Balancing Quad-China: Why Bandwagoning and Hedging are Unviable for Bangladesh

[Black_cats]

MD Mufassir Rashid
February 25, 2022

Balancing Quad-China: Why Bandwagoning and Hedging are Unviable for Bangladesh​

SOUTH ASIA

Since the past few years, South Asia has become a theatre for superpower rivalries. After the ‘rise’ of China, the rapid spread of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the revival of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) as a counter-measure by the United States and its allies; the discourse of South Asian politics is now dominated mainly by Quad-China stalemate. Previously, it was only revolving around Sino-Indian and Indo-Pak rivalry. And it gave other small South Asian states space to conduct their foreign policy choices. But in this ‘neo-cold war’, it seems these spaces are shrinking as superpowers, and regional powerhouses are becoming more desperate to understand their exact position in the absence of a Non-Alignment platform. And this ‘Side picking’ has become a problematic task for many South Asian states because of their complex interdependence upon the superpowers. Especially for Bangladesh as it shares one of the world’s largest borders with India from three side, as it has dependence upon China for trade and commerce and has the largest export market in the West. Such dilemmatic positions have made it even more problematic for Bangladesh to pick any side in this conflict. To stay neutral amid this rivalry, Bangladesh must strike balance between the superpowers.

Introducing Strategies​

In the conventional wisdom of International Relations (IR), there are four broad strategies for states to follow to ensure their survival and address security concerns or threats: Bandwagoning, Balancing, Hedging, and lastly, Buck-passing. Bandwagoning strategy suggests that countries should join the source of the threat to address the threat, while balancing refers to equalizing odds with the source of threat. Hedging is a relatively new concept in IR emerged after the 1990s analyzing the behavior of the small states, who neither balance nor bandwagon; instead they follow a middle path of both where they maintain an ambiguity as a strategy. And lastly, Buck-passing which means instead of addressing the threat, the state relies upon other powers to address the threat, popularly referred to as ‘passing the buck’ to others.

Questioning the Unitary Idea of Quad​

After the revival of Quad to address the growing Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific region through BRI projects, the strategic environment of South Asia has changed dramatically. It has now become a part of the Quad-China stalemate. Bangladesh’s geo-strategic importance has increased drastically for a unique geographic location with a border with India with three sides, especially with North-East India, access to the Bay of Bengal, and its border with Rakhine state. Due to strong ties with Myanmar, ports in the Rakhine state can provide China with direct access to the Bay of Bengal. Hence, Bangladesh’s support has become highly desired for all parties. While analysis commonly takes Quad and China as binary opposites, considering the context of regional politics, it seems Quad is not a unitary force; instead, it is a diverse one. India is the powerhouse in regional politics, and China is an extra-regional power. South Asian states generally use this rivalry to create their space. The rationale behind China’s stake in South Asian politics is to counter-balance Indian dominance.

However, one of the major provisions of the US Indo-Pacific strategy is to empower India. Therefore, considering the regional politics, an ’empowered’ India is also a power to balance for Bangladesh. So, Quad doesn’t come as a unitary force for Bangladesh. Joining Quad suggests that Bangladesh is aligning itself with an ’empowered’ India, which contradicts its regional political objective. Another strong critique of the Quad is that its members have diverse interests. Therefore, members are trying to fulfill their ‘side-quests’ through this forum. Hence, the unitary idea of Quad as the binary opposite to China is unviable for most South Asian states, especially for Bangladesh, because of its characteristics and dependence over the rivals. Therefore, the number of powers to address Bangladesh is not two; but three- the USA, India, and China. So, how should Bangladesh manage this superpower rivalry?

The Problem of Hedging​

Bangladesh’s foreign policy behavior suggests that Bangladesh is following the strategy of hedging. It is an ambiguous approach where instead of picking a clear side, states follow a mixed approach of balancing and bandwagoning to address the threat. Bangladesh has been following this strategy for a while now to nurture sound relations with both India and China in regional politics. But amid a heated rivalry, it seems hedging is not a viable option as it raises trust issues and cloud of confusion among the parties. In 2021, the USA imposed sanctions upon RAB — an elite force of Bangladesh and its seven former and current officials over the allegation of violation of Human Rights. According to analysts, apart from the allegation, the USA’s perception of Bangladesh also played a crucial role. The USA perceived Bangladesh as a ‘Pro-Chinese’ state, and hence, sanction has a geopolitical dimension where the US wants to coerce Bangladesh. The Chinese Ambassador to Dhaka warnedBangladesh not to join Quad in the same year when Bangladesh didn’t even receive an invitation. Such observation suggests that strategic hedging has resulted in a cloud of confusion and trust issues among the superpowers about Bangladesh’s stance. It has also made both rivals ‘insecure’ about Bangladesh’s position. Therefore, it seems hedging is not a viable strategic option for Bangladesh amid a heated international rivalry.

Balancing the Superpowers​

As both bandwagoning and hedging are not viable, the only option left for Bangladesh is striking balance between superpowers. It is also a well-practiced strategy in Bangladesh’s foreign policy and aligns perfectly with the foreign policy principle, “Friendship to All, Malice towards None”. In the age of complex interdependence, the literature on balancing has also evolved accordingly. Various types of balancing have been developed and practiced worldwide, including Economic pre-balancingand Evasive balancing. Bangladesh must use its trade, commerce, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), geopolitical significance, and political power to balance the superpowers. To do so, it must diversify its sources. However, balancing between three superpowers will be a formidable job and costly. Bangladesh will have to reduce its reliance on single seller and buy them from other sources to diversify its trade sources. For instance, defense hardware is cheap from China, but diversifying sources will decrease the buying. For security, Bangladesh should prioritize multilateral options. Bangladesh has already joined multilateral forums such as Colombo Security Conclave (CSC) and Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) to ensure its security in the Indo-Pacific region. Bangladesh has already joined BRI and should also have an open mind about the ‘Bring Back Better World’ (B3W) plan of the G7. Balancing policy will clear Bangladesh’s neutral stance and eradicate the cloud of skepticism to all the rivals. It will also help Bangladesh to carry on its regional politics. And lastly, Bangladesh should facilitate further research on developing balancing strategy and foreign policy practice to set a clear path and ensure a better future navigation.

[Photo Credit: Prime Minister’s Office/Bangladesh]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

MD Mufassir Rashid

The author is an independent Researcher and Analyst on Political Economy. He has completed his B.S.S. in International Relations from University of Dhaka. He has also completed his M.S.S. from same department. MD Mufassir is an occasional contributor to The Diplomat, Asia Times, Modern Diplomacy and Eurasia Review.

Balancing Quad-China: Why Bandwagoning and Hedging are Unviable for Bangladesh - The Geopolitics

As both bandwagoning and strategic hedging are not viable, the only option left for Bangladesh is striking balance between superpowers.

thegeopolitics.com

 

[mb444]

Utterly stupid.....


BD will maintain its ambigious position because it is ambigious and it nullifies operational freedom for China and the Quad. Each knows any direct action will deliver BD to the other side.

Only an epic idiot a la indian mole would be pressuring BD to clarify its position.

US RAB sanctioning has probably little to do with quad....it is also richly deserved for their criminal actions. US has also given the most C19 vaccines saving counless lives.

The way is clear.... economic growth is the aim...for this we need to remain engaged globally and aligned to the west. For this we simply need to see how china balances its intetest. With all the talks of trade wars business continues with the west, with india, etc. It will be the same with us. We do not need to make it a zero sum game.

If there is an ultimatum then join quad because economics wins out. Our export to china is small.

However such a thing will only last a short term because first it is against BD long term interest and secondly it is done under duress. BD can clearly and unequivocally communicate this position to china. China will understand this and I see our relationship remain in the current trajectory without issue.

An economically strong BD solidly on chinese corner in 20 years is much more desirable than a economically vulnarable BD swinging periodically from west to china.

BD can manage the risk and play the game. Dont be fooled by indian moles with nefarious agenda. The great thing here is we have no oil so neither the quad nor china will have us ever at the top of their priority. We need to keep concentrating on our economy, embrace the world economically and culturally, align strategically with middle powers such as turkey and indonesia and maintain stability at home. Do this and we will bypass radars of quad and China.

India can live with BD becoming one of Chinas quasi pearl as long as she is assured that BD will not allow China to move troops/goods through BD territory nor allow BDs maritime territory to be used to target andaman and keep malacca straights open. This is fine because china can already do this via its burmese port and it is not conceivable for BD to consider a military arrangement with china regarding its ports due to innate nationalism.

China on the other hand need assurance that BD wont allow indian troop/goods movement in war. This BD can assure this based on same nationalistic position that we will not fight anyone elses war. Happily indian port in burma gives it a logistics line bypassing BD.

Indian and Chinese policies already assumes BD neutrality. They will each seek to pull BD to their side to gain an advantage. But this is not a serious play. BD is part of a side game, not the primary game.

We can and must continue our current policy of balancing between competing interest and teasing out best deal for ourselves pivoting as required and as many times as required.

 

[peagle]

MD Mufassir Rashid
February 25, 2022

Balancing Quad-China: Why Bandwagoning and Hedging are Unviable for Bangladesh​

SOUTH ASIA

Since the past few years, South Asia has become a theatre for superpower rivalries. After the ‘rise’ of China, the rapid spread of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and the revival of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) as a counter-measure by the United States and its allies; the discourse of South Asian politics is now dominated mainly by Quad-China stalemate. Previously, it was only revolving around Sino-Indian and Indo-Pak rivalry. And it gave other small South Asian states space to conduct their foreign policy choices. But in this ‘neo-cold war’, it seems these spaces are shrinking as superpowers, and regional powerhouses are becoming more desperate to understand their exact position in the absence of a Non-Alignment platform. And this ‘Side picking’ has become a problematic task for many South Asian states because of their complex interdependence upon the superpowers. Especially for Bangladesh as it shares one of the world’s largest borders with India from three side, as it has dependence upon China for trade and commerce and has the largest export market in the West. Such dilemmatic positions have made it even more problematic for Bangladesh to pick any side in this conflict. To stay neutral amid this rivalry, Bangladesh must strike balance between the superpowers.

Introducing Strategies​

In the conventional wisdom of International Relations (IR), there are four broad strategies for states to follow to ensure their survival and address security concerns or threats: Bandwagoning, Balancing, Hedging, and lastly, Buck-passing. Bandwagoning strategy suggests that countries should join the source of the threat to address the threat, while balancing refers to equalizing odds with the source of threat. Hedging is a relatively new concept in IR emerged after the 1990s analyzing the behavior of the small states, who neither balance nor bandwagon; instead they follow a middle path of both where they maintain an ambiguity as a strategy. And lastly, Buck-passing which means instead of addressing the threat, the state relies upon other powers to address the threat, popularly referred to as ‘passing the buck’ to others.

Questioning the Unitary Idea of Quad​

After the revival of Quad to address the growing Chinese presence in the Indo-Pacific region through BRI projects, the strategic environment of South Asia has changed dramatically. It has now become a part of the Quad-China stalemate. Bangladesh’s geo-strategic importance has increased drastically for a unique geographic location with a border with India with three sides, especially with North-East India, access to the Bay of Bengal, and its border with Rakhine state. Due to strong ties with Myanmar, ports in the Rakhine state can provide China with direct access to the Bay of Bengal. Hence, Bangladesh’s support has become highly desired for all parties. While analysis commonly takes Quad and China as binary opposites, considering the context of regional politics, it seems Quad is not a unitary force; instead, it is a diverse one. India is the powerhouse in regional politics, and China is an extra-regional power. South Asian states generally use this rivalry to create their space. The rationale behind China’s stake in South Asian politics is to counter-balance Indian dominance.

However, one of the major provisions of the US Indo-Pacific strategy is to empower India. Therefore, considering the regional politics, an ’empowered’ India is also a power to balance for Bangladesh. So, Quad doesn’t come as a unitary force for Bangladesh. Joining Quad suggests that Bangladesh is aligning itself with an ’empowered’ India, which contradicts its regional political objective. Another strong critique of the Quad is that its members have diverse interests. Therefore, members are trying to fulfill their ‘side-quests’ through this forum. Hence, the unitary idea of Quad as the binary opposite to China is unviable for most South Asian states, especially for Bangladesh, because of its characteristics and dependence over the rivals. Therefore, the number of powers to address Bangladesh is not two; but three- the USA, India, and China. So, how should Bangladesh manage this superpower rivalry?

The Problem of Hedging​

Bangladesh’s foreign policy behavior suggests that Bangladesh is following the strategy of hedging. It is an ambiguous approach where instead of picking a clear side, states follow a mixed approach of balancing and bandwagoning to address the threat. Bangladesh has been following this strategy for a while now to nurture sound relations with both India and China in regional politics. But amid a heated rivalry, it seems hedging is not a viable option as it raises trust issues and cloud of confusion among the parties. In 2021, the USA imposed sanctions upon RAB — an elite force of Bangladesh and its seven former and current officials over the allegation of violation of Human Rights. According to analysts, apart from the allegation, the USA’s perception of Bangladesh also played a crucial role. The USA perceived Bangladesh as a ‘Pro-Chinese’ state, and hence, sanction has a geopolitical dimension where the US wants to coerce Bangladesh. The Chinese Ambassador to Dhaka warnedBangladesh not to join Quad in the same year when Bangladesh didn’t even receive an invitation. Such observation suggests that strategic hedging has resulted in a cloud of confusion and trust issues among the superpowers about Bangladesh’s stance. It has also made both rivals ‘insecure’ about Bangladesh’s position. Therefore, it seems hedging is not a viable strategic option for Bangladesh amid a heated international rivalry.

Balancing the Superpowers​

As both bandwagoning and hedging are not viable, the only option left for Bangladesh is striking balance between superpowers. It is also a well-practiced strategy in Bangladesh’s foreign policy and aligns perfectly with the foreign policy principle, “Friendship to All, Malice towards None”. In the age of complex interdependence, the literature on balancing has also evolved accordingly. Various types of balancing have been developed and practiced worldwide, including Economic pre-balancingand Evasive balancing. Bangladesh must use its trade, commerce, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), geopolitical significance, and political power to balance the superpowers. To do so, it must diversify its sources. However, balancing between three superpowers will be a formidable job and costly. Bangladesh will have to reduce its reliance on single seller and buy them from other sources to diversify its trade sources. For instance, defense hardware is cheap from China, but diversifying sources will decrease the buying. For security, Bangladesh should prioritize multilateral options. Bangladesh has already joined multilateral forums such as Colombo Security Conclave (CSC) and Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) to ensure its security in the Indo-Pacific region. Bangladesh has already joined BRI and should also have an open mind about the ‘Bring Back Better World’ (B3W) plan of the G7. Balancing policy will clear Bangladesh’s neutral stance and eradicate the cloud of skepticism to all the rivals. It will also help Bangladesh to carry on its regional politics. And lastly, Bangladesh should facilitate further research on developing balancing strategy and foreign policy practice to set a clear path and ensure a better future navigation.

[Photo Credit: Prime Minister’s Office/Bangladesh]

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

MD Mufassir Rashid

The author is an independent Researcher and Analyst on Political Economy. He has completed his B.S.S. in International Relations from University of Dhaka. He has also completed his M.S.S. from same department. MD Mufassir is an occasional contributor to The Diplomat, Asia Times, Modern Diplomacy and Eurasia Review.

Balancing Quad-China: Why Bandwagoning and Hedging are Unviable for Bangladesh - The Geopolitics

As both bandwagoning and strategic hedging are not viable, the only option left for Bangladesh is striking balance between superpowers.

thegeopolitics.com

I think development of normal relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan would increase the strategic space for both the countries. And, even without direct military cooperation, better relations will also provide a secure environment from which both can benefit.

 

[mb444]

I think development of normal relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan would increase the strategic space for both the countries. And, even without direct military cooperation, better relations will also provide a secure environment from which both can benefit.

Bangladesh should have normal relationship with all countries. With respect to Pakistan given shared history and strategic outlook we should have a close relationship and work to resolve outstanding issues of spliting the national reserves and bihari refugees.

BD has offered the later BD citizenship so its settled.... PK needs to tell the refusiniks that PK is not an option unequivocally or take them in.

Reserve split is non negotiable. Get it done and move forward with closer relationship.

 

[peagle]

Bangladesh should have normal relationship with all countries. With respect to Pakistan given shared history and strategic outlook we should have a close relationship and work to resolve outstanding issues of spliting the national reserves and bihari refugees.

BD has offered the later BD citizenship so its settled.... PK needs to tell the refusiniks that PK is not an option unequivocally or take them in.

Reserve split is non negotiable. Get it done and move forward with closer relationship.

Dude, are you feeling OK?

I raised valid points, and you've gone into hate filled fantasies.
What's wrong with you?
Learn to relax.

 

[Turingsage]

Bangladesh’s foreign policy and aligns perfectly with the foreign policy principle, “Friendship to All, Malice towards None”.

If Bangladesh follows such a policy then it is fine.
No problems with India

 

[mb444]

Dude, are you feeling OK?

I raised valid points, and you've gone into hate filled fantasies.
What's wrong with you?
Learn to relax.

What hate filled fantasies? What are you talking about?

 

[peagle]

What hate filled fantasies? What are you talking about?

Read your post, if you can write, you can read.
What are you taking about?

You're a hatemonger.

 

[nahtanbob]

All this is an issue only if Bangladesh matters in grand scheme of things. It is a good thing for average citizen that Bangladesh does not matter. Otherwise your elite would spending time f*rting about your strategic location and instead of developing your country.

If Bangladesh mattered you would be subject to intense pressure from outside powers. If USA, Japan and EU cuts off all of Bangladesh textile exports can China fill the void for Bangladesh exports ? Bangladesh is no position to handle a friend or foe call from US Secretary of State

You are a moron if that is what you have concluded.

There are two issues that stand between good BD PK relations. These issues trancends BD politics and relationship will remain low level until a resolution. Did you think i just made it up?

I am unclear what you are banging on about.

He is living in his own alternate universe where facts and logic doesn't matter

 

[mb444]

You are a moron for being a hatemonger, for not knowing how to have a civil discussion.
Rather then b.tch like a spoilt brat, how about starting a discussion in the same manner as the other person.
My post was respectful, with a desire for peace without being against anyone.

I repeat, read your post again, your post was aggressive and meaningless, if you wanted a discussion, then learn to have a discussion, moron.


The point you raise can't be based on your childish whims, no one is here to take your dictation, grow up, moron.

If you want a proper discussion, then clarify your points in a civil manner. Although, I am aware there are issues, but I am not clear on the exact nature of those issues, it is ridiculous to expect everyone should know what's happening in YOUR mind.
The desire for peace doesn't have the requirement to know every single thing, it merely requires a desire to improve relations and be open for dialogue.
Try and adopt a better approach.

Your ignorance is not my problem. Your misinterpretation of what I said is your issue and not mine. I gave my opinion, it is not a dictat....this opinion mirrors BD position since 71.

BD seeks good relationship with PK but not at all cost. If thats an aggresive position then so be it.

 

[peagle]

Your ignorance is not my problem. Your misinterpretation of what I said is your issue and not mine. I gave my opinion, it is not a dictat....this opinion mirrors BD position since 71.

BD seeks good relationship with PK but not at all cost. If thats an aggresive position then so be it.

How's is not knowing, but willing to have a dialogue ignorance? stop acting like a fool.

If you want to backtrack, be my guest, you know were rude, and your approach was wrong.
I hope next time you will be willing to have a proper discussion.
Stay blessed, I only wish good for you guys, and your nation.

 

[mb444]

How's is not knowing, but willing to have a dialogue ignorance? stop acting like a fool.

If you want to backtrack, be my guest, you know were rude, and your approach was wrong.
I hope next time you will be willing to have a proper discussion.
Stay blessed, I only wish good for you guys, and your nation.

I am not backtracking on anything. What exactly did i say that was rude? do point out.
Your comprehension problem is shared by me.

 

[Species]

For security, Bangladesh should prioritize multilateral options.

After this Ukrainian episode, this statement doesn't hold any value.

If Bangladesh mattered you would be subject to intense pressure from outside powers.

It is the outside pressure that Bangladesh has been unable to build a deep seaport in a desired location yet.

 

[nahtanbob]

After this Ukrainian episode, this statement doesn't hold any value.



It is the outside pressure that Bangladesh has been unable to build a deep seaport in a desired location yet.

it is not the construction of the deep seaport. it is the operation

 

[peagle]

I am not backtracking on anything. What exactly did i say that was rude? do point out.
Your comprehension problem is shared by me.

Dude, let's leave it at this, I'm sure we'll meet another time, and hopefully have a better discussion.
I wish you well.