Do we have a security policy for Bangladesh?

In 1983, Harold Brown appropriately described the ability to ensure national security as the capability 'to preserve the nation's physical integrity and territory, to maintain economic relations with the rest of the world on reasonable terms, to protect its institutions and governance from disruption from outside and to control its borders.' As opposed to this clear format, the denotation of ensuring 'human security' has been vague, ambivalent and relative.

The Japanese, however, added to the connotations applicable to human security. Their love for precision expanded the context of security. Denied the right to maintain a large armed forces after the Second World War, Japanese Prime Minister Ohira in the 1950s, decided that national security or human security for the Japanese could not just be mere sovereignty. Quite correctly, the Japanese leadership introduced the philosophy that security had to be viewed in its comprehensive context. Consequently, military security would have to be complemented with factors associated with public welfare, related to-food, energy, environment, communication and social security. This necessitated the creation of sound regulatory regimes and international cooperative mechanisms. It was felt that if this could be ensured, then the nation would be less vulnerable to extraneous factors.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

India's perceptions of security under Nehru were an example of state effort geared towards self-reliance. The emphasis was on the creation of infrastructure and State ability to find domestic solutions to problems. That in turn meant over-regulation and state control over the economy. Dependence was frowned upon and seen as an infringement of sovereignty.

China under Mao dze Dong took international sanctions in stride in the formative years after 1949 and established her own security paradigm through a mechanism aimed at self-sufficiency. Mao believed that the fragile nature of security associated with Communism could only survive and be bolstered through finding solutions to the many problems from within, without any foreign direct investment. This course of action in Mainland China was diametrically opposite to what happened across the Straits in Taiwan. Supported by the United States, they relied on external assistance and gradually integrated with world training systems.

In the contemporary world, where globalisation and de-regulation have made inroads into every sphere of national life, national security has acquired an expanded dimension. It is no longer a question of just ensuring territorial integrity through military usage and power. This is particularly so for smaller countries like Bangladesh. The question of a grand design as reflected by India's strategic defence policy would hardly be seen as compatible in the case of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal or Bhuttan.

Consequently, foreign policy for countries like Bangladesh has assumed critical importance. Resource constraint has also meant finding trusted friends and forging alliances.

There are however some who want to go that extra mile. They feel that scarce revenue should be spent in procuring defence hardware and software and also in the arranging of local manufacture of sophisticated weapons systems. I am not so sure that this last bit of the wish list is suitable given our economic imperatives.

I am reminded in this context of my conversation with the Ambassador of a European country wanting to sell the latest generation jet fighters to Bangladesh. He was explaining to me that this particular aircraft could travel at twice the speed of sound and could cross the sound barrier 'within a minute or two.' I asked him a simple question 'which way should the jet travel without encroaching into Indian territory, and being shot down after a minute or two?' I also enquired how many hospitals of fifty beds could be set up with the cost of one plane. I am afraid I am no longer very popular with this Ambassador.

Nevertheless, we have since seen expenditure of scarce resources in the purchase and addition of several jet fighters into our Air Force. Instead of buying commercial jets (Boeing/Airbus), which might have eased pressure on the ageing commercial fleet of the Bangladesh Biman, we have opted for a debatable alternative. I have also read with great consternation that a lobby wants Bangladesh to invest in submarines. I can only hope and pray that such madness does not take over our leadership.

Our security concerns will not necessarily be allayed through hardware.

What we probably need is a more responsible mind-set. We need to tackle the situation by going to the roots of the problem.

We have to understand that the security of Bangladesh, and all that it stands for, is today under threat not so much from external factors as from within.

The very foundation of Bangladesh and its ability to function as a sovereign member of the family of Nations is under debate. It has led to some foreign pundits suggesting, most controversially, that we are a 'failing State.' Others have given the Fatwa that we are on the threshold of being not only a source of international concern but are gradually evolving into a Taliban stronghold. This is indeed contrary to the current Government's views that the country is moving forward supported by a 'joar' (flood) of economic development.

I am afraid that ordinary citizens like me are unable to really see evidence of such glorious development. Security of the person, of the individual, of the institutions associated with the family or in the wider sense with the State is in a state of ruination. I have to wear glasses now a days. I need it to be able to read. I probably need better spectacles, which will permit me to see the flow of water when I open my tap in the morning or to feel the breeze of the fan when I switch it on it in the afternoon.

Our house, Bangladesh, is seriously unstable. We might be able to build a strong wall around the perimeter and think that we are well protected. That is however not the case. Our Armed Forces can protect us from external aggression. We have also shown in 1971 that Bangalees are adept in guerilla warfare. I am not worried about that security. I am anxious about the division within that is distinctly becoming a security threat.

Non-traditional factors are today impinging on our well being as a State. Terrorism, corruption, smuggling, dishonesty, adulteration of food and medicines, criminal nexus between the politicians and the mastaans, politicisation of the bureaucracy and the judiciary, failure in maintenance of law and order are making us vulnerable as a State. We are creating for ourselves a situation where we might be confronted as a State with an implosion.

The next few months, till the end of this year, will either generate more controversy or bring consensus. We can either have chaos and confusion or sanity. We must understand that orderly governance is the best form for ensuring the security of the State. Morality, ethics, fairness and legality cannot be purchased from abroad. They do not come in containers nor do they provide agent's commission.

Some in Bangladesh consider that we need to balance our foreign policy by acquiring special status in our relationship with Pakistan and China. They consider that this will ensure our sovereignty against the efforts of other powers. However, it is time that we realised that our national institutional capacity should be the basis for ensuring our own security as a State and also as its citizens.

It is good to have strategic friends, but ultimately we have to stand by ourselves. We have to remember that international respect for Bangladesh and decision to have Bangladesh as a strategic partner will only emerge from our own strength as a moderate, democratic country that believes in international law, in the maintenance of international peace and security and in international trade, based on accepted international regulatory mechanisms.

Bangladesh, I believe, should try and discover for herself the necessary soft power whereby we can regain and add to our existing status within the international community. Our security will lie in opening of fresh windows for those who are partaking the Madrasa format of education. This will give them an opportunity to move away from elements that have introduced militancy within the system. Our security will be re-affirmed through the containment of corruption and the ensuring of non-politicisation of State institutions. These positive steps will enable us to improve our human rights record; will assist in research and development and also in the extension of civic rights that are guaranteed for our citizens.

Our politicians have an important role to play in this regard. So does civil society.

Security cannot be obtained through the purchase of a few jet fighters and missile boats, particularly when we do not have the infrastructure to produce the required spares for maintenance of these costly machines. It cannot also be guaranteed with very large contingents of armed forces. What we need is a national conscience and respect for the principle of bi-partisanship. What we require is a comprehensive approach.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net