Amateur hour in foreign affairs again

The government's error in the matter of the OIC nomination was two-fold.

The first error was fielding SQC as a candidate in the first place. Sources who were close to the process and in contact with the foreign policy establishments of other member countries confirm that his controversial past was no secret to the OIC members, and that this was a decisive factor against his candidacy, though the candidate and our government deny this.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Much has already been written about SQC, and I do not propose to go into go into the merits of the allegations against him here. But chapter and verse of these allegations is easily accessible to anyone who cares to look. One merely needs to go to the internet and google his name.

I have not scrutinised the evidence against him, nor heard his defense, and I proffer no opinion here on the truth or falsehood of the allegations. But whether the allegations are true or false, can one really expect the OIC to make a man with such a controversial history its secretary general?

Let's get serious. Obviously SQC's candidature was a non-starter as soon as people heard the allegations against him. And in today's information society, hear of the allegations, they most certainly would, and did.

This is a time of unprecedented threat for Muslims, as Islam is denounced around the world as a religion of war, and Muslims are maligned as terrorists. The public perception in the non-Muslim world of the Muslim faith has never been lower, and the OIC has to be more vigilant than ever to make sure that its image, and the corresponding image of the Muslim world, is not tarnished.

The OIC is clearly under the microscope internationally. It was at the OIC summit last year that Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad made headlines with a fiery speech. The ensuing firestorm drowned out Mahathir's positive message and mired the OIC in controversy for weeks. Everyone's looking. So, obviously the organisation would be sensitive to controversy, and go out of its way to keep above reproach.

Given these realities, it simply makes no sense to field a candidate with such a controversial history, and thus so small a chance of success. There are many others who would have made more realistic candidates.

Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has stated that part of the deal with withdrawing Bangladesh's candidate in 1999 was the understanding that this would pave the way for a successful candidature in 2004. Given the fact that Bangladesh is home to the world's third largest Muslim population and has never held the OIC top spot, it seems reasonable to believe that 2004 might well have been our year.

Hasina added that the AL government had received assurances of future support from many countries, and suggested that had the BNP nominated a different candidate that the nomination would have been assured.

Off the top of my head I can think of Foreign Minister Morshed Khan, senior foreign policy advisor Reaz Rahman, and MM Rezaul Karim, all ruling party stalwarts with international reputations, who might have made more suitable candidates. Had one of these three been fielded as a candidate, there is a very good chance that he would have been successful.

So I think it would be fair to class the nomination of SQC as a diplomatic blunder of the highest order. And if nothing else, SQC's intemperate and unrestrained public comments in the wake of his defeat indicate that he lacks the diplomacy and temperament for such a prestigious position.

The government's second error was in being so clueless as to the shifting of the international political winds. The government spent a reported Tk 20 crore and used up untold amounts of diplomatic and political capital in campaigning for the position. Right up to the end we were assured that the secretary generalship was in the bag. The government claimed that it had received assurances of support from thirty member countries, including the key support of Pakistan and Saudia Arabia.

It was in full expectation of success that we sent a high-powered eight-person team to the recently concluded OIC meeting that decided on the secretary general. As it turned out, the Bangladeshi candidate was able in the end to secure only twelve votes.

The foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, considered the most crucial supporter of our candidacy, did not even show up, and Turkish diplomats have reportedly claimed that the Saudis ended up supporting their candidate.

What precisely happened here? The government either did not know that its candidate was in trouble -- which strikes me as a serious diplomatic and intelligence failure -- or it knew full well -- in which case it is guilty of misleading the public. Which is it?

Either way, the unfolding OIC fiasco is just the latest in a long line of recent foreign policy debacles that the current government has presided over in the past few months.

In recent months we have been treated to the imbroglio over the opening of a Taiwan trade office in Dhaka, the announcement of a Trans Asian Highway road network that bypasses the route most advantageous to us, the belated signing of the BIMSTEC free trade agreement after we had held out unsuccessfully for better terms, and now this.

The common theme running through these four incidents is the amateurishness of the diplomacy involved. It really seems as though this administration doesn't have a clue when it comes to international diplomacy.

Some in the government have complained that SQC was the victim of a campaign against him here at home to discredit his candidacy. I don't doubt it. All the more reason to nominate someone who is above controversy and not susceptible to such a campaign.

In the US, Democrats have complained bitterly about the naming of John Negroponte, first as US representative to the UN, and now as US Ambassador to Iraq.

Their opposition to Negroponte stems from his tenure as US Ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s, when he was the Reagan administration's point man in Central America, providing cover to the murderous regimes that were allies of the US.

Should opponents of Negroponte just keep their mouths shut as well, lest they further discredit their country?

If it brings a country into disrepute for people to badmouth the country's nominee for a position of international stature, isn't it worse for the country's image to nominate someone with such a controversial background in the first place?

Note to the PM: you have made many speeches in the past year professing concern for the country's image. Nominating someone as controversial as SQC for the position of OIC Secretary General is the kind of thing that does more harm to the image of the country than anything the opposition or the media could possibly say or do.

Zafar Sobhan is an Assistant Editor of The Daily Star.