Lawmakers from the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party clash
with the riot police during a
nationwide ‘hadal’ - or strike - in April.
With the nation in a state of turmoil over growing political
violence,
Secretary of State Clinton had some words of advice.
Angry Bangladeshis
Should Take Clinton’s Advice (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)
“The U.S. would
not appreciate a visiting Bangladesh leader criticizing the U.S. government for
its policies. … Some of our nationalistic and left-leaning friends expressed resentment
over such comments from Mrs. Clinton. But can we really stop them from so advising
us, when our own political leaders make a bagful of complaints about their
rivals when meeting foreign leaders?”
The flurry of activity in Dhaka within diplomatic and
political circles over U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit is over.
And along with it, all the media speculation about what the outcome of the
visit and talks that followed would be. But there will still be gossip about
what might have been covered in the talks that hasn’t come out in the press.
As things settle down, the most important question that
remains is: what have we achieved from Hillary Clinton’s visit?
The "Joint Declaration on Bangladesh-U.S. Dialogue on
Partnership" says nothing about what we, as a least developed nation,
desire from the richest nation on earth, the United States of America. The
declaration only says that, "The dialogue on bilateral relations and
priorities will be held annually in Dhaka and Washington, in turn." But there
are no specifics will be addressed by these bilateral talks.
Bangladesh would feel more assured if it stated in clearer
terms that America will open up its huge market to our ready-made garments tariff-free
and without barriers. The document doesn’t say whether the U.S. is willing to
facilitate additional private sector investment in Bangladesh or provide
government loans on easier terms and low interest, including technical
assistance for our manufacturing and service sectors. Neither does it mention whether
we will have the privilege of being included in America’s Millennium
Challenge Account.
However, at the joint press conference with Foreign Minister
DipuMoni, Mrs. Clinton
advised Bangladesh politicians against the harmful effects of confrontational
politics, stressed dialogue for resolving differences to achieve a sustainable
democracy and suggested talks among all parties to find a way to conduct a
free, fair and credible election like the one held in 2008. She did not miss to
pint out the negative message violent strikes including hartals
[strike actions] send prospective investors.
"It
is important that in this country ... everybody takes seriously any
disappearance, any violence against activists, any oppression of civil society,
any intimidation of the press…that is just what is required in the 21st century
if democracy [is to be] sustainable."
She
said Foreign Minister DipuMoni
assured that the government is probing all these incidents.
“Any
violence, disappearance or repression on civil society and the press is
contrary to democracy and rule of law.”
She
said weeks of strikes and protests that paralysed the
country and killed at least five people had undermined development and scared
off foreign investors.
"Violent
demonstrations exact a heavy toll, especially on Bangladesh's poorest and most
vulnerable citizens. They also send a negative signal to the international
community about the investment climate here."
She,
however, said, “We support democracy, freedom of expression, the right to
peaceful assembly…We urge all to settle their differences through dialogue. We
want democracy to sustain in Bangladesh.”]
We all know that and civil society, the business community
and media have consistently urged political parties to give up these avenues of
protest. Media and civil society have always been critical of the government's
high-handed attitude toward the opposition – including its repressive tactics of
stifling their voices and denying their rights to hold rallies and stage
demonstrations. But when it comes from a visiting foreign dignitary, it sounds
like a lecture to an inattentive or delinquent student by a teacher.
For example, the U.S. would not appreciate a visiting
political leader from Bangladesh or any other country criticizing the U.S.
government for its policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or other third world countries.
Nor would it entertain similar criticism for human rights violations at the
hands of American security forces. But from its own media, the U.S. government
respects the scathing criticism it comes in for from its own media and civil
society.
Some of our nationalistic and left-leaning friends expressed
resentment over such comments from Mrs. Clinton. But is this the first time
that a foreign diplomat, government leader, or CEO of a multilateral donor
agency lectured and advised us about how to behave as a condition for continued
financial assistance? And can we really stop them from so advising us, when our
own political leaders make a bagful of complaints about their rivals when meeting
foreign leaders abroad and when they visit us?
We hope Mrs. Clinton's words won't be lost on our political
leaders, both in the government and in the opposition.
So far so good, but was it all about the U.S.-Bangladesh
talks?
Before Mrs. Clinton's visit, we noticed the arrival in Dhaka
of a number of U.S. diplomats, including Assistant Secretary of State for South
and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake, Under Secretary for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman, and U.S. Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro. A U.S.-Bangladesh dialogue on security
challenges was held on April 19 in Dhaka. This suggests an intensified focus
for U.S. foreign and security policy in South Asia. But there
was no mention made during Clinton’s visit of the specific interest shown earlier
by American diplomats in stronger U.S.-Bangladesh security ties. We heard
nothing of the bilateral defense relationship or a shared commitment to peace
and prosperity in the region, etc.
Posted by Worldmeets.US
Small wonder there is such speculation about what talks, if
any, were held that the press missed.
When it comes to regional security issues, whether under the
umbrella of the U.S. or any other foreign power, the government must get its
foreign policy priorities straight. Bangladesh will never be a threat to any
foreign nation. Hence, it seeks no such protective umbrella.
What Bangladesh is looking for from the U.S., Canada, European
Union countries, Japan, China, Australia, Russian and our closest neighbor
India, is stronger economic and cultural ties. We hope in our efforts to build
stronger trade and commercial ties with them and others, they treat us as a
privileged partner.
And above all else, we want to learn from their experiences
and expertise and develop ourselves economically. With the U.S. in particular,
we look forward to building stronger economic, cultural and people-to-people
relations in our efforts to achieve the goal of becoming a middle income nation
by 2021.
*SyedFattahulAlim is Science and Life editor of The Daily Star.
