Our Foreign Advisors and Their Domestic Clients
--Ziauddin Choudhury
The feverish activity in the diplomatic circles in Dhaka that provided a lot of fuel to the political debates prior to and after the elections seems to have lost its steam somewhat now. A couple of months before the January elections, Dhaka was abuzz with speculations of many kinds that ranged from having the elections under a hybrid of interim government to none at all. The speculations were based on who among our foreign protagonists were more credible in their public utterances and who they conferred with on the day of such public pronouncement. The news commentators and analysts weighed their analysis more on the perceived strength of the foreign protagonist than on the probability of the statement actually taking effect. Sometimes the statement, particularly after this was made by a foreign dignitary following meeting with any political leader, assumed greater significance and was often referred to by the analysts as an indicator of our political future. Curiously in most such meetings there would be no third party observer, leaving us only statements by the foreign protagonist (an ambassador, or a visiting foreign official) on the situation. Our credence of the statement and subsequent speculation on what will happen next would give most of us a feeling that we are guided by not our political leaders but by their foreign advisors.
One wonders whether the current pause in the flurry of diplomatic parlaying in domestic politics is due to the resignation of the foreign protagonists to the new reality or the growing sense of futility among the domestic clients of foreign advice in solving their own problems. This pause may be temporary only to be ignited by some other event, but this should give us an opportunity to look back at our history and see how such interventions in domestic matters gained prominence in our country with conscious and voluntary lobbying by our political leaders.
Foreign intervention in our domestic political affair is not new. In a sense one can say we owe our birth as a nation due to such intervention. Our freedom struggle was sustained by our neighbor India, and immediately after liberation. Our initial recognition as an independent country by a handful of foreign countries was also made possible due to India’s lobbying. We also showed our gratitude by leaning toward India in choosing our allies in our foreign policy in the initial years. India in its turn showed its respect to us as a sovereign country starting with the withdrawal of its army as early as March 1972. The Friendship Treaty with India in 1972 reaffirmed lasting peace and friendship between the countries.
There is a big distinction, however, between intervention and interference. In 1971 our political leaders sought foreign support for a cause, preventing suppression of human rights, stopping genocide, and liberating a land that had declared independence from an occupying force. This was intervention to prevent a population from becoming extinct. This was intervention that gave us our freedom. But what followed next in our history cannot be called intervention for a cause, but foreign interference in our own affairs. Sadly this interference was not always at the initiative of our foreign advisors, but our own leaders who could not settle their disputes among themselves.
From the beginning of our history we had seen significant foreign interest in our affairs. In the beginning our international allies worried that an economically weak and politically unstable Bangladesh could become a permanent ward of the international donor community. In subsequent years when our dependence on foreign doles began to decrease as our economy grew, the foreign countries became concerned with our political uncertainties. They worried that a politically weak and unstable country could succumb to chaos and it could become a hub of extremism. For India, our big neighbor, a politically unstable Bangladesh would bring the threats were nearer to its door, and hence it required more active intervention. These are understandable concerns.
While this partly explains the degree or level of foreign interest particularly that of India, in our domestic politics, it does not wholly explain why foreign ambassadors and other plenipotentiaries play such a big role in the country’s politics. A simple answer is because our politicians invite them to do so. This happened in every election cycle.
From the day our parliamentary democracy was reborn in early 1990s every election has been turned down as fraudulent by the losers and the winning party Hs been labeled as manipulative interlopers. The result has been accusations and counteraccusations, street protests, boycott of parliament, and public venting of frustrations. What was not achieved by election was attempted to be gained by agitation, and threats of riots and mayhem. To that was added a shameless appeal to foreign countries and their ambassadors to advocate their grievance against the ruling party and seek their intervention. We had seen this conduct make its public appearance in 1992 in egregious ways and since then this became the tactics of choice of the opposition parties before or after the elections. Our political leaders in their roles in the opposition thought it proper to approach foreign representatives to vent their grievances to the extent that the foreign representatives would consult their home offices and give advice as they were told. Culmination of such foreign intervention came in 2006 in the form of a troika of foreign ambassadors along with local UN representative who assumed a major role in the changes that came to our political scene and occupied it for two years.
Of late it has been fashionable in many quarters to question why the representatives of foreign countries have assumed an oversized role beyond sometimes diplomatic protocol to delve in our domestic politics. A foreign magazine even remarked last year that the emissary of a certain big country had become a de facto member of a political party by his public leaning toward to the party. Another envoy was termed a de facto advisor to the other party. These unflattering comments may be totally unfounded, but they resonate among the public when they see the indirect effect of these parlays on our domestic politics, and read about recurring conferences of the emissaries with domestic solicitors of advice from foreign countries.
Sovereignty of a country does not depend simply on its separate geographic and political identity. It depends on the ability of its rulers and political leaders to rely on their integrity, strength of their conviction, and support from their own constituents. Real strength comes from support of the people who the leaders claim to be serving, not from foreign powers who they may turn to time to time to boost their fragile base. Our continued freedom forty three years after independence has been possible because our people saw to it their hard earned freedom should last. Our politicians need to adhere to lessons of history. Bartering national sovereignty for partisan power has never worked.
Ziauddin Choudhury is a US based political commentator and analyst.
--Ziauddin Choudhury
The feverish activity in the diplomatic circles in Dhaka that provided a lot of fuel to the political debates prior to and after the elections seems to have lost its steam somewhat now. A couple of months before the January elections, Dhaka was abuzz with speculations of many kinds that ranged from having the elections under a hybrid of interim government to none at all. The speculations were based on who among our foreign protagonists were more credible in their public utterances and who they conferred with on the day of such public pronouncement. The news commentators and analysts weighed their analysis more on the perceived strength of the foreign protagonist than on the probability of the statement actually taking effect. Sometimes the statement, particularly after this was made by a foreign dignitary following meeting with any political leader, assumed greater significance and was often referred to by the analysts as an indicator of our political future. Curiously in most such meetings there would be no third party observer, leaving us only statements by the foreign protagonist (an ambassador, or a visiting foreign official) on the situation. Our credence of the statement and subsequent speculation on what will happen next would give most of us a feeling that we are guided by not our political leaders but by their foreign advisors.
One wonders whether the current pause in the flurry of diplomatic parlaying in domestic politics is due to the resignation of the foreign protagonists to the new reality or the growing sense of futility among the domestic clients of foreign advice in solving their own problems. This pause may be temporary only to be ignited by some other event, but this should give us an opportunity to look back at our history and see how such interventions in domestic matters gained prominence in our country with conscious and voluntary lobbying by our political leaders.
Foreign intervention in our domestic political affair is not new. In a sense one can say we owe our birth as a nation due to such intervention. Our freedom struggle was sustained by our neighbor India, and immediately after liberation. Our initial recognition as an independent country by a handful of foreign countries was also made possible due to India’s lobbying. We also showed our gratitude by leaning toward India in choosing our allies in our foreign policy in the initial years. India in its turn showed its respect to us as a sovereign country starting with the withdrawal of its army as early as March 1972. The Friendship Treaty with India in 1972 reaffirmed lasting peace and friendship between the countries.
There is a big distinction, however, between intervention and interference. In 1971 our political leaders sought foreign support for a cause, preventing suppression of human rights, stopping genocide, and liberating a land that had declared independence from an occupying force. This was intervention to prevent a population from becoming extinct. This was intervention that gave us our freedom. But what followed next in our history cannot be called intervention for a cause, but foreign interference in our own affairs. Sadly this interference was not always at the initiative of our foreign advisors, but our own leaders who could not settle their disputes among themselves.
From the beginning of our history we had seen significant foreign interest in our affairs. In the beginning our international allies worried that an economically weak and politically unstable Bangladesh could become a permanent ward of the international donor community. In subsequent years when our dependence on foreign doles began to decrease as our economy grew, the foreign countries became concerned with our political uncertainties. They worried that a politically weak and unstable country could succumb to chaos and it could become a hub of extremism. For India, our big neighbor, a politically unstable Bangladesh would bring the threats were nearer to its door, and hence it required more active intervention. These are understandable concerns.
While this partly explains the degree or level of foreign interest particularly that of India, in our domestic politics, it does not wholly explain why foreign ambassadors and other plenipotentiaries play such a big role in the country’s politics. A simple answer is because our politicians invite them to do so. This happened in every election cycle.
From the day our parliamentary democracy was reborn in early 1990s every election has been turned down as fraudulent by the losers and the winning party Hs been labeled as manipulative interlopers. The result has been accusations and counteraccusations, street protests, boycott of parliament, and public venting of frustrations. What was not achieved by election was attempted to be gained by agitation, and threats of riots and mayhem. To that was added a shameless appeal to foreign countries and their ambassadors to advocate their grievance against the ruling party and seek their intervention. We had seen this conduct make its public appearance in 1992 in egregious ways and since then this became the tactics of choice of the opposition parties before or after the elections. Our political leaders in their roles in the opposition thought it proper to approach foreign representatives to vent their grievances to the extent that the foreign representatives would consult their home offices and give advice as they were told. Culmination of such foreign intervention came in 2006 in the form of a troika of foreign ambassadors along with local UN representative who assumed a major role in the changes that came to our political scene and occupied it for two years.
Of late it has been fashionable in many quarters to question why the representatives of foreign countries have assumed an oversized role beyond sometimes diplomatic protocol to delve in our domestic politics. A foreign magazine even remarked last year that the emissary of a certain big country had become a de facto member of a political party by his public leaning toward to the party. Another envoy was termed a de facto advisor to the other party. These unflattering comments may be totally unfounded, but they resonate among the public when they see the indirect effect of these parlays on our domestic politics, and read about recurring conferences of the emissaries with domestic solicitors of advice from foreign countries.
Sovereignty of a country does not depend simply on its separate geographic and political identity. It depends on the ability of its rulers and political leaders to rely on their integrity, strength of their conviction, and support from their own constituents. Real strength comes from support of the people who the leaders claim to be serving, not from foreign powers who they may turn to time to time to boost their fragile base. Our continued freedom forty three years after independence has been possible because our people saw to it their hard earned freedom should last. Our politicians need to adhere to lessons of history. Bartering national sovereignty for partisan power has never worked.
Ziauddin Choudhury is a US based political commentator and analyst.