You searched for M A Hossain — Arabian Post

Multipolarity or Dependency? Russia’s Bid for African Allegiance

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 30 Jul 2025 07:35:48 +0000

M. A. Hossain

When Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and current deputy chair of Russia’s Security Council, addressed the Liberation Movements Summit in South Africa on July 27, his message was as predictable as it was provocative: Russia stands with Africa in the fight against neocolonialism and envisions a multipolar world. Coming from a Kremlin official, this claim may appear noble at first glance—until one examines the underlying logic, the historical baggage, and the realpolitik shaping Moscow’s African charm offensive.

The summit brought together ruling parties with anti-colonial roots—South Africa’s ANC, Zimbabwe’s ZANU-PF, Mozambique’s FRELIMO, Namibia’s SWAPO, and Tanzania’s CCM. These are parties with storied pasts, forged in the fires of liberation wars, many of which were backed by Soviet arms and ideology during the Cold War. Medvedev’s remarks framed these parties as guardians of sovereignty and developmental progress, touting their legitimacy not only in history but in the future of global pluralism.

But historical memory and contemporary alliances often diverge.

There is no denying that Russia’s growing footprint in Africa taps into a deep well of postcolonial disillusionment. For many African nations, political independence did not translate into economic sovereignty. Decades after European withdrawal, Western corporations still dominate resource extraction, and the Bretton Woods institutions often seem more like gatekeepers than partners. The result has been a lingering sense that colonialism never truly ended—it just evolved.

Russia, keen to reassert itself globally in the face of Western sanctions and isolation following its invasion of Ukraine, has cleverly tapped into this sentiment. Medvedev’s appeal was laced with references to “ideologues of neocolonialism” and “equal partnerships.” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has echoed similar lines, accusing the West of economic exploitation. Such rhetoric has struck a chord with leaders disenchanted with the asymmetries of the Western-led order.

And yet, to accept Russia as a liberating force in Africa demands a suspension of disbelief.

If neocolonialism is defined as the economic dominion of sovereign nations under the guise of cooperation, then Russia’s actions warrant scrutiny as much as those of the West. Moscow’s military ties in Africa are expanding rapidly—Wagner mercenaries in the Central African Republic and Mali, arms deals across the continent, and intelligence-sharing agreements with autocratic regimes. These arrangements often lack transparency and accountability. Russian partnerships, while devoid of the moral posturing typical of Western democracies, are far from altruistic.

The idea of a multipolar world (an appealing concept to postcolonial states) is increasingly used as a diplomatic euphemism for alignment with non-Western power centers. Yet the benefits of such partnerships remain uneven. In Mali and Burkina Faso, Russian support has coincided with growing repression and shrinking civic space. While the Kremlin promises “respect for sovereignty,” it often gravitates toward regimes that muzzle opposition and rely on coercion, not consent.

This isn’t to say that African countries are mere pawns in a great power game. Quite the contrary—they are navigating a world of constrained choices, reshaping their foreign policy around a strategic mix of Chinese investment, Russian arms, Gulf State capital, and Western aid. The shift is less ideological than pragmatic. Leaders want roads, power plants, and trade—regardless of whether it comes with liberal sermons or Kremlin silence.

Still, there is an undeniable symbolism to the Liberation Movements Summit. It reflects a continent increasingly confident in its agency, willing to rewrite the rules of engagement with former colonial powers and emerging ones alike. Gwen Ramokgopa of South Africa’s ANC put it succinctly: political liberation is not enough. Economic emancipation is now the goal.

But how does one achieve that without repeating the mistakes of the past? Aligning with Russia may help loosen Western conditionalities, but it won’t solve Africa’s structural problems: underdeveloped infrastructure, poor education systems, and endemic corruption. Russian trade and military cooperation are not substitutes for institutional reform or industrial diversification.

History offers sobering lessons. The Cold War-era alliances between the USSR and African liberation movements were driven more by ideological rivalry than genuine development. While Soviet aid helped win independence, it rarely built enduring economic capacity. The collapse of the USSR left many of its African allies adrift, exposing the fragility of partnerships built more on geopolitics than on shared prosperity.

Today’s Russia is not yesterday’s Soviet Union, but its motivations are just as strategic. Facing economic sanctions, international isolation, and battlefield challenges in Ukraine, Moscow needs Africa—not only for diplomatic support at the United Nations, but also for alternative markets, arms deals, and mineral access. In that light, Medvedev’s speech reads less like an ode to African empowerment and more like a realpolitik maneuver to secure influence in a shifting global landscape.

Even so, the West would be foolish to dismiss Russia’s overtures. The language of anti-imperialism carries weight in postcolonial societies. Decades of moralistic diplomacy—often undermined by military interventions, unfair trade terms, and migration hypocrisy—have tarnished the West’s image in Africa. When Western leaders preach human rights while ignoring the economic realities imposed by their own corporations, they create a credibility vacuum that rivals are eager to fill.

The challenge for the West is not merely to counter Russia’s narrative, but to offer a better one. That means shifting from extractive economic relations to genuine partnerships—investing in African value chains, supporting debt restructuring, and engaging African civil societies rather than just their rulers.

For Africa, the future lies not in choosing between East and West, but in mastering the art of strategic non-alignment—leveraging multiple partnerships to advance domestic development goals. Multipolarity, if truly rooted in mutual respect and economic inclusion, can serve that purpose. But if it becomes a euphemism for siding with authoritarian benefactors against liberal hypocrites, it will fail the very people it claims to empower.

Medvedev’s address reflects a broader geopolitical recalibration. Russia is using history and ideology to position itself as a partner of choice for a continent still scarred by colonialism. But rhetoric alone is not redemption. Africa’s liberation movements, now ruling parties, must decide whether Russia offers merely a new suitor—or a new path. The answer will determine whether multipolarity becomes a means of empowerment, or just another version of dependency cloaked in new colors.

The article Multipolarity or Dependency? Russia’s Bid for African Allegiance appeared first on Arabian Post.

Gulf States in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Pragmatism Redrawing the Map

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 19 Jul 2025 06:22:20 +0000

M A Hossain

It is easy to overlook the quiet revolutions in geopolitics, especially when the headlines are dominated by wars in Ukraine and Gaza, tensions in the Indo-Pacific, or the perennial drama of U.S.-China rivalry. Yet, beneath the surface of global power struggles, there is a subtler but equally consequential shift unfolding across Central Asia and the South Caucasus. And it is not Moscow, Beijing, or Washington leading the charge—but Abu Dhabi and Riyadh.

In recent years, the Gulf states have redefined themselves from oil-rich rentier economies into strategic actors with global ambitions. Their latest frontier is the heart of Eurasia, a region long trapped between competing empires and great power rivalries. By investing in infrastructure, hosting peace negotiations, and building pragmatic partnerships, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are becoming indispensable intermediaries in a geopolitical landscape once exclusively dominated by Russia, China, and Turkey.

This is not an isolated trend. The recent GulfLink logistics venture between Kazakhstan Railways and the UAE’s AD Ports Group is a case in point. On the surface, it looks like another trade deal. But look closer, and it signals a strategic reorientation: Central Asia is being connected southward to the Gulf’s transport hubs, offering an alternative to the overland routes that traditionally linked the region only to Russia or China. Similarly, Uzbekistan’s decision earlier this year to lift visa requirements for Gulf nationals is more than a tourism move; it is an invitation for deeper economic and cultural integration.

And then there is diplomacy. When the UAE hosted peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it stepped into a role historically played by Moscow. For decades, Russia’s shadow loomed large over the South Caucasus, cemented through military bases, energy pipelines, and the promise of security guarantees. Yet after Moscow’s failure to prevent renewed hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh and its growing preoccupation with Ukraine, space opened for new actors. The Gulf states were quick to seize it, offering neutrality and incentives for peace built around economic dividends rather than coercive pressure.

This approach deserves attention precisely because it is different. Unlike the United States, which tends to mix security assistance with ideological lectures, or China, whose Belt and Road Initiative often fosters dependency, Gulf states deal in pragmatic reciprocity. They do not seek regime change. They do not export ideology. They invest. They build. And, crucially, they do so without forcing local leaders into rigid alliances.

History makes this shift even more striking. Central Asia and the South Caucasus were once tightly bound to the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the region inherited messy borders, fragile institutions, and lingering ethnic disputes. Russia continued to exploit these vulnerabilities, maintaining influence through energy, security pacts like the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and its self-appointed role as a regional arbiter.

But over the past two decades, this dominance has frayed. China emerged with its Belt and Road projects, flooding the region with infrastructure loans. Turkey leveraged soft power, shared language, and culture to cultivate a “Turkic world” narrative. The United States made intermittent forays, mostly driven by counterterrorism concerns after 9/11.

Into this crowded arena came the Gulf states, offering something different—a partnership model without the baggage of past empires or ideological strings. And it is precisely this neutrality that gives Abu Dhabi and Riyadh an edge. They are not there to compete with Russia or China directly. Instead, they provide hedging space for local actors, allowing Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan to diversify their foreign relations beyond their immediate great power neighbors.

What makes Gulf engagement particularly relevant is its non-intrusive conflict management style. Consider the South Caucasus. Armenia’s reliance on Russian protection proved hollow when Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey, regained control over Nagorno-Karabakh. Moscow’s credibility as a security guarantor collapsed. In stepped the UAE—not with troops or ultimatums, but with a neutral venue for talks and an economic vision to incentivize peace.

This approach mirrors the Gulf’s own experiences in conflict mediation. The Saudi-Iran détente brokered by China was facilitated by years of quiet Gulf diplomacy. Similarly, the UAE’s role in Yemen’s peace process demonstrated that even bitter conflicts can be softened through economic carrots rather than military sticks. Applying this model to Eurasia, where frozen conflicts are a legacy of Soviet-era borders, could unlock new pathways for stability.

The same logic applies to Central Asia’s simmering disputes. The Ferghana Valley, shared by Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, remains a hotspot of ethnic tension, porous borders, and radicalization risks. Gulf states, with their experience in counterterrorism and deradicalization programs, can provide expertise without provoking nationalist sensitivities. By supporting security cooperation while simultaneously investing in logistics and trade, they address both the symptoms and the root causes of instability.

Critics might argue that the Gulf cannot replace Russia or China. True. They neither have the hard power to dominate Eurasia nor the historical ties that Moscow enjoys. But that misses the point. Gulf states are not trying to supplant the great powers; they are inserting themselves as moderating actors, capable of balancing rival influences. This “dynamic neutrality,” as some analysts call it, allows them to engage simultaneously with Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States without being seen as a threat by any single actor.

Moreover, the Gulf brings something the others lack—capital unburdened by political conditions. While Western aid often comes with demands for governance reforms, and Chinese loans tend to create dependency traps, Gulf investments are framed as mutually beneficial deals. A new port, a logistics hub, an energy pipeline—these projects give immediate, tangible benefits to local populations, making Gulf engagement politically palatable.

There is also a deeper lesson here about the changing nature of global power. In the 20th century, influence was projected primarily through military bases, ideological blocs, or coercive economic leverage. In the 21st, especially for middle powers like the Gulf states, influence increasingly comes from soft leverage—connectivity, capital, and credibility.

Of course, there are limits. The Gulf states cannot resolve every frozen conflict, nor can they indefinitely maintain neutrality if regional rivalries sharpen. But their very presence already alters the strategic calculus. For Armenia, disillusioned with Russia’s protection, the UAE offers an alternative partner. For Kazakhstan, caught between Russian security demands and Chinese economic dependence, Gulf investment provides a third option. For Azerbaijan, already aligned with Turkey, Gulf diplomacy adds another layer of strategic depth.

The broader implication is that the geopolitical map of Eurasia is no longer binary. It is not just Russia versus the West, or China versus the United States. It is multipolar, with middle powers like the UAE and Saudi Arabia redrawing the contours through trade routes, peace talks, and pragmatic alliances. But for now, the message is clear: the Gulf states are no longer just consumers of global order. They are quietly becoming its architects—one port, one pipeline, and one peace deal at a time.

The article Gulf States in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Pragmatism Redrawing the Map appeared first on Arabian Post.

Trump’s 50-Day Ultimatum: Ukraine Ceasefire or a New Trap?

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 16 Jul 2025 06:54:33 +0000

M A Hossain

Donald Trump once campaigned on ending the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. He promised to bring an end to the proxy war with Russia, leveraging his self-proclaimed ‘Dealmaking’ skills. Yet, halfway into July, what we see instead is a new escalation dressed up as diplomacy. In a carefully choreographed appearance with NATO Secretary Mark Rutte at the White House, Trump offered Moscow a “50-day window” to agree to a ceasefire or face sweeping 100% tariffs on Russian goods. In the same breath, he confirmed new shipments of Patriot missile systems to Ukraine, financed not by Washington but by Europe.

For all the transactional logic Trump likes to project, this move is anything but straightforward. It is a curious blend of carrot and stick, peace and provocation.

Trump’s message is clear: he wants Russia to halt the war on his terms. Yet it is equally clear that his “peace offer” is laden with conditions that Moscow has already deemed unacceptable. Russia has long said it would consider a ceasefire only if the West addresses the root causes of the conflict—NATO’s eastward expansion, Kyiv’s rearmament, and the status of Crimea and the Donbas. A pause simply to rearm Ukraine is a nonstarter for Moscow. And who can say that this is an unreasonable position? History teaches us that ceasefires imposed without resolving the underlying dispute tend only to postpone the inevitable.

Consider the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015, hailed in the West as a pathway to peace but quietly treated by Ukraine and its allies as an opportunity to buy time, retrain the military, and fortify defenses. From Moscow’s perspective, another Western-backed ceasefire would be the same ruse in a different wrapper.

So what exactly is Trump offering here? Not a genuine peace, but a temporary truce calculated to preserve Western leverage while handing NATO’s military-industrial complex a fresh infusion of profits. The United States will produce the weapons; Europe will pay for them. The result is an arrangement that strengthens Washington’s economic position while further crippling Europe’s stagnating economies.

If Trump truly sought a lasting peace, he would push for direct talks addressing Russia’s security concerns, the neutrality of Ukraine, and the future of disputed territories. Instead, he has chosen to threaten punitive tariffs, a move unlikely to sway the Kremlin and more likely to harden its resolve.

This duality in Trump’s approach, appearing conciliatory while simultaneously escalating has precedent. Recall his administration’s handling of Iran. Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal, imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions, and then offered to negotiate “a better deal.” The result? Tehran deepened its regional alliances, advanced its missile program, and diversified trade away from the dollar. Far from bending Iran to American will, Trump inadvertently accelerated its pivot toward Moscow and Beijing.

The same pattern could now unfold with Russia. By threatening secondary tariffs on countries that purchase Russian oil and gas; China, India, Brazil—Trump risks widening the very fractures in the global economy that Washington is trying to contain. This is the law of unintended consequences in action: pressure designed to isolate Moscow instead reinforces its role in a multipolar trading network beyond the reach of Western sanctions.

Even markets appear to understand this. Russian stocks rose 2% after Trump’s announcement, as investors interpreted the 50-day window not as an imminent escalation but as breathing space for Moscow to consolidate its gains in Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk. Trump’s tariffs, scaled down from Lindsey Graham’s outrageous 500% proposal, seemed more symbolic than substantive.

Yet symbolism has its dangers. By framing the war as a bargaining chip—a way to extract concessions from Europe, bolster the US economy, and placate NATO hawks, Trump risks making Ukraine even more of a pawn than it already is. The promise of Patriots and other advanced systems may temporarily embolden Kyiv, but it also prolongs the suffering on the ground.

What’s more, by outsourcing the bill for Ukraine’s defense to Europe, Trump is effectively weaponizing Europe’s dependence on the United States. This is a familiar ‘Trumpian tactic’; remind the Europeans of their weakness, force them to pay for their security, and in doing so, deepen their reliance on American manufacturing and political goodwill. It’s the art of the deal, but at Europe’s expense.

And what of Russia? Despite Trump’s posturing, he avoided the harsh language his critics expected. There was no direct condemnation of Vladimir Putin as a war criminal, no call for regime change, no talk of confiscating frozen Russian assets. Trump still sees Moscow not as an ideological enemy but as a negotiating partner—one that must be pressured, yes, but not humiliated.

This, too, reflects a certain realism. Even in Washington’s corridors of power, there is grudging recognition that Russia cannot simply be coerced into submission. It has survived waves of Western sanctions, adapted its economy to wartime conditions, and retained significant support from the Global South. Forcing Russia into a corner risks escalation that neither Europe nor the United States is prepared to handle.

The Kremlin knows it has time on its side. The 50-day window Trump has granted conveniently overlaps with rumors of a Russian offensive to cement control over occupied territories. By September, Moscow may be in an even stronger negotiating position. Far from compelling Russia to capitulate, Trump’s threat may inadvertently incentivize it to accelerate military operations.

History offers another cautionary tale here. In 1939, Britain and France issued ultimatums to Germany, believing that economic and military pressure would deter Hitler from further aggression. Instead, the ultimata stiffened his resolve and plunged Europe into catastrophe. Ultimatums rarely work when they fail to account for the adversary’s core strategic interests.

Trump’s move, then, looks less like a peace initiative and more like a strategic pause designed to serve domestic and economic agendas. He can tell his voters he’s tough on Russia. He can tell NATO allies he’s committed to their security. And he can tell the military-industrial lobby that their contracts are secure. Everyone wins—except the Ukrainians caught in the crossfire.

It is also worth noting the quiet but unmistakable erosion of constitutional norms in Trump’s approach. When asked if he needed congressional approval for his tariffs, Trump shrugged: “I’m not sure we need them.” He said the same about his strikes on Iran years ago. The creeping expansion of executive power in matters of war and peace is now bipartisan orthodoxy in Washington.

So where does this leave us? In the same gray zone of uncertainty where this war has resided for two years. Trump’s transactional approach may temporarily slow escalation, but it will not bring peace. It is designed to buy time—for NATO, for the US defense industry, and for his own political campaign. It offers Moscow no real incentive to compromise and leaves Kyiv with false hope.

For Russia, this is not just a conflict over territory; it is a conflict over the very architecture of European security. Until the West acknowledges this reality, no amount of ultimatums, tariffs, or Patriot batteries will resolve it.

In the end, Trump’s 50-day gambit is not about ending the war. It is about managing the optics of a war that Washington has no strategy to win and no courage to end.

The article Trump’s 50-Day Ultimatum: Ukraine Ceasefire or a New Trap? appeared first on Arabian Post.

XI BRICS no show: Strategic shift or silent warning?

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 08:59:52 +0000

XI’s BICKS NO-SHOW: STRATEGIC SHIFT OR SILENT WARNING?

CHINESE SYMBOLISM ON CONFIDENCE IN FULL PLAY

M A Hossain

In the realm of global politics, symbolism matters almost as much as substance. President Xi Jinping of China has decided not to attend this year’s BRICS summit which will be held in Rio de Janeiro. This is the first time President Xi will not be at the summit since BRICS’s inception. This has become a breaking news globally. While the official explanation cites “scheduling conflicts,” the deeper reality suggests something more complex, and perhaps more consequential, for the future of the world’s most prominent coalition of emerging economies.

At first glance, the decision may seem trivial. After all, Chinese Premier Li Qiang will represent Beijing at the summit, and China’s foreign ministry insists that Beijing remains fully committed to BRICS and supports Brazil’s presidency of the group. But in international affairs, particularly in institutions built on mutual symbolism and solidarity, the absence of a key figure can speak louder than any official statement. It can send a message—intentional or not—about shifting priorities, evolving strategies, and potential fractures within alliances.

This is not the first time President Xi has chosen to skip a major international summit. In 2023, he declined to deliver a speech at the BRICS gathering in South Africa, delegating the task to his commerce minister without any clear explanation. The pattern of disengagement—two high-profile absences in two years—raises legitimate questions. Is China quietly stepping back from the frontline of BRICS leadership? Or is it, in fact, signalling supreme confidence that its influence within the bloc is so firmly established that personal appearances are no longer necessary?

To understand what may be at play, it is helpful to recall the historical context of BRICS itself. Originally conceived as a loose grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—economies outside the traditional Western sphere. BRICS has often been more aspirational than operational. Unlike NATO or the European Union, BRICS lacks binding treaties or a common defence policy. Its strength lies in its symbolism: a counterweight to Western dominance and a platform for the Global South to amplify its voice in world affairs.

China’s role in this group is undeniably central. It is the largest economy among the members by far, the principal driver of intra-BRICS trade, and a key player in development financing through institutions such as the New Development Bank. As of 2024, BRICS nations account for nearly 40% of global GDP—a staggering rise from the mere 8% they represented at the dawn of the millennium. Much of this economic transformation has been underpinned by China’s relentless growth and its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, which has spread Chinese influence across Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Given this commanding position, it is tempting to see Xi’s absence as a mark of confidence, not retreat. Just as Franklin D. Roosevelt or Winston Churchill did not need to attend every Allied summit in person to exert influence during World War II, Xi may be demonstrating that Beijing’s dominance is now institutionalized within BRICS. Whether he physically attends or not, China remains the gravitational center of the bloc’s economic and strategic agenda.

Yet this interpretation overlooks a crucial point: global leadership is not only about leverage but also about presence. History teaches that absent leaders can erode alliances. The post-World War I disillusionment with the League of Nations, largely due to the U.S.’s refusal to fully commit, is a stark example of how absenteeism can undercut global institutions. Even in modern times, when U.S. presidents skip key summits—as Donald Trump did with ASEAN gatherings—it often sows confusion and weakens diplomatic cohesion.

Moreover, symbolism matters even more for a grouping like BRICS, which is still in the process of defining its identity and role in the evolving world order. In this context, the Chinese president’s absence could inadvertently reinforce concerns about whether the bloc has the unity and shared vision necessary to challenge the Western-led system in a sustained and credible way.

A more plausible explanation lies in China’s broader recalibration of its global strategy. In recent years, Beijing has increasingly sought to exert influence through infrastructure investment, trade expansion, and technology rather than through high-profile diplomatic theater. Its growing economic ties with Africa, Latin America, and Central Asia, as well as its deep involvement in the Middle East through strategic partnerships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, illustrate a preference for concrete, often bilateral, engagements over symbolic multilateralism.

Furthermore, by maintaining a degree of ambiguity about its intentions—sometimes engaging, sometimes retreating—China may be borrowing a page from the playbook of leaders like Trump, who famously kept allies and adversaries guessing. In a fragmented world moving away from unipolarity, such unpredictability can be an asset. It prevents rival powers from coordinating against you and allows you to shift your diplomatic posture as circumstances change.

Looking ahead, the real test is not whether China skips another summit or two. The test is whether it remains willing to invest in the hard work of alliance management: building trust, resolving disputes, and showing up when it matters. The fate of BRICS as a credible alternative to Western-led institutions depends on such engagement. Without it, the bloc risks becoming little more than a statistical curiosity—a group that represents 40% of the global economy but fails to shape global outcomes.

In the end, Xi Jinping’s absence may not signify the end of China’s commitment to BRICS. But it may well mark the start of a more selective, calculated approach to global leadership—one that, while perhaps strategically sound for Beijing, carries the risk of weakening the very institutions through which leadership is exercised. Whether BRICS can thrive in such an environment will be one of the defining questions of the next decade.

The article XI BRICS no show: Strategic shift or silent warning? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Zelenskyy’s Reckless Gambit: A Tactical Masterstroke That Threatens Strategic Collapse

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 04 Jun 2025 07:21:32 +0000

M A Hossain

By any military measure, Ukraine’s ‘Operation Spider Web’ was an astonishing success. In a meticulously planned operation, Ukrainian drones struck deep into Russian territory, obliterating at least 40 military aircraft—including nuclear-capable Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers—in a single, devastating blow. The attack revealed not only meticulous Ukrainian planning over 18 months but also the glaring vulnerabilities of Russia’s so-called impenetrable airspace. It was a coup de main that will be studied in military academies for decades. But as history too often reminds us, tactical brilliance can be the prelude to strategic disaster. The world now holds its breath, waiting to see what comes next.

The immediate question is not whether Russia will respond—it will—but how. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy must now reckon with that distinction. Launched on the eve of scheduled peace talks in Istanbul, Spider Web didn’t just dismantle a third of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet—it may also have dismantled the fragile architecture of diplomacy that remained. If this was a calculated move to strengthen Ukraine’s bargaining position, it was cynically timed and perilously shortsighted. It risks transforming what was still, however tenuously, a brutal regional war into an epoch-defining catastrophe.

We’ve seen this before. In 1914, the assassination of an Austrian archduke triggered a cascade of commitments, mobilizations, and miscalculations that led to a global conflagration. In 1941, Japan, feeling cornered by U.S. embargoes, attacked Pearl Harbor—a masterstroke of surprise that ultimately led to its own annihilation. And in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the planet within inches of nuclear oblivion, saved only by backchannel diplomacy and the mutual recognition of unacceptable costs.

Ukraine’s gamble did not occur in a vacuum. It came at a time when President Trump has been seeking to limit American exposure and end the war, while Europe is increasingly divided over how far to support Kyiv without inviting catastrophe. It also came amid a U.S. political landscape reshaped by Donald Trump’s return to the White House, a president who has made clear his disinterest in “forever wars” and who, notably, has remained silent on this latest escalation. The American public, too, seems less inclined to bankroll Kyiv’s ambitions, particularly when those ambitions risk dragging NATO into a direct confrontation with a nuclear adversary.

Zelenskyy’s supporters will argue this operation was necessary—a bold stroke to jolt Russia from its entrenched positions and to demonstrate Ukraine’s capability for long-range asymmetric warfare. They will say it sends a signal to Moscow: Ukraine cannot be intimidated and has the resolve to strike at the heart of Russian military power. They may even compare it to Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor—a preemptive blow to degrade a long-term threat.

But the analogy doesn’t hold. Israel acted in secrecy against a latent, undeclared threat. Ukraine struck openly, on the record, against a nuclear-armed power just hours before peace talks. Worse, it struck not against fielded forces in battle, but strategic nuclear bombers inside Russia, a move that risks prompting a doctrinal response from Moscow. Since its updated nuclear posture last year, Russia allows for nuclear use in response to conventional strikes that threaten its strategic deterrent—exactly the kind of attack Spider Web represents.

It is no exaggeration to say that Zelenskyy has lit a fuse dangerously close to a powder keg. Which raises a larger question: What exactly was the purpose of this attack?

Some suspect it was less about battlefield utility and more about political optics. With Western support waning and battlefield momentum stalled, Zelenskyy may have felt compelled to show that he still commands initiative—that he remains a credible partner worth backing. There’s also speculation that this operation was a plea for continued arms shipments now under threat from Trump’s “America First” administration.

But if this was an attempt to impress or pressure Western allies, it may backfire. The attack has already emboldened voices in Washington and Brussels who argue that the war is spiraling out of control. And it gives ammunition to Moscow’s propaganda machine, which is portraying the strike as Russia’s own Pearl Harbor. When a nuclear power perceives itself as the victim of an existential assault, dangerous decisions follow.

We must also ask: was NATO involved? Did European allies—through satellite intelligence or remote drone operations—have a hand in the planning or execution? If so, this operation could cross a previously avoided threshold, bringing NATO into direct conflict with Russia. That’s not just a strategic misstep—it’s a generational blunder.

President Zelenskyy must now answer for the consequences of his audacity. Yes, the strike humiliated Russia. Yes, it exposed the rot within Moscow’s security establishment. But the cost of that humiliation could be paid not just in Ukrainian lives, but potentially in the lives of millions across Europe and beyond, should Putin interpret this as justification for escalation.

History is littered with leaders who mistook tactical victories for strategic triumphs. Napoleon’s march into Moscow, Hitler’s advance into Stalingrad, even George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” moment in Iraq—all stemmed from an overestimation of short-term success and a blindness to long-term consequence.

Zelenskyy, admired as he rightly is for his courage and resolve, must now be judged for his judgment. By launching Spider Web when he did, and in the manner that he did, he may have sabotaged the very peace he claims to seek. Worse, he has placed the entire international order at the mercy of a man like Vladimir Putin, whose worldview is shaped not by cost-benefit logic but by grievance, pride, and a paranoid sense of historical destiny.

The West must now perform a high-wire act. It must reaffirm support for ending the war. It must also demand restraint and a return to diplomacy. A nuclear confrontation, even a “demonstrative” one over a deserted military base, would rewrite the rules of war and peace for generations to come. It would show that nuclear blackmail works—or that nuclear retaliation can be normalized. Neither outcome is acceptable.

Operation Spider Web may be remembered as a brilliant military feat. But unless it is followed by swift and sober diplomacy, it risks becoming a historical monument to hubris—the kind that ignites wars from which there is no return. The lesson from history is chillingly clear: great fires often begin with a single, dazzling spark.

The article Zelenskyy’s Reckless Gambit: A Tactical Masterstroke That Threatens Strategic Collapse appeared first on Arabian Post.

From NATO To Trade Wars: Lasting Impact Of Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 05:18:33 +0000

By M. A. Hossain & Vishakhajha

For decades, U.S. alliances have been the backbone of global stability, fostering economic cooperation and collective security. NATO, economic partnerships with European and Asian allies, and engagement in international organizations have cemented America’s leadership in world affairs. However, under Trump’s second term Presidency, these traditional alliances came under significant strain. His “America First” approach represented a dramatic departure from the multilateralism that had defined U.S. foreign policy for decades, favouring a more unilateral and transactional approach.

Trump’s administration took a “Realist” stance, prioritizing national sovereignty, economic self-interest, and security over diplomatic cooperation. While “Realism”, as a school of international relations, underscores the role of power and self-preservation in an anarchic global system, Trump’s application of this principle went beyond pragmatic statecraft. His scepticism of NATO, confrontational trade policies, and direct engagement with authoritarian leaders reshaped America’s global standing and tested the resilience of long-standing alliances. This shift raised fundamental questions about the future of the international order and whether the damage to these partnerships would be lasting.

Trump viewed alliances not as enduring commitments based on shared values but as transactional relationships in which the United States should only participate if they provided immediate national benefits. His administration’s approach to international agreements underscored this perspective. In 2017, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, arguing that it placed unfair economic burdens on American taxpayers while giving competitive advantages to countries like China. European allies, who had invested diplomatic capital in the deal, saw the move as a retreat from global leadership and a signal that the U.S. was no longer committed to cooperative solutions for pressing global issues.

The following year, Trump further alienated European allies by withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The agreement had been a diplomatic achievement that involved the U.S., the European Union, and other key players in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Despite European objections, Trump unilaterally pulled the U.S. out, citing concerns over Iranian compliance and the agreement’s perceived shortcomings. This move deepened transatlantic tensions, forcing European nations to scramble to salvage the deal without U.S. support. The decision reinforced the notion that the U.S. was becoming an unreliable partner, willing to abandon agreements negotiated in good faith.

Nowhere was Trump’s scepticism toward alliances more apparent than in his approach to NATO. Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been a pillar of U.S. and European security, ensuring a collective defense against external threats. However, Trump repeatedly criticized the alliance, arguing that the United States was disproportionately shouldering its costs while European members failed to meet their financial commitments. His administration focused heavily on the 2% GDP defense spending target that NATO members had agreed upon, using it as a metric to question the alliance’s effectiveness.

While previous U.S. administrations had also encouraged greater burden-sharing, Trump’s rhetoric was uniquely confrontational. Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, left European defence ministers in shock during a meeting in Brussels on February 12, 2025, as he unequivocally stated that European security is no longer a primary focus of the United States. French President Emmanuel Macron, who began advocating for greater European defense autonomy. Macron even proposed the formation of a “true European army” to reduce reliance on the U.S. for security.

Trump’s questioning of NATO’s value aligned with the ‘Realist’ perspective that alliances should be conditional and serve immediate national interests. However, this stance also undermined trust in U.S. leadership and introduced uncertainty among allies. The long-term strategic consequences of Trump’s NATO skepticism were significant. By casting doubt on America’s commitment to transatlantic security, he emboldened adversaries such as Russia, which has long sought to exploit divisions within NATO. The instability created by his rhetoric encouraged European nations to rethink their security strategies, though efforts to establish a more independent European defense force faced significant political and economic hurdles.

rump’s trade policies further strained U.S. relations with key allies. His belief in economic nationalism—viewing trade as a zero-sum game—led to tariffs, renegotiations, and disputes that disrupted longstanding agreements. His administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union, Canada, and Japan, citing national security concerns. The decision triggered swift retaliatory measures, escalating tensions and undermining the trust that had defined transatlantic economic relations.

At the same time, Trump launched a trade war with China, imposing tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese goods. While this policy was aimed at countering Beijing’s economic rise, it had unintended consequences for U.S. allies. European nations and Asian partners, who had complex trade relationships with both the U.S. and China, found themselves caught in the middle of a growing economic conflict. Rather than building a unified front to challenge China’s influence, Trump’s approach created rifts within the Western alliance, weakening the effectiveness of a collective economic strategy.

One of Trump’s most consequential trade decisions was withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement designed to counterbalance China’s economic expansion in the Asia-Pacific region. Regional allies such as Japan and Australia had viewed the TPP as a critical component of economic and strategic cooperation. Without U.S. participation, the remaining member states moved forward with a modified deal, reducing American economic influence in the region and leaving a vacuum for China to fill.

Trump’s foreign policy also reflected a deep skepticism toward international institutions. He frequently dismissed multilateral organizations as bureaucratic and ineffective, favouring direct negotiations and unilateral actions. A striking example of this came in 2020 when he withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Citing the organization’s alleged bias toward China, Trump cut American funding like USAID and withdrew from global coordination efforts. His decision was widely criticized by allies, who saw it as an abdication of U.S. leadership at a critical moment. While Trump framed the move as a defense of national sovereignty, it reinforced the perception that the U.S. was disengaging from international cooperation, further isolating itself from global partners.

Another defining feature of Trump’s foreign policy was his engagement with authoritarian leaders, prioritizing strategic and economic interests over democratic values. His administration pursued direct negotiations with President Putin or previously North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, marking an unprecedented level of dialogue between the two nations. While these summits reduced immediate tensions, they yielded no concrete agreements, raising concerns about their long-term effectiveness.

Trump’s presidency significantly altered America’s relationships with its allies, embracing a ‘Realist’ approach that prioritized national power, economic self-interest, and unilateral decision-making. While his policies—such as pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending—aligned with some longstanding U.S. concerns, his confrontational approach weakened diplomatic trust and created greater global uncertainty. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The article From NATO To Trade Wars: Lasting Impact Of Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy appeared first on Arabian Post.

Student Body To Float New Political Party In Bangladesh By Month End

The Arabian Post Network — Mon, 17 Feb 2025 23:24:57 +0000

By Satyaki Chakraborty

The anti-discrimination students body which pioneered the massive upsurge in Bangladesh last year leading to the fall of the Awami League government on August 5 and abdication of the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India, is set to float their new political party with specific programme and constitution by the end of this month. The preparatory committee is proceeding at a breakneck speed to finalise the list of the members of the proposed leadership and if everything goes as per current programme, the announcement may be made even on February 24.

As of now, the indication is that Nahid Islam, the adviser in charge of information and publicity of the interim government led by Dr. Mohammad Yunus will take over as the general secretary. He is expected to resign from his present position shortly. Nahid is among the two members representing the students body in the interim government. He has been highly active in pushing the students body programmes through Yunus government. He has organisational skill. So he has been selected as the prime leader of the new party. The other adviser from the students body, will remain in the interim government for the time being, it is learnt.

The Jatiyo Nagarik Committee (JNC), the other platform of the anti-Hasina movement will also be a part of the proposed new political party. This party will have a separate students wing which can be also announced along with the formation of the new Party. The students and youth have taken vanguard position in the movement against the Awami League government rule in the last few years. Women, especially girl students have taken part in large numbers. The new political party is expected to include a substantial number of women activists in the political committee which will devise the planning and strategy of the new party.

The anti-discrimination body of students as also the JNC leaders have taken note of the resurgence of the BNP along with its students wing as also some activities by the Chhatra League, the students wing of the Awami League. Earlier, the formation talks were going at a slower pace with indication that the new party will be formed by March this year, but the spurt in the activities of the BNP and to some extent Hasina supporters bid to become pro-active, have led the students body leadership to proceed fast in taking a final decision. The new political party will chalk out its action plan to confront both BNP and Jamaat who are expanding their network to get ready for the national elections, probably by the end of this year.

The students body has deep apprehension that the Yunus government may slacken its efforts to hasten the process of extradition of Sheikh Hasina from India. The students body is firm on this. They have told Dr. Mohammad Yunus that there can not be any compromise by the interim government on the issue of extradition. Also, the students body wants the national election commission to ban Awami League from the electoral fray before the coming general elections. Both BNP and Jamaat are opposed to this. BNP wants that Awami League leaders against whom there are no charges, can be allowed to participate.

The chief adviser Dr. Mohammad Yunus is naturally worried at the pace of political developments in Bangladesh with conflicting pulls and pressures on him. The students body has good influence on him but he as the chief of the ruling regime, can not endorse many of the programmes put by them. The BNP and the Jamaat are sitting on his neck not to allow him to concede to the demands of the students body. BNP and Jamaat are also fighting on a number of issues, but while opposing the students body, they are together.

Dr. Yunus’s immediate worry is how to deal with the Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has got a sort of green signal from Donald Trump at the February 13 meeting to go ahead with his moves on Bangladesh. Bangladesh adviser in charge of foreign affairs Touhid Hossain had a meeting with the Indian foreign minister Dr. S Jaishankar at Muscat on February 16 at the Indian Ocean conference. The Bangladesh side was very cordial and both sides talked about a number of areas for improving bilateral relations. Ahead of the talks between the two countries on border areas, the talks between the two ministers were significant.

As far as Bangladesh is concerned, the country loses a lot by not having normal relations with India. Dr. Yunus knows that but he has to respect the sentiments of his countrymen who catapulted him to power of the present regime on August 8 last year. They identify Hasina with India and they are hell bent on sticking to Hasina’s extradition from India as a condition for initiating normal relations with India.

Earlier Dr. Yunus tried to have a one on one meeting with Narendra Modi in New York on the occasion of the United National general assembly meeting in September last year. But the Indian Prime Minister deliberately rescheduled his programme to avoid any meeting possibility with the Bangladesh chief adviser. Now another opportunity is approaching. On April 3 and 4, BIMSTEC conference will be held in Thailand where both Dr. Yunus and Narendra Modi are supposed to go. Dr. Yunus is looking for this summit to have detailed talks with the Indian PM. If Indian PM agrees to have full discussions instead to have a courtesy call type meeting, there can be some breakthrough in India-Bangladesh relations.

But in the remaining six weeks, Bangladesh will also try to strengthen its position on Hasina extradition from India by approaching the world forums including the UN Human Rights body based on its report on the atrocities committed by Hasina government in the July-August movement. Already a European body and another UN team have prepared their reports confirming some of the atrocities. The Bangladesh justice department is learnt to be trying to approach the US government on the issue of extradition citing those reports.

At the other level, Dr. Yunus has established a link with Elon Musk which he hopes to be of some benefit in the coming days. Reports emanating from Dhaka say that the draft guidelines for internet linking and broadband have been released and Musk’s Starlink’s entry into Bangladesh is just a matter of weeks. Dr. Yunus played a big role in revolutionizing the telecom market in Bangladesh through Grameenphone which helped in giving mobile access to the rural areas. In the same way, the Bangladesh government officials are viewing that Musk’s Starlink will play a big role in expanding broadband internet in the remotest areas of the country. Dr Yunus has invited Elon Musk to visit Bangladesh. It will be seen whether Musk responds to Yunus’s invitation and it takes place before his visit to India accompanying Donald Trump at the time of QUAD meeting in New Delhi around April this year. (IPA Service)

The article Student Body To Float New Political Party In Bangladesh By Month End appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bangladesh’s Increasing Defence Relations With Pakistan Posing Threat To India

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:18:29 +0000

By Satyaki Chakraborty

More than six weeks have passed since the visit of Indian foreign secretary Vikram Misri to Dhaka on December 9 and his wide ranging talks with his Bangladeshi counterpart to improve the worsening bilateral relations between the two neighbouring countries. Latest indications, however, suggest that the interim government headed by Dr. Mohammad Yunus is courting Pakistan in a big way through collaboration in the area of defence sector which poses a security threat to India.

The contacts between Bangladesh army and the Pakistan defence forces began soon after the fall of the Hasina government on August 5 last year, but it was limited to the visits of middle-level army officers. However, this week, Pakistan’s intelligence chief Lt. General Asim Malik reached Dhaka and held discussions with his Bangladeshi counterpart. Both countries officially did not speak about the nature of talks but it certainly focused on collaboration in intelligence sharing.

Earlier this month, Bangladeshi army delegation visited Islamabad and had talks with the Pakistan army chief General Syed A Munir and discussed strategic relationship in defence matters. Even though, no details were given officially, it is apparent that both sides had discussions about framing some common strategy towards India which has more than four thousand kilometres of border with Bangladesh. Earlier in November this year, Bangladesh imported 35,000 special type rifles from Pakistan. An agreement was reached then also training of a section of Bangladeshi troops by the Pakistan army. A Pakistani navy vessel arrived at Chittagong port for the first time late last year.

While at the defence level, Bangladesh is in talks with its earlier arch enemy Pakistan, China has launched a big move to enter into new areas of business and economic cooperation in Bangladesh. Beijing was not cordial with Sheikh Hasina, when she visited China as Prime Minister in July last year, but in the recent discussions, with Bangladesh officials, Beijing took a softer attitude and offered Dhaka many concessions which China earlier refused.

Beijing has agreed in principle to extend the repayment period for Chinese loans and assured Dhaka it will look into the request to lower the interest rate to ease Bangladesh’s foreign debt repayment pressure. The issue came up for discussion between the visiting foreign adviser of the Yunus government Touhid Hossain who was on a five day visit. Hossain had a meeting with the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi. China is Bangladesh’s fourth largest lender after Japan, World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank with total loans disbursed since 1975 to a total of US$ 7.5 billion.

At the meeting, Hossain requested lowering the interest rate on Chinese loans from 2-3 percent to 1 percent, waiving the commitment and management fees and extending the loan repayment period from 20 years to 30 years for both the preferential buyer’s credit and government concessional loans.

Praising Bangladesh’s good track record in repayment, Wang agreed to extend the maturity period for loans provided to the country and also assured of looking into the request of lowering the interest rate on the loans, according to a statement from the Bangladesh foreign ministry.

Also Hossain held a meeting with Luo Zhaohui, the chairman of the China International Development Cooperation Agency, about Chinese loans. Hossain requested Luo to ramp up concessional loans and grants and the number of projects China funds in Bangladesh. Luo responded positively and sought a list of priority projects from Bangladesh. Luo said China may consider larger projects in Bangladesh, with some project funds extended as grants. As a result, the average interest rate of Chinese loans will go down, he said.

Both sides also discussed the financing of projects in metro rail and the Southern Infrastructure Development Initiative (SIDI) in Bangladesh. At Hossain’s bilateral meeting with the Chinese foreign minister, Beijing assured of continued duty-free and quota-free access to Bangladeshi products for three years after graduation from the least-developed country bracket in 2026.

Wang also conveyed China’s decision to designate three to four recognised hospitals in Kunming for treatment of Bangladeshi patients. He also welcomed Bangladesh’s proposal of setting up a specialised tertiary-level Chinese hospital in Dhaka as a gesture of goodwill on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Bangladesh-China diplomatic relations.

Both sides conveyed their readiness to organise a host of activities to mark the occasion. Wang requested Bangladesh to consider joining Chinese President Xi Jinping’s three global initiatives: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilisation Initiative.

Recognising Bangladesh’s strategic position, the two sides emphasised continued cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative. China wants to see Bangladesh’s economic development in pace with their own development and assured China’s continued support for the projects conducive to the livelihood of the people of Bangladesh, Wang said.

The two sides expressed their willingness to work closely on proposed Chinese-funded projects: the Dasherkandi sewage treatment plant, the upgradation and modernisation of Mongla Port and the establishment of digital connectivity and 4G expansion. Bangladesh is yet not a member of China dominated regional body RCEP. The Bangladesh foreign ministry earlier cleared the proposal for Bangladesh membership but till now, Yunus government has not officially applied to the RCEP authorities.

Like China, Pakistan is also proactive in expanding its economic interests in Bangladesh. Already, in the last two months, Islamabad and Dhaka had talks about the trade possibilities but now, Islamabad wants a full-fledged meeting of the Pakistan Bangladesh Joint Economic Commission to start a new era in bilateral economic relations. Bangladesh is also making preparations and its ministries have been asked to earmark the areas where Pakistan can replace the supplies from Indian sources. Islamabad has mostly identified but Bangladesh is yet to make its list final as the administration is not sure to what extent, Dhaka can be benefitted by diverting to Pakistan supplies from India.

The holding of a JEC meeting in a big way is the brainwave of the Pakistan foreign ministry and the Islamabad strategy is to give some concessions to Bangladesh taking into the additional costs due to distance compared to India. Bangladesh has already requested granting duty free access to ten product categories covering 104 items.. Further Pakistan is assuring Bangladesh of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

As regards USA, There is little movement now as the new charge de affairs in Dhaka Tracey Ann Robertson in Dhaka joined only on January11 this year. The US embassy has got no fresh direction after Trump’s inauguration on January 20. South Asia is presently not the priority of the new President, but still the political circles in Dhaka are predicting exit of Dr. Yunus as interim head once Trump puts his attention on Bangladesh. Chief adviser Dr. Yunus is presently attending the five day World Economic Meet at Davos which ends on January 24. He has till now met large number of state heads and businessmen to explain the Bangladesh situation. He is also equally looking for some signal from Trump advisers

India’s options are limited for the time being. Bangladesh officials are not ready to carry any serious discussions till India takes some steps on their demand for the extradition of Sheikh Hasina to Dhaka which India has rejected. Much will depend how the political situation takes shape in Bangladesh. Till then, China and Pakistan will reap maximum benefits from the new regime while India watches. (IPA Service)

The article Bangladesh’s Increasing Defence Relations With Pakistan Posing Threat To India appeared first on Arabian Post.

Trump vs. Harris: What the 2025 US Election Means for the Global South

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 03 Nov 2024 17:52:28 +0000

M A Hossain

As the United States approaches its 2025 presidential inauguration, the potential impact on US foreign policy is under close examination, particularly concerning the Global South. The countries in these regions—spanning across Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia—face unique challenges and opportunities based on whether the next US president will be Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The candidates’ distinct approaches to international relations, trade, security, and diplomacy will shape the Global South’s future in numerous ways.

A Trump administration would likely return to a more protectionist economic stance, with substantial tariffs potentially imposed on imports, particularly from China, and possibly affecting goods from other countries as well. This shift could disrupt trade relations for several countries in Southeast Asia and Latin America that heavily rely on exports to the US Industries such as textiles, electronics, and agriculture, which serve as crucial economic pillars in these regions, could face significant challenges due to supply chain disruptions and reduced US demand. This outcome might lead to a slowdown in economic growth, a reduction in job opportunities, and increased economic volatility.

Conversely, Kamala Harris is expected to uphold many of the Biden administration’s “Worker-Centric” trade policies that emphasize collaboration, multilateralism, and targeted sanctions rather than sweeping tariffs. Harris would likely support initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, promoting economic engagement with nations in the Global South. This approach could offer more stability and help Global South countries maintain trade partnerships with the US, reducing the risks of sudden disruptions that a Trump presidency might bring.

The ongoing US-China rivalry is a central issue for many nations in the Global South, particularly in Southeast Asia, where countries often try to balance their economic relations with China and security ties with the US. A Trump presidency is expected to intensify pressure on these countries to align more closely with the US in its competition with China. Trump’s confrontational approach to China would make it harder for Southeast Asian nations to maintain a balanced stance, potentially leading to greater geopolitical instability in the region.

Harris, on the other hand, would likely pursue a competitive stance toward China but through a consultative, less confrontational approach. Her policy would give Global South nations more flexibility to navigate the US-China rivalry without needing to choose one side. This balanced approach could benefit countries like India, the Philippines, and other nations in the Indo-Pacific region, allowing them to engage with both superpowers on their terms while leveraging their strategic importance in the region.

A Trump presidency is likely to emphasize a transactional approach to security alliances, as seen during his previous term, where he pressed allies like Japan and South Korea for greater financial contributions. A similar stance could reduce US security commitments to countries in the Global South, which might prompt these nations to strengthen their defense capabilities independently. For instance, South Korea has considered enhancing its nuclear capabilities as a countermeasure if US support declines. Trump would stop all US military engagement globally, especially in Ukraine and Israel. In regions like North Atlantic Nations, Southeast Asia and Africa, Trump’s approach could mean reduced US security assistance, prompting countries to seek new security partnerships or reassess their defense strategies.

In contrast, Harris’s administration would likely continue to support security alliances, following the Biden administration’s approach of bolstering alliances through cooperation. Her approach would prioritize stability, especially in sensitive regions like the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East, offering countries in the Global South a more predictable security relationship with the US. For Africa and Latin America, Harris’s administration could continue supporting counterterrorism, anti-narcotics operations, and defense collaborations, ensuring that US military engagement in these areas remains robust.

The influence of US soft power in the Global South would diverge depending on which candidate takes office. Trump’s blunt and at times isolationist approach has previously undermined trust among global leaders, reducing the US’s diplomatic reach in some areas. Many leaders in the Global South may be wary of aligning too closely with a Trump-led US due to his tendency to withdraw from international institutions and agreements. Although some authoritarian regimes might appreciate Trump’s less interventionist stance, others could view his approach as too unpredictable, potentially straining diplomatic ties.

A Harris administration would likely prioritize multilateral diplomacy, particularly on issues like climate change, which disproportionately affect countries in the Global South. By engaging with these nations on global challenges, Harris could strengthen diplomatic ties and reinforce US influence through a more inclusive approach. This multilateral approach could be attractive to Global South countries, which would benefit from participating in international platforms that address shared issues and promote stability.

Under Trump, India and the Philippines might deepen their ties with the US, though their relations would hinge on different factors. Trump’s rapport with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could strengthen the bilateral relationship, while Southeast Asian countries might face more economic challenges due to potential tariffs. A Harris presidency, however, could offer a more structured diplomatic route, potentially benefiting India due to Harris’s South Asian heritage. Southeast Asian nations may find Harris’s policies more predictable, allowing them to continue diversifying trade partnerships without severe disruptions.

Trump’s policies on immigration could strain diplomatic ties in Latin America, while economic disruptions from potential tariffs might push countries in the region to seek alternative trade partners or bolster regional alliances. Harris’s approach would likely emphasize sustainable development initiatives, infrastructure investment, and climate action, aligning well with Latin American priorities. Her policies could encourage economic cooperation focused on social and environmental goals, strengthening the region’s resilience.

In the Middle East, Trump’s strong alliances with countries like Israel could lead to policies that prioritize US allies, potentially increasing punitive measures against Iran. The abandonment of multilateral diplomacy could stop conflicts and Trump would exert political pressure for Two State solution. Harris, on the other hand, would likely adopt a more balanced approach, fostering conflict while supporting US alliances. For Africa, Harris’s presidency could continue anti-terrorism initiatives, supporting security partnerships that contribute to stability in the region. Her focus on diplomatic engagement and development assistance would likely strengthen ties with African nations, facilitating the US defense industrial complex to profit.

The global economic landscape could shift significantly depending on the outcome of the US presidential election. Trump’s protectionist policies and tariffs could destabilize international trade, particularly affecting export-driven economies in the Global South. Although such disruptions might encourage countries to innovate and diversify their supply chains, they could also dampen economic growth, especially in regions like Southeast Asia and Latin America.

A Harris presidency would probably focus on initiatives that promote the digital economy and environmental sustainability, benefiting Global South countries investing in green technology and digital infrastructure. Her administration might pursue trade agreements centered on critical minerals, technology, and sustainable development, supporting the long-term growth of nations focusing on green infrastructure.

The impact of the 2025 US presidential election on the Global South will depend heavily on whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris becomes president. A Trump administration might create a more transactional, unpredictable environment, with aggressive economic protectionism and intensified US-China competition likely causing disruptions. This scenario could strain alliances and heighten diplomatic challenges for the Global South.

On the other hand, Harris’s approach would offer a more predictable and consultative framework, allowing Global South nations to engage with the US without needing to make drastic adjustments. Her focus on multilateral diplomacy and environmental initiatives could foster stability, creating opportunities for economic growth and resilient partnerships. However, the conflict-ridden nations will be pushed towards more volatile situations by Harris’s administration.

In anticipation of these potential shifts, countries in the Global South may seek new partnerships, prioritize stability-oriented policies, and weigh the costs and benefits of engagement with the US, striving for adaptability and resilience in an increasingly polarized world.

The article Trump vs. Harris: What the 2025 US Election Means for the Global South appeared first on Arabian Post.

How US Election Could Reshape Bangladesh’s Political Landscape

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 09 Oct 2024 07:32:16 +0000

M A Hossain

The upcoming US presidential election on November 5, 2024, carries significant implications for the entire world, including Bangladesh’s political landscape. With the recent ouster of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her fleeing the country thus taking refuge in India, Bangladesh stands at a political crossroads, facing unprecedented geopolitical pressures. An intriguing aspect of this shift is the waning interest of foreign lobbyists in Washington, particularly in favor of Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, a close ally of the Democratic Party in the United States, including the Clinton family and George Soros. However, with the personal influence of Dr. Yunus, and the absence of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami support for incumbent government, Bangladesh is facing a power vacuum in the US Capitol. As a result, the political dynamics between Bangladesh and the United States are entering an uncertain phase where international influence and internal political control are in flux.

In the midst of these geopolitical shifts, India’s role in Bangladesh’s future leadership cannot be ignored. Rumors have surfaced that India may facilitate Sheikh Hasina’s political asylum in a third country, distancing her from the political limelight. However, such assumptions, which suggest that India aims to exile Hasina for better bilateral relations with Bangladesh, are misleading. In reality, India has a vested interest in keeping Hasina in a position of influence, albeit from behind the scenes.

India’s strategic game revolves around ensuring Hasina remains a key player, but not necessarily within India. By removing her physically from the country, India seeks to control her role and use her as leverage to maintain influence over Bangladesh’s political apparatus. Some argue that India would prefer to have Hasina operating from abroad, making her a more malleable figure for Indian interests. Once Hasina is outside India, Hindutva lobbyists in Washington will likely increase their efforts to secure India’s influence in Bangladesh, particularly if the Democratic Party remains in power. India’s objective is not to distance itself from Hasina but to ensure that her political network remains intact, allowing India to manipulate the situation in its favor.

One more important factor, which might be missing the attention of many is – sitting in India almost in isolation, Sheikh Hasina is currently unable to mobilize her actual efforts against Dr. Yunus and his government. Once she lands in any third country, she will begin aggressively pushing her agenda against the government, thus channeling millions of dollars – as we all know, Awami League leaders, including family members of Mujib family are filthily wealthy, where they will have no problem in spending even few hundred million dollars for ousting Yunus and pave path for return to Sheikh Hasina to Bangladesh.

It is important to note, lobbying in Washington is a well-established mechanism that has become an integral part of foreign policy, particularly for smaller nations like Bangladesh. At the same time, in the US Capitol, all of those mighty figures, including Senators and members of the Congress are readily available for extending lobbyist services – openly or secretly, in favor of any foreign clients.

While it is well-known that Dr. Muhammad Yunus, has strong connections with the Democratic Party, if the Democrats maintain control of the White House following the November 5 election, and once Barack Obama’s prodigy Kamala Harris wins, Yunus’s influence could further expand, leading to a major shift in US-Bangladesh relations. In this case, Washington may advance its military interest with the effort of establishing a military base in Bangladesh, which would be difficult for Dr. Yunus to refuse.

Meanwhile, under the Biden administration, although Sheikh Hasina, her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy and her family members and inner circle, accused of widespread corruption and mismanagement, should have fallen under US sanctions or other punitive measures, there has never been any such actions. In my opinion, the Biden administration does not want to completely cut-off its relations with Sheikh Hasina.

On the other hand, if the Republican Party’s candidate Donald Trump wins, and there is a sharp prediction of such consequences, a very different approach will emerge. Trump is likely to view Bangladesh’s interim government, particularly Dr. Yunus, with the same suspicion and hostility that Biden’s administration held toward Myanmar’s former leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.

Sheikh Hasina and her supporters, who have accumulated vast wealth over years of massive financial misdeeds and corruption, would likely spend millions of dollars in lobbying efforts to secure favorable outcomes in Washington and London in particular. They may also spend significantly towards Western media, as it is well-known, almost all of those media are readily available for extending favor in exchange for cash.

Given the precedent of how lobbying has worked in the past, it is not far-fetched to imagine Hasina utilizing her resources to sway opinions on the US Capitol and influence US policy in favor of her continued political relevance. Lobbyists, whose influence can be bought for a hefty price, would undoubtedly jump at the opportunity to represent Hasina’s interests.

Despite the political maneuvering aimed at sidelining Sheikh Hasina, the peculiar nature of lobbying in the United States and the United Kingdom presents her with a potential pathway to return to power. In both countries, lobbying is a legal and highly lucrative business, where money can be used to influence governmental decisions. Hasina, with her extensive financial resources and Indian connections, can easily mount a campaign from abroad to reassert herself in Bangladesh’s political landscape.

The problem with this approach is that it opens Bangladesh to the dangers of foreign influence, particularly from powerful countries like the United States and India, both of which are keenly interested in the country’s political landscape. Hasina’s ability to utilize lobbyists to her advantage could set a dangerous precedent, wherein a foreign-funded political comeback may further destabilize Bangladesh’s already fragile democracy.

Still, Hasina’s potential return cannot be ruled out, especially considering that powerful lobbyists are often willing to push any agenda for the right price. With Sheikh Hasina’s Indian lobbyists, billions of ill-gotten financial capacities, it is feasible for her to reinstate her party’s influence, even if she remains physically removed from the political stage in Dhaka.

If Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, the scenario in Bangladesh could change dramatically. Unlike the Democratic Party, which has a strong connection with Dr Yunus, would face a setback like Aung San Suu Kyi. Trump would offer two options to Dhaka: reinstate Hasina in full capacity or allow the military to take over. In this case, the Pentagon may use its “Option-2” card. The Republican Party would prefer any alternative option other than Yunus because Trump personally would be tremendously vindictive towards Democrats and its allies.

A military takeover, which is not unheard of in Bangladesh’s history, could serve both US and Indian interests by ensuring a stable government that maintains close ties with Washington and New Delhi. It might be seen as a win-win situation for regional stability and US geopolitical interests, particularly if India continues to exert its influence. Such actions would eject China from its existing influence in Bangladesh. On the other hand, if Vladimir Putin shall respect Trump’s proposal for ending the crisis in Ukraine, Moscow shall also become a beneficiary in Dhaka alongside Washington and Delhi.

The November 5 US election holds profound significance for Bangladesh, as the country stands at a critical juncture with Sheikh Hasina’s political future hanging in the balance. Most importantly, until now, it seems, Yunus is more dependent on his allies in the US and believes it only can help him in remaining in power without much interruption from major political forces in the country. He also is gradually becoming isolated from the people due to his over-dependence on a hand-picked number of student protestors. Unfortunately, Yunus’ key allies in Bangladesh – those student protestors are also becoming controversial very promptly as there are signals and allegations of their growing involvement in corruption, nepotism and illegal activities.

However, with Dr. Yunus’s strong influence over the Democratic Party and India’s strategic maneuvering in the region, Bangladesh’s future is being shaped not only in Dhaka but also in Washington and New Delhi. Whether Hasina returns to power, remains exiled, or is replaced by a military regime, depends largely on how the next US administration perceives Bangladesh’s strategic importance. A Trump victory could lead to a starkly different outcome than a Democratic win, signaling either a renewed military presence or Hasina’s political revival through foreign lobbying. Ultimately, Bangladesh’s political fate is deeply intertwined with the results of the US election, making it crucial for the country’s future trajectory.

The article How US Election Could Reshape Bangladesh’s Political Landscape appeared first on Arabian Post.

Technological Warfare in the Middle East

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 21 Sep 2024 08:14:24 +0000

M A Hossain

The recent explosion of thousands of pagers across Lebanon is an alarming development that bears the hallmarks of Israeli involvement, potentially signaling an imminent military escalation between Israel and Hezbollah. This tension has been mounting since Hezbollah’s recent engagement with Israeli forces, a direct response to Israel’s intensified military actions against Gaza following the deadly October 7 Hamas-led attack. The strategic aim behind targeting Lebanon’s pagers is clear: to cripple Hezbollah’s internal communications, a vital component of its military operations.

Hezbollah, in recent years, has shifted away from using mobile phones for communication, suspecting Israeli intelligence had compromised them, leading to the identification and targeted killing of key Hezbollah figures. By attacking the pager network, Israel is likely attempting to exploit this new vulnerability, seeking to erode Hezbollah’s capacity to coordinate in the event of a military escalation. In doing so, Israel may be looking to gain the upper hand in its broader regional strategy, one that involves neutralizing Hezbollah’s influence while simultaneously suppressing Hamas in Gaza.

Although the immediate death toll from the pager blasts stood at nine and may rise as some of the 2,800 wounded remain in critical condition, the broader implications of these explosions are even more concerning. Lebanon’s healthcare system, already strained, is at risk of being overwhelmed. Should Israel proceed with a broader military assault, the combination of military and civilian casualties would push Lebanon’s medical infrastructure to its breaking point. This potential strain on medical services would not only hinder the country’s ability to treat injured fighters but also result in a humanitarian crisis as civilian casualties mount.

From a broader geopolitical perspective, Israel’s actions could be seen as a high-stakes gamble. Engaging Hezbollah in the north would open up a third front for Israeli forces, in addition to their operations in Gaza and the West Bank. On the surface, this would seem like a risky move, overextending Israeli resources and complicating its military strategy. However, for the embattled Netanyahu government, this escalation could serve a crucial political purpose. Netanyahu’s administration has been under significant internal and international pressure, with the ongoing conflicts providing a unifying national cause. A multi-front war may enable Netanyahu to consolidate political power, deflect criticism, and rally domestic support under the guise of national security.

One of the most perilous elements of this potential Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is the role that technology plays in modern warfare. The use of advanced technological warfare, such as this pager attack, points to a broader trend where non-conventional military strategies are employed to weaken enemies before the physical battle even begins. In targeting Hezbollah’s communication infrastructure, Israel is attempting to debilitate its ability to respond effectively to a potential ground or aerial assault.

This confrontation also carries significant regional consequences. Hezbollah’s close ties to Iran have long made it a key player in the Middle East’s delicate balance of power. While Iran has largely refrained from direct involvement in the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, its role as Hezbollah’s primary backer places it squarely in the middle of any Israeli action against Lebanon. Many observers view Hezbollah as a proxy for Iranian interests, a strategic arm that allows Tehran to project power and influence without direct military engagement. This connection raises the stakes considerably. Should the conflict escalate further, Iran may be drawn into the fray, igniting a broader regional war.

Israel’s actions in recent weeks suggest it may be seeking to provoke precisely this outcome. Beyond the pager blasts in Lebanon, Israel has conducted airstrikes on Iranian assets in Syria, most notably its mission in Damascus, and assassinated key Hamas figures within Iran’s borders. These actions reflect a broader Israeli strategy of targeting Iranian interests throughout the region, raising concerns that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah could quickly morph into a much larger war involving Iran.

The international community, particularly the West, has thus far shown little inclination to restrain Israel’s aggressive tactics. The United States, Israel’s staunchest ally, has signaled its continued support for Israeli military operations, despite growing international condemnation of the humanitarian toll in Gaza. This unwavering backing from the U.S. emboldens Israel to push the envelope, confident that Washington will not intervene to halt its escalatory actions. In effect, the lack of meaningful opposition from Western powers gives Israel a free hand to pursue its strategic objectives, even if those actions risk plunging the region into further chaos.

One of the key questions now is whether this latest episode — the pager blasts and the potential for further military action — will trigger a broader conflict that engulfs Lebanon and beyond. While Hezbollah’s response has been measured so far, limited to sporadic exchanges of fire along the border, the potential for a full-blown war remains high. If Hezbollah perceives Israel’s actions as an existential threat, it may feel compelled to escalate, drawing in its regional allies, including Iran, and transforming the conflict into a multi-front war with devastating consequences for the entire Middle East.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that Israel’s military operations are not taking place in a vacuum. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, coupled with unrest in the West Bank, has already stretched Israeli military resources thin. Engaging Hezbollah in Lebanon would add a third significant front to an already complex and volatile situation. Yet, for Netanyahu, this may be a calculated risk worth taking. The Israeli government has long viewed Hezbollah as a major threat, and with the country already in a state of war, now may be seen as the opportune moment to deal a decisive blow to its northern adversary.

The explosion of thousands of pagers across Lebanon is a significant and dangerous development that underscores the fragility of the current geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. Israel’s actions, likely aimed at degrading Hezbollah’s communication capabilities, have the potential to ignite a wider conflict that could draw in regional powers like Iran and destabilize the region further. With the international community largely standing on the sidelines, the potential for further escalation remains high, and the human cost of such a conflict could be devastating for both Lebanon and Israel.

The article Technological Warfare in the Middle East appeared first on Arabian Post.

Mongolia Visit Highlights Putin’s Strategic Moves and ICC Defiance

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 07 Sep 2024 07:20:18 +0000

M A Hossain

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent two-day state visit to Mongolia was not only a significant moment in the bilateral relations between Moscow and Ulaanbaatar, but also an event that resonated on the international stage. Mongolia, a nation that ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), became the subject of global attention due to its refusal to comply with the ICC’s warrant for Putin’s arrest. This visit highlighted not only Mongolia’s assertion of sovereignty, but also the strategic importance of Russian-Mongolian relations amid shifting geopolitical dynamics.

The backdrop of Putin’s visit was the ICC’s arrest warrant for the Russian leader, issued over a year ago in connection with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Since the warrant was issued, Putin had avoided traveling to any country with obligations under the ICC’s jurisdiction. Mongolia’s decision not to adhere to the ICC’s mandate raised eyebrows, especially in Europe, where several diplomats had hoped Ulaanbaatar would comply.

Despite threats of sanctions and criticism from European countries, Mongolia stood firm. Kyiv expressed particular outrage, condemning Mongolia’s decision as a “blow to all.” Ukrainian authorities believed that Mongolia had ignored the “clear signal” sent twice regarding the warrant. However, Mongolia’s refusal to comply with the ICC’s directive underscored its determination to prioritize national sovereignty over international pressure. Notably, legal experts have pointed out that the ICC has no effective mechanisms to penalize Mongolia for its non-compliance.

The situation draws attention to the broader geopolitical context. While the ICC may express discontent, it lacks the power to impose significant sanctions on non-compliant states. Furthermore, the United States, which does not recognize the ICC’s authority, has remained notably silent on Mongolia’s decision, further complicating the international reaction. Washington’s non-recognition of the ICC mirrors Moscow’s stance, and the U.S. has even employed measures to restrict the ICC’s influence, with some of its judges and prosecutors being designated as blocked individuals by the US government.

While the ICC issue attracted headlines, the primary focus of Putin’s visit was to strengthen the comprehensive partnership between Russia and Mongolia. The timing of the visit is critical. The geopolitical landscape has shifted dramatically since Putin’s last visit to Mongolia in 2019. The pandemic, escalating tensions between Russia and the West, and the decline of Western hegemony have all played roles in reshaping both regional and global dynamics.

One of the major highlights of the visit was the focus on expanding political, economic, and cultural ties between the two nations. Both sides discussed a wide range of topics, including cooperation in energy, infrastructure, and agriculture. Several agreements were signed to enhance trade and investment, with specific attention to sectors critical to Mongolia’s economy, such as energy and transportation.

A key point of discussion was the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline, an extension of Russia’s Power of Siberia 2 project. This pipeline, set to transport natural gas from Russia to China via Mongolia, has the potential to further solidify Mongolia’s strategic importance in the region. Although there had been skepticism regarding the project’s inclusion in Mongolia’s development plans, Putin expressed optimism, noting that the project documentation had been completed and submitted for government review.

Energy cooperation was a central theme during the visit, reflecting the deep interdependence between Russia and Mongolia in this sector. Mongolia imports over 90 percent of its gasoline and diesel from Russia, making energy security a top priority for Ulaanbaatar. The discussions during Putin’s visit included agreements on petroleum products, aviation fuel, and the reconstruction of Thermal Power Plant 3 in Ulaanbaatar, all aimed at securing Mongolia’s energy needs.

While energy was a cornerstone of the discussions, the visit also explored other areas of potential collaboration. The two sides agreed to expand student exchanges and scientific cooperation, with a particular emphasis on supporting Russian-language education in Mongolia. These efforts aim to strengthen cultural ties and foster a more in-depth understanding between the two nations.

Another notable aspect of the visit was the signing of a memorandum on epidemic safety, focusing on plague control, and another on environmental cooperation, specifically regarding the preservation of Lake Baikal and its tributary, the Selenga River. These agreements highlight the growing importance of environmental sustainability and public health in the bilateral relationship.

Putin’s visit to Mongolia also carried significant historical and symbolic weight. The Russian president marked the 85th anniversary of the victory at Khalkhin Gol, a battle in 1939 where Soviet and Mongolian forces successfully repelled Japanese aggressors. This event remains a crucial chapter in Mongolia’s history, symbolizing the enduring bond between the two nations.

The visit concluded with a mutual commitment to strengthening the comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and Mongolia. President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh of Mongolia expressed his gratitude for the visit and emphasized the importance of collaboration in areas such as energy, transportation, culture, and healthcare.

Looking ahead, the two nations are poised to deepen their cooperation. Khurelsukh is expected to visit Russia in the near future, with plans to attend the BRICS summit in Kazan in October and the 80th anniversary celebrations of the victory in World War II in Moscow in 2025. Additionally, the signing of a temporary free trade agreement between Mongolia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is anticipated before the end of 2024, which could further boost trade and economic interaction.

Vladimir Putin’s visit to Mongolia was a pivotal moment in the ongoing relationship between Russia and Mongolia. While the visit highlighted the ICC’s waning influence on the global stage, it also underscored the strategic importance of the two countries’ partnership. As the world continues to experience profound geopolitical shifts, the strengthening of Russian-Mongolian relations serves as a testament to the resilience of traditional alliances and the growing importance of Asia in global affairs. Through this visit, both nations have demonstrated their readiness to collaborate in the face of modern challenges and to pursue mutually beneficial opportunities for growth and stability.

The article Mongolia Visit Highlights Putin’s Strategic Moves and ICC Defiance appeared first on Arabian Post.

Kamala Harris Campaign Surge: Shaping the Future of American Politics

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 31 Aug 2024 02:05:46 +0000

M A Hossain

As the US presidential election approaches, Kamala Harris stands on the brink of making history. With approximately 70 days left in a compressed campaign, Harris is poised not only to become the first woman to ascend to the presidency but also to be the first president of Black and South Asian descent. Despite the significance of these firsts, Harris has made it clear that her identity is not the focal point of her campaign. Instead, she has chosen to transcend these aspects, focusing on broader themes of unity, patriotism, and a shared American future.

At the recent Democratic National Convention, Harris’s acceptance speech was a masterclass in navigating the complexities of identity politics while appealing to a broad electorate. Notably, she refrained from directly addressing her race or gender, except in brief references to her Jamaican father and her mother, a “brilliant five-foot-tall woman with an accent.” This deliberate vagueness allows Harris to sidestep the potential pitfalls of being pigeonholed by her identity, positioning herself as a candidate for all Americans.

Harris’s campaign strategy appears to be built on the premise that this election is about more than just party lines or personal identity. It is about the future of the nation and the values that bind its people together. Her message is one of optimism, emphasizing the potential for positive change and the need to move beyond the bitterness and division that has characterized recent years. In her words, this election offers a “precious, fleeting opportunity to move past the bitterness, cynicism, and divisive battles of the past.”

Harris’s campaign faces significant challenges, particularly in winning over the approximately 10 percent of undecided and independent voters in a deeply polarized electorate. While the Democratic convention succeeded in introducing Harris to a broader audience and effectively reframing Donald Trump as a small yet dangerous threat, the task of convincing undecided voters remains daunting.

Harris’s speech at the convention was a careful balancing act. While she leaned toward centrist policies, avoiding extravagant promises on healthcare or the economy, some observers noted a conservative tilt, particularly in her support for a bipartisan border bill. This centrist approach is likely an attempt to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, including those who may have been alienated by more progressive elements of the Democratic Party.

However, there is a recognition within the Democratic camp that Harris must do more than just present herself as a safer alternative to Trump. She must also address the widespread perception that Trump is better equipped to handle the economy, a key issue for many voters. While Trump has faced criticism for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his erratic behavior, his sharp political instincts and ability to adapt to shifting circumstances make him a formidable opponent.

The Democratic Party entered the convention riding a wave of “Kamalamania” following Joe Biden’s decision to step aside, allowing Harris to take the helm. This surge of enthusiasm, however, must be tempered by the reality that the race remains tight, with Trump leading in five of the seven crucial swing states.

To overcome this deficit, Harris will need to leverage the support of key allies and continue to campaign aggressively in the remaining days leading up to the election. The presence of popular figures like Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, and the Clintons at the convention provided a significant boost, with each of them taking turns to eviscerate Trump. Michelle Obama’s speech, in particular, resonated strongly, with her pointed remarks about Trump’s fixation on crowd sizes and her critique of his policies.

Harris’s choice of Minnesota Governor Tim “Coach” Walz as her running mate is also strategic. Walz’s appeal among rural voters and his popularity in the Rust Belt swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania could prove crucial in tipping the balance in Harris’s favor. The Democrats are hopeful that Walz can attract some of the non-college-educated Gen X men and rural voters who form a significant part of Trump’s base.

Republicans have dubbed this early phase of Harris’s campaign her “honeymoon” period, predicting that the real challenges lie ahead. Indeed, the upcoming debate against Trump on September 10 will be a critical moment for Harris, as her performance could sway undecided voters and shape the narrative for the remainder of the campaign.

Moreover, the US media is eager to scrutinize Harris’s policies and her ability to handle the pressures of the presidency. Her bid for the Democratic nomination in 2020 was derailed by a disastrous press interview, and there is a sense that she must avoid a repeat of that experience. The first press conference or detailed interview as the Democratic nominee will be a key test of her resilience and ability to stay on message.

Despite these challenges, there is a growing sense that something different is happening in this election cycle. As Republican strategist Mark Mackinnon observed, “This feels like something completely different is happening. And I don’t know what it is yet, but, you know, just the circumstances, the timing, the compressed election, the nomination – it just feels, looks and smells like something completely different.”

As Kamala Harris continues her historic campaign, she is positioning herself not just as a candidate for the Democratic Party but as a guardian of American values and a unifying force for the nation. Her focus on positivity, patriotism, and inclusivity, combined with her strategic approach to policy and her appeal to a broad electorate, gives her a unique opportunity to transcend the divisions that have plagued American politics.

In the remaining days of the campaign, Harris will need to continue to navigate these challenges while staying true to her message of unity and hope. Whether or not she succeeds in becoming the first woman and the first person of Black and South Asian origin to be elected president, her campaign has already reshaped the landscape of American politics and set the stage for a new era of leadership.

The article Kamala Harris Campaign Surge: Shaping the Future of American Politics appeared first on Arabian Post.

Sheikh Hasina Had Overstayed Her Welcome As Bangladesh Prime Minister

The Arabian Post Network — Mon, 19 Aug 2024 12:08:06 +0000

By Nantoo Banerjee

The United States of America or the People’s Republic of China may have nothing much to do with the massive public demonstrations in Bangladesh that began last month over governmental job quotas forcing the fall of Sheikh Hasina as the country’s longest serving prime minister and her government. Sheikh Hasina had dug her own grave firstly by rigging the last national election, which was totally boycotted by her party’s prime opposition, right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its 19 other allies, demanding the polls be held under a caretaker government. In the past, Bangladesh had been run by caretaker governments before elections.

However, in 2011, the Awami League government abolished the caretaker system by pushing through the 15th constitutional amendment. Secondly, the introduction of a controversial quota system for government jobs favouring diehard Awami League supporters or dependents of the country’s freedom movement. The quota proposal was scaled back by the country’s apex court, after a massive nationwide protest by students for days, leading to deadly clashes between police and demonstrators killing scores of people. The country’s Supreme Court ordered that 93 percent of jobs be allocated on merit. The unemployment rate for the young educated people in Bangladesh has risen sharply over the last five years.

In January, the Hasina-led left-of-centre Awami League had won a record fourth straight term in the national election. The party was nearly unopposed. The latest student-led public demonstrations and violence against the Hasina government, in which more than 300 people were killed, continued for nearly a month before she decided to quit and take temporary asylum in India. It is true that both the US and China were unhappy with Prime Minister Hasina. The US was unhappy because of her deep strategic involvement with China. The US Department of Defence, in a report, had expressed concern over China’s growing influence in the region.

The US might or might not have approached Sheikh Hasina for a lease of the tiny 7.3-km-long mostly-flat St Martin’s Island, situated close to the border between Bangladesh and Myanmar at an elevation of 3.6 metres above the mean sea level, which she allegedly refused to give for good reasons. It would be foolish on the part of the US to expect such a gesture from the Bangladesh government upsetting China. It would also be absolutely absurd to claim a US hand behind the massive public uprising against the former Hasina government involving millions of citizens of Bangladesh.

Ironically, India, which provided her with temporary political asylum, should as well be highly unhappy with her government’s near total surrender to China over the years. China is the largest supplier of defence equipment to Bangladesh. Indirectly, it controls the Bangladesh defence department. The country’s military bosses are in continuous dialogue with China. Dhaka is Beijing’s second biggest defence customer, after Pakistan. Bangladesh has acquired sizable military hardware from China in recent years, including corvettes, naval guns, anti-ship missiles and surface-to-air missile systems. Last year, a China-built $1.2-billion six-slot submarine base, named BNS Sheikh Hasina, was inaugurated at Pekua in Cox’s Bazar. The Naval Base, about 200 miles southeast of Dhaka, was built to increase Bangladesh’s naval capacity after the demarcation of its maritime boundary with India and Myanmar. This submarine base in the Bay of Bengal is a major concern for India from its strategic standpoint. Hasia did not care. The Chinese-built submarine base in India’s backyard could disrupt the regional balance of power and complicate the tense geopolitical situation in the Bay of Bengal.

China’s growing military presence in Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina has been a strategic concern for the US as much as for India. Sheikh Hasina’s last foreign trip to China as the Bangladesh prime minister to meet her counterpart Li Qiang as well as President Xi Jinping was on July 10. The two countries signed 21 agreements and announced seven new projects. The visit also saw Beijing and Dhaka elevating their “strategic partnership” to a “comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership,” according to Bangladesh’s state-run news agency BSS. However, Sheikh Hasina had cut short her Beijing trip by a day, giving rise to the speculation that all did not go well with her visit and, probably, she did not get what she wanted from the Chinese authorities. Her government was already facing political turmoil under growing student unrest and public protests. Having given so much strategic inroads to China, could she have asked for some kind of PRC’s help to stem the internal political rot which the Chinese authorities might have turned down?

For China, which is practically in military and economic control of Bangladesh, it does not really matter which political dispensation is in power in Bangladesh today. At the end of last year, China’s investment stock in Bangladesh increased substantially, and there were nearly 700 Chinese-funded companies in Bangladesh, creating more than 550,000 jobs, with bilateral ties continuing to tighten, according to the Chinese Embassy in Bangladesh. According to the United Nations COMTRADE database, China’s exports to Bangladesh in 2023 were worth US$22.95 billion as against its import worth $1.03 billion, making the trade between the two countries highly lopsided.

China is also the biggest lender to Bangladesh. Lately, Bangladesh has been reeling under a debt trap. As of August 4, 2024, Bangladesh has received $1.15 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a $4.7 billion loan package. The loan was approved in January 2023 to help Bangladesh withstand a foreign reserves crisis and high inflation. Bangladesh’s total external debt

Going by the fast-expanding trade, economic and strategic relations between Bangladesh and China since Hasina returned to power in 2009, causing agony and tensions for India, the latter should have refrained from providing political asylum to Sheikh Hasina to maintain India’s neutral stand on the internal political crisis in the neighbouring state. Back home, Hasina is facing murder charges. What will the government of India do, if Bangladesh demands Sheikh Hasina’s repatriation from India for trial? Bangladesh Home Affairs Adviser Brigadier General (retd.) Sakhawat Hossain speculated that 500 or more protestors and policemen were killed during the three weeks of violence. India has always misread poker-faced Hasina’s strong internal resolve. India seems to be in a tricky situation. (IPA Service)

The article Sheikh Hasina Had Overstayed Her Welcome As Bangladesh Prime Minister appeared first on Arabian Post.

Scepticism over over Doha parleys

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:41:34 +0000

M A Hossain

Recent peace talks in Doha, Qatar, in the ongoing tensions in the Middle East have reignited a glimmer of hope of a temporary respite. Led by mediators from the United States, Qatar, and Egypt, these negotiations aim to broker a long-awaited ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. However, scepticism surrounds the talks, particularly because Hamas, the organization governing Gaza, is notably absent from the table. Hamas insists that any ceasefire must follow the roadmap proposed by US President Joe Biden on May 31, 2023. This roadmap outlines a three-step process aimed at reducing violence, exchanging prisoners, and rebuilding Gaza.

Biden’s plan is a strategic proposal developed in coordination with Israel. The first step requires the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza over six weeks, during which Hamas would release additional Israeli hostages taken during the October 7 attack. Simultaneously, Israel would free some Palestinian prisoners. The second phase involves the full release of all Israeli hostages and the complete withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Gaza. The third and final phase includes the reconstruction of Gaza, prioritizing housing for those whose homes have been destroyed, as well as providing additional relief to civilians affected by the conflict.

The Biden administration believes that successful implementation of this roadmap could prevent Iran from directly intervening, thereby avoiding a broader regional conflict. The hope is that temporary relief from violence will provide a foundation for future peace efforts. However, this optimism is overshadowed by a complex web of regional dynamics and unresolved grievances that have perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for decades.

Recent incidents further complicate the situation, notably the killings of prominent leaders from Hamas and Hezbollah, which have heightened tensions. On July 31, Ismail Haniya, Hamas’ political leader, was reportedly killed in a covert operation in Tehran, Iran’s capital. On the same day, Fuad Shukur, a senior commander of Hezbollah, was assassinated in Lebanon. Hamas and Iran have both accused Israel of orchestrating these assassinations. While Israel confirmed Shukur’s killing, it has denied involvement in Haniya’s death. These incidents have created a volatile atmosphere, as both Iran and Hezbollah have vowed to retaliate, raising the risk of a wider regional war.

Iran’s pledge to respond to Haniya’s death, combined with Hezbollah’s promise of revenge, has placed the entire region on edge. There is growing concern that a larger-scale conflict could erupt at any moment, with Israel as the primary target. In response, the United States, along with its European allies—France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom—has sought to prevent such an escalation. These nations issued a joint statement warning Iran against attacking Israel, emphasizing that any aggression could trigger a major regional security crisis. Despite these diplomatic efforts, Iran has maintained its right to retaliate for what it views as an unprovoked attack on its ally.

Beyond the high-level geopolitical manoeuvres and strategic interests, the human cost of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is profound, particularly in Gaza. The ongoing Israeli airstrikes and military operations have resulted in the deaths of countless Palestinian civilians. Gaza, already suffering from a blockade and economic hardships, has seen its infrastructure further devastated by repeated Israeli bombardments. Schools, hospitals, and homes have been reduced to rubble, exacerbating an already dire humanitarian crisis.

The killing of Ismail Haniya, whether by Israel or other actors, has only intensified the suffering of the Palestinian people. Amidst the violence, civilians—women, children, and the elderly—continue to bear the brunt of the conflict. International organizations and humanitarian groups have called for an immediate ceasefire to allow aid to reach those in need, but Israel has thus far shown little inclination to halt its military operations.

One of the fundamental challenges in achieving peace in the Middle East is the deep-seated mistrust between the parties involved. Israel and Hamas, as well as their respective allies, have been locked in cycles of violence for decades. Attempts at ceasefires or peace agreements have repeatedly broken down, often due to provocations, miscommunications, or the refusal of one side to compromise on critical issues such as borders, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.

The United States, while trying to play the role of mediator, has historically been seen as biased toward Israel, undermining its credibility in the eyes of many Palestinians and their supporters. Nonetheless, Washington’s involvement remains crucial, as the US has significant leverage over Israel, particularly in terms of military aid and diplomatic support. The success of the current talks in Doha largely depends on whether the US can pressure Israel to abide by the terms of the ceasefire and allow meaningful reconstruction efforts in Gaza.

At the same time, regional powers like Iran and Turkey, both of which support Hamas, must also be engaged in any long-term peace process. Without their buy-in, any ceasefire agreement risks being short-lived. Iran, in particular, has significant influence over both Hamas and Hezbollah, and its involvement will be crucial in preventing further escalation.

The Palestinian struggle for self-determination remains at the core of the conflict. For Palestinians, peace cannot merely be the cessation of hostilities but must also include justice—an end to the occupation, the recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and the right of return for refugees. Any peace agreement that fails to address these fundamental issues will not hold, as it will be seen as legitimizing Israel’s continued control over Palestinian land and resources.

International support for Palestinian rights has grown in recent years, with many civil society groups, human rights organizations, and even governments calling for an end to the occupation and the establishment of a viable, independent Palestinian state. These voices argue that sustainable peace in the Middle East is only possible if the Palestinian people are given the same rights and freedoms that others in the region enjoy.

As peace talks unfold in Doha, the world watches to see whether they will bring temporary relief or pave the way for a more lasting resolution. While the Biden roadmap offers a structured plan for de-escalation, its success depends on the willingness of all parties—Israel, Hamas, and their regional allies—to engage in genuine dialogue and compromise. However, the road to peace in the Middle East is fraught with challenges, and the deep historical, political, and social divisions between Israelis and Palestinians cannot be ignored. Peace, if it comes, will require not only diplomatic efforts but also a commitment to justice and equality for the Palestinian people.

The article Scepticism over over Doha parleys appeared first on Arabian Post.

Peoples’ Uprising In Bangladesh Does Not Augur Well For India

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 08 Aug 2024 04:37:04 +0000

By Arun Srivastava

What has happened in Bangladesh was inevitable. It is extreme historical irony that Sheikh Hasina had to eventually flee Bangladesh, the country which was literally fathered by her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Hasina, who once helped rescue Bangladesh from military rule and restore the democratic governance, has been primarily responsible for creation of this situation.

This is the second incident in the Indian subcontinent when the head of country had to flee the country to escape the peoples’ wrath. In 2022, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa had to flee in the wake of people movement against him. Significantly, just after the Sri Lankan incident, some opposition leaders and opinion makers had predicted a similar revolt in Bangladesh. Eventually, it happened on August 4-5.

There was a typical similarity into what happened in Sri Lanka and Dhaka. Sri Lankan people had raided President’s palace and occupied it. The incident that took place in Dhaka on August 5 carried shades of those in Colombo two years earlier. People raided Ganabhaban (Hasina’s residence) and pillaged it. It was their way of expressing their anger.

Hasina, after winning a fifth term as prime minister in January, has been gradually but systematically shaping up as an autocrat in the garb of democrat. No doubt she propelled economic growth in a country once written off by US’s Henry Kissinger as an irredeemable “basket case”. Only last year, she had even promised to turn all of Bangladesh into a “prosperous and developed country”. But like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, she also conveniently forgot that Bangladesh has 18 million unemployed young Bangladeshis.

Like Modi, she was also praised by her blind supporters and yesmen for leading Bangladesh through an economic boom. It experienced robust economic growth, primarily driven by the garment export industry. Since 2009, the economy grew by an average of over six percent annually. Significantly in 2021, its per capita income surpassed that of India.

Notwithstanding these achievements, the economists and experts point out that she lacked an inclusive vision for country’s economic development and growth. Her failure to give a direction to economic growth gave rise to protest and dissension. She cracked down on dissenters and a number of prominent social and political activists were put in jail. Hasina’s administration faced heavy criticism for its repressive measures. She ruthlessly suppressed voices of protest and penalised anyone she perceived as a threat or dissenter. After securing her fifth term in power this January, she turned even more autocratic, cracking down on free speech and punishing dissent and opposition.

Hasina’s tenure was marked by the use of security forces, including the notorious Rapid Action Battalion paramilitary, which she was accused of using to abduct and even kill opposition members and dissenters, and allegedly rig the elections. Even the judiciary, a largely bipartisan institution, became compromised during her tenure, forcing a chief justice to flee the country after he opposed her in a ruling.

Hasina controlled the media and maintained a sustained narrative against her opponents. Most of Bangladesh’s mainstream media outlets are owned by businesses with ties to the Awami League. Media has the main task of depicting her supporters as the legitimate heirs to the legacy of the country’s independence and its achievements, while portraying dissenters and opposition members from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami as Razakars or “extremists”. Former PM and key opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia was imprisoned in 2018 on corruption charges, while a leading figure in Jamaat-e-Islami was executed in 2016.

It is a coincidence that there are many similarities between the governance of Hasina and Narendra Modi. Political prisoners in India are languishing in jail without trials. Even in most of the cases, no chargesheet has been filed. Some have been in jail for more than six years. Between 2016 and 2020, about 24,134 individuals have been charged with the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) alone, only 386 of whom have reportedly been acquitted.

The rightist forces in Bangladesh have been quite active and often have been posing serious problems for secular forces and parties. Jamaat-e-Islami, which provided protection to Razakars during Bangladesh liberation war, were active even in the post-Independence period. The organization was initially banned by the Sheikh Mujibur Rahman government for collaborating with Pakistani forces during the 1971 Liberation War. Jamaat members were implicated in forming auxiliary forces such as Razakar, Al-Badr, Al-Shams, and the Peace Committee, which were involved in atrocities against Bengali freedom fighters, particularly targeting Hindus. In 2013, the Election Commission of Bangladesh cancelled Jamaat’s registration following a court ruling, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in 2023.

The situation in Bangladesh would not have deteriorated to such an extent if Hasina had shown little amount of political maturity in handling the Supreme Court verdict on reservation for freedom fighters. Students were protesting the court verdict on job quotas. Some members of the Jamaat were trying to take benefit out of the verdict. This was opposed by students. They were for quota only for the family members of the genuine freedom fighters. Unfortunately, Hasina did not bother to look at their demand in proper perspective. She remarked: “If the grandchildren of freedom fighters don’t receive [quota] benefits, who will? The grandchildren of Razakars?”

Obviously this hurt the agitating students. They began protesting within hours, marching through Dhaka University’s campus, chanting a provocative slogan: “Who are you? I am Razakar.” Hasina took it as a challenge to her authority. It is travesty of fact, since both Hasina and students, were on the same page. But her arrogance was primarily responsible for escalation in violence.

According to Human Rights Watch, since Sheikh Hasina’s tenure began in 2009, security forces have been implicated in more than 600 enforced disappearances. Between January 2015 and December 2020, at least 755 people described as “militants” or “terrorists” by security forces were killed in 143 alleged shootouts and gunfights across the country, according to another HRW report.

The Bangladesh judiciary must also be held responsible for aggravating the situation through its extraneous orders. Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan-linked terror outfit which has always been on the look put for occasion to ignite violence in the country, used the July 28 verdict of a tribunal to instigate the people. Six members of ‘Razakar Bahini’ were sentenced to death for ‘crimes against humanity’ by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal on July 28. All the six Razakars— A Amjad Hossain Howladar, Sahar Ali Sardar, Atiyar Rahman, Motachim Billah, Kamal Uddin Goldar, and Nazrul Islam — are currently on the run. The three-member tribunal headed by Justice Mohammad Shahinur Islam found them guilty of ‘crimes against humanity,’ including mass killings, torture and arson.

Turmoil in Bangladesh does not seem to cease with Sheikh Hasina’s exit from the country. Several miscreants have now stormed into a jail, setting over 500 inmates free. One thing is certain: India will have to face a very hostile new caretaker government that is expected to take over the power within a couple of day. The students have urged Bangladesh President Mohammad Shahabuddin to announce the government. They have also approached the Army chief to hasten up the process of installation of new government.

The protesting students have been quite hostile to India and the Modi government. Nevertheless, political and diplomatic circles are apprehensive of the developing situation. In a significant step, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has appealed to people of all communities with folded hands “to remain calm and not engage in any communal behaviour or take the law into their own hands. If our brothers and sisters who are there face some trouble, the governments of India and Bangladesh will look into it.”

The agitating student leaders of Bangladesh have cautioned: “We can see that after our uprising and revolution, the fascists and their accomplices are causing chaos and sabotage. In various places, shootings are taking place, temples are being attacked, and there is sabotage and looting. We believe that these incidents are being orchestrated to undermine our students’ and citizens’ revolution. We urge the dear students-citizen striving for freedom to remain vigilant and cautious”. (IPA Service)

The article Peoples’ Uprising In Bangladesh Does Not Augur Well For India appeared first on Arabian Post.

On the Edge: Will Middle East Tensions Trigger Global War?

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 06:56:00 +0000

M A Hossain

After a recent rocket attack on a soccer field in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, the question of whether the Middle East is on the verge of an all-out war has captured global attention. This attack, which resulted in the death of 12 people amid the ongoing Gaza conflict, has escalated tensions to a critical level. In response, Israeli forces carried out a drone strike in southern Lebanon, resulting in casualties. This attack was directly attributed to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese armed group. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in the United States at the time, swiftly returned to Israel and, after a meeting with the security cabinet, declared, “Hezbollah will have to pay a heavy price for this attack—a price they have never had to pay before.”

This incident brings to mind a provocative international media headline from the previous month: “Now is the time to bomb Lebanon.” The possibility of an all-out war between Israel and Lebanon has since been a hot topic in various media outlets. The world anxiously watches to see if another major conflict is about to erupt in this already volatile region.

It is often said that when the world order and the power of global authorities are in decline, the drums of war begin to sound. This observation seems increasingly accurate. Over recent decades, we have seen sporadic conflicts erupt in various regions. However, the ongoing Ukraine war, which began in 2022, and the Gaza war that started on October 7 of last year, have collectively pushed the world closer to a significant global conflict. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have starkly exposed the West’s double standards and the underlying political maneuvers it employs to maintain its status as the world’s policing authority.

These two wars have caused many other parts of the world to edge towards war or conflict. The current situation is arguably the most fragile the world has experienced since the end of the Cold War. Although tensions between Eastern and Western bloc powers are at an all-time high, the catastrophic specter of another world war has not yet materialized. Nevertheless, the fear remains.

The Middle East, in particular, has a long history of conflicts that are difficult to extinguish once ignited. This is a major cause for concern. As regional powers continually face off, there is no assurance that these conflicts will remain contained. Instead, in my opinion, if Donald Trump were to become the President of the USA, his ultra pro-Israel stance might usher in a new era where Middle Eastern conflicts could erupt unpredictably and escalate rapidly.

Examining the global situation over the past two decades reveals that countless lives have been lost in numerous bloody conflicts. Wars continue to rage in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Moreover, the dire prospect of ‘geopolitical and technological changes’ exacerbating superpower conflicts looms large. Modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional battles; today, conflicts are fueled by advanced technologies such as drones, robots, and private military contractors. These developments have made urban areas the primary battlegrounds, as seen in Aleppo, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq. This new form of ‘hybrid warfare’ blurs the lines between combatants and civilians, making conflicts more devastating and harder to resolve.

Historically, the world has rarely been without war and conflict. However, recent wars seem particularly interminable. These prolonged conflicts are especially detrimental to the developing world, which is disproportionately affected. The current global environment is often described as Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. This turmoiled world is becoming increasingly challenging for developing countries, which find themselves embroiled in conflicts not of their making. These nations are struggling to navigate through an unpredictable landscape where the pathway to peace and stability remains unclear.

The dynamics of superpower involvement in regional conflicts further complicate the situation. The United States, Russia, and China are often seen as key players in many of these conflicts, providing military aid, political support, or even direct intervention. For instance, the U.S. has a longstanding alliance with Israel, while Russia and Iran have been key supporters of the Syrian government and Hezbollah. China’s growing influence in the Middle East adds another layer of complexity, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to enhance regional connectivity and trade.

These superpowers are driven by strategic interests that often clash with each other, creating a precarious balance of power. The involvement of these external actors can both escalate and mitigate conflicts, depending on their actions and diplomatic engagements. This geopolitical chess game makes the prediction of future conflicts even more challenging, as alliances and enmities can shift rapidly.

The human cost of these conflicts is staggering. The wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq have resulted in millions of deaths and displacements, creating one of the worst refugee crises in modern history. In Gaza, the humanitarian situation is dire with civilians especially, the women and children are bearing the brunt of the ongoing violence. The international community has often been criticized for its inadequate response to these crises, struggling to provide effective humanitarian aid and failing to broker lasting peace agreements.

The psychological impact on affected populations is profound, with generations growing up in environments of violence and instability. This perpetuates a cycle of trauma and conflict, making long-term peace and development an elusive goal. The international community’s role in addressing these humanitarian crises is crucial, but often hampered by political interests and logistical challenges.

Media coverage and propaganda play significant roles in shaping public perception and international response to these conflicts. The portrayal of events can influence public opinion and government policies, sometimes exacerbating tensions. Biased or sensationalized reporting can fuel hostilities and deepen divisions, while responsible journalism and accurate reporting can promote understanding and peace.

Social media has emerged as a powerful tool in modern conflicts, used both for disseminating information and spreading propaganda. It allows for real-time updates but also enables the rapid spread of misinformation. The challenge lies in navigating this complex media landscape to discern truth from falsehood and promote narratives that encourage peace rather than conflict.

The world stands at a precarious juncture, with tensions in the Middle East threatening to spill over into a broader conflict. The fragility of the current global order, combined with ongoing wars and emerging technological threats, creates a volatile environment where all-out war could become a reality. As regional and global powers continue to jostle for dominance, the international community must remain vigilant and proactive in seeking diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation and ensure a more stable and peaceful world.

The stakes have never been higher. The potential for conflict in the Middle East serves as a microcosm of global instability. Preventing a descent into widespread warfare requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders—nations, international organizations, and civil society. Through dialogue, diplomacy, and a commitment to humanitarian principles, the world can strive to avert the catastrophe of another global conflict and work towards a more peaceful future.

The article On the Edge: Will Middle East Tensions Trigger Global War? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Centrist Coalition Challenges: Ursula von der Leyen’s Strategy Against Far-Right Gains

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:02:35 +0000

M A Hossain

As the European Union (EU) navigates through a turbulent political landscape, Ursula von der Leyen, the incumbent President of the European Commission, is fervently working to secure a second term. This pursuit is particularly challenging given the recent EU parliamentary elections, where her party, the European People’s Party (EPP), emerged as the leading group but faces significant opposition from a surging far-right. Von der Leyen’s efforts highlight the intricate balance of power and the complexities of coalition-building in contemporary European politics.

Ursula von der Leyen’s immediate goal is to obtain the nomination for a second term from EU leaders. If successful, the subsequent challenge will be to garner the support of at least 361 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the newly elected Parliament. Achieving this requires forging strategic alliances across a diverse array of political groups, a task laden with potential pitfalls and compromises.

On the night of the election results, von der Leyen indicated her intent to initially seek support from the socialists and liberals, who had backed her during her first term. However, the evolving composition of the Parliament suggests that she may need to extend her coalition-building efforts beyond these traditional allies.

According to provisional results, the EPP has secured approximately 26% of the seats in the European Parliament. When combined with the Socialists & Democrats and Renew Europe groups, these three blocs collectively command 407 seats. This number comfortably surpasses the 361-vote threshold needed for von der Leyen’s nomination. Nevertheless, turning this theoretical majority into a practical reality hinges on the intricate political negotiations and concessions that will unfold in the coming days and weeks.

One of the most significant challenges to von der Leyen’s ambitions is the marked rise in support for far-right parties across Europe. In several major EU economies, including France and Germany, right-wing factions have made substantial electoral gains, reflecting widespread voter discontent with traditional centrist parties.

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) suffered a severe setback, finishing in third place behind the conservative opposition and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). The AfD’s ascension to second place with around 16% of the votes underscores the growing appeal of far-right politics in Germany.

Meanwhile, in France, the right-wing National Rally (RN) party significantly outperformed President Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party, prompting Macron to dissolve the National Assembly and call for a snap election. This dramatic shift in France’s political landscape further complicates von der Leyen’s task of building a stable majority in the European Parliament.

Von der Leyen’s strategy to form a “bastion against extremes from the left and from the right” underscores her commitment to maintaining a centrist coalition. However, this strategy necessitates a series of delicate balancing acts. For instance, seeking support from the Greens could alienate some conservative members within her own EPP, who oppose key Green Deal climate measures. The Greens’ backing could be crucial, but it comes with the risk of internal dissent within the EPP.

Alternatively, von der Leyen could seek support from the hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), led by Italy’s Giorgia Meloni. The ECR, expected to secure around 71 seats, has been vocal about prioritizing security, migration control, and European values. While their support could provide a numerical boost, it risks alienating the socialists and liberals, who are wary of aligning with hardline right-wing groups.

Despite these challenges, von der Leyen remains optimistic about the ability of centrist forces to hold their ground. “The center is holding,” she declared, emphasizing the responsibility of centrist parties to counter the rise of extremist factions. Her vision for the next term involves building a broad majority that is pro-European, pro-Ukraine, and committed to the rule of law.

This vision will require extensive negotiations and significant concessions. While support from centrist parties is crucial, von der Leyen will need to navigate the complex political landscape with great skill to secure a stable majority. The rise of far-right and far-left parties underscores the growing polarization within the EU, making the task of coalition-building more challenging than ever.

Von der Leyen’s quest for a second term as President of the European Commission is emblematic of the broader political shifts occurring within the European Union. The recent elections have highlighted a growing discontent with traditional centrist parties, as evidenced by the significant gains made by far-right factions in key member states. This discontent reflects broader societal concerns, including issues related to migration, economic inequality, and national sovereignty.

In response to these challenges, von der Leyen has vowed to “build a bastion against the extremes from the left and from the right.” Her commitment to a centrist, pro-European agenda underscores the importance of unity and stability within the EU. However, achieving this vision will require navigating a complex and often contentious political landscape.

Ursula von der Leyen’s efforts to secure a second term as President of the European Commission are set against a backdrop of significant political change within the EU. The rise of far-right parties and the growing polarization of European politics present formidable challenges to her ambitions. Von der Leyen’s ability to forge alliances across the political spectrum and maintain a centrist coalition will be critical in determining her success.

As the vote-counting continues and political negotiations intensify, the coming weeks will be crucial in shaping the future leadership of the European Commission. Von der Leyen’s commitment to a broad, centrist majority reflects the need for stability and unity within the EU. However, the path to achieving this vision is fraught with challenges, requiring careful negotiation and strategic compromises.

The outcome of these efforts will not only determine von der Leyen’s political future but will also have significant implications for the direction of the European Union in the years to come. The stakes are high, and the political landscape is more complex than ever, making the task of coalition-building a critical and delicate endeavor.

The article Centrist Coalition Challenges: Ursula von der Leyen’s Strategy Against Far-Right Gains appeared first on Arabian Post.

Imran Khan’s Acquittal Exposes USA’s Failed Plot

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 05 Jun 2024 06:47:17 +0000

M A Hossain

In a dramatic turn of events, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on June 3 acquitted the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, and former foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the much-hyped cipher case while terminating their imprisonment sentences. The former prime minister has been acquitted of all charges in another two cases related to long march vandalism, leaving the nation in shock and raising questions about the role of external forces in his ousting. Now, Pakistan can take pride in its independent judiciary and serve as an example for its neighbors to follow. This verdict is a testament to the country’s sovereignty and the upholding of national dignity.

The ousting of Imran Khan from power was not merely a domestic affair. Leaked documents suggest that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had a vested interest in destabilizing Khan’s government. Khan’s stance on regional issues, including his opposition to certain CIA-backed operations, made him a target. The agency allegedly orchestrated a campaign to undermine his leadership through false corruption allegations, painting him as a villain for Pakistan’s economy. Khan’s visit to Russia shortly before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further disappointed the West, leading to his removal. This incident underscores the lengths to which external forces might go to manipulate political outcomes in other sovereign nations. The Pakistani people were left questioning the integrity of their political system, and Khan’s removal was seen as a direct affront to the country’s autonomy.

The Pakistani judiciary’s handling of Imran Khan’s case stands as a testament to its independence. Despite external pressures, the court meticulously examined the evidence, ensuring a fair trial. The verdict sends a powerful message: justice prevails over political maneuvering. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, demonstrating that no external or internal agency can undermine judicial power. The people of Pakistan now have renewed faith that justice, not political gamesmanship, will guide national proceedings. This moment is pivotal for Pakistan’s legal system, showcasing its ability to resist external influences and operate impartially, ultimately strengthening the country’s democratic framework.

Comparing Imran Khan’s trial to former President Donald Trump’s trial proceedings in the United States reveals stark contrasts. While Khan’s case followed due process, the Trump trial faced criticism for its perceived bias and political motivations. The term “kangaroo court” gained traction, highlighting the flaws in the American judicial system. The latest conviction of Trump shocked people worldwide, illustrating how the USA’s judiciary could be perceived as turning into a kangaroo court. Many viewed the motives behind this conviction as an attempt to bar Trump from the presidential race, suggesting the whole judicial proceeding was politically motivated and biased. This comparison highlights the discrepancies in judicial practices between the two nations and serves as a reminder of the necessity for legal systems to operate without political interference.

From history, it is evident that the supremacy of the West, especially the USA, is descending, resembling the fall of the USSR. Symptoms are already exposing themselves. After the USSR’s defeat in Afghanistan, its economy and military power were questioned. Federal states lost hope and aspired to be independent. Moreover, the Chernobyl disaster explicitly exposed the disarray of internal management. Ominous signs are already sighted in the USA during the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic has exposed the mismanagement of the USA’s internal system. Another debacle for the USA and its Western allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria has caused tremendous economic setbacks for the USA. Internal political rifts in the USA are widening more than ever before. The allies of the USA now contradict on many issues, such as arbitrary military or economic punitive measures or tilting towards Russia and China.

Beyond Khan’s acquittal, this case reflects broader geopolitical shifts. The USA’s influence in South Asia is waning. Traditional power centers are recalibrating as China and Russia assert themselves. Economic ties, regional alliances, and strategic interests are evolving. Imran Khan’s exoneration serves as a litmus test for the changing dynamics, signaling a shift away from Western dominance. The Pakistani establishment must feel the pulse of shifting political dynamics in this region. Their recalibrated foreign policy could bring stability in domestic and international affairs. As Pakistan and other South Asian countries reorient their alliances and strategies, the balance of power in the region is shifting. This change underscores the decline of Western influence and the rise of new geopolitical players, emphasizing the importance of regional self-determination and resilience against external pressures.

In conclusion, Imran Khan’s acquittal reverberates far beyond Pakistan’s borders. It symbolizes the struggle for judicial independence, exposes external interference, and mirrors the global realignment of power. As the world watches, it becomes evident that the old order is giving way to new players, reshaping the geopolitical landscape. This verdict not only vindicates Khan but also serves as a beacon for nations striving to maintain their sovereignty in the face of external manipulation. It marks a pivotal moment for Pakistan, demonstrating its judiciary’s strength and the country’s resilience against foreign intervention. The broader implications of this acquittal signal a transformative period in global politics, where new alliances are forged, and traditional power structures are challenged. As these dynamics continue to evolve, the world must pay close attention to the emerging balance of power and the growing assertion of national sovereignty across the globe.

The article Imran Khan’s Acquittal Exposes USA’s Failed Plot appeared first on Arabian Post.

Western Media’s Bias Against South Asian Perspectives

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 11 May 2024 07:28:55 +0000

M A Hossain

South Asian nations, bursting with diversity and contradictions, have long been a captivating subject for global journalism. Yet, despite their increasing importance on the world stage, Western media often miss the mark when it comes to accurately portraying these multifaceted and culturally rich countries. This discrepancy in coverage not only reflects a lack of understanding of the region’s complexities but also raises concerns about journalistic integrity and political interference.

Recent scandals and exposés have brought into question the motivations of foreign journalists covering South Asia, particularly India and Bangladesh. India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, has pointed out that criticism from Western press isn’t merely due to a lack of information but rather a belief that they are political players in Indian elections. This perception challenges the credibility of foreign media coverage and raises concerns about political neutrality. Moreover, Western media’s active involvement in Bangladesh’s national election seemed to aim at destabilizing the country’s internal political atmosphere, highlighting a pattern of interference in domestic affairs.

One glaring example of the disparity between foreign and Indian journalism emerged during a panel discussion on BBC’s News night, where Amana Begam Ansari, a journalist for The Print, challenged the portrayal of Muslims and minorities facing genocidal threats. Ansari emphasized the importance of data in dispelling misconceptions, highlighting that India has never been safer for minorities. However, her remarks left the program’s anchor visibly perplexed, showcasing the gap in understanding between Western and Indian perspectives.

India’s vibrant democracy, cultural richness, and economic dynamism are always attractive to the global context. However, delving into the complexities of Indian society requires more than surface-level reporting. Western journalists often struggle with cultural nuances, traditional subtleties, regional disparities, and the wide span of the country. Instances such as ABC News Australia’s Avani Dias’s false claim of being forced to leave India further erode trust between foreign journalists and Indian society, raising questions about journalistic integrity.

Western media sometimes prioritizing narratives with biased coverage that align with cheap popularity or geopolitical agendas. Recent instances of biased reporting, such as The Guardian’s editorial on India’s general election, undermine the work of foreign press in India and hinder a balanced portrayal of the country. Chris Blackburn, an expert on media wrote an opinion piece in Daily Express, UK about inaccurate coverage regarding India, “One challenge is the tendency to view India through a narrow lens, shaped by preconceived notions or sensationalized narratives. This can lead to oversimplification and distortion of issues, perpetuating stereotypes.”

Access and privilege significantly complicate the landscape of media coverage, especially for Western journalists. Their struggle to effectively connect with grassroots communities and fully comprehend the daily realities faced by ordinary South Asian deepens the divide. As a consequence, this gap in understanding frequently leads to a distorted depiction of socio-economic issues. In this skewed portrayal, the voices and experiences of marginalized individuals are often overlooked, further exacerbating societal disparities and hindering progress towards more inclusive and accurate representation in the media. It was more evident when the incumbent Prime Minister in Pakistan was ousted, and his tenure in office was depicted as a severe threat to Western nations.

The situation is not limited to India or Pakistan alone but extends to Bangladesh as well. Western media’s interference in Bangladesh’s domestic affairs and national elections has been a recurring issue, raising concerns about sovereignty and political meddling. The 2024 national election in Bangladesh witnessed a flurry of biased reporting and sensationalized narratives from Western outlets, reflecting a lack of understanding of the country’s political landscape and internal dynamics. Such interference undermines the democratic process and fosters mistrust among the Bangladeshi populace towards foreign media.

Despite the myriad challenges faced by Western journalists in accurately covering South Asia, maintaining journalistic integrity is non-negotiable. This entails a rigorous commitment to fact-checking, corroborating information from diverse sources, and actively challenging inherent biases. Only by adhering to these fundamental principles can journalists hope to offer a portrayal of South Asia that is both comprehensive and unbiased.

Fact-checking serves as the cornerstone of responsible journalism, particularly in a region as complex and dynamic as South Asia. With misinformation and propaganda often rampant, journalists must meticulously verify every piece of information they intend to publish. This not only safeguards the credibility of their reporting but also ensures that readers are presented with accurate and reliable information.

Furthermore, embracing a multiplicity of perspectives is imperative in capturing the true essence of South Asia. This entails going beyond mainstream narratives and actively seeking voices from diverse backgrounds, communities, and viewpoints. By amplifying these often marginalized perspectives, journalists can offer a more nuanced understanding of the region’s socio-political dynamics, thereby enriching the discourse and fostering greater empathy and understanding among audiences.

Challenging biases, both conscious and unconscious, is another critical aspect of responsible journalism. Western journalists must interrogate their own preconceived notions and prejudices about South Asia, recognizing that their cultural, social, and political backgrounds may influence their perceptions and interpretations of events. By cultivating a self-awareness of these biases and actively working to counteract them, journalists can strive towards a more equitable and balanced portrayal of the region.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Western journalists to transcend the limitations and pitfalls inherent in covering South Asia. By upholding the principles of journalistic integrity, fact-checking, embracing diversity, and challenging biases, they can contribute to a more informed and nuanced understanding of the region on the global stage, thereby fulfilling their crucial role as mediators of truth and knowledge.

In conclusion, accurately capturing South Asia’s essence requires humility, empathy, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. By addressing biases, challenging preconceptions, and prioritizing factual accuracy, Western media can bridge the gap and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the region’s vibrant landscape while respecting the sovereignty and internal dynamics of each nation.

The article Western Media’s Bias Against South Asian Perspectives appeared first on Arabian Post.

Saudi Arabia has a pivotal moment in its quest for global clout

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 04 May 2024 06:30:05 +0000

M A Hossain

In the vibrant heart of Riyadh, amidst its soaring skyline and lively thoroughfares, a momentous gathering of global leaders, policymakers, and influential business figures recently unfolded. The occasion? The World Economic Forum’s Special Meeting in the Kingdom-an event of profound significance, highlighting Saudi Arabia’s escalating prominence on the international platform and marking a pivotal juncture in the region’s course. As delegates from every corner of the globe converged, the conversations transcended mere economic discourse, delving deeply into the intricate realms of geopolitics, ideological currents, and the very future trajectory of the Middle East.

At the heart of these discussions lies Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030-a holistic strategy for economic diversification, social transformation, and national revitalization. After eight years of implementation, the Kingdom’s visionary agenda is yielding tangible results, ushering in a period of advancement, creativity, and societal integration. Against this dynamic backdrop, the World Economic Forum provided a stage to highlight Saudi Arabia’s evolving role-a symbol of promise and potential in a region historically marred by unrest and unpredictability.

Within the esteemed confines of the forum, what unfolded transcended traditional rhetoric and dialogue, encapsulating a profound shift in the geopolitical paradigm-a shift defined by the rise of a new catalyst for positive change, prosperity, and regional cohesion. As eloquently articulated by a participant, this phenomenon signals the Middle East’s “1989 moment”-an analogy drawn to the pivotal events that redefined the global landscape three decades prior. Thus, the discussions and interactions at the forum symbolized not just discourse, but a pivotal moment in the ongoing narrative of regional and global transformation.

Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of communism in Eastern Europe marked the onset of a transformative era, the developments transpiring in Riyadh signify a monumental shift in the Middle Eastern landscape. The era of entrenched authoritarian rule and ideological steadfastness is waning, making way for a fresh ethos characterized by pragmatism, collaboration, and forward-thinking strategies. It’s a time where the region is embracing a new dawn of possibilities and progress.

The recent statements by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the significant decision confronting the region: the choice between a trajectory marked by discord and turmoil or one defined by unity, security, and peace. As a crucial player in the region, the United States has unequivocally stated its position-a dedication to nurturing enhanced collaboration and stability that transcends historical rifts and ideological differences. This commitment signals a pivotal step towards fostering a more harmonious and secure future for all involved.

Central to this equation is the evolving relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia-a relationship marked by a convergence of interests and a shared vision for the future. Despite initial skepticism and geopolitical complexities, recent overtures signal a renewed sense of partnership and collaboration, extending beyond conventional security concerns to encompass a broad spectrum of mutual interests, from economic cooperation to technological innovation.

However, despite these diplomatic maneuvers and tactical adjustments, formidable obstacles persist. Foremost among them is the persistent Israeli-Palestinian conflict-a perennial source of tension that remains resistant to resolution. Saudi Arabia’s willingness to endorse Israel’s inclusion in the Arab and Muslim spheres is contingent upon a genuine dedication to pursuing a viable two-state resolution-a proposition entangled with intricate complexities and deep-rooted historical grievances. Addressing this issue remains a critical challenge in the pursuit of regional stability and harmony.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands at a crucial juncture, torn between the demands of peace and the complexities of domestic politics. His decision not only shapes Israel’s trajectory but also resonates throughout the region, holding significant implications for lasting peace and stability.

Similarly, Hamas, entangled in a deadly conflict with Israel, faces the harsh realities of war juxtaposed with the necessity for peace. The pressing nature of the situation, compounded by humanitarian crises and regional dynamics, accentuates the need for prompt and resolute action. Both Netanyahu’s choices and Hamas’s responses are pivotal in determining the course of events, with far-reaching consequences for the prospects of peace and stability in the region.

Meanwhile, the specter of Iran looms large, casting a shadow over regional dynamics and geopolitical calculations. The Saudi-Iranian détente of March 2023 marked a significant milestone-a testament to the potential for rapprochement and cooperation in a region long characterized by animosity and mistrust. However, underlying tensions persist, underscoring the fragility of the regional equilibrium and the complexities of navigating geopolitical fault lines.

At this pivotal moment, the Middle East finds itself at a decisive crossroads-a point in history marked by choices whose consequences will echo for generations. As key players navigate the intricate terrain of geopolitics and the urgent need for peace, the road ahead appears both uncertain and pregnant with potential. Within the corridors of power and the arenas of diplomacy, the destiny of nations teeters on the edge-a poignant reminder of the enduring significance of visionary leadership, boldness, and diplomatic acumen in shaping not only the region’s fate but also the broader global landscape.

The article Saudi Arabia has a pivotal moment in its quest for global clout appeared first on Arabian Post.

Imperative of Action Against Dubious Kuki-Chin Armed Movement

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 20 Apr 2024 07:08:48 +0000

M A Hossain

The Bangladesh government has garnered significant experience in countering insurgency activities in the Chattagram Hill Tracts (CHT). Through operations like ‘Operation Dabanal’ the Bangladesh Armed Forces have effectively neutralized separatist armed groups. After the peace treaty, to date, ‘Operation Uttaron’ has aimed to uphold law and order and improve the living standards of the Jumma people.

With over two decades of such operations, the resurgence of another insurgency movement in that particular region would be a daydream if not wild dream. The Kuki Chin community, rooted in the Sino-Tibetan Bawm origin, comprises members of the same tribes who are known by different names and live in close proximity to the borders of Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India.

Their pursuit of autonomy and cultural recognition is historically grounded. Initiatives such as the Chin Hills Regulation of 1896 in Burma and agreements like the Panglong Conference Agreement of 1947 and the Mizoram Peace Accord of 1986 aimed to recognize the unique identity and autonomy of the Kuki-Chin community but remain unfulfilled. The ZO Reunification Organization’s advocacy for reunifying Kuki-Chin and Mizo tribes underscores the challenges faced by displaced individuals across these regions.

The emergence of Kuki-Chin armed groups has introduced further complexity to the geopolitical landscape in this region. Global powers exploit internal grievances and regional conflict dynamics with Kuki-Chin groups to achieve their geostrategic interests. Western powers have a keen interest in the mineral-rich “Golden Triangle” famed for this hilly range. The United States has expressed solidarity with Muslims in Arakan for an independent state. Furthermore, Christian missionaries contribute to demographic shifts in CHT and Mizoram by converting local indigenous populations to Christianity, potentially leading to demands for a Christian majority state, like the way it happened in Sudan.

Meanwhile, China employs a ‘Positive Diplomacy’ approach to counter the USA’s ‘China Containment Policy’ in the Indo-Pacific region. China is exploiting the US allies and exposing USA not as a trustworthy partner to undermine US influence. China’s success in the Middle East challenges US allies in Asia, compelling India, a close ally of the USA, to navigate strained situations as it finds itself almost surrounded by China’s allies. India is compelled to remain a neutral nation, not tilted too much towards the US.

In the end, the Kuki-Chin are fighting against the Indian government, demanding autonomy in Myanmar, and exerting soft pressure on the government of Bangladesh. Therefore, it is quite understandable which external actors are behind the Kuki-Chin National Front.

The Bangladesh Armed Forces have gained global recognition for their peace-building and peace-enforcing efforts under the UN umbrella. Additionally, they possess extensive experience and notable success in countering insurgency in the CHT, with an Infantry Division specifically designated for this region. In my opinion, the Bangladesh Armed Forces should initiate a new military operation under the mandate of aiding civil administration.

It is crucial to recognize the Kuki-Chin movement as an political threat. Relying solely on military action is unlikely to yield fruitful results and may instead entrap security forces in the intentions of insurgents. This challenge requires a multifaceted approach, encompassing diplomatic efforts, political initiatives, and military strategies, to effectively mitigate the escalation of such extremist activities.

Compared to the neighbouring states in the region, Bangladesh faces relatively lesser threats from this community. Therefore, the government’s diplomatic endeavours need to be intensified to ensure the safety and security of the Kuki-Chin community within the country. It is imperative for our diplomatic efforts to ensure that no other nation provides patronage, harbours, or funds Kuki-Chin terrorist groups.

The executive and legislative administrations in Chattogram need to forge close collaborations with the less developed indigenous tribes in their respective areas. They can propose special development projects to the government, where Bangladesh Army can extend its capabilities to play a pivotal role in implementing those initiatives. Reports indicate that the Bangladesh Army’s Engineering Corps is actively enhancing communication systems in the region. To further bolster development efforts, the government should seek increased funding from foreign investment partners, focusing on areas such as education, communication, and tourism. This approach will create more job opportunities for locals, contributing to socio-economic uplift.

Local administration and security forces must instill confidence within the less developed indigenous tribes. Continuation of military operations to apprehend wrongdoers is essential. However, given the complexity of military operations in CHT due to limited intelligence, a comprehensive and intelligence-driven approach, in tandem with political maneuver, can yield positive outcomes. Collaboration between Bangladesh’s intelligence agencies and their counterparts in neighbouring countries is imperative to counter this political threat.

Military operations should be intelligence-based to avoid resentment from local tribes, who may otherwise become sympathetic to terrorist groups. The Kuki-Chin National Front (KNF) has conveyed their demand to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, clearly stating that they don’t seek independence but autonomy. Thus, it’s a purely political movement, not a separatist one. Therefore, the government and state machinery must handle the situation with utmost care to prevent it from escalating into a separatist movement.

Efforts should be led by political leaders to integrate Kuki-Chin people into mainstream national politics, thereby abandoning armed conflict. It is also necessary to ensure that no local politician has the opportunity to exploit Kuki-Chin terrorist groups for mere political gain. Only criminals and terrorists should be dealt with using extreme force. Drawing upon its expertise in peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations, the Bangladesh Army should adopt a multifaceted approach, combining military action with diplomatic engagement and fostering political dialogue with aggrieved ethnic groups. Regional leaders must act decisively to prevent destabilization of regional stability before it escalates further.

The article Imperative of Action Against Dubious Kuki-Chin Armed Movement appeared first on Arabian Post.

Is There A Significant Shift In Bangladesh-US Relations?

The Arabian Post Network — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 05:18:16 +0000

M. A. Hossain

A dramatic shift in the United States’ stance is being observed after the January 7 general election in Bangladesh. The Biden administration consistently stressed the commencement of a free, fair, and participatory election throughout the electoral process. Since then, the dynamics of bilateral relations have gone through ups and downs.

Recently, US President Joe Biden penned a letter to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, expressing to move forward with common interests in this region. Although the Biden administration explicitly acknowledges its dissatisfaction regarding the last parliament election, nevertheless, it is Sheikh Hasina who has formed a government after the last parliamentary election with an absolute majority, securing her fourth consecutive term. The content of this letter hints at a promising ‘new chapter’ in bilateral relations.

For the past six months, neither a delegation from Dhaka nor Washington has visited the other country for talks, as there was an understanding that visits during election time would not be appropriate. However, a delegation led by US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Afreen Akhter is now scheduled to arrive in Dhaka on February,8.

The team aims to engage with the Director General of the North America Wing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with further bilateral discussions potentially involving the foreign secretary and various other meetings. Prior to the election, the United States had expressed concerns about civil rights, freedom of expression in Bangladesh, even going as far as concluding in a post-election statement that the voting process had not been entirely free and fair.

Prof. Shahidul Haque, former foreign secretary, and Bangabandhu chair at Delhi University, believes that diplomatic behavior evolves with time and circumstances, urging for a nuanced perspective. “Each country has different priorities at different times… I think we should think of it from that point of view,” he remarked.

The letter initiates with a mutual focus on regional and global security concerns, but after all, it is a matter of great significance in Biden’s communication with Sheikh Hasina. Bangladesh historically emphasizes an economic pact, but the letter highlights collaboration between Bangladesh and the US in various areas, including regional and global security, addressing the Rohingya crisis, and a mutual commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. This collaboration extends to encompass economic development, climate change, and energy initiatives.

Bangladesh aspires to achieve its developed status by 2041 and has introduced various economic activities like construction of large infrastructures, radical changes in the education system. The magnitude of these endeavors necessitates not only financial support but also technical expertise, technology transfer, and educational assistance. The United States is considered a potential contributor in those areas beyond just financing.

Contrastingly, the United States, boasting a $27 trillion economy, views bilateral trade with Bangladesh, standing at approximately $10 billion, as noteworthy but not necessarily pivotal compared to other geopolitical considerations. While bilateral trade holds importance for Bangladesh, it’s perceived differently by the US. The $10 billion trade volume is considered less significant in the broader context, leading to a shift in focus towards evaluating Bangladesh through a comprehensive security perspective, encompassing both core and non-core aspects.

The United States wants to keep the South Asian region stable, defying over-dependence of any nation towards China. Bangladesh, for its significant geostrategic position, is being lured by the USA to align Dhaka with Washington’s initiative for a free and open Indo-Pacific strategy. The US eyes fostering collaboration on various fronts, especially security measures.

Dhaka and Washington prioritize its security cooperation on training, information sharing, peacekeeping efforts, maritime security, and the fight against terrorism and extremism. Recent developments include the provision of state-of-the-art drones by the US to Bangladesh. Additionally, both countries collaborate on issues such as climate change, food security, and energy security.

At present, preserving regional stability is paramount. Instability in Bangladesh could have significant consequences for the entire South Asian region. Presently, the region is grappling with a critical situation. Political influence and military conflict are in this region’s discourse. So, safeguarding the stability of the region is imperative and should not be compromised.

While unease preceding the election might gradually dissipate in Dhaka-Washington relations, lingering effects could surface, particularly concerning labor rights, with potential ramifications in international forums such as Brussels and Geneva.

The delicate balance between different superpowers is now more consequential than ever. For Bangladesh, it becomes exceptionally challenging to support any side fully, risking diplomatic catastrophe. Striking a balance with all global powers and maintaining its foreign policy, historic relationships, and reality becomes more imperative. Dhaka must pursue policies that align with its national interests.

In conclusion, the opening of a new chapter in bilateral relations between Bangladesh and America must lead to mutual collaboration and cooperation. This relationship will align their priorities, strengthening common objectives such as security, economic development, and regional stability. Both nations would benefit from a strengthened partnership addressing mutual concerns that have a significant impact on the global stage.

The article Is There A Significant Shift In Bangladesh-US Relations? appeared first on Arabian Post.

‘India Out’ in Bangladesh; stone-cold silence of friends of India

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 25 Feb 2024 11:48:15 +0000

M A Hossain

Since January 8, 2024, the ‘India Out’ movement is getting momentum in Bangladesh, basically at initiatives of popular online activist Pinaki Bhattacharya. Everyday dozens of Bangladeshis are joining this movement on social media platforms such as Facebook and X (former Twitter), while video-sharing platform YouTube is becoming a major source for Pinaki Bhattacharya and anti-India forces in expressing their anger at India’s hegemony and big brotherly behavior towards neighboring countries including Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, according to Indian media outlets such as The Print, OpIndia and others, the ‘India Out’ movement is countered in Bangladesh by journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who the Indian media calls an “avowed friend of India” and his newspaper Blitz. It may be mentioned here that, Blitz is known in the world as a mouthpiece of Zionism in recent years it also has been playing the role of pro-India and mouthpiece of Hindutva. In addition to running propaganda in favor of India, Israel, Zionism and Hindutva, Shoaib Choudhury also has been regularly writing for Hinduist publications such as The Organizer (party mouthpiece of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh), Hindu Post and also occasionally in OpIndia. He is also running a ruthless campaign against the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) by branding it as “Al Qaeda connected” as well as against every organization and individual who are continuing ‘India Out’ movement, in several international media outlets.

In this case, the most interesting point here is – in his pro-India and pro-Hindu efforts and his notorious attempts of attacking BNP and individuals like Pinaki Bhattacharya or Zulkarnain Saer Sami, for their involvement in the India Out movement, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is not finding any ally in Bangladesh. Not a single journalist or individual such as Shyamal Dutta, Noim Nizam, Nayeemul Islam Khan and others who are perceived as friends of India are not uttering a word against the ‘India Out’ movement. Even Awami League and its leaders, including State Minister for Information Dr. MA Arafat, Foreign Minister Dr. Hassan Mahmud or Awami League’s think tank CRI are absolutely silent. Shoaib Choudhury’s tweets are being viewed and shared by thousands of people from India.

Recently, rejecting Shoaib Choudhury’s claim of BNP’s involvement in the India Out movement, BNP leader Neetai Roy Chowdhury told Voice of America that such movements might be sponsored by multinational companies which want to establish a monopoly in Bangladesh by driving Indian products away. But, in reality, the India Out movement is getting traction in Bangladesh day by day. Perhaps, there is a different view in BNP’s higher echelons. No matter what BNP thinks, Pinaki has stoked the nationalist spirit among the Bangladeshi populace.

The possible silence of individuals like Shyamal Dutta, Noim Nizam, Nayeemul Islam Khan and plenty of friends of India make us surprised. They might think it won’t be wise to defend India or speak against India Out movement as this movement is gradually getting support of the masses in Bangladesh. They or other friends of India are not showing willingness of taking risk by defending India at this sensitive time when Awami League government is questioned about the last electoral process by the Western nations.

It is evident that the India Out movement has a significant impact on bilateral trade with Bangladesh. Indian officials are portraying this movement as a geopolitical game orchestrated by China. On January 29, Indian Foreign Minister Mr. Jaishankar encountered questions from students at the Indian Institute of Management, Mumbai, regarding the anti-Indian campaign in neighboring countries. Now, it is clear that this campaign has raised concerns among Indian citizens as well.

However, Mr. Jaishankar, India’s Foreign Minister, strategically implicated China in his statement, a move that cannot be dismissed outright. This assertion aligns with the upcoming national elections in India, where an anti-government narrative could be advantageous for China if propagated among business circles, the media, and government opponents within India. The India Out Movement has gained significant traction in neighboring countries, achieving success in Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan, and now gaining momentum in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In Bangladesh, resentment is primarily fueled by perceived favoritism towards the Bangladesh Awami League by the Indian government. Undoubtedly, this surge can be interpreted as an ominous sign for India.

According to several YouTube channels based in Pakistan, India has deployed its “powerful asset,” Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, to counter the India Out movement. If such a claim is true, then there is curiosity about why Indian authorities, including the Indian High Commission in Dhaka, have been hiding Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury from public attention. Do they also know that he is their only trusted and effective “asset” to promote pro-India sentiment in Bangladesh? Don’t they actually consider individuals like Shyamal Dutta, Noim Nizam, or Nayeemul Islam Khan as their genuine friends and allies? Is this the reason why Awami League and its leaders are avoiding Shoaib Choudhury, his newspaper Blitz, and his ongoing activities against the India Out movement?

The article ‘India Out’ in Bangladesh; stone-cold silence of friends of India appeared first on Arabian Post.

Historical Perspective And Contemporary Dynamics Of Extremism In Pakistan

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 09:48:47 +0000

By M A Hossain

In the year 2023, Pakistan found itself grappling with an unprecedented surge in terrorist incidents. The Taliban’s triumph in Afghanistan has catalyzed the surge, which in turn emboldened and strengthened the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Over the past two years, the TTP underwent a transformative series of mergers, centralizing its organizational framework and recalibrating its operational strategy, exclusively focusing on a war against Pakistan. The ideological and tribal nexus cultivated between the Afghan Taliban and the TTP has conferred an unprecedented level of ‘strategic depth’ in its history. This has amplified the complexity of Pakistan’s struggle against terrorism amidst concurrent political and economic challenges. Interestingly, the genesis of this contemporary terrorism is rooted in a protracted historical perspective that necessitates scrutiny to unearth its foundational causes.

The historical narrative unfolds during the Anglo-Indian era, when Islam, as an institution, faced persistent assaults from British rulers and Hindu revivalists. Islamic scholars emerged as stalwart defenders of their faith, preventing Islam from succumbing to the fate of other creeds in Asia. In 1806, Shah Abdul Aziz Mohaddith Dehlavi declared India under British dominion as Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war), asserting the obligation for Muslims to wage revolt for freedom, equality, justice, and revolution against the British government. In his fatwa, he articulated that expelling the British was the primary objective, thereafter, it was legitimate for Muslims to hold the reins of power. That’s why, Shah Abdul Aziz has been viewed as a precursor of the Indian Independence movement.

The legacy continued with Sayed Ahmad Barelvi, a devoted follower of Shah Abdul Aziz, declaring jihad (war) against non-Muslim rulers, and culminated in his death in the Battle of Balakot in 1831. Islamic clerics and religious educational institutes played a pivotal role in nurturing socio-political consciousness among Muslims, advocating for equality, justice, and Muslim rights within the British Indian context. The Deoband Madrasa, established in 1866, and its scholars actively contributed to the Indian independence movement. While a majority of Barelvis and select influential Deobandi clerics supported the creation of Pakistan, the Kabaliya region (presently Waziristan), was an autonomous zone throughout the British Raj, adhering to Shah Abdul Aziz’s fatwa. During the Partition movement, Deobandi Ulema, including Mufti Muhammad Shafi and Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani, persuaded Kabali chieftains to align with Pakistan, promising the implementation of Sharia rule. Conversely, most Deobandi Ulema, led by Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani, opposed the creation of Pakistan and the two-nation theory.

After Pakistan’s inception, Islamic scholars and jihadist groups found themselves disillusioned and betrayed by the ruling system, as the country remained bereft of governance under Sharia Law. The separation of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) exacerbated the frustration, as its leaders opted for a democratic system.

Jihadist groups had been struggling since 1947 to establish Islamic rule in Pakistan. At times they received state sponsorship against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in the Kashmir conflict. President Ziaul Haq harboured ambitions of utilizing the Mujahideen as a proxy force in South and Central Asia. Waziristan was a safe haven for local and foreign mujahideen. The people of this region, entrenched in orthodox Islam and staunch traditionalism, laid the groundwork for jihadist activities. Mullah Powinda was the pioneer of jihad in Waziristan. Present TTP emanates from the Waziristan region. So, the present jihadist activities are not a new phenomenon for Pakistan.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, foreign Arab Mujahideen got shelter in Pakistan and utilized the land as a launching pad against Soviet invaders. Al-Qaeda capitalized on this opportunity, merging with local groups and fortifying jihadist networks. Even before Al-Qaeda, sporadic jihadist groups in Pakistan aspired to establish a Sharia-ruled nation. The intermittent negotiations between Mujahideen groups and the Pakistani government tighten the resolution over the demand for a modern state and sovereignty, particularly regarding the withdrawal of government security forces from the claimed area.

Since the creation of Pakistan, the ruling system has stumbled numerous times. No democratic prime minister could complete their tenure due to military intervention. The military remains powerful in dictating the political landscape in Pakistan. After 76 years of Pakistan’s independence, people are very frustrated, and at present, economic and political challenges made them the worst sufferers. So they sought some alternatives, which became evident during fervent protests by Islamist groups in 2022.

Following the Lal Masjid incident in June 2007, Al-Qaeda and its local offshoots in Pakistan, particularly TTP, openly declared war against the Pakistani government system. After the Taliban-U.S. truce in 2021, more than 40 local jihadist groups merged with TTP, and now they are deeply rooted in society. Day by day, they are growing stronger, and they have expanded their influence to other parts of Pakistan, especially Balochistan. TTP’s guerrilla modus operandi reflects their popular support. At present, they have changed their operational policy where they only target security forces.

In my opinion, the government of Pakistan and its establishment have committed strategic blunders. Firstly, the strategic misstep of expelling undocumented Pashtuns into Afghanistan, ostensibly for security reasons, has backfired. The Pashtun community, historically divided along the Durand Line, vehemently rejects this colonial-era border. The resultant insult and determination among the sensitive Pashtuns to retaliate pose a significant threat. Secondly, there may be reason to believe that Imran Khan has a covert tie with Islamist groups. Imran’s PTI could form a government in provinces where jihadist groups are influential. Consequently, sidelining Imran inadvertently aids these jihadist groups in garnering popular support. This confluence of missteps contributes to the complex dynamics fuelling the rise of jihadist influence in Pakistan.

Presently, TTP has extended its influence into Gilgit Baltistan and Balochistan, marking a concerning development. Reports indicate that the Balochistan Liberation Army has forged alliances with the TTP, collectively advocating for Shariah rule in Baluchistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit Baltistan, and Kashmir. The backdrop of atrocities faced by Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir at the hands of Indian security forces further intensifies the agenda of jihadist groups. Al-Qaeda’s strategic plan involves aiding persecuted Kashmiri Muslims once their objectives in Pakistan are achieved. This unfolding scenario raises the possibility of the Pakistani establishment compromising with TTP for a governing system with less sovereignty. On the other hand, shifting the jihadist threat towards Kashmir will ultimately align with the ambition of the military.

The geopolitical landscape of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East has undergone a profound transformation due to the United States-led ‘War on Terror.’ Last two decades, this mission has encountered relative failure in achieving political objectives and eradicating purported terrorist organizations globally. Nevertheless, it has yielded economic gains for the military-industrial complex. Regrettably, the aftermath of the War on Terror has witnessed the ascendance of authoritarian regimes in certain Asian countries, undermining democratic values. The Pakistani establishment must recognize that people tend to gravitate towards better alternatives, and countering an ideological movement necessitates the emergence of another ideological force. In this context, coercion and intimidation could risk pushing individuals towards alternative ideological blocs. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Historical Perspective And Contemporary Dynamics Of Extremism In Pakistan first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Historical Perspective And Contemporary Dynamics Of Extremism In Pakistan appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bangladesh outperforms neighbours in terrorism index

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:50:33 +0000

M A Hossain

In the intricate mosaic of global counterterrorism endeavours, Bangladesh emerges as a nation adeptly navigating the multifaceted challenges posed by terrorist activities. The recently published Country Reports on Terrorism for the year 2022 by the US State Department, furnished a comprehensive and perceptive elucidation of Bangladesh’s counterterrorism milieu.

Throughout the annals of 2022, Bangladesh encountered a relatively small number of instances of terrorist violence, chiefly attributable to the relentless pursuit of militant groups by the authorities. The report accentuates the fact that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, an unwavering luminary at the nation’s helm, along with other governmental functionaries, consistently underscored the country’s unequivocal stance against terrorism. Sheikh Hasina’s steadfast commitment to expelling terrorism from the nation has propelled the vigorous counterterrorism initiatives undertaken by Bangladesh.

The leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is distinguished by a proactive and resolute approach aimed at ensuring the safety and security of the nation. Despite confronting myriad challenges, including the repudiation of the presence of globally organized militant factions, Sheikh Hasina has exhibited unwavering determination in her ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy against terrorism, safeguarding the tranquillity and stability of Bangladesh.

The Institute for Economics and Peace, a Sydney-based organization specializing in terrorism studies, unveiled a report on April 10, 2023. Remarkably, Bangladesh outperforms Pakistan, India, and Sri Lanka, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom in the Global Terrorism Index, as per the report. This index meticulously analyzes a country’s annual incidence of terrorist activities, hostage situations, and casualties. Afghanistan claims the undesirable top spot for terrorism, with Pakistan at 6, India at 13, the United States at 30, the United Kingdom at 42, and Bangladesh securing the 43rd position.

The data reveals a noteworthy trend for Bangladesh, ranking 40th in 2022, 43rd in 2023, and notably surging to 22nd in 2016. In essence, since 2016, Bangladesh has consistently elevated its standing in the global fight against terrorism. Notably, when compared to other South Asian countries, as well as the United States, Bangladesh has maintained a commendable lead. Consequently, the report stands as a distinctly positive affirmation of Bangladesh’s concerted efforts in combating terrorism on the international stage.

These militant factions, driven by the objective of destabilizing the law and order situation in Bangladesh with a clandestine agenda of ousting Sheikh Hasina from power, had converged into a formidable force. Systematically orchestrated assaults, targeting individuals of a secularist disposition, journalists, bloggers, and even foreigners, became an unsettlingly recurrent phenomenon. At this critical juncture, the Sheikh Hasina-led-Awami League government initiated resolute measures against these elements, with the international community, notably the United States, playing a remarkably effective role. Their contribution involved the adept training of members within law enforcement agencies, including the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), thereby endowing these agencies with the capacity to effectively counteract terrorism and militancy within the nation.

A salient development spotlighted in the report is the October proclamation of operations against Jama’atul Ansar Fil Hindal Sharqiya (JAHS), purportedly an AL-Qaeda-inspired group. Authorities disclosed that JAHS were undergoing training in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) with intentions of executing attacks elsewhere. In 1996, Sheikh Hasina’s first government freed the Chittagong Hill Tracts from the insurgency problem. The Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a counterterrorism expert unit, launched operations to thwart this potential menace, underscoring a proactive and preemptive stance in the realm of counterterrorism.

The delineation between terrorists and insurgents is rapidly diminishing. In nations where these elements stem from the mainstream population, the efficacy of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency (CT-COIN) operations becomes uncertain. The success of such endeavours hinges on grappling with the intricate socio-political and economic issues at play in these regions. Recognizing that terrorism transcends the bounds of a mere law-and-order predicament, it becomes evident that facile remedies or reliance on police and military interventions are inadequate. But, in reality, the government and its agencies are still successful in curbing the extremist threat in Bangladesh.

The recent sanction imposed on the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) in Bangladesh by the US State Department, while ostensibly symbolic, has impeded the commendable work and noble purpose that RAB strives to achieve. The repercussions of this sanction are poised to inflict hardship primarily upon the ordinary, peace-loving citizens of Bangladesh. In effect, America appears to be stemming an ostensibly noble initiative against terrorism, assuming a dubious role by obstructing those actively involved in the ongoing battle against terrorism. This situation underscores the complexities and unintended consequences that can arise in the realm of international relations and counterterrorism efforts.

Terrorism, a ubiquitous global phenomenon, is not the exclusive responsibility of any single nation, nor is any nation obligated to combat it in isolation. Rather, it constitutes a collective responsibility, necessitating the engagement of every country. In Bangladesh, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) is diligently striving to make a meaningful contribution to global peace by adopting a robust stance against local, regional, and international terrorism. Through its concerted efforts, RAB aims to be a proactive participant in the broader collaborative endeavour to mitigate the pervasive threat of terrorism on local, regional, and global scales.

The article Bangladesh outperforms neighbours in terrorism index appeared first on Arabian Post.

Exploring China’s Role In Facilitating A Truce In Israel-Hamas Conflict

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 29 Nov 2023 08:18:01 +0000

By M. A. Hossain

In the catastrophic context of Hamas-Israel conflict, China had stepped forward to mediate between the parties. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, discussed the conflict situation with officials in Washington, perceiving the fear of a wider regional war. The US counterpart has assured full support for working with China to find a resolution. President Xi Jinping has dispatched his Middle East special envoy, Zhai Jun, to the region to meet with Arab leaders.

There has been hope that China, with strong diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine, as well as with Iran, which backs Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, can mediate a ceasefire. Beijing has previously emerged as an impartial and successful mediator, notably brokering a rare détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has also been one of the most vocal proponents of a ceasefire in UN meetings. However, China’s initial silence and its first statement on the conflict have angered Israel. Apparently, Mr. Netanyahu is not in the mood to listen to any world leader. So, it will be a gargantuan task for Beijing to bring all the actors to the table.

China has consistently supported the Palestinian cause, owing to its alignment with Maoism and liberation movements in the 1960s and 1970s. Chinese Communist Party founder, Mao Zedong, even sent weapons to Palestinians in support of ‘National Liberation’ movements worldwide. Mao even compared Israel to Taiwan, both backed by the US imperialism. During those years, Beijing armed and trained the Palestine Liberation Organization and other Palestinian militant groups. After Mao’s death in 1976, China began opening up to the world and softened its position. It normalized relations with Israel in 1992. China’s strategic approach to the Middle East for more than a decade has sought to portray itself as a friend to all in the region and the enemy of none.

For the past decade, China has invested considerable diplomatic energy in building its influence in the Middle East. President Xi has adopted the policy to promote multi-alignment among countries in the region, described in Chinese government documents as “balance diplomacy” and “positive balancing.” Briefly, balance diplomacy entails not taking sides in rival countries, and positive balancing aims to create a strategic balance among global or regional powers in the Middle East. Chinese foreign policy initiatives are designed to appeal to countries in the Global South that feel increasingly alienated from the US-led rules-based international order.

In 2016, China entered into a comprehensive strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, and in 2020, an agreement of 25-year cooperation was signed with Iran. It has expanded economic ties with other Gulf countries, including Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Oman. China has also deepened its economic ties with Egypt. Beijing is the largest investor in the Suez Canal Area Development Project and reconstruction projects in Iraq and Syria. So, after the Saudi-Iran breakthrough, Beijing began to position itself as an impartial and trustworthy mediator in the region.

Beijing’s initial response to the conflict was to continue with its balanced diplomacy. China did not condemn Hamas; instead, it urged both sides to “exercise restraint” and to embrace the “two-state solution.” This was consistent with Beijing’s long-standing policy of “non-interference” in other countries’ internal affairs and its fundamental strategic approach to the region. However, to counter Western powers and their allies, Beijing sought to highlight its positive balancing and used its veto power at the United Nations. This stance became the strong appeal of the Global South. China has significant economic engagement with the Middle East and North Africa, and its dependency on Middle Eastern countries for the energy sector and the Belt and Road Initiative encourages its efforts to challenge the West’s strategic manoeuvre. Africa and Latin America sympathize with the Palestinian cause, and Arab nations are united on the Palestinian issue. So, China is likely making a strategic move to gain the support of these nations, which are also increasingly searching for an alternative partner to the US.

In June, China signed a strategic partnership deal with the authority of the West Bank. Beijing also has a lucrative tech-sector trade with Israel, worth $1 billion in semiconductors per year. China has previously supported normalization efforts between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, Chinese diplomatic actions are far more neutral than the stance of the US and its allies.

Global powers like Russia and the USA have overtly sided with their strategic partners in the Israel-Hamas conflict. For Israel, after enduring humiliating and devastating sufferings, the renowned ‘Mr. Security,’ Benjamin Netanyahu, and the army are subjected to immense domestic pressure. The Israeli Government and the army need to achieve tangible gains and win over Hamas and the Palestine Islamic Jihad. But, psychologically, Israel has lost the battle. Their formidable espionage agency failed to warn them, and more than 200 hostages were held by Hamas, making the conflict very critical. The Israeli indefensible army is now killing innocent civilians and children in Gaza instead of Hamas fighters. This disproportionate killing cannot continue for an extended period. In this context, it will be a golden opportunity for Beijing to burnish its reputation.

China’s economic interests in the Middle East would be endangered if the conflict widens. The Chinese government has maintained a relatively balanced relationship with all actors related to the conflict, including the Palestinians, Arabs, Israel, Türkiye, Egypt, and Iran. It would be relatively comfortable for Beijing to bring all the players to the table. Moreover, China will not miss the opportunity to position itself as a superpower to rival the US in a multipolar world. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Exploring China’s Role In Facilitating A Truce In Israel-Hamas Conflict first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Exploring China’s Role In Facilitating A Truce In Israel-Hamas Conflict appeared first on Arabian Post.

An Attack On Israel Was Inevitable From Iran’s Perspective

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 15 Oct 2023 12:02:36 +0000

By M A Hossain

On October 7, 2023, Israel suffered its most devastating attack in decades, orchestrated by the Iran-backed Palestinian militant organization, Hamas. Notably, Hamas’s startling well-planned land-sea-air surprise assault from Gaza on Southern Israeli communities claimed the lives of hundreds and took approximately 150 persons hostage, both military and civilian personnel. Israel’s most cataclysmic ordeal has remarkably coincided with the 50th commemoration of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

To fathom the strategic rationale behind Hamas’s daring gambit, it is imperative to delve into the intricate landscape of Arab politics, coupled with the burgeoning tensions in Jerusalem and the West Bank. After a comprehensive analysis of the root causes, it becomes apparent that Hamas has no alternative but to launch a fully-fledged offensive against Israel with the backing of Iran, which aspires to establish Shia dominance in the Middle East.

Iran’s political motivation lies in destabilising illegally occupied Jewish settlers, Israel to garner sympathy within the Arab Muslim nations. This endeavour is ostensibly manifested through Iran’s advocacy for the liberation of Al Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, beneath the facade of this noble cause, Iran’s ultimate motive is to emerge as a Shia-dominated nation in the Middle East. An examination of the current demography of the region further underscores this transformation, which stands in stark contrast to the landscape of decades past.

Beginning with Iraq, once a Sunni-dominated nation, has undergone a demographic shift with Shia constituents now comprising 60% of the population, alongside 20% Sunni and 20% Kurdish. The Shia militia commander in Iraq has openly declared his intention to sweep away the Sunni population. Lebanon, on the other hand, finds itself under the sway of the Shia militia Hezbollah. It transformed from the formerly known Harkatul Amali in 1985. Harkatul Amali had previously been involved in repelling Palestinian refuses from the Lebanese border and had been associated with reported atrocities. However, following the year 1987, their strategy shifted towards courting sympathy from Palestinians. Syria is ruled by the Shia government. A significant portion of Yemen, including its capital Sana, is controlled by the Shia militia known as Houthi.

The region mentioned above has all experienced gruesome Shia-Sunni conflicts, an enduring conundrum that traces its lineage through centuries. Notably, in this convoluted equation, Hamas, a Sunni militant group, is intriguingly backed by Shia Iran. So, it is just a political gambit to earn the sympathy of oppressed Arab nations and to claim the mantle of leadership in the Islamic world. Now the billion-dollar question is why Hamas or Iran has engaged in an uneven war with Israel. Obviously, several factors shed light on this matter, and it becomes evident that Iran is pushed on the brink of power dynamics in the region.

The recent geopolitical development centring on the Middle East has stoked the flare of conflict in the Palestine-Israel relationship. The increasing tendency of Arab nations to establish peace agreements with Israel is exemplified by the 2020 Abraham Accords, involving the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. There has recently been strong speculation that Saudi Arabia may follow suit in forging an accord with Israel.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has made his stance unequivocal through public declarations that he prioritizes peace with Arab States over eventual peace with Palestinians. This paradigm shift in the priorities of Arab States has raised great concerns among all Palestinians about relinquishing their support for the Palestinian cause. Furthermore, it diminishes the pressure on Israel to reach a settlement with the Palestinian people.

Hamas adopted a strategy to surpass its rivals, including the Fatah faction currently in charge of the West Bank. It hinges on harnessing the pent-up Palestinian frustration stemming from their plight. This approach put Hamas as the authentic voice of resistance against Israel and the ongoing occupation. The angrier Palestinians are at Israel, the greater Hamas’s political incentives in garnering sympathy from the broader Arab nations. Hamas’s military operation will likely cause Saudi Arabia to hold back from normalizing relations with Israel, at least for the time being.

There are some internal issues that have provoked Hamas to launch “Operation Al Aqsa Storm” against Israel. The Israeli government, formed by PM Benjamin Netanyahu in December, represents the most right-wing administration in Israeli history. This government has made no secret of its desire to annex the West Bank and has permitted substantial expansion of Jewish settlements in the territory, which are illegal under international law. Furthermore, the longstanding blockade of the Gaza Strip enforced by Israel and Egypt since 2007 has inflicted severe impediments on Gaza’s economic growth and precipitated deteriorating living conditions for its residents.

Ignoring the peace treaty, the visits to the Temple Mount by Israeli minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other Israeli tourists have been perceived as desecration of the Al Aqsa site. These visits were considered a provocation for all Palestinians. In response to this provocation, the aggrieved young generation in the West Bank formed a loose grouping known as the “Lions’ Den”. These developments and frustration among ordinary Palestinians put tremendous pressure on Hamas to go for retaliation against the suppressive Israeli government.

There is also ideological pressure from the Middle East-based Sunni militant offshoot of Al-Qaeda. Because the non-operative posture of Hamas may create a void among the aggrieved and oppressed Palestinians which could potentially be filled by al-Qaida. In addition, Netanyahu’s prime focus was on the West Bank, where the majority of the defence forces were deployed. Meanwhile, leaving a skeletal presence of forces along the Gaza border has presented Hamas with a strategic window to launch their offensive.

The potential for Saudi Arabia to recognize Israeli sovereignty after 75 years of statehood would have diminished Iran’s influence in the Islamic world, while concurrently uniting two of Iran’s staunch adversaries. Iran has always been the single largest sponsor for Hamas of $100 million per year, including military training and humanitarian assistance. It is more likely that Iran has backed and bid for the Hamas offensive. However, it is essential to recognize that Iran has been facing domestic challenges since the Killing of Masha Amini last year. The nation has witnessed a gradual erosion of legitimacy in the eyes of its people, owing to domestic unrest, economic woes, and international isolation. Therefore, Iran found itself in dire need of this conflict when its survival depended to a large degree on symbiotic relationships with these extremist groups.

Russia’s longstanding engagement in Middle East conflicts is a well-documented facet of its foreign policy. The country maintains close ties with Iran, in addition to Hamas. Recently, Russia has hosted top Hamas political leadership in Moscow. So, it would be surprising that Russia was not well aware of Hamas’s invasion. Russia stands to benefit if the Israel-Palestine conflict continues to persist, potentially as a means to redirect the focus of the United States and the international community away from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Both Russia and China seek to drag the USA into a new campaign in the ME. If the USA opens a new front beside Ukraine, that could trigger a domestic political upheaval in the USA. No doubt, this could be the last nail to put in the coffin of the USA’s supremacy. US taxpayers are bitterly experienced with the past military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and recently Ukraine. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post An Attack On Israel Was Inevitable From Iran’s Perspective first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article An Attack On Israel Was Inevitable From Iran’s Perspective appeared first on Arabian Post.

Ghosi Bypoll Defeat During G-20 Summit Is A Personal Jolt For PM

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 09 Sep 2023 10:35:45 +0000

By Arun Srivastava

A bad omen indeed. On the day the entire state machinery of ‘Bharat’ was busy exploiting the G20 event to project Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the “Yugpurush” and “Vishwaguru”, via decorating the national capital with larger than life cut-outs and festoons, even bigger than any of the world leaders participating at the summit, like the US President Joe Biden, the nondescript voters of Ghosi in a single stroke struck an implausible blow through the ballots.

The Ghosi verdict has multidimensional implications. While it exposes the myth that Hindus, especially the extremely poor and Dalits of Uttar Pradesh, have been ushered into the Hindutva clan, it also underscores that Modi’s politics of hatred and Hindutva has miserably failed to raise an exclusive band of Hindu bigots in the state. The Ghosi verdict also underlines that despite their best efforts, BJP and RSS have failed to bring the Dalits and EBCs under the Sangh fold and accept Hindutva as their religion. The most significant signal that the verdict sent to the people across the country was outright rejection of Mohan Bhagwat’s assertion that India is Hindu Rashtra.

The people of the Hindi heartland had switched their loyalty to the BJP not out of affection for it, or accepting wholesale its ideological and political line. Instead, they rallied behind it as they were feeling dejected and remorse for the political decline of the Congress. The moment they saw some ray of hope in emergence of Rahul Gandhi as the harbinger of secular values, they preferred to desert the BJP. The winning margin of the Samajwadi Party candidate, 42900, makes it clear that it reflects the massive homecoming (ghar wapasi) of poor Dalit and EBC voters. The return of the traditional support base was not a symptomatic feature.

Muslims, Dalits and backwards are the predominant castes in Ghosi. Disenchanted with the politics of the Congress and Samajwadi Party, they had previously shifted their loyalty to the BJP. Nevertheless, it was not their ultimate choice and it is manifest in their consolidating behind the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, or I.N.D.I.A. at the first ever opportunity that came across.

Though the rightist RSS has been trying to create an impression at the international level that the centrist and democratic forces have completely become irrelevant in India, the BJP losing the electoral battle of Ghosi would make the foreign powers, attending the G20 summit, to take a fresh look. In fact, this has been causing much concern in the RSS. Sources maintain that the three-day national annual coordination meet, to begin on September 14 in Pune, will have in-depth discussion on the defeat. Bhagwat did not expect this. Quite interestingly, the senior RSS leaders, who do not approve of Bhagwat’s style of functioning, are happy at the prospect that the Ghosi defeat would force the RSS to amend its political approach. Besides Bhagwat, the Pune meet will be attended by RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, all five joint general secretaries, including Arun Kumar – its pointsman in the BJP – and other prominent functionaries.

BJP chief JP Nadda and heads of other 35 RSS-inspired organisations — including the Rashtra Sevika Samiti, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Vidya Bharti, Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Sanskar Bharti, Seva Bharti and Sanskrit Bharti, among others — will also attend the meeting. As per sources, the heads of these organisations have been asked to present reports about the BJP losing four by-elections in four major states.

The by-elections were certainly not a shadow contest. It was the first of its kind battle of relevance between I.N.D.I.A. and the BJP. The results of the bypolls are being viewed as the precursor to the Lok Sabha elections. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is trying to put the blame of Ghosi defeat on the BJP candidate Dara Singh for his party hopping. Godi media anchors wilfully suppress the fact that it was Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, his two deputy CMs, at least six union ministers, and 30 state ministers who had camped in Ghosi for a month to ensure the victory of Dara Singh. Incidentally, none other than Union home minister Amit Shah picked him. He had motivated him to resign his membership of the house and recontest with the assurance of making him a cabinet minister.

The Samajwadi Party candidate Sudhakar Singh was in a real sense the candidate of I.N.D.I.A., as he was supported by Congress, CPI, Rashtriya Lok Dal and the Apna Dal (K). The significant feature of the election was that the Dalits, EBCs and OBCs have rallied behind Rajput candidate Sudhakar Singh of Samajwadi Party. They refrained from supporting Dara Singh, an OBC candidate.

The by-polls to seven assembly segments across six states can be said to be the first electoral challenge for the opposition front, I.N.D.I.A. Still in an embryonic stage, it has to take the mighty opponent head on in some of its strongest pocket boroughs. However, the alliance indeed passed the test rather well, and sent out a strong message that secular and democratic forces are still quite strong in India.

The two other important victories for I.N.D.I.A. happened in Jharkhand and West Bengal. In Dhupguri, Trinamool Congress wrested the seat from the BJP. The RSS had deputed a strong army of its cadres and pracharaks drawn from other states to fan identity politics and boost the demand for a separate state, Gorkhaland, cutting out a big chunk of north Bengal. But this trick failed. The TMC victory in BJP’s biggest stronghold in the state is an important milestone. Once again, the people of Bengal rejected the BJP’s secessionist politics.

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha winning the Dumri seat from Jharkhand has been the most important gain for I.N.D.I.A. The BJP, especially Amit Shah, had made the fight a matter of prestige. It is really beyond comprehension how could the union home minister stake his prestige for a single seat. The reason has been that he wanted to dethrone Hemant Soren and put him in jail on the charges of his being involved in corruption. The need to defeat Soren is so acute that even in the midst of the electioneering, the ED continued to issue summons and asking Soren to appear before it. Bebi Devi won the Dumri bypolls by a margin of over 17,000 votes, defeating AJSU Party’s Yashoda Devi.

The Dumri victory of JMM will not only elevate the stature of Soren, but it would also arouse the Adivasi aspiration. On ground sources maintain that the election had come to symbolise the aspiration of the adivasis fighting against the BJP design to usurp their lands. This victory, the activists confide, would provide more impetus to the struggle going on in the state against the politics of loot by the big industries and corporate houses, for which the BJP is the political front. A tribal activist from Godda said that they would further intensify their struggle against Adani in the state, who is out to grab their lands for his power project.

In down south, the victory of Chandy Oommen, son of former Kerala Congress chief minister Oommen Chandy, has created some amount of apprehension about the viability of INDIA in Bengal and Kerala. Chandy Oommen registered a comprehensive win over the Left Democratic Alliance’s candidate in Puthuppally, improving upon even his father’s performance. The seat was vacated by the veteran Congress leader’s death earlier this year.

However, the BJP has some consolation in retaining Dhanpur and wresting Boxanagar from the CPI(M),source of political solace in the otherwise increasingly bleakening scenario. Though in Boxanagar, the combined opposition was pitched against BJP, the fact remained that the combination was not coherent. The CPI(M) is the strongest opposition party, but ironically the leadership did not make a serious effort to evolve a closer cooperation. BJP candidate Taffajal Hossain secured 66% of the vote share, defeating CPI(M)’s Mizan Hossain who got merely 3,909 votes.

The results of the by-elections indicate that I.N.D.I.A. could emerge as the most effective potent force to challenge the hegemony of NDA in 2024. But before that, it would need to iron out some of the state-level differences between its constituents and arrive at a mutually agreed upon formula to successfully and smartly contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. (IPA Service)

The post Ghosi Bypoll Defeat During G-20 Summit Is A Personal Jolt For PM first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Ghosi Bypoll Defeat During G-20 Summit Is A Personal Jolt For PM appeared first on Arabian Post.

Obama’s Support To Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus Complicates Bangladesh Politics

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:03:07 +0000

By Arun Kumar Shrivastav

On July 23, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh upheld a lower court decision that said Mohammed Yunus must pay taxes on $7 million of donations he made between 2011 and 2014 to three trusts — Professor Muhammad Yunus Trust, the Yunus Family Trust and the Yunus Centre. The apex court ruled that these donations are not exempted under any existing laws. Yunus has been asked to pay a hefty $1.4 million in taxes.

On August 17, former US President Barack Obama wrote a letter to Yunus, extending the support on behalf of millions of people whose potential he invested in.

“I have long been inspired by your efforts to empower people through offering them the means to lift their families and communities out of poverty. As I said when having the opportunity to meet you in the White House in 2009, your work has inspired millions to imagine their own potential,” Obama wrote in his letter, which was published on the Yunus Center’s home page on August 28.

During this period, I hope it gives you strength to know that many whose potential you invested in, and those of us who care about a more equitable economic future for all, are thinking of you, and I hope that you continue to have the freedom to do your important work, the former US President writes further.

Last year, Bangladesh’s anti-corruption watchdog initiated a wide-ranging investigation into the firms Yunus chairs even as Sheikh Hasina’s diatribe against Yunus became more personal and vitriolic. She blamed him for the World Bank pulling out of a major river bridge project, which previously earned bad press on corruption allegations. At the launch of this river bridge, Sheikh Hasina reportedly remarked that Yunus should be drowned in the same river.

In March, 40 prominent global figures, including former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former UN Chief Ban Ki-moon, published a joint letter in a full-page Washington Post advertisement, calling on Bangladesh to desist from unfair attacks and harassment of Yunus.

The latest Supreme Court ruling is part of an unending hostility unleashed against Yunus by the Sheikh Hasina government. For example, Yunus is facing labour law violation charges levelled against him by some Grameen Bank employees as the tussle to wrest control of the legendary institution intensifies. The Bangladesh government filed criminal cases against Yunus despite the dispute being civil in nature.

On August 27, in a joint letter, thirty-four eminent personalities from Bangladesh expressed their concern over the cases filed against the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner and found of Grameen Bank.

These eminent personalities alleged that despite the civil nature of the allegations, the government has criminal cases against Yunus. In the past, Yunus has been subjected to continuous harassment by the Sheikh Hasina government, which saw Yunus and his institutions undergo audits, investigations, and interrogations, with a threat to arrest him.

“He continues to experience hostility in different forms from various levels of the government. Considering all these factors, we believe the criminal case against him in the Labour Court is driven by ulterior motives. This deeply concerns us,” the statement signed by thirty-four eminent Bangladeshi personalities read.

“We urge the government to stop all forms of harassment and biased hostilities against Dr Yunus,” it reads.

The signatories include Educationist Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque; former adviser to the caretaker government Hafiz Uddin Khan; human rights activist Hameeda Hossain; former cabinet secretary Ali Imam Majumder; economist Debapriya Bhattacharya; Shushashoner Jonno Nagorik editor Badiul Alam Majumdar; legal expert Dr Shahdeen Malik; human rights activist Sharmin Murshid; environmental lawyer Syeda Rizwana Hasan; Prof Ali Riaz; Prof Asif Nazrul; photographer Shahidul Alam; Prof CR Abrar; Prof Parveen Hasan; Prof Firdaus Azim; and human rights activist Shirin Haque.

The coming forward of these personalities in support of Yunus is a significant development as it marks the comeback fight of intellectuals, who have been frustrated by the rise of fundamentalists and hooligans on the one hand and the brutal state power on the other in Bangladesh. Taking the political discourse to ulterior levels may serve the interests of a section of the people, but it’s ultimately a misadventure that everyone has to pay for. Bangladesh is slated to hold its national elections in January 2024.

Meanwhile, Yunus has been invited to speak at the World Football Summit as a Keynote Speaker on September 20-21 in Seville, Spain. This is a beautiful city! (IPA Service)

The post Obama’s Support To Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus Complicates Bangladesh Politics first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Obama’s Support To Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus Complicates Bangladesh Politics appeared first on Arabian Post.

Myanmar Junta Message From Suu Kyi’s House Arrest

The Arabian Post Network — Tue, 15 Aug 2023 12:02:49 +0000

By M A Hossain

Myanmar’s ousted civilian leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has recently relocated to the capital city of Naypyidaw, where she is now placed under house arrest following a year of solitary confinement. This development by the military junta has surprised both national and international observers.

In February 2021, the Tatmadaw seized power in a coup and incarcerated previous ruling leaders, supporters including Suu Kyi. Subsequently, the military regime sentenced Suu Kyi to a 33-year prison term on various charges. The junta government has consistently extended its tenure by imposing a state of emergency in Myanmar. The recent clemency has extended to Suu Kyi coincided with the fourth extension of the state of emergency, and this move has exhibited as an act of religious ceremony involving prisoners.

Additionally, a spokesperson from the National League for Democracy (NLD) confirmed that the government had exempted Suu Kyi from five criminal cases. However, these moves should not be misconstrued as a prelude to her imminent release; rather, it might be a calculated strategic manoeuvre by the junta government to retain its hold on power, thereby placating both domestic resistance and the international community.

The military coup in Myanmar has spurred widespread civil protests and ignited armed resistance from ethnic insurgent groups and civil defence forces. The junta’s brutal crackdown has led to over 2,600 casualties and the incarceration of as many as 16,600 political detainees. This ongoing armed conflict has plunged millions of citizens into conditions of food insecurity, displacement, and economic recession. The nation’s isolation and consequent sanctions imposed by the international community have caused a collapse in the economy, marked by dwindling foreign investments and trade activities. Furthermore, both the United Nations and Western nations have decried the arrest, trial, and sentencing of Suu Kyi, labelling them as politically motivated and farcical. Suu Kyi still embodies Myanmar’s democratic ideals while representing a spark challenge to the military junta.

It is reasonable to deduce that the decision to confine Aung San Suu Kyi to house arrest, with limited privileges, is not a gesture of goodwill from the junta government. This is owing to the fact that the current ruling establishment has designated Suu Kyi’s former party as a ‘terrorist’ organization and is employing excessive force to suppress it. Just last week, the UN Security Council passed a resolution urging an end to violence in Myanmar and the release of all political detainees.

While China and Russia abstained from the vote, they refrained from exercising their veto power, hinting at a degree of consensus among major powers. In a notable diplomatic development last July, Thai Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai became the first foreign diplomat to meet Suu Kyi. During this interaction, Suu Kyi expressed her willingness to play a role in resolving Myanmar’s internal conflict. According to Radio Free Asia, on May 27 and June 4, Suu Kyi engaged in constructive discussions with high-ranking military officials regarding the nation’s armed conflict, public security, and, most importantly, the pursuit of peace. Moreover, a meeting between former Parliament Speaker Khun Myat and China’s Special Representative for the Asian Region, Deng Xijun, signified Suu Kyi’s influence in crisis resolution. It is evident that the junta government aims to leverage Suu Kyi’s influence to quell the ongoing armed struggle.

Various conjectures can be formulated to account for Suu Kyi’s house arrest. One plausible rationale is that it could be construed as a positive gesture from the authorities. The present self-styled government, which faces intense pressure from the international community and domestic pro-democracy movements, might seek to appease concerns by showing flexibility to the democratically elected leader. This action could be interpreted as a conciliatory step, fostering an environment conducive to dialogue and negotiation. However, this conjecture is riddled with uncertainty.

An alternate perspective posits that the move could be intended to mollify the international community, particularly Western nations that have enforced sanctions on the military and its leadership. By showing a measure of flexibility, these nations might be deterred from pursuing more drastic measures. Nevertheless, this hypothesis is fraught with skepticism, because the Myanmar army does not bother at all of Western sanctions rather is consistently pursuing of its agendas.

A third possible motive could be the strategy of isolating Suu Kyi from her supporters and the general public, effectively curbing her interactions with the outside world. Such a manoeuvre might aim to undermine Aung San Suu Kyi’s stature as a symbol of resistance and optimism for millions of Myanmar citizens. Detaining her under house arrest in Naypyidaw allows for tighter surveillance and control, serving as a means to exert pressure on her. An additional rationale could centre on her age and health considerations. There have been rumours of Suu Kyi’s illness during her imprisonment. Converting her confinement to house arrest might facilitate improved medical care, minimizing health-related complications. Nonetheless, this theory remains speculative as the military always remain silent on her health status.

The armed resistance spearheaded by pro-democracy groups and ethnic insurgent factions in Myanmar has escalated since Suu Kyi’s arrest, following the military coup. This is especially evident among members of the National Unity Government (NUG), an entity formed by deposed lawmakers and activists. The NUG asserts its legitimacy as Myanmar’s government and has taken the lead in opposing the junta. It has established a federal army, collaborating with select ethnic armed groups and civil defence forces to counter the military’s might. In this context, the junta’s flexible manoeuvre, transitioning Suu Kyi to house arrest, could potentially alleviate some pressure and enable negotiations with her. Moreover, this change could facilitate the involvement of foreign diplomats or military personnel in mediating various concerns at different intervals. The transfer of Suu Kyi from incarceration to house arrest undoubtedly constitutes a strategic move.

However, it is crucial to acknowledge that Suu Kyi’s leadership has drawn criticism and controversy in both domestically and internationally for her failure to response on the Rohingya crisis and tacit approval for military’s campaign of ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State. The military’s brutal crackdown in 2017 forced around 1.1 million Rohingyas to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. Suu Kyi’s stance in shielding the military during its trial for genocide at the UN International Court of Justice sparked condemnation from global civil societies and international leaders. Nevertheless, there remains a consensus on the need for a democratic Myanmar.

The Myanmar military junta might have harboured multiple motives for shifting Aung San Suu Kyi from prison to house arrest. However, this manoeuvre does not alter the reality that Suu Kyi remains confined and faces grave charges that could bring an end to her political career and life. This development also does not change the fact that Myanmar remains entrenched in military rule and faces a severe political and humanitarian crisis. So, this move makes the future of Myanmar and its people uncertain rather than optimistic. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Myanmar Junta Message From Suu Kyi’s House Arrest first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Myanmar Junta Message From Suu Kyi’s House Arrest appeared first on Arabian Post.

Pakistan’s Political Turmoil Has Implications For Global Security

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 21 May 2023 12:02:50 +0000

By M A Hossain

Pakistan is currently in a critical juncture of political turmoil which is posing a threat to its sovereignty as well as growing concerns about global security. Not only that, if Pakistan fails to address the crisis, then definitely it will be the beginning of the extinction of democratic values regionally. Pakistan has also been spiralling towards a severe economic catastrophe and struggling to meet the basic needs of its population. Now Pakistan is in a state of critical emergency after 1971, where the elite class should not repeat their apocalyptic mistake of ignoring the voices of the people.

The power struggle of the current stalemate began when Imran Khan was ousted in April 2022 following a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. However, this imbroglio is hardly a scenario that has arisen overnight. This is a result of bankrupt political regimes. Needless to say, Pakistan’s ruling power has generally been characterized by its preference for one side of the Pakistan Army. Each of the five prime ministers has been indicted or imprisoned after leaving office. The military-dominated Pakistan has a long record of engineering the electoral playing field to achieve the Army’s preferred result.

Corruption has long been a pressing issue in Pakistan’s political landscape, with high-profile corruption cases involving influential politicians and bureaucrats. These scandals have eroded public trust in the government and raised concerns about the misuse of public funds. The economic condition in Pakistan was facing a severe crisis. Now the devastating flood of 2022, 50-years high inflation, food and energy shortage, collapsed investment, critically low exports, and foreign exchange reserve, mounting foreign debt, and the failure of international lenders have further exacerbated the situation. Furthermore, Covid-19 and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia put tremendous pressure on world food and energy prices, which has had a negative impact on Pakistan’s economy.

Pakistan is experiencing violent social unrest. Economic challenges, rising inflation, polarized politics, and unemployment have contributed to the frustration and discontent among the populace, especially the youth where over 60% of the population is under the age of 30. A weaponized society with nothing to lose has grown a new ability to touch the untouchable elite Institutions. Furthermore, ethnic and sectarian tensions, mass reform movements recently by religio-political parties, and engagement between Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and security forces clearly spelled out the public frustration with elite Institutions or ruling systems.

Pakistanis, especially the young generation, are frustrated and suffer discontent with the country’s political discourse of weakening opponents and appeasing puppet masters. Poor dynastic leadership has also paved the way for military intervention in state power. Imran Khan has taken advantage of the situation to make himself the saviour of the nation. However, he is also seen as a trump card for Islamic jihadist organizations. His party’s strongholds, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Gilgit-Baltistan, Lahore, and Punjab, are all strongly under the control of Islamic jihadist groups. Imran Khan as prime minister praised the mujahideen and hailed Osama bin Laden as Shahid (martyr) in the parliament. One more significant thing, the Pakistani Constitution has ensured the right to choose the Sharia rule provincially or in special administrative areas.

Now, in recent years, TTP or other similar religio-political fundamentalists have exhibited mass reform movements and continue armed struggle across the country. Their issue-based movement has become popular among the countrymen and their armed struggle has made the elite establishment bound to sit for a peace deal with TTP. We will be in a fool’s paradise if we ignore the smartness and political acumen of present Islamic jihadist organizations. Now the situation in Pakistan is more favourable for TTP as well as International Islamic militant organizations. The Pakistani Judiciary, PTI, Islamic militant organizations, and military, Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition are near to head-on collision. The worst possible fact is civil war, and the next phase will be the triumph of the Islamic jihadist movement.

The pressing question that demands attention from global leaders is why Pakistan should be a cause for concern. We must not forget that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed nation. Drawing upon my extensive two-decade study of Islamic militant organizations, it is evident that the Islamic jihadist movement will emerge at full throttle in Pakistan. In my opinion, Pakistan will be Afghanistan 2.0 today or tomorrow unless the crisis is not dealt with appropriately. This ideological warfare is just like cancer in the human body. If we fail to recognize it at an early stage, it would leave us no choice but to surrender. Now, if we compare the situation of Pakistan with earlier Afghanistan, Iraq, Burkina Faso, and Mali, then it becomes evident that Pakistan is at the last stage of ideological cancer. I assume that the next Islamic jihadist movement is likely to extend its reach to Kashmir and Yemen. If this movement gains traction in Pakistan, then it will be a matter of time to establish a strong jihadist bastion in South Asia and the Middle East.

The West, unfortunately, has deprioritized its engagement against Islamic militant organizations, which will compromise the value of democracy and bring a new dimension to democratic countries globally. To be sure, we will not be able to see democracy piping over the Great Wall in the East and the African-Russian imaginary barrier in the West. Meanwhile, Somalia and Yemen will serve as strategic game-changer, providing an economic lifeline for international Islamic jihadist organizations.

So, where does the saviour of democracy lie? Or, are democracy and human rights merely tools used to suppress third-world nations? These crucial questions demand answers.

In conclusion, my perception will only begin to take shape once Islamabad falls. Pakistan must respond quickly because time is not on its side. Now the most straightforward way to restore peace in Pakistan would be through timely, free and fair elections, unfettered by the establishment’s intervention. An elected government has the potential to restore confidence in Pakistan’s Institutions, and that confidence is as desirable for Beijing and Riyadh as it is for Washington and New Delhi. Otherwise, the simplest explanation for other means may align with my perceptions(!), ultimately, becoming a stark reality. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Pakistan’s Political Turmoil Has Implications For Global Security first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Pakistan’s Political Turmoil Has Implications For Global Security appeared first on Arabian Post.

ED arrests TMC’s Anubrata Mondal in cattle smuggling case

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 24 Nov 2022 05:00:55 +0000

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Thursday arrested senior Trinamool Congress leader Anubrata Mondal in a cattle smuggling case after a marathon interrogation at Asansol Correctional Home where he has been lodged, the agency officials said.

He was earlier apprehended by the CBI in the same case in August and is in judicial custody.

The CBI is investigating the criminal aspect of the cattle smuggling case, while the ED is probing the money laundering angle.

ED sources said the agency will now seek custody of Mondal.

The central agency interrogated Mondal in the correctional home after his daughter Sukanya Mondal during interrogation had said “his father was aware of all the financial accounts and transactions”.

The ED had already interrogated Sukanya at its office in Delhi in connection with the cattle smuggling scam.

The CBI had earlier arrested Mondal’s former bodyguard Sehgal Hossain and also named him as a prime accused in a chargesheet filed by it. Subsequently, the ED had taken Hossain into its custody.

With inputs from News18

The post ED arrests TMC’s Anubrata Mondal in cattle smuggling case first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article ED arrests TMC’s Anubrata Mondal in cattle smuggling case appeared first on Arabian Post.

Changing Calculus Of Indo-Pacific Region’s Political Dynamics

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 23 Jul 2022 09:06:03 +0000

By M A Hossain

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire post World War-l, the Islamic religio-political movement accelerated its activities to revive and embolden the antecedent Islamic systems around the world. After a long battle, the Taliban’s victory over the superpower America has re-energized the other mujahideen in their goal to establish Islamic emirate States.

Taliban’s very close ally Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has re-emerged at the full-throttle after the US debacle in Afghanistan. America’s purported “war on terror” has created a vacuum, which might get infused by the Islamic fundamentalism in Asia. And US de-prioritisation of counterterrorism over the economy has just might as well galvanised various jihadi organizations to come out of their shells with a view to accomplish their fundamental goal of establishing sharia law in this region.

Suffice it to say that the TTP, which is incipient since 2007, is a by-product of the US invasion in Afghanistan in 2001. The Taliban shares innate ethnic, ideological and political nexus with TTP. During the US invasion in Afghanistan, TTP facilitated shelters to the Taliban commanders and fighters in the ex-FATA(Federally Administered Tribal Area). The influential Haqqani network of Taliban and TTP has strong interpersonal, wartime bonds, and abundant ethnic amity. TTP has supported the Taliban with the suicide bomber and also shares a common ally with Al-Qaeda(AQ).

Soon after the commencement of the peace treaty between the US and Taliban, TTP re-emerged as a strong political power factor in Pakistan. On 30 March 22, TTP launched its insurgency operation against law enforcement agencies from the start of holly Ramadan, which commenced on the 02nd April, 22. They bolstered this operation as the operation Al- Badr, which, they claim, is to be carried out against the Pakistani security forces (SF) and their facilitators only. Their operation has seen till the 29th May, 22, to a reported fatality of 39 SF personnel. TTP is believed to have been at the receiving end of the full support from the Afghan Taliban.

At present, Pakistan is going through tremendous economic and political imbroglio. So, understandably Pakistani establishments are resolute on averting another disastrous inland front with TTP and would travel any distance to achieve détente with TTP and this venture for peace by Pakistan has already been conducive of several rounds of negotiation meetings and ceasefire agreements. According to the media reports, the Pakistani government has released 30 TTP jail inmates, which evinces the ardency for peace by the Pakistani establishments. Afghan Taliban is mediating this peace deal.

It is to be seen how the US and China, the two rival superpowers, respond to this emerging radical violence in Asia. The US had intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq with its so-called “war on terror”. But in the end, the US got entwined into an intricate quagmire and lost its previously acquired ground. And to save its face, this superpower had to settle for a peace deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan and had to create a Frankenstein like IS which ruined Iraq. After a protracted war, now US administration has de-prioritized the war against Islam, and containment of China’s growth has been exalted to the helm of its list to regain its lost glory. Conversely, China has always exhibited a disposition to avoid confrontation; especially since trade and economic growth are the leading agenda to the polit bureaus in China.

China has a direct suppressible claim on Uighur Muslims and the indirect influence of atrocities on Rohingya. It is the US that raised its voice globally against China’s repression of Muslims. But the same allegation can also be raised against the US for aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen. So, regarding these superpowers, what they say is not what they mean and what they mean is unfailingly not what the Muslims need right now. The US made a peace deal with the Taliban and China comes forward with a huge investment in Afghanistan. It is patently obvious that no superpower wants to confront with Islamic forces. Now, amid the growing demands of strategic competition, the US gets an opportunity to sell arms to Pakistan and Pakistan’s self-inflicted imbroglio is certainly not the US government’s responsibility. China has a huge investment in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, China’s green signal has made Pakistani establishments sit for a peace deal with TTP.

TTP has a similar ideological alignment with the Taliban to implement Islamic law known as sharia. So, the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul was the new dimension of the geopolitical scenario in Asia. TTP’s demand is an aftermath effect of the Kabul fall. TTP strongly demanded the Malakand region for autonomy with sharia law and Pakistani establishments showed a bit soft stance on that. And that is just the beginning of a new dimension in our regional politics. After establishing a foothold in Pakistan, this group is likely to be gravitated towards Kashmir. It is believed that this extremist group will enjoy the state’s support. Their ultimate aim is to stand beside repressed Muslims in India.

In this milieu, Bangladesh will not be an exception. It is strongly believed that Al-Qaeda is working silently and covertly in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Malaysia. Myanmar’s ARSA is regrouping for their rights. Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are already experienced with offshoots of AQ. Yemen, Iraq and Syria have strong bastions for AQ. So, AQ brings all the jihadi organisations under one umbrella by pledging allegiance to the Taliban chief. And definitely, these Islamic forces will dictate the future political dynamics in Asia. (IPA Service)

M A Hossain is a political and defence analyst based in Bangladesh.

The post Changing Calculus Of Indo-Pacific Region’s Political Dynamics first appeared on IPA Newspack.

IPA News

The article Changing Calculus Of Indo-Pacific Region’s Political Dynamics appeared first on Arabian Post.

Stand against radical Islam lands Bangladesh scribe in jail

The Arabian Post Network — Sat, 09 Apr 2022 14:30:03 +0000

Damsana Ranadhiran

It seems freedom of expression and freedom of press are being suffocated in Bangladesh under a draconian law titled Digital Security Act, and internationally acclaimed award-winning anti-militancy journalist and editor of Weekly Blitz newspaper has become its latest victim.

This extremely courageous journalist has gone through an ordeal lasting years for denouncing anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial; confronting radical Islam and militancy; and for advocating interfaith harmony. To international community and lawmakers around the world, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is a hero fighting against religious extremism. His contributions have been endorsed by the Parliament of Australia (Australian Senate), European Union Parliament, British House of Commons, and the United States Congress.

Back in 2003, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka International Airport on his way to Tel Aviv, Israel for attending an international peace conference, which was co-organized by the Tel Aviv University and the US Department of State. He was also scheduled to attend as the key speaker at another event organized by the Hebrew Writers’ Association. Then Islamist coalition government of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh played a nasty trick by sending Choudhury to prison and brining false charges of sedition, treason and blasphemy. Pro-militancy BNP-Jamaat coalition government branded Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury as “an agent of Mossad” and tortured him in police custody. A top leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, Motiur Rahman Nizami (a war criminal who was handed death penalty for his crimes committed during Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971) during a meeting of Jamaat at Dhaka’s Baitul Mukarram area publicly demanded Choudhury’s death and described him as “an enemy of Islam”.

After many years of legal battle and suffering, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was freed from prison in July 2018 and since has been serving as the editor of Weekly Blitz newspaper. Ever since his release from prison, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has been writing against radical Islam and militancy and promoting interfaith harmony. His newspaper Weekly Blitz enjoys appreciation from readers around the world for its bold stand against religious extremism, militancy and terrorism.

Unfortunately, very recently Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury has come under attack from the agents of religious extremism and anti-Sheikh Hasina bloc. According to media reports, a false case under Digital Security Act (DSA) has been lodged against Choudhury with Dhaka’s Cyber Tribunal for the “crime” of publishing a report based on specific evidences about notorious activities of an anti-government individual in Bangladesh. On April 6, 2022, Choudhury appeared before the Cyber Tribunal in Dhaka, Bangladesh and sought anticipatory bail in this case. According to Akter Hossain Shohel, his attorney, the tribunal has fixed August 17, 2022 as the next date, when Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury needs to re-appear for hearing.

Earlier on March 3, 2022 the Committee to Protect Journalists in its report said: “Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, editor of the tabloid Weekly Blitz, faces Digital Security Act proceedings after publishing eight articles about a family allegedly engaging in criminal and anti-government activities”.

According to media reports, Section 40 of the Digital Security Act allows authorities 60 days to complete an investigation, which can be extended with judicial approval. The CID submitted applications to extend the investigation period on June 22, 2021, September 30, 2021, and November 17, 2021, according to Choudhury.

On January 23, 2022, Sub-inspector Mehdi Hassan filed an investigative report at the Dhaka Cyber Tribunal which accused Choudhury of violating three sections of the Digital Security Act pertaining to the publication of offensive, false, or threatening information; defamation; and abetment.

According to a report published by an Indian news site The Eastern Herald: Shahana Rashid Sanu posted a video of Mizanur Rahman Azhari on March 21, 2021, on her Facebook ID protesting the Bangladesh visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. PM Modi visited Bangladesh to attend the Golden Jubilee celebration of Bangladesh’s victory against Pakistani occupation forces. In the comment section of this notorious post, several people suggested waging jihad against the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government need to immediately initiate an investigation into the false case lodged against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury and punish the woman who had made attempts toe destabilize the country’s law and order situation during March-2021 Bangladesh visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Bangladesh authorities should also initiate high-level neutral probe into the dubious actions of Sub-inspector Mehdi Hassan of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bangladesh Police.

Damsana Ranadhiran is a security analyst and retired intelligence officer.

The article Stand against radical Islam lands Bangladesh scribe in jail appeared first on Arabian Post.

Imran Khan Has Pushed Pakistan Into A Major Constitutional Crisis

The Arabian Post Network — Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:41:15 +0000

By Sankar Ray

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Kaptaan Imran Khan is in an existential crisis that pushed him personally into a political quagmire. His stature worsened further following the crucial observation by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial during the hearing of a suo moto matter following the dismissal of National Assembly of Pakistan on Sunday by the President Arif Alvi on the prime minister’s advice that the NA Speaker erred in rejecting the no-confidence motion. The meaning is clear that reference to Article 5 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is incongruent.

The CJP’s remarks was in the midst of hearing of the suo moto case related to the constitutional lemma following the ruling by the NA deputy speaker Qasim Suri and the subsequent dissolution of the lower house on the advice of the PM Imran Khan. Incidentally, NA Speaker Asad Qaiser was reportedly unwilling to a ruling as per Article 5. Earlier, Attorney General Khalid Javed had too told TV anchor Humid Mir in Geo News programmed Capital Talk that voting was a must on the no-confidence resolution against the PM Imran Khan on 3 April 3 under the Constitution. The deputy speaker Qasim Suri, a member of ruling PTI, chaired the session and promulgated dissolution of NA. He blocked the confidence motion that Khan had widely been expected to lose. Hence the ruling assuming that a foreign conspiracy was behind the no-trust motion ,was considered unconstitutional by many.

Heading five-member larger bench that included Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail are also part of the larger bench , the SCP is looking into the matter in terms Article 63(A) of the Constitution that suggests disqualification on grounds of defection for not obeying the parliamentary party directions in the election of the prime minister, chief minister or vote of confidence or no confidence or money bill etc

Former PM Nawaz Sharif said on Sunday that Prime Minister Imran Khan and all characters involved in the “conspiracy” against the nation are guilty of high treason and should be tried under Article 6 of the Constitution. He tweeted in chaste Urdu, which, translated freely, read :”Today, a man obsessed with power trampled on the Constitution. Imran Khan, who puts his ego before the country and the nation, and all the conspiratorial characters involved in this conspiracy are guilty of serious treason to which Article 6 applies. Abuse of Pakistan and desecration of the Constitution will be taken into account”.

Pakistan People’s Party chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari ridiculed Imran Khan saying that instead of ‘playing till the last ball had run away with the wickets. He said that the president, prime minister, NA speaker, deputy speaker and anybody involved in this act on Sunday had committed high treason.’

Pakistan’s internationally well-known TV personality Amir Liaquat Hossain and a member of PTI snapped fingers at King Khan, “”I would like to say that what the Prime Minister has proved that the opposition was doing right, I am announcing to leave the PTI, who has deviated from the constitution and who is deviating? The decision will be made by the court but unfortunately this game was played to remove General Qamar Bajwa”

A leading English daily made a blistering attack on the premier, With the parliamentary process pulverised on the orders of a leader who continues to hold it in deep contempt, Pakistan has been thrown into the dark abyss of a constitutional crisis. It seems, in retrospect, that the captain had planned to play this dastardly card all along. It came as a rude shock: it takes quite the fall for a self-proclaimed ‘fighter’ to display such unsportsmanlike behaviour. By tearing up the rules of the game instead of ‘playing till the last ball’

Whether the NA session is to be reconvened to pave the way for no trust motion is to be awaited. The defeat of ruling PTI-led government is certain as support from 172 NA members in favour of the government is almost impossible while more than 190 members are likely to vote for the motion. .

Kaptaan Imran Khan’s grip on power has been steadily weakened over the past two weeks. His rhetoric on the alleged role of foreign powers in Pakistan’s domestic affairs has proved vacuous. Even many in his party Pakistan Tehreek-i- Insaaf are not convinced that the USA backs the no-confidence motion, hatching a grand conspiracy to remove him. The premier stated, ‘they are against me because I am against corruption’ to ‘I am being removed because I am standing against the West, particularly America, for pursuing an independent foreign policy’.

The high-powered National Security Council headed by PM sat to discuss the so-called diplomatic cable which, the PTI government claimed, had evidence of the US plot seeking a regime change in Pakistan. The NSC decided to issue a demarche to the USA But the Pakistan’s military top brass pooh-poohed the allegation. The isolation of Kaptaan is more than evident. (IPA Service)

The post Imran Khan Has Pushed Pakistan Into A Major Constitutional Crisis first appeared on IPA Newspack.

IPA News

The article Imran Khan Has Pushed Pakistan Into A Major Constitutional Crisis appeared first on Arabian Post.

Ukraine crisis: Gambit for new world order

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 13 Mar 2022 05:09:25 +0000

M A Hossain

Historically, Ukraine crisis began in the year of 1954, when Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev handed over Crimea from Russian Socialist Federal Republic to Ukrainian Federal Republic in the celebration of the 300th anniversary of Russia-Ukraine unification. It was an important event as both the republics were part of Soviet Union. From 1920 to 1991, Ukraine was completely under control of Moscow. Both Russia and Ukraine are Slavic and have a common history, culture and orthodox majority. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Crimea’s position became more significant in newly independent Ukraine.

American political scientist Samuel P Huntington, in his book “Clash of civilizations” has predicted Ukraine as a cleft state and would have more potential to split which would start with Crimea. In fact, It had already begun with Crimea in 2014 after annexation by Moscow. President Putin spent 22 years in power, rebuilding Russia’s military and re-establishing its geopolitical influence, which it had in Soviet era. He has selected Ukraine as its strategic position for Central Europe to revive ex – Soviet’s name and fame as superpower. Russia’s strategy and Planning in terms of power and politics is to exert influence over Ukraine so that she has control and influence over the Baltic States.

On the other hand, in 1999,President Bill Clinton and his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin signed an agreement in Paris where the agreement guaranteed Russia as the status of NATO’s Associated Partners and stemmed NATO’s expansion towards Eastern and Central Europe. Nevertheless, during the last two decades, the US, and its NATO allies have been violating non expansion guarantee by including and annexing some Baltic States – Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Eastern European Poland, Romania and working to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO’s pact. NATO signed an agreement with Ukraine for inclusion in 2008.

But the move was foiled after the pro Russian Viktor Yanukovych was elected as the President of Ukraine in 2009. Again in 2014, President Yanukovych was ousted by a revolution and hardliner nationalist and pro-Western Petro Peroshanko came to power. NATO’s expansion towards East has got momentum and continues till present President Vladimir Zelensky. This is a disaster for Russia because it was conducive of facilitating the presence of the US troops and Missile system within the close proximity of Moscow, having an ability to strike Moscow within the span of four minutes. In October 2018, the US and NATO took part in a joint Air rally in Western Ukraine which was the largest exercise after the fall of the Soviet Union in this region. In this context, Russia is being seized by NATO’s “containment theory” and had no other option other than to go on aggressive campaign.

Ukraine’s crisis has exploited a severe impact on the global economy. Russia is the second-largest producing country of natural gas in the world. It exports 30% of its extracted natural gas and 70% of its export is made to Europe. The largest gas pipeline is Nord stream-1 with the capacity of 55 billion cubic meters per year which runs through Ukraine. France and Germany are dependent on Russian exported gas and coal. The imposing of stringent sanctions on Russia by the Western countries will have a spillover effect on the global oil market. Russia also exports minerals like Titanium, Palladium. One-third Palladium of its demand is supplied from Russia globally. Ukraine is one of the main suppliers of neon which is utilized in semiconductors. Ukraine and Russia both export fertilizer around the world. So, Ukraine crisis will have a severe impact on agriculture and industrial economy, not only throughout Europe, but Globally nonetheless.

China’s support for Russia in the stand-off over Ukraine upends the strategic calculus for world order. Moscow-Beijing jointly lashing out at Washington’s alleged destabilizing policies in both Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. President Vladimir Putin knows very well that the number one superpower, the US is unable to open a second front in a geopolitical fight. Beijing’s explicit support in the showdown of Moscow on the Ukraine issue will bring China a quid pro quo in the form of Moscow’s support on the Taiwan issue. The trade between China and Russia was 147 billion dollars last year. The Western sanctions in 2015 made the trade figure almost double between China and Russia.

Both Russia and China would also seize on any apparent US back down over Ukraine to portray Washington as an unreliable partner. Russia’s limited scale incursion is aimed to bring Western leaders to the negotiation table and achieve guarantee of the halt to NATO expansion as well as withdraw the US missile system from Poland. If the demands of Russia are not met, then Moscow might consider attempting to demilitarize Ukrainian government forces and instate a pro-Russian government. The US response to Moscow could lose influence on Asia-Pacific theatre and China would try to fill the void, especially in Taiwan, the South China Sea. In this scenario, Russia will face tough economic sanctions from the US and its allies. But as political leaders of tomorrow, the lessons they learn from this crisis will undoubtedly shape their commitment and solidarity and the transatlantic alliance, while shaping future foreign and security policy for years to come.

The article Ukraine crisis: Gambit for new world order appeared first on Arabian Post.

Options left for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:32:13 +0000

By M A Hossain

Last couple of weeks, North Korea was showing an aggressive attitudes towards South Korea and finally on 16 June 2020. North blew up a liaison office set up as symbolic wage on South in Kaesong. Needless to say, this is a provocative activity to create pressure only on Mr. Moon Jae-in, who is betting on Trump-Kim negotiations where sanctions on North Korea will be withdrawn by the US, provided North dismantle its nuclear programs. To make the situation crystal clear, I need to recap the Trump-Kim saga.

After the Iran debacle, President Donald Trump most possibly faced another challenge in the Korean Peninsula. There were two summits between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un where we found indications of disagreements between North Korea and the US. Before the summit, President Trump said in a statement “The Libyan model was a much different model. We decimated that country. We never said to Gaddafi, Oh, we are going to give you protection. We went in and decimated him, and we did the same thing with Iraq [Saddam Hussein]. That model would take place if we don’t make a deal”.

On the benefits of denuclearization, President Trump said,”A deal will make Kim[Kim Jong Un] very strong. He would be there [in power], he would be running the country, his country [North Korea] would be very rich”.

From the statements and sentiment of the Trump administration, it was evidently clear that Kim Jong Un is going to face a very difficult time if he doesn’t listen to Washington’s dictation. But, in my opinion, Pyongyang long-time ally Beijing may not let their old friend Kim Jong Un be defeated by the US hostility. Because, Chinese policymakers know, fall of socialism in North Korea and Kim Jong Un having the ‘similar fate of Gaddafi’ may actually pave the highway for the US in ultimately starting another long-term game plan of destabilizing communist rule in China.

Those who are considering Kim Jong Un as a fool like or coward like Mikhail Gorbachev are certainly wrong. In my personal opinion, any tactic of threatening would be counter-productive in case of Korean crisis.

But, what North would get in exchange of its positive changes are not cleared by the US and South Korea. Still there is no commitments from the US President Donald Trump rather makes the situation fishy by not lifting sanctions on North Korea. At this moment, this peace process does not seem to be reciprocal from counter part of North Korea.

We must not forget, 23,000 US troops are stationed in South Korea to protect it from North. USA is selling billions dollars weapons to South Korea and Japan because of threat from North Korea. Moreover from South Korea US can keep its arch-foe China under surveillance. Now it is almost clear that Mr. Trump is not going to compromise with this present scenario and get his administration involved in the withdrawal proposal of the US troops from Korean Peninsula.

President Trump was unable to spend a single day at his office without chaos and controversy. Starting from Russia meddling, fake news, nuclear deal, impeachment, firing staffs from office, trade war, coronavirus, recent police brutalities and of course his unprecedented, impolitic, insane and inane rants to the media. So he somehow managed Iran issue by neutralizing strategic high value target (HVT)(Quassem Solaymani) and put North Korea issue on his gamble table. It is clearly perceived that Mr.Trump is buying time for his second term presidential campaign on this issue.

Kim Jong Un needs to urgently create a strong media base similarly as he has successfully done in the case of developing nuclear technology. He needs to remember – a nation without media strength is certainly helpless and even isolated in the age of advance technology.

Till the next US presidential election, anti-US bloc will be more proactive and aggressive on the US allies. May be this is the appropriate time to change the world order.So, it is a very crucial time for Kim and his nation to take every step carefully and diplomatically. Kim Jong Un must senses the foreboding of every future consequence.

The writer is a political and defence analyst, who writes on diversified topics in Bangladeshi and foreign newspapers.

The article Options left for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un appeared first on Arabian Post.

A Muslim Child’s Speech in India to Mankind

The Arabian Post Network — Mon, 03 Feb 2020 21:04:03 +0000

The following is a text of seven -year-old Soborno Isaac Bari’s prepared remarks to Mankind, delivered on January 6, 2020 at SP Pune University in India.

I am honored to be in India, the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi, and to be hosted by Savitribai Phule Pune University. Since 1949, India has stood as a beacon of democracy, diversity, and tolerance and the University of Pune has served as the pinnacle of Indian achievement. I am grateful for your hospitality and the hospitality of the people of India. I am also grateful to the faculty members—especially Professors Avinash Kumbhar and S.V Ghaisas and the students of Pune. Thank you so much for the warm welcome that my family and I have received. It is an extraordinary honor to be here today. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people and a greeting of peace from Indian communities from my country: Namaste and Assalamu alaikum.

I received recognition from President Obama in 2016 at 4-years-old for being able to solve advanced math, physics, chemistry and computer science problems. 2 years later in 2018, Harvard University gave me recognition for my contributions to math and science. Therefore, many of you here may be curious why I am promoting “The Love”, a campaign for Peace, Unity, and Respect, even though I’m known for my problem-solving ability in math and physics. As such, I should be solving math problems now, rather than giving a book talk. But I came to understand that peace is just as urgent as math in today’s world. In fact, it was the terror of the Taliban, Islamic State, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Al-Qaeda that forced me to start my antiterrorism campaign, “The Love”, a campaign devoted to promoting global peace and unity. Indeed, to the critics who question why I’m promoting peace instead of solving math problems, how can I solve math problems when 6 Taliban terrorists go to Peshawar School to kill 132 school children including 5 year-old Khula? How can I solve Physics problems when 5 followers of Islamic State go to the Holey Artisan Bakery and kill 29 innocent people including Faraaz and Tarishi? How can I solve chemistry problems when followers of Jaish-e-Mohammed kill 40 innocent people on the Jammu Srinagar National Highway? How can I code programs when 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists hijack planes to kill nearly 3,000 people from my own country, the United States of America?

Receiving “Global Prodigy Award” in Chemistry from Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi

I learned the importance of peace the hard way. On April 9, 2012, I was born into a family that included a 9/11 survivor. On my second birthday, my father took me to 1 Liberty Plaza, where he worked as a security guard from 2001 to 2014. That day, he recollected the events of the most tragic morning in American history. It was September 11, 2001. My father was working at Liberty Plaza, near the World Trade Center. My uncle worked in the South Tower. When news of terror attack broke out, my dad ran to the South Tower like a madman. However, he was caught in the fallout of the collapse of the North Tower as he ran towards the South Tower to find my uncle. My dad couldn’t outrun the smoke and crawled under a van to avoid the debris. The air turned black. He started choking, and his eyes burned. He thought the van above him would move and kill him. Someone dragged him into the van, and he later found himself in a hospital. In a panic, he fled from the hospital and ran towards the Twin Towers again, with the hope of seeing my Chachu, his younger brother. Along with thousands of other terrified people, my father headed north of the West Side Highway. He waited there all day, watching the events unfold, including the collapse of the South Tower, but he did not see his brother. He saw men and women jumping from windows in a desperate bid to escape the fire within the building. He saw them hit the ground and saw their blood on the street. He never forgot all these horrors (although, miraculously, my Chachu survived). Somehow, that story instilled a sense of patriotism in my blood. This patriotism gave me the audacity to ask my dad a question on July 3, 2016, when I was only four years old.

It was July 3rd, 2016. The day began with my dad and I going to the mosque. As we entered the public park, where the prayer was being held, I felt jolly and was ready to celebrate the upcoming Independence Day. All of a sudden, I asked, “Dad, can I ask the Imam to pray for America?” He didn’t expect me to ask such a question, because I was so young. Surprised, he looked at me and said reluctantly, “Go ahead.” He thought that I would not have the audacity to do such a thing in front of hundreds of people at the mosque. But he was wrong. In the middle of the prayer, I stood up, and shouted, “Excuse me, Imam! Can you please pray for my country, the United States of America, because tomorrow is the Fourth of July?” The imam ignored me, and I walked out from the mosque to launch a campaign: The Love. Motivated by the Imam’s rejection, I launched “The Love”, a campaign devoted to the 132 school children of Peshawar School in Pakistan. This campaign is for the 29 victims of Holey Artisan Bakery in Bangladesh. It’s for the 40 victims of Pulwama attack in India. But most importantly, this campaign is for the millions of innocent people who suffer at the hands of terrorism every year.

With the help of the Huffington Post and other publications, I made two documentaries to promote “The Love”: I’m Muslim and I Love America & I’m Muslim and I Love Christmas. Many people joined my campaign around the world — especially people in Bangladesh where two young Muslim students, Sadiyan Lima of Dhaka University and Marjia Farzana of Jahangirnagar University, led the movement on behalf of their respective universities. It inspired people to stand up against the terror of the Islamic State. Zahid Jeebon published my biography, while Kadir Chowdhury Babul and his son went to 64,000 villages in Bangladesh to post 64,000 posters promoting the Love. Recently I published a book with the same title, “The Love” to promote my campaign. But this mission has not been easy; indeed, I endured countless struggles against terrorists and hate groups who seek to silence the message of my campaign. The worst of these attacks occurred in April 2019, an attack that still haunts me to this day.

April 2019. My family and I had arrived at Khaabar Baari, a restaurant in Jackson Heights, New York, to glue a poster for my book, “The Love”, which read:

“As a Muslim, I love Islam. But I also love Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. I love to celebrate Eid. But I also love to celebrate Durga Puja, Modhu Purnima, Rosh Hashanah, and Christmas. Let’s unleash love to defeat hate and terrorism”.

Suddenly, a group of men began moving very close to me, talking amongst themselves. One of them began talking behind my back, protesting the fact that although I was a Muslim, I had Isaac as a middle name. “He can’t be Muslim,” he told his friends, “because his middle name is Isaac. Jewish and Christian smells come from his middle name.” Thus began a dangerous confrontation, initiated by a man I didn’t even know. He started blowing his cigarette smoke in my direction, forcing me to inhale his secondary smoke. My dad told the man he should not direct his smoke toward us—especially not towards me. But he refused to comply. As I was giving a live-stream talk on Facebook to promote “The Love” and its message, the man blew more smoke in my face. Again, my dad asked him to stop. My older brother, Aporbo, stood between the man and me, trying to protect me. Eventually, my dad tried to defuse the situation , and apologized for naming me Isaac. The man understood this to be a concession but continued to insult me. My mom told the man that my dad was a good man. While all this was going on, I stood next to my brother, making a heart shape with my trembling fingers, in the hopes of inspiring the angry men to stop attacking us through the message of my book: that Love is greater than hate.

On our way home, my father began to make his way to a police station to report the attack. But I protested. “Dad, if you report it to the police, they will arrest those extremists and possibly deport them to Bangladesh.”

“That’s exactly why I’m going to file a police report.”

My eyes filled with tears, and my voice choked. “Dad, please forgive them, because ‘To err is human, to forgive is divine’ ”. I still remember my dad making an abrupt U-turn on Webster Avenue.

At this great University of Pune, I have a message for the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims–especially India’s 201 millions Muslims–that as an American, I sing The Star Spangled Banner every day after I wake up, as this inspires me to keep falling in love with my country—the United States of America. As Indians, you should sing the Indian national anthem every day upon waking up. Stop supporting terrorism, hate, and division. Start fighting for love, peace, and unity. If there is an injustice against you, please forgive. Remember, Gandhi won the world through forgiveness.

I will end this book talk by finishing the story I told you at the beginning: Faraz and Tarishi : A Story of love between Hindu and Muslim.

As I said, 4 followers of Islamic terrorists unleashed an act of terror in Bangladesh on July 1, 2016 when Bengali Muslims were getting ready to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan. That day terrorists entered the Holey Artisan, a bakery famous for its bagels and coffee, at 8:00 p.m. and opened fire indiscriminately, killing two police officers, Salauddin and Rabiul Islam, who tried to stop them. They immediately took full control of the restaurant by taking hostages. The seven terrorists had killed 22 hostages, including two friends: Faraaz and Tarishi.

When Nibras Islam, the leader of terrorists, discovered that Faraz was a Bangladeshi born Muslim, he let him go. However, Faraz refused to leave without his Hindu friend–Tarishi. `

“Who is your friend?” Nibras Islam looked pissed.

Faraz pointed his finger to Tarishi. Nibras pointed his gun, smelling something suspicious. He called her up.

“What’s your name?” Nibras asked. His gun was cocked and loaded.

“My name is Tarishi,” she whispered, shivering.

“Hindu?”

Silence.

“Indian Hindu?”

“United States,” she said. Her voice was broken. Her heart beat faster and faster.

“O, Allah! Even worse! Kill her!” Nibras ordered.

“What about Faraaz?” asked Rohan Imtiaz

“Let him go, because he already promised me that he will change his name to Muhammad Hossain.”

“I won’t go without Tarishi,” Faraaz insisted.

“Kill this Mortad!” Nibras screamed.

I heard Faraaz and Tarishi’s screams as bullets pierced their bodies. Tarishi fell to the floor. Faraaz began bleeding out but still managed to make his way to Tarishi. “I told you, nothing can separate us, even—” But Faraaz never finished his sentence, as another bullet shot through his skull.

This story — the story of Faraaz and Tarishi — is proof of the power of love. When I see the unrest between Muslims and Hindus in India, I think of Faraaz and Tarisihi; I think of how they sacrificed their lives for each other, completely disregarding the difference in their religions. The story of Faraaz and Tarishi is the story of Muslim and Hindu bonding over love; it’s proof that love overcomes religion, ideology, race, and ethnicity.

Soborno Isaac Bari, a visiting faculty at Ruia College of University of Mumbai, is the author of The Love.

The article A Muslim Child’s Speech in India to Mankind appeared first on Arabian Post.

What’s next after Trump’s walking out of the Iran deal?

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 10 May 2018 06:32:49 +0000

| M A Hossain |United States has walked- out of the Iran deal that had been touted mainly by Barack Obama. Washington’s argument in this latest development is pretty clear. In their opinion, Iran though had stopped its nuclear development program, still was pursuing the ballistic missile development project. Meaning, Tehran did not abandon its nuclear ambition. Most importantly, Iran is seen as a potential threat to the Middle East peace both by Saudi Arabia and Israel. Donald Trump’s decision has categorically delighted Saudi and Israel. Political analysts already are seeing the emergence of a new axis between USA, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

Most of the member countries of the European Union as well as Britain had expressed dismay at Trump’s decision. They also have vowed to continue working with Iran. But, here again, political analysts are expressing pessimism on the effectiveness of the agreement after United States withdrawal. In their views, Washington will now impose newer sanctions on Iran, which will greatly jeopardise the existing Iran- European economic ventures. For example, Iran has placed an order for buying over one hundred commercial aircrafts from the European Airbus company. Any newer sanction imposed by the Trump administration would put this huge purchase order at jeopardy.

US, Saudis and Israel are desperately looking for regime change in Tehran. Failure of the nuclear deal will put the ruling government in Iran under tremendous political pressure from inside. It would also push Iran towards serious political mess.

The biggest losers of Washington’s decision are China and India, whose businesses with Iran grew many folds during past couple of years. But, neither Beijing nor Delhi can do anything ignoring Washington’s sanctions on Tehran. President Trump might have realized the so-called carrot policy won’t help in restoring democracy in Iran. He must even have been inspired with the dramatic developments in the Korean Peninsula, where sanction- hit Kim Jong Un now visibly has no more cards but to obediently follow Washington’s diktat in ending decade- old rivalry with South Korea. In the Korean affairs, the US clearly is inclined and also biased towards South Korea, its long-time ally. In the case of Middle East, United States will have even much visible and exposed bias towards Israel and Saudi Arabia. As the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has already started considering Israel as his newer ally, ultimately Washington will place Israel into the head role in the Middle East. But, Saudi and Israel now has the common grounds in their Iran policy. To both the nations, Iran is seen as the key enemy.

United States’ withdrawal from the Iran deal will significantly decrease China’s influence and India’s interests in the Middle East. It also will have adverse effect on Iran- friendly nations like Bangladesh. Especially, Dhaka’s diplomatic policy of seeing Israel as enemy nation may not be seen anymore positively by Saudi Arabia and the US.

Donald Trump’s decision did ring the bell of the beginning of a new episode – a war between Iran and its allies, and the US, Saudi and Israel axis. Iran and its allies can not win this battle!

M A Hossain, a political and defence analyst writes on diversified topics in Bangladeshi and foreign newspapers including South China Morning Post, Modern Ghana, Malaysia Today, New Nation, Asian Age, Financial Express etc. He can be contacted at: writemah71@gmail.com

The article What’s next after Trump’s walking out of the Iran deal? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bangladesh police fire tear gas as energy hike protest turns violent

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:43:12 +0000

DHAKA Police in Bangladesh fired teargas and water cannon on Wednesday to disperse hundreds of demonstrators trying to besiege the energy ministry in a protest against an increase in gas prices.

Starting from this month, gas prices are to be raised by an average of 22.7 percent in two phases. It is the second such hike within two years, despite objections from political parties and industry, including the $28-billion garments export sector.

Activists of leftist political parties threw bricks and smashed vehicles as they tried to make their way towards the ministry, police said, compelling them to break up the protest.

Several policemen were injured but no arrests have been made, police official Abul Hasan told Reuters.

Protesters said about 50 activists were injured and some were arrested.

“Our protest was peaceful, but we are stunned by the police action,” Ruhin Hossain Prince, a leader of the Communist Party of Bangladesh, told reporters. “Many of our activists were arrested.”

Annual inflation in Bangladesh accelerated in February for the second straight month and could rise further, fuelled by a surge in the price of gas, widely used for cooking and operating vehicles.

The High Court has ordered a six-month stay on the second phase of the gas price increase from June, following a petition by a consumer rights group.

The government also plans to raise electricity tariffs, in a bid to cut subsidies, likely to further aggravate worries about the cost of living in the impoverished country of 160 million.

(Reporting by Ruma Paul; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

-Reuters

The article Bangladesh police fire tear gas as energy hike protest turns violent appeared first on Arabian Post.

Sold into marriage – how Rohingya girls become child brides in Malaysia

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 01:16:21 +0000

By Rozanna Latiff and Ebrahim Harris
| KUALA LUMPUR

KUALA LUMPUR The slight girl in a turquoise headscarf held back tears as she recalled what happened when she fled to Malaysia from Myanmar’s violence-hit Rakhine state. Just 12-years-old at the time, she was forced to wed a man she did not know, and who was more than a decade older than her.

The teenager, who is not being named by Reuters because she is still only 13, is like hundreds of Rohingya girls escaping persecution, violence and apartheid-like conditions in Rakhine, only to be sold into marriage to Rohingya men in neighbouring Malaysia, migrant groups and community members said.

Separated from her family while escaping to Malaysia, she said she was caught by traffickers and held for weeks in a filthy and brutal jungle camp near the Thai-Malaysian border with dozens of others. Her captors told her a Rohingya man was willing to give her freedom if she agreed to marry him.

“The (trafficking) agent said I had been sold to a man and I asked, how could do they do that?… My heart was heavy and I was scared,” the girl said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur.

Reuters could not independently verify certain aspects of her story but her mother confirmed she was held in the camp for weeks before being released.

The girl’s plight is just one illustration of the hardships faced by many Rohingya Muslims, a minority group in Myanmar who are regarded by the nation’s government as illegal migrants from Bangladesh, entitled only to limited rights.

Since 2012, violence and communal clashes have seen hundreds of Rohingya killed while tens of thousands have fled, seeking refuge in neighbouring countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Bangladesh. In the most recent crackdown, security forces and police committed mass killings and gang rapes and burned villages in northern Rakhine, a U.N. investigation published earlier this month found.

MALAYSIA CRITICISED

It has been common for Rohingya women escaping Myanmar to wed Rohingya men in the country they fled to, usually through marriages arranged between families, rights groups said. Some of these arranged marriages would be for underage girls.

But a growing number are becoming victims of human traffickers who sell women and girls to Rohingya men as brides.

Matthew Smith, executive director of the Southeast Asia-based migrant and refugee protection group Fortify Rights, said the group had seen a “significant” rise in the number of child brides following increased violence in Rakhine.

There are no official statistics on how many girls have been sold into marriage. In 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in a report it had identified 120 Rohingya child brides in Malaysia but it was unclear how many were trafficking victims.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has spoken out strongly in the past few months against Buddhist Myanmar over its handling of the violence in Rakhine and the Rohingyas’ plight.

But rights groups say Malaysia, which has not signed the U.N. refugee convention, has been complicit in the abuse of Rohingya asylum-seekers because they are treated as illegal migrants with no official access to jobs, healthcare or education. They live in poverty working illegally in restaurants or construction sites.

The Malaysian government launched a project this month that enables 300 Rohingya people to be employed, a move welcomed by rights groups.

The Malaysian government did not return requests seeking comment for this story.

CHILD MARRIAGES ALLOWED

Child marriages are also tolerated in Muslim-majority Malaysia. Under Islamic law, Muslim girls under 16 can marry with permission from the Shariah court, though in the case of the Rohingya marriages in Malaysia there is no court involvement – Rohingya imams conduct them and while a marriage certificate is printed there is no indication it is a legal document under Malaysian law.

The girl who was married was taken to Kuantan, on Malaysia’s east coast, where she said she quickly learned that her new husband was controlling and abusive. He confiscated her mobile phone and did not allow his family to see her. She was left alone for days in the house.

Eight months into the marriage, she reconnected with her parents and four younger siblings, and was rescued by her father, who had travelled to Kuantan to find her.

The girl’s husband did not respond to calls seeking comment for this story.

She now lives with her family in a one-room shack in a small village on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

While she feels safer now, she said she was afraid that she may have to return to her husband, who has refused to grant her a divorce.

Sharifah Shakirah, a refugee herself and founder of the Rohingya Women Development Network, said Rohingyas have no legal status in Malaysia, and their marriages are not recognised. This can make it harder for law enforcement to intervene in domestic abuse cases, even when they involve children.

“To ask help from lawyers and police is not easy because they (Rohingyas) don’t have legal status. Even when cases of child brides are reported, the police don’t take action,” said Sharifah, who provides help and counselling to Rohingya women.

‘LIFE OF DIGNITY’

According to UN statistics, some 56,000 Rohingya are living in Malaysia, although migrant groups say the number is much higher as many are undocumented. The community is mainly spread across impoverished suburbs around the capital Kuala Lumpur.

For young men in this small, marginalized community, finding a partner and having a family is a way of elevating their social status and having a normal life, according to Rohingya men interviewed by Reuters.

The lack of eligible women in Rohingya communities in Malaysia has created a demand for brides, while some families see marriage as a way to reduce their financial burdens, said Belal Hossain Shamia, 32, a Rohingya father of three in Kuala Lumpur whose sister was a child bride.

A former trafficking agent, a Rohingya man identified only as Ali, told Reuters there is a growing demand for Rohingya brides. Smuggling syndicates can get up to 7,000 ringgit (£1,249) for each girl’s release to their family or sale to a man.

Ali kept guard at a jungle trafficking camp near the Thai-Malaysian border. He said women and girls travelling alone or whose families were unable to pay the release fees were sold.

“There were girls there who were about 15 or 16. They have no choice…” he said.

Yasmin Zokir Ahmad, 18, recalled how her husband, a Rohingya who worked as a grass-cutter in Kuala Lumpur, paid a trafficking agent 3,500 ringgit to marry her two years ago.

This was after a harrowing nine-month journey to Malaysia, which included a voyage by sea and a long period in a Thai jungle camp where she was often denied food or water.

“I didn’t have a choice. I needed to marry him because I need support and protection, and I want to live a life of dignity,” Yasmin said. Her husband declined to comment.

(Editing by Praveen Menon and Martin Howell)

-Reuters

The article Sold into marriage – how Rohingya girls become child brides in Malaysia appeared first on Arabian Post.

Fighting Bangladesh’s Sweatshops

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:09:27 +0000

by
Shannon K. O’Neil
January 18, 2017

A dye factory worker suns fabric after washing them in Narayanganj near Dhaka, Bangladesh, December 25, 2016 (Reuters/Mohammad Ponir Hossain).

In late December, tens of thousands of Bangladeshi garment workers went on strike, shutting down over fifty factories making fast-fashion clothes for international brands including Gap, H&M, and Zara. What started as a walkout in support of 121 workers fired for asking for higher pay quickly grew into larger protests demanding a tripling of the minimum wage.

Bangladeshi authorities responded by firing rubber bullets into the crowds and detaining and interrogating dozens of protestors and union leaders—sending many more into hiding. Factory owners sued scores of workers for inciting labor unrest, and fired over 1,600 more. Throughout, reputation-sensitive fashion brands largely remained silent.

The current minimum wage in Bangladesh is just 5,300 taka—about $68 per month—not enough to cover basic food, medicine, and housing. The last increase was in 2013, when the government nearly doubled wages in the wake of the Rana Plaza tragedy, the building collapse killing over 1,000 people.

While justified in their grievances, it is unlikely the workers will get their raise. The government and companies’ disregard reflects Bangladesh’s labor supply. In a country where nearly one in five people lives on less than $1.90 per day, $68 a month sewing pants, shirts, and dresses finds many takers.

But the government’s harshness also reflects the competition Bangladesh faces from other nations for the loyalty, and orders, of international apparel brands. Many already have diversified their supply chains, making garments in Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam. Some have even moved to Ethiopia, which currently pays the lowest wages in the world. With apparel now comprising 80 percent of Bangladesh’s total exports, losing even part of the $30 billion industry could devastate the national economy.

Precedent shows that the major labels only support living wages when under widespread and sustained pressure from consumers. This happens rarely—getting customers to know and care about sweatshop conditions, as happened to Nike in the 1990s, is an anomaly. Still, for Bangladeshi workers, their best hope is drawing more international attention from the Westerners who buy the clothes they sew.

Dozens killed in a string of bomb attacks in Afghan cities – in pictures

The Arabian Post Network — Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:22:56 +0000

Afghan firefighters and municipal workers try to clean debris from the site of suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. Omar Sobhani / Reuters

Afghan security personnel arrive at the site of twin blasts near the Afghan parliament in Kabul on Tuesday. Twin Taliban blasts struck near the Afghan parliament in Kabul, killing at least 30 people and wounding 80 in a rush-hour attack that shattered a relative lull in violence in the capital. The bombings came just hours after a Taliban suicide bomber killed seven people in Lashkar Gah, the capital of the volatile southern province of Helmand, as the militants ramp up attacks. Wakil Kohsar / AFP

An Afghan municipality worker walks at the site of a twin bombings in Kabul, Afghanistan. Afghan officials say two large bombings near government offices in the capital have killed many. Massoud Hossaini / AP Photo

Afghan security officials stand guard outside the Parliament after twin bombings that targeted the Parliament building in Kabul, Afghanistan. Hedayatullah Amid / EPA

Afghan municipality workers clear the road at the site of twin blasts near the Afghan parliament in Kabul. Wakil Kohsar / AFP

Afghan security personnel and volunteers investigate the scene of a suicide attack in Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province. Noor Mohammad / AFP

Afghan security officials stand guard outside the Parliament after twin bombings that targeted the Parliament building in Kabul. Hedayatullah Amid / EPA

Afghan firefighters wash the site of a twin bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan. Afghan officials say two large bombings near government offices in the capital have killed many people. Massoud Hossaini / AP Photo

Afghan security officials inspect the scene after twin bombings that targeted the Parliament building in Kabul. Reports state a double suicide attack near the Afghani parliament in Kabul killed at least 30 people and injured another 80. Hedayatullah Amid / EPA

Afghan security forces inspect the site of two large bombings in Kabul, Afghanistan. Two loud explosions have rocked the Afghan capital of Kabul, causing casualties. Rahmat Gul / AP Photo

The National

The article Dozens killed in a string of bomb attacks in Afghan cities – in pictures appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bangladesh central bank says withholding heist probe info from "foreign perpetrators"

The Arabian Post Network — Sun, 14 Aug 2016 02:11:55 +0000

By Krishna N. Das and Karen Lema | MANILA

MANILA Bangladesh’s central bank has said it is withholding findings of investigations into the cyber theft of $81 million from its account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to avoid tipping off the “foreign perpetrators” of the hack.

Bangladesh Bank lawyer Ajmalul Hossain was responding to comments by Rizal Commercial Banking Corp (RCBC) in the Philippines – through which the stolen money was routed before disappearing into Manila’s casino industry – that the central bank in Dhaka was wary of releasing reports that could implicate its own officials.

More than six months have passed since hackers broke into the Bangladesh central bank’s computer systems in one of the biggest-ever cyber heists.

Most of the $81 million stolen is still missing and the culprits have not been identified, but Bangladesh Bank has held RCBC accountable for the loss. It has said it may sue RCBC if other efforts to recover the money are unsuccessful.

“Bangladesh Bank knows enough about what happened from the internal and external reports so far obtained by it and others,” the central bank’s lawyer Hossain told Reuters late on Saturday.

“This truth is being deliberately withheld from the public domain so as not to allow the foreign perpetrators of the hacking to have knowledge of the investigations.”

RCBC has questioned Bangladesh Bank’s June decision not to extend a contract with U.S. cyber security firm FireEye to investigate the February theft, saying the recovery of the money could be “imperilled” if someone within the central bank was found responsible for the heist.

The initial FireEye report submitted to Bangladesh Bank in March and seen by Reuters had blamed a sophisticated third party for the attack and had identified around 35 “compromised” Bangladesh Bank assets. As many as six types of malware were used to infect Bangladesh Bank computer systems.

A Bangladesh government-appointed panel said in May that Bangladesh Bank officials may have been involved in the brazen theft, but its report has also yet to be released.

“That’s why I think a report is not forthcoming,” Maria Celia Estavillo, RCBC’s legal and regulatory affairs head, told Reuters. “They should finish their investigation, they should find out what happened in Bangladesh, they should find out who is liable there, they should give a copy of that to the Philippines government. And if they are confident of the strength of their case, they should file a case in court.”

The central bank of the Philippines last week fined RCBC a record 1 billion pesos ($21 million) in connection with the heist.

RCBC had expected the fine because of some lapses within the bank, Estavillo said, but blamed a couple of rogue employees for letting the money go out of the bank despite stop-payment instructions from Bangladesh Bank. She said internal investigations by the bank showed nobody from its head office was complicit.

Bangladesh Bank said RCBC had “corporate knowledge” of the money laundering.

(Reporting by Krishna N. Das and Karen Lema; Editing by Alex Richardson)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The article Bangladesh central bank says withholding heist probe info from "foreign perpetrators" appeared first on Arabian Post.

Bangladesh team in Manila says close to recovering only fraction of heist money

The Arabian Post Network — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:40:03 +0000

A security guard stands guard outside a branch of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) in Paranaque city, Metro Manila, Philippines August 2, 2016.

Reuters/Erik De Castro

MANILA A Bangladesh central bank team visiting Manila to recover $81 million stolen from its account in New York said it was close to getting back $15 million of the loot frozen by the Philippines, but first has to prove ownership of the cash to its hosts.

Cyber criminals tried to steal nearly $1 billion from Bangladesh Bank’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in February, and succeeded in transferring $81 million to four accounts at Manila’s Rizal Commercial Banking Corp (RCB.PS), which was then laundered through the city’s casinos, according to investigators.

Only about $18 million, including $2.7 million frozen by the Philippines’ casino regulator, has been accounted for.

The Philippines’ Department of Justice (DoJ) has asked the Bangladesh Bank delegation to file a legal document staking its claim to $15 million of that, but the casino money will have to be pursued separately, said two sources close to the visiting team.

“We are in the final stages of recovering the $15 million, but for the rest we hope a (Philippines) senate hearing on the issue resumes so that we can get to know more details about the case,” said John Gomes, Bangladesh’s ambassador to the Philippines, who is helping the bank representatives on a four-day visit to Manila ending Friday.

The last Philippines Senate hearing into the heist ended in May as a new government came to power under President Rodrigo Duterte. No date has been announced for a resumption.

Bangladeshi officials say the money was able to disappear into the casino industry because of systemic failures at RCBC, not just individual error by some of its officers.

The Philippine central bank said on Friday it would fine RCBC 1 billion pesos ($21 million) in relation to failings over the heist, the largest amount it has ever approved “as part of its supervisory enforcement actions”.

In March RCBC’s then president Lorenzo Tan told a Senate hearing that there was “some judgment error from the people on the ground”.

It said earlier on Friday that the transfers were made based on authenticated instructions over payments network SWIFT, and the hackers had used stolen Bangladesh Bank credentials.

The Bangladeshi delegation consists of Debaprosad Debnath and Abdul Rab from Bangladesh Bank’s financial intelligence unit, and Bangladesh Bank lawyer Ajmalul Hossain. They have already met the DoJ and officials from the anti-money-laundering council in Manila, and will be seeing central bank officials on Friday.

The team has prepared an affidavit citing a letter by the New York Fed to the Philippines’ central bank, in which the Fed said the money was stolen from Bangladesh Bank’s account. The affidavit will be given to the DoJ to file with a court, the sources said.

Gomes told Reuters late on Thursday he hoped the $15 million would be returned in a month. He will hold a press conference on the issue later on Friday.

PROVE IT

Ricardo J. Paras III, chief state counsel of the DoJ, told Reuters that it has already drafted court documents to begin recovery of the $15 million, but it was important for Bangladesh to prove it is their money.

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), a government body that regulates casinos in the country, has promised to cooperate with Bangladesh Bank to help it recover the $2.7 million it has frozen, Gomes said.

“The money is with Solaire (Resort and Casino),” PAGCOR President Alfredo Lim told Reuters. “It will put us in a bad light if the money is not immediately released to them.”

Solaire, operated by Bloomberry Resorts Corp (BLOOM.PS), has said about $29 million of the funds came to the casino and most was transferred to the accounts of two junket operators.

Solaire did not immediately return requests for comment.

The Bangladeshi sources said they were writing to President Duterte, whom Gomes has already met, formally seeking his help to recover all of the stolen money.

Duterte spokesman Ernesto Abella said Bangladesh Bank should reach out to the president soon.

The sources said Bangladesh Bank would take RCBC to court if these efforts fail to bear fruit.

It is relying on internal RCBC documents to buttress its assertion that the bank’s Jupiter Street branch in Manila ignored suspicions raised by some RCBC officials when the money was first remitted to the accounts on Feb. 5, and then delayed acting on requests from RCBC’s head office to freeze the funds on Feb. 9.

“Going to court instead of the media and various Philippine government agencies is the proper procedure,” RCBC said in a statement.

“Bangladesh should finish its own investigation to determine who the culprits were before concluding the theft was an outside job, without fault on their part.”

(Reporting by Krishna N. Das, Karena Lema and Neil Jerome Morales in MANILA; Editing by Will Waterman)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The article Bangladesh team in Manila says close to recovering only fraction of heist money appeared first on Arabian Post.

SPECIAL REPORT – How the New York Fed fumbled over the Bangladesh Bank heist

The Arabian Post Network — Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:06:03 +0000

DHAKA/NEW YORK Jupiter. That single word, by a stroke of luck, helped stop the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from paying nearly $1 billion (£757 million) to the cyber-criminals behind a notorious bank heist earlier this year, according to sources familiar with the incident.

When hackers broke into the computers of Bangladesh’s central bank in February and sent fake payment orders, the Fed was tricked into paying out $101 million. But the losses could have been much higher had the name Jupiter not formed part of the address of a Philippines bank where the hackers sought to send hundreds of millions of dollars more.

By chance, Jupiter was also the name of an oil tanker and a shipping company under United States’ sanctions against Iran. That sanctions listing triggered concerns at the New York Fed and spurred it to scrutinise the fake payment orders more closely, a Reuters examination of the incident has found.

It was a “total fluke” that the New York Fed did not pay out the $951 million requested by the hackers, said a person familiar with the Fed’s handling of the matter. There is no suggestion the oil tanker or shipping company was involved in the heist.

The Reuters examination has also found that the payment orders sent by the hackers were exceptional in several ways. They were incorrectly formatted at first; they were mainly to individuals; and they were very different from the usual run of payment requests from Bangladesh Bank. Yet it was the word Jupiter that set the loudest alarm bells ringing at the New York Fed. Even then it appeared to react slowly.

By the time the fraud was discovered, the New York branch of the U.S. central bank had approved five of the payments. It took $101 million from Bangladesh Bank and paid it to accounts in Sri Lanka and the Philippines – including $81 million to four accounts in the names of individuals. Most of that $81 million remains lost.

It was among the most audacious cyber-heists ever to emerge – shining a light on worrying weaknesses in the global financial system and into a little-known corner of the U.S. Federal Reserve: its Central Bank and International Account Services unit (CBIAS), which one former employee described as a “bank within a bank.”

Interviews with investigators, lawyers and current and former central bank officials in several countries, as well as a Reuters review of payment messages, emails and other documents, show disarray and bungling at all the financial institutions involved. But the most striking is the inertia and clumsiness at the New York Fed, the most powerful of the U.S. central bank’s 12 regional units and a mainstay of global finance.

The heist revealed that the New York Fed lacked a system for spotting potential fraud in real time – even though such systems are used elsewhere – instead relying at times on checking payments after they were made, usually for problems such as violating U.S. sanctions.

Months of bitter finger-pointing over who is to blame for the fiasco have damaged the sensitive diplomacy of correspondent banking, where big Western institutions are entrusted with safeguarding the treasures of smaller economies. Bangladesh Bank is now preparing a legal case to seek compensation for what it says were failures by the Fed, according to a source close to the Asian bank. It also claims that errors by SWIFT, a messaging system used to make international bank transfers, made the bank vulnerable to hackers.

Bangladesh Bank spokesman Subhankar Saha said the institutions were working together to try to recover the missing money. He declined to comment further.

The New York Fed has denied making missteps and repeatedly said its systems were not compromised. In response to a series of questions from Reuters about its actions during the heist and in the days that followed, it declined to comment, citing a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

SWIFT – the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, a cooperative used by over 11,000 financial institutions around the world – has denied responsibility for any weaknesses in the way Bank Bangladesh operated and installed the SWIFT system. A spokesman said: “We continue to support the bank and cooperate with the investigations. We look forward to receiving a full account of the security incident.”

Officials are still investigating the heist. But the Reuters examination has uncovered new details about how the New York Fed was slow to react to warning signs and how communications broke down between it and Bangladesh Bank. The Fed relied almost entirely on the SWIFT messaging system with, in this case, little backup for emergencies. Miscommunications and clunky payment processes meant that most of the stolen money disappeared without trace before it could be recovered.

“I couldn’t believe that that much money could be lost in the SWIFT system, and in the whole federal system for central banks,” Carolyn Maloney, a Democratic congresswoman from New York, told Reuters. Maloney, who was the first U.S. lawmaker to publicly raise questions about the incident, added: “It’s a wake-up call and it has to be corrected. To me, I see it as a threat to the confidence people could have in the central banking system.”

Last month, the New York Fed said it took steps to “help strengthen the safety of global payments in light of the potential vulnerabilities.” It did not give specifics. But the source familiar with the Fed’s handling of the Bangladesh affair told Reuters that the Fed has now set up a 24-hour hotline for emergency calls from some 250 account holders, mostly central banks, around the world.

THE HACK

Unlike the Fed, the world’s most influential central bank whose New York headquarters sits atop 508,000 gold bars stored below street level, Bangladesh Bank is not a large and powerful operation with a global footprint.

It had not protected its computer system with a firewall, and it had used second-hand $10 electronic switches to network computers linked to the SWIFT global payment system, according to Mohammad Shah Alam, head of the Forensic Training Institute of the Bangladesh police’s criminal investigation department. Hackers may have exploited such weaknesses after Bangladesh Bank connected a new electronic payment system, known as real time gross settlement (RTGS), in November last year. However, it remains unknown exactly who broke into its systems or how they did it.

What is evident, according to investigative reports by cyber-security company FireEye seen by Reuters, is that someone obtained the computer credentials of a SWIFT operator at Bangladesh Bank, installed six types of malware on the bank’s systems and began probing them in January. The hackers did a series of test runs, logging into the system briefly several times between Jan. 24 and Feb. 2. One day they left monitoring software running on the bank’s SWIFT system; on another they deleted files from a database.

On Thursday, Feb. 4, the hackers began sending fraudulent payment orders via SWIFT. It was late evening in Bangladesh and most of the staff had gone home. The hackers appear to have timed the heist to coincide with the weekend that in Bangladesh began the following day.

The first SWIFT message arrived at the New York Fed just after 9:55 a.m. and ordered the transfer of $20 million from the central bank of Bangladesh to an account in Sri Lanka. Over the next four hours, 34 more orders arrived asking the U.S. central bank to move a total of nearly $1 billion from the account it holds for Bangladesh Bank.

Compared to the great maelstrom of global finance, the sums were unremarkable: The New York Fed handles about $800 billion of payments a day. Nevertheless, the Bangladesh orders were odd, surprisingly odd.

First, all 35 of the messages lacked the names of “correspondent banks” – the necessary next step in the payment chain –according to a senior Bangladesh Bank official and a person familiar with the New York Fed’s handling of the payments. That fault meant the orders could not immediately be fulfilled. Second, most of the payments were to individuals rather than institutions, according to police investigators in Dhaka and a source close to Bangladesh Bank.

And third, the slew of payments that morning was out of whack with the usual pattern of orders from Bangladesh Bank.

Over the eight months to January 2016, Bangladesh Bank had issued 285 payment instructions to the Fed, averaging fewer than two per working day, according to a source close to Bangladesh Bank. None of those payments had been to an individual, the source said. The U.S. central bank allows payments to individuals, but it’s not common and is generally discouraged, according to one of the former New York Fed employees.

The New York Fed declined to comment on the number of payments it typically received from Bangladesh Bank or whether staff had found the numerous messages on Feb. 4 surprising or suspicious.

MISSED WARNING SIGNS

At the New York Fed, such payment orders are handled by a small group of CBIAS staff who tend to keep to themselves, according to five former employees and senior officials who worked on the team or closely with it. The unit looks after the foreign accounts of mostly central banks and its work is sometimes like “economic diplomacy,” said one of the sources, with staff having to make judgements on confidential payments ordered by a wide range of clients.

A subset of about 10 staff actually process payment requests, according to the sources. These staff, some fairly junior, can find up to 100 requests waiting for them when they arrive in the morning and may manually review hundreds of payments during the day. Most of the transactions are automatically executed.

But when there is a problem, staff mainly check for SWIFT formatting and authentication, and violations of U.S. economic sanctions or money laundering regulations. They may ask clients for more information.

When the first 35 messages from Bangladesh Bank were rejected for incorrect formatting, the hackers simply fixed the formatting and sent another 35 requests for payment to the same beneficiaries as before. This time the New York Fed cleared five of them, despite the oddities. They were properly formatted, SWIFT authenticated and went through automatically.

The Fed monitors for unusual transactions, but its system had a weakness: While credit card companies can spot unusual patterns in real time, the New York Fed typically looks back through payments, usually the day after they are requested, according to two of the former employees.

After the five payments had been made, staff did flag “several” other requests for review to check whether they complied or not with U.S. sanctions, according to a letter that Thomas Baxter, the New York Fed’s general counsel, later sent to Rep. Maloney. That manual review found that the payments were “potentially suspicious,” Baxter wrote.

The Reuters examination found that on that Thursday Fed staff had sufficient concerns about 12 of the payment requests to send a message to Bangladesh Bank at the end of the day, New York time. “The payments contained individuals as beneficiaries and have varying details,” the message said.

But it was nearly 4 a.m. on the weekend in Bangladesh and no one was available to respond. Besides, the hackers had sabotaged Bangladesh Bank’s systems to stop messages getting through.

It was only the following day, Friday Feb. 5, that the Fed began a full manual review of the orders from Bangladesh Bank, according to Baxter’s letter and sources in Bangladesh. Baxter, the New York Fed’s top lawyer, said in his letter that such reviews can occur after payments have been made.

Sources in the United States and Bangladesh said that it was at this stage that the presence of the name Jupiter in the payment orders rang alarm bells. One of the Fed’s responsibilities is to avoid violating U.S. laws and prevent payments to sanctioned companies or individuals. It was just a stroke of luck that the name Jupiter featured on a sanctions list, thus raising a red flag.

DHAKA DELAY

Jubair Bin-Huda, a joint director of Bangladesh Bank, was on duty that weekend and arrived at the bank’s offices in Dhaka around 10:30 a.m. on Friday, Feb. 5, according to a police report. He and a colleague went to collect the latest SWIFT acknowledgement messages, which would normally have printed off automatically. They found none. They tried to print the messages manually but failed.

The hackers had infected the system with malware that disabled the printer, and Bangladesh bank officials did not see the Fed’s query and knew nothing of the fraudulent transactions. Instead, according to a police report, Huda assumed there was simply a printer problem – which had happened in the past –and asked other officials to fix it. He left work at around 11:15 a.m.

Since it was a Friday, the Islamic holy day, all other officials left the office at around 12:30 p.m., leaving the printer fix until later, the police report says. Later that day, Fed officials sent two other SWIFT messages to Dhaka. The first asked the same question for four of the five transactions that had already been cleared – and those four transactions included the name Jupiter. The second message asked about the 30 other payment instructions, including those queried the day before, according to sources close to Bangladesh Bank and an internal bank document seen by Reuters.

The messages did not get through. And the New York Fed did not reach out to Dhaka in any other way. It would often take up to three days for clients like Bangladesh to respond to SWIFT messages, said one former New York Fed employee. But the person added that by that point the New York Fed should have realised someone was trying to wire a billion dollars out of the account “and that’s something way outside the norm.”

Huda returned to work on Saturday, Feb. 6, around 9 a.m., and tried again to use the printer, only to discover the SWIFT software was not starting. Whenever he tried to boot it up, a message appeared on the monitor, saying “a file is missing or changed.”

Only around 12:30 p.m. did bank staff finally manage to print the SWIFT messages. That’s when they first saw the fraudulent transactions and the Fed’s queries, and realised something had gone horribly wrong. They scrambled to find out more, but did not tell Atiur Rahman, then the bank’s governor, what had happened until the next day.

Rahman told Reuters he did not initially appreciate the gravity of the situation. “I never thought that this will become such a big event,” he said. “The concerned deputy governor did not explain to me what really went wrong. He just told me that there was an incident like this and that they had already asked for stop payment. They were hopeful the money would be returned.”

Rahman said deputy governor Abdul Quasem had told him the money was “still in the system” and would be recovered soon. “I said, ‘do as you need, it’s your department, so take care of it’,” Rahman told Reuters.

It later became clear much of the money would not be recovered, and Rahman resigned from Bangladesh Bank in March. Quasem, who also left the bank in March, declined to comment, citing ongoing investigations into the affair.

TARDY FED

As the scale of the theft sank in that weekend, the Fed’s reliance on SWIFT messaging, its lack of alternative communications and its inertia became apparent.

Since Bangladesh Bank’s SWIFT system was still not fully working, officials there hunted for other ways to contact the Fed in New York. Lacking any obvious point of contact, they searched the Fed’s website and found an email address – but it was only monitored during weekday business hours. On Saturday they fired off three emails to that address over several hours. The first included the line: “Our system has been hacked. Please stop all payment (debit) instructions immediately.”

It was the weekend and Fed staff did not respond. That email address was unlikely to be synced to their mobile phones, according to a former New York Fed employee.

Huda followed up with several calls and a fax to numbers obtained from the Fed website, according to a source close to Bangladesh Bank. Those numbers were also marked as weekday-only contacts and the Fed still did not respond.

On Monday, staff at Bangladesh Bank finally managed to get their SWIFT system operating and sent a message headed “Top urgent” to the New York Fed saying 35 payment orders were fake. “Please recall back funds if transferred from your accounts,” it said.

That message, sent around 1 a.m. in New York, would have been seen when CBIAS employees arrived at 7:30 a.m.. According to former CBIAS employees and senior officials at the New York Fed, it would have dropped like a bomb.

The New York Fed, citing the criminal investigation, declined to comment on its communications with Bangladesh Bank and on what it did that Monday to attempt to recall Bangladesh Bank’s money.

It was only on Monday evening in New York and Tuesday morning in Dhaka – four days after the heist began – that the New York Fed told Bangladesh Bank that it had alerted the correspondent banks to the fraud. A payment of $20 million to an account in Sri Lanka had already been reversed because of a spelling error in the request. But for four other payments made out to individuals it was too late: $81 million had gone to a Philippines bank and from there disappeared into the giant money-go-round that is the country’s casino industry. (See related story: The Philippine connection).

The blame game began soon afterwards. SWIFT bridled at suggestions of flaws in its network and rejected any responsibility for the way Bangladesh Bank had installed its RTGS real-time gross settlement system.

On Feb. 11 and 14, Eddie Haddad, SWIFT’s managing director for Asia Pacific, sent emails – seen by Reuters –to Rahman, then still governor of Bangladesh Bank. The emails implied that someone within the bank may have been involved in the heist. One said: “I have looked at the logs and the irregular message details, a user account was compromised within BB. It has nothing to do with the SWIFT RTGS channel.”

On Feb. 19, Alain Raes, SWIFT’s head in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, again raised that possibility, writing in an email to Rahman: “While any conclusion would be premature given the limited evidence and our limited view on the events and their context, this could point to sophisticated outsider acting with help from a malicious insider from the Bangladesh Bank.”

SWIFT, Haddad and Raes declined to comment on the issue for this story.

Bangladesh Bank declined to comment. A panel appointed by the Bangladesh government to investigate the heist said in a report in late May that it suspects some insider involvement. It gave no details. Senior police investigator Mirza Abdullahel Baqui said officials were being questioned but only for negligence.

Relations between Bangaladesh Bank and the New York Fed also soured. On Feb. 24, the bank wrote to the Fed asking what actions it had taken over the payments and why it had failed to stop them. In early May, Fazle Kabir, who had taken over as governor of Bangladesh Bank, wrote to William Dudley, president of the New York Fed, posing similar questions. Dudley telephoned Kabir to arrange a meeting in Basel, Switzerland, on May 10.

That meeting was chaired by Gottfried Leibbrandt, chief executive of SWIFT, who was accompanied by his general counsel. The New York Fed was represented by Dudley, Baxter, and other officials. Bangladesh Bank was represented by Kabir, other officials and Ajmalul Hossain, a prominent Dhaka lawyer.

The three parties agreed to cooperate. But according to people familiar with the discussion, the two banks left the meeting unsatisfied. The New York Fed is frustrated by Bangladesh Bank’s refusal to share with it a review of its cyber security. Bangladesh Bank feels the Fed should have spotted the unusual nature of the transactions, according to a source close to the Asian bank. Further talks are planned, this time at the New York Fed’s Wall Street headquarters.

The heist has already prompted a handful of formal requests for information from members of the U.S. Congress, and Fed Chair Janet Yellen faced questions on the incident during hearings last month. Maloney, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee that directly oversees the central bank, said she plans to ask the Republican chair to schedule a committee hearing on the incident.

She also told Reuters she plans to ask the New York Fed for a clearer explanation why five fraudulent payments were made back in February while the others were not. “Why? What was the difference?” she asked.

(Jonathan Spicer reported from New York and Krishna N. Das from Dhaka. Additional reporting by Sanjeev Miglani, Serajul Quadir and Ruma Paul in Dhaka, Karen Lema and Manny Mogao in Manila and Shihar Aneez in Colombo, Tom Bergin in London and Jim Finkle in Boston.; Editing By Richard Woods and Raju Gopalakrishnan)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

The article SPECIAL REPORT – How the New York Fed fumbled over the Bangladesh Bank heist appeared first on Arabian Post.

You searched for M A Hossain — Arabian Post

Multipolarity or Dependency? Russia’s Bid for African Allegiance

Gulf States in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Pragmatism Redrawing the Map

Trump’s 50-Day Ultimatum: Ukraine Ceasefire or a New Trap?

XI BRICS no show: Strategic shift or silent warning?

Zelenskyy’s Reckless Gambit: A Tactical Masterstroke That Threatens Strategic Collapse

From NATO To Trade Wars: Lasting Impact Of Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy

Student Body To Float New Political Party In Bangladesh By Month End

Bangladesh’s Increasing Defence Relations With Pakistan Posing Threat To India

Trump vs. Harris: What the 2025 US Election Means for the Global South

How US Election Could Reshape Bangladesh’s Political Landscape

Technological Warfare in the Middle East

Mongolia Visit Highlights Putin’s Strategic Moves and ICC Defiance

Kamala Harris Campaign Surge: Shaping the Future of American Politics

Sheikh Hasina Had Overstayed Her Welcome As Bangladesh Prime Minister

Scepticism over over Doha parleys

Peoples’ Uprising In Bangladesh Does Not Augur Well For India

On the Edge: Will Middle East Tensions Trigger Global War?

Centrist Coalition Challenges: Ursula von der Leyen’s Strategy Against Far-Right Gains

Imran Khan’s Acquittal Exposes USA’s Failed Plot

Western Media’s Bias Against South Asian Perspectives

Saudi Arabia has a pivotal moment in its quest for global clout

Imperative of Action Against Dubious Kuki-Chin Armed Movement

Is There A Significant Shift In Bangladesh-US Relations?

‘India Out’ in Bangladesh; stone-cold silence of friends of India

Historical Perspective And Contemporary Dynamics Of Extremism In Pakistan

Bangladesh outperforms neighbours in terrorism index

Exploring China’s Role In Facilitating A Truce In Israel-Hamas Conflict

An Attack On Israel Was Inevitable From Iran’s Perspective

Ghosi Bypoll Defeat During G-20 Summit Is A Personal Jolt For PM

Obama’s Support To Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus Complicates Bangladesh Politics

Myanmar Junta Message From Suu Kyi’s House Arrest

Pakistan’s Political Turmoil Has Implications For Global Security

ED arrests TMC’s Anubrata Mondal in cattle smuggling case

Changing Calculus Of Indo-Pacific Region’s Political Dynamics

Stand against radical Islam lands Bangladesh scribe in jail

Imran Khan Has Pushed Pakistan Into A Major Constitutional Crisis

Ukraine crisis: Gambit for new world order

Options left for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un

A Muslim Child’s Speech in India to Mankind

What’s next after Trump’s walking out of the Iran deal?

Bangladesh police fire tear gas as energy hike protest turns violent

Sold into marriage – how Rohingya girls become child brides in Malaysia

Fighting Bangladesh’s Sweatshops

Post a Comment

Dozens killed in a string of bomb attacks in Afghan cities – in pictures

Bangladesh central bank says withholding heist probe info from "foreign perpetrators"

Bangladesh team in Manila says close to recovering only fraction of heist money

SPECIAL REPORT – How the New York Fed fumbled over the Bangladesh Bank heist