Politics has no military solution

Published in The Daily Star, October 11, 2008

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in his hey days as Pakistan's Prime Minister in the early 1970s had said that there is never a point of no return for politicians. A politician is never finished till he/she is dead; in fact charismatic politicians influence politics even after they are dead. Bhutto should know it for with his own political career, he has established this truth. Even after his death, his name lives, carried by his daughter Benazir and now her husband who has become Pakistan's President based on the legacy of Bhutto. Two military dictators have failed to wipe out the legacy.

History is replete with such examples. If the military backers of this Government had cared to look at history, they would have known politicians cannot be banned by a military decree. The nature and course of politics cannot be pre-determined by military intelligence. No one doubts that this military backed government was right in assuming that the BNP and the AL were conducting destructive politics for which the two ladies were largely responsible. They were however hasty and wrong in assuming that they could set politics right and that too as a Government with limited constitutional responsibilities.

Another major mistake they made was they never resolved whether they are a caretaker government or an interim one. Fakhruddin said many times that this is a caretaker government under emergency but he himself left no one in doubt that this is a military government where he and the Advisors are carrying out the agenda of the military that showed a determined to change politics qualitatively. Early in its tenure, the Army Chief General Moyeen attempted to give the country the military's “vision” of democracy. He also told us what we should do with the issue of Father of the Nation versus Announcer of the Declaration of Independence; a thorny political agenda. He undertook visits to the USA to strengthen our relations with the world's only Super Power and then went to India to deal with our most important neighbour where elected and military governments of the past have all dreaded to tread. When Sidr struck, he was seen receiving relief although in the past, in case of such a national calamity, this was left exclusively to the Head of the Government.

Fakhruddin's Advisers chose the media to keep the nation abreast with the CG, trying to give a sense of transparency in governance. They failed to see that instead they have contradicted one another because real power has never been in their hands. First, Barrister Moinul Hossain gave us the minus-two formula under which we witnessed fruitless drama. We waited to see the two ladies to be forced out on exile; instead we saw them sent to jail.

Cases of corruption were brought against them that made no headway. Then in a 180 degree turnabout, government emissaries were sent to the two ladies for “negotiation” about which we came to know, courtesy, Adviser Zillur Rahman's running commentary on TV channels. In his enthusiasm he told us how he “negotiated” the release of the two former Prime Ministers, although their cases for corruption are pending in a court! In less than a year, this government has humiliated Khaleda and Hasina by accusing them as corrupt politicians and then turned both into presumptive Prime Ministers, now acknowledging openly that the country cannot do without them. It is again Zillur who came up with the idea of “Summit” between the two ladies so that the country's future could be secure in their hands. These acts of the Advisers convinced the public that they are carrying out the military's agenda; an agenda largely political set into motion by intelligence agencies who unfortunately created a fear psychosis that paralyzed governance and caused havoc to the economy as it took upon its weak shoulders much more tasks that it could handle; most of these tasks were also outside its constitutional responsibilities.

It is therefore hardly surprising that politics has come back, to use a cliché, to square one, into the politicians' court. Khaleda and Hasina have emerged stronger. Most of those arrested for corruption in high profile cases are out of jail. One does not need a crystal ball to predict that very few of these politicians will spend time in jail once elected government returns.

The dramatic turnabout has been the result of this Government's attempt to provide military or military influenced solutions to political problems. Yet when this military backed government came, people gave it full support because the politicians had taken the country to the verge of becoming a failed state. They also felt that as this was not martial law per se, they could perhaps take it as a civilian one, with Fakhruddin in charge.

Our last tryst with military rule under Ershad was a nightmare and still makes people shudder at the thought of military rule. As a result of all these, people are disenchanted with this government and are now convinced that their hope on the military to solve their political problems has been misplaced, seeing the mess this government has created in governance, particularly on the corruption agenda, which was main reason for people to support this Government, an agenda that has now virtually collapsed.

Our experience with this government should remind us to be cautious in expecting that the military would solve our political problems. But more importantly, it is the politicians who should know that when they hold the country for ransom for their selfish ends, the military will step into the political arena as they have done on 1/11. Let us not fish around for conspiracies, which is our favourite political pastime. One eleven came because unwritten laws that govern politics came into play.

The BNP and the AL in fact offered the country's governance to the armed forces in a silver platter by the ugly nature of their political strife. If they do the same after return to civilian rule, the military may intervene again. As for the military, they should know civilians do not like military or military backed rule; they can overstay and give us their “visions” but none of these will be sustainable, for “visions” to be sustainable must come from politicians. The military's intervention in politics must be surgical, quick and precise. Our military could have helped their image and done the country immense good, by focusing on a limited agenda, dealt with it quickly, helped hold an election and then left, which should have happened long ago. It has stayed too long and hence made a mess of governance. The experiences since 1/11 therefore have enough lessons for all; the military, the politicians and the people and hence in that sense it has not been wasted time.

This Government has little power to control political events anymore. They should thus let politics take its own course and hope with the people that the politicians, particularly Khaleda and Hasina, have learnt a few important lessons. The other ray of hope for the future lies in the EC putting a stop to “election commerce” that could send a good number of honest people to Parliament with the ACC acting as the watchdog to stop the influence of black money in elections. There is no quick fix to political problems, or military or intelligence initiated ones. Politicians themselves must solve political problems.

Foreign Policy of Bangladesh

Foreign policy is increasingly becoming more and more crucial for a country's development as traditional national boundaries fall all around us under the pressure of globalization. In all countries, foreign policy formulation and its implementation are given extremely serious consideration and dealt with professionalism that is constantly being reviewed for higher standard. In Bangladesh , unfortunately we have not treated foreign affairs with the seriousness that it deserves and implementation mechanism makes our foreign policy handling anything but professional where the Foreign Ministry competes with a number of other Ministries/agencies in an environment that is not always cooperative.

Apart from the institutional weaknesses involved on the Government side, Bangladesh also suffers from the lack of organizations in the private sector that deal with foreign policy issues and render assistance to the Government in articulating the foreign policy issues in a coherent manner where all stake holders are brought into the equation. In any world capital, there are are many such organizations or think tanks. In Dhaka, only recently the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS) was created with the objective to fill this void.

In Dhaka at this point in time, there are a very large number of retired professional Ambassadors who have spent years in the area of formulation and implementation of Bangladesh's foreign policy. But there is no mechanism or little at the moment to bring their experiences into the loop. CFAS , in which I am a Director, has been envisaged to do this. This blog , an experimental one, has been designed to encourage others with background similar to mine to do so , so that we can together create a broad forum for exchange of thoughts and ideas with the intention to help the Government in the professional formulation and implementation of Bangladesh's foreign policy.

My blog is interactive, I would welcome readers' views on articles that I have posted and would post in future. Depending on what interest this blog creates, I have an intention to welcome issues from the readers for discussion on this blog site.

Khaleda-Hasina summit: Is it a good idea?

Published in The Daily Star, September 27, 2008

THIS Government was doing its best not too long ago to get rid of Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, believing that such a move was in nation's interests and easier said than done. It tried the minus-two formula but failed. Then it attempted to break the two parties to form a “king's party”. That too failed. Now the Government has realized that there cannot be politics in Bangladesh without Khaleda and Hasina, nor without the BNP and the AL. The Commerce Adviser as the Government's Spokesman has thus suggested a “Summit” between the two ladies.

A reality check underlines the fact that the two ladies have firmly re-established their position as leader of their respective parties, neither of which has broken. This Government's initiatives for political reform have also not succeeded. It does not have the power anymore that it had when it came to office with widespread support of the people to exert pressure on politics. When politics has returned back to the laps of the two former Prime Ministers, what can a Summit between the two achieve?

A working relationship between Khaleda and Hasina, when Bangladesh came out of its long tryst with military dictatorship in 1991 could have achieved wonders for the nation. A lack of it influenced politics to degenerate into the streets where the two main parties, the BNP and the AL tried to dislodge each other from office to which the people freely elected them. Hundreds of days were lost in hartals that the two parties indulged in their unconstitutional ways to force an elected Government out of power in which the damage to the national economy ran into thousands of crores of taka. It is just not that the economy was damaged; people's livelihoods and their children's education were all equally adversely affected. State sponsored corruption earned Bangladesh the infamous crown as the most corrupt country in the world and we came to the doorsteps of being a failed state. In their lust for power, the politicians refused to acknowledge that hartals just made governance impossible but had no impact on its duration for despite the hartals, the three elected governments completed their terms.

It is common knowledge that the two ladies dislike each other immensely, the intensity much deeper in Hasina. There have been strange manifestations of the personal level where such dislike was taken. When the AL declared August 15th as National Mourning Day in 1996, the BNP started celebrating this day as Khaleda Zia's birthday. When Hasina came to office, her close associates were instructed to address her as “sir” because Khaleda Zia was referred to “madam“ in official and party circles when she was in power. It is a pity that the two ladies, who are both victims of political assassinations, are so opposed to each other at personal level.

It is however worse that those who have been advising the two leaders never tried to ease the animosity between Khaleda Zia and Hasina that was at the root of the politics of agitation, violence and general mayhem in the streets. Instead, they did enough to make the two ladies drift further apart, afraid that by suggesting they make friendship, they would incur their wrath. Hence, they did the opposite, fanned their dislikes and helped sustain an unbelievable and unhealthy political climate that has harmed the nation immensely.

The same people are again by the side of the two leaders, apart from a few who are in jail. When the two leaders themselves were in jail, some of these leaders, encouraged by the minus-two initiative, had called for reforms in their respective parties. Now they are therefore more sycophantic to get back into favour of their respective leaders. The recent meetings in the Awami League have all been about Hasina and how much the nation and AL needs her leadership. Inside BNP, it is worse. In their first meeting with Khaleda after her bail, they elected her President for life, knowing this is fascism and the party constitution does not allow this. It is return to the politics of sycophancy in both the parties. The AL is out to re-establish the supremacy of their “Netri” while the BNP, their “Desh Netri”. Thus in both parties, the climate is not conducive for the Summit.

Of course, the two leaders could themselves decide on the Summit. But what would be its outcome? The problem between the two is not political for if it is so, there could be a resolution by discussion. It is deeper, something that Barrister Rafique who is taking upon the Commerce Adviser's call for the Summit is not competent to handle, his respect and acumen as a lawyer and his closeness to both the leaders notwithstanding. The problem between the two is rooted in their psyche that only a professional can help resolve. One must not forget that Hasina and Khaleda had no professional help after their tragedies. In case of Hasina, given the depth of the tragedy, the need was much greater. A legal mind, no matter how competent, may not be able to make any headway with the problem.

1/11 has created consciousness among the people against the nature of politics of the Awami League and BNP before emergency, their frustration with this Government notwithstanding. The details of corruption in top leadership in the two parties must have convinced Khaleda and Hasina that they have suffered humiliation largely because of their associates, though their failure to control them is unacceptable. On personal level, though cases have been framed against them for corruption, it is unlikely either will be finally convicted for neither has taken money for personal gains. In case of Hasina, she and her sister have gifted to the nation property many times more than the amount for which she is being accused. These factors are likely to weigh heavily on the two leaders as they start a new phase of politics in Bangladesh. 1/11 is a watershed in our politics.

A summit is not the realistic step to cash upon the gains the nation has achieved at considerable pain. Politics and its future now depend on how Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia handle their parties and their party leaders; not how they conduct their never-existing relationship with each other. It would be more fruitful if the Chief Adviser and the CEC would instead sit with the two ladies separately for the following. First impress upon them that their working relationship is crucial for the country and in the past, Bangladesh has suffered immensely as a consequence of the lack of it. Second, convey to them that there is a consensus in the country that their dislike should not be at the expense of the country's future. Third, urge them to contest in the elections and accept the verdict. If they have problems with any issue relating to their participation, let them hear these and sort these out so that neither would have to resort to violence after the elections. Fourth, encourage them to nominate honest people in the next elections as there is now a consensus against corruption in politics. Fifth, make Parliament the main focus for resolution of conflicts through a bipartisan approach on national issues once elections are held. Finally, urge them to make hartal history and break the nexus of politics and crime. The CA has not yet shown his worth; let this initiative be his litmus test that he deserves the post he is holding at a critical stage of our history. Barrister Rafique could supplement this process by talking to the ladies separately instead of making a media event with a Summit.

A Summit between the two ladies is seventeen years too late. The focus should now be elsewhere for let us not forget that a lot has happened in the last eighteen months that has perhaps made the two ladies wiser. They need to be convinced that between them, they have Bangladesh's future in their hands and that theirs and the nation's enemies are in their own midst - the sycophants - who did not raise a finger when they were both incarcerated and they have suffered for the greed and corrupt nature of these sycophants by being in jail where they should not have gone in the first instance if they had controlled these enemies of the nation. If they can be made to see these realities around them, their closeness would follow naturally without the need of a Summit that seems to be coming to us as another media fanned drama. That is the last thing we need.

Bush said to give orders allowing raids in Pakistan

Posted in The International Herald Tribune (New York Times) on September 17, 2008

The order allowing allowing U.S. forces to operate in Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government underscores U.S. concerns over Pakistan's ability and will to combat militants. Is the order justified?

Bush’s secret order allowing ground attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan’s terrorist infested North-West without informing Pakistan’s intelligence is a dangerous development. While one can understand US’s impatience that all operations conducted against the Al Qaeda and Taliban have failed because of suspected tip off to the terrorists by Pakistan ISI, nevertheless unilateral attacks in the virtually inaccessible North-West tribal area of Pakistan will be counter productive. First, the attack carried on September 3rd under this secret order has not netted any serious terrorist but has resulted in civilian casualties. Second, it has and if such attacks continue, will strengthen already deep anti-US feelings in Pakistan that will strengthen the terrorists rather than weaken them. Finally, Pakistan is now without a strong leader and Zardari’s credentials to lead have already been weakened by the stories that have found their way to print on how he found the route to Pakistan presidency. The ground attack as well as those being conducted from the air with Pakistan military’s intelligence’s knowledge will only cause more and more civilian casualties which the weak leadership in Islamabad will be unable to tackle, that will enable the terrorists free hand to take the anti-US sentiments to the streets. Pakistan thus could be forced to another stint under military dictatorship or come close to being a failed state, either prospects not at all welcome for winning the war on terrorism. A return to military dictatorship could give strong leadership in Islamabad but will open the rest of the country free for the terrorists for with the departure of Mushraff, ISI has renewed its earlier nexus with the Talibans and Al Qaeda.

No matter how one looks Pakistan at present, the situation there is grim. The ground attack under Bush’s order has just added wind to the fire. It is legacy that has come back to haunt both the US and Pakistan for what the two did in the past to stop the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, Pakistani intellegence, US military intelligence and the Talibans and Al Qaeda worked hand in glove and built up a partnership that went very deep. The US left with the nexus solid after Soviet Union fell and it continued right up to 9/11. Mushraff’s friendship with Bush and his resolve to fight jointly the war on terror merely pushed the nexus under the surface. It has now re-emerged with the departure of Mushraff.

For both US and Pakistan, Mushraff’s departure has led to a catch twenty two situation in fighting the war of terror for Islamic fundamentalism forces in Pakistan have wide public support. Now under Pakistan’s weak political leadership, ISI has come out in support of the fundamentalists. It is difficult to predict the future course but not that difficult to predict that Bush’s secret order will only muddy an already muddy situation.

Posted by M Serajul Islam, Dhaka, Bangladesh — 17 September 2008 5:16 pm

Read the other comments here

Border attacks: Impact on Pak-US coalition against terror

Published in The Daily Star, September 19, 2008

THE cross border ground attack from Afghanistan into Pakistan's tribal North West on September 3rd by helicopters involving commandos of the US Special Operations Forces to hunt down Taliban and Al Qaeda in their sanctuaries without Pakistan Government's knowledge has placed US-Pakistan coalition to fight terror under serious stress. It came three days before Asif Ali Zardari was elected President and was the main subject at his first press conference where journalists cornered him for his innocuous reaction on the attack. The US attack could not have come at a worse moment for Zardari who has a tainted image and little political experience and badly needs to create an image that he is not a US lapdog. It was left to General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Chief of Army Staff to take the strongest stand against the US action, calling it a threat to Pakistan's sovereignty that would be met at any cost.

The cross border ground attack is part of a three phase American plan to try and capture top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders including Osama Bin laden and Ayman al Zawrahri. It was carried under an order that Bush signed secretly in July and became public knowledge only after the September 3rd attack. Attacks from helicopters and Predator unmanned drones with knowledge of Pakistani military intelligence was being carried out for some time and seven such attacks were carried out since August 13th causing significant number of civilian casualties and discontent in Pakistan. Earlier on August 27th, General Kayani had a meeting abroad USS Abraham Lincoln with senior US military leaders where he underlined public support for military operations for winning the war on terrorism. Later, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged Kayani's argument although it is now clear that Kayani was not informed about Bush's secret order.

The resurgence of the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Pakistan's fragile north-west had been worrying the US for some time. This year 113 US soldiers have already been killed in Afghanistan against a record 111 last year and 519 deaths since the war against terrorism started seven years ago. The White House had been under increased pressure from the intelligence and military to use ground force to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban in their sanctuaries without informing Pakistan's military intelligence, which the State Department opposed for keeping together the coalition that was weakening for a number of reasons. Bush finally agreed with his military and intelligence when he was given enough evidence that Al Qaeda and Talibans were being tipped off by Pakistan's ISI about operations against them well in advance.

General Kayani has been backed by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani fully on his tough stand. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose party is the largest opposition, has called for Pakistan to pull out of the coalition. In a country, where despite the alliance at the top with the USA, anti-American sentiments are widespread, the cross border ground attack has not created the passion in the streets that was expected. The media, however, has criticized Government's reaction as lip service, hinting instead at a secret deal between Washington and Islamabad on the cross border ground attack. One reason for the subdued public outcry is that the main Islamic Party of Maulana Fazal-ur-Rahman has joined the coalition with Zardari's People's Party and thus has been restrained in arousing public sentiments. The Ramadan is another reason for the subdued public reaction. One issue is clear though that Kayani made his statement without consulting the President that could hint at bumpy relation between the two in future; that is not a good omen for Pakistan's attempts to return to democratic rule.

Apart from the issue of the cross border attack, Pakistan has not been happy for some time, even when Mushraff was in office. That her contribution has not been acknowledged in Washington properly, having so far sacrificed more than a thousand army and police personnel in fighting the war on terror against public opposition is the main reason. The unilateral ground attack has thus added salt to the injury.

The September 3rd attack under Bush's secret order underscores USA's deep mistrust of the ISI. But then Pakistan's ability to pull out of the coalition is easier said than done. Pakistan Government has high stakes in keeping the US happy because of the billions of dollars she receives in aid. Before 9/11, Pakistan was a pariah state to the USA because Mushraff had usurped power through a military coup. Yet, after 9/11, it was Mushraff who received one of the first calls from Bush and Pakistan became USA's closest ally in the war against terror. It allowed its territory to be used for bringing down the Taliban in Afghanistan that was shielding Osama Bin laden and Ayman Zawrahri. A President who could not even hope for a courtesy call at the White House officially before 9/11 was invited to share time with the US President at his Crawford Ranch, a place reserved for just a few of the world's leaders as Bush and Mushraff became buddies and USA and Pakistan partners in the war against terror. Mushraff, to his credit, used US aid and friendship for Pakistan's economic development extremely well.

Nevertheless despite Mushraff, Pakistan's public opinion remained sympathetic towards the Islamic fundamentalist, proven by the many assassination attempts on him, some involving people assigned to give him security. The irony is that it was the US encouragement that created not just wide public support in Pakistan for the Islamic fundamentalists; it was the US that brought Pakistan's ISI to close interaction with the Talibans to end the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Over a decade the ISI, the Talibans and US intelligence worked hand in glove against the Soviets. When Soviet Union broke, the US withdrew abruptly from Afghanistan without acknowledging that their encouragement had created the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The US's sudden withdrawal understandably did not destroy the nexus between the ISI, the Talibans and Al Qaeda that was merely suppressed when Mushraff took Pakistan to join the US coalition. With the weakening of top leadership in Pakistan, the nexus is surfacing.

Pakistan is facing a 'catch 22' situation; damned if they stay with the coalition, damned if they do not. In fact Pakistan is in no position to decide the issue, Kayani's resolve to protect Pakistan's territorial integrity at any cost notwithstanding. The two sides must sit and resolve US's claims that its troops stationed in Afghanistan can cross into Pakistan anytime without permission under the rules of engagement that Pakistan hotly contests. Till then, the US action under Bush's secret order is bound to make Pakistan's volatile politics even more volatile and uncertain. The embarrassment it has caused will favour the extremists. The worst predicament faces Zardari because he is the one who would, as President, have to face the developments from the cross border attacks as the focal point. If such attacks increase, the US would expect him to back the attacks, something that he can do only by becoming unpopular with his people. Already, many questions have been raised about him for the way he found the route to Pakistan's presidency. If he fails to satisfy public opinion by backing the US on the issue, he would be seen as a US lackey, something he can ill afford if he intends to remain President a long time. Those who had cheered in the streets when Mushraff resigned may have to think again for despite his bragging, Mushraff had demonstrated the ability to lead Pakistan. Pakistan is facing a very uncertain future and her tryst with military dictatorship may return again. US could expedite that by more cross border attacks that would only make Pakistan's politics more fragile and make it difficult for her to support US in a manner that would ensure victory in the war against terror. September 3rd cross border attack is thus a watershed in US-Pakistan relations.

At the point of writing, Pakistan's new leaders seem to have opted for diplomacy, dropping sharply on the rhetoric, although not abandoning it altogether. Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar has claimed that the Government has received assurances from State Department and Pentagon that September 3rd action will not be repeated; the two sides will exchange information and Pakistan military and paramilitary will take action against the terrorists. This is a statement to placate Pakistan's domestic needs. Possibility of Pakistan-USA relations deteriorating over Bush's secret order may not end so easily; not till a new President enters the White House for Bush may yet be hoping, now desperately, to net Osama and Al Zawrahri before he moves out! Meanwhile all Pakistan's leaders can do is hope that US would relent on cross border and missile attacks and public reaction would remain subdued.

The author is former Ambassador and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, CFAS. e-mail serajul7 @cfasonline.org.

Bangladesh at Crossroads

Published in The Daily Star, September 13, 2008 BANGLADESH is at cross roads; lessons learnt since 1/11 could unite us towards a better future or a failed one if they are ignored. This government came at a time when the BNP and the AL, in pursuing their respective self-interests, had set Bangladesh on course to becoming a failed state. The BNP was scheming to return to power. The Caretaker Government (CG) headed by the President led the public to believe that the BNP would come back to power through unfair means. The AL was determined not to let that happen and did whatever was necessary towards that end. In the seesaw battle that emerged, governance had become impossible. 1/11 put an end to the politics of disorder and destruction and brought back sanity to governance and public life. The CG started off well tackling corruption fairly and in a transparent way after AL (one time) and then BNP (three times) had earned for Bangladesh Transparency International's title as the most corrupt nation on earth. People's hopes were raised when the CG incarcerated Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina together with some top leaders of AL and BNP in their drive against corruption, including Tareq Zia who had become a widely talked about person in that context. Leading businessmen and bureaucrats who were perceived to be corrupt were also arrested. The government's steps for reform of important institutions like the Election Commission, the Anti Corruption Commission, etc. to make the fight against corruption sustainable were widely welcomed by the people. The so-called reformists within the BNP and the AL were also encouraged to openly call for reform in their parties, acknowledging that neither practiced democracy in their internal affairs. Somewhere during taking these good measures, the CG lost its sense of proportion. The ACC and the NBR openly and the Joint Task Force silently went after far too many people than they could handle, forgetting that perception of guilt and proving it in a court of law are not the same thing. They also perceived wrongly that corruption could be weeded out completely by a CG with a limited tenure where such a responsibility has not been entrusted upon it by the constitution. There was another fundamental mistake they made believing that in a country where the relationship between income and prices in the market is irrational and illogical public servants could be totally honest. The CG's popularity nosedived with Sidr that created havoc in the economy. Around then, prices of essentials that Bangladesh needed to import like rice and edible oil rose sharply in the international market. The price hike that occurred as a consequence hit the majority of the people very badly, particularly the fixed income group. The government's explanation about the international market did not convince anybody because when prices in the international market fell, there was no impact on the domestic market. Prices of essentials produced locally also rose. In Bangladesh's history prices of essentials never rose so quickly and so steeply and the average people never suffered (and are still suffering) as much as they have under the CG. The business community that could have eased the market did little because this government had summarily dismissed them as corrupt. This government's attempts to manage politics also failed. First, it failed with its minus-two formula when the two former Prime Ministers refused to leave the country. Then it failed to create a new political grouping by trying to break the two main parties. Then it encouraged the main parties to break from within which too failed. Its attempt to form national government was also just an idea that never took wings. The CG, which explained emergency as a civilian government with military in the wings to aid it when necessary, did not leave anyone in doubt that it was the military exercising real power as the latter openly talked about their “vision” of democracy and foreign policy. The government also never resolved whether it was a CG or an interim government and behaved like either to suit its purposes. The Chief Adviser seldom came across in public imagination as one in control. Advisers chose the media to show that they are in charge and, without realizing their folly, even informed the public through the TV about “negotiations” to release political leaders whose cases are in court! Fear of falling prey to the anti-corruption dragnet paralyzed the economy and civil bureaucracy. The CG realized the mistake but took too long to create the Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC) to jump-start the economy and to give the bureaucracy confidence. The TAC now languishes without work. Those the TAC could have given reprieve to revive the economy are facing court cases and thus cannot come before it; others, including the bureaucracy, see more logic to wait it out. People who supported this government wholeheartedly started losing confidence in it by the time Sheikh Hasina was granted bail. The manner of her release gave a wrong signal to the public; that its fight against corruption was weakening and that it was seeking a “safe exit” from the mess it made with governance. When Sheikh Hasina was arrested, she was not even shown common civility as a woman and former Prime Minister. When she was released on bail, she was treated as a presumptive Prime Minister with four Advisers calling on her within hours of her release and the CA making a courtesy phone call to her! Sheikh Hasina's release was followed by speculation in the media that Khaleda would also be released. While this remains pending, Tareq Zia has been granted bail despite ACC's unsuccessful efforts with the High Court, giving the impression that it alone wants to pursue the anti-corruption agenda - a feeling that has been strengthened with most of the high-profile politicians and businessmen arrested in the drive against corruption now free on bail. The people's disappointment notwithstanding, the CG has achieved notable successes. First, it has exposed the corrupt face of politics and politicians, creating conditions for reform from within. Second, it has exposed corruption in a large number of politicians in both BNP and the AL that will convict many of them, making them ineligible to contest in the next elections. This will give the political parties the opportunity to nominate honest people for the next election. Third, because of the awareness it created among the public on the corruption issue, political parties will feel discouraged to nominate people with image problem. Fourth, The ACC has established itself as an institution that will weaken the nexus of corruption among the politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats. Finally, the EC has made changes in the electoral laws that will make future elections fair and more transparent. The nation stands at cross roads; its politics, whether one likes it or not, back in Hasina and Khaleda's hands as a result of the mess that the CG has made by stepping on every section of the society, minus the armed forces, with its anti-corruption agenda and failure to control the market. The AL and BNP have not broken apart. The so-called reformists are now trying their best to be forgiven for daring to oppose their leaders. The electoral alliances are shaping up exactly in the same manner as in the pre 1/11 days. The CG has no other alternative but to allow the new dynamics in politics to develop and let the elections decide the future of Bangladesh for people's patience, and also that of major donors, will not last if for any reason the elections are delayed. Within that prospect, there is reason to hope that Khaleda and Hasina will not conduct politics in their old style, which was doing pretty much what they pleased. The public awareness the CG has created will put pressure on the next government for good governance. Reforms in the EC will make the next elections more transparent. The strengthened ACC will be a better watchdog on all types of corruption, including those in the election process. Both parties will find it difficult to agitate over election results because they are now aware that mindless agitation benefits no one, is fatal for the country, and the public is against it. The new faces expected to enter the next parliament in place of many old ones who would not be able to contest for legal reasons will give the Parliament a much better chance to work so that political parties could deal with their conflicts there, making way for hartal and vandalism in the streets much less frequent. Such politics could even encourage bipartisanship on national issues like economic development, fight against corruption and terrorism and foreign policy. Finally, the so-called reformists could also feel encouraged to tell their leaders when they go wrong and not when they are incarcerated so that politics could be free of sycophancy and Hasina and Khaleda could see reality better although their recent behaviour does not make one optimistic on this count. The time under the CG may thus not be wasted time. It has created possibilities for the nation to hope. It now depends on Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina and their parties to let the nation achieve these possibilities. Otherwise, the day when Bangladesh becomes a failed state and a hot bed for Islamic fundamentalism may not be that distant.

Fukuda’s resignation - Is political turmoil inevitable?

Is Japan returning to its old political habit of electing more than one Prime Minister a year after Koizumi had tried to change that by remaining in power firmly for five years? Is political instability that was endemic in the pre-Koizumi era, coming back to Japan? Yasuo Fukuda's resignation as Japan's Prime Minister this week, rather abruptly, means that since Koizumi's departure less than 2 years ago, Japan is going to have a third Prime Minister soon.

Although Fukuda's resignation has come abruptly, he was never securely straddled in office. In fact, Fukuda's political career seemed all but over after he dropped out of race when the Liberal Democratic Party chose Shinzo Abe as its President following the departure of Koizumi in September 2006. It was revived when Abe was forced to resign amidst mounting political tensions and failing health a year later in September 2007 that revived Fukuda's dying political career. Fukuda is a low profile politician, at his best working in someone else's shadow. When Koizumi was the Prime Minister, Fukuda as the Chief Cabinet Secretary, exercised a great deal of power, particularly in the key area of foreign affairs where he was the one in control, with full backing of Koizumi. Fukuda also had then extremely close links with the bureaucracy and was one of the pillars upon which Koizumi had built his almost unquestioned dominance and influence over politics as Prime Minister.

As a Prime Minister, Fukuda has been disappointing. He himself admitted in public that he lacked the charisma to lead Japan at a time when the country needs strong and charismatic leadership to deal with the deepening economic recession in the country. After trying a few tricks to hold on to power amidst growing unpopularity of his government, like a cabinet reshuffle last month and an economic stimulus package worth US$ 107 billion only last week, Fukuda finally gave up when the popularity of his government in the opinion polls fell to 29%. He felt that he could not face another parliamentary session that was due to begin on September 12 because of the role being played by the opposition Democratic Party of Japan that holds a majority in the Upper House of the Japanese Parliament, the Diet.

In fact, Fukuda's tenure was made extremely difficult by the attitude of the main opposition party, the Democratic Party of Japan, which controls the Upper House of the Diet, by their policy of opposing all legislation put on the table by the LDP. Fukuda also became very unpopular with his Medical Bill for the elderly. He thought it would be better for the LDP to elect a new President who would then automatically become the Prime Minister because of LDP's 2/3rd majority in the Lower House (with its coalition partner the New Komeito Party) to lead the nation. His continuation as the Prime Minister would only delay firm legislative action to deal with Japan's current economic miseries and also LDP's chances in the general election next September. His sudden resignation was also influenced by problems with political funds, pension records, scandals in the Defense Ministry and personal health problems.

The opposition DPJ has asked for snap election notwithstanding the LDP's 2/3rd majority in the Lower House where a Government is made to rise and fall under the Japanese system of parliamentary government. The DJP is seeking snap election despite LDP's strength in the Lower House based on the failure of Abe and now Fukuda to provide effective leadership, aith the argument that these failures and Fukuda's Government's extremely low popularity reflect people's disfavor with the LDP and the need for a change in governance through a general election. The DJP also feels that the party's resounding victory in the Upper House elections in September last year, when it won 113 seats against 84 by the LDP, also suggests that most Japanese want LDP's leadership to be tested again through another general election.

However, the DJP's call for early election is not expected to find favour with the LDP. In September 2005, Koizumi dissolved the Diet and called for early election after his pet postal privatization bill was defeated in the Upper House where some LDP members voted against their own party. In that election, Koizumi named nearly 100 new faces of whom 83 won (lovingly called Koizumi'z kids), many defeating old LDP stalwarts who were expelled from the LDP by Koizumi for opposing his postal privatization bill. These new Parliamentarians would like the Diet to complete its full term, afraid that in a snap election they may not succeed in returning to the Diet. Also, with 293 seats of its own and 20 seats won by its ally the New Komeito against the DJP's 113 seats in the current Lower House, the LDP is legitimately under no obligation to accede to the DJP's demand and can continue till the next election due in September, 2009.

Thus Japan is set to elect its third Prime Minister in two years. A front-runner has already emerged in Taro Aso, the current Secretary General of the LDP and former Foreign Minister. Like Fukuda, he comes from a family that gave Japan a Prime Minister. He is the grandson from his mother's side of Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida while Fukuda is the son of Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda. Unlike Fukuda, who favoured diplomatic posture towards China, Aso is hawkish. In Japan's politics, the litmus test on who is hawkish and who is not is easy to discern based upon a politician's inclination to visit the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo that honours Japan's war heroes and also includes 14 Class A war criminals, constituting a major bone of contention between Japan and China. Aso, like Koizumi, favours visiting the Yasukuni Shrine and therefore is considered hawkish while Fukuda is a moderate because as Prime Minister, he did not visit this Shrine and sought deeper understanding with China in recognition of China's emergence as a powerhouse. While Aso has made his intentions clear to contest for the post of LDP president, another LDP leader who could have been a formidable candidate to oppose him, current Chief Cabinet Secretary and former Foreign Minister Machimura, has indicated that he is not interested to contest. That has made the field an easy one for Aso although many LDP members may not be comfortable with him. In fact, feelers have already gone out to Koizumi who could return now and contest for the LDP President's post with the younger members of the LDP but he has declined. One another name that is being mentioned is that of former Defense Minister Yuriko Koike, a former TV celebrity and conversant in Arabic, having studied in Cairo. But it is very unlikely that in Japan's male dominated politics, a woman could become the country's Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that faction bosses who had settled the issue of a LDP President in the pre-Koizumi era are playing little part in LDP's politics now due to Koizumi's efforts to rid the LDP of factions within it.

Given the current scenario, Aso who is 67, seems most likely to become Japan's next Prime Minister after the LDP elects him President on September 22nd. As Foreign Minister, he had visited Bangladesh in 2006 and has good feelings for Bangladesh although on that trip he made Japanese aid conditional upon good governance. His charm and charisma may help him and LDP win back voters' approval for on that count, he and Fukuda are in sharp contrast. Koizumi's five-year long leadership during which he captivated the imagination and interest of most Japanese with his personal qualities, often against apparently insurmountable odds both in his party and outside, has now made charm and charisma indispensable for a Japanese Prime Minister. How much of it Aso has may ultimately decide whether or not Japan will have one more Prime Minister between now and September next year. Given Japan's economic recession that does not seem likely to end soon and the growing power of the DJP, it seems more likely that should Aso fail to last, the LDP would have no other option than to call for an early election. It already seems that the Koizumi era was ages ago!

Is Biden a good choice?

Published in The Daily Star, August 30, 2008

SENATOR Obama has chosen Senator Biden as his running mate during the Democratic convention now underway in Denver. Many outside the USA and particularly in Bangladesh will be disappointed that it was not Senator Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Has Obama made the same mistake that Al Gore did in 2000 where the choice of the Vice-President was crucial in the ultimate result in a very closely fought election?

It is a question too early to answer. Between now and Election Day on 4th of November, a lot of hitherto unknown issues are bound to come into play. Also, the issues at play already such as the Iraq War and the state of the economy will come under much more serious scrutiny of the media and the electorate. Together with these issues, the candidates will also face the same soul searching attention of voters. After eight years of George Bush who has not just turned the world upside down but has also messed up his own country in a manner no US President has, the coming US Presidential election will be the most important ever for the Americans.

During the primaries, Obama came from the back and captured not just the imagination of his own party but the nation in beating the front-runner Hillary Clinton with the promise of change. He was a breath of fresh air for a suffocating nation. He caught the attention of voters nationwide earlier with his keynote address at the Democratic Party convention in 2004. Then as he toured the country, speaking on behalf of Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 congressional elections that the party won handsomely, the nation saw him and was impressed. His two biographies, Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father, both best sellers, have helped him touch base round the country. Thus when he became the presumptive candidate against Senator McCain, opinion polls nationwide gave him a 15 % lead by early June; his performance before the media and his closeness to a discredited Bush administration helped Obama.

That double-digit gap has now vanished. A CNN poll this week put both candidates tied at 47%. A CNN poll a month ago had McCain trailing Obama by 7% margin. McCain who was an underdog in his own party's nomination race and then underdog to Obama when both were presumptive candidates is now in the race with a bang. It would therefore be useful to look into the reasons why Obama lost his big lead. Obama came into the scene with his charm; his opposition to the Iraq war and his message of change that rekindled in many hopes that Kennedy had brought to a majority of Americans in the 1960 elections who were frustrated with 8 years of Eisenhower when communism made great strides worldwide. In fact, it was the Iraq war that many had predicted would make or break either of the candidates in getting voters' approval. Obama got the early lead, despite being the first ever black to dream of becoming the US President, because, with his charm and charisma, he consistently opposed the Iraq war, and has made no flip flop on the issue.

By June, an “Obamamania” had gripped USA. A new generation of first time US voters in millions of all races were flocking wherever Obama spoke, encouraging many to believe that the White House was within his reach. Although McCain has very strong credentials as a war veteran who had spent 5 years as a POW in Vietnam and excellent foreign affairs credentials being credited for normalization of US's relations with Vietnam, his age and his appearances before the media where he has fumbled many times, brought many detractors, some even suggesting his mental competence. In one of his famous faux pas before the media, he placed Iraq on the borders of Afghanistan.

The sharp differences remain. Yet Obama's lead is falling for a variety of reasons. Millions of voters who were hitherto watching the candidates without commenting are now coming into the equation as the election enters the post-convention period. They are looking at the issues more than the candidates. Of these issues, Iraq war is now playing out in a much different manner. In the last few months, the violence in Iraq has decreased dramatically; so has the number of US soldiers getting killed there. Americans, despite acknowledging that the war was a mistake are less concerned with it now as they were a few months back. They feel that US involvement there will end anyway, no matter who the President becomes because an agreement has been reached this week between Iraq and USA to pull out all troops by 2011. Ironically, many now feel that McCain, with his experience in foreign affairs and his background as a war veteran, may be better placed to end US involvement in Iraq.

Thus Iraq war trump card for the Democrats has lost a lot of its value, making the poor health of the economy, healthcare, the central issues for the voters. The rising gas price from US$ 1 plus a gallon at the beginning of Bush's tenure to over US$ 4 a gallon at present, has caused an economic upheaval in the lives of all Americans in a way never before in history, leaving no corner of the economy unaffected. People are losing their jobs, their houses and indeed their hopes for their future. The average American is now aware that gas price has risen so dramatically because no major oil fields have been discovered worldwide, none in the USA where prospect of discovering oil in the Gulf of Mexico is tremendous. Unfortunately, the Democrats oppose offshore drilling on environmental grounds led by Al Gore and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that Obama supported during the primaries. The Republicans are blaming the Democrats for rise of gas prices by telling Americans that if the Democrats withdrew their opposition to offshore drilling, gas prices would fall significantly. That argument is sinking with the voters against Obama.

In his keynote speech at the Democrats' Convention in 2004, Obama had said that there is no conservative America; no liberal America but a United States of America. Americans cheered that speech as it was delivered with oratory that was charismatic. But that oratory and charisma shelved a fundamental truth about the American society; that America is primarily a conservative country where liberal ideas are not popular. The Republicans represent that conservative heart of USA, which is not all for there are many conservatives also among the Democrats. Thus sheer arithmetic works in favour of the Republicans, which is why they won six of the last nine US Presidential elections. Further, the Republicans are up against an inexperienced black candidate who has a Muslim middle name. Added to these, Hillary supporters (8 million plus voted for her in the primaries that was more than Obama's vote tally) have threatened to work against Obama after she was by-passed for Biden, a possibility that the McCain camp is already fully exploiting in their ad campaign.

Obama should have chosen Hillary to bring the party together when his ratings are falling. He has however chosen Biden to overcome his weakness in foreign affairs where Biden is the expert and currently Chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden is also expected to overcome voters' concern that Obama is inexperienced in the way federal government works. But Biden has his own problems, having withdrawn from the 1988 Presidential race on charges of plagiarism as a law student and then as a politician when he lifted extracts out of a speech of the British Labour Leader Neil Kennock in 1987. The Republicans are sure to exploit the weaknesses to their fullest. Earlier, Obama visited Israel to answer criticism that he is weak in foreign affairs. There he promised the Israelis everything and to the Palestinians very little. Just before his tenure ended in 2000, Clinton had offered to the Palestinians East Jerusalem as capital of the state of Palestine. Obama's promise of the entire Jerusalem to Israel has disappointed the Muslim world, which believes that the failure of resolving the just rights of the Palestinians will not set to rest the current tensions between the West and the Islamic world.

All these facts taken together suggest that a predominantly conservative USA, despite all Obama's charm and brilliance, is viewed as a liberal though he is trying his best to stress upon his conservative Christian upbringing (in his grandparents' home) where also his onetime pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright has done incredible damage. Thus his liberal beliefs, his Muslim middle name, his Afro-American background and his inexperience may yet be his greatest obstacles and he has to convince the Americans on each of these before they give him a nod for the White House. Charm, oratory and charisma may not take him. Biden's choice as his running mate may improve his ratings with those who view foreign affairs as an important issue. Unfortunately most Americans do not and thus Hillary and not Biden may have been a better choice.

Transit and Geopolitical Realities

Published in The Daily Star August 16, 2008

BANGLADESH has once again deflected the Indian request for transit at the just concluded Foreign Secretary level talks. The transit to the seven Northeast Indian provinces (Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) known as the Seven Sisters (SS) from the rest of India through Bangladesh, to which request to use of the Chittagong Port for these provinces was added later, has been unresolved since the Bangladesh-India Trade Agreement of 1972 called for use of railways, waterways and road in each other's country for trade.

In isolation, the request is innocuous, an economic issue in the words of the Indian High Commissioner. In the context of Bangladesh-India relations, it is neither innocuous nor economic but a highly sensitive issue. All past Governments of Bangladesh, political parties, the civil society and the public generally have rejected the issue. In a country where bipartisanship on national issues is unknown to the two major political parties, this issue unites both the BNP and the AL in denial, as it unites every group, every opinion. The manner in which political parties, the civil society and the public reject the Indian request is also worth noting as was evident in a meeting called by the BNP alliance to protest the Indian request when news came to press that the current Government would agree to give India transit, at the New Delhi Bangladesh India Foreign Secretary level meeting. Speakers were so charged that it appeared as if India had invaded Bangladesh unilaterally.

Why does a seemingly innocuous issue arouse such nationalistic passion in Bangladesh? It is a very complex question whose answer is embedded partly in psychology and party in history. A fear that Bangladesh would lose its sovereignty to India has never left the minds of most Bangladeshis since her independence, because India is 23 times bigger, and surrounds her on three sides. This fear has been aggravated by a history of India's overbearing attitude in all unresolved bilateral issues where she has been unilateral and unfair in negotiations to resolve them. The Ganges water sharing issue arising out of India's unilateral construction and implementation of the Farakka Barrage just before the mighty Ganges enters Bangladesh has been the litmus test in enhancing Bangladesh's fear and distrust of India. Bangladeshis believe they were taken for granted on the Farakka issue and denied a fair share of the waters of this international river since it was activated in 1974 that has started the process of desertification of northern part of Bangladesh. Almost all of Bangladesh's other 50 plus rivers, including the Brahmaputra, also flow from India. As an agricultural country where her rivers sustain life and livelihood in a major way, this fact sends shivers down most Bangladeshis spine in the fear that India would ultimately deprive them of the waters of these rivers as well. In 1974, the two countries signed the Indira-Mujib Border Agreement that Bangladesh ratified within months and fulfilled its obligations. Till today India has not fulfilled its treaty obligations. In 1992, Bangladesh lowered tariffs against a large number of Indian commodities soon after signing the SAPTA. India has not done so yet, as a result of which the bilateral trade imbalance that was already heavily in India's favour has widened further. India has built fence all along its border with Bangladesh to stop what it terms as illegal migration, which Bangladesh denies. A segment of the Indian media and academia have been instrumental in projecting Bangladesh as a fundamentalist Muslim state although she is a liberal democracy.

The India psychosis is also based on India's poor relations with her other South Asian neighbours where only Pakistan has been taken seriously as it is a fellow nuclear power. India has not taken positive steps to allay their fears appearing instead the same way the neo-cons under Bush appear to the rest of the world; a take it or leave it attitude that has vitiated good neighborliness in South Asia. Given its size and importance, India's neighbours expect her to allay their insecurity by making concession to their needs. Instead, India has demanded more of its neighbours than the concessions she has made or willing to make.

The psychology and history explaining the passion of ultra-nationalism that India arouses in Bangladesh notwithstanding, it is time we take a reality check on the transit issue. A few facts beg consideration for our national interest. The first is geopolitics; that Bangladesh just not stands in between the SS and the rest of India; she is also between these provinces and their access to the sea, thus holding the key to their economic development to the fullest potential. If India gets transit, it will save her billions of dollars annually and time, both critical to the economic development of the SS. Second is India's role in world affairs. Today India is an acknowledged regional power. No great power will help Bangladesh to resolve her problems with India. Bangladesh will have to negotiate with India and resolve these issues. The importance of good relations with India can hardly be over-emphasized. For example, Bangladesh has, according to credible international energy assessments, potential for hydrocarbons in the Bay of Bengal. Unfortunately, her maritime boundary issue with India is unresolved. Bangladesh will thus have difficulty in drilling for oil or gas there.

Bangladesh must thus look at the transit issue dispassionately, bearing in mind that this is a card in her hand given by geography. Here are the advantages. The transit and the use of Chittagong Port will integrate the economies of the SS to Bangladesh giving her leverage in future negotiations with India on other issues where she now has none. Bangladesh will earn substantial amount of money from transit and use of the port because India must pay for using these not forgetting that she now spend billions of dollars and extra time annually in their absence. A positive stance will also motivate India to be fair to Bangladesh on water and other unresolved issues. It will also create trust and confidence in Bangladesh and the environment for mutually beneficial cooperation between just not Bangladesh and India but sub-regional cooperation by including Nepal and Bhutan to harness the vast water resources in the region that is potentially the second richest in the world. However, transit right need not necessarily be in perpetuity and can be always be revoked should India not reciprocate in equal measure.

Bangladesh must realize that the transit and use of Chittagong Port are the only cards she has to interest India and that a friendly India is crucial to her future. Given India's track record, it will not be easy to use these issues as negotiating chips for securing Bangladesh's interests such as a just share of waters of the common rivers, removing trade imbalance, a just and fair maritime accord, etc. That is a chance Bangladesh must take for its future. This will be a test of diplomatic skills of those in charge, whose hands Bangladesh must strengthen by a pragmatic stance on this issue in particular and on her relations with India in general.

However, decision on transit must be left to an elected government because of the significance of the issue, but resolve she must if she is realistic and has an understanding of the international forces at play in a new and evolving world order. India must consider the billions of dollars she will save from the transit and its positive impact on the SS. She must also consider the impact of this on the prospect of harnessing and using the vast water resources through sub-regional cooperation; in tackling her fear of terrorism; and the credibility it will create for her in world affairs where her poor relations with neighbours is one that those critical about her can legitimately use against her.

If Bangladesh plays the transit card right, there is no logical reason for India not to reciprocate for her own sake because the consequence of a destabilized of 150 million people is too nightmarish for her. Bangladesh and India must not waste a win win situation for both because of politics. India must show that her heart is large enough to match her size and stature. Bangladesh must show that she has a grasp of reality.

National Security Council for Bangladesh

Published in The Daily Star, March 5, 2008

A US National Security Council in session

I once sat in a high profile meeting when the country had an elected government as a Director General in the Foreign Ministry. Those who attended that meeting were the Ministers of Foreign and Home Affairs with their respective Secretary and top level representatives of civil and military intelligence. Security issues were on top of the agenda of that meeting. I was astonished to learn at that meeting that on crucial national security issues, the Foreign Minister was in total darkness and that intelligence available to the military was unknown to the civil intelligence. At the Home Ministry, what the Secretary knew was not in his Minister's knowledge. Since that strange meeting, I always felt Bangladesh needed a National Security Council for a professional and transparent way to deal with national security and intelligence issues that are vital for formulating the country's foreign and defense policies.

A National Security Council or its equivalent is now an essential part of governments of most countries. It has become indispensable for professionally integrating intelligence and security issues into well considered foreign and defense policies for maintaining sovereignty and furthering national interests in an increasingly globalized world. It has been an integral part of Government in the United States since it was set up under the Presidency of President Harry Truman. In India, it was set up in 1998 when the BJP Government was in office. National Security Council of Pakistan in its current version was created in April 2004 by an Act.

Historically, National Security Council has followed a perceptible pattern in evolution. Countries with strong democratic foundations have evolved one type of NSC while a country where the presence of the military is strong has evolved a different type. The United States and India are good examples of the first type where the military and intelligence agencies are given a place in the NSC in advisory roles. Turkey is an example of the second type where its NSC called the Milli Guvenlik Kurulu has institutionalized Turkish military's dominance and influence over politics.

A NSC for Bangladesh is not a new idea. A circular was issued by the Cabinet Division in 1996 creating a 23 member NSC headed by the Prime Minister. It was given a wide range of responsibilities ranging from ensuring national security to accountability of the Government as well as dealing with internal problems tied to security. But the concept was stillborn and fizzled till this Government came to office. Going by what one reads in the newspapers, a NSC for Bangladesh seems imminent with a few suggesting that it will be in place as early as end of May.

Not everybody is of course excited that a NSC is imminent for Bangladesh. A great deal of doubt has arisen within the public as the concept has not been debated at any length by this Government. In the absence of the parliament, there is also no forum to debate this issue in a manner that can take all concerns on board. A few seminars by think tanks have attempted to debate the issue. Unfortunately, these seminars have added more doubt in the public mind. In one well-publicized seminar held recently, a sponsor went to the extent of stating to the media that a NSC should be constituted immediately in order to allow the country to benefit from all the positive developments that this Government has achieved after 1/11. His statement left no one in doubt that he was suggesting that unless the military is given a major role through the NSC, democracy would be in peril when an elected Government comes.

Therefore, in establishing a NSC in Bangladesh, a few issues must be settled first for such a Council not to be again stillborn like the attempt in 1996. Before it is delivered, it must be absolutely clear to the public that a NSC is not a civil versus military issue and that it is not a covert way of bringing the military into politics. It must also be made absolutely clear that, the mess into which the politicians have landed the country notwithstanding, the supremacy of elected representatives over un-elected ones is an undeniable fact in dealing with issues of sovereignty, security and intelligence. At the same time, a NSC should act as a reminder to elected representatives that they cannot put national interests and sovereignty into jeopardy by internal conflicts. Given our ethos as a nation where we perhaps stand uniquely on our own for sacrifices for establishing democracy, we should therefore chose as a model the US type of NSC with modifications to suit our needs (we need not have a very complex one as the US NSC is) while be careful in not going after the Turkish model that give too much prominence to the military.

A NSC for Bangladesh should be a two-tiered body. The apex tier should be headed by the Prime Minister. This body should meet at regular intervals to consider issues/papers/documents prepared by the second tier and give policy decisions on issues of national security. In addition to considering national security and intelligence issues that have direct relation to sovereignty or threat to it arising from external sources, the NSC should also be entrusted with internal crisis management that threatens sovereignty. The apex tier should in addition to the Prime Minister, have as members the Leader of the Opposition, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, and Defense (why should the Prime Minister hold this portfolio? Is politics involved here?), the Chief of the Army (in place of a Joint Chief of Staff that we do not have in Bangladesh) and the Cabinet Secretary. Chiefs of civil and military intelligence should sit in NSC meetings as advisors. The second tier should comprise bureaucrats from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, Army, Navy and Air Force, the civil and military intelligence agencies, the Police and BDR. In developing such a NSC, the task of coordination and smooth flow of intelligence and information between the military, security and civilians in the second tier should be given utmost importance. A post of a National Security Adviser (NSA) should be created directly under the Prime Minister for this purpose. The NSA should be a very senior retired diplomat or an armed forces officer who should carry the rank of a Minister. In a Government structure already too bloated for reasons of rationality, the NSA could use bureaucrats at the Prime Minister's Office where a Director General with requisite number of officials could provide the NSA administrative support. Issues of national security and intelligence are matters that, despite the need for transparency, cannot be made public knowledge.

Then again, the NSC must not use such a necessity to become an extra-constitutional body. It must be accountable to the Parliament through the Prime Minister.

The inclusion of the Leader of the Opposition should allow bipartisanship in dealing with crucial national issues, something sadly lacking in our system of governance.

The military and intelligence agencies have always been dealing with security and intelligence issues keeping those in charge constitutionally to deal with such issues in darkness in the absence of an established procedure or structure. The BNP and the AL Governments allowed the military and intelligence agencies de facto veto power in security and intelligence issues in manner that was non-transparent and did not always serve the best interest of the nation. A NSC will allow a professional and transparent way of cooperation between the civil, military and intelligence agencies and integration of national security and intelligence issues into defense and foreign policies in the best interest of the country.

The necessity of a NSC cannot be over-emphasized. At the same time, it may not be wise to hurry in through because doubts have arisen in the public mind caused, no doubt, by some over enthusiastic people. Recently, Justice Habibur Rahman, former Chief Adviser, said in a seminar that military's interference in politics cannot benefit the country; his statement created substantial vibes in the public mind. Some politicians have also spoken publicly that the armed forces are seeking a safe exit for themselves given the fact that they have upset the politicians by their drive against widespread corruption in politics and governance. The Army Chief's most recent meeting with senior editors where he has cleared these misgivings categorically is very encouraging. Still doubts linger. Therefore, the imperative of a NSC for Bangladesh notwithstanding, it may be wise for this Government to draw the concept paper of a well thought out NSC and leave it to the elected Government to deliver it as an integral part of executive branch of the Government under the wings of the Prime Minister.

Religious Terrorism in Bangladesh

Published in The Daily Star, July 26, 2008

A Bangladeshi journalist working for a foreign radio station warned me recently against being complacent about Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh. I argued that despite its overwhelming Muslim population, Bangladesh has historically rejected political parties that have used Islam in elections. Jamaat-e-Islami, the best known among such parties, has never won even a handful of seats in elections, achieving the best of 14 seats in the 2001 elections as a result of its alliance with the BNP. I also argued that despite being predominantly Muslim, Bangladesh is the most liberal South Asian country where Islam has been influenced by Sufism with the least incidence of communal violence that are so endemic in other parts of this sub-continent.

Its liberal traditions notwithstanding, the two mainstream political parties earned for Bangladesh the label of a country that supports Islamic terrorism during the last BNP term. The BNP played the major part by allowing Jamaat-e-Islami indulgence to put a terrorist infrastructure in place as a payback for its votes that helped it win a 2/3 majority in the 2001 elections. The Jamaatul Muhahadeen Bangladesh (JMB) terrorists, who earned the maximum notoriety, was nurtured by BNP top leadership to help its leaders in northern Bangladesh win territorial control over the extreme leftist elements there and also to please Jamaat-e-Islami. The Awami League did its part by publicising abroad this evil nexus, labeling Bangladesh as Taliban that countries and interested groups abroad used to identify Bangladesh as a supporter of Islamic terrorism. The Indian media also played a role in projecting Bangladesh in a bad light, identifying it as a “locus of Islamic terrorism”.

The former US Ambassador Harry Thomas had spared no efforts to warn the Government about the growing Frankenstein. India watched developments with understandable concern and conveyed these to Secretary of State Condalizza Rice on her visit to New Delhi in March 2005. Rice told the press during the visit that Bangladesh could become the next Afghanistan and that India and USA would look after Bangladesh. The BNP Government remained unmoved and termed the concern over the Islamic fundamentalist forces as “media hype”. Encouraged, these forces carried out nearly 500 simultaneous bomb blasts all over the country in August, 2005 that proved that these terrorists had a terrorist infrastructure in place and had also infiltrated the country's intelligence although the blasts caused little damage and just two deaths. Khaleda Zia cut short an official visit to China and returned home but did little to contain these forces except issue arrest warrants against leading JMB terrorists that were not pursued seriously.

The BNP finally acted only after the US Assistant Secretary Christina Rocco visited Dhaka in January 2006 and delivered a harsh ultimatum to the Government to rein in the JMB terrorists. Within weeks, Sheikh Abdur Rahman and Bangla Bhai with 4 others were incarcerated in a make believe manner that left little doubt that they had escaped being arrested earlier due to state sponsorship. In jail, these JMB terrorists were treated as VIPs, leading to speculation that they would be released at an appropriate time. The politics of the country then slipped into anarchy, leading to 1/11 when fate intervened. The JMB terrorists were executed by the Caretaker Government after due legal process but no act of revenge followed that went to prove that AL accusations and Indian media reports that Bangladesh was infested with Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists was exaggerated and largely untrue. During this period, United States also did not find any evidence that Bangladeshi Islamic fundamentalist parties had Al Qaeda connections. Their concern was to contain the Islamic terrorism at home that was growing due to BNP Government's sponsorship.

Islamic terrorism has become benign with the fall of the BNP Government at a time when internationally Islamic terrorist groups are weakening. Newsweek in its June 9th edition under the caption “New Face of Islam” writes that within the Islamic world, a critique of radicalism is growing. Moderate Islamic scholars who were silent before and after 9/11 are now beginning to speak out against Islamic terrorism. Clerics who had supported Bin Laden are now distancing themselves from him. Countries that have tolerated Islamic radicalism like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now encouraging moderation. In Saudi Arabia, 10,000 Government paid imams have been asked by King Abdullah to restrain their zealous excesses. A new realisation is now afloat in the Islamic world that the “apocalyptic notion of holy war” that Laden had promoted contradicts the fundamental message of Islam, which is peace. Al Qaeda is now on the run in Iraq, its haven after US invasion of Afghanistan, where the US forces are winning. As a result of worldwide hunt, Al Qaeda is no longer in any position to encourage international terrorism as its finances and infrastructure have been considerably weakened.

These positive developments offer Bangladesh a great opportunity to re-establish its liberal traditions. The mainstream parties have the most critical role to play. The BNP must not repeat its past mistakes and must rein in Jamaat, with whom it is again very likely to form election alliance. It should also not allow Jamaat to nominate anyone for the next general elections with blood on its hands for its role in 1971, knowing how much the people detest the war criminals. The AL must fight Islamic radicalism in the country politically and refrain from giving the international media wrong impression about Bangladesh by talking of our internal politics abroad as it did during the BNP era. It must also be consistent in dealing with Islamic fundamentalist forces. It has not fully explained to the people its election alliance with Khelafat-e-Majlish, a fundamentalist Islamic party that supports the fatwa, just before the postponed 2007 elections as well as its alliance during the first BNP term with the Jamaat to force the BNP out of power. It also needs to explain why during its tenure it did not deal with the war criminals.

The role of the civil societies and sector commanders of our liberation forces is critical here. Those who committed war crimes in 1971 should be tried under law as murderers and rapists, remembering that there is no statute of limitation here.

Those in Jamaat-e-Islami who are war criminals must be brought under the law. Jamaat's opposition to Bangladesh's independence is a political issue and must be dealt politically. Unfortunately, in pursuing the war criminals, these groups have called for banning Jamaat as a political party, only indirectly labeling it as a party of war criminals. They have also used the secularism card in seeking to ban Jamaat because of its belief in Islam, claiming secularism as fundamental to our statehood. In doing so, they have overlooked that democracy gives all political parties the right to address their beliefs to the people directly who as sovereign authority accept or reject them.

They have also insensitively set aside the importance of Islam as a way of life both in literal and spiritual sense to majority of Bangladeshis. Furthermore, the belief in Islam that helps people retain mental sanity in the face of extreme poverty and unbearable natural and manmade calamities that they face regularly has also been over-looked. Islam based parties, particularly Jamaat, may thus be getting the benefit of over-kill with the secular card because a lot of people feel that those attacking the Jamaat are also targeting Islam.

Sadly, the detested war criminals may also be getting the reprieve by moves to ban Islam based parties from politics. The fact that the groups seeking to ban Jamaat are also supporters of the Awami League is also taking the wind out of the sail for trial of the war criminals with which few people differ. Just as the West has made the mistake of putting Islam in the dock, because of Al Qaeda, those seeking trial of war criminals have similarly erred by bringing Islam into the equation. This could eventually lead to sympathy for Islamic parties arising from the perception that Islam is in peril. For tackling Islamic fundamentalism, these groups must therefore ensure that they do not put Islam and secularism in conflict for there is no reason to do so. Because of Bangladesh's liberal traditions and that in case of a conflict, Islam is going to get the majority nod over secularism.

History, internal politics and recent developments in the Islamic world do not therefore place Bangladesh in imminent danger of a takeover by fundamentalist Islamic forces. These notwithstanding, the next elected Government must bear in mind that there are 9000 Government registered madrasas and 15,000 Qawami madrasas and Islamic fundamentalist parties like Jagrato Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), Shahadat-e-al-Hikma, Al-Harakat-ul-Islamia, Harkat-ul-Jehad Islami and Al-Khidmat. These institutions and parties would need strict surveillance by the intelligence agencies to keep them on track which should not be difficult if the next Government is sincere about it.

Whether Bangladesh becomes a haven for international Islamic terrorists and whether Islamic fundamentalism plagues our politics will thus depend largely on the mainstream political parties and the civil societies. The Islamic parties by themselves have the ability to cause disturbances but little possibility of doing much more. It is time that the mainstream parties and the civil societies work together in the interest of the nation and ensure our liberal Islamic heritage. There is no reason for complacency about Islamic terrorism in Bangladesh but no reason to cry wolf either.