The US Senate and Bangladesh
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the critical need for political dialogue in Bangladesh, and for other purposes” was the title of the US Senate resolution passed on January 7 with regard to Bangladesh. On November 20, 2013, the US House (of Representatives) Sub-committee for Asia and Pacific Regional Foreign Affairs also had a hearing on Bangladesh, the title of which was “Bangladesh in Turmoil: A Nation on the Brink?” Bangladesh, therefore, had been in the radar of both the Houses of the US Congress in recent days, and perhaps expectedly so going by the precedence of US Congress being concerned about big political disturbances in relatively important or sensitive parts of the world.
The chambers of the Congress and their foreign affairs committees or sub-committees concerned are normally vigilant and active to a considerable extent about ongoing or potential disturbance in various parts of the world. Their concerns usually emanate both from liberal democratic ideological premise involving the well-being of the people of the affected places and also from direct or indirect US interest which they hold rational and justified. In plain words, the US keeps an eye on every corner of some significance on the earth.
The language of the resolution was moderate in comparison to the articulation of other resolutions passed with regard to many other troubled nations. The language was also carefully crafted, stressing on internal political dialogue in Bangladesh. It deplored violence and loss of lives as a result of the violence. The resolution commended poverty alleviation achieved over the recent years but maintained its reservation about the standard of war crimes trial. No clear censure or condemnation against the government or the ruling alliance of Bangladesh was made.
Just to have a quick understanding of how US foreign policy and diplomacy work; functional level US foreign policy and diplomacy, including defining 'National Interest,' is the prerogative of the presidency, and the secretary of state executes presidential directives. The Senate holds the power to ratify treaties and consent to or reject senior diplomatic appointments proposed by the president. Declaration of war, military budget, etc., require approval of the whole Congress. Congress retains power to regulate trade and commerce with a foreign nation.
The US state organs related to foreign relations, in one way or other, have so far been careful in their dealing with the Bangladesh governments. Among them, the US government has relatively been more critical of the previous AL government. Its views have been expressed through routine press conferences of the White house, through state department officials and, of course, through the US ambassador in Bangladesh. Yet, US diplomatic investment to ensure an apparent electoral democracy in Bangladesh, at the least, could not be termed as 'extensive.'
The existing US position with regards to Bangladesh has surprised many in Bangladesh who expected it would take tough action to ensure an ideal all-participating democracy through forcing the Bangladesh government to bring back the opposition into the political fold for an inclusive election. That hasn't happened. The US is a bit hesitant to be too tough with a secular political party in power. Although the Americans do not view the overplaying of the Islamist terror card by AL government without suspicion, they have been conservative about something they aren't sure of.
India factor is also significant, if not overpowering, in the western approach to the region as they consider that country as a major liberal democratic strategic partner in the region with commonality in their counter-terror requirements and also counter-balancing increasing geo-strategic influence of China in the crucial Indian Ocean. But India factor has its limit as well. While Americans are getting more and more convinced that retaining the sizable Islamist political forces like the Jamaat-e-Isami (JI) within the democratic fold would keep them moderate, India decided to tacitly support the robust AL drive against the considerably well-organised JI, and AL's clinging on to power quite undemocratically at such a critical juncture in Bangladeshi history.
The India factor, alongside a few others, has allowed the AL to survive this round of the political game; but, this has perhaps bought them just some more time. The American activities, in terms of the increasingly critical tone and activism of the House and the Senate in matters relating to Bangladesh, seem to be a sign that some momentum might be building towards harsher measures against the incumbent government in Bangladesh. AL may bask in the glory of their victory in the political power play for the moment; but they better make use of this limited time they have gained.
The Houses of the US congress have the authority to dictate trade and commercial relations with foreign countries. The next resolution, if any, may not be filled with just soothing words. It would be wise for the incumbent government in Bangladesh to get to work quickly in order to achieve a comprehensive political solution with BNP, for misplaced complacency this time around may cost them and the nation dearly.
The writer is an Associate Research Fellow in Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies (BIPSS).
E-mail: [email protected]
Comments