American World Order: The Beginning Of The End

Engr. Mansoor A Malik

The American Euphoria after the surrender of the Japanese on the US Naval Ship in the Pacific soon after the capitulation of the Germans was at its peak in the late 1940s’.The largesse of the American people and their government to re-build Europe and Asia as an aftermath of the Second World War was breathtaking and never again would the world at large ever witness such large heartedness and love for humanity. The US became the unchallenged leader of the Free World with the Dullesian (Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles) aid package flowing all over the world with or without their asking. This was America’s finest hour. Under these favorable conditions the Europeans pushed America for the creation of Israel in Palestine to appease the Zionists and putting the USA on the spot in Vietnam and Korea in the Pacific.

The Death of Jumbo

Pakistan ventured to the USA under these circumstances to re-invigorate itself and get out of the log jam of the Partition of India. This first trip to the USA of our first Prime Minister, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, soon after Pakistan came into being, however, turned out to be a fiasco. The US administration wanted our Armed Forces involved in the Korean War (1950-1953) after getting the relevant support from the Turkish Armed Forces for this war. Liaqat Ali Khan disappointed them as he referred this decision to the newly established first Democratic Parliament of Pakistan. President Eisenhower rushed his Vice-President Mr. Richard Nixon to India as an affront to Pakistan’s political leadership. Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India refused to entertain him and no hand shaking took place, even for the cameras, as India sought out its leadership role in the Non-Aligned Movement. For face saving, Mr. Nixon flew into Pakistan for a golden hand shake with its leaders and the rest is history. Pakistan was turned into the most allied ally of the USA.

The Nuclear strikes by USAF in Japan at the closing stages of the Second World War was not only a show of strength to the Soviet Union but also heralded the United States as a champion of the Western World in the global political perspective in the times to come. From the world isolation of USA in the 1920s’ and 1930s’, it thrusted itself, un-prepared, on the World Scene and stretched itself in Asia, Africa and Latin America apart from consolidating its Trans-Atlantic relationship with its distant European cousins. This half cooked policy backfired in Korea in 1950s’ and had a tragic ending in Vietnam as far as Asia was concerned in 1970s’. In the European theatre, France and Germany started to take an independent posture and the onus fell on UK to deliver Europe to its WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) cousins in Washington. Mr. Macmillan may have been an outstanding Prime Minister of UK in his time but he was no match for Addenauer and Willy Brandt of Germany and the good old fox of France, General Charles de Gaulle. These stalwarts were instrumental in pushing the dream of One Europe to be realized thru the European Union in our lifetime. This has made possible for Europe to be counted now at the global level regardless of the Spoilers role of the UK.

The whiz kids in Washington at the turn of this century, the new millennium, wanted to re-fix their Asian Imbroglio as a counter weight to the growing influence of the European Union and China. In the Middle-East, Israel, its proxy, had to be pepped up and left to it to control the region with least opposition. Therefore, after the neutralization of Egypt, Iraq had to be dealt with and Syria isolated from this new political gamble in the making. The de-stabilization of Iraq could not be intelligently simulated in the War Gaming Simulators of the USA with the result that the Asymmetrical Forces were un-leashed around Israel increasing the paranoia of this tinny witty state in the Palestinian lands. Then it was our turn in South- West Asia. Instead of sending a few American commandos to pick up handful of miscreants in Afghanistan and produce them at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a fair trial, the sovereignty of that country along with that of Pakistan was abused by first firing more than fifty Tomahawk Cruise Missiles by US Navy from our waters in Baluchistan to the Afghan camps at Khost across our border and then came the Daisy Cutters and B-52 Bombers to level off whatever was left of Afghanistan. My generation would now be left with only nostalgic memories of Nirvana about the annual Jashne-Kabul festivities that we attended in out teens in Kabul that was in the 1960s’.

The Israeli spread over from East of the Suez Canal was checked in its stride by the emerging Iranian reality and therefore, a new strategic dimension had to be added to the Middle-Eastern leg. This was achieved thru a two pronged approach by the USA. The first one involved the US-Israeli collusion in the exploitation of Economic Zones in Central Asia and the second, more intriguing one involving US-NATO-Israel-India was un-leashed in Afghanistan. This poor country which was already a melting pot of Central Asian Peoples’ became a hot bed of intrigues and counter intrigues due to varied approaches of these four entities, with each having their own axe to grind. The Afghan Resistance grew due to this lack of coherence and self centered policies of all these powerful players. The major contribution of this military campaign fell on the shoulders of USA, whereas, the political benefits were envisaged to be reaped by India as the regional power. The Indo-Israeli nexus was again playing its cards close to its chest and putting the donkey’s work on the shoulders of USA similar the one in the Iraqi campaign. If the Iraq War would cost the American tax payers one and a half trillion US dollar by the time all American soldiers go home from this theatre, it would cost half that much in the Afghan campaign. What is the Cost-Benefit Ratio of both these campaigns to the average American?

The economics of it can take its own toll, but the signs of the long term political and diplomatic ramifications to the USA as a global player, has already become visible. Israel is now openly defying the Two State Solution Policy of the USA for Palestine and the body language of America’s interlocutor in the Middle-East, Mr. John Mitchell says it all. In Afghanistan, the poorest country in Asia, the existing US policy has miserably failed. While Iraq had its historical reputation of getting its rivers turned red out of martyr’s blood after every few centuries including this one, the Afghans being ferociously independent, have never allowed the Czars of Russia, the British Empire and the Soviet Union an easy passage to their rugged country. They have stood their grounds while empires of the past have perished around them. How will America fare differently? Only time will tell.

In brief, Mansoor Malik has been Director General with over 33 year of experience in planning, establishing and managing national level, strategic, high-tech organizations. Director General, Marketing & Industrial Relations Organization (MIRO). Commandant, College of Aeronautical Engineering, Risalpur, Pakistan.

Senior Engineering Manager, PAF Project where he was responsible for the smooth induction of F-16 Aircraft Weapons System in the PAF and making them fully operational.

Kashmir: Junta leaders must be brought to ICJ

Abdur Rashid

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of genocide (1948) defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious groups” including

1. Killing members of the group,

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,

3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,

4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and

5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The present ruling military junta has been perpetrating almost all the crimes mentioned in Article 2 of the Convention against the Rohingya people without any slightest doubt amounting to genocide. Human Rights organizations have documented in a systematic way to prove that the junta is in fact carrying out genocide against the Rohingya people.

There are hundreds of instances of killing of Rohingya individuals like Zahir Ahmed 47, son of Abul Bashar of Khanripara who was tortured to death on February 4 in Maungdaw military intelligence office called Sarapa and his dead body thrown in to nearby river, almost everyday. In 1994 hundreds of youths had been shot to death extra judicially by the military and dumped in mass graves which were discovered by the public. In 1978 during Nagamin and in 1991-92 during Pyithaya operations hundreds of people were detained, tortured killed and starved to death by the ruling military junta. Are not these killings carried out with the intention to destroy Rohingya community?

Indictment of people with false cases like owning foreign mobile phone sets, secretly trading in narcotic tablets known as Yaba, illegally crossing to Bangladesh, and having links with insurgent groups etc. etc. with the intention of extorting money and torturing them to extract false confession is everyday phenomenon giving rise to a situation of fear in the Rohingya community. Police, Nasaka and intelligence people are roaming around towns and villages to find their prey almost all the time. Are these acts not causing serious bodily or mental harm to Rohingya community?

Revoking the citizenship and depriving the people from their political rights and perpetration of severe human rights violations like restriction on movement, forced labour, confiscation of lands, restriction on trade and business, seizure of agricultural produce in the name of tax have all been carried out under State patronization and direction. Are these acts not imposed on the Rohingyas to bring about a condition of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction?

Since 1980s severe restriction on marriage has been imposed on the Rohingya community. At times no permission is given at all to marry. Couples have to sign documents stating that they will not bear more than two children. Contraceptives injections have been given without the consent of the couple. Are not these measures intended to prevent birth within the Rohingya community?

All the above acts have been perpetrated against the Rohingya people alone among the people of Arakan because they are felt as dangerous, undesirable and a threat to junta’s continuous grip over Arakan. There is not the slightest doubt according to the definition of genocide that it is being carried out against the Rohingya people of Arakan. If Milosevic, Radovam Karadic could be brought to the International Court of Justice by the international community to face charges of war crimes and genocide why not the leaders of Burmese military junta should be brought to ICJ to face similar charges?

Author is the Publicity and media department, Rohingya Solidarity organization, Arakan, Burma.Email:info@arakanyoma.org

From Farakka to Tipaimukh the Dams that Kill

By Dr Habib Siddiqui, USA

In recent days, Bangladesh seems to have wakened up to the danger posed by construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in the neighboring Manipur state of India. There are some in Bangladesh who have a habit of translating national issues of this kind into deplorable partisanship thereby fostering disunity when national unity is needed. In so doing they commit acts of treason.

In what follows before delving into the Tipaimukh project I would like to share some facts surrounding the Farakka Barrage. Although the construction of the Farakka Barrage was completed during the Mujib rule in 1974-5, the decision to build this dam can be traced back to 1951. In those days, hydroelectric dams were popular methods to generating electric power. India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan planned on building hundreds of hydropower dams from rivers that flowed down from the Himalayas. The Farakka dam was built to divert water from the Ganges River into the Hooghly River during the dry season (January to June), in order to flush out the accumulating silt which in the 1950s and 1960s was a problem at the major port of Kolkata on the Hooghly River. A series of negotiations between the Pakistani and Indian governments failed to persuade India into abandoning the Farakka project. The World Bank, the I.M.F and other international financial institutions financed the project. So, one wonders how could Sk. Mujib be blamed for the Farakka Barrage!

After Bangladesh’s independence the Indo-Bangladesh Joint Rivers Commission met over 90 times to discuss the Farakka Barrage issue, but without any results. The Bangladesh team was headed by Mr. B. M. Abbas. In April 1975, Bangladesh agreed to a trial operation of the Farakka Barrage for a period of 41 days from April 21 to May 31, 1975 to divert 11,000-16,000 cfs (cusecs) with the understanding that India will not operate feeder canal until a final agreement was reached between India and Bangladesh on the sharing of Ganges water. Bangladesh was assured of getting 40,000 cusecs during the dry season.

Unfortunately, soon after Sk. Mujib’s assassination in August 15, 1975, taking advantage of the political change in Bangladesh, India violated the agreement (MOU) by cheating and diverting the full capacity of 40,000 cusecs unilaterally. The matter was brought to the attention of U.N. General Assembly, which on November 26, 1976 adopted a consensus statement directing the parties to arrive at a fair and expeditious settlement. On November 5, 1977 the Ganges Waters Agreement was signed, assuring 34,500 cusecs for Bangladesh. The five-year treaty expired in 1982 and after several shorter extensions lapsed entirely in 1989. The JRC statistics shows very clearly that Bangladesh did not get her due share during all those years (1977-91). There was no improvement of the situation during the first Khaleda Zia Administration (1991-96) with average water share reduced to 10,000 to 12,000 cusecs, with one extreme event of only 9,000 cusecs, during the dry season.

After Sk. Hasina was elected Prime Minister, she visited India and signed a treaty with her counterpart Deve Gowda on Dec. 12, 1996. The Treaty addressed the heart of the conflict: water allocation (35,000 cusecs) during the five months of the dry season (January-May — see the Table below). During the rest of the year, there is sufficient water that India can operate the Farakka diversion without creating problems for Bangladesh. The treaty stipulated that below a certain flow rate, India and Bangladesh will each share half of the water. Above a certain limit, Bangladesh will be guaranteed a certain minimum level, and if the water flow exceeds a given limit, India will withdraw a given amount, and the balance will be received by Bangladesh (which will be more than 50%).

Period Average India’s Share BD’s Share

flow (cusecs) (cusecs)
1949-1988
(cusecs)

Jan
1-10 107,516 40,000 67,516
11-20 97,673 40,000 57,673
21-31 90,154 40,000 50,154

Feb
1-10 86,323 40,000 46,323
11-20 82,839 40,000 42,839
21-30 79,106 40,000 39,106

March
1-10 74,419 39,419 35,000
11-20 68,931 33,931 35,000
21-31 64,688 35,000 29,688

April
1-10 63,180 28,180 35,000
11-20 62,633 35,000 27,633
21-30 60,992 25,992 35,000

May
1-10 67,251 35,000 32,351
11-20 73,590 38,590 35,000
21-31 81,834 40,000 41,854

The statement of Mr. I.K. Gujral, External Affairs Minister in the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 1996 on the visit of Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to India and the signing of the treaty on the sharing of Ganges water at Farakka reads: “[D]uring the critical period within the lean season, i.e. from March 1 to May 10, India and Bangladesh each shall receive a guaranteed flow of 35,000 cusecs of water in an alternating sequence of three 10-day periods each. This is aimed at meeting the fundamental requirements of both our countries through a just and reasonable sharing of the burden of shortage. The Treaty also has the merit of being a long-term arrangement combined with scope for reviews at shorter intervals to study the impact of the sharing formula and to make needed adjustments. While the Treaty will be for 30 years and renewable on mutual consent, there is a provision of mandatory reviews at the end of 5 years and even earlier after 2 years with provisions for adjustments as required. Pending a fresh understanding after the review stage, Bangladesh would continue to receive 90% of its share in accordance with the new formula. We would thus avoid a situation where there is no agreement on the sharing of the Ganga waters between India and Bangladesh… As the House would recall, we have already taken initiatives in the commercial sphere by extending tariff concessions to Bangladesh on a range of products of export interest to them. We propose to extend commercial credits of Rs. 1 billion to enhance trade relations further.”

In the light of the above facts, it is difficult to sustain accusations that the 1996 Treaty went against the interest of Bangladesh, becoming a fait accompli. I have never heard an intelligent person say that a treaty signed with the aim of getting fair and equitable share is worse than not having one. Was the 1977-treaty silly, too? More outrageous is the implied assertion by some that the AL government that had ruled only five years in the post-Mujib era of 34 years is solely to be blamed for all the maladies facing Bangladesh today, including the Tipaimukh Dam, soon to be constructed by India.

It is true though that India had not kept her side of the bargain since signing of the treaty. The Joint River Commission (JRC) statistics, as quoted by Syful Islam in the New Nation, March 9, 2009, shows that in 1999 Bangladesh got 1,033 cusecs of water at Teesta barrage point against its normal requirements of 10,000 cusecs of water. After JRC meeting in 2000 the water flow rose to 4,530 cusecs, in January 2001 it reduced to 1406 cusecs, in January 2002 to 1,000 cusecs, in January 2003 to 1,100 cusecs, in November 2006 to 950 cusecs, in January 2007 to 525 cusecs and in January 2008 to 1,500 cusecs.

India’s behavior mimics those of Israel in dishonoring every treaty that the rogue state had signed with the Palestinian Authority. Should not she be ashamed of her iniquity?

Let’s now look at the disastrous effect of the Farakka Barrage on Bangladesh. The immediate effects have been (1) reduction in agricultural products due to insufficient water for irrigation; (2) reduction in aquatic population; (3) river transportation problems during dry season; (4) increased salinity threatening crops, animal life drinking water, and industrial activities in southwest Bangladesh. The long term effects, which are already being felt, include: (a) one fourth of the fertile agricultural land will become wasteland due to a shortage of water; (b) thirty million lives are affected through environmental and economical ruin; (c) an estimated annual economic loss of over half a billion dollars in agricultural, fisheries, navigation and industries; (d) frequent flooding due to environmental imbalance and changes in the natural flow of the Ganges. A BSS report of 2004 stated that over 80 rivers of the country dried up during last three decades due to the construction of the Farakka barrage on the Indian side of the river Ganges.

Bridge and Husain, researchers in Kansas, USA, have identified Farakka as the root cause behind arsenic poisoning with groundwater in Bangladesh and West Bengal State of India.

As to its impact in India, the South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP), report (Nov. 1999) to the World Commission on Dams is quite revealing. It says, “Farakka Barrage Project taken up for the resuscitation of the navigational status of the Port of Calcutta has resulted in massive devastation in Malda on its upstream and Murshidabad on its downstream in West Bengal. Huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and increasing tendency of bank failure are some of its impacts. Erosion has swept away large areas of these two districts causing large scale population displacement, border disputes with Bihar and Bangladesh, pauperization and marginalisation of the rural communities living by the river and creation of neo-refugees on the chars.”

So, it is clear that even the supposed beneficiary – the state of West Bengal – did not benefit from the project. Farakka Barrage has rightly been termed by some environmentalists as the greatest man-made eco-disaster of our time. If we had imagined Farakka was the last of such criminal calamities imposed on Bangladesh, we are wrong.

Syful Islam mentions about a study conducted by the “International Rivers”, a U.S.-based NGO that protects rivers and defends the rights of communities, which revealed that India had already built 74 dams, Nepal 15, Pakistan 6 and Bhutan 5 in the Himalayan region in the recent years. It also found that 37 Indian, 7 Pakistani and 2 Nepalese dams were under construction in that area. The study also identified that India had planned to build 318 dams, Nepal 37, Pakistan 35 and Bhutan 16 to add over 1,50,000 MW of additional electricity capacity in the next 20 years. With 4,300 large dams already constructed and many more in the pipeline, India is one of the world’s most prolific dam-builders. India is committed to building more than 100 dams in eight states of the north-east corner alone.

If these numbers are true, it is important that the current government issues a white paper disclosing actions taken, if any, by past and present governments to stop India from such projects that are going to be built on international rivers harming Bangladesh.

Let’s now look at Tipaimukh. Manipur needs about 140 MW of power to fulfill the unrestricted demand at the peak hours (1700 hrs to 2200 hrs). The total availability of power from all the Central Sector plants located in Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura comes to around 105 MW. The Tipaimukh Dam plan, built on the river Barak, which bifurcates into two streams as it enters Bangladesh as the rivers Surma and Kushiara, has been on the drawing board for nearly 40 years. According to the implementing agency, North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), this 390-meter-long, 163-meterhigh dam would have an installed capacity of 1,500 MW. As a multipurpose project, the dam also aims at flood moderation, improving navigation, irrigation and aquaculture in the region. Efforts were made in the past to get the World Bank or JBIC (a Japanese development bank) to back the project, but their involvement is still elusive. It is costing India Rs. 6,800 crore — an escalation from the earlier estimated expenditure of Rs 5,163 crore. The foundation stone of the Tipaimukh project was laid by India’s Union minister for industries and Cachar’s representative in the Lok Sabha, Sontosh Mohan Dev, along with other central ministers, on December 16, 2006. According to a NEEPCO source there, the work in January of 2007 mainly dealt with underground drilling at the reservoir site of the project. The Brahmaputra Board, a wing of the Union water resources ministry, drilled those sites in 1997.

The proposed dam is unpopular in the Manipur State where it is being constructed. Experts there have rightly termed it a geo-tectonic blunder of international dimensions. The Indian government’s decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam in the North-east India is not only arrogant it is criminal to the core. It will have lasting devastating impact in the entire region. It will adversely affect millions of Bangladeshis living down south in the north-east corner of the country, weakening their means of livelihood, forcing them to become internally displaced people, and thereby worsening Bangladesh’s overall economy. It will harm bilateral relationship between the two neighboring countries. Bangladeshi people have already suffered miserably from the Farakka Barrage and cannot afford to see another one built to threaten them.

Our experience in the past fifty years has also taught us that humanity has brought more harm than good by challenging the natural course of rivers. Man-made systems like hydroelectric dams have failed to wipe out famine and hunger. More people have become poor than rich, which often time is concentrated amongst the very few that are involved with construction project. As Arundhati Roy has once said about dams, “They’re a guaranteed way of taking a farmer’s wisdom away from him. They’re a brazen means of taking water, land and irrigation away from the poor and gifting it to the rich. Their reservoirs displace huge populations of people, leaving them homeless and destitute. Ecologically, they’re in the doghouse. They lay the earth to waste. They cause floods, water-logging, salinity, they spread disease. There is mounting evidence that links Big Dams to earthquakes.”

What really concerned me most is the stupidity of the Indian government decision to go ahead with hydroelectric dams to meet her electric demand. This decision seems too short-sighted, too irresponsible, and can only antagonize people on either sides of the border. If India cares about meeting energy needs in the north-eastern corner she would better serve the interest of her people by choosing the nuclear alternative. India has several nuclear power plants that are operating in various parts of India. It is inconceivable that she cannot afford to build one extra plant in the north-east corner of the country to meet her energy demand.

Again, I want to know: what did the previous administrations in Bangladesh do about this dam? How is the new government planning to deal with this issue? What can conscientious human beings of our planet do to stop India from building dams that kill people?

As hinted earlier, the very people targeted for drawing the benefits of the Tipaimukh dam living in the Manipur State had long been fighting a losing battle to stop this project. It is highly unlikely that demonstrations and protests inside Bangladesh would push India to abandon the project now, esp. after spending hundreds of crores of Rupees in front end loading (FEL) activities.

While we are critical of Indian government’s decision to construct dams that produce devastating results affecting tens of millions of people, we have to be self-critical of our own failure to bring world attention to the gargantuan harm that India’s Farakka has already brought upon Bangladesh. If we had succeeded in that endeavor, India today wouldn’t be building the Tipaimukh dam. Whether we like it or not, we must realize that self-interest rules the day. In our world, there are no permanent friends or enemies. We are continuously reminded that what is permanent is self-interest and that has to be pursued vigorously. That says a lot about moral bankruptcy of a world that we live in and share with our neighbors in which might is increasingly becoming right, and the powerless has no effective means to fight against powerful enemies and nations that prey upon them.

At this stage, what actions and programs are meaningful for Bangladesh? Can India be persuaded to abandon dam projects on international rivers in favor of alternative options for energy need? Given India’s long history of dishonoring her agreements on Farakka with Bangladesh, can she be trusted for keeping any new promise? Are the UN and/or the ICJ only options Bangladesh has to redress her grievances?

====================================== [About the author: Dr. Siddiqui has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He is author of eight books and more than 300 articles that have appeared in many English dailies, magazines and journals (including the World Muslim Almanac) around the world. His personal blog can be seen at http://www.drhabibsiddiqui.blogspot.com. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Bangladesh Expatriate Council. He lives in Pennsylvania and can be reached at saeva@aol.com.]