Bangladesh’s diplomacy in the past two years has been overwhelmed by the world paying tribute to 50 years of its nationhood. In March 2021, Bangladesh received the prime ministers of India, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, and the presidents of the Maldives and Nepal as part of the inaugural celebrations for the golden jubilee year of independence.
A message from the prime minister of Pakistan was also read out at the inaugural celebrations. Tributes were sent via video from the Prince of Wales and prime ministers of the United Kingdom and of Japan. The US special presidential envoy for climate change visited Dhaka during the golden jubilee year to talk about the climate emergency.
China, which normalized relations with Bangladesh several years after independence, also saw its president deliver an unprecedented video speech for Bangladesh’s anniversary. The Saudi Arabian foreign minister recently visited Dhaka and praised Bangladesh’s role in the Islamic world.
In 2022, a slew of tributes have been pouring in from governments to celebrate 50 years of diplomatic relations with Bangladesh. The prime ministers of Denmark, Sweden, and Greece telephoned Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to convey their greetings. Bangladesh and the United States have begun a series of dialogues aimed at enhancing ties on the occasion of 50 years of US-Bangladesh relations.
In this regard, it is worth drawing an analogy to Winston Churchill’s Venn diagram of his country’s place in the world. In 1930, Churchill placed Britain’s role in a three circle venn diagram. He wrote:
“Great Britain may claim, with equal justification, to play three roles simultaneously, that of a European nation, that of the focus of the British Empire, and that of a partner in the English-speaking world. These are not three alternative parts, but a triple part.”
In the same vein, Bangladesh has multiple roles to play in the international system, that of a member of the South Asian community, that of a member of the Commonwealth, that of a member of the Islamic faithful, and that of a member of the global community. These are not various alternative roles but integral to our national identity.
International law has been thrown into much debate since the Russian invasion of Ukraine started. These debates have concerned territorial sovereignty and the importance of human rights.
Borders are sacrosanct
An old Roman saying tells us that you may continue to possess what you already possess. This is the doctrine of uti possidetis juris which enunciates that newly born states continue with the territorial boundary set by the preceding sovereign power. Under this principle, former colonies have come to accept the borders established by colonial powers. Due to this doctrine, we accept the Radcliffe Line which determined the present-day territorial boundary of Bangladesh in 1947.
India and Pakistan clearly rely on this doctrine in border disputes with China and Afghanistan. Both China and Afghanistan question the borders drawn up by the British, with China questioning the McMahon Line and Afghanistan questioning the Durrand Line. From a legal standpoint, India and Pakistan have a legitimate case to continue with the boundary set by the preceding sovereign.
Professor Ingrid Wuerth of Vanderbilt University argues that, in the wake of the Russo-Ukrainian war, there must be a focus on narrowing down international law to defend territorial integrity. This would be in tune with the notion of Westphalian sovereignty which is popular in Asia.
Westphalian sovereignty is based on the premise of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. Professor Wuerth argues that “now is the time for a narrower, more focused international legal order dedicated to a strong core of sovereignty-protecting norms that preserve the territorial status quo and promote international peace and cooperation.”
Human rights and peace
A counter-argument from academics at Essex, Harvard, and Lausanne points to the link between human rights and international peace and security. Tara Van Ho, Rachel E Lopez, and Evelyne Schmid stress that the framers of the international legal order were influenced by the horror of two World Wars.
They argue that the two main goals of the post-World War II international order is to avoid war and ensure respect for human rights.
At its first session in 1947, the Institute of International Law declared that “An effective legal order between [s]tates is inseparable from respect for the human person in the internal order of each [s]tate.” According to these three professors, “Those who survived two global wars in the span of [30] years understood that there is a link between respect for the individual and respect for other nations, one that may not always seem evident but that stems from the impact of a creeping degradation of equality and respect for others.”
These professors argue that stronger protection for human rights will translate into greater respect for territorial integrity. Mutual respect between individuals is linked to mutual friendship between nations. Does this hold true in South Asia today?
Bangladesh’s strict adherence to Westphalian sovereignty is being tested like never before. Navigating through a fluid geopolitical situation requires a combination of moderation, pragmatism, and firm values.
Umran Chowdhury works in the legal field.