Published in The Independent
M. Serajul Islam
Dhaka city, like most cities in our region, is literally flooded with auto rickshaw that is a principal mode of transport for Dhaka’s citizens who do not own a car. The auto rickshaws are fitted with meters and therefore under the law, the auto rickshaw drivers must charge passengers by meter only. The law notwithstanding, the drivers decide at will on whether or not to accept payment by meters. Invariably, during rush hours, the drivers make the choice not to carry passengers on payment by meters, charging substantially more than the payment would be by meter.
People of Dhaka are literally hostage to the whims of the auto rickshaws who carry out their unlawful acts right under the nose of the police who prefer to look the other way. With the situation being as it is, the authorities are now considering enhancing the fare of the auto rickshaw ride, the third time in the last few years. In return, the auto rickshaw owners have promised that they will “try” and ensure that the auto rickshaw drivers would accept payment from passengers by the meter.
I am not sure whether there is another capital city where those who run public transport on meters have the cheek to tell passengers that they can either accept their offer to travel at prices negotiated by them that is much higher than by the meter or go to hell and get away with it. Auto rickshaw drivers have been doing this as the rule rather than the exception for a long time. The authorities, without going to the basic issue first which is to ensure that the auto rickshaw drivers dare not demand fare outside the meter, are in the process of accepting their demand for enhancement of rates. In return, they are accepting a feeble assurance from the auto rickshaw owners that they will ensure that the drivers accept fare by meter. One does not need a crystal ball to predict that like the dog’s crooked tail, the drivers will accept fare by meter for a short time and then get back to their nature of blackmailing the passengers.
By the look at the auto rickshaw drivers, it is not hard to say that despite what they do with their passengers, they by no means make a hefty sum at the end of it. However, going by the huge number of auto rickshaws plying in Dhaka, the business must indeed be good. Therefore there is a group that is making a good profit out of it. Before the fare is enhanced, the authorities must first make a professional study of the business and ensure that it is, first, not enhanced to an extent that will make it difficult for those who use auto rickshaws who are all people with fixed income; and second, that some of the benefit goes to the auto rickshaw drivers so that they are not tempted to blackmail the passengers when the demand is greater than supply as it is during rush hours. Whatever decision the authorities take, they must first ensure that the auto rickshaw drivers accept fare by meter reading or face the law because their arrogance to refuse payment by meter it is a matter of showing the thumb not to the passenger but more seriously, to the law; a tendency that is in many ways at the root of our failure to achieve sustainable development.
We are indeed a nation quite inclined to break the law when we have power in our hands. The case of the hawkers in Gulistan proved the point. In their greed to make quick money on occasion of Eid, they took over even the busy road, caring only about their interests. The hawkers have already “established” their right to say damn to the law by claiming their “right” over the foot paths which should be called by some other name like leasing property of the law enforcing agencies for nearly all of Dhaka’s so called foot paths are under occupation of the hawkers or being used as storage areas for construction materials. All these flagrant violations happen with ok
the police watching, like illegal parking under police watch. In our country there was once a saying that if the tiger catches a human , he finishes his prey in one grab but if an individual falls on the wrong side of the police, he suffers the same fate but with 7 times more pain. Very few individuals take our police lightly. Hence, there is no reason to believe that the hawkers violate the law over space on foot path and the roads without connivance. There is a nexus between the hawkers and the police as there is a nexus between the police and those who park illegally in no parking areas.
The problem will of course not go away merely by increasing fares with a promise from owners and drivers for accepting payment by meter or beating up the hawkers. The problem is very deep rooted in the way we are as a nation. When we stand alone, we accept whatever is dished out to us, even injustice but when we get together, we swing like the pendulum and prefer to take the law in our hands instead and break it with impunity. Rationality is not our national trait. In between, we have the problem that those who work for public are paid horrendously low salaries and thus always in the lookout for the extra buck to keep body and soul together; only once they start doing so, they become slaves to greed.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and can be reached on email serajul7@gmail.com
Friday, September 17, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Ershad's Predicament
The Independent, September 7th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
The decision by the High Court that the seventh amendment to the Constitution is invalid has landed former President HM Ershad literally in thick soup. He is blowing hot and cold ever since the Court’s verdict, more to assure himself than anyone else. Meanwhile the demand for his punishment is also gathering strength
.
There is no doubt that the Court’s decision on military rule as unconstitutional and therefore illegal has hit a strong chord in the psyche of the people of Bangladesh. Therefore the demand for his trial is also a popular one. However, the Court has now passed on the matter to the Parliament to determine the next course of action; on what to do with President Ershad and what new laws and punishment to enact so that in future men in uniform would not dare to usurp political power. President Ershad’s strength in believing that nothing is going to happen to him evolves partly from the fact that he is an ally of the Awami League and a partner of the AL led coalition government.
Before moving ahead to try Ershad, it would be useful to take a look at history around the time Ershad made his successful bid to usurp power. In particular, it is necessary to take a look at Ershad’s career before recommending any punishment for him. In the tumultuous politics of the 1970s, Ershad was a very small pawn when the Generals who fought in the war of liberation were holding the helm of both the military and the civilian administration after the changes of August 15th, 1975. Ershad made his journey up the ladder of power in the military establishment as a compromise candidate in the politics that the army played those days. Those who promoted him thought that he was innocuous and that even in a miracle; he was not likely to make a bid for political power.
Upon the assassination of President Zia over which Khaleda Zia has cast doubt about Ershad’s involvement, Ershad received support from a wide range of politicians and senior civil bureaucrats who urged him to declare martial law and capture power. These politicians and civil bureaucrats supported him because they believed that with him in power, they would be able to have the strings of power with them. In fact, it may not be entirely incorrect to state that President Ershad staged a military coup to takeover political power where the encouragement for the takeover did not come entirely from the military but also from the civilians. The only twist in the tale was the fact that Ershad was smarter than the politicians and bureaucrats who thought he would be a puppet in their hands. In fact to give the devil his due, Ershad outsmarted all who supported him and soon, almost all political parties and civilian groups were eating out of his hands.
In his nearly one decade long military rule, Ershad had managed in winning over almost everybody except the people and Khaleda Zia who challenged his rule for the entire 1980s to punish him for the death of her husband through the establishment of democratic rule. The people of Bangladesh have a problem with military rule embedded deep in their psyche and when the AL joined with the movement for restoration of democracy, they came out to back them spontaneously. The result was Ershad’s downfall in the same manner as all military dictators in history had to eventually bow to the will of the people.
President Ershad was a weak military General but a very shrewd man. He saw enough support for him and his military rule among the politicians and the bureaucrats and exploited both to his advantage and ruled with all powers firmly in his hands. For those who these days have suddenly awaken to the virtues of democratic government and the unacceptable nature of military rule as an antithesis to the spirit of the liberation of Bangladesh , let them be reminded that no politician or political party or for that matter civil bureaucrats and civilian groups were threatened or coerced to support his rule. They all did voluntarily. Of course, they received privileges in many shapes and forms; land, money, promotion, etc that helped Ershad earn their loyalty. Even today as many are giving statements to the media in loud voices let them also be reminded that they did not challenge either the 5th or the 7th amendments in the Court. Both amendments came about accidentally by cases filed by people who had no desire to challenge the military rule.
Not too long ago, when General Moin decided to follow the path of his military predecessors, he too received a lot of help from politicians and civil society groups. In fact, he was so emboldened by such support that he wanted to give the country his vision of democracy by attempting to form a political party. Many leaders of both the mainstream parties stepped into his trap that has practically ended their careers in their respective parties. The eras of military leaders such as Zia, Ershad and Moin should not leave anyone in doubt that in our history, politicians and civilian groups have for their selfish reasons given the military the support they needed to , first, come to power and , second, to retain political power.
It is good to see the public reaction on the 5th and 7th amendments in the context of military rule. There seems to be a consensus, that military rule is an anathema to the spirit of our liberation. Unfortunately, future tryst with military rule can be ruled out not by trying and punishing General Ershad or by writing into the Constitution that such attempts would be treason and hence punishable by death. The only way to ensure that Bangladesh will never again have the misfortune of coming under military rule is for the political parties to give up their confrontational politics and come together on a bipartisan basis on a minimum agenda of economic development and issues of national interest. If the parties fight and bring Bangladesh to the edge of becoming a failed state, who then is going to stop military intervention or for that matter, foreign intervention?
Punishing Ershad alone will not serve much purpose in banishing military rule unless the political parties; politicians and civil bureaucrats who actively helped him to rule are also exposed and tried. Further, to banish military rule, it would also be necessary to make an example of the military’s intervention and high-handedness under the last caretaker Government. All said, it seems that President Ershad is right; that he cannot be punished because it would open a Pandora’s Box where many politicians and civilians are hiding. Bringing out those faces would embarrass those who are expected to try him.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and can be reached on email serajul7@gmail.com
M. Serajul Islam
The decision by the High Court that the seventh amendment to the Constitution is invalid has landed former President HM Ershad literally in thick soup. He is blowing hot and cold ever since the Court’s verdict, more to assure himself than anyone else. Meanwhile the demand for his punishment is also gathering strength
.
There is no doubt that the Court’s decision on military rule as unconstitutional and therefore illegal has hit a strong chord in the psyche of the people of Bangladesh. Therefore the demand for his trial is also a popular one. However, the Court has now passed on the matter to the Parliament to determine the next course of action; on what to do with President Ershad and what new laws and punishment to enact so that in future men in uniform would not dare to usurp political power. President Ershad’s strength in believing that nothing is going to happen to him evolves partly from the fact that he is an ally of the Awami League and a partner of the AL led coalition government.
Before moving ahead to try Ershad, it would be useful to take a look at history around the time Ershad made his successful bid to usurp power. In particular, it is necessary to take a look at Ershad’s career before recommending any punishment for him. In the tumultuous politics of the 1970s, Ershad was a very small pawn when the Generals who fought in the war of liberation were holding the helm of both the military and the civilian administration after the changes of August 15th, 1975. Ershad made his journey up the ladder of power in the military establishment as a compromise candidate in the politics that the army played those days. Those who promoted him thought that he was innocuous and that even in a miracle; he was not likely to make a bid for political power.
Upon the assassination of President Zia over which Khaleda Zia has cast doubt about Ershad’s involvement, Ershad received support from a wide range of politicians and senior civil bureaucrats who urged him to declare martial law and capture power. These politicians and civil bureaucrats supported him because they believed that with him in power, they would be able to have the strings of power with them. In fact, it may not be entirely incorrect to state that President Ershad staged a military coup to takeover political power where the encouragement for the takeover did not come entirely from the military but also from the civilians. The only twist in the tale was the fact that Ershad was smarter than the politicians and bureaucrats who thought he would be a puppet in their hands. In fact to give the devil his due, Ershad outsmarted all who supported him and soon, almost all political parties and civilian groups were eating out of his hands.
In his nearly one decade long military rule, Ershad had managed in winning over almost everybody except the people and Khaleda Zia who challenged his rule for the entire 1980s to punish him for the death of her husband through the establishment of democratic rule. The people of Bangladesh have a problem with military rule embedded deep in their psyche and when the AL joined with the movement for restoration of democracy, they came out to back them spontaneously. The result was Ershad’s downfall in the same manner as all military dictators in history had to eventually bow to the will of the people.
President Ershad was a weak military General but a very shrewd man. He saw enough support for him and his military rule among the politicians and the bureaucrats and exploited both to his advantage and ruled with all powers firmly in his hands. For those who these days have suddenly awaken to the virtues of democratic government and the unacceptable nature of military rule as an antithesis to the spirit of the liberation of Bangladesh , let them be reminded that no politician or political party or for that matter civil bureaucrats and civilian groups were threatened or coerced to support his rule. They all did voluntarily. Of course, they received privileges in many shapes and forms; land, money, promotion, etc that helped Ershad earn their loyalty. Even today as many are giving statements to the media in loud voices let them also be reminded that they did not challenge either the 5th or the 7th amendments in the Court. Both amendments came about accidentally by cases filed by people who had no desire to challenge the military rule.
Not too long ago, when General Moin decided to follow the path of his military predecessors, he too received a lot of help from politicians and civil society groups. In fact, he was so emboldened by such support that he wanted to give the country his vision of democracy by attempting to form a political party. Many leaders of both the mainstream parties stepped into his trap that has practically ended their careers in their respective parties. The eras of military leaders such as Zia, Ershad and Moin should not leave anyone in doubt that in our history, politicians and civilian groups have for their selfish reasons given the military the support they needed to , first, come to power and , second, to retain political power.
It is good to see the public reaction on the 5th and 7th amendments in the context of military rule. There seems to be a consensus, that military rule is an anathema to the spirit of our liberation. Unfortunately, future tryst with military rule can be ruled out not by trying and punishing General Ershad or by writing into the Constitution that such attempts would be treason and hence punishable by death. The only way to ensure that Bangladesh will never again have the misfortune of coming under military rule is for the political parties to give up their confrontational politics and come together on a bipartisan basis on a minimum agenda of economic development and issues of national interest. If the parties fight and bring Bangladesh to the edge of becoming a failed state, who then is going to stop military intervention or for that matter, foreign intervention?
Punishing Ershad alone will not serve much purpose in banishing military rule unless the political parties; politicians and civil bureaucrats who actively helped him to rule are also exposed and tried. Further, to banish military rule, it would also be necessary to make an example of the military’s intervention and high-handedness under the last caretaker Government. All said, it seems that President Ershad is right; that he cannot be punished because it would open a Pandora’s Box where many politicians and civilians are hiding. Bringing out those faces would embarrass those who are expected to try him.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and can be reached on email serajul7@gmail.com
Friday, September 3, 2010
Myanmar - shifting to military democracy?
The Daily Star, September 4th., 2010
M.Serajul Islam
THE military leaders of Myanmar through a brief radio broadcast have announced elections to the parliament on November 7th. Political parties have been given time till the end of the month to submit their list of candidates. Earlier, the military regime had tactfully ensured that Nobel Laureate Aung Saan Suu Kyi was kept out of the contest by extending her house arrest till November 2010. To the regime's satisfaction, the extension led Aung's National Democratic League (NLD) to decide against registering for the elections that resulted in the party being banned. The NLD opted against registering to give the international community the clear message that the next elections would be anything but a new strategy to entrench the power of the military.
In fact, international opinion has concurred with Aung who had led the NLD to a decisive victory in Myanmar's last polls held 20 years ago only to be denied power and kept under house arrest for 14 years since that victory. There are also many other visible signs to suggest that the ruling military is ready for nothing short of continuing with their stranglehold on power, albeit under a civilian facade. First, 166 of the 498 seats would be reserved for the military. Second, ahead of the elections by a well laid out policy a substantial number, including the Premier, resigned from the military to contest the elections. Third, the military has already left no one in doubt that its civilian extension in the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) whose members are all beneficiaries of the military junta and obliged to allow military dominance for their own sake. Thein Sein now leads the USDP to make the linkage more than obvious.
At least 40 political parties have registered to contest the elections of which a breakaway faction of the NLD naming itself the National Democratic Force is one. Most of these parties are small and have regional or limited agenda. The western nations, led by the United States have expressed deep reservations about the polls. As part of President Obama's policy of engagement with regimes such as the one in Myanmar, US Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell visited Myanmar twice in six months, the last one in May this year, the first such senior official to visit Myanmar in 14 years. Then he met Premier Thein Sein and Aang Saan Suu Kyi. He returned deeply disappointed with the country's preparations for the elections. The United Nations has also expressed similar concerns. UN Secretary General Baan Kin Moon has called on the Myanmar military junta to keep its commitments to hold a credible and transparent election for transition from military rule to democracy.
There have also been news, unconfirmed as yet, that the top military leaders of Myanmar General Than Shwe with the next two Generals, Maung Aye and Thura Shwe Mann of the 12 member State Peace and Development Council have resigned from the military. The resignations that are now inevitable are in anticipation that the next parliament would elect General Than Shwe as the President and the other two Generals as the Vice-President and Premier. If the resignations are true and the three generals hold those anticipated posts, then the military would have a full proof mechanism in place for any civilian government to even dare to challenge the military's dominance. Meanwhile, there has been the biggest reshuffle in the military since General Shwe became the top General more than two decades ago and has held the country by the scruff of the neck ever since. More than 70 senior army officers have been involved in this reshuffle that has been strategically made by General Shwe to assure the military's loyalty once he leaves the military to become the country's President.
Those who are interested in looking for a silver lining in the cloud argue that it would not be correct to dismiss the forthcoming elections straightaway. They further argue that the elections would bring into politics, leaders from the new generation who would be able to motivate the aging military leaders about the need to move gradually towards genuine democracy. They also feel that within the military as new generation of leaders take charge; there would be able to influence the military's mindset in line with changes and realities of the contemporary world. Finally, they also feel that this is the most sincere and realistic offer by the Generals to cede absolute power.
The results of the elections are hardly anyone's concern. The military backed USDP will win the elections convincingly and form the Government. This is why there is seemingly no obstacle being created by the military in the way of freedom of the candidates to move freely in the country, something not usual in Myanmar. The main concern is how those who would be leaving the military's top positions to become the country's top political leaders and parliamentarians share power with the new leadership in the military. General Shwe has just not ruled Myanmar with an iron fist; he also had to tackle conflicts within the army as well. In 2004, he had to sack the Premier. He rose from an ordinary postman to become the most powerful man in his country. He has also reportedly acquired significant wealth together with earning wrath of the silent opposition as well as Myanmar's diverse ethnic groups that his regime has subdued ruthlessly to have an enormous personal stake in the way Myanmar transforms politically. The aging strong man who is 77 and his close colleagues who are not young either, under considerable world pressure for democratic change, thought time to be opportune to share power with civilian groups who have grown rich under their sponsorship and ready to accept the dominance of the military even under future civilian rule. The military is also wary that without some concessions, Myanmar's economy and condition of the people that are in dire straits could lead to new spate of mass uprisings. Despite all the full proof measures to assure continued military dominance, General Shwe and his Generals who are known to be “notoriously superstitious” chose the date of the election by invoking astrology so as to leave nothing to chance!
In effect what would be taking place in Myanmar through the 7th November elections is a transition of the top military leaders to top civilian posts; from pure military dictatorship to military led democracy. In fact, as a civilian President, General Than Shwe has no reason to apprehend in the short run any challenge to his authority from the elected Government. His main and perhaps only apprehension would be how those he would be putting in charge of the military would treat him when he says goodbye to his military uniform for civilian outfit. The history of such transformation has not been good for military dictators where eventually democracy has won. That gives hope that history could repeat itself in Myanmar.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M.Serajul Islam
THE military leaders of Myanmar through a brief radio broadcast have announced elections to the parliament on November 7th. Political parties have been given time till the end of the month to submit their list of candidates. Earlier, the military regime had tactfully ensured that Nobel Laureate Aung Saan Suu Kyi was kept out of the contest by extending her house arrest till November 2010. To the regime's satisfaction, the extension led Aung's National Democratic League (NLD) to decide against registering for the elections that resulted in the party being banned. The NLD opted against registering to give the international community the clear message that the next elections would be anything but a new strategy to entrench the power of the military.
In fact, international opinion has concurred with Aung who had led the NLD to a decisive victory in Myanmar's last polls held 20 years ago only to be denied power and kept under house arrest for 14 years since that victory. There are also many other visible signs to suggest that the ruling military is ready for nothing short of continuing with their stranglehold on power, albeit under a civilian facade. First, 166 of the 498 seats would be reserved for the military. Second, ahead of the elections by a well laid out policy a substantial number, including the Premier, resigned from the military to contest the elections. Third, the military has already left no one in doubt that its civilian extension in the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) whose members are all beneficiaries of the military junta and obliged to allow military dominance for their own sake. Thein Sein now leads the USDP to make the linkage more than obvious.
At least 40 political parties have registered to contest the elections of which a breakaway faction of the NLD naming itself the National Democratic Force is one. Most of these parties are small and have regional or limited agenda. The western nations, led by the United States have expressed deep reservations about the polls. As part of President Obama's policy of engagement with regimes such as the one in Myanmar, US Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell visited Myanmar twice in six months, the last one in May this year, the first such senior official to visit Myanmar in 14 years. Then he met Premier Thein Sein and Aang Saan Suu Kyi. He returned deeply disappointed with the country's preparations for the elections. The United Nations has also expressed similar concerns. UN Secretary General Baan Kin Moon has called on the Myanmar military junta to keep its commitments to hold a credible and transparent election for transition from military rule to democracy.
There have also been news, unconfirmed as yet, that the top military leaders of Myanmar General Than Shwe with the next two Generals, Maung Aye and Thura Shwe Mann of the 12 member State Peace and Development Council have resigned from the military. The resignations that are now inevitable are in anticipation that the next parliament would elect General Than Shwe as the President and the other two Generals as the Vice-President and Premier. If the resignations are true and the three generals hold those anticipated posts, then the military would have a full proof mechanism in place for any civilian government to even dare to challenge the military's dominance. Meanwhile, there has been the biggest reshuffle in the military since General Shwe became the top General more than two decades ago and has held the country by the scruff of the neck ever since. More than 70 senior army officers have been involved in this reshuffle that has been strategically made by General Shwe to assure the military's loyalty once he leaves the military to become the country's President.
Those who are interested in looking for a silver lining in the cloud argue that it would not be correct to dismiss the forthcoming elections straightaway. They further argue that the elections would bring into politics, leaders from the new generation who would be able to motivate the aging military leaders about the need to move gradually towards genuine democracy. They also feel that within the military as new generation of leaders take charge; there would be able to influence the military's mindset in line with changes and realities of the contemporary world. Finally, they also feel that this is the most sincere and realistic offer by the Generals to cede absolute power.
The results of the elections are hardly anyone's concern. The military backed USDP will win the elections convincingly and form the Government. This is why there is seemingly no obstacle being created by the military in the way of freedom of the candidates to move freely in the country, something not usual in Myanmar. The main concern is how those who would be leaving the military's top positions to become the country's top political leaders and parliamentarians share power with the new leadership in the military. General Shwe has just not ruled Myanmar with an iron fist; he also had to tackle conflicts within the army as well. In 2004, he had to sack the Premier. He rose from an ordinary postman to become the most powerful man in his country. He has also reportedly acquired significant wealth together with earning wrath of the silent opposition as well as Myanmar's diverse ethnic groups that his regime has subdued ruthlessly to have an enormous personal stake in the way Myanmar transforms politically. The aging strong man who is 77 and his close colleagues who are not young either, under considerable world pressure for democratic change, thought time to be opportune to share power with civilian groups who have grown rich under their sponsorship and ready to accept the dominance of the military even under future civilian rule. The military is also wary that without some concessions, Myanmar's economy and condition of the people that are in dire straits could lead to new spate of mass uprisings. Despite all the full proof measures to assure continued military dominance, General Shwe and his Generals who are known to be “notoriously superstitious” chose the date of the election by invoking astrology so as to leave nothing to chance!
In effect what would be taking place in Myanmar through the 7th November elections is a transition of the top military leaders to top civilian posts; from pure military dictatorship to military led democracy. In fact, as a civilian President, General Than Shwe has no reason to apprehend in the short run any challenge to his authority from the elected Government. His main and perhaps only apprehension would be how those he would be putting in charge of the military would treat him when he says goodbye to his military uniform for civilian outfit. The history of such transformation has not been good for military dictators where eventually democracy has won. That gives hope that history could repeat itself in Myanmar.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
MY FOREIGN SERVICE YEARS: SETTLING DOWN IN A POST
Published in The Independent, September 3rd., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
My posting in New Delhi was one of the most exciting in my entire career. One of the main reasons that made New Delhi exciting was the fact that it was then and still is Bangladesh’s most important diplomatic mission abroad because of the importance of India to the country. However before I had the opportunity to experience the importance of New Delhi, I had so many problems that my life in Canberra did not prepare me to face. In fact, diplomatic life in Canberra was comfortable from all respects in settling down in a new post; New Delhi, was not so.
Before we got posted to an Embassy those days, we used to read a document called the Post Report that was supposed to prepare a diplomat for the post to which he/she was being posted. If ever there was a document that was redundant for the purpose for which it was prepared in the first place, it was the Post Report. Before going to Canberra, I read this Post Report for Canberra almost with religious devotion but on landing there, I found it of little use in settling down to my first diplomatic post. Fortunately, in case of Canberra, things turned out too good and I would not have missed any trick even if I had not read the Post Report.
Upon arriving at a diplomatic post, the personal issues that worry a diplomat most are getting a house, getting children to school and acquiring a car. On all three counts, Canberra was the ideal post. Nevertheless, I had to settle those issues immediately upon arrival before I could start my diplomatic work. Those days, the government allowed an officer 28 days for staying in a temporary accommodation during which the officer and his/her family was paid daily allowance that was pretty good. Most of us could save some money out of it for many things that a family needed in a new station far away from home. On a first posting, inexperience is a big obstacle to resolving those issues. My High Commissioner was very supportive in seeing that I settled down smoothly. My colleague Hosne Ara Karim too was very helpful. I could thus find myself a house to step into after my 28 days’ stay at a temporary accommodation was over.
Getting a car was just too easy. In Canberra, when I was posted there, most cars to Australia were imported. There was a hefty duty on such cars. A diplomat could of course buy imported cars without paying duty. Luxury imported cars such as Mercedes had a very high rate of duty and a diplomat could buy such a car and then sell in the market after 2 years that allowed a handsome profit. I could have done so as most diplomats did, particularly those from the developing countries, but I chose a Honda Civic instead as I thought that someone who never owned a car as was the case with me, I would just not feel comfortable driving a Mercedes as a Second Secretary. The whole process of buying my first ever car took me half an hour!
Admitting our daughter in school was even easier. Before going to the post, I had collected her school transcripts, other reports, afraid that missing out on one or another document would land me in great problem. When my wife and I took our daughter who was just over 6 to her school, the principal just saw her birth certificate then called a teacher who came within minutes and the next thing we saw, without a word said, was my daughter walking away with the teacher! We clung to the documents and returned home ecstatic but feeling somewhat like happy fools!
The contrast in resolving those issues in New Delhi was unbelievable. I had a house ready, left by my predecessor with the choice to take it or to hire a new house. In between his departure and my arrival, a month had elapsed. In that one month, the house and its furnishings were taken over by rats and cockroaches with no one from the High Commission even caring to consider how we would stay in that house. That first night was a nightmare. We were awake the whole night afraid that we would be run over by those who had taken over the house in that last one month. The next morning, the High Commissioner’s wife came to see us. She had received us at the airport the previous evening when we arrived and when we had told her of our first night’s experience, she said smilingly that she knew what we would face but said nothing because of the confidence with which I had told her we would like to move into our house. She then took us with her to the Residence where stayed for a week. During that week, we had the house cleaned and made habitable. Afterwards, I spent more than a month looking for a new house but failed because Delhi was then not an easy place to hunt for a house and those who went about as “agents” were very slippery customers and always had a trick up their sleeves. I found also that an “agent” is New Delhi was a self appointed broker and not the agent to which I was accustomed while posted in Canberra. Those “agents” and others who provided services to diplomats in New Delhi like the clearing and forwarding agents seldom spoke the truth. Learning to deal with them was often a greater hassle than doing the job for which we were posted to New Delhi.
I was lucky admitting my daughter in a school but that was thanks to a colleague who had established close contacts with the Principal of one of Delhi’s best schools, the Delhi Public School at RK Puram. She of course had to give a test and was taken in after she passed that test. However, a colleague who arrived a year later had a miserable time getting a son and a daughter admitted in the same school. The principal was as forthcoming with them as he had been with my daughter. After they passed their tests, their admission for some mysterious reason was stuck. When we inquired, we found out that the Head Clerk who was a Brahmin was unhappy we were using our contacts with the Principal who was from a lower caste to get our children admitted. He put his foot down and the Principal regretted his inability to do the needful. It was only when that Head Clerk was approached and handled diplomatically, he withdrew his objection and the children were admitted. That was for us a firsthand experience on the realities of the caste system.
I had a hard time buying a car too and my experience in Canberra made it harder to accept realities in Delhi. Unlike Canberra, a diplomat could not then buy a car out of the show room. An order had to be placed through the dealer in Delhi who then had to get the car from the place of origin, in my case Japan as I had ordered a Mazda. When placing order, the dealer gave me a time frame of two to three months. The car was delivered to me after six months and meanwhile, there were innumerous promises that the car was on way and would be delivered at some future date not too far away! My experiences with such service sector companies and individuals led me to advise my successor and anyone else posted to New Delhi later not to expect that promises would be delivered on time in Delhi. After I received my car, the six months wait was soon forgotten because people would look at my car with admiration as those days; a foreign car was not a common sight on Delhi roads.
Delhi’s richness as a capital is world class. Diplomatic missions send their best talents to India and knowing some of them and interacting with them was a matter of satisfaction. As a Bangladeshi diplomat, some of us were also sought after by our colleagues from other missions, particularly from the western nations because we could provide them with a perspective on India that they were not able to get themselves. Our access to the Ministry of External Affairs and other Ministries and Departments in New Delhi was easy although negotiations with the hosts were always quite difficult. Delhi was then and still is one of our biggest Missions. It had Defense, Press, Commerce, Water Wings in addition to the Diplomatic Wing where we worked. My colleagues in these Wings were extremely nice individuals and the leadership of the High Commissioner brought us all together in a spirit that did not then nor does it now exist in most of our bigger Embassies. One of those who left not long after I had joined the Mission was Jamil Majid an officer of the 1970 ex-PFS batch whose memory was phenomenal. At the Headquarters some years later while he was being given farewell before his posting to London , AKH Morshed had said of him that with his departure , the Foreign Ministry would need an encyclopedia to make up for his loss!
My experiences in New Delhi were rich and varied. I intend to reflect more upon these experiences in next issues. One of the events on which I hope to write is on the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated that was just when I had settled down in New Delhi and was starting to enjoy the posting.
THE WRITER WAS A FORMER AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN AND EGYPT AND CAN BE REACHED ON HIS EMAIL SERAJUL7@GMAIL.COM
M. Serajul Islam
My posting in New Delhi was one of the most exciting in my entire career. One of the main reasons that made New Delhi exciting was the fact that it was then and still is Bangladesh’s most important diplomatic mission abroad because of the importance of India to the country. However before I had the opportunity to experience the importance of New Delhi, I had so many problems that my life in Canberra did not prepare me to face. In fact, diplomatic life in Canberra was comfortable from all respects in settling down in a new post; New Delhi, was not so.
Before we got posted to an Embassy those days, we used to read a document called the Post Report that was supposed to prepare a diplomat for the post to which he/she was being posted. If ever there was a document that was redundant for the purpose for which it was prepared in the first place, it was the Post Report. Before going to Canberra, I read this Post Report for Canberra almost with religious devotion but on landing there, I found it of little use in settling down to my first diplomatic post. Fortunately, in case of Canberra, things turned out too good and I would not have missed any trick even if I had not read the Post Report.
Upon arriving at a diplomatic post, the personal issues that worry a diplomat most are getting a house, getting children to school and acquiring a car. On all three counts, Canberra was the ideal post. Nevertheless, I had to settle those issues immediately upon arrival before I could start my diplomatic work. Those days, the government allowed an officer 28 days for staying in a temporary accommodation during which the officer and his/her family was paid daily allowance that was pretty good. Most of us could save some money out of it for many things that a family needed in a new station far away from home. On a first posting, inexperience is a big obstacle to resolving those issues. My High Commissioner was very supportive in seeing that I settled down smoothly. My colleague Hosne Ara Karim too was very helpful. I could thus find myself a house to step into after my 28 days’ stay at a temporary accommodation was over.
Getting a car was just too easy. In Canberra, when I was posted there, most cars to Australia were imported. There was a hefty duty on such cars. A diplomat could of course buy imported cars without paying duty. Luxury imported cars such as Mercedes had a very high rate of duty and a diplomat could buy such a car and then sell in the market after 2 years that allowed a handsome profit. I could have done so as most diplomats did, particularly those from the developing countries, but I chose a Honda Civic instead as I thought that someone who never owned a car as was the case with me, I would just not feel comfortable driving a Mercedes as a Second Secretary. The whole process of buying my first ever car took me half an hour!
Admitting our daughter in school was even easier. Before going to the post, I had collected her school transcripts, other reports, afraid that missing out on one or another document would land me in great problem. When my wife and I took our daughter who was just over 6 to her school, the principal just saw her birth certificate then called a teacher who came within minutes and the next thing we saw, without a word said, was my daughter walking away with the teacher! We clung to the documents and returned home ecstatic but feeling somewhat like happy fools!
The contrast in resolving those issues in New Delhi was unbelievable. I had a house ready, left by my predecessor with the choice to take it or to hire a new house. In between his departure and my arrival, a month had elapsed. In that one month, the house and its furnishings were taken over by rats and cockroaches with no one from the High Commission even caring to consider how we would stay in that house. That first night was a nightmare. We were awake the whole night afraid that we would be run over by those who had taken over the house in that last one month. The next morning, the High Commissioner’s wife came to see us. She had received us at the airport the previous evening when we arrived and when we had told her of our first night’s experience, she said smilingly that she knew what we would face but said nothing because of the confidence with which I had told her we would like to move into our house. She then took us with her to the Residence where stayed for a week. During that week, we had the house cleaned and made habitable. Afterwards, I spent more than a month looking for a new house but failed because Delhi was then not an easy place to hunt for a house and those who went about as “agents” were very slippery customers and always had a trick up their sleeves. I found also that an “agent” is New Delhi was a self appointed broker and not the agent to which I was accustomed while posted in Canberra. Those “agents” and others who provided services to diplomats in New Delhi like the clearing and forwarding agents seldom spoke the truth. Learning to deal with them was often a greater hassle than doing the job for which we were posted to New Delhi.
I was lucky admitting my daughter in a school but that was thanks to a colleague who had established close contacts with the Principal of one of Delhi’s best schools, the Delhi Public School at RK Puram. She of course had to give a test and was taken in after she passed that test. However, a colleague who arrived a year later had a miserable time getting a son and a daughter admitted in the same school. The principal was as forthcoming with them as he had been with my daughter. After they passed their tests, their admission for some mysterious reason was stuck. When we inquired, we found out that the Head Clerk who was a Brahmin was unhappy we were using our contacts with the Principal who was from a lower caste to get our children admitted. He put his foot down and the Principal regretted his inability to do the needful. It was only when that Head Clerk was approached and handled diplomatically, he withdrew his objection and the children were admitted. That was for us a firsthand experience on the realities of the caste system.
I had a hard time buying a car too and my experience in Canberra made it harder to accept realities in Delhi. Unlike Canberra, a diplomat could not then buy a car out of the show room. An order had to be placed through the dealer in Delhi who then had to get the car from the place of origin, in my case Japan as I had ordered a Mazda. When placing order, the dealer gave me a time frame of two to three months. The car was delivered to me after six months and meanwhile, there were innumerous promises that the car was on way and would be delivered at some future date not too far away! My experiences with such service sector companies and individuals led me to advise my successor and anyone else posted to New Delhi later not to expect that promises would be delivered on time in Delhi. After I received my car, the six months wait was soon forgotten because people would look at my car with admiration as those days; a foreign car was not a common sight on Delhi roads.
Delhi’s richness as a capital is world class. Diplomatic missions send their best talents to India and knowing some of them and interacting with them was a matter of satisfaction. As a Bangladeshi diplomat, some of us were also sought after by our colleagues from other missions, particularly from the western nations because we could provide them with a perspective on India that they were not able to get themselves. Our access to the Ministry of External Affairs and other Ministries and Departments in New Delhi was easy although negotiations with the hosts were always quite difficult. Delhi was then and still is one of our biggest Missions. It had Defense, Press, Commerce, Water Wings in addition to the Diplomatic Wing where we worked. My colleagues in these Wings were extremely nice individuals and the leadership of the High Commissioner brought us all together in a spirit that did not then nor does it now exist in most of our bigger Embassies. One of those who left not long after I had joined the Mission was Jamil Majid an officer of the 1970 ex-PFS batch whose memory was phenomenal. At the Headquarters some years later while he was being given farewell before his posting to London , AKH Morshed had said of him that with his departure , the Foreign Ministry would need an encyclopedia to make up for his loss!
My experiences in New Delhi were rich and varied. I intend to reflect more upon these experiences in next issues. One of the events on which I hope to write is on the day Indira Gandhi was assassinated that was just when I had settled down in New Delhi and was starting to enjoy the posting.
THE WRITER WAS A FORMER AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN AND EGYPT AND CAN BE REACHED ON HIS EMAIL SERAJUL7@GMAIL.COM
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The controversy over the Caretaker Government
Published in The Independent, September 1st , 2010
M. Serajul Islam
Both the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party took credit for the concept of the neutral Caretaker Government (CG) when opinion at home and abroad was favourable as a welcome innovation to holding a free and fair election in an emerging democracy. The AL took credit for visualising the concept of elections under a neutral CG. The BNP credited itself for enacting into law the concept when it absolute majority in the short lived 6th parliament. It is therefore a matter of some surprise that both the parties have in some measure expressed their displeasure with the concept. The ever energetic TV talk show specialists are more enthusiastic than the political leaders in expressing their views on the demerits of the CG. One former Minister from one of the smaller parties in the present coalition was quite emphatic in dismissing the concept as undemocratic and a disgrace for the politicians in a recent TV talk show.
There does not seem to be many takers for this Concept these days. The parties and the people who talk on public issues have swung away from the concept. The two main criticisms that have surfaced against the CG are, first, it is undemocratic; and second, it suggests that the country’s democracy is not mature enough for the politicians to hold a neutral election and therefore bad for the country’s image. On the face of it, both criticisms are correct. But in politics, if only correct things were to happen, then there would be heavenly peace which is not possible. There are of course arguments against the criticisms as well.
Let us focus on the second criticism first. Our politics, despite what politicians may say, is confrontational where the spirit of accommodation and tolerance, two core pre-conditions for democracy, are absent. The two mainstream party distrust each other is a manner that has no parallel anywhere, making politics confrontational and immature. It is out of such feelings that the AL came out with the concept of a neutral CG because it was not confident of a fair election under an incumbent government even though that government was elected. The AL was convinced that elections under a BNP government would be unfair and subject to manipulation and interference against it. The AL was in a sense correct because every government in the past that held elections manipulated elections and that includes both democratic and un-democratic governments. AL’s views about elections under a neutral CG proved correct as it was able to replace the incumbent BNP Government under such a government and then lost and regained power, all held under a neutral CG, thus proving the usefulness of having such a government for holding fair elections, its unelected nature notwithstanding.
On elections under the CG being un-democratic, the issue would look different when seen from a different perspective other than what the country experienced during the last CG that has clouded the minds of many of the critics. If the AL amends the Constitution to do away with the CG, the next elections would be held under it; in other words under a democratically elected government. But would that make the next elections democratic? The answer cannot be a clear one because a democratically elected government can also make an election un-democratic by manipulation and interference. We have examples of such manipulation in our own history. Next door in India, the elected Congress government of Indira Gandhi grossly interfered in the election process in 1971 that led to protracted legal battles in the Court. Indian democracy was finally saved when the Court was able to assert its authority over the elected Government that was adopting un-democratic means to remain in power. Eventually, the emergence of a powerful and independent Election Commission in India has ensured further that an incumbent government does not interfere or manipulate elections.
Bangladesh does not have an EC anywhere near as powerful or independent as in India and the Courts are just beginning to manifest their power. Much more importantly, politics has become more confrontational where the AL and the BNP’s distrust for each other have heightened. The fact that both the mainstream parties have meanwhile politicized the bureaucracy is also an issue that causes apprehension in public mind about fairness of election under an incumbent government. Till politics improves, a general election to form the government without a neutral body holding it would definitely be rejected by the losing party/s. It is in this context, there is the need to take a dispassionate look at the CG and its merits before rejecting it. A CG would be headed by a retired Chief Justice. By the very process through which a Chief Justice rises to his position and retires, common sense would dictate one to assume that such an individual would be a man of integrity , honesty and with experience to decide upon issues based on legality. The other advantage of the CG is the fact that its tenure is limited by the Constitution and the 10 individuals who would assist the Chief Adviser would be people of standing in society acceptable to the political parties who would have no stake in the government to be elected.
These days we are talking of past constitutional violations. I am a bit confused with this exercise because we are going back into decades for constitutional violations while we are ignoring what has happened in the immediate past. The last CG has violated the Constitution with contempt and has very nearly destroyed the concept of the CG itself. It extended its stay up to 2 years where the Constitution limits its term to three months. As for contempt for politicians, there is plenty of documentary evidence left by General Moin who wanted us to follow his “ vision “ of military-led democracy leaving no one in doubt that he held the politicians responsible for failing the country. If we are indeed interested in upholding the sanctity of the Constitution and punish the violators, as we should, then we should look into the immediate past CG closely and then we would be able to set enough examples and recommend enough deterrence and punishment to the offenders to put fear in those hearts who would dare to usurp power in future.
Such an exercise would also allow us to review objectively what went wrong with the concept of the CG and set new legal guarantees to avoid any aberrations in future. It would be un-wise to reject a concept that has proved its worth but where it has failed, it has failed because of the politicians and the extra constitutional forces. It is difficult to visualise the next elections under the incumbent government simply because in the meantime, politics has become more confrontational. The BNP has already rejected the EC as a pro-government institution. Elections under the incumbent government with the EC as it is would be a prescription for political disaster. The best way out would be elections under a reformed CG with the EC modelled and strengthened like the Indian EC. Let us not forget that the Supreme Court has meanwhile manifested its pro-democracy credentials strongly and if we continue with the CG, we would have a retired Chief Justice to head it next time who would have greater public acceptability.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and has a blog www.ambassadorseraj.blogspot.com
M. Serajul Islam
Both the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party took credit for the concept of the neutral Caretaker Government (CG) when opinion at home and abroad was favourable as a welcome innovation to holding a free and fair election in an emerging democracy. The AL took credit for visualising the concept of elections under a neutral CG. The BNP credited itself for enacting into law the concept when it absolute majority in the short lived 6th parliament. It is therefore a matter of some surprise that both the parties have in some measure expressed their displeasure with the concept. The ever energetic TV talk show specialists are more enthusiastic than the political leaders in expressing their views on the demerits of the CG. One former Minister from one of the smaller parties in the present coalition was quite emphatic in dismissing the concept as undemocratic and a disgrace for the politicians in a recent TV talk show.
There does not seem to be many takers for this Concept these days. The parties and the people who talk on public issues have swung away from the concept. The two main criticisms that have surfaced against the CG are, first, it is undemocratic; and second, it suggests that the country’s democracy is not mature enough for the politicians to hold a neutral election and therefore bad for the country’s image. On the face of it, both criticisms are correct. But in politics, if only correct things were to happen, then there would be heavenly peace which is not possible. There are of course arguments against the criticisms as well.
Let us focus on the second criticism first. Our politics, despite what politicians may say, is confrontational where the spirit of accommodation and tolerance, two core pre-conditions for democracy, are absent. The two mainstream party distrust each other is a manner that has no parallel anywhere, making politics confrontational and immature. It is out of such feelings that the AL came out with the concept of a neutral CG because it was not confident of a fair election under an incumbent government even though that government was elected. The AL was convinced that elections under a BNP government would be unfair and subject to manipulation and interference against it. The AL was in a sense correct because every government in the past that held elections manipulated elections and that includes both democratic and un-democratic governments. AL’s views about elections under a neutral CG proved correct as it was able to replace the incumbent BNP Government under such a government and then lost and regained power, all held under a neutral CG, thus proving the usefulness of having such a government for holding fair elections, its unelected nature notwithstanding.
On elections under the CG being un-democratic, the issue would look different when seen from a different perspective other than what the country experienced during the last CG that has clouded the minds of many of the critics. If the AL amends the Constitution to do away with the CG, the next elections would be held under it; in other words under a democratically elected government. But would that make the next elections democratic? The answer cannot be a clear one because a democratically elected government can also make an election un-democratic by manipulation and interference. We have examples of such manipulation in our own history. Next door in India, the elected Congress government of Indira Gandhi grossly interfered in the election process in 1971 that led to protracted legal battles in the Court. Indian democracy was finally saved when the Court was able to assert its authority over the elected Government that was adopting un-democratic means to remain in power. Eventually, the emergence of a powerful and independent Election Commission in India has ensured further that an incumbent government does not interfere or manipulate elections.
Bangladesh does not have an EC anywhere near as powerful or independent as in India and the Courts are just beginning to manifest their power. Much more importantly, politics has become more confrontational where the AL and the BNP’s distrust for each other have heightened. The fact that both the mainstream parties have meanwhile politicized the bureaucracy is also an issue that causes apprehension in public mind about fairness of election under an incumbent government. Till politics improves, a general election to form the government without a neutral body holding it would definitely be rejected by the losing party/s. It is in this context, there is the need to take a dispassionate look at the CG and its merits before rejecting it. A CG would be headed by a retired Chief Justice. By the very process through which a Chief Justice rises to his position and retires, common sense would dictate one to assume that such an individual would be a man of integrity , honesty and with experience to decide upon issues based on legality. The other advantage of the CG is the fact that its tenure is limited by the Constitution and the 10 individuals who would assist the Chief Adviser would be people of standing in society acceptable to the political parties who would have no stake in the government to be elected.
These days we are talking of past constitutional violations. I am a bit confused with this exercise because we are going back into decades for constitutional violations while we are ignoring what has happened in the immediate past. The last CG has violated the Constitution with contempt and has very nearly destroyed the concept of the CG itself. It extended its stay up to 2 years where the Constitution limits its term to three months. As for contempt for politicians, there is plenty of documentary evidence left by General Moin who wanted us to follow his “ vision “ of military-led democracy leaving no one in doubt that he held the politicians responsible for failing the country. If we are indeed interested in upholding the sanctity of the Constitution and punish the violators, as we should, then we should look into the immediate past CG closely and then we would be able to set enough examples and recommend enough deterrence and punishment to the offenders to put fear in those hearts who would dare to usurp power in future.
Such an exercise would also allow us to review objectively what went wrong with the concept of the CG and set new legal guarantees to avoid any aberrations in future. It would be un-wise to reject a concept that has proved its worth but where it has failed, it has failed because of the politicians and the extra constitutional forces. It is difficult to visualise the next elections under the incumbent government simply because in the meantime, politics has become more confrontational. The BNP has already rejected the EC as a pro-government institution. Elections under the incumbent government with the EC as it is would be a prescription for political disaster. The best way out would be elections under a reformed CG with the EC modelled and strengthened like the Indian EC. Let us not forget that the Supreme Court has meanwhile manifested its pro-democracy credentials strongly and if we continue with the CG, we would have a retired Chief Justice to head it next time who would have greater public acceptability.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and has a blog www.ambassadorseraj.blogspot.com
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
End of US combat mission in Iraq?
The Daily Star, August 28th.; 2010
M. Serajul Islam
US President Barak Obama made a historical statement on 2nd August. He announced that the US combat operations in Iraq would be over by August 31st that would end US's 7 years war in Iraq. His predecessor had signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that all US troops would come back by end of 2011. The incumbent President had penned an addition to that agreement that US would bring back all combat troops by 31st August of this year. Under that agreement 50,000 non-combat troops would remain in Iraq to train and assist Iraqi security forces and the rest of the 1,40,000 US troops, all involved in combat, would return home.
The subdued response in the United States to a historical decision to end combat operations and effectively US's war in Iraq is somewhat surprising. It reflects the fact that the troops are not returning home with victory won decisively. In fact, there are many who would question if a victory has been won at all. President Bush had gone to Iraq on flawed and manipulated intelligence. In the beginning, the rationale was destroying Weapons of Mass Destruction WMD in Iraq. When that was established as a lie as Iraq did not have any WMD, getting rid of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein or regime change became the new rationale. When that too was achieved, the US found itself mired in fighting insurgency where the major ethnic/religious groups were fighting one another and extremists and fundamentalists, fighting the US occupation force. The US named this third phase as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” as a reason to occupy Iraq.
President Bush who had declared “mission accomplished” within seven months of the war in December 2003 on board an US aircraft carrier soon regretted his mistake as Iraq went up in flames where death and destruction became a routine matter with insurgency everywhere in the country. Till the time of President Obama's announcement on withdrawal of troops, 4,400 US men and women in uniform gave their lives for achieving the changing rationales of the war. Many times more than that number, in fact running into hundreds of thousand, innocent Iraqi men, women and children have also died in what has been insensitively described in the media as “collateral damage”.
It is just not these deaths that have made US's involvement in Iraq a questionable one; the amount of money spent in Iraq by the United States is also mind-boggling. According to a Congress Budget office report in January 2008, the Congress wrote checks worth US$ 691 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction. The misfortunes of poverty, disease and denial of minimum conditions of life for billions in Africa and Asia would have become history if the US had spent even a part of that money there instead of Iraq.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has been tried and hanged; his entire gang of close associates have also been likewise brought to face the law and many have been executed. The Baath party of Saddam Hussein has been banned. Iraq has meanwhile seen two elections where political parties and groups have fought in a democratic spirit, although such parties and alliances have been formed primarily on the basis of the country's religious and ethnic basis, thus strengthening these divides. When the first of the two elections was held in 2005, the voters came out and voted with a lot of hopes and aspirations. Nevertheless, it took three months for a government to be formed, bringing to the surface the extreme difficulties of forging alliances in a country as deeply divided as Iraq.
This time, the follow up on the elections has been more disappointing. The elections were held in March. The Iraqi National Alliance led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi won 91 seats; the State of Law Coalition led by incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won 89 seats; the National Iraqi alliance 70 and the Kurdish alliance 40 seats in a parliament of 325 seats. The alliances have been negotiating for the last five months and they are nowhere near forming a Government. The US that had hoped to hand over combat operations to Iraqi security forces under a new Government must be deeply disappointed. President Obama's statement that the 50,000 troops who would remain in Iraq till the end of 2011--for what he described as training and support jobs--has now been qualified. A Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell said in Washington after the President's announcement that the non-combat troops would be armed and ready for combat operations in case of necessity.
The time of exit nevertheless has been a favourable one for the US President. After the surge of 2007 when under President Bush, combat troops were substantially enhanced; insurgency has been to a great extent controlled. These days, insurgency being witnessed has been described as a low grade insurgency that the US feels could be controlled by the over 500,000 Iraqi security forces trained by the US forces. There is also discussion to bring combat troops from the Arab countries to fill the gap to be left by the departing US combat troops.
Some of these facts suggest that although political situation has improved considerably in Iraq under 7 years of US occupation, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” to take a quote out of Hamlet. Iraq watchers are keeping their fingers crossed to find out whether insurgency would be contained after the US withdraws from combat operations. There are many who would argue that the US combat troops have been able to bring down insurgency only in specific areas of the country. They feel insurgency would flare up once the US combat troops withdraw.
Those who fear the worst in Iraq once Iraqi security forces take control argue that Iraq's deep-rooted ethnic and religious divides create the natural conditions for conflict. They feel that the US by its presence in the country for long 7 years has not been able to blunt in any way these differences. In fact, they argue that the occupation has enhanced these differences and once US withdraws, these divides would lead to dangerous and sectarian conflicts. They further argue that Iraq has never been a nation state and strong dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein have kept it as an independent country.
The Obama administration may have sensed these problems and thought it's prudent to leave Iraq's security to Iraqis and till final withdrawal, watch how Iraqis fend for themselves without losing any more lives. This may be also a reason why he has refrained from claiming victory. Iraq may be on course to prove what some people have said earlier that Iraq's religious and ethnic divides create the conditions for a strong dictatorial government where democracy may not be the right prescription till elements of Iraqi nationalism emerge and consolidate. That is a long distance away by any count. The future of “Operation New Dawn” as the US has named the new phase is therefore, uncertain.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Serajul Islam
US President Barak Obama made a historical statement on 2nd August. He announced that the US combat operations in Iraq would be over by August 31st that would end US's 7 years war in Iraq. His predecessor had signed an agreement with the Iraqi government that all US troops would come back by end of 2011. The incumbent President had penned an addition to that agreement that US would bring back all combat troops by 31st August of this year. Under that agreement 50,000 non-combat troops would remain in Iraq to train and assist Iraqi security forces and the rest of the 1,40,000 US troops, all involved in combat, would return home.
The subdued response in the United States to a historical decision to end combat operations and effectively US's war in Iraq is somewhat surprising. It reflects the fact that the troops are not returning home with victory won decisively. In fact, there are many who would question if a victory has been won at all. President Bush had gone to Iraq on flawed and manipulated intelligence. In the beginning, the rationale was destroying Weapons of Mass Destruction WMD in Iraq. When that was established as a lie as Iraq did not have any WMD, getting rid of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein or regime change became the new rationale. When that too was achieved, the US found itself mired in fighting insurgency where the major ethnic/religious groups were fighting one another and extremists and fundamentalists, fighting the US occupation force. The US named this third phase as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” as a reason to occupy Iraq.
President Bush who had declared “mission accomplished” within seven months of the war in December 2003 on board an US aircraft carrier soon regretted his mistake as Iraq went up in flames where death and destruction became a routine matter with insurgency everywhere in the country. Till the time of President Obama's announcement on withdrawal of troops, 4,400 US men and women in uniform gave their lives for achieving the changing rationales of the war. Many times more than that number, in fact running into hundreds of thousand, innocent Iraqi men, women and children have also died in what has been insensitively described in the media as “collateral damage”.
It is just not these deaths that have made US's involvement in Iraq a questionable one; the amount of money spent in Iraq by the United States is also mind-boggling. According to a Congress Budget office report in January 2008, the Congress wrote checks worth US$ 691 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and such related activities as Iraq reconstruction. The misfortunes of poverty, disease and denial of minimum conditions of life for billions in Africa and Asia would have become history if the US had spent even a part of that money there instead of Iraq.
It is true that Saddam Hussein has been tried and hanged; his entire gang of close associates have also been likewise brought to face the law and many have been executed. The Baath party of Saddam Hussein has been banned. Iraq has meanwhile seen two elections where political parties and groups have fought in a democratic spirit, although such parties and alliances have been formed primarily on the basis of the country's religious and ethnic basis, thus strengthening these divides. When the first of the two elections was held in 2005, the voters came out and voted with a lot of hopes and aspirations. Nevertheless, it took three months for a government to be formed, bringing to the surface the extreme difficulties of forging alliances in a country as deeply divided as Iraq.
This time, the follow up on the elections has been more disappointing. The elections were held in March. The Iraqi National Alliance led by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi won 91 seats; the State of Law Coalition led by incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki won 89 seats; the National Iraqi alliance 70 and the Kurdish alliance 40 seats in a parliament of 325 seats. The alliances have been negotiating for the last five months and they are nowhere near forming a Government. The US that had hoped to hand over combat operations to Iraqi security forces under a new Government must be deeply disappointed. President Obama's statement that the 50,000 troops who would remain in Iraq till the end of 2011--for what he described as training and support jobs--has now been qualified. A Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morell said in Washington after the President's announcement that the non-combat troops would be armed and ready for combat operations in case of necessity.
The time of exit nevertheless has been a favourable one for the US President. After the surge of 2007 when under President Bush, combat troops were substantially enhanced; insurgency has been to a great extent controlled. These days, insurgency being witnessed has been described as a low grade insurgency that the US feels could be controlled by the over 500,000 Iraqi security forces trained by the US forces. There is also discussion to bring combat troops from the Arab countries to fill the gap to be left by the departing US combat troops.
Some of these facts suggest that although political situation has improved considerably in Iraq under 7 years of US occupation, “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” to take a quote out of Hamlet. Iraq watchers are keeping their fingers crossed to find out whether insurgency would be contained after the US withdraws from combat operations. There are many who would argue that the US combat troops have been able to bring down insurgency only in specific areas of the country. They feel insurgency would flare up once the US combat troops withdraw.
Those who fear the worst in Iraq once Iraqi security forces take control argue that Iraq's deep-rooted ethnic and religious divides create the natural conditions for conflict. They feel that the US by its presence in the country for long 7 years has not been able to blunt in any way these differences. In fact, they argue that the occupation has enhanced these differences and once US withdraws, these divides would lead to dangerous and sectarian conflicts. They further argue that Iraq has never been a nation state and strong dictatorships like that of Saddam Hussein have kept it as an independent country.
The Obama administration may have sensed these problems and thought it's prudent to leave Iraq's security to Iraqis and till final withdrawal, watch how Iraqis fend for themselves without losing any more lives. This may be also a reason why he has refrained from claiming victory. Iraq may be on course to prove what some people have said earlier that Iraq's religious and ethnic divides create the conditions for a strong dictatorial government where democracy may not be the right prescription till elements of Iraqi nationalism emerge and consolidate. That is a long distance away by any count. The future of “Operation New Dawn” as the US has named the new phase is therefore, uncertain.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Govt’s knee-jerk reaction to traffic problem
The Independent,
Post Editorial
Sunday, 22 August 2010 00:07
Author / Source : M. Serajul Islam
E-mail Print PDF
The Government's sudden decision to close down the schools during Ramzan is a classical example of a knee-jerk reaction to a very serious problem. Obviously, it was the result of some wise men in the Government waking up suddenly to offer solution to Dhaka's unbearable traffic congestion knowing that the Prime Minister is upset and angry over it. The only problem in such knee-jerk reaction is that government does not work that way, or the traffic. Like all previous initiatives of the authorities to tackle Dhaka's traffic problems, and there have been quite a good number, this latest knee-jerk reaction will also have only a small effect to Dhaka's traffic woes that have crossed the limits. In fact, I have found very little respite to my own owes on the road after the decision of the Government to close all schools for Ramzan. Area wise, this may have some positive effect, like in Dhanmandi which has become a hub of schools/clinics/shopping malls and cannot any longer be called a Residential Area. I reside in Gulshan and I travel to Motijheel every day. My travel time to and back from Motijheel has increased after the latest decision of the authorities to manage traffic. Strangely, after every effort of the government to ease traffic, traffic problems have aggravated. Every day, I pass the new connecting road from Tejgoan to the VIP Road near old Rangs Bhavan that was supposed to ease traffic. However, thanks to the new road, I have to spend 5 minutes each way to Motijheel and back for letting traffic move into this new road and out of it into the Tejgoan Road.
One cannot blame the authorities for not trying to tackle Dhaka's traffic problems. Very recently, the Prime Minister expressed her serious concern about Dhaka's worsening traffic problems at a Cabinet Meeting. This was also not the first time she has shown such concern. Initiatives after initiatives have been taken by this government since it came to office. While such initiatives have grown in arithmetical progression; the problems have grown in geometrical progression. One reason for this is the fact that the authorities have themselves contributed to aggravate traffic problems. Gulshan is as an example where certain authorities of the government are creating problems much faster than other authorities trying to resolve traffic problems. It is just a matter of time before Gulshan Avenue is declared unfit for traffic. The mindless and senseless permission being given by Rajuk for building multi-storied buildings on the Avenue that will house big corporate businesses, shopping malls, hotels and what not will increase manifold the already totally unmanageable traffic on the avenue. After these new businesses start their operations, the fate of the Avenue will be beyond reprieve. One does not need a crystal ball or to be a traffic management expert to predict the impending disaster awaiting Gulshan Avenue.
There is another strange aspect to the Gulshan Avenue that should amaze the readers. When traffic is of such nature on the avenue where the residents fear going out into the road more than they fear going into a rat infested room, the police authorities of all have thought it prudent to build at the southern tip of the avenue a mega shopping plaza. It is just not the traffic aspect of this plaza that should worry any sensible person, the fact that it is being built on what is no doubt part of Dhaka's wet land is what makes this project unbelievable. Next door to the police plaza, the authorities have given permission to one of Dhaka's major departmental store chains to open a branch. The shooting club community centre is about to become another mega departmental store but with little parking facility except on the Gulshan Avenue. The result of these two structures when they are ready for business will be a nightmare for travelers between Gulshan Avenue and the city centre. They would have to pray to the Almighty to cross the deep jungle of traffic that the city authorities are about to "present" them shortly. The new road that is being built around the Hatirjheel may not be much help either.
The mindlessness and senselessness of the authorities in permitting high rises on the Gulshan Avenue has been their inability to comprehend, willingly or otherwise, the number of cars and vehicles these new businesses would bring to Gulshan Avenue's jungle of traffic. With the Police Plaza and the new departmental store yet to come into operation, it takes me sometimes 10 minutes to come a few hundred meters from Road number 4 to the Avenue because the headquarters of such big private institutions such as BRAC and Banglalink have already turned the lives of residents into a mess. Traffic from these businesses uses the Gulshan Avenue as their legitimate parking area! In fact, road numbers 1, part of 2 and the whole of 3 have been turned into "official" parking space for those who do business or work in the corporate houses on the southern tip of Gulshan Avenue. Recently, as I was waiting to get to the Gulshan Avenue, I could not check my anger that part of the delay in movement of the traffic was due to cars that had double parked at the mouth of Road Number 3 as it falls into the Avenue with a policeman standing near these offending cars. As traffic was not moving, I came out of my car and asked the policeman why he was ignoring such a criminal violation. He pointed me to a traffic sergeant who was nearby. When I went to talk to him, he just casually told me not to worry and things would be taken care of! I knew it would not be as there is a connivance there; a connivance of corruption. Recently, the municipality is improving roads 1, 2 and 3 of Gulshan. It will not serve traffic movement but will be of better use for illegal parking of cars and more income for the traffic police lucky to be posted there.
My banker was very supportive of the closure of schools during Ramzan not for sake of improving traffic but for the positive impact it will have on his family. He told me that his wife who fasts has been having a very difficult time coping up with fasting, praying and then having to get up early to take their son to school. She was practically not getting any sleep at all. The news of closure of schools came as a heaven sent gift to her. After all every cloud has a silver lining; only in case of the cloud called traffic of Dhaka, the silver lining is just too thin with more threatening clouds in the horizon!
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
Post Editorial
Sunday, 22 August 2010 00:07
Author / Source : M. Serajul Islam
E-mail Print PDF
The Government's sudden decision to close down the schools during Ramzan is a classical example of a knee-jerk reaction to a very serious problem. Obviously, it was the result of some wise men in the Government waking up suddenly to offer solution to Dhaka's unbearable traffic congestion knowing that the Prime Minister is upset and angry over it. The only problem in such knee-jerk reaction is that government does not work that way, or the traffic. Like all previous initiatives of the authorities to tackle Dhaka's traffic problems, and there have been quite a good number, this latest knee-jerk reaction will also have only a small effect to Dhaka's traffic woes that have crossed the limits. In fact, I have found very little respite to my own owes on the road after the decision of the Government to close all schools for Ramzan. Area wise, this may have some positive effect, like in Dhanmandi which has become a hub of schools/clinics/shopping malls and cannot any longer be called a Residential Area. I reside in Gulshan and I travel to Motijheel every day. My travel time to and back from Motijheel has increased after the latest decision of the authorities to manage traffic. Strangely, after every effort of the government to ease traffic, traffic problems have aggravated. Every day, I pass the new connecting road from Tejgoan to the VIP Road near old Rangs Bhavan that was supposed to ease traffic. However, thanks to the new road, I have to spend 5 minutes each way to Motijheel and back for letting traffic move into this new road and out of it into the Tejgoan Road.
One cannot blame the authorities for not trying to tackle Dhaka's traffic problems. Very recently, the Prime Minister expressed her serious concern about Dhaka's worsening traffic problems at a Cabinet Meeting. This was also not the first time she has shown such concern. Initiatives after initiatives have been taken by this government since it came to office. While such initiatives have grown in arithmetical progression; the problems have grown in geometrical progression. One reason for this is the fact that the authorities have themselves contributed to aggravate traffic problems. Gulshan is as an example where certain authorities of the government are creating problems much faster than other authorities trying to resolve traffic problems. It is just a matter of time before Gulshan Avenue is declared unfit for traffic. The mindless and senseless permission being given by Rajuk for building multi-storied buildings on the Avenue that will house big corporate businesses, shopping malls, hotels and what not will increase manifold the already totally unmanageable traffic on the avenue. After these new businesses start their operations, the fate of the Avenue will be beyond reprieve. One does not need a crystal ball or to be a traffic management expert to predict the impending disaster awaiting Gulshan Avenue.
There is another strange aspect to the Gulshan Avenue that should amaze the readers. When traffic is of such nature on the avenue where the residents fear going out into the road more than they fear going into a rat infested room, the police authorities of all have thought it prudent to build at the southern tip of the avenue a mega shopping plaza. It is just not the traffic aspect of this plaza that should worry any sensible person, the fact that it is being built on what is no doubt part of Dhaka's wet land is what makes this project unbelievable. Next door to the police plaza, the authorities have given permission to one of Dhaka's major departmental store chains to open a branch. The shooting club community centre is about to become another mega departmental store but with little parking facility except on the Gulshan Avenue. The result of these two structures when they are ready for business will be a nightmare for travelers between Gulshan Avenue and the city centre. They would have to pray to the Almighty to cross the deep jungle of traffic that the city authorities are about to "present" them shortly. The new road that is being built around the Hatirjheel may not be much help either.
The mindlessness and senselessness of the authorities in permitting high rises on the Gulshan Avenue has been their inability to comprehend, willingly or otherwise, the number of cars and vehicles these new businesses would bring to Gulshan Avenue's jungle of traffic. With the Police Plaza and the new departmental store yet to come into operation, it takes me sometimes 10 minutes to come a few hundred meters from Road number 4 to the Avenue because the headquarters of such big private institutions such as BRAC and Banglalink have already turned the lives of residents into a mess. Traffic from these businesses uses the Gulshan Avenue as their legitimate parking area! In fact, road numbers 1, part of 2 and the whole of 3 have been turned into "official" parking space for those who do business or work in the corporate houses on the southern tip of Gulshan Avenue. Recently, as I was waiting to get to the Gulshan Avenue, I could not check my anger that part of the delay in movement of the traffic was due to cars that had double parked at the mouth of Road Number 3 as it falls into the Avenue with a policeman standing near these offending cars. As traffic was not moving, I came out of my car and asked the policeman why he was ignoring such a criminal violation. He pointed me to a traffic sergeant who was nearby. When I went to talk to him, he just casually told me not to worry and things would be taken care of! I knew it would not be as there is a connivance there; a connivance of corruption. Recently, the municipality is improving roads 1, 2 and 3 of Gulshan. It will not serve traffic movement but will be of better use for illegal parking of cars and more income for the traffic police lucky to be posted there.
My banker was very supportive of the closure of schools during Ramzan not for sake of improving traffic but for the positive impact it will have on his family. He told me that his wife who fasts has been having a very difficult time coping up with fasting, praying and then having to get up early to take their son to school. She was practically not getting any sleep at all. The news of closure of schools came as a heaven sent gift to her. After all every cloud has a silver lining; only in case of the cloud called traffic of Dhaka, the silver lining is just too thin with more threatening clouds in the horizon!
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
Friday, August 20, 2010
President Obama backs mosque near Ground Zero
The Daily Star, 21st August, 2001
M. Serajul Islam
AT an event in the White House marking the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, President Obama defended the right of the Muslims to build a 13 storey cultural center and a mosque to be named Cordoba House at a stone's throw from Ground Zero. Ever since the news of this project became known, various groups and politicians have vehemently opposed the project. Sarah Palin called the project a stab in the heart of the families of the victims of 9/11. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich called the project “an assertion of Islamist triumphalism”. One protester's billboard read: “Islam builds mosque at site of their conquests.”
The US President gave his support for the project in the presence of US Congressmen, government officials and diplomats, stressing unequivocally that denying the project would contradict US' commitment to religious freedom. The President highlighted what the opponents of the project have avoided mentioning; that the project would in fact be a short distance away from the hallowed Ground Zero and on private land that is subject to local laws. The President further said that the United States welcomes people of all faith to live in the country and the law treats all religious groups as equal. Hence, he said, the project must have the green light of the concerned authorities just like any other project of any religious community in the USA.
The White House had initially hesitated getting involved in an extremely sensitive issue. It had left it to the local authority ever since a New York developer had announced plans for the project and controversy erupted over it immediately. Among the few notable politicians who did not oppose the project has been the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After its initial hesitation, President Obama backed the project with clear understanding of what the US stands for and the values it preaches in its contacts with the international community. He said America's religious tolerance sets it apart from “its enemies” and it is on the basis of that tolerance, the project must be given official approval.
There was one particular reference that made the President's support for the mosque at Ground Zero both refreshing and full of promise. To his audience at the White House, the President said, “Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam…It is a gross distortion of Islam”. In the days, months and years till President Bush left office, the US and its allies had lumped Al Qaeda, Islam and all the Muslims of the world into one; holding them responsible for the 3,000 deaths in the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children paid the price because the administration of George Bush felt that the followers of Islam must pay for the actions of few dozens of Al Qaeda. At the height of insensitivity, his administration called the death of these hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims as “collateral damage.” Looking back in retrospect into those days, one cannot but draw many unfortunate conclusions from President Bush's reference to the word “crusade” that he blurted out to the media in giving his first reaction on 9/11.
For years, it was not the Iraqis and the Afghans who were called day in and day out to answer for the crimes of Al Qaeda. The name “Mohammad” which millions of Muslim men all over the world use as their first name became a hassle for travelling to the USA and for those living in that country. Another first name “Abu” became equally suspect because a few of the 9/11 hijackers had “Abu” as their first name. Even kids were stopped at airports and questioned who had such a first name. Very few Muslims have travelled by air in the USA and to the country since 9/11 without fear of being put to security screening that made such travelling a nightmare. The sad aspect of facing such nightmares has been the fact that the Muslim world was deeply hurt and angered by the acts of 9/11. Many Muslim countries supported the US and allied attack of Afghanistan in pursuit of the Al Qaeda.
In June last year, President Obama had given his historic speech in Cairo extending US' hand of friendship to the Muslim world in an attempt to bridge the deep divide his predecessor had inserted between the West and Islam like he was following on Professor Huntington's prophecy of the clash of civilizations. In the early 1990s, this Harvard Political Scientist had evolved the thesis that in the post Cold War era, people's cultural and religious identities would be the primary source of conflict. Under President Bush, it looked all but inevitable that the clash of civilizations had begun; a clash that had the potentials of grave consequences for the world. With the presidency of President Obama, that doomsday prediction seems to have been averted. Most recently, he has kept his election pledge to end the US occupation of Iraq by handing Iraq back to the Iraqis. Although he has been forced to increase troops in Afghanistan, he had little option but to accept his Commander in Afghanistan General McCrystal's recommendation of fighting Taliban resurgence. Recently, he has sacked the General and replaced with General Petraeus who as Commanding General of Multi National Forces in Iraq, has been credited for turning the tide in that country. In Iran, the President has kept his promise to seek a solution on the nuclear issue through negotiations, in the process inching away from the preparations that were made by his predecessor for an armed intervention there.
President Obama is living up to the promises for which just not the USA but the world, particularly the Muslim world, had hoped he would win the election for the White House. On the Palestinian issue he has not yet lived up to the expectations of the Muslims. Nevertheless, they feel that he would do the right thing for settling the Palestinian cause eventually; namely ensure they are free and have a state with East Jerusalem as the capital. For the moment, his firm stand on the mosque on Ground Zero has assured Muslims that under his watch, they can hope to receive fair treatment and not victimized simply for being a Muslim.
The President's support has come when elections to the Congress are due in three months and the Democrats are in a tight corner. He has thus placed ethics and principles ahead of politics that not enhances his credibility to the Muslims only but also his stature as a statesman to the rest of the world.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign
M. Serajul Islam
AT an event in the White House marking the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, President Obama defended the right of the Muslims to build a 13 storey cultural center and a mosque to be named Cordoba House at a stone's throw from Ground Zero. Ever since the news of this project became known, various groups and politicians have vehemently opposed the project. Sarah Palin called the project a stab in the heart of the families of the victims of 9/11. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich called the project “an assertion of Islamist triumphalism”. One protester's billboard read: “Islam builds mosque at site of their conquests.”
The US President gave his support for the project in the presence of US Congressmen, government officials and diplomats, stressing unequivocally that denying the project would contradict US' commitment to religious freedom. The President highlighted what the opponents of the project have avoided mentioning; that the project would in fact be a short distance away from the hallowed Ground Zero and on private land that is subject to local laws. The President further said that the United States welcomes people of all faith to live in the country and the law treats all religious groups as equal. Hence, he said, the project must have the green light of the concerned authorities just like any other project of any religious community in the USA.
The White House had initially hesitated getting involved in an extremely sensitive issue. It had left it to the local authority ever since a New York developer had announced plans for the project and controversy erupted over it immediately. Among the few notable politicians who did not oppose the project has been the New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After its initial hesitation, President Obama backed the project with clear understanding of what the US stands for and the values it preaches in its contacts with the international community. He said America's religious tolerance sets it apart from “its enemies” and it is on the basis of that tolerance, the project must be given official approval.
There was one particular reference that made the President's support for the mosque at Ground Zero both refreshing and full of promise. To his audience at the White House, the President said, “Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam…It is a gross distortion of Islam”. In the days, months and years till President Bush left office, the US and its allies had lumped Al Qaeda, Islam and all the Muslims of the world into one; holding them responsible for the 3,000 deaths in the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. In Afghanistan and Iraq, thousands of innocent Muslim men, women and children paid the price because the administration of George Bush felt that the followers of Islam must pay for the actions of few dozens of Al Qaeda. At the height of insensitivity, his administration called the death of these hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims as “collateral damage.” Looking back in retrospect into those days, one cannot but draw many unfortunate conclusions from President Bush's reference to the word “crusade” that he blurted out to the media in giving his first reaction on 9/11.
For years, it was not the Iraqis and the Afghans who were called day in and day out to answer for the crimes of Al Qaeda. The name “Mohammad” which millions of Muslim men all over the world use as their first name became a hassle for travelling to the USA and for those living in that country. Another first name “Abu” became equally suspect because a few of the 9/11 hijackers had “Abu” as their first name. Even kids were stopped at airports and questioned who had such a first name. Very few Muslims have travelled by air in the USA and to the country since 9/11 without fear of being put to security screening that made such travelling a nightmare. The sad aspect of facing such nightmares has been the fact that the Muslim world was deeply hurt and angered by the acts of 9/11. Many Muslim countries supported the US and allied attack of Afghanistan in pursuit of the Al Qaeda.
In June last year, President Obama had given his historic speech in Cairo extending US' hand of friendship to the Muslim world in an attempt to bridge the deep divide his predecessor had inserted between the West and Islam like he was following on Professor Huntington's prophecy of the clash of civilizations. In the early 1990s, this Harvard Political Scientist had evolved the thesis that in the post Cold War era, people's cultural and religious identities would be the primary source of conflict. Under President Bush, it looked all but inevitable that the clash of civilizations had begun; a clash that had the potentials of grave consequences for the world. With the presidency of President Obama, that doomsday prediction seems to have been averted. Most recently, he has kept his election pledge to end the US occupation of Iraq by handing Iraq back to the Iraqis. Although he has been forced to increase troops in Afghanistan, he had little option but to accept his Commander in Afghanistan General McCrystal's recommendation of fighting Taliban resurgence. Recently, he has sacked the General and replaced with General Petraeus who as Commanding General of Multi National Forces in Iraq, has been credited for turning the tide in that country. In Iran, the President has kept his promise to seek a solution on the nuclear issue through negotiations, in the process inching away from the preparations that were made by his predecessor for an armed intervention there.
President Obama is living up to the promises for which just not the USA but the world, particularly the Muslim world, had hoped he would win the election for the White House. On the Palestinian issue he has not yet lived up to the expectations of the Muslims. Nevertheless, they feel that he would do the right thing for settling the Palestinian cause eventually; namely ensure they are free and have a state with East Jerusalem as the capital. For the moment, his firm stand on the mosque on Ground Zero has assured Muslims that under his watch, they can hope to receive fair treatment and not victimized simply for being a Muslim.
The President's support has come when elections to the Congress are due in three months and the Democrats are in a tight corner. He has thus placed ethics and principles ahead of politics that not enhances his credibility to the Muslims only but also his stature as a statesman to the rest of the world.
The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign
My Foreign Service Years: MY High Commissioners
The Independent
Friday, 20 August 2010 22:42
Author / Source : M. Serajul Islam
An Ambassador's role in an Embassy has no parallel in terms of authority and power. A colleague from a western Embassy had told me how he and his wife had to wait in the kitchen, all dressed up, as stand-by in case any of the guests at the sit-down dinner of his Ambassador failed to turn up at the eleventh hour! In our service too, many junior diplomats were scared out of their wits in trying to please the Ambassador. There was an Ambassador of the old vintage who expected his officers to arrive for dinner at the appointed time, not a minute early and not definitely a minute late. His officers with their wives used to arrive ahead of time and wait at the door or around the corner of the road so that they could knock the door at the appointed time. Times have changed and we have diluted the role of the Ambassador where he is these days just a senior officer in a Bangladesh Embassy.
My posting in Canberra was made pleasant because I was lucky to have two High Commissioners whom I respected very much. Air-Vice Marshal (Rtd) AK Khandker was my High Commissioner for the first two years and Harun ur Rashid for a year. When I arrived in Canberra, AK Khandker was already in the post for close to five years. He was well respected in the diplomatic community and had also very good contacts with the senior officials of the host government. As it was my first posting, I was not very conscious of the feeling among professional diplomats about non-career Ambassadors. Later as I gained more experience in working in an Embassy and made friends with diplomats from other countries, I came to know that the career diplomats tend to think that non-career diplomats do not make good Ambassadors except in exceptional cases.
Those days, we used to talk about a Pakistani Ambassador who was not a career diplomat but whose performance exceeded those of his colleagues who were from the Foreign Service career. The Ambassador was Jamsed Marker who was once also a legendary test cricket commentator. Jamshed Marker has gone into the Guinness Book of Records for being Ambassador to more countries than any other person. As Pakistan's Ambassador to Washington, he is reported to have negotiated the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was also Ambassador to France and Soviet Union and Permanent Representative to New York.
I served AK Khandker again for 3 years in New Delhi. I would not hesitate to say that he was better than many career Ambassadors of his time. In Banagladesh, a percentage of Ambassadors and High Commissioners are appointed from outside the Foreign Service cadre following a practice present in most countries. Such Ambassadors are generally referred to as politically appointed Ambassadors. The USA practices this as a policy where 31 per cent Ambassadors during President Clinton presidency were politically appointed; 36 per cent during President Bush's tenure and under President Obama it is in between. In the 1980s, when the power of the military was limitless, a good number of serving Generals were given posts of Ambassadors in Bangladesh under a formula that 25 per cent of posts of Ambassadors would be from outside the Foreign Service cadre, including the army generals, secretaries to the Government and important people in public life.
Recently, I was exchanging views on this issue with a colleague who served as a Foreign Secretary after the return of democracy in 1991. One day in office, he received a letter from the Army Chief informing him that the Prime Minister had desired that eight Generals in the list he attached should be posted as Ambassadors from the so-called quota for non-career Ambassadors. The Foreign Secretary talked with the General over phone immediately on receiving his letter and asked him to withdraw it, because first, there was no such quota and second, it was not his decision to appoint Ambassadors. The Foreign Secretary told the General that if the letter was not withdrawn within the day, he would have to send it to the Prime Minister's office. Much before the day was over, the letter was withdrawn. There is a postscript to this episode. Eventually only one in the list made it to an Ambassador and it was the General himself.
AK Khandker was however not a politically appointed Ambassador. After 15th August 1975, his services were paced from the Defense Services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and he was inducted into the Bangladesh Foreign Service cadre together with General Shafiullah. In Canberra, he became the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, a position that goes by seniority among the Ambassadors in terms of length of stay in the post. During his tenure as Dean, AK Khandker hosted the Prince of Wales to a lunch given in his honour by the diplomatic corps. In New Delhi where I was posted in 1983, a year after AK Khandker had been posted there as High Commissioner, I found the Indians treating him with a lot of respect. It was his polite nature that endeared him to the hosts. The fact that he was also a freedom fighter and the Deputy Commander of the Mukhti Bahini also enhanced his position in New Delhi. A senior official in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs once had told me that they were careful to ensure that whenever they called him to the External Affairs Ministry; it had to be the Foreign Secretary who would receive him. In fact, in a capital where Ambassadors and High Commissioners were then, and I believe still now, called to the External Affairs Ministry at the level of the Joint Secretary regularly, this was something exceptional. It is not that AK Khandker was not called below the level of the Foreign Secretary but when that happened, the Ministry would explain that the Foreign Secretary was either not in town or busy in some other important event.
Harun ur Rashid was appointed as High Commissioner from his post as Ambassador in Nepal. He had joined the Pakistan Foreign Ministry as a Deputy Legal Adviser and in Bangladesh, he was the Legal Adviser. Subsequently when the BCS (FA) cadre was constituted, he was taken in as a lateral entrant into Bangladesh Foreign Service. As a High Commissioner, Harun ur Rashid was very caring and although I was then a Second Secretary, he never made me feel the difference and treated me with affection. I remember many advice he gave me at that time that helped me later in my career. Those days, the Ministry used to value political reports on the host country a great deal. I was however not fully convinced about the value of such reports. In fact my colleague in Canberra Hosne Ara Karim met a western diplomat in his office and wanted to know what type of political reports he wrote for his Foreign Ministry. The diplomat replied that nothing called political reports were written in his Embassy but all officers were on a continuous basis sending status reports on issues of interests to their government that were factual and analytical and short. In our situation those days, missions were sending regularly long, often boring reports that no one really read but nevertheless writing such reports used to take away a lot of the time out of a diplomat's work in the Embassy.
I discussed my reservations about political reports with my High Commissioner. He told me not to worry myself about who was reading or not reading my reports and that I should go on writing political reports for one simple reason. It will keep my name from being lost in the memory of those the Ministry who determine my fate and those of others in the Missions. By hindsight, I think he was correct and although most reports went to the files, the good ones were read and helped an officer make a mark in Foreign Service and helped his/her career prospects. Those days, the High Commissioner and I used to share the topics and write political reports very regularly. The Director for the Pacific Region those days in the Foreign Ministry was Dr. Iftikhar Chowdhury who later became the Adviser in Fakhruddin Ahmed's Caretaker Government. As he had done his PhD from Canberra's ANU and thus lived in Australia, he read my reports and would mark some of those to the Foreign Secretary.
Not long after arriving in the post, Harun ur Rashid was recommended by his doctor for a heart by-pass operation, quite a rarity those days. He had the operation in Sydney. Hosne Ara Karim and I were by his side when he had the operation. I was impressed by the calm manner in which he faced the operation. I still remember him cracking jokes right up to the moment he was wheeled to the operation theater. The High Commissioner recovered fast and was settling down in his job. I had also by then received my transfer order to New Delhi, having been promoted to a First Secretary shortly before the transfer. One day not long before my departure, I decoded a cypher and I did not know how to place it before the High Commissioner. He had been transferred to Manila although by then he had not completed a year in the post.He had to make way for General Dastgir who wanted to be cross posted to Canberra from Saudi Arabia. It was one of those things that happened those days; the Generals had their ways in the Foreign Ministry in whatever way they wanted. When I placed the message before the High Commissioner, he showed little emotions although I knew that it was a very bad news for him given the fact he was recovering from an open heart surgery and he was being transferred prematurely so that a General had his wish.
I left Canberra before Ambassador Harun ur Rashid to join my post in New Delhi where AK Khandker was the High Commissioner. It is good to see both still very active in public life. AK Khandker is the Planning Minister in the present Government. Harun ur Rashid is now a well-known columnist.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and has a blog http://ambassadorseraj.blogspot.com/)
* Most Viewed
* Best Rated
* Short Takes
* Public university VCs set to get gunmen
* Markets on edge ahead of jobs as wheat soars
* BP to discuss CEO Hayward's exit on Monday
* Yen gains, Asian stocks slide on growing uncertainty
* Chelsea 'agree £18m Ramires fee'
* Briton wins Australian squash title
* Destroying a comet
* Bangladesh world’s fourth largest garment exporter
* Mexican mayor found dead 3 days after kidnapping
* Helps Osteoarthritis Patients Lead Active
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 2
* Idealistic parenting versus Conscious Parenting
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 1
* Let’s talk about abortion
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 1
Friday, 20 August 2010 22:42
Author / Source : M. Serajul Islam
An Ambassador's role in an Embassy has no parallel in terms of authority and power. A colleague from a western Embassy had told me how he and his wife had to wait in the kitchen, all dressed up, as stand-by in case any of the guests at the sit-down dinner of his Ambassador failed to turn up at the eleventh hour! In our service too, many junior diplomats were scared out of their wits in trying to please the Ambassador. There was an Ambassador of the old vintage who expected his officers to arrive for dinner at the appointed time, not a minute early and not definitely a minute late. His officers with their wives used to arrive ahead of time and wait at the door or around the corner of the road so that they could knock the door at the appointed time. Times have changed and we have diluted the role of the Ambassador where he is these days just a senior officer in a Bangladesh Embassy.
My posting in Canberra was made pleasant because I was lucky to have two High Commissioners whom I respected very much. Air-Vice Marshal (Rtd) AK Khandker was my High Commissioner for the first two years and Harun ur Rashid for a year. When I arrived in Canberra, AK Khandker was already in the post for close to five years. He was well respected in the diplomatic community and had also very good contacts with the senior officials of the host government. As it was my first posting, I was not very conscious of the feeling among professional diplomats about non-career Ambassadors. Later as I gained more experience in working in an Embassy and made friends with diplomats from other countries, I came to know that the career diplomats tend to think that non-career diplomats do not make good Ambassadors except in exceptional cases.
Those days, we used to talk about a Pakistani Ambassador who was not a career diplomat but whose performance exceeded those of his colleagues who were from the Foreign Service career. The Ambassador was Jamsed Marker who was once also a legendary test cricket commentator. Jamshed Marker has gone into the Guinness Book of Records for being Ambassador to more countries than any other person. As Pakistan's Ambassador to Washington, he is reported to have negotiated the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was also Ambassador to France and Soviet Union and Permanent Representative to New York.
I served AK Khandker again for 3 years in New Delhi. I would not hesitate to say that he was better than many career Ambassadors of his time. In Banagladesh, a percentage of Ambassadors and High Commissioners are appointed from outside the Foreign Service cadre following a practice present in most countries. Such Ambassadors are generally referred to as politically appointed Ambassadors. The USA practices this as a policy where 31 per cent Ambassadors during President Clinton presidency were politically appointed; 36 per cent during President Bush's tenure and under President Obama it is in between. In the 1980s, when the power of the military was limitless, a good number of serving Generals were given posts of Ambassadors in Bangladesh under a formula that 25 per cent of posts of Ambassadors would be from outside the Foreign Service cadre, including the army generals, secretaries to the Government and important people in public life.
Recently, I was exchanging views on this issue with a colleague who served as a Foreign Secretary after the return of democracy in 1991. One day in office, he received a letter from the Army Chief informing him that the Prime Minister had desired that eight Generals in the list he attached should be posted as Ambassadors from the so-called quota for non-career Ambassadors. The Foreign Secretary talked with the General over phone immediately on receiving his letter and asked him to withdraw it, because first, there was no such quota and second, it was not his decision to appoint Ambassadors. The Foreign Secretary told the General that if the letter was not withdrawn within the day, he would have to send it to the Prime Minister's office. Much before the day was over, the letter was withdrawn. There is a postscript to this episode. Eventually only one in the list made it to an Ambassador and it was the General himself.
AK Khandker was however not a politically appointed Ambassador. After 15th August 1975, his services were paced from the Defense Services to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and he was inducted into the Bangladesh Foreign Service cadre together with General Shafiullah. In Canberra, he became the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, a position that goes by seniority among the Ambassadors in terms of length of stay in the post. During his tenure as Dean, AK Khandker hosted the Prince of Wales to a lunch given in his honour by the diplomatic corps. In New Delhi where I was posted in 1983, a year after AK Khandker had been posted there as High Commissioner, I found the Indians treating him with a lot of respect. It was his polite nature that endeared him to the hosts. The fact that he was also a freedom fighter and the Deputy Commander of the Mukhti Bahini also enhanced his position in New Delhi. A senior official in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs once had told me that they were careful to ensure that whenever they called him to the External Affairs Ministry; it had to be the Foreign Secretary who would receive him. In fact, in a capital where Ambassadors and High Commissioners were then, and I believe still now, called to the External Affairs Ministry at the level of the Joint Secretary regularly, this was something exceptional. It is not that AK Khandker was not called below the level of the Foreign Secretary but when that happened, the Ministry would explain that the Foreign Secretary was either not in town or busy in some other important event.
Harun ur Rashid was appointed as High Commissioner from his post as Ambassador in Nepal. He had joined the Pakistan Foreign Ministry as a Deputy Legal Adviser and in Bangladesh, he was the Legal Adviser. Subsequently when the BCS (FA) cadre was constituted, he was taken in as a lateral entrant into Bangladesh Foreign Service. As a High Commissioner, Harun ur Rashid was very caring and although I was then a Second Secretary, he never made me feel the difference and treated me with affection. I remember many advice he gave me at that time that helped me later in my career. Those days, the Ministry used to value political reports on the host country a great deal. I was however not fully convinced about the value of such reports. In fact my colleague in Canberra Hosne Ara Karim met a western diplomat in his office and wanted to know what type of political reports he wrote for his Foreign Ministry. The diplomat replied that nothing called political reports were written in his Embassy but all officers were on a continuous basis sending status reports on issues of interests to their government that were factual and analytical and short. In our situation those days, missions were sending regularly long, often boring reports that no one really read but nevertheless writing such reports used to take away a lot of the time out of a diplomat's work in the Embassy.
I discussed my reservations about political reports with my High Commissioner. He told me not to worry myself about who was reading or not reading my reports and that I should go on writing political reports for one simple reason. It will keep my name from being lost in the memory of those the Ministry who determine my fate and those of others in the Missions. By hindsight, I think he was correct and although most reports went to the files, the good ones were read and helped an officer make a mark in Foreign Service and helped his/her career prospects. Those days, the High Commissioner and I used to share the topics and write political reports very regularly. The Director for the Pacific Region those days in the Foreign Ministry was Dr. Iftikhar Chowdhury who later became the Adviser in Fakhruddin Ahmed's Caretaker Government. As he had done his PhD from Canberra's ANU and thus lived in Australia, he read my reports and would mark some of those to the Foreign Secretary.
Not long after arriving in the post, Harun ur Rashid was recommended by his doctor for a heart by-pass operation, quite a rarity those days. He had the operation in Sydney. Hosne Ara Karim and I were by his side when he had the operation. I was impressed by the calm manner in which he faced the operation. I still remember him cracking jokes right up to the moment he was wheeled to the operation theater. The High Commissioner recovered fast and was settling down in his job. I had also by then received my transfer order to New Delhi, having been promoted to a First Secretary shortly before the transfer. One day not long before my departure, I decoded a cypher and I did not know how to place it before the High Commissioner. He had been transferred to Manila although by then he had not completed a year in the post.He had to make way for General Dastgir who wanted to be cross posted to Canberra from Saudi Arabia. It was one of those things that happened those days; the Generals had their ways in the Foreign Ministry in whatever way they wanted. When I placed the message before the High Commissioner, he showed little emotions although I knew that it was a very bad news for him given the fact he was recovering from an open heart surgery and he was being transferred prematurely so that a General had his wish.
I left Canberra before Ambassador Harun ur Rashid to join my post in New Delhi where AK Khandker was the High Commissioner. It is good to see both still very active in public life. AK Khandker is the Planning Minister in the present Government. Harun ur Rashid is now a well-known columnist.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and has a blog http://ambassadorseraj.blogspot.com/)
* Most Viewed
* Best Rated
* Short Takes
* Public university VCs set to get gunmen
* Markets on edge ahead of jobs as wheat soars
* BP to discuss CEO Hayward's exit on Monday
* Yen gains, Asian stocks slide on growing uncertainty
* Chelsea 'agree £18m Ramires fee'
* Briton wins Australian squash title
* Destroying a comet
* Bangladesh world’s fourth largest garment exporter
* Mexican mayor found dead 3 days after kidnapping
* Helps Osteoarthritis Patients Lead Active
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 2
* Idealistic parenting versus Conscious Parenting
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 1
* Let’s talk about abortion
Avg. rating -5
No. of votes - 1
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Beyond time to say good-bye to vandalism
Published in The Independent, August 19th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
The tendency by various groups to take law into their hands and vandalise vehicles and private property at will for achieving their demands is spreading dangerously. In such acts, the workers in the garment factories and the students in the universities are behaving in the same way in breaking someone else's property in publicly expressed sadistic acts that do not achieve the desired results for the perpetrators but harm innocent people and in case of the RMG sector, the economy of the country. Acts of violence by the public by taking law into their hands is not an unknown phenomenon in other countries. Sometimes such acts are also accompanied by looting. In countries that have a control over law and order, as majority of the countries have, public vandalism is quelled quickly and the perpetrators and abettors are brought to face the law.
Bangladesh, however, is exceptional in acts of public vandalism for a few reasons. First, such acts in Bangladesh are not motivated by looting and have started historically by active encouragement of the political parties to fight oppressive, undemocratic governments under the principle that end justifies the means. Second, the political parties have encouraged such acts even when governments have been elected democratically. The party that failed to win power in an election placed the elected government on the same footing as an undemocratic government to encourage the public to force it down. The aberrations of extra-constitutional governments only enforced the argument that a government perceived to be in power illegally had to be forced out by any means. In the post-1971 period, public vandalism became more destructive when attack on private cars, buses and other vehicles was added as a strategy to bring the government down by force, both elected and extra constitutional. It is because of the nexus between vandalism and politics that has made it so difficult to tackle this menace in Bangladesh or bring the perpetrators to face the law.
Public vandalism has become a major issue of concern of the government and the country because it is now being carried out in a sector that is extremely important for Bangladesh's economic survival. It is the RMG sector's success that has given Bangladesh the hope that it could eventually make sense to its potentials and bring the country out of its tryst with poverty. Uninterrupted public vandalism in the RMG factories is now threatening not just the RMG sector but the country's economy as well. The pointing of fingers by the AL notwithstanding, the opposition BNP is today also concerned with the growing public vandalism in the RMG sector. Despite there being very good reasons for grievances of the RMG workers over pay that has caused the latest round of vandalism, there is no reason at all for the workers to carry out the rampage as they have over the latest increase in pay. The Government has shown its goodwill to back the RMG workers that has more than doubled their minimum pay to Taka three thousand although it has fallen short of the Taka 5000 they have demanded.
There is an eerie similarity in vandalism carried by the RMG workers and those being carried out by other groups in the country to force the authorities to meet their demands like the students of Chittagong University who vandalised over a slight raise in tuition fees. Hartal activists vandalise property in the same manner. It is difficult to believe that the garment workers or students or any group would be able to carry out such perverse acts on their own in such a destructive and systematic manner as being witnessed in the current public vandalising in Bangladesh. There is often accusation from the government about foreign hands in addition to encouragement from opposition parties in vandalising in the RMG sector. So far nothing has emerged from such finger pointing except unproven accusations. Although the BCL has in recent times taken part in public vandalism in a major way, it would also not be correct to assume that such acts have any political encouragement. In fact, the ruling party has publicly disowned the BCL for such acts.
There is therefore reason to believe that many decades of indulgence given by the political parties to public vandalism has created a cadre of agent provocateurs who have now become "free agents" as they no longer have sponsorship from political parties who are now giving leadership to the current surge of public vandalism wherever the opportunity arises, including the RMG sector.
The media has been responsible for exposing the criminality in public vandalism and its danger to the economy in the context of the RMG sector. The exposure has now convinced the public that there is nothing but perverse criminality in public vandalism forcing the political parties also to see these acts in the same way. The reflection of this is now clear in the stand taken by the Government to deal with public vandalism firmly. The opposition is also is in no mood to back public vandalism anymore knowing that they would only incur public displeasure and wrath for supporting or encouraging it. It is thus now up to the law enforcing agencies to do the rest and end this menace before it takes the nation down. It is beyond time to trace out the agent provocateurs and bring them to face the long arm of the law.
The way to go about tackling this menace should not be difficult, given the fact that the public mood is dead against it and the political parties have distanced themselves from such evil acts. The law enforcing agencies now have to draw the line and deal with public vandalism as essentially a law and order situation of grave national significance. It would be very easy to catch the miscreants, the agent provocateurs, involved these days in public vandalism because of the private TV channels catch them in their cameras while committing their heinous crimes. Once they are caught, they should be put on a fast track for trial and punishment to send an unequivocal message that the government is not going to let such acts of sadism be tolerated anymore. In dealing with these acts, the law should make no difference whether the people involved are garment workers or students and definitely not about their party affiliations, if they have any. The law should treat the perpetrators of public vandalism as criminals of the lowest type because they target, one, people who are innocent and give the perpetrators no reason for their dastardly acts, and second, as is in the case of the RMG sector, threaten the backbone of the country's economy.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
M. Serajul Islam
The tendency by various groups to take law into their hands and vandalise vehicles and private property at will for achieving their demands is spreading dangerously. In such acts, the workers in the garment factories and the students in the universities are behaving in the same way in breaking someone else's property in publicly expressed sadistic acts that do not achieve the desired results for the perpetrators but harm innocent people and in case of the RMG sector, the economy of the country. Acts of violence by the public by taking law into their hands is not an unknown phenomenon in other countries. Sometimes such acts are also accompanied by looting. In countries that have a control over law and order, as majority of the countries have, public vandalism is quelled quickly and the perpetrators and abettors are brought to face the law.
Bangladesh, however, is exceptional in acts of public vandalism for a few reasons. First, such acts in Bangladesh are not motivated by looting and have started historically by active encouragement of the political parties to fight oppressive, undemocratic governments under the principle that end justifies the means. Second, the political parties have encouraged such acts even when governments have been elected democratically. The party that failed to win power in an election placed the elected government on the same footing as an undemocratic government to encourage the public to force it down. The aberrations of extra-constitutional governments only enforced the argument that a government perceived to be in power illegally had to be forced out by any means. In the post-1971 period, public vandalism became more destructive when attack on private cars, buses and other vehicles was added as a strategy to bring the government down by force, both elected and extra constitutional. It is because of the nexus between vandalism and politics that has made it so difficult to tackle this menace in Bangladesh or bring the perpetrators to face the law.
Public vandalism has become a major issue of concern of the government and the country because it is now being carried out in a sector that is extremely important for Bangladesh's economic survival. It is the RMG sector's success that has given Bangladesh the hope that it could eventually make sense to its potentials and bring the country out of its tryst with poverty. Uninterrupted public vandalism in the RMG factories is now threatening not just the RMG sector but the country's economy as well. The pointing of fingers by the AL notwithstanding, the opposition BNP is today also concerned with the growing public vandalism in the RMG sector. Despite there being very good reasons for grievances of the RMG workers over pay that has caused the latest round of vandalism, there is no reason at all for the workers to carry out the rampage as they have over the latest increase in pay. The Government has shown its goodwill to back the RMG workers that has more than doubled their minimum pay to Taka three thousand although it has fallen short of the Taka 5000 they have demanded.
There is an eerie similarity in vandalism carried by the RMG workers and those being carried out by other groups in the country to force the authorities to meet their demands like the students of Chittagong University who vandalised over a slight raise in tuition fees. Hartal activists vandalise property in the same manner. It is difficult to believe that the garment workers or students or any group would be able to carry out such perverse acts on their own in such a destructive and systematic manner as being witnessed in the current public vandalising in Bangladesh. There is often accusation from the government about foreign hands in addition to encouragement from opposition parties in vandalising in the RMG sector. So far nothing has emerged from such finger pointing except unproven accusations. Although the BCL has in recent times taken part in public vandalism in a major way, it would also not be correct to assume that such acts have any political encouragement. In fact, the ruling party has publicly disowned the BCL for such acts.
There is therefore reason to believe that many decades of indulgence given by the political parties to public vandalism has created a cadre of agent provocateurs who have now become "free agents" as they no longer have sponsorship from political parties who are now giving leadership to the current surge of public vandalism wherever the opportunity arises, including the RMG sector.
The media has been responsible for exposing the criminality in public vandalism and its danger to the economy in the context of the RMG sector. The exposure has now convinced the public that there is nothing but perverse criminality in public vandalism forcing the political parties also to see these acts in the same way. The reflection of this is now clear in the stand taken by the Government to deal with public vandalism firmly. The opposition is also is in no mood to back public vandalism anymore knowing that they would only incur public displeasure and wrath for supporting or encouraging it. It is thus now up to the law enforcing agencies to do the rest and end this menace before it takes the nation down. It is beyond time to trace out the agent provocateurs and bring them to face the long arm of the law.
The way to go about tackling this menace should not be difficult, given the fact that the public mood is dead against it and the political parties have distanced themselves from such evil acts. The law enforcing agencies now have to draw the line and deal with public vandalism as essentially a law and order situation of grave national significance. It would be very easy to catch the miscreants, the agent provocateurs, involved these days in public vandalism because of the private TV channels catch them in their cameras while committing their heinous crimes. Once they are caught, they should be put on a fast track for trial and punishment to send an unequivocal message that the government is not going to let such acts of sadism be tolerated anymore. In dealing with these acts, the law should make no difference whether the people involved are garment workers or students and definitely not about their party affiliations, if they have any. The law should treat the perpetrators of public vandalism as criminals of the lowest type because they target, one, people who are innocent and give the perpetrators no reason for their dastardly acts, and second, as is in the case of the RMG sector, threaten the backbone of the country's economy.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Can threats achieve results?
Published in The Independent, August 17th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam
One can only be concerned and worried about the threats being expressed at random by the leaders of this government. The Ministers are doing this with monotonous regularity. Threats are being expressed on the issue of price rise, on law and order; on BCL's criminal activities; and of course to the opposition parties for alleged conspiracy to derail the trial of the war criminals. In the country's nearly 4 decades long history since independence, when both democratic and dictatorial governments have been in power and politics was often tense and uncertain, such indulgence with threats by those running the Government was never heard.
In a recent news analysis on a private TV channel, a University Professor said something thought-provoking. With reference to the fact that only four or five businessmen have been found to be behind the sugar syndicate, he said he was simply amazed why these four or five businessmen have not been brought to face the law; why instead the Commerce Minister was going about threatening what the Government would do with dishonest businessmen who would hike up prices during Ramzan. He thought that the threats notwithstanding, there must be very powerful people protecting them to make the Commerce Minister's threats merely empty ones. He gave an advice that sounded both rational and correct; that action not threats was necessary to tackle the various problems in our politics and society at present.
A government is within its rights to warn groups and individuals to ensure that they refrain from doing anything that is harmful to the public. But these are not warnings that this government is expressing; these are threats and that is why a lot of people are concerned. Threats by a government are rare and given only as a final warning when action is imminent. The widespread nature of such threats with very little action underscores the fact that the government is facing serious problems in governance and not sure what to do. What is even more alarming is that despite the threats, those at whom most of the threats are addressed have not even bothered to take notice of the threats. The case of the BCL in this context is worth noting. This Government is moving towards completing two years in office. It has been facing considerable problem with the BCL, its student's wing, from its first day in office. The BCL has declared themselves the government in the educational institutions where they are indulging in all sorts of criminal activities. In its most recent show of criminal power, BCL students were seen parading Rajshahi University with weapons that should shame the most hardened criminal.
This government came to power because the overwhelming majority of the people supported them on one particular issue; the need to try those who supported the Pakistani military in their genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. Such support notwithstanding, those who would be brought to justice have their own support, however small, in the country and they would try to see that such trials are not held. However, all one hears is that there are conspiracies all around from those who are against the spirit of the liberation war. There has been very little manifestation of such conspiracies, let alone any attempt by such conspirators to obstruct the trials.
The question is if it has taken the government nearly two years to put all the necessary steps together for the trials, when actually, one wonders, the trials would be held and completed. The people are losing their patience for such trials to be held and done away with. All they hear are threats in abundance that no one should dare to derail the trials and the government would deal with any group that tries to stand in the way of such trials with an iron fist. It would be interesting if someone would collate the innumerous times Ministers of this Government have gone before the media and threatened those who they said are conspiring to stop the trials. People would like to be given some evidence of such conspiracies.
In common knowledge, when someone is sure of what he/she would do, there is no need to shout or threaten. That individual can do whatever needs to be done calmly and coolly. When such an individual loses cool, then there is reason to believe that things are in a mess. When that individual goes beyond losing cool and starts threatening, then common sense would dictate that the individual has lost direction and not in a position to do what needs to be done. In case of this government, threats have now become a routine matter and everyone in political authority is indulging in threats. What is not clear about such threats is the fact that in Bangladesh's history, the opposition has never been as weak as it is today. BNP has just not lost the election, it is now riddled with internal dissensions where it is not really in a position to launch the type of action that we know opposition parties have done in the past, like regular hartals accompanied by all kinds of violence. During this term of the AL, the BNP and its allies have succeeded in holding just one hartal.
Despite the Government's accusations that the country is seething with conspiracies to stop war trials and other actions against the government by the opposition, facts do not show any such evidence. Nevertheless, there is a lot of uncertainty in politics. The law and order situation is poor, the educational institutions have become hubs of criminal activities and the RMG sector is being subjected to public vandalism that portends grave consequences for the nation. The recent coverage of the private TV channels leaves little doubt that unscrupulous business people are systematically raising prices of essentials. In fact, it is only with the war crimes trial that there are little signs of unrest yet despite the Government's threats and accusations to the contrary.
These facts could point to something new in Bangladesh's politics; that the enemy the party in power is threatening is largely within. It would do the Awami League and the country great good if it would stop threatening all and sundry in the opposition camps and take a quiet and dispassionate look at what is happening within the party. Why can't the BCL be stopped? It is unimaginable what would happen to the country's image if the international press were to pick the pictures of students of the ruling party parading the university campuses with machetes and other weapons of death and moving around freely with the law enforcing agencies watching. Why can't those who have been identified to be behind the sugar syndicate be brought to book? In the state of country's politics, no one even in a fit of insanity would believe that any of these business people belong to the opposition. If they were, such syndicates would have been history and its leaders behind bars.
Bangladeshis are facing grave problems they have not faced before, like the acute shortage of power and water and they are praying on bended knees for the government to deliver. In the kind of politics the country has, the opposition will seek every opportunity to put the government in trouble. In opposition, the AL has done it. Threats will get the government nowhere; such threats will only convince the people that the government is not succeeding in tackling the problems they are facing. It is time for the government to act and give up threatening all and sundry. More importantly, it is time for the AL for introspection.That will help it understand the problems better, find solutions and take the country forward.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
M. Serajul Islam
One can only be concerned and worried about the threats being expressed at random by the leaders of this government. The Ministers are doing this with monotonous regularity. Threats are being expressed on the issue of price rise, on law and order; on BCL's criminal activities; and of course to the opposition parties for alleged conspiracy to derail the trial of the war criminals. In the country's nearly 4 decades long history since independence, when both democratic and dictatorial governments have been in power and politics was often tense and uncertain, such indulgence with threats by those running the Government was never heard.
In a recent news analysis on a private TV channel, a University Professor said something thought-provoking. With reference to the fact that only four or five businessmen have been found to be behind the sugar syndicate, he said he was simply amazed why these four or five businessmen have not been brought to face the law; why instead the Commerce Minister was going about threatening what the Government would do with dishonest businessmen who would hike up prices during Ramzan. He thought that the threats notwithstanding, there must be very powerful people protecting them to make the Commerce Minister's threats merely empty ones. He gave an advice that sounded both rational and correct; that action not threats was necessary to tackle the various problems in our politics and society at present.
A government is within its rights to warn groups and individuals to ensure that they refrain from doing anything that is harmful to the public. But these are not warnings that this government is expressing; these are threats and that is why a lot of people are concerned. Threats by a government are rare and given only as a final warning when action is imminent. The widespread nature of such threats with very little action underscores the fact that the government is facing serious problems in governance and not sure what to do. What is even more alarming is that despite the threats, those at whom most of the threats are addressed have not even bothered to take notice of the threats. The case of the BCL in this context is worth noting. This Government is moving towards completing two years in office. It has been facing considerable problem with the BCL, its student's wing, from its first day in office. The BCL has declared themselves the government in the educational institutions where they are indulging in all sorts of criminal activities. In its most recent show of criminal power, BCL students were seen parading Rajshahi University with weapons that should shame the most hardened criminal.
This government came to power because the overwhelming majority of the people supported them on one particular issue; the need to try those who supported the Pakistani military in their genocide in Bangladesh in 1971. Such support notwithstanding, those who would be brought to justice have their own support, however small, in the country and they would try to see that such trials are not held. However, all one hears is that there are conspiracies all around from those who are against the spirit of the liberation war. There has been very little manifestation of such conspiracies, let alone any attempt by such conspirators to obstruct the trials.
The question is if it has taken the government nearly two years to put all the necessary steps together for the trials, when actually, one wonders, the trials would be held and completed. The people are losing their patience for such trials to be held and done away with. All they hear are threats in abundance that no one should dare to derail the trials and the government would deal with any group that tries to stand in the way of such trials with an iron fist. It would be interesting if someone would collate the innumerous times Ministers of this Government have gone before the media and threatened those who they said are conspiring to stop the trials. People would like to be given some evidence of such conspiracies.
In common knowledge, when someone is sure of what he/she would do, there is no need to shout or threaten. That individual can do whatever needs to be done calmly and coolly. When such an individual loses cool, then there is reason to believe that things are in a mess. When that individual goes beyond losing cool and starts threatening, then common sense would dictate that the individual has lost direction and not in a position to do what needs to be done. In case of this government, threats have now become a routine matter and everyone in political authority is indulging in threats. What is not clear about such threats is the fact that in Bangladesh's history, the opposition has never been as weak as it is today. BNP has just not lost the election, it is now riddled with internal dissensions where it is not really in a position to launch the type of action that we know opposition parties have done in the past, like regular hartals accompanied by all kinds of violence. During this term of the AL, the BNP and its allies have succeeded in holding just one hartal.
Despite the Government's accusations that the country is seething with conspiracies to stop war trials and other actions against the government by the opposition, facts do not show any such evidence. Nevertheless, there is a lot of uncertainty in politics. The law and order situation is poor, the educational institutions have become hubs of criminal activities and the RMG sector is being subjected to public vandalism that portends grave consequences for the nation. The recent coverage of the private TV channels leaves little doubt that unscrupulous business people are systematically raising prices of essentials. In fact, it is only with the war crimes trial that there are little signs of unrest yet despite the Government's threats and accusations to the contrary.
These facts could point to something new in Bangladesh's politics; that the enemy the party in power is threatening is largely within. It would do the Awami League and the country great good if it would stop threatening all and sundry in the opposition camps and take a quiet and dispassionate look at what is happening within the party. Why can't the BCL be stopped? It is unimaginable what would happen to the country's image if the international press were to pick the pictures of students of the ruling party parading the university campuses with machetes and other weapons of death and moving around freely with the law enforcing agencies watching. Why can't those who have been identified to be behind the sugar syndicate be brought to book? In the state of country's politics, no one even in a fit of insanity would believe that any of these business people belong to the opposition. If they were, such syndicates would have been history and its leaders behind bars.
Bangladeshis are facing grave problems they have not faced before, like the acute shortage of power and water and they are praying on bended knees for the government to deliver. In the kind of politics the country has, the opposition will seek every opportunity to put the government in trouble. In opposition, the AL has done it. Threats will get the government nowhere; such threats will only convince the people that the government is not succeeding in tackling the problems they are facing. It is time for the government to act and give up threatening all and sundry. More importantly, it is time for the AL for introspection.That will help it understand the problems better, find solutions and take the country forward.
(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt)
Friday, August 13, 2010
A new fillip to Bangladesh-India relations
M. Serajul Islam
The Daily Star, August 14th.; 2010
THERE seems to be mixed feelings about the Indian Finance Minister's recent visit to Bangladesh, a lot of it of course coming down party lines. Last time, when he was here, he by-passed a request from the Leader of the Opposition for a meeting and instead found time to meet the controversial General Moyeen who during his stranglehold on power under the Caretaker Government had openly boasted that he would resolve all outstanding problems with India on the eve of a visit he undertook to New Delhi at that time. Although Bangladeshis are easily susceptible to conspiracy theories and the opposition BNP not inclined too see anything good in India, Pranab Mukherjee on his part has given some genuine encouragement to the conspiracy prone Bangladeshis and the BNP. This time too there was no meeting with Khaleda Zia but he reportedly found time during his 4 hours' stay in Dhaka for another controversial meeting with three top AL leaders who did not find Cabinet berths on issue of loyalty to the party leader.
There are few other issues about the visit that have caused a few eyebrows to be raised. The news about the visit was released to the media by the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, after a meeting he chaired with stakeholders on the progress of the agreements signed and Joint Communiqué issued during the Prime Minister's visit to India. He said that the Indian Finance Minister would be visiting Dhaka to witness the signing of the US $1 billion credit promised by India during Sheikh Hasina's visit. Subsequently, the Indian High Commission released a press statement where it was mentioned that Pranab Mukherjee would be coming to Dhaka on an invitation of Foreign Minister Dipu Moni. The Foreign Ministry came out with its own statement but after that of the Indian High Commission. There seems to be confusion in Bangladesh about who to be given the charge to deal with Bangladesh-India relations.
In the midst of the media campaign by the Foreign Minister after the Prime Minister's visit, it was mentioned that the Indian Prime Minister would undertake his return visit to Bangladesh within six months of Sheikh Hasina's visit. This is not going to happen. During this period, after the initial euphoria during which the Foreign Minister had described Sheikh Hasina's visit as a watershed in Bangladesh-India relations died down, little was said in the media about follow up action on the visit. In fact, the Bangladesh Commerce Minister expressed his disappointment about progress on the trade sector, blaming Indian bureaucracy for it. The sharing of the water of Teesta that some had thought would be signed soon after the visit of the Prime Minister is still a distant possibility. Death of Bangladeshis on the Bangladesh-India border at the hands of the BSF have become a permanent feature of tension where Bangladesh's repeated pleas to India have so far gone unattended. In fact, the great hopes that the Government had risen after Sheikh Hasina's visit seemed to have stalled for reasons that have not been explained by anyone.
There was no announced agenda for discussion at the meetings that Pranab Mukherjee had in Dhaka. The Foreign Ministry statement mentioned that the Indian Minister would discuss bilateral issues with Bangladesh Foreign Ministers. The visit was however too short for any meaningful discussion on bilateral issues. In fact, very little of it was discussed. Overtly, the two sides reflected on the US$ 1 billion loan as the only reason for the visit. The presence of a good number of Ministers during the signing ceremony left little doubt that the Bangladesh side was eager to make a public demonstration of the importance of the loan. Pranab Mukherjee highlighted the loan as a soft one given at 1.75% interest repayable in 25 years, stressing that it is the largest amount loaned by India to any country. He said that the loan has been extended keeping Bangladesh's interest in mind.
The BNP has rejected outright the offer of loan with very hard-hitting criticisms. Khaleda Zia has asked it to be scrapped. This notwithstanding, there are few issues about the loan that have not been highlighted by the Government. First, it is a supplier's credit and thus serving the interest of it where Bangladesh would be obliged to spend the money for purchase of goods and items from India and would not be allowed to buy these at competitive prices in the international market. Second, Bangladesh would borrow the money from an Indian bank whereas it has that money and more in excess liquidity in the market from foreign remittance. Although the rate of interest would be higher in borrowing the money from internal sources but the advantages of buying goods and services from untied sources and charges from other details of the agreement, which have not been spelt out, could outweigh the advantages on low interest rate. Finally, the money would be spent for those infrastructures that would allow India's transit to its northeast. In other words, India would be giving the loan for its own interest where Bangladesh would be a collateral beneficiary but by playing away in the process, its only bargaining chip with India.
Little information has been made known on what transpired in the meeting with the Prime Minister. Pranab Mukherjee has close relations with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. There is reason to believe that he may have had few suggestions and advice for her on state of politics in Bangladesh where things are fluid over the trial of the war criminals and the constitutional amendments. The Foreign Minister has written the postscript to the visit. In a briefing, she highlighted the issue of connectivity that is a new parlance for the unpopular transit suggesting that through the US $1 billion loan and India's assurance of transit to Nepal and Bhutan, Bangladesh would become a regional hub of connectivity. It would be good to think that way. History of Bangladesh-India relations and India's relations with its neighbours make it hard to accept that India would be magnanimous to help Bangladesh become a regional hub of connectivity. For a small incentive of doing business with Nepal, Bhutan and northeast India, Bangladesh would give India what it always wanted; a free access between its mainland and northeast. Bangladesh has unilaterally decided against being the big lump in the Indian throat simply for the assurance of cooperation in water and trade sectors but without reference to the maritime boundary demarcation and other outstanding issues.
It is in Bangladesh's interest to have good relations with India. Bangladesh's 160 million people make it essential for India to ensure Bangladesh's stability for its own security. India should know too well that many Bangladeshis have serious reservations about India and that AL's 3/4th majority is only in the parliament. In the country, the support among the people is divided between the AL and the BNP almost in the same proportion. India could have played a positive role by using its present influence over the government to urge it to talk to the opposition for making improvements in Bangladesh-India relations sustainable. Pranab Mukherjee himself could have done his part by meeting the leader of the opposition and briefed her on his visit and the loan India has offered. Unfortunately, he did not do so and instead by his two visits to Bangladesh, he has inserted a wedge into the existing animosities between the BNP and the AL and has strengthened the “India factor” in keeping the two divided.
The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director in the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
The Daily Star, August 14th.; 2010
THERE seems to be mixed feelings about the Indian Finance Minister's recent visit to Bangladesh, a lot of it of course coming down party lines. Last time, when he was here, he by-passed a request from the Leader of the Opposition for a meeting and instead found time to meet the controversial General Moyeen who during his stranglehold on power under the Caretaker Government had openly boasted that he would resolve all outstanding problems with India on the eve of a visit he undertook to New Delhi at that time. Although Bangladeshis are easily susceptible to conspiracy theories and the opposition BNP not inclined too see anything good in India, Pranab Mukherjee on his part has given some genuine encouragement to the conspiracy prone Bangladeshis and the BNP. This time too there was no meeting with Khaleda Zia but he reportedly found time during his 4 hours' stay in Dhaka for another controversial meeting with three top AL leaders who did not find Cabinet berths on issue of loyalty to the party leader.
There are few other issues about the visit that have caused a few eyebrows to be raised. The news about the visit was released to the media by the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, after a meeting he chaired with stakeholders on the progress of the agreements signed and Joint Communiqué issued during the Prime Minister's visit to India. He said that the Indian Finance Minister would be visiting Dhaka to witness the signing of the US $1 billion credit promised by India during Sheikh Hasina's visit. Subsequently, the Indian High Commission released a press statement where it was mentioned that Pranab Mukherjee would be coming to Dhaka on an invitation of Foreign Minister Dipu Moni. The Foreign Ministry came out with its own statement but after that of the Indian High Commission. There seems to be confusion in Bangladesh about who to be given the charge to deal with Bangladesh-India relations.
In the midst of the media campaign by the Foreign Minister after the Prime Minister's visit, it was mentioned that the Indian Prime Minister would undertake his return visit to Bangladesh within six months of Sheikh Hasina's visit. This is not going to happen. During this period, after the initial euphoria during which the Foreign Minister had described Sheikh Hasina's visit as a watershed in Bangladesh-India relations died down, little was said in the media about follow up action on the visit. In fact, the Bangladesh Commerce Minister expressed his disappointment about progress on the trade sector, blaming Indian bureaucracy for it. The sharing of the water of Teesta that some had thought would be signed soon after the visit of the Prime Minister is still a distant possibility. Death of Bangladeshis on the Bangladesh-India border at the hands of the BSF have become a permanent feature of tension where Bangladesh's repeated pleas to India have so far gone unattended. In fact, the great hopes that the Government had risen after Sheikh Hasina's visit seemed to have stalled for reasons that have not been explained by anyone.
There was no announced agenda for discussion at the meetings that Pranab Mukherjee had in Dhaka. The Foreign Ministry statement mentioned that the Indian Minister would discuss bilateral issues with Bangladesh Foreign Ministers. The visit was however too short for any meaningful discussion on bilateral issues. In fact, very little of it was discussed. Overtly, the two sides reflected on the US$ 1 billion loan as the only reason for the visit. The presence of a good number of Ministers during the signing ceremony left little doubt that the Bangladesh side was eager to make a public demonstration of the importance of the loan. Pranab Mukherjee highlighted the loan as a soft one given at 1.75% interest repayable in 25 years, stressing that it is the largest amount loaned by India to any country. He said that the loan has been extended keeping Bangladesh's interest in mind.
The BNP has rejected outright the offer of loan with very hard-hitting criticisms. Khaleda Zia has asked it to be scrapped. This notwithstanding, there are few issues about the loan that have not been highlighted by the Government. First, it is a supplier's credit and thus serving the interest of it where Bangladesh would be obliged to spend the money for purchase of goods and items from India and would not be allowed to buy these at competitive prices in the international market. Second, Bangladesh would borrow the money from an Indian bank whereas it has that money and more in excess liquidity in the market from foreign remittance. Although the rate of interest would be higher in borrowing the money from internal sources but the advantages of buying goods and services from untied sources and charges from other details of the agreement, which have not been spelt out, could outweigh the advantages on low interest rate. Finally, the money would be spent for those infrastructures that would allow India's transit to its northeast. In other words, India would be giving the loan for its own interest where Bangladesh would be a collateral beneficiary but by playing away in the process, its only bargaining chip with India.
Little information has been made known on what transpired in the meeting with the Prime Minister. Pranab Mukherjee has close relations with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. There is reason to believe that he may have had few suggestions and advice for her on state of politics in Bangladesh where things are fluid over the trial of the war criminals and the constitutional amendments. The Foreign Minister has written the postscript to the visit. In a briefing, she highlighted the issue of connectivity that is a new parlance for the unpopular transit suggesting that through the US $1 billion loan and India's assurance of transit to Nepal and Bhutan, Bangladesh would become a regional hub of connectivity. It would be good to think that way. History of Bangladesh-India relations and India's relations with its neighbours make it hard to accept that India would be magnanimous to help Bangladesh become a regional hub of connectivity. For a small incentive of doing business with Nepal, Bhutan and northeast India, Bangladesh would give India what it always wanted; a free access between its mainland and northeast. Bangladesh has unilaterally decided against being the big lump in the Indian throat simply for the assurance of cooperation in water and trade sectors but without reference to the maritime boundary demarcation and other outstanding issues.
It is in Bangladesh's interest to have good relations with India. Bangladesh's 160 million people make it essential for India to ensure Bangladesh's stability for its own security. India should know too well that many Bangladeshis have serious reservations about India and that AL's 3/4th majority is only in the parliament. In the country, the support among the people is divided between the AL and the BNP almost in the same proportion. India could have played a positive role by using its present influence over the government to urge it to talk to the opposition for making improvements in Bangladesh-India relations sustainable. Pranab Mukherjee himself could have done his part by meeting the leader of the opposition and briefed her on his visit and the loan India has offered. Unfortunately, he did not do so and instead by his two visits to Bangladesh, he has inserted a wedge into the existing animosities between the BNP and the AL and has strengthened the “India factor” in keeping the two divided.
The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director in the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Pakistan under US and UK attacks: A look at history
Published in The Daily Star, August 7th., 2010
M. Seraju Islam
(This is the 200th article carried in this blog)
Pakistan has suddenly become the scapegoat for what is going wrong in Afghanistan. The latest documents released on WikiLeaks (92,000 documents in total) reveal that in Afghanistan USA is losing the war and the truth is far removed from what the Obama administration has been telling the people. The documents also show Pakistan's intelligence agency (Inter Services Intelligence) ISI's close collusion with the Talibans and other terrorist groups. In line with the leaks, British Prime Minister David Cameron has caused a major controversy by stating bluntly that his country and allies cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that Pakistan is allowed to look both ways and is able in any way, to promote the export of terror to India, Afghanistan or any other country. Quite understandably, Pakistan protested furiously but David Cameron did not recant his statement rather he came up with free advise about what Pakistan should do, which was like adding insult to injury.
A current view in Washington is that the US administration may have leaked the WikiLeaks documents to shift the responsibility of losing the war in Afghanistan on Pakistan's shoulders. As the latest WikiLeaks documents revealed it is therefore not very surprising that the Prime Minister of Britain, the country that along with the USA had brought Pakistan into the team as a strategic partner of the West in their war against terrorism, had to blame Pakistan as a country that exports terrorism to its neighbouring regions. It is not just this that makes the latest US-UK offensive against Pakistan so ironic. A look at history would make the current attacks on Pakistan by the USA and UK even more so because both have in the past betrayed Pakistan's interests at critical times.
It was the US that had encouraged Pakistan to get involved in the Afghan war after the Soviet invasion in 1979. Again, it was the US that had given Pakistan the moral and material support needed to build the Taliban resistance and then abandoned it as soon as the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is again the USA which is now seeking Pakistan's assistance to negotiate agreement with moderate Talibans to weaken the Taliban resurgence. At the same time, it is the US that is bombing Pakistan's northwest regions with drones in pursuit of taking out Talibans and when such attacks end killing innocent Pakistanis and blaming Pakistan's intelligence for the failure.
History makes David Cameron's accusation more ironic than the US's accusations of Pakistan. It was British policy of divide and rule that sowed the seeds of discord between the Hindus and the Muslims that created Pakistan. It was the British indulgence while leaving India after 200 years of colonial rule that divided Kashmir that as a Muslim majority princely state should have gone to Pakistan under the principles of partition. It is the Kashmir conflict that has been at the cause of tension between Pakistan and India that has forced these nations to fight two wars and turn into nuclear states. It is the same conflict that has encouraged Pakistan to get involved in the jihad over Kashmir and actively assist groups fighting for freeing Kashmir from India, groups that are using terrorism as a strategy for their goal. It is again the Kashmir dispute that has led Indian security and police to commit human rights violations to keep control over its part of Kashmir that in turn has given terrorist groups like the Laskar e Taiyaba; Jaish e Mohammed and Harakat ul Mujahadeen the cause to survive and thrive.
The British Prime Minister could perhaps have taken a look at history before making the statement in public against Pakistan. In doing so, he has also shown scant respect to diplomatic norms where it is most unusual to accuse a third country while on a bilateral visit. The fact that David Cameron chose to accuse Pakistan while on an official visit to India is what makes his act a difficult one to understand. Only recently, the Pakistani and the Indian Foreign Ministers had met to open dialogue between their countries that ended abruptly with the Indian Foreign Minister failing to make the point on Pakistan's tryst with terrorism that was so well articulated by David Cameron. Pakistan High Commissioner in London regretted that David Cameron failed to see “Pakistan's immense role in the war on terror and sacrifices made since 9/11”. He went on to say that the British Prime Minister should have pursued his goal of attracting Indian investments to his country without “damaging the prospects of regional peace”.
Pakistan has reacted furiously at the attempts by Great Britain and the US to link it officially to terrorist groups. Its disapproval to the US administration is being communicated through the many diplomatic and official channels at its disposal. In case of its reaction to David Cameron's accusation, the Pakistanis are protesting pro-actively and angrily. It has cancelled a very important visit by an intelligence team to London. After actively considering cancelling an official visit to London, President Zardari eventually decided perhaps to take the opportunity to communicate first hand with the British Prime Minister about his country's indignation.
The latest WikiLeaks and the British Prime Minister's comments have come for Pakistan at a very inappropriate time. It is facing India in Afghanistan where the Indians are gaining upper hand with the Karzai administration. In recent times, India has opened four regional consulates in Afghanistan and has given Afghanistan US $ 662 million as aid, with a promise of more and even an offer to send troops. It has found favour with the Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tagiks who are behind the Karzai administration although the President himself is a Pastun. The Pakistanis were hoping to balance and perhaps gain the upper hand in Afghanistan by its contacts with the Talibans. It will now be under intense scrutiny to keep its distance from the Talibans, allowing the Indians a better negotiation of Afghan affairs. It should convince Pakistan that in international politics, there are no permanent friends but only permanent interests. US's interest at the moment is to come out of Afghanistan by blaming it on someone else, perhaps Pakistan; whereas Britain's interest is to benefit from India's new-found status as a world economic power for which Pakistan-bashing may not be a bad strategy.
The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director of Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
M. Seraju Islam
(This is the 200th article carried in this blog)
Pakistan has suddenly become the scapegoat for what is going wrong in Afghanistan. The latest documents released on WikiLeaks (92,000 documents in total) reveal that in Afghanistan USA is losing the war and the truth is far removed from what the Obama administration has been telling the people. The documents also show Pakistan's intelligence agency (Inter Services Intelligence) ISI's close collusion with the Talibans and other terrorist groups. In line with the leaks, British Prime Minister David Cameron has caused a major controversy by stating bluntly that his country and allies cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that Pakistan is allowed to look both ways and is able in any way, to promote the export of terror to India, Afghanistan or any other country. Quite understandably, Pakistan protested furiously but David Cameron did not recant his statement rather he came up with free advise about what Pakistan should do, which was like adding insult to injury.
A current view in Washington is that the US administration may have leaked the WikiLeaks documents to shift the responsibility of losing the war in Afghanistan on Pakistan's shoulders. As the latest WikiLeaks documents revealed it is therefore not very surprising that the Prime Minister of Britain, the country that along with the USA had brought Pakistan into the team as a strategic partner of the West in their war against terrorism, had to blame Pakistan as a country that exports terrorism to its neighbouring regions. It is not just this that makes the latest US-UK offensive against Pakistan so ironic. A look at history would make the current attacks on Pakistan by the USA and UK even more so because both have in the past betrayed Pakistan's interests at critical times.
It was the US that had encouraged Pakistan to get involved in the Afghan war after the Soviet invasion in 1979. Again, it was the US that had given Pakistan the moral and material support needed to build the Taliban resistance and then abandoned it as soon as the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is again the USA which is now seeking Pakistan's assistance to negotiate agreement with moderate Talibans to weaken the Taliban resurgence. At the same time, it is the US that is bombing Pakistan's northwest regions with drones in pursuit of taking out Talibans and when such attacks end killing innocent Pakistanis and blaming Pakistan's intelligence for the failure.
History makes David Cameron's accusation more ironic than the US's accusations of Pakistan. It was British policy of divide and rule that sowed the seeds of discord between the Hindus and the Muslims that created Pakistan. It was the British indulgence while leaving India after 200 years of colonial rule that divided Kashmir that as a Muslim majority princely state should have gone to Pakistan under the principles of partition. It is the Kashmir conflict that has been at the cause of tension between Pakistan and India that has forced these nations to fight two wars and turn into nuclear states. It is the same conflict that has encouraged Pakistan to get involved in the jihad over Kashmir and actively assist groups fighting for freeing Kashmir from India, groups that are using terrorism as a strategy for their goal. It is again the Kashmir dispute that has led Indian security and police to commit human rights violations to keep control over its part of Kashmir that in turn has given terrorist groups like the Laskar e Taiyaba; Jaish e Mohammed and Harakat ul Mujahadeen the cause to survive and thrive.
The British Prime Minister could perhaps have taken a look at history before making the statement in public against Pakistan. In doing so, he has also shown scant respect to diplomatic norms where it is most unusual to accuse a third country while on a bilateral visit. The fact that David Cameron chose to accuse Pakistan while on an official visit to India is what makes his act a difficult one to understand. Only recently, the Pakistani and the Indian Foreign Ministers had met to open dialogue between their countries that ended abruptly with the Indian Foreign Minister failing to make the point on Pakistan's tryst with terrorism that was so well articulated by David Cameron. Pakistan High Commissioner in London regretted that David Cameron failed to see “Pakistan's immense role in the war on terror and sacrifices made since 9/11”. He went on to say that the British Prime Minister should have pursued his goal of attracting Indian investments to his country without “damaging the prospects of regional peace”.
Pakistan has reacted furiously at the attempts by Great Britain and the US to link it officially to terrorist groups. Its disapproval to the US administration is being communicated through the many diplomatic and official channels at its disposal. In case of its reaction to David Cameron's accusation, the Pakistanis are protesting pro-actively and angrily. It has cancelled a very important visit by an intelligence team to London. After actively considering cancelling an official visit to London, President Zardari eventually decided perhaps to take the opportunity to communicate first hand with the British Prime Minister about his country's indignation.
The latest WikiLeaks and the British Prime Minister's comments have come for Pakistan at a very inappropriate time. It is facing India in Afghanistan where the Indians are gaining upper hand with the Karzai administration. In recent times, India has opened four regional consulates in Afghanistan and has given Afghanistan US $ 662 million as aid, with a promise of more and even an offer to send troops. It has found favour with the Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tagiks who are behind the Karzai administration although the President himself is a Pastun. The Pakistanis were hoping to balance and perhaps gain the upper hand in Afghanistan by its contacts with the Talibans. It will now be under intense scrutiny to keep its distance from the Talibans, allowing the Indians a better negotiation of Afghan affairs. It should convince Pakistan that in international politics, there are no permanent friends but only permanent interests. US's interest at the moment is to come out of Afghanistan by blaming it on someone else, perhaps Pakistan; whereas Britain's interest is to benefit from India's new-found status as a world economic power for which Pakistan-bashing may not be a bad strategy.
The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director of Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)