The Economist She chose Bangladesh as the country of the year. In light of this British establishment spokesperson, regime change in Bangladesh represents a positive development, not only for Bangladesh, but also for the international community as a whole.
Bangladesh won this British accolade, beating other competitors such as Poland, South Africa, Argentina and Syria. This is strange in itself, as one cannot see any clear British interest in Bangladesh more important than the overthrow of Assad from Syria or the importance of Tusk taking power in Poland in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, in which the UK is fully involved. .
The hypocrisy of the West
The US and UK hatred towards Sheikh Hasina is well known. Her ouster was encouraged on the grounds that she suppressed democracy in Bangladesh. Why should the issue of democracy in Bangladesh be of such importance to distant and non-regional countries? Whether Bangladesh is a democracy or not, this does not affect any US or UK interest in the country that could be considered vital to their interests.
The hypocrisy in American and British discourse on democracy is clear to see. Both the United States and the United Kingdom maintain very close relations with countries that are not only undemocratic, but do not even hold elections – however flawed – or allow political opposition, let alone political parties. Many are monarchies, military dictatorships, or ruled by communist parties.
China is not a democracy, but the West enjoys thriving relations with it. For example, the United States and the United Kingdom did not make democracy an issue in their relations with Vietnam. The Biden government did not invite Singapore to attend the two democracy summits it organized. But this did not lead to the West’s efforts to make Singapore’s political system more democratic.
Bullying countries
The issue is therefore not a matter of countries committing to democracy or Western values in order to be seen as acceptable partners. It is essentially a form of political bullying of weak countries at low cost.
The United States has long targeted Myanmar with sanctions due to the junta’s control of the country’s political system. The United States has ignored that this has increasingly pushed Myanmar into the arms of China and harmed our strategic interests in that country.
In the case of Bangladesh too, the impact that the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina had on India’s vital strategic interests in that country has been ignored. Major connectivity and development projects were undertaken between India and Bangladesh during Sheikh Hasina’s rule, for mutual benefit. India’s main gain was the expulsion of insurgent groups operating from Bangladeshi territory against India, an issue that the BNP government in Bangladesh was not prepared to address.
With the regime change in Bangladesh, the doors have also opened to increased Chinese influence. Why should the US and UK risks in Bangladesh be more important than those of India, its immediate neighbour?
Ignore India’s concerns
The British (and the United States) do not see the rise of Islamic forces in our region as a threat to India’s security. The British have always supported Pakistan politically on Indo-Pak issues. They did not take sufficient note of Pakistan’s use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy towards India. Despite the increasing extremism in Pakistani society, the British did not change their basic sympathy with Pakistan.
British insensitivity towards ISI-linked activities carried out by Khalistani extremists against India on UK soil is part of this syndrome. The British also took a position on Taliban control of Afghanistan, which did not take into account India’s concerns. This is true of US policies regarding the rise of Islamist forces in our region, including facilitating the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan.
This would explain why Britain and the United States are not particularly concerned about Islamic forces coming to power in Bangladesh. And further afield, we have seen how the West welcomes the takeover of Syria by Islamist elements once linked to Al Qaeda. A suitably adapted narrative is being promoted to present the new leadership in new political garb and clothing.
Comfortable novel
In the article that praised the regime change in Bangladesh, The Economist He welcomes the overthrow of the autocrat. This convenient narrative ignores the fact that Bangladesh went through long periods of military rule. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party under the leadership of Begum Khaleda Zia was and is in no way less authoritarian. The current forces in Bangladesh intend to rewrite the country’s secular constitution to make it more Islamic. The Economist He admits that the BNP is “venal”. Where then are the “non-authoritarian” or true democratic forces in Bangladesh? The Economist In mind?
The Economist He refers to “Islamic extremism” as a threat, and no doubt believes that formally labeling it will protect the magazine from being accused of completely ignoring the danger. The fact that Islamists are calling the shots in Bangladesh has been overlooked to fit the narrative of a change in power there. There is no reference to the Islamic group that is active on the ground.
The paper calls for elections to be held after ensuring the impartiality of the courts. This seems comical after the Chief Justice is thrown out of office and other judges are forced to issue the rulings the mob wants. She also says the Yunus government must ensure that the opposition has enough time to organize itself. What opposition, when it looks like the Awami League will not be allowed to participate in the elections?
The newspaper claims, contrary to the evidence, that Yunus’s government restored order and stabilized the economy. India has more than once expressed its concerns about the law and order situation on the ground in Bangladesh and the persecution of minorities in the country, especially the Hindu minority. but The Economist He conveniently ignores this, demonstrating journalistic bad faith and the remnants of British imperial arrogance.
(Kanwal Sibal, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France, and Russia, and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
