
Dr. Richard L. Benkin writes from
USA
Ahmed
Al-Jarallah, Editor-in-Chief of the Arab Times noted
recently that “Forgetting the interests of their own
countries the Hamas Movement and Hezbollah have gone to
the extent of representing the interests of
Iran and Syrian
in their countries...without worrying about the
consequences of their action.” Has Foreign
Minister M. Morshed Khan with his recent remarks on the
Middle
East conflict
demonstrated that Bangladeshi interests fall somewhere
below his own?
Last week,
while the Bangladesh government weighed the root causes
of the current Middle East fighting and its implications
for Bangladesh, Khan took it upon himself to issue a
statement that placed him squarely in the radical camp
with Iran and Syria, and against the positions of any
number of Arab states including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, and others. Worse, unless he
was using a figurative plural, he purported to be
speaking for the government of
Bangladesh when he
said, “We feel the world
community should come forward to restrain the state
terrorism of Israeli aggression on
Lebanon
and the people of Palestine.” He also called
Israel’s
action “fundamentalism and religious terrorism.” Moreover, Khan
made these remarks to the Overseas Correspondents
Association of Bangladesh deliberately insuring an
international audience.
His
remarks exceeded in vitriol even those by the most
radical regimes,
Iran
and Syria. They exceeded in
vitriol even those of the parties warring with
Israel,
Lebanon
and the Palestinian Authority. Compare them
with those of the Saudi Foreign Minister who said,
“It is
necessary to make a distinction between legitimate
resistance and uncalculated adventures adopted by
certain elements within
Lebanon without
the knowledge of legal Lebanese authorities….these
elements must take responsibility for their
irresponsible actions and they alone should end the
crisis created by them.” The Arab League
called an emergency session last week, during which the
above Arab governments and others supported the Saudi
statement and position. Only
Syria,
Yemen, and
Algeria, and
Lebanon opposed
it. (Not
being an Arab country,
Iran is not in
the Arab League.)
Which of those nations fare best for their
people?
Which are models from which
Bangladesh might find
direction for its actions? In its final
communiqué, the League criticized Hezbollah, not
Israel. Elsewhere, the
leaders of Egypt and
Jordan said,
“adventures
that do not serve Arab interests.” Khan decided to
snub them, too.
In most
capitals, the Foreign Minister’s remarks were dismissed
as bizarre and little more than sloganeering. How he came up
with the term, religious terrorism is a mystery that he
never explains.
That Khan chooses to depict this as a religious
war firmly installs him, not
Israel, with the
fundamentalists.
And since the American president and Congress has
gone on record that Israel’s actions are part of the war
on terror, by extension, Khan is suggesting that is a
war on Islam, too.
Not a wise move for building diplomatic
credibility with important allies. The Foreign
Minister seems to have abandoned the correct role of a
nation’s chief diplomat; that is to build bridges and
find common ground, not to dig trenches that separate
his country from its allies and benefactors. These most
undiplomatic remarks by the nation’s top diplomat are
counterproductive to the very interests he is in office
to represent; namely, those of the Bangladeshi
people.
Saudi
Arabia and the
other Gulf
States have gone
on record opposing Hezbollah actions. They are
concerned about growing radical strength in the region,
and they recognize the Shiite militia as an Iranian
lapdog. As
noted in the New
York Times, there has been a “readjustment of risks
Arab governments say they face.” Khan’s refusal
to acknowledge those realities (or his inability to
perceive them) and his ill-conceived statements could
endanger a significant element of the Bangladeshi
economy: remittances from Bangladeshis working outside
the country, which represent more than one fourth of the
country’s foreign exchange. A 2003 IMF
report showed Bangladesh to have the highest dollars in
net remittance inflow of all countries worldwide, with
82 percent of Bangladeshi migrant workers thus far going
to various middle eastern nations—most of them in the
Gulf, over half to Saudi Arabia alone, and virtually
none to radical regimes like Iran and Syria. The Gulf States
are becoming more and more security conscious with
regard to radical terrorists, and a radical-sounding
Bangladesh could find itself facing suspicion if not
outright restrictions on the number of workers allowed
in those states.
Calculations of the
Gulf
States are
changing, and a Foreign Minister should keep his nation
ahead of that curve, not behind
it.
Not content
with jeopardizing those relationships, Khan also went on
the attack against the
United
States. He mockingly
referred to the
US as the
“guardian of democracy” and accused this ally of
“patronizing the aggression,” which he already had
called terrorism.
For the past year or
more, Bangladesh
diplomats have been working overtime trying to convince
the United
States
that Bangladesh
is a moderate Muslim nation and a strong ally in the war
on terror.
Much of the effort has been taken in the hopes of
securing a US-Bangladesh Free Trade Agreement and other
forms of aid.
At times, they have been more convincing than
others, with many Americans still on the fence. Khan’s recent
comments already have undermined those efforts, causing
several to wonder whether
Bangladesh
stands with the
US’s
moderate Muslim partners or with more radical regimes
that seek to damage the
United
States. Yet, either
through venality, personal interest, or incompetence,
the Foreign Minister chose to place all of that
effort—including the jobs, new business, and increase in
capita—in jeopardy. No wonder he and
his team in Washington
have thus far failed to achieve the goals set for
them.
Compare
instead the way that
Indonesia’s Foreign
Minister criticized
Israel but
maintained high standards for his country. He went to UN
Secretary-General Kofi Annan and offered his support for
a multi-national team in the area and even offered to
send Indonesians as part of it. Or what of the
statement by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, “I
appeal to the world and
Israel to end
this crisis, move towards a ceasefire and resolve
through dialogue.” Does Khan
insist that he is “more Muslim” than they
are?
So far,
Prime Minister Begum Khaleda Zia has remained above the
fray and is trying to maintain her country’s moderate
credentials, not to mention its key international
relationships.
Why the Foreign Minister decided to be so
unministerial has confounded many; one source noting
that Khan “does not understand diplomacy, foreign
policy, or global reality.” Beyond that, he
not only hurts his own people, but if adopted, Khan’s
clumsy approach would only harm chances for a just and
lasting peace in the region; as he wants to dictate the
final terms instead of recognizing that both parties
must walk away satisfied or the killing will
continue.
Mr. Khan, what in the world were you
thinking?
Finally,
only the most radical organizations in
Bangladesh
have demonstrated on the same platform enunciated by
Khan. By
doing so, he has furthered a process to give those
groups a measure of legitimacy and increase their
chances of defeating his own Bangladesh National Party
and turning the nation into a radical
state.