Kissinger's Recent Visit to China and Opening to China 2.0.

M A Hossain, 

On 19 July 2023, a momentous event that has captured the attention of the global community, former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, embarked on a significant visit to China. This visit comes at a critical juncture in US China relations, with the transition from the Trump administration to the Biden administration. These tense relations between two superpowers disrupt the constructive dynamics and exacerbate the risk of global polarization and confrontation. As a seasoned diplomat and a key architect of the historic US -China rapprochement in the 1970s,Mr. Kissinger not only altered the historical trajectory of the two countries but also changed the course of global development. His visit to China carries immense significance and is seen as an attempt to reduce tensions between the US and China, reminiscent of his pioneering policy of 'détente'. It is evidence that recent initiative considering his historical contributions to promoting the development of US – China relations could be termed as 'opening to China 2.0'.

Historical background of US-China relations :

Henry Kissinger served as the US Secretary of State and national Security Advisor under President Richard Nixon and Gerald R Ford. Appointed as National Security Advisor in 1969 by the President Richard Nixon during the peak of the Cold War. The world was sharply divided into opposing ideologies, with the US championing capitalism and democracy, while the USSR championed communism. Under the Truman doctrine, the US's policy of 'containment' towards the USSR's allies, the US sought to prevent the spread of communism worldwide, even employing military force when deemed necessary. The island of Taiwan was administered by the Imperial Qing dynasty, but its control passed to the Japanese in 1895.  After Japan's defeat in World War ll, the Island came under the governance of China’s Nationalist Party, or also known as the Kuomintang. However, In 1949, the Cultural Revolution led by Mao Zedong forced Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader of the Kuomintang, to flee to Taiwan where he governed the island until his death in 1975.  China consistently claimed Taiwan as an integral part of its territory. However, after the Sino-Soviet split, which began in the early 1960s, the US saw the potential for China to become an ally. Nixon entrusted Kissinger with the mission to establish channels for diplomatic engagement.  After a thorough diplomatic maneuver by the Kissinger, in 1972 Nixon could able to visit China and that eventually let to the normalization of relations with China. The United States lifted restrictions on China, removed two destroyers from the Taiwan Strait, and ceased any support for Taiwan’s Independence, adhering to the one China policy. Before this breakthrough, China had been diplomatically isolated from most of the world. Since then, Kissinger has maintained engagement with the Chinese leadership and has continued to advocate for constructive dialogue between the two superpowers.

Present US-China relations :

The world is currently witnessing increasing tensions in various realms including trade dispute, technological competition, tariff impositions, and geopolitical maneuvering.  During the Trump Presidency, the US pursued a more aggressive foreign policy towards China.  The ties between the two countries had further spiraled downwards following then US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. This led to Beijing cutting contacts with the US military communications.  Beijing has cited Washington's ' unilateral sanctions ' as an obstacle to resuming military- to- military dialogues. Additionally, the recent Russia -Ukraine conflict exposed the widening gap between US – China relations, where China is backing Russia staunchly. The relations were further deteriorated by the balloon incident at the beginning of this year.

Kissinger's visit & Beijing’s strategy to the US :

China is facing a bipartisan tough stance from both Republicans and Democrats in the US, and a US presidential election is approaching where candidates are likely to be more critical of China. In this context, Beijing is trying to influence and persuade US policy elites to reduce their strategic suppression of China.  Chairman Xi Jinping's meeting with Kissinger reflects a long term strategic move, valuing people to people relations, which are more important for China than official ones in its interaction with the US. It is evident that Beijing refused to let Mr. Li Shangfu meet his counterpart Lloyd Austin, but made an exception for Mr. Kissinger. While Mr. Xi met with American entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates, US special envoy for climate John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen did not get face time with the President. Several American business leaders, including Mr. Musk, Mr. Tim Cook and Jamie Dimon, have been granted high -level meetings with Chinese officials that protocols are usually designed for foreign senior officials.  These visits by the business leaders offer China an opportunity to send a message domestically about foreign confidence in the economy. So the message is very clear that Beijing is open to meeting with the pro-China people who all are willing to speak out for China.

China’s political landscape :

Beijing's overtly warm reception of Mr. Kissinger, clearly signals its desire for friendlier engagement and less belligerence from the US. China seeks the US to lift restrictions on technology, adhere to the principles established in the Shanghai Communiqué, and understand the extreme significance of the one China policy, stop what Beijing perceives as a containment strategy centered on building security ties and partners around Asia. China welcomes the engagement in fair strategic competition of quantum computing, Artificial Intelligence, and semiconductors.  Through communication and dialogue, they can reach an immediate consensus on some security issues in certain areas. For example, they could build on a mechanism, like the Asia-Pacific Consultations initiated in 2011, led by China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the US State Department.

Though Mr. Kissinger has a controversial reputation in other parts of Asia for his role in systematic famine in Bangladesh and the Vietnam War.  He remains highly regarded in China for aiding the country’s re-engagement with the world. It is evident that any armed conflict between the US and China would not bring any meaningful result, but catastrophic consequences for the World. Therefore, Mr. Kissinger's visit could be seen as a gesture of goodwill from China and a possible implication of the policy 'opening to China 2.0'.

M A Hossain is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

Email: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article exclusively published at :

1. New Thinking, NY, USA : 30July23

The Weaponization of Food in Geo-political Conflict.

M A Hossain, 

Russia has suspended a critically important wartime deal aimed at transporting grains from Ukraine to various parts of the world across the Black Sea. The Kremlin has accused the West of its withdrawal from the deal due to unmet preconditions and demands. This development has reignited fears about global food security and dealt a blow to the global market. The agreement, brokered by Turkey and the United Nations(UN) in July of last year, represented a rare diplomatic breakthrough designed to avert a global food crisis when the global economy was already grappling with high inflation and the lingering effects of the Coronavirus pandemic. Now, Russia's withdrawal from this Accord disrupts the flow of food from Ukraine and also poses a risk to shipping safety in the North Western Black Sea. Undoubtedly, food is being weaponized in this geopolitical conflict.

Following Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine and the blocking of its seaports in February 2022, Ukrainian grain exports through the Black Sea came to a halt. The agreement, known as the Black Sea Grain Initiative, was brokered by the UN and Turkey to alleviate a global food crisis. Under this agreement, Russia reopened three of Ukraine’s Back Seaports, ensuring the safety of grain shipping only. It also facilitated the movement of Russian produce despite Western sanctions. A joint coordination center comprising representatives from Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and the UN was established to inspect ships ensuring they carry only food and monitor their movements. The deal covered three Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea coast-Odesa, Chernomorsk, and Pivdennyi (previously known as Yuzhny). Initially, the deal was set for 120 days and has since been renewed three times.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices, which skyrocketed soon after the Russian invasion, began to ease in the months following the agreement. Both countries are major suppliers of wheat, barley, sunflower oil, and other affordable food products on which Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia rely. Ukraine is also a significant exporter of corn and Russian fertilizer. Once the grain deal was established, the World Food Program got a supply of 725,000 metric tons of humanitarian food aid from Ukraine, benefiting countries on the brink of famine, including Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen.  The grain deal allowed Ukraine to export nearly 33 million commodities. However, the Kremlin's recent move now jeopardized a vital route for Ukrainian grain to reach global markets. According to the International Rescue Committee report, the grain deal served as a lifeline for the 79 countries and 349 million people facing food insecurity.

Moscow has been dissatisfied with the deal since its Inception, claiming that it failed to deliver on its promise to free up Russian agricultural exports that have been blocked by Western sanctions. Although food and fertilizer are not directly subject to sections, but restrictions on banking, transit, and insurance indirectly made trade unviable. To renew the grain deal, Russia demanded the reconnection of the state-owned Russian Agricultural Bank to the international SWIFT messaging service that is critical for cross-border payment. Additionally, Russia insisted on lifting restrictions on maritime insurance and on the supply of spare parts used in agricultural machinery, ending sanctions against fertilizer companies and individuals linked to them, and restoring an ammonia pipeline that crosses Ukraine. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan played a pivotal role in the agreement, but the ties between these two countries have come under strain following Ankara's recent pro-Western moves.

Ukraine’s economy heavily relies on agriculture, and 75% of its grain exports pass through the Black Sea corridor. It can also export a smaller amount of grain by land or through the Danube River to neighboring Romania's Black Sea port. However, these routes have limited capacity compared to sea shipments. Now, with the demise of the deal, Ukraine will be forced to export most of its grains and oil seeds through its land border and Danube ports. This will pile tremendous pressure on Ukrainian farmers' profits and could prompt them to plant less in the coming season. Consequently, Africa and the Middle East are likely to become more dependent on Russian food grains, especially wheat. Russia is now the top wheat supplier, exported a record 45.5 million metric tons in the 2022-23 trade year, and is expected all-time high of 47.5 million metric tons in the 2023–24 trade year.

Aid groups and the West called on Russia to reverse the move. UN chief António Guterres stated that the decision would strike a blow to the people in need everywhere.  As per the International Rescue Committee, approximately 80% of East Africa's grain is imported from Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, the disruption of the food supply could have devastating consequences.  After Russia exited the deal, wheat prices in Chicago trading rose about 3% on the day. The prices of wheat, corn, and soybean in the markets surged, potentially triggering a fresh bout of destabilizing global food inflation shortly. According to the UN report, the Black Sea Initiative helped ease a global food crisis, reducing food prices by over 23% since March 2022. It also reported that before the deal, the Ukraine crisis made 783 million people to face chronic hunger in 2022.

The weaponizations of food in the geo-political conflict, exemplified by the Russia-Ukraine grain deal suspension, threatens global food security. This move has the potential to disrupt Ukraine's economy and impact a region reliant on Ukrainian exports. The West would also face food inflation and potential market destabilization. It is evident that Russia's actions reflect a Cold War mentality. The West also must restrain the monopoly of their dollar system and foster cooperation to mitigate conflict-driven consequences on global food security.

M A Hossain is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

Email : writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. The Asian Age, BD:24July23

2. The New Nation, BD :24July23

Cluster Munitions in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict: A Controversial Dance of Destruction.

M A Hossain, 

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has reached a critical juncture, as the Biden administration announced its inclusion of cluster bombs in the United States next $800 million weapons package for Ukraine. The Pentagon is contemplating the use of cluster munitions as a strategic maneuver. Particularly after the destruction of Kakhovka dam, Ukraine has been slow to achieve it goal of a counteroffensive against Russian forces or their mercenaries. Kyiv has been increasingly desperate for more weaponry, including controversial cluster bombs from its allies.  According to the Human Rights Watch, both Russia and Ukraine have been accused of using cluster bombs in several times, resulting civilian casualties.  The international communities have expressed their deep concerns regarding the deployment of unconventional cluster munitions in Ukraine.

Cluster bombs are infamous weapons that release multiple smaller submunitions over a wide area. These submunitions, known as bomblets, are dispersed from the main munition and scatter across the target zone. The weapons, which can be delivered via artillery, Rockets, bombs, and missiles. Upon detonation in the air above the target area, they disperse lethal fragments, causing extensive damage and casualties. These submunitions or bomblets are designed to explode either upon impact or with a delayed detonation mechanism. Cluster munitions are widely considered as among the most harmful weapons to civilians or other unintended targets, especially children, as they disperse bomblets indiscriminately across the wide area and often fail to explode upon initial impact. This leaves behind duds that act like land mines, posing a long-lasting threat to civilians even after a conflict ends. These weapons are typically used against enemy concentrations, armored vehicles and infrastructure targets. 

Cluster bombs can have a significant impact on the battlefield by saturating a large area with explosive submunitions, leading to widespread destruction and demoralizing enemy forces. The high density of bomblets creates a battle shock among the enemy forces and can destroy armored vehicles and fortified trenches. It also disrupts enemy logistics by damaging infrastructures, supply line, and communication networks. Cluster bombs are very effective against entrenched defensive positions, artillery position, and air defense systems. The unexploded submunitions act as scattering random booby traps across the battlefield. While cluster munitions may provide additional military value in certain limited situations, they are not a magical winning weapon for overall warfare.

Despite their immediate military advantages, cluster munitions pose long-term risk.  Unexploded bomblets can remain dormant and hazards for civilians long after the conflict ends. These unexploded submunitions can be triggered easily by unsuspecting individuals, including children, resulting in severe injuries or fatalities. The substantial environmental impact such as contamination of agricultural land and water sources poses a severe threat to the ecosystem. The humanitarian impact of cluster bombs extends far beyond the duration of the conflict itself.  According to a 2019 report by Royal United Services Institute(RUSI) has revealed that 97% of casualties from cluster bombs worldwide were accounted for by civilians and among them the children accounting for 66% of the casualties.  

The utilization of cluster mutations carries a contentious historical background. They were extensively used during World War ll. The United States has used these weapons in various prior conflicts, including Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s and Iraq in 2003, and engagements in the Persian Gulf War, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Syria. Saudi Arabia employed US-supplied cluster munitions in Yemen in 2009. In the ongoing Russia -Ukraine conflict, both Russian and the Ukrainian armed forces have not denied credible evidence of their use of cluster munitions. In 2008, more than 100 nations signed the convention on cluster munitions, an international treaty that came into effect in 2010, prohibiting the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of the deadly weapons.  Only 16 countries, including the US, Ukraine, Russia, have so far refused to sign the convention. 

The decision to employ cluster munitions in the Russia -Ukraine conflict carries a significant consequence.  While these munitions may provide tactical advantages, the potential long-term damage to noncombatants and the undermining of the international humanitarian law cannot be ignored. Mr. Biden is facing obstacles from members of his own and opposition parties in the Caucasus  to deliver this lethal weapon to Ukraine, but will ultimately be able to bypass those obstacles under his presidential power. It would escalate tensions, hinder future negotiations, and perpetuate extreme destruction. From the tactical perspective, the use of cluster munitions by Ukraine may gain time to replenish arms and ammunition, to break through multi-layered Russian defense or bring halt the advance of Russian troops or their mercenaries. It would also engage extra forces to rebuild or clear occupied territories by Russia. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this may potentially trigger a limited scale of nuclear attacks. 

The historical usage of cluster bombs in previous conflicts has demonstrated the devastating and enduring impact on affected communities.  Ukraine's decision to use this unconventional weapon is deeply troubling and raises serious ethical, legal, and humanitarian concerns. It is imperative for the international communities, Human Rights organizations, and other influential nations to come together to condemn this saber-rattling and exert diplomatic pressure on the sponsoring nation to oppose any transfer or use of cluster munitions. 

M A Hossain is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

Email : writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. The New Nation, BD:12 July 23

2. The Daily Asian Age, BD:12 July 23

Private Army: A Complex Challenge to Global Security.

 Del H Khan & M A Hossain, 

This is not merely a hypothetical scenario, but an undeniable reality wherein conflicts and wars are fought not by conventional armies but by private armies and military contractors. Private armies, also known as Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs), are becoming a controversial topic that remains at the forefront of global security discussions. The utilization of PMSCs in conflict situations presents a multifaceted and contentious issue.  While their involvement can at times yield positive result, the potential for human rights abuses and abuses of power, coupled with lack of accountability, necessitates careful regulation and oversight. 

The Sacred Band of Thebes is believed to be the oldest private army in the history, having been formed in Ancient Greece around the 4th century BC.  Private armies have been associated with various religion throughout history. In Hinduism, the private army of Maratha was one of the most prominent military forces in India.  The Maratha army played a crucial role in expanding the Maratha Empire and was renowned for their mobility and flexibility in battle.  During the Ottoman Empire, the Janissaries were a private army composed of elite soldiers who were recruited from Christian boys. They were fiercely loyal to the Sultan and played a crucial role in Ottoman military campaigns.  In Christianity, the Knight Templar were a private military order established in the 12th century during the Crusades.  For centuries, the Swiss Guards, establishment in 1506 by Pope Julius ll, have stood as a renowned private army for protecting the Pope and Vatican City. Another formidable private army was the French Foreign Legion, which was established in 1831.  This mercenary force was composed of soldiers from various countries and was often deployed to conflicts around the world. However, the history of private armies dates back to ancient time, when wealthy individuals frequently hired mercenaries to augment their armies or even lead them into battle. 

Private armies have become a global phenomenon, often resulting in devastating consequences for regional stability, human rights, and international law. In South Africa, a PMC known as Executive Outcomes (EO) was hired by the government of Angola and Sierra Leone in the 1990s to fight against rebel groups, while EO was credited with restoring peace and stability, but also faced criticism for human rights abuse, economic interests, and lack of accountability. Sandline International (SI), a British PMC, was contracted by ousted President Kabbalah of Sierra Leone in 1997 to overthrow the military Junta.  But, SI's involvement sparked diplomatic scandals.  In the Middle East, American PMC Black Water (later named Academi) was contracted by the US government to provide security services in the Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Nevertheless, Black Water became infamous for its involvement in various unethical gross misconducts, specially Nisour Square massacre in 2007. After Black Water's contract was terminated, the American government hired Triple Canopy (TC). But, they too faced allegations of fraud, corruption, and misconduct. TC also operated in other countries such as Honduras, Haiti and Peru, where it faced accusations of human rights abuse, environmental damage and interference with local affairs.

In Latin America, the right-wing paramilitary group United Self defense Force of Colombia (AUC) was formed by landlords, drug lords and former military officers to combat leftist guerrillas such as FARC. The Russian PMC Wagner Group (WG) has been accused of participating in several conflicts on behalf of Russia in Syria, Libya, Sudan, Central African Republic, and Venezuela. It has also been implicated in human rights violations, war crimes and covert operations. In European Union, Wagner Group and RSB Group have gained notoriety for their involvement in conflicts in Syria and Ukraine respectively. In Australia and Oceania, the private military industry is relatively small, with firms like Aegis Defense Services and G4S.  Asia is dominated by firms like Academi and Aegis Defense Services.

While, private armies are criticized for their lack of accountability, especially in areas where there is limited government control. Their activities often violate International and local laws. The most significant concern is that they undermine the monopoly of legitimate violence held by States.  This can erode a state's sovereignty and authority and can sometimes even act against the interest of the host government or local populations, ultimately leading to instability and conflicts.  Moreover, they typically operate under complex contractual arrangements, which obscure their identities, responsibilities, and liabilities. Currently, there is no effective International enforcement mechanism that can monitor, investigate, or sanction private armies for violations or abuses.

The private armies differ from other armed actors such as militia, rebels, and terrorists in several key aspects. These PMCs are motivated by profit rather than political or ideological objectives. They operate independently and are controlled by the objectives set by their clients. The PMCs have a distinct operational scope, size, and capabilities that differentiate them from a local or International security services providers.  Private armies mainly operate in conflict zone or high-risk areas, and also provide protection to Infrastructures, convoy, or governments and private clients. In contrast, security service providers offer services, like security consulting, risk assessment and training.

It is crucial to develop a legally binding of international convention on PMCs that defines their status, rules, responsibilities, and objectives under international law. To regulate or control private armies, states must review and revise existing law to establish clear criteria and procedure for licensing or registering PMCs operating within their territory or abroad. Oversight of PMCs should be established through a clear legal framework, licensing system, vetting procedure, contracting standards, monitoring mechanism, and complaint procedures.

The diversification of clients and missions poses a challenging for private armies to balance their profit motives with their professional ethics while maintaining their reputation and credibility in a competitive market. It is imperative for policy-makers, International organizations, and civil society groups to collaborate in developing best practices and effective regulations that strike a balance between the need for security and respect for human rights and accountability.  This approach would ensure that private armies operate within ethical and legal frameworks, making a positive contribution to International security.

This article published at :

1. The New Thinking, NY, USA :11Jul23

BRICS membership : Boon or bane for Bangladesh.

M A Hossain, 

Bangladesh has recently submitted its application to join BRICS, a consortium comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS serves as a forum for emerging economics to address their concerns and facilitate cooperation within a structured framework. The BRICS countries currently have a population of 3.42 billion, accounting for 42% of the world's population. In 2021, this bloc contributed 31.5% of the global GDP, amounting to $26.03 trillion, and also accounted for 18% of global trade. Consequently, it represents an influential bloc of emerging economics that focus on economic cooperation and development. While there may not be immediate benefits due to it not being a trade bloc, BRICS membership promises substantial long-term advantages for Bangladesh but there are challenges to navigate.

Over the past few decades, the developing world has made remarkable strides and the figure of developing nations increased significantly.  Subsequently, the BRICS initiative aims to unite all developing nations under a framework to attain socio-economic progress. The dominance of the dollar-based monetary system has prompted to explore alternative options, resulting in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Argentina, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Algeria, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Indonesia, and Venezuela have expressed their desire to join the bloc.

Disappointments, undue conditions even ambitious, and the dollar-based monetary system of the advanced developing countries has driven other nations to establish alternative multilateral banks to meet their financial needs. Seizing this opportunity, BRICS established two such multilateral lending agencies, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) initiated by China and operational since January 2016 in Beijing and the New Development Bank (NDB) established by BRICS in 2015 and headquartered in Shanghai. These two banks serve as alternative multilateral banks to the Bretton Woods Institution, the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Bangladesh became a member of both the banks.

The total capital of both the banks is $100 billion.  AIIB has now 103 members across the world. Last 5 years, AIIB and NDB have approved $22.02 billion and $30 billion respectively for physical infrastructure development, improve connectivity, and integration among the member states. Bangladesh certainly would be considered as an important member of BRICS because of its test book example of spectacular economic development. AIIB has already approved $2.40 billion for 13 projects and has proposed of $1.73 billion for four more projects in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh's decision to join BRICS comes at a very crucial time as the international economy is crippling mostly because of COVID-19 and western sanctions centering Russia-Ukraine conflict.  The sanctions are exacerbating the sufferings of every country in the world. The Western restrictions are impeding countries from purchasing industrial raw materials, fuel, fertilizer even food grains. The Western powers use the dollar-based monetary system as a punitive tool against their rivals. Recently, the US Federal Reserve, the country’s Central Bank, has aggressively increased interest rate. This has exerted tremendous pressure on the currencies of many Global South nations. Such action has led to a global cost-of- living crisis that has driven millions of people into destitution and economic hardship.

BRICS member countries have long discussed introducing a common currency and the establishment of their own reserves. If it becomes effective, this would reduce dependence on the dollar. Dilma Rousseff, the NDB's new chief, recently announced that the bank is gradually distancing itself from the US dollar. She pledged that at least 30% of loans would be provided in the local currencies of member states. It would help to avoid the negative impact of exchange rate fluctuations of dollar.

Membership in BRICS would grant access to additional external sources to get funds on easier terms and conditions, and strengthen their negotiation position. It would also help Bangladesh to diversify its foreign relations.  Bangladesh will be able to take advantage of this if an alternative currency or an alternative trade system is introduced in the future among the BRICS countries.  Moreover, BRICS investment in infrastructure, technology, and education would drive improvements in productivity, competitiveness, and job creation.  Bangladesh would have the opportunity to be more proactive in global issues and contribute to setting agendas. It would enhance bilateral trade and foreign investment in Bangladesh.

The US and EU are two major trade partners for Bangladesh.  So, after joining the alliance, Bangladesh may come under pressure from the west. A significant challenge for Bangladesh would be to avoid financing any disputed, less-viable, and environmentally detrimental projects. The relationships among member states are very complicated. Bangladesh, as a neighboring country, has to face the challenges on diplomatic relations with India and China.

The prospect of Bangladesh joining BRICS holds immense promises. Bangladesh would be significantly benefited by infrastructure development, market expansion, Technological advancements and diplomatic influence. So, Bangladesh needs to be more cautious on political and diplomatic relations among the BRICS members. Upholding the non-aligned  principle of our foreign policy "friendship to all, malice to none" should be the only guiding force to move forward with BRICS nations.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

Email : writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at ;

1. The Daily Observer, BD:27 June 23

2. Modern Diplomacy :27 June 23

3. The Asian Age, BD: 17 July 23

The Bay of Bengal: Geostrategic Significance and Contest for Influence

Del H Khan & M A Hossain, 

The Bay of Bengal possesses significant geostrategic importance, given its function as a crucial maritime gateway, abundant energy resources, and vital shipping lanes. Its strategic location and diverse ecosystems necessitate the preservation of natural habitats and the promotion of sustainable development. Understanding these factors, it becomes imperative to explore the strategic interests of global actors in the Bay of Bengal and analyze the potential consequences for regional stability and cooperation.

The United States seeks to expand its presence in the Indo-Pacific. They believe that having a naval base in the Bay of Bengal will enhance its power projection capabilities and maintain deterrence. China, on the other hand, wants to establish a naval base to solidify its military presence in the region and gains a strategic foothold in the Indian Ocean. India, begin another most influential regional power in the area, desires to protect its interests and deter potential threats.  Japan also has vested interests in the Bay of Bengal to establish a naval base as a way to project power and safeguard its interests.

India, as the largest country bordering the Bay of Bengal, holds crucial strategic interests. Safeguarding the shipping lanes in the region is vital for India's trade and economic prosperity. Additionally, protecting the oil and gas reserves in the bay ensures energy security, a critical aspect of India's development. Furthermore, countering the spread of terrorism is a shared concern among global actors, as stability in the Bay of Bengal is essential for regional security.

India's efforts to secure its interests in the Bay of Bengal are driven by factors such as the growing importance of the Bay of Bengal, the rise of China, and the need for regional cooperation. Strengthening its naval presence, developing maritime infrastructure, engaging with other littoral states, and promoting regional economic integration are among the initiatives that India is emphasizing to secure its interests in the Bay of Bengal.

China, a rising power, has expanded its economic and military presence in the Bay of Bengal for several reasons. Acquiring access to the region's resources, particularly its oil and gas reserves, is of great significance to China's growing energy demands. Moreover, extending its influence into the Indian Ocean aligns with China's broader geopolitical aspirations.

The United States is securing its interests in the Bay of Bengal and the littoral countries through means such as military cooperation, economic engagement, and diplomacy. The U.S. is formulating her steps to counter China's growing influence in the region by building stronger ties with regional allies, enhancing its own military presence, and working with other countries to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific.

Japan, a major economic power, shares similar interests in the Bay of Bengal. Safeguarding the shipping lanes, protecting energy interests, and preventing terrorism align with Japan's objectives in ensuring economic stability and national security. Japan is actively engaging Herself for its interests in the Bay of Bengal through initiatives such as building up its naval presence, providing security assistance, promoting economic cooperation, and engaging in diplomacy.

Russia, as a major regional power, also recognizes the strategic importance of the Bay of Bengal. Securing the shipping lanes and protecting energy interests are of significant interest to Russia, as they contribute to maintaining its economic ties and regional influence. Russia is securing its interests in the Bay of Bengal through means such as military cooperation, economic cooperation, and diplomacy. Russia is also working to counter the influence of other major powers in the region.

Global actors take various strategic initiatives against Bangladesh through which they can exert influence. Trade and investment play a crucial role in strengthening economic ties and promoting growth. By engaging in trade and investing in Bangladesh's economy, these actors can enhance their economic interests while contributing to Bangladesh's development. Development assistance is another avenue through which global actors can exert influence. By providing support for infrastructure development, education, and healthcare, they can bolster Bangladesh's capabilities and enhance its socio-economic well-being.

Furthermore, security cooperation is an essential aspect of engaging with Bangladesh. Collaborating with Bangladesh on security issues, particularly in countering terrorism and maintaining regional stability, is in the mutual interest of global actors. They can mitigate security threats and promote peace in the region through concerted efforts. 

Military assistance has also played a role, with the United States, China, and India offering support to enhance Bangladesh's military capabilities. While this assistance aims to strengthen Bangladesh's resistance against external threats, it can also exert pressure on the country to subdue the interests of its assisting nations.

Diplomacy has been another avenue employed by these global actors. Engaging in diplomatic efforts allows them to cultivate relationships with the Bangladeshi government, promote shared interests, and resolve disputes. Nevertheless, diplomatic engagement may also lead to attempts to influence Bangladesh's decision-making in a manner that may not necessarily align with its own best interests.

Furthermore, other global players, including the European Union and Gulf states, are also taking an interest in Bangladesh seriously. The EU, as Bangladesh's largest trading partner, has significantly contributed to the country's development through extensive trade and assistance. Gulf states, on the other hand, have emerged as prominent investors in Bangladesh and have previously provided military aid.

In the realm of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh stands to reap numerous benefits. This body of water serves as a significant shipping route and houses substantial reserves of oil and gas. Bangladesh can capitalize on these resources by bolstering its ports, enhancing its shipping industry, and further developing its oil and gas sector. Moreover, the Bay of Bengal boasts stunning beaches and islands that hold great potential for tourism. Bangladesh can foster tourism growth by promoting this natural beauty and investing in the necessary infrastructure. Furthermore, the Bay of Bengal offers abundant fishing grounds, which Bangladesh can tap into by strengthening its fisheries sector. Additionally, this relatively unexplored body of water holds tremendous possibilities for marine research. 

Bangladesh must implement strategic measures to protect its interests in the Bay of Bengal. Firstly, it should focus on promoting economic development to strengthen its economy and increase its bargaining power. This involves attracting foreign investment, improving infrastructure, and cultivating a skilled workforce. Secondly, building a strong military is necessary to deter aggression and safeguard its interests.  Bangladesh should also engage in multilateral diplomacy, actively participating in regional organizations like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) to advance its diplomatic objectives. Furthermore, maintaining balance relations with major global actors while avoiding taking sides in conflicts is crucial to prevent entanglement and foster cooperation.

By effectively harnessing the opportunities presented by the Bay of Bengal and proactively addressing the contest for influence in the region, Bangladesh can secure a prosperous and secure future. These measures will enable Bangladesh to assume a leading role in shaping the trajectory of the Bay of Bengal while safeguarding its own interests.

Del H Khan, is a global affairs analyst and author of several award-winning and bestselling books. 

M A Hossain, is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

This article published at :

1. The Daily Observer, BD: 25 June 23

2. The Daily Asian Age, BD: 27 June 23

3. South Asia Journal, NJ,USA :25 June 23

Russia-Ukraine war : The Nova Kakhovka Dam Destruction.

M A Hossain,

Ever since the initiation of Russia's conflict against Ukraine, the Nova Kakhovka Dam has been identified as a high-value target due to its strategic importance. It was seized by Russian forces during Moscow's invasion in February 2022 and has remained under their control since then. In the early morning of June 6, 2023, the Nova Kakhovka Dam, located on the Dnipro River, collapsed, resulting in one of the most significant human and environmental disasters since the war began in Ukraine. The dam, situated 30 km east of the city of Kherson, holds substantial implications for the broader war effort. Both Moscow and Kyiv have started accusing each other of what could arguably be considered a war crime. The destruction of the dam occurred just as Ukraine was preparing for a long-awaited counter-offensive in this strategic region.

Civil engineering experts, intelligence analysts, and officials have proposed three main theories regarding the cause of the collapse. Firstly, it is suggested that Russia might have blown up the dam. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his government, and the country's military swiftly blamed Moscow for the dam's destruction. They pointed out that the dam had been under Russian control for the past year. So, it was an easy task for the Russian army to plant explosives accurately. People in the area reported hearing explosions at the time when the dam was presumed to be damaged. Moscow may have sought to impede Ukraine's anticipated counter-offensive. Moreover, the reservoir supplies cooling water to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe's largest nuclear power station, making its safety crucial.

Secondly, it is possible that artillery attacks by Ukraine caused sufficient damage to the dam. The Kremlin accused the Kyiv regime to deprive Crimea of water, which Russia annexed in 2014. It also brought the worst disaster to the Russian-controlled area, which had served as a launching pad for Russian military operations in the past. There were reports that Russian forces were caught off guard during the collapse. Thirdly, the destruction could be attributed to structural failure. The dam had already sustained some prior damage, as satellite images showed partial damage from June 1 and 2. Additionally, the water level had risen to a record 17.5 meters in April, which had poised a risk to the dam intact.

Now let us analyze the military tactical implications for both parties concerning the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam. Firstly, Russia has historical precedents for such actions. In 1941, Stalin ordered to destroy of a dam across the Dnipro River to make the approach inaccessible for advancing German forces. Furthermore, during Napoleon's invasion in 1812, Russia implemented a "scorched earth policy," leaving the French Army with little sustenance and only the smoldering ruins of Moscow to capture.

By destroying the dam, Russia gains tactical advantages in this strategic region. The resulting flood has created obstacles that may slow down the long-awaited Ukrainian offensive, impeding the movement of troops, armored vehicles, and heavy machinery for the next few weeks. This has compelled the Ukrainian army to allocate resources to address the humanitarian emergency and reassess their counter-offensive plan. Undoubtedly, it is a morale victory for the Russian army and represents a significant strategic achievement. Maintaining the status quo on the occupied territories will place Ukraine under pressure, as it has been preparing for a counter-offensive with Western-trained troops and advanced weaponry. Ukraine is facing a 1,000 km line of Russian defense. If Russia could repulse the offensive maneuver of the Ukrainian army, then it will increase the political pressure on Ukraine and the West. This will be potentially leading to the consolidation of Russia's gains and Ukraine has to accept the ceasefire proposal of China. 

However, if Ukraine is indeed behind the destruction of the dam, it is crucial to consider the tactical advantages achieved by the Ukrainian forces. This act could potentially facilitate the relocation of the Ukrainian army to the north bank of the Dnipro River, enabling them to sustain a long-awaited counter-offensive. Ukrainian forces intent to recapture significant portions of territory in the south of the country. Kyiv's objective is to breach Russia's defense lines to the south of Zaporizhzhia, effectively splitting the territory and isolating Crimea, thereby achieving a major strategic victory. The resulting flood could also aid the Ukrainian side in dispersing Russian troops and retaking areas that connect Crimea to the eastern Donbas region.

While the details and background of the dam's destruction remain unclear, but the wider multifaceted short-term and long-term consequences are catastrophic. The destruction of the dam has disrupted the livelihoods of residents in Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, and Zaporizhzhia. It has devastated the ecosystem, basic infrastructure, irrigation systems, and clean water facilities. Furthermore, it has impacted significantly on the country's energy security. The breach of the dam will have long-term effects on agricultural production and food security. A massive volume of freshwater will flow into the Black Sea, affecting the salinity of the Dnipro Delta. It is more likely that hundreds of thousands of people will become ecological refugees in southeastern Ukraine in the coming years. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit attacks on dams, dikes, and nuclear power plants where this incident would comply with an act of war crime.

As the extent of the destruction becomes evident, the International Committee of the Red Cross has warned of a 'significant' threat to civilians. This act appears to be an attempt to inflict long-term damage on the viability of Ukraine as a functioning society and economy. The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam has taken the conflict to new heights since the war's inception.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. 

Email: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. The Geopolitics : 11June23

2. The Daily Observer: BD:12June23

3. The Asian Age, BD:13June23

4. The New Nation, BD: 14June23

5. The Jakarta Post, Indonesia: 15June23