BANBGLADESH AND THE UNITED NATIONS 

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador) (FOR PUBLICATION ON FRIDAY 17^TH SEPTEMBER 2004)

The first port of call of all decolonized nations was usually the United Nations seeking its membership that gave these countries legitimacy as members of the international community and also gave them assurances of security and territorial inviolability from possible attack by predatory states. The independence wave in the years following the Second World War, the second according to Samuel Huntington and Larry Diamond—the first wave being those gaining independence after the First World War and the third wave being those democracies achieved following the dissolution of Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union-- was one of the inevitable consequences of the War as it was fought in the name of occupied humanity who had to be freed and occupiers had to be defeated. Some concerns were, however, expressed as to the suitability of giving independence to some of the colonies on the ground they might not have both the societal values and the institutions necessary for the successful functioning of an independent state. In any case the Dumbarton Oaks Conference (1944) and the subsequent San Francisco Conference (1945) deliberated on the formation of a new international order based on universal respect for human rights. During the deliberations the Soviet proposal for a reference to the right of self-determination of peoples initially opposed by the US, UK and France was subsequently included in the Charter.  Perhaps the most important assertion in favor of decolonisation was UNGA’s resolution of December 1960 which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations because the subjection of peoples to alien subjection, domination and exploitation was a denial of human rights, contrary to UN Charter and an impediment to international peace and development”. This overwhelming moral demand on colonizers to free people from domination was generally heeded and consequently the membership of the UN grew at exponential rate.

In the case of Bangladesh which was not a colony of a foreign power in the traditional sense and whose independence was gained through a bloody war of liberation her relationship with the United Nations was forged in steel long before the country formally became a member of the UN. The story of her caesarian birth has been told in countless books. One outstanding account of our fight for freedom in the corridors and chambers of the United Nations has been detailed by Indian National Security Advisor J.N.Dixit in his book LIBERATION AND BEYOND.  Dixit’s account was revealing, as he was an individual taking active part in and becoming proximate witness to the momentous and historical events surrounding the independence of Bangladesh.  He described how despite Indian Foreign Minister Sardar Swaran Singh’s spirited advocacy of the East Pakistan crisis (in Sept-Oct 1971) in UNGA in seeking UN support most of the countries did not recognize the political aspect of the crisis and support the liberation struggle and the consequent fragmentation of Pakistan. These countries were willing to recognize the humanitarian aspect of the crisis. Even during the dying days of Pakistan on the eastern front, wrote Dixit, the US, Britain and France in the UNSC “urged an immediate ceasefire and resumption of political dialogue. None of these members addressed the basic cause of the crisis, namely, the non-fulfillment of the legitimate political verdict given by the people of Bangladesh”. Bangladesh owes a debt of gratitude to the former Soviet Union, among others, because had it not been for the Soviet veto (cast seven times in our favor in December 1971) President Nixon’s pro=Pakistan tilt would have found expression in the UNSC aborting our freedom struggle. But the surrender of the Pakistani occupation army did not automatically grant Bangladesh UN membership. The legal hurdle of the right of secession only by a “people” and not by an “ethnic group” had to be overcome. The International Commission of Jurists set up in 1972 to investigate the events of East Pakistan found that by 1970 the population of East Pakistan had constituted a separate “people”. The admission of Bangladesh into the UN, wrote Thomas Musgrave, as a sovereign and independent state constituted implicit recognition by the UNGA that the Bengalese were a people since only a people could freely determine its own political status. Besides, international law recognizes a continuum of remedies ranging from protection of individuals to minority rights ending with secession as the ultimate remedy. At a certain point the severity of a state’s treatment of its minority becomes a matter of international concern. This concern may finally involve an international legitimation of a right of secessionist self-determination (Lee Buehheit—Secession 1978). This is known as the “oppression theory” which was used to justify the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan. The recognition of Bangladesh as an independent country by the UN gave validity to the  “oppression theory” as a basis for secession. But then Bangladesh could very well been a rare case at that time if one were to look back at Biafra that failed to get international support due to the insistence by the African orthodoxy that only former colonies were entitled to be sovereign and independent states. Later, however, different formulas had to be set by the EU and the US for recognition of new independent states following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as on the occasion of peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

After meeting the political and legal criteria set by the international community on 17^th September 1974 Bangladesh took its seat as a member of the UN and has since then met her obligations expected of a responsible member. Twice Bangladesh was elected as a non-permanent member of the UNSC that reflected the growing confidence of the international community in Bangladesh in that the country has come a long way from Henry Kissinger’s description of Bangladesh as an “international basket case”. Like all small nations Bangladesh wants a world based on the rule of law partly because it lacks the military and economic might to withstand Hobbesian state of nature where there is continual fear of danger and violent death and partly because of the country’s aspiration to be counted as one in which the rule of law prevails. The fear of possible encroachment on her sovereignty, an encroachment not based on international law derived from global morality drawing force from solidarist approach of declaratory law but based on perceived  “aggressor”s selfish interests could have played an important role in the foreign and defense policy of Bangladesh and her inflexible faith in the UN Charter and the UN System.

          Bangladesh is acutely aware of global turmoil resulting from preemption and unilateral action as an option for security, targeting Islamic radicalism and its fall out of religious profiling. Bangladesh discounts any possibility of the UN becoming irrelevant because of its universality; inability of any one state to meet the intricate and inter-locking economic, monetary, financial and trade related problems arising out of globalization; and no less importantly as the legitimacy of the UN is founded on the principles of international law. Bangladesh regrets the slow progress in the achievement of Millennial Development Goals and “unacceptable and unconscionable” decline in aid flow to least developed countries. On Iraq Bangladesh’s policy appears to advocate a clear, effective and credible role for the UN in Iraq’s transition to democracy and in the country’s reconstruction. Understandably Bangladesh dependent as it is on US munificence for its well-being cannot afford to be overly critical of American muscularity. But Bangladesh’s hesitation to send troops to Iraq unless they are under UN command given Bangladesh’s impressive record of participating in 25 out of 53 UN peace keeping missions and now serving in 10 out of 16 on-going missions (additionally providing force commanders for UN peace keeping force in Mozambique and Georgia) should be read as the country’s expression of unhappiness over Anglo-US misadventure in Iraq. Bangladesh's activism along with other members had resulted in the UNGA declaration of the year 2000 as the International Year of the Culture of Peace. Bangladesh Presidency of the Security Council of March 2000 saw explosive situations in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, East Timor, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Congo, Somalia, Tajikistan and Western Sahara as main pre-occupation of the UNSC. Bangladesh is equally engaged in the fight against deteriorating economic situation in the least developed countries who to escape from the poverty trap has to achieve a 7% growth rate which suggests an increase in the ratio of investment to GDP by 25 per cent, an impossible target to achieve without considerable foreign investment. But then it is unrealistic to expect appreciable amount of foreign investment to flow into Bangladesh under the existing situation that is not investment friendly.

So far as the United Nations is concerned Bangladesh remains convinced of its indispensability as the central organ for collective management for global affairs. Bangladesh’s robust participation in many UN peacekeeping operations testifies to the country’s unshakeable faith in the UN Charter. Bangladesh strongly supports Kofi Anan’s call for strengthening the multilateral institutions and the principal organs of the UN through effective reforms representative of the aspirations and concerns of the member states, reforms not perpetuating current global imbalances and responding only to transitory phases. It is unclear, however, whether Bangladesh favors India’s inclusion as a permanent member of the UNSC in line with some developed countries’ support to Indian aspiration and G-8’s consideration to expand the club into G-10 by including China and India. Such international affirmation of Indian economic and diplomatic ascent as an important player in global affairs is now being lost in the incestuous nature of regional conflict. . It is also debatable how wise it is to raise bilateral issues, however obliquely, in the UN fora before all avenues for their settlement have been exhausted between the contestants. Bangladesh may wish to avoid following Pakistani example of saber rattling, as such a policy would be counterproductive and direct her energy on improving her negotiating skills, knowledge of issues to encyclopedic level, and mastery of diplomatic skills to irreproachable state. Only then a country like Bangladesh living at the edge of global society can effectively reclaim its position due to a country endowed with potentially rich human resources. In the ultimate analysis a resource-poor LDC like Bangladesh dependant as it is on increased foreign assistance and investment, unhindered market access and preferential treatment of its exportable; trapped in the vortex of poverty, lacking a knowledge-based society, pregnant with incipient domestic terrorism, can not but opt for an international community whose domestic and international behavior will be subordinate to international law and civilized code of conduct. In pursuit of these goals there cannot be any other organization more suitable than the United Nations.