April 26, 2014
Career diplomats on the mat
M. Serajul Islam
The
news that came in the media about two top Bangladeshi career diplomats recently,
one in London and the other in New York, should be particularly worrisome for
the new Foreign Minister of Bangladesh as he takes charge of his Ministry. The two career diplomats are supposed to be
the best among the career diplomats to have been posted in two such important
posts. One of them, Mijarul Qayes was the Foreign Secretary before he was sent
to the coveted post of High Commissioner in London. The other, former Consul
General in New York is the new Bangladesh Ambassador to Morocco.
The
allegations against the two are of different nature. The High Commissioner in
London is under the spanner because of a report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG), the statutory watchdog of the government to oversee that its
expenditures are all accounted for. The allegations against him are all what is
known in the foreign ministry circles as audit objections. There are in all 57
such objections in the way he ran his High Commission’s finances and
administration and with 47 of these objections; he has failed to provide satisfactory
answers. In the way the media carried the news, it tried to give the impression
that these are cases or corruption through which he has misappropriated
government funds for himself.
The
media, deliberately or otherwise, has also missed out of a number of other
crucial issues in the way it reported the report of the CAG related to the High
Commissioner. In its eagerness to prove
that the High Commissioner is a corrupt person without giving him the right to
defend, the media has failed to consider that he is still in service and has a
pension awaiting him that would be a very healthy one no doubt. If he failed to
meet the audit objections, the government would simply deduct the amount from
his pension at the time of his retirement. The audit objections against the
High Commissioner will become charges of corruption only when the government
would fail to recover the amount from his pension and that too, only after he
would refuse to return the amount in balance. Thus, the media clearly jumped to
wrong conclusions on misinterpretation of facts.
The
media also forgot or cared not to consider that the High Commissioner is posted
aboard and that too in a major station where Bangladesh’s image is important
for developing bilateral relations with which the country’s interests are directly
involved, in covering the CAG’s report. The CAG acted within its rights in
bringing the audit objections by the High Commissioner to the notice of the
government. However, it hurt Bangladesh’s image abroad adversely because it
failed to appreciate the dangers of the report ending in the media that sent the
message to Great Britain that the Bangladesh Government has serious questions
about its High Commissioner there. Therefore, the CAG is guilty of allowing a
matter of audit objections against the High Commissioner become an issue of
embarrassment to the country. The CAG, in view of the delicate nature of the
case, should have brought the audit objections to the attention of the Foreign
Ministry and together resolved the matter. If the objections were serious and
needed immediate attention, the High Commissioner should have been recalled to
Dhaka to allow proceedings against him to continue.
The
Foreign Ministry, instead, defended the High Commissioner in the media, arguing
that the issues against him are not corruption charges but audit objections
thus weakening the case of the CAG. The rejoinder unfortunately came too late
because the damages had all been done with the report going to the media in the
first place. Therefore both the CAG and the Foreign Ministry must share
responsibility for harming the country’s image in handling audit objections
against the High Commissioner from being interpreted at home and abroad as
issues of corruption. The Foreign Ministry
complicated matters by posting the High Commissioner to Brazil that the media interpreted,
and in this instance correctly, as a punishment that lent credence to the CAG’s
report as serious ones of corruption. It has also given Brazil cause to feel
slighted for sending to it an Ambassador whose integrity is in question. As for
Bangladesh, it made little sense sending an Ambassador to a post with such a
baggage. Thus between the CAG and Foreign Ministry, the case with the High Commissioner
can be described appropriately as a “tragedy of errors.”
The
Foreign Ministry is much more at fault with the case of the Consul General in
New York. The officer was under order of transfer to Morocco as Ambassador when
his male domestic aide charged him in a federal court in New York for not
paying him the amount he said he would in the contract he signed with the US
Embassy for his visa. The charge is
similar to that against the Indian diplomat Devyani Khobragade but also much worse. The Consul General and his wife have
been accused of gross human rights violations not there in the case of the
Indian diplomat. The news of these violations became top news in New York and
rest of the United States that gave Bangladesh very bad publicity.
The
Consul General did a trick on the US legal system that the Indian diplomat was
unable to do or was not allowed to do. He simply decamped without a word to
anyone and went to Rabat to take up his post. The case against him is still on
and will go full course where the CG can come back and defend his case or
appoint a lawyer to defend him. There is no doubt that the CG has been allowed
to decamp with the green signal of the Foreign Ministry that brings to question
the wisdom of its action. While the media in NY and elsewhere in USA made
mincemeat of the CG, the Moroccan Embassy in Washington most certainly has also
sent reports on what came out in the media about the CG to Rabat. Therefore,
the former Consul General went to his post in Rabat with a baggage and that
too, on issue of integrity.
Even
the barest level of common sense should have dictated the Foreign Ministry to
bring this Ambassador home instead of allowing him to go to Morocco. To expect
the Bangladesh Mission under him to build Bangladesh’s image in Morocco
and develop Bangladesh-Morocco bilateral relations would be expecting something
that would just not happen. In fact, leaving the Bangladesh Embassy in charge
of a CDA would have served Bangladesh’s interest incredibly better instead of
allowing this former CG to join as Ambassador. And, such a step would have also
saved the government a huge deal of money too.
The
Foreign Service cadre officers, the BCS (FA), suffered a great deal under the
last Foreign Minister as posts of Ambassadors/High Commissioners at important
posts went to retired BCS (FA) officers or to political appointees. The cadre
officers were also unable to prove their worth. Some of them were involved in
activities unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. Two very senior cadre
officers were retired; one of them senior to the present Foreign Secretary.
Another Ambassador was brought home on charge of sexually harassing a local
staff at the Embassy. There are charges galore about BCS (FA) officers ranging
from audit objections to issues of more and sexual nature.
Now
that a new Minister, a former career diplomat is in charge of the Foreign
Ministry, it is high time to look into the BCS (FA) cadre seriously. He would
do his own reputation that is well acknowledged a great deal of good and so to
the country’s image if he were to pull up the cadre as well as ensure that the
country does not pay huge sums of tax payers money to have Ambassadors/High
Commissioners embarrass the country where ironically such credible institutions
as the office of the CAG, wittingly or otherwise, become a party and where it
too is adding its fair share of responsibility by sending the two top diplomats
to new posts as Ambassador while under cloud on issue of integrity.
The writer is a retired
career Ambassador. His email id is ambserajulislam@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment