& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

How diplomatic can we get?

News analysis

Diplomatic Correspondent
One of the most unfortunate incidents has occurred during the just concluded visit of the French state minister for foreign affairs, Renaud Muselier. At the very last minute he was told that he could not meet our prime minister, which
incited him into going public at a press conference, saying the appointment was cancelled for "personal reasons".
An otherwise smooth trip turned into a quasi disaster due to inapt handling of an important diplomatic visit. France is a very important world power (even if the
US may not think so) and has been a valued friend of Bangladesh all through. From her support during our Liberation War through her special interest in the international flood action initiative for us to being our third biggest trading partner and an active donor in many fields. There are also rising prospect of French FDI including the large investment by Lafarge. Regardless of everything else, France has been a very steady friend and has always looked upon Bangladesh with understanding, sympathy and genuine friendship.
The bottomline is that in diplo macy one doesn't offend anybody, leave alone a minister of another country. Diplomatic slap-on-the-face does happen but not without specific reasons and that too under special circumstances. Nothing like that exists between France and us. In fact our relations are very warm with her. So why this discourtesy?
Our foreign ministry is right when it says the appointment with our prime minister of the visiting French minister was not confirmed and so there cannot be a question of 'cancelling' it. But what was unconfirmed? The appointment itself or its timing? We understand that more than one possible slot of time was under discussion. It is quite normal for an appointment to be taken as fixed while the timing of it remains unconfirmed. Therefore, when the PM's appointment is printed in official programme with the word unconfirmed put within bracket, the French side could easily have understood that only the timing remained unconfirmed and not the meeting itself.
So why was it not made clear to the French side? Why was such an important meeting left to chance? Why wasn't it confirmed either way? Why was the French minister kept under an assumption that the appointment with the prime minister was on? How can a visiting state minister's programme remain unconfirmed till the very end and that too with no less a person than our prime minister? The programme should have clearly excluded the
meeting with the prime minister as it was 'not confirmed'.
The French minister arrived on Saturday; he had an official meeting with our state minister on Sunday forenoon. Following that he had official lunch with our foreign minister. All this while the visiting minister was never informed that his 'unconfirmed' meeting with the prime minister was not to take place. Our information is that the French minister was told that the meeting was not to be, when he boarded his car to start for the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Is that a way to inform an honoured guest?
Then there is a more fundamental question. Why was it impossible for the PM to find time for the French minister? The visit must have been prepared weeks in advance and there must have been numerous discussions on how to get the best out of the visit. So why was it impossible to find time during the two days and two nights (this was definitely not one of those flying visits that we so often see from western leaders) that the French minister was in Dhaka?
We think the foreign minister should have personally intervened and got an appointment. If he tried and did not succeed then it becomes clear that his clout with the PM leaves much to be desired. To cite just one example, there was the farewell call of the Japanese ambassador on that day, which was a courtesy call, and could easily have been shifted to another day. The Japanese ambassa-
dor is still here and we are certain that he would have easily understood the reason for the change.
Our understanding is that the responsibility for this diplomatic fiasco lies in the wall that has been created between the PMO and all line ministries. Communication is virtually impossible with the PMO and the officials there behave as the overlord of the whole government. They have completely isolated the PM and access to her is virtually impossible. We are certain that officials at the PMO kept the PM in the dark about the importance of the event and may have also not brought it to her attention till such time when it became impossible to adjust. The PMO should have clearly informed the foreign ministry that an appointment was impossible. That would have saved the French minister from personal embarrassment and us from a diplomatic blunder.
Here we recall that this was the first ministerial level visit after 12 years. Was it not important enough for us to have prepared more seriously? We must also recall that Khaleda Zia, during her first term in office, cancelled at the last minute, her official visit to France due to a local election. The French took that cancellation as a snub and since then no high visit took place till this visit. We have definitely mishandled the visit and have hurt a faithful and steady friend. This is no way of improving our image and gaining or even keeping friends. Surely this is no way of conducting diplomacy.