|
Article Excerpt
On 29 April 1991, Cyclone Marian struck 110 miles off the southeast coast of Bangladesh. Over 139,000 people died, while millions were left homeless. The storm, described by a prominent Bangladeshi politician as "his country's Hiroshima and Nagasaki", caused more than US$2 billion in damage to housing and national infrastructure. (1) In addition, it destroyed crops cultivated over 74,000 acres of land, while another 300,000 acres of cropland were damaged. Bangladesh's major port, Chittagong, could not function for several days as a result of sunken ships that blocked entrances and exits (McCarthy 1994, pp. 2-3).
Recognizing that it was overwhelmed by the scale of the disaster, the Government of Bangladesh reluctantly requested help from other countries, including the United States. The United States responded with a massive humanitarian operation known as Operation Sea Angel. Over 4,000 U.S. Marines and 3,000 U.S. sailors would ultimately take part in the relief effort (McCarthy 1994, p. 1).
For the country of Bangladesh, the arrival of Cyclone Marian--considered a "Super Cyclone" whose size approached that of Bangladesh itself--was not particularly surprising given the fact that natural disasters are common in that tropical country. The country suffers almost yearly from an onslaught of tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and tidal bores. Cyclones, and their accompanying storm surges, have been recorded as early as the sixteenth century. In addition, more than 175 severe cyclones were recorded between 1891 and 1988 (Rahman 1993, pp. 59-60).
However, the real significance of Cyclone Marian may not have been the fact that it was simply one more in a long succession of damaging storms to affect Bangladesh; rather, in light of predicted global climate trends, this particular storm--and its destructive impact--may serve as a harbinger of things to come. In February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report warning that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will likely become more intense. In addition, they will also feature larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with continuing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures, or SSTs (IPCC 2007a). In other words, the experience of Bangladesh in 1991 may be repeated, perhaps more frequently and with greater severity, in the years and decades ahead.
For the United States, such an assessment clashes directly with key hopes and aspirations that U.S. officials have held for US-Bangladesh relations. As the seventh most populous country in the world--in addition to being a Muslim-majority state--Bangladesh has been viewed by Washington as "a voice of moderation among developing countries, in the Islamic world and in South Asia" (Rocca 2003). However, it is also a country with a nascent militant jihadi movement, one that Washington hopes that Dhaka can keep subdued (ICG 2006).
In many ways, Bangladesh is emblematic of the dilemma facing the U.S. Government as it prosecutes its global war on terrorism (GWOT). Washington recognizes that many of the countries that the United States must aid, engage, assist, or establish alliances with--in the context of combating terrorism--tend to be poorer, developing states that have an array of pre-existing social, economic or demographic challenges. Many of these states also happen to be precariously positioned in the direct pathway of future and foreseeable climate change-related disruption and violence.
Bangladesh, as one U.S. official noted, is "one of a handful of moderate, democratic Islamic nations in the world today" which is an important ally for the US in its larger global campaign against terrorism (Chamberlin 2003). However, a Bangladesh that is grappling with the destructive effects of climate change--a phenomenon that the United States government does not consider officially to be among its top security challenges (2)--may not have the capacity to live up to America's hopes or expectations. This is the dilemma facing the United States, and indeed the world community as the global struggle against terrorism continues.
Terrorism, Safe Havens and Failing States
On 29 January 2002, President George W. Bush delivered his annual State of the Union address before the U.S. Congress and the American people. Coming just four months after the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the speech naturally focused on U.S. efforts and achievements to counter global terrorism. The president stated that although hundreds of terrorists had been arrested, tens of thousands of trained terrorists were still at large. More importantly, these terrorists viewed the entire world as their battlefield, and thus the United States had to be prepared to pursue them wherever they were. President Bush (2002) also stated that "a terrorist underworld ... operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities".
President Bush's description of the global nature of terrorism would presage a transformation in U.S. policy Official U.S. Government documents began to focus on the problem of terrorist sanctuaries, "ungoverned spaces" and failed states. The 2002 National Security Strategy (NSS), issued nine months after the State of the Union address, articulated the recognition that "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones". The NSS also warned that the United States would destroy terrorist organizations by convincing or compelling states to exercise their sovereign responsibilities by denying support, sponsorship, or sanctuary to terrorist organizations.
Failed states and ungoverned spaces were also addressed by other policy documents, including speeches by administration officials, during subsequent years. The National Military Strategy, for example, elevated the failed state concept to an entirely new level by referring to what were essentially failed regions. Specifically, the NMS (2004) described an "arc of instability" stretching from the Western Hemisphere, through Africa and the Middle East up to Asia, where terrorists have been able to flourish in sanctuaries that protect them from surveillance and attack.
In 2005, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a report in which it described weak states--which can be defined as states that lack legitimate and effective government institutions (3)--as the vector for destabilizing forces such as criminal and terrorist networks, humanitarian crises, and grinding poverty "manifesting the dark side of globalization, and [posing] a very difficult kind of national security challenge". (4) In 2006, the second National Security Strategy of President Bush's tenure highlighted the destabilizing effects of regional conflicts, which, if left unaddressed, would lead to the same outcomes: humanitarian disaster, ungoverned spaces and failed states that could become safe havens for terrorists.
The corollary to highlighting the threat posed by weak or failing states is to provide a way to confront the challenge. Indeed, U.S. officials have consistently discussed the importance of engaging with and bolstering key states as part of a larger strategy of creating a global bulwark against radical extremism and violence. In the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003), for example, the U.S. Government emphasizes as its "second front" against terrorism the need to deny "terrorists the sponsorship, support, and sanctuary" that enables them to plan and execute their attacks. As part of this goal, the U.S. targets assistance to those states that have the willingness of combat terrorism, but may not have the means (NSCT 2003).
Denying safe havens to terrorists was a key theme in the recent testimony of Hamlin Tallent, a high-level official with the United States European Command [EUCOM], who discussed EUCOM's long-term strategy in Africa: "Torn apart by war, disease and poverty, and marked by vast ungoverned spaces, Africa is an emerging haven for our enemies in the Global War on Terrorism" (Tallent 2005). Consequently, as Tallent asserted, promoting stability on the continent would be a key EUCOM goal.
The theme of U.S. partnership with healthy and capable states was also evident in recent testimony by Eric Edelman, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, who...
|
