US’ new stance on
North Korea’s threatening posture
M. Serajul Islam
North
Korea became a major issue of concern in Washington and in the country after a
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report became public at a recent
Congressional hearing that stated with “moderate confidence” that the secluded
country has achieved the technology to mount its nuclear bombs on a missile. North Korea under its new leader Kim Jung-un
carried out its third nuclear test in February after new UN sanctions and “disowned
his country’s armistice with South Korea and threatened to fire his
increasingly capable missiles towards the United States …and put the Korean
Peninsula and Washington on a war footing.” After raising hope that with his
exposure to the West, he would perhaps bring to his position a different,
positive approach than his father and grandfather; the new leader has brought
new tension not just in the Korean Peninsula but beyond.
To
try and put the public mind at ease in the United States, the Director of the
National Intelligence James R Clapper issued a statement to underplay the DIA
report. The statement said that the report in question was “not a consensus
view of the 15 other intelligence agencies.” The statement lessened public
concern but still many Americans, including few in Congress continued to worry
about a nuclear threat from North Korea on American soil. These concerns were
eased further after President Obama added his input. In an interview he gave to
NBC news this week, the President dismissed the fear that North Korea at
present has the capability to launch nuclear war heads atop missiles to carry
them medium or long range. The President nevertheless did not dismiss the
possibility that the North Koreans may have that capability in future by
repositioning US’ “missile defense systems to guard against any miscalculations
of their part.”
The
President in the NBC interview also stated that his administration would not be
encouraged by the threats from North Korea to “reward this kind of provocative
behavior” adding “you don’t get to bang your – your spoon on the table and
somehow get your way.” The interview
strongly hinted that the US Government has changed its strategy to deal with
the country in a manner markedly different from the past; to make it come for
negations without pre-conditions. In the first term, the President followed a
path of engagement with North Korea and participated actively in the Six Party
Talks established in 2003 with China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea
to end North Korea’s nuclear programme by offering it economic incentives that
the country very badly needed. The new leader is demanding resumption of these
talks conditionally; that the parties accept in advance North Korea’s status as
a nuclear weapon state that the United States has flatly turned down.
The
Six Party Talks was however never a smooth one and did not succeed in tying
North Korea to its commitments to give up the nuclear option. It was marked by
“diplomatic stand offs among individual participants, particularly the United
States and North Korea.” In fact, in
2009, North Korea abandoned the Six Party Talks and even went to the extent of
showing to a team of US scientists on a 2010 visit to Pyongyang “vast new enrichment
facility.” Nevertheless, North Korea under both Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il,
although always provocative, never seemed to cross into a corner from where it
could not return. Kim Jong-un seems to be provocative beyond the limits of his
father and grandfather. For instance, he is threatening even the United States
of a nuclear attack that his father and grandfather never considered and yet
insisting the start of talks conditionally; that the participating countries should
accept its status as a nuclear weapons state. With such a posture, he believes
he can get what his regime wants; badly needed economic assistance!
The
President’s effort to calm tensions with his NBC interview notwithstanding, his
administration is taking the threats coming from North Korea’s new leader
seriously on the diplomatic front. President Obama sent his Secretary of State
John Kerry to the region this week. The Secretary found that even North Korea’s
principal supporter China is upset with its one time protégé. On April 7 at the height of provocations, President
Xi Jingping warned North Korea strongly that “no one should be allowed to throw
a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains.” The Secretary
carried the US views on North Korea in unmistakable terms to his hosts in
Beijing, and US allies in Tokyo and Seoul that the US Government will not any
longer be motivated by North Korean “charade” and that the country must return
to the negotiating table without any preconditions. Between the President and
his Secretary, the US message on North Korea’s belligerence has been stated
unequivocally; that the US would not give in to threats and that it does not
trust North Korea to keep its promises because in 2005 and 2007, it agreed to
forgo the nuclear option for economic aid and when the US and South Korea
supplied that aid, it went back and carried out nuclear tests and 2006 and
2009.
The
new position of the US government not to be “blackmailed” by North Korea to go
for talks conditionally and then be duped again has also been based on its confidence
that the latest UN resolutions on sanctions would work on the recalcitrant
regime to see reason if member nations abide by the resolutions. Thus the US
believes that for the time the better option is to sideline the Six Party talks
and work with UN member nations, particularly China and Russia, for the success
of the sanctions. The US believes that
it can afford to so because its intelligence and those from allies suggests
that the recent threats from Kim Jong-un are exaggerated and that the new North
Korean leader is acting out of proportion to his regime’s actual worth.
At the end of the week, developments suggest
that the new North Korean leader has chewed more than he can digest by making
threats that his regime cannot carry out. In doing so, he may have shown that
he seriously lacks the qualities that his father and grandfather; the ability
to know how far to go. It seems like the US will allow him to cool down, let
economic sanctions to work and Wait for North Korea to return to the negotiating
table on its terms not on those of the regime so that when it returns to the
negotiating table, its hands would be weaker that it was when Kim Il Jong was
alive and thus more amenable to the demands of its adversaries for a de-nuclear
Korean Peninsula.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador and the Chairman, CFAS
Harare Test defeat and BCCB’s
strange statement
M. Serajul Islam
Those
who follow cricket as the game of their love are aware of one thing about it
that it is the game of glorious uncertainties. A player may score a big century
and be out for a duck in the following innings. A bowler may flatten an
opposition with his dangerous bowling and be pretty innocuous in the next
innings. A team may win big in a Test/one day game and lose the next one
miserably. It does not however appear like the Board that manages the game in
Bangladesh has even heard of this truth about cricket, let alone understand or
appreciate it.
The
management of Bangladesh cricket were gaga when the team returned recently from
Sri Lanka after drawing the one day serious with a full strength Sri Lankan
team and for scoring their highest innings in a Test of over 600 runs in the
first Test of the two Test series. Although, they lost that Test series 1-0,
the competition was close and it looked like Bangladesh Test cricket was
finally finding the ground under its feet after being out of its depths in each
of the Test series they played except for wining one against a West Indian team
that was less than half its strength and another, a home series, against
Zimbabwe that was again a team in its half strength. In the last Sri Lankan
Test series, the Bangladesh Captain scored the country’s first double century
in a Test innings. The mercurial Ashraful, on his return to the Test arena,
came close to scoring his first double century in a Test.
After
Sri Lanka, our Board pampered our cricketers to float in the sky. While it was extraordinary that our team
scored that record total in the first Test, they still lost the second and the
series. Although they squared the one day series, our cricket management should
have known that it was the D/L method that helped them square the series.
Otherwise, with Sri Lanka having taken our bowlers to the laundry with those
307 runs, the match should have been won by them easily had rained not
intervened. It was the rain gods that helped them win the match but our board
and the cricket lovers thought we have finally left our “minnows” tag in Test
and limited overs cricket behind.
Nevertheless, the cricketers deserved the
attention that cricket lovers showered upon it because they were truly
competitive in both the short and the long versions of the game in Sri Lanka.
The cricket lovers of Bangladesh were also encouraged to feel that Bangladesh
Test team would finally be able to leave behind the past when they were the
butt of jokes in Test cricket circles for being the minnows and emerge as a
Test playing country on its cricketing merit. They too felt the same way as the
cricket managers about Bangladesh cricket coming to age and rejoiced at the
performance of the Bangladesh team in Sri Lanka.
Thus
our team’s performance in the first Test in Zimbabwe was a nightmare for our
cricket lovers. Not only did we lose the Test that everybody, even our critics
as a Test playing nation, thought we would win easily; we lost it by a
humungous margin of 335 runs. The defeat came as a rude shock to the cricket
lovers but they kept the shock to themselves. The Board did not. It dropped the
team like hot potato, blaming it in bad taste for the defeat. Like bad losers, the BCCB did something that
no cricket board has done in cricketing history; it put the blame squarely on
the cricketers and did not take an iota of responsibility for the defeat and
the Board did this deplorable act in public. A senior official of the board
came out with a statement which said: “The batting performance in Harare had no
similarity with that in Sri Lanka. We are disappointed with this poor showing
by the batsmen. The senior players have not showed enough responsibility.” Apart from being unprecedented for a Board
criticizing its own players like this in public while the team is still on the
tour, the statement is a strange one for what else was stated in it.
The
statement asked “players who are not fit to return home to Dhaka and get
themselves fully fit.” This statement meant that “unfit” players have been sent
on the tour. This is an unbelievable acknowledgement that ‘unfit” players have
been sent on the Zimbabwean tour. Surely, the Board does not expect us to
believe that the unfit players went on the tour on their own. We all know
cricket is a team game. If there are unfit players in the team, is it not that
was the main reason for the poor showing in the first Test and that the blame
for the defeat should fall on the Board ? Before blaming the team in a manner
that does not speak much for common sense of the management, those responsible
in the Board for sending unfit layers on the trip should first be named and
action taken against them before blaming the team.
The
statement also blamed the umpires for bad umpiring decisions and the hosts for
administrative issues to explain the humiliating defeat. The explanation that
umpiring decisions was one reason for the defeat was a bad loser’s excuse. The
statement said that Bangladesh bowlers have been e no balled after taking
wickets. This cannot be a matter of dispute because it is normal these days in
any version of cricket. The statement added that “it did not happen when our
batsmen got out.” If Bangladesh batsmen have been out to no-balls, what was the
team management doing? Did they raise any issue instantly? We know these days
with the re-play facilities, games are halted for the decision of the third
umpire. If Bangladesh batsmen were out to balls, were any objections raised
instantly? It seems not because if it was done and management was efficient,
the issue could have been resolved when these occurred in favour of our
batsmen.
Unfortunate
as the performance has been in the Harare Test; in cricket such debacles happen
regularly on issues of cricket being game of glorious uncertainties. So it has been a matter of great
irresponsibility of the Board to have blamed the senior players that did not
hide the fact that the blame in the statement was clearly on the captain and players
like Sakib and Mahmudullah. The statement has ensured that these top players
would not go to the next game frustrated. As for Mahmudullah Ryad, why was he
in the team with a string of poor
performances when a young player Mominul Huq with a number of excellent
performances in Sri Lanka , a trip of which the Board has made such a big
issue, sitting in the dressing room?
Bangladesh’s
Test cricket team is a bunch of very talented players who are quite capable of
doing their country proud but only as individual players but not as a team, not
yet. It is time to consider why these talented players have not blended as a
team. If this is done, the onus for their habitually poor performance as a team
may fall to a large extent on the Board for failing miserably in turning
potentially talented players into a winning time. The players have faults that
are largely psychological that the Board does not help to correct by its
irrational policy by going over-board when the team brings a few
victories/draws (as its one day wins against West Indies last year or the 4-0
victory over New Zealand not too long ago and the recent drawn series against
Sri Lanka) and then making a u-turn to blame them after the Harare defeat, as
if the good results are largely its credit and the poor results, the faults of
the players!
And
what about the pitches and structure of cricket in Bangladesh that are the
responsibilities of the Board? Readers
may wish to read an interview by ESPN on Bangladesh cricket that appeared this
week on its website. The former English cricketer puts a great deal of blame
for the present predicament of Bangladesh cricket on the Bangladesh Cricket
Board. He has asked the ICC to stop funding the Bangladesh Board to force it to
play its role in developing cricket in Bangladesh.
The
Bangladesh Test team should play the next Test against Zimbabwe not for their
glory but to shame the Board for its absurd statement that not only humiliated
them but cricket and the country. At the
time of filing this piece, it seems they after the first day’s play in the
second Test.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
Rana Plaza Tragedy: A test of
nation’s conscience
M. Serajul Islam
One
piece of news about Rana Plaza tragedy did not find proper place in the media coverage. The media
was busy covering the deaths and
other aspects of the horrendous tragedy
and did not highlight the fact that the
BRAC Bank that was located at Rana Plaza had asked its employees to stay home
because of the dangerous crack in the 9 storied building. What BRAC did would be normal and rational
for any business establishment anywhere in the world because of the value of
human lives and to do the contrary would be blatantly criminal. The five owners
of RMG factories in Rana Plaza instead forced their workers to their workplaces
and thus to their deaths. The Government and the opposition that does not agree
on anything were in agreement here on a core issue. The Minister of Information called the Savar
Tragedy, a case of murder. So did the Opposition’s Barrister Maudud Ahmed.
But
then was the Tazreen tragedy in November last year in which 112 workers were
roasted alive in another RMG factory
also not a case of murder and over 200 so far that killed thousands that were all allowed to be passed over as accidents by
indulgent governments? Has any of the
owners who were directly responsible for workers being killed in work places
because of their faults were ever held,
let alone be tried and punished? Why is it that such accidents have to
occur in the RMG industries much more than in others? Finally, why is it that
while these RMG workers die in hundreds like animals in slaughter houses, not
one RMG owner or any other owner of the industries where such accidents occur
with eerie regularity has never suffered even a scratch?
The
Rana Plaza tragedy would have been avoided in any country except in Bangladesh
as a routine matter. In fact all fatal
tragedies in our industries that have occurred so far could have been avoided
if these owners were not assured by the governments that all they have to do
after such “accidents” is to lie low; pay some money to those who can bring
them to justice while it formed a committee and paid the relatives of the dead
compensation to let matters return to normal. In Bangladesh, these steps have
become an “unwritten code of conduct”
by the government (not specific to the one in power) to help the RMG
owners (and other industries) get away with murder. The RMG associations, the
BGMEA and the BKMEA that protect the
interests of the owners have used
the RMG’s role in employing nearly
4 million people mostly women and
earning US 19 billion a year (2012) in exports which amounts to 80% of
the country’s export earnings to successfully
defend the “murderers” amongst them.
Those
who write about the economy of the country have also complemented the claims of
the RMG owners/BGMEA/BKMEA to help them act with impunity, wittingly or
otherwise. They have described these owners as the “captains of the industry”
that has led many among them to believe that their contribution to the economy
give them the right to act with impunity in all aspects of the RMG sector even
in cases of “accidental” deaths that
occur under their watch. Very few of these individuals who glorify these
so-called “captains of the industry” seldom mention the plight of the workers
who toil with their lives in their hands for making the RMG sector, the
so-called “success story” and the RMG owners filthy rich.
Every time an accident has occurred, they have expressed sorrow and
sympathy for those who died but they failed to expose the ways these owners
treated their workers that was almost in all cases, the cause of the deaths and
the disasters.
The
Savar tragedy, one would like to hope, would be different in a number of ways
from those that have occurred in the past. One is the grotesque nature of the
deaths that has been graphically exposed on TV for millions to watch and get
angry. Another has been the fact that the tragedy occurred while the country
has been charged with political instability where the whole country was tensed,
angry and upset. The international focus and exposure of the tragedy has been
extraordinary with even the Pope drawn to the controversy against the RMG
owners. The public focus on the tragedy
this time has made a qualitative difference in the way the tragedy has been
handled so far. It is public pressure built through the media that saw Sohel
Rana arrested while just a few paces away from finding safety in Kolkata.
The
BGMEA has been also more active this time, aware things are not the same as
before. When RMG workers were on a rampage, the President of BGMEA said on TV
that their anger was expected! Such good sense of BGMEA officials was short lived
though. Later they met under closed doors in their headquarter at Hatir Jheel
that was pelted by angry garment workers, a building that has been constructed
on wet lands acquired illegally and is now standing like a eyesore on the
beautiful Hatir Jheel complex. These so-called “captains of our industry” have
claimed that the media has exaggerated about what has happened in Rana Plaza!
The BGMEA has now asked the country’s 3500 RMG industries to submit documents
on their structural designs! The call is a crude bluff to deflect public anger
because the BGMEA is as capable of examining such designs as the Salimullah
Orphanage.
The
RMG industry is indeed the backbone of Bangladesh’s economy, the Rana Plaza
tragedy notwithstanding. It still has great potentials to grow even more
formidable. To achieve the potentials, the RMG owners must take
responsibilities for their actions. Tazrin in December and Rana Plaza now
have almost destroyed their credibility in the international market
that they can tackle only by reforming themselves. There are many RMG industries that are of
world standard. Unfortunately, there are many bad apples in the pack of 3500
RMG units. Instead of calling bluffs anymore, the BGMEA/BKMEA should take few
simple steps within their competence but indispensible for the RMG sector
industry to survive and regain its role as the “success story” of Bangladesh.
The
simple steps that RMG owners must take are, first, restrain their greed from
which the good and the bad apples of the industry both suffer. Second, they
must treat the workers as human beings
and give proper value to their contribution to the success of the RMG sector.
Finally, they must allow the workers the right to form trade union because without
it, the workers are exploited at will by the RMG owners where the BGMEA and
BKMEA side with the owners and the government as the silent spectator ends up
on the side of the owners. The Rana Plaza tragedy is a wakeup call not just for
the RMG sector but also one for the country’s conscience.
If
the government tries to carry on with post-Rana Plaza tragedy like business as
usual, then it would be the start of the process of the death of the nation’s
conscience. Already it is under strong criticism of the people for insensitive
comments of its ministers. News carried by The Telegraph of London said that on
misplaced “national pride”, the government refused foreign assistance that
could have saved many lives. Without taking anything from the brave volunteers
who risked their lives to save the victims, the job they did was one for the
professionals where the government’s expertise is also palpably inadequate.
It
is time for the government to put its act together because the task of bringing
the RMG back on rails will be a humungous one. Blaming Jamat/BNP would be a
waste of time. Forming committees would
be equally futile. The task for the government is to make the owners of
industries, particularly the RMG industries, take responsibility and with that,
fulfill its own responsibilities; both together responsible for these “cold
blooded murders” in our industrials sector. It must unsure that those arrested
in the Rana Plaza tragedy get the maximum punishment under the law.
The
government asked private banks to contribute funds out of their CSR for Rana
Plaza victims. One wonders why on earth should banks that have helped these RMG
owners become rich from rags should rescue them here. The BGMEA must compensate the families of the
dead and rehabilitation of the survivors because the guilty ones are its
members. They should bear in mind that the Pope has accused the RMG owners of
running “slave trade”, paying RMG workers 39 Euros a month! If these steps are
taken, in future garment owners will think twice before thinking of their
workers as cattle that can lead to the slaughter house at will. If the
government and the owners fail in their responsibilities, the workers will
finally rise from the ashes of Rana Plaza with dangerous consequences for all.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador
Pakistan’s General Election: Democracy comes to the
country’s rescue.
M. Serajul Islam
Pakistan
went to the polls on 11th May to elect its lower house of the
national parliament and the provincial parliaments that will in turn choose the
country’s Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of the provinces. Two things about the coming elections made it
special. First, it marked a democratic transition of government after the
outgoing Parliament had been allowed to complete its full term and the military
did not intervene, events unheard of in
Pakistan’s history since its independence in 1947. Second, Pakistan accepted
the system that Bangladesh had evolved but rejected with the 13th amendment to its constitution, namely the
system of caretaker Government and used the system successfully for a
transparent and democratic transition of
power where the incumbent PPP failed miserably and the PML-N led by former Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif won a big and thumping victory.
However,
there are two more issues that made the forthcoming elections in Pakistan
different. First, the government that
Pakistanis elected on March11 will see the country through after the US and its
allies leave Afghanistan (by end of
2014) with its primary target to destroy Al Qaeda and kill Osama Ben Laden and his top
associates achieved but with Afghanistan
facing the prospect of falling under the Talibans again. Second, the
elections placed a third force led by the former test captain Imran Khan to
establish his party the Pakistan Tehrik e Insaf
(PTI) as the second largest of Pakistan’s many political parties. The
official results are still awaited but unofficial results have given the PML-N
130 seats (it had won 91 last time) ; the PTI, 35 seats and the PPP, 30 (it had
124 in the last parliament). In the 342 member lower house, 272 are elected and
hence a party needs 237 to form a government on its own. PML-N has fallen short
of that and would need a partner to form the government that would be a very
easy task.
The
Pakistani elections have been described both in Pakistani and international
media as “historic.” A country that has hovered on the brinks of becoming a
failed state because of extremism; fundamentalism and terror to which its
international allies contributed a fair share as did Pakistan’s military
dominated regimes since the US led war on terror, has taken the first big step
towards safety with the just concluded elections. Pakistanis turned out in very
large numbers to vote. Against a turnout of 44% in the last election, the turn
out this time was over 60%. The voters challenged the threats of the Taliban
that had declared the elections as un-Islamic and even the large number of
pre-election deaths due to Taliban terrorism did not deter them to come out and
vote. In fact, there was clearly an air of great expectancy among the voters
that they could win the country’s own war on terror through the institution of
the election and hence they turned out in such large numbers.
The
results clearly pointed at certain distinct but positive developments on the
Pakistani political horizon. First, it has bought the nation together against
the religious fundamentalist forces with all the three major parties taking
clear stand against the Taliban. Second,
the voters made it clear that they were not happy with the ruling PPP because
of to failure to protect Pakistan’s sovereignty from US interference as was
palpably evident from the way it treated the country during the operation that
nabbed and killed Osama Ben Laden and with the unilateral drone attacks inside
Pakistani territory with the government’s clearance. Third, the results are a
clear message to the country’s military that the democratic political forces
would no longer allow it to pull the political strings while they danced to
their tunes. In fact, the elections were the first in Pakistan’s history where
the military was a silent spectator. Fourth, unlike all previous elections,
this one was fought where India was not by any means a major factor and in fact
not even a minor one. Prime Minister-in-waiting Nawaz Sharif went on record
with conciliatory gestures towards India during his election rallies. All in all, the results hinted that after travelling over six decades,
Pakistan is finally close to putting its acts together to establish the
democratic way of governance.
Imran
Khan’s Pakistan Terik e Insaf Party (PTI), formed 17 years ago never won more
than one seat in Pakistan’s National Assembly that the former cricketer himself
held briefly. No one ever gave his party a chance apart from giving it
attention because of the glamour Imran Khan attracted as a cricketer, his star
qualities that has made him the “most famous Pakistani” internationally. The argument against anyone giving the Terik
any chance has been the fact that the Party did not have what needs to gather
votes in Pakistan, namely a network built
over decades leading up to the rural Pakistan where 70% of the country’s voter’s live. Traditionally,
Pakistan is still a feudal society where land owners hold tremendous sway over
the rural voters who in the past have shown little inclination to vote outside
what is dictated to them by the landowners or their agents. The PTI challenged
this system and established the party as the third force that would help strengthening democracy by strengthening the
hands of the opposition.
The
results did not give the PML-N a majority and its base remains predominantly
in Punjab. This is good outcome for Pakistan as the new Prime Minister with his
past political experience would be led to negotiate alliances to put a
government together. This would not allow him or his party to monopolize power
and instead seek democratic ways to run the government. The government that
Nawaz Sharif will lead will also be one that must work with the Americans and
their allies as they leave Afghanistan where the Talibans are on resurgence.
Pakistan’s past governments influenced and dominated by the military have
indulged deeply with terrorist forces in Afghanistan and created the most
dangerous of these groups, the Haqqani network.
For a Pakistani government led by a new Prime Minister and a party that
had no role in the deterioration of US-Pakistan relations over the drones and
killing of Osama Ben Laden will be better able to deal with the US and other
key players in stabilizing the region that in turn will allow Pakistan to
gradually return from the brinks of failing with terror engulfing the nation.
Serious
issues of corruption, economic problems, deterioration of governance and the
civil-military relations will still be massive challenges for the new
government and these problems could still threaten the state of Pakistan.
Nevertheless, the elections have given Pakistan a genuine chance to win over
these issues and bring the country back from the dangers of becoming a failed
state. Bangladesh should seriously study the emerging situation in Pakistan
because it is moving in the direction from which Pakistan is moving away. The
use of the CG system has been a major factor in helping Pakistan in its journey
back from doomsday. The Bangladesh politicians could do the country great good
if they dispassionately considered if they could take back what they gave
Pakistan in its hour of crisis that Pakistan has used to good purpose.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
The UN initiative to resolve Bangladesh’s
political crisis
M. Serajul Islam
To
say Bangladesh is going through a crisis would be a gross under-estimate. At
the same time, to suggest as many have that Bangladesh is sliding towards a
civil war would an over-exaggeration. Nevertheless, what Bangladesh is facing
these days is grave and portents of ill consequences that could have serious
impact on the well being of the country. Bangladesh is showing all the
classical signs of breaking at the seams that could eventually lead the country
to become a failed state. It is not that Bangladesh has confronted a deep
economic recession or gigantic natural disasters that are the reasons of its
current predicament. It is also not that the dangers facing Bangladesh are such
that no effort would likely help the country come out of the dangers facing it.
The dangers facing Bangladesh are political and easily in the reach of the
political parties who just need to shelf their narrow self interests and put
the interests of the country ahead.
Unfortunately,
in the events that were played out on the political stage of the country since
the Shahabag uprising of the nation’s youth in early February, the mainstream
political parties have not shown what would convince the people that they have
anything but their interests at heart. For the first few days after the
Shahabag movement had erupted, the ruling party saw in it the chances of making
the chances of the BNP of winning the next election, history when the cultural
activists with links to the ruling party had succeeded in getting control of
the events at Shahabag. They used to good purpose and even the BNP itself felt
that the movement would take the AL to another term in power easily.
Then
when the anti-Islamic blogs became public and the AL was caught on the wrong
side with it, the BNP felt that the tables had turned on the AL. When the
Hefazat phenomenon became public and its supporters appeared in Dhaka in
numbers that dwarfed those that had gather in Shahabag, the BNP felt it could
peg down the AL and not just realize its demands for the caretaker government
but also push the AL many steps in the game of negative politics that two two
sides play almost unashamedly. Thus on the eve of the May 5th
gathering of the Hefazat, the BNP sensing that the political defeat of the AL
was imminent, said that all it needed to do was give the AL and “little push”
and the government would fall!
That
was extremely premature. On the night between 5-6 May, the police/RAB and
paramilitary BGs dispersed the million plus Hefazat activists who were sleeping
at Shapla Chattar in a manner that is still shrouded in controversy. The
Government has said that it dispersed the Hefazat with minimum force and the
deaths were in single digit. The BNP has contested this and claimed that deaths
were much more and has demanded a judicial inquiry. Nevertheless, the Hefazat
has meanwhile fizzled into thin air and with it also has ended the BNP’s dreams
that the Hefazat would provide it the leverage to “push” to bring down the
government..
The
lull at present however should not be misunderstood as the end of the dangerous
political tensions and victory of any of the two main parties over each other.
The apprehensions in the people’s mind are there and for very good reasons. In
the roller coaster ride that the two mainstream parties have taken us since
February, there cannot and will not be any side victorious unless there is a
political and democratic way of bring the current political tensions to an end.
The forces that the two political parties have unleashed on the political stage
would simply aggravate if the next government is not chosen in a manner where
the people would be convinced that both the mainstream parties have gone to the
voters and taken their verdict to deal with the issues that have been opened in
the country’s politics.
Anything
to the contrary is too dangerous even to contemplate. Unfortunately, Shahabag
has given a platform to the fundamentalist Hefazat and the ICT trials, to the
Jamat that is not just fundamentalist but quite capable and willing to use
terrorism for its political ends. When Hefazat emerged, a major section of the
people of Bangladesh were concerned that Bangladesh was close to becoming
Taliban. The fact that Hefazat has retreated for the time being does not mean
the danger has been resolved. It was force that was used to push Hefazat out.
Countries that have used force to deal with Islamic fundamentalism have all
paid the price. In Bangladesh, the vast majority of Muslims, tampered by
Sufism, have no love for the fundamentalist. It is their support that both the
mainstream parties need to deal with the threats of Islamic fundamentalism and
the way to deal with is the democratic way.
Thus
all fingers in the country are pointing at the two mainstream parties to deal
with the problems facing the country the democratic way. They want the
forthcoming elections to be one where all the parties would feel comfortable to
participate. A major Bangla daily that ran a poll whose credibility has not
been contested except by the ruling party that has thrashed it, has suggested that 90% of the people of the
country would like the next elections to under a neutral administration so that
all the parties have a fair playing ground to contest. Unfortunately, with the
ruling party in no mood to allow the system of the caretaker government to
re-emerge and the BNP not willing to contest in any system where elections
would be conducted by the party in power,
At
a time when the two sides have retreated to opposite sides on resolving the
manner in which to hold the next elections, the UN Secretary General sent his Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs to Dhaka last week to hold talks with the two mainstream parties
to help resolve the issue. Oscar Fernandez Taranco held consultations in Dhaka
with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Although neither
side made any statement that they have changed their conflicting stance on the
way to hold the next elections, the ruling party said it would officially
invite the opposition to hold talks. The BNP hinted that it would reciprocate.
After the return of the Assistant Secretary to New York, Foreign Minister Dipu
Moni met the Secretary General in New York. The message to her was also the
same as was given by the ASG in Dhaka; that the AL and the BNP must work out a
way so that the next elections are free, fair and contested by all the major
parties.
The
message given by the UN is a clear one; that the two mainstream parties must
work out a way so that Bangladesh does not slide towards the abyss. The UN is
of course representing the concerns of the international stakeholders led by
the United States that has extremely important strategic interests in the region
that has been enhanced by its initiatives in Myanmar. With the US/allies about
to leave Afghanistan where the Taliban is on resurgence, the western powers
would not take the risk of Bangladesh providing international terrorists a new
and fertile breeding ground by moving towards becoming a failed state. The
mainstream parties, particularly the ruling party, have no reason to take the
UN initiative lightly. The ASG had said in Dhaka that Bangladesh that has its
peace keepers working for peace around the globe cannot afford to have that
peace destroyed in its own country. The statement is loaded that the
Bangladeshi stakeholders could ignore only at
their peril and that of the country.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
Is USA losing its power to
influence politics in Bangladesh?
M. Serajul Islam
The
US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman completed her
three- days long official visit (May 26-28) with people’s hopes and
expectations not exactly answered. Although she was in Dhaka for the second
annual Partnership Dialogue, a bilateral forum that was established after the
AL led Government came to power this time, people’s hopes and expectations were
hardly on the discussions at the forum or on its outcome. People were eagerly
hoping she would put her country’s weight behind encouraging the two mainstream
political parties to reach an agreement on the way to conduct the next general
elections in the country.
The
roller coaster ride that the people have been forced to take since the Shahabag
movement early in February have put genuine fears in their minds that
Bangladesh’s worst political crisis since its independence 42 years ago could
be extremely dangerous unless the two mainstream parties, the ruling Awami
League and the opposition BNP come to an understanding on the way the next
general elections would be held for a peaceful transfer of power from one
elected government to another. The AL, having amended the Constitution, is
adamant that the next elections must be held under party government that would
be headed by the incumbent Prime Minister. The BNP is equally adamant that the
next elections must be held under the caretaker government system because it
fears that the elections would not be fair if held under an AL led interim
government led by the incumbent Prime Minister.
The
two parties have been fighting this issue since the AL led Government amended
the CG system by the 13th amendment in May, 2011. The fight has
become ugly and bloody since the Shahabag movement. Before the Shahabag
Movement, in over 4 years of the AL government, the BNP was able to call
hartals numbering in the single digits because they were aware of people’s
dislike for it. Since Shahabag with the ruling party showing little inclination
to accept the opposition’s demand for CG system, hartals have become the order
of the day. These hartals have been marked by violence that shows no signs of
relenting. The opposition has clearly chosen to path of violence to force the
government to force its demand; the ruling party has chosen to use force to
subdue the violence.
Wendy
Sherman arrived in Dhaka at a time when the political situation in the country
could not have been worse. Upon arrival, she called upon both the political
parties to settle their differences. She called for a “free, fair, inclusive
and credible “election for a democratic change of government in the country.
Interpreted in layman’s term, this meant that her government wanted to see,
first, the next general elections in Bangladesh to help resolve the current
uncertainties in the country’s politics; and second, that all the parties,
particularly the mainstream parties would participate in the elections. She
threw the ball in the court of the ruling party to find a solution out of the country’s
political impasse by discussing and negotiating with the opposition. There was
no doubt that her statement on the elections must have made the BNP happy.
The
BNP, however, did a “Pranab Mukherjee” again with the US visitor, although this
time it was the visiting delegation that cancelled the appointment with the
Leader of the Opposition. The BNP had
called hartal while the US visitor was in the country as was the case when the
Indian President was in Dhaka that did not go well with the visiting delegation.
As a show of annoyance, the US side cancelled the meeting. The Under-Secretary
just did not cancel the meeting with Khaleda Zia; she expressed her
government’s strong disapproval of hartal and violence in politics for
achieving political objectives. It is not the first time that the US Government
has used cancellation as a political strategy to flag a message for the
Bangladesh political parties. In June 2003, then US Secretary of State Colin
Powell had cancelled his meeting with then Opposition Leader Sheikh Hasina on
the same issue of hartal. The cancellation of the meeting and the stand on
hartal must have been welcomed as “good news” by the ruling party that had
reasons to see these as snubs to the BNP.
In
a strange sort of way therefore the US Under-Secretary made both the ruling
party and the Opposition happy, albeit in negative ways without being able to
bring them together or showing any light on how the grave political crisis in
Bangladesh would be resolved. Thus she left the people of Bangladesh
disappointed because she has not contributed anything to move the two parties
from their entrenched position with regards to how the next elections would be
held. If she was really concerned about hartals that she rightly identified as
disastrous for Bangladesh, she perhaps was not aware that unless the BNP could
be encouraged to participate in the next elections, hartals would be the order
of the day in the country. While she was entirely justified in being annoyed
with the BNP over hartal as Colin Powell was with the AL in 2003, her visit did
little to end hartals. In fact, since she left the country, the BNP has show
greater resolve to use hartals to achieve its demand for restoration of the CG
system.
In
official discussions of the Under-Secretary in Dhaka with the Bangladesh
Government, she spoke optimistically about Bangladesh. She hinted strongly
about Bangladesh’s potentials of becoming the regional economic hub. She
however failed to understand the fact that to realize its promises, Bangladesh
would have to come out of its current political predicament; that without
ending the ongoing political disturbances, Bangladesh could also become the
regional terrorism hub for both South and Southeast Asia. The visiting
delegation, it seems, did not come to Dhaka with its homework properly done; perhaps assured by some quarters or its
Embassy in Dhaka that political stability in Bangladesh that is crucial to US’ strategic interests in
the region following its initiatives in Myanmar, would be restored by one way
or another. The delegation did not seem to be aware of the depth and
seriousness of the political crisis facing Bangladesh.
Perhaps,
the United States today does not have the power or the influence in Bangladesh
anymore as it used to in the past when the top leaders of both the mainstream
parties would be seen parleying with the
US Ambassador at his bidding. The
present US Ambassador is all heart but his effectiveness to encourage and
influence the mainstream parties, particularly the ruling party is very
limited. Nevertheless, Bangladesh today
needs the support of its foreign friends as desperately as it did in 1971; this
time to come out of a quicksand in which the country is trapped. If the
elections are not held with participation of the mainstream opposition
including the BNP/Jamat, Bangladesh could be moving towards where Pakistan was
trapped over the last decade and more, close to becoming a failed state. It is
an irony that while Pakistan borrowed the CG system from Bangladesh to
find its way back from becoming a failed
state, Bangladesh is moving towards that
by scrapping that same system!
In
the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary, the former
expressed hope that the BNP would participate in the next elections. It is on
that hope that the US should focus for if the ruling party could be encouraged
to bring the BNP to the elections, the US and Bangladesh’s foreign friends who
are angry and upset with hartals would be able to bury their fears over it
together with the rest of Bangladesh. The US would do itself a lot of good,
given its own strategic interests are aligned with political stability in
Bangladesh, to work with Bangladesh’s development partners and perhaps also with
its new strategic ally India and the Arab countries to influence the Government
to have what Wendy Sherman said upon arriving in Bangladesh, “a free, fair,
inclusive and credible election”. Unfortunately the leverage for such an
election is mainly with the ruling party and less with the BNP for Bangladesh
to walk away from its impending tryst with disaster. Assuming that the US
really wants credible elections in Bangladesh, the Under-Secretary has barked
up the wrong tree on her just concluded visit to Bangladesh.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador
Syria resilient with Russian
support
M. Serajul Islam
Recent
history of US involvements abroad in pursuit of regime change has been all
successful. Saddam Hussein of Iraq; Muammar Gadaffi of Libya and Mollah Omar of
Afghanistan were almost pushovers who were ignominiously driven from power with
the first two losing their lives in the process while Mollah Omar passing into
oblivion with US achieving its objective of regime change effortlessly. Thus it
was widely expected that with the USA relieved of worries in Iraq and Libya and
in the process of leaving Afghanistan, it would be able to do in Syria what it
had done in the other three countries rather effortlessly.
That
expectation seems to be fading and fast.
Bashar al- Assad whose regime was expected to be history long ago is now
finding his position better than at any time since the efforts started to push
him out of power. That too, after his regime has been found in recent days with
unequivocal proof of using chemical weapons, the Red Line set by President
Obama for direct US involvement in the Syrian civil war that has lasted over
two years in which already 70,000
people have been killed and millions have been
made refugees in the country and
abroad. The turn of fate in
favour of Bashir al Asad in recent days, the use of chemical weapons
notwithstanding has been primarily because of the backing his regime is being
given by the Russians, the Iranians and the Hezbollah based in Lebanon. The weak and factional ridden rebels now have
no hope of a regime change in Damascus unless Bashar al- Assad leaves on his own volition or the US shows the
inclination to do what it did it Iraq and Afghanistan and to a partial extent
in Libya; get directly involved in the Syrian civil war.
As
far as Bashar al- Asaad stepping down; the prospects are to the contrary. In a
recent TV interview to a Lebanese TV, he has spoken confidently of the
prospects of his troops gaining the upper hand in the civil war in Syria. That
his position has strengthened enormously was evident from when he warned Israel
that he could allow attacks on the Golan Heights. He gave ample hints in the
interview that his recently found strength has been due to the arms his regime
has received from Russia, once the most dependable ally of his father Hafez
al-Assad from Russia’s days as the major component of the erstwhile Soviet
Union. The Syrian dictator said that Russia is under contract with his country
for supply of arms and have been implementing the contracts in recent days and
weeks.
The
Israelis are worried whether Russians have delivered S-300 air missile defense
system to Syria because it would “compromise its ability to strike from the
air” and the system would provide Syria the ability to strike deep into Israeli
territory. In his TV interview, the
Syrian President was vague on the delivery of S-300 missile defense system
although in text message sent out by the TV station before it broadcast the
interview, it mentioned that Russia had delivered the S-300 missile system to
Syria. Political analysts and diplomats in the region though suspected the TV
station’s claims and thought that Russia was weeks away from delivering such a
system to Syria. They nevertheless were convinced that once Syria received the
S-300 missile defense system, the civil war in Syria could escalate to a
serious regional conflict with the possibility of involving Israel in it.
At
the time of writing this piece, talks were scheduled to be held in Geneva for preparing the UN Peace Conference on
Syria that the United States and Russia have been trying hard to put together
for a political settlement to the Syrian civil war although the two countries
have significant differences on what is happening in Syria and future course of
events there. In the context of the UN Peace Conference, Bashar al- Asaad spoke
confidently and appeared more in control for two fundamental reasons. First, he
has Russia, a Permanent Member of the Security Council and once again ready for
regaining the role its predecessor USSR played in world politics, firmly behind
his regime together with support from Iran and the Hezbollah in Lebanon,
formidable regional allies. Second, the opposition to Bashar al- Asaad is
palpably weak by its inability to come together as a united force against
Damascus. In fact in his interview to the Lebanese TV, Bashar al-Asaad
ridiculed the leaders of the factions fighting him as those doing so from the
luxury of five star hotels. He pointedly said that after the Geneva Conference
when held, when the Syrian delegation would return to their country, his
opponents would retreat to the luxury of the five star hotels!
Recent
events thus hint clearly that in Syria, the outcome would not be the way the US
achieved results in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It would be quite a while
before the world would see any regime change in Damascus. In fact, it is
increasingly becoming less and less likely that Bashar al- Asaad would leave
power on his own any time soon. In fact he has boasted that only death would
see him out of power. Thus as the world loses its patience to see the Syrian
dictator out of office because death for him is most unlikely at this stage,
the focus is falling on the role of the Obama administration. Indeed the US
President is coming under serious criticism both at home and abroad for pushing
back the reasons he has set for his administration for getting directly
involved in the Syrian conflict.
The
Obama administration, critics feel, is setting back the Red Line without
explanation for its direct involvement in Syria. In fact, the US is even
reluctant to support the call from the dissidents to enforce the “no fly zone”
that it had done in the case of Libya with telling effect. The US’ reluctance
has been encouraged by a few facts. First, the forces fighting the government
forces are an amalgam of 63 largely unknown factions. The US suspects that Al
Qaeda elements are also fighting amongst these factions helping dissidents
directly would help Al Qaeda causes, something the US would not do under any
circumstances. Second, after the
involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq, where the country has sacrificed many
thousands of its men/women in uniform and spent hundreds of billions of
dollars, the US public is largely disinclined to see the US get involved in any
war overseas something that the US President acknowledged in his State of the
Union address last February.
Thus
the US appears to be more inclined to let diplomacy and negotiations work out a
settlement to the crisis in Syria. Unfortunately that looks unlikely for the
Russians are in no mood to listen to the Americans. The prospect of the Geneva
Peace Conference therefore showing the way for ending the Syrian civil war is very uncertain; in fact least likely. The developments in the near future that
could set a new direction for the Syrian civil war could come from the way
Israel reacts to Russia’s involvement in favour of Damascus that has encouraged
Bashar al- Asaad to issue new threats to Israel. Already there has been action
in the strategic Golan Heights between government forces and rebel forces,
first time in over four decades that has no doubt worried Tel Aviv. Meanwhile
the Syrian Government troops have recaptured Qusair, long held by the rebel
forces, a town crucial for assuring supplies of arms and Hezbollah men from
Lebanon.
The
US will now no doubt be urged by its ally Israel for more direct involvement in
the Syrian civil war that could change the directions where at the moment
Bashar al- Asaad is gaining the upper hand
decisively.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador.
The
Indian High Commissioner’s press conference on Bangladesh-India relations
M.
Serajul Islam
The
Indian High Commissioner’s recent press conference given at the invitation of
the National Press Club was unusual and refreshing. Pankaj Saran has been in
Bangladesh for a year or so. Unlike some of his predecessors, he has kept a low
profile and has refrained from making public remarks about the politics of
Bangladesh. His interview at the National Press Club was unusual because he
restricted his views/comments/opinions on Bangladesh-India relations to clear
questions in the public mind over some of the outstanding and unresolved
issues. He spoke on domestic issues of Bangladesh only while answering
questions from the floor and in a manner that cannot be considered embarrassing
to his hosts. Thus by his press conference, the Indian High Commissioner has
set an example that some of his colleagues in the diplomatic corps, who
regularly embarrass Bangladesh by speaking on its internal affairs in
contravention of the Vienna Convention, could follow.
The
High Commissioner’s press conference was also refreshing because he was candid
in talking on all the issues even the contentious ones and he did not refrain
from taking responsibilities where relations have faltered. Thus he spoke
on the Teesta deal and the land boundary agreement (LBA) unlike some
of India’s political leaders,
including former Foreign Minister SM Krishnan, who
said repeatedly that both issues
would be resolved soon while aware that
the reality was to the contrary and
thus willfully misled Bangladesh. Pankaj Saran said it was “unfortunate”
that the Teesta deal had not been signed and reiterated his government’s
commitment on it and the LBA but declined to give a time frame on when the two
contentious issues would be resolved. On Teesta, he also said that New Delhi
was talking with the stakeholders to reach a consensus and that
notwithstanding, “water continues to flow without any hindrance”. On the LBA,
he said that the Manmohon Singh Government does not have a 2/3 majority
necessary for ratification and that consultations were going on with
stakeholders for a consensus.
The
High Commissioner acknowledged Bangladesh’s support and cooperation on security
and its positive impact on the insurgency problem in the Northeastern states of
India the way New Delhi had not acknowledged before. Upon questions from the
floor, he also acknowledged that his country had saved great deal of money that
it would have otherwise had to spend to combat the insurgencies. He however
said it would be unfair to put any financial value to Bangladesh’s cooperation,
adding that it would be a “fallacy” to think that security issues stop at the
border. He made it clear that a stable
Northeast was essential for Bangladesh because if those states become unstable,
it would also de-destabilize Bangladesh. He also gave a breakdown of the US$ 1
billion soft loan that India had provided Bangladesh. There has been a great
deal of confusion over the loan. The High Commissioner said that out of the
loan, India had already given US$ 200 million as grant that Bangladesh would,
according to information given to New Delhi, spend on the Padma Bridge and that
projects for an additional US$ 700 million have been identified.
The
most positive aspect of what the High Commissioner said in press conference was
on India’s relations with Bangladesh in the context of the country’s partisan
politics. He reiterated the stand that was stressed by the Indian President
Pranab Mukherjee when he had visited Bangladesh as the country’s Finance
Minister in May of 2012; that New Delhi was interested in building relations
with Bangladesh and not with any particular political party. The High
Commissioner said categorically that New Delhi would have no problem dealing
with a BNP Government if the voters returned that party to power stating: “We
will always abide and respect the wishes of the people of Bangladesh.” Pankaj Saran stressed that India respected
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bangladesh, adding that
cooperation did not mean loss of sovereignty.
India’s
failures to give Bangladesh the Teesta deal and the LBA notwithstanding,
Bangladesh-India relations have come a long way under the present term of the
Congress in New Delhi and the Awami League in Dhaka. The negotiations have
encouraged people in Bangladesh to believe that the country could become the
regional economic hub through connectivity. The BNP that had opposed granting
India land transit uncompromisingly in the past has softened substantially
because it too saw that Bangladesh could become the regional economic hub if
land transit was implemented sincerely as regional connectivity and not simply
as a corridor to benefit India alone. The BNP’s changed stance on land
transit/connectivity was however conditional upon India resolving Bangladesh’s
concerns over water sharing, trade and border related issues. Begum Khaleda Zia during her visit to India
late last year assured New Delhi that her party would support the recent
initiatives of the Bangladesh Government whether in power or in the opposition
provided India delivered to Bangladesh its commitments on a quid pro quo basis.
There
is a strong public perception in Bangladesh that India wanted the AL in power
at any cost. When New Delhi invited the BNP leader to New Delhi many thought
that India had changed that policy in line what with Pranab Mukherjee had
stated in Dhaka in May 2012. But thereafter, the way New Delhi supported the
Shahabag Movement even after it had openly taken an anti-opposition stance,
many in Bangladesh were frustrated and
disappointed that India had again returned to playing favourites in Bangladesh.
Therefore the High Commissioner’s statement that New Delhi would have no
problem in dealing with a BNP Government if voted to power was encouraging
because it suggested that India backed the democratic process in Bangladesh.
The
High Commissioner’s statement that security issues do not stop in the border
was also equally encouraging. It indicated that New Delhi was aware that if
Bangladesh destabilized, India also would suffer the consequences. Therefore
India would want an election in Bangladesh that would be “inclusive” where all
the major parties would participate as all the western countries have suggested
because the consequences of having an election without the main opposition
parties were too scary to contemplate. The High Commissioner’s press conference
thus raised hope that the Indians would use its influence in Bangladesh to lend
its voice with the developed countries to encourage the government of
Bangladesh to hold “inclusive”, free and fair elections where voters would have
the democratic choice of voting for any of the mainstream parties and not just
one.
It
was unfortunate that two people were killed at the Jessore border at the hands
of the BSF to coincide with the High Commissioner’s press interview that
otherwise went down very well with those who follow these events closely and
the media. He had said in the Conference
that since January this year, there had been no deaths in the border. The deaths thus should remind New Delhi that
the killings had not stopped and its zero tolerance commitment was not working.
Given its potentials for damage relations as a highly emotional issue in
Bangladesh, the killings needed stop forthwith if Bangladesh-India relations
were to proceed in the “right path” as the High Commissioner thought it was
after coming through “ups and downs in the past”.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador.
USA to arm
Syrian rebels: Is this too late?
M. Serajul Islam
The
White House has finally ended its long silence over getting involved in Syria
on the side of the beleaguered and truncated opposition by deciding to provide
it with arms after the civil war has been going on for over 2 years and taken
more than 90,000 lives (according to UN) and made over a million refugees.
Perhaps provoked by Bashir al Asaad’s boastful interview to a Lebanese TV
station not too long ago where he said that his troops have succeeded in
turning the tide in the country’s civil war decisively in favour of his regime,
the Obama administration has finally woken from its long state of denial to the
predicament of the millions suffering the consequences of the Syria civil war.
Perhaps, and more likely so, the US has found it difficult to remain in a state
of denial any longer about its hands-off policy towards Syria with more “definite proof from its
intelligence” that Damascus has used chemical weapons to subdue the opposition.
The
White House explained that the decision to provide arms to the rebels was not a
sudden decision and that it came after it had kept the Syrian situation under
careful focus and continuous review for over a year. The Obama administration
has also been divided internally over providing arms to the rebels during this
period. Advisers of the President in the White House have been reluctant to do
so apprehensive that it would “be a slippery slope to wider involvement.” The
Pentagon has been against providing arms to the rebels fearing such involvement
would be “too risky and expensive.” Among both, the back of the mind concern
has been the fact that the rebels are not a coherent and monolithic group and
that among them are Islamic fundamentalists with links to the Al Qaeda. The
State Department has however consistently supported US involvement in Syria,
arguing that without US involvement “the region would collapse into chaos.” In
the end, the latest evidence of use of chemical weapons by Damascus swayed the
opinion of the State Department to encourage the Obama administration to
provide arms to the rebels.
The
decision by the White House to provide non-lethal arms to the rebels to start
with will see the return of the CIA into “covert action role” overseas for the
first time since the end of the Cold War era that was increasingly taken over
by the agency’s direct action through the drones. The CIA proposed to deliver
the arms to the rebels through its network primarily in Turkey and to lesser
extent in Jordan. Unfortunately, the US decision to provide arms to the rebels
based on the red line has been received with skepticism by both Russia and the
UN. The UN Secretary General in an
unusual step of opposing the White House in public has said that the US should
not have taken the decision on the arms supply without waiting for “more
definite proof”. The Secretary General said that to reach final conclusion on
use of chemical weapons, it ld be necessary to establish “conclusive evidence
of chain of custody” for which it would also be necessary for a UN team to be
inside Syria and investigate which has not happened or likely to happen as
Damascus has refused to allow any UN team on its soil. The Russians have
rejected the US claim with contempt. President Vladimir Putin and the Russian
Ambassador at the UN have stated categorically that the proof provided by the
US intelligence has been inconclusive.
The
US decision to assist the rebels has also come as too little too late. Against
the rebels’ need for heavy equipments such as armour piercing and anti-aircraft
weapons, Washington has decided to supply them with only light weapons. The
timing has also been a bad one for the cause of the rebels. After making gains
last winter, the rebels are now on the back foot and have only recently lost to
the government forces the strategic city of Qussair that has opened the supply
route from Lebanon for both Hezbollah men and arms for Damascus. Meanwhile as the US vacillated, international
actors such as Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have come in support of Damascus aggressively that has been the main reason
why the tide of the civil war has turned in its favour that has been reflected
in the buoyant mood of President Basher al Asaad.
The
Syrian rebels’ response has thus been cool to the White House decision. They
are unhappy that they have not been promised the heavy weapons they consider
crucial. Their major demand for enforcing the no-fly zone that the US and NATO
had enforced in case of Libya with telling effect has still not been answered
by the White House. In fact as far as this demand is concerned, it may already
be late because when the rebels had asked for it, it had the upper hand in the
civil war that Damascus has been able to overcome by air power and the rebels
are now on the defensive. Further, without heavy weapons, the rebels are now even
more so than before at the mercy of Damascus and its air power.
Therefore,
the decision of the White House will not tilt the civil war in Syria in favour
of the rebels in the short term. However it will turn the civil war into a
proxy one with the US now throwing its hat in favour of the rebels to match
Russian and Iranian involvement in favor of Damascus and Hezbollah which is one
step ahead and supplying both arms and men to fight against the rebels. At the
G8 Summit that just concluded in Ireland, Russia’s support for Syria prevailed
and the Summiteers were unable to adopt any consensus statement condemning
Bashar al Asaad. The Summit called for a peace conference in Geneva for
establishment of a “transitional governing body” but without indicating a time
frame for the conference and very
importantly without any mention of the ouster of the Syrian dictator. President
Putin’s strong role in favour of Bashar al Asaad in the D8 Summit has provided
the Syrian President with a new lease of life and it does not seem that he
would be meeting the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gadaffi any time soon,
USA’s arms to the rebels notwithstanding.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador
John Kerry’s first visit to India as Secretary of State
M. Serajul Islam
US
Secretary of State John Kerry has just completed a 3 day visit to India, his
first since succeeding Hillary Clinton to the position in President Obama’s
second term. The visit was undertaken by the Secretary to co-chair the 4th
round of US-India Strategic Partnership for discussion of the entire gamut of
strategic partnership issues. Nevertheless, the most recent developments in
Afghanistan, US support for archrival Pakistan, Indian protectionism over trade
issues, foot dragging by India on safety issues over purchases from of nuclear
plants from USA under the civil-nuclear deal and recent US immigration bill and
its impact on outsourcing formed the backdrop of the important visit that
suggested tensions in the development of bilateral relations the way President
Obama envisaged it would. On his November, 2010 visit to India, the President
had said that the “relationship between the US and India would be one of the
defining partnerships of the 21st century.”
The
formal part of the visit of the Secretary went off well. Secretary John Kerry was assisted in the
Dialogue among others by US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Admiral Samuel
Locklear of the US Pacific Command. From
the Indian side, Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid co-chaired the
Dialogue and he was assisted by Montek Singh Alhuwalia, Deputy Chairman of the
Planning Commission and a team of senior officials of a number of key
ministries. The US-India Strategic Partnership Dialogue has developed a well
structured framework over the 3 rounds held earlier which was followed in the 4th
round as well. The entire gamut of strategic issues was discussed under four
broad heads. These heads were: (1)
Regional Strategic Consultations; (2) Security and Strategic Partnership; (3)
Strategic Partnership in Commerce, Science and Technology, Education and
Energy; and (4) Global issues.
In
the Joint Statement that was issued after the Dialogue, the two sides reviewed
“the extensive transformation of bilateral relationship and identified key
sectors of cooperation that will continue to add strategic depth to the
partnership.” On specific issues, they reaffirmed “their shared vision of peace
and stability in Asia and the Indian and Pacific Oceans” and agreed to work for
fulfillment of this vision within the good number of existing forums of
cooperation and interaction. The US-India-Japan trilateral format was mentioned
as one forum for expanding strategic cooperation. The Dialogue emphasized upon
the need for concerted efforts to deal with challenges of terrorism “including
the dismantling of terrorist safe haven”. On Afghanistan, it stressed the
commitment of the two countries to build a “stable, democratic, united
sovereign and prosperous Afghanistan” and in this context underlined the
importance of an “Afghan led and Afghan inspired reconciliation process “for a
stable Afghanistan after the departure of the foreign troops after 2014. The
two sides expressed satisfaction with the growth in two way trade that has reached
US$ 100 billion and in defense related trade that has reached US$ 9 billion.
The
issues that were discussed in the Dialogue were so many and diverse that it led
one commentator to write: “On paper the bilateral relationship is almost
universal in its reach, innovation, space, health, clean energy, defense,
counter-terrorism, you name it, we are supposedly talking to the Americans
about it.” Quite understandably therefore the JS did not bring out the current
tension between the two countries because the issues causing tension were
discussed by the Secretary outside the Dialogue. On Afghanistan, the Indians
have been deeply concerned by US moves for peace talks with the Taliban. The
Times of India flagged this concern when it wrote bluntly that the US should
not be allowed to “hand over power to the Taliban and run”. The Indian concerns
are based on the fact that any accommodation for Taliban in a post-US
Afghanistan is a plus for Pakistan. The Indians also fear that any
accommodation for Taliban would be seen as encouragement for “Jihadi groups of
various hues and be disastrous for the stability of South Asia as a whole.” The
Secretary assuaged Indian concerns by assuring that it considers India’s role
in ensuring stability of Afghanistan to be crucial. Nevertheless, he did not
make any commitment to back away from bringing the Taliban subject to three
conditions, namely renounce violence, break ties with al Qaeda and accept the
Afghan constitution, for a peace settlement to allow it to leave Afghanistan.
On these conditions however, the Secretary left confusion with the State
Department officials insisting that these conditions as “outcomes of successful
negotiations, not as preconditions to sit down at the negotiating table.”
The
Indians could not help noting significant differences between the new Secretary
and his predecessor. On her first visit to India in 2009, Hillary Clinton had
started that visit with strong words against Pakistan in the context of the
Mumbai terror attacks. On his visit, the new Secretary started off with remarks
on floods in the Indian state of Uttarkhand while making a 45 minutes speech
upon landing in New Delhi. He devoted half of that speech on “clean energy and
how India needs to be proactive.” He
avoided associating Pakistan with terrorism and instead suggested that India
and Pakistan should “invest in each other’s economies” to build trust. The
Indians are aware of the Secretary’s recent initiatives in trying to bring the
Taliban into the loop in a peace settlement in Afghanistan where he has handled
matters directly with the Pakistan leaders by-passing both the US Embassy in
Islamabad and the Pakistan Embassy in Washington. On issue of terrorism, the
Secretary disappointed India. He was silent on cross border terrorism coming
from India and restricted his comments to terrorism being a challenge to all
democratic countries.
On
follow up on the civil nuclear deal where movement had come to almost a halt,
the Secretary informed that the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL)
and Westinghouse are close to concluding a commercial agreement that would ease
the passage for construction of reactors in Gujarat by Westinghouse. The
development would be significant because the civil nuclear deal that was
concluded by the two countries towards the end of President Bush’s tenure and
had held such great promise of bringing the two countries together in strategic
relationship had hit the hard rock in recent times over “India’s nuclear
liability law which ensures supplier accountability in the event of a reactor
mishap.” The US side had expected reciprocity from India to sell nuclear
reactors to the country as pay back for opening India to the international
market for buying nuclear reactors. India was prohibited from doing so by the
powerful Nuclear Supplier’s Group for its refusal to sign the NPT.
The
Secretary’s visit was not a ground breaking one and it was not intended to be
one. The popular reaction after the
visit in New Delhi was: “Well, we did not expect much, so we were not
disappointed.” The Secretary did not do much to dispel lingering feelings in
New Delhi about his “softness” for Pakistan. The Indians also did not relent on
issues of trade protectionism. The visit thus simply carried over the general
trend of current US-India relations where they share a “myriad of shared
interests including fighting Islamic militancy and managing rise of China” but
nevertheless currently at a stage that has been described by the conservative
Washington based think tank AEI as “stable and boring with a hint of
frost”. Nevertheless, the two sides have
stressed their seriousness to carry forward their strategic partnership by announcing that Vice-President Joe Biden
would be visiting India end of July and
Prime Minister Manmohon Singh scheduled to visit Washington in
September.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador
Tahrir Square delivers Egypt a military coup
M. Serajul Islam
Tahrir
Square (TS) that had helped bring down 60 years of military dictatorship in
Egypt under the influence of Arab Spring has now brought down an elected
government to hand power back to the military! The Egyptian people who had
gathered in millions at the TS and defied death and military tanks to bring
down Hosne Mubarak again gathered in millions
at the Square again; only this time to bring back the military to save the country from
disastrous governance under the
democratically elected President Dr.
Mohammad Morsi. When Army Chief General Abul Fattah Khalil Al- Sissy announced
that Dr. Mohammad Morsi was no longer President of Egypt after the military’s
48 hour deadline for him to step down had elapsed, the millions at TS greeted
the General’s announcement with the same spirit and enthusiasm with which they
had greeted the stepping down of the military dictator Hosne Mubarak.
President Mohammad Morsi defied the General’s
announcement initially. On his Facebook, the President’s men posted bulletins
stating that he was still in power and that the announcement of the military
was illegal. That notwithstanding, the political reality in Egypt has changed.
For all practical purpose, a military coup has for the time being condemned the
country’s first freely elected democratic President in 60 years to where Hosne
Mubarak had been condemned; to the ranks of ex-Presidents. That position for
Dr. Morsi was formalized when the White House, after waiting on the sidelines
and refusing to side with the demonstrators in TS, issued a strongly worded
statement that accepted the new reality in Cairo. The statement however expressed “deep
concern” over the military’s decision to remove President Mosri and demanded of
it “to move quickly and responsibly to return full authority back to a
democratically elected civilian government as soon as possible through an
inclusive and transparent process.”
The
transition of power in Egypt from the military to the elected officials was not
smooth. The movement in TS for the deposition of the military dictator Hosne
Mubarak was easy. It took just 18 days to
force him out. What did not happen
though was that the military’s stranglehold on power that extended everywhere
in the Egyptian society was not weakened in any major way by the revolution in
TS. Thus, once President Mubarak was forced out and the millions at TS had
dispersed, the military, not just continued to exercise political power; it
delayed both the parliamentary and the presidential elections and also the
drafting of the Constitution by the elected parliament. The military dictated
and ensured that its special position in the country remained the same as under the
regime of President Hosne Mubarak when the new Constitution was
ultimately drafted and passed by the parliament dominated by the Peace and
Justice Party (PJP), the political party of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB).
The PJP was
able to reap the benefits in both the parliamentary and presidential elections
because the MB was the most organized political force in the country. The
history of the MB goes back a long way. Established in 1928 as a Pan-Islamic
movement, the Brotherhood was a banned political entity during the military
dictatorships of the Generals, Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. However, the MB did
not remain idle while banned politically. It organized itself in non-political
Egypt, in the society and remained in touch with the grass roots as a major
force in society. Thus when the military relented and held the parliamentary
and presidential elections, the Peace and Justice Party came out successful in both, though in the
Presidential election, it was able to defeat the military backed candidate
marginally because by that time, the secular forces had already started to see
in the MB the real enemy rather than the military. Nevertheless, once embedded
in the Presidency, Dr. Mohammad Morsi received support of allies in the region
and helped the United States in a peace deal between the Israelis and the
Hammas. In particular, his Government was able to establish close ties with the
United States. Thus when the millions gathered this time in Tahrir Square, they
chanted anti-US slogans. They also expressed their anger against the US
Ambassador in Cairo for being soft on the regime when they were up against the
Mosri regime. In fact, while the temper in TS was boiling against the regime, White House was pursuing
hands off policy much to the anger of the TS demonstrators.
The US was
of course served with a dilemma by the crowd at TS. The dilemma was whether or
not to support the crowd at TS that had gathered against a democratic
government to bring the military that suspended the Constitution drafted by the
elected representatives. That was the reason for the initial hands-off policy.
The US was given the way out of the dilemma to accept the change, albeit with a
stern warning to the military, by the
fact that the military has not taken power directly. It has formed an interim
government with Adly Mansour, the Head of the country’s Supreme Constitutional
Court as President of the interim government.
The military, before deposing President Morsi, had held meetings with
religious and civilian leaders and agreed on a road map to return Egypt to
democratic rule. However, thus far, the real power in Egypt, the military, has
not made any mention when Egypt would have those elections. Nevertheless, the
nature of change may allow the United States to continue with its aid program
worth US$ 1.4 billion a year and still abide by constitutional prohibition
against aid to military governments.
That road
map is also frosty at the moment and uncertain. The MB is by no means a push
over. Although warrants have been issued against 250 MB leaders and President
Morsi has been interned, the MB has significant hold. MB supporters have vowed that they will fight
this in the streets and that they would not go home till Dr. Morsi is returned
to power. If they organize themselves and defy threats of death and gather at
Tahrir Square, they too would be able to show the same numbers that resulted in
the military intervention and perhaps more.
Egypt thus could be facing a serious and dangerous future with real
threats of a civil strife between the military and its new civilian backers and
the MB. What should be borne in mind is what happened in Algeria where
Islamists were pushed out of power that they won democratically that pushed the
country into a civil war that has literally destroyed the country. Egypt could be facing such a future.
The major
factor against Egypt going the Algerian way is USA’s involvement in Egyptian
politics. It supported the Islamist PJP government against the demonstrators
and has now put the new regime on hold and demanded that it should return the
country to democratic rule quickly. With
its massive aid package most of which goes to the military, USA has almost a
stranglehold on Egypt’s military to force it to abide by the warning embedded
in the strong White House statement.
Unfortunately for Egypt’s tryst with democracy, President Morsi and PJP
did not measure to the demands for peaceful transition to democracy and the
opposition has been too fragmented. The MB is still and will remain a major
political force in Egypt and when the country has democratic elections, it is
very likely that the Peace and Democratic Party would again return to power,
perhaps more wizened by its current unfortunate predicament. Thus Egypt may not
go the way Algeria has but the fear remains nevertheless and USA will have a
major role against such a fear becoming a reality.
The
writer is a former Ambassador to Egypt
The
New US Immigration Bill crosses Senate
M.
Serajul Islam
The
11 million illegal immigrants who have been praying, hoping and lobbying ever
since the White House initiated a bill in the first administration of President
Obama for bringing them out of the cold
and legalizing them had a good reason to rejoice recently. Late last month, the
US Senate passed the bill that would enable them to become legal immigrants and
put them on the path to be US citizens by 2025. The bill was passed by 68 votes
in favour and 32 against. A bipartisan group nicknamed the Gang of Eight worked
tirelessly since April to work out a package that ultimately encouraged 14
Republican Senators to vote for the bill. The bill must now pass in the
Republican dominated House (234 against 201 Democrats) by 60% of House members
to become law.
The
Republicans opposed the bill tooth and nail when it was introduced in 2010. Its
progress was blocked when the Democrats lost control of the House that year.
The Republicans are traditionally anti-immigration. They are opposed to any proposal
to legalize illegal immigrants without first stopping the flow of illegal
immigrants to the country. The Republicans in the Congress felt that the White
House initiated bill if enacted into law would send the wrong signals to law
breakers and encourage the flow of illegal immigrants through its 700 mile long
southern border with Mexico. They were also concerned about the huge impact the
bill would have if it became law on the federal budget. These Republican
concerns have been articulated by the Washington based conservative think tank,
Heritage Foundation that in a study concluded that the proposed immigration
reform bill will be a “fiscal black hole”, a view that the Washington Post in a
recent editorial has described as “myopic and regressive” that “has been proved
wrong by generation after generation.”
The
bill was a major issue in the last Presidential election. It enabled President
Barak Obama to win his second term easily. His support for the bill was a major
factor for the 74% votes he received from the Hispanics in the country who are
a formidable force in the electoral equations of the country. The Republicans
knew thereafter that they cannot reject the immigration bill without facing
adverse consequences. There will be a midterm election for the Congress next
year followed by the presidential election in 2016. Therefore they have tried
to make the passage of the bill as hard as possible for the conservative votes
without rejecting the bill outright so as not to upset the majority that supports
the bill including the Hispanics and other immigrant minorities. The Republican
Party in Senate thus grudgingly agreed to consider the bill after ensuring that
the bill included measures for stopping 90% of those who try to cross into the
United States through the US-Mexico border. They did not want to be in the same
predicament they faced when they agreed to immigration reform under Reagan
administration on commitment of enhancement of border security that was
fulfilled.
Thus
the main focus of the Gang of Eight was thus on the security measures. To do
this, they divided the bill into parts and although it was passed in the Senate
as a package, they placed the security concerns of the Republicans at the
beginning before the other issues in the package that included details on how
the 11 million illegal immigrants would be legalized. The bill passed in the
Senate set aside US$ 46 billion to strengthen border security that will include
doubling the number of border security guards
to 40,000 and recruiting 3500
additional custom officials to ensure 100% border surveillance and apprehension of 90% would-be border
crossers. Among a number of revisions of
existing immigration laws, the bill if enacted into law would bar US citizens
from sponsoring siblings for immigration.
The
bill does not give the illegal immigrants any easy passage to citizenship which
will come in 2025 if it becomes law. Additionally, they will have to pay fines
and taxes and meet the other stringent conditions of becoming a citizen. To
enhance the prospect of safe passage of the bill, the report of the Congress
Budget Office (CBO) published recently was particularly helpful. The Report
trashed the Heritage Foundation conclusions and was partly responsible for the
change of mind among the 14 Republican Senators who voted for the bill. The CBO
report admitted that legalizing 11 million illegal immigrants would cost the
federal government US$ 262 billion in direct spending over the next decade. It
however also concluded that with 11 million people working as legal migrants,
“revenues would soar by US$ by US$ 459 over the same decade” and the federal
deficit would go down by US$ 200 billion”.
The
above notwithstanding, the prospect of the bill becoming law is by no means
certain. In fact, given the mood in the House following the Senate decision,
the prospect is uncertain. Speaker John
Boehner who in the past has allowed vote of a few bills after discussing with
House Democrats successfully that earned the anger of some of the Republicans
in the House has said that he would not do anything with the immigration bill
unless he is assured that majority of the House Republicans are disposed
favourably. Republican Congressman Peter Roskam who is also a deputy whip
described the bill the Senate passed as a “pipe dream” and said that “the House
has no capacity to move the bill in its entirety.” The Republican Congressmen
will meet in Washington next Wednesday in a conference to hash out a response
to the bill that is likely to be “contentious and unpleasant.”
Meanwhile,
President Obama has welcomed the Senate action and hoped the House would also
pass the bill to make it into law and help in the passage of “historical”
immigration reform legislation by August. Senator John McCain, a member of the Gang
of Eight urged his Republican colleagues in the House to sit down with him and
his colleagues, if not for the sake of the bill itself then at last for the
future of the party. A veteran politician and an erstwhile Presidential
candidate, the Senator is well aware of the damaging political consequences of
opposing the bill now when it has more than met the fears and demands of the
conservatives on the security issue that will make the Mexico-USA border the
most secure border in history with the most advanced use of technology.
However, House members who are seeking re-election in conservative
constituencies are unwilling to listen and are opposing the bill strongly.
The
Hispanics are now 17% of the country’s population and growing fast. Thus by
simple common sense, they will be a
major factor in all federal elections in future and that power is assured
to grow fast . If this group is pushed
on the immigration issue by any foolhardy stand of the House Republicans, then
the GOP’s chances in all future elections could be very seriously jeopardized.
In an editorial on June 30th, the Washington Post has urged Speaker
Boehner to either back the Senate bill or enact “similar legislation as a
vehicle to open negotiations with the Senate in a conference committee.”
Otherwise, the editorial wrote, the GOP would be voting for “status quo that
has led America to a dead end.” The
Republicans are facing a major political dilemma over the immigration bill
while the 11 million illegal immigrants wait, hope and pray they would allow
common sense to guide their response.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment