by M. Serajul Islam 1 December 2023
THE foreign minister, AKA Momen in briefing journalists before the foreign secretary Masud bin Momen’s trip to New Delhi on November 23–25, stated that the visit was in pursuit of bilateral relations within the framework of the Foreign Office Consultations. He ruled out any ‘hidden agenda’ behind the visit. He further stated that a political discussion with India ‘has already been done.’
Bangladesh and India held their FOC this year in February in Dhaka. Another FOC was, therefore, not due and certainly not with Bangladesh’s next general election scheduled for January 7. The web site of the Indian external affairs ministry says that Masud bin Momen and his Indian counterpart Vinay Mohan Kwatra met within the FOC framework and ‘reviewed the entire gamut of the bilateral relationship’ which flagged the innocuous nature of the consultations.
The foreign secretary’s schedule in New Delhi, however, included two unusual engagements that spilled the beans. First, he addressed a gathering of representatives of 90 diplomatic missions concurrently accredited to Bangladesh from New Delhi. Second, he interacted with to the Indian media and gave an interview to brief them on the Bangladesh election and US ‘interference’ in domestic affairs of Bangladesh.
These engagements were, no doubt, the real reasons for Masud bin Momen’s visit. The FOC was a cover to conduct the two engagements The Indians did the Bangladesh foreign ministry a favour by agreeing to a meeting with the Indian foreign secretary although common sense dictated that such a meeting should have waited for the general election in Bangladesh.
These two engagements, however, flagged the pressure that the Awami League regime has been facing for holding another general election to return to power for a fourth consecutive time amidst pressures of the US-led west and the United Nations against another election like those it held in 2014 and 2018 with its victory 100 per cent assured. The foreign secretary’s New Delhi visit and his engagements there further flagged that the AL regime was also under insurmountable pressure from the international media that laid bare the ground realities in Bangladesh’s politics where it was clear as daylight that the AL regime was determined to return to power by whatever means necessary.
Masud bin Momen’s task to brief the concurrently accredited missions was, nevertheless, unusual. It was the first time in Bangladesh’s diplomatic history that such an initiative was taken. It was also unusual as a way to conduct diplomacy by any country. There is no such instance in the history of diplomacy in South Asia or any other region in the developing world.
The initiative was also a waste of time and money. The 90 or so missions that Masud bin Momen briefed have no resident missions in Dhaka because their countries do not view their relations with Bangladesh important enough to open a resident mission. The diplomats who listened to the foreign secretary, therefore, did so out of diplomatic courtesy. Most of them perhaps did not even follow up on Masud bin Momen’s briefing. A note from the Bangladesh high commission would have served a better purpose, any at all.
Masud bin Momen’s task was made more difficult with those diplomats because they followed the New Delhi media on Bangladesh. There has been a perceptible change in the New Delhi media and their perception of Bangladesh in recent times. The change has been brought home to all following Bangladesh-India relations by the Times of India which in an editorial on November 22, just before Masud bin Momen visited New Delhi, had advised the Indian government to stop the AL-regime’s ‘authoritarian streak’ in India as well as Bangladesh’s interests.
The Time of India is a credible source on any foreign policy issue of the Indian government because it works hand-in-glove with India’s ministry of external affairs on such issues. The Times of India editorial flagged that India could no longer ignore reports of the international human rights groups, the US-led west and the United Nations, on the political and human rights situation or the need for a free and fair election in Bangladesh.
The concurrently accredited diplomats that the foreign secretary briefed depend on the Times of India and the New Delhi media for assessing Bangladesh. They also follow the events in Bangladesh in real time on WhatsApp, YouTube, FaceTime, social media, et cetera. What they followed on their own and in the New Delhi media were not the ‘festive occasion’ that Masud bin Momen called an election in Bangladesh but quite the opposite for the opposition in Bangladesh or the majority of its people.
The diplomats in New Delhi and the media there were aware of the evidence gathered in real time about the BNP-led opposition’s predicament. They, therefore, had little reason to believe in the foreign secretary’s assurance that the AL regime would give the people of Bangladesh a free and fair election. They were also aware that the police forces were going from house to house and identifying families of BNP leaders and activists at the grass roots the way the Pakistan army and its local collaborators had done after March 26, 1971.
Masud bin Momen’s briefing and interview with the Indian media on the US interference in domestic affairs of Bangladesh were in denial of Bangladesh’s national interests. The Biden administration’s decision to pursue democracy, human rights and rights of the people to vote in a free and fair election in the conduct of its bilateral relations with Bangladesh has created insurmountable odds for the AL regime, particularly on the election.
The AL regime’s anger on the Biden administration was, therefore, understandable. Nevertheless, Bangladesh’s economic viability and future graduation to a middle-income country are fully in the hands of the US-led west and the United Nations. The AL regime, therefore, could ill afford to fight the US and yet survive economically. The AL regime needed to consider for its own sake and the country that it cannot, as the cliché underlines, bite the hand that feeds.
The AL regime could also ill-afford to stand against the United States like Myanmar and North Korean because they do not depend on the US-west and the United Nations for their economic survival. Its decision to take its fight against the United States to India and the Indian media through Masud bin Momen was also ill-conceived because India cannot upset them for its interests which the Times of India editorial has flagged.
Masud bin Momen is a career diplomat of impeccable credentials. He should, therefore, have advised political leaders about the futility of briefing concurrently diplomats and the dangers of taking their complaints against the United States to New Delhi. He should also have known that while he described the election as a ‘festive occasion in Bangladesh’, the diplomats that he briefed were well aware of the truth.
Henry Wotton, a 17th-century Irish author, diplomat and politician, said, ‘An Ambassador is an honest gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.’ It is well-nigh impossible these days for diplomats to lie and still do good for the country. WhatsApp, YouTube, Facebook, social media, et cetera have emerged as formidable insurance policies for the pursuit of truth in the public domain.
Postscript: Twenty thousand BNP leaders and activists have been jailed so far to hold the ‘festive’ election that Masud bin Momen promised the diplomats in New Delhi. The jailing ‘festivity’ continues.
M Serajul Islam is a former career ambassador.
The article appeared in the New Age
