BREAKING NEWS: NORAD Tracks Man In Red Suit Piloting Unidentified Flying Sleigh

 

Merry Christmas

 

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is tracking a man in a red suit led by what appears to be a red-nosed creature high above the Earth. He is expected to enter American airspace sometime in the next 12 to 24 hours. NORAD is urging everyone to stay in your homes, ensure that your children are in bed early, and leave out milk and cookies by the fireplace.

For up-to-the-minute tracking information and the latest sightings, please visit the NORAD website.

 ——————————————————————————————————————–

Merry Christmas everyone.

Posted in Personal, Society | 10 Comments

Avoiding Kaganistan

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;"

– King Henry V at the siege of Harfleur, Act III, Scene 1, William Shakespeare’s "Henry V"

Serge!Iraq is not France and Baghdad is not Harfleur. And George W Bush is not Henry the Fifth. The rumor is that George W Bush is enamored of the notion of a "surge" in Iraq – a "surge" that will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. It is all very manly. The word itself invokes a powerful rush of strength, a rush of victorious energy, a rising tide of manliness – in short, very George W Bush.

After the Iraq Study Group cut Mr. Bush from his secure "stay the course" moorings by making the fantasy of "progress" in Iraq unsustainable, a change in direction at the White House was inevitable. Waiting in the wings were the neo-conservatives with their pet theory of neo-colonialism at the barrel of a gun. Building upon their first disaster in Iraq, some neo-conservatives are finding their inner-Kissingers in full bloom. Just like Kissinger, who has yet to quench his appetite for war crimes, the neo-Kissingers are also finding a willing, albeit less discriminating, ear in the Oval Office.

Enter Fred Kagan and the "surge". Not too long ago, Mr. Kagan was of the opinion that Iraq was going swimmingly, and Mr. Bush should stay the course:

If the U.S. were to keep its troop levels constant over the next 18 months, the manpower available to perform all of these critical tasks would increase dramatically as Iraqi forces became available to handle basic security functions.

Unfortunately, it does not appear that the Bush administration favors such a course. Repeated rumors–including a report about U.S. plans to withdraw, leaked by the British Ministry of Defense recently, and statements by the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq–indicate that the administration would prefer to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq as Iraqi forces become available in larger numbers.

Understandable though that desire is, it is wrongheaded. Now, above all, is the moment when determination and perseverance are most needed. If the U.S. begins pulling troops out prematurely, it runs the risk of allowing the insurgency to grow, perhaps becoming what it now is not–a real military threat to the government.

If, on the other hand, Bush stays the course and pays the price for success, the prospects for winning will get better every day.

Mr. Kagan, always an advocate of more troops in Iraq, was more concerned about Mr. Bush paying the price for success than our troops paying the price for Mr. Bush’s "success".

Mr. Kagan has been hawking his "surge" idea for a while now.  In the spring of this year Mr. Kagan proposed a two-phase plan for "victory":

With an additional 7 brigades devoted to active combat operations, it should be possible to conduct clear-hold-build operations in two phases, totaling perhaps 12 to 18 months of significant combat, followed by a longer-term commitment of substantially smaller numbers of "leave-behind" forces. The general concept of the operation is to move from the outside in.

The first phase of the operation would clear the three river valleys except for Ramadi. U.S. forces would advance town by town from the upper Euphrates, upper Tigris, and upper Diyala rivers toward Baghdad, clearing and holding as they went and leaving behind a significant ISF presence, leavened with U.S. forces, to consolidate.

When clearing operations were completed, the ISF troops that had participated would remain in place to consolidate, supported by about 5 American battalions (2.5 brigades). That would leave about 9 battalions (4.5 brigades), in addition to those already deployed in Iraq, to continue active operations in the second phase: clearing Ramadi and the southern suburbs of Baghdad, and beginning to clear Baghdad itself.

It may be that the fastest way to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis and draw down American forces is not a steady decline of troop numbers. Instead, the fastest possible "exit strategy" may require one last surge effort to bring the insurgency down to a level that the indigenous forces can handle on their own. [Emphasis added by me.] 

He is old school – he believes that a determined local population can be "pacified" by an occupying power if the right amount of force is applied and the right number of locals are killed. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of insurgencies that have outlasted the occupying power’s will to fight. Mr. Kagan and his neo-Kissingers would argue that if only the occupier would have stayed longer and been more brutal, the outcome might have been different. If only.

My hope is that not a single American soldier has to lose his or her life in the service of armchair ideologues like Fred Kagan and their pet theories. It appears that the joint chiefs are making an effort to put an end to this hair-brained scheme called a "surge". Let us hope they succeed.

While the press has been obsessed with the "surge", the International Crisis Group released their proposal for rescuing Iraq from the abyss. In a report entitled "After Baker-Hamilton: What to Do in Iraq" the ICG lays out 27 recommendations that deserve serious attention. However, the report was released with barely any press attention at all.

I will have a more detailed post on the ICG report tomorrow, but for now, I wanted to give the report some airtime on the blogosphere.

While the ICG report agrees with the ISG report that the situation in Iraq is dire, it takes issue with the ISG recommendations for not going far enough:

Slowly, incrementally, the realisation that a new strategy is needed for Iraq finally is dawning on U.S. policy-makers. It was about time. By underscoring the U.S. intervention’s disastrous political, security, and economic balance sheet, and by highlighting the need for both a new regional and Iraqi strategy, the Baker-Hamilton report represents an important and refreshing moment in the country’s domestic debate. Many of its key – and controversial – recommendations should be wholly supported, including engaging Iran and Syria, revitalising the Arab-Israeli peace process, reintegrating Baathists, instituting a far-reaching amnesty, delaying the Kirkuk referendum, negotiating the withdrawal of U.S. forces with Iraqis and engaging all parties in Iraq.

But the change the report advocates is not nearly radical enough, and its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis. What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region: in essence, a new multinational effort to achieve a new political compact between all relevant Iraqi constituents.

A new course of action must begin with an honest assessment of where things stand. Hollowed out and fatally weakened, the Iraqi state today is prey to armed militias, sectarian forces and a political class that, by putting short term personal benefit ahead of long term national interests, is complicit in Iraq’s tragic destruction. Not unlike the groups they combat, the forces that dominate the current government thrive on identity politics, communal polarisation, and a cycle of intensifying violence and counter-violence. Increasingly indifferent to the country’s interests, political leaders gradually are becoming warlords. What Iraq desperately needs are national leaders.

As it approaches its fifth year, the conflict also has become both a magnet for deeper regional interference and a source of greater regional instability. Instead of working together toward an outcome they all could live with – a weak but united Iraq that does not present a threat to its neighbours – regional actors are taking measures in anticipation of the outcome they most fear: Iraq’s descent into all-out chaos and fragmentation. By increasing support for some Iraqi actors against others, their actions have all the wisdom of a self-fulfilling prophecy: steps that will accelerate the very process they claim to wish to avoid.

The report’s recommendations are novel because they put three issues squarely on the table: the withdrawal of American troops and American bases, movement from fighting the insurgency to protecting the civilian population, and stepping away from supporting one group over another in Iraq’s civil war. These three issues, it seems to me, are essential ingredients of any stable future for Iraq.

The report offers recommendations for Iraq, for its neighbors, for the international community and for the United States. Among its recommendations are some urgent steps that United States should take to stem the violence:

18.  Adopt a less aggressive military posture in Iraq by:

(a)  redirecting resources to a program of embedding U.S. troops in Iraqi units; and

(b)  moving away from fighting the insurgency to focusing on protecting the civilian population, and in particular halting blind sweeps that endanger civilians, antagonise the population and have had limited effect on the insurgency.

21.  Avoid steps to engineer a cabinet reshuffle aimed at side-lining Muqtada al-Sadr, which would further inflame the situation.

23.  Free and compensate Iraqi prisoners detained by the U.S. without charge.

24.  Compensate Iraqis who have suffered as a result of the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign.

26.   Abandon the super-embassy project and move a reduced embassy to a more neutral location.

27.  Publicly deny any intention of establishing long-term military bases or seeking to control Iraq’s oil.

The recommendations are aimed at fostering reconciliation and shifting to a less belligerent posture. In that they are the exact opposite of the "surge" approach. While the ICG recommendations may save lives, the "surge" is guaranteed to take lives, both Iraqi and American.

The goal of the ICG report is the stabilization of Iraq and the reduction of the American footprint in Iraq. These twin goals can serve as the underpinnings of a strategy to extricate ourselves from George W Bush’s mess and avoid the "surge" that leads to the quagmire of Kaganistan.

 [Cross posted at Taylor Marsh and Daily Kos]

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iraq | 9 Comments

Five Years

 

Mubarak Hussain

 

Mubarak Hussain is almost home. Last spring, when the U.S. government released the names of the detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, it became apparent that at least some of the detainees were not what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney claimed they were. At the time, I questioned whether the information they had on the Bangladeshi detainees was accurate. It seemed to me that if the U.S. government did not even bother to check that they had the correct information on Mubarak Hussain, one of the Bangladeshi detainees, that their claims that this man was a "terrorist" who was so dangerous that he had to be locked away without charge probably amounted to a load of bullshit.

It turns out that after five years of holding Mubarak Hussain without charge, the U.S. government flew him back to Bangladesh without even a hint of an apology:

U.S. authorities repatriated a Bangladeshi man on Sunday after years of imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a police official said.

"We are interrogating him," Tahera Banu, an official of the airport police station in Bangladesh’s capital Dhaka, told The Associated Press by telephone.

The 28-year old man’s name, according to the Pentagon, is "Hashem, Mubarak Hussain Bin Abul," Banu said without giving further details.

Police did not immediately allow reporters or the man’s relatives to talk to him.

According to the Pentagon, Mubarak, born on January 1, 1978, is from "Baria" Bangladesh, which is actually Brahmanbaria. The area is 80 kilometers (50 miles) east of the capital, Dhaka.

Today Mubarak Hussain is in police custody in Dhaka. The police in Bangladesh will no doubt torture the man a little to give Mr. Bush his money’s worth. He is being held on a three day remand for "questioning":

Mobarak went to Pakistan for studies in 1998 and taught in a madrasa in Karachi after completion of two-year study.

In 2001, Pakistan intelligence arrested him and suspecting his link with al-Qaeda, handed over to the US authorities who later took him to the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Mobarak need to be quizzed to learn his ‘true’ objective for going to Pakistan, if he was a member of any banned organisation in the country and if he had any criminal records, said Sub-Inspector Masud of Airport police in the remand prayer.

Police also revealed that Mobarak went to Kabul in Afghanistan to visit his friend Rafiq, whom he met while teaching at a Karachi madrasa.

Then he went to Jalalabad in Afghanistan from where Pakistan intelligence arrested him and kept detained for 32 weeks.

The Pakistan authorities later handed him over to the US authorities, who interrogated him at different camps in Pakistan and lastly sent to the Guantanamo Bay prison, Masud said in the police report placed before the court.

Mobarak’s father Abul Hashem reiterated his claim that his son is innocent. "If they [US authorities] had found the slightest clue about his militancy link, they would not have released him," he told The Daily Star. [Emphasis added by me.]

This is your "War on Terror". While Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, we are rounding up hapless people around the globe so Mr. Bush can look like he is "winning" the war. If anyone is still in doubt about the quality of justice at Guantanamo Bay, feel free to peruse the Combatant Status Review Tribunal transcripts. The tribunals make Kangaroo Courts look good.

Mubarak Hussain’s ordeal at Guantanamo Bay has finally come to an end. I am sure Mr. Hussain has learned a lot about Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda in his five wasted years. Mr. Bush is spreading democracy all over the globe one destroyed life at a time.

 

 

Posted in Bangladesh, Foreign Policy, Human Rights | 2 Comments

Joi Bangla

 

Pakistani General Niazi signing the instrument of surrender at Dhaka Race Course

 

"Kill three million of them," said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, "and the rest will eat out of our hands." []

I am a child of genocide. Bangladeshis of my generation who have survived the slaughter of 1971 owe our lives and our freedom to those who resisted and the three million who were murdered for speaking the wrong language or for belonging to the wrong religion.

This is the story of the birth of a nation and the death of millions. This is the story of a nation and a people coming to the aid of another. This is also the story of American hubris and American compassion.

Thirty-five years ago today, on December 16, 1971, the Pakistan Army unconditionally surrendered to the Indian Army at the Dhaka Race Course in Bangladesh. With the stroke of a pen, Bangladesh was born.

In 1971, Bangladesh, then called East Pakistan, was part of a geographical monstrosity created by the British in 1947. Pakistan, as created by the British, consisted of West Pakistan and East Pakistan, separated by the vast expanse of the Indian land mass in the middle. East and West Pakistan spoke different languages and were culturally distinct. East Pakistan accounted for the majority of Pakistan’s population, yet it was economically exploited and politically marginalized by West Pakistan. Bengalis, the people of East Pakistan, were also persecuted for speaking their native language and for being either Muslims who had converted from Hinduism or for being Hindus. Pakistan, translated as "The Land of the Pure", was intolerant of Bengalis because they were not ‘pure" Muslims.

The tension between East and West Pakistan began to boil over in 1970 after West Pakistan’s minimal response to the devastation wreaked by the cyclone of 1970 in East Pakistan. Nearly half a million Bengalis died as a result of the cyclone and the indifferent response by the Pakistani government. In the midst of the tension, the Pakistani military rulers decided to hold the first democratic elections in Pakistan’s history. The Awami League, representing Bengalis in East Pakistan, won the majority of seats in the National Assembly. However, the military leadership of West Pakistan refused to allow the Awami League to form a government.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on March 7, 1971The siege of East Pakistan by the Pakistani Army had begun. War was now inevitable. On March 7, 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the leader of the Awami League, gave a speech at the Dhaka Race Course that mobilized the Bengali nation for resistance. He began the speech with a call to arms:

The struggle this time is for emancipation! The struggle this time is for independence!

On March 25, 1971, the Pakistani Army launched Operation Searchlight to "eliminate" the Awami League and its supporters in East Pakistan. The goal was to "crush" the will of the Bengalis. The killing began shortly after 10 p.m. In the first 48 hours the orgy of killing had ravaged Dhaka city. The Hindu population of Dhaka took the brunt of the slaughter. Dhaka University was targeted and Hindu students were gunned down. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested and the rest of the Awami League leadership went into hiding. The genocide had just begun:

On February 22, 1971 the generals in West Pakistan took a decision to crush the Awami League and its supporters. It was recognized from the first that a campaign of genocide would be necessary to eradicate the threat: "Kill three million of them," said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, "and the rest will eat out of our hands." (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], p. 50.) On March 25 the genocide was launched. The university in Dacca was attacked and students exterminated in their hundreds. Death squads roamed the streets of Dacca, killing some 7,000 people in a single night. It was only the beginning. "Within a week, half the population of Dacca had fled, and at least 30,000 people had been killed. Chittagong, too, had lost half its population. All over East Pakistan people were taking flight, and it was estimated that in April some thirty million people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military." (Payne, Massacre, p. 48.) Ten million refugees fled to India, overwhelming that country’s resources and spurring the eventual Indian military intervention. (The population of Bangladesh/East Pakistan at the outbreak of the genocide was about 75 million.)

The will of the Bengali people was not broken on the night of March 25, 1971. On the contrary, while Dhaka burned so burned the illusion of a united Pakistan.

At 7:45 pm on March 27, 1971 Major Ziaur Rahman, leader of a rebel army unit in East Pakistan, broadcast Bangladesh’s independence on behalf of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. With the following words, the armed resistance to the Pakistan army began:

This is Shadhin Bangla Betar Kendro [Free Bangla Radio]. I, Major Ziaur Rahman, at the direction of Bangobondhu Mujibur Rahman, hereby declare that the independent People’s Republic of Bangladesh has been established. At his direction, I have taken command as the temporary Head of the Republic. In the name of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, I call upon all Bengalis to rise against the attack by the West Pakistani Army. We shall fight to the last to free our Motherland. By the grace of Allah, victory is ours. Joy Bangla.

Major Zia’s broadcast from a small radio station in Chittagong, Bangladesh was picked up by a Japanese ship in the Bay of Bengal. It was later rebroadcast by Radio Australia and the BBC.

As the Pakistani military crackdown in East Pakistan began, the United States, under President Richard Nixon and his future Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, chose to side with the military rulers of Pakistan in a policy that came to be known as "The Tilt". Richard Nixon chose to turn a blind eye to the genocide in Bangladesh and ordered the United States government to covertly support the Pakistani crackdown with arms and intelligence in defiance of the United States Congress. Nixon’s position was succinctly captured in a handwritten note that stated: "To all hands. Don’t squeeze Yahya at this time – RMN."

Archer BloodThe U.S. consulate in Dhaka, however, laid bare the atrocities that Nixon chose to pay for and support. Consul General Archer Blood would become a Bangladeshi hero in defiance of his government. On March 28, 1971, Blood sent a telegram to the Secretary of State entitled "Selective Genocide":

1. Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak Military. Evidence continues to mount that the MLA authorities have list of Awami League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in their homes and shooting them down

2. Among those marked for extinction in addition to the A.L. hierarchy are student leaders and university faculty. In this second category we have reports that Fazlur Rahman head of the philosophy department and a Hindu, M. Abedin, head of the department of history, have been killed. Razzak of the political science department is rumored dead. Also on the list are the bulk of MNA’s elect and number of MPA’s.

3. Moreover, with the support of the Pak[istani] Military. non-Bengali Muslims are systematically attacking poor people’s quarters and murdering Bengalis and Hindus. The streets of Dacca are aflood with hindus and others seeking to get out of Dacca. Many bengalis have sought refuge in homes of Americans, most of whom are extending shelter.

5. Full horror of Pak military atrocities will come to light sooner of later. I, therefore, question continued advisability of present USG [U.S. government] posture of pretending to believe GOP [government of Pakistan] false assertions and denying, for understood reasons, that this office is communicating detailed account of events in East Pakistan. We should be expressing our shock, at least privately to GOP, at this wave of terror directed against their own countrymen by Pak military. I, of course, would have to be identified as source of information and presumably GOP would ask me to leave. I do not believe safety of American community would be threatened as a consequence, but our communication capability would be compromised.

On March 29, 1971 the American Ambassador to India, Kenneth Keating, sent a telegram to the Secretary of State with similar concerns:

Am deeply shocked at massacre by Pakistani military in east Pakistan, appalled at possibility these atrocities are being committed with American equipment, and greatly concerned at United States vulnerability to damaging allegations of association with reign of military terror. I believe USG: (A) should promptly, publicly and prominently deplore this brutality, (B) should privately lay it on line with GOP and so advise GOI [government of India], and (C) should announce unilateral abrogation of one-time exception military supply agreement, and suspension of all military deliveries under 1967 restrictive policy (spare parts, ammo, non-lethal, etc.). It most important these actions be taken now, prior to inevitable and imminent emergence of horrible truths and prior to communist initiatives to exploit situation. This is time when principles make best politics.

The Nixon administration, however, did not heed Ambassador Keating’s advice or warning. The United States continued to support Pakistan until the very end.

On March 30, 1971 Blood sent another telegram noting the killing of students and faculty at Dhaka University:

American serving with FAO in East Pakistan visited Congen March 30 to report on tour of Dacca University March 27. Was told weapons students had at Iqbal Hall served only to infuriate army. Students either shot down in rooms or mowed down when they came out of building in groups. Saw tightly packed pile of approximately twenty five corpses. Was told this was last batch of bodies remaining, others having been disposed of by army. While there, empty army truck arrived to remove bodies. Major atrocity recounted to him took place at Kokeya Girls’ Hall, where building set ablaze and girls machine-gunned as they fled building. (USIS local who lives nearby confirms girls gunned down.) Girls had no weapons, forty killed. Attacks aimed at eliminating female student leadership, since army apparently told girl student activists resided there. Estimated 1,000 persons, mostly students, but including faculty members resident in dorms, killed. He claimed university contacts who conducted him on tour had been noted for their reliability for information in past. Told all university files burned by army in what appeared be purposeful move.

On March 31, 1971 Blood sent a telegram summing up the goal of the Pakistan military:

1. We are still hard put to estimate number of casualties that have occurred and are continuing to occur as result of military crackdown. The most conservative estimate of number of students killed in university is 500 and has ranged as high as 1,000. Police sources indicate that from 600-800 East Pakistani police were killed in Dacca during the really hard fighting on night of the 25th. The number of casualties in the old city where army troops burned Hindu and Bengali areas and shot occupants as they came tumbling out is also difficult to estimate. Most observers put these casualties in the range of 2,000 to 4,000. At this juncture, then, we would estimate that perhaps as many as 4,000 to 6,000 people thus far have lost their lives as a result of military action. We have no information of military casualties but we gather some occurred during encounter with police who were well dug in at police lines.

2. It seems clear that the whole objective of the West Pak army apparently was and is to hit hard and terrorize population into submission. All evidence suggests they have been fairly successful.

Finally on April 6, 1971 Archer Blood sent a telegram known as the "Blood Telegram". It was signed by 29 American government officials and strongly dissented from the American government policy toward Pakistan. The telegram was entitled "Dissent from U.S. Policy Toward East Pakistan":

 1. Aware of the task force proposals on "openess’, in the foreign service, and with the conviction that U.S. policy related to recent developments in East Pakistan serves neither our moral interests broadly defined nor our national interests narrowly defined, numorous officers of Amcongen Dacca, USAID Dacca and USIS Dacca consider it their duty to register strong dissent with fundamental aspects of this policy. Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pak dominated government and to lessen likely and derservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankruptcy, ironically at a time when the USSR sent President Yahya a message defending democracy, comdemning arrest of leader of democratically elected majority party (incidentally pro-West) and calling for end to repressive measures and bloodshed. In our most recent policy paper for Pakistan, our interests in Pakistan were defined as primarily humanitarian, rather than strategic. But we have chosen not to intervene, even morally, on the grounds that the Awami conflict, in which unfortunately the overworked term genocide is applicable, is purely internal matter of a soverign state. Private Americans have expressed disgust. We, as professional public servants express our dissent with current policy and fervently hope that our true and lasting interests here can be defined and our policies redirected in order to salvage our nation’s position as a moral leader of the free world.

I believe the most likely eventual outcome of the struggle underway in East Pakistan is a Bengali victory and the consequent establishment of an independent Bangla Desh. At the moment we possess the good will of the Awami League. We would be foolish to forfeit this asset by pursuing a rigid policy of one-sided support to the likely loser. [Emphasis added by me.]

For his dissent from Richard Nixon’s and Henry Kissinger’s policy, Archer Blood was recalled to Washington. To millions of Bengalis Archer Blood remains a hero. He died September 3, 2004 at his home in Fort Collins, Colorado. Joe Gallaway, himself an American treasure, paid tribute to Archer Blood as an American Hero.

Genocide in BangladeshThe Pakistani military atrocities spread across all of East Pakistan after the initial assault on Dhaka. Bengalis fled the country in millions to escape the killings. A guerilla army formed under the leadership of rebel military officers and organized student activists. This guerilla army, known as the Mukti Juddha in Bengali, fought a war of attrition with the Pakistani army until December, 1971. The Pakistani army was constantly harassed by the Bangladeshi resistance. In response the Pakistani army slaughtered more Bengalis. Bangladesh received substantial miltary, diplomatic and moral support from India during the war. India sheltered and housed over 10 million Bangladeshi refugees and successfully lobbied at the United Nations against the Pakistani and American alliance. On December 3, 1971 India formally joined the war on behalf of Bangladesh. In less than two weeks the Indian army overran the isolated and demoralized Pakistani army.

The Pakistan army, on the verge of defeat, was determined to wipe out Bengali culture in one final act of barbarism. On December 14, 1971, the Pakistan army unleased the paramilitary units al-Badr and al-Shams to exterminate Bengali intellectuals. The goal was to find and kill Bengali political thinkers, educators, scientists, poets, doctors, lawyers, journalists and other intellectuals. The al-Badr and al-Shams fanned out with lists of names to find and execute the core of the Bengali intellectuals. The intellectuals were arrested and taken to Rayerbazar, a marshy area in Dhaka city. There, they were gunned down with their eyes blindfolded and their hands tied behind their backs. Over 1000 dead intellectuals were slaughtered in Dhaka city alone on the night of December 14.

On December 16, 1971 the Pakistani army in Bangladesh formally surrendered. At the cost of three million dead the nation of Bangladesh was born. It was the most concentrated act of genocide of the Twentieth Century. Thirty-five years after the birth of the nation, many have forgotten the sacrifices of those who are no longer with us. But for those of us who survived, for our parents who kept us safe through the months of terror, there is no erasing the horrors of 1971.

We, the children of genocide, on this day remember our fallen. Those who died are remembered in silent black and white pictures hanging on practically every Bangladeshi’s home. The pictures are usually of someone young, a boy or a girl, a brother or a sister, who was killed in a ditch, or maybe in their home, whose body was either found floating in a river or a pond, or who simply "disappeared". We, the children of genocide, understand the true nature of war. There is no glory in it – only inhumanity and death. Only loved ones not with us, only images of terror as army boots kick down your door in the middle of the night, only the warmth of a mother’s arms as planes come in for another strafing run.

I am scarred by the legacy of 1971. I despise war. I cannot understand why anyone would launch a war of choice. Those who have never suffered war cannot fathom its evils. My wish for the reader who has not suffered war is that war is never visited upon you. In 1971 the people of Bangladesh fought to survive, we fought the extermination of our society. They slaughtered millions of us yet they did not prevail. The end of the war was a forgone conclusion at the very beginning. Having launched the war, Pakistan was condemned to lose it. Yet, they killed three million before they finally accepted defeat. Why?

So, today I say "Joi Bangla". The phrase means "Victory for Bangla". Ours was a victory over extermination. Never forget.

Posted in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Liberation War, Human Rights, Personal | 12 Comments

Muhammad Yunus Accepts The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize

 

Professor Yunus at the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony

 

Today Mohammad Yunus accepted the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in Oslo, Norway. He shares the Nobel Prize jointly with Grameen Bank, the microcredit bank he founded. While Bangladesh teeters on the brink, the ceremony at Oslo City Hall offered hope at a time of disturbing developments in the country.

Professor Yunus’s Nobel Lecture today was a call to arms on the global war on poverty. Below are excerpts from his speech. The full text is available here. A video of the ceremony is available here.

By giving us this prize, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given important support to the proposition that peace is inextricably linked to poverty. Poverty is a threat to peace.

World’s income distribution gives a very telling story. Ninety four percent of the world income goes to 40 percent of the population while sixty percent of people live on only 6 per cent of world income. Half of the world population lives on two dollars a day. Over one billion people live on less than a dollar a day. This is no formula for peace.

The new millennium began with a great global dream. World leaders gathered at the United Nations in 2000 and adopted, among others, a historic goal to reduce poverty by half by 2015. Never in human history had such a bold goal been adopted by the entire world in one voice, one that specified time and size. But then came September 11 and the Iraq war, and suddenly the world became derailed from the pursuit of this dream, with the attention of world leaders shifting from the war on poverty to the war on terrorism. Till now over $ 530 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq by the USA alone.

I believe terrorism cannot be won over by military action. Terrorism must be condemned in the strongest language. We must stand solidly against it, and find all the means to end it. We must address the root causes of terrorism to end it for all time to come. I believe that putting resources into improving the lives of the poor people is a better strategy than spending it on guns.

I believe that we can create a poverty-free world because poverty is not created by poor people. It has been created and sustained by the economic and social system that we have designed for ourselves; the institutions and concepts that make up that system; the policies that we pursue.

Poverty is created because we built our theoretical framework on assumptions which under-estimates human capacity, by designing concepts, which are too narrow (such as concept of business, credit- worthiness, entrepreneurship, employment) or developing institutions, which remain half-done (such as financial institutions, where poor are left out). Poverty is caused by the failure at the conceptual level, rather than any lack of capability on the part of people.

I firmly believe that we can create a poverty-free world if we collectively believe in it. In a poverty-free world, the only place you would be able to see poverty is in the poverty museums. When school children take a tour of the poverty museums, they would be horrified to see the misery and indignity that some human beings had to go through. They would blame their forefathers for tolerating this inhuman condition, which existed for so long, for so many people.

A human being is born into this world fully equipped not only to take care of him or herself, but also to contribute to enlarging the well being of the world as a whole. Some get the chance to explore their potential to some degree, but many others never get any opportunity, during their lifetime, to unwrap the wonderful gift they were born with. They die unexplored and the world remains deprived of their creativity, and their contribution.

Grameen has given me an unshakeable faith in the creativity of human beings. This has led me to believe that human beings are not born to suffer the misery of hunger and poverty.

To me poor people are like bonsai trees. When you plant the best seed of the tallest tree in a flower-pot, you get a replica of the tallest tree, only inches tall. There is nothing wrong with the seed you planted, only the soil-base that is too inadequate. Poor people are bonsai people. There is nothing wrong in their seeds. Simply, society never gave them the base to grow on. All it needs to get the poor people out of poverty for us to create an enabling environment for them. Once the poor can unleash their energy and creativity, poverty will disappear very quickly.

Let us join hands to give every human being a fair chance to unleash their energy and creativity.

Congratulations Professor Yunus.

Posted in Bangladesh, Human Rights | 4 Comments