Diplomacy is done best when it comes in a combination of finesse and firmness. Where one or both of these are missing, diplomacy goes on a steep nosedive. And such a nosedive was the consequence of the remarks made recently by the Chinese ambassador in Bangladesh on what he perceived to be an unpalatable situation that could arise if Dhaka joined the Quad, linking the US, Australia, Japan, and India.
Ambassador Li Jiming’s concerns can be appreciated, up to a point. With memories of such anti-communist organizations as Seato and Cento underscoring studies of the evolution of diplomacy since the end of the Cold War, it is understandable that the Chinese will be worried. There is little question that the Quad points an arrow at the heart of Beijing’s expanding influence around the globe.
But where the Chinese envoy went remiss -- and he has since explained it all to Bangladesh’s senior diplomats at Shegun Bagicha -- was in his not-too-subtle warning that Bangladesh’s ties with China, should Dhaka link up with the Quad, would “substantially get damaged.” That was a tad shocking, for diplomats and especially Beijing’s have hardly been known to be so blunt in speaking of a country in public. Perhaps it was a slip of tongue, perhaps it was not. But what the ambassador was missing here was that such sentiments are expressed only in closed-door meetings with officials of the host country and not in public. In Li Jiming’s instance, it was misplaced firmness at work. Finesse was missing.
The sadness for us in Bangladesh is that there have often been all those moments when ambassadors from powerful nations have not been able to resist the temptation of lecturing our political classes, particularly the governments we have had in Dhaka, on what we need to do about our future.
It is of course perfectly all right for governments abroad to be concerned about political conditions -- freedom of the media, human rights, etc -- in a given country. But when instead of advice it is admonition which is on offer, it is difficult to disagree with a host country when it argues that such concerns are fundamentally a brazen example of interference in the country’s internal affairs.
In Dhaka, we have been witness to a good number of instances when foreign leaders have tried to intimidate Bangladesh’s leadership into silence through attempting to talk down to them. In 2011, Hillary Clinton, at the time US secretary of state, telephonically demanded of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina that the government restore Professor Muhammad Yunus to his position at Grameen Bank. The Bangladesh leader was not amused. Neither was she intimidated.
In independent Bangladesh, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s diplomacy was based on a skillful combination of finesse and firmness. Despite the fact that China vetoed Bangladesh’s attempts to enter the UN in the early 1970s, his government refrained from any public or even diplomatic condemnation of Beijing’s move. Similar was his position when it came to Saudi Arabia, a country that failed to recognize Bangladesh’s independence.
Bangabandhu’s belief was that in time these two nations would acknowledge Bangladesh’s sovereign status and that it was wise for Dhaka to wait for that moment. In his broad view of foreign policy, Bangabandhu was willing to go the extra mile in establishing ties with nations that were uncomfortable with Bangladesh’s emergence.
There have been, down the years, the galling refrain from Western diplomats about Bangladesh’s being a moderate Muslim country. Equally disturbing has been the satisfaction, indeed sheer happiness, with which such encomiums have been welcomed by a section of our politicians and diplomats here at home.
But such condescension on the part of Western diplomats missed a glaring reality, which is that Bangladesh has never been a Muslim country or a moderate Muslim country but a secular nation. There are reasons to think that such a correction was not offered to the foreign diplomats by the diplomatic establishment in Dhaka post-1975.
That takes us back to February 1974, when Bangabandhu’s firmness compelled the Pakistani government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to accord diplomatic recognition to Bangladesh before Bangladesh’s leader would agree to travel to Lahore for the Islamic summit. The Father of the Nation, be it remembered, flew to Lahore not because Bangladesh was a Muslim or Islamic state but because its huge chunk of Muslims could not be ignored in any deliberations on the future of the followers of Islam worldwide. It was here that finesse in the practice of diplomacy was predominant, a trait that came in tandem with Bangladesh’s close ties with the socialist world and its developing relations with the capitalist camp.
That Bangladesh’s foreign policy was independent was reiterated by the country’s founder on the eve of his departure for the Islamic summit in Pakistan.
When some members of his council of ministers wondered if it would not be diplomatically wise to inform Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi about his Lahore journey before flying out of Dhaka, Bangabandhu’s response, or call it his retort, was in line with his nationalistic convictions. He was not, he said, the chief minister of a province in a foreign country but the prime minister of a sovereign republic. End of argument.
But, yes, there have been those embarrassing moments when Bangladesh’s interests were quietly and cavalierly ignored by those who seized power in Dhaka after Bangabandhu’s assassination. Bangabandhu was clear in his view that, despite Pakistan’s recognition of Bangladesh, an exchange of ambassadors would need to wait until certain outstanding issues -- assets and liabilities of pre-1971 Pakistan, repatriation of stranded Pakistanis to Pakistan -- had been resolved.
Diplomacy cannot be abrasive. Diplomats based in a country need to be circumspect in how they relate to the host government. In 1974, Subimal Dutt, the veteran Indian diplomat serving as India’s high commissioner in Dhaka, was reportedly unhappy that ZA Bhutto would be visiting Bangladesh. Rather than be on hand with other diplomats to welcome the Pakistani leader, he quietly resigned and went back home. That was finesse. It was diplomacy the Palestinian envoy in Dhaka, upset about Israel-related issues on Bangladeshi passports, might today draw lessons from
Syed Badrul Ahsan is a journalist and biographer.