Ambassadors, by definition, are a privileged lot in a country they are posted to, and they love it because they are not so while back in their capitals. I could be wrong, but the country that comes to mind where these privileges are applied in a maximalist manner more than elsewhere is Bangladesh.
I often remind myself of a saying that Ambassadors cry twice: first when getting orders to serve in Bangladesh and second when they receive their orders of recall. Why so, if indeed? I would not know, but a speculative guess would be that the country is stereotyped in the outside world, especially in the West, as being among the most crowded and chaotic, where rules are largely ignored or loosely applied, the people are genetically impetuous and irascible (especially in matters concerning domestic politics), abject poverty conditions, frequent power outages in murky, humid summers, pollution, dust in the winter making breathing tough, etc., etc., & etc. Little do they know that while the negatives could be true to an extent and exaggerated, none are felt or suffered by Ambassadors and their junior colleagues. In fact, it is quite to the contrary, as a diplomatic posting in Bangladesh happens to be the mythical “Shangri-La” they never envisaged.
Ambassadors in Bangladesh have another distinct advantage that is not easily available in other capitals. In most countries, the rule of thumb is that all requests to meet high government positions, including Cabinet Ministers, are channelled strictly through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Here again, the authorities in Bangladesh prefer to be easy on the Ambassadors. “The Rules of Business” (if still in force), issued by the Cabinet Division, mentions, inter alia, the terms of reference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and conduct of other Ministries with diplomatic missions in respect of matters of bilateral relations and cooperation.
The Ambassadors and the diplomatic corps in Bangladesh feel the Shangri-La effect from the moment they set their foot on Bangladesh soil: excellent, decent living quarters, literally an army of locally available household staff�"cooks, errand boys, maids (ayahs), gardeners, chauffeurs/drivers, government-provided security�"and all these for a song. In most capitals, this would be illusory.
Normally, an Ambassador and his or her team have to put to test their best diplomatese to cultivate the right quarters in the host country to gain access to those who matter, whether in government or otherwise, to achieve their mission of upholding and promoting national interests. This, by all means, is formidable, and Ambassadors have to show their apogee in representation in the host country. In this, they could not bargain for a better country than Bangladesh. Here, Ambassadors are received with enthusiasm and adoration and pampered to the extent of embarrassment. And if the Ambassador happens to represent countries universally recognized as first among equals, one would not be mistaken to say that the Vienna Convention privileges are stretched beyond what is provided for in the body of the document.
When it comes to socialization, the Ambassador and the diplomatic corps would be correct to say that they feel overwhelmed. Almost every “who is who,” including the not-so “who is who,” lose little time to make the Ambassador welcome and to impress “HE” of the individual’s germane omniscience about the country and their individual uniqueness in being a conduit to make contacts, thus relieving the Ambassador of getting stressed on this account. In return, the local patrons are overjoyed with feelings of gratification to gain proximity with the diplomatic corps, getting invitations to Embassy events and, if given the chance, lavishly entertaining them in return. For many, immediacy with the diplomatic corps is a step on the ladder for a raise in status in society.
Ambassadors in Bangladesh have another distinct advantage that is not easily available in other capitals. In most countries, the rule of thumb is that all requests to meet high government positions, including Cabinet Ministers, are channelled strictly through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Here again, the authorities in Bangladesh prefer to be easy on the Ambassadors. “The Rules of Business” (if still in force), issued by the Cabinet Division, mentions, inter alia, the terms of reference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and conduct of other Ministries with diplomatic missions in respect of matters of bilateral relations and cooperation. In practice, however, the bureaucratic procedure is much more relaxed, which makes the job of the Ambassador so much easier. All the Ambassador has to do is ask his or her aide to call the dignitary’s office (could very well be a Cabinet member), and the response, in all probability, would be in the affirmative. The receiving side of the government, if diligent, might request the concerned desk officer from the Foreign Ministry to be present. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, is not too strict on this, having full confidence that the concerned Ministry or organization is quite capable of doing business while keeping national interests intact. The only exception is when the Ambassador or a visiting dignitary calls on the Head of State and Head of Government. Some Ambassadors also take to patronizing their hosts on the best ways of governance, including democratic practices and processes, including the holding of elections and strengthening democratic institutions. At times, the fine line of discretion while patronizing is crossed. Again, they are not overly concerned, as the government in the host country usually shows tolerance. Unless an utterance is made on an issue of high sensitivity or national security, an invitation for a cup of coffee at the Foreign Ministry to express displeasure of the host government is rare and far between.
If memory does not fail me, there is a standing instruction from the Cabinet Division of only one Cabinet Minister representing the government at National Day receptions hosted by Ambassadors. The Chief of Protocol, in consultation with relevant agencies, would request a Cabinet Minister, after seeking his or her convenience and concurrence, and inform the concerned Embassy. While this could still be the case, it is not unusual to see a host of other dignitaries, including some holding Cabinet positions, Members of Parliament, and heads of political parties, at the reception. This is all to the advantage of the Ambassador, sending a cable to his or her capital exulting the Embassy’s outreach to decision- and opinion-makers in the host country.
In comparison, Bangladesh Ambassadors abroad have to walk the extra mile and put forth their best efforts to get dignitaries at the decision-making levels, political leadership in power and opposition, and high-ranking officialdom to attend the receptions. I know in a neighbouring country the laid-down rule (unless this has changed) is that the Vice President is the designated dignitary of the host government to attend National Day receptions, and that too for only half an hour. If the Ambassador in that country can get a sitting Cabinet Minister to attend the reception, it will be an achievement and a posit of the Ambassador’s professional aplomb.
Ambassadors on recall normally get to make a farewell call at best on the Foreign Minister. But in Bangladesh, the departing Ambassador almost always gets to make his or her farewell call on the highest offices in the country.
The Ambassadors in Bangladesh also do not have to make any extra effort in publicity. Any event or meeting, casual, informal, or formal, is covered enthusiastically by the plethora of TV and social media networks in the country. In many cases, the coverage is spontaneous and often at the initiative of the local media, sparing the press wing of the concerned embassies from doing their part.
Allow me to share a personal anecdote. There was a time, many, many years ago in my career, when I was holding the post of Director (Foreign Minister’s Office). It was a staff job dealing with policy matters, while the Minister’s public relations were overseen by his Private Secretary (an officer of the cadre) and his PRO (deputed by the Press Information Department). Ambassadors would, from time to time, make courtesy calls on the Foreign Minister. This was routine, and we would not bother with a press release. This notwithstanding, on occasions when an issue of substance or sensitivity requiring political intervention arose, the Ambassador would make a formal request to the Ministry, and a date and time would be decided upon, suiting the convenience of the Minister.
Although the Private Secretary would handle the Minister’s appointments and daily schedule, a part of it would fall on the Director (FMO), finalizing talking points and briefing the Minister on the issue together with the Director of the territorial desk. But when it was just courtesy calls, the Private Secretary would handle it, with the territorial desk officer taking notes. Thankfully, during my time there were no army of camera- and smartphone-holding “diplomatic correspondents” waiting outside the meeting room to put up their mikes as close as possible to the Ambassador’s face to say a few words on the meeting, as is the case now.
I would imagine the Ambassadors are not too unhappy at the opportunity, knowing that their remarks would be esoteric�"saying a few words towards strengthening and diversifying bilateral ties and cooperation. The correspondents normally are both kind and polite and do not press the Ambassadors with penetrating and difficult counter-questions to make the Ambassador consider having prepared remarks on hand.
The Foreign Minister usually would not talk to the media unless the issue discussed merited doing so. I remember getting calls from the Minister’s political party colleagues, constituents, and even family members as to why there was no media coverage of Ambassadors calling on the Foreign Minister. My response was simple: Ambassadors making courtesy calls on the FM was routine and did not call for publicity. In case the meeting was of substance, the External Publicity Division would release a press statement. Fortunate for me, I was able to convince the Foreign Minister (who is no more) that his media presence should only be on issues that commensurate with the solemnity of his office and portfolio and leave the mundane to his PRO to make a press release, if necessary, to keep his constituents happy. I am not sure if the latter-day Directors FMO have had the same leverage with their immediate boss.
When an Ambassador takes leave at the end of his tour in Dhaka, apart from the official formalities, he or she usually holds a “farewell” reception. The invitation list would be expansive and the response even more enthusiastic and often beyond expectations, irrespective of any irritants and disagreements with the host country’s government or people, should there be any. The turnout would be enviable for any colleague stationed in another country. So, if leaving the “Shangri-La” behind makes the Ambassador cry, he or she has to be human not to!
The writer is a former diplomat
