There was extensive press coverage of Richard Benkin’s discussions and public speech in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India in February 2023. This is one example.
Debt Trap Diplomacy: A Robust Threat and Corruption Institutionalized
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in the Daily Asian Age of Dhaka
IThe Asian Age organized a roundtable seminar at its office on 2 March 2023 titled “Debt Trap Diplomacy: A Robust Threat and Corruption Institutionalized” with the participation of academic scholars, economists, media personalities and civil society members.
It was presided over by Chairman of The Asian Age Shoeb Chowdhury. Editor-in-Charge of The Asian Age Selim Omrao Khan gave the welcome speech. Advisory Editor of The Asian Age AKM Shameem Chowdhuri made concluding remarks.
American intellectual and geopolitical expert Dr. Richard Benkin presented the keynote paper at the seminar. Dr. Richard Benkin said that Bangladesh is strategically located on an important geographical spot. Pakistan has turned into a failed state as a result of taking Chinese loans, Dr. Richard Benkin further said. Pakistan also cracks down hard on its religious minorities, Dr. Richard Benkin stated.
Dr. Richard Benkin conveyed the greetings of two US Congressmen to the seminar who are Roger Krishnamurti and Mike Gallagher.
Moreover, Dr. Richard Benkin referred to Sri Lanka as another country that has been plunged into insurmountable woes because of getting cobwebbed with Chinese financial deals. He commented that China pays big sums of loans to developing and least developed countries to make these countries dependent on China. Djibouti, Maldives and Montenegro are also victims of China’s debt trap diplomacy, Dr. Richard Benkin said while presenting his keynote paper.
Other speakers talked about the syndicated corruption that has been taking place in various countries through Chinese financial schemes. Not just that, China supports religious extremists and supplies arms and ammunitions to separatist groups in many countries, the discussants remarked. Financial vices like money laundering have put on a monstrous shape in many countries as a result of getting involved in Chinese debts and Chinese projects.
The discussants recalled that China opposed Bangladesh during the Liberation War of 1971. Three million martyrs of East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) were killed with Chinese weapons, the participants of the seminar recollected. They called upon Bangladesh government not to fall into Chinese financial traps. They expressed gratitude to India for standing by Bangladesh in 1971.
The USA also opposed Bangladesh during 1971 but the American people comprehensively supported Bangladesh back then. The Concert for Bangladesh organized by George Harrison and Bob Dylan and some other singers and musicians were remembered during the seminar.
The seminar was attended by former Secretary Mostafizur Rahman, former Secretary Kamal Uddin Talukder, UN Disability Rights Champion Abdus Sattar Dulal, former director of ISPR Shaheenul Islam, Professor Mohammed Nuruzzaman of North South University, Professor Dr. Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah of Dhaka University, Nirmol Rozario and President of Bangladesh Christian Association and advocate Saikat Paul.
Shoeb Chowdhury, Chairman, Editorial Board of The Asian Age
We are going through a very restless time because of the adverse economic impact of Covid 19 pandemic which has been all the more intensified by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War. Today we gathered at this place to talk about debt trap diplomacy, its threat to the economy of developing countries and the corruption caused by it.
China has been exercising debt trap diplomacy in various parts of the world. South Asian countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan have been shattered by Chinese debt traps. We should take lessons from it. History shows that China opposed Bangladesh during the glorious Liberation War of 1971. Three million martyrs of the war were killed with Chinese weapons. China recognized Bangladesh after the assassination of Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
However, Bangabandhu’s capable daughter Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is a competent leader. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina will not allow anything detrimental to happen to Bangladesh I believe. Bangladesh exports most of its products to the United States of America and the European Union. On the other hand, China exports goods of around 12 billion dollars to Bangladesh every year while Bangladesh’s exports to China annually is less than 1 billion dollars. It shows Bangladesh’s huge trade deficit with China. Financial fraudsters launder money to overseas locations taking advantage of this trade imbalance.
Geopolitical experts have remarked that China backed up Myanmar in instigating the influx of Rohingyas into Bangladesh. China has been building up special economic zones in the Rakhine province of Myanmar wherefrom the Rohingyas were driven away. Myanmar also violated Bangladesh’s air space a number of times. Myanmar is showing this audacity because they are supported by China.
Allegations show that China has instigated corruption in many countries through over-valued projects. Chinese projects are not transparent. Bangladesh has meanwhile borrowed 4.7 billion dollars from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to deal with economic shortfalls. We are alarmed to see the rise of radical Islamic groups in Bangladesh in recent years. China supplies arms and ammunitions to separatist groups and terrorists in many countries. Thus China unsettles peace and stability across the globe. We should be highly careful about the Chinese financial deals with Bangladesh so that we do not turn out to be another Sri Lanka or Pakistan.
Chinese financial schemes in Sri Lanka and Pakistan have not only devastated these countries in economic terms. Moreover, Chinese involvement in the economic affairs of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe etcetera have jeopardized these countries politically too and have destabilized these countries’ ruling authorities.
Selim Omrao Khan, Editor-in-Charge, The Asian Age
I warmly welcome all of you to this afternoon’s roundtable seminar titled “Debt Trap Diplomacy: A Robust Threat and Corruption Institutionalized”.
Renowned American scholar and geopolitical expert Dr. Richard Benkin will present the keynote paper. Afterwards all other participants will put forward their opinions, thoughts and views. I am thankful to Mr. Shoeb Chowdhury, Chairman, Editorial Board of The Asian Age for organizing this seminar.
I thank everyone for coming to join us. I hope everyone’s ideas will help us to better understand the topic on which today’s seminar is based.
AKM Shameem Chowdhuri, Advisory Editor, The Asian Age
Debt traps have turned out to be death traps in some countries. Bangladesh government is highly cautious to avoid getting endangered with Chinese debt traps. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has in the meantime asked the authorities concerned to take up unnecessary and expensive mega projects. Our constitution states “Friendship to all, malice to none”. Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman formulated our foreign policy with these words. In the present world no country is our enemy. Russia, USA, China—all these countries have friendship with us according to our constitution. China and USA opposed us during the Liberation War of 1971 but the American people supported Bangladesh in 1971 in a comprehensive way. We still remember the Concert for Bangladesh organized in the United States by George Harrison, Bob Dylan and some other singers and musicians to extend their support to Bangladesh during that crucial time.
Historically we were part of India during the reign of Maurya dynasty, during the reign of Muslim Sultanate, the Mughals and the British Empire. I have full confidence on Bangabandhu’s efficient daughter Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina who has transformed Bangladesh into a development role model. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has become Mother of Humanity by sheltering over one million Rohingya refugees on the soil of Bangladesh.
There is no permanent ally or enemy in diplomacy. China and America opposed us in 1971 but both these countries are at present our development partners. China is also being deplored by human rights groups for repression and persecution on the Uyghur minorities. Bangladesh strategically holds an important position. We people are very resilient and withstanding. We won a war in 1971. We can defeat any enemy. Ordinary people of Bangladesh defeated the Pakistan Army in 1971 which was at that time the most well-organized military force in the world.
Islam says to Muslims, “Minorities are at your disposal”. We should uphold democracy and meritocracy. Historically we coexisted peacefully with Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists for hundreds of years.
Dr. Richard L Benkin, American Scholar and Geopolitical Expert (Keynote Speaker)
First I would like to extend my thanks to The Asian Age authority for inviting me to this seminar. Two American Congressmen Roger Krishnamurti and Mike Gallagher have conveyed their greetings to the participants in this program. China’s expanding influence on developing countries through financial deals is a big concern in the present world. Bangladesh holds an important geopolitical location. For this reason China intends to tie up with Bangladesh to achieve financial and geostrategic gains.
Pakistan has become a failed state because of getting embroiled in Chinese financial gambits. However, China keeps pumping big sums of money into Pakistan. Pakistan cracks down hard on religious minorities. Sri Lanka is another victim of China’s debt trap diplomacy. Sri Lanka had to hand over Hambantota Port to China failing to pay back Chinese loans. Chinese development programs in developing countries aim to make these countries dependent on China. Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Djibouti, Maldives, Montenegro and some other countries’ economy has been broadly damaged by Chinese financial stratagems.
China also triggers communal uprising. The United States of America provided to Bangladesh the highest number of Covid 19 vaccines. China pays loans to under developed countries on very tough terms and conditions. In most of the cases the countries who take Chinese debts cannot pay back Chinese loans and their economy suffer badly. Bangladesh should train up its local people and indigenous clans to work for the country instead of being dependent on foreign countries.
Mostafizur Rahman, former Secretary, Bangladesh government
Thanks for inviting me to this seminar. Debt trap diplomacy is an international phenomenon. Chinese authorities spearhead debt trap diplomacy to gain political leverage over certain countries. Once upon a time, a senior diplomat of the USA termed Bangladesh, “bottomless basket”.
However, at present USA is Bangladesh’s development partner. Pakistan took away all assets of Bangladesh from 1947 to 1971 which led to Bangladesh’s destitution. The US government has imposed embargoes on some senior police officers and Director General of Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). The USA has also withdrawn GSP facility. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is a competent and fair leader. Bangladesh government has decided not to take further Chinese loans until repayment of old Chinese debts.
Professor Dr. Nazmul Ahsan Kalimullah, Department of Public Administration, Dhaka University
There is a potential danger of receiving loans from China. China is a one-party country. There is no practice of democracy in China. Freedom of speech in China is restricted.
Ethnic minorities in China are tormented and cornered. China supplies arms to Myanmar and insurgent groups in many other countries. China is the catalyst of Rohingya predicament in Bangladesh.
Chinese workers in Bangladesh all belong to the People’s Liberation Army of China. China also supplies weapons to the military forces of Bangladesh. China has become a big factor in today’s world.
Md. Kamal Uddin Talukder, former Secretary, Bangladesh government
I hope Bangladesh government will be able to retain the range of socio-economic development the country has attained during last several years under the firm leadership of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government stands on high alert so that nothing goes wrong with Bangladesh’s economic foothold. The government is aware of the pros and cons of Chinese loans. So, I believe Bangladesh will not face any adverse situation because of Chinese financial deals.
Professor Mohammed Nuruzzaman, Department of International Relations, North South University
Indian author Brahma Chellaney wrote an article on debt trap diplomacy which was published by Project Syndicate. Sri Lanka’s economy was plagued with domestic mismanagement and corruption. IMF and World Bank pay loans to developing countries on harsh terms and conditions. Bangladesh has built up Padma Bridge on a self-finance basis. Bangladesh keeps up a balanced relationship with India and China.
Foreign debts account for 15% of Bangladesh’s gross domestic product (GDP). Chinese loans occupy only 5% of Bangladesh’s GDP. Chinese institutions do not disburse loans transparently. The USA stands by Bangladesh over the Rohingya issue for which we are thankful to USA.=
Abdus Sattar Dulal, UN Disability Rights Champion
The Asian Age has organized an interesting and well-timed event. I appreciate The Asian Age for organizing the program. Most of the business enterprises in our country are running with debts. It impacts disabled people. Development initiatives are not all-inclusive. World and IMF do not care how buildings are designed. All buildings should be designed as such so that disabled people can reach any floor of the buildings without difficulties. It is very important to pay back loans to the countries from whom the debts were borrowed.
Md. Shaheenul Islam, former Director, Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR)
Every country should deal with China’s debt trap diplomacy very carefully. IMF and World Bank pay loans to different countries on certain terms and conditions. Loan borrowers in the third world are always in an abject position. Least developed countries (LDC) and developing countries take loans from rich countries to mitigate their financial crisis. Countries should learn from their own mistakes. All shops in the United States are filled with Chinese goods.
Nirmol Rozario, President, Bangladesh Christian Association
China is a major economic power in the world. China exerts economic influence on other countries. In our country we always want communal harmony to prevail. Extremist groups always work against religious minorities. Uyghur minorities are tormented by China. In Bangladesh, there have been a number of attacks on religious minorities. The government should take up strong measures to protect religious minorities from assaults by fundamentalist groups.
Advocate Saikat Paul, Lawyer, Supreme Court
The banking and financial sectors in Bangladesh are at present inflicted with corruption and irregularities. The power plant in Bashkhali is jointly being Constructed by a private company and Chinese government.
Hefazat-E-Islam carried out violent demonstrations in some parts of Bangladesh and burned some government offices when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Bangladesh in 2021. Fanatical Islamic groups are backed by China. Religious fanaticism is a big threat to peace and stability. It should be identified wherefrom religious extremists get financial support and severe actions should be taken against them.
Lessons from the 2022 US Elections (Concluding Part)
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in the Daily Asian Age of Dhaka
https://dailyasianage.com/news/297877/lessons-from-the-2022-us-elections--concluding-part
Implications for 2024: Joe Biden: Although a lot can happen between now and the 2024 Presidential election, the 2022 midterms will have an impact on it. Before the midterm elections, the common wisdom was that President Biden would not run for re-election in 2024; and, especially among Democrats, that he should not run. As noted above, he is not a popular President, with more Americans disapproving of him than approving. Inflation, one of the biggest problems for any President's electability, continues to top eight percent. Making matters worse, the United States has not experienced significant inflation for more than 40 years, which means that many American voters are watching the value of their money drop for the first time in their lifetimes. At the same time, they are seeing a bit of an economic slowdown, also something that they have not seen since, except for the 2008 recession and the height of the pandemic. Biden also has presided over increased social unrest and rising crime. In fact, Biden was seen by many Democrats as a political liability, and they avoided campaigning with him during their election efforts. Many equivocated when asked if they would support the President for re-election.
The same factors that predicted Democratic disaster in 2022 worked against Biden running in 2024. In many ways, they were similar to the situation in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter failed in his bid for a second term. And unlike Carter, Biden also faced questions about his age. If he is elected to a second term, he will be the oldest person ever to be sworn in as President: just over 82 years old. President Ronald Reagan in comparison, who currently holds that distinction, was just under 74 when he was sworn in for his second term. People began encouraging a number of prominent Democrats to run for President. But the election results, in no way what people expected, indicated that voters were not looking at things the way most pundits were. In fact, less than three weeks after the election, one of the most talked about Democratic alternatives to Biden, California Governor Gavin Newsom, laid any speculation to rest, telling "everyone in the White House from the chief of staff to the first lady 'I'm all in, count me in'" on the President's re-election. In a private conversation, he also told Biden directly. After the midterms, speculation about Biden not running has quieted down; the 2024 Democratic nomination for President is his to lose.
Many insiders, however, believe that the election was not a referendum on Joe Biden's presidency or which party voters believe are best able to handle critical issues, such as the economy, our southern border, and foreign policy challenges. Early in the cycle, GOP Senate leader Mike McConnell said that many Republican primaries ended with, as he put it, a lot of poor quality candidates. As someone who has been involved in US politics for many years, I can say that, yes, party does matter, but voters weigh the pros and cons of the specific candidates in these Congressional elections, rather than vote for or against a party's performance. That could mean that President Biden, if he runs, will be a weak candidate. So, in the end, did midterm success actually hurt Democratic chances in 2024?
Implications for 2024: Donald Trump: Former President Donald Trump officially announced that he was running for a second term in 2024 one week after the midterms. His announcement was widely seen as foregone conclusion, and most pollsters believed that Trump has the inside track for the GOP nomination. But the midterms put that in doubt. Trump backed a number of "his" candidates against more mainstream Republicans in primary elections (those that determine a party's nominee) and won most of them. In many cases, Trump was outspoken about defeating certain Republicans, especially those who voted for his impeachment, or in his support for those who outspokenly identified themselves as strong supporters of the former President. But when they had to face all voters and not just those conservative activists, Trump's track record was not very good. His candidates lost overwhelmingly, especially in so-called battleground states where both parties have a relatively equal chance of winning. His candidates did especially poorly when they needed votes from an entire state, for offices like state Governor or US Senator. Republicans feel in many cases that the candidate Trump vilified and defeated in the primary would have won the general election; and that if he did not oppose other, good Republicans, the GOP would have won the Senate as well as the House. It seemed to many that Trump's endorsement reflected a candidate's loyalty to him and his claims, rather than who the best candidate is. McConnell's comment about candidate quality was seen almost universally as a knock on Trump.
More importantly for Republicans, it was clear that Trump has a committed core of followers, enough to win primaries; but he remains a polarizing figure who does not have the gravitas to bring home a victory where it matters. That has led many Republican leaders to move further away from Trump and to begin looking at other potential Presidential candidate. The most talked about since the midterms is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis who was a vote-getting juggernaut in his election. DeSantis and Trump were once allies, but since people have touted DeSantis for 2024, Trump has taken several swipes at him. Other 2024 GOP hopefuls include Trump's former Vice President and Secretary of State, Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo respectively. Another is former South Carolina Governor and high profile US Ambassador to the United Nations under Trump, Nicki Haley, whose parents immigrated to the US from India. Many Republicans believe that in order to take back the White House, they need to nominate someone other than Donald Trump. Prior to the midterms, most were concerned about his electoral power and well-known grudge-holding against those who oppose him. But Trump's electoral losses have caused many to re-assess that fear.
There is also a sense among many Americans that it's time to get past the vitriol and divisiveness of the past and move into a new era of bi-partisan cooperation. Many have told me that the former President has shown he is not able win over enough independents and others in those battleground states for them to win an election. So, in the end, did midterm losses actually help Republican chances in 2024?
Americans voted their values over their pocketbooks: As mentioned earlier, a lot can happen between now and 2024, and the US political landscape is littered with the remains of people who counted out Donald Trump. What if something happens to President Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris (who also some Indian heritage) takes over the job? And there can be crises or successes in so many different arenas-from the crisis on our border and immigration to foreign conflicts to a resurgence of what remains the strongest economy on the globe.
What is clear is that American voters are not as predictable as some people think. They went to the polls with high inflation after decades of none, high petrol and home heating bills, lower oil production, and increased crime in our major cities; but they did not vote for their financial interests. In the end, they voted for candidates who reflected their values and commitment to democracy and fairness. That is an important lesson for America's friends and foes, partners and competitors. We will not give up the values that are the basis for our way of life and success over the years, simply for some immediate relief from our material concerns.
Dr. Richard Benkin is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst.
Lessons from the 2022 US Elections (Part I)
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in the Daily Asian Age of Dhaka
https://dailyasianage.com/news/297826/lessons-from-the-2022-us-elections-part-i
On Tuesday, 8 November 2022, Americans voted in national elections. More than 47 million voted before Election Day-the largest number of early voters ever-and many millions more cast ballots on Election Day. It was supposed to be a Republican blowout with Democrats losing control of the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate, too. But it was nothing like that. In the end, Democrats retained control of the Senate, and it took more than a week of vote counting after the election for Republicans to eke out the 218 seats necessary for a House majority after late vote counting decided enough races in their favor.
These were midterm elections, which occur every four years when the President is not being elected: for instance, 2022, 2018, and 2014 between the Presidential elections of 2012, 2016, 2020, and the next Presidential contest in 2024. House members serve two year terms and Senators serve for six years. All 435 House members and about a third of the 100 Senators stand for election every two years, and the President's party historically takes a beating in these midterms, especially during the President's first term. In 1994, for example, Democrat Bill Clinton's party lost 52 House seats and eight Senate seats in his first term as President. Republican President George W. Bush's first midterm in 2002 was skewed because of America's surge in national unity behind him after 9/11; but four years later, his party, the GOP, lost 30 House and six Senate seats. Barack Obama is a Democrat, whose party lost a record 63 and 13 seats, respectively in his first term. Four years ago in 2018 when Donald Trump was President, the pattern held for the House where Republicans lost 40 seats, but not for the Senate where they actually gained two. All objective indicators pointed to another midterm disaster for the President's party. Besides the historical pattern, high inflation and gas prices, issues with the border, and consistent measures showing President Joe Biden to be deeply unpopular had virtually everyone predicting a massive Republican win; but it didn't happen. What did happen reveals a lot about Americans and what the future likely holds.
Where things stand today
More than three weeks after the election, two House races remain to be called, but the Republicans are leading in both, and the Democrat has conceded defeat in one of them. That will leave Republicans in control of the House with 222 members to the Democrats' 213; the same, relatively small majority that Democrats held in the last Congress. In the Senate, all but one race has been decided, with Democrats holding 50 seats to the Republicans' 49. The one remaining race will be decided in to a run-off election between the top two vote getters on 6 December, and if the Democratic incumbent wins, his party will have a net gain of one Senate seat. Even if they lose, however, they will maintain control of the Senate because the Vice President (currently a Democrat) can break all tie votes.
While the Republican tsunami did not occur, GOP control of the House means that the US will have divided government from January 2023 through January 2025.
Until then, there are about 30 days on the legislative schedule in which Democrats still maintain total control in what is known as a lame duck session, which has the same power to pass new legislation. Democrats are hoping to push through a number of their legislative agenda items before the Congress adjourns in January, but that is not likely. First of all, if they have not been able to pass them in two years of complete control, it is unlikely that they will get them passed in these final days of their reign. Even beyond that, Congress has a number of important priorities in the lame duck session that make those optional issues even less likely to pass.
The most immediate of these is for Congress to pass the legislation necessary to continue funding the operations of the US government. The current authorization expires 16 December, and if a new bill is not passed, many government operations will stop and their employees laid off until the funding is authorized. Equally important is passing the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets defense policy, before the end of 2022. And so I'm clear, no matter what, the US military will continue to operate, as will other essential functions even if Congress does not make the deadline. Still, failure to pass either has a serious impact on pretty much everything else, and there have been several periodic shut downs when Congress could not agree on these measures by the deadline. There is a lot of negotiation and give and take among legislators before we get to the final form of the bill. Next, the old Congress will have to settle a potential rail strike, authorize more aid for Ukraine, and pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" that provides federal protection for same sex and other marriages. Although it's possible that they might get to other legislation, such as the President's request for more funds for COVID relief, it's not very likely.
Divided Government Starts January 23, 2023
Unlike a parliamentary system in which the majority party or coalition forms a government and is awarded the position of Prime Minister; that which the US Constitution created emphasizes a separation of powers among three co-equal branches of government to keep any one party or person from aggregating too much power: the Executive Branch (President and administrative agencies under his control); the Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives); and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court and court system). These independent branches provide "checks and balances" on each other. Unified government, which is what Biden had for his first two years, was pretty common between 1900 and the end of World War II, occurring 20 out of 23 times. Since then, the American people have opted for divided government 23 out of 39 times. Even though the Supreme Court will strike down laws that contravene our Constitution, unified government allows one party to pass its pet projects within that framework. For instance, Biden passed a government bailout of student loan debt, as well as other large spending bills without a single Republican vote. Republicans opposed the bills but could not prevent their passage. With unified government during his first two years in office, Trump passed large tax reduction bills without any Democratic votes. Democrats opposed them but could not prevent their passage either.
With the Republican takeover of the House in January, Biden knows he cannot pass his party's pet projects without Republican support. In order for a bill to become law, it requires passage by the House and Senate, and the President has to sign it. As parties, Democrats and Republicans have very different ideas about what the government needs to do about things like immigration reform, election law reform, law and order, government spending, and what to do about the power of Big Tech, to name some issues. That's why a lot of people are predicting that little legislation will be passed over the next two years, except for essential bills like military authorization, and perhaps those few bills that come out of specific events and are demanded by the public. But even they will involve a great deal of negotiation in which each party will try to include its own legislative priorities while preventing the other from including its pet projects.
Of equal or greater significance is the fact that several House committees have the power to hold investigations and issue subpoenas. For the last two years, Republicans have identified several matters that they believe need to be investigated but did not have the power to override the Democratic refusal. Congressman Steve Scalise, who will become the majority leader in the next Congress, identified three matters that the Congress will investigate. First is the Afghanistan withdrawal. Most Americans remain outraged by our Afghanistan withdrawal and want to know why we did it when we did, why the recommendations of people on the ground were ignored, its chaotic nature, and the August 2021 suicide bombing of Kabul airport that killed 170 Afghan civilians and 13 members of the United States military. Another is the COVID pandemic and its origin.
Many Americans believe that it started in a Chinese laboratory and either was intentionally spread or the product of biological warfare research. Next on their agenda is the President's son, Hunter Biden. That scandal involves numerous allegations against the President's son, including tax evasion and the inappropriate use of his father's office; as well as an allegation that the media and Big Tech colluded to suppress the story until after the 2020 election in order to secure the defeat of then President Donald Trump. They also raise questions about wrongdoing by the President. These public investigations would keep the American people focused for months on matters that could embarrass Joe Biden and hurt his chances for re-election. Republicans also expect to investigate the lack of control on our Southern border and alleged inappropriate targeting of people by the Department of Justice for political purposes. Democrats have denied any wrongdoing and blocked these investigations. As a result of the 2022 midterm elections, they will not be able to stop them come January.
Dr. Richard Benkin is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst and offers his insights to help give Bangladeshis perspective on American political events.
India-Israel Relations within a Geopolitical Context
Lecture with Question/Answer period with India’s Foreign Policy Research Center
Here is a talk I gave in April 2022 to India's Foreign Policy Research Center (FPRC) on India-Israel relations, along with some question-answer. It touches on a number of other geopolitical issues, too. I'm posting it now as FPRC uploaded it yesterday. My thanks and honor to FPRC's driving force, Professor Mahendra Gaur.
Security, System Issues, and a Flood of Refugees Make Getting Afghan Allies to Safety a Challenge
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in The Diplomat
It’s been over a year since the United States left Afghanistan, and despite the best efforts of many good people on the ground and elsewhere, a lot of other good people were left behind, both U.S. citizens and Afghans who assisted the U.S.-led coalition during its 20-year mission.
The actual numbers are tough to pinpoint. A day after the evacuation, U.S. President Joe Biden asserted that only 100-200 Americans remained in Afghanistan; however, the State Department later said it had evacuated 800 Americans since then, with thousands still left behind. Estimates of Afghan allies still in the country exceed a quarter million.
Here’s the problem for those of us working to get them out of Afghanistan: Evacuations in the final days before the Taliban takeover were military operations that wrestled with logistics to get people to safety. What we have now is a diplomatic process overseen by the State Department to grant former coalition employees a Special Immigration Visa (SIV) for legal entry into the United States.
That makes sense for processing people in compliance with U.S. immigration law, but not for getting people to safety.
Even on a good day the process is slow and cumbersome, and with the U.S. handling immigration requests for seemingly countless deserving Afghans, Ukrainians, and others, those good days are in our rear view mirror. State Department messages routinely caution that they cannot estimate when they will review our submissions, but that it will take considerably longer than expected. It’s a system badly in need of reform and has been for years, but there is no appetite for that in Washington. Even humanitarian parole, which is intended for emergency evacuation to safety, is taking months or even longer to approve and will not be available after September 30, 2022.
Even after being granted a coveted SIV, individuals and their families are responsible for getting to the U.S. themselves. That means navigating a lot of Taliban-held or other hostile territory to get somewhere with a U.S. diplomatic post. The fact that only a handful of countries will grant visas to Afghan passport holders, and only Pakistan and Iran among countries bordering Afghanistan, complicates things further. It significantly limits the routes Afghans can take and makes their movements more predictable for anyone tracking them.
The journey is even more perilous for members of Afghanistan’s dominant ethnic group, Pashtuns, who face persecution and deadly violence from Pakistan’s military and ISI intelligence service. Pashtuns (along with Baloch, Sindhi, and other peoples) were forcibly incorporated into Pakistan in 1947 and have been subject to continual human rights abuses, extra-judicial killings, economic despoliation, and cultural genocide ever since. The government in Islamabad, as well as the military and ISI, see Pashtuns as a threat to their national integrity. If the Pakistanis find anything from the Pashtun Protection Movement (PTM) when they seize a refugee’s phone (which they seem to do in all or almost all cases); they likely will go into custody (or worse) immediately. Some of our allies had this happen to them, and it took extraordinary efforts to get them to a safe place. Even though the PTM is a non-violent human rights movement that operates openly and legally, Pakistan’s powers-that-be effectively treat it as an insurgency group.
With Pakistan out as a safe place, the path to freedom is further restricted, even as the number of terrorists gunning for them increases. There is no country bordering Afghanistan with ties to the United States where they can flee for safety while the SIV process runs its course.
For those of us working to get our Afghan allies to safety, this forces us to operate in a bifurcated manner. On the one hand, the diplomatic process requires us to follow a specific set of rules to the letter. We can use our resources to track progress and catch anything that might fall through the bureaucratic cracks, but we cannot take shortcuts to get the SIV; no one gets special treatment. When one U.S. Congress member asked if a case could be given “expedited service,” the State Department replied curtly that “all cases are given expedited service.”
We must be constantly mindful that our friends are in constant danger and could be taken, tortured, and killed at any time. We know this because we’ve seen it happen to others we know. Their personal safety must be our highest priority, no matter how slowly the diplomatic process grinds on. We must remain constantly at the ready to apply effective actions, “creative” and otherwise. The expectation is that former coalition employees are in danger, and the State Department is dealing with a previously unheard of flood of cases, as well as an immigration crisis on the U.S. southern border.
Despite all of this, cases are moving through the system, and it seems like we receive news at least weekly and at times more frequently.
For those trying to get people out of Afghanistan, a few notes.
First, we must recognize that the State Department and its employees are not the enemy. They are getting as much done as possible with the large volume of cases, security concerns, and potential danger to the former U.S. employees. Work with them, not against them. We have found that the process does move, just not as quickly as we’d like.
Second, keep in mind that the goal is legal entry into the United States, which means following the SIV process meticulously. Keep accurate records of all official communications, requests, and acknowledgements. Congressional offices can help a lot in checking on progress, keeping us appraised of anything amiss, and helping us help our clients respond effectively to questions and requests from the National Visa Center (NVC). Because of them, I have been able to stay on top of things that the NVC lost or missed and other issues.
Third, having applicants complete a Waiver of Confidentiality form is a huge help, allowing the State Department to give you, and Congressional offices helping you, specific information on the case and communicate back and forth about it. The form must be signed to be valid (no digital signature), but State will accept a scanned copy.
And finally, while the system is working, our adversaries are working, too, so we must always be prepared to get our people out of danger. For security reasons, I cannot be specific about how we have done it, but we have been successful. Keep close contact with your friends in Afghanistan. Know where the danger is and who might be an informant. The ISI and Taliban know how to flip people to inform for them by threatening them, or more frequently, their families. Know the possible escape routes, and which routes might put your clients in jeopardy. Know in advance where they might flee to safety outside Afghanistan if necessary, and how can you get it done.
It is unfortunate that we have to think this way and not simply wait for the process to play out, but anyone who has spent time in that part of the world knows that there is no other option.
All of this, however, makes this a story without an ending. Our friends and allies are still living under Taliban rule, and many have Taliban arrest warrants out for them. Perhaps one day, we’ll be able to write a follow up article with the good news of everyone being safe; but not this day.
Guest Author
Richard L. Benkin
Dr. Richard L. Benkin is an independent human rights activist and the foremost opponent of Bangladesh’s persecution of Hindus. Previous efforts freed writers held under blasphemy laws and stopped an anti-Israel conference at an official Australian building, among other things. In South Asia often, he is a frequent expert witness in asylum cases, and is using that insight to help get Afghan allies of the United States to safety.
Echoes of genocide: Bangladesh’s war on Hindus
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in the Hindu Post of India
https://hindupost.in/world/bangladesh/echoes-of-genocide-bangladeshs-war-on-hindus/
The essential promise of Bangladesh’s 1971 War of Independence was that it would end Pakistan’s war on minorities, whether religious like Hindus or ethnic like Bengalis. It pledged to bring about a better life for all in, as Bangladeshi leaders and their apologists still call it, “a land of communal harmony.” But that description is so far from the truth that it is almost inconceivable that anyone robotically repeating the mantra believes it.
Whether or not that promise of communal harmony was ever realized is questionable at best. There is no question that Bangladesh is just as bad for Hindus today as Pakistan was in 1971. Since Bangladesh became a nation, its Hindu population has been culled from about one fifth of the nation to about one in 15. It never mattered which party was in power or which dictator ran Bangladesh.
All were and are complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in their country; and that includes the current Prime Minister and daughter of the “father of the nation,” Sheikh Hasina, despite her posturing to the contrary. She has taken her country to the edge of autocracy, suppressing dissent both inside and outside her party. She has the ability to stop Bangladesh’s war on Hindus if she chooses to do so. So far, she has not.
As reported in Hindu Post, a key leader of the ruling Bangladesh Awami League recently made a public speech, angrily calling the nation’s Hindus vermin and “inferior insects.” He also bemoaned their continued presence in the country, telling his followers that they “should be dealt with firmly.” Which begs the question: dealt with firmly for what? For being Hindus? For not agreeing that they do not deserve the rights of citizenship? What in the world could this rabble rousing speaking and Awami League leader have meant other than a call to arms against his fellow Bangladeshi citizens?
Having fought to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh, I’ve witnessed atrocities and the government’s complicity in them for over a decade and a half; yet, Shabab Ahmed’s racist rant was even more ominous. In the past, similar words have laid the groundwork for massive attacks. The German Nazis used them to de-humanize Jews in order to take away their rights and ultimately their lives. It’s the same imagery Rwandan Hutus used to do the same to Tutsis before their genocide.
This is not a mere historical curiosity but a warning not to keep our eyes shut. Bangladesh’s apologists can please spare me from your condescending and bigoted exhortations to “understand” the culture, and your rationalizations to tell me that Shabab did not mean it in the way I understand it. People said the same thing to those who raised the alarm about impending genocide on Jews and Tutsis. And it never would have been raised here were it not for Bangladesh’s decades-long unrelenting war on Hindus.
The timing is not coincidental either. Durga Puja is a major observance in the entire Hindu Dharma, but it is especially important for Bengali Hindus; perhaps their most important religious/community observation. But it is also a time of large scale anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh; pogroms against the entire community, as well as attacks on individuals.
Last year’s communal violence was severe enough for an otherwise passive media to take note. But that is all they did; and with Durga Puja less than two months away, we have to ask if Bangladesh is preparing the ground for even worse pogroms this year. One clue that the answer could very well be yes is that fact that Shabab Ahmed is not some outlier in the Awami League. He is the head of the Awami League in the important Barisal district; and his sister, Dr. Shammi Ahmed, is the Awami League’s International Affairs Secretary who was appointed by Sheikh Hasina herself.
It’s now been almost three weeks since Shabab Ahmed’s genocidal-aping remarks and thus far, nothing has been done. Sheikh Hasina remains silent, and his position in the Awami League is as strong as ever. The party’s lack of action should signal to everyone who still held onto the fallacy of the Awami League being good for minorities that it is quite the opposite; that is supports the ethnic cleansing of Hindus. What can you do?
First, don’t let this fade from the public eye. Post it on your social media pages and contact everyone in your email lists about it.
Second, get that information to your elected officials, communicate your outrage, and tell them you expect your country and your elected leaders to protest strongly to the Bangladeshi government.
Third, stop buying anything with a “Made in Bangladesh” label until Shabab is disciplined severely: removed from his position and not put back later; with a strong statement by the party and Prime Minister.
Fourth, Bangladeshi Hindus: Stop voting for the Awami League. Otherwise you perpetuate a false narrative about the party that is only leading your country into ruin and your community into extinction.
Fifth, protest to your political leaders, write on your social media pages, and everywhere you can that Hindus are at special risk of being attacked even more violently during Durga Puja. Demand that the UN step in as peacekeepers or third party observers. Remove Bangladesh from UN peacekeeping abroad if it cannot keep the peace at home. Do not take off the spotlight until after Durga Puja because if there is violence again, everyone must see and know that the Awami League is responsible and an active participant.
And sixth, don’t stop! I won’t and you should not either. Bigots believe they can get away with this stuff because people simply do not care enough to keep pressing the issue until real action is taken. Show them otherwise!
The philosopher George Santayana famously wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We ignore the past at our peril and risk the lives of 12 million Bangladeshi Hindus.
-by Dr. Richard Benkin (He is an American human rights activist who has seen and fought against the brutalization of Bangladesh’s Hindus. He is the author of A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus.)
Foreign Policy Research Centre Journal Interview, Ukraine Crisis: Indian Perspective
I was one of 20 international geopolitical experts with strong credentials in South Asia, who were interviewed by the FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE (FPRC) of New Delhi, India. Its founder and director is Dr. Mahendra Gaur, and I am proud to have been associated with him and the FPRC for many years. We have had many productive sessions both online and in India; and I appreciate FPRC providing a range of perspectives for its various foci.
There were five interview questions, and FPRC did not restrict our answers, whether they agreed or disagreed with any narratives that others bring to the table.
Originally published in The Foreign Policy Research Centre Journal. Citation: Benkin, Richard. “Ukraine Crisis: Indian Perspective.” Interview by the Foreign Policy Research Centre. Foreign Policy Research Centre Journal, July 2022, New Delhi, pp. 34-42.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pXAH4NjTuMunF9QbdyjpWGR7G8LJllud/view
Question #1: “Foreign policy is not about virtue-signaling morality but about acting in the best interests of citizens.” Then why single out India for not condemning Russia for it?
I hate to be so cynical; however, before we get to the question itself, it’s important to recognize that virtue signaling generally happens within a context of “the best interests of citizens,” as understood by their national leaders. They reflect domestic political concerns as well as geopolitical strategy, in addition to any substantive issues. To take an example, in 1981, the Israeli Air Force bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor, which was the cornerstone of his effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The United States was surprised by it (largely because the outgoing administration of President Jimmie Carter did not pass on Israeli notification to the incoming administration of President Ronald Reagan); and being pressured by America’s Arab allies, issued a strong condemnation of it. Even so, many in the administration (especially Secretary of State General Alexander Haig) saw the strategic value of it to the United States (US). While public words were strong, action was mild (delaying the delivery of a small consignment of fighter jets and allowing a condemnation resolution to be passed by the Security Council). Ten years later, after the US invaded what would have been a nuclear armed Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney privately thanked the Israelis for that raid. Several US and Israeli officials even at the time of the strike thanked Israel for doing what it did. Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s nuclear program was in the best interests of the American people. Condemning it as a violation of principles, as opposed to praising it for its military success, was also in their interests, especially given the Reagan administration’s effort to build alliances with Sunni Arab countries to thwart the new (at the time) Iranian threat. Hence, the seeming contradiction. So we need to parse the public statements and the granular geopolitical interests.[i]
Additionally, East and West (for lack of a better nomenclature) see the war in the Ukraine in very different perspectives. The latter see it as a global conflict; for the former, it is a regional or European conflict, and they have been pulled into European conflicts and spilled a lot of blood far too often in history to blithely join in one again. One cannot deny the global implications, however. While Russian President Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his aim of reconstituting the old Soviet Union to include historical territories like the Ukraine; the war is more significantly, part of an effort by China and Russia to end United States hegemony as the world’s singular superpower with an overwhelming monopoly on the international financial system. It also is a challenge to a rules-based system that favors a liberal democracy or democratic republic over dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. On July 8, 2022, Putin admitted as much while commenting on his war in Ukraine: "The course of history is unstoppable, and attempts by the collective West to enforce its version of the global order are doomed to fail."[ii]
Putin’s blustering aside, the strength of the US economy drives the outcome of both the war in Ukraine and the ultimate struggle for global hegemony. What India does is an important element, and India likely will emerge a stronger player regardless of those outcomes. Hence the measured and relatively mild US comments about India’s stance.
United States officials are well aware of India’s decades-long relationship with Russia and the latter’s involvement in multiple sectors—from oil and food to military sales and training; and more. Moreover, India is dealing with inflation rates similar to America’s, and its bargain purchase of Russian oil since the conflict hopefully will help bring relief to the vast Indian population. So, pay more attention to what comes out of the Biden Administration and from Capitol Hill, than to articles in The Washington Post or other media.
I also disagree with the premise of the question, that the US has singled out India. It also has criticized two close Middle East allies, Israel and the United Arab Emirates, for less than a full throated condemnation of Russia. Like India, both of them have good reasons for their positions, most of it related to the volatility of their Middle Eastern neighborhood; and as with India, the comments have not led to action. Condemning Europe is even trickier. Many European countries are key to the western alliance against Russian aggression, yet continue to be major customers for Russian energy. The latest sanctions passed by the European Union (EU) only embargo Russian crude oil delivered by sea—and not even that until the end of 2022; other petroleum products in 2023. Pipeline deliveries are exempted, and therein lies US
President Joe Biden’s greatest dilemma. One of his early actions after taking office on January 20, 2021, was to drop US sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. If he now condemns Europe’s use of Russian energy, US voters will blame him for his actions and for being unclear in his policies. It would be a political disaster.
Whether justifiably or not, however, India still stands out from other countries not buying into the western narrative about the Ukraine-Russia conflict. If we except those nations irrevocably outside our sphere of influence (Russia and its puppet state Belarus, China, North Korea, and Eritrea), India is the only country to abstain from all three UN resolutions condemning Russia. That, unfortunately, makes it an easy target for words without action.
Question #2: “India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar pushed back against European pressure for India to oppose Russia’s actions in Ukraine by highlighting the fallout of the chaotic withdrawal of Western powers from Afghanistan and their silence on challenges to the rules-based order in Asia for almost a decade. ‘When the rules-based order was under challenge in Asia, the advice we got from Europe is to do more trade. At least we’re not giving you that advice,’ he said. Do you agree?
Minister S. Jaishankar, no less than President Biden or German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz, speaks to his domestic audience whenever he talks. Since the first election of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has pushed back against western domination and emphasized India’s place in the international, rules based, world order. Nor is India unique in getting the flawed advice Jaishankar noted. It was, for instance, an essential element in western assumptions about solving the Middle East conflict—that trade and prosperity overcomes other conflicts—which of course has not worked. The same can be said for Jaishankar’s reference to the Afghanistan withdrawal. The way it happened, the people left behind, the options not taken, and more have become something of an embarrassment for many in the West, something that Jaishankar had to know. Meanwhile, India under NDA and UPA governments has developed its own modus vivendi for living with those same challengers to the international rules based order.
Moreover, I think we all recognize that the rules based order is used and discarded as it suits individual actors, which Jaishankar seems to be saying. The number of times so many nations have violated its rules about national sovereignty, and done so with effective impunity from any consequences challenges credulity. Its rules about human rights? Violated every day, with nations large and small, democratic and authoritarian, ignoring them. Israel, and now more frequently India, are judged by different standards and according to inconsistent rules (often fabricated to justify pre-judged narratives) than other countries. We can go on and on. Add to that, the post-World War II rules based order is largely the product of a world dominated by western countries, many of which occupied Asian countries as they touted these rules. So, for instance, what do the rules of sovereignty mean when national borders were drawn by European colonizers in their interests that also ignored the wishes of their many and varied Asian subjects: Pashtun, Baloch, and Sindhi forcibly incorporated into Pakistan, the Durand and Goldschmidt lines; the cobbling together of an Iraq from three separate Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd nations; Chinese troops in Arunachal Pradesh with its huge hydroelectric resources; Tibet; and much more.
Nor is just those “bad” westerners. Asia’s and Africa’s continued passive compliance was possible only because Asian and African elites happily and hungrily grabbed and still grab the substantial material rewards, ignoring the plights of their own people. Today, Asian countries, no less so than western seem to champion situational morality in geopolitical decisions. It’s not all bad. The United Nations can be and often is ridiculous and biased. It also remains the most comprehensive venue for weighing and negotiating that rules based order and reaction to their violation; though it frequently falls short of the mark. With all the above noted violations and cynicism in applying international rules, they are observed more than ignored, just as the worst crime waves obscure the fact that laws are observed far more than broken.
Question #3: “India has several reasons for refusing to condemn Russia for the Ukraine crisis. Everything in the Indian calculus has a “China angle” to it. Do you agree?”
Partly, although India has strategic interests here that exist apart from China. Russia is a declining power and India is an ascending one; and the South Asian giant has to navigate the changing nature of their ties to the former superpower. I do agree that India cannot afford to take its eyes off China regarding any geopolitical venture; and I do not think it does. But China has been somewhat cagey with its positions during the Russia-Ukraine war. At first, it advanced public displays of support for Russia, most notably when the leaders of the two countries stood together at the Beijing Olympics in February 2022 just before Russia invaded Ukraine. Credible reports suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to hold off the operation until after the Olympics. China’s role in that regard is not unlike Germany’s just before World War I, when it gave tacit approval to the Austro-Hungarian Empire for its attack on Serbia. Of course, the two varied significantly after that when Germany became a combatant. China’s stances are more nuanced than they might appear. Perhaps its most consistent message has been that the West, and particularly the United States, is as much to blame for the conflict as Russia. It often attributes US culpability to its “unfair” treatment of
Russia since the end of the Cold War. But it hardly matters what pretext China uses, since the goal (as I noted in answer to the first question) is to degrade US hegemony. Nevertheless, it distanced itself from Russia and its war atrocities in the Ukraine and in March offered to broker a truce.
We should not let that make us sanguine about it meaning a change in Chinese policy or international morality. The Chinese economy, which still enables Russia to fund its war (now Russia’s top export destination and its only large source of international funds), is dependent on the goodwill of western consumers. If China is seen as a partner in war crimes, it could have a disastrous effect on it, as well as China’s strategic plans via its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), which also depends on trade with the West. (India already has taken a big step in that arena by forcing China to ditch its Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Corridor from BRI.) Given China’s shifting stance and severe economic dependence on western trade, my advice to India would be to keep its gaze fixed on its own geopolitical and economic interests and make sure to assess any moves by China within that context. It makes a lot more sense than trying to parse the motives for China’s frequent changes—let alone anticipate them. That’s also good advice for India to follow in its relationship with the West.
Question #4 “The 2022 Russian-Ukrainian War has put India’s approach to strategic independence under an international spotlight: What New Delhi calls strategic autonomy might just be prettified language for ducking hard choices and in the emerging global order. Is India’s hewing to “strategic autonomy” more trouble than it’s worth?”
What’s wrong with ducking hard choices? Why force yourself to disadvantage your people if you can wait and see if new information makes one choice clearly better than the other? Sometimes not making a choice gives you added leverage for when you do. For example, quite a few Afghans fled to India both before and after the US withdrawal/Taliban takeover. They are people who worked for the US government during its time there and have proven not to be security threats but rather hard working people. Many are stranded there while the bureaucratic machinery of granting them Special Immigration Visas grinds on slowly. Might India offer the US its services to accept them in India, where at least they will be safe, while that process moves ahead? It can be for a temporary stay until the process is complete, or permanent immigration to India, once they prove themselves to be productive citizens.
The specifics can change and be arranged through a process of negotiation; but the idea holds in any of those variations. That would help the US in many ways—from lowering the level of US embarrassment to keeping former US charges safe. What could India demand in exchange for it? Or what if India made certain (significant) emissions commitments. Most Americans understand that while we have to take climate change seriously and do what we have to do in that regard; a real solution to climate change must recognize global, especially Indian and Chinese contributions to greenhouses gases. India, however, cannot shut off its energy flow and thereby retard or even thwart its movement to full development. Another situation in which Indian leverage is high. And how can India help the United States have a strong presence in the area now that they’ve left it. Again, India is the best chance to gain control of rare earth metals and other resources. As with the others, the question is how India can leverage its “strategic autonomy” to be a geopolitical leader. Perhaps India can leverage other countries to recognize and use their leverage take action in defense of persecuted Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
There is a much broader principle at stake in India’s strategic autonomy. In a discussion several years ago in Washington, one powerful US leader asked me what we can do vis-à-vis India. My response was simple: “The first thing we have to do is stop treating India like a pet.” India is one of the most consequential nations on the planet, and its significance only will grow. Certainly, other nations must recognize India as such, however, India itself must act in its foreign policy like a consequential nation. Too often, Indian leaders have not, looking rather for approval from the West, in particular. Strategic autonomy means that era is over, and India never will achieve its rightful place in the panoply of nations until that obsequiousness ends.
This is an historic moment for India to make that jump. It has an assertive Prime Minister and ruling party, and one of the two salient elements of the Modi waves is asserting India’s role in the world. India also has been hewing its own course, based on its interests (such as energy and its historical ties with Russia). Can it be the mediator that helps end this bitter war? In any event, it must signal the rest of the world clearly that it will do what is best for its people, not what any other nation wants it to do, and leverage its importance in exchange for any requested actions. Maximize what it does in, to use the words of an earlier question, the best interests of its people, and get as much as it can for them.
Question #5: At a time when Delhi seemed well inclined toward the West to manage China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific, the Ukraine crisis has rattled the strategic frame of reference for the United States and European countries. Does the QUAD Summit (24 May,2022) indicate growing strength?
Undoubtedly. It is difficult to read the statements issued by the QUAD, compare them to bi-lateral communiques Japan and Australia with the United States, and not appreciate India’s importance, especially as they reflect varying positions on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• US-Australia: “President Biden reaffirmed his steadfast support for the US-Australia alliance and commitment to strengthening it further. He commended Australia’s strong support for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion, and the leaders agreed on the importance of continued solidarity, including to ensure that no such event is ever repeated in the Indo-Pacific.”[iii]
• US-Japan: “As global partners, Japan and the United States affirm that the rules-based international order is indivisible; threats to international law and the free and fair economic order anywhere constitute a challenge to our values and interests everywhere. Prime Minister Kishida and President Biden shared the view that the greatest immediate challenge to this order is Russia’s brutal, unprovoked, and unjustified aggression against Ukraine. The two leaders condemned Russia’s actions, and called for Russia to be held accountable for its atrocities. They reaffirmed their support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Prime Minister and the President underscored the importance of the international community’s unity, and expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian people in responding to Russia’s aggression through sanctions, including financial sanctions, export controls, and other steps, taken with like-minded countries to impose long-lasting economic costs on Russia.”[iv]
• US-India: “President Biden met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India today in Tokyo to reaffirm their commitment to work together for a more prosperous, free, connected, and secure world.... President Biden condemned Russia’s unjustifiable war against Ukraine. The leaders’ committed to continue providing humanitarian assistance, and discussed how to cooperate to manage disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine, in particular the rise in energy and food prices, to protect their respective citizens and the world.”[v]
And that was it about Ukraine in the US-India readout. The joint US-India statement reflects the US-India differences in their approaches to the Russia-Ukraine war by statin-g explicitly that “President Biden condemned Russia’s” Ukraine war, not both leaders; which makes it as important for what it did not say as what it did. Specifically, Prime Minister Modi declined to join President Biden’s condemnation. In the published remarks of the two leaders before their bi-lateral meeting, Biden starts by condemning Russia, Modi ignores it, and it is never raised again.[vi] This also tells us that even though the remarks and their joint statement went on and on about the strong US-India relationship, India is strong enough to craft a foreign policy that sometimes varies from that of the US (or any other country). This was not always the case in the past. While not anywhere nearly aggressive as the joint US-Japan statement, even the US-Australian communique connects Russia’s Ukraine war to strategic matters in a not so veiled message to China. That just does not happen in the US-India statement. Rather, it pivots immediately to how committed both nations are to “humanitarian assistance,” which is neutral and needed regardless of what caused the need.
The length of the three communiques is also significant. Australia’s and Japan’s are 135 and 117 words respectively, while India’s is more than four times longer than the larger and almost five times larger than the smaller; unlike the others, replete with bullet points and the announcement of new joint initiatives. These disparities do not occur accidentally or without significance. Not only that, all of the communiques were announced through the White House, further giving observers another indication that the US acknowledges India’s strength and new global profile.
So what does the QUAD statement say about Ukraine. It mentions Ukraine twice, once each in the third and fourth paragraphs.
• “With the COVID-19 pandemic still inflicting human and economic pain around the world, tendencies for unilateral actions among states and a tragic conflict raging in Ukraine, we are steadfast. We strongly support the principles of freedom, rule of law, democratic values, sovereignty and territorial integrity, peaceful settlement of disputes without resorting to threat or use of force, any unilateral attempt to change the status quo, and freedom of navigation and overflight, all of which are essential to the peace, stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region and to the world. We will continue to act decisively together to advance these principles in the region and beyond. We reaffirm our resolve to uphold the international rules-based order where countries are free from all forms of military, economic and political coercion.”[vii]
It merely acknowledges that the “conflict” (i.e. not war or invasion); nor does it include disparaging modifiers such as “unjustified” (Biden) or “brutal” (Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida). It is clear that the Indian Prime Minister would not have concurred with such language, and the other powers demurred in deference to India. It then talks about general principles that readers can connect to the Ukraine conflict or not.
• “We discussed our respective responses to the conflict in Ukraine and the ongoing tragic humanitarian crisis, and assessed its implications for the Indo-Pacific. Quad Leaders reiterated our strong resolve to maintain the peace and stability in the region. We underscored unequivocally that the centerpiece of the international order is international law, including the UN Charter, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. We also emphasized that all countries must seek peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with international law.”[viii]
The second and final paragraph that deals with Ukraine also spoke of general principles governing international relations and only implicitly tied them to the conflict. Russia was not even mentioned in the entire communique. That is far more in keeping with India’s statement, in which Russia is mentioned only once and even then disassociated with India. Compare that to the multiple, negative mentions of Russia by Australia and Japan.
The Quad essentially went into hibernation in 2008 at the time of the great economic collapse, and it is no coincidence that it was revived in the final two years of Modi’s first term in office. By then, the world came to recognize India’s new assertiveness and realize its economic and geopolitical importance. What happens next is in India’s hands. There is no doubt of its importance to the United States: as a bulwark against Chinese expansion in Asia; a proxy to maintain joint interests (as well as its own) in the region; and as an economic partner with the United States, as suggested by the initiatives mentioned in the joint statement. India can continue to assert that economic and geopolitical power, even when it means taking an independent course at variance or even in conflict with that of the United States; or it can revert to prior eras, before the current regime and the demands of the Indian people that carried it into power, when its western allies treated India as a pet and India looked to Western Europe for guidance and permission for its direction.
NOTES:
[i] Pulcini, Giordana and Or Rabinowitz. “An Ounce of Prevention—A Pound of Cure? The Reagan Administration's Nonproliferation Policy and the Osirak Raid.” Journal of Cold War Studies. Vol. 23, No. 2. Spring 2021. https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article/23/2/4/101855/An-Ounce-of-Prevention-A-Pound-of-Cure-The-Reagan
Other sources with personal knowledge of events must remain anonymous for security reasons.
[ii] Best, Paul, “Putin claims Russia's war in Ukraine is just beginning,” FoxNews. July 7, 2022.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/putin-claims-russia-war-ukraine-just-beginning
[iii] “Readout of President Biden’s Meeting with Prime Minister Albanese of Australia,” May 24, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/24/readout-of-president-bidens-meeting-with-prime-minister-albanese-of-australia/
[iv] “Japan-U.S. Joint Leaders’ Statement: Strengthening the Free and Open International Order,” May 23, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/23/japan-u-s-jointleaders-statement-strengthening-the-free-and-open-international-order/
[v] “Readout of President Biden’s Meeting with Prime Minister Modi of India,” May 24, 2022.
[vi] “Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Republic of India Before Bilateral Meeting,” May 24, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/05/24/remarks-by-president-biden-and-prime-minister-narendra-modi-of-the-republic-of-india-before-bilateral-meeting/
[vii] “Quad Joint Leaders’ Statement,” May 24, 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/24/quad-joint-leaders-statement/
[viii] Ibid.
Implications of Bangladesh Joining the China-Russia Axis
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in the Daily Asian Age of Dhaka
https://dailyasianage.com/news/288147/implications-of-bangladesh-joining-the-china-russia-axis
As a westerner, I need someone to explain something to me. Bangladesh is a country that study after authoritative study finds to be among the most faithful to Islam of all countries worldwide; that Bangladeshi Muslims are among the most religiously conservative in the world, and that fundamentalism has an ever strong hold on a significant portion of the population. [Please take note: fundamentalism is NOT the same thing as radicalism; it denotes a form of religious practice that does not have to include non-religious elements.] It takes strong positions on issues it ties to Islam from Israel to Ayodhya and Rohingyas; but remains silent about anti-Muslim genocide. So someone has to tell me how that country-whose constitution begins with the word Bismillah-can keep getting close to another country, China, that is committing genocide against its Uighur Muslim population, and does so without a word of objection to these heinous actions. And it's not just the government: the people themselves have not spoken up about it either. I asked that question in Dhaka three years ago. I got no answer to it then, and still get none. What are people scared of saying when their actions already say the things they fear to be tagged with the most?
Even if Bangladeshi leaders were not mortgaging their people's future to such a hateful country, what they're doing is still a bad idea. In 2018 and 2019, several international think tanks, including that of the Asian Age ("Debt Trap Diplomacy and Regional Threat") all predicted dire consequences for small nations involved with China's Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). They also cautioned Bangladesh about moving forward with the embrace of China that some in the government were urging. Chinese debt trap can move things in the wrong direction in a hurry, and the predictions of a few years ago already are coming true despite the turmoil caused by COVID and the consequent disruptions of the global economy,
We already are seeing the wreckage of nations victimized by China through Belt & Road. Sri Lanka ceded effective control of its strategic Hambantota port. But that is just the most notorious example. Djibouti's experience is no better. Like Sri Lanka, it sits on a very strategic location; and that is what explains China's special interest in the small nation on the Horn of Africa. It, too, has had to cede assets, and the Chinese now control its Doraleh Container Terminal. In the Balkans, China has informed the country of Montenegro that it will have to give up territory and assets since it cannot meet its debt trap payment. When the Chinese loans started rolling into the country, several self-interested persons lined their pockets with it, and then hired a Chinese company to build a still unfinished highway that Montenegrins still a "road to nowhere." Laos, as a result of its borrowing, is turning into one giant Chinese military base. Tajikistan was forced to "settle" a land dispute with China and cede 1,158 square kilometers of its territory in exchange for debt relief. And the list goes on and on. Like Laos, Tajikistan now hosts Chinese military bases, like the one in Badakhshan Autonomous Province it began building secretly in 2017, and which United States operatives discovered just before the pandemic. Unlike Laos, Tajikistan has another role to play. Its bases border China's Xinjiang Province where Uighur Muslims are being forced into high tech concentration camps.
But we do not have to travel around the world to see Chinese debt trap victims. There are plenty of examples in South Asia. Pakistan was the first country in the region to sacrifice its sovereignty for loans billed as being for infrastructure. Even as Pakistan became less able to repay those loans, the Chinese-Pakistan Economic Corridor remained BRI's centerpiece. Chinese military vessels started showing up at Gwadar Port, at first episodically and then regularly. Moreover, the Pakistani government needed an increasingly heavy hand to force these projects onto the people. In doing so, however, land use and resources that should have gone to benefit the people of different regions only exacerbated insurgencies by Pashtun, Baloch, and Sindhi minorities. It also appears that Chinese strategy requires more from Sri Lanka than only Hambantota. Sri Lanka is again looking at loan default and is waiting for the next Chinese demand in lieu of payment-another tactic of its debt trap diplomacy: only giving partial relief in exchange for assets, knowing that nothing is changing to generate income and repay the loan. So China gets to grab another strategic asset. Even the tiny nation of Maldives has failed to escape China's clutches, as former President Mohammad Nasheed lamented, "Without firing a single shot, China has grabbed more land than the East India Company at the height of the 19th century… This land grab exercise hollows out our sovereignty."
Almost every credible analyst criticizes Chinese BRI and other lending as suspicious because it is not transparent. That's pretty important. In the United States and other developed countries, we have laws requiring lenders to show borrowers every aspect of their loans, including consequences and remedies for late or non-payment. Lack of transparency allows lenders to take advantage of borrowers by hiding draconian consequences like accelerated interest rates or venues outside the courts, or in the case of BRI debt trap lending, of asset seizure by the Chinese. Loans that lack transparency are predatory, and these Chinese loans have proven to be just that. Most lending nations share these loan provisions through the Paris Club. Significantly, the Paris Club is committed to collective action to help debtor nations repay their loans without being forced by bigger powers to do the very things China has forced small countries to do in furtherance of their geopolitical aspirations. It is not surprising then that China has rejected membership in the Paris Club, at least in part so it can demand the things it does to small country borrowers. Its secretive loans also open the door for massive corruption of the sort we have seen in Montenegro and other BRI borrowers in trouble. Do Bangladeshis consider their country free of corruption? According to the BBC, Chinese lending targets lower and middle-income countries, the ones least able to repay, located in strategic locations. "It is often kept off government balance sheets, directed to state-owned companies and banks, joint ventures or private institutions, rather than directly from government to government."
Interest rates tend to be higher and repayment periods shorter than those from western countries, and because so much of it is "off the books," actual debt can be difficult for borrowers to discern until it's too late. AidData, a research lab focused on development and lending and often positive toward China, estimates that this has led to these small nations owing China more than ten percent of its GDP; for Djibouti, Laos, Zambia and Kyrgyzstan, it's over 20 percent. Sometimes unseen until it's too late, this dependence gives China leverage over those nations and kicks in provisions that allow it to seize assets when countries cannot make loan payments, something rarely seen in loans by western lenders. That tips us off to China's real intentions and why non-payment is preferable to re-payment. Every bank, large and small, has software and a process to try and assure that borrowers will be able to repay money lent, but China never used these available technologies. Rather, they embraced poorer countries that came to them hoping to modernize and gave them the predatory loans that forced borrowers to cede strategic assets; part of an ongoing effort by China to supplant United States influence with their own; an authoritarian one for a democratic one.
Even before Russian President Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of his Ukrainian neighbor, American officials began seeing the geopolitical implications of BRI. When Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping advertised their partnership at China's Olympic Games, it only heightened the concern of many western policy makers who drew a straight line between Russia's ambitions in Ukraine and China's in Taiwan. Fortunately, the China-Russia axis got almost everything wrong. It expected Ukrainian defense to fall away tattered-but it remained strong and pushed back the Russians. It expected western resolve to be lacking-but the West united and its willingness to fight stiffened. Even normally neutral European countries like Sweden and Finland, have asked to join NATO, ignoring Putin's threats if they did. If Putin ever did hope to reconstitute the Soviet Union (his piece of this strategic fantasy), his Ukrainian gambit killed it and embarrassed him before his Chinese masters. Attempts to create a financial system to replace the US dominated SWIFT system similarly has fallen flat, and it was supposed to be a key part of their geopolitical strategy; even if a few countries like Bangladesh helped Putin evade some sanctions with a currency swap; which brings us back to what this means for Bangladesh.
Increasing numbers of US lawmakers recognize this attempt by China to replace the US for what it is. Bangladesh's currency swap with Russia, BRI loans with China, deepening ties with China, and continued trade with Russia have come to the attention of many in Washington. This includes several influential United States Senators who have told me that they expect to review our relationship with Bangladesh in light of who it seems to be choosing as its long term allies. Until now, any action has been held in abeyance because of more pressing concerns: a pandemic, a war, global economic disruption. But expect that to change especially if the November midterm elections show through Americans' votes that Americans want a more self-interested foreign policy.
Why should Bangladeshi leaders care? After all, Bangladesh is a sovereign nation whose leaders do what they perceive to be in the best interests of their country and their people. Bangladesh's involvement in China's Belt & Road Initiative, however, does not serve the people's interests and is actually detrimental to them. Although development has begun to slow and inflation has started to tick up, according to World Bank figures, Bangladesh experienced something of an economic miracle in the years before COVID. GDP growth rates were 7.1, 7.3, 7.9, and 8.2 percent in 2016 to 2019, respectively. It even grew by 3.5 percent in 2020, while the GDP of most large economies declined, including the US (-3.4) and India (-7.3). Recent analyses, however, have gone beyond the pre-pandemic growth to issue a start warning: Despite Bangladesh's impressive economic growth, the economy remains inordinately dependent on one sector: garment exports, which accounts for 84 percent of its exports. These concerns get even more alarming.
That means that all that has to happen is for a major importer of Bangladeshi garments to stop or slow these purchases, and it will turn that economic miracle into a nightmare. And Bangladesh's tilt toward China has not gone unnoticed in the capitals of those countries whose citizens support Bangladesh's economic growth with their purchases; especially the United States. Whereas a few western democracies account for more than half of that market, China and Russia together don't even crack one twentieth of it. Simply put, the United States is Bangladesh's best customer for its garments; China is its biggest competitor. Ask any business owner who they would be concerned about keeping happy.
Thus far, that has not happened, but interest in looking at it grows regularly. Sometimes, they ask me about Bangladesh's persecution of Hindus; sometimes, about its increased radicalization. Most recently, it has been about Bangladesh's use of blasphemy laws for repression and social control. Underlying all of it, however, is the perception that Bangladesh is leaving US orbit and becoming more a part of China's.
Bangladesh has been more circumspect than other countries in approving or refusing Chinese loans. Can it remain so, or will it succumb to the seduction of Chinese money? In addition to the possible loss of critical markets, that path is strewn with other consequences. The Chinese have shown themselves to be expansive and imperialistic. BRI seizures are only their latest device supporting that. It still occupies parts of India (Arunachal Pradesh with its vast hydroelectric resources), Kashmir (Aksai Chin), Tibet, Hong Kong, Macao, and now Taiwan. What strategic asset Bangladesh might it try to snatch? And if all of that was not enough to dissuade prudent leaders from joining with China, we read this from another western think tank: "if China is to protect its strategic interests in Eurasia, it may be compelled to increase its military presence as well."
Dr Richard L Benkin is an American scholar and geopolitical expert.
USCIRF as an instrument of the US State Department
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYx7o2Y_MXc
Note: I was unable to finish my prepared presentation, which was very embarrassing because I pride myself on sticking to schedules like these (mea culpa). I thank the International Commission on Human Rights and Religious Freedom for their understanding. Here is the written presentation I prepared.
US COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM HAS BECOME FATALLY FLAWED WITH ANTI-HINDU BIAS
Dr. Richard L. Benkin
Good evening and namashkar.
I’m Dr. Richard Benkin, a human rights activist who has worked on several issues. But no matter what else I’ve done, I’m most closely associated with my fight to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh. In fact, I tell people that winning that struggle is my dharma.
Over the years, this has led me to work in many different ways with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, or USCIRF, and I have developed some pretty clear conclusions about that body.
· The first is that its creation made a lot of sense. If we really are the bastion of freedom, a beacon of hope for all people; we should dedicate ourselves to helping those denied freedom; and having an agency devoted to that is an important expression of that commitment.
· The second is that USCIRF is hopelessly biased, in particular, against non-Abrahamic faiths. Or to be more accurate, against non-Abrahamic faiths plus the first Abrahamic faith, that being Judaism. As you will see, USCIRF has never recommended sanctions against a state for religious persecution, unless victims included Christians or Muslims. That bias taints all that USCIRF does and calls its conclusions into question—even accurate ones. I don’t like projecting people’s intentions without some solid basis (and we can talk about that later). Even taking the most generous interpretation, however, I find it disconcerting that a high level body can have such a parochial understanding of religion and religious freedom.
· But here’s the good news. In the end, it really doesn’t matter that much. USCIRF hasn’t any teeth. It periodically shakes its fist, and makes recommendations that the State Department frequently ignores. And it also looks away when facts do not fit its narrative. I warrant that most Americans are not even familiar with it, and its conclusions rarely make their way to our media. For the most part, it talks to like-minded others and gets slammed in foreign media for its recommendations. And I want to emphasize again, that USCIRF’s authority extends only to making recommendations, never policy.
And I hope that all changes someday because I do believe that religious freedom is a core value for us all.
My first contact with USCIRF came early this century when I was fighting for the release of a Bangladeshi journalist. He was imprisoned and later tortured for urging Bangladeshi relations with Israel and for exposing the rise of radicalism in Bangladesh, especially through its madrassas or Muslim religious schools; that is, for doing his job. And I want to be clear that this brave man was a Muslim, just in case any of us need reminders that courage and moral strength come in many forms and out of many faiths.
I was new to human rights activism and so grasped at whatever straws I could, doing what I knew; in this case, it only made sense that I look for help from an agency created specifically to promote religious freedom. The people at USCIRF gave me a lot of verbal support, and they made themselves available for quite a few meetings. I appreciated that, but in the end, it didn’t do much. We won that fight and forced the Bangladeshi government to free him only because I figured out what they needed to fear, and none of it was anything USCIRF could do. I worked with the right people in Washington to let them know credibly that what they feared was coming. It also didn’t hurt that I had a member of the US House Appropriations Committee by my side.
The experience taught me a lot. I also learned what it takes for the US or other nations to conclude that international intervention is needed to protect religious freedom. And I want everyone to remember what I’m about to say. According to USCIRF staff—and I heard this more than once from them and elsewhere. Minorities, unfortunately, face attacks pretty much everywhere. What makes it something other than an “internal problem” is what happens next; what the government does about it. If protections are put into place, laws enforced, and so forth; outside parties need to let that country handle things themselves. But if the government either participates in these atrocities, does nothing to the perpetrators, or in no other legal way stops them; then we, the international community have an obligation not to stand by idly. That has been an important distinction I have used throughout my human rights career, and I think it’s a good one.
USCIRF’s Beginnings and Rationale
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the right to freedom of religion or belief outside the United States and to make policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. The Act “declares it to be U.S. policy to: (1) condemn violations of religious freedom, and to promote, and to assist other governments in the promotion of, the fundamental right to freedom of religion; and (2) seek to channel U.S. security and development assistance to governments that are found not to be engaged in gross violations of the right to freedom of religion.”
That’s a pretty clear statement of what it is. It passed overwhelmingly and with bi-partisan support in both the House and the Senate; and I like what it stands for. We shouldn’t be cozy with regimes that deny their people basic freedoms; and we shouldn’t be silent or sit by idly while people are brutalized or worse just because of who they are. There’s been too much of that, and people still stand by while others are killed. Just get me started talking about the Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus and how the world seems okay with it!
They also did something else to reduce bias. Commissioners would be appointed by leaders of both parties. Three USCIRF commissioners are appointed by the President; two by the Senate leader of the party different from the President’s; one by the Senate leader of the same party as the President; two by the House leader of a different party from the President; one by the House leader of the same party as the President. According to the legislation, these Commissioners “shall be selected among distinguished individuals noted for their knowledge and experience in fields relevant to the issue of international religious freedom, including foreign affairs, direct experience abroad, human rights, and international law.”
Throughout the year, USCIRF staff would visit countries worldwide to gather information; and each year, USCIRF would issue a report recommending that the US State Department declare certain nations countries of particular concern: “those countries that commit systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.” There also are a range of sanctions available to the State Department, although I would not concern myself with that. In almost all cases, when USCIRF’s recommendation is accepted, such countries already are sanctioned or State decides to waive sanctions in the interests of national security. The waiver, by the way, allows the US government to recognize the abuses without taking the sort of action that would hurt its relationship with that country. Saudi Arabia is a good example; Nigeria is another.
What could be bad? It seemed to an overwhelming number of people that this was not just a good idea; it also was the sort of thing that helped the United States reach the level of moral imperative that we claim as our heritage. Someone needs to stand up for people when no one else does; and someone needs to stand up for people when their own government stands up for their brutalization, murder, and even genocide. It’s still a good idea, and a needed one.
USCIRF may have started out as good idea, and as an idea it remains so; but in practice it has failed to live up to its promise, largely because of implicit bias that has nothing to do with partisanship or which party appoints a commissioner. And I want to digress a moment to illustrate exactly what drives it.
I belong to a synagogue of good people who believe in these principles and live that way. One day quite a few years ago, my rabbi came to me beaming about something because he knew it was something that would resonate with me. Each year, the temple dedicates itself to a specific principle and that year it would be interfaith understanding. He was right, it did make me smile, but when I read the plans for it, I said, “Rabbi, I love the idea and am proud to be part of a synagogue that lives these principles; but to be honest, you really need to change the title to Abrahamic interfaith understanding, because all I see are Christianity and Islam, which leaves out a large number of people in the world and even in the Chicago area.” And to his credit, the Rabbi did change the program so that a wide array of religions were included. But the point was made. Even among good people, we Americans often tend to have this underlying assumption that credits only faiths who worship God with a capital G.
In almost a quarter century of existence, USCIRF has never cited a country for persecuting non-Abrahamic faiths. They might gain a mention here and there as an afterthought, but only if USCIRF’s major focus is the persecution of Christians or Muslims. For instance, USCIRF has recommended that Pakistan be declared a country of particular concern 16 times (out of a possible 22 times). If you look hard, you’ll see it mention the persecution of Hindus, but the majority of its focus is on Pakistani Christians. You won’t see anything about how Pakistani Hindus have been reduced to one percent of the population. It has never even mentioned the refugee camps in Nepal for the more than 10 lakh Lhotshampas, Hindus who were forced out of Bhutan by its government. USCIRF really needs to change its name to the “US Commission on International Abrahamic Religious Freedom (except for Jews unless we have to).”
USCIRF’s Sad Record
Let’s look at the record. USCIRF has been making recommendations to the State Department since 2001. Every year, it issues its religious freedom report and recommends the countries that it believes should be designated as countries of particular concern or CPCs. State reviews the recommendations, along with other information, and makes its final decisions some time later. Since 2001, USCIRF has made 281 such recommendations involving 21 countries. Some, like Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, and Laos have been recommended as CPCs only a few times. China, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have been recommended all 22 times. Year after year, the Hindu American Foundation documents the sort of “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom” that define a CPC in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Fiji, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka.
· Bangladesh, where Hindus face constant attacks, allowed by or initiated by the government and where 12 million more Hindus are not expected to survive their by mid-century;
· Bhutan, which has expelled most of its Hindu population and still refuses to repatriate them, return their property to them, or allow them to re-enter the country
· Fiji, where ethnic tensions and attacks on the Indo-Fijian community flared up after a coup removed the democratically elected government;\
· Malaysia, where ISIS and its ilk have found a new home, with anti-minority policies that have restricted religious freedom and forcibly re-located Hindu temples; and where government officials encourage anti-Hindu sentiment with the government’s tacit approval;
· Sri Lanka, where government authorities continued to discriminate against Tamils and religious minorities and refuse to respond to or prevent religious violence or harassment by non-state actors.
Yet, USCIRF has never recommended any of they be designated a CPC. Not even once. Perhaps it’s because their only victims are Hindus. It’s certainly not for want of evidence.
In its “defense,” such as it is, USCIRF has a second tier of countries that they assess as not as bad as CPCs. Nor are there any consequences or recommended action. It has a “special watch list,” for countries whose religious violations are not “systematic, ongoing, and egregious,” but only two of the three, and it has put Malaysia on that list, though I’m not sure how it figured one of the three wasn’t there. Certainly, the victims couldn’t tell you. Neither could the Hindu victims in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Fiji, and Sri Lanka, who evidently should be grateful for their governments according to USCIRF.
I want to spend the rest of this section focusing on USCIRF’s behavior in regard to two countries: India and Bangladesh, who together capture the extreme bias that is at the core of USCIRF actions. Although they come out of the same bias, each calls for a different response. So, let’s start with India.
In November 2021, USCIRF took the unusual step of issuing a “Fact Sheet,” trying to justify its designation of India and other countries as CPCs; designations that were rejected by the US State Department. And, to be clear, the State Department has rejected almost 40 percent of USCIRF’s CPC recommendations; in some years, almost half. It’s not that long, and I’m going to read the entire statement about India because USCIRF’s words are very revealing.
“In 2020 and early 2021, the Indian government continued to implement policies that impact religious freedom for members of India’s Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Dalit, and Adivasi communities. These policies include the
religiously discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which provides fast-track citizenship to nonMuslims from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and in conjunction with the government’s proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) requiring residents to provide
proof of citizenship, could subject Muslims and others to statelessness, deportation, and prolonged detention. In 2020, nationwide protests against the CAA resulted in deaths and destruction of property, including houses of
worship, largely of Muslims.
“The passage and ongoing enforcement of anti-conversion laws, intermarriage restrictions, and anti-cow slaughter laws in various states throughout India undermine freedom of religion or belief; they also contribute to a climate of hate, intolerance and fear. Government officials and nonstate actors also use social media and other forms of communication to intimidate and spread hatred and disinformation about religious communities.
“Additional policies implemented by the Indian government to curtail religious freedom include the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Financial Contribution (Regulation) Act, to silence or restrict
individuals and NGOs from reporting on and combating religious persecution, and to restrict support for religious organizations and activities. Religious communities and places of worship are being targeted and surveilled, and those who have advocated for justice and the dignity of
religious communities are being silenced and detained.”
a. “In 2020 and early 2021…” In all my interactions with USCIRF to convince them about the dire situation for Hindus in Bangladesh, they always (literally 100 percent of the time) told me that they would consider only information from that one, specific year. Other data, they told me, could not be considered. Yet, when it comes to India and to supporting a specific narrative, those limits go out the window.
b. “the religiously discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA)…” This is perhaps the most telling sign of USCIRF bias; specifically, that it is not the fair minded entity it claims to be. We can spend an entire session on the CAA and only scratch the surface, so I want to highlight only a few points that address USCIRF anti-India bias.
a. While there are a lot of people who have concluded that the NRC/CAA is discriminatory, that is far from settled law and opinion on it remains divided. The Indian Supreme Court refused to stop its implementation or concur with claims that it violated India’s secular constitution. Yet, USCIRF writes blithely as if there is but one “correct” opinion on this.
b. Had USCIRF staff taken the time to read the Act—and they have legal experts on staff—they would have read that the CAA applies to illegal migrants only. This social ill and the complexity of grappling with its solution is something that we Americans should certainly recognize. Those affected by the law do not have the same set of protections enjoyed by citizens and legal migrants. Nor does it matter how long they have been residing in India illegally. In fact, for quite some time, the only issue raised here regarding deportation of illegals was the difficulty of identifying and deporting so many people, not issues of whether or not they belong here.
c. As a longtime human rights activist for Hindus facing violent ethnic cleansing in Bangladesh and to a lesser extent Pakistan, I understand the CAA to be a method by which refugees from that brutality can find safe haven. I’ve spent a lot of time in Bangladesh and elsewhere and cannot for the life of me figure out why anti-CAA protestors think Muslims need special protection from the governments of Bangladesh or Pakistan. Moreover, the law does nothing to change their status but only keeps them where they are as opposed to oppressed refugees.
d. In February 2020, I wrote a friend of the court brief for one of the petitions filed in favor of the CAA and in it, talked about what it means for people whose oppression has been ignored for decades. In fact, the CAA is the first time any Indian government has formally acknowledged that Hindus face bigotry in Bangladesh.
e. But again, USCIRF has ignored all that, pretended that only one opinion on it exists, and built its argument on that fallacy.
c. As I said, we could take up a whole session on that issue alone, so let’s move on with “in conjunction with the government’s proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) requiring residents to provide
proof of citizenship, could subject Muslims and others to statelessness, deportation, and prolonged detention.” I can’t speak for anyone from USCIRF, but I was in Assam when there was an attempt to implement the NRC (and I didn’t see any of them there), so they might want me to educate them.
a. First, someone needs to tell me why requiring people to provide proof of citizenship, especially when a country is trying to get a handle on the massive numbers of illegal migrants is a horrendous religious freedom violation. We’re having the same debate here with ID cards when voting—and people make arguments on both sides; but again, USCIRF merely takes as whole cloth the arguments of one set of people and then uses that unsupported opinion to build its own case. I also was in Assam before and saw the social unrest and concern over the ongoing flood of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, who were having terrible impacts on the people, culture, and environment. This often led to violence (as when I was with Bodo tribesmen), and the NRC was designed in part to stop that.
b. And so when they sought to implement the NRC in Assam, they found that—and this should not have been a surprise to anyone here or there—there were real problems with the records. People who were definitely citizens—and this was the same regardless of religion—that the process excluded, as well as some known illegals who were included. At that point, the Assam government stopped the process and started trying to fix it with the help of the population there. But I can tell you that it did not result in “statelessness, deportation, and prolonged detention” as USCIRF fear mongered. In fact, I’d like to look back and see where the hell else has USCIRF recommended sanctions on a country for what they fear “could” happen—and not even a comment on whether it’s even likely.
c. The Factsheet also takes India to task for “anti-conversion” and “anti-cow slaughter” laws. Regarding the first, coercive conversions are a real problem in India, and if USCIRF gave a damn about how things looked from inside India, they’d know that. If the different faith communities would sit down and agree on what is acceptable and what is coercive, they might be able to arrive at something that works. And the Christian and Muslim communities are at least as much at fault for that as the Indian government. Again, USCIRF ignores history. Prior to the current regime, the government offered no protection to victims of coercive conversion; and there was a great deal of anger about that. All the Modi government was doing was to try to re-set things and look for that inter-communal dialogue. But that has become less and less likely with the continual demonization of Modi and the BJP.
d. I’m not sure why they think anti-cow slaughter laws are an offense against religious freedom. If they bothered to take a ride around cities like Kolkata and elsewhere, they would have seen that there is no problem buying beef, either from a butcher or from a street vendor selling “beef biryani.” I also have seen the way older cows are smuggled into Bangladesh and even recorded one such incident before chasing the smugglers myself. And if this is so “terrible,” I want to know why USCIRF hasn’t condemned those European countries that have outlawed Jewish ritual slaughter, which is an offense against religious freedom. Oh that’s right, neither Jewish nor Hindu lives matter to them.
e. Finally, what they did not include in this broadside is equally instructive. In their report recommending India as being among the worst countries in the world for religious freedom, it said that “In February [2020], the worst Hindu-Muslim mob violence in more than three decades erupted in Delhi. More than 50 people died and 200 others were injured, mostly Muslims.” They neglected to mention the 30-year old mob violence they were referring to in their statement. Was it the 1992 Mumbai riots that killed 275 Hindus? Maybe it was the murder of around 300 Kashmiri Pandits in 1989-1900; or the subsequent mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits that has been called the worst case of ethnic cleansing in India since Partition. Even the 2002 mob arson of the Godhra train killed more people than USCIRF’s best example. If it can’t get basic data correct, how can we give any credence to the conclusions it draws?
USCIRF has recommended that the State Department declare India a country of particular concern five times, including the last three years, using the most extreme and unequivocal language possible. Why, then, has the US State Department never once accepted their recommendation about India? Let me repeat: the US State Department has never once declared India a country of particular concern despite USCIRF strongly recommending they do five times.
There’s at least a couple reasons for that, starting with the fact that USCIRF’s arguments are weak and unconvincing, especially if you have access to a wider range of information than USCIRF uses. State also uses USCIRF as only one of its sources for the decisions it makes. More important are the summaries and specifics it receives from its embassies around the world and from other operatives. And that makes sense, because these people are there on the ground, not meeting with interested parties in an office in Washington.
I wish USCIRF’s India problem was simply a matter of bad information. More than that, it has a real thing about India. In 2014, I thought we might have a chance to start repairing the relationship. So, I reached out to the new Modi government and to USCIRF chair Katrina Lantos Swet and arranged a meeting in Maryland. To Dr. Swet’s credit, she flew down for this meeting alone, and on her wedding anniversary; so I was hoping for a successful meeting. But those hopes soon faded as Dr. Swet kept hammering home the point (quite angrily) that India doesn’t let USCIRF come there and assess the situation; and kept saying that the only other country that does that is Cuba. Yet, I wondered why USCIRF has never recommended Cuba as a CPC, though its official policy is atheism and there is restricted religious freedom. Neither could I imagine North Korea, China, or Saudi Arabia giving USCIRF the unfettered access they demand from India.
I tried to explain that concern to the Indian government, and tried to explain to Swet that Indian resistance to this sort of foreign intervention smacked very much of the British Raj and its attitude toward India, I made several proposals by which USCIRF staff could come to India in ways that would not do that. But USCIRF was adamant that it had to be official and unrestricted, and that they would see who they wanted to see rather than try to get a more comprehensive view.
One final reason why USCIRF is clueless about India. It accepts without evidence the anti-India claims about Indian persecution of Muslims and Christians. If it had any sense, it might instead pay attention to a recent study by the highly prestigious Pew Research Center. This authoritative body talked to Christians and Muslims in India, and for each group, fully 89 percent said that they were totally free to practice their faith without any problem. If I was still teaching, and a student brought me work that accepted unsubstantiated stuff uncritically but ignored authoritative studies, I’d suggest they take another look or likely fail.
Now I want to talk about Bangladesh.
For years, I have been supplying USCIRF with evidence of the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh. And over the years, more and more organizations and people on Capitol Hill have come to see it. And yet, USCIRF has never once recommended Bangladesh to be a country of particular concern. Even one of Bangladesh’s most noted scholars, Dr. Abul Barkat of Dhaka University has said that Hindus will not survive in Bangladesh past mid-century. The Bangladeshi government has claimed that the reduction of Hindus from a fifth of the country to a fifteenth is the result of “voluntary” migration and high Muslim birth rates.
I agree with the voluntary migration only if we agree that a person running from a hungry tiger is doing so voluntary.
Demographers and others have demonstrated multiple times that the drop in population could not come from these or other demographic factors. And in my book, A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus, I devote the better part of a chapter to the work of demographer and veteran of Bangladesh’s War of Independence, Bimal Pramanik. We spent time together in his Kolkata office while he ran from one pile of papers to another showing me how it’s impossible to attribute the 49 million missing Hindus to anything but targeted ethnic cleansing; and I have spent the last two decades almost documenting those attacks and the Bangladeshi government’s culpability. I would send the evidence to USCIRF year after year. Then, year after year, they would give me their excuse for why they did not call out Bangladesh.
Then came 2020, and I had good reason to expect this year would be different. First, at the end of 2019, the US House and Senate both passed resolutions condemning blasphemy laws, and both called out Bangladesh and Pakistan as the two nations who were the most egregious in their use of these laws for social control and minority persecution. Around the same time, USCIRF came out with its own study that also condemned the same two nations for using blasphemy laws to curtail religious freedom.
Even the pandemic, it seemed, was not going to slow the wheels of justice this time. I got back from Bangladesh the last day of February 2020 as COVID cases were sprouting here in Chicago. Shortly after that, we went into lockdown and so did Bangladesh. But it wasn’t long before my associates there started telling me about increased attacks on them and their communities. I started gathering information and by later than year put together a damning spreadsheet of how Bangladesh was using the cover of the pandemic to intensify attacks on Hindus.
I looked at targeted anti-Hindu attacks during Bangladesh’s first COVID lockdown, and found that during the 66 day period (March 25 to May 30), there were 85 multi-crime, serious and targeted attacks on Hindus that the government refused to prosecute—even while it enforced social distancing rules otherwise. If anyone was arrested, it was the Hindu victim, not the perpetrator. And I want to be clear that there were about 50 more than that, and I’m sure some or all of them happened, but I report incidents only when I can confirm them with at least two independent witnesses or have seen them myself. Many of these also involved Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act that allows the government to seize people on the complaint of a single individual that they were offended by something online. That, too, was something USCIRF previously noted as contrary to religious freedom. My spreadsheet was ironclad—and I warrant a hundred times more so than what they used to condemn India. Even after all the evidence, I had two columns specifically for USCIRF. One was titled, “AS PER IRFA STANDARD: ACTS ARE ENGAGED IN BY MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OR TOLERATED BY IT; INCLUDES GOVERNMENT AND POLICE ENGAGING IN ADDITIONAL CRIMES OF COVER UP, BRIBERY, COMPLICITY IN RETALIATION AGAINST VICTIMS, ETC. WITHOUT ANY ACTION TAKEN FOR THEIR OFFENSES.” The other was titled, “SYSTEMATIC, ONGOING, EGGREGIOUS.” All of this was done so USCIRF could see how they fit its criteria for a CPC.
Of course, they ignored the truth again. Buried at the back of their report was this weak statement: “” For example, USCIRF received reports of numerous anti-Hindu incidents in Bangladesh that occurred with impunity, particularly during COVID-19 lockdowns.” But the only other times Bangladesh was mentioned was to praise it for taking Rohingya refugees or as a victim of the CAA.
That was it! I was surprised at how many times they needed to hit me over the head with a two by four before I realized they would never recognize that “Hindu lives matter.” A few days later, I published our “divorce papers” on my web site asking people to tell USCIRF how they felt:
“There was reason for optimism this year as USCIRF started reviewing material to determine Countries of Particular Concern (CPC); those with the worst record on religious freedom. At their request, we and others sent iron-clad evidence of Bangladeshi guilt. USCIRF had overwhelming evidence in hand but chose to ignore it. They listened to corporate lobbyists from Wal-Mart and elsewhere rather than to the cries of the victimized. For shame, USCIRF! Of course, it had no trouble categorizing India as a CPC, even though the worst unsubstantiated allegations against India are not nearly as severe as the real actions by Bangladesh against real people. Coming Monday: our renewed focus with the US State Department’s current evaluation of Bangladesh and other countries for its report. Also see my blog. Also feel free to let USCIRF know that it has failed to live up to its purpose and that people have taken notice. You can do so by phone (best method) at 202-523-3240. If not, click the button below to email your concern.”
Which leads to my final point: what to do now. Basically, I’ve stopped wasting my time with USCIRF. Their bias overcomes evidence every time. The key for me now will be the US State Department because what they decide is what matters. In recent session, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the nomination of Peter D. Haas as the new ambassador to Bangladesh. The State Department gives more credence to what their embassies tell them, and that is an area of focus. I have been working with Capitol Hill and State so that individuals and human rights activists I know are able to come to the embassy safely and document the atrocities against them. The continuing pandemic has made this year too soon, but we expect to start working on that in 2023.
Additionally, I am currently getting information to pertinent Senate and House committees and other legislators who have shown they recognize fact over ideology. One House member and I are working on a resolution, and with this year being an election year, I expect that will take off in 2023, too,
So I will close with the points I started with combined with what we have learned.
· I do not think USCIRF will anytime soon shed its bias against India.
· I do not think USCIRF will ignore corporate interests and recommend Bangladesh as a country of particular concern, even if it slaughters its entire Hindu citizenry.
· I do not think USCIRF is worth our time and effort. There are much more productive channels through the State Department and our embassies, and through our allies in the House and Senate.
Thank you, and I’m happy to take questions.
Bangladesh Hindu Ethnic Cleansing and Exodus
Richard Benkin Interviewed by Pratha — Indic Renaissance
The link above is to an interview of me by a group in India committed to Hindu renaissance and ending anti-Hindu persecution; and we focused on the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh. I asked each participant, as I do when I speak publicly about this, what they were going to do about this once the seminar ends. I ask everyone seeing this also to think about the same and feel free to contact me if you want to act but are looking for direction.
Is Bangladesh at a geopolitical crossroads?
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in Daily Asian Age, Dhaka
https://dailyasianage.com/news/280982/is-bangladesh-at--a-geopolitical-crossroads
Between the end of World War II in May 1945 and the fall of the Soviet Union on 26 December 1991, the world was seen through the prism of the Cold War-and not just by the two combatants, the USA and the USSR. Of course, there were other important events, most notably the fall of European colonialism and learning to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation. But geopolitics were defined by the Cold War.
I recall, as an American during that period, how we often saw countries as either good or bad, based on where they stood in that conflict. Americans never bought Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's concept of non-aligned countries. His non-aligned movement failed to establish a viable alternative to the two super powers and their political philosophies. I also remember many of those same countries playing the US and USSR off one another, currying favor with one side then the other and creating a "bidding war" between them.
Is that what Bangladesh is trying to do today, playing off the United States and Communist China? If so, it won't work. Americans found that game frustrating and have learned not to fall into that trap again. It's difficult not to conclude that intention, however. How else can you explain Pakistan and Bangladesh ignoring China's genocidal program against its Muslim population? Bangladesh's constitution begins with the word, Bismillah. Is that how your government lives by that word?
Moreover, the trail of nations shattered by China's predatory lending is large and getting larger; while nations who gained more than they lost are missing in action. Sri Lanka, Djibouti, Montenegro, Pakistan all had to cede control of important assets to China, and there are several more close to defaulting. Will Bangladesh be next? Sri Lanka had to cede control of Hambantota Port, Pakistan gave up Gwadar. It would be interesting to see what assets Sheikh Hasina plans to cede when China's debt trap slams closed on Bangladesh. Chittagong? Matarbari? China does not accept small sacrifices.
Bangladesh's moves toward China under this government have not gone unnoticed in Washington. If, however, anyone thinks that's a good thing for Bangladesh, they better think again. The soundings from Washington have not been encouraging for those who want to use the US-China competition the same way they used the US-Soviet one.
In December 2020, after a great deal of effort and previous tries, both the US House and Senate passed separate resolutions condemning blasphemy laws with overwhelming bi-partisan support-this at a time when partisan divisions were at their greatest. Not only that, both resolutions specifically named Bangladesh and Pakistan as the most egregious human rights violators in this regard. This past December and January only got worse.
In December, the United States, Australia, India, and Japan invited 111 mostly Asian democracies to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad. Bangladesh was not among them. In addition to security, the Quad helps countries with things like trade and infrastructure, which are critical to Bangladesh's future. It was an unexpected snub, and experts in the US and Asia see it as deliberate. In January, the United States condemned the anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh. But that violence occurs regularly and all the time around Hindu festival of Durga Puja.
Generally, nations and media are muted, some not even commenting about it. This year was different. Condemnations poured in from all over. Moreover, for years, America had accepted Bangladesh protestation that they were the work of radicals and not reflective of anything else. This year, however, the US and all its agencies instead made a point about the Awami League government's responsibility for the violence and for stopping it.
Then there were the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on the nomination of Peter D, Hass to become the next US ambassador to Bangladesh. Much behind-the-scenes discussion revolved around the brutalization of Bangladesh's Hindus and the government's responsibility for enabling it and its obligation to stop it.
During the public portion, the leading Republican made a point of calling out the increased power of radicals in Bangladesh. Both are serious issues that will not go away. We really like your country and especially the Bangladeshi people, and would not send messages like this lightly. The big question is whether your government will read them for what they or incorrectly believe that they can thumb their noses at the United States without the US doing anything in return.
Wait, wait, wait. No one's sending in the marines or breaking off relations. But there will be consequences--and if someone tells me that we better not act or they'd move even closer to China, I would ask them how many Bangladeshi garments the Chinese will buy; because while the US is Bangladesh's biggest customer, China is its biggest competitor.
The garment industry will get even tighter as we come out of the pandemic, with exporting countries less likely to absorb major financial hits. If the Bangladeshi government chooses China over the US, that's certainly its prerogative. But it is similarly the US's prerogative to make trade agreements with nations that share our vision and do not assist China at our expense. (And believe me, I have spoken with a plethora of countries that would love that garment market-and they're rebuffing China and its predatory Belt & Road loans.)
Bangladesh is at a geopolitical crossroads. It can continue its flirtation with China, ignoring China's genocide of its Muslim Uighurs, or it can reject the forces of tyranny inside and outside of the country. It can defeat the retrograde forces and protect all Bangladeshis regardless of faith. It can be seen as progressive rather than retrograde-with all the benefits that come to the people of nations that choose democracy and freedom. I renew the offer I have made on numerous occasions to assist in Bangladesh doing just that. As one who cares very much about the nation and people of Bangladesh, I would love nothing better.
The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst.
Bangladesh Faces New Challenges in 2022
Dr. Richard Benkin
Originally published in Daily Asian Age, Dhaka
https://dailyasianage.com/news/279796/bangladesh-faces-new-challenges-in-2022
Five and a half years ago, former Congressman Robert Dold and I sat in the antechamber of the House Committee on Ways and Means with Bangladesh's Ambassador to the United States at that time, Mohammad Ziauddin. We were to discuss the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh; and Congressman Dold, a member of that powerful Congressional committee, set the meeting place specifically to emphasize that there could be consequences for continued inaction on Bangladesh's part. Among other things, Ways and Means controls matter related to international trade, including tariffs and trade agreements.
As the discussion became more open and frank, it became clear that the matter was serious and our concerns were not going away. After some time, Dold finally asked Ambassador Ziauddin, "So you admit that you have a problem [with the persecution of Hindus]?" Ziauddin agreed, and Dold said that "we want to help you solve your problem," which should have opened the door to joint US-Bangladeshi action to help Bangladesh achieve the values of religious freedom and equality enshrined in its Constitution. But that never happened.
Not long after that, one of Dold's staff and I met with Ambassador Ziauddin to start that cooperative effort. Instead, Ziauddin told us that "after further study, I find that I was mistaken [when we met previously]" and that Hindus live freely and unmolested in Bangladesh. Please know, we're not naïve.
We knew that "further study" equaled a directive from Dhaka to deny what he said. We also had decades of verified evidence of violent anti-Hindu persecution, some of it deadly.
A lot has happened since then: Dold left Congress for the private sector; Ambassador Ziauddin and others in the embassy here have been replaced; Bangladesh has gotten closer with China; and the world found itself in the midst of a pandemic; in addition to so much more. Something else changed. The rest of the world no longer believes the Bangladeshi government when it tries to blame a few radicals for increasing attacks on Hindus.
The recent anti-Hindu violence surrounding the Hindu festival of Durga Puja was severe enough that governments worldwide condemned it and, in many cases, the failure of Bangladesh's government to stop it, despite the government's almost autocratic control. And that's the key. Regardless of who the actual perpetrators and organizers were, most governments and individuals agree that responsibility to protect its minority citizens lays with the government of Bangladesh. That's no different from the standard we demand of ourselves. For example, when police officers in several cities abused their power and killed some African-Americans, our government had to act-and not only to prosecute and punish the perpetrators. We also had to deal with the conditions that gave rise to these crimes and do something about that; which we did. There have been numerous initiatives at virtually all levels of government designed to do just that no matter how difficult or contentious.
Senator Richard Durbin is one of the most powerful persons in Washington, and someone who has been kind and supportive to me and my work over the years. He recently wrote me that he "applaud[s] the government's response in sending forces to contain the violence," but adds that "more action must be taken against extremists organizations that foment these attacks. As the influence of these organizations grows, it emboldens terrorist attacks on the Hindu community, secular organizations, and other minority religious groups. The government must take action to counter their influence and the horrific actions they have taken against civil society." An argument I've been making for years. Durbin's remarks are both indicative of general sentiment, and a warning to those who wish to read it.
A piece in Al Jazeera openly speculated that recent US actions could be signaling a change in US policy toward Bangladesh. Last month, the United States, Australia, India, and Japan invited 111 mostly Asian democracies to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad. Bangladesh was not among them. In addition to security, the Quad helps countries with things like trade and infrastructure, which are critical to Bangladesh's future. It was an unexpected snub, and experts in the US and Asia see it as deliberate. It reflected concerns over Bangladesh's moves toward anti-democratic China; the deteriorating quality of democracy in Bangladesh, and the government's tolerance for anti-Hindu violence. Let's also remember that the US and other democracies were unequivocal in calling Bangladesh's last election neither free nor fair.
I do not expect anyone to be quaking with fear simply because we are the United States. Westerners do not take this position because they believe we are somehow better. Commenting on some of the places I go, people often ask me if I'm concerned for my safety there. I respond that "Everywhere I go, there are people living there 24/7. I get to leave; they don't, and each of those lives is as precious as mine."
I do expect, however, that responsible leaders take note of things that can have a serious impact on their people and do not ignore them. The United States is Bangladesh's biggest customer for readymade garments; China is its biggest competitor. I was in business for many years and always knew that it's a bad idea to anger your customers; and as attitudes change, people from all over regularly ask me to use my influence to get them a piece of that market. I also learned never to take current prosperity for granted.
US-Bangladesh relations are at a crossroads, and the current Bangladeshi government is responsible for which road they take. Their decisions are even more critical today because those readymade garment economies that continue to prosper post-pandemic will do so only because their leaders strengthen relationships with customers, not weaken them. What they do also will go far in determining whether or not Bangladesh has remained true to those ideals that gave it birth. Growing closer to China, becoming less democratic, and continuing to claim impotence against those who persecute their minority citizens will not get it done.
As Senator Durbin, who tends to have his fingers on the pulse of US foreign policy, told me, "I urge the Bangladeshi government to safeguard the rights and security of Hindus and all religious communities in the country." If the government simply can't do it, I can help.
The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst.
New US Ambassador's Senate Hearing Promises New Era in US-Bangladesh Ties
Originally published in Daily Asian Age, Dhaka
Concerns in Washington about Bangladesh have been building-from the South Asian nation's retreat from democracy to its increasing radicalization and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Hindus and other minorities. On top of that, the current and widespread anti-Hindu pogroms have drawn a great deal of criticism from the United Nations and governments worldwide. Amnesty International said that these ongoing attacks "show that the state has failed in its duty to protect minorities," which reflects a general sense of where blame-and responsibility for fixing the situation-lay. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the State Department, and elsewhere in Washington have come to see just that point; and that trying to blame Bangladesh's communal violence on rogues and radicals no longer is acceptable. That can have serious consequences for the Bangladesh economy in particular-which brings us to the soon-to-be United States Ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter D. Haas.
When control of the United States (US) Presidency passes from one party to another, the new regime appoints a bunch of new ambassadors; even though most ambassadors are non-partisan career diplomats. Once nominated, prospective ambassadors have private conversations and public hearings with members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; and if they pass muster, the Committee recommends that the entire Senate approve the appointment. This year was no exception, and it included a newly nominated US ambassador to the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Peter D. Haas had his public hearing on 20 October in an atmosphere dominated by concern over Bangladesh's anti-Hindu violence. Mr. Haas has represented the United States in Morocco, London, and Mumbai; and currently is the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs. Throughout his tenure, he has shown an ability to negotiate trade deals between the US and other countries, understanding both the international financial and geopolitical implications. That's important because it reflects President Joe Biden's and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's recognition that a trade agreement could be in the interests of both countries-though Bangladesh has more to gain from such an agreement, since its economy is heavily dependent on exports to the United States. In 2019, for instance, Bangladeshi exports to the US totaled almost three times as many dollars as US exports to Bangladesh. And while Americans are the world's biggest customers for Bangladeshi garments, Bangladesh hardly registers as a customer for US goods, accounting for only 0.14 percent of US exports. To put that in perspective, Canada, with but a fifth of Bangladesh's population is the largest importer of US goods, and spent almost a third of a trillion dollars on them in 2019; Bangladesh spent $2.3 billion. For those who might dismiss that because the US and Canada are neighbors, that same year, Japan, America's fourth largest trading partner with about three fourths the population of Bangladesh, spent more than three times as much on US imports than did Bangladesh.
Even if an agreement would be good business, however, there are formidable non-business obstacles to signing one, which were very prominent in those closed door sessions and other behind-the-scenes discussions. I worked extensively for weeks with both Majority (Democratic) and Minority (Republican) Senators and staff, as did the Hindu American Foundation. We did so as news of anti-Hindu pogroms in Cumilla, Rangpur, and elsewhere in Bangladesh shocked Americans. Many Senators and staff on the Committee have worked with me for years and recognized that these events were not exceptions, but more the rule for Hindus in Bangladesh. Even news that an unnamed number of people were arrested failed to gain traction in Washington, since decades-worth of evidence shows that, at best, Bangladesh arrests and later releases individual lawbreakers while providing immunity for those who incite and fund the anti-Hindu pogroms. This should not be taken to mean that these US power brokers do not want a trade agreement with Bangladesh; quite the contrary. It does mean, however, that it won't happen without those other issues being part of the negotiations.
In fact, the overall tenor of the public hearing expressed the importance of US-Bangladesh relations. In his statement to the Committee, Mr. Haas emphasized the strong ties between our two nations and our cooperation on a range of issues including "economic development, peacekeeping, tackling the climate crisis," and more. He also reiterated the US commitment to help Bangladesh recover from the COVID pandemic, which already has included the donation of "eleven and half million vaccine doses," and he pledged to get more to the Bangladeshi people. Haas trumpeted our two nations' shared democratic values and said he would work tirelessly to "broaden our partnership with Bangladesh." As someone who was involved in the hearing process, I can confirm that he will do precisely that to the benefit of both our countries.
After listing many of the practical elements of the US-Bangladesh relationship, Haas pivoted, "But for the people of Bangladesh to realize their full potential, they must also be free to express themselves." The United States is committed to "the free operation of media, civil society organizations, workers, and members of the opposition political parties in Bangladesh without fear of retribution or harm." Bangladesh's recent history tells us that this could become an issue, and Haas said he will "urge the government to protect human rights" and "respect for the rule of law." Where the rule of law exists, all persons regardless of position, relationships, or wealth receive the same treatment under the law; which unfortunately does not happen in Bangladesh. In fact, Bangladesh consistently ranks near the bottom in all accepted measures of the rule of law.
The big issue, however, was the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, and the government's role in it. Key Committee members and staff recognized the current violence as part of a larger pattern that, according to Dhaka University's Professor Abul Barkat, will find Bangladesh absent any Hindus before mid-century. The goodwill that Americans have toward Bangladesh has led many to look the other way as the unrelenting attack on Hindus proceeded, hoping that the Bangladeshi government will act to protect its Hindu citizens. That has not happened, as governments have rather encouraged the lawbreakers by rarely arresting the culprits and almost never prosecuting them. The current anti-Hindu pogroms, however, seem to be the straw that broke the camel's back. At a time when partisanship and lack of agreement often characterizes US politics, I was struck by the two parties' agreement as I worked with them. In those all-important closed door sessions, Senators and staff from both parties let Mr. Haas know that the stopping the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindus is a priority for them and for the American people.
So, what will this new era in US-Bangladesh relationships look like under Ambassador Haas? For one thing, Americans (not just our government) want to see more joint efforts with Bangladesh; and Haas's history is one that should encourage all of us. At the same time, this new era will be one in which Americans expect something better from Bangladesh in the way its Hindu citizens are treated. Blaming bad treatment on radicals is no longer persuasive. Rather, expect more focus on the Bangladeshi government's duty to protect all its citizens, including a commitment to democracy, equality, and religious freedom in deeds, not only in words.
In July 2016, I met with the then-Bangladeshi ambassador to the United States, along with Congressman Bob Dold in the anteroom of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Dold chose that location to emphasize its authority over trade and other financial matters pertinent to the US-Bangladesh relationship. In the course of our meeting, the Ambassador told us that his country's poverty prevented it from resolving this problem. Congressman Dold responded by saying, "we want to help you solve your problem." While no one took him up on his offer, there is no doubt that if the government and people of Bangladesh wants our assistance to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus; America will be anxious to provide it.
Dr Richard Benkin is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst
Pogroms a fact of life for Bangladeshi Hindus, but now Dhaka can’t escape scrutiny by blaming radicals
Originally published in FirstPost in India
The massive anti-Hindu pogroms in Bangladesh are as disturbing as they are unsurprising, however, they could be the spark needed to awaken nations heretofore willing to look the other way at the South Asian nation’s effort to eliminate Hindus from its borders. The fact that they were associated with the Hindu celebration of Durga Puja, a major Hindu observance with even greater meaning for Bengali Hindus, raises religious freedom issues that make it even more difficult to explain away. Hence, condemnations have poured in from countries and NGOs previously inert at the slaughter of Hindus.
Amnesty International had been largely silent as Hindus faced decades of attacks designed to ethnically cleanse them from their ancestral home in East Bengal. In the past two years, it called on Bangladesh to do more for Rohingya Muslims multiple times, complained about restrictions on press freedom, but seemed okay with ongoing attacks on Hindus.
A 2019 press release noted, “Twenty-five years ago, the international community stood by and watched as genocide unfolded in Rwanda, devastating a country and leaving lasting scars.” Yet, it “stood by and watched” as Hindus went from a third to a fifteenth of Bangladesh’s population. It “stood by and watched” while Hindus faced human rights atrocities — murder, gang rape, forced conversion, and more — that were aided and abetted by Bangladeshi governments that refused to punish the criminals. It accepted those governments’ excuses that the problem was “radicals”; but no more.
On 18 October, Amnesty International issued a statement on the current anti-Hindu violence that held the Bangladeshi government responsible because it “failed in its duty to protect minorities”.
Moreover, that assignment of blame — and responsibility for fixing the situation — is spreading. For it was in that atmosphere, only two days after Amnesty International’s press release, that the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held its nomination hearing for President Joe Biden’s nominee to be the new US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter D Haas. I was involved in that process, as was the Hindu American Foundation, and can confirm that at a time when partisan politics often stands in the way of agreement, neither party had any appetite to excuse the Bangladeshi government’s guilt for the anti-Hindu pogroms.
Public hearings on ambassadorial nominations for smaller countries like Bangladesh tend to be perfunctory affairs. Americans recognise the President’s prerogative to make appointments and tend to approve them quickly. If there are discordant issues that the Senators want the prospective ambassador to address, they raise them in the all-important closed-door meetings that precede the public hearing. In this case, it was holding the Bangladeshi government responsible for the communal violence against Hindus.
Both Majority (Democratic) and Minority (Republican) Senators and staff worked with me as news of anti-Hindu pogroms in Cumilla, Rangpur, and elsewhere in Bangladesh shocked Americans. Many have worked with me for years and recognised that these events were not exceptions, but more the rule for Hindus in Bangladesh. Even news that an unnamed number of people were arrested failed to gain traction in Washington, since decades-worth of evidence shows that, at best, Bangladesh arrests and later releases individual lawbreakers while providing immunity for those who incite and fund the anti-Hindu pogroms. More often than not, the criminals know that nothing will happen to them — which of course incentivises them to commit more crimes against Hindus.
This should not be taken to mean that these US power brokers see Bangladesh as an enemy or do not want a trade agreement with Bangladesh; quite the contrary. It does mean, however, that it won’t happen without the Bangladeshi acting — not just promising — to protect all its citizens and apply the rule of law equally to all of them, something that it has failed to do on every international measure. This is neither more nor less than we should expect from any country; and I was happy when Committee staff said they wanted my ongoing involvement. This is important not because Americans want to be the new British Raj (we don’t) or because we consider ourselves “better” than other people (again we don’t).
Bangladesh experienced an economic miracle before the pandemic that raised it out of the category of less developed nations. Both the people and the government can be rightly proud of their great accomplishments. But that vital economy remains dependent on the largesse of others, especially the United States.
Americans are the world’s biggest customers for Bangladeshi garment exports, accounting for almost a fifth of them, which are the backbone of Bangladesh’s economy. Many other countries export readymade garments and would love a larger share of the American market. This gives Americans a number of alternatives if Bangladesh continues to allow the human rights of Hindus to be violated with impunity.
Bangladesh also provides more United Nations (UN) peacekeeping personnel than any other country, taking in millions of dollars every month, and paid for largely by US taxpayers. The UN, too, has condemned the violence against Hindus, saying that the attacks “need to stop”.
I was in Dhaka during the 2007 military coup and spoke with several military leaders after the coup. There was violence in the street, and Opposition leader Sheikh Hasina told her followers to “close down the country”. But the military told me that, in fact, they finally acted because they worried that the UN would bar them from peacekeeping operations. The stakes for Bangladesh could hardly be higher. Protecting Bangladesh’s peacekeeping role and its export economy is in Sheikh Hasina’s hands. Will she choose to do so or give greater priority to brutalising Hindus?
And what of India? The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 marked the first time that the Government of India formally recognised that Hindus are persecuted and at-risk in Bangladesh. In the same tradition in which India has provided safe haven for Tibetan Buddhists and Iraqi and other Jews, it now offers succour to persecuted Hindus in Bangladesh. What it does with that formal recognition remains to be seen. In addition to buying a growing amount of Bangladeshi exports, India also cooperates with Bangladesh on water rights, counterterrorism, and other economic and strategic elements — any of which could be in play if Bangladesh continues to abet the persecution of Hindus.
If my discussions in Washington and Peter D Haas’s confirmation hearings are any indication, Bangladesh can no longer mollify the rest of the world by blaming the ethnic cleansing of Hindus on radicals. If Sheikh Hasina decides to protect all her citizens equally, there is much to be gained. If she instead chooses to continue allowing the ethnic cleansing of Hindus, she will have to explain to her people why she put radical interests over theirs.
The writer is an American human rights activist and the author of ‘A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: The Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus’. Views expressed are personal.
An Acknowledgement of Historical and Current Hindu Genocide
I was part of a panel of experts discussing historical and current Hindu genocide. My focus was primarily but not entirely on East Bengal/Bangladesh. Please like, subscribe to this channel by Richa Gautam.
Subaltern Hindus in Bangladesh are not invisible
Subaltern Hindus in Bangladesh are not invisible
Dr. Richard Benkin
2nd Barak Valley Annual Conference 2021 - Session VI
Northeast India Company
Silchar, Assam, India
Via Zoom 1 September 2021
Talk requested by Conference and by the Northeast India Company (NEIC), located in Silchar, Assam. NEIC and its head Dr. Arjun Choudhuri. sponsored my residency in Silchar, December 2019 to January 2020.
Good morning from the United States.
Whether applied to South Asian Hindus, which is our focus today, or to colonized populations anywhere, as it was originally formulated, the essence of the subaltern concept is:
1. Others determine who can speak for a people authoritatively.
2. It so demoralizes the subaltern population that many among them, knowingly or unknowingly, buy into it.
Classic sociological theory took note of a related phenomenon over a century ago: definition of the situation. It’s a great concept, referring to the fact that we all interact on the basis of rules, key understandings, and cultural definitions, apparent or not. We’re not born with these ideas but learn them, which makes it crucial to ask where we learn them and from whom. Because whoever gets to define which ones we use, controls the situation. Here’s an example of how it works. I’m one among many people trying to stop Bangladesh from moving closer to China, which it is doing, first through the Belt & Road Initiative and then expanding on that. Those who disagree with us define the situation one way:
‘China is an Asian brother who provides needed funds that less developed countries use for things like infrastructure, so we don’t have to wait for “permission” from western powers.’
Those who agree with me define it another way:
‘China is a predatory lender that uses these loans as a pretext to seize strategic assets (for example, ports in Sri Lanka and Pakistan). Its goal is not to help these countries but to dominate them.’
The same situation; two very different ways to understand it; and two very different sets of action based on those differential definitions.
Who controls the definitions of your situations? (I’ll just leave that out there for people to contemplate.)
It goes deeper than that. As many of you know, I’ve devoted much of my life to fighting the ethnic cleansing of Bangladeshi Hindus, and saving lives must be our top priority; but if all I’m doing is re-defining the situation for them, ultimately, I’m no different than the British Raj or the Awami League. My goal is and must be for them to evaluate the evidence and define the situation as a dangerous one that they can change. I learned this years ago in makeshift camp in northern Bengal when I asked these Hindu refugees what they would like me to do. “We want you to give us our rights,” they said, but after thinking about that, I said, “I can’t do that. I can’t give you your rights because they are not mine to give. I want to help you claim what is yours. Besides, if I can give them to you, I can take them away, which is something neither of us want.”
They defined their situation as a powerless one, in which only others with power can do good things for them and defeat different others with power who were doing bad things. I was a bit naïve back then and brought my own cultural context and ideas about “inalienable rights.” I figured all I had to do was make the case and provide support. But I had not counted on how being subaltern beat these people down to where they did not even realize that they accepted their oppressors’ definition of the situation.
That is the essence of being subaltern: allowing others to define us, and accepting our invisibility and rightlessness as somehow being warranted. But if we understand this, we can overcome it; we’ll know what to fight and how to fight it. So, let’s get started.
From Colonial to Post-Colonial
The concept of subaltern populations grew out of a Marxist perspective; and while I do not usually find Marxist ideas useful, this one is—but not because of its “workers of the world unite” roots. Besides exposing a brutal process, it helps us see whose idea of truth begins and ends with a restricted number of elites; versus those who go to a variety of sources; who go to the people for their information; who understand the importance of life for the people from the perspective of the people instead of from some unelected other given the divine right to tell their story. What often passes for authoritative analysis suffers from this limited and limiting perspective; and we owe it to those populations to refrain from that error and expose its bias when others don’t. Nowhere has this been more destructive than in South Asia.
Cracking that has been one of the most important achievements of the Modi phenomenon. Previous Indian governments often bought into a sense of western superiority, overly concerned with what this or that western power or individual might think. The UPA coalition’s referent was Europe and its soft socialism. Modi said, ‘No, we are as good as anyone else and will be telling our own story, thank you very much.’
It was very common for me to be speaking in India, and my Indian colleague, speaking first, would say something and receive a mild or non-existent response from our South Asian audience. I then would say the same thing and get ooh’s and ah’s from the same people. The subaltern definition of the situation says that as a white westerner, I’m someone whose words have value; but as an Indian, my friend’s do not. This always was so embarrassing, partly because Americans have an ingrained dislike of that sort of prejudice. Moreover, my friend had insights that I did not—insights that have become very important for my work. Our South Asian audience missed that because of this legacy of colonialism. It didn’t matter if those South Asians liked what this particular white westerner said. The damage was done by their acceptance of this authority hierarchy. It happens less now. Whether you like Modi or not—and I really like him and what he’s done—you cannot deny this shift in perspective and power.
Recognize that most information we get is driven by ideology, political or religious alliances, self-interest, or even conspiracy theories. It’s not objective, often not even accurate; we must apply the same exacting standards to verify it as we would in any academic venture. If we listen only to the same elites and uncritically let them define the situation for us, we’re going to sign on to a lot of bad stuff, regardless of our intentions.
Recently, I was part of a seminar on forced conversion. The convener told me that there would be segments on Hindus in Bangladesh (mine), Coptic Christians in Egypt (another very serious matter), and “Muslims in India.” I asked him who was forcibly converting Muslims in India, and he replied that “some people from the International Religious Freedom Summit” said it was a bad situation that needed to be addressed. Things were supposed to end there with the seminar proceeding as planned—that is, “some people” had an a priori right to assert this without facts. Instead I asked—and this is the key—what data they sent to support their assertions, as we other two gave him mountains of data. He sent me three internet articles, the sum total that they sent him. After securing his consent, I analyzed those articles and showed their bias, poor data, misinformation, and so forth. To Mr. Yi’s credit, he dropped them and proceeded with Bangladeshi Hindus and Coptic Christians. More than that, his organization was working on a Congressional Resolution and dropped Indian Muslims from that, too.
There is powerful coterie of academics, diplomats, and others with a visceral hatred for India. They always have been bolstered by the left, who since Modi have been joined by an unlikely ally: right wing, Evangelical Christians. Their visceral hatred comes from the Modi Administration’s actions against coercive conversions that Christian missionaries never had to bother about before. It’s not easy fighting both left and right at the same time, but winning this two-front war is not impossible. You do it by challenging their data and by being as tough on yourself and others when you have data supporting your position. That’s what we did. It was not about Christians, Muslims, or any other social group. We focused on data and the scientific method.
And we refused to let others define the situation, which was important when that same group of India haters circulated an anti-India resolution. They got support because of who they are, not because of facts. But they thought facts didn’t matter; that political and ideological alliances were all they needed. And it looked like they might be right. The resolution passed easily in six other US cities and so was expected to sail through in Chicago, but something happened there.
Chicago’s NRI Hindu community decided to fight it and insisted that they should be telling that story. They fought the haters with facts, and asked Councilmembers why, with all the serious problems Chicago has, they were focused on India. (I don’t know how much it’s circulated globally, but at least within the United States, Chicago has become shorthand for a city with out of control crime and on the brink of financial ruin.) They also got the Jewish community involved. We supported them, worked with them; and raised our voices against those who co-opted the right to tell their story. Organizations, including the Hindu American Foundation, StandWithUs, and the Middle East Forum got involved, too. But—and this is also critical—our Jewish community and organizations only got involved because the Hindu community asked for our help. This is their story and fight; we will do everything we can; but as supporters, friends. The measure was defeated because Chicago’s Hindus made it happen! More than that, it has not been introduced it anywhere else, as it was expected to be. Our opponents were so used to winning with ideology alone, that when we fought them with facts, they had no effective response.
This is what happens when others tell our story, the essence of a subaltern mentality; and what happens when we prevent that and tell our own.
Italian Marxist Antonio Gramschi developed the subaltern concept to push back against Europe’s accepted “truth” that understood non-European peoples from the perspective of their European colonizers (e.g. India from the British, Indo-China from the French, Congo from the Belgians). Those stories were driven by the colonizers’ own self-interests, cultural assumptions of their superiority, and cultural and religious imperialism. Though the British Raj died close to 75 years ago, this legacy of colonialism remains strong and explains our ongoing struggle against the fact-free demonization of India and Hinduism, replete in things from school textbooks to anti-Hindu slurs in the media. Too many, both East and West, never let go of a view that looked to the West, primarily Europe, for information about non-Europeans. The Subaltern Hindus under Bangladesh rule might live in a post-colonial world, but they still look outside their community at hostile others telling their story. They are no less invisible than when the British defined their fathers.
Let’s look at another example of how this works. You’ll notice how I go back and forth between theory and action. That’s because you need both. Theory is sterile without connection to real life, and experience is chaotic without an overarching context. It also will take both of them to stop the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh’s Hindus: we change assumptions about who is authorized to tell a people’s story; and use facts and fight for that change.
Several years ago, I was part of a government briefing about Bangladesh. Throughout the proceedings, people casually referred to Bangladesh as a Muslim nation—which is objectively correct. It’s over 90 percent Muslim, Islam is its official state religion; even the first word of its constitution is Bismillah. When the audience had a chance to speak, one Bangladeshi Hindu told us that every time people call Bangladesh a Muslim nation, he feels like a foreigner in his own country. Others there voiced their agreement. That young man will never know the impact he had, because it drove home to me that the only way I’d be of value is by going to South Asia, cities and the villages, and listen to what the people said. It would not get done with a Google search, with the second and third hand internet articles that our opponents try to pass off as fact, or by going to so-called experts. That young man told me that Bangladesh’s Subaltern Hindus are never allowed to tell their own story—the many centuries of Hinduism in Bengal; how Bengal’s division is a British contrivance that hurts their sense of who they are and threatens their physical survival. They are not even recognized as authorities about the atrocities they face.
Experts who rarely leave their offices in London or Washington are considered more credible. Bangladeshi governments and their hired guns put out the consecrated word about Hindus, refusing to move off the fiction of Bangladesh as—and I’m using their words—“a land of communal harmony.” We know better, but it’s tough to get others to see it, because when we challenge that, we’re not just fighting misinformation, we are blaspheming against their very world view, which helps explain their anger towards us. One Bangladeshi general recently told me that he and his colleagues see opposing us as a “patriotic duty,” even if the facts are on our side. That’s why people charged with blasphemy in Bangladesh often are charged with treason for the same actions.
When others—whether European colonizers or oppressive native regimes—have the monopoly on telling our story, truth becomes the victim, sublimated in favor of the self-interests of those others. Their racial and cultural domination lets them use unsubstantiated information, and reject vetted information from others who do not share the listeners’ subaltern understandings.
We must never suspend our critical faculties and blithely accept what they tell us. Even as a child, my daughter would say: “Question the man who tells you the sky is blue so you’ll be sure to challenge the man who tells you the sky is red.” In other words, we can’t go wrong by questioning what others tell us; but we can go wrong if we don’t. If anyone—and I mean anyone, me, your professors, politicians, or someone claiming to carry the mantle of human rights—makes accusations all backed up the same sources and categories of elites, with little or nothing from the people being victimized; question it. If they are not transparent about their methods for verifying allegations or their analytical methodologies; doubt it. Either they’re being devious or they don’t care about facts. Challenge them; make them care; reject their assumption of being entitled to speak for others.
That’s the first step in breaking the subaltern grip.
The Subaltern Hindus of Bangladesh
When we refer to Bangladeshi Hindus today as subaltern, what exactly do we mean? We mean first and foremost, that the end of European colonialism did not mean the end of colonialist mentalities, whereby Bangladesh’s subaltern Hindus accept their own subjugation to a government that denies them legal and social equality and equal access to the rule of law. In 2013, after Bangladeshi governments barred from the country for six years, I was allowed into Bangladesh where I got a crash course in that mentality. Several Hindu Members of the Jatiya Sangsad, Bangladesh’s parliament, had asked to meet with me, which we did on 18 February. I’ll read you my journal for part of that evening.
“Okay, tell me what you—as Hindu MPs—are doing about the ethnic cleansing of your people here.”
“We have done many things—“
“Many things? You know that’s bullshit. They’re being raped and killed, land being snatched, Mandirs destroyed; and no prosecutions. So, don’t tell me that you’re doing ‘many things.’ How many Hindu Members of Parliament are there?”
“70.”
“70, that’s a lot of people; and you mean to tell me that with that many in parliament, you still haven’t done anything.”
“Well, the party—“
“That’s your other mistake, and I tried to tell this to Hindus before the last election. Minorities need to form their own political party. Right now, the Awami League doesn’t have to do anything. They know you’ll vote for them anyway. And the BNP doesn’t have to do anything because they know you won’t vote for them….”
And I went on for some time, peppering them, demanding, egging on, etc. I told them that they should be ashamed that I come half way around the world while they do nothing here for their own people. I gave them at least a half dozen suggestions of things they can do. Pointing to Rabindra Ghosh, I said that “he has extensive evidence that there are Members of Parliament involved big time in grabbing Hindu land, even rapes and other atrocities. What do you think your enemies think of you as you can sit next to them smiling? ‘We can steal their land, rape their daughters and sisters, and just give them a few Taka.’”
Someone started to say something about there being problems. “Problems? Problems? I don’t want to hear about problems. You think I don’t have problems? Or that he [R Ghosh] has none. Do you think I give a shit about problems? Problems are just an excuse for not doing what’s right.”
I was on a roll, and did not let up. I kept telling them they should be ashamed….But I think my favorite part was when I stopped my rant, looked at them, and said: “So, are you happy you came here tonight?”
They were so embedded in the subaltern assumption of their inferiority to others that they ended up believing the excuses and even seemed puzzled at why I wasn’t thrilled merely to take pictures with them. Worse still, they did not use the power they had to stop the carnage, and could not understand why that was something they should consider. That’s how insidious this is.
What do we do with all that? How do we stop the atrocities?
For the time being, I want to lay aside that aspect of subaltern Hindus by which they accept others’ superiority. It is a real phenomenon, and it will be difficult to stop the carnage unless it changes; but too much focus on it smacks of blaming the victim. Neither can we blame Bangladeshi Hindus, especially those in the villages, from concluding that they are objectively powerless and are dependent on the largesse of others who are powerful. They are, and we need to change that, too.
As things stand right now, western elites give credence to others for what is said about Bangladeshi Hindus, and those others include the Bangladeshi government and its acolytes. There is nothing evil about that or specifically anti-Hindu. In fact, that’s how it should be. Regardless of our different faiths, origins, and other tribal characteristics, we cede that authority to the larger society in exchange for protection, equal access to the law, and other benefits that come from living together as one. This goes back to Rousseau and Hobbes, and despite disagreeing on so much, they agreed on this. That’s theory, and as theory it usually works. Bangladesh’s Hindu population, however, does not get protection, and the government blocks their access to the law. By so doing, it has forfeited its right to claim to speak for them, but Western authorities do not recognize that abrogation of the social contract.
To explain, I keep referring to “western” entities because the west controls Bangladesh’s pressure points, not because they have any inherent qualities that should make them our focus. The West either can join our struggle for justice or ignore reality and reinforce injustice by clinging to status quo. Indeed, would those same westerners recognize China’s authority to tell the Uighurs’ story or Myanmar’s version of the Rohingyas’? Of course, not. Getting them to see that the Bangladeshi government has ceded it rights no less is our job.
Saving Bangladesh’s Subaltern Hindus
It’s a lousy situation, but we have to do something. We cannot stand by idly while innocent people are systematically destroyed. As a Jew, I got into this fight precisely because that’s what most Europeans did when my people were being murdered, or in a message specifically for India, we cannot shutter our shades and hide while our neighbors are being dragged away to their deaths.
Many in the West who can do something about it refuse to re-consider their position. Most subaltern Hindus are not convinced that they have the right to take action against their own government. That’s changing, but not fast enough, according to the many Bangladeshi human rights activists who tell me that one of their greatest challenges is convincing young Hindus not to leave Bangladesh, but to stay and fight for it. Let’s also recall Dhaka University’s Professor Abul Barkat’s dire warning that if things don’t change, Hinduism will be dead in Bangladesh by mid-century.
To be effective, we must first understand that the Bangladeshi government will never do the right thing on this simply because it is the right thing to do. It will try to pacify you with mere words and no action, which you know they are trying to do. Demand action, because the government will do the right thing if we make it contrary to their interests to continue the carnage.
First, congratulations to India. Its 2019 NRC/CAA marked the first time that an Indian government formally recognized that Hindus face persecution in Bangladesh, and that it’s bad enough for India to provide the victims with a safe haven. Build on that with facts that oppose and defeat those who are trying to define it otherwise and use it for their own purposes. We do not yet know all that will come of this, but it provides a legal basis for India finally doing something about its oppressed neighbors. And when it does, India has several measures it can take from controlling water, to making its embassy in Dhaka a center for resisting anti-Hindu human rights abuses, to undercutting Bangladesh on the international readymade garment market and taking parts of this market that is central to the Bangladeshi economy. Get them to act by showing them what will happen if they don’t.
Second, US President Joe Biden has sent the Senate Foreign Relations Committee his nominee to be the new US ambassador to Bangladesh. Peter D, Hass is a qualified professional who should do well in that role. My only concern is his history of trade deals. Achieving a trade deal with the United States has been the Bangladeshi government’s Holy Grail for decades, which makes sense. The US is their largest customer for readymade garments—which are the key to the Bangladeshi economy. Any benefits they get in our trade relations tend to mean billions of dollars. While there is nothing wrong with that, we cannot make the deal a priority and conclude it without demanding specific actions that give Bangladeshi Hindus equal access to the law in reality, protection from the police and government in reality; and for the government to sack those government officials who participate in anti-Hindu violence, its non-prosecution, or its cover-up. Though not always consistent about it, my country frequently considers human rights in determining its relations with other countries. So we have a path to justice, but we cannot close it with a trade deal alone.
If we get this issue raised as part of Mr. Haas’s hearing, it will tell him that this is on the American peoples’ agenda. It also will put Bangladesh on notice that we’re no longer ignoring its atrocities against Hindus there. I’m currently working in three different channels to get this issue raised in Mr. Haas’s hearings, and any help I get could mean the difference between success and failure. Members of the Committee represent 40 percent of our 50 states and about the same percentage of the total US population. That means there are a lot of opportunities for people to make their concerns known to their senator on the Committee. If you have friends, relatives, or associates who are US citizens, you need to have them contact their senator on the Committee. I can help. I’ve put my email address, along with a link to the site with Committee members, in the Chat. Please join me in this. You could help end a horrible and horribly ignored human rights disaster.
Dhanyavaad.
Richard Benkin: Jews and Hindus Face the "Same" Islamist Adversaries
Originally published in Middle East Forum, August 10, 2021.
Article by Marilyn Stern; link includes article and attached video of the Benkin interview
Richard Benkin, human rights advocate and author of A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: The Murder of Bangladesh's Hindus, was interviewed by Benjamin Baird, deputy director of Islamist Watch, in a July 23 Middle East Forum webinar (video) about growing Jewish and Hindu solidarity in the face of Islamist threats.
According to Benkin, who works with the Hindu American Foundation to foster ties with the Jewish community in Chicago, Jews and Hindus are natural allies because the two ethno-religious groups "have similar values and face the same adversaries," namely Islamists.
Abroad, Jewish-Hindu solidarity manifests itself in strong relations between Israel and India. Security and intelligence cooperation between the two has been growing for many years, particularly in the aftermath of the November 2008 Islamist terror attacks in Mumbai. Following Narendra Modi's election as India's prime minister in 2013, "relations between India and Israel really flourished." Benkin cited a 2018 pro-Israel rally held in Calcutta, India that drew 70,000 Hindus.
Jews and Hindus "have similar values and face the same adversaries."
In the United States, Jews and Hindus face a common threat from lawful Islamist groups such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Indian-American Muslim Council, Stand With Kashmir, and Friends of Kashmir. Partnering with progressive organizations that also include leftist Jews and Hindus, these groups vilify Israel and India and seek to further their agenda by gaining influence in government.
After having "failed at the federal level" to pass resolutions condemning India, American Islamists have recently focused on pressuring local governments, particularly city councils dominated by the progressive left, to endorse resolutions "vilifying India and accusing it of human rights abuses ... [and] accusing the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] majority government of being a Hindutva group [an ideology representing Hindu cultural nationalism] which basically persecutes the Muslim minority in that country."
In March 2020, Chicago's city council rejected a resolution condemning India for religious persecution.
The Islamists made considerable headway in six states, but suffered a major loss last year in Chicago when Jewish and Hindu grassroots activists mobilized to defeat an anti-India city council resolution. A Chicago oncologist and Hindu community leader, Dr. Bharat Barai, contacted Benkin to enlist the aid of the Jewish community. Partnering with the Middle East Forum's Counter-Islamist Grid project, they organized a letter-writing campaign that resulted in 12,000 constituent letters to protest the Islamist resolution.
Jewish-Hindu solidarity is a two-way street. Benkin said that after the resolution's defeat, Dr. Barai was notified by a council member that the same Islamist coalition was also "planning to introduce an anti-Israel resolution." Dr. Barai informed Benkin of this initiative and told him, "Just as you stood with us, the Hindu community will stand with you." The sentiment was further illustrated by Hindu participation in pro-Israel rallies during the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas. "We didn't have stronger advocates for Israel than the American Hindu community," said Benkin.
Islamists and their allies see Hindu-Jewish solidarity as a threat to their agenda.
Not surprisingly, Islamists and their allies see Hindu-Jewish solidarity as a threat to their agenda and are pulling out all the stops to disrupt it. The Islamophobia Studies Center of Berkeley, California, has criticized Jewish and Hindu solidarity as "steeped in fascism and religious supremacy," an accusation Benkin dismisses as "an old slander" by Islamists who want to sow division and appeal to their progressive fellow travelers.
Anti-Hindu activists have also spread "false propaganda that India is inhospitable to Christians." However, while acknowledging that Hindus have developed a mistrust of proselytizing in India stemming from the country's occupation by the British and before that the Muslim Mughal empire, Benkin emphasized that Christians, Muslims, and other religious minorities are able to practice their faith freely in India.
Asked about whether the level of cooperation between India's Modi government and the Trump administration would be similarly found in the Biden administration, Benkin expressed concern that Biden "has to negotiate with a growing ... progressive faction in his party" and questioned whether he can find a way to "mollify them without empowering them." He noted that many top-level administration appointments who are of Pakistani and South Asian heritage have "problematic" views, but said it "remains to be seen" what influence they will have in administration decisions.
Benkin believes the recent activism seen in the American-born Hindu community will continue to grow stronger. Defeating the Islamist resolution in Chicago was only one example of the Hindu community saying, "We need to take a stand." Seeing that the Jewish community faces a similar boycott campaign by Islamists and progressives, "they were smart enough to say [to the Jewish community], 'Let's ally on this and on future issues.'"
Marilyn Stern is communications coordinator at the Middle East Forum.
Is Passport Change a Step toward Bangladesh Recognizing Israel?
Originally published in Daily Asian Age June 14, 2021.
https://dailyasianage.com/news/264184/is-passport-change-a-step-toward-bangladesh-recognizing-israel
A little time has passed since Bangladesh's new passports came out, omitting "except Israel" from "THIS PASSPORT IS VALID FOR ALL COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD EXCEPT ISRAEL." The government had to know it would cause a great deal of speculation:
* Especially since Israel was one of the first countries to recognize Bangladeshi independence, a move that Bangladesh never reciprocated.
* Especially since Bangladesh is one of a shrinking number UN members that do not recognize Israel, and an even smaller number without some level of relations with it.
* Especially since all but the most autocratic and repressive of that group are moving toward recognizing Israel.
* Especially since the nations that have shed blood for the cause Bangladesh claims is the stumbling block now have full relations with Israel, are close to that, or are war-torn and as a result do not have the ability to make that move.
* Especially since Bangladesh already supports the Israeli economy with its purchase of Israeli goods.
Perhaps even more provocative is the fact that while the change became known around the time of another Mideast shooting war, the decision was made at the height of a period when more and more Muslim-majority nations were establishing relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords and otherwise. So, is Bangladesh on a path to finally recognizing Israel? As one Bangladeshi military officer told me, "That's the million dollar question."
The Bangladeshis, of course, deny it. They hold to their consistent position that they will not recognize Israel until there is an independent Palestinian Arab state. But while that seems clear enough, it's not so simple. By holding rigidly to that position, Bangladesh’s government is subverting the interests of its people to those of another. Moreover, the position actually takes us further from peace. It has given Palestinian leaders the leeway to refuse even honest negotiations; that is, those without a pre-determined result and in which both parties cede some positions in order to reach an agreement, in this case peace. The Palestinians have never agreed to budge from their demands of an independent Palestine on the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem as its capital, and a wholesale "right of return" for all Palestinians and their descendants. Nor will they recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland. Their positions are structured to eliminate Israel incrementally, and we should not expect Israel or anyone else to agree to commit suicide in order to assuage erstwhile enemies. That is why it was not surprising when the Saudis and others chastised the Palestinians for rejecting honest negotiations. Bangladesh's position was once rock solid among almost all Muslim-majority countries, but no longer is.
Bangladeshi denials also recall what happened with Sudan in 2020. On February 3 last year, Sudanese General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Uganda and discussed issues that included normalizing ties between their nations. But when the meeting became public, the Sudanese government scrambled to deny that anything happened. It said the General was acting on his own, and the foreign policy head of the ruling Supreme Council resigned in protest. Even when Sudan opened its skies to Israeli aircraft soon thereafter, the angry denials continued and did not stop almost until the day when Israel and Sudan normalized relations. Is that what's happening with Bangladesh?
Probably not. Prime Miniter Sheikh Hasina is a shrewd political animal who has survived and thrived despite assassination attempts, international condemnation of unfair elections and minority persecution, and the growing power of home grown radicals. Even after successive elections secured her super majorities in the Jatiya Sangsad and she gained control of most other power centers, Hasina continued to use a political calculus before making decisions that might alienate Bangladesh's growing radical base. Don't expect her to put herself in those crosshairs. Yet, she has overseen a steady increase in Israel-Bangladesh trade, which has been growing year after year since 2014. That means jobs and income, two things needed to maintain the people's support. And she got that without taking politically perilous actions. Israeli goods also have been strengthening Bangladesh's security sector, with quality and effectiveness unavailable through its other trading partners. So, why should she take the political risk of making all that public and unequivocal?
Israel and Israel-supporting Jews played critical roles in the early days of Bangladeshi independence. Israel was one of the first nations to recognize Bangladesh, and were it not for one Jew who loved Israel, that independence might never have happened. Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis all acknowledge Indian General Jack Farj Rafael Jacob's pivotal role in the 1971 War of Independence. Through brilliant maneuvers, his troops captured Dhaka and forced Pakistan's 1971 surrender. His strategy in that war has become mandatory study in several military academies. Bangladeshis gratefully acknowledge that but probably don't know that Jacob was a Zionist, He visited Israel many times and was close with Israeli leaders, especially Mordechai Gur, the Israeli commander who led the liberation of Jerusalem in 1967. Gur's words at the moment of redemption are sealed in the hearts of most Jews and Israelis: "Har ha-bayit be-yedeinu," or "The Temple Mount is in our hands," after 2000 years of Romans, Byzantines, Turks, British, and Jordanians denying Jews access to our holiest site-something Israel never denied Muslims.
When Bangladeshis see their National Assembly building, they should know that they are gazing at the work of another Israel-loving Jew, Louis Kahn. Commissioned by Pakistan in 1962, work was halted when Bangladesh declared independence in 1971. Kahn was so inspired by Bangladesh's independence that he determined to design building to honor it and serve as a symbol of democracy and pride for the Bengali people; which it has been since its completion in 1982.
Its refusal to recognize Israel puts Bangladesh in a small group of nations that is getting smaller and more radical and hurts Bangladesh's international brand as a moderate nation.
Since winning independence in 1971, Bangladesh's brand has been that of a moderate, democratic nation. Like most countries, Bangladesh has found the reality tougher to maintain than simple declarations in its Constitution. Diplomats and others have a strong desire to hold on to that 1971 image, even if doing so can be challenging. Bangladesh's economic miracle and continued success depends on western capital from its garment exports, foreign aid, and its continued participation in UN peacekeeping. If Bangladesh rejects that brand, western capital likely will go elsewhere; and Bangladeshis should not expect the Chinese to pick up the slack and purchase all those garment exports. This puts Bangladesh in a difficult spot as its government contends with internal forces that might push Bangladesh closer to the radical and undemocratic camp.
Of the other countries that do not recognize Israel, seven are fighting civil wars and do not have functioning governments effectively empowered to take that step; five others are among the most radical and tyrannical in the world. It certainly will not help Bangladesh's brand to be in the same category as Iran and North Korea. That leaves 15 other nations; and they provide the clue for where Bangladesh might be moving.
Many of them loudly proclaim the same stance on the Middle East as does Bangladesh. Yet, all have had clandestine (or open) talks with Israel, have military alliances with it, or have long term trade relations with Israel. Several are thought to be on the road toward full diplomatic relations. Would the people of Bangladesh prefer being part of the first group (chaotic); the second (radical, and terror supporting); or the third, much larger group (western oriented and moderate)? No doubt the third, especially if Bangladesh hopes to keep its citizens employed and happy as we navigate the uncertain future of post-pandemic economics.
It also makes the most sense. Bangladesh, like the others but to a lesser degree, trades and conducts talks with Israel. Like some of the others, it can repeat its rejection of diplomatic relations while still getting the benefits of trade with Israel and, at the same time, building people to people relationships. The latter element, built quietly over years in the UAE and elsewhere, is why Israel's latest peace deals are embraced at the popular level in the countries that signed them.
Times have changed, and the conflict is no longer defined by religion.
For most of its history, going back even before Israel was reborn as a modern nation, the conflict was defined by religion. Israel was seen as dar al-harb, and many Muslims were told destroying it was a religious duty. Multi-national Muslim organizations (e.g., the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and their constituent nations took a solidly anti-Israel stance. That is no longer the case. Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have come to recognize that Israel is not their enemy, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is.
Neither was that religious wall evident during Israel's recent clash with Hamas, though the Gaza terror group tried to make it a matter of religion. It claimed that Al Aqsa was in danger--which makes no sense. Since coming under Israeli control, the Muslim Waqf has dug out large parts of the Temple Mount for auxiliary mosques to accommodate many more worshippers—mosque attendance that never led to that under Muslim Turkish and Muslim Jordanian control. Consider, too, that the Israeli government protects Muslim prayer on the Mount, but forbids Jews from praying there.
Regardless, Hamas's attempt did not work. No Muslim nation joined the attacks, and many criticized Hamas for firing indiscriminately at civilians, while Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Even the head of the Gaza-based and anti-Israel United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA), said as much for which Hamas expelled him.
Building ties with Israel benefits the people of Bangladesh.
Besides the technological advantages trade with Israel offers, Israel also provides aid and training in many countries worldwide. It can be long term and structural, in fields like agriculture and security, or emergency aid following natural disasters. The overall opinion I encountered is that, yes, Israel would like relations with Bangladesh, but that Bangladesh's refusal does not hurt Israel or motivate it to exert even greater efforts to resolve its conflict with Palestinians. It does, however, victimize Bangladeshi citizens, depriving them of work opportunities in Israel where approximately one in every 30 people is a foreign worker. So those lost opportunities are ample. The travel ban also prevented Bangladeshis from traveling there for educational opportunities, including seminars and conferences; and, as many observant Bangladeshi Muslims told me, it prevents them from praying at Al Aqsa mosque and elsewhere in Israel. Removing the passport restriction, then, is a positive move regardless of what it does or does not signify.
There's another factor: the United States. When Morocco recognized Israel, the US recognized that country's claim to the disputed Western Sahara. When Sudan recognized Israel, it was removed from the list of terror sponsoring nations. When Egypt made peace with Israel, it became the second largest recipient of US foreign aid. I have no doubt that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is well aware of that and what Bangladesh could gain.
Do not expect Bangladeshi recognition of Israel soon. Both active and retired members of the government and military made that clear; and I take them at their word. I do expect, however, that Bangladesh will put itself in the larger category of nations—and apart from the most radical regimes—and increase trade with Israel, perhaps even allow Bangladeshis to visit Israel and see things for themselves.
The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical expert. The opinions expressed in the article totally belong to the author and have nothing to do with the editorial policy of The Asian Age.
Bangladesh’s 1971 genocide still echoes today
https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/1971-bangladesh-genocide-still-echoes-today
March 25 marked the 50th anniversary of one of the worst slaughters in a 20th century filled with slaughters — up to 3 million killed, hundreds of thousands raped in the Bengali Hindu genocide. On that day in 1971, Pakistan launched Operation Searchlight to quell Bengali unrest, which had been growing from years of oppression and second class status for ethnic Bengalis at the hands of the dominant West Pakistanis. Back then, Pakistan had two non-contiguous two parts: West Pakistan, which is today’s Pakistan; East Pakistan, today’s Bangladesh.
Operation Searchlight affected all Bengalis, especially intellectuals and other prominent persons. The Pakistanis and their collaborators killed an estimated 991 teachers, 13 journalists, 49 physicians, 42 lawyers, and 16 writers, artists and engineers to cut off the head of Bengali resistance. But their top target was the Hindu community. They were marked for eradication in the same manner as the Jews of Nazi Europe, Tutsis of Rwanda, and Armenians of the Ottoman Empire.
Pakistan’s 1970 election produced a Bengali victor for the first time in its history; but Pakistani leadership refused to let Sheikh Mujibur Rahman take office. That was the final straw, and on March 26, 1971, he declared an independent Bangladesh. The Pakistanis and their allies swooped in to kill the rebellion with another agenda as well. Military leaders at Eastern Command Headquarters in Dhaka (now Bangladesh’s capital) spoke openly about using the revolt for “the elimination or exile of Hindus,” Pakistani journalist Anthony Mascarenhas wrote for London’s Sunday Times that he “saw Hindus, hunted from village to village and door to door” and shot after soldiers stripped them and confirmed that they were uncircumcised. More importantly, he wrote, “the killings are not the isolated acts of military commanders in the field.” One military leader told admitted, “Now under the cover of fighting we have an excellent opportunity of finishing them off.” Outrage reached the US Senate, but nothing was done to save the victims.
Today, the Bangladeshi government is helping others finish the job Operation Searchlight started.
Bangladesh was founded with a promise. It worked with India to gain its freedom, and was to be democratic and secular. Unfortunately, this turned out to be an unmet promise. Minorities face a callous government and brutal mob justice. Others are simply terrified as Bangladesh teeters on the brink of being a one-party dictatorship. It’s not safe to speak freely about the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh’s Hindus. I’ve sat with highly placed officials who were close to trembling as they told me how they and their families would face violence or worse if their concerns became public. A credible fear that friends learned the hard way. Others have threatened me, barred me from the country for years, and now threaten to take away my visa unless I close my eyes to this anti-Hindu genocide. Several of my human rights associates in Bangladesh have been attacked or arrested. Another can’t return home safely. Senate and House anti-blasphemy law resolutions passed in December with overwhelming bi-partisan support called out Bangladesh as a major rights violator.
Many Bangladeshis are now using the cover of a pandemic to eliminate Bangladesh’s Hindus. Bangladesh imposed a COVID lockdown from March 26 through May 30. While social distancing and mask wearing were otherwise enforced; police and government looked the other way as mobs attacked Hindus: 85 multi-crime incidents in that 66-day lockdown period—murder, gang rape, religious desecration, and some that can be described only as anti-Hindu pogroms. None of them were prosecuted by Bangladesh’s government. No victims were saved, not even abducted children.
Americans have a special duty to help. We are the largest customers for Bangladesh’s exports, upon which their economy depends. US taxpayers fund their UN peacekeeping efforts that bring in millions of dollars monthly. The Biden Administration has put human rights back on our foreign policy agenda. If we can be strong against powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and China; we can be equally moral with Bangladesh. The mere prospect of stopping the money flow will force a change and save lives, as it did when I was there during its 2007 coup. Urge your Senators and Representatives to support the anti-blasphemy resolutions when they are introduced again this year. Let them know that this is important to you and to how you vote. If you stop buying goods “Made in Bangladesh,” tell retailers why you’ve made that decision.
I know Bangladesh’s leaders well: They will not do the right thing because it is the right thing, but they will do the right thing if it is in their interests to do so. Until we act, people will continue being killed, raped, and their children abducted with no one seeming to care.
Dr. Richard L. Benkin is author of A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus and editor of What is Moderate Islam?