On a mid -July afternoon in 1789, strolling in the magnificent gardens of Versailles near Paris, King Louis XVI of Bourbon France was apprised of the fall of Bastille. "What, a revolt!" he exclaimed, in near disbelief! "No Sire, a revolution!" responded the courtier who brought him the tidings. The anecdote brings to mind what might have been likely happened within the precincts of Gonobhavan in Dhaka this year on the 5th of August, or 36th July in revolutionary parlance. A decade and a half of predatory politics, snuffing out all elements of the right to speak and think, were confronted by a torrential stream of public protest, and washed away by what has been called the Monsoon Revolution. What is now sought to be built in the newly cleansed country is a lighthouse emanating a beacon of hope for a New Bangladesh 2.0.

But as this new Bangladesh is built, a new world order is also emerging, serving as its matrix. But what paradigmatic order is it replacing? Let us focus a bit on the theoretical underpinning. The American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn introduced the all-important concept of paradigm-shift in his influential tome "The Structure of Scientific Revolution' which he wrote in 1962. He argued that all scientific work was conducted within the prevailing intellectual and mental framework, in other words a paradigm. But this dominant paradigm alters or shifts when new evidence of change presents itself with which the old framework is incompatible. This triggers a paradigm-shift in scientific inquiry. A new theory then provides a fresh framework for human activity. Soon enough social scientists began to see its value in enhancing the understanding in the socio-political behavior of human beings and social entities including States, due to their exposure to new external stimuli.

In the contemporary world, the dominant paradigm was that the US was the undisputed leader of the "free world". Following the disastrous World wars of the 20th Century, the US played the lead role in creating a world order in what my mentor Hedley Bull would call the "Global Anarchical society". It helped create the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations and the world Trade Organization. These in turn set down norms, conditions and standards for trade and commerce, arms control and disarmament, and relations between States. In its Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union, it won out through its policy of "containment", a term coined by the US diplomat George F Kennan. Also, let us not forget, through a modicum of appeasement of Maoist China, in the initiative spearheaded by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

As global politics evolved, Karl Marx's predictions were turned on their head. Instead of "capitalism' collapsing due to its inner conditions, this fate was suffered by 'communism". The French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine described America as the world's only "hyperpower" in a unipolar world. With it came, as was wont to happen, a sense of hubris, evidenced in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by George Bush. It is thought that he was influenced by the powerful "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons". Many of them were disciples of Chicago Professor Leo Strauss, who in turn was a votary of the Greek thinker, Plato.

Now Plato believed that only a handful of individuals understood the essence of what is great and good. These were the Philosopher kings or Magistrates, whose penchant for 'empiricism' over "shadow learning" was laudable. This was characterized in his 'allegory of the Cave", which is perhaps the most famous apologue in philosophy. Since Plato championed the rule of a golden few, liberal intellectuals like Karl Popper or political practitioners like RHS Crossman have called Plato "an enemy of Open Society". American Founding Fathers, champions of democracy one and all, drew their inspiration, not from Plato, but from a study of constitutions by his student, Aristotle. Aristotle had famously said "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas ", meaning "Dear is Plato, but dearer still is the truth". But then, after decades of countless foreign interventions, significant parts of America's ruling ethos felt constrained by the rules of the world order they had themselves helped to create. America felt like Gulliver was bound and restrained by the Lilliputians as in Jonathan Swift's famous satire, "Gulliver's Travels".

Into an America that was exhausted, enter Donald Trump. He is a product of circumstances, for ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes out of nothing. We know him well from his first term. He tore up the rulebooks of traditional conduct across the broad spectrum of global issues, and as he said, put America first in order to make it great again. He re-engaged with the world on new and transactional terms, motivated not so much by abstract values as by perceived national self-interest. He would treat friends and foes at par, and rather than embroil himself needlessly in external conflicts, effected a virtual retreat into "fortress America". His admiration of strong personalities is reflected in his healthy respect for Putins, Xi Jin pings and Kim Jong Uns of the world. He talks of ending, not starting wars. It opens some possibilities of a "black swan' positive impact on global politics.

In the meantime, the world has been witnessing the steady and inexorable rise of China. The Chinese believe their civilizational approach to other global actors comprise what in Mandarin is called Zhang Guomeng or China Dream. To my mind coincides three broad elements: First, 'equality', not necessarily in power terms but in negotiations, with the US, to describe which phenomenon the British historian Niall Fergusson has coined the term 'Chimerica'. Second, non-confrontation, which is achieving goals without engaging in conflict with actual adversaries; and the third is 'win-win cooperation', that is improving the quality of life of all concerned, by mutually rewarding collaboration with others, such as through Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative. This now includes a mega port in America's backyard, Peru.

While the US and the West are wary of China's burgeoning capabilities, the Chinese called theirs initially a "peaceful rise". Now even more circumspect, they describe it simply as "peaceful development". Of course, the established powers, including a bipartisan US, including John Biden and Trump, see this as a threat. Andre Gunder Frank once said, the only thing to fear about a rising China is the American reaction to it. On the other hand, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a fellow ANU departmental alumni, urged China to build 'the harmonious world 'it seeks to, by being a 'responsible stake holder 'in 'the global order'. Be that as it may, China is seen to be quietly pivotally positioning itself in the region, as also in the globe. The moods of the Chinese dragon, even at times seemingly shifting, reflects a consistency in terms of conformity to 'socialism with Chinese characteristics. For now, China is readying itself for the Trump transition with possible policy responses. Should US tariffs increase by 40%, the negative impact of growth on China could be as high as - 1%

There is a process of evolution within the Chinese revolution. Mao Zedong's radicalism, Deng Xiaoping's pragmatism, Hu Jintao's harmonization, and Xi Jinping's China Dream followed a pattern leading to what is called "China's Reawakening". China's external behavior-pattern resembles a river that meanders, albeit at times with sharp bends, but does not change course. China believes time is on its side and is not necessarily of the essence. No wonder once asked about the impact on history of the French Revolution, Zhou Enlai is reported to have remarked, "it's too soon to tell!"

According to IR realists, John Mearsheimer being one of them, it is the "big players' in the global system who will call the shots. In this view, the burgeoning power of the global south, the BRICS and their desire to counter "western hegemony" is a significant development but insufficient to impact critically the current global politics. In other words, the relations between the US and China will define the politics of our times. Between the contest of the two powers, a rising one pitted against a aside power, analysts have been warning for some time about the danger of war arising from what is known as the 'Thucydidean trap'. The Greek philosopher, Thucydides, while explaining the Peloponnesian war had said: "When Athens grew strong, there was great fear in Sparta, and war was inevitable". Ironically, Trump's unpredictability, and the ability to swing both ways, can help prevent what seemingly feels unavoidable.

So, how would a country like Bangladesh navigate itself in such an evolving global order or paradigm. Let us take a quick look at how weaker states generally tend to behave. There are three discernible options. One is what the Swedish analyst Erling Bjol described as "pilot fish behavior", whereby a smaller fish tacked closer to the shark to avoid being eaten, as Finland's President Urho Kekkonen related to the Soviet Union during the Cold War era. A second option was for the less powerful state to make it as strategically difficult as possible for any potential adversary to overcome it, as espoused by Prime Minister Tage Erlander around the same time. A third would be what the Australian author Ralph Pettman identified as Myanmar's choice, which is to opt out of the international system altogether.

No two situations can be similar. Bangladesh's predilections, for the last decade and half ere for the first option. Post Monsoon revolution one could expect a pivot towards the second option. The third, opting out of the international system, can be ruled out because of Bangladesh's structural global interdependence. The country is largely India-locked, both geographically and psychologically, the natural corollary was a policy underpinning the need to live in concord with but distinct from, the powerful neighbor. The concord was necessary because India was so much larger and more powerful. The distinction was essential to underscore Bangladesh's sovereignty. These two major policy ingredients sought to buttress Bangladesh's security and economic support through commerce, development cooperation, and remittances from overseas. All these elements required Bangladesh to seek a high level of international interactions.

Bangladeshis, both middle and working classes, consequently developed strong external linkages. The higher and middle echelons were not quite the 'comprador elite' of the Structural Dependency mode as in the "Dependencia School' of Hans singer, Raul Prebisch, Osvaldo Sunkel, Celso Furtado or Samir Amin. They were a new category of Bangladeshi 'Bhadralok' (literally, 'Gentlefolk') like their Calcutta counterparts of the British Raj period, who were linked to the East India Company. The Bangladeshi 'bhadralok' developed their own links with Malaysia, Singapore, the Middle East, Europe and America. The working classes, originally migrants from Sylhet to England, were joined by non-Sylheti contractual labor to the Middle East and elsewhere.

So, how did these factors impact on the external behavior of Bangladesh, a State seen as having a weak outer shell, prone to penetration. It called for policies of utmost circumspection requiring skillful execution. First, it made for avoidances of flashy foreign postures. The result was a penchant for adopting a high profile on low-risk issues like Climate Change, Palestine and Gaza, and low profile on high-risk issues like Ukraine and Taiwan. Second, there was an emphasis on multilateralism, on the UN and WTO, to buttress security and create a favorable trading matrix. A third would be to seek comfort and succour by belonging to larger groups such as G77, LDC or OIC, than acting alone on the international scene. The aftermath of the monsoon revolution could bring about some marked changes. At an international level, the western connections will receive an additional fillip. There would be a likelihood of interplay of the classical 'balance of power' politics. Lord Palmerstone's adage is always worth recalling. England, or any country for that matter, has no eternal and perpetual friends or enemies; only eternal and perpetual interests.

As in Mathematics and Physics, the search for utmost balance in external policy may lead to an equilibrium resulting in inertia. Some might be forgiven for saying that foreign policy and diplomacy are too important to be left to the Foreign Office and diplomats. We too have considerable 'soft power' that Professor Joseph Nye speaks of, to weaponize as tools of diplomacy. They lie in our non-technological and intellectual resources. They can and should be pressed into the service of our diplomacy.

For instance, Professor Yunus' advocacy of the economic system of three zeroes-zero poverty, zero unemployment, and zero net carbon emission. To him, the contemporary theoretical framework of capitalism unfortunately remains only partially built with Adam Smith's "Unseen Hands' favoring the rich in the marketplace. But there is a flipside of humanity in each of us that is reflected in our empathy for the underdog which can also be creatively transformed into profitability. As experiments in social business have proven, this can be as much a force, enhancing society by adding profit-motivation to bringing joy, beauty and love into the world. It has been said that economic growth is the rising tide that lifts all boats and people in them. But what about those who cling on to leaky craft, or those who have no boats at all? All policies, including foreign policy, must be people centric. No element of governance should remain an elite preserve; Salus populi suprema lex, the interest of the people is the supreme law.

Our youth, students and masses, and the martyrdom of nearly two thousand of them in July -August this year, have brought about changes that must be rendered sustainable. Our post Monsoon policies will focus on those aspirations. Too tall an order? I do not think so, for, has it not been aptly said that man's reach should exceed his grasp, what else are the heavens for?

Ambassador Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury (Retd.) PhD, President, Cosmos Foundation and Former Foreign Advisor, Bangladesh Caretaker Government (2007-2009)