It goes without saying that to contest for the position of Secretary General at the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), nominating a political pariah such as S Q Chowdhury was but a diplomatic miscalculation for the Khaleda Zia government. There prevails widespread accusation about his controversial role in the Liberation War of Bangladesh; and judging by his political background and leadership quality (in private, even the most strident advocates of Chowdhury agree), Chowdhury falls short of intellect, dignity, and morality, essential attributes to provide dynamic leadership to the Muslim world. These precisely are the base qualifications that the new leader should embody and exemplify in the face of concerted Western aggression against the Muslim world.

Yet, in spite of mass criticism of the choice at home and abroad, the Khaleda Zia government characteristically turned a deaf ear to all opposing voice to the choice. It indulged in delusions of grandeur at the OIC conference in Turkey, dismissing the opponents as nuisance. Now it is clearly evident that the policymakers in the government completely misread the political tricks, played by the major Arab nations behind their sudden proclamations, in extending support to Bangladesh's candidature, resulting in Dhaka's recent diplomatic debacle at OIC conference.

That is to say, it is now obvious that in order to secure the post at the OIC Secretariat, the BNP-led alliance government persisted in living in a fool's paradise. For, the king making OIC member countries in the Arab region have now shed their masks, confirming the maxim that in diplomacy, as opposed to brotherhood, it is national interest, what counts. So it holds for the Arab nations, regardless of what they promise, as contrary to the common norm of electing the Secretary General by consensus, the OIC went for voting to settle the issue, betraying Bangladesh. In reality, the result game indicates the extent to which Dhaka has been betrayed by empty promises of unconditional support by major Arab countries.

For, in a 57-member club, had Dhaka really had secured the support of 37 members already, as was claimed earlier, there would have been no point in going for a three-way election. Naturally then, one wonders at the reason behind such diplomatic duplicity, as played by powerful Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, which as it appears, also promised Turkey its vote! Also, we must assess as to what can be done to remedy the situation immediately in order to minimize the political damage done to our diplomacy.

In the wake of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, it was the Malaysian outgoing premier, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad who through his outspoken statement at the OIC summit in Putrajaya drew worldwide attention. One can disagree with the choice of his words or phraseology, but one cannot deny the candid expression of his acute observation: based in Washington and London, how the axis of evil, in the name of the war on terror, was targeting the Muslim world, in order to blackmail it politically. To be precise, his sharp criticism at the time was necessary, as it restored confidence among the Muslim nations, which otherwise were numbed psychologically because of the aggressive posture of the Anglo-US alliance.

It was in the air that after Mahathir's retirement from the premiership, Malaysia intended to nominate him as its candidate for the position of OIC secretary general. Dr. Mahathir's frank talk before the media about the necessary changes required to be implemented in OIC policy and leadership confirmed his tacit interest in being a candidate for the job. He was, as one recalls, the undisputed monarch at the time. One can easily deduce to what extent Dr. Mahathir's's intention might have caused sore eyes among the Pentagon establishment and its royal stooges in the Middle East, whose vital interests lay in keeping the OIC office as dormant.

This is precisely the reason why, as a means to block the nomination of Dr. Mahathir, the major Arab power brokers rushed in to convince Bangladesh that Dhaka would be elected to the post. The Arabs' calculation was simple: Mahathir would not run for the post, unless he was chosen by consent. And in case the Arabs did not find a suitable candidate, the relatively weak nominee from Bangladesh could be easily be manipulated, to toe the line of the vested Arab monarchies. Realizing the game plan, Malaysia also played a counter diplomacy, the significance of which Dhaka failed to realize.

To appease Dhaka as a means of indicating that Malaysia preferred a withdrawal of Dhaka's candidacy, in accordance with the Look East Policy of the BNP government, Kuala Lumpur signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding recruitment of manpower from Bangladesh. Such recruitment had been suspended since 1996. It is noteworthy that although Malaysia signed the agreement, in reality, Kuala Lumpur did not recruit Bangladeshi workers immediately, as it was waiting for a positive and reciprocal response from Dhaka. BNP policy makers failed to understand the subtleties of the diplomatic move.

Of course, now they have realized that the Arabs preferred someone with great acceptability to the West and the monarchies in the Middle East. Being a NATO member and maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel, Turkey, by this conjecture, fits into that slot perfectly. Hence, the sudden change of commitment by Riyadh towards Bangladesh that tantamount to betrayal.

However, to salvage Bangladesh's interest, what Dhaka should have done is withdraw its candidacy in favor of Malaysia. For, winning the post would not have brought about any political or economic benefit to Bangladesh, as there is no such promise associated with it. The post is largely ceremonial that ensures preservation of status quo. Besides, the OIC will remain dormant anyway. The electoral result notwithstanding, Bangladesh is likely to lose its potential manpower export market in Malaysia, as well as losing a trusted regional ally, a major blow of Khaleda government's economic policy. In other words, either way Bangladesh would have become the loser. The kernel of the game is simple: Dhaka has been a pawn in the game. But the bigger question is whether our egotistical and self-centered leaders at the helm of foreign affairs understand such political subtleties.