| |
 People's representatives for people's interests
People also firmly believe that emergency can not be a permanent solution for any problem and civil society can not be run by commanded system.
Ripan Kumar Biswas
A good intention possesses completely, or in a high degree, if it serves the purpose for which it is intended. There can be a great deal of hope, more than ever before, in the ongoing battle against corruption and volatile political practices to keep Bangladesh alive if everyone practices "good" till the end.
According to the Chief of Army Staff in Bangladesh, General Moeen U Ahmed, the way army has discharged its responsibility in the past and is doing presently, is all with the good intention to see the honest and competent leadership come to power to govern the country. "As patriotic citizens, the army is extending round-the-clock cooperation to the caretaker government and certainly the army is not part of the government," General Moeen reaffirmed army's intentions, steps, and desires to the nation through the editors of national print and electronic media at the Army Headquarters on April 08, 2008.
The army chief further assured everyone along with the leaders of the different political parties that there would be no deviation from holding national poll as per roadmap by end-December and there would be nothing but democratic rule in Bangladesh. His remarks came just after the detained former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina expressed her apprehension over holding of the general elections in time and restoration of democracy. Like her, on Monday, April 07, 2008, Jatiya Party chairman Hussein Muhammad Ershad also expressed the similar uncertainty at a press briefing at its Banani party office.
Bangladesh has a history of military takeovers. On December 16, 1971, Pakistani forces surrendered, and Bangladesh was born. Although the new country became a parliamentary democracy under a 1972 constitution with four basic principles nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy, but its democratic journey had been interrupted several times. Bangladesh's history from 1971 was marked by political instability and economic difficulties and was governed intermittently by martial law between 1975 and 2001 and now since January 2007 there is the Emergency rule.
Although the emergency rules have placed serious limits on civil and political rights, and have severely diluted constitutional protections of individual rights, but the recent ongoing state of emergency, which was triggered by weeks of pre-election opposition protests and violence on January 11, 2007, was welcomed by ordinary Bangladeshis, many of whom want a return to normalcy after the violent political standoff that has wrecked the country. People were upset to see the same tainted politicians and their cronies in and out of the government during the last sixteen years of our experiment with parliamentary democracy.
During the two months prior to the takeover by the caretaker government, the country had experienced unending riots and widespread demonstrations in which more than 60 people lost their lives, millions of dollars in property was damaged, and the economic activities in the country came to a squealing halt.
Like Chief Adviser Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, people believe in the present role of the Bangladesh Army in maintenance of the country's law and order in order to bring the nation back on the right track. Their relief and rehabilitation activities in the wake of two consecutive floods and cyclone last year or their logistic or technical support in the crucial work of voter listing and national identity cards are obviously praiseworthy. People believe like the army chief that army will neither follow Pakistan or Thailand or previous takeovers in Bangladesh but will help in the maintenance of democracy, through transfer of power to the elected representatives and holding a free, fair and transparent election by December 2008.
Starting with 2,193 member team to monitor peace in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during the first gulf war in 1991, Bangladesh Army started its peace keeping activities throughout the world. As of February 2008, Bangladesh remained the largest contributor with 11,200 troops in the UN Peacekeeping forces. In those missions, sometimes they worked to curb inter border terrorism or to clear illegal dwellings and establishments or they worked to restore democracy as they know how much it is important for a civilized society.
People also firmly believe that emergency can not be a permanent solution for any problem and civil society can not be run by commanded system. The recent remarks of former Chief Adviser and Chief Justice Habibur Rahman "that military involvement in politics and administration is likely to affect the country and the military equally adversely," are very meaningful and logical. The US authority recently expressed the same political theory to the Bangladesh Ambassador in US Humayun Kabir.
However, failures of the past elected governments cannot be used as excuses to keep the democratic process suspended. People do believe that only democratic governments can truly represent the people and their interests and that they can solve social, economic and political problems of the country as they will be under constant watch and pressure and bound to look after the interests of the people.
(Ripan Kumar Biswas is a freelance writer based in New York. New York; April 10, 2008.E-mail: Ripan.Biswas@yahoo.com)
Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO Any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan's tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests and would not provide a lasting solution to the problem.
Karl F. Inderfurth
Washington, DC - The NATO summit meeting in Bucharest this week comes at a critical time for the 26-member alliance and its mission in Afghanistan. It also comes at a critical time for the one country that can make or break that mission: Pakistan.
NATO is collectively holding its breath as the Musharraf era comes to a close, replaced by a new and uncertain civilian political leadership and accompanied by a continuing rise in extremist violence. A month-long surge in suicide bombings has put the country on edge. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO's secretary general, said during his recent visit to Washington that as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place, he would travel to Islamabad. After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce NATO's Afghan mission.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked. There can be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if Pakistan is not a part of the solution. The future stability of both depends on the development of an effective regional strategy to counter and uproot the Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal border areas. Despite Pakistan's counter-insurgency efforts over the last four years (or lack thereof, according to the critics), the Taliban and Al Qaeda have developed a stronghold in this region that bolsters the Taliban's capabilities against coalition forces in Afghanistan, poses a direct threat to the Pakistani state itself, and facilitates Al Qaeda planning and execution of global terrorist plots, including those directed against the United States.
What can be done about this interconnected set of problems?
Countering cross border infiltration is the immediate priority. The Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission is an important mechanism in this regard. So is the strengthening of the US military presence along the Afghan side of the border, which the latest US Marine contingent now arriving in Afghanistan will assist, as will the opening of the first of six joint US-Afghan-Pakistani military intelligence centers along the border.
Washington also needs to work more closely with Pakistan in joint counter-terrorism operations. The possibility for collaboration exists, as evidenced by the missile strike in North Waziristan earlier this year that killed the senior Al Qaeda operative Abu Laith al-Libi. But these operations are highly sensitive and politically charged in the tribal areas and must be pursued through quiet behind-the-scenes efforts with Pakistan political and military leaders.
In addition, any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan's tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests and would not provide a lasting solution to the problem.
A more effective strategy involves working cooperatively with Pakistan's new leadership to integrate these areas into the Pakistani political system and, once they are secure, provide substantial assistance (along with the European Union, the World Bank and other donors) to build up their economy and social infrastructure. As Pakistan's ambassador, Mahmud Duranni, says, what is needed in these areas is a "multi-pronged strategy. That is, military force, development and empowerment of the people. Using force alone is not the answer."
Over the longer term, the region requires a new compact that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan's political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralize regional and great power rivalries. To accomplish this, the United Nations should convene an international conference attended by all of Afghanistan's neighbors and other concerned major powers, a task that should be added to the agenda of the newly appointed UN envoy for Afghanistan, the Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide.
The goal would be a multilateral accord that recognizes Afghanistan's borders with Pakistan (the Durand Line of 1893 is still in dispute); pledges non-interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs; affirms that, like the Congress of Vienna accord for Switzerland, Afghanistan should be internationally accepted as a permanently neutral state; and establishes a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, the key to establishing a vibrant commercial network that would benefit the entire region.
And such an agreement would have another positive corollary - it would provide the basis for the eventual withdrawal of US and NATO military forces from a stable and secure Afghanistan.
(Karl F. Inderfurth, a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, served as US assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1997 to 2001. Source: International Herald Tribune, 1 April 2008.Copyright permission is granted for publication.)
Tibet, Palestine and Western hypocrisy
Uri Avnery
LIKE everybody else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.
I support the Tibetans in spite of it being obvious that the Americans are exploiting the struggle for their own purposes. Clearly, the CIA has planned and organised the riots, and the American media are leading the worldwide campaign.
It is a part of the hidden struggle between the US, the reigning superpower, and China, the rising superpower - a new version of the "Great Game" that was played in Central Asia in the 19th century by the British Empire and Russia.
Tibet is a token in this game. What is really bugging me is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet. It seems as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force. But are not the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria entitled to the same? The inhabitants of Western Sahara, whose territory is occupied by Morocco? The Basques in Spain? The Corsicans off the coast of France? And the list is long.
Why do the world's media adopt one independence struggle, but often cynically ignore another independence struggle? What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?
Again and again I try to find a satisfactory answer to this enigma. In vain. Immanuel Kant demanded of us: "Act as if the principle by which you act were about to be turned into a universal law of nature." (Being a German philosopher, he expressed it in much more convoluted language.)
Does the attitude toward the Tibetan problem conform to this rule? Does it reflect our attitude toward the struggle for independence of all other oppressed peoples? Not at all. If Immanuel Kant knew what's going on in Kosovo, he would be scratching his head.
The province demanded its independence from Serbia, and I, for one, supported that with all my heart. This is a separate people, with a different culture (Albanian) and its own religion (Islam). After the popular Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to drive them out of their country, the world rose and provided moral and material support for their struggle for independence.
The Albanian Kosovars make up 90 percent of the citizens of the new state, which has a population of two million. The other 10 percent are Serbs, who want no part of the new Kosovo. They want the areas they live in to be annexed to Serbia. According to Kant's maxim, are they entitled to this?
I would propose a pragmatic moral principle: Every population that inhabits a defined territory and has a clear national character is entitled to independence. A state that wants to keep such a population must see to it that they feel comfortable, that they receive their full rights, enjoy equality and have an autonomy that satisfies their aspirations. In short: That they have no reason to desire separation.
That applies to the French in Canada, the Scots in Britain, the Kurds in Turkey and elsewhere, the various ethnic groups in Africa, the indigenous peoples in Latin America, the Tamils in Sri Lanka and many others. Each has a right to choose between full equality, autonomy and independence.
This leads us, of course, to the Palestinian issue. In the competition for the sympathy of the world media, the Palestinians are unlucky. According to all the objective standards, they have a right to full independence, exactly like the Tibetans. They inhabit a defined territory, they are a specific nation, a clear border exists between them and Israel. One must really have a crooked mind to deny these facts.
But the Palestinians are suffering from several cruel strokes of fate: The people that oppress them claim for themselves the crown of ultimate victimhood. The whole world sympathises with the Israelis because the Jews were the victims of the most horrific crime of the Western world. That creates a strange situation: The oppressor is more popular than the victim. Anyone who supports the Palestinians is automatically suspected of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Also, the great majority of the Palestinians are Muslims (nobody pays attention to the Palestinian Christians). Since Islam arouses fear and abhorrence in the West, the Palestinian struggle has automatically become a part of that shapeless, sinister threat, "international terrorism". And since the murders of Yasser Arafat and Shaikh Ahmed Yassin, the Palestinians have no particularly impressive leader - neither in Fatah nor in Hamas.
The world media are shedding tears for the Tibetan people, whose land is taken from them by Chinese settlers. Who cares about the Palestinians, whose land is taken from them by our settlers?
In the worldwide tumult about Tibet, the Israeli spokespersons compare themselves - strange as it sounds - to the poor Tibetans, not to the evil Chinese. Many think this quite logical.
If Kant were dug up tomorrow and asked about the Palestinians, he would probably answer: "Give them what you think should be given to everybody, and don't wake me up again to ask silly questions."
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. This article is publised in arrangement with Palestine Chronicle. A larger version of the article is available on www.PalestineChronicle.com.
Source :www.khaleejtimes.com
|
