Israel’s most recent attacks on Iran and Iran’s retaliation effectively dragging America into the Middle East war prompted many to conclude that we, the good and the bad elements on Earth, were heading towards Armageddon.
The world has never been so close to a nuclear war in such a short span of time, except once in the past century. Only the event of the Soviet Union’s installation of missiles with nuclear warheads in Fidel Castro’s socialist Cuba at the backyard of the US in 1962 had pushed the two superpowers towards an eyeball to eyeball crisis, with the possibility of the first-ever nuclear war.
However, some leaders in charge of the war affairs had then proved sanity, restraint, prudence, and functioning of nuclear deterrence. Both the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the final round of the Israel-Iran war following the Indo-Pakistan conflict with the West and China in the background had, according to pundits and nervous passers-by alike, brought the world to the brink of a third world war.
In all these cases, be it in 1962 or in 2025, what eventually led to cessation of tensions was diplomacy and backdoor negotiation, sometimes mediated by third parties, apart from direct engagement like that of the communications between the then US president John F Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1962.
In the Israel-Iran war, smaller powers, alongside bigger ones, might have facilitated exchange of messages among the parties involved. As both Israel and Iran maintain a sort of unwritten armistice, it is being strongly felt that the Middle East situation demands further negotiation. It requires potentially an international conference, to be joined by great powers, to resolve the regional issues, including the Palestine issue through the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Such an initiative requires mediation but there is a dearth of mediator/s who can bring the conflicting parties and their backers to the negotiation table. In fact, no civilized country in today’s hostile world can sit idle and wait for others to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, lest we see escalation once again.
Qatar has in recent years played the role of a mediator in facilitating talks between, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Hamas and Israel, and also the Taliban and the previous Afghan regime and the US authorities. In Europe, Switzerland, as a buffer state, boasts of records of hosting various global meetings. Singapore, in Asia, is used as a neutral country to hold both open and secret talks between various parties.
Why can’t Bangladesh emerge as a country that can mediate dialogue between nations in resolving certain crises, conflicts, or even cross-border disputes?
We are not just the largest contributor to the United Nations Peacekeeping forces but also have our troops engaged in making and keeping peace for communities in various war-ravaged countries.
The country has scope and potential to negotiate peace and mediate between, for example, China and the US, to reduce hostilities. As a country located between South and Southeast Asia, and in the neighbourhood of two major powers -- China and India -- while also blessed with a sea outlet, Bangladesh has long faced the risk of becoming party to regional or inter-state conflict.
Other countries of such location, such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Panama, and Myanmar have suffered as they have been victims of great power rivalries or war, or themselves got entangled in the conflicts or insurgencies.
Bangladesh, too, cannot easily escape the risks of its geo-strategic location. Its long held foreign policy principle of “friendship to all and malice to none” will not save it from provocation in case such a situation arises. That principle does not conform to any ethically and politically correct position since, for instance, this country shall not make friendship with an aggressor like Israel. It is also not possible to maintain the same level of hobnob simultaneously with two global or regional rival powers.
Dhaka will also not invite any war unless it is imposed on it. To prove it as a peace missionary, Bangladesh must take some initiatives to help any belligerent or conflicting party/ies to join the negotiation and strike a deal for lasting peace.
For Bangladesh, emerging as a peacemaker or mediator may be a more viable option than being party to a conflict, because there is no scope to maintain the so-called neutrality. Acting as a mediator could provide the country the lifeline to stay away from a war or conflict between other parties. A country’s reputation as a mediator may help it to help other parties in resolving disputes by following international standards.
The better choice thus for Bangladesh is to protect its independence and sovereignty by using its soft powers, including diplomacy and moderation. It involves a conscious policy position best suited to the interests of the nation, not any debate on whether idealism v realism could be the most feasible foreign policy option for the country.
The question remains as to why other countries will accept Bangladesh as a useful mediator. To this end, Dhaka must come up with comprehensible and convincing answers to the question in the minds of other nations. It can do so by proving its credentials and policy sanctity. Diplomacy is not limited to the written policies or the acts of a group of diplomats the country employs.
The question for us is this: Are we ready to take up the challenge of transforming ourselves into a decent nation that the world can rely on?
Khawaza Main Uddin is a journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected].
