With the US government passing a Senate resolution calling for political dialogue in Bangladesh, and its state department asking for fresh elections, what are Washington’s options in achieving its desired goals in Dhaka? Being the world’s sole superpower, the US has an arsenal of state power tools to conduct its foreign policy objectives.
Simple Resolution 318 is a nonbinding position that advises the US government on its foreign policy toward Bangladesh, as in condemning the political violence and urgently asking for dialogue leading to inclusive, credible elections. Although previously reported that the resolution will be followed by a Senate hearing, upon contacting resolution sponsor Senator Richard Durbin’s office, his staff could not commit to whether or not a hearing will take place.
The congressional staff did remark that even if a resolution has passed, a hearing can still take place if deemed necessary.
It is quite extraordinary for Congress to pass a resolution calling for political reform in Bangladesh. Resolutions of this sort have been passed on Egypt and Iran, two nations regularly in the crosshairs of American foreign relations. The Egypt resolution from February 2011 called for President Hosni Mubarak to begin a peaceful transition to a democratic political system, a clear signal that Washington’s support for the dictator has come to an end, with its $1.3bn military assistance in jeopardy if Mubarak continued his rule. Even today, as Egypt has swung back to military rule, Washington retains its aid package as the Egypt-Israel peace treaty forms the bedrock of regional stability, and it is tied to counterterrorism cooperation.
Moreover, the Iran resolution from June 2013 called for free and fair elections as its regime blocked multiple candidates from running in the presidential election. For decades, Iran has had immense importance in US corridors of power due to its nuclear weapons capability, strategic location, and natural resources. Only recently has the US agreed for sanctions relief in return for halting its nuclear program.
Although Bangladesh is not vitally important to US foreign relations, America has previously utilised multiple tools for its tactical objectives. During the height of the Liberation War, US Navy Taskforce 74, a unit of the Seventh Fleet, was deployed to the Bay of Bengal as a show of force to support the Pakistan military.
The naval fleet withdrew as Soviet submarines arrived to counter American military maneuvering. However, Cold War strategies of a bygone era led way to growing bilateral ties with Bangladesh. Since independence, the over $6bn development assistance provided by the US has not only alleviated poverty, but also bolstered political support for it. Bilateral relations have led to an over $6bn annual trade, joint military exercises, even a presidential visit in 2000.
Currently, the US Embassy in Dhaka has three priorities: Democratisation, development, and the denial of space to terrorists. A high-level partnership dialogue started in 2012 with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the second dialogue held in Dhaka on May 2013, the US side announced a $2m tuberculosis management program, the transfer of a US Coast Guard ship to Bangladesh Navy, and a $1m law-enforcement capacity building program.
The US Embassy runs a gamut of operations, from food security assistance, to overseas business linkups, to antiterrorism measures with the host government.
It has well-established connections across a broad spectrum that ranges from government insiders, oppositions leaders, and others. These groups often brief the ambassador on their situation to present themselves in the best light.
Throughout the decades, successive ambassadors have had tremendous access to the highest levels of the Bangladeshi establishment. According to its cables, US officials have even made policy recommendations to the Directorate General of Forces Intelligence, without any objections from the recipient, manifesting America’s influence in the nation.
Regarding the continuation of US-Bangladesh relations, as Congress appropriates all funds on foreign policy initiatives, what happens to the US assistance Bangladesh receives if the ruling party refuses to budge?
Moreover, since its founding, the World Bank’s leader has been selected by the White House. The bank has always had an American running its global operations. As the US also has the largest voting shares to effectively control the bank’s operations, how will its loans and grants affect Bangladesh?