by Omar Tarek Chowdhury

NEW Age’s regular contributor Rahnuma Ahmed’s post-editorial, ‘China-US politics over exhibiting Tibet. In Dhaka’ (November 23) has drawn my attention. This was published in response to my post-editorial (Samakal, November 13) on the photographic exhibition (Into Exile: Tibet 1949-2009) ‘organised by the Bangladesh chapter of Students for a Free Tibet (SFT), in partnership with Drik.’
   For readers’ convenience she has fairly reproduced the views expressed and relevant questions raised in my post-editorial. Based on information available in public domain I have unequivocally pointed out the SFT as a CIA/NED funded network. With logical sequence and analysis, I have also clearly suggested that this exhibition was a well-choreographed media event brought to the public, both in home and abroad, by the PSYOP (psychological operation) warriors of Dharamshala. Though ‘Phantom of the Opera’—SFTBD—enjoyed handsome global publicity, its face remained unseen all along this well-orchestrated propaganda gimmick. Long after Mahatma’s last visit to riot-ridden Noakhali, we saw the reincarnation of Gandhian zeal of satyagraha, performed by the famous corruption-crusader to protect our ‘right to know the neighbours’ and ‘freedom of cultural expression’. All actors reaped the benefit of publicity dividend for their impressive performance.
   Personally, I won’t be surprised to see the SFTBD’s Bangladeshi national director (it has quite a corporate style organisational structure), the young devoted lady who ‘breathes her time equally between Dharamshala … and Bangladesh’ rewarded soon by some heavyweight promoter for her superb service.
   Dress rehearsal of this controversial exhibition by the SFTBD, professionally synchronised mainly with Dalai Lama’s Arunachal visit, can be traced back in March 2009 in front of the Chinese embassy at Gulshan. A demonstration of 8-9 wo/men, holding placards and candles in daylight and gamcha (hand-woven towel) slinging from their necks, went unnoticed locally but became useful for the Tibetan propaganda machine. However, the SFTBD’s name first appeared in the United States during the campaign against the Beijing Olympics in April 2008. Its national director, jet-flown from Dharamshala, (not to be surprise if this is a paid position. The US chapter SFT’s vacancy notice tells the salary range for a junior-level director position is $33-36K) was prominently fed into the BBC’s World Service coverage of the demonstration against the Olympic torch march in San Francisco (BBC News, San Francisco, April 10, 2008).
   Circumstantial evidences indicate that this exhibition was ‘brought to you’ by a front organisation founded and operated with the blessing of the National Endowment for Democracy. NED’s financing for various wings of Tibetan movement is no secret. Budget allocated by US Congress for various Tibetan organisations’ activities (sans covert operations) for the year 2008 indicates the trend. Moreover, this ‘civilian arm’ of the CIA has earned some notoriety globally as the promoter of such movement; to be precise, as the purveyor of ‘colour revolution’ in various countries of Latin America, East Europe, Southeast and Central Asia.
   To unmask the nature of this event, covered by the rhetoric of ‘cultural freedom’ and ‘right to know the neighbour,’ I have raised some crucial questions regarding the funding and timing of this event and the identity of the SFTBD as well as its ties with the NED-sponsored global network.
   To make her public response to my views and questions, Rahnuma worked extra hard; maybe, to double check the accuracy of my accusation. She found the smoking guns and realised that answer is ‘blowin’ in the wind.’ Not only the SFT, as far as the Tibetan movement’s CIA-NED connection is concerned, all are naked truth. She wrote: ‘So, I asked Shahidul, what made you agree to co-hosting this exhibition?’ ‘I thought it would be an interesting one, he replied. … Our point is to open up the debate.’ In a para-long answer, one more time we read the narrative of Drik’s version and its track record of unbending struggle but no specific answers to my specific questions. Despite good intention of opening up the debate, the Q&A part seems like a well-controlled make-believe TV show, where the anchor and the guest talk but don’t respond to queries of the audience; and the uncritical audience are left to believe that they got the answers.
   The anchor didn’t ask further questions to clear the air. My ‘indecent’ but critical questions remained unasked and unanswered.
   Rahnuma has extensively used Michael Barker’s (Griffith University, Australia) study, ‘Democratic Imperialism’. She quoted Michael Barker as saying: ‘… activists truly concerned with promoting freedom and democracy in Tibet should first and foremost cast a critical eye over the antidemocratic funders of many of the Tibetan groups….’ She has directly picked up part of different sentences from the Barker study and re-constructed her own to restate Barker’s opinion. It was done quite efficiently and accurately. Nevertheless, she has missed two significant points of Barker. He suggested ‘… cast[ing] a critical eye over … Tibetan groups identified in this study.’ Also, ‘only then will they [Tibetan groups] be able to reappraise the sustainability of their work in the light of the NED’s controversial background.’ Interestingly, phrases in italics are missing in her typical style of paraphrasing. Identified in this study means Barker’s study quoted by Rahnuma, where the SFT has also been ‘identified’ as the recipient of ‘NED’s controversial’ funding.
   Despite quoting Barker at length she restrained from telling us whether we ‘should … cast a critical eye over’ the SFTBD or whether its Bangladeshi activists and sympathisers should reappraise NED’s controversial background.
   ‘Low intensity democracy’ theory of William I Robinson (credible researcher on NED’s activities in Latin American countries and scholar-cum-Latin America activist) suddenly reminded her of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire. A brief and impressive dossier of Mairead activism for peace was presented to the readers; starting from 70s to up until ‘Thank You Tibet’ campaign, launched together with Nobel Peace Prize laureates Joddy Williams and Shirin Ebadi, in October 2009. Readers were apprised of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates’ moving and passionate campaign statement for Tibet.
   Again, one relevant striking piece of information about Mairead’s profile missed Rahnuma’s attention. Latin maxim Caveat lector was not followed for the sake of fairness. Mairead’s glorious record didn’t tell the readers that her compassion for Tibet has some strings attached. Mairead’s connection with the International Campaign for Tibet, parent body of the SFT, was not revealed. Neither was her role as adviser to the Points of Peace Foundation, founder of the Voice of Tibet radio station, told.
   Mentioning these significant nexus would have helped readers to understand the driving force of this particular activism of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates. True beauty of any actor can only be judged when the audience gets the chance to take a glance at the greenroom.
   Finally, Rahnuma invoked Michael Pareni (Friendly Feudalism, 2007) to establish her point—‘whether Tibet is better or worse off, under Chinese communism.’ Which Chinese communism is it anyway? Is it the Chinese communism led by Mao? Or is it the latter-day ‘communism’ of Free Market’s St Deng Xiaoping? Lack of political orientation often leads many people to regard present-day China as a socialist country. But Parenti is no commentator without political orientation. As an eloquent critic of free market and capitalism he knows the differences between the Chinese communism of the Mao and Deng era.
   Rahnuma has missed Parenti’s opinion and views. She has overlooked Parenti’s description of changes, with limitations and flaws, (land redistribution, education reform, child services, abolition of serfdom, cruel punishment and exploitation by Tibetans lamas and nobles; reduction of unemployment and beggary, installation of water and power systems) that happened in the lives of Tibetan serfs and working class people after the Mao-led revolution. Mistakenly she has equated Parenti’s strong criticism of China of ‘dazzling 8 percent economic growth rate’ (does this apply to pre-1978 period or when HH fled to India?) with the China which ‘stood up’ in October 1949 under the leadership of Mao and misled her readers grossly by misrepresenting Parenti’s views.
   Based on her own smoking gun we don’t see Rahnuma draw any judgement about the SFT—the real ‘area of contention’ between us. Rather we see her abuse the smoking gun to produce smokescreen over a questionable propaganda event.
   Author can be reached at

by Tahera Akter

Recent deforestation in the coastal area on several occasions in the same year hits the nation with a great shock as it is being done at a time when we are approaching COP 15 in Copenhagen to negotiate climate crisis. Bangladesh has been facing serious developmental challenges as its ecosystem is exposed to frequent natural and manmade hazards. Coastal areas are at the front line of such disasters, while loss of millions of peoples’ lives and livelihoods are a matter of concern. Thus, many hotspots scattered in Bangladesh territory in terms of climate change make the country one of the most vulnerable ones in the world. If such attacks continue, the country as a whole may become a big hotspot and its future existence in the world map may be at stake.
   Maldives and Nepal’s cabinet meetings under the sea and on the Mount Everest have amazed the world. Bangladesh should have shown similar movements like holding its cabinet meetings, floating above the sea to protest at climate change. Bangladesh is most vulnerable in terms of its limited land, high population density and poverty. Coastal Bangladesh has already gone through multiple effects of climate change like erosion of land, cyclone, coastal flooding, water-logging, salinity intrusion, and destruction of fish culture and forest areas.
   The majority of forest land is located in Chittagong (47 per cent) and Sundarban-Patuakhali coastal area (27 per cent). But the forest in the country is under the threat of extinction due to natural and manmade disasters. The amount of forest cover in Bangladesh was reduced from 15.6 per cent in 1973 to 14.6 per cent in 1985-86, and became 13.4 per cent in 1987. A healthy ecosystem requires at least 25 per cent forest cover. But, the amount of forest cover in Bangladesh at present is believed to be less than 10 per cent. Chakaria reserve forest has almost disappeared, while existence of Sundarban in Khulna district is at stake. Frequent cyclone, tidal surge and increased salinity have made this forest more vulnerable.
   It has often been said that 15 to 17 per cent land will undergo water if the sea level rises by 1 meter. Although, according to CEGIS argumentation, the country is likely to gain land in the coast through settling of sediments, the analysis predicts erosion and accretion at the same pace. And the demarcation of new land, identification of its types of uses and making it usable and beneficial to environment, economy and people will take a long time. In this time slot of destruction and construction, people’s lives and livelihoods will also change. The crucial concern is how these changes should be tackled by the victims and the country itself.
   The exact figure of environmental displacement is still unknown, as the assessment criteria varies from one estimate to another. Some analyses have shown displacement annually, considering effects of land erosion, salinity, storm surge and water-logging. On the other hand, records on major floods and cyclones of the past 40 years show that on an average 3 million people are displaced and about 15 million people would be displaced in Bangladesh by 2050. IPCC predicts that about 20 million will be displaced by the sea level rise and increase in the number of natural disasters. About 200 million people may have to give up their homes by 2050 because of climate change, says Norman Myers. Thus, the exact estimation of environmental displacement based on most highlighted environmental factors considering time limit is not there. If a clear estimation comes out in the Bangladesh context and can be compared with global estimation then its significance based on poverty, population density, and geographical and environmental vulnerability can be presented.
   Our simple simulation shows that climate-induced floods and cyclones will potentially displace 49 million, 63 million and 78 million in 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively and thus they will become ‘climate refugees’.
   Many suggest about adaptation measures to prevent and mitigate vulnerabilities. But, questions are raised about the adaptive capacity of the poor, regarding how many times they will keep adapting to the changing environment while they are exposed to frequent and severe disasters. Long or short term strategies have to be taken considering distance of settlements in this regard.
   The writer is a Research Associate at the Unnayn Onneshan, an independent think-tank based in Bangladesh. The research reports are available at www.unnayan.org. She can be contacted at: tahera.akter@unnayan.org

A bitter statement for the people of Afghanistan or the United States to hear from a president who has acted to divert our resources upward to Wall Street and downwards into bombs and bases,
writes David Swanson

That was not a peace prize acceptance speech. That was an infomercial for war. President Obama took the peace prize home with him, but left behind in Oslo his praise for war, his claims for war, and his view of an alternative and more peaceful approach to the world consisting of murderous economic sanctions.
   Some highlights:
   ‘There are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organisations to relieve suffering; the unrecognised millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honour than I.’
   Yet, you did argue. You argued by accepting the prize ... and then making a false case for war:
   ‘War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilisations sought power and settled their differences.’
   This is simply not true of all tribes and civilisations, unless we include war making as a criterion for being considered civilised.
   ‘The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defence; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.’
   How dare someone responsible for illegal occupations and air strikes and the use of unmanned drones say these words? (Responsible, that is, given the failure of Congress and of we the people to stop him.)
   ‘America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.’
   How dare a president refusing to support a treaty on land mines speak in these terms? Are we supposed to not see the actions and just hear the words?
   ‘I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: ‘Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones.’’
   Very wise. Very true. And completely violated by Barack Obama’s actions and the better part of the words in this speech. Are we supposed to hear these words in a different part of our brains from the rest of the speech and its advocacy of war?
   ‘A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda leaders to lay down their arms.’
   Now a group of fewer than 100 angry people in Afghanistan, and their allies elsewhere, are the rough equivalent of ‘Hitler’s armies’ and justify the brutal occupation of a nation by tens and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and mercenaries, tanks and planes, and unmanned drones? And negotiations, with the Taliban or anyone else, are not possible because ... because ... well, because of that rhetoric about Hitler’s armies.
   ‘The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest.’
   A 1993 Congressional Research Service (CRS) study of the US Navy’s Naval Historical Centre records identified ‘234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes’ between 1798 and 1993. This list does not include covert actions or post-World War II occupation forces and base agreements. In a 2006 review of this study and two others, Gar Smith found that ‘in our country’s 230 years of existence, there have been only 31 years in which US troops were not actively engaged in significant armed adventures on foreign shores.’ In other words, fewer than 14 per cent of America’s days have been at peace. As of 2006, there were 192 member states in the United Nations. Over the past two centuries, the United State has attacked, invaded, policed, overthrown, or occupied 62 of them.
   < a href=”http: //www.afterdowningstreet.org/ militarism”>Read more < /A >.
   ‘I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation.’
   The United Nations Charter, to which the United States is party, and which is therefore the supreme law of the United States under Article VI of the Constitution is apparently not a standard that governs the use of force, since President Obama has just thrown it away in a statement of Obama Doctrine that appears indistinguishable from the so-called Bush doctrine. Obama then doubles down with a Bush the Elder/Clintonian doctrine of humanitarian war:
   ‘I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.’
   Obama equates non-military action, non-hostile action, with inaction, pure and simple. Where is aid? Where is diplomacy? Where is cooperation? Why are all non-hostile approaches to other nations banished from the text of a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech a mere 25 years after 1984?
   ‘Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable.’
   What can be said to render that statement less persuasive than it is on its own? Maybe this:
   ‘That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions.’
   Torture was illegal internationally and in the US code of law before Obama became president. He publicly instructed the Attorney General of the United States not to enforce those laws. He claimed the power to ‘rendition’ people to other nations where they might be tortured. His CIA Director and a top presidential adviser have claimed the president has the power to torture if he chooses to. And President Obama has here claimed the power to prohibit or un-prohibit torture, spitting in the face of the very idea of the rule of law. The prison at Guantanamo is not closed, and moving those prisoners to Illinois or Bagram or any other lawless US prison will not bring the United States into compliance with the Geneva Conventions.
   ‘I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.’
   At last, mid-speech, we are presented with a drop of that toxic trademarked substance: hope. Only to swallow a mouthful of this:
   ‘First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behaviour — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.’
   Set aside the hypocrisy of the globalism and rule-of-law talk from a commander in chief escalating wars and occupying 177 nations around the world. The message here is that a decent alternative to war is crippling sanctions that ‘exact a real price.’ The wisdom of a creative non-violent outlook has not yet penetrated. And the President does not develop the idea any further, turning instead to nuclear arms:
   ‘...those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centrepiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles. But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted.’
   The United States is not seriously pursuing disarmament, is developing new nuclear weapons, is in clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And Iran is not.
   ‘America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.’
   President Obama, in his famous Middle-East speech earlier this year admirably acknowledged the US overthrow of a democratically elected president in Iran, and the installation of a dictator — who, like many dictators then and now, was one of our closest friends. The greatest success of international law in recent years has been the precedent set by prosecutors seeking to hold responsible Augusto Pinochet. Does anyone recall how he came into power?
   ‘So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.’
   Indeed.
   ‘Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.’
   And there, as this reprehensible speech is dragging to a close, are the words with which it should have begun, the words denied by the thrust of everything else here and by the actions of the man delivering the words. And then there was a bit more:
   ‘[A] just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.’
   A bitter statement for the people of Afghanistan or the United States to hear from a president who has acted to divert our resources upward to Wall Street and downwards into bombs and bases. But true and worth repeating nonetheless.
   Let’s not imagine, however, that George W Bush would not have said the same. He would simply have said it with a smaller military budget, a smaller war budget, fewer troops in the field, fewer mercenaries in the field, bases in fewer countries, and worse grammar.
   — Znet
   David Swanson is the author of the new book “Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union” by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http: //davidswanson.org/book.