In the 16th century, Bengal, which is now part of modern-day Bangladesh, was at its peak in many aspects. Contemporary European and Chinese visitors described the Bengal Sultanate as a prosperous kingdom. The region earned such praise due to its abundance of goods, leading it to be referred to as the "richest country to trade with." The Bengal Sultanate maintained strong foreign relations, as evidenced by historical records documenting the exchange of embassies with states.
However, during modern times, Bangladesh is at its worst in terms of foreign policy. Government officials, especially former diplomats, claim that the country's foreign policy is based on Bangabandhu's significant statement made during a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). While this statement holds historical relevance regarding Bangladesh's intentions, it does not constitute a formal foreign policy.
A state's foreign policy involves extensive documentation that outlines its ambitions, future plans, alignments, and numerous other key aspects that any well-informed individual can identify.
Unfortunately, despite more than 53 years of existence, we have been unable to produce a clear and comprehensive foreign policy. This issue extends beyond foreign policy alone. Many diplomats summoned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are individuals who simply passed the Bangladesh Civil Service (BCS) exam, often from diverse educational backgrounds, including scientists or even businessmen. This should not be the case, as managing a nation's foreign affairs is one of the most critical factors in its development.
Anyhow, while Bangabandhu said “friendship to all, malice to none,” this was not entirely invalid in terms of foreign policy. What we needed was a comprehensive declaration of our stance towards other states.
In contrast to the failures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we must realize that we are indeed in a tense situation. It is often a stereotype that makes us believe we are always facing tough circumstances, but this moment in history is genuinely challenging for us. On one hand, parts of the world are focused on the development of human civilization and treaties of peace, while on the other, there are still regions grappling with conflict, instability, and regional clashes.
As one of the least developed nations, struggling with its aspirations, it would be wise for us to establish a neutral or balanced foreign policy to maintain our relationships with other countries. If we involve ourselves too heavily in affairs unrelated to our interests, it could lead to significant difficulties.
Conversely, it is widely believed that since Myanmar is ruled by a military junta, resolving the Rohingya crisis through the United Nations, as some Bangladeshi diplomats hope, is not entirely possible, even with the support of powerful international communities. Myanmar has disregarded the UN's calls for action. Therefore, to resolve the issue, we may need to employ stronger measures, as there is no feasible way to address it swiftly otherwise. However, there remains a significant effort that we have not yet utilized.
What is essential is effectively utilizing the tools of foreign policy to resolve issues in the best interest of our country
Due to the failures of our Foreign Ministry and our insistence on neutrality, we have failed to summon the Western powers regarding Myanmar. Meanwhile, our key allies, India, China, and Russia, have all deepened their ties with Myanmar. India sold submarines to Myanmar and engaged in projects to connect its northeastern region with the country. China is building mega infrastructure projects, and Russia is enhancing defense cooperation with Myanmar.
What we could have done is engage with these powers and remind them that we are not obligated to remain neutral. By asserting our importance as a critical ally in South Asia, with more developmental potential than Myanmar, we could have discouraged them from strengthening their relationships with Myanmar while overlooking Bangladesh. Such an approach could have further isolated Myanmar, potentially leading to the resolution of the Rohingya crisis without the need for extreme pressure.
Unfortunately, this did not happen because we chose to remain one of the most neutral nations, sacrificing our national interests in the name of so-called "neutrality.”
In fact, none of this was ever Bangabandhu's guidance either. He said we must be friendly with all and harbour no malice toward others, but did he ever suggest that we should remain spineless when a neighboring country routinely kills our civilians at the border?
After Bangladesh's independence, he recognized that India's aspirations were not entirely genuine. India wanted Bangladesh to either be a state under its control or, more specifically, to serve as an Indian satellite state, especially with the presence of Indian troops in Bangladesh after the war. Sensing this, Bangabandhu asked Indira Gandhi when Indian forces were leaving. India, perhaps out of guilt or in response to the broader situation, agreed to withdraw. Although this story may not be entirely rooted in foreign policy realization, it provides valuable context for shaping our own foreign policy.
It is not necessary for us to align with the Western hemisphere or become a pro-Washington state to address our issues. What is essential is effectively utilizing the tools of foreign policy to resolve issues in the best interest of our country. Otherwise, we risk wasting many opportunities as we have in the past.
As a developing nation with numerous challenges, we should remain neutral unless we have the credibility to join a significant influential group. This neutrality allows us to seek loans from both the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and institutions like the IMF or World Bank for our infrastructural development simultaneously.
Tasin Mahdi is a freelance contributor.
