US interference in Bangladesh internal affairs: a trend of US neocolonialism?
Sufian Siddique
Independent researcher and freelance columnist, Dhaka.
Freedom, Independence and Sovereignty. Words are considered as fundamental rights for individuals, nations and countries in various ways. Obtaining these rights is an absolute honor, through which a sense of self-esteem is created. And self-respect establishes the identity of a person, a nation and a country. Bangladesh is an independent country. However, the time has come to assess how strong our sense of independence and sovereignty as citizens of independent countries and as a distinct nation has come. In addition, the extent to which we have become a self-respecting nation also needs to be monitored. Because after fifty-two years of independence we have to decide. We will accept the opinions, decisions and interference of foreign countries in the internal affairs of Bangladesh up to any limit. We have to be clear about this, is the responsibility of establishing the self-esteem of the country only the government or political parties? Or the people have some duty? Because of this, the questions arise, since the pre-independence period, why has Bangladesh occasionally become a negative target of the United States and some of its allied countries and international organizations and associations under its full control? How much does the United States follow international conventions in the case of Bangladesh? Because, a review of US secret documents on Bangladesh shows that they consider our great liberation war and independence as a result of their diplomatic failure. The foreign policy interaction between Bangladesh and the United States is such that the United States always tries to put Bangladesh in a delicate situation whenever it gets a chance. However, Bangladesh faced the setbacks with extreme defensive tactics and patience.
If the role and activities of the United States are monitored from the beginning of the birth of Bangladesh, the US foreign policy regarding Bangladesh is clearly visible. As history witnesses, the then US President Richard M. Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry A. Kissinger acted as direct opponents in our Great Liberation War. However, the country’s public, newspapers, FBI, CIA, some intelligence officers of the NCC, the majority of members of the Senate and Congress took a stand in favor of the Bengali freedom struggle. But the US president ignores those views in his one-liners. Recently, the leaked documents from the secret vault of the Maryland National Archives have revealed various information about the Nixon administration’s Sheer Stubborn Diplomacy in the case of Bangladesh. According to those sources, Henry A. Kissinger implemented Plan-A, B, C to stop the rise of Bangladesh. It was in his plan. Mr. US Ambassador to the United Nations. Embarrassing India at the UN through George Bush Sr., our best friend in the Liberation War; Presenting the Great War of Liberation to the world as an India-Pakistan war. Kissinger had a Plan-B. If Pakistan’s defeat becomes inevitable, the Security Council calls for an international declaration of ceasefire by the United Nations, so that the birth of the Bangladesh state is nipped in the bud. But in case Plan-A and B failed, Mr. Kissinger had Plan-C. Deploying the 7th Fleet off the coast of Bangladesh and putting an end to the Pakistani aggression. In this case, his strategy was to bring forward the defense agreement concluded with Pakistan in 1959 as a pretext.
But by resisting and countering all the regional and international adversities and the military aggression of the Pakistani invading forces, under the leadership of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, independence of Bengal was achieved in return for the sacrifice of three million martyrs and two hundred thousand brave men. However, Bangladesh had to start a new multi-dimensional struggle after ending the struggle for independence. One of them is obtaining UN recognition; There, too, the strategic opposition of the United States and its allies became apparent. According to economist Amartya Sen, ‘Whatever the cause of the Bangladesh famine of 1974, it was not caused by a shortage of food. However, the US administration’s policy of not giving food to Bangladesh at that time cannot be denied (Poverty and Famines. Oxford, Clarendon Press). Later, the biggest blow from America came through the direct plot and support to kill Bangabandhu. To kill a world leader like Bangabandhu they used their highest intelligence techniques; Gives courage and shelter to murderers.
However, Bangladesh started to turn around from 1996. Gradually began to promote their independence, sovereignty. Considering the geographical location of India, Myanmar and China, Bangladesh’s position is internationally important in terms of geopolitics, geostrategy and geosecurity and Bangladesh has been able to convey that. By sheltering 1.4 million Rohingya, Bangladesh has created the most shining example of world humanity. Conquest of sea boundaries, conquest of land boundaries through signing of Instrument of Ratification and Letter of Modalities, successful launch of Bangabandhu-1 satellites into space, construction of Padma bridge with own funding, formation of ‘Climate Change Trust Fund’ with own funding, restoration of democracy with establishment of nuclear power plants, successful achievement of MDGs and SDGs, policies and strategies to combat covid have elevated Bangladesh to unique heights. Bangladesh has adopted a zero-tolerance policy against terrorism and regional drug smuggling.
Many steps have been taken to establish a COUNTRY OF COMMUNAL HARMONY. Moreover, Bangladesh has its own development philosophy and theory. Digital Bangladesh, Vision 2021, Vision 2041, Smart Bangladesh and Delta Plan have brought international fame and recognition. Many international honors including Champions of the Earth, South-South Visionary Award, Peace Tree Medal, United Nations Award have been added to Bangladesh’s crown of glory.
In the last decade and a half, Bangladesh has been trying to integrate democratically. However, the main crisis is that the country is still directly opposed to the liberation war, sectarian and terrorist forces are doing politics. They also want to sit in power through political parties and for the sake of democracy; As it has been in the past. The United States wants to ensure the participation of these parties in its democracy formula. And for that purpose, the United States has been applying various diplomatic pressures. Imposing sanctions undemocratically, imposing visa policy non-negotiation.
In fact, it was the wrong diplomatic philosophy and decision of the US to adopt Pakistan’s side in 1971. Cultivating enemies of humanity in the name of democracy and trying to block their justice is making the United States increasingly unacceptable. It is necessary to practice democratic values in the bilateral relationship between the state and the state; But does the United States follow a liberal-democratic foreign policy in relation to many weaker countries? Data from the last 50-60 years show that the United States unilaterally imposes or accepts decisions or opinions in the case of these countries. This is their Double Standard of Morality; Propaganda Dependency is an unsmart US approach to foreign policy. They also take into account unsupported sources, unacceptable individuals, institutions or groups if it fits their policy and strategy. Another observation about the country is that they are very good at practicing Backdoor Game. They always try to put their loyal third power or party in power through the back door in a stable country; So that the country cannot become self-sufficient. One-Eleven Dr. Their efforts to make Muhammad Yunus the puppet head of the country is a revelation to us. We saw Dr. Failing to make Yunus the Prime Minister, the United States did not burn less wood to retain the post of MD of Grameen Bank. In this case too, they are defeated by the existing laws and rigid foreign policy of Bangladesh. Finally, the United States. In retaliation for not giving Muhammad Yunus the coveted MD post, the World Bank stopped funding the Padma Bridge project. This is America’s old weapon, they think. I will prefer to be first on the wrong track if I am last on the right track. As it did in 1974 by blocking a food grain ship, as it did in 1975 by participating in the conspiracy to kill the Father of the Nation.
At present, the foreign policy of Bangladesh is Self-respecting diplomacy. friendship with all, enmity with none and bowing to none; This is the beauty of Bangladesh’s foreign policy. The newly announced US visa policy hurts our ethnic self-esteem. Because we have a stake, a role in the stability of the world system. It should be noted that no country in the world is sheltering the Rohingyas, only crying and talking about human rights; Bangladesh gave them shelter; Guaranteed their fundamental rights even in the midst of the pandemic; rehabilitated them. Today, the contribution and sacrifice of Bangladesh in the peacekeeping mission led by the United Nations is the highest. So we have earned glory and honor through hard work, merit, sacrifice and merit. As a nation and state, no one has the right to interfere with our freedom, independence, sovereignty as well as glory and honor. As the saying goes – protecting freedom is harder than achieving freedom. It also applies to rights, sovereignty, glory and honor. And to protect these we must unite; The power of Bengali nationalism should be tempered. We have to remember that in this era of globalization, every person is a Global Citizen. So no one can stop someone’s speech and movement. Although the end of colonialism was largely due to the nationalistic awakening after World War II, the United States and its allies began to practice colonialism in a new equation. It has today taken on an intense and radical form which can be called neo-colonialism; To whom the constitution, laws of a free country are all secondary. The question arises, what is the boundary of this neo-colonialist US aggression, where is the end? Does the US administration really like democratic continuity in the third world countries and integrated democracy? Or democratic instability is their favorite? I left the question.
