WE HEARTILY congratulate Democrat Barack Obama for his historic and spectacular victory over Republican John McCain in the US presidential elections. The historic nature of Obama’s election as the 44th president of the United States cannot be overstressed. In August, he had become the first African-American to be nominated for the presidency by a major party and yesterday, he became the first African-American to become the president-elect, 44 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act and 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jnr. On January 20, 2009, he will be sworn-in as the first black man to occupy the White House.
In the year Barack Obama was born, the United States was a country segregated by race. Slavery may have been abolished a hundred years prior, but African-Americans were still considered lesser beings and treated as second-class citizens, if that; they were made to go to different schools than whites and could sit only at the back of buses and trains in order to make space for white people in the front. That was the America into which Barack Obama was born. Forty-seven years on, racial undercurrents still remain in the US, palpable in some areas more than others; however, for Obama today to stand on the verge of entering the highest office in the land on the back of a landslide victory over a white opponent is not only a phenomenal achievement but will, at least in part, we hope, exorcise the spectre of America’s racist past that continues to haunt the nation.
There is something for us to learn from Obama’s election as America’s first black president. While Obama’s own political rise may have been meteoric, it should not be forgotten that it took a very long time for blacks in America to establish their political and democratic rights as equal citizens, and even longer for them to see one of their own elected as the country’s chief executive. Moreover, the positive change that has happened in America with regard to the African-American population in particular and minority communities in general has been achieved gradually through the political process, whether it is the 13th amendment to the US constitution that abolished slavery in 1865, the signing of the Civil Rights Act ending racial discrimination in 1964 or Obama’s election to the nation’s top office in 2008. Nothing was achieved through quick-fix measures, suspension of rights, coercion or violence. Hence, we should realise that, just like in America, the positive changes that we wish for in the nature of politics in our country will only occur with time if we try to bring them about through the political process, not by circumventing it.
Today, just like most of the rest of the world, we cannot help but feel optimistic as Bush’s America gives way to Obama’s America. The US remains the only country that is relevant and influential in every part of the world, and hence, the election of an American president affects the peace, harmony and well-being of all the people in the world. We have much expectation from a President Obama and would like to see him take a much more nuanced and pragmatic approach to economic and foreign policy, especially after eight years of living with the obtuse and dogmatic George W Bush. Hence, as we wish Obama well, we do so with a caveat. The entire world now looks upon him to give a new direction to American leadership, which he himself has promised over and over again during the course of his campaign. We hope he doesn’t fail in his endeavour.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Profile of Obama
Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday.
The 47-year-old senator from Illinois promises to bring ‘changes we believe in,’ which could begin with being the first African American president in history.
Obama’s life tells a different story from previous presidential hopefuls. He was born on August 14, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan father and a white mother from the state of Kansas, in the US heartland.
However, his father left home only two years after his birth for a graduate degree in Harvard and then a post in the Kenyan government. The only time Obama met his father again was at the age of 10. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1982.
Obama’s mother married an Indonesian oil executive when Obama was six. The whole family then moved to the southeast Asian country. He eventually returned to Hawaii for high school and stayed with his grandparents.
As he says in his book, Dreams From My Father, being rooted in both black culture and white culture, has helped him gain expansive vision he could bring to politics later. After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, Obama was ‘possessed with a crazy idea — that I would work at a grassroots level to bring about change.’
He moved from New York to Chicago, Illinois, in 1985 and worked as a community organiser in a poor African-American area for three years, when he realised involvement at a higher level was needed to bring true improvement to such communities.
Obama then attended Harvard Law School and was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, he returned to Chicago where he practiced civil rights law and taught the Constitution at the University of Chicago.
Obama decided to make his first run for public office in 1996, winning a seat in the Illinois state senate. Four years later, he sought a seat in the US House of Representatives, but without success.
In 2004, Obama beat six Democratic rivals to win the nomination in the congressional elections. His remarkable skills in oratory also impressed the party’s presidential candidate, John Kerry, who named him the keynote speaker at the national convention, where Obama, for the first time, stepped on the national political stage.
That November, he overwhelmingly captured 70 per cent of popular votes in the congressional elections to become a senator.
In the Senate, Obama’s voting record coincided with those of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. He criticised the Iraq war from the beginning, worked on Congress ethical standards and increasing the use of renewable fuels. He also built his reputation as a new breed of politician by working without partisan and racial divides.
Obama announced his bid for the White House on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois, where former president Abraham Lincoln had delivered a speech in 1858.
He joined seven other politicians in the Democratic camp, including former first lady and New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the first half of 2007, he raised 58 million US dollars, setting the record for fundraising by a presidential campaign in the first six months of the calendar year before the elections, although he trailed Clinton in national polls in 2007.
However, Obama was highly successful in enlisting supporters, especially among youth, minorities and those with higher education, and mapped a strategy to campaign not only in primary states but also caucus states. In the first caucuses held in Iowa on January 3, 2008, he scored a surprising victory.
After the Super Tuesday of February 5, Obama tied Hillary. With victories in 10 more consecutive contests over the rest of February, he surpassed her to become the most likely nominee. Finally, on June 3, he clinched the presidential candidacy.
On August 29, Obama and his running mate Joe Biden told the Democratic national convention that he would bring the changes the country needs and ‘revive the American dream.’
He has promised that if elected, he will take the country in a new direction by withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq with responsibility, enacting universal and affordable healthcare and adopting tax policies favouring lower- and middle-income families.
During the national campaign, he led Republican rival John McCain not only in polling numbers but also in campaign funding.
Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, in June 1989 when he worked at a Chicago law firm. They married on October 3, 1992, and have two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha.
The 47-year-old senator from Illinois promises to bring ‘changes we believe in,’ which could begin with being the first African American president in history.
Obama’s life tells a different story from previous presidential hopefuls. He was born on August 14, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan father and a white mother from the state of Kansas, in the US heartland.
However, his father left home only two years after his birth for a graduate degree in Harvard and then a post in the Kenyan government. The only time Obama met his father again was at the age of 10. He was killed in an automobile accident in 1982.
Obama’s mother married an Indonesian oil executive when Obama was six. The whole family then moved to the southeast Asian country. He eventually returned to Hawaii for high school and stayed with his grandparents.
As he says in his book, Dreams From My Father, being rooted in both black culture and white culture, has helped him gain expansive vision he could bring to politics later. After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, Obama was ‘possessed with a crazy idea — that I would work at a grassroots level to bring about change.’
He moved from New York to Chicago, Illinois, in 1985 and worked as a community organiser in a poor African-American area for three years, when he realised involvement at a higher level was needed to bring true improvement to such communities.
Obama then attended Harvard Law School and was elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, he returned to Chicago where he practiced civil rights law and taught the Constitution at the University of Chicago.
Obama decided to make his first run for public office in 1996, winning a seat in the Illinois state senate. Four years later, he sought a seat in the US House of Representatives, but without success.
In 2004, Obama beat six Democratic rivals to win the nomination in the congressional elections. His remarkable skills in oratory also impressed the party’s presidential candidate, John Kerry, who named him the keynote speaker at the national convention, where Obama, for the first time, stepped on the national political stage.
That November, he overwhelmingly captured 70 per cent of popular votes in the congressional elections to become a senator.
In the Senate, Obama’s voting record coincided with those of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing. He criticised the Iraq war from the beginning, worked on Congress ethical standards and increasing the use of renewable fuels. He also built his reputation as a new breed of politician by working without partisan and racial divides.
Obama announced his bid for the White House on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois, where former president Abraham Lincoln had delivered a speech in 1858.
He joined seven other politicians in the Democratic camp, including former first lady and New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the first half of 2007, he raised 58 million US dollars, setting the record for fundraising by a presidential campaign in the first six months of the calendar year before the elections, although he trailed Clinton in national polls in 2007.
However, Obama was highly successful in enlisting supporters, especially among youth, minorities and those with higher education, and mapped a strategy to campaign not only in primary states but also caucus states. In the first caucuses held in Iowa on January 3, 2008, he scored a surprising victory.
After the Super Tuesday of February 5, Obama tied Hillary. With victories in 10 more consecutive contests over the rest of February, he surpassed her to become the most likely nominee. Finally, on June 3, he clinched the presidential candidacy.
On August 29, Obama and his running mate Joe Biden told the Democratic national convention that he would bring the changes the country needs and ‘revive the American dream.’
He has promised that if elected, he will take the country in a new direction by withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq with responsibility, enacting universal and affordable healthcare and adopting tax policies favouring lower- and middle-income families.
During the national campaign, he led Republican rival John McCain not only in polling numbers but also in campaign funding.
Obama met his wife, Michelle Robinson, in June 1989 when he worked at a Chicago law firm. They married on October 3, 1992, and have two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha.
Americans vote for change Barack Obama makes history
Barack Obama swept to an historic and decisive victory as the first black US president, but pleaded for time to heal and transform the superpower as he faced up Wednesday to the huge task of forging his promised change.
‘It’s been a long time coming, but tonight... at this defining moment, change has come to America,’ Obama told 240,000 euphoric supporters, many in tears, at a rally late Tuesday after defeating Republican John McCain.
Obama, 47, will be inaugurated as the 44th US president on January 20, and inherit an economy mired in financial crisis, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a nuclear showdown with Iran.
‘Even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime, two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century,’ said Obama.
‘The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep, we may not get there in one year or even one term, but America — I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there,’ Obama said in his home town of Chicago.
‘I promise you — we as a people will get there.’
Senator Obama solidified traditional Democratic states and cut deep into the Republican territory which his rival needed to control to win the White House.
Obama’s win was greeted with euphoria across the United States and reverberated around the world.
New York’s Times Square exploded in joy at a moment of healing for America’s racial scars, and a screaming crowd gathered outside the White House. In Kenya, where Obama’s father was born, the president, Mwai Kibaki, declared a national holiday.
Celebrations erupted from the bars of London and Sydney, with parties spilling onto the streets from Berlin to Havana and from Paris to the small Japanese town of Obama.
Democrats also made huge strides in Congress, gaining an unshakeable grip on power in Washington. They boosted their majority in the Senate by five seats, with results still pending in four states, and by 20 seats in the lower House of Representatives.
After a bitter campaign, McCain was gracious in defeat, and noted that his election was a moment to cherish for African Americans.
Deeply unpopular president George W Bush, who has been in control through eight turbulent years, also congratulated Obama.
‘Mr President-elect, congratulations to you,’ White House spokeswoman Dana Perino quoted the president as saying in a phone call to Obama.
‘What an awesome night for you, your family and your supporters. Laura and I called to congratulate you and your good bride.’
Obama’s inauguration will complete a stunning ascent to the pinnacle of US and global politics from national obscurity just four years ago and close an eight-year era of deepening international and economic crises under Bush.
Obama is promising to renew bruised ties with US allies, and to engage some of the United States’ fiercest foes such as Iran and North Korea. He has vowed to tackle climate change and ensure health care access for all Americans. Some 45 million Americans have no health care whatsoever.
His presidency also marks a stunning social shift, with Obama, the son of a black Kenyan father and white mother from Kansas, the first African American president of a nation still riven by racial divides.
Forty-five years after civil rights icon Martin Luther King laid out his ‘dream’ of racial equality, Obama’s election broke new barriers and may have helped heal some of the moral wounds left by slavery and the US civil war.
When he launched his campaign on a chilly day in Illinois in February 2007, Obama forged a mantra of change which powered him through the longest, most costly US presidential campaign in history.
His success looked likely after he captured Pennsylvania, the battleground state which was McCain’s best hope of winning a Democratic state and keeping his rival from the White House.
And in a sweet moment for Democrats, Obama also seized the key midwestern states of Ohio, Iowa and Indiana as well as the southwestern state of New Mexico, all states won by Bush in 2004.
He later added Ohio, the decisive state which swept Bush to victory in 2004 and another Republican state, Virginia, which had not voted Democrat since 1964. He also won Florida, ground zero of the 2000 recount debacle.
McCain had argued Obama was too inexperienced to be US commander-in-chief and would pursue ‘socialist’ redistribution policies that would leave the economy mired in recession.
As of early Wednesday he had won 28 states, including the district of Columbia, for 349 electoral votes.
McCain had won 20 states but had not broken out of the Republican heartland and the south for 159 electoral votes.
Results were still pending in the states of North Carolina and Missouri, according to television networks.
In the Senate, Democrats wrested control of five Republican seats including in the traditionally Republican state of Virginia, followed by New Hampshire, North Carolina and New Mexico, reaching a 56 seat majority in the 100-seat chamber.
Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell clung on in Kentucky, meaning Democrats were unlikely to win the 60 seats they need in the 100-seat chamber needed to frustrate Republican obstruction tactics.
Senate races in Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia and Oregon however were still too close to call.
Democrats also won 20 seats in the House of Representatives, solidifying their majority to 258 against 177 of the Republicans, according to data from NBC news.
C for change, also for charade
TRUE to script, the new US president, Barack Obama, has sought to define the tone and tenor of his administration as markedly different from that of his immediate predecessor, George W Bush. At a lighting speed, one may say. Two days into his tenure, Obama ordered the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison and outlawed torture and secret CIA prisons abroad in what the international media termed ‘a far-reaching overhaul of the way the United States treats al-Qaeda detainees and other terror suspects.’ Obama also named two ‘hard-nosed’ negotiators — George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke — as special envoys in the ‘geopolitical minefields’ of the Middle East, and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Each of these moves is regarded as ‘a sharp change of course from the policies’ of Bush and a promise fulfilled from a historic campaign.
True to form, Obama has sought to temper every tough choice that he makes with his election-winning mantras of ‘change’ and ‘need’ for the US to re-establish its leadership and show to the world that ‘America’s moral example must be the bedrock and the beacon of our global leadership.’ The word ‘change’ itself is intoxicating; it inebriates even the most incorrigible cynic. It also raises hopes — invariably to unrealistic highs. And hopes do get cruelly belied. When it does, ‘change’ and ‘charade’ sound synonymous, as they must do to the Palestinians now after Obama’s speech at the US State Department on January 22 wherein he outlined his administration’s vision of peace in the Middle East.
‘Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security,’ Obama said. ‘And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.’ Then, as if as an afterthought and seemingly out of his inherent urge to coat unpleasant truths with some feel-good sound-bites, he added, ‘Now, just as the terror of rocket fire aimed at innocent Israelis is intolerable, so, too, is a future without hope for the Palestinians.’
Throughout the section of his speech where the US dwelt upon the Israel-Palestinian conflict, he sought to put forward the age-old rhetoric, pursued as recently as his immediate predecessor, George W Bush. ‘No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror,’ he said. He mentioned the loss of life in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel at same breath, as if the extent of ‘tragic violence’ was similar, if not the same, for both sides.
Then there was the same ‘things-to-do list’ as offered by the US and the so-called international community during the Bush years: ‘Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognise Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.’ What Israel, in return, needs to do? ‘Complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza.’ And the US and its partners? ‘Support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.’
The assessment by the Obama administration of the realities on the ground in Gaza is deliberately eschewed, to say the least. Hamas did go by the six-month ceasefire agreement; Israel did not. According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Centre, the total number of rocket and mortar attacks went down from 245 in June to a total of 26 for July through October (quoted in Complicity in Slaughter. Gaza by Rahnuma Ahmed, New Age, January 19, 2009). The relative lull was broken by Israel on the night of November 4 when it sent a commando squad into Gaza, killing six Hamas members.
As for the damage in the Gaza war, a look at the UN estimation is enough to see through the sham of an effort by the US administration to establish a semblance of symmetry between the damage sustained by the Gazans and the Israelis. Around 20 per cent of Gaza’s entire housing stock was hit – 4,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 severely damaged. The UN estimated on January 19 that 1,314 people were killed in the conflict, including 412 children, and more than 5,000 wounded. The figures released by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights on January 21 are very similar: 1,284 Gazans killed and 4,336 wounded.
Israel also violated international conventions at will and with impunity, as it has over the years. According to international media reports, the human rights watchdog Amnesty International has started investigation into Israel’s use of white phosphorous during the 22-day assault against Hamas in the Gaza strip. White phosphorous is an incendiary weapon and bursts into flames at the slightest contact; its use in civilian areas is banned under Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons.
Obama must be aware of these facts; he should as the president of the most powerful nation on earth. Still his iteration of the clichéd narrative that ‘Hamas is the terrorist and Israel is the victim’. It could be only construed, especially by the Palestinians and the Arab world, as the sadly familiar American duplicity. The new White House needs to recognise that it is America’s immoral example that has eaten into its global leadership over the years. On this count, Obama may be just carrying on the legacy of George W Bush and the US presidents before him.
The hopes for a change in the US policy for the Middle East with the inauguration of Obama were unrealistic in the first place. After all, Obama is the president of the US and his prime concern is to protect and promote the interest of the US above all else. Needless to say, the US interest is enmeshed with that of Israel. One thrives on the other although one may argue they need not.
Obama is spot-on when he says lasting peace ‘requires more than a long ceasefire’. However, his promise of sustaining ‘an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security’, at this point in time and, particularly, after his defining speech at the US State Department, sounds more like a ‘charade’ than a genuine commitment to ‘change’.
Phulbari elections result is the writing on the wall
The message that people of Phulbari have delivered through the ballots at the upazila elections is loud and clear. They have voted overwhelming in favour of Saiful Islam Bablu running for chairman of the sub-district at the local government elections of January 22. Bablu’s political identity is largely defined by his membership of the citizens’ platform National Committee for the Protection of Oil, Gas, Mineral, Power and Ports and it is significant that he was instrumental in organising the popular movement against an open-pit coal mine in the area proposed by Asia Energy, a subsidiary of the UK-based Global Coal Management.
The previous elected government of the BNP-led alliance was forced to back out of the area and enter into an agreement with ‘the people of Phulbari’, which stipulated among others that open-pit mining in the area would be suspended and Asia Energy would be sent packing. At the local government elections, the people of Phulbari have once again said no to open-pit coal mining. They have also said no to the secrecy that successive governments have maintained regarding their deals with international mining companies especially concerning extraction of fossil fuels: a facet of energy deals that the Committee has consistently criticised.
This upazila election result at Phulbari also carries a message for the prime minister who has recently appointed Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury, a former secretary for power and energy, as a government adviser who will oversee the sector. In doing so, the prime minister has indicated that she is content with the services that Tawfiq provided during his tenure as a secretary to the government for energy. This appointment also indicates that the prime minister has chosen to ignore several allegations against the former bureaucrat especially regarding the instrumental role he had played to have one gas-field declared ‘abandoned’ and thereafter handed over to little-known Canadian mining company, Niko Resources. His role regarding the Magurchhara gas-field blowout, which was being operated by the oil company Occidental in 1996 has also been controversial and cited as one of the reasons that Bangladesh failed to secure proper compensations for environmental damages and burnt gas.
Governments of poor countries, as is often the case, enter into secret deals with mining companies and grant them rights to extraction, largely ignoring the interests of the people they govern. In Bangladesh the history of oil and gas exploration shows no exception to this experience.
However, the citizens’ platform has shown through its relentless campaign through the last decade that it can raise the awareness of the people and mobilise them in thousands demanding that their rights and welfare not be ignored. Power and energy remains one of the prime concerns for the current government and it will have to perform well in this sector which has been ignored for too long. The government, as well as the prime minister herself, would do well to heed the message the people of Phulbari have delivered.
AL must now prove seriousness of its rhetoric
The print and electronic media have carried numerous reports in the last couple of days about attempts by certain ministers of the present Awami League-led alliance government and members of parliament of the party to influence the results of the elections to the upazila parishads that were held on Thursday. Ministers and lawmakers of the ruling party allegedly visited polling centres, tried to influence voters, and even harassed and mishandled polls officials in some places. The Election Commission — which had sent an official letter to the cabinet division prior to the polls asking ministers, state ministers, deputy ministers and persons holding equivalent ranks to stay away from electioneering — has stated following the elections that it would investigate the actions of some cabinet members and lawmakers of the Awami League and, if necessary, initiate legal action against them for breach of electoral rules.
Meanwhile, top Awami League leaders, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, are reportedly annoyed with certain ministers and members of parliament of the party for their alleged infraction of electoral laws prior to and during the elections to the upazila parishads. A New Age report published Saturday quotes the agriculture minister, Matia Chowdhury, saying that the allegations against some of her party colleagues, if true, are ‘unfortunate’ and that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the Election Commission investigating and taking action against the wrongdoers. In addition, HT Imam, an adviser to the prime minister, was quoted as saying that the Awami League would also launch an investigation into the allegations brought against its members.
While it may be reassuring to some that the Awami League has not rejected outright the allegations brought against some of its members, as our major political parties typically do in similar situations, it must be said that the silence of the prime minister and Awami League president on the matter till now, and the lack of any concrete action thus far by the party are disconcerting. It should not be forgotten that a similar drama played out with regard to the violence that was unleashed by activists of the ruling party in the days following the general elections. Even then, the Awami League high command had expressed their disappointment and annoyance, but did not take any concrete action against those who were responsible for the violence. As a result, the violence went on unimpeded for several more days.
We think that a party that came to power on the back of its promise to bring ‘change’ to our political and governmental culture ought to have used these instances to prove that it intends to practice what it has preached, by taking swift action with regards to those against whom there are allegations of misconduct. Hence, the Awami League must extend full cooperation to the Election Commission in its investigations of the alleged breaches and be ready to take stern action against anyone found guilty of electoral misconduct. Unwillingness or failure to act firmly will only suggest that the Awami League was not serious in its rhetoric to bring qualitative change to our politics. On the other hand, proper action will send out a powerful message to all party leaders and workers about how they are expected to conduct themselves in public life. We expect the Awami League to act quickly and decisively.
Meanwhile, top Awami League leaders, including Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, are reportedly annoyed with certain ministers and members of parliament of the party for their alleged infraction of electoral laws prior to and during the elections to the upazila parishads. A New Age report published Saturday quotes the agriculture minister, Matia Chowdhury, saying that the allegations against some of her party colleagues, if true, are ‘unfortunate’ and that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the Election Commission investigating and taking action against the wrongdoers. In addition, HT Imam, an adviser to the prime minister, was quoted as saying that the Awami League would also launch an investigation into the allegations brought against its members.
While it may be reassuring to some that the Awami League has not rejected outright the allegations brought against some of its members, as our major political parties typically do in similar situations, it must be said that the silence of the prime minister and Awami League president on the matter till now, and the lack of any concrete action thus far by the party are disconcerting. It should not be forgotten that a similar drama played out with regard to the violence that was unleashed by activists of the ruling party in the days following the general elections. Even then, the Awami League high command had expressed their disappointment and annoyance, but did not take any concrete action against those who were responsible for the violence. As a result, the violence went on unimpeded for several more days.
We think that a party that came to power on the back of its promise to bring ‘change’ to our political and governmental culture ought to have used these instances to prove that it intends to practice what it has preached, by taking swift action with regards to those against whom there are allegations of misconduct. Hence, the Awami League must extend full cooperation to the Election Commission in its investigations of the alleged breaches and be ready to take stern action against anyone found guilty of electoral misconduct. Unwillingness or failure to act firmly will only suggest that the Awami League was not serious in its rhetoric to bring qualitative change to our politics. On the other hand, proper action will send out a powerful message to all party leaders and workers about how they are expected to conduct themselves in public life. We expect the Awami League to act quickly and decisively.
SOUTH ASIA’S COUNTERTERRORISM Can a war-based western model work here?
COUNTERING terrorism is now firmly enlisted on South Asia’s menu with talks of cross-border platforms. However, one also needs to look at various counterterrorism models elsewhere to see if they have worked. Most dominating is the US approach which doesn’t have a record of containing terrorism effectively as of now. It ignores the political background of conflicts between various state powers that often, if not always, ignite ‘terrorism’. Nor does it explore the desire of states to exploit international situations for making internal political gains. This confusion may have contributed to increased terrorism and counterterrorism, gaining a legitimacy of sort.
While there are many kinds of terrorism generated by nationalist conflicts, it is the Islamic extremism that dominates global thinking, partly because it is now seen as a non-state ideological force in conflict with the US, the world’s leading power.
Yet by unpacking terrorism, it shows that although it is thought of as an international non-state enemy with a religious ideology, ‘terrorism’ also appears everywhere as a pre-state or state aspiring force. ‘Terrorism’ has increasingly become a state in waiting because the ‘terrorists’ want to establish a state of their own, whether it’s Taliban’s Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s khilafat or the Hamas’s Islamic Palestine. Or Tamil Tiger’s Eelam state.
Contemporary ideas on violence are built on the premise that violence can be used to dominate other violent forces. It appears that both the US and al-Qaeda more or less believes in the same method on this regard. Both also claim the moral high ground. This outdated mode of conflict resolution has led to enormous global insecurity and suffering.
The quizzical Israel-US security relationship
The creation of Israel has generated a long phase of violence in the region that continues to pose as the biggest generator of threats, no matter whatever the logic behind its birth is. Anti-Israeli Arab powers have responded with violence showing very little gain. Over the years, Israel has become militarily and economically much superior to its neighbours and an internally democratic state to boot but it has not brought peace to the region and that continues to generate violence including terrorism for the rest of the world.
Many commentators argue that the Jewish lobby in the US is manipulating policy and generating support for Israel. But while there are around six million Jews in the US, they are only 2.5 per cent of the total population so they can’t have any electoral impact. While many of them are in positions of power and influence, especially in the media and finance, the clout claim is not proven by any evidence.
It’s true that anti-Muslim feeling is high in the US and this goes back to long before the 1967 war. It’s partly part of the traditional Christian-Islam rivalry over world domination which has a long history in a deeply religious fundamentalist country like the US. Criticising Israel is a death knell for any politician in North America because that would be interpreted as pro-Muslim which has the highest animosity rating there. The US media has played the biggest role in demonising Muslims because it panders to an overwhelming hostility to Muslim population selling a lopsided image in a country where the majority are religious partisans.
On the other hand, many Jews in the US are not only liberal but recent events show that of them there is a strong pro-human rights element that are increasingly vocal against Israeli policies of occupation. In fact, they have emerged as the most vocal critic of Israel today.
Why the US supports Israel?
The US became a major resource supplier of Israel only after the 1967 war when Israel occupied Arab territories and decimated all Arab armies in the region. Aid has helped Israel to the point that even if no US aid arrives in the next so many years, Israel would be still fine. The US Jews are influential but nowhere near the fundamentalist Zionist Christian lobby that is about 25 per cent of the US vote and control key electoral states that sent many to the White House.
Zionists Christians are actually anti-Jew in general but they support Israel and the status quo there because they believe in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which says Jesus will come to earth again as the Messiah during the time when Jews are in occupation of Jerusalem. That has already happened in 1967. The book further says this will be followed by many catastrophes such as wars and diseases. Next will be the biggest war of them all, called the Battle of Armageddon when Satan will declare war on Jerusalem through the ‘Anti-Christ’ who many Christians think may be a Jew. The Bible states that when all appears hopeless for the Jews, Jesus will come. Jerusalem will arise again and all the remaining Jews not killed in the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity. So unless Jews are in control of Jerusalem, Jesus can’t come and Christianity can’t prevail.
So though they dislike Jews they have a common cause. The Jews don’t believe in the Revelations but are happy to be supported by such a powerful lobby which also hates them. For example, Europe created a new state for Jews but not in Europe but the Middle East, which was far away from the inevitable conflicts the state creation would generate. The Jews in Europe who were always outsiders in Europe were sent out of it permanently. It had more to do with reducing conflict possibilities in European mainland than any other cause.
The US support for Israel after 1967 was linked to the objectives of the Cold War. While Israel was a US ally, Arabs were supported by the Soviet Union. The Middle East became the testing ground for countering and learning about weapons produced by the Soviet Union in battlefields, testing newly developed US weapons and keeping regional Leftist radicalism in check, all part of the Cold War strategy.
Israel not only reduced the power of pro-Soviet Union regimes by defeating them but also weakened the radical elements within the Palestine movement which had strong Marxist tendencies. A lot of resources were spent in splintering the Fatah movement including encouraging the rising Islamic groups. For example Hamas, Fatah’s main rival, was a splinter of Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of socialism. Rumours of Israel’s help in launching Hamas have never gone away. At that stage of history, the US was more concerned with leftist radicalism and thought jihadists and the US had the same long-term objectives.
Finally, oil was another cause. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, oil prices spiked throwing the Western economies into turmoil. The US could no longer depend on endless and cheap supply of oil without some military guarantees and Israel did that along with its main oil ally, Saudi Arabia, a despotic regime that has a major al-Qaeda problem too.
None of the above shows any ‘clash of civilisation’ element but is largely about the effect and impact of the US’s Cold War with the Soviet Union and using voters’ sentiments at home. One can argue the jihadist phenomenon as a by-product of the Cold War.
Soviet Union’s contribution
The final collapse of the Soviet Union was triggered by its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The US responded by creating a new contra force in the region, the Mujahideen. A war which was national in character was marketed as a holy war/jihad across the entire world putting the Soviets under great pressure. It became the ultimate proxy war before the Cold War finished and took Islamic extremism beyond borders.
Osama bin Laden was a major figure from Saudi Arabia in the Afghan war and lionized by Western media but once he saw the alliance between the Saudi royal family and the US — again a nationalist problem — as detrimental to his reading of Arab nationalism, he went on with his violent journey that had begun in Afghanistan.
The narrative of pan-Islamic nationalism has several roots but Arab world’s internal conflicts are an essential element of that. The US initially benefited from Islamic radicalism’s rise by damaging secular Leftist movement and the pro-Soviet regimes in the Middle East proper and also in Afghanistan by bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.
History also shows that sperming violent forces to counter an enemy doesn’t work out always as many turn out to be the new enemy once the old one is gone. The jihadists and Taliban provide the best example of this fact. Like socialism, the roots of jihadist radicalism is located in unresolved national issues which need attention before one can end the problem, an issue which the dominant US brewed model rarely if ever addresses unable to read much beyond Islamic radicalism.
South Asian terrorist woes
Some land-based wars can still perhaps be won but ‘terrorist’ wars can’t be fought well, let alone won, using conventional military logic. Major hotspots such as the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the ethnic insurgents in the Indian North East and of course Kashmir all have land-based national questions at its heart. Land-based wars can be won temporarily such as the one against the LTTE though at an extremely high price such as including the altered nature of the state. And now without any territorial base, this LTTE war may spread all over Sri Lanka. Mobile wars have greater ability to cause damage than frontal battles especially as economies show their increasing disability to fund long wars.
The conflict resolving model used during the Cold War has not only ended Soviet Union but continues to erode the US too. In Gaza, the latest Israeli incursion has seen the worst depletion of its allies globally including from within the Jewish population both in the US and Israel. Many Jews today reject the role of an occupying power. Inside Israel, the traditional security management role through occupation is losing unquestioned popularity. Given the lack of success, can south Asia take this road?
In this age of unwinnable wars, South Asia shouldn’t be involved in the ancient and now redundant logic of traditional security specialists. Anti-terrorism can be products of internal political compulsions and quickly go counter-productive as history has shown. Even the worst terrorist enemy starts gaining a human face when violence is perpetrated against unarmed people as the Gaza incident shows. The war gets lost in the battle field of public sympathy for the sufferer.
In this context, Bangladesh can provide a positive example. It may have a flawed peace but the CHT peace accord (1997) did achieve peace. Peace can satisfy the most selfish national objectives because it is not just an outcome but a security tool too. South Asian leaders need to move away from its West influenced security mentality of violence and counter violence which India, Pakistan and other countries are paying now by following them.
Peace is not a moral choice but a practical option where it’s as potent and powerful as any war. South Asia must think for itself as it approaches large scale cross border anti-terrorism.
While there are many kinds of terrorism generated by nationalist conflicts, it is the Islamic extremism that dominates global thinking, partly because it is now seen as a non-state ideological force in conflict with the US, the world’s leading power.
Yet by unpacking terrorism, it shows that although it is thought of as an international non-state enemy with a religious ideology, ‘terrorism’ also appears everywhere as a pre-state or state aspiring force. ‘Terrorism’ has increasingly become a state in waiting because the ‘terrorists’ want to establish a state of their own, whether it’s Taliban’s Afghanistan, al-Qaeda’s khilafat or the Hamas’s Islamic Palestine. Or Tamil Tiger’s Eelam state.
Contemporary ideas on violence are built on the premise that violence can be used to dominate other violent forces. It appears that both the US and al-Qaeda more or less believes in the same method on this regard. Both also claim the moral high ground. This outdated mode of conflict resolution has led to enormous global insecurity and suffering.
The quizzical Israel-US security relationship
The creation of Israel has generated a long phase of violence in the region that continues to pose as the biggest generator of threats, no matter whatever the logic behind its birth is. Anti-Israeli Arab powers have responded with violence showing very little gain. Over the years, Israel has become militarily and economically much superior to its neighbours and an internally democratic state to boot but it has not brought peace to the region and that continues to generate violence including terrorism for the rest of the world.
Many commentators argue that the Jewish lobby in the US is manipulating policy and generating support for Israel. But while there are around six million Jews in the US, they are only 2.5 per cent of the total population so they can’t have any electoral impact. While many of them are in positions of power and influence, especially in the media and finance, the clout claim is not proven by any evidence.
It’s true that anti-Muslim feeling is high in the US and this goes back to long before the 1967 war. It’s partly part of the traditional Christian-Islam rivalry over world domination which has a long history in a deeply religious fundamentalist country like the US. Criticising Israel is a death knell for any politician in North America because that would be interpreted as pro-Muslim which has the highest animosity rating there. The US media has played the biggest role in demonising Muslims because it panders to an overwhelming hostility to Muslim population selling a lopsided image in a country where the majority are religious partisans.
On the other hand, many Jews in the US are not only liberal but recent events show that of them there is a strong pro-human rights element that are increasingly vocal against Israeli policies of occupation. In fact, they have emerged as the most vocal critic of Israel today.
Why the US supports Israel?
The US became a major resource supplier of Israel only after the 1967 war when Israel occupied Arab territories and decimated all Arab armies in the region. Aid has helped Israel to the point that even if no US aid arrives in the next so many years, Israel would be still fine. The US Jews are influential but nowhere near the fundamentalist Zionist Christian lobby that is about 25 per cent of the US vote and control key electoral states that sent many to the White House.
Zionists Christians are actually anti-Jew in general but they support Israel and the status quo there because they believe in the Bible’s Book of Revelation, which says Jesus will come to earth again as the Messiah during the time when Jews are in occupation of Jerusalem. That has already happened in 1967. The book further says this will be followed by many catastrophes such as wars and diseases. Next will be the biggest war of them all, called the Battle of Armageddon when Satan will declare war on Jerusalem through the ‘Anti-Christ’ who many Christians think may be a Jew. The Bible states that when all appears hopeless for the Jews, Jesus will come. Jerusalem will arise again and all the remaining Jews not killed in the Battle of Armageddon will convert to Christianity. So unless Jews are in control of Jerusalem, Jesus can’t come and Christianity can’t prevail.
So though they dislike Jews they have a common cause. The Jews don’t believe in the Revelations but are happy to be supported by such a powerful lobby which also hates them. For example, Europe created a new state for Jews but not in Europe but the Middle East, which was far away from the inevitable conflicts the state creation would generate. The Jews in Europe who were always outsiders in Europe were sent out of it permanently. It had more to do with reducing conflict possibilities in European mainland than any other cause.
The US support for Israel after 1967 was linked to the objectives of the Cold War. While Israel was a US ally, Arabs were supported by the Soviet Union. The Middle East became the testing ground for countering and learning about weapons produced by the Soviet Union in battlefields, testing newly developed US weapons and keeping regional Leftist radicalism in check, all part of the Cold War strategy.
Israel not only reduced the power of pro-Soviet Union regimes by defeating them but also weakened the radical elements within the Palestine movement which had strong Marxist tendencies. A lot of resources were spent in splintering the Fatah movement including encouraging the rising Islamic groups. For example Hamas, Fatah’s main rival, was a splinter of Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of socialism. Rumours of Israel’s help in launching Hamas have never gone away. At that stage of history, the US was more concerned with leftist radicalism and thought jihadists and the US had the same long-term objectives.
Finally, oil was another cause. In the aftermath of the 1967 war, oil prices spiked throwing the Western economies into turmoil. The US could no longer depend on endless and cheap supply of oil without some military guarantees and Israel did that along with its main oil ally, Saudi Arabia, a despotic regime that has a major al-Qaeda problem too.
None of the above shows any ‘clash of civilisation’ element but is largely about the effect and impact of the US’s Cold War with the Soviet Union and using voters’ sentiments at home. One can argue the jihadist phenomenon as a by-product of the Cold War.
Soviet Union’s contribution
The final collapse of the Soviet Union was triggered by its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The US responded by creating a new contra force in the region, the Mujahideen. A war which was national in character was marketed as a holy war/jihad across the entire world putting the Soviets under great pressure. It became the ultimate proxy war before the Cold War finished and took Islamic extremism beyond borders.
Osama bin Laden was a major figure from Saudi Arabia in the Afghan war and lionized by Western media but once he saw the alliance between the Saudi royal family and the US — again a nationalist problem — as detrimental to his reading of Arab nationalism, he went on with his violent journey that had begun in Afghanistan.
The narrative of pan-Islamic nationalism has several roots but Arab world’s internal conflicts are an essential element of that. The US initially benefited from Islamic radicalism’s rise by damaging secular Leftist movement and the pro-Soviet regimes in the Middle East proper and also in Afghanistan by bringing the Soviet Union to its knees.
History also shows that sperming violent forces to counter an enemy doesn’t work out always as many turn out to be the new enemy once the old one is gone. The jihadists and Taliban provide the best example of this fact. Like socialism, the roots of jihadist radicalism is located in unresolved national issues which need attention before one can end the problem, an issue which the dominant US brewed model rarely if ever addresses unable to read much beyond Islamic radicalism.
South Asian terrorist woes
Some land-based wars can still perhaps be won but ‘terrorist’ wars can’t be fought well, let alone won, using conventional military logic. Major hotspots such as the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the ethnic insurgents in the Indian North East and of course Kashmir all have land-based national questions at its heart. Land-based wars can be won temporarily such as the one against the LTTE though at an extremely high price such as including the altered nature of the state. And now without any territorial base, this LTTE war may spread all over Sri Lanka. Mobile wars have greater ability to cause damage than frontal battles especially as economies show their increasing disability to fund long wars.
The conflict resolving model used during the Cold War has not only ended Soviet Union but continues to erode the US too. In Gaza, the latest Israeli incursion has seen the worst depletion of its allies globally including from within the Jewish population both in the US and Israel. Many Jews today reject the role of an occupying power. Inside Israel, the traditional security management role through occupation is losing unquestioned popularity. Given the lack of success, can south Asia take this road?
In this age of unwinnable wars, South Asia shouldn’t be involved in the ancient and now redundant logic of traditional security specialists. Anti-terrorism can be products of internal political compulsions and quickly go counter-productive as history has shown. Even the worst terrorist enemy starts gaining a human face when violence is perpetrated against unarmed people as the Gaza incident shows. The war gets lost in the battle field of public sympathy for the sufferer.
In this context, Bangladesh can provide a positive example. It may have a flawed peace but the CHT peace accord (1997) did achieve peace. Peace can satisfy the most selfish national objectives because it is not just an outcome but a security tool too. South Asian leaders need to move away from its West influenced security mentality of violence and counter violence which India, Pakistan and other countries are paying now by following them.
Peace is not a moral choice but a practical option where it’s as potent and powerful as any war. South Asia must think for itself as it approaches large scale cross border anti-terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
