BANGLADESH DIPLOMACY IN THE MAKING

(FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 9^TH DECEMBER 2007)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud( former secretary and ambassador)

It is commonly believed that “foreign policy is that area of politics which bridges the all important boundary between the nation state and its international environment” and though politics may stop at the water’s edge foreign policy is the projection of the capacity of a country’s interests that it considers important to be implemented in its international relations. Bush administration considers its doctrine of preemption as an essential part of its foreign policy and as an integral part of ensuring the  security of the American people. Whether global community’s agreement has to be sought is irrelevant to the Bush administration and if one goes by the philosophies propagated by the likes of Robert Kagan( Power and Weakness) or other conservatives who would like subordination of US laws to international laws and norms then military might takes precedence over foreign policy. It would, therefore, appear that a country’s foreign policy is generally in step with its political weight in international arena and economic and military might that it possesses.

  It is reported that Bangladesh aims to strengthen a balanced relationship with all regional and neighboring countries including those within SAARC and BIMSTEC, develop linkages with  ASEAN, EU and the Commonwealth. Bangladesh also aims to cultivate relations with key powers like the US, the Russian Federation, UK, Japan and China. The aims appear to be commendable at first glance. Though multilaterally SAARC and BIMSTEC are important it is not readily understood how Bangladesh can have similar relationship with India which  uncomfortably surrounds us on three sides as with Maldives, Sri Lanka and Pakistan that are thousands of miles away from our shores. One has to remember that  the days of cold war politics of playing one power against the other are long gone and almost all countries direct their foreign policy to serve their economic and trade interests in a peaceful international environment. Since barring Iraq and Afghanistan(applauded by the world over the exit of the Talibans) physical occupation of a country by another has become a matter of the past. Consequently economic diplomacy has gained importance in the conduct of foreign policy. There is no reason to believe that Bangladesh should be an exception to this rule. Besides the definition of security has undergone sea change from traditional territorial security against foreign invaders and now include food security, human security, environmental security etc. While setting up NATO John Foster Dulles felt the necessity to protect Western values and religion from possible onslaught by communist menace and Canadian Lester Pearson felt that then menacing state of affairs could not be resolved by the United Nations. Now fifty years later the demise of the Soviet Union and Communism resulted in the closure of Warsaw Pact despite Russian discomfiture over NATO’s backtracking of its promise of not to deploy nuclear weapons in the new member states of NATO who are all countries of former East Europe. But American nuclear primacy has made conventional security threat irrelevant. The world is more likely to be threatened by Nontraditional Security Threats(NTS) like climate change as we have seen through cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh. Repeated degradation of the quality of life and large scale displacement of people could have the distinct possibility of forced migration of people to neighboring countries where they may not be welcome. Though NTS “are mainly nonmilitary in nature, transnational in scope- neither domestic nor purely interstate, come with very short notice, and are transmitted very rapidly due to globalization and communication revolution”( The Stanley Foundation- June 2007).In a  book Professor Dr. Eric Uslaner (of the University of Maryland ) interrogated the premise as to whether economic reform should precede political reform basing  his arguments on the premises that democratic institutions are not the source of clean government and elections can be breed corruption and   that the simple adoption of democratic institutions without bringing the people out of inequality trap( both economic and unfair legal system) would not bring about democracy for which preparations are being made in Bangladesh in right earnest. If Dr. Uslaner’s prescription of emphasis on economic development is accepted then logically we have to improve our relations with countries with whom we have substantial trade relations/ or are dependant for supply of essential commodities the prices of which have sky rocketed in recent years.  Bangladesh also has to develop relations with countries who can be significant foreign investors, not in areas of natural resources only where we can develop our own expertise or in areas that would in future will reduce our competitive advantage, but in fields that would enrich our human resources.  Unfortunately till now foreign investment has mostly come to service and energy sectors.

 While it is to be  accepted that corollary effects of economic growth without being accompanied by what Nobel laureates  Joseph Stiglitz would call “moral growth” and Amartya Sen would demand development as a fundamental right are invariable growth of unplanned urbanization or slums and increase in criminalizing of society and unequal distribution of wealth. While no one will contradict the idea that Bangladesh should play more active role internationally one has to be pragmatic in the sense that no one can be bigger than the country he/she represents. Immanuel Wallerstein once wrote “Man’s ability to participate intelligently in the evolution of his own system is dependant on his own ability to perceive the whole”.  In the UN we should continue to uphold the reputation we have acquired as UN Peace keepers and try to enlarge our participation. As a spokesperson of LDCs our efforts have to be better than what has been in the past. We appear to have sent a competent person to Geneva who should be able to further our interests in the WTO negotiations. It is doubtful whether tabling a bill in the US House of Representatives will result in Bangladesh getting duty free access to RMG unless we seek help of other countries( India has the second largest lobby in the US Congress after Israel) to push our case. in short foreign policy should be apolitical so that successive governments can follow up the diplomatic efforts of the preceding governments. Unless we can forge this unity mainly in our decision making  process without ascribing individual credit both our foreign policy and diplomacy will remain wanting.