Column by Mahfuz Anam: Vienna Convention and the relationship with our development partners
Hero Alom is a lucky man. He may not have won the by-election, but he has definitely gained far more attention than he deserved, and his name may have become familiar at the "Bangladesh desk" of many foreign capitals. In our view, it is a typical case of a "storm in a teacup." The event need not have generated a joint statement by 13 ambassadors – almost the totality of what constitutes the Western bloc – and, on the other side, such a statement should definitely not have resulted in those ambassadors being called in for an earful by our state minister for foreign affairs. First the press statement, and then the "summoning" of the acting UN coordinator, followed by the calling of 13 ambassadors, are a case of overreaction on both sides.
The joint press statement by the ambassadors – we value every one of them – is a very powerful option. It should be used only sparsely. Did the occasion call for it? We think not. There were other means of delivering the same message. On the other hand, the foreign ministry's reaction could have been far better structured and more subtly layered. In diplomacy, "how" one does is sometimes far more important than "what" one does. Though we denied it, for all practical purposes, we did "summon" these ambassadors – or that is how it will look to the outside world. Was such action necessary? Or was it the case that one public posture begot another?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. 
As we can understand from State Minister Shahriar Alam's press briefing, Wednesday's meeting with the group of 13 mainly consisted of reminding them about the provisions of the Vienna Convention, which their press statement was in violation of. The joint statement was termed a "non-diplomatic behaviour" which ignored "objectivity, impartiality and non-biasness" and could "create a crisis of mutual trust." Very powerful expressions with a threat of a far-reaching outcome – a crisis of trust.
Very rarely has our foreign ministry called in 13 ambassadors – from the US, the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the European Union (EU), almost the totality of what is popularly called the Western Group – and addressed them in these terms. Under no circumstances can we allow our relations to move towards a "crisis of trust."
As his wont, our foreign minister held the media as the main culprit, "Our media gives them [the ambassadors] undue importance which they enjoy. This gives them a feeling that they are the kings of this country and that is why they make comments about everything." He criticised journalists for giving too much publicity to foreigners and advised us to find out what the police do in their respective countries, saying, "Have you seen how police torture in England?... You have seen how police kill by strangling in America." We wonder how looking into the operations of the US and the UK police resolves the issue at hand. Accusing them of thinking of themselves as the "kings" of Bangladesh exemplifies a form of immaturity that cannot be healthy for the growth of external relations.
What concerns us is that years, if not decades, of solid friendly bilateral relations are being put to test in discussing issues concerning the upcoming general election. There is life beyond the election, and there are many issues of trade, commerce, investment, etc that will far outlast our election. Are we to jeopardise all that? Yes, the US and the EU are showing more than the usual level of interest in our elections. However, putting emphasis on holding a free and fair election is fully in line with our stated constitutional objective, and also something that we all desire as voters and as a people.
When does the demand for a democratic election become an interference in our internal affairs, and when is it a reinforcement of the policy declared by the head of the government? Our PM, innumerable ministers, the Election Commission, and every other body related to elections keep on repeating that our goal is to hold a free and fair election. So why should it be an interference when foreign missions say so?
Very rarely has our foreign ministry called in 13 ambassadors – from the US, the UK, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the European Union (EU), almost the totality of what is popularly called the Western Group – and addressed them in these terms. Under no circumstances can we allow our relations to move towards a "crisis of trust."
Whatever may be our position – and it will vary according to partisan lines – there is no doubt that the whole nation is highly worried at the unresolved nature of our fundamental political issue as to how we go about holding the next election.
BNP's position of no election with Sheikh Hasina in power and the Awami League's total refusal of it keep our politics in total limbo. Normally, regardless of public posturing, behind-the-scenes negotiations continue and, at some stage, produce results. In our case, we have no evidence of any such exchange occurring. In fact, it is the very opposite that is true. Even the slightest attempt to establish any line of communication between the two will be condemned as sabotage by both sides.
We are now faced with a total political impasse with no signal of resolving it. Every day, the rhetoric goes up a few notches and the threats and counter-threats of violence grow louder. As it is true for a family, so also it is true for a country: if we fight among ourselves, then our neighbours, in the regional and global sense, will almost inevitably be drawn into it. On the one hand, we proclaim to the world that we can take care of our problems, and yet when it comes to holding a free and fair election – a precondition for democracy, good governance, accountability, etc – we will be at each other's throats and not expect the outside world to react, overtly and covertly, which is living in a fool's paradise.
We seem oblivious to another important factor in relations between the government and the opposition, which is that the government needs to take more initiatives than the opposition, because most of the state powers are vested in the government while the opposition practically has none. The onus of negotiations is on the side that has the power.
No country is an island. In the digital world, it is even less so. None of us – not even the big ones like Russia, the US, China, and India – can visualise a world in isolation. Some may try to impose their will on others, but it is still an interdependent world that they are operating within. Bangladesh's economic growth is nothing but a story of international cooperation, which we have put to a most effective use. The privileges we have enjoyed as an LDC, the GSP facilities that assist our exports, the concessional loans and all the facilities provided by the UN that we have enjoyed, are all the result of greater international understanding and a rules-based international order, including holding free and fair elections and ensuring a good and accountable governance process. These cannot be set aside now that our focus is principally on the election. Whatever our domestic priority may be, when dealing with the diplomatic world, we cannot and must not forget the bigger picture.
Mahfuz Anam is the editor and publisher of The Daily Star.
Comments