the independent
9 February, 2013
M. Serajul Islam
Recently,
I read a few articles on Peter Vergese, the new Australian Foreign Secretary in
the Australian media. Two of the
articles appeared in The Australian, one of the country’s leading newspapers. One article was headlined “Chief diplomat:
nation needs bigger imprint”. Another in the same newspaper was captioned
“Chief diplomat spells out the rules of engagement.” These articles reflected something that the
reader did not miss; that in the conduct of Australia’s foreign policy, the Australian
Foreign Secretary’s role is extremely crucial..
Peter
Vergese s is a friend of mine from the “Class of 1979” of the Australian
Foreign Service Training programme that he and I attended together. I felt proud at the way he is taking up his
role to shape the foreign policy of his country as Australia’s “chief
diplomat.” But then his confidence is nothing unusual. In Australian
government, the Foreign Secretary’s pre-eminent role in foreign policy is a
fact established by law. In contrast, I could not help feeling sad at the way
we have allowed over the years to marginalize the “chief diplomat” of our
country. At the same time as Peter Vergese took over his position in Canberra,
our “chief diplomat” Shahidul Huq also took over the same responsibility in
Bangladesh. Where does he stand in comparison to the Australian Foreign
Secretary?
Our
Foreign Secretary has not yet come into public view like his Australian
counterpart. He has not made any public pronouncement of what role he intends
to play as the “Chief diplomat” of Bangladesh. Hence, what role he will
eventually play in the context of Bangladesh’s foreign policy is a subject upon
which no prediction can yet be made with any certainty. I can
only wish and perhaps pray for him that he would be play a role in the affairs
of foreign policy as his counterparts play in other countries. The relevant
rules concerning allocation of
functions among the Ministries give the Foreign Secretary considerable
influence over foreign policy. One wishes that the new Foreign Secretary would
exercise these powers during his tenure.
Although
Bangladesh was born in the war field, its birth was consolidated in the hard
task of successful diplomacy. A fact that many have now forgotten is the
opposition that Bangladesh faced in its struggle for freedom from the comity of
nations during its struggle for independence in 1971. The era in which we
fought our glorious war of liberation was one where in international relations;
only lip service was provided to concepts that are now so much glorified such a
people’s right of self determination or the importance of democracy and
democratic elections. Bangladesh as the former East Pakistan had won a free and
fair election that should have sent the AL to power in Islamabad and made
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistan’s military rulers did not like the
prospects. They declared the democratic elections void; banned AL and
incarcerated the AL leader on charge of treason. They then embarked upon genocide to bring the
people of Bangladesh into subservience by brute force.
The
people of Bangladesh stood against the oppressors and fought one of the most
glorious wars of liberation based on a people’s right of self determination.
Yet except for India and the former Soviet Union, none of the members of the
United Nations, themselves signatories to international documents protecting
the right of self determination of a people came forward to assist Bangladesh’s
war of liberation. In frustration, Dr. Henery Kissinger called Bangladesh “an
international basket case” when it emerged as an independent nation against his
and President Richard Nixon’s wishes and attempts to the contrary. Nations were afraid to support Bangladesh’s
right of self determination overtly because they were afraid that supporting
such a cause could encourage secessionist movements in their own countries.
Thus
when Bangladesh became independent, its greatest challenge was to be recognized
by the member states of the United Nations that had stood by silently during
our war of liberation. It was a daunting task but Bangladesh achieved the
recognition and respect of the countries of the world because Bangabandhu
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman took the task in his hands and with the Foreign Ministry
by his side, achieved recognition in
very quick time to launch Bangladesh’s tryst with history as an independent and
sovereign state. In this period of our history, the Foreign Secretary’s role
was a major one. In fact, as Foreign Secretary, Enayet Karim was one of the
closest and loved companions of the Prime Minister. Often, he would get
together with the Foreign Secretary and senior officials of the Ministry and
take foreign policy decisions that were crucial for the needs of a war ravaged
country that he was trying to rebuild.
Enayet
Karim died in office. His successor Fakhruddin Ahmed was allowed by the Prime Minister to work with him and
the PMO in the same hand in glove approach
and the results were more successes in foreign affairs. When President
Ziaur Rahman became the President, he also gave the Foreign Ministry respect
and he understood its importance in the affairs of the nation. In fact, Tobarak
Hossain and SAMS Kibria both yielded considerable authority in formulating and
implementing foreign policy because the President gave them the opportunity to
play their rightful role in matters of foreign policy. SAMS Kibria went from
his post as Foreign Secretary to become the Executive Director of ESCAP.
Enayet
Karim, Fakhruddin Ahmed, Tobarak Hossain, SAMS Kibria were outstanding
diplomats and built upon traditions inherited from British India where the
Foreign Secretary was the only Secretary who had direct access to the Viceroy directly. Annada Sankar Roy
writing in his well read book on the ICS, referred to the Foreign Secretary
under the British Raj as a “koolin” among the Secretaries. In independent India
under Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Foreign Secretary’s position was also
special among the central Secretaries of the Government. Indian Foreign Secretaries have moved to
important position on retirement as has SS Menon who is now the powerful National
Security Adviser. Pakistan also inherited the same tradition with the post of
Foreign Secretary like India. In both the countries, the post of Foreign
Secretary has been strengthened over the years.
In
Bangladesh, the position of the Foreign Secretary started to decline under HM
Ershad because he just did not like the professional diplomatic cadre. He
systematically sidelined the Foreign Ministry and overtly encouraged other
Secretaries to undermine the Foreign Secretary. He treated Fakhruddin Ahmed,
whom he recalled home to become Foreign Secretary a second time unfairly and
removed him abruptly on the excuse that he was seldom available over the Red
Phone, a line of communication that he loved to use to keep the Secretaries on
leash. Yet under even President Ershad, some of the Foreign Secretaries like Abul Ahsan, a topper in his CSS batch kept their
heads high owing to their personal brilliance but knew that their power base
was being systematically undermined with indulgence from the top against the
Foreign Ministry.
The
return of elected governments failed to bring the Foreign Ministry into reckoning
in governance. The Foreign Secretaries after 1991 were extremely competent
diplomats who could have done the nation much credit. Farooq Sobhan as a Deputy
Permanent Representative in New York in the 1980s had chaired the important and
powerful Group of 77. Yet as Foreign Secretary, he found that the rest of the
government did not feel the need to benefit from his brilliance and kept him on
the sidelines on issues of foreign affairs. Shafi Sami had proved his worth as
High Commissioner to Pakistan and India as a diplomat of the highest standing.
Yet as Foreign Secretary, he had to compete hard with his fellow Secretaries
over foreign policy matters where he should, as the country’s “Chief Diplomat”,
been allowed to lead.
It
was only when Bangladesh and India came close to a war over border conflict in
2001 did the government realize the benefit and the need to depend on a career
diplomat in times of a national crisis. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina publicly named
the Foreign Secretary Syed Moazzem Ali as the Government’s spokesman and stated
that no other Minister should speak on the subject and placed in his hands the
major role of dealing with India. He did
his job well and the nation benefited. Unfortunately, after Shamsher Mobin
Chowdhury vacated the post of Foreign Secretary to become the Ambassador to
Washington during the last BNP Government, the need to choose the best diplomat
as Foreign Secretary based on merit cum seniority criterion principle was
sacrificed.
The
office of the Foreign Secretary has not been the same ever since. The present government having named a new
Foreign Secretary should encourage him to once again become its “Chief
Diplomat” in dealing with foreign policy, for that would serve its interests
more than those of the new incumbent. On his part, the Foreign Secretary should
make efforts to reclaim a lot of the legitimate powers and functions that are
still his. He could start with the weekly press briefings to establish his
visibility that his predecessors had used even during President Ershad’s times
to good use when the latter all but wanted to close down the Foreign Ministry.
He should set the MFA in order where important posts in the Ministry and its
legally guaranteed functions are being lost to other cadres and other
Ministries. The wish of the incumbent Foreign Secretary becoming our “Chief
Diplomat” like his counterparts in Australia
India and Pakistan and his predecessors in the 1980s is a fond one given
the predicament in which the present incumbent finds himself. Nevertheless,
this wish is one that would benefit the country and hence must be stressed for
whatever it is worth.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador and Chairman, Centre for Foreign Affair Studies, CFAS
No comments:
Post a Comment