attachés in London, Paris, Geneva, New Delhi and Washington. This government has recruited a battalion of advisers to reward political cronies. Some of the expenditure could be diverted to strengthen our missions with qualified staff. Geneva is of such vital importance to us that any additonal investment in highly qualified staff will pay in the long run. The workload has become too heavy and the technicalities involved are often beyond the understanding of ordinary staff.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has opened a new section to look after international trade and cooperation. It is a wise decision. But the section can only deliver if proper coordination and consultation exists with the overseas missions. I hope this is done. With the advent of fax, Internet and satellite pictures, the ambassadors are relieved of the demanding task of writing lengthy reports. They have time available not fully utilised.

We make considerable efforts to make our rapport with foreign countries as easy and as friendly as possible. We have no other ambitions except to develop our economy and raise the standard of our citizens. We have had good success in the past by taking concerted action in our negotiations with Europe. Those days belong to the past. The gradual withdrawal of all trade preferences compels us to fall back on our own strength to face the future.

The backlash of United Europe

We live in a selfish world. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the African, Caribbean and Pacific members of the Lomé Convention expressed concern that Western Europe would pay more attention to the Eastern nations to our detriment. This is exactly what is happening. Preferences are withdrawn to comply with WTO rules. But the prospective candidates of the European Union from Eastern Europe are already being groomed to derive the full benefit of the European Union membership.

Diplomacy backed by goodwill mission to the capitals of Europe has been of no avail. The Cotonu agreement has spelt the death knell of Lomé. We are advised that our future prosperity lies in regionalisation. This treatment has taught us one lesson. The collapse of communism and the winding up of the Cold War have left us, Third World countries, in the lurch.

Diplomacy per se without the support of a strong bargaining posture backed by some external factors cannot achieve much. With hindsight, I am tempted to accept the theory that Lomé was a sop of to keep Soviet influence at bay. As soon as that influence evaporated, the need for Lomé also suffered a similar fate. But we in the Third World with fragile economies have no alternative but to keep our association with Europe, however tenuous that may be. The much-trumpeted Africa Growth & Opportunity Act (AGOA) to come to the rescue of Africa and fill the vacuum after European withdrawal has been a big disapppointment. The range of products qualified for duty-free entry into the United States does not include textile and sugar, the two main pillars of our economy. Some diplomats who rushed to claim credit for AGOA and cry victory must be biting their nails.

The challenge of peace

I have tried in this paper to prove the preponderance of economic diplomacy as the main plank in our external relations. It is really deplorable that superpowers, which ought to set the good example, still believe, and wrongly so, in the power of the bullet. The Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, whatever may be the excuse, has been a serious breach of international law. As a result of that invasion, several parts of the world have become more exposed to violence and terrorist acts than ever before in the history of mankind.

Time and time again, statesmen and political thinkers have repeated that peace in the world can only come when the hungry half of its population can get two meals per day. It is within the reach of the rich nations to bring about that miracle. But in their selfishness they prefer a holocaust or wholesale death from famine than a small sacrifice to give a bowl of rice to those craving for food.

I would like to conclude by quoting Mark Anthony in Julius Caesar : «O judgment ! Thou art feld to brutish beasts. And men have lost their reasons.»

Until that judgement returns, the world will remain an unsettled place. Fortunately, the hope that has sustained mankind through all its tribulations and tragic moments is still in Pandora?s box.

Sir Satcam Boolell