18 September 1996, Daily Star
Diplomacy today is not treated as the sole domain of the Executive Branch of the government in any country in the world. It has other avenues like diplomacy track-11, meaning diplomacy at the citizens’ level through the medium of various natures, forms and dimensions involving various shades of opinions such as journalist, intellectuals, academics, businessmen, industrialists and politicians. This has in particular been made evident in Bangladesh in May 1995 when Centre for Policy Dialogue of Bangladesh and Centre for Policy Research of India, in the backdrop of Indophobic Bangladesh at the mass level and so-called India-friendly Bangladesh at the state level apparently a creation of the regimes from 1975 to 1996, jointly arranged a seminar on ‘Indo-Bangladesh Economic Relations’ at Dhaka which was widely participated by scholars, academics, businessmen, industrialists and politicians and others at large.
Diplomacy track-III otherwise known as diplomacy by parliament is an established practice particularly in United States America and Europe but, is yet to be put into practice functionally as an encouraging process to official diplomacy i.e. diplomacy track-I in the countries of Asia and Africa for the benefits of the state and the nation as a whole. There, including Bangladesh, exist a kind of formal contacts between or among parliaments in the form of inter-parliamentary group but activities are very limited without having any substantial impact on the governments concerned. Bangladesh also experienced for a short time a kind of attachment of MPs with matters of foreign policy and foreign relations in the form of a “Doot Pool” meaning ambassador’s pool during the end part of Zia’s regime in 1976-1981.
A democratic institution like parliament cannot thrive without an uninterrupted continuity of democracy with true democratic administration. But, to speak the truth, the above-mentioned relationship between parliament and foreign ministry in our country could not be established at all. Consequently, regime diplomacy prevailed over state diplomacy and subsequently made Bangladesh’s state security and high-foreign policy subservient to the regime security and resultant low foreign policy.
A negative perception that the oppositions in parliament are totally deprived of and away from the overall activities of the government is haunting the minds of the people as well as the executive branch of the government. Unlike India, a sort of opposition-phobia runs quick in our foreign ministry and missions abroad. BNP, JP, AL and Jamaat all in their opposition’s perspective experienced the same and still the opposition in the 7th Sangsad is in same the suffering. Foreign ministry and foreign policy, in fact, has been converted into a “forbidden zone” even for the members of parliament belonging to the treasury bench.
Time perhaps has come to tell us seriously about the reality of foreign policy and relations which under any circumstances cannot be left to a small group of diplomats in the foreign office when the party in-power is officially accountable to the Sangsad to ensure a stable, transparent government by settling issues with foreign countries particularly with a very special attention to India and Pakistan. Active involvements of MPs in the foreign policy and relations are now an unavoidable call of the time. The nature of the composition of the delegation of the recently concluded visit of Indian foreign minister I K Gujral to Bangladesh (September 6 to 9, 1996) gave us a signal that “political will” needs to be reciprocated politically in the same frame and spirit.
Our main concern in foreign policy matters at the moment is to settle, using bilateralism or multilateralism, the outstanding issues with India amicably and peacefully. Gujral informed us of his limits arising out of India’s own reality, vis-à-vis the mindset of Indian bureaucracy and the limitations of Deve Gouda’s coalition government.
Gujral’s this very position was highlighted uniquely by Holiday editor Enyatullah Khan who wrote: ‘Deve Gowda’s non-congress non-BJP credentials strike hope of a changed Indian heart. But the heart still belongs to Delhi’s south block where power resides, among other outfits such as RAW. Indian government needs heart transplantation [Holiday, 7 September 1996].
Indian foreign minister came to Bangladesh with an approach of a symmetrical relations’, meaning a big neighbor should do more than take from the small one, a deviation from India’s previous stand of about turn/evasive policy to Bangladesh or +in the world, of Gujral “all or nothing” stand of both the sides which virtually made us ‘prisoners of the past’. He pointed out that unlike the people in ASEAN, what we agree in private, oppose in public and vice versa-a real threat to a confidence-building frame between the nations and states in South Asia. He left Bangladesh seemingly with a satisfaction that “now both the governments of India and Bangladesh don’t carry past baggage any more”.
Why such a sudden shift in the policy of India? To what extent the issues could be resolved by his one visit? May be, very little. Because the issues are so diverse, complex and dimensional that it needs a broad-based frame to reach at the long-term solutions keeping our national interests nut rapped, undiminished. Temporary solutions or arrangements shall again result in a broader negative feedback.
One may argue on the reasonableness of the concept of India factor—otherwise known as India doctrine after the model of Monroe doctrine-- in the context of South Asia but, truly speaking, reality cannot negate its exisistence. It is also a fact, whether we like it or not, that dictates of geo-politics have rendered Bangladesh literally India-locked country for which India factor has become more visible in our politics, both ruling and oppositions.
‘The obvious question then is: whether and how the doctrine is relevant for Bangladesh? There are two significant qualifiers to this answer. First, the relevance is not in terms of direct physical intervention. India has hardly any intention of launching a military operation in Bangladesh, or to put it more meaningfully, India is likely to avoid by all means military intervention in Bangladesh. Indian strategists are aware, with or without its frustrating experience with the Tamils that Bangladesh is too challenging a military target compared to Srilanka, Maldives or even Nepal. Hence direct military intervention in Bangladesh is rather a remote possibility;
Secondly, and this is a corollary of the first, the weaker Bangladesh is----politically, economically, ecologically, diplomatically, or otherwise----the better for India and for the achievement of the relevant objectives of the India doctrine, namely, to do everything on the one hand, and to make best use of the same on the other (India Doctrine in the book ‘Issues & Challenges Facing Bangladesh Foreign Policy’, Iftekhruzzaman).
‘With regard to Bangladesh’s relation with India, Bangladesh has a peculiar predicament. In the fashioning of its foreign policy Bangladesh must contend with historic memories that are bitter and unpleasant and which leave it weary of India. At the same it must contend with the realities arising from its geographic location, which requires it to reach a Modus Vivendi with India. Thus history pushes us away from India but geography pulls us towards India. Between these two opposing realities, Bangladesh leaders are yet to discover the ‘Golden Mean’ (Shaukat Hossain, Bangladesh Foreign Policy: Introductory Remarks, Ibid).
Bangladesh-India relations are misunderstood, misconceived, misused, tortured and harassed for a number of reasons, known or unknown. They have traversed through a chequered a process. From an apogee of a very close tie in the aftermath of Bangladesh’s liberation in 1971 it plummeted into a nadir of mutual mistrust, suspicion and recrimination. The crucial turn was visible in the change of government in 1975.
Therefore, India’s perception of AL’s coming to power after a lapse of 21 years might have been encouraged with logic to replace the Indophobic Bangladesh at the mass level with India friendly Bangladesh both at the mass and state levels. Ironically enough, AL’s coming to power is itself a product of Indophobic Bangladesh at the mass level and it took a decade to enter this very mindset mathematically first by seeking an apology to the people for the ‘mistakes in the past’ and secondly by making a promise that if voted to power she would not renew the 25-year treaty of friendship with India, of course with a convincing logic that after the creation of SAARC and SAPTA the very basis and appeal of the treaty has withered away.
Bangabandhu perhaps did not find enough friends with and around him due to a number of causes, explained or unexplained, while Sheikh Hasina appears to be fortunate in having the same covering USA and China and her first official visit to China (September 16-21, 1993) bear significance in the light of the ongoing geo-politics in the subcontinent. After her arrival at the Zia International Airport from China, she told the waiting reporters: “China has a great role to play in Asia.” Chinese President and Premier also sent messages on the occasion of the first national mourning day of the father of the nation Bangabundhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Chinese ambassador in Dhaka went to Tungipara to pay tribute to the great leader. The acumen of Hasina’s far-reaching diplomacy may face a test if any crisis/ conflict between China and India arise.
India needs Bangladesh to support her for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council of UN. Japan, hitherto No-1 donor country for Bangladesh is also a candidate. Again, USA wants India in the Security Council. It is a real critical juncture for Bangladesh that requires a balanced but shrewd diplomacy to cross without annoying any one.
Keeping all the realities in mind and in the true perspectives, it is wiser and better to ensure a “Bangladesh approach” to the issues while dealing with the country/organization/association concerned, and this should be made easier by introducing formal diplomacy by parliament, otherwise known as diplomacy track-II1, to enrich diplomacy track-I now being exclusively undertaken officially by the ministry of foreign affairs.
On question of a national interest under any circumstances, any sort of ambiguity and ambivalence may lead to a serious catastrophe. Out of such a perception the then leader of the opposition in Pakistan National Assembly Benazir Bhutto, now premier of Pakistan, at request of her arch rival the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, led Pakistani delegation to USA and negotiated successfully with US policy makers and that saved Pakistan from being listed as a terrorist state by USA. Atal Behari Vajpayee, leader of the opposition in the Indian parliament, did not hesitate to accept the offer of Premier Narasima Rao to head Indian delegation to negotiate the issues arising out of Pakistan’s formal allegation to the Human Rights Commission to brand India as a violator of human right in Kashmir.
It is also learnt from various sources that the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, now leader of the opposition, passed a request to the then leader of the opposition Sheikh Hasina, now Prime Minister of Bangladesh, to represent Bangladesh delegation to UN on Farakka issue which she, however, declined. May be it is a mere speculation or rumor in practice!
Reality tells us again and again that the world is moving faster and we cannot lag behind. In an era of knowledge, science and technology cooperation, trust and interdependence both at home and abroad are equally undeniably important, say, beyond question and debate. Bangladesh’s leaders have to set an example like Indian leaders. Political romanticism mixed with partisan arrogance and vindictiveness being pursued and encouraged by our political parties shall die down to a large extent also in the area of our foreign policy and relations if oppositions in parliament can be taken into confidence structurally and functionally. Members of parliament needs also be linked with ‘economic diplomacy’ by their induction into delegations of trade, commerce and industry in various forms and natures. MPs need to be kept apprised of the happenings at home and abroad equally. And there will be a real breakthrough if diplomacy track-II1 is initiated.
To suit these purposes the following suggestions are made for consideration by both the ruling party and the opposition in the 7th Sangsad, and especially by the Premier as the very initiative would come from there:
· The parliamentary standing committee (PSC) on the ministry of foreign affairs shall be renamed as parliamentary standing committee on foreign ministry and relations;
· Formation of PSC shall be based on a proportional representation in accordance with the number of seats of Member of Parliament belonging to respective political party in the 7th sangsad with the leader/deputy leader of the opposition in the chair. Such proportional representation shall accordingly be extended to independent member/ Members of Parliament, if any;
· There shall be necessary number of sub-committees on bi-lateral basis like Bangladesh-China Relations, Bangladesh-India Relations, Bangladesh-Pakistan Relations, and Bangladesh-USA Relations etc.and where bilateral committee is not necessary or feasible that can considerably be looked into by the concerned regional committee; Special committee may also be set up considering the overall importance and necessity of the issues;
· In certain cases either issue wise or country wise there may be sub-committee on a priority basis and
· Committee on regional and international basis covering SAARC ASEAN, EEC, and UN etc. need also be formed to promote more dynamic and mutually rewarding relations.
Functions:
· The first and foremost task of the PSC shall be to prepare and formulate a common approach--- to be known as ‘Bangladesh approach’---so that it can practicably and amicably deal with any issue of bi-lateral, or regional or international nature, form and dimension in a concerted manner irrespective of the ideologies, colors and partisan stands of the party/coalition-in power. PSC with due back-up of the political parties in Sangsad may have enough opportunities and scopes to meet the requirement of national interests instead of regime interests;
· Formal structural relations between PSC and its committee/sub-committees, between PSE and Ministry of Foreign Affairs in particular and other related ministries in general shall workably be formulated and ensured;
· Appointment of high commissioner/ambassador, political or regular, made by the party/coalition-in-power shall duly be confirmed by the majority members of o the PSE and
· Regular visits of members of parliament in the mode of exchange of experience and knowledge, goodwill mission, trade delegation etc. shall have to be geared up in true sense and spirit.
To conclude, it is very much in consonance with the declared electoral promise of all the political parties in the 7th Sangsad that they would rejuvenate the committee system to infuse life into the parliamentary system of government and the foreign ministry is very much a part of the Executive Branch of the Government.
No comments:
Post a Comment