On sub-regional
cooperation on Ganges and Brahmaputra
M. Serajul Islam
A
news item carried by The Hindu of India in its issue of April 15 is very
encouraging for Bangladesh. It mentioned that Nepal, India and Bangladesh (NIB)
have recently agreed to cooperate on a sub-regional basis on the mighty Ganges
to realize its potentials in “agriculture, hydro-power, fisheries, navigation,
and in the environmental sectors and in the economy of the co-basin countries
“. The news item has been based on a paper prepared by the Indian Ministries of
Power, Water Resources, and External Affairs on NIB sub-regional cooperation on
the Ganges. The Hindu news item has also stated that the three countries would
form national committees chaired by their respective Minister for Water
Resources/Irrigation and co-chaired by Minister for Power for sub-regional
cooperation on the Ganges.
Sharing
the water of the Ganges fairly and equitably has been a major issue that has
soured Bangladesh-India relations in the past. The unilateral construction of
the Farrakkah Barrage (FB) through which India diverted the water of Ganges from its natural flow into Bangladesh to
serve its agricultural needs and save the Kolkata port threatened Bangladesh
critically because without the natural flow of the Ganges, Bangladesh faced the
prospect of its northern part becoming desert. Nevertheless, Bangladesh allowed
a trial run of the of the FB during the last AL Government of 1971-75 out of
gratitude for India’s assistance to its war of liberation in 1971 believing
that India would reach a permanent agreement with Bangladesh to give it, its
just share. That did not happen. India
used the changes of August 15, 1975 to deny Bangladesh a just share of the
Ganges water for the next 2 decades till the Ganges Water Sharing Agreement was
reached in 1996 during the last AL Government.
The
1996 agreement that came belatedly did not help Bangladesh much. The agreement
was not negotiated well enough to ensure Bangladesh’s rights. The Indian High
Commissioner in Dhaka had said soon after the present Government came to office
that due to upstream depletion in India, enough water was not reaching
Farrakkah for Bangladesh to receive its share as per terms of the 1996 agreement.
He was answering those who were criticizing India for not giving Bangladesh
water from Ganges as per the agreement.
The High Commissioner stressed upon the urgent need of augmenting the
flow of the Ganges in dry season for
Bangladesh to receive its required quantum of water. For those aware of Bangladesh-India
negotiations on the Ganges would also know that when India spoke of
augmentation of the Ganges water, it meant augmenting it by the water of
another major river that Bangladesh shares with India, namely the Brahmaputra,
by a link canal through Bangladesh, a proposal that it rejected every time it
was proposed by India as a case of double jeopardy against its rights as a
lower riparian of both these international rivers. (Bangladesh’s consistent rejection
led India to consider linking the two rivers on its side but that was
eventually dropped recently because of the difficult terrain and objection of Indian
environmentalists).
Bangladesh,
nevertheless, has been no less concerned than India on augmentation. It has argued
that the best way to augment the water of the Ganges is through sub-regional
cooperation involving Nepal with Bangladesh and India the countries that
jointly share the Ganges. Bangladesh’s argument for sub-regional option for
management of the Ganges has been based on a number of undeniable truths about not
just the Ganges but also the other common rivers of the region. First, the
rivers in this sub-region comprising Bangladesh, Northeast India, Nepal and
Bhutan are almost all cross Boundary Rivers.
Second, there can be no permanent solution to water management
concerning these rivers bilaterally. Third, these rivers have the potentials as
shown by independent studies to turn the sub-region into one of the richest
parts of the world in water related resources if managed sub-regionally.
There
are also the added benefits of sub-regional approach with the Ganges in
addition to augmentation. The approach would help build dams in Nepal and
Bhutan that would help produce huge quantities of hydro-electricity in a part
of the world where electricity is in very short supply. The dams would also
store the waters in the rainy season that are now the major cause of
Bangladesh’s regular tryst with devastating and dangerous foods. India did not
show any interest in Bangladesh’s proposal for sub-regional cooperation of the
Ganges and other commonly shared rivers. It considered any approach other than
the bilateral one as one designed against it. As the dominant power, India felt
that by keeping the countries from getting together , it would protect its
interests better as well as its dominance in the sub-region.
If
The Hindu news item is a correct reflection of the official position of India,
then this is perhaps the best news for the countries of the sub-region because
it means a fundamental change in the India mindset, lack of which has been
holding the successful water management of not just the Ganges but of all the
other cross boundary rivers of the sub-region.. If India really supports the
sub-regional option, it will be a win-win situation for all the countries concerned.
For Bangladesh, sub-regional cooperation on Ganges will be an answer to its
prayers to save the country from the prospects of desertification, early sign
of which are already visible.. In addition, sub-regional cooperation on water
management will help Bangladesh tackle its perennial dangers with floods during
the rainy season. For all the
countries, sub regional water management will provide enough hydro-power to
eventually transform the region into a leading development region of the world.
As these dams will be located in Nepal, it will derive the maximum benefits for
production of hydro-electricity for which its terrain has been crafted by
nature.
For
India that has been holding up sub-regional cooperation on Ganges despite
its blatantly obvious advantages , it
will also an answer to its own concerns for augmentation because its water is
fast depleting for sharing among the provinces through which the Ganges
flows in India before crossing to
Bangladesh. Apart from a share of hydro-power that India needs as much as
Bangladesh and Nepal and perhaps more, sub-regional water management on the
Ganges will enhance India’s position among these countries and replace their
sense of apprehension and distrust with a sense of friendship. It will also
enhance India’s image as a good neighbor that it needs as an emerging word
power where at the moment it has an image quite to the contrary.
The
news from The Hindu has been complemented with the news from Bangladesh’s
Ministry of Water and Irrigation that talks of sub-regional cooperation are
underway among Bangladesh, India and Bhutan for development of hydropower by
managing the other major common river in the sub-region, namely the Brahmaputra
as part of the same initiative taken by India.
Bangladesh is the common denominator in both the cases of sub-regional
cooperation. Water management in case of both these major rivers are still in the stage of discussions and
hence it is still too early to draw any conclusion about what would eventually
happen to these proposals of sub-regional cooperation for water management.
Nevertheless, the fact that the countries are talking with India leading is a
major step forward in the right direction.
In
fact, India’s change of mindset is the major cause of optimism. The projects
for sub-regional management of water resources would need huge funds. That should
not be a major hurdle because for international financial institutions such as
the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), there could not be better
projects to assist for their potentials to transform the lives of hundreds of
millions of impoverished people forever and for the better. In the sub- region
where political instability and security concerns are major hurdles for over-all
development, the successful management of its major common would also have a
major impact towards dealing with its political instability/security concerns.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador.
On
Pakistan’s national elections and new hopes for the country
M.
Serajul Islam
Pakistan’s
recently held national elections can truly be described as “historical”. It was one of the most spontaneous general
elections in the country’s history. Daring the violence by the extremists led
by the Talibans who had declared the elections as un-Islamic, the voters turned
out in large numbers. Over 60% of the 80 million registered voters cast their
votes with women voters voting enthusiastically to express themselves against
the fundamentalists. As expected, the ruling PPP was thrashed, securing only 30
seats with Imran Khan’s PTI winning 26 seats. The PML-N led by Nawaz
Sharif won handsomely giving the latter
the chance to become Prime Minister of Pakistan a record third time. His party
won 126 seats of the 269 seats counted
of the 272 seats contested but fell just short of the 137 seats required to
form a government on its own. The independents won 25 seats and are expected to
give the PML-N the necessary support to form a stable government.
In
numbers and spontaneity, the 2013 elections have been compared with the 1971
elections. The comparison ends there. The spontaneity and numbers of 1971 was
the reason for the break of Pakistan and the emergence of Bangladesh as an
independent and sovereign nation after the Pakistani military establishment of
the time refused to accept the results that would have allowed the Awami League
to form the Government of Pakistan. This time, the elections have brought the
opposite result for Pakistan. Instead of paving the way to breaking the country
as the general elections did in 1971; the elections this time will go a long way in helping
Pakistan return from the prospects of becoming a failed state.
In
the period leading to the May 11th elections, Pakistan was fighting
problems on all fronts. The PPP led government had lost people’s confidence on
the issue of upholding Pakistan’s sovereignty vis-Ã -vis the US. The
government’s top brass was mired in allegations of corruption. The judges were
up against it getting a Prime Minister out of office on corruption and also
having similar charges on the last Prime Minister. The Talibans were in great
force in the frontier and Baluchistan while Karachi had its own brand of
terrorism where the country’s commercial capital was nothing else but a battle
ground. All together, it was a miracle that the army did not intervene to take
over power as it had always done in the past. There was fear in the country and
abroad that the country’s existence was at skake.
Against
such a dangerous political scenario, the elections and the results are both an
answer to Pakistan’s prayers and a chance of its deliverance. In this, it was
the people of Pakistan who showed the way, disregarding terrorist threats and
turning out to vote in large numbers. They have also voted in a matured way. By
voting against the PPP, the voters voted against corruption that is a major
issue in the minds of the people. By giving the PTI a substantial number of
seats, they backed the cricket star’s agenda against corruption and the need of
bringing a third force in which the new generations have a formidable stake. In
choosing the PML-N, the voters have backed an experienced party and a Prime
Minister who they thought would be able to lead the country at perhaps the most
critical period in Pakistan’s history. Although Nawaz Sharif’s past is not
particularly free of allegations of corruption, the voters took the chance with
him hoping that in his third term where he had been in the wilderness for 14
years during which he was also send out on exile, he would have wizened and
learnt from his past mistakes.
The
fact that the PML-N is not going to power with anything like a massive mandate
and with power base mainly in the Punjab, the new Prime Minister will, even if
he wishes to, not be able to rule the country without the need of compromise
with his political opponents. In Imran Khan, who has already made his
intentions known for playing a more than pro-active role in the Opposition, the
new Prime Minister will meet a political opponent that he just would not be
able to treat lightly. Thus the way the Pakistan’s election results have turned
out, the needs of the country could not have been served better. At this stage,
it can be said that democracy and democratic elections at long last have given
Pakistan the best chance in its history to establish a democratic system in the
country.
In
that context, Nawaz Sharif with the power and influence he will bring to his
position will be the best politician to keep the military from dominating the
country’s politics that is the main reason why democracy has stumbled in
Pakistan. He will also have the reason to do so having suffered badly in the
hands of the military in the past when in
1999, General Pervez had humiliated him and removed him from power after
only two years as Prime Minister. He has already spoken on his intentions on
the military. Nawaz Sharif will have strong support in the country and abroad
in dealing with the military. Already the US President and the Indian Prime
Minister have congratulated him that augurs well for the new administration’s
tough fight ahead with the military.
The
US, ready to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, would be looking forward
eagerly towards a government in Islamabad with which it would need to work very
closely. The US does not trust Pakistan’s military as it used to in the past.
Nawaz Sharif could use this to his advantage. India too is happy with the
results as in the period leading to the elections and after the elections,
Nawaz Sharif has expressed his interest and intention to carry out with India
the agreement he had reached with the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee in 1999 before he was unceremoniously thrown from power by the military.
Nevertheless, the new Prime Minister must tread his grounds carefully for the
Pakistan’s military has major say in the country’s foreign policy and security
matters. Going into conflict and confrontation with it would encourage its
temptation to take the centre stage of politics after allowing the politicians
full five years of freedom to do politics on their own.
For
Bangladesh that has had the minimum of contacts with Pakistan since the AL came
to power, the changes in Pakistani are particularly interesting. Pakistan’s elections were held successfully
by taking a leaf out of Bangladesh’s tryst with democracy; the system of
caretaker government. It could take a lesson from that. More importantly, Nawaz
Sharif has softness towards Bangladesh out of his connections with East
Pakistan where his father had business interests. In the 1960s he used to visit
Dhaka regularly and loved those visits. In 1998, while in Dhaka for the
Bangladesh-India-Pakistan Business Summit that was held at the initiative of Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina, in his banquet address at Bangobhavan he came closest
among the Pakistani leaders to address the sad events of 1971 for offering a
formal apology. It would be in the interest of Bangladesh’s foreign policy to
touch base with the new Prime Minster to jump start Bangladesh-Pakistan
diplomatic relations.
The writer is a
retired career Ambassador
RMG sector in grave crisis : No
room for complacency
M. Serajul Islam
The
New York Times carried a story recently on Bangladesh’s beleaguered RMG sector
that the Prime Minister must read if she has not done so already. If she did,
she would know that the complacency she showed in her interview with Christiana
Amanpur of CNN was misplaced. In that interview, the Prime Minister had
emphatically said that she was not worried for the future of the RMG sector in
the world-wide uproar against labour conditions in the RMG sector following the
Rana Plaza tragedy because the RMG buyers in the developed world have no
alternative to Bangladesh for its competitive price to which they have become
accustomed. Economics, she was confident, would keep these buyers hooked to
Bangladesh.
The
headline of the NYT story “After Bangladesh, seeking new sources” had a ring of
despair. The story hinted clearly that
the sunshine years of the Bangladesh RMG industry that had seen the country
rise to the number two position in the world as a RMG producer after China is
under serious threat as major buyers of Bangladesh’s RMG products are now
looking at Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and other competitors of Bangladesh to
buy their RMG products. The NYT story
has described the western buyers’ search for new location as a “relentless” one that “ has taken on more urgency after
the deadliest industrial accident in the global garment industry’s history, a
multistory factory collapse in Bangladesh that left 1,127 people dead. “ The tragedy received unimaginably adverse
international publicity. The Pope was so deeply moved by the tragedy that
he went to the insensitive extent of accusing
the RMG owners of exploiting the labourers in a new form of ”slavery.”
In
fact, the Rana Plaza Tragedy, the Prime Minister’s confidence in the stability
of the market notwithstanding, is causing Tsunami like impact on buyers in the
developed markets, particularly in the United States and Canada, major
destination of our RMG products. In the United States, major buyers are already
taking steps to end buying or investing in Bangladesh. More importantly, buyers
a retail shops in these markets are now getting together to stop buying from
Bangladesh on their own. Recently, a well known Canadian chain Tristan “proudly”
advertised on the Facebook that in its store” there is nothing made in
Bangladesh!” Expatriate Bangladeshis in North America went on a campaign using
the same Facebook against Tristan that spread on the internet like a virus
resulting in the withdrawal of the Canadian firms’ advertisement with an
apology! Nevertheless, a post Rana Plaza tragedy poll taken by Harris Poll in
the United States suggests that buyers are now on their own becoming seriously
disinclined to buy Bangladesh products. The polls revealed 70% of US RMG buyers
have heard of the Rana Plaza tragedy and 39 % of them have said they will now
buy fewer products made in Bangladesh.
The
admirable campaign by expatriate Bangladeshis with Tristan was a spontaneous
one that they took out of their national pride and also from the insensitive reaction
in the western markets to the Rana Plaza tragedy. The reaction of the expats
notwithstanding, the dark clouds in the RMG sector has been gathering for a
long time that the Savar tragedy has only brought to a climax the
frustrations in the west with the RMG sector in Bangladesh. The Savar
Tragedy would not have occurred if those with responsibilities had not been
complacent and had responded to the wake up calls that were aplenty to pull up
the RMG sector from sliding towards the abyss. The incident at Tazrin in
December last year in which 112 workers
were burnt alive was treated by the authorities casually despite concerns abroad
and calls from the buyers to the authorities in Bangladesh to put their acts
together (After national and international outcry, only last week authorities arrested the Tazrin owner!). In fact, after
that infamous incident, famous buyers such as Disney decided to leave the
Bangladesh market. Since Tazreen, the NYT story has counted “33 regional or national strikes … hundreds of deaths in
factional street fighting there since February, and the Rana Plaza collapse in
late April have left multinational corporations scrambling for other options.”
A classical response of the authorities to the gathering storm in
the RMG sector has been to blame the opposition and to various conspiracy
theories that only helped enhance frustration among the buyers. As far as the US market is concerned, the
authorities made no serious attempts to deal with the case of murder of RMG
labour leader Aminul Islam, whose association has links to the powerful labour
organization in the United States, the AFL-CIO. In fact, the way the Bangladesh
authorities responded to the AFL-CIO concerns, it did not appear that they had
even heard of this very powerful group that had threatened to use its power of
lobby against the export of RMG products to the United States. The US has been
pressing hard for introduction of Trade Unions in the RMG sector. The pressure has
increased in the aftermath of the Rana Plaza tragedy. In the current political
situation, with the RMG sector caught in the quicksand, trade unions in the
sector is sure to add fuel to the fire and further push the sector towards
insurmountable crisis.
The grave crisis facing the RMG sector, the country has no
alternative but to do everything necessary so that it can come out of its current
predicament successfully. The reasons are too obvious. The sector “makes up a
fifth of the economy in Bangladesh and four-fifths of its exports, which means
that one of the world’s poorest, most densely populated countries is
desperately dependent on continued export orders to stave off soaring
unemployment and possibly further political unrest. “
The NYT story however is not all despair. It has stated that despite the
major buyers now looking intensely for new destinations, most of the buyers
would like to “continue buying from Bangladesh” although some “want to move
completely away from Bangladesh”.
To encourage the major buyers to stick to Bangladesh is a national
responsibility. There is no scope for complacency. Political unrest is at the heart
of the threat facing the RMG sector. Hence the political actors must resolve
their differences and see that the country has a peaceful transition of
political power. The Pope’s concern of “slavery” in the sector must be
considered in the light of pay being given to the RMG workers and the need for
enhancement. In this context, Dr. Mohammad Yunus has perhaps provided the best
suggestion. He has said recently that the foreign companies operating in
Bangladesh should be asked to jointly suggest a fair minimum wage for the RMG
workers. So long, these companies have been taking the maximum share of the
profit package for which the RMG workers in Bangladesh literally give their
lives without sharing the responsibility of the welfare of the Bangladesh
workers. The Noble Laureate has asked why these companies cannot help
Bangladesh and its workers by asking retail buyers in the developed world whose
hearts otherwise bleed so profusely for our workers to buy Bangladeshi RMG products by a paying a
meager 50 cents or so for per item that would be enough to “ resolve
most of the problems workers face – their physical safety, social safety, work
environment, pensions, healthcare, housing, their children’s health, education,
childcare, retirement etc.”
Like his concept of the Grameen Bank towards women empowerment and
alleviation of poverty, the solution given by the Noble Laureate to the current
predicament in the RMG sector in Bangladesh with which 4 million lives and
future of the impoverished nation of Bangladesh are inextricably linked, is a
simple one but easily achievable.
Unfortunately, its success would depend on a bipartisan national approach. One
hopes that for the sake of the country, we would see such an approach to the
idea of Dr. Mohammad Yunus. Why can’t the BGMEA that has contributed its share
to the current disaster in the sector take the lead with the idea of Dr. Yunus and
get all the stakeholders on board?
The writer is a retired career Ambassador.
On
two-nation theory and Bangladesh
M.
Serajul Islam
In
the first week and a little more of the Shahabag movement, when the youth led
uprising was promising to take the country to a new and better level of well
being, there was enthusiasm in some quarters in Bangladesh and in interested
circles in next door India that Bangladesh was finally putting its act together
towards becoming a truly secular country. Those active in these discussions in
Bangladesh are the leaders of the country’s secular movement who believe and
want the rest of the country to believe that the main reason why so many lives
were sacrificed in 1971 was to establish Bangladesh as a secular country where
religion (meaning Islam, the religion of the overwhelming majority of
Bangladeshis) will have no role in public affairs and politics.
The
activists of the secular movement in Bangladesh argue that the two-nation
theory that used religion to create in
1947 a Hindu majority India and a Muslim majority Pakistan (of which Bangladesh
was a part) has been rejected in 1971
when Bangladesh emerged as an independent country based on secularism. The
leaders of the secular movement in Bangladesh, who were unhappy that even after
the 15th amendment the country still had both the provisions of
Islam as a state religion and “Bismillah” in the Constitution, were excited
about Shahabag. The saw an opportunity in the Shahabag movement for their
secular agenda, particularly in forcing the government to delete the Islamic
provisions from the Constitution. They described Shahabag as the beginning of
the new liberation war to finish the unfinished 1971 war of liberation whose
objective is to reject the two-nation theory and establish Bangladesh as a
sovereign country where religion would have no significance in the lives of its
people except in private.
This
view that 1971 war of liberation of Bangladesh rejected the two nation theory
has been supported whole heartedly in India because it never accepted the 1947
partition of India. It was therefore no
surprise that India was the only country to give the Shahabag Movement its
blessings. Breaking protocol and diplomatic niceties, the Indian Foreign
Minister Salman Khurshid personally visited Shahabag while on an official visit
to Bangladesh and gave it his Government’s
blessings at a time when the movement had started to become overtly pro-ruling party and equally overtly
anti-BNP. The Indian President on his state visit to Dhaka early in March said
his heart was with the Shahabag youth and he felt sad he was unable to be there
personally.
The
move from Shahabag to fight and win the second liberation war to complete the
unfinished task of 1971 for establishing secularism so that it is not tarnished
by Islam faltered when the anti-Islamic blogs became public knowledge resulting
in widespread public anger. The result was the Hefazat phenomenon where many
times more people than the Shahabag youth could muster gathered in Shapla
Chattar, condemning and demanding hanging of the anti-Islam bloggers. The way
the authorities tackled the Hefazat phenomenon is still not clear with the
government’s claim that it fizzled without serious bloodshed contested by the
opposition that claimed hundreds of Hefazat men were massacred to drive them
away from Dhaka. Nevertheless, the Hefazat reaction to the Shahabag underscored
the fact that those who had thought that Islam could be contained in the four
walls of people’s homes did not understand the extent and depth of people’
attachment to the religion in Bangladesh.
The
government was the first to fear the Hefazat uprising after it had seen the
huge gathering of Hefazat followers in Dhaka on April 4th..
Government Ministers held meetings with Hefazat and assured them that the
government would consider their 13 point demands although there were elements
in the demands that the ruling party with its secular stance on politics should
have rejected outright. Although there was widespread concern and fear in the
minds of the majority of the people of the country to see so many Islamic fundamentalist
gather in Dhaka, there was nevertheless also a feeling among them that the
youth in Shahabag had gone too far with their attitude towards Islam. The
people in general did not believe that the youth in Shahabag were either
atheist or against Islam but nevertheless they felt that the Shahabag youth did
not show Islam the respect that they expected. They suspected that behind the
youth leaders in Shahabag, there were a few well know “secularists” who tried
to use the movement that otherwise had so much potential to serve their agenda
of secularism against Islam.
The
debate between secularism versus Islam has been played out between the Shahabag
Movement and the Hefazat phenomenon in a manner that should give the nation its
sense of direction for the future. The people have cast their support
unequivocally in favour of Islam by the way the Shahabag movement withered
away. Nevertheless, it is not fundamentalist Islam that the people have
supported. They have supported the Islam that has been tampered by many liberal
influences including Sufism, language, culture and tradition. In fact, while
the debate raged in the country between secularism and Islam, the majority of
the Muslims of the country did not for a moment lend their support for those who tried to use the
opportunities offered to them by the anti-islam bloggers for the fundamentalist brand of Islam. They
clearly rejected Jamat and Hefazat for the politics they represented although
they had their moral support for the Hefazat’s demand for punishment for those
who humiliated Islam.
The
people did in no way reject secularism either but not the secularism preached
by those who do not see any place for Islam in public life of a secular
Bangladesh. The people supported the secularism envisioned by Bangabandhu
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who had many times, both before emergence of Bangladesh
and afterwards, said publicly that our national identity is in being both a
“Mussalman” and a “Bangali.” He saw no conflict between the two entities common in the lives
of 90% of the people of Bangladesh for a secular Bangladesh where all religions
would have equal rights. The secular
movement leaders unfortunately saw a fundamental conflict between the two and
tried to use the Shahabag Movement to fight a new liberation war for a secular
Bangladesh to subordinate the “Mussalman” entity from all public and political
matters. Ironically, it is the failure of the Shahabag Movement that has
established the “Mussalman” element of the national identity of a Bangladeshi
in full strength.
The
developments in Bangladesh’s politics
since February have unmistakably and indisputably established the “Mussalman”
element of the national identity of its people that has forcefully destroyed the notion that the emergence of Bangladesh in 1971 has
rejected the two-nation theory. Pakistan gave the people of Bangladesh space
for fulfillment of the religious element of their national identity but none for
fulfillment of their linguistic, cultural and liberal identities that Bangabandhu
had aptly described as the “Bangali” identities. In 1971, the people of
Bangladesh achieved these elements to complete the process of achieving their
national identity of being both a “Mussalman” (1947) and “Bangali” (1971). It
is time the secularists take lessons so that Bangladesh can return from the
abyss to which they had pushed the country by their attempt to undermine the
Islamic basis of the country’s national identity.
The
writer is a retired career Ambassador
On Bangladeshis and Muslims in the United States
M. Serajul Islam
I
have been travelling inside the United States for the last couple of weeks. I
was in Houston, Texas for a few days and then travelled to Nashville,
Tennessee, by road that took 14 hours. There is a large concentration of
Muslims and Bangladeshis in Houston where I had a chance to interact with quite
few Bangladeshis as it was a wedding for which I traveled there. When I first
visited Nashville in 1976, the number of Bangladeshis could be counted on the
fingertips. The few residents of the city then would compete with one another
to host any Bangladeshi who would visit the city for the first time. Now there
are so many Bangladeshis in Nashville that when a Bangladeshi meets another
outside home in public, they don’t even have the inclination to exchange
greetings.
One
can easily see the success achieved by the first generation migrants to the
United States have from the houses they stay in, the cars they drive and their
life style. Yet the second generation of
Bangladeshi immigrants has exceeded the high marks the first generation.
Talking to many of these successful first generation migrants, one will find
how well their children have done. If one of then told you that his
son/daughter graduated from Harvard, another would tell you his children have
come out from MIT or Yale or some other of the great Universities of the United
States. Many first generation Bangladeshi immigrants have sent their children
to medical schools where it is extremely tough to enter such schools. Once out
of medical school, material prosperity that is the dream of most Americans
falls on their feet.
The
first generation talks about politics in the country about our culture and our
future as passionately as those of their compatriots who live in Bangladesh.
Yet they have adapted to the ways of their new country as passionately and talk
of USA politics like any American born in the country. Their second generation
more so and are actively contributing towards the country they have adopted.
9/11 has come in the lives of the Bangladesh as very bad news as together with
the rest of the Muslims in USA, they too have had to bear the brunt of
Islamophobia to which the followers of
Islam have been subjected for the sins of a few amongst them. Lest it be
mistaken, the number of people in USA suffering from Islamophobia is few but
the views they represent are unfortunately often backed and supported by the
country’s conservative media. As a consequence Muslims, including those of
Bangladeshi origin suffer because of the negative image to which they are
subjected by a conservative media that has only foggy ideas of Islam.
In
Nashville, in my current trip, I was encouraged to witness that the new
generation of Bangladeshis are fighting this Islamophobia as Americans born in the country would if
his/her religion was so irrationally attacked.
Barry West, an elected official Commissioner in Coffee County not far
from Nashville posted on his Facebook a picture of an individual with one eye
closed aiming with his rifle with the caption stating “this is the way to aim
at a Muslim.”The hate posting was picked by a reporter of a local newspaper
that interviewed local Muslim residents for their reactions. Among those
interviewed were a nephew and niece of mine, both second generation American
professionals quite capable of fighting for their rights like any other
American. The expressed their indignation that went viral on the internet and
touched base nationwide amongst Muslims and abroad, particularly in the United
Kingdom.
My
nephew and niece who live in Coffee County did something in genuine. Through
help of the journalist who publicized the Facebook posting, they contacted the
Commissioner and invited him to tea in their house. He came with his son and
had a good conversation with his hosts and regretted his Facebook posting,
stating that he did it “out of fun”. He apologized for unwittingly hurting
Muslim sentiments and retracted the posting.
The Muslims in greater Nashville area where more than 25,000 Muslims
live decided to make use of the Facebook posting and its retraction as an
opportunity to reach out towards their Christian neighbours to help them
understand Islam better. They networked through the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC)of Tennessee that works with the
State’s elected officials and law enforcing agencies for better community
relations between Muslims and their neighbours and arranged an event in the
city of Manchester in Coffee County that they named “Discourse in a Diverse
Society” with focus on understanding Islam.
Hoping
that they would be able to make a strong case for Islam, they invited Bill
Killian, the US Attorney for East Tennessee and Kenneth Moore, FBI Special
Agent who work with AMAC for better relations between Muslims and the rest of
the community, to the event. Unfortunately, two un-related events proved that
AMAC’s timing and choice of venue was wrong. Just last week, a Federal Circuit
Judge upturned a judgment by a local court for building a mosque/Islamic
cultural centre in Murfreesboro that angered the local people whose notion of
Muslims are none too good. Second,
Manchester is located deep in what is called the deeply conservative Bible Belt
where people’s perceptions about Islam have been nurtured by a more deeply
conservative US national media unfriendly towards Islam.
As
a result where the organizers of the Manchester event were hoping for a turnout
of 100 -200 people, the turnout was nearly a thousand. The overflow comprised
those who wanted to turn the event into
a hate campaign against Islam angered no doubt by the media coverage on
Boston Bombings and the decision of the Federal Judge on the Murfreesboro
mosque. The opponents of Islam brought people from as far away as Virginia. They
had a great day in abusing Islam and Muslims. The US Attorney and the FBI
Special Agent were heckled and booed. The abusers accused the Obama
Administration of being “soft on Islam”. They did not even spare the President
and disparagingly called him a Muslim like it was a curse word! The other
speakers for the event were heckled and insulted in an ugly public
demonstration of “Islamophobia” . When a
speaker showed the picture of a burnt mosque, the result of anti-Muslim hate
act, the protesters cheered! They told local media that covered the event,
albeit distortedly, that the Muslims
were out to establish Sharia law in the USA!
There
were a few rational voices among the majority non-Muslims though. One such
attendee Elaine Smith said to reporters: “I am here because I want to learn
something…but I did not because the audience was so disrespectful…It makes me
really sad especially because these people say they are Christian. The God I
worship does not teach hate.” The event at Manchester reminded me of an op-ed
that Farid Zakaria had written after the Boston Bombings in the Washington
Post. He had stated” Since 9/11, foreign inspired terrorism has claimed about 2
dozen lives. (Meanwhile more than 100,000 have been killed in gun related
homicide).” He further stated that “Polls repeatedly have shown that Muslim
immigrants to the US embrace core American values.” In both Houston and
Nashville and also in the greater Washington area, I have seen how deeply
Muslims have embraced America as their country.
I would like to believe that the Manchester
incident was an aberration and that the conservative US media would take note
of it to help American Muslims integrate better and faster in the US society.
The ball is in the court of Christian America and its conservative news media.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
On spot/match fixing in cricket and Bangladesh
M. Serajul Islam
Spot
fixing and match fixing in cricket are no longer “breaking news” these days.
Too much of such evil is happening on a regular basis in present day
international cricket. Yet when Mohammad Ashraful admitted to the ACSU, the
ICC’s watchdog for anti-corruption and security issues of his involvement in
spot fixing (and match fixing in the BPL)
and then broke down in tears before the media, the media coverage tried
to give the impression that the news was a national tragedy and the cricketer
was a victim of some conspiracy!
Unfortunately,
the public in Bangladesh and the country’s media are quite unaware about how
seriously the guardians of international cricket treat spot- fixing. After watching the Bangladeshi cricketer cry
in public, they are all heart for him. Instead of being indignant about his
evil actions, they are praising him for his “courage” to admit his guilt. They are unaware that he had to admit his
guilt because ACSU confronted him with evidence of his crime. A human chain was
formed to demand that he be given consideration for is “courage” in admitting
his guilt. The police had to intervene to breakdown the human chain formed as a
show of public support for him. Leading singers of the country visited Mohammad
Ashraful in his house and gave TV interviews demanding that he deserved
reprieve.
The
public “support” for Mohammad Ashraful reflects a Bangladeshi mindset of
letting emotion take precedence over reason and logic. In such a mindset, they
believe that if they get together in the streets, form human chains, they can
get people charged of wrong doing off the hook just because they favour them as
“stars” or worthy of their love and support. Thus the singers who went to Mohammad
Ashraful’s residence did not seem to be bothered by the seriousness of Mohammad
Ashraful’s guilt because they believed that the law can be sidelined if they
show public emotion. Thus also his fans networked on the Facebook to create
support for his reprieve believing no doubt that they could do a “Shahabag”
over the cricketer’s predicament.
It
is just not the public mindset shown over Mohammad Ashraful that should be of
concern; it is in choosing him as the object of their emotion that is equally
perplexing and should worry us more. Mohammad Ashraful has been called the
cricketing “star” of the country to make the case for his reprieve. It would be
worth our while to spare a moment and look at the star qualities of Mohammad
Ashraful. He is no doubt a naturally
talented cricketer. He is the youngest cricketer to have scored a Test century.
His century against Australia in Cardiff in 2005 helped Bangladesh defeat
Australia in a limited over game that Wisden described as “the biggest upset in
one-day international history.” His 158 against India in a Test in Chittagong
in 2007 and 191 against Sri Lanka last year were memorable innings.
But
then besides these few innings, he has little else to show to deserve the
“star” status that his fans and the
Bangladeshi media have showered upon him. He has played 61 Tests, scored 2767
runs and scored six centuries. Importantly, his average for these Test runs is
only 24. In Test cricket, to put it bluntly, this is a very poor average that
should raise questions on how he managed to play 61 Tests. Just to set records
straight, a Test batsman who averages 40
is considered an ordinary Test batsmen these days and even Test all rounders
who bowl better than they bat have much
higher batting averages than Mohammad Ashraful . In one day cricket,
Mohammad Ashraful’s record is as disappointing. He averages 23.4 with 3
centuries to his name in one-day cricket. It is not just that he has depressing
batting averages that should raise many eyebrows as to why he should be rated as
a “star”; it is the manner in which has played his cricket that should put many
more questions on his so-called star status. More often than not he has got
himself out by playing the most atrocious of shots.
The
public support for Mohammad Ashraful or the “star” status showered upon him by
the cricketing public and sports scribes of Bangladesh reflect in an indirect
way on the poor cricketing credentials of the country. To be honest, in any
Test team other than ours and perhaps the present Zimbabwean Test team, there
just cannot be any question of retaining a “star” batsman over 61 Tests with
the sort of average Mohammad Ashraful has.
Yet he has played 61 of the 79 Tests Bangladesh has played so far
because the standard of Test cricket is so abysmally poor in the country.
There
is thus little space to show Mohammad Ashraful the consideration that his fans
want. He fell for greed for money as early as 2004. Cricket is a gentleman’s
game and there is no room for complacency over such serious charges to which he
has admitted. His fans thus should brace themselves and prepare for the worst
and in doing so, refer to those who have been punished for similar ethical and
moral breeches of the laws of cricket. In looking at the case of Mohammad
Ashraful, they would do themselves and the cause of cricket in the country and
perhaps the country itself that has a poor image on the corruption index a lot
of good if they think about Shakib al Hasan and Masharafe Murtaza who were both
approached by bookies and both referred the advances made to them to the
authorities.
Bangladesh
national cricketers are paid handsomely these days. Hence there cannot be an
excuse for them to fall for the lures of quick money through match fixing.
However, there are national cricketers who live beyond their means that exposes
them to the temptations of gaining money by illegal means. Former Bangladesh
coach Jimmy Siddons said somewhere that Mohammad Ashraful looks after 15 people
who live with him in his house, no doubt members of his immediate and extended
family, on his earnings alone. He said he had brought this to the notice of the
BCB that allowed the coach’s concern to be ignored. Many of our national
cricketers come from humble economic background and thus easily susceptible to
the traps of the bookmakers for family related reasons.
This
is where the Board has failed in its responsibility.. Our cricketers are
talented but as a team, they have so far failed themselves and the nation
miserably. Jimmy Siddons no doubt was able to see the problem. It is not good
enough to have talents. It is dedication that is missing in our national
cricket team. It is time to subject our national cricketers to the hardships
that go with playing for one’s national team including being under surveillance
to keep track whether they earnings and their living standards are compatible.
As for Mohammad Ashraful, it was good to hear that BCB Chairman state in public
that if he is found guilty by ACSU, he would not find any reprieve and the laws
would be applied in his case without an consideration for his so-called “star”
status or the fact that he admitted to his guilt.
As
for the public and the sports scribes who have shed tears for the cricketer for
his predicament, they should consider the fact that they stood by him through
his disappointing Test and one day careers where his records were not good
enough for him to have found a regular place in national Test and
one-day sides and yet he betrayed them
by cheating that he has been doing since 2004!
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
Towards “inclusive” national elections
M. Serajul Islam
The
city corporation elections have brought a sense of relief to the people who
were fearful that the country was fast sliding towards a major crisis. That
crisis still hangs because the issue that created it, namely how to hold the
next general elections, has not been unresolved, the successful holding of the
city corporation elections notwithstanding.
The BNP celebrated the victories and the wide margins of these victories
as unequivocal signals that the people have rejected the ruling party and
backed its demand for the general elections to be held under a caretaker
government. The AL ignored the
humiliating nature of the defeats and welcomed the peaceful, fair and free way
the elections were held as signs that such elections can also be held at the
national level under a party government and therefore a rejection of the BNP’s
demand for the caretaker government.
The
constitution prohibits party based elections at the local level. Yet the city
corporation elections were a straight fight between the ruling party and the
BNP where national issues dominated and local issues were hardly
significant. That explained why the AL
and the BNP drew their own conclusions. The defeated candidates were all sitting
mayors; “heavyweights” in the AL at the local level. They all performed well as Mayors and under
them, their respective cities have seen a great deal of development works that
should have easily encouraged the voters to return them for another term. Yet they lost in humiliating manners because
the voters ignored local issues and voted on national issues such as Hallmark,
Destiny, share market scam, Padma Bridge and alleged injustices against
Hefazat. That encouraged the BNP to
state that through the city corporation elections, the voters have rejected the
ruling party in national politics and backed its demand for national elections
under a caretaker government.
The
AL has braced itself and explained the defeats in various ways not
complementary with one another. Some of its leaders have said that the defeats
have been due to the fact that the defeated mayors were out of touch with the
people and thus themselves to blame and not the party. Other leaders have said
that the AL should take lessons from the defeats to prepare for the national
elections. There is no doubt that there is an environment of despondency in the
ruling party surrounding the defeats, particularly in the manner the candidates
lost. The margin of defeats was too big
for the ruling party to put the blame of any other factor other than a
vote on the lack of its popularity.
These notwithstanding, the ruling
party has taken credit from the fact that as the city corporation elections
have been held successfully, freely and fairly, the voters have given their
verdict for holding the next general elections under party government and not
the caretaker government. The Prime Minister has made this point strongly although her statement that she will not give
general elections at all if the BNP kept
on demanding for the caretaker government suggested that she too has been un-nerved by the humiliating defeats.
Thus,
although the BNP and the AL have used the city corporation elections to argue
their respective cases, the issue of the caretaker government has largely been
unresolved. Therefore the concern in the public mind over the future of the
country has not totally dissipated although it has encouraged them to hope
against the worst. The city corporation elections have underscored unequivocally
by the large turnout and enthusiasm
that the people were eager for exercising their voting rights and given
the opportunity quite capable of resolving and reaching consensus
democratically through free, fair and democratic elections. However, the city
corporation elections have been held in a free, fair and festive environment
because of the BNP’s participation together with the ruling party, albeit
indirectly as required under the law, and the AL as the ruling party did not
interfere in the election process. Nevertheless, the elections have also left
few in any doubt that had the BNP boycotted the elections, the outcome would
have been totally different. Thus it was the BNP’s involvement that has made
the elections turn out the positive way it did.
Therefore the city corporation elections have given
the country a very important message for its future as the country prepares for
a democratic change of government at the national level. To achieve the same
sort of result of the city corporation elections that has pleasantly surprised
the nation, next general elections must be participated by all the major
parties and of course be free, fair and without interference of the party in
power. It is now up to the ruling party
to ensure that the next general elections are held with the participation of
the BNP. Whether it will be under a caretaker government or otherwise must be
decided by the AL and the BNP through negotiations as required under a
democratic system. This point was made unequivocally by the Canadian High
Commissioner Heather Cruden when she spoke at the Diplomatic Correspondents
Association of Bangladesh in Dhaka after the city corporation elections were
over. She welcomed the peaceful, free and fair way the city corporation
elections have been held but did not go into the claims of the BNP or the
ruling party over the outcome of these elections.
The
Canadian High Commissioner said that the next general elections must be held
“within the framework of the Constitution” as stated by the ruling party. She
however added that in order to be free, fair, transparent and free of violence,
the elections must also be “inclusive.”
She thus considered the participation of the BNP as essential and
indispensible for Bangladesh to hold such a general election. She called upon
the ruling party to show the political will to make the necessary amendments in
the Constitution to ensure the participation of the BNP in the forthcoming
elections. The quintessential diplomat she is, the High Commissioner recommended
a “small negotiating team” to negotiate with “political will to determine the
best mechanism to hold the election.” She concluded her remarks on the
elections by stating that success in holding an “inclusive” general election
would help Bangladesh achieve sustainable democracy while failure would bring
violence and disaster.
The
Canadian High Commissioner’s emphasis on “inclusive” general elections
resonated in the suggestions made
earlier by the US Under-Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and the British
Minister Alan Duncan who have both on their recent visits to Bangladesh
recommended “inclusive” general elections in Bangladesh. All western friends of
Bangladesh have suggested the same. In
fact, an opinion poll in the country not too long ago conducted by the
country’s most widely circulated newspaper showed that 90% of the people also
supported “inclusive” general elections. According to some political analysts,
if voters in the city corporation elections had been asked to vote on the
caretaker government, they would have cast their votes in its favour. One therefore hopes that the ruling party
would see the same message that the city corporations have given; that
Bangladesh must have “inclusive” general elections in which all political
parties must participate and that the ruling party and the opposition must
together find the way to do it. Anything to the contrary would bring violence
and hence be disastrous for the country.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador.
New British Visa
regime places Bangladesh on “high risk” list
M. Serajul Islam
The
British Government is considering a pilot visa regime that would isolate 7
countries for special treatment. Citizens of Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, Nigeria, Ghana and Kenya would be required to deposit 3000 British pounds
with their visa application fees to enter Great Britain. As explained by
British authorities, this would be a
security deposit that would be imposed upon the citizens of these 7 countries
because they are considered “high risks” , meaning that many of them stay back
as illegal immigrants causing the British Government a host of complications
that are undesirable for the country. Under the proposed visa regime, the
security deposit of those who stay back illegally would be confiscated.
Last
year, 14,000 Bangladeshis have been granted British visa. In the same period,
2, 96, 00 Indians, 14,000 Sri Lankans and 53,000 Pakistanis were granted
British visas. The British Home Office while making public its intent of
introducing the new regime has not mentioned about how many of these have
stayed back in the country illegally.
The visa regime is the mechanism under which nationals of one country
travel to another country. Visa is not a right but merely a permission given by
a country to a foreign national to travel to its country. In fact, the
receiving country in many cases reserves the right to refuse entry to an
individual even after it has granted that individual the visa. Visa is a
privilege can be provoked anytime by the granting country, even at the airport
at the time of entry.
Visa
is regulated and conducted through bilateral agreements between countries or
multilateral agreements among nations. Reciprocity is a key element in any visa
agreement between or among nations.
Nevertheless, generally, visa is not as complicated as it seems and in
relations among most nations, its apparently complicated framework
notwithstanding, works hassle free. Thus most nations are increasingly moving
towards an era where they are making travel to their countries visa-free.
Citizens from the developed world who travel within their “world” do not have
to bother themselves in filing applications, going to foreign embassies or
paying fees for visas to travel.
It
is only for people of “our world” that visa becomes not only complicated but
also humiliating as an issue. This is what the pilot British visa regulations
mean to Bangladesh. Even before the new impediments upon Bangladeshi citizens
seeking British visa are imposed, getting a British visa is a major hassle and
the majority of those who apply for British visa in British High Commission in
Dhaka are rejected without causes assigned. Bangladesh passport holders on
transit to even the US/Canada or any European destination with no intention of
entering Great Britain are required to get a “transit visa” and pay money for
it! Bangladesh passport holders have to
pay hefty sums for a regular British visa of various types and not that small a
sum for a transit visa just to travel through British airports!
If
the sums Bangladeshis are paying for British visa are hefty, under the new
regime being proposed, our citizens would now have to put in an additional 3000
British pounds as security deposit! The British Home Office has explained that the 7 countries have been earmarked for
the special treatment because their
citizens stay back illegally that costs the country huge sums in the services
these illegal immigrants use/abuse. The British Home Secretary Theresa May said that the objective of the new regime
would be to bring migration down from “hundreds of thousands to tens of
thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best.” She said further that the British Government
is considering introducing bonds at a later stage so that it could “recover
costs if a foreign national has used our public services.” The pilot regime has
support among both the Conservatives and the Labour.
Colored
legal immigrants who have now become British citizens have a different view
about this new British visa regime. They believe that the new policy will be
discriminatory and intended to prevent the “blacks” and the “browns” from
growing in numbers so that the country’s “white” character is not tarnished. In
explaining the regime, the British Government has not given any number on how
many citizens from these so-called “high risk” countries stayed back or how
much they cost the British Government in “public services”. The British Government, like any government,
will be within its sovereign rights totally to issue a new visa regime. Nevertheless, there are unwritten laws by
which nations behave, particularly in the conduct of matters which affect or
impact those who are not under its sovereignty in adverse ways. One of these
unwritten laws is that government must conduct international relations in a
manner that is not discriminatory.
In
that context, the new regime to be issued by the British Government will be
discriminatory as it will exempt the citizens of other countries except the
seven “high risk” ones from its purview. In the case of Bangladesh that sent
only 14,000 people to Great Britain, there are reasons to believe that the
discriminatory new visa regime of the British Government , if implemented, will
be imposed on its citizens unfairly. The British High Commission in Dhaka is extremely
tough in processing visa applications. Therefore, if there is any
responsibility of Bangladeshis overstaying in Great Britain, it should also
fall upon those who process the applications. In any case, our Foreign Ministry
should tell the country how many of the 14,000 Bangladeshis that entered
Britain stayed back. There is reason to believe not many have; not the number
that would explain such a discriminatory action against Bangladeshi visa
applicants.
There
are more reasons for our Foreign Ministry to inform our people about the
reasons for the discriminatory rule against Bangladesh. Our country
unfortunately suffers from an image problem where it depends on creating a good
image overseas for its socio-economic development. Certainly this news that
Bangladesh will be placed as a “high risk” country by Great Britain will
adversely impact upon its image abroad. Even if the number of Bangladeshis
overstaying in Britain is significant, the 3000 British pounds “security
deposit” will be unfair on two grounds. First, this amount is exorbitantly high
for most Bangladeshis. Second, it humiliates those Bangladeshis who enter and
leave the country as required under the law. The deposit rule harasses and
humiliates these honest Bangladeshis for no acceptable reasons unless they are
informed that the majority of their compatriots who are given British visas,
abuse it.
Unfortunately,
this is the way the developed world looks at us, the developing world, and
their commitment for globalization notwithstanding. They look at us with a
neocolonial mindset that they sit on a high pedestal from where they can
humiliate and harass the developing world without having to explain their
conduct. Thus for 18 Al Qaeda terrorists who are accused for 9/11, 1.2 billion
Muslims are still suffering as they live in or travel to the developed world.
In case of Great Britain, the discriminatory visa regime placing these 7
countries as “high risk” would be unacceptable and unfair from a historical
perspective. The British invaded, plundered, looted these countries and in case
of Bangladesh, cut off the fingers of the Muslin artisans to sell the textile
of Liverpool during the period they colonized South Asia. Those who framed this
new visa regime would do their conscience some good if they just compared the
cost from “social services” that illegal immigrants avail today with what Great Britain took from these countries in
the colonial days, by force and illegally.
The
British High Commission in Dhaka has tried to allay public concerns over the
proposed visa regime stating that it is not yet final. Therefore there may
still be scope for our Foreign Ministry to discuss with the British Government
the predicament that will befall Bangladesh
if the regime is implemented and the sufferings it would cause to
British visa seekers.
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
GSP
cancellation could be a blessing for Bangladesh
M.
Serajul Islam
The
cancellation of the GSP by the United States seems to have taken the country by
surprise. The AL and the BNP have traded salvos against each other over it. The
BNP emphasized that the GSP has been cancelled because of the failure of the Bangladesh
government to meet the demands of the US Government and its trade bodies over
security of workers and work places. In scrapping the privileges to Bangladesh
under GSP, the Obama administration has cited “serious shortcomings” in safety
and labour standards. The AL stated that the US Government took the decision
because the BNP pleaded for the cancellation. Others in the country drew their
own conclusions.
In the war of words, it was not explained
properly by any of the parties that the US decision will not affect the RMG
export to USA worth US$ 4.5 billion a year where Bangladesh exporters are
paying tariff anyway and affect only US$ 35 million a year in exports in a
variety of other items. It was also not explained why the US withdrew GSP
facilities for faults in the sector where it was providing no such facilities.
Many in the country feared that the US decision could put on line Bangladesh’s
exports to the EU by influencing it to withdraw Bangladesh’s GSP facilities.
Last year, Bangladesh exported US 12 billion worth of goods to EU and EU had
also been contemplating “whether to suspend trade facilities to Bangladesh”.
That fear has momentarily dissipated as the EU office in Dhaka in a statement
said that it is not thinking of withdrawing GSP because it believes that the
withdrawal would affect the workers and it is against EU policies to punish
workers for the faults of governments or the owners of industries.
As
for the AL’s accusation against the BNP, it is a farfetched one. Everyone knows
that the BNP has no such influence in Washington and that the accusation is
political made to hide its share of the blame. AL’s contention that the article
of the BNP leader in Washington Times (that the BNP leader has denied writing)
was instrumental for the GSP cancellation is also equally farfetched. The
article was published in the Washington Times (not Washington Post), a
newspaper of such insignificance that to assert that it influenced the White
House to take a major decision like cancellation of GSP for Bangladesh is
incredible. The BNP has dismissed the AL accusation by also stating that while
on a visit to New York in May 2011, the BNP leader had urged the US Government
to extend GSP facilities to the RMG sector while speaking at the New Jersey
Senate.
Likewise
the BNP’s accusation that the Government alone is responsible for the
cancellation is also not entirely correct.
The problems in the country’s highly successful RMG industry that have
been used for the cancellation have been developing over many years and a lot
of them were there even when the BNP was in power. The military backed
caretaker government that was in power for two years (2007-2008) must also take
a fair share of the blame for the GSP cancellation decision. In fact, the application
by the powerful labour union, the AFL-CIO, to the USTR for cancellation of GSP
for Bangladesh on labour related issues was made while the Caretaker Government
was in power in 2007. Therefore, the US decision has been one influenced by the
failure of the Bangladesh Government over the last one decade during which the
BNP, the military backed CG and the AL have all been in government.
.
Nevertheless,
the present government must take a major part of responsibilities for the GSP
cancellation because of three major reasons. First it was already aware of the
AFL-CIO complaint upon assuming power and had nearly five good years to discuss
and negotiate with the US authorities to meet their concerns. During this time,
the US side never relented in expressing its concerns that the Bangladesh
Government was not moving in the right direction. In contrast, the Bangladesh
Government led by the Foreign Ministry did not seem to take the concerns
seriously and instead kept on assuring the people that the GSP would not be
cancelled.
Second,
the way the Bangladesh Government dealt with the US concerns over the murder of
Aminul Islam, the President of Ashulia and Savar chapters of Bangladesh
Garments and Industrial Workers’ Federation did not convince US authorities
that the Bangladesh Government was serious about US concerns. The case is still
unresolved. In dealing with the case of Aminul Islam, the Bangladesh
authorities also failed to consider that the late labour leader’s organization
had links to the powerful AFL-CIO that had lodged the complaint against
Bangladesh in 2007 and was deeply interested in the Aminul Islam case. The
Bangladesh government behaved like it was holding the stronger hand while
negotiating on US concerns over Aminul Islam. It did not seem to have any idea
of the power and influence of the AFL-CIO in US’ politics.
Finally,
of course the straw that broke the camel’s back was the accidents in Tazrin and
Rana Plaza. Although these were accidents in the first place, now with the
evidence at hand, it would be difficult to give the Bangladesh Government any
reprieve by calling these as merely accidents. Both tragedies, the Rana Plaza
in particular, were the result of gross indifference to the needs of the
workers and safety conditions in the work places for which the government and
the garment owners must be held equally responsible. The Rana Plaza was serious
enough to shake the RMG’s foundations, drawing adverse response worldwide. The tragedy allowed the world to look at the
pitiful labour conditions in the RMG sector. The Pope referred to these
conditions as those fit for slaves!
Thus,
everyone with some sense knew what was coming. It is therefore a mystery why
the Foreign Ministry was so surprised and why it was giving wrong signals to
the people that GSP would not be revoked. Nevertheless, the Bangladesh
government is right to feel that the decision was politically motivated. Again,
this too should not have surprised the Bangladesh Government if it had looked
dispassionately at the way it dealt with requests from the White House,
Congress and the State Department on Dr. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank.
In fact, it does not have to look back that far. It should just look at very
recent angry reaction from some US Congressmen over the recommendation of the
Commission on GB to break it into parts and place it under government control.
With the GSP case so close to a decision by the White House; one can only say
that the timing to release the recommendation of the Commission was
inexplicable. It was like the government was provoking the White House to
cancel the GSP!
The
US Ambassador Dan Mozena was perhaps right when he said that cancellation of
GSP would help the Bangladesh RMG sector attain number one position in the
world by forcing it to take the long awaited and urgently needed reforms
related to workers’ rights and working conditions. Therefore the US may have
done Bangladesh a favour by cancelling the GSP facilities, albeit for no faults
of the sectors over which it has been imposed! There may also be a historical
parallel with China and Bangladesh’ current predicament. Decades ago,
Washington would threaten a developing China time and again that it would
withdraw the most favoured nation (MFN) status to force the country on issues
of human rights and other matters. The threat helped China organize its trade
with US, particularly its highly successful RMG sector. Perhaps the same would
happen in Bangladesh’s case if of course Bangladesh could prove it is as smart
as China.
The writer is a retired career
Ambassador
A
smile for a Muslim at the US airport
M.
Serajul Islam
A
niece recently placed a post on her Facebook that gladdened my heart. She was
travelling through Nashville Airport in Tennessee, United States. While
crossing the security line, a security agent surprised her. He smiled at her
and in his deep southern accent said to her “Salam Walaikum”. My niece, born and brought up in Nashville,
is a graduate of Yale and now doing her PhD in Vanderbilt. She wears the
traditional hijab. Very surprised, she managed to respond with a smile and said
“Walaikum asalam.” But there was more. The agent asked her thereafter “Kaifa
halag?” My niece replied “Alhamdulillah,
how are you?” and the agent responded “Alhamdulillah.”
My
niece wrote of her Facebook that it was the first time she actually felt
welcome at an US airport after 9/11 and closed her post in excitement with a
bold “Thank you, Nashville.” Reading her
posting, I recollected my own travel in US airports over the years since 9/11.
My own experience has not been as pleasant as my niece’s; it has not been that
bad either. But there are just too many of us followers of Islam who have had
harrowing experiences at US airport simply because those who have been alleged
to have carried out the 9/11 acts were Muslims. For years after 9/11, having a
surname common with the accused 19 Arabs who are alleged to have been involved
in 9/11 was an instant red card. A brother-in-law married to a white American
was a victim for many years till the US authorities were able to straighten out
their data base. His wife would see her husband regularly taken off the line
and grilled for hours, sometimes even missing flights.
This
brother-in-law is law abiding to a fault. His only “fault” apart from being a
Muslim has been his surname. It is one common with a few of the accused in the
9/11 attacks. Another nephew who is a doctor who was born
and educated in USA used to have similar harrowing experiences in US airports
for the same reason; he too had the same surname “problem” as my brother-in-law.
No one in charge of US security and intelligence was bothered or seemed to know
that these Muslim surnames are like the surnames “Kim”, “Lee” and “Park” to the
Koreans; hundreds of millions of Muslims and millions of Koreans share common
surnames!. Those days when our relatives or other Muslims we knew related their
experiences to us, we felt sad and upset but utterly helpless. We could do
nothing except seek comfort in divine power. We wanted to feel the same way
Jesus Christ felt when he had said “Father, forgive them for they do not know
what they are doing.” Unfortunately, we were ordinary mortals.
There
are a large number of Bangladeshis who have relatives in the States. Many have
their sons and daughters who go there with legitimate visas. After 9/11, they
have dreaded traveling to the States and once there, inside the country,
because of the security officials at US airport. Many travelled, once in the
States, large distances by road simply because they were afraid to travel by
air for fear of the security officials at the US airports. To be fair again, like my own experiences at
US airports, many Bangladeshi Muslims have travelled through US airports
without any ill experiences. Nevertheless, many were always ill at ease, in
fact fearful while travelling through US airports and they had good reasons for
that.
Standing
in line for security check up, we could not help feeling from the body language
of the security and sometimes immigration officials a clear change when it came
to checking or interviewing us and those who were not Muslims. We could feel clearly that we were being
treated differently in a negative way. There is no question that after 9/11,
the US Government and its agencies were within their rights to do whatever was
necessary to ensure that there was no threat on the country from
individuals/groups overseas who intended
to enter the country for terrorist and subversive activities. However, to stop
these individuals/groups, the United States and its agencies have ill treated
millions whose intentions have been farthest from what they feared and
suspected. Unfortunately, while
subjecting millions for ill treatment, the US Government and its intelligence
and security agencies did not care to take this into consideration.
Thus
when the Boston marathon terror attacks took place; the Muslims in the United
States were worried, concerned and angry like all citizens of the country. But
there was one qualitative difference between the way the Muslim Americans were
worried and the rest of America. Till it was revealed that the bombers were
Chechnian Muslims, Muslims American were praying that they would not turn out
to be Muslims because they knew if they were Muslims, the rest of America would turn to them
with accusing fingers like they were accessories to the crime. In fact, after
the Boston attacks, many Muslims stayed away from travelling through US
airports to save themselves from the possible harassment that they feared after
it was revealed that the bombers were indeed Muslims.
Nevertheless,
things have changed a lot in USA as far as the unfortunate predicament of
Muslims in America is concerned. Travelling in US airports with a Muslim tag is
not a bad experience these days. The data base of those the authorities suspect
have been streamlined and organized. Just having a surname common with the 9/11
terrorists is no longer a hassle. It is no longer a hassle travelling through
US airports as a Muslim because of the improvements of technology and better
and more trained security officials. One can sense this as a Muslim travelling
in US airports these days; in fact we can feel this change . It is no longer a humiliating experience being at a
US airport these days as a Muslim.
Unfortunately,
it is not just the authorities that have unfairly subjected the Muslims as
guilty for the acts of the few terrorists and ill treated them. The media in
the United States have done worse and helped in developing Islamophobia and
spreading it across the country. The action of the security official in
Nashville may not be an isolated one; increasingly there are instances where it
has become clear that the US authorities are trying to extend a hand to the
Muslim community to undo the mistakes they made by holding it responsible for
9/11 crimes. A few weeks ago, I had written a piece in my column here about the
US Attorney and the FBI official trying to work with the local Muslim community
in Tennessee to deal with Islamophobia.
Unfortunately, that effort failed as Islam-haters outnumbered the organizers
and literally hooted the US officials out of the hall.
It
is time for the US media to assist the authorities to handle the Islamophobia
that they have helped to spread. A look at the growing Muslim community in US
and North America will encourage them to do so as increasingly, the community
is showing its yearnings to be recognized as law abiding US citizens who have
no support or sympathy for the causes of the Islamic extremists. In Canada, the
community helped law enforcing agencies stop a serious terror act in the
making. In USA too, the community is likewise cooperating with law enforcing
agencies against terrorism.
USA
should revisit history and take lessons to correct its handling of the Muslims.
After Pearl Harbor attack, USA had treated the Japanese community in the
country as pariah, humiliating them publicly. In that case, there may have been
some justification as Japan had declared war on the United States. In the
Muslim case, the crimes for which they are on dock in USA have been committed
by individuals and small groups with which the Muslims have no connection
except they are believers of the same religion!
The writer is a retired career Ambassador
No comments:
Post a Comment