PR campaign in US

The principal issue is whether the PR campaign was aimed at enhancing the image of the country as much as it was that of the ruling alliance. One is tempted to suggest that had the national interest been paramount, then perhaps things might have been handled very differently.

However, even if we accept that the campaign was for the benefit of the country, and not the ruling alliance, this raises the question of whether the government's move was a wise and appropriate one. After all, one would have thought that lobbying with regard to zero-tariff entry into the US market, for instance, might have been a better use of resources.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Certainly, the country's image needs a boost, but surely a better way of catering for it would be to actually improve the situation on the ground. If the government were doing its job better, then one is hard-pressed to see why they would need to engage the services of professional lobbyists in order to get this across to the world.

If the country has a poor image due to corruption or militancy or extra-judicial killing, then who is to blame? Surely, a large portion of the blame must fall on the government. Spending money on lobbyists to resolve the resulting image crisis seems to us to be a rather misguided use of resources and underlines this government's regrettable emphasis on simulated image over substance.

After all, it was the capture of two top militants that caused Time magazine to change its tune regarding the country. The Time cover story came in response to the achievement of the government and not as part of a lobbyist's campaign that was bought and paid for by the Bangladesh government. This surely goes to show that the best way to boost the image of the country is for the government to simply do its job.