I am a silent observer of US policy decisions and action in our part of the world including India and China for last 10 or 12 years. My interest has been further deepened through my long discussions with ambassador Harry K Thomas and some of his past and present colleagues at the state department.
Having visited a few policy analysts at Washington DC and the state department folks during the third week of April as well as being quite closely associated with the recent visit by the Bangladesh-USA partnership dialogue team, I was trying to figure this out: What does the US want from Bangladesh?
Is it the signing of the Trade and Investment Cooperation Framework Agreement (TICFA), or better working condition in the industrial belts, or rights to form trade unions in the garment factories or a bigger piece of the energy, infrastructure or transportation pie, or a strong anti-terrorist stance to safeguard regional security, or a strong and sustainable democracy in Bangladesh?
My friends at the state department tell me, the signing of TICFA is less important now. For them, TICFA is a bilateral discussion platform or stream for the two nations to discuss and agree on priorities. Bangladesh, in order to drive its own causes, should try to establish this platform. What are those causes? Analysts feel it could be a retention of Generalised System of Preference (GSP) for few of its export items like toys, furniture or tobacco items, or more importantly duty free access for apparel goods, where any export from Bangladesh is being charged 15.3% entry fees or even, increasing US assistance to Bangladesh.
US policy planners seemed to be under increasing pressure to ensure better working conditions in the Bangladeshi manufacturing plants including compliance with building codes and fire safety. Courtesy of the free labour or trade union forum, rights to form association also came up very loudly in recent days. Though US consumers are very much in love with cheap “made in Bangladesh” clothes at Wal-Mart or Coles stores, they don’t like to be seen as an accomplice of labour exploitation in Bangladesh. Therefore like Machiavelli’s “Prince,” the US policy planners too, want to be seen as a religious supporter of better pay, better workplaces and better productivity. I have seen all the visiting seniors from the Obama government take their position in favour of better industry relations and factory conditions.
After 9/11, the United States wants all their friends to take a strong position against terrorism and especially religious extremists. Their choice for strong anti-terrorists positions also found many of their policy planners too happy to see Jamat-e-Islami become part of the ruling government. Any government -rightist, centric or liberal therefore must appear very loud about actions against terrorists. The US is ready to help any one of them strengthen their military, especially para-military forces in their fight against terrorism. They can’t afford to see another “Afghanistan” in this predominantly ill governed country.
The United States has a known sensitivity about China. They don’t want China to become too powerful in the “Bay of Bengal” area through friends like Myanmar, Thailand or their “sub marine trade” partner, Vietnam. They want Bangladesh to play a “neutraliser” role, as and when possible. At the same time, they want their enterprise or corporations to enjoy a bigger piece of the “Bay of Bengal resources” pie.
Courtesy of a part of our citizenry, few former envoys and policy researchers, the US has become quite interested in encouraging democratic practices and sustainable democracy in Bangladesh. This has become more apparent with the Bangladesh Diaspora, more importantly the second-generation immigrant Bangladeshis becoming louder and more important to the US decision making process. They also don’t want the mistakes of 1971 to be repeated. Obama’s United States or to be precise Hilary Clinton’s America wanted to mend the relationship with all emerging Muslim democracies and decided to be more involved in the development process of these countries. Exceptional US diplomats like Harry K Thomas or Dan W Mozena had played significant roles here. They could look forward and were all along convinced of the future potential of this young democracy, so strongly encouraged investment in this “opportunity space.”
However, recent visits by US seniors, and discussions with few policy analysts made me also think that the United States doesn’t want Bangladesh to bank too much on Indian policy planners or political seniors to ensure a better future for its citizens or politics. Though they are yet to find a “medicine” for Bangladesh without perturbing Indian “doctors,” many of them feel that “too much into the Indian tummy” may not bring good for Bangladesh. However, finding a better medicine has become much more challenging with the intrusion of too many “Indian origin” colleagues in US diplomacy, which they could not help.
Mamun Rashid is a business professor and financial sector entrepreneur.
