Published
on
By
The Shangri-La Dialogue, is a forum for discussion among government ministers and senior officials, as well as business leaders and security experts, on Asia’s evolving security challenges. The setting for the 19th Shangri-La Dialogue was held amid the geopolitical rivalry between the US and China. The SLD was based on the Munich Conference on Security Policy, with the point of divergence being the establishment of a Track One organization. Initially, invitations were extended to ASEAN members in order to serve as a regional security system.
After two years of hiatus caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the discussion was restarted in Singapore in 2022 and attracted more than 500 official representatives from 59 nations. The Shangri-La Dialogue 2022 (SLD22organization) was a success in and of itself since it showed how confident and determined the area was to resume business following a two-year break caused by Covid-19. Many Asian thinkers extrapolated the summit as the struggle between the “rule of law” and the “right of might” because of its resumed under the specter of War in Ukraine. The debates indicated that the outcome of the geopolitical battle between the United States and China will have a significant impact on Asia’s future by offering a much-needed sketch and update on the military dynamics in the area. Preserving the rules-based order, China’s interests, and the future of Asia and regional cooperation have emerged as the dialogue’s three key issues.
Rebalancing Asia and America
Pandemic, climate change, nuclear threats from North Korea, coercion by stronger governments against their smaller neighbors, and brutality and murder from the junta in Myanmar are just a few of the problems the area is facing. The platform could be the best platform for mitigating the USA and China’s conflictual points by bringing the two countries’ defense leaders, diplomats, strategic thinkers, journalists, and business leaders for examination of the most pressing challenges to regional security and prosperity. But the dialogue has seen the competitive mind of the two countries’ delegates. It has also seen a strong division between the USA alliance- Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and China. The idea of the Indo-Pacific has been discussed mostly in the dialogue. During the first plenary session, the Secretary of Defense of the United States delivered his speech on ‘Next Steps for the United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy’. In his remark, he has clearly mentioned how the United States has provided support to the region after the Covid-19 pandemic and Asian partners’ commitment to ‘free and inclusive and rule-based Indo-Pacific’. The Secretary of Defense has highlighted the largest budget of 2023 for the region under the Biden administration. And almost 300,000 USA military personnel are stationed in the region and USA’s Pacific Deterrence Initiative costs almost $6.1 billion for strengthening multilateral information sharing and support training and experimentation with the regional partners.
On the other side, in the fifth plenary session, the State Councilor and Defense Minister of the People’s Republic of China, Wei Fenghe delivered his speech on ‘China’s Vision For Regional Order’. He mentioned the four points of China’s vision on its belief in a multipolar region system. One, the countries should strengthen solidarity and coordination and oppose confrontation and division. Second, Instead of being controlled by a single nation or a small number of nations, world affairs should be managed through consultation among all interested parties. Third, the states should uphold sovereign equality of all nations and say no to bullying and might makes right. Fourth, states should promote exchanges and mutual learning and oppose the practice of closing the door and excluding others.
We all know the powerful countries are engaged in a geostrategic competition over Asia. During the dialogue, the United States and its SLD22 partners, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, blamed China for “unilateral attempts to change the status quo” and its “more coercive and aggressive approach to its territorial claims.” China’s defense minister accused the US of attempting to “hijack” the support of Asia-Pacific countries in order to turn them against Beijing, claiming that Washington is seeking to advance its own interests “under the guise of multilateralism.”
Developing New Ideas for Regional Security
The Shangri-La Dialogue serves a useful purpose of getting Asia-Pacific leaders to talk to each other and establish the kind of personal links that could help to counter regional hostility and dialogue helps to find a better idea for regional security. In the interconnected world, the tension between Russia and the West over the Ukraine issue has directly impacted Asia’s regional security. Many state leaders perceive the conflict as a new cold war and a fight between two ideologies. From that point, the speakers of the dialogue vividly pointed out a few key points.
Firstly, Asia is a diverse and pluralistic region, and a battle would be unlikely to attract many participants. Asia has its own disputes which are different from the West as disagreements in the East and South China seas, cross-strait tensions, instability on the Korean Peninsula and clashes in the Sino-Indian and India–Pakistan borders. There is no clash based on ideologies; autocracy versus democracy. Secondly, the multilateral liberal internationalist system proudly embraced collective security, economic openness, and social progress after the Second World War. But now the region is facing common and trans-boundary threats, which demands a new idea of regional security along with cooperating multilateral system through ASEAN, UN, BIMSTEC, and APEC. During the speech of the Malaysian delegate, he rightfully mentioned the new idea of giving priority to small countries and small groups. He shared the example of the Trilateral Cooperation Agreement (TCA), which was established by Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines in response to a wave of kidnappings and terrorist attacks by militant organizations in the middle of 2016. A crucial component of a defense strategy is security reform and cooperation. From that point of view, the benefit of small grouping contributes to the understanding of the significance of the great-power system in matters of international security.
Military Modernization and New Defense Capabilities
The security situation on a global and regional scale is becoming more unstable, unclear, complex, and ambiguous. As a result, defense and security institutions are compelled to keep up with global trends as reflected in the dynamics of their security environment, such as in the Pacific region. Asia is currently involved in arms race, and at the summit, the build-up and tightening of alliances were hardly hidden. In the region, though China’s budget for arms and military is seen other countries of the region are also expanding for military and defense. Though modernizing the military and defense system is costly for the region, modernization is taking place in a more specific environment in the Asia-Pacific region where key powers are engaged in geopolitical conflict with one another. South Korean Defense Minister Lee Jong-sup stated at the Singapore meeting that his country would strengthen its defense capabilities and collaborate closely with the US and Japan to counter North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. With modernizing technologies and sharing information and intelligence among the countries, the idea of mutual respect, non-interference, harmony, and solidarity should also promote for maintaining regional peace, stability, and prosperity.
Concerns That Should Be Addressed
The Ukraine war has changed Asia’s political atmosphere. Politically, the Ukraine war has already caused a rift in Asia. Japan and Korea are concerned about China and, as might be expected, have joined the United States in condemning Russia. Japan collaborated with the United States and the G-7 to impose sanctions on Russian financial institutions. In addition to a $300 million financial and humanitarian help package, Japan has given Ukraine drones, bulletproof clothing, helmets, and other defensive supplies. On the other side, North Korea recognized the independence of both the DPR and the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), another pro-Russian separatist territory in Ukraine’s Donbas region on July 13, 2022. To counter China, the USA will try to strengthen its engagement in Asia through the ASEAN, QUAD, and IPEF. In 2020, the US government approved the potential sale to Taiwan of 100 Boeing-built Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems, three weapons systems comprised of missiles, sensors, and artillery, and four sophisticated aerial drones.
In the SLD-2022, we have seen a straight division of the world leaders. The balance of economic power is shifting inexorably towards the Asia Pacific which is the 60 percent of people’s living place. The Asia-Pacific region faces the same security challenges as other regions. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has highlighted several challenges it shares with Europe in particular, ranging from managing regional security flashpoints to maintaining a rules-based order. The annual meeting in Singapore, which was held for the first time since 2019 due to the pandemic, was usually dominated by US-China relations, but this year, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was in the spotlight. The SLD is also called Asia’s security dialogue. The dialogue presents an open platform for discussing the government’s policy which will usher the ray of integration between Asia and the west.
Is ‘NATO-ization’ of Finland the end of ‘Finlandization’ in Europe?
Aditi Chakrovorty is currently working as a Senior Research Associate at The Center for Bangladesh and Global Affairs (CBGA, https://www.cbgabd.org/) ,Bangladesh. Ms. Aditi has completed her B.S.S and M.S.S from the department of International Relations, University of Dhaka. She also received BRI fellowship of China. She can be reached: aditichakrovorty[at]gmail.com
How likely is a nuclear WW III, U.S.-China?
How CNN lies about Taiwan
South Asian Economic Chaos: It’s High Time Rising Above Geopolitics
“No longer analyze Asia with European eyes”, says French expert in Bucharest conference
Drones and transport could reshape Eurasian geopolitics
Heroes and American Politics
Published
on
By
The brutal Russia-Ukraine war threatening to go on for “as long as it takes” is believed to be why Finland and Sweden sought NATO membership. On the day NATO leaders gathered in Madrid, a retired US Army Lt. Col. called the move “a US mistake.” Some critics in the West also reckon expanding NATO is not only “bad news for America,” it is more a threat than a boost to Europe. Besides, as US and NATO celebrate the two Nordic countries losing their neutrality, Biden’s claims have come under scrutiny that the two states are willingly entering the Organization.
The news from Madrid was that NATO has formalized its invitation to Sweden and Finland to join the security alliance. The only delay in the way of the two Nordic countries joining the security bloc within a year or less from now is the 30-member countries’ parliaments ratifying the Madrid decision. Describing the decision as NATO’s most consequential enlargement in decades, the global media chose to downplay the move which potentially might turn Europe into a dangerous rather than safer place. Comments such as “NATO brought war into Ukraine, NATO membership expansion might push Europe into war,” are now commonplace in the major European capitals, as also in Washington.
What is NATO?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance founded by 12 countries in Washington, D.C., on April 4, 1949. During the Cold War, the purpose of the US-led European security alliance was to defend its member states against the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, not only the alliance was not dissolved, it instead further expanded its membership and military operations. It now has 30 member states – 28 in Europe and the United States and Canada.
In the post-Cold War years, analysts in Europe as well as in the US have argued that following its main security threat the Soviet Union gone, there was no rationale for NATO to continue and therefore it should be disbanded. However, in the ensuing years not only has the alliance increasingly come to be seen as no longer defensive, but it has been carrying out military operations in the Balkans, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa. In China, analysts and foreign ministry officials now refer to the world’s most powerful military alliance as “global NATO.” Or, as Professor John Mearsheimer says: “It is a totally false account that the crisis in Ukraine is largely the result of Russian aggression. The United States and its European allies are mainly responsible for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO expansion.”
NATO-ization of Finland: A Threat or Boost to Europe
Welcoming the two Nordic countries into the NATO family, President Biden had said in May, “NATO is an alliance of choice, not coercion.” As if endorsing Biden’s above statement, Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson too emphasized: “I must say that Sweden has chosen a new path at a moment.” However, the truth is something entirely different. According to reports, efforts to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO were going on for months before the Russia-Ukraine conflict occurred in February.
Speaking of expanded NATO membership and Europe’s shared security, Biden said in Madrid, “Putin thought he could break the transatlantic alliance. [Putin] wanted the Finlandization of NATO. He got the NATO-ization of Finland.” Well, for starters, the term “Finlandization” entered the German political debate during the 1960s and 1970s and it referred to the decision of a country – modeled on Finland’s – not to challenge a more powerful neighbor in foreign policy.
Besides, it is now generally acknowledged in the West that by invading Ukraine, the Russian leader has “successfully” managed his “own goal.” Or in other words, an immediate short-term fallout for Russia – with a huge and irreversible specific military consequence – of Sweden and Finland’s swift decision to join the military alliance for Russia is the additional eight hundred miles of border with NATO. As Susan B. Glasser wrote in her New Yorker column that the two Nordic states will bring in two additional militaries that are among the most capable in Europe. “This will enhance the prospect of the alliance being able to bottle up the Baltic Sea and keep the Russians from coming out,” she added.
On the other hand, for both NATO and Europe, there is an urgent need to overcome immediate challenges such as overcoming fissures in the alliance and forging political unity “against Russia among major European powers including Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, etc. Or else, as forewarned by several analysts, the embracing of two new members “would increase instead of lowering the chances of war on one hand, and would increase the risk of future conflict for the entire alliance on the other.”
NATO Enlargement: What is at stake for the US?
In an attempt to put the “now hot, now cold” relationship between Russia and US-Europe in a historical perspective, the Polish scholar Dębski, cited above, called the Russia-NATO Foundation Act as the root cause of dramatic ups and downs between Russia and NATO. The Act, which today no one is talking about, was signed in 1997 between NATO and Russia and was essentially NATO’s political commitment to Moscow that it would not deploy substantial combat forces to the alliance’s new member states. Even as the brutal war rages on in Ukraine, like in the past when Russia assaulted Georgia and annexed Crimea respectively, the NATO establishment at the Madrid summit made all concerted efforts to protect the Foundation Act.
In a June 29 statement, the White House claimed all NATO decisions at Madrid were made in the spirit of the Foundation Act. However, commentators are claiming that when some alliance members in Madrid asked that the Act be denounced, the response was a compromise formula, i.e. “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Such indecisiveness or miscalculated signals from NATO to Russia could mean more war for Europe. [My emphasis]
Indeed, the decision of the two Nordic countries to embrace NATO has received an overwhelmingly positive response in both Europe and the US. However, no one knows what further risks for Europe are in place coming from Russia (with currently only 6% of its borders with NATO) which is already feeling threatened and encircled by the existing 30-member NATO. Within days of Sweden’s announcement to abandon neutrality the Swedish capital was turned into a “naval garrison” with the arrival of the US amphibious battle group consisting of assault ships, etc. What is one to make of what are the security implications for Europe as the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, standing atop the assault ship USS Kearsarge, declared the US intention to make the Baltic Sea a “NATO lake”?
Furthermore, viewed against a former US Army Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis saying “Enlarging NATO might seem a wise thing, [but] adding more members is likely to have the opposite effect,” what does the claim that the Russian military aggression has “remade” US-European relations mean after all? Interestingly, according to a US political affairs analyst, even long-term supporters of US and European security concerns are apprehensive about NATO’s 31st and 32nd members. The analyst cited the former US State Department policy planning director Anne-Marte Slaughter as saying “[But] a weak and humiliated Russia is a dangerous Russia. Putin may well be able to stay in power even longer on the strength of ‘the foreign enemy’ encroaching on Russia’s borders.”
To conclude, not only within Europe but opinions even in Sweden are at variance on whether NATO membership expansion will escalate tensions with Russia. “Joining NATO would be preparing for war,” Gabriella Irsten of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society has stated. It is no use denying that Finland and Sweden’s simultaneous declaration to join NATO has sparked off the fiercest debate in Europe since the end of the Cold War about NATO’s mission. The ongoing debate has once again brought back what one of NATO’s early critics had warned its European member states way back in the concluding years of the past century.
In an Op-Ed for the NYT in 1997, George F. Kennan wrote: “NATO expansion after the Soviets’ demise would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Now that the two Nordic countries’ NATO membership is almost granted, imagine which way Europe would transform, especially for Finland post-NATOization, recall what Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage had warned us about in the Foreign Affairs just a few days before Russia launched military attack on Ukraine on February 24: What if Russia wins?
Published
on
By
We have witnessed time and again that intelligence deficiencies have extracted exorbitant costs from New Delhi. Be it the 1962 war against China or the 1999 conflict with Pakistan, intelligence paucities have come to bite New Delhi in the back.[1] This has frequently led to calls in India for a renewed approach. These include demands for cooperation with the Five Eyes, but historical hesitations and mutual concerns stopped the idea from sprouting.
However, the sands are shifting. Contemporary dynamics in the Indo-Pacific region along with India’s new dynamism in the QUAD, perhaps, makes the time for cooperation ripe.
Observers have noted that the fundamental selling point of joining or cooperating with the Five Eyes for India is twofold. Cooperation would significantly boost India’s capabilities in tackling its perennial challenges: Cross-border infiltration and terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Second, Chinese incursions and development activities along the Himalayan frontier.[2]
Other incentives include increased intelligence sharing along with access to state-of-the-art intelligence technology. This is coupled with the prospect of deepening bilateral and plurilateral military engagement with United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, countries who have direct interests in the Indo-Pacific region.
Five Eyes-India intelligence cooperation can immediately take form by supporting the annual MALABAR and Tiger Triumph maritime exercise series along with integrating navies of like-minded partners in the future.[3] Following the recent announcements by the QUAD leaders[4], such maritime intelligence cooperation also presents opportunities in the fields of Maritime Domain Awareness and security operations in the region.
Other potential areas of collaboration that would assist India could be surveillance, tracking and interception of terrorist activities along with joint intelligence collection operations against illicit arms transfers, piracy, drug/human trafficking and illegal fishing.[5]
India should seek cooperation with the Five Eyes on the lines of established partnerships with countries like South Korea, Singapore and Japan. Other frameworks for cooperation include new affiliate groupings under the Five Eyes, like the Nine Eyes and the Fourteen Eyes.[6]
However, the idea of close cooperation between India and Five Eyes is not new. In 2008, India was invited to join the “Fourteen Eyes,” an extension of the Five Eyes arrangement. However, this initiative was watered down due to mutual suspicions.[7] While India’s bilateral intelligence sharing with the United States has grown in the recent years due to the common China factor, some instances in the past act as barriers. An example includes India’s consternation at the US for withholding crucial intelligence before 26/11 terror attacks.[8] This has caused hiccups for deepening cooperation.
There have also been privacy concerns around the breadth and scope of operations conducted by the Five Eyes. The large-scale electronic surveillance conducted by the grouping has also compromised the privacy rights of even the citizens of Five Eyes partners.[9] An additional apprehension that pops up is potential usage of surveillance technology by the provisioners themselves, as experiences of Indian institutions being monitored by the American agencies have shown in the past.[10]
Another factor which inhibits close cooperation between India and the Five Eyes is the engrained deficits of India’s own intelligence community.[11] Such chronic deficiencies don’t leave India with much capabilities to offer to the member countries of the Five Eyes alliance. A few of these deficiencies include outdated curricula and training practices, poor technology staffing, woeful financial resources and understaffed intelligence agencies.[12]
India and Five Eyes, is a possibility alive?
The strategic objectives of the Five Eyes have undergone a gradual shift in the post-Cold War era. Some objectives of the last two decades include the war on terror and perceived challenges from China and Russia as regional powers with their own spheres of influence.[13] This has led to incessant calls for Five Eyes to venture beyond the Anglosphere in potential collaborations and partnerships.
The United States recognises India’s heft and growing salience in the Indo-Pacific region. With its geostrategic location, size, economic and military potential and established historical engagement in South Asia and Indian Ocean littoral states, India is indispensable for any coalition of like-minded countries which respects the rule of international law and is concerned about Chinese ambitions in the region. Expressions of intent have already emerged from within the United States for expanding “the circle of trust to other like-minded democracies” which includes Japan, South Korea, India and Germany.[14]
It is worth noting that, during the last few years, United States has also doubled down on its keenness to deepen intelligence cooperation with India at a bilateral level. Serious proposals for a closer intelligence relationship were even put forth early in the first term of the current dispensation in New Delhi, when Richard Verma was the US envoy to India.
After weighing the costs and benefits of a partnership with the Five Eyes, it can be said that India’s strategic interests are better served by joining hands with the Five Eyes, in a partnership, if not as a formal member.
Like the resuscitated QUAD, which has found a new life thanks to Chinese ambitions, expansion of the Five Eyes also gains relevance in the Indo-Pacific theatre of strategic powerplay.
[1] Vinayak Dalmia, India’s Enduring Challenge of Intelligence Reforms, ORF Issue Brief https://www.orfonline.org/research/indias-enduring-challenge-of-intelligence-reforms/
[2] Mohamed Zeeshan, Could India join the Five Eyes? Lowy Institute https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/could-india-join-five-eyes
[3] Carol Evans, A vision for future US-India intelligence cooperation, The future of US-India security cooperation
[4] QUAD unveils satellite-based maritime initiative to counter China, Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/e6cae9a5-2ac8-42df-aac4-3bb58cb6a9e2
[5] Carol Evans, A vision for future US-India intelligence cooperation, The future of US-India security cooperation
[6] Chiaro Castro, Techradar https://www.techradar.com/in/vpn/five-eyes-nine-eyes-and-fourteen-eyes-explained-how-these-alliances-affect-you
[7] Saikat Datta, Natural Alliance: enhancing India-US intelligence cooperation, The future of US-India security cooperation
[8] Ibid
[9] Praveen Swami, Will India be joining the world’s most exclusive intelligence club? https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/current-affairs-trends/will-india-be-joining-the-worlds-most-exclusive-intelligence-club-7684711.html
[10] Ibid
[11] Praveen Swami, Pegasus: India’s intelligence services are in midst of dangerous crisis https://www.cnbctv18.com/views/pegasus-indias-intelligence-services-are-in-midst-of-dangerous-crisis-10057691.htm
[12] Ibid
[13] Raghav Bikhchandani, The Print, https://theprint.in/world/what-is-five-eyes-the-intelligence-alliance-us-wants-south-korea-india-japan-to-be-part-of/730475/
[14] Raghav Bikhchandani, The Print, https://theprint.in/world/what-is-five-eyes-the-intelligence-alliance-us-wants-south-korea-india-japan-to-be-part-of/730475/
Published
on
By
The Colombo Security Conclave (CSC) is a maritime security grouping initiated by India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives in 2011. The sixth meeting of national security advisers of the CSC was held on 7th July, 2022 at Kochi, India. Apart from member states, Bangladesh and Seychelles also joined the meeting as observers.
The world has dramatically changed in the past few years. When CSC was formed, regional and global political landscape was relatively peaceful and harmonious. China, USA, India, Russia and European Union had minimal conflict of interests. It was a time when multipolarity enjoyed a positive vibe in international relations despite their underlying competition. Today, the world has gradually become polarized and divided on issues of power, resources, and hegemony. The Quad-China confrontation and Ukraine War has been the ultimate test of strategic visions that the West has against China and Russia.
Against this backdrop, India has been promoting the idea of ‘net security provider’ in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. The idea of ‘net security provider’ is problematic for the neighboring countries as it is contradicting to their foreign policy interests and fundamentals of their statehoods such as sovereignty. Hence, this idea has not drawn much attention in terms of action-oriented policies.
Again, the geopolitics of Indian Ocean region is now brewing through new strategic and security initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of China, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS), Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and Australia, UK and US (AUKUS) let by the USA and its allies. Besides, India also announced SAGAR vision (Security and Growth for all in the Region, India and its Neighborhood). More ominously, the Madrid NATO Summit invited four Asian countries – South Korea, Japan, New Zealand and Australia as observers. All these initiatives have transformed the region into a melting pot for the countries that are not part of these groups.
CSC has come to the fore through its sixth meeting of the national security advisors. The previous meeting (fifth) conference held in Male also witnessed the admission of Mauritius to the grouping, which now includes India, Sri Lanka, Mauritius and the Maldives as members and Bangladesh and Seychelles as observers. In addition, the Conclave has now focused on its institutionalization, dubbed as the “region’s 911,” by identifying five pillars for future cooperation. Maritime Safety and Security, Countering Terrorism and Radicalization, Combating Trafficking and Transnational Organized Crime, Cyber Security, Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Technology, and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.
In the changed context of global and regional security, should Bangladesh join the CSC?
Challenges for Bangladesh in CSC
It is a difficult choice for Bangladesh considering CSC’s context. First, the geopolitics has dramatically shifted towards polarization and rivalries. Second, the mandate of CSC has considerably expanded and appears to be connected with QUAD and IPS. Third, there is incompatibility of objectives among the members. For instance, India’s goal of countering and containing China through this grouping contrasts with those of Bangladesh. Fourth, there are possibilities of being subject to subservient status as India try to dominate the grouping. Fifth, it may question the independent, autonomous and balanced approach of Bangladesh foreign policy.
Gains from membership
Apart from contextual hurdles, membership can also offer many gains for Bangladesh also. The gains that Bangladesh can expect from its participation are strengthening bilateral relations with member states, supporting the goals of QUAD and IPS without joining them and ensure an alliance at the bay without joining any hard polarization.
However, CSC has a lot of potentials to offer but the minilateral doesn’t have any concrete foundation yet. Other groups in the region such as IPS, QUAD, IPEF and the latest I2U2 could undermine its presence considering India’s participation and strategic interest. The grouping and Indian hegemony can also give wrong impression to China also- an important extra-regional power for South Asia.
Options for Bangladesh
Bangladesh needs to take into consideration pros and cons of joining the group as a member. Bangladesh must reassess the evolving strategic dynamics of South Asia, the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean region. Particularly, conflicting approaches and strategies of China and India and the US are critical considering Bangladesh’s Three-way balancing. The timing of joining is crucial as new geopolitical events are unfolding almost in every day. Analysts of all backgrounds agree that China’s growing presence in the region’s economic, political, and security affairs has created fear of losing the traditional dominance of India and the US. Hence, Empowering India has also emerged as an objective of US-IPS. This may explain India’s increasing engagement with its IOR neighbors. Besides, growing Russian presence in the Indian Ocean will also present a new set of challenges. As Russia faces isolation in Europe due to the Ukraine War, it may turn to Asia and Africa for support, making states like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka diplomatically critical. For Bangladesh, the challenge lies in balancing ties with Sino-Russian partnership and Quad countries as their hostilities deepen.
In conclusion, Bangladesh should continue its present approach with autonomous and balanced response to external foreign policy and strategic overtures. Bangladesh should wait for a while and remain an Observer of the Conclave to keep its involvement in a low-key status while keeping the door open. The Sri-Lankan crisis may also impact the Conclave’s effectiveness as the Conclave is the brainchild of now-ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaka. Therefore, the time is not ripe yet for Bangladesh to transform its current participation in the Conclave.
Whereas U.S. voters don’t want the U.S. Government to go to World War Three against Russia over Ukraine, they do…
CNN presents Taiwan as never having been a part of China, and that is a lie. Furthermore, CNN presents the…
The Shangri-La Dialogue, is a forum for discussion among government ministers and senior officials, as well as business leaders and…
Recent days have seen Cape Town once again pummelled by heavy storms, high rainfall, severe winds and tumultuous seas giving…
What happens when society faces a dilemma on who and what to trust? In a situation where an often blurred…
Authors: Teh Zi Yee & Nory Ly* 18 months after the military coup, the ongoing political crisis in Myanmar has…
To depict the overwhelming hunger and economic distress of the Indian subcontinent in the wake of the Second World War,…
Why the EU Could End Within a Year
The Great Game of China and the United States of America in Asia
The Green China; Hindrance and Limitations of the Green Transition
Is ‘NATO-ization’ of Finland the end of ‘Finlandization’ in Europe?
Asian and Pacific Countries Preparing for the Far East Forum
Toward a China-Russia axis?
Optical Gas Imaging – A New and Innovative Imaging Technology
The Angolan Factor in China’s Relations with Africa
Copyright © 2021 Modern Diplomacy
