THE DAILY STAR

Vol. 5 Num 974 Sun. February 25, 2007

Editorial Going Deeper Mending Indo-Bangladesh relations Kazi Anwarul Masud FOREIGN policy of smaller nations often is influenced by internal rather than external considerations. For the great powers of the world, a security threat is now defined not in terms of a country at imminent risk of being invaded before it can respond militarily, but in terms of the Bush doctrine of pre-emption where the interventionist power can intrude upon the sovereignty of another country if it feels that the country so invaded poses a threat to its security.Recently, at the Munich conference on security policy, Russian president Putin pleaded for the deconstruction of this doctrine because, he said: "A world in which there is one master, one sovereign ... is pernicious not only for those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within." Putin also questioned the rationale of Nato expansion and installation of military infrastructure by Nato on the border of the Russian Federation because Nato was conceived by John Foster Dulles and Lester Pearson as a military alliance to safeguard the religious beliefs and western political system as a counter attraction to communism, and to save what they considered as western values from the Security Council of the United Nations during the cold war period. What Putin questioned was the efficacy of the expansion of Nato in the light of waning great power rivalry and the global task of fighting terrorism in all its forms, for which multi-polarity, and not uni-polarity, should be the order of the day. As opposed to that, the Bush administration appears to have embraced the philosophy of neo-con guru, Irving Kristol, that, for a great power, "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for some prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that it's foreign policy is always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from undemocratic forces, external or internal. Kristol's idea found resonance in Bush's 2007 State of the Union address when, referring to the Iraq war, he said: "This is more than a clash of arms. It is a decisive ideological struggle." From the above premises, one can divine that, regardless of the sovereignty and territorial integrity that the UN charter has guaranteed to all the members of the world body, the fact remains that, as much from its inception and as it is today in the days of American nuclear primacy, applicability of international law has always suffered from differential and deferential treatment among the member states. In the light of the above, despite the Indian external minister's pronouncements during his visit to Dhaka a few days back that both India and Bangladesh have agreed to take steps to place bilateral relations on an "irreversible higher trajectory," and that India attaches the highest importance to its relations with Bangladesh, a welcome policy signal from an increasingly growing global player, a panel discussion by an Indian think-tank chaired by a former Indian high commissioner to Bangladesh saw Bangladesh as follows: (a) a centre of Pakistani ISI activities, (b) ISI and Bangladesh intelligence agencies have coordinated their efforts along with outfits like Ulfa, the Islamist outfits operating in Assam, the NSCA and NLFT, and ATTF of Tripura, (c) Bangladesh is seen as an extension of Pakistan's terror arm. Reports indicate that Pakistan based outfits have relocated their camps and training to Bangladesh where the BNP regime was a willing partner, and (d) the presence of Islamist parties in power (the panel discussions were held before the latest caretaker government was installed), and their strong political support led to the gradual transformation of a secular Bangladesh to a more fundamentalist and radical state. Earlier, the Indian media held the Bangladesh government's relaxed attitude responsible for Bangladesh being a haven for terrorists fleeing counter-terrorism elsewhere. Some in the Indian media, albeit too early in the day, have expressed suspicion that Pak-based, India-based and Bangladesh-based terrorists were responsible for the explosion in the Samjhota express at Panipat, killing more than sixty people and leaving scores seriously injured. Even Bangladesh's excellent relations with China are seen by some Indian political analysts "in terms of the psychological threat that Bangladesh perceives from India, so that closer ties with China provide Bangladesh with a sense of security against India." Undeniably, there is widespread anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh, despite India's crucial help in the attainment of our independence. The immediate past government, manned by anti-liberation forces with pre-conceived anti-Indian notions exerting disproportionate influence on policy formulation, strengthened this feeling. The dynamics of domestic politics, and Indian indifference to a fair treatment of Bangladeshi complaints, have been added factors. The tension between neighbours is time-worn, and has caused critical differences between them since the birth of organised political communities. For Bangladesh the duty remains to be on the right side of international law in resolution of bilateral disputes, and to be sensitive to New Delhi's security concerns. Perhaps then we can see the translation of our relations with India firmly on an "irreversible higher trajectory." Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.