Pakistan does not have the clout or influence to pressure China or any other country to put pressure on Burma. Only superpowers have such abilities. China itself had interest in Burma, so they did not push them too hard.
In a critical scenario your so called bestie will calculate it's own national interest first before supporting you, nobody will support you because you are their 'bestie'. Even superpowers take into consideration their own interest before supporting anybody. Your desired bestie Pakistan sold fighter jets to Burma and trained their military even after the Rohingya fiasco because it was in their interest to do so and earn money instead of imaginary friendship/brotherhood.
Your argument that nobody supported BD because BD did not have a good friend is flawed. When you see countries supporting other countries, they do it because they have a shared interest. We don't need Pakisan, India, China, USA or Europeans as besties, there is no concept of bestie in statecraft, it's not a kindergarten.
How is my argument flawed? Do you not understand the significance of close co operation? What do u think close co operation is adapted for in the first place? For mutual benefits and interests.
Also, please wear your glasses properly. I never said , Pakistan was my desired Bestie for BD, all I said was, lets say THEORETICALLY they were our besties, then they wudve played a strategical role in pressurizing the Chinese decision making. Any man with the slightest knowledge of international geopolitics, knows that China- Pakistan share the strongest strategic alliance /bi lateral pact in the world right now.
Even lets say we had a better co operation with China, and if a regional superpower such as china had a few Trade MoU lined up with us, or had they already had more economic investments in BD than they do in Burma, then they whole scenario surrounding the rohingya crisis wudve been different. This is all because of national interests as well, nothing is outside of the condition of national interests.
The Rohingya issue stands as a rarity in modern written history. In terms of the utter global Silence and non acknowledgement, this is due to two reasons. First, China has a close mutual relationship with Myanmar. The Chinese already wield more infulence than even America in global organizations such as UN and the WHO ( this has come to light since the covid crisis). Hence , cause of this influence the UN is silent to one of the most atrocious, hyneous and contemptible genocide committed in recorded history.
Secondly, Bangladesh in it's foreign policy has been neutral so far in terms of regional geopolitics. whilst, for the most part this has served the country well , but the lack of dynamism in this particular doctrine has been exposed in our total isolation and lack of support in the international community wen it came to the Burmese aggression , which is a geopolitical issue.
So, in terms of some Domestic issues staying neutral helps, but in the case international/ regional geopolitics and geopolitical events it is detrimental. And the Rohingya issue is an example of a GEOPOLITCAL EVENT.
All in all im just saying foreign policy must be more robust than just staying neutral. You are probably sumone who likes to portray yourself as a wise head, but as Plato said, "Our knowledge is nothing but shadows that play upon the walls". So please study more in these issues before acting like a WISEHEAD.
Nice picture btw, im a great admirer of Bangabandhu myself, and a good catchy name. Well done.
