The ‘orchestrated revolution’ has struck Bangladesh hard, leading to a regime change in the country. This ‘coup’ has brought Muhammad Yunus to power, who now leads the interim government under strict military supervision.
The ‘coup’ has exacerbated the socio-political crisis within Bangladesh and carries significant geopolitical implications for South Asia and the Indo-Pacific. A key aspect of the current political crisis suggests that external state actors and certain international NGOs played pivotal roles in orchestrating this crisis. In this context, three external state actors—the US, China, and Pakistan—are believed to be prominently involved. Likewise, NGOs such as the Soros Foundation are also being cited for their roles in staging the coup that led to the overthrow of the Hasina government.
One may recall that the Soros Foundation played a prominent role in orchestrating ‘revolutions’ in the post-Soviet space and during the Arab Spring in the WANA region. Strategically, both the WANA region and the post-Soviet space are considered part of the “heartland”, as enunciated by British geographer Halford Mackinder in 1919. These regions have undergone significant geopolitical reconfigurations, which have had a profound impact on global geopolitics, as evident from the onset of the Russia-Ukraine war and the Syrian Cauldron. Thus, it is important to underline that the current coup in Bangladesh will have a deep impact on South Asian geopolitics and, more broadly, on the Indo-Pacific region.
Four pertinent questions need to be addressed when considering the geopolitical consequences of the Bangladesh crisis:
Should Bangladesh’s strategic location be considered before assessing the geopolitical consequences of the current coup?
To what extent have external actors—the US, China, and Pakistan—fomented political turbulence in Bangladesh, and what are the broader geopolitical repercussions?
Did the Soros Foundation play a role in ousting Hasina from power?
What are the consequences of the current geopolitical developments for South Asia and the Indo-Pacific?
Bangladesh’s geo-strategic location
Due to its strategic location, Bangladesh occupies a pivotal position in both global and South Asian geopolitics. It commands a significant portion of the Bay of Bengal and plays a vital role in the Indo-Pacific region. This positions Bangladesh as a strategic gateway, connecting South Asia with Southeast Asia. Bangladesh shares borders with India, China, Myanmar, Nepal, and Bhutan, further highlighting its importance in the Indo-Pacific.
In April 2023, Bangladesh outlined its Indo-Pacific vision, emphasising, “As a littoral state of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh considers stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific to be crucial in realising its Vision 2041.” The vision also underscored the importance of “a free, open, peaceful, secure, and inclusive Indo-Pacific for the shared prosperity of all.”
Bangladesh’s Indo-Pacific vision reflects its desire to integrate more deeply into the region’s geopolitics, recognising the significant benefits for Dhaka. For example, due to its strategic location, Bangladesh is a member of BIMSTEC, SAARC, and sub-regional cooperation bodies such as the BBIN (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal) initiative, which fosters trade and connectivity. Thus, Bangladesh has played a crucial role in both regional and global contexts, leveraging its geo-strategic location to enhance geo-economic connectivity over the years.
Along with this, a key point of contention in the current crisis is St Martin’s Island, located in the northeastern part of Bangladesh, near the northwest border of Myanmar. Despite being a relatively small strip of land, covering just 8 sq km, the island holds significant strategic importance. It serves as a crucial link between the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean, making it a gateway to Southeast Asia. Its proximity to both India and China further underscores its strategic value.
A parallel can be drawn between St Martin’s Island and Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean that hosted a US military naval base during the Cold War.
Thus, the ongoing crisis in Bangladesh can be viewed through a geopolitical lens, as external powers like the US, China, and Pakistan are seeking to exploit the situation to advance their respective strategic objectives. It is essential to examine the geopolitical interests of these three powers to understand the underlying dynamics of the current crisis in Bangladesh.
US’s ‘Democratic Geopolitics’ and the Bangladesh crisis
As numerous studies suggest, the United States is a significant driving force behind the current orchestrated revolution in Bangladesh. Washington’s primary strategic objective is to assert itself as a key player in Asian geopolitics and the Indo-Pacific security architecture. Since the Biden administration began re-engaging with Asia after the setback in Afghanistan in 2021, the US has been striving to re-establish its influence in South Asian geopolitics as part of its broader strategy to counterbalance China.
It is also worth noting that US policymakers are increasingly focused on exerting greater dominance over the Bay of Bengal, which is viewed as a crucial vantage point in the Indo-Pacific strategy. The concept of the “grey zone” in Indo-Pacific geopolitics has further deepened Washington’s strategic interest in Bangladesh. This interest is reflected in the US National Defense Strategy 2022, which stated that Washington “will promote prosperity and economic connectivity across the Indian Ocean region.”
To expand its maritime geopolitical influence and secure greater control, Washington has shown interest in acquiring St Martin’s Island and developing a naval base there. This would allow the US to ensure its strategic dominance in the region. Controlling the geopolitics of South Asia and Southeast Asia, while simultaneously countering China’s expansionist policies through a strategy of encirclement, are among the US’s key objectives. Establishing greater influence through a friendly government in Dhaka could help Washington achieve these strategic goals.
Although US policymakers have repeatedly denied having strategic interests in Bangladesh, the underlying currents of US policy suggest otherwise. This was also confirmed by the deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who, after her resignation, remarked, “I could have remained in power if I had left St Martin and the Bay of Bengal to America.” Hasina had previously expressed her concerns in April 2023, fearing that a regime change might occur under US influence if she did not align with Washington’s strategic interests. She accused the US of “trying to eliminate democracy and introduce a government that will not have a democratic existence. It’ll be an undemocratic action,” as widely reported in Bangladeshi newspapers. Without directly naming the interim Prime Minister Muhammad Yunus, Hasina implied that “they were accompanied by another person who built a business out of accumulating interest on loans. That person was dear to the United States. The US never raised the question of how the head of Grameen Bank, a legally registered social business organisation, had millions of dollars. Did they ever ask about the source of money at home and abroad?”
From Hasina’s above statement, it is quite clear that she had long anticipated the overthrow of her regime. She even named Yunus as her likely replacement in the above statement, which proved true. Despite maintaining robust ties with Bangladesh, the US administration banned many of Dhaka’s officials for electoral irregularities, as a means of pressuring the Hasina government. Additionally, Washington repeatedly criticised Dhaka for human rights violations.
It may be recalled here that US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu, known for his involvement in regime changes in the post-Soviet space, visited Bangladesh several times, raising suspicions about the US’s intent to remove Hasina. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan also accused Lu of orchestrating regime change in Pakistan. In an interview with Voice of America in June 2024, shortly after his visit to Bangladesh in May 2024, Lu emphasised issues of democracy and human rights. He stated, “The United States staunchly supports free and fair elections and is firmly committed to promoting respect for human rights.” This position of Lu reflects Washington’s desire to have a friendly regime in Dhaka that can carry out the dictates of the United States.
It has also been argued that the Soros Foundation, the organisation responsible for orchestrating the Colour Revolutions in the post-Soviet space as well as the Arab Spring, played a role in the current crisis in Bangladesh. This is supported by the fact that interim Prime Minister Yunus has a close relationship with George Soros. As reported by the Bangladesh newspaper The Daily Star in 2012, the Soros Foundation provided a loan of $11 million to the Grameen Phone network in Bangladesh, which is operated by Grameen Bank under Yunus’s leadership. It has also been reported that Soros funneled significant funds into Bangladesh under the guise of aiding Rohingya refugees. Thus, it proves that Yunus is a stooge of Soros.
It is no coincidence that Yunus assumed the role of interim Prime Minister immediately after his return from the US; rather, it was part of a well-planned strategy that orchestrated the revolution in Bangladesh, leading to the current political crisis. It should be noted that China and Russia have been increasing their influence in Bangladesh, which has significantly alarmed the US administration over the years. Although the US government has denied any involvement in the regime change that led to the ousting of the Hasina government, suspicion remains regarding the Biden Administration’s role.
The US’ use of ‘democratic geopolitics’, as outlined by American geopolitical thinkers like Alfred Thayer Mahan, Nicholas John Spykman, and more recently, Samuel Huntington, appears to have been employed to overthrow the Hasina government. Washington has a history of using “democracy promotion” as a tool to expand its geopolitical interests, a strategy that became more evident in the post-1991 era, reflecting the tone and direction of American foreign policy.
Like the US, China’s role in the current crisis in Bangladesh has also come under scrutiny.
China’s ‘Middle Kingdom Complex’
Like the US, China is eager to strengthen its influence in Bangladesh due to the country’s geo-strategic location. Bangladesh is a part of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative, and its strategic position makes it crucial in China’s strategic calculations. The Bangladesh-China-Myanmar economic corridor is particularly significant for China, and Bangladesh’s involvement in this corridor highlights its importance. Additionally, China has been involved in constructing key infrastructure projects in Bangladesh, including the Chittagong port.
However, China is wary of US actions in the Indo-Pacific, as any adverse strategic developments in the region could significantly impact Chinese interests. Furthermore, China has long been apprehensive about Bangladesh’s close relationship with India under Hasina’s leadership. The former Prime Minister repeatedly favoured India, including granting India leverage over the strategic Chittagong and Mangla ports, which greatly displeased China. It has been suggested that China collaborated with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to undermine India-Bangladesh relations during Hasina’s tenure.
Observers have noted that China appears to have a soft spot for the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh (JIB), and its student wing, Islami Chhatra Shibir. These radical groups played a significant role in orchestrating the revolution that led to Hasina’s ousting. During her visit to China in July 2024, Sheikh Hasina expressed her displeasure with the treatment she received from Chinese authorities. She strongly criticised China for failing to fulfil its promises, including financial assistance. This criticism reportedly irritated the Chinese leadership, and Hasina’s visit received minimal coverage in the Chinese mainstream media.
A series of developments during Hasina’s tenure as Prime Minister strained relations between Bangladesh and China. In this context, China may be pleased with the ouster of the Hasina government. The interim government led by Yunus could align well with Chinese interests, given that the BNP and the radical group JIB are part of the current administration. The invitation extended by Beijing to the caretaker Prime Minister Yunus suggests that China is keen to bring Yunus into its orbit. China’s policy towards Bangladesh reflects its expansionist ambitions, in line with Beijing’s longstanding strategic doctrine of the Middle Kingdom complex. This approach could contribute to future political instability in Bangladesh.
The current political standoff in Bangladesh also indicates the involvement of Pakistan and the Sino-Pakistani nexus in orchestrating the recent coup.
Pakistan’s role in Bangladesh’s radicalisation
Like the US and China, Pakistan also played a role in ousting the Hasina regime from power. The JIB and its student wing were instrumental in orchestrating the street protests that led to the regime’s downfall. The JIB traces its origins to the radical theology of Pakistan’s Islamist ideologue Maududi, who opposed Western democracy and advocated for the creation of a theocratic state governed by Sharia law. Even in 1971, the JIB colluded with Pakistan to thwart the creation of Bangladesh. Though it did not succeed, the group remains a significant force in Bangladesh’s politics, perpetuating radicalism within the country.
This gave Pakistan an opportunity to leverage its long-standing ally, the JIB, to sow disorder in Bangladesh. Eliza Griswold, a New York Times analyst, explored the rise of radicalism in Bangladesh in an article titled ‘The Next Islamist Revolution?’ published in January 2005, noting that “Jamaat-e-Islami, which agitated against independence in 1971, remains close to Pakistan.”
Griswold’s observation is supported by the fact that, in the past, the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry accused the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh of aiding radical groups, according to news reports. This led to the expulsion of Pakistani embassy officials from Bangladesh in 2015. The diplomatic standoff between Bangladesh and Pakistan further escalated when Dhaka recalled its High Commissioner from Islamabad in protest the same year. In 2018, Bangladesh also refused to accredit Saqlain Syedah as Pakistan’s High Commissioner and subsequently denied visas to Pakistani nationals, fearing it would contribute to further radicalisation in Bangladesh.
Pakistan’s continuous support to the radical and terrorist groups operating in Bangladesh is one of the factors responsible for irritants between the two countries. During Hasina’s regime, Bangladesh repeatedly requested that Pakistan cease its support for JIB radicals and their affiliates, but Pakistan persisted in providing both overt and covert assistance. Hasina had also accused the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh and the notorious ISI (the Pakistani intelligence agency) of inciting the JIB and its affiliated group, Islamic Chhatra Shibir, to stir trouble in the country, according to news reports. It is worth noting that just before her ousting, Hasina banned the JIB in Bangladesh, but this action came too late. She might have averted the crisis had she implemented the ban earlier.
Similarly, news reports suggest that Pakistan-backed JIB orchestrated many of the riots during the anti-quota protests that affected Bangladesh. The lifting of the ban on JIB and Islamic Chhatra Shibir by the current Yunus government indicates a troubling trend towards the radicalisation of Bangladesh’s political landscape. This shift gives Pakistan a strategic advantage in Bangladeshi politics.
From this analysis, it can be inferred that external powers such as the US, China, and Pakistan played crucial roles in the removal of the Hasina government. This development is expected to have profound geopolitical repercussions.
Geopolitical consequences of Bangladesh crisis
The violent political upheaval in Bangladesh, following the forced removal of the Hasina government, will have profound repercussions not only on the domestic political landscape but also on the geopolitics of South Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indo-Pacific at large. This situation can be compared to the geopolitical developments observed in the post-Soviet space and the West Asia and North Africa region.
Regime changes through “orchestrated revolutions” in these regions elevated geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the US. Similarly, the Bangladesh crisis is poised to trigger a new phase of strategic realignment and security dilemmas in the Indo-Pacific, where China and the US are likely to come into conflict. Bangladesh could become a focal point of this new Cold War, given both China’s and the US’s strategic interests in the region, including control over the Bay of Bengal and crucial ports in Bangladesh and Myanmar, which are key to controlling the Malacca Straits. Consequently, the ripple effects of the Bangladesh crisis are likely to impact South China’s geopolitics. In this context, an increased US influence in Bangladeshi politics could affect China’s submarine base at Cox’s Bazar.
The radicalisation of Bangladesh’s politics, particularly with the tacit approval of the interim Yunus government, will have detrimental effects on Bangladesh’s domestic politics and the broader regions of South and Southeast Asia. Prolonged political instability is expected to influence geopolitical developments in South Asia and the Indo-Pacific.
Conclusion
Considering the issues discussed above, it is evident that Bangladesh’s geopolitical positioning, coupled with the interests of external powers like the US, China, and Pakistan, has intensified the current geopolitical turmoil in Bangladesh. These external actors have exploited the internal political disturbances within the country, further exacerbating the political stalemate. Thus, it can be stated that Bangladesh is paying a significant price for its strategic location.
The author teaches at the School of International Studies, JNU, New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
Source link : http://www.bing.com/news/apiclick.aspx?ref=FexRss&aid=&tid=66d809d746d74533bc5c9848dda242a3&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.firstpost.com%2Fopinion%2Fgeopolitical-consequences-of-orchestrated-revolution-in-bangladesh-13811550.html&c=9112160644459251024&mkt=en-us
Author :
Publish date : 2024-09-03 19:05:00
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.