Sadeq Khan
An editorial of the China Post, a Taiwan newspaper generally towing the American line, noted: “US President Barack Obama has pressed hard for military intervention on Syria to punish Bashar al-Assad’s government for allegedly using chemical weapons. The UN report on the alleged chemical attacks is yet to be completed but the US said it is certain the regime’s forces deployed the weapons. A key part of Obama’s argument is that he did not pluck the now famous ‘red line’ he mentioned a year ago ‘out of thin air.’
“The ‘red line’ was not his invention, but the world’s. ‘I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line. My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.’
“It is telling that in making the case for military engagement to a reluctant American public, the president is spending considerable efforts on drawing a line between him and the ‘red line.’ Is the ‘red line’ an arbitrary criterion set by Obama or is it indeed an international norm? In other words, are there universal rules in war?
‘Hard to set rules’
“The use of chemical weapons on civilians crosses the red line as it violates the section of the Geneva Conventions that outlaws ‘indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations,’ and more specifically the Geneva Protocol that outlaws the use of ‘asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices’ and ‘bacteriological methods.’ As Sun Tzu said in The Art of War, military action is an action against the normal order of things. It is hard to set the rules for a competition in which the termination of human lives is a key feature, but that does not mean these rules should not exist. But in order for such rules to work, they should not be used as justification for national interests.
When Obama sets international norms such as modern protocols and the historical ideas of just war, as the ‘red line,’ he also bounds the US under the same standards. Without making military strikes the last resort and deployed through proper authority, the US would also be crossing some red lines written by the world. That means the US should exhaust all diplomatic avenues before striking, as well as confirm beyond reasonable doubt that Assad is in fact behind the attacks. And even after that, the US should ensure the strike has a reasonable chance of success. That means the military options the Obama administration takes should be aimed not only to ‘make a stand’ but to achieve what it claims to be doing, which is either destroying Syria’s chemical weapons or making a big enough deterrence that Assad never again uses chemical weapons. (If indeed it is proved he did do so beyond reasonable doubt).”
Obama has in fact listened to his critics at home and abroad, deciding to postpone military action until diplomatic option designed by Russia for quarantine of Syria’s chemical weapons is tried and exhausted. He told the nation on September 11 that he will keep his military muscle in the Mediterranean battle-ready to strike so as to clear the conscience of the international community, but he will give a chance to dialogue first with Assad as per Russian plan. “Assad must go” is no more the precondition, at least for the time being, for a diplomatic drive to grapple with the Syrian question.
Hasina’s ‘red line’
Here in Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is also being perceived by critics at home and representatives of the international community to be on the verge of “crossing some red lines.” Throwing the book of the impugned 15thAmendment of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh at the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban-ki Moon, she has spurned the latter’s invitation for her representatives to sit at the table with representatives of the Leader of the Opposition in Bangladesh in the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session to resolve their violent-prone stand-off over the next general election.
The diplomatic community in Dhaka, in particular the foreign development partners of Bangladesh, including the two world powers with mighty presence in the region, USA and China, have been calling for free fair and credible elections participated by all political parties for democratic transition of power in Bangladesh. Such calls are falling on deaf ears as Sheikh Hasina is insisting by the book that she continues to hold power as Prime Minister, and her ministers and parliament members continue to enjoy privileges of their status during hustings, thus denying a level playing field for opposition contestants. On the other hand, the Opposition alliance, and some parties of the ruling alliance as well, are set to boycott elections if held under the incumbent government, and are calling for a non-party caretaker administration to oversee the polls.
On account of confrontational policies of the government towards some members of the parties of the opposition alliance, a condition of violent unrest met by pre-emptive and indiscriminate use of coercive power of the state has already vitiated the pre-polls climate of the country. Within and without our national boundaries, there is growing fear whether or not Sheikh Hasina will cross the red line to risk the democratic transition of the nation-state by intransigent and undisguised manipulations to stay on in power like the impugned 15th constitutional amendment.
Targeting Yunus
Whether for a diversionary purpose or from a fit of spite, the Prime Minister and her cabinet colleagues have ventured to cross another red line by suddenly unleashing tax hounds to pursue an imaginary tax-evasion case against Nobel Laureate Prof. Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank. The cabinet decision claimed violation of tax laws on the filmsy ground of a technical finding by the Supreme Court that Nobel Laureates’ previous office as Managing Director of Grameen Bank could be treated as that of a public servant, although by the Grameen Act he was an appointee of the Board of Directors elected by private owners-cum-borrowers of the Bank.
The Government’s tax hounds, the National Board of Revenue (NBR) further claimed that Prof. Yunus needed prior permission of government officials of the Banking Division for going abroad and receiving remuneration for services or gifts abroad, without which his foreign income or other receipts were improper and taxable. The Yunus Centre has rebutted that Prof Yunus remits earnings from books, speeches and prizes back to Bangladesh through formal banking channels.
According to tax laws, if a Bangladeshi remits his personal income through formal banking channels, the income is tax-free – a fact the NBR has acknowledged in its report to the cabinet. Several political leaders and civil society members, including ex-President Ershad who heads the second big party of the ruling alliance and Fakhrul Islam Alamgir, Acting Secretary General of the principal party of the Opposition alliance, have come out with indignant statements that the government’s move against Prof. Yunus is mischievous and ill-motivated.
US, others concerned
A statement from the US State Department on September 10 expressed concern and fear of harassment of the Nobel Laureate and recipient of the highest Congressional Award of USA, Prof. Yunus by a tax evasion allegation. The Statement said: “The US has long admired and supported Professor Yunus’s significant achievements in improving the lives of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly women.
“We urge the government of Bangladesh to treat Dr Yunus in a fair and transparent manner.
“The United States supports the continued independence, effectiveness, and integrity of Grameen Bank as an institution that promotes the welfare and development of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable people, particularly women.
“We also support the continuation of the Bank’s unique governance structure. We look forward to the selection of a highly qualified and acceptable managing director and a new chairman who are committed to sustaining the Bank’s success.”
Sheikh Hasina’s cabinet approval of the tax authority action follows a finance ministry panel’s recommendation that the government replace elected officials on Grameen’s board and take control of parts of the business.
Government involvement with the bank has met with concern from global leaders including Virgin Group Chairman Richard Branson and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who have urged Hasina not to seize control of the poor man’s bank.
Thirty-two U.S. Congress members called on Hasina not to implement the recommendations, which would “undermine the women borrowers and shareholders who have made the bank such a success.”
In various parts of Bangladesh and in other parts of the world, indignation is being voiced against the sheer viciousness of what is being perceived as a diversionary ploy of Sheikh Hasina to hide her troubles from bad governance and socio-political unrest in the country. She is stepping on the red line, and a loss of balance could cost her heavy beyond redemption
Source: Weekly Holiday
