Rohingya refugees gather near the fence in the ‘no man’s land’ between Myanmar and Bangladesh. PHOTO: PHYO HEIN KYAW/AFP

By Mahmood Hasan
May 24 2019 (IPS-Partners)

Since the massive exodus of Rohingyas from Rakhine to Bangladesh in 2017, a lot has been written and said about the plight of these unfortunate people. After nearly two years, it appears that the outraged world community has forgotten about this persecuted ethnic minority.

Regarding the repatriation process of Rohingyas, Myanmar has been stalling continuously. Given the fact that majority of Rohingyas are Muslims, whose language is related to Chittagonian and who share similar physical features with Bengalis, with time these people will eventually be assimilated into the local Bangladeshi population. It appears that both Aung San Suu Kyi and her Army Chief Min Aung Hlaing are in a cosy situation now that this ethnic community has been driven out of Myanmar. For them, there is practically no scope for these people to return to Rakhine.

Understandably, the diplomatic démarche that Myanmar has undertaken to thwart the return of Rohingyas is quite well-known. The three big countries that have given support to Myanmar against repatriation of Rohingyas have two arguments: religious antagonism and that Rohingyas are a part of overpopulated Bangladesh. Sandwiched between Hindu-majority India and Buddhist-majority Myanmar, Muslim-majority Bangladesh is in an unenviable situation as far as its population is concerned. Both India and Myanmar look upon Muslims of Bangladesh with great deal of suspicion.

BJP is well-known for its anti-Muslim stance, especially its policies since it came to power in Delhi. Delhi’s antipathy towards Rohingya Muslims was more than evident when it threatened to drive out 40,000 Rohingya refugees who took refuge in India, provoking sharp criticism from the United Nations. India has invested heavily in developing the coastal belts around Sittwe to gain access to the northeastern states of India. Furthermore, having a foothold in Rakhine will give India sway over the southern Bay of Bengal. The other aspect that Delhi openly believes is that Muslim-majority Bangladesh is bursting along the seams with its rapidly growing population. The statements coming from Indian Army Chief Bipin Rawat in 2018 and top BJP leaders are not political rhetoric—rather they clearly expose Delhi’s worries over overpopulated Bangladesh.

Having served in Bangladesh missions in Yangon and Delhi, I have often come across government officials and journalists inquiring about the population growth of Bangladesh. The underlying point was that Bangladeshis were spilling across the borders into neighbouring India and Myanmar.

Contiguous neighbour China has high stakes in Myanmar and has blocked UN resolutions against Myanmar. China not only has growing business and military ties but has also invested enormously in Rakhine state as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Here, like India, China wants access to the Indian Ocean through Rakhine and the Bay of Bengal. It is well-known that Beijing is at odds with its Uyghurs Muslims and it is clear that China has consciously overlooked the state-sponsored crimes against the Rohingya Muslims by Naypyidaw. Then again, Myanmar’s narrative that inhabitants of overpopulated Bangladesh have spilled across the borders into Myanmar has caught the attention of Chinese diplomats.

Strangely though, while China and India are competing for strategic influence over Myanmar, both Beijing and Delhi are on the same page over the Rohingya issue.

Russia is also having difficulties with Muslim-majority Commonwealth of Independent States. Moscow has no love lost for Muslims and probably sees the Rohingya Muslims as a source of trouble in Rakhine. Besides, Myanmar’s military procurements from Russia have no doubt played an important role in Moscow supporting Naypyidaw against Dhaka.

The recent rise of Arakan Army in volatile Rakhine has added a new dimension to the instability in the state. The Myanmar Army (Tatmadaw) has suffered serious losses when this unknown insurgent group attacked several Tatmadaw outposts since January 2019. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and Arakan Army are cooperating with each other to fight the Tatmadaw.

On the Bangladesh side, there are some disquieting developments. Living in relatively safe conditions in Bangladesh, the Rohingyas are unwilling to return to Rakhine, where the situation is completely insecure. Then again, many international NGOs working to provide succour oppose their return to Myanmar. The longer these refugees are in Bangladesh, the better it is for some of these NGOs. There are allegations that INGOs are engaged in profitable businesses doing little for the Rohingyas. Bulk of the available funds are being spent for the comfort and travel of NGO functionaries.

But the most disturbing development has been the decision of Bangladesh government to relocate some 100,000 refugees to Bhasan Char. This is evidently very good news for Naypyidaw. Aung San Suu Kyi and General Hlaing will take it as victory—that Bangladesh has accepted the Rohingyas as part of its population.

Rohingya refugees herded in Teknaf area have been trying to break out of the camps to either get out of Bangladesh or to get assimilated into the Bangladeshi population. There are reports of police arresting Rohingyas at Bangladeshi airports and from boats in the Bay of Bengal. Having nothing much to do, these refugees are increasingly getting involved in all kinds of criminal activities—drug smuggling, women trafficking and, above all, becoming susceptible to radicalisation.

Myanmar has actually launched a non-military aggression against Bangladesh to destabilise the country socially, economically, environmentally and politically. The only way this aggression can be tackled is to get stringent UN Security Council sanctions against

Myanmar. For that to happen, Bangladesh will have to get all the five permanent members of the Security Council on its side. But China and Russia have repeatedly blocked any statement from the UN Security Council. Fourth Joint Working Group meeting between Bangladesh and Myanmar was held in Naypyidaw on May 3, 2019, but no concrete movement on repatriation was seen.

Procrastinating on the Rohingya problem is favouring Myanmar. Clearly, Bangladesh is caught up in a complicated geo-political game involving big powers and is doomed to host the Rohingya refugees indefinitely.

Mahmood Hasan is a former ambassador and secretary of the Bangladesh government.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By Mahmood Hasan
Jul 31 2018 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

The 10th BRICS summit (July 25-27, 2018) has just concluded in Johannesburg, South Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa hosted China’s President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Michel Temer. Eighteen African leaders, along with leaders from Turkey, Argentina and Jamaica, were also invited as guests. The main theme of the conference was “Collaboration for Inclusive Growth and Shared Prosperity in the 4th Industrial Revolution.”

The summit came at a time when global trade war looms large—threatening world trade and commerce. With the summit President Ramaphosa also celebrated the centenary of the birth of Nelson Mandela, acknowledging his contribution to democracy and service to humanity.

The American administration driven by aggressive nationalism has actually threatened imposing high tariffs on imports from China and European allies. These policies of Washington have seriously upset the global economic system that was devised after WWII. There are acrimonious debates among members of the Western alliance that reflect that the West is in serious dysfunction—both on global economic issues and with security matters. The recent G7 Summit in Quebec, Canada (June 8-9) and the NATO summit in Brussels (July 11-12) speaks loudly that the Western alliance is arguably in decline.

China, the second largest economy in the world, is actually the driving force behind BRICS. Xi Jinping, emphasising the importance of globalisation called upon member countries to resist the growing global trade war by working together to build an open world economy. Xi said trade wars should be rejected “because there will be no winner”. Understandably global trade issues dominated the conference.

The 102-paragraph Final Declaration issued after the concluding session amply reflects the worries and anxieties of the five leaders. The declaration divided into four broad segments dealt with strengthening multilateralism, enhancing globalisation, reinforcing international peace and security, and strengthening international cooperation.

On strengthening multilateralism the summit raised several issues calling for greater cohesion in global-governance, i.e. stronger role of the United Nations in conflict resolution and representation in other world organisations. It raised the issues of the Syrian conflict, Afghan civil war, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, climate change, terrorism, etc. where the United Nations should play a strong role in establishing peace and ensuring security. With regard denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula the Declaration called for a peaceful diplomatic solution. As for JCPOA, the BRICS leaders emphatically called on all parties to fully comply with the obligations of the agreement.

On global economic growth the leaders expressed concerns as the global trading system is facing serious challenges. The statement read, “We recognise that the multilateral trading system is facing unprecedented challenges. We underscore the importance of an open world economy.” It called for strengthening the WTO mechanism to resolve trade disputes. The leaders welcomed the successful test-run of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) and asked for closer cooperation between the IMF and CRA. The leaders also noted the role played by the New Development Bank in catalysing private sector financing of private sector infrastructure and investment.

Interestingly while the summit demonstrated apparent signs of unity against the US-led challenges to the global economy, the two largest members—China and India—were actually vying for influence over the African continent. Before attending the summit, Xi Jinping made a quick tour of Senegal and Rwanda. Evidently Xi was drumming up support for his Belt and Road Initiative. Not to stay behind, Narendra Modi also visited Rwanda and Uganda before arriving at Johannesburg. Despite the informal summit bonhomie at Wuhan in late April—China and India remain rivals. But the fact remains that both China and India the two most populous nations and rapidly growing economies of BRICS—need to cement their energies to confront global challenges as their interests are convergent, at least on economic issues.

China is petrified that a trade war with US will cripple its growing economy, which is based on exporting to the consumer markets around the world. America constitutes the largest market—almost 20 percent (USD 431 billion, 2017) of Chinese exports went to that market. Xi Jinping needs Modi’s support more to face the challenges from America, because the other three members do not have as much clout on the world economy as India.

Russia is not fully integrated with the global economy and certainly at odds with the West. However, after his recent talks with Donald Trump (Helsinki, July 16) Putin has been looking to enhance Russia’s political position globally and within BRICS. But with economic sanctions over its head Moscow’s ability to manoeuvre is limited.

Brazil’s economy has not fully recovered (GDP growth one percent, 2017) from the depression it suffered in 2015 and 2016. Michel Temer’s tenuous economy is threatened by various knock-on effects from the American trade and currency war. With a ballooning debt problem, Temer is seeking financial support from the New Development Bank to help Brazil’s balance of payments.

And South Africa with a much smaller economy (GDP USD 280 billion, 2017) does not carry any global influence. Ramaphosa welcomed the Belt and Road Initiative as it is likely to bring fresh Chinese investment into his stagnated economy.

BRICS was formed in 2009 at a time when the world economy was going through a serious depression. The idea was to pursue the “other options” and reverse some of the evil trends and revive the global economy. Critics say that despite 10 summits the block which has 41 percent of world population, 23 percent of world GDP worth about USD 40.6 trillion and 18 percent of world trade—its impact and progress on the world stage has been rather slow.

As the world economy is going through profound transition and changes, the BRICS summit has once again reminded the world the importance of multilateralism and globalisation. Actually, unilateralism and trade wars do not increase the world’s wealth—it only makes nations and people poorer.

Mahmood Hasan is former Ambassador and Secretary.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

By Mahmood Hasan
Aug 18 2017 (The Daily Star, Bangladesh)

A lot has been reported over the past couple of weeks about the escalating tension in the Korean Peninsula. As the western media demonises North Korea, one gets the impression that it is led by a “crazy fat kid” (Kim Jong-Un, 33), who is ready to go to war with America.

Compared to the US superpower, even nuclear-armed DPRK is a piddling. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is basically an impoverished country with an oppressive, unstable political structure dominated by its military. Having 46,540 sq miles area, a population of 25 million people, USD 30 billion GDP (2015) and chronic shortage of food and medical supplies—it has been cornered by the Korean Armistice Agreement of July 1953. The Armistice ceased hostilities of the Korean War (1950-53), but no peace treaty has been agreed on so far. Technically it is still at war with the US.

The Kim Jong-Un regime is deeply insecure and under constant fear that the Republic of Korea (ROK), with American help, will invade the North and try to instigate a regime change. Pyongyang also feels unsafe after the recent political changes in ROK.

The latest bout of tensions stems from the North testing two ICBMs in July. Latest reports suggest that Pyongyang has developed a miniaturised nuclear device that can be mounted on its ICBMs and launched on targets as far as the US mainland. Nuclear-DPRK has changed the security equation in East Asia. To protect DPRK from enemies such as ROK, Japan and America, Kim has two priorities—autonomy over a modernised military and political independence. DPRK describes its nuclear weapons as a “nuclear deterrent for self-defence”. It is a mystery as to how the poor country of DPRK funds it nuclear and missile programmes.

What is noteworthy is that tensions flare up every time American troops in South Korea play provocative war games. The next joint military exercise called “Ulchi-Freedom Guardian” is scheduled from August 21-31, 2017. These drills make Pyongyang jittery and it ratchets up war invectives against the Americans. The Americans also match the rhetoric with equal vengeance.

Donald Trump personally came out with extremely crude, off-the-cuff threats to DPRK. He threatened Kim Jong-Un with “fire and fury” if DPRK tried to attack American targets. Pyongyang responded to this by preparing plans to launch an attack on the American military base in Guam. Interestingly, the threat did not come from Kim Jong-Un personally, but from his military command. Upping the ante, Trump warned that US military was “locked and loaded” should Kim Jong-Un “act unwisely”.

While Trump has been making irresponsible threats, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reiterated that the United States is not an enemy of DPRK and there will be no regime change or military operation against it. Defence Secretary James Mattis said that though the US was ready (militarily)—“diplomatic efforts” were underway to deal with the threat. Clearly, there is incoherence in Washington.

It appears Donald Trump has found an able sparring-partner in Kim Jong-Un. By making nasty threats Donald Trump has pinned himself to a corner—with no room for flexibility. World leaders have called upon Donald Trump to avoid further tension with DPRK. Kim Jong-Un, by not personally threatening attack on Guam, retained the option not to implement the threats of his military command.

China, DPRK’s most important ally and trading partner, has called upon Washington and Pyongyang to calm down, and has asked the Americans to cease its military exercises that escalate tension. Beijing–Pyongyang relation has suffered in recent times because of DPRK’s repeated nuclear and missile tests. Beijing’s frustration with Pyongyang was in evidence when it voted on August 6, 2017, at the UN Security Council Resolution to strengthen sanctions on DPRK.

What is most surprising is that Chinese leaders have not made any public statements on the ongoing tension between DPRK and the US. The China factor is most important in the current fracas. Chinese state-run newspaper Global Times on August 11, said that China shall stay neutral if DPRK fires first. Donald Trump has been asking Beijing to restrain Kim Jong-Un and on August 12 spoke to Xi Jinping, who advised him to avoid “words and deeds” that would “exacerbate” the already tense situation. Chinese assertion to stay neutral is a clear warning to Pyongyang to stop being reckless. And the implied threat that China may be drawn into the fight, if US attempts pre-emptive strike on DPRK, is also a warning to Donald Trump. Beijing simply cannot allow US adventures on DPRK, a buffer ensconced under its belly. Kim Jong-Un knows well that had DPRK been geographically located away from China, Americans would have pulverised it militarily long ago, as it has done to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Sanctions have not stopped DPRK from developing its nuclear and missiles programmes. An American pre-emptive strike would lead to an apocalypse. So the only option worth considering is to find a diplomatic solution. Understandably, Kim Jong-Un will continue to brandish his missiles and push for maximum concessions from America—recognition as nuclear-weapon-state (NWS), end diplomatic isolation, end the state of war with a peace treaty, withdrawal of sanctions and obtain economic concessions. Can Washington, which wants complete cap on DPRK’s nuclear programme, agree to Kim’s wish list without annoying ROK and Japan? Only Beijing can help bring the two opposing parties together for a diplomatic solution and restore calm in the peninsula, as there is no contact between them.

Mike Pompeo, CIA director said on August 13 that there was no imminent threat of a nuclear war with DPRK. ROK President Moon Jae-In also declared there will be no war in the Peninsula. Japan’s Shinzo Abe also called upon Beijing to stop Pyongyang launching missiles. The only way war can break out is through a miscalculation or by accident. Meanwhile, both sides should handle their military assets cautiously and refrain from making irresponsible threats.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh

Excerpt:

China hosted the 11th G20 summit from September 4-5, 2016 at Hangzhou for the first time since the group formally started holding summits when the world economy slipped into deep recession in 2008. The theme for the summit was “Towards an innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive world economy”. China also invited leaders of eight developing countries and chiefs of international organisations to participate at the conference.

The summit came at a time when the world is facing sluggish economic growth and geopolitical challenges. Ideological differences among member states coupled with individual monetary and fiscal policies, which are at variance with others, are the main reasons for poor economic performance. However, despite political antagonism, these summits offer convenient opportunities to leaders to exchange notes.

China’s relation with the US is currently under strain because of China’s assertive policy on South China Sea and rejection of the verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which seems to have jeopardised President Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” policy. The “candid” talks between President Obama and President Xi Jinping revealed that the two largest economies of the world have major discords over trade and security issues. Despite all the courtesies and politeness, Xi Jinping appeared in no mood to give any leeway to Obama, who has only a few weeks left in the White House. However, before the meeting, US and China — which together account for 40 percent of the world’s carbon emission – announced ratification of the Paris Climate Agreement adopted in December 2015.

President Obama also had a “blunt” 90-minute meeting with President Putin, discussing a ceasefire in Syria. The talks were described as “constructive but not conclusive”. Tension is also high between China and Japan – second and third largest economies of the world – related to the unmanned Senkakus Islands in East China Sea. While meeting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Chinese president suggested that Japan should “put aside disruptions” for normal development of relations.

Prime Minister Modi, during his talks with President Xi, raised thorny issues like terrorism, China’s economic corridor that runs through Pakistan and India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which Beijing opposed recently. While India is apprehensive about China’s militarisation of South China Sea, China is also concerned over the recently signed Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) signed between US and India. Xi Jinping said, “China is willing to work with India to maintain their hard-won sound relations and further advance their cooperation”.

Britain’s decision to quit the European Union has put it in an economically uncertain position and Theresa May is looking for economic partners beyond Europe. At the bilateral meeting, Xi Jinping assured Theresa May that China would be willing to have closer economic and trading relations with Britain. Other leaders, however, told Theresa May that Brexit would be damaging for the global economy.

Brazil is in double trouble because of the impeachment of President Dilma Rouseff and negative economic growth (−3.8 percent in 2015). Turkey, host of the 10th G20 summit, is still reeling from the recent coup attempt on President Erdogan’s presidency. Germany’s Angela Merkel is facing political challenges at home because of her liberal immigration policy.

The two-day summit ended issuing a 48-paragraph Communiqué, which drew liberally from the decisions taken by the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting held in July 2016 at Chengdu, China. The Communiqué covers four major areas – strengthening G20 growth agenda; pursuing innovative growth concepts and policies; building an open world economy; and ensuring that economic growth benefits all countries and people.

On the world economic situation, the leaders were concerned that “Downside risks remain due to potential volatility in the financial markets, fluctuations of commodity prices, sluggish trade and investment, and slow productivity and employment growth in some countries”. The summit decided to “use all policy tools – monetary, fiscal and structural – individually and collectively to achieve our goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth”. Actually, implementing a harmonised monetary and fiscal policy by all stakeholders is the key to quicker growth of the global economy.

As a protectionist tendency is raising its head around the world, G20 leaders were determined to ensure globalisation through “open and inclusive multilateral trading system”. The communiqué strongly condemned terrorism and were committed to strengthening the Sustainable Development Goals set by the UN.

China has been asserting its economic prowess through the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) and its $1.4 trillion “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) plan. Recognising China’s strong macroeconomic indicators, the World Bank has sold 500 million SDR Bonds on August 31, 2016. IMF has decided to add Chinese Renminbi (RMB) for the first time to the SDR basket from October 1, 2016, which will make it easily convertible and boost Chinese capital market. These developments will give China a bigger say in the global market.

For Xi Jinping, the biggest worry was that the summit may descend into a forum of acrimonious geopolitical debate, particularly over the South China Sea. The agenda for the summit was therefore kept focused on global growth, green financing, sustainable infrastructure, development of poorest countries, etc. Contentious geopolitical issues were left to the leaders meeting on the sidelines of the summit. The media focused more on these bilateral meetings and less on the substantive discussions that went inside the conference room.

However, President Xi Jinping has demonstrated his skilfulness in handling so many world leaders simultaneously. The summit concluded without any major faux pas, though some Western media termed it inconclusive. As the leader of G20, China has rightfully taken its place on the international stage.

The writer is former Ambassador and Secretary.

This story was originally published by The Daily Star, Bangladesh