The flurry of activities at the diplomatic and
political circles in Dhaka over US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton's visit is over. And along with it, all media
speculation about the possible outcome of the visit and the talks that followed
has died down. There will still be some gossip about what else might have
transpired in the talks that did not come in press reports.
As things settle down, the most important
question that will now take centre-stage is what we have achieved from the
visit of Hillary Clinton.
The "Joint Declaration on Bangladesh-US
Dialogue on Partnership" does not say anything about what we as a least
developed nation desire to get from the richest nation on earth, the USA. The
declaration only says that "the dialogue will be held annually on
bilateral relations and priorities in Dhaka
and Washington
by turn." But there are no specifics about what will come under the
purview of these bilateral talks. Bangladesh could feel more assured
if it also stated in clear terms that the US would open up its huge market
for our readymade garment without imposing any tariff and/or non-tariff
barriers. It did not say if the US
is willing to facilitate more investments in Bangladesh from its private sector
and provide government loans on easy terms and interests, including technical
assistance for our manufacturing as well as service sectors to grow. Neither
did it mention if we would have the privilege of being included in its
Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
However, at the joint press conference with our
foreign minister, Dipu Moni, Mrs. Clinton advised the politicians against the
harmful sides of confrontational politics, stressed dialogue as the way to
resolve differences for sustainable democracy and suggested holding talks among
all parties to find a way for conducting a free, fair and credible election
like the one held in 2008. She did not miss to pint out the negative message
violent strikes including hartals send to prospective investors abroad.
We all know that and the civil society, the
business community and the media have been consistently urging the political
parties to give up such paths of protest. The media and the civil society have
always been critical of the government's high-handed attitude towards the
opposition and its repressive tactics to stifle their voice and deny their
rights to hold rallies and stage demonstrations. But its sounds like lecturing
an inattentive, or delinquent, student by her/his teacher when it comes from a
visiting foreign dignitary.
The US, for example, would not like a visiting
political leader from Bangladesh or any other country to criticise US
government for its policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or in any other third world
country, or instances of human rights violations there at the hands of its
security forces. But the US
government respects scathing criticism from its media and civil society for
such lapses all the same.
Some of our nationalistic and left-leaning
friends expressed their resentments about those comments from Mrs. Clinton. But
is it for the first time that foreign diplomats, government leaders, or top
executives of multilateral donor agencies lectured us from time to time on
similar issues and advised us to behave as a condition for continued financial
assistance? And can we really stop them advising us in that way when our
political leaders themselves take bagful of complaints against their rivals
when they meet foreign government leaders abroad and also when they (foreign
dignitaries) visit us?
We hope the Mrs. Clinton's words won't be lost
on our political leaders, both in the government and in the opposition.
So far so good, but was it all about the
US-Bangladesh talks?
Before Mrs. Clinton's visit, we noticed the
arrivals in Dhaka of a number of US diplomats including Robert O. Blake,
Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs; Wendy Sherman,
Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and Andrew Shapiro, US Assistant
Secretary in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. A US- Bangladesh
dialogue on the security challenges facing the two countries was also held on
April 19 in Dhaka. It indicated an
intensification of the US's
foreign and securities policy focus in South Asia.
But there was no mention of the express interests that the US diplomats
had earlier shown about stronger security ties between US and Bangladesh in
the Clinton-Dipu Moni talks in Dhaka. We heard
nothing about bilateral defence relationship, and shared commitment to peace
and prosperity in the region, etc., in the foreign ministry level Dhaka talks.
Small wonder the speculations are still going
the rounds about what, if any, talks were held in camera that the press missed.
About regional security matters under the
umbrella of US or another foreign powers, the government needs to set its
foreign policy priorities right. Bangladesh will never be a threat
to any foreign country. So, it does not seek any protective umbrella of any
foreign power. And what Bangladesh
looks for from US, Canada,
the European Union countries, Japan,
China,
Australia,
Russia
and our close neighbour India
is stronger economic and cultural ties. We hope they will treat us as a
privileged partner in our efforts to build stronger trading and commercial ties
with them and other countries of the world. And before anything else, we first
want to learn from their experience and expertise and develop ourselves
economically. With the US
in particular, we look forward to building stronger economic, cultural and
people to people relations in our efforts to achieve the goal of becoming a
middle income nation by 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment