Three anniversaries and a corridor

It is the early spring of 1945. As the Red Army races to Berlin, Heinrich Himmler is reaching out the Americans for an armistice. Kremlin gets wind of this, and orders their undercover agent in Berlin, SS-Standartenfuhrer Max Stierlitz, to find out who among the top Nazis are talking to the Americans behind Hitler’s back, and then to thwart any deal. How will Stierlitz uncover and then unravel the plot against Soviet victory? Can he count on his usual allies in the resistance? How will he shake off various Nazi factions that are on his tail?

It’s a shame that the 1973 Soviet TV serial Seventeen Moments of Spring is not better known outside former eastern bloc. The pacing, set pieces, episode cliff hangers are superb 20th century TV drama. All 12 episodes are available on youtube, and are highly recommended.

Then there is the political angle. Compared with the standard diet of Anglo-American sleuths-spies-soldiers like Holmes-Bond-Bourne-Rambo, a Russian in the collapsing Reich makes for a fascinating change in perspective. And as the show’s premise makes it clear, even before the war was over, the Allies knew that their wartime liaisons were coming to an end.

In a week, the 80th Anniversary of the victory over the Third Reich will be observed all over Europe. The end of the war was followed by not just the Cold War, but also the end of white men’s empires in the tropics of Asia and Africa. Leaders of some of the newly independent countries wanted nothing to do with superpower entanglements, fearing such dalliances as threats to new-found freedom. The high point of non-aligned movement came 70 years ago last fortnight, at a summit in Bandung, Indonesia. Over the subsequent years, idealistic nationalism of these men gave away to cynical populism, corruption and inefficiency at home, and war and expansionism abroad across the then Third World, or the Global South as we now call ourselves.

Between the 70th anniversary of the Bandung Conference and the 80th anniversary of the V-E Day was the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Since the end of that war, Vietnam has fought violently with China, became a close trade and investment partner of both the US and China, and is now in the frontline of Trump’s trade wars!

These three anniversaries, and the trajectories of various nations over the past decades make two things clear. First, the cold hard logic of realpolitik means countries rarely have permanent friends or foes. And second, domestic politics, institutions and policy choices usually makes the crucial difference when it comes to surviving treacherous foreign developments.

Of course, we are amidst another seismic shift in geopolitical landscape. The age of American hegemony might well be over. What replaces it in Monsoon Asia is far from clear. China and India may have their ambitions, but both also have profound weaknesses. Both have significant stakes in the steadily imploding Myanmar. Can Bangladesh afford to be a bystander in the tragedy that is unfolding there? Can Bangladesh afford to get involved?

More generally, beyond the Cold Peace approach with India, what should our foreign policy be? Should we make a full tilt to China? Or pursue a policy of remaining equidistant from the US and China? If the latter, should this neo-non-alignment be one of high-minded idealism or cynical transactionalism? Should we pursue closer relationship with large Muslim countries? What about democracies in the Indo-Pacific region (other than India, of course)?

I don’t know the answers to any of these. I am certainly glad that Sheikh Hasina is no longer our despot, because she would have done what was best for the survival of her despotic regime, and not what was in the nation’s best interest.

One of many blessings of the Long July is that we are a free country now where all these issues are debated openly. We are also seeing a lot of questions like this: can we trust Professor Yunus and the interim administration?

This is healthy. We should demand that Prof Yunus and the administration explains the rationales for and the parameters of the so-called humanitarian corridor. It is a standard practice in mature democracies that the government briefs all political parties on matters of national importance such as this. This happens even in India, where the foreign minister briefed opposition parties on the developments in Bangladesh after Hasina fled to Delhi.

Sadly, it is still not happening in Bangladesh.

Prof Yunus has spent 36 days overseas since taking over the helm in August. He has received foreign dignitaries at home. It’s time he starts debriefing on his deliberations to the leaders of major political parties who will be governing the country long after his interim administration has ended.