US double standards to the fore

WHILE India avoids interference in the internal affairs of its neighbours, it faces the prospect of having differences with the US when it comes to Washington’s dealings with nations such as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Pakistan has had long phases under military rule. The US extended support to several military rulers, ranging from Field Marshal Ayub Khan to Gen Yahya Khan, Gen Zia-ul-Haq and Gen Pervez Musharraf. Poll-bound Pakistan’s present army chief, Gen Syed Asim Munir, was received with enthusiasm in Washington last month. General Munir is a protégé of his predecessor, Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, who enjoyed a close relationship with the US. It is no secret that the US has direct channels to deal with the Pakistan army when it wants to bypass the elected government. Coups by the Pakistan army have almost invariably been approved by the US military establishment.

Advertisement

There are also unanswered questions related to Mujibur’s assassination, with two of his self-confessed killers living comfortably in the US and Canada.

Pakistan’s military rulers have also had a cosy relationship with American Presidents. In contrast, US ties with Bangladesh have been less than enthusiastic or friendly. This has notably been so during the rule of the Bangladesh Awami League, established by the country’s founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman; the party was voted to power recently for the fourth time in a row. It is remarkable that in the years following Bangladesh’s liberation in 1971, the US has, for various reasons, extended support to political parties with right-wing religious inclinations, such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by Gen Ziaur Rahman. Its approach to the secular Awami League has been very different.

Nothing appears to have changed the US policy on Bangladesh. Washington took the lead in launching a tirade over the parliamentary elections conducted earlier this month by Sheikh Hasina’s government. Hasina is unquestionably the country’s most popular leader today. As far as India is concerned, parties like the Begum Khaleda Zia-led BNP have a less than friendly approach to relations with New Delhi. There are also unanswered questions related to Mujibur’s assassination, with two of his self-confessed killers living comfortably in the US and Canada.

India now faces new challenges in its foreign policy. It has to be borne in mind that the US takes a less than consistent view in its much-touted promotion of democracy. In the meantime, the Pakistan army is playing a dominant role in ensuring, in league with some Opposition leaders, that former PM Imran Khan, who leads the Tehreek-e-Insaf Party, is kept away from the portals of power. Imran is also not particularly loved in the US and will be shunned. Through its early years, after it was founded by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the Pakistan People’s Party was similarly viewed with suspicion in the West. Bhutto was seen as a pro-Chinese leftist. His daughter Benazir worked hard to allay US suspicions about her party’s inclinations, with some success.

In the meantime, Pakistan will have to think carefully before sponsoring terrorist groups. It has now been revealed by the UN that Hafiz Saeed, the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) leader who masterminded the 26/11 Mumbai attack, has been jailed for 78 years, commencing in 2020. He was charged with terror financing. It, however, remains to be seen if he has genuinely been ‘jailed’ or is living as comfortably as before under the ISI’s patronage. Hopefully, Pakistan understands that India can up the ante if the likes of Saeed run riot again.

No tears were shed in Washington when Bhutto was overthrown and hanged after a military coup led by General Zia. The latter joined Washington in making life miserable for the Soviet forces in Afghanistan; the Soviets were forced to undertake an ignominious withdrawal. Pakistan was, in turn, rewarded by the Pentagon with a liberal supply of F-16 fighters and other military equipment during what was then also regarded as a US-China honeymoon.

Pakistan remains an economic basket case, heavily dependent on US/IMF/World Bank support. China, however, remains Pakistan’s principal supporter, providing it nuclear and conventional military equipment. China continues to supply designs and funds for Pakistan’s nuclear weapon and missile programmes. China also provides significant assistance for infrastructure development to Pakistan for its much-touted Belt and Road Initiative. China, however, very rarely gives concessional cash assistance, which Pakistan desperately needs, in convertible currencies like the dollar. Moreover, the US has invariably turned a blind eye to China’s N-weapon and missile cooperation with Pakistan, despite claiming to be a champion of global nuclear non-proliferation.

These are realities that India has to constantly bear in mind. India and the US now have a common interest in dealing with growing Chinese power and assertiveness across the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and the Southern Pacific Region. While India and the US have broadly cooperated on security issues in the IOR, India’s historical experience has been one of continuing differences with the US on its approach to relations with some political parties, and most importantly, to the army in Pakistan.

The Biden administration has adopted a policy of persistent criticism of the Bangladesh government led by Hasina. This barrage has continued after the Awami League’s landslide victory in the recent elections, which were dubbed as neither free nor fair by the US. This is in stark contrast to the praise that the US has lavished on Pakistan’s military dictators for ‘promoting democracy’.

Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping welcomed Hasina’s victory. She has made efforts to improve relations with China and India instead of seeking to benefit from their differences.

One hopes that quiet diplomacy will facilitate the resolution of India’s differences with the US on Bangladesh. It would be in the interest of both countries to move in that direction.