China, India to feature in UK-Bangladesh strategic dialogue

[Black_cats]

China, India to feature in UK-Bangladesh strategic dialogue

• Nurul Islam Hasib, bdnews24.com
  Published: 2019-04-24 09:45:34 BdST
  

Sir Simon Mcdonald. Photo via Twitter
The visiting British Permanent Under Secretary to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Simon McDonald, has said that China and India will feature in the third strategic dialogue with Bangladesh on Wednesday.

Replying to a question on what will be discussed in the regional connectivity and stability context, he said Bangladesh is in the neigbourhood of two big players even though it is the eighth largest country in the world by population.

“But it is dwarfed by India and China. The rise of China is one of the defining features in the 21st century and that will feature in tomorrow’s dialogue. India too will feature,” McDonald, who will lead the British side in the dialogue, told a select group of journalists on Tuesday.

His counterpart foreign secretary Md Shahidul Haque will lead the Bangladesh side.

McDonald said they would also discuss the Rohingya issue as the challenge of displaced people of the Rakhine state is “very much in the UK’s mind and it is more in the Bangladesh’s mind because Bangladesh is now hosting more than 1 million Rohingya people”.

He said the UK, as one of the permanent members of the UNSC, is the penholder on the Rohingya issue in New York and will not let it drop.

The strategic dialogue covers a range of issues between the countries. It is a dialogue in which senior level officials of both sides lead and attend.

McDonald, a top UK diplomat, said he leads two more such dialogue apart from Bangladesh – Canada and Israel.

“We are historically close with Bangladesh and the UK stood with Bangladesh in 1971. We are proud of the role played by the Bangladesh community. So two years ago, we deiced to lift the profile. And strategic dialogue is one of the ways of that,” he said, replying to a question on why the UK holds strategic dialogue with Bangladesh.

“The signal is this is an important relationship that covers policy waterfront. That will be evident tomorrow,” he said.

Earlier, the foreign ministry of Bangladesh said in a statement that they will discuss multilateral issues including Rohingya, countering terrorism and violent extremism, growing focus on trade and investment relations, new areas of cooperation, regional connectivity and stability, and wide range of global issues including climate change, migration, cooperation in UN peacekeeping, Sustainable Development Goals, and Development partnership in the LDC gradation process.

The UK side will have a delegation of 15-20 members comprising the representatives from Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department of International Development, Department of Trade, UK Home Office/ UK Border Agency, Department of Transport, and Ministry of Defence, the foreign ministry said.

Bangladesh side is expected to consist of the delegation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Commerce, Export Promotion Bureau, Bangladesh Investment Development Authority, Ministry of Defence, Economic Relations Division, Security Services Division, Special Branch of Bangladesh Police, and Ministry of Civil Aviation and Tourism.

Bangladesh High Commissioner to the UK Saida Muna Tasneem will attend the dialogue.

McDonald is expected to give a talk on UK-Bangladesh relations during the times of Brexit at the Bangladesh Institute of International Strategic Studies.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.bdnews24.com/amp/en/detail/bangladesh/1615888

 

[baajey]

We are historically close with Bangladesh and the UK stood with Bangladesh in 1971

then who played the 2nd lieutenant with the american 7th fleet in order to keep pakistan united by attacking india.
what a farce.

 

[TopCat]

Can we get some 2nd hand Typhoon... ?

 

[mb444]

I am all for closer UK and BD relations.

 

[Sanchez]

Brits created all the border problems in Asia, and now they still speak as if they were THE Masters. UK is sitting on gabages and you are not able to do anything significant to the world. Don't ever try anything stupid in Asia again.

 

[TopCat]

I am all for closer UK and BD relations.

UK is our most closest ally in the western block. This meeting has a lot of emphasis on defense. Something cooking for sure.

Brits created all the border problems in Asia, and now they still speak as if they were THE Masters. UK is sitting on gabages and you are not able to do anything significant to the world. Don't ever try anything stupid in Asia again.

Asian border problem created by Asians only.. as if there were no border conflict before the arrival of brits.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

then who played the 2nd lieutenant with the american 7th fleet in order to keep pakistan united by attacking india.
what a farce.

Arrival of 7th fleet was aimed to prevent India from widening the war in West Pakistan. Not to damage the prospect of independence of Bangladesh. American govt. actually mentally get prepared to accept independent Bangladesh at least from 1970. America was only interested to preserve West Pakistan so that it can continue their spy mission in USSR's southern flanks.

British public opinion, media and govt. supported Bangladesh's independence. Actually British media played a vital role informing the western world about the Pak army atrocity in Bangladesh during the war. Britain was one of the earliest country recognized Bangladesh. So, Britain ''played 2nd lieutenant role to keep Pakistan united'' is not factually correct.

 

[baajey]

Arrival of 7th fleet was aimed to prevent India from widening the war in West Pakistan. Not to damage the prospect of independence of Bangladesh. American govt. actually mentally get prepared to accept independent Bangladesh at least from 1970. America was only interested to preserve West Pakistan so that it can continue their spy mission in USSR's southern flanks.

British public opinion, media and govt. supported Bangladesh's independence. Actually British media played a vital role informing the western world about the Pak army atrocity in Bangladesh during the war. Britain was one of the earliest country recognized Bangladesh. So, Britain ''played 2nd lieutenant role to keep Pakistan united'' is not factually correct.

well, u have explained eloquently what i have tried to say in a single line.
regarding public opinion, public, esp the informed ones generally tend to support the just causes (as BD did at that time). it is their govts who have different actions.
for example, india had made it clear that its objective was to stop the genocide in BD and begged throughout the world for heads of states to hear her. nobody cared, including the Brits. not even the "blood telegram" could dissuade the govts of US and UK from supporting pakistan in that war.
had the combined fleet succeeded in attacking india at the right time, BD would not have seen the light of day as an independent nation.

 

[UKBengali]

well, u have explained eloquently what i have tried to say in a single line.
regarding public opinion, public, esp the informed ones generally tend to support the just causes (as BD did at that time). it is their govts who have different actions.
for example, india had made it clear that its objective was to stop the genocide in BD and begged throughout the world for heads of states to hear her. nobody cared, including the Brits. not even the "blood telegram" could dissuade the govts of US and UK from supporting pakistan in that war.
had the combined fleet succeeded in attacking india at the right time, BD would not have seen the light of day as an independent nation.

Russia sent SSNs to deter the 7th Fleet.
US was not prepared to risk an all out war to save BD breaking away.
7th Fleet was sent to stop India dismembering West Pakistan into pieces - sure if India attacked Pakistan in 1971 BD would have also joined in.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

dissuade the govts of US and UK from supporting pakistan in that war.

I can understand your insistence of USA supported Pakistan, but UK? How? I do not remember UK govt. did anything which either through their statement or did which may boosted Pakistan's war effort then. It is true they did not openly advocated Bangladesh's independence during the war time. No country did unless they have direct enmity with Pakistan. most country were neutral like any other such civil war like scenarios. But UK govt. was tacitly supported Bangladesh's independence during the war which can be guazed by the fact that, Sheikh Mujib first flew to UK after his release from West Pakistan arrest, and UK was one of the first western country recognized Bangladesh's independence and established diplomatic relation.

More over many MP of British parliament then were vocal in their opposition to Pakistan's war crime and supported Bangladesh's independence. Their media and public opinion was totally in favor of Bangladesh. So, it is quite certain that, British govt. was influenced by all of these and established relation with Bangladesh very soon. Have you forgot Pakistan withdrew from Commonwealth in protest for admission of Bangladesh in 1972?

 

[Homo Sapiens]

india had made it clear that its objective was to stop the genocide in BD and begged throughout the world for heads of states to hear her. nobody cared, including the Brits.

''Nobody cared'' claiming would be incorrect. It is true, nobody other than India militarily involved in favor of Bangladesh. India had great stake in that conflict, that's why it militarily intervened. But Western countries suspended economic aid to Pakistan due to it's military assault in Bangladesh and insisted to find a solution to the conflict before resuming aid. So it greatly helped in Bangladesh cause. Even United States suspended economic aid to Pakistan. Western countries also provided relief materials to the refugees.

During the war with India in December, Nixon personally wanted to help Pakistan with military equipment. But he knew that he can not do that directly as he would be unable to get the Congress approval, so he enticed Middle Eastern allies like Iran and Jordan to transfer military equipment to Pakistan. But no such equipment reached Pakistan. Nixon's such behavior was due to his worries about probable fall of West Pakistan.

Western economic aid suspension and continued insurgency greatly crippled Pakistan's economy. During the closing months of war, Pakistan was almost bankrupt devoid of any foreign currency. This economic desperation was one of the vital factor for deciding to attack Indian western air field in 3rd December. It was a 'Do or Die' gamble on part of Pakistan to escalate the conflict into conventional war with the hope that America and China would intervene and rescue Pakistan from it's misery. But at the end even Chinese help did not materialized. China always insisted on political solution and did not commit any help to Pakistan.

Western economic aid to Pakistan did not resume before 1972 many months after the conclusion of the war. So, ''nobody cared'' is not how it happened. There was much pressure on Pakistan to end the conflict and find a just solution.

 

[baajey]

I can understand your insistence of USA supported Pakistan, but UK?

Britain and Soviet Confrontation
Confidential – The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

“The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier “Eagle” [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov.”

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

“I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy’s advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier “Eagle”.

But Soviet Union didn’t have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.
https://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html

hope this helps

 

[Bilal9]

Brits created all the border problems in Asia, and now they still speak as if they were THE Masters. UK is sitting on gabages and you are not able to do anything significant to the world. Don't ever try anything stupid in Asia again.

Hmm - a little grumpy, are we? Meow....hisssss.

On a more pleasant note, our ambassador to the UK Saida Tasneem is both brains and beauty. Well she is a bit older, but still very presentable compared to our other Foreign diplomats. She also has a stellar diplomatic record as ambassador to Thailand and Cambodia.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Britain and Soviet Confrontation
Confidential – The Commander of the Military Intelligence Service Gen. Pyotr Ivashutin.

“The Soviet Intelligence has reported that the English operative connection has come nearer to territorial India, water led by an aircraft carrier “Eagle” [On December 10]. For helping friendly India, Soviet government has directed a group of ships under the command of contr-admiral V. Kruglyakov.”

Vladimir Kruglyakov, the former (1970-1975) Commander of the 10th Operative Battle Group (Pacific Fleet) remembers:

“I was ordered by the Chief Commander to track the British Navy’s advancement, I positioned our battleships in the Bay of Bengal and watched for the British carrier “Eagle”.

But Soviet Union didn’t have enough force to resist if they encountered the British Carrier. Therefore, to support the existing Soviet fleet in the Bay of Bengal, Soviet cruisers, destroyers and nuclear submarines, equipped with anti ship missiles, were sent from Vladivostok.

In reaction English Navy retreated and went South to Madagascar.
https://www.theworldreporter.com/2011/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-role-of-russia.html

hope this helps

Intention of British carrier Eagle is not clear. Just because it came close to Indian territorial water do not mean it had hostile intention. Moreover that eagle was an obsolete carrier, decommissioned in January 1972. It's very likely that, just before decommissioning, it gone somewhere in Asia for friendly trip. This type of trips are common for a big ship before decommissioning. In it's way, Carrier Eagle came close to Indian water. The whole scenario may be an exaggeration from the Soviet. By the way, we need more information from various sources about this incidence before any conclusion. Just a blog post by a random 'Sanskar Srivastava' is not enough.

 

[baajey]

Intention of British carrier Eagle is not clear. Just because it came close to Indian territorial water do not mean it had hostile intention. Moreover that eagle was an obsolete carrier, decommissioned in January 1972. It's very likely that, just before decommissioning, it gone somewhere in Asia for friendly trip. This type of trips are common for a big ship before decommissioning. In it's way, Carrier Eagle came close to Indian water. The whole scenario may be an exaggeration from the Soviet. By the way, we need more information from various sources about this incidence before any conclusion. Just a blog post by a random 'Sanskar Srivastava' is not enough.

maybe the carrier eagle had intentions to have vacation in goa.