Bangladesh key player in maintaining security in Bay of Bengal: US

[PlanetSoldier]

I have been wondering about the comment by Mr. Shapiro, 'Bangladesh is a key player to maintain security in the BoB.' Now, it seems that,

1) USA does not want BD to provide any kind of naval base facilities to the Chinese.

2) In exchange of that USA will protect BD from its big neighbour and it is willing to provide naval warships and others so that BD is in a position to hold its own.

3) However, since USA has a stake in this zone, therefore, BD must also provide a kind of anchorage (if not naval facilities) facilities for its visiting ships.

4) Well, US ships have been visiting BD for many decades now. US naval ships have also been doing joint naval exercise in the BoB all the time. So, USA wants these to continue in a greater scale.

Guys, I could be wrong in my assessment. But, what could be other possible explanations of the US Assistant Secretary Shapiro's statement? US Ambassador has also been very actively propagating the same/similar US stance all the time since his arrival in Dhaka. I think, something is brewing. However, if it brings peace in the region and if it stops Indian bullying, I welcome the present US gesture.

Right...there is something brewing but I don't want to share my guess here as Kalu_Miah suggested we should discuss something privately.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Right...there is something brewing but I don't want to share my guess here as Kalu_Miah suggested we should discuss something privately.

Discuss here.

No one's gonna bite your a$$

 

[TopCat]

Goes to show, we never achieved independence in 1971, in fact we became a dependent state.

It was a common standpoint for both the country not providing base to 3rd country.

 

[idune]

I have been wondering about the comment by Mr. Shapiro, 'Bangladesh is a key player to maintain security in the BoB.' Now, it seems that,

2) In exchange of that USA will protect BD from its big neighbour and it is willing to provide naval warships and others so that BD is in a position to hold its own.

There was never the question of "in exchange" of anything let alone providing protection from big neighbors.

US would never even side with Bangladesh against indian aggression, period. Not in persisting geo political scenario where China is the target.

US views Myarmar is bigger strategic prize and as relation warming up with Myanmar and maritime dispute more or less over with Bangladesh, there is little scope for any hostality there.

So in summary Bangladesh can not trust or rely on US for anything other than the fact US is only to sell some excess equipment and in return for influence and keep Bangladesh out of Chinese circle.

Fact of the matter is US or (even india combine) can not compete with Chinese economic and trade benefit Bangladesh can reap. So US would exploit any little or cheap thing it has to buy element of influence. And what is better than dumping some excess harware and get to influence most important powerbroker of Bangladesh power dynamics - military.

Speaking of buying influence, Awami League regime also see this as opportunity to buy US support hedge against growing public discontent.

All in all this deal make sense for both US and Awami League regime. But for interest of Bangladesh this has very little or no value. Because Bangladesh got similar deal after the desert strom in 90s, do we hear or see any of those US made hardware anywhere today?

As far as what Andrew J. Shapiro said about "'Bangladesh is a key player to maintain security in the Bay of Bengal" is nothing but stating the obvious. Three state bordering this bay Bangladesh, Myanmar and India. So Bangladesh should be important in Bay security naturally with or without US involvement. Those who read latest pentagon report on US war strategy against China, would understand why US is trying to rope in Bangladesh. US gesture has more geo political game plan than any military value for Bangladesh at all.

What important to note here is that US use of the word "security" and its scope confined to Bay of Bengal but completely ignoring the fact Bay of Bengal is integral part of indian ocean and its security. Do we really need US confined security domain and definition, couldn't we do better than that?

 

[Zabaniyah]

There was never the question of "in exchange" of anything let alone providing protection from big neighbors.

US would never even side with Bangladesh against indian aggression, period. Not in persisting geo political scenario where China is the target.

US views Myarmar is bigger strategic prize and as relation warming up with Myanmar and maritime dispute more or less over with Bangladesh, there is little scope for any hostality there.

Rule #1, small countries are of no consequence from the US point of view. So Bangladesh may not be the most important country. But may at best be a hedge that corresponds with India against China. I don't think it's realistic though.

Israel is a different case. It'd be better to look what happened to Georgia and Lebanon.

So in summary Bangladesh can not trust or rely on US for anything other than the fact US is only to sell some excess equipment and in return for influence and keep Bangladesh out of Chinese circle.

Fact of the matter is US or (even india combine) can not compete with Chinese economic and trade benefit Bangladesh can reap. So US would exploit any little or cheap thing it has to buy element of influence. And what is better than dumping some excess harware and get to influence most important powerbroker of Bangladesh power dynamics - military.

Care to elaborate on the bold part? It is China that is more economically dependent on the US. Not the other way around.

Speaking of buying influence, Awami League regime also see this as opportunity to buy US support hedge against growing public discontent.

All in all this deal make sense for both US and Awami League regime. But for interest of Bangladesh this has very little or no value. Because Bangladesh got similar deal after the desert strom in 90s, do we hear or see any of those US made hardware anywhere today?

Well, they donated C-130s, a very kind thing to do. The Awami League? Well, they are still unhappy over Dr. Yunus's removal from Grameen Bank.

How do you think we managed to subdue the Shanti Bahini? The Burmese aggression during the 90s? All made possible due to US support. Hell, even Mujib's assassination had CIA support.

As far as what Andrew J. Shapiro said about "'Bangladesh is a key player to maintain security in the Bay of Bengal" is nothing but stating the obvious. Three state bordering this bay Bangladesh, Myanmar and India. So Bangladesh should be important in Bay security naturally with or without US involvement. What important to note here is that US use of the word "security" and its scope confined to Bay of Bengal but completely ignoring the fact Bay of Bengal is integral part of indian ocean and its security. Do we really need US confined security domain and definition, couldn't we do better than that?

Depends. Especially if Bangladeshi leaders have any brains left.

 

[jaunty]

1. Americans oil a nation in public, bribe and arm-twist the leaders behind the door and eventually lead the preyed nation to devastation from within. Pakistan is a good example, but there are plenty globally. Iran has found them out and lives an honorable existence. Earlier Cuba and N Korea also rebuffed them.

2. In the emerging global polarization the Muslims and China are the threat felt by WCC (Western Christian Civilization) now allied to the Zionists. BD sits at the center of an evolving large Muslim entity. Its location is of primary importance in the event of an US-China war where India will be used as a proxy to take casualty and accept destruction.
3. In the event of an India -China war, whether promoted by USA or not, BD will naturally side with China. The mere decision of BD to ally with PRC in such a war will throw India out of NE and Purbanchal Maoist territory.

3. The dream of BD has always been to retrieve what we lost to a English Co - Brahmin high priest of Bardawan Conspiracy on 23 June 1757.

1. ok
2.
3.
4. Dream on.

 

[idune]

Care to elaborate on the bold part? It is China that is more economically dependent on the US. Not the other way around.

Look at Chinese contribution in infrastructure development in Bangladesh. Looka at Chinese contribution in development of Bangladesh defense forces. Without Chiese help there would not be any forces.

China is the biggest market that whole world is looking to get a stake including US. In that market we have duty free access. If Bangladesh regime and business can adapt to Chinese market potential is endless and much bigger than US and EU market.

Chinese investment is growing much faster than US.

Well, they donated C-130s, a very kind thing to do.

Do you know or seen how many of these C-130 lines up in arizona graveyard? I have. US given these to Bangladeh and many other countries. And Bangladesh had to pay US companies to made these operational. These were not entirely free. At any case these cargo planes were not part of desert strom excess arms package.

How do you think we managed to subdue the Shanti Bahini? The Burmese aggression during the 90s? All made possible due to US support. Hell, even Mujib's assassination had CIA support.

There was no US role in tackling Shanti bahini, period. BA might got some training but those training were not intended for countering Shanti Bahini. It was Bangladehi blood and Chinese arms defeated Shanti bahini. Speaking of which what US is is doing in CHT today in name of missionary activities and using USAID? These US involvements will come back to bite us.

 

[idune]

Dont thing i am trolling , you can find so many of example in Google search ... Have a nice day ...

You are in fact trolling. We can understand and manage our relation with China or any other country for that matter. DONT need indian input for it. Stay in indian forum with your garbage otherwise garbage will be thrown in indian forum.

 

[HappinessMark!]

Goes to show, we never achieved independence in 1971, in fact we became a dependent state.

But, every one of us is dependent on others someway (if we like or not, even compromoising soverignity and grace for our case, but sometimes no other less bad option)....

 

[Zabaniyah]

The truth in china investment is that they invest in there selected project and give the work to the chinese company and they give work to the chinese people and finish the project and TAKE BACK THE MONEY BACk to chine, ,,,, bangladesh get balance is LOAN + Interest + no job to bangladesh + dead Port , .. This is not only in srilanka but all over the world where they invest ( Includding Aficra , pakistan , srilanka , some middle east part , South america, south east asia etc ...

Dont thing i am trolling , you can find so many of example in Google search ... Have a nice day ...

 

[Luffy 500]

You probably did not know that Bangladesh already has a unwritten agreement with India, as neither country will ever provide base for a 3rd country. It includes USA as well. Chinese also does not come to BoB for even friendly visit let alone excercise because of India.

You are talking about the 25 year Indo-bangla unequal treat of slavery singed just after independence right? But that treaty is void since 1996 but who knows may be your BAL renewed it
secretly. Anyway that treaty also had clauses that stipulated us not to sign any defence
agreements with any third party and to consult india in forgien policy matters but post-75
changed all that. We did sign defence agreements with china and other countries. Your india
actually violated this slave treaty first by supporting the shanti bhahini.

Goes to show, we never achieved independence in 1971, in fact we became a dependent state.

Bro,technically that treaty is void since 1996 but its another matter if BAL secretly signed any
similar golami treaty in the last 3 years.

It was a common standpoint for both the country not providing base to 3rd country.

That's shows the level of IQ of a awamiliger. Which country would have attacked us via bases in India. Practically it was on us alone to abide by the treaty and get
internationally isolated. This kind of treaty is always unequal where the bigger country turns the
smaller one into its virtual colony like Japanese-korean 19th century treaties.

 

[eastwatch]

You probably did not know that Bangladesh already has a unwritten agreement with India, as neither country will ever provide base for a 3rd country. It includes USA as well. Chinese also does not come to BoB for even friendly visit let alone excercise because of India.

OK, now I know about a BD-India understanding. But, there have been probably tens of naval exercises in the BoB with USA and also British Navy. How do you comment on that when BD-India understanding is still valid?

 

[TopCat]

OK, now I know about a BD-India understanding. But, there have been probably tens of naval exercises in the BoB with USA and also British Navy. How do you comment on that when BD-India understanding is still valid?

I was talking about permanent base not drill.

 

[eastwatch]

I was talking about permanent base not drill.

It is India who does not cherish a prospect of a foreign naval base, specially a Chinese one, in Bangladesh. BD has no power to stop such a base in India if that country desires to establish one. However, India does not need such a base on its shore. So, finally, it is India which has forced BD not to accept a foreign (read Chinese) naval base on its soil.

Foreign base is certainly not to be sought. But, the way India nakedly shows its force and try to impose its one-sided wish on BD, there was a strong possibility that CTG will become a regular port of call for Chinese naval ships. However, it did not happen probably because the USA has been arranging quite a few BD-US joint naval exercises in the BoB.

Now, Shapiro says, BoB is our lake. I am wondering what does it really mean and what USA is thinking how BD will maintain the security of its big lake from its two greedy neighbours.

 

[bindaas]

It is India who does not cherish a prospect of a foreign naval base, specially a Chinese one, in Bangladesh. BD has no power to stop such a base in India if that country desires to establish one. However, India does not need such a base on its shore. So, finally, it is India which has forced BD not to accept a foreign (read Chinese) naval base on its soil.

Foreign naval base being provided to China will surely shows Bangladesh's hostility towards India because that naval base will be used by China to counter India. So, not a good idea.