In this age of accelerated globalisation driven by enhanced communication, both physical and digital, the concept of connectivity doubtless has a lot going for it. Indeed, by now, enough to stand on its own as a recognisable plank of foreign policy for some nations. This holds especially true in the case of countries that can, or historically have been, in a position to reap the economic benefits of their geography -- think Panama and its famous canal, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, or Singapore with its natural harbour located strategically on the Malacca Strait, that witnesses a staggering 40% of global trade every day.
Enough also to merit a debate in Dhaka, as was organised recently by the local chapter of the Washington-based National Democratic Institute which works to strengthen democratic institutions around the world, and IID, an NGO working to foster development through access to information.
The house, which assembled over what was styled a “policy breakfast” at the Radius Centre in Gulshan, considered the motion “Should regional connectivity remain the cornerstone of Bangladesh’s foreign policy?” Moderating was the doyen of Bangladesh’s retired diplomats, ex-foreign secretary Farooq Sobhan.
Now, it is of course important to stress the great cultural and civilisational links that get forged when nations commit to connectivity. But this shouldn’t blind us to the reality that throughout history, it is commerce that has acted as the greatest mobilising force.
The great trading routes of ancient times, predating the protocol and assorted formalities of international relations in the modern era, weren’t just pathways on a map; they signified the bonds that ran through the peoples they touched.
These points were all effectively made by Khaleda Akhter, senior research associate at the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), who spoke for the motion. The argument was rightly framed within the context of the economic benefits to be accrued from signing up to the connectivity regime, as it were, and more importantly the need to pursue it on a regional basis.
As such, it recognised the crucial element that has been in danger of being overlooked in the current Bangladeshi government’s pursuit of connectivity: It needs to happen within a multilateral framework. The potential gains identified earlier are greatest when a country opens its borders to facilitate trade, and everything else that goes with it, between an entire range of nations, not just one or two.
You would think that the foundational pillar of Bangladesh’s foreign policy -- “friendship towards all, malice towards none” -- that Bangabandhu borrowed from Voltaire’s prescription for a famously neutral Switzerland, and State Minister for Foreign Affairs Shahriar Alam repeated here during his opening remarks, would be well-suited to the pursuit of connectivity.
Yet the fact remains that after almost a decade since the realisation first dawned, somewhat belatedly, that our strategic position on the Bay of Bengal offered untold opportunities as a regional hub connecting South and South-East Asia, and six years now of a government’s steadfast commitment to connectivity, there is still very little to show for it.
I myself spoke against the motion, and in making my argument, tried to delve into the reasons behind this stalling. And in my reading, although the fundamental reasoning behind the government’s decision to jump on the connectivity bandwagon was sound, it is in the way it has been pursued that the entire concept of “regional connectivity” has been undermined in the case of Bangladesh.
The principal mistake that one may point to from a foreign policy standpoint has to be abandoning the need to view the entire concept within a multilateral framework.
In retrospect, it should have worked more vigorously, with the governments of Southeast Asian countries in particular, to promote its potential as the gateway between two great oceanic regions, those of the Pacific and the Indian.
A look back over the last five years at connectivity-related projects taking place in Bangladesh reveals almost the entire catalog is monopolised by India -- mostly to facilitate trade between its disparate regions.
Although a new trade agreement on the cusp of being negotiated promises to ensure otherwise, the transit facilities availed by the Indians for commercial traffic through Bangladesh between their regions in recent years have incurred no fee.
An opinion from the floor, as the debate was then opened up, tried to underplay the importance of transit fees. Such a waiver is unheard of, and fundamentally contradicts the strongest argument in its favour: The economics of connectivity. The floor vote that was declared at the end showed 23 in favour, 13 against, and as well it might, with the framing of the question.
Connectivity will remain a key to Bangladesh’s foreign policy in the foreseeable future, and so it should. What policymakers need to sort out now though, is what kind of connectivity they want.
