Afghanistan troops pull out and South China Sea dispute

Recently President Barrack Obama declared that the US will start a process of pulling out troops from Afghan soil. This declaration has come out with no surprise as this was being assumed from the past gestures. But what is significant is timing. It has to be observed along with many other incidents took place around that time. I shall discuss those coincidences later. The declaration has some logical backdrops. It was given in the backdrop of the end of Laden era which was followed by the clandestine negotiation continued between Taliban and Obama administrations. Experts on US policy are adding up more delicate backdrops related to this declaration. They are claiming that the Obama government is no more able to wage war against terrorism in Afghanistan with its continued overburdened economy. During war against Libya, in a speech, Obama told that necessarily it did not mean that the US would go to wage war everywhere on earth. He indicated that the war against terrorism is a common interest and other powers have to come for the greater interest of the world. But who will concur to through their troops in a ‘ordeal’?

The timeline for the drawdown are- 10,000 troops by end-2011, 33,000 by mid-2012 and the bulk of the remaining 70,000 troops at a “steady pace” through 2013-14. The stunning geopolitical reality is that US is barely avoiding defeat and is making its way out of the HinduKush in an organised retreat as claimed by an ex-Indian diplomat M. K. Bhadrakumar. The Taliban responded to Mr. Obama’s announcement saying – “The solution for the Afghan crisis lies in the full withdrawal of all foreign troops immediately”. Again, Obama appears to be optimistic about the Kabul government’s ability to assume the responsibility of security by 2014. This ‘optimism’ is far from reality as per as the present Afghan situation is concerned. The retreat of the US from Afghanistan as anticipated by Bhadrakumar was not baseless. But the realities behind the ‘retreat’ are two pronged- one reality is that the US is really finding it tough with rare possibility to win the war in Afghanistan. She is under pressure at home to withdraw troops and bring them back to home. Second thing the US strategists are finding it more useful to concentrate elsewhere than Afghanistan. May be they are finding it more important to make strong foothold in South Asia or South East Asia to dissolve China’s prowess in that region and utilising present turmoil centring the South China Sea.

Now let me talk about those coincidences that I have not mentioned in the first. There have been some important developments for months in South Asia and Far East Asia which might force or worry the US strategist to reshape their strategic landscape in Asia. On 29 March 2011, the Army of Nepal made out a fresh proposal for integration/rehabilitation of PLA (People’s Liberation Army, China) combatants that appears to have had a positive response not only from the Maoist leadership but also from the Nepali Congress. In a response to Chinese offer US has recently proposed for establishing a military base camp in Nepal with substantial military and economic assistance to the landlocked impoverished Himalayan country with the objective to free Tibet from China. In this year China’s proposal to Nepal came first and was followed by US’s one. Peoples Review, a daily of Kathmandu, revealed on 9 June that the US government has submitted a draft of military pact with Nepal along with demand for allowing the military base.

Another development has been taking place, for a few days, in the South China Sea encircling the Spratly Islands and its resources among the self declared owners. China’s expansive sovereignty claims on of the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Paracel islets, putting Beijing directly in conflict with the sovereignty claims and security of five Southeast Asian states and ASEAN members -- Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia and outside them -- Taiwan.

In the South China Sea, US has only one permanent military base which is located Luzon Island, the Philippines. To hold back China’s military prowess US needs more strongholds in the off shore of the South China Sea. The present face to face situation among the neighbouring countries is the high time for the US to interfere. Hillary Clinton has already offered the Philippines to give arms to withstand China. US’s action irritated China and China rebuked US’s role as an act of interference. For China, the South China Sea is the security zone and important for maintaining economic pace and political supremacy in this region. To challenge US’s role in the Pacific Ocean, China needs to modernise its naval abilities. And China’s present economic power is inspiring it to continue this modernisation process. On the other hand, to stave off China US needs to concentrate more on this area. Probably this intention is going to bring change in US’s strategic landscape in Asia. Pulling out troops from Afghanistan may help to build up other countries in Asia. It may be a country or countries from South East Asia or may be even Nepal. Only future can be the best answer to know the upcoming changes. So let us look forward!

This article was appeared first in the Daily Sun on 13th August 2011. 

Breivik and Stroman made us rethink 'war on terror'

"Hate is going on in this world and it has to stop. Hate causes a lifetime of pain. Even though I lay here I am still at peace."

-Mark Stroman

(In his final statement before execution of death penalty)


Think! Another paradise is lost from this world. This time it is Norway. In travel guides, Norway is often described as the most beautiful place on the planet, a tiny nation of 4.8 million with enormous natural beauty, icy mountains and deep, dark fjords, northern lights and the midnight sun. Norway, a good patronizer of multiculturalism with the least corruption rate and best human development score and most successful peace negotiating records in the world, is now reeling from successive bomb blasts and horrific shooting, leaving around hundred people dead. So far, exceptionally, no Islamic militant link has been unearthed behind this heinous attack. This time a conservative right wing Christian believer admitted his involvement. 32-year-old Anders Breivik executed the carnage alone as claimed by media. Calling himself a crusader against a tide of Islam in a rambling 1,500-page online manifesto, he deemed the plot was 'atrocious but necessary'. Now retrospect nine years back. Another incident took place in Texas a few days later of 11 September, 2001. Mark Stroman, appearing with a lethal weapon, killed two Arabs, as they were the same national of 9/11 perpetrators. An unfortunate Bangladeshi received a bullet in his eye but managed to survive. During the year Stroman received death penalty from Texas court and the court order was executed on 2oth July with a lethal injection penetrating into her blood. Rais Bhuiyan, the survived Bangladeshi, opposed court's order placing his argument against the futility of death penalty. Bhuiyan said "His execution will not eradicate hate crimes from this world. We will just simply lose another human life." Bhuiyan waved the flag of humanity in the age of hatred! I could easily mention the rampage of 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, which was more similar to that of Oslo. But here I am specifying the discussion within these two incidences considering the 9/11 in 2001 as the causal event, which embarked on 'war against terrorism'.

Many names with single aim
The both incidences, which I have mentioned are the symbols of anti-Muslim hatred. Breivik and Stroman expressed abhorrence, agony from their utmost levels. The abhorrence they have against Islam and Muslim is not less on any consideration. Stroman lost his sister in 9/11. But Breivik probably doesn't have such black memory. Norwegian police described him as a conservative, right-wing extremist and a Christian fundamentalist. Breivik appears to be an adherent of the right-wing conspiracy theories about 'Eurabia', the idea that Muslims are infiltrating European society with the goal of domination. Breivik was too occupied to see the real tattered face of Muslim people in Europe and America. Is there any significant differences among Stroman, Breivik and Daood Gilani, Masood Azhar and Hafeez Muhammad Sayeed to name a few of Mumbai 2008 plotters, 9/11 executors Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and many others? They are different by their names, religions and appearances but similar with goals, ways of thinking and actions. Among them some are fundamental Christians and others are fundamental Muslims. They devote their lives in the name of religion. Terrorists do not and cannot belong to a specific religion or country. But many European people and leaders are sometimes blind to consider it other than Islamic militancy. They find 'Islam' synonymous to 'terrorism'.


Depiction of Western media
After the terrorist attack in Oslo the global media, especially western media were waiting to hear from an Islamic militant group to proclaim their own involvement in this incident. But this time they had to return with empty hands! Long after the rumors had been disproved, and the culprit emerged as a white, right-wing Christian from Norway, many newspapers still wanted the conversation to be about Islam and Al Qaeda. Western media is a good follower of people's sentiment. It wants to produce news like making a hamburger and feed to its hungry customers. If Breivik had an Al Qaeda link the Oslo bombing news could have been more delicious news. They want to utilize people's sentiment with the measure of Islamophobia. Media's representation of terrorism is very much dangerous. It can make bolt from the blue. After Oslo bombing many Muslim bloggers and independent thinkers over internet expressing their grievances against Western medias for their anti-Islamic, biased and opportunist attitudes. These medias are aggregating the misery of Muslims more and more in the world.


Rethink 'war on terror'
'War on terrorism' from its very beginning was biased, ill-intentioned. The ideology of war on terror needs revision. The 'militancy' is so much intermingled with the term 'Islam' that none can imagine Christian militancy or Hindu militancy. Therefore, after Oslo attack the media was in frantic search to link it with Al Qaeda. More importantly 'war' can't be a solution for 'terrorism'. The western leaders have to think beyond war. They need to work on people's psychology. They have to find out the root causes that why those people kill others and kill themselves in the name of religion. Remarks of Stroman and Bhuiyan gave us insights. 'War on terrorism' did nothing but spread hatred among religions. We need 'preach against terrorism' in stead of 'war against terrorism.'

This article was appeared first in the Daily Star on  6th August, 2011.

From South Sudan to Lybia

The State? Once every two years two people from Khartoum come to our place. One of them is a tax collector who asks us to pay- only Allah knows for what; we don’t have electricity, a school, a health care centre or even a dirt road. The second is an army officer who comes for our sons, recruiting them into the military to fight the SPLA/M. That’s the extent to which the State is interested in us.

- An anonymous South

Sudanese village leader.

This was a reply from a village leader of South Sudan when he was asked by an author about his understanding on ‘state’. He may not know the definitions given by Plato or Aristotle on state but knows the ‘working definition’ that emerged from his own context. I shall not discuss the definition of state but the context of the emergence of the newly born state of South Sudan. There are many explanations on the causes of emergence of South Sudan which evade many important factors like tribal conflicts, religious differences and many inclusive local dimensions. Here I shall try to explore those unearthed areas and explain in a nutshell.

Tribal dynamics from Libya to South Sudan

Sudan gained independence from Egypt and Britain in 1956. It suffered from seventeen years of civil war during the first Sudanese civil war period (1955–1972) followed by ethnic, religious and economic conflicts between the Muslim Arab and Arabized northern Sudanese and the mostly animist and Christian of southern Sudan from 1983 to 2005. In the year of 2005 a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed between the Sudanese government and the rebellious SPLM/A. This agreement helped the south Sudanese to decide for their independence through plebiscite.

To understand South Sudan we, first and foremost, ought to know the context of Africa. The present day Africa is a much talked about issue in the international arena because of it’s implications with various incidences like toppling of despotic rulers in Tunisia and Egypt, continued war in Libya and birth of South Sudan as a newly independent state. This continent has a long history of colonial rules maintained by European powers. Because of different colonial rules and ruling systems, the African continent does not have very much similar systems of government. More importantly, Africa has diverse tribal and ethnic cultures, which were ignored by colonial powers in the past and has been continuing till date. This ignorance was no exception during the past Sudanese government. Here, not to mention that, the disparity between North Sudan and South Sudan had its legacy from British rule. The disparities were drawn across the tribal-cultural and religious fault lines. North and South Sudanese have differences in their tribal-cultural and religious systems. The Northern Sudanese are mainly Arab-Muslims while the Southern Sudanese are Christian-Animists. South Sudan as a nation is for all from majority Dinka and Nuer, Shulluk, Azande, Acholi, Kakwa, Shilifi, Bari, Lotuka and others regardless of their size. Northern Sudan ignored the rights of those tribal groups; rather, oppressed them, which culminated into civil war and finally ended in ‘two states solution’.

Now let me give another example where tribal discriminations worked as the main source of conflict between the government and the rebel groups. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi hails from a relatively small tribe called Gaddafa and maintains oppressive rule over other tribal groups. Members of the Gaddafa tribe have held many high-ranking government positions. Some members of larger tribes such as the Magariha, Misurata, and the Warfalla have sought to advance their broad interests through control of official positions of influence and some of their members have opposed the regime on grounds of tribal discrimination. Some Libyan military and security officials staged limited, unsuccessful coup attempts against Gaddafi in 1993 and 1996 based in part on tribal and familial rivalries. Unsuccessful plotters were sentenced to death. All these developments culminated to the present armed revolution against Gaddafi regime, which is now on the verge of collapse.

Wind of ‘two states solution’

Since the independence of South Sudan, there has been an option that seems very much relevant to solving many unresolved conflicts in many countries. ‘Two states solution’ is the option that may give us hope to bring an end to bloodshed in many countries. For Sudan ‘two states solution’ has given birth to world’s poorest nation – South Sudan. It brought an end to civil war conducted over five decades (1955-2005) and raised hope for the south Sudanese to change their fate with their own hands. This option is offered to Israel but it remains defiant. Now it seems that, in Libya, this option can be thrown to the negotiation table between Gaddafi and the rebel group ITNC (Interim Transitional National Council) where West Libya will belong to Gaddafi with Tripoli as the capital and East Libya to ITNC with Benghazi as its capital. But in a recent development the US state secretary Mrs. Clinton has given official recognition to ITNC as Libya‘s government. This policy is formulated to serve US interests, not Libyans’. In Libya a South Sudan like solution can be brought where Libyans will decide their fate thorough a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision. In that plebiscite people can be given two options from which to choose only one. Libyans have to decide whether they will stay under Gaddafi or want ITNC in power; and the next option will be to divide the country into two parts with two different rulers. At the end what is expected (and should be) that the fate of Libya is decided by its own people, not by outsiders.

This article was appeared first in the Daily sun on 28th July 2011. 

China’s responses towards Arab Changes

ometimes a very apparent thing remains unnoticed because of sense of ignorance about that. This happens when our mind remains occupied with something conventional. ‘China in the Middle East’ is something like that ignored part which one gets rare attention because of our over emphasising the topic of ‘US in the Middle East’. But China’s activities are not less important and at the same time not less fascinating than that of the US in Middle East. China’s policy towards Middle East shifted frequently since its birth in 1949. Initially the relationships were judged against China’s steady stand with the ideology of communism. Till 1955 it had no diplomatic relationship with any Middle Eastern state except Israel. But now in the year of 2011 it has more important friends than Israel. Now let’s see how things had evolved and have been evolving between China and Middle East in recent times.

Only after 1956 the relationship started to develop between China and its Middle Eastern counterparts. In that period China found Middle Eastern states anti-imperialist in character because of their position against capitalist-imperialist US, Britain and Israel. China stood firmly by the side of Egypt during the Suez crisis; it also supported Algeria’s anti colonial movements against France and finally condemned US’s attack on Libya. During that period China established diplomatic ties with a number of Middle Eastern countries including- Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.

During the 60s the relationship with those countries were influenced by its relationship with USSR (present Russia). To break the hegemony of USSR it tried to strengthen and establish new diplomatic relationship with more counties.

In 1979 with the emergence of Den Xiaoping in the post Mao era a great shift took place in China’s foreign policy. China softened its ideological stance and started to compromise its ideology for the sake of national modernisation process. That was the first great shift in Chinese foreign policy since its emergence in 1949. China moved fast ahead in a variety of fields, building economic, trade, cultural, scientific, technological and military ties. By 1990, China’s export to the Middle East reached $1.5 billion and more than 50,000 Chinese workers were employed in the region. Chinese arms also found major buyers including Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

In the post cold war era with the changes in global scenario the role of China also changed in the Middle East. Since then in absence of the Soviet Union China found the US as the only contender. With this contender sometimes it cooperated and sometimes confronted. But all Chinese policies were driven by China’s basic requirements- need for energy to keep the momentum of development growth. China successfully and smartly utilised the tension between the western world and Iran. While the US and EU were at loggerheads with Iran on nuclear issue China’s state owned company Sinopac was busy making a deal of $100 billion for thirty years with Iranian petroleum corporation. This happened when Mr. Bush took office for the second time in the year of 2004. After the oil deal was signed Li Zhaoxing, the then Chinese foreign minister, announced that China would refuse to refer the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme to the Security Council. Li’s announcement signified that decades of Sino-Iranian cooperation was bearing fruits for both parties: China would get the oil and gas its economy desperately needs while Iran would finally win the political support of a reliable and weighty friend. There are number of examples on how China utilised the chances of strained relationship between the West and the Middle East and simultaneously Middle East utilised friendship with China as a measure of counterbalance against the West. Now, already there is a triangle in Middle Eastern politics where the US, the Middle East and China are positioned at three points.

What has been China’s response to the recent popular upsurge in Middle Eastern countries? Before entering into this argument I want to attract readers’ attention to one point. One of the major tensions between the US and China exists on the issue of democracy. China is very much sceptic about US activities in its (China) neighbouring countries. China doubts that the US might try to encircle China with democracy. “If the Chinese government perceives that Washington is serious about making democratisation the centrepiece of US Middle East policy, Beijing will resist it even more intensely, seeing such a policy as an implicit challenge to the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy at home.”

Since the ‘tsunami’ in the Middle East, China has been very careful regarding its internal issues. President Hu Jintao issued orders to party officials to “solve prominent problems which might harm the harmony and stability of society”. China has experiences of 1989 Tienman Square, recently in Tibet, in Xinjiang in 2010. These incidents coupled with thousands of other protests that have become the hallmark of contemporary China, brought into question the concept of ‘harmonious development’. Another important thing is that China has the best technology or know-how to control cyber media and electronic media in the world. This is the single most important reason why most of the protests couldn’t get success in China.

China didn’t respond as outspokenly for Libyan issue as it did during the Iranian nuclear issue. There was no strong condemnation from China. Rather China was, probably, the first oil importer from the rebel controlled Benghazi. That’s why it can be said that for the last three or four decades China’s policy towards Middle East has been a clear manifestation of a pragmatic approach. It is something of a fusion of communism and realism.

THis article was published in the Daily Sun on 20th July 2011. 

‘Food security’ or ‘land-grab’:A new African reality

Just a few years back, Bangladesh’s foreign policy was ‘look east policy’ oriented. But at present it seems there is a shift in the policy; now it is one of ‘looking to Africa’. This Look Africa policy is not a holistic approach; it is only a minor change in foreign policy direction for ‘agro-economic’ purpose. Bangladesh is building and strengthening its foreign relations with many Sub-Saharan countries on specific economic terms. The country wants to buy or lease land in Africa via its private entrepreneurs. Bangladesh is anticipating that these initiatives will ensure food security, which continues to be a matter of headache for it for a few years. Another thing Bangladesh expects is to send a good number of unemployed people there as expatriate workers. The government is consistently looking for new markets for migrant workers as the existing markets have been shrinking for the last two or three years. So, apparently it seems that ‘look Africa policy’ is going to be an all-round boost up for Bangladesh and its economy. But let’s see what the realities behind all these ‘flat appearances’ are.

For the last few years ‘look Africa policy’ has been a global phenomenon. China is the first in this move followed by India, Bangladesh, South Korea and others. Every country has a single motive – economic objectives in different areas of interests. China is looking for energy potentials for its burgeoning economy; India is making room for its private entrepreneurs to invest in education, telecommunications and software infrastructures while Bangladesh is looking for arable land for crop production. For all these initiatives ‘land grab in Africa’ has been a buzzword in recent time.

Why are countries in ‘land rush’?

The question of ‘land grab’ or ‘land rush’ in Africa is internally connected with various complex realities. First of all, I would like to draw attention of the readers to the fact that land-grab in Africa is not a new thing. Before this, US and many European countries leased or bought land for cultivation. But at present the number of participating countries has increased. This quantitative change has been propelled by various factors. Thinkers deem that worldwide food shortage and food security concern following oil price rise in 2008, water shortage and the European Union’s insistence that 10 percent of all transport fuel would come from plant-based bio fuels by 2015 have led to this change. Others say population growth is also a factor. In a report it is revealed that global hunger rates decreased slightly in recent years but 925 million people still suffer from hunger, while high food price threatens more. But, please, note that the foreign investors want to feed their own people first, not the Africans who are the largest hungry populace in the world.

What do Africans think?

The local inhabitants are at a loss with this sort of land rush by foreign investors. They are puzzled with the names of states like Bangladesh, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia etc. Many prudent Africans are suspecting the rebirth of colonialism in Africa in a different form. In a write up, a columnist called Ethiopian president a ‘goat’. The writer questions how a country like Ethiopia can afford leasing land to foreign countries whereas that country itself is bearing the burden of the world’s largest starving population. (Bangladesh has plans to buy or lease land from Ethiopia.)

In the latest UN conference for food, Kofi Aannan, ex-UN chief, defined the situation as ‘rich countries grabbing Poor’s land’. He called for united action for global food security. But as we know, in this realist world common effort for common interest is a far cry; so, Annan’s appeal for ‘global food security’ is very likely to end in smoke.

Can investment bring breakthrough in Africa?

Foreign investors say that the present time can be a new African era for these inhabitants. Foreign investment will bring capital and new technologies to outmoded farming in Africa. Investors say these acquisitions will fuel development, but opponents call the move a “land-grab” that will threaten Africa’s own food security.

Investors argue bringing in large areas of land under cultivation and building infrastructure will generate large scale employment opportunities even if these sectors are completely mechanised. Since land utilisation in this continent is very low compared to other continents, there is not going to be any ecological problems. It is also to be remembered that some European countries including Russia have sold/leased out land to foreigners with a view to increasing local food grain production.

Ethiopia’s ambassador to the United Kingdom said that his country must significantly develop mechanised agriculture. Ethiopia is planning to double its agriculture output and so the government has put aside 3 million hectares of land to be leased. The government says, in that case, the country may not even need food aid within five years.

Many farmers, land rights advocates, various reports and non-governmental organisations disagree with this proposition. They call the situation a “land-grab” that may lead to environmental destruction, displacement of small, local landholders and workers, and resource exploitation as well as loss of livelihood and food insecurity. Some say it’s a new form of colonialism.

It is really tough to comment on the African ‘land-grab’ for ‘food security’ purpose because of being absolutely ignorant about the real local realities. From the point of view of a Bangladeshi, this move towards Africa is an intelligent one given all these potentialities. Successes depend upon the implementation level: How successfully Bangladesh utilises the lands using its technological know-how for cultivation. For the Africans, it can be a good initiative if their government can formulate a proper policy for capital investment and to develop farmers’ skill and expertise in using new technology so that they need not remain dependent upon foreign investors years after years.

This article was first published in the Daily Sun on 13th July 2011.

Global powers eye Africa

Africa-when the word comes forth, some stereotyped pictures appear in our minds. We envision Africa as a continent of tribal strife, poorest nations and states with geometrically sketched boundaries. Once upon a time Oriental thinkers perceived Africa as a 'dark continent'. But now Africa is a sublime continent beyond all these imaginations. Now many global powers are extending their interest and sphere of influence towards it. Among these China and India are worthy of mention. Bangladesh, this time, is not lagging behind. It is also looking for opportunities and thus exploring potentialities to meet the growing food insecurity and export of workers to new destinations.

The recent move of the global powers toward Africa is the phenomenon of the last few years. China, here, is one of the pioneers followed by India and Bangladesh. China's 'look Africa policy' has alarmed both the US and India. Since China's move, India consistently has been suffering from regret of 'missed opportunities'. China's move towards Africa was spontaneous; driven by its growing necessity of energy. But India's move seems, more driven by its sense of 'missed opportunities' than its actual requirements. Indian policy makers were in a hurry to conciliate the missed chances.

At this stage, a question may arise about the reasons behind these recent moves toward Africa by global powers. There may be several arguments. First of all, I think a prevailing 'power vacuum' in African continent is one of the major causes behind this development. This power vacuum has continued since the end of WWII. World powers are so much occupied with Asia and Europe that they couldn't or didn't pay any real attention towards Africa. China utilized the chance first to fill the gap up. Why China first but not the others? China is the second largest economy in this world and has the need for energy to keep up the momentum of its burgeoning economy. To meet the challenge of energy demand, China is rushing and exploring all over the world. In Africa, China is mainly investing in the energy sector. Its economy has the power to take the risk of investing in a large scale. China boasts foreign exchange reserves of more than $3 trillion, 10 times India's $307 billion, and has aggressively used state-owned development banks to invest heavily in oil, gas and other resources across the continent.

Beijing also leads the way in diplomatic terms, with 42 embassies across sub-Saharan Africa, double India's diplomatic presence of only 21 embassies, a report from the London-based Chatham House think-tank said. On the other hand, New Delhi has promised billions of dollars in development support, financing for infrastructure projects and the building of educational and training institutes, as it positions itself as the alternative to Beijing.

The present rigorous and massive engagement with Africa has some qualitative differences from the previous ones. On China, many observers are speculating that it may be thinking to shift its manufacturing industries from China to Africa. This move may help to develop its green house gas effect record. We know that among many other criticisms along with human rights issue, China is surely criticized for its green house gas record. Moreover, China's investment will strengthen its relationship with African nations. India's involvement in Africa is to reduce Chinese sphere of influence among African nations. Along with India, Bangladesh is also trying to utilize the opportunities available in Africa. Bangladesh has already started its formal procedure to lease or buy land in Uganda, Ethiopia etc.

Second prime cause concerned with the move towards Africa by global powers is more economic than political. Domestic unrest sparked by the rise of food price led many states of Africa to cultivation for increasing food production. Since 2008, when the world was hit by economic crisis, there has been a growing concern over the rise of food price. Countries like Bangladesh, South Korea and India suffered heavily during that time in coping with the rise of food price. Still the governments are in a hot water situation to hold back the domestic unrest sparked from the issue.

I shall not discuss or criticize the outcomes resulted from the move towards Africa by the global and small powers. I just want to mention some remarks made by Hillary Clinton. Ms. Clinton termed this new African era as the era of 'New colonialism'. This statement was mainly given to debilitate China's presence there. Taking notes from history She says, "We saw that during colonial times it is easy to come in, take out natural resources, pay off leaders and leave." Critics say Beijing's aid is too often tied to its investment interests and can undermine efforts to encourage fresh government in Africa because it does not demand the same kind of accountability as much Western aid. So I want to say that the African states have to be careful about their decisions taken for foreign investments. They have to know what their national interests are. Otherwise things will be worse for the already crisis prone African states.

This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 25th June 2011.  

Rethink Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka, the pearl of Indian Ocean and Bangladesh has a warm relationship and this has been consistent since the bloody birth of Bangladesh in1971. But this relationship couldn't reach its zenith because of consistent ignorance from intellectuals to popular leaders and mass media over the years. In Bangladesh public perceptions are too much influenced by the concept of 'great power' or 'super power'. If Rajapaksa were the premier of any great or super power he could attract huge media coverage. There could have been a buzz for days before his arrival. In Bangladesh a popular mindset works when it comes to India, Pakistan, China or USA. The media jump upon Ministry of Foreign Affairs and intellectuals start to talk in many seminars-forums about upcoming heads of government of the above mentioned countries. This zeal doesn't work for other states like Sri Lanka. What I say is that all these are common popular blunder. When it comes to bilateral relations, it comes with an option to achieve whosoever is in the other side. Eventually we forget that in the negotiation table with great or super power on the other side is not always necessarily helping us to gain; rather we sacrifice our interest. On the contrary, when there is an opposition with equal status then we have greater chance to gain. That's why states like Sri Lanka should get no less attention from our leaders and media.

Bangladesh and Sri Lanka did business of $46 millions in the fiscal year of 2009-10. But its potential deserves more than twice or thrice. Still there is yet to be direct air and sea links between these two countries. The state level talk for direct air link was held in 2008 but yet to find the light of reality. On the export-import side both sides can increase their quantity of international business. Bangladesh can export pharmaceuticals, vegetable to Sri Lanka. During Rajapaksa's visit both sides agreed also to diversify the basket of tradable goods and looked for innovative ways to add fresh impetus to trade and commercial relations. This is a good sign. Bangladesh can seek investment in sectors like textile, knitwear, linen, leather, pharmaceuticals, agro based industries, IT, education and hospitality, etc. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also pointed those out to her Sri Lankan counterpart. But you can't always seek benefit without giving something in return. Bangladesh needs to know how it can come forth for Srilanka. Bangladesh can increase its import volume to reduce dependence upon other neighboring countries.

In the last joint statement both sides emphasized on terrorism along with other security issues. Both sides vowed steadfast support in combating separatist terrorism in Sri Lanka and in this context, for extending support to Sri Lanka at international forums, including the UN. Bangladesh sought Sri Lanka's support for Bangladesh's candidature for the non-permanent membership to the UNSC for the period of 2016-17. Sri Lanka also assured its support.

How Sri Lanka looks at Bangladesh? There is a common trait present between these two countries. This trait is-'concern over India'. Both these countries have to live under Indian influence. During the recent visit Rajapaksa sought 'strong political relations' with Bangladesh. This political statement is enough to indicate what Srilanka thinks about Bangladesh and its political motivation to offset Indian influence.

There is another similarity between these two SAARC countries which relates to relationship with China. Bangladesh and Srilanka both have excellent relations with China. For Sri Lanka the victory against Tamil rebels was actually propelled by China's help, military and otherwise. For Bangladesh, China is one of the largest importers of its goods. China is supposed to build up two deep sea ports--one in Chittagong, Bangladesh and another in Hambantota, Srilanka along with another in Kyaukphyu, Myanmar. China is trying to offset India in the Indian Ocean.

It can be said that Sri Lanka has been a friendly state for Bangladesh without any ups and downs for a longtime. Bangladesh needs to utilize this friendly environment more effectively. Bangladeshi researchers on international relations should come up with new areas of potentialities where the two countries can cooperate for their mutual interest. This will help to strengthen Bangladesh's position in regional and international forums. That's why we should rethink our relationship with Sri Lanka and thus should come out from existing traditional concepts of 'small state' or 'small power'.

 This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 7th May, 2011.

The Libyan denouement?

The Odyssey is one of two major ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer. The poem is fundamental component to the modern Western canon. Now that odyssey is the code name of the latest US military operation in Libya-Odyssey Dawn. The present word odyssey is very much linked to the mythical hero Odysseus. International Relations, more specifically Strategic Studies, never got such a similar literary taste or dimension before this. The US may be assuming its operation in Libya is going to be a prolonged and protracted, one with hardship and tough resistance ahead. It is almost like a ten years long journey, which once was carried out by Odysseus way back to 8th century BC to get back to his beloved family after returning from Trojan War. Is Libya aggression going to be another "Odyssey journey" for the US and thus for other European partners?

More captivatingly, from the US perspective, this time the US successfully won a negotiation over Libya issue convincing European powers to set off a war and "leading them from the behind". On Iran issue it was revealed by some ex-security and military personnel that the US viewed Iran as a part of succession of military operations. Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark (1997-2000) said the Pentagon's military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan-a five year plan. Is Libya invasion not the continuation of the US belligerent policy?

Flurry of questions already has arisen why it was not the US but France that initiated the war followed by Britain. I think oil politics is very active here behind the aggression. There is a simple data table on Libyan oil and its relation with western powers. This will give us real clue to the causes of comprehensive involvement of European countries led by France and the US pushing from behind.

From popular perspective the war is totally unwelcomed by the Libyans even if they are repressed by Colonel Gaddafi. In one of the video footages on Al-jazeera (dated 20th March), day after the first aerial attack, I found people from Bengazi are outspokenly telling the true story of double standard, historically continued, shown by western powers. Once they gave weapons to Gaddafi and now Gaddafi is targeting those weapons against general people. The man was telling that the Libyans need no oil. If the westerns need oil Libyans are happy to give them but please let them live alone from those western war mongers and from war. Who is there on earth to listen to these innocents?

What is the reality or outcome of this ongoing war? The power parity between two parties is totally asymmetrical. Libya on the one hand lonely with poor military capability and western powers on the other hand with military state-of-the-art technologies. So it is going to be another one-sided monopoly business. Libya's navy is small and is of little consequence. The army has more than 40,000 troops, but half of these are conscripts and largely incompetent. The most effective unit is the elite 32nd brigade, with around 4,000 well-equipped and loyal troops. There are also mercenaries in varying numbers being imported, who however would depart rapidly in the face of any substantive reversals. Libya's air-force has over 300 combat-aircraft, but most are Soviet-era planes with a limited capability, and many are in storage.

The problem for Gaddafi is that he has enemies, more inside than outside. So it is going to be a double battle for him. The larger strategic issue is that the Gaddafi regime will only survive beyond the short term if it regains control of most of Libya's oil-and-gas industry. At this moment these are mostly under the control of rebellions. These resources are widely scattered; most of the energy fields are in the east and southeast of the country which accounts for around 80% of current production, with the remaining fields south of Tripoli in the west.

The western powers may have military superiority but the thing won't be easier in the ground battle. May be Gaddafi is holding his nerve for the coming days when the battle will come down from the air to ground. There is already a speculation that Gaddafi may have reserve of chemical weapons. And he may use it as weapon of last resort. But it is a speculation. And there are gulf of differences between reality and speculation. As per as reality is concerned we can say that the dusk of Gaddafi era is not far away.

This article was published in the Daily Star o 9th April 2011. 

The Arab world's Berlin Wall moment

A wave of change is flowing from Persian Gulf to North African plains swaying their imperial palaces; age old despotic rulers and even touching bunches of date! Since the popular movement in Tunisia against kleptocracy, wide ranges of people including experts-public speakers have been widening their flurry of speculations about this change. People are emerging with numerous questions - Is democracy replacing constitutional monarchy in Middle East? or is it US propelled change or self motivated? Will it de-legitimate Israel and revive Muslim solidarity on Palestine question? - and many more. But why do people care so much about Middle East? Modern international relations since 1917 (Balfour Declaration) has been Middle East centred. Global strategy to local dimension, changing from different point of views, is still intertwined with Middle East. Still it is a major remittance basket for many developing countries. That's why people around the world, irrespective of their religion, are so much involved with Middle East.

It always a tough job to write about Middle East because so versatile the people are there with their religion-belief system- culture and conflicts of interest that it requires special expertise. In this situation specificity helps anyone give an authentic impression on Middle East. To say in particular about the changes that are taking place is beyond the traditional Middle East; it includes greater Middle East where Maghreb states also involves. Tunisia is one of them and Algeria is another. So, it is obvious that the expansion of ongoing popular movement is great. But I shall specify my discussion following some questions. First of all one question arises, why did the revolution work as a domino-affect? Or why did it spread so fast and furious like wild-fire? Many say, lack of basic needs with worst youth unemployment situation made people furious against those regimes. It doesn't mean that before the year of 2011 these countries were "happy families" with abundant resources. But what is new is the abundance of youth forces. Demography has been a factor there. Swedish foreign minister termed it as demographic tsunami. Popular demand for change is spreading across the Middle East. Throughout the region a fault-line has opened up between young populations exposed to global modernizing forces through the internet and satellite television and oppressive regimes unable to provide opportunities or the reality of a better life. 65% of the population of the Middle East is under the age of 30 and are increasingly technology-savvy and adept at using new forms of communication to bypass state controls and mobilize around common issues or grievances. That's why no more it is Tulip, Velvet or Orange revolution but Twitter, Facebook or YouTube revolution that's how media is meddling (!) into the popular issues across the globe. No more flowers or colors are inspiring-incorporating mass population for proclaiming economic-political freedom but social media networks replacing those instruments.

Are these revolutions propelled by US? Against this question most people answered affirmatively. The invisible hand of US always works in people's mind more frequently than the reality; it's like something an imaginary witch. I can't say why. Personally, I think it's their psychic problem. I deem the US doesn't like such a great upheaval there. The present situation is beyond its control. When things do not happen in its (US) way then it goes in people's way. That's why US is now shouting for those people and for their freedom. Here I want to raise a question - does democratic Middle East help the US? No, it doesn't. Because those new governments can defy US dominance. They are not supposed to behave like puppet, which was done in the past. If democracy is in place then there will be a balance of power against US-Israel alliance. Still it is too early to say about democracy in Middle East. Anything may happen. Situations are still volatile there.

Many scholars on Middle East are comparing the present situation with Europe's 1980s, especially events happened till the fall of Berlin wall. While comparisons of events across time and place can be misleading the events of 1989 can provide some clues to the significance of current events. The political transformation of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania were sweeping, dramatic and unexpected like present Tunisia, Egypt (Libya, Yemen, Bahrain probably) of greater Middle East or Arab world. They constituted a revolutionary situation that decisively overturned seemingly immovable regimes in a matter of months. Like 80s'Eastern Europe the present Arab world has many resemblances with political and economic systems (autocratic government and centralized economy). European people struggled to transform their worn and decayed states into democratic ones. Evolving into a new system of government and economy will not be an easy task for those Arab states. Their industry and economy may not be ready and well-equipped to cope with global open market competitions. It was not easy for those Eastern European states. On the other hand, Arab states may have to seek advice and assistance from western government to takeoff for a democratic system. Democratizing their institutions may require involvement of western governments, which in result will pave the way for western states to come closer and interfere again. Religion will be ever influential as it continues. So the upcoming days won't be easy for those new democracy rookies. Experience from 1980s Eastern Europe may come to their way to rebuild their own respective states.

 This article was appeared first in the Daily Star on 5th March 2011.

A new spectre haunting the Americans

America's second new president of this millennium Barack Obama already has got popularity, for his naive approaches different from that of the last president, in the Muslim World. Last year move for building mosque at Ground Zero is another step in this process. President Obama defended the right of the Muslims to build a 13 storey cultural center and a mosque to be named Cordoba House. This decision raised the wave of condemnation; flurry of loath from mass people across the US. In protests Americans depicted their view points regarding the issue with racial; anti-Islamic beliefs. One placard had - 'Mosques breed radical Islam, Radical Islam breeds terrorists' and below that 'Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims'. In fact the reactions from Americans on these issues are the indicator of their mindset on the question of Islam or the role of the US in Middle East. Surely we didn't forget that though Mr. G. W. Bush invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 he didn't loose his presidentship. He was reelected by those Americans. Hence, it can be assumed that events had been taken place for last few years by the US government in Middle East and by Americans within the US has a common trait or a common tendency of Islamophobia. Do they want to suppress Muslims or Islam in forms they find? Are the Americans Islamophobic?

What is Islamophobia? Islamophobia refers to groundless fear of and hostility towards Islam. Such fear and hostility leads to discriminations against Muslims, exclusion of Muslims from mainstream political or social processes. Basically, Islamophobia developed through centuries but such Islamophobia was unsurprising in the post-Cold War age of al-Qaeda. It got new momentum because US Foreign Relation Council based intellectuals like Francis Fukuyama and Samuel P. Huntington argued about a looming clash of civilization between Islam and the West and thus Islam versus America. Ideology versus state, what an asymmetrical contends!

Start of the strife: Islam vs US
When this sort of asymmetrical contends started between Islam and America? Here I shall try to mean these problems with different approach and information. Islam, of course, has long been a bogeyman for the West. In 1776- a few Muslims for the first time in the history entered into the U.S. And later, from 1880s to 1914, several thousand Muslims immigrated to the United States from the Ottoman Empire, and from parts of South Asia; they did not form distinctive settlements, and probably assimilated most into the wider society. The Sultanate of Morocco was the first government in the world to recognize the existence of an independent United States, in 1778. But it was America's naval expeditions to North Africa; 19th century Barbary Wars -- which affected Moroccan Sultanate. That's how America replied Moroccan gift! These seem to have had little impact on either side. Even the small but growing American presence in Muslim lands in the nineteenth century -- merchants, consuls, missionaries, and teachers -- aroused little or no curiosity.

The Second World War, the oil industry, and postwar developments brought many Americans to the Islamic lands; increasing numbers of Muslims also came to America. And then the great change came, when the leaders of a widespread and widening religious revival sought out and identified their enemies as the enemies of God. They found Western Hemisphere as source of sin; source of infidel and Satan. Suddenly, or so it seemed, America had become the archenemy, the incarnation of evil, the diabolic opponent of all that is good, and specifically, for Muslims, of Islam.

Bernard Lewis in "The Roots of Muslim Rage" which was published in September 1990, looked for causes behind the rise of contend between America and Islam. He writes-'Among the components in the mood of anti-Westernizm, and more especially of anti-Americanism, were certain intellectual influences coming from Europe. One of these was from Germany,'… no means limited to the Nazis but including writers as diverse as Rainer Maria Rilke, Ernst Junger, and Martin Heidegger. In this perception, America was the ultimate example of civilization without culture: materially advanced but soulless and artificial; assembled or at best constructed, not grown; mechanical, not organic; technologically complex but lacking the spirituality and vitality of the rooted, human, national cultures of the Germans and other 'authentic' peoples' like Muslims. 'German philosophy, and particularly the philosophy of education, enjoyed a considerable vogue among Arab and some other Muslim intellectuals in the thirties and early forties, and this philosophic anti-Americanism was part of the message.'

What are the outcomes?
Lewis has given a provocative cause behind the rise of contends between Islam and America. But this German propaganda logic can't undermine the more importantly root cause activities attempted by the US itself specifically after WWII. It just not only bruised against the Middle Eastern countries but constantly backed up and endorsed Israeli aggression over other Muslim countries. The US envisions the whole Middle East as a reservoir of petroleum not as a source of civilization, culture or birthplace of all great world religions. So did the Middle East based extremists view the US not as the leader of World progress but as a leader of infidels. And later history till the historic event of 9/11, 2001 is not unfamiliar to us. On that day of 9/11 mistrust, confusion, grief and agony between two groups of believers just reached the acme of unconquerable mountain.

The uneasy feelings are mutual. Americans are Islamophobic while Muslims are antagonist toward the US activities and its existence. Every act of terrorism carried out by extremist Muslims in responses to another aggressive step by the US pushes Islamophobia to new extremes. Unfortunately, many Muslims feel helpless when it comes to arresting the scourge of terrorism posed by the likes of al-qaeda because of the political chaos in the Muslim world, which American foreign policy has helped propel for so long. In a study in 2004 by Cornell University, it is found that about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans. In fact Muslims both in and outside America are victim to the aggressive steps taken by the American government or revenge taken in response by the terrorist people. Thus American Muslims are in a dilemma and victim from both sides.

What is the future?
End of Islamophobia? Is it plausible? Neither plausible nor possible in the present context but can be appeased with a congruent effort. The Americans have to change their mindset. They have to sling out the spectre of Islamophobia from their mind. The Americans should look for the root causes behind their Islamophobia. This is not a call for the United States to relinquish its advantageous military and economic positions to appease others. The American government should work to resolve or, at the very least, refrain from aggressive attempts. Mr. Obama also should remove his façade of soft tone and need to come up with real motive for the Muslims. And should take steps boldly about Ground Zero Mosque plan implementation. It will promote image both of his government and his state to the Muslim world. The great step may morally weaken the terrorists as well.

This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 26th February 2011. 

Rumours over the fall of US

When I come to study what has been, at different times and epochs of history among different peoples, the effective reason why ruling classes have been ruined, I note the various events and men and accidental and superficial causes, but believe me, the real cause, the effective one, that makes men lose power is that they have become unworthy to exercise it.
-Alexis de Tocqueville.
(A french historian, 1805-1859)

Since the last decade there had been a buzz regarding the fall of the US. The buzz got momentum especially after the Twine Tower had crushed down by some outsiders, evading (or ignoring) world's most smart national security system. And during last global economic crisis which was mainly American by origin, the buzz was getting louder. President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia called the 2008 financial crisis a sign that the United States' global leadership is coming to an end. And thus since then Fukyama's future is becoming bleak to bleaker regarding his thesis on 'end of history' declaring the unprecedented triumphal march of capitalism or American capitalism while Paul Kennedy, a British historian on International Relations, becoming bright to brighter regarding his thesis on 'rise and fall of great powers' (of course with some reservations).

For last a few days I have been going through some world's leading dailies and monthlies including journals on security and foreign policy and what I have found is an ambidexterer Joseph S. Nye, writing restlessly about future of American power or rise of China along with some skeptics or optimistics including Thomas M. Nichols and others. All these developments certainly placed me in a situation where I couldn't but write on this topic- location of the US in global power politics; whether the US is on the verge of fall from a apex position of hierarchical international system. To explain I shall try to use a framework by using the concepts given by Paul Kennedy in his book 'The Rise and Fall Of Great Powers'.

Paul Kennedy and great powers
'The Rise and Fall Of Great Powers' by Paul Kennedy, first published in 1987, with analyses on economic changes and military conflicts from 1500 to 2000, explores the politics and economics of the great powers from 1500 to 1980 and the reason for their decline. Kennedy then forecasted the positions of China, Japan, the European Economic Community (EEC) (present EU), the Soviet Union and the United States through the end of the 20th century. Kennedy measures strength of great powers in the 20th century using population size, urbanization rates, per capita levels of industrialization, iron and steel production, energy consumption and total industrial output as standard.

He compares the Great Powers at the close of the 20th century and predicts the decline of the Soviet Union (sudden Soviet collapse in 1990s was not predicted by Kennedy), the rise of China and Japan, the struggles and potential for the EEC, and the relative decline of the United States. He highlights the precedence of the "four modernizations" in Deng Xiaoping's plans for China-agriculture, industry, science and military-deemphasizing military while the United States and the Soviet Union were emphasizing it. He predicts that continued deficit spending, especially on military build-up, will be the single most important reason for decline of any Great Power. Paul Kennedy made a good chronological description with historical evidences to explain the international system and changes of global order in consequence of rise and fall great powers.

Explaining US with Paul Kennedy
Kennedy is supposed to be a realist thinker. His analyses are mainly state and its traditional power (political/military) centric. Thus Kennedy's measuring standards are economic and military by virtue when he categorizes states. Present US is still the number one economy in the world with far better military capability-quality-applicability and thus positioned at the acme of international system. The US do not spend deficit budget for military purpose- which is an important criterion to keep the power position intact, according to Kennedy. But the problem can be traced in the trends of the economy- it is now more downwording, problem is with unemployment rate (9.5% (2010)), less industrial production (-1.5% (2009), -9.5% (2008)), less GDP rate (2.6% (2010)). If it continues to maintain present military spending without upwarding economic wheel then certainly the US will face the fall. Last year the US senate cut the defense budget to reduce the burden from its economy.

All these information do not prove that the fall of US is nearing. Infact, Kennedy had been criticized since just after the end of twentieth century regarding his miscalculation on predictions. Among them Nau's criticism is mention-worthy. Kennedy did not consider the normative power of a state while analyzing the causes behind the fall of great powers. Moreover, now in this twenty first century soft powers are not less powerful then hard powers. On the other hand, already there is a debate over the effectivity of military power ("Is Military Power Becoming Obsolete?" The Korea Times, Joseph S. Nye). And now no more the world is greatpower centered, like it was in Kennedy's time; now we live in the era of Super Power; the US centric unipolar world where the US is sometimes termed as 'hyperpower'. So all these new developments may make the Kennedy's theory obsolete. But still it is the best theory to analyze the fall of powerful states and in consequence the changes of global orders.

Future of US power
According to Kennedy usually a great power's life span consists three phases - hegemony, challenge and decline. With two different but complementary sceneries, downwarding trend of US economy and rise of China as a global power, we may deem the US as running through its last phase. Now the US is facing challenges from both sides- home and abroad. Its military spending in 761 US military bases across the planet (156 Countries with US bases) becoming a burden over its wounded economy. Within the territory the popular support upon the government is reducing over issues like Afghan and Iraq. So the normative power of US is also at risk. The more risks are at the rise of China. The more US getting weaker, the more China getting stronger. That's why people are speculating the fall of the US. The fear is more speculated in terms of China's rise not in terms of the downward trend of the US. That's the problem in our understanding. We should know that the US is still number one economy and still can excel anyone with its military superiority. Only by 2027 China will reach the same height of US economy. So it is too early to predict the fall of the US now. But we can say that the traits of weakness are apparent- as per as Kennedy's theory is concerned.

This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 5th February 2011. 

Bangladesh and the rise of the rest

We are now living through the third great power shift of the modern era. It could be called “the rise of the rest''.;

Fareed Zakaria
The post American World


'Henry Kissinger famously dubbed it a "basket case" at its birth in 1971, and Bangladesh appeared to work hard to live up to the appellation...No longer. Bangladesh has much to be proud of. Its economy has grown at nearly 6% a year over the past three years…. $12.3 billion worth of garments last year, making it fourth in the world behind China, the EU and Turkey. Against the odds …Bangladesh ought to be held up as a role model...'

Sadanand Dhume
Bangladesh 'Basket Case' No More
The Wall Street Journal

It has been a popular thing to say that China is carrying the world in the recovery from the Great Recession. No more it is the United States of America, the great rescuer of Great Depression of Thirties. In 2008 the lion share (57.90%) of world GDP growth was simply from other states and IMF estimated that by the year of 2012 emerging economies will be the major contributor to the world GDP growth. All these interesting developments were followed by, coincidentally, the publication of The Post American World (2008) by Fareed Zakaria, an India origin American expert on USA where he claimed that may be at politico-military level USA is remained as a single superpower but in every other dimension- industrial, financial, educational, social, cultural- the distribution of power is shifting from American dominance to many small states let alone the big powers like China, India etc. In this thoughtintriguing book Zakaria claimed that the emerging international system is likely to be quite different from those have preceded it; no more it is the era of American unipolarity as it had been since 1991 rather the era of rise of the rest. Now let us see the location of Bangladesh in this era of the rise of the rest. Though Zakaria never specifically mentioned Bangladesh as on promising member of the rise of the rest but let us see the prospect of Bangladesh following two developments including the last UN summit and the proposal from the US for sending troops to Afghanistan.

Last UN Summit and Bangladesh
This year the UN General Assembly was special for Bangladesh. Simultaneously another- UN summit on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was going on in New York. Bangladesh received an award for their partial MDG success in reducing child mortality rate. The current child mortality rate in Bangladesh is around 2 percent. The UN set a target of reducing the mortality under-five by two-thirds since 1990 to till 2015. In recognition to their success in reducing child death UN awarded Bangladesh. Having such to two global summits side by side and receiving award in one summit automatically upgraded Bangladesh's position in the other. But already the global community knows Bangladesh for different good reason- its biggest contribution in UN Peace Keeping Force. At present 10,744 personnel are serving for UN across the globe.

In that summit Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina led Bangladesh from the front; was bold to claim and lively to make feel the presence of Bangladesh. She demanded pledged enhanced assistance of developed nations for developing countries as she addressed the UN MDG summit reflecting Bangladesh's centrality in the process. Hasina claimed for fund to recovery their environmental damages caused by global warming. Bangladesh aimed for at least 15% of any money which rich countries pledge to help developing nations cope with climate change. What I found that she was confident in her claim. In fact Hasina knew that this year Bangladesh come to participate with more better image and confidence- Democracy back on track; good MDG scores; highest peace keeping force provider for UN; going for war crime trial as her promise for human rights and Bangladesh's firm stance against crime against humanity. Having all these good scores in her hand she urged the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to involve Bangladesh in the policymaking and responsible duties of the United Nations as the country is capable of carrying out such trust. She made the plea during a meeting with the UN secretary general at the UN building in New York.

Bangladesh in Afghanistan?
In an unofficial meeting US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard C. Holbrook found Bangladesh lucrative to offer sending Bangladeshi troops to Afghanistan. Bangladeshi counterpart Dr. Dipu Moni diplomatically kept the reply hiding by giving an impression that Bangladesh will consider this proposal in near future. Bangladesh has been generally critical of the US presence in Afghanistan, while being keen on fighting terrorism. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has proposed a regional task force against terrorism to which the US has given an in principle approval.

Holbrook's offer irritated Taliban more than Bangladesh Government. They warned Bangladesh (rather threatening) by reminding its (Bangladesh's) proper political wit shown so far about Afghan issue. I say that Yes, Bangladesh has enough political wit to not being worried about Taliban's warning. Bangladesh will judge the matter from the perspective of national interest not from the point of view of a fundamentalist group. As there is no UN peacekeeping force and the aggression on Afghanistan was not endorsed by international community, Bangladesh cannot take the risk for the interests of American imperialism. What Bangladesh can do help Afghan people to overcome illiteracy, infrastructural underdevelopment; medical backwardness and others. Bangladeshi workers, teachers, doctors and NGO activist may work under the supervision of international organizations working in Afghanistan. Bangladeshi policy-makers may join in the Afghan policy making bodies and thus can assist the US to help Afghan people. Bangladesh has already offered to send teachers and doctors to Afghanistan. The present context no how support Bangladesh to continue war anywhere, let alone other factors like military strategy or credibility or ability to war in Afghanistan. It requires economic strength, political stability within country and al last but not least grand popular support. At present nothing of these criteria can be fulfilled by Bangladesh to initiate a war against terrorism in Afghanistan.

Epilogue
In international politics small states like Bangladesh are being cornered by big powers. The problem is rooted within the system- the international system is so much hierarchical that small powers hardly get attention. Anyhow Bangladesh successfully managed to catch the attention from actors like the US and the UN and now Bangladesh needs to maintain this momentum. Anyone will agree that the offer from the US towards Bangladesh is a clear depiction of Bangladesh's relevance and better image in international affairs. From other perspective this is a clear manifestation of major shift in US policy towards many small powers like Bangladesh. The US now feels the heat of the rise of the rest. States likes Bangladesh have abilities, potentialities to act; to work for global peace and prosperity. Now Bangladesh needs to stay on the track towards democracy and maintain steady economic growth to maintain present impetus and to keep the momentum as a member of the rise of the rest.

This artilce was appeared in the Daily Star on 11th December, 2010.

Bangladesh: New impetus in counter-terrorism effort

If I am asked about the different dimensions added to the studies of twenty first century terrorism then I would refer to the latest inclusion of terrorism into the study of Disaster Management. In many Universities of western world now terrorism is studied giving equal importance as much as given to the other disasters like earthquake, typhoon, flood, drought etc, but why? Because terrorism successfully emerged as a real catastrophic threat to the progress of human development. Terrorism is a man made disaster. Though ironically it is true that scholars are yet to define terrorism properly but concept like counter-terrorism has already emerged. Counter-terrorism involves those offensive measures taken to prevent, deter and respond to terrorism. Bangladesh also entered into that phase with some limited developments. Thanks go to European Union for their recent initiatives taken to build a regional counter-terrorism centre here in Dhaka. The regional Counter-Terrorism Centre will be set up in with financial and technological assistance from European Union to train people across South Asia to combat terrorism. The international standard centre will start functioning by early next year. Renowned counter-terrorism experts from European countries, United States and Canada will train investigators, police and intelligence agency personnel to fight terrorism. The centre will be the second in its type and the first one was established in Indonesia (National Anti-terrorism Agency (BNPT) way back in August this year. Now let us see the implications of BNPT typed centre in Dhaka in the present context of Bangladesh and why not other countries like India and Pakistan were not chosen as a host country.

Context of Bangladesh
While discussing about the development of terrorism and effort for counter-terrorism of Bangladesh none can escape the context of South Asia where these are so much interrelated and interconnected. In South Asia we have had our homegrown terrorists for quite some time. The authorities in these countries have sometimes claimed that terrorist activities taking place in their respective territories have been made possible through active support and planning originating in neighboring country. After Mumbai carnage in 2008 the Indian government blamed mainly Pakistan and partially Bangladesh for harboring terrorists involved behind the attack. After all these bloody experiences the countries are yet to come in a consensus to counter terrorism with hand in hand rather they are maintaining a blame game situation with each other. In the last two SAARC summits (last one was in 2010) member countries couldn't reach at a concrete decision to establish a regional counterterrorism task force. Bangladesh has always been firm in its stated principles about combating terrorism. For last two years there have been significant developments in Bangladesh as per as combating terrorism is concerned. The present government passed the law for combating terrorism in 2009 and in the year of 2010 during Hasina's visit to New Delhi Bangladesh signed an accord where third agreement was 'on Combating International Terrorism, Organized Crime and Illicit Drug Trafficking fight against terrorism'. But in the aspect of counter terrorism there is little development. During February 2009 Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her new government sent out an unambiguous political message to South Asian leaders and beyond to create a 'South Asian Task Force on Counter-terrorism'. But the proposal couldn't find the light because of various realities. Bangladesh cannot afford to establish a national counter-terrorism task force or centre so far. However, in our neighborly country India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had his staff prepare a roadmap to “overhaul and modernize” internal security mechanisms, the key element of which was the setting up of a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) like in most developed countries. This initiative was taken in May 2009 and is expected to be completed by the end of 2010. It took thirty six months for the US to set up a counter-terrorism centre since 9/11 accident but India responded earlier than the US as per as the terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008 is concerned. Pakistan has there own National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) since 2009. But what about Bangladesh if we consider 2005 country wide bomb blast by JMB as a biggest terrorist attack against Bangladesh's national security?

EU's Initiatives and Bangladesh
Regional counter terrorism centre is going to be a pioneering initiative taken by EU for Bangladesh. Since the attacks in New York, London and Madrid, the EU's counter-terrorism strategy has become a separate policy in all the EU's institutions. They are attempting to achieve this through prevention, protection, pursuit and response measures. EU's counter-terrorism now plays a central role in the European Security and Defense Policy. South Asian countries like India and Pakistan agreed with the EU plan to set up the counter-terrorism centre in Bangladesh, which will be the second after the first one in Indonesia. Both India and Pakistan have their own national counterterrorism agency on the other hand Bangladesh yet to experience such centre. Second thing, in the recent past Bangladesh successfully combated terrorism; hanged all terrorist kingpins and now have shrunk its activities into some scattered areas with rare possibility to reemerge. Offer of setting up a centre from EU might have come as a prize for these successes and Bangladesh's perpetual commitment to fight against terrorism.

Some Observations
Setting up of a centre for countering terrorism may not be a decisive solution. There are lot of pros and cons on the success and activities of counter-terrorism centers existing around the world. In Indonesia civil society welcomed BNPT with praise but later they were disillusioned with its activities. Much of the objection from civil society groups over the formation of the BNPT was because of fears that the agency was seen to had too much power. Another argument over the BNPT was generated from the failure of the decree to draw clear lines on how the agency was involved in taking measures on the man-hunt of terrorists. This was a critical point since the BNPT was not a law enforcement body. On the aspect of setting up a counter-terrorism centre in Bangladesh the concerned authorities need to look upon these matters. It is important for the future centre to establish complete and detailed rules and operational guidelines for all member units of the agency to prevent potential overlap or breach of laws and responsibilities. Any unclear regulation could lead to legal violations and possible human rights violations by the centre members, units or personnel. Failure to build suitable strategies for the upcoming centre will be counterproductive -- the centre may not get a chance to realize its full potential if no firm plans or strategies are in place.

This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 6th November 2010. 

WWIII?

If there's an attack on Iran by Israel and the US, there's no way to prevent it from becoming a nuclear war…''
-Fidel Castro; 13th July, 2010.

''United States and Israel had decided to attack at least two countries in the region in the next three months…”
-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; 26th July, 2010.

Few days later of Fidel's predictive warning, Ahmadinejad's speech came out as a realization of a nightmare from which the whole community was reeling for years; since WWII. The fear of Nuclear War or WWIII! The Cuban Revolution leader's address to the Cuban parliament summoned for an extraordinary session in Havana, due to the urgency of mobilizing the world, faced with the danger of a nuclear war that would be triggered by a US-Israeli led aggression on Iran. The great revolutionary claimed "Simultaneously, the war would break out in the Near and Far East and across Eurasia," said Fidel. "Otherwise, if the war breaks out, the current social order will abruptly vanish and the price will be much higher," he warned. Just few days later Ahmadinejad came out with another polemic statement regarding US invasion in two states within next three months. Was there any link between these two statements? Experts on diplomacy can give a prudent answer to this question. I want to share that Hugo Chavez may have played a crucial role by provoking Fidel, a veteran leader who have won the hearts of millions in all over the world, to give such an speech which may help to build a global opinion in support of stopping US-Israel aggression on Iran. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad's prediction on war within three months in fact makes the war at least three months late if it ever happens in future at all! But still there are lot of realities behind all these iteration and reiterations. The fear of nuclear war can't be undermined with these arguments and counter arguments.

A thought-provoking article by Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian emeritus professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, was published on 13th August 2010. Chossudovsky claims that attack on Iran is not a particular decision from the US relating it with question of Israeli existence rather it is their plan since 2003 to take Iran just after Iraq. He says that the stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel. The US planners named the plan with a code- TIRANNT, 'Theatre Iran Near Term' and it was initiated in May, 2003. According to some rare information revealed by some ex-security and military personnel it is clear that the US viewed Iran as a part of succession of military operations. Former NATO commander General Wesley Clark (1997-2000) said the Pentagon's military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan- a five year plan.

The whole strategy is directed and controlled by the United Strategy Commend (USSTRATCOM), which is again under the US Department of Defense (DoD). USSTRATCOM is one of 10 U.S. unified commands under the DoD. The missions of USSTRATCOM are to deter attacks on U.S. vital interests; to ensure U.S. freedom of action in space and cyberspace in support of U.S. Joint Force Commander Operations; to synchronize global missile defense plans and to synchronize regional combating of weapons of mass destruction plans. Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT is a part of the broader processes of USSTRATCOM.

Why nuclear is option?
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, USSTRATCOM announced that it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: Obama-Biden era has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged nuclear weapons program. Nuclear option is compulsory for Iran because of its location of nuclear sites. "Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several sites have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out..."(Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007). The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.

But still the US may choose not go for nuclear weapons because it has nuclear typed conventional weapons like MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb) or Mother of All Bomb applicable in conventional war. It is suspected that in early March 2003, MOAB was used or deployed in Iraq war theater. The US DoD has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to use the MOAB against Iran. The MOAB is said to be "ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran".

Will it turn into a World War?
From Castro to Michel Chossudovsky all expressed their apprehension that Iran invasion by US-Israel-NATO may turn into another world war. First fear factor is Iran's location and then its credible military capabilities. It is located in Middle East and near of Central Asia and East Europe is not far away. Afghanistan and Iraq are Iran's neighbors; at the same time these are two loosely occupied countries of the US. So it's easily understandable that how strategically lucrative is Iran's location. Further turmoil in this region will shatter the power and credibility of the US in this region. The war, if it ever takes place, is feared to be spread all over the Middle East. While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. Israel itself acknowledged that "the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach" (Debka, November 5, 2006). Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See: Islamic Republic of Iran Army - Wikipedia). Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan. In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle East, Central Asian region.

This article was appeared in the Daily Star on 15th October, 2010.