Barrister Harun ur Rashid

While the Bush administration has been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, China got a foothold in Africa and its diplomatic influence among African countries has increased. China has assisted African countries with big infrastructure projects in return for oil and gas.
   Against the background, on 15th February, US President George W. Bush launched a five-country Africa tour, (Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia) for six days highlighting the fact that the US has not forgotten Africa. His tour may reveal Washington's calculations to restore its long term strategic interests in the continent.
   UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said on 15th February that U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Africa is "very important" while urging him to make more effort to help eradicate hunger and disease on the continent.
   Speaking to reporters after talks with Bush at the White House, Ban said he hoped that Bush is able to "discuss with African leaders how to realise these Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), how to help people overcome abject poverty."
   The UN General Assembly adopted in 2000 a Millennium Declaration that calls for the global adoption of eight goals by 2015, including ending hunger and poverty, achieving universal education, reducing child mortality, improving.
   The White House said Bush's main focus was on the development agenda. But analysts believe the ultimate goal of the visit is to promote U.S. long-term strategic interests in Africa. U.S. officials have said Bush's trip is aimed at showing the caring side of the U.S. policy toward Africa.
   Bush's current visit is his second to the continent since he took office in 2001 and probably his last before he leaves office next January.
   Some African nations are riddled with ethnic tensions and in many countries ethnic wars are continuing, such as in Congo, Somalia and Chad. These states pose a threat to the global security. Apart from civil wars, democracy is fragile and when elections are held, invariably they are rigged for the ruling party and Kenya is the latest example.
   During an hours-long stop on 16th February, in the tiny West African country of Benin, Bush threw his weight behind former UN chief Kofi Annan's efforts to broker a power-sharing deal in Nairobi to end clashes that have killed 1000 people.
   US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, expected in Kenya on 18th February, would deliver a "clear message" that Washington backs Annan's plan for ending the crisis that began with a disputed December 27 presidential election, said Bush. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, has said she would meet President Mwai Kibaki as well as his rival, Raila Odinga, who accuses Kibaki of having stolen the December 27 election.
   Launched nearly three weeks ago, Annan's mediation is seen as Kenya's best hope for a political solution to end the violence in which Kenyans have been killed by machete-wielding mobs, burnt in churches and driven off their land.
   "The key is that the leaders hear from her first hand US desires to see that there be no violence and that there be a power-sharing agreement that will help this nation resolve its difficulties," he said.
   As Bush flew from Benin to Tanzania, a top aide aboard his Air Force One airplane raised the prospect that the US president could get more personally involved in ending the political crisis at the root of the clashes.
   "President Bush does not need to go to Kenya at this point. At the right moment in time, the president will engage," Jendayi Frazer, Assistant US Secretary of State for African Affairs, told reporters.
   Bush also renewed his call for a "robust" UN peacekeeping force for Darfur, and defended his trip's focus on US-African cooperation in fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS, as well as to promote democratic and free-market reforms.
   "This a large place, with a lot of nations, and no question not everything is perfect. On the other hand, there's a lot of great success stories and the United States is pleased to be involved with those success stories," he said.
   After Tanzania, Bush was bound for Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia and he urged whoever succeeds him not to neglect the continent.
   "My trip here is a way to remind future presidents and future congresses that it is in the national interest and in the moral interest of the United States of America to help people," President Bush said during a joint public appearance with Benin's President Boni Yayi.
   "The visit of the President is a symbol," Yayi said through an interpreter. "He is here to support the countries which strive to be virtuous, the governments which accept to work on behalf of their people."
   Bush also defended his handling of Darfur, saying that once he had decided not to send US troops there, "there's not many other avenues, except for the United Nations and a peacekeeping force".
   "We're sanctioning some, rallying others to provide aid, in the hopes that there be a robust UN force in Darfur that would help relieve the suffering," said Bush, who told reporters he had pressed China to help.
   Bush and Yayi said they had discussed the fight against malaria in Benin - which launched a US-backed campaign against the disease in October - as well as a campaign to cut global poverty in half by 2015.
   The United States has provided Benin with 307 million dollars under a five-year "Millennium Challenge Account" deal. The MCA aims to reward democratic and free-market reforms.
   Since democracy returned to Benin in 1990, Washington has also provided about 250 million dollars to cover education, health, and anti-corruption drives.
   Bush was last in Africa in 2003, when he visited Senegal, South Africa, Botswana, Uganda, and Nigeria.
   The Bush doctrine of creating democracy across the world may be recorded in history as one of the great failures of this administration's long list of spectacular misadventures in the US history.
   What a wonderful world it would have been if the Bush administration would have won the hearts and minds of people in Africa and the Middle East. To allies and foes, the Bush administration has lost its credibility and influence for its flawed foreign policy.
   The writer is a Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva..

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Obama's campaign turns into a civil society movement

A.H. Jaffor Ullah

While Senator Barack Obama's election campaign is running in high gear and in the process Senator Clinton's bid for Democratic Party's nomination to run in November 4, 2008 is about to be fizzled out. Some say Obama's campaign has been transformed into a civil society movement - a movement to squish partisan bickering and to end divisiveness in Washington politics.
   We all know that Senator Obama's message is big on vision but short in specifics. Contrary to this, Senator Hillary Clinton's message has no vision but is big on technical details. The senator from New York has become a technocrat. Her stump speeches are loaded with digits. She is speaking about how many families will be benefited by her proposed universal health coverage, how many low income families will be benefited by her administration's tax proposal, so on and so forth. Electorates all across America have heard these kinds of speeches both from aspiring Democrats and Republicans.
   
   Obama promotes hope
   Senator Obama is promoting hope for the future though his speech lacks details. His thesis is that unless we do things very differently in Washington, partisan politics will not allow the nation to move forward. Mired in divisive politics the government will be run in the same fashion as it was done in the last few decades. Thus, his message has appeal to especially to younger voters. It is a mystery that wherever he goes to address the voters, a swarm of college students flock to his political rally and shout en masse "Yes We Can." By uttering the slogan they meant they could change the way Washington does politics. Obama is aptly called by the media the "Agent of Change."
   With the above introduction let me delved into the issue of why all of a sudden Obama is getting the attention of Bangladeshi Americans. Mind you, Democratic Party never had appealed to our deshi Americans. In 1980 quite a few of my friends and acquaintances from Bangladesh voted for Ronald Reagan. When I asked them why they sided with Republicans, the answer that I received was: Democratic Party was dominated by American blacks, homosexuals, lesbians, and super atheists.
   
   Bangladeshis voted for Bush
   In the same vein they did not vote for Walter Mondale in 1984 nor did they vote for Michael Dukakis in 1988. In 2000 the Bangladeshi Americans overwhelmingly rejected the candidacy of Vice-President Al Gore.
   I heard from reliable sources that goaded by Mullahs, most Muslims in America who seriously offer their Jumma prayer at mosque, cast their vote in favor of George W. Bush not that they had faith in Bush, a born-again Christian, but to put roadblocks to Gore-Lieberman ticket. You may recall that Senator Joseph Lieberman is a practicing Jew and that is what was causing consternation among Muslim voters.
   Had the Muslims in Florida voted for Al Gore-Lieberman ticket, George Bush could not have been elected in 2000. In a way, the Muslim Americans had helped Bush enormously become the president. Contrarily, Mr. Bush helped the Muslim world by sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. They surely received their reward!
   I recall one Bangladeshi writer by the name Fakhruddin Ahmed from Princeton, NJ, who was against Al Gore-Lieberman. This person writes article for Daily Star of Dhaka. In 2004 Mr. Fakhruddin in his article as President Bush waged his campaign for reelection in which he virulently attacked George Bush for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. After reading his article Jamal Hasan, a Bangladeshi American writer, and I wrote rebuttals to Fakhruddin's article, which was published in Daily Star. We both pointed out that it was the action of Fakhruddin and many like him who sided with Bush in 2000 presidential election that led to the victory of the Republican. Therefore, the writer could not have it both ways.
   Fakhruddin was criticised by us; however, he never wrote any rejoinder against our strong rebuttal. Surprisingly, the same writer is now penning pro-Obama article. One such article was published in Daily Star just after Super Tuesday's (February 5, 2008) primary election. Fakhruddin is gaga on Obama but for all the wrong reasons. Like him, many Bangladeshi Americans are fascinated by Obama because his father was a Kenyan Muslim. The senator took the name of his father. His first and last names are African but his middle name is Hussein. Therefore, the Bangladeshi Americans who are Muslim are wishing Obama's success as a candidate. This scribe will not be surprised hearing the statistics that Bangladeshi Muslim Americans have given their nods to Senator Obama despite the fact that there is not even an ounce of Muslimness in him. They will be dead wrong thinking that a Muslim man is going to live for the next four years in the White House.
   Senator Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, met and befriended a Kenyan scholar by the name Barack Obama Sr. at University of Hawaii's East-West Center. They married and Obama Jr. was born in 1961. The couple was divorced and Obama Jr. was raised by his mother and later by his maternal grandfather who were from Kansas. Senator Obama was steeped in Christian upbringing and there is no ounce of Muslimness in him. He married in early 1990s to a Chicagoan, Michelle, who is also a Christian. In his biography it is mentioned that Senator Obama had been a lifelong Christians. Sheer out of curiosity Senator Obama had visited his ancestral paternal village in Kenya. In all probability his father was a Muslim.
   I jotted down a brief family history of Senator Obama for a good reason. Our delusional Bangladeshi Americans should not have any reason to think that the leading candidate from Democratic Party is a Muslim. In my opinion, a contender for the highest public office should not be judged by his or her religion but by his vision, agenda, political philosophy and slues other factors.
   A year ago if anybody would have asked me about the prospect of a minority candidate for the office of U.S. presidency, I would have answered very negatively. Hardly six months ago I held the opinion that America is not ready for a woman nor it is ready for an African American to be elected for the highest public office in the land. But how wrong was I? The electorates are to some extent colour blind.
   All the opinion polls are indicating that older generations are mostly voting for Senator Clinton but younger generations are siding with Barack Obama. The senator from America's heartland was able to patch a coalition of African Americans, college-going voters, and highly educated and liberal Americans who are the supporters of the junior senator from Illinois. The Clintons thought they had the monopoly in Democratic Party. Despite the name recognition and help from Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton's campaign for the White House hit a big wall. All indications are pointing towards an Obama victory. By the first week of April 2008 it will be crystal clear that Obama will have enough delegates to lock the victory.
   The writer, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Forward Operational Base (FOB) and a training facility of the LTTE's Sea Tigers was completely destroyed in an air raid by the Sri Lanka Air Force on15 February, Media Center for National Security informs. The targeted base was located at Nayaru in the Mulaithiuvu District. According to sources, the fighter jets have taken the targets following air surveillance carried out during the last two days. Fighter pilots have confirmed that the raid was successful.
   On the other hand, Tamil civilians living in LTTE held areas in Mannar, undergoing hardships and continuous harassments from the terrorists, have been forced to leave their homes where they had lived for years, security sources from Mannar report. According to escapees, they had been forced to leave their homes and had escaped to seek protection from the Security Forces.
   Defence sources inform that during the last 48 hours, 22 civilians from the Vellankulam and Illupakadavali areas have fled to the Vankalaipadu and Pallimunai Navy posts seeking protection from the security forces. The escapees included children, youth and elders. Elders stated that the LTTE was ruining in their villages and that villagers were living in fear of the LTTE who can at any time take their lives if they refused to carry out orders.
   Two years and three months into the six-year term of the Rajapaksa government the denunciation of those who continue to urge a negotiated political solution to the ethnic conflict is at a peak. The belief that a military solution alone might suffice to end the three decades long Tamil rebellion has regained the centre stage as it has at various times in the past. The views propagated by the Sinhalese nationalist JVP and JHU that a military solution is the desirable one appears to have been taken on by the government.
   So long as the LTTE remains committed to achieving a separate state by military means, there is a logical basis to the government's determination to retake territory under LTTE control. By retaking the east, and keeping Jaffna, by dint of the military power of the Sri Lankan state, the government has effectively forestalled this option by the LTTE. On the other hand, the better option would be a negotiated political settlement in which both separation and resort to arms are given up.
   The Rajapaksa government has also adopted another position upheld by the JVP and JHU, which is the commitment to the unitary state. Over the past six decades of Sri Lankan independence, the issue of the unitary state has dogged ethnic relations in the country. The Tamil perception of the unitary state is that it permits centralized rule which is also Sinhalese majoritarian rule. On the other hand the Sinhalese perception of the unitary state is that it guarantees the legal unity of the country, whatever may be the ground reality. However, from 1995 onwards, the Sinhalese willingness to contemplate a solution beyond the unitary state had been growing.
   In the period 1995-2005 under former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, opinion polls showed that upwards of 70 percent of the population surveyed were in favour of the devolution of powers as a solution to the ethnic conflict.
   
   Fearful environment
   Both in his 2005 election manifesto and in his latest statements to the public, President Mahinda Rajapaksa has repeated his determination to find a political solution within the framework of the unitary state alone. He has also linked his commitment to the unitary state to the JVP and JHU's commitment to a military solution that would eliminate the LTTE threat to the unity of the country. The LTTE's response has been to use violence, both in the form of conventional warfare and terror strikes which have led to a polarized situation in the country. Hatred and suspicion have taken centre stage in an environment of violence and fear.
   On the weekend as I enjoyed the early morning hours in the park near where I live, I heard a raucous noise. Not thinking it was for me, I continued with my jog. But on the next round it was unmistakable. The sound coming from across the distance was "traitor, traitor." I could not see who it was because the sound came from between parked cars. But whoever it was wanted to make it known that I was the target. "Jehan Perera, traitor, traitor", he shouted. This was a person giving vent to a primeval passion.
   The recent disclosure of a possible JVP-LTTE link would come as a considerable surprise. The Daily Mirror recently reported a court case in which a former army general has alleged JVP-LTTE collaboration during the period of the bloody JVP insurrection against the government in 1988-89 that led to tens of thousands of deaths. The newspaper reported that "Major General (Wasantha) Perera had compiled a report outlining the close terrorist connection between the JVP and LTTE during the 1988-89 period." The general had also given evidence before the court that the JVP had obtained arms from the LTTE and because of his efforts he was able to cut off the procurement of arms by the JVP.
   
   Self interest
   However, it is not only the JVP that stands accused of such collaboration. Shortly after the Presidential election of 2005 allegations began to surface that the LTTE had been provided with some inducement to block Tamil voters in the north and east from casting their votes, which would almost certainly have gone to the opposition candidate Ranil Wickremesinghe. Former government minister Sripathy Sooriyarachchi who crossed over to the opposition and recently died in a motor accident publicly accused top government members of having bribed the LTTE to intimidate the Tamil voters away from the polls.
   Another President who fought the LTTE with determination was President Ranasinghe Premadasa. But he too was accused of having collaborated with the LTTE in the period 1989-90 to ensure the departure of the Indian Peace Keeping Forces.
   It might seem contradictory that those who advocate war against the LTTE and been publicly opposed them should also secretly collaborate with them. In all such instances of alleged collaboration there has been a common self-interest. Each party who collaborated with the LTTE did so temporarily, to either strengthen themselves or to weaken their opponents. While each of the collaborating parties may have achieved their short term goals, the end result was the strengthening of the LTTE's capacity to wage war against them, and the growth of its mistrust in such partners in crime.
   This greater common purpose would be for the parties to work together to achieve a peaceful solution that could meet their own interests and the best interests of the people. Violence on both sides of the conflict has decreased the chances of reaching a peaceful, stable and lasting solution. Individuals and organizations who promote a negotiated political solution that includes the LTTE, do so for the purpose of a mutually acceptable political solution in which human rights are respected and the use of weapons will be ended. They work on the basis that even the most complicated and intense conflicts can be solved through negotiations.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Newcastle restaurateur Abdul Latif leaves a void

Ebullient Newcastle restaurateur Abdul Latif, famed for incendiary curries, was the British restaurateur who claimed to have served the hottest dish in the world. He called it "Curry Hell". He served it in his diner in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he promised that any customer who could finish his concoction could have it free.
   Latif was not only the owner of the Rupali restaurant in Newcastle. He also claimed to have made the world's longest-distance curry delivery - from Newcastle to Sydney in 2004 - and he was also a regular feature in the adult comic Viz. Latif's entrepreneurialism - and indeed opportunism - was very well suited to Viz, a publication that has always shamelessly blurred the boundaries between news, editorial and advertising. Latif appeared in the adverts section of Viz or as a letter-writer, or in the classifieds with deliberate abandon. He almost became a conduit through which the comic satirised the press's parasitic and sometimes laughable reliance on advertisers.
   One of six children and a native of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan), Abdul Latif was born in 1954 and came to Britain in 1969. He initially migrated to Manchester but, after a racist incident, moved to Newcastle. He worked with a relative in Whitley Bay before opening his Rupali establishment in 1977. Twenty years later, having consolidated his business, he unleashed his Curry Hell Challenge: a fearsome vindaloo combination. It is said that only one person in 50 can finish the plate.
   An engaging, much-loved character and a charity campaigner, Latif was in the Good Food Guide for six years running. The MP Lembit Öpik was the recipient of the curry that Latif sent to Australia as part of the Guinness World Records.
   In 2003 Latif offered free meals for five years to all British servicemen serving in Iraq. He also offered free curries for life to the rugby player Jonny Wilkinson and to Graeme Souness, former manager of the Newcastle United football team. In 2003 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts for his "efforts to make a difference in society".
   Latif claimed that his restaurant struggled after the 9/11 attacks, and four years ago he passed his restaurant to one of his sons after the business had failed to pay a VAT bill.
   Abdul Latif was a Liberal Democrat supporter, and his favourite food was fish and chips.
   He is survived by his wife, Neawarun, their four daughters and two sons.
   Abdul Latif, restaurateur, was born in December 15, 1954. He died of a heart attack on January 27, 2008, aged 53.
   Have your say
   He was indeed a very fine individual of the old school. As a regular in the Rupali over the last 15 months I was devastated to get the news on my visit ten days ago, following so shortly after the bereavement of a close friend who also loved to visit Newcastle and the Curry Capital. Not only was he a purveyor of superb curries, and probably the best curry value in the whole of the UK, he was a unique character who latterly clearly spent a lot of effort encouraging community relations. This was something of which he was very proud, and with today's talk of "integrating immigrants", Abdul was a shining example that many could follow. If they all did, the race issue would simply become a non-issue. A fine man; I for one will miss him a lot.
   Alastair McKelvey, Newbury, England
   What a magnificent fella, his generosity to the forces and customers was legendry. A fine example of how to intergrate into British society. A very sad loss.
   Timbo, London, UK.
   Courtesy: The Sunday Times, London.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE