The Historical Roots and Contemporary Dynamics of Extremism in Pakistan.

M A Hossain, 

In the annals of 2023, Pakistan found itself grappling with an unprecedented surge in terrorist incidents. The Taliban's triumph in Afghanistan has catalyzed the surge, which in turn emboldened and strengthened the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Over the past two years, the TTP underwent a transformative series of mergers, centralizing its organizational framework and recalibrating its operational strategy, exclusively focusing on a war against Pakistan. The ideological and tribal nexus cultivated between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP has conferred an unprecedented level of 'strategic depth' in its history. This has amplified the complexity of Pakistan's struggle against terrorism amidst concurrent political and economic challenges. Interestingly, the genesis of this contemporary terrorism is rooted in a protracted historical perspective that necessitates scrutiny to unearth its foundational causes.

The historical narrative unfolds during the Anglo-Indian era, when Islam, as an institution, faced persistent assaults from British rulers and Hindu revivalists. Islamic scholars emerged as stalwart defenders of their faith, preventing Islam from succumbing to the fate of other creeds in Asia. In 1806, Shah Abdul Aziz Mohaddith Dehlavi declared India under British dominion as Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), asserting the obligation for Muslims to wage revolt for freedom, equality, justice, and revolution against the British government. In his fatwa, he articulated that expelling the British was the primary objective, thereafter, it was legitimate for Muslims to hold the reins of power. That's why, Shah Abdul Aziz has been viewed as a precursor of the Indian Independence movement. 

The legacy continued with Sayed Ahmad Barelvi, a devoted follower of Shah Abdul Aziz, declaring jihad (war) against non-Muslim rulers, and culminated in his death in the Battle of Balakot in 1831. Islamic clerics and religious educational institutes played a pivotal role in nurturing socio-political consciousness among Muslims, advocating for equality, justice, and Muslim rights within the British Indian context. The Deoband Madrasa, established in 1866, and its scholars actively contributed to the Indian independence movement. While a majority of Barelvis and select influential Deobandi clerics supported the creation of Pakistan, the Kabaliya region (presently Waziristan), was an autonomous zone throughout the British Raj, adhering to Shah Abdul Aziz's fatwa. During the Partition movement, Deobandi Ulema, including Mufti Muhammad Shafi and Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani, persuaded Kabali chieftains to align with Pakistan, promising the implementation of Sharia rule. Conversely, most Deobandi Ulema, led by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, opposed the creation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory.

After Pakistan's inception, Islamic scholars and jihadist groups found themselves disillusioned and betrayed by the ruling system, as the country remained bereft of governance under Sharia Law. The separation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) exacerbated the frustration, as its leaders opted for a democratic system.

Jihadist groups had been struggling since 1947 to establish Islamic rule in Pakistan. At times they received state sponsorship against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in the Kashmir conflict. President Ziaul Haq harbored ambitions of utilizing the Mujahideen as a proxy force in South and Central Asia. Waziristan was a safe haven for local and foreign mujahideen. The people of this region, entrenched in orthodox Islam and staunch traditionalism, laid the groundwork for jihadist activities. Mullah Powinda was the pioneer of jihad in Waziristan. Present TTP emanates from the Waziristan region. So, the present jihadist activities are not a new phenomenon for Pakistan. 

During the Soviet-Afghan war, foreign Arab Mujahideen got shelter in Pakistan and utilized the land as a launching pad against Soviet invaders. Al-Qaeda capitalized on this opportunity, merging with local groups and fortifying jihadist networks. Even before Al-Qaeda, sporadic jihadist groups in Pakistan aspired to establish a Sharia-ruled nation. The intermittent negotiations between Mujahideen groups and the Pakistani government tighten the resolution over the demand for a modern state and sovereignty, particularly regarding the withdrawal of government security forces from the claimed area.

Since the creation of Pakistan, the ruling system has stumbled numerous times. No democratic prime minister could complete their tenure due to military intervention. The military remains powerful in dictating the political landscape in Pakistan. After 76 years of Pakistan's independence, people are very frustrated, and at present, economic and political challenges made them the worst sufferers. So they sought some alternatives, which became evident during fervent protests by Islamist groups in 2022.

Following the Lal Masjid incident in June 2007, Al-Qaeda and its local offshoots in Pakistan, particularly TTP, openly declared war against the Pakistani government system. After the Taliban-U.S. truce in 2021, more than 40 local jihadist groups merged with TTP, and now they are deeply rooted in society. Day by day, they are growing stronger, and they have expanded their influence to other parts of Pakistan, especially Balochistan. TTP's guerrilla modus operandi reflects their popular support.  At present, they have changed their operational policy where they only target security forces.

In my opinion, the government of Pakistan and its establishment have committed strategic blunders. Firstly, the strategic misstep of expelling undocumented Pashtuns into Afghanistan, ostensibly for security reasons, has backfired. The Pashtun community, historically divided along the Durand Line, vehemently rejects this colonial-era border. The resultant insult and determination among the sensitive Pashtuns to retaliate pose a significant threat. Secondly, there may be reason to believe that Imran Khan has a covert tie with Islamist groups. Imran's PTI could form a government in provinces where jihadist groups are influential. Consequently, sidelining Imran inadvertently aids these jihadist groups in garnering popular support. This confluence of missteps contributes to the complex dynamics fuelling the rise of jihadist influence in Pakistan.

Presently, TTP has extended its influence into Gilgit Baltistan and Balochistan, marking a concerning development. Reports indicate that the Balochistan Liberation Army has forged alliances with the TTP, collectively advocating for Shariah rule in Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit Baltistan, and Kashmir. The backdrop of atrocities faced by Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir at the hands of Indian security forces further intensifies the agenda of jihadist groups. Al-Qaeda's strategic plan involves aiding persecuted Kashmiri Muslims once their objectives in Pakistan are achieved. This unfolding scenario raises the possibility of the Pakistani establishment compromising with TTP for a governing system with less sovereignty. On the other hand, shifting the jihadist threat towards Kashmir will ultimately align with the ambition of the military. 

The geopolitical landscape of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East has undergone a profound transformation due to the United States-led 'War on Terror.' Last two decades, this mission has encountered relative failure in achieving political objectives and eradicating purported terrorist organizations globally. Nevertheless, it has yielded economic gains for the military-industrial complex. Regrettably, the aftermath of the War on Terror has witnessed the ascendance of authoritarian regimes in certain Asian countries, undermining democratic values. The Pakistani establishment must recognize that people tend to gravitate towards better alternatives, and countering an ideological movement necessitates the emergence of another ideological force. In this context, coercion and intimidation could risk pushing individuals towards alternative ideological blocs.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmailcom

This article was published at :

1. South Asia Journal, NJ, USA: 13 Jan 24

2. Eurasia Review, USA: 15 Jan 24

3. The Catch Line, Pak: 15 Jan 24

4. South Asia Monitor, New Delhi:16Jan 24

5. The Asian Age, BD: 17 Jan 24

6. The Arabian Post, Dubai: 17 Jan 24

7. Review Nepal, Kathmandu: 16 Jan24

8. Geopolitical monitor, Canada:17Jan24

9. The North Lines, India : 18Jan24

10. The Daily Messenger, BD: 19 Jan24

11. The Seoul Times, S Korea : 19 Jan24

12. The Daily Excelsior, J&K& L: 25Jan24

Zelenskyy's Fate Hangs in Delusion and Illusion.

M A Hossain, 

The Ukrainian government faces enormous challenges and risks from internal divisions and the waning support of its Western allies. It is evident that President Vladimir Putin has skillfully managed the war that erupted in February 2022. By the end of 2023, the delivery of military equipment to Ukraine will reach its lowest level since the conflict began. Kyiv has mainly depended on the weapon stockpiles of its allied countries, and the IMF has announced that the Ukrainian economy can only survive for 'a few months' without Western financial aid. Moreover, the possible return of a Republican president after 2024 would be a major setback for the US backing of Ukraine. However, the Hamas-Israel conflict has provided an opportunity for the Biden administration to deprioritize the Ukraine war. Thus, the geopolitical factors, electoral cycles, arms transfers, and the availability of ammunition have left Zelenskyy's fate hanging in delusion and illusion. 

For the first time, the Pentagon disclosed an exact date for the depletion of resources meant to support Kyiv. According to Bloomberg, the US Department of Defense informed Congress that the funds allocated to replenish weapons for Ukraine would run out by December 30, 2023. The US Senate Republicans have blocked a $110.5 billion aid package for their allies. The Pentagon spokesman, Patrick Ryder, stated earlier this month that Washington would have to choose between its combat readiness and the provision of weapons to Ukraine due to a shortage of financial resources. Additionally, at a summit in Brussels, EU leaders failed to agree on a four-year financial plan of €60 billion for Ukraine. The Kremlin warned the EU that any shipment containing weapons to Kyiv would be regarded as a legitimate target. Ukraine's much-hyped summer counteroffensive failed to meet the expectations of its allies. Therefore, after nearly two years of war, the Atlantic nations are beginning to focus on their national security interests rather than those of Ukraine's.

The West provoked the Ukraine war on Russia, a clear display of its hegemonic global agenda. Russia has not shown any imperialist or territorial ambition in this war. Zelenskyy came to power in 2014 through a Western-supported coup. He immediately started efforts to integrate Ukraine into the EU. Since Ukraine lies within Russia's sphere of influence, Russia opposed it and this led to the conflict. The Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, inadvertently exposed a broader, dishonorable motive for the proxy war during his visit to Poland in April 2022. He said that Washington's goal was not only to help Ukraine repel Russia's invasion, but also to 'weaken Russia' to the point that it could no longer pose a threat to any other country. However, there is little regard for the impact on the suffering inhabitants of the country that serves as a battleground for the proxy war, and surprisingly little concern for the wider geopolitical implications. It is simply to harass and bleed Washington's rival, as well as boost the depleted US economy by the military-industrial complex. 

The nature of war is inherently unstable, marked by constant changes in circumstances. There are some possible scenarios for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Mainly, if Donald Trump or the Republican Party wins the upcoming 2024 US presidential election, then it could lead to a significant change in the course of the Russia-Ukraine war. A Republican president would be likely to reduce assistance to Ukraine and engage in diplomatic talks to end the conflict. The US would probably shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific region. This recalibration would be a chance to strengthen Russia's control over the occupied Ukrainian territories. At the same time, such a sudden change in U.S. policy towards Ukraine would undermine its reputation as a dependable security guarantor not only for the EU but also for other parts of the world. There could be another scenario, a drastic cut in Western support for Ukraine could lead to Russia completely taking over eastern and southern Ukraine. That would totally block Ukraine's access to the Black Sea.

Unlike Ukraine, Russia has enough supplies of weapons for 2024. Mr. Putin has been preparing his military for more than a year. Russia has raised its 2024 budget for military spending. Ukraine's slow advance against Russia's heavily fortified defense during the recent counteroffensive could lead to a war of attrition in the Ukrainian military. It is very doubtful that Ukraine is able to launch another counteroffensive in the near future. The right wing, populist, Eurosceptics statesmen in the EU also complicate Ukraine's future. Netherlands and Hungarian leaders, Geert Wilders and Viktor Orbán, are opposed to stronger EU sanctions on Russia. 

Russia's upcoming 2024 presidential election has a significant influence on the Russia-Ukraine War. Mr. Putin could order his commanders to restart large-scale offensive operations with an ambition to seize new territories. New battlefield victories would enhance his popularity and legitimacy among the Russian people, who may view him as a strong leader. He can also present himself as a protector of their national interests and sovereignty against foreign interference. No doubt, the Ukraine issue will help Mr. Putin to consolidate his power within his own political system. 

The West never cares about Ukraine. The country is used as a pawn to 'weaken' Russia in this proxy war. The Israel-Hamas conflict has provided the opportunity to escape from this proxy war for the West. Mr. Zelenskyy, the lone man who has ruined Ukraine, and surely, he will be held accountable in the future for many lives and cities. And, the relations between Russia and the West will never improve through force and intimidation. Respectful and diplomatic postures are the only way to prevent conflict.

M A Hossain, a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Eurasia Review, Oregon, USA: 29 Dec23

2. The Eurasian Times,New Delhi:30 Dec23

3. OZarab media, Aus:31 Dec 23

4. Review Nepal, Kathmandu:01 Jan 24

5. Asian Age, BD: 03Jan 24

6. Pakistan Today, 06Jan24

The Complex Interplay: America's Sanctions and Bangladesh's Counterterrorism Initiatives.

M A Hossain, 

In the intricate mosaic of global counterterrorism endeavors, Bangladesh emerges as a nation adeptly navigating the multifaceted challenges posed by terrorist activities. The recently published Country Reports on Terrorism for the year 2022 by the US State Department, furnished a comprehensive and perceptive elucidation of Bangladesh's counterterrorism milieu.

Throughout the annals of 2022, Bangladesh encountered a relatively scant number of instances of terrorist violence, chiefly attributable to the relentless pursuit of militant groups by the authorities. The report accentuates the fact that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, an unwavering luminary at the nation's helm, along with other governmental functionaries, consistently underscored the country's unequivocal stance against terrorism. Sheikh Hasina's steadfast commitment to expelling terrorism from the nation has propelled the vigorous counterterrorism initiatives undertaken by Bangladesh.

The leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is distinguished by a proactive and resolute approach aimed at ensuring the safety and security of the nation. Despite confronting myriad challenges, including the repudiation of the presence of globally organized militant factions, Sheikh Hasina has exhibited unwavering determination in her 'Zero Tolerance' policy against terrorism, safeguarding the tranquility and stability of Bangladesh.

The Institute for Economics and Peace, a Sydney-based organization specializing in terrorism studies, unveiled a report on April 10, 2023. Remarkably, Bangladesh outperforms Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom in the Global Terrorism Index, as per the report. This index meticulously analyzes a country's annual incidence of terrorist activities, hostage situations, and casualties. Afghanistan claims the undesirable top spot for terrorism, with Pakistan at 6, India at 13, the United States at 30, the United Kingdom at 42, and Bangladesh securing the 43rd position.

The data reveals a noteworthy trend for Bangladesh, ranking 40th in 2022, 43rd in 2023, and notably surging to 22nd in 2016. In essence, since 2016, Bangladesh has consistently elevated its standing in the global fight against terrorism. Notably, when compared to other South Asian countries, as well as the United States, Bangladesh has maintained a commendable lead. Consequently, the report stands as a distinctly positive affirmation of Bangladesh's concerted efforts in combating terrorism on the international stage.

These militant factions, driven by the objective of destabilizing the law and order situation in Bangladesh with a clandestine agenda of ousting Sheikh Hasina from power, had converged into a formidable force. Systematically orchestrated assaults, targeting individuals of a secularist disposition, journalists, bloggers, and even foreigners, became an unsettlingly recurrent phenomenon. At this critical juncture, the Sheikh Hasina-led-Awami League government initiated resolute measures against these elements, with the international community, notably the United States, playing a remarkably effective role. Their contribution involved the adept training of members within law enforcement agencies, including the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), thereby endowing these agencies with the capacity to effectively counteract terrorism and militancy within the nation.

A salient development spotlighted in the report is the October proclamation of operations against Jama’atul Ansar Fil Hindal Sharqiya (JAHS), purportedly an AL-Qaeda-inspired group. Authorities disclosed that JAHS were undergoing training in the Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHT) with intentions of executing attacks elsewhere. In 1996, Sheikh Hasina's first government freed the Chittagong Hill Tracts from the insurgency problem. The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a counterterrorism expert unit, launched operations to thwart this potential menace, underscoring a proactive and preemptive stance in the realm of counterterrorism.

The delineation between terrorists and insurgents is rapidly diminishing. In nations where these elements stem from the mainstream population, the efficacy of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency (CT-COIN) operations becomes uncertain. The success of such endeavors hinges on grappling with the intricate socio-political and economic issues at play in these regions. Recognizing that terrorism transcends the bounds of a mere law-and-order predicament, it becomes evident that facile remedies or reliance on police and military interventions are inadequate. But, in reality, the government and its agencies are still successful in curbing the extremist threat in Bangladesh. 

The recent sanction imposed on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in Bangladesh by the US State Department, while ostensibly symbolic, has impeded the commendable work and noble purpose that RAB strives to achieve. The repercussions of this sanction are poised to inflict hardship primarily upon the ordinary, peace-loving citizens of Bangladesh. In effect, America appears to be stemming an ostensibly noble initiative against terrorism, assuming a dubious role by obstructing those actively involved in the ongoing battle against terrorism. This situation underscores the complexities and unintended consequences that can arise in the realm of international relations and counterterrorism efforts.

Terrorism, a ubiquitous global phenomenon, is not the exclusive responsibility of any single nation, nor is any nation obligated to combat it in isolation. Rather, it constitutes a collective responsibility, necessitating the engagement of every country. In Bangladesh, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) is diligently striving to make a meaningful contribution to global peace by adopting a robust stance against local, regional, and international terrorism. Through its concerted efforts, RAB aims to be a proactive participant in the broader collaborative endeavor to mitigate the pervasive threat of terrorism on local, regional, and global scales.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Weekly Blitz, BD :13Dec23

2. The Arabian Post, UAE : 14Dec23

3. OZarab media, Australia : 12Dec23

4. The Eastern Herald, India :13 Dec23

5. The North Lines, India :14Dec23

On the Brink: Bangladesh Faces Political Upheaval Ahead of January Polls.

M A Hossain, 

The political milieu in Bangladesh has been fraught with tension, climaxing in weeks of protests and violent clashes, casting a shadow of apprehension as the scheduled general election on January, 07, 2024, approaches. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), reinvigorated as the main opposition force, has intensified its protests, fervently demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The crux of their discontent revolves around the insistence on establishing a neutral interim government before the general election, a demand staunchly rebuffed by the incumbent Awami League (AL)-led government. This singular point of contention has deepened the schism between the AL and the BNP, accentuated by the AL's pursuit of a fourth consecutive term, further delineating a widening political chasm. Both major parties exhibit reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue, casting doubt on the prospects for reconciliation before the impending elections.

In a noteworthy display of strength, the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami orchestrated a "grand rally" on October, 28, advocating their "one-point demand" for a neutral interim election-time government. In response, the AL called for a "peace rally" on the same day. Regrettably, what began as a peaceful assembly devolved into violence, necessitating police intervention to regain control. BNP activists became embroiled in clashes with both police and AL supporters. The day-long street battle, despite initial police restraint, escalated into violence from the BNP rally. This tumult resulted in significant casualties, with BNP supporters attacking police, journalists, setting fire to a police hospital, and assaulting the Chief Justice's residence of the Supreme Court.

While the BNP alleges that the violence was either deliberately provoked or part of government sabotage to discredit their protests. But, the undeniable fact remains—the damage and destruction cannot be credibly denied. In response, the government has initiated a crackdown on the BNP's ranks and files. The move has applauded by the AL as a necessary response to the October atrocities.

Subsequently, the opposition has shifted its political tactics from public demonstrations to nationwide strikes and blockades. As of last week in November, at least 180 public transports were set ablaze. The BNP attempts to portray these incidents as sabotage orchestrated by government agencies or AL supporters. While the AL endeavors to exploit these blockades and strikes as part of their election campaign.

In my opinion, the BNP and its allies have unwittingly fallen into the Awami League's political stratagem by fomenting violence on October, 28. It would be prudent for the BNP to sidestep this Machiavellian ploy orchestrated by the Awami League, thereby enhancing the visibility of their nonviolent campaign and conveying a resounding message to Western nations through heightened public engagement.

 Washington's Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) marks the inception of a US-led alliance strategically positioned to counterbalance China. Bangladesh and other South Asian nations find themselves at a crossroad amid this superpower rivalry. After the midpoint of President Biden's tenure, the United States, the European Union, and predominantly Western governments have been exerting pressure on Bangladesh for enhancements in democratic processes, human rights, and freedom of expression. Notably, the opposition party BNP and its allies have embraced this initiative.

The Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government has enjoyed unwavering support from India over the past decade. However, following the recent G20 summit in India, the United States has recalibrated its policy towards India, signaling a reluctance to cede full leadership to India in the South Asian context. The 2 + 2 dialogue in India has further revealed a divergence between India and the United States concerning their stance on Bangladesh. Conversely, China and Russia have been critical of the United States, branding its actions as unwarranted "interference" in Bangladesh's internal affairs. The BNP has denounced Russia and China for their positions on Bangladesh.

Western nations have advocated for a dialogue to resolve Bangladesh's political impasse. While the AL has occasionally agreed to dialogue, it closed this option after announcing the election schedule on November 7. Meanwhile, the BNP has remained relatively silent and less interested to sit with the AL.

The political turbulence unfolds against a backdrop of economic hardship, with a significant portion of the population grappling with the escalating cost of living, particularly the rise in food prices. The country's foreign exchange reserves have halved, dropping from $42 billion to $21 billion by July 2023. Earlier this year, Bangladesh sought assistance from the IMF. Recent concerns expressed by the United States regarding labor law reform in Bangladesh suggest potential dire consequences for the country's RMG sector in terms of exports and imports.

The BNP's strategy aims to leverage Western sentiments and capitalize on public discontent regarding economic challenges. Their movement seeks to corner Hasina into either stepping down or resorting to violence, thereby instigating broader political strife. Hasina, within this limited context, faces two options: reinstate an election-time interim government or relinquish power to the military. While the military's intervention may not immediately favor the BNP, it could eventually level the playing field. Conversely, the AL advocates upholding the constitutional process, gaining moral strength to counter adversities. They believe that lawful pressure can disrupt BNP's leader Tarique Rahman's command and control. If BNP's chain of command falters, Rahman's choices would narrow down to either returning to Dhaka for political survival and potential incarceration or accepting political disaster while remaining in exile.

Amid persistent unrest, the imperative to uphold the right to freedom of assembly and safeguard the well-being of peaceful protestors remains paramount but also a gargantuan task. In this broad and acrimonious political context, compromise is perceived as an existential political threat. The destiny of the nation, inhabited by 180 million people, is not subject to external pressures or internal power plays. True power lies with the common people, and they understand when and how to assert their authority.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at : writetomahossain@gmail.com 

This article published at :

1. OZarab.media, Australia:03Dec23

2. Pakistan Today, Pak : 04 Dec23

3. Modern Diplomacy, EU: 04 Dec23

4. The New Nation, BD: 06Dec23

5. South Asia Journal, USA: 05Dec23

6. The Asian Age, BD: 07Dec23

7. Indepthnews.com,Ng: 08Dec23

8. Eurasia Review, 09Dec23

9. The Catch Line, Pakistan : 10Dec23

10. The Eastern Herald, India : 13Dec23

The Strategic Significance of Strengthening US-Bangladesh Relations.

M A Hossain & Abdullah Al Mamun, 

In the tapestry of international relations, the partnership between Bangladesh and the United States bears the imprints of a multifaceted journey—a blend of challenges, resilience, and evolving collaborations. History narrates a narrative of support, critical junctures, and mutual aid defining their association. From the struggle for sovereignty to contemporary challenges, this relationship stands as a linchpin for Bangladesh's progress, teeming with opportunities and imperative support. The profound significance of fostering and fortifying this alliance would be an indispensable catalyst for Bangladesh's holistic development and global positioning.

History : A Beacon of Solidarity

The Bangladesh-USA relations since 1971 encapsulate a tale of challenges and resilience. Despite the Nixon-Kissinger administration's strategic stance against Bangladesh's sovereignty due to Cold War dynamics, the American populace, media, and key figures like George Harrison expressed overwhelming solidarity for Bangladesh. This stark contrast between political strategy and public support marked a pivotal phase during East Pakistan's turmoil, condemning Pakistani military actions. Notably, the US, while strategically supporting Pakistan, extended substantial humanitarian aid of $103 million to Bangladeshi refugees in India during the 1971 events. On April 4, 1972, the U.S. swiftly recognized Bangladesh's sovereignty, aiding its prompt entry into the United Nations.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman recognized the profound impact of a diplomatic relationship with the US, leading to President Gerald R. Ford's influential visit in 1974, catalyzing discussions on regional security, famine, and flood control. Mr. Rahman adeptly maintained ties with both the USSR and the US, pivotal players in the Cold War, initiating the Non-Aligned Movement for diplomatic reconciliation. His strategic diplomacy established Bangladesh's independence from the oppressive Pakistani regime. These actions showcased Rahman's skillful navigation of global alliances, leveraging relations for Bangladesh's autonomy and development.

Contemporary Collaborations: A Bridge to Progress

The alliance between the United States—a country that imports around 10% Ready-Made Garments from Bangladesh, for example— and Bangladesh has evolved significantly over the years. The U.S. has provided extensive support in crucial sectors, such as food security, agriculture, public health, education, disaster management, women's empowerment, governance, and human rights. The cumulative worth of this assistance reached an estimated USD 11.2 billion in 2022. Plus, bilateral trade flourished, exceeding $14.2 billion in 2022, with Bangladesh exporting goods worth $10.42 billion to the United States during the 2021-2022 fiscal year. Furthermore, the U.S. has already pledged $35 million over the next five years to support Bangladeshi farmers, particularly in mitigating climate-induced challenges and enhancing agricultural yields. This funding, channeled through USAID, will empower small-scale farmers in southern Bangladesh, providing guidance on climate-smart cultivation practices. The United States has also played a significant role in supporting Bangladesh in the global fight against COVID-19, providing vaccines and assistance to Rohingya refugees who fled to Bangladesh from Myanmar after receiving an array of inhuman torture in Myanmar. Additionally, the U.S. has supported Bangladesh's efforts in counterterrorism and regional stability through military training and cooperation and others.

Challenges: Navigating Current Complexities

In recent years, the Bangladesh-U.S. relationship has been struggling with tons of unavoidable and unprecedented challenges. Concerns raised by the United States include electoral irregularities, human rights violations, extrajudicial killings, political tensions, and Bangladesh's deepening ties with the Beijing-Moscow alliance, perceived as contrary to U.S. interests. These concerns have resulted in sanctions on select high-ranking law enforcement officials, the suspension of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) privileges, and Bangladesh's non-participation in the Democracy Summit. The knock-on effects of these steps against Bangladesh, which is a “negative and red signal” to the Bangladesh administration. Unless it is solved, at least it is mitigated, by adopting a wide range of measures, Bangladesh’s economy will—hands down— suffer a lot down the line.

To reinvigorate and improve this overarching relationship, several proactive measures can be taken. High-level diplomatic engagement must take center stage, assuring the U.S. of Bangladesh's commitment to solving human rights and electoral issues. Civil society, including international non-governmental organizations, advocacy groups, and think tanks, can serve as catalysts and bridges for mutual understanding. Public diplomacy initiatives may generate a more favorable narrative, underscoring success stories and fostering discussions that address contemporary challenges. Crisis communication strategies are crucial for managing and mitigating potential conflicts, ensuring that communication during crises prevents escalations. Moreover, Track II Diplomacy—unofficial dialogues involving think tanks, academics, and influential figures—can help find critical issues and build trust. These types of recommendations are the stepping stones toward a robust, forward-looking partnership.

As Bangladesh aspires to achieve holistic development across democracy, technology, education, society, and the digital sphere, nurturing a symbiotic and unblemished alliance with the United States becomes imperative. Diplomatically persuading American authorities about Bangladesh's relationships with China and Russia, emphasizing economic development, is vital. As a nation with immense potential, Bangladesh must navigate adept diplomacy to secure its place in the global arena. Policies promoting enhanced bilateral cooperation with the U.S. serve as a powerful tool in building a strong and enduring relationship. It's a chance for Bangladesh to emulate the mutual respect and cooperation in between.

In conclusion, nurturing a robust partnership with the United States is not just a choice; it's a necessity for Bangladesh's progress on the world stage. With the right approach, both nations can embark on a journey of mutual growth, benefiting not only themselves but also the larger global community. Bangladesh should bear in mind its foreign policy: Friendship to all, malice to none.

This article published at :

1. The Asian Age, BD: 15Nov23

2. Modern Ghana : 14 Nov23

Can Beijing Mediate an Israel-Hamas Ceasefire?

M. A. Hossain,

As the conflict between Israel and Hamas intensifies, the death toll of civilians in Gaza has risen to more than 10,000, including 3,700 children. In this catastrophic context, China has stepped forward to mediate between the parties. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, discussed the conflict situation with officials in Washington, perceiving the fear of a wider regional war. The US counterpart has assured full support for working with China to find a resolution. President Xi Jinping has dispatched his Middle East special envoy, Zhai Jun, to the region to meet with Arab leaders. There is hope that only China, with strong diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine, as well as with Iran, which backs Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, can mediate a ceasefire. Beijing has previously emerged as an impartial and successful mediator, notably brokering a rare détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has also been one of the most vocal proponents of a ceasefire in UN meetings. However, China's initial silence and its first statement on the conflict have angered Israel. Apparently, Mr. Netanyahu is not in the mood to listen to any world leader. So, it will be a gargantuan task for Beijing to bring all the actors to the table.

China has consistently supported the Palestinian cause, owing to its alignment with Maoism and liberation movements in the 1960s and 1970s. Chinese Communist Party founder, Mao Zedong, even sent weapons to Palestinians in support of 'National Liberation' movements worldwide. Mao even compared Israel to Taiwan, both backed by the US imperialism. During those years, Beijing armed and trained the Palestine Liberation Organization and other Palestinian militant groups. After Mao's death in 1976, China began opening up to the world and softened its position. It normalized relations with Israel in 1992. China's strategic approach to the Middle East for more than a decade has sought to portray itself as a friend to all in the region and the enemy of none.

For the past decade, China has invested considerable diplomatic energy in building its influence in the Middle East. President Xi has adopted the policy to promote multi-alignment among countries in the region, described in Chinese government documents as "balance diplomacy" and "positive balancing." Briefly, balance diplomacy entails not taking sides in rival countries, and positive balancing aims to create a strategic balance among global or regional powers in the Middle East. Chinese foreign policy initiatives are designed to appeal to countries in the Global South that feel increasingly alienated from the US-led rules-based international order.

In 2016, China entered into a comprehensive strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, and in 2020, an agreement of 25-year cooperation was signed with Iran. It has expanded economic ties with other Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman. China has also deepened its economic ties with Egypt. Beijing is the largest investor in the Suez Canal Area Development Project and reconstruction projects in Iraq and Syria. So, after the Saudi-Iran breakthrough, Beijing began to position itself as an impartial and trustworthy mediator in the region.

Beijing's initial response to the conflict was to continue with its balanced diplomacy. China did not condemn Hamas; instead, it urged both sides to "exercise restraint" and to embrace the "two-state solution." This was consistent with Beijing's long-standing policy of "non-interference" in other countries' internal affairs and its fundamental strategic approach to the region. However, to counter Western powers and their allies, Beijing sought to highlight its positive balancing and used its veto power at the United Nations. This stance became the strong appeal of the Global South. China has significant economic engagement with the Middle East and North Africa, and its dependency on Middle Eastern countries for the energy sector and the Belt and Road Initiative encourages its efforts to challenge the West's strategic maneuver. Africa and Latin America sympathize with the Palestinian cause, and Arab nations are united on the Palestinian issue. So, China is likely making a strategic move to gain the support of these nations, which are also increasingly searching for an alternative partner to the US.

In June, China signed a strategic partnership deal with the authority of the West Bank. Beijing also has a lucrative tech-sector trade with Israel, worth $1 billion in semiconductors per year. China has previously supported normalization efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, Chinese diplomatic actions are far more neutral than the stance of the US and its allies.

Global powers like Russia and the USA have overtly sided with their strategic partners in the Israel-Hamas conflict. For Israel, after enduring humiliating and devastating sufferings, the renowned 'Mr. Security,' Benjamin Netanyahu, and the army are subjected to immense domestic pressure. The Israeli Government and the army need to achieve tangible gains and win over Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. But, psychologically, Israel has lost the battle. Their formidable espionage agency failed to warn them, and more than 200 hostages were held by Hamas, making the conflict very critical. The Israeli indefensible army is now killing innocent civilians and children in Gaza instead of Hamas fighters. This disproportionate killing cannot continue for an extended period. In this context, it will be a golden opportunity for Beijing to burnish its reputation.

China's economic interests in the Middle East would be endangered if the conflict widens. The Chinese government has maintained a relatively balanced relationship with all actors related to the conflict, including the Palestinians, Arabs, Israel, Türkiye, Egypt, and Iran. It would be relatively comfortable for Beijing to bring all the players to the table. Moreover, China will not miss the opportunity to position itself as a superpower to rival the US in a multipolar world.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com.

This article published at : 

1. The Geopolitics : 08 Nov 23

2. Daily Times, Pakistan : 10 Nov23

3. OZarab.media, Australia : 10 Nov23

4. The Nigerian Voice, Nigeria : 09Nov23

5. The Pakistan Daily, Pak : 10 Nov 23

6. The Asian Age, BD: 14 Nov 23

7. IDN-InDepthNews.com: 19 Nov23

8. The Arabian Post, UAE :29Nov23

The Battle Scenario in The Middle East.

M A Hossain, 

On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered its most devastating attack in decades, orchestrated by the Iran-backed Palestinian militant organization, Hamas. This conflict has significant implications for regional and international dynamics of geopolitics and geostrategic, based on roles played by various nations.  On the day when US President Joe Biden visited Israel, a notable meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping took place in Beijing. They discussed shared interests about the Ukraine crisis, Pacific security, and certainly the security situation in the Middle East(ME).

Before delving into the battle scenario of the ME, let us discuss the geostrategic interests first which are driving the battle drill of superpowers centering on the Israel-Hamas conflict. 

Firstly, the United States and its European and Asian allies are not interested in opening a new confrontational font beyond Ukraine and the Pacific.  This ME front could be a quagmire for the USA and that could alter the global order, its rules, and the hierarchy of its actors.  Secondly, the Eastern Mediterranean's security system is in disarray, primarily due to growing tensions between Russia and Israel since the annexation of Crimea.  Israel's support for Ukraine against Russia has strained the relations. Thirdly, the increasing integration of Iran into the Arab political space after the Iran-Saudi agreement has threatened US-brokered peace agreements between Israel and Arab nations. Lastly, the ME, particularly the Eastern Mediterranean, has become the critical point for major geopolitical projects like the Silk Road and the economic corridor between India and Europe. Consequently. It has increased the cost of conflict.

The Biden administration knows, any engagement of the US military in the Middle East would be a 'Trojan Horse' for America, but also important to extend its overt support for Israel ahead of the upcoming presidential elections. The political orientation of the Biden administration towards Israel is to maintain the strategic and historical relationship.  The influential Jewish community and evangelical pressure groups play a decisive factor in American presidential elections. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, along with another carrier named USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, has made commitments to resolve the crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean. It is a rare incident after World War II, where two carrier groups are deployed in the same regional conflict. 

The USS Gerald R. Ford, a new addition to the American naval fleet, has deployed at least half of its strike group to increase regional security in the Adriatic Sea. The carrier is accompanied by the cruiser Normandy and destroyers Thomas Hunder, Ramage, Roosevelt, and Corney. All these are modern Arleigh Burke-class vessels.

This also known as the 12 Carrier Strike Group (12 CSG), has been deployed in various locations in the Eastern Mediterranean, including near the Red Sea, to deter missile threats and maintain a presence in the region. The extensive deployment of 12 CSG does not suggest an imminent military confrontation and advises the reduction of the level of risk in this area after satellite observations.

The potential restoration, refueling, or enhanced security arrangements near Crete, Greece, would put the striking group out of range from Hezbollah's long-range missile threats present in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Furthermore, American reconnaissance aircraft, the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, RC-135V/W Rivet, remain active in this area to provide ongoing surveillance guidance.

The temporary entry of the Carrier Strike Group into the European theater of operations of the US Sixth Fleet elevates the significance of the European theater in the European Command's operational sphere. However, increased hostilities and a potential wider regional conflict led the British military logistics support ship to be deployed for possible evacuation. On the other hand, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is expected to advance towards the Arabian Gulf, indicating implications for a more significant military movement in this region. The US Department of Defense has deployed 300 troops to US Central Command to deter any outside groups from escalating the Israel-Hamas conflict and to protect the US troops already deployed in that area. Approximately 2,000 troops have been ordered to be prepared for deployment within 24 hours.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has strategically altered the deployment of its naval escort groups to challenge the leadership of the United States Navy in international maritime security operations. Due to the presence of China's sole foreign naval base in Djibouti, the Middle East has gained importance in terms of naval deployments to protect oil trade routes. The current PLAN involves three naval escort groups, 43rd, 44th, and 45th, each consisting of a destroyer, a pair of frigates, and a logistical support vessel, actively monitoring Kuwait and the Horn of Africa.

Moreover, Russia has taken a clear stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict, aligning with Israel's actions in condemnation of the Palestinian approach. Russia's naval activities in the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region are driven by dual objectives, influencing Ukraine's actions and serving as a warning signal in the Black Sea area. Importantly, the deployment also indicates that the Russian military can intervene in the East Mediterranean. Russia's kilo-class diesel submarine is detected in the Dover Strait of the English Channel, which is heading towards the Baltic Sea. Its hypersonic Kinzhal missiles are capable of reaching targets in the East Mediterranean. 

Israeli indiscriminate airstrikes caused the loss of 9,000 lives, including 3,700 children. Many countries, especially those not in the Western world, are saying that powerful nations and their allies shouldn't bend the rules of the international system to their advantage. Utilizing this system only strengthens the argument that some nations are using "human rights" for their own purposes.

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

Email : writetomahossain@gmail.com

 

This published at :

1 The Nation, Pakistan : 05Nov23

2. OZ Arab Media, Australia : 06 Nov 23

3. The Nigerian Voice, Nigeria : 06 Nov23

4. The Catch Line, Pakistan : 07Nov23

5. The Asian Age, BD: 08 Nov 23

6. Pakistan Observer, Pak : 12 Nov 23