SENT TO SAAG ON 9^TH MAY 2009

                       CAN SOUTH ASIA BE RESCUED FROM QUAGMIRE

                        By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador of Bangladesh)

True to the British genius that enabled the island nation to rule the waves and create an empire where sun never set British Ministers had been advised not to use the term “Islamic extremism” lest it gave it offence to “decent minded people”. This dictum was announced to appease the objections of many scholars to the use of the word “Islamic fundamentalism” on grounds that fundamentalism was not peculiar to Islam, had   originated in Christianity and   embraced by factions belonging to many religions. Besides, going back to the fundamental teachings of any faith, however incongruous it may seem in the post-modern world of today, can not be debatable so long the journey back is made voluntarily by those convinced of the ultimate uselessness of the material benefits offered by today’s world. Problem arises when in the name of religion a particular  religious belief is sought to be imposed on the minority community through violence in any country and also that violence having multi-national character spreads its wings in other countries where people do not subscribe to the extremist faith the corruptors are bent upon to inflict upon the people. Not to oppose these people would constitute, in the words of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “a doctrine of benign inactivity”.

  American policy since 9/11 represented gross violation of international law and made George Bush as much a threat to world peace as was Osama bin Laden. Blair told the deviants of the Muslim faith that their attitude towards “America is absurd, their concept of governance is pre-feudal, their position on women and other faiths reactionary and regressive”. In Tony Blair’s mind what was happening in the world was not a clash between civilizations but a clash about civilizations. “It is the age old battle between progress and reaction”, he said, “between those who embrace and see the opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence, between optimism and hope on the one hand and pessimism and fear on the other”. Then British Prime Minister knew that not to fight the menace which has afflicted many countries including Bangladesh despite the hanging to death of six JMB terrorists would be in Churchillian language wasted opportunities and the future generation would describe this inaction as “The Locust Years”. Tony Blair’s enunciation in 1999 of the doctrine of international community the basic thesis of which has been one of the defining characteristic of today’s world was the focus on its interdependence, yet while the economies of globalization was well matured, the politics of globalization were not, and therefore unless a common global policy based on common values was articulated, “we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political, through letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked”. Blair’s successor Gordon Brown saw the Iraq war as a misadventure though seen by Tony Blair as “being instrumental in causing setback to terrorist barbarity and advance for the forces of democracy as against the forces of tyranny and thus justifying Anglo-US invasion of Iraq, can be described as more humane and less self-interested.”  'We make war," wrote Aristotle, "so that we can live in peace." The people of Iraq have found out the hard way that this is not always the case. Even Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff and a staunch supporter of liberal interventionism, admitted that the war had been badly mishandled. Gordon Brown may have paid the bills for the mission in Iraq, but he does not now want to pay the political price.  In a letter to the Fabian Society, released early this year he indicated his concern about the build-up to the invasion of Iraq by confirming that the Government would hold an inquiry - although this is something that ministers have said before and there is still no date set for the investigation to begin.
TELEGRAPH reported that if Mr. Blair thought that the "rules of the game" had changed after the terrorist attacks on London, Mr. Brown wants to observe the rules of the political game again following the war in Iraq. His National Security Council is made up of experts who can keep over-enthusiastic prime ministers in check. There will be no more talk of a "war on terror", "shock and awe" tactics or a "crusade" against Islamic extremism. Instead, the rhetoric will be downbeat and the context practical. Security of energy supplies, flood defenses and the money markets will be dealt with alongside terrorism. "The decision about the war in Iraq was based on Tony's whim and instinct," says one minister who is close to Mr. Brown. "There needs to be more scrutiny, more objective criteria."

It is clear, writes TELEGRAPH, that Gordon Brown is trying to distance himself from Britain's most unpopular military intervention since Suez. His decision to appoint Lord Moloch Brown - a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war, neo-conservative baiter and supporter of the United Nations was intended as a deliberate signal of a new approach. The Brownites are trying to pin the blame for the war firmly on Mr. Blair. But there is a sense in which this was Tony Blair's war who was from the outset convinced that Saddam had to be removed, determined to ensure that George W. Bush did not go it alone and excessively convinced of his own powers of persuasion in Washington and at the United Nations. Gordon  Brown does not see the world in  black-and-white terms.  There is a fundamental difference of attitude between the Prime Minister Brown and his predecessor about how to keep Britain safe. For Tony Blair, security was an ideological struggle against evil ideas; for Mr. Brown it is a pragmatic battle to keep disruptive forces under control.  Blair's foreign policy guru was Robert Cooper, a former diplomat who argued that a new form of imperialism was needed to stop failed states spiraling out of control.  Brown looks increasingly to the writings of David Kilcullen, a retired Australian army officer who now advises the US State Department. In his view, the West is engaged in a "global counter-insurgency" that can be won only by persuading young Muslims that it is not in their own interest to turn to extremism. It is, he says, a hearts-and-minds campaign that can be compared to persuading young men not to join street gangs. Again referring to TELEGRAPH the difference between the two approaches could not be clearer: one is global and ideological; the other local and psychological. There has been a corresponding shift in foreign policy. While Blair championed a Gladstonian moralistic approach, Mr Brown prefers the more cautious Palmerstonian attitude. There are, as Palmerton said, "no permanent allies, only permanent interests". Or as a Brownite adviser put it: "Foreign policy should always be based on national self-interest.”

In the ultimate analysis while the optimists may hold on to their hope that the clash about civilizations may ultimately be resolved without resorting to brutal Hobbesian struggle and the mechanism of social Darwinism, the pessimists may have less confidence in a just international structure and believe in the thesis of former State Department official Mark Lagon that where consensus cannot be achieved in the United Nations, US efforts to enforce norms constitute leadership rather than “license”. Some hold the view that it is a positive development now that the UN recognizes situations in which national sovereignty loses legitimacy paving the way for the Responsibility to Protect that was affirmed at the 60th UN anniversary World Summit of September 2005. One cannot but wonder whether paying obeisance to neo-conservative Robert Kagan’s thesis of US muscularity and historian Lian Ferguson’s entreaty to the US to take up the call of history, as he sees it, would not after all bring anew the metropolitan-peripheral relationship of a different variety. Some day in the near future the developing countries (barring those who would be embraced by the First World) would have to decide on the course they would be taking for the welfare of the future generations.

There is a school of thought that would have us believe that the  three great civilizations—Greek, Egyptian and Roman—as slavery based civilizations that had ultimately led to  their eventual demise on being based only on sword and not on values. The Greek philosophy that flowered between 600 and 200 B.C. “foreshadowed many theories of modern science, and many of the moral ideas of the pagan Greek philosophers were incorporated into Christian moral doctrine. The political ideas set forth by the Greek thinkers influenced political leaders as different as the framers of the US Constitution and the founders of several of 20th century totalitarian states”. It is difficult to disown Socrates’ description of the soul as a combination of an individual’s intelligence and character. Equally Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Ethics have continued to exercise the intellect of the global community till today. While the power of the sword brought coherence among disparate elements that the Greeks and the Romans ruled for that was the order of the day, and if the doctrine of preemption and nuclear primacy are counted among the instruments of power and conflict resolution, then it would be incorrect to conclude that the foundation of the three civilizations rested only upon the might of the sword. Despite the persecution of the Christians by the Romans for centuries and of the infidels by the inquisitions the wars of religion that have the world on edge was a distant cloud one could hardly discern in then global context. The same school of thought would have us believe that the disappearance of the three civilizations, gave birth to   religion based civilizations, that of Muslim, Hindus, Christian, and Judaism. These civilizations have continued to survive till today because these are based on a “cluster of human values”. Interestingly the school notes that all four religion based civilizations were born in Asia and two, Hinduism and Buddhism, were born and nurtured in South Asia. As Samuel Huntington wrote in his oft quoted thesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or economic but cultural. He writes “a civilization is a cultural entity…A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of the people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species”. Though Huntington has put economic differences at a lesser level of non-military security threat (NTS) it would be unwise to give total credence to Huntington’s premise because economic disparity between people of the North and the South, inter-regional and intra-regional disparity, and disparity within the country are more likely to deepen the possibility of conflict that no “cluster of values” can dissipate. Therefore be it Adam Smith’s dominant self-interest; competitive efficiency based on social Darwinism; Newton’s principles of natural law; and utilitarian views of greatest good for greatest number; and transition of Western political economy from feudalism to mercantilism to industrial democracy and promotion of globalization of trade through competitive efficiency and communication, the Western politico-economic superiority over the rest of the world has come to stay. Then again the West would be well advised to be aware of NTS like climate change, cross border environmental degradation and resource depletion, natural disasters, irregular migration, food shortage, human and drug trafficking and other forms of transnational crimes (NTS and Multilateralism in Asia- Stanley Foundation). The UN Environmental Program Report published hours ahead of Oslo ceremony awarding Nobel Peace Prize noted that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh face especially severe risk from climate change led by glacial retreat in the Himalayas that will threaten the water supply for millions of people. Sea level rise and cyclones will threaten the coast line of the Bay of Bengal and change in monsoon rains will hit agriculture.  “These dynamics will increase the social crisis potential in a region which is already characterized by cross-border conflicts( India/Pakistan), unstable governments( Pakistan/Nepal) and Islamism” US State Department in a recent report stated that  more than a billion people in Asia can face reduced water availability by mid-century. One, therefore, has to be aware as to where the threat lies to the welfare of the people of not only of this generation but of the ones following us as well. The incidence of poverty in Bangladesh is about 40% of the total population. One wonders whether we have taken proper lessons from the devastation caused by cyclone Sidr.

Unfortunately the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the politician can see up to the next election whereas the statesman can see up to the next generation.   We, therefore, have reason to be alarmed at the reported wealth possessed by corporations run by religious fundamentalists making an annual net profit of twelve billion taka in Bangladesh alone of which ten percent is used by fundamentalists for organizational purposes like carrying out regular party activities, providing remuneration and allowances to about half a million party cadres and running armed training camps. It has been observed that while the number of primary schools since liberation of Bangladesh has doubled that of Dakhil madrasas has increased eight fold. In this context the remarks of CINPAC Admiral William Fallon during his visit to Bangladesh gain relevance. Referring to radicals who look for areas of unrest and areas of weakness Admiral Fallon reportedly expressed concern “that there may be some movements that might try to take advantage of Bangladesh”. Delhi based South Asia Intelligence Review in one of its  reports linked “increasing activities of Islamist extremists” with then ruling coalition” in Bangladesh and Indian authorities had  warned before the Awami league led government had assumed power  that India would not ignore her neighbors’ conduct “to allowing the use of their territories for cross-border terrorism and hostile activities against India”. Added to this the Euro-American warnings relating to increased religious extremism in Bangladesh can only be disregarded at our own peril. Terrorism being transnational one has to be concerned over the developments in Pakistan.   Analyzing the state of sectarianism in Pakistan Brussels based International Crisis Group has remarked that sectarian conflict in Pakistan is the direct consequence of state policies of Islamisation and marginalization of secular democratic forces. Cooption and patronage of religious parties by successive military governments have brought Pakistan to a point where religious extremism threatens to erode the foundation of the state and society. The choice that Pakistan faces, the crisis group warns, is not between the military and the mullahs, as is generally believed in the West; it is between genuine democracy and a military-mullah alliance that is responsible for producing and sustaining religious extremism. Situation has worsened in Pakistan. The Federal and NWFP governments have agreed with the Pakistani Taliban to impose in Swat valley strict sharia law in a manner that conflicts with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the civilized world. Incursion of the Taliban into neighboring Buner has elicited sharp reaction from Hillary Clinton and General David Patraeus about the existential threat to Pakistan’s existence and has led to tripartite talks among Presidents Barak Obama, Asif Zardari and Hamid Karzai.  According to a recently conducted survey 87%of the Americans are “somewhat concerned” while 60% are “very concerned” about the security of the nuclear weapons possessed by Pakistan. Boston Globe reports that Pakistani officials are in talks with the US about its demands to fly the stock of highly enriched uranium Islamabad possesses to the US to be disposed of there. This report underlines the acute worry of the US of the nuclear weapons falling into wrong hands though it is unlikely that any Pakistani government would accede to such a demand that Islamabad considers a violation of its security in the face of its arch enemy-India- possessing nuclear weapons. Any Indian assurance not to attack Pakistan would be immediately rejected. So would any assurance by the US on behalf of India. The distrust nurtured by Pakistan for the last half a century, albeit assisted by a section of arch-religionist Indians, will not melt away in the near future.  While no instant solution comes to mind one wonders whether SAARC side line meetings assisted by the West before Barak Obama is forced to adopt the Bush Doctrine of Preemption could be an ice breaker.

Meanwhile for countries like Bangladesh transiting through perilous phase of political development, growth of her democratic personality stunted on several occasions by extra-constitutional forces, the authorities would be well advised to avoid Machiavelli’s advice that it is better to be feared than loved. Fine tuning the administrative and electoral process may result in massive politico-economic progression. In this race for development amidst global recession regional super powers should take upon themselves the responsibility to assist those needing assistance. And as peace and security are prerequisites for economic development countries of the region need to change their mindset about “enmity” of the past and look towards the future. At the risk of repetition the process of bonding of the European Union can always be cited as a shining example of regional cooperation.