Go West: Who asked Bangladesh to go all-in?

Delhi was External Enemy Number One for the Monsoon Mass Uprising, for its role in perpetuating the reign of its domestic vassal, the Awami League. Thus, it comes as no surprise that India was ejected without ceremony.

Yet, who decided that Bangladesh would within days become Washington’s new best ‘friend’? Was there any widespread consultation?

I would have thought it better to treat India, the US and China as joint superpower ‘partners’. Or, more plausibly, given public sentiment, for the US and China to be equal ‘friends’, with India consigned to the sin-bin, for an unspecified period.

The interim government could have initiated a calm, inclusive debate, on a post-Indian Bangladesh. Instead, we have seen a personalised foreign policy led by the chief adviser, Muhammad Yunus.  

The main preoccupation should be the domestic economic mess left behind. An IMF programme was already in place. The sensible approach would have been to work with that US-dominated agency but broaden the short-term fire-fighting to include a range of Asian agencies equally. The last word is important. The Japanese dominated Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been roped in but we are seeing a top-heavy US-led, US-run syndicate of financial intrusion. It is not just funding. It is also their people directing key nodes of government.

The Chinese ambassador, Yao Wen, has been doing the rounds, unafraid of public communication. Yet, note how the new leadership in Dhaka has been cool on Beijing. Soothing words from Nahid Islam on historical and cultural relationships to be built upon do not hide the clear Western preferences of Yunus and company.

We have witnessed an excitable local media gushing about a ‘Mandela Moment’ in the US trip. That exuberance spilled over to the Man himself, making a ‘meticulous’ meme. That was unfortunate because it was perhaps unfair to those concerned. A bemused looking Bill Clinton puts things into place. Besides, is this how diplomacy is conducted? I was almost expecting ‘joshing and high fives’ any moment. Where was gravitas, measure, caution in all of this?

Go East: Young People

In strategic terms, one that will define the lives of the 40 million or so young people on the delta, the power has already shifted east.

Measured by Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), China’s GDP was already bigger than the US in the latter 2010s. Today, it is at least a third larger than the US. The gap is growing by the day. Imagine where it will be in 2035 (just 11 years from now).

The world of Clinton and George W Bush may still exist, up to a point, in West Asia. It no longer applies in East Asia. Staggeringly, South Asian elites remain culturally and emotionally close to the US. They cling on to the US ‘they used to know when THEY were young’ – then the undisputed superpower.

Added to this is a psychological hang-up by an elite who wallow in Sinophobia, but do not recognise this affliction.

Talking of which: a Chinese analysis this week notes that US diplomats, and its associated agencies, were incredibly quick off the block. A heavyweight delegation, led by Donald Lu appeared within days. The new Foreign Secretary is, as we speak, following up the ‘Mandela trip’, to concretise steps on ‘deepening’ the relationship with Washington. Translation: New Bangladesh has chosen a distant superpower, downgrading the one north of the Himalayas.

Pro-Western leaders and China

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim got the red-carpet treatment in Dhaka. For a long time, commentators labelled Anwar Ibrahim as a full-on pro-Western politician, as opposed to the abrasive Mahathir Mohammad (who espoused ‘Asian values’). That may or may not still be the case.

But then there’s this: Ibrahim has applied to join BRICS (the non-Western grouping). He has distanced himself from solely Western approaches, espousing non-alignment. He is zeroing in on better economic relations with China. Malaysia and China are deeply integrated economies, connected with extensive supply chains, as is much of ASEAN. In April last year he secured $40 billion of investment commitments from Beijing. This included green energy, electric vehicles, digital economy, and infrastructure as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

Pro-Western leaders, once they grasp this, tend to take a second look.

The now-disgraced Aung San Su Kyi was a more plausible Mandela on the Bay of Bengal, given the years of house arrest. She expected a tidal wave of US investment in New Democratic Myanmar. Dhaka only got Donald Lu. Yangon received Barack Obama. (Let’s forget that regrettable bearhug with Biden in New York). Anyway, the money never appeared. As Anglophile as they come, she finally accepted an open invitation from a patient Beijing. That energised the China Myanmar Economic Corridor. She disgraced herself over the Rohingya genocide but the point here is that, like it or not, only China has the capital (and inclination) to invest on the scale necessary for development.

Dhaka legacy media did not note this from the Asia Times: “despite Anwar’s reputation as a Muslim democrat and perceptions of his pro-Western leanings, it was significant … that Malaysia again chose not to participate in the US-led conference” entitled Summit for Democracy. Invited twice, democratic Kuala Lumpur responded: Not now.

A Singaporean expert explained: “Anwar has highlighted how the economy is in very bad shape with high inflation, high debt and slowing performance. Therefore, it is imperative for him to get investment from……. China”.

What to do?

Students have been fobbed off with two ‘harmless’ posts in the current administration (far away from foreign policy). Why? The young generation have their own varied perspectives about Bangladesh’s external relationship with the outside world. They should be calling for a balanced approach, not the lopsided one we see today.

Mainstream media notables are guilty of being cheerleaders (like 2007). They are not encouraging a rational discussion of the country’s foreign policy options. I am not thus expecting any Damascene transformation in Dhaka from the current ‘caretaker’ leadership. Except to reiterate that they have no mandate to make Bangladesh a vassal of the US. Or anyone else for that matter.  

Will the students and the young generation take a fresh look? Why should they not think about their future over the next three decades? Why not re-open the door to China, while leaving another door open to the West? Keep both in hand.

Here are three things they could demand:

One, that Dhaka accept Beijing’s billion dollar offer to reservoir the Teesta water for North Bengal. With India out of the picture, could there be a better time?

Two, an industrialisation programme with East Asian partners – led by China (but inviting South Korea and Japan too).

Three, demand that Dhaka persevere with applications to BRICS and RCEP. Note that Anwar Ibrahim’s Malaysia is already in RCEP and soon in BRICS. Why not Bangladesh?

The country’s geopolitical future should not be decided by a small cabal with anachronistic worldviews. This is not ageism. This is about realism.●

Farid Erkizia Bakht is a writer and analyst.