The Geopolitical Importance of Bangladesh (Economics)

Like all things, the perceived importance of an object is dependent upon which chair one occupies. In other words, a glass of water is pretty important if you're thirsty, but not so when there's a knife to your throat.

Obviously, I'm a bit biased on the issue of how important Bangladesh is to any international actor (whether state, non-state, or supra-state organization).  For now (i.e. this post) I will limit my discussion to the importance of the Bangladesh to the relative position of the United States.

In some ways, this discussion should have occurred (i.e. I should have written it up) ages ago.  But I assumed that if you're reading this blog then you're already aware of the geopolitical importance of the region. But I shall be clearer now: this region is important to the U.S.

Let's begin with the (perhaps unexpected) topic of trade. In 2011, over 4.8 billion U.S. dollars worth of imports arrived from Bangladeshi producers much of it probably finished textiles (check the collar of your shirt, go ahead, I'll wait).  In terms of U.S. exports to Bangladesh this trade equaled over 1.1 billion U.S. dollars. Now before my American readers enter a protectionist fury over these numbers, let me urge you to reread some principles of macroeconomics textbooks.  To sum, international trade has the net effect of lower prices in the destination market (i.e. the U.S.) on those goods, say ready-made garments.  Now, this would be bad for RMG industrialists located in the U.S. but most are already located overseas and exporting the same (if not higher) quality goods for consumption back home at cheaper prices.  It would be worth pointing out that current political campaigns don't even bother explaining this, because no one cares.  And why not, clearly at some point Americans made their own clothes, but that was decades ago.  This change has been absorbed.

This near 6 billion U.S. dollar trade ballooned upwards in 2011 from about 300 million in the 1980s to just about 1 billion in the 1990s. A big reason for this was the increasing liberalization of the Bangladeshi economy (particularly after Zia's coup in the 1980s).  Comparatively, this trade volume is about medium its certainly smaller than China, India, or the United Kingdom (not to mention Canada and Mexico) but it is larger than say, Portugal (about 4 billion), Qatar (about 4 billion), the Czech Republic (about 5 billion), and is somewhat smaller than New Zealand (about 6 billion).

The strength of the trade relationship between the U.S. and Bangladesh should translate into sensitivity of the U.S. market to developments in the exporting sectors in Bangladesh (e.g. the RMG industry).  The Bangladeshi press recognizes the importance of the ready-made garment industry to the country's economy (if not the export relationship outright) and can be counted on to run stories of RMG workers striking, protesting, and rioting over better working conditions, increased wages, and other benefits (of which there are few, hence why the country is attractive to textile firms in the first place).

So far, Bangla Nation has not covered any of the unrest in Bangladesh's RMG sector.  But, to summarize this post, without the Bangladeshi government compromising with RMG workers to increase benefits, and perhaps bearing some of their cost while passing others to the corporations, the most important sector in the economy is at-risk.  While the U.S. cannot intervene directly in this internal discussion, it can provide developmental aid to assist the Bangladeshi economy in diversifying to not only promote other sectors for export but to also incrementally raise living standards in the country opening additional markets for high quality U.S. goods (as an alternative to cheap Chinese goods).

Source Note:  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Trade Division

It was only a matter of time...

... before Pakistan, or Pakistan's ruling elite, betrayed its true colors.

The friends one keeps is generally a good indicator of the person. The same is doubly true of states and their ruling regimes. Its not a coincidence that autocrats like Hugo Chavez regularly praises the Castros in Cuba or Ahmadinejad in Iran. Democracies, for their part, run together as well, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for one.

Thus, the United States' backing of a country like Pakistan (to name but one) has always been of peculiar interest to me. A country always one step away from a return to military dictatorship. There are others to be sure, but none where the U.S. has an active conflict a neighboring country.

The "partnership" (if it can be called that), to my understanding, started during the Cold War as the world divided between the right-leaning countries and left-leaning countries (although supposedly between multi-party democracies and one-party autocracies, the truth is always so much more complicated). Pakistan had become a partner/client of the United States to good effect in the 1980s when it became a conduit for support for mujahid rebels fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. By then it seemed an unshakable bond, though one forged not by two democracies but by a democracy and a military.

For its part, India, though officially neutral (the Non-Aligned Movement), had typically been leaning towards the Soviet Union and dominated by a succession of elites associated with the earlier independence movement.

Then there's China, once an erstwhile supporter of the Soviet Union by the 1980s it had struck its own path. Its political system needs no introduction, a one-party state not emphasizing workers' communism but the righteousness of the Nation (who happen to be composed of workers among others).

Fast forward to the post-11 September 2001 world. China has been on a steady rise, much to India's (and the Southeast Asian nations) chagrin. India is beginning to rise too. China recognizing this and recognizing the importance of geography, most certainly wants to constrain India's growth. Partnership with Bangladesh. Partnership with Pakistan? Oh yes, as the Washington Post finds (Pakistan courts China as relations with U.S. grow strained).

The bin Laden raid earlier this year has become a rallying call for anti-Americanism in Pakistan. Ruling elites have opportunistically harnessed this sentiment and the infringement upon Pakistan's sovereignty to try and partner Pakistan with China. But why?

First, the U.S. routinely makes noise about the Pakistani's state's corruption, lack of political will in dealing with Islamist extremism, and lack of true democracy. China has no qualms about these items, invest in the Sudan, Burma, and other states of a less than savory nature. To be sure, the U.S. invests in Saudi Arabia but at least there's noise about it (at least an acknowledgment).

Second, the Pakistani government recognizes the warming ties between the U.S. and India. Not least of which is the U.S.-India Nuclear deal (Council on Foreign Relations). Not wanting to be left in the lurch, the Pakistani government is the first out of the bed and courting the one-party, non-democratic, Han nationalist economic behemoth that is China.

Despite the weariness of China's officialdom with Pakistan, I doubt it will last long. The relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan has clearly deteriorated, few in the U.S. would be sad to see Pakistan go. India will be happy to see the one-sided partnership end, especially if it believes the U.S. will continue to warm.

However, the long-term implications of a China-Pakistan partnership is significant for both India and the United States. The inevitable return of law and order to Pakistan, whether under a democracy, or more likely a Islamist-military autocracy, would pave the way for safe Chinese investment along the Karakoram highway and from there further access to the Indian Ocean. And from there, the natural resources that it and India, both desperately crave in the Middle East and East Africa.

By developing other "coaling stations," in the Alfred Thayer Mahan sense of the word, in Burma or Bangladesh and China gains the ability to surround the Subcontinent.

The Case for an American-Indian Alliance

It is often said that you could judge a person by the company he or she keeps. For a nation-state, that company would probably be the alliances, security cooperation agreements, and defense pacts with other nation-states. While it is not time for the U.S. to abandon some of its allies, it is time for the U.S. to at least reevaluate its friends and other, new potential partners.

Conventional wisdom, particularly during the Cold War, held that the U.S.'s natural allies were other democracies. This is the line of thinking that produced the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the entrance of the U.S. into the Vietnam War. For a map of other U.S. military relations (as of 2007) see Wikipedia (link). The map depicts an odd-assortment of bedfellows for the U.S., such as Egypt, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Argentina.

Obviously, the argument that the U.S. is allied to multi-party democracies is an illusion. There are not many who would argue the Egypt is a democracy since President Mubarak has been in that post since the 1980s. Pakistan is less a democracy and more of a rotating feudal oligarchy based on lineage much like the Philippines. But beyond the performance of the actual institutions that can be overlooked, to a certain extent, is the actual character of the democracy.

For me, a crucial factor for my government is its inclusiveness. What makes the U.S. powerful is not that we spend billions on defense (though it helps) nor that our economy makes up some large percentage of the global market (also helps), but rather it is the inclusive nature of the U.S. polity. Anyone can be an "American" as long as you uphold the ideals in the U.S. constitution. Thus, the American nation is not based on ethnicity, religion, or race. Rather, it is based on an ideal of government. Or at least, this is how its supposed to be groups like the Tea Party are straying dangerously close to defining the American nation in racial terms.

Europe has been trending this way for some time now. Unfortunately, many of these states are our allies in NATO or bilaterally. In the United Kingdom, there is the British National Party, an exclusive club for white Britishers that has representation in Parliament and the European Parliament. The existence of these parties is less a problem than the proclivities among the populace that allow these parties to gain representation on the national stage. True, such organizations have always existed but they were always considered far-right, extreme, outside the mainstream debate. As far-right Europe draws on the fears produced from increased migration from Africa and Asia (read: not white) population, these parties and sentiments are being tolerated by conservative parties. In essence, conservative politics is making room for a discussion on what constitutes an Englishman, Frenchman, or German. To the far right in Europe, the "nation" is ethnically and racially-based.

This notion is simply incompatible with the U.S. whose polity thrives on the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, and the multi-gender characteristics of the population. While the line between non-interference in domestic politics and upholding American ideals is thin - more can be done to promote the notion of multinational democracy. One thing is to build partnerships with those democracies who do emphasize the multinational nature of their society.

A useful place to start would be India. Since 1947, India's existence has depended on inclusion. Despite the Partition, a large number of Muslims are still Indian citizens. Besides Islam, India is home to a number of other external and internal religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. Besides religion, the other primary determinant among people is language of India has well over 1,000. Without a commitment to pluralism and the promise of representation promised in the Constitution India would cease to exist.

Centripetal forces are present in India, just as in the U.S. Unequal development has seen India's resources concentrated in the northwestern areas of the country, Punjab and Gujarat. Similarly, U.S. resources are concentrated in the coasts, primarily the Atlantic and Pacific. In attempting to institute a national language in Hindi, India created an uproar in its southern states who were weary of northern linguistic imperialism. The U.S. could borrow this lesson in the occasional discussions of an English-only policy. Where the states markedly differ is in the internal security threat. India's "gravest" threat (according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) are the Naxalites/Maoists. Solving a number of local issues in Naxalite areas, good governance, equal representation, and a reduction in corruption would go a long way to bring many Naxalite recruits back into the mainstream discussion.

The U.S. should pay attention to the internal discussions that its allies and partners are having on the issue of the national character. The far-right's demand for a racial or ethnically-centered nation-state is anachronistic and dangerous. Most importantly, it is contrary to U.S. values. While disregarding longtime allies and commitments is not advisable at this stage, maintaining awareness of the situation is important. Rather, the U.S. should look to cultivate new partnerships with other pluralistic democracies.

America, Land of the...?

The title is a question because the United States seems to be a bit confused on what it wants to be.

I always grew up thinking that the U.S. was the Land of the Free. To me, free meant the opportunity to do as one pleased (of course, I was 5 when I stepped foot here so I was free as much as my mum allowed me to be). My interpretation of this phrase means that any citizen can do and say as he or she pleases so long as it doesn't violate local laws. That includes freedom to worship (so build the Park 51 mosque).

Unfortunately, it also means that people are free to hate. Irrational hatred has and always will exist, but 2010 is different. Now we have Twitter, Blogger, and a variety of other sites connecting us to potential (mis)information. In addition, a large percentage of the U.S. population probably has regular access to information on the Internet. So, all of a sudden, a fringe group that may enjoy the backing of 50 individuals could gain access to millions. Suddenly, a fringe group's activities are a rallying point for irrational hatred.

Enter the Dove World Outreach Center a 50-member (Evangelical) church in Gainesville, Flordia. They plan to burn Korans on 11 September. Thereby perpetuating the Islamophobia griping some, most?, of this country - where people somehow believe the actions of less than 20 persons spoke for a religion of well over a billion people.

On a blog post entitled "Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran," the author simply mixes personal assessment with a cursory discussion of the religion. "Reason" 9 reads "Deep in the Islamic teaching and culture is the irrational fear and loathing of the West." Those 50 members must have logged some significant frequent flier miles canvassing the entire world's Muslim population. Or they didn't, perhaps they were talking about themselves and got the order mixed up?

Besides stirring the pot of irrational hatred and extremism, the Dove World Outreach Center is getting some free publicity. What better way to recruit new members than with a controversial campaign? But at what cost?

GEN Petraeus in Afghanistan thinks that the Dove Center's recruitment drive is going to cost military lives and has condemned the event. I'm guessing the far-right will only pay lip service to its concern for the men and women in the military who may become causalities. If anything, causalities will just be held up as martyrs and proof that they were right all along.

As a side note, and a lead-up for the next post. Why is nobody discussing the growing numbers of converts to Islam among long-established populations in the U.S.? I get the sense that there's been more than a few conversions to Islam. Does this mean that these people are also enemies of the far-right? Do they no longer have the right to worship wherever they choose, be it in Gainesville, FL or at Park 51 in New York City, NY?

Just build the NYC cultural center and mosque

Any person or group can build anything, anywhere (within the law of city ordinances).

Unlike Charles Krauthammer, I don't believe that the actions of al-Qaeda crazies speak for the majority of Muslims. The actions of al-Qaeda don't even speak for those Muslims who may considered themselves Islamist. In fact, what al-Qaeda does speak for is a crazed band of murderers who are holding a Holy Book in one hand and a weapon in the other. That so many people are willing to, and allowing themselves to, associate al-Qaeda with over a billion other people is dumbfounding.

The Islamophobia gripping this country (as well as Western Europe) is getting a bit out of hand. France is instituting dress codes (not to mention deporting Roma), and the United Kingdom is having a fantastic time installing security cameras in predominately Muslim neighborhoods. According to polls, 60 to 70 percent of people in the United States disagree with building the cultural center-cum-mosque in NYC (this was in a Washington Post Metro Express paper on 20 August).

And do you know what else? There already is a mosque within a half mile (between 4 and 5 blocks) from the former site of the World Trade Center. Masjid Manhattan (masjid = mosque in Arabic) has been in the area since 1970. Of course, I don't know if they've occupied the same space, but I'm sure a tax revenue database search will clear that up. On a side note, it's sad that the masjid finds it necessary to state that it is not affiliated with any organization "to build anything new in the area of downtown Manhattan." Further, it's sad that they must also state two paragraph later that they, and their members, "condemn any type of terrorist acts." Perhaps the websites of catholic churches should carry similar disclaimers; that their resident priests are not pedophiles (St. Patrick's in D.C. does not). Or perhaps members of Congress should carry disclaimers stating that they are ethical).

Which brings me to my last point: this is an election year, congressional midterms. So rather than proposing new plans for growing jobs AND the economy, or for "winning" Afghanistan, nationalist strategists (both Democrat and Republican) would rather make electoral issues based on victimizing "the others." Between "illegals" and "Muslims," the nationalists have plenty to gripe about.

Letter to the President

Mr. President (and staff):

Bangla Nation just learned from the Bangladeshi newspaper, The Daily Star, that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League has been invited to New York for a meeting with other heads of government from UN troop contributing nations.

Bangla Nation thoroughly applauds and supports this invitation. Resolving ongoing and future conflicts will require a great deal of cooperation between those financing peacekeeping missions and those who contribute the manpower. Moreover, Bangla Nation believes this forum will be a wonderful chance to figure out the capability shortfalls that Bangladesh suffers in terms of equipment and training for these missions.

This meeting will also provide an opportunity to establish a more positive relationship with Bangladesh, a country of 160 million Sunni Muslims that, while enjoying substantial human development over the past few decades, still lags behind in positive governance and economic/occupational development. With an ongoing militant and political Islamist threat, the United States' attention on Bangladesh would be well received.

With humble regards,

Bangla Nation

Update: War crimes and Kosovo, quid pro quo

The US and Bangladesh have yet another opportunity to advance their interests through cooperation. Though the two steps should have been taken unilaterally it appears that both countries are seeing each other in realist terms, necessitating that one take the first step forward. Washington, as the economic and political powerhouse, must concede the first step in order to promote a sense of goodwill with Dhaka. Moreover, the US initiating the first step would also be significant considering Dhaka's request, support for the 1971 War Crimes Trial, is much more significant to the internal stability of Bangladesh than Washington's is for the US, request of diplomatic recognition of Kosovo.

Yesterday, Bangladesh's Foreign Secretary indicated that Bangladesh did not perceive the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo to be necessary despite the US Ambassador's call for recognition for the former Yugoslavian state (Daily Star).

Though he noted that Dhaka wishes to maintain good relations with both Moscow and Washington. Bangla Nation thinks that this desire would easily be set aside for Washington's vocal support for the 1971 War Crimes Trial and most definitely for Washington bringing pressure on the Saudi Kingdom and Pakistan for ending their criticism of it.

The U.S., others, MUST back War Crimes Trials

The U.S. must back proposed trials for war crimes in Bangladesh. The U.S. government should be expending political capital gained from the recent elections to push other countries to either support the trials or to at least stop blocking and agitating against them. Close to four decades is too long to atone for genocide. The movement of Bangladesh toward secular democracy is in the interest of the US, UK, and India.

Apparently, some in the diplomatic community in Dhaka believe that the trials would "sharpen the political division in the country" (New Nation). Probably so, but only briefly. Clearly something would be wrong in a society if War Crimes Trials passed without a whisper. At any rate, the only parties truly opposed to the trials are the Islamists and that is only because some of their leaders will be brought to trial; moreover, the instability brought by the political divisions will be quickly overcome and pale against national reconciliation.

Most importantly, the trials will end the legitimacy of the Islamist message. How can a party purport to be patriotic and for the reformation of the society/government (barring the fact that this reformation is actually a fundamental change), when its very leaders are partly responsible for the deaths of millions, the essentializing of the nation and state, and were actively engaged in preventing the emergence of Bangladesh - all in the name of religion? Religion had nothing to do with it. It was a quest for political power on a platform that appealed to the electorate and in the pursuit of that power, Islamist forces killed.

The U.S. has clear interest here. If the US supported these apolitical trials, it would be supporting one of the most firm steps toward established secular democratization in Bangladesh's history. The trials will de-legitimize the Islamist political message, making the only viable alternative - secular, multi-party democracy. The trials will expose current politicians (not just in the Islamist political parties) support for militant Islamism during the 1971 Liberation struggle. The trials, if conducted apolitically, will finally put this issue to rest (though of course there will continue to be murmurs) then the country will be able to put some of the past behind it and address the more recent past (1975, 1983) and the future.

The Dhaka Awami League General Secretary's comments on holding the trials concurrently with the murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (in 1975) and the attacks on the Awami League rally 21 August 2004 (Daily Star). Bangla Nation that it is wise to keep these issues separate. First, address the 1971 Liberation War in full. If necessary address, the 1975 coup in the same context, national reconciliation. However, the attacks on the Awami League rally must be held in a criminal court as these were criminal attacks. If the perpetrators are the same in each case, then so be it, let the most harsh sentence carry.

New Nation noted that some countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and some 'quarters' in the country were attempting to prevent the trials. The only 'quarters' in these countries that would try to prevent a clearly internal issue probably have something to lose if they go forward, namely, their anonymity in supporting the genocide. They should take solace that they are not on trial and stop their interference.

If Saudi Arabia takes an official position and cuts aid to Bangladesh, other donor countries, Japan, South Korea, the US, the UK must be prepared to step in and assist.

The US must not stand idly by and watch these trials occur. By standing still and quiet the trials could become purely political with no reconciliation and no justice. By actively supporting and speaking in favor of these trials the US will be in a position to offer suggestions on the conduct of these trials, offering observers, financial aid, and expert assistance to ensure that these trials remain apolitical. The purpose of these trials is not only democratization but national reconciliation; the US must support these causes.

Sidenote, Bangladesh must still define secular: Is it the absence of religion from the government? Or the lack of government support for any one religion (that is patronization)? Bangla Nation believes it should be the latter, as a multi-religion country Bangladesh should not patronize any one religion, but nor should it deny the fact that it is a Buddhist-Christian-Hindu-Muslim-Secular country.

Blast from the past

Occasionally, the past reflects the state of the impending future (now, the present). With the gift of 20/20 hindsight we are able to judge that at certain critical junctures a bad decision was made. A statement may have been, or not have been, uttered, a phone was not picked up, or thoughts not conveyed. While this sort of analysis rarely impacts current problems, it does shed important light on how we arrived at this situation.

Recently declassified reports from the U.S. Office of the Historian related a number of anecdotal encounters between the senior U.S. and Indian leaders following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (called Bangabandhu, Friend of Bengal), the father of Bangladesh on 15 August 1975. The transcripts involve none other than the recently deceased Henry Kissinger.

A few remarks are noteworthy and shed some light on why we are currently dealing with the situation we are now in (meaning Islamist militancy in Bangladesh), Kissinger reportedly said at one point 'the real worry would be if countries with resources like Saudi Arabia get radical leaders. Then there would be trouble.'

It helps to understand the context of this statement first its temporal place, 1975. The big enemy for the U.S. is the Soviet Union hence the U.S. was probably comfortable in the fact that the military coupsters were 'pro-US, anti-Soviet' though 'less pro-Indian.' Bangla Nation's view on this matter are clear. The only way for Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent India, to progress is together.

The earlier Kissinger remark could be taken as yet another piece of evidence in the framework of realpolitik, for the sake of completeness, it was only for a lack of crude (though Bangladesh apparently has good reserves of natural gas) that Bangladesh missed making the cut.

Though the days of realpolitik have not quite passed, there is at least a general understanding among U.S. leadership that static resources are no longer such a prominent factor in driving policy.

On a side note, the information came from the Daily Star. Sad, that Bangla Nation learns of news about the U.S. from a Bangladeshi newspaper.

Medal of Freedom or... Sixty Years in Prison?

In a rare moment of galactic symmetry, cynical politicking, or pure dumb coincidence, the 13th of August, 2009 encapsulated the United States' relationship with Bangladesh. On one hand is the field of development encompassing social, economic, and sustainable development. And on the other is violent extremism.

Today, US President Obama bestowed the Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the US, to Nobel Laureate (2006) Mohammed Yunus. Yunus, who hardly needs an introduction, is the pioneer of micro-credit and the Grameen Bank. If my memory serves me correctly, Yunus begun the scheme with US $26. Since 1983, the bank has disbursed over US $8 billion (New Nation).

Yunus has share of critics, some contend that micro-credit programs have done nearly as much as people think. In fact, on Tuesday Finance Minister Muhith leveled this exact criticism: 'Why is the number of poor families still seven crore in Bangladesh if three crore families had benefited from it?' (Daily Star) A similar argument is that micro-credit does help the "poorest of the poor," the poor who are too sick or too old to start a micro-business in the first place. Moreover, micro-credit doesn't always address the underlying causes of poverty - poor healthcare, poor educational opportunities, or overt/subtle discrimination.

However, this is not to diminish the impact that Yunus has had on the world. His ideas have helped millions in many countries. His efforts deserve the Nobel Prize and the Medal of Freedom.

About 540 miles away (as the crow flies) there was a very different ceremony going on. A court in Atlanta convicted an American citizen (second-generation Bangladeshi) on terrorism charges. Evidently, he was arrested in Bangladesh after making questionable statements to US authorities a year earlier and combined with a number of other circumstances, videos of target selection, possession of "violent jihad materials," discussing attack plans with co-conspirators in Canada (whom he and his friend met on-line), and other significant allegations (Daily Star, US Department of Justice).

As the Star presents it, the young man almost seems like a misguided youth who let his machinations get the better of him. Taking your thoughts, your prejudices, your misconceptions too far.

This case should be appealed. If for no other reason than the US judicial system needs to clarify these items. Does simply communicating, possessing books, and taking video make one guilty of supporting terrorism? More succinctly, does every person who communicates with possible or confirmed terrorists, possessing books advocating "violent jihad" and "casing videos" ALWAYS become a terrorist or a supporter of one? One imagines that the jury was convinced BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that this young man was going to provide material support to terrorists, hence the guilty verdict.

This is why the verdict should be appealed.