EDITORIAL COMMENT: Let it be a Tripartite Meeting among Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed

In a bleak political scenario, the news that the two former Prime Ministers have agreed to sit together is one piece of good news for everybody. The way the news has come to press suggests that the idea was raised to Sheikh Hasina by Ambassadors of three European nations and she agreed with the idea. When the BNP chairperson was later asked by journalists about her reaction to what Sehikh Hasina told the Ambassadors, the former was positive to the idea of the meeting between her and Sheikh Hasina.

It is not clear still how such a meeting will be held or what role the Government will play in it. The Commerce Adviser, who has the habbit of losing no opportunity to appear before the media, later said before TV camera and journalists that "on the basis of their (Hasina-Khaleda) eagerness, the government is always ready to take any kind of initiative helpful for the progress of the nation.” The Adviser’s comment suggests that the Government has no role still in the proposed meeting and it has to be seen how it will be involved when the talks are held ultimately.

The nation had been expecting that the two former Prime Ministers would have a good and working relationship with each other since they emerged as the leading politicians of the country after leading the democratic movement that ended the decade long dictatorship of General HM Ershad. The lack of it was responsible for many of the country’s political problems.

At this moment though, the problem is not really between the BNP and the AL; nor is it between the two ladies. It is the Caretaker Government’s role that has been responsible for a lot of the current fluidity in the country’s political process. It is because of this, the meeting between the two ladies should in fact be a tripartite meeting between Begum Khaleda Zia, Sheikh Hasina and Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed if the objective is to untangle the current political impasse and move the country towards a credible election for transition from a military backed government to an elected government. Otherwise, the two former Prime Ministers sitting together will not solve the current political impasse as the solution to it lies in the Caretaker Government.

UPCOMING EVENTS: The Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS)

Ambassador Serajul Islam also co-founded the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS) along with two other former Ambassadors from Bangladesh. CFAS was founded on the intent to develop awareness that foreign policy issues are not necessarily issues that need to be kept away from the public and handled in secrecy. Such issues often need to be aired publicly and foreign policy formulated objectively to serve the best national interest and this can be done by taking public opinion on board. In this context, the CFAS intends to work with the relevant committee of jatiya sangsad, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other Government Ministries dealing with Bangladesh’s external relations; political parties, interest groups and eventually with the public through meetings, seminars, publication of reading materials and eventually town-hall types of meetings with ordinary citizens to integrate and articulate their views on crucial foreign policy issues.

The following are upcoming CFAS events that may be of interest. To view past CFAS events, visit the CFAS events page.

November 22, 2008: Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy

The Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies, CFAS, in collaboration with the Daily Star will hold the Second Round Table on the “Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy” with the political parties, business groups, media and academia as stakeholders, on Saturday, November 22^nd at 10 am at the conference room of the Daily Star. The first Round Table was held with the retired Ambassadors in May this year.

January 2009: Dialogue on Bangladesh-India Relations

CFAS will also hold a Dialogue on Bangladesh-India Relations in January, 2009. The objective of the Dialogue is to bring out a paper for presentation to the next elected government of Bangladesh and will be the outcome of discussions between a team of experts from Bangladesh and India. A delegation from India led by Ambassador Abhyankar, former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, with Ambassador Dev Mukherjee, former High Commissioner of India to Bangladesh as a member, will visit Dhaka for holding preliminary meeting with CFAS on 23^rd November, 2008.

EDITORIAL COMMENT: December Elections in Bangladesh Need Participation of Both the BNP and the AL to be Credible

Politics in Bangladesh has entered a crucial phase. The election is has been scheduled to be held on 18^th December. Sadly, at this critical juncture, the BNP has raised serious objections to its participation because it feels that the EC has not made the playing field even. It has listed a 7 points demand before the EC as conditions for its participation in the elections.

The elections on 18^th are crucial to bring back the country on path to democracy. This caretaker government spent nearly 2 years to give the country a fair election. During this period, the Government of Dr. Fakhruddin, backed by the armed forces, has turned things upside down, trying to deal with corruption, reform institutions, politics and political institutions, with the objective of holding free and fair elections.

If at the end of it, a major political party feels that there is no level playing ground for its participation in the polls, then for all practical purposes, the efforts of this Government has not been successful. The people of this country felt that the BNP’s efforts to hold the January 22^nd elections in 2007 would have been meaningless without the participation of the AL. Likewise, they now feel that without the BNP in the 18^th December elections, the country cannot have credible polls.

In this case, the BNP’s decision has been based on two issues that should be given due consideration. First, the redrawing of the constituencies has affected the BNP much more adversely for them to feel that the EC has not been fair. Then the CEC’s comments on the 2001 election was one that toed the AL;s official line that the 2001 election was not fair. Thus the doubts about the EC’s fairness in the minds of the BNP are logical that cannot be wished away.

This Government should not hold elections just because it has announced the date for holding it. The date can be re-scheduled if the Government wants to hold honest and fair elections. It is time for this Government to show the public that it is an honest one.

Message of Change from President Obama

Published in The Daily Star, November 8, 2008

THE US voters rose above racial prejudice and voted to the White House as their 44th President a black man and thus made history. A country where slavery was once institutionalised and legalized, where even as late as in the 1960s blacks were still fighting for their civil and human rights, has now changed forever. Martin Luther King's dream that there will be a day when people will be judged not by the colour of their skins but by the content of their character is now a reality.

Senator Barak Obama won a landslide victory with 364 electoral votes and 53% popular votes on his promise of change. The voters of US, particularly the youth, came together to let their country breathe fresh air again. The world has also been freed of the suffocation suffered under President Bush as his neo-con advisers sought to re-write international law by inventing the concept of pre-emptive strike, which gave them the right to attack any country that they thought is a threat to the United States. They attacked Afghanistan and Iraq under that concept after the events of 9/11. Threats of attack were held out against North Korea and Iran assuming these two nations to be parts of the “axis of evil”. They turned the world upside down for the worse.

There was spontaneous support internationally for President Bush's war on terror in pursuance of which the US invaded Afghanistan. The world heaved a sigh of relief when the Taliban fell. Thereafter, Bush's neo-con advisers went to Iraq on totally false premises leaving the work in Afghanistan half-done to complete the unfinished objectives of elder President Bush; that of removing Saddam, occupying Iraq and getting control over the country's oil. With the Iraq diversion and the manner of it, the US lost its image and support worldwide. It divided the US internally and the world externally following the lines drawn by President Bush himself that “you are either with us or against us”. The world went against the US and her worldwide image received its worst battering ever.

Thousands of lives of US soldiers have been lost; many times more innocent people have been killed as a result of the actions of the US. Hundreds of billions of US dollars have been pumped to Iraq and Afghanistan that pushed the US economy to its worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, such that even a US 700 billion dollar bailout package may not help overcome. The meltdown of the US economy has threatened to take the rest of the world down the same path. President-elect Obama thus will be inheriting an office that will challenge him like that office has not challenged anyone in history. The new President must not only lead his country; he must also set the directions for the rest of the world both politically and economically. In bringing the promised change in his country, President Obama must also think of the rest of the world for the fate of the two is inextricably linked.

President-elect Obama's package of economic reforms won the voters' approval overwhelmingly. These reforms will now no doubt develop into a movement for US' benefit under his dynamic leadership. His foreign policy priorities, however, would require re- evaluation to bring the change the rest of the world, who welcomed his victory with the same enthusiasm as people in the US, is expecting. His administration must change direction to lead the world not by bullying but by earning respect and support that most nations gave the US after 9/11 in her demand that those responsible for the acts should be punished.

President-elect Obama will thus have his hands full in dealing with foreign policy that should receive his administration's attention as much as domestic issues for the sake of the US and the world. Senator Biden no doubt will bring all his experience to assist him in the area of foreign affairs. During his campaign, Senator Obama has identified Afghanistan as the new frontier where the war on terror would be fought. On a trip to Israel, he promised the Israelis more than they have received from any US leader, giving to them the whole of Jerusalem. On South Asia, he thought the real problem is not between India and Pakistan but between Pakistan and Afghanistan. These stances indicate that Senator Obama would have to rethink his priorities if he wants USA to become the respectable leader of a problem ridden world that his predecessors could have easily achieved but lost on a totally unrealistic view of the world; that the rest of the world had no choice but to accept the US as the leader.

The world was expected to become peaceful, where wars and conflicts were supposed to become history after the Soviet Union fell. That did not happen and trouble spots sprouted like bamboo shoots on all the continents. The one in Middle East, involving the Israelis and the Palestinians became the most dangerous. It became the root for growth of Islamic extremism by groups who used Islam to fight injustice to Palestinians who have been made refugees in their own homeland. President Bush's inadvertent slip about the crusade on TV when informed about the 9/11 incidents helped drive Islam and the western world on a dangerous clash course of civilizations where, if justice had been done in Palestine, there would not have even been cause for what eventually happened. Let it not be lost to the new President that it had taken General Colin Powell as Secretary of State eight months to make his first visit to the region under the Bush administration.

President-elect Obama thus needs to review his policy on Palestine for this is the key to bringing the Islamic and the western world into partnership. In fact, a just and successful resolution of this issue may not need the US to fight the war on terror for then this war can still be resolved without military action. He must bring the occupation of Iraq to an end early in his Presidency and open dialogue with Iran instead of taking the neo-con stance and dealing with it as “an axis of evil”. If a nuclear power like India is provided civil nuclear technology under an agreement with the US that Senator Obama backs, then the case of Iran for civil nuclear technology must also be dealt with diplomatically and not by threat of war.

In Afghanistan, the Bush administration has messed up everything. The Taliban is resurgent there again threatening the elected and US backed government of Hamid Karzai. Recently the British and Russian Ambassadors in Kabul and also experts on Afghanistan have suggested that it may not be a bad policy to talk with the Taliban and insurgents for the military option there is a doomed one. President-elect Obama must review the US policy in Afghanistan and look at the diplomatic and political options as against the military. Also, his assessment during the campaign that the problem in South Asia is between Pakistan and Afghanistan and not between Pakistan and India would also need to be re-assessed for the problem between the latter two is much deeper. The signing of the civil nuclear deal between the US and India has elevated the latter to a pre-eminent position that could ruffle the delicate balance of power in the region. President-elect Obama should ensure that India uses this newfound prestige for positive ends so that the long-standing problems that the nations of South Asia have with her are resolved amicably and justly.

Bangladesh's major interest in the Obama presidency will be in trade. By tradition, Democrats are pro-labour where interests of the US workers come first. Bangladesh's RMG sector, upon which its national economy is heavily dependent, would face difficulties under the Obama presidency for two reasons. First, till the new President is able to lift the country out of her economic miseries, consumption in USA would continue to suffer and hence the need to import RMG would be significantly reduced, in turn affecting Bangladesh adversely. Second, the new administration would also put trade agreements of the past under serious scrutiny and introduce tougher standards from which Bangladesh's RMG exports could suffer adversely. During the presidential campaign and earlier, McCain's position on free trade was more favourable to a country like Bangladesh than the one taken by President-elect Obama. One avenue for continued and increased access of Bangladesh's RMG could be made by pleading on its LDC status for which the need for effective lobbying would be of the essence.

President-elect Obama has been chosen by destiny to create the United States of Martin Luther King's dream. He has the vision, the charisma and the brilliance to do it. The world, however, has changed a great deal since the dream, and the fate of the US is now inextricably linked across national frontiers. President-elect Obama must thus not lead his country only; the world is also looking towards his leadership. Those two hundred thousand people who cheered him in Berlin as a presidential candidate represent the hope that people outside USA places on an US President. Professor Huntington's prediction of a clash of civilizations was taken up by neo-cons to destroy Islam that in turn has brought so much conflict, death and misery. Senator Obama can change this prediction and establish a fusion of civilizations for, on the basics, Islam has no fight with Judaism and Christianity because all three are religions that have evolved from the same source.

The people of the United States deserve to be congratulated for ending their long winter of discontent suffered under a White House in the hands of the neo-cons and letting sunshine back in by their historic effort to elect Senator Barak Obama as their President. Let President-elect Obama give a part of that sunshine to the rest of the world to enjoy for US' long winter of discontent has also been theirs.

The author is a former Ambassador to Japan. His email address is serajul@cfasonline.org

The Powell endorsement: Will it seal the deal for Obama?

Published in The Daily Star, October 25, 2008

IN a campaign not going well for Senator McCain, there was more bad news this week. Gallup Poll taken on October 20th gave Senator Barak Obama an 11% point lead in the presidential vote preference of all registered voters, 52% to 41%. The real bad news, though, came in the form of the endorsement given a day earlier to Senator Obama by former Secretary of State General Colin Powell who crossed party lines to do so.

The endorsement was made all the more shocking for the Arizona Senator by the carefully chosen words in the endorsement. It was widely known that General Powell would be endorsing either of the candidates as he had met both in June and said that his endorsement would come after the conventions and the presidential debates. In NBC's popular programme “Meet the Press” last Sunday, where he endorsed Senator Barak Obama, General Powell described him as a “transformational figure” who has “displayed steadiness,” showed “intellectual vigour “and “has a definitive way of doing business that will do us well." He also cited Obama's “ability to inspire”, the “inclusive nature of his campaign”, his attempts to reach out all across America and “because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities” as additional reasons for endorsing the candidate of the Senator from Chicago.

The superlatives that the General used to describe Senator Obama gave significant impetus to a campaign that needed it as the election for the White House entered the final lap with just a fortnight left for the election on November 4th. There was extra mileage too from the endorsement that came in the meeting that Powell had with reporters immediately after taping his “Meet the Press “programme. In that meeting, Colin Powell told reporters that he was very disappointed at the attempts of the McCain campaign to link Obama to William Ayers, a 1960s radical and domestic terrorist. In automated calls to voters in swing states, the McCain campaign said that “Obama worked closely with domestic terrorist Ayers” in an attempt to put the thought in voters' minds that Obama is “palling around with terrorists” as publicly suggested by Senator McCain's running mate Sarah Palin. Obama worked with Ayers in the Annenberg Challenge Project and Woods Fund, a Chicago charity, but independent investigations have found no evidence of a deep and strong relationship. Colin Powell thought that the attempt to link Obama to Ayers to label him as a radical “was over the top” and “was beyond just good political fighting back and forth.” The General also expressed disgust at the attempt to use Obama's Muslim middle name to create suspicion in people's minds.

The Democrats are excited with the endorsement of Colin Powel for a number of reasons. Colin Powell is as an elder statesman across the political divide of his country. A former Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first Gulf War, Colin Powell became the Secretary of State in the first Bush administration. General Powell was once widely considered as most likely to become the first black President of the USA but his association to the Bush administration came in the way of that possibility but still did not tarnish his image as an honest and powerful leader and a visionary. The fact that he crossed party line to endorse Senator Obama made his endorsement that much more potent. 

There are a few more damaging elements of the Colin endorsement for the McCain camp. It has exposed a serious rift within the Republicans - one between the pragmatists and the neo-conservatives. The pragmatists among the Republicans have viewed Iraq war and the execution of it a mistake. Colin Powell is among these pragmatists. According to close friends of the General, he has been disturbed to observe people in the McCain camp with deep ties to the neo-conservatives, people like Randy Scheunemann who is currently a key foreign policy adviser to the Senator from Alaska. Randy Scheunemann was earlier foreign policy adviser to Senator Trent Loft and Senator Dole, both with deep ties to the neo-conservatives. In addition, Randy Scheunemann was the founder of the hawkish Liberation of Iraq and a supporter of Chalabi, a Pentagon favourite during the beginning of the Iraq War and a Pentagon favourite but deeply detestable at the State Department when Powell was the Secretary there.

The impact of the endorsement on the election is being discussed everywhere in the USA now. The feedback coming out is depressing for the McCain camp. Analysts soft to the Obama candidature are calling it a bombshell, a nail in the coffin, a development that could seal the deal and the presidency. As it became evident that General Powell would endorse Obama, sources close to President Bush have said that the President himself called the General to request him not to make the endorsement knowing how damaging it would be to the McCain candidature. Those in the McCain camp, in an effort to downplay the damage, are saying that Powell is a discredited political figure for the part he played in the Iraq War and this endorsement is his way of hitting back. 

On balance, though, this endorsement by Colin Powell has come for McCain at a very bad time. The general mood among most Americans is that the Republicans led by President Bush are responsible for USA's current economic plight; that the Iraq war contributed more than its share to this economic downturn and that backing the McCain-Palin ticket would mean encouraging those who should be punished. Colin Powell brought home this point in his endorsement succinctly when he said that Obama has “fresh set of eyes” and “fresh set of ideas” and although Senator McCain is gifted, he is in the end going to execute the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a maverick face which is not enough for America. USA needs much more than that and Obama is the one who can do that.

The Powell endorsement and the words he used to give this endorsement to Obama have articulated the shortcomings of the McCain campaign in a manner that even the Obama Camp could not have done. First, General Powell has spelt out clearly and effectively that McCain is no different from President Bush despite his attempts to distance himself from President Bush. Second, he has underscored the fact that Senator McCain is also under the influence of the neo-conservatives who are responsible for the state of the economy and the Iraq War. Third, the former Secretary of State has exposed the negative campaign to link Obama with Ayers to suggest that he has links with terrorists as disgusting and detestable. Fourth, he has effectively explained in his endorsement the mistake of the McCain camp to include Governor Palin while underscoring the value of inclusion of Senator Biden as Obama's running mate. Finally, he has articulated the strengths of Senator Obama as a man of destiny who has the qualities and the vision to lead USA out of its current economic and political quagmire into which the country has fallen as a consequence of the failed leadership of President Bush and his neo-conservatives aides.

Coming from a Republican of the stature of Colin Powell, this endorsement in the ultimate analysis could prove to be the catalyst to help undecided voters make up their minds in favour of Senator Obama. As one analyst has written: “He's (meaning Powell) a Republican. He's a military man. He's backed both Bushes. And he has even donated money to McCain. That is why Powell's endorsement is so powerful.” Senator McCain has already acknowledged that he is now the underdog. It is now up to the Obama camp to hold on to the great momentum that the Powell endorsement has given the Obama-Biden ticket and keep McCain where he lies at the moment. The Powell endorsement may also have taken the Bradley effect that suggests that on voting day white voters, who have earlier told pollsters that they would vote for a black candidate, may ultimately vote for a white candidate instead, out of the equation, thus easing the road of Senator Obama to the White House.

The writer is former Bangladesh Ambassador to Japan and Director of Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies and can be reached by email serajul@cfasonline.org.

US economic crisis is good luck for Obama

Published in The Daily Star, October 18, 2008

THE US economy is in its worst crisis after many decades, sending shock waves round the world while turning the country itself upside down. Even the US$700 billion bailout package signed into law recently by the US President is being considered not enough to bring the US economy back on rails as people are losing houses, businesses and jobs. So far this year, 750,000 people in USA have lost their jobs. Europe too is in turmoil, and in UK the government has followed the US example and announced an 80 billion pounds bailout package. The IMF boss Strauss Kahn has said: "Intensifying solvency concerns about a number of the largest US-based and European financial institutions have pushed the global financial system to the brink of systemic meltdown."

At the centre of it all should have been George Bush who has supervised this economic downturn but whose good fortune is that he is now a lame duck President and it would serve no useful purpose to unleash any wrath upon him. But history will not spare him as he will be leaving office as the most unpopular President in US history. At the time of writing this, President Bush's approval rating is an abysmal 24%.

Analysts are giving many reasons to explain this worst economic crisis in US history. The Republicans' faith in de-regulation that has allowed the big financial institutions and businesses' to fulfill their greed is one major reason being put forward to explain this calamity. Another reason also coming into the equation is the connection between this economic downturn and the ill-conceived decision to go to Iraq in pursuance of President Bush's war on terror. This is a dangerous mix for McCain as it brings to question the legitimacy of the Iraq war to explain the economic miseries and uncertainty affecting US citizens in the main street.

It is also bringing back to their memories the infamous claim of President Bush in May of 2003 that the war in Iraq was over aboard one of US's aircraft carriers. It was far from that for, by then, the US Government had just started to bleed both in terms of the billions of dollars that would go to Iraq as well as lives that would be lost. In a report in August 2008, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) revealed that the real similarity between Iraq and Vietnam has been in the price of staying. In constant FY2008 dollars, the Vietnam War cost the US $686 billion in 10 years (The actual cost of staying there was US $ 111 billion). The Iraq war, at just over five years old, had cost US $ 648 billion. The amount is close to the bailout package that the US Government has just announced for its economic recovery. The CRS assessment does not give the full picture though. Noble Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University in his book “Three Trillion Dollar War” has said that the Iraq war would ultimately cost USA US$ 3 trillion when such costs as lifetime disability and healthcare for troops injured in the conflict as well as the impact on the US economy was considered. In terms of human lives, the US has so far lost over 4000 of its men and women in Iraq while many more times that number of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a consequence of the US decision to invade Iraq.

The US went to Iraq to destroy Saddam's WMD program that, according to US intelligence posed a threat to US security in the context of President Bush's war on terror. Subsequently, it has been proven that Iraq's WMD program had ceased long before the Iraq war. Another reason for the Iraq war was to take control over Iraq's huge oil reserve to assure US's energy needs. Instead, the Iraq war pushed oil prices from around US$ 30 a barrel to nearly US$ 150 in July this year (before falling to about US $ 80 a barrel after the 700 billion dollars bailout package by the USA caused worldwide panic). The benefit of it all went to oil rich Middle Eastern countries with strong links to the elder President Bush and oil merchants in the USA, many of whom have close links to President Bush. While these countries - oil merchants and oil lobbyists - became richer by windfall gains, the rising price of oil adversely affected all sectors of the US economy that the US administration, driven by the greed of their supporters in the Wall Street and a pliant and Republican-dominated Congress (the equation changed only after the 2006 elections), overlooked. In fact, in July after the failure of Indymac Bank, Treasury Secretary Paulsen reassured the US public by saying: “it's a safe banking system, a sound banking system. Our regulators are on top of it. This is a very manageable situation.” In August, he said the government had no plans to inject capital into the Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Mortgage Corproation, nick named Freddie Mac. In September, both were nationalized, a most unusual step that underscores the depths to which the US economy has fallen. The US Congress woke up late to what the US Administration had done to the economy and voted down the first bailout package that favoured those in the Wall Street till the interests of average Americans in the main street were guaranteed in the second US$ 700 billion bailout package, whose fate and impact on reviving the economy is still in doubt.

All of this has come to the assistance of the Democrat candidate Barak Obama. Even around the first Presidential debate, Obama and McCain were going neck to neck. At that time, the elections seemed to be a referendum on whether US is ready enough to elect its first black President. Now the election has become a referendum on whether the people of the United States can again hand their country to the Republicans and their faith in deregulation, together with their strong ties to those in the Wall Street who have brought the US economy to its knees by their greed. A Newsweek Poll this week showed Obama leading 52% to 41%. A similar poll a month ago tied the two candidates at 46%

At the beginning of the year, the legitimacy of the Iraq war was a major issue in the US presidential election together with the economy. The improvement of ground conditions in Iraq under General Petraeus, the head of Multinational Forces in Iraq, looked like taking away a big vote winner for the Democrats as the Iraq war began to fade out as an asset against the Republicans. Now the economic quagmire into which the US has fallen has made the Iraq war return back to the political centre stage to haunt the Republican Party and the fortunes of McCain in a different but dangerous way. The Newsweek poll referred to earlier in this piece has shown 86% of the voters are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the US, based on the faltering economy that has come close to stealing the great American dream of a house and a steady job away from the average American. It is now up to Obama and his spin doctors to link the Iraq war to the faltering economy and extend that to the faith of the Republican Party in de-regulation and its links to big business and financial institutions and their greed as nails in the coffin to explain the reasons for US' current precarious economic plight. The Presidential debates and Palin's current plight over the report that she abused power while being Governor of Alaska, the so-called “Troopergate” scandal, are also helping Obama's candidature. As these developments articulate themselves the way they seem to be doing, the US may after all get over the colour of Obama that has been hanging like a dark cloud over his candidature and send him to the White House.

The writer is former Bangladesh Ambassador to Japan and at present Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies. He can be reached at serajul@cfasonline.org.

Politics has no military solution

Published in The Daily Star, October 11, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign Policy of Bangladesh

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

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

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

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

Khaleda-Hasina summit: Is it a good idea?

Published in The Daily Star, September 27, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush said to give orders allowing raids in Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the other comments here

Border attacks: Impact on Pak-US coalition against terror

Published in The Daily Star, September 19, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bangladesh at Crossroads

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

Fukuda’s resignation - Is political turmoil inevitable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Biden a good choice?

Published in The Daily Star, August 30, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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