FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS (FOR PUBLICATION ON SUINDAY THE 26^TH FEBRUARY 2006)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud( former Secretary and ambassador)

Generally US Presidents in their second term are less focused on populist agenda and more on the legacy they will leave behind and their place in history. According to this premise Woodrow Wilsonian rhetoric by President Bush to continue his quest for democratization of the world should be given due credence as the arguments proffered by him in favor of democratization are unassailable. Primarily, it is argued, democracies do not wage wars against other democracies because wars heralding the end of negotiations spell the failure of democratic values which thrive on discussion and persuasion. Besides, decisions in democracies are distilled through polycentric power bases and can never be unilateral as opposed to dictatorship in which a single or an oligarchy can take the ultimate decision of waging war without advice and consent of the people.

The global audience should have little reason to hesitate in accepting the veracity of President Bush’s reference in his latest State of the Union address to “the problems originating in a failed and oppressive state” situated a vast distance away from the US mainland in causing murder and destruction in the US. President Bush’s conclusion that dictatorships “shelter terrorists, and fuel resentment and radicalism” while “democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and neighbors”, described as “neocon fantasy” or “democratic vision” by detractors and supporters, are quintessentially correct. Whether after the invasion of Afghanistan( done with UNSC authorization) the Iraq invasion conducted under false pretenses was right or wrong will remain debatable for a long time to come. But if the long drawn out process of government formation in Iraq with elected theocracy is any indication of the way things are going then the US surely has failed to build a foundation for a multi-ethnic state. This premise is strengthened by the reported warning sounded by the US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to the warring factions of the Iraqi politicians that the US would not invest manpower and money to midwife the birth of a fractured Iraq. Though Blair-Bush duo may take satisfaction for removing a tyrant like Saddam Hussein from power, an unstable Iraq ruled by a conservative Shia majority akin in many ways to Iranian theocracy may endorse rather than renounce terrorism when the world is passing through, in President Bush’s words, “one of the most consequential periods of our history”. At the Stanley Foundation Conference on the Future of Persian Gulf held in Dubai late last year one of the participant observed that the fact that the Sunni faction in Iraq was never truly a part of the political process and was only inducted at the insistence of Donald Rums field and Condoleeza Rice reflected the difficulty in building a sustainable and cohesive Iraq. Shia-Sunni schism is profound and has transnational coverage. Many fundamentalist Sunnis consider Shias as apostates. There is no reason to believe that a fourteen centuries long divide will vanish just because the world’s hyper power has decided on a mission to democratize the Islamic world in the backdrop of the fact that the first, second and the third waves of democratization (as described by Samuel Huntington) barely touched the Muslim countries.

Immediately after the Second World War John Foster Dulles supported by Lester Pearson, among others, stressed on the necessity of forming a military defense mechanism( which later took the shape of NATO) to protect and defend “our cherished freedoms” which included religious faith and Western political and social systems as counterattraction to communism. This unwavering conviction of American leaders as protector of freedom throughout the world has remained an article of faith ever since the Second World War. President Bush, therefore, only reiterated what has been said before in his State of the Union address: “we are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and face down an evil empire”.  In the process the facts that during the long decades of cold war, in line with George Kenan’s policy of containment of Soviet expansionism, the US(and no less the USSR) had repeatedly intruded upon the sovereignty of many countries, engineered the murder of political leaders( till President Ford put a stop to it) and encouraged “democracy deficit” and kleptocracy in many Third World countries should not remain as parenthesis have to be kept in mind. Not then and not now it is not altruism but self-interest that continues to dictate the concert of Western foreign policies. As a matter of fact from Kennedy administration’s Alliance for Progress to Nixon-Kissinger doctrine of multi-polarity the US policy till the end of the cold war was not aimed at promoting democracy in the Third World but to support autocrats and military dictators who proved useful in the US’ efforts to contain communism. The demonization of al-Qaeda , its justification aside, should not blur the fact that CIA financed the Talibans and Osama bin Laden’s Jihaddists through Pakistan’s Ziaul Huq to defeat the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Strangely the Americans at that time had not considered the possibility that  the creation of a religion based theocracy may not confine its brutalities within a defined area but would try to spread its contagion to other countries. One wonders why the Western world failed to distinguish between Islamic fundamentalism which encapsulates the emotional, spiritual and political response of the Muslims to the acute politico-economic crisis in the Middle East and political Islam which aims at establishing a global Islamic order through challenging the status quo in Muslim countries and through establishing a transnational net work of contacts.

America’s war on radical Islam, defined by President Bush as “the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death”, continues. President Bush refuses to allow “radical Islam to work its will—by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself” and promises “not to retreat from the world, and never (to) surrender to evil”. An important tool in American fight against radical Islam would be through the recently enunciated Rice doctrine which seeks to work with the US partners around the world “to build and sustain democracies, well governed states that will respond to the needs of their people and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system”. Condoleeza Rice emphasized that her vision of transformational diplomacy “is rooted in partnership, not in paternalism”. Evidently Bush administration in its second term is less aggressive and strident in its pursuit of unipolar moment and more amenable to embrace multilateral mechanism. The current impasse over the Iranian nuclear program is a case in point. Despite reports of precision bombing pf suspected nuclear sites in Iran Bush administration, albeit reluctantly, has gone along with EU troika—UK, Germany and France—talks with Iran(though they are getting more disappointed as days go by) and also with Sino -Russian request for more time to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. Basically the Western insistence to deny Iran nuclear capability is because of the nature of the regime described by President Bush as “a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime that sponsors terrorists in Palestine and Lebanon”. Earlier dismissing Iranian Presidential election won by Ahmad-Nejad President Bush described Iran as a country “ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world... Power is in the hands of unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process  that ignores the basic requirements of democracy”. The fundamental requirement, therefore, is sustained democracy beyond a single election. But Vermont University Professor Gregory GauseIII has questioned the premise that there is an inverse relationship between the growth of democracy and the reduction of anti-American terrorism because terrorism stems from factors much more specific than the type of regime. Recent moves towards freer regime through elections have produced Hamas led government in Palestine, preponderance of Islamic fundamentalists in Saudi municipal elections, significant Muslim Brotherhood members in the Egyptian parliament, and conservative Shia domination in Iraqi parliament. These election results strengthens the argument of Harvard Professor Jessica Stern that democratization is not necessarily the best way to fight Islamic extremism because its roots can be traced to poverty, Madrasa education as in Pakistan and Bangladesh or foreign occupation as in Palestine and Iraq. Terrorism in the West can be explained, though not justified, by general perception in the Muslim world of Western double standard on issues like that of Palestine.

No one expects Bangladesh to be subjected to external scrutiny as suggested by Gareth Evans co-chaired International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty suggesting intervention in case of gross violation of human rights, genocide, famine or even human cost of anarchy; nor Princeton Professor Marie Ann Slaughter’s Duty to Prevent which basically targets closed societies with no opposition; nor Tony Blair’s Doctrine on International Community containing explicit recognition that states now a days are mutually dependent and that national interests of states are significantly governed by international collaboration. Blair’s doctrine was basically meant as a justification for NATO intervention in Kosovo. While discounting such extreme possibilities it would be foolhardy to be complacent given the turmoil through which Bangladesh is now passing through. Repeated warnings sounded by the international community that Bangladesh’s traditional commitment to democracy and religious pluralism is being threatened by Islamist inspired terrorism. Latest among those warnings was given by Senator Richard Luger, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Before him in quick succession were visiting Dutch Minister for International Cooperation, Commonwealth Secretary General, European Union representatives, donor agencies, Bretton Woods institutions, US State Department etc. International community’s concerns are based on their fear that given the present confrontational politics and politicization by the government of state and election related organs a free and fair parliamentary election with full participation of all parties may not be possible. Such an eventuality would not only destroy domestic peace and harmony but could destabilize the region. In case of large scale breach of peace by Islamic extremists mass exodus of minority community to India can not be ruled out. Equally agitation by combined opposition parties would inevitably bring upon them the wrath of both the law enforcement agencies and the ruling parties’ cadre causing mayhem, death and destruction. One hopes that such a situation will not come to pass. Repression of the people of Bangladesh resorted to by autocrats and military dictators had never succeeded to thwart their march towards democracy and never will. This lesson of history should not be forgotten.