The 40th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh this weekend, with the name quite literally meaning the land of Bengalis. It is more formally known as the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and was founded on four principles - secularism, democracy, nationalism & socialism. Its very often the first principle which is debated the most when looking back at where the country was and is today.
But lets not forget its liberation came after a 9 month struggle against the genocidal war launched by the Pakistani army. This after the 1970 General Election in Pakistan where the Awami league had won a majority of seats. In early December 1971 we had the military intervention of India and the surrender of the Pakistan army on the 16th of December, curtailing a war which the Pakistani army could not have maintained indefinitely if only because of the distance between East & West Pakistan.
Its formation is really a story of two partitions, the first in 1947 with the creation of Pakistani and subsequently in the struggle and liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. If it illusrates anything its that religion in itself is not the sole basis of creating a state that needs to be considered when creating new states. Equally important is language, culture and geography. As soon as Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1948 declared Urdu the state language of Pakistan in Dhaka he set off a trail of events through the language Movement in East Pakistan which eventually feed the linguistic nationalism and economic injustices felt by Bengali Muslims. Many of whom had enthusisatically said Pakistan zindabad at independence from colonial rule in 1947 but by 1971 were happy to see the way forward as the formation of Bangladesh by saying Joi Bangla instead.
Like the Punjab, the British Raj had divided Bengal into two along religious grounds. First during its adminstration in 1905 and also on its departure from the Indian sub-continent based on the Redcliffe line. The irony of these religious divisions is that in West Bengal, India today up to 25 per cent of their population is Muslim. So much for this imaged religious divide.
So clearly there are some important lessons to learn for secularists about Islam and democracy at the 40th anniversary of the liberation of Bangladesh, particularly in the Indian sub-continent context. But its clear that the struggle and liberation of Bangladesh can be cited as one of the first instances of linguistic nationalism in the world.
December 18, 2011
The Palestinian initiative this week is likely to result in a vote in the UN General Assembly which would have the effect of upgrading their status to that of a “non member observer state” taking it beyond its current old observer status and a position which has in the past been shared by countries like Japan, Switzerland and Bangladesh. A nine out of fifteen member Security Council vote will ensure the application is sent to the General Assembly to be ratified, provided two thirds of the 193 countries agree. However, a “no” vote from any one of the Permanent Member of the Council which includes the USA will mean that the application fails vetoing the Palestinian’s ultimate aim of becoming the UN’s 194th member state. The Palestinian application is obviously a move vehemently opposed by the Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and predictably endorsed by the US who has already announced their intention to veto the application irrespective of its wording.
Therefore, given the already loaded dice against the Palestinian application with the incessant dark shadow of the US’s vote, it should fall upon Britain, another of the Permanent Members to support the Palestinian initiative, thereby sending out a clear message that it is time to move on and make peace. Britain has a moral duty to support the move given its role in the British Mandate of Palestine in 1920. The process towards recognition of an independent Palestine is also an important and symbolic step towards the establishment of a dual state which ironically, is strongly supported by the USA. It is also a gesture which would in the words of former foreign secretary, Jack Straw, be the “best way” to restart peace negotiations which are currently sunk within a quick sand of dogmatism and short-sightedness. Furthermore, the World Bank, the UN, the EU and the IMF have all endorsed the Palestinians as “ready for security”.
What about a vote from Israel? Well they have all to gain and much to lose if they stand in the way of the application. Not only have they entered a phase of diplomatic isolation with the recent expulsion of its ambassador in Turkey, it must surely recognise the value in enhancing lucrative trading opportunities with a neighbour that has a growing economy. There is also the insatiable international appetite for a Palestinian statehood which Israel can ignore but entirely at the expense of its own security and international standing.
So the use of the UN is a smart tactical move by the Palestinians and probably a game changer. The case made by them for recognition as a state is strong. This week, at the United Nations, the British Government should be willing to support the recognition of Palestinian statehood as part of continuing steps to achieve a comprehensive two state solution.
But there also remains a heavy responsibility on the UK government and other members of the international community this week to work to ensure that any change in the level of Palestinian recognition is then followed by meaningful negotiations between the parties.
September 21, 2011
meeting with the Palestinian Legislative Council PLC.
On returning from on a delegation to the Gaza of UK parliamentarians recently, through Cairo, Murad Qureshi AM tells us what he saw first hand as the Arab spring enters its summer.
The trip began in Cairo on the day that a new government with the same limited powers was sworn in as the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Council came under fire from the revolutionaries who refused to leave Tahrir Square. The trip ended with news that the Hamas authorities in the Gaza strip had executed two men who were convicted of collaboration with Israel; reminding us all that it was as much a war as a siege that had yet to resolved along the Gaza strip.
In-between, I gathered a number of impressions including the following: When we first entered the Gaza strip, it felt like an open prison which was the description used by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron last year. The Rafah crossing is the only route into the Gaza Strip on the Egyptian side whilst all the points of entry fromIsraelare closed off; therefore the Rafah crossing is a vital link to support the Gaza economy. The movement of goods and aid via the crossing is a vital lifeline for the Palestinians who live in the Gaza strip and who desperately rely on this channel for their basic sustenance. In recent times, most of us around the world were under the impression that the Arab spring would have opened it up but alas, movement through the crossing is at best slow and if you’re a Palestinian painfully so. What ever happens, one thing is for certain, that is,Egypt will play a key role in the survival of the Gaza strip through its management of the Rafah crossing.
During the official tour, we of course paid a visit to the Palestinian legislative Council. We were greeted by some of their members where we were told of the number of times the premises had been bombed by the Israeli forces. WhileIsraelmay still have some difficulty accepting Hamas as the main political grouping running the Gaza strip, it is nonetheless incomprehensible and inexcusable that the democratic institution that represents Palestinians in the Gaza was bombed. Not surprisingly, the resilient character of its citizens has seen it rebuilt so that Palestinians can continue along a democratic road.
It was harrowing also to learn about the plight of relatives of prisoners inGazawho have not been able to see their loved ones since their imprisonment in Israeli jails. There are children who have never seen their fathers and who perhaps never will. The siege has meant little if any Palestinian’s freedom to move between the Gaza or West Bank, let alone toIsrael. This is where many would have worked making daily trips and the curtailment of this movement for the families is clearly isolating prisoners.
The current siege is affecting the delivery of desperately needed medical supplies to hospitals like Al Shifa, where the lack of medicines and supplies to equipment like radiographs has meant that no less then 500 more patients have died since the siege began. Some convoys of medical supplies have been allowed in like the “Miles of Smiles” initiative earlier in the month but it is not enough to plug the huge gap of critical care needed inGaza.
And finally at our last stop back to Cairo was the Al-Asqa University. Here, the educational apartheid between academic institutions inIsrael and Palestine was very apparent. This does not bode well for the future. Often links between academic institutions are the only thread of cohesion in countries or states existing within political and military adversaries but alas there were no signs that there is any such exchange of thought and views, often critical in maintaining links between states in difficult times.
All this and many more impressions made me increasingly aware that the two state solution has become just a mirage in the desert sands. If things are to move forward in the near future, recognition of Palestine is critical. In this respect moves are afoot to get the UN to recognise Palestine this coming Autumn and let us wish it much success. In the meantime, the Arab spring has yet to forge a permanent change in the fortunes of Palestinians but as spring turns into summer, one starting point can be to open up the Rafah crossing – undoubtedly, the life line for citizens living in the Gaza strip.
August 1, 2011
This morning I joined activists from the World Development Movement who were protesting outside the Department for International Development against plans to channel climate change aid to Bangladesh through the World Bank.
I welcome the UK government’s offer of bilateral aid to Bangladesh for climate change adaptation, but like the Bangladesh government I fail to see the need for a multilateral organisation like the World Bank to control the Multi Donor Trust Fund for Climate Change (MDTF) that the UK proposes should administer the aid.
The strings the World Bank may attach to the aid are clearly a concern for the Bangladesh government – and rightly so, given the Bank’s record of insisting on the adoption of neo-liberal policies as a condition for economic assistance to developing countries. And the exhorbitant fees charged by the World Bank for administering the fund would divert money away from the basic task of dealing with the consequences of global warming.
Bangladesh already has Trust Fund of its own and is in the process of setting up a management team for it. The Bangladesh government proposes that the MDTF should be managed by the same unit. While there is no objection to the World Bank acting as a technical consultant on behalf of the donors, the administration of the aid should be in the hands of a national unit.
It is important that these concerns are addressed at the donor conference currently under way in Dhaka and that we show full confidence the civilian government elected in Bangladesh. So it is a big yes to bilateral aid but a no to control by the World Bank.
February 15, 2010
I was pleased to see that Monday’s Evening Standard carried a report of Boris Johnson’s decision to allow the closure of the GLA’s offices in Delhi and Mumbai, which were set up by Ken Livingstone to promote the capital’s interests in one of the developing world’s largest and fastest growing economies.
Hopefully other sections of the media will take up this issue, because it is an important one for Londoners and for the capital’s business community in particular. As the Economist recently reported, the developing countries have grown in global importance economically due to their having escaped the worst consequences of the recession. So it’s vital that the Mayor should play an active role in promoting London in India.
I’d heard rumours that the GLA’s India offices were no longer functioning, so I tabled questions to Boris about it at Mayor’s Question Time last month. In a written reply he admitted that the offices in Delhi and Mumbai have not been staffed since last year, although he hadn’t bothered to inform Londoners that this was the case, and we would still be none the wiser if he hadn’t been challenged over it at MQT.
Boris’s vacillations and u-turns over the issue of the GLA’s international offices have been a sight to see. During his mayoral election campaign he initially condemned the offices as a waste of public money and said he would shut them down. In a December 2007 radio interview with Nick Ferarri, he was asked: “Would you continue bureaux in Venezuela, Delhi, Beijing and everywhere else? Yes or no.” Boris answered emphatically: “No.”
This went down well with anti-Livingstone journalists like Andrew Gilligan and Nick Cohen, and with parochially-minded Tory councillors lacking any concern for London’s strategic interests, but the business community recognised how damaging the closure of the international offices would be to the capital.
At a business hustings in March 2008, organised by London First, Ken Livingstone went onto the offensive over this issue. He told the meeting:
“The greatest challenge facing London businesses is globalisation, and therefore maintaining London as the most international and diverse business city in the world. To meet this challenge London has to build its position not only in traditional markets, such as the US, but in the huge new markets of India and China.
“Nothing therefore more clearly symbolises the difference between myself and Boris Johnson for London businesses, and the future of our city, than my opening offices to promote London in the US, China and India and Boris Johnson’s pledge to close down all offices promoting London abroad.”
The following month the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry announced that they had commissioned a ComRes survey of 238 London businesses which found that 67 per cent of companies said that the GLA should have offices in India and China to promote trade and inward investment into London.
Peter Bishop, LCCI international trade director, was quoted as saying: “These figures demonstrate that London firms are convinced of the value of operating these overseas ‘business embassies’. Strong business relations with the emerging economies of India and China are vital for the capital’s economic growth, creating jobs and attracting investment and tourism.
“In 2006 India was the second largest investor in London and Indian tourists outnumbered those from Japan. The London Chamber of Commerce hopes that all the candidates for next month’s mayoral election will take note of these results and pledge to keep these offices open.”
Faced with this opposition, Boris backed off and changed his line. In an interview with the Ethnic Minority Business Group (UK), he stated: “Whilst we fully endorse the representation of London overseas, we are also committed to reviewing the GLA’s offices abroad to ensure that London is getting maximum value from the money being spent on them. This review will be conducted as part of our larger investigation of the GLA and its agencies’ financial expenditures.”
Boris’s promised review was launched in May 2008, shortly after his election victory, and was headed by his then deputy Ian Clement.
At the time, Boris told the Standard: “We have started the process of considering which of the Greater London Authority’s international offices perform a useful strategic function and deliver value for money…. We will consider the role of the Indian and Chinese offices in encouraging inward investment and business opportunities for London. We are eager to get on and review the international offices’ role in increasing foreign investment and employment, delivering value for money and ensuring London takes full advantage of emerging international markets.”
London’s business community lobbied heavily for the offices to be retained. In a submission to Boris’s review the LCCI stated:
“Closing the offices in India and China as part of a cost-cutting exercise would be short-sighted and send entirely the wrong signals to potential investors and importers in two of London’s most important potential markets. The GLA may save £1 million, but it is London firms that may ultimately end up paying a much higher price. If the Mayor is not out there promoting London, someone else will be promoting New York, Paris, or Sydney instead.”
The review was supposed to be completed by autumn 2008. However, as is often the way with Boris, he missed the deadline and the results were not announced till the following January, when a press release from the Mayor reported that “the review found the rationale for London to have offices in key emerging markets is fundamentally sound”.
Boris’s press release quoted Ian Clement as saying: “It is absolutely essential given the current financial crisis that we do everything within our power to promote the capital in major markets around the world to ensure London emerges strongly from the downturn.
“We have taken a serious look at whether taxpayers’ money is being spent wisely and how to get the best possible deal for Londoners. The review has found that the GLA’s offices do play an important role in promoting London’s interests, from supporting the capital’s businesses to enhancing the image of our city around the world.”
Under the headline “Boris saves City Hall ‘embassies’”, the Evening Standard hailed the decision to retain the GLA’s overseas offices, reporting that the Mayor had decided to retain the offices “because they are a good way of promoting London abroad during the economic downturn”.
But it turns out that this was just eyewash. In response to my questions, Boris now concedes that the GLA’s representatives in Mumbai and Delhi “resigned last year and have not yet been replaced”, and that the offices will remain closed pending a decision on whether to reopen them. So much for Boris’s supposed commitment to promoting London abroad during the economic downturn.
Both Boris himself, and a spokesperson for the Mayor quoted in the Evening Standard report, have claimed that a review of the India offices is under way. They omit to mention that a review has already been held and that it came out unequivocally in favour of keeping the offices open. Boris has ignored the results of that review, mothballed the India offices and has now apparently launched a second review which he perhaps hopes will come up with a result more to his liking.
Some people take the view that Boris is a total opportunist who lacks any ideology other than a commitment to furthering his own political career. There is some truth to this. But Boris is not entirely without political principles. He remains an adherent of a Thatcherite free-market philosophy that deprecates state intervention and is concerned only with cutting the costs of government without any regard for the consequences. This has been exacerbated by Boris’s personal inclination to what might be politely termed a laid-back, hands-off attitude towards his duties as Mayor. It has resulted in a lethargic, non-interventionist administration which stands in sharp contrast to the energetic, proactive approach of Ken’s mayoralty.
As the scandal of the India offices shows, this combination of laissez-faire and laziness is proving seriously damaging to the interests of London.
February 10, 2010
