CRASS US HYPOCRISY WON'T DELIVER

Burma's unsuccessful orange revolution

Dr. Habib Siddiqui

On September 25, 2007 President Bush announced new sanctions against the military government of Burma, symbolically joining hands with tens of thousands of protesters in the streets of Yangon and challenging the United Nations to join him in a broader "mission of liberation."
   However, as I see it, the older sanctions imposed by the USA and some western countries did not really bite deep into the skin of the SPDC regime that is ruling Burma. There is also crass hypocrisy in how the sanctions have thus far been imposed by the Bush Administration. A multi-national oil company like Chevron was apparently exempted from adhering to the sanction rule book and is allowed to do business as usual in the oil and gas exploration sector with the SPDC.
   Why this selective application for an oil company? Well, we don't have to be reminded that oil is important to the trio - Bush, Cheney and Rice - all linked with the oil industry before joining the Administration. As is also obvious now, it was not the WMD but the control of the oil fields in Iraq that was the primary motivation for why they invaded Iraq. [And of course, there are other reasons too, namely, making the region secured for the rogue state - Israel.] I doubt that the Bush Administration is unaware that the Chevron-money goes directly to the pockets of the SPDC regime, providing the necessary blood infusion that it needs to function. [But then again, we are continuously reminded by our Wall Street pundits that if Chevron does not do business, there are many other non-American companies willing to close the deal with the Myanmar regime! They argue: why should a U.S. company suffer the brunt of unfair trading or business practices?] So, if the Bush Administration wants it to be taken seriously, it must go beyond the hollow rhetoric to imposing biting sanctions to isolate the hated regime.
   As we also know, in spite of unrest and demonstrations inside Burma, two major trading partners - China and India continue to doing business with the SPDC regime.[1] Thailand, Russia and Japan are also doing business as usual with the regime, as are many other countries including India, Sri Lanka and Singapore. So, unless the sanctions are universally imposed and fully embraced, stopping all sorts of trade, explorations, and flow of goods and currency to and from Burma by land, sea and air with all other countries, something that were done for Saddam Hossein's Iraq under the tutelage of the U.N., I see little chance in disciplining the brutal regime. The clearest case for a win-win strategy, without requiring a devastating war from outside, is that of mimicking the measures taken two decades earlier against the Apartheid regime of South Africa that forced it to collapse under massive pressure of sanctions.
   In those days, the USA and Israel were the biggest trading partners of the hated regime in South Africa. But with world-wide condemnation from outside, and struggle for freedom and equality within under the able and time-tested leadership of the ANC and people like Bishop Desmond Tutu, all the big foreign companies and institutions (including my own alma mater the University of Southern California, Los Angeles) were forced to withdraw their massive investment money and stop all dealings, thus nailing the beast of Botham's Apartheid rule and dawning the age of democracy, liberty and equality in Mandela's South Africa.
   But I don't see anything remotely similar happening for Burma. The oppressive SPDC regime has two veto-wielding backers inside the UNSC - China and Russia. Unless they change their attitude, I doubt anything positive would emerge from the UNSC. Mind that: neither of these two countries has what we call a functioning democracy. They are oligarchies with a centralized power structure. No opposition party or candidate can win any important election there. From their records of monumental crimes against the Muslims in Chechnya, Russia and Xinjiang, China, and Buddhists in Tibet, China, it is obvious that human rights are not a moral compass in these two countries. As much it is true for most countries in this age of moral bankruptcy, cheap trade with Burma is more important to these two countries. That is why, we are not surprised either to see how Gandhi's India has no moral qualms to emerge as the second largest trading partner of the SPDC regime.
   All these ground realities do sound really hopeless and depressing. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel in Myanmar? I believe there is. The clue to toppling the SPDC regime probably lies in mimicking the South African experiment of disengagement. In the 1980s, the Apartheid regime also had its powerful backers in the U.N. They were the United States of America and Israel (and Marcos' Philippines). When the entire U.N. voted in one way, recommending sanctions against and condemning the Apartheid regime, the USA and Israel continued to cast their votes in the opposite way, even wielding the Veto power (by the USA) in the UNSC. [The two countries had remarkable similarities with South Africa in that the more powerful settlers from Europe had dispossessed the less powerful indigenous, native communities.] It was truly an uphill battle in the U.N. to pass any punitive measure or incriminating Resolution against the racist regime. However, in the mid-1980s, even the die-hard supporters had to say that the days of Apartheid rule in South Africa were over. Yes, with nation-wide demonstrations inside the USA and some European countries that had heavily engaged in business with the Apartheid regime, the governments and powerful corporations in these countries caved in. They stopped all future business dealings with the regime, and pulled out money. The Old Crocodile President Botha relented to intense domestic and external pressure and implemented a series of gradual race reforms, telling his white Afrikaners that they must "adapt or die." Botha was ousted as National Party leader by F.W. de Klerk in September 1989, who released Mandela the next year.
   So, for a desired change in Burma, all the conscientious human beings must demand that their respective governments stop all forms of business dealings with the SPDC regime. The UNSC must steer head the global demand for an end to tyranny in Burma. If the regime's ethnic cleansing against the minority Rohingyas and Karens, and overbearing repression against its citizens are not appropriate subjects for the UNSC, what is? Why should this organization even exist if it cannot redress people's legitimate grievances against a despised, unelected, usurping power that had dishonored people's verdict and tyrannized everyone from the Muslim and Christian minorities to majority Buddhists for more than four decades? Should the UNSC Resolution be only reserved for a (now hanged) brute like Saddam Hossein, and launching unjust and immoral wars against the civilians in the Middle East, let alone conspiring to attack Iran under false pretext.
   The UNSC must do the right thing. It has more proofs than it requires to isolating the SPDC regime 100 per cent. Through its biting resolutions, it can let every government within the UN know that if it were to conduct any business deal with the regime, it will lose its membership in the world body, and will feel the pinch from losing bilateral favored nation trading status with other developed nations. The UNSC must also stop all multi-national companies from doing any business with the regime. Let real sanctions hurt the regime! Let it find out that it has no friend to lean on to.
   The most important factor for a change in Burma is, however, its own people. It is they who must desire change wholeheartedly and should be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice necessary to bring about a positive change in their lives. If they are afraid to sacrifice for a noble cause, nothing will happen for them. No outside intervention or goodwill will help. So far, I have not seen that kind of sacrifice made inside Burma. There has not been a repeat of the 8-8-88 event. The Junta-defying demonstrations in September were neither big enough nor well organized to shake the SPDC boat.
   Leadership is very crucial for the success or failure of any movement. The events of the past weeks have demonstrated that the Burmese people are radar-less without an effective leadership that gravitates everyone for a common, noble cause. The people of Burma must develop genuine leadership the same way the Black South Africans had done when their charismatic leaders Mandela and Mbeki were serving long prison times. Most of the opposition leaders in Burma are grossly incompetent and selfish. They live in their feudal past. They look at things from their chauvinistic, foggy, ethnic prism that is not wide enough to understand other communities. Their inherent xenophobia, racism and feudalistic behavior do not encourage other groups to take them seriously as better alternatives to the current regime. They often talk about democracy, but have no clue about what it takes to make a democratic society. They talk about liberty but approve the 1982 Burma Citizenship Law that effectively denies basic citizenship rights to millions of minority Muslims and Christians. They talk of human rights, but to them the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a non-binding leaflet from a distant planet that they can be oblivious about or show selective amnesia. They display no understanding about pluralism and integration, and respect for others.
   These are, in my analysis, the sad realities of today's Burma. And yet the march for democracy, freedom and human rights must go on both inside and outside Burma. In the absence of imprisoned political leaders, Burma must find its genuine leadership that integrates and empowers people of various races, ethnicities and religious persuasions for a common, higher goal so that she can develop true democratic spirits under a Federal framework. As for those of us who are outside, we must do our part to pressure our respective governments and the world bodies to bring about measures that force the repressive junta towards a democratic transition with minority rights protected.
   [The author Dr. Siddiqui is the Director of the Arakan-Burma Research Institute, USA. He is the author of six books. His latest book "Wisdom of Mankind" is now available in Bangladesh. He can be reached at saeva@aol.com.]

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Attack on Iran will be a disaster
for US, world economy

Mohammad Amjad Hossain

It is an irony that President George W. Bush did not care to learn any lesson from the illegal war that was waged by the United States against Iraq since March, 2003. Since the Iraq War, the United States has lost about 4,000 soldiers and 30,000 wounded; and end up spending $1 trillion on Iraq and Afghan war.
   According to a report in the Guardian of October 11, 2006 by Sarah Boseley, the death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reported. In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion. The killing of huge number of innocent Iraqis by US troops has far exceeded the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam Hussein for which he was executed. These innocent Iraqis are the victims of Bush's illegal war.
   That is not an end of untold sufferings endured by the people of Iraq. In their own country two million Iraqis are displaced while another two million made homeless. They are now refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. Very few displaced Iraqis have been welcomed into the United States. This is a disgrace to the country, which is primarily responsible for creating untold sufferings to the people of Iraq.
   The occupation of Iraq has evoked sharp reactions from the people who began fighting against U.S. military occupation. Moreover, the rivalry between Shiites, majority population and Sunni, minority in Iraq led to internecine bloodshed. Today's Iraq has been engulfed in fratricidal killings. The Bush administration has failed to resolve the mess it created in Iraq.
   It has now begun on two frontal attacks on the puppet Prime Minister Maliki's government for its failure to achieve benchmarks given by the Bush Administration while Iran has been dragged in the conflict as a scapegoat. The wind has begun blowing from Iraq to Iran. The same orchestrated swan song campaign by the Bush Administration, the U.S. media and Israel has begun as they did on the eve of invasion of Iraq. Recent positive development between watchdog of the United Nations: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Iranian government for signing an agreement to check Iran's uranium enrichment programme which was not appreciated by Bush and its strongest ally: the Israeli Administration. In their report last week the IAEA declared that Iran has been slowing down its enrichment programme.
   Two week's back President Bush in a speech before the American Legion said that Iran's nuclear programme has threatened the Middle East with a nuclear holocaust. This particular chosen phrase is intended to demonstrate his loyalty towards the Jewish community in the United States. President Bush used rhetoric against Iran equal to anything he used on Iraq on the eve of invasion. Noble Laureate Mohammed El Baradei, Director General of IAEA said, "Iran is not trying to produce a nuclear bomb, that there is no deception in Iran 's nuclear activities, and that it has collaborated fully with the agency's inspectors".
   Since the UN agency has decided to close the file on Iran at the end of this December, there is furor in the United States and Israel to prevent such an action. The Bush Administration plans to bring tougher sanctions by the Security Council against Iran before IAEA's action.
   El-Baradei at the press conference in Vienna on September 7 is reported to have said, "I hear war drums that are basically saying that the situation is to bomb Iran. It makes me shudder because some of the rhetoric is a reminder the run-up to the Iraq war. There have been back-seat drivers putting in their five cents saying this is not a good working arrangement. I tell them, please, leave the driving to us and we will let you know where we are in November," El-Baradei went on to say about media reporting. He pinpointed that the U.S. media was rushing to discredit him.
   This is possibly a harsh criticism by the Chief of UN Agency against the Bush Administration and the US media as well. It is a reminder of the same trend on the eve of war in Iraq when there were tense exchanges between El-Bardaei and the Bush Administration over the extent of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons programs. It turned out to be that the IAEA was correct in assessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Post war analyses upheld the UN agency's assessment. Deserted by his loyal advisors, President Bush might think to divert attention to Iran's nuclear programmes, which is meant for the purpose of producing nuclear energy for home consumption.
   Now that President Bush has turned against his puppet Prime Minister Maliki saying the Prime Minister is biased toward Shiites. As if awoken up from the sleep to discover now that Maliki is in favor of Shiites. President Bush even went to dub Iran's Revolutionary Guards as being a terrorist group "an accusation that does not make a sense even at a semantic level, as state armies, by definition, cannot be terrorists."
   Alexis Debat, Director of National Security at Nixon Center and Sarah of London's the Sunday Times held the views that the Pentagon has prepared a plan "to carpet bomb Iran to stop Iran's ambitious nuclear programs." This speculation has been strengthened by the words of General Petraeus, US commander in Iraq and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Iraq, who gave testimony to the congress on the situation in Iraq. Both of them pointed fingers at Iran for being the destabilizing factor in Iraq. On top of these, US Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte recently commented in Kabul that Taliban in Afghanistan were receiving arms and ammunition from Iran to fight the US forces. But the fact speaks otherwise. The Iranian regime was opposed to the Taliban regime in Kabul. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, Iran joined hands with the US led coalition forces against the Taliban regime.
   There is an ominous sign that the French Administration of Sarkozy has joined in the orchestrated song of the Bush Administration against Iran. In spite of a positive picture presented by the Director General of IAEA, the French Foreign Minister has spoken of possible war over Iran if Iran continues its uranium enrichment program. The French Foreign Minister's warning on September 16 has triggered alarm bells in the Middle East and Gulf regions. While scathing attacks came from Tehran against his comments, a spokesman of the Israeli Foreign Ministry welcomed the statement.
   Whatever might be the scenario, saner elements in the United States have been advising the Bush Administration that a strike would be mistake since diplomacy and UN sanctions are working against the Iranian regime.
   With one million Iraqi dead, four million Iraqis either displaced or homeless, four thousands US soldiers dead and 30,000 U.S. soldiers wounded coupled with 1 trillion dollar spent on Iraq and Afghanistan war, it would be disastrous for the United States in term of its economy if another war is waged against Iran.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

How CG is to ensure
accountability, transparency

Wajid Ali Khan Panni

Since the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent country on 16 December 1971, the fate suffered by its heads of government has been very sad indeed.
   For example, Mr. Tajuddin Ahmed, the first Prime Minister of Bangladesh Government in Exile (Mujib Nagar) and independent Bangladesh till Sheikh Mujibur Rahman returned to Dhaka from Pakistan was killed in jail along with three other leaders such as Capt. Mansur Ali, Syed Nazrul Islam and AHM Kamruzzaman.
   This was followed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who fought for the emancipation of the people and pioneered the freedom struggle, became Prime Minister and later assumed the post of the all powerful President after introducing one-party system, was brutally murdered along with several members of his family and close relations.
   Likewise, Lieutenant General Ziaur Rahman, who announced the independence of Bangladesh in March 1971, was assassinated by a group of disgruntled army officers in Chittagong in May 1981.
   Justice MA Sattar, who was elected as President in November 1981 was unceremoniously deposed in a bloodless coop by General H M Ershad, the then Chief of Army Staff.
   President H M Ershad too was forced to resign following a mass upsurge and later convicted on charges of a number of corruption cases and served a prolonged jail sentence. Many other such cases are still pending against him.
   Begum Khaleda Zia, Prime Minister for two full five year term and a short stint in between, is now in custody, charged with corruption, misuse of power and awaiting trial.
   Similarly, Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister for one full term in coalition with Jatiya Party, is also in custody charged with extortion, corruption etc, and awaiting trial.
   Besides many senior political leaders and former ministers of almost all the successive governments are in jail, some convicted and others awaiting trial, for corruption, extortion and misuse of power.
   This is the tragic story of Bangladesh since 1971. Now that the country is under emergency rule what is there in store for the nation?
   While looking back, Bangali leaders with good family background like, Khawaja Nazimuddin, HS Suhrawardi, Sher e Bangla Fazlul Huq, Mohammad Ali Bogra and many others who held the highest political offices, retired and lead a normal life in honour and peace till their last days.
   
   New beginning?
   Perhaps 1/11 was necessary for cleaning up a polluted administration, launching a crusade against corruption and trying to find some good people to participate in politics to stem the rot. Some people argue that all should support the caretaker regime to enable it to succeed. Otherwise, they claim, the country may be declared a "Failed State". This is a dilemma.
   The Election Commission (EC) has undertaken a gigantic task of preparing the voter list with a photo and a National ID card with the active help of the armed forces. It is hoping to complete the task by October 2008 and hold a credible National election by the end of the year.
   While one sincerely hopes that the EC becomes successful in its endeavour but what happens after holding a free and fair election? Would it be able to solve all the problems that the country is facing now? Almost everyone is talking about reforms, introduction of a system of government that would ensure accountability, transparency, checks and balance and keeping the civil service and the police out of political influences. Some of them are also talking about the appointment of an Ombudsman as well as having an Upper House in addition to the Parliament.
   Be that as it may, but one must not forget without first strengthening the local government institutions, the basic foundation of a functioning democracy cannot be established. Therefore, attempts should be made first to complete the elections of the local bodies like the City Corporations, Pourashavas, Zilla and Upazilla Parishads before holding parliamentary polls.
   Attempts should also be made to resolve the confusion about the roles of the members of the parliament and Upazilla chairmen otherwise the functioning of the system would be in jeopardy because of conflict of interest.
   The writer is a former Deputy Foreign Minister.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE