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.