Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey
Before a red carpet was rolled out for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington D.C. during last summer, Admiral John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications US National Security Council (NSC), had said, “On Bangladesh, we let the Indian government speak for its bilateral relations with Bangladesh but we have already made clear our desire to see free and fair elections in Bangladesh.”
If taken out of context, the statement might sound a bit off the road, however, the US has been consistently expressing its support for democracy in Bangladesh. In fact, Bangladesh was made ‘a centerpiece of Biden administration’s effort to place democracy at the heart of the U.S foreign policy.’
The ‘dummy election’
An election, popularly dubbed as a ‘dummy election,’ was held in Dhaka on January 7, 2024, where Sheikh Hasina’s party Awami League didn’t have to face any competition. The election sealed the fate of Bangladesh as a one party-ruled autocratic state. A month after the election, Hasina’s top civil servant Masud Bin Momen received a letter from President Joseph R. Biden, intended for the prime minister, expressing ‘interest to work with Bangladesh.’ With the sealed letter, has the US made a 180-degree turn from its policy of ‘promoting democracy’ in Bangladesh?
The most plausible answer to that is a yes. At least lack of any tangible action after the fraudulent election is forcing some to ponder if the US has backtracked from the democracy-promotion agenda in Bangladesh. The White House letter to Hasina gives serious credence to that understanding.
The US actions
In the run up to the elections, there have been a series of statements and significant actions from the US in which the need for a free and credible elections in the South Asian country was underlined in the last two a half years.
Notably, the US actions significantly started with sanctions against the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), the notorious paramilitary forces, allegedly accused for massive human rights violations including enforced disappearances, tortures and killings. Long before the elections in Bangladesh, the US secretary of state Antony Blinken declared the US visa restrictions policy for Bangladesh nationals for ‘undermining democratic election process.’
To clarify the US visa restrictions, Assistant Secretary Bureau Of South And Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, appeared in a TV talk show in Bangladesh. On the other hand, the State Department and NSC’s spokespersons have repeatedly reaffirmed the US position on holding a credible and participatory elections in Bangladesh.
In the meantime, Hasina’s ministers indicated that India may help them get away with the US pressure for a democratic election. Although it was assumed that Delhi would convince Washington not to be involved in India’s backyard, specially for the case of Bangladesh, Dhaka received a letter from Donal Lu, right after the two plus two dialogues in Delhi, urging the political parties to arrange dialogues for a participatory election. That letter made it plausible that the ball was on Hasina’s court to initiate processes for free and fair elections.
Perhaps the letter, with an already put in place ‘3C’ visa restrictions indicated Dhaka might face the US dissatisfaction if they denied holding free elections as understood by many. After all these, the ‘dummy election’ has ended and now Hasina, being the prime minister, has received letter of ‘interest to work together’ from President Biden.
There has been no US action, visibly, against Hasina’s government for ‘undermining democratic elections’ which certainly didn’t reflect the will of the people. Foreign policy expert Sreeradha Datta observed roughly ten percent of people showed up for the elections.
The important question
Since the US created enough buzz for holding a free election and didn’t take any action after the polls, it has created a murmur among the common readers and experienced political analysts – has the US shifted the ‘promoting democracy’ policy being influenced by India as Hasina is Delhi’s darling child.
To get a clearer view of such a genuine question, the readers might need to wait a few more months, for certain reasons.
The oxygen of policy time in Washington, nowadays, is being eaten up by the events in the middle east. Secondly, even if the US wants to go for anything that may seem to be punishing the Hasina government for undermining democracy and the US national security interests in the region, Washington needs to reassess the situation with fresh perspectives. Meanwhile, the US and all its major allies have refrained from congratulating Hasina’s questionable coronation. The same podiums of the State Department and White House briefings resonate with the same message, a call for restoring the democratic process.
On February 5, principal deputy spokesperson for the US Department of State Vedant Patel responding to a question about the ‘3C’ visa restrictions said, “These policies don’t sunset, just because the election is over.”
A fresh assessment is needed about who is holding the winning ground in Dhaka among India, China and the US.
The apparent US inaction in Bangladesh could be read as ‘low energy extension period’ as high energy is put for the middle east as well as to be extended for elections slated in the country in November.
India’s problem
Despite Washington not being able to put much policy time towards South Asia, it might be difficult to take off the paddle of the boat due to strategic priorities. The resumption of key Kyaukphyu Indian Ocean port, in the western state of Rakhine will give China competitive advantage. China has 70 per cent stake in the port, literally owning the real estate. Not too far away, the BNS Sheikh Hasina (a new naval base that has been developed for the Bangladesh Navy), operated by China, is to offer ‘secure jetty facilities for submarines and warships.’
These are of more strategic importance for China, India and the US, certainly not for Dhaka. However, lack of democracy in the country has brought an unexpected discomfort for Washington’s most trusted partner in South Asia. As Hasina’s opposition parties are introspecting for the next courses of action while tens of thousands of activists and leaders are in jail, some barely known social media characters have called for a boycott of India, copying the ‘India Out’ campaign which happened in Maldives. It is too early to assess the impact of the boycott, yet it has reached a level that external affairs minister S. Jaishankar has faced questions if India’s neighbourhood policies are failing.
Despite Delhi not sending its foreign secretary this time to Dhaka, as was done in 2014 to ensure Hasina’s victory, Indian influence was clearly evident. The common sentiment towards India among the people is not favourable for the neighbouring country. Regardless of the significant backsliding of democracy in Bangladesh, attributing India as the enabler of that decline is certainly not a public relations boost. Thus, Delhi will have to face the consequences for the action or inaction of the US or China in Dhaka.-The Wire
