Centre for Foreign Affairs Studies

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

2008-11-24T13:40:00.000-08:00

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)

2008-11-11T07:04:00.000-08:00

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.

Regional Co-operation in the context of globalization

2008-05-21T12:44:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-15T12:42:00.000-07:00

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

Treaty is for 30 years covering the period 1 January to 31 May each year with sharing to an agreed formula.
India to make every effort to maintain inflows to Farakka at or above 40 years average (1949-88).
Bangladesh and India to receive a guaranteed minimum 35,000 cusecs during crtical periods alternately.
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.
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

2008-05-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

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

2007-05-21T12:34:00.000-07:00

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.

Nuclearization of South Asia - A Human Development Perspective

2007-05-11T08:10:00.000-07:00

By Zillur R. Khan, Ph.D., Rosebush Professor of Political Science
University of Wisconsin, U.S.A, and
Chairman, Research Committee on Rethinking Political Development
International Political Science Association (IPSA)

Converting “atom for peace” into “atom for war” mode, India and Pakistan reneged on their commitments to only constructive, peaceful use of nuclear energy. The two South Asian nuclear rivals, particularly India, professed not to be the first to use nuclear weapons in a regional war and yet they never hesitated to brandish them as powerful symbols of nationalism. Even during the 2001-2 standoff India chose to test a more advanced nuclear capable missile to commemorate the nation’s Republic Day raising the level of regional tension. Instead of testing one of its nuclear capable missiles as tit-for-tat as before, Pakistan reacted by reiterating its earlier position that it wished to engage India in a dialogue for de-escalation. Feeling the heat of a worsening standoff between the two South Asian nuclear rivals, all other countries of the region have strongly reiterated their commitment to having South Asia as a nuclear free zone, supporting in unison the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the 2002 UN Review Session of Parties to the NPT. They referred to the success of the NPT in curbing the spread of nuclear weaponry to more countries, hoping that India and Pakistan would consider de-nuclearization as an important tool of mutual confidence building for regional peace and development. In spite of their best efforts South Asian countries have failed to bring their two biggest neighbors closer to negotiating mode through the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC). But publicly regional countries have shown little or no concern about a possible regional war turning nuclear. A former Secretary General of SAARC asserted in an interview with me that Washington would intervene before the two could reach a point of actual launching of nuclear missiles, given the improved monitoring of nuclear missiles by American spy satellites. When asked how the satellites missed the final preparations before India carried out a series of nuclear tests in 1998, the former SAARC secretary general could only say that realities had changed.

The reality is that ideological compulsions tinged with obscurantism and traditional ethnic enmities, particularly among people in bordering states, have made it increasingly difficult for New Delhi and Islamabad to consider any compromise, however reasonable it may seem, over the disputed territory of Kashmir. Lacking resilience, the two have been locked into jingoistic posturing raising tension and increasing the possibility of at least another conventional war. With a real danger of such a conventional war turning into nuclear, the leaders of two nations are morally obliged to initiate a consensus building process by which needed authority can be had for bold compromises to end the sixty year old dispute which has been unnecessarily diverting their resources to the detriment of the general well-being of the two peoples. The only way that can happen is for both to reinforce and restore their democratic values. Reinforcing secular value can restore India to its traditional stature of the world’s largest working democracy transcending ethno-religious prejudices and making the minorities, particularly Muslims of India and particularly those in Kashmir feel empowered. And if re-democratization of Pakistan succeeds, it would broaden the base on which the needed framework for a compromise over the disputed territory of Kashmir may develop, making it possible for leaders to send the right signals for preparing the groundwork for interaction at a bilateral and/or multilateral level to end a dysfunctional conflict.

Democracy did provide the basis for interaction between Vajpayee and Sherif—elected leaders of the two nuclear rivals—in 1999, only to be thwarted by Pakistan army’s belligerent move against India capturing Kargil under general Pervez Musharraf. But for then US President Clinton’s timely intervention, another full blown war between the two South Asian adversaries—now armed with newly developed nuclear weapons—could have broken out. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Sherif made a desperate effort to restore the pre-1954 civilian control of the army sacking a number of military officers, including general Musharraf, for their misadventure in Kargil. Had Sherif succeeded in his military reorganization plan, there would have been a real chance of the two nations striking a compromise over their resource draining territorial dispute. In spite of winning a landslide victory in the 1997 election Sherif failed to contain the military, which resulted in the seizure of power by General Pervez Musharraf. Among many justifications given by Musharraf for the coup, two stand out: Sherif’s alleged compromise on national security when he ordered the Pakistan Army to pull out of Kargil and Sherif’s attempt to banish Musharraf by ordering airport authorities to not allow his plane to land inside Pakistan (Musharraf, In the Line of Fire, 2006). Thus began another period of direct military rule and another process of its legitimization. But military rule is seldom conducive to a consensus forming process identifying individual interests with national interests, especially when difficult compromises need to be made between sovereign nations.

Perhaps as important, if not more, is the urgent need for the West to seize the opportunity to go to the most likely source of future nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism: more than 99% of all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are stored in Russia and America. It would be vital to significantly strengthen the security of the existing storage facilities in western nations and to provide needed support to Russia to do the same. The surest way to ensure the nuclear safety of the West is to prevent bin Laden’s al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups from gaining control of a few relatively small nuclear devices by thefts or bribes. In fact there have been reports of failed attempts at stealing nuclear materials from Russian facilities. Reportedly, 40 of the 100 Suitcase nuclear bombs under KGB’s control could not be accounted, which the Russians later denied (Economist, Nov. 7, 2001).

Although a sensitive issue, it may be in the interest of the West to share its nuclear storage security measures with new nuclear countries, such as China, India and Pakistan. During America’s anti-terrorist campaign against the Talibans, two retired nuclear scientists of Pakistan were arrested for allegedly passing the nuclear bomb making know-how to the Talibans and helping to build a facility in Afghanistan to make, however crude, nuclear devices. Reportedly, bin Laden had made one of his major goals to acquire a nuclear bomb and use it in an attack against the West. Backed by a Fatwa, thereby giving his objective an ideological color, bin Laden reportedly asserted that it was his religious duty to acquire a nuclear bomb. Despite the fact that Pakistan under General Musharrf has revived its old military alliance with America, American and other Western policy makers cannot forget Pakistan’s claim of building an “Islamic Bomb” in the late eighties with suspected financial assistance from radical Arab nations, nor can they rule out the probability of extremist elements within the Pakistani military, particularly its powerful intelligence arm—Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)—getting an upper hand in government and thus neutralize Musharraf’s anti- terrorist campaign. Neither can Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q.Khan’s clandestine network for sale of nuclear bomb making technology to interested buyers be forgotten.

A less discussed threat of nuclear terrorism involves radiological sabotage of the reactor in nuclear power plants, especially in regions of political instability. A conventional or guerrilla armed assault on a nuclear plant’s vital safety systems can result in core melt, containment failure and a massive, Chernobyl-like release of radioactive materials into the environment. Radiological sabotage is a prime example of “asymmetric” warfare: the injury and property damage that could be caused by a quantity of high explosives small enough to fit into a backpack could be magnified a thousand-fold if it were strategically applied at a nuclear plant. Such an assault could conceivably fulfill the same goals for a terrorist group, like bin Laden’s, as the acquisition and use of a crude nuclear weapon (E. S. Lyman, 2001).

Recent experiences in the U.S., which has the world’s most rigorous requirements for physical protection at power reactors, have graphically demonstrated the challenges inherent in defending a nuclear plant against sabotage by armed attackers. The Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE), a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) program which uses force-on-force exercises to test the effectiveness of the security at nuclear power plants, has been failed by about 50% of the plants tested, a statistic that has not improved over the course of the program.

Because of the paucity of available information, nuclear scientists using mathematical models have made only educated guesses about the impact of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan on South Asia and beyond. M. V. Ramana, a Princeton University physicist, calculated after the two countries conducted nuclear tests in 1998, that a 15-Kiloton bomb dropped on Bombay would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 people in the short run. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had similar yields and killed 149, 000 and 70,000 people respectively (NYT, January 27, 2002). There are too many variables—weather, exact yield and positioning of the bomb, altitude of the explosion—to make more precise estimate of death tolls. Ramana’s study was meant to show “that the effects of a small bomb, a crude one like that, is horrific”(Ibid.).

In January 2002, a respected American environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) produced a second model of a full scale nuclear war in South Asia, showing a death toll ranging from 30 to 40 million, about 2 percent of the nations’ combined population of more than one billion Indians and 140 million Pakistanis, besides collateral toll on populations of other South Asian nations, particularly Bangladesh and Nepal. The NRDC model estimated that each side has a few dozen warheads and assumed that each could penetrate the other’s air defense to hit about twelve largest cities. The model has been developed on the basis of extrapolation from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, population estimates of target cities and weather condition in January, and the weapons having yields equal to 25 kilotons of TNT, similar to the ones dropped on the Japanese cities. Despite unthinkable destruction the scenario would not result in “mutually assured destruction” (MAD), which possibly prevented a nuclear-armed conflict between the two superpowers during the cold war. This raises questions of applicability of what I call South Asian Mutual Assured Destruction or SAMAD to prevent a devastating regional nuclear war, seriously challenging the degree of effectiveness of a nuclear deterrence policy, particularly for more vulnerable Pakistan.

A third model of effects of a South Asian nuclear war, developed by another nuclear Physicist from Princeton university, showed that in spite of the initial impact the two militaries would be intact to continue to escalate, crippling the two countries infrastructures and emergency services. The study concluded that the spillover effects of such a war would be incalculable (NYT, Ibid.). Zia Mian of Princeton University’s Program in Science and Global Security, developer of the third model, points out MAD should not be applied to India and Pakistan, because each lacks the nuclear firepower to destroy the other and their previous major wars resulted in fewer than 10,000 deaths on average. “They’ve never fought a war”, Mia stated while explaining his model, “like WW I or WW II or Vietnam…never used strategic bombing against each other’s cities…the notion of what would be a terrible attack is much different than the United States’ or the Soviet Union’s” (NYT, Ibid.). Though the effect of radiation was not calculated in Ramana’s or NRDC’s models, Mian said it is unlikely radiation would spread out of the region because the bombs would be relatively small.

It is quite conceivable that some of the hawks on both sides may have been convinced about a blitzkrieg military campaign to reclaim the disputed territory, even risking a limited nuclear confrontation. New Delhi’s refusal to de-escalate after Islamabad offers an olive branch by cracking down on a number of known groups of Islamic militants connected with attacks on Indian Parliament, but refusing to extradite a few as a tangible gesture of the willingness to normalize relations with India, may be seen as their risk taking ventures. The hawks seem to discount three important factors. First, as alluded earlier, any perceived belligerent action could make the standoff deteriorate into a full blown war, as could have happened when an India military transport plane piloted by an Indian air force general ventured eleven miles into Pakistan’s air space and almost downed by missiles. Second, New Delhi could follow through with its threat of hot pursuit across the border if what India terms cross border terrorism dramatically increases, supported by a reorganized al-Qaeda network. Third, perhaps most importantly, the hawks may be led to believe that the damage caused by a limited nuclear war will be manageable, downplaying the war’s long term effects which, as the three models have indicated, are incalculable.

The inherent uncertainties of a swing state like Pakistan impede institutional growth needed for stable interactions between and among stakeholders—internal and external—for regional peace. Certainly one of the important factors of the South Asian regional cooperation’s disappointing record has been the swing state phenomenon. Tracing the history of regional cooperation one finds effective, positive interactions between states happening during periods of democratic government. Notwithstanding certain exceptions, a few mutual trust and confidence building measures successfully undertaken by the two occurred during Pakistan’s democratic interludes. Indira-Bhutto agreement (through the Simla Accord of 1972) on a de facto border between Indian and Pakistani controlled areas of J&K, and the no attack agreement of their nuclear facilities by their son and daughter, respectively Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto in 1989 may be cited as instances in point.

Before the Pressler sanctions took effect, Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi, the two new generations Prime Ministers of the two belligerent nations made a courageous move at the SAARC Summit of the Heads of the South Asian nations in Islamabad in 1989. Both made confidence-building measures as the top priority for both countries to reduce military confrontation on the Siachen Glacier. The two signed the agreement negotiated in 1985 not to attack each other’s nuclear program facilities. For the first time India presented to the UN General Assembly Special Session on Disarmament an Action Plan for a three-stage non-proliferation of nuclear weapons by 2010. Rajiv and Benazir also urged Asian states, particularly the two sub-continental nuclear rivals, to make a commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons under mutual no-threat guarantee. However lofty their no-threat plan might have been, it surely offered an alternative to the escalating tension of nuclear arms race between the two South Asian nuclear nations. In 1992 Benazir reiterated the earlier stand on the dire need of confidence building measures (CBM), stating that in spite of the counteracting internal dynamics of India and Pakistan “the subcontinent is crying out for a solution that will give economic freedom to the masses…the leaders of both sides of the divide need to rise and meet this challenge or they will be waylaid by history and by time”(Indian Express, May 18, 1992). The return of Benazir from self-exile and her continued commitment to fight for Democracy and against extremism unruffled by her narrow escape from suicide bombing during the mammoth procession of her party supporters in Karachi on October 18, 2007, has raised hopes among moderate political leaders in both India and Pakistan about her possible role in a future peace offensive for the region, despite questions of a US backed power sharing arrangement with Musharraf following the expected January 2008 elections.

Although continuing to accept Pakistan as an important ally for its global war against terrorism, America is likely to have serious reservations about the military government’s support base among the people and within the army itself given the fact general Musharraf has not been successful in removing the Islamic extremists, mostly located within the army’s powerful intelligence agency—Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)—widely held responsible for the creation of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. The great escape of Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their top associates would not have been possible without strategic help from Pashtun Talibans working with radical elements of the Pakistani military intelligence, as has been alleged lately (NYT, April 28, 2002; NYT, October 1& 21, 2007). In fact Benazir’s husband held extremists within the ISI responsible for the unexplained lapse in security, which enabled a suicide bomber to kill 140 supporters of Benazir in his failed attempt to assassinate her on October 18, 2007. Writing on Daniel Pearl’s murder, Benazir Bhutto, who was twice elected as Prime Minister of Pakistan, states that in the Pearl kidnapping (and murder), Afghanistan, Kashmir, ex-ISI, democratic destabilization and Islamic militancy have intermingled. Sheikh Omar fought in Kashmir and his accomplices fought in Afghanistan. “The ex-ISI/military intelligence (of Pakistan) was familiar with them…the Islamic militants are bent upon destabilizing the world community hoping to establish a Taliban type Islamic society…the emphasis is less on theocracy and more on nationalism…these causes need to be denied to them. Otherwise, they could end up destroying the world we know today by bringing about a clash of civilizations”(B. Bhutto, The Nation, March 7, 2002).

As a part of CBM, India and Pakistan could conduct periodically joint military exercises in coordination with America, Russia and China. Even a partial success of such a cooperative endeavor in raising the level of mass consciousness about their common problems could go a long way in creating a mutually acceptable basis for conflict resolution. And having participants from think tanks of regional countries with largest contingents drawn from India and Pakistan, public awareness of opportunities for advancements, through containing runaway corruption, implementing civil service and judicial reforms, and launching skill building, and healthcare drives would accelerate the process of resolving nagging problems between India and Pakistan, with positive effects on other regional players. In that scenario, with military expenditures significantly reduced as a result of their joint security cooperation through NPT and CTBT, a 8.6-9.6% GDP growth already achieved by India and Pakistan could be replicated in other South Asian countries, particularly Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Around 8-10% GDP growth for SAARC countries over a ten-year period for poverty alleviation would no more be an optimist’s unattainable dream. Even a partial realization of that dream would help reduce the gap between national sovereignty and public interests in the consensus building challenges being faced by not only India and Pakistan but also other countries of the region for peaceful resolution of their multifaceted problems. In that scenario military institutions would have no justification taking over elected governments. Could it end the vicious cycle of a swing state restoring the democratic form on a more permanent basis? May be. But the question remains whether a military regime has the inherent capability to accept responsibilities for mistakes and make needed corrections needed for enduring restoration of a representative democracy.

As US-Pakistan military alliance proved deceptive for Pakistani policy makers when they sought American military assistance for their war efforts against India, there started strategic shift toward China. Fears of ideological domination were gradually allayed when Pakistan and China made progress on a number of scientific and cultural exchange programs, including one involving exchange visits of Pakistani and Chinese Ulemas (Muslim religious leaders). Militarily and logistically, in particular, the evolving friendship paid rich dividends to Pakistan in terms of strategic moral support during its wars against India. Learning a lesson from the Sino-Indian conflict, Pakistan swiftly moved to settle its British drawn border with China. In December 1962, Pakistan and China provisionally demarcated their border, ceding about 2000 sq. mi. of territory of Pakistan controlled Kashmir invoking diplomatic protests from New Delhi. Two months later in February 1963 Ayub’s Foreign Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, signed the border agreement in Beijing. Establishing a stable and friendly relationship with China enabled Islamabad to expand alternative sources of much needed technical help to develop its own scientific infrastructure to ensure national security. More importantly China continued indefinitely its commitment to providing Pakistan scientific and technical help after the western countries cut off such aid because of intelligence reports about Pakistan developing its nuclear capability. Indeed, without the Chinese technical cooperation Pakistan would not have been able to achieve the current near parity with India regarding credible nuclear deterrence.
China’s recent posture of a more neutral policy toward the disputed territory of Kashmir (changing a pro-Pakistan stand) could be attributed to the Tibetan issue being brought to world attention on the human rights question and concerns over Muslim insurgency in Xinjiang province of China. According to a Chinese scholar, a strong and rising China would not affect India’s national security, since China’s foreign policy has been based on establishing relations with other countries on the basis of five principles of peaceful coexistence (Mai Jiali, 2000: 3). Without resolving the border issue, however, Indians would have difficulty accepting China’s projected non-threatening, peace loving image considering its nuclear superiority and the global competition for markets in which Beijing enjoys a definite edge over New Delhi.

China has maintained its assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear program in the face of stiff pressure from the U.S. to discontinue such aid for a hoped for reciprocal non-proliferation gesture from India in terms of accepting a partial if not a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT). But in the light of strained relations between China and India, Pakistan became a bigger beneficiary of China’s assistance to its nuclear program. Moreover, Beijing and Islamabad have increased frequency of joint military simulation exercises with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) personnel. Unlike the Indian military, Pakistani military has had greater authority in designing and scheduling such exercises vis-à-vis the units of China’s powerful PLA. A military to military rapport between two countries with centralized command systems could go a long way in joint preparation to effectively deal with common threats. Given the fact Sino-Russian relations have normalized, India can ill afford to chance another confrontation because of the stated Russian policy of neutrality in regard to any future Sino-Indian war. Even after President Clinton’s visit to India in April 2000 forging a closer relationship between Washington and New Delhi, together with President Bush’s trip to the sub-continent raising the prospects of a strategic partnership between America and India by completing a proposed civilian nuclear accord during 2007-8, Indian security planners could not be sure of Pakistan’s strategic responses to such a war. Whether posing a challenge to India economically and militarily, or helping India’s arch rival—Pakistan–to acquire nuclear warhead making technology, China certainly has featured prominently in the arms race of new nuclear states of South Asia, and would-be nuclear states in the non-western world.

In spite of military created or supported political parties formally espousing a non-political role of the military, they make no bones about currying favor with the military for two reasons. First, the satisfaction of the military is important for maintaining smooth civil-military relations, discouraging future coup attempts. Second, political parties, including genuine ones, have found it politically expedient to support the military in order to project an image of strength and determination to ensure national security. The upshot of such a rationale has been a rapidly increasing allocation of scarce resources to the defense sector in every national budget. In cultures of poverty, where a zero-sum-game is the rule rather than the exception, such prioritization of the defense sector deprives vital programs of poverty alleviation and human resource development. Perhaps, in rethinking political development an integrated approach could be tried with selected civilian and military personnel to train the disadvantaged in both urban and rural areas to acquire basic literacy, health care and myriad other self help and income generating skills to alleviate poverty and ensure sustainable development.

With globalization of politics and economics, outside threats have diminished and with it the excuse of the military to intervene. Without having to contend with rivalries between the superpowers over spheres of influence, civil societies in ex-colonial countries have reason to feel more relaxed in their dealings with their military institution. In partnership they can now embark not only on different nation building activities, but as well generate resources from the military’s deployment to different international training and peace -keeping missions. Overriding the clash of religion based civilizations thesis is the basic dynamism of power relations in the context of time and space. As the long enmity between the Russians and Chinese military leadership, and as well between India and China, is being rapidly bridged for mutual national interests, America can also reinforce its long history of close military cooperation with both India and Pakistan by not neglecting nuclear Pakistan in its global security planning, which necessarily involves the ultimate elimination of weapons of mass destruction. A non-zero-sum game plan could make Pakistan feel much secured for a possible engagement in a dialogue with a vastly more powerful India for a strategic compromise on sensitive and dangerous bi-lateral issues. After learning the difficult game through coordinated training, and some trials and errors, civil and military leaders of the two nuclear countries of South Asia may finally start playing it like their western counterparts having a positive impact on other South Asian countries and their association of regional cooperation– the SAARC.

Security and stability of any given country largely rests on the quality of regional understandings and cooperation in terms of social, economic, and political development. Based on comparative analyses of selected countries undergoing democratization in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern Africa, Southeast and South Asia, I have drawn a hypothesis that regional cooperation movements must strike a delicate balance between security and justice in order to effectively serve public interests of member countries. In tune with the charge of my Research Committee of International Political Science Association Rethinking Political Development, I suggested in my Keynote Address at the Regional Conference of International Political Science Association on April 2, 2007, at Sheraton, Dhaka that representatives of SAARC countries in their forthcoming meeting in New Delhi consider the following questions: (I specifically requested Bangladesh’s Foreign Adviser Iftekhar Choudhury to take up the following issues in the Ministerial Level meeting in New Delhi on March 31, 2007).

Should the Scope of SAARC be broadened by an amendment to the Charter allowing multilateral negotiations for problem solving involving different types of disputes?
Considering the current trade between South Asian countries is a paltry 5.6% compared to 80% among NAFTA countries, should the conditions stipulated under SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Area), which includes SAPTA (South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement) require necessary adjustments? In order to ensure an increasing volume of trade and commerce among South Asian countries should most preferential treatment be accorded to smaller countries of the region, particularly regarding transfer of technologies?
Should one or more Regional Institute of Leadership Training be established within the framework of SAARC to enable leaders of member countries to gain knowledge and insight in different aspects of governance? Should a comparable Regional Institute be established for bureaucrats from SAARC countries?
Like the previously mentioned public-private partnerships and their feedback role in national policy making and implementing processes, should representatives from non-government and business organizations from different SAARC countries be allowed to participate in SAARC deliberations at different levels as non-voting members?
Should PTRE (Political Tension Reduction Efforts) comparable to STARE (Strategic Arms Reduction Efforts) be undertaken and a joint monitoring agency be created to oversee the extent of reductions of political tension between member countries as with their strategic and non-strategic arms?
Should a Joint Intelligence Commission be established to ensure that intelligence is not manipulated to serve ideologically tinged group interests of intelligence agencies of South Asian countries to the detriment of peace and stability of the region?

The foregoing policy options at national and regional levels reflected the thrust of my keynote paper on Security, Justice and Leadership. Addressing even some of the issues and questions I have raised could help to understand our national and regional environment, which would be conducive to nurturing certain productive democratic values, such as tolerance, accommodation and compromises, respect for individual rights, equitable and timely dispensation of justice, viability of opposition parties, free and fair electoral system, independence of the judiciary and constitutional limits on excesses of power by any branch of government.

Even a partial understanding of mentioned issues could bring about peace dividends to South Asian countries by starting a process of political engagement over security with justice by transforming PMAC (Political Mutual Assured Chaos) into PMAP (Political Mutual Assured Progress). Transformation of that magnitude cries out for leaders who could transform the consciousness of masses by exemplary acts of justice and good governance. In such transforming environment a drastically reduced level of corruption together with increasing effectiveness and accountability of both public and private sectors through partnerships could make a 3-4% rise above the current notable GDP growth of smaller South Asian countries not only possible but also achievable. A leap over the current 6.6 % growth achieved against heavy odds, as happened in Bangladesh, to a sustainable 9.6 to 10.6 % GDP growth could wipe out the dehumanizing mass poverty within a record time, making South Asian a model of Political Development for the third world. Only then could nuclearization of South Asia fulfill the promise of “atom for peace” and human development, through constructive utilization of nuclear energy.

Bangladesh 2025: Driving forward with an eye on the rearview mirror

2007-05-01T08:04:00.000-07:00

Population, resources and the environment, and their cumulative effect on the prospects for regional development or conflict in South AsiaBy Tariq Karim

- Tariq Karim

Prologue
Bangladesh is a heavily populated Muslim-majority developing country with notable resource constraints, prone to frequent natural disasters like hurricanes and floods. It is also plagued today by several levels of contestation taking place simultaneously and tending to interplay with one another. At one level there is the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism; at another level, there is the contestation between reverting the state to its secular moorings or making it an Islamic state; and on the third level, there is the contestation on what vision of Islam to be identified with – its long legacy of Sufi Islam, that is pluralist, inclusive and tolerant of other faiths, beliefs or practices, or the more recent intrusion of Wahabi-Salafi-Deobandi version of Islam that is exclusionist, intolerant of others and dictates conformity. Given these contestations, Bangladesh may be viewed as a front-line state in the global struggle underway today for democracy, secularism and tolerance towards others, and their outcome would have implications for the region and beyond. At the same time, Bangladesh’s vulnerability to the forces of nature could intensify the levels of these internal contestations, heightening the stakes for everyone involved or likely to be affected. With its finite land-mass, steadily growing population, limited resources and environmental vulnerability accentuated by alarming forecasts of the impact of global warming, and its proximity to unstable tectonic plates, the country faces some daunting challenges ahead in the next two decades.

Thomas F. Homer-Dixon in his seminal work on environmental scarcities and violent conflict had hypothesized that environmental scarcity causes large population movements, which in turn causes identity conflicts , and cited the case of Bangladesh and Northeast India in support. While identifying population growth putting additional strains on scarce land and contributing to brutal poverty as the main contributory cause for large scale migration from Bangladesh to India , he also asserted that the continuing growth of population at its present rate, worsening floods aggravated by deforestation in the upper reaches of Bangladesh’s rivers and construction of dams upstream by India have exacerbated the problem which is likely to magnify further in the future.

This paper will revisit the hypothesis enunciated by Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, about environmental scarcities and violent conflict, and examine whether it can be related to the case of Bangladesh, not only in taking stock of its developmental efforts to date, but also attempting to peer into the future prospects for the country.

This paper is in three parts: the first part will summarize the main thrust of Homer-Dixon’s hypothesis and findings; the second part will focus on what Bangladesh inherited at its birth and trace its development and progress (or not) in the 35 years since wresting its independent status as a nation-state; the last part will then, with the hindsight gained from the review, and available projections of its demography and resources, attempt to peer into what the Bangladesh landscape is likely to look like in 2025.

The paper will conclude that unless Bangladesh’s policy-makers adopt anticipatory thinking and a holistic approach now to resolving their problems and strategizing for the future, the country is likely to face critical and trying times ahead.

A. The Homer-Dixon paradigm: environmental scarcities and conflict?

Homer-Dixon’s thesis, propounded in 2000, stated simply, is as follows: As human population continues to grow, global economic output may also grow exponentially, but renewable resources will also decrease sharply. The future may witness widespread depletion and degradation of aquifers, rivers, and other water resources, decline of fisheries, and significant climate change (in this last, he was far ahead of his times, and almost prophetic in his pronouncement). His research showed that environmental scarcities were already contributing to conflicts in many parts of the developing world, harbingers of worse things to come. Scarcity of water, forests and fertile land is already an increasing reality. Such scarcity can sharply increase demands on the state and its institutions, and also simultaneously dramatically reduce their capacity to meet those growing demands, rendering the state fragile and even inducing it to circle the wagons and become authoritarian.

Homer-Dixon’s research focused on two fundamental questions: does scarcity cause violent conflict? If it does, how does it operate? Six types of environmental change were identified as plausible causes for conflict: greenhouse-induced climate change; stratospheric ozone depletion; degradation and loss of good agricultural land; degradation and removal of forests; depletion and pollution of fresh water supplies; and depletion of fisheries. Three hypothesis were applied to test the assumption of conflict: first, decreasing supplies of physically controllable environmental resources, such as clean water and good agricultural land would provoke “simple-scarcity” conflict or resource war; second, large population movements caused by environmental stress would trigger “group-identity” conflict; and third, severe environmental scarcity would simultaneously increase environmental hardship and disrupt key social institutions, which in turn would cause “deprivation” conflict. These hypotheses were tested rigorously through two case studies for each variable, which were then reviewed at a series of workshops of leading experts. Finally, the findings arrived at were once again scrutinized by a core team of experts.
Based on this research, Homer-Dixon posited as follows: While states in the past have fought more over non-renewable (petroleum and mineral) than renewable (water, forestry, agrarian) resources, the latter category, particularly river water, is more likely to spark off conflicts in the future. While such conflict may be inter-state, there is increasing evidence that such conflicts may also be intra-state (as in federal India). He has cited the case of the Bangladesh-India water sharing dispute as one of the cases in point of inter-state conflicts.

Homer-Dixon’s research concluded that environmental scarcity can cause violent conflict that tends to be persistent, diffuse and sub-national. However, he defines environmental scarcity as having three facets. The degradation of environmental resources and their depletion is only one source of environmental scarcity, the other two being population growth and unequal resource distribution. The intersection of all three forces impacting on the social matrix are likely to have the harshest social consequences, straining the capacities of states and in turn either propelling states to fragmentation and failure, or becoming increasingly authoritarian (the latter spinning off its own negative dynamics for state consolidation). In any event, these consequences have serious implications for international security, which one would view as encompassing regional security as well.

B. The last 35 years: Successes and failures – Lessons learnt?

In this section, we shall recount Bangladesh’s journey as an independent state since 1971, its mixed bag of successes and failures, and whether, and how, Homer-Dixon’s hypothesis was applicable to Bangladesh during these 35 years since its birth.

The split from Pakistan
Bangladesh was once a part of Pakistan, as the eastern province of East Pakistan, and remained so until 1971 when it split through a bloody process of internal conflict (which drew in India as an external influence and agent) to wrest independent existence as Bangladesh. It separated itself from its bondage with Pakistan after waging for nine months a war of liberation against the latter’s occupation forces in East Pakistan. One will resist the temptation here to go into the history of Bangladesh’s cohabitation with Pakistan for a quarter century since colonial India’s Partition in 1947 into the post-colonial reconfiguration into India and Pakistan. Suffice it to simply note here that when the split between the two artificially conjoined parts of Pakistan took place on December 16, 1971, East Pakistan, as the geographically smaller of the two units that had comprised the notionally federal state of Pakistan, was home to the greater half of the total population. With 144,000 sq kilometers (slightly smaller than Iowa), as compared to West Pakistan’s combined area of 803, 904 sq. kilometers (or slightly smaller than twice the size of California), East Pakistan had 75 million people as compared with a little over 62 million in the western wing.

However, if one were to compare the ratio of land mass to water bodies of the two units, a more telling contrast emerges: while West Pakistan (or post-1971 rump state of Pakistan) had 778,720 sq. kilometers of land area and 25, 200 sq. km of water bodies (ratio of 31:1), East Pakistan (or post 1971 Bangladesh) had 133,910 sq. km of land mass versus 10,090 sq km of water (13:1) . This latter phenomenon makes Bangladesh today the most densely populated state in the world. The intersection of its geographic location, densely packed demographic compulsions, and its geo-political legacy of history also makes it one of the most environmentally vulnerable states in the world today. While it has defied the doomsday prophecies pronounced by many at its birth, most notoriously by Dr. Kissinger having contemptuously dismissed it as destined to become a “bottomless basket case”, following its separation from Pakistan it has actually managed to do better than the latter in many respects.

It could be argued here that the split from Pakistan was itself as much driven by the struggle over limited resources and obtaining a fair share of them, as by cultural factors. In the initial decade or more of Pakistan’s existence, East Pakistan earned a major share of the entire country’s foreign exchange resources from its golden fibre, jute, these earnings peaking during the time of the Korean War. With the international price of jute subsequently remaining stagnant, and even deteriorating progressively, the jute industry became a millstone around Bangladesh’s neck. Apart from the short boom during the Korean War, it declined steadily as a post-Bangladesh state owned enterprise (SOE) from the mid-seventies, serving as a South Asian “iron rice bowl” replica which lost money and devoured heavily of government subsidies and revenues.

Additionally, in 1947, the whole of Pakistan had only seven textile mills, and all of these were located in East Pakistan. However, most of the foreign exchange revenues earned from the main cash crop (jute) were invested in West Pakistan, and within less than two decades all the textile mills in East Pakistan atrophied and were disinvested while West Pakistan developed a mighty textile industrial complex that then harnessed the eastern wing as its captive market – much as colonial Britain’s textile mills in Lancashire and jute mills in Dundee had treated its colonially possessed market.

Inheriting a wasteland
At its birth, Bangladesh inherited the dubious legacy of Pakistan’s weak and intrinsically flawed institutions and a vast and fast-growing population, overwhelmingly agrarian and teeming in abject poverty. Bangladeshis had inherited a wasteland, in the making of which they had also contributed through sabotaging the infrastructure in their nine-month war of liberation against the Pakistani occupation forces. Whatever moveable assets had existed had been spirited out by Pakistani forces well before their surrender at Dhaka to the Joint Indo-Bangladesh Command. Governance structures of the new nation were weak, and some like the Foreign and Defense Ministries had to be built up from the scratch. The systematic killing of a large number of intellectuals by Pakistani collaborators shortly before the end of the war had a traumatizing and debilitating effect on civil society and whatever civic institutions existed. The government-in-exile had returned with little, if any experience, in actual governance; it was also beset by factionalism between competing groups and local commanders (a somewhat scaled-down version of the factionalism between warlords that plagues Afghanistan today), as well as insidious factionalism within the government (with one group ideologically linked to the USA, another to Moscow, and yet a third group looking to China – mirroring the Cold War rubric that prevailed then). The situation was aggravated by the fact that the thousands of youthful freedom fighters returning with the refugees had no occupation or schools to return to, and no income-generating avenues available which meant that they took free and easy resort to the use of their guns. Bangladesh, like Pakistan, also had a large number of ‘madrassahs’.

At independence, the new state was also saddled with the enormous task of resettling and rehabilitating almost ten million Bangladeshis streaming back from refugee camps in India, where they had fled during the Pakistani military crack-down in East Pakistan in March 1971, and the resultant conflict that ensued. Bangladesh was not recognized as a sovereign entity by many countries during the first few critical years of its independent existence, during which period it had to wage a concerted campaign to win universal recognition . Then in the mid-seventies, barely four years after independence, the fledgling state was beset with a series of political crises, with the assassination of the then President (and founder of the nation), Sheikh Mujibur Rahman followed by a series of coups and counter-coups. This resulted in the new nation becoming hostage to governance by military or quasi-military regimes for the next 16 years. Bangladesh, at this point, appeared to be regressing into the very state of existence which had typified Pakistan at the time of her separation from the latter, and possessed many of the factors that are generally recognized as responsible for a state becoming a failing state.

Such a situation would be a daunting challenge of almost insurmountable proportions for any government. In any developing country, the government is at best able to reach its services to only a portion of its entire population. Depending on how much or how little it is endowed with natural resources, and not counting corruption, poor governance and the plethora of malaise that tend to bedevil most of the poorer countries, the government can at best effectively reach its services only to parts of the population it governs, to greater or lesser extent depending on its capacities and capabilities, neglecting significant parts of its populace who are left to fend on their own (anywhere from 40% to 60% of its total population). Since this untended mass needs someone to fulfill its needs one way or other, the empty space rarely remains untended, and non-state actors step in. How these neglected sections of society shape their activities (productive vs. unproductive) depends largely upon the nature, and more importantly, the agenda of the non-state actors filling the breach.

NGOs to the rescue and their contribution to societal development
A host of International Organizations and International NGO’s stepped in to help the fledgling government, as did many foreign governments with bilateral assistance. Simultaneously, alongside the international NGOs, a number of small indigenous or local NGOs also started working in relief and rehabilitation projects at first, or subcontracting to larger foreign NGOs. In the process, they developed their own capacity to take over larger areas of unfilled space, expanding their sphere of activities essentially through a learning process.

In the case of Bangladesh, NGOs played a seminal role in Bangladesh’s development efforts from its very inception. NGOs became partners of government in helping Bangladesh achieve commendable break-through in poverty alleviation, gender equality and overall social development. In the main this role has been positive, indeed essential to the survival of millions un-served by the state in basic needs. Micro-credit loans were invented by a Bangladeshi economist, Dr. Yunus, who founded the Grameen Bank in the mid-70’s. In recognition of the remarkable contribution to poverty alleviation, women’s empowerment and mainstreaming, Dr. Yunus and the Grameen Bank were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006. NGO activities in social development have played a notable role in translating such socio-economic progress of women in the democratic transition of the country as well. To give an idea of the respective ‘space’ covered by Government and NGOs: in the poverty alleviation programs/projects alone, the government reaches 5.5 million people, while the NGOs cover 3.1 million (GO: NGO ratio of roughly 60:40). NGOs also cover as large, if not larger, swathes of territory in providing public goods like primary education, non-formal adult education, and suburban and rural healthcare.

In retrospect, despite the nay-sayers’ gloomy forecasts in 1971, Bangladesh has not done too badly as compared to Pakistan since its separation from the latter. As stated earlier, the combined population of the four provinces of West Pakistan totaled about 62 million people, while the province of East Pakistan alone accounted for about 75 million; three decades on, today Pakistan has over 150 million people, Bangladesh 145 million. In 1971, Pakistan (including Bangladesh) had a population growth rate of 3.2 % per annum. Today Bangladesh has a population growth rate of 1.6%, while Pakistan’s population growth rate still is perilously high though not any more as close to the 1971 figures. Literacy in Bangladesh is almost twice as much as that in Pakistan , thanks largely to NGOs’ stellar work. Women have increasingly become proactive partners in societal development, and indeed today are the backbone and majority workforce of its major industry, the garments industry. Countless women have become micro-entrepreneurs, thanks to the micro-finance programs of NGOs (and government also launching its own micro-credit programs). Women now have increasing say in the size of the family that they wish to have, and the quality of life they want their families.

Political development: democratization and underlying tensions
Although Bangladesh won independence riding the chariot of democratic resistance against Pakistan, as mentioned earlier, it regressed to the Pakistani-model of military coups and quasi-military authoritarian rule within 5 years of independence. However, Bangladesh civil society wrested a return to democracy in 1990 by mobilizing entire society against military rule, forcing the army back to their barracks. Having been plagued by a legacy of mutual distrust inherited from its days together with Pakistan, Bangladesh proved itself to be an innovator in political development. To overcome the legacy of mutual distrust that plagued the political culture, it invented the unique institution of the Non-Party Caretaker Government, a transitional body that takes over the reigns of government at the end of an elected Parliament’s (and government’s) term, and acts as inter regnum for a period of ninety days during which it must conduct elections to the next Parliament. This system worked well, initially, and transformed the country from the previous military dictatorship into a functioning democracy since end of 1990 ; since then, it has held three general elections for the national Parliament (largely free and fair as testified by a host of international observers), and has husbanded three relatively smooth transitions of power. Bangladesh society is marked by a remarkably high quotient of political awareness, with over 70% turnout of registered voters in the last three general elections, in 1991, 1996 and 2001. Importantly, women’s participation in the political process has steadily increased in the last three decades. Apart from the inescapable fact that the leaders of the two major parties from 1991 to 2001 were women with very feisty personalities, in the general elections of 2001, 56% of the voters were women. The Bangladesh High Court has three women judges (at last count). There are countless women lawyers and advocates, and there is no dearth of women’s rights activists engaged in a ceaseless battle for overall upliftment of women’s status and role in society.

However, all the pluses above notwithstanding, its polity has been seriously buffeted by an intensely politically polarized society and zero-sum contestation among its political parties that threatened recently to undo, even negate, all its positive achievements. These phenomena served to undermine the stability and essential neutrality of core institutions that hold up the state and are supposed to buttress it and make it strong. The creeping annexation of political space by an intolerant version of political Islam exacerbated the political polarization, and unless traditionally secular forces are once again able to wrest the middle grounds back, the consequences for Bangladesh’s future could be tellingly troubled. While Bangladeshis had shown themselves to be innovative in inventing new institutions, they also proved their ingenuity in undermining these same institutions and in the process subverting the integrity of other core institutions. As a result, prior to the general elections that were to have been held on January 22 this year, the country was on the brink of civil strife reminiscent of civil war, despite the fact that it has a homogenous society comprised 98% of ethnic Bengalis, with no significant sectarian, caste or tribal divisions. This provoked military intervention heavily disguised in civilian mufti, and a new civilian interim administration now is preparing to hold general elections sometimes in the not too distant future, or so it is widely hoped.

If the bottom line in politics is all about capturing power and holding on to it as long as possible, by whatever means possible, in order to be able to dictate how resources are allocated and distributed, effectively morphing what could have been a role model for transitional democracy into a rapacious rentier state, then one could conceivably argue here that that the contestations described above in fact has played out the Homer-Dixon hypothesis in the domestic context in Bangladesh, and in the process has also exacerbated relations and tensions with neighboring India. According to UN projections, Bangladesh’s current population of 145 million is to increase to 210 million by 2025. Population density today of near 900 people/sq.km is therefore also likely to aggravate exponentially. Since practically all the country’s arable land is already being over-exploited (with farmers often extracting three crops a year as compared to the usual two elsewhere), this population growth will further dramatically reduce the amount of cultivable land available per capita by 2025. The construction of the Farakka Barrage by India upstream of Bangladesh had the effect of almost completely drying up the Gorai River, one of its main distributaries that serviced one-thirds of Bangladesh, resulting in massive migration of economic refugees to India (India claims that there are at least 2 million illegal Bangladeshis in India). Assam and Tripura, two of the Northeast Indian states adjoining Bangladesh claim that they have been inundated with Bengalis from Bangladesh taking over their lands and jobs. Homer-Dixon asserted in his paper as follows:
“Over the last forty years, millions have migrated from East Pakistan or Bangladesh to the Indian states of Assam, Tripura, and West Bengal. Detailed data are scarce, since both India and Bangladesh manipulate their census data for political reasons, and the Bangladeshi government avoids admitting there is large out-migration, because the question causes friction with India. But by piecing together demographic information and experts’ estimates, we concluded that migrants from Bangladesh have expanded the population of neighboring areas of India by 12 to 17 million, of which only 1 or 2 million can be attributed to migration induced by the 1971 war between India and Pakistan that created Bangladesh. We further estimate that the population of the state of Assam has been boosted by at least 7 million people, to its current total of 22 million .”

Various human rights groups within Bangladesh and elsewhere have for some time been asserting that successive governments have turned a blind eye, if not actively encouraged, aided and abetted, politically backed thugs and client groups of using repressive tactics as an instrument of persuasion to force people (usually of the minority groups but not excluding poorer Muslims as well), along border areas (and elsewhere as well) to give up their properties and lands and flee for safety. The largest numbers of litigation (and crimes) are related to disputes over land and property. These dynamics may have actually exacerbated the political contestations into the zero-sum games that they have transformed into today. Notably, the water dispute, and other disputes, that have been resolved or been amenable to resolving through civil negotiation have typically been under the limited watch of the secular-democratic government, but this also triggered attempts by people in India laying claim to a return of their properties; this served to harden the stance of authoritarian or right-oriented/influenced parties to adopt a more confrontationist and negative approach.

Environmental vulnerability
Occupying as it does a unique geographic location that in satellite imagery appears as a very narrow stretch of land wedged in between the Himalayan Mountains on the north and the Indian Ocean on its south, Bangladesh is environmentally a very vulnerable country. Environmental problems faced by Bangladesh are largely caused by factors, which are teleological because of its geographical position. These include, deforestation of the Himalayas, rise in the sea level due to Global Warming, sharing river waters with India (54 rivers are shared between the two neighbors), floods, cyclones, droughts, and waste dumping that adversely impact on water and soil quality . The land that is Bangladesh serves as virtually the only major drainage channel for the vast river basin complex of the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and the Meghna, that originate in the Himalayas, in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, China and India, and drain into the Bay of Bengal. Floods have displayed a trend progressively to inundate larger tracts of lands for longer periods of time.

The Bay of Bengal that connects it to the Indian Ocean is shaped like a funnel that serves to suck in the winds of tropical cyclones of devastating magnitude in wind speeds and ocean waves. It is beset at regular intervals by horrific cyclones (hurricanes) originating in the Bay of Bengal, with wind-speeds that often exceed 150 miles/hour, and catastrophic floods of mammoth proportions that in the last two decades have tended to submerge almost two thirds of the land area under water for periods sometime stretching into over two months. It is remarkable how the country managed to keep the death toll down to well under 100 in the earlier floods – although it could do little to prevent loss of property and livestock.

Being the lower riparian with three major river systems flowing downstream from the Himalayas through Bangladesh into the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh is hostage to environmental forces that it cannot hope to manage or mitigate on its own. On the one hand it has a surfeit of water for prolonged periods of time every year, some years being worse than others. On the other hand, ironically, it has acute shortages of water as well, and is actually subject to severe drought conditions, with longish spells of dry weather and moderate drought spread over an area of 5.46 million hectares. Very severe drought conditions have hit the country in 1951, 1961, 1975, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1989, affecting 47% of the land and 54% of the population .

Of its total land surface of 12.31 million hectares, 7.85 million hectares are under agricultural cultivation. Due to population growth, the share per capita of this land is progressively “shrinking every year, making the resource base for agriculture, forest and wetlands more vulnerable and marginalized” . Total cultivable land dropped from 20 million hectares in 1983-84 to 17.5 million acres in 1997, an average loss of nearly 82,000 hectares per year, mainly on account of conversion of land into urban, peri-urban, industrial uses, and construction of roads and embankments . Recent surveys indicate that over 33% of total land acreage falls below the minimum threshold for sustainable cultivation .

The land degradation is a result of a combination of anthropogenic activities and natural causes emanating from geo-physical phenomena. Major anthropogenic causes are: shifting cultivation (particularly in hilly areas inhabited by tribal people), faulty cultivation practices that result in faster topsoil erosion, increasing use of pesticides that have a cumulative effect, soil mining in cultivable land, irrigation (which initially beneficial has long-term degradation effect because of continuous submersion of cultivable land), and over-exploitation of biomass (for fuel, fodder and thatching of huts and roofs). To this must now be added the sheer rapacity of men in power, whether political leaders (across the political divide) or unbelievably greedy bureaucrats, as recent events have unraveled. The political culture became increasingly one that promoted patronage to “loyalists”, which is essentially based on exchanging said loyalty for a share of resources that in turn translated into over-exploitation and allocation of scare land (including “extracting” land from marshland areas critically important for maintaining environmental equilibrium and stability and providing vital drainage). The notable natural causes are: changes in the coastal morphology, with accretion in coastal belt from silt deposit (over 2 billion tons annually) brought down by the rivers, which are offset by erosion of valuable estuarine territory that aggravates flooding; alarming rate and extent of river banks erosion, that aggravate socio-economic problems by taking away good agricultural land, standing vegetation and human settlements; sedimentation of agricultural land, caused by deposition of sandy materials as a result of deforestation of hills and faulty cultivation practices in upper catchment areas; intruding salinity, caused by lowering flow force and discharge of fresh water because of upstream withdrawals; land fragmentation because of land tenancy disputes and land inheritance laws made complex by rapidly growing population . An additional factor that needs to be taken into account, but needs further investigation to establish causality, is that almost every major flood in recent times has been accompanied by some tectonic activity – which presumably also affect the river beds of these massive bodies of water.

There has been an overall depletion of forestry in Bangladesh during the last three decades, with depletion rate in Bangladesh alone being as high as 3% per year, as compared with 0.6% per year for the rest of South Asia . “The share of land area under forest cover is the second lowest in the region, and has halved since the 1960’s,” … with “most natural forests now significantly degraded. Protected areas cover the smallest share of any country in South Asia, and pressure on wetlands and aquatic life is a particular concern” .

C: The next 25 years – Mapping the future

If Bangladesh is the most densely populated country of the world today, imagine what it will be in 2025, when its population is expected to be over 210 million. If it regresses into politics being drive by the forces of political Islam, there would be negative fallouts on the broad matrix of its development and ability to manage or tackle its problems of sustaining political stability and increasing economic growth, and mitigating further environmental degradation.

The World Bank lists Bangladesh as being “highly vulnerable to the projected impacts of climate change which will increase the already high risk of disasters, exacerbating existing vulnerabilities both to flooding and drought, and threatening agricultural productivity in coastal areas that face increasing salinity ”. .

The damming of one major river, the Ganges, by India a few miles upstream of Bangladesh had disastrous effects on Bangladesh’s ecology and economy. Of the distributaries that serviced almost a third of Bangladesh almost totally dried up, with invasive salinity creeping progressively upstream from the Bay, adversely affecting agriculture and economic activities, and wiping out numerous species of flora and fauna. Significant migrations took place from Bangladesh into India as a result, triggering political tensions within India as well as between India and Bangladesh. The problem was mitigated to some extent only after Bangladesh and India finally, after almost two decades of bickering, signed a water-sharing treaty on the Ganges in 1996. But the rivers are Bangladesh’s main arterial lifelines and its principal resource and they still remain hostage to upstream interventions that would be harmful to Bangladesh.

More alarming is the fact that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest report (released in February, 2007has identified Bangladesh as being extremely vulnerable to climate change, and at risk of losing a sizeable chunk of its territory because of continuing global warming that could result in ocean levels rising. Fierce cyclones churned in the Bay of Bengal are likely to become increasingly violent as the weather warms, and carry saltwater from the seas deeper into the country’s rivers, destroying the soil. Projections vary of the area of landmass that is likely to be swallowed up by the sea. A combination of melting glaciers (and there is concrete evidence of this, with satellite imagery revealing that the size of the Gangotri glacier that feeds the Ganges having shrunk dramatically in recent times), increased rainfall and constant erosion of river bank lands is certainly going to adversely affect the land to people ration in coming decades.
Most of Bangladesh is universally acknowledged to be at high risk from a combination of flooding, sea-level rises and stronger storm surges due to global climate change . According to one estimate, if the trend continues without remedial measures being taken urgently, Bangladesh may lose 20% of its land by 2030. The IPCC report said that sea-levels were likely to rise by up to 59 centimetres (23.2 inches) by the end of the 21st century. These estimates are still considered as being on the conservative side by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. While the IPCC in its earlier report of 2001 had estimated sea-level rise of less than 2 mm per year, satellite imagery data used by the Potsdam institute showed that actual se-level rise has averaged around 3.3 mm (0.12992126 inches) every year . The latest IPCC report admits “that sea levels were probably 13 to 19-1/2 feet higher when temperatures were 3°C higher than the present in a period between Ice Ages 125,000 years ago” , and that there is evidence that sea levels rose by 6.7 inches in the last 100 years alone. IPCC projections estimated a rise in global temperatures between “3.6° to 8.1°F above pre-industrial levels with a ‘best estimate’ of a 5.4°F rise, assuming carbon dioxide levels are stabilised at about 45% above current levels” . According to European Union studies, if present levels of consumption and anthropogenic stimulus continue unchecked, “any temperature rise above 2°C will cause ‘dangerous’ changes” . According to IPCC projections, it is very likely that extremes such as heat waves and heavy rains will become more frequent. (Some doomsday predictions would have it that if the bay rises by three feet by the turn of the century, it will swallow a fifth of Bangladesh). As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities. As sea-level rises, it changes the coastal morphology with the water line of any coast inevitably shifting more inwards into the land configuration, and also causes a shoaling effect on rivers – in other words, decreasing availability of land mass, putting populations and available resources under increasing pressures .
Already, two small islands in the Indian side of the Sunderbans coastal belt that is shared with Bangladesh have reportedly disappeared. In all, a dozen islands, home to 70,000 people, are in danger of being submerged by the rising seas. According to the IPCC report, “projected sea level rise could flood the residence of millions of people living in the low lying areas of South, Southeast and East Asia such as in Vietnam, Bangladesh, India and China. Even under the most conservative scenario, sea level will be about 40 cm higher than today by the end of 21st century and this is projected to increase the annual number of people flooded in coastal population from 13 million to 94 million,” the report states.
Bangladesh’s Jamuna River may be an example of the transformation of a river from a sustenance-provider to a threat to humans, resulting from global warming. The surging waters of the river, an arm of the Brahmaputra, have forced many residents living along the river’s banks to move their ramshackle tin-and-bamboo dwellings several times in the past 10 years. Scientists believe severe monsoons that cause the Jamuna to swell to dangerous levels every year are the result of global warming and greater glacier melt in the Himalayas, the newspaper said. At the same time, ironically, the current trends in glacial melting suggest that the Ganges and the Brahmaputra may become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change with important ramifications for poverty and the economies in the region.
Food production will also be adversely affected. A 2°C increase in mean air temperature could decrease rain-fed rice yields by 5-12% in China and under one scenario net cereal production in South Asian countries is projected to decline by 4 to 10% by the end of this century. In Bangladesh, production of rice may fall by just under ten per cent and wheat by a third by the year 2050. Bangladesh is likely to see more frequent and heavier rainfall that would almost certainly result in more severe flooding and increased land erosion (as well as increased river bed siltation, which aggravates flooding).
Environmental factors in confluence with man-made interventions reportedly are also inexorably changing Bangladesh’s geographical map. In changing course over the years the rivers swallow landmass, routinely devouring it by washing away the grounds of countless homes during every flood season, rendering people homeless and internally displaced, and overall exerting further pressures on the already overcrowded country’s very limited land-mass. River bank erosion has become much worse along the Padma and its distributaries in the western, south and south-central regions of Bangladesh, while the Brahmaputra-Jamuna is also causing large-scale erosion in the districts of Serajganj, Bogra, Kurigram, Jamalpur and Tangail . The major rivers, the Brahmaputra-Jamuna, the Ganges, the Meghna and the Padma, together swallow thousands of hectares of arable land on both sides of their banks ever year, being particularly merciless during high floods periods. Between 1970s and early 1990s, mean annual erosion is said to have been approximately 3,300 hectares along both banks of one river alone, the Jamuna . The 2007 floods, most devastating so far in recent decades (commencing with the then unprecedented floods of 1988) have reportedly already completely washed away 140 km of river banks and partially washed away an additional 1,345 km . Not only are rivers ‘devouring landmass” during rampaging floods, but with 300 kilometers of riverine border with India, Bangladesh appears to have lost 30,000 acres of land that have “drifted towards the Indian side following erosion of the riverbanks ”. Erosion in Sylhet reportedly washed away land of 20 to 25 families during the current year.
River erosion continues in the border areas as embankments of most of the rivers on Bangladesh side remain unprotected while dams and groins have been constructed at different points upstream in India. As such, the rivers change their directions breaking the banks inside Bangladesh. Bangladesh’s landmass in Sylhet is facing erosion as the flows of the river Surma and Kushiara are being changed due to construction of dams at Tipaimukh on the Barak river in the upstream, around 100 km off the border, to generate hydroelectricity.
The increasing political pressures of rapidly growing economies with vaulting ambition (India and China) are also exerting increasing political pressures upon governments for increasing availability of water for domestic, agricultural and industrial consumption as well as exponentially multiplying power generation for fueling and sustaining high growth levels. While India (and China) have their respective master plans that cater to anticipated exigencies of growing water and power shortages nationally, these plans would care little for the adverse consequences to lower riparian neighbours, unless all sides involved engage in constructive dialogue geared to resolution, rather than further aggravation of the problem. The existing problem is likely to be exacerbated, and made more complicated, by very recent reports that China is now contemplating diverting the waters of the Yarlung-Brahmaputra near its point of origin in Tibet for its own domestic needs .

“China plans to construct a dam at Yarlung Tsangpo point on the Brahmaputra River in Tibet province to divert 200 billion cubic metres of water annually to the Yellow River threatening a major ecological disaster in Bangladesh within the next few years” (The Daily Star Bangladesh, May 8, 2007).

Environmental and ecological phenomena transcend political borders, and can only be addressed through cooperative interlocution and cooperative action by the several parties affected. Since the dynamics of Bangladesh’s environment are also very likely to become the drivers of Bangladesh’s economic development, solutions can only be found through a holistic approach that embraces cooperation by all the regional stakeholders. The most logical approach would be to adopt a regional approach to address the looming disaster, a rough blueprint of which would ideally comprise the following elements:

Adopting cooperative approach on a regional/sub-regional basis, that would include Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, and if possible China;
Adopting a holistic approach to environmental issues, that would embrace:
- Joint management of shared commons – waters resources, forestry, etc. The only way that these floods can be managed (they cannot be entirely prevented) is if the sub-region/region were to undertake, simultaneously in a coordinated manner, activities for training and constructing protective embankments along the major river systems that flow across this sub-region, holistically, i.e. from the headwaters to the mouth of these rivers. Piecemeal attempts at taming rivers simply will not work, as the force of the river follows its own logic and finds it own course where left unaddressed.
- This would entail massive employment of human capital (conceivably with relatively little capital heavy machinery) along the entire passage of the river, resulting in employment generation (and consequently wealth generation) from the region of the headwaters to the mouth.
- Along with training these rivers could be undertaken expansion of existing irrigation channels (that would also serve as overflow drainage channels during floods), water conservation reservoirs, and generation of hydro-electricity (not necessarily through construction of mega dams, but perhaps cascading series of smaller barrages and using new technology for harnessing the river flows);
- All these activities would have direct or indirect beneficial economic effects for the peoples of the sub-region. The generation of hydro-electricity would also serve the purpose of rendering surplus hydro-carbon resources for export abroad.
- They would also dramatically reduce the current rate of deforestation (for fuel as well as for illegal logging).
- Regeneration of forestry and increasing forest coverage would create new and enhance existing carbon-sequestration zones, and these could be used as trade-offs, in terms of the existing provisions of the Kyoto Protocol;
- Soil erosion would be prevented through stopping such deforestation (by providing alternative clean energy), from training of the rivers so that large chunks of the river banks are not washed away from uncontrolled floods.
- This in turn would save properties of people from current washing away/destruction by rivers on the rampage during flood season, and siltation of river-beds would be reduced.

The following additional beneficial spin-offs would also follow:
- The incentives of trade, whether intra-state, inter-state or border trade, would increase dramatically;
- Ancillary supportive infra-structure would be developed;
- Rivers would be rejuvenated where stagnating, and open up supporting avenues for human activities without risk of environmental degradation
- More people-to-people contacts would be spurred, promoting better understanding.

However, existing political mindsets that fuel, and are fueled in turn, by lack of sufficient information being available to the general public would first have to be consciously addressed and overcome by coordinated efforts to inform all stakeholders and woo their support – be they the local people who are directly affected, local opinion-moulders and decision-makers, and political leadership at local, national and regional levels. This process would be immensely facilitated by studies that are jointly undertaken, quantifying for local relevance how many households in how many villages in which areas would be beneficiaries of these multi-purpose activities and their end-products, whether protective embankments, rural infrastructure development that would spin off increased commercial activities, or power generation that would qualitatively improve lives; conserving precious forests resources and optimizing agricultural activities without degrading the soil, through imaginative and innovative diversification in crop rotation and fisheries exploitation. The wheel does not have to be re-invented here. Possibly, such studies already exist, but in fragmented format. They would need to be collated, as far as possible, and compounded together cohesively to make sense comprehensively to local and larger audiences at the same time.

Future prospects – harmonizing domestic compulsions and priorities with external realities
Both the Indian and Chinese actions, while reflecting the harsh realities of meeting increasing water and power shortages for their fast growing populations of over 1 billion each, could spell disaster for lower riparian Bangladesh. It would be unrealistic of Bangladesh to indulge in injured self-righteousness and acrimonious recriminations against either or both the other parties. Previous experiences with trying to invite world support against bigger powers were not successful, and only complicated matters more, and weakened Bangladesh’s opportunity for deriving maximum advantage when available. Trying to play off India against China is not likely to succeed either, given the trajectory of global developments.
Given that the history of festering disputes between Bangladesh and India indicate that disputes have been more amenable to resolution (albeit not necessarily easily) under democratic-secular oriented centrist-left-of-centre dispensation being in power in Bangladesh; given that regimes with a contrary orientation have tended to adopt policies of animosity (sometimes bordering on bellicosity towards India); and given that Indian foreign policy dynamics over the last 35 years have demonstrated that there tends to be a broad consensus on foreign policy issues across party-divides in the Indian polity (in which parties across the political divide cannot be played off against each other where national interests are involved); the future of Bangladesh in the next two decades (four general elections)will be inevitably tied up with how Bangladesh and its citizens chose define themselves politically, in the domestic and larger context, and could conceivably unfold in either of the following trajectories:
Scenario A:

Bangladesh politics reverses into authoritarianism that rejects secularism and privileges Islam – privileging stressful relations with neighbours

In this scenario, there would be further polarization on issues between Bangladesh and India, the minority is likely to come under further pressures that would force them to seek refuge in the safe haven of India, disputes over water resources and mineral resources located offshore (the maritime boundary between the two countries remain unresolved to date) would escalate perhaps even triggering armed intervention by India. Diversion or unilateral action of waters on other major rivers upstream by the upper riparian is inevitable and would have disastrous consequences replicating (but in much worse form) the Ganges waters diversion scenario and its effects, triggering massive migration of economic refugees. The additional deleterious effects of global warming and climate change as described earlier in this paper will deepen and broaden the scope of the inter-border disputes. The phenomenon of militant Islam will reactively grow broader and deeper in Bangladesh, and in combination with the dynamic of Islamic fundamentalism being further consolidated in Pakistan (as appears to be the inexorable trend), the Indian Muslims who constitute possibly the third, if not second largest Muslim population globally, will not remain entirely unaffected by these developments. These developments, accelerated by the drivers of globalization, will also tend to sharpen, and heighten the polarization and civilisational conflict between the forces of militant Islam and the non-Islamic world, whether in the immediate region or the larger world community, is likely to be further vitiated. It will matter little at that stage to try to establish causal responsibility for a phenomenon that will essentially become a vicious circle that will feed continually on itself to expand.
Scenario B:

Bangladesh politics reverts to secular-democracy without completing marginalizing Islamic parties, thus co-opting them within a consensual framework, eschewing the zero-sum paradigm.

In this scenario, it will be relatively easier to engage both India and China in constructive dialogue and embark on cooperative ventures with them in concert with other regional neighbors/parties involved. Given political will (a sine qua non for this scenario to unfold) and policies underpinned by broad consensus (which seems to be a tall order at this moment) will lend substance and resilience to national policies and make them more easily acceptable to partners in negotiations. All stakeholders would perceive possession of ownership and the advantages to be reaped from such cooperative ventures, and also be in a position to reap benefits individually for themselves and their local constituencies. The process of marginalization of peripheral groups/entities would be effectively reversed, thus removing the casus belli of long-festering insurgencies that have plagued the region. Overall global negotiations on environmental issues would also become easier, since there will emerge possibilities that enhance win-win tradeoffs. Stabilization of the domestic political scenario will deprive extremists, from either polar extremity, the space to operate viably, removing the spin-offs of internal strife, further degradation of environmental resources, and potential spin-offs for conflict build-up.
In order to be able to address the problems that could plague it in the future, therefore, Bangladesh (and more importantly Bangladeshi civil society) needs to indulge in anticipatory thinking and resort to holistic planning. The drivers of these can only be good governance, visionary outlook and proactively positive citizen engagement. Whether Bangladeshis will be able to, or chose to, do this will depend on how Bangladesh resolves its current domestic political crisis, and how it addresses its external relations and larger issues related to environmental dangers. It would behoove policy-makers and those who mould opinions to embrace pragmatism that, while keeping a close eye on promoting and consolidating national self-interest, also at the same time offers the scope for regional advancement that bounces back to further advantages and benefits at the narrower local and national levels – in other words abjuring the zero-sum paradigm of a one-way street, instead opting to drive along a two-way highway, with an eye on the rear view mirror of history.
Otherwise, the Homer-Dixon paradigm looming on the not-too-distant horizon looks forebodingly realistic and self-fulfilling.

This is based on a paper earlier presented by the author at a seminar on Futures at the department of Government & Politics, University of Maryland, in May 2007

The author is former Additional Foreign Secretary and Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States. He teaches at the University of Maryland and at Virginia International University.

Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases, International Security, Vol. 19, No. I (Summer 1994), pp. 5-40 (As part of Peace and Conflict Studies Program, University of Toronto, Canada.

India claims that there are as many as over 2 million illegal Bangladeshis in India. Additionally, the Hindu minority population of Bangladesh has shrunk from having comprised over 15% of the population to a little over 10% of the total population today.

Indian territory bounds Bangladesh geographically on three sides; when conflict erupted within East Pakistan following the army crack-down on the Bengalis, 10 million refugees streamed into India during the next nine months of the ensuing conflict, to seek shelter in camps there, thus effectively drawing in India as an interested party with its own security and other concerns.

CIA web fact book – Bangladesh

The Nixon administration, for Cold War geo-political considerations, was fiercely opposed to the splitting of Pakistan and Bangladesh’s creation, despite the fact that the movement for separation by the Bengalis of East Pakistan was universally recognized as a nationalist movement driven by a combination of economic, cultural and political factors, just as the atrocities committed by the West Pakistani military and its local (largely non-Bengali, but some Islamic parties as well) were also universally condemned, some even going to the extent of terming military action as genocide. China (also for geo-political reasons flowing from its stand-off with India and strategically close ties with Pakistan), as well as most countries of the Arab Middle East, did not extend recognition to it until 1974 (Saudi Arabia held off recognition for much longer). Even the United Nations did not admit it as member until late 1974.

As Leader of the Awami League Party of East Pakistan, he and his party had won an overall majority in the general elections held in Pakistan in 1970 to the Pakistan national Assembly; but the army and West Pakistani politicians (notably led by the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto) were averse to transferring power to the East Pakistan-based leader and Party, that led to the resultant conflict between the two wings of the already geographically-divided nation. Mujib and almost his entire family (excepting his two daughters who were abroad at the time) were assassinated by disgruntled army elements on 15th. August, 1975.

The four provinces of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and the North West Frontier Province in the western wing of Pakistan were lumped together to comprise one political unit and re-designated as “West Pakistan” in 1957. This new dispensation also propagated “parity” between the eastern and western wings in allocation of national resources, thus abjuring the federal principle and origins of Pakistan, and also ignoring demographic considerations – a move viewed by the Bengalis of East Pakistan, who had hitherto constituted the majority population of the country in the previous federal configuration, as an instrument of deliberately depriving and disadvantaging them economically and politically.

Geographically separated from the Western wing by over 1000 miles of Indian territory

Almost 64% in Bangladesh

Marked the fall of General Ershad’s authoritarian regime. Also marks a defining moment in Bangladesh’s political evolution.

Thomas F. Homer-Dixon, Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases, Part 2

Jyoti M Pathania, Environment - Unconventional Threat To Bangladesh, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper no. 799, 26 September, 2003

Floods of 2007 have been more devastating and claimed more human casualties than the earlier floods.

Bangladesh Department of Environment and IUCN report, National Action Programme of Combating Desertification in Bangladesh, August 2005

World Bank Report, Bangladesh Country Environmental Analysis, Main Report, South Asia Environment and Social Development Unit, August 23, 2006

“Coastal Living – a growing global threat”, Catherine Brahic, in NewScientist Environment, 28 March, 2007

Op cit Alister Doyle, “UN Climate panel: Global Warming to raise Earth’s seas for 1,000 years”, Reuters, January 26, 2007

op cit Reuters publication of IRIN report released by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, September 23, 2007

Daily Star, Dhaka, Vol.5, number 1041, Monday May 07, 2007

In 1989-90, the author with a Bangladeshi scientist had met with Chinese (and later Indian) officials to discuss their receptivity to undertaking a cooperative project on harnessing the Brahmaputra waters at the great bend of the river (where it drops sharply by several miles) before entering India, for generating electricity as well as for other uses, for the common benefit of all countries served by the river. It was an idea much before its time, and the response was predictably negative given the state of relations between India and China at that time. The same Bangladeshi scientist was ridiculed by Bangladeshi authorities at that time who laughed derisively at his ‘naiveté’.

About the Author

Ambassador Tariq Karim joined the Foreign Service in 1967. Among key assignments he held at Headquarters were Additional Foreign Secretary (1995-1997) with responsibility for the South Asian region and Director General for United Nations and Economic Affairs (1982-84). He served in Bangladesh Missions abroad, notably as Ambassador to the United States, and earlier as High Commissioner to South Africa, Ambassador to Iran and Lebanon, and Deputy Chief of Mission in Beijing and New Delhi. Opting for early retirement, he joined academia at the University of Maryland, College Park in 1999. State fragility, civil society, democratic transition, governance issues, political Islam and globalization issues are among his primary areas of research interest and expertise. He has been teaching courses on Government and Politics at the University of Maryland and on Politics and Business at the Virginia International University during the last few years.

CFAS Management: Ambassador M. Serajul Islam

2007-01-01T07:19:00.000-08:00

A professional diplomat, Ambassador M Serajul Islam started his career in the erstwhile Pakistan Foreign Service. He has been posted in Bangladesh Missions in Canberra, New Delhi, Washington and Beijing. His two Ambassadorial assignments have been to Egypt (1999-2002) and Japan (2002-2006). At headquarters, he served as Director-General, South Asia and Far East.

Prior to joining the Pakistan Foreign Service, Ambassador Islam taught Political Science at the University of Dhaka as a Lecturer after graduating from the same University with a First Class BA (Honours) degree in 1968 and a MA degree the following year. Ambassador Islam undertook graduate studies in Political Science in the University of Brock, Canada in 1975-76.

In his student days, Ambassador Islam was active in sports. He played cricket for his department in Dhaka University. He captained the Dhaka University Tennis Team in 1968 and 1969. He was awarded a Blue in Tennis by the Salimullah Muslim Hall of Dhaka University in 1969.

CFAS Management: Ambassador Shamim Ahmed

2007-01-01T07:18:00.000-08:00

Ambassador F.A.Shamim Ahmed joined the Foreign Service in 1974 and served in various capacities in the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry and Embassies abroad. His assignments have pertained mainly to South Asia and UN and multilateral matters.

Before his retirement in May 2007 as Ambassador Grade A and Secretary to the government. Ambassador Shamim Ahmed served as the country’s High Commissioner to Pakistan for four years. Prior to that he was Bangladesh Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and, concurrently, Permanent Representative to the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Ambassador Ahmed served as the Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York from 1997 – 2000. He was a member of the Bangladesh’s delegation to the Security Council in 2000 with the rank of Ambassador. He also served as Consul General in New York.

His other diplomatic assignments were Deputy Chief of Mission in Islamabad; Deputy Chief of Mission in Rome with accreditation as Alternate Permanent Representative to the UN FAO, World Food Programme and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.; Second / First Secretary in Tokyo and second Secretary in Nairobi with accreditation to the headquarters of the United Nations Environment Programme. He attended a Foreign Service training programme in Canberra, Australia in 1976.

Ambassador Shamim Ahmed’s various assignments in the Foreign Ministry in Dhaka include Director General of the South Asia desk, Chef d’Cabinet to the Foreign Minister, Director of the South Asia desk, Director Southeast Asia, Director in charge of the Finance Directorate, desk officer for West Europe and desk officer for India. In his capacity as the head of the South Asia wing in the Ministry he was closely associated with the process leading to the signing of the Ganges Water Treaty with India in December 1996 and agreement on repatriation of the tribal refugees in October 1997.

Born in 1948, Ambassador Ahmed earned Honours and Master’s degrees in Sociology from the University of Dhaka. He also served as a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology in Chittagong University, prior to joining the diplomatic service.

Ambassador Shamim Ahmed is married to Shabnam Ahmed (nee Hussein) and they have a son and a daughter.

CFAS Management: Ambassador Ashfaqur Rahman

2007-01-01T07:08:00.000-08:00

A career diplomat, Ambassador Rahman has been with the Government for long 36 years when he retired in May 2007.

Born in Dhaka, Bangladesh and educated in Dhaka University he did his Honours and later Masters in Economics He was a Chancellor Gold Medallist in 1967.

He competed in the Civil Service Examination of Pakistan and entered the erstwhile Service in 1970. Till 1978 he was posted in various important Ministries including assignments in the Prime Ministers Office and in various districts of Bangladesh.

From 1978, his foreign assignments began and he was posted as a senior diplomat in Bangladesh missions including London, Tehran, Stockholm, Moscow, When he was posted at Headquarters at Dhaka he headed the Directorate of Personnel, and UN and later the Directorate General of SAARC, International Organizations, South Asia, etc.

From 1996, he headed the Bangladesh missions in Singapore as High Commissioner till 2001. Then he was made Bangladesh Ambassador to Germany till 2003. In that year he was assigned as Bangladesh Ambassador to China where he remained till May 2007. In each of these Ambassadorial appointments, he was concurrently accredited to other countries too, which included Brunei from Singapore; Czech Republic, Austria, Croatia and Slovania from Germany and finally North Korea and Mongolia from China.

Ambassador Rahman has participated in important negotiations on behalf of his country and represented in numerous international conferences in the UN, the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Summit, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the South Asia Association of Regional Co-operation, etc.

He is married and has two daughters.