Our foreign policy challenges
THERE were very few who were not surprised at the choice of the foreign minister and her deputy under the new dispensation. What one hopes of the two is that, in the present context of hard reality in a realist world, the sooner they come round to seeing and acknowledging the reality, the easier it would be to tackle the foreign policy challenges that face Bangladesh.
One should not be unduly bothered about them restating a very hackneyed cliché that has been used in the past to define the thrust of a country's foreign policy in the most ideal sense. By saying that the country's relationship with the outside world would be guided by the principle of "charity towards all and malice to none" they have rightly expressed a very holy precept and demonstrated an inclusive attitude in laying out the way the government of the grand alliance would like the country's foreign policy to be modulated in the future.
We must certainly not bear malice towards anyone, but in the field of human relationship transcending beyond to relationship between countries, charity plays very little role, and in fact being charitable is seen as a weakness. In today's world nothing is given out for free, and to expect others to do so is living in a fool's paradise.
Even in the dole that is given out by the international financial institutions no one can fail to notice the strings attached. What we have got so far through our foreign policy projections has been a function of our diplomacy and not, one must emphasise, because of anybody's charity.
What our foreign policy planners must not lose sight of is that our policy must preserve our national interest. Regrettably, to many the expression has acquired a malicious connotation without realising that pursuit of national interest remains the be all and end all of foreign policy objectives of all countries. It remains constant, although the different governments that happen to be in power may define it differently.
One feels that the present government must not only be alive to the real issues that confront us but also tackle them head-on without shelving those, hoping that they would take care of themselves eventually.
What the Awami League must start off with is to dispel a perception held by most of its opponents that it is a pro-Indian party. It is principles and pragmatism and not emotion that should dictate the course that Bangladesh should steer in its relationship with other countries, particularly its neighbours.
Unfortunately, during the erstwhile regime, our relationship with the neighbouring countries was largely weighed down by a mindset dictated by preconceived notions. And when heart dictates the head, there are all the chances of going wrong.
If we were to accept that diplomacy is predicated on three concentric circles, each one circumscribing the neighbours, the region and beyond the region -- in that order, we have one country that predominates two of the three circles -- India. It is a fact that over the entire period of our independence our foreign office and the policy makers had remained busy with devising the ways and means to best coexist with India. And that, perhaps, was as it should have been.
Over the last 38 years, we have behaved like a country with one neighbour (we took Burma for granted) -- a compulsion brought about by many factors, but most of all by the fact that we are horribly India-locked, and we cannot wish this away. By the same token, India is aware of Bangladesh's importance given its geopolitical location, and would like to pursue a cordial and friendly relationship.
It is only when we are able to reconcile our respective national interests while conceding to various demands dictated by economic, security or geopolitical compulsions of the other party, can we have a win-win situation for all. And here, perhaps the foreign minister's comment that there are many things for Bangladesh to offer to its neighbours and the international community assumes great relevance.
There are a host of issues for the government to address urgently, of which I mention only two.
First, no time must be wasted in addressing the transit issue with India. It is not only an economic issue but also one that relates to other strategic factors. While the government must make it known to India that there is apprehension in certain quarters regarding granting transit to it, it must do the necessary econometrics and tell the people the likely economic benefits of such an arrangement.
Secondly, the maritime boundary issue has acquired such an importance that it brooks no further delay in getting India and Myanmar to arrive at an amicable solution. If left unattended we risk losing an area almost three times the size of the landmass of Bangladesh.
These two issues will severely test the new government's mettle in diplomacy. And as the US secretary-of-state designate said the other day, diplomacy is hard work, and when we work hard diplomacy works.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments