M.
Serajul Islam
Foreign Minister Dipu
Moni, while briefing the heads of diplomatic missions in Dhaka on October 30th
on the political situation in Bangladesh, reminded them that they must follow
diplomatic norms while on their tour of duty in the country. What the Foreign
Minister said in the briefing held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was not
anything new. The norm the Foreign Minister was referring to have been scribed
in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations under which countries conduct
their diplomatic relations with each other worldwide.
The Vienna Convention
was adopted in 1961. “The
Convention codifies the rules for the exchange and treatment of envoys between
states, which have been firmly established in customary law for hundreds of
years”. It has become an almost universally adopted Convention with 179 states
party to it. Countries that have
signed this Convention, and all independent states have, use it to conduct
their diplomatic relations so that their diplomats are ensured that they can
carry their duties without threat or influence in the host country. The
Convention thus grants diplomats and diplomatic missions special privileges and
immunities in a host country. Such privileges and immunities are granted by the
host country in return for certain norms that diplomats are required to follow.
The
Vienna Convention is not a large document. It has only 54 Articles. Nevertheless,
it details the way countries establish diplomatic missions in each other’s
counties, exchange diplomats, their rights and responsibilities; etc, etc. Article
41 of the Convention that is relevant to this article about norms diplomats
must follow in the host country for the privileges and immunities they are
given by the host country, reads as follows:
- “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
- All official business with the receiving State entrusted to the mission by the sending State shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed. “
The paragraphs could not have been
spelt in any manner more precise and more unambiguous. In the first sentence of
Article 41 (1), diplomats are advised to respect the laws and regulations of
the host country. There is a misconception in the public domain that as
diplomats enjoys diplomatic immunity; they can act pretty much as they want in
the host country. The sentence therefore states, to remove this confusion, that
while in the host country, it is the duty of diplomats not to be disrespectful
of their laws and regulations. Article 41(1) clearly links diplomatic immunity
and privileges to the conduct of diplomats in the host country.
The second sentence of Article 41(1)
completes the spirit of the Article. It forbids diplomats from interfering in
the internal affairs of the host country. In fact, the sentence on this
prohibition has been made sufficiently strong because it has mentioned the
requirement that diplomats must not interfere in internal affairs of the host country
in anyway as their duty. Article 41(2) is even more interesting and pertinent
in the context of the advise of the Bangladesh Foreign Minister to the foreign
envoys that they must follow norms while conducting their affairs in
Bangladesh. This sub-para makes the Foreign Ministry the contact point between
the foreign missions/diplomats and the host government.
This provision, Article 41(2), states
unambiguously that foreign missions must make the Foreign Ministry their main
contact point for communicating with the host government. Thus
diplomats/diplomatic missions are advised not to contact any other government
ministry, agency, and department directly for their work in the host country. However,
if the receiving and the sending states agree, the diplomats from the sending
country may contact other Ministries/Departments/agencies in the receiving
country. Nevertheless, the spirit of Article 41(2) is clear in interpretation.
The diplomats of the sending country must keep the host country’s Foreign Ministry
on the loop when they contact other Ministries/agencies/departments in the
receiving country on the subject of such contacts.
In Bangladesh these days, while there are
so many things that are happening in politics that may not be considered
positive, one development that is unambiguously positive is the revolution in
information. We know almost instantly anything and everything that is happening
in our public life; in politics, economics, and society. The mushroom growth of
newspapers/private TV channels and the Internet have allowed us to know things
that happen in our public life almost the instant they happen. Therefore, we
know that foreign Ambassadors/High Commissioners are active in our politics,
sometimes more active than our politicians. They have a view on almost all
aspects of our country and not at all shy in expressing it. The way they act
leaves little doubt that either they have not heard of the Vienna Convention or
if they have, they are not concerned about violating it.
Thus foreign envoys in Bangladesh call
press conferences – like politicians -to tell the government and the political parties
what they should do. They could not care less that by making such statements,
they often cross the limits of simple decency like when they accuse the
government as corrupt. The diplomats have not suddenly started their indulgence
in our internal affairs. It is the country’s devastation during the war of
liberation and the aid that Bangladesh’s development partners provided to
rebuild a devastated Bangladesh that was used as the excuse by the Ambassadors/High
Commissioners to act as Viceroys of our colonial days to become our self-appointed
“guardians.”
Subsequently, it has been the politics of
conflict in the country that encouraged these High Commissioners and
Ambassadors to institutionalize their role in our politics. As the ruling party
became more and more interested to remain in power at any cost, it was the
opposition that was largely responsible for giving the diplomats a dominant
role in our politics. Aware that the aid card was a vital one, the opposition
went to the envoys of the country’s development partners to put pressure on the
government to relent on their demands. The envoys that the opposition contacted
were encouraged by their capitals to respond because they wanted their aid to
be utilized properly. Of course, these diplomats relished their roles in our
politics as such roles gave them access to political leaders, like the President,
the Prime Minister, Ministers, etc, that they would not have met in any other
capital and that too to tell them what to do. They enjoyed the limelight.
The cold war politics was also another
reason that paved the way for diplomats to eventually become our political
guardians. It was the western powers that stood behind the regime of President
HM Ershad the entire decade of the 80s that he was in office. In fact, during
his time, it was the government that brought the diplomats to our politics and
not the other way round. During the entire period of President Ershad, the
foreign diplomats, particularly those from the United States, the Middle East;
Pakistan and Iraq could very well get their ways on any issue they wanted with
the Foreign Ministry in total darkness. President Ershad had this weakness for
golf and there were many Ambassadors whose countries did not give Bangladesh a
cent in aid but yet could dictate the Foreign Ministry because they were “golf
buddies” of the President. With the fall of President Ershad, the diplomats did
not lose any of their influence that he had largely helped institutionalize.
The opposition came to their “rescue” and more than compensated.
Therefore while the Foreign Minister’s
call to the diplomats to act according to norms was the right advice, she would
need to consider her party’s role in the past in interacting and encouraging
these diplomats to be involved in our politics. In fact, the role that the
Ambassadors and High Commissioners played during the 2001-2006 BNP tenure and
during the tenure of the 2007-2008 caretaker government should be the subject
of research study of researchers in the Universities who deal with issues of
diplomacy and conduct of diplomatic relations. During the BNP’s last term, an
informal group of envoys of the developed countries, the Tuesday Club, had
initiated an international conference in Dhaka to embarrass the government that
eventually fell through because one of the members of the Club refused to go along.
At times during that period, the High
Commissioners/Ambassadors appeared as if they were the opposition. The
generally accepted view in Bangladesh is that the 2007 emergency in Bangladesh
that many in the country accepted had pushed Bangladesh back by at least two
decades in terms of its development was the fruit of the efforts of a few
diplomats and UN officials. This group acting in tandem “manufactured” a fax
message from the UN headquarters in New York where it was stated that if the
military assisted the BNP Government to hold one-party elections that the BNP
wanted, the UN would stop taking pace keepers from Bangladesh. The fax when
produced by General Moyeen in his historic encounter with President Yazuddin
worked like magic with the latter signing the proclamation of emergency without
a whimper.
The BNP in its role as opposition in
1996-2001 and under the present term of the Awami League has given the
diplomats access to our politics. However, meanwhile there has been a paradigm
shift in the way the diplomats have been accustomed to interfere in the
country’s politics. In her present term, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has
distanced herself from the Ambassadors/High Commissioners. Their access to her
at will is no longer the norm at the PMO. Ambassadors/High Commissioners are
now allowed to meet the Prime Minister as determined by protocol, namely upon
assuming their posts or when leaving. Otherwise, these diplomats are allowed to
meet the Prime Minister on a case-by-case basis where the PMO determines the
appointments.
This change made at the PMO is no doubt
the correct one. It should have been done long before because the honour and
dignity of the country demanded it. The people of the country have silently
faced humiliations, as envoys met our top government leaders at will and
embarrassed them, including the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, while the PMO
has set the right path, Ministers have not taken the cue. They have courted
these diplomats and continue to do so for personal reasons. In fact, a recent
news item carried by leading Dhaka English daily has stated that the Foreign
Minister has become the subject of annoyance of many Embassies because of the
frequent requests they receive from her office for grant of visas! The
diplomats also received encouragement in meddling in our internal affairs from
our civil society; business organizations and the media. Envoys wherever they
serve seek and get forums to speak of their countries and on relations with the
host countries. Dhaka is perhaps the only country where envoys are invited by
media/civil society and business organizations to speak on our politics!
Thus the FM’s call to the diplomats
alone would not serve any purpose unless with the government, the opposition,
the civil society, the business groups, the media all think the way the Foreign
Minister has. Unfortunately, even the Foreign Minister’s way of reminding the
diplomats about their duties under the Vienna Convention was not the correct
way although the reason to do so was undoubtedly the right decision. In her
meeting, the envoys were shown videos and photographs to discredit the opposition.
She portrayed the BNP/Jamat as terrorists/fundamentalists to encourage them to
support the government over its decision to hold elections in the country under
the Interim Government. Therefore, she did not draw the line and direct the
envoys to adhere to the Vienna Convention but encouraged them to look at the
country’s domestic politics the government’s way.
The supporters of the ruling party in
the media have accused the US Ambassador Dam Mozena in the present politics as
pro-BNP. In 2006-2008, the British High Commissioner was accused by the BNP, as
being pro-AL. Therein is the problem. As long as the ruling party and the
opposition do not get over their mindless politics of conflict for political
power, the envoys will continue to have the ground made for them to continue to
play their political roles in our politics, the Vienna Convention
notwithstanding. Now that the Foreign Minister has underlined that the envoys must
follow diplomatic norms, albeit in a biased manner, perhaps the civil society,
business groups, the media and business institutions that are not playing the
power game or politics would stop allowing the envoy forums to humiliate
Bangladesh and its people.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador, Chairman, Centre for Foreign Affairs
Studies and member, The Dhaka Forum
No comments:
Post a Comment