Indiscreet diplomacy

DAN Mozena may be unhappy with Bangladesh's position on Crimea. But for him to express his disappointment in public goes somewhat against the norms of diplomatic practice. Disagreements between governments are generally voiced through official, behind the scenes channels. The US envoy ought to have followed that principle. There are areas where he should be properly diplomatic, especially when he decides to comment on Bangladesh's internal politics. He should focus on bilateral Dhaka-Washington ties, in trade, joint endeavours and the like. As to the question of elections in Bangladesh, be it the recently concluded one in January or a future exercise of the vote, the diplomatically correct way is for a foreign government to make its views known through the foreign ministry of the host country. Any other way is a drone attack, figuratively speaking, on a sovereign government.
A fundamental rule in foreign relations is for ambassadors and other diplomats based in host countries to stay away from engaging in or commenting on the internal politics of those countries in public—before businessmen, before civil society, before anyone. Which makes you wonder: if Bangladesh's ambassador to the United States had gone around telling Americans in the year 2000 that Washington needed new elections because of the controversy surrounding George W. Bush's 'triumph' over Al Gore, he would have caused a proper scandal. Those hanging chads in Florida were a problem and Gore was denied the presidency. Our ambassador had nothing to say about it. Other ambassadors in Washington too observed diplomatic etiquette. In Delhi, the US ambassador, who has just resigned, has never said in public that Washington is unhappy about the prospect of a Narendra Modi-led government in India. She knows her place. She is a professional, not a sermonising representative of an overseas government.
Where the Crimea issue is concerned, opinion is certainly and naturally divided over President Putin's action. The West has called the Russian move an annexation. One wonders what the invasion of Iraq in April 2003, by George Bush and Tony Blair, was. And how does one go about handling the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan? And the Reaganite invasion of Grenada in 1983? The abduction of Panama's Manuel Noriega by George H.W. Bush?
Last word: Bangladesh has hinted, through its abstention on the Crimea vote at the UN, that it means to have a foreign policy after all.

The writer is Executive Editor, The Daily Star.