The Case for an American-Indian Alliance

It is often said that you could judge a person by the company he or she keeps. For a nation-state, that company would probably be the alliances, security cooperation agreements, and defense pacts with other nation-states. While it is not time for the U.S. to abandon some of its allies, it is time for the U.S. to at least reevaluate its friends and other, new potential partners.

Conventional wisdom, particularly during the Cold War, held that the U.S.'s natural allies were other democracies. This is the line of thinking that produced the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the entrance of the U.S. into the Vietnam War. For a map of other U.S. military relations (as of 2007) see Wikipedia (link). The map depicts an odd-assortment of bedfellows for the U.S., such as Egypt, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Argentina.

Obviously, the argument that the U.S. is allied to multi-party democracies is an illusion. There are not many who would argue the Egypt is a democracy since President Mubarak has been in that post since the 1980s. Pakistan is less a democracy and more of a rotating feudal oligarchy based on lineage much like the Philippines. But beyond the performance of the actual institutions that can be overlooked, to a certain extent, is the actual character of the democracy.

For me, a crucial factor for my government is its inclusiveness. What makes the U.S. powerful is not that we spend billions on defense (though it helps) nor that our economy makes up some large percentage of the global market (also helps), but rather it is the inclusive nature of the U.S. polity. Anyone can be an "American" as long as you uphold the ideals in the U.S. constitution. Thus, the American nation is not based on ethnicity, religion, or race. Rather, it is based on an ideal of government. Or at least, this is how its supposed to be groups like the Tea Party are straying dangerously close to defining the American nation in racial terms.

Europe has been trending this way for some time now. Unfortunately, many of these states are our allies in NATO or bilaterally. In the United Kingdom, there is the British National Party, an exclusive club for white Britishers that has representation in Parliament and the European Parliament. The existence of these parties is less a problem than the proclivities among the populace that allow these parties to gain representation on the national stage. True, such organizations have always existed but they were always considered far-right, extreme, outside the mainstream debate. As far-right Europe draws on the fears produced from increased migration from Africa and Asia (read: not white) population, these parties and sentiments are being tolerated by conservative parties. In essence, conservative politics is making room for a discussion on what constitutes an Englishman, Frenchman, or German. To the far right in Europe, the "nation" is ethnically and racially-based.

This notion is simply incompatible with the U.S. whose polity thrives on the multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious, and the multi-gender characteristics of the population. While the line between non-interference in domestic politics and upholding American ideals is thin - more can be done to promote the notion of multinational democracy. One thing is to build partnerships with those democracies who do emphasize the multinational nature of their society.

A useful place to start would be India. Since 1947, India's existence has depended on inclusion. Despite the Partition, a large number of Muslims are still Indian citizens. Besides Islam, India is home to a number of other external and internal religions, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism. Besides religion, the other primary determinant among people is language of India has well over 1,000. Without a commitment to pluralism and the promise of representation promised in the Constitution India would cease to exist.

Centripetal forces are present in India, just as in the U.S. Unequal development has seen India's resources concentrated in the northwestern areas of the country, Punjab and Gujarat. Similarly, U.S. resources are concentrated in the coasts, primarily the Atlantic and Pacific. In attempting to institute a national language in Hindi, India created an uproar in its southern states who were weary of northern linguistic imperialism. The U.S. could borrow this lesson in the occasional discussions of an English-only policy. Where the states markedly differ is in the internal security threat. India's "gravest" threat (according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh) are the Naxalites/Maoists. Solving a number of local issues in Naxalite areas, good governance, equal representation, and a reduction in corruption would go a long way to bring many Naxalite recruits back into the mainstream discussion.

The U.S. should pay attention to the internal discussions that its allies and partners are having on the issue of the national character. The far-right's demand for a racial or ethnically-centered nation-state is anachronistic and dangerous. Most importantly, it is contrary to U.S. values. While disregarding longtime allies and commitments is not advisable at this stage, maintaining awareness of the situation is important. Rather, the U.S. should look to cultivate new partnerships with other pluralistic democracies.

The U.S., others, MUST back War Crimes Trials

The U.S. must back proposed trials for war crimes in Bangladesh. The U.S. government should be expending political capital gained from the recent elections to push other countries to either support the trials or to at least stop blocking and agitating against them. Close to four decades is too long to atone for genocide. The movement of Bangladesh toward secular democracy is in the interest of the US, UK, and India.

Apparently, some in the diplomatic community in Dhaka believe that the trials would "sharpen the political division in the country" (New Nation). Probably so, but only briefly. Clearly something would be wrong in a society if War Crimes Trials passed without a whisper. At any rate, the only parties truly opposed to the trials are the Islamists and that is only because some of their leaders will be brought to trial; moreover, the instability brought by the political divisions will be quickly overcome and pale against national reconciliation.

Most importantly, the trials will end the legitimacy of the Islamist message. How can a party purport to be patriotic and for the reformation of the society/government (barring the fact that this reformation is actually a fundamental change), when its very leaders are partly responsible for the deaths of millions, the essentializing of the nation and state, and were actively engaged in preventing the emergence of Bangladesh - all in the name of religion? Religion had nothing to do with it. It was a quest for political power on a platform that appealed to the electorate and in the pursuit of that power, Islamist forces killed.

The U.S. has clear interest here. If the US supported these apolitical trials, it would be supporting one of the most firm steps toward established secular democratization in Bangladesh's history. The trials will de-legitimize the Islamist political message, making the only viable alternative - secular, multi-party democracy. The trials will expose current politicians (not just in the Islamist political parties) support for militant Islamism during the 1971 Liberation struggle. The trials, if conducted apolitically, will finally put this issue to rest (though of course there will continue to be murmurs) then the country will be able to put some of the past behind it and address the more recent past (1975, 1983) and the future.

The Dhaka Awami League General Secretary's comments on holding the trials concurrently with the murder of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (in 1975) and the attacks on the Awami League rally 21 August 2004 (Daily Star). Bangla Nation that it is wise to keep these issues separate. First, address the 1971 Liberation War in full. If necessary address, the 1975 coup in the same context, national reconciliation. However, the attacks on the Awami League rally must be held in a criminal court as these were criminal attacks. If the perpetrators are the same in each case, then so be it, let the most harsh sentence carry.

New Nation noted that some countries, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and some 'quarters' in the country were attempting to prevent the trials. The only 'quarters' in these countries that would try to prevent a clearly internal issue probably have something to lose if they go forward, namely, their anonymity in supporting the genocide. They should take solace that they are not on trial and stop their interference.

If Saudi Arabia takes an official position and cuts aid to Bangladesh, other donor countries, Japan, South Korea, the US, the UK must be prepared to step in and assist.

The US must not stand idly by and watch these trials occur. By standing still and quiet the trials could become purely political with no reconciliation and no justice. By actively supporting and speaking in favor of these trials the US will be in a position to offer suggestions on the conduct of these trials, offering observers, financial aid, and expert assistance to ensure that these trials remain apolitical. The purpose of these trials is not only democratization but national reconciliation; the US must support these causes.

Sidenote, Bangladesh must still define secular: Is it the absence of religion from the government? Or the lack of government support for any one religion (that is patronization)? Bangla Nation believes it should be the latter, as a multi-religion country Bangladesh should not patronize any one religion, but nor should it deny the fact that it is a Buddhist-Christian-Hindu-Muslim-Secular country.

The Joint Working Group

Government representatives of the United Kingdom and Bangladesh met and inaugurated the Joint Working Group to combat terrorism, as reported by the New Nation and the Daily Star.

Dhaka is seeking the UK’s assistance in capacity building, training, equipment procurement, and border management. During the meeting the UK agreed, in principle, to assist in developing Dhaka’s capability in combating terrorism through law enforcement training, intelligence sharing, and obtaining equipment. However, specific items were not concluded and the next meeting of the Joint Working Group could take place “in [the] next six months.”

Dhaka also suggested the formation of a “joint cell” as part of the border management framework. In addition Dhaka is also seeking assistance in building the capacity of the Coast Guard in order to protect the country’s “marine resources and maritime boundary.”

The Home Secretary said Bangladesh looked forward to “form such [a] group with U.S., Australia, and Russia.” Rather cryptically, foreign ministry officials indicated that the U.S. and UK have proposed Bangladesh and other countries in this region to form a Joint Working Group to combat terrorism.

Additionally, the UK Minister for Security and Counter-terrorism indicated that London is very concerned about the “radicalization of young vulnerable people in countries like Bangladesh,” according to the Daily Star. The Minister stated that ‘there is no doubt illiterate people are most vulnerable to committing terrorism activities.’

The progress of the Joint Working Group is good news, particularly for Bangladesh. Intelligence sharing and training will be beneficial for combating terrorism and border management. Cooperation on the latter will expand the visibility, and control, of the Bangladeshi government in the border areas. Coupled with better equipment, Bangladeshi security and police forces will one day be able to enforce the country’s laws in the areas that are too remote to be policed effectively, such as the Sundarbans and the Hill Tracts.

There is no doubt that these areas continue to spawn violent groups, Islamist or otherwise, due to the lack of effective state control in these areas. The British and Bangladeshis should expand the partnership to include the Australians and the Americans, in order to utilize even more resources in combating terrorism (in the short term) and effective border management (for the long term). The West has obvious interest in promoting Dhaka’s control over its border areas, as effective control will limit the presence of violent groups and their ability to move freely across the India-Bangladeshi border.

India should also be engaged in this dialogue. Any discussion on border management must include the input of the bordering country. Moreover, if the Joint Working Group is also going to discuss the Rohingya issue – Burma must be included at some point. Though the legitimacy (and brutality) of the junta government is clearly an impediment.

The Minister’s assertion that poverty could make one susceptible to messages of Islamism is only part of the problem. As the recent arrest of the JMB’s “IT chief” illustrates even well-educated students can be recruited by violent Islamist organizations. The assertion that poor education, inadequate healthcare and lack of economic opportunity are shared by many militant Islamists is not exactly novel. Targeted development aid to mitigate these realities, coupled with a drive by the Bangladeshi government against corruption will help to prevent seemingly easy recruitment from the rural areas.

However, more work must be done in figuring out why the message of Islamism, and specifically violent Islamism, is being well-received by both the disadvantaged and the advantaged.