Russia-Bangladesh relations in the context of Crimean vote

If we could for a moment forget we are in 2014 and also be unaware in which year we are, then a few events occurring in the country's politics in recent times could mislead us into believing that the Cold War has not really ended. In fact, we could be led to believe that we are in the middle of the most intense period of the Cold War. One of these events is the public posture of the Russian ambassador. He said that Russia intends to 'come back to Bangladesh' and that the relationship between the two is experiencing 'a renaissance now.'
In fact, it is the Bangladesh side that has done the good deeds for the 'renaissance' reminding many of the period of our war of liberation when the USSR of which Russia is the successor state had stood by us at a time of our greatest needs. The Bangladesh Prime Minister visited Moscow last year and signed with Russia an arms deal to buy arms worth US$ 1.0 billion. Such a deal makes Bangladesh a client of Russia for purchase of more arms in future. In that trip, Bangladesh also signed an agreement under which Russia will establish the US$500-million nuclear plant in Rooppur. Russian experts would then come to Bangladesh in droves as they came after our liberation war to help rebuild the shattered economy of the country, particularly in clearing the Chittagong Port of the dangerous mines placed there by the then Pakistan military during its occupation.
These are examples of not just a new era of Bangladesh-Russia relations; these are also instances of a one-sided relationship where Bangladesh in the role of the client is providing Russia lucrative business. In fact, surprisingly, Bangladesh has gone even beyond being just a client. Last year, it irked the UAE Government by voting for Moscow against Dubai for the World 2020 Expo. That vote angered the UAE government so much that it stopped all kinds of visas for Bangladeshis intending to enter that country putting into serious jeopardy the hugely important manpower market of Bangladesh there.
These pro-Russia developments have not been seen with favour by some of Bangladesh's major development partners. The German ambassador in Dhaka has expressed concerns about Bangladesh's decision to go ahead with the Rooppur nuclear plant. He alerted Bangladesh to the ecological damage that a nuclear plant could cause to the country. He also underlined the fact that Bangladesh is earthquake-prone and the catastrophe that could occur if an earthquake strikes the area where the Russia-assisted nuclear plant would be built.
The German ambassador's comments angered his Russian counterpart. He accused the German ambassador of attacking Russia on the issue of Rooppur because his country had failed to get the contract for Siemens to build a nuclear plant in Iran that went to Russia. The way the Russian ambassador went after his German counterpart in public made many think that the two were exchanging salvos at each other in the same spirit that they used to do when the Cold War was on. The German ambassador's criticisms of the Rooppur Plant were on safety issues that are also a legitimate concern of many in the country who oppose the plant. He did not mention Russia or the Russian ambassador in his comments on Rooppur. The Russian ambassador nevertheless went after Germany and the German ambassador personally embarrassing Bangladesh that has critical economic interests with Germany, one of the major buyers of Bangladesh readymade garment (RMG) products.
The vote in the UN on Crimea was another issue that reminded many of the Cold War days. Bangladesh abstained itself from a non-binding vote at the United Nations seeking to undo the Crimean referendum thus supporting Russia against the resolution that was introduced by the US and the European Union (EU). Hundred countries voted in favour of the resolution while 11 countries opposed it. Bangladesh with 57 other countries abstained that went in favour of Russia. The Russian ambassador welcomed the Bangladesh abstention and thanked the Bangladesh government for the decision. The US ambassador expressed regret that Bangladesh failed to show solidarity with the nations that thought the decision of Crimea to join the Russian Federation was wrong and should be reversed.
If in reality we were back to the Cold War era, then the decision of Bangladesh on Crimea is correct. We became independent in 1971 by exercising our right of self-determination. Our Constitution encourages us to support such rights worldwide. But these are not Cold War days. These days our interests are overwhelmingly in the West - with the developed nations. For instance, in Europe we have the vital Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) (generalised system of preferences) coming for review in the next few months that could make or break the RMG (ready-made garment) sector. In the USA, we have a similar interest. The Arab countries, where we send millions of our people to work, have voted for the UN resolution because for them, the right of self-determination is dangerous. Bangladesh's abstention at the UN vote will no doubt be reviewed in those countries critically.
It is Russia that should be indebted to Bangladesh because we are buying from them. Instead, we are making Russia happy by making countries where our economic future lies, unhappy and perhaps even angry, putting into jeopardy our vital national interests. The only way that it would make sense standing behind Russia on Crimea is to argue that a matter of principle is involved; that we are committed to support worldwide the exercise of the right of self-determination. That argument would not to be scrutinised. While Russia has supported in Crimea the right of self-determination, it does not allow the Crimean people the same right. Then what about Bangladesh's own problem with this principle, particularly in the context of the peculiarities of the situation in the Hill Tracts?
Russia by a long stretch is not the former Soviet Union and President Putin is not the international figure to follow. In fact, there is little that Russia has to offer to Bangladesh to put its national interests at risk. To anger countries that could make or break Bangladesh to make Russia and President Putin happy makes no sense at all on the face of it. Meanwhile, Russia itself is negotiating with the West for a diplomatic solution to the Crimean issue that is not looking that discouraging at the moment. Where would Bangladesh stand when Russia and the West again shake hands? India supported Russia against the West on Crimea because it felt Russia has legitimate interests in Crimea. This is a dangerous stand. Has our foreign policy actors considered what this actually means for Bangladesh? Then again, where is the principle in India's stand on Kashmir and its troubled north eastern states? Would Bangladesh support such a move internationally?
Therefore, Bangladesh's decision on the Crimea vote at the UN must have been done for reasons that its foreign policy actors have not specified and perhaps will not.  Nevertheless, for analysts the reason is a simple one. It is way for the present government to say 'Thank You' to Russia (and India) for its stand in the current politics of the country. Unfortunately, while Russia (USSR) and India had assisted a united Bangladesh in 1971, the situation is vastly different today. If this 'Thank You' is taken out of the equation, all Bangladesh would stand to gain from the 'renaissance' is the strengthening of the Russian Cultural Centre in Dhaka whose library would be connected to Moscow's national library and museum, an assurance given by the visiting Deputy Head of Russian Federal Agency for Cooperation with Foreign Countries Alexander Chesnokov in whose presence the Russian Ambassador promised the 'renaissance' of Bangladesh-Russian relations.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador.
 [email protected]