PAKISTAN’S MEMOGATE: AN ORCHESTRSTION?

Pakistan has become a country of endless climaxes because it seems that the twists and turns will never end there. Since the Abottabad incident political inconsistency in Pakistan has become a consistent phenomenon. Sometimes it seems to me that Pakistan is still haunted by the spectre of Osama bin Laden.  However, it does not mean that before Abottabad incident there had been a persistent peaceful political ambiance in Pakistan. The recent political crisis in Pakistan is evolving centering ‘memogate’ scandal. ‘Memogate’ is a secret memorandum which was allegedly delivered to Admiral Michael Mullen, then the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, requesting US intervention in the event of a military coup against Pakistan's elected government. The memo promised that Pakistan would allow the US input on a revamp of the country's national security set-up, and that it would eliminate Section S of the country's powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency, which allegedly is responsible for the ISI's links with the Taliban. After knowing this secret activity the army got furiated that finally resulted in involving Supreme Court which issued a notice over inaction in graft case of President Asif Ali Zardari, as government faces legal and political challenges. 

But the present situation is unprecedented because of several cogent reasons. The most important reason is the existing strained relationship with the US. The US killed Osama Bin Laden by violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. In last November US led Nato strike killed twenty four Pakistani troops in Northern Pakistan which finally resulted to halt Nato supply line to Afghanistan via Pakistan and forced the US to pull out from Shamasi airbase in Kharan, Pakistan. This year January President Obama signed a bill to stop aiding Pakistan as a measure of tit for tat. Another important reason is a better strong position of various democratic institutions like- media, Supreme Court and stronger opposition parties in today’s Pakistan. 

The ‘memogate’ scandal may bring a shuffle in Pakistan government. But here I shall not view the scandal to understand the national politics of Pakistan rather will dissect the issue to understand its implication with external dimensions. It may create a very tricky option for the US to make through into Pakistan politics and force Pakistan to come into terms. 

It is a very much historically proven truth that the civil-military relation in Pakistan is always at a draggers drawn. But in most of the cases the relationship was influenced or shaped by the external factors.  After the Pakistan troops casualties by Nato airstrikes taken places, the official relationship between Pakistan and the US touched a new bellow. But since then, both the government and military are maintaining a clandestine relationship, because respective organization’s existence depends upon Washington’s positive nod. An obedient and controlled Pakistan is also important for the US. To bring stability in Afghanistan and maintaining counterterrorism effort in South Asia and uprooting insurgency from this region, a stable Pakistan is precondition. The US cannot afford to let Pakistan run alone and even, independently. This may risk of making a mess of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to insurgents. In an updated research, conducted by The Nuclear Threat Initiative, in a project led by former US Senator Sam Nunn and the Economist Intelligence Unit it is found that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are at most risk just after North Korea. A few days back I had the privilege speak with Mr. Ali Riaz, Professor and Chair of department of Political Science, Illinois State University. We had some wonderful sharing regarding the US role in the regional politics of South Asia. Then he told me that a stable Pakistan is important for both the US and India. If Pakistan fails as a state then certainly it will risk nuclear weapons falling in the hand of non-state actors like Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayba or any other terrorist organizations.  Terrorists and insurgents from Pakistan will infiltrate into India and Bangladesh through the porous borders. 

‘Memogate’ scandal will finally bring one party, either the government or the armed force division, nearer to the US.  And then the US will utilize this weak point to enforce Pakistan to bow down to its demand.  From this point of view no one can deny the possibilities of orchestration from the US to drive the ‘memogate’ on its own side. 

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on 21st January, 2012 

China Enters Indian Ocean

While China is confronting or trying to appease South China Sea (SCS) littoral states from claiming over resources there in, simultaneously, it’s maintaining global policy towards many different regions as prominently as it had been in the past. China has decided to build an overseas military base, first ever in its kind, in Indian Ocean.  The decision has double merits- one, this is a great shift from regional to global strategic reach and then the specialty of the location of base, which is 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.

China has already announced that it will set up its first military base abroad in the Indian Ocean island of Seychelles to "seek supplies and recuperate" facilities for its Navy. A recent report said that Chinese naval fleets have re-supply facilities at harbors in Djibouti, Oman and Yemen since China sent its first convoy to the Gulf of Aden in 2008. China has already cemented its foothold in the Indian Ocean by signing contract with the UN backed International Seabed Authority to gain rights to explore polymetallic sulphide ore deposit in Indian Ocean over the next 15 years.

The location of Seychelles is far away from China and near to Indian Andaman Nicobar islands and located to the north east of African's Madagascar. The number of islands in the archipelago is more than hundred and fifteen. India's former intelligence chief, Vikram Sood said that he had been surprised by the Seychelles, traditionally close to India, that it had offered naval facilities to China. Beijing is considering the offer as an opportunity to establish a port to supply its anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden. Surely this base will ensure China's maritime commerce while at the same time, will serve to set off against India's presence in Indian Ocean.

Now let us have some glimpses upon the backdrops of this recent move by China. After the face to face situation with the SCS littoral states which was almost going to outburst into a war, with the involvement of the US, China, finally, discovered its lack of advancement in naval power. Within a few days of edgy situation between China and many other SCS littoral states, claiming over the resources of spritely islands, China floated off it’s first ever and only air craft carries in the SCS. China started to feel the importance of naval power in a very awkward situation. Within a very short time, Indian state owned company ONGC Vindesh declared that it would continue to explore SCS for Vietnam despite China’s dissent. And after the very next month of this incident, US president Barak Obama made a visit to Australia and declared that it would build a marine base in Northern Australia in the region of Asia pacific. So, China, very much reasonably, started to feel a kind of encirclement by some traditional enemies. In consequence, China has been trying to counter balance both India and the US by widening its strategic reach.

While commenting on China’s Seychelles base, Mr. Raman, Director, Institute For Topical Studies from India had arguments of different frame of mind. According to him, Chinese naval ships on long-range anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden area do need ports of call for re-stocking, re-fuelling and rest and recreation facilities. Initially, they were using the Karachi port. They have stopped doing so for some months now due to the poor security situation in Karachi, which was highlighted by a terrorist attack on the Pakistani naval air base in May last. Thus China is optioning the Seychelles. But I think, the Seychelles cannot be replacement for Karachi, Pakistan or Hambantota, Sri Lanka. The Seychelles’s geographical location is totally different. Moreover, there is a qualitative difference between China’s other port and base in the Seychelles. In the Seychelles, it will be military base. So it cannot be merely a port of call for re-stocking, re-fuelling and rest and recreation facilities. We can’t deny its strategic importance.

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on 7th January, 2012

Iraq At The Crossroad

This year is ending by ushering some remarkable changes, especially, across Middle East and Africa. Besides the inauguration of “Arab Spring”, many occupied Middle Eastern countries started to cut loose from their occupier.  The US has called it a day for Iraq by declaring the drawdown of all forces from there. This decision has attracted mixed reactions from different types of experts. Some praised while some scolded Obama’s policy. In the declaration ceremony Mr. Barak Obama said that Iraq had become democratic and had an independent judicial system. This statement has surprised many Iraqis including me from Bangladesh.  I wish the Iraqis had all these!

After the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq scholars have produced innumerable articles regarding this issue. Here I shall try to touch those untouched areas of analysis that are very much important. Occupation of Iraq is a continuation of classical norm of western imperialism. Initially western powers occupy a foreign land physically by waging wars. Then the occupier makes an opportune ambiance for their vernacular companies to do business. And finally they leave it by substituting with an obedient leader selecting from the occupied country. In Iraq there was nothing exceptional. Now Nuri al-Maliki is serving the exact purpose. Just after the last US convoy has left Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki issued an open invitation for US firms to help rebuild Iraq Tuesday, as his oil-rich nation closes the door on a nearly nine-year American military presence. Hailing a new stage in the country's history, Maliki declared his war-scarred nation was ready to construct a new economy, one that holds "limitless" opportunities for US firms. In near future Iraq would be transformed into an economically occupied country from physical occupation.

Now let us look into socio-political aspects of Iraq. Since we know that the prominence of religious values in Iraq, none can ignore those components while trying an overhauling process there in. During Saddam, a Sunni  by origin, reign it was Shiite group who was exploited, deprived and destroyed with mass killing. Now Maliki, a Shiite, in power looming a similar fate for Sunnis.  Now there is already an open rift between Maliki and vice precedent Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni by origin.  Just days after US forces left the country and on the eve of the national unity government's first anniversary, Iraq's fragile political truce already looked to be unraveling. Authorities have issued a warrant for Vice President to arrest.  That sparked fears that Iraq's fragile year-old unity government could fall apart, shortly after the last US soldiers left the country. Fighting between Sunnis and Shii left thousands dead in the tit-for-tat attacks of 2006-2007. Who knows what will happen next! But my assumption is weighing on “two Iraqs solution” as an eminent future of this country.

Now let me end my article with short discussion on strategic matter related with troops pulling out. Analysts have been claiming, since the declaration of Afghanistan drawdown that  the US is making a strategic shift from the Middle East to the Asia pacific focusing, mainly, to set off China. After Iraq pull out the speculation has got stronger support. Many Middle East experts are speculating that it will empower Iran to bully in this region.  But still the US has five military bases in Middle East and a few of them surround Iran. Moreover, in the era of ICBM and other state-of-the-art technology that the US is possessing, would not allow Iran to destabilize Middle East, if Iran ever wants at all.

At last what I am afraid of to say that Iraq may turn into another breeding ground of insurgency, militancy like Afghanistan, already there is hidden but growing dissents among the Iraqis against the government and the US. The Shiite and Sunni rift may erupt into a civil war which may finally lead to a process destabilization in the whole Middle East. I am not a problem solving expert and I have no panacea to all these problems. Only policy makers can show us way. So let us look forward.

An edited version of this article was published on same date in the Daily Star.

Why The US Needs A Base In Australia?

South China Sea (SCS) dispute has become an epicenter for many reshuffles in strategic thinking and regional politics. This dispute has been continuing to be a dominating factor in defining intra and inter regional relationship between South Asia and South East Asian nations, for couple of months. The US has forwarded its hands of assistance towards the SCS littoral states in opposition to China. India’s involvement with direct governmental presence in that region has added a new dimension. Now it is widely assumed that China’s supremacy, not only as a regional but also as a global power, will be tested with that dispute. Recent move from Washington to establish an air base in North Australia, in the name securing the US’s interest in Pacific region, can be taken as a clear act of provocation against China. The deployment will start in mid-2012, company-size rotations of 200 to 250 Marines near Darwin in Australia’s Northern Territory. The U.S. President Barack Obama has announced an enhanced security agreement with Australia providing up to 2,500 military personnel to be stationed in the country in the coming years. At the same time, in the Philippines, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a declaration reaffirming a longstanding mutual defense treaty between the two countries. China has already questioned the value of Washington's plan to strengthen military cooperation with Australia and updating its defense treaty with the Philippines. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin called for discussions about the boosting of American troop deployment in East Asia, questioning just how cooperation would benefit the international community.

Now let us look back. Just few months ago, US president declared to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan in a gradual process. The timeline for the withdrawal are- 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14. And there in Australia it has a plan to increase deployment from 250 in 2011 to 2500 in 2012. In one of my published articles, ‘Afghanistan troops pull out and South China Sea dispute’, I told that there was a invisible link between US decision of pulling out troops from Afghanistan and strategic developments in greater Asia. US strategists are finding it more useful to concentrate elsewhere than Afghanistan. Mark Thompson wrote in ‘Time’ magazine that like a geopolitical seesaw, the U.S. military is tilting its forces away from Europe to the Pacific, where they will serve to calm regional fears about China's growing military might. Beijing has been poking around the South China Sea in recent years. More than $6 trillion in goods ships through the sea annually, and the U.S. and its allies want to ensure its hold on open navigation rather than letting it a Chinese lake. So now it is very much apparent that US’s security paradigm is revolving around ‘China strategy’. In my article I claimed that strategists of the US might find it more important to make strong foothold in South Asia or South East Asia to dissolve China’s prowess in that region and utilizing present turmoil centering the SCS. In the present context we have seen that the US’s decision to establish a new marine base in Northern Australia is a deliberate decision to offset China’s hegemony in the Asia Pacific. This decision has given US an opportunity to explain it in multidimensional ways. Though the Obama administration is proclaiming that the decision is taken for their security purpose but, in fact, at the end, this base would be built with a clear intention against China.

But Chinas strategists did not misinterpret the situations. China knows it very well that though it is a leader in global economy but still lagging much far behind from the US as per as military capability is concerned. The US move to Australia would prompt China to concentrate in the region of Asia Pacific. Probably this time China would try to upgrade its naval power more, than any other military options. Because it is highly assumed that Chinese navy is substandard in comparison to that of the US, Russia or even India. And as per as SCS dispute is concerned naval power is going to be one of the crucial factors. So as a ‘would be supper power’ it is highly expected that China will concentrate in that particular area for upgrading.

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on this day.

Palestinian bid: The harsh realities

In the twenty first century international relations, one truth has become more phenomenal -- states are getting divided into smaller parts in the quest of gaining the right of self determination and self independence. In many aspects ‘two states solution’ has become an automatic choice. This truth, in the recent past, is apparent for South Sudan and now many leaders are considering for ‘New Libya’ and Iraq to bring an end to protracted inter-ethnic conflicts. Now ‘two states solution’ will turn into remarkable ‘panacea’ if Palestine gets recognition of statehood in the ongoing UN summit. Senior members of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) went to the Security Council. Senior members of the PLO said that they would go to the Security Council beside General Assembly to achieve their goal. The bid was opposed by Israel and the United States, with the latter threatening to veto any bid for full UN membership of Palestine.

Background of this bid

Why this bold step was taken this time, though belatedly? Many regional developments which were weakening Israel’s position and support in Middle East might have encouraged Palestine to go for the bid. Israel’s one of the most valuable friends in Europe and Middle East, Turkey has shown its back side. In recent past, both countries’ relationship status downgraded to the lowest rung. Turkey expelled Israeli ambassador, just a few weeks back. Turkish Premier Recap Tayyip Erdogan gave a rousing speech to Arab foreign ministers in Cairo last week, declaring support for Palestinian state. On the other hand, recent Middle East developments have placed the US in an acid test like situation. In this circumstance, the US could not play double role. If the US does not support Palestine cause, it will worsen more its ever bad image in the Middle East. So, Palestine authority was expecting that there could be a miracle in its way. But the reality is totally different as we know the strong Israeli lobby within America would never allow letting it. But many prominent citizens within Europe and even the US have also spoken up. Former Finnish President and Nobel Laureate Martti Ahtisaari and the European Commission’s former foreign policy Chief Javier Solana published an article on ten reasons why European countries should vote in favour of the Palestinians in the UN.

Harsh realities

This Palestinian move has raised a range of questions from optimism to skepticism. Many are skeptical of the move, and several questions remain unanswered. Will it bring an end to the Israeli occupation? Will it alter the US’ diplomatic role in the region? Will it get Palestinians and Israelis back to the negotiating table? Or will it inspire a grassroots Palestinian mobilisation? Experts on international affairs and legal affairs have found many potholes in this move. Noura Erakat, human rights attorney and writer in the US, says that one of the greatest concerns and the reason that the statehood bid has created polarisation in the Palestinian community has been that it is not clear what the objective of the statehood bid by the PLO is. There was no PLO meeting to go to the UN; it was just an executive decision by the president to go through with statehood. Hassan Jabareen, a legal expert of Palestinian citizens in Israel, denoted the legal side. He found the inevitable and impending conflict between the recent bid for one state solution and the previous UN Resolution 181 of 1947 which asked for two state solutions. Despite the fact that the Arabs were against the resolution, it formed the legal basis for Israel as a sovereign state. Now Palestine would seek the demarcation according to 1967 resolution.

Going to the UN, by the Palestinians would make more sense as step one in a multi-pronged strategy to bring about a national achievement. The only viable Palestinian path to full UN membership is via the Security Council, and that route is blocked by the certainty of a US veto. Failure at the Security Council may itself be a drawn-out process. The bid for statehood is not changing anything on the ground, but in the international arena. It will change the terms of the debate and tilt the balance of power internationally against Israel and in favour of Palestinians. It is mainly a symbolic act. It will change the dynamics in a very symbolic way.

So it is clear that the realities are very much cruel for the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle is that it does not have any reliable friend in the permanent Security Council. But the helpless Palestinians can hope for some political gains, at least. If it could manage the US by hook or by crook, the result could have been positive. But at the end I think this decision of going UN is a bold step and will work as a moral boost for its future gain.

The writer is a member of fairbd.net group.

India Looks Beyond South Asia

“India's leadership has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific... and we encourage you not just to look east, but continue to engage and act east as well."

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State, USA

US-India Strategic Dialogue, 2oth July, 2011, Chennai, India.

This year, Hillary Clinton made some high remarks regarding India’s leadership in South Asia and beyond during her last India tour. At a strategic dialogue between India and the US, held in Chennai, Hillary made a clear indication that her country wants to see India as a leader within a vast region, ranging from South Asia to Asia pacific including Central Asia.  In recent past, some significant developments in South Asia and South East Asian strategic landscapes are now proving that Hillary’s speech has far reaching impacts. Developments in the regional politics include the recent visits of the heads of the governments from Vietnam and Myanmar to India; India’s footprint in, probably, the most sensitive area in the world at this moment- South China Sea (SCS). All these developments placed us in a situation where we get an opportunity to explore the possible unseen links between Hillary’s speech and regional political developments.

Last month, Vietnamese president Trung Tan Sang paid four-day visit to India, aimed at deepening ties between two countries. Six agreements were signed after Sang met Indian premier Manmohan Singh. Among those agreements the most noteworthy of which regards oil and gas exploration by an Indian state owned company, ONGC Vindesh, in waters disputed by Vietnam and China in the SCS. Chinese criticism regarding the Indian exploration plans, already voiced last August this year, when Indian external minister SM Krishna visited Hanoi and announced that India would go ahead with operations notwithstanding China’s opposition. It is relevant here to mention that Vietnam and India enjoy mutual strategic interests as per as common threat perception from China is concerned.  

In the same month, Myanmar’s president, retired General Thien Sien, also visited New Delhi for four days in a bid to increase trade and cooperation, especially in energy sector. Since Myanmar has important energy resources in abundance, both India and China have been eyeing to buy those to meet their growing domestic energy demands. In the immediate pasts Myanmar’s energy resources had been under China’s sole occupation. Presuming Myanmar’s strategic importances, India started to develop relationship with that authoritarian country in the first half of 1990s.  Policy towards Myanmar was initiated under India’s broader policy towards South East Asia- “Look East Policy”. Though India is the largest democracy in the world, but it doesn’t hesitate to establish relationship with the world’s most repressive-captive-despotic state, Myanmar. India’s this contradictory stance is termed as ‘U-turn from idealism to realism’. Relations between Myanmar and India have been growing in the past few years. Indian President APJ Abdul Kalam visited Myanmar in 2006 and two years later, Vice-President Shri M.Hamid Ansari paid an official visit to the country in 2009. Reciprocally, Myanmar's former leader Senior-General Than Shwe, and many high officials visited India between 2008 and 2010. Myanmar-India bilateral trade reached 1.071 billion U.S. dollars in 2010-11 and India stood as Myanmar's fourth largest trading partner after Thailand, Singapore and China, according to official statistics. This year India promised Myanmar that it would lend $500 million in credit for a variety of infrastructure projects. Moreover, both countries discussed border security issues, a major concern for New Delhi, as insurgents groups from its northeast have set up camps along the frontier with Myanmar.

The recent developments can be analyzed in two dichotomized perspectives. One perspective claims that those regional developments mainly taking place because of concerted effort from India and USA.  But another point of view claims that South East Asian states are anchoring on Indian shore because they are tormented by China’s belligerent policies. If we enter deeper into those incidences then we will see that there is a ‘balancing game’ working in whole regional politics. Focusing primarily on the economic ties in the beginning, India and its South East Asian counterparts have increasingly expended the scope of cooperation to include other issues, such as defense and security. For South Asian states, an eastward looking India provides an array of opportunities, and is especially useful for balancing Chinese influence in the political, economic and defense realm in the region. For example- in the aspect of Myanmar, the seesaw is characterizing Myanmar's relations with its principal ally, China. During Thein Sein's visit to Beijing in May, the two countries decided to proclaim "a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership". Recently, however, Myanmar's decision to suspend the construction of the Myistone dam in the northern Kachin state, a project meant to supply electricity to China which was being executed by a Chinese corporation with massive Chinese investment, has caused substantial tensions. For Vietnam, she is upset with China’s illegal claims in SCS. Now these states are optioning India to replace China, as much as possible.

Another thing- the existing bonhomie relationship between two global powers, US and India, is instigating South East Asian states to strengthen more their existing relationship with India. So it is very much apparent that many political developments in South East Asia are coming on India’s way. Now retrospect the Hillary’s last India tour and remember her ambitions concerning India. Now the US wants to fish in the troubled water of SCS. Probably India will give the proxy for the US. And Vietnam will be the stronghold for the US in South East Asia which it assumes as much as good friend as England in Europe. On the question of SCS dispute the US is giving strong support to many SCS littoral states including Vietnam with both moral and materials. India’s approval of off-shore exploration for oil and gas in SCS by its state owned company, a clear defiance against China, was mainly propelled by the US. Now in the South East Asia and SCS region China has to face India first before the US.         

This article was first appeared on the Daily Star on 12th November, 2011.

Sino-Bangla relations: A time-honoured friendship

“Bengalees do not tell lies and they do not cheat anyone.”

An assertion by a Chinese envoy during the 15th Century.

We have come to know this great matter, about how the foreign envoys used to perceive Bengalee nation in the 15th century, from a speech given by the great historian of our time, Prof. Dr. Syed Anwar Husain. Prof. Dr. Husain’s statement affirms that the relationship between China and Bangladesh is not a matter of recent past but dates centuries before when Gias Uddin Ajam Shah was in power in Bengal.

People to people contacts had been maintained since the 4th century BC (approx.) through the third Silk route which was built during that time between the then Bengal and China. First Chinese monk, Fa Xian from China’s Eastern Jin dynasty, visited Bengal in 399 AD. And Atish Dipankar from Bengal was invited to Tibet to introduce Buddah’s teachings in 1038AD. So it is reasonably understandable that the present bonhomie between Bangladesh and China has its origin in thousand years before.

State to state diplomatic relationship between Bangladesh and China started not before 2nd October, 1975, though Bangladesh achieved its independence on 26th March, 1971. During that time mainly mistrust and misperception kept two friends apart. But since that historic year of establishment of diplomatic relationship, two great nations didn’t need to look back. Now both the states are time-honoured friends, both at regional and international levels. Bangladesh firmly supports China’s ‘one China policy’ and China shows utmost respect to Bangladesh’s sovereignty as an independent state.

Change of regime in Bangladesh brings no effect upon policy towards China. But it is highly perceived that Bangladesh’s nationalist Party (BNP) is on a slant towards China whereas Bangladesh Awami League towards India. These particular party positions must not be viewed in skewed eyes. These stances have logical background in historical developments. In 1977, Ziaur Rahman’s visit to China established solid basis in Sino-Bangla diplomatic relationship. In 1991, when Khaleda Zia came to power, she made her first visit to China. And Khaleda’s most recent tenure was marked by ‘Look East Policy’ which mainly focused China and other eastern countries including Japan, South Korea etc. The present regime, Awami League led Grand Alliance, didn’t bring major shift in policy towards China. Hasina made her trip to China, just after visiting India in January, 2010. Hasina sought China’s assistance to build deep sea port in Chittagong but couldn’t hold up the momentum of procedure which finally resulted in China’s sloth response. But this year the government of Bangladesh again has beefed up their activities to implement it. Bangladesh’s military build up is really owed to China’s consistent assistance since 1977. Now China is our second largest trading partner in terms of goods. Bangladesh’s central bank has decided to trade with China in Yuan, the Chinese currency, replacing US dollar. This is a great move from Bangladesh’s central Bank, to boost economic relationship with China. Before Bangladesh, this currency was being used for trade settlements in Myanmar and Nepal. Sri Lanka is also allowing the RMB for international transactions. Pakistan is expected to be the next in line.

China’s ‘non-interference policy’, indoctrinated within its global policy, made it a widely acceptable global power in the world. In Bangladesh, China is also popular because of its policy of non-interference. In a rare incident, `meet the press’ hosted by National press club on 26th September this year, Chinese ambassador Zhang Xianyi stated that China supports connectivity between Bangladesh and India as well as other countries in the region for mutual economic benefit. And on the very next day he said in a roundtable at Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Dhaka that Beijing will not unilaterally divert waters of the Brahmaputra River which supplies 60 percent of Bangladesh’s water flows. “We will consult with the downstream countries if they are in any way affected by what we are doing. This is our commitment,” he assured. Diplomatic observers say China’s probable water diversion plan has prompted New Delhi, which has been withdrawing water from the upstream affecting Bangladesh, to accept Dhaka’s idea of basin-wise management of the common rivers after decades. India for the first time, during the visit of Manmohan Singh’s Dhaka tour, agreed to go for basin-wise management of the trans-boundary rivers.

Xianyi expressed that China wants to establish links with Bangladesh via Myanmar, a road and a rail link. This direct link will create an opportunity to increase exports to China and thus reducing the existing trade gap between the two countries. Chinese companies are involved in various developments in Bangladesh including power plants, river dredging, bridge constructions. Decision makers in Bangladesh should come up with some possibilities to utilize this existing warm relationship with China. Bangladesh may strengthen its relationship with Myanmar and may ask China to create pressure upon Myanmar to refrain it from aggressive activities within Bangladesh’s maritime boundaries. India is importing gas from Myanmar. Bangladesh, also, should consider this matter as the country is suffering from huge paucity of gas and frequent power outage.

This year Sino-Bangla relationship is celebrating its thirty sixth anniversaries. With the progress of time both nations are moving toward stronger ties. It is expected that good relationship between these two great nations will create a balanced and stable South Asia.

This article was published on 13th October, 2011 in daily sun.