Diplomats from a few countries working in Bangladesh have been overstepping beyond the bounds of the law, customs, norms, standard practice and etiquette for several months. In some cases, their behaviour appears to be that of a political party worker. The extended number of embassies is also found acting like a parallel government of Bangladesh.
The exchange of ambassadors between nations has been going on since time immemorial. In the past, the ambassador of a country was occasionally sent to another to maintain communication between the countries. Opening and maintaining permanent embassies in countries beyond their own territory was not customary. Owing to the inadequacy of the communication system and other limitations, diplomats of different states had to wait for days or weeks to complete a single mission. As a result, decision-making by the statesmen was delayed significantly. Customary provisions of appointing ambassadors came into play to resolve such issues. Later the Vienna Convention, 1961, in international law relating to the scope of work, responsibilities, privileges and immunities of diplomats was enacted
You can also read: POWERPLAY IN THE MIDDLE-EAST: LOOKING BEYOND THE LENS OF WESTERN WORLD
According to international law, the functions of diplomats is –
1. Represent own country in the host country;
2. protect the interests of own country and its nationals in the host country in accordance with the law;
3. Discuss matters of mutual interest with the Government of the host country;
4. Collect information as permitted by law on any situation existing in the host country and communicate the same to own Government; and
5. Development of friendly relations between the countries and expansion of economic, cultural, technical and scientific cooperation between them.
International and national laws also demand that the functions of ambassadors should be rooted only through host government. In no way, ambassadors are expected to exchange views with the ruling or opposition political parties. According to Vienna Convention, 1961, Article 41
(1) Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons (diplomats) enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state (host country). They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that state.
(2.) All official business with the receiving state entrusted to the mission (embassy) by the sending State (own country) shall be conducted with or through the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the receiving State or such other ministry as may be agreed.
(3) The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State.
The 1961 Vienna Convention is not a comprehensive law which covers entire aspects of conduct of diplomats and lists of prohibited activities. Considering diplomatic customs and various events, the applicable code of conduct for the diplomats has been developed in due course of time. Although these codes of conduct are not enacted as law, books have been published on the personal level covering such issues. Sir Ernest Satow’s book “A Guide to Diplomatic Practice” published in 1917 and “Diplomatic Interference and the Law” by Edinburgh University teacher Paul Behrens in 2016 are noteworthy and classic in this field. Internal issues of the host country like communication with opposition political parties, criticism of the government, communication with the press, and making public statements have been elaborately discussed in these books.
Article 9 of the Vienna Convention upholds distinct actions against overstepping by diplomats. It states that
“The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.”
VIOLATION OF DIPLOMATIC COURTESY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
Non-interference in the internal affairs of the receiving state is not only a rule of custom or courtesy, rather, a binding provision of international law. In recent years, many host states have taken drastic measures such as warning and expelling diplomats for overstepping. The severance of diplomatic or consular relations between the countries was also observed in many cases. According to known history, the first instance of interference in the internal affairs of the state occurred in 1580. Bernardino de Mendoza, the Spanish Ambassador to England, was involved in the ‘Throckmorton Plot’, a conspiracy to overthrow Elizabeth I. It was widely expected that the ambassador would be executed in this case. But, on the advice of Alberici Gentile, Elizabeth’s adviser, he was expelled. In “The Tehran Hostages Case”, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated that abuse of diplomatic responsibility amounted to interference in internal affairs.
UNPRECEDENTED GESTURES IN BANGLADESH
Under the pretext of democracy, human rights and fair elections in Bangladesh, the ambassadors of various countries, including the United Nations, are interfering in the internal affairs of Bangladesh without precedent. Some Western embassies in Bangladesh started functioning like a political platform. They are engaged in serving Western imperialist interests and trying to establish a submissive government in Bangladesh. As part of this, an embassy has sparked criticism by posting on its Facebook page a documentary on Bangladesh’s internal affairs. This documentary was made by a controversial person who has been convicted in a Bangladeshi court and absconding abroad for a long period. Recent trends show that BNP leaders and Western Ambassadors are holding closed-door meetings frequently. At the end of the meeting, pictures of the ambassador and BNP leaders with wide smiles on their faces are printed on the pages of the newspaper with special treatment. While answering the journalists’ query, the BNP leaders resorted to some concealment about the content of the discussion and flatly express their inability to elaborate on the matter discussed in such close sessions. At times, such meetings take place at the residence of a BNP leader or at the residence of a Western ambassador. Secrets behind such close door meetings are talk of the town now and people suspect something fishy in it. History reveals that such secret meetings were held at Kashim Bazar Kuthi (Palace) with British Lord Clive of East India Company to plot a conspiracy and overthrow Nawab Siraj ud Daula of Bengal, Bihar, and Orisha. A recent case of naked intervention by diplomats in our domestic affairs is the issuance of a joint statement by 12 foreign missions including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union in Dhaka condemning the attack on Hero Alam, an independent candidate in the Dhaka-17 Constituency by-election. In the statement, they demanded accountability of those responsible for the incident. Earlier, UN Resident Coordinator in Bangladesh Gwen Lewis also tweeted on July 18, condemning the attack on Hero Alam.
STRONG STAND FROM FOREIGN MINISTRY
Due to this, two days later on July 20, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the acting resident coordinator of the United Nations. Other mission heads were also summoned by the Foreign Ministry and they have been warned against “violating diplomatic norms” by bypassing the government and acting without objectivity and impartiality, said State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam. According to the Ministry, bypassing the government will create crises like a lack of mutual trust, neutrality, and impartiality. Foreign ambassadors have been urged to refrain from such ‘undiplomatic’ behavior in the future. As soon as the attack on Hero Alam was reported, the Election Commission and the government took swift legal action. Two suspects have been arrested before diplomats issued a joint statement on July 19. On the other hand, Gwen Lewis, the UN Resident Coordinator in Bangladesh, tweeted on July 18. It was published in the media on July 18. Despite taking legal actions, diplomats called for legal measures, which were “unwarranted and unnecessary”. The government conveyed a clear message to the diplomats and Minister for Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam said
“To be honest, with the speed and importance with which they criticized the isolated incident, they did not appreciate the immediate and speedy legal action taken by the government.”
Therefore, the objectivity and purpose of the joint statement is open to speculation. “We expressed our dissatisfaction. I hope that after our discussion today, they will realize that their joint statement has been presented prematurely, out of step with the flow of events, and they will refrain from such undiplomatic behavior in the future,” the Minister added. Recent activities of diplomats are not only a violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations but also a violation of other international laws.
UN Resident Coordinator Gwen Lewis has been acting in a biased manner since her joining in Bangladesh mission last year, which is a breach of the UN Mandate. Immediately after joining, he met with BNP leaders on July 12 last year and created controversy. The meeting was held at the party chairperson’s office in Gulshan. BNP standing committee member Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury and organizing secretary Shama Obaid were present at the meeting. After the meeting, Amir Khosru said that the UN resident coordinator has come to meet the BNP leaders.
Neither side has officially agreed to light upon discussed matters. But it is quite clear that this was not just a courtesy meeting and the content of the discussion was entirely political. Referring to a BNP source, a media house claimed that the UN Resident Coordinator Gwen Lewis and Representative Rebecca Vick discussed the ongoing political situation in the country and the upcoming 12th National Assembly elections. Besides, the human rights situation of the country was also discussed between the parties.
OVERSTEPPING OF DIPLOMATS AND DISREGARD FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW
One might ask, can the UN resident coordinator and his representative go to the office of a political party? And in the name of a courtesy meeting, can the diplomats formally discuss the internal political matter of a country? Whether the United Nations Resident Coordinator or any other representative has been given such power or scope in any mandate or provision of the United Nations Charter? The answer is, of course negative. There is no scope for the UN to play a role in the internal politics of any country. The UN cannot play a role unilaterally because of someone’s complaint about the political situation of a country. Even the United Nations cannot play a role in solving domestic disputes in a country’s politics blindly. The UN has no jurisdiction to play such a role.
Dhaka-based The United Nations Information Center has a publication titled ‘United Nations Charter in a Nutshell’. The 7th page of the publication referred to Article 2 of The UN Charter which claims that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” The sovereignty and equality of all member states are the basis of the United Nations. The organization is not a world government and there is nothing in the Charter that gives the United Nations the right to interfere in the internal affairs of any country. Member countries are not expected to approach the United Nations to settle such matters.
The Charter of the UN is interpreted very cautiously in matters falling within a country’s domestic jurisdiction. However, the Security Council may consider any matter which, in the view of the Security Council, may disturb international peace and security. Similarly, cases of human rights violations can also be discussed by the appropriate bodies of the United Nations. Gwen Lewis has clearly violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter. UN Resident Representatives and diplomats who penned the joint statement have also violated international law provisions of 2001 titled “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”.
According to this law, the state or government shall remain responsible for the violation of international law by any person serving in the executive, judicial and legal departments of the country. Governments are not directly liable for violations of international law by individuals. According to the provisions of international law, the government itself is responsible for violations of international law by individuals if the government does not take legal and judicial measures in the event of such violations.
PRECEDENCIES AROUND THE WORLD AND MOTIVATED OVERSTEPPING OF DIPLOMATS IN BANGLADESH
Within hours of the attack on Hero Alam, the government agencies arrested placed them under remand, and proceeded with legal actions against the attackers. Even though a few of the diplomats resorted to unsolicited joint statements and tweets that were considered “beyond diplomatic norms” and unethical by the Bangladesh government. Accordingly, they were warned which is not unprecedented. In the year 2000, The US ambassador to Indonesia commented that Indonesian citizens involved in violence against East Timor’s independence movement should be brought to justice. The Indonesian government accused the US ambassador of interfering in Indonesia’s internal affairs. The US ambassador to Zimbabwe said, ‘The (political) violence in Zimbabwe must stop’ in 2008. As a result, the Zimbabwean government summoned US Ambassador McGee to the ministry and warned against meddling in internal affairs. Earlier in 2007, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi summoned a group of Western diplomats and warned them quoting that the Vienna Convention prohibits diplomats from interfering in Zimbabwe’s internal affairs. Sudan experienced a similar incident in 2007.
They expelled both Ms. Lawlor, the Canadian Charge D’affaires in Sudan, and Degerfeld, an EU diplomat for demanding the release of arrested and jailed opposition leaders. In May 2010, the ambassadors of 10 countries serving in Slovakia published an open-ended letter and expressed their support for the “Pride Parade” arranged by the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT). Slovakia accused the ambassadors of the release of such a letter which amounts to interference in Slovakia’s internal affairs. Indian Ambassador to Fiji Srinivasan made a statement to protest the bombing of Indian temples located in that country and recommended the addition of special preferential provisions for indigenous peoples to the constitution of Fiji to solve the problem. Fiji dismissed Srinivasan in this incident. Indian Ambassador to Nepal Rakesh Sood met former King Gyanendra without in forming Nepal’s Foreign Ministry, which was criticized by Nepal’s Foreign Minister as a violation of diplomatic etiquette. In 1970, US Ambassador to Yugoslavia Silberman requested the release of an American citizen imprisoned by the Yugoslav government.
President Tito accused the US ambassador of overtly interfering in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs. Ambassadors tried to justify that the joint statement was aimed at fair and violence-free elections, which is not acceptable by any means. In 2000, Robert Hart, the British ambassador to Peru, was accused of interfering in the country’s internal affairs since he commented on Peru’s presidential election. In 2004, the US ambassador to Macedonia called on voters to participate in the presidential election. The Macedonian government accused the US ambassador of “serious interference” in internal affairs.
In the recently held Panchayat Elections in West Bengal, a total of 35 people were killed, including 16 people on election day and 19 more between the declaration of schedule and the election. Many were injured. The entire election was controversial with allegations of stealing ballots, burning ballot boxes, pouring water into ballot boxes, forcibly sealing ballot papers, and so on. There was no concern from the United States, the United Nations, or the EU. None issued remarkable press notes or statements in this regard. Ambassadors didn’t dare to talk to the opposition parties in India behind closed doors.
On 27 June 2023, Nahel Merzouk, a French 17-year-old of Moroccan and Algerian descent, was shot at point-blank range and killed by a police officer in a suburb of Paris, France. France saw a rise in police violence in the years before the killing. In 2017, a law was passed permitting police to shoot at a vehicle fleeing a traffic stop, if the driver was putting the passengers or passersby at risk. This shooting was the third fatal shooting that occurred during a traffic stop in France in 2023. The death during a traffic stop in a Paris suburb has revived grievances about policing and race relations. Anger has rippled across France, which has seen widespread protests and riots.
Protesters who were interviewed criticized police brutality and the mainstream media outlets, as well as the political and judiciary systems in France for xenophobic speech toward “middleclass” youngsters, which is another way of saying “of North African or Sub-Saharan African descent.” But neither the UN nor any embassies in France made any statement or condemned the incident. Repeated violation of international law and blatantly interfering in the sovereignty and internal affairs of Bangladesh by the Western Embassies and UN Resident Coordinators, allied like political parties, is not only sad but a matter of shame too. History will never forgive those who are inciting foreigners to usurp the hard-earned sovereignty of the country and get excited with their illegal interference.
MAJOR NASIR UDDIN AHMED (RETD) PHD
Former army officer, researcher, analyst, and columnist. PhD from Azteca University of Mexico, MBA from American World University and MSS (Political Science) from The University of Chittagong, he has served in the Bangladesh Army and United Nations for 20 years.