Decision, Revision and Reactions
Last Wednesday (May 17, 2017), the Foreign Ministry came up with a draconian directive to Bangladesh missions. It urged all Bangladesh missions abroad to monitor the activities of Bangladeshi journalists abroad. "If anybody's involvement is found against the interest and image of the country, s/he must be identified and their negative activities must be reported back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately" the directive noted. The heads of missions were advised to take up the matter "seriously".
On Thursday, while assuring journalists that they would face no obstacle during their travel abroad and performing professional duties, the Minister for Foreign Affairs argued that it was "necessary" to monitor if anybody was doing anything while travelling abroad that went against "the country's image and interest". He went on to say that such monitoring was necessary not only for journalists but "for all citizens". The minister underscored that "interest of the country" was the paramount consideration.
The government decision raised deep concern in various quarters, nationally and internationally. On Friday (May 19, 2017), the foreign ministry withdrew the directive and conveyed the revised decision to all heads of missions abroad. A diplomat quoted by a wire agency noted, "It has been decided to withdraw the letter under reference with immediate effect as it was not appropriately coordinated". Thus, lack of coordination was assigned to be the principal reason for retraction of the earlier order. Interestingly, this time the ministry refrained from issuing any media statement in Dhaka, although its earlier decision (taken on May 17) was released to the local media. In the latter, the ministry clarified that the decision was taken on the recommendation of the parliamentary standing committee (PSC) on foreign affairs.
The PSC, at its meeting on April 30, "expressed its concern over the 'harmful activities' of some Bangladeshi journalists abroad which send out wrong information on Bangladesh to the international arena", and viewed that "any Bangladeshi journalist travelling should be monitored and accordingly will have to be reported back to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ascertain whether their activities are against the interest of the country".
The turnaround in the decision to monitor journalists abroad is a welcome move. However, the matter raises some important questions. It also discloses the perception of the ruling elite about the role of journalists and the state of freedom of expression in the country.
The foreign ministry cited the PSC's recommendation as the basis for issuance of the original directive. This leads to a sub-set of questions. Why was the ministry in haste to implement the decision of the PSC? After all, a plethora of the PSC recommendations remain unattended for years, and the recommendations are not mandatory to implement. Did not such an important matter merit consultation with other ministries, such as information and law, let alone with journalists' platforms? If the PSC recommendation prompted the ministry to issue the notification, then has the PSC revoked its recommendation of April 30? While withdrawing the directive, the ministry stated that it was doing so as the May 17 directive was not "appropriately coordinated". Doesn't that leave the option open for instituting such monitoring once the appropriate coordination is worked out?
The botched monitoring saga begs the question as to what the members of the PSC meant by 'harmful activities'. It is also fair to ask, what did they mean by the 'interest of the country'? It will also help if PSC members rise up to the challenge that a commentator of a leading Bangla daily posed: "to provide example of any country which monitors movements of its journalists abroad" other than authoritarian regimes such as that of North Korea.
In a polity that is sharply divided along partisan lines, it is not surprising that the reaction to the May 17 directive of the foreign office among the mainstream journalist community was muted. In his reaction, the president of pro-government Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists (BFUJ) expressed hope that the directive would be withdrawn and if that did not happen then "we will issue our formal reaction in the next few days". The General Secretary of Dhaka Union of Journalists appeared to have endorsed the government move when he stated that if a journalist or a group was engaged in a campaign 'against the development, interest and image of the country' then steps could be taken. In contrast, the Dhaka Reporters Unity was unequivocal in its condemnation of the directive, terming it "insulting for the entire journalist community". It viewed the government move as hindrance to "freedom of expression and freedom of movement".
Unlike the BFUJ, the Washington DC-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) was quick to raise the demand for immediate and public rescinding of the foreign office directive. The CPJ noted "the directive turned Bangladeshi diplomats to media spies".
The PSC-prompted foreign office directive has exposed their disdain of the free media. Although at the end good sense prevailed, the monitoring question has laid bare the thin line that journalists have to tread in this country and the fissures that exist in the fraternity.
The writer teaches International Relations at the University of Dhaka.
Comments