laissez-intérêt: From GATT to Bali

There are two famous logics regarding politics and economics- “All politics is local” and “All economics is international”. The strain between two logics has been persistent for years. Liberal economists forcefully argue that free trade among nations leads to positive sum (win-win) for all countries when based on the principle of comparative advantage, a theory formulated by David Ricardo in 1817. But can every country enjoy this kind of ‘outstanding’ situation? Opening up the market of a poor country along with a big economy cannot come up with equal turn out. The child industries of poor countries can be wiped out with the influx of cheap products from import, for example, the ‘policy of dumping’ can easily hasten this. Free market economy nipped the child industries in their buds which results in massive unemployment and ends with political backlash at decisive stage. Therefore, developments that are continuously taking place every day from global to local levels make us confused about which logic in fact, dominates at the end of the day. This article will try to explore the answer in a nutshell, with the given recent international developments regarding regulations of international trade by WTO and its last ministerial meeting held in Bali, Indonesia. 

Though GATT was established to ensure triumphal march of free market economy, later the term was created laissez-faire but could not get success as much as it was anticipated. Patrick Cronin, professor at international studies, AGSIM has very insightful comments, “Standing in a stark contrast to the liberal logic of trade is that international economic transactions take place in a world of nation state. With no supranational authority to dictate trade rules, much less enforce them, state trade policies are driven primarily by domestic concerns.” But still nation states based international system hastened a situation of creating a supranational body like General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 with a hope that it would actualize the dream of David Ricardo and ‘perpetual (economic) peace’. ‘GATT was created to facilitate a movement toward global free trade, its negotiation principles included the concept of reciprocity. No country was expected to offer unilateral concession. As a result, within the GATT the liberal goal of free trade has been pursued through this mercantilist negotiation process.’ So, it is obvious that laissez-faire could not function as the actual mantra behind the formation of GATT. Then what was the real motive? We need to take into consideration the situation of world politics of 1950s and 60s to find out the answer. ‘It is important to note that liberalization efforts were facilitated by the willingness of the US to play a leading role in pushing the liberalization process forward. Freer trade was part of a larger geo-political strategy to help rebuild the US’s Cold War allies Japan and Western Europe.’ That’s why I think rather laissez-intérêt or ‘let interest do’ worked as a genuine driving force behind the formation of GATT. Following discussion will make it more apparent.

It is widely said that ‘GATT was the victim of its own success.’ Its minimum success with limited regulatory mechanisms adjoined it to the further complexities. Over time, Issues like Voluntary Export Restrictions (VERs), Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs), Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), emergence of necessity of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) started to come forth and open up the ineffectiveness of GATT as an obsolete institution to go anymore with demand of time. Along with them, increase of members in GATT with the newly independent states from Afro-Asia, due to break of European colonial rule in those continents in 1960s and 70s placed GATT in more challenging situations. ‘By the early 1980s, it was increasingly clear that the GATT’s rules would need to expend to include not only these new forms of protectionism but also a growing list of other trade related issues.’ Agriculture topped the list since majority of the members of the GATT were agriculture based economy countries. At that time GATT’s most significantly important round, among eight, the Uruguay Round was initiated to resolve all those issues. Among those issues agriculture, free trade and IPRs were important for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) for their economic development.

Since agriculture is the most relevant issue I shall try to explore here in abridged. The issue of agricultural sector trade was effectively excluded from the GATT at an early stage of the agreement’s life.  It was not until the opening of the Uruguay Round in 1986, however, that agriculture was placed finally on the negotiating agenda. The agricultural negotiations in the Uruguay Round were by no means easy. The broad scopes of the negotiations and their political sensitivity necessarily required much time in order to reach an agreement on the new rules. The only conditions were that agricultural export subsidies on industrial products were prohibited.  Agricultural export subsidies should not be used to capture more than an “equitable share” of world exports of the product concerned. The GATT also allowed countries to resort to import restrictions (e.g. Import quotas) under certain conditions, notably when these restrictions were necessary to enforce measuring domestic production. Some net exporting countries, such as the USA, sought to maintain their market share by resorting to export subsidy programs, whilst those exporters that were unable or unwilling to do this, saw their market shares decline further. International tension and disputes over agricultural trade arose with increasing frequency, and GATT institutions were often used in an attempt to resolve these disputes. In fact, 60 percent of all trade disputes submitted to the GATT dispute settlement process between 1980 and 1990 were concerned with agriculture.

The agriculture agreement negotiation was hindered by several interest blocks e.g. Cairns Group, a group of nineteen agricultural countries from Latin America, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region, Quad countries include the USA, Canada, Japan and the EU are mention worthy. Within the EU, the region’s support for agriculture and its protectionist stance reflects the strong influence of countries like France. Any concession here requires tough intra EU bargaining. On the other hand, the USA stands sometimes besides Cairn Group but other time against it. All stands are dictated by the intérêt of either the domestic politics or by the economy of the respective countries. In 1996 the USA executed some agricultural reforms like stepping toward the reduction of supporting farmers in various forms were boomeranged by political resentment. Later it had to alter its policy to appease the situation.

Was there any significant development of agriculture agreement in the last ministerial meeting of Doha Round in Bali? Critiques have weighed on achievements rather than failures. This year ministerial conference resolutions are taken the biggest success in more than last a decade and a rejuvenation of WTO as well. Bali took a major decision on duty free, quota free access of goods of LDCs to the developed countries which will especially be applicable for the USA. Another important decision was about the trade facilitation will simplify customs procedures by reducing costs and improving their speed and efficiency in future. But the Cuba won’t be able to get the benefits from major WTO decisions. Cuba still suffers from USA’s trade embargo continued for last fifty years which eventually deprives it from getting maximum benefits of WTO trade agreements.

Agreement on agricultural subsidies could not see lights due to opposition from India. India’s stubborn stand will make suffered many LDCs when benefitted others varying at different levels. Doha Round aimed for ‘fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system’ which was anticipated to be implemented in this year ‘conference.  This was to be achieved by the way of substantial reduction in trade distorting domestic support for agricultural commodities, improvements in market access for agricultural goods and reduction in export subsidies. Some export oriented LDCs want to abstain developed countries from subsidizing their agricultural exports but subsidizing their own. India told it will continue to subsidize its agriculture to save small farmers and ensure food security. If India decides to stop exporting to secure its own food security then it will cause for concerns for many countries like its neighboring Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan and so forth. There will some reliefs for developing countries since Bali declared that developing countries will not be challenged legally even if the limit to trade distorting domestic support by a country exceeds ten percents.


Now let us come to conclusive remarks in this discussion. Why WTO could not achieve its optimum success? Sometimes it was due to clash of interest and sometimes it was game of politics which made it an inept institution. Now let us back to the point of two logics. Which logic dominates in respect of WTO performance? I think none of those. Since we have experienced that domestic politics can dictate international trade resolutions and international economic resolutions can break domestic status-quo. None of these can be thought desolately rather they are interlinked and complementary to each other. Above both of those logics, I think one mantra dominates everything; everything from politics to economics at local to international levels. And it is none but the mantra of laissez-intérêt!

This article will be available in the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs Insights & Reviews (www.fairbd.net)

Military Dynamics in Egypt Crisis

Since Mursi was the first ever elected president of Egypt the Egyptians very plainly, expected that it will bring a positive change to their lives. They were supposed to have freedom of expression and so other democratic rights. But on 22 November 2012 Mr. Mursi put a presidential decree that could not be appealed, a power not even Mubarak had. That decree gave him a supreme power above any any person. He was forced to rescind the decree a few weeks later. Although the move unquestionably smells of authoritarianism and has been universally criticized, it can be argued that, to some degree, Mursi’s seemingly undemocratic move was triggered by a series of actions by the courts that undermined his legitimate powers. There had been some salient features of Mursi’s misrule. Those include- the use of violence and even torture against protestors by MB supporters during riots in front of Mursi’s palace on December 2012; Massive media censorship; Investigation for high treason, claimed by the government, of several leaders of the opposition. MB owned media have also spread accusations that opposition leaders like Amr Moussa spy for Israel and are part of a US-orchestrated plot to overthrow the government. Mursi’s blatant intention to consolidate power in an authoritarian manner took him into the ditch of hell.

The politics of Egypt is based on republicanism, with a semi-presidential system of government. Like many other modern states there are three branches of state in Egypt- legislative, executive and judiciary. But military wing, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is the most powerful above all of them. Military officers in fact, have been ruling the country since 1952 by toppling monarchic system. Following the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 it was widely expected that there would be breakthrough.  The revolution was initially successful since it forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign but could not free Egypt from the clutches of the SCAF. This time SCAF grabbed executive power with popular support. It dissolved the parliament and suspended the constitution. This situation sustained until Mursi assumed to power in 2012 through an election.  But Mursi, the first ever democratically elected president of Egypt could not stay more than a year. This time Fattah Al Sisi the Commander-in-Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces produced a successful coup to overthrow Mursi amidst a longstanding political crisis including fierce street battle with pro-Mursi supporters on one side and anti-Morsi on the other.

Hillel Frisch assumes that the unique role of the military in Egypt is even more disconcerting. In Egypt, the armed forces have assumed, contrary to the existing constitution, a guardian role, similar to the Turkish model before the ascendance of the government Justice and Development Party in which the army does not only protect the state against outside competitors but maintains the regime internally as well.

In history it is found that since Colonel Gamal Abd-al Nasser’s absolute rise to power in the mid- 1950s, the Egyptian armed forces have neither ruled nor played the role of the guardian of the Egyptian regime. Under Mubarak the army was privileged yet subordinated. This situation had been continued until newly elected President Muhammad Morsi subordinated the Army to his rule in August 2012.

The military is very influential in Egypt's domestic affairs, politically and economically. Approximately 30% of the Egyptian economy is dominated by the military. It is also well-integrated into the political system in Egypt. However, it has given signs to indicate its support of the demands of the Egyptian people. In its statement deposing Morsi, the military denied engaging in a coup d'état, indicating that it does not intend to run the government. Rather, the military’s actions seem to reinforce what it sees as its traditional role as the “Guardian of the Republic”.

There are also indications that the MB sought to slowly replace the old military leadership with elements that, for per­sonal or ideological reasons, were more sympathetic to the movement. That reshuffle also created discontent in armed forces.

Since it is clear that the Egyptian military quarter had been enjoying a privileged life and well control over the country until Morsi entered into the scene they were looking for a continuation of their past supremacy even during the Morsi period. Eventually this section was looking for changing the status quo.  Finally internal factors i.e. political unrest and external factors i.e. green signal from a western superpower assisted them to fulfill its desire.

This article was appeared first on 23rd August, 2013 on the Daily Sun (Link- http://www.daily-sun.com/details_yes_23-08-2013_Military-dynamics-in-Egypt-crisis_593_2_5_1_1.html)

Role of Interest Groups in Egypt Politics

Egypt has become the focal point of interest of political analysts. To understand the recent political development in Egypt someone has to consider both internal and external dynamics juxtapose. Internal and external both factors are equally complex and greatly influential. 

Armed Forces

The military is very influential in Egypt's domestic affairs, politically and economically. Approximately 30% of the Egyptian economy is dominated by the military. It is also well-integrated into the political system in Egypt. However, it has given signs to indicate its support of the demands of the Egyptian people. In its statement deposing Morsi, the military denied engaging in a coup d'état, indicating that it does not intend to run the government. Rather, the military’s actions seem to reinforce what it sees as its traditional role as the “Guardian of the Republic”.

Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has its origin in Egypt. By the dint of spatial reality MB has influential role in Egypt. The organization was founded more than eighty years ago in 1928 and after so many years of prosecution by regimes it had been able to remain intact throughout the Middle East. The upspring or what came to be known as the Arab Spring that took place throughout the Middle East eliminated some of the old regimes in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya which allowed the MB to rise to power after being a banned organization and gain the benefit of political power of these revolution which had started out as a secular movement.

One of the most prominent strategies of MB is avoiding confrontation with the military. Finding a modus vivendi with the army has been particularly challenging in Egypt, where the military has enormous power. However the MB seems to have established a relatively effective power-sharing mechanism with it, partially enshrined in the new constitution. In a nutshell, the MB does not encroach on the army’s huge financial interests, and the army lets the MB govern.

Political Parties

Egypt has a multi-party system. However, National Democratic Party (NDP) was the only active political party until 2011. Egypt movement of 2011 ousted both NDP and President Hosni Mubarak at the same time. Under Mubarak, opposition parties were allowed, but were widely considered to have no real chance of gaining power. That circumstance sustained until ‘Egyptian spring’.

On March 28, 2011, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces introduced the Political Party Law, which eases restrictions on the legal establishment of new political parties in Egypt. Under the law new parties are now required to have at least 5,000 members from at least ten of Egypt's provinces. Originally, new parties were only required to have 1,000 members. At present there are around fifty political parties in Egypt and around forty of them were established in post Mubarak regime.

Media’s Role

Media, especially social media had an historical role to initiate and sustain the ‘Egyptian spring’ which eventually prompted the fall of Mubarak. In the Mubarak period there was no free media. According to Freedom House report 2007, the print press is very diverse in Egypt, with over 600 newspapers, journals, and magazines. However these are owned mostly or in some way by the government, the opposition or other political parties. So it was difficult for the people to get a neutral viewpoint over any political issue.

Freedom of express of media is also in a fragile state in Egypt. The scenario were so worst during Mubarak period that several journalists from private newspapers have been arrested and jailed for breaching laws that prohibited criticism of the President. There are two state owned and an increasing number of private television channels which are also under huge government surveillance. 

The most fascinating feature of media is the wide spread use of internet in Egypt. According to Freedom House report 2007 around 21 percent of the population use internet. The recent political unrests are more freely covered and expressed through internet based social media since print and TV media were forced to remain tight lipped under government threats. But the young Egyptians could never be stopped. In a latest report it is found that a group of MB activists established their own internet protocol to avoid government surveillance. They are sending what actually are happening in Egypt under army rule.  

first appeared on 14th August, 2013 on Daily Sun,

Two Leaders : Numerous Challenges

Power Transition process in two great countries, the US and China in terms of size, economic and military might, has created enthusiasm across the world. Change of leadership in White house and Great hall will definitely affect future economic and political path of direction of the world. So, from businessmen to politicians, all glued their eyes on it. This year it was a rare instance of coincidence that the leadership is getting changed in both countries at the same time. In the US, the leadership is elected while in China there is a process of selection by party members of Communist Party of China (CPC). On 6^th November the Americans elected there leader Mr. Barack Obama when in China, all is set for Xi Jinping to take sit. But both leaders may not have chance to cherish their achievement as already they are shadowed by daunting challenges of numerous crises. Let’s see those respective challenges of two leaders of two great states.   

For Mr. Obama, economic recovery by creating jobs for millions is the biggest challenge. In his prior term Obama showed his successes in health care law, Wall Street reform, and stimulus bill. Upcoming tenure will be a tougher one for him as said by many economic analysts. Tackling the deficit, increasing worker productivity and optimizing incentives system for the Americans are a few to denote the challenges. At the same time, fiscal consolidation is no easy task. Bill Clinton, the last president to run a budget surplus, was benefited enormously from productivity and GDP growth spurred by the first tech boom. Unfortunately, president Obama will have no such luck. Instead, he will return to the White House faced with stagnating productivity growth. Foreign policy challenges are another which will be no easy as well. Popular media in the US are claiming that the Obama administration will have five major foreign policy challenges ahead. They include- 1. Rethink defense in an era of economic restraint. 2. Contain the euro zone crisis. 3. Mend the fence with China. 4. Confront border violence and immigration. 5. Encourage innovation and global competitiveness. But still there are many immediate challenges. Syria crisis; irresistible Iran with nuclear crisis; conundrum in Afghanistan and Iraq and continuing deteriorating relationship with Pakistan will through Obama administration in an ordeal. John Bolton, former US ambassador to UN, told that Obama administration has less focus on foreign policy. That’s why reelection of Obama for consecutive second term will give the enemies of US an opportunity to breathe a sigh a relief.

Like the United States, China is also at a turning point, and though the specifics differ, the crux of the problem is the same: major structural change is critical to sustained future growth and stability of the country. Beijing's economic strategy must be drastically overhauled. The Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership, recognizing the danger, in March 2011 formally adopted a new development strategy that stresses increasing household consumption, reducing reliance on exports, expanding services, and moving to more innovative, less resource-intensive manufacturing. A study released this February by the World Bank in conjunction with the State Council Development Research Center, one of China's top government think tanks, confirmed the importance of this new strategy. But little serious reform has happened to date.  

Overwhelming controversies of corruptions among top leaders of the government and party already have raised the questions of legitimacy of the government and party. Outgoing president Hu Jintao warned in his last speech about corruptions among party leaders which may eat upon the glorious achievements of the great country.

Many scholars deem that incumbent president of China, Xi Jinping will have to face more challenges than that of Obama. Unlike Barack Obama, for instance, the incoming leader Xi Jinping won't be able to choose most of his own team.

On foreign policy side, China is still working to strengthening its position within and in its door step region. China still portrays itself as a Third World country that pursues "an independent foreign policy of peace." But the ‘foreign policy of peace’ seems no more peaceful in the context of developments taking places centering South China Sea and Island row against Japan. Burgeoning economic and military might is making China more and more arrogant towards its neighbors. But growing US naval presence in the Asia pacific forced Chinese security thinkers to shuffle its security strategy. Last President Hu Jintao warned in his swan song that China needs to concentrate more to be a naval power in the world. This urge was given definitely, denoting US move.

Two leaders Mr. Obama and Xi Jinping have lots of jobs to do ahead, no doubt.  Observers will see their performance critically, because many wellbeing of the tiny earth depends upon their success.

This article was published on the daily Sun on 6th November, 2012.

Here comes the Drone!

A few decades past, it was the age of Cold War and the world was in a constant fear of nuclear war between the US and the then USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) present Russia. That age was mainly dominated by the developments of nuclear bomb, ICBM (Inter Continental Ballistic Missile), SLBM (Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile) and so forth. The Cold War came to an end in the nineties of last century with the demise of USSR. Now we are living in a multi-polar world, arguably uni-polar with the US In centre. Probably with the demise of USSR, we not only left behind the age of nuclear bomb or ICBM, SLBM, but also we have entered in a new age of armament- the age of drone. According to recent research from International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) there are at least eleven countries that have their own drones while more countries are trying to develop their own version of it. More concern for us that our neighbor India has, as it is known, thirty drones. The unscrupulous and indiscriminate use of drone makes us ample causes to be worried about our country’s national securities and of course, security of individuals. Who knows, one morning you may find your fellow countrymen wounded in border areas by an attack from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), widely known as drone.

Let us enter into the short history of drone. Mainly, drone is the innovation of the US. The CIA and Pentagon first wanted to have it in the early 1980s, for reconnaissance. In the nineties of the last century, the US publicly unveiled the drone. When President George W Bush declared a "War on Terror" 11 years ago, the Pentagon had fewer than 50 drones. Now, it has around seven thousand and five hundred drones. But according to the IISS data it has at least 678 drones in service. Following 2001, the RQ-1 Predator became the primary unmanned aircraft used for offensive operations by the USAF and the CIA in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas it has also been deployed elsewhere. The US rarely discusses the top-secret drone programme. This is absolutely, humiliating for any country to be under the attacks of drone as Pakistan, Somalia have been experiencing for years. In the name of war against terrorism, in other words Al-Qaida, in fact, killed thousands of Pakistani civilians. Imran Khan, a political leader, in Pakistan completed a two-day long march towards South Waziristan province, in protest of US drone strikes in the country’s tribal region bordering Afghanistan commenced since last Saturday.

US government justifies its drone strikes with the argument that it is at war with al-Qaeda and its affiliates, one could imagine that India in the not too distant future might launch such attacks against suspected terrorists in Kashmir or in neighboring countries like Bangladesh. China might strike Uighur separatists in western China, or Iran might attack Baluchi nationalists along its border with Pakistan. The China has already expressed its interest to fly drone to vigil the activities of Japan in South China Sea. The more the time is progressing the more the intention to own drone is increasing from new states. This is why the concern of drone related insecurities is increasing. Recent report says that drone makers are trying amplifying their commercial destinations. They are diversifying the types of drone productions to attract wide range of consumers. May be they are thinking of selling by online booking. Those days are not far away when one may book a drone on amazone.com. So, non-state actors like terrorist groups, drug cartels may have it as there is lack of any regulation regarding the sell and production of drone, so far. Drone needs to be taken as a similar concern as it was taken for chemical and biological weapons. Because this is also a very heinous weapon. That’s why the other name of drone is ‘predator’.

In near future drone could be a serious threat for Bangladesh, as its neighbor India that surrounds Bangladesh almost on every front, owns it. The status of India’s relations with Bangladesh will be main determiner of the use of drones against Bangladesh. India has a common suspicion against Bangladesh for unrest in its seven sisters. Now and then, it claims that there are many hide outs of separatist leaders in Bangladesh. Therefore, Bangladesh needs to be proactive against the whimsical use of drone. It should extend its moral support for those ongoing anti-drone campaigns that are protesting against in many countries.

An abridged version of this article was published on 20th October, 2012

Why Ecuador Stands for Junian Assange?

Julian Assange the whistleblower of twenty first century has become a buzzing name of the present world. Emergence of Assange and his role in establishing a rare type of instance of ‘free world’ have attracted mixed reactions from experts to general pupil in both worlds of media and at the same time of politics. Many people say that Assange has established ‘right to information’ of laymen to government’ activities while other are saying that he has endangered national security of many countries. On which side you will stand for? Now there is another scenario regarding Assange. The question of Assange’s political asylum has placed many states in strained relations against one another. Now another popular question has risen among people that why Ecuador is eager to give asylum to Mr. Assange. Why does it dare to challenge Britain for Assange?  In the background of all those complex developments and queries I have sit to write for.

Assange is probably, the best whistleblower in world history in terms of his works that shocked most possible countries of the world. There is little doubt that Julian Assange, having exposed some of the barbarities perpetuated by the American military in its ill-fated war in Iraq, has reason to fear the wrath of an enraged US government — particularly given the appalling treatment meted out to whistleblower Bradley Manning, the army private accused of orchestrating the biggest leak of state secrets in US history. But what is the significance of whistleblower? There is strong evidence in American history that whistleblowers played a significant role in American Civil War. In Europe the historical instance is no less igniting than that of America. Ryszard Kukliński, a Polish colonel, Cold War spy and communist whistleblower believed that he would be able to prevent the war in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and Nato countries by handing in 40,265 pages of secret military documents of German Democratic Republic and People's Republic of Poland to CIA. Lev Trotsky in late 1920s gave an ethico-political dimension of whistleblowing. He started reading the correspondence between his predecessors Tsarist Russia and the ministers of the other countries. Official documents revealed that it was not fought for patriotic reasons. Trotsky did not hesitate in deciding what to do: the Foreign Ministry's archives had to be made public in order to make the whole world aware that the war in Europe was fought by the hegemonic classes against their own peoples. There Trotsky served as a whistleblower to expose the curse of secret diplomacy.

In the name of ‘national security ‘, secret diplomacy has been dominating administrative policy of governments in democratic countries. Secret diplomacy was just the make-up needed to hide this fact: “Secret diplomacy is a necessary tool for a propertied minority which is compelled to deceive the majority in order to subject it to its interests”. In the aspect of leaking the activities of secret diplomacies many experts see Assange is a continuation of Trotsky, Ryszard Kukliński and so forth. But Assange’s performance and its impacts have global range. Assange gave a big blow against the evils of secret diplomacy.  Clandestine diplomatic activities only served the regime interest. It never can be a pro-people strategy or policy.

Since the US government issued a warrant against those leaks, Assange had been on the run. He submitted to police questioning in Sweden in the immediate wake of the complaints in late 2010, left the country unaware that a police warrant had been issued for his arrest. Since then, he has taken his fight against a European Extradition Warrant (EEW) through three different courts in the UK, the Magistrates’ Court, the High Court and Supreme Court, and lost on every occasion. Later he flew to the Ecuadorian embassy two months ago and sought political asylum, which he was duly given. But this move has made the UK government annoyed over Ecuador. The UK government has made it clear that the Australian activist will be arrested and extradited if he steps outside the building after jumping bail. But the curiosity became indomitable when we had found Ecuador standing firmly besides Assange. Even thirty seven South American countries extended their supports for the decision taken by the government of Ecuador. Some experts say that Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and Assange have mutual interests- they both support the idea that the U.S. is an imperial power that has to be checked. Robert Amsterdam, a Canadian international lawyer presence of overwhelming anti-American sentiment in whole Latin America. He shared his experiences “When I'm in Guatemala, they still call the (U.S.) 'the empire.'” There really is an almost universal hostility toward American foreign policy. Assange would be welcomed in many countries just for that fact. Jorge Leon, an Ecuadorian political analyst who lives in Quito, said that with presidential elections in Ecuador scheduled for next February giving Assange asylum in the country could be "useful to Correa to give himself a leftist image." In this way Assange needs Ecuador and Ecuador needs Assange. There are mutual interests. But how far this mutual interest will last?  Will Correa be able to continue his support for Assange after the next election? Future will give the answer.   

This article was published in the daily Sun on 1st September, 2012

The US Naval Interest in Bangladesh

The US secretary of navy Ray Mabus paid a ‘silent’ but significant visit to Dhaka. There are two aspects regarding the media attention to this news- one, this visit got less attention than it actually deserved and then, it got better attention in foreign news agencies then the news agencies of Bangladesh. Probably, this visit had no ‘media merit’ in the eyes of Bangladeshi media professionals because; they took it as a less important matter than the visit of an Indian film star. In the contrary, this visit has a huge significance if we consider the developments that have been taking places in South Asia and in South East Asia for last a few months. Almost a month before a news jolted the ministry of foreign affairs in Bangladesh. This news was regarding harboring of US Seventh Fleet in Chittagong. An Indian news agency claimed that the US had proposed Bangladesh to harbor its Seventh fleet in Chittagong port. But Bangladesh completely declined the claim. Now, how should this visit be taken in backdrop of such complex developments?

Let’s have some glimpses in the last visit paid by the US secretary of Navy. An eight-member US delegation, led by Ray Mobus, called on Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Zahir Uddin Ahmed and later with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. During the meeting with the Vice Admiral they exchanged pleasantries and discussed matters on professional interest. Acquiring warship and ultra modern ocean survey ship from USA and assistance in the field of professional training also came up for discussion. Sheikh Hasina said her government wants the Bangladesh Navy to extract marine resources following the victory on maritime dispute over Myanmar. The Prime Minister also stressed the need for strengthening cooperation between the naval forces of Bangladesh and the USA. Mobus also laid emphasis on strengthening cooperation between the naval forces of Bangladesh and the USA. Was there any clandestine intention behind the façade of formalities?

Bangladesh’s location in the basin of Bay of Bengal gives it a much more privileges to be an important country in the region. Bay of Bengal is the largest bay in the world which forms the northeastern part of the Indian Ocean. Historic victory at the UN maritime tribunal, Bangladesh has won territorial and economic rights to the vast Bay of Bengal resources even beyond it bargained for. This achievement has given Bangladesh an upper hand to strengthen its position strategically-economically, to some extent, politically in South Asia and in a broader sense in global stage. The Bay of Bengal is more significant in regards of its location in the Indian Ocean. According to Robert D Kaplan, Indian Ocean will be the centre of global conflicts, because most international business, supply will be conducted through this route. Most important of all, it is in the Indian Ocean that the interests and influence of India, China and the United States are beginning to overlap and intersect. It is here, as Kaplan says, that the 21st century’s “global power dynamics will be revealed.”  According to Kaplan two key players in this region are India and China. India is moving east and west while China to the South. Interestingly these, relatively new political players are making the Indo-Pacific into a heaven of “RealPolitik’. And lone Superpower the US is also on a process to shift its focus from the Middle East to this region. 

The recent cynosure of global powers has added some new dimensions to this particular region. More importantly the government of Bangladesh is now considering the urgency of securing the Bay of Bengal to secure the national interest there. The natural resources i.e. petroleum carbon, marine fisheries of the Bay of Bengal are component of future economic development of Bangladesh. Very much frequently we find in national dailies reporting that infiltration of foreign fishermen is illegally taking place while fishing within the jurisdiction of Bangladesh. And Bangladeshi coast men are helpless as they couldn’t reach deep water with their age old boats to chase those bigots. Though lately, but still something to be optimistic regarding that the government of Bangladesh has taken some initiatives to modernize its Navy.  The Government of Bangladesh announced an ambitious defense procurement plan in February 2009 for a major purchase of weaponry, equipment and hardware for its armed forces, including anti-tank and anti-ship missile systems, aircraft for maritime patrol, frigates, tanks and helicopters to turn the force into a ‘three dimensional force’.

The US will find it viable to join into the process of modernization of Bangladesh Navy by providing with training, selling their ‘outmoded’ equipments and forging relationship to a new height. This will help the US Navy to come closer to Bangladesh Navy. To get an upper hand in the Indian Ocean, Bangladesh is a good option for the US just after India. There is already a bonhomie relationship between India and Bangladesh and no exception, concerning India and the US. Therefore, India also won’t mind to bring Bangladesh into the ‘circle’ of ‘friends’. India and the US would like to see Bangladesh out of ‘string of pearls’.  From the Bangladesh point of view this is a good development to get some ‘big friends’ besides and enjoys some benefits. In near future probably Bangladesh will continue to receive more foreign high-ups. But at the same time it has to be very much conscious while dealing with them. There has to be a policy of balancing. Tilting towards a particular group would be a blunder. So in epilogue it can be said that a ‘tricky’ and ordeal time ahead for foreign policy decision makers in Bangladesh and we can only wish that they will prove their ‘character’ for Bangladesh’s national interest.    

An edited version of this article was published on 28th July  2012