Sunday, November 14, 2010

Mujib's fascism returns to Bangladesh


An image of former Prime Minister of Banglades...
Image via Wikipedia


Police and protesters have fought pitched battles across cities in Bangladesh as a nationwide strike called by the main opposition party brought the country to a standstill. Dozens were injured as police fired rubber bullets and used batons on Sunday to disperse activists of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), who were protesting against the eviction of their leader and two-time prime minister, Begum Khaleda Zia, from her home. Businesses and schools across the country were closed as a result of the shutdown. The strike halted almost all transportation in Dhaka, a city of about 12 million people, just as the majority-Muslim country begins to celebrate the Eid al-Adha holiday.

A former commerce minister was among a dozen injured in Chittagong, the country's main port city, while a police inspector was hit by a small bomb in northern Mymensingh city, local police told the AFP news agency. A police van was burnt by a petrol bomb in Dhaka, where security was tight with at least 10,000 heavily armed policemen and 2,000 members of an elite Rapid Action Battalion out in force, police spokesman Walid Hossain said. Hossain said police swung into action at several sites in the capital, using rubber bullets, tear gas and batons after opposition activists became violent. Eviction BNP supporters have accused the government of harassing Zia following her eviction from the residence she has occupied at army headquarters for around 30 years. Zia's residence in the sprawling compound was leased to her by the government in 1982, after her husband and ex-president, General Ziaur Rahman, was killed in an abortive coup. They had lived in the house for several years.

The current government of Sheikh Hasina Wajed, the prime minister, who leads the centre-left, secular Awami League party, cancelled Zia's lease last year. They intend to build multi-storey buildings for families of army officers killed in a mutiny in a paramilitary unit headquarters in Dhaka. Several thousand protesters skirmished with police close to Zia's residence in the garrison area on Friday as the deadline for the expiration of her lease approached. As Zia was driven from the compound, witnesses and security officials said up to 4,000 protesters armed with sticks and stones set fire to vehicles and attacked officers near the headquarters.

"They broke the front door, cut the grilles and then broke open my bedroom door. They dragged me out and pushed me into a car," Zia said during a live television broadcast, wiping tears from her eyes. "I was forced out with only one clothing. I was humiliated. They evicted me from my house breaking all rules and regulations. They also hit my family members," she said. Zia and her centre-right BNP ran the Bangladeshi government from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to 2006. She was the first female prime minister in Bangladesh's history. After Zia's most recent term expired in 2006, an army-backed caretaker government took countrol under emergency law, which was ended in 2008 with Hasina's election. Hasina had been elected once previously, in 1996.
Related articles


Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Obam's major blunders in Delhi


President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minist...
Image via Wikipedia


The Pakistani National Assembly has unanimously condemned President Obama's qualified and guarded support for India's candidacy (some time in the future). Almost all major political parties in Pakistan see it as an affront to Pakistan. Mr. Obama's surprise announcement has riled up Anti-US sentiment in Pakistan leading to a stern demarche to the new US Ambassador. One of the best articles written on the subject has been penned by Mr. Ejaz Haider--an article that was prominently highlighted by Bharat's best newspaper, and possibly the only "less biased" (could not really get myself to classify it as "unbiased") portal called The Hindu. Mr. Haider correctly points out that Mr. Obama has done nothing to improve Indo-Pakistani relations. In fact he has exacerbated the relations. Buoyed by Mr. Obama's tacit and futuristic promise of possible support in the UNSC, Mr. Singh immediately, actually instantly, hardened his position for talks with Pakistan. Mr. Obama ostensibly is encouraging talks between Islamabad and Pakistan--however his trip has put the dialogue in reverse gear. Mr. Obama seem to be schizophrenic. He has to make up his mind. Does he want the US relations with Pakistan and Bharat hyphenated, or does he want them hyphenated.  If he wants to develop an independent course with Bharat--that is fine, but then he should not mention Pakistan in Delhi. If he has to re-hyphenate the relations per the wishes of Delhi, then he should accord parity to both Nuclear Armed states. Mr. Haider questions Mr. Obama's motives. The attack on Mr. Obama coming from the Friday Times (TFT) is especially poignant, because TFT has always been a bedrock of Pro-Americanism in Islamabad. Mr. Najam Sethi used to be the editor of TFT and has ubiquitously branded as a CIA agent.

  • Statistically, Pakistan is the largest contributor to U.N. peacekeeping missions followed by Bangladesh and then India, thank you.

  • India's long history also includes blocking U.N. resolutions and having disputes with almost every neighbor on its periphery.

  • Mr. Obama tried to de-hyphenate Pakistan and India by not including Pakistan on this visit.

  • He had to re-hyphenate the relationship on the insistence of the Bharatis (Government and media) who displayed an unhealthy obsession with Pakistan.


Let us assume, in a simple model, that the U.S. President Barack Obama wants Pakistan and India to talk and make peace because, in a broader sense, this would lead to stability in South and West Asia which, in turn, would serve both the core and peripheral interests of the United States and, by extension, of the world. Please note the sub-clauses even simplicity can generate in this part of the world. But leaving that aside, and for now even the details where the clichéd devil resides, did he actually serve this cause through his India visit? No. The de-hyphenation Behind all the nice talk about setting the world right through a Lockean cooperative framework lurks Mr. Hobbes. First, Mr. Obama tried to de-hyphenate Pakistan and India by not including Pakistan on this visit even as Pakistan is supposed to be a vital strategic partner and a state that is, presumably, going to determine, by his own admission, not only the future of this region but of the entire world. This would be amusing if it did not indicate a deep policy flaw. Then there is the irony of it, palpable, when we saw India re-hyphenating itself with Pakistan by almost pestering Mr. Obama to please call Pakistan a terrorist state! In the end he did talk about “insist[ing] to Pakistan's leaders that terrorist safe-havens within their borders are unacceptable.” Today's speeches may not be Periclean but neither should they entirely lose nuance, especially if the thrust is to change rather than perpetuate the past and the present. Positing it as he did, it might have placated India a little but drew sneers from Pakistan. Then, speaking at the Lok Sabha, Mr. Obama saluted “India's long history as a leading contributor to United Nations peacekeeping missions” and welcomed “India as it prepares to take its seat on the United Nations Security Council.” Pakistan and peacekeeping Right! Statistically, Pakistan is the largest contributor to U.N. peacekeeping missions followed by Bangladesh and then India, thank you. India's long history also includes blocking U.N. resolutions and having disputes with almost every neighbour on its periphery. But let's move away from facts to the good story. It makes eminent sense, from Mr. Hobbes' perspective, to try and get India in. It's realpolitik. And realpolitik is protean. Pakistan created the coffee club at the U.N. and it will, as it has, use every alliance at the U.N. and work the procedures to frustrate every attempt to get India in. It also knows that the working groups on U.N. reform, including that of the Security Council, require a process infested with procedural rigmaroles. So, the UNSC seat for India is not about to happen. But what this enunciation has done, and it doesn't appear too useful in the overall game, is to get Islamabad to issue a stern demarche to Washington. From Pakistan's perspective, the U.S. is catering to India's interests without regard to Pakistan's concerns about India. For an actor that wants Pakistan to appreciate its interests in West Asia and help it achieve them, this approach violates even the basics of an incentives structure model. Add to this de-listing the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) from what Mr. Obama described as the “so-called ‘entity list'” and indicating facilitating India's entry into Club de Londres and other bodies that form the decision-making super-structure of nuclear- and non-proliferation-related activities and there's another red rag for Pakistan. All of this will go through many hurdles, a discussion of which is not possible here; much of it may not even be free lunch for India given that it is enhancing its nuclear capabilities. But the symbolism of it is more important than the substance. And the minus side is that it keeps Pakistan outside instead of pulling it in, even as Mr. Obama wants to influence Pakistan's choices. C, P and K-factors The important point here is not that the United States should not help India emerge. Nor is it that India should not enjoy the dividends of its impressive efforts. In a minus-Pakistan scenario, Mr. Obama's policy could even be hailed on multiple counts including, as some commentators in India pointed out, for the C-factor. The problem is that there are the P and K factors and they cannot be wished away. Given that India and Pakistan are conflictual states, both are bound to rely on their comparative advantage at any given point to frustrate the other. India wants to capitalise on its increasing ability to interest the world; Pakistan would on its ability to worry the world. On the sidelines of the many positives India can offer to the world, Pakistanis fear that India is simultaneously marshalling the world against Pakistan; Islamabad claims too that it is covertly leveraging groups against it, the evidence of which has been shared with both New Delhi and Washington. In theory, the policy of covert ops offers plausible deniability and India can, to its great advantage, use the same groups that have now turned on Pakistan. A smart strategy this, but there is nothing cooperative and Lockean about it! India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, during the joint press conference, said: “We are committed to engage Pakistan ... But it is our request that you cannot simultaneously be talking and at the same time the terror machine is as active as ever before. Once Pakistan moves away from this terror-induced coercion, we will be very happy to engage productively with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues.” Well said. Once again, without contextualising things, we get into this chicken and egg problem in terms of cause and effect. But the words of Salvador de Madariaga, once chairman of the League of Nations Disarmament Commission, may form good advice in terms of direction of causality in most affairs, not just disarmament: “The trouble with disarmament was (and still is) that the problem of war is tackled upside down and at the wrong end ... Nations don't distrust each other because they are armed; they are armed because they distrust each other. And therefore to want disarmament before a minimum of common agreement on fundamentals is as absurd as to want people to go undressed in winter. Let the weather be warm, and they will undress readily enough without committees to tell them so.” Let the weather be warm and we can all enjoy the sunny beach. Ejaz Haider. The Hindu. (The writer is Contributing Editor, The Friday Times.) What is Mr. Obama's worst mistake? He went to Delhi and made a major announcement, and failed to bring Islamabad into confidence during the so called "Strategic Dialogue". Most Pakistanis fell let down, and the Foreign Office felt a sense of betrayal. The betrayal was of course doubled because Mr. Obama had skipped Pakistan. President Obama's visit did nothing to improve relations between India and Pakistan. Mr. Obama got the applause in the Lok Sabha that he was craving for--in an otherwise lackluster trip, but his ephemeral promise will go down in a long list of broken promises made to rivals and friends , especially the Indians (pun intended!). "White Man speaks with forked tongue" applies to a black man who acts white. Keywords: Obama India visit, Indo-Pak relations, UNSC permanent seat
Related articles

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Uphill battle for India on UNSC seat


UN Security Council Chamber in New York.
Image via Wikipedia


Sanguine and wise analysts in Bharat and the world know that the "Lollipop" given to Bharat on the 3rd day day of the trip--was to salvage an otherwise failed trip. It was inevitable that the ephemeral promise would draw Pakistan and China together and pitch Beijing versus Delhi.

DNA India has put forth the thesis that Mr. Zardari will ask China to stop Bharat's entry into the UNSC. Actually that logic is flawed and sets up false expectations for Pakistanis. China has a mature leadership and understands its profit and loss statement. Italy is a fellow member of the EU with Germany, yet it opposes the Germany candidacy. China would not want its neighbor to the South to become a UNSC member because that would run contrary to its interests.

Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari is expected to persuade his Chinese counterpart to oppose India’s bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) during his visit to Beijing.

Zardari will be in China to attend the opening ceremony of the 16th Asian Games in Guangzhou, besides meeting Chinese president Hu Jintao.

On the surface, Pakistani and Chinese leaders will discuss the plan for a fifth Chinese-built nuclear reactor in Pakistan. However, the emphasis will be on new moves on the chessboard of South Asia, especially the Indian bid for UN Security Council membership.DNA India.

Reverberations from Obama's announcement have reached the four corners of the globe. Japan, Germany, and Brazil who were supposedly partners with Bharat have reacted sharply to the Obama Administration's support for Bharat for the UNSC seat. Pakistan had just completed the Strategic dialogue with the US in Washington. None of this was brought up. Before the Obama trip he had informed the press that the UNSC seat "was complicated". Then on the last day, President Obama announced to the Bharati parliament that he would support Bharat's candidacy to the UNSC provided Bharat resolve its problems with the neighbors (read Kashmir).

The promise was called "Probation" the Bharat's leading daily called the "Hindu".

NEW DELHI: With India having got the US's coveted backing for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, two major aspirants to the high table are fuming. Both Germany and Japan went public with their annoyance at their claims being overlooked and made their displeasure known to the US.

In an interview to a TV channel, US ambassador to India Tim Roemer admitted as much. He said the two nations had asked why India had been accorded special treatment and the reasons US saw it as a valued partner. The ambassador indicated that the resistance pointed to the distance that needed to be travelled for UN reform to become a reality.

He also suggested that US backing for India's case showed Washington's determination to pursue its ties with India that president Barack Obama outlined during his visit.

While India has managed to wrest an important pledge from president Obama that may take some time to be realized, it is still crucial. So far, Washington had only supported Japan for a permanent seat at the UNSC even though it opposed the G4 (a group that included Japan, Germany, Brazil and India).

With Obamas announcement on Monday, the US has shifted its own stance to accommodate India. But that doesn't mean the G4 to which India has tacked its own aspirations is in the clear yet.

Security Council reform is not only about putting India into the body. The issues at stake are what should be the ideal size of a new UNSC; whether the new members would have veto rights, the number of permanent and non-permanent members, its relations with the UN General Assembly, whether there should be regional representation.

Officials said the UN's body debating the inter-governmental negotiations will restart their deliberations soon. The US show of support will make a difference to India and Japan. Not to Germany, which is opposed by Italy and by many other countries who say giving a permanent seat to Germany would put a third seat in Europe (fourth, if you count Russia as a European power), at a time when European power is in decline. Besides, EU was asking for a separate status for itself in the UNGA, they argue.

Africa is a problem too. There is general consensus that Africa should have two seats in the UNSC, but which two countries? Even the African Union is divided on that. There can't be UNSC reform without the Africans because then the world runs the risk of all 53 African countries boycotting.

Then there is China. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson on Tuesday, when questioned, said, China values India's status in international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform.

But even if China can be made to digest an Indian membership, as at the NSG, its not going to be so easy for Japan, which even has South Korea opposing it. Brazil is opposed by Mexico and Argentina (since its the only Portuguese-speaking country in a Spanish-speaking continent), and of course, Pakistan opposes India. These countries had formed the Coffee Club, later renamed United for Consensus, and will most likely be resurrected again, perhaps with tacit Chinese support.

How many permanent members should the new UNSC have? The US wants around 19 members (in both categories). The G4 position is more sensible that's India, Brazil, Japan and Germany, two African countries and three added to the non-permanent list. There are other ideas floating around UK, France and Liechtenstein proposed an interim arrangement for 10 years and a review thereafter. The Chinese are more non-specific and have just said they want more seats for developing countries.

Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. But many countries say they can live without it, because the veto is not used anymore and lobbying for support is the way to go in the Council. But veto, like nuclear weapons, is a currency of power. That battle, therefore, will continue.
Related articles


Related Articles


Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)