Bangladesh must keep maintaining its balancing act

We are heading towards a multipolar world. It will not be the same as the Cold War period, where ideological differences were strictly divided into bipolarity. In the new multipolar world, there will be considerable overlaps, and bilateral and multilateral relationships will be complex. Different configurations will appear.

It will be particularly difficult for the US-led West to accept the fact that their dominance is eroding. However, the US will try to create a bigger and stronger alliance by mainly strengthening Nato. The bloc will try to keep its dominance on the international order.

Given the side-taking and neutrality, we are at a vantage point because our foreign policy principle is "friendship towards all, malice towards none". This principle comes as a blessing in this crisis. Amid complexities of multipolarity, Bangladesh should not risk taking a side. One cannot afford to tilt towards one side; this is especially true for a developing country like Bangladesh, whose primary goal is economic betterment rather than geopolitics.

It would be pointless for us to be involved in geopolitical games. The goal of Bangladesh's foreign policy is economic development by using resources from multiple sources. From this practical perspective, Dhaka cannot afford to choose a side.

So, maintaining a balance serves Dhaka's interests best. But it is a delicate act, where the country is employing its long standing goal of "friendship to all, malice to none". Bangladesh's policy of non-alignment is clearly the objective here. The country will take decisions based on its strategic interests.

Bangladesh's foreign minister rightly iterated that we are against all types of war and aggressions, while explaining why Dhaka abstained from voting on the US resolution against the Russian invasion. But, he added that wars are against the interest of small nations such as Bangladesh. However, the foreign minister also balanced that out by saying the draft was to blame someone, not to stop war. Like that Bangladesh is delicately balancing, and will continue to do so.

We are not in a pure nationalism-capitalism phase, rather we are more globalised.  Globalisation, although an extension of capitalism, differs from traditional capitalism in one important way – in globalisation the production has become internationalised.

Thus, in a globalised world it is not possible to tilt. One good example is Saudi Arabia. We have heard that MBS has not been receiving Biden's telephone calls in recent times. At the same time, he is pondering trading in Chinese currency.

In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent sanctions, trade in local currencies will increase over time. Nobody will depend on one currency anymore.

In my opinion, Biden's terrible mistake was weaponizing SWIFT. Now, there will be several systems like SWIFT. Russia has been creating a system to bypass it since 2014. Even China and India would think of creating a new system. It will further an infrastructure of multipolar currency transactions, which will in the end result in the reduction of Western dominance.

Given the scenario, tilting towards any side will not be positive. At least, Bangladesh will try to keep a relationship with everyone. The most important thing to consider is the economic benefits or drawbacks. The priority for countries like Bangladesh is economic prosperity. If economic prosperity cannot be ensured, then it does not mean much where you stand.

While the Western dominance on the international order will diminish, the Russia-China order will not happen in the alternative. Variations will emerge, multiple transaction methods will appear, with substantial mismatches and overlaps.

Bangladesh's long standing stand of "friendship towards all, malice towards none" is good enough to guide us in the current configuration.

Imtiaz Ahmed is a professor of International Relations at the University of Dhaka.