Why such large entourage when only 7 can attend UNGA

Chief Adviser of the Interim Government Professor Dr Muhammad Yunus went to New York in the United States to attend the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Along with seven advisers and officials of equivalent rank, six leaders from three political parties accompanied him—BNP Secretary General Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, the Acting Chairman’s Adviser on Foreign Affairs Humayun Kabir, Jamaat-e-Islami’s Nayeb-e-Ameer Syed Abdullah Muhammad Taher and Dr Nakibur Rahman, National Citizen Party (NCP) Member Secretary Akhtar Hossain and Joint Convener Dr Tasnim Zara. Initially, Dr Nakibur Rahman and Tasnim Zara were not included in the delegation; they were later added at the request of Jamaat and NCP.

The Interim Government, which was formed with a pledge to eliminate discrimination, had created discrimination by including two representatives from the BNP—this was rectified in this way; but the discrimination was not fully removed. Representatives of at least 30 parties had participated in building consensus on reform issues; out of those 30, including only 3 parties in this visit was unnecessary and made it appear to the public that the other 27 parties had no importance, which should not have been done.

The list of members accompanying the head of government on foreign trips is prepared by the foreign ministry. According to the printed booklet, there were 62 members in this delegation; but according to official records, 104. The same kind of discrepancy existed last year as well. The booklet for last year’s New York visit showed that Professor Yunus had 57 companions, but the official record listed 80. The foreign ministry prepares both the booklet and the official record for the head of government’s foreign trips. This time, only those who travelled on the same plane with the Chief Adviser were counted as part of the delegation; but several others joined the team after arriving from New York or other countries. Hence, the differences between the printed booklet and the official record. According to the government record, this time 19 members of the security team and 47 other government officials were on the Chief Adviser’s list. But what is the role of security personnel taken from Bangladesh on foreign soil? Can they stop rallies or protests in the United States? Or resort to baton-charging? They were not seen anywhere near the Awami League’s slogans or rallies.

Last year, at the same time, Dr Yunus attended the 79th UN General Assembly with more than 80 members in his entourage. His daughter Dina Afroze Yunus accompanied him then, and this time both his daughters did. That seems quite natural; Benazir Bhutto and Indira Gandhi had also accompanied their parents, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Jawaharlal Nehru, on official visits. After the Liberation War of 1971, during the peace talks at Shimla, Pakistan’s President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto also took his daughter along. Many believe that it was because of 19-year-old Benazir Bhutto’s presence that the Shimla Agreement became possible. During the meeting, Indira Gandhi asked the young guest, “What can we do for you?” Benazir expressed her wish to watch the film Pakeezah. Immediately arrangements were made. Only three people attended the screening—Benazir Bhutto, Indian Foreign Service officer Bina Dutta, and civil servant Maharaj Krishna Kaul. Amidst the tough negotiations with President Bhutto, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi never forgot to check on the young girl. Her presence helped to keep tempers cool between the two leaders. Benazir Bhutto also did another thing—after the signing of the agreement, when Indira Gandhi invited Bhutto to enter the car first and Bhutto insisted she go ahead, Benazir slipped between them and got into the car herself, triggering a burst of laughter.

Dr Yunus’s press team consists of five members of different ranks. The team is quite active and skilled at presenting government news in polished language. Yet, no one has explained what five press secretaries of various ranks are meant to do; and if anyone has, it has not been made clear. Among them is the Chief Adviser’s nephew—his presence as Deputy Press Secretary may be understandable—but the government has not clarified what the six leaders from three political parties were supposed to do at the UN. Some say that those who went belong to the parties that are likely to come to power, and they were taken to gain experience and ensure continuity of work. Others think they were taken to make the meeting with Bangladeshi expatriates in New York livelier. In fact, as long as Dr Yunus remains in power, he enjoys the company of these three parties—keeping them close helps him mend cracks in the suddenly built unity and show other countries that the entire nation is behind him. Not a bad strategy. Had Mirza Fakhrul Islam not gone to New York, perhaps he would never have seen the reflection of President Ziaur Rahman in Dr Yunus.

What purpose do the heads of governments of various countries serve at the UN General Assembly? Do the speeches, statements, or the numerous resolutions passed on global crises have any real value? Thousands of resolutions have been adopted at the UN General Assembly, but how many have been implemented? During her tenure as Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia mentioned the Farakka Barrage issue in her UN speech. Upon her return, four vice-chancellors of four universities met her to congratulate her for “raising” the Farakka issue at the UN. But they did not know the vast difference between mentioning an issue in a speech and placing it as a formal proposal. Did the Farakka problem get solved after that speech? Since 1974, successive heads of government from Bangladesh have attended the UN General Assembly with huge entourages and given speeches that the media glorified in lengthy reports—but have the achievements been visible in proportion? Many have described these large delegations to the UN General Assembly as nothing more than entertainment trips at the expense of the state.

Even previous governments treated such trips as picnics—with even larger convoys, joined by scores of businessmen at their own expense. What was achieved? Even after killing 60,000 residents of Gaza, the UN could only say the killing was “tantamount to genocide,” but not call it genocide. Out of 193 member countries, 158 voted to stop the Israel-Hamas war, yet nothing happened. Israel ignored the UN General Assembly’s decision completely, as its resolutions are not binding on member states. That is why participation in the General Assembly is meaningless. However, Security Council resolutions are binding—but those too depend on the will of the five veto powers.

The United States has reportedly vetoed resolutions calling for a ceasefire about six times. Donald Trump has also termed the UN “ineffective.” Many do not even listen to speeches—some fall asleep, others stroll outside. Still, the UN is necessary, albeit for a different reason. Because of the UN, millions of people worldwide receive emergency food, medicine, and basic humanitarian aid. Moreover, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his speech this time, nearly all country representatives walked out—the message of this protest against a war criminal is indeed powerful.

For decades, it has been a tradition for the head of Bangladesh’s government to travel abroad with a large entourage to attend bilateral and international meetings. That bad tradition remains unreformed. Despite all his talk of reform, Dr Yunus now seems trapped within that very culture. If seven advisers leave the country, how does the government function? Why is it necessary to please advisers the way political leaders do? On the other hand, having five members of the press is understandable, but their work must be visible to the public. During Sheikh Hasina’s press conferences, the nation would cringe at the journalists’ sycophantic behaviour—yet they remained unfazed, their eagerness to join the next foreign trip overshadowing any sense of shame. The journalists’ habit of flattery clearly hasn’t changed, as seen in the current media’s conduct. Hence, questions are now being asked everywhere—what is the major difference between the previous government and the interim government? No one expects an answer—but the very fact that such questions arise is both disheartening and embarrassing for the nation.

At the UN General Assembly, only up to seven people can attend alongside Dr Yunus, so what are the rest doing? They have work—strolling around cheerfully and shopping. In 1991, after the BNP came to power, one of its MPs from Noakhali, Ziaul Haque Zia, joined such a trip. Having no official task, he went to the office of Mahyuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh’s Acting Permanent Representative to the UN. There, he found two photos displayed—one of Nur Hossain, who was shot dead during Ershad’s rule, and another showing President Shahabuddin Ahmed with Khaleda Zia on one side and Sheikh Hasina on the other. The significance of these photos was that Nur Hossain’s chest and back bore the slogan “Down with autocracy, let democracy be freed,” and the other captured the unforgettable moment of both leaders lowering their veils at the same time. Upon returning home and informing Khaleda Zia about this, a decision was made to terminate Mahyuddin Ahmed’s job.

According to many, attending the session is not merely about entertainment. During breaks at the sidelines, Dr Yunus held discussions with several heads of government, exchanged greetings with many, and met with eleven former global political figures—this is no small achievement. But since Dr Yunus himself is a member of that organisation of former leaders, sending 104 people to New York at state expense for this limited achievement is not only a waste of money but also an eyesore.

Zeauddin Ahmed: Former Executive Director, Bangladesh Bank