An indication of disturbing diplomacy
ON the 3rd of this month, the US ambassador in Bangladesh went to the press and disclosed that his country had disturbing indications of terrorist threat in Bangladesh. We should be happy that a foreign diplomat took the time to tell us in advance that a disaster was lurking behind our back. A son of this soil couldn't have done more, if not less.
But the problem is that it has been happening too often. Too many times, foreign diplomats are getting involved to tell us what we should know about our own country. Perhaps the profession is undergoing change. Diplomats, like doctors, are going without borders.
Pablo Casals, the celebrated Spanish musician, had sniffed it early when he said that love of one's country was a splendid thing, but that love shouldn't stop at the border. The diplomats who arrive in this country arrive with that Casals-esque mindset. God's glory, they take interest in our affairs no less, if not more, than they should have taken in their own.
One can possibly understand why. They come from developed nations and feel like Formula One drivers sitting in a jalopy. So they want to prompt us, telling when to shift gears, take turns, blow the horn or step on the gas. It's hard not to get involved if you think you could drive better than the driver, even harder to resist when all the time the driver is asking for advice. Who can blame those diplomats if we are the ones pushing the microphones into their face?
In one sense, the US ambassador did nothing wrong. He wanted to share some vital information to save us from a potential threat. Maybe that threat will still activate itself even after the United States and its ambassador will have sufficiently cried wolf. Other countries, most recently Pakistan, are cases in point.
What wasn't right, though, was when the ambassador talked to the press. Of course, he can always call a press conference to talk about his country, bilateral relations and other common issues such as swine flu and global recession. But the matter of our national security can't be his subject for public discourse. He should have gone to the relevant desk in the foreign ministry. He could have even gone to our foreign minister or prime minister since he has privileged access to both.
The reason being the Golden Rule: do unto others as you have others do unto you. I bet our ambassador in Washington wouldn't be allowed to do it like this. He couldn't have gone to the American press to talk about American national security without facing some consequences. Again, a private citizen in this country also couldn't get away doing it like this. He would have been accused of creating panic, dragged from one interrogation cell to another.
Of course, the US ambassador is the US ambassador. When he speaks, we listen. Not a single reporter asked why it was important to go public with that kind of sensitive information. What was he trying to achieve? Was he trying to create public awareness? Was he trying to refute a claim, made by the leader of the opposition? Was he trying to create panic?
When the ambassador said that the terrorist threat was alive and growing, it was reassuring to know that the most powerful nation on earth was keeping an eye on us on our behalf. Not to say, it also gave that creepy feeling of being watched in the shower. But above all, it compelled us to wonder whether they choose to watch everything for us, or just the part that excites them.
Because, how could they not have the same "disturbing indications" about the BDR killings if we were under their watchful eyes? Did it appear on their radar? Did the surveillance fail because someone had dosed off, gone to toilet or left station to get coffee or soda? Not sure if anybody in that press conference bothered to pose these questions to the honourable ambassador.
In 1961, Henri Matisse's painting "Le Bateau" was displayed in New York's Museum of Modern Art. For almost six weeks 11,600 people visited before anybody noticed that the painting was hung upside down. It was another stark reminder on May 3 that, after thirty-eight years and several generations, we are still looking at the picture hung by foreigners, not sure if that picture is hung crooked or upside down.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments