On her recent visit to Bangladesh the US Secretary of
State, Hillary Clinton, urged all political actors to come together, engage in
constructive dialogue, strengthen the roots of democracy, and build Bangladesh into
a prosperous nation. She also commented on the state of law and order in the
country that "any violence, disappearance or repression on civil society
and press is contrary to democracy and rule of law." And she expressed
satisfaction regarding the Bangladesh-US security dialogue, noting the
importance of bilateral defense cooperation to advance peace and stability in
the region.
Mrs. Clinton's words were largely consonant
with the wishes and aspirations of a great majority of the citizens of Bangladesh, as
well as the NRBs across the world. Similar words have resonated in the country
over years, if not decades, from people of various walks of life and
plentifully in the media. For example, in 2000, Rehman Sobhan wrote in the
Journal of Bangladesh Studies: "It was at this stage, with elections
imminent and the threats by the opposition to boycott these elections, that
voices were raised around the country for some effort to try and bridge the
gulf between the government and opposition. It was felt that a last attempt be
made to mediate an agreement for bringing all parties together to work out a
formula which would permit for a free and fair election."
Similarly, Bangladesh Development Initiative
(BDI), a policy advocacy group of NRBs in the United States, organised a
conference at Harvard in 2008 and articulated a six-point policy framework for
sustainable economic growth and social progress in the country. In this vision
it was stated that "the people of Bangladesh have also been
historically deprived of democratic values and practices that have been
replaced by despotic and dictatorial regimes. Re-establishment of democratic
values must become a priority of the present government from the party, to the
community and to the national levels."
Perhaps the powers-that-be will finally listen
to the oft-repeated need to transcend animosities, foster cooperation, and
enable Bangladesh
to grow unencumbered. And if there is a perceptible change in their attitudes
and behaviours, some credit must certainly be ascribed to the secretary of
state and the significant influence of the United States that accompanies her.
The visit of the US secretary of state, however,
raises the question: What was it all about? Largely, her diplomatic words
lacked vigour and conviction in articulating a stronger relationship between
the two nations. Indeed, the visit seemed mostly a missed opportunity to craft
deeper ties and win the hearts of the people of the seventh largest nation on
earth. Perhaps whirlwind visits are not conducive for substantive outcomes.
For example, the bilateral defense cooperation
agreement between Bangladesh
and USA
that Mrs. Clinton mentioned is of greater importance to the United States
from a global strategic perspective, especially because of its implications for
the containment of rising powers in the Asian region. How Bangladesh gains
from the agreement needs greater clarification.
The secretary also met with the forerunners of
microfinance. While the meeting seemed to reflect a very narrow interest, and
may have even had a not-so-hidden message for the government of Bangladesh,
alluding specifically to the achievements of the Grameen Bank, the secretary
provided some assurance in the meeting about looking into providing duty free
access to Bangladesh garment exports, a subject that the prime minister of
Bangladesh had brought up earlier.
It is instructive to note that Bangladesh
reportedly paid $652 million in duties to the US treasury last year on exports of
$4.27 billion, an amount that rivals the foreign aid received from the US. In
comparison, the United
Kingdom paid duties of only $351 million on
exports to America
worth about $50 billion. Inequities such as these could have been cleared up
during such an auspicious visit.
Further, many would have liked to see greater US effort to
build a solid partnership with Bangladesh,
albeit with mutual benefit in mind. For one, an important visit such as this
could have been complemented with the accompaniment a team of potential
investors, however exploratory their presence, to signal positive intent. Such
effort could have resulted in creating a more exciting atmosphere for
investments in the country and deepening mutual respect in the relationship.
Bangladeshis would have also liked to see
greater commitment of the US
to join Bangladesh's
fight against poverty by addressing the growing disparity between the haves and
the have-nots. Measures such as advancing education and healthcare to empower
the downtrodden to overcome the inequities would earn Mrs. Clinton much kudos.
In fact, if such disparities continue to grow, its ramifications are ominous. A
proactive policy to help Bangladesh
reduce inequality and poverty is very much in the interest of the United States
as it is likely to curb the growth of adverse dynamics such as militancy that
can heighten insecurity not just within but also across nations.
There is also a general feeling within Bangladesh, as
in other Muslim-majority nations, that the United States harbours anti-Muslim
sentiments, especially within policy circles. This is reinforced by the US military
presence in Afghanistan
and other Muslim-majority nations, especially its use of hard power that
results in killing and maiming of innocent civilians. Such incidents are
reported frequently in the international media and deflate a sense of positive
ambience towards the US
that requires little elaboration. Here was an opportunity for Mrs. Clinton to
stress that the war on terror is not a war on Islam.
And while the security threat faced by the US is real and
substantive, generating a need to adopt strong proactive measures, there is also
a serious need to engage in constructive dialogue on this matter, especially
about its origins, causes, and possible amelioration strategies. Sweeping this
particular issue under the rug is not healthy and the US, as the country
leading the war on terror, must pursue every opportunity to engage in
constructive dialogue to show clear intent that it would rather divert its
immense resources to more productive endeavours instead of wasting them in a
drawn-out and draining state of conflict. A statement to this effect by the
secretary of state would gain significant mileage.
Bangladesh
also needs to develop its human resource base, infrastructure, energy
self-sufficiency, and food reserves for the unpredictable effects of climate
change. There were no reassuring words from the secretary of state on
cooperation in such matters of vital interest to Bangladesh.
There was also some expectation that Mrs.
Clinton would bring up the matter of water sharing, a deep concern in Bangladesh,
during her passage through India.
At the very least she could have broached the guarantees inherent in
international laws. That did not seem to happen. Between principle (laid down
by international law) and interest (the US-India bilateral relationship),
interest seemed to weigh more.
Finally, in a globally connected world, people
are aware of the travails of the United States, especially the political
rancour and impasse that often hold up economic and social progress in that
country. An election year can be especially revealing about the country's raw
spots. Thus, when the secretary of state alighted on Bangladeshi soil and
reminded its leaders about their intransigence in addressing the country's
problems through cooperation, alluding to similar issues and difficulties in
her own country may have made her statements more palatable and diplomatically
more astute and persuasive.
When a rare and auspicious event passes through
town, it leaves behind a variety of good things for the townspeople to savour.
This event left the townspeople wondering what they really got.
No comments:
Post a Comment