A group of certain eminent citizens of the country, known to be of the ruling party camp, have held several programs in recent times, condemning foreign interference in our politics. They too failed to react in this instance
A combination of the flags of Bangladesh, Russia, USA, China
Russia alleges that the US is interfering in Bangladesh’s domestic politics in the guise of a call for transparent and inclusive elections in the country. The Russian foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova made this allegation in 22 November this year on her X (formerly Twitter) account. She even said that the US ambassador to Bangladesh Peter Haas had planned with the opposition regarding the anti-government grand rally. The US state department spokespersons replied to the allegation. The exchange of political allegations between the two superpowers is nothing new, but the open allegations which involve Bangladesh’s politics are a new addition.
I listened to a special interview of the Russian ambassador to Bangladesh, Aleksandr V Mantytsky on a TV channel last week. The first question was, how does he evaluate the leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina? Interestingly, there was no sharp reaction to such a question, in relation to so-called foreign intervention in our domestic politics in the backdrop of the sensitive position of the government and opposition regarding the election.
A group of certain eminent citizens of the country, known to be of the ruling party camp, have held several programmes in recent times, condemning foreign interference in our politics. They too failed to react in this instance. Their contention is against those who are speaking out to ensure a free, fair inclusive election, and human rights – the US and its western allies in particular.
Anyway, Russian ambassador Mantytsky was also asked about the US Indo-Pacific Strategy. The ambassador rejected the US policy for a free and open Indo-Pacific, saying that this was an attempt to come from outside and create divisions in the region. He even said that China was the target of this US policy. The interview also deliberated the strengthening of economic and technical cooperation between Russia and Bangladesh.
The history between Russia and Bangladesh is quite interesting. The importance of Soviet support during Bangladesh’s liberation war was significant. Many feel that the Cold War between the two superpowers at the time had played a positive role in our struggle for independence. But after Bangladesh gained independence, Russia waited until 26 January before according us recognition. After that, relations between the two countries gathered momentum. At one point of time, Bangladesh’s support was sought for Brezhnev’s Asian Collective Security Proposal.
In his book, ‘National Interest and Foreign Policy’, Golam Mustafa of Ottawa’s Carlton University wrote that a draft of this proposal had been handed over to Bangladesh foreign minister at the time, Abdus Samad Azad, at the World Congress of Peace held in 1973 in Moscow. The book is a detailed analysis of Bangladesh’s relations with the former Soviet Union and its successor states. It states that the proposal was not supported by India and neither did Bangladesh display any interest. Russia was naturally concerned about its clout in Asia at the time, given the new relations forging between the US and China. It is apparent from the statement of the Russian ambassador concerning the Indo-Pacific Strategy that Russia’s political anxiety concerning this region remains in place. The only difference is that now China is its new ally.
While foreign intervention in domestic politics is certainly unwarranted, it is also unwarranted that this debate be one-sided, or promoted in self interests. At the same time, support to the cause of universal human rights and democracy in accordance to international law cannot in any way be termed as intervention
Coming back to the point, Golam Mustafa’s book states that in 1973 the Russian newspaper Pravda would have regular coverage of Bangladesh. These reports would accuse reactionary right wing forces and extremist left forces (better known as the pro-Peking camp) of attempting to harm Bangladesh-Soviet relations. In order to face the newly formed party JSD and the anti-Indian pro-China left parties, in 1973 Awami League formed the Gono Oikya Front with the pro-Moscow CPB and NAP led by Muzaffar Ahmed. This was warmly welcomed by the Soviet press.
In the meantime, in a cabinet reshuffle Abdus Samad Azad, known to be of the Moscow ilk, was removed as foreign minister and replaced by Dr Kamal Hossain, know to be of the US camp. In another move, Moscow withdrew its ambassador Valentin Popov from Dhaka at the behest of Bangladesh. The author of the book says that Bangladesh had made this request due to excessive interference in domestic politics.
After the bloody coup of 1975 in which Bangabandhu and family were killed, Khandkar Mushtaque Ahmad steered the foreign policy in a different direction. Later, as military ruler, General Ziaur Rahman also actively stepped up relations with China and the Arab countries. Moscow was none too pleased with Dhaka leaning towards China. In the meantime, the global political backdrop had undergone a change due to the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. While Bangladesh maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union, it held a conference of the foreign ministers of the OIC states and called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.
In this situation, a degree of discomfort was generated when the Soviet Union opened a consulate in Chattogram and recruited large numbers of diplomats and staff in is Dhaka embassy. It was during the rule of Awami League that the Soviet Union constructed a large embassy in Dhaka, with 40 diplomats and 100 non-diplomats. Yet there were only four Bangladesh diplomats in Moscow.
Golam Mustafa wrote, before September 1979 the Zia government had requested that the number of Russian diplomats in Dhaka be decreased, but Moscow ignored the request. The government at the time had often made allegations of interference in domestic politics. In 1981, relations deteriorated to such an extent that the information minister at the time said Russia had breached diplomatic norms in opening its consulate in Chattogram.
The situation grew even more complicated after the assassination of Zia, when a crate labeled ‘construction materials’ arrived from Moscow by an Aeroflot flight, which the Customs seized as it actually contained contraband communication equipment. When this news was revealed, in face of huge public protest the prime minister had to make a statement in parliament.
Another startling allegation of intervention in domestic politics arose in 1983 during the rule of another military ruler General Ershad. General Ershad’s government expelled 14 Russian diplomats in one go, a record in Bangladesh’s history of expelling diplomats. Ironically, Leonid Brezhnev had sent Ershad a message of felicitations when he took over power, according to the news agency TASS. The Delhi correspondent of Russia’s New Times newspaper S Idrov wrote Ershad had foiled the conspiracy being hatched at Washington’ instigation and took over power himself.
Then suddenly on 29 November 1983 the Soviet ambassador was asked to cut down the number of diplomats in the embassy and to close the consulate in Chattogram. When 14 diplomats were expelled in 1984, Bangladesh’s ambassador in Moscow was also recalled. When there are no official narratives about these moves, it is assumed this was all linked to the political developments of the day. It was on 28 November that year that the opposition parties had laid siege to the secretariat in Dhaka.
While foreign intervention in domestic politics is certainly unwarranted, it is also unwarranted that this debate be one-sided, or promoted in self interests. At the same time, support to the cause of universal human rights and democracy in accordance to international law cannot in any way be termed as intervention.
