Who wins in Bangladesh?

WITTINGLY or unwittingly, the military-backed interim government in Bangladesh is reinforcing a feeling that it is more interested in settling scores with senior politicians and less in creating the proper climate for national development and people’s progress. How else to view the arrests of the two leading politicians, Shaikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, in the past few weeks, that will essentially serve only to heighten tensions? No doubt, both the begums have their faults, and it is quite likely they had been a party to corrupt deals and much else, not necessarily murder, as the interim government has been trumpeting from roof-tops. It is common knowledge, also, that the bitter rivalry between the two in the past had only helped to retard the process of progress of the nation they led by turns. Yet, the less-than-transparent way the ground for such action was prepared through official channels of inquiry and framing of charges, does not put the interim government in a proper light.
What cannot be ignored is the fact that the two leaders have substantial mass base. The imposition of emergency laws, including a spell of curfew, was what helped maintain calm in these tense days there. But, this peace is only on the surface. The people who belong to the two political parties the begums are leading are unlikely to keep quiet for long. Worse, chances are that the rival political formations will unite in a common cause against the current dispensation, even if the men at the helm have, for argument’s sake, the best of intentions. The obvious result will be anarchy. This is not to altogether ignore the fact that the military support the interim dispensation enjoys will be to its partial advantage. The parliamentary elections are still a matter of speculation. The promise is that it will be held before the end of next year. Chances are that the military-backed dispensation will carry on with its acts for more time. Some are worried whether the democratic process will be restored at all in Bangladesh, one of the few Muslim countries to have prided themselves with the system of popularly-elected governments. Uncertainty is very much in the air. For, this is also the country that has experienced five coups since its formation in 1971 — a grim reminder to the possibility of military high-handedness and worse there yet again at the expense of the people’s will. If so, who wins in Bangladesh?
 

Out of Basra

IT should be no surprise to anyone that the British are pulling out of Basra. It was widely rumored in recent weeks, in London, in Washington and in Iraq itself. Two weeks ago, radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr was busy congratulating his supporters on the imminent withdrawal of British forces from Basra. Questions inevitably will be asked as to what he knew. Was there a deal with him? Is that why he ordered his Mehdi Army to stop attacks on coalition forces? Whatever the answer to that question, it is a departure that has been on the cards since the British started their southern pullout last year and it is one that all Iraqis will welcome and hope to see in it an American departure to follow — soon. What does raise questions, however, is why British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was so busy insisting — only seven days ago — that he was firmly opposed to setting a timetable for British withdrawal. He surely knew perfectly well that yesterday’s hand-over of the Basra palace complex was imminent and that British troops would hand over complete responsibility for security in the rest of the province in a few weeks’ time. He admitted as much yesterday when he called the move “pre-planned.” His attempts to gloss over its significance will, however, fool no one — “essentially a move from ... a combat role to an overwatch role” (whatever that means) is how he described it. Obviously he is hypersensitive about how it will be viewed in the US. He does not want to be seen as cutting and running, although that is about what it amounts to — but he will probably be widely praised in the British press for his decision. Forty-one British troops have been killed this year. This was the highest number of British casualties since the invasion, and it helped galvanize opposition at home to Britain’s presence in Iraq.
Does the pullout undermine Anglo-American relations? Probably not in the short term. It is unthinkable that Prime Minister Brown did not mention anything to President Bush when the two met at the end of July. The White House has therefore had six weeks to factor British withdrawal into its plans. Not that it will move American troops south. By common consent, there is no need to. Washington too will present this as a job done — although what it really wanted was for the British to redeploy elsewhere in Iraq after quitting Basra. That, however, is not going to happen. Longer term though, this has the making of a profound rupture between the allies. American public opinion will be quick to contrast earlier British claims about how they were better in dealing with insurgents than the Americans and last weekend’s stinging attacks in the UK press by retired British generals on American policy. They may well conclude that Britain is an ineffective and even hypocritical ally. That is precisely what Prime Minister Brown wants to avoid. He is an old-fashioned Atlanticist. He does not want to go down as the man who ended the special relationship.

—Arab News