Banner Advertise

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

[chottala.com] Khaleda Zia's ensuing visit to India- what should be the Agenda?



Khaleda Zia's ensuing visit to India- what should be the Agenda?

Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)

Visiting a neighbouring country by the opposition alliance leader naturally draws attention of many specially when the destination country is a hegemonic country like India.

International relation between two countries is determined by the regimes in power of those countries. Opposion party may have issues of concern but that cannot allow the destination country's govt to enter into any treaty with the opposition party leader of any country. If that is the case, such visit may not be viewed as solution to the existing bilateral problems/issues between Bangladesh and India. In spite of all these, such visit may help in understanding each other's viewpoint.

Ties between Awami League and India is known to all.  Present Hasina govt is fulfilling all the desires  of India. As such, Delli's south block and intellectuals suggest Indian govt to do everything to maintain Hasina regime in Dhaka.
 
India's desires and wants from Bangladesh:
   
a. Use of Bangladesh territory as corridor.
b. Using Bangladesh to suppress the movement of Indian NE states.
c. Bangladesh to serve as India's economic colony.
d. Maintaining chosen party in power of Bangladesh to serve India's interests.
e. Control foreign policy of Bangladesh.
f. Domination on Bangladesh Army.
g. Domination on Bangladesh intelligence agencies.
h. Control and domination on border.
i. Control water flow of all international rivers entering Bangladesh.
j. Maintaining a loyal intellectual group in Dhaka and abroad.
k. Maintaining armed insurgency in CHTs (Chittagong Hill Tracts) of Bangladesh.
l. Cultural domination on Bangladesh.
m. Divert the route of Asian High Way as follows: 'India-Bangladesh-Indian NE states' instead of 'India-Bangladesh-Mayanmar'.
n. Occupying bordering lands and claiming sea areas limiting maritime boundary of Bangladesh.
o. Breaking Bangladeshi Nation's will to protect national independence, security and sovereignty.
p. Reducing Bangladesh to the status of Bhutan and making it unviable to survive and ultimately leading to Sikimization.

Examples of India's hostile behaviour against Bangladesh
   
a. India has hijacked the victory of newborn Bangladesh's Independence War.
b. India has taken away assets of Bangladesh.
c. India is depriving Bangladesh from due share of 54 international river waters.
d. India has instigated, trained, armed, and sheltered Chakma terrorists named Shanti Bahini of CHTs and allowed Indian soil to be used against Bangladesh.
e. India has raided on Padua BDR BOP (Border Observation Post) of Bangladesh.
f. India put barriers on BD's export and maintains a trade gap of 4.2 billion USD.
g. India allows smuggle of drugs and illegal arms through the border.
h. Indian BSF has killed more than 1000 Bangladeshi citizens at border areas.
i. India is sheltering separatist organization- Bangabhumi Andolon.
j. India is conducting hostile propaganda against Bangladesh.
k. India has occupied Talpotti Island of Bangladesh.
l. India has plotted assassination of Bangladhesh's President - Ziaur Rahman.
   
Based on above,  Zia's visiting India as a guest and discussing above thorny issues where host India is the perpetrator of all above anti-BD actions, is naturally difficult and impossible. 

Issues for agenda

Teesta water share, border killings, trade gap etc will certainly remain in the agenda. Following aspects also crucially important to be discussed and conveyed:

a. Anti-democratic actions, oppression on opposition and suppression on media,
b. Human Rights violations by crossfire, disappearances, violence of Awami Chatro League cadres.
c. Massive corruption by govt in share market, Padma Bridge, Quick Rental power, banks.
d.  Nation's disapproval to giving corridor to India against our economic interest, security and sovereignty.
e.  Asian Highway has to be through India-BD-Myanmar.
f.  BD must be allowed to export that amount of products which is equal to the cost of imported goods from India.
g.  India's assistance to a particular political party in BD is not liked by BD people who consider it as external intervention to our politics.
h.  India's unfriendly acts are liable for anti- Indian sentiment among BD people which must be mend.
i. Our Tin Bigha corridor to be handed over against Berubari enclave which BD already handed over.
j. Due water share from Farakka and abandonment of Tipaimukh Dam project. 
k. Awami govt's failure in protecting the minorities, involvement of local Awami leaders in Ramu violence against Buddists and govt's policy of gaining western support by selling fear of Muslim's extremism in Bangladesh.
l. Assurance from  India to totally abandon proxi war policy in CHTs and not allow her territory to be used against Bangladesh by any armed outfit.
m. India to abandon our Talpotti Island and accept BD's claim regarding maritime boundary.

We look forward to see that Bangladesh and India will live together respecting each other's sovereignty and any treaty between these two countries must be based on equality, mutual respect and interests.

Major Faruk Ahmed (Retd)
Email: farukbd5@yahoo.com
Date: 24 October 2012


__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Eid Mubarak

Dear Sir,

Happy Eid-ul Azha

Eid Mubarak
to
you and your family.

Cordially Yours

Nazrul & Family
Vienna, Austria.

--
M.Nazrul Islam

General Secretary
Euro-Bangladesh Democracy & Human Rights Watch

NC Member,
Ekattorer Ghatok Dalal Nirmul Committee, Bangladesh

President
International Forum for Secular Bangladesh, Austria Branch

Former Convener
Bangladesh Awami League, Austria

Former President
Austria-Bangladesh Press Club

Editor
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
a Commemorative Anthology(Volume 1,2,3)
and
Sangbad Album:Jailkanai Sheikh Hasina(Volume 1,2)

Author
Freedom and Bangabandhu's Bangladesh


Add.: Heustadelgasse 36/Top 1.01
1220 Vienna
Austria




Tel.: 0043-1-9746523
Cell.: 0043-660-8112435, 0043-676848863283
Fax.: 0043-1-9677832





------------------------------------

[* Moderator�s Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chottala/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
chottala-digest@yahoogroups.com
chottala-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
chottala-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[chottala.com] Britain Intervenes in Saudi Arabia’s Internal Affairs



Britain Intervenes in Saudi Arabia's "Internal Affairs"

By Tanya Cariina Hsu

Last month, the British government opened an inquiry to re-examine relations with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the aftermath of last years' Arab Spring protests. The UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) will examine Britain's multiple trade, defence, security, counter-terrorism and human rights interests in the two countries, and one of the most important questions examined will be, "how the UK can encourage democratic and liberalising reforms in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, including its power to effect improvements".

To repeat, the inquiry will ask how the UK can "encourage democratic and liberalising reforms in Saudi Arabia".

Prompted in part by complaints from Bahrain's Shi'ia opposition activists, the inquiry results are to be published next year. Concurrently, the Bahrain Federation of Expatriate Associations (BFEA)—which represents half of the population of 600,000 ex-pats—made a statement charging the opposition of systemic abuses against their community, property, schools, places of worship and security forces. The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report last year indeed found evidence in Bahrain of abuses, and King Hamed bin Isa al-Khalifa immediately promised reforms and an end to any such injustices.

The image of security forces travelling into Bahrain in armoured vehicles became, in Western parlance, 'soldiers in tanks'—not the requested security units per rules of co-operation and protection between the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council member states. Saudi Arabia led the convoy with 1,000 men on March 13th 2011 in response to the unrest, and the United Arab Emirates dispatched 500 police to Bahrain's streets to quell the crowds. The situation was unique in the Arab Spring uprisings in that Bahrain was the only Gulf State to experience significant protests, the other GCC members (Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE and Saudi Arabia) having witnessed no uprisings and barely a protest.

The issue at the heart of the British inquiry is simple: How can the UK support democratic change in the region but not risk the multi-billion pound bilateral defence and trade partnership contracts? Can the UK afford upsetting one of her largest defence importers—the world's largest oil producer and traditional ally—whilst at the same time criticise Saudi Arabia for protection of Bahrain, home to the US Navy's 5th Fleet?

There is a bigger problem, however. It is a matter of what is already legally established, rules of diplomacy in foreign relations not tossed aside arbitrarily.

Interference in another states' domestic policies is prohibited and is expressly codified in diplomatic law, and the reciprocity of this moral obligation is fully expected. Such interference has led the US, Britain and others to increasingly persuade states in the Middle East and North Africa to sign agreements with one hand whilst extracting conditions on the other.

Professor G.R. Berridge, a leading authority on contemporary diplomatic practice, explained, "Non-intervention in 'domestic affairs' is perhaps the most basic rule of a system of states because it is the other side of the coin of 'sovereignty'." Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter states the rule "baldly", with the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations taking non-interference in the matters of other states as an action diplomatically assumed, he said.

Complexities become more acute in relation to human rights but nevertheless "the rule has been weakened by the Western campaign for such rights" and has been thus subject to notorious difficulties. Although there are certain circumstances where interference can occur from an outside state, it must be authorised by the UN Security Council, should be deemed "the only means of ending massive and sustained abuse of human rights", or is considered so essential to self-defence that it would "pre-empt imminent and devastating aggression," Dr. Berridge stated. As he wrote in his book 'Diplomacy: Theory and Practice', intervention from outside risks being viewed "with the immediate intention either of influencing some aspect of its domestic policy or of changing its regime".

On October 15th, Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the UK Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf al-Saud said the Kingdom would "not tolerate or accept any foreign interference in the workings" of the GCC, and "Saudi Arabia's relations with the GCC is an internal matter". Saudi officials said that the Kingdom is now "re-evaluating their country's historic relations with Britain" and that "all options will be looked at".

Separate to whether or not Bahrain insufficiently meets democratic standards, one wonders what, precisely, Britain hopes to achieve with this inquiry.

British intervention in matters involving Saudi Arabia and Bahrain do not meet the diplomatic criteria surrounding interference: the reason behind the inquiry appears a cost-benefit analysis between human rights at the expense of trade.

More specifically, the element of contractual coercion is outlined in UN Resolution 2526 (Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States): "No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind."

The West has for decades routinely accused Saudi Arabia and other nations of all forms of human rights' abuses whilst brushing its own under the carpet. By contrast, Saudi Arabia issues no such reports in condemnation of abuses in America, Britain or Europe, despite the high domestic homicide rates, rapes, drug use, and international human trafficking or hate crimes. The Kingdom issued no formal declarations of complaint when the Irish Republican Army bombed, killed, terrorised and maimed British subjects in London in the 1970s and 80s. Saudi Arabia did not attempt to intervene when Civil Rights protestors were brutalised, burnt and beaten by US forces in Alabama in the 60s. The Kingdom adheres to the non-interference policy as set forth in the Vienna Conventions: 'hands off other states' domestic affairs'.

Having left a terrible legacy of betrayal in the region post World War I in partnership with France and the United States, Britain risks reverting to Imperial-type in the desire for change in the Middle East. As we witness the 21st century carnage in the region and the lessons failed to be learnt, this inquiry—despite honest intentions in human rights—might reconsider the rule of diplomatic law established half a century ago.

Tanya Cariina Hsu is a British political analyst specializing in US-Saudi foreign policy.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-intervenes-in-saudi-arabias-internal-affairs/5309006


__._,_.___


[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___