HomeHistoryThrough the Lens of Normalization Policy: Bangladesh and Palestine

Through the Lens of Normalization Policy: Bangladesh and Palestine

In the Middle East, the ‘Normalization Policy’ has been proclaimed to regulate formal relations to Muslim countries by Israel that cut off the demand of a free independent territory to Palestinians suffering from illegitimate occupation by Israel long time. This was comparatively a reformative policy of the United States in the late 60th when the Nixon administration became obsessed to contact with china by mediating Pakistan. India was approaching ‘Pro-Soviet’ policy, and Pakistan was continuing the genocide in its Eastern Wing. Pakistan was considered a crucial agent to the United States perceptively to normalize relations with its regional ally China.

The special importance of the US to non-democratic China, which Genocide had been prolonged, caused to recapture democratic values and rights and a full free independent country. Thus, the study drives to review the historical process attempted again by Trump Administration in the Middle East.


Normalization Policy: Bangladesh perspective

Many think so that Chinese had a reluctant policy to the genocide, caused by West Pakistan Military Junta on righteous Bengali people, resulted from that sacrifice of three million people, with three hundred thousand women rape cases, harassments and tortures together. In the early decade of Liberation war, National Awami Party (NAP) and Beijing had a bonding through ‘Pro-Chinese’ policy by Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani who appealed to Chinese Premier Zhou to override Pakistani Army who suppressed The East Bengal people in almost every sphere of socio-political and cultural life.

Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai sought to normalize relations between Bangladesh and Pakistan through consultations and dialogues among mainstream political parties’ leaders since the very beginning of Liberation War.[1] The advice has been abashed to the Pakistan foreign secretary S.M Khan who solicited to grant military assistance from Chinese people to persist the genocide. Chinese restlessness might be caused by either ‘Indo-Soviet intimacy’ towards Bangladesh or dismembering Pakistan. The movement was elevated across the Southeast Asian nations that would be threats for it from Taiwan, Tibet, etc. [2]. Despite having suited to China as expecting an ideological antagonist ‘small power’ across the Indian border, China became more disappointed by ‘Indo-Soviet’ friendship towards Bangladesh that was a cautious for regime change and shifting the political instability in South-Asia.[3]

Most notably, China’s standpoint clarified Bangladesh of hegemonic interests when China applied ‘Veto’ against Bangladesh to be a United Nations General Assembly member back in 1972. Meanwhile, the normalization process between US-China was developed, and Pakistan became a crucial partner to both that hardly noticed the real consequences of genocide in Pakistan internal politics. Normalization process then found less effective ground in about Bangladesh and prioritized the interests of powerhouses.


Normalization policy: Palestine perspective

The US is more suspicious for balancing behaviour in the Middle East as emerging regional powers are fighting to shape regime like Iran and Turkey across the Persian Gulf. Ironically the policy turns into advice to the parties those have an affinity and sympatric solidarity towards Palestinians, particularly Turkey and Iran that they have already stressed their opposition to the deal. Overthrowing the claim of altruistic behaves to Palestinians and humanitarian aids; normalization policy thus reflects US-Chinese normalization policy in the way of Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. The US seemed obsessed with creating relations with China in the normalization process, or literally to define ‘peaceful coexistence’. The Zhou and Nixon-administration did not much care about the democratic rights of East Pakistani people for settling an independent territory.[4]

On September 15, 2020 ‘Abraham pact’ has been signed between UAE-Israel-Bahrain, mediating by the USA at Whitehouse, which has side-cut the claim of independent Palestinian territory on 1967 Israel-Palestine border agreement.

Powerhouses oftentimes acknowledge an eagerness for their maximum interests in the stagnation of power, whether small powers may survive in power or bandwagon is ‘does not matter’.[5] Palestinians Authority (PA) has condemned such deal by Arab nations with ideological, political, cultural and geostrategic ties. Despite having approval to normalization policy by several Arab leaders, the new generation leaders who have less affinity to Palestinians, are being tarnished by Arabians. They are being challenged through bypassing the rights and violating Arab unity on strategic interest to Israel. Saudi has yet to approve the process for its internal, external political pressure and symbolic religious gestures; Saudi is caused as a mediator to bring Bahrain in the negotiation table with Israel.

Thus, normalisation policy prefers to recognise existing undisruptive international politics and keep interested in ongoing crisis without considering ‘mutual interest’ for parties in pacts. By the process, the US has retained its worth as a protector in the Middle East. The policy has become a legitimating of the recognition of Israel dwelling in Palestine border. Thus, Normalization Policy means the recognition of the occupation of the usurper regime in Palestine. Indeed, it is a competing management policy through which interests have been preserved to the upper hands.

It is to say that the US has anticipated futurity worries and approached to pressurize and blackmail Arab nations to maintain its superior role in the Middle East, as well as the process also has turned into a realistic path in the Middle East to obstruct Israeli aggression that is accused of doing massive catastrophe in Palestine.[6] In true sense, Thrones have already been brawled to many Arab leaders in the Middle East to keep alive in their possessions. To protect Thrones and regional hegemonic asperity in the Middle East, they are more adhering to regime killings and demanding the position like before the Arab spring and serving interests to powers.

Trump and Nixon are similar in the way both are obsessed and China to bring the wings under control. Trump also tried to make a peace deal in the Middle East and expected to get an honourable, noble prize like his predecessor Barak Obama just before the US presidential election in 2020. Unfortunately, Trump has failed to sound his voice ‘Make America Great Again’ in his sloth tongue.

However, Normalization Policy is the breakdown of ideological, political-cultural taboo between parties regarding dominant and subordinate agents. Surprisingly and proudly, the process could not undermine the rights, and the people protested against the oppressors in the Bangladesh Liberation War. If Bangladesh were forced to reconsider Normalization, it would take more time to become independent for which more sacrifices would have to be made. In that case, repeating the history does never bring the same output to Palestinians but to say the rights of an independent territory must be ensured to Palestinians to stay independently in the world.

Finally, the five key points are mentioned above to explain the Normalization Policy in the overview of Bangladesh-Palestine perspective. Firstly; Dominant power is much more suspicious to the shifting of powers to the periphery. Secondly; ambitious to be superior in regional powers may sift further mobilization to conflict. Thirdly; there is always a ‘special diplomacy’ for traditional alliances to Superpowers. Fourthly; Ideological rifts are a crucial factor in the regional normalization process and the last; powerhouses always try to engage themselves in security issues to them who are blessed with resources despite having fractured attitudes towards heavyweight and handicapped allies.

[1] Pakistan Times, 13 April 1971. Since there has been some controversy surrounding some of its contents, and allegations, Pakistani media did not publish it in its entirety.

[2] Henry Kissinger, the White House Years (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1979), p. 906.

[3] The Chinese chief delegate to the United Nations, Huang Hua, vehemently criticised the Indo-Soviet collaboration as ‘song in the duet’. Peking Review (10 December 1971), pp 8-10.

[4] Imtiaz Ahmed, [“The Superpowers Strategy in the Third World: The 1971 South Asian Crisis,” in Emajuddin Ahamed, ed., Foreign Policy of Bangladesh: a small state’s imperative (Dhaka: University Press Limited),1984

[5] Robert Gilpin, ‘War and change in world politics’(1981), chapter; Hegemonic war and international change, p.186

[6] https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sc14315.doc.htm



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Read