Bangladesh, conspiracy theories and unraveling truth

THE BDR carnage has left a scar on the face of the nation that will take a long time to fade off. At the same time, the country's image has taken a battering that will further debilitate its efforts to expand her interests in the international environment that is crucial to her existence and her future. The carnage has been covered by the international media in the context of the abhorrent nature of the atrocities committed. It has also reflected upon our inability in dealing with it in a manner that would help the nation recover from the shame the carnage has given us.

A recent New York Times report, while writing on the BDR carnage, has said that “conspiracy theories are a national sport” in Bangladesh. It was by no means a compliment to us as a nation because this tag has been given for our failure to deal with past political assassinations and acts of terror. In the context of the BDR carnage, the Minister of Commerce who has come before the media on the government's behalf as one responsible to deal with post-carnage responsibilities was quick to suspect a conspiracy and the hands of militants behind the BDR killings only to retract his suspicion days later. Most recently, the Prime Minister has informed the nation that the BDR carnage was a conspiracy by the evil forces who “wanted to foil the December 29th elections and push the country towards civil war by creating anarchy.”

There are three investigations underway. One has been set by the Ministry of Home Affairs and headed by a former bureaucrat Mr. Anisuzzaman. There is another investigation being conducted by the CID. A third is being conducted by the armed forces. Their reports are still awaited. International agencies like the FBI and Scotland Yard are assisting national efforts to unravel the heinous crime. The US Ambassador has said recently that it will take some time for FBI to make its report known. The investigation committee headed by ex-bureaucrat has just been given a month's extension; it was asked initially to submit its report in a week and afterwards given two further extensions, which suggests that this is not going to be an easy investigation. It is therefore surprising that the Prime Minister has gone public in speaking of the February 25th carnage as a conspiracy by the forces that lost the 29th December elections to push the country towards civil war.

The Prime Minister's conspiracy theory has been picked up by her ministers who are using the media to tell the nation that the February 25th carnage has been committed to destabilize the country by the forces who lost the last elections. While the Prime Minister as head of the government may know by the means available to her about the investigations underway (although not the right to reveal it till investigations are complete), the ministers orchestrating the Prime Minister's conspiracy theory have no means or reason of knowing about the investigations. Nevertheless, they are publicly talking about such a conspiracy theory with confidence. The BNP and the Jamat have also come up with their own conspiracy theories conflicting with that of the ruling party. It is just not the political parties that are suggesting conspiracies; the people are also participating in this “national sport”. It would therefore be interesting to quote here relevant part of the NYT story on the conspiracy theories afloat related to the BDR carnage: “Some point to terrorist groups and anti-Indian insurgents. Others say that it was fuelled by intelligence agencies in either India or Pakistan both countries have been alternately friend and foe to Bangladesh. There are those who suggest that it could involve politicians who lost the last election, while others blame people within Mrs. Hasina's party whose goal is to keep the army in check.”

In the midst of these conspiracy theories what is being overlooked is that there has been a massive failure in intelligence. To date, no one responsible has been asked by the government to stand down to facilitate the investigations. The BDR carnage, in the manner it has been carried out by its perpetrators and handled by the government, makes it imperative for the investigations to unravel the chain of events transparently. The perpetrators must be identified, including the masterminds behind it, and punished so that any theory of conspiracy, if there is any, is rested and the families of the victims satisfied that justice has been done. We must not forget that the carnage and its handling has affected civil-military relations adversely like never before in our history. A resolution of this issue will depend squarely upon transparent investigation and punishment of the perpetrators if a conspiracy involving forces external to BDR and/or the country is found in the investigation reports.

There is an event underway to brand Bangladesh: a nation that has stood with its head high before the rest of the world when its people fought and won freedom against the worst forces of oppression; a nation that has sacrificed blood for her mother tongue; a nation that has as rich a historical and civilization roots as the best on earth. It should be an easy nation to brand. Bangladesh has made itself difficult to brand because her politics has stood in the way. Politics dominated by some degree of conflicts, acts of terrorism and killings, disagreeable as these may be, is not unique to Bangladesh. Nations that suffer these unfortunate incidents come together to deal with it like India came together following the Mumbai terrorist attacks last November. What is unique in the case of Bangladesh is that when such killings and conflicts or acts of terror occur in our politics, there is little attempt to unravel the causes to bring the perpetrators to justice. Instead, we divide our nation by accusations and counter accusations by our political parties and our conspiracies almost always succeeds in helping the perpetrators get the benefit. Even the people get caught in this frenzy of conspiracy theories that hinders in dealing with such tragedies. Bangladesh's history is replete with such examples.

February 25th has hit the national psyche at the core as it was hit on March 25th, 1971. The nation needs to get together now as it did then if it wants to heal the scars that the February 25th carnage has left. All quarters should have patience to let the investigating agencies complete their work and then the Government should come forward to take action that should be firm, transparent and should rest all conspiracy theories to rest. Failure to deal with the February 25th carnage could have far-reaching consequences that could be disastrous for the nation. It is time for the Prime Minister to lead the nation just as her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mijibur Rahman had done in the dark moments of our history: in the days preceding the beginning of the genocide by uniting the nation, not dividing it. It is time for us to give up our “national sport” with conspiracy theories for such indulgence only dilutes the investigations and help the perpetrators. Let the Prime Minister show the way; let her tell us about any conspiracy that there may have been behind the February 25th carnage but only after this has been established as a fact. That can only be established after the investigations are complete.

Hurdles to Regional Cooperation in South Asia

Paper presented at 25th Year’s Celebrations of Action Aid, Bangladesh on March 29th 2009

In the age of globalization, countries are coming ever so closer as borders fall to bring them into economic integration. Although globalization as a concept has come into common usage not very long ago, the trend towards this regional integration of nations started long before globalization came into common usage. The trend towards regional integration started soon after the second Great War in Europe. Globalization has both its supporters as well as opponents; but there are few who would argue about regional cooperation.

There are many examples of successful regional organizations formed for economic benefit to compete better in a globalized world. European Union is the best example. ASEAN is another. Then there are others such as NAFTA. Some of these organizations are moving towards political integration and bringing in other issues such as security to strengthen their regional organizations. In fact, no matter which regional organization one takes as an example, the result is the same; they have all moved through stages of integration that have benefitted both the organizations themselves and the member nations in a manner that can be best described as win-win for all.

These successful regional organizations no doubt had led late President Ziaur Rahman to propose towards the end of the 1970s a South Asian trading bloc that sowed the seeds of a regional organization for South Asia that ultimately matured when the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was formed in Dhaka in 1985. SAARC brought 7 South Asian countries together that had the following strong points for regional integration:

1. More than 1.4 billion that is roughly 1/5th of humanity; majority of whom live below the poverty line;
2. Countries sharing common history, culture and civilization spread over few thousand years
3. Region where poverty is significant and where regional cooperation can be a major key to development.

Despite great potentials, SAARC has not evolved in the same way as has EU or ASEAN. In fact, the founding fathers of SAARC themselves were aware of the problems that they thought would stand in way of the organization evolving to its fullest potentials. In the charter therefore they clearly incorporated the fact that contentious bilateral issues would not be discussed in the framework of SAARC while adopting the following objectives in its Charter:
· to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life;
· to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential;
· to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;
· to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another's problems;
· to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields;
· to strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;
· to strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interest; and
· to cooperate with international and regional organizations with similar aims and purposes.
Anyone reading through the list cannot help sensing that existing bilateral problems among the member countries must have been upper most in the minds of the Founding fathers of the SAARC Charter about what the association could achieve. They were negative about its prospects , feeling that if bilateral issues were allowed to be discussed within SAARC, it would stand in the way of achieving the prospects and promises it had on issues of common nature to all the member countries. The objectives have thus been set out in a manner that is vague and does not render the organization with that positive environment within which to lead it to match the effectiveness or the successes of other regional organizations. As a consequence, some critical issues for removal of poverty as for example water cannot be discussed within SAARC as Bangladesh and India have problems related to it.
SAARC has therefore restricted itself with the Charter that it has adopted from emerging as a successful regional organization because member countries have among them serious bilateral problems. In fact, political rivalries among the member nations have stood in the way of SAARC growing meaningfully. The major political issues in this context are:
1. Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India
2. The Sri Lankan Civil War; and
3. Bangladesh-India problems over the waters of the common rivers.
4. Alleged “illegal migration” from Bangladesh to India; and
5. Cross border terrorism.
6. The unequal size of the member countries with Maldives and Bhutan often expressing concern over this issue.
As a consequence of these rivalries, the “core” issues could never be addressed meaningfully and have thus not succeeded in integrating the member countries in any concrete manner. In fact, over the years SAARC has been in existence, the region has seen India-Pakistan coming close to a nuclear war ; SAARC Summit postponed on political differences; and a fence built by India on its border with Bangladesh and Pakistan.
SAARC was visualized by its dreamer President Ziaur Rahman as a trade bloc. Trade came into contention quite sometime after SAARC was launched with an Integrated Program of Action (IPA) in nine areas, namely, Agriculture, Rural Development; Telecommunications, Meteorology; Health and Population Activities; Transport; Postal Services; Sports; and Arts and Culture. On trade issues, SAARC has limped badly. Member countries have expressed their unwillingness to sign a free trade agreement. India has free trade agreements with Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bhutan and Nepal. Such agreements by India with Pakistan and Bangladesh have been stalled on political and economic concerns. India has raised fencing across its borders with Bangladesh and Pakistan, apparently to counter smuggling and cross border terrorism that has further pushed back efforts towards free trade. SAPTA that was reached in the Male Summit in 1990 led Bangladesh to lower tariff against Indian imports on a wide range of items. India failed to reciprocate the Bangladeshi gesture. In the Islamabad Summit in 2004, the member states finally signed SAFTA, addressing their desire to make the region a free trade zone. The agreement came into force in 2006. Under the agreement, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives will make their countries free trade areas for the SAARC member countries. Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan as LDCs will have 4 more years to do the same.
SAARC Secretary General in his recent visit to Bangladesh has been candid about the organization. He stressed upon the need to strengthen bilateral cooperation between the member states in order to lead to more intense regional cooperation. In other words, he has correctly assessed the conflicts among the member states in their bilateral cooperation as the main reason for SAARC not yet emerging as a successful regional organization. This conflict in bilateral relations as a major impediment to successful regional cooperation involves India at the core.
In a paper by Professor Ben Crow of University of California, Santa Cruz, written almost a decade ago on impediments to regional cooperation in South Asia, the author had identified India’s insistence on bilateral rather than multilateral negotiations for resolving bilateral conflicts as one of the most important reason for sustaining conflicts in the region. One is well aware that when SAARC was in the contemplating stages, India was the country that was reluctant about such an organization fearing that a regional organization would allow countries with which India has bilateral problems (that includes the rest of the member states) to group together against her. In fact, it is this Indian perception that has led to the negative induction of the clause that contentious bilateral issues will not figure in SAARC framework.
Ben Crowe, while seeking at alternate ways to reinvigorate SAARC, has mentioned water as an issue with which to overcome problems in India’s bilateral relations with her neighbours. While India has resolved its water sharing issues with Pakistan successfully, in its eastern and northern frontiers, it has left the water sharing problems, particularly with Bangladesh, un resolved with disastrous consequences for the latter. Fifty-four of Bangladesh’s 56 rivers that sustains life and livelihood inn Bangladesh run from India where the Ganges is the most important one. Bangladesh and India signed an agreement on sharing water of the Ganges in 1996 for sharing water of this mighty river available during the dry season at Farakka where India has unilaterally built the barrage but since the signing of the agreement, water flow at Farakka has become low for sharing due to withdrawal of waters at upstream in other Indian provinces. The 1996 agreement however assures Bangladesh 90% of the agreed quantum in the dry season and does not take into account the issues of availability. India therefore now faces treaty obligation to Bangladesh to give her the agreed share of water during the dry season from the Ganges.
A change in the Indian mindset from bilateralism towards multilateralism will not just augment water available at Ganges during the dry season; there are a host of other benefits here that could eventually help regional cooperation by overcoming persistent bilateral problems. This sub-region is, according to independent studies, one of the richest areas of the world in terms of availability of water. During the monsoon, in the absence of a sub-regional cooperation between Bangladesh, India and Nepal on water management, the waters flood this region causing havoc and devastation and most of the water is rained into the Bay of Bengal. It is retaining this water and managing it to augment dry season flow that holds the key to harnessing this natural resource for welfare of the people living in the Ganges basin which added to the people who live in the other great river basin of the world, namely the Brahmaputra Basin, is home to more poor people that the whole of Sub-Sahara taken together.
A multilateral negotiation with the countries of the sub-region on sharing waters of the mighty Ganges by building dams in Nepal would not just help manage water effectively, control floods, augment dry season flows, these dams will also allow generation of electricity that could be shared in a region where lack of electricity is a major hurdle to economic development. Water can thus be used in this region not just to bring about economic miracle; such cooperation on water would also help improve bilateral conflicts and ease way for strengthening SAARC. India’s recent move to build a barrage at Tippaihmukh on Bangladesh’s northeastern border is going to deprive the latter of waters of Surma and Kushiara and will only add to complicating bilateral relations, obstructing regional cooperation. Here India’s responsibility is of the essence but thus far she has made precious little moves that could help bilateral relations improve for creating the conditions necessary for regional cooperation.
Thus the key to strengthening SAARC lies in improving bilateral relations. In such efforts, where need be, the member countries should seek a multilateral approach to cooperation that in turn will create the confidence towards greater integration. The need of the moment is to tackle the air of distrust which has been entrenched further by the emergence of cross border terrorism that involves India and Pakistan. India is also concerned about Bangladesh that she considers as a “soft underbelly” for cross border terrorism. In this context, the proposal that Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina made upon assuming power for a South Asian Task Force has not met with the degree of approval from India that Bangladesh anticipated. When the idea was floated first, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram was very enthusiastic; so was opposition leader LK Advani. Then when the Indian FM came to Dhaka, the Indian interest had turned lukewarm; perhaps because they were hoping that the proposal would be bilateral rather than multilateral. India took shelter under a SAARC agreement on this subject that has hardly been activated since being incorporated in the framework of SAARC years ago.
The fruits of regional cooperation are immense but politics is the bane of success of a regional organization for South Asia. While building blocks for strengthening regional cooperation through improvement of bilateral relations among member countries of SAARC is feasible on northeast among India, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal, given political will of the countries concerned; it is Pakistan-India relations, both nuclear powers and a history of bad relations that saw them fight two conventional wars and come close to a nuclear one that stands between South Asia and successful regional cooperation. Bad relations are also causing both the countries to spend billions of dollars in defense expenditures that could so well go for welfare of their peoples. India’s recent strides in global politics and economics have added to the air of dominance that she always had which is not good for regional cooperation. India’s recent successes globally should encourage her to use her newly found strength for strengthening regional cooperation and one hopes that after the elections to be held there shortly, the new Indian leadership would move that way. This notwithstanding, Pakistan’s current political situation is a new dark cloud over the future of SAARC. Unless Pakistan stabilizes politically and India sees the wisdom to cooperate regionally by improving her bilateral relations with her neighbours, SAARC will limp its way to the future cooperating on the Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) in areas that will hardly help the region achieve dramatic results through regional cooperation. As a regional organization, SAARC will fall far short of realizing even a part of its true potentials till these political relations are streamlined in a win-win situation of all the member states of the association. The region seems quite a distance away from such a possibility.

BDR carnage and International Crimes Tribunal Act, 1973

Published in The Daily Star's Independence Day Special, March 26, 2009

MODERN history's worst massacre of armed forces officers during peacetime is yet far from a resolution for which the nation together with the families of the victims is eagerly awaiting. Although little has been revealed, there is a nagging apprehension in the minds of many that this has been the result of a conspiracy that was aimed at rocking the very foundations of Bangladesh. It is everybody's hope and prayer that such a conspiracy, if it existed in reality, will be revealed and those responsible for it dealt with under the law.

What is known though is that the brutality of the massacre is too gory for print. The bodies of the officers were mutilated and dumped into holes. Clearly, the killers committed crimes against humanity for which they must face the harshest penalty under the law. Unfortunately, there seems to be confusion among those talking about it in public and that includes the government as well. One un-nerving piece of information being talked about is that the crimes committed by these criminals have to be tried under the BDR Act where the punishment is too benign, given the gravity of the crimes committed and the way it has affected the psyche of the nation. The Government has hinted that if need be, laws will be enacted to mete out the harshest punishments, a move that could run into conflict on the principle of retroactivity.

There is, however, no reason for confusion. The February 25th incident is clearly a crime against humanity that is in no way different from the genocide of 1971. There is also no reason to resort to the BDR Act and allow these criminals a chance of reprieve. Nor is there any reason to enact new laws. In July 1973, the Government of Bangladesh enacted into law the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act that gives the present Government clear and unequivocal directions and guidelines to try the perpetrators of the February 25th carnage in Pilkhana by defining their crimes as crimes against humanity and not as mutiny or otherwise. Once this is done, the perpetrators can then be brought to stand trial through the setting up of a Tribunal and be punished in a manner deserving the seriousness of the crimes they have committed.

The Act also gives the government the laws required to bring under its purview the local perpetrators of the 1971 genocide and crimes against humanity. The provisions of the Act also allows, in case of the 1971 genocide, not to get entangled with war crimes issues that could raise questions about the rationale of trying the local collaborators while not trying those who masterminded the genocide in the first instance. Provision 2 (a) of the Act on “auxiliary forces” removes the confusion, if there is any, on whether BDR personnel can be tried outside the BDR Act. The same provision brings the Razakars and Al Badrs created in 1971 under the purview of the Act. In fact, the details of the Act give the Government all the legal cover to try 1971 and February 25th crimes without the need to create any new law and punish the perpetrators. It is also imperative that Bangladesh should use the 1973 Act to try these crimes against humanity successfully bearing in mind that in 1974 it was Bangladesh that had hosted the Third International Criminal Law Conference which was participated by the most distinguished jurists, legal experts and criminologists of the time. It was this conference that had inspired the signing of the ICC statute in Rome in 1998 that is such a significant milestone in bringing the perpetrators of crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice. Many of the provisions of the 1973 Act have been incorporated in the ICC Statute.

There are two issues that are crucial to the explication of the February 25th massacre. First, the Government must, through the due process of investigation, prove to the nation that the PM's decision saved the civilian population from harm, and that those dead were killed in the initial hours of the massacre. It cannot push this crucial matter under the table; it would be totally unfair to the families of the martyrs and their comrades. Second, it must deal with the military whose anger is understood but the manner in which it has been demonstrated clearly brings into focus issues that are crucial to democracy and democratic way of governance. The civil-military issue has unfortunately assumed a major significance that must be settled positively by punishing the perpetrators of the February 25th carnage under the law in a transparent manner, above politics, so that it is just not resolved in the context of civil-military relations but that it sets deterrence so that such crimes are not committed in future.

Analysis of events such as 1971 and February 25th by hindsight can be utterly subjective and lead to wrong conclusions. At this stage, the inquiry on the massacre should be conducted fairly and transparently. Pending this, the gGovernment has to take a dispassionate look at events. Mistakes were made that are apparent even to the most subjective observer. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister could have acted only in the manner that she has acted, that is going for a peaceful solution. But then, there are politicians with military background in her party whose advice she could have taken.

As the events unfolded that day, many inexperienced politicians were seen running between Pilkhana and the PM's residence. Be that as it may, it is in the aftermath of the massacre that she needs to show the nation her statesmanship. She must seek the cooperation of all, including the opposition, to lead the future course of action after the inquiry commissions submit their reports. The media's role in their “breaking stories” that created favourable opinion for the criminals at the expense of the martyrs must also be brought to focus, particularly because these reports distorted the fact that those who died were among the best in the armed forces whose professionalism and integrity have changed the BDR into an institution in which the nation can take pride.

The February 25th carnage has ravaged the nation's soul in the same manner as it had in 1971. At this stage, the nation must stand behind the Prime Ministe, for the country's very existence is integrally linked to whether she succeeds or fails. The Prime Minister, on her part, must bear in mind that she is leading the entire nation.

Manpower Maelstrom

Published in The Daily Star, March 23, 2009


THE Malaysian government's decision to revoke 55,000 Bangladeshi work visas has shocked everyone. This shows the lack of preparedness of this government for dealing with situations out of the ordinary.

On the BBC website, one can see related backdated stories that should have alerted this government that a crisis was coming. A January 9 story was captioned "Malaysian Visa Policy Tightened," and another on January 22 said "Malaysia bans foreign recruitment."

The government should have focused on Malaysia in view of the remittance earnings, instead it recalled the high commissioner. The recall was publicized by the government, and was reported in the Malaysian media in a manner that went against our country's interests.

The High Commission was thus left to a junior officer while the crisis regarding Bangladesh expatriates was going from bad to worse. The acting high commissioner could not control the labour attaché, who deemed it fit to reveal that 70,000 Bangladeshis had received visas.

He told the media that Malaysia's bleak economic situation notwithstanding, these 70,000 Bangladeshis would be able to come to Malaysia. His comments sparked protests led by the Malaysian Trade Union Congress that resulted in the decision to revoke the visas. A Daily Star editorial has been appropriately critical of the foreign and the expatriate affairs ministers at their offer to go to Malaysia "if required" to deal with the ensuing situation.

The Malaysian crisis has brought to the surface serious issues about the remittance business. One, it has re-emphasised the importance of the remittance business to the national economy. There is also a discrepancy here between what appears in the media and the situation in reality. The Malaysian decision is grave news, but it will not, as the media has predicted, be a death blow to the remittance business because those whose visas have been revoked have not yet gone to Malaysia and, hence, have not started sending money home.

Bangladesh expatriates are patted on their backs in appreciation for the money they send home. The government, however, does precious little more for them to make their stay abroad comfortable or to remit their money without worry.

Private banks bring the remittance home through banks and exchange houses abroad. In this process, the Ministry of Expatriate Affairs and the Foreign Ministry, which can play significant roles in streamlining the business, are out of the loop. Also left out are the Bangladesh missions abroad.

The expatriate ministry sends the labour attaches to the missions without any coordination with the foreign ministry, and without any policy guidelines. The Malaysian case has clearly demonstrated the folly of sending labour attaches, who have no knowledge of diplomacy and find themselves out of the depths when facing challenging diplomatic tasks in a foreign environment.

Bangladesh can no longer leave external relations to be shared by a number of ministries that have no coordinating mechanism. It is also imperative for the success of the country's economic diplomacy to place all who work in missions abroad, except defence personnel, under the foreign ministry.

Despite the current world economic meltdown, the remittance business is set to grow. While a few existing markets could slow down, like Malaysia, there are newer areas opening. In a recent talk show, the president of BAIRA spoke of East Europe as a new market since East Europeans are migrating to West Europe.

One Bangladeshi manpower agent has sent a few hundred workers to Romania to work in that country's garment sector. Libya is getting back in the market. In 2005, Bangladesh and Japan signed an accord -- Japan International Training Cooperation Agreement (JITCO) -- under which Bangladesh is entitled to send an unlimited number of trainees and apprentices to sixty of Japan's small and medium scale enterprises. But it has not seen the light of day due to the failure of the expatriate ministry to understand its potential.

Under this agreement Bangladeshi workers can work in Japan for three years, during which they could each earn at least 3 to 6 times what Bangladeshi workers get in the ME, and return home with world class training and experience. An agreement with South Korea, modeled after JITCO, has not yet been exploited fully.

There is also scope for sending Bangladeshi women as maids to West Europe, which is not possible yet because of lack of trained maids. Untrained Bangladeshi maids are nevertheless being sent abroad illegally. Six such Bangladeshi women died in Lebanon recently because they went without any training or legal documents, and fell prey to circumstances.

These prospects will remain prospects unless Bangladesh urgently introduces a mechanism for coordination among the ministries/institutions involved in the remittance business, something sadly and badly lacking now. As a consequence, Bangladeshi workers earn far less compared to workers from other countries.

The failure to bring embassies into the loop by strengthening them and empowering the ambassadors has not allowed Bangladesh achieve better deal for the workers as well as providing better consular services to them. Finally, training has been given little importance, as a consequence of which Bangladeshi workers can become helpless.

Manpower markets are expanding. At present, more than half of the money earned by Bangladeshi expatriates is being lost to the hundi system. Thus, the potential of remittance is vast, but to cash in on this we need to get our house in order.

Bangladesh receives less than $2 billion in aid and grant from the developed nations. She retains the External Resources Division where civil servants feel proud to serve. Yet ministries that can help bring many more billions of dollars, like the foreign and the expatriate ministries, are treated unfairly and not allowed to work to their fullest potential. For the nation's sake, it is necessary to change our mindset. The Malaysian decision should help Bangladesh do that.

Japanese investment in BD: Pros and cons

Japanese Ambassador His Excellency Masayuki Inonyue had done two notable things since December 29th elections. He arranged a telephone conversation between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Japanese Prime Minister Mr. Taro Aso that should lead to positive developments in bilateral cooperation. Then in a seminar on export diversification he told his audience of businessmen that following the transition to democracy that will inspire Japanese investors, this is “very right time“ to attract Japanese investment, an advice if followed professionally could have dramatic impact on Bangladesh's economic development.

My four-year long tenure in Japan as Ambassador till April 2006 exposed me to many wonderful things about the country that has practically no natural resources. Japan was devastated following the Second World War. Yet, with great leadership and dedication of her people, Japan has become the second largest economy in the world. Japan's economic prowess is also another aspect that would strike anyone with awe and wonder. Unlike other developed nations, Japan has built up huge cash reserves both in the private and public sectors. These reserves have gone to China, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam as FDI, turning these countries from economic obscurity to economic prosperity.

During a farewell lunch hosted by the head of Japan's External Trade Organization (JETRO) I was told that Japan's investments in China had become saturated and unstable due to Sino-Japanese tension and Japanese companies were seeking newer pastures for relocating part of their investments within the concept of China plus one. He said in that context Bangladesh figured in the consideration of many Japanese investors for her strategic location in the mouth of the Bay of Bengal as a bridge between South and Southeast Asia. In my discussions with Japanese business chambers during my tenure, I could sense a clear interest among many of them in looking at Bangladesh as a serious investment destination. In fact, during the visit of Prime Minister Khaldea Zia to Japan in June 2005, there was an overflow of participants at her seminar on investment opportunities in Bangladesh that was held at the Keiderenan, the apex chamber of big businesses of Japan.

Japanese investment in Bangladesh has been negligible despite interest among Japanese investors. Japan ranked a lowly tenth among investing countries in 2006 with US $ 22.7 million in investment. During the era of elected Governments till 1/11, Bangladesh has talked a lot about the country being a great investment destination that was not matched at the delivery level. The last BNP Government had projected the Board of Investment as a one-stop investment body that would take care of all the needs of an investor. The Japanese Ambassador at that time addressed a letter that was leaked to the press that highlighted that the BoI was just another layer in the bureaucratic red tape that made investment more difficult and cumbersome. He cited corruption and red tapism as major obstacles that were dissuading Japanese investors. In a meeting of Japan Bangladesh Committee for Commercial and Economic Cooperation (JBCCEC) held in Tokyo in June 2000, political instability, red tapism and power problem were identified as the main obstacles for Japanese investment although the leader of the Japanese side at the meeting acknowledged Bangladesh's potentials. He had said: “"Bangladesh's labor is cheaper from security perspective, it enjoys very good position, and it has no ethnic problem and war like Sri Lanka.”

Bangladesh has never truly understood the importance of Japanese investment, definitely not in the way Malaysia has. When Mahathir Mohammad became the Prime Minister, he saw his neighbour Japan with too much cash reserves to invest. He took charge and adjusted his country's investment laws to suit the needs of Japanese investors and investment from Japan followed like water seeks its own level when obstacles are removed. Of course Malaysia simultaneously extended the infrastructure support needed for foreign investment, of which uninterrupted power supply is absolutely indispensible. At present times, it is not that just the Japanese investors in China are interested to relocate part of their Chinese investments in another destination. In Japan too, investors are looking for new investment destinations as the Japanese Ambassador has clearly hinted. When Mr. Koizumi was the Prime Minister, his favourite priority was to privatize the postal service so that the US$ 3 trillion lying idle there could be invested. That money will also come in the market for investment. There is enough cash in Japan waiting for foreign investment opportunities despite the economic meltdown in US that has pushed Japan into recession.

At a time when foreign aid from Bangladesh's development partners is declining, FDI is the most attractive alternative. Bangladesh's huge population, added to points already noted like good human resources and geographical location are extremely favourable incentives for attracting Japanese FDI. An added incentive could be the future prospect of South Asia under SAARC and BMSTEC becoming free trading zones that would attract any FDI to Bangladesh like the pin to the magnet for then one would also be speaking of a market of nearly 2 billion people. In this context, Japan should be the number one priority country with which to pursue the country's economic diplomacy. When the chief of Toyota visited Russia under President Putin, the latter spent a lot of time with the former to impress Toyota to set up a plant in Russia. That is the sort of wooing that would be required to bring Japanese investment to Bangladesh.

The democratic elections in Bangladesh have set the stage to bring Japanese FDI. However, there has to be major changes in mindset and infrastructure development to achieve the desired result. In an age of transparency, slogans will not get Bangladesh anywhere. It is time to make BoI the one stop investment institution by action and not words so that Japanese investors given permission for electricity, gas and telephone connections do not have to go to the utility companies for their permission as well. When all these are done so that there is no gap between what is said and what the investor receives, it will be the turn of the Prime Minister to give acquiring FDI investment from Japan the same leadership that Mahathir Mohammed gave in Malaysia when he acquired Japanese investment for his country. The Prime Minister could do so by undertaking an official visit to Japan and meeting the Japanese Prime Minister, political leaders, businessmen and investors. Bangladesh could seriously consider setting up an exclusive Japanese Economic Zone that the Prime Minister could announce during this trip. The bottom line is Japanese FDI could transform Bangladesh in a major way in the quickest possible time.

This Government has not started on the wrong foot with Japan as the last BNP Government had. The BNP Government had unilaterally cancelled the DAP 11 Agreement with Japan on assuming office that had infuriated them and relations were put on a limbo till the project was reactivated a year and half later. It was a very insensitive decision because Japan provides to Bangladesh assistance totaling around US$ 300 million a year that is more than double of what the US provides, and additionally Japan has unquestioned FDI potentials. Bangladesh's development partners who contribute far less act as pay masters. It is ”very right time” to make serious efforts to attract Japanese investment by letting Japanese businessmen and investors know that Bangladesh is willing to do its part to attract Japanese FDI. In this context, the Foreign Ministry must start the process immediately to arrange an official visit of the Prime Minister to Japan for attracting Japanese investment. Prime Minister Aso is disposed favourably towards Bangladesh and may not last long as Japanese elections are due later this year and elections may be called even earlier. To get maximum mileage in terms of furthering economic diplomacy with FDI as a major target, the visit should be arranged during Mr. Aso's watch.

Indian FM's Visit: What Came of It

Published in The Daily Star, February 21, 2009

THE Indian Foreign Minister's day long visit to Dhaka on February 9th ended with more questions than having answered any. The media hype before the visit about possible agreement on transit and joint task force to combat terrorism created a great deal of interest in many quarters. While land transit is an old issue, the joint task force is a new one floated by Sheikh Hasina soon after becoming the Prime Minister that the BNP interpreted as an attempt to allow Indian security and intelligence presence inside Bangladesh. In the end, neither agreement was signed although from press interview given by Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, it was clear that on task force on terrorism, India did not have much interest.

Land transit and terrorism in fact figured significantly in Mr. Mukherjee, formal talks with his counterpart Dr. Dipu Moni and in his meetings with other Bangladesh leaders. These are issues of interest to India. Bangladesh's major concerns, namely sharing of water of the common rivers; maritime boundary and land boundary demarcation were touched and allowed to pass. The visit took place during the dry season of the Ganges flow with India also building a barrage at Tippaihmukh.

The visit resulted in the signing of two agreements. One was on Investment Promotion and Protection and the other the Trade Agreement. The first is a standard one that Bangladesh has signed with a number of countries. It is a reflection of the nature of relationship between the two countries that this agreement was not signed before. The Trade Agreement was merely renewal of an agreement that was last renewed in 1980 and initially signed during the government of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The two Foreign Ministers held a joint press conference but did not reveal anything of substance that would give a thrust to move relations ahead. Mr. Pranab Mukherjee took a philosophical view of things, suggesting that sincerity and commitment are more important than creating a new framework because one such is there already in the SAARC framework while skirting Sheikh Hasina's proposal for a South Asia task force to combat terrorism. The Bangladesh Foreign Minister was caught off guard when an Indian journalist asked her about her reaction to the perception that Bangladesh is being used by Pakistan as a buffer state to launch terrorist acts upon India. Her response or the lack of it disappointed the Bangladeshi journalists covering the press conference and drew brickbats from the BNP.

Mr. Mukherjee called on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina at her official residence. Bilateral issues were discussed at this meeting. A different spin was given by the press secretary of the Prime Minister to the latter's proposal for a South Asian task force to combat terrorism that was discussed at the meeting. The press secretary said that the Indian Foreign Minister reacted favourably to the proposal that contradicted what Mr. Mukharjee said at his press conference. Sheikh Hasina's proposal on the task force on terrorism had created a very favourable impact in India and had drawn very positive response from the Indian Home Minister Mr. Chidambaram and the veteran BJP leader Mr. LK Advani because they believed that this task force would be bilateral that would give India a handle to deal with their perception that terrorists are using Bangladesh as a sanctuary with assistance from Pakistan's ISI. As the Indians became aware closer to Mr. Mukherjee's visit that Sheikh Hasina meant a regional approach to the problem, they shifted away from their initial positive reaction and Mr. Mukherjee reflected this shift when he responded half-heartedly to the proposal.

During his meetings outside the official talks, Bangladesh government officials communicated to the Indian Foreign Minister a list of six or seven outstanding problems that India needs to resolve first for Bangladesh to be flexible on the land transit issue. The list he was given verbally included resolving the water sharing issues; maritime boundary; demarcating the land boundary; solving the Talpatty and the Muhurir Char issues; and free access of Bangladesh goods to India without any negative list. The officials candidly told Mr. Mukherjee that unless India resolved these issues, the land transit request would be difficult to fulfill.

The visit helped Bangladesh to bring out the land transit into open forum for rational discussion. The issue on land transit is now being focused by the Bangladesh trade bodies with more rationale on whether to accede to the Indian request or not. These bodies are privately suggesting that, with the other trade issues remaining unresolved, it would be suicidal for Bangladesh to let India use land transit to provide the Seven Sisters with goods from the mainland at cheaper prices; that would destroy industries in Bangladesh that are using this natural advantage to meet the needs of these provinces. The Bangladesh beverage company Pran is figuring prominently in their arguments. These bodies favour two alternatives on the transit issue. First, that India should come up with an economic plan to convince Bangladesh that her territory would not be used for economic development of Seven Sisters leaving her out alone. In other words, these bodies think that there is not much meaning or money for Bangladesh to be just a toll collector. Transit should be a part of an economic plan for benefitting Bangladesh together with the Seven Sisters. Till the Indians come out with such a plan, the best that Bangladesh could consider giving India is transshipment where only those goods would be allowed to pass through Bangladesh in which she does not have comparative advantage.

Of late Indians are trying to project issues of interest, to them as economic, where Bangladesh will gain by relenting. It is hardly the case. Whether relations go forward or not is entirely dependent on political will as Mr. Mukherjee himself made partly clear when he emphasized on sincerity and commitment to solve the issue of terrorism. It was good to see that Bangladesh is getting close to the point where she can call a spade a spade. The list that was given by the Bangladesh officials that India must resolve before she gets land transit points to the fact that for the first time Bangladesh is taking a stand that makes sense. This notwithstanding though, Bangladesh should have come up strongly on the water sharing issue. The Farakka Dam on the Ganges has all the forebodings of turning north Bangladesh into a desert and an environmental hazard. The proposed barrage at Tippaihmukh that will dry up the flow of Surma and Kushiara will turn northeastern Bangladesh into the same thing. Bangladesh should have raised strong concerns on this issue of critical national interest. There are still too many Ministers talking on critical foreign affairs issues with a visible lack of coordination. In fact, the Commerce Minister and the State Minister for Foreign Affairs contradicted each other in the media on the land transit issue. The gesture that Bangladesh made to receive Mr. Mukharji at the VVIP terminal that is reserved for visiting Head of State/Government in view of the Indian FM's current status in New Delhi has been a welcome departure from protocol that showed maturity. The failure of Mr. Mukherjee to meet with Khaleda Zia because of “time constraint” did not fit to India's democratic image and left behind a few raised eyebrows.

India is soon going to have general elections. Mr. Pranab Mukherjee therefore did not come to Dhaka expecting any breakthrough and the hype generated in Bangladesh was created by the media here. This notwithstanding, the visit proved one thing though; that even the AL Government that has been installed with such a huge majority will not move ahead so easily on the Indian requests till India makes the first moves. If anything, the visit has underscored the point that Bangladesh-India relations are faltering on politics not economics. On India's part, she is still not willing to change her mindset that all problems with Bangladesh must be resolved bilaterally. It is time she looked for a regional or sub-regional approach, particularly on water sharing and terrorism issues.

Bangladesh at Crossroads as Democracy Returns

Will the Long-Awaited Development Materialize?

A major event occurred on December 29, in Bangladesh, the third largest Muslim state in the world with a population of 150 million: Over 86% of 80 million eligible voters elected the Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina to power, ending two years of a military-backed emergency rule.

In many senses, it was a watershed election in a developing country, but was largely ignored by the international press because there was no "breaking story" of violence here.

Bangladesh is known for its poverty and frequent natural disasters that visit the country on a regular basis. It is hardly given the credit for the spirit of its people for fighting to overcome poverty and natural disasters.

In 1988, when Bangladesh faced one of the worst floods ever known in human history, foreign aid workers and journalists were astounded by the resilience of the Bangladeshi people. A lot of this resilience and fighting spirit is derived from their faith in Islam as a "complete code of life" for 88% of Bangladeshis.

Back to Democracy?

There were speculations abroad that democracy would not return; that there would by violence and disorder in Bangladesh during the period of the military-backed rule since January 11, 2007.

Before the emergency, Bangladesh had an unfortunate tryst with widespread violence and corruption where the two main parties, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the party in power before the military backed government, and the Awami League (AL), contributed to bringing Bangladesh close to a failed state with mindless corruption that earned Bangladesh Transparency International’s dubious title of the most corrupt country in the world and anarchy in the streets.

The people thus welcomed emergency quietly. But the military, taking advantage of abrogation of the constitution, indulged in excesses while pursuing the drive against corruption under which the two former Prime Ministers, Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia, both women, were incarcerated with a large number of politicians, businessmen and bureaucrats.

Although the military backed government had just the constitutional responsibility to create a level playing ground for free and fair elections, it indulged in extra-constitutional roles such as attempting to break the two main stream political parties to create a "king’s party" to which to hand-over power that failed eventually.

Their excesses led to spiraling of prices of essential commodities that affected the people very harshly, a predicament further aggravated by an unfavorable international market from where the government had to import essential commodities such as rice, edible oil, etc.

The military-backed government did one commendable thing for returning democracy to Bangladesh. They carried out efficiently the task of registration of 80 million voters and issued them photo identity cards. International pressure and people’s impatience with the military-backed government led to the general elections in Bangladesh. The BNP that bore the brunt of pressure of the authorities in their anti-corruption drive was in disarray.

In the BNP, those who tried to curtail the powers of the party chief while she was in jail were denied nominations for the parliamentary elections. The AL, in which also senior party leaders tried to curtail their party chief’s powers, took these so-called reformists on board and went to elections united.

In addition, the AL that had 14 parties as allies from the 2001 elections, with all these parties in name only, also formed an alliance with the Jatiya Party of former President Ershad that had won 7.6% of total votes cast in 2001. As a result, the AL triumphed in a manner that was unbelievable, winning 233 seats alone and 262 seats with its allies.

The BNP that had won 197 seats in 2001 was routed with only 32 seats. In fact, the BNP closely beat the Jatiya party that won 30 seats. The BNP’s allies, the Islamist parties of which Jamaat e Islami was one, failed even more disastrously. In fact, BNP alliance with Jamat, whose members committed war crimes in 1971, and its indulgence in extreme corruption when in power contributed to its election trouncing.


Government in Action

The results surprised the AL for winning it so overwhelmingly; the BNP for losing it so catastrophically; and the outside world for the peaceful manner it was held. Subsequent developments were also surprising and interesting. In announcing the cabinet, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina left out almost all her senior colleagues who were in her cabinet when the AL was in power in 1996-2001 naming women in key ministries of Home and Foreign Affairs.

In another departure, Sheikh Hasina appointed a number of Advisers with Ministerial rank and amended the Rules of Business so that she can appoint more Advisers who can also sit in cabinet meetings, making them de facto cabinet ministers. For the first time the opposition attended the opening session of parliament that augurs well for transition although immediately afterwards they abstained on seating arrangement.

The AL government has its hands full with the election promises it made. There is a "Vision 2021" to transform Bangladesh into a middle income nation. The party is committed against corruption, a popular task undertaken by the military-backed government. It has also pledged to try those who committed war crimes during Bangladesh’s war of liberation in 1971.

The economic agenda is an achievable one, for Bangladesh has both the human and natural resources needed for such an agenda. Unfortunately, Bangladesh has faltered in the past in sustainable economic development to become a middle income country because of failure of politics that has seen the army in power frequently as in January, 2007, when the military officials introduced an emergency rule and installed a civilian government of their choice while holding power behind its back after the BNP and the AL had made governance impossible.

Bangladesh is the envy of all South Asian countries with no ethnic, regional or religious divide but has squandered her natural advantage over rivalry between the two main parties that was the worst at the leadership level with Shaikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia treating each other as the nemesis of the other. Parliament was made non-functional and politics was dominated by conflict and violence. Thus the new government’s economic agenda will depend mainly on how well politics is managed for which cooperation between the government and the opposition will be crucial.

Fighting Corruption

The new government has made its intentions clear on corruption by naming ministers with clean records. This notwithstanding, people who hold public offices in Bangladesh are paid very little while exercising enormous power thus exposing them to the lures of corruption. The corruption agenda will therefore be a hard one to implement.

On trial of war criminals, the government is making preparations for setting up a Commission. The demand for the trials is one deeply entrenched in the psyche of the people, but it will extend the government’s ability to the utmost to hold it in a credible manner, because these crimes were committed nearly 4 decades ago.

The war criminals are allegedly mostly from Bangladesh’s Jamat-e-Islami party. The government therefore will have to be careful so that just war criminals are tried and not the Jamat. Islam in Bangladesh is based upon liberal traditions being influenced by Sufism and secularism and has fundamental roots in society. Even then, the religious fundamentalists whose number is not very large could whip up trouble by using the slogan that Islam is in peril that could have grassroots support unless the government is careful and sensitive.

Foreign Policy

In foreign policy, this Government is expected to seek closer cooperation with India which is in the country's geopolitical interest.

The Indian foreign minister paid a visit to Dhaka this February as an Envoy of his Prime Minister.

Two agreements were signed during the visit. The first was the Agreement on Investment Promotion and Protection, and the other was the Bilateral Trade Agreement.

Tough issues such as sharing of waters of common rivers, trade and maritime boundary from Bangladesh’s side, cross border security, and land transit from the Indian side were the main focus of discussion between the two countries.

The two countries have these issues unresolved mainly on lack of trust and political will, with Bangladesh accusing India of violating international law particularly on water sharing.Only political will on both sides can help achieve sustainable friendly relations.

Bangladesh has over 4 million people living in the Middle East whose foreign exchange earnings are crucial for the country’s economic development.

This factor, added to Bangladesh’s Islamic base and heritage, will make the need for seeking closer ties with Islamic countries a major focus of the new government’s foreign policy.

The new government was quick to condemn the recent carnage in Gaza and will continue to back the Palestinian rights.

The December elections have set Bangladesh on course for transition to democracy with great scope to economically transform into a middle income nation. However, political accommodation between the AL and the BNP will hold the key to this transition and transformation. There is now both hope and apprehension in Bangladesh.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee Visits Dhaka

The Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee completed a one day visit on February 9th to Bangladesh as an Envoy of Prime Minister Manmohon Singh. He met Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, held official talks with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni and met a few other senior Ministers of the Bangladesh Government.

Two agreements were signed during the visit. The first was the Agreement on Investment Promotion and Protection and the other the Bilateral Trade Agreement. The first one was a new agreement and the second one was a renewal of an agreement that the two sides had signed earlier. At the official talks, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister and his the Indian counterpart went over a whole range of bilateral issues such as security, border management, strengthening connectivity ; trade and investment and water sharing issues.

No joint statement was issued after the talks. The two Foreign Ministers held separate press conferences. In his press conference, the Indian Foreign Minster did not respond positively on Sheikh Hasina’s call for a Joint task Force to Combat Terrorism. He said that political will, sincerity were more important than setting up any task force. The issue was again raised by Sheikh Hasina when the Indian FM called on her at her official residence. The Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, after the meeting, told reporters that the India FM agreed with the proposal that contradicted what Mr. Mukherjee himself told journalists earlier after his talks with Dipu Moni. In her own press conference, the Bangladesh Foreign Minister faced difficulty and tricky questions related to security and involving Pakistan. An Indian journalist queried her about Bangladesh being used by Pakistan as a “buffer state” for importing terrorists against India to which the Bangladesh Foreign Minister was unable to respond in a way to defend Bangladesh’s case that raised quite a few eyebrows from the Bangladeshi journalists present.

Prior to the visit, the Bangladesh media was full of speculation about issues such as trade and transit, both controversial where relations have remained stagnated. At least two Bangladesh ministers had contradicted on Government position on the issue of transit. The Minister for Commerce and the State Minister for Foreign Affairs were involved in contradicting each other.

The Indian Foreign Minister who arrived in a special aircraft was given protocol given to a visiting Head of State/Government as he was received in the VVIP terminal at Dhaka airport. An explanation given by the Government said that as Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is looking after some of the responsibilities of his Prime Minister, this special gesture was made to him. The Indian FM’s trip was just for a day and was very hectic. He also visited Dhaka University for a ceremony in connection with a floor being built in Dhaka University’s Arts Building with Indian assistance for the Drama Department. Mr. Mukherjee, however, could not find time to meet Begum Khaleda Zia, the leader of the Opposition.

Going by the media hype in Bangladesh, the visit of the Indian Foreign Minister was quite an anti-climax. The tough issues were glanced through without any decisions to move relations ahead. Given Indian concern on terrorism, one expected some agreement on the proposal of Sheikh Hasina on the joint task force. This did not happen. One can surmise that the Indians are not clear whether the Bangladesh Prime Minister was proposing a South Asian initiative or a bilateral one and hence the lack of interest. Given the well known Indian mindset that one has seen over the years, India is never forthcoming on any initiative on controversial issues that are multilateral, always preferring the bilateral approach. The issues of water sharing between Bangladesh and India is a case in point where India has stubbornly refused to bring Nepal into negotiations , despite the fact that with Nepal, this region could just not solve its problem of shortage of water in the dry season but also flood in the rainy season.

The Bangladesh side also showed during the visit that it has no clear sense of direction about dealing with India. The team work is just not there and there are still too many people at government level talking about the issues in a manner that just not shows a lack of professionalism but to add a cliché; here are too many cooks making the broth. In an age of globalization, foreign affairs need much more professional handling. Knowing that India is going to have an election very soon, the Foreign Ministry should not have allowed the media hype by killing all the speculations and instead should have advised the media to see the visit as a goodwill visit and nothing more. The Indians have done just that.

Moving Bangladesh-India relations: Reviving Gujral Doctrine is the key

Published in The Daily Star, January 24, 2009

THE Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is going to be the first high profile foreign visitor to Bangladesh when he arrives in Dhaka as a Special Envoy of the Indian Prime Minister on February 8th. India has figured high in this government's priorities. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has spoken of the need for jointly tackling militancy and terrorism which, the Foreign Minister has resonated. The Minister for Water Resources has also spoken of the need to reactivate the Joint River Commission. The Indian High Commissioner is also making his Ministerial rounds harping upon the need for closer Bangladesh-India cooperation. Clearly, intent from both governments for improvement of bilateral relations is obvious.

Both countries have significant stakes for developing and sustaining friendly bilateral relations. Bangladesh's stakes are fundamental to her existence based on geopolitics and history. As an agricultural country, almost all the rivers that are her lifeline either originate in or flow through India. Bangladesh thus needs India to give her water sharing rights under international law as a lower riparian. Bangladesh has great economic potentials in the Bay of Bengal that is rich in sea resources and hydrocarbons but her ability to exploit these resources is in a spanner due to India's conflicting claims. There are also other serious issues related to trade imbalance, land boundary demarcation, etc. that make it extremely important for Bangladesh to be friendly with India. Then there is also the reason of history embedded in the fact that India extended assistance to Bangladesh in 1971 that impels Bangladesh to seek out India as a friend.

India's stakes in friendly relations are also significant and lie in a land transit from the Indian mainland to the seven eastern provinces or Seven Sisters that Bangladesh cuts into two that could lead to great economic benefit for these provinces and the use of Chittagong port that could also propel significant economic development there. In recent times, with militancy and terrorism getting worse in India, where security situation in her eastern provinces is extremely fragile, India is in desperate need of Bangladesh's assistance to win her war on terror. In fact, in the wake of the Mumbai carnage of November last year, the need to fight the war on terror has become the first item in India's agenda vis-à-vis Bangladesh.

Bangladesh-India relations have not developed for mutual benefit due to mutual mistrust, the stakes notwithstanding. Depending upon which side one takes, blame could be apportioned on the other for their not-so-friendly relations. The mistrust on Bangladesh's side has developed from India's denial to grant her share of waters of the common rivers law and demarcating her maritime boundary in accordance with international law. India has also not kept her commitment under the India-Mujib Agreement on land border. There is also a generally held view in Bangladesh that India is a physical threat, a fact often asserted in the common mind by the frequent shooting deaths in the border by the BSF of India. The bottom line of this negative perception is that Bangladesh feels that India is conscious of her role as a regional power but insensitive about her responsibilities to her neighbours. India feels that Bangladesh has not always conducted her foreign relations keeping India's interests in focus. This ill-feeling has enhanced further in the Indian mind because she has played a major role in Bangladesh's liberation struggle during which she has also looked after ten million refugees from Bangladesh who had fled to India to escape the Pakistani genocide. India also has serious security concerns arising from her belief that Bangladesh allows her territory to be used as sanctuary by Indian militants. India is also unhappy because Bangladesh has not reacted favorably to her requests for land transit and use of Chittagong port. Bangladesh had also earlier turned down India's request for purchase of gas, an issue no longer relevant.

The stars of Bangladesh-India relations are beginning to align correctly for a paradigm shift for the better as a result of change of both internal and external environment. However to achieve the shift, both sides must show political will. India must acknowledge that Bangladesh's claims on water sharing and the maritime boundary are based on international law and are crucial to her viability as a nation. Bangladesh must acknowledge that India's major requests, namely the land transit together with use of Chittagong port and security concerns are issues that Bangladesh must accept for long-term friendship with India although India's claims and requests are not of the same merit as her claims.

The India factor or an anti-India bias did not play any role in the December 29th elections that has sent the AL to power with such a humungous majority. But then, it would be un-wise to think that the India factor has gone. It has just receded into the background because other important issues such as the agenda of corruption under the BNP and trial of war criminals had captivated the attention of the voters. The India-factor could very well come into play strongly unless the two sides pay attention to sensitivities of the people of Bangladesh in trying to move relations ahead. In this context, the comments that the Indian High Commissioner have made on the Ganges water sharing agreement and land transit may not help improvement of bilateral relations. The High Commissioner's suggestion of transit and use of Chittagong port are issues of economics and connectivity, and Bangladesh will make money out of it. However, to stress that transit is not a political issue would give wrong signal to Bangladeshis who believe that India must not be given land transit unless she shows the political will to give Bangladesh her legitimate share of water from the common rivers and flexibility and accommodation on other outstanding issues. As for his view about depleting availability of water in the Ganges, the position is that as an upper riparian India has treaty obligations under the 1996 agreement to ensure that Bangladesh's share as the lower riparian never fell below 90% of the agreed quantum.

The India-factor should be kept in focus by Bangladesh before making any concessions; India must likewise take note of it before seeking any concession from Bangladesh when the two sides discuss bilateral issues during Mr. Pranab Mukherjee' visit. A revival of the Gujral Doctrine could work like magic here and could set the stage where outstanding issues of Bangladesh-India relations could be resolved or at least have a fair chance of resolution. The first principle of the five-point Gujral Doctrine was that with neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka, India would not seek reciprocity but would give and accommodate what it can on good faith and trust. India must adopt a similar stance for long-term friendly relations. A start in that direction could be made by the Indian Foreign Minister by acceding to Bangladesh's maritime claims that should not be very difficult considering that this would mean India giving only a very small portion of her total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. For Bangladesh, this would mean a very great deal. It could also be any other outstanding issues upon which India could show that she is willing to accede without reciprocity. This could create confidence in Bangladesh to move ahead on terrorism and militancy to start with, and then slowly move towards transit and use of Chittagong port with India relenting on the water sharing issues where even Nepal and Bhutan could be brought into the loop to exploit the vast and rich potential of the rivers in the sub-region.

The ball is now in India's court. The peace dividends here are immense for both sides. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has acted wisely in speaking out positively on the issues of militancy and maritime boundary and it is now up to India to show the political will needed to shake Sheikh Hasina's hand. Bangladesh is a politically conscious nation where politics is moving towards maturity. India can settle her security concerns as well as transit need but she must first act responsively on Bangladesh's concerns regarding water sharing, maritime boundary and trade deficit.

Medieval Carnage in Modern Times

Published in The Daily Star, January 17, 2009

Bangladesh's Permanent Representative in Geneva described the recent and continuing Israeli military operations in Gaza “medieval carnage in modern times” in a special session of the UN Human Rights Council called to discuss the continued massacre of Gazans, including women and children, by the Israeli armed forces. Voices of condemnation of Israel's actions have resonated round the world but to no avail as Israel seems hell bent to annihilate Hamas' ability in future to launch rocket strikes inside Israeli territory no matter what it takes.

Israel and Hamas had been observing a tenuous six months long cease fire brokered by the Egyptians in July last year. In a debate similar to which came first, the chicken or the egg, Israel and Hamas have accused each other for breaking the cease fire which in any case had ended on December 19th with little hope of being extended. Hamas blamed Israel for not lifting the blockade of Gaza while Israel blamed Hamas for rocket attacks inside Israel. In fact, under the leadership of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel used the lull in fighting since July last year to draw a well thought out plan to take out Hamas' ability to launch rocket attacks on Israeli cities permanently. Two dates were uppermost in the minds of the Israeli leadership in launching its current onslaught on Gaza that has been named Operation Cast Lead. First, Israel needed to complete the task under President Bush's watch, which is ending on January 20th, because during his entire tenure his administration has given Israel a blank cheque to resolve the Palestinian problem militarily. Second, the Israeli Government wanted to take out Hamas' rocket-launching ability for good ahead of elections in Israel scheduled next month.

There is another reason for the Gaza carnage. Hamas has been branded a “terrorist organization“ by Israel as it does not recognize the state of Israel and has been fighting the Israeli occupation by all means available. In accusing Hamas, a pro-Israel international press has not acknowledged the fact that Hamas militants have been fighting for freedom of their motherland from foreign occupation. Furthermore, in 2006, they also won a democratic parliamentary election in Palestine but they have not been allowed a share of power because Israel, supported by the US, made it impossible for Hamas parliamentarians to take their legitimate seats in the Palestinian parliament that forced them to capture power in Gaza. In recent times, Hamas has been signaling that it wanted diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the border June 1967, which has international consensus behind it. This would however mean dismantling of Israeli settlements in occupied lands as well as giving part of Jerusalem to the independent state of Palestine that Israelis do not want under any circumstances. Israel is concerned that a new US administration would find it difficult to reject a PLO/Hamas joint effort for diplomatic solution along the 1967 border and with this apprehension in mind, Operation Cast Lead has been initiated, not for creating “deterrence” to Hamas' rocket launching abilities but for dismantling Hamas for good.

The Israeli carnage in Gaza has been ferocious and inhuman in terms of slaughter of innocent civilians and the worst onslaught on Palestinians on record. In the name of drawing out Hamas militants and their military abilities Israelis have bombed schools, mosques and hospitals that are recognized as safe under all international conventions related to military engagements on the plea that Hamas has used these as “human shields”. Israel has also used white phosphorous on civilians in violation of 1980 Geneva Treaty. The carnage has so far resulted in over 900 deaths on the Palestinian side, including over 200 children. On the Israeli side, only 13 have been killed, including 4 from “friendly fire”.

The Israelis have argued that they have dropped leaflets warning Gazans not to allow Hamas militants use them, their houses, their schools, etc for launching rockets into Israel and to flee to avoid Israeli reprisal in case they cannot help it. Of course, Israel's arguments are extremely weak and do not stand up to any rational analysis. Gaza is a small strip of 360 square miles where 1.5 million people live, surrounded by Israel on all sides except for a small part on the south where it borders Egypt, which too is under strict Israeli surveillance. Gaza has an opening to the sea on the west but that too, including her airspace, is controlled by the Israelis. Hence to say that they have asked Gazans to flee from Hamas is like causing an injury and then spreading salt on it. The Israelis have carried their military attacks in full knowledge that they would be killing innocent people but still they went ahead as their intention is to terrorize Gazans to submission. The conflict can thus only be described as one of David against Goliath and has rightly been condemned all around the world, including from many Jewish groups. The Gaza carnage has graphically highlighted the hell in which 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and 2.5 million Palestinians in West Bank live as a direct consequence of Israel's occupation. In the West Bank Israelis have built a wall to keep them in conditions worse than jail.

At the UN, the outrage of the world did not have much impact. The Security Council adopted a toothless resolution that has been rejected by Israel with contempt, and by Hamas as it made them appear aggressors whereas they feel they are the victims. President-elect Barak Obama, whom the world has begun to accept as a harbinger of a new era of morality and rationality to international politics after his predecessor had turned the world on its head, has disappointed many by his inability to condemn Israel. Those who had considered his overtly pro-Israel stand in the period leading to the November 4th elections as an act of necessity to appease the Jewish lobby in USA for its stranglehold on media and finance are now concerned and dismayed that his sympathies may be for real. There is also little hope for Palestinians to look towards the next US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose husband President Bill Clinton had shown quite a degree of fairness towards the Palestinians, for some support because her foreign policy adviser is former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk who holds extremely pro-Israel views and is among those mentioned as a potential Special Envoy to the Middle East.

President-elect Obama's silence over the Gaza carnage has also sent wrong signals to the Arab world, most importantly to Egypt and Jordan. Countries that have supported rapprochement with Israel to bring the Palestinian problem to a peaceful solution that has the best chance of resolution based on a two-state solution, an independent Palestine co-existing with Israel. Egypt fears that she will be forced to absorb Gazans on her borders while Jordan fears Israel will push Palestinians from West bank to create a similar situation for her that could undermine their peace treaties with Israel with dangerous consequences. The mood of the ordinary folks in the Arab streets has been enraged by the Gaza carnage. Thus when Barak Obama sits in the Oval Office for the first time, the ground reality in the Middle East would be a very difficult one for him to seriously seek a resolution of the Palestinian conflict upon which the success or failure of the war on terror rests to a large extent.

Bangladesh's Permanent Representative has hit the nail in the coffin with his statement at the Council for Human Rights. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also condemned the Israeli atrocities in strong terms. Will those who matter in world politics, the US in particular, pay heed? If not, dark days could be ahead for the way Israel has been allowed to carry out its carnage in Gaza unabated is bound to provide steam to those who look for a cause to carry out acts of terror and militancy in the name of Islam.

Bangladesh's proposal for joint initiative to fight terrorism

Published in The Daily Star, January 11, 2009


The victory of the Awami League has been hailed worldwide as a victory of secular forces over fundamentalism. While this is a partial explanation of an unbelievable victory, it will nevertheless give the new administration of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina international recognition that could be crucial for success of her Government for making Bangladesh a Muslim majority country with liberal traditions. External support, particularly of Bangladesh's development partners would be extremely important for translating to reality the massive electoral promises of the AL. In this context the image that the elections has created would be very helpful.

Closer to home, India has been elated at the AL's resounding victory. Sheikh Hasina has been warmly congratulated by the Indian Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi has spoken with her on telephone. The enthusiasm in New Delhi will be even more important for Bangladesh than the positive vive that the news has caused in other world capitals. The reasons are obvious. First, Bangladesh is situated literally inside the belly of India. Second, almost all her rivers that provide the lifeline for her people whose major occupation is agriculture flow from India. Finally, Bangladesh has been restrained from exploring unhindered for hydrocarbons in the Bay of Bengal because her maritime boundary with India is un-demarcated. These factors, among others, make it imperative for Bangladesh's sustained development and well-being to have friendly relations with India. Unfortunately, during 5 years of BNP rule, Bangladesh-India relations have regressed while during the caretaker government, bilateral relations have remained stalled.

While the AL's resounding victory has been welcomed enthusiastically in New Delhi, it is Sheikh Hasina's statement that she would not allow Bangladesh's soil to be used by any terror groups and that she would like a joint task force to be established with India to fight terrorism that has been music to the ears of the Indian leaders. Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said this is “positive” news while BJP leader LK Advani better articulated the Indian viewpoint in a letter to Sheikh Hasina in which he wrote: “The people of India are delighted to read …your categorical statement that your government will not allow the territory of Bangladesh to be used by terrorists and extremist organizations.”

The AL assumes office at a time when the international situation is vastly different from what it was when the party was in power the last time from 1996 to 2001. In between, 9/11 has dramatically changed world politics. First, fighting terrorism and militancy has become the major focus of governments all over the world including India that has been at the receiving end of the misfortunes from such acts. As President Bush hands power to President-elect Barak Obama, the war on terror that he led and fought militarily is now expected to be dealt more through the non-military channels where the new US administration would be seeking partners worldwide. Second, India has since emerged in a very effective manner upon the world scene where it is now the accepted regional leader. During this term of AL, India will have great influence in world politics and it will thus be in Bangladesh's interest to have friendly relations with her.

These are realities that the foreign affairs team of the new Government must focus upon for the future of Bangladesh. One issue that has emerged from the December 29th elections is that the so-called “India factor” had no impact upon voters' choice of parties. The record number of voters has voted on substance such as economics, good governance, trial of war criminals and democracy. In the past, the “India factor” has restrained Bangladeshi politicians in dealing with India objectively because it has been a factor in elections. India, on her part, did not render much encouragement either to the people of Bangladesh towards friendly relations with her by disdainfully scorning Bangladesh's legitimate claims on a wide range of bilateral issues.

LK Advani has put Bangladesh-India relations in perspective by stating categorically that it is not an option but an “indispensible necessity” in his letter to Sheikh Hasina. It is now up to the Indian Government to demonstrate how “indispensible” these relations are by the way they reciprocate to the positive move made by Sheikh Hasina. India's prospects of evolving into a major economic powerhouse on a world scale will depend to a large extent on successfully containing terrorism and militancy that has been recently spreading all over the country. In this context, the area that borders Bangladesh, India's northeast, has been particularly vulnerable. Just after the Mumbai terrorist attacks in November last year, Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram made specific accusations in Parliament that insurgent groups operating in northeast India, including ULFA, have sanctuaries in Bangladesh. Indian Government has in addition also accused Bangladesh Government for permitting Pakistan's ISI to assist the terrorists in India's northeast from inside Bangladesh. Bangladesh government has always denied these accusations. Militancy and terrorism does not serve anyone's purpose for these militants, their initial motives for terrorists acts notwithstanding, often become Frankensteins and their actions in the end affect everyone adversely. Sheikh Hasina's foreign policy aides must now open discussions with their Indian counterparts to, first, remove Indian doubt that Bangladesh has been aiding Indian separatists, and then, to jointly fight this menace so that militants on either side are exposed and brought under the purview of the law.

For sustainable improvement of relations, India of course has the major role to play. India could now show her goodwill on a wide range of unresolved bilateral issues while officials on both sides work out the modalities of the joint task force and build upon the positive move of Sheikh Hasina. Take for example the un-demarcated maritime boundary issue. In a recent seminar organized by the Daily Star on this issue, participants were unanimous that Bangladesh's future lay in her territorial waters where India's counter claims have put a spanner. The Seminar established the fact hitherto little known in Bangladesh that the extent of the area that has been causing problems for Bangladesh with India is but a very small percentage of latter's total territorial waters in the Bay of Bengal. However, the nature of India's claims, supported by Myanmar, is such that it would take away from Bangladesh a major part of her legal claims in the Bay of Bengal, an area that is presumed to be very rich in unexploited hydrocarbons. Although it is difficult yet to assume how India would deal with Bangladesh after her move on the security issue, it may not be very unrealistic to expect that India would demonstrate the political will to resolve the issue of the maritime boundary by taking on board Bangladesh's claims that are both fair and legal.

In fact, it does not have to be the maritime issue upon which India could begin its reciprocal gesture. India could make it on a wide range of other outstanding issues such as water sharing, trade imbalance, etc. where it has denied Bangladesh a fair treatment due to lack of political will on her part. India's reciprocal gesture must nevertheless come quickly because although the “India factor” did not play any role in the elections, there is a perception in Bangladesh that India is not quite as fair a neighbour to Bangladesh as it should have been. It needs two to tango. Sheikh Hasina's move on fighting militancy jointly has set the stage. It is now India's turn to reciprocate beginning with demonstration of political will for resolution of any one of the major outstanding issues that in turn could create the positive environment for dealing with other outstanding bilateral issues on both sides and in the process revive the 1971 spirit. If India fails to match Bangladesh's move in a major way, then the political will shown by Sheikh Hasina's offer could vanish quickly and AL led Government could be left stranded with the blame for being soft on India and the so-called “India factor” could be re-established again.

Some strategic choices for the Awami League

Published in The Daily Star, Saturday, January 3, 2009

WHEN I called a friend whose brother was winning a seat easily with an Awami League (AL) ticket on Election Day, his voice appeared tense. That surprised me. When I inquired why he was tense, he told me that he was worried because the AL was winning much more handsomely and decisively than he had expected in the height of pre-election optimism. He said that would burden the party with expectations from the people that the AL may not be able to fulfill.

My friend's concern is well based for this is an election result for which the AL is not prepared. This will put a lot more pressure on the need to deliver. This is 1971 all over again. In 1971 it was freedom upon which the people cast their faith in Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the Awami League. This time the message is as focused and intense; a need to rid governance of corruption and make genuine efforts to achieve the dreams of 1971 in terms of freedom and democracy, where those who committed crimes against humanity are punished.

The history of massive election victories in South Asia is not a good one and the one given to the BNP in 2001 must be a stark reminder to the AL that must now make a number of strategic choices to reverse the trend of history. The AL's strategic choices could be made simpler by reflecting on the mistakes made by the BNP in 2001 and avoiding those. The commentary by the editor of Daily Star that appeared on 30th “You will reap as you sow” and similar commentaries/articles in other newspapers could be useful for reflection. Among strategic choices, the AL must take heed that new cabinet must not be the elephant that the BNP created. The Cabinet must be much smaller. The number of Ministers in the US and Japanese Governments could provide useful guide. The new generation provided a powerful impetus to the AL's landslide victory. In choosing the Cabinet, the representatives of the new generation must be given an important share in the Cabinet.

The way the new Prime Minister organizes her office will be as important as choosing a manageable cabinet. In the past, all elected governments laid emphasis upon party in choosing those who were given places at the PMO with the BNP extending this to an extent where the PMO became captive to the party. It is time for the future of Bangladesh to distinguish very clearly that the interests of the party that forms the government cannot take precedence over the interests of the government. In the 1960s, the Congress was faced with this problem and at one time, sent out senior Ministers in the cabinet of Jahwarlal Nehru to the party under the “Kamraj Plan” to balance between the interests of the party and the government. The plan met with failure and the senior Ministers returned to Government. In India, the ruling party has been kept carefully and diligently outside governance ever since. The same is the practice now in all parliamentary systems. This allows the Government not just to be bipartisan but more importantly, also to appear as such.

Such an approach will also help the AL Government tackle the politicization of the bureaucracy that has affected good governance under all the past three elected governments, much more so under the last BNP government. The AL will be inheriting a bureaucracy that is, to put it very mildly, a very weak one. In the past two years the caretaker government succeeded in making it even weaker. Years of indifference to the civil bureaucracy are responsible for the current poor shape of the bureaucracy. The new government will not be able to improve it overnight, perhaps not even during its entire tenure. The new government will have to look into this matter with the seriousness it deserves. Still there is a need to do something immediate to bring this very important institution on the rails, for without an effective civil bureaucracy the new government will find it extremely difficult to bring to fruition many of the expectations of the people. It may therefore be wise for the new government to appoint on contract in key senior government positions such as the Principal Secretary to the PM bureaucrats who have retired from service but still very active and quite capable of serving the country. A percentage of senior positions may be set aside for such appointments as is done under the US system. This suggestion may meet natural resistance from the members of the civil bureaucracy with which many reading this piece may also agree. However, under existing rules, a percentage of posts at the level of Secretary is set aside that the President has the power to fill at his discretion. In the past, this rule has been misused and officers have been promoted from Deputy Secretary to Secretary for political reasons. This rule can now be used, with necessary adjustments, to make appointments at senior positions on contracts from capable retired bureaucrats on a bipartisan basis if possible and qualified expatriates may also be considered for these positions.

In electing the AL, the people of Bangladesh have cast their votes for change similar to the way the voters in the US have done with Senator Obama. Already the US President-elect has set into motion changes that have caught the imagination of the rest of the world. His emphasis on bipartisanship to build the image of USA that took a battering under the neo-cons by taking an example out of President Abraham Lincoln, who, by putting the country's interest first, brought to his Cabinet his bitterest political enemies, could be used by the AL in a limited way in spheres of governance. More important, the new US President would be seeking worldwide partners in dealing with the upsurge of international terrorism and militancy. The new government in Bangladesh is coming to office with clear and unequivocal stand on Islamic fundamentalism by standing firmly on secularism. This message, together with good governance and positive steps towards democratization should be spread through diplomatic channels to Bangladesh's development partners including the USA. That way Bangladesh could fit to the recent positive changes in international affairs like hand in the glove that in turn would make the statement of the US Ambassador in a seminar in Washington prophetic. The Ambassador had said: "There will be no more transformational election in the world this year than the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 29 in Bangladesh”. The Bangladesh voters have set that stage for the new Government to transform Bangladesh in which foreign affairs will play a crucial role in Bangladesh's transformation. The liberal image of Bangladesh must now be made crucial in the country's foreign policy for in an age of globalization, that image will open for Bangladesh more market access for her exports, increased export of manpower and foreign direct investment that are crucial for her sustained economic development.

The new government must thus adopt a paradigm shift in handling foreign affairs and handle it more professionally than has been done under past governments. Towards that, it must choose a Foreign Minister with the intellectual competence to deliver. In the new administration, the Foreign Ministry and the PMO must develop a line of communication where the new Prime Minister must play her role in the process. Foreign affairs must not be left with the PMO to be handled at the level of bureaucrats without the ability or the understanding of issues as it has been in the past.

Rabindranath Tagore had said “we are nearest to the great when we are great in humility”. This quote of the great man holds the key for Bangladesh's future if only the AL takes this message to heart. One is encouraged to hope that this time; the AL will show the nation what it takes to transform a dream from what Sheikh Hasina told her supporters when she became aware of her party's historic victory. She urged them for calm. It is this calm she must show over the next five years to translate the voters' unequivocal verdict on December 29th.