Published in The Dhaka Courier, May 1, 2009
The Prime Minister's just concluded visit to Saudi Arabia, although taken for the purpose of performing the Umrah, achieved significant results in the shape of furthering Bangladesh's bilateral interests in the Kingdom where some 2.5 million Bangladeshis live and work. The expatriates from KSA remit the largest amount of foreign exchange to Bangladesh that amounted to US 2.7 billion in 2008 but our people there work in conditions that are pathetic and inhuman in many instances. The news that KSA has been preparing a list of 200,000 Bangladeshis who had switched jobs to be deported despite having legal papers was a burning issue that our expatriates there had been trying for the entire period of the emergency to bring to the attention of the government without either support or sympathy.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit has resolved this issue as part of a Saudi law that was enacted while the PM was in Saudi Arabia. The new law will allow expatriates to switch jobs without losing their legal status to live and work in Saudi Arabia. The 200,000 Bangladeshis who were facing uncertainty and unbelievable tension will now be able to breathe again. They thus see the Prime Minister as a benefactor from the Almighty.
However, the press briefing of the Foreign Minister who accompanied the Prime Minister on this visit surprised everybody when she told journalists that Sheikh Hasina's meeting with King Abdullah was the first time in seven years that a Bangladesh Prime Minister had met the Saudi King. The BNP protested immediately with facts that showed that Khaleda Zia had met the Saudi King as Prime Minister during her tenure from 2002 to 2006 not once but four times. To embarrass the Foreign Minister even further, the State Minister for Foreign Affairs acknowledged the error made by her in a press briefing of his own.
Foreign Minister Dipu Moni is a bright and intelligent Minister and it is unbelievable that she made such a mistake. The press briefing of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs after the BNP had come out contradicting the Foreign Minister was also a surprise move. This was a reflection on the unprofessional way things are handled at the Foreign Ministry. In the first two decades of our independence, there used to be a Director-General (External Publicity) in the Foreign Ministry who used to handle all these briefings. This office was then modeled after a similar office in the Indian External Affairs Ministry where a Minister or a State Minister in the Indian External Affairs Ministry seldom appears before the media. A Joint Secretary level bureaucrat deals with the media on a regular basis.
The Prime Minister's visit to Saudi Arabia was not a visit that was undertaken to allow her and her entourage of over 2 dozen mostly family members to perform the Umrah where at our request; the Saudis arranged a meeting with their King. The welcome news about Bangladesh expatriates was also not the result of the efforts of the Prime Minister but it was an outcome of a new Saudi law enacted by Saudi Arabia. This notwithstanding, one must share the feelings of excitement and relief among Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia and give credit for this outcome to Sheikh Hasina. One also understands that there is political mileage here to cash upon that may have prompted the media briefing by the Foreign Minister.
The Foreign Minister, however, could have simply flagged this and left it at that. If there was an issue here to blame, that blame could have been squarely placed upon the government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed that failed to take up the inhuman sufferings of Bangladeshis in Saudi Arabia. BNP for all its failures during its tenure for which it lost the elections miserably had no role to play in all this. Instead the Foreign Minister was quick to bring the BNP into the equation to suggest that one of the main reasons for the success of the visit to Saudi Arabia was because our Prime Minister was able to meet the Saudi King that Khaleda Zia failed. The State Minister while putting records straight also tried to outsmart his boss Dipu Moni. In his press briefing, Mahmud spent more time telling journalists about earlier meetings of Sheikh Hasina with the Saudi King after quickly getting over the mistake made by his boss and then going on to tell them that the Saudi King referred to our Prime Minister as "sister". It is a usual practice for the Saudi King to refer to someone like our Prime Minister as a "sister". In case of a Prime Minister who is a Muslim and male, he would call him "brother". There was nothing special in this address although the State Minister made it sound like one and also left the journalists with a feeling that this was again a "first" for Bangladesh where a Saudi King had addressed our Prime Minister as "sister".
There are two elements here that we need to focus upon. The one I have touched briefly and will again do so shortly is on the Foreign Ministry. The other is the tendency among Ministers of this Government to get on the right side of this Prime Minister by losing no opportunity of blaming the BNP and more so, Khaleda Zia, for the ills in our politics. They seem to have concluded that if they attack the former Prime Minister and the BNP, they will end up by pleasing the Prime Minister because they see her blaming the BNP and Khaldea Zia for most of the problems her government is facing now.
A significantly development in Bangladesh that has been the direct product of the rapid growth of private TV channels in the country is the exposure that it has given to the Ministers before the media. Ministers relish this exposure for it gives them publicity that they can see visually. It also gives them the opportunity to reach the Prime Minister that they normally cannot because of a variety of reasons. In other words, the Ministers use the media, particularly the visual media, to interact with the Prime Minister and say things that they think will please her. In their eagerness, most of them do not do their own homework; nor do they care to consult their other colleagues. Thus they just not end up making mistakes quite often, like the one made by the Foreign Minister, but also contradict each other. Only recently when the British born Bangladeshi Faisal was caught, a Minister went before the TV and instantly concluded that all Qaumi Madrassas are dens for Islamic terrorists. The Prime Minister thereafter met all the senior leaders of the Qaumi Madrassas and assured them to the contrary!
It is time to draw a line and get the Ministers out of media glare for their sake and for the sake of this government. No professional government conducts governance before the media; it is right of information extended beyond bounds of reason and often propriety in what these Ministers are doing on a daily basis. A Minister must come before the media when the issue is of national importance and within his/her jurisdiction. In all other cases, there should be a bureaucrat in the Ministry to do the job under the right of information. When a Minister makes a mistake before the media, there is no way of retracing without embarrassing the Government. When such a mistake in terms of information is made by a bureaucrat; it can be easily dealt with as a bureaucratic lapse.
Coming back to the Foreign Minister; her lapse is not a simple one that the State Minister for Foreign Affairs would have us think. The Saudis, if they care about Bangladesh, could of course take this differently. At its worst, they could feel drawn rather undiplomatically into the internal affairs of Bangladesh. All this could have been avoided without either of the Ministers at the Foreign Ministry facing the media. The Director-General (External Affairs) who is a senior level bureaucrat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (this post is now filled by a career diplomat after being retrieved from the Ministry of Information) could have easily given the media the briefings, instead by the Ministers. As a bureaucrat, it would have been less likely that he would have made such factual mistake. Even if he had, the way out would not have been at all embarrassing as it has been in this instance.
Showing posts with label sheikh hasina. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sheikh hasina. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Moving Bangladesh-India relations: Reviving Gujral Doctrine is the key
Published in The Daily Star, January 24, 2009
THE Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is going to be the first high profile foreign visitor to Bangladesh when he arrives in Dhaka as a Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister on February 8th. India has figured high in this government's priorities. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has spoken of the need for jointly tackling militancy and terrorism which, the Foreign Minister has resonated. The Minister for Water Resources has also spoken of the need to reactivate the Joint River Commission. The Indian High Commissioner is also making his Ministerial rounds harping upon the need for closer Bangladesh-India cooperation. Clearly, intent from both governments for improvement of bilateral relations is obvious.
Both countries have significant stakes for developing and sustaining friendly bilateral relations. Bangladesh's stakes are fundamental to her existence based on geopolitics and history. As an agricultural country, almost all the rivers that are her lifeline either originate in or flow through India. Bangladesh thus needs India to give her water sharing rights under international law as a lower riparian. Bangladesh has great economic potentials in the Bay of Bengal that is rich in sea resources and hydrocarbons but her ability to exploit these resources is in a spanner due to India's conflicting claims. There are also other serious issues related to trade imbalance, land boundary demarcation, etc. that make it extremely important for Bangladesh to be friendly with India. Then there is also the reason of history embedded in the fact that India extended assistance to Bangladesh in 1971 that impels Bangladesh to seek out India as a friend.
India's stakes in friendly relations are also significant and lie in a land transit from the Indian mainland to the seven eastern provinces or Seven Sisters that Bangladesh cuts into two that could lead to great economic benefit for these provinces and the use of Chittagong port that could also propel significant economic development there. In recent times, with militancy and terrorism getting worse in India, where security situation in her eastern provinces is extremely fragile, India is in desperate need of Bangladesh's assistance to win her war on terror. In fact, in the wake of the Mumbai carnage of November last year, the need to fight the war on terror has become the first item in India's agenda vis-à-vis Bangladesh.
Bangladesh-India relations have not developed for mutual benefit due to mutual mistrust, the stakes notwithstanding. Depending upon which side one takes, blame could be apportioned on the other for their not-so-friendly relations. The mistrust on Bangladesh's side has developed from India's denial to grant her share of waters of the common rivers law and demarcating her maritime boundary in accordance with international law. India has also not kept her commitment under the India-Mujib Agreement on land border. There is also a generally held view in Bangladesh that India is a physical threat, a fact often asserted in the common mind by the frequent shooting deaths in the border by the BSF of India. The bottom line of this negative perception is that Bangladesh feels that India is conscious of her role as a regional power but insensitive about her responsibilities to her neighbours. India feels that Bangladesh has not always conducted her foreign relations keeping India's interests in focus. This ill-feeling has enhanced further in the Indian mind because she has played a major role in Bangladesh's liberation struggle during which she has also looked after ten million refugees from Bangladesh who had fled to India to escape the Pakistani genocide. India also has serious security concerns arising from her belief that Bangladesh allows her territory to be used as sanctuary by Indian militants. India is also unhappy because Bangladesh has not reacted favorably to her requests for land transit and use of Chittagong port. Bangladesh had also earlier turned down India's request for purchase of gas, an issue no longer relevant.
The stars of Bangladesh-India relations are beginning to align correctly for a paradigm shift for the better as a result of change of both internal and external environment. However to achieve the shift, both sides must show political will. India must acknowledge that Bangladesh's claims on water sharing and the maritime boundary are based on international law and are crucial to her viability as a nation. Bangladesh must acknowledge that India's major requests, namely the land transit together with use of Chittagong port and security concerns are issues that Bangladesh must accept for long-term friendship with India although India's claims and requests are not of the same merit as her claims.
The India factor or an anti-India bias did not play any role in the December 29th elections that has sent the AL to power with such a humungous majority. But then, it would be un-wise to think that the India factor has gone. It has just receded into the background because other important issues such as the agenda of corruption under the BNP and trial of war criminals had captivated the attention of the voters. The India-factor could very well come into play strongly unless the two sides pay attention to sensitivities of the people of Bangladesh in trying to move relations ahead. In this context, the comments that the Indian High Commissioner have made on the Ganges water sharing agreement and land transit may not help improvement of bilateral relations. The High Commissioner's suggestion of transit and use of Chittagong port are issues of economics and connectivity, and Bangladesh will make money out of it. However, to stress that transit is not a political issue would give wrong signal to Bangladeshis who believe that India must not be given land transit unless she shows the political will to give Bangladesh her legitimate share of water from the common rivers and flexibility and accommodation on other outstanding issues. As for his view about depleting availability of water in the Ganges, the position is that as an upper riparian India has treaty obligations under the 1996 agreement to ensure that Bangladesh's share as the lower riparian never fell below 90% of the agreed quantum.
The India-factor should be kept in focus by Bangladesh before making any concessions; India must likewise take note of it before seeking any concession from Bangladesh when the two sides discuss bilateral issues during Mr. Pranab Mukherjee' visit. A revival of the Gujral Doctrine could work like magic here and could set the stage where outstanding issues of Bangladesh-India relations could be resolved or at least have a fair chance of resolution. The first principle of the five-point Gujral Doctrine was that with neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India would not seek reciprocity but would give and accommodate what it can on good faith and trust. India must adopt a similar stance for long-term friendly relations. A start in that direction could be made by the Indian Foreign Minister by acceding to Bangladesh's maritime claims that should not be very difficult considering that this would mean India giving only a very small portion of her total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. For Bangladesh, this would mean a very great deal. It could also be any other outstanding issues upon which India could show that she is willing to accede without reciprocity. This could create confidence in Bangladesh to move ahead on terrorism and militancy to start with, and then slowly move towards transit and use of Chittagong port with India relenting on the water sharing issues where even Nepal and Bhutan could be brought into the loop to exploit the vast and rich potential of the rivers in the sub-region.
The ball is now in India's court. The peace dividends here are immense for both sides. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has acted wisely in speaking out positively on the issues of militancy and maritime boundary and it is now up to India to show the political will needed to shake Sheikh Hasina's hand. Bangladesh is a politically conscious nation where politics is moving towards maturity. India can settle her security concerns as well as transit need but she must first act responsively on Bangladesh's concerns regarding water sharing, maritime boundary and trade deficit.
THE Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is going to be the first high profile foreign visitor to Bangladesh when he arrives in Dhaka as a Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister on February 8th. India has figured high in this government's priorities. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has spoken of the need for jointly tackling militancy and terrorism which, the Foreign Minister has resonated. The Minister for Water Resources has also spoken of the need to reactivate the Joint River Commission. The Indian High Commissioner is also making his Ministerial rounds harping upon the need for closer Bangladesh-India cooperation. Clearly, intent from both governments for improvement of bilateral relations is obvious.
Both countries have significant stakes for developing and sustaining friendly bilateral relations. Bangladesh's stakes are fundamental to her existence based on geopolitics and history. As an agricultural country, almost all the rivers that are her lifeline either originate in or flow through India. Bangladesh thus needs India to give her water sharing rights under international law as a lower riparian. Bangladesh has great economic potentials in the Bay of Bengal that is rich in sea resources and hydrocarbons but her ability to exploit these resources is in a spanner due to India's conflicting claims. There are also other serious issues related to trade imbalance, land boundary demarcation, etc. that make it extremely important for Bangladesh to be friendly with India. Then there is also the reason of history embedded in the fact that India extended assistance to Bangladesh in 1971 that impels Bangladesh to seek out India as a friend.
India's stakes in friendly relations are also significant and lie in a land transit from the Indian mainland to the seven eastern provinces or Seven Sisters that Bangladesh cuts into two that could lead to great economic benefit for these provinces and the use of Chittagong port that could also propel significant economic development there. In recent times, with militancy and terrorism getting worse in India, where security situation in her eastern provinces is extremely fragile, India is in desperate need of Bangladesh's assistance to win her war on terror. In fact, in the wake of the Mumbai carnage of November last year, the need to fight the war on terror has become the first item in India's agenda vis-à-vis Bangladesh.
Bangladesh-India relations have not developed for mutual benefit due to mutual mistrust, the stakes notwithstanding. Depending upon which side one takes, blame could be apportioned on the other for their not-so-friendly relations. The mistrust on Bangladesh's side has developed from India's denial to grant her share of waters of the common rivers law and demarcating her maritime boundary in accordance with international law. India has also not kept her commitment under the India-Mujib Agreement on land border. There is also a generally held view in Bangladesh that India is a physical threat, a fact often asserted in the common mind by the frequent shooting deaths in the border by the BSF of India. The bottom line of this negative perception is that Bangladesh feels that India is conscious of her role as a regional power but insensitive about her responsibilities to her neighbours. India feels that Bangladesh has not always conducted her foreign relations keeping India's interests in focus. This ill-feeling has enhanced further in the Indian mind because she has played a major role in Bangladesh's liberation struggle during which she has also looked after ten million refugees from Bangladesh who had fled to India to escape the Pakistani genocide. India also has serious security concerns arising from her belief that Bangladesh allows her territory to be used as sanctuary by Indian militants. India is also unhappy because Bangladesh has not reacted favorably to her requests for land transit and use of Chittagong port. Bangladesh had also earlier turned down India's request for purchase of gas, an issue no longer relevant.
The stars of Bangladesh-India relations are beginning to align correctly for a paradigm shift for the better as a result of change of both internal and external environment. However to achieve the shift, both sides must show political will. India must acknowledge that Bangladesh's claims on water sharing and the maritime boundary are based on international law and are crucial to her viability as a nation. Bangladesh must acknowledge that India's major requests, namely the land transit together with use of Chittagong port and security concerns are issues that Bangladesh must accept for long-term friendship with India although India's claims and requests are not of the same merit as her claims.
The India factor or an anti-India bias did not play any role in the December 29th elections that has sent the AL to power with such a humungous majority. But then, it would be un-wise to think that the India factor has gone. It has just receded into the background because other important issues such as the agenda of corruption under the BNP and trial of war criminals had captivated the attention of the voters. The India-factor could very well come into play strongly unless the two sides pay attention to sensitivities of the people of Bangladesh in trying to move relations ahead. In this context, the comments that the Indian High Commissioner have made on the Ganges water sharing agreement and land transit may not help improvement of bilateral relations. The High Commissioner's suggestion of transit and use of Chittagong port are issues of economics and connectivity, and Bangladesh will make money out of it. However, to stress that transit is not a political issue would give wrong signal to Bangladeshis who believe that India must not be given land transit unless she shows the political will to give Bangladesh her legitimate share of water from the common rivers and flexibility and accommodation on other outstanding issues. As for his view about depleting availability of water in the Ganges, the position is that as an upper riparian India has treaty obligations under the 1996 agreement to ensure that Bangladesh's share as the lower riparian never fell below 90% of the agreed quantum.
The India-factor should be kept in focus by Bangladesh before making any concessions; India must likewise take note of it before seeking any concession from Bangladesh when the two sides discuss bilateral issues during Mr. Pranab Mukherjee' visit. A revival of the Gujral Doctrine could work like magic here and could set the stage where outstanding issues of Bangladesh-India relations could be resolved or at least have a fair chance of resolution. The first principle of the five-point Gujral Doctrine was that with neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India would not seek reciprocity but would give and accommodate what it can on good faith and trust. India must adopt a similar stance for long-term friendly relations. A start in that direction could be made by the Indian Foreign Minister by acceding to Bangladesh's maritime claims that should not be very difficult considering that this would mean India giving only a very small portion of her total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. For Bangladesh, this would mean a very great deal. It could also be any other outstanding issues upon which India could show that she is willing to accede without reciprocity. This could create confidence in Bangladesh to move ahead on terrorism and militancy to start with, and then slowly move towards transit and use of Chittagong port with India relenting on the water sharing issues where even Nepal and Bhutan could be brought into the loop to exploit the vast and rich potential of the rivers in the sub-region.
The ball is now in India's court. The peace dividends here are immense for both sides. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has acted wisely in speaking out positively on the issues of militancy and maritime boundary and it is now up to India to show the political will needed to shake Sheikh Hasina's hand. Bangladesh is a politically conscious nation where politics is moving towards maturity. India can settle her security concerns as well as transit need but she must first act responsively on Bangladesh's concerns regarding water sharing, maritime boundary and trade deficit.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Bangladesh's proposal for joint initiative to fight terrorism
Published in The Daily Star, January 11, 2009
The victory of the Awami League has been hailed worldwide as a victory of secular forces over fundamentalism. While this is a partial explanation of an unbelievable victory, it will nevertheless give the new administration of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina international recognition that could be crucial for success of her Government for making Bangladesh a Muslim majority country with liberal traditions. External support, particularly of Bangladesh's development partners would be extremely important for translating to reality the massive electoral promises of the AL. In this context the image that the elections has created would be very helpful.
Closer to home, India has been elated at the AL's resounding victory. Sheikh Hasina has been warmly congratulated by the Indian Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi has spoken with her on telephone. The enthusiasm in New Delhi will be even more important for Bangladesh than the positive vive that the news has caused in other world capitals. The reasons are obvious. First, Bangladesh is situated literally inside the belly of India. Second, almost all her rivers that provide the lifeline for her people whose major occupation is agriculture flow from India. Finally, Bangladesh has been restrained from exploring unhindered for hydrocarbons in the Bay of Bengal because her maritime boundary with India is un-demarcated. These factors, among others, make it imperative for Bangladesh's sustained development and well-being to have friendly relations with India. Unfortunately, during 5 years of BNP rule, Bangladesh-India relations have regressed while during the caretaker government, bilateral relations have remained stalled.
While the AL's resounding victory has been welcomed enthusiastically in New Delhi, it is Sheikh Hasina's statement that she would not allow Bangladesh's soil to be used by any terror groups and that she would like a joint task force to be established with India to fight terrorism that has been music to the ears of the Indian leaders. Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said this is “positive” news while BJP leader LK Advani better articulated the Indian viewpoint in a letter to Sheikh Hasina in which he wrote: “The people of India are delighted to read …your categorical statement that your government will not allow the territory of Bangladesh to be used by terrorists and extremist organizations.”
The AL assumes office at a time when the international situation is vastly different from what it was when the party was in power the last time from 1996 to 2001. In between, 9/11 has dramatically changed world politics. First, fighting terrorism and militancy has become the major focus of governments all over the world including India that has been at the receiving end of the misfortunes from such acts. As President Bush hands power to President-elect Barak Obama, the war on terror that he led and fought militarily is now expected to be dealt more through the non-military channels where the new US administration would be seeking partners worldwide. Second, India has since emerged in a very effective manner upon the world scene where it is now the accepted regional leader. During this term of AL, India will have great influence in world politics and it will thus be in Bangladesh's interest to have friendly relations with her.
These are realities that the foreign affairs team of the new Government must focus upon for the future of Bangladesh. One issue that has emerged from the December 29th elections is that the so-called “India factor” had no impact upon voters' choice of parties. The record number of voters has voted on substance such as economics, good governance, trial of war criminals and democracy. In the past, the “India factor” has restrained Bangladeshi politicians in dealing with India objectively because it has been a factor in elections. India, on her part, did not render much encouragement either to the people of Bangladesh towards friendly relations with her by disdainfully scorning Bangladesh's legitimate claims on a wide range of bilateral issues.
LK Advani has put Bangladesh-India relations in perspective by stating categorically that it is not an option but an “indispensible necessity” in his letter to Sheikh Hasina. It is now up to the Indian Government to demonstrate how “indispensible” these relations are by the way they reciprocate to the positive move made by Sheikh Hasina. India's prospects of evolving into a major economic powerhouse on a world scale will depend to a large extent on successfully containing terrorism and militancy that has been recently spreading all over the country. In this context, the area that borders Bangladesh, India's northeast, has been particularly vulnerable. Just after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram made specific accusations in Parliament that insurgent groups operating in northeast India, including ULFA, have sanctuaries in Bangladesh. Indian Government has in addition also accused Bangladesh Government for permitting Pakistan's ISI to assist the terrorists in India's northeast from inside Bangladesh. Bangladesh government has always denied these accusations. Militancy and terrorism does not serve anyone's purpose for these militants, their initial motives for terrorists acts notwithstanding, often become Frankensteins and their actions in the end affect everyone adversely. Sheikh Hasina's foreign policy aides must now open discussions with their Indian counterparts to, first, remove Indian doubt that Bangladesh has been aiding Indian separatists, and then, to jointly fight this menace so that militants on either side are exposed and brought under the purview of the law.
For sustainable improvement of relations, India of course has the major role to play. India could now show her goodwill on a wide range of unresolved bilateral issues while officials on both sides work out the modalities of the joint task force and build upon the positive move of Sheikh Hasina. Take for example the un-demarcated maritime boundary issue. In a recent seminar organized by the Daily Star on this issue, participants were unanimous that Bangladesh's future lay in her territorial waters where India's counter claims have put a spanner. The Seminar established the fact hitherto little known in Bangladesh that the extent of the area that has been causing problems for Bangladesh with India is but a very small percentage of latter's total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. However, the nature of India's claims, supported by Myanmar, is such that it would take away from Bangladesh a major part of her legal claims in the Bay of Bengal, an area that is presumed to be very rich in unexploited hydrocarbons. Although it is difficult yet to assume how India would deal with Bangladesh after her move on the security issue, it may not be very unrealistic to expect that India would demonstrate the political will to resolve the issue of the maritime boundary by taking on board Bangladesh's claims that are both fair and legal.
In fact, it does not have to be the maritime issue upon which India could begin its reciprocal gesture. India could make it on a wide range of other outstanding issues such as water sharing, trade imbalance, etc. where it has denied Bangladesh a fair treatment due to lack of political will on her part. India's reciprocal gesture must nevertheless come quickly because although the “India factor” did not play any role in the elections, there is a perception in Bangladesh that India is not quite as fair a neighbour to Bangladesh as it should have been. It needs two to tango. Sheikh Hasina's move on fighting militancy jointly has set the stage. It is now India's turn to reciprocate beginning with demonstration of political will for resolution of any one of the major outstanding issues that in turn could create the positive environment for dealing with other outstanding bilateral issues on both sides and in the process revive the 1971 spirit. If India fails to match Bangladesh's move in a major way, then the political will shown by Sheikh Hasina's offer could vanish quickly and AL led Government could be left stranded with the blame for being soft on India and the so-called “India factor” could be re-established again.
The victory of the Awami League has been hailed worldwide as a victory of secular forces over fundamentalism. While this is a partial explanation of an unbelievable victory, it will nevertheless give the new administration of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina international recognition that could be crucial for success of her Government for making Bangladesh a Muslim majority country with liberal traditions. External support, particularly of Bangladesh's development partners would be extremely important for translating to reality the massive electoral promises of the AL. In this context the image that the elections has created would be very helpful.
Closer to home, India has been elated at the AL's resounding victory. Sheikh Hasina has been warmly congratulated by the Indian Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi has spoken with her on telephone. The enthusiasm in New Delhi will be even more important for Bangladesh than the positive vive that the news has caused in other world capitals. The reasons are obvious. First, Bangladesh is situated literally inside the belly of India. Second, almost all her rivers that provide the lifeline for her people whose major occupation is agriculture flow from India. Finally, Bangladesh has been restrained from exploring unhindered for hydrocarbons in the Bay of Bengal because her maritime boundary with India is un-demarcated. These factors, among others, make it imperative for Bangladesh's sustained development and well-being to have friendly relations with India. Unfortunately, during 5 years of BNP rule, Bangladesh-India relations have regressed while during the caretaker government, bilateral relations have remained stalled.
While the AL's resounding victory has been welcomed enthusiastically in New Delhi, it is Sheikh Hasina's statement that she would not allow Bangladesh's soil to be used by any terror groups and that she would like a joint task force to be established with India to fight terrorism that has been music to the ears of the Indian leaders. Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said this is “positive” news while BJP leader LK Advani better articulated the Indian viewpoint in a letter to Sheikh Hasina in which he wrote: “The people of India are delighted to read …your categorical statement that your government will not allow the territory of Bangladesh to be used by terrorists and extremist organizations.”
The AL assumes office at a time when the international situation is vastly different from what it was when the party was in power the last time from 1996 to 2001. In between, 9/11 has dramatically changed world politics. First, fighting terrorism and militancy has become the major focus of governments all over the world including India that has been at the receiving end of the misfortunes from such acts. As President Bush hands power to President-elect Barak Obama, the war on terror that he led and fought militarily is now expected to be dealt more through the non-military channels where the new US administration would be seeking partners worldwide. Second, India has since emerged in a very effective manner upon the world scene where it is now the accepted regional leader. During this term of AL, India will have great influence in world politics and it will thus be in Bangladesh's interest to have friendly relations with her.
These are realities that the foreign affairs team of the new Government must focus upon for the future of Bangladesh. One issue that has emerged from the December 29th elections is that the so-called “India factor” had no impact upon voters' choice of parties. The record number of voters has voted on substance such as economics, good governance, trial of war criminals and democracy. In the past, the “India factor” has restrained Bangladeshi politicians in dealing with India objectively because it has been a factor in elections. India, on her part, did not render much encouragement either to the people of Bangladesh towards friendly relations with her by disdainfully scorning Bangladesh's legitimate claims on a wide range of bilateral issues.
LK Advani has put Bangladesh-India relations in perspective by stating categorically that it is not an option but an “indispensible necessity” in his letter to Sheikh Hasina. It is now up to the Indian Government to demonstrate how “indispensible” these relations are by the way they reciprocate to the positive move made by Sheikh Hasina. India's prospects of evolving into a major economic powerhouse on a world scale will depend to a large extent on successfully containing terrorism and militancy that has been recently spreading all over the country. In this context, the area that borders Bangladesh, India's northeast, has been particularly vulnerable. Just after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram made specific accusations in Parliament that insurgent groups operating in northeast India, including ULFA, have sanctuaries in Bangladesh. Indian Government has in addition also accused Bangladesh Government for permitting Pakistan's ISI to assist the terrorists in India's northeast from inside Bangladesh. Bangladesh government has always denied these accusations. Militancy and terrorism does not serve anyone's purpose for these militants, their initial motives for terrorists acts notwithstanding, often become Frankensteins and their actions in the end affect everyone adversely. Sheikh Hasina's foreign policy aides must now open discussions with their Indian counterparts to, first, remove Indian doubt that Bangladesh has been aiding Indian separatists, and then, to jointly fight this menace so that militants on either side are exposed and brought under the purview of the law.
For sustainable improvement of relations, India of course has the major role to play. India could now show her goodwill on a wide range of unresolved bilateral issues while officials on both sides work out the modalities of the joint task force and build upon the positive move of Sheikh Hasina. Take for example the un-demarcated maritime boundary issue. In a recent seminar organized by the Daily Star on this issue, participants were unanimous that Bangladesh's future lay in her territorial waters where India's counter claims have put a spanner. The Seminar established the fact hitherto little known in Bangladesh that the extent of the area that has been causing problems for Bangladesh with India is but a very small percentage of latter's total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. However, the nature of India's claims, supported by Myanmar, is such that it would take away from Bangladesh a major part of her legal claims in the Bay of Bengal, an area that is presumed to be very rich in unexploited hydrocarbons. Although it is difficult yet to assume how India would deal with Bangladesh after her move on the security issue, it may not be very unrealistic to expect that India would demonstrate the political will to resolve the issue of the maritime boundary by taking on board Bangladesh's claims that are both fair and legal.
In fact, it does not have to be the maritime issue upon which India could begin its reciprocal gesture. India could make it on a wide range of other outstanding issues such as water sharing, trade imbalance, etc. where it has denied Bangladesh a fair treatment due to lack of political will on her part. India's reciprocal gesture must nevertheless come quickly because although the “India factor” did not play any role in the elections, there is a perception in Bangladesh that India is not quite as fair a neighbour to Bangladesh as it should have been. It needs two to tango. Sheikh Hasina's move on fighting militancy jointly has set the stage. It is now India's turn to reciprocate beginning with demonstration of political will for resolution of any one of the major outstanding issues that in turn could create the positive environment for dealing with other outstanding bilateral issues on both sides and in the process revive the 1971 spirit. If India fails to match Bangladesh's move in a major way, then the political will shown by Sheikh Hasina's offer could vanish quickly and AL led Government could be left stranded with the blame for being soft on India and the so-called “India factor” could be re-established again.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Bangladesh voters give the AL historic mandate by rejecting BNP on issue of corruption and indulgence to war criminals
The outcome of the December 29th elections that the US Ambassador in Dhaka has described before the Commisison on International Religious Freedom as “transformational “ and the most important election after the US Presidential elections of the year 2008 has been dramatic to say the least. The Awami League led Grand Alliance led by Sheikh Hasina came in front with 260 seats. The BNP that had formed the last elected government after winning a 2/3rd majority in 2001 elections won less than 30 seats which can only be described as a “drubbing”. In fact, led by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, the BNP won as many seats as the Jatiya party led by former President Ershad. Another important outcome has been the trashing given to the Jamaat, the Islam based electoral ally of the BNP that won just 2 seats!
The AL never expected this resounding victory that can be compared to the one won by this party in 1970 elections of Pakistan when it just lost 2 of the 169 seats from East Pakistan (Bangladesh). The BNP never expected to lose this way. In fact, by most pre-election predictions the outcome was expected to be much closer with the AL expected to be ahead, but marginally.
The 20 million new voters and the campaign against BNP’s election ally the Jamaat on the issue of the war criminals were instrumental in the AL’s landslide victory. However, it was the issue of corruption of the BNP during its last stint in power from 2001-2006 that caused such a silent anger that the voters translated into AL victory at the elections. The BNP just did not fail to understand the voters’ anger and frustration; they went ahead and nominated many of these discredited BNP leaders in the elections that only hardened the resolve of the voters. Baring one or two, all BNP candidates against whom charges of corruption were brought during the last 2 years were routed in the elections.
The history of massive mandates in elections in South Asia is not a happy one as most parties who were given such mandates in the past have managed to mess up governance. The BNP’s last tenure in office is an example of that mess. Therefore, one must wait and see what the AL makes of this huge mandate. The AL has made a good start with Sehikh Hasina keeping her people in control by urging them to remain calm. It is now to be seen whether she can make this sustainable and bring into governance elements of bipartisanship that is vitally needed for the country’s future.
The Election Commisison must be credited for giving the country a fair election which could put Bangladesh on track to making governance work for the country’s future. The BNP’s massive defeat is expected to restrain them from rejecting the election result. They now should show some common sense to work as opposition within the framework of the parliament.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Manifestos and Foreign Policy
Published in The Daily Star, Sunday, December 28, 2008
A study of the election manifestos of the two mainstream parties on foreign policy is not encouraging. Foreign policy figures separately in both documents, but not foreign policy issues. AL's manifesto says that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is "friendship with all and malice towards none." It also speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries.
The BNP manifesto, too, speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries, but has avoided mentioning India by name. Both documents speak of multilateral diplomacy and economic diplomacy, and their importance to Bangladesh, including the importance of Saarc and Bimstec. Both documents have lauded Bangladesh's peacekeeping role. The AL has carried this subject under Defense Policy; the BNP under Foreign Policy.
The BNP document takes note of the concern of the international community about terrorism and militancy and the need to contain them, but not in the part on foreign policy .The AL takes care of militancy and terrorism in one line by supporting the formation of a South Asian Task Force in the part that deals with foreign policy. In both manifestos, the need for manpower export, the interests of Bangladeshi expatriates, and enhancing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment have been mentioned. But these issues have been mentioned in an incoherent manner in different sections of the documents and not as part of foreign policy.
By not bringing foreign policy issues under one head, both manifestos have failed to focus on fundamental changes that have occurred in recent times in the way nations conduct relations. Globalisation and the role of non-state actors in international relations have broken down the two key elements of the Westphalian concept of sovereignty that had formed the basis of foreign policy in the past, namely territoriality and exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures. As a consequence, today, foreign policy formulation and execution have become extremely difficult and more complex.
Issues such as global warming, rise of militancy, terrorism by state and non-state actors, and most recently the economic meltdown in US and its impact worldwide, have brought in additional challenges that are shaping foreign policies everywhere. These challenges have made it critical for governments to deal with foreign policy with great care, and have also made their foreign ministries the key ministry.
Just mentioning that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is one for friendship and against malice, and to use this principle to develop bilateral relations with all countries is not a serious way of handling such an important subject as foreign policy. Both documents have treated foreign policy the same way as they have done in past elections, thus failing to realise that foreign policy today is a matter of survival as well as a great opportunity for development.
An election manifesto is really not the right document to reflect on all of the above. In such a document, parties concentrate on those issues that give them the maximum benefit in getting votes. Foreign policy does not normally figure as a major issue in elections in most developing countries, but to suggest that it is not an issue of serious concern to Bangladeshi voters may not be wholly correct.
Bangladeshis take an active interest in what happens abroad. The six million compatriots who live abroad make them take a more than usual interest in foreign policy. For example, the stand the party's take on India is a major concern of voters. It is not by oversight that the BNP did not mention India by name in their manifesto, because it is intended to indicate their attitude towards India to the voters .
Bangladesh's future depends largely on expanding external trade, increasing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment, manpower export, etc. -- all issues of foreign policy although in their election manifestos neither party has acknowledged these as such. Bangladesh could become a successful nation or a failed one, depending on how she handles these crucial foreign policy goals.
The success or failure in attaining these goals depends on the support and understanding of the international community, particularly of the development partners, which will depend on how Bangladesh manages her domestic politics and controls Islamic fundamentalism and militancy.
Both manifestos have failed to acknowledge that Bangladesh must re-establish its image as a predominantly Muslim state with liberal traditions, which had taken a serious battering before 1/11 as a result of failure of politics.
For some unknown reason, foreign policy in Bangladesh has not been given the importance that it deserves to serve the country's interests better in a complex and increasingly globalised world. The two manifestos treat foreign affairs as a subject peripheral to governance. Even this caretaker government has treated foreign policy in the same fashion.
At a time when the opinions of Great Britain and Belgium will be very crucial in the world's assessment of the elections, this government has recalled our high commissioner/ambassador in these stations as they will be retiring. If the government had viewed foreign policy seriously, it would have given these two career diplomats extension so that they could remain in their important stations to signal that Bangladesh is capable of handling foreign policy professionally.
It may not be unfair to mention that newspaper analysing the two manifestos had no need to comment on what either said on foreign policy, which is indeed a sad commentary on the importance the AL and the BNP have given to it.
A study of the election manifestos of the two mainstream parties on foreign policy is not encouraging. Foreign policy figures separately in both documents, but not foreign policy issues. AL's manifesto says that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is "friendship with all and malice towards none." It also speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries.
The BNP manifesto, too, speaks of developing friendly relations with all countries, but has avoided mentioning India by name. Both documents speak of multilateral diplomacy and economic diplomacy, and their importance to Bangladesh, including the importance of Saarc and Bimstec. Both documents have lauded Bangladesh's peacekeeping role. The AL has carried this subject under Defense Policy; the BNP under Foreign Policy.
The BNP document takes note of the concern of the international community about terrorism and militancy and the need to contain them, but not in the part on foreign policy .The AL takes care of militancy and terrorism in one line by supporting the formation of a South Asian Task Force in the part that deals with foreign policy. In both manifestos, the need for manpower export, the interests of Bangladeshi expatriates, and enhancing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment have been mentioned. But these issues have been mentioned in an incoherent manner in different sections of the documents and not as part of foreign policy.
By not bringing foreign policy issues under one head, both manifestos have failed to focus on fundamental changes that have occurred in recent times in the way nations conduct relations. Globalisation and the role of non-state actors in international relations have broken down the two key elements of the Westphalian concept of sovereignty that had formed the basis of foreign policy in the past, namely territoriality and exclusion of external actors from domestic authority structures. As a consequence, today, foreign policy formulation and execution have become extremely difficult and more complex.
Issues such as global warming, rise of militancy, terrorism by state and non-state actors, and most recently the economic meltdown in US and its impact worldwide, have brought in additional challenges that are shaping foreign policies everywhere. These challenges have made it critical for governments to deal with foreign policy with great care, and have also made their foreign ministries the key ministry.
Just mentioning that Bangladesh's foreign policy goal is one for friendship and against malice, and to use this principle to develop bilateral relations with all countries is not a serious way of handling such an important subject as foreign policy. Both documents have treated foreign policy the same way as they have done in past elections, thus failing to realise that foreign policy today is a matter of survival as well as a great opportunity for development.
An election manifesto is really not the right document to reflect on all of the above. In such a document, parties concentrate on those issues that give them the maximum benefit in getting votes. Foreign policy does not normally figure as a major issue in elections in most developing countries, but to suggest that it is not an issue of serious concern to Bangladeshi voters may not be wholly correct.
Bangladeshis take an active interest in what happens abroad. The six million compatriots who live abroad make them take a more than usual interest in foreign policy. For example, the stand the party's take on India is a major concern of voters. It is not by oversight that the BNP did not mention India by name in their manifesto, because it is intended to indicate their attitude towards India to the voters .
Bangladesh's future depends largely on expanding external trade, increasing foreign remittance and foreign direct investment, manpower export, etc. -- all issues of foreign policy although in their election manifestos neither party has acknowledged these as such. Bangladesh could become a successful nation or a failed one, depending on how she handles these crucial foreign policy goals.
The success or failure in attaining these goals depends on the support and understanding of the international community, particularly of the development partners, which will depend on how Bangladesh manages her domestic politics and controls Islamic fundamentalism and militancy.
Both manifestos have failed to acknowledge that Bangladesh must re-establish its image as a predominantly Muslim state with liberal traditions, which had taken a serious battering before 1/11 as a result of failure of politics.
For some unknown reason, foreign policy in Bangladesh has not been given the importance that it deserves to serve the country's interests better in a complex and increasingly globalised world. The two manifestos treat foreign affairs as a subject peripheral to governance. Even this caretaker government has treated foreign policy in the same fashion.
At a time when the opinions of Great Britain and Belgium will be very crucial in the world's assessment of the elections, this government has recalled our high commissioner/ambassador in these stations as they will be retiring. If the government had viewed foreign policy seriously, it would have given these two career diplomats extension so that they could remain in their important stations to signal that Bangladesh is capable of handling foreign policy professionally.
It may not be unfair to mention that newspaper analysing the two manifestos had no need to comment on what either said on foreign policy, which is indeed a sad commentary on the importance the AL and the BNP have given to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)