Untitled

TOP SHIPS IN STORM INCREDIBLE VIDEO, Don't miss!!

Bangladesh-US : Towards new engagements

Delwar Hossain

The third round of the 2014 Bangladesh US security dialogue was held in Dhaka on 22 April. It focused on issues such as peacekeeping, counter‐terrorism, disaster‐management, maritime security and regional security. 

The security dialogue is part of a larger dialogue process that encompasses defence‐to‐defense dialogue; military‐to‐military dialogue; security dialogue; and partnership dialogue between Dhaka and Washington. This security dialogue has been taking place annually since 2012. The first two‐day meeting to bolster bilateral and regional cooperation between the two countries under the Joint Declaration of the Bangladesh‐US Partnership Dialogue took place in Washington, in September 2012. On the economic front, the first meeting of Trade and 

Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement (TICFA) between Bangladesh and the US was held in April 2014. The TICFA seeks to further bolster the annual bilateral trade – that exceeded $6 billion in 2013 – between the Dhaka and Washington. 

Amid conflicting positions of Bangladesh and the US over several domestic, bilateral and global issues, one may interpret these meetings as puzzling developments. In the post‐election period, at the bilateral level, both the countries have continued with old discords on issues such as labour rights, the Yunus factor, the duty‐free, quota‐free market access, and the suspension of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) facilities to Bangladesh, among others. From a Bangladeshi perspective, the US’ stance on domestic political changes in the former is a major irritant to smooth bilateral relations. The US’ insistence on holding credible and inclusive general elections in Bangladesh afresh – after the January 2014 elections – has created a diplomatic challenge for the incumbent Sheikh Hasina government. Globally, the Kosovo and the Crimea questions clearly demonstrate Bangladesh’s different foreign policy priorities. 

However, despite the continuing discord, Bangladesh and the US have remained engaged – as demonstrated via the dialogue process and the maiden meeting of TICFA. A strong view prevails in the policy community that these meetings will put US–Bangladesh relations on the path to recovery. Unlike in the past, the US has made it clear that preventing the spread of global terrorism and strategic understanding are its foremost agendas vis‐à‐vis Bangladesh. Both countries have developed three structured fora for mutual engagement. They are: the US‐Bangladesh Dialogue on Security Issues; the Bangladesh‐US Partnership Dialogue; and the US–Bangladesh TICFA. The US recognises that Bangladesh has a vital role in ensuring security and stability regionally and globally.  As the head of the US delegation to the Security Dialogue, Tom Kelly, observed, “A strong bilateral partnership and improved defense ties between Bangladesh and the United States are in both of our interests.... In a broader perspective US values Bangladesh's geographical location. It sees an important role for Bangladesh in the overall security context of the Middle East, and Indian‐Pacific‐Oceans region. This is why US wants Bangladesh by its side in its strategic pursuits.” 

Thus, for the US, geostrategic developments in the South Asian and the Asia Pacific regions have accorded Bangladesh a degree of importance. This is also linked to the shift of the 2010 US defence strategy, that the US cannot go solo, and in its attempt to address primary 

security issues, countries like Bangladesh matter. 

Interestingly, Bangladesh appeared to be shy of expressing much optimism and enthusiasm, specifically regarding the outcomes of the meetings, and on bilateral ties in general. The head of the Bangladesh delegation mentioned that the dialogue was “very fruitful” and appreciated the US for the institutionalisation of the process of talks for intensive bilateral cooperation. The apparent lack of buoyant attitude on Bangladesh’s part reflects frustration about the US for its continuing emphasis on holding fresh elections in Bangladesh. It is also a reflection of Washington’s denial of the GSP facilities and duty free‐quota free access. 

However, in reality Bangladesh shows a degree of pragmatism while dealing with the US in the current context. The benefits of Bangladesh‐US bilateral ties – from trade to investment, and from culture to development – are substantive for both the nations. Although the rules of engagement for Dhaka and Washington have been crafted in a new regional environment in South Asia, the issue of the security dialogue may generate disquiet among regional powers such as China and India. Simultaneously, the US may also find it little troubling when Bangladesh joined the naval exercise with China along with India and Pakistan. In April 2014, ships from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India reached the Chinese port of Qingdao to partake in a rare naval exercise 

On the Sino‐Bangladesh naval cooperation, Tom Kelly asserts that the US fully respects Bangladesh's sovereign right to establish cooperation with any other country. Similarly, the Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh,

Pankaj Saran, maintains that “It is up to you [Bangladesh] to choose a strategic partner. India has nothing to say in the matter.” 

The first TICFA meeting may vindicate the critics that the US would use the platform to create a new regime for protecting its economic interests in Bangladesh, thereby undermining the latter’s development needs. Bangladesh’s opposition to form a women’s economic empowerment committee and a labour affairs committee in the first Meeting is an example. The TICFA and/or the Security Dialogue may open new avenues of bilateral talks, but Dhaka and Washington need to deal with major issues of mutual discord. Under the Westphalian order, attempts to use domestic politics as a diplomatic instrument may undermine gains of bilateral cooperation between the two.

Preventing an Afghan meltdown

Syed Mansur Hashim

THAT the United States (US) has put limitations on what actions the allied forces will perform in Afghanistan under the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) leaves much to be desired, at least as long as the new Afghan government is concerned. 12,500 troops on the ground from January 1, 2015 with nearly 10,000 coming from the US alone, are supposed to hold in check the Taleban and its allies. However, given the guidelines of the BSA, this force will help transfer the bulk of the fighting to the estimated 350,000 Afghan National Forces (ANF). 

Voices are deeply divided as to precisely how effective this new policy will be. The plan as it stands envisages the ANF to head national security by 2017. The political climate is altogether not too glum. The third democratically elected government is in power. The billions of dollars invested in the country over the more than one decade of western engagement in the country has helped improve Afghanistan's “capacity for self-governance, improved national health care, expanded schooling opportunities for Afghan youth, especially girls, and a better connected Afghanistan to the outside world than ever before. Afghanistan also began 2015 with a 350,000-member security force consisting of an army, a limited air force, national police and border and customs forces.”(Source: Foreign Policy Research Institute)

The flipside to this rosy picture is that a large percentage of the Afghan populace still suffers from extreme poverty. Being a landlocked country does not help the country in terms of trade and the overt dependence on foreign aid remains the Achilles heel. There is also a massive shortage of housing for nearly half the population. There is simply no denying the fact that many of the “gains” Afghanistan has achieved since 2002 were funded by multilateral agencies and these include both the building of infrastructure and institutions. Salaries of both the bureaucracy and the military are dependent on foreign aid. What is sad to see is that despite sitting on some of significant deposits of precious minerals like copper, lithium, uranium, iron ore, cobalt, natural gas and oil, foreign investment has not been forthcoming primarily due to the fluid political situation on the ground. 

It is not without reason that the Taleban refuse to go away. There is no doubt that the Taleban's principal supporters in the Pakistan military and intelligence community continue to patronise the group in an effort to influence the political discourse in Afghanistan. The increased intelligence sharing between India and Afghanistan and the growing cosy relationship between these two countries on military matters make the Taleban dilemma a festering wound in Afghan politics. With India now giving more direct military aid to ANF in terms of training and equipping, the stage is set for the Taleban to remain very much present in Afghanistan. Precisely how the US hopes to counter the growing fear that Afghanistan will become the country of choice for militant organisations where they train and use it as a base to counter Western interests in the region remain to be seen; especially with a much reduced force of less than 10,000 personnel on the ground.

Despite the impressive numbers, the Afghan army has been less than effective in countering the Taleban in the south, the east and in the capital city itself. This is so because the US-led allied forces are no longer there. Indeed the Afghan forces have actually ceded ground to the Taleban in areas in the south and east…gains that had come after much fighting between the US-led allies and the Taleban in years gone by. Going by numbers, ANF has sustained 4,600 deaths in October, 2014 alone. It has serious deficiencies in intelligence support, in medical evacuation and / or supporting fire in terms of artillery and air bombardment. The bottom line is that 2014 has not been a good year to boost foreign investment confidence in the country. Without foreign investment to replace donor-handouts, there is serious doubt Afghanistan will be able to hold its own in the mid to long term. The drastic pullout from Afghanistan without putting into place the challenges of logistics, an intelligence backbone, without training and equipping air support and counter-insurgency forces will all collude to a dramatic turn of events in Afghanistan in the coming year, one that will hardly help in making “the world a safer place from terrorism.”

So what can be done? It is imperative that the US commit itself to build up a workable intelligence gathering and sharing framework in Afghanistan and beyond. The ANF is still in its infancy when it comes to combating militant outfits and requires direct military support in its operations. There is also the need to comprehend that there is no alternative to training and maintaining an “operational military presence in Afghanistan.” These key elements need to be worked into a revised BSA. The alternative is to let things lie as they are and watch as Afghanistan descends into another Iraq-type situation. The only problem with that is that the problems associated with militancy will spiral beyond the borders of Afghanistan onto neighbouring countries and beyond.

China-US free trade talks suggested

Ding Qingfen, Zhang Yuwei and Chen Weihua

China should propose the initiation of talks on a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States to reduce trade frictions and create benefits for both, a former senior commerce official has said. "Why shouldn't we consider establishing an FTA between the world's two largest economies?" asked Wei Jianguo, former deputy minister of commerce. "We could study the feasibility of the matter," Wei said, adding that China and the US have highly complementary economies.

China should also "accelerate its steps" on establishing an FTA with Japan and South Korea, Wei said, which would connect the three top economies in Asia.

Wei's proposals come as the US is aggressively expanding its influence in the Asia-Pacific region and expects to grow its economy and create employment by taking advantage of the fast economic growth in Asia.

The world's largest economy is advancing a trade agreement in Asia, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to remove trade and investment barriers among the nations involved. Nine countries, including Australia and Vietnam, have agreed to join the pact and set a goal of reaching a final agreement by the end of this year. China is not included.

Last year, Japan, the world's third-largest economy, also announced its desire to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, but the matter is pending. China is trying to transform from a big exporter to a great consumer, while the US pledges to double its exports in five years.

Asia, including China, is a major destination for promoting American goods. "The China-US FTA could help the US expand exports to China, reducing trade frictions," Wei said.

US experts said an FTA between China and the US should be a good thing.

"Any approach by China to initiate discussions with the US on a free trade agreement should be welcome," said Vikram Nehru, senior associate of Southeast Asian Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank. But he stressed that "China should be aware that US concerns extend well beyond trade barriers and are likely to include 'behind-the-border' trade issues."

These trade issues could involve explicit budgetary subsidies and implicit policy-related subsidies to state enterprises. Regulations that shield state enterprises from competition in domestic markets, such as restrictions on government procurement and barriers that inhibit new firms from entering key manufacturing and services sectors, could also be a problem, Nehru claimed.

The protection of intellectual property rights of US companies by the Chinese legal system is also a big concern, Nehru said.

"I think the time has come for a new and bolder approach," Maurice Greenberg, former chief of AIG and now chairman and CEO of C.V. Starr and Co, said in an article in the Wall Street Journal in January. "China and the US should open negotiations for a free trade agreement between our two countries," he said.

"The negotiations will not be easy. There will be numerous impasses, and the negotiations will probably last for many years. But discussing problems in the context of driving toward a potential agreement is far better than lengthy dialogues without an end result," Greenberg said.

"Even if we fail to reach an agreement on many issues, progress should be possible on some issues, and that will create a better trade climate. The alternative is that we drift along constantly irritating each other in a low-grade trade war that will leave businesses and consumers in both countries losers."

Many are worried about a trade war between the world's top two economies as the US recently announced the establishment of an interagency trade-enforcement unit to investigate whether nations, including China, play by trade rules.

The US House of Representatives recently passed a bill allowing the US Commerce Department to continue to charge countervailing duties worth $5 billion on imports from China.

But a China-US FTA may not be established soon. "In the short term, talks on a China-US FTA are highly unlikely," said Zhang Yunling, director of the Division of International Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

The US is strongly committed to advancing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, setting up trade rules in Asia based on its own wishes, Zhang said.

There are many things that have to be addressed before the talks could start, including the US recognising China's market economy status, an issue that the two nations have long been arguing over.

© China Daily. All rights reserved. Reprinted by arrangement with Asia News Network.

The Daily Star, 18 March 2012

US-BD economic ties deepening gradually

                                Nizam Ahmed

Economic ties between the United States and Bangladesh are deepening gradually as the entrepreneurs and traders of the former continue to show their active interest in the latter as an attractive place for investment and a competitive source, mostly for apparels, traders and officials said on Tuesday.

Following the tragic fire incident at a factory of the Tazreen Fashions Ltd at Ashulia that killed 111 workers late last month, the rate of order for apparels from the US has turned normal after a few days' slow pace, officials at the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) said.

The US investors are also among the interested parties that have registered their investment proposals in different sectors mainly in energy over the last couple of months, according to the Board of Investment (BoI).

However, the diplomatic relations between the two governments, according to some diplomats and analysts, are somewhat less warm, particularly over the past couple of years, than before.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina did not find a time to meet visiting US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O Blake last week, they noted.

"We are not convinced that the prime minister did not get time to meet the US assistant secretary of state for her preoccupation," a former senior government official said requesting not to be identified.

During the visit of Mr Blake, the prime minister had given time for relatively less important events, he said.

It was for the first time that a US State Department official of that rank concluded his/her visit to Bangladesh without meeting the prime minister of the country, said officials at the ministry of foreign affairs.

Earlier the US Ambassador to Bangladesh Robert W Mozena also could not find a schedule to meet the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina over the last couple of months, despite his request, officials at the US embassy in Dhaka said.

This is also unprecedented that a US ambassador has to wait so long to have an interaction with the prime minister of Bangladesh.

Source: The Financial Express, 19 December 2012

Obama victory brings hopes for Bangladesh

           Md Fazlur Rahman and Refayet Ullah Mirdha

The reelection of Barack Obama as the US president can enhance the economic and political ties between Dhaka and Washington, economists and experts said yesterday.
Dr Zaid Bakht, a research director of Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, hopes there would be progress in the issues pertaining to duty-free access for garment products and the Trade and Investment Cooperation Framework Agreement, which have been lingering for years.
"Lately, a political dimension has been added to the economic policies. We do not have the 'best of relationship' with the US at the moment for various reasons," he said.
The onus now lies with Bangladesh to improve relationship with the US, Bakht said.
He, however, is doubtful whether the relationship would have improved if there had been a change in leadership in Washington.
"Any Republican government would be more conservative in terms of opening up the economy. Bangladesh could benefit from outsourcing jobs in the near future, which would have been difficult if a Republican was in power."
Bangladesh's garment exporters have been seeking duty-free access to the US market for years now as they have to pay on average 15.30 percent duty, whereas some developed and developing countries pay below four percent.
America is the single largest garment export destination of Bangladesh.
Debapriya Bhattacharya, a distinguished fellow of the Centre for Policy Dialogue, a local think-tank, said the implementation of Obama's plans to revive the US economy is also linked with Bangladesh's interest.
"It is expected to enhance the American economy's growth rate, improve its employment record and investment scenario. As a result, there will be more income for the American citizens, which would expand the market for Bangladeshi garments and other items."
"Of note is the US president's planned tax cuts for the middle-class, which will give more purchasing power to the middle-class, who are, in fact, the major clients of Bangladeshi garment products," he said.
He also said the strengthening of the US economy would hopefully stabilise the global economy as a whole, including the now battered Eurozone.
The spill-over of the American economy on the Eurozone would also enhance Bangladesh's exports to the EU.
Bhattacharya said during his election campaign the US President also talked about the heightened co-operation in the field of development, which includes more support for investment and trade facilitation.
"Bangladesh should seek more avenues to get access to those initiatives," he told The Daily Star.
He said the US President has also committed to "Feed the Future" initiative, which could help ensure Bangladesh's food security and its capacity to respond to humanitarian crisis.
The economist, however, said Bangladesh would have to be mindful of the US concerns in areas of labour and human rights, political uncertainty and corruption, for a strengthened US-Bangla relationship.
"In order to take full advantage, we will have to do some homework ourselves and bring domestic reforms. Otherwise, many of the potentials may remain unattained."
He, however, is not too hopeful about the duty-free access.
"We should remember it is a reelection of the president, which means the new administration is a reelected one. There will be continuity on the part of the administration. So, we should not expect an overnight change in their attitude."
The duty-free access decision is not in the hands of the President, but in the hands of the Congress and the House of Representatives, he added.
"The US legislatures have already questioned why people are disappearing in Bangladesh. If you do not address the issue how will they extend their co-operation?"
"Only raising expectations and not doing anything on the home-front will not be helpful. Bangladesh and USA have a multifaceted and dynamic relationship and we should not oversimplify it."
Garment exporters also do not expect any big change from the new administration as their past attempts to avail duty-benefit went into vain, said Shafiul Islam Mohiuddin, president of the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association.
He said Bangladesh engaged lobbyist firms for getting the zero-duty benefit on export of garment items -- but the US government's stance remained unchanged.
Dr Amena Mohsin, a professor at the University of Dhaka's International Relations department, said Bangladesh has a lot to learn from the election.
"Both the leaders [Obama and the Republican contender Mitt Romney] showed they could rise above their parties, and demonstrated their statesmanship, which is very much lacking in Bangladesh."
"Our leaders cannot get above party politics; they fail to be a statesperson. Our leaders should learn from them," she told The Daily Star.
Humayun Kabir, a former ambassador to the US, who echoed Mohsin's views, by saying: "We should learn from the US election that one should be ready both for win and defeat, show respect to the public decision."
The former diplomat said the US-Bangladesh relation developed in a positive way during Obama's first term, with Bangladesh getting benefits from his different initiatives like Feed the Future, Global Health, Food Security Initiative.
"Bangladesh is also benefiting from the security co-operation with the US in the last few years," he said.
Prime Minister's Foreign Affairs adviser Gowher Rizvi said the relationship between Bangladesh and the US would continue to grow as the two countries share same values and democracy.
While the former Foreign Minister Morshed Khan said Obama's reelection would cast a positive impact on the immigrants and also help maintain the remittance flow from America to Bangladesh

Source:  The Daily Star, 08 November 2012