Although diplomatic norms and practices are ancient, and have been recognized by every state, they have been codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to remove confusion and doubt as to what diplomatic agents can or cannot do in a host country.

One of the important principles incorporated in the preamble of the Vienna Convention is the "sovereign equality of states" as enshrined in the UN Charter. Sovereignty has been explained in the Montevideo Convention in 1933. The main feature of sovereignty is that it allows states to deal with their external and internal affairs without outside interference.

The term "sovereign equality of states" is not a cliché. It is the basic building block of the international community as underscored by the League of Nations and its successor, the UN.

All states have recognized and accepted equality of states. This means that there shall be no interference in the internal or domestic affairs of a state. The UN Charter recognizes this core principle in its Article 2(7).

States, poor or rich, weak or strong, have to understand and appreciate the equality of states in so far as sovereignty is concerned.

What diplomats can or cannot do
There are certain diplomatic norms that are to be followed by every diplomat posted to any country. A diplomatic agent is the head of the mission sent to the host state. The functions of diplomatic agents are described in Article 3 of the 1961 Vienna Convention, which, among others, includes the following:

• Promoting friendly relations between the sending state and the receiving state, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations (note that the word "political" has been omitted).
• Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state.

The above paragraphs are relevant in the context of public conduct of some chiefs of diplomatic missions posted in Bangladesh. I assume that they are fully aware of the diplomatic norms and practices under the Vienna Convention. There are certain "no-go areas" for diplomats, and one of them is interference in the internal affairs of a state.

In this connection, may I refer to a reported statement of the US Ambassador after meeting with the chairperson of the BNP at a local hotel on May 25. The meeting was billed as the farewell call on the former prime minister by the outgoing ambassador.

After the farewell call, the ambassador reportedly stated to the waiting journalists: "We touched on a lot of issues including election, reforms and the voter list. I think it would be difficult for the political parties to share ideas on these if the ban is not lifted. I call on the government to lift the ban on indoor politics."

It may be that, as an official representative of a friendly country, she publicly stated what she was advised by Washington.

In my view, it would have been proper and appropriate for the ambassador to convey the message to the non-party caretaker government (CTG), and not to journalists publicly.

The issues on which she has expressed her views are entirely internal matters of Bangladesh. The statement is perceived as a direct interference in the domestic matters of Bangladesh, and is totally in breach of diplomatic norms in terms of the Vienna Convention.

I had the privilege of serving as ambassador/high commissioner to both developed and developing countries for more than 11 years, and never have I seen any head of a diplomatic mission of friendly countries to flagrantly violate the basic diplomatic protocol. In one or two developing countries, any indirect comment on an internal matter led to their sudden departure from the host states.

Ambassadors posted in other developing countries do not publicly express views on internal matters. If their governments advise them, they do it discreetly with the representatives of the government of the host countries.

Why some of the diplomats from friendly countries in Bangladesh interfere in our internal matters is not understood, unless they think that people are supportive of such public statements, or that they can get easily away with such breaches of diplomatic norms since their governments provide aid to our country.

Issues that matters to ordinary people
The issue of the lifting of ban of indoor politics is an important one, and many a times many advisers of the CTG have come out with statements that the CTG will do so when it is appropriate.

The CTG may have information and facts due to which it is not withdrawing the ban on indoor politics. In the government's agenda, there is a sequence of things that has to be addressed in order of priority. No one is privy to the order in the agenda, other than the decision-makers in the government.

Political parties and civil society of Bangladesh may demand many things from the CTG, and the interim government, in its own way, responds to their demands within its means.

It seems that the people are in no hurry to have an election until the right environment is created. Rather, they want speedy trial of corrupt persons, adhering to due process of law. Their primary concern is the high prices of essential commodities, and the CTG is fully aware of this.

It seems that the people's mandate is very clear to the CTG. Cleanse the corrupt elements and remove muscle power and black money through due process of law. Recover the illegal money from within and outside the country. Create an environment of stability and peace in which a fair and credible election can be held, and voters can exercise their inherent right to elect a government.

The CTG is being assisted by the armed forces to meet its agenda for welfare of the people. On May 23, the army chief released a document highlighting the successes of the CTG in five months (Daily Star on May 24)

Many say that no government in the past, elected or un-elected, could do during the last 36 years what the CTG has done within such a short time. In a democratic country, some may disagree with the assessment, but facts are facts and they are openly visible.

To fulfill the mandate the CTG may take time to lift the ban on indoor politics, for reasons best known to it. Political parties may demand the withdrawal of the ban, and it is perfectly all right in a democratic country.

But suggestions, in public, from diplomats for lifting of the ban on indoor politics is not acceptable, not only diplomatically but also because it tends to offend many citizens in the country. Instead of promoting friendly relations between the people of two countries, such statements do the opposite.

Bangladesh is a responsible member of the international community. The people achieved independence by making supreme sacrifices. They are rightly very sensitive to undue interference in their internal affairs by other states. We are a self-respecting nation, although poor. Many people in the country have not forgotten the role of many governments during the difficult times in 1971.

What Bangladesh needs is market access of its commodities to industrialized nations, import of oil at concessionary prices, and targeted aid without conditions from friendly countries, to eliminate poverty. We would appreciate statements from diplomatic agents on these issues, and not publicly on our internal affairs. Let the CTG do the job for which the elected president of the country installed it on January 12.

It is noted that the mind-set based on the concept, "the strong do what they have power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept," of earlier times has disappeared during the later half of the 20th century.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.