THE kindest thli^ that one can say about the Bang ladesh foreign policy these days ia that it la being conducted at a very low key. There ia nothing Inherently wrong In a low-key foreign policy If we have no particular goals to achieve or problems to solve But we do. haw problems which brook no delay

Even from a careful scanning of the newspapers one can hardly discern the elements or the modalities of our foreign policy. Of course, one does hear, from time to time, about the Farakka problem, the Rohingya refugees and the Chakmas of Chittagong Hill Tracts or the troubling push-In policy of India But one does not know If the handling of these questions la based on a coherent policy or merely reflects desperate efforts at short-term crisis management.

More than two and half years have passed since the present government assumed power but regrettably all these critical problems remain unresolved.

What Is the background against which the current policies of the country are to be considered and evaluated? During the Liberation War the government headed by the Awami League leaders veered to the Soviet bloc out of the sheer need for survival. The other su-perpower. the United States was opposed to our aspirations for independence. In fact, the arrival of the 7th fleet in the Bay of Bengal at a crucial moment of the war was a clear demonstration that the United States under Nixon and Kissinger did not, harbour exactly friendly feelings towards Bangladesh.

The other superpower, the Soviet Union and its ally India, stood by us during those critical days. Soon after Independence Bangladesh, under the leader

ship of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujtbur Rahman wanted to shed this image and worked actively to bring about a belter balance in our external relations. Feelers were sent out to China and a campaign was launched to secure the recogni tlon of the Western Powers and the Arab countries

Simultaneously. Bangladesh Joined the Non-aligned movement and the British Commonwealth to broaden Its International contacts Eventually Ban gabandhu also successfully pushed to Joint the Orga nlzatlon of Islamic States to further cement relations with the Islamic world. All these efforts did correct the tilt in our foreign policy but it took the United' States. China and Pakistan quite sometime to become reconciled to the reality of a Bangladesh which refused to become identified with any one camp. The assassination of Bangabandhu Sheikh MuJIbur Rahman and transfer of state power to Mustaq and his forces brought about a sudden shift in foreign policy. Bangladesh, under him and then under Zia and Ershad firmly Joined the anti Soviet and anti India constellation of powers Begum Khaleda Zia has not done any thing so far to change the status quo.

The question that naturally comes to mind is: Have we examined our position in the context of the current global political situation? We all know about the change in international politics as a result of the exit of the Soviet Union as an effective player on the world scene. But we do not seem to grasp its significance In altering the geo-political equation In Asia.

China and the US are moving apart over differences on trade and human rights policies. China does not need, as it did in the past, the US umbrella

against Soviet power Moreover China has its own regional ambitions. So Chins is seeking out new allies and behold, they have discovered in India a po tential new friend Having lost Its Soviet ally. India Is perhaps In a more difficult situation

Buffeted by Internal problems such as the separatist movements In Kashmir and the Punjab and the rise of commu nal forces India is no longer as sured of the steady and reliable support of the Soviet Union which has been a corner stone of her foreign policy over the

last thirty years Today. Yeltsin's Russia Is closer to the US than to India. In these altered circumstances India has found the idew of friendship with China to be not too un palatable The fervour of the old Hlndi-Chinl bhal era Is perhaps gone but geo-political exigencies are pushing them < loser with every passing day as reflected in the recent visit by Naraslmha Rao to China

It should be noted that other Aslan countries Including Japan, the two Koreas and the ASEAN countries are all trying to reposition themselves to meet the new challenges posed by the shift In the configuration of re gional powers. But have policy makers here made any discern able move to adjust to the changed situation? Our professional diplomats surely perceive the Implications of these basic and far-reaching changes but why do we not see some teller tlon of this understanding In the way tn which our foreign relations are being conducted?

Pakistan, for example. Is no longer in the same happy posi-

tion that it enjoyed during the cold war and particularly during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. In fact the US is now getting Impatient with Pakistan's drug exports and Is alleged support for terrorists Its nuclear policy Is now under sharp attack whereas during the Reagan era the US turned Its eyes the other way Friendship with China Is still proclaimed loudly but the cold reality of Chinese friendship with India will Inevitably erode the Sino-Paklstan alliance How long one wonders can an en-

emy s friend remain a friend ? Pakistani policy makers are. obviously quite conscious about these profound changes in the power equations and they are making adjustments In their foreign policy

But Bangladesh seems to be stuck in the policy framework that was forged in the aftermath of the bloody political change of 1975. The world has not standing still. Must we not reassess the currents and cross currents of global and regional power politics In order to protect and promote our national Interests ?

The Prime Minister s state ment In the UN General Assembly made some references to some of the common international questions but it touched on two very fundamental and sensitive Issues, namely, the security of small states and the question of sharing of the waters of the Ganges The Prime Minister was right in highlight Ing the problem of the security of small states but how do we achieve this goal? She should have looked at Bosnia. Leba

non. Iraq, Kuwait and even Israel In order to appreciate the ”^rhTt5l ^a^ful forum but It to still an instrument in the hands of the great powers Great speeches tn the UN did not save the poor Bosnian Muslims from getting systems! ically butchered by the Serbs The underlying reality of inter national life today to that it la not the UN which is providing security to Its member states It Is either their own military power or the political military alliances which binds them with their neighbouring mun-tries in tbelr respective regions.

The UN Is yet very far from having any significant impact on the question of security of small states The organization is nearly bankrupt and It can move only when the great powers (and also those who have the means to foot the bills) want it to act. Policy makers in Bangladesh have to realize that national security must be sought against the background of our regional situation.

Some people in Bangladesh who love to play the role of David against Goliath and want ta appear herolc.must have en Joyed the Prime Minister's remarks about the Farakka issue It reads well, it excites patriotic fervour However ft smacks suspiciously of a statement made primarily for domestic consumption India has indeed been mosl unfair in denying our legitimate share of the waters. But a Prime Minister does not and must not make a statement simply because we will ail enjoy It It must have a purpose. Presumably the purpose was to get an Increased flow of water for us. Has she Improved our chances of getting our fair share of the water? On her return she reportedly said that many countries' representatives privately expressed concern for

us. One should ask her how many of these countries will pubbeiy support us in the UN? She said. to quote the Dally Star They all supported our cause If so. why not table . resolution tn the General Assembly'- One would like to know whether following her statement in the GA. how many countries spoke In support of our demand'' When an issue to raised in a forum It ought to have a goal What was our goal? Have we forced India to come to the conference table? The Prime Minister said that Bangladesh has not closed the door for negotiations on the issue Is It not somewhat odd that we are talking about "closing doors when actually It Is India which has reportedly shut the door on us? She has also talked about "alternative steps if bilateral talks with India fall to yield results. What alternative steps? In a vital question such as this, the nation has a right to know the direction of our national policy Why was there not a debate in the Parliament before "'Internationalizing' the Issue? Indeed, why was there not a national debate on the question? Has she considered the moral pressure that such a national debate can generate? One has to conclude sadly, that the Issue was taken to the General Assembly tn New York primarily for domestic political purposes. Unless we get our due share of the water In the coming lean months, will not her statement In New York have further corn plicated the prospects of a successful bilateral negotiation to resolve the problem? By going to the UN has not the Prime Minister risked the prospect of success of her bilateral efforts, if there were any If the venture to New York yields no water, what happens then? It Is the poor |>eople of Bangladesh who. aias. will be victims of these failures.