Sino-Bangla relations: A time-honoured friendship

“Bengalees do not tell lies and they do not cheat anyone.”

An assertion by a Chinese envoy during the 15th Century.

We have come to know this great matter, about how the foreign envoys used to perceive Bengalee nation in the 15th century, from a speech given by the great historian of our time, Prof. Dr. Syed Anwar Husain. Prof. Dr. Husain’s statement affirms that the relationship between China and Bangladesh is not a matter of recent past but dates centuries before when Gias Uddin Ajam Shah was in power in Bengal.

People to people contacts had been maintained since the 4th century BC (approx.) through the third Silk route which was built during that time between the then Bengal and China. First Chinese monk, Fa Xian from China’s Eastern Jin dynasty, visited Bengal in 399 AD. And Atish Dipankar from Bengal was invited to Tibet to introduce Buddah’s teachings in 1038AD. So it is reasonably understandable that the present bonhomie between Bangladesh and China has its origin in thousand years before.

State to state diplomatic relationship between Bangladesh and China started not before 2nd October, 1975, though Bangladesh achieved its independence on 26th March, 1971. During that time mainly mistrust and misperception kept two friends apart. But since that historic year of establishment of diplomatic relationship, two great nations didn’t need to look back. Now both the states are time-honoured friends, both at regional and international levels. Bangladesh firmly supports China’s ‘one China policy’ and China shows utmost respect to Bangladesh’s sovereignty as an independent state.

Change of regime in Bangladesh brings no effect upon policy towards China. But it is highly perceived that Bangladesh’s nationalist Party (BNP) is on a slant towards China whereas Bangladesh Awami League towards India. These particular party positions must not be viewed in skewed eyes. These stances have logical background in historical developments. In 1977, Ziaur Rahman’s visit to China established solid basis in Sino-Bangla diplomatic relationship. In 1991, when Khaleda Zia came to power, she made her first visit to China. And Khaleda’s most recent tenure was marked by ‘Look East Policy’ which mainly focused China and other eastern countries including Japan, South Korea etc. The present regime, Awami League led Grand Alliance, didn’t bring major shift in policy towards China. Hasina made her trip to China, just after visiting India in January, 2010. Hasina sought China’s assistance to build deep sea port in Chittagong but couldn’t hold up the momentum of procedure which finally resulted in China’s sloth response. But this year the government of Bangladesh again has beefed up their activities to implement it. Bangladesh’s military build up is really owed to China’s consistent assistance since 1977. Now China is our second largest trading partner in terms of goods. Bangladesh’s central bank has decided to trade with China in Yuan, the Chinese currency, replacing US dollar. This is a great move from Bangladesh’s central Bank, to boost economic relationship with China. Before Bangladesh, this currency was being used for trade settlements in Myanmar and Nepal. Sri Lanka is also allowing the RMB for international transactions. Pakistan is expected to be the next in line.

China’s ‘non-interference policy’, indoctrinated within its global policy, made it a widely acceptable global power in the world. In Bangladesh, China is also popular because of its policy of non-interference. In a rare incident, `meet the press’ hosted by National press club on 26th September this year, Chinese ambassador Zhang Xianyi stated that China supports connectivity between Bangladesh and India as well as other countries in the region for mutual economic benefit. And on the very next day he said in a roundtable at Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BIISS), Dhaka that Beijing will not unilaterally divert waters of the Brahmaputra River which supplies 60 percent of Bangladesh’s water flows. “We will consult with the downstream countries if they are in any way affected by what we are doing. This is our commitment,” he assured. Diplomatic observers say China’s probable water diversion plan has prompted New Delhi, which has been withdrawing water from the upstream affecting Bangladesh, to accept Dhaka’s idea of basin-wise management of the common rivers after decades. India for the first time, during the visit of Manmohan Singh’s Dhaka tour, agreed to go for basin-wise management of the trans-boundary rivers.

Xianyi expressed that China wants to establish links with Bangladesh via Myanmar, a road and a rail link. This direct link will create an opportunity to increase exports to China and thus reducing the existing trade gap between the two countries. Chinese companies are involved in various developments in Bangladesh including power plants, river dredging, bridge constructions. Decision makers in Bangladesh should come up with some possibilities to utilize this existing warm relationship with China. Bangladesh may strengthen its relationship with Myanmar and may ask China to create pressure upon Myanmar to refrain it from aggressive activities within Bangladesh’s maritime boundaries. India is importing gas from Myanmar. Bangladesh, also, should consider this matter as the country is suffering from huge paucity of gas and frequent power outage.

This year Sino-Bangla relationship is celebrating its thirty sixth anniversaries. With the progress of time both nations are moving toward stronger ties. It is expected that good relationship between these two great nations will create a balanced and stable South Asia.

This article was published on 13th October, 2011 in daily sun.

Edward Said: A trembler of Western discourse

As the Palestinian authority seeks recognition of its statehood in the UN, the global community commemorates the eighth anniversary of the passing of Edward Said, who Robert Fisk characterized as Palestine's most influential political figure. Said was a staunch advocate of the 'one-state solution'. In 1979, he authored 'The Question of Palestine'. Said's political trajectory transitioned from that of a disinterested observer to an active participant, culminating with the Israeli-Arab War of 1967. From 1977 to 1991, he served as an autonomous member of the Palestine National Council. In 1991, he resigned from the council and continued his advocacy for Palestine as an independent critic. His most powerful tool was his ability to articulate his thoughts and ideas. Dialogue is a crucial and unavoidable component of Palestine's pursuit and endeavour for statehood. On this momentous day of the Palestinian bid, we are commemorating Said.

 

Edward W. Said, a Palestinian-American, was born in Jerusalem on November 1, 1935, and passed away on September 25, at the age of 67, in New York. In the year of Said's death, I encountered my initial encounter with him through an article penned by Prof. Dr. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury in the literary supplement of a Bengali newspaper. Only then did I discover Said's identity as an English literary character rather than being associated with any one language or nation? One year after his demise, I became acquainted with his revolutionary publication 'Orientalism' (1978) for the first time during my first year at the University of Dhaka. Unexpectedly, my pals, including Mujibor Rahman, who is pursuing an M. Phil degree at Delhi University, stumbled into a discreet admirer of Said-Foej Alom, a poet and postcolonial intellectual in Bengali literature.

 

Poet Alom demonstrated his determination to translate Said's highly influential work, 'Orientalism', into Bengali to communicate Said's ideas to audiences in Bangladesh. Following this release, the practices and studies of Said's literature established a strong foundation in this country.

 

Allow me to explain the significance of Said, regardless of any specific language or nation. Said is regarded as a trailblazer in postcolonial thought. Postcolonial philosophy encompasses more than just literature. This philosophical perspective is relevant to various fields of study, such as language, sociology, physics, history, painting, architecture, agriculture, and more. Postcolonial ideology motivates us to thrive based on our cultural heritage. It encourages individuals to overcome the long-standing effects of colonialism. It enables you to ascertain the authenticity of your tradition, literature, culture, and prevailing mindset throughout the pre-colonial era. It reveals how the colonialists caused significant distortions in these areas during colonial control. Postcolonial philosophy emphasizes the need to reclaim and preserve one's traditions from the influence of colonial distortions. Post-colonialism emerged after the publication of Said's 'Orientalism'. This movement delivered another significant impact following the disruption caused by Postmodernism in Western epistemology. However, numerous postcolonial philosophers argue that Said's work 'Orientalism' initiated the initial epistemic rupture in Western discourse.

 

Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Chinua Achebe, both hailing from Africa, as well as Ashis Nandy, Ranajit Guha, and Partha Chatterjee from India, along with Benedict Anderson, Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin from Europe, made significant contributions to the field of post-colonialism based on their perspectives and expertise. In Bangladesh, Foej Alom, Saymon Jakaria, Selim Al Deen, and S M Sultan were highly conscious in their use of post-colonialism in poetry, play, and painting, respectively.

 

Said's second significant publication is 'Covering Islam' (1981). This book examines the deliberate portrayal of Islam as a religion associated with terrorism by Western media. This is how Western media portrays Islam. This book also highlights the prevailing friction between the Eastern and Western regions about Islam, fundamental terrorism, and related matters.

 

Said's initial publication, Joseph Conrad and the Fiction of Autobiography (Harvard University Press, 1966), focused on an author with whom he perceived a sense of affinity. Originally from Poland, Conrad embarked on global travels and acquired proficiency in English later in life. In the subsequent year, Israel emerged victorious over the collective military of many Arab nations in the Six-Day War, which catalyzed Said's burgeoning political awareness. His literary works comprise 'The World, the Text, and the Critic' (1983) and 'Culture and Imperialism' (1992). He was said to have expressed strong support for the independence of Palestinians. He has authored several subsequent works on the topic of Palestinians' right to self-determination, including 'The Question of Palestine' (1979), 'The Politics of Dispossession: The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination' (1994), and 'End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After' (2000). He expressed strong disapproval of the former US foreign policy towards the Middle East, particularly the policy of 'war on terror'. He was referred to as the 'professor of terror' by a US-based magazine for assuming this role. Explosive devices were deliberately aimed at his office at the institution. Fortunately, Said was able to avoid the situation by being absent. Said exemplifies the archetype of a public intellectual. He authored a book and actively engaged in numerous civic endeavours. On the occasion of the eighth anniversary of his passing, I offer my sincerest homage.

This article was appeared on 26th September, 2011 in the Daily Sun. 

India's leadership and its implication for South Asia

India's leadership is much talked about now a days in South Asian politics. There has been a persistent and sharp contrast between South Asian states, as a whole, and India. Where a number of South Asian states are in a strained relationship with the West, India on the contrary is enjoying a bonhomie relationship. For last few months it has been receiving many world leaders at home with success. 'Incredible India', is truly proving its diplomatic professionalism in dealing with other states, even USA, to keep its national interest intact.


'Bandwagoning- Balancing'
The present India's foreign policy appears to be, to borrow a phrase from Robert Kaplan, 'Monsoon: Indian Ocean and Future of American Power', published in 2010, an 'ultimate paradox'. How does it constitute a paradox? Yogesh Joshi explained it well. He said that the Indian foreign policy is the perfect example of fusion of 'Bandwagoning- Balancing'. It is bandwagoning with the US for its national interest but, at the same time, balancing American power by professing its slant towards a multipolar world. India successfully convinced Mr. Obama to support its causes. During Obama's visit to Delhi he openly supported, for the first time, India's bid for permanent membership in United Nations Security Council. On India's persistence, it also agreed to help India obtain the membership of four important instruments of the non-proliferation regime -- the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group.

How is India balancing against global powers? May be India is piggybacking on the US to reach global power status but she is not blind to the pitfalls of too much dependence. She may support the US leadership but, very much logically, not the US centered unipolar world. India strongly supports the idea of a multi-polar world order, most evident in the proceedings of multilateral settings such as the BRICS. India's warm relationship with the US does not, necessarily, mean that she will listen to the every exhortation placed by Mr. Obama. For example, India did not consider the bids of two US aviation giants for providing the Medium Multiple-Role Combat Aircraft to the Indian Air Force, though Mr. Obama exhorted India on this bid. We have seen how India was silent on United Nations Resolution 1973, brought against the Libyan government. India has been maintaining relationship with Iran at significant level. She supported Syria, the worst human rights abuser, in its candidature for the United Nations Human Rights Council. But it is relevant here to note that both Iran and Syria are at a draggers-drawn with the US. That's how India is 'bandwagoning' with the US but at the same time, 'balancing' against the US leverage.


Leadership in South Asia?
Hillary Clinton during her last visit to India in July, 2011, reiterated the ever increasing importance of India to the world and, of course, to the US. She said, "I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India's future. We understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country." In that Chennai speech Ms. Clinton had some real gestures towards India besides some 'tall talks'. But why Washington is so enthusiastic about India? To this common question there is popular answer- because Washington wants to offset against China in Asia. In fact Washington seeks to create a bigger circle, Washington-Delhi-Tokyo, which may be extended with the inclusion of Seoul and Manila in near future.

But India's leadership in South Asia, as Ms. Clinton indicated, will be a tough call. Leadership in a region calls for some components. The aspirant state is expected to have good relationship with its neighbors. Does India have any trustworthy friend in South Asia? India has 'neighborly problems'. She has two nuclear armed, hostile states on two sides. One of her neighbors is war depleted and a breeding ground of insurgency. Bangladesh, another neighbor, changes its status with India with the change of governments. India also has `adequate' suspicion about Bangladesh. On the other, Nepal and Bhutan are the only two neighbors, upon whom India has more or less influence.

Ms. Clinton talked about the 'neighborly problems'. She expressed her anticipations that India would emerge among her neighbors as a 'benevolent leader'. She said, "…opening of India's markets to the world will produce a more prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region." At present, India is enjoying an economy of steady GDP growth ranging from 8 to 8.5. But does it really spill on her neighbors? From the perspective of Bangladesh, there are still many barriers including tariff and non-tariff barriers in trade between Bangladesh and India. In an updated statistics it is found that the trade gap between India and Bangladesh rose to $3.80 billion in 2010-11 fiscal year from $2.90 in the year before. Trade officials and businessmen talk about the standardisation of Bangladesh's exportable items by Indian authorities still remains a key. New Delhi is yet to make any tangible arrangement for removing the non-tariff barriers to trade that restrict exports of good number of items from Bangladesh to India despite, repeated assurances.

Besides trade issues, there are many other historically prolonged- unresolved issues between India and Bangladesh. Ms. Clinton didn't deny this grave concerns which are equally important for both sides. In her Chennai speech she said, "India also has a great commitment to improving relations with Bangladesh, and that is important because regional solutions will be necessary on energy shortages, water-sharing, and the fight against terrorists."

This has been the continued state of affairs between India and Bangladesh. This scenario does not differ very much in the aspects of India's relations with other neighboring states, with a couple of exceptions. India's leadership in South Asia requires resolving those issues first. India may enjoy a comprehensive economic and military power but that doesn't mean an easy and unabated leadership for her in South Asia. Many scholars opined that the problem is rooted in India's mindset. India's foreign policy is still revolving around Kautilyan discourse. India can bring a shift in her foreign policy and brighten the possibilities of leadership in South Asia.

This article as first appeared in the Daily Star on 10 September, 2011. 

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.