The Idea of a 'National
Unity Government'-I

Sadeq Khan

The idea of a national unity government was mooted in philanthropic discussions when over consecutive terms of parliamentary rule since 1991, it became clear that the system was seriously handicapped. It had degenerated into "winner-take-all" oligarchy and concentration of power accompanied by bitter polarisation under the dictates and dynastic spells of two alternate prime ministers, as well as dog-in-the-manger obstructionism by opposition forces. Thoughtful citizens were perturbed not only by the violence, corruption and falsities of self-serving politicians engaged in bloody-minded power game, but also by criminalisation of the socio-economic order. Proliferation of organised crimes under politico-administrative patronage and police-mafia connections was compounded by the process of globalisation, the pace of industrialisation and urbanisation, and the rapidity of transformation from a command economy to a free-market economy in a land-starved country undergoing commercially-modernising agriculture-dependent population explosion.
   
   External stakeholders
   Two other factors added fuel to this syndrome. One was the growing recognition by the "international community" after the end of the Cold War that Bangladesh had the benefit of intelligent manpower potential and diligent private enterprise capable of sustained economic growth, placed in geo-strategically sensitive location between two growing Asian giants, China and India. The "international community" also took note of the peculiarity of Bangladesh as a "moderate Muslim country" on the fringe of the Islamic world, albeit numerically significant in the faith or the ummah.
   While the USA prepared for the New American Century and toyed with the idea of clash of civilizations, old Europe and Great Britain championing the triumph of liberal democracy crept forward to stake fresh claims of "white man's burden" in post-colonial growth zones. In Bangladesh, the Tuesday Club of Western diplomats took shape to have a say as "external stakeholders" in the dynamics of socio-economic development in Bangladesh. They had their selected non-government organisations in the country as activists, their access to top politicians and high officials, retired as well as in service, as conduits, their connections with the world media and its local orchestra as amplifiers, and their camaraderie with the civil society stalwarts in Bangladesh as spokesmen.
   Their mission included rendering Bangladesh more moderate and less Muslim, and to uphold the banner of liberal democracy, gently pushing Bangladesh into the hegemonic fold of Indian power and away from Chinese influence. Meanwhile, the donors' club led by Breton Wood institutions, i.e. the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, having been charged with the task of attaining the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations, took note of the remarkable strides in human development taking place in Bangladesh under government and non-government programmes, and as "external stakeholders", began exercising their "persuasive" powers and attaching conditionality in matters of internal governance in Bangladesh as a necessary intervention to achieve the MDG commitment of the country.
   World Bank Vice-President Ms. Mieko Nichimizu spoke in the Bangladesh Development Forum 2002 about "a crisis of law and order and governance in Bangladesh" that had "endangered the nation's finances and distorted the distribution of income, wealth and human capital." She quoted the newly-elected Prime Ministers' electoral pledge about making Bangladesh a liveable country, where law and order and good governance "ensures human dignity, and security of life and property" for every child, every woman, and every man. Ms. Nichimizu went on to elaborate on the crisis: "We identified corruption as a systemic problem; those with power stealing from the weak, drawing and forcing honest citizens into their game, and entrapping the society with their values as the norm of everyday Bangladeshi life.
   "We all agreed on the redefinition of the role of the government. Refocus the public sector on the core functions of government, we agreed. Leave doing business to the private sector, and focus on creating an environment where private business can make honest money, we concurred.
   "Everyone recognized the need for change when we met here two years ago. Yet, little change actually took place. In the absence of good public sector governance, too many even in the private sector continued to abuse the public's trust giving the private sector a bad name and casting a negative connotation on the world privatization.
   "The nation now faces one manifestation of the poor governance: dangerously weakened national finances, with fiscal deficit that has grown too high and foreign reserves that has become too low.
   "Development partners of Bangladesh share a profound disappointment of her sovereign people."
   In fact, two years earlier the Transparency International had placed Bangladesh at the top of their list of most corrupt nations by a survey of corruption perception index. It was about this time that in diplomatic circles and in civil society parlours, murmurs began to be articulated about what was later defined as the minus-two formula. Some ambassadors in private conversation would frankly suggest that the virulent incompatibility of the top two ladies, leaders of the two rival camps vying for power in Bangladesh were holding back the nation's growth and were causing social unrest and political violence which could engender extremism of anti-social kind. Unambiguous suggestions were made time and again that the two ladies ought to be persuaded to "retire" from politics to create a climate of tolerance and accommodation between Treasury and Opposition benches in Bangladesh and make the parliamentary system work.
   
   Internal stakeholders
   Internal stakeholders in socio-economic development of the country, specifically the leaders of trade and industry took a different view. They also complained how "Like the War of the Roses of medieval British history, a political cold war for semi-dynastic predominance has been vitiating the nation-building climate in Bangladesh. Society has been drawn into an adulatory frenzy to take one side or the other, and whipped into a vengeful hate campaign to isolate and bring down the enemy. A vicious cycle of confrontational politics, political instability, unemployment, and poverty has followed, which has immensely corroded our social values and institutions.
   "Blinded by the spell and heat of this confrontational politics, every member of society at one time or another is getting involved. Slowly people are being drawn into intolerant and adverse positions and silly apolitical disputes, brother against brother, family against family. On petty differences, they are resorting to violence more out of spite than reason. This never happened in our society in the past. The madness of clannish enmity is affecting even our children."
   The quote is from a treatise entitled "Bangladesh: Anatomy of Change" by Abdul Awal Mintoo, the recommendations of which for political, administrative and regulatory reforms were unanimously adopted in a meeting of the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry in 2004, moved by its the-then second time President, i.e. the author of the treatise. Essentially the same set of recommendations in an executive summary form were adopted first time in the annual general meeting of the FBCCI moved by its the-then outgoing President Abdul Awal Mintoo in November 2000.
   The FBCCI resolutions complained of the intense undercurrent of partisan competition to consolidate the dynastic legacy of two past leaders by two competing political camps, and of confrontational politics, often violent, hampering the democratic process, economic endeavour and social progress.
   But it recommended national reconciliation to unite the two ladies on a common agenda for the nation to make a great leap forward: "For meeting the challenges of the 21st century, national reconciliation must be obtained as early as possible so that the people may stand together and undertake a radical agenda for change, without which there will be no leap forward out of the poverty trap.
   "Business leaders strongly feel that political stability is essential for a truly productive climate. The deep political schism in the country must be healed. Business leaders suggest a cooling-off period to restore a sustainable environment for accelerating growth and proper nation-building. Under the current atmosphere of partisan insensitivity, intolerance and antipathy, national reconciliation may only come in steps. A Convention should be held soon after the end of the cooling-off period. This convention may be called 'Convention for Reconciliation and National Unity.' Its aim should be to reach a comprehensive political settlement of our national conflicts."
   The idea of a binding national consensus for the growth strategy of Bangladesh, if not national unity government, was thus being advocated by business leaders of the country. Some economic analysts suggested on the heels of such advocacy that under a national unity government for 15 years, Bangladesh could indeed be on a track of fast growth to obtain steady foundations for soon becoming a middle income-group country. The idea of a national unity government was thus planted indigenously in the nation's polity, perhaps from the memory of historical precedents. But before we go into such historical memories, it is necessary to mention the second factor that complicated the syndrome of impasse in our internal polity, as well as our external image.
   (To be continued)

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Prisoners at Bagram facility

Prisoners at Bagram have less ability to contest
their detention and no access to lawyers

Nasrine R. Karim

Going down the memory lane, Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran and the German TV Panorama did a programme depicting thousands of Taliban troops who had surrendered to US-backed warlord Abdurrashid Dostum in November 2001. They were transported in suffocating containers, then shot and buried in mass graves in northern Afghanistan, allegedly under the supervision of US Special Forces. US airpower bombed Taliban prisoners-of-war who had revolted against the terms of their CIA interrogation at the Qala-i-Janghi fortress.
   Another little item: upon finding American Jamie Walker Lindh (remember, a Taliban sympathizer?) wounded but alive in the ruins of the fortress. It is alleged that the US forces apparently left his wounds untreated in an effort to extract confessions from him. One can declare all this to "War on Terror": after all, "all is fair in love and war" -- right?
   Sadly, a United Nations investigator released a preliminary report recently citing widespread civilian deaths in Afghanistan, often at the hands of unaccountable units allegedly led by the CIA or other foreign intelligence agencies. The investigator is Philip Alston, a New York University professor serving as the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution.
   In his report he cites that civilians are killed in air raids that are often targeted indiscriminately at civilian dwellings and not at terrorist hubs. Alston reported: "a number of raids for which no State or Military command appear ready to acknowledge responsibility." Other incidents are raids apparently by Afghans led by unnamed "international intelligence services" out of bases in both Kandahar and Nangarhar provinces. He reported that, "It is absolutely unacceptable for heavily-armed internationals accompanied by heavily-armed Afghan forces to be wandering around conducting dangerous raids that too often result in killings without anyone taking responsibility for them".
   The British daily Independent provided some more information. It wrote, "A Western official close to the investigation said the secret units are still known as Campaign Forces, from the time when American Special Forces and CIA spies recruited Afghan troops to help overthrow the Taliban during the US-led invasion in 2001. 'The brightest, smartest guys in these militias were kept on,' the official said. 'They were trained and rearmed and they are still being used." In general, the UN Rapporteur Alston found little to no interest among US or Afghan officials in monitoring or following up on civilian deaths. "The level of complacency in response to these killings is staggeringly high." Alston said of the Afghan Police, "They function not as enforcers of law and order, but as promoters of the interests of a specific tribe or commander". He cited an incident in which Afghan police massacred a group from a rival tribe. There was no investigation by the government or the occupying forces.
   The fact that the CIA is involved in covert operations in Afghanistan is neither new nor surprising. Already by the 1970s, it is well known that the CIA had developed ties to sections of the Afghan population, and in particular Islamic fundamentalist elements, in an effort to undermine the Soviet-backed government. The CIA was known to be heavily involved in developing ties to anti-Taliban warlords even prior to the US invasion and occupation in 2001.
   
   From Bagram to Guantánamo
   Afghanistan and in particular the Bagram Air Force Base near Kabul, became a transit point for prisoners captured by the United States and destined for Guantánamo Bay, the notorious "secret" CIA prisons in Cuba. (The prisons are now no longer "secret" but in the spotlight and under tremendous pressure to shut down).
   Now, according to the New York Times of May 17th, plans are on their way for a new, US-run prison complex at Bagram Air Force Base, north of Kabul.
   The prison complex would occupy 40 acres on the base, house up to 1,100 prisoners, and cost more than $60 million to build! The complex will replace an existing prison, the Bagram Theatre Internment Facility. The Military officials told the press they were concerned about the "health effects" on US troops stationed at the current Bagram facility, which is heavily contaminated with toxic heavy metals.
   The Military also said that they are unwilling to turn "dangerous" detainees over to the Afghan government, and that is why they are planning on building a new prison under direct US control. The New York Times described the existing Bagram prison as overcrowded, with inadequate restrooms and exercise facilities. Comparing conditions there to those at Guantánamo Bay, the US-run "concentration camp" in Cuba which has become notorious for its alleged mishandling and arbitrary punishment of detainees, the New York Times reported: "Military personnel who know both Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as far more Spartan. Bagram prisoners have fewer privileges, less ability to contest their detention and no access to lawyers." The Times also acknowledged that American guards had beaten several detainees to death there.
   One wonders when it is all going to end.
   The recent armed attack on Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the center of Kabul was a stark demonstration of the isolation of the US-backed government and the growing striking power of anti-occupation forces throughout the country. Karzai narrowly escaped with his life. Cabinet ministers, members of parliament, Afghan and NATO military officials and foreign diplomats, including US Ambassador William Wood, ducked and ran or were whisked to safety when anti-government forces opened fire on a military parade to celebrate the 16th anniversary of the overthrow of the Soviet-backed government in 1992.
   The Taliban quickly claimed responsibility for the attack saying it was carried out by a team of six militants. Later, a second Islamist group, headed by the former US ally Glubuddin Hekmatyar, said it had carried out the assault. Nobody really knows who the culprits are as yet.
   Since the attack, however, the Kabul government has rounded up hundreds of suspects in Kabul and sealed off entire sections of the city, while intelligence officials conduct dragnet-style searches. The attack began as the national anthem was being played and military guards were firing off a 21-gun salute. It is quite remarkable to successfully launch such an attack by the anti-occupation forces, given the extraordinary measures that were taken to secure the event. The entire episode was televised live across the country!
   Now here is the thing: the TV transmission apparently continued for some two minutes longer after the attack began, showing hundreds of Afghan soldiers running away from the scene along with journalists and spectators. An Associated Press reporter on the scene said, "To our surprise, uniformed soldiers and armed police followed hot on our heels. The uniformed musicians of the marching band also ran away." Commenting on the debacle for the government and its US and NATO sponsors, an Afghan member of parliament said, "There is no security force in Afghanistan that people trust. If you pay attention to yesterday's incident, the security forces fled the area before the ordinary people did."
   
   The situation is surreal!
   President Karzai, humiliated by this incident, has criticized the US and NATO for not allowing his military and security forces to take control of the capital. And to think, just one day before the attack, he told the New York Times that he supported the new Pakistani government's plan to negotiate for peace with Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
   NATO officials on the other hand, have said on several occasions that they are concerned that the new Pakistani government is particularly hesitant to risk an all-out confrontation with pro-Taliban militants in its fractious border areas with Afghanistan. They are apparently also not taking on the anti-US fighters who attack NATO forces and then run away to find refuge allegedly in Pakistan. For instance, on May 15th, NATO spokesman told reporters in Brussels that "deals being struck between the Pakistani government and extremist groups in the tribal areas that may be allowing them, the extremists, to have safe havens, rest, reconstitute and then move across the border." The blame game goes on.
   Are we then, going to see a type of vigilante operatives within Pakistan to hone in their capabilities of kidnapping the enemy for some quick 'talking to' in the new $60 million facility in Bagram?
   "War: first, one hopes to win; then one expects the enemy to lose; then, one is satisfied that he too is suffering; in the end, one is surprised that everyone has lost.": Karl Kraus (1874-1936)

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE