Diplomatic norms or "Red Line" - Is it being enforced in Bangladesh?

Published in The Daily Independent, July 21, 2009

The recent news in the media on differences of view between the British High Commissioner Stephen Evans and the BNP General Secretary Delwar Hossain on the alleged role of the former's predecessor in bringing emergency rule in Bangladesh is to say the least, interesting. While addressing audience at the "Meet the Press" event of the Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU), the British High Commissioner denied that his predecessor had any hand in the imposition of emergency in Bangladesh that he said was the result of internal dynamics of Bangladesh's politics and none of external interference. BNP General Secretary, when confronted by journalists after the British High Commissioner had spoken, said emphatically that former British High Commissioner Anwar Hossain had a hand in bringing the emergency.

High Commissioner Evans also dismissed the perception held in the country that High Commissioners/Ambassadors in Bangladesh breached diplomatic norms during the period leading to the emergency, as they were well aware of the "red line." He praised the army backed emergency government for holding free and fair elections and handing power to an elected government, leaving to history to judge the performance of that government. Evans also expressed opinion about ways to make democracy workable in Bangladesh and on corruption and law and order situation in the country.

The High Commissioner was no doubt referring to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) while talking about the "red line." Diplomats remain within the "red line" according to the Convention as long as they do not interfere in the internal affairs of the host country. Evans should have made a little effort and read the back issues of Dhaka newspapers before defending his predecessor. If he had, he would have known why people in this country believe that Anwar interfered in our internal affairs and that he had a hand in the imposition of emergency. In his frequent TV appearances, Anwar behaved like a Bangladeshi politician, even alluding to his preference for one of the two mainstream parties. Though Dhaka is a bustling capital of over 10 million people, the elite in the city is a very small group indeed. Unless one is speaking aloud in the shower, everything else spoken, even privately, becomes public knowledge eventually. Anwar, in addition to his frequent media appearances, also spoke on our politics freely in private conversations that have eventually become widely known that suggests convincingly his partisan interest in our politics.

Ambassadors of a number of other developed countries Evans defended at the DRU event also interfered in our politics during that period. The former British High Commissioner worked with them as a group and together they looked like they were pursuing an agenda for our politics. The former British High Commissioner was the most visible in media appearances and showed the keenest interest. The media, particularly the private TV channels, followed him the most, owing no doubt due to his Bangladeshi origin as much as for his inclination to talk on our politics. Interestingly, other than these few, the majority of the Ambassadors/High Commissioners remained well within the "red line" that made the people curious and suspicious about the activities of those who were active in our politics.
The extent and nature of indulgence of the former British High Commissioner and his peers in our politics created a great deal of public awareness against what they did, although few were aware about the "red line." Since their defeat, the BNP has been informing the public that diplomats are prohibited by diplomatic norms from interfering in a country's politics and internal affairs. They have also been telling the people about the partisan role of the diplomats, particularly about Anwar.

This awareness notwithstanding, the diplomats continue to express views about our politics and internal affairs. It is incredible that they fail to see that by such interference they embarrass us and in some cases, also harm our development efforts. In an age where information travels faster than the speed of light over the internet, negative views of these diplomats about Bangladesh, such as on corruption and law and order situation, conflicts in our politics, etcetera, can and does give the country a bad image that in turn influences foreign investors against Bangladesh as an investment destination.

Therefore, it is very important that foreign diplomats in our country are reminded that if they have any opinion about our politics and development issues, they should share these with us but only according to norms and practices of diplomacy. They should communicate such views, as done in other capitals, to the relevant place in the host government, in most cases to the host government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It is not that the diplomats are not aware how they should conduct themselves. It is the environment that we have ourselves created that encourages the diplomats to cross the "red line." Our mainstream parties are responsible for bringing the diplomats in our politics. In the 1980s they went to the Ambassadors, particularly those from the developed countries, to fight Ershad's military dictatorship to restore democracy. That trend continued with the end of Ershad as the opposition continued to solicit the support of the diplomats against the elected government. The public however became aware of such interference only after the private TV channels came to the scene during the last BNP government. Once these channels came, they started chasing the diplomats on a regular basis, asking them for comments and views on our politics and governance to which they more than gladly responded. In turn, the print media followed the TV channels to help bring the diplomats into our politics in full knowledge of the public. The business chambers also joined the media in creating more avenues for the diplomats to speak on our politics and governance. More recently, we are seeing organisations such as the DRU also doing the same.

There is no reason why the diplomats should be allowed to continue violating the VCDR and embarrass us and harm our national interests by creating image problems for us. Unfortunately, it does not seem like they would do anything themselves about it. It is for us to deal with it. The BNP's outburst with High Commissioner Evans could be a silver lining in the cloud for it could mean that the opposition that has so long encouraged these diplomats to meddle in our politics is breaking that relationship. Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs should now come forward and interpret the rules for the diplomats to keep them within the "red line." The private TV channels and organisations such as the DRU must also be brought into the equation and advised not to allow the diplomats the opportunity to talk on our internal politics. Before allowing this opportunity to High Commissioner Evans, the DRU allowed the US Ambassador the same platform. He made good use of it by criticising our politics and our governance. The DRU should know that in no world capital are Ambassadors given a forum where they can openly and freely criticise the host government they way they do in Dhaka. Likewise, the business chambers should be reminded that Ambassadors/High Commissioners should be asked to speak on their respective countries or on relations of their countries with Bangladesh and not on our politics or our governance.

A favourite subject on which we are embarrassed by Ambassadors/High Commissioners regularly is corruption. We know what corruption and greed has done to USA and Great Britain. Both these governments have pumped hundreds of billions of Dollars/Pounds to revive their respective economies from recession because of corruption and greed in their corporate sector. During the Bush/Blair era, USA and UK attacked Iraq on falsehood and lies that caused deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. All these notwithstanding, no one has heard any diplomat in these two capitals expressing opinion critical of the two governments. It would be insane even to think that was possible. Diplomatic norms demand the same of diplomats in Dhaka because of the "red line." The unfortunate fact is in other capitals, host governments strictly implement the "red line"; in Dhaka we do not. It is high time we do what is done in rest of the world capitals.