Politics of any country is mainly conducted by politicians and internal and foreign diplomacy is conducted by skilled and shrewd bureaucrats and diplomats. There is no need for educational qualification to do politics, but to enter diplomacy, talent is required, keen intelligence is required. Apart from clearing the country’s competitive exams, diplomats get degrees and training from the best universities in their country or from world-renowned universities. The diversity of background and upbringing of politicians and diplomats is reflected in their words, actions, speeches and statements.
Politicians make melodious speeches in throats and tongues. Sometimes he says whatever comes to his mouth. And many times he doesn’t mean what he says. Sometimes politicians say right but they go left. Politicians often give false assurances or make promises and then break them in order to reassure the public. Politicians of every country have some common qualities and negative aspects. But it varies greatly from country to country – in the developed world there is a standard below which politicians do not fall, and in the third world politicians can fall much lower.
Politician Nikita Khrushchev said about the common character of politicians “Politicians tend to promise to build a bridge even where there is no river”. (ie “Politicians promise to build bridges even where there are no rivers”).
On the other hand, the words and language of diplomats are usually: Short, precise and to the point. They are smart and articulate. He speaks slowly and thoughtfully. Their words or statements are deeply meaningful. Sometimes there are many hidden meanings that need to be understood or internalized. And it is called read between the lines. Diplomats, like politicians, do not respond to words. Instead, they work quietly and slowly, but consistently, to achieve the desired goals in the light of their respective country’s policies. So the language of politics and diplomacy is different and different. If the language of politicians is compared to “killing with a direct blow”, the language of diplomats can be compared to “killing with smoke”. Even if the speed of diplomacy is slow or slow, its impact is sustainable and its importance is immense in modern civilization. So it is necessary to understand the language of diplomats of a nation before it is too late. Just as the failure of diplomacy can lead to war, the success of diplomacy can avoid war or stop it if it does occur.
Diplomats pursue and promote the policies and policies of their respective countries. Run according to the guidelines of their country’s higher authority, much under the chain of command. Diplomats of one country are protected by international law in another country, the Geneva Conventions reserve several rights to them. They are immune from many things. Host countries are bound by international law to provide security to diplomats.
Countries that have ambassadors (applicable to non-commonwealth countries) or high commissioners (applicable to commonwealth countries) in Bangladesh represent their respective countries. Their words and speech reflect the principles and policies of their own country. There is no opportunity to look at the positions of ambassadors or high commissioners in isolation. The words, statements and positions of the Ambassador or High Commissioner are and should be dealt with and dealt with diplomatically and in due process. It is absolutely not right to leave it in the hands of politicians, especially in the hands of grassroots leaders.
Almost all countries in the world have high commissions or embassies in London, the capital of Britain. Many countries have high commissions or embassies with which Britain does not have good relations or has not had in the past (eg Iran, North Korea) or has even fought a war in the past (eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Argentina). Any diplomatic tension here is resolved diplomatically by politicians with their skilled diplomats. I have lived in Britain for almost 35 years. I have seen the two main political parties i.e. Conservative Party and Labor Party ruled for many terms. I have never seen any leader or worker of these two main parties abusing or insulting any High Commissioner or Ambassador on the street or in a meeting speech. What are we seeing in Bangladesh?
What does it mean when a union leader publicly threatens to beat up the ambassador of a single superpower in the world, or when a powerful minister compares a diplomat of a single superpower to a maid, or when a responsible minister makes disparaging remarks about their ambassador? Where is our image, position or status in the outside world? What are the far-reaching consequences of these (Far-reaching consequences)?
For one thing, the rulers often complain that foreigners meddle or interfere in the country’s internal affairs. Notably, when alleged snubbing or interference goes against them, they usually complain: But when foreign interference or snubbing is in their favour, they are far from complaining, rather they stay in their comfort zone or suffer from complacency. Instances of this have been seen several times in the past. It’s a kind of double standard.
A general habit or tendency of ours nationally is that we do not go deep into any problem. We gossip, argue and abuse about what we see. It is difficult to try to treat a disease with simple paracetamol without diagnosing its cause and effect. It is counterproductive. The severe disease takes a more serious form and leads to the death of the patient. Then there is nothing else to do. Therefore, if you try to solve the problem superficially without going to the root cause of the disease or problem, the problem may become more pronounced instead of reducing it. Then it may go out of resolution.
When there are quarrels, quarrels and fights in a house and cannot resolve it among themselves, only outsiders can come and snoop, come and intervene. The same applies to countries and politics. If the political and electoral problems of Bangladesh could be solved by the country’s politicians, there would be no question of foreign interference or interference. There is a full-fledged High Commission of Bangladesh in London, the capital of Britain, but will it be able to interfere or interfere with the election in Britain? No question.
Leaving aside the advanced democratic country Britain, countries with economy like ours, can Britain or America interfere or say no to the elections of India or Malaysia? not at all Because they can solve their own problems. It has developed institutions, systems, manpower and environment for free and fair elections. But in the history of 52 years we have not looked at it. Rather, we have looked at how we will go to power and how we will keep the power mature so that we do not have to step down from power. Our politicians really need to self-criticize themselves before blaming foreigners.
Nazir Ahmad: Eminent Lawyer, Analyst, Constitutional Expert and Practicing Barrister of England.