Ibne Siraj :
It’s easy to see why US foreign policy is always so strongly biased against leftist governments: there are still substantial remnants of US anti-communism, the pillar upon which most of Washington’s foreign policy rested from the beginning of the Cold War until the fall of Soviet Union in 1991. During the Cold War polarization, a strong tradition of US anti-leftism became deeply rooted. And even though 25 years have now passed since the collapse of Russian communism, there is still a fixed expectation, both at home and in the world, that the US will always oppose leftist governments such as Venezuela’s, while glossing over the faults of rightist states. Anti-communist habits of thought also help explain why, two and a half decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, US press and media still retain a strong right-sided bias. A reflexive “anti-communist” miasma of condemnation subtly permeates the atmosphere when any domestic policy appears to lean leftward. As long as reactive hatred of communism and reactive fear of terrorism combine to lock the US political dialog into a tiny pen, there’s a little hope that the world people will hear sensible policy discussion any time soon.
Both Russia and China are fully aware of the role of the specific western NGOs in organizing, orchestrating, and instigating so-called ‘protests’ in their targeted countries. So, the question is, why are they so reluctant to take a decisive action, and cut out the roots of the evil? The only answer that fits, and makes sense out of this puzzling riddle, is the fact that both Russia and China are the lands of the Freshly Minted Billionaires. The interests of these billionaires are more aligned with their fellow billionaires in the west than with their own compatriots. These billionaires, collectively, yield enormous power and control over their respective governmental apparatus-they, in fact, made their billions by virtue of having such a control. The billionaires in both Russia and China, like in any other country, work in concert with their counterparts in the west. They all need each other’s help and support in getting the policies that ensure their collective survival implemented globally. They all support and participate, directly or indirectly, in a variety of clandestine operations to subvert and destabilize the governments that pose any threat to them. They all have vested interests in these NGOs that facilitate their doings.
The leadership in Beijing, of course, has every reason to worry that the calls for democracy could spread to the mainland, and have been aggressively censoring news and social media comments about the Hong Kong demonstrations. The Hong Kong protest movement puts Beijing in a difficult position. Cracking down too hard could shake confidence in market-driven Hong Kong economy, while not reacting firmly enough could embolden dissidents on the mainland. It is a tough call for Beijing-whatever actions they chose to take, and whatever the outcome of the events, the end result is not going to be favorable to the Beijing leadership. But, the encouraging development, with Beijing’ perspective, is that many Hong Kongers, especially the older generation and business people, are realizing that they have a lot more freedom now than they had under the British rule. These mature Hong Kongers are getting fed up with the Occupy Protesters, and are organizing themselves to come out to counter the occupiers. If the residents of Hong Kong end up tackling their own reckless elements, without the use of force by the authorities, it will be a big break for Beijing.
Anyhow, the entire western media is in a state of ecstasy, bull horning the progression of the events by the minute. It is shouting, “If this one gets out of control, the Chinese President will also lose face”. US Secretary of State John Kerry had the audacity to give the sermon to visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, declaring, “We support universal suffrage in Hong Kong accordant with the Basic Law, and we believe in open society with the highest possible degree of autonomy and governed by rule of law is essential for Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity. The United States has consistently supported the open system that is essential to Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, universal suffrage, and the aspiration of the Hong Kong people”.
The same western NGOs like NDI are active in Bangladesh, having close links with those who are leading the society. Especially, the NDI had series of meetings and interactions in the past with politicians, members of the civil society and business leaders. As the western countries led by the United States are still not supporting Bangladesh’s January 5 election, such NGOs may dare flaring up demonstration in Dhaka as they are doing reportedly in Hong Kong. On Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s sharp diplomatic acumen, Senior Journalist Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury in a post editorial published in a leading English daily said, “No doubt her past efforts and present tour had a good effect on US State Department and moderated their attitude on the election of 5th January in Bangladesh. So long America was critical of this election, now the outgoing American Ambassador Dan Mozena has said America is not concerned about a mid-term election in Bangladesh. Only the people of Bangladesh will decide about it, we have nothing to say.” This proves the change of American attitude towards the last parliament election held in Bangladesh.
India, which regards the BNP as anti-Indian and pro-Chinese, is backing Sheikh Hasina against international and domestic criticism of the January 5 elections. China, which does not want to strain relations with Bangladesh, has also accepted the precedent government in Bangladesh as legitimate. The US, however, is applying concerted pressure on Hasina, exploiting the election crisis. At a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Nisha Desai Biswal, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, has reiterated Washington’s call for new polls in Bangladesh. Biswal also depicted the US as worried about the plight of garment workers, urging the Hasina government to take more steps to address safety conditions in the clothing factories. Mozena also sounded the same at a meeting with the Economic Reporters Forum (ERF), saying the GSP facilities for Bangladeshi products would be restored in the US market if the conditions in the garment factories improved as prescribed by Washington. Biswal has indicated in her speech that Bangladesh is of “strategic importance” to the US. It is now clear that Washington wants to undermine Dhaka’s economic, trade and defence links with China, as part of the Obama administration’s “re-balancing” to Asia in order to isolate and militarily encircle China.
Earlier, Mozena held a one-hour meeting with BNP Chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia and later told reporters that he conveyed Biswal’s presentation in Washington and said, “The US interaction with the sitting government is not business as usual.” However, he added that the US would “continue to engage with this government in support of all our programs for the people of Bangladesh.” According to Mozena, the US aid to Bangladesh would continue to help Bangladesh on a case-by-case basis.
In other words, the Obama administration is simultaneously appeasing and ratcheting up the pressure on the Hasina government to bring it into line with Washington’s geo-strategic interests. Despite the Hasina government’s efforts to consolidate its power, the social unrest and political crisis continue. This is exacerbated by Washington’s efforts to exploit the turmoil for its own purposes as it seeks to undermine China’s economic and political influence in the region.
(Ibne Siraj is a regular contributor of The New Nation)
