Lord Palmerston, a British statesman and two-time prime minister, is still remembered for his pragmatic theory of international relations. He described international relations as relations with no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Countries and world leaders have invoked the theory ever since Lord Palmerston created it, underlying its inherent truth and infallibility.
The sharply contrasting roles of the US-EU-UN and India in Bangladesh’s 2014 and 2018 national elections and the roles these powers are preparing for Bangladesh’s next general election have once more established the infallibility of Lord Palmerston’s famous theory. In the 2014 and 2018 elections, these powers either directly interfered or, once the elections were held, welcomed and legitimized them as friends of the Awami League and allies, although both were fundamentally flawed and undemocratic elections.
The 2014 elections became a travesty of an election, democratic or otherwise, when a month before the election day, on the last day for the withdrawal of candidature, the Election Commission and the government knew that there were no candidates in 154 of the 300 seats against the Awami League and allies. In 2018, the Awami League and allies ensured their massive victory with 293 seats against seven because the Election Commission, with the law enforcement agencies and civil bureaucracy, worked together to allow the ruling party, and its allies, to fill ballot boxes the midnight before the election day, for which the 2018 election earned the nickname of “midnight election.”
The United States is the world’s oldest democracy. India is the largest. The European Union nations live and breathe their commitment to democracy. Every treaty, document, convention, etc. adopted at the United Nations has passed the litmus test of democracy and human rights. Yet, these powers had no qualms in looking the other way while Bangladesh held its anti-democratic and controversial 2014 and 2018 elections.
Led by the United States, the western powers were in the midst of the war on terror during the 2014 and 2018 elections in Bangladesh. Their enemies worldwide those days were Islamic “fundamentalism” and Islamic “terrorism”. They believed that in Bangladesh, the BNP and its allies were soft on both. They, therefore, did not want the BNP to come to power and supported the Awami League and its allies.
India was not party to the war on terror. It, nevertheless, supported the US/West/UN because it disliked Islamic fundamentalism. Furthermore, this was an opportunity to keep the Awami League in power for which it was willing to go to any lengths, for reasons of history and geopolitics. Leading to the 2014 election, India threw diplomatic norms and decency into the air and sent foreign secretary Sujata Singh to Dhaka to arm-twist president Ershad to force his Jatiya Party to participate in the elections to give it credibility.
The United States, the European Union and the United Nations, by their recent activities related to Bangladesh’s politics and, in particular, related to the country’s next general election, appear to have dramatically changed their positions compared with those leading to Bangladesh’s 2014 and 2018 elections. This is so because their interests have changed, underlining the infallibility of Lord Palmerston’s theory. Two major developments in international politics brought out these dramatic changes in the US-EU-UN stand in Bangladesh’s politics.
The first of these developments was the end of the war on terror, which removed Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism off the radar of the west and its allies. US president Donald Trump’s exit was the other development that brought democracy, human rights and free and fair elections into the center of US foreign and domestic policies. India also changed towards Bangladesh but for geopolitical reasons underlining again the infallibility of Lord Palmerston’s theory.
The United States signaled the dramatic changes towards Bangladesh by omitting it from US president Joe Biden’s 110-nation Democracy Summit, held virtually in December of 2021. Washington followed this by imposing US Treasury sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and several senior RAB officials for serious human rights violations.
The US ambassador, Peter Haas, wasted no time and on arriving in Bangladesh last March, conveyed to the Bangladesh government, political parties, civil society and the media about the U-turn of the United States related to Bangladesh’s politics and the next general election. He underlined the commitment of the United States to democracy and human rights in Bangladesh in these meetings. He emphasized, in particular, that Bangladesh’s next election must be held freely and fairly, according to international standards, and must be the antithesis of those held in 2014 and 2018.
The heads of western embassies and the United Nations in Dhaka have individually pursued the same objectives as ambassador Haas. They have not yet formed a forum, but in a few instances, they have collectively pursued these objectives in the public domain, leaving little doubt that they are serious and in contact with one another.
India’s changed stance was flagged by outgoing high commissioner Vikram Doraiswami. The high commissioner significantly chose his farewell visit to the National Memorial at Savar on July 28 to tell the media that India stands with the people of Bangladesh and not with any “particular individual”, and that India wants the development of Bangladesh, the happiness of its people and success of democracy in the country.
India’s unwritten policy towards Bangladesh since 1971 was to put all its eggs in the Awami League’s basket, which explained its unbelievable interference in Bangladesh’s 2014 election to ensure the Awami League’s return to power at any cost under Sheikh Hasina. India’s bilateral relations with Bangladesh have not been with Bangladesh but with the Awami League because it had led Bangladesh’s war of liberation with India’s support. The outgoing high commissioner, perhaps, signaled an end to a policy that was bound to end eventually.
The first signs that India and the Awami League were distancing appeared after Pranab Mukherjee had retired as president of India in 2017 and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had adopted Hindutva as its official mantra to energize its massive Hindu base. BJP leaders, thereafter, started referring to Bangladeshis as “termites” and “infiltrators”, by focusing on Bangladesh as a predominantly Muslim country instead of one ruled by a regime friendly towards India. The strategic vacuum thus created allowed China, which had been waiting on the wings since 2014, to appear between Dhaka and New Delhi, to move fast but quietly with investments in Bangladesh’s large-scale economic infrastructure projects.
The majority of Bangladesh’s large-scale economic infrastructure projects have been financed by China. Many are of major strategic interests to India, such as the $250 million new international airport in Sylhet. The Chinese are closing in on the deal with Bangladesh to build the Teesta Barrage project located near the very strategic “chicken neck”, the narrow strip of land that connects mainland India to its north-east. The Chinese ambassador recently visited the project area. For Indian strategic thinkers, these developments are the antithesis to reasons India assisted Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971.
Unfortunately, there is little that New Delhi can do with the strategic advantages China has gained in Bangladesh in recent times. It occurred ironically because of New Delhi. On coming to power in January 2009, Sheikh Hasina granted India unilaterally what all previous Bangladesh governments had denied, reasons for which India supported Bangladesh’s liberation. India obtained a full guarantee of its security on the eastern front and a land transit from the mainland to its fragile north-east.
Sheikh Hasina turned towards China to pursue as Lord Palmerston’s theory predicted — Bangladesh’s permanent interests in economic development. She leaned towards China only after India had failed to reciprocate on Bangladesh’s permanent interests, namely the water sharing of common rivers, border killings, economic development, etc. before the Hindutva mantra emerged. Fortunately, China’s permanent interests in Bangladesh are in connectivity with its Belt and Road Initiative, trade and investment, all in Bangladesh’s permanent interests.
Bangladesh is thus moving towards a historic crossroads. The interests that the US-EU and even India have stated that they would pursue in international relations with Bangladesh are those for which Bangladesh fought its war of liberation, namely establishing a democratic country based on human and political rights. It is for Bangladesh to avail itself of the historic opportunity by holding its next general election according to international standards, freely and fairly, keeping in perspective that the “permanent interests” of nations as described by Lord Palmerston in his famous theory of international relations, also change as they have for the United States, the European Union and the United Nations and India between Bangladesh’s 2014 and 2018 elections and the present.
*The writer is a former career ambassador.
(New Age)
October 12, 2022
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
