Currents and Crosscurrents
Diplomatic Interference in Bangladesh
The issue of alleged interference in the internal affairs of Bangladesh by diplomats here has of late been more pronounced and debated than ever before. Even the Prime Minister went so far as to chide some Heads of Mission for alleged acts of interference and on the propriety of their role in describing situation in the country as well as overt or covert suggestions they might have made about it.
Let us examine what is implied by diplomatic interference and, in the present context, its application to Bangladesh. It is a well-established diplomatic practice enjoined by international law that diplomatic envoys must not interfere in the internal affairs of the host country. This found provision in the codified Vienna Convention of 1966 in Article 41 which, inter alia, states that Heads of Mission should behave honourably, acknowledge the proper authorities, laws and regulations; abstain from unwarranted interference or involvement in the political or internal administration of the country of their residence; respect its usages, local customs and, if need be, popular prejudices. The definition of what constituted "unwarranted interference or involvement", however, was lacking. In any case, common sense and past practices suggest that any statement or act of a diplomatic envoy which imparts a degree of direction to the government of the host country how to run its administration would constitute interference in the internal affairs of that country.
There have instances in the past, when diplomatic envoys dictated how to run the affairs of a state, in manifestation of a blatant form of interference. These applied mainly to semi-colonial countries or to those where some measure of suzerain influence still existed by the country of the diplomatic envoy over his host country. Where the envoys exceeded their jurisdiction, in the opinion of host countries, the envoys, in several cases, found themselves declared as persona non grata and had to leave the countries of their assignment.
Let us examine what transpired with the two envoys in Bangladesh about whom reference was made in the media of the country. The outgoing British High Commissioner, who had been the main target of this attack in a recent statement to the press described the current political situation of the country as critical and expressed concern about it. He opined that if the situation continued to deteriorate, foreign investment and assistance to Bangladesh might dry out. He also said the crisis could be averted, if the political parties concerned were more tolerant. The American Ambassador during his call on the Hon'ble President also expressed concern at what he called confrontational politics in the country and sought President's initiative to bring about a consensus among the government and the opposition. He also emphasized on the need for political stability for ensuring economic progress. The desire of the Heads of European Mission to call on the Hon'ble President was not fulfilled after the Prime Minister stated that the President did not need to indulge in politics.
One section of the people and the media was vociferous in criticizing remarks of the diplomatic envoy as gross interference in the internal affairs of the country. Others, less vocal, did not subscribe to this contention. The British High Commissioner stated that as British taxpayers' money was involved in their aid programme in Bangladesh, the latter should know about how well and properly these funds were being utilized in the recipient country. His hope for resolution of political crisis in the country was expressed in that context. During the farewell call on the Leader of Opposition on the 4th instant the High Commissioner stated that his remarks generally reflected the views and feelings of the representatives of European Missions in Bangladesh. It may be recalled that the European Commission in early last year had issued a statement expressing deep concern at the prevalent situation in Bangladesh and expressed hope for its betterment. The American Ambassador's wish for a befitting role for the President in order to help resolve the current political impasse was an appropriate suggestion which had already been made by others in the past. Hon'ble President must also exercise his moral authority as the Head of State to take appropriate initiatives in a situation where vital national interests are endangered.
Before criticizing the Envoys on their remarks, one must seek their motivation to do what they did. The Envoys represented two important countries with whom Bangladesh has been enjoying close and friendly relations and been benefiting through their financial and material assistance funneled through bilateral and multilateral channels. They had not dictated the rulers and people of Bangladesh in the past how to run the administration of the country. Their pious wish and hope appear hardly anything but their desire for a friendly country to overcome a critical situation. They did not come out with any concrete suggestion except for the ruling party and the opposition to resolve their own issue through discussion, in a spirit of compromise, directly or through a third party. It is, therefore, hard to attribute the comments of these diplomats to something which constituted, in terms of international law and diplomatic practice, unwarranted interference or involvement in the political and internal administration of Bangladesh.
It may be recalled that both the ruling party and the principal opposition party called the donor countries and agencies from time to time and briefed them on the current political and economic situation in the country. In the process, there had been exchange of views and foreign representatives also gave vent to their feelings on various issues. This was done in the past year by the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and a member of the Presidium of the Awami League. The Leader of the Opposition, Head of the Jatiya Party and some others likewise briefed the diplomats and exchanged views with them. This practice had been followed during the tenure of Ershad and Begum Zia as Heads of Government, more so by the Awami League in the latter period. The Awami League President then even implored the donor countries in writing to cut off aid to Bangladesh.
Over and above these, the residence of a diplomatic envoy was chosen by the two parties concerned themselves as venue for negotiations between the ruling BNP and the opposition Awami League before the latter decided to abort the talks prior to the February 1996 parliamentary election. Even earlier in 1994, Sir Stephen Ninian came as a Commonwealth facilitator to negotiate to evolve a political consensus between the ruling and the opposition parties by mutual agreement.
So some degree of involvement, though not interference, by diplomats in the prevalent political situation of Bangladesh has been in vogue and constituted somewhat a political culture in our country. No injury appears to have caused on the feelings and susceptibilities of people and parties. The words and acts of the Envoys in question appear to have terribly irritated the ruling party, which, in fact, does not wish to take nor wants others to take any initiative to create conditions congenial to the breaking of the current political impasse in the country.
The another, a former Ambassador, is a Member of Advisory Council of BNP.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments