|
A design for an effective national security council - 4
Sadeq Khan
I now come to three more ambivalent and tactically complex areas of national defence, including mitigation of threats to national wealth and material pursuits.
Psy-war dimension
(iii) Psychological Defence: This relates again to the peculiarity of DEFENCE AGAINST PSY-WAR offensive that our tiny nation-state is constantly facing from alien ideologues engaged in regional and international power play. This may also include our indigenous strategy of ANTI-TERROR BULWARK, the principal responsibility for which, I believe, rests on political leadership and capacity for improvisation of the socio-economic order.
Indian hegemony
Right from its debut as a sovereign nation-state, Bangladesh has been subjected to tremendous psychological pressure to yield to Indian regional hegemony for an Indo-centric political economy and later to Euro-American prescriptions for globalising and secularising its institutions, at the cost of its core values, national pride and egalitarian culture. Under predominantly Sufi influence absorbing Buddhist and Baishnab devotions, Bangladeshi communities are historically inclusive of diverse folk traditions, moderate in faith, and culturally tolerant.
Nineteenth century Hanbali and Wahabi influence penetrated Bangladesh peasantry in the wake of rural resistance to alien British rule and land policy. In the aftermath of 9/11 terror attack on America, Bangladesh polity was denigrated in Indian and Western propaganda as a "cocoon of Islamic terrorism" and a hotspot with symptoms of state failure.
Although the US accepted the government of Bangladesh as an ally in its global war against terrorism, various US agencies and non-government organisations kept Bangladesh under covert surveillance and overt diplomatic pressure invoking development (aid) partnership interest.
Tendentious media reporting
The regional hegemony as well as the former colonial master with European Union consensus behind it, embarked on a parallel second-tier diplomacy and propaganda offensive to maintain a grip on Bangladesh polity.
Some of their two-tier pro-active diplomacy with back-up cover of rights-activism within the country amounted to gross interference in our internal affairs. Power-hungry politicians from both sides of the mainstream divide fell prey to machinations of foreign hegemony. Particularly harmful was a section of the national and international media whose speculative and tendentious reporting precipitated law and order problems and blackened the international image of Bangladesh.
Constitutional restraint
In effect, Bangladesh is now being forced to adopt measures of a security state, i.e. attaching priority to security issues over public welfare issues like in India or Pakistan. The Constitution of the People's Republic therefore needs to be reconciled to this special requirement of security-orientation, and a high-powered bureau needs to be established to carry out a comprehensive multi-media and multi-dimensional psychological defence plan.
There has to be a Master-blueprint worked out on the basis of available information and projections both national and international, in the light of which the government of the day may be advised to take appropriate decisions.
Bangladeshi Diaspora
The Bangladeshi Diaspora world-wide could provide voluntary services, as could media power within the country by remote guidance and select involvement. An experienced journalist or a senior army psy-war specialist or ex-army intelligence expert might head this bureau.
(iv) Geo-strategic Security: This relates to CULTURAL AMITY (a moral version of 'sphere of influence' delimitation) as an instrument of defence and an operative organ for the state policy as enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.
The Article reads: "25(1). The State shall base its international relations on the principles of respect for national sovereignty and equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, peaceful settlement of international disputes, and respect for international law and the principles enunciated in the United Nations Charter, and on the basis of those principles shall-
(a) Strive for the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and for general and complete disarmament;
(b) uphold the right of every people freely to determine and build up its own social, economic and political system by ways and means of its own free choice; and
(c) support oppressed peoples throughout the world waging a just struggle against imperialism, colonialism or racialism.
(2). The State shall endeavour to consolidate, preserve and strengthen fraternal relations among Muslim countries based on Islamic solidarity."
Surrounding imbroglio
Our constitutional stipulation for diplomacy as the first line of defence is thus binding and clear enough. We also derive a clear indication from that constitutional provision about how to conduct ourselves in the midst of the complex external imbroglio that surrounds our sovereign territory. It is vitally necessary to note that Bangladesh is surrounded by political and ethnic groups engaged in separatist violence, caste-war and class-war activism.
A very delicate and unstable status-quo surround our land-borders with India and Myanmar, comparatively quiet Nepal, Bhutan and Himalayan China being only a few miles away (although a peaceful process of radical change and an end to armed struggle in Nepal is going on, there is no certainty that the peace will last). Illicit arms and drugs traffic tends to obtain safe passage through Bangladesh, and in turn often criminalises Bangladeshi collaborators by pay-off with illicit arms or drugs. Cross-border crime has also become rampant and multi-dimensional. For the security of our population, Bangladesh has to work out a strategy of its own to contain that menace and to prevent illegal arms traffic. Enlightened self-interest also requires Bangladesh to remain neutral in the conflict between rebel combatants and their respective governments of the day, as we never know which way geo-strategic big power games will lead these challenges to respective state power.
While fully participating in the SAARC security agenda, or bilateral security cooperation with other neighbours, Bangladesh must also develop and maintain neutrally peaceable relationship of trust with major neighbourly regarding insurgencies that could affect the regional matrix. This can be done (as did Switzerland when Europe was malevolently fragmented and at war) honestly by strict adherence to UN Refugee Convention and its follow-up international practices.
Bangladesh can by words as well as actions send a clear message that while any one engaging in illicit arms transit through Bangladesh would be intercepted, captured and mercilessly punished under Bangladesh Law and SAARC obligation of anti-terrorist co-operation, a fugitive from military repression managing to set foot in Bangladesh territory may be given refugee status and humanitarian protection in conformity and in collaboration with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
A rider condition clause could be that the fugitive would not use, by word or action, Bangladesh territory or his/her Bangladeshi contacts for any activity directed against the security and integrity of any state in the region. In other words, Bangladesh government through exclusive geo-strategic research must remain abreast of micro level socio-political tensions in the region around its borders, so that it can always be ready with an updated contingency measure. The head of this pro-active research bureau would need to have both intelligence work and foreign service experience, and have knowledge of social anthropology and historiology.
Self-reliance factor
(v) Economic Security: This, in the current context of world food crisis and climate change, relates primarily to FOOD SECURITY & JOB CREATION. It is the most import security aspect requiring in-depth research. As the pre-partition popular leader of the then Bengal late A.K. Fazlul Haque put it, the politics of Bengal was the economics of Bengal. Current reality of twenty-first century world order is also replacing Machiavellian diplomacy by economic diplomacy.
Bangladesh, with limited natural resources and acquired skills, must develop innovative economic agenda and appropriate strategy complementing UN Millennium Development Goals, and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper which was essentially donor-driven. Population growth is fast exhausting the carrying capacity of the country's land mass and critically undercutting the jobbing capacity of the country's self-employed. Therefore, while joining in and conforming to the prescriptions of WTO rounds in general, exceptions must be obtained for protective expansion of certain sectors of the economy for country-specific need to generate employment opportunities, renewable resources and multiple benefits.
Jute industry's revival
Because of the projected size of our stationary population, it may be possible to design manufactures/ produces for internal consumption and also prospective subsidised export prospects. Revival of jute industry could be a case in point. Jute mills in the neighbouring country are making profits, whereas ours are sick. A recovery of the jute sector and it as renewable raw materials for hardboard/paper/fuel wood requirements by compulsory internal consumption and subsidised export drive could substantially supplement agricultural economy and industrial employment. Garments industry and backward linkage could continue to be a major area of employment for new entrants in the labour market, while the older ones whose fingers are not very nimble any more could move to jute products industry.
Promotion of jute products could yield multiple benefits of (a) use of indigenous resources saving import bills, (b) diversification of employment opportunity for semi-skilled labour enabling "intermediate" city-formation, and (c) use of annually renewable produce of jute sticks and other raw materials for traditional domestic use, as well as pulp or fibre based manufactures, saving trees. There is thus a good case for making use of jute bags, etc. compulsory, and for providing export subsidy to jute and jute products, laminated if necessary for specific purposes, as an environment-friendly resource development. Similar thrust sectors could be identified in tourism (involving our archaeological, historical, and natural heritage), Information Technology, engineering works and export-processing sector, combining domestic demands with export potentials.
Research in this field could be and should be headed by an investment specialist or a seasoned banker (NOT by macro-economists who tend to be divorced from market realities, micro-level problems, and also from international dynamics of capital flow or technology transfer). (More)
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
Democracy, presidential election and the lobby-II
Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Can the influence of the Lobby be curbed?
On January 17, 2008 Haaretz, a liberal Israeli English language newspaper, assessed the American presidential candidates in a monthly feature called "The Israel Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates," which rated the candidates from 1 to 10, with 10 being "best for Israel" and 1 being worst. It is not difficult to guess who came worst amongst active candidates. Yes, it's Obama with a score of 5. John McCain, the Republican candidate, got a rating of 7.12. Hillary Clinton scored 7.62 (just behind Giuliani who scored 8.37 - now out of the presidential race). With three main contenders left now, the latest poll numbers are: 7.75 for McCain, 7.5 for Clinton and 5.12 for Obama.
Senator Clinton is very popular with the Lobby since her days as the First Lady. It prefers her over any Democratic contender for the White House. Her husband had pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive, of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. It is worth noting that Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, had made substantial donations to the Clinton library and to Mrs. Clinton's senate campaign, and that Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.
Since becoming a senator in New York, Mrs. Clinton has solidified her position with the Lobby by joining the 'Amen Corner' inside the Capitol Hill which is a cabal for "Israel-firsters", i.e., Israel comes first, even ahead of American interest. She had demanded that the U.S. embassy be shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. She had described Israel as the "beacon" of what democracy can and should mean. She is an unapologetic supporter of the inhuman and utterly criminal Israeli Wall that cuts off tens of thousands of Palestinians from their livelihood, land and family members. She has also said that the "security and freedom" of Israel must remain at the "core of any American approach to the Middle East." In 2005, addressing the AIPAC, she said, "A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people." Trailing behind Obama these days, her rhetoric against Iran has only grown louder. In an interview on MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," she confirmed recently (April 21) that as president she would be willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran if it were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.
Senator McCain edges Sen. Clinton as a favourite choice with the military-industrial-complex and amongst the Israel-lovers. He is touted by the American corporate media as an expert on foreign policy, in spite of his highly flawed understanding of the Middle East. On March 17, McCain appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and said, "There are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran and given training as leaders and they're moving back into Iraq." He repeated the same false claim twice in a press conference in Amman the next day before he was corrected by Sen. Liebermann who had accompanied him there. He is the most hawkish amongst the three serious candidates now running for the presidential post. To solidify his standing amongst the Lobby he has said, "There can be no comprehensive peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians until the Palestinians recognize Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognize their previous agreements, and reform their internal institutions." He also said, "America must provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology she requires to defend herself, above and beyond what we supply today if necessary." In recent months, to the utter euphoria of neocons he has found a defining signature statement: "the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists." He is Lobby's favourite choice to carry on the unfinished mission in the Middle East. Naturally, his serious errors with facts and memory lapses are excused by the corporate media. It's not surprising to explain the results of the April 16 Reuters/Zogby poll report, which found McCain to be tied with Democrat Obama in the head-to-head prospective general election match-up with 45 per cent support; and McCain maintaining a 46% to 41% lead over Democrat Clinton.
Poor Senator Obama! He may identify himself as a friend of Israel, but fact remains that the Lobby does not trust him as one of their own and is doing everything possible to deny him the Democratic ticket. Perception is reality in politics. Obama is fully aware of the power of the Lobby. With a middle name Hussein and being grandson of a Kenyan Muslim, Obama is asked to run the extra mile to swear his fealty to the Zionist state. He demonstrated his support for the rogue state during last year's criminal invasion of Lebanon, which killed more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians: "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." [What a pathetic demonstration of servitude at the altar of the Lobby! And yet no yarmulke!] Even Obama's Christian faith (he was baptized in 1988 by Rev. Wright) is looked upon as a fake one. One in ten Americans falsely perceive him as a Muslim.
In January, Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League (another powerful Jewish lobby), demanded that Obama condemn Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, as an anti-Semite to which Obama promptly relented. Then pressure mounted to denounce his own pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was described as having "very strong anti-Israel views." Again, Obama, as a politician, caved in to the pressure from the pro-Israel lobby. It is worth mentioning that Dr. Wright did not say anything new that we had not known about Israel's support of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, which included providing technical assistance in the development of a South African nuclear weapon and supplying Israeli-made weapons, flouting a UNO-imposed embargo. As Philip Giraldi, an ex-CIA officer, has recently observed, even the water cannons used to attack black demonstrators were manufactured in the Israeli kibbutz Beit Alfa. In the UN, Israel opposed an end to racism. When speaking about the root cause of 9/11, Dr. Wright did not say anything new that we had not heard before from (late) Malcolm X who had said: the chickens have come back to roost - referring to the assassination of President Kennedy. As a pastor who is mindful of his accountability before God, Dr. Wright did not shy away from his moral duty to condemning America for her monumental crime against the Native American people or the Black Africans who were brought to this country as slaves, or government's crime for internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or for dropping bombs in Japan, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan that had killed so many civilians. Some video clips from his sermons are now selectively used by racist and bigots at the service of the Lobby to defeat Obama. He is depicted in TV ads as an extremist. He is censured for not only acquaintance he may have had but also for being praised or liked by those who are identified by the Lobby as hostile or not subservient to the Zionist state. That is the Lobby's rule!
Senator Obama's military adviser included retired Air Force General Merrill McPeak who in a 2003 interview correctly pointed out that the American politicians were afraid of Jewish voters who "vote ... in favour of Israel and no politician wants to run against it" and that Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Another adviser - Samantha Power - who politically 'incorrectly' suggested that the billions of dollars "servicing Israel's military" should actually be invested "in the state of Palestine" if one truly wanted to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East. Another adviser Robert Malley advocated negotiations with the Hamas. The Lobby is also alarmed about Dr. Zbignew Brzezinski's potential influence in modifying foreign policy should Obama become the president. Dr. Brzezinski is probably the most brilliant American strategist alive when it comes to international affairs, who in his must-read book - The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership - has made a compelling case for American leadership in the globe through partnership and not unilateralism. But such candid opinions from American-centric advisers are unwelcome in the USA today where the Lobby has managed to thrust their Israel-centric agenda. Obama is accused of having a "Jewish problem." Afraid of further antagonizing the powerful Lobby, he has disowned many such well-meaning advisers and well-wishers.
So, when it comes to the Middle East, it seems American policy as usual. That is the pervasive message people are hearing loud and clear from all the three major contenders - McCain, Obama and Clinton. As a matter of fact none of them could have reached the stage they are in today without passing the litmus test of the Lobby that proved that they are "Israel-firsters." However, as we have noticed not all are perceived evenly.
The Lobby has several affiliated think tanks dealing with the Middle East. Many of these are run by neoconservatives. None of these are neutral and/or American-centric. As a matter of fact, unlike university research centres, these are Israel-centric advocacy groups with tremendous influence on American foreign policy. William Kristol's Project for the New American Century was an advocate of war against Iraq. The American Enterprise Institute included such individuals as Richard Perle and David Wurmser who were instrumental in influencing policy towards Iraq in the early days of Bush Administration. It also includes 'experts' like Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin. The Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), which specializes in translating and distributing articles that show Arabs in a bad light, is run by David Wurmser's wife, Meyrav, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence. Meyrav also runs the Middle East section at another think tank - the Hudson Institute, where Perle joined the board of trustees. In addition, Meyrav belongs to the Middle East Forum, which is run by Robert Satloff, Patrick Clawson, Michael Rubin, William Kristol and Daniel Pipes. The Council on Foreign Relations claims to be a non-partisan think tank. It is run by Richard Haass whose view on the Middle East is very pro-Israel.
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) was founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk when he was the director of research for AIPAC. It is considered the most influential of the Middle East think tanks, and the one that the U.S. State Department takes most seriously. Its current executive director is Robert Satloff. Patrick Clawson is Deputy Director for Research, who is also affiliated with the Middle East Forum. Its Board members include among others: Samuel Lewis, Martin Peretz (editor of New Republic), Richard Perle, and James Woolsey. Its counsellor is the former US diplomat, Dennis Ross. His bias for Israel is well known. WINEP includes Jewish academics like Martin Kramer, who also belongs to the Middle East Forum and is a former director of the Moshe Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv University, and Matthew Levitt of the Johns Hopkins University. Every four years, WINEP convenes a "bipartisan blue-ribbon commission" known as the Presidential study group, which presents a blueprint for Middle East policy to the newly-elected president.
The Saban Centre for Middle East, formed in 2002, is part of the Brookings Institution. Far from being an objective observer of the Middle East, the Centre is funded by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, who in a 2004 interview said, "I'm a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel." The Centre is headed by Martin Indyk, born in England, who has been a strong advocate for Israel, first as research director of AIPAC and then as the founder and first executive director of WINEP. He was naturalized by Congress in 1995 so that Bill Clinton could name him U.S. ambassador to Israel. His true loyalty is to Israel.
Haim Saban is extremely close to the Clintons and is also reported to be the largest contributor to the Democratic National Committee. When Bill Clinton was president, Saban and his wife slept in the Lincoln bedroom on a number of occasions. Like its founder, the Saban Centre is Israel-centric in its policy analysis, sponsoring bilateral meetings in Jerusalem to discuss issues of common concern.
All these think tanks are well funded by their 'anonymous' (actually Lobby) benefactors and are well organized. Ideas sown by one element are watered and nurtured by the others. As can also be seen many of the experts do belong to multiple think tanks.
In today's political culture in America, the Lobby's mission has become an embedded value and is therefore rarely scrutinized. But as has been argued by thirty authors in a recently published book - Persecution, Privilege & Power, ed. Mark Green, BookSurge Publishing (2008) - it is high time for a serious transparent investigation of America's special relationship with the Zionist enterprise, esp. when the wars in Iraq and Palestine drag on. The sooner the better, otherwise, America will continue to drag its own grave much like other former great powers of our planet. Will the next president have the courage to deal with this most important challenge to America's future?
[Dr. Siddiqui lives in Pennsylvania and can be reached at saeva@aol.com. His book - Wisdom of Mankind - is now available in Bangladesh.]
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
|
