IS SOVEREIGNTY AT STAKE? The case of Bangladesh-India Relations.
By Kazi Anwarul Masud
Of late Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges providing, interalia, limits on the bounds of propriety of conduct of foreign diplomats in the host country has become a topic of discussion among the people of Bangladesh surrounding the "objectionable" remarks of an ambassador posted in Bangladesh. Observations by some Ministers of the government denoting different interpretation have added to the confusion. Since in a parliamentary system responsibility is shared by all including the Prime Minister remarks by people in authority giving rise to controversy is most undesirable. While at the governmental level reaction has been discreet because the government is unwilling to take a position before the parliamentary and expert level delegation visits Tippaimukh and submits its report. Additionally Bangladesh Foreign Minister has been assured by her Indian counterpart that nothing would be done to harm the interest of Bangladesh. Opposition party's position on the issue has added to the relentless confrontational politics in Bangladesh. The common people and the civil society in Bangladesh are opposed to the construction of the dam and feel the issue should be resolved through negotiation.
Problems that arise from asymmetrical relationship between big and small neighbor are time worn. Indo-Bangladesh relationship is no exception. Despite Pakistan's repeated requests US continues its drone armed attacks against Taliban from NATO bases in Afghanistan into Pakistan. This argument is not to absolve the US actions but to emphasize that in the twenty first century national sovereignty is not absolute and illimitable but is circumscribed by actions of countries- big and small.
The point in question currently being debated is the limit put on sovereignty. One does not have to ingest Hobbesian philosophy to believe that man is basically self-interested seeking gain and glory but at the same time being fearful of one another would prefer concentrated power to create order. But since Kindelberger's theory of hegemonic stability has fallen by the wayside due to global apprehension over Bush doctrine of preemption, shelved by Barak Obama, the relentless erosion of Westphalian sovereignty continues to frighten, particularly Gunar Myardal's "soft states" which should include Bangladesh. Perhaps what frightens Bangladeshis in general, despite assurances given by India at the highest level, is its experience with the fall out from the construction of Farakka Barrage. Umbrage taken by Bangladesh authorities over its reaction to the reported comments of the Indian ambassador lacks clarity because both the countries are engaged in ascertaining the effects of the construction of Tipaimukh barrage by sending delegations and acquiring documents for examination by experts.
Political dystrophy and dissonance destroying the present and shrouding the illumination of the future can not but vitiate bilateral relations which are not desired by most Bangladeshis. Within the country, though, space must be given to all shades of opinion barring religious fanatics to air their views. Satow's guide to diplomacy and the Vienna Convention on diplomatic practices are not immutable religious texts but are subject to interpretation and integration of new commentaries. Sovereignty should not be so brittle that it can not withstand constructive criticism. The solution lies in mending one's aberrant ways and to be in total compliance with the internationally accepted code of conduct.
Bangladesh also finds intrusion into its sovereignty in the observations made by some donors in the conduct of its economic policies. In the past the donor countries and institutions dismayed at the deterioration in governance had, perhaps overstepping the bounds of diplomatic niceties, publicly taken the then government to task for its repeated failures to effect structural and regulatory reforms promised them earlier and for failing to arrest the slide in law and order in the country so central to the development process. Professor Nurul Islam(Making of a Nation- Bangladesh) describing Bangladesh authorities and donors as unequal partners finds it ironical that the donors who have been emphasizing right from the Sixties on the need for implementation of appropriate macro and micro policies have continued even today to nudge forward Bangladesh development strategy instead of it being country owned. Over the years, writes Professor Islam, the donors' priorities have ranged from basic needs, poverty, human development, environment, gender equality, social inclusion, human rights and political freedom. It is inevitable that the donors will ask for good governance from the recipient countries. After all aid money, despite its declining importance as a percentage of GDP or public expenditure (it declined from ten percent in the seventies to less than three percent in 1998), comes from taxes collected from the citizens of the donor countries. And the donors being democracies their governments are accountable to their respective parliaments and in turn to the electorate. Unsurprisingly therefore the donors insist on good governance containing elements of accountability, transparency, participation and predictability. The donors, regardless of the quantum of aid being given the allocation of which has shifted from need basis to performance basis were upset at the slow progress of reforms and the failure of the authorities to improve governance.
International concern about Bangladesh had increased as the country had topped the list of most corrupt countries for several successive years. In Marxian analysis poverty stricken great majority of people have nothing to sell but themselves as opposed to the wealth of the few that increases constantly. Inevitably the process of accumulation of wealth is corruption-ridden. Yves Menay(La corruption de la Republique) has ascribed four invariant characteristics of corruption;- (a) violation of social rules and norms; (b) secret exchange among political, social and economic markets; (c) illegal access given to individuals and groups to the process of political and administrative decision making; and (d) resultant tangible benefits to the parties involved in the transaction.
By any definition corruption is illegal and in the first instance results from collusion between political and money elitesthe first party abuses public position of trust for private gains of both parties. Giving a detailed analysis a former World Bank country Director concluded that Bangladesh was losing 2-3% GDP growth a year due to corruption. Another Country Director had assessed that governmental inadequacies was holding up growth rate of our economy. The GDP loss should be seen in the context of global interpersonal inequality in which the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting poorer. Danish expression of serious concern at the deterioration of governance situation especially of the law and order situation and German readiness to enter into a dialogue with Bangladesh authorities to ensure free and fair elections before the election that changed power from the BNP-Jamaat combine to Awami League led alliance was regarded by some as interference in our domestic affairs instead of being treated as constructive advice given by friends and not foes.
More importantly the donors' developmental aid and assistance policy these days include good governance in the recipient countries where they would like to see multi-party democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law, government with the consent of the governed, accountability, equity and poverty concerns are being addressed. Many of the demands made by the donors of the recipients may not be readily available in those countries yet to make "developmental transition" and excessive donor influence also raises the question of incursion into sovereignty of the recipient countries. In the tussle between the donors and the recipients particularly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union the developing world is still struggling with the question as to whether capitalism is the right way to development. Sir William Ryrie, a former Executive Director of IFC suggests "market economy" for the Third World where market economy is defined as "properly regulated capitalism", a system which seeks to maximize economic efficiency and growth while minimizing the social ills and injustices which unfettered capitalism can throw up. Though theoretically the market system to operate perfectly would demand withdrawal of the state experience has shown, particularly in the Third World, the role state must play to ensure proper development of the market economy.
In gist, the state must ensure that the system and services needed for a market economy to function efficiently exist. Importantly the legal system embodying the commercial and corporate law must exist. The state must also ensure an environment of competition which both Adam Smith and Karl Marx agreed that capitalists naturally do not want competition and try to avoid it. The basic infrastructure and social services must also be provided by the state. In the final analysis there is no unique constellation of conditions that would require the state to play its role which would vary according to the stage of development an economy is already in.
Due to global economic recession originating from the Western developed economies they seem to have lost some of their habit to lecture developing countries as to how their economies should be managed. The recession has given rise to a global debate about the efficacy of the capitalist system and its usefulness to alleviating poverty in poorest regions of the world. More so as globalization lacks a human face. Columbia University Professor Jagadish Bhagwati takes the contrary view. Giving the example of India and China, "two countries with gigantic poverty problems", Bhagwati argues that they have been able to grow so fast by taking advantage of trade and foreign investment and by doing so they have dramatically reduced poverty. Fortunately G-8 has realized that global problems ultimately affecting development and security of all nations cannot be done by them alone and therefore G-20 that would be more inclusive and have developing counties as members would be more meaningful. Decisions taken as a group, in a way like the UN Security Council, would be more acceptable to the developing countries and hence would not be regarded as infringement into sovereignty. Wider questions like Gareth Evan's responsibility to prevent and protect endorsed by the UN Summit and demand by some for revision of the UN Charter in the changed circumstances of terrorism by non-state actors that challenge Professor Michael Walzer's laws of war and assurances of inviolability of sovereignty and territorial integrity given by the UN Charter are also relevant in any discussion of the concept of sovereignty.
Professor Robert Jackson (Sovereignty at the Millennium) feels that philosophical hegemony of sovereign states is a barrier to the historical quest for human fulfillment. Besides retreat from traditional sovereignty is embedded in the moral practices of the world and advancing �humanitarian space� is needed for augmentation of human rights as a standard of international conduct. Giving the example of the European Union, Robert Jackson argues that the member countries of the Union have recognized the decreasing importance of the instrumental value of sovereignty as it inhibits the pursuit of their interests and concerns as demonstrated by the extensive reshuffling of sovereignty of the newly independent Eastern European countries after the fall of the Soviet empire. The presence of the big fiveBritain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain have not discouraged Slovenia, for example, to join EU.
If the concept of "popular sovereignty" meaning that sovereignty resides in the will or consent of the people is broadly accepted then the utilitarian value of state or governmental sovereignty decreases accordingly. As past acts as a guide to the future conduct of the people and government alike then the lessons of the German brutality in the Second World War, historical Franco-British, Franco-Spanish or Dutch-British wars of aggrandizement of the centuries gone by did not stand in the way of the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community from which the European Union has evolved. One can argue that the creation of SAARC is an example similar to EU. But it is undeniable that Europeans are much more adept than South Asians in solving their occasional individual spats without rocking the boat of intra-regional cooperation despite the fact that the Europeans have breached the principle of equal sovereignty by allocating two commissioners to large states and one to small states, and the practice of qualified majority voting. They have also accepted that sovereignty can be compressed as the European Court of Justice can rule on the validity of national legislation in certain areas of common policy such as social and economic policies placed under the jurisdiction of the Treaty of Rome and other EU treaties.
The point being made is that "equal sovereignty" has become more theoretical than practical in the present day world and has been more so for centuries when might prevailed over lawful global order. A World Bank study on Indo-Bangladesh trade (report no-37863-October 2006) states that for India trade with Bangladesh is only a very small part of its total trade while for Bangladesh India has now become the largest single source of imports ahead of China and Singapore. Similar is the pattern with informal trade. The report points out that despite appreciation of real Taka/Rupee exchange rate between mid 1880s up to about 1999 Bangladesh export to India continued to stagnate mainly due to faster productivity growth in India reducing Bangladeshi exports' competitive edge, and significant tariff and non-tariff barriers constraining Bangladesh�s major exports (RMG) or minor exports that have grown in other countries. The report continues that Bangladesh is the only beneficiary of India�s LDC only SAPTA preferences since Nepal and Bhutan have duty free accesses to Indian market under bilateral agreements.
There may be a sense of denial among Bangladeshis of the present generation of the contribution by India and former Soviet Union in the struggle for liberation of Bangladesh. Undeniably Indian humanitarian intervention in Bangladesh war was not purely altruistic. Yet to deny India's contribution in the form of giving refuse to large number of Bangladeshis in India, her and Soviet Union's diplomatic offensive in favor of Bangladesh's liberation, and finally entering the war of liberation in support of Bangladeshi freedom fighters in which thousands of Indian soldiers lost their lives would be an act of utter ingratitude.
The paragraphs above are not to justify the indiscreet remarks of a particular country's diplomat as the job of any ambassador is to strengthen friendly relations with the host country unless otherwise mandated by the sending country as had happened by the demarche by the Axis countries� ambassadors before the declaration of Second World War. Ordinarily an ambassador's conduct is expected to be in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges. At the same time a host country should be careful that a cost-benefit analysis is made before inflating an incident beyond the scope of necessity so that multifaceted relations with any country do not suffer irreparable damages.
The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh
.
No comments:
Post a Comment