economist has chosen Bangladesh as the country of the year. According to this mouthpiece of the British establishment, the change of power in Bangladesh is a positive development not only for Bangladesh but for the international community as a whole.
Bangladesh won the British honor beating other contenders like Poland, South Africa, Argentina and Syria. This is strange in itself because no clear British stake can be seen in Bangladesh that is more important than the importance of ousting Assad from Syria or Tusk taking power in Poland in the context of the Ukraine conflict, in which Britain is fully involved. Is. ,
hypocrisy of the west
The dislike of America and Britain towards Sheikh Hasina is well known. His removal was promoted on the grounds that he had suppressed democracy in Bangladesh. Why should the issue of democracy in Bangladesh be so important to remote non-regional countries? Whether Bangladesh is a democracy or not has no bearing on any apparent US or UK stake in the country that might be considered important to their interests.
The hypocrisy is evident in the American and British discourse on democracy. Both the US and Britain maintain very close ties with countries that are not only not democratic, but also do not hold elections – no matter how flawed – or allow political dissent, without political parties. Leave aside the question of existence. Many are monarchies or military dictatorships or are ruled by communist parties.
China is not a democracy but the West has rich relations with it. For example, the US and Britain have not made democracy an issue in their relations with Vietnam. The Biden government did not invite Singapore to the two summits for democracy it organized. However, this did not promote Western efforts to make Singapore’s politics more democratic.
bullying countries
So the issue is not that countries that follow democracy or Western values should be seen as acceptable partners. This is essentially a form of political bullying of weaker countries at low cost.
Myanmar has long been the target of US sanctions because of the stranglehold its military junta maintains over the country’s political system. This has increasingly driven Myanmar into the arms of China and harmed our strategic interests in that country, something the US has ignored.
In the case of Bangladesh too, the impact of Sheikh Hasina’s removal on India’s vital strategic interests in that country has been ignored. Major India-Bangladesh connectivity and development projects were implemented for mutual benefit during Sheikh Hasina’s rule. A major benefit for India was the ouster of rebel groups operating against India from Bangladeshi soil, an issue which the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) government in Bangladesh was unwilling to address.
With the change of power in Bangladesh, doors are also opening for increasing Chinese influence. Why should America’s and Britain’s stake in Bangladesh be more important than its nearest neighbor India?
Ignoring India’s concerns
The British (and the US) do not see the rise of Islamic forces in our region as a threat to India’s security. The British have always supported Pakistan politically on India-Pakistan issues. They have not taken adequate cognizance of Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy towards India. Despite the increasing fundamentalism in Pakistani society, the British have not changed their fundamental sympathies towards Pakistan.
The British insensitivity towards ISI-linked activities of Khalistani extremists against India on British soil is part of this syndrome. The British also took a stance on the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan that did not take into account India’s concerns. This is true of U.S. policies on the rise of Islamic forces in our region, including facilitating the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.
This would explain why the British and the US are not particularly worried about Islamic forces gaining power in Bangladesh. Further we have seen how the West has in the past welcomed the takeover of Syria by Islamic elements linked to Al Qaeda. A suitably adapted narrative is being promoted to present the new leadership in new political and dress attire.
a convenient story
The article lauds the change of power in Bangladesh. economist Welcomes the overthrow of a dictator. This convenient narrative ignores the fact that Bangladesh has long been under military rule. The BNP under Begum Khaleda Zia was and is no less autocratic, and the current forces in Bangladesh intend to rewrite the country’s secular constitution to make it more Islamic. economist It is believed that the BNP is “patronist”. So, where are the “non-autocratic” or real democratic forces in Bangladesh economist have in mind?
economist refers to “Islamic extremism” as a threat, no doubt flagging it pro-forma would save the magazine from being accused of ignoring the threat altogether. In order to build the narrative of change of power in Bangladesh, the reality of the attacks by Islamists in Bangladesh is being ignored. There is no reference to Jamaat-e-Islami, which is active on the ground.
The newspaper calls for elections to be held after ensuring that the courts are neutral. This seems ridiculous because the Chief Justice has been removed from the post and other judges are being forced to give the kind of judgments that the mob wants. It also said that the Yunus government should ensure that the opposition gets time to organize. When Awami League will not be allowed to participate in elections then which opposition?
Contrary to the evidence, the newspaper claims that the Yunus government has restored order and stabilized the economy. India has more than once highlighted its concerns about the law and order situation on the ground in Bangladesh and the persecution of minorities, especially Hindu minorities, in the country. But economist This is conveniently ignored, reflecting poor journalistic confidence in this remnant of British imperial arrogance.
(Kanwal Sibal was the Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Türkiye, Egypt, France and Russia and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
