& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

KALEIDOSCOPE

Our modest expectations from the USA
THE flurry of activities at the diplomatic and political circles in Dhaka over US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit is over. And
along with it, all media speculation about the possible outcome of the visit and the talks that followed has died down. There will still be some gossip about what else might have transpired in the talks that did not come in press reports.
As things settle down, the most important question that will now take centre-stage is what we have achieved from the visit of Hillary Clinton.
The "Joint Declaration on Bangla-desh-US Dialogue on Partnership" does not say anything about what we as a least developed nation desire to get from the richest nation on earth, the USA. The declaration only says that "the dialogue will be held annually on bilateral relations and priorities in Dhaka and Washington by turn." But there are no specifics about what will come under the purview of these bilateral talks. Bangladesh could feel more assured if it also stated in clear terms that the US would open up its huge market for our readymade garment without imposing any tariff and/or non-tariff barriers. It did not say if the US is willing to facilitate more investments in Bangladesh from its private sector and provide government loans on easy terms and interests, including technical assistance for our manufacturing as well as service sectors to grow. Neither did it mention if we would have the privilege of being included in its Millennium Challenge Account (MCA).
However, at the joint press conference with our foreign minister, Dipu
Moni, Mrs. Clinton advised the politicians against the harmful sides of confrontational politics, stressed dialogue as the way to resolve differences for sustainable democracy and suggested holding talks among all parties to find a way for conducting a free, fair and credible election like the one held in 2008. She did not miss to pint out the negative message violent strikes including hartals send to prospective investors abroad.
We all know that and the civil society, the business community and the media have been consistently urging the political parties to give up such paths of protest. The media and the civil society have always been critical
of the government's high-handed attitude towards the opposition and its repressive tactics to stifle their voice and deny their rights to hold rallies and stage demonstrations. But its sounds like lecturing an inattentive, or delinquent, student by her/his teacher when it comes from a visiting foreign dignitary.
The US, for example, would not like a visiting political leader from Bangladesh or any other country to criticise US government for its policies in Iraq, Afghanistan or in any other third world country, or instances of human rights violations there at the hands of its security forces. But the US govern-
ment respects scathing criticism from its media and civil society for such lapses all the same.
Some of our nationalistic and leftleaning friends expressed their resentments about those comments from Mrs. Clinton. But is it for the first time that foreign diplomats, government leaders, or top executives of multilateral donor agencies lectured us from time to time on similar issues and advised us to behave as a condition for continued financial assistance? And can we really stop them advising us in that way when our political leaders themselves take bagful of complaints against their rivals when they meet foreign government leaders
abroad and also when they (foreign dignitaries) visit us?
We hope the Mrs. Clinton's words won't be lost on our political leaders, both in the government and in the opposition.
So far so good, but was it all about the US-Bangladesh talks?
Before Mrs. Clinton's visit, we noticed the arrivals in Dhaka of a number of US diplomats including Robert O. Blake, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs; Wendy Sherman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs, and Andrew Shapiro, US Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. A
US- Bangladesh dialogue on the security challenges facing the two countries was also held on April 19 in Dhaka. It indicated an intensification of the US's foreign and securities policy focus in South Asia. But there was no mention of the express interests that the US diplomats had earlier shown about stronger security ties between US and Bangladesh in the Clinton-Dipu Moni talks in Dhaka. We heard nothing about bilateral defence relationship, and shared commitment to peace and prosperity in the region, etc., in the foreign ministry level Dhaka talks.
Small wonder the speculations are still going the rounds about what, if any, talks were held in camera that the press missed.
About regional security matters under the umbrella of US or another foreign powers, the government needs to set its foreign policy priorities right. Bangladesh will never be a threat to any foreign country. So, it does not seek any protective umbrella of any foreign power. And what Bangladesh looks for from US, Canada, the European Union countries, Japan, China, Australia, Russia and our close neighbour India is stronger economic and cultural ties. We hope they will treat us as a privileged partner in our efforts to build stronger trading and commercial ties with them and other countries of the world. And before anything else, we first want to learn from their experience and expertise and develop ourselves economically. With the US in particular, we look forward to building stronger economic, cultural and people to people relations in our efforts to achieve the goal of becoming a middle income nation by 2021.
The writer is Editor, Science & Life, The Daily Star. E-mail: sfalim.ds@gmail.com