What next in Bangladesh?

AS BANGLADESH moves into uncharted waters, its political future seems to hang in the balance. Weeks of street violence have taken 40 lives in a country where democracy has yet to take root —16 years after the last military ruler was ousted from power. With the EU and the UN having decided to pull out their poll monitors saying that the political crisis had severely damaged the legitimacy of the electoral process, President Iajuddin Ahmad was left with no choice but to postpone elections and step down from his post as the head of the caretaker government: he now remains a token president. Democracy is now on the rocks as a state of emergency has been promulgated, the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and movement have been suspended and no new date has been announced for elections. Since the constitution does not provide for such contingency, there is no knowing what happens next in Bangladesh. However, when President Ahmad announces the new caretaker government and its head, the prospect ahead may become clearer.

Needless to say, the future of Bangladesh depends on what course of action the two major political parties decide to take. At the moment the Awami League, the main opposition party which created the crisis by taking to the street, is rejoicing at what it perceives to be its victory. The BNP, the party that was in office until October when it stepped down to pave the way for elections, has not reacted (at the time of writing) to the shocking developments of Thursday night. President Ahmad has promised that the voters list will be revised before polls are held. Since he has more or less given in to the demands of the Awami League and has defused the crisis for the time being, it would be wise to use this opportunity to create a national consensus on how the elections are to be held. If all the major political parties were to be invited to the negotiations table and an understanding reached on who is to head the caretaker government and the election commission, it might save the country a lot of turmoil. This is important if another impasse is not to be created between the two leaders who have been on a collision course bringing Bangladesh to its present sorry pass mainly because of their personal rivalry, utter lack of respect for democratic norms and failure to show any political tolerance.

A dialogue at this stage might help that is if it is already not too late and democracy can survive. The fact is that such conditions as are obtaining in Bangladesh today make a classic case for a bonapartist intervention. The experience of military rule will not be something new for the country. Its founding president, Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, was unseated and killed in an army coup. Thereafter, the armed forces ruled the roost until Khaleda Zia and Hasina Wajed decided to join hands to throw the army out. But they seem to have forgotten their lessons and their failure to recognise that a democracy — however imperfect — is a better alternative to a military dictatorship that has immensely harmed the working of the government. If the army seizes control now, the politicians in Bangladesh will find it difficult to dislodge it this time. They have Pakistan’s example before them. Once a man in uniform gets a taste of political power, he is not likely to relinquish it under any circumstances.

Sectarian schism

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s warning about a sectarian crisis brewing in the Muslim world deserves to be heeded. It should be noted, however, that the Islamic world does not have a history of serious sectarian conflict, unlike Europe, which was reduced to primitivism during the holocaust that was the 30-year war ending in 1648 with the peace of Westphalia. It is only when the former Ottoman territories were broken up into new entities that ethnic and sectarian considerations came to the fore. Iran and Iraq have a Shia majority, but never did they have sectarian trouble, and the cause of the Iran-Iraq war can be traced to Saddam Hussein’s foolish megalomania. Currently, too, the wave of sectarian killings in Iraq is a post-Baathist phenomenon triggered by Britain and America. In Pakistan, sectarianism raised its head in the wake of the US-led ‘jihad’ against the USSR in Afghanistan. The CIA funded and armed some Pakistani religious parties, which, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, acquired a vested interest in maintaining well-armed militias and defied the government when it suited them. Some of these parties, like the banned Sipah-i-Sahaba, had a sectarian agenda. Even though banned, it continues to exist underground.

With Moharram approaching, the ulema should realise their responsibility. It would be futile to expect the law enforcement agencies alone to maintain peace and preempt terrorist attacks, Indeed, a greater responsibility rests with the ulema. The focus of their sermons should be on peace, harmony and brotherhood. The Quran expects all preaching and sermons to be mauozatul hasana — preaching in a manner that is full of love and compassion. Regrettably, some of our ulema often seem to forget this basic element of tableegh, and employ a language that arouses passions and contributes to discord and strife instead of peace and goodwill. Given the security situation in Balochistan and the tribal area, we can ill-afford violence elsewhere in the country. As a major Muslim country, Pakistan can play a vital role in checking sectarian schisms in the Muslim countries if it first puts its own house in order. It goes without saying that the ulema can play a crucial role here.

Bolstering tourism

THE government’s obsession with the country’s image was made apparent once again when tourism minister Nilofar Bakhtiar echoed the oft-repeated phrase of promoting a “soft image” to boost the country’s tourism industry. This misplaced notion is not the sole reason Pakistan’s tourism industry is in the doldrums. She was right when she said that travel advisories issued by some countries against coming to Pakistan hurt the country. But to suggest that by promoting a softer image of the country would bolster tourism is naive. The biggest handicap is the country’s law and order situation and until that problem is effectively tackled, no one will be willing to come to the country and the ambitious Visit Pakistan 2007 project will fail. The government, however, seems oblivious of this painfully obvious reality. Instead, Ms Bakhtiar told reporters in Peshawar of the steps her ministry was taking to encourage tourists — relaxing visa rules by issuing special tourist columns in the visa form and issuing tourists from 24 countries visas on arrival are two examples which are hardly likely to generate the interest that is required to encourage tourism. Ms Bakhtiar acknowledged that poor infrastructure discourages tourism, saying that hotels needed to be improved. However, plans of privatising the PTDC hotels will absolve the government of its responsibility towards the industry. It must itself ensure that hotels and other facilities like transport are in good working condition instead of outsourcing the job to private parties.

There is no doubt that Pakistan has immense tourism potential but the government’s priorities are skewed. It is now launching a grand plan for the year with many exciting events across the country. It will be a pity if not many are there to participate in them because of security reasons — which need to be ensured as the foremost prerequisite.

Europe’s prospects for 2007

EUROPEAN UNION citizens woke up in 2007 to two historic developments: the entry of new member states, Romania and Bulgaria, which joined the now 27-nation bloc on New Year’s Day and Slovenia’s membership of the euro, the common currency which now links 13 EU countries.

With the expansion celebrations over, however, the upbeat mood is giving way to a more sombre assessment of the array of internal and external challenges facing EU governments in the coming year.

Among issues causing unease in European capitals are demands from a number of countries including EU heavyweight Germany — currently in charge of the EU presidency — for a revival of the failed EU constitution, acrimonious exchanges on Europe during upcoming elections in France and problems over Turkish accession negotiations which in turn reflect growing EU “enlargement fatigue” over potential expansion into the Western Balkans.

Almost 18 months after French and Dutch voters issued their clear “No” to the Union’s draft constitution, the EU is in disarray over whether to bury or revive the failed treaty. Unless the disarray ends soon, EU insiders admit the bloc will find it difficult to dispel the clouds of pessimism and introspection that have hovered over European skies for most of 2006. At stake are not only EU morale but also Europe’s external reputation and global standing.

The seemingly impossible task of turning around Europe’s destiny has been given to German Chancellor Angela Merkel who has chosen the motto “succeeding together” for Germany’s six-month EU presidency. Although there are widespread hopes among EU-watchers that “Angela can fix it” — Ms Merkel earned plaudits a year ago for helping to broker a difficult EU budget deal — diplomats in Berlin admit that reviving the EU’s fortunes is not going to be an easy task.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, however, has laid out ambitious goals for Berlin over the coming six months. First and foremost, Germany wants to restart discussions on the constitution. Steinmeier has also said he wants to beef up the EU’s common foreign policy, to show that Europe can be effective in tackling the world’s most dangerous conflicts and to find solutions to the looming threat to Europe’s energy security, as well as climate change and other long-term challenges.

Despite its status as the EU’s largest and most powerful nation, Germany is likely to find it difficult to sort out the constitutional confusion currently facing the bloc, with many fearing that any new proposals to revive the debate over the treaty will deepen existing splits among EU nations rather than heal them.

Merkel told an EU summit in Brussels last year that she will focus during the coming six months on trying to resurrect as much of the original draft treaty as possible. Her attention is expected to centre on plans in the constitution to create the post of an EU president and foreign minister at the head of new structures for common European internal and foreign policies.

At a special EU summit to be held on March 25, 2007, 50 years after the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the bloc’s leaders will issue a “Berlin Declaration”, in an attempt to re-inspire Europeans with the ideal of continent-wide integration and to map out Europe’s common challenges.

However, several months of wrangling lie ahead since the wording of the statement must be agreed by consensus — and despite Merkel’s hopes, many EU states including Britain and the Netherlands are sceptical about cherry-picking the most important parts of the constitution and letting others fall by the wayside.

The 18 countries (including newcomers Bulgaria and Romania) which have accepted the constitution as it stands want to put pressure on those which have either rejected it or not ratified it. Spain and Luxembourg have called a conference of pro-treaty governments in Madrid in mid-January to consider the right path forward.

Hoping to avoid a confrontation on the issue, Ms Merkel has said she will present a “roadmap” on future treaty reforms in June, soon after French parliamentary and presidential elections in May. But the line she takes will depend to a large extent on just who wins the French polls.

Nicolas Sarkozy, the conservative presidential candidate in France, has said he wants a “mini-treaty” or stripped down version of the constitution, much on the lines of Merkel’s ideas. If he wins the elections, Sarkozy could ensure that such a scaled-down constitution is ratified by the national assembly, without being submitted to another public referendum. However, a victory by socialist presidential candidate Segolene Royal could lead to more confusion, given the socialists’ deep split over the pros and cons of the treaty.

At the earliest, therefore, a new constitution is only expected to be agreed and ratified by 2009, making it unlikely that Germany — despite its best intentions — can revitalise the EU this year.

In addition to discord over the constitution, Germany also faces key foreign policy challenges, including relations with the United States, ties with Russia and forging a united EU response to fast-changing events in the Middle East.

Merkel, who began the New Year with a trip to the US, is determinedly pro-American and has forged a good working relationship with President George W. Bush. During her Washington visit, the German chancellor insisted on the need to revive the international Quartet (US, EU, Russia and the US) which is trying to revive the “roadmap” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Relations with Russia are more complex, with Poland and the Baltic states strongly opposed to the strategic deal done by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in 2005 to build a new North European gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will supply customers in Western Europe, bypassing Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine.

Many in the EU — especially the bloc’s new members which are former communist countries — are increasingly wary of Russia’s robust use of its vast energy resources as a foreign policy tool. The fears came to the fore a year ago, when Russia cut-off of gas to Ukraine, also hitting supplies to much of Western and Central Europe.

In addition, the unsolved murders of several high-profile opponents of Putin have led many in Europe to question whether the Russian leadership is committed to respecting civil rights and the rule of law.

Germany is seeking to improve the EU’s relations with countries like Ukraine and Georgia in Europe’s “New Neighbourhood”, which have complained of Russian bullying. Berlin is also planning an initiative to stabilise Central Asia — including the large, energy-rich former Soviet republics like Kazakhstan.

The blueprint fits in with Merkel’s plans to present an energy action plan focusing on protecting Europe against future energy disasters at the EU summit in March. The 27-nation bloc has widely divergent national energy policies. While France and some others intend to depend more on nuclear power for their future energy needs, Germany has turned its back on building new nuclear power stations, citing environmental concerns.

Also while Britain, Sweden and other countries have pressed for Europe-wide deregulation of energy monopolies, Germany and France still resist opening up their own networks to allow common electricity or gas grids to work for the benefit of all.

Other key dossiers for Germany include counter-terrorism, migration, better integration of Muslim minorities inside EU states, and resuming Turkey’s membership negotiations after a bitter row over Cyprus. The dispute over Turkey has spotlighted the EU’s widening rift over future enlargement, with Germany and France wary not only of bringing Ankara into the fold but also anxious not to expand the bloc further to the east.

EU governments are divided between those who want the EU to have well-defined borders and others like Britain, Sweden and EU newcomers which want further expansion to include Ukraine, Georgia and even others from the Caucasus.

Leaders agreed in December to toughen existing criteria for EU membership and to scrutinise applicants more carefully. They also warned that candidates will no longer be given target dates for EU membership. The decision is not causing too much concern in Turkey which has never sought a firm deadline for accession. But Croatia and Macedonia — and other potential EU members in the Balkans — have made clear that they are fed up with the EU’s expansion blues.