Why Ecuador Stands for Junian Assange?

Julian Assange the whistleblower of twenty first century has become a buzzing name of the present world. Emergence of Assange and his role in establishing a rare type of instance of ‘free world’ have attracted mixed reactions from experts to general pupil in both worlds of media and at the same time of politics. Many people say that Assange has established ‘right to information’ of laymen to government’ activities while other are saying that he has endangered national security of many countries. On which side you will stand for? Now there is another scenario regarding Assange. The question of Assange’s political asylum has placed many states in strained relations against one another. Now another popular question has risen among people that why Ecuador is eager to give asylum to Mr. Assange. Why does it dare to challenge Britain for Assange?  In the background of all those complex developments and queries I have sit to write for.

Assange is probably, the best whistleblower in world history in terms of his works that shocked most possible countries of the world. There is little doubt that Julian Assange, having exposed some of the barbarities perpetuated by the American military in its ill-fated war in Iraq, has reason to fear the wrath of an enraged US government — particularly given the appalling treatment meted out to whistleblower Bradley Manning, the army private accused of orchestrating the biggest leak of state secrets in US history. But what is the significance of whistleblower? There is strong evidence in American history that whistleblowers played a significant role in American Civil War. In Europe the historical instance is no less igniting than that of America. Ryszard Kukliński, a Polish colonel, Cold War spy and communist whistleblower believed that he would be able to prevent the war in Europe between the Warsaw Pact and Nato countries by handing in 40,265 pages of secret military documents of German Democratic Republic and People's Republic of Poland to CIA. Lev Trotsky in late 1920s gave an ethico-political dimension of whistleblowing. He started reading the correspondence between his predecessors Tsarist Russia and the ministers of the other countries. Official documents revealed that it was not fought for patriotic reasons. Trotsky did not hesitate in deciding what to do: the Foreign Ministry's archives had to be made public in order to make the whole world aware that the war in Europe was fought by the hegemonic classes against their own peoples. There Trotsky served as a whistleblower to expose the curse of secret diplomacy.

In the name of ‘national security ‘, secret diplomacy has been dominating administrative policy of governments in democratic countries. Secret diplomacy was just the make-up needed to hide this fact: “Secret diplomacy is a necessary tool for a propertied minority which is compelled to deceive the majority in order to subject it to its interests”. In the aspect of leaking the activities of secret diplomacies many experts see Assange is a continuation of Trotsky, Ryszard Kukliński and so forth. But Assange’s performance and its impacts have global range. Assange gave a big blow against the evils of secret diplomacy.  Clandestine diplomatic activities only served the regime interest. It never can be a pro-people strategy or policy.

Since the US government issued a warrant against those leaks, Assange had been on the run. He submitted to police questioning in Sweden in the immediate wake of the complaints in late 2010, left the country unaware that a police warrant had been issued for his arrest. Since then, he has taken his fight against a European Extradition Warrant (EEW) through three different courts in the UK, the Magistrates’ Court, the High Court and Supreme Court, and lost on every occasion. Later he flew to the Ecuadorian embassy two months ago and sought political asylum, which he was duly given. But this move has made the UK government annoyed over Ecuador. The UK government has made it clear that the Australian activist will be arrested and extradited if he steps outside the building after jumping bail. But the curiosity became indomitable when we had found Ecuador standing firmly besides Assange. Even thirty seven South American countries extended their supports for the decision taken by the government of Ecuador. Some experts say that Ecuador's President Rafael Correa and Assange have mutual interests- they both support the idea that the U.S. is an imperial power that has to be checked. Robert Amsterdam, a Canadian international lawyer presence of overwhelming anti-American sentiment in whole Latin America. He shared his experiences “When I'm in Guatemala, they still call the (U.S.) 'the empire.'” There really is an almost universal hostility toward American foreign policy. Assange would be welcomed in many countries just for that fact. Jorge Leon, an Ecuadorian political analyst who lives in Quito, said that with presidential elections in Ecuador scheduled for next February giving Assange asylum in the country could be "useful to Correa to give himself a leftist image." In this way Assange needs Ecuador and Ecuador needs Assange. There are mutual interests. But how far this mutual interest will last?  Will Correa be able to continue his support for Assange after the next election? Future will give the answer.   

This article was published in the daily Sun on 1st September, 2012

The US Naval Interest in Bangladesh

The US secretary of navy Ray Mabus paid a ‘silent’ but significant visit to Dhaka. There are two aspects regarding the media attention to this news- one, this visit got less attention than it actually deserved and then, it got better attention in foreign news agencies then the news agencies of Bangladesh. Probably, this visit had no ‘media merit’ in the eyes of Bangladeshi media professionals because; they took it as a less important matter than the visit of an Indian film star. In the contrary, this visit has a huge significance if we consider the developments that have been taking places in South Asia and in South East Asia for last a few months. Almost a month before a news jolted the ministry of foreign affairs in Bangladesh. This news was regarding harboring of US Seventh Fleet in Chittagong. An Indian news agency claimed that the US had proposed Bangladesh to harbor its Seventh fleet in Chittagong port. But Bangladesh completely declined the claim. Now, how should this visit be taken in backdrop of such complex developments?

Let’s have some glimpses in the last visit paid by the US secretary of Navy. An eight-member US delegation, led by Ray Mobus, called on Chief of Naval Staff Vice Admiral Zahir Uddin Ahmed and later with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. During the meeting with the Vice Admiral they exchanged pleasantries and discussed matters on professional interest. Acquiring warship and ultra modern ocean survey ship from USA and assistance in the field of professional training also came up for discussion. Sheikh Hasina said her government wants the Bangladesh Navy to extract marine resources following the victory on maritime dispute over Myanmar. The Prime Minister also stressed the need for strengthening cooperation between the naval forces of Bangladesh and the USA. Mobus also laid emphasis on strengthening cooperation between the naval forces of Bangladesh and the USA. Was there any clandestine intention behind the façade of formalities?

Bangladesh’s location in the basin of Bay of Bengal gives it a much more privileges to be an important country in the region. Bay of Bengal is the largest bay in the world which forms the northeastern part of the Indian Ocean. Historic victory at the UN maritime tribunal, Bangladesh has won territorial and economic rights to the vast Bay of Bengal resources even beyond it bargained for. This achievement has given Bangladesh an upper hand to strengthen its position strategically-economically, to some extent, politically in South Asia and in a broader sense in global stage. The Bay of Bengal is more significant in regards of its location in the Indian Ocean. According to Robert D Kaplan, Indian Ocean will be the centre of global conflicts, because most international business, supply will be conducted through this route. Most important of all, it is in the Indian Ocean that the interests and influence of India, China and the United States are beginning to overlap and intersect. It is here, as Kaplan says, that the 21st century’s “global power dynamics will be revealed.”  According to Kaplan two key players in this region are India and China. India is moving east and west while China to the South. Interestingly these, relatively new political players are making the Indo-Pacific into a heaven of “RealPolitik’. And lone Superpower the US is also on a process to shift its focus from the Middle East to this region. 

The recent cynosure of global powers has added some new dimensions to this particular region. More importantly the government of Bangladesh is now considering the urgency of securing the Bay of Bengal to secure the national interest there. The natural resources i.e. petroleum carbon, marine fisheries of the Bay of Bengal are component of future economic development of Bangladesh. Very much frequently we find in national dailies reporting that infiltration of foreign fishermen is illegally taking place while fishing within the jurisdiction of Bangladesh. And Bangladeshi coast men are helpless as they couldn’t reach deep water with their age old boats to chase those bigots. Though lately, but still something to be optimistic regarding that the government of Bangladesh has taken some initiatives to modernize its Navy.  The Government of Bangladesh announced an ambitious defense procurement plan in February 2009 for a major purchase of weaponry, equipment and hardware for its armed forces, including anti-tank and anti-ship missile systems, aircraft for maritime patrol, frigates, tanks and helicopters to turn the force into a ‘three dimensional force’.

The US will find it viable to join into the process of modernization of Bangladesh Navy by providing with training, selling their ‘outmoded’ equipments and forging relationship to a new height. This will help the US Navy to come closer to Bangladesh Navy. To get an upper hand in the Indian Ocean, Bangladesh is a good option for the US just after India. There is already a bonhomie relationship between India and Bangladesh and no exception, concerning India and the US. Therefore, India also won’t mind to bring Bangladesh into the ‘circle’ of ‘friends’. India and the US would like to see Bangladesh out of ‘string of pearls’.  From the Bangladesh point of view this is a good development to get some ‘big friends’ besides and enjoys some benefits. In near future probably Bangladesh will continue to receive more foreign high-ups. But at the same time it has to be very much conscious while dealing with them. There has to be a policy of balancing. Tilting towards a particular group would be a blunder. So in epilogue it can be said that a ‘tricky’ and ordeal time ahead for foreign policy decision makers in Bangladesh and we can only wish that they will prove their ‘character’ for Bangladesh’s national interest.    

An edited version of this article was published on 28th July  2012

Bangladesh: New cynosure of the US

In 1971, when Bangladesh achieved its independence, the then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger dubbed Bangladesh 'basket case.' But only after four decades the current US secretary of state is considering Bangladesh its 'strategic partner.' Small actors of global politics are enjoying greater attention in post cold war international system. Fareed Zakaria presumed rightly in his book 'The Post American World' about the 'rise of the rest.' The US is truly feeling the hit of new emerging nations like Bangladesh.

Bangladesh has become a 'new' cynosure of the US in South Asia. This has to be defined as 'new' because of rapid changing approaches that are taking place in the strategic landscape of South Asia. These approaches include- significant changes that have come to pass in the US global strategy particularly shifting focus from Middle East to the Asia Pacific along with the issues of Myanmar and Pakistan. A 'new Myanmar' is igniting the new possibilities of democratic renaissance and revisiting its existing relationships with global powers e.g. the US and China. Pak-US relations are in a state of see-saw. And this is almost a daunting task for the US to maintain a steady bonhomie relationship with Pakistan taking into accounts it's never decreasing home grown terrorists and anti American sentiments existing among Pakistanis. So the recent strategic partnership between Bangladesh and the US cannot merely be viewed from narrow perspective of the US's strategic interest in the region but beyond.

On April 19, this year Bangladesh and the US for the first time exchanged their views in the areas of counter-terrorism, disaster management, maritime security and UN peacekeeping operations. The US delegation was led by Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew J. Shapiro while Bangladesh delegation was led by the additional foreign secretary. On May 5, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr. Dipu Moni and the US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed a Joint Declaration on "Bangladesh-US Partnership Dialogue," Partnership dialogue is based on a long-term shared vision, based on convergence of strategic interests, mutual trust, confidence in each other and respect for each other's strategic sensitivities. 

Why the US is so much enthusiastic about Bangladesh? Bangladesh was never a trivial matter to the US since its independence. The importance has been sustaining because of several relevant matters- the geo-strategic location of Bangladesh, a constant point, and Bangladesh, a role model for many Muslim countries as a moderate-Muslim-democratic country. But the global scenario has changed those traditional variables of Bangladesh. Now Bangladesh is one of the best 'Muslim friends' for the US among a few ones. Arab spring has weakened the strongholds of the US in Arab world. It had a disaster in Iraq and in a conundrum in Afghanistan. The US desperately needs to uplift its image among the Muslim nations. It is looking for strengthening relationship with the Muslim world. Now there is an inter-governmental forum to exchange views between the US in one side and the Muslim world on the other. In the last meeting of the 'US-Islamic World Forum' which was held in Doha, Bangladesh's Premier Sheikh Hasina was an important speaker. As a part of strengthening relationship with Muslim majority countries the US wants to see Bangladesh a friendly one who will speak out against terrorism, fundamentalism and for democracy.

Changes in Myanmar is the another important issue which have brought Bangladesh in the American good book. Energy rich Myanmar is important for both the US and India. The decision to return to democracy by the autocratic rulers of Myanmar has impressed Obama administration. To ensure a stable transition towards democracy it is important that Myanmar is getting steady support from its neighboring countries like India and Bangladesh. The US would like to see both India and Bangladesh are assisting Myanmar to make its way through. As a gesture of friendship Bangladesh's PM also paid her visit to Myanmar just a few days later Mrs. Hillary Clinton had had it. During that visit it was reported that the agreements were signed on the following areas: banking, road, air and shipping, cooperation in fisheries, cooperation in agriculture and cooperation in gas and hydro-power.

The US is also considering Bangladesh as a potential destination for selling outmoded arms and instruments. In a recent bid to modernise the tactical transport aircraft fleet of the Air Force, Bangladesh has decided to purchase four Lockheed MC-130Es from the United States at an estimated cost of $180 million. In the official documents of this contract the US government said that the proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by enabling the Bangladesh Air Force (BAF) to respond more capably to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief needs and support operations to counter violent extremist organizations.

In the concluding remarks I want to say that the strategic interest of the US in Bangladesh is multifaceted. It shouldn't be limited within the typical framework of 'China-fear.' Especially it is difficult to say about Bangladesh that it will join India-US axis against China in a game of balance of power in Asia. Sino-Bangla relationship has a deep rooted base. There are significant economic, military and cultural level relationship between Bangladesh and China. Anti-US and Anti-India sentiment prevails overwhelmingly in public perception in Bangladesh. So the strategic partnership requires many basic works to be done to achieve success. Success in public diplomacy is one of the basic components in this endeavor. From Bangladesh point of view there are opportunities while at the same time there are adversaries. The leverage it has must be utilized properly. There nothing to be lured but maximization of national interests.

This article was published on 16the June this year in the Daily Star.

Bangladesh: Tangled Between ICBMs

A few hours back I have watched a movie The Day After (1983). This film postulates a fictional war between NATO forces and the no more existing Warsaw Pact that rapidly escalates into a full-scale nuclear exchange between the United States and the then Soviet Union. I have seen the filmic presentation that how an ICBM is being launched with nuclear warhead and then detonates in the air or surface of the target area. This movie assisted me to assume what India has actually achieved in their historic day of testing latest edition of ICBM, Agni-5. With this remarkable achievement in the arena of defence technology, India can relish for being an elite member of a very short listed global association of ICBM owner’s. Should we put our hands together for India? From a view point this achievement will attract a huge criticism. What an irony that a country has been spending over five hundred million dollars for developing ICBM for last three decades where as almost half a billion countrymen there in is starving from half a day meal or no food. Last year India spent $46 billion for buying weapons while it spent only $11.5 billion and $6 billion for education and health consecutively. Gandhi would have died if he were alive!

Now let us see this development in the backdrop of whole Asia-Pacific strategic landscape. For last a few months ‘Asia-Pacific- the next pivot’ has become a buzzing line after the US has revisited its global security strategy. Both India and China are bolstering its never decreasing defence spending and so the other East-Asian countries. Regarding China ‘concern’ and to gain an upper hand in Asia-Pacific region it has been essential for India to build such an ICBM which will ensure its credible deterrence capability and credibility as a regional power.
  

Would this achievement refrain India from further advancement in defence technology? Probably not, because this is an unstoppable appetite for establishing supremacy in defence industry. China is still way forward from India as per as India’s defence capability is concerned.  For instance, China’s ICBM ranges 13000 km which is capable of targeting almost every part of the world. This strategic weapon is very much relevant for China because it has global aspiration unlike India. On the other hand India has a limited ambition centering Asia-Pacific presently. Therefore, Agni-5 can serve India’s purpose properly. A large part of Eastern Europe, many major cities of China like Beijing, Shanghai and in the South East Asia- Indonesia’s Jakarta is within the ranges of Agni-5.  This achievement has ensured India’s credibility as a ‘regional power’.
  

How I would take this matter being a neighbor of India? What are the implications for India’s neighboring countries? Will India’s Agni-5 endangers further the national security of those neighboring nations? Does India’s aspiration to be regional power help its neighbors? What surprised me that there was no action or reaction from Bangladesh regarding Agni-5 test. It seems to me that Bangladesh is yet to adopt a culture of foreign policy attitudes and behaviors.  Bangladesh is yet to act as an actor in regional politics. But the geographical position can no way keep Bangladesh indifferent to these developments.  It is now an apparent reality that both India and China are in arms race. Among them India is our neighbor while China is ‘almost- neighbor’ in terms of spatial proximity. Bangladesh locates almost like a buffer state between these two giant states. Any unexpected development between twos will also endanger Bangladesh’s national security. So in no way Bangladesh can desist from taking immediate measures.

There are two options for Bangladesh. One, Bangladesh can build an anti ballistic missile shield to ensure its national security which is a distant reality. Second one, which is more realistic, Bangladesh can establish a regional forum by involving other countries, like Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and so forth, who are surviving under similar insecurities. This forum will speak out against arms race in South Asia. Time has come to raise the issue both regionally and internationally. Bangladesh alone may not be able create a strong impression but this can be possible through a multilateral forum. If this forum can be built then it could work as a good bargaining chip to defuse probable tension between two giants. 

An edited version of this article was published on 11th May, 2012

PAKISTAN’S MEMOGATE: AN ORCHESTRSTION?

Pakistan has become a country of endless climaxes because it seems that the twists and turns will never end there. Since the Abottabad incident political inconsistency in Pakistan has become a consistent phenomenon. Sometimes it seems to me that Pakistan is still haunted by the spectre of Osama bin Laden.  However, it does not mean that before Abottabad incident there had been a persistent peaceful political ambiance in Pakistan. The recent political crisis in Pakistan is evolving centering ‘memogate’ scandal. ‘Memogate’ is a secret memorandum which was allegedly delivered to Admiral Michael Mullen, then the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, requesting US intervention in the event of a military coup against Pakistan's elected government. The memo promised that Pakistan would allow the US input on a revamp of the country's national security set-up, and that it would eliminate Section S of the country's powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency, which allegedly is responsible for the ISI's links with the Taliban. After knowing this secret activity the army got furiated that finally resulted in involving Supreme Court which issued a notice over inaction in graft case of President Asif Ali Zardari, as government faces legal and political challenges. 

But the present situation is unprecedented because of several cogent reasons. The most important reason is the existing strained relationship with the US. The US killed Osama Bin Laden by violating Pakistan’s sovereignty. In last November US led Nato strike killed twenty four Pakistani troops in Northern Pakistan which finally resulted to halt Nato supply line to Afghanistan via Pakistan and forced the US to pull out from Shamasi airbase in Kharan, Pakistan. This year January President Obama signed a bill to stop aiding Pakistan as a measure of tit for tat. Another important reason is a better strong position of various democratic institutions like- media, Supreme Court and stronger opposition parties in today’s Pakistan. 

The ‘memogate’ scandal may bring a shuffle in Pakistan government. But here I shall not view the scandal to understand the national politics of Pakistan rather will dissect the issue to understand its implication with external dimensions. It may create a very tricky option for the US to make through into Pakistan politics and force Pakistan to come into terms. 

It is a very much historically proven truth that the civil-military relation in Pakistan is always at a draggers drawn. But in most of the cases the relationship was influenced or shaped by the external factors.  After the Pakistan troops casualties by Nato airstrikes taken places, the official relationship between Pakistan and the US touched a new bellow. But since then, both the government and military are maintaining a clandestine relationship, because respective organization’s existence depends upon Washington’s positive nod. An obedient and controlled Pakistan is also important for the US. To bring stability in Afghanistan and maintaining counterterrorism effort in South Asia and uprooting insurgency from this region, a stable Pakistan is precondition. The US cannot afford to let Pakistan run alone and even, independently. This may risk of making a mess of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons to insurgents. In an updated research, conducted by The Nuclear Threat Initiative, in a project led by former US Senator Sam Nunn and the Economist Intelligence Unit it is found that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are at most risk just after North Korea. A few days back I had the privilege speak with Mr. Ali Riaz, Professor and Chair of department of Political Science, Illinois State University. We had some wonderful sharing regarding the US role in the regional politics of South Asia. Then he told me that a stable Pakistan is important for both the US and India. If Pakistan fails as a state then certainly it will risk nuclear weapons falling in the hand of non-state actors like Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Tayba or any other terrorist organizations.  Terrorists and insurgents from Pakistan will infiltrate into India and Bangladesh through the porous borders. 

‘Memogate’ scandal will finally bring one party, either the government or the armed force division, nearer to the US.  And then the US will utilize this weak point to enforce Pakistan to bow down to its demand.  From this point of view no one can deny the possibilities of orchestration from the US to drive the ‘memogate’ on its own side. 

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on 21st January, 2012 

China Enters Indian Ocean

While China is confronting or trying to appease South China Sea (SCS) littoral states from claiming over resources there in, simultaneously, it’s maintaining global policy towards many different regions as prominently as it had been in the past. China has decided to build an overseas military base, first ever in its kind, in Indian Ocean.  The decision has double merits- one, this is a great shift from regional to global strategic reach and then the specialty of the location of base, which is in the Indian Ocean. According to Robert D Kaplan, Indian Ocean will be the centre of global conflicts, because most international business, supply will be conducted through this route. Most important of all, it is in the Indian Ocean that the interests and influence of India, China and the United States are beginning to overlap and intersect. It is here, as Kaplan says, that the 21st century’s “global power dynamics will be revealed.”  According to Kaplan two key players in this region are India and China. India is moving east and west while China to the South. Interestingly these, relatively new political players are making the Indo-Pacific into a heaven of “RealPolitik’. And lone Superpower the US is also on a process to shift its focus from the Middle East to this region.

China has already announced that it will set up its first military base abroad in the Indian Ocean island of Seychelles to "seek supplies and recuperate" facilities for its Navy. A recent report said that Chinese naval fleets have re-supply facilities at harbors in Djibouti, Oman and Yemen since China sent its first convoy to the Gulf of Aden in 2008. China has already cemented its foothold in the Indian Ocean by signing contract with the UN backed International Seabed Authority to gain rights to explore polymetallic sulphide ore deposit in Indian Ocean over the next 15 years.

The location of Seychelles is far away from China and near to Indian Andaman Nicobar islands and located to the north east of African's Madagascar. The number of islands in the archipelago is more than hundred and fifteen. India's former intelligence chief, Vikram Sood said that he had been surprised by the Seychelles, traditionally close to India, that it had offered naval facilities to China. Beijing is considering the offer as an opportunity to establish a port to supply its anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden. Surely this base will ensure China's maritime commerce while at the same time, will serve to set off against India's presence in Indian Ocean.

Now let us have some glimpses upon the backdrops of this recent move by China. After the face to face situation with the SCS littoral states which was almost going to outburst into a war, with the involvement of the US, China, finally, discovered its lack of advancement in naval power. Within a few days of edgy situation between China and many other SCS littoral states, claiming over the resources of spritely islands, China floated off it’s first ever and only air craft carries in the SCS. China started to feel the importance of naval power in a very awkward situation. Within a very short time, Indian state owned company ONGC Vindesh declared that it would continue to explore SCS for Vietnam despite China’s dissent. And after the very next month of this incident, US president Barak Obama made a visit to Australia and declared that it would build a marine base in Northern Australia in the region of Asia pacific. So, China, very much reasonably, started to feel a kind of encirclement by some traditional enemies. In consequence, China has been trying to counter balance both India and the US by widening its strategic reach.

While commenting on China’s Seychelles base, Mr. Raman, Director, Institute For Topical Studies from India had arguments of different frame of mind. According to him, Chinese naval ships on long-range anti-piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden area do need ports of call for re-stocking, re-fuelling and rest and recreation facilities. Initially, they were using the Karachi port. They have stopped doing so for some months now due to the poor security situation in Karachi, which was highlighted by a terrorist attack on the Pakistani naval air base in May last. Thus China is optioning the Seychelles. But I think, the Seychelles cannot be replacement for Karachi, Pakistan or Hambantota, Sri Lanka. The Seychelles’s geographical location is totally different. Moreover, there is a qualitative difference between China’s other port and base in the Seychelles. In the Seychelles, it will be military base. So it cannot be merely a port of call for re-stocking, re-fuelling and rest and recreation facilities. We can’t deny its strategic importance.

An edited version of this article was published in the Daily Star on 7th January, 2012

Iraq At The Crossroad

This year is ending by ushering some remarkable changes, especially, across Middle East and Africa. Besides the inauguration of “Arab Spring”, many occupied Middle Eastern countries started to cut loose from their occupier.  The US has called it a day for Iraq by declaring the drawdown of all forces from there. This decision has attracted mixed reactions from different types of experts. Some praised while some scolded Obama’s policy. In the declaration ceremony Mr. Barak Obama said that Iraq had become democratic and had an independent judicial system. This statement has surprised many Iraqis including me from Bangladesh.  I wish the Iraqis had all these!

After the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq scholars have produced innumerable articles regarding this issue. Here I shall try to touch those untouched areas of analysis that are very much important. Occupation of Iraq is a continuation of classical norm of western imperialism. Initially western powers occupy a foreign land physically by waging wars. Then the occupier makes an opportune ambiance for their vernacular companies to do business. And finally they leave it by substituting with an obedient leader selecting from the occupied country. In Iraq there was nothing exceptional. Now Nuri al-Maliki is serving the exact purpose. Just after the last US convoy has left Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki issued an open invitation for US firms to help rebuild Iraq Tuesday, as his oil-rich nation closes the door on a nearly nine-year American military presence. Hailing a new stage in the country's history, Maliki declared his war-scarred nation was ready to construct a new economy, one that holds "limitless" opportunities for US firms. In near future Iraq would be transformed into an economically occupied country from physical occupation.

Now let us look into socio-political aspects of Iraq. Since we know that the prominence of religious values in Iraq, none can ignore those components while trying an overhauling process there in. During Saddam, a Sunni  by origin, reign it was Shiite group who was exploited, deprived and destroyed with mass killing. Now Maliki, a Shiite, in power looming a similar fate for Sunnis.  Now there is already an open rift between Maliki and vice precedent Tareq al-Hashemi, a Sunni by origin.  Just days after US forces left the country and on the eve of the national unity government's first anniversary, Iraq's fragile political truce already looked to be unraveling. Authorities have issued a warrant for Vice President to arrest.  That sparked fears that Iraq's fragile year-old unity government could fall apart, shortly after the last US soldiers left the country. Fighting between Sunnis and Shii left thousands dead in the tit-for-tat attacks of 2006-2007. Who knows what will happen next! But my assumption is weighing on “two Iraqs solution” as an eminent future of this country.

Now let me end my article with short discussion on strategic matter related with troops pulling out. Analysts have been claiming, since the declaration of Afghanistan drawdown that  the US is making a strategic shift from the Middle East to the Asia pacific focusing, mainly, to set off China. After Iraq pull out the speculation has got stronger support. Many Middle East experts are speculating that it will empower Iran to bully in this region.  But still the US has five military bases in Middle East and a few of them surround Iran. Moreover, in the era of ICBM and other state-of-the-art technology that the US is possessing, would not allow Iran to destabilize Middle East, if Iran ever wants at all.

At last what I am afraid of to say that Iraq may turn into another breeding ground of insurgency, militancy like Afghanistan, already there is hidden but growing dissents among the Iraqis against the government and the US. The Shiite and Sunni rift may erupt into a civil war which may finally lead to a process destabilization in the whole Middle East. I am not a problem solving expert and I have no panacea to all these problems. Only policy makers can show us way. So let us look forward.

An edited version of this article was published on same date in the Daily Star.