It won’t be easy to strike a balance between India and China

There was a clear divide among the global powers over Bangladesh’s election. On one side there was China, India and Russia, and on the other there was the US and countries of the West. Has this election in Bangladesh spelt victory for one side and defeat for the other?

Bangladesh’s election results or the process of the election is important for us. It really does not have that much of an impact on the outside world. If the election is good, the government gains strength, its legitimacy is consolidated and it capacity to perform is enhanced. If not, the political and democratic system is weakened, institutional framework is damaged. It is the people of the country who suffer. So to my mind, at the end of the day, the election is a matter that pertains to the people of Bangladesh.

As for the outside forces that you mentioned, they look after their own interests and from their own angles and will continue to do so in future. What is important now is how we proceed, and how we will uphold our interests. This will depend on our competence and capacity.

How is that?

You see, if we have the competence, we may not lean towards any one side. If we do not have the competence, there is always the risk of leaning towards one particular side. I do not deem this will bode well for our national interests, security, economy or diplomacy. It depends on our capacity how far we can uphold our interests and gain the respect of others.

First of all we must keep in mind that we have the image of being a democracy. Our constitution and political framework is democratic. This is the mantra of our liberation war, of our state. We want to stand on the foundation of democracy.

Secondly, from the economic angle, we have relations with the US, Europe, Canada, Japan, India, China and all countries in the interests of our imports, exports and assistance. There really is not scope to relinquish one side in favour of the other.

I think it is important here to discern whether we have gained succes by means of this election. If we are successful, then we can keep up our relations with all in a logical and realistic manner.

It was expected that countries like China, India or Russia would offer their congratulations, but there were apprehensions concerning what stand the US and countries of the European Union would adopt. But greetings came from there too. That was a matter of relief for the government. Has the position of the West concerning our elections changed after the election?

You must understand that the matter of relations with any country functions on several levels. There is the relation between states, relations between governments, and relations at a people’s level. All this must be taken into consideration in the matter of diplomacy. The US is placing importance on relations with civil society and the people. And as a state, relations with Bangladesh are important to the US. So it is important to maintain decorum at a certain level. After the election, the US has maintained this decorum when expressing its stand.

The European Union has spoken about working with Bangladesh. But it has also made it clear that unless their rights-related conditions are met, Bangladesh may be deprived of GSP+ facilities. That is, there may be a negative impact on Bangladesh.

We have the propensity of looking at relations from the government angle rather than the multilateral aspects. That will not give a clear picture. The matter must be viewed holistically. We have to remember that relations with foreign quarters are not like politics within the country. These relations work on many levels.

Questions have been raised from many quarters about the credibility of the election due to the boycott by the opposition, the low voter turnout and allegations of various irregularities. In the context of the present-day international politics, how important is the credibility of elections of any country?

I think it is an extremely important matter. An election indicates a state’s character, in which direction it is headed. US State Department counselor Derek Chollet had said that unless Bangladesh’s democratic system is strengthened, US relations with Bangladesh may be limited. EU has repeatedly stated that it will be easier to avail GSP+ facilities if Bangladesh’s elections and democratic system is strengthened. This indicates that Bangladesh’s election has relevance to its relations with various countries.

Again, Bangladesh will upgrade to the developing country status in 2026. There is a political aspect to this. Bangladesh’s status will increase. But certain requirements will also increase. Bangladesh will have to face a new reality in trade, investment, assistance, credit, remittance, technology transfer and all sectors. We have been receiving special concessions in these areas till now. This will no longer be so after 2026. It will not be easy. After following one way for 55 years, a new start has to be made. We will have to stand up to competition from the outside world. We will require sweeping reforms. The tax system will have to be changed, the education system will have to be change for the sake of skill development, the banking system will have to be upgraded to global standards. All this is related to our democratic system. So our election certainly has relevance on an international level. You will note that in many countries, an election can determine the positive or negative fate of the country.

In countries that are recognised as democratic states, how far are they concerned about the democracy of other countries outside of their own economic and other strategic interests? The world’s largest democracy apparently doesn’t take democracy into consideration in its relations with other countries. Is this reality now?

The US, the European Union, and also other big countries like Canada and Australia, want their ideology and systems to spread to other countries. You mentioned India being the largest democracy and that is a matter of pride to them. The central component of the present world order is to extend one’s own system of governance to other countries. When the West talks about democracy, these see this as a part of spreading their own values.

Then, outside of this, there is a strategic aspect. The present world is seeing a competition between the US and China. In this competition, the US may use democracy, geostrategy, everything in its national interests. As global economy is extending from Euro-Atlantic towards the Indo-Pacific, the rise of China is a cause of concern from the US and the West. They want to prevent the rise of China in this region, though they do not want to come into conflict with China.

As geopolitics is revolving around this region now, as a Bay of Bengal country Bangladesh too is a part of this. Whether we want it or not, Bangladesh is being pulled into this vortex. Everyone wants Bangladesh on their side. China wants to attach its projects in Bangladesh to its Belt and Road Initiative. And the US wants to see everything in the Indo-Pacific Strategy lens.

As I mentioned before, democratic countries work on two levels. One is on values and the other, interests. India is a rising power in this region, but not a major player in the power games of global politics. However, they are certainly a major power in South Asia. So they want o exert their influence here and hence interests take on priority. Democracy or values are not a priority, though they are the world’s largest democracy. That is how reality stands.

India and China openly expressed their stand and support for the Bangladesh government in the 7 January election. Yet China and India are at loggerheads over exerting influence in the region. Some feel that Bangladesh will not face too much of a problem in maintaining a balance in dealing with the demand and transactions of the two. Again, others feel it will not be that easy. What do you think?

India and China openly expressed their stand and support for the Bangladesh government in the 7 January election. Yet China and India are at loggerheads over exerting influence in the region. Some feel that Bangladesh will not face too much of a problem in maintaining a balance in dealing with the demand and transactions of the two. Again, others feel it will not be that easy. What do you think?

So what strategy do you think Bangladesh should adopt under the circumstances?

As a part of diplomacy, I want to highlight certain factors. Firstly, the country’s domestic politics must be consolidated. Economic planning must be strengthened too. We maintain a balance in relations, but we tend to play a reactive role in this regard. But I feel this should be proactive. We must be upfront. If we talk to India, we need to inform China that we are taking up with work with India. Or if we are doing anything with China, we should inform India so that there is no misunderstanding. That is what I mean by proactive. You have to be diplomatic in informing them of your actions in advance. This strategy can neutralize many things.

The US had been active for quite some time before Bangladesh’s election. But just before the election, they fell rather silent. Was this a strategic move on the part of the US?

I feel this is a part of their regular functioning. They can be vocal when they need to be and then fall silent as and when needed. But I do not think the US is moving away from its target. This was made clear by the National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby immediately after the election. He said that there was no change in the US position. We need to keep certain factors in mind here. When the US Ambassador Peter Haas attended the swearing-in ceremony at Bangabhaban, many people commented upon seeing his smiling countenance that everything was fine now. But that is not so. The Americans function very deep. They only take a decision after much study and analysis of the facts and figures. Just smiling and talking to you doesn’t mean they agree with you or have accepted your point of view. I feel they are working to achieve their objective, whether overtly or covertly.

The US has made it clear that they were not pleased with the 7 January election. Earlier they had enacted the visa policy to put pressure on for fair elections and spoke of adopting a hard stance in this regard. Do you think there will be fresh pressure in the offing, now that the election is over?

That is difficult to say. All countries take decisions based on their interests and views. I feel they will keep an eye on what the government does and in which direction it goes after the election. I think the US will give it due consideration if the government decides to ease up the political situation. It depends much on us. They may take their decisions in the days to come based on what we are doing.

The US interest in Bangladesh is geopolitical. The US has been working with India in order to contain China in this region. But is looks like India is not very eager about US direct presence in the region. Bangladesh’s election perhaps made this all the more clear. Will there be any changes to the US Indo-Pacific Strategy?

I do not think so. The US plans its foreign policy on a few levels – bilateral, regional and global. There are problems in US’ bilateral relations with Bangladesh. At a regional level there are differences between the US and India. India has stated that it does not share the same views with the US on the Bangladesh question. India wants to keep the countries of this region, including Bangladesh, within its sphere of influence. On the other hand, the US wants to work directly with Bangladesh, for Bangladesh to take an independent stand.

Then again, Bangladesh’s election will not have any impact on the global level competition between the US and China. The US wants India and Bangladesh on its side to thwart China’s influence in the area, but for any reason if it does not get these two countries by its side, it is not likely to change its strategy or stance.

The new government has the support of China, India and Russia. Yet our foreign exchange earnings basically depend on the US and other countries of the West. In this context, how do you see the issue of normalising relations with these countries?

I feel that an effort should be made to patch things up with the West as soon as possible. We must improve our image. At one point of time we had managed to successfully promote the development narrative, but that has been overshadowed with the question now of whether democracy will stay in place or not. This matter of image is very important in the case of relations with the West.

The government must take measures to mend the divide that has emerged in politics. We are aware that the trade balance with the West, including the US, is on our favour. In the case of China and India, the trade balance is in their favour. We must give certain importance to those with who trade balance is in our favour. Investment and remittance comes from the West more. They also provide all sorts of socioeconomic assistance. We must place importance on improving these relations, on improving our image. Also, improving relations with the West does not mean harming our relations with China, India or Russia.