Geopolitical Challenges: Bangladesh to face growing pressure

Washington has been repeating its calls for a free and fair election in Bangladesh. Meanwhile,  Delhi, after much silence, told the US at a meeting in New Delhi that it was Bangladesh's "internal issue". What are the big powers saying, doing, and why? Washington-based geopolitical analyst Michael Kugelman, director of South Asia Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center, explains in an email interview.

The Daily Star (DS): In the meeting, Delhi further told Washington it wants to see a democratic, progressive and stable Bangladesh. India also made the discussions with the US on Bangladesh public, but the US did not. What does this mean?

Michael Kugelman (MK): This is what one would expect India's publicly stated position to be: an uncontroversial stand, and, significantly, also a position that aligns with Washington's own publicly stated position. The US and India are close partners, and so they have a strong interest in taking public stands that reflect convergence. However, there may well be differences between New Delhi's publicly stated position and what India actually said.

DS: Is there any chance the US and India are on the same page?

MK: I don't think they are completely on the same page with regard to Bangladesh. Broadly speaking, they may both support a democratic, progressive, and stable Bangladesh. But there are several likely points of divergence. First, the US has made democracy promotion a big part of its policy in Bangladesh, and it has been very public about it. India would prefer that the US not emphasise this policy, and especially that it not be so vocal about it.

The second point is, Delhi worries about the implications of BNP returning to power. It views BNP and its allies, especially the Jamaat-e-Islami, as an Islamist threat that could well be destabilising. In this sense, when New Delhi speaks of its support for a progressive and stable Bangladesh, it is likely indirectly signaling that such a Bangladesh is more viable without BNP in power. This is of course AL's view as well. There are notable ideological convergences between AL and BJP, which is one reason why the two parties and their governments are so close now. It is also why New Delhi worries about US policy in Bangladesh: US criticism of Bangladesh under the AL government for democratic backsliding and rights concerns risks undermining AL, which New Delhi doesn't want.

DS: Has Washington softened its position on Bangladesh in the midst of the Israel-Hamas war that put the US in an awkward situation?

MK: I'm not aware of it, but it would not be a bad idea to tone down US public messaging about rights and democracy in Bangladesh -- less so because of US support for Israel and more so because of key considerations in Bangladesh itself. With the election drawing closer in Bangladesh, the political moment is becoming increasingly volatile. The more the US talks publicly about politics in Bangladesh, the more those comments will be scrutinised and the higher the risk that such messaging will be politicised or spun a certain way by a particular faction for political benefit.

DS: BNP's blockade and violence have already affected its reputation. Will the US consider visa restrictions against those involved in violence now?

MK: The US has pledged taking action against anyone that hinders free and fair elections, regardless of party or political affiliation. This suggests BNP could well come under the crosshairs of the US visa policy. In theory, new visa restrictions placed on BNP members could help push back against critics of US policy in Bangladesh who allege the US has something against the AL and is focusing its criticism on that party alone. But because the administration has chosen not to make public who it has targeted for visa restrictions, that potential benefit for Washington is unlikely to materialise.

DS: How can Bangladesh deal with the geopolitical challenges it faces now?

MK: Bangladesh has become a regional economic success story and is becoming a global player to be reckoned with economically. But the question is if Bangladesh could become a geopolitical player. I would argue that Bangladesh is not as present in the global stage as India. It doesn't have the luxury of a large military. Economic power is critical and an initial springboard for greater global influence. So, Bangladesh could well be on its way, but one of the big questions is if its economic success story is sustainable. If it is, it could be one to do bigger and better things.

Bangladesh is smack in the middle of US-China, India-China and increasingly US-Russia competition. It will find itself under growing pressure in the coming days. If Dhaka can play the balancing role, it will be better. I see that India has been able to play that role very well, maintain strong relationship with the US and Russia throughout the difficult moments. So, there is a lot of potential for Bangladesh in this regard as well, but it will depend on how it does on the economic front. The key challenge for Bangladesh is the democracy factor for the US and the West. Clearly, the reactions from Dhaka have not been very diplomatic. This does not help diplomatic clout. Dhaka does feel the heat from the key Western governments and trade partners. That's where I think Bangladesh's diplomacy will be put to the test.

(READ FULL INTERVIEW ON OUR WEBSITE)