& 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

SUNDAY POUCH

3 years of diplomacy

Ashfaqur Rahman
LAST week, the foreign ministry issued a special two-page supplement in our national dailies entitled "Foreign Policy: 3 years in
retrospect (2009-2011)." Along with messages of good wishes from the president, the prime minister and the foreign minister, it was a narration of the activities of the ministry.
In some ways the supplement was informative. However, it failed to convey the impression that the ministry is moving strongly to showcase Bangladesh, protect its core interests and reach out to its neighbours and friends across the world to further its national interests.
Let us consider the points raised by the ministry in the supplement. It said that "the government is taking every initiative to preservation of its overall national interest, ensuring socio-economic development, enhancing foreign trade and investment, expansion of overseas labour market and providing consular and welfare services to expatriate Bangladeshis."
To start with, the government has not identified what constitutes national interest. The latiya Sangsad is perhaps the only legally constituted body that can bring them to the public domain. Its Foreign Affairs Committee in the past three years is reported have met only 12 times instead of 36 times. The discussion centered round issues which did not address substantive matters of foreign policy. Do our parliamentarians find some of these issues too sensitive?
So who in the country is holding the can? Is it the prime minister or her advisors or the foreign minister?
But this is a matter where all sections of the government and the public, including the opposition parties, are stakeholders. With no discussion, national interests are incorrectly identified or often wrongly prioritised (like emphasising on transit for India instead of sharing the waters of our common rivers, etc). Also, national agencies work without looking at optimum results (we are encouraging the export of our manpower, but do nothing to protect their interests when abroad).
Let us take the next objective as mentioned in the supplement: socio-economic development. The foreign ministry, in spite of its involvement with a myriad group of international organisations, has not been able to obtain any additional benefits for the people. In this respect the ministry of finance has been plodding on along with the ministry of planning to secure socio-economic benefits for our people. They have been proposing, negotiating and getting projects for
implementation from the traditional donor community and the international loan agencies.
Where is the foreign ministry in all this? Our foreign missions as well as the foreign ministry, at no point of time, have any clue about what projects are being taken up, what items are being procured from abroad, which consultants are being recruited. So let us be serious and not write things to impress our people superficially.
Now take the case of foreign trade and investment. On foreign trade, the line ministry is still our commerce ministry. It still has its own officers recruited from a panel of senior personnel, who are sent to the missions and who do their ministry's bidding. Even these officers have little clue about the obstacles and opportunities for trading in their countries of accreditation. It is essentially the private sector and its dynamic marketing people who procure orders and also buy commodities.
Investments in Bangladesh have in many senses become comical. There have been several "road shows" and "investment promotion seminars" even when the prime minister was present abroad to make a case. But those are attended more by expatriate Bangladeshi businessmen than foreign entrepreneurs who can or are willing to invest abroad. The supplement mentions that in 2010-11 the country had registered Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to the tune of $768 million. In 2009-10 it was $716 million. But how much of the investment dollars have actually been
parked inside Bangladesh? So why quote such statistics?
Now let us look at the overseas labour market. The demand pull of labour is usually noticed/ discovered more by individuals working in that country or by private recruiting companies than by officials of the labour or foreign ministry. The human grapevine is the fastest conduit of such information. Some opportunities do filter through when foreign governments advertise. But these are few and far between. So when we put things in perspective, the foreign ministry's role is negligible. That is why there is an abysmal failure to secure new markets for our labour.
As regards providing consular and
welfare services, it is appropriate to give some credit to the foreign ministry. It has simplified many of its actions and foreigners and our nationals in most missions, as well as in the headquarters in Dhaka, are getting services swiftly. But the ministry's handling of the beheading of eight Bangladeshis by the Saudi government leaves much to be desired. Also the issue of "Akama" in Saudi Arabia has been so poorly handled that it has caused much distress to our citizens there. It has been a failure of our diplomacy as we had in the first instance used the good office of our prime minister, without knowing the implications.
One area our foreign ministry can claim some credit is its leadership role in protecting the interest of climate vulnerable countries. It has assumed the chair of Climate Vulnerable Forum (CVF) and has worked hard to coordinate and include the issue of "climate change induced displacement" in the discourses at Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban climate meetings. The ministry of environment and the civil society also played critical roles.
Last but not the least, the ministry has made a lot of noise about relations with India. Our prime minister has given a clear vision about what she wishes it to be. But due to the ministry's poor understanding of India's geo-political intentions and its past record of how it handles its neighbours, major issues between the two seem to be on hold. Can the ministry work its way out or does it have to depend again on nonprofessional advisors to get entangled further?
For much of the past three years, the foreign ministry has built castles in the air. Its work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now the government should put foundations under them.
The writer is a former Ambassador and Chairman of the Centre for Foreign affairs Studies.
E-mail: ashfaque303@gmail.com