In light of the current turmoil being witnessed in Bangladesh, the following article written earlier this year highlights the wider political, historic and strategic issues that have affected Bangladesh politics since its creation.

Control of Bangladesh

Different foreign powers have controlled Bangladesh since its inception. The periods of dominance by different powers; together with the key personalities shaping politics; and with the types of ruling system used, can be looked at as consecutive chapters in the short history of Bangladesh. America, Britain and India have been the key actors on a political stage that has been developing for the last 36 years.

During the late 60s West Pakistan (WP) noted for its allegiance with US, was increasingly at odds with East Pakistan's (EP) political developments in general and later with Sheikh Mujib in particular, who was closer to India (and thereby with the Indian Congress Party and UK). By 1971 US reluctantly relinquished its control of EP to interfering India, insultingly referred to as ‘bastards' by US Secretary of State Kissinger. He denigrated EP to be a ‘bottomless basket'. This led to the cessation of fighting between India and WP, and separation and independence of Bangladesh.

However, US regained influence in Bangladesh after the assassination of Mujib and a coup that ultimately brought Zia to power. US were accused of orchestrating a famine to fulfill Kissinger's ‘bottomless basket' prophecy, which added to Mujib's unpopularity and brought his fall. Ershad then replaced Zia, and together this meant that Bangladesh was under military rule for approximately 15 years.

By the beginning of the 90s, military dictatorship was no longer tolerated and mass uprising was organized by an alliance between Awami League (AL) and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Thus began a 15 year period of democracy. In the 1991 elections BNP came to power. AL won the elections in 1996 and in 2001 BNP won for the second time. The last scheduled election was due in January 2007, though this never materialized and in fact was the point in time when another mutation is noted in the evolving politics of the country. During this 15 year period US interests were mostly maintained by Bangladesh National Party (BNP), while India/UK's interests were largely looked after by Awami League (AL). Other parties that also came into relative prominence were Jatiya Party of Ershad, Jamaat Islam (though strictly speaking these began to gain ground during the military period), an assortment of Islamic and communist groups (the latter arguably losing popularity since its golden period of the 60s and 70s), and a host of personalities (who were more or less linked with a party).

With all these changes in who has ultimate say in Bangladesh, we need to consider the potential value of gaining influence in Bangladesh. Some of the benefits are intrinsically related to the land (material or economic by nature), while other benefits are related to regional positioning (or strategic value).

Importance of having influence in Bangladesh

Importance for India

Bangladesh is densely populated, in close proximity and its population has some similarities in behaviour. Despite being small and on the edge of the Asian sub-continent, it has clear access to the Indian Ocean (through its opening into the Bay of Bengal), and it is placed geographically deep in the subcontinent. It lies directly on the path that is the closest point from the Indian Ocean to China, as well as other small land-locked states such as Nepal and Bhutan. It is mostly surrounded by India (over 80% border shared). It cuts into India and separates India's ‘Seven Sisters' (seven states of India including Assam) from her main body. There is only a very narrow and rugged corridor (width of approximately 30km at the shortest gap between Nepal and Bangladesh) along the north that connects the two parts of India.  The Seven Sisters are very rich in resources (minerals, oil, gas, tea, etc…), which require transportation across Bangladesh. Similarly to maintain her seven states India must traverse across Bangladesh.

India would like to establish its own ‘Monroe Doctrine' and reign supreme in the sub-continent. In order to do this India has several expectations. India needs to ensure there is no competition from Bangladesh in various industries (e.g. jute, IT, etc…). They also need to have access to markets so that Bangladesh becomes a consumer of Indian exports. Large industrial groups have been waiting for some time to enter (e.g. TATA). India requires that Bangladesh accepts without any complaints various river plans and proposed damns (e.g. Farrakah and proposed Tipaimukh damn). India needs to have crucial free transit rights to link with its states on the other side of Bangladesh. India also requires Bangladesh to enforce strict counter-terrorism measures.

Nevertheless, India feels a constant threat from Bangladesh. Despite helping Bangladesh gain independence in 1971, Bangladeshis overwhelmingly carry anti-Indian sentiments and view with deep suspicion any domestic politician who suggests policies even hinting at benefiting India. So India has had to use various strategies to ensure that pro-Indian lobbies work to secure her interests in the Bangladeshi politics.

Importance for US

What is significant in the discussion here is that US relationship with India has been improving steadily since the fall of USSR and more dramatically in the last decade since 9/11. Deals on nuclear technology transfer, joint military and naval exercises are a few of the activities that show growing closeness. The volume of deals was positively described by Richard Boucher as "going gangbusters". For US, India is more important and usually takes precedence over other matters in the region. As far as US is concerned, only India is capable of providing some credible counter-balance to China‘s spectacular entrance into the free world. It has to be remembered that India has had issues of contention with China previously and still has on going border disputes. According to BA Gilman (Chairman Sub. Comm. on M East & S Asia) "not Pakistan but China is the number one concern for India". Closer ties with India have ramifications for US's policies in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh. US will definitely gain from a stronger partnership with India with a trade off of lucrative contracts and deals in Bangladesh. Thus influence in Bangladesh will increase US's bargaining power in the developing relationship with India. Also the US has comparatively better rapport with Bangladesh, which India cannot possibly match.

Whereas India's interests are more related to the economic benefits that Bangladesh can provide, US seems to be more interested in the strategic importance Bangladesh can offer. Although the partnership between US and India is growing, US still needs to retain leverage over India and achieving dominance in Bangladesh helps in this. Visiting Congressman Curt Weldon mentioned (21 March 2007) that the "US doesn't (as yet) have any strategic relation with the country" adding that Bangladesh is of "high strategic importance to the US".

On a separate point, but worth mentioning, with so many US failures recently in trying to promote democracy in the Muslim world, Bangladesh at least is a showpiece for ‘moderate Islamic democracy'. US wants to keep this model as an example for future use. Cristina Rocca (Ass Sec of St for S Asian Affairs) on several occasions pointed out the need to give credit to Bangladesh for this in subcommittee hearings of the Congress. Weldon mentioned that it is "probably the only country in the world that has democracy with a Muslim majority population". He overlooked the current non-democratic arrangement citing "after 230 years of democracy, the US is yet to be a perfect democratic nation".

For UK

UK's direct influence has diminished in one sense as it previously worked through India. As India's relationship with US improves, UK becomes less relevant. However, on issue by issue basis sometimes classic Anglo-American rivalry is noticed. UK still has inroads into some sectors. As usual UK's institutionalized approach to colonising has meant that it is difficult to remove and always has the habit of causing problems for competitors such as America. The UK still is a major donor and funds many important projects (e.g. through DFID), which makes it a partner of Bangladesh in many respects. Together with the other donors (majority of which are European), under the banner of the EU, UK still has significant power to sway decisions of Bangladeshi politics. The donor agencies have most influence in the civil society organizations and the media. These two factions are crucial to the future of politics in Bangladesh.

Leading up to the 2007 Elections

Throughout BNP's term in office (2001-2006), it had managed to thwart AL attempts to build momentum for any opposition movement against the government. Before the last stages of BNP's term, the appropriate people had been placed in positions to allow maximum advantage during the elections. Moreover, the electoral register was allegedly tampered with leading to 13 million extra non-existent voters. Consequently, AL was already in a losing position due to its own ineffectiveness during the last 5 years, and now faced certain failure in the elections. Therefore AL argued that the elections would be stage managed and its leader, Sheikh Hasina, had little choice but to be as disruptive as possible after the caretaker government took charge in October 2007. Many commentators have mentioned that if the elections (Jan'07) were to happen there would have been civil war. This being the scenario prior to elections, the State of Emergency was easily justified as the only course of action to rescue the country.

However, this justification assumes AL and BNP had relative freedom to decide the type of program they could undertake without the need to refer to their patrons beforehand. In fact, India used agents within the AL led 14 party alliance (e.g. RK Menon (Workers Party) and HH Inu (JSD)) to push AL in favour of violent agitation programs. During this period India itself was not openly vocal (Ambassador Veena Sikri even returned to India). On the other hand, US Ambassador Patricia Butenis had openly taken the burden upon herself to advise both AL and BNP led alliances about the course of action to take. At this stage she goaded both sides to participate in futile discussions to make their demands for a self-benefiting electoral process. Of course this proved to be useless and thus the conflict continued. Inevitably, as neither side was prepared to back down, and with increasing violence, the declaration of State of Emergency was natural and was received with a sigh of relief by the masses, and to the satisfaction of Americans. Harry K Thomas, the previous US Ambassador, in July 2005, warned of the possibility of emerging "third force" should the two main political rivals prove to be ineffective.

It is now publicly known that what happened on 11 Jan was actually a coup by the military, though it was disguised and called declaration of State of Emergency. Regarding America being the main instigator, and therefore the main beneficiary, of the coup, this can be shown by the fact that the new key advisors of the caretaker government are ex-military (Maj Gen Rtd. MA Matin, Brig Gen Rtd. Shakawat Hossain), or World Bank officials (Fakhruddin Ahmed), or well-know US/CIA local agents (Barrister Mainul Hussein, Ittefaq Group). Nevertheless, a couple of questions remain: why would US wish to take such deliberate actions to interfere in Bangladeshi politics now; what has happened to India amidst all these American moves?

Both AL and BNP, throughout their terms in government, proved conclusively that they were ineffective servants of America and India. Forever conscious of the stigma they carried for being intimate with their respective masters, they were unable to conclude deals and contracts in favour of US and India/UK. External pressures on respective governments to sign away resources of the country were easily met by the party in opposition whipping up public opinion in protest. Furthermore, there has been an increasingly aware section in society that lets nothing pass without criticism, especially the courting of powerful colonial bullies. For example, during BNP's last term, the following proposals were met with opposition and had to be temporarily shelved:

• Export of natural gas
• Tipaimukh damn agreement proposal by India
• Open pit coal mining in Phulbaria by Asian Energy (UK based group)
• Indian conglomerate Tata's $3bn investment (2.4-million-tonne steel plant, two power plants, a coal mine and a fertiliser plant)
• Right of transit deals with India (pseudonyms: three nation gas pipeline, Asian Highway (ADB funded), transport connectivity, etc…)
• Chittagong port management by foreigner, strongly favoured by US (WB/ADB funding)
• New deep sea port for Chittagong, also favoured by US (WB/ADB funding)

Dealing with the problem of endemic corruption, whilst being absolutely true, is a mere smokescreen. The interim government has made sensational arrests of previous high officials, ex-MPs and ex-ministers on the pretext of ridding the country of corruption. In fact, it is a distractive focal point that allows the caretaker government to manage the situation so that pending deals and contracts can finally be signed and implemented. All the proposed deals mentioned above are on the agenda of the government. This is despite the fact that the present government is an interim or caretaker whose principal concern was supposed to be the elections and not to initiate or conclude any deals.

It is now worth mentioning that the kind of deals that would go to India relate to economic gains, whereas the strategic deals (mainly Chittagong Port) would go to US. Though controlling the port will also be very lucrative. What is being suggested is that India and US have a level of informal collusion in the events in Bangladesh, and they recognise mutual benefits from the situation. It was America that took the initiative and India conceded willingly.

With regards to UK/EU the same would apply as in the case with India. It was noticeable that Anwar Chowdhury (UK Ambassador) was active intermittently, generally, and more involved (though less intensively than Butenis) just before the coup, and not at all after.

Analogies with Pakistan

Many analogies can be made between Pervez Musharraf's coup in 1999, and the coup in Bangladesh of 2007. Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia are similar equivalents of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and Tarique Zia can be compared well with Asif Zardari (both are nicknamed ‘Mr 10 percent'). Predictably sending Hasina and Khaleda into exile is expected. The sensational corruption arrests and charges are also very similar. The targeting of key figures of established parties, and nurturing new leadership within them or the entrance of new personalities (such as Dr Yunus) is also very similar.

Patricia A Butenis, the US Ambassador to Bangladesh, arrived early 2006. Before her present post she served in Pakistan as Deputy Ambassador. The obvious links are there to be made that having experienced Pakistan she was better aware of the job to be done in Bangladesh. Furthermore, recent announcement of her transfer to serve in Iraq should be read as a promotion. For Bangladesh a number of adaptations have been noticed. The most obvious is that the military have not taken an overt role as in Pakistan. The ‘front office' is a civilian government setup and the ‘back office' is run by the military. This has meant that while responding to orders for a coup, the military has side stepped any backlash regarding military dictatorship. The Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon (representing UK's interest), on a visit to Bangladesh, called for quick return to elections and warned that the present popularity enjoyed by the government would not last if they prolonged their stay. However, when quizzed further about Pakistan losing its Commonwealth membership in a similar situation, McKinnon said that events in Bangladesh were not parallel and so the same punishment was not applicable.

A further point should also be noted. Bangladesh military forms a major part of the UN peace keeping force currently stationed around the world. The army values this greatly and the benefits materially from these missions. In order to secure their future contracts it was important that they were not seen to be participating in a dubious coup, which would tarnish their image.

What to expect in the near future

The greatest threat to US plans is that the honeymoon period for the new regime is too short to complete its tasks. Bangladeshis are very cynical and favourable views can change very rapidly. That is why the government is working at break-neck speed. It is important to consider some of the problems and the strategies employed by the government in anticipation:

Problem 1 There is lack of time and impatience for elections is increasing. Politicians, media and international representatives are constantly demanding a specific timetable for elections.

Strategy

• The government is deliberately sensationalizing and prolonging as much as possible the anti-corruption drive. With every catch there is applauding from the masses. This buys more time for the government and distracts the public by satisfying them.
• The Government is actively suggesting tasks to perform before holding free and fair elections with the aim of delaying the election proceedings even further. For example, transparent ballot boxes, drawing up new criteria for being MP candidates, new voter/national ID card with photos will consume a lot of time to produce.

Problem 2 The interim or caretaker government will run out of legal grounds to stay in authority without elections. This gives excuses for foreigners and local politicians to apply pressure.

Strategy

• The government has the option of renewing extension of emergency powers after every 90 days.
• Alternatively the government could organize a referendum that will give it legitimacy for a much longer period.

Problem 3 The anti-corruption drive is actually slowing down the economy. Some sections of the business community are concerned about the side-effects of the drive. This is happening as corruption has become systemic for a very long time (Bangladesh was declared most corrupted in the world for 5 of the last 6 years, Transparency International corruption index). Breaking this accepted practice leads to less economic activity on the whole.

Strategy

• Both WB and ADB (Asian Development Bank), which are colonial tools of US, are providing the appropriate rewards in loans, funds and favourable reports. For example, ADB painted a very rosy picture of GDP being predicted at over 7.5% in the coming year.

Problem 4 There is concern that parties and political figures may provoke a movement against harmful actions by the interim government. Political figures are looking for avenues for this.

Strategy

• State of Emergency has been used extensively to ban criticism of any aspect of the government. This allows controversial deals and contracts to be progressed with no opposition.
• Furthermore, all political activity, public or private has been banned for this period.
• The government has also created an atmosphere of fear to tame ambitious politicians.

Problem 5 The present government fears that due to their actions of harming AL and BNP, they may face retaliation, once elections are eventually held. Despite their attempts to deal a severe blow to these parties by the government, AL/BNP still do have at least a core group of diehard supporters.

Strategy

• The government is currently in the process of removing previous personalities from politics altogether. They have threatened using various means and are sending into exile Hasina and Khaleda. Moreover, the government is working actively to destroy their influence in their respective parties.
• The government is encouraging the establishment of new parties and new figures and is giving opportunities for them to build their credibility. Dr Yunus and his party is a clear example of this (though Dr Yunus has had a severe setback).
• The government is entertaining new ruling factions (mainly military, civil society, business sector, media). These will be more involved in the new political framework.
• The government is actively pursuing the set up of a National Security Council consisting of the new ruling factions. (There has been much discussion of the need of a higher body that overlooks issues related to national security and, as an example, could intervene in times of crisis such as the one prior to January elections without the permission of parliament). This will ensure there are no future retaliation attempts since, as a body, it will be more superior to other ruling bodies.