& 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

Exclusive Interview

'Hilary Clinton's visit has remarkable opportunities but challenges too'
Professor Dilara Chowdhury of the Department of Governance and Politics, Jahangirnagar University, talks to A.B.M Shamsud Doza of The Daily Star on the recent three high-profile visits.
The Daily Star (TDS): What is your assessment of the successive visits of Mrs. Hilary Clinton, Pranab Mukherjee and the deputy prime minister of Japan? Professor Dilara Chowdhury (DC): All these visits by the foreign dignitaries are very important for Bangladesh in the context that all these visitors are very influential in their respective countries.
Japan is the Bangladesh's largest bilateral donor and the deputy prime minister is the highest ranking dignitary from Japan in the recent past. We do not have any irritants with Japan. They are donors; they help us in our development. So from that point of view, it is significant that Japan will continue its support to Bangladesh.
Hilary Clinton's visit was not only important but also very significant. Bangladesh did not invite her, she sort of said: "I want to go to Bangladesh from China on my way to Kolkata." But this visit is the culmination of what has been happening in Washington. In Washington, Bangladesh's geostrategic importance has been recently recognized by Washington. The Congressional research report has recently highlighted this fact very poignantly. In the Congress, Bangladesh's geo-strategic importance has also been highlighted. Now, America has been paying renewed attention to Bangladesh as a partner because of its own interests, which are also beneficial for Bangladesh.
TDS: Please elaborate what those interests are. DC: Number one, Bangladesh is a Muslim country. And to have a Muslim country on its side is very important because it shows that America does not hate Islam. In the past, to keep this image in the Muslim world, America wanted Bangladesh's soldiers in Iraq's reconstruction and had Bangladesh agreed to send the soldiers, USA's image in the Muslim world would have enhanced.
Number two, Bangladesh has very enthusiastically joined in America's war on terror. When the 9/11 happened we gave them all facilities, air, land, everything, irrespective of BNP or Awami League. Also domestically, especially the present government, is cracking down on the radical Islamic elements or those who believe in political Islam. These actions serve USA's national interests.
Thirdly, America really wants to see a functional democracy in Bangladesh and we also want democracy. So they are mutually beneficial.
Lastly, through this visit our existing relationship
with the USA has been upgraded, in the sense that now we have a framework, and will have partnership dialogue with the US every year. That is very important because we can raise a lot of issues at this partnership dialogue with the top level, which we usually do when our foreign minister or ambassadors meet --but those are random. This is an institutional arrangement. We can raise the issue of duty free access of garments to US market, we can raise the issue of Millennium Challenge Fund that will be very beneficial to Bangladesh and the return of selfconfessed killer of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. These are all very good for Bangladesh. But I feel as a student of political science and international relations that this strategic partnership with the US poses very good opportunities for Bangladesh as well as big challenges. Security analysts foresee a crystallization of great power alignments in the Indian Ocean with regard to who is going to control the sea lanes. Russia and China have seemingly aligned in this regard, especially with regard to South China Sea. India and the US are also seemingly coming together. For Bangladesh, to join or not to join an alignment when it really emerges is going to be a big challenge. Are we going to get benefits from joining alignments or shall we benefit if we remain neutral? We have keep in mind that both India and China are our friends. We would not like to offend China nor do we want to offend India. And, of course, USA is our very good and supporting friend. Our development partner. That is where I think Bangladesh has to face a big challenge. Whether Bangladesh will be able to handle this kind of strategic dilemma is a big question. However, at this point, we are not sure about exactly will be USA's intentions are. Best to watch and then act keeping in mind that non-alignment is the corner stone of our foreign policy. Many countries have used their geo-strategic importance to further their national interests whereas many have faced tremendous difficulties. Bangladesh must also use it geo-strategic importance for enhancing our national security and interests.
How best can we use these opportunities will depend on how we act as a nation. We must unite. Unless we have a united stand on the issues which are so significant that they may affect our sovereignty and our survival, we will not be able to handle them. And, of course, we must have a functional democracy, and good governance. For example, through duty free
access of our garments to American market (if it is granted) we will earn a lot of foreign exchange, which, to some extent we done through competetion, but there is equitable distribution and because of this increasing discrimination the society will become more volatile. A society's fabric will be more affected if there good governance is absent. So, we must listen to US Foreign Minister Hillary Clinton when she said that we in Bangladesh must row our boat in the same direction because we all are in the same boat. BNP going in one direction and Awami League in the opposite direction will sink the boat. I hope, Bangladesh must face the challenges and make the best of the opportunities that have been presented to us during Mrs. Clinton's visit.
TDS: What about Pranab Mukherjee's visit? DC: Although Pranab Mukherjee is a very influential member of Union Cabinet and a close friend of Bangladesh, I had little hope about directions to solve the irritants we with India, as speculated by the newspapers. My understanding had been that he would be in no position to deliver us anything, because the decision making in India has to go through a process. He was not here to deliver any message from the Government of India. He was basically here to attend the closing ceremony of Tagore's 150th Birth Anniversary. But he did try to allay Bangladesh's anxiety. About Teesta, he said that they were going to try to have a national consensus about sharing of Teesta water. In that case, my question is why a consensus about Teesta only? There should be a national consensus with regard to water sharing of all the common rivers. Bangladesh government could have asked for more detail about it. So, it seem that we really did not get anything concrete fromMr. Pranab Mukherjee's recent visit except that out of $1 billion loan $200 million would be an outright grant. But is it just peanuts? However, it was a friendly visit and we have welcomed him with open heart. But as a citizen of Bangladesh I am disappointed.
TDS: How do you evaluate India's view on river interlinking project that they would link their national rivers only?
DC: Bangladesh government could have asked for more clarifications about what India exactly means by national rivers. Keep this mind that during the Pakistan period, while the negotiation was going on between the then Pakistan government and India with regard to Ganges water sharing, from 1952 till 1960, India claimed Ganges as its national river and did not recognize it as an international river. So what are these national rivers? How are they going to connect them? These questions could have been raised by Bangladesh.
TDS: Thank you DC: Thank you too.