Why did our relations with the US sour?

President Joe Biden of the United States, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Xi Jinping of China

Entering its third term in power, the Awami League government is facing a serious foreign policy challenge. A number of ministers have elevated this challenge almost to the level of a war. And then there are certain media outlets, to ingratiate themselves with the government, who have also taken up an anti-America 'war' with headlines like 'America is on the brink of bankruptcy' or 'America quakes in fear of Putin', etc.

After reading all this on online portals, I furtively peer out of my window to see if any American finds out that I'm from Bangladesh and comes to attack me. Of if the US government becomes bankrupt, then a public university teacher like me will have to starve along with my family.

Then again, I hesitate to write about Bangladesh's economic interests with the US for fear that I am labelled as an agent of some US agency. When former US president Trump was put on trial in court, I learnt from a Bangladeshi TV channel that "a river of blood will flow through the streets of America". Since the US has not fallen bankrupt, not has any river of blood flowed through the country's streets, I have taken courage to write.

Global power triangle and diplomacy

Economic diplomacy is at the heart of modern foreign policy. Foreign ministry bureaucrats and professional diplomats understand this matter, but the concerned political leaders fail to grasp its significance. That is why they sprout excessive rhetoric and damage external relations.

Professional diplomats do not have much to do. If ministers reel out rhetoric on internal matters, that is not a problem. They have to keep the political arena heated. Again, if a minister comes into excessive focus of the media, he sometimes deviates into a profusion of speech, but the people accept that too. But the foreign office must be controlled with measured words, with speeches and statements written by professional diplomats.

Bangabandhu would respect such professionalism. He would consult professional diplomats and so despite being an anti-imperialist leader, he won a peace award from the western world. The objective of the US, China or Russia's foreign policies is to determine military and strategic issues in their interests for global or regional dominance. All three of these countries are busy exerting their respective influence. Some adopt a strategy of economic and intellectual influence and others take to medieval-style direct land occupation.

Different diplomacy in developing countries

The fundamental objective of the foreign policy of developing countries like Bangladesh is to protect and expand economic and trade interests. I have seen in the village Nalitabari, when two leaders fight, the intelligent schoolmaster or farmer does not take sides. They quietly ensure their own interests.

The schoolmaster tutors the daughters of the two leaders. The farmer cultivates land leased from both of them. Why get involved in their disputes? But Bangladesh, armed with Putin's dangerous electricity and innumerable construction projects on Chinese credit, has been merrily damaging ties with the US. This has soured relations with the US further. There was no need for this.

Despite being a huge consumer of Russian oil, the Modi government hasn't immersed itself in the love of Putin. Quite to the contrary, when speaking at the US Congress, Prime Minister Modi clearly said that Ukraine is an independent country and has the right to maintain to territorial sovereignty.

He did not bother whether this would raise the blood pressure of the ever irate Putin. In fact, he clearly expressed acceptance of the UN mandate and the right to avoid being attacked by aggressive neighbours. He did not brush off the attack on Ukraine as a 'Russia-Ukraine war'. If one is to give views on complex matters, then consulting one's own constitution and the UN conventions is the mark of an astute diplomat.

Lauding Russia in the spirit of '71

The spirit of Bengalis lies in 1971. But it is not prudent to drag this into everything. At an investment conference in Singapore, one of  our ministers went on and on about the 1971 war in his speech. A Singaporean businessman sitting next to me said, why is he saying all this at an investment conference? I said, 1971 is the year of our independence. He said, we don't start with Lee Kuan. It would be wiser to talk about investment here.

It is irrelevant to determine relations in today's work based on the history of which side Russia or America took in 1971.

Those are all in the past. If anyone tries to find 1971's Leonid Brezhnev in Vladimir Putin, they need to change their glasses. Those who try to find Nixon's shadow in Joe Biden, needs to have their eyesight checked.

The Soviet Union of 1971 was a superpower based on socialist ideology which had succeeded in creating a separate freedom-seeking world. Bangabandhu had wanted to build up a Sonar Bangla (Golden Bengal) based on socialist ideals. India's Indira Gandhi was respectful towards that ideology too. It was based on that equation that the Soviet Union stood by our side.

Today's Russia has a completely opposite ideology. Putin has with his own hands build up a coterie of oil and gas moguls and has become a neo 'tsar'. He is notorious for his oppression of the followers of Islam and for the enforced disappearance of dissidents. Today if the 1971 war took place, undoubtedly Putin would side with the wealth and military oriented Pakistan.

The manner in which Putin's forces pounced mercilessly on the people of Ukraine is nothing different from the manner in which General Yahya's forces pounced upon the innocent Bengalis. If we are shy to condemn this in the UN, then what will Bangladesh's stand be if tomorrow India occupies Bhutan?

'Concert for Bangladesh' in America

As a student of Binghamton University, I was eating in a corner of the canteen. An elderly member of the dining staff came up and asked me where I was from. When I said 'Bangladesh', he almost hugged me in excitement. He had attended the 'Concert for Bangladesh' arranged by Ravi Shankar and George Harrison.

He had even contributed to the fund. The general people of America back then had been on the side of the freedom-loving people of Bangladesh. Leaders of Bangladesh and India as well as economists, had mobilised public support in America, had collected funds for the refugees. Even though the Republicans had been in power, many Republican Congressmen did not approve of Nixon's pro-Pakistan stance.

The US Congressmen don't simply spend their lives in giving voice votes. They are discerning in expressing their views, and these views can go for or against their party. The Democrat members opposed the Pakistan genocide and awoke the conscience of America.

They raised a resolution in the UN to halt the war and forced their government to send aid for the refugees. All this history seemed to rot overnight in Bangladesh, the moment that the US announced its new visa policy. The tune was changed because within the ruling party this visa policy took on discordant notes.

The ministers are of different schools of thought. There has been a lack of diplomatic skill. There was need for coordinated brainstorming among professional diplomats, ministers and advisors to come up with uniform statements. The 1971 issue shouldn't have been dragged in to the US visa policy issue.

China's stance in 1971 wasn't conducive for Bangladesh either. I am too embarrassed to even mention here how they would term the independence struggle. Is that why the ministers are silent about China?

Why is the US important?

The answer to the question lies in the famous words of Bill Clinton's election strategist James Carville -- "It's the economy, stupid." Whenever the US election comes around, these words fill the air and it is the economy that becomes the determining factor for winning or losing the election. In terms of economy, the US is the most important country in the world for Bangladesh. And so it would be intelligent diplomacy to maintain good relations with the US.

This is more than evident in the balance sheet of transactions. There are three roots at the base of Bangladesh's foreign exchange reserve tree -- export revenue, remittance, and capital. It is because we have exports that we can import. It is because we have remittance that we can manage the trade and service deficit and significantly reduce the current account. And what we fail to do, is tided over by the foreign investment.

If foreign investment is higher than the current account deficit, the transaction balance is ensured and the surplus goes to the foreign exchange reserve. Export revenue, remittance and foreign investment -- the US is the champion for Bangladesh in all three of these sectors, the most important country. Russia is nowhere near. Nor is China or India.

If the election is neutral, then the US visa policy will not worry us. There is no need either for this anxiety or for this garrulous nonsense

The US provides Bangladesh with the second highest amount of remittance. Importantly, this remittance is permanent and perpetual. If the prices of oil drop or the oil reserves are exhausted or if there is any serious epidemic, then the Middle East countries will send our workforce packing.

The US cannot do that because there is qualitative immigration there. Those sending remittance from there are US residents or citizens. Every year 10,000 students go to the US. At the end of 10 years, they take eight-fold the number of relations there too. The people who go through the lottery too take many relations from home. This influx continues. There are about one million Bengalis living in the US.

They do not only send back remittance, but enrich their own country with knowledge, science, technology, medical and education facilities and all this is invaluable. The benefits are perpetual and continuous. We do not get even a fraction of this assistance from China or Russia. They will not buy our garments or commodities. They will never help us with permanent immigration.

Resolving matters

We should have kept all of this in mind before souring our relations with the US. The way to resolve things would be to extend diplomatic economy in order to strengthen relations.

We must avoid the hollow snide remarks often made, such as 'They are taking St Martins away', 'Bangladesh's human rights is better than that of the US', 'They could do nothing to Iran and Cuba with their embargoes', 'They are jealous of Bangladesh's development', and so on.

When a society is educated, there are many laws that are no longer required. If the election is neutral, then the US visa policy will not worry us. There is no need either for this anxiety or for this garrulous nonsense.

* Dr Biru Paksha Pal is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Cortland, USA.

* This column appeared in the print an online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir