& 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

STRATEGICALLY SPEAKING

The new partnership!
Bangla DESK had the honour to host two very important personalities on the same day from two different hemispheres of the
globe and from two different countries with two different historical associations with us.
One a very close neighbour that had helped Bangladesh to achieve its independence while the other did everything short of physical intervention to prevent it, and thereafter for a time, did everything to thwart its results.
One finds it difficult to forget the sufferings caused to our people by the disruption of PL-480 in 1974 which resulted in the manmade famine in Bangladesh. It was bad example of food aid being used to put pressure on a newly independent country.
I deliberately reflect on the past to show how things have changed over the span of forty years and to reinforce the thesis propounded very recently by George Friedman that the geopolitical cycles change with each generation. And some would attribute terrorism to that change because of the manner "geopolitical cycles have intersected with changes in the way the tactic of terrorism is employed and in the actors employing it."
I would venture to suggest that terrorism, or, more specifically, the so-called Islamic terrorism, was made an excuse to initiate actions by the US to seek new partners in their so-called war on terror to justify illegal occupation of a free country and regime-change. There has been a distinct paradigm shift in approach due to this where strategic discards became front-line states in the GOWT. The role of Pakistan is a stark reminder of the geopolitical cycle change after 9/11. And the Bangladesh-US Partnership Dialogue Agreement could be another example; but the Indian
foreign minister's visit first.
Pranab Mukherjee's visit, although programmed long ago, appeared to be somewhat bland because it coincided with that of the world's most powerful woman -- the US Secretary of State. The Indian finance minister’s presence had to do with a cultural event; Hilary Clinton's with more serious affairs. Apart from participating in the closing ceremony of Tagore's 15O'h Anniversary of birth the only word of strategic significance that came from him was very discouraging. We
with India, with Bangladesh as one of the many smaller nations in support role. But we will leave speculations aside and dwell on what is more tangible.
Certainly it would seem that there is a sudden urge on the part of the US to enter into "security partnership" with various countries. It would not be remiss to suggest that the US plan to associate Bangladesh, that was once considered a tiny speck in the backwaters of the Bay of Bengal, in a strategic partnership, is motivated by the
have a long grind in front of us as far as Teesta is concerned and much of it because of the Congress' lack of majority in the parliament.
Mrs. Clinton's visit did raise some eyebrows and provoke variegated comments. And those ranged from the innocuous to the "encircle-China-strategy" in collaboration
outcomes of the Afghan war.
The agreement articulates very pious thoughts but if one allows ones imagination to wander a bit one might find the "Bangladesh-US Partnership Dialogue" imitating, if not the substance entirely, at least the caption of the US-Afghanistan "Special-Partnership Agreement"
signed in April this year between the two countries in Kabul. That, for one thing, ensures the continued presence of US forces, particularly of its Special Operation Forces, well beyond 2014, and for another, it does not substantially alter the current operation status of the SOF, i.e. it can still undertake night raids without having to have it vetted by Karzai.
Although the Bangladesh-US agreement is an expression of intent to engage in dialogue to collaborate on different issues, the natural question is what sort of partnership is one talking about? While one understands the socio-economic elements one would need more details about the security component of the "Dialogue" and how the US sees Bangladesh participating in, "Security cooperation, including in combating terrorism, violent extremism, and transnational crime, such as narcotics trafficking, piracy, and trafficking in persons and arms?" The rubric is too large to be left to one's guess.
The joint declaration for the partnership dialogue must be seen in the context of the developments in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The war on terror had shifted to South Asia, with Afghanistan being the focus, in the last half decade. And it will not end with the departure of the US and ISAF after 2014. Experts are divided on the future equation between the US and Pakistan, each putting the blame on the other for the failure in Afghanistan. And there is increasing pressure on Pakistan to take out the Pakistani Taliban and deny sanctuary to the al-Qaeda leaders. If these come about can the largest "Muslim democracy" become a refuge for these elements who might find their stay in Pakistan no longer tenable? And that is the crux of the matter.
While one must welcome partnership with any country that helps alleviate our socio-economic condition are we in a position to suffer the kind of security partnership that, for example, Pakistan has had to?
The author is Editor, Oped and Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.