BANGLADESH IN GLOBAL COMMUNITY (FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 4^TH JULY 2006)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

Regardless of universal concern and opposition by many one may have to accept the fact that the asymmetric world of today, like society from time immemorial, is divided into groups based on power, beliefs and values. Perhaps, the fundamental change from the olden days is reflected in the possibility of vertical movement from one group to another as opposed to the hierarchical positions held by individuals, and states in paradigmatic metropolitan and peripheral relationship. But if international peace and security demand of the global society, holding reasonable but widely divergent views and is divided into fractious groups, the global society may have to accept a regime of hegemonic stability in which the global hegemon in concert with regional hegemons would ensure that all members of the Societas of states are adhering to the accepted rules of civilized behavior. Albeit, in aberrant cases Gareth Evans’ advocation of humanitarian intervention or Marie Ann Slaughter’s Duty to Prevent or Tony Blair’s Doctrine of International Community could allow intervention by powerful polity into the weaker ones.

Historians have attempted to characterize such interventions as imperial (intervening in another polity without actually governing it), hegemonic (setting the rules of the game which others must follow), and colonial (governing internal affairs of a subordinate polity). Such abrogation of sovereignty would be fiercely opposed by many on grounds of unwelcome intrusion by a foreign polity into one’s domestic affairs and also on the ground, seemingly reasonable, that as the ground realities are best known to the people intruded upon they are in a far better position than the intruding polity to prescribe solution to the current instability. The principle of intervention, without the consent of the UNSC or in self-defense from imminent attack being dubbed as unjust war by Professor Michael Walzer, can also be opposed on the ground of non-reciprocity because the weaker polity is unable to take similar redress against the stronger polity. Argument can also be advanced that because of the absence of uniformity of the threshold of tolerance it may be difficult to decide as to when the stronger polity can justifiably intervene. In the aftermath of Iraq invasion the international community has become acutely aware that the premise publicly touted by the hegemon advocating invasion for getting national and international support may prove to be false at later date and bringing about post-invasion peace can prove to be extremely hazardous. One has to bear in mind that popular opposition to external intrusion nourished by post-Westphalian and post-colonial orthodoxy can be subdued by force for a certain period at a cost to the interventionist, both human and financial, but permanent resolution of any conflict can not be found unless majority of the people, both in the affected country and internationally, can be brought on board. Indian humanitarian intervention in 1971 in then East Pakistan could not have been possible without the unambiguous desire of the Bengali population to be free from Pakistani occupation. Equally, the NATO thwarted Serbian military intervention in Kosovo because the majority of the Kosovars wanted to be free of Serbian domination. One may, therefore, reach the conclusion that while a stronger polity may invade a weaker one it would become difficult to get international legitimacy for the invasion. This has been amply proved by the lack of international support, despite the so-called coalition of the willing, in the case of Iraq. Conversely if one reviews the conduct of the super powers during the Cold War period one would find many examples of intervention by them e.g. Hungary and Czechoslovakia by the USSR; Panama, Granada, Somalia, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs in Cuba, Dominican Republic etc by the United States. Additionally both engineered regime changes in Asia, Africa and Latin America through their compradors. Iran, now at the top of the Western agenda due to its alleged nuclear ambition, was also a victim of Cold War politics when the popular Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh was overthrown with the connivance of the CIA and the unpopular Shah was reinstated on his throne contributing to the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini establishing theocracy in an otherwise moderate Muslim country.

The flouting of international law by the super powers was possible because of the existence of the balance of terror in an essentially bipolar world. But the current nuclear primacy enjoyed by the US coupled with the failure of Russia, China, and the EU to bring about multi-polarity in global politics has resurfaced the debate on the appropriateness of hegemonic stability. But the integrity of the global hegemon and its regional partners to whom some of the hegemonic responsibilities are expected to be delegated shall remain questionable because in the ultimate analysis both the foreign and defense policies of nation states, and hegemons are no exceptions, are dictated by national self-interest, now being primarily expressed in terms of war on terror and continuance of economic prosperity (in the case of the US refusal to sign on to the Protocol on Global Warming and International Criminal Court).

Robert Kagan has tried to explain away the US power to dictate by the American proclivity to “favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion” while confronting adversaries, while the Europeans prefer sophistication, subtlety and indirection. Niall Ferguson, a highly credentialed academic, has pleaded with the US to take up imperial role because in his view unipolarity would not be replaced by multi-polarity but by apolarity meaning “an anarchic new Dark Age: religious fanaticism, of endemic plunder and pillage in the world’s forgotten regions, of economic stagnation, and civilization’s retreat into few fortified enclaves”.

These are extreme scenarios, alarmists’ ringing of the bell to awaken the Colossus to take up its “task” of regulating a new world order. President Bush’s United States of America certainly does not need any prodding. Dr. Cindy Williams (of MIT) has observed that in the 2006 budget $492 billion has been earmarked for national defense while only $ 32 billion has been allocated to international affairs revealing an overwhelming preference for military option for conflict resolution. Indeed the US spending on national defense comes to about half of global military spending and greatly exceeds that of any other nation on earth. This stands in sharp contrast to the 21^st century global environment in which erosion of governance could give rise to repressive regimes, violent conflicts, large number of people affected by extreme poverty and environmental degradation opening up possibilities of fascistic nationalism and aggressive militarism, and conflict over water and other natural resources. This scenario becomes all the more dangerous because of international connectivity and increasing dependence of national prosperity on international cooperation. .

In such a situation one should ponder about the implications of the barrage of critical advice given to Bangladesh by the donor countries, the increasingly stricter conditionality imposed by international financial institutions for giving loans, sharp criticism leveled against Bangladesh by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch among others for human rights violations, and the most recent criticism by ILO on the appallingly low labor conditions and Bangladesh having the lowest wage rate in the world following the labor unrest in the garment factories. Such criticism from external sources compares Bangladesh unfavorably with Somalia, Sudan (with Darfur problem), or Haiti. If 1776 American War of Independence and 1789 French Revolution are historical landmarks then 1954 language movement and 1971 war of liberation of Bangladesh should not be allowed to be lost sight of. Bangladesh must regain its damaged image as a non-communal, and successfully emerging democracy and an economic tiger waiting in the wings.