Our confusing ‘peace-loving diplomacy’

There are actually enough reasons to fear whether we have become diplomatically confused on resolving the Rohingya crisis. Over a week ago there was a special UNSC meeting to have discussed the crisis in the presence of the UN Secretary General. Even though there wasn't a full-fledged resolution to have been passed but the Secretary General had formally voiced the three main conditions -- now known to all, soon followed the Myanmar State Councillor Kyaw Tint Swe's visit to meet our foreign office high-ups in Dhaka.
In the midst of a number of visits and dialogues it appears there is little progress. We also don't know how much global impact the last UNSC meeting had over the repatriation of the refugees back in Myanmar. Undeniably, foreign aid coupled with empathy-topped tears  are pouring in from many countries and the global media has become abuzz condemning the military crackdown on the helpless Muslim minority in Myanmar, but this writer believes a lot is yet undone, at least in the field of conducting diplomatic efforts.

*Also in the face of tackling any international issue, our foreign ministry seems to be parroting the same old motto of our foreign policy 'friendship with all, enmity with none' and also a 'peaceful solution' to the Rohingya crisis.*
What needs a clear understanding in this regard is -- the Rohingya crisis is not about any unresolved bilateral issue between the two countries -- it is a manmade humanitarian crisis which has sprung up in Myanmar for over four decades. Therefore, the source, the oppressors and the oppressed are all in that country. Bangladesh is only being forced to share the plight of the minority because of its proximity to the crisis point and geographical border shared with Myanmar.  
For instance, when Bangladesh needed to resolve the unresolved sea territory issue with Myanmar, it was forced to take the country to the international courts in Hague and get it resolved through a landmark verdict in 2014. It was purely a bilateral issue. Now since the international community and the UNSC members have attempted to resolve the crisis within their professional capacities, which has no connection with Bangladesh, the Myanmar government should exclusively deal with the UN and the International Community on how the country plans to put an end to the crisis.
There is also a risk involved for engaging in bilateral talks. That said -- Myanmar government can well try to evade humanitarian obligations and aim to settle the issue by following adhoc measures, meaning -- temporarily it may take a few thousand refugees and give a clear 'diplomatic eye-wash' to the rest of the world. The apparent fear is that, our next door neighbour can potentially divert international attention and somewhat convince the UN to tackle the issue by taking full advantage of a bilateral settlement with us.
Our diplomats and politicians of the ruling party have clearly forgotten the role played by the Indian government and Indian diplomacy in 1971. Then Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi herself visited important capitals of the countries to discuss the solution for the Bengali refugees  fled to her country to save themselves from the military brutalities by Pakistan army. Likewise, the Rohingyas have suffered and still suffering many times more savagery in the hands of Myanmar army.
Indira Gandhi grasped the situation and did not waste time for bilateral diplomacy with Pakistan because she realised that Pakistan was not interested in a peaceful solution. India became active in all fronts of diplomacy to gather strength and even signed a defence pact with Russia.
Despite having a permanent representative at the UN, a spokesperson and envoy in Geneva and diplomats in all the leading nations we have not been dynamic enough in gathering the global impetus. The international community is too is puzzled and confused as regards to our own determination and diplomacy. Even though the refugee crisis has happened at a different time under different circumstances and at a different country, but we should have been prepared with effective diplomatic strategies since the Rohingyas were forced to enter Bangladesh for well over thirty years now.
Also in the face of tackling any international issue, our foreign ministry seems to be parroting the same old motto of our foreign policy 'friendship with all, enmity with none' and also a 'peaceful solution' to the Rohingya crisis.   
The bottom line is -- there is a pragmatic solution to the Rohingya crisis which may not be peaceful. Bangladesh and Myanmar both peacefully co-exist except on the Rohingya issue. Our diplomats should also alter and adjust our diplomatic motto in tuned with the foreign policies of other countries.
Whereas we only seek peace on every issue -- Myanmar's government has repeatedly violated at least 4 of its 5 "Principles of peaceful co-existence" foreign policies which are -- mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, to abide by mutual non-aggression, respect for mutual equality and to work for mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.
We too have to re-align our foreign policies while dealing with them. The policy of mere 'peace with all' won't end all types of manmade crisis. May be it's time to ponder over 'country specific' foreign policies.

The writer is Assistant Editor of the Daily Observer