US war on terror and Rumsfeld's visit to Bangladesh

In Iraq, things are getting from bad to worse. The recent resolution on Iraq, adopted by the Security Council on June 8, is an indication of the exit strategy from Iraq of the two coalition partners. The US, with its unflinching ally Britain, had been hard put to allay the misgivings of the other members of the Security Council on the resolution, through various amendments to it. The resolution, the fourth version of it, has been passed despite the reservations of some of the Security Council members, and despite the many ambiguities that still remain.

Coming on the heels of a senior functionary of the US State Department, Christina Rocca, it appears implausible that Mr. Rumsfeld would choose to visit Bangladesh merely to exchange pleasantries.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

No one can fault the media for speculating about the US motives behind the visit. I dare say the speculations were perhaps accurate and intelligent. The media, though, was mildly upbraided, if one can use the term, by the Bangladesh foreign minister as well as the US ambassador to Bangladesh, for speculating about issues that, according to them, "did not come up in the talks at all." The press conference did nothing to stem the tide of speculation, and the answer to the question of US request for troops from Bangladesh was also not definitive.

Indeed, why was Mr. Rumsfeld here at all? Was it to thank our government for its support for the US 'war on terror?' Was it merely a convenient stopover for the US head of defence, before embarking on more arduous sojourns? Or, was it something that we do not know anything about? In fact, one could conjure up in one's mind many scenarios with regard to this issue. But let us consider only two.

It could be that there is a pressing need for UN mandated troops for Iraq, post June 30, and Bangladesh's credentials as a dependable participant in UN peacekeeping missions are very well established. But Bangladesh's record as a prime contributor to UN peacekeeping operations may not have been the only factor.

A peacekeeping force, in the existing security scenario in Iraq, made up of their co-religionists, would perhaps help assuage the feelings of the Iraqis, which are at present highly bruised, to say the least. No wonder then that troops from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Malaysia feature so prominently as part of the so-called Multinational Force (MNF), in the US reckoning.

That the US would tap Bangladesh for troops for Iraq should therefore not come as a surprise to anyone. And, in spite of what the officials from both sides chose to say, and in this case, not to say, the fact is that the prime focus of the defence secretary was to get Bangladesh to agree to participate in the MNF.

It could also be that the recent happenings in Bangladesh and the activities here of the various indigenous elements with religious leanings, going about in their own ways, with the law enforcing agencies quite unconcerned about these, may not have escaped the Americans' notice. They are, in their own way, quite concerned about the rise of radical and militant elements, and the role of the religious schools in fomenting such groups, not only in Bangladesh, but also in the region. These apprehensions have been very clearly expressed in Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks at a recent conference of defence ministers on security in Singapore. It is only an intelligent guess that this issue was also discussed, perhaps in more than a casual manner.

Bangladesh's response to request for troops, which might have come up in no more than a casual manner, to quote our foreign minister, is appropriate, and the rationale behind it is sound. Bangladesh cannot participate in a mission where the forces invested consist of anything other than the one composed of the 'Blue Berets' under UN flag and commanded by a UN designated commander. Anything short of that would be legitimising an unjust war, prosecuted under a very subjective and nebulous concept of 'war on terror.' The resolution on Iraq, in so far as it relates to the establishment of a Multinational Force, seeks to do exactly that.

Apart from going by popular will, and the willingness of the host country to accept our participation, Bangladesh must also assess the progress of the so-called US war on terror and its efficacy, to determine whether it should continue to support something that has proved counterproductive. While one may not contest the lofty ideals behind the concept of the 'war on terror,' one has difficulty in accepting the way it has been conducted. In fact, the so-called US war on terror has exacerbated rather than arrested the phenomenon that it sought to curb.

Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks in Singapore, regarding US plans to embark on terrorist hunting in East Asia, cannot but be viewed with some consternation, not because of the intent, which may be honest, but because of the poor record of its success, in the past two years, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In fact, the US 'war on terror' has gone terribly awry. Two recently published reports make damning indictment of the US war on terror, especially of its failure to curb terrorism, and in particular its failure to reign in al-Qaeda. The reports merit deliberation. But, more of that next time.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.