Danger in Bangladesh
In the 64th district, Munshiganj, where there were no bomb blasts, 120 bombs were seized by the police on the next day ((source)
The bombs injured around 150 people and killed two; their intention seems to have been not to kill but a show of strength.
This map makes the point quite clear.
Meanwhile, Taliban-like forces terrorize the country-side. (e.g., this
The young man's feet were tied to a tree, his head dangling inches above the ground. A microphone was held to his mouth while he was tortured so that the villagers who were not present to witness the "trial" could hear his screams.
The first to hear them were the men in uniform who did not stir from the police station, not far from the tree. The screams rose and fell till the man was dead.
Their mission accomplished, the killers issued fresh warnings to villagers against straying from the Islamic way, swore their loyalty to Bangla Bhai and left the scene.
The incident is one of about 500 cases of killing and torture by Bangla Bhai's armed Islamic bands that were documented by Taskforce Against Torture, a human rights group founded in Bangladesh three years ago.
Indian retired police officer,now commentator KPS Gill writes:
Today, the Islamists, led by the Jamaat-e-Islami, who collaborated with Pakistan in the atrocities of 1971, as well as Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence, are again firmly entrenched in the country's politics, its Government, and crucially in its institutions of education and mass culture.
The coordinated series of 459 explosions within a single hour across 63 of Bangladesh's 64 districts on August 18, 2005, was little more than the visible tip of the menacing iceberg that threatens this luckless country. All societies that foster terrorism have eventually themselves fallen prey to this scourge.
Bangladesh cannot be an exception, though the country's political leadership has sought to cover up the realities of state complicity with flat denials of state support to extremism and terror, even as they have sought to mask the steady spiral towards thuggish Islamist extremism, lawlessness and disorder.
Indeed, the falsification has gone well beyond the state. A wide range of international institutions and foreign Governments have contributed directly to the deception, speaking in glowing terms of Bangladesh's arguable 'successes' in development, in health sector reforms, in population control, and in non-governmental sector operations, all of which have been projected as examples for other developing countries to follow.
The truth of the comprehensive political mischief and administrative mismanagement in Bangladesh has systematically been brushed under the carpet.
This truth is now becoming increasingly difficult to conceal, even in the most prejudiced circles, and despite the state's relentless policy of suppression of the national Press and of denial of access to the international media.
It is significant in this context that an independent study carried out by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace, which drew up a listing of 60 of the world's failed and failing states on the basis of twelve specific "indicators of instability", placed Bangladesh at the 17th position, among the 20 'critical' states that are most at risk.
There is, unfortunately, no evidence of any visible transformation in the trajectory of politics or of the orientation of the state in Bangladesh, despite the country's growing difficulties.
A vigorous American response is necessary to keep Bangladesh from becoming another jihad factory.
I recommended your blog even though it's mostly long quotes from the articles you cite, because this is the first time I've heard of this - and I spend a lot of time reading news.
I think the point that Pakistan (a nuclear power implacably opposed to India, another nuclear power) has been a supporter of Bangladesh's Islamist elements in the past makes it more urgent that we pay attention to this.
August 20, 2005 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karen,
Thanks! This is an age when little noticed events in faraway places can have an eventual huge impact on us, and I was stunned that so little attention was paid here, so the news-item nature of the entry.
-Arun
August 20, 2005 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've recommended this as well.
I'll admit, I do not know enough about the situation there.
Thanks for informing us. If you know a lot about that area, I'd love to see another post with more contextual info about the situation there.
I fear this is yet another part of the world that's off the BushCheney radar screen as a result of our quagmire in Iraq.
That map just about sums it all up...Wow.
August 20, 2005 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rather doubt that it's off their radar screen. They've been talking with India, and certainly the Congress would be very concerned, if for reasons somewhat different from the BJP. Pakistan (former owner) also has reason for concern, and if they're concerned the US is concerned.
Now, the American press is a different matter. If it's not Europe or a vacation spot, they do seem to have trouble focusing.
August 20, 2005 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point, and maybe "radar screen" was the wrong way to phrase it.
Seems like BushCo can't walk and chew gum at the same time (See: Nuclear Proliferation).
I doubt this is high on their priority list, as I assume Iraq dominates the West Wing discussions.
It seems to me that the potential turnover of a country to Islamic militants would be higher up on the list. Maybe the threat is not that dire, though. As I said before, I don't know enough about this situation.
And yes, clearly the press won't ever cover this.
Bush, more importantly, is clearing brush today.
August 20, 2005 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get a five just because of that last line!
Heh.
But your larger point, that you'd think they'd be all over this like a cheap suit (as anybody who could walk and chew gum at the same time would be) is also well (IMHO) taken. Yes, it MAY be that they're working on this behind the scenes, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. They've let too many other potential trouble spots languish while they singlemindedly focused on Iraq for me to believe they've changed their ways now.
August 20, 2005 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs, ever since the build-up for Afghanistan I've been reading Southeast Asia Analyst Group from India. Here's their take on the bombings. This is what caught my eye:
6.What is new in the leaflets distributed by the organisation is not its pro-sharia rhetoric, but its anti-US and anti-UK rhetoric and the attempt to project the jihad of the organisation as part of the global jihad against the US and the UK. However, reports available so far do not speak of any explosions directed at the diplomatic missions of these two countries.
Something just dawned on me as I was writing this: The bombs used commercial explosives, were small, crude times, and not intended to inflict huge casualties. Isn't that just about a redux of the 2nd round of London bombs? I smell Pakistan. Not neccessarily the Mushareff kabal, but rathere the workings of some of the Islamist organizations there. There's an annexed backgrounder on the paper cited above that gets into the complexities of these groups, and the archives at this site are chock full of information about these organizations. The mind boggles.
Bush was warned about the destabilization effect the disposing of Saddam would have. I'm just surprised it's reaching further than I had imagined.
August 21, 2005 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the only "intervention" the US should consider is to support the continued functioning of democracy in the area. The center-right BNP got only 47% of the vote in the last election but this gave them a more than 2/3 majority. The fact that such a vast attack by the banned Islamic organization Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen could take place seems to suggest that opposition charges that the BNP is in someway in bed with Islamisists have some basis.
August 21, 2005 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a map! I wonder how those numbers will be tweaked in the next years international terrorism report. Will they be counted as one incident or as 459?
August 20, 2005 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some thoughts - a large number of Bangladeshis would be considered liberal (in the Muslim world at least). They are more Bengali or Bangla than Islamic. Thus, they take pride in the writings of Rabindranath Tagore (Nobel Prize 1913) even though he was a Hindu. This is very different from the Pakistani mindset, which tries to deny Pakistan's cultural links with India and instead emphasizes the Persian or Arabic heritage.
Bangladesh is desperately poor, even by Indian standards, but poverty does not imply intolerance. However, the first I heard of things getting bad in that regard was years ago on USENET, when I read posts by a Chakma. Chakmas are a Buddhist people living in the hill area around Chittagong. They were included in East Pakistan in the Partition in 1947 in order to keep Chittagong economically viable, even though the Chakmas would have preferred to be part of India. Anyway, what had happened was a new Islamic Center (funded by Saudis), in-your-face proselytization, and the harassment and beating up of non-Muslims.
Things have mostly gone downhill since, with a vigorous Islamic reassertion.
Bangladesh, after separating from Pakistan, in some ways has been more progressive than Pakistan. For instance, in 1971, when it seceded, it was less literate and had a larger population than (West) Pakistan. Now it is more literate, has embraced family planning more than Pakistan. The Pakistani population now exceeds or just about equals that of Bangladesh. So this is a country that should be rescued.
August 20, 2005 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arun, you mention both in the main article and in the posting that the US should "do something" about Bangladesh. You have to some extent limned a problem, albeit only fragments of an overall situation that is no doubt very complex. But what is an overall description, AND NOT ONLY DIAGNOSIS BUT PRESCRIPTION for the situation? Are there articles you could quote from WITH URLs so those of us who are interested can find out more?
If Bangladesh is to be "rescued" and jihadism stopped, putting forward a list of the general policies and how they should be implemented is especially important given the lousy track record of international agencies like the IMF and the World Bank where they have tried supposedly to be "helpful". To simply call for more action without specifying a program is an awful temptation to a foreign policy establishment as comprehensively perverse as you describe Bangladeshi politics as being (and I am not doubting your call, either).
I have written about the dynamics influencing politics, especially mass grass roots politics on absolute poverty ("world hunger") and underdevelopment as they exist in the US.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/6/20/123736/665
It is admittedly very long but it summarizes what I have learned about the issue from years of study of the subject and of activism (or mainly attempted activism).
rsvp
cloudythescribbler@yahoo.com
if interested at all in my comments
August 21, 2005 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more thought, and this may be outright wrong, or might be considered politically incorrect by some.
Aspiring Muslim democracies, like Bangladesh, have a problem with a lack of the political center. In the United States, no politician can hope to succeed by appealing purely to an extreme, they have to win votes from the center as well (and I hope this never changes!). In the Muslim world, however, posing as being more Islamic is difficult for a politician to counter (in part because being more Islamic is also conceptually tied into being less corrupt, more ethical, more good, etc.). So there is a slide to the extreme.
Moreover, the Islamic extreme is not merely an extreme of ideas, it considers violence to be a legitimate instrument of politics.
Turkey remains democratic because it keeps Islamic parties under control, by Army if necessary.
The problem of stability of democracy is thus, economically, having a middle class, and politically, having a center.
August 20, 2005 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are dynamics in US politics that favor extremes, as in the benefit of being MORE rightwing. Hence the increasingly ideologically rightwing Repugs are able to do well (enough to steal elections that they don't win) in US elections, as against more centrist Democrats. Within the left, such as the peace movement, those who insist on trying to mobilize a mass movement rather than focusing on claims that 9/11 was really staged and such are often reviled by many and put on the defensive. There are dynamics even where the center is powerful tending to extremes -- the question being whether the extremes are productive (as with abolitionism) or bogus/horsesh** with a thinly but privilegedly veiled rightwing agenda (as with much of the Ward Churchill type stuff), or simply extremist, as with much terror-jihadism, or simply jingoist/imperialist (eg the Repugs).
All in all, it's a matter of digging through Augean stables wherever you go.
August 21, 2005 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Bangaladesh is on the WH priority list, I'm not sure how much the US has at its disposal to react with. I don't think India would object to some sort of US response. Pakistan might, and that needs to be balanced as long as we don't want UBL getting complete run of the house. Which is a long way what we already know: by taking the easy way out in Afghanistan and fighting a war of choice against Iraq, we've abetted the spread of Islamic terrorists.
August 20, 2005 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Bangaladesh is on the WH
August 21, 2005 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until we rein in Saudi Arabia, stop them from spreading hate as a Moslem religion, and stop their financing of this type of activity, we probably can do nothing helpful in Bangladesh.
When you start using phrases like "spreading hate," you are clouding the picture with oversimplification, which is what Bush likes to do ("You're either with us or with the terraists"; "They hate us for our freedoms"). They don't look at it that way; they think of it as preserving their religion and culture in the face of erosion, much as, say, James Dobson and his followers do. Eventually we are gong to have to learn to deal with these people (Dobson and the Wahhabi and the other hardcore) on a plane of understanding, or we won't be able to deal with them at all. We don't have to agree with them, but reducing a politcal movemtn that's intimately bound with religion, to simplism, if I may coin a phrase, (evil/good/hate/them bad us good) isn't likely to convince the ultra-religious you respect them and their values, which perceived lack of respect is one of the things that kicked off "Islamism" in the first place.
August 21, 2005 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
August 21, 2005 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This we must understand them is what gets Americans killed. You are right comparing them to Dobson but I do not see him as any better than the Saudis except that so far he has not paid off murders. The Saudis pay to spread hatred so that the House of Saud can continue to rule.
It is not just the Saudis. The Arab World is trailing the rest of the world and when educated middle class Arabs go to Europe they are treated like dirt. I am not sure what we can do about Europeans treatment of foreigners but we best look at changing our "pushers" behavior before we are attacked again.
The incompetence of Bush in Iraq or one of them has been to isolate us with the British in the serious war on terror. As attacks in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Jordan would all indicate Arab-Islamic use of terrorism knows no borders.
August 21, 2005 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Saudis pay to spread hatred so that the House of Saud can continue to rule.
No, they do not pay to "spread hatred," they pay to spread religion. That you continue to conflate the two after reading a post that tried to point out the difference explains why they get so angry, and the anger turns to hate in some cases.
August 21, 2005 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I presume you are not suggesting the religion they are spreading is hateful? I would easily suggest that the religion that James Dobson is spreading is hateful. Some of the Jewish Settlers are also spreaders of hate, they don't have billions to do it with. That it is religious does not insulate it from being hateful and dangerous.
The Catholic Church had about a 1,000 year run of spreading religon. Martin Luther found it sinful, hateful and misguided. Did Luther not understand the distinction? It certainly made the Catholic Church angry.
A religious view that is abusive of women, makes it very hard to live with other religions, I do not believe there are churchs in Saudia Arabia. Then Huntington, who I thought was all wet, will prove correct and we will be at war with Islam for decades.
August 21, 2005 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Saudis pay to spread hatred so that the House of Saud can continue to rule.
I remember reading this, too. The Saud family was concerned about losing their position to the masses, so they willfully used the existing Wahabbi sect to foment a hatred of foreigners. This deflects the discontent of the masses away from them, where it belongs, and onto people like us. If our hands were not so dirty that would have been much more difficult, but the CIA, especially, has over the years provided lots of ammunition for the hate America classes.
What is much harder to understand is that the Saudis export this hatred training to other Moslem countries. Why does the Saud family hate Americans so much? They owe their entire lifestyle to us, don't they?
August 21, 2005 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I have to support Luigi on this one, Hoppy - as much as I admire your thoughts in this forum. Lets put it this way - whether they are exporting religion or hate the results are the same.
But "exporting hate" is a metaphor, which may make the term useful for polemics, but remains less useful, perhaps weak and misleading, in analysis.
I remember when General Semantics was all the rage within intellectual circles in the early 60s. It fell from grace (read fashion), which I think is unfortunate. It dealt with these sorts of things - how words "mean" and what do they mean, with a focus on how language can distort our perception of reality, or even construct our (mis)perception of reality.
Just a minor issue, but I think Luigi has a very strong point.
August 21, 2005 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A vigorous American response is necessary to keep Bangladesh from becoming another jihad factory.
The US is so wrapped up in its own war in Iraq that they will probably only offer a token response. I didn't even know of this until I read it just now.
Bush is not serious in fighting the War on Terrorism. If he had, he would have mentioned this in his radio address and offered help.
August 21, 2005 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote: "A vigorous American response is necessary to keep Bangladesh from becoming another jihad factory. "
This is the worst possible suggestion that could have been made. The minute the US interferes in any way whatsoever, you will attract the global "terrorist" network into the area with a focus and a target, plus an excuse.
The only solution is an internal one.
Bangladesh is desperately poor and has faced natural calamities and catastrophe after catastrophe. The solution lies in education, improving the standard of living, and asking the numerous broadminded Bangladeshis settled all over the world to return something to their country to help develop it and remove the roots of power mad fundamentalists and politicians who are using the poverty and corruption prevalent in the country to destabilise it for their own ends. This has nothing to do with religion.
Calcutta was in a similar situation in the mid-sixties where over a few million refugees had been inhabiting the streets after partition in 1947 /48. I witnessed such scenes of poverty on the streets that are difficult to dsescibe. It gave the reason for the work of people like Mother Theresa.
In the seventies there was a mass exodus of industry from the city.
It was only after a committed, but yet Marxist Government led by Jyoti Basu, took over the reins of Government in 1977 that the situation was brought under control and Calcutta is no more the hell hole it was.
To say that such activities have not been publicised in the media is patently wrong. US media, possibly, but the European and Indian media have continuosly monitored the situation, some with correct interpreatations, others not.
August 21, 2005 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For an analysis of the bombings that provides a good introduction to the context, see this Aug 19 IHT article. The Bush Admin is certainly aware of the situation. Note that one of the early trips of recently-appointed Under Secy of State for political affairs Nicholas Burns was to Dhaka in June. The increasingly visible stirrings of local Islamist extremism were assumed to be very much on his agenda.
Bangladesh cooperates with the US on intelligence sharing and tracking wanted individuals as part of international anti-terrorism efforts. Burns was making appreciative noises, but I'll leave it to the South Asia experts and the counterterrorism jocks to opine on how successful that collaboration is viewed from the US perspective. I think it's safe to say that the relationship isn't as fraught as the US-Pakistan relationship. But then the sources of potential friction are far smaller.
As for how the US would see the current bombings episode, I'd assume the US concern is less on a direct threat of international terrorism from the group doing the bombings last week. Rather it's on the unsettling trends in local politics. The risk is that a dynamic of increased extremism will further infect and radicalize the political arena. The threat of an emerging "failed state" is taken seriously.
What can the US do in addition to the bilateral aid and trade support the US provides to Bangladesh directly and via multilateral institutions like the World Bank? The US is almost certainly increasing its encouragement of the government to put more pressure on extremist groups. I'd assume the US is offering assistance to police, intelligence and security structures under the guise of cooperation on international terrorism.
A few additional background items. The group suspected of being behind the bombings was banned by the government in February, after a much smaller series of bombings of local microfinance institutions and a couple of NGOs including Caritas. Bangladesh is the home of two of the world's largest microfinance institutions, which have been particularly successful at giving women economic opportunities to support their families. That means microfinance is viewed by some as a potent threat to traditional social structures.
The political situation is dicey. Competition between the two big (and corrupt) political/patronage alliances is vigorous and nasty. As in Pakistan, there's much concern over the competence, honesty and political agendas of police and intelligence services. But that's a government-wide problem, especially due to the patronage system which has pernicious effects on administrative competence and honesty. Transparency International has rated Bangladesh the world's most corrupt for four years in a row. It's not simply a problem of Islamist influence.
The current governing party openly relies on support of some Islamist groups, but denies ties to extremists. It also has a more hard-lined foreign policy vis a vis India -- so comments from Indian officials always need to be read with that at least in the back of one's mind.
Yesterday was a nationwide general strike (called a hartal) called by the opposition party to protest the bombings and demand the government resign. Businesses and schools were shut down and most vehicles were off the streets other than rickshaws. Some violence between police and protesters, especially in Dhaka. Hartals are a common opposition tactic and sometime extend for days.
Interestingly, Paul Wolfowitz is in Dhaka today as part of his first trip to South Asia as World Bank President. Bangladesh is a major client of the Bank and a focus of poverty alleviation efforts. But Wolfowitz warned that the Bank can't invest in development projects if corruption isn't tackled. And corruption is acting as a major drag on economic growth and development. Wolfowitz is certainly right on that score and not just carrying water for his former bosses.
August 21, 2005 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did a quick engine search, and I'm not even sure that BBC World -- my usual source for international news -- covered this one. This is an excellent post. A few thoughts.
"It is time to implement Islamic law in Bangladesh. There is no future with man-made law." Is this true Islamic law as set forth in the Quran and the Hadith, or is it the madrassas' heretical interpretations of Islam? Kind of sounds like the televangelists who want the Bible taught in American schools -- of course, they want to teach things that aren't even in the Bible. I know this, because I've actually read the Bible.
The first to hear them were the men in uniform who did not stir from the police station, not far from the tree. The screams rose and fell till the man was dead. So the police are actually with the terrorists, eh?
A vigorous American response is necessary to keep Bangladesh from becoming another jihad factory. I agree with some of the others who've replied. That's exactly what al-Qaeda wants America and its allies to do.
Another thing that you mentioned was that Bangladesh was one of 20 countries that could be called "failed" states. I took a look over at Foreign Policy magazine and read the article that you referred to. It indicates the number 20 matches the CIA's assessment of the situation, although reading the report, there are as many as 60 countries that could be on the brink of complete anarchy.
A quick glance of some of the top failed countries indicate some familiar faces. Ivory Coast (oil). Sudan (oil). Iraq (no surprise there). Somalia (the country is still technically in anarachy, isn't it?) Liberia (blood diamonds). Zimbabwe (Mugabe turns it from breadbasket to basketcase in only 25 years -- amazing!)
Oh, just one last thing that gets al-Qaeda hot and bothered. Bangladesh's Prime Minister is a woman . So on top of hating the West, hating the Russians, hating Christians in Africa, and hating secular Islamic governments, they also hate women and any woman who wants to get ahead in life -- especially those that break through the glass ceiling. Is there anything that they actually love, besides blackmail, drug running and pipe bombs? I guess al Qaeda members raping and torturing their wives night after night after night is their idea of love ... and the purest form of it.
I don't think we understand what's at stake. I'm certainly not suggesting an Islamic version of the "summer of love." But just throwing good money after bad as we've done for decades won't cut it anymore. We need to 1) tie development aid to genuine reforms that help people and undercut the terrorists' raison d'être and 2) find the few who still haven't been brainwashed and get through to them before it's too late.
But I'm not holding my breath. Dubya squandered the first window of opportunity after 9/11. I'm convinced he's going to blow this one, too.
August 21, 2005 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, would have to agree with Arun that we need to "keep Bangladesh from becoming another jihad factory." Bangladesh has been doing extremely admirable work in offering UN peacekeeping troops--the 2nd highest of any country, contributing over 8,000 troops (which dwarf's the US's 450)--and it would be a shame to repay their efforts with negligence.
For anyone who's curious, there was a good NYT magazine cover article entitled "The Next Islamist Revolution" back in January someone was nice enough to post here, and a shorter piece on the same topic from the Economist in June here.
August 21, 2005 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is an Indian reaction, suggesting for international pressure on Bangladesh to clamp down on the terrorist groups:
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050820/asp/nation/story_5135301.as
p
Sanctions are always a two-edged sword. Vigorous action, by the way, doesn't necessarily mean public action. The countries which keep the Bangladeshi economy afloat can engage in behind-the-scenes public diplomacy.
IMO, the long-term solution is to bring Bangladesh into the orbit of the ASEAN tiger economies, and grow the Bangla middle class. However, this will also require dealing with dictatorship in Myanmar (Burma) as well.
August 21, 2005 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talibanization of Bangladesh
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020527&s=baldwin200205
17
Ruth Baldwin
The Nation
May 18, 2002
August 21, 2005 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there nowhere the British set up camp that didn't turn into a political disaster?
The sun never sets on stupidity.
August 21, 2005 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 2003, the Discovery/NYTimes channel ran a program about the future of Al Qaeda, titled Al Qaeda 2.0. Zachary Abuza said very clearly in the program that Bangladesh could be the next epicenter of terror training. (Bangladesh's geography is perfect for hiding training camps.) A brief clip of his comments can be found here: link
(Actually, if memory serves correct, FBI counter-terrorist Dale Watson said later in the program that Bangladesh is not on our radar, too.)
At the time this special was produced, I was attending university with two guys from Bangladesh who's families had to flee the country because they were professors at a liberal university in Bangladesh. I wish I had paid more attention to their story, because it certainly seems important to me now...
August 21, 2005 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen this program listed many times. I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.
August 21, 2005 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw this story a couple of days ago at Global Guerrillas (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2005/08/jou
rnal_massive.html). This is a good place to go for some discussion of the methods of decentralized terror in a globally-connected, technologized world.
August 21, 2005 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink