The American author Sue Monk Kidd’s award-winning novel The Book of Longings has a sensational beginning, despite the simplicity of the phraseology: It starts: “I am Ana. I was the wife of Jesus bin Joseph of Nazareth”. It would be impossible for anyone not to swallow this bait with enormous curiosity, and follow through with reading what is well and truly a ‘page-turner’. The book is crafted to be breezy and exciting, necessary perhaps to better deliver its message. This historical work of fiction was the subject of discussion at a recent seminar organized by the Dhaka -based ‘The Reading Circle’. The event was held in a ‘hybrid’ format, an experiment of the Circle in consonance with the evolving practices of the Covid era. There was a core of participants in Dhaka, and other members joining in from London, Paris, and Singapore. Chaired by Professor Razia Khan, the list of speakers and commentators included Niaz Zaman, Nusrat Huq, Tanveerul Haque, Ameenah Ahmed, Shahruk Rahman, Asfa Husain, Nazmun Nahar, Sarazeen Ahana and myself. The following essay is based on my remarks made on the occasion.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

That is mainly because her work is not about faith, but about feminism. She has a theme, and despite the biblical backdrop, it is not theology. It is one that has been a center of aspiration of half of humanity through ages, of women in a world dominated by men. It is a simple one, but historically has been one of the most difficult goals of humanity to achieve. It is that women should have the equal rights and opportunities as men. Just as it should, in deference to its importance at this time and age,this topic had featured time and again in the Reading Circle’s discussions . It was reflected in the yearnings of Briseis when the Circle read Pat Barker’s The Silence of the Girls. Or in the passionate writings of Virginia Woolf when it discussed her A Room of One’s Own. And now in the longings of Ana in Sue Monk Kidd’s book. I would like to refer in this connection to a recent part-autobiographical tome by Glennon Doyle entitled “Untamed“. Having felt like a caged animal much of her life, Glennon Doyle has written about how she had learnt to break society’s rules, upend expectations, and rebuild her emotions and life. She was inspired by a Cheetah in a zoo!

Ana represents a prototype different from many others of her sex, though there is indeed a lot of Ana in a lot of women. She is wild, free spirited and untamed. She is intensely modern, a ‘woke’ person by contemporary standards, entertaining radical ideas about societal change. She even tries to shun motherhood, believed then, as now, to be a blessed state for every woman. She tries it by secretly using herbal contraceptives, which would be unthinkable in Nazareth, particularly in a household all Christendom was to worship as the ‘Holy Family’. She is extremely worldly, and not at all spiritual. Her prayer inscribed in an incantation bowl gifted to her by an aunt, is not about any kind of redemption from sin. Instead, she seeks blessings for the ‘largeness’ in her, a very individualistic longing, and seemingly Un-Christian. She is by no means a Mary Sue, the perfect woman in literature, one without failings or flaws. And yet the author shows Jesus as bestowing on her love, empathy, and understanding. And who can be more Christian in spirit than the Nazarene himself? So, is Sue Monk Kidd seeking to obtain for Ana’s behavior the highest possible social sanction?

Now for the character in the book of Jesus himself. The characterization of Jesus must have been the most difficult challenge to our writer. In Biblical terms, Jesus’ ministry to spread ‘the Word’ did not really begin till he was thirty. But in Christian belief emanating from the New Testament he was already divine when born, recognized by the three Magis who came to worship him with gifts at his birth! In the novel, Mary hardly behaves like the keeper of what would be the greatest secret on earth. She provides no clue as to Jesus’ divinity, remains totally mum about her experience at the Annunciation. This was (it’s not in the book but in the Bible) when the angel Gabriel appeared to her and announced the incarnation of baby-Christ in her womb, stating “Hail Mary full of Grace, the Lord is with thee!” and a startled Mary, quickly regaining composure, responded ‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord’!

Some Church-oriented critics of the book, who, while admiring the work of fiction, have opined that a Christian reader to better appreciate the book should be well-grounded in the Bible, otherwise he or she would be apt to misunderstand the essence of the contents. Be that as it may, Jesus here comes through, not as a leader of the Alpha- Male type like the mighty Achilles of the Trojan wars, but a Beta-male, compassionate and forgiving, who leads by kindness. He believes the kingdom of God will come by acts of love, rather than by the power of the sword.

This view is not at all shared by Judas, the betrayer of Christ, a complex personality in the book in which he is the adopted brother of Ana, apart from being a friend and later, disciple of Jesus. In the Biblical narration Judas gives Jesus away to his captors ‘for thirty pieces of silver’. In this book he is pictured as a political firebrand, a zealot who thinks for the Kingdom of God to come, the Romans must be driven away from Palestine, if need be, by the sword. He views Jesus’ mild ways as an impediment to his objective, and hence takes steps to remove him. There also have been interpretations of Judas, in some revisionist thinking, as someone who helps Christ fulfill his destiny by dying in the cross for the sins of man. Carl Trueman in his epochal work “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” has noted that radical thinkers and writers have driven the rapidly changing cultural mores in the Christian ethos with their ideas in recent times. Perhaps our writer can be seen as one such.

Sue Monk Kidd’s deference to tradition, however, is reflected in the way she depicts Mary, the mother of Jesus. Kidd shows Mary to be pious and pristine, truly without fault, as a woman, a mother, or even as a mother -in-law! Possibly the author uses a modicum of circumspection by not pushing the envelope too far. For me a tad surprising was that, perhaps being an American and not English, the author barely mentions a character, without developing it at all, who later emerges as a prime figure in English perceptions. It is Joseph of Arimathea who appears in this book only at Christ’s entombment. English literary tradition has it that Joseph of Arimathea had hosted the boychild Christ in the Mendip mountains in Somerset, which I had the occasion to visit.

This myth of the boy-Christ’s visit to England of course seeks to fill the void in our knowledge of Jesus’s life during his boyhood and youth, just as our author does in her book. The poet Blake highlights it in his New Jerusalem, England’s unofficial National Anthem when he rhetorically asks: “Did those feet in ancient times tread upon England’s mountains green?“. Since then, Jerusalem in English has become a metaphor for ‘heaven’, a blissful state in which many Britishers would like to see their country to be!

However, the message of our author lay, not in theology nor in history but in a somewhat fanciful response of our author to feminist intellectual and, at times, emotional urges. If Jesus had a wife, she would be the most silenced person on earth! Sue Monk Kidd only sought to give her a voice. This is indeed also the voice of everywoman, everywhere, and in every age!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Coral Bell, one of the finest strategic thinks of contemporary times had famously, but somewhat optimistically, advocated that peace-treaties be written without first fighting the wars. Her image of a ‘crisis slide’ saw the process beginning when adversaries are persuaded that there is no way out other than going to war. Thereafter it becomes an inexorable descent to the abyss of a military conflict. This simple but incontrovertible logic was extrapolated from her perception of global politics through the lens of a ‘classical realist’. So, can it be argued that China and the United States are slowly but surely approaching this dangerous watershed point? Rapidly evolving events following Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Taiwan sadly point to this possibility.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The visit is now over. But the dust from the storm it raised is far from settling down. There is also no telling when that would come about and if at all. The backdrop of the issue is a complex one. China has always claimed Taiwan as a renegade island-province with a destiny of union with the mainland. Now the US had shifted its diplomatic recognition of the Chinese state from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 under the “One China “principle. This generally acknowledges that Taiwan is a part of China. That also initiated an era of cooperation between the two powers, the US and China. China took advantage of the calm in their relations, tweaked its policies of socialism to achieve phenomenal economic and strategic growth and power, now being seen as the rising challenger to the sole hyperpower. Inevitably competition trumped collaboration with frequent verbal hostilities. China believed US was chipping away at the “One China” policy when thrice he stated last year that the US would fight to defend Taiwan if China attacked it, even though, the White House walked back on it. Naturally on all sides, including Taiwan, hawks and doves emerged in the governance system.

Nancy Pelosi was a hawk. An anti-China posture provided a modicum of unity across the aisle, a rarity in current US politics, and naturally as Speaker she relished the opportunity to forge it. Mid-term elections were upcoming, and popular causes were in demand at home or abroad. Besides, Pelosi was 82, an age at which most public figure contemplate leaving behind a heritage. So, despite some wariness from Biden as well as the Pentagon, she chose the option that demonstrated obvious moral, and even physical (as security was also a factor). She plumbed for the visit. When China warned retaliation, many on the US side publicly thought it was a bluff worth being called. Thus, China saw itself placed in a situation where it was damned if it reacted and damned if it didn’t. It was a textbook ‘crisis slide’ situation as imagined by Coral Bell.

So, China reacted, and how! It reacted in three ways. First against Taiwan. Almost immediately it launched massive unprecedented live -fire military drill, for the first time, flying ordnance cross Taiwan. The manoeuvres included large number of warships, fighter jets and bombers, also featuring latest military hardware, including J-20 stealth fighters, and DF-17 hypersonic ballistic missiles. The exercises, some of which continue at writing, were conducted from six zones, encircling the entirely island, simulating a blockade in a possible future invasion of the island. The Chinese operated across the ‘median line’ along the Taiwan straits, which earlier they had respected, if not in theory, at least in practice, breaking an unofficially accepted taboo. On the economic and commercial side China stopped export of sand for construction and import of some kind fruits and fishes, said to be mainly from the constituency of the Taiwanese President, Tsai ling-wen, who is reputed to be pro-independence.

More significant perhaps for the world were the second set of measures directed against the US. China suspended all talks on crucial issues of climate change, cooperation on drug control, combating transnational crime and repatriation of illegal immigrants. The dialogues and working meetings between military leaders were also scrapped. A consultative mechanism on maritime military security was also ended. These actions are bound to have extremely negative ramifications for peace, security, and stability of the region. For good measure China also slapped stiff personal and targeted sanctions on Pelosi, her travel mates, and their families. Pelosi’s grandson reportedly queried if that would mean his ticktock subscription is ended! The Chinese, using social media, were said to have responded that the implications extended to hundreds of millions of dollars of an investment company that Pelosi’s husband was closely linked with, with huge interests in Hongkong and China. That would be a sobering thought for many! It was now a battle with no holds barred!

As was anticipated, the US felt compelled to be involved in a tit-for-tat retort. The White House declared that the country was set to conduct new “air and maritime transits” in the Taiwan Straits during the coming weeks. It reiterated the oft cited language (which could be indicative if a measured tone) that the US would “continue to fly, sail and operate where international law allows., consistent with our longstanding commitment to freedom of navigation”. So, some of this is bound to happen, and it should surprise no one. Also, the second visit of the US legislators to Taiwan, less than two weeks after Pelosi’s, though low-keyed, was meant to make the point that the Chinese military exercises will not be a deterrent to the US. But the circu8mstances this time round would be different and more dangerous, as the earlier ‘confidence building measures ‘(CBMs) are no longer in place, and any accident could lead to catastrophic consequences.

It is to be noted that in some ways China, too, as its own ‘bureaucratic politics’. President Xi Jinping is set to secure an unprecedented third term in office later this year that could consolidate his power for the entirety of his lifetime. His aim to bring the ‘China Dream’, or Zhao Guomeng, a set of complex prescriptions for ‘national regeneration, is forcing him to tread a path different from the liberal economics of the Deng Xiaoping era. This entails slowing growth to spread its fruits among a wider matrix, a policy that surely would have opposition, however unarticulated within the apparently monolithic Chinese Communist Party. What would be seen in China as Xi’s crowning glory would be the reunification of the mainland and Taiwan. As of now it is thought to be left to “a later generation”. Should Xi perceive a burgeoning tendency on Biden’s part to whittle down the “One China principle”, he may decide to advance the reunification action.

So, can a war be avoided? Can the two major protagonists concerned be prevented for inexorably marching into battle, mainly because they have, by their words and actions, walled off all the pathways leading out of the battlefield? It would be much more than a huge pity if that were to happen. It would help if all parties could better understand the compulsions of the other, including the need to sometimes behave in a manner that is overtly irrational. That would entail an extremely sophisticated analysis of perceptions, and management of missteps under trying circumstances. However, it is to be expected that nations claiming superpower ranking should be capable of that. There is not much else that can be done to make the possibility of war less probable.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Despite the fact that the post Second World War period witnessed the growth and proliferation of a plethora horrendous weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs, human intellectual ingenuity managed to keep the slide into catastrophe at bay. The idea was proffered, and largely accepted, that these weapons were meant not to fight wars but to prevent them. During much of the Cold War period, when nuclear weapons proliferated, particularly among the superpowers, peace was maintained on the premise of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Since the key superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, had the capacity to destroy each other many times over, rational logic prevented both from initiating a nuclear war. Defence was achieved by deterrence, that is preventing the enemy from attacking with threat of overwhelmingly unacceptable level of retaliation (“nuclear deterrence”)

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The aforesaid discussion largely reflected the extant western theoretical and doctrinal literature. But what about Russia, the successor of the Soviet Union? Briefly Russian thinking in this regard was encompassed in the two concepts of SDERZIVANIE (“nuclear restraint”) and USTRASHENIE (‘intimidation”). This combination is meant to persuade the adversary that it has no chance of achieving its strategic goals by force. This policy which implies use of conventional and strategic weaponry remains in operation both in peace and war. Nuclear weapons are seen as being only one item in the tool- kit of warfare. It includes the western concept of “deterrence” as well as coercive measures and compellence. It is thus designed to be a multi-domain cross-cutting effort using both soft and hard power. Hence the western perception of the Russian doctrine as “hybrid”.

In June 2020, President Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order355 that outlined Russia’s current strategic doctrine. It contained a systematized asymmetric approach, underscoring the severity and certainty of “punishment”. The document lists a whole series of activities by the adversary that may be constituted as a threat to Russia (and its allies) to be “neutralized by the implementation of nuclear deterrence” (meaning “nuclear weapons”). The order also allows for the use of nuclear weapons not only to counter the enemy’s similar capabilities, but also “other types of weapons of mass destruction of significant combat potential of general purpose forces”. Western analysts believe this as entailing a wide range of options to introduce nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict to prevent its spread. In other words, a reconfirmation of the “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.

Additionally, the Russians are said to have in place what is known as “dead hand” system, or the “perimeter”. It is designed to automatically initiate the launch of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest authority order if an enemy nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors. It will operate even if the commanding elements are fully destroyed, for instance by a pre-emptive strike. The system is normally switched off, but is supposed to be activated during times of crisis. The current war in Ukraine probably fits the bill, especially when Putin has put the nuclear deterrence on “full alert”. In any case, it is said to remain fully functional and can be pressed into service whenever needed. The US does not operate a “dead hand” counterpart, but the National Command Authority has backup authorities in the event of the death of the President and/or of Secretary of Defence.

Presidents Biden and Putin had got off to a what seemed to be a fairly decent start when in a phone conversation in February last year they agreed to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by five more years. By doing so they were reversing the decision earlier of President Donald Trump. But with the Ukraine crisis boiling over right now, that happy moment seems ions ago. In the war in Ukraine whether by tactical design or military compulsion the Russians have eased pressure on other parts including the capital Kyiv and are now consolidating focus on the east, in Donbass and Crimea. One consequence has been a burgeoning sense among western allies that a Russian defeat is possible. Hence the enthusiasm to arm the Ukrainians with deadlier weapons than earlier thought appropriate, or wise. The Russian leadership have been warning that red lines are being crossed. The peace talks in Belarus and Turkey have all but collapsed. The sanctions- noose around Russia is being tightened. We have reached a stalemate. The world is on edge. This is what the great international relations thinker Coral Bell described as a “crisis -slide”. As things stand now, one hasty decision, an accidental shooting down of a plane, one bomb reaching the wrong target can bring unspeakable results. The danger is very real that one side may be persuaded that the use of a nuclear device would be “rational”. We have climbed high on Herman Kahn’s “escalation ladder” to Armageddon. Are we inexorably sleepwalking towards a horrific conflagration?

There must be a rethink by global leaders while there is time. Just as President John Kennedy and Premier Nikita Krushchev walked away from the brink of disaster during the Cuban crisis in 1962, our chance may lie in that bit of history repeating itself. My own long diplomatic career had been devoted to issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. I have never felt as close to catastrophe as I do now. Should good sense prevail, and disaster avoided, we must look to one glimmer of hope in the dark cloud. That is the UN Resolution 72/31 of 4 December 2017 banning nuclear weapons. It will take enormous leadership and courage, and a great leap of faith to commit ourselves to it. They say victors write the history. But a total nuclear war may leave us with no history at all, as there perhaps may be none alive to write it!

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

These days there is nary a dull moment in Pakistani politics. It is a cauldron where the mix from the globe, the region and the country boil in a deadly blend. Any unwanted spillage could do much harm at both home and abroad. For one thing it is a very large country with a population of over 220 million, the world’s fifth largest. For another it is one that hosts over a hundred nuclear war heads with potentials for horrendous destruction. Also, apart from these, importantly, it is a Muslim -majority polity and a practising democracy where stability or the lack of it would have ramifications for many societies of comparable milieu in the region, and beyond.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The opposition comprised three major parties the largely Sindh- based Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led by former President Asif Zardari and his son Bilawal Bhutto, the largely Punjab-based Pakistan Muslim League (N) led by Shahbaz Sharif, younger brother of ex-Premier Nawaz Sharif, the party supremo residing in London and technically a fugitive from law, and the largely Khyber Pakhtunkhwa based Jamiat-e Ulema led by Mowlana Fazlur Rahman, a worldly cleric. Ideologically and personally, they were strange bedfellows, evidently brought together only for the purpose of toppling Khan! Immediately afterwards for a while it seemed they would fragment again, bickering over the pickings of gains, mainly distribution of ministerial positions. But wiser counsels prevailed, and they succeeded in papering over their differences, at least for now!

Khan initially demurred on resignation, and instead proposed dissolution of Parliament by the President and elections in three months’ time. But his decisions were reversed by the Supreme Court and he was narrowly voted out of office in Parliament, nudged it now seems, by what in Pakistan is called the ‘establishment , another name for the military. The army is currently led by General Qamar Bajwa, who sought to distance itself from Khan’s anti-American rhetoric obviously due to the Army’s strategic dependence on America. Khan, culturally more westernized than most Pakistanis, was trenchantly critical of the perceived ‘interference’ pf the US in Pakistan’s domestic affairs. He attributed his removal to a “foreign” “conspiracy supposedly hatched abroad and revealed in a cypher despatch from Pakistani Ambassador to Washington.

Obviously not one to mince his words Khan called the new cabinet a “bunch of thieves”, claiming vindication in the fact that nearly two-thirds were out on bail from charges of corruption, a malady wrecking the society like malignant cancer! He accused them of “Chhanga Manga politics” (in 1990 Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim league forcibly confined their legislators in a forest rest house at a place called “Chhanga Manga” near Lahore, in other words “roped in their horses and stabled them” till they could be let out for a parliamentary voting. Khan addressed massive rallies, or ‘Jalsas’ as they are called in Pakistan, in Peshawar in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in Karachi in Sindh and in Lahore in Punjab. In each of these rallies, hundreds of thousands gathered to chant his name, wave his banners, and cheer him on! In each he projected his PTI Party as an all-Pakistan organization without the provincial bias that mark the others. In each he asked if the new government was acceptable and in each the crowd roared back a resounding negative response! He frequently cited the historic example of Mir Jafar the army general who betrayed the last Muslim Nawab of Bengal Sirajuddoula to the English ion 1776 as the supreme act of treachery, which some could have related to his perception of the “establishment’s” perfidy! In all his rallies, he lustily asked of the crowds: “‘Imported hakumat’ manzoor hai”? (Is the imported government acceptable? Deafeningly, the crowds roared back: “Naa manzoor! Naa manzoor!” (Not acceptable! Not acceptable!)

The army was now caught between a rock and a hard place. While at a stated level the army claims to be apolitical, it has always been the most significant political component of the community. A very well -regarded strategic scholar and former Chief of army Staff General Jehangir Karamat has argued, with that the army in Pakistan is a mirror image of the society. There is logic in that claim in that, unlike the leadership of political parties, the army sociologically comprises non-feudal professionals. It includes some of the best engineers and doctors, disciplined, dedicated and representative of the urges of rural Pakistan. The strong military tradition, particularly in Punjab and the old North- West Frontiers, date back to the British Raj, and is more pronounced than anywhere in the South Asian subcontinent. Unsurprisingly, realpolitik analysts acknowledge its role in the nation’s body politic.

However, as a political entity, the army has evolved. It no longer, both by choice and capacity, seeks to control the government machinery directly, as it did under such military leaders like Generals Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia ul Huq and Pervez Musharraf. Instead, they work to exert influence covertly from behind the scenes under the cognomen of the ‘establishment’, or sometimes also overtly through such players as the Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence (DGFI), an office created by the British generals immediately after Partition, liaising directly with the Prime Minister, certainly more active and powerful now than then. The army’s challenge is that it needs to function as a political influencer without its participation in such political processes as elections. Because its power is sourced in public support and it cannot afford to be unpopular, it needs to pick and choose its allies in civilian politics with utmost circumspection. If for nothing else, it is for the fact that tacit public acquiescence is politically necessary to secure its large budgetary requirements.

Indeed, it was the Army which was said to help ease in Khan in 2018. But Khan, given his personality and a mind of his own, chose to strike-out on his own, which miffed the generals who may have eventually, with a nudge and a wink at least, helped to bring about his fall. But truth be told, the army quickly deduced unnatural partners in their new political masters, given, among other things, the latter’s perceived laxity about financial ethics. A change of heart was therefore not much beyond the rim of the saucer. But it did not depend on the army alone. For instance, the army would prefer Khan to rein- in his anti-western rhetoric. That may be contrary to Khan’s personal predilections, more so now because that anti-western stance in Pakistan has an electoral dividend, though at a political and economic cost. Even the mercurial Khan would probably judge that balancing would be key.

When after his triumphant ‘jalsas’, Khan, like Achilles in the Iliad, still smarting from his losses, retired to his tent, or rather his home at Bani Gala near Pindi for a brief hiatus before his next move, Bajwa had a huddle with his senior but retired peers in Lahore. Perhaps as an upshot the general declared that he would neither seek nor accept an extension of service when his retirement is due come November. Thereafter the army, albeit in a small way, sought to influence some key new appointments which were against the grain of its perceived interests or at any event, tastes. Also, with the contents of the dreaded “Exit Control List”, a key political tool in Pakistan; but, in both cases, not necessarily with absolute success vis-a-vis the current government, which would have exacerbated their peeve. Still, it’s too early to say if Khan and the army can hug and make up before the next general election.

And it is indeed on the next election that Khan is laser focused. He wants it now. He has directed all senior PTI leaders to spread out throughout the country to muster political support. As his next move, he has declared that unless a date for the election is announced in four weeks’ time, he will organize a ‘Tsunami’ march to the capital Islamabad with such a massive crowd drawn from all over the country as never seen before. He has urged all Pakistanis, irrespective of political affiliations, to join. He further threatened that the gathering will offer a ‘dharna’ (‘sit-in’) to continue till such time the election schedule is announced, with a change in the Election Commission leadership. The current government is obviously taking it seriously as authorities have been seen collecting for possible use shipping ‘containers’, a favoured item in Pakistan for its alternative use in creating roadblocks, this time for in-coming demonstrators.

One evidence of a change of wind in national politics, since Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif assumed office, could be the recent ruling of the Courts, a fair bellwether in this regard, to widen the catchment area for investigation into the ‘foreign funds case’ to include other parties besides the PTI. Also, the Lahore High Court has just turned down a prayer from Maryam Sharif, one of the most powerful leaders of the ruling Coalition parties, for the return of her passport legally impounded to enable her to accompany the Prime Minister on a trip to Saudi Arabia. So, what implications will any change in the position of the ‘wider establishment ‘ (the military plus the Courts) have for the future of Pakistan’s turbulent politics?

The answer, as with many critical queries that come to our minds may also just be, as the Bob Dylan song famously states, “‘blowin’ in the wind!”

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Pakistan’s impossibly debonair and incredibly urbane cricketing star turned politician, Imran Khan, is a man of a myriad parts. Where English is spoken and cricket is played, he remains a hero. Time was when leading his team in many a Test match he caused blood to rapidly pulsate through Pakistani veins. In a nation buffeted by the vicissitudes of misfortune and thirsting for pride, he had fulfilled his people’s dream by winning them the ultimate prize in cricket, the World Cup. But then he switched games and went into politics. The fates, with him for a while, eventually withdrew their favour. He gambled with a tactic that was no more than a political stunt. Alas it failed, and the Courts in his country refused him relief. But this essay is not so much about him. It about the Courts that finally caused his fall. It is also about the role the judicial organ of the State has played along the inscrutable path of Pakistan’s constitutional and political destiny.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The doctrine draws upon the writings of a maxim attributed to the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton. It is that, “that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity”, rooted in the Latin legal dictum Salus Populi Suprema Lex, meaning “the wellbeing of the people is the supreme law”. This is also embodied in the ‘Second Treatise of Government’ of the philosopher John Locke, often viewed as a great champion of democratic pluralism. Incidentally the doctrine has been cited thereafter in several Courts in the British Commonwealth.

Using this liberal interpretation as a justification, Pakistani military rulers starting from Field Marshal Ayub Khan in 1958, continued to use the concept as a most useful legal tool (Justice Munir strengthened it to justify Ayub’s martial law in his judgment in the case of Dosso versus State where he ruled that a military take-over assumed sanction if there was public, even tacit). To the Supreme Court’s credit, it has attempted to live it down, initially modifying it circumspectly and thereafter boldly striking it down. In a major challenge to it though belatedly, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, on General Ziaul Huq’s take-over in the 1970s, ruled that no judge can offer any support to the acquisition of power by any unconstitutional functionary through modes other than envisaged in the Constitution. That was a great moral blow to any future unconstitutional change.

The death blow came recently. It happened last week when the Court headed by the newly appointed Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial took suo moto cognizance of a controversial dismissal of a “no trust” motion by Deputy speaker Qasim Suri in the Pakistan National Assembly. It had been moved by the combined opposition against Imran Khan and required 272 in an Assembly of 372 members to pass. Because the ruling Coalition had broken down, the opposition had the numbers, but just about. But Suri, then acting for the Speaker, who belonged to Imran’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf party disallowed the motion just prior to voting on 3 April, on alleged grounds that some dissenting parliamentarians had been illegally influenced by a “foreign power”, that is, the United States. Thereafter President Arif Alvie dissolved the Assembly upon the Prime Minister’s advice and called for elections within 90 days. In public, Imran continued to insist on the allegations on US interference and trenchantly criticized what he termed as “treasonable actions” on part of his opponents, even though it placed him at odds with the seemingly all-powerful military and the Army Chief, General Qamar Bajwa.

After three days of mulling over the issues involved, the five-member bench headed by Bandial gave its “short order” ruling, upholding the supremacy of the Constitution at all costs. It also underscored the paramount role of the judiciary in protecting the nation’s basic law. The judges declared the Deputy Speakers dismissal of the motion as “unconstitutional”, as also the consequent dissolution of the Assembly by the President on the Prime Minister’s advice. It reinstated the assembly to status quo ante as on 3 April and ordered that nothing – no action of the President, the Prime Minister or the Speaker- could impede the process of voting and the election of the next Prime Minister which would have to happen by 9 April. When the Speaker, apparently influenced by Imran, appeared to demur, Bandial physically went to the Court at dead of night s presumably to prepare for an eventuality in which he might have had to take anti “contempt of court measures” against government supporters! Consequently, the voting was held as per court order, Imran and the Speaker resigned, and despite the turmoil Pakistan went through a democratic political change, albeit after some hiccups.

The “short order” of the judges drove what was possibly the last nail in the coffin of the doctrine of necessity in Pakistan. It was based on the theoretical perception that nothing should necessitate any action contrary to the tenets of the Constitution, in which the “well- being” of the people resided, and which reflected the people’s choice and will. The Court was reaching out to the highest source of law enshrined in the Latin adage Vox Populi Vox Dei, meaning “the voice of the people is the voice of God”. It was supposedly enunciated as an effective political maxim in English common law as early as in1327 AD by Walter Reynolds, Archbishop of Canterbury, who used it in a sermon bringing charges against King Edward 11.

While the judges ruling will help correct a practice that had strayed from the original principles of liberal constitutional law, it will not end the woes of Pakistan. Those had resulted from concatenation of circumstances, political, economic, strategic, and historical. Pakistan has a new Prime Minister in Shahbaz Sharif, an experienced hand in governance. As a mark of protest, Imran took his party out of the Assembly and boycotted the election of his successor. The new government in place will face daunting challenges with the elections due in around a year’s time, a broken economy to fix, and a stubborn opponent to resist in the streets. Imran had lingered on the wicket, a tad too long after he was obviously out, which was not quite cricket. But he has the tenacity of a Robert Bruce and could well return to play another innings. But for now, the people of this nuclear weapon state and their neighbours, are heaving a sigh of relief as the immediate political imbroglio somewhat eases. Also, because from the chaos has emerged a strong institution, a guardian of democracy in a turbulent polity, the judiciary, which has established its authority sufficiently to be able to demonstrate Roma locuta, Causa finita, Rome has spoken, the case is finished!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

One of my great joys, if present in America on Independence Day, has been being out at the fireworks on the Fourth of July with my daughter, son-in-law, and my two grandchildren. The glorious denouement of the event has often been a final spray of brightly lit colours against the azure sky, with delighted crowds cheering along with the resounding crescendo of the volley of cannon-fire, the flamboyant finale of Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture! Can those happy moments of such experience be at the risk of being altered or even eliminated from our lifestyle?

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Incidentally, this is not the first time Tchaikovsky has been banned. It happened once before: By the Nazis in Hitler’s Germany. Understandably this blatant weaponization of music drew immediate flak. The former British Member of Parliament George Galloway called it “fascistic book burning. The Bloomberg commentator Martin Ivens said: “Banning Tchaikovsky is not the way to win a war! “The Cardiff Orchestra authorities did offer an explanation though, about a member of their team having family directly involved in the Ukraine war, which was perhaps factually correct but lame as an excuse for the action. It is somewhat ironical that Tchaikovsky himself was a critic of this overture, whose fame reflected public fascination for the theatrical over quality. The composer had remarked thus about his composition: “very loud and noisy, completely without artistic merit”. But the Cardiff Philharmonic did not base its decision on this account.

Tchaikovsky was by no means the only victim of the cancellation culture that occurred in the wake of the Ukrainian conflict. The Munich Philharmonic dismissed the Russian Valery Gergiev from the position of its conductor on the plea that the artist had failed to condemn the Russian action. Some other Russian artistes are confronting similar fate. As yet, however, things have not reached the level of what the English author, Graham Greene, described at the start of the First World War. It was that in a display of near-comical jingoism and fierce anti-German sentiments, the author’s neighbors in England stoned a dachshund dog in his local high street!

But conflicts have brought out courage among ardent lovers of the arts as well. Also, during that war, the British conductor Sir Henry Wood informed the government that he would continue to perform Richard Wagner whose eulogies to the German blond-haired blue-eyed heroic legend was said to have inspired the ideas of Aryan racial supremacy. This noble spirit has also prevalent among common humanity during periods of stresses. My mother-in-law, a German, left a war battered country as a teenager to find solace and succour in England, among English friends. Years later she would hum the tune of the Marlene Dietrich version of “Lilli Marlene “, a German song about war-time love that had brought comfort equally to both Allied and Axis troops.

Art, music and literature have no nationality. They only serve to provide conduits of connectivity between peoples, even when divided and separated by conflict and war. Yes, unarguably there are products of artistic predilections that can do society harm, but the human intellect must be allowed to separate the wheat from the chaff. John Milton has made this telling point in the golden pages of his “Areopagitica”, an immortal paean of praise to the freedom of expression.

History demonstrates that whenever the political institutions of the polity has sought to intervene to judge the arts nothing good has come of it. Alas, as the adage goes, the one thing we learn from history is that there is nothing that we learn from history. Yet we fervently hope that the day would never come when we must hide our copy of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” for fear that they may come to take it away from us and burn it!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Coral Bell, the great Australian political thought-leader had lucidly described in the 1970s how a “crisis-slide” could become unstoppable as it morphs into a catastrophe: “Gradually, imperceptibly but inevitably there is a build-up of events”, she writes, “rain falls in ever increasing volumes …becomes progressively more irresistible… until the dam breaks”. Ideally, the crisis management process should have been put in place as soon as the relevant observer notices the rains grow heavy, she argues; the disaster of the bursting dam was owed to the delay. A simple but profound metaphor, so apt for crises in international relations, also underscoring the challenge of the choice of appropriate timing for leaders.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

We are in a situation far past the point of initial detection of a possible major “crisis-slide” in the Bell proposition. On this occasion the key protagonists are so powerful that potential crisis-managers, or a peace-maker, with the necessary clout and influence would be in short supply. President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel took turns in having a go at it but were unable to make the cut. Clearly a heavier weight with greater influence was required. Eyes are already beginning to turn towards a candidate which seems to be fitting the bill. And that is China.

But why so?

There are several reasons. First, with the world’s largest population of 1.4bn, the second largest economy of US $ 18.1 trillion (after the US) and objectively the third strongest military (after the American and Russian), China is the fastest growing nation in power terms in the globe. Its “Zhang Guomeng “or “China dream” sees itself as a soon-to-be peer of the US. Its “Belt and Road Initiative” has carried its influence to much of the world’s nook and corner. China’s demonstrated resilience across many spheres, including its handling of the pandemic, has proved its administrative skill and efficacy. Despite many challenges, China has set for itself an ambitious 5.5 per cent target for economic growth this year. Despite its democratic deficit and doubtless authoritarian governance, it has earned for itself plaudits if not praise, albeit oftentimes grudging, from most global actors.

China is also in the unique position of enjoying a very close proximity to Russia. Their leaders Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have met each other thirty-eight times. In February, when Putin visited Beijing for the inaugural of the Winter Olympics, he and Xi signed a 5000 word document pledging “no limits” support to each other, at a time when the Ukrainian crisis was brewing. Indeed, received wisdom has it that Putin delayed his so-called “Special security operation” to humour Xi who did not want any major impediments to the smooth progress of the games, already under the West’s diplomatic boycott. The animus of the West was driving China obviously into Russia’s bearhug. Furthermore, the added attraction was that in this partnership the Chinese dragon was the senior vis-à-vis the Russian bear. The Chinese, as they usually do, must have thought through this at length having weighed all the pros and cons. They are not normally wont to take such major decisions in a fit of frenzy. Nor are they likely to backtrack from it easily, again without studied reflection.

Second, the sanctions slapped on Russia are hurting. But not Russia alone. Both sides of the divide, the West and Russia are being affected. Should Russian oil and gas supply to Europe stop in its entirety, energy price in Europe would skyrocket: “Currently there is no other way (apart from Russian sources) to secure Europe’s supply of energy to generate heat , for mobility, and for power supply” , German Chancellor Olof Scholz has said. The absence of Russian and Ukrainian wheat would translate into rapid rise in food price. Just as necessity is the mother of invention, compulsion is the driver of change. Blocking Russia out of the global financial system would mean it would be forced to create alternatives. Though difficult, with Chinese help it could be possible. A group of sanctioned countries would be happy to join up the alternative arrangements. China, already under western sanctions though not decoupled as yet from the western system would be interested in building up requisite resilience. Moreover, sanctions hit the poor more, and so if the purpose is to turn the populace against government, history shows so far it has caused people to turn the other way. Squeezing Germany at the +Versailles Treaty after the first World War was undeniably a major cause for the Second.

It has been said, the sanctions could put the Russian economy back thirty years. That may not be cause for rejoicing. It could push the Russian authorities to desperate actions, and when a country with a nuclear arsenal as large as Russia’s is driven to that point, the consequences could be enormously unsettling. It would be worse were Russia were to be joined by a disgruntled China, with North Korea in tow.

Third, despite the signing of the February accord between Putin and Xi, China has behaved with cool and hard- nosed circumspection. At the United Nations Beijing has abstained on voting on the resolutions condemning Russia, rather than oppose it. Part of the reason could be China may have while negotiating on the drafts helped tone down the language. But it was mainly because it did not wish to convey that there was no daylight between Beijing and Moscow. By such actions as these China was, apart from not impacting too negatively on its economic ties with Europe which it values, retaining a manoeuvrability in dealing with the crisis. The Chinese, who always tend to see the big picture, are deeply concerned about the broader implications of the war. Premier Li Keqiang has said that “the most pressing task now is to prevent tensions from escalating and getting out of control. A pragmatic China needs a conflict-free world to reach its goal of a “new kind of relationship between the two big powers” (i.e., China and the US).

The American structural realist John Mearsheimer, normally seen as a strong right-wing voice in the US foreign policy circles once said in Beijing that he was happy to be with “his own kind”, in acknowledgment of Chinese policymakers’ (according to him) penchant for realism. A constructive role in the resolution of the current crisis, rather than using it to deepen anti-western nationalist sentiments in China will enable Beijing to calm their neighbourhood in Asia in general and South China Sea in particular. Even with India, the common position at the UN could be translated into a better understanding, though too much need not be read into it. Already Ukraine itself has reached out to China. At Kyiv’s request Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba phoned his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi. Thereafter the China’s Xinhua News Agency reported that Kuleba has said Ukraine “stands ready to strengthen communication with the Chinese side and looks forward to China’s mediation in achieving Ceasefire”!

These factors suggest China would be in a sweet spot to undertake the effort to facilitate de-escalation. This is not to say it would do so, unless it sees the initiative, in line with any other country, as being in consonance with its perceived national self-interest. In a previous essay I have argued that we may be heading for a tripolar world which will likely be led by the US, China, and Russia. China as a potential newcomer in such a role will need to be doubly careful. The end of the Ukrainian war will not be the end of the crisis. China will need to prepare for the possibility that after Russia, it could be its turn. It, too, has a red line: Taiwan. In that scenario, it is not the West but to Russia it will need to turn for solace and succour. Beijing could, therefore possibly have a two-fold goal: first, in the short term help to put out the conflagration in Ukraine; second, in the long run prepare to combat the greater contradiction that it will likely face in the unfolding of history.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Change is a uniquely predictable phenomenon in nature. Also, by logical extension, in politics. Ions ago the observation of Heraclitus of Ephesus that the world is in constant flux, and one never steps into the same river twice is an incontrovertible axiom. Hence the idea that any existing global order, or a political system on the international matrix with a certain hierarchical power arrangement can sustain perennially, would be an erroneous one. When I was a student of Cold War and Global strategy in the mid-seventies the concept of ‘paradigm shift’ propounded by the American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn in his tome “The structure of Scientific Revolutions” enormously interested me. Simply put, Kuhn argued that the shift occurs when any dominant paradigm under which science operates (his main concern was physics though this also applies to the social sciences) confronts new phenomena that renders it incompatible. To me the thesis remains relevant. A case in point is the place of the United States of America in the global scheme of things. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s , the existing bipolarity in the world order of US-Soviet dominance ended. The US emerged as the only ‘hyperpower ‘an expression used by the French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine in 1999,’and held absolute unchallenged sway in a unipolar world.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

But why? Like in explanation of most phenomenon, no single cause can generally be attributed. However, one main reason certainly was the reaction in American thinking and ruling circles to the New Left and counterculture that gripped the society in the post-Vietnam era. It led to the rise of ‘neo-conservative’ (‘neo- con’)’ideas, first in the academia, and then spreading to the administration of George Bush in the persons of individuals like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and Richard Perle who in turn heavily influenced very senior policymakers like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The intellectual guru of the ‘neo-cons’ was Professor Leo Strauss of Chicago University, an escapee from German Nazism, who was a votary of the Greek Philosopher Plato. Now Plato, however admired, fell short of following in liberal political circles, and whom Karl Popper, another distinguished academic, had unabashedly called an “enemy of open society”.

Be that as it may, the ‘neo-cons’ and their camp-followers led the US into a spate of interventionism in international affairs, often inexplicable, and indefensible, in moral, ethical or merely pragmatic terms. The list included Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These led to untold sufferings all round, clearly leading, however, to great profits for what Dwight D, Eisenhower had earlier described as the American “military industrial complex”. Also, importantly, the actions were establishing precedence that other great powers of the future were likely to follow. At that point in time there were none just beyond the rim of the saucer, though China was rising, and Russia was showing signs of becoming more assertive. The last two powers acquired leaders that were authoritarian and nationalist, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping, to both of whom what was sauce for the goose (i.e., the US) was also now sauce for the gander (themselves). For the West to criticize them, therefore, could be akin to throwing stones while living in a glasshouse.

This brings us to Ukraine and its current pains. In Europe, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact security treaty was not accompanied by the folding of its western counterpart, NATO. Instead, the western allies began to use NATO as a tool of its military interventions elsewhere, while at the same time enlarging its membership by embracing the States of Eastern Europe with difficult ties with Russia, the main successor of the Soviet Union. Initially Russia had gone along when it was too weak to resist. But by the 2010s, Russia under Putin saw itself as sufficiently strong enough to stand up to the expansion. And it did, particularly when it came to Ukraine, with its complex and complicated politics of intramural rivalries and Russia’s extremely deep interest in that country for its own security.

John Mearsheimer, an extremely articulate American political scientist who belongs to the ‘realist’ school of thought, analyzes that the causes for the Ukraine crisis, broadly, are three-fold: First, NATO’s eastward extension; second, the European Union’s expansion, and third, Russian fears of “colour revolutions” cheer-led by the west to effect regime changes. He argues that while Ukraine should of peripheral interest to the West, Russia sees it of critical to its security and hence it was well known that it would go to any length to ensure the denial of inimical influence in Ukraine. Despite that knowledge the western allies had encouraged Ukraine to embrace the west’s security and economic institutions, thus leading that country up the garden path,

The resolve of Russia to stop western plans in their track had been steeled by the communique that was issued in 2008 at the end of the NATO Summit in Bucharest. It had declared that “Georgia and Ukraine” would be NATO countries, and hence entitled to its “Article 5 Protection clause (any war waged against any NATO member is war against all). The aspiration became a possibility when in 2014 the “Maidan Coup” in Kiev supplanted a pro-Russian government with a pro-western one. Thereafter, on grounds that Kiev was oppressing Russian populations and sympathizers in territories where they were preponderant, Russia annexed Crimea in Ukraine (which had a pro-Russian population and hosted a Russian base in its port, Sevastopol). Moscow also supported secessionists in the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, eventually recognizing this February its two tiny ‘republics’, Donetz and Luhansk. As NATO responded by announcing enhanced forward presence” in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, Putin invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been putting up a brave but sadly impossible defence, with the west now unwilling to be goaded into a war with Russia directly. Ukraine’s disillusioned but plucky President, Volodymyr Zelensky, when offered evacuation by the US, reportedly retorted: “I want ammunition, not a ride!”

Prior to the invasion, during the Beijing winter Olympics, Putin and Xi signed a historic 5000 -word joint policy document that heralded the start of a “New Era of International Affairs”, cementing their “friendship without limits. It read like a demarche delivered by two great powers to a till now yet more powerful third, signaling the beginning of what earlier in this essay I had called a “paradigm shift”. For the first time, China was endorsing some key Russian demands. The two, China and Russia, opposed “the further expansion of NATO”. Russian concession to China for this support was significant. Russia joined China in expressing “serious concern “about trilateral security partnership between Australia, Britain, and the US. The signing of this document was decidedly one of the most important watershed points in contemporary global politics.

Important in terms of contemporary political theory, China and Russia rejected the western definition of democracy and proffered their own based on historic heritage and long-standing traditions, relying on “thousand years of experience of development, popular support and consideration of the needs and interests of citizens”. So, if China and Russia have their way, the “new era “would be shaped by values other than those the world had known to be universal, emanating from the west. This was most certainly nothing short of throwing down the gauntlet to America and the west.

One should stop short of concluding China and Russia have combined inextricably with no daylight between them. For instance, China has constantly, while giving support to Russia in the conflict vis-à-vis the US, has behaved with studied circumspection. It has urged restraint upon Russia and Ukraine and has also China had also called for talks to end the belligerency, which are now taking place, though without much success at writing. China and Russia feel that they have emerged as great powers in their own right, but as two separate poles, rather than together as one. In fact, the three existing civilizations, western, eastern, and central Eurasia are represented in the three protagonists, the US, China, and Russia. In the foreseeable future, none of the three would wield, or be allowed to wield, absolute power. US disinclination to directly confront Russia, as in denying President Zelensky’s fervent appeal for “no fly zone over Ukraine” could be symptomatic of a limitation in the future to behave in a freewheeling unilateral manner as in the unipolar times, particularly in regions the two rising powers, China and Russia, have deep interest. Russia’s ability to operate unfettered in Ukraine without America’ military confronting it, is also a sign of acceptance of the notion of ‘spheres of influence’.

So what may be likely emerging for the future is a global “tripolar” order comprising the US, China, and Russia. This, despite the existing US technological and innovative superiority, which may be eroded by the burgeoning geo-strategic influence of the other two. Their relations may be based on an interplay of the classical “balance of power” theory and behaviour-pattern in the contemporary political scene. Each will lead a group of nations, and switch sides in issues based on perceptions of self-interest, unencumbered by ideals or ideology. In a Kissingerian sense, the behavior-pattern of the three poles would be as follows: One, each pole would act in accordance with the principle of “raison d étre” shunning any notion of universal morality; and two, no pole would be dominant but would advance its capability by aligning itself with one or the other according to its calculations of power imperatives. At this time, Russia and China are together, but this situation could also change in the future, depending on the circumstances. The subordinate players in each pole could also choose sides, though with utmost care, given the fate that Ukraine unfortunately found itself in. For now, Europe has chosen to play a secondary role vis-à-vis the US, despite occasional outbursts of autonomous predilections. That too could change. For instance, in dealing with Iran. So active diplomacy between and within the circles of the three poles will continue.

What would be the role of lesser players in such milieu of a tripolar globe. Clearly, multilateralism and international institutions, some things I had myself placed great store by in the past, cannot offer the same amount of security. These will remain important but not as predominant sources of protection. Power will tend to emanate from the three poles, each of which will provide all possible support to those under its umbrella. Unfortunately, unrestrained ‘realpolitik’ will be the name of the game. Any global order that emerges would perhaps need to be underwritten by the three.

For weaker or smaller or powers the situation will not be ideal. What will be necessary for each of them is the building of a web of linkages with powerful global actors, including pole-leaders, and having them develop stakes in each. This would call for nimbler diplomacy because there are no set rules or protocol for such maneuverings. Neutrality is not necessarily the easy way out, as we are beginning to see in this conflict. As a Singaporean scholar, William Choong has said observing the current scenario, neutrality is a narrow plank, getting increasingly narrower. While this may look like a global chaos, eventually an order out of it will emerge, a new global “Social Contract”, driven by the primordial instincts of the humankind to survive. It is difficult to delineate it at this time, but it will surely reflect more realism than idealism.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

What happens in Europe cannot be expected to remain in Europe, particularly in this interconnected world. As war clouds gather in that continent with Russo-Western relations deteriorating by the day over Ukraine, ripples, indeed waves, are expected in consequence on the waters of faraway Asia. There, despite the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, nations appeared till recently to be devoting themselves to economy-boosting efforts, regionally expanding trade (ASEAN), or domestically sharing prosperity (China). Now suddenly, as Russia and the West try to tap the reservoir of till-now vocal support from their respective camp-followers in that region, these countries feel trapped between Scylla and Charybdis. Slowly but surely, given the imperatives of geo-politics, they may be constrained to take sides, albeit in the case of some, most reluctantly.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Already, Sino-US relations were reaching their nadir. The Biden Administration was relentless in its efforts to contain the spread of Chinese influence in every possible way. Now as China was preparing to host the winter Olympics seeking to dazzle the world with its pomp and performance, the US led a campaign for its diplomatic boycott. Putin chose that moment of Chinese angst to fly to Beijing and clasp Xi in a strong bearish hug. The result was a 5300-word joint statement describing the friendship between the two countries as having “no limits”. For the first time China came out unequivocally in support of Russia in opposing NATO’s eastward expansion, and Russia in turn endorsed China’s position in clearly opposing any kind of independence for Taiwan. Never before Russia and China’s declaration of mutual support was so unambiguous. The Russian Bear and the Chinese dragon were now locked in a tight embrace with nary a sunlight between them. Russia and China were now in the same camp pitted against the US and the West in this dangerous dichotomy in global politics.

India was another Asian power that is perhaps also forced to make a choice it would have been happier to avoid. Washington’s confrontation with Moscow could not have come at a worse time for New Delhi. Even normally India would be reluctant to choose between the two protagonists, because it seemed to want to link itself strategically to both, increasingly a difficult endeavour. At this point in time India is poised to procure five S-400 air defence missile systems from Russia and badly requires a waiver from the US in terms of sanctions, which for the same reason had earlier been slapped on Turkey. Now was obviously not the time for India to show any thickening of camaraderie with the US. Even with China, India is often unwilling to throw down the gauntlet in any definitive manner, as New Delhi well knows if push comes to shove, and a shooting conflict with China does occur, significant actual US support in men and materiel might be wanting. But India’s options were shrinking. Its Quad partners the US, Australia and Japan thought it the appropriate time to flex Quad muscles and try and link the contests in the two theatres, Europe and Asia. Australia hosted a Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Melbourne. India’s diplomatic skills might have avoided critically unfriendly references to Beijing or Moscow, but the outcome of the meeting left no doubt as to India’s choice of camps- Euro- American or Sino-Russian. For India, getting together of China and Russia is not good news. Also because at the Olympics in Beijing, Putin invited Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to visit Russia soon. Moscow had held back on hosting a Pakistani Head of Government for over twenty years , mainly perhaps not to give New Delhi any cause for umbrage.

The upshot of all this would be that if because of the tensions, war breaks out in Europe, Asia is unlikely to remain unique for long.

In the meantime, in the main politico-diplomatic battleground of Europe the situation was hotting up. The flurry of activities, such as visits back and forth of leaders to various capitals, were coming to naught. Within the western camp, Continental Europeans such as France and Germany were as cautious as the Anglo-Saxons, the US and the UK were gung-ho, predicting the imminence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This, of course, was being denied by Putin and the Russians. Nevertheless, Moscow does not deny that the situation is serious, nor would it specifically rule out war, not because they would invade Ukraine, but because the West was intent on the eastward expansion of NATO! In the meantime, the Ukrainians, at the very eye in the storm are calling for calm, with their President, Volodymyr Zelensky warning that “panic is our enemy’s best friend”.

There are fears therefore that should war, which has been described as ‘imminent’ for a remarkably long time, already actually come about, it would be the result of a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy! Even if there not be war, and diplomacy manages to avert it for now, the world will be divided into two distinct camps, the US and its Western allies on one side and Russia and China on the other. The Communique in Beijing is most significant as it portrays not just two camps pitted against each other, but two different socio-political models offered to the rest of the world. The neutrals and the non-aligneds of the past are being forced by circumstances to make choices. The US and its allies picking up India, Sweden and Finland for instance, and Russia and China roping in Pakistan, Iran, perhaps Turkey, and most certainly, North Korea. It might become a battle of two political paradigms, each seeking to shape future human destiny.

Now a footnote to the crisis in Ukraine. It is tempting to recall that it was that region that in October 1864 witnessed a disastrously suicidal failed action of the British cavalry. It has been glorified for its valour in poetry by Alfred Lord Tennyson as the “Charge of the Light Brigade”. In a more sobre assessment a French Marshal described it as “magnificent, but not war”.

Must history repeat itself in such predictable fashion?

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President and Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

It has been said that when Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war. The summit of the leaders of world’s two strongest powers, the United States and China, came face to face at long last. Albeit virtually. Still, this was undoubtedly the “mother of summits” this year. There were two telephone conversations earlier, but according to US officials this nearly four hours of summitry was far more “candid intense, and deeper interaction”. If there was one single take-away from this meeting, it was the establishment beyond all reasonable doubt of the incontrovertible fact that the US and China were indeed the two most influential global state actors. The decisions between the two, represented by their leaders, would profoundly impact the rest of humanity far into the future.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

There was not much on anything else. Prior to the meeting that Biden was focussed on writing the rules of the engagement of China “in a way that is favourable to our interests and our values and those of our allies and partners”. Unsurprisingly, Xi and the Chinese did not play ball. Both sides basically emphatically stated their positions on issues and showed nary an inclination to concede an inch to the other. In the end, as was expected, there were no breakthroughs. The irreconcilable positions remained in- tact, with a vague call by both sides for more cooperation.

A virtual meeting is bereft of the positive influences of informal chats, banquets, and the opportunity of developing personal camaraderie. Still, both leaders exuded friendly demeanours, and Xi called Biden “an old friend”. On Taiwan, the dialogue was tough. Xi reminded Biden of the US position on the Peoples ‘Republic being the sole legitimate government of China , reinforced by here communiques issued in 1972, 1979 and 1982. Following the talks the White House clarified that the “One China’ was also guided by the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances committing the US to opposing” unilateral efforts to change the status quo”. Xi made it clear that Taiwan for China was a “core issue”; it was a province of China, and any support to its independence was akin to playing with fire. “Whoever plays with fire will get hurt” was a message he strongly underscored.

There seemed a glimmer of hope on one front, though. In the past China has refused to be drawn into any nuclear arms control agreements given that its arsenal was far smaller than those of the US and Russia. But recent significant qualitative improvements of its capabilities have been worrying the US. At the meeting China showed willingness to talk on the subject. However, there is no possibility of agreements beyond the rim of the saucer because the Chinese will naturally demand steep cuts in US numbers which will be unacceptable to Washington. However, there could be forward movement through diplomatic engagements on matters such as Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), will the positivity that would entail.

There is a fundamental difference in the approach of China and the US to negotiations. The US believes in a kind of “a la carte” method of choosing areas where it believes there is scope for collaboration while competition, and even confrontation, continues others. The Chinese on the other hand reject this as “cherry picking” and see the agenda as a comprehensive package. What is the use of understanding on one subject, while differences on another cam lead to war? Unless this basic divergence is resolved, negotiations are unlikely to be able to yield any worthwhile results. Discussions will continue to be both sweet and sour, as the summit deliberations were, but nothing seriously palatable will get cooked!

Xi has in the meanwhile has consolidated his own power in China to a point that he may be set obtain a third term of office. More importantly, he is viewed as the navigator in the journey towards national rejuvenation leading to China becoming a modern fully developed nation by 2049 which will bring him yet closer to the status of the Great helmsman, Chairman Mao Zedong, himself. All these were the outcome of the Sixth plenum of the Chinese Communist Party which met last week and adopted a “historical resolution” that buttressed Xi’s power and position.

Incidentally, in the history of the party this was the third historical resolution. The first was adopted in 1945 under Mao four years prior to the revolutionary victory, and the second by the ‘reformist” Deng Xiaoping. While Mao was the one who restored a sense of pride among the Chinese people enabling them “to stand up” and Deng made them rich through his reforms, Xi, by the dint of this “thought” (which supersedes “theory” in Chinese political lexicon) gave them strength and shared prosperity. In an abstruse political milieu where the count of numbers means a great deal, a Xinhua communique on the meeting mentioned Xi’s name at least fourteen times, compared to seven of Mao and Five of Deng. That tells a lot.

Consequently, it is now all but certain that Xi will be elected to an unprecedented third term in office as party General Secretary at the 20th Party Congress next year. There is also some talk that he may assume the title of “Chairman” as well which will bring him at par with Mao. The plenum also elevated Xi Jinping Thought to 21st Century Marxism, completing the process of “Sinicization” of Marxist philosophy. Xi has been pragmatic in welding the conservatism of Mao, but shunning his repressive methods, with the reforms of Deng, correcting the “capitalist excesses”, and bringing China on a socialist path that would lead to a “modern society” with “shared prosperity “. Small wonder that many Chinese observers are beginning to see him as a “Philosopher King” in the mould of Plato in the West and Confucius in the East, a perfect mix for the cauldron of power and authority. An interesting footnote is that the Chinese Communist Party formally announced its third “historical resolution”, cementing Xi’s powers hours after the Summit, though it was leaked earlier, which pointed to a thought-through calibrated set of actions.

Nowhere the same degree, Joe Biden also seems to have achieved a modicum of success of his own despite powerful head winds. He has managed to create a sense of cohesion among America’s allies, though his path has had numerous pitfalls and bumps. Importantly he has managed to secure the passage into law of the massive legislation in terms of the US $1.2 trillion bill on a revamp of infrastructures, to “build back better”, a campaign pledge. This for him is no mean achievement, proving that persistence pays. But for him and his Democratic Party the future is not as rosy as that what appears to be for his Chinese counterpart. A Republican win in the Presidential race is a distinct possibility. That could lead to turmoil and backlash in US domestic politics, requiring the identification of a common foe to rally the nation. China is the obvious candidate. If, consequently, the “ultimate red line” for China, such as on the issue of Taiwan is crossed, a catastrophe could follow.

Surely the Chinese have made those calculations. From now to then, China and Xi will, while seeking to avoid an immediate conflict, be preparing to, in the words of the Global Times seen as a State media outlet, “to deal with the biggest storms in the world, the most powerful and comprehensive siege from the US and its allies”. Halfway down this decade it will be high- risk for one to wager too much in favour of peace!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Some years ago, on a piece on the Afghan crisis I had written that Mullah Omar’s face bore no resemblance to that of the impossibly beautiful, albeit mythical, Helen of Troy. Yet it too had caused the launch of a thousand ships (airships to be more precise), just as Helen’s had done in Homer’s epic tale, the Iliad. Like Troy in that ancient narrative, Afghanistan of the present times was swarmed with invaders who could also be seen as the counterparts of those Greeks- the Americans and their NATO allies. This war lasted for double the time of the Trojan episode, twenty years instead of ten. At its end it led to a reverse situation, victory of the Trojans, in this case, of the Taliban. Though the Greeks destroyed Troy by the ruse of a gift of the Wooden Horse, eventually a Trojan warrior, Aeneid, sailed to southern Mediterranean and laid the foundation of the Rome and its empire. The Greek epoch ultimately yielded to the Roman age, and the annals of geopolitics of that time took a completely new turn. Will the impact of the Afghan war be the same? Shall we see a power transformation in a new paradigm from what we have at the present time? Will American predominance make way for a risen China, now or in the future?

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The world owes it to them. Yet, though the international community seem reluctant to bring the pains of the Afghans to a closure. The media in many countries is replete with stories that there is a burgeoning pushback to the victors, as if that would alter the results of the war. There are predictions of horrifying threats of Taliban reprisals, against collaborators, none of which has come to pass yet. Indeed, the truth is that violence has largely ceased in the country for the first time in two decades. The cities and the villages have become far safer for the men, women, boys, and girls than many in that young nation have known in their lifetime. True, there are thousands scrambling to get out at the Kabul airport. But far more are lured by the dreams, though not necessary by the prospects, of a better life in America and the West than the genuine fear of losing it in Taliban hands. Far from massacring the departing Afghans, the Taliban are seeking to queue them up in separate lines for departure for the US and the UK, in an effort to restore a modicum of order in the chaos. Indeed, incredibly it may appear given feelings of mutual hostility, the Taliban are cooperating with the erstwhile occupation troops at the airport.

This fact could mark the beginning of a silver lining in an otherwise dark horizon. If there is a will, there will eventually be a way. Doubtless, the Taliban must change, as some of their leaders seem to opine in public. It seems that some of them are persuaded that there must be a Taliban.02, different from the previous version. It cannot be impossible to bring interpretations of Islamic laws in consonance with those in many other Muslim-majority nations. Treatment of women is something that the world will closely watch. Some within the Taliban may not care, but many others will, and the latter must be encouraged by the global community. BRAC, a non-governmental organization from Bangladesh which was doing commendable work on girls’ education (a great success story in the predominantly Muslim Bangladesh), should be allowed to resume its activities. Afghanistan had a major contribution to the efflorescence of Islamic intellectual culture in the past. That spirit is most certainly imbued in the Afghan ethos and can and should be regenerated.

Mr. Joe Biden is a decent, elder American politician of the old school who thought, with a good reason that America should end the occupation and quit. When put on the carpet, as he has been so often by his critics in recent days for his decision, his legitimate query has been “If not now, then when?” None of the critics seems to be providing him that answer. In all fairness, he cannot be held accountable for the failure of his generals. He is withdrawing because his generals have lost the war, and the winners now want him out. It is as simple as that. Historically, when foreign occupiers have left, those who had served them during the period of occupation have felt insecure. In Western Europe after the German surrender during World War 11, for instance. That thirst for revenge does not seem to prevail at this point in time in post-Taliban victory Afghanistan. Surprisingly in a society where that could have been expected, as Afghans traditionally tend to conform to the three tribal values of honour, hospitality and revenge.

It would be a grave error of judgment to confuse the Taliban fighter with Florence Nightingale. He is made of sterner stuff. He did not get to where he is today by mollycoddling his opponent. But at the same time there is a palpable yearning in him for acceptability. That should be taken advantage of. Should the US want to be a positive force for the post-Afghan war world, it can help by trying to mainstream the Taliban-led Afghanistan into the global system. It will not be easy, as many Afghans including Taliban are unhappy with them and angry. But political realism is a great shaper of civic behavior, and there is not much reason to believe than the Taliban are any different. Those who wield some influence on them- for example, Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey should aid the process. Stability in Afghanistan will help them all. Sanctions that some, including a few members of the G 7, are pressurizing Mr. Biden to impose on the Afghans or freeze Afghan accounts will not advance this process. In fact, it will bring on more hostile and extremist reactions because of which many of the advocates of sanctions will suffer. Exacerbation of the miseries of the Afghans will do the world no good.

Afghanistan is a country that has been impoverished. But it is not poor. Its resources are abundant. It possesses enormous mineral wealth: Lithium, cobalt, nickel, neodymium, rare earths, and the like. These are said to be worth more than a trillion dollars. Extraction of some of these will need greater investment and technological knowhow. This will create opportunities for American and Chinese companies to cooperate. That is the turn of event in historical evolution that will redound to everyone’s benefit.

The US will need to watch out for friends that can inflict more harm than foes. Lord Ricketts, a UK politician, has said that Mr. Biden’s retreat was a “wake-up call to allies who had hopes of a return of the US to internationalism”. But surely a return to “internationalism” does not mean a return to military occupation. The Suez was a good lesson to British Conservatives in that respect. The errors of the British government of Sir Anthony Eden at the time, which the US had then pointed out, had led to an unhappy rift for a while between London and Washington.

Currently the US Vice President, Ms. Kamala Harris is in Singapore, visiting Southeast Asia. She may have already perceived the sense of the region that Asian countries largely are wary of taking sides in big power conflicts. Most are reluctant to be “one or the other’s stalking horse to advance negative agendas”. If this message is not picked up adequately, Asians may view American advances towards them just as the Trojan priest Laocoon saw the Wooden Horse left behind at the gates of Troy in the narrative with which this essay began. He had famously warned: “I fear the Greeks, even though they come bearing gifts”!

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

It had been four long months since the meeting in Alaska between Chinese and American officials, their first interaction since President Joe Biden assumed office in January this year. That was when the Chinese Foreign policy top mandarins Yang Jiechi (Director, Central Foreign Affairs Commission) and Wang Yi (State Councillor and Foreign Minister) bitterly locked horns with the American top diplomats, Antony Blinken (Secretary of State) and Jake Sullivan (National Security Advisor) in Anchorage in intensely chilly circumstances. Bilateral relations remained pretty much frozen since. Both sides might have come around to the belief that a resumption of some level of contact was overdue. Not so much to bring about a thaw; rather, simply to test the water.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The tool used was something that has historically been done in situations warranting subtle messaging, a skill at which the Chinese are past masters. That is the use of the rules of protocol as a peace-time weapon. After some show of hesitation, Beijing agreed to the visit but presented a lower ranking Chinese official as the appropriate counterpart, denying access to either Wang Yi or Yang Jiechi, which the Americans insisted upon. Eventually the access was provided, though formally , and optically, the main meeting was going to be with a lower-ranking Vice Foreign Minister, Xie Feng. What was going to take place with Wang Yi was a “call”. In traditional diplomatic protocol a visiting dignitary can always “call on“ higher ranking hosts, but not negotiate, which is normally done with appropriate counterparts. So, the Chinese were not offering any extra privilege, but were nonetheless raising Cain over it just to make a point. By resorting to this method China was wanting to put the US in its place, at the same time derive the necessary benefits from the visit which was an unavoidable preparatory step to the long-awaited Summit of the leaders. In that, at least for now, both sides appear to see merit.

There was to be a further tit for tat. Since the Chinese high officials were not received last April at the US capital, Washington DC, as they would have liked, Deputy Secretary Adams had to remain content with her programme taking place in Tianjin, located 100km south-east of Beijing. What was publicly stated was that Beijing had very strict rules related to Covid prevention that would impede the visit. Both sides seemed to accept the fact that a nuanced, but necessary under the circumstances, diplomatic minuet was being danced out, and both must have heaved a sigh of relief when this parrying ended, and the meetings could finally take place. The official photo of the call on Foreign Minister Wang Yi showed he and Wendy Sherman seated a fair distance apart, speaking to each other via microphones, amplifying not just the sound but also the political distance!

Prior to the meeting, Wang Yi stated in a tone that was a tad ominous: “If the US has not learnt how to deal with other countries on an equal footing, then we have the responsibility to work with the international community to teach the US a lesson”. By now, everyone was expecting the discussions to be tough, which they were. The Chinese set out three red lines for the US: One, China’s political system must not be challenged; two, China’s development must not be interrupted; and, three, China’s sovereignty issues such as matters in Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan must not be interfered with. Demonstrating considerable political acumen, Sherman avoided direct confrontation, making the point that the US goal was to set up “guardrails” to prevent competition from turning into conflicts. A state Department readout of the talks, which seemed to assume a slightly conciliatory tone, said that she had affirmed the importance of cooperation in areas of global interest including climate change, drug trafficking and weapons proliferation.

No one really expected the trip to make any substantive progress in terms of Sino-US bilateral relations, as was the case. The best outcome of the visit was that it took place at all! It simply marked a resumption of bilateral contacts, and nothing more. Also, it has managed to keep alive a glimmer of hope that the Xi-Biden summit could still happen as both sides seemed not to be unfavourably disposed towards the idea. The obtaining situation does not warrant any optimism for improved ties. Biden faces domestic pressures not to appear to be “soft” on China if he wants the Congress to approve his proposed legislations, which he does. Xi may not have similar constraints, but he does have an international gallery to play to, to which he is bent on demonstrating that China can outperform the US.

Just as the world is learning to live with the Covid pandemic, so must it learn to live with the burgeoning Sino-US rivalry. The rising Chinese dragon is no longer demure but is increasingly, and unabashedly demanding. At the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi declared that his people “will never allow foreign forces to bully, coerce, and enslave us”. If there are to be headwinds, China is preparing to rise like a kite against it. Dominant Western powers, particularly the US are unlikely to be obliging, as the increased pace of American diplomacy in East Asia shows. Nonetheless, it is all but certain that a paradigm shift in powerplay across the globe is already in progress, and it is bound to make for an unstable world.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The China-US meeting in Alaska last week was an unmitigated disaster. It did not bridge any differences. On the contrary, it may have widened them. If the purpose of diplomacy is to keep the lines of dialogue and communications open through the understanding the protocols, traditions, and culture of the other side, this discussion provided little evidence of even a desire for success. The art of negotiation in the international arena provides a substantial lexicon of nuanced language to advance rewarding discourse. In Alaska, this lesson was ignored. Style and substance were in tatters. Repairs now seem an impossibility anytime soon.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

In any case, the Trump Team in Anchorage, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan received the tough brief from their boss, and carried it out to the T. Normally in such negotiations, the host uses the warmth of hospitality as a tool to obtain an advantage, but the Biden team seemed uninterested in this option. Instead, they began firing with hard munitions right at the start, and the Chinese, State Councillor Yang Jieche and Foreign Minister Wang Yi responded in kind, and then some. Both sides were playing to the domestic galleries. The US team was obviously seeking to use anti-Chinese sentiments as the glue to bind either side of the political aisle at home. The Chinese team had a gallery of one, President Xi Jinping, who did not deem it necessary to rein in his negotiators. The early reports of the conference must have led him to conclude that China must be shown as having come a long way since its negotiator in the Boxer Protocol of 1901, the ageing and by then weak,Li Hongzhang was made to secure peace through unequal treaties from eight western nations in lieu of huge indemnities. Indeed, a section of the Chinese media referenced that episode in its praise of the Yang-Wang duo, eulogizing their bold retorts to their American interlocutors.

Earlier on, because of the same reasons, there was not much comfort to be drawn from the two-hour phone-talk between Biden and the Chinese President Xi Jinping. In the past both had spent ample time together as Vice presidents of their respective countries. As a gesture, Biden scheduled the call to greet Xi for the Lunar New Year of the Ox, and it was well received. But Biden’s position was a repeat of what was made known publicly. It was focused on what the American’s perceive as China’s unfair trade practices, crackdown in Hong Kong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and assertive action in the maritime region including towards Taiwan. Xi, in response also repeated the usual Chinese mantra: that most of the issues were internal affairs of China, and were related to Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity. Speaking to the media, Biden said he had told Xi that he would “work with China when it benefits the American people”. It was unclear as to why he had thought that would be a compelling reason for China to engage. Clearly it was not.

The truth was that China has concluded that America and the West were actually on the decline. It views its own rise as in consonance with Marxist -Leninist determinism which still frames China’s policy. The play of structural forces would impede the cooperation of a rising China with a declining America, except in clearly secular subjects as climate change which would bring win-win rewards for both. America, on the other hand, sees an adversarial relationship as a tool to deter the rise of China to a peer status, but agrees on the possibilities of cooperation on the common topic of Climate change. The problem is the relationship has soured so much that the political will to muster the wherewithal to engage even on climate change appears to be eroding. Interestingly one common historical paradigm, frequently, used by both sides is the syndrome in the Greek classics known as the “Thucydides trap”. The Greek philosopher by that name had warned that in those ancient times, when Athens grew strong, there was great fear in Sparta, and war became inevitable. But the current US apprehension is more that the Chinese may fancy themselves as being Rome to America’s Greece, the succeeding preponderant imperial power.

Biden’s relationship with President Vladimir Putin of Russia got off to a good start with a far more friendly the extension of the START treaty, despite Putin’s known preference for Trump over him. But then confronted with evidence suggesting possible Russian hacking the polls in support of Trump, Biden referred to Putin as a ‘” killer’’, who needed to be “punished”. Putin was not amused. He returned the compliment, recalled his Ambassador to Washington and dispatched his Foreign Minister, the sharp and cerebral Sergey Lavrov to China to strengthen bilateral ties. This Lavrov did by calling China a “true strategic partner and like-minded friend”, seeking to promote together “a constructive and unifying agenda”. An alliance between China and Russia seemed on the cards. To compound Biden’s woes, the North Korean leader Kim Jong- un, who obviously missed Trump in the White House, got his sister to urge Biden to keep his “stink” on his side of the Atlantic. Thereafter he warmed to Xi who called China-North Korean relations “common treasure”. The Biden Administration had sent messages to Kim for resumption of dialogue. Kim’s response seemed to be test-firing of two short-range missiles last weekend. Biden observed that ‘’nothing has changed””. That is very true. It is also true that any likely change may be for the worse. All this may have put paid to Biden’s attempts to reach out to North Korea through China’s help. China is now the only conduit to Kim. But for Biden to expect China’s assistance at this time seems a very unreal proposition.

The Biden Administration has had some success in getting the allies marshalled vis-à-vis China. It has energized the Quad, an informal group of security partners comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia. It has managed to get the European Union and Canada to agree with it on slapping sanctions on China on the issue of Human rights violation of the Uighur Muslims. China has reacted sharply to each of these developments. Beijing has responded with its own sanctions against the European Union. It seems to be in the process of forging an alliance with Russia and deepening ties with North Korea. It has created huge economic stakes for many countries in Asia and Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative. China has sought to couch its rivalry with its adversaries in terms of emerging Asia versus the past imperial powers of the West. In this rapidly dividing world, we can see the gathering of dark clouds of potential conflict. We have seen how in the past alliance-building of adversaries led nations to sleep- walk into the disastrous first Great War. It is true that history does not always repeat itself. Just as it also true that logic shows that similar causes tend to produce similar effects.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

China is on the roll. Already the second largest economy in the world, it is poised to become the first sooner than expected, possibly within this decade. Small wonder that the focus of the globe should be on the lianghui currently being held in Beijing. This is the ‘two sessions,’ China’s annual Parliamentary meeting. They entail back- to- back sessions of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the highest advisory body, and the National People’s Congress (NPC), the principal legislative forum. There might lack the scintillating repartees of a debate in the House of Commons, and the thrill of the Question hour in Commonwealth Parliaments. But nonetheless would have an enormous impact on the lives of global citizens, including the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus. That is because the sessions provide an insight into the plans and aspirations of the world’s most rising power.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

China is already in the process of implementing its ‘’dual circulation” strategy. It principally entails stimulating domestic demand, now facilitated by the burgeoning middle class (internal circulation) , as well as catering to the export market (external circulation) , though with reduced reliance on the latter. In other words, the country will continue to improve its participation in global trade, finance and technology, at the same time hedging against global market disruptions by sharpening focus on domestic consumption, production and innovation. This idea assumes importance given the backdrop of the trade spat with the United State, dating back to the Trump Administration. It now seems that the Chinese calculus is that even under President Joe Biden, the rivalry with the US, though somewhat less strident at least in language if not in substance will continue. All indications extrapolating from the ‘’two sessions “are that China will continue to have faith in the international trading system, but will keep its powder dry.

At the sessions Premier Li Keqiang announce a planned GDP rise of “over 6 per cent”’ for the year. He desisted from making a quantitative target last year because of Covid-19 related uncertainties. But despite the fact that the virus has originated in China, the country handled the crisis in an exemplary fashion, and was able to post a growth -rate of 2.3 percent, being the only major economy to achieve a positive number. So Premier Li’s declaration reflected a sense of confidence. In fact, the International Monetary Fund thinks China might do even better and rise by 8.1 per cent. Pundits feel that if the trend continues in a general fashion, China might overtake the US as the world’s largest economy by 2038, seven years ahead of predictions. This will put the nation well on the way to achieving as the somewhat demurely expressed aspiration of becoming a “’moderately prosperous country”.

But the Chinese eyes were fixed on more than development and prosperity. The anticipation of intense US competition led to a spike in defense spending. In this regard an increase of 6.8 percent, adding up to US $ 210 billion, surpassing last year’s 6.6 percent was announced. This will help China modernize its military, and expand its capabilities in newer domains of cyber, outer- space, deep- sea and electromagnetic warfare. In these dual- purpose sectors monies could also be sourced from other heads. China’s advance in areas of novel technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, has been remarkable. These could enable China to leap-frog ahead, off- setting western current conventional military superiority. In many ways we may be witnessing a reversal of the past cold-war scenario when the Warsaw Pact powers were conventionally superior to the West or NATO, and the latter pinned its doctrine to the “trip-wire” strategy. Accordingly, NATO would unleash a nuclear response automatically, should there be a conventional crossing of lines by the adversary. Except that, China could soon have the capability to effect devastating consequences through non-kinetic strikes.

But an accompaniment of China’s rise must be studied circumspection. China need not have to “hide its capabilities and bide its time” as in the 1970s and 80s anymore, but nor can it afford to recklessly pursue the classic formula of “kill one to persuade a hundred”. China will need the world to accommodate its burgeoning position., While it is true much of the world is willing to do so, it is also true there is a pervasive fear of China among many, of not just its military might but also economic clout. The US will clearly remain a competitor for the rivalry is structural. But most analysts agree it need not come to war. The responsibility for its avoidance is in the perceived national self-interest of both China and the US.

For now, with much good news emanating out of the “two sessions”, the mood in China seems euphoric. The people see this as an important milestone in the fruition of what in Mandarin is called, their “Zhang Guomeng”, or “China Dream”. The Chinese are not Anglo-Saxons. But the current sentiments in that ethos would be the same as in nineteenth century England, as evident in that phlegmatic jingle, inspired by a speech of Disraeli, which was the origin of the term ‘jingoism’:

“We don’t want to fight,
But by jingo, if we do,
We ‘ve got the ships, we’ve got the men,
We’ve got the money too!”

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Bangladeshis at the present time share a modicum of justifiable pride in the fact that the world merits this country worth watching in terms of its economic potentials. To my mind , we have reached this stage for the following reasons: First, effective utilization of early foreign assistance; second a steady ,albeit sustained, move away from a near -socialistic to an open and liberal economy; third , a shift from agriculture to manufacturing as land-space shrank to accommodate urbanization; fourth , an unleashing of remarkable entrepreneurial spirit among private sector captains of industry, as evidenced in the Ready Made Garments industry: fifth, the prevalence of a vibrant civil society intellectually aiding the social transformation with its focus on health, education, and gender issues: and finally ,a long period of political stability notwithstanding the traditional predilections of Bengali socio-political activism.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Graduation is for Bangladesh a mix of boon and bane. It is a boon because it is an acknowledgment of progress, a major milestone in the nation’s development journey. It would improve the country’s global image which should give it better credit ratings. This would allow it to borrow more cheaply on the world market. It is a bane because it would ultimately lose all the preferences accorded to LDCs in global trade such as under the European Union’s Everything but Arms (EBA) initiative. However, Bangladesh has not quite optimized on those advantages.

Incidentally, as chair of the WTO Committee of Trade and Development, as also of the LDC Group in Geneva in the late 1990s and early 2000, and also as Special Advisor to Secretary General Rubens Ricupero of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), I was involved with the related deliberations with the European Union. Bangladesh has always played a leadership role on behalf of the LDCs in all multilateral negotiations, both at the WTO in Geneva and at the United Nations in New York. Sometimes these involved not only tough deliberations with developed countries and ‘economies in transition’ (former socialist countries) , but also with developing member-States of the Group of 77 (because it entailed the sharing of the cake).Bangladesh’s graduation will in many ways deprive the LDCs of this capacity. Across the diplomatic scene, Bangladesh could also depend on the support of fellow-LDCs on a broad range of issues. I would gratefully recall the contribution in this regard of the so-called “Utstein Sisters” of Europe (named after a venue in Northern Europe where they met), five women Development Cooperation Ministers, including Evelyn Herfkens of the Netherlands and Claire Short of the UK. They were ardent advocates of LDC aspirations, and were instrumental, among other things, in the WTO’s acceptance, unlike in the case its predecessor, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT), of the broad principle that trade is a key tool of development.

Following graduation, Bangladesh will need to negotiate a continuation of international support measures to render the graduation process smooth and sustainable. If needs be, even after the grace period of quota-free duty- free market access vis-à-vis Europe till 2029. Though in Brussels the EU could cut Bangladesh some slack because of its performance, at the WTO, Bangladesh, will be well advised to attempt a norm setting exercise with regard to graduating countries with the new Director General, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is empathetic, as well as with the membership. This will take some skillful diplomacy. But I would like to strongly underscore that negotiations are but the tip of the ice- berg. The main challenge would lie in tackling the fundamentals beneath. For instance, in addressing domestically the 27 requirements, including corruption, non-compliances, and other inadequacies, across the governance spectrum to achieve GSP -plus status. Also, to derive other global market benefits.

Comparative advantages would have to be transformed into competitive advantage. Low-wages will tend to perpetuate poverty. So wage-rise, an essential tool for poverty mitigation, would need to be carefully calibrated with the increase in productivity. Economy should diversify, particularly into services, which do not face goods tariff and hence less affected by loss of preferences. The Internet sector, on which the government is prudently laser-focused, can help Bangladesh leapfrog into economic modernity. The pharmaceutical industry should seriously reflect on how to navigate WTO regulations on Trade in Intellectual Property, or TRIPS. Mutually rewarding arrangements with other Asian economic powerhouses are called for. For instance, Free Trade Agreement with a country like Singapore could, and I use the word ‘could’ advisedly, unlock potentials, but that would require further serious study and examination.

Throughout my negotiating career I had felt that preferences tend only to prolong pain. There are no such things as friends in the marketplace. The sooner we start to confront the real world of competition the better off we are. Indeed, if we can play our cards right, the graduation could be our ‘’break-out” moment to reflect on reforms, on raising productivity and on boosting growth. Efforts must be directed towards moving up the value chain by attracting quality FDI. From my current perch in the corporate sector in Singapore, I see Vietnam as an example worthy of emulation.

So, to conclude, graduation is inevitable if progress is the goal, as it must be, and indeed desirable, just as, in our individual lives, coming of age, that is of turning 21, is. Readiness is key. From what I see, there is nothing like the last minute in speeding up requisite preparations. Doubtless, there is much work to be done. But we must bear in mind that if there is a hill to climb, waiting will not make it any smaller!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac@nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

President Joseph Biden of the United states and President Vladimir Putin of Russia vide a telephone talk have agreed to extend the New Start treaty beyond the expiry date of 5th February of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty or New-START by another five years. By ageing to do so, President Biden was reversing the decision of his predecessor, President Donald Trump. It is actually the only remaining agreement that curtails US and Russian nuclear forces.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

An immediate positive spin-off of the extension would be the continuation of the Bilateral Consultative Commission to discuss the aforementioned issues, among other things. The Commission meets periodically to discuss all matters of treaty operations. Of late both parties have been concerned about certain doctrinal adjustments on either side: the US over the perceived ‘”escalation for de-escalation” and associated ‘hybrid war’ policies of the Russians, and Russia over the defensive measures undertaken by the US , as well as addition of low-yield weapons to US arsenal, both of which they assess as destabilizing.

It would be appropriate here to discuss some element of the Russian nuclear doctrine that western and non-Russian readership might not be familiar with. Briefly this is encompassed in the two concepts of SDERZIVANIE (“nuclear restraint”) and USTRASHENIE (“intimidation”).This combination is meant to persuade the adversary that it has no chance of achieving its strategic goals by force, and this policy, which implies use of conventional and strategic weaponry, remains in operation in peacetime and war , nuclear weapons being only one tool in the broad tool-kit of warfare. It, therefore, encompasses the western concept of deterrence, as well as coercive warfare and compellence, and is designed to be a multi-domain cross-cutting effort using both soft and hard power. Hence the western perception of Russian doctrine as “’hybrid”.

On 2 June 2020, President Putin signed off (Executive Order 355) on an important document that outlines Russia’s current strategic doctrine. It entails a systematized asymmetric approach, underscoring the severity and certainty of ‘’ punishment”. The document lists a whole series of activities by the adversary that may be constituted as a threat to Russia, and/or its “allies” to be “neutralized by the implementation of nuclear deterrence” (translation: ‘’by use of nuclear weapons”). The order also allows for the use of nuclear weapons not only to counter the enemy’s similar capabilities, but also ‘other types of weapons of mass destruction or significant combat potential of general purpose forces”. Western analysts read this as a wide range of options to introduce nuclear weapons at an early stage of conflict to prevent its spread, reconfirming the so-called “escalate to de-escalate” strategy.

One criticism of the New-START, and the Trump Administration made much of it, was the non-inclusion of China. While the Chinese armoury is barely one-tenth of that of the US, it possesses very advanced hypersonic platforms. Its DF 17 (“Deng Feng” or East wind) missiles can be mounted on hypersonic glide vehicle, which the Chinese are said to claim that could render the US Air defence systems in the Near East obsolete. At the 2019 October Revolution Anniversary parade, it displayed what was designated as DF 100, a very advanced hypersonic rocket that can “kill” large enemy ships, and even Carriers. A significant point about hypersonic vehicles is that even without weapons payload, it can unleash enormous destructive kinetic energy while impacting on targets because of its sheer speed! It is, however, difficult to see why China would, quite unnecessarily in its perception, subject itself to any agreement on constraining its capacity to be a comparable military rival to the US (or even Russia, for that matter).

The Biden Administration could use the New- START discussions to negotiate limits on new types of platforms such as Russia’s ‘’Avangard’’ hypersonic glide vehicles with speed of Mach 20 to 27, which means that many times the speed of sound ( any propulsion over Mach 5 is normally classified as ‘hypersonic’; only Russia and China possess such capabilities). This is one of six new strategic weapons unveiled by Russia in 2018. The Russian side can bring to the table their concerns about US missile defense; for instance, the 44 Ground based Interceptors or GBIs based in Alaska and California. It is important to note that the 1972 ABM Treaty was predicated on the theoretical proposition that since defensive measures of this kind erode retaliatory strike-capability of the adversary, is hence destabilizing, the assumption being that vulnerability encourages good strategic behaviour. The Republican legislators in the US, as a rule, tend to be “pro-defense” (recent voting patterns of Senators such as Messrs Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Joshua Hawley can be cited as a case in point). This factor may prove a modicum of constraint for Biden. The New Start would facilitate Strategic Stability Talks which will not perhaps produce agreements but will enhance understanding of each other’s doctrines and concerns. Particularly as the Russian concept of strategic SDERZIVANIE is more complex, using soft and hard power tools in peace and war.

The Trump Administration was said to be toying the idea of testing, which would have well and truly put the genie out of the bottle around the world. Experts view that the US, which has not tested since 1992 can make do with what is called ”Stockpile stewardship”. It is a process by which reliability is determined through simulations and supercomputers without having to conduct tests.

The Obama Administration had made a deal with the Senate to win New-Start ratification with a commitment for modernization of the US deterrent. So, Biden will have to continue with this over USD 1 tr programme. The so-called triad on which this deterrence is based has three legs: bomber aircraft, the land-based ICBMs, and the sea-based SLBMS.

The strategic bombers, 60 under the START Agreement, comprise such aircraft as the venerable B 52 and B-2 Stealth, highly mobile, and effective as both first and second strikers. As for ICBMS, Start permits 400 Minutemen 111 to be deployed. Some experts see these in immobile silos as more vulnerable and also due to their targeting inflexibility as of reduced strategic value and would argue for their elimination. The third and most effective leg, SLBMs, is also the smallest, only 14 deployed Trident Submarines. Since submarines are more difficult to track and destroy, they are most useful for second strike, which is the critical component of deterrence, and for this very reason, seen as a stabilizing factor in any nuclear balance. The US Navy will replace the current Ohio Class with Columbia Class. The latter will be interoperable with the British Dreadnaughts Class of submarines, poised to be deployed as British deterrence. This will signify further enhanced partnership between the two.

At some point in time the bilateral agreement could possibly be widened, but it will not be easy. China stands little to gain by constraining its capabilities in realpolitik terms. Also, nations who have the capability, and perceive security being linked to nuclear weaponization will do so. North Korea, for instance. Some others, who are also capable but see more current benefits in avoiding or delaying it would hedge, as Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Iran. Happily, proliferation has not been as rampant as earlier feared. Some credit is owed to the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 for this. So, this would be a good time for the US to back the various non -proliferation and arms control negotiations. For instance, the Biden Administration could encourage the reactivation of the nearly-defunct Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, which is the sole existing multilateral disarmament forum, though that could be a tall order. But a good example, its critique notwithstanding, has been set by the Biden team in continuing with the New-START with Russia.

Meanwhile, the push by both the US and Russia, is to increase accuracy, which is measured by Circular Error Probability or CEP. If the CEP of a warhead is 10000 yards, it means 50% of the ordnance will fall within that distance of the target. Theoretically, increased precision is always suspect as it enhances propensity to use, which, in turn, encourages warfighting as opposed to deterrence. Indeed, at one point in 1974, the then US Defence Secretary, James Schlesinger, had propounded a ‘limited options” strategy, known as “Schlesinger doctrine, which was critiqued for just that. Unfortunately, this race to be one-up on the adversary, be it in terms of posture or policy, quality or quantum, will continue. Nuclear Strategists tend to share the same belief, two thousand years ago, of the classic Roman thinker, Cicero: Si vis Pacem, para bellum, if you want peace prepare for war.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac@nus.edu.sg

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Oscar Wilde in the 1880s. Photo: wikipedia

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
SINGAPORE, Jan 29 2021 (IPS-Partners)

So, who or what was Oscar Fingal Flahertie Wills Wilde? Was he a poet, a prose-smith, a playwright, a classicist, a raconteur, a poseur, an aphorist, or simply a sensation for his, or may be for all, times? He was all of those, and much else besides. He was a lord of language, known for his bitingly witty dialogue and epigrammatic banter, flamboyant dress and glittering conversation. To London’s Victorian society he was both a bright boy in a man’s body, albeit with an intellect of stupendous heights, as well as a thoughtful prophet wrapping profundity in dazzling verbal giftwrap. To discuss his writings, the Dhaka -based “The Reading Circle” held a Webinar ably moderated by Professor Niaz Zaman. The participants -Syed Badrul Ahsan, Tazeen Murshid, Nusrat Haque, Ameenah Ahmed, Tanveerul Haque, Zakia Rahman, Zobaida Latif, and myself -all of us drawn from such different corners of the globe as London, Brussels, Singapore and Dhaka, made presentations. This article is based on my remarks made on that occasion.

Born Irish in 1856, Oscar Wilde had made England famous in America, where during his lecture tour he took the new world by storm. He regaled the Americans with his wisdom and wit, evoking laughter everywhere he went, with such quips as that there was everything common between England and America, except of course, the language!

From Trinity College in Dublin Wilde went to Magdalene at Oxford. The University was to acknowledge him as among its brightest alumni. He graduated with First Class Honors, and moved to London, first conquering the salons of the West end, and then its theatre. He believed that a man who can dominate a London dinner-table could dominate the world. He mocked the flippancy of the upper classes through his plays, poems stories, and his novel “the Picture of Dorian Gray”. He ridiculed them by noting how the hair of a socialite, after the death of her third husband, turned quite gold with grief! Yet it was to their ranks that he also yearned to belong. To him, if being in society was a bore, to be out of it was a tragedy!

What was to finally destroy him, and spell his doom, was his admiration of one young member of this nobility, Lord Alfred Douglas, whom he endearingly called Bosie. Bosie was breathtakingly beautiful, and to Wilde, the visible perception of absolute perfection. This love that dared not speak its name was unrequited. It pulled Wilde down to abysmal depths of degradation, and eventually to prison, where he spent two years in hard labour as a price for consorting with this younger object of his adoration. His was a life in which he seemed to be unable to reconcile his precocious intellect with his immature emotions.

Wilde baffles us by freely mingling profound wisdom with mere frippery. He often played with words, toyed with ideas, and struck poses. His writings that featured in the Webinar were all part of his efforts to create verbal works of art. Critics were not always kind to him. Particularly his morality or rather the lack of it attracted social opprobrium. Yet he persisted, undeterred. He often said he himself disagreed with much he wrote. He held that in art there was no such thing as universal truth. A truth in art was that whose contradictory was also true.

Frank Harris, whose work on Wilde was the first biography on him that I had read in my mid-teens , said that Oscar Wilde’s greatest play was his own life, a tragedy with Greek implications , of which he himself was the most ardent spectator. Wilde once observed to Andre Gide that ‘’ I put my genius into my life and only my talents into my works”.

His sole novel, “The Picture of Dorian Gray”, a dark story of split- self amidst corruption in the heart of the city, belongs to the genre of late Victorian Gothic literature. Some have seen it as a fantasy autobiography of Wilde himself, a moral cautionary tale of the era. It revolves around a Faustian deal that the principal protagonist Dorian Gray makes with the devil by selling his soul for the gift of eternal physical beauty. Names have deep connotations in Wilde; remember “The Importance of Being Earnest”? Dorian Gray’s name is both important and ambiguous. It derives from the combination of the sea-nymph “Doris” in Greek mythology, and the French word “D’or” meaning gold or golden, signifying beauty. Gray means morally he is neither black nor white. As for his fiancée, Sybil Vane, who kills herself upon being rejected by Dorian, ”Sybils” were oracles in Classical Greece through whom the gods spoke. Vane reflects her life with Dorian which was in vain.

Wilde’s “Ballad of Reading Gaol” is a fascinating narration of prison experience. Structurally the poem comprises 109 stanzas, divided into six sections, maintaining the same rhythmic scheme, rendering it consistent and regular. His use of the literary devices included alliteration, enjambment and repetition. In this long and plodding iambic tetrameter, and use of repetitive parallelism , the reader is made to feel the grinding restlessness of prison life. The central theme of the poem was the execution of one Charles Woodridge for the murder of his wife. Around this core, whose genre was Gothic Realism, Wilde built a meditation on the paradoxes of morality. The ballad was also an indictment on the death penalty, and the harsh conditions of the Victorian prison-system.

While in prison, Wilde produced another deeply Gothic construct, “De Profundis”, Latin for “Out of the Depths”. In this, which refers to Psalm 130 (“From the depths I cry to thee, O Lord!”), Wilde’s spiritual awareness is manifested. It is a petulant, sad, and riveting memoir of his life, in the form of a letter to Lord Alfred Douglas, the focus of his largely unrequited affections. The letter also reflects his metaphysical side, for here he looks to find within himself and not outside, some form of self-realization. He was to say of his faith: “I believe that God made a separate world for each separate human being, and it is in that world within us that we should seek to live”. It was in such a world that he lived and died himself, both shocking and dazzling his fellow humans inhabiting their other worlds.

It has been aptly said that talking remained his vocation, writing his evocation. Writing was merely a vehicle propelling him towards his real goal which was the dramatization of Oscar Wilde. In his description of self, it was often difficult to make out whether he was speaking in self -deprecation or self-praise: As when he said “I am so clever that sometimes I don’t understand a single word that I am saying”; or , his simple statement to the American Customs official, upon arrival in New York, that : “I have nothing to declare but my genius”. The compilations of the sayings he left behind for posterity are often fondly called “Oscariana.”’

This coruscating kaleidoscope of colors that was the life of Oscar Wilde lasted only 46 years. Oscar was ahead of his time. His disdain for conventional morality and relentless pursuit of new and amoral experiences broke ground, to be later tilled by others. He was an apostle of the Aesthetic Movement- admiring art and beauty for their own sake which stemmed from Keats, Shelley, Whistler and Walter Pater.

Wilde was the advance herald of existentialism, and the intellectual godfather of the flower children of our younger days, in the 1960s. For all his love of Classical Greece, there was a striking simplicity in his spiritualism (he had converted to Catholicism), as when he proclaimed in his inspirational poem, Santa Decca, referring to the Greek god that “Great Pan is dead, and Mary’s Son is King”. His writings will endure in the great pantheon of English literature as the work of an incomparable language-wrangler.

Oscar Wilde, I believe, must have been convinced, that like Christ’s, his life would someday be resurrected, only metaphorically, of course. If he were to be aware of a Webinar on him a century and a quarter down the line by a Group of Bangladeshis, he would be amused, and pleased. But not, I believe, given his ego, surprised.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is the Honorary Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, NUS. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President & Distinguished Fellow of Cosmos Foundation. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac@nus.edu.sg

The US residential polls are akin to a drama that is staged every four years in which the American are actors on stage and the rest of the world is the audience. With one major difference, however. While in a usual theatrical performance the viewers are there mostly for amusement, though some may be enlightened and enriched by the experience, in the case of the US elections, unlike in others, their fates are inextricably linked to the outcome of the play. This is not predetermined by any playwright, though it can often be predicted. It is not implausible therefore for some on-lookers to want to intervene in what’s happening onstage. It must be done discreetly, and with great circumspection. Take for instance, the Russians in the American elections in 2016. The Russians and President Donald Trump hotly dispute allegations of any such interference.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

For the purposes of prediction, the prestigious British journal ‘The Economist’ has developed a somewhat complex model indicating Mr Joe Biden of the Democratic Party as the winner. At writing, it is giving 91.7% chance of electoral victory and 98% chance of popular majority to Mr Biden. The Financial Time’s tally for Biden stood at 298. Professor Allan Lichtman of the American University and author of “The keys to the White house”, who has accurately predicted every Presidential electoral outcome correctly since 1984 using “13 key factors”, has predicted Mr Biden will win. In the ancient times, Greek and Roman drama-writers used a concept called “deus ex machina’, literally god out of a machine, in their scripts. This is an unexpected power originating from the gods, is introduced which alters the course of the narration.

It seemed for a while that nothing short of a divine intervention, a remote likelihood for Mr Trump in the view of his detractors, could save him from certain defeat. But then the race began to tighten, partly caused by apprehensions in some quarters with regard to the social unrest currently sweeping America, and Mr Trump’s repeated reassertion of Jeremiads against violence .Given the dichotomized and divided nature of the American electoral , both sides have loyal bases who will vote in accordance with their a priori views, come what may. So, the contest is basically for the minds and hearts of 8 to 9 % who are still undecided. These are the potential Biblical ‘Sauls on the Road to Damascus’ of the electorate, the potential converts to the other side. That is also the percentage point of Mr Biden’s current lead. So even if Mr Trump should win over most of the undecided numbers, which in itself is a stretch, Mr Biden would still have an edge.

This has encouraged Mr Trump to fight back. Unlike in the UK where the system of governance usually follows a culture of “good- chap model”, whereby political actors conform to a code of conduct perceived to be virtuous, no such tradition appears to shape American political behaviour. The absence of European-style feudalism that helped inspire such norms in the ‘old world’ might have impeded the development of such values in the immigrant political milieu of the ‘new world’. Mr Trump has provided a supreme example of this phenomenon almost all through his entire first term in office. He capped it at the Republican National Convention by using the White House, always seen as an apolitical institution (a ‘Peoples’ House’) as the venue for his speech accepting Party nomination for his second term of the presidency. Past occupants of the official residence of the president of the United states have abstained, indeed recoiled from politicizing what is largely accepted as a national symbol of unity Because of these reasons, the framers of the US Constitution had thought it wise to put down in writing the details of how the polity should be governed. They were wary of putting their trust entirely trust entirely on intrinsic human morality. Their faith in God did not extend to the faith in their own ilk. They were uncertain if their fellow-Americans would be able to rule democratically within a framework of established tradition of good governance unless a written Constitution set-out the guidelines. They were wise, but apparently not comprehensive enough. They left sufficient gaps and loopholes for the system to be gamed by politicians of lesser virtuous pedigree.

The equivalent of the US President in Britain is, not the Queen, but the Prime minister. Across the Atlantic the Prime Minister is the ‘primus inter pares” or first among equals who governs with the aid and joint responsibility of a Cabinet of colleagues. In the US the Secretaries, often termed Cabinet-officers rather than Cabinet–members, are, though appointees of the President, are approved by the Senate. As heads departments they are loosely equated with British Ministers. But they are not colleagues of the President in a political sense and become a part of their department whose role is apolitical. For instance, the top diplomat in Washington the Secretary of State does not while performing duties at home and abroad, associate his office with domestic politics. Recently, the current incumbent, Mike Pompeo, blatantly broke that rule, by politically using a trip to Jerusalem to advance the President’s political aspiration publicly.

According to British public service culture, as also in many democracies, officials shun active politics. In the US such behaviour was written into law. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits employees of the federal government, except for the President and Vice President, in engaging in some form of political activities. But nowadays some allege that it is being honoured more in the breach than the observance. Many elements of democracy, such as voting rights for all, came later in the US than is often realized. The author and historian Michael Beschloss worries that unless these are protected they may also erode quickly. The incredibly sad consequence would be what the Fathers of the Republic wanted to avoid foremost, a descent into tyranny. Any law has content and spirit. The spirit is often equally important.

Take the question of leaving office. In Britain, should a Prime Minister lose the elections, or be defeated in a vote of no-confidence in the House of commons, he or she would proceed to the Palace, either kiss the Queen’s hands or offer her a curtsy and resign office. For this politician, it would not mean a withdrawal from politics, and thereby would be less painful. Office is seen as merely a privilege to serve the community. In America on the other hand for the President calling quits is forever, hence there is a burgeoning view that given Trump’s disinclination to conform to ‘good chap ‘ behaviour , he may drag his feet at leaving office , particularly if the results are close , alleging electoral fraudulence. The Biden crowd is suggesting if that be the case, the military would, or should, march Trump out of office. The US military has experience of marching several foreign Presidents out of office, but never one of its own. That would indeed be a unique experience!

While the component States of the American Union is largely governed by the Governors, foreign policy is the President’s domain. Given the military and economic clout of the US, their politics often become central to our concerns. Hence the need for the world beyond the US to understand, assess and evaluate them. For instance, a re-election of Mr Trump would mean a further retreat of the US into “Fortress America” and a greater disengagement from the world. On the other hand, a Biden Administration would mean a greater engagement, with other nations, multilateral institutions and issues such as Climate Change and Arms Control. That is why a US Presidential election generates a degree of interest in say India, Pakistan or Bangladesh as in Hawaii, Nebraska or North Carolina.

Text-books in Civics and Comparative politics, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world, often tend to differentiate the British and American systems, sometime a tad simplistically, as being ‘Parliamentary’ ‘and ‘Presidential’ forms of governance. The French, with their own mixed form, never quite played along with this idea. That was also before China came to salience with their model of government based on ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics”, which no one else follows till now, but is important because China is. The Indian example is too chaotic to be recognized as a norm.

Writing his classic work ‘The English Constitution’ in 1867, Walter Bagehot argued a Constitution needed two parts: a ‘dignified’ one, to ‘excite and preserve the reverence of the population’ and the other , an ‘efficient’ part , ‘to employ that homage in the work of the government’. In Britain the two parts were sought to be kept distinct and to date has operated more or less smoothly. In the US they became, somewhat of a mixed hodgepodge. Around the mid- nineteenth century, a French political observer visiting America, de Tocqueville, perceived a discernible difference between appearance and reality in America. So, while trying to rid the new world of the tyranny of a King, were the framers of the US Constitution inadvertently creating an Emperor? Some may ponder. Confronted with such a question, Mr Trump might nonchalantly respond, “it is what it is”!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
SINGAPORE, Aug 31 2020 (IPS)

The Maldives is a picturesque country of merely 515,000 people located just beyond the southern tip of the South Asian land mass, in an idyllic Indian ocean setting. The nation is spread across 26 pretty atolls, comprising about 1192 islets, not all still inhabited. These are lapped by crystal blue waters containing flora and fauna of remarkable magnificence. Its scenic bounties attract droves of tourists who frolic in the sands, sun and the sea in salubrious languor. It has a thriving fishing, garment and tourism industry which have recently helped it graduate out of the United Nations list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs).It is so tiny that used to be said that the catch of a single large fish any day could cause a remarkable jump in its Gross National Product (GDP) numbers. It is not without reason that the archipelago has often been compared to a paradise.

But now it appears that peace in paradise could be confronting some strains due to regional and international politics. On the global matrix China is racing to reach peer status with the United states. The Chinese see the Indians, because of the increasing chumminess between India and the US as an impediment to their aspirations. Hence they appear to be out to clip India’s wings. Obviously, the way to go about it is to try and reduce India’s regional and global influence. India obviously resists Chinese attempts to do so. The inevitable result is conflict, as of now confined to borders or Line of Actual Control (LAC), as it is called, in the Himalayan mountain heights. This is complemented by tussle for control of the seas south of the border as well. This strategic competition is not just confined to the military sphere. There is also an economic battleground. In this China’s great weapon is the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), linking scores of nations along land and sea- routes to China through mega infrastructural projects. The Maldives, located at a strategic point in the Indian ocean, therefore, could not be immune to this Sino -China rivalry at worst, and competition at best.

The Maldives, whose size precluded it, or did not require for it to play a major role in the international arena, was always close to India in the past. But that was before the transformations in the global power-paradigm with the rise of China and the onset of a major Sino-Indian rivalry. As was to be expected this became a factor in the domestic politics of the Maldives. Former President Abdullah Yameen leaned towards China. There was a course correction in 2018 when the current President Ibrahim Mohammed Solih seemed to return to the Indian fold. In the meantime, China had already scored a few points by committing US $ 200 million to build the China Maldives Friendship Bridge. This would link the capital Male with the airport island, Hulhule. At the same time there was a clutch of Chinese investments. These included plans for constructing an airport runway and housing projects.

India has now responded with a massive offer of its own. It comes under an umbrella called the Greater Male Connectivity project. The idea is to link Male with three other islands: Villingli, Thilafushi and Gulhifalhu. This will be done through a bridge, a causeway and an embankment. There will also be a port constructed in Gulhifalhu. For these purposes India would advance a loan and a line of credit worth approximately US $ 500 million. The most important component would be the 6.7 km long bridge, the construction of which is now scheduled to begin later this year. The main problem with Indian commitments, in the Maldives, as elsewhere in the region, is in the area of implementation. Disbursement of funds is often painfully slow, and the progress with infrastructural construction even more so. But for now, the government of the Maldives was happy, and President Solih described the deal as a “landmark moment in Maldives-India cooperation”. It is likely that like many other nations in the region, the Maldives will endeavour to navigate carefully between the two powerful protagonists, China and India, and try to reap some benefits from their mutual jostling for position.

It is probably in order to delve a little into the background of intra-mural South Asian politics in this context. When the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the product of a Bangladeshi initiative, was still active, it provided a structural fence around the subcontinental countries, grouping them together, stressing commonalities. But India-Pakistan rivalry has now stalled the activities of the forum. People-to-people contacts within the SAARC framework ceased, as also any public predilection for cooperation. India has encouraged formation of sub-regional bodies in its stead, but Indian preponderance in these has curbed the enthusiasm of others. The smaller South Asian States psychologically feel freer to invite outside actors like China into their midst. So, the state of comatose that afflicts SAARC has actually encouraged smaller South Asian countries to seek external linkages to enhance their capability to deal with India, which will, nevertheless, always remain a major factor in their policies.

Secondly, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)continue to turn more and more towards the fundamentalist values of Hindutva to cement their support among the Hindu power-base , in opposition to the other major community in India, the Muslims, it is likely to impact on their co-religionists of the subcontinent negatively. This includes Muslim-majority countries of South Asia. Here the Maldives assumes a special significance as the Maldivians take their faith seriously, and the government, can ill- afford to ignore this fact in the long run. This is emerging as a major structural problem in BJP-led India’s regional external policy.

So tiny Maldives may be entering a new phase in its policies where powerplay of large global actors will have a role that might grow bigger with time. Its future, as that of many other countries in comparable milieu will be shaped by how deftly it is able to handle this evolving situation.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

There is not much good news for President Donald Trump of the United States these days. If electoral polls have any credibility, he is staring at the face of almost certain defeat in the elections come November. So, when the so-called Abraham Accord between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was sealed in a telephone call between him and the leaders of Israel and the UAE, signalling a sliver of silver lining in the otherwise hovering dark clouds over him, Trump was ecstatic. A Trump twitter called it a “HUGE breakthrough among “three GREAT friends!”.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

How realistic was that claim? Not much. The deal was merely formalizing what has really been happening for years between Israel and the UAE under the table, away from public gaze, but not from public knowledge. Then why this fanfare of high-profile hullaballoo? The timing was important. Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner were brokering a strategy of “outside- in” to resolve this “core” Palestinian crisis in the Middle East. It entailed the strategy of getting Arabs further away from the “centre”, that is, Palestine to create greater pressure on the already besieged Palestinians. The pillar of the deal was that the West Bank would not be annexed. But the pillar began to crumble immediately when the Israelis let the cat out of the bag. Israel said the decision to annex was still on the agenda, but only temporarily suspended at US request so that the agreement may be signed. It seemed a pretty raw deal for the Palestinians, the people most concerned with the agreement, but without any wherewithal to influence it.

The first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country was the one signed in March 1979 between Cairo and Tel Aviv in 1979, for which the Egyptian President, Anwar Saadat, paid with his life. The second was between Israel and Jordan in 1994. But those were between Israel and two of its border states with whom there was a history of wars. The UAE shared no borders and had no military conflicts with Israel. This accord breached an Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) principle that Israel’s bordering (or front-line Arab States) could advance their interests vis-à-vis Israel in the manner they chose as for them the issue was existential. The distant OIC members would continue their non-recognition of Israel in support of the Palestinian cause. The UAE, was the third Arab country to reach such understanding with Israel, and the first from the Gulf. This indicated a success of pro-Israeli powers to salami-slice support away from the Palestinians from other Arab countries.

Broadly, the Abraham accord agreed to the full normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, including the exchange of Ambassadors. Also, it would be followed by agreements on investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications and other issues. Then there was that dicey provision on the annexation of West Bank by Israel which was already unravelling. A massively significant concession was made to Israel by an Arab OIC state without any palpable benefit to the Palestinians. But then, why? Some analysts believe the idea was to give Trump a feather in his cap, where there was none, by his Israeli and Emirati friends. If that was the reason the Accord was a sacrifice of crucial Palestinian interest for a very marginal benefit even for Trump, because the US elections will be fought mainly on domestic issues. Foreign affairs will matter little, and the Middle East, not at all.

There are those who believe the UAE would not have taken this step without a nudge and a wink from Saudi Arabia. Both countries do nothing significant these days without consulting each other. Their Crown Princes, who call the shots in both capitals, are the best of chums. While an overt Saudi Peace treaty with Israel is unlikely to be imminent because the cost to its reputation as the custodian of two of Islam’s holiest shrines would take a big hit , their other Arab friends such as Bahrain and Oman might well be in the queue.

What has been the global reaction to this event? The United Nations and its Secretary General , Antonio Guterres, hardly in a position to, first ,give umbrage to the White House, its provider of financial sustenance, and second, to oppose any peace treaty anywhere, cleverly linked the ‘normalization’ to the hope for a two-State resolution of the Palestinian issue. But Abu Dhabi surely realized that the US was too divided to satisfy all sides, when Trump’s rival, Joe Biden, unable to offend Israel and at the same time unwilling to give Trump any credit, focused mainly on the key issue of annexation. He said: “Annexation would be a blow to the cause of peace, which is why I oppose it now, and will oppose it as President”.

Much of the rest of OIC, led by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, was opposed. Abbas denounced the deal outright. The famed Palestinian negotiator, Hanan Ashrafi, called it a “sell out by friends”. Rejecting the Accord, Hamas saw it as serving the “Zionist narrative”. Iran, a vowed enemy of the Arab monarchies and sheikhdoms (except Qatar- such are the intricacies of the complex intramural Middle east policies), termed the UAE’s action as “a strategic stupidity”, and equated it with “stabbing the Palestinians in the back”. An equally livid Turkey stated that “history will not forget and never forgive the hypocritical behaviour of the UAE”. In South East Asia , close to my perch in Singapore, in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur officials have so far been tight-lipped, though former Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia called the accord “a step backward for peace “, and warned that it would “divide the Muslim world into warring factions” with Israelis adding “fuel to the fire”.

In South Asia, Pakistan, poor yet powerful, had to be, and was, more discreet. Prime Minister Imran Khan, whose voice carried weight in the OIC, but whose purse could be light without Saudi and Emirati support, has not spoken himself as at writing, but the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad has issued a carefully crafted and calibrated statement. It said that the deal “has far reaching implications” and that “Pakistan has an abiding commitment to the full realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the right of self-determination “, obviously bearing Kashmiris in mind. It added “Pakistan’s approach will be guided by our evaluation of how Palestinian rights and aspirations are upheld, and how regional peace, security and stability are preserved”. Like motherhood, no one could quarrel with that line of sentiment.

In the meantime the average Palestinian must be wondering if, for him or her, the Abraham Accord, close at the heels of the festival Eid -ul-Adha, would transform into an Abrahamic sacrifice!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Sri Lanka is a country endowed with abundant natural beauty. The serenity of its geographical bounties matched the peaceful nature of its polity in the aftermath of the passage of power to local political leaders with the withdrawal of the British from the island in 1948. Its Constitution was crafted by some of the brightest legal minds of the British Commonwealth. The nation seemed well on the path to prosperity and progress. So much so, that once Lee Kuan Yew looked upon that country as a model for Singapore, with its commonly shared experience, to emulate.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

With a sense of wary exasperation, the Sri Lankans turned once again to the Rajapaksa brothers. In November 2019, this time, Gotabaya, the younger Rajapaksa won the Presidential polls. He had spoken at my think tank, ISAS in Singapore, on a couple of occasions, and I was fairly familiar with his ideas. During a visit to Sri Lana for a Sri Lankan Military Seminar, I was able to sense the rise of the popularity of the Rajapaksas. Gotabaya, upon winning the Presidency in the November polls, immediately appointed his elder brother, the former President, Mahinda, as the Prime Minister. It was, albeit in a minority government as the Parliamentary elections were yet to be held, and the Rajapaksa popularity wave was not yet reflected in the membership numbers in that House. With some delay due to COVID-19, which incidentally the Rajapasas handled well, with 2839 cases and only 11 deaths , giving them a further electoral boost. Parliamentary elections were held on the 5th of August. Predictably the Rajapaksa Party, Sri Lanka Pradujana Peramuna (SLPP), swept the polls, winning 145 of the 225 Parliamentary seats.

Now only 5 more members supporting would give the SLPP the “super majority” of two-third of the total numbers to carry out any amendments they have in mind. For starters, one would be the restoration of the old powers of the President, a stated aspiration of Gotabaya. Then, as per his promises, other measures would be implemented to make the country economically and militarily secure. Such majority would now be easy to come by. Several other political parties are said to be eager to offer their support to enjoy some privileges of participating in what will naturally be a very powerful government.

There is one lurking danger, however. The elder brother Mahinda Rajapaksa has always enjoyed being the one calling the shots. Indeed, during his previous ten year rule the ideological basis of governance was a set of concepts entitled Mahihda Chinta, literally translatable as ‘Thoughts of Mahinda’, reminiscent of Mao’s ‘Red Book’ or the ‘Green Book’ of Libya’s Moammer Gaddafi. That could be seen as perilously close to an admiration for a personality cult of his own. So, are there any potentials of future differences between the two brothers, now that the planned reforms, to be passed by the “super majority” Parliament and Prime Minister would accord greater powers to the President? A possibility, but an unlikely one, given, at least as of now, the proximity of the siblings, not just Mahinda and Gotabaya, but others, who are also in the political power-core. It is more likely that the ideas of all the siblings will fuse into an over-arching “Rajapaksa Chinta’, the ‘Thoughts of the Rajapaksas’.

The massive return of the Rajapaksas will have significant implications for global and regional politics. South Asia and the Indian Ocean region is currently witnessing a highly sharpened Sino-Indian rivalry. This is also being played out in all the neighbouring countries of India, except for in Pakistan, where the Chinese sway is paramount. In the past, India, had been supportive of the Hindu Tamil minority in international fora which had caused the Rajapaksas to turn towards China. Mahinda actually blamed India for his electoral defeat in 2015. The predilections of the Bharatiya Janata Party government of Narendra Modi in India for Hindutva could exacerbate problems of relationship with Sri Lanka as well, as in the case with other countries in the region.

China, long India’s rival for Sri Lanka’s attentions, had funded the Humbantota port project in the Rajapaksa hometown, which did create a debt-issue, that might, however, be re-examined under the new circumstances. Thereafter China provided US $1,4 billion for the Colombo port-city project, which is expected to hugely help transform the Sri Lankan economy. Actually, now that the Rajapaksa will have untrammeled power to decide as they choose, they could be rationally look to China’s vast financial capabilities for the fruition of their aspiration to turn Colombo into a global financial hub.

On the other hand, the India -Japan collaborative East Container Terminal project, signed during the previous Sirisena government seems about to come a cropper, faced with massive problems and major strikes. The Rajapaksas have been left unimpressed with regards to its tardy progress. Nonetheless, Narendra Modi of India won the race to be the first of the two competing rivals to reach the Rajapaksas in offering congratulations on the electoral victory. But it is unsure what role such an optical triumph will play in determining the ultimate policies of the victorious Rajapakesa brothers which are likely to be shaped by deeper reflections on the perceived national self-interest of their country.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

President Jimmy Carter of the United States had once paid Iran glowing tributes, which was received quite normally in American policy circles and raised no eyebrows: He had said: “(Iran was) an island of stability in one of the most troubled areas of the world”. In one of the weirdest ironies of history, within months in 1979, with the Iranian Revolution, the perception of Iran in American eyes underwent a most radical transformation. It was followed by the hostage-taking of American diplomats, and a nose-diving of bilateral relations. Since 1980 there have been no diplomatic connections. However, over the years a kind of modus vivendi had evolved, a grudging tolerance of each other accompanied by some functional interactions. Eventually, in 2015, the US along with key European States entered into what was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), virtually capping Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and largely stabilizing the relationship.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

In the meantime, China under Xi Jinping was rapidly racing to reach the status of a global peer of the US. It had won over dozens of nations by funding their critical infrastructures through its mega-project entitled Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), both on the land (Belt) and sea (Road). The strategy was to achieve its aspiration of Zhongguo Meng or ‘China Dream’, aided by its deep pockets, abundant resources, and swiftly growing technology. The US was chary of letting another power rise to the level of an equal as it felt it would erode its power and security. Also, Trump needed a rallying point for his support- base, comprising white, red-neck, non-College educated, and overly-patriotic zealous Americans. This he did by taking issue with China, held in suspicion not just by this group but also some other American interests, on a host of subjects. He, therefore, adopted many anti-China policies on trade and in other areas. So, a most logical consequence occurred.

Mutual concerns and interests drew Iran and China together. It found fruition in a deal, about to be formalized, involving approximately US $ 400 billion of Chinese investments in Iran over the next 25 years.

Some important details of that understanding have now come to light, though these are subject now to formal approval by both parties. The projects, which number over 100, cover a very diverse field. These include oil trade, infrastructural development, airports, high speed railways, and extend to the field of military cooperation. China will be setting up three free trade zones spread across the country. Obviously, these would be significant components of the BRI.

These arrangements were being negotiated steadily over the last four years or so. When President Xi jinping visited Iran in 2016, the two countries agreed to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, the highest pecking order of China’s relationship with any other country. At that point in time both sides agreed to commence negotiations to provide more meat to the broad framework through further negotiations. This gradually gathered momentum as the US relations with both China and Iran continued to deteriorate. It was now clear that both China and Iran seemed ideal scape-goats to be targeted by Trump , as be began to badly needed a cause that might unite a sizeable segment of the electorate behind him in order to lift his perilously low level of support among voters, as indicated by almost every pre-election prediction polls.

As stated, formal approval from both sides are still awaited. It is being debated more in Iran than in China. Since the dependence of Iran on the West during the period of Reza Shah Pahlavi in the Cold war era, Iran has never relied so much on a foreign partner. There are some apprehensions in Tehran on the possibilities of indebtedness to China and associated problems. The Iranian Foreign minister Javad Zareef has had to provide detailed explanations to queries raised in the Parliament. Important personalities like former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appear to be requiring some convincing. At the end, given that the US pressure on Iran is unrelenting, the appropriate authorities in Iran are most likely to accord their approval. In China no such deliberations appear to have taken place. The deal , therefore, is most likely to go through.

This possible united front of the two oldest Asian civilizations, the Persian and the Chinese, will have huge ramifications for contemporary global politics. This partnership is also certain to have the blessings of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. This would add to the solidification of an eastern front vis-à-vis the West, particularly the US. Some Asian powers, however, would be worried. India, for instance, given its poor relations with China , would have cause for concern, particularly as the construction of Charbahar port, once its responsibility which was being poorly executed , partly due to the fear of US opprobrium, and partly due to sheer inefficiency, would now, most likely, pass on to its rival China. So if Cold War 2.0 should come to pass on the global scene, a new line-up in the east, with China and Iran, and Russia in tow, is likely to emerge on the international political matrix ranged against the US and its allies.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

On the first Sunday of July, there was an important telephone call between the Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi and the Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Duval. Some important decisions were announced thereafter. This is not to say that these were the outcome of that interaction only. For weeks the militaries of both China and India and their diplomats had been negotiating on the grounds of the disputed territory along the Line of actual Control at the Galwan Valley, as well as through other channels to end the bloodiest border stand-off between the two Asian powers that had lasted two months. True, while not a bullet was fired in anger, troops had battled with sticks and stones that left twenty Indian soldiers dead and, reportedly, an unknown number of Chinese casualties. Indeed, it appeared that the two sides, who had fought a war in the Himalayas in 1962, was yet again on the brink of a possible war.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The crisis between China and India seemed to have gone ignored by much of the world. Some Indians, if social media was any indication of prevalent sentiments, appeared to veer towards the US, as a source of traditional counterbalance to China. The embattled US Administration did little to assuage Indian friends, and in a Hawaii between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chinese senior leader Yang Jiechi the Indo-Chinese spat found a mention only in passing. The Europeans urged calm on both parties reluctant to choose sides. India’s immediate neighbours, nearly each of whom had issues with India,( either bilateral or flowing out of India’s domestic legislations alienating Muslims) and being beneficiaries of China’s deep pockets, remained silent, except India’s arch-rival Pakistan, which unsurprisingly supported China. So, both China and India seemed bereft of any significant external support, and were largely left on their own to resolve the issues.

Only Russia, friend to both China and India, seemed interested to constructively engage to help stabilize. In late June, in a celebration of Russian victory over Nazi Germany in the Second World war, the two key guests who turned up in Moscow, even in masks, were the Defence Ministers of India and China, though neither country had any significant contribution to Moscow’s wartime triumph over Berlin. It would be naïve to believe Russian diplomacy did nothing to try close gaps between the battling protagonists, though Delhi claimed the two never met, which ironically, might have yielded better results, and probably did, than if they had actually interacted frontally!

While the standstill was in progress, there was a huge display of nationalism, particularly in India, where the electronic and print media went to town in criticism of China. Stiff retaliation was being urged upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi, himself struggling to lead India out of the twin crises of COVID19, and a major economic downturn. Modi was aware that war would mean taking on China and Pakistan simultaneously, a tall order at any time, and now more so given the global situation. So, Modi opted for discretion as being the better part of valour, did the right thing by visiting troops at the borders, and also by being extremely circumspect in getting Indian forces to exercise ‘fire control’ at the borders. The Chinese public opinion was eerily quiet, as if nothing significant was happening, except that the ‘Global Times’ often seen as Beijing’s mouthpiece, would issue warnings from time to time urging India to desist from provocative actions. China put across that its primary ‘contradiction’ was the US, not India, but any attempts to join efforts to constrain China would be severely dealt with. What China was doing was reading India the riot act from the textbook of ‘scientific realism’ in international affairs.

Immediately following the Duval- Yang Jiechi talk, Delhi issued a Press statement which said that “it was necessary to ensure at the earliest the complete disengagement of the troops along the LAC and de-escalation from India-China border areas for full restoration of peace and tranquillity” (Peace and tranquillity , ironically, is an oft cited expression that the Indians and Chinese use to describe their relations- this is also how they call the LAC line- however incongruous it may sound to the existing realities!) The Chinese Foreign Office also said, after the phone conversation, that the two sides had made ‘positive progress… to disengage frontline troops and ease the border situation. The Chinese were reportedly seen removing tents and structures in the Galwan valley. However, they will doubtless ensure capabilities are close at hand for instant deployment, if needs be. Indian withdrawal is as yet unreported at writing, but will surely happen, because India cannot afford to be engaged in a firefight with China at this time. It remains to be seen how far this disengagement can translate into genuine de-escalation. In July 1962 Chinese troops had disengaged from the Indians only to sweep down the Himalayas with a full-blown invasion in less than four months!

Even as they were withdrawing this time, the Chinese took out an insurance on Indian good behaviour, from China’s perspective. This was a Chinese fresh claim over Sakteng wildlife sanctuary in eastern Bhutan’s Trashigang district, supposedly based on an agreement between Bhutan and Tibet in the early eighteenth century. This is far away from Ladakh, on the eastern side of the LAC. Now, Bhutan, though sovereign, is bound by treaty obligations to India’s oversight of its foreign relations. Should it entertain any aspiration for untrammelled relations with China, this is not likely to be approved by Delhi. Now this Chinese claim is on territory that has no border with China, but with Arunachal, the Indian State, the entirety of which China claims for itself.

Obviously, this is something the Chinese now have on the files, to be brought up at any time in the future, if so required. It also serves as encouragement to Bhutan to obtain its full autonomy from Delhi, with a warning that links with India henceforth will come at a price! Also, it is noteworthy that the lesson of history is that China might give up on territories tactically, but not on its claims.

In future, the two dominating powers will be the US and China. But in the meantime, there will be a period of instability as China maneuvers to position itself to be a peer of the US, which the US will oppose. At this time some deft crisis management will be necessary. If there is a new Administration in Washington after the November elections, it will settle down to business as usual with Beijing because of the pre-existing economic linkages, and sober policy analysis will support such policy-direction. The course of deglobalization that COVID 19 has set in motion is likely to be corrected. Just as no man is an island, States in the global -system cannot also function in isolation over a long period of time. Depending on the nature of post-COVID recovery, it will be a slow process, but an inexorable one.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac @nus.edu.sg

Source: UNB United News of Bangladesh

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Singaporeans went to polls on Friday the 10th of July. It was a crisis election, seen as the most significant since the country’s independence in 1965, given the backdrop of the COVID 19 pandemic and its massive negative impact on the economy on this small but wealthy island republic. Out of a population of nearly 5.85 million on election day, the number of registered voters stood at 2.65 million. It was no surprise that in a nation with a reputation of unmatchable discipline, the voting was an orderly process. In conformity with rules each voter was masked, safe distancing was scrupulously maintained, and their hands were sanitized as they entered the booths. The elderly, who needed it, were provided assistance. The electorate returned what has been assessed as a sophisticated, calibrated and mature outcome. It re-elected the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP) to power with a sufficiently strong enough mandate to help it pull the nation out of the crisis. At the same time, it also created a diversity in the legislature that would ensure that the government did not have a blank cheque for unrestricted authority.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

One critique, that surfaced during the campaign, however, was the question of inequitable wealth distribution. This was a major thrust of the principal opposition platform, the Worker’s Party (WP), led by Pritam Singh, a bright and urbane political luminary, with impressive academic and leadership credentials. The PAP has consistently maintained that the Progressive Wage Model, currently mandatory in many sectors, works well for Singapore. The WP on the other hand has pitched for a national minimum wage, arguing that it ensures a baseline level of income for all, and signals the inherent dignity of labour in Singapore. Singh also insisted that the government becomes more responsive to people’s concerns when it loses seats. While for a variety of reasons the PAP’s return was a certainty, the key element was with what numbers. Singh’s WP contested for 21 seats, and secured 10, the best performance by any opposition party in Singapore’s electoral history. It was obvious that some of the points of the opposition had resonated with the electorate. Two other parties participated in the hustings: the Progressive Singapore Party (PSP) of the veteran opposition politician, Tan Cheng Bok, and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) of Dr Chee Soon Juan. They put up a nail-bitingly close fights in several constituencies, but in the end failed to win any.

The campaign itself was conducted on-line, with well -organized structured debates, and avoiding crowds in line with current public health guide- lines. There were some interesting debates. The PAP positioned itself as the best party to lead the country out of the Covid crisis, as they had done in the case of other adverse situations before. They referred to the massive governmental fiscal injections of amounts totaling S $ 92 billion across four budgets to help the recovery process, tapping the country’s war-chest of reserves. Yet due the lock-down jobs were lost, and many companies folded. The PAP might have paid some price for it. Also, the government received some flak for the large number of infections in foreign worker’s dormitories, 45, 000 cases in total, as also for the pre-existing unsatisfactory living conditions there. What went in the PAP’s favour was the low number of deaths, only 26 in all, and the medical servicing, undoubtedly one of the best in the world. An interesting debate that drew some attention was an SDP claim that Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, Lee Hsien Loong’s successor down the line, had publicly toyed with the idea of raising the island’s population to 10 million by bringing in more foreigner. The government quickly reacted by denying it. During the campaign WP projected itself as a moderate and rational entity, and largely desisted from criticizing the government’s role in the handling of the Covid issue, which, given the complexity of the crisis, reflected a pragmatic line of thinking. The WP’s success in bagging the largest number of seats for any opposition party in Singapore’s electoral history, doubling its number of 5 from the last polls to 10 in this one, seemed to be a result of prudent politics.

Singaporeans have no doubt that their government is better able to deliver in terms of good governance than most others around the world. Yet they have some concerns that they needed to demonstrate to the government, which they did by clawing back on some support. Prime Minister Lee Hsieng Loong took note. Viewing the results as a renewal of “a clear mandate”, he nevertheless, saw them as reflecting “the pain and anxiety the Singaporeans feel in this crisis”, also resulting in” a desire for more diversity”. Lee offered Singh the official designation of ‘Leader of Opposition’ another first in Singapore politics. Singh accepted with thanks, and also displayed all intentions of helping make the Parliament a robust forum for constructive deliberations.

With the elections behind him, which was a constitutional requirement time wise, and now armed with a fresh mandate, Lee will turn to addressing issues on hand largely unimpeded. Singapore has a unique system of transferring leadership from one generation to another, priming the new- comers for the responsibilities for a period of time. His own generation is called ‘3 G’ or the third generation of leaders, and Heng Swee Keat and his team, a younger lot, ‘4 G’, or fourth generation. There would be no need for any other election for Lee to seamlessly transfer the baton to Heng, who has proved himself a sharp intellect , efficient manager and a tireless worker despite a health hiccup some time ago,, but it will not happen just yet. This came through when Lee said to at a post- polls press briefing: “I will use this mandate responsibly through the crisis to deal with Covid 19 and the economic downturn and to take us safely through this crisis and beyond”. This could mean the transition might need to wait another one and half to two years. The time will most certainly be well used.

So, politically and economically, Singapore is on a post-Covid path to recovery. It will organize itself domestically to prepare to re-engage the outside world, with which this free-economy is so interconnected, when the others begin to open up as China has. Even prior to the pandemic, Asian economies were on the rise. The manner in which Covid19 has impacted on the US and European economies, and revealed some of their structural weaknesses, with Asia ( particularly South-East and East Asia) doing a much better job handling it, the crisis is like to provide even a greater fillip to Asia in the future. There will be an obvious role for Singapore for it, notwithstanding the current technical recession. A possible scenario beyond the rim of the saucer is ‘a flying geese’ paradigm for Asian economies, with China in the lead, and others like Singapore closely following. Of course, there are existing intra-mural political and security issues among them, which will require some deft diplomatic handling.

Singapore will also look out for new partners in other regions including in neighbouring South Asia. Bangladesh has the potentials for being one such. While the Pandemic is still a huge issue which Bangladesh is grappling with at this point in time, there will still be an afterwards. The fundamentals in Bangladesh are perhaps stronger than most other countries in the region. Singapore has vast experience of China, and China has huge investments in Bangladesh, with more in the pipeline. Logically Singapore could be an effective learning and functioning conduit between the two, both between companies and governments. Singapore also has large sovereign funds looking to potential investments. Bangladeshi businesses must learn that Singapore is much more than just a medical-tourism destination. During a visit to Singapore two years ago, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina offered lands for a Special Economic Zone for Singaporean investors. It is now time to resuscitate that project.

John F Kennedy used to say that in Chinese the word ‘crisis’ is composed of two characters, the one representing ‘danger’ and the other ‘opportunity’. He was wrong, for it does not. But what is right is that human efforts can actually create the correlation. Properly handled, the kite does rise against the wind.

Source: UNB United News of Bangladesh

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

William Somerset Maugham was already an established author when he began to focus on short stories. His interest in this genre was actually meant to have been a form of relief from novel-writing, but interestingly it was this literary form that rendered him more famous in the East. Though intensely English in attitudes and behaviour, he was not quite a ‘legit Brit’. Born in Paris (in 1874), he learnt to speak in French before he spoke English, spent some time studying at Heidelberg Germany, before continuing further education in England, then settled down in the south of France. Having written a few novels, he turned to short stories. Perhaps due to his cosmopolitan exposure, he was deeply influenced, in his short stories, by foreign writers. In particular, the Russian author Chekov and the Frenchman Guy de Maupassant.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

Maugham’s style was as ordered as his general plan. His language was simple and mellifluous. He liked to describe at length, almost exasperatingly so, but later corrected himself. His sentences were short. They balanced one another and were balanced in themselves. The wry sense of humour was pervasive, tempered by astringent cynicism. His writings had the requisite elements of character, emotion, and often an interesting cultural milieu. He used minimum of ornamentation in his prose, concentrating unflinchingly on the narrative line. He introduced readers to ‘shades of grey’ in life. His characters have streaks of virtue and vice that interplay in the narrative. His plots were compact. He thought the writer should need to prove nothing. Only paint a picture and leave it before you. You could take it or leave it. Most took it.

His philosophy in life was discernible in his “The summing Up’. It was one of resigned atheism and certain skepticism about the extent of man’s innate goodness and intelligence. In a very English fashion he understates his own profundity. He said: “I have never been anything but a story- teller; It has amused me to tell stories, and I have told a good many”.

Unlike his fellow Englishman, Rudyard Kipling, he held no brief for England’s imperial aspirations. In stories such as the “Rain” he comes through as an incisive allegorical critique of the white man’s colonial impulses. Maugham added a touch of the exotic oriental mystique as a backdrop to this tale of a white missionary’s fallibility. It was in the form of the incessant rain that continued to pour down with relentless force, unlike the light English drizzle ,as the story unfolds, symbolizing a pathetic fallacy that foreshadows a tragedy (the missionary’s suicide). Like many of his ilk in his time in Victorian and Edwardian England, he reached back to classical Greece for some of his techniques. A key one was ‘Anagnorisis’, a Greek word which translated into English means “recognition”. This is a moment in the unfolding of a tale that one character, oftentimes the hero or heroine suddenly recognizes another as being different from how he or she was initially perceived. As can be seen in his “Mister Know-All”.

Maugham first came to Singapore in 1921. He kept on coming back for four decades till a few years before his death (he died in 1965). He lived at the ‘Raffles Hotel’ which is still a landmark in the island Republic. He sat beneath a fragrant frangipani tree in the hotel’s’ Palm Court’ and crafted stories from tidbits of gossip overheard while dining with the local gentry. These men and women lived in rubber plantations of the Malay Straits, and had impeccable manners, afternoon teas, and evening cocktails of gin and tonic and the ‘Singapore Sling’. Often, they had deeply flawed human character, a treat for the observant writer. This was much like in the tea gardens in our parts, in Sylhet or in Darjeeling, which also inspired a contemporary Indian, Mulk Raj Anand, perhaps India’s first prominent English novelist.

In Singapore, British colonialism was spread more by the pen, rather than by the sword. Which is perhaps why, as the city was about to fall to the Japanese during World war II in 1942, Singaporeans made their “last stand” at the ‘Raffles’, not to fight, for they had already surrendered, but to sing the strains of “there shall always be an England, and England shall be free”. Maugham has at times used the term “Bengali” while describing the man on the street in Singapore. However, this “Bengali” was not necessarily a Bengali-speaking person, for those days it referred to anyone in Singapore coming over from Calcutta by ship, mostly Sikhs. The Tamils, on the other hand, came separately from Madras. Indeed, Singapore from 1830 to 1867, with the rest of the Straits, formed a part of the Bengal Presidency and was ruled from Calcutta. This is evidenced even at present in the architecture of many of the older buildings in the central parts, as also in names like ‘Victoria Hall’, ‘Clive Street’ or ‘Outram station’. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose issued his clarion call for India’s freedom-struggle from Singapore, through his famous address while launching the Azad hind Fauj:“Tum mujhe khoon do , mein tumhe Azadi dunga”! (You give me blood, and in return, I shall give you freedom!)

I want to make an important point here. From the very beginning, as a part of national strategy Singapore has sought to weave its British intellectual heritage with its Chinese-Malay-Indian ethos. This it has done in order to create a cosmopolitan backdrop, and also retain the past western linkages, (one reason why Sir Stamford Raffles rather than a local was ‘selected’ to be the ‘Founder’ of Modern Singapore) to facilitate its current role as a global financial and knowledge hub. To that perhaps, is also owed the fact that the National University of Singapore (NUS) is rated as Asia’s foremost citadel of learning. It has also helped the overwhelmingly Chinese city de-emphasize any ethnic nationalist tendencies, and successfully build a harmonious relationship with the other two communities, the Malays and the Indians. Also to create a separate identity, distinct from the origin of its majority population, which is why, today, as the world is being increasingly dichotomized between the two powers, the United states and China, Singapore is still able to deftly navigate between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh. The views addressed in the article are his own. He can be reached at: isasiac@nus.edu.sg

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

Credit: shutterstock / getty / the atlantic

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
Jun 30 2020 (IPS-Partners)

President Donald Trump has got himself a wall. But it is not the one of his choosing, as one on the Mexican border. It is on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, a high fence that now separates him from his people. But as polls for him keep dipping, and the prognosis for a victory in the upcoming November elections keep worsening, a prediction from an unlikely person should bring him cheer. The source is none other than the Foreign Minister of a country that Trump considers to be in the forefront of his list of foes: Javad Zareef of Iran. I have known Zareef and worked with him as a fellow diplomat for years and would rate him as a person of extraordinary intellect. Speaking at an interview on Instagram with an Iranian journalist Farid Modaressi, Zareef stated that despite all that is happening, Trump’s support base of 30 to 35 percent has not moved , and till that occurs, he still has over 50 percent chances of re-election. Zareef did not elaborate if he himself would prefer such an outcome, calculating that four more years of America with Trump at its helm , might eliminate that nation totally from the global power scene, which for Zareef and Iran, ought to be a consummation devoutly to be wished!

Whether he gets re-elected or not, Trump is already facing an awkward situation of isolation on an international plane, particularly with regard to western peers of allied countries, whom analysts could be forgiven at this point for calling ex-allies. The logical and mathematical problem is an inverse correlation; it is that the more Trump acts to solidify his base domestically, the distance between him and Western leaders increase, as it were, in a geometric progression. The four major issues are as follows: The first is the ratcheting up of the disputes with China and Iran; the second is the withdrawal from the World Health Organization; the third is the withdrawal from security responsibilities all around the world and the fourth is his unseemly predilection for using force, even active-duty military personnel , to “dominate the streets” (as he says ) of America and quell the ongoing protests.

All these would sit nicely with the far- right redneck, working class America which is Trump’s core support base. If he could add to this ‘corporate America’, the evangelicals, and wean away the Southern whites from the Democratic camp (usually known, dating back to the Nixon era, as the “Southern Strategy”) he might have a sufficient segment of the white majority to pull it through. But this would be predicated on his ability to revive the economy. Hence the desperation to ‘open-up’ despite obvious health hazards to all in general, and to the minority, in particular.

To boost nationalism without having to fight a war, raising the level of heat in the dispute with foreign and culturally different nations like Iran and China would be vote-getting in the American context. Though it was an Englishman, Lord Palmerstone in the 19th century who had said “God made a mistake when He made foreigners”, it is most Americans, exhausted with involvements abroad, who actually tend to believe so. Hence the penchant for the return to “fortress America” or back to the “city on a shining hill”. While countries of the old world are often wary of nationalism, the cause of many conflicts, jingoism in America is more easily roused. There, many houses would fly the flag –the Star Spangled Banner-and most Americans would sing the national anthem with fervent enthusiasm, and a hand on the heart.

So, it stood to electoral reason when Trump cancelled US participation from the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal. It left the other partners, apart from the US and Iran-the European Union, Germany, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and China -holding the ball vis-à-vis Iran, and very angry. Iran, once a screw-driver’s turn away from acquisition of nuclear-weapon capability started enriching uranium again, but as of now, has been broadly complying with the regulations. Trump’s decision to pull out of the WHO at a time in the perception of others the body was playing an essential role during the Covid-19 pandemic, came as a surprise to the allies. The decision to withdraw US troops from the world’s trouble spots perturbed the others. While not all were pleased with China’s current global role, they were anxious to keep Beijing engaged and Europe was unwilling to break the economic ties. Finally, the upsurge of the “Black life matters” protests, and the force which Trump was employing to quell them upset his partners no end. Europeans tend to put more store by the value of human rights. So, European leaders realized that in their own domestic situations, as Trump grew increasingly unpopular globally and appeared to endorse breaching of human rights, proximity to him was costing them politically and electorally on their own home grounds.

Therefore, when Trump wanted to host a G-7 meeting in Washington in June to rally friends against China and display that he still wielded some global clout, the other members declined to oblige. Angela Merkel of Germany immediately rejected the invitation. Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister said, with ample persuasive logic, that the Germans suspected that it would just be a photo-op in the White House. Trump’s inexplicable desire to invite Vladimir Putin of Russia as a gues, put his friend Boris Johnson of Britain at odds with him. Also, Justin Trudeau of Canada, who took a knee emphasizing with a race-protesters, and delayed a response to a query on Trump by twenty-two seconds,to the amusement of all present. But Trump was not amused. He called off the G-7 meeting and announced his intention to reduce troop-presence in Germany. Scott Morrison of Australia was a rare case of one who remained loyal to Trump, but was cut adrift. He was left to fend for himself in his battle with an assertive Xi Jinping of China, as also with one of his own States, Victoria, which was unwilling to reduce ties with China.

Consequently, Trump was left ploughing a lonely furrow, fenced in at the White house. Some analysts, with regard to him, have raised the specter of ‘Gottendammarung”, which is German for ‘The twilight of the gods’. It is derived from the last of the four cycles of Richard Wagner’s celebrated dramatic rendition of the mythical tale of “The Ring of the Nibelungen”. This opera ends with the palace of the Norse gods, the Valhalla, with all its inmates, consumed in and utterly destroyed by a horrific conflagration, epitomizing the end of a society or regime in violent catastrophe. This could be an exaggerated vision of the conclusion of the Trump era, but the prospects of such a possibility is gaining currency.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asia Studies, National University of Singapore. He is a former Foreign Advisor (Foreign Minister) of Bangladesh and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier

Left: German Ambassador to Singapore Ulrich Sante and Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan at the official opening of the German European School Singapore on Sept 13, 2018. Dr Sante says he will be leaving Singapore with a heavy heart but also a treasure trove of good memories. PHOTO: GERMAN EUROPEAN SCHOOL SINGAPORE

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
SINGAPORE, Jun 15 2020 (IPS-Partners)

The departing German envoy in Singapore, Ambassador Ulrich Sante, in a recent published article in the Straits Times shared some of his thoughts with the readership including on the impact on the community of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Among other things he has noted that it has implanted in us what in German is called Lebensangst, literally meaning ‘fear of life’ but in a broader sense, the loss of trust in resilience, and coldness. He has impassionedly argued: “We need to regain trust in each other again, to show warmth and affection and not treat everyone as potential messengers of death. Social distancing serves its purpose, but it cannot be a recipe for all time. It has the power to lead to social division, perhaps the most serious danger our societies face these days”. He is right. There is nothing to replace a light touch or a gentle caress to bring humans closer together. The handshake and the embrace were tools devised as humanity progressed towards civilized conduct, as these acts were performed to demonstrate that those hands carried no weapons.

This essay wishes to make three points with relevance to how pandemics have shaped human and societal behaviour in their wake. The first is that these have tended to strain love and friendship throughout ages. In Classical Greece, the historian Thucydides has recorded an account of a plague that ravaged Athens around the time of the Peloponnesian War. He noted the resultant breaks in friendships and observed “the dejection of mind” that accompanied it. To visit the sick at that time was to invite death on yourself; not to visit was to allow the stricken to die lonely and forlorn. It was truly placing yourself between Scylla and Charybdis. The Philosopher Aristotle described man, above all, as a social animal. The Greeks believed that social gatherings, theatres, the Olympic games and the like energized the human spirit and lifted the mind and intellect, enabling the pursuit of higher ideals.

Closer to our times, during the Asian Influenza of 1957-58, the pandemic spread from the Far East, through South East Asia to the South Asian sub-continent. But in a few weeks the severity of the virus gradually declined. That brought about a rapid change in human behaviour. The carrier of the germ was not seen as an angel of death, but a victim to be cared for. Friends and families rallied together. In this island, Singapore, communities such as the Chinese, Malays and Indians held hands and provided relief and succour to one another.

A second point is the proclivity for finger- pointing blame at aliens or foreigners. The Black death in Europe in the fourteenth century, that decimated the continent’s population, was attributed to the Mongol hordes from the Central Asian steppes that had been besieging and attacking the cities of Mediaeval Europe relentlessly. The cholera epidemic in Britain in the nineteenth century was said to have emanated from Calcutta, in Bengal, British India. In turn, when the outbreak occurred in East Coast America later in the century, it was the Irish community from the British isles, who constituted the indigent segment of the immigrant population was blamed. The most recent example of this is a current one ,that of President Donald Trump’s insistence on calling the COVID-19 “Wuhan virus” , even alleging that it was manmade in a laboratory rather than involving ‘zoonatic’ animal to human contagion ,to the great chagrin of the Chinese. Indeed, this accusation has not only sharpened the divide between US and China considerably, to the extent of bringing the world closer to the onset of a new Cold War, or even a full-blown war.

A third point would be the resultant empowerment of the State. Because other elements within the civic system , such as the civil society , the private sector and the non-governmental institutions do not possess the wherewithal to counter a threat of the proportions a pandemic of the current kind pose , the State , by default , has to step in. This is often with the consensus of the community. Since States would concern themselves with their own population, this can come at the expense of globalist sentiments. Since supply chains can become affected, there would be a consequent preference for self-reliance. This would militate against the notion of globalization and free trade based on the principles of comparative advantages. Global bodies that have been created to uphold and encourage free trade are adversely affected. We see an example of this in the growing ineffectiveness today of the World Trade Organization, leading to the resignation of its Director General. Burgeoning nationalism would prioritize State self-interest, as is evidenced in the US pushback against the World Health Organization, alleging its bias for China. As States, as individuals, self-isolate, multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, suffer. The absence of a global watchman as the UN could sharpen inter-state issues and disputes. Increasing self-reliant isolationism, weakening of multilateral institutions, and growing nationalism can feed inter-State conflicts as we see in the current spats between the US and China and China and India. Massive numbers of Pandemic deaths erode the fear of large number of fatalities that can result from war, which is always a deterrence to inter -State conflict. A combined result of all this is that Wars are rendered more likely. As a result, even the thresh-hold of a Nuclear war could be lowered.

So, what happens to the individual as all these phenomena unfold. It is, not surprising, therefore, that in most recent times there is a perceptible rise of a sense of helplessness that a person might feel. Hence, there would be, as there perhaps is, a propensity to a resort to seeking contentment from the circumstances in the best way possible. This explains the growing popularity all across the world of the ideas proffered by Stoicism, a philosophy that originated in Classical Greece. It evolved at points in time when human beings were confronting situations that they felt they were unable to control, including epidemics and war. Note the similarity to our own current times. Stoicism taught that eudaimonia or happiness (in Greek) can be found by accepting the moment as it presents itself. The famous Stoic teacher Epictetus once displayed the supreme serenity of reason by calmly observing : “If I am to die now , I shall die; If I am to die later , then I shall have my lunch, for the hour of lunch has come, and I shall tend to dying later!”

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at ISAS, National University of Singapore, former Foreign Advisor and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

The eyes of much of the world were focused on Beijing during the last week of May. That was because China had scheduled for that time-perod what is generally collectively termed “Two Sessions” or Lianghui in Mandarin. These are back-to-back annual parliamentary meetings of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) and the National People’s Congress (NPC). The event usually take place in March, but this year had to be pushed back to May because of the COVID virus. Again, ordinarily, these last ten days, but this year, for the same reason, the period was compressed to a week.

The first, the CCPPC, which has 2000 representatives drawn from different segments of society is considered the country’s foremost political advisory body, is mandated to make proposals and advance policy suggestions to the government. At this meeting they offered hundreds of proposals on public health security. This session, which kicks of the Liangui, was followed as is wont, by the session of the NPC, which, with its 3000 delegates is usually considered the nation’s legislative organ. It is tasked to review and endorse the government’s immediate past and future work, adopt fresh legislation, approve the budget and ratify senior administrative appointments. Unsurprisingly, of the two sessions, that of the NPC is more keenly watched.

In the past China’s “Two sessions” had rarely not gripped the global media. These did not feature the lively debates of the British House of Commons, or the hullaballoo of the Indian Lok Sabha. But currently the attention has grown enormously. This is in tandem of the perceptible rise of China, not only as the world’s second largest economy, but also as a superpower peer. Behind the veneer of apparently staid rubber stamp Chinese bodies, the international media and global powers are now aware that huge politics are at play, and they are at pains to discern their intricacies. The speeches made there are seriously parsed and the body-language of the key participants carefully noted and analyzed. For all are aware that what happens during these deliberations in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, do not remain in Beijing but have a huge impact on the world beyond.

A major event in the NPC, as is always the case, was the presentation of the Annual work Report by Premier Li Keqiang. In this session stabilizing employment, ensuring living standards and eliminating poverty were the key themes. Li announced fiscal and monetary policies to stimulate the economy, but with a modicum of restraint. He noted the challenges in the external environment posed by the China-United states strategic rivalry, the global recession, and the anti-globalization sentiments. He made known that domestic consumption, and advances in high technology, would be the key components of China’s response.

Economists and financial analysts waited with bated breath to see if Li would declare a growth target in this pandemic year. He did not. Last year he had set it at between 6 to 6.5 percent of the GDP, a modest one by Chinese standards, and it did grow by 6.1 per cent, in the midst of a fierce trade war with the US. Showing prudence, this year he eschewed naming a growth figure number. He attributed this to “the COVID-19 and the world economic and trade environment”. To spur the economy, China would raise the budget deficit target from 2.8 per cent of the GDP last year to3.6 per cent, breaching the self-imposed traditional ceiling of 3 per cent. Also, a 1 trillion yuan special government bond was to be issued. A logical take-away of the observers was that China was adjusting to realities of the situation, but confident of a recovery, and indeed of leading the way in this regard.

The main outcome, that dominated overseas commentary, came with the decision to impose national security legislation in Hong Kong. Such an attempt was made in the past in 2003, but withdrawn after half a million protesters took to the streets in Hong Kong .Since Hon Kong’s return to China in 1997, the former British Colony had been governed under a “one country, two systems” principle , guaranteeing a high degree of autonomy for 50 years, with Beijing controlling defence and foreign affairs. This also facilitated special trade privileges from the US, upon certification of the State Department of the continuation of such autonomy. The legislation, likely to be implemented this summer would allow for “relevant security organs” to set up units in Hong Kong, raising fears among some Hong Kongers that the “two systems” principle would be eroded, though Beijing denied it , citing the narrow and specific focus of the law.

Unconvinced by Beijing’s explanation, thousands of demonstrators hit the streets. Scenes created brought back memories of the chaos of last year’s anti-government protests. But the fact that after seventeen years Beijing had resurrected the legislation displayed confidence in their capabilities this time round. This, despite their full awareness that the US and the West would react adversely. China obviously believes it has come a long way since 2003. The United Kingdom immediately made an offer of the possibilities of citizenship to Hong Kongers choosing to make such application. The US State Department denied the ‘autonomy ‘certification that was necessary for continued trade privileges. President Donald Trump, already making his anti-China agenda a key plank of his re-election campaign, immediately revoked Hong Kong’s trade privileges, stating that the island would be treated at par with China.

Ironically, this may be exactly what China wants; that Hong Kong is organically its part! Beijing must have calculated that it has sufficient fiscal wherewithal to counter major dents to Honk Kong’s economy by US actions. Though it appears to deny it , it may actually have other options as economic hubs, should Hong Kong fail to retain this status, though it is difficult to see, at least at this time, how the western system would accept such alternatives. However, one never knows. There is another irony in these developments. Criticizing civil rights violations, as she perceived it, the US Congressional Speaker, Nancy Pelosi had described the earlier chaotic demonstrations in Hong Kong as “a beautiful sight”. Then, in Minneapolis in the US, a black man George Floyd, died, not in the hands, but by the knee of a white policeman, pressed against his neck , till life slowly ebbed away from him , in full view of onlookers. Violent rioting ensued as a result, from coast to coast in America, led by black minorities, still raging at the time of writing, causing huge destruction in their trail. China’s media pointed to this, and simply repeated Pelosi’s remarks that it was “a beautiful sight”!

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at ISAS, National University of Singapore, former Foreign Advisor and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

Politics have exacerbated the already severe pains that the raging COVID Pandemic have been inflicting on the global population. The spread of Coronavirus coincided with three major developments in the global arena. First was the end of what Charles Krauthammer, the American neo-conservative guru had called, as the title of his book on that subject suggested, America’s “Unipolar Moment”. This was the period, since the implosion of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, when the United states was the only pre-dominant superpower that ruled the roost in the global arena. Though China was rising in the meantime, politically, economically and militarily, it was still coy about it, conforming to the Deng Xia0ping counsel to “hide its capabilities and bide its time”.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

The third was technically a domestic development, the up-coming US elections, which, however, always have wide enough implications of a global nature. Donald Trump needed an issue to mobilize his support-base, and a conflict with China could be a useful rallying point. A war was too dangerous, with uncertain consequences. At the same time the coronavirus was wreaking havoc in the US, and the Administration’s delayed response was subject to considerable criticism. So a distraction, rendered all the more convenient because many Americans believed it, was created by blaming China for initially concealing the origin and lethality of the disease, and also the world Health Organization (WHO)for kowtowing to China’s directions, endeavouring to exonerate Beijing from the responsibilities. The last point appeared to have a modicum of credibility as the Director General of that international body, an Ethiopian, Tedros Gereyesus, had some reasons to be beholden to Beijing as a source of support to him. But he himself was quick to deny it, claiming that no action of the WHO, in reaction to COVID, was taken at the behest of any member, meaning China.

That was the backdrop against which the key decision making organ of the WHO, the World Health Assembly, which has 194 State-members, met, virtually ,due to the global Corona-induced lock-down, centred in the WHO headquarters in Geneva ,for two days in the third week of May. Weeks prior to the session, the US and China, along with their supporters, locked horns, first through the preparatory process, and thereafter during the session itself. The differences surfaced mainly with regard to two issues: first was the participation of Taiwan, and the second was a resolution pertaining to the reforms of the WHO.

The question of the participation of Taiwan in United Nations and other international conferences where membership constitutes States, has been a perennial bone of contention. An overwhelming membership of the UN, including the US. Conform to the one-china policy, which, by definition, excluded Taiwan’s presence. However, in the WTO, after the SARS pandemic at the turn of the century, Taiwan was invited to sit in as observer at WHA sessions, though under the status deprecating banner of “Chinese Taipeh”. But that was with the approval of China as Taiwan had a pro-unification (with China) government. But currently the government in Taiwan is seen as pro-independence, which has raised Chinese ire, an, consequently China was disinclined to extend invitation to Taipeh. So, despite US insistence that the success of Taipeh’s COVID containment (0nly 440 infections and seven deaths), which would enable it to contribute positively to discussions, the door was closed to Taiwan. An angry Trump, who had already cancelled the current years assessed contribution to WTO budget, criticizing the WHO, calling it to “demonstrate independence from China’ and urging reforms, threatening that if these were not initiated , further US action would follow.

The other major western bloc, the European Union, disassociated itself from the US position, and put out a statement supporting the WHO. Its foreign policy spokesman said: ‘This is the time for solidarity, not the time for finger-pointing or for undermining multilateral cooperation”. Even within the US there were apprehensions that Trump’s posture could lessen the US clout in the global fight against the pandemic, and in fact, cede the leadership in combatting it to China. The head of the prestigious American think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the US needed to consult others on reforming the WHO if it wanted to do more than just posturing. He observed that “there is no unilateral US answer to global health challenges”.

As to the issue of reforms, it was akin to motherhood, in the sense that everyone was supportive of reform, and no one opposing it; the question was what were the necessary reforms and when were they to be implemented. Australia, a key US ally initially led the charge, beginning with a call for an inquiry into the origin of the virus. But the spirit was somewhat dampened as once again politics came to the fore with China swiftly proposing massive tariffs on Australian barley and blocking meat imports from it (China is Australia’s largest market , lifting nearly 38 percent of its total exports , greater than those of the US, Japan and South Korea combined.) China also wanted reforms, but only those , as Xi Jinping said, “based on science and professionalism, led by the WHO, and conducted in an objective and impartial manner”.

Finally, it was the resolution initiated by the European Union, which eventually attracted a large number of other cosponsors, that was adopted. It had three main components. It called for: First, an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation of the international response to the pandemic; second, a probe on the actions of the WTO and their timelines pertaining to COVID-19; and three, requiring the WHO to examine the ‘zoonotic’ (spread from animal to human, thus dismissing some western accusation of a man-made virus) and the route of introduction to human population.

The resolution was adopted by consensus (‘Consensus’ agreement is distinct from ‘unanimous’ agreement -the which though subtle is also significant- in that in the former case no one disagrees, and in the latter case, everyone agrees), which was face-saving for all, since members did not have to publicly state or demonstrate their actual positions. So, the S did not disassociate itself from the consensus as some had feared, but remained content, for the time being, with Trump describing WHO as “puppet of China”. But the US President struck hard on 30 May by ending his country’s relationship with the WHO, accusing it of being “Under the total control of China”.

Despite the fact that by now such announcement was expected, there was world- wide expression of regret. Immediately Germany’s Health Minister, Jens Spah, called it “a disappointing backlash for international health”. A leading British oncologist said there was no “logic” to the decision. However, the WHO is likely to survive the American withdrawal. The contributions will be made up from other sources. China has already committed $ 2 billion over two years to help other countries respond to the virus,

This would help fill the gap. Even US and other western billionaires might step in with their support. But the point is, the development does not augur well for multilateralism broadly, and global cooperation in the health sector specifically. The point to note is that given the fact that we are poised to enter a new era where the world is no longer unipolar, that after three decades the US now has a rival peer, could once again dichotomize the world. In particular, the entire developing world, including Bangladesh, must need take heed and shape behaviour patterns appropriately.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at ISAS, National University of Singapore, former Foreign Advisor and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

This article was first published in DHAKA COURIER

Despite all the preoccupation with the current raging pandemic, it sadly appears that there has been no let-up in the global arms race among the major powers. In mid-May, the United States President Donald Trump, at an event for his new Space Force at the White House made a significant announcement, It was that the US was building right now an “incredible” new missile which would travel faster than any other in the world “by a factor of almost three”. This was obviously a response to the latest Russian ‘Avangard’ missile, which Russian President Vladimir Putin claims in invincible, with a speed of twenty times that of sound. The Chinese, reportedly are also feverishly working on their own hypersonic counterparts. All these would be strategic tools to significantly alter the war-fighting capabilities of humanity in the future.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

So, ideas evolved further. A system called ‘network’ enabled smaller numbers with lesser firepower to be more effective in an ‘asymmetric conflict’ which is also now called ‘sub-conventional’ war Non-state actors like the ‘Hizbulllah’ in Lebanon used these principles involving a hierarchical mode of communications effectively against an ostensibly more powerful Israeli army.

In 1996 two researchers of the US Rand Corporation, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt gloated a more refined concept in a document entitled ‘The Advert of Network’. The US has since pioneered an even more sophisticated version, which only modern well-equipped armies were capable of implementing. This was called ‘Network-centric operations’. Simply put, it involved four loops of sensors: First, identification of enemy assets, second, command and control of decision-making; third, target elimination, and fourth, logistics. Most modern armies now have ‘net-work command’, with latest communications and computers, with the Signals Branch at its care.

Now there are those who hold that even this ‘network-centrism’ is vulnerable. This is particularly go with the advent of ‘Artificial intelligence (AI) in warfare. The ‘Networks’ could be susceptible to disabling by such weapons. Today, as the new US space Force makes evident, battlefield domains are no longer confined to land, air, and sea. It now also includes space, deep-sea, cyber-space, and the solar electro-magnetic spectrum. Cyber-attacks can knock-out high value assets, including not only military command and control, but also critical civilian functions like banking, travel and telephony which would paralyze life-style, without a single shot being fired!

Today there is a race to build ever more ‘autonomous weapons’ such as smarter drones. Contemporary ‘intelligent machines’ can react at superhuman speeds, that are hard presses to match. There are those who argue future ‘Artificially intelligent’ weapons may be able to think ahead of the human brain, which could cause unique issues.

Actually, this is not much different from some 2500 years ago, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu wrote : “speed is the essence of war”. Military analysts are already speaking of a coming “battlefield singularity” in which the pace of combat will eclipse the pace of human decision-making. Fastest reaction in the shortest possible time will be the key to overwhelming the adversary. It would be akin to what is known as “OODA’ in aerial dogfighting. The ‘Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act’. So, will machines in battlefield take over from the human protagonists? The answers, at least for now, is happily, no. Even if fully autonomous weapons could possible led humans to code battlefield control, the ultimate critical decisions about how this technology is used, will still rest in human hands.

The principal security threat that the world confronts now is not military, it is an unconventional one, a malady, COVID-19 like the ‘Smart Weapon’, it is a ‘smart virus’, It is unseen, moves swiftly, adapts fast and mutates easily. Any battle-strategy, classical of modern, would advocates to those equally susceptible, the need to combine budget and brains to combat this unforeseen and deadly foe. True, it is easier said than done. But the clear absence of any-logical alternative would be a powerful factor in achieving this end. Uniting against this common, enemy COVID-19, is our Hobson’s Choice, one that has no option.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at ISAS, National University of Singapore, former Foreign Advisor and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier

When the United States and China signed the First-Phase of their Trade Agreement in January this year, President Donald Trump called it a “momentous step”, and the world believed they had stepped back from a dangerous brink. But, alas, to cite an idiom that is so current today, it was but a ‘false positive’. As the globe reels from the surgoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that the rapid deterioration of US-China relationship can become one of the worst side-effects of this raging virus.

Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury

What made it easier was that as the pandemic spread many in the world did not see China as quite the Caesar’s wife. It was accused of concealing some critical early developments with regard to it. The pathogen first spread from Wuhan in China. The prevalent political system aided suppression of some facts. This was a cause for umbrage to many, including the Europeans who suffered greatly. But the Europeans had no reason to politicize it. To many analysts, Trump and his team did. It would help rally their cohorts. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, China’s popularity in the US was low. And, of course, there could be nothing unfair in love and war.

So, Trump and the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo led a chorus of anti-Chinese tirade. They accused China of hiding the enormity of the virus threat. They also alleged, without seeing the need to produce evidence. that the pathogen originated in a Wuhan laboratory. The Chinese originally responded that these things were better left to scientists than to “Politicians who lie for their own domestic political ends”. Later they issued a lengthy rebuttal of what they said were “ preposterous allegations” by some leading US politicians. To make it appealing to ordinary Americans, the Chinese, rather adroitly began their briefings on the 30-page 11000-word article by invoking the American Republican hero, President Abraham Lincoln.

Lashing out at the World Health Organization which had been generous in its praise of China’s handling of the Corona crisis. Trump withdrew its funding calling it a “Puppet of China”. Thereafter, the US sent a missive to 60 countries asking for support for Taiwan’s participation in the organization, to broaden all efforts to fight the pandemic (Taiwan is being praised as a success-story in this regard). At the same time, the US stopped a draft-text from being voted upon in the United Nations Secretary Council calling for a ‘cease-fire’’ in various global conflicts to help troubled countries to better combat the COVID.

Because of the situation, China was running far behind the pace needed to meet the first year’s goal of purchase of American goods, which was to have been a US$ 77 billion increase over 2017 levels according to the January phase One deal. The Chinese asked for renegotiation. Trump has declared he was ‘not interested’. He accused his predecessors in the White House for alluring China to ‘take advantage of the US for many many years doubtless in livid rage at former President Barrack Obama’s recent criticism of his handling the current crisis. Not only that. There are now hints that Trump may default paying the US$ 1.08 trillion debt owed to China, and even seize the latter’s assets! Thus would have a huge impact on the global market economy and the US-China economic relations would lie in tatters!

On the military front the clouds are also darkening. A guided-missile American destroyer “USS Barry” passed through the Taiwan strait twice in April, Another US naval vessel, the “USS America recently conducted exercise in the East China Seas and the South China sea. In March, Trump signed into law the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act, following which the Chinese Media warned Taiwan against its allowing the US to town the island into a powder keg.

China has its own legislation about Taiwan. The anti-secession law passed by China’s Parliament in 2005 mandates Beijing to declare war if Taiwan formally declares independence. Taiwan therefore, maintains the most studious “red-line” on China’s foreign and security policy.

In all fairness, the US security establishment recognizes that. Hopefully, the US institutional mechanism can restrain the onslaught of a war for overt political gains of one segment of the polity that could devastate the entire nation. At the same time the Chinese would. it is assumed, have the good sense not to self-destruct themselves by initiating something drastic and foolish like seeking to attack Taiwan with the US engrossed in battling the virus. Both sides, the Americans and the Chinese, have recently been relentlessly citing the Greek historian Thucydides, who warned against miscalculations leading to when he observed “when Athens grew strong, there was great fear in Sparta”. Let us hope both sides, the Americans and the Chinese, pay heed to their own perceived forebodings!

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at ISAS, National University of Singapore, former Foreign Advisor and President of Cosmos Foundation Bangladesh.

This story was originally published by Dhaka Courier.

China’s Defence Minister Wei Fenghe (left) and acting US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan (front second right) attend the opening of the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue summit in Singapore on May 31, 2019. PHOTO: AFP

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
Jun 10 2019 (IPS-Partners)

(The Daily Star) – The Annual Jamboree of global defence leaders at the Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore is much more than just a talkathon. Amidst the wining and dining, and in the chambers and corridors, policymakers and thought leaders get the opportunity to interact with one another intensely over a weekend. They try to make sense of how the regional critical security and related issues are evolving, against the backdrop of a rising Asia and a burgeoning superpower competition in what is now being increasingly viewed as the “Indo-Pacific Region”. Over the last several years the United States seemed to enjoy a walk-over vis-à-vis the agenda in the absence of senior Chinese protagonists. It invariably resulted in a spot of “China-bashing”, and a consequent erosion of its significance, the high quality of discourses notwithstanding.

All that changed during this year’s dialogue, between May 31 and June 2. The not-quite sleeping dragon decided that it was about time it showed up to spew some fire to display its potential might. So Beijing despatched a very high official, indeed its Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe to take on the US Acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan. On the verbal battlegrounds of Shangri La, it was finally, the Greek meets Greek, and as is said when that happens, then comes the tug of war!Though strategically the US is far ahead in terms of conventional and nuclear hardware, China already possesses the capacity to wreak absolutely unacceptable damage upon the US.

The Shangri La Dialogue provides for some superb conferencing. The London-based Institute of International and Strategic Studies organises it and the Singapore government provides the deliberations a gentle stewardship so as to be able to yield fruitful results. If in the past China’s absence caused the upshot to appear somewhat lopsided, this time round Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong himself took care to lay down the ground-rules of the discussions in a masterful analysis of the regional and global situation at a post-dinner tour d’horizon on the opening night.

He did not fight shy of the problems that dot the world in our times, offered some pragmatic solutions while circumspectly avoiding taking sides. He concluded by urging: “we must work together to maximise the chances that countries will have the wisdom and courage to work together…will have the wisdom and courage to make the right choices, opt for openness and integration, and so preserve and expand the progress we have made together.”

It was not that Singapore was simply punching above its weight. His rational words calmed nerves. They helped to round off the sharp edges of the inevitable US-China debate that was at the core of this year’s programme.

Nonetheless, some sparks did fly. A restrained Shanahan, without mentioning China, iterated that States that “eroded rules-based order”, were a “threat to the region”. Despite the perplexity of some in the audience, who could have thought the remarks could have applied equally to Shanahan’s own country, the US, Wei Fenghe accepted the fact that China was the target. Almost coinciding with Shanahan’s speech, The US Department of Defence released a report referring to China as a “revisionist power” seeking regional hegemony in the near, and global pre-eminence in the longer term.

To many analysts though, it could have seemed like the pot calling the kettle black. For didn’t it resemble the pattern of behaviour of the US itself, not so long ago? So, is the US now looking to inherit the pristine purity of behaviour of the proverbial Caesar’s wife? In a laconic riposte worthy of Julius Caesar’s famous “I came I saw I conquered” message, Wei Fenghe shot back at his perceived rival: “A talk, yes? A fight, ready. Bully us? No Way”!

He reiterated that China was ready to fight the US to the end, but confined the rhetoric, for now at least, to the sphere of trade! He might as well have quoted the old limerick: “We don’t want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we’ve got the men, we’ve got the ships, we’ve got the money too!” For the participants of other countries, the apprehension understandably was the same that faced the grass beneath the elephants, doomed to be trampled upon, whether the giant animals made love or locked war!

Happily the prospects of a war are far beyond the rim of the saucer. The US and China, much unlike the US and the Soviet Union of the yesteryears are much too interdependent. They are the largest trade partners, and China owns an estimated USD 1.18 trillion US debt (as of April last year, though the figures pared down somewhat since). Though strategically the US is far ahead in terms of conventional and nuclear hardware, China already possesses the capacity to wreak absolutely unacceptable damage upon the US. Also, while Soviet leaders, not just Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, but also those that followed were committed to destroying the capitalist system and building anew, the Chinese took the pragmatic line of working to change within the system and weaving the differences philosophically within the dialectical process.

Despite the oft-cited mention of the Thucydides syndrome, named after the Greek historian who said when Athens grew strong there was great fear in Sparta, serious current thinkers have pretty much ruled out an all-out war. In a recent tome entitled “Destined for War; Can America and China escape the Thucydides Trap?” the strategic writer Graham Wallace argued that, yes, they can. What he meant was “yes, they must”. He stated that research showed such avoidance was possible, but it called for imaginative but painful steps.

But this does not mean we are not headed for a long-term Sino-US rivalry, within the model of a rising power challenging a sated one. The trade gap with China has, for the US, grown to a record USD 419.2 billion. Competition for influence in the Asia-Pacific region, where the powers collide directly is fierce. The age of the US as the only hyper-power was short lived. The two current superpowers, led by both Mr Donald Trump and Mr Xi Jinping are subordinating multilateral institutions to suit their purposes. The global state-system is now very much the “anarchical Society” as described by the theoretician Hedley Bull in a classic study of the same name.

In a situation where each State is more or less on its own, the need for each to focus on its own security and development increases manifold. For a country like Bangladesh it would entail expanding product and services markets through innovative initiatives like bilateral and pluri-lateral Free Trade Agreements, rather than say, being dependent on global bodies like the World Trade Organization. Also, bolstering its own defences with smart procurements rather than depend on the platitudinous resolutions of the United Nations. Perhaps the easy life of a policymaker is a thing of the past. It amply proves the veracity of the axiom that fitness to survive perhaps must remain a perennial societal goal.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, and a former Foreign Advisor in a Caretaker Government in Bangladesh.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Only a few would be persuaded that President Donald Trump is deeply informed about any moderately complex subject. Ballistic missiles is one such. In fact, such a notion becomes firm when one considers his expression of bewilderment when Japan did not shoot down the North Korean “Hwasong-15” missile in flight just as the Saudis had done the Houthi projectile fired from Yemen. Anyone with even meagre understanding of missile technology would know that thetwo situations were not the same. And that the former action would have been well-nigh impossible with available Japanese capability.So when he caught out the Russians cheating on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty of 1987, he took many by surprise. The Russians might have indeed tried to pull wool over American eyes by quietly deploying a new medium range weapon in violation of that landmark agreement. This is not to say that Mr Trump came to this conclusion on his own. At least it was apparent that he heeded counsel in this regard, which in itself is a silver lining of no mean consequence.

During much of the Cold War period, as nuclear weapons, particularly among thesuperpowers proliferated, peace was maintained on the premise of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). In other words, since the key powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, had the capability to obliterate each other, neither wanted to initiate a war. Then in the mid-1970s a US Secretary of Defence propounded that all nuclear conflict need not lead to MAD. In what is known as “Schlesinger Doctrine” named after him, he enunciated a kind of “limited war”that there could be small scale nuclear conflicts, with weapons of lesser yield, gradually escalating to higher levels, rendering a nuclear war “fightable” and even “winnable”. The view was that the enemy would capitulate along the path of escalation. Design and production of weaponry followed theory. Shorter range missiles, more precise weapons, and theory justifying their “tactical” rather than “strategic”use,emerged.

There are usually two types oftargets in a nuclear war: “counterforce” directed against hardened and military structures, and“countervalue”, against“soft targets” as cities and civilian populations. Since long range Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) were imprecise, their targets were logically softer, or mainly “countervalue” ones. But intermediate or medium range missiles (IRBMs and MRBMs)would have greater precision and therefore higher capacity to “kill” hardened “counterforce” targets. Because there would be greater propensity to use more precise weapons with lesser collateral damage, theorists considered these more “destabilising” than the larger imprecise weapons which would certainly attract devastating response.

Acutely aware of these dangers, the US and Soviet leaders, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the 1987 INF Treaty.It required them to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometres.As a result, bothsuperpowers destroyed 2,692 missiles by the treaty’s implementation deadline of June 1,1990.The US removed their Cruise and Pershing missiles deployed in the UK and Germany, and the Soviets their deadly SS-20s out of the range of Europe. Some believe North Korea may have gone on to procure some of these.

Around the middle of the current decade, both the Americans and the Russians began to allege non-compliance of the treaty by the other. The US blamed Russia for developing the SSC-8, a land-based intermediate range cruise missile. Moscow raised its own concerns about the US placement of a missile defence launch system in Europe that can be used to fire cruise missiles, and manufacturing armed drones that equalled ground-launched cruise missiles prohibited in the treaty. Nonetheless, both parties declared their “support” for the treaty in a United Nations General Assembly statement on October 25,2007, inviting other nuclear powers to join it. An intended target of the call was perhaps China, which roundly ignored it, and continued developing its own deadly weapons. It includes the “Deng Feng” (East Wind), DF-26, an IRBM with a maximum range of 4,000 km which put the US installation of Guam in the Pacific under threat. The non-party status of China to the INF Treaty actually concerns both the US and Russia, though the former, understandably more so.

Others have also got into the game.The Indians have “Agni” and “Shaurya” missiles, with some variants of the former IRBMs having ICBM range and capabilities. The Chinese of course would factor in India. While Pakistan does not have ICBMs, which is not required vis-à-vis India, it has its “Shaheen-3” missile that would be its credible deterrent with regard to its principal adversary. It can strike at any target within India or as far as Myanmar, or even Israel if appropriately deployed. Israel, another undeclared nuclear power, possesses “Jericho-2” and “Jericho-3” with ranges of 1,500to 3,500 km and 4,500 to 6,500 km respectively.Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons, has developed several types of IRBMs, namely “Emad”, “Qader”, “Sejjil”, “Soumar”, and “Khorramshahr”, all with range between 2,000 and 2,500 km. Of these “Khorramshahr” can carry three conventional warheads, weighing upto 1,800 kg.

The massive destructive power of some of these conventional weapons are so great as to blur their difference with smaller tactical or “theatre” nuclear weapons. There exists a voluntary agreement with 35 members called the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), set up in 1987. It seeks to limit control on spread of export of missiles and related technology, but only India from those with recently acquired capabilities is a member.

Should Mr Trump pull out of the IMF Treaty, the result would most certainly be destabilising. Both the US and Russia will begin to develop newer and deadlier weapons. Without the INF Treaty, and others of this ilk, disarmament and arms control initiatives will take a huge hit. Then, in a new era of rearmament and arms de-control, peace and stability can only hinge only on deterrence, or fear of devastating retaliation. This will be a return to primordial human behaviour and psychology. Not a wholesome situation, or solution, but sadly may be an inevitable one.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is a former foreign adviser to a caretaker government of Bangladesh and is currently Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

SOURCE: TWITTER

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
Sep 29 2018 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

America has had a fairly inscrutable history. Haven to the oppressed in the European continent, its early settlers, while relishing the fruits of freedom, pretty much exterminated its indigenous inhabitants. At the same time, as a reaction to absolutist monarchies elsewhere in the world it created pluralist institutions. In this “New World” the Lord did not supposedly anoint Kings investing them divine rights, but imparted them directly to the people through the Constitution. While their leaders penned and pronounced praises to liberty (in the “Federalist Papers” written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, for instance), notions of equality were not extended to their black African slaves. While they were explicit in expressions of their new world coming to the aid of the old, their entry into the Great Wars of the twentieth century was actually effected only when their interests were directly threatened. They initiated the use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in warfare, only to champion their elimination when others, particularly not of their ilk, sought to acquire them. While their intelligence agents relentlessly worked towards regime-changes in other countries, they themselves reacted adversely when others allegedly sought to do the same in theirs. So, how was it that America, such a bundle of contradictions, able to project itself as a beacon of morality on the international scene over such a sustained period of time?

The answer perhaps lies in what Americans have always excelled in: effective marketing. About 1775-76, Thomas Paine had published the “Common Sense”. The historian Gordon Wood saw it as “the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era”. It marshalled the arguments for the fight for liberty of the 13 American colonies against the British. The fact that the American Revolution almost coincided with the French counterpart helped. Indeed the French political scientist Viscount de Tocqueville in his two works, Democracy in America (in the 1830s) and The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856) extolled American values. He viewed them as a healthy relationship between the market and the State. Soon America was being projected as the “City on the Shining Hill”, with a “manifest destiny” to expand territorially and ideologically. Eventually a political culture evolved that stressed America’s “exceptionalism”.

Doubtless American support to allies helped defeat German Nazism and Japanese imperial might. The establishment of the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions on American soil aided the perception of America as the leader of the “free-world”. It saw itself charged with the responsibility of “containment”, a term coined by the diplomat George Kennan, of Soviet expansionism and Communism. When Karl Marx’s theories were turned on its head and instead of “capitalism” it was “communism” that collapsed due to its inner contradictions, America emerged as the unchallenged superpower. With it came a sense of hubris. Its ultimate evidence was the 2003 invasion of Iraq under President George Bush. President Bush understandably made no claims to higher enlightenment. However, his administration was moved by some who did. They were the Neo-conservatives or the “neo-cons”, people like Paul Wolfowitz, Charles Krauthammer, and Doughlas Feith. They were disciples of Professor Leo Strauss, the German-American thinker who was deeply influenced by the Classical Greek philosopher, Plato.

Plato believed that it is only a handful of individuals, who truly understood the essence of what is great and good. He called them “Philosopher Kings”. He lauded “empiricism” over “abstraction” and “shadow-learning”. This was characterised perhaps the world’s most famous apologue in philosophy, in his “allegory of the cave”. It is not just that new ideas have ancient roots. All “true history” is really “contemporary” as Benedetto Croce observed. Alas, ancient sources are also often distorted to justify current unsavoury acts. Even if the neo-cons were pushing their interpretation of Platonism, they were in contrast to the founding fathers who derived inspiration from the study of Constitutions by Plato’s student, Aristotle. And for the record, Aristotle had famously said “Amicus Plato sedmagisamicaveritas” “dear is Plato but dearer still is the truth”!

Fast forward to the present. The supposed leadership role of America came with a heavy price. America was made to play the very role that traditionally the founding fathers had been chary of: searching for monsters to destroy abroad. While they won the Cold War because of the implosion within the adversary camp, they either drew or lost many fights like Korea or Vietnam, or became mired in an unending conflict like Afghanistan. They were the strongest power in the world. But situation that meant little because their power derived from weapons that they could never use. Sometimes unfairly to the Americans, others fuelled their ego of leadership of the free world, in the words of the current President Donald Trump, ripped them off in trade and commerce! Newer powers were emerging. Some had acquired the dreaded nuclear-weapon retaliatory capacity. China was rising. Not just militarily, but also economically. In the contemporary digital world, it was catching up with America in Artificial Intelligence. It had the capacity to feed the machine more mass-data, and algorithms to improve products and services and invent new ones. A “Thucydides Syndrome” was in the making. The sage of that name had observed that when Athens grew strong there was great fear in Sparta. History is replete with rising powers challenging established ones.

Trump is the product of exhausted America. He represents the viewpoint that the so-called leadership role with its high-price tag is not worthwhile. To him, the United States should be like any other nation that should act only in pursuance of its narrow self-interest. Recently at the United Nations, he rejected globalism and embraced patriotism. Many, like the Europeans, may think patriotism delinked from multilateralism could lead to nationalism. In Europe in the past it has in turn resulted in war. But Trump thinks differently. And right now he is the President. This thinking may be in many ways germane to contemporary American ethos. Some may argue that the idea of an intellectual restraint to the proliferation of such predilections might be in order. So has the time come for the “containment” of America by others in an ironical reversal of history? Opinion will be divided .The Emperor, in this case represented by the power of America, may not be wearing the clothes as the pretentious monarch in the fairy tale, which the clever and deceitful tailor had claimed were too fine for the human eye to see, but it is only because now he has chosen not to.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is a former foreign adviser to a caretaker government of Bangladesh and is currently Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Rohingya children wait after arriving to Shahparir Dip in Teknaf, Bangladesh. Credit: IPS

By Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury
Aug 31 2018 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

In my previous avatar as a diplomat, like much of the rest of the world, I saw myself as an ardent advocate for change in Myanmar. It was in the grip of Generals who ran a horrendously repressive regime. In 2009, urging calm on those who wished to come down hard on the ruling junta, I had written in a publication: “The main challenge with Myanmar is to find the right balance between the carrot and the stick. The balance needs to tilt in favour of the carrot.” A decade down the line, circumstances require me to alter that thesis. Today, I would opt for the stick. And much of the rest of the world would agree.

Not so long ago, Aung San Suu Kyi was internationally extolled as a champion who, if afforded the opportunity, could effect the necessary positive transition. With global support she got her chance after winning the elections in 2015. What happened thereafter was a let down by her of gargantuan proportions. As the military pulled wool over the world’s eyes by staging a supposed transfer of power to the civilians, she became an active player and partner in the drama. It was a political theatre in which the global audience was taken for a ride.

Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, sadly succumbed to the machinations of her military. She paid, it seems quite willingly which is unfortunate, a hefty moral price for the office she found herself installed in. She appeared to sacrifice some fundamental values of decency, much to the regret of her former admirers. As violence perpetrated by her government made headlines which she did little to prevent, she was stripped of several awards. Even the rescindment of the Nobel Peace Prize has been contemplated. The recent UN Report on atrocities committed by the Burmese against the Rohingyas in Rakhine explains the burgeoning global vitriol against her. She had failed to stand up for the stateless minority, a million of whom were forced in recent times to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. She and her civilian colleagues are, “through their acts and commissions”, seen to have “contributed” to the commission of unspeakable “crimes”, as the Report painfully records.

Ms Suu Kyi attributed the military action that led to the indiscriminate burnings, pillage, killing and rapes in Rohingya villages of Rakhine to the “danger of terrorist activities” in a recent speech in Singapore. She said Myanmar had implemented 81 out of 88 recommendations of the Annan Commission, a highly disputed claim. She asserted that it was the responsibility of Bangladesh to determine how quickly the process of return of refugees was to be completed. It was a futile attempt on her part to attempt to create a moral equivalence between Myanmar and Bangladesh that would be a distasteful distortion of reality. The world wasn’t buying—132 legislators from ASEAN to which Myanmar belongs, called for an international accountability mechanism to impartially investigate human rights violations in their fellow ASEAN country.

Much earlier, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, had called Myanmar’s actions a textbook case of “ethnic cleansing”. Now comes the report of the UN fact-finding mission that goes much further. The authors of the current document called for six top military generals including commander-in-chief, Min Aung Hlaing, to be investigated and prosecuted for “genocide”. Furthermore, they demanded that the generals also be tried for “crimes against humanity and war crimes in Rakhine, Kachin and Shan States”. They stressed that given the entrenched culture of impunity in Myanmar’s political and legal system, the only chance of accountability was through the international legal system.

So what is the recourse available to the international legal system? In 2005 a summit at the UN General Assembly of world leaders unanimously adopted a norm called the “Responsibility to Protect” or “R2P” in short. I was myself at that time, as a “friend” of the president of the General Assembly, closely associated with crafting the language, though at that time this particular situation was totally unforeseen. Simply put, the principle stated that it was the duty of every state to protect their own populations. Should it be unwilling or unable to do so, this responsibility would devolve on the international community. However it would have to be discharged by collective action through the Security Council. There was a caveat, though, designed to prevent unilateral action, such as was undertaken by the West in invading Iraq in 2003. It was that R2P could only be initiated when one, some, or all of the following occurred: “genocide, war-crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity”. In remarkably calculated use of terminologies the UN officials have, at different times, referred to all four situations as obtaining in Myanmar, thus actually clearing the legal way for the Security Council to apply the principle of the R2P. It is worth noting though that R2P could also take the form of developmental support that could create positive conditions to enable the avoidance of the ultimate tool, military intervention.

But UN officials do not decide on such matters. Member States do. In the Security Council the passage of any such call to action will be rendered difficult due to the veto powers of China and Russia. Either, or both, if past actions are a guide, are likely to prevent any adoption that could contain the possibility of application of force in Myanmar. So the Security Council is unlikely to be a medium for the resolution of the problem. The most directly concerned country in this issue is, of course, Bangladesh. Any forcible regime change in Naypyidaw would not be seen by Bangladesh in positive light. For one thing, external intervention is something that Bangladesh could not support in principle, because such phenomena enhance the vulnerability of weak states vis-a-vis the strong. Second, it could turn Bangladesh into something like a Pakistan to Myanmar’s Afghanistan. And third it would divert world attention to the military action, or any war, away from the resolution of the refugee crisis, which is in Bangladesh’s primary interest.

But there are also other options. It is understood that there is enough evidence to bring the named accused to book. The fact that Myanmar is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) need not stand in the way. There is ample precedence for special tribunals, as in the case of Rwanda, for the purpose. The world must be made too small a place for criminals of such ilk to hide. Targeted sanctions, covering travels and bank accounts, including of dependents, would be a deterrent. For proven offences, international arrest warrants could be also contemplated. Such individual actions, however limited their impact, are still better than military interventions which oftentimes spill innocent blood. The United States is shy of using the term “genocide” in this context, not because it doubts that it is the case, but because it would then compel them to take some actions under American law, that they may not be ready for yet. The issue may be low on President Donald Trump’s priorities, but Ambassador Nikki Haley is substantially energised and may be poised to make a difference, both at the UN and in Washington. The European Union has an opportunity to display its commitment to human rights, and now is a chance to demonstrate the values it prides in.

In February 1972, as a young commerce ministry official, I had accompanied Foreign Secretary SA Karim in the first ever delegation to Rangoon from the newly independent Bangladesh. In a meeting with the Burmese Foreign Minister Colonel Hla Han we requested the return of the Pakistani aircraft flown out to safe haven in Burma around mid-December in 1971. He refused. The colonels of yesteryear have been replaced today by generals in their power-scheme. Nonetheless the obduracy has remained a constant rather than a variable in their behaviour. Those days Burma operated on the periphery of the global system. According to Ralph Pettman, a distinguished Australian analyst, Burma had actually chosen to opt out of it. At present times, for a variety of reasons including the Rohingya crisis, Myanmar is more centrally located on the matrix. It also has the searchlight of curiosity turned on them. Perhaps they will now learn that the arc of the moral universe, however long, is ultimately bent towards justice. The sooner they do so the better for them, and for the world.

Dr Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury is a former foreign adviser to a caretaker government of Bangladesh and is currently Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.