Surprisingly, neighbouring Bangladesh, with its myriad problems, has not done a bad job when it comes to keeping itself in international focus. Contemptuously written off as the “world’s basket case” by Henry Kissinger in the mid seventies, Bangladesh, in recent times, has covered a lot of ground and in the right direction. In the process, it has often overtaken Pakistan, flush with US aid and funds, in human resource development. Of late, it has toppled even India in certain respects of HDI. Even a cursory review of recent trends in India’s East indicate the increasing importance of Bangladesh in the ‘interest map’ of the US, China and Russia, to use the diplomatic catchphrase.

At present, the US has shown an increasing tendency to treat India, Bangladesh and Myanmar as part of one strategic zone. Pakistan is handled differently nowadays, with a lot less bonhomie than before. When American leaders visit the region, they sometimes cover several capitals at one go. As US Secretary of State, Mrs Hillary Clinton visited Myanmar, Bangladesh and India, in that order, some time ago. The US Under Secretary for Political Affairs and the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Political and Military Affairs, have also visited Dhaka. Reports suggest that a full range of issues, including the modernisation of Bangladesh army, the exploration of energy resources of the Bay of Bengal, counterterrorism and security issues were discussed. And in September, the US and Bangladesh held a “strategic partnership dialogue”, a clear sign of the growing proximity and convergence of their stand in regional peace, stability and economic development.

After her sweeping victory in Bangladesh polls in 2009, there was no suggestion that Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, daughter of the late Mujibur Rahman, would join the ranks of Nehru or Indira Gandhi, leaders both revered and held at a distance by the US. But things have changed considerably within three years. As of now, relations between the US and Mrs Hasina can at best be described as wary, although both sides have taken care not to lose sight of their long-term diplomatic agenda. The West as a whole has been miffed by Hasina’s apparently unrelenting campaign against Nobel winning founder of Microfinance, Mohammed Yunus. On the other hand, with US firms like Chevron and Conoco Philips are active in the energy sector of Bangladesh in a big way; trade and business relations are just fine, although Bangladesh would appreciate more concessions from the US with respect to its main export, garments. The US presence is dominant in the Bangladesh energy sector and likely to grow stronger.

In short, it is a measure of the successful evolution of Bangladesh as an emerging economy in South Asia playing a distinct role that the US cannot ignore, never mind Kissinger’s unsympathetic jibe.

China-Bangladesh relations in contrast, are far more complex. Remarkably, operating from an unfavourable beginning, China has been more successful than either the US or Russia (which stood behind Bangladesh from the start) in terms of diplomacy.

Most people recall vividly how the Chinese opposed the struggle for a free Bangladesh, aligning firmly with Pakistan. Even later, it refused to recognise Bangladesh, using its veto power against the fledgling republic in the UN.

What is generally not known is that the Chinese had pressed Pakistan in several messages to settle the problems in its Eastern wing amicably, through negotiations. Also, belying Pakistani hopes, China did not react militarily as Indian troops moved into East Pakistan.

Yet, observers are intrigued by the fact that Pakistan, even at the moment of its bitterest defeat, did not blame the Chinese for their non-intervention. It did criticise and eventually quit, West-backed defence alliances like the SEATO and CENTO. Similarly, analysts report that in Bangladesh, the media freely criticises countries like the US, Pakistan and India, but never China!

Interestingly, the Chinese have not been so forthcoming in meeting Bangladeshi demands for financial aid for non-military purposes. For instance, the Chinese recently approved only five projects and promised help of around $1.5 billion, during bilateral negotiations, whereas Bangladesh had pressed for Chinese assistance in 25 projects, involving a proposed investment of nearly $15 billion. During 2004-05, the functioning of a Taiwanese firm in Bangladesh had ruffled Chinese feathers. Beijing had recalled its Ambassador for “consultations”. Later, Bangladesh backed down, assuring Beijing of its support for the “one China” policy and agreed to downgrade the offending office, to the dismay of Taiwan.

Bangladesh also sees China as its major rival in the international garments trade. With their low cost of production, China has cornered nearly 50 per cent of the annual $90 billion garments trade in the US, from 16 per cent only a couple of years ago, posing a threat to Bangladesh. Now China proposes to set up producing units in Bangladesh itself. It has already set up a major facility on a 16 acre site near Dhaka, producing and selling electronic goods, cosmetics and handicraft, aiming at annual sale of $100 million.

It is looking for an additional 400 acres to set up new factories.

There is a major imbalance of trade between China and Bangladesh, far worse than the one between India and Bangladesh. As analyst Arnold Zeitlin reported some time ago, there was no bitterness in Bangladesh about this. The prevalent argument was, there was not much Bangladesh could sell to China, apart from raw jute, jute products and leather goods.

In comparison with the US and China, Russian diplomatic efforts in Bangladesh and adjacent regions have not kept pace. It should have been different, seeing that Russia along with India was among the earliest backers of Bangladesh as an independent sovereign country. Unlike China, India had committed its troops, while Russia had risked the anger of the US and pitted its own naval fleet to see off the mighty 7th fleet of the US in the Indian Ocean during 1970-71, to make sure that Bangladesh survived. Three times the USSR had used its veto in favour of Bangladesh in international fora.

Yet, along with India, the regional influence of the USSR significantly declined after the brutal murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 and subsequent political changes in Bangladesh. Presidents Ziaur Rahman and H.M. Ershad emphasised the importance of Islam in Bangladesh politics and sought closer ties with the West. The collapse and eventual decline of the Soviet Union between 1989-91 raised a disturbing question mark about the political and economic stability of Russia itself. It was only in the first decade of the new millennium that the new Russian Federation began to find its economic feet and regained its assertive spirit under Vladimir Putin’s leadership, thanks to its huge oil and gas revenues.

It is no surprise that Bangladesh-Russia ties should revive and flourish while the Awami League is ruling. Bangladesh Foreign Minister Ms Dipu Moni recently described Russia as a “Special friend”, during the celebration of 40 years of bilateral relations in Dhaka. Currently, the Russian giant firm Gazprom has entered into an agreement with Bangladesh to provide help and expertise in developing its energy sector. There is a proposal for selling gas to Dhaka as well. In addition, an $850 million arms deal has been signed, where Russia, offering a soft loan, would sell modern arms and weapons to upgrade Bangladesh’s military capabilities. Dhaka has ordered 16 Russian advanced aircraft to help provide modern training to Bangladeshi pilots handling jet fighters. Both sides expect to increase bilateral trade, currently nearly $300 million. (IPA Service)