Russia’s intervention gives diplomacy a chance in Syria

-->

M. Serajul Islam

President Barak Obama addressed the nation on Tuesday, September the 10th on Syria a day before the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers. In his 15 minutes long speech, he conveyed to Americans that his administration would give diplomacy a chance. The President said that his administration would wait to see the outcome of a Russian proposal to talk Syria to hand over its chemical weapons arsenal to international observers. He also mentioned in his speech that he would ask Congress to postpone considering and voting his request for a green signal for limited air strikes on Syria.

The President’s speech thus ended speculations that was rife in Washington that the United States was on the verge of attacking Syria after undeniable proof emerged that the Syrian regime had killed over 1400 Syrians including over 400 children in 11 residential districts where the anti-regime residents lived on August 21st using chemical weapons. That speculation was based on the promise that President Obama had made earlier that with proof of use of chemical weapons, the regime would be considered to have crossed the Red Line when the USA would have no alternative but to attack.

The prospect of imminent US attack on Syria was paused when the British Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal to join the United States led international coalition was defeated in the British House of Commons. The failure of David Cameron’s move affected France that distanced itself from joining the USA for action against Syria. President Obama then decided to take the Congress on board for military action against Syria. The House Foreign Affairs Committee backed the President and passed a resolution 10-7 for consideration of the House that recommended limited air strike.

Immediately after that resolution, the President went on a bilateral visit to Sweden and then joined the G20 Summit in St Petersburg. In the G20 Summit, the President’s urged the European leaders for an international coalition but received only lukewarm response. The President argued that the Red Line was not set by him but by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that demanded action by signatories against countries caught using those weapons. Therefore, the President further argued that failing to take action against the Syrian regime would damage not just his credibility but of all the signatories of the CWC. The Russian President also upstaged the US President in St. Petersburg. He argued against the international coalition for attacking Syria. Instead he proposed that Russia would convince the Syrian regime to put its arsenal of chemical weapons under international control. Russia also held out the possibility of Syria not just giving up its chemical weapons but also becoming a signatory of the CWC. That proposal won the support of the members of the G20 countries.

Meanwhile, upon returning home, the US President found that the prospect of the Congress backing him for a limited strike on Syria was not bright. Although the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had enhanced the President’s hopes, the House was not in the mood to toe the line of the Senate. In fact, opinion polls that create great pressure for the members of the Congress of such vital issues were consistently against any military action in Syria, even limited ones. The President also made his case for attacking Syria to the nation by interviews to major TV stations upon returning from St Petersburg. These efforts did not change the nation’s mood in any major way.

The President’s speech to the nation therefore underscored the reality he was facing with Syria, that he did not have the nation or the Congress behind him to intervene. Thus he made the best use of airtime with his address to the nation to place before the Americans undeniable proof that the Syrian regime had killed 1421 fellow Syrians in the most abhorrent manner by using chemical weapons. He compared the despicable act of the Bashar Regime to those committed by Adolf Hitler in the genocide against the Jews and by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. He used the comparisons to convey to his fellow Americans about the necessity of holding the Syrian regime responsible for its ghastly crimes.

The President spent major part of his speech making the case for military strike. He thus allayed the concern of putting lives of American soldiers on line by stating unequivocally that not one US soldier would put foot on Syrian soil. On concerns that limited strikes would be “pinpricks”, the President said, “The United States military does not do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Asaad that no other nation can.” On concerns of retaliation, he also dismissed it as unfounded. On concerns that the forces opposing unknown elements and perhaps even al-Qaeda operatives, the President argued that “al-Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.”

The President Obama touched on the Russian proposal near the end of his speech but only after making his case that Syria had crossed the Red Line and international obligations make it obligatory on USA and signatories to the CWC to take military action against Syria. He said that it was his administration’s efforts that led, first, to encourage Russia to make its move with Syria, and second, the acknowledgement by Syria that it had an arsenal of chemical weapons that it had previously denied and Russia had adamantly supported. Thus the president took credit for the way the Syrian issue has been handled by the international community where the Syria has admitted to be in possession of an arsenal of chemical weapons, showed willingness to give up that arsenal and even sign the CWC.

US Secretary of State John Kerry left Washington for Geneva a day after the president’s speech for talks with his Russian counterpart to implement the Russian plan. There are many doubters both in USA and abroad whether the Russian plan would succeed. Nevertheless, from the US perspective and that of President Obama, the developments are positive. The developments have shown that he has led the US as leader of the world; that he has succeeded in establishing the fact that the Syrian regime has crossed the Red Line and assured action by the international community against the regime where diplomacy has been preferred ahead of military action.

The president’s decision to seek Congressional approval was received favourably by most Americans. Americans have bad memories on this issue left from the administration of President Bush. Nevertheless, in USA’s highly partisan domestic politics, there are his detractors who criticised the president for letting the Russian President upstage him after he had created world opinion against the regime of Bashar Al Asaad. The diplomatic solution is being worked out at the time of filing this article. On the first day of negotiations in Geneva, significant differences arose between the US and Russians on a framework for documenting the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal and on a time frame for destroying them. Also, the Russians still maintain that the Syrians did not use chemical weapons on August 21st. At this stage, it looks like Bashar Al Assad has received temporary reprieve for missiles falling on Damascus. He should consider himself lucky, at least for the time being, because fellow dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gadhafi became history for similar crimes perhaps less.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador. -

On the Felani Verdict

 

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam 

It looks like little is working in favour of the AL led government these days. When it needs New Delhi very badly to come forward and deliver its commitments to establish that the government did not waste the leverage it had over India with the security and land transit cards, two disappointing news have come from India in the last one week. The Congress led Government’s efforts to ratify the LBA deal ended unsuccessfully in Parliament. More importantly, a special court in Cooch Bihar acquitted Havildar Amiya Ghosh on charges of killing Felani. 

The disappointing news on the LBA was expected. Recent developments in India’s domestic politics had more or less assured that although sources in the Congress led government and in the AL Government were sending signals to create false hopes. The expectations were different on the Felani case; that perhaps New Delhi would do the right thing with the Felani murder trial. The killing of Felani Begum on 7th January 2011 on Bangladesh-India border at the hands of the Indian Border Force (BSF) had abhorred the nation as well as human rights organizations in India and the world by the manner in which the 15-year-old Felani was killed.

Unarmed Felani was shot dead and her body was left hanging for five hours on the barbed wire fence that India has raised on the 4,100 km long Bangladesh-India border.  The body was later taken down by the BSF and handed to her relatives the next day. Pictures of Felani hanging on the barbed wire fence and later being carried by BSF personnel like dead cattle was shown in the media all over the world over and caused outcry everywhere. There was an air of barbarism surrounding the entire sordid episode.

The Felani murder also brought to focus a chapter of Bangladesh-India relations that has emerged as a major obstacle towards the development of beneficial bilateral relations. The issue is the rampant and senseless killing of Bangladeshis on the Bangladesh-India border by the BSF. The Economist in a report after international outcry over the Felani murder wrote: “The BSF kills with such impunity along India's 4,100-kilometre (2,550-mile) border with Bangladesh that one local journalist wonders what the story is about. According to Human Rights Watch, India's force has killed almost 1,000 Bangladeshis over the past ten years. That implies a shooting every four days. The death toll between two democracies dwarfs the number killed attempting to cross the inner German border during the cold war.”

New Delhi did not take up the anger in Bangladesh and international concern over the border killings seriously. The official line New Delhi has taken has been that those killed should not have been where they were killed. After the uproar over the Felani murder, all the Indians could muster was a “feeble” apology. New Delhi later committed a zero tolerance to such killings in response to pressure from Bangladesh but on the ground, it never established that it intended to keep such a commitment. In fact, even during important bilateral meetings in which the Indians gave the commitment or re-iterated it, there was news of border killings that neither embarrassed nor concerned them.

New Delhi must take the major responsibility for allowing the border killings to become such a huge obstacle in development of Bangladesh-India relations. It did not take into account a number of obvious facts. First, the Bangladeshis killed were mostly all shot at the back while running away from the BSF. Second, the border was fenced by India and BSF controlled both legal and illegal border crossings. Third, an organized racket based in Indian side of the border controlled smuggling business worth in billions of US dollars where the BSF was involved. Finally, the killings were almost all the outcome of smuggling deals that went sour. In the Felani case, her father had paid 3000 rupees for the illegal crossing to organized racket. Her murder too was another case of a human trafficking deal that went sour.

The reasons were plenty for India’s indifference to go into denial over these obvious facts. Acknowledging that the BSF was merrily shooting down Bangladeshis on the border would have given the country a bad name. It would also have caused problems in a well embedded smuggling racket worth billions of US dollars in which with the BSF, many other Indian government agencies working in the border and individuals with political links were involved. Thus when sentiments in Bangladesh were aroused as was when Felani was killed, all New Delhi did was make promises such as zero tolerance, use of rubber bullets, etc. that it never intended to keep and hoped that emotions and tensions would die down.

New Delhi was also never put under serious pressure by the present AL led government on the issue. Those who negotiated with New Delhi were concerned that pressure on the border killings issue would take focus away from bigger issues to implement the vision of paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations of Sheikh Hasina. That such a policy has proved fatal for the vision of Sheikh Hasina has become clear as daylight as the AL led government’s tenure enters its final days. It is interesting to see that it is now not Bangladesh side that is alone in complaining that New Delhi did not act fairly to the great political risks that Sheikh Haisna had taken for her vision of paradigm shift. Prominent Indians are speaking out forcefully for Bangladesh.

New Delhi too has shown awareness that it had let down Sheikh Hasina very badly. In recent times, it has been trying its best to deliver the LBA and Teesta deals but with elections in India now not very far away, those who hold the key to let New Delhi deliver these deals to Bangladesh, namely the BJP and the Trinamool, are not willing to give the Congress anything that would benefit it in the elections. Thus, the last ditch attempt by the Congress led government to ratify the deal was frustrated last week.  New Delhi’s efforts with the Felani trial were however not sincere.

It decided to bring the Havildar who killed Felani to trial more than two and half years after the death had caused absolute abhorrence in Bangladesh. After taking the line that Felani was in the wrong place at the wrong time, New Delhi decided to hold a trial for the murder. However, it allowed that trial to be held under the BSF Act by a special tribunal chaired by BSF official where even the charge was diluted. Havildar Amiyo Ghosh was allowed to go scot-free after standing trial for “unintentional killing.” If New Delhi were serious it would have decided to hold the trial in a civilian court with the more serious charge of murder against him.

Again Bangladesh was caught on the wrong feet in dealing with the Felani case. The Law Minister said that the government would take steps to ask New Delhi to try the case in a civilian court.  That the case would be tried under BSF Act by BSF personel was known to Dhaka before the trial started. Why then did Bangladesh wait for the verdict to do what the Law Minister now would want Bangladesh to do? It was ironically the Indian High Commission that showed more concern than Bangladesh where its Foreign Ministry is still silent about such an important issue in Bangladesh-India relations. The Spokesman of the Indian High Commission asked Bangladesh to wait, as the judgment pronounced by the BSF Tribunal was “the first step” and would go to “competent authorities” for a final decision.  Was there some hint in that statement about what Bangladesh should do?

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

Playing politics with Islam

 

September 13, 2013

M. Serajul Islam

  

The 15th amendment has re-established secularism in the Bangladesh Constitution. Yet it has left provisions in the Constitution that are based on Islam and conflict with secularism, intact. For instance, Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim or “in the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful”, Islam as the state religion and the right to form religion based political parties are still in the Constitution even after secularism has been made one of the four state principles. The country’s secular forces have strongly urged the Government to delete these Islamic provisions and demanded that Jamaat be banned to resolve this conflict.

The government has not shown any inclination to ban Jamaat. It has also not shown any interest in deleting the other Islamic provisions because it knows it could do so only at its peril. In fact, far from drawing the line between Islam and politics, the Prime Minister and senior leaders of the Awami League (AL) have been accusing the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat as enemies of Islam because they are aware that using the force of Islam would help them achieve their political objectives. In recent times, the Prime Minister and AL leaders have accused the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat of committing the worst possible act against Islam. They have accused them of burning the holy Koran “in thousands.” The Prime Minister and her party leaders are thus knowingly using Islam to turn the people against the BNP/Jamaat and Hefazat.

Religion and politics

Are the Government leaders guilty of violation of the Constitution that prohibits using and arousing the religious sentiments of the people to achieve political ends following the re-establishment of secularism in the Constitution? Yes, they are. The ruling party leaders, in fact, are guilty of committing the same unconstitutional acts that they regularly accuse the opposition political parties of committing. They are fanning hatred against the opposition by appealing to the religious sentiments of the people. The ruling party is using Islam to turn the people against the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat after the three had used Islam to push it into a political corner in the country’s politics. Thus, the Constitution and its provisions and spirit notwithstanding, both the ruling party and opposition are liberally using Islam for their respective political objectives.

The AL leaders are using Islam to get out of a corner where they find themselves as a result of the Shahabag Movement that led the opposition to accuse the ruling party of taking stand against Islam. It looked almost certain that the BNP was about to become history when the Shahabag movement exploded and turned the country’s politics on its head. The Awami League cleverly owned the movement that should have been an anti-government one because it was the government that had messed up the trials of the war criminals upon which the youth had gathered at Shahabag. In fact, in the early days of the Shahabag movement, also called the Gonojagoron, the BNP was at a loss about what to do; whether to support the Shahabag movement or go against it as its ownership was taken over by the ruling party.

BNP’s lifeline

In retrospect, the revelation of the anti-Islamic blogs offered BNP a lifeline at a time when it was sinking into a political black hole. The Awami League, immersed in the feeling that it had the BNP in political quicksand, went into denial over the humungous damaging potentials of the anti-Islamic bloggers among the Shahabag youth. Thus when Rajiv Haider, a Shahabag youth leader was killed, it embraced him as the “first martyr of a new liberation war”. It was however not the BNP that saw the potentials of the anti-Islam blogs first. It was Hussein Mohammad Ershad, ironically an ally of the ruling party, who saw it first and accused the Shahabag movement as one of Murtads and infidels. The BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat merely followed former President Ershad. It was nevertheless the ruling party that turned the accusations of HM Ershad/BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat into a knot around its neck by going into denial over the anti-Islam blogs. 

The anti-Islam blogs spread like wildfire. Before the Awami League could realize its mistake in owning the Shahabag movement and going into denial over the anti-Islam blogs, the Hefazat emerged on the centre stage of the country’s politics. When it did, it was not the BNP that went to the Hefazat. After the Hefazat arrived in Dhaka on April 4 to show their numbers and then threatened to come back to Dhaka again on May 5, it was the ruling party that sent emissaries to the Hefazat. Ministers went to meet Huzur Shafi and were spurned. When the Hefazat made its outlandish 13-point demand that was a prescription to take Bangladesh back to medieval times, government ministers assured the Hefazat that the government had already met many of their demands!

The government failed to win over the Hefazat. The Hefazatis arrived in Dhaka on May 5. It was then that the BNP awoke to the potentials of the Hefazat in its political game plan to force the Awami League to accept its demand for elections under a neutral caretaker government. It also made what was a big mistake. It spurned the ruling party’s offer for talks and served it a 48-hour ultimatum to step down. That did not happen. The million plus Hefazatis who had parked at Shapla Chattar and demanded that they would not go home till the anti-Islamic bloggers were hanged were sent home running by a two-hours long operation carried at dead of night of May 5-6 by the Border Guards/RAB/Police.

Shapla chattar mayhem 
How many people were killed that night is still unclear. There have been wild numbers from the opposition of many thousands against government’s claim of only a few. The Government has seriously contested Odhikar’s claim that 61 were killed for which the human right organization’s chief is now in jail and is being held there without bail. The controversy over how many were killed that night notwithstanding, the news that spread across Bangladesh was that many Hefazatis were in fact victims that night. What was damaging for the ruling party was the fact that ordinary folks all over Bangladesh believed that the supporters of Hefazat were killed in the cause of Islam.

The news spread by word of mouth as the million plus Hefazatis returned home to tell their story. For this, the ruling party must blame its over-zealous secular activists who under estimated the strength of Islam in the country. It must also blame itself for its failure to realize the potentials of the anti-Islamic blogs. It had formed a Committee to look into the anti-Islamic blogs after there was a national outcry over it but belatedly when the damage was done and the ruling party was caught on the wrong side of Islam in the perception of the public. The Committee has never submitted its report although the government blamed Jamaat for writing those blogs! After a few flip flops that damaged its credibility on Islam, the AL led government arrested four Projonmo leaders, gave them bail and only recently said that their trial would start in November.

Therefore, the ruling party, for its own mistakes, is today confronted with an issue that is growing into one more damaging than many other issues it faces as national election draws close, issues like the Padma Bridge, Hallmark, Destiny, share market scam, law and order, etc. The ruling party is facing the dangerous prospect of being perceived among the people as a political party that has issues with Islam. To state that the BNP has pushed the Awami League to such a predicament would be giving the party credit it does not deserve although it goes without saying that the BNP would have liked the ruling party to be in such a predicament in its dream. It is for this reason that the leaders of the ruling party have gone on the offensive and accusing the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat as enemies of Islam. However, in choosing to use the Islam card against the opposition, the AL is making its predicament worse and sinking more into the political quicksand over Islam.

Koran burning

It is now repeating it’s mistakes in blaming the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat for burning thousands of Korans. It is fanning religious sentiments in a manner that many are seeing as the most blatant violation of the use of religion for achieving political ends. It is also showing disrespect for the country’s judicial process for which it blames the opposition regularly. The AL led government has already filed a case in the court against Jamaat for burning Korans during the disturbance in front of Baitul Mukarram on May 5. The case is now pending and therefore, public discussion on it is not only against the Constitution; it is clearly a case of contempt of court. The more serious matter is the conclusion that people are drawing from the Koran burning accusation. It has been quite some time that the ruling party has spun the accusation of Koran burning against BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat.

So far, there is no outcry among the people against the three that the AL wanted and it is unlikely that they would. The people have no love lost for the Jamaat. They agree with the ruling party over a host of its accusations against the Jamaat. In fact, they would perhaps not even care if Jamaat were banned as a political party. However, they are not ready to believe that Jamaat would burn Koran. That accusation against Hefazat is more unacceptable to the people who know that the Koran is everything to them. The people also know that this accusation against BNP is nothing but an absurd political ploy.

In fact, the people outside AL are unhappy that the ruling party would be accusing fellow Muslims of burning Koran “in thousands.” They feel it would boomerang on the ruling party for reasons that the ruling party has not convincingly proven the grave charge. Unfortunately, the accusation has the potentials to seriously damage Bangladesh’s national interests that those making it are not even caring to consider. If news that the Prime Minister has been accusing her fellow citizens of “burning Korans in thousands” were to spread to the Middle East countries, as it must have, they would not take the matter lightly. They would not care who made the accusations and against whom; they would hold it against Bangladesh.

These countries employ millions of our expatriates who remit billions of US$. Certainly, they would not want to employ people from a country where the Koran is burnt. It is a wonder how a ruling party would be so oblivious to such a simple equation in diplomacy and foreign relations. Since this government came to power, export of manpower to these countries has declined. UAE has not imported manpower from Bangladesh in the last 2 years although the demand for manpower of the sort that Bangladesh could supply has increased greatly. Saudi Arabia, that recently relaxed the Ikama issue that the government had claimed as a success of its diplomatic efforts has not worked at all in favour of Bangladesh. The AL led government has further complicated Bangladesh’s case with the Middle East countries by bringing the accusation of Koran burning against the BNP/Jamaat/Hefazat.

Political use of religion

The bottom line nevertheless is that both the ruling party and the opposition are using religion for their political ends. View expressed by secularists notwithstanding, this is normal and logical. It happens in all countries; even in USA where the country’s Constitution prohibits use of religion in politics. In his elections, President George Bush unashamedly admitted he heard voices from Heaven guiding him to the White House and openly sought support from Christian fundamentalists for his political objectives. In next door India, whose Constitution we copied for giving secularism a place in our Constitution, a party like the BJP that is based on Hindu fundamentalism and openly espouses Hinduism political ends has gone to power in the past and waiting in the wings to go to power again.

Therefore, that the political parties in Bangladesh would use Islam, the religion of the majority of the people, for political ends is something that no constitutional provision could prohibit. This is realpolitik. It is now the ruling party that is using Islam to corner the opposition for political objectives. Unfortunately for the ruling party, it is falling victim to the very religious sentiments that it is attempting to raise against the BNP. It is only helping revive in the minds of the people the fact that it did not take action against those who had humiliated and disrespected Islam and its Prophet in a manner that even those who hate Islam profoundly would not dare.

-----------------------------------
The writer is a retired career Ambassador and can be reached on email: ambserajulislam@gmail.com

Felani verdict :A big disappointment

 

Published : Sunday, 08 September 2013

M. Serajul Islam

A special tribunal set up in Cooch Bihar in Paschimbanga has acquitted Havildar Amiyo Ghosh of the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) in the Felani murder case. Felani's father has dismissed the verdict and has vowed to take it to the international court of justice. In Paschimbanga, human rights group MASUM said that "the BSF trial was a sham." In Bangladesh, at the time of filing this article, there has been no official response from the government or from human rights groups/civil society or the political parties.

Felani was a teenager who was killed by the Indian Border Security Force on January 07, 2011 while crossing the barbed-wire fence between Bangladesh and India, illegally. That was not the worst part of the death of the teenager; her body was kept hanging on the barbed wire fence for five hours before it was taken down by the BSF. The death caused widespread anger in Bangladesh. Human rights groups in India, Bangladesh and many other countries were abhorred. Unfortunately, New Delhi failed to acknowledge the anger and sentiments in Bangladesh over the death. Although insisting that Felani died because she was at a place she was not supposed to be, New Delhi eventually apologized but it was long in coming. 

India came to Bangladesh's assistance in the worst moments of its history when the Pakistani military had unleashed one of history's worst genocide on the people of Bangladesh in 1971. India hosted 10 million Bangladeshis on its soil who had fled Bangladesh for fear of their lives. More importantly, India assisted the Bangladesh freedom struggle to victory. That should have tied the two countries in friendship forever. That did not happen for an array of reasons for which Indians had always blamed Bangladesh. The way the Indians dealt with the Felani murder was a reflection of that mindset in India while dealing with Bangladesh.

In recent times, however, prominent Indian citizens have come forward for the first time to set the record straight - that for the pitiable state of Bangladesh-India relations, India must share responsibilities. Sekhar Gupta, the distinguished Editor of the Indian Express, addressed a letter to the Chief Minister of Gujarat, who many Indians now see as the next Indian Prime Minister, to come forward and resolve the internal strife within the BJP so that the party would come behind the Congress-led government to ratify the Bangladesh-India land boundary agreement (LBA) that the Indian Prime Minister signed in Dhaka in September 2011.

Sekhar Gupta joined other prominent Indians who have recently spoken strongly against New Delhi's failure to deliver to Bangladesh the Teesta Water Sharing Agreement in addition to the LBA. Four former Indian High Commissioners to Dhaka - Muchkund Dubey, Dev Mukherjee, Veena Sikri and Rajeen Mitter - have also criticised New Delhi for letting down Sheikh Hasina who they thought had taken great political risks to provide India its dream from Bangladesh - a complete assurance of its security. They stated that Indian failure to reciprocate has become what Sekhar Gupta described as "killer embarrassment" for Sheikh Hasina with elections in the country within months. An IBN/CNN/The Hindu poll conducted not too long ago placed Bangladesh on top of list Indians trusted most. 

These prominent citizens have put New Delhi on a spot forcing it to strengthen the efforts that Prime Minister Manmohon Singh and Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid have been undertaking with the BJP and Mamata Banarjee in recent times to deliver the two deals to Bangladesh. In fact, the latest developments in India have convinced most people in Bangladesh that New Delhi would have delivered the two deals had the BJP and Mamata Banarjee not been the party spoilers. Further, these developments have also revealed that the objections of the BJP and Mamata Banarjee to the deals have more to do with the nature of domestic politics in India rather than with any anti-Bangladesh bias.

These are paradigm shifts in India that augurs well for the future of Bangladesh-India relations. Therefore, even if the Congress-led government were to fail to bring the BJP and Mamata Banarjee to the party to deliver the deals before Bangladesh's national elections, the realisation in India among the stake holders there that New Delhi has been unfair to Bangladesh would undoubtedly augur well for the future of Bangladesh-India relations under new governments that the two countries would have within the next year. Of course, New Delhi would need to have faith in the democratic process in Bangladesh to complete the paradigm shift. It would need to believe in relations with Bangladesh and not with a particular political party. Indian President Pranab Mukherjee had made that promise while on a visit to Dhaka in May 2012 when he was the Indian Finance Minister. New Delhi would need to keep that promise.

Nevertheless, the changes in India are positive despite its failure on the deals. It also did something unusual to make up to Bangladesh with the trial of Havildar Amiya Ghosh. This was the first time that the Indian authorities decided to try BSF personnel for killing a Bangladeshi on the border. According to Human Rights Watch, BSF personnel killed over a thousand Bangladeshis on the border in the decade ending in 2010. Two hundred Bangladeshis have been killed by the BSF in the last four years despite commitment by India to a zero tolerance on such deaths. Felani's death and continued killings on the border have "abhorred" Bangladeshis.

The Indians have fenced off Bangladesh-India border with control of border crossings in the hands of the BSF. Yet illegal crossings of both human beings and commodities, including the hugely lucrative cattle smuggling, are a commonplace. The smuggling racket is controlled by the BSF, a fact well known to New Delhi. Yet the Bangladeshis are killed regularly, most of them shot in the back that occur when smuggling deals go sour over payment. New Delhi never acknowledged this well-known fact. Therefore, when it agreed to try Amiyo Ghosh for Felani's murder under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (unintentional killing) and Section 146 of the BSF Act, it was welcomed in Bangladesh as a positive development in Bangladesh-India relations.

The no-guilty verdict delivered on the case was thus a big disappointment in Bangladesh. The law does not allow appeal on the verdict. Amiya Ghosh has already been released. Felani's father Nurul Islam talked about going to the international court that was more out of frustration because there was no question of that happening. West Bengal-based human rights group MASUM talked about putting pressure on New Delhi to find out legal ways to keep the case alive. That too does not appear likely to happen. So far, Foreign Ministry officials in Dhaka said, unoffciially, that there were "disappointed" at the outcome.

The Indian High Commission asked Bangladesh to wait, calling the verdict reached at Cooch Bihar as "the first step." A High Commission spokesman said that the verdict would go for "review by a competent authority". The Indian High Commission knows too well that a not a guilty verdict would add to the negative impression about India. 

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

President Obama seeks Congressional approval to attack Syria

-->

September 8th., 2013

M. Serajul Islam

At present the buzzword in Washington and the United States is Syria. The President has been under great pressure to attack Syria after irrefutable proof surfaced from US intelligence that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against its own people on August 21. The United States had delayed intervening in Syria since the civil war started there nearly 3 years that has so far killed over 100,000 (UN estimate till June 2013) and made millions refugees on the argument that without proof of use of chemical weapons, it would not have the legitimate reason to attack Syria. President Obama had called the proof of use of chemical weapon as “The Red Line” to attack Syria.

Nevertheless, President Obama chose to seek approval of the Congress that has delayed the US attack. At the same time, he also turned to allies to build an international coalition that has so fair been unsuccessful. Tony Blair as Britain’s Prime Minister had unquestionably supported the US President George Bush when he decided to attack Iraq. This time the British Parliament denied his successor David Cameron permission to attack Syria. France was also not enthusiastic after Britain opted out. The Swedish Prime Minister declined the US request made by President Obama while on a visit to Sweden immediately after Senate started to consider the President’s request to attack Syria. European’s are currently going through strained relations with the United States on the issue of clandestine surveillance of European countries by US intelligence.

The Russians have emerged as another formidable obstacle to an imminent US attack of Syria. In what reminded many of the former Soviet Union, the Russia moved its fleet into the region as a warning to the United States against unilateral action in Syria. President Putin stated unequivocally that any strike without UN approval would be “an aggression” and that such an UN approval must come only after it was established “beyond doubt” that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons. Russia and the United States too are also going through a period of strained relations over a host of issues notably over the issue of Russia’s soft pedaling of the Snowden case. Edward Snowden, accused by USA of treason for divulging national secrets, has been given sanctuary by Russia ignoring US’ request to extradite him.

At the time of filing this write-up, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution 10-7 that would allow the President to order limited strikes on Syrian soil but without committing any ground troops. The resolution also set more limitations. The strikes would be up to 60 days after which the president could seek extension for an additional 30 days. The resolution would also allow “a small rescue mission in the event of an emergency”. The full Senate was expected to pass the resolution but the chances of the GOP controlled House giving the green signal to the president for a limited strike on Syria “are looking progressively dimmer for the Obama administration.”

The President’s men — Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff -- were able to make the case that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons that killed 1426 opponents of the regime. Nevertheless, the way they were grilled established that the Congress’ approval to attack Syria would not be an open and shut case. The Senators sought assurances on a number of concerns now in the minds of most Americans. First, the United States would not be stuck in Syria. Second, the Asaad regime would be sufficiently degraded by the attack. Third, Al Qaeda elements would not be among the opposition to the Syrian regime. Finally, “collateral damages” would be at a minimum. The president’s men were not really able to answers these concerns convincingly.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used the Al Qaeda argument to deflect strong pressures on President Obama’s first administration to intervene in Syria against the regime of Bashar al Asaad and in favour of the groups fighting the regime. In making the case for the limited strike on Syria, Secretary Kerry and his colleagues avoided the issue that left many Americans unconvinced about the need to attack Syria in haste. In fact, they argued their case on the need to attack Syria and stressed that the United States could wait no longer after the Syrian regime was exposed clearly to have crossed the Red line.

In Europe, the president gave a new spin to the Red Line that many thought was out of his frustration and weakened the case to attack Syria. He said the world’s credibility was at stake and not United State’s. He strongly refuted that he had set the Red Line. The President said: “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line.” President Obama was referring to the fact that the international community by signing the treaty against use of chemical weapons was as much under treaty obligations to put down the Syrian regime as the United States. However, President Obama’s interpretation on the Red Line drew sharp reaction and criticism from conservatives in his country.

The chances of limited US attack on Syria is now on the declining curve compared to what was the situation perhaps a week or so ago. Ironically, President Obama finds himself in a position similar to that of his predecessor “a largely isolated U.S., minus many of its key allies and against the will of other countries and of the United Nations, into armed conflict in the Middle East.” The only incentive for the Obama administration currently is the feeling among many Americans that US would need to intervene in Syria in order to uphold its position in the world. That incentive would only wane in the days ahead unless the president would be able to shore up international support on the Red Line and get a clear and unequivocal nod from the Congress that it is behind the White House on its Syrian initiative.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador.

On Election Commission’s flip-flops over Article 91(E)

Bottom of Form

Post Editorial

Saturday, 07 September 2013

Author / Source: M. Serajul Islam

The Election Commission’s latest decision to take back 91(E) has shown it to be as unsure and weak as it did when it decided to the same article, in fact worse. For the nation that would have liked the EC to be strong enough to dictate both the mainstream parties in the context of the electoral laws, the EC’s flip-flops have shown it to be a far cry from what the nation expects of it. Between the flip-flops over 91(E), the Election Commission had also made a written statement in the media that it had enough powers under the RPO to make it strong and independent without Article 91 (E)!

The EC’s flip-flops should have put the ruling party in an embarrassing position if of course it were worried about it that does not seems to be the case. The ruling party has been saying repeatedly that it has made the EC powerful and independent to dismiss the demand of the opposition for national elections under a non-party caretaker government. If anything, the EC’s flip-flops have shown that in addition to being weak, those in charge of the EC are unsure of their ways at a time when the government was claiming it had made it strong and independent. These flip-flops have destroyed the AL led government’s claim of a strong and independent EC.

These flip-flops have convinced most people and the civil society that national elections under the Election Commission cannot be held independent of the influence of the ruling party. One of the major allies of the ruling party has already dismissed the EC in stronger terms than the BNP that has all along maintained that it would not participate in national elections under it. Former President HM Ershad has stated categorically that there was no question of the Jatyabadi Party going for national elections under the present EC.

Politics is mostly about perception. Unfortunately, our politicians and those who play political roles in public without being politicians like the EC for instance do not seem to realize this. The present EC has a huge problem with how the people perceive it. When its members, the Chairman in particular, come to the media, they fail to give the perception that they would be able to deliver the sort of elections to the nation that would allow a peaceful change of government in the country. They just do not create any positive impression in the minds of the people at all and the flip-flops are contributing hugely to sustain the negative impression about the EC in the minds of the people.

The people started to have damaging perception about the EC from the very beginning; from the way it was constituted. Although late President Zillur Rahman initiated the choice of the Commission where he had stated that it would be constituted through consultations with all the political parties, it was essentially the ruling party’s choice. The BNP was no party in the choice as it stayed away from the President’s consultations because it did not believe that the President was interested to choose an Election Commission that would work independent of the ruling party. The way the EC was chosen and those chosen to be in the Commission left the perception among the people and the civil society that the EC would not be able to act independent of the influence of the ruling party. The EC’s handling on the registration issue of a breakaway group from the BNP has heightened that perception as have a lot of other actions that it has taken or failed to take.

The flip-flops have strengthened that perception to the extent that outside the ruling party, no one believes that the EC has any power to act on major issues without being dictated by the ruling party.   As a result, at a time when it is important for the government that people would perceive it as strong and independent both, the EC is viewed as weak, unsure and incapable of acting on major issues independently. The EC has only itself to blame for such a perception about it among the people to which the role of the ruling party, though covert, has also contributed.

Ambassadors and High Commissioners of the developed countries met the CEC and the other members of the Commission recently. They reiterated that they would like to see the EC hold free, fair, transparent and “inclusive” national election for peaceful transfer of power. Basically, they underscored the recent initiative of the UN Secretary General. The EC assured the diplomats that it would hold free and fair elections but could not convince these diplomats or the nation that it either had the power or the inclination to hold free, fair, transparent and “inclusive” national elections that would mean one with participation of all the major political parties that is critical for the country.

In deciding to take back 91(E), the EC committed another blunder. It said its decision to return the provision was correct but it wanted to take it back in respect for people’s wishes! The EC is not an elected body susceptive to wishes of the people. It is there to conduct elections according to the electoral laws. If the EC were dependent on what people want, then the EC should have considered one major wish of the people. It should have recommended to the Government to hold the next general elections under a non-party caretaker government because independent and credible polls have shown that 90% of the people want it.

Of course, the EC would not dare recommend to the government elections under non-party government based on people’s wish because it would incur the wrath of the ruling party. The flip-flops have exposed to everybody explicitly the over-riding influence of the ruling party over. It also exposed that these flip-flops were also the result of differences within the ruling party on how to use the EC for its ends. The EC at first  ”decided” to return 91(E) because a group within the ruling party wanted it as an insurance in case the next elections were “inclusive” so that opposition candidates would not have any provision in the RPO to file cases against AL candidates on reasons of undue interference with the election laws.

The former CEC Dr. Shamsul Huda has alluded to this point in a recent interview. When the “decision” caused widespread public dismay and destroyed the AL led government’s claim that it had created a strong and independent EC to dismiss the opposition’s claim for a non-party government, a group in the ruling party, perhaps from the Prime Minister’s Office ordered the EC to “re-decide” and seek 91(E) back! The flip-flops have destroyed the EC’s credibility to such an extent that even if  the ruling party were to reach an agreement with the opposition on the next general elections, the EC would have to be reconstituted not because the opposition would rightfully demand it but because the nation would be in agreement with such a demand.

The EC’s ability to astound is becoming surreal. At the time of filing this article, Election Commissioner Abul Hafiz has said he was not sure that the elections would be held without dissolving the Parliament.  He dared to state: “The Prime Minister’s statement isn’t final.” He said this after the Prime Minister had made unequivocal statement that the Parliament would not be dissolved. Was the Commissioner taking on the Prime Minister? Or is this an indication that notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s unequivocal statement on dissolution of the parliament, the government is still undecided on the issue and Abdul Hafiz may have unwittingly spilled the beans! 

The writer is a former Ambassador

INDIAN EDITOR’S LETTER TO MODI Wrong assumptions and misperceptions

Friday, 6th September 2013

M. Serajul Islam

A Dhaka English daily recently carried an unusual article last week. It was a copy of an open letter written by Sekhar Gupta, the Editor of The Indian Express to the Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi of the BJP, who would most likely be the next Prime Minister if the BJP were to win the next national elections in India. In the letter, Sekhar Gupta pleaded and reasoned with Narendra Modi to use his position to convince his party colleagues to come to a consensus and back the Congress led government to ratify the Bangladesh-India Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) that the Indian Prime Minister committed to Bangladesh on his visit to Dhaka two years ago as reciprocal gesture for Bangladesh’s support for Indian security.

Sekhar Gupta articulated the case of Bangladesh far better than Bangladesh has done or could hope to do. He stated clearly that after Sheikh Hasina had been “incredibly brave to turn around her India policy, …our inability to deliver on two solemn agreements, Teesta (blocked by Mamata) and now the land boundary pact, are becoming her killer embarrassment”. He exposed the inner conflicts within the BJP for which Bangladesh was not responsible for which it became the victim. He asked Narendra Modi to resolve the BJP’s inner conflicts and back the Congress led Government’s effort to ratify the LBA so that India would not waste a historical opportunity for sustainable peace with Bangladesh to protect its national interests, including crucial security ones.

‘Killer embarrassment’
He questioned the BJP’s entrenched view about Bangladesh being “Pakistan on its eastern border”, a view that many outside BJP also share. He argued that the choice before India following Sheikh Hasina’s courageous decision to turn Bangladesh’s India Policy on its head was to support the LBA ratification so that Bangladesh would continue to be led by the “liberal, secular” Awami League or deny that ratification and suffer the consequences. He answered the consequences by a rhetorical question to Narendra Modi whether he wanted on India’s eastern border, a “secular, liberal” government led by the Awami League or an “Af-Pak” type with elections in Bangladesh in December led by those opposing the AL in Bangladesh’s politics. 

Sekhar Gupta was correct that the LBA and Teesta deals have become “killer embarrassment” for Sheikh Hasina before the country’s national elections. Four former Indian High Commissioners in Dhaka - Muchkund Dubey, Dev Mukherjee, Veena Sikri and Rajeen Mitter- have expressed the same view, as have many others including BJP’s own Varun Gandhi. These are instances for the first time where prominent Indians have been critical of New Delhi for being unfair to Bangladesh. However, these prominent Indians knew that New Delhi would not be able to deliver these deals when the Indian Prime Minister’s committed the deals to Bangladesh two years ago. They kept silent and have raised their voices only when they have felt that it would adversely affect the Awami League in the forthcoming elections!

Indian mindset
Sekhar Gupta has expressed the mindset upon which Bangladesh-India relations have faltered in the past, the mindset that most Indians suffer from; that New Delhi’s relations with Bangladesh are worth pursuing only with the Awami League. He did not stop at being overtly partisan over Bangladesh. He argued in the letter against the credibility of the BJP’s view that Bangladesh represented Pakistan on India’s eastern frontier. He then argued that if New Delhi did not rescue the Awami League, Bangladesh would have an “Af-Pak” type of Government. He thus identified the opposition forces in Bangladesh led by the BNP as forces that would turn Bangladesh into such a type of government if elected to power.

It is true that in the past, the BNP had shown political closeness with Pakistan and committed acts out of that closeness that could be correctly construed in India as against its interests. However, to describe a possible BNP led government, as “Bengali speaking Af-Pak” type is grossly incorrect and unfair. The BNP has been in power for three times in the past and at present likely to come back to power a fourth time if the country were to have elections where it could participate. To dismiss such a party so arrogantly is not even common sense. It was the BNP Government of General Zia that signed the Ganges Water Agreement with India in 1977. In recent times, the BNP expressed positive views on India that Sekhar Gupta and others who have recently asked New Delhi to deliver the two deals have ignored that leaders in India should not fail to take into account. 

Lost opportunity
The vision of a paradigm shift in Bangladesh-India relations faltered over India’s failure to deliver the LBA and Teesta deals. Nevertheless, the negotiations the two sides conducted did produce a few positive results. First, it highlighted to Bangladesh that the country would gain from close and friendly relations with India that led to re-evaluation of the anti-India bias in the country not just in the BNP but also in civil society and among other shades of political opinion outside the Awami League. Second, and more importantly, it helped change the BNP’s attitude towards India. The party came around and stated in public that it would support India on its two dream concerns of security and land transit, albeit based on reciprocity.

These are huge changes and extremely positive for future of Bangladesh-India relations. Begum Khaleda Zia even undertook a trip to New Delhi where she reassured Indian leaders about her party’s changed position on India that was a paradigm shift similar to the vision of Sheikh Hasina. In fact, in many quarters outside the ruling party of Bangladesh, there was a very positive feeling that with the BNP favouring positive relations with India, the two countries would be able to build the type of mutually beneficial relations that geopolitics demanded; that Bangladesh would give India land transit and complete security assurances and India would reciprocate with water, trade and land boundary deals and the two countries would have sustainable friendly relations based on the spirit of 1971.

It was Shahabag that derailed relations developing that way. New Delhi returned to the mindset of dealing with Bangladesh through the Awami League, contrary to the commitment Pranab Mukherjee had made while on a visit to Dhaka just before he became the President of India that India believed in relations with Bangladesh and not with a political party. The Shahabag movement that threatened to bury the BNP encouraged New Delhi to forget Pranab Mukherjee’s commitment. 

In fact, when Pranab Mukherjee was in Dhaka on his first overseas visit as the Indian President, he openly supported the Shahabag movement at a time when it was openly pro-Awami League and anti-BNP. The BNP retaliated by staying away from a scheduled meeting of its leader with the Indian President that disappointed many who genuinely wanted Bangladesh-India to build pro-active bilateral relations country to country and not country to political party.

Indo-Bangla ties
Those like Sekhar Gupta who are now urging parties like the BJP and Mamata Banarjee to come on the side of the Congress led government to help deliver the Teesta and LBA deals are also making another major mistake in assessing Bangladesh’s current politics. It is true that New Delhi’s failure to deliver LBA and Teesta deals would go against the AL in the national elections as “killer embarrassment”. However, if India were to deliver the Teesta and the LBA, the chances of the Awami League would not in any major way tilt in its favour because it has messed up its elections chances of a wide array of other major issues of governance to seriously put into jeopardy its chances of re-election even with the two deals in its kitty.

Sekhar Gupta and his friends would get a better grip of Awami League’s chances in the next general elections if they cared to examine why the Awami League backed candidates lost so badly in the recently held city corporation elections. They should also examine whether the acceptance of India in Bangladesh has suffered because of the way it dealt with Dhaka over the Teesta and the LBA deals and whether the voters of Bangladesh would take it favourably or hold it against the ruling party if New Delhi delivered these deals at this late stage to overtly come out to help the Awami League in the next elections. There are good reasons to believe that a pro-India tag at this stage could harm the AL' election chances instead of assisting it. Finally, New Delhi should also consider the fact that no party has won successive terms in Bangladesh.

Time for soul searching
It is heartening that powerful individuals are now taking up the case of Bangladesh for fair treatment. This augurs well for the future of Bangladesh-India relations because it will deter New Delhi and stakeholders not to let Bangladesh down the way it has let down Sheikh Hasina. Meanwhile India should spend some time soul searching why it betrayed Sheikh Hasina instead of intervening in Bangladesh’s politics in a highly partisan way as Sekhar Gupta, the former High Commissioners and others have done but wait for better times when elections are over in Bangladesh. In any case, with the way the politics is being played out in India, itself facing national elections soon where the ruling Congress led coalition is being seriously threatened by the BJP, it does not look like New Delhi would be able to deliver the two deals before a new government is in place there.

Unfortunately, national elections in Bangladesh have been made uncertain by the Awami League’s insistence on holding these on its terms. If the elections were not held, Bangladesh would go up for grabs where Sekhar Gupta’s concerns of an “Af-Pak” type situation emerging on India’s eastern frontier would surely become a reality much quicker. If elections were not held, Bangladesh would become the “fundamentalist hub” instead of becoming the “connectivity hub”. 

However, the concerns of prominent Indians notwithstanding, Bangladeshis are now not too deeply worried or concerned with the LBA or the Teesta deals. They are now worried like they have been never worried since the country became independent. That worry is over whether Bangladesh would have free, fair, transparent and “inclusive” national elections. The need of the hour for Bangladeshis is for some power to convince the AL led government to hold such an election to save the country from sliding towards a civil war.

Caretaker govt. issue
Unfortunately, the AL led government is in no mood to listen to what has emerged as a consensus view both in the country and among Bangladesh friend’s abroad that Bangladesh should have elections under neutral non-party government. The UN Secretary General has also put his weight behind such a consensus view. This notwithstanding, it is India alone that has the power and influence to encourage the AL led Government to see reason and relent and hold elections in a manner that would allow the BNP led opposition to participate. India should use its power and influence over the AL led government not just to save Bangladesh but also to protect its own interests.

Sekhar Gupta and his colleagues who are no doubt interested in Bangladesh’s well being should therefore put their concerns for LBA and Teesta deals aside and write or use any other influence they have for helping Bangladesh to hold free, fair, transparent and inclusive general elections. That would revive India’s acceptability in Bangladesh the way it was accepted in the country in 1971. It would also allow Bangladesh to resolve its current dangerous political predicament democratically where the mainstream parties would be able to let the people decide which party they want in power. 

In that scenario, even the AL would have its chances because no elections are either won or lost till fought. The alternative for the Awami League that of returning for a second term by a one-party election would not keep it in power, not even in a fantasy.

The writer is a retired career Ambassador

Pakistan’s experiment in foreign policy management

2nd September, 2013 M. Serajul Islam

Nawaz Sharif started his third term as Prime Minister of Pakistan holding on to the portfolio of Foreign Minister. This is not unusual. In countries such as those in South Asia, a new Prime Minister has been known to hold on to important portfolios when s/he is not sure about the person to choose and is in the process of sorting this out. The measure of the prime minister holding such an important portfolio is as always a temporary measure till the person he is seeking has been found.

Thus when Nawaz Sharif took over the Foreign Ministry portfolio, many thought it would be an interim measure and a new foreign minister would soon be appointed. That did not happen. Instead, the prime minister appointed two individuals to assist him with his Foreign Ministry portfolio. One of them is former Foreign Minister in his second term as Prime Minister (1998-1999) Sartaz Aziz who has been appointed his Foreign Affairs and Security Adviser with the rank of a Federal Minister. The Prime Minister then appointed a career diplomat Tariq Fatemi as his Special Assistant on Foreign Affairs. He gave him the status of a State Minister, a rung below Sartaz Aziz.

The arrangement is a strange one. The reason for such a strange arrangement with the critical portfolio of foreign affairs is a political wonder for many in Pakistan and abroad because it is not exactly clear how the foreign affairs turf would be divided and distributed between the two for an effective way of handling the country’s critically important foreign relations. With two major foreign policy issues facing the country that demand the best professional handling the country can offer, namely peace talks with India that the latter has dismissed due to tensions on line of control and relations with Washington, the strange way that the prime minister has arranged his foreign policy team is baffling.

Sartaz Aziz sits in the prime minister’s office. Tariq Fatemi sits in the Foreign Ministry. Thus while the former has the eyes and ears of the prime minister, the latter has the entire Foreign Service cadre at his disposal having been one of them. The arrangement becomes more complicated as the two are not exactly eager to work together as a team. The turf war has already started between the two and surfaced with the visit of the German Foreign Minister to Islamabad soon after the new government assumed office where even a day before the visit, the Foreign Ministry was unaware of the details leading the media to ask a rhetorical question: “Would the real Foreign Minister please stand up?”

Sartaz Aziz also has the advantage of his political connections, being a senior member of the ruling PML-N. Nevertheless, Tariq Fatmi too has his personal closeness with the prime minister. During his last term, Nawaz Sharif had named him as Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, a post he was unable to join even after arriving in the US capital because meanwhile Nawaz Sharif had lost power to General Pervez Moshraff’s military coup in 1999. Tariq Fatmi is a career diplomat who joined the Pakistan Foreign Service on East Pakistan quota in 1969. He was able to establish himself as one of the country’s ablest diplomats, a career that was launched after he had joined the post of Director in the office of Foreign Minister Sahibzada Yakub Khan.

The fight between the two could also affect Pakistan’s handling of relations with USA, particularly its response to the drones, which is also a domestic issue that unites Pakistanis across political divides. On Washington, the two carry a difference of opinion from the past. In 1998, during the discussions on CTBT, as Foreign Minister Sartaz Aziz had been soft on toeing Washington’s views. Tariq Fatemi who was then a senior Foreign Ministry official opposed the foreign minister and had been successful in convincing the prime minister against signing the CTBT. That tussle, observers in Islamabad feel, has not been forgotten and likely to surface if the prime minister does not resolve the strange way he has set up his foreign policy management team.

Tariq Fatmi, in the decade has been away from the centre of foreign policy management, has been a columnist for the newspapers where his writings have reflected a moderate anti-Washington bias. Despite there being a strong anti-USA sentiment running across the country, Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff must pursue a foreign policy line soft on the US. Sartaz Aziz would fit well in fulfilling Pakistan’s compulsion on toeing a soft line on USA, as he is known to pro-USA and respected in Washington. Perhaps, he could pursue with USA the official contacts leaving the prime minister free to deal with the public on their anti-USA sentiments. One has to watch how Tariq Fatemi, with the Foreign Ministry behind him, fits into this foreign policy management.

Common sense however dictates that Pakistan must find a way out from the potential problems that are there in the dichotomy that the third administration of Nawaz Shariff has created in foreign policy management. The argument has been advanced from the prime minister’s side that he would need to have full control of the important portfolio of foreign affairs in terms of policy while allowing officials like Sartaz Aziz and Tariq Fatemi handle day to day matters of foreign relations. This explanation notwithstanding, foreign policy analysts in Pakistan are deeply worried that the country’s interests would suffer because the two chosen to provide the prime minister time to concentrate on crucial issues of foreign policy have a history of past differences and dislikes that they would no doubt bring to their present jobs. Many political analysts feel that sooner or later, their difference would affect the prime minister adversely in running foreign affairs.

Riaz Khokker, a former senior Pakistani diplomat and very well respected in Islamabad has stated categorically that with the foreign policy issues confronting Pakistan now, this experiment of a foreign policy management team with the prime minister holding on to foreign ministry portfolio with two advisers of different rank, each fighting the other over turf, must end and the country must have a new foreign minister. Common sense dictates that the sooner it is done, the better for Pakistan. There is a rumour in Islamabad that Tariq Fatmi may eventually be sent to the Washington post that he could not assume even after arriving at the post. It may be better if this is done as soon as possible in Pakistan’s interests to end the strange dichotomy in its foreign policy management team.

The writer is a retired Ambassador.