FOREIGN Minister Dipu Moni, while addressing a gathering of Bangladeshi labour attaches in Dhaka recently, expressed her disappointment and frustration at the state of affairs in Bangladesh embassies where lack of cooperation between the Ambassador and different wings has jeopardized the labour market for expatriates. The Foreign Minister was absolutely correct on what she said. However, she has scratched the surface of a problem that is much deeper. In blaming the missions for lack of cooperation and coordination, the Minister has focused on the effect of an irrational system the cause of which is the way our foreign policy is articulated, coordinated and implemented at home.
Diplomatic missions are established in foreign countries to allow a country to reach its foreign policy goals. The history of establishment of diplomatic missions is as old as the conduct of peaceful relations between countries. In modern history, conduct of diplomatic relations has become complex and complicated for a variety of reasons of which, the influx of so many independent states is one major reason. Globalization is another. Therefore, today, a diplomatic mission is required to pursue in the host country a whole range of objectives to expand a country's interests abroad. It conducts very serious and indispensable business for the country. It is the most important implementation mechanism of a country's foreign policy.
The sizes of diplomatic missions differ from one country to another. For example, a US Embassy in an important capital would be as big, if not bigger, than our entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, diplomatic missions of all countries have some uniform characteristics. The most important one is the role of the Ambassador (High Commissioner in case of Commonwealth countries). There are perhaps very few job titles that can match that of the Ambassador. In his/her mission, the Ambassador is the unquestioned authority over everyone and almost everything that happens in the Embassy. No one has any authority unless the Ambassador gives it to him/her.
Work in a diplomatic mission is also universally organized under wings such as diplomatic, economic, commercial, consular, labour, defense, etc. for sake of effectiveness where officers with specialized skills and background are grouped separately. In some countries, the bulk of these officers come from their respective Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In other countries, like in case of Bangladesh, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sends officers to the diplomatic wing; in the other wings officers are sent from other Ministries of the Government. Such organization notwithstanding, all wings work under the unquestioned authority of the Ambassador where coordination and cooperation is of the essence. As a diplomatic mission represents a country's sovereign authority in a foreign country, it can only speak in one voice and act unitedly for the sake of the country. A sacrosanct chain of command under the Ambassador's authority and unity is indispensable to the establishment of a diplomatic mission.
The Minister, by her statement at the meeting of the labour attaches, has admitted that our missions do not follow these sacrosanct principles of a diplomatic mission, namely the absolute authority of the Ambassador over his staff and the need of cooperation and coordination among the wings. It is also somewhat surprising that the Minister has blamed the mission for the independence of the wings. The history of Bangladeshi diplomacy shows how the Foreign Ministry has been virtually marginalised over the long haul since the death of Bangobandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. In the fight between the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service Officers who nurtured and established the career diplomatic service of Bangladesh and the officers of the erstwhile Civil Service of Pakistan carried out in the late 1970s and 1980s, the Foreign Ministry was virtually stripped of all its powers. Relevant documents of the Government like the Rules of Business and Allocation of Responsibilities were also suitably amended to legalize the marginalization of the Foreign Ministry. If the Minister cared to look into the roles of the Ministry of Commerce, the External Resources Division and the Expatriate Ministry in foreign policy goals, she would not have been surprised and frustrated that they can control the diplomatic missions on all affairs of economic diplomacy without the need to consult the Foreign Ministry.
The Minister's frustration over the missions, nevertheless, is absolutely justified because the consequences are affecting Bangladesh's vital interests very badly. The Minister has named manpower export as one but there are many more such instances. However, the Foreign Minister, while rightly assessing the problem, has failed to focus on where the solution lies. The solution is most certainly not in the mission. It is squarely and completely at home where the historical jealousy of the other Ministries with the Foreign Ministry is what has created this unbelievable situation in the Bangladesh missions abroad. A Bangladesh diplomatic mission, in a microcosm, is literally many ministries working under one ceiling abroad, taking to foreign soil all the conflicts they have at home. Each wing receives its orders and directives from its own Ministry at home that are often mutually conflicting. While it is not possible to relate here the nature and extent of conflicts and contradictions among the ministries that have external nature of work, it would suffice to say that such conflicts are unhealthy and defeats the objectives of our foreign policy.
If the Foreign Minister is serious about ensuring that the wings in a diplomatic mission work unitedly under the leadership of the Ambassador, which is the right and logical thing to do, then she must initiate action at home. The best way to achieve this is to expand the reach of the Foreign Ministry and bring under its wing trade, aid, and manpower export. The personnel for these specialized wings must be trained in diplomacy first, given the language skill next and then allowed to specialize before they are sent abroad. The present system of sending officers from the home based services, who have no diplomatic or language skills to work in a foreign environment, and expecting them to enhance trade, aid and manpower export is just a fond wish with little or no touch of reality. A colleague who lectured to a few labour attaches being sent to our missions aboard in the Foreign Service Academy was astounded by their lack of knowledge of the work they would be expected to do abroad. They also had very little perception of diplomacy and diplomatic work. Even if these officers keep the Ambassador fully informed of their work, it would be foolhardy to expect that they would be in any way able to enhance our manpower export.
If it is not possible to expand the reach of the Foreign Ministry, then the only other alternative would be to depute the officers of the other wings to the Foreign Ministry as it was done for awhile after our independence to allow the Foreign Ministry to issue their appointment letters so that they would be obliged to report to the Foreign Ministry. In any case, these officers do not belong to the Ministries that send them. Therefore, it would only be fit that they should report to the Foreign Ministry and be guided by it. This would also allow the Ambassador to have the control he should have over the wings.
If both the suggestions fail, then the only other way to force some rationality in the conduct of our foreign affairs would be to establish better coordination among all the Ministries with foreign policy responsibilities, with the Foreign Ministry in the coordination role.
Dipu Moni's frustrations notwithstanding, nothing will change till corrective measures are taken at home to bring the Foreign Ministry back into full reckoning or some at least in matters of foreign policy.
Published in The Daily Star, October 31, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment