Untold Facts

Afghanistan may tip the balance against the US like it did for the USSR

US strategy in Afghanistan is under review. India and Pakistan have interests in the region and both are offering advice. If the US took India’s advice, Afghanistan would remain a pariah state and a menace to peace. Not just that, Obama may become a one term President resulting in proliferation of wars and collapse of the world socio-economic order.

Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was orderly and under a UN sponsored agreement. Yet it led to the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. Surely the defeat in Afghanistan alone could not have caused the dissolution of an empire put together over many centuries. When the Soviet Union broke up it was still one of the two super powers with military power unparalleled in history. Afghanistan played the role of the last ounce that tipped the balance. While several generations had overextended Soviet role and power the perestroika generation discovered that the Russian standards of living was well behind that of the rest of Europe. They decided they did not want an empire; they wanted prosperity.

The defeat in Afghanistan also revealed that the military prowess of the Soviet Union was just as hollow as its prosperity. The display of its powerlessness tipped the balance. All the structural weaknesses of the state and the society which had been kept out of sight of the people to maintain a semblance of power and prosperity all showed up. At one time it appeared that it might be difficult to even hold Russia together. But wise leaders and rise in oil prices saved the day and Russia is back in robust good health as a society and a country.

The US is in a much worse position in Afghanistan than the Soviet Union was when it withdrew in 1985. The USSR was contiguous to Afghanistan and therefore had a secure LofC. The US started with the disadvantage of a very long and a very insecure LofC to the war theatre of Afghanistan. To make matters worse, the US Government and the press portrayed the war in Afghanistan as one between Islam and the West. Co-operating with the ‘US War on Terror’ was seen as collaboration. Any Muslim country that committed itself to war on the side of the US in Afghanistan was bound to be unpopular.

Pakistan, which had been a US ally of long standing, was faced with Hobson’s choice. Its troops fight alongside the US whose US drones and helicopters have killed thousands of Pakistanis. The US objectives are murkier than ever. The benign view is that the USA does not know who the enemy is. A more realistic view is that different power centres have different enemies and in the peculiar situation of Pakistan all of those are able to strike at their favourite targets usually unsuccessfully. Pakistan has two power centres – the military and the political class. The political class want money and support for their unpopular rule; the military wants to see the war end early. All the factions of the political class want US support. Until now the US was satisfied with the situation in Pakistan as it did not have to commit it to any side. But obsequiousness to the US has now begun to affect the prospects of success in Afghanistan where the Taliban keep extending their control despite the cruelty of their methods. Clearly, fear has proved to be a more powerful weapon than the battle for hearts and minds.

A review of the objectives and strategy is going on in Pakistan as well. Although Pakistan’s objectives continue to be early withdrawal of US and NATO forces; it fears that the longer the ‘targets’ are present the Afghans would keep shooting at them. Judging by its conduct in the past, the USA might turn on Pakistan at any time. Some in the US see Pakistan’s fear as ‘helpful’ because it precludes Pakistan denying the US vital land access to Afghanistan. But such views sustain suspicion, undermine military operations and make it impossible to evolve common objectives and strategies. The only country which is gleeful about the present situation in Afghanistan is India. Under American protection, India can engage in clandestine operations against Pakistan – particularly in Baluchistan – with impunity. Pakistanis view the situation with concern and suspect that it is the US that drives its joint efforts with India and Karzai’s Afghanistan against Pakistan.

The lingering air of suspicion in US Pakistan relations has undermined America’s efforts to leave the Bush era behind and build bridges with the Muslim World. During his election campaign and his first year in office President Obama showed awareness that he must convince the Muslim World that America is not its enemy. His efforts appeared genuine in intent and honest in content. But the ease with which Israel and its lobbies in the US were able to frustrate him on the minor issue of moratorium on new settlements in occupied Palestinian territories has not only discredited President Obama but also dwarfed the institution of the US President. His supporters are unhappy that he has not pursued his agenda with resolve. In any case his strategy in Afghanistan was founded on a misconception from the outset. The ‘surge’ to win a few battles spectacularly did not work. Afghan resistance which controls 75% of the territory does not appear to be eager to rush to the negotiating table. Any agreement with Hamid Karzai would not be worth the paper it is written on. As things stands now whenever the American leave they would leave it in the control of war lords and there will be a repeat of what happened after the Soviet Union withdrew.

The question is why should the Americans care and what can they do even if they did care. The conventional wisdom is that the US merely wants to ensure that Al-Qaeda did not find a safe haven in Afghanistan once again. That objective has been achieved. The USA has no way of ensuring they do not return but the neighbours of Afghanistan have the will and the ability to ensure that. America can and should work with them. But if America’s real aim is something else it would soon be evident as India takes its seat as a member of the UN Security Council for two years. Actually it is no secret what India wants. It wants the USA to remain entangled in Afghanistan and be viewed by the Muslim World as an enemy. If the Obama Administration adopted the Indian recommendation that would have huge implications for the United States as well as the wider world.

America has two choices in Afghanistan. One is to accept what Pakistan’s military has been saying for a long time i.e. it is the best interest of America to withdraw early and work for a peace agreement with the neighbours of Afghanistan and the war lords Taliban as well as non-Taliban. The other option is to dig in for a long haul in Afghanistan with defeat and ignominious withdrawal a certainty.

Polls in the USA are predicting that the elections in the US due to be held in November may result in the Democratic Party losing control of the Congress. That would set President Obama on course for being another one tern President. The nightmare of America would not end with that. By present trends, the Republican who would win the presidential election would be so right wing and belligerent that he/she could strike many more Muslim countries. The Republican successor of Obama would be real wrecker – a Boris Yeltsin who got his instructions from Tel Aviv. That would be a dream come true for those who aspire for Armageddon in their life time.

It may be already too late for the Democratic Party to win the mid term elections. But it is still possible for President Obama to win a second term if he presented clear choices to the American people who are sick and tired of war. He must stand out as the candidate for peace. To be that he must deliver on complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan before the end of his first term in office. US military victory is well nigh impossible but a defeat would be deadlier for Pakistan than Afghanistan which is already devastated by three decades of war. If the Americans accepted the recommendation of Pakistan, our country would have a stake in its success. Pakistan and the USA working together for America to maintain a benign civil presence in the region is an objective all Pakistanis can be comfortable with. But that entails a huge challenge.

The challenge is two-fold. On the one hand it would entail a public information effort to drive home the point that the Taliban had control over more than 75 % of the territory including Kabul and Kandhar but their legitimacy was based on ‘conquest’ alone. If the Americans left Afghanistan without an agreement with the ‘resistance’ the Taliban prospects of ever gain power would evaporate. They might be able to conquer somewhat less of Afghanistan at huge cost but they would still be without legitimacy and international recognition. As a land locked state put together by conquest would a pariah state. A landlocked pariah state can play no role other than being a menace to its people and the region. The Americans are offering the resistance a negotiated peace. That would give them international recognition and legitimacy. If they did not accept the offer Afghanistan would indeed be a menace for all its neighbours. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been the supporter and well wishers of the resistance in Afghanistan. But if it did not accept the advice of its sincere friends, Afghanistan would be on its own condemned to perpetual civil war.

The other challenge comes from the ineffectiveness of the corrupt governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. America now has two unpopular governments – Zaradri and Karzai regimes - that it cannot dump or support wholeheartedly. There is still hope in Pakistan where the robustness of its judiciary and the military may prevent excessive damage to other institutions of the state. But one hesitates to make a recommendation for Afghanistan. The Soviet Union resorted to assassination of its erstwhile lackeys - Hafizullah Amin Babrak Karmal - in similar circumstances. What would the US do?

A wrong decision in Afghanistan may not just result in Obama becoming another one term President. He may be followed by Netanyahu as President albeit with a different name; Sarah Palin or Joe Lieberman would do just as well as wreckers of the world. ++

Author: Usman Khalid

(The writer served as Brigadier in the Pakistan Army. He is the Chairman of London Institute of South Asia)

Isn’t it time we call ourselves blind?

Many of my fellow human beings can see this beautiful world with plain eyes, but I need the help of spectacles to enjoy the scenic beauty of what is around me. So people call me myopic.

All these days I used to envy those who can clearly see the wonders of this world without any external, optical aid. But recently I have started to think otherwise. Maybe it’s not only me after all.

I admit I can’t see without specs, but still I am not blind. I see when I need to — even if that is through my specs.

But the nation to which I belong seems to be completely blind and does not see anything happening around it. I wonder, how can we, as a nation, be so blind and yet we are not worried about our loss of sight!

If we had been able to see, then how could we have let all these glitches and gremlins happen around us — and yet, we remain silent?

About four years back on 28 October 2006, we saw on the TV screen our fellow humans being beaten to death in broad daylight like snakes by some elements carrying the badge of ‘humans’ in the most brutal fashion that we ordinary people dread to imagine! Many of us will admit that we “saw” that. Yes, we did, but if we really did, how could we have voted for the killers of that day to rule our nation in just two years’ time at end of 2008? Yet we claim we can see! Or, did we really vote for them? Was the election really fair? Was the counting done in the normal way we count votes? No doubt, these are extremely perplexing and bewildering questions.

And what do we see today? Through which eyes do we see the killing of the upazila Chairman Mr. Sanauallah Noor Babu in Natore? Wasn’t it equally brutal as the incident of 28 October 2006? Are we becoming immune to such atrocities? Are we losing our essential human sensitivity and human values, let alone religious and moral teachings?

How do we keep our eyes open when the members of the pro-government student organization throw each other from a building? How could we remain normal when our Prime Minister’s boys torture ordinary students at public universities for their refusal to join political rallies including her birthday procession?

Can’t we see every day in the news how our fellow Bangladeshis in the border regions are being killed by the security forces of a ‘big and friendly’ neighbor? Can’t we see how our lands and waters are being used unlawfully by that neighbor? Can’t we hear how our ‘friends’ of that country are continuously branding us as ‘terrorists’ in the international forums only to keep the world in the dark about what they are doing to us?

Where is our nation going? Where are we as citizens heading? How long shall we keep quiet when our democratic and human rights are being violated, our media being silenced, and our sovereignty being slowly eroded?

If we can, then how come we as a nation are not rising to the occasion? And if we can’t do that and if we remain blind to our surroundings, then let’s be forthright and call a spade a spade. To be more precise, let us call ourselves blind! Or, has our conscience died? Has the fountain of our human compassion dried up?

To cover my myopic eyes, I use spectacles. To conceal our dried conscience, what can we use?

Author: Mrinmoyee Rahman

Are Indian Nuclear Assets Safe!

An Indian nuclear scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam, disappeared from the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka on June 8, 2009 and his dead body was found from Kali River on June 13. The Kaiga plant is located near one of the biggest naval bases, Project Seabird and the scientist was working on the atomic plant since last eight years. He was involved in training apprentices on a replica of the actual reactor and was in possession of highly sensitive information.

According to media reports Mahalingam went on morning jogging and got disappeared. As per his family members, he did not carry money or his cell phone with him and went for walk whereas the security guards on duty said that they didn’t see him leaving the campus. It is worth mentioning here that he also disappeared 10 years back when he was working at the Kalpakkam Atomic Station. On his return, after five days, Mahalingam expressed that he had gone to seek spiritual consolation.

A DNA test was performed just to ascertain the identity of the dead body. But that also raised the question: why was he cremated in such a hurry even before the results of the DNA test and the post-mortem report? The presence or absence of air in his lungs, any signs of torture on his body and the level of decomposition could have pointed to the circumstances in which he met his final end.

It is also questionable that shortly after his body was found the police announced its verdict that the scientist had committed suicide. The conclusion was premature since Mahalingam left no suicide note. Even if this version of Mahalingam’s death is accepted, the suicide of an Indian nuclear scientist who worked in a sensitive field is not an ordinary event. It points to the shaky human and personnel reliability in the Indian nuclear complex.

It must be a matter of global concern that killing of the Mahalingam is not only the first case of murder. Earlier, this year, another NPC non-technical employee Ravi Mule was found dead in the township on April 7. He too had gone for morning walk. Before that, on November 11, 2006, Director of Uttaranchal Space Application Centre, Dr Anil Kumar Tiwari, was also shot dead by an unidentified person near his residence. Police have not cracked the earlier cases and similarly are clueless in the current case of scientist. Moreover, in addition to financial corruptions, 152 theft cases of uranium have also been reported and registered with the police since 1984.

The fact of the matter is that Indian top listed companies have remained engaged in illegal importing and exporting of nuclear equipments. For example Berkeley Nucleonic Corporation (BNC), an American company was fined US $ 300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center in India and also in December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to Iran in violation of India’s commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr Surendar and Y. S. R. Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. Again, in December, 2006 a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

The above incidents confirm that the security of Indian nuclear programme is highly questionable. It is evident that the world’s most treacherous nuke proliferation is going on in India. The Hindu extremists with the help of Indian nuke scientists belonging to the Hindu fundamentalist organization Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sang (RSS) have been found involved in illegal transfer of nuclear technology to Israel and some western countries through underworld organizations to generate the funds for the completion of “Maha Baharat agenda”.

The recent release of US document on the internet is another security concern in the serious circles of the Washington. The list includes both government and civilian nuclear facilities and covering the details and location of nation’s 103 commercial nuclear power reactors. The equipment useful in preparation of nuclear device is available in the open American markets and reportedly being sold to Indian organization illegally.

The release of US nukes document, selling of equipment in local American market, theft cases of Indian Uranium, disappearance and abduction of Indian Nuke Scientist seem to be correlated to each other.

Two of India’s most important nuclear installations are located near Mumbai. Tarapur’s two 160 MW nuclear plants are already functioning near Trombay while two more 500 MW power plants are under construction near Mumbai itself. These two plants are designed to work as fuel fabrication facilities and are not safeguarded under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) nor effectively protected. India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and a number of other nuclear plants and uranium conversion facilities are also not part of IAEA safeguards. A fuel fabrication facility is also not far from the city and is considered unsafe by most accounts.

If one is to believe the Indian claim that ten young militants engaged more than 3000 of India’s top commandoes, intelligence and police officials for 60 hours and killed 200 people in Mumbai city, then we must seriously be worried about the safety of India’s nuclear arsenal, radioactive material, and nuclear power plants. Experts are of the view that if ten gunmen can hold a city of 15 million people, which houses a number of sensitive nuclear and radio-active plants, then how safe are India’s nukes?

Intriguing Role of Western Media
It is intriguing that not a single major American or British media outlet covered the story of the kidnapping and murder of a man that holds the key to the Indian nuclear arsenal with proper analysis. There are no scare stories on CNN, BBC, Fox etc about Indian nukes falling in the wrong hands. There are some reasons behind all this fact. One is that the Am-Brit media spent much of its energy in the last two years trying to scare the world about Pakistan’s nukes and how the Pakistanis are unable to protect them. Suddenly a major nuclear security breach in India surfaced. One of the reasons can be that the Americans have just broken all proliferation laws and decided that India is such a responsible nuclear power that it deserves to be given advanced nuclear technology.

Imagine if this incident had happened in Pakistan. The entire Am-Brit media would have been beating the drums of war, reminding the world how dangerous and unstable Pakistan is. Isn’t it deliberate that the western media is silent about the basic questions: Who kidnapped and later killed the Indian nuclear scientist and what was the purpose? What would happen if one of the 14 separatist movements or the Hindu fundamentalist groups in India had kidnapped the scientist to gain access to Indian nuclear bombs? What if the terrorists who have actually gained access to an Indian nuclear facility, killed the scientist and are now waiting to carry out a major terrorist act? What if any one of those Indian separatist groups fighting for the independence in 14 out of the 28 Indian states have used the scientist to sell information or nuclear designs to groups or countries that end up attacking the United States? These are the questions that not only need answers but also put the peace and security of the whole world at stake.

Author: M Raza Malik
Source: Kashmir Media Service

Opinion : Steven on trial of war crimes in Bangladesh

The war crimes trial is the most important issue at present in Bangladesh. It is also one of the election pledges of the Grand Alliance led by Awami League. The trial of war crimes is a peculiar matter which is the first experience for Bangladesh and that’s why most caution wishes to be observed as otherwise all arrangements shall not perceive the light of success. It is indubitable that in the last parliamentary election young people voted with an innocent aspiration to ensure that the criminals of the war must be brought to the book and now if their innocent mandates are used to gain ulterior motives then those who are installed in power may require to wait up to the next parliamentary election to get a good lesson. By utilizing state power name shake trial may be possible but justice may stay far away to achieve.

Recently on 13 October 2010 the Supreme Court Bar Association organized a seminar on ‘Human Rights: Bangladesh Perspective’ at Hotel Sonargaon which was presided over by the President of the Bar. Steven Kay QC spoke at the seminar as special guest. Mr. Steven is a leading practitioner in international criminal law and founder member of the European Criminal Bar Association. He is also the founder member of the International Criminal Law Bureau. He has appeared before the International Tribunals for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). He was defense counsel in the first case prosecuted before the ICTY and the first war crimes trial held since Nuremberg and Tokyo.

He acted in the trial of the former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic first as Amicus Curiae and subsequently as assigned defense counsel. At the seminar he strappingly criticized the International Crimes (Tribunal) Act, 1973 and First Amendment of the Constitution, as they are utterly inconsistent with the basic as well as fundamental principles of criminal justice. He also condemned use of the word ‘International Tribunal’ as there subsist nothing international matter in the business of the recently formed tribunal in Bangladesh under the said Act rather it exports almost all fundamental principles of criminal justice recognized in every civilized country under diverse international treaties and charters. At the seminar Mr. Steven ornately discussed in which manner the Act refused the right of an accused to be tried by a fair and impartial tribunal, the protection from self-incrimination and so on. Commenting on the First Constitutional Amendment he said that this amendment had the effect of withdrawing constitutional rights from a particular group of people within Bangladesh society who were not even convicted but at the most were only suspected of such crimes. He articulated that it was for the first time when inequality had been introduced into the Bangladesh justice system.

In this global village Bangladesh is a party to many international political organizations and is committed to fulfill their obligations.

At the Seminar Mr. Steven quoted Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which recognized the equality before courts or tribunals, the principle of presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination. But these rights are absolutely denied to the suspects of war crimes. In fact, such farcical legal provisions are sufficient to furnish the golden opportunity to the ruling party to harass the political opponents in whimsical manner as they are without redress.

He also reminded that Bangladesh is legally bound to ensure fairness, freedom from arbitrariness, impartiality, presumption of innocence and certainty in trial. Finally, Mr. Steven said that it is apparent that the amendments made to the Constitution in 1973 are in contradiction with those principles adopted by the State of Bangladesh and should now provide an opportunity for a declaration by the Supreme Court as to the unlawfulness of those amendments.

In fact, in true sense those are now in Bangladesh working with war crimes are not well trained and acquainted with this peculiar field of law. Mr. Steven as a veteran expert having huge experiences in this arena indicated to many lacuna and loopholes in the law of the war crimes trial in Bangladesh and simultaneously suggested some measures which require to be taken to make the trial lawful as well as acceptable to the international communities.

It needs to be noted that the people of Bangladesh never desire to experience further political harassment as well as character assassination of political opponents by using the war crimes issue. No legal principle support any trial of accomplices ignoring the real culprits and that’s why the demand for trial of the 195 identified war criminals already raised from divergent corners and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association at the Seminar emphasized on the same issue. He aptly uttered that the trial of war criminals must be held in order to secure justice and uphold the rule of law. He also added that the Act of 1973 must be amended so that it conforms to international standards.

It is apparent that under present legal provision no meaningful trial of war criminals is possible at all rather the present trial may secure the ill-intention of the government to desert political opponents as alleged by different corners.

If it is the real plight then it must be noted that the eyes of people are still alert on their actions and the government must not be evaded the inevitable consequences in the next election. The seminar furnished a great opportunity for the government to consider the recommendations made by the veteran experts of war crimes to ensure fair trial and justice, and to satisfy international standards. But if the crying for justice remains unheeded then the trial in Bangladesh shall give birth one after one hated Raja Nandkumar case.

Author: Md. Nazrul Islam Khan
Source: The New Nation

Kosovo: A new surfaced Hot Spot

Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in February 2008 piercingly separated international view. On the one side, the US and several top members of the EU argued that there was no choice but to let Kosovo to go its own means. Regional stability in the Balkans required nothing less than the acknowledgment that Kosovo symbolized, for improved or for worse, a exclusive case under international law.
In disparity with, Russia and China,backed by the mainstream of the world’s states, argued that Kosovo could not be regarded as sui generis. If it could declare independence then the way would be open for others to follow. It was in this context that Serbia managed to secure a resolution putting the very question of the legality of the declaration of independence before the international court of justice.
Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence In Respect of Kosovo was a request for an advisory opinion referred to the International Court of Justice by the UN General Assembly regarding the 2008 unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. The territory of Kosovo is the subject of a dispute between Serbia and the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo, the latter being the authors of the declaration of independence. This was the first case regarding a unilateral declaration of independence to be brought before the World Court.
The court delivered its advisory opinion on 22 July 2010, opining by a vote of 10 to 4 that “the declaration of independence of the 17th of February 2008 did not violate general international law.
The President of ICJ Hisashi Owada read the decision according to which Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate international law in principle, since the latter contains no prohibition of such kind. In this light, he pointed to around 100 similar declarations throughout world history, whose legality has not been questioned. Further, the Court’s decision read that the UN Charter principle of territorial integrity applies to inter-state relations, not secessions. With regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the Court argued that it did not preclude any sort of final status outcome, including independence.
Key considerations for the court – arising from submissions by UN members and Kosovo’s leadership – included issues of sovereignty, the slim volume of precedent in international law, and how former large states such as the Soviet Union broke up along administrative borders.

The judgment did not mention whether Kosovo’s secession was legal, or whether other states could legally recognize its independence. Rather, all it did was to rule that international law does not prohibit the declaration of independence. The ICJ opinion can be summarized in three main points:

1. Kosovo’s Declaration of independence does not violate international law
2. Kosovo’s declaration of independence does not violate UN Security Council Resolution 1244
3. Independence does not violate the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government

Although not binding, the ICJ’s advisory opinion bears significant political weight and forms a turning point in the long-debated Kosovo issue, as it can be seen from the reactions that it provoked both throughout the region, as well as globally. Reactions of the two parties concerned are indicative of their attitudes and their future intentions. Additionally, since each side is not made up of one single subject, it is crucial to examine all basic actors that exercise a larger or smaller influence within each side.

Reaction from Serbia
The advisory opinion of the ICJ came as a slap in the face to the Serbian side. Optimist statements of their leaders in the previous days notwithstanding, Serbs were very disappointed to see that their own initiative backfired, although it had initially been experienced as a victory, when pro-Albanian countries at the UN General Assembly in September 2008 failed to block the Serbian proposal from proceeding to the ICJ.
Serbian president Boris Tadić described the decision as harsh, but nevertheless tried to downplay its impact by pointing out to the rather vague distinction that ICJ itself had made between the unilateral declaration of independence and the right to secede, claiming that the Court concentrated on the technical nature of the former, while it avoided to take positions on the latter, which is of most substance. This distinction, as well as the Court’s omission to rule on the legal implication of the independence declaration (as, for example, on whether it produces statehood), has appeared in the statements of other Serb officials, too, and generated a debate about whether the question to the ICJ was properly formulated by the legal expert team. The government, on its part, reaffirmed its resolution never to recognize an independent Kosovar state and reiterated its commitment to continue fighting by political means. Furthermore, it announced an extraordinary session to examine its next steps, above all seeking the adoption of a favorable resolution at the UN General Assembly.
In conclusion, initial Serb reactions to ICJ’s decision show that no major shift is expected to take place on Serbian policy as far as the Kosovo issue is concerned.

As a consequence, many are those who fear that Serbia again risks turning isolationist and putting its European integration perspective at stake, not only because this perceived national debacle is attributed to the pro-Western block, but also because Serbian citizens largely got disillusioned by the international community, and especially Western nations, most of which stood against their country with no serious reservation.

Reaction from Kosovo
The advisory opinion of the ICJ drew immediate reactions from Kosovo and Albanian-inhabited countries. Scattered across Kosovo, Serbia, FYR of Macedonia and Montenegro, Albanians followed intently what was happening miles away in The Hague. The decision has been interpreted as a historical victory for the Albanian nation, and also an argument that will add many more recognizing states to the current list of 69. Kosovars celebrated the verdict on the streets of Pristina by hugging each other, blowing the horns of their cars and waving Kosovo’s flag, considering the decision a resounding reaffirmation of the legitimacy of their cause.

Kosovo Assembly has adopted a declaration in support of the advisory opinion, stating that the historical decision will contribute to peace and stability not only of the Republic of Kosovo, but the whole region. Considering the Court’s decision to be professional and impartial, respecting at the same time Kosovo citizen’s willingness for independence the declaration call the European Union to find a modus vivendi on Kosovo issue while demands from the reluctant countries to recognize the new state. In clear contrast to Serbian views, Kosovo officials believe that Kosovo does not constitute a precedent in any other case in the world. The Court’s opinion was closely tailored to the unique circumstances of Kosovo; it was not about other regions or states. Furthermore, as far as the statements of Kosovo officials are concerned, it has been clear that nothing in the opinion given by the Court casts any doubt on the statehood of the Republic of Kosovo, which is an established fact.

The reaction from the political parties was in the same wavelength. The IJC opinion was considered from both government and opposition parties as the best answer that has been given thus far on the Kosovo’s right as a legitimate, legal, consolidated and functional state. Generally, there was a consensus between them that the decision is righteous international historical response to historical injustice that has been made to Kosovo. In contrast to Kosovo’s officials, the Vetevendosje (self-determination) movement, a popular nationalist civil society group, does not share the same views. They accuse Kosovo government and politicians of attributing more importance to the formal attributes of Kosovo independence and less to its territorial integrity and genuine sovereignty. Vetevendosje thinks that the government’s celebratory tones are not justified by the ICJ decision since the latter did not rule on the substance of Kosovo’s independence but rather on the fact that the declaration is not illegal. More have to be done for consolidating Kosovo independence. The movement’s leader Albin Kurti protests against the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan as it does not provide sovereignty to Kosovo but a ‘deepening partition’ giving Belgrade actually the opportunity through decentralization to control every Serbian populated territory.

The proceedings themselves proved to be fascinating. While the countries that opposed the declaration of independence resorted to fairly standard arguments about the sanctity of state borders, the states that had recognised Kosovo used an array of approaches to justify Kosovo’s right to secede from Serbia. Perhaps the key argument made was that a declaration of independence has no legal meaning in itself. It is the act of recognition that counts, and this is a political decision that remains the sovereign prerogative of states. In other words, it was suggested that the court had been asked the wrong question.

Nationalism as the Root of the Conflict
The Kosovo conflict has its root causes in the clash of two distinct types of nationalism. The first is the Albanian both separate and emancipatory nationalism.
The separate nationalism is associated with the long-lasting goal of Kosovar Albanians to secede from Serbia. For Hobsbawm, this type of nationalism is characteristic of post-communist multinational/ federal states. In both of the multinational “real socialist” societies, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, it was officially claimed that the national question was successfully solved. It turned out that it was not. Old national conflicts appeared, at least temporarily, unresolved. Under the conditions of accelerated material growth and progressively improving standards of living, they assumed a latent form. They flared up soon after those societies had entered a period of serious economic and political crisis. The basis is that after democratic changes in communist federations, the formation of separate nationalism occurs in federal units when these units are based on national identities. This was a major explanation of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR.
However, we cannot neglect the earlier history of Albanian nationalism, which starts at the end of the 19th century with the formation of national states in the Balkans. This nationalism was emancipatory, in terms of freeing oneself from the Ottoman Empire, and from Serbia respectively.

Kosovo split from Serbia in 2008 after a bloody war in 1998-99 and nearly a decade of international administration.
Triggered by a brutal crackdown by Serb forces against Kosovan separatists, the war saw about 10,000 ethnic Albanians die before ending with a 78-day Nato bombing campaign. Hundreds of Serbs were killed in retaliatory attacks.
Today Kosovo, itself divided, with a Serb enclave in the north around the town of Mitrovica, said Serbia should now deal with it as a sovereign state. “This is a great day for Kosovo, and my message to the government of Serbia is ‘come and talk to us,’” the foreign minister, Skender Hyseni, said outside court.
The ruling is expected to bolster demands for recognition by territories as diverse as Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
The ruling is not expected to have an immediate impact in Mitrovica, where the Serb majority has broken away and deadlock sometimes erupts into violence. The ruling will reinforce Kosovan resistance to any kind of renegotiation, particularly over the status of Serb majority areas in the north where a small area with a Serb majority has split away itself around the north of the town of Mitrovica, which has about 100,000 residents .
This is undoubtedly a victory for Kosovo – but only of sorts. It could have been told that the UDI was illegal, which would have put all those states that recognised it in a very tight spot. However, the narrowness of the opinion means that the positive effects for Kosovo in the short- to medium-term are likely to be rather more limited than one might expect. States, such as Russia and China, that oppose Kosovo’s independence on the grounds that it is an illegal act of secession can hold to this position. The court did not, after all, issue an opinion on this point. They can argue that by actually recognising Kosovo they will be legitimising what they still believes is an illegal act of secession. This will prevent Kosovo from joining the UN and other international organisations. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found.
As for the wider picture, what sort of impact does this have for other secessionist entities seeking statehood? In short, not that much. It means that any group or territory can declare independence. What matters is whether they are recognised. This has always been the hard part, and will remain so.
To conclude, partition is not perfect; it is painful and it carries risks, but the current situation is shaky. The resulting deadlock has sometimes erupted into violence with Serbs and Kosovans running their own areas. It is better to move the border than people to be trapped by it. Partition is certainly not a universal solution. For this reason, it still seems that a mutually acceptable political solution will have to be found. When everything else has failed, we need to have the courage to have responsibility for the solution

Author: Mahmud Amin

Sheikh Hasina Afraid of BNP and the Legacy of Ziaur Rahman?

As always, a number of interesting and thought provoking articles and letters covering the current political situation in the country were noticed in the columns of the News From Bangladesh (NFB). I would particularly like refer to the ones written by Zoghlul Husain, Jalal Uddin Khan and Shimul Chowdhury published recently. The writers deserve appreciation for articulating the terrible fiasco Bangladesh in today, as well as warning the public what disaster loomed ahead if the situation was allowed to continue. Mr. Khan suggested some home improvement measures for the BNP, and they need careful consideration by the party if it wants to survive and contribute meaningfully to national politics and development, as well as to carry the legacy of President Ziaur Rhaman.

The Sheikh Hasina administration had been doing everything possible to eliminate the name of Shaheed President Ziaur Rahman, the valiant freedom fighter and the most successful Bangladesh president to date, from the country’s history. His only ‘crime’ was he had the ‘audacity’ to declare the independence of Bangladesh from the Chittagong Kalurghat Betar station on March 27, 1971 when political leaders failed to do so in time. The Awami League (AL) had to seek a verdict from a willing court to ‘punish’ Zia. One can fool one person all the time or some people sometime but not all people all the time. One cannot manufacture or dictate history; it will speak itself.

It looks like the public is paying the price for the ‘forced’ and ‘farcical’ elections on December 29, 2008 after which the AL led ‘mohajote’ was installed to power. Many nationalist observers and analysts have since been warning that Bangladesh would soon be sucked into the Indian hegemony, conforming to Nehru’s India Doctrine, which envisaged an Indian supremacy in South and Southeast Asia. The AL, its sponsored media and the pro-Indian lobbyists have engaged themselves in allaying such fears, some for protection of their crowns while others for cash rewards. National interests have hardly been of any concern to them. These elements find Indian ‘great friendship’ in the stoppage of waters at Farrakha, Tipaimukh and many other similar deadly contraptions! So what if our 52 joint rivers dry out at time of need and people keep crying Allah Megh De, Pani De in desperation? (Please read the article “India’s Dream, Bangladesh’s Disaster” by John Vidal published in NFB on July 16, 2010.) They feel nothing wrong at the regular BSF target shootings at Bangladeshis across the border, nor the Indian farmers encroaching inside our land. They do not care if we lose the South Talpatti or our maritime outlet to the sea. They think Bangladesh is out for sale and can be leased out for money, so let India use our ports and land routes for whatever purpose. They do not reason why Asian Highway had to enter Bangladesh from one side of India and exit to India again, reducing Bangladesh to a hapless transit point only. We need no military control in tribal areas in Chittagong Hill Tracts, so that India-trained miscreants and secessionists can keep it continually unstable. It is of no consequence to them if Indian goods and culture flood Bangladesh markets, even though Bangladesh can not export their goods to India for various ‘legal’ and ‘procedural’ reasons. The Hasina administration seems to move along the blue-print it was charted as a condition of its installation to authority.

The nation could not yet know the real story behind the February 25/26 BDR carnage last year, the worst since March 25/26, 1971, even though multiple connections with ruling elites were revealed. Fifty-seven senior officers, including the Director General of BDR, were massacred and their bodies brutally mutilated. Ladies and adult girls were not spared of the savagery during that period hitherto unheard in Bangladesh. Nobody would ever know why dozens of material witnesses were eliminated in the name of ‘heart attacks’ or ‘suicides’ while in custody. Perhaps as follow up of a greater plan, some of the brightest officers of the military were systematically sacked or retired and replaced with awamized officers. Yet, Sheikh Hasina does not seem to have faith in her politicized military. Otherwise, why would she engage Indian commandoes for her security and safety, if rumors were to be believed!

General Moin driven Caretaker Government instituted thousands of cases of corruption, graft and murder against political leaders, mostly belonging to Awami League and BNP, including the two former lady prime ministers. People had seen and experienced the highhandedness of those leaders over the past few decades and had no doubt about the correctness of the charges. Yet we found them coming out of the jails as puritans, and today sitting in the august national parliament and cabinet deciding the fate of Bangladesh and its dismayed sufferers. What an irony! Upon saddling in power, the Awami League took quick steps to withdraw thousands of cases against its men, thanks to an awamized and ever willing judiciary. At the same time, cases against the opposition BNP members are being strengthened with new cases being filed almost daily, particularly against the Zia family members, again thanks to a henpecked and spineless Duduk!

The current suppression and oppression to dissenting media reminds us of Sheikh Mujib’s emergency period in 1974 when all but four government-controlled newspapers were closed. The way Daily Amar Desh and its editor Mahmudur Rahman was thrashed, defying even court orders, can only be possible in a mythical ‘Mogher Mulluk’.

Awami League should in fact be thankful to the opposition BNP for not calling for any Hartal over the past 18 months. It should recall when it was in opposition in 1991-1996 and 2001-2006, how many days did it allow the BNP to run without a Hartal? Yet, it went wild to note the success of Hartal on June 27, 2010 and sent out its official and unofficial enforcement machineries to create trouble. The result was the arrest and persecution of thousands of opposition leaders and workers. The Deputy Home Minister publicly said that the opposition leaders should now ‘save their skins.’ Shamsher Mobin Chowdhury, a disabled freedom fighter, the longest serving Foreign Secretary and an Ambassador to the US, was not spared of the harassment and continued to remain in custody.

Few disagree with a need of trial and punishment for the 1971 war criminals. In fact, the public in general and the freedom fighters in particular wonder why it had not taken place over the past 4 decades. However, that should not give a wholesale license to the AL to arrest, torture and harass the Islamic minded leaders on flimsy charges. Many observers suspect that it is in fact a deliberate effort by AL to keep a fictitious ‘Al-Quida/Taliban Connection’ alive in Bangladesh to solicit and maintain Indo-US-Israeli support. (Please read a letter by Shimul Chowdhury in NFB of July 16, 2010 titled “It is About Anything but the 1971 Liberation War.”)

Do all these mean that Sheikh Hasina is afraid of the BNP, the Jamaat-e-Islam and the legacy of Ziaur Rahman, or the public at large?

Author: Obaid Chowdhury
NY, USA

Self-defeating attitude of the Taliban

Among many stories that come out of Afghanistan I read one which is remarkably similar to the experience of the people of Swat and Waziristan. In the village of Hiratian in Afghanistan’s Helmand province, locals found the body of eight-year-old Dilawar hanging from a tree of a small fruit farm. The Taliban fighters had accused the boy of spying for the American forces; they kidnapped him, strung him up and left his body to sway in the wind for hours for all to see.

The murder was horrifying, yet few villagers come to the defence of anyone charged with spying for the hated Americans. But slowly, the details of the story emerged. The Taliban in the area had been collecting donations — money, food or weapons. They demanded money or a weapon from Mullah Qudoos, the boy’s father. Qudoos, poor and jobless, had neither. So the insurgents took his son instead. He was too young to be suicide bomber. So, they killed him to strike awe and set an example. When villagers learned the truth they erupted in fury. They openly vowed to fight the Taliban. Some called the Taliban “our oppressors.” Others swore never to help them again.

Hiratian lies in an area that is outside the government’s authority and has been under nearly continuous Taliban control for years. The political bankruptcy of direct Taliban rule in these areas has succeeded in doing what the Americans have not: turn the population against them. While the residents of Hiratian have not yet expressed their sentiment through action, villagers in other areas have. The Taliban exerted complete rule over large parts of Gizab district, in Dai Kundi province of central Afghanistan for years, until many villagers started refusing to cooperate with them earlier this year. All these areas have had few foreign troops. The insurgents imposed their harsh rule and the population suffered. Even after the large influx of troops in South Afghanistan over the past few years, the dynamic persisted: the Taliban were so powerful that it obviated the need to win over the population.

On the other hand, in those areas where the insurgency’s growth roughly coincided with or followed the arrival of the foreign forces — in the provinces near Kabul, for example — the Taliban have been more sophisticated. They have had to compete with the foreigners for the population’s allegiance, and in the process had to administer their rule with a softer touch. In such places, troop presence actually makes the insurgents more popular in local eyes. The conclusion is obvious. Without US troops in the area, the Taliban have no legitimacy.

It is a trend that belies conventional wisdom. It is hard to believe that increased effort to wage a war for ‘hearts and minds’, which at the heart of the COIN strategy, makes the Taliban popular. General Petraeus may well be smart enough to see that and move away from the present strategy of ‘surge’ which places reliance on a large U.S. military footprint. But the US has failed to rally Pashtun villagers to its side or to break the will of the resistance. For this reason many of these Pashtuns call for a negotiated ceasefire. They want to end the war their own way and rightly maintain that only they can deal with the Taliban and on their own terms. As the Taliban in Hiratian (as well as Swat and Waziristan) have shown that the Taliban can be their own worst enemy.

Negotiating between the populace and the resistance in Afghanistan would be protracted if the Americans continue to maintain a heavy military presence. I believe that a ‘threat’ of an early withdrawal would expedite matters. Instead of saying that the Americans ‘could stay long after the July next year deadline’ they should be saying that ‘withdrawal could begin’ as soon as all segments of populace and the resistance can come together to negotiate a settlement.

Many American strategists have already expressed the opinion that it is the future and fate of nuclear Pakistan, not the future and fate of Afghanistan, which should be the focus of US policy. The access of Afghanistan to the outside world would be through Pakistan. The alternative of Shia Iran, and Central Asian Republics (which are themselves land-locked) is not viable. It is the common interest of the USA and Pakistan-Afghanistan that Pakistan and Afghanistan should be friends – like twins conjoined at the hip, as President Karzai put it. Why the three of them are not pursuing what is their obvious common interest? It is because there is another group of three – India, Israel and the Neo-con America (supported by much of the Republican Party) – who would like the USA to not only stay longer in Afghanistan but also make use of the opportunity to strike at Pakistan and Iran.

The Republican Party would like President Obama to be a ‘one term President’ failing to get re-elected and being held responsible for the ‘defeats’. The Zionist lobby in America would like the destruction of the military of two more countries – Pakistan and Iran – to ‘make Israel more secure’. India eagerly wants to split Pakistan into several countries like it did in 1971 but that is possible only if it can win a victory in a conventional war in which the USA neutralises the nuclear deterrent of Pakistan. The ruling coalition in Pakistan is of parties that opposed the creation of Pakistan or have since emerged with or adopted that agenda. The USA may be persuaded to opt for the course being recommended by India, Israel and Neocon America merely because the ruling coalition in Pakistan is eager to oblige without questioning what may be done to Pakistan by ‘the three’. All eyes in Pakistan are on the military.

The Army is headed by a wise General. But he is due to retire in November this year. It has been the practice to grant one year extension to every COAS in Pakistan. But Zardari-Geelani may decide against it because he cannot be relied upon to refuse to obey the Supreme Court (SC) if he is asked to impose its judgement. Such a situation may come about well before November if the SC decided that the President cannot hold the office of PPP Chairman. Nobody in Pakistan’s Government is giving much thought to the dwindling prospects of the Taliban and Pakistan’s role in: 1) honourable exit with continued friendly US engagement with Afghanistan; 2) a durable peace settlement in Afghanistan between the populace and the resistance. I believe that vague objectives of the USA and Pakistan have fudged the issues which precluded emergence of wise and viable common objectives. But USA and Pakistan-Afghanistan do have common interests; they can surely agree on common objectives.

The Taliban did rule Afghanistan for a time but their government was recognised only by three countries – Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It was because of perceived illegitimacy of their rule that it was hard for Pakistan to stand by them when they were invaded in 2001. They are now being offered negotiations and peace that the Afghan people desperately want and deserve. If the Taliban refuse to make a deal with the USA, there would be no recognition of their rule even in the remote eventuality of the American leaving Afghanistan like they left Viet Nam. Pakistan is sincere in its support of Afghans; it has made much sacrifice for their sake against Soviet occupation and now American occupation. The Muslim World has a stake in the Afghan leaders acting sensibly to guard the national interests. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have some influence over the Taliban. They can and they must act to bring about a peace settlement. ++

Author: Brig. Gen. Usman Khalid
The writer is the Secretary General of Rifah Party of Pakistan

Is PM Sheikh Hasina in control of her affairs?

A careful look at the political state of affairs in Bangladesh will substantiate an argument that the Sheikh Hasina regime is a continuation of the military-backed interim government that had ruled the country for about two years before her party came to power. Sheikh Hasina and many of her party people were incarcerated and tortured during those two years, and she claimed that there had been an attempt on her life through mixing poison with her food. Her statement in this regard can be interpreted in two ways: 1. She made a false statement to collect public sympathy, which explains why she is not taking any action against those who wanted to kill her; 2. Her statement is true, but she is unable to take any action, as she is not in command of the affairs of Bangladesh.

Instead of branding our Prime Minster as a liar, I find it morally more comfortable to believe the second interpretation. Sheikh Hasina receives dictation about how to run the country and about who to punish; and according to that dictation, the misdeeds of the military-backed interim regime are forgiven. The primary target is those people who constitute the biggest obstacle to the realization of a political and economic hegemony of a regional power, and it is that regional power that is virtually at the helm of the country. It is that neighboring country of ours that wants to exploit Bangladesh in every way possible, which BNP and Jamaat refuse to tolerate.This is the reason for the arrests of Mahmudur Rahman, Motiur Rahman Nizami, Maulana Saidee and Ali Ahsan Mujahid.

Author: Shimul Chaudhury