ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION: Call to increase regional interconnectivity: Former diplomats urge at roundtable, lament lack of coordination

Published in The Daily Star, November 22, 2008
By Daily Star Staff Correspondent

Former diplomats have suggested that the next elected government formulate a foreign policy prioritizing regional connectivity for economic growth, impacts of climate change, international labour market, energy crisis and access of Bangladeshi products to global market.

They regretted that Bangladesh is failing to gain many benefits because of divergent foreign policies of successive governments and a lack of coordination between the foreign ministry and other ministries concerned.

While formulating the policy, the government should have a broader national consensus and consider the changed world's aspects, especially the economic crisis, they said yesterday at a roundtable.

The ambassadors who represented Bangladesh in different countries over the past few decades also stressed the need for "re-branding" the country in the international arena by projecting its achievements in microcredit and other social sectors and its multi-ethnicity.

The Daily Star and the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (C-Fas) jointly organised the roundtable titled "Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy" at the newspaper's conference room yesterday.

"No foreign policy can be effective without a minimum degree of coordination and coherence. Unfortunately, the role of foreign ministry has been undermined and diluted in Bangladesh and we need to find ways of re-establishing the typical role of the foreign office," said former ambassador Farooq Sobhan at the discussion.

The Bangladeshi diaspora can play a critical role in improving Bangladesh's image abroad, he said, adding that overseas employment, trade, attracting foreign direct investment and fighting terrorism are the key foreign affairs challenges for Bangladesh.

Sobhan said Bangladesh should devise strategies on the basis of the changed global scenarios--rise of India and China on one hand and the economic meltdown on the other.

Moderating the function, C-Fas Chairman Ashfaqur Rahman said, "The new government will have a lot of home work to do regarding foreign affairs."

In his keynote paper titled "Future Directions of Bangladesh Foreign Policy: Dreams or Nightmares?", Dhaka University Professor Imtiaz Ahmed detailed aspects of Bangladesh's past and present foreign policies and how it should be redefined taking into consideration globalisation and the ongoing global economic crisis.

In a globalised world, economic growth is largely interlinked with foreign relations and the challenges facing the country are not going to end unless creative policy initiatives are undertaken to overcome them, he said.

If Bangladesh is to go beyond its current economic growth of over 6 percent, it needs to resolve its energy requirements on a priority basis, he said, adding that in that case the country needs to think beyond oil and coal and keep all options open.

"This would require investment in knowledge and expertise in drafting agreements at both bilateral and international levels. Any lethargy or slippage in what would be protracted external...is bound to cost Bangladesh heavily," said Prof Imtiaz of international relations department.

Referring to a recent research, he said should Bangladesh invest in the development of semi-skilled migrant workers, including catering to restaurant business and plumbing, and have them sent to Europe, it could end up raising the remittance flow up to $30 billion, if not more.

"Here too, creative institutionalisation at home and external engagements is required," he added.

Former ambassador Harunur Rashid said sometime foreign policy is determined by a small cabinet or stalwarts in the ruling party or the prime minister's secretariat undermining recommendations of the foreign ministry.

"There is no consensus or bi-partisanship regarding the country's foreign policy," he said.

He said national consensus is required on issues related to global warming as such environmental issues affect crop production, health and salinity of water.

Harunur Rashid advocated stronger inter-connectivity and transit facilities with India, Myanmar, China and other neighbouring countries. Such transit facilities will increase trade opportunities for Bangladesh, he said.

The former ambassador also stressed the need for paying more attention to the Bangladeshis living abroad.

"We must project Bangladesh as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country," he said.

Harunur Rashid said there is a communication gap between the politicians and the foreign office in regard to foreign affairs. He also recommended setting up of a research and evaluation unit in the foreign ministry to devise a long-term plan.

Executive Director of Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) Dr Mustafizur Rahman said Bangladesh will have difficulties in getting market access for apparel to the US under the Obama administration as Obama will be more protectionist.

Bangladesh's foreign policy has to be devised considering the trade opportunities in the south block that includes India and China, he said, adding that carbon trading, territorial issues and nuclear energy should be the new focus of the foreign policy.

Former ambassador Anwar Hashim said, "Since globalisation is to stay, we have to devise ways to benefit from it and fight its negative aspects."

It is essential to determine the country's interests abroad and dispassionately evaluate the achievements and failure in the past 38 years to formulate a foreign policy for getting the benefits of globalisation.

"There are hundreds of issues and we have to prioritise those," said Anwar Hashim.

Former ambassador Muhammad Zamir termed water management, power, environmental degradation and food security the most crucial issues to be included in the foreign policy priority list.

The line ministries usually do not care about the foreign ministry and deal with external issues directly, he said, adding that the foreign ministry should take a coordinated approach in dealing with foreign affairs.

Putting emphasis on capacity building, Zamir said the foreign ministry officials should learn the languages of the countries where the number of Bangladeshi migrants is high and Bangladesh has trade interests.

Former ambassador Shamim Ahmed said it is necessary to look for employment opportunities beyond the Middle East because the decline in oil prices there may have negative impact on Bangladesh's labour market in the region.

The country's image cannot be improved ignoring half the country's populace - women, said ambassador Nasim Ferdous, adding that the foreign ministry should play a key role in creating a pool of female professionals and researchers.

Former diplomat and adviser to the caretaker government CM Shafi Sami said Bangladesh is failing to formulate an effective foreign policy because of polarised politics and lack of good governance.

Brig Gen (retd) Shahedul Anam Khan gave the welcome speech.

Former ambassadors Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, Serajul Islam, Kazi Anwarul Masud, M Shafiullah, chief editor of Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury and businessman SM Mainuddin Momen also spoke.

About the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS)

In a globalized world, proper understanding of foreign affairs issues and formulating foreign policy to reflect as objectively as possible domestic needs are crucial for a country’s well being. The task is both immense and critical. In all countries, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or its equivalent coordinates and carries out this role. However, in these counties, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or its equivalent is assisted by other Ministries/Departments/Agencies of the Government, parliamentarians, the political parties, interest groups and think tanks to complete the process of integration between domestic needs and foreign policy formulation so that national interests are reflected in the international arena in the best interest of the country in question.

In Bangladesh, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been entrusted this awesome responsibility with very little help from sources outside the Government. Within the Government itself, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been placed in a position where a lot of issues of our foreign affairs are handled by other Ministries with very little coordination among them. Thus our foreign policy often lacks a coordinated approach where issues are often not examined in depth and national interests are reflected in the international environment in a manner that does not help us to further our national interests to the extent desirable and possible.

Centers devoted exclusively to foreign affairs issues have long been felt a necessity for Bangladesh but did not emerge in the private sector . Such centers can supplement and complement to a degree the efforts of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government for formulation and implementation of a foreign policy that truly reflects the interests of Bangladesh and its people. It is to fulfill part of this need for Centers dealing with foreign policy issues that the Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies (CFAS) is being established by senior Ambassadors who have lifetime professional experience acquired in representing the country that has allowed them to see Bangladesh both from within and outside.

The goals of the Centre are modest. It intends to help develop awareness that foreign policy issues are not necessarily issues that need to be kept away from the public and handled in secrecy. Such issues often need to be aired publicly and foreign policy formulated objectively to serve the best national interest and this can be done by taking public opinion on board. In this context, the CFAS intends to work with the relevant committee of jatiya sangsad, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other Government Ministries dealing with Bangladesh’s external relations; political parties, interest groups and eventually with the public through meetings, seminars, publication of reading materials and eventually town-hall types of meetings with ordinary citizens to integrate and articulate their views on crucial foreign policy issues such as our relations with India; granting that country road transit, etc. The output of such work from the Centre and similar Centers that would come up will help Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government to deal with such issues more realistically by taking the views of the stakeholders into consideration before formulation of policies and their execution. This would also generate more public support to Government policies.

The CFAS website is one step towards realizing the above mentioned goals. Through this CFAS would like to reach the stakeholders and announce its presence using the advantages offered by the internet. The aim is to conduct research into current and relevant foreign policy issues of Bangladesh by encouraging resource persons to write in this website. CFAS simultaneously also aims to hold regular seminars on issues related to the foreign policy of Bangladesh. Among other aims, the Centre will provide advisory services to its stakeholders on foreign policy issues; and external economic and humanitarian issues. CFAS will also do advocacy work focusing on external foreign, political and economic issues that will promote Bangladesh’s interests. The Centre will also organize training on specific diplomatic skills like negotiations, networking, representation, et al.

Visitors to this website are welcome to give their views on CFAS; its objectives and work programme so that it can stand on a firm and professional footing.

CFAS Management

Ambassador Ashfaqur Rahman
Ambassador Shamim Ahmed
Ambassador M. Serajul Islam

Regional Co-operation in the context of globalization

By Abul Ahsan

(The article is based on the writer’s earlier presentation at Business Development Institute Dhaka)

Introduction

Regional co-operation and globalization arc not mutually exclusive concepts. They reinforce each other in way a resurgence in regional co­operation in 1990s particularly in Europe, North & South America has been the result of frustration with the pace and coverage of global economic liberalization, and Unsatisfactory nature; of ‘dispute resolution mechanism under GATT. Organizations like EU, NAFTA or MERCOSUR to name a few have gone deep in terms of removing barriers to trade and investment and in including issues like agriculture, services, intellectual property rights etc. than has been the case with WTO. The on-going frustration with the progress in talks -Under WTO particularly in matters of special interest to developing countries lack of follow up action on commitments already made by the developed }countries and their double standard in egard to subsidies high light the issue. Regional organization can also be seen as a preparing ground for countries to adjust to competitive environment before facing the wider challenge of globalization.

What is Globalization?

• Globalization is the buzz-word of to-day. Whether you are among businessmen, politicians or in a social gathering you keep on hearing the express the Globalization is manifest in the articles made in far way land that you buy at the department store next door the music you hear in the house food and drink (Coke Kentucky Fried Chicken etc.)that you take at local restaurants and perhaps the bank you have your account With’.
• European Union (EU) defines globalization as a process by which markets and production in different countries are becoming increasingly integrated and interdependent as a result of dynamics of’ trade in goods and services and flows of capital and technology.
• The operational base of activities are increasingly moving from local and national levels to global level. Cheap and efficient communication
• networks have allowed firms to locate different parts of the production process in different countries while remaining in close contact.
• Modern information technology has reduced the need for physical contact between producers and consumers. Any activity that can be conducted on screen or over telephone, from writing software to selling airline tickets can be carried out any where in the world linked to headquarters by satellite and computer. Because of this previously untradable goods are now being traded.

Globalization has been facilitated by a number of factors including:

• Reduction in costs and vast improvement in effectiveness of communication and computation which has drastically shortened the time and space that have long separated national markets.
• Cost of three-minute telephone across the Atlantic has fallen from $300 in today’s prices in 1930s to less than a dollar today. The cost of computing Has been falling 30% a year on average in real terms over the past couple of decades.
• Since 1955 innovation introduced in road rail and shipping transportations by US road hauling magnet Mlalcom Maclean degulation in transportation industry and containerization of cargos have produced huge productivity gains and gave a big boost to trade.
• During the past two decade global network Of’ computers, telephones and televisions has increased its information caring capacity one million times.
• The cost of computer has fallen to the extent that today a $ 2000 laptop Computer is many times more powerful than $10 million mainframe computer of mid 70s.

The industrial age of steel and cars of the past years has been replaced by the information age communication networks and ideas. The combined effect of liberalization of trade and capital and reduction of cost of communication have, led to the integration of the process of production, marketing arid distribution with the result that:

• World merchandise trade in 1998 was estimated at $ 4.8 trillion about 16 times more than what it was in the 1950’s.
• Over the past decade trade has increased twice as fast as output, foreign direct investment three times and cross border trade in shares ten times.
• Commercial service trade (banking, insurance, Construction, data processing etc), recorded the highest increase and reached $1.2 trillion in 1996, accounting for 25% of the value of trade in goods.
• A decade ago about S190 billion passed through currency traders at New ­York, London and Tokyo everyday in 1995 it reached S 1.25 trillion.
• Cross border transaction of bond and security by US investors rose from the equivalent of 9% of GDP in 1980 to 160% in 1996.
• At the end of 1998 total stock of FDI-plants -equipments and property owned by multinationals outside their home countries amounted to $ 4 trillion.
• Most of the above activities hove been sparked by the process of economic liberalization initiated by bilateral decision of governments organization like GATT, WTO, World Bank, IMI= etc. which have reduced or eliminated barriers facilitating. flow of goods, services, money and investment.

Globalization is not a new phenomena

It should however be pointed out that globalization is not a new phenomena. In a sense pre-world war globalization went further than what is today particularly is some areas. For example

• During the second half of the 19th century 60 million people left Europe for the New World much greater a number than to –days immigration.
• Net out flow of capital from Britain averaged 5% going up to 10% of its GDP before the World War I as against less than 3% of Japan’s GDP investment abroad when the country achieved the highest current account surplus a few years ago.
• To-day net foreign direct investment is only 6% of total investment in rich countries. Before 1914 FDI accounted for about half of the total domestic investment in the same group of countries:

But the present globalization is qualitatively different.

• Unlike before when it was confined to a very few countries a large number of countries participate in to-days globalization.
• Second earlier globalization was brought about by a reduction in trasport cost. To-day it is driven by communication revolution which has made it possible to organize firms at global level and for closer international integration.
• Previous globalization was the result of bilateral agreements. To-day it is firmly institutionalized through organizations like WTO as well as international protocols and agreements and therefore less likely to be reversed.

Coverage and reach of Globalization

Even though globalization is a powerful and a real force it is (a) mostly concentrated in rich regions of the world particularly Triad ( European Union, Japan & the USA) and (b)even then its coverage and -each are rather limited Thus:

• Triad economics accounted for 70% world trade flows (93) and 65% of world stock of FDL If ten most’ t~3vp’u~•cd nations are added to the list it would be 90% of FDI.
• As mentioned before in 1995 FDI accounted for only G% of’ total domestic investment in rich countries
• Only two-fifth of the FDI goes the developing countries and that also to a few favoured destinations.
• China a favoured country is a special case: most of the FDI there comes from overseas Chinese.
• About 80% of Triad out-put is still consumed domestically only 10% exported.

In ’95 FDI accounted for 5.27 of world’s fixed capital formation.
Regional Co-operation is still popular and a strong force:

In spite of the contribution of globalization in promoting competition productivity cams and innovation regional economic co-operation is still popular- as a strong vehicle for economic development. This is demonstrated by the fact that:

• US by far Canada’s. biggest trade partner is connected with each other by ­the most efficient network of modern communication. Even than trade between tile different provinces of Canada is 20 times more than that with the USA demonstrating that even in the best of situation markets still remain highly fragmented. Cultural differences cost of transportation consumer preference etc. account for this.
• More and more regions in the world are forging re11ional Mid sub-regional groupings
• Well-known organizations like European Union, NAFTA, APEC and MERCOSUR are expanding their membership and deepening co­operation as is evident in their recent decisions.
• Trade within regional groups has increased many folds as compared to increase in global trade over the years, Intra-regional trade in EU, NAFTA, ASEAN & MESCOSUR today, stand at 6 1.5, 47.5, 25 and 22.8 percent of the respective member countries global trade.

( In case of 5.-~A:’~C the figure stands at 4.3 percent)

• Similarly flow of capital and foreign currency also has been many times greater than global flow
• In a situation in which markets still remain fragmented regional economic co-operation a vital attraction because of the vital opportunity it provides for
• A Better division of labour
• B economies of scale
• C wider command of resources
• D harnessing common resources of a region: forest, minerals, rivers, and oceans.
• E efficient and effective development of physical infrastructure: road and railway, network, port, generation of electricity environment at protection irrigation.
• F attracting private sector investment.

Role of Private Sector

• Globalization is almost entirely market driven. The process has gained momentum and is based upon liberalization of trade, capital and currency markets. Private sector responded in full measure to opportunity thus opened up. The role and function of the private sector in globalization is obvious.
• Integration of national economies into a global market has been the work of multination stock market operators, currency traders and speculators motivated by profit.
• Business and industry has been the vital force behind innovations in prodction, distribution and marketing.
• Reform measures undertaken by organizations like GATT, WTO, IMF, World Bank and individual companies and firms looked for better markets for goods as well as for investment of capital.
• Among 200 biggest economic entities 160 are not states reflecting the command of private sector in to-day’s global economic activities.

Globalization is irreversible process

By all indications globalization is irreversible process. The on going innovations and improvement in the existing technology are most likely to further widen and deepen integration of economies reduce cost of communication provide for better division of labour and gains in productivity raising income and standard of living further.
But meanwhile concern are being voiced that

• The gains of globalization are unevenly distributed. It benefits those countries who enter the market with the ‘most assts’. This include capital highly trained manpower and latest technology which few developing countries have.
• Disparity of income within and between nations have widened. For example 45% of global wealth today is owned by 200 billionaires when number of people with less than a dollar a day income has increased to 1.3 billion.
• Employment of unskilled labour and their wages have fallen as contribution of labour in the end product has come down from 25% to 5 to 10% in rich countries.
• 8 out 10 new jobs created in OECD countries are for ‘knowledge workers’
• Globalization has eroded the authority and freedom of governments in some key areas including macro economic and fiscal policies.
• Governments are at the mercy of currency speculators who can destabilize markets as happened in Europe (1992-93), Mexico (1994-95), and South East Asia (1997).
• Ability of governments to establish measures for social security environmental controls etc. is becoming difficult because of the compulsion to remain competitive with the countries.
• With market in control of economic activities domestic policy makers must be aware of the international implications of their policy. Policies which appear sustainable at national level may not be sustainable internationally.
• In the circumstances there is need for a neutral umpire and rules and guidelines for establishing discipline in the operation of global market and to provide level playing and to provide level playing field for the small and the weak players whether it is a government or a business entity.
• Only an intergovernmental body can be entrusted with the responsibility.

About the Author

Abul Ahsan secured first class in M.A in Economics from the Dhaka University (1959) and M.A in International Relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Boston (1962).He stood first in the Civil and Foreign Services examination of Pakistan and joined the Foreign Service in 1961 and held several diplomatic positions.

After Bangladesh’s independence he served as the country’s Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador to Poland Italy Pakistan and the United States (1991-93). He was the first Secretary General of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) (1987-89) as well as Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh (1989-91).

He was one of the 15 members of the Council of Eminent Persons established by the Summit meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1994 to report on the working of the specialized bodies of the organization. From 1996-1999 he served as a member of the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Abul Ahsan served as Vice-President at the Independent University Bangladesh . He was Chairperson of the Fair Election Monitoring Alliance (FEMA) and was involved in governance and election related activities for several years He is currently President of Center for Democracy a citizen’s organisaion devoted to promotion of good governance and democracy.

He represented Bangladesh at a large number of meetings and conferences including UN General Assembly and Security Council Sessions, Summit and Ministerial level meetings of the Commonwealth, the Non-aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).

He is the author of the book SAARC: A Perspective and jointly edited two publications by Independent University Bangladesh entitled Education in a Rapidly Changing World: Focus on Bangladesh and Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh. He co-chaired a study conducted by the Asia Foundation which was published in 2004 under the title America’s role in Asia. He has contributed a large number of papers and articles on political, security and public policy issues to national and regional journals and newspapers.

Cooperation on Water Resources : Bangladesh Perspective

By-Khalilur Rahman, Former Member
Joint River Commission

Introduction

Bangladesh has an area of 147,570 sq. km. lying in the delta of the World’s three major rivers-the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna of which 86000 sq. km. (58 percent) are cultivated. The country is bounded by India on the west, the north and the north-east, Myanmar on the south-east and Bay of Bengal on the south.

Bangladesh is predominantly and extremely flat delta built up by the alluvial deposit of the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna. The nearly flat topography, while ideal for agriculture, is prone to drainage and flood problems under the prevailing rainfall pattern and river regimes. Most of the land lies less than 20 meters above the Mean sea level (MSL). The overall gradient of the river flood plains is less than one-fifth meter per km, except in the extreme northwest where it increases to about two-thirds meter per km.

Bangladesh enjoys generally a sub-tropical monsoon climate. There are three seasons in a year, namely, winter, summer and monsoon. The lowest temperature comes down to 7ºC during winter and rises upto a maximum of 40ºC during summer. The rainfall in Bangladesh is highly seasonal and is concentrated in a period of four months (June-September) when 80 percent of the total rainfall occurs. Bangladesh receives annual rainfall from about 1,200 mm in the extreme west to about 5,800 mm to the north-east. The average annual rainfall is about 2,300 mm. The geographical setting and the climatic condition of Bangladesh has made the hydrological situation of the country complex.

The Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna river systems drain a total catchment of about 1,72 million sq. km through Bangladesh into the Bay of Bengal. Out of the total 1,72 million sq. km of catchment area only 7% lies within Bangladesh. Being the lowest riparian, the country is deprived of any control over the huge cross-boundary flows of about 140,000 cumec (4,944,058 cusec) carried by these rivers during monsoon. However, the flows become so scarce in the dry season that the combined minimum near the Bay of Bengal is only one –twentieth of the peak monsoon discharge. As a result, floods restrict farmer’s choice of crops during the monsoon on the one hand while lack of water severely restrains the irrigated High Yielding Variety(HYV) culture during flood free dry period on the other.

The country is densely populated and the present population is estimated to be 140 million. The current density of about 948 persons per sq. km is one of the highest in the world. About 85 percent of the people live in rural areas. The unprecedented growth in population has led to a sharp decline in land man ratio and increasing landlessness.

River Systems of Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a great delta formed by the alluvial deposits of the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna river systems. The country has been blessed with more than 230 rivers including 57 international rivers. Out of 57 rivers , 54 rivers flow from India to Bangladesh and 3 from Myanmar. The three major river basins are briefly described below.

The Ganges Basin: The Ganges basin encompasses an area of about 1,087,001 sq. km. The area in India is 860,000 sq. km, Nepal 147,181 sq. km, China 33,520 sq. km and Bangladesh 46,300 sq. km. the Ganges rises from the Gangotri glacier in the Himalayas at an elevation of about 7010 meters near the Indo-Chinese border. The river flows generally in south-easterly direction and in the lower reaches it flows eastward and enters Bangladesh near Rajshahi. The length of the main river is about 2550 km. Three major tributaries of the Ganges, the karnali, the Gandaki and the Kosi flow through Nepal to join the Ganges in India and contributes about 71 percent of the natural dry season flows and 41 percent of the total annual flow of the Ganges.

The Brahmaputra Basin : The Brahmaputra basin has a total catchment area of 552,00 sq. km. The area in China is 270,900 sq. km., Bhutan 47,000 sq. km., India 195,000 sq. km. and Bangladesh 39,9000 sq. km. The Brahmaputra originates in the Himalayan range and collects snowmelt and runoff from the huge catchment lying in China, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh. The river enters Bangladesh near Kurigram and flows southwards and continues to its confluence with the Ganges near Aricha. The total length of the Brahmaputra is about 2,900 km. upto Aricha.

The Meghna Basin : The Barak, headstream of the Meghna rises in the hills of Manipur in India. The total length of the river is about 900 km of which 400 km is in Bangladesh. The total catchment area of Meghna river is 82,000 sq. km. out of which 47,000 sq. km. and 35,000 sq. km. line in India and Bangladesh respectively.

	Brahmaputra	Ganges	Meghna
Length of river (km)	2,90	2,550	900
Length within Banglades(km)	27	260	400
Total Basin area (km²)	552,000	1,087,001	82,000
Basin area within Bangladesh(km²)	39,100	46,300	35,000
Highest recorded discharge	98.300(cumec)	76.000(cumec)	19.800(cumec)
Lowest recorded discharge	2,860(cumec)	261(cumec)	Tidal

Importance of Water Resources in the Economy of Bangladesh

The economy of Bangladesh is essentially agrarian which in turn is critically dependent on the waters of the rivers. Agriculture sector accounts for about 38 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and about 60 percent of exports, sustain over 75 percent of the civilian labour force. Agriculture not only produces the food grains for the population and raw materials needed by domestic industries but also major export commodities.

Bangladesh being a predominantly agro based developing country, land and water, the basic resources of the country, must be put to the most economic and efficient use in order to provide higher employment and income opportunities to the vast majority of rural people. Development of the country is, therefore, heavily reliant on the integrated development and optimum utilization of its land and water resources.

Since time immemorial, water has been both a blessing and a course for the people of this deltaic country. It is not only vital for human habitation, agriculture, and fishery; it also provides an important means of communication. However, the excess of water in the monsoon brings in its trail devastating floods, erosion of land and vagaries of braided and meandering rivers. The low flow in the rivers during dry season on the other hand invites intrusion of saline water from the Bay of Bengal. Paradoxically, water is a scarce resource in Bangladesh despite its seeming abundance, it is not very often available when extremely needed due to upstream utilization outside the country. An additional problem is the recent detection of arsenic contamination of ground water sources. High levels of arsenic (over acceptable limit of 0.05 mg/1) in ground water have been detected in 59 of the 64 districts of Bangladesh. It has serious implications for domestic water supply as well as for the agricultural sector because of the transfer of arsenic into the food chain through irrigated crops. It is, therefore, necessary to review the strategy of depending on ground water for supply of safe water and irrigation water supply. Economic development in Bangladesh is, therefore, contingent on the availability, development and management of water resources especially the surface water resources.

Indo-Bangladesh Treaty on sharing the Ganges Waters

The Ganges river influences the lives of 40 million people of Bangladesh living in one third area of the country. Its water are used for agriculture, domestic and municipal use, fisheries, industries, forestry, navigation and maintaining a natural balance within the region, especially in the Sundarbans – the largest mangrove forest in the world.

India constructed a barrage across the Ganges at Farakka in 1975 to divert the dry season flows to the Bhagirathi-Hooghly river for the stated purpose of flushing silt and improve the navigability of Calcutta port. This necessitated in reaching and agreement/Treaty between Bangladesh and India for sharing the Ganga/Ganges waters. Water sharing agreements between the two countries have in the past been short term and intermittent in nature. These had been in force only in 1975, 1978-82 and 1986-88. In intervening periods, the Ganges flows to Bangladesh reduced to as low as 9,218 cusecs in 1993. This has affected adversely the entire Southwestern region of Bangladesh. After intense negotiations, agreement was reached and a Treaty was signed on 12 December 1996 for sharing the waters of the Ganges for a period of thirty years.

The signing of the Ganges Treaty in December 1996 has provided an opportunity to Bangladesh to achieve its long cherished goal of sustained growth through balanced and systematic development and management of the land and water resources in the Ganges dependent areas of the country by building a barrage across the Ganges. The Government of Bangladesh has initiated relevant studies towards implementation of the Ganges Barrage Multipurpose Project with a view to utilizing the waters assured under the Treaty.

These opportunities are timely in relation to the country’s development needs and must be grasped for Bangladesh to truly establish its natural right to use of the Ganges waters.

Main Features of the Treaty

1. Treaty is for 30 years covering the period 1 January to 31 May each year with sharing to an agreed formula.
2. India to make every effort to maintain inflows to Farakka at or above 40 years average (1949-88).
3. Bangladesh and India to receive a guaranteed minimum 35,000 cusecs during crtical periods alternately.
4. Agreed to conclude water-sharing Treaties/Agreements with regard to other rivers guided by the principles of equity, fairness and no harm to either party.
5. Recognized the need to cooperate with each other in finding a solution to the long-term problem of augmenting the flows of the Ganges.

Operation of the 1996 Treaty on sharing of the Ganges waters at Farakka

Bangladesh and India have been sharing the dry season flows of the Ganges at Farakka since 1997 as per provision of the 1996 Treaty. But the share of the Ganges waters received so far by Bangladesh was not enough to meet the requirement of various water using sectors. Moreover the data of sharing of the Ganges waters at Farakka since 1997 to 2007 dry periods reveals that Bangladesh has received less than its share as shown in the indicative schedule on several occasions. Such deficits in share are affecting the agro-socio-economic development in the Ganges dependent area of Bangladesh. It will not be out of context to mention here that the quantum of Ganges water Bangladesh is receiving under the 1996 Treaty provisions are only half of the amount that it had received in the pre-Farakka years (pre-1975). Further reduction of Bangladesh share would only aggravate those problems of Bangladesh.

The dry season availabilities of the Ganges waters in Bangladesh are always inadequate to meet the demands, which are increasing over time. There is a felt need to increase the availability of Ganges flows at Farakka. With a view to addressing this problem, the Ganges Waters Treaty, 1996 provide in Article VIII that “the two Governments recognize the need to cooperate with each other in finding a solution to the long-term problem of augmenting the flows of the Ganga/Ganges during the dry season.” To augment the Ganges flows, the tributaries in Nepal are the most effective sources as their dry season and annual contributions at Farakka are 71 and 41 percent respectively.

Sharing of other Common Rivers

The 1996 Treaty has provided an Article ( Article-IX) to address the sharing of other common rivers wherein it has been agreed to conclude water Sharing Treaties/Agreements guided by the principles of equity, fair play and no harm to either party.

The Joint Rivers Commission at its Thirty Second meeting held in July, 1997 formed a Joint Committee of Expersts ( JCE ) headed by the Secretary of the Water resources of both Governments to workout arrangement for long term/permanent sharing of the waters of the common rivers with priority to Teesta. The Joint Committee of Experts has taken initiatives towards working out a formula for interim sharing of the Teesta waters.

It also agreed to work together on the sharing of the waters of other six rivers Manu, Khowai, Gumti, Muhuri, Dharla and Dudhkumar. So far no tangible result has been accomplished on these rivers although more than ten years have elapsed since signing of the Treaty on the Ganges.

Tipaimukh Dam Project of India

In late seventies India contemplated to construct the Tipaimukh Dam Project at a place named Tipaimukh at the Mizoram-Monipur border. The Dam Site is about 200 km. upstream from the Bangladesh border at Amalshed. The height of the proposed Dam is about 181m and length is about 390 m with a live storage capacity of 9 BCM. The project would generate 1500 MW of Hydropower. The Joint Rivers Commission in its 14th meeting in January, 1978 decided that the Superintending Engineer’s of both the countries should jointly examine the scope of the Indian scheme of storage dam on the Barak river at Tipaimukh and study expeditiously the potential flood control and other benefits in Bangladesh and report the progress to the Commission at its next meeting. Till now no joint study has taken place.

The Government of Bangladesh has sent several note Verbales to the Government of
India on the issue and requested to provide some data and information related to design
And operation of the Tipimukh Dum project to study the environmental impact on Bangladesh. Bangladesh did not receive the said information till now.

The issue was also discussed in the 35th and 36th meeting of the JRC. In the 36th meeting
Of JRC, Bangladesh side requested the Indian side to refrain from construction of the
Tipaimukh Dum. In reply the Indian side stated that the project had no component for
Irrigation through which the waters of Bank river could be withdrawn. Rather is the Dum is built it would mitigate the sufferings of flood in Bangladesh and would provide extra
Water in the flow of the river Barak /Surma and Kushiyara in Bangladesh during dry season. The Bangladesh side wanted to be assured that there would not be any diversion of waters from fulertal or elsewhere on the Barak river.The Indian side Conveyed and
Assurance that they did not intend to construct any diversion structure at Fluertal.

It has been learnt from the newspaper that foundation stone of the Tipimukh Dum project
Has been laid down by the to cabinet minister of the Government of India on 16th December, 2006.

Coopration among Bangladesh India and Nepal

Most part of the Ganges catchment and the potential reservoir sites are located in Nepal
And India .Due to availability of high water holding capacity of monsoon flows in the
Potential reservoirs sites of Nepal there is excellent opportunity to create storage reservoirs which would augment the dry season Ganges flows at farakka.Bangladesh
Carried out studies on the basis of available data and information on the prospects of
Harnessing the Water resources of the Ganges through storage reservoirs in Nepal. On the basis of this studies Bangladesh proposed in 1983 construction of seven large dams
At chisapani, kaligandaki-1, kaligandaki-2, Trisulganga, Seti, Sapt-kosi and Pancheswar in Nepal which could augment the dry season flows of the Ganges by 1656 cumec(58,481Cusecs)if built at normal height and by 5338 cumec (188,510cusecs)if the
Dums at chisapani ,Trisulganga,Seti and Sapt-kosi are built above normal height.

Consequent to the devastating floods of 1987 and 1988 in Bangladesh ,a Bangladesh Nepal joint study team in their Report on Flood mitigation Measures and Multipurpose
Use of water resources”identified 30 (thirty) potential reservoir sites in Nepal capable
Of augmenting together the dry season flows of the Ganges to the vicinity of 175000 cusecs. The potential sites,referred to above provide the opportunity to construct dums
For storing excess water in the Himalayas for a variety of downstream uses.The construction involves high costs has a long gestation period .Hence by definition ,they
Are multipurpose in nature providing benefits (beyond national borderes)in areas of power generation ,flood moderation ,dry season flows augmentation ,irrigation and
Navigation .The hydropower potential of about 36000 Megawatts installed capacity of these reservoir sites is the most significant aspect of water development in this region.

Cooperation among Bangladesh, India and Bhutan

Bangladesh, India, Bhutan and China are the four co-basin countries in the Brahmaputra. According to the available information, in the Brahmaputra Master Plan of India (1986) 18 storage sites in northeastern India have been identified, five of which are classified as large, having a total gross storage capacity of 80 BCM.

The Sankosh is a tributary to the Brahmaputra originating in Bhutan. The Sankosh multipurpose dam project on the Sankosh river in Bhutan is proposed to be implemented jointly by India and Bhutan. The proposed project would generate about 1500 mega watts of power. This project is expected to give other benefits like navigation, fisheries and tourism. Bangladesh may also be involved in this initiative with India and Bhutan.

Another project that could be taken up for implementation through mutual cooperation among Bhutan, India and Bangladesh is Manas Multipurpose Project. The Manas originates in Bhutan and it is a major tributary to the Brahmaputra.

Initiatives in the SAARC

Pursuant to an understanding reached among the Foreign Secretaries of Bangladesh, India, Nepa’ and Bhutan at New Delhi in December, 1996 to undertake sub-regional economic cooperation among the four countries, the first meeting at the Foreign Secretaries Level was held at Kathmandu on 2 April, 1997. The Foreign Secretaries reaffirmed the commitment of their Government to pursue sub-regional economic cooperation for accelerating economic growth, overcoming infrastructural constraints, developing and making optimal use of complementarities.

It was agreed in the meeting that the objective of the growth quadrangle is to create an enabling environment for rapid economic development through identification and implementation of specific projects of cooperation in the core economic sectors including optimal and sustainable utilization of natural resource endowments.

The Kathmandu Meeting identified seven broad areas of cooperation for which specific projects would be prepared. The meeting decided that in Phase-I of the Plan of Action, working groups will be set up to examine and recommend specific projects. The meeting further decided to assign coordinating responsibilities to each of the four countries with Bangladesh taking responsibility for sectoral studies on natural resources and energy;

Bhutan for environment; India for trade and investment and Nepal for tourism and multi­model transportation and communication.

In the Ninth SAARC Summit held at Male in 1997 and again in Colombo in 1998, the Heads of State of Government reiterated their determination to reinforce the unity and cohesion of SAARC With the objective of enhancing regional solidarity and promoting overall development within SAARC, the Heads of State or Government encouraged, under the provisions of Article VII and X of the Charter, the development of specific projects relevant to the special individual needs of three or more Members States (para 6 of the Declaration).

As the designated coordinator for sectoral studies in the fields of natural resources and energy, Bangladesh would be responsible for preparing concept papers on possible specific projects in the field of optimal utilization of common natural resources including water resources of the Eastern Himalayan rivers of the growth quadrangle and the energy sector.

In the 14`” SAARC Summit held in March 2007 at New Delhi, the Prime Minister of India Dr. Monmohan Singh in his address said, “We have agreed to make tangible progress in the next six months on four issues which affect our people’s daily lives; water (including flood control), energy, food and the environment. We will work with international agencies to develop and implement viable cross-border regional projects in these four sectors, which address our people’s basic needs”. This statement once again opens the windows of oppcrtunit1es of the regional cooperation for harnessing and development of the water resources of this region.

India’s Mega Plan for interlinking its rivers:

India proposed a plan for interlinking rivers for transferring waters from the north to south in its bid to resolve the water scarcity problem in south India within a period of 10-years. Under this plan 30 links have been envisaged to connect 37 rivers for providing the inter-linkage at a cost of Indian Rs. 560,000 crores which is approximately about US$ 113 billion. The plan envisages transfer of water of the Ganges and its tributaries to Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujrat. Similarly it also plans to divert the waters of the Brahmaputra and its tributaries to the Ganges and from there to the Godavari, Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery basins through Subrnarekha in West Bengal and Mahanadi of Orissa.

The then Indian President H. E. A P J Abdul Kalam in his address to the nation on the eve of the Indian Independence Day on 14t” August, 2002, pointed out the fact that while some states are perpetually facing drought, others are ravaged by floods every year. This prompted senior advocate Ranjit Kumar of India to file a copy of the President’s speech along with an application in a Public Interest Litigation before the Indian Supreme Court with an application in a public interest litigation before the Indian Supreme Court. The application filed in August 2002, thus, raised the issue of networking of rivers for the first time. A bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India, B N Kirpal, viewed the case as an independent writ petition and ruled that there should be inter-linking of rivers in India. Justice Kirpal also set a 10-year deadline for implementing the project. A brief six-page order passed on October 31 formed the basis on which the Indian government has set up a high­povv2red task force.

Over the centuries the waters of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra and their tributaries and distributaries have been playing the pervasive role in sustaining the life and living in Bangladesh. In fact, the Brahmaputra and the Ganges provide more than 85% of the total surface water available in Bangladesh during the dry season. Of the two, the Brahmaputra provides 67% water. The waters of these two river provide water for drinking, domestic and municipal water supply, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, industries, navigation and maintenance of the ecological balance in vast areas of this country inhabiting more than 100 million people.

Bangladesh apprehends that any transfer of water from the Ganges and the Brahmaputra and their tributaries would cause irreparable and permanent damage to this country. The waters of the Ganges and the Brahmaputra act as lifeblood for the people and the environment of the whole reglon The integrity of the river systems would be threatened by the project The river inter-linking project would also constitute a transfer of real resources from the most impoverished areas of South Asia, exacerbating the poverty situation and r~,ens,fyi!~g regional disparities.

Eminent experts around the world, including Indians, are of the opinion that since the Ganges and the Brahmaputra are both glacier-fed rivers, massive transfer of water of these rivers would not be sustainable, with the possibility of serious adverse effects for the whole region The project might also induce or, trigger movement of populations, with unforeseeable consequences. Furthermore, in the face of severe pollution of ground water by arsenic in the country, Bangladesh has no alternative source of fresh water other than these two rivers to meet the ever-increasing demands. Any reduction of the flows of these rivers would therefore endanger the life of millions and threaten the environment of Bangladesh. Again the massive intervention with the natural regime of the major international river systems would remove the assured basis of development planning in the water and related sectors in Bangladesh and would create serious problems.

Joint Rivers Basin Management

There are immense possibilities of converting waters of the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Meghna and other trans-boundary rivers into wealth. While so much could have been done, achievement in terms of sharing and management of water resources of these rivers through mutual cooperation has not been encouraging. The establishment of Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission in 1972 had kindled great expectations amongst the teeming millions of the region traversed by these great rivers. Progress towards mutual cooperation has been impeded in the past by reasons, which could have been overcome with unbiased attitude and sincere efforts.

In the interest of all, the political and conceptual problems now need to be more purposefully addressed especially as the underlying commonality of interests in the waters of the common rivers is overwhelming. The tremendous growth of population in the South-Asian region focus to the complexity of issues related to ensuring food security, providing adequate and safe drinking water and sanitation services, stimulating the economy, and preserving the environment. Satisfying these needs would no doubt be a challenging task.

It must be realized that water is a very important vector for development that would shape the future of millions of people living in this region. Their future would depend on collective and individual choices and actions. The vision should address water-sector transcending issues such as water pollution and the links to public health, the loss of essential environmental functions; flooding and the cost to society in terms of public health, and loss of economic assists climate change and the potential links to loss of socio-economic assets and environmental functions This vision would help to clarify the options available for India and Bangladesh to negotiate water sharing agreements and to establish mechanisms for joint river basin management with other co-basin countries like China, Nepal and Bhutan. The experiences of the last three decades, the ongoing transformation of society, and the project regional population growth coupled with expectation of the people to improve the quality of their life or at least the life of their children dernands all the co-basin countries of the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, the Meghna and other rivers to face challenges of this century and formulate options for action.

It is important that the countries adopt such a framework to guide their efforts at reaping the benefits of cooperation, which is bound to be positive sum win-win for all. Now, will the countries act together to forge ahead together? The choice is obvious. Because working together within an integrated framework offers a robust pathway that can, in the future, ensure human dignity to the teeming millions of the region.

Tasks Ahead

Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Bhutan - four countries of the Eastern Himalayan Region offer vast opportunities for optimal water resources development and management through Collaborative efforts. Cooperative development can make it possible to achieve multiple benefits, which have the potential to bring about the social and economic transformation of the poorest of the poor of the Eastern Himalayan region. This region of the world is too poor to afford further loss of time. High levels of poverty, poor social and physical infrastructure, a deteriorating environment attribute to natural and man-made causes, a lack of political will to overcome transboundary dissension and recurring natural disasters characterizes this region. The countries in the Eastern Himalayan region lag behind the rest of South Asia in economic and social development indicators The key to prosperity in the region is basin wide development of the rivers following the principles of Integrated Water Resources Management. There is an immediate need for a pragmatic approach to the management of water resources in the region. For this it is needed that time bound targets are set for formulation and implementation of appropriate plans. Once time-bound targets are set, every possible effort should be made to achieve them. For this political commitments of the leadership of the countries concerned are required. This would indeed create proper climate to go ahead with the targets set forth and bring in effective and immense benefits to the people living in the countries of the region. The Governments of the Eastern Himalayan countries would, therefore, need to agree on a broad framework for regional cooperation.

Indeed the challenges ahead are complex and formidable but with the necessary political will and pragmatism, we can surely face them and usher in a new phase of cooperation in the region. Our policy makers have to broaden their vision and rise above their short-term narrow national interests in favour of longer-term regional interests.

Bangladesh and Counter-Terrorism Efforts within South Asia

By Muhammad Zamir

Terrorism and terrorists have their own concept of grammar. They define their ideas, objectives and behaviour on the basis of denotations and connotations that are totally different from the generally accepted norms of civilized society. For them, ends justify means. Their continued action and response are not always logical or rational. However, within this complex scenario, lies a method in their madness.

The biggest strength the terrorists have is unpredictability and their single-minded devotion towards the creation of fear and indiscriminate terror within the body politic of a country. They have two other significant advantages. They do not follow established law or constitutional provisions. This automatically reduces the prospect of accountability within their system. The other aspect relates to raising of funds required for carrying on their campaign of asymmetrical warfare. In most cases, as in Colombia and Myanmar, this has been facilitated through a nexus with criminal elements.

Terrorists usually also have another thing in common. They are basically disciplined and are conditioned to being secretive in their decision making process. Ethnic and religious divides also, most often, emerge as crucial elements. This ensures loyalty within their system and total obedience.

The above elements have found expression, in the contemporary scene, in various areas of the world- the Middle East, Latin America, Europe, Africa and also in South Asia. In the process, terrorist groups have morphed and evolved over time. Their objectives have also changed. Some have sought cover for their activities under the cloak of religion, patriotism and liberation. Others have branded themselves as fighters associated in the quest of eradicating poverty, mis-governance or economic disparities.

We have had our homegrown terrorists in South Asia for quite some time. Areas affected include the northeastern and northwestern parts of India, Nepal, several provinces in Pakistan, Sri Lanka and also Bangladesh. The authorities in these countries have sometimes claimed that terrorist activities taking place in their respective territories have been made possible through active support and planning originating in another neighbouring country. Such suggestions have however been denied on every occasion. This has obviously been done to refute any suggestion of extra-territorial state sponsored terrorism or failure of a state to contain extra-territorial activities of a terrorist group situated within its borders.

Time has now come for all of us in South Asia to understand that terrorism as a factor works against the interests of the region. Pious declarations in Summit conferences are not enough. Hands-on cooperation, sharing of intelligence and other information are required to ensure effective counter-terrorism initiatives. Mutual suspicion must be replaced by coordination in terms of policy. This will be the only way to protect the rights of citizens.

Bangladesh has always been firm in its stated principles about combating terrorism. We should not hesitate to be the first among equals in this regard. This will also be a good confidence-building measure for South Asia and the SAARC process, which now also encompasses the troubled country of Afghanistan.

It would be useful in this context to analyse how counter-terrorism and police cooperation is being pursued as a policy by the European Union. South Asia may like to emulate some of the steps taken there.

Since the attacks in New York, London and Madrid, the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy has become a crosscutting policy in all the EU’s institutions. The objective of EU’s counter-terrorism policy could generally be described as confronting the network of terror with networks against terror. They are attempting to achieve this through prevention, protection, pursuit and response measures. Before 9/11, counter-terrorism had been included in the EU’s judicial and domestic policy, but following that date, it has now been re-classified as a decisive crosscutting task of security policy to be included in all EU policy strands.

The EU’s activities in this field include the European Arrest Warrant, the introduction of joint investigation teams and the compilation of a list of people, groups or entities considered as possible terrorist threats. As expected, such a policy has not been totally criticism free. Some activists have pointed out that there is a likelihood of human rights violations within such a counter-terrorism matrix, particularly with regard to freedom of movement, speech, demonstrations and securing of justice. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned elements of EU’s counter-terrorism now play a central role in the European Security and Defence Policy.

The EU has also created the post of EU Personal Representative for Counter Terrorism and has adopted more than 160 horizontal measures. This includes encouraging exchanges between Europol and the Joint Situation Center (SitCen) and extending cooperation beyond EU borders. Priority is also being accorded towards establishing of flexible intelligence cooperation between the EU-G6 (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the UK) and the adoption of the Prum Treaty to prevent cross-border terrorism.

The process that is underway in Europe has still not been successfully completed. This has been partially due to Member States shying away from integrating policies into their own structures and legislation, particularly when they are seen as being counter to their national policies. The 27 Member EU has also run into another difficulty in their counter-terrorism effort viewed against the backdrop of established democratic traditions. Some states have openly expressed fears about anti-terrorist networks because they feel that this might eventually lead to loss of sovereignty, lack of accountability and disregard for personal rights. They think that the main EU actors in coordination with the principal EU institutions should, as a first step, set up trust-building exercises through regular political dialogue. This, they believe, would be the best way forward to combat terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. In this context, it has also been suggested that there could be enhanced exchange of information through cross-border sharing of DNA databases and fingerprinting.

Nevertheless despite all the teething difficulties, the EU is steadily moving forward in finding least common denominators in their common effort to counter terrorism and terrorist acts. We have to do the same within South Asia.

It was therefore heartening to note some of the reports coming out from the recently concluded SAARC Home Secretaries Conference convened in New Delhi last month. They have addressed an important issue- that of bilateral agreements on mutual assistance in criminal matters. A SAARC Convention on this subject, if approved, will establish a legal basis for regional cooperation with regard to uprooting the causes of crimes. It will then make available suspects for investigation, interrogation, enable the restraint and seizure of the proceeds and instruments of crime and facilitate the locating, freezing and confiscating of funds meant for acts of terrorism in the territory of either Party or within the region of SAARC.

In South Asia, we should consider counter-terrorism, as a process that will require political will. I have mentioned in the previous paras that even a more advanced society like Europe is finding the way forward difficult. We, in South Asia in general, and in Bangladesh in particular, also have a tough task ahead. There are many ramifications that have to be addressed with vigour through public debate and democratic scrutiny. Proposals and ideas have to be tested in the field before they can become part of domestic legislation in all the SAARC countries. The SAARC Secretariat will also have to be dovetailed in this ambitious journey.

Our efforts till now appear to have been restricted more to rhetoric than action. What we need is a conscious decision on the part of all members of SAARC to fully commit themselves into this exercise. This needs to include expeditious extradition arrangement of terrorists and criminals. They should not be allowed to feel safe in another State’s territory or jail. We have to rise over narrow national and parochial interests. India, as the current Chairperson should play a defining role in this regard.

We have to remember that future foreign investment; economic development, poverty reduction and good governance in this region will depend on true and meaningful cooperation and coordination between the States. We will have questions but answers will also have to be found.

Terrorist groups have their own individual agenda and their priorities are not always consistent with national or regional goals. In Bangladesh, we have taken on the task of counter-terrorism through sincere measures against some terrorist groups like the JMB. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. We have to work together to stifle the supply of oxygen that helps to keep such misdirected groups alive. Through practical cooperation, we have to prioritize the areas of desired action, and then, after necessary public debate and scrutiny, initiate domestic and regional legislation and the supporting framework for this purpose.

About the Author

Muhammad Zamir, a former career diplomat, has worked as Ambassador in various countries in Europe- Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. He has also been Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, FAO, the World Food Programme, International Fund for Agricultural Development and the European Communities. He has also been Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Educated in Dhaka where he specialized in literature and law, he also studied Arabic and International Relations at the British Middle East Center for Arabic Studies in Shemlan, Lebanon, International Humanitarian Law in Geneva, Switzerland and Peace and Security Studies in Uppsala, Sweden During his association with diplomacy for nearly thirty-four years, he has served in diplomatic assignments in Beirut, Cairo, Tehran, Tripoli, Ottawa, Bangkok, London, Jeddah, Rome and Brussels.

He presently practices law as an Advocate in the Chamber of Dr. Zahir and Associates, Dhaka. He is also the President of the Bangladesh Folklore Research Center, the Vice President, Center for Democracy and Vice President, Bangladesh Water Partnership. He has published eight books dealing with Human Rights and International Law, Islamic Theology, Adages in Bengali, contemporary international issues and subjects of importance to Bangladesh and South Asia. He has also published a book of poetry.

He contributes op-ed columns both in Bangladesh and abroad. Some of the publications where they have appeared or the web pages where they have/he has been referred to or reprinted are given below- The Daily Star, Holiday, The Dhaka Courier, Dawn, Ittefaq, Sangbad, Ajker Kagoj, The New Age, The Independent, News Today, The New Nation, The Brunei Times, The Himalayan Times, Asia Media.

War on Terror

By Kazi Anwarul Masud( former Secretary and ambassador)

Increasingly the Americans are realizing what the world had realized long ago that the “war on terror” has been lost. As Philip Gordon (of Foreign policy Studies) points out that almost entirely missing from the debate is the concept of what would constitute “victory” in the war on terror as there is no army to be defeated nor is the enemy can be sighted. Gordon feels that victory will come not when the enemies have been eliminated but when political changes eroding the ideology that threatens the West has been defeated and totally discredited. It is not so much Osama bin Laden who has to be killed but the Islamic extremism that threatens both the developed and the developing world including the Muslim states that has to be destroyed.

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was justifiably exasperated enough to issue his now famous memo to his top aides that underlined the lack of metrics to know whether the US was winning or losing the war on terror. He wondered whether the madrashas and radical clerics were producing more terrorists than what the US was “capturing or killing or deterring or dissuading”. Particularly after the tragic events of nine-eleven many scholars and analysts throughout the world have delved deeply into this phenomenon­terrorism­which liberal thinker Paul Berman concludes as an old scourge in new clothing. Berman finds that terrorism springs from the same sources as fascism did because al-Qaida and radical Islam are driven by the fear and hatred of liberal ideas of tolerance and rejects the “hideous schizophrenia” of Western attempts at dividing state from religion and promoting individual freedom which is seen by the extremists as effectively encouraging the societal degeneration to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah and therefore as prime candidates for God’s wrath. Unfortunately for many Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis who has the ears of Bush administration as Henry Kissinger had of Nixon administration traces the current spate of terrorism as the present incarnation of centuries old Muslim rage against Christian “infidels” for displacing the Muslims from temporal ascendancy and becoming a contestant for spiritual supremacy. Lewis’ thesis describes Islam as a doctrine that rejects modernity and is thus placed in a continual clash with Judeo-Christian civilizations. Such deterministic viewpoint is comparable to McCarthyism’s misdiagnosis of the “red menace” by lumping together then Soviet, Chinese and Third World’s nationalism into one monolithic and inseparable threat (Parameters­Summer 2004). The great danger of Lewis’ thesis is not only that it indicates falsification of Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the triumph of liberal democracy over Cold War totalitarianism but also validates Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations premise by pitching the western world against billion odd Muslims inhabiting in more than fifty countries of the globe. Such sweeping generalization not only misses some of the fundamental differences between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim worlds but also the raging conflict within the Muslim world for the soul of Islam. Walter Lacquer who charted out a distinguished career for himself by studying terrorism for decades and long before nine-eleven found terrorists among the Bolsheviks, Tamil Tigers and the IRA thus dispelling the prevailing conventional wisdom that terrorism is Islam-specific or even religion-specific. As any cursory glance at the history of terrorism will demonstrate that its lineage dates back long before the advent of Islam and terrorism as an instrument of politico-religious statement has been used by the Jews (zealots-sciari), Hindus (Thugees), Muslims (assasins-hashisins), and Christians (Inquisition and IRA). But historically terrorism has not been a continuous phenomenon and did not get currency till British philosopher Edmund Burke demonize the French Revolution (1789) and even then its motivation was mostly political and secular. The renaissance of religious terrorism was partly caused by the vacuum left by the demise of communism, which was not filled up by the benefits promised by liberal democracy. Indeed Francis Fukuyama had conceded that the revival of religion in “some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerist societies”. This unhappiness was acutely felt through out the developing world and in particular in the Muslim world housing about one and a half billion people. G-8 and the expanded G-10 do not include a single Muslim country (it is understood the measure of inclusion is not religion based) and G-20 (founded in 1999) has among the emerging economies Turkey and Indonesia. While in the case of Turkey President Bush’s call for its inclusion in the European Union was seen as uncalled for American intrusion and interference, Indonesia in post-Suharto era is swimming in the cauldron of political instability and economic woes.

Immanuel Kant’s proposal for the formation of a federation or “League” of the world’s nations which would allow countries to unite and punish any nation guilty of an act of aggression through what is sometimes referred to as collective security briefly came to life when the League of Nations was formed. But the League failed to live up to the Kantian expectation of a federation that would protect the rights of small nations who get caught in the power struggle of bigger nations mainly because several of the major countries, notably the United States, were not members while others who were members failed to oppose the aggressions by Japan, Germany and Italy which caused the outbreak of the Second World War. In 1942 twenty-two nations coalition against German-Japanese-Italian axis powers signed a Declaration of the United Nations (the name coined by President Franklin Roosevelt) accepting the principles of the Atlantic Charter (earlier signed by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.). A year later four war time allies­the US, Britain, the Soviet Union and China­agreed to establish an international organization which eventually became the United Nations in October 1945. This sojourn into history was necessary to comprehend fully the frustration and restlessness that has gripped the international community following the apparent failure of the United Nations to prevent intervention in Kosovo (though generally supported by the world at large except legal orthodox) and aggression on Iraq (described as an unjust war by the international community and now being resisted by the Iraqis to free themselves from Anglo-American occupation). The essence of both the League of Nations and the UN lay in the universal expectation for security from aggression by others. It is not true that the paralysis of the UN has suddenly been discovered in the post-Cold War era. Indeed the invocation of article 51 of the UN Charter which provided for “ the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against member of the United Nations” as a justification of the establishment of NATO notwithstanding; the real cause behind NATO’s birth was the protection of “our cherished freedoms” (in the words of John Foster Dulles) with military defense, religious faith and demonstration of western political and social system as counter-attraction to Communism. Inherent in this western move was their belief in the inadequacy of the UN security system and the paralysis of the Security Council caused by the use of veto powers by the USSR. In the 1946-89 period out of 232 vetoes cast 113 were cast by the USSR as against 68 by the US, 29 by Britain, and 18 by France. Most of the Soviet vetoes were cast at the initial period of the UN. This led Canada’s Lester Pearson to conclude that “development within the UN itself and partly because of the menacing state of affairs which has developed in the world” the UN clearly was not capable of meeting the threat to international peace and security which the western powers felt was gathering at that time (1949).

If the UN Charter were to be considered as the constitution of the world committed to the maintenance of international peace and security with the Security Council given the responsibility to determine the existence of any threat to peace and decide on measures to suppress international lawlessness then any departure from the normative doctrine of international peace causes international concern. This concern becomes palpable as strain increases between the forces trying to guard against any attack on nation-state sovereignty as against the doctrine of human security enunciated in the mid-1990s by the Commission on Global Governance by refusing to confine the concept of security exclusively to the protection of states ignoring the interests of the people in whose name sovereignty is exercised. Additional strain has been put by an era of globalization turning into an era of American-westernization of international concerns. Kofi Anan alluded to this strain in the Hague Appeal for Peace in 1999 by expressing his worry at “the inability of states to reconcile national interests when skillful and visionary diplomacy would make unity possible”. He urged for the revision of the concept of national interest that has failed to keep in step with the profound global changes following the end of the Cold War. Kofi Anan’s appeal was for subordinating national interest-guided policy to the rule of law. But the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed irreversibly any American pretension to subject its actions to the dictates of international law. This was made abundantly clear by President Bush in September 2002 when he declared his determination to seek unilateral redress should the UN fail to act to meet then perceived twin threat of terrorism and of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I n his quest to punish the perpetrators of 9/11 attacks President Bush received solidarist support of the American people and of the international community. So when the Talibans were driven out the entire world either applauded or acquiesced with NATO assault led by the US on Afghanistan though it was the first time that NATO’s operation was out of the traditionally accepted area regarded as “out-of-the-area” operation. This became obligatory as NATO for the first time in its history invoked article 5 of its charter that effectively translated 9/11 attacks on the US as attack on all NATO members. Besides Afghanistan war could be construed as having UNSC blessings because the Security Council had established that terrorists may be considered as agents of the state that harbor them and made it illegal to sponsor or shelter terrorists. So the Taliban regime’s refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network to the international community made Afghanistan vulnerable to international reprisal. In Kosovo case, however, UNSC paralysis due to veto threat from Russia and China necessitating NATO intervention called into question UNSC capacity to perform its functions and revived anew the debate for its reforms. Reforms suggested are basically the following: - (a) an increase in the number of elected members retaining the five permanent members; (b) two more permanent members (Japan and Germany) and three more elected from Asia, Africa and Latin America; and (c) “semi-permanent members” with no veto power. There is almost universal appreciation of the fact that the present composition of the UNSC and veto power of P-5 reflective of the situation following the Second World War needs reforms. Former UNSG Butros Ghali observed in his Agenda for Democratization that the UN had little moral authority to preach democracy to the outside world when it was not practicing it in its own backyard. It is often pointed out that four out of five permanent members are “European” (a concept that includes the US) and “industrialized” countries, the latter argument that goes against Japan’s inclusion while in its entirety the argument works against Germany. Besides, Argentina, Mexico and Pakistan question the choice of Brazil and India to be taken in as permanent members. Despite differences over future composition of the UNSC among member states its democratization is essential to arrest the increasing trend towards unilateralism. One has to bear in mind President Bush’s warning of the UN becoming irrelevant if it failed to act on Iraq as of the recent US Congress resolution on Sudan urging Bush administration to act unilaterally in the UN failed to act to meet the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Kofi Anan’s mild chastisement of President Bush that only the UN can lend unique legitimacy to military intervention fell on deaf ears of the Bush administration. But then one must recognize the fact of irreversible change in the global construct in the post-Cold War era in terms of nation-state’s responsibility not only in its conduct of inter-state relations but also its treatment of its own people for retaining sovereignty.

In this context Tony Blair’s enunciation of the Doctrine of International Community (in April 1999) becomes relevant. Referring to Kosovo as a just war based not on territorial ambition but on values, Blair’s doctrine contained the explicit recognition that states nowadays were mutually dependent and the national interests of states were to a significant degree governed by international collaboration. Blair’s doctrine is essentially aimed at breaking down insularity of states and furthering politico-economic collaboration among states based on the values of liberty, democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and an open society. This automatically meant that dictators every where were put on notice that their minority rule (Saddam Hussein), ethnic cleansing (Milosevic), undemocratic rule (in many countries of the world) were not acceptable and the international community (mainly the West) would not stand idly by while disharmonious domestic rule and aberrant international conduct continued unabated. Tony Blair had no doubts in his mind that intervention in Kosovo was just and delayed action in Rwanda was an unforgivable moral lapse. His doctrine was not meant to be confined to Europe or the West but would have universal applicability. It was obvious that in the application of this doctrine the instrument of humanitarian intervention would be necessary. Tony Blair was, however, acutely aware of the centrality of the UN in this quest for a world ruled by law and international cooperation. But for the UN to play a central role the organization and particularly the Security Council had to be reformed enabling it to respond effectively to the challenges of the Twenty First century. Blair allowed that for too long non-intervention has remained inviolable and sacrosanct in the UN Charter. And he argued that acts of genocide and large scale abuse of human rights producing massive flow of refuges (from then East Pakistan into adjoining states of India and currently from Darfur into Chad) could be described as threat to international peace and security. Therefore the UN Charter needed to be amended to include humanitarian grounds as part of international law sanctioning intervention in serious cases. Blair’s doctrine of international community, writes Professor Robert Jackson of Boston University, is an interventionist doctrine that connects national security and international security with human security in foreign countries. Blair’s doctrine, Jackson adds, is descendant of the old European standard of civilization and in calling for UN reforms Tony Blair not only questioned the principle of inviolability relating to non-intervention but also recommended that the basic UN doctrine of equal sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-intervention would be subject to qualification and revision.

Butros Ghali in his Agenda for Democratization laid emphasis on promoting democracy within the architecture of the UN as the world’s largest and most inclusive organization. He felt for a clear need for an organization in which all principal organs function in balance and harmony. While Butros Ghali’s prescription would have been ideal in the changed circumstances prevailing in the world today both the developed and the developing countries should join hands in rewriting the UN Charter that would be capable of meeting the politico-economic challenges of the Twenty First century.

As globalization is blurring the traditional inter-state boundaries and increasing interdependence at the intra and inter-state levels the need for the promotion of global democracy has gained paramount importance. Conventional wisdom tells us that democracies do not wage wars against one another. The reason for this reticence in the use of force is not difficult to find. As opposed to totalitarian regimes the checks and balances inherent in the democratic societies control the impulse of a single or a group of individuals to opt for conflict. Such a Kantian world of perpetual peace would have been idyllic live in. But since the world is divided into many segments ranging from post-industrial to pre-industrial societies, the issue at stake is who can best promote global democracy. The UN with its legitimacy and perceived impartiality becomes an instant candidate. But since the seed of democratic culture has to be nurtured by indigenous forces the UN can only provide assistance in the building of democratic institutions. Dictation of democratic culture by exogenous forces/actors is generally faced with obstruction because the target countries perceive it as attack on their sovereignty. Iran is a case in point. Iranian theocracy based on the notion of velayet-e-faqih (principle of clerical supremacy) and reportedly rejected by a large number of Iranians (most Iranians are under the age of thirty years) has not been dislodged from its preeminent position in governance though the unelected 12 member Guardian Council have prevented more than three thousand candidates from contesting the February General Elections, a decision protested by more than one hundred pro-reform members of parliament, because both President Khatami and former President Rafsanjani’s opposition to hardliner clerics is one of degree of Islamic extremism, and more importantly due to public belief that opposition movement is actually an American conspiracy against the sovereignty of Iran. This strand of reasoning is further strengthened by former National Security Advisor Sandy Burger’s observation that President Bush’s speech urging political freedom in Muslim countries was met with skepticism and disdain. Across the Middle East, Sandy Burger adds, President Bush’s words did little to improve popular perception about the US as a bully and its pronouncements as hypocritical.

Besides the Iraq war has demonstrated that the world at large is still reluctant to see neighboring dictators being toppled since many rulers guilty of similar sins and living in glass houses are hesitant to cast stones upon the guilty. They take comfort in the security blanket provided in the facts that the Iraq war without UN sanction not only violated the salience of the UN Charter but also provisions of international law which as ratified treaties are also part of the “supreme law of he land” according to the US Constitution. Critics of Iraq war refuse to give Anglo-US misadventure legitimacy because of the absence of plausible and imminent Iraqi threat to international peace and security (thus refusing to accept Bush doctrine of preemption) and further accuses President Bush of having decided on regime change in Iraq long before he became President of USA. They cite the report by neo-con think tank Project for New American Century of September 2000 prepared by now Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior members of Bush administration articulating plans for attacking Iraq to achieve regime change. American muscularity has also been criticized on the ground of use of excessive force that is contrary to the principle of proportionality usually followed in just war. Maarti Ahari, former Finnish President had observed that Iraq had already been bombed to a pre-industrial age during the First Gulf War and the subsequent bombardment must have resulted in considerable death and destruction. Iraq episode is generally recognized as a failure of the UN system in the face of American unipolarity. This was apparent by October 2002 when the US Congress authorized President Bush to go to war without getting prior approval of the UNSC.A senior US official had bluntly said at that time that the US did not need the UN Security Council.

The UNSC resolution 1441 of November 2002which found Iraq to be “material breach” of the previous resolutions and warned Iraq once again of “serious consequences” did not explicitly authorize the use of force. American patience wore out soon enough and the US in February 2003 wanted UNSC to pass a resolution authorizing use of force, an attempt blocked by France, Russia and China. Consequently the UNSC was deadlocked on Iraq issue. But Michael Glennon of the Fletchers School of Diplomacy pointed out that in reality the UNSC’s fate had been sealed long before as a result of the shift in world power toward a configuration that was simply incompatible with the way the UN was meant to function. It was the rise in American unipolarity, observes Glennon, not the Iraq crisis along with cultural clashes and differing attitudes regarding the use of force that gradually eroded the credibility of the UNSC. Iraq war also signaled the failure of the French, Russian and Chinese efforts since the end of the Cold War to return the world to a more balanced system. The French in particular wanted a multipolar world in which Europe would act as a counter weight to American political and military power. Effectively if the UNSC was paralyzed by Cold War bipolarity, American unipolarity encouraged the US to bypass the Council.

Regardless of one’s preference or lack of it relating to unquestionable American preeminence in the present global construct realism dictates that international efforts be directed to induce the US to follow a strategy of partnership which is also advocated by Colin Powell. In a piece contributed to Foreign Affairs magazine (Jan/Feb 2004) Colin Powell denied that US strategy was unilateralist by design, imbalanced in favor of military methods and obsessed with terrorism and hence biased towards preemptive wars on a global scale. Powell asserted that preemption applied only to undeterrable threats that came from non-state actors such as terrorist groups. He declared that Bush administration’s strategy was one of partnership that strongly affirmed the role of NATO and the UN. But the ground reality appears to be that the US despite daily occurrence of rebellion in Iraq against foreign occupation remain reluctant to give UN the central role in drawing up the future political architecture of Iraq and command of an international stabilization and peace keeping force. The Saudi proposal of stationing an international force drawn from Muslim countries has drawn flak because possible participants insist on troops to be under UN rather than US command. So the preference for the UN over the US remains the outstanding global choice today because American muscularity has not united rather has divided the world into sharply distinct camps. The global preference mentioned earlier has found support in Anne-Marie Slaughter’s (of Princeton University) observation that UNSC remains the preferred destination for undertaking collective actions because legitimacy and weight of preventive measures endorsed by the UN makes it easier to carry them out. She, however, advocates that in the case of UNSC paralysis the next step should be the regional organization that is most likely to be affected by the emerging threat (e.g. African Union in the Darfur crisis case). Failing which, Slaughter argues, organizations like NATIO that may have less direct connection with the emerging threat but has a better cohesive body and resources to encounter the threat should be considered. Only after these options have been exhausted, Anne-Marie Slaughter would consider unilateral action or action by a coalition of the willing.

Given universal recognition of shifting threats from identifiable nation-states to shadowy non-state actors who may be endowed with WMD capability to be used for terrorist purposes, the need for reforms of the UN system can hardly be overstated. It has been argued that in line with the pronouncement by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty of the principle of “the responsibility to protect” victims of massive violation of human rights, genocide, famine or anarchy, the international community, acting through the UN should adopt a collective duty to prevent nations running without internal checks from acquiring or using weapons of mass destruction. Equally after the Cold War as more and more states got willing to look with severity and with less tolerance at other states whose treatment of their own citizens do not measure up to a common minimum standard demanded by democratic system of governance, the principle of humanitarian intervention denied by the UN Charter needed to be revised. The tragic events of 9/11 have added impetus to western quest for democratic governance in countries still under authoritarian/ oligarchic rule where citizens attracted to western political model acutely feel its absence in their own countries where autocratic rulers were tolerated in the past by the West because of strategic reasons (continued supply of oil and/or continuance of military bases) and by their own citizenry due to welfare state provisions made by the rulers. But the gradual erosion of welfare facilities provided by the state has given rise to frustration among the people who now have neither the affluence nor the liberal system that they aspire to have. Such frustration may prove to be fertile ground for recruitment of al-Qaedist elements to the detriment of both the West and the rulers of these islands of autocracy. It is, therefore, not illogical if the western powers having learnt the lethal lessons of 9/11 and other terrorist assaults on their soil were to insist on reforms of the UN system to facilitate their pursuit of emerging threats. But their insistence should be tinged with understanding of the existential differences between civilizations and hence prudential policies should be followed. If Iraq experience is anything to go by then the US should not be overly enthusiastic about the immediate success of its Greater Middle East Initiative. Rulers of many of these countries are used to being “elected” by overwhelming majority of votes in choreographed elections and staying in power for decades. These rulers and the privileged class which have grown around them are unlikely to abdicate the power and privilege they have been enjoying for so long just because the Americans suddenly have had a change of heart to restore democracy in these foreign lands. Besides there is no guarantee that the replacements chosen through flawed system would be any better than the tyrants they replaced. With few exceptions Africa has repeatedly been blessed with rulers ranging from Kleptocrats (Mobutu of Zaire), cannibals (Bokasa of Central African Republic), tyrants (Idi Amin of Uganda), plunderers (Taylor of Liberia) etc. Albeit, Nelson Mandela, Julius Nyerere, Jomo Kenyatta, and Kwame Nkrumah adorned the African firmament. At present western concern with Africa relates more to containing AIDS epidemic than bad governance (Zimbabwe is an exception) per se. Their main concern relates to the Islamic world that somehow refuses to embrace the libertarian values seen by many Islamists as repugnant to the fundamental teachings of Islam. In this context historian Bernard Lewis’ observation that democracy is a parochial custom of the English-speaking people for the conduct of their public affairs that may or may not be suitable for others may not be totally misplaced.

In the ultimate analysis the democratization of the UN and its institutions as called for by Butros Ghali in his Agenda for Democratization is a pressing need and has to be taken into account by the major powers not only to ensure a semblance of distributive justice in the allocation of global resources but also to ensure a conflict free world in which different seemingly competing civilizations can live in peace and harmony.

Donald Rumsfeld was justifiably exasperated. His now famous last October’s memo issued to his top aides that underlined the lack of metrics to know whether the US was winning or losing the war on terror. He wondered whether the madrashas and radical clerics were producing more terrorists than what the US was “capturing or killing or deterring or dissuading”. Particularly after the tragic events of nine-eleven many scholars and analysts throughout the world have delved deeply into this phenomenon­terrorism­which liberal thinker Paul Berman concludes as an old scourge in new clothing. Berman finds that terrorism springs from the same sources as fascism did because al-Qaida and radical Islam are driven by the fear and hatred of liberal ideas of tolerance and rejects the “hideous schizophrenia” of Western attempts at dividing state from religion and promoting individual freedom which is seen by the extremists as effectively encouraging the societal degeneration to the level of Sodom and Gomorrah and therefore as prime candidates for God’s wrath. Unfortunately for many Princeton University historian Bernard Lewis who has the ears of Bush administration as Henry Kissinger had of Nixon administration traces the current spate of terrorism as the present incarnation of centuries old Muslim rage against Christian “infidels” for displacing the Muslims from temporal ascendancy and becoming a contestant for spiritual supremacy. Lewis’ thesis describes Islam as a doctrine that rejects modernity and is thus placed in a continual clash with Judeo-Christian civilizations. Such deterministic viewpoint is comparable to McCarthyism’s misdiagnosis of the “red menace” by lumping together then Soviet, Chinese and Third World’s nationalism into one monolithic and inseparable threat (Parameters­Summer 2004). The great danger of Lewis’ thesis is not only that it indicates falsification of Francis Fukuyama’s declaration of the triumph of liberal democracy over Cold War totalitarianism but also validates Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations premise by pitching the western world against billion odd Muslims inhabiting in more than fifty countries of the globe. Such sweeping generalization not only misses some of the fundamental differences between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim worlds but also the raging conflict within the Muslim world for the soul of Islam. Walter Lacquer who charted out a distinguished career for himself by studying terrorism for decades and long before nine-eleven found terrorists among the Bolsheviks, Tamil Tigers and the IRA thus dispelling the prevailing conventional wisdom that terrorism is Islam-specific or even religion-specific. As any cursory glance at the history of terrorism will demonstrate that its lineage dates back long before the advent of Islam and terrorism as an instrument of politico-religious statement has been used by the Jews (zealots-sciari), Hindus (Thugees), Muslims (assasins-hashisins), and Christians (Inquisition and IRA). But historically terrorism has not been a continuous phenomenon and did not get currency till British philosopher Edmund Burke demonized the French Revolution (1789) and even then its motivation was mostly political and secular. The renaissance of religious terrorism was partly caused by the vacuum left by the demise of communism, which was not filled up by the benefits promised by liberal democracy. Indeed Francis Fukuyama had conceded that the revival of religion in “some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerist societies”. This unhappiness was acutely felt through out the developing world and in particular in the Muslim world housing about one and a half billion people. G-8 and the expanded G-10 do not include a single Muslim country (it is understood the measure of inclusion is not religion based) and G-20 (founded in 1999) has among the emerging economies Turkey and Indonesia. While in the case of Turkey President Bush’s call for its inclusion in the European Union was seen as uncalled for American intrusion and interference, Indonesia in post-Suharto era is swimming in the cauldron of political instability and economic woes.

“The Roots of Muslim Rage”(in the words of Bernard Lewis) are many and varied. Blizzard of speculation and intense forensic investigation has interrogated this question incessantly for the last four years. This was and is necessary. Pew Global Attitude Project of June last year in a survey of Muslim countries found only four percent in Saudi Arabia, six percent in Morocco and Jordan and thirteen percent in Egypt have favorable opinion of the US. Similar pattern holds across the Muslim world. In turn a growing percentage of Americans are getting increasingly suspicious of Muslims and the Islamic world. This situation has possibly not been helped by the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/11 Commission, and Lord Butler’s report­all findings blaming faulty intelligence reports for Iraq invasion but exonerating President Bush and Prime Minister Blair on whose desks the buck stops. In the US understandably the Democrats e.g. Senator Jay Rockefeller wanted to pin down President Bush in order to carry Senator Kerry across the threshold in the November Presidential elections, the Republicans e.g. Senator Pat Robertson would let the buck slide down Bush’s table. Election politics overrides bipartisan interests. In contrast Butler’s report was disappointing. His committee found the intelligence wanting but let Tony Blair off without a slap on the knuckle for leading Britain into war on false pretense. At least Senator Rockefeller was candid enough to admit that had the US Congress known what the American public knows now then the Congress would not have authorized President Bush to go to war.

Despite these ex-post facto admissions the unremitting violence in Iraq and elsewhere is disquieting and particularly harmful for the Muslim Diaspora in the West and the Islamic world in general who are tied to the apron string of the west for the much needed aid, trade and investment. Intra-Islamic world economic transactions have always been negligible and are not expected to increase appreciably. The concept of an Islamic Common Market has remained within the bounds of intellectual exercise for over two decades. Besides the inexorable forces of globalization would not allow economic partition along religious lines nor should even the most rabid theocracy advocate such a disastrous path. One must accept the fact that without interacting with the West the Muslim developing countries would only increase deprivation of their people which would further violent conflict not only with the countries perceived to have caused deprivation but also intra-state conflict where a single ethnic group has taken control of the resources of the country to the detriment of other groups.

In tracing the fault lines of clash of civilizations it is often forgotten that historically sovereignty being based on Christian religion there was no room in Latin Christendom for non-Christians, Christian dissenters, reformers or pagans to be bestowed with sovereignty. A border was drawn to separate the European and Western world of sovereign states from non-western world that were deemed to be unworthy or incapable of sovereignty and therefore were apt candidates for colonization. It is believed that the Muslims having a keener sense of history than their western counterparts often remember the unglorified period of western domination over what they perceived to be their own and hence nursed grievances against the West giving rise to aggrieved nationalism.

For various reasons many countries in the developing world, and Muslim countries are no exception, do not have good memories of colonization/occupation. It is universally recognized that Western occupation of Japan and Germany providing them with security against communist expansion released vast amount of resources to the governments of the two countries for initially infra-structural and later overall development of their economies, which otherwise they would have to spend on their defense. Today Japan is the second largest global economy and Germany is the powerhouse of the European Union. Incidentally both these countries are not deeply wedded to any religious faith (though they are neither atheist nor agnostic) lending force to the argument that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and pace of economic development of any country.

Going back to the essence of this discourse it is imperative that countries like Bangladesh do not give the impression of harboring religious intolerance. While Bangladesh is generally accepted as a moderate Muslim country, aberrant behavior of some of her citizens reflecting a trend of incipient Islamic extremism which go unpunished, are noticed at home and abroad and harm the image of the country. One must not forget that the West’s identification of the twin threats to its security posed by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is seen through the prism of religious intolerance as described in incredibly fascinating fashion by Harvard University’s Jessica Stern of her meetings with religious extremists who are imbibed with the concept of God’s “instructions” to cleanse society through violence. The current salience of “ Islamic Fundamentalism” with its insistence that being a Muslim is the defining principle of belonging to the only true faith which is both universal and transnational makes it imperative for Bangladesh to remain within the bounds of internationally accepted code of conduct. The current salience of “ Islamic Extremism” with its insistence that being a Muslim is the defining principle of belonging to the only true faith which is both universal and transnational makes it imperative for Bangladesh to remain within the bounds of internationally accepted code of conduct and accept, as we have already done at the UN Summit in 2005 the concept of the responsibility to protect as the Westphalian concept of sovereignty enshrined in article 2(7) of the UN Charter about non-violation of territorial integrity has changed along with the threats posed to the world in the 21st century.

About the Author

A career diplomat Kazi Anwarul Masud served as Bangladesh ambassador in Germany, Vietnam, Republic of Korea and Thailand. During his over three decades of diplomatic career he served in the Middle East, in Europe, in South East Asia and the Far East. At home he served as Director General and also as Additional Foreign Secretary. His expertise includes both foreign political and economic relations. A widely traveled person Ambassador Masud has written two books and also works as a columnist for an English language newspaper in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

---