Poor negotiations on Padma Bridge  embarrasses Bangladesh

"As I See It" column

The Independent

July 14, 2012

M. Serajul Islam 

I am surprised at the hue and cry from government circles after the World Bank cancelled the Padma Bridge loan.  The government should in fact be happy with it because by its own claims this would allow Malaysia to give us the loan at costs lesser than the World Bank. The Minister of Communications who publicized this claim said that the project would be started by February next year. 

The Finance Minister led the government’s attack on the WB for the cancellation. In parliament, he blamed the outgoing President of the WB Robert Zoellick personally for the cancellation.  He said that the Government would write to the new President of the WB Jim Young Kim detailing all the steps taken by the Government to answer the WB’s concerns to revive the project. 

The response from the Bank was faster than expected. Within literally hours after the Finance Minister had spoken, the new President said that his predecessor had kept him fully aware of the negotiations between the Bangladesh Government and the Bank and that he backed the decision as an “appropriate” one. He expressed support for the 3 crores people of Bangladesh who would be affected by the cancellation but added that the Bank’s policy of zero tolerance on corruption was not a matter for compromise. 

One wonders what made the Finance Minister come up with the statement against the Bank’s outgoing President. The speed with which the new President reacted left no doubt that the Finance Minister’s claim must have irked him and his colleagues. Perhaps the Finance Minister was misled into thinking that institutions and governments abroad work the same way as in Bangladesh where the culture is for a new administration to throw overboard all the decisions of the outgoing one based on its  civilized culture for institutional behaviour.  Even if the Finance Minister had irrefutable intelligence that the former President had acted out of grudge, he should not have made the statement on it in parliament. The reaction of the new President left little doubt that his intelligence source, if he had any, was highly flawed.  By his statement against the outgoing President, he has lowered his own credibility and that of the government with the WB.  

The way the government negotiated with the WB on the Padma Bridge since the initial postponement many months ago has been anything but professional; in fact in made a fiasco in dealing with the WB on the Padma Bridge. The former Minister of Communications treated the WB accusation against him as a joke. He wrote a letter to the ACC to investigate him so that he could, with an ACC certificate, answer WB on charges against him. By doing so, he acted like the proverbial intruder in the temple who, when he heard someone asking to know who was in the temple, responded by saying that he had not eaten the bananas. In fact, if the government had taken the WB’s first contact with the government on its concerns over funding seriously and negotiated professionally, the matter could have been resolved behind the scene. The government eventually changed the Minister but in a manner that failed to give it any advantage in resolving the conflict. 

The new Communications Minister was more interested in pleasing the Prime Minister who was angry and upset with the WB for postponing the funding for a project that is politically of the highest significance to the ruling party. Her anger was enhanced by the fact that individuals named by the WB are close to her. The new Minister gave the country false hopes a number of times on dates when t the PB project would start with Malaysian funds. He promised the country that Malaysian funding would be cheaper! The Minister had to be alerted that Bangladesh would first have to cancel the agreement with WB to sign a new contract with the Malaysians! 

Nevertheless, in the end, it is this government’s style of negotiations that has been responsible for the PB fiasco. It is this style that has landed Bangladesh at serious odds with the United States. It is the same style that has now landed it with serious problem with the WB. In this style, the underlying belief is that the government led by Sheikh Hasina cannot make mistakes. It is time that those advising the Prime Minister tell her without fear that sometimes she could be wrong, that to err is human  and that she would be better off listening to them, sometimes. Unfortunately, this did not happen when the WB postponed the loan that made the Prime Minister angry. 

The Ministers and party leaders became angrier instead of calming the anger of the Prime Minister and advising her to negotiate with the WB to resolve its concerns.   They forgot the stature of the WB and the fact that so far it has contributed over US$ 16 billion for development of Bangladesh with over US$ 4 billion in the pipeline. They accused the WB of corruption and absolved those named by the WB of the charges.  Simultaneously, they said that the country would build the PB from domestic sources after the Prime Minister had hinted at that; that Malaysia would fund it; and even China was named as a possible source. Clearly, they were not sure what would make the Prime Minister happy and went about contradicting one another on where funds would come for the PB. 

The WB cancellation of PB loan put the government in an embarrassing situation.  International media reported widely that the cancellation would affect adversely the flow of much needed foreign investment. The BNP took advantage of the media reports and put its own negative spin on the issue. All these made the Prime Minister angrier and more upset than she was with the postponement that encouraged her Ministers and senior political leaders to go overboard in attacking the WB. One Minister said that the WB action and the recent Human Rights Watch’s critical report on human rights in Bangladesh are all a part of US conspiracy instigated by Dr. Yunus! Another revived memory of 1971 to highlight USA’s dislike for Bangladesh!!  

When the Prime Minister “finally” declared that her government would build the PB from domestic resources and not go to WB for a review, the Ministers and political leaders praised her decision like she had led the country to a big victory. No one cared to answer what would happen to the cheaper Malaysian proposal and future funding from WB. The ministers/leaders side tracked more important issues. First, whether it is practical for this government at its fag end to take such an important mega project on its hands. Second, what would be the impact of such a huge sum of money being diverted from critical areas of development upon the economy and the country? Finally, whether the Prime Minister can sanction/divert such a huge amount by an executive decision when only recently, the parliament adopted the 2012-2013 budget without any mention of the PB. 

At the time of filing this piece, the Finance Minister has again said that the government would go to WB after review with its development partners a day after the Prime Minister announced that the government would not do so!  In between its confused reactions whether to go to WB or not, the Government has failed to establish its case that the Bank has been unfair or that the WB itself is not above corruption. It also failed to address to the alleged payment of US$ 35 million by Canadian engineering firm SNC Lavalin to officials of the Bangladesh Communications Ministry for securing lucrative contracts from the WB that is the basis of WB’s concerns.  The case is being tried currently in a Canadian court with clear evidence to prove the charges. 

Clearly, the government has lost its direction over the PB having badly messed up its negotiations with the WB. A senior leader close to the Prime Minister suggested that the Chaatra League should raise money for the bridge underscoring the extent to which confusion has taken hold of the government over the proposed Padma Bridge. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

Did Nehru inspire Dhaka’s principles of state policy?

Holiday,13 July,2012

M. Serajul Islam

I came across a news item in a recent issue of a New York Bangla weekly that left me wondering. A visitor from Bangladesh, one of the many from Bangladesh’s cultural/literary/educational spheres who are regularly invited to the United States by the highly partisan Bangladesh expatriate community in this country, said in a gathering of Bangladeshis in New York that democracy, nationalism, socialism and secularism have been made the 4 principles of state policy in the Bangladesh Constitution on the advice of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru! I was not reading seriously and was casually flipping the Weekly’s pages. When I realized what I was reading, I had to read it again to make sure I was not dreaming. Pandit Nehru died in 1964 and Bangladesh became independent in 1971.

I have been a student of Political Science in Dhaka University in the 1960s and also taught the subject there. The subject that I read and taught required that I read whatever was available on politics, particularly on history of the movement for Pakistan and Bangladesh. I did not lose my interest in politics and history through my long diplomatic career. The news drew my curiosity and attention because it was the first time that I came upon such an astounding story. 

The story was dated when Pandit Nehru was the Prime Minister of India. According to what the visitor said as reported in the weekly, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Manik Miah met Shashankha Banarjee, an Indian diplomat then posted in Dhaka  and gave him a letter addressed to the Indian Prime Minister from Manik Miah (!!) seeking Indian help for creating the independent state of Bangladesh. The story was datelined sometime in 1962. 

It was proposed in the letter that Sheikh Mujib would go to London and declare independence of Bangladesh from there in March, 1963(!!). Sheikh Mujib became impatient when the letter was unanswered because he was convinced that he needed India’s assistance to liberate Bangladesh. He thus went to Agartala and contacted the Indian Prime Minister through the Chief Minister of the province. The visitor, who happens to be a Dhaka University history teacher, did not mention what happened between 1962 and 1968 or about the plan to declare independence of Bangladesh from London. He went on to say nevertheless that because of the trip to Agartala, the Pakistanis brought the Agartala conspiracy case against Sheikh Mujib although according to him, Sheikh Mujib was not deeply involved in that case. 

The visitor however indicated that Sheikh Mujib eventually received an answer to his letter from Pandit Nehru. He did not mention when exactly Jawaharlal Nehru wrote that letter to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Nevertheless, he gave some details of the letter. Jawaharlal Nehru “advised” Sheikh Mujib to wait for that day for India’s support when millions would stand behind him for his movement for the independence of Bangladesh. When exactly Pandit Nehru advised Sheikh Mujibur Rahman about the state principles was not clear. The visitor simply claimed that the four state principles have found their way in our constitution because of the advice of Pandit Nehru to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

The incredible story that he narrated to his New York audience was based on a book written by an Indian diplomat who supposedly had the meeting in Dhaka with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Manik Miah. As further evidence, the Bangladeshi visitor said that a nephew of Sheikh Mujib corroborated the script of the Indian diplomat in a book he wrote. Jawaharlal Nehru’s connection with Bangladesh and his recommendation to Sheikh Mujib on the state principles of a future state of Bangladesh are based on these two sources! 

The weekly’s news had me scratching why someone would make up such an absurd story. Anyone with any sense of Bangladesh’s history would dismiss it as absurd for many reasons. In 1962, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, our deepest respect for him notwithstanding, was a provincial leader. He had not by then emerged as the great leader that he ultimately became in the late 1960s. He may have written the letter to Pandit Nehru but why would the Indian Prime Minister answer that letter from a provincial leader? Cleary the visitor has exposed his ignorance about the rudiments of how states such as India conduct diplomacy. 

Even if one accepted that the letter from Sheikh Mujib eventually reached the Indian Prime Minister, why would he answer it? In one applied common sense, the answer is a simple one. Unless for some brief moment Pandit Nehru had lost sanity, he had no business even in attaching any importance to Sheikh Mujib’s letter, let alone answer to it. If Sheikh Mujib’s letter would have interested him in anyway, he would have asked someone way down the political ladder to answer it. 

There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the visitor in his respect and love for Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. His intentions were also no doubt genuine, to project Sheikh Mujib as a great man and a great leader. Unfortunately, he picked upon a fiction with too many wrong plots to harm Sheikh Mujib’s claims to greatness instead of enhancing it. He has raised a host of legal issues that, if correct, would project Sheikh Mujib exactly as the Pakistanis would like; that he was trying to break up Pakistan by means that were illegal as early as 1962. It would only strengthen and justify  Pakistan Government’s accusations and actions against Sheikh Mujib. 

Sheikh Mujib was a great democratic leader who fought for the rights of Bengalis by constitutional means till he was left with no alternatives by the Pakistanis for constitutional negotiations anymore following the crackdown of March 25, 1971. Even on March 7 when there was under great pressure for UDI (unilateral declaration of independence), he resisted and delivered a speech that alone should place him among the great leaders of modern history. Had he declared UDI that day, he would have given the Pakistanis the opportunity to crack down and still not be blamed for whatever action they would have taken. In the period when this plot was said to have been conceived, any attempt to break a country by any means was unacceptable. Right of self determination then was worth no more than lip service up front and cracked down under the principle of territorial integrity of a country that was simply sacrosanct with brute force if need be. That was what happened to the attempt by the Biafrans.

It was the waiting game that Sheikh Mujib played that forced the hands of the Pakistanis leading them to commit crimes against humanity. That is what gave the Bangladesh movement the great stamp of legitimacy and won for Sheikh Mujib instant recognition as a great leader and statesman and the Bangladesh movement for liberation, instant support of peoples all over the world. Earlier of course Sheikh Mujib had won the national elections of November, 1970 comprehensively emerging as the unquestioned leader in the then East Pakistan. Even then, because the emergence of Bangladesh threatened to legitimize secession, except for India and the Soviet Union, at the government level, our war of liberation did not receive support anywhere.

Many in Bangladesh love and respect Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as a great nationalist leader. They also feel proud that under his leadership the people of Bangladesh rose and liberated the country through the glorious liberation war in which military leadership was given by heroes like Ziaur Rahman who announced the independence of Bangladesh once the Pakistanis incarcerated Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. To be told now that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman had approached India in 1962 for liberating Bangladesh destroys his credentials as a nationalist leader and shows him as a conspirator. It also casts shadow on our glorious war of liberation in which our brave freedom fighters showed the world that we were more than capable of earning our liberation on our own. 

India of course supported our liberation war for its own interests. Today it has a benign neighbour in Bangladesh instead of a nuclear Pakistan. It is the importance of that India in Bangladesh’s history and politics that the visitor has tried to propagate by giving Pandit Nehru the credit for our state principles. Unfortunately here too, he ended by humiliating him and India by showing that as early as 1962, India was actively engaged in breaking Pakistan that is not going to do the image of the great Indian leader any good. 

Panditji was the great leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, propagating to the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America the principles of peaceful co-existence. In fact, with China, he had established the Five Principle of Peaceful Co-existence or Panchasheela, of which the first and the third principles specifically prohibited any country from interfering in the internal affairs of another country. 

The Bangladeshi visitor has shown Panditji as a leader who said one thing in public and practiced the opposite in reality; the very contrast of the principles of Panchasheela with which he found for himself a place in history. Of course, Panditji remains a great leader of his times who would do nothing like what was attributed to him. It was the Bangladeshi visitor’s misrepresentation of history with intentions that do not appear to be honest that has placed doubts on the impeccable credentials of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.

The visitor left me convinced by what he said that his intention was primarily to project India and its importance to Bangladesh. He is not alone in trying to do what he did in New York. There are quite a few of our compatriots who try to make us believe that India is a great country and that it was a mistake that we have made in opting out of it in 1947. I have no doubt about India’s greatness. In fact, since 1947, India has become even greater and more powerful. However, for those who try to give this twist to our history, the facts need to be recounted. Pakistan was created in 1947 primarily because of the support of Bengal. In fact without Bengal’s support, Pakistan would not have seen the light of day. It is one of the ironies of history that Pakistan remains in the hands of those who opposed its creation in 1947 and was discarded by those who created it. 

It is regrettable that the Pakistani leaders twisted the contributions of Bengal and instead treated us with contempt even to the extent of trying to impose the minority Urdu language over the majority Bengali language of Pakistan together with imposing on us a neo-colonial style of governance. That failure of the Pakistani leadership gave the cause of Bengali nationalism its greatest impetus. However, these facts are in no way any indication that we would have been better off without the partition of 1947. If the 1947 partition had not occurred, we would have remained no better than Paschim Bangla (PB) that is now one of the weakest of India’s provinces. 

In fact, if India had not been portioned in 1947, we would have been weaker than PB and in the same bracket as the seven impoverished provinces of India in its northeast. Instead we are today a sovereign country with a GDP over US$ 100 billion and over 8 million of our people living abroad and a future that could have been immensely better than what it is had our political house been in order. But as it is unquestionably better than it would have been without the 1947 partition. Besides, we are free which is priceless! To understand and appreciate this freedom, we need to take a look at the status of Muslims in India. In PB, Trinamool came to power after 3 decades of Communist rule with the support of the Muslim vote. Although Muslims makeup 33% of the population of PB, their representation in government jobs was less than 3% before the elections that brought Trinamool to power. The Trinamool has been in power for nearly a year with no good news yet for the Muslims of PB. Instead its Chief Minister has come in the way of Bangladesh’s legitimate interests from India.

The Bangladeshi community in the US is now close to a million. A lot of them are doing exceptionally well in their adopted country. In places such as New York they are emerging as a community with leverage in both state and national politics. None of them are ever going to return to Bangladesh to live again. It is good that they love Bangladesh but the same cannot be said of their inclination to bring visitors such as the one on whose controversial statement I have written this piece. They come and spread the same venom that they spread within the country to keep the community from realizing the vast potentials that it has in USA. The Bangladeshi expatriates should consider spending more time if it is politics they are interested in for politics of their adopted country instead of wasting it on politics of Bangladesh. No other expatriate community in the USA or anywhere else does that.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.

On Summoning Envoys
The Daily Sun
Jule 8, 2012
M. Serajul Isam

The Foreign Ministry under this government is being used to do those functions of the government that are to say the least, unpleasant. When the Indian Prime Minister had come to Bangladesh last September, the Foreign Secretary was asked to summon the Indian High Commissioner to express extreme displeasure of the government about the withdrawal of the Teesta deal from the talks of the two Prime Ministers. In fact, the Foreign Secretary informed the Indian envoy that Bangladesh was withdrawing the land transit deal from the table in retaliation.  It was left to the FS to puncture the  prospects of a new era of Bangladesh-India relations from taking off. 

Recently, the Foreign Ministry summoned the German CDA to the Foreign Ministry to convey Bangladesh’s dismay, displeasure and concern at some of the comments the German Foreign Minister made at the Joint Press Conference that he held with the Bangladesh Foreign Minister after the conclusion of his official talks. The German CDA was informed that the Minister had no business making comments about unacceptable  human rights situation, freedom of expression, etc in Bangladesh, first because these were internal matters of Bangladesh, and, second, that the issues were not discussed at the official meeting.

By these summons, the Foreign Ministry has shown that either in its competence, there has been a great deterioration in the conduct foreign relations or that it is being used to cover the faults of others in the Government without being given the responsibility of running the country’s foreign affairs. In case of the summoning of the Indian High Commissioner, there was no doubt that the Indian side had let Bangladesh down at the proverbial eleventh hour when it withdrew the Teesta Deal. The whole nation was upset and angry with India. Everybody in Bangladesh felt Bangladesh had been betrayed after it had given India seven ULFA terrorists and a trial run on land transit at great political risks.

However, the decision to call the Indian High Commissioner when the Indian Prime Minister was already in Dhaka was a very unusual decision. In terms of conducting relations, this was something that was tantamount to insulting a head of state of a friendly country who came on an official invitation. The correct decision would have been for the Prime Minister herself raising the issue with her Indian counterpart at the official talks instead of leaving such an important matter to the Foreign Secretary who ended by conveying an insult instead that the Indians eventually dismissed as an emotional outburst by a government not up to marks in conducting rudimentary diplomatic functions.

In fact, the Foreign Ministry was itself responsible for being caught as the cliché goes with its pants down. It failed to use its diplomatic posts in New Delhi and Kolkata in tracking the mood of the West Bengal Chief Minister who eventually emerged as the villain in aborting the Teesta deal. In New Delhi, it was known at least a few days before the Indian Prime Minister’s visit  that New Delhi would not be in a position to sign the Teesta deal because of Mamata Banarjee. In fact, many knew from Kolkata press that the Indian National Security Adviser SS Menon had visited Kolkata before the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Dhaka to convince MB to agree to the Teesta deal.

The German FM’s visit was a very important one. Germany is the biggest European importer of Bangladesh’s RMG and a very important development partner. In fact, the German FM led a 57 member entourage that included mainly businessmen and investors. By all accounts, the visit promised a great deal of economic benefits to Bangladesh.  These facts notwithstanding, the Foreign Ministry summoned the German CDA and expressed dissatisfaction that the German side issued a press statement in which critical views were expressed about Bangladesh’s domestic politics.

The Ministry’s contention detailed in a press statement that it issued after summoning the CDA was that none of the objectionable issues mentioned  in the German statement and in the joint press briefing  were discussed at the official meetings of the two FMs. The Ministry felt that  the German FM should not have raised these issues at his joint press conference and such references should not have appeared in their statement released to the press because these were not raised or discussed in the official meeting between the two Foreign Ministers.

Interestingly, the German FM made all the points to which the MFA objected in the presence of the Bangladesh FM. All leading newspapers carried pictures of the two FMs at the joint press conference as well as reports on what was said at the press conference. Therefore the obvious question to ask would be why was the Bangladesh FM silent when the German FM expressed opinion on issues that were not discussed at the official meeting instead of waiting to call the CDA and register the Government’s objection afterwards!  Equally important question to ask would be whether a visiting FM is restricted by diplomatic protocol or otherwise from mentioning in a press conference after official talks on issues not discussed at the official talks? What if the journalists ask him questions about issues not discussed at the meeting?

Obviously, these are questions that the MFA would not be able to answer. When India defaulted on the Teesta deal, the Prime Minister was very upset and it was a knee jerk reaction of his aides that includes her Advisers and the Foreign Minister to summon the Indian High Commissioner to deal with her anger. The German FM’s comments went against the Government and in favour of the opposition.  Therefore it must have upset the Prime Minister and the decision to summon the CDA was another knee jerk reaction to deal with her sentiments. In recent times, Hilary Clinton made comments similar to what the German Minister said on a visit to Bangladesh. The US Ambassador was however not summoned to register Bangladesh’s displeasure. Perhaps for some unknown reason; the Prime Minister did not bother herself about her comments and therefore the Foreign Ministry was silent about her comments on human rights and internal politics of Bangladesh.

The summoning of envoys by the Foreign Ministry therefore reflects reactive diplomacy without any set guideline that does not do the country any good.  In case of the German FM’s visit, Germany would not be very pleased that its CDA was summoned to lodge complaint against its Foreign Minister, particularly when the comments he made were made in a joint press conference with his Bangladeshi counterpart. In relations between states, issues upon which the German Minister made comments at the press conference are quite normal. The American leaders regularly do so when they are on visits abroad. Unlike diplomats who are prohibited from speaking on the internal affairs of their host countries under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, foreign dignitaries are under no such restrictions while on visits abroad. 

In both cases, the Foreign Ministry used the diplomatic practice of summoning envoys in a manner that has embarrassed the Government. It was caught unprepared to face  diplomatic situations that a minimum degree of professionalism should have prepared it to deal without having to summon the envoys of these two countries that raised serious questions on Bangladesh’s relations with these countries  .  It has also revealed that the Ministry is really not in charge of foreign affairs and is often required to provide knee jerk reactions to cover the mistakes of those who control foreign policy behind the scene.

The writer is former Ambassador to Japan.

On US Supreme Court's verdct on Obamacare
"As I see it" column
The Independent
July 7, 2012
M. Serajul Islam

This is the year that Americans are going to the polls to elect the President for the next term. Incumbent President Barak Obama is seeking re-election against former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. With just 4 months left for the election, President Obama cannot say with any degree of certainty that he would be returning back to the White House. 

President Obama is fighting in the back drop of some pretty gloomy economic scenario.  Latest unemployment figure which is a key focus on the state of the economy was 8.2%. GDP growth in the last quarter was 1.94%. The President needs unemployment figure to come down to 7.8% and GDP growth enhanced to 2.4% for feeling comfortable about his re-election bid. 

Traditionally, the state of the economy is the most important factor that makes and breaks a presidential candidate. The famous quote “it is the economy, stupid” that explained the unexpected defeat of the elder Bush in 1992 underscored the importance of economics in the outcome of a Presidential election.  At the beginning of 1992, the popularity of President HW Bush was over 90%, based on his success in leading his country successfully in the First Gulf War, when he started his re-election bid. He was defeated in the end by a political unknown Bill Clinton because the economy worsened with the President basking on his Gulf War victory without paying attention to people’s economic misfortunes. 

This time  President Obama is facing a re-election bid with high scores on foreign affairs with successes in Iraq and Afghanistan and of course in giving Americans the scalps of Osama Ben Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders that they held responsible for the 9/11.  Unfortunately, President Barak Obama is facing tough economic times as the elder Bush. That puts his chances of re-election too close for call going by traditional political wisdom. 

There are of course some differences between what happened to the elder Bush and President Obama’s current predicament. First, President Obama is fully conscious of the economic issues. Second, the country’s economic problems are basically the outcome of a meltdown in Europe and the two wars the US fought in Iraq and Afghanistan where the country has spent mind boggling sums of tax payer’s money. President Obama could have blamed his predecessor and opted for the easy political way out.  He did not do that. Although he opposed his predecessor’s foreign wars as a Senator, as the President he embraced both, and did not blame the Republicans for the economic woes of his administration and the country. 

Nevertheless the Republicans have not spared him. While President Obama tried to reach out to the Republicans for bipartisanship on national issues, they rejected him from day one of his term. They refused to give him any credit for ending successfully the wars they started and messed. They also blamed him for the economy they destroyed. They have portrayed his administration as a heavy spending one that they say has led to the country’s huge debt and all the country’s economic ills, including the high level of unemployment and slowing down of GDP growth. 

They have attacked his major election promises to the US public, his message of change with zero level tolerance. The Republicans attacked his “Dream Act” with which he tried to tackle the US’ huge immigration problem. They also attacked his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), popularly called Obamacare, passed in 2010 and to take effect from 2014 to provide health insurance in a country where unbelievably 49.9 million Americans were un-insured in 2010 according to the US Bureau of Statistics. The opponents took PPACA to the Supreme Court in an effort to declare the ct unconstitutional.  The President was given unexpected good news on PPACA at a time he was feeling pressure on the economy.  

The US Supreme Court divided 5 to 4 in favour of the Republicans decided 5/4 that PPACA is constitutional. The President was given what could turn out to be a big impetus for his re-election by Chief Justice John Roberts who cast the deciding vote and bailed out the President at a politically crucial time. No one expected this from Judge Roberts who was appointed to his post by the Republican administration of the younger President Bush and whose nomination was opposed by President Obama as a Senator. Justice Roberts interpreted the PPACA as a tax and ruled it constitutional on the ground that the Congress has the power under the constitution to tax. 

As a consequence of the ruling, a large number of the 49.9 million un-uninsured would now have health care Further; an insurance company would not any longer be able to refuse insurance for any pre-existing health condition. Also, the capping of health care costs by insurance companies would go. All three are major health care reforms that would bring fundamental changes in the US health care system from which millions would benefit. The PPACA is the most significant healthcare reform since Medicare in 1965 that guaranteed healthcare insurance for the elderly. 

The Republicans nevertheless have vowed to fight the ruling at any cost. Mitt Romney has said that it would be his first task as President if elected to destroy Obamacare. Interestingly, as Governor, Mitt Romney introduced a prototype of the Obamacare that he is now vowing to pull down! The Republicans are arguing that Obamacare would bring to the average family an additional US$ 200 plus in taxes a month to cover the costs for those who would now be brought under health insurance. They are also arguing that it would increase government spending and add to the government’s humungous debt under which the country is already reeling.  

It is true that in the short term, there would be increase in health care costs under Obamacare for those who are insured at present. It is also true that   that all the 49.9 million Americans outside the system would not come immediately under universal health care that Obamacare envisages because individuals could remain outside the system by paying penalty. Nevertheless, what Obamacare has done is it has given the country a start for the unfortunate 49.9 million whose only health care so far is to treat themselves with non-prescription drugs purchased at drug stores. 

Of course, Obamacare has also given those who number millions the chance to buy insurance with existing healthcare problems or continue to be treated at costs to be borne by the insurance companies even after costs of their healthcare hits the ceiling.  If Obamacare is allowed to the freedom to grow unhindered, it would bring health care costs down for all eventually while giving all Americans the opportunity to universal health care. 

Unfortunately, the Republicans are not willing to share the costs of healthcare of their less fortunate compatriots. Their logic which is difficult to understand is they struggled and reached the financial security to buy health insurance without help from any quarter. Therefore, their less fortunate compatriots should also do the same and should not expect assistance. They must earn health insurance or live without it!  

Obamacare has brought to surface views of conservatives in the USA which is hard to understand for a non-American; that socialist principles are contemptible and liberal views deserve to be condemned. One hopes that the universally acceptable ideals  of fellow feelings and the government and those prosperous would assist those who are less fortunate  that President Obama’s campaign upholds would play out positively in President Obama’s favour.  The decision of the Supreme Court could no doubt play a positive role but if only the Democrats are able to counteract the negative campaign of the Republicans. 

The US Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, despite some of the unbelievable views of the conservatives, has underscored its strength to the US system. The Chief Justice rose above partisanship and upheld Obamacare as constitutional fully aware that it could go against the chances political party that put him in office in a crucial presidential election. There are lessons here that Bangladesh could and should emulate. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.

Foreign policy failures

"Defense and diplomacy"page

Daily Sun

4th July, 2012

M. Serajul Islam 

Two recent developments provide a negative assessment of this government's performance in foreign relations These are, first, the cancellation of the Padma Bridge loan by the World Bank;  and second, the statement of the fifteen women Senators urging the government to be fair to the Grameen Bank.

The curtain has finally fallen over the drama involving the Government and the World Bank. The Bank announced this week that it was canceling the contract it had signed to provide US$ 1.2 billion loan of the US$ 2.7 billion that would be required to build the Padma Bridge with the ADB and JICA as co-financiers for the remaining portion of the loan. The World Bank stopped processing the loan last year after allegations of corruption came up against officials of the lead Ministry for executing the loan, the Ministry of Communications. The Bangladesh Government rejected the allegations outright although names were not mentioned or at least not in public, 

Thereafter, the handling of the protracted affair by the Bangladesh Government was poor. Initially, by media reports, it was evident that the World Bank wanted the Minister for Communications to go that the Government resented and resisted. In the end, although the Minister was removed, the Government refused to admit that this was done under WB pressure.  Nevertheless, the WB/ADB/JICA’s stand not to fund the project till its concerns on corruption were resolved placed the Government in a difficult situation because of the project’s political importance. In the end, the government failed to resolve the matter with the WB because the Prime Minister took a personal stand in the matter. Perhaps there were other individuals involved that the Government needed to protect.  

Further complications that revealed confusion at high levels emerged as a consequence of the intransparent way the government handled the issue. The Finance Minister and the new Communications Minister publicly contradicted each other many times. The Minister of Communications did not leave anyone in doubt that his main intention was to please the Prime Minister. He made statements in media stating that Malaysians were eager to step into the WB's shoes to rescue Bangladesh without checking on facts. When he was informed that Bangladesh would have to rescind the contract with the WB to sign the contract with Malaysia, he retracted.  

It is time for the Government to come out clean and inform the costs for the Malaysian funding now that the WB has cancelled the contract. From media reports, the costs seem to have gone up by US$ 300 million already from US 2.7 under the contract with WB, ADB and JICA to over US $ 3 billion under the contract offered by Malaysia.  Then of course, the Malaysians would not provide the loan at the WB's rate that would enhance costs even further. The Malaysians are coming to the project as a business venture. Their business interests are certain to add enormously to the costs that the people have a right to know. 

The AL led Government would need to consider whether it has the ethical right to sign the contract with Malaysia if the costs go up enormously as it will. The controversy that has been created because of mishandling the negotiations with the WB is a further reason that strengthens the ethical argument.  Under the best case scenario, the AL led government would be able to start the contract only. The major part of the work would be completed under the next government. Therefore, the government should not start the project simply for political gains. In any case, by some very poor handling, the government has not just put at jeopardy serious national interests but has also allowed the WB to abort the contract with serious charges of corruption against it not just unresolved but strengthened. 

The statement of the 15 women Senators is also a strong reflection on poor handling of a domestic issue with critical foreign affairs repercussions by the government. The Senators have sent a very strong message to the Prime Minister to leave Grameen Bank alone. This government opened itself to critical international attention and censure after deciding to remove Dr. Yunus from the GB on the plea that he had passed the mandatory age of remaining as the Managing Director of the Bank. In removing him, the Government also tried to humiliate him by accusing him of corruption and fleecing the poor. In the end, the government removed him from the GB but at the cost of annoying powerful international leaders such as the US President and Secretary of State who sent at first her emissaries and then came to Dhaka to convey her personal annoyance. 

The Government also failed to prove the charges against Dr. Yunus that destroyed its claim it that it had acted against the Noble Laureate on issues of the law and principle. This notwithstanding, the Government refused to let Dr. Yunus alone leading New York Times and the Economist to bring charge of vindictiveness against it. Recently it formed a committee to investigate 54 GB subsidiaries to find out whether there has been any corruption or wrong doing in these institutions that could be linked to Dr. Yunus. Recently, 9 independent Directors of GB, women that the GB initiative has brought out of poverty to place them in such responsible positions, voiced their disapproval at the latest Government action. They made a passionate plea to the government to leave the GB alone. The letter of the Senators voiced the sentiments and emotions of these 9 GB Directors.

The Senators belong to both side of the political divide of the US that makes their letter very important. By disregarding the requests of the US President and its Secretary of State the Government has placed Bangladesh at odds with the Obama Administration that is proving serious impediments to achieving its foreign policy goals. If it displays the same impulsive attitude towards the Senators, the Government would be destroying its chances of benefitting at all from its bilateral relations with the USA that has the power to make or break a country such as Bangladesh. The letter is another chance to the Government to get its diplomacy in order and its diplomatic rudder attuned to the needs and the interests of the county. 

Unfortunately, these two developments show how personal ego and interests have stood in the way of Bangladesh achieving its foreign policy interests with major bilateral partners and international financial agencies. Those responsible for advising the Prime Minister on the country's foreign policy have failed her badly. They failed to tell her about the futility of fighting the USA and the World Bank on an individual and an institution that the world respects or on charges of corruption against individuals at key positions of the government that it cannot disapprove. If this government could have placed national interests over individual ones, it could have been the best placed of all Bangladesh governments to reach out to the most influential world leaders to further its national interests.  

Before deciding to make world leaders unhappy over issues that common sense should have dictated otherwise, Sheikh Hasina had shown the promise to make a position for herself as an international leader, glimpse of which she had shown during her participation at the Climate Summit at Copenhagen in 2010. She has wasted that promise on the issues of Dr. Yunus and the World Bank. The decision of the WB and the letter of the Senators highlighted how she and Bangladesh have been let down because of some abjectly poor and unwise diplomacy. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan

The BNP and India: Positive signs

Daly Sun

June 30, 2012

M. Serajul Islam

A great deal of optimism that was created in Bangladesh by the AL led Government for a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations now seems to be fading. Our negotiators are no longer in public view speaking on the good things accruing for us from improving our relations with India. 

It is a regret that things have not turned out as our negotiators had expected. Their optimism of Bangladesh becoming the regional connectivity hub with great economic benefits for instance is  achievable if relations are conducted on basis of trust.  In fact, after giving India the security commitment and granting it a trial run of land transit, Bangladesh should have been on track to becoming the regional connectivity hub if India had kept its part of the bargain. 

India’s failure to deliver the Teesta deal at the proverbial 11^th hour forced Bangladesh to withdraw the land transit deal that is crucial to making Bangladesh the regional connectivity hub. With it, the prospect of a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations has diminished. The failure to lift Bangladesh-India relations to a new level after Sheikh Hasina showed the way has been largely due to the last minute spanner put by Mamata Banarjee, the mercurial Chief Minister of Paschim Bangla. New Delhi also did not show the strong political will necessary to lift Bangladesh-India relations to a new level of mutually beneficial relations.   

Although forward movement of Bangladesh-India bilateral relations have faltered, the benefits of negotiations have not been completely wasted. India now realizes better that land transit would help bring a new era of economic development to the eight northeastern states that are stagnating because they are cut off from the mainland and are landlocked with grant of land transit by Bangladesh a major key to their well being. India has already benefited significantly from the cooperation on security where Bangladesh’s assistance has broken the many decades old ULFA insurgency.  India would however need continued security cooperation of Bangladesh to sustain the gain and also to tackle the other insurgencies in the northeast.  

Bangladesh has today become better aware that good relations with India would make it the regional connectivity hub. It has also become aware that the economic activates that would follow from it would create the environment of trust to seek the solution of Bangladesh’s water sharing problems with India where the eventual solution would have to be regional and not bilateral. The environment of trust would also in due course take care of the other major problems that Bangladesh has with India such as the issues of trade, killings in the border and demarcation of the land boundary. 

Unfortunately, Mamata Banarjee’s spanner halted for the time being the bright prospects towards which Bangladesh-India relations were moving. In fact, if India had moved in the same speed with which Bangladesh went ahead, Mamata Banarjee would not have had the opportunity to be the spoiler of the party. Bangladesh-India relations would have been on way to the new era that Sheikh Hasina’s unilateral moved on Indian needs of security and land transit had promised.  

Nevertheless, even if New Delhi had moved fast that would have kept Mamata Banarjee out of the equation, the opposition of the BNP would still have been a problem. In fact, the BNP would then have played the role of the spoiler, blaming India of taking from Bangladesh its critical needs on security and land transit and failing to give Bangladesh its needs on water sharing, border killings, trade issues and land boundary demarcation. It would have then taken stand against the Government for “selling Bangladesh”.  

After the forward movement stalled, the BNP changed its stance. In public, it leaders supported  friendly relations with India based on trust and mutual respect, no doubt moved by the prospects that negotiations between the two countries brought to the surface before the Mamata Banarjee spanner. In an interview to the New Delhi based Institute e for Defense Studies and Analyses, Begum Khaleda Zia has given an interview that is very refreshing for those who believe and rightly so that India and Bangladesh, for reasons of history and geo politics, should have the best of relations based on trust and mutuality. 

In her interview, Begum Zia addressed the two issues critical to India, namely terrorism and connectivity. On terrorism, she said that the two countries should work together and eliminate it bilaterally. She also underscored the fact that apart from tackling terrorism bilaterally, SAARC Regional Convention on Terrorism of 1987 and Additional Protocol of 2004 provide further framework to tackle and eliminate all kinds of terrorism.   

Begum Zia also allayed India’s fear about BNP’s stand on connectivity. She assured that the two countries should not be just concerned at connecting each other; she extended Bangladesh’s hand to work together with India to connect South Asia with Southeast Asia. She said that the Look East policy of the two countries should provide the excellent framework not just for connectivity in South Asia but also connecting South Asia with Southeast Asia and China and “will facilitate increased trade and movement of people and ideas amongst all of us.” 

Begum Zia of course stressed upon the need by India to resolve the outstanding issues of interest to Bangladesh to take relations forward.  She identified these issues as “sharing of the waters of our common rivers, killing of unarmed civilians in the border areas and a satisfactory resolution of our land boundary demarcation.” Begum Zia underlined that “the main challenge to further development of our relations is the lack of confidence and trust among our people in our relationship”. 

She was no doubt alluding to India’s recent and past failures to keep its promises and commitments without mentioning instances. Nevertheless, India’s failure to sign the Teesta deal   and implementing the land boundary agreement after signing it during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Dhaka are fresh in the minds of Bangladeshis that lends credibility to Begum Zia’s views. In underscoring the trust element, Begum Zia was however careful in not blaming India that was quite a departure from the way the BNP has spoken about India in the past. Quite clearly, the BNP has matured to the point where it is not interested anymore to play politics with India or blame India for the sake of blaming it. 

The ball is as the cliché goes in the court of India. Begum Zia’s interview should help encourage New Delhi to believe that the BNP is also serious for improvement of relations with India as the AL. Many in Bangladesh were encouraged when Pranab Mukherjee had expressed at his meeting with Khaleda Zia in early May that India is interested in relations with Bangladesh and not with a political party. With Pranab Mukherjee soon to become India’s first Bengali speaking President, this is significant for if India seriously looks beyond the AL for sustainable relations with Bangladesh, the prospects of attaining those relations increase immensely. 

Earlier, Begum Zia had a very good meeting with the Indian Prime Minister during the latter’s visit to Dhaka last September. Quite possibly, it is the encouragement coming from top Indian leadership that has brought the change in the BNP’s attitude towards India and the public awareness created by the initiatives taken by Sheikh Hasina.  

With BNP now showing positive signs about better relations with India, there should be less concern in India that the AL’s term is getting close to an end. India should now resolve its own internal problems and show the political will that Sheikh Hasina has shown and Khaleda Zia has promised. The issue for betterment of Bangladesh-India relations now rests squarely on India’s political will. 

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

On rule of law

"As I see it" column

The Independent

June 29, 2012

M. Serajul Islam 

Outside the United Sates, most people have critical opinion about the country. Often the reasons why the US is criticized abroad are good ones. Once in the country legally, the United States is different to how it is perceived abroad. The United States has many pleasant surprises from the point of view of a Bangladeshi. One wonders what our poets would have done if Bangladesh was anywhere near the United States in natural beauty.  However, it is not gift of God as the land of plenty and beauty that has made the US what it is today.  

It is the rule of law that Americans have achieved   that has created the legal framework of statehood that has given its citizens the freedom and opportunity to realize their fullest potentials.  The issues with which we concern ourselves in our politics such as democracy, human rights, etc, etc, without success and with humungous waste of time have evolved naturally in the United States with the establishment of a society based on rule of law. It would not be correct to suggest that Americans did not struggle for democracy and human rights. They did but it is the rule of law that they established first that achieved democracy in all its facets and made it sustainable.    

The importance of the rule of law in the United States was established to a Bangladesh like me with what happened to its Secretary of Commerce John Bryson recently.  He was involved in a road accident while he was in California, his state of residence, where he was on a private trip. The Secretary (equivalent of Minister in Bangladesh) was driving his own car and was involved in two accidents in a span of 5 minutes when he hit two cars. Passengers in one of the cars called police over 911. When police came to the scene, the Secretary was unconscious in the driver’s seat. He was taken to the hospital where his identity was revealed. It transpired that the Secretary had a seizure that caused the accidents. 

Since the Secretary was on a private visit, he was not entitled to any security cover that includes when he is on official duty, a chauffeur driven car and security officials in accompaniment. The police of course treated him like any other citizen even after his identity was known to them. He was charged with felony for a hit and run traffic offense to which any other American in his place would have been charged. He was spared being taken into police custody because his accident required hospitalization. 

The first action the Secretary took once he was fit to take control of himself was to inform White House of the accident to seek two months official leave to deal with his medical problem and the legal issues related to the accident. As a Minister, he knew that he would not be shown any favour. In fact he knew that as a Minister, any violation of the law by him would be considered more seriously than if he had been an ordinary citizen.  More importantly, he knew that as a Minister, unwittingly, he embarrassed the President. After making a careful assessment of his situation, the Secretary resigned from the Cabinet on his own to face the consequences of the accidents under the law. 

There are serious lessons for us in this accident concerning the US Secretary of Commerce. Unlike the United States and countries where there is the rule of the law, Ministers of our Government are Ministers with all the fanfare that goes with the position whether they are performing an official function out of their office or attending for instance  a wedding ceremony in Dhaka or any part of Bangladesh. Our system gives our Ministers complete immunity from the law in whatever they do, personal or official. If this is not bad enough, the Ministers demand and often receive the same for their family members. 

In fact, the laws in Bangladesh are applied based on who are at the receiving end. The law favours those in power by placing them above the law. When the former Minister of Railways fell on the wrong side of the law, his resignation became a “historic” event when he resigned!  No one cared to inquire how he became a Minister again after he resigned and what happened to the law! For those who oppose people in power, the laws are applied differently. For example, a lower court sent leading members to jail recently after the High Court granted them bail. 

One level over the Ministers, the laws are totally redundant. Such is the state of affairs in our country that one in his/her right mind cannot even imagine that the law would be applied to anyone in the family of the Prime Minister. Of course when a Prime Minister goes to the opposition,   the law is used liberally to harass her and members of her family. Out of power, a former Prime Minister, former Ministers and leading opposition leaders do have not even given the minimum protection under the law that is available to the common citizens. . 

Thus, despite many decades of movement for democracy, we are today as far from achieving democracy as we have been in our days as a British colony. In a recent discussion program of daily newspapers on a local TV, an Editor made a remark after a parliamentarian of the ruling party had claimed that Bangladesh is a democratic country. He rejected the MP’s claim. He said that neither of the mainstream parties is based on democracy and hence incapable of giving the country democracy. The editor was right about Bangladesh being not democratic. However he was wrong in believing that the country would become democratic with democracy in the parties. The party in power would still subject the law to political ends and use it to serve its interests and harass its opponents.  

Therefore, the mainstream political parties need to commit themselves to the rule of the law where the Prime Minister, her family, the Ministers and their families, and those with power and influence and their families and the ordinary people of the country would be in the same footing in the eyes of the law. If only the parties commit to uphold the rule of law and keep their commitment when in power, Bangladesh’s struggle for democracy would have the chance to succeed.  Bangladesh needs to see the day when its Ministers would be subjected to the law when they violate it just as the former US Secretary of Commerce John Bryson. 

Unfortunately, Bangladesh is regressing in terms of achieving the rule of the law with each successive government. Increasingly, those in power are breaking the law with impunity and getting away with it. In fact, the regression has been sharper under the present government than in the past. As a consequence, Bangladesh is today much more undemocratic than what it was under the previous so-called democratic regimes.    

The writer is a retired Ambassador and Secretary to the Government