Cheonan reshaping strategic relations

Published in The Daily Star, Saturday, 29th May, 2010




THE situation in the Korean Peninsula is tense to use a mild word to describe a situation that an US official has called, with reference to the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan by an alleged North Korean torpedo that killed 46 South Korean crewmen, the gravest provocation in decades. It has also set into motion possible developments that could re-define the future of the decades old strategic relationships shaped in the region painstakingly out of realities emerging from the end of the Second World War; the Korean War; the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a world power.

The most important of the strategic relationships has been the US-Japan Security Pact under which some 47,000 US troops are stationed in Japan with more than half of it in Okinawa to give it defense and nuclear protection as Japan is forbidden by its constitution from having offensive military capability. That pact has been under pressure since the Democratic Party of Japan came to power after overthrowing the LDP last year. In fact, when the schedule of the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's just concluded visit to Japan was being finalized, the hot topic was expected to be the fate of US air force base in Futenma in Okinawa that the local residents wanted to be shifted with the DJP also supporting the local demand. Japan-US Security Pact's future was under serious pressure as Hillary Clinton prepared for her Japan visit.

An international commission inquiring into the sinking of Cheonan revealed just before Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo last Friday that a North Korean torpedo had sunk the ship. The revelation had an unexpected result on the talks that Hillary Clinton had in Tokyo. Instead of heated exchanges where Japan was expected to put pressure on the US, it was the Japanese who changed their views. After his meeting with the US Secretary of State, the Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said, “in the current security environment, the presence of U.S. forces is indispensable for the security of Japan.” Okada also suggested that the DJP Government would be able to reach some satisfactory understanding with the residents of Okinawa. Hillary Clinton and Okada agreed that the international community cannot allow the attack to go unanswered and must send a clear message to North Korea.

North Korea has denied any responsibility for Cheonan, insisting that the situation in the Korean Peninsula is fast moving towards war. The tough action that the United States and Japan have demanded in Tokyo will depend primarily on which way China leans. China is North Korea's principal ally and has veto power in the UN Security Council. The early signs are not encouraging for China's support. Chinese President Hu Jintao this month welcomed the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il on his train visit to China shortly after he met the South Korean President indicating clearly his country's unwillingness to take sides on the Cheonan issue.

The Cheonan issue, sad as it has been for the South Koreans, has opened up opportunities for USA's strategic interests in the Korean Peninsula by influencing the Japanese Government to resolve the conflict over the air force base in Okinawa to be resolved in favour of the United States. The US however must get China on board to drive home fully the advantage that the Cheonan issue has provided. That was one of Hillary Clinton's primary sale items to the Chinese at the US-China Strategic and Economic Talks that was held in Beijing early this week.

In the long list of US demands on China that came up at the talks, the issue of Cheonan was discussed in a matter of fact manner despite the gravity that the US attached to it. China did not seem eager to look at the issue with the same anger and passion that was generated during the Hillary Clinton-Katsuya Okada talks in Tokyo or in Seoul where South Korea has frozen all trade ties with North Korea and has strengthened its military posture towards its neighbour. Despite proofs to the contrary, China continued to remain skeptical about North Korean involvement in the sinking of Cheonan, making it difficult to launch a UN sponsored move for sanctions against North Korea let alone harsher punitive moves demanded by South Korea and to a lesser extent by Japan and the USA. In Beijing, Hillary Clinton strongly urged China to find common cause with the USA regarding “the serious challenge provoked by the sinking of the South Korean ship”. To the Secretary's forceful appeal, the Chinese called the incident “unfortunate” and hoped that “all relevant parties will exercise constraint and remain cool headed”. Although such a response by China is normal even where they may harbor a more intense reaction, in case of the Cheonan issue it does not appear that the parties seeking serious action against North Korea on the issue would get China fully on board.

The sinking of Cheonan is an extremely provocative action. Nevertheless, it was not unexpected. North Korea is in the habit of such provocations and the list is indeed a long one. It carries out such actions to draw attention of its neighbours and the big powers towards it. In fact, despite its lack of resources, North Korea has demanded and received world attention because of its nuclear capability and its ability to carry out threats. However, from the Obama administration, it has not been getting the attention it wants which is an abandoning of the six-party talks of the Bush era for a new format and veering away from threats of tough economic sanctions. Although the Obama administration has spoken of engagement in dealing with countries his predecessor termed as “axis of evil” in reality this has not happened, not even after North Korea's nuclear test in May last year.

Nevertheless, the US has always come back eventually to talks with the North Koreans and with promising results. It was engagement in the 1990s that has contained North Korea's nuclear arsenal to just 6 today. This time too, despite all the tough talk by the Secretary of State, the parties look likely to return to the table because without China's total support that is not forthcoming, the chances of tough economic sanctions or military action are very unlikely. In that sense, Cheonan will bring out the same result as always; listening to what the North Koreans have to say. This time however the latest provocative act of North Korea has, for the time being, strengthened US' strategic standing in the Korean Peninsula.


The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

My Foreign Ministry Years, 1986-1990: Some reflections

Published in The Independent, Friday, 28th May, 2010
M. Serajul Islam

My tenure of nearly four years came to an end towards the end of May, 1990 and I handed charge to my friend Shahed Akhtar as the new Director (FSO). In the farewell accorded to me, the Foreign Minister said that when the file for my posting was sent to him, he spared no time to sign it because he was more interested to keep Abul Ahsan as the Foreign Secretary as according to him, I was in the habbit of ending the tenures of those I served as Foreign Secretary prematurely! Normally, a Foreign Secretary was in those days expected to serve at least 2 years in his post while in my four years, I had served 5 with Abul Ahsan still in office when I left.

The Foreign Minister's humour at my expense notwithstanding, the fact that in my four years as Director (FSO) there were five Foreign Secretaries reflected "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", to borrow a Shakespearean analogy. Except in the case of M. Mohsin who left to become an Assistant Secretary General in the OIC and Abul Ahsan who eventually completed his 2 years' term and perhaps a little more, Fakhruddin Ahmed, Nazrul Islam and AKH Morshed were not given their full terms not because of lack of ability on their part but because of the whims and likes of the President. It also reflected another fact about the Foreign Ministry at that time; it was not considered important enough for any care and thought to be given in choosing the Foreign Secretary and then allowing him to lead the Ministry to the best of his abilities. Both in choosing the Foreign Secretary and then dispensing with one, the President's attitude was arbitrary.

Fakhruddin Ahmed was the High Commissioner in London when he was chosen for the post at a time when he had two more years to retire. He had been Foreign Secretary almost a decade before he was called to the same post again. He was then also dealing with a personal tragedy, having lost his wife to cancer. There were others who could have been chosen as Foreign Secretary and Fakhruddin Ahmed left in his post which was also what he wanted. Unfortunately, he had to vacate his post because the President had already made up his mind to place a General in London as the High Commissioner. Thus Fakhruddin Ahmed was made Foreign Secretary for a second time not because the Government was interested in placing the Ministry under an experienced Foreign Secretary but because he had to vacate his position as High Commissioner to make way for a General.

The President liked his Secretaries to be in touch with him on a regular basis both in person and over the Red Phone. Fakhruddin Ahmed was not interested to please the President in the manner the latter liked. He was a professional and very experienced who did not have to do these things to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as Foreign Secretary. For Fakhruddin Ahmed, it was unfortunate that his professional ways also fell on the wrong side of the Foreign Minister Humayun Rashid Chowdhury who was just a couple of years senior to him in the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service and the two were expected to work hand in glove for the good of the Foreign Ministry. An incident that occurred at that time reflected the character of Fakhruddin Ahmed and what he thought of his job. A western Ambassador was in the Ministry one day and was meeting the Foreign Minister. The Ambassador had earlier met the Foreign Secretary with a request that he turned down. The Foreign Minister asked his Director to call the Foreign Secretary to attend the meeting. The Director sensed that something was seriously amiss in the request but managed to convey the Minister's desire to the Foreign Secretary. Seeing he was embarrassed, Fakhruddin Ahmed walked with him to his room and asked him to tell the Foreign Minister he was waiting for him. There was a heated exchange in the Director's room during which Fakhruddin Ahmed told the Minister that he had already denied the Ambassador's request and the Minister could go ahead and over rule him but he would not be present in his meeting with the Ambassador. It was inappropriate of the Foreign Minister to ask the Foreign Secretary to attend the meeting. Fakhruddin Ahmed could have conveyed that through the Director but saved him from embarrassment and made the point directly to the Foreign Minister that the Foreign Secretary's position could not be compromised.

It was indeed sad that Fakhruddin Ahmed was sent on LPR where he spent a year doing nothing just because he was not willing to surrender to the whims and likes of the President and the Foreign Minister. While a talent was wasted, the President chose Nazrul Islam to become the Foreign Secretary. Nazrul Islam was a brilliant individual. He had joined the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service by giving up his right to join the erstwhile Civil Service of Pakistan for which he had qualified. His ability to articulate himself in English and Bengali was perhaps the best among his peers. Those days, the Foreign Secretary used to hold weekly briefings for the journalists. In those briefings, Nazrul Islam was at his best. He made the President more than happy, for a while, on both counts on which Fakhruddin Ahmed "failed"; in using the Red Phone as well as not losing any opportunity to meet the President personally. It was not very long into Nazrul Islam's aborted tenure that the President realized what the rest of the Foreign Ministry knew when he was appointed Foreign Secretary; that temperamentally he would be ill suited to lead the Foreign Ministry. From day one of his tenure he failed to carry the senior officers of the Ministry with him, some of whom were afraid to meet him because of his temper. The Foreign Minister should have briefed the President about Nazrul Islam's mercurial temper at the time of his appointment. As it became known in the Foreign Ministry that the President was not happy with Nazrul Islam, everyone knew that it was just a matter of time for him to make way for a new Foreign Secretary. He was removed as arbitrarily as he was selected as the Foreign Secretary.

When Nazrul Islam was named Foreign Secretary, I was apprehensive as I was told by those who knew him about his temper. However, on that count, my experience was the reverse because the Foreign Secretary treated me with affection. I remember one incident even today with a smile on my face. As I sat across the table from him, clearing files, he suddenly opened his cigarette packet and offered me a cigarette. I was taken aback and said I did not smoke. He retorted back and said he saw me smoking many times. I then admitted that I smoked but I was not ready to smoke in front of the Foreign Secretary out of respect for him and the office he held. He accepted that and next moment, I saw packets flying in the air with the Foreign Secretary telling me that he wanted to see how good a cricketer I was. I caught half a cartoon of packets that day! Nazrul Islam, despite a very hard exterior, was not so in reality and the senior officers stayed away from him without trying to find out the real qualities of the man. If the senior officers had not stayed away from him and instead interacted with him from his first day in office, perhaps things could have worked out differently for Nazrul Islam.

Nazrul Islam spent a few more months while waiting to go out as Ambassador to the Soviet Union. I continued to keep in touch with him even more closely in those months. I felt sad at the way he was made to leave. However, there was one thing he did while he was Foreign Secretary that left an unhappy impression in me about him. The US Embassy those days used to invite an officer to visit USA for six weeks. That year, they invited an officer by name for the visit that was against the established procedure. A file came to the Foreign Secretary to name someone for the visit. He called my friend Iftikharul Karim who was then Director (FMO) for a name. He walked into my room after meeting the Foreign Secretary to give me the good news that I would soon be going on a trip to the United States. After a while the same day, the Foreign Secretary called me to his room and handed the file on the US trip, asking me to contact the US Embassy for visa for the officer named for the trip. I came to my room and what I saw written in the file was totally unexpected. The officer named was then posted to a Mission and closely related to the Foreign Secretary. In retrospect, I would like to consider that incident was an aberration because Nazrul Islam was impeccably honest. Nevertheless, at that time I felt sad that he did not consider me for the trip.

The Foreign Secretaries I served were extremely capable. The Foreign Service cadre was competent. Unfortunately, they were up against the rest of the civil bureaucracy that did not see much relevance of a powerful Foreign Ministry, a view in which the President actively indulged. Nevertheless I left the Ministry with some hope because at that time it seemed like Anisul Islam as Foreign Minister and Abul Ahsan as Foreign Secretary were bringing back the Foreign Ministry to reckoning with the President beginning to realize that he needed the Foreign Ministry for extending his hold on power.

(The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and can be reached on email serajul7@gmail.com.)

Prime Minister's foreign policy initiatives A strong foreign ministry required

Published in The Daily Star, May 22nd, 2010



IN her present term in office, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has taken a number of initiatives in foreign affairs that have earned Bangladesh international recognition. Her visit to New York in October; to the Climate Conference in Copenhagen in November and her official visit to India in January this year have all brought good results for Bangladesh. Her stand against terrorism during her visit to India and later at the SAARC Summit in Thimpu has attracted positive attention towards Bangladesh.

The Prime Minister has a definite focus on foreign affairs. In her last term also, she had a busy time in dealing with matters of foreign affairs and achieved successes. Notably, in that term she achieved sharing of the waters of the Ganges and the accord on Chittagong Hill Tracts. In this term, she has been giving more attention to international affairs. Apart from some very important bilateral and multilateral visits she has already made yielding good results, she is currently on a trip to South Korea and Malaysia to address in both the capitals multilateral gatherings as a leader of the developing world. The invitation to address the ESCAP Session in Seoul has been extended to the Prime Minister in recognition of her leadership of the developing world in her second term in office.

The Prime Minister's initiatives in foreign affairs will just not strengthen Bangladesh's relations with the outside world; it could more importantly assist Bangladesh in removing the negative image that the country has suffered as a result of negative politics at home. Bangladesh's future depends to a great extent on its external trade, manpower export and FDI for which a good image for the country is absolutely indispensible. In order to assist the Prime Minister to successfully carry out her foreign affairs initiatives and create a positive image for the country; it is equally indispensible that she should have the most professional institutional support for preparing for these visits and for follow up action after these visits. Unfortunately, in this important context there is something seriously amiss in Bangladesh. The institutional support for the Prime Minister's initiatives should be coming from the Foreign Ministry as it is the constitutionally designated Ministry for this purpose. From what appears in print, the Foreign Ministry is being weakened, instead of being strengthened at this critical juncture where, in addition, due to the impact of globalization, the Foreign Ministry worldwide is now a major hub of the government's activities. Instead in Bangladesh, the Prime Minister is depending upon individual support and that too, outside the Foreign Ministry for carrying out her major foreign policy initiatives.

Following the Prime Minister's visit to India, her Economic Adviser has been entrusted the task of expediting the implementation of the decisions and expression of intent reached during the visit in the Joint Communiqué. The Economic Adviser has been doing the coordination function and most recently, he also visited India for the purpose. While a few issues in the JC are economic in nature, the rest are complex matters of foreign affairs and diplomacy. Then there is also the fact that the issues can be driven home over a time frame where an individual even of the stature of the Economic Adviser alone can only play an advisory role and very little more. In other words, for implementing the JC, the approach has to be institutional where there is no scope of looking beyond the Foreign Ministry to carry out this task. The Adviser's brilliance and competence alone cannot deliver the task imposed upon him. A head of state/government can and often does use individuals for specific foreign policy tasks. The task given to the Adviser is qualitatively different; one that can and should be carried out by a Foreign Minister and a Foreign Ministry.

The decision to entrust this task upon the Economic Adviser could also be a hint of a lack of confidence upon the Foreign Ministry. Insiders in the Foreign Ministry cannot think that another Ministry, let alone an individual, would be given the task to deal with issues that are expected to set new directions for Bangladesh's relations with India. To career diplomats, India is their major foreign policy pre-occupation. To take away the coordination function of an extremely important visit to India and give it to an Adviser of the Prime Minister not connected with the Foreign Ministry does not enhance the standing of the Foreign Ministry in the public eye especially when the Foreign Minister in September last year had set the agenda and the tone of the Prime Minister's visit during her official visit to India and was by the Prime Minister's side during the latter's state visit to New Delhi. In addition, the High Commissioner in India is one of Bangladesh's ablest diplomats who enjoys the rank of a State Minister. The follow-up action on the Prime Minister's India visit should have been given to them for the obvious reasons.

This government startled many by placing an inexperienced politician in charge of the Foreign Ministry with another inexperienced politician as her deputy who was later shifted to another Ministry without replacement. The Foreign Service cadre officers are at the core of any Foreign Ministry for success of a country's foreign policy. This Government also started by sending the wrong signals to the cadre officers; that it cannot depend upon them for running important missions. Most recently, it took away the Foreign Ministry's responsibility for issuing diplomatic passports and has given it to the Home Ministry. Given the fact that diplomatic passports are regulated under international conventions that are within the competence and responsibility of the Foreign Ministry, taking away this role is not just a surprising move; it is another development that goes to prove that there are forces within the Government who are working, for some unknown reasons, to marginalize the Foreign Ministry.

There was a time after Bangladesh's independence when the Foreign Ministry was a major hub of governance. It then worked hand in glove with the Prime Minister's Office and was responsible for everything related to the country's foreign relations. In the 1980s, the Foreign Ministry was systematically stripped of most of its powers and responsibilities. The elected governments that came after the end of military dictatorship continued to weaken the Foreign Ministry. The consequences have not been good. Bangladesh gradually lost a lot of its standing in international politics and became known for many negatives that the country did not deserve. A fragmented style of conducting foreign relations where many Ministries have become stake holders without anyone really coordinating together with the partisanship nature of domestic politics left the Foreign Ministry with precious little authority to formulate a coherent foreign policy for the country. The Prime Minister's foreign policy initiatives will become fruitful only if the Foreign Ministry is given the powers necessary to coordinate the foreign policy functions of the Government instead of being a minor stakeholder in that process, under constant threat of losing whatever role it has at the moment.

The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director in the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.
Share on

Israel-Palestine proximity talks start amidst pessimism

Published in The Daily Star, May 15th., 2010
M. Serajul Islam



THE Israel-Palestine indirect talks, also called proximity talks, started this week after 17 months in the limbo following Israeli attack on Gaza in the winter of 2008-2009, the deadliest Israeli assault since the 1967 war. The re-start, with the United States as the intermediary, has come a month to the year since President Obama's Cairo speech in which he outlined his vision for bridging the gap with the Muslim World. The Palestinian issue is the single major issue that has given the extremists among the Muslims the cause for their acts. President Clinton realized this and had made the resolution of the Palestinian issue his administration's number one foreign policy priority in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, his efforts were aborted shortly before his tenure ended when Yasser Arafat declined to sign the agreement offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak that would have given Palestine 95% of the West Bank, entire Gaza strip and control over East Jerusalem for ceding 69 Jewish settlements in West Bank that comprised 85% of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. That was the closest Israel ever got to giving Palestine its legitimate rights. In the eight years under President Bush, Afghanistan and Iraq were the priorities following 9/11 and the Palestinian issue went to the back stage, although the Quartet consisting of the US, UN, Russia and UK tried to move the peace process ahead with the Road Map.

The Obama administration has been in office for almost seventeen months. In Cairo in June last year in his reach-out address to the Muslims, President Obama identified the Israel-Palestine conflict as one that goes to the heart of Muslim anger on the West. He also called for a settlement freeze on the West Bank and creation of an independent Palestine. However, his preoccupation with a faltering economy and health care reform at home left him with little time to seriously attend to the Israel-Palestine conflict where the peace process continued to remain practically suspended. The return of the hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu for a second term as Prime Minister of Israel in March 2009 just after President Obama took office was also not good news for the peace process. Under US pressure, Netanyahu announced in September, 2009 a 10 months freeze on settlements demanding a lot more in reciprocity that the Palestinians rejected. He then initiated a bill that became law requiring a referendum on any withdrawal from land, thus pushing peace prospect further apart. When the US Vice President Joseph Biden visited Israel to jump start the proximity talks in March this year, Israel announced its decision to build 1600 Jewish apartments in Ramat Shlomo in northeast Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinians as the capital of their independent state when it comes. That was a slap on the face of the US and halted the start of the proximity talks.

The Israeli decision was followed by a period of heated exchanges between the US and Israel. However, following behind the scene consultations by all sides, the proximity talks started this week with the US looking like the only interested party. The Palestinians are pessimistic as they do not trust the Israelis to remain committed to their promise to halt construction of new settlements during the proximity talks. In fact, while Netanyahu made such a commitment before the talks, a Minister in his Cabinet told the media that the Israeli Prime Minister has made no such promise.

The Arab League has endorsed the proximity talks but reiterated the conditions held by the Palestinians to end the conflict, like return of all territories seized by Israel after 1967; cessation and dismantling of all settlements on occupied land; return of refugees; and East Jerusalem as the capital of the future state of Palestine. The reiteration notwithstanding, the two sides have drifted apart and the situation in the region has also changed significantly as a result of 9/11 and President Bush's war on terror; changes that have been bad for the Palestinians. During President Bush's tenure when Palestine issue was sidetracked, the Israelis managed to consolidate their own position internally where their action in Gaza in the end of 2008 and early 2009 left few in doubt that they could do pretty much what they wanted in the region. They have also gone ahead with the settlements at will and their audacity to start new settlements in East Jerusalem while Joseph Biden was in the region should leave no one in any doubt that despite the intentions of Obama made public in Cairo last year, the Israelis hardly feel threatened or under pressure from the US President to deviate from their chosen path to dictate and browbeat the Palestinians to accept a peace agreement on their term.

The Israelis also used Bush administration's interest in Iran where towards the end of President Bush's term even war appeared a possibility to good use by diverting interest of the US and its allies away from Palestine. The Obama administration's choice to follow the same line in Iran and also Afghanistan where, against his pre-election promise, President Obama has sent additional troops have not helped to keep the Palestinian cause sidetracked despite its legality and President Obama's strong words in his Cairo speech last year. The resumption of the proximity talks thus does not suggest any dramatic breakthrough in the offing.

The proximity talks have also started with the two major stakeholders in asymmetrical position that also raises negative vibes about its outcome. Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu is now in the hands of the hardliners who have no intention to compromise on the major issues like returning to pre 1967 borders, settlements and East Jerusalem that the Israeli Prime Minister has said is non-negotiable under any circumstances without Palestine on its knees. In fact, the Israeli position today is the toughest since the two sides started negotiations directly and/or indirectly where Netanyahu can compromise the legitimate Palestinian demands only at his own peril. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas are in antagonistic relationship. With the US's commitment in the Palestinian issue divided by its commitment to other more pressing issues like Iran, ending war on terror in Afghanistan-Pakistan and establishment of democracy in Iraq, the Palestinian cause will not get from the US the attention it deserves. Under these circumstances, time is not opportune for the proximity talks.

Israel is today in a position where it can virtually do anything in the region. The Palestinians, suffering internal split and having lost a lot of focus due to changed international environment, are too weak to oppose. Still, the proximity talks are taking place because the US has to show the Muslim world that it is still its friend with first anniversary of President Obama's Cairo speech just round the corner. In fact, the way both the sides have reacted to the proximity talks has left no doubt about the outcome. Both sides have agreed to the proximity talks only to please the US. That notwithstanding, the talks, expected to continue for 4 months, will bring the Israel-Palestine conflict back on world stage after quite a while and perhaps help remind the Obama administration and its friends that the Palestinian problem is still at the heart of Muslim anger on the West and drive home the truth that the war on terror can be won only by a just resolution to the many decades old Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

A powerful and independent ACC: A day dream for Bangladesh

Appeared in The Independent, May 10, 2010

Awami League parliamentarian Dr. Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir’s views and anger related to the ACC for its role during the Caretaker Government has hit a sympathetic chord in many minds. His attack on the former TIB Chief Dr. Muzzaffar Ahmed for his presence in the book launching ceremony of the former and controversial army chief General Moin U Ahmed has also likewise hit the right chord in a lot of people .

However from an institutional point of view, objectivity and not anger should lead the way. Most of the wrong doings by the ACC during the Caretaker Government was carried out by the General who headed the organization at that time for which the institution should not be blamed. He used the public’s anger with corruption in government and politics to bring charges against people, many with position and standing in society, acting as both the judge and the jury. It was disgusting and illegal the way those days the ACC regularly humiliated individuals in full glare of the media by announcing charges against them to lead people to believe that these individuals were guilty as charged. He trashed the most fundamental foundation of the law that an individual is innocent till proven guilty.

The assumptions upon which he set about tackling corruption were biased and questionable. For instance his assumption that all politicians/businessmen and civil bureaucrats were corrupt and that the military was above reproach were both false assumptions. He also failed to distinguish between greed based corruption and need based corruption. For example, he failed to consider the fact that the average civil servant at middle and low rungs of the ladder tend to be corrupt because they Government does not provide them the salary or privileges necessary to meet the basic needs of maintaining a family while with the military, the government ensures these necessities and much more. If he had thought on this for a moment, he would have been more sympathetic towards the unfortunate civil servants, who unlike their military counterparts, are not assured food rationing at throw away prices, many other privileges and frequent tour of duty as peace keepers to put that extra money in their pockets that some of their civilian counterparts have to seek elsewhere. In the end, it was his biased views and wrong assumptions about corruption that resulted in the Caretaker Government’s failure to govern and implement their vision about the future of the country. In fact, the mess they made of governance that many say has pushed the country back decades was to a large extent the result of the way the ACC Chief went about with the corruption agenda. By scaring the public servants and the businessmen, he managed to create gross inertia in governance and the economy.

The unbelievable thing about the ACC during the Caretaker Government was the indulgence given to it by the latter. It gave the ACC Chief Ministerial rank that encouraged him to consider himself larger than the Government, to boast and brag that he would catch both the big and small fish of corruption and make Bangladesh corruption free. After the initial enthusiasm was over, the public was left with no choice but to conclude that the ACC was implementing a blueprint whose objective was to discredit the politicians thoroughly and break the backbone of the civil bureaucracy to toe without question, the dictates of the men in uniform. Such a plan, for logical reasons, was doomed as soon as it was set into motion. In the end though, many innocent individuals have been harassed and some even tortured, with the ACC unable to prove any case of corruption against the politicians/civil servants/ businessmen because bias and preconceived notions were used against these individuals without adequate evidence, in some cases blatantly manufactured as was done with BNP leader Maudud Ahmed, to try them in a court of law. The military intelligence used the scare caused by the ACC to good purpose by arm twisting civilians to collect large sums of money that have gone to their pockets. One would like to ask where has all thousands of crores of money that General Moin had boasted would be recovered from corrupt politicians/businessmen and spent to build hospitals gone? In fact, the present government has a legal obligation to look through a Commission where the money collected from civilians have gone, together with the violation of human rights committed during that period. The military should also look into this on its own because of the greed of a few; the image of the military has been seriously tarnished during the emergency.

There was one issue concerning an Ambassador that should surely stand as an example of the high-handedness of the ACC Chief. The charges against the Ambassador were routine that should have been quietly handled in consultation with the Foreign Ministry. Instead the ACC chose to deal with the case publicly, accusing the Ambassador of wrong doing in full media glare while he was at his station as the country’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary abroad!. At that time the ACC stated that it would subject all Ambassadors to public scrutiny something that no country would even in a fit of madness think of doing. It is not that Ambassadors are above the law; but in their case corruption charges are dealt out of the glare of the media and only after recalling them from their posts in consultation with the Foreign Ministry to save the country from embarrassment. In case of this Ambassador, some of the accusations brought against him like change of residence, touring, are no business of the ACC and the Foreign Ministry is more than competent to deal with such matters. What was surprising at that time was the Foreign Ministry’s failure to instill some common sense in the ACC to refrain it from embarrassing the country. It acted like a nincompoop.

Nevertheless, corruption has been a serious matter in public life in Bangladesh since independence. With the widening of the gap between pay and price of necessities, need based corruption was inevitable and over the years, has become widespread in government and public life. As aid money started coming to the country and development fund began to be distributed through the government, greed based corruption also became a part of public and political life in which every government in varying degrees have been involved. It is for good reasons that Bangladesh was declared by Transparency International as the most corrupt country in the world, once under the AL and thrice under the BNP. Although it has improved in that dubious standing, it is still languishing not very far from the top. Therefore the need of an independent Anti Corruption Commission has always been and will continue to be a fundamental necessity for the country; a Commission based under the law and subject to it but having the power and authority of moving against anybody indulging in corruption.

One cannot argue against an independent and powerful ACC. The former ACC Chief’s misuse of the institution has nothing to do with the institution itself. It is also not whether the ACC or the Parliament is superior because they are not in any conflict with each other. ACC is subject to the laws of the land, laws that are made by the parliament. But once the laws are made, ACC can be and should be independent of the Parliament and questioned only in a court of law when it violates the laws that guide its work and its staff.

The present Chairman and his colleagues are men of high integrity to lead a powerful ACC subject to the laws laid down for its functioning. The Chairman had unequivocally stressed the need for an independent and powerful ACC, adding that any curtailment of its powers would not be good for the country before the Cabinet decided to make the amendments. That the Cabinet would clip the wings of the ACC was, however, expected. Corruption is still very widespread and for a ruling party to allow an independent and powerful ACC would be like a cat allowing a bell around its own neck.

The AL led Government has set to motion action to quash all the cases against AL politicians filed by the ACC during emergency. It has however recommended a ridiculously low number of cases concerning the BNP politicians. This speaks of a mindset and underlines certain hard facts about corruption in Bangladesh. First, Bangladesh is still far away from reaching that level of political and economic development where a party in power would be in a position to allow an independent and powerful ACC to function because in the present state of affairs that would net its own politicians who as members of the ruling party have all the opportunities for corruption, opportunities they are like to take because of ground realities. Second, thanks to the former ACC Chief, the bureaucracy needs to regain their confidence and freedom from fear to function. Finally, our people and our development partners have to be realistic about their expectations with corruption which will remain as long as we do not pay our public servants enough to ignore the temptations of corruption. Meanwhile, we can only day dream of a powerful and independent ACC free from political influence.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

SAARC: Still limping after a quarter century

Pubished in The Daily Star, May 8th 2010

THE 16th SAARC Summit in Bhutan from April 26-28 marked the Silver Jubilee of the organization that was first launched in Dhaka in 1985 to become the biggest regional organization in the world. It brought together at present estimate 1.6 billion impoverished people with the promise of a better future through regional cooperation.

Bhutan had given up three previous offers to hold the Summit due to inadequate infrastructure. If any region in the world is in urgent need of regional cooperation to accelerate development, then SAARC is the ideal choice by a long margin. Yet, 25 years down the road, SAARC summits are barely more than annual gatherings of the Heads of State/Government of the region. Even the annual gathering as required under the SAARC Charter was irregular. Eight summits were not held because of reasons that do not reflect well upon the organization and its future.

The Bhutan Summit was preceded by a number of positive developments for regional cooperation. The Sri Lankan Civil War has ended; in Bangladesh, emergency rule became history and an elected government came to power with a massive majority. In India, the Congress has been re-elected with a comfortable majority; In Nepal, the armed conflict with Maoists and monarchy have also become history although the country is facing teething problems in establishing democracy. Overall a fair wind is blowing in South Asia for regional cooperation.

These positive developments could have yielded rich dividends in cooperation in any other region but not in South Asia. The South Asian leaders deliberated in Thimphu on a very limited agenda for regional cooperation, no better no worse than what they had done in the past 15 Summits. The Summiteers agreed that after 25 years, they have little to show in terms of achievements. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh underscored this disappointment with a cliché, suggesting that the SAARC glass is half empty and challenged the members to cooperate in a manner to enable free movement of people, goods, services and ideas.

In the end, the South Asian leaders adopted the 36 points “Thimphu Silver Jubilee Declaration” that is high on intent but without clear and well defined mechanism for delivery. The Summit adopted the “Convention for Cooperation on Environment” to develop an inter-governmental mechanism for dealing with issues of global warming and initiatives related to water management and conservation of nature at national, sub-regional and regional levels.

To enhance regional trade and economic integration, the Summit also adopted an agreement on “Trade in Services.” These two agreements aside, the Summit in its Declaration endorsed a number of ideas from member nations intended to enhance regional cooperation. These included emphasis upon the need to develop a “Vision Statement” and a “South Asian Forum” that would bring together eminent persons to generate debate to strengthen SAARC.

The Summit also endorsed steps to form a “Conclave of South Asian parliamentarians” in line with the Charter. It also endorsed Bangladesh's “Charter of Democracy”; Bhutan's “Gross National Happiness” together with similar ideas from other member states for strengthening SAARC. The Summiteers underscored clearly their intention to make all future SAARC decisions action oriented.

The agreements reached in Thimphu and intentions expressed are important but they would bring the SAARC nations no closer in regional cooperation than they had been before the Summit.

SAARC's potentials for regional cooperation still remains hostage to the legacy handed down by the British colonizers reflected in the enmity between India and Pakistan, two nations whose friendship is indispensable to create the trust necessary for SAARC to succeed.

The other factor that has handicapped SAARC is India's size and dominance. From the very beginning, India has been suspicious of SAARC. It viewed SAARC as a forum for its neighbours to deal with it collectively for solving their bilateral and regional problems. Upon India's insistence, the SAARC charter prohibited discussion on bilateral and conscientious issues in the SAARC forum. Importantly, this embedded in the so-called SAARC spirit a lack of trust, obstructing its natural growth. Despite optimism and conviction of the leaders in the Thimphu Summit, the trust deficiency did not fail to surface as Pakistan declined to sign the agreement on response to natural disasters because it could land foreign troops on the soil of member states.

The Thimphu Summit, as expected, emphasized upon vague and lofty ideals such as Bangladesh's “Charter of Democracy” and Bhutan's “Gross National Happiness” without any clear road map for enhancing socio-economic development of the region. The decisions will merely give the organization enough oxygen to breathe till the next Summit. Until Pakistan and India have normal relations, SAARC's development will be fundamentally impeded by the lack of trust between the two.

When India was apprehensive about SAARC, it had not yet emerged as the power it is today. This emergence should have encouraged India to play a bigger and positive role in integrating SAARC. Unfortunately, this has not happened. With positive wind blowing in India's bilateral relations with the other South Asian neighbours except Pakistan, it is time that India made genuine overtures towards its neighbours who have shown their friendly hands. India showed that intent in the speech of its Prime Minister but very little of it has been reflected in the Declaration. While Pakistan must accept its fair share of blame for keeping SAARC from achieving its potentials, the bigger responsibility in this context is India's.

For the sake of the SAARC spirit and for India's emerging role as a major world power, it is time for it to renounce its insistence on strict bilateralism and to revive the Gujral Doctrine, a concept under which the former Indian Prime Minister wanted to give smaller neighbours like Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan their interests with India without reciprocity.

As a thought, why could India not have helped adopt a decision in the Thimphu Summit on a visa free regime among SAARC member countries by agreeing to open its doors to its neighbours keeping in mind Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's strong advocacy for free movement of people, goods, services and ideas within SAARC? On a reality check, there is no chance of such a thing happening in SAARC in the foreseeable future because instead of easing free movement of people, goods, services and ideas, India is more interested in building barbed wires on its borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh.

With such ground reality, SAARC can only limp towards its Golden Jubilee as it has up to its Silver Jubilee. Meanwhile, the neighbours of India, with exception of Pakistan, could justifiably say what the 19th century Mexican leader Porfirio Diaz had said of Mexican-US relations in the context of their present predicament in SAARC: poor neighbours of India; so far from God, yet so near to India!

The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

My Foreign Affairs Years, 1986-1990: Abul Ahsan’s tenure continues

Published in The Independent; May 7th 2010


I was discussing recently about Abul Ahsan with Jamil Majid, a friend and colleague whether he had stories to tell me that I could write here. Jamil Majid told me that there are so many stories about the man that I would need much larger space to write it all. There were few stories that I have heard from Abul Ahsan himself that spoke of the character of the man and his skills as a diplomat.

One of these stories occurred when Abul Ahsan was a Director-General in the Foreign Ministry at a time when Bangabandhu was leading Bangladesh. Those days, it was quite usual for officers of the level of a Director-General in the Foreign Ministry to be frequently called by Bangabandhu for briefing. As Abul Ahsan was going to Bangobhavan one day, he was called by then Foreign Secretary Enayet Karim who himself was with Bangabandhu early that day. He told Abul Ahsan to be fully prepared with answers to complaints the Prime Minister would surely have for him about the Ambassador to Kabul, M. Sultan, the country’s senior diplomat belonging to the erstwhile PFS batch of 1949, the first batch of ex-PFS officers. The Prime Minister, as Enayet Karim filled Abul Ahsan in, had received a report through the intelligence officer in Kabul that the Ambassador was in the habbit of expressing loose comments, some even about the Prime Minister.

As soon as Abul Ahsan faced Bangabandhu that day, the Prime Minister started the conversation angrily with the name the name of M. Sultan. Before the Prime Minister could say more, Abul Ahsan in a style that was his own, mixing partially the Noakhali dialect with some English, told Bangabandhu that Ambassador Sultan was doing an excellent job as High Commissioner to London. Impatiently, Bangabandhu stopped Abul Ahsan, reminding him that he was not talking of the High Commissioner whom he knew very well and also that he was doing an excellent job in London. He went on to say he was talking of M. Sultan in Afghanistan. Again Abul Ahsan sought Bangabandhu’s indulgence and told him that M. Sultan hero-worshipped him (Bangabandhu boltay oggayan) and frequently called him from Kabul to express his deep regards for Bangabandhu. Those words hit a sympathetic chord in Bangabandhu who smiled, adding that it was nothing unexpected as the whole nation felt the same way about him. By then Abul Ahsan had achieved what he wanted; a pause to Bangabandhu’s wrath. He then listened to Bangabandhu’s complaint against Ambassador Sultan. Abul Ahsan agreed with him but added that unknown to Bangabandhu but known to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sultan had been having problem with his intelligence officer who wrote the report against the Ambassador to put him in trouble. At Abul Ahsan’s suggestion, Bangabandhu agreed that an investigation into the matter should be held to find out the truth. By then, Abul Ahsan had succeeded in saving Ambassador Sultan from serious trouble which in the least could have been premature recall to Dhaka. For Abul Ahsan, being forewarned was being forearmed that day and he used his diplomatic skill to good purpose in the case of Bangabandhu’s wrath on Ambassador Sultan. In fact, he had that uncanny ability of dealing with people at all levels who could not help being convinced by him by his cool disposition and matter of fact approach to serious issues.

Soon after he joined as Foreign Secretary and was staying in the Railway Rest House temporarily, there was a burglary in which his wife lost jewelry, apart from the family being at risk during the act. He was in office next day, and it was business as usual. It was only later in the day that I learnt about the burglary from his driver. On another occasion, a young niece of his had died during the night as a result of complication while using an inhaler for her asthma. He was in office as usual the next morning; attended to all his office engagements; went to his niece’s burial in between without anyone except me knowing about the tragedy. It was, however, not all praise for Abul Ahsan. There were individuals who held critical views of the man because despite his cool disposition, Abul Ahsan held strong views on issues and individuals and was often, uncompromising . One of them was no one less a person than Saifur Rahman, the former Finance Minister of Bangladesh. Saifur Rahman would refer to one incident in particular to express his displeasure about Abul Ahsan. At that time, Abul Ahsan was posted at the London High Commission as the Deputy High Commissioner. Saifur Rahman was on a visit with his wife and they were staying at a hotel near the High Commission. Saifur Rahman was then a Minister in the cabinet of President Ziaur Rahman. Saifur Rahman had asked Abul Ahsan whether the hotel was safe to keep a small bag with valuables, and unknown to Abul Ahsan, jewelry of his wife. Abul Ahsan in his usual style had told the Minister that it was safe. The small bag was lost. The Minister never forgave Abul Ahsan although the latter’s simple contention was that the Minister never told him what was in the bag and in any case it was not his duty as a senior officer of the High Commission to keep track of the Minister’s personal baggage.

Abul Ahsan could take major decisions nonchalantly as the simplest ones. At the time Abul Ahsan became the Foreign Secretary, AHG Mohiuddin was virtually the head of the New York Mission although he was officially the Alternate Permanent Representative with Ataul Karim, then Ambassador in Washington, the Permanent Representative as an additional charge. Ataul Karim used to travel occasionally to New York but in reality, the New York Mission was in AHG’s charge. The Foreign Minster and the Foreign Secretary decided that it would be in the interest of the Ministry to make AHG the Permanent Representative. That would bring AHG on the side of the Ministry and also make the President happy. One afternoon, Abul Ahsan called me to his room and casually asked me who was in charge in New York? I replied spontaneously that it was AHG in charge there for all practical purpose. The Foreign Secretary, with a smile on his face, added that if that was the case, why we can’t make him the Permanent Representative. Without waiting for my answer, he told me to prepare a summary for the President. Soon afterwards, a summary was before the Foreign Secretary, prepared elsewhere and placed before him by Anawarul Karim Chowdhury (AKC), then Director-General who was not particularly liked by the President, together with another one seeking the President’s permission for AKC to join a D level post under UNICEF. In case of AHG though, the elevation was short-lived because not long after he was made the Permanent Representative, Ershad Government fell and AGH was eased out of service. In AKC’s case, he went on to start a UN career that eventually took him to the level of an Under Secretary General of the UN with some at the UN even viewing him as a potential candidate for the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations when the Asian Group was looking for a successor to Kofi Anan.

AKC was one of the brightest multilateral diplomats of Bangladesh. While he was the DPR in New York, he chaired the committee that awarded UNFPA’s United Nations Population Award for a year I cannot recollect. The Committee awarded the prize to Bangladesh. It was later reported to the President by our Mission in New York that the Prize could have been awarded to him that did not happen because AKC did not want that who chaired the Committee that awarded the prize. The truth was never found out but so far the President was concerned; he had no doubt about AKC’s alleged role in the matter. It was good that between Abul Ahsan and the Foreign Minister, they were able to get AKC out of the Ministry in return for making AHG the Permanent Representative in New York. The duo of the Foreign Minister and the Foreign Secretary were also silently working with the President to bring the Foreign Ministry back into contention and were succeeding to some extent.

It was during Abul Ahsan’s tenure that the Chinese Premier Li Peng visited Bangladesh that stressed the close relationship between the two countries. In fact, during Ershad’s long stint in power, where he took the major foreign policy decisions, often with negative consequences, there were some successes too. It was during his era that Bangladesh strengthened its strategic relationship with China, himself visiting China 5 times and being received each time with warmth by the Chinese. By the middle of 1990, it looked like the Foreign Ministry had turned a corner and was moving in the direction that would soon place it in charge of conducting the country’s foreign relations that, thanks to a jealous civil service, had been fragmented and given to a number of Ministries/Division where the Foreign Ministry was a small stakeholder. That was an issue of great regret to many of us who had joined the Foreign Service to be in the company of diplomats like Abul Ahsan, AKH Morshed, SAMS Kibria , all of whom topped in their respective central superior service exam, to lead the country in foreign affairs as the Foreign Ministry had done just after independence. In our imagination was also the role that the Foreign Service had played in British India whose traditions led to the establishment of our own Foreign Service cadre. Annada Shankar Ray, writing about the Foreign Secretary of that period, described him as special even among the elites; using the Bengali term most “koolin” for him because he was the only Secretary who had direct access to the Viceroy. Other Secretaries of that period had access to the Viceroy only through the concerned Member of the Viceroy’s Executive Council or if the Viceroy called them himself. Among those who held the post of Foreign Secretary were such giants of history as Sir Mortimer Durand; Sir Henry McMahon and Sir Alfred Lyall. In India and Pakistan, the Foreign Secretary still has an eminent position in Government. In Bangladesh, with marginalization of the Foreign Ministry, the Foreign Secretary is just another Secretary whom his peers can and often does bypass at will.



The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and can be reached on serajul7@gmail.com

Are Indo-US relations back on track?

Published in The Daily Star, 24th April, 2010

UNDERSTANDING Cold War international politics was easy. The world then was fairly evenly divided between the two Super Powers and smaller powers belonged to one of the two camps. There was of course a third camp of Non-Aligned countries but most of them too in one way or the other belonged to one of the two camps. One of the themes of relations among nations then was: “the enemy's enemy is my friend.”

With the Cold War in the graveyard of history, balancing contradictory interests among nations is now a very difficult task at the international level. Thus, today we witness far more conflicts than during the Cold War era. The war on terror has turned the world upside down with the introduction of non-state actors and terrorists. The US as the worlds only remaining Super Power is now up to its wits in attempting to balance conflicting interests to make the world safer. US' predicament with its foreign policy goals is facing tough challenge in South Asia as it tries to balance the conflicting interests of India and Pakistan, both nuclear states, into some common purpose to win the war against terror.

USA had leaned towards Pakistan while keeping India at arm's length till Soviet Union dissipated in 1991. During the 1980s, USA and Pakistan were in very close alliance in attempting to deal with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, USA has made amends and also moved towards India while keeping Pakistan happy with military and economic assistance. Since 9/11, US-Pakistan relations have regained more than the warmth that existed in the best of times in the past as President Bush accepted Pakistan as USA's most important ally in the war against terror, recognising the fact that without Pakistan's support US would never win that war.

President Bush, however, realised very well that the mindset in both the nations did not change with the end of the Cold War days where each saw US closeness to the other as something negative to its interests. That notwithstanding, in acknowledgement of India's importance as an emerging major player in world politics, US initiated with India the process of signing the US-India civil nuclear deal in 2005 and signed it eventually in 2008. It gave India a pride of position as a nuclear weapons state in the same league with the other responsible nuclear powers. During President Bush's presidency, US-India relations were on an upswing although India had a long list of complaints on US's reluctance to talk to Pakistan on its role in cross border terrorism.

President Obama's decision to substantially increase US troops in Afghanistan in order to win it has placed US-Pakistan relations, despite its own hiccups, on stronger footing than in the past, much to the discomfort of the Indians. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was invited to Washington in November last year and shown great honour and courtesy that stabilized relations for a while. However, India's continued failure to encourage the US to use its overwhelming influence over Pakistan to give up terrorism as a policy has stalled relations. The relationships hit another serious snag over India's lack of success so far to extradite to India or gain access to David Headley (originally Dawood Jilani who accepted the Christian name to avoid detection), a US citizen of Pakistani origin now in US custody in connection with masterminding the Mumbai attack on 26th November 2008. In fact, India's patience has been tested to its limits because instead of acting on the Indian request to rein in Pakistan, US has been suggesting to India to engage in dialogue with Pakistan and solve these problems bilaterally and doing precious little over access to Headley.

From the Indian point of view, US' tepidity in talking to Pakistan has been complicated further because of the explosive nature of domestic build-up of sentiments around 26/11. The fact that Dr. Manmohon Singh has been the most pro-US Prime Minister in Indian history has put additional pressure on the Indian Prime Minister leading up to his meeting with the US President on the sideline of the Nuclear Summit where 47 world leaders gathered early last week (April 12-13). The US took special care to create the feeling that the Obama-Manmohan meeting, which was the first of five meetings the US President held that day, was the special one. While 45-minute time slots were reserved for the other 4 meetings, 90 minutes was allotted for the Obama-Manmohan meeting, though the two used 55 minutes of it. Media attention was also heavily focused on the meeting and generous references were made to the statesmanship of the Indian Prime Minister.

President Obama, whose use of words reveals the same charming nature of the man, said that US-India would work through the legal process for access to David Headley. He also said US would continue to depend on India for development of Afghanistan, a reference intended to take care of India's sensitivity about being historically a neighbour of Afghanistan till the partition of 1947 and Pakistan's contention that India should not meddle in affairs there as it is no longer a neighbour of that country. He also categorically asserted that US understood India's concern over the Af-Pak region and would not do anything that would in any way harm US-India strategic partnership. He added that there is no other country where “opportunities for a strategic partnership is greater” than in India. There was relief, satisfaction, and renewed confidence among Indian officials that US-India relations were firmly back on track, which was conveyed to the media by the Indian Foreign Secretary after the talks.

Everything did not go India's way at the talks although relations have been brought back on rails. President Obama did ask his guest to engage in negotiations that did not reflect that he fully acknowledged the depth of Indian concern over terrorism as a policy by Pakistan. There have thus been criticisms too about the outcome. Skeptics felt that despite assurances, US would not be able to force Pakistan on India's security concerns because its own security concerns needs a willing and obliging Pakistani army. These skeptics also feel that US would not allow access to Headley because he could reveal information that could embarrass the US. It was expected that President Obama would in some way talk about Indian concern in his meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister. Instead, Yusuf Gilani asked from India more evidence against Lashkar- e -Tayeba (LeT) in a press interview after his talks with President Obama. This angered the Indian Prime Minister so much that he ruled out all talks with Pakistan till it took “credible steps” against LeT. Such a statement also suggests that India would be overly optimistic to believe that US would push Pakistan seriously on its security concerns. President Obama is expected to visit India in August and one must wait till then to get a better grip on US-India relations.

The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt and Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

My Foreign Ministry Years, 1986-1990: Abul Ahsan makes his mark

Published in The Independent, April 23rd., 2010


Abul Ahsan was promoted to the rank of a Secretary shortly after he arrived in Dhaka. I had met him only twice before he became the Foreign Secretary but I never worked with him. When I was in New Delhi, he had gone there for a SAARC Meeting as an Additional Foreign Secretary. It was 1983 when Mrs. Gandhi was still alive. In fact Mrs. Gandhi opened that SAARC meeting. I still vividly recollect being awe struck with her personality. When she came down to shake the hands of the delegates (we were a small group), I was frozen at the aura of her personality. It took me a few moments before I could shake her hand! Before this meeting, I was a member of President Ershad’s delegation to the Commonwealth Regional Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGRM) in Fiji in 1982 in which Abul Ahsan was also a delegate, again attending that meeting as an Additional Foreign Secretary. I was then a Second Secretary in the Bangladesh High Commission in Canberra that also covered Fiji and New Zealand. Those days, junior officers in the Foreign Service often felt uncomfortable with their seniors unlike in the erstwhile CSP where the feeling of belongingness in a cadre was shared equally by all. Abu Ahsan was different and he could instantly make his juniors at ease by his very casual but pleasing personality. He made everyone around him feel comfortable because he disliked standing on protocol. He belonged to the 1961 batch in which he topped the list on an All-Pakistan basis. Two of his ex-PFS colleagues, late Humayun Kabir and M. Mohsin were also among the first 10 while current Adviser to the Prime Minister HT Imam had stood 4th in all Pakistan after Abul Ahsan.

I remember my first day with Abul Ahsan in office. He was then staying at the railway Guest House waiting for his predecessor to vacate the house that was earmarked as a residence of the Foreign Secretary. As I sat across him in his room, he seemed flustered and was looking for something in his briefcase that was on the table. I could not help looking at the inside of the briefcase where things were pretty disorderly. I was a bit embarrassed; so was the Foreign Secretary. He however quickly recovered and in his dry sense of humour that was his trade mark, he told me with a wry smile that although the inside of his briefcase looked disheveled, there was a “system” there and he could blindly find whatever he wanted in that briefcase! To prove his point, he said he was looking for a particular paper and in a flash; he brought it out of the pile of papers inside the briefcase and placed it before me to see.

Before joining the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service, Abul Ahsan had taught Economics in Dhaka University. At that time, AHG Mohiuddin was his student. That relationship paid good dividends when Abul Ahsan became Foreign Secretary. AHG respected Abul Ahsan and that made the new Foreign Secretary more comfortable in his job. Abul Ahsan of course did not need to depend on anyone in particular to do his job as a Foreign Secretary because his brilliant career and experience gave him more confidence than he otherwise needed. Nevertheless, in those days, to have AGH on the right side was an asset and Abul Ahsan also made good use of AGH’s respect for him for the good of the Ministry. At least there was no tension between Dhaka and New York. Without Abul Ahsan in between, tension could have affected the work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs because as Foreign Minister, Anisul Islam Mahmud did not make any efforts to please AGH in anyway.

In fact, not long after Abul Ahsan joined as Foreign Secretary, there was rumour that AHG had succeeded in motivating his brother-in-law the President to re-instate Humayun Rashid Chowdhury as the Foreign Minister. When HRC was Foreign Minister, he had an Assistant Private Secretary named Rafiqul Islam. Rafiq seemed to know everybody and that included the President! Once when HRC was waiting for the President at the ante-chamber of his office, the President walked out into the room, his arms resting on Rafiq’s shoulders. It was Rafiq who was mainly responsible for spreading the rumour that HRC was coming back. The Bangladesh mission in New York also echoed the possibility. At the Foreign Ministry, those of us who heard the rumour did not like it because we were happy with Anisul Islam Mahmud who was perhaps the most dynamic and successful Foreign Minister of Bangladesh.

In any case, my time to leave Dhaka was fast nearing. The news came abruptly. It was the 1st of January 1990. Abul Ahsan had an engagement at the airport that day, to receive a guest, and if memory does not serve me wrong, it was the Secreteray General of SAARC. Shortly before he was scheduled to leave, the Director-General (Administration) Abdul Hannan came to see the Foreign Secretary, carrying a file. Abdul Hannan was an officer of the erstwhile Pakistan Audit and Accounts service and was made the DG (Admn) to snub for the Foreign Service officers by HRC when he was the Foreign Minister. Abdul Hannan left after a few minutes with the Foreign Secretary but when he left, he was not carrying back the file. I was called soon afterwards by the Foreign Secretary ’who was standing before his table. He handed me the file, said he was leaving and would be back late and added in his overtly Noakhali dialect “file ta chalu kori dao.” Only when I came back to my seat and read the file, I found out that I was being posted to Washington. I was in a loop of three postings; I would replace Syed Maudud Ali in Washington while he would relieve Ruhul Amin in Tehran to return to Dhaka. On mutual agreement to facilitate the transfer for my colleagues, I agreed to delay my departure by almost six months, although by then I was past three and a half years in Dhaka and needed to go on a foreign posting for financial reasons.

In matters of postings and transfers, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seldom showed it had any planning. Postings and transfers were made in a lot of instances arbitrarily. The concept of a good posting following a hardship one that most Foreign Ministries take into account in placing officers in the Missions was conspicuous by its absence in our system. Such lack of policy encouraged many officers to use their contacts to get good postings. Most Foreign Secretaries and often also the Foreign Ministers obliged when references came from important people. Abul Ahsan was one exception. I remember an incident when a junior officer of the Cypher Department came up to me and said that the Foreign Secretary wanted to see him. As he went in, his spirits were visibly high. He however was out of the room in a few minutes like a thunder had struck him. I asked him if anything was wrong. He said the Foreign Secretary was very upset with him as he had sought a transfer to Washington through someone highly placed in Government and Abul Ahsan had told him that as long as he was Foreign Secretary, he would be posted nowhere.

Personal likes and dislikes of those involved in posting officers to the missions also played an important part in the ad-hoc system in place those days. That did not have a good effect on the morale of the officers who were not willing to use any reference for privileges in service or did not have such references. There were always a good number of officers who did not feel they had been given a fair deal, especially when postings to the mission were concerned. Unfortunately postings to and from missions did not in those days take into account the needs of the children of the diplomats and the staff, in case of the latter more so, in terms of the schools and colleges and many have suffered on this account because of the insensitivity of the Foreign Ministry.

As the Foreign Minister, Anisul Islam Mahmud was as tough on officers trying to influence their postings and with the duo of Anisul Islam and Abul Ahsan at the helm in the Foreign Ministry, most of the officers felt confident that they would be given a fair deal. Things were made transparent in administration that created a healthy environment in the Ministry during the period Anisul Islam Mahmud and Abul Ahsan worked together. Despite the difference in age with the Minister considerably younger, there was a healthy respect between the two and they were able to bring the Foreign Ministry into reckoning as an important Ministry of the Government. Abul Ahsan would tell me so many stories of his days as a Director-General when Bangabandhu was at the helm of affairs in the period between 1972-75. Bangabandhu would call even Directors-General to his office on a one to one basis on foreign policy issues and Abul Ahsan was one who would those days meet Bangabandhu frequently. These days Directors-General of the Foreign Ministry have access to the Prime Minister only as note takers for her important and sometimes not so important meetings with foreign guests.

As Foreign Secretary, Abul Ahsan found out quickly how the Foreign Ministry had been marginalized meanwhile. He worked with the Foreign Minister for the President’s indulgence to reinstate the Foreign Ministry to its rightful place in Government. That unfortunately did not happen because fate intervened meantime and Ershad’s rule ended in the face of popular public uprising.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan and Egypt.

Noise Pollution: Time for us to act

Published in The Independent, 22nd. April, 2010

The Independent’s headline story in a recent issue was about alarming rise of noise pollution. The report went on to say that people of Dhaka run serious risk of heart attack and stroke as a consequence. But then in is second worst city in the world in terms of living conditions, the question is who cares? In fact, with the serious deterioration of the power, gas and water situation, the more appropriate question to ask would be who is there to care for noise pollution? But then noise pollution is a killer and threat of death under no circumstances should be taken lightly. Unfortunately, this government would need a magic wand to solve the power/gas/water crisis and now with noise pollution tagged to it in the long list of crisis people of Dhaka and the rest of the country are facing now, even a magic wand may not do the trick

Realistically, respite on none of the crisis we are facing is in the offing, not at any time soon. The Government seems to be busy blaming the opposition that is making people more frustrated because it is now well over 3 years since those that the present government is blaming have left the scene. It is time that those who live in Dhaka start fending for themselves looking into the future. Dhaka has become the worst livable city in the world as much as for the inability of the government, that includes all parties who have been in power since 1971, as it is for the people living in the city themselves. While we will legitimately expect the Government to play its role in mitigating these problems, we often overlook our own role both individually and collectively in giving ourselves some relief.

The issue of noise pollution is one that is almost 100% in the hands of us the sufferers. The Independent report has very clearly pinpointed not just the locations but also the culprits who contribute to such life threatening noise pollution. Hydraulic horns of buses, trucks and taxi cabs are the main source of noise pollution. Of course the law enforcing agencies have the primary responsibility of taking action against these culprits. But then these offending vehicles are owned by a very small number of people who are well do people in society who, unlike the bus/truck/taxi cab drivers, understand the threat of noise pollution. If these people just want that in vehicles they own, horns would not be blown at random, then the war against noise pollution would be half won even without any assistance from the law enforcing authorities.

In Dhaka city, traffic movement is incredibly slow. Blowing the horn serves no purpose at all. The drivers blow the horn just to release their tension and frustration. Little do they know that the horn in the vehicle is for emergency use only and one can drive for hours in any modern city of the world without hearing the noise of a horn. In fact, prohibiting these drivers from blowing the horn could even have a positive effect on road accidents in which these drivers make the maximum contribution. They believe that just by blowing the horn, the road would open up for them like magic so that they can speed in any manner they like and it is by driving in any manner they like, that many innocent people are killed in our riads every day.

The generators merrily buzzing all around us these days is of course a new source of noise pollution. Recently, I want to a friend’s house in Gulshan where noise pollution in Dhaka came up for discussion. He took me out and what I saw struck was unbelievable. His house is exposed three ways to apartments, only free towards the road. From the three sides, the generator exhausts are turned towards my friend’s house. People living in theses apartments are all the cream of society; yet they do not have the minimum civic sense to refrain from causing such misery to an innocent neighbour. Although Dhaka may be deteriorating as a city; its construction boom however gives us a different signal. With the construction boom, there is a different kind of noise pollution that goes around the clock. Recently, I had to file a FIR in Gulshan Thana because my next door neighbours were bringing construction materials at dead of night and making such horrible noise that would make anybody’s sleep impossible. Just imagine waking up at 2am in the morning with noise of labourers downloading stone pebbles with shovels and piling them up on the footpath! The screeching sound is so unbearable that one could be driven to do anything crazy to stop the noise. This type of noise pollution happens in all parts of Dhaka city.

On noise pollution, the offenders are thus both the rich and the poor; the educated as well as the uneducated. Even the barest minimum of civic sense would allow us to escape from the dangers of noise pollution to which The Independent story has referred. Can’t the truck/bus/taxi cab owners show this bare minimum of civic sense by asking their drivers not to blow horns like desperados running away from a crime scene? Can’t they do away completely with the hydraulic horns? Can’t those developers in the construction business take special care that people’s sleep is not disturbed at night? Can’t the generator owners ensure that the discomfort of noise from the generators is not passed on to neighbours?

I share with everybody, their frustration with the shortage of power/gas/water. Even in these daily necessities, if we showed greater civic sense, our predicament could have been somewhat better than what it is at present. With noise pollution, the matter is in our hands. Can’t we do something about it? Charity, they say, begins at home. It is time we see what we can do ourselves while also expecting the Government to do its bit. At the moment, neither is doing much and Dhaka is sliding into an abyss.

The writer is a former Ambassador to Japan.

Nuclear Summit endorses US' nuclear objectives

M. Serajul Islam
Published in The Daily Star, April 17, 2010

One of President Obama's election pledges was to secure “loose nukes” in his first term in office. Towards achieving that pledge, he invited to Washington 47 nuclear states to get a plan of action to deal with nuclear threat from non-state actors and terrorist groups in place of “some vague gauzy statements.” In the built up to this Summit, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that US intelligence sources have information that Al Qaeda terrorists are seeking to get hold of nuclear weapons while at the same time planning to target nuclear installations for terrorist attacks. Her statement put the Summit in context.

In attendance were all the big players. China was represented by President Hu Jin Tao; India by Manmohan Singh; France by President Sarcozy while Foreign Secretary David Miliband stood in for his Prime Minister. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was one surprise absentee, withdrawing at the last moment perhaps apprehending censure. Before embarking on getting all the important nations using nuclear energy and/or possessing nuclear weapons for a Summit, President Obama laid down the new US nuclear policy a week ahead of the Summit. In that policy, President Obama made a substantial departure from his predecessor by putting a halt on the development of any new nuclear weapons. The other important element of the new policy is that it clearly states that the US will not launch a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state even if such a state would launch a biological or a chemical or a crippling cyber attack. However, US would reconsider nuclear retaliation if the development of chemical or biological weapons reached a stage to subject the US to a devastating attack.

President Obama followed the announcement of his administration's new plan by a meeting with President Medvedev of Russia, a country indispensable for the success of the new nuclear policy of the US President whose main objective is to discourage nations from acquiring nuclear weapons. Together, the US and Russia have 95% of the world's nuclear weapons and that makes it indispensable for the two countries to cooperate to, first, contain the spread of nuclear weapons, and then to eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. President Obama wants success of such a strategy to be the lasting legacy of his presidency.

US-Russian relations had soured over the war in Georgia last year. Russia was also unhappy with the US initiative for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe as a shield against Iran's nuclear ambitions that Russia objected as it is on its backyards. In the end, President Obama and President Medvedev were able to reach an agreement that should be seen as a success for the US President's diplomatic efforts and not very good news for the Iranians who in the past have depended on the Russians for support on the nuclear issue. In the agreement the USA and Russia would voluntarily reduce their nuclear arsenals by a quarter as a first step in the containment policy of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of unstable regions. The treaty will be finalized by December and then it will have to be ratified by the legislature of both the countries. It could then lead to more substantial reductions in further talks between the two countries next year. The US-Russia Summit set the stage for cooperation on the nuclear issue that was firmly in evidence during the Washington Nuclear Summit.

President Obama thus went to the Nuclear Summit with sufficient preparation and a vision on what he expected the Summit to deliver. In opening the Summit, President Obama was emphatic in telling his fellow Summiteers that the risk of nuclear attack is now on the rise despite the end of Cold War. The increased threat according to him comes from international terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda. He received unanimous endorsement of the Summiteers about the threat from terrorist groups and the need to make all nuclear materials safe in the next four years so that none would fall into the hands of the terrorists. President Obama put the terrorist threat in context by telling Summiteers that plutonium no bigger than an apple would allow the terrorists to detonate a device that could kill hundreds of thousands. Heeding to the need to secure nuclear materials Ukraine, Canada and Mexico voluntarily gave up highly enriched uranium each possessed to make it harder for terrorist groups or criminal gangs to steal a key ingredient for making atomic bombs. The Summiteers agreed to cooperate with the IAEA for sharing information on nuclear materials to prevent trafficking.

On the issue of dealing with Iran that is a key element in the new US nuclear policy, President Obama was able to get China on board when the Chinese agreed to work with USA for a fourth round on sanctions against Iran in order to deter it from possessing nuclear weapons. There was, however, some discrepancy between the US and Chinese statements on sanctions against Iran with the Chinese unwilling to mention Iran in public. Russia that is equally crucial if not more in keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was more firmly with the US following the nuclear deal between President Obama and President Medvedev reached in Moscow shortly before the Washington Summit. Thus a major outcome of the Washington Summit has been the gathering of forces against Iran in its perceived attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. On North Korea, the Summit concluded that although “sanctions are not a magic wand”, there was alternative but to continue with it to force that country to return to nuclear disarmament talks that it had abandoned before President Obama took office.

The Summit has been a success for India as it helped bring US-India relations back on firm track after it had wandered off on the issue of Pakistan's use of US military aid against India. President Obama received the Indian Prime Minister as the first guest in the limited list of bilateral meetings on the sides of the Summit. He assured Manmohan Singh that the US would take up India's concerns seriously. Media reported “relief, satisfaction and renewed confidence” among Indian officials after the 50-minute talks between the two leaders.

The Summit helped raise the stature of President Barak Obama on world stage because he was able to give the leadership and vision needed for handling the apprehensions across many nations, particularly those in the western world, about the terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons. He also succeeded in raising the level of concern for protecting nuclear installations from terrorist attacks. In fact, the Summit reiterated in its non-binding communiqué the major objectives of the new nuclear policy of the United States that the President had announced shortly before the Summit that has been the largest gathering on US soil since the 1946 conference in San Francisco for establishing the UN. There has also been criticism of the Summit and its achievements. One criticism stated that no concrete mechanism has been designed to deal with nuclear terrorism.

The author is a former Ambassador to Japan and a Director at the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.

Regional integration in South Asia: Learning from Africa

M. Serajul Islam
Published in The Daily Star, April,10th , 2010

A very thought provoking and stimulating seminar was held recently at the Policy Research Institute (PRI). The topic was 'Regional cooperation in Africa: Lessons of experience and implications for South Asia.' The keynote presentation was made by Mr. KY Amoako, the founder and President of African Centre for Economic Transformation (ACET) and a former vice president of the World Bank. Mr. Praful Patel, also a former vice president of the World Bank assisted Mr. Amoako in his presentation.

Mr. KY Amoako and Mr. Praful Patel placed facts in their presentations that amazed many of the participants at the way Africa in general and West Africa in particular is integrating, highlighting in the process how South Asia is lagging behind. One hears of Africa, particularly West Africa, in the context of wars, civil conflicts, and human rights violations, courtesy of the international news media. Very rarely, one hears of the region in the light in which the two presenters represented West Africa at the Seminar. Some of the key elements that emerged from the presentations were extremely interesting. In the western African experience, the region is moving towards regional integration which is qualitatively a paradigm shift from regional cooperation, the stage where South Asia is stuck since the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), was formally launched in the Dhaka Summit of the South Asian Heads of State/Government in 1985.

In West Africa, the countries have been historically disintegrated. South Asia, in contrast, was once integrated and then disintegrated because of British colonization and is now trying to move back to where it was before the British left. There is thus a significant difference in the background of the two regions that, overtly, should have made integration easier in South Asia. However, British colonization left in South Asia certain fundamental problems that have so far proven almost insurmountable in integrating the countries of South Asia. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were identified as three South Asian nations where legacy of history has stood formidably against integration. In case of India and Pakistan, the two were encouraged to seek and own nuclear weapons for protection against each other.

Terrorism was discussed as a new factor that is complicating regional integration in South Asia. The Adviser to the Prime Minister strongly placed before the audience the initiative of the Bangladesh Prime Minister to tackle the curse of terrorism. He highlighted the commitment made by Sheikh Hasina during her state visit to India in January to fight with India jointly the scourge of terrorism. He said that Bangladesh soil would not be allowed to carry out terrorism into neighboring countries. The Adviser's point was well taken as a positive move towards integration but Bangladesh's commitment notwithstanding, participants in the seminar identified terrorism as another formidable obstacle in the path of integration together with legacy of history from South Asia's tryst with the British colonizers.

There were a few other issues that were raised by the two keynote speakers resulting in a great deal of vibrant discussions. Among the major achievements that Mr. Amoako identified towards regional integration in West Africa is the visa free travel among the members of Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS). In that context, the role of Nigeria was also mentioned. Mr. Amoako said that in achieving regional integration in West Africa, the Pan-African vision of such great African leaders as Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere played a key role; such elements have never been present in South Asia's move for regional integration. The visa free travel is an instrument that has helped these countries significantly towards integration. Mr. Amoako said that while there was favourable reaction from the smaller western African nations for visa free travel all along, Nigeria, the largest and economically the most well placed country in the region, was steadfast in its objection for a long time. The visa free travel among the West African countries became a reality only after Nigeria withdrew its objection.

Participants regretted that in South Asia where the need for visa free travel is extremely important to start the process of integration, the concept has not yet found any favour. Some of the participants were critical about India. They felt it could play the role in the region that Nigeria has played in western Africa. The participants felt that terrorism in the region would cause inordinate delay in South Asia's move for visa free regime. India's size, both physical and economic, and its mindset in not living up to its natural dominance in the region were considered by a few participants as serious impediments to regional integration.

Mr. Praful Patel introduced water as an issue for integrating nations in South Asia. He gave the example of the agreement reached on sharing the waters of the Nile that involved 15 countries where conflicts and differences were overcome for common benefit of the signatory countries. He also spoke on the Senegal River development as another success story for achieving the region's economic integration. He provoked the participants to consider the tremendous benefits that could accrue for 700 million plus people in the flood plains in Nepal, India, Bhutan and Bangladesh if the four countries cooperated together for managing rivers, rain water, and water from melting snow of the glaciers in the Himalayas. Participants agreed that cooperation for successful management of the region's water resources could leap-frog the region towards regional integration and economic development. Mr. Patel identified lack of political will as a main reason for lack of cooperation in the management of the region's water resources.

Africa is achieving significant results towards integration that will allow it a paradigm shift in their integration and development efforts. South Asia unfortunately is still stuck, struggling to cooperate. In South Asia, legacy of history, terrorism, India's dominant but less positive role are some formidable obstacles that are holding South Asia from integrating which is a key element for regional approach to poverty alleviation in the region. The abundance of water resource in the region, particularly in its northeast, where nature's blessings are being wasted, could be a very important factor for integration. The message that emanated from the PRI seminar is that politics and lack of political will is holding back South Asia from regional integration as opposed to the African experience and thus holding the 40% of the world's poor from breaking out of the vicious circle of poverty. The African experience has rich lessons for South Asia.

The author is a former Ambassador to Egypt and Japan and a Director, Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies.