The enemy within
-President George W. Bush, Oct.6, 2005.
PRESIDENT Bush, speaking to National Endowment for Democracy in Washington was giving his view on Islamic militancy. I will be quoting the speech at length as I think it is for the first time the US administration has explained its thoughts on the rising Islamic militancy in such frank and pragmatic terms. Again, never has it been more relevant to Bangladesh than it is now. Our political leaders of every hue need to read it and try to understand the message it is conveying. President Bush may not be every Bangladeshi's favorite American, but he speaks for his administration and the majority of his nation. We may not agree with his actions, but it would be foolish for us not to understand reasons for those actions.
Every nation has the right to protect its interest. Historically, in the pursuit of that interest, many nations have gone beyond their borders. The justification for that have been the circumstances for such action, and the righteousness has gone to the victor. Let us not forget that the last century has been the most violent in the history of mankind. More wars have been fought, and more people killed in wars, mainly civilians, than in the past two thousand years. The US has been a party to most of the major wars, usually on the right moral side of the conflict. But we need to understand how it got there, as it is important to understanding the thinking of the American people.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel. Isolation
President Bush speaks of militants wanting "to blackmail our government into isolation". The beginning of the last century saw unprecedented development in the US. Between 1897 and 1914, its GDP trebled. In the first decade, nine million immigrants, almost all from Europe, came to the US. These people were fleeing poverty, persecution and war in their own countries. Once in the US, they did not want to look back at the horrors they left behind. This greatly influenced American public opinion. While the world was witnessing conflicts in different parts of the world, the American public opinion was against US involvement. This was in spite of the United States own war with Spain in Cuba and the Philippines. This was the theory of isolation. It was strongest in rural and small-town America in the Midwest and Great Plains and among Republicans more than among Democrats. By the beginning of the second decade, the nations of Europe were busy jostling for power and territory, and war in Europe seemed imminent. In Asia, the Japanese were already in Korea and Manchuria. The Chinese civil war had started and Russia was in turmoil. In spite of all these ominous signs of approaching world instability, the people of the US were strongly against any military intervention, and even as war broke out in 1914, most politicians urged a policy of isolation. In fact, then President Woodrow Wilson narrowly won re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of the War". It was only when armed and navy-escorted American merchant ships, taking supplies to Britain were sunk by German submarines that Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war. The United States fought in World War I as an associate power, not as an ally. Despite President Woodrow Wilson's leadership the Senate rejected the Versailles treaty ending that war, and the United States never became a member of the League of Nations.
As an American historian writes, "In the 1920s and 1930s the term isolationism came into widespread denigrating use, but the majority continued to oppose involvement in European wars and alliances. The year 1940 marked a turning point for isolationists. German military triumphs in Europe and the Battle of Britain forced widespread American reconsideration of its relation to the war. Many worried that if Germany and Italy triumphed in Europe and Africa, and Japan triumphed in East Asia, the Western Hemisphere could be the next target. Even if America withstood assaults, its democracy, freedom, and economy could be traumatized in the "fortress America" it might have to maintain to guard its security. Given that frightening worst-case scenario, the majority, by the autumn of 1940, believed it important to ensure the defeat of the Axis even at the risk of war. But in 1940-1941 many still supported the noninterventionist America. Isolationists failed to block proposals by the Roosevelt administration to aid victims of Axis aggression with methods short of war. Nonetheless, 80 percent of Americans opposed any declaration of war against the Axis states. Not until after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and Germany and Italy declared war on the United States on December 11 did America turn to full-scale war against the Axis."
In the aftermath of the 2nd World War, changing technology, deepening ideological divisions, the emergence of newly independent nations and the creation of the United Nations made isolation impractical. The Cold War saw the emergence of two super powers, and many democracies, particularly of Western Europe, looked upon the US as the main defender against communism. However, American involvement in Vietnam and the resulting high loss of American lives made the American people again wary of foreign involvement. After Vietnam, American presidents have been reluctant to commit US troops to foreign soil. It took all of Margaret Thatcher's persuasive powers to convince President Bush Senior to lead the coalition troops in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait.
The average American's knowledge of the world is limited. Most have not traveled abroad. In fact a great many have not gone beyond their own States. It is difficult for them to understand why US troops should go to places they have not even heard of, to defend democracy or whatever other objectives there may be. But 9/11 changed all that. For the first time, violence inspired and executed by foreigners, hit mainland USA. In defense of their nation the Americans are prepared to take whatever action they see fit. And the American people are prepared to support this strategy. However, the intervention in Iraq may have been miscalculated, and once again American public opinion seems to be veering towards disengagement and withdrawal of US forces. Perhaps this is what President Bush is referring to when he says the militants want to blackmail the US into isolation.
Is isolation good for the US or the rest of the world? It is not good for them, and certainly not for us. We may not agree with the Bush administration's handling of world affairs. But we should not judge the American people by one administration's mishandling of foreign policy. Old and emerging democracies cannot forget a century of US defense of democracy against aggression, against fascism, communism and other forms of totalitarianism. We need the US much more than they need us. In the coming days, we will have to face the reality of Islamic militancy that has entered our front door. We can not do it by ourselves alone, as it is not an internal problem, but an international one. How so? Well. Let's examine the problem.
From Spain to Indonesia
President Bush talks of the militants wanting to set up a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. Some will say it is mere rhetoric. But does it not have some linkage with what is happening in this part of the world? Look at the map of Asia. Then put dots on all the places experiencing Islamic militancy in some form or the other. Spain, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Caucuses (Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia, Kabardino-Balkaria), Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, south Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and even Philippines. Connect the dots. What do you see? Now look again at Afghanistan, the fountainhead of our militancy, and think Taliban and al Qaeda. Link it to Pakistan (JUI), Bangladesh (JMB), Myanmar (Rohingya), south Thailand (Jemaah Islamiah (J.I.), Malaysia (J.I.), Indonesia (J.I.), Philippines (Abu Sayyaf). The picture gets clearer. All these militant groups have Taliban/al Qaeda links. The governments of Malaysia and Singapore have been able to greatly dismantle the militant organizations. Thailand is struggling to contain it while we haven't yet begun to understand it.
Militancy works in different ways. If we take Iraq as an example, we see different militant groups working for different reasons. We find different groups of pure Iraqi insurgents fighting to oust the US led coalition forces. Then we have different Islamic militants, some backed by al Qaeda, some by other forces. Each wants to impose their own version of government where ordinary people will have little say. In a recent issue, Time magazine carried an interview of a former member of Saddam's Republic Guard who is now a trainer and facilitator for suicide bombers. He works as a free lancer for different groups including the jihadist ones. Of them he says that he fears they want to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan, with a Taliban style government. He says, "one day, when the Americans have gone, we will need to fight another war, against these jihadis. They won't leave quietly."
In his speech, President Bush has analyzed this interestingly. "Many militants are a part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaedaparamilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world."
In our own case, we know that the JMB are one of the militant groups carrying out the bombings. We know they are veterans of Afghan wars and are linked to Taliban, who are now themselves completely under al Qaeda leadership. "The Taliban are the followers of the "Deobandi" school of thought, preached by clerics in Pakistani madrassas. The Deobandi School emerged as a reform movement in British India with the aim of rejuvenating Islamic society in a colonial state. The Pakistani version of the Deobandi schools in Afghan refugee camps were, however, often run by in-experienced and semi-literate mullahs, associated with Pakistan's 'Jami'at-e Ulema-e Islam' (JUI) political party" (Kawun Kakar). Deobandi schools abound in India and to think our militants do not have connections would be extremely naïve. India too is facing a new wave of jihadi violence that has spilled outside of Kashmir and links will surely be found tying it to Pakistani and Afghan militants. Now take Abu Sayaaf (fighting for independence) in the Philippines, and J.I (for an Islamic state) in Indonesia. Both are directly linked to al Qaeda, who provides them finance, bomb making know-how, and now, suicide bombers. Ties between Rohingyas (fighting for a free Arakan state) and JBM have been established. With all links ending up in Afghanistan, we should presume our militants have other regional links as well, and share similar ideology and vision of the world they want to impose on us.
September 11, July 7 and August 17
No matter how much terror you read about or see on TV, one can not fathom its impact till it hits home. 9/11 changed not only the US but impacted the world. The US has the most expensive and sophisticated intelligence services in our history. Even they could not prevent the attacks. The British intelligence services may not be as sophisticated, but are no less efficient. They too failed to stop the terrorists striking. However, both the governments and their parliaments recognized the intelligence failures and took steps to reform the agencies. The attacks on the US and Britain deepened their resolve to fight back. They identified their enemies and set in motion their defense mechanism. In case of 9/11, it was an attack on the US by foreigners, al Qaeda to be precise, backed by the Taliban. The US and Britain took the battle to the source. 7th July too was an attack by foreigners (even if British born), a small minority against a majority population. Britain is embarking on a series of actions to contain and reduce further attacks. Neither country will be same again, and this loss is ours. August 17 is different in that it is an attack by members of the same population against their own people.
Anyone who does not think that August 17 has altered all political equations in Bangladesh lives in a fool's paradise, a paradise populated by short-sighted, half-educated, greedy politicians and their self-serving bureaucratic cohorts. August 17, unlike 9/11 and July 7, did not happen overnight. The signs were there for all to see. To say our intelligence services failed would be a colossal understatement. They may not have had any information of their own on the development on the militancy, but surely they can read. For over four years our media has been reporting the growth of this problem. Unresolved bombing incidents, grenade attacks, arms haul, denial of existence of JMB can not all be a mere coincidence. There has to be a greater design. Only the future will tell us what it is.
After the terrorist's attacks in their countries, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair spoke to their citizens, explained the nature of the threat they faced and what steps the government was taking to protect them. The political parties rallied behind the government and the parliaments debated the issues. Unfortunately, the people of Bangladesh did not receive this courtesy from its politicians. When the Prime Minister cut short her visit to China, we all expected she would address the nation and tell us about the attacks, the steps her government was taking to overhaul the security services and the protection the citizens could expect from her government. Alas, this was not to be. Nor did the parliament discuss this serious situation. In fact, though every district in the country was affected, the BNP did not see fit to call a meeting of its parliamentary party and take stock of the situation. Shocking it may be but not surprising, as in four years, the only two decisions the parliamentary party took was the election of Begum Khaleda Zia as its leader and the ouster of Dr. B Choudhury from the presidency.
Recently a press report (The Daily Star, 19thOct) said Senior Joint Secretary General of BNP, Mr. Tarique Rahman had meetings with a number of foreign diplomats and discussed the August 17 serial blasts and the militant activities in the country. The report does not tell us in what capacity Mr. Rahman held these meetings, but only points out that no cabinet minister or government representatives took part in the meetings. We do not know what wisdom Mr. Rahman imparted to the diplomats, but the report quotes a High Commissioner saying "he could not agree with Tarique's interpretations of the August 17 blasts and the extremist activities in the country". After the Prime Minister, Mr. Rahman is virtually the leading member of his party, one that he is expected to lead into the next election. It would be nice if he shared with his own party and its voters the thoughts he shared with the foreign diplomats.
In a seminar organized by the Awami League on "The Rise of Militancy", Prof Abu Syeed laid all blame for militancy on the BNP led alliance government, and accused the Jamaat-i-Islami of being the mother body of all militant groups (The Daily Star, 26thOctober). He went on to quote "remarkable" statistics in which he claimed "Jamaat reportedly has nine percent men in the civil service, 18 percent in education, 21 percent in health and 12 percent in the police force". He also alleged that Jamaat has made significant inroads into the army. He went on to say that most of the religious instructors inside the army are Jamaat followers. I do not know where Prof Sayeed got his figures from. But as he suggests, this militancy, or the penetration of Jamaat into every aspect of our society did not happen overnight. So what did the Awami League do during it rule? Then, what does this party intend to do to contain the militancy it claims to understand so well?
Can militancy develop in a normally homogeneous society unless there is some cause for popular discontent? Are not the political parties themselves to blame for creating the grounds for Islamic fundamentalism to grow in our famously fertile soil? Let's take a look at our own brand of militancy.
Home grown
President Bush in his speech compares Islamic radicalism with communism. "The murderous ideology of the Islamic radicals is the great challenge of our new century. Yet, in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century....like communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses...like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies". President Bush may be right about the culmination of communism, but he tends to ignore the reasons for its origin. Perhaps it was not relevant to his audience, but it is certainly to us. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia, the birth of the Chinese communist party, other communist movements, all were against corrupt, authoritarian, non democratic regimes. Its basic objective was to improve the lot of the common man. People who rose in revolt had nothing to lose as those who governed them, be it an Imperial family and its attendant nobility as in Russia, or Warlords in China, offered nothing but misery and serfdom. It is true that in USSR, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba and elsewhere, the leadership of the rebellion became the elitist new dictatorship. Islamic radicalism will be no different. By their own admission, the jihadis believe that state will have only one ruler who will govern by the dictates of the Holy Book. The ultimate power in Iran lies not with the people, but with a single person.
Most countries that are targeted by Islamic militants do not have true people's government. It is Kingdoms, Sheikhdoms or non working forms of democracy. When people lose faith in those who are ruling them, when the system of government fails, and above all, when the ruling elite are seen to be grossly corrupt, people have turned to other faiths. It can be faith in an ideology as in the case of communism, or faith in religion as is the case now. The people of Bangladesh are naturally religious but have been politically secular. So what is it that is driving some of them to look at religion as a possible system of governance? The answer lies with our politicians and our practice of so called democracy.
The people of region that is now Bangladesh have very little experience of real democracy. When in 1991, we finally adopted a constitution based on the Westminster pattern of governance, al most no Member of the 5th Shangsad had previous experience of such a parliament. They did not understand that the constitution is not the only tool of democracy, that democracy involves precedents, understanding and respect for all institutions. Intolerance appeared sooner than expected and within three years the opposition left the parliament, almost never to re-enter, be it the Awami League or the BNP. A state has three organs; the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. We have made the first, the legislature, irrelevant. By now the second, the executive is perceived to inept, and of more importance, totally corrupt. It includes the political masters and the civil and law enforcing bureaucracies. Of the third, the lower judiciary is under executive control and even the higher judiciary is under attack from the very people who practice law. Some commentators have suggested that Bangladesh is becoming a "failed state". Without going as far as that, it would not be imprudent to say we are become a "flawed state".
It is in this backdrop that the Islamic militants have appeared on the scene. The start of the JMB vigilante operation in some areas of north Bangladesh should not come as a surprise. That is exactly how the Taliban movement started. Mullah Muhammad Omar, as an Afghan refugee, was a product of the "Deobandi" madrassas ran by the JUI in Pakistan.
"The cycle of violence, destruction, and chaos of the Mujahideen era created the condition for the rise of the puritanical Taliban. There are several versions of how a small group of Taliban, led by Mullah Muhammad Omar took control of areas around Qandahar in 1994. According to the most widely circulated account amongst the residents of Qandahar, a group of "madrasee" Taliban, headed by Mullah Mohammad Omar arrived in Afghanistan with the intent to re-establish law and order and to re-organize themselves. They took residence in a school near Dand in Qandahar. On September 20, 1994, an Afghan family on its way to Herat from Qandahar, was looted, its male members molested, and its female members were raped by gangs manning one of the so-called "check points" along the route. One of the victims escaped and reached the newly established Taliban compound. The story goes that Mullah Omar and his followers rushed to the scene, capturing the perpetrators, executing them on the spot and then collecting and burying the bodies of the victims. It is this fateful incident, the Taliban claim, which marked the beginning of their campaign in Afghanistan. The Taliban then moved in and disarmed other groups in the area. They began consolidating their position and procuring weapons by winning the allegiance of several local military commanders." (Kawun Kakar, Institute of Afghan Studies).
The similarity of the origin of the Taliban movement and the beginning of Islamic militancy in Bangladesh is uncanny. A flawed state, deterioration of law and order, unbridled corruption, widening gap between the rich and the poor, support by a section of law enforcers, all are contributing to set up the backdrop. Aside from the known militant groups, we must presume there are also other cells in operation. Most of these cells will be independent of each other and not all are madrassa oriented. For instance, Hizb ut-Tahrir is preaching the message of Islamic rule to the students of our public and private universities. So, can we halt this seeming tide that is fast coming upon us? Yes, it is possible, but for that we need to totally change the way we think.
A changed mindset
First, this militancy is not a law-and-order problem. It is a political problem. Politicians need to understand this. The militants are not merely attacking our cities and towns, but are attacking our political system. They know they can not come to power through an electoral process, so they want to demonstrate that democracy can not work in a country like Bangladesh. Anybody who thinks the JMB has been contained and that violence will end has not studied the nature of the problem. The crack down on the JMB and other militants will see the emergence of other groups in an ever escalating level of terror. We have to face this reality and take our people into confidence. Governments, of any colour and composition, can not fight this alone. It is only the people who can resist this attack. This nation has sacrificed a lot for democracy and the vast majority is willing to make more sacrifices. But we cannot ask them to make sacrifices for something they do not have. A vote once every five years is not democracy. The people have to see democracy work. They need to see our leaders accountable to parliament and members of parliament accountable to the people. They need to honesty in their leaders and transparency in their actions.
Second, we have to change our mindset and accept the reality of the situation. We have to overhaul our law enforcing and security services. The military too needs to address the problem and re-think its defense strategy. The enemy is no longer outside our borders, we also have enemies within. We need workable strategies to deal with spread of civil disorder. Our police and para-military forces do not have the capacity or training to withstand continuous and sustained militant attacks. It is almost impossible to predict what will happen or what shape it may take. Anybody who has any doubts about this needs only to look at France today. All our forces must also re-examine their own ranks for infiltration. In a small over populated country such as ours, no society or group is an island. No one can remain insulated or un-infected. The sooner this truth is accepted, the sooner the remedy can be prescribed.
Third, if for any reason we are giving shelter to any terror group (even if they call themselves freedom fighters or liberators); we must desist forthwith and close down all such operations. We need to re-think our foreign policy and strengthen our relations with all our neighbors, particularly India. We need to forge closer ties with those countries that are fighting terrorism, seek their expertise and share their experience. We need to seriously look at all possible links our militants may have with others in the region and establish ties with counterterrorism units set up by different governments.
However, the buck ultimately stops with our politicians. We are entering a year where we all expect to live dangerously. The present government has entered the count down phase to its exit. Whether it returns to power is a different matter, but as the days go by, it will find its hold on the administration slipping. The opposition will mount its anti-government campaign with more hartals and street agitation further increasing the people's woes and frustration. As we go into election mode, the bureaucracy will stand down, waiting to see who would be the possible winner. All this will be fodder for the jihadis who will be only too happy to add fuel to the fires our political parties will be igniting. The politicians, and institutions such as the Election Commission, must accept one undeniable truth. The future of democracy hangs in balance. If the politicians fail, the militants will get the upper hand, but not a free one. They will be resisted by large sections of our population. The recent unity among most student parties of Dhaka University and some other institutions against the Islamic Chatra Shibir is an indicator. But without political leadership, how will this resistance develop? Every situation has its own dynamics and throws up its own leadership. So will this. But first, we will have to go through if not a civil war, certainly an armed civil disorder.
Comments