The New Development Bank (NDB) was created by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) in 2015. The BRICS bank, as it is more commonly known, invests mainly in developing economies in areas such as transportation, water and sanitation, clean energy, digital infrastructure, social infrastructure and urban development. On September 2, NDB President Marcos Troyjo announced that the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay and Bangladesh were the first members of the bank’s expansion.

“New members will have in NDB a platform to foster their cooperation in infrastructure and sustainable development,” said NDB President Marcos Troyjo in a statement. “We will continue to expand the bank’s membership in a gradual and balanced manner.”

The UAE, Uruguay and Bangladesh will become fully fledged members once internal processes of the NDB is complete. However, the NDB’s ambitions do not end there, and according to Brazilian newspaper Estadão, a fourth partner, likely from Africa, should be announced by the end of the year. In fact, the Shanghai-based bank anticipates three to four new members per year, reaching up to 20 members in the coming years.

Although BRICS is obviously already represented in South America and South Asia by Brazil and India respectively, the accession of Uruguay and Bangladesh into the NDB allows the bank to act on a regional scale. It also opens the possibility for future membership in BRICS. With NDB members neighboring each other in South America and South Asia, the bank has the possibility to finance binational projects that promotes regional economic and transportation integration.

For his part, Emirati Minister of State for Financial Affairs, Obaid Humaid Al Tayer, said: “The United Arab Emirates membership in the New Development Bank represents a new step to enhance the role of the UAE economy on the global stage, especially in light of the great capabilities and expertise that the country possesses in supporting infrastructure projects and sustainable development. This monumental step would not have been achieved without the vision and direction of the UAE leadership, who believe in the importance of supporting development projects around the world, especially in emerging economies.”

The UAE has undergone a massive transformation in the past quarter of a century, turning desert wastelands into thriving economic hubs and progressing from reactionary Salafi ideology to one of tolerance and open-mindedness. As recently as the beginning of the Syrian War in 2011, the UAE was backing jihadist groups, but in a matter of only a few years reverted from this policy and became far more moderate and independent in their decision making and pursuit of partnerships.

Originally a major oil exporter, and still is, the UAE has now diversified its economy so that it is in line with the UN 2030 agenda to end poverty and hunger, protect human rights and gender equality, and protect the planet from degradation. The UAE has immense resources that can be directed towards projects that are in line with not only the UN’s vision, but also the NDB’s.

BRICS signed an agreement on Tuesday involving 28 projects in the fields of computer programming, technical services, culture, art, economy, commerce, logistics and transportation – with a total value of more than $2.1 billion. The UAE’s contribution to such projects will be fundamental in deciding whether the mega-rich Arab country should ascend into BRICS and not only the NDB.

The selection of the UAE, Uruguay and Bangladesh as the first three non-founding partners of the NDB indicates the intentions of BRICS – regional expansion with a focus on economic and transportation cooperation. This cooperation, as well as integration, is especially crucial as the world struggles to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout. Because of this, the NDB will likely focus in the short to medium term on the rejuvenation of member countries following the pandemic, particularly in transitioning to a digital economy and green energy.

It was estimated that emerging economies needed about $2 trillion in infrastructure investments per year for the next 20 years to maintain growth rates, however, commercial banks have refused to meet the gap. Essentially, the NDB partly fills the gap that Western financial institutions refuse to do.

By positioning itself to take advantage of a unique opportunity to project a new vision for financing, the NDB is challenging the dominance of Western financial institutions and also progressing the prestige of BRICS in its endeavour to advance a multipolar world order. The accession of the UAE sees one of the Middle East’s most influential countries join the NDB, whilst Uruguay and Bangladesh open the path for regional integration under the context of BRICS, something that has not occurred since the group was established in 2006.

infobrics.org

Bangladesh’s odyssey towards democracy and development has never been smooth since its emergence as an independent nation in 1971. The founder of the nation, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was killed with most members of his family in an army coup in 1975. The army rule continued till 1990. The two major national parties Awami League, led by daughter of Mujibur, Hasina, and Bangladesh National Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia ruled the country till 2007, when country wide chaos and protests led intervention of the army, which continued till December 2008, when Hasina came back to power with an absolute majority in parliament. While Hasina followed the policies outlined by his father towards evolving Bangladesh as a democratic society, the tilt of the opposition BNP towards extremist forces appeared more prominent. In fact BNP had earlier formed government at the centre with a Jamaat-e-Islami which is well known for its radical views and agendas. The two women remained at the helm of Bangladesh politics but with least agreement between them on the issues of development, democracy, secularism, relations with neighbours. As a result, the slide of this tiny nation, surrounded on three sides by India and on one side by Bay of Bengal, and with myriad problems like poverty, illiteracy, population explosion, into instability became obvious.

However, while Bangladesh’s journey towards development and democracy remained fragile, its movement towards radicalism and violence happened steadfastly. In the narratives of its nation building and extremism, the later has appeared to trump over the former. The steady growth of radical elements and their entrenchment into the armed forces became widely visible in late 1990s and later. The rise of Hizbut Tahrir in 2000 and its collusion with Al Qaeda became apparent in later years. The organization collected enough money from home and from abroad to plant seeds of extremism in Bangladesh soil, otherwise stricken by poverty and corruption, and draw to its fold unemployed youth. There were around 125 extremist organizations in the country including Jamatul Mujahidin Bangladesh, Harkatul Jihadi Islami and Khatme Nobuwat. According to former Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Shafi Sami, the extremists in Bangladesh trained around 50,000 cadres by 2004-05. The extremist organizations did not hide its anti-secular rhetoric and even supported extremist organizations from India like Indian Mujahideen. Indian police has revealed on many occasions how the collusion of Indian Mujahideen and Harkatul Jihadi Islami played a dangerous role in orchestrating bomb blasts in various Indian cities. Sheikh Hasina did strike the hornet’s nest when her government banned the organization in October 2010, thus further earning its ire and strengthening its resolve to work against Hasina.

Hasina’s emphasis on democracy and secularism, and her initiatives to promote friendly relations with India too did not fit well with the policies of radicals as well as some opposition parties, which perceive India not in friendly terms. Hasina’s policies to move close to India further earned the ire of the extremists. After coming to power in December 2008, Hasina’s first foreign visit was India, and during her visit both the countries signed many agreements, and resolved to solve many contentious issues. She moved the state apparatus to eliminate networks of Indian insurgents in Bangladesh soil. India’s northeast has always been thorny due to insurgency, as the separatist and unruly elements often found safe haven in the neighbourhood. Hasina ensured their dismantlement from the Bangladesh soil. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Bangladesh last year to further boost bilateral relations. Hasina government has also taken positively India’s request for transit in Bangladesh soil and ports for movement of goods and smooth trade with its northeast and ASEAN countries particularly Myanmar. This month Hasina visited border Indian state of Tripura to receive honorary doctorate degree from Tripura University. While receiving the award, Hasina praised India profusely and narrated how India played an active role in its liberation and how Tripura played a key role in providing shelter to more than a million refugees from Bangladesh during the liberation war. This praise of India, which is perceived by some extremists as a Hindu state, might have further bolstered the resolve of radicals to see Hasina in negative.

Hasina opened Pandora’s Box by opening the case of 1971 war, and put to trial many army officers who were involved in crimes including human rights violations. As earlier Bangladesh was a part of Pakistan; it was but natural that some of these officers owed allegiance to Pakistan and its policies. Reportedly, in 2009 Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari sent an emissary to Dhaka to persuade Hasina not to open the past cases, but Hasina went ahead with her policies to put to trial these officers. Such an act might have been construed by some opposition parties as anti-Pakistan and pro-India, thus further ensconcing internecine feud in Bangladesh politics. The army spokesperson, Brigadier General Mashud Razzaq remained veiled when he said “We will not brush aside the possibility.” It may be farfetched to conclude the involvement of Pakistan in the coup and as the army rightly says that the detailed investigation will reveal more skeletons in the cupboard. However, even without external intervention, the Bangladesh politics is chaotic and radical enough to spring homemade coups. A study of 2005 suggests that about 60 per cent of Bangladesh’s armed forces, particularly the lower ranks, are radicalized and have become ideological and political. Razzaq said, “If you review the mode of activities of militant organizations, their indoctrination system, ideology and how they work, you will know that two to three officers admitted their links with Hizbut Tahrir.”

The coup attempt took a concrete shape in December 2011. Two retired army officers and about 16 middle level officers were involved in the plot, with support from an outsider, based in Hong Kong. One Major Ziaul Huq played an active role in coordinating the coup attempt, and sent emails to a non-resident Bangladeshi, Ishraq Ahmed, reportedly based in Hong Kong and published blog in facebook inciting revolt. One national daily, Amar Desh, sympathetic to radical ideology published the blog under title, “Mid-level officers of Bangladesh Army are Bringing Down Changes Soon.” The Hizbut Tahrir distributed leaflets containing the blog. After the army busted the blot and arrested two retired army officers Lt. Col. Ehsan Yusuf and Major Zakir, and house arrested two serving officers Maj. Gen. Kamruzzaman and Brig. Gen. Tariq, the coup attempt has so far been foiled. While Major Huq is absconding, the army is conducting the detailed investigation in the coup. The army spokesperson Razzaq promised to cleanse the ‘evil forces banked on Bangladesh Army.’

Undoubtedly with the failed coup attempt, the democracy in Bangladesh will be further strengthened. But, it will be difficult to say, given the radicalization of the society, whether there will be no further coup attempts in future. Within three years in office, the Hasina government has already faced two coup attempts, one in 2009 organized by the Bangladesh Rifles, and the recent one by middle level army officers. However, with the failure of this coup, one can further hope with army spokesperson Razzaq that army will play a crucial role in the strengthening Bangladesh’s democracy, and emerge as a facilitator of development rather than a means for extremism.
 

During the visit D. Medvedev and A.A. Zardari discussed such issues as war on terror and illegal drug trafficking. A particular attention was paid to the intensification of the foreign trade, considering that the current trade turnover of $400 million does not answer the potential and geopolitical ambitions of the two countries. In the course of the talks the parties touched upon the development of trade, providing support to investors and joint projects, primarily in such sectors as energy, metallurgy and agriculture. In particular, Russia’s participation in the construction of the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to India was discussed. This gas pipeline is expected to go through the territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Note: the scale of the Russian-Pakistani projects on cooperation with Afghanistan is much bigger than the scale of the similar US-Pakistani projects). Finally the air traffic between the two countries will be resumed.

The cooperation between Russia and Pakistan has obvious geopolitical reasons. During the visit of A.A. Zardari to Russia the parties stressed the crucial importance of sustaining peace and stability in Afghanistan; it was underscored that the national reconciliation in that country can be achieved only if the Afghan people play the defining role in this process. Multilateral projects of the regional development can be very useful for the settlement of conflicts within the country. (India, which remains the largest regional sponsor, has already invested more than $1.5 billion into the Afghan economy. At the same time China has provided the financial aid to Afghanistan which is twice as much as the contribution of India in the Afghan development).

The visit of A.A. Zardari to Russia proved that Pakistan is intensively working on the diversification its foreign trade ties and foreign policy. In these activities Pakistan is supported by its main and “all weather” ally – China, which pursues the “soft cоntainment” policy to downsize the US’ influence in Asia.

By 2030 the population of South Asia may reach 2 billion people. Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are the countries with extremely severe economic problems. Since ancient times the Indian subcontinent and the adjacent territories were linked with Central Asia by million of invisible threads and Moscow is very concerned over the situation there especially after “Arab revolutions”…In many aspects the political stability in Central Asia depends on the stability of the state institutions in Pakistan. In other words, Russia should take active part not only in the complex formation of the geopolitical forces in South Asia but also contribute to the settlement of emerging inter-state conflicts in the region, switching them into the mode of constant dialogue and mutual understanding. This implies hard work for the Russian diplomacy in this direction.

Developing relations with Pakistan Russia should not forget about the strategic partnership with India, which has been recently called “privileged”. Developing relations with China India should strengthen its foreign policy positions in the region. So far Delhi has not regulated the relations with some of the neighboring countries in South Asia while China is intensively building the relations with them.

Moreover, China is trying to neutralize potentially anti-Chinese forces among the regional Indian elites by planning mass investments into the economy of the state of Gujarat and experts say that this is just the beginning.

Under the current circumstances India has to resume relations with Russia as a potential “balance-beam” of China and the power which is able to act in the interests of India in South Asia. Logically, it would be possible to remove India’s concern with geopolitical ambitions of China via closer cooperation of BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). But now the Russian political elite do not have the clear picture of BRICs’ role o in the future world order. It should be admitted that Russia’s current difficult relations with the “largest democracy in the world” is the consequence of the negligence of part of the Russian elite to the Indian initiatives of the 1990-s, in particular to the ideas of the geopolitical triangle of Russia, India and China.

The collapsed “post-American world” continues to become more complicated looking for models which are capable to stop the growth of the international chaos especially after the “Arab revolutions” and the “Libyan crisis”. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) promises to become one of such “fasteners”. By mid June India and Pakistan are expected to join this organization.

For obvious reasons the Americans are not happy with the prospect of SCO’s expansion and its stronger influence on the global policy. In this process the US sees the signs of geopolitical “stepping up” of China and probably of Russia too.

This concern has its reasons. Just like in the times of H.D. Mackinder (1861-1947) Eurasia remains the “Heartland”. At the same time it is getting more difficult for the US (whatever institutes, mechanisms and links it uses) to control the behavior of large continental powers – Russia, Germany and others, let alone China. The efficient aid on behalf of Britain and France is very unlikely

What do we have now? India begins to play more important role in the plans of the US which wants to keep its global superiority. With the support by influential groups of the Indian establishment Washington hopes to refrain the expansion of China in the Asian Pacific region; in China “the union of four democracies” – the US, Japan, Australia and India – is called “the eastern NATO” …

Russiashould continue to develop and polish its relations with India removing all the shortcomings which were accumulated over the last 20 years …

The break-up of the USSR and the fact that Russia geopolitically, culturally, ideologically and commercially «left» India have formed a negative attitude to Russia among different groups of Indian society. The influential groups of the ruling class have already placed Russia in the second league of the global policy as a regional state, which has limited influence on the course of international events.

When Russia failed to supply 16 multifunctional jet fighters to India (worth $9.2 billion) “the skeptics” in Delhi took it as something quite predictable. But it is necessary to look at this discouraging incident in the long term perspective. The Russian government should answer two questions.

1) Does this failure strengthen doubts of the Indian Defense Industry and defense industries of other countries about the capability of the Russian Defense sector to provide its partners with combat systems built with the use of the latest technologies and to guarantee security in medium and long term perspective let’s say till 2050?

2) Does the Russian government provides sufficient support to the Defense sector in the situation when the efficiency of the foreign policy of any country is defined by its scientific and technical potential; and the ability of the national economy to quickly apply the latest scientific achievements?

The efficiency of the Russian foreign policy, the fate of Russia as an influential power and the prospects of “reset” of its relations with India and other countries in South Asia in the interest of the common security in Eurasia depend on the quickness and accuracy of the answers to these questions.

The Daily Star published from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, published an article on 3^rd March of this month, which referred to the state minister of home in the Sheikh Hasina government that eight of percent profit from Islami Bank Bangladesh goes towards funding militant activities in the country through Islami Bank Foundation. The statement by the serving minister might have been evoked a strong reaction from various agencies including the bank itself which denied any such link, but the fact remains that the Minister’s statement must have some veracity behind it as the minister did not withdraw his statement. The increasing militant activities in Bangladesh have become a matter of concern for the Hasina government. The entrenchment of Al Qaeda elements, more so in recent years, has made the scenario murkier. The leader of Jamaat ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh(JMB), currently in custody, has admitted the links between his organization and Al Qaeda. Reportedly, many of the leaders of the extremist organizations such as JMB and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) in Bangladesh are Afghan veterans.

The fact remains in the recent past the extremist organizations have emerged powerful. Though the Sheikh Hasina government, in contrast to the previous government of Khalida Zia, has pronounced its strong resentment and promised action against the radical elements in the country, these organizations particularly HUJI in the past decade have widened its network far wider from its original camps in the hill tracts of Chittagong, Cox Bazar and Banderban. The extremism in India in the form of Indian Mujahideen has developed close links with HUJI, and the bomb blasts in India in 2008, particularly at Hyderabad, indicated the clear HUJI connection. Hence, the growing financial muscle and its growing membership across the world is a matter of serious concern. There are also reports that the extremist groups in Bangladesh supported the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), provided them shelter and arms.

It may not be illogical that the recent arrest of the Bangladeshi national, Rajib Karim, is totally devoid of extremist links in Bangladesh. Reportedly he had links with JMB and worked with the media department of the extremist organization. Rajib, a Bangladeshi national, after completing his schooling in Dhaka went to the UK and studied electronics at Manchester University from 1998 to 2002, and later got a job at British Airways. Rajib, and his brother, shuttled between Bangladesh and the UK, and gradually they turned to extremist elements. Both had the occasion to go to Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, where the US-born noted extremist Anwar al-Awlaqiis staying. Awlaqi and Rajib remained in contact through emails, when Rajib returned back, and Maliki found in him a suitable candidate to conduct terrorist activities. The 12 February 2011 email of Awlaqi to Rajib enquired whether it is possible “to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US…did any of the brs [brothers] you mentioned get training on x-ray machines or understand their limitations?”,” to which Rajib replied three days later on 15 February 2011 that “I can work with the bros to find out the possibilities of shipping a package to a US bound plane.” Rajib was arrested on 25 February at his desk at New Castle. The police took nine months (since the suspicion over his activities) to encrypt the codes through which he contacted. Besides the email messages, the police claimed to have recovered extremist documents, etc. On the external hard drive of his computer was found a book called “Chemistry of Explosives,” providing instructions about producing detonators, fuses, gun powder and petrol bombs.

The Indian police arrested Milon Niranjan Mistry from the Narayangaon area near Pune on 14 February 2011. Mistry is found to have terror links in other countries. He was in occupation of fake Indian PAN (permanent account number) card, etc. There are suspicions that the Mistry was motivated to damage the Radiowave metre in the region. Last year the Pune police had arrested members of the recently emerging Indian Mujahideen from Pune city. And also the German Bakery bomb blast that took place last year in Pune and killed eight people including foreign nationals indicated that the link of Indian Mujahideen crossed beyond Indian boundaries. Though the police have not yet come out with any authentic information as to why Mistry was arrested, but his complicity and fake documents indicate that Mistry, who disguised as a labourer, was not a mere labourer in search of bread but with some ulterior motives.

The spectre of extremism in South Asia has appeared to have grown beyond leaps and bounds in recent months. Though in one of his recent articles in The Washington Post Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari reiterated his government’s policies to uphold liberal views, it appears the space for liberals in Pakistan is shrinking. This year so far two prominent leaders, the serving governor of Punjab Salman Taseer, and the sole Christian minister of minority affairs in the council of ministers, Shahbaz Bhatti were killed by extremist elements. Both the leaders upheld the liberal views and opposed extreme laws like the Blasphemy Law. Bhatti had played a major role in promoting interfaith harmony.The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan openly threatens any member of civil society who voices against their activities. The organization in December 2007 killed one of the noted leaders of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, and this year they killed another two liberal leaders. This gives the indication that the tussle between liberalism and extremism is perhaps tilting in favour of extremism.

The whole of South Asia was at one point of time, before the onset of extremism and its twin terrorism, had an atmosphere in which existed shared culture and traditions despite erection of new borders. A keen observation of the Indian subcontinent will make it clear how despite myriad diversities there are many things in common among the people. To give a simple example, the name Rajib can be that of a Hindu or a Muslim. Similarly, one can find that the national anthems of both India and Bangladesh were written by one person, Rabindranath Tagore. Or one can find one of the famous national songs of India was written by Mohammad Iqbal, the famous Pakistani philosopher and poet. The extremist elements in the region target this syncretic culture of the South Asia as they emphasize on exclusivity while denigrating other viewpoints. And that is a matter of major concern.