US embassy cable - 05DHAKA1296

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 DHAKA 001296 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR I/FW, B/G, IIP/G/NEA-SA, B/VOA/N (BANGLA SERVICE) STATE 
FOR SA/PAB, SA/PPD (LSCENSNY, SSTRYKER), SA/RA, INR/R/MR, 
AND PASS TO USAID FOR ANE/ASIA/SA/B (WJOHNSON) 
 
CINCPAC FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR, J51 (MAJ TURNER), J45 
(MAJ NICHOLLS) 
 
USARPAC FOR APOP-IM (MAJ HEDRICK) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KMDR, OIIP, OPRC, KPAO, PREL, ETRD, PTER, ASEC, BG, OCII 
SUBJECT: Media Reaction: Secretary of State Rice's comments 
on Bangladesh, Wolfowitz's nomination, Modi's U.S. Visa; 
Dhaka 
 
 
Summary: Commenting on Secretary of State Rice's remarks on 
Bangladesh, several editorials see a 'paradigm shift" in the 
U.S. position regarding South Asia.  Anti-West newspaper 
"Inqilab" reports that the U.S. policy is to contain China 
through India. 
Pro-Islamic "Naya Diganta" criticizes Worlfowitz's 
nomination for the post of the World Bank President. 
English "New Age" welcomes the rejection of Narendra Modi's 
visa by the U.S. 
------------------------------------------- 
1. U.S. Secretary of State's South Asia Tour 
------------------------------------------- 
"A Paradigm Shift in US Foreign Policy" 
Centrist English language newspaper "News Today" editorially 
comments (3/22): 
 
It seems that Condoleezza Rice, the new United States 
Secretary of State, is in the process of redefining her 
 
SIPDIS 
country's role as the lone super power of the world. She 
has used her present swing through Asia to send the 
signals. From warning the Europeans that it would be 
"irresponsible" to arm China to the remark that "Bangladesh 
is becoming quite troubling" everything points to a 
strategy that is built around a desire to rule the world. 
Her stand against the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline is 
also an example. 
 
We are particularly shocked by Ms Rice's remarks about 
Bangladesh. Like so many other countries, we also have our 
problems but nothing that we cannot solve ourselves. Also 
they are in our opinion not serious enough to attract the 
attention of such an important world personality as Ms 
Rice. The remark that "there is more that the US and India 
can do" leaves us wondering what that "more" could mean. 
The Foreign Office would be well advised to seek a 
clarification through diplomatic channels. If Washington 
has any reservations it could easily convey them to Dhaka 
through diplomatic channels. We shall not be surprised if, 
as a result of this public statement, Indo-Bangladesh 
relations develop fresh irritants. That would be a problem 
that we can do well without. 
 
In the days to come we can expect to see a paradigm shift 
in US foreign policy with the emphasis more on ruling than 
on leading. 
 
--------------- 
" Condoleezza Rice's Remarks" 
Pro-government Bangla language newspaper "Amar Desh" 
editorially comments (3/22): 
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent remarks on 
Bangladesh have generated a lot of discussions in the 
country.  She said, "Bangladesh is becoming quite 
troubling."  She did not stop there.  There were more 
comments before and after the sentence.  But she did not 
make comments at her own initiative.  She only agreed to 
what were loaded in the questions raised by the Indian 
reporter....  When an official or a policymaker of a country 
makes comments and if those comments come from the Secretary 
of State of the lone superpower, those comments must be 
given importance.  The question related not only to 
Bangladesh, but also to Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.  She 
added Afghanistan.  That means the U.S. and India will work 
together to deal with the troubling situation in the entire 
South Asia.  For a long time, India has been seeking 
recognition from the U.S. to its status of a regional 
superpower.  Probably, the Secretary of State's remarks 
responded positively in this regard. 
The announcement that the U.S. and India will work together 
must be taken into account.  Obviously, Dr. Rice has 
considered reports by the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh. 
Considering all, the alliance between India and the U.S. 
cannot be ruled out. 
The issues India and the U.S. have raised are understandable 
to our political circles.  We firmly believe that we are 
capable of resolving these issues ourselves.  If the 
government and the opposition come forward with goodwill, 
these issues can be solved on the basis of a consensus. 
---------------- 
"The Latest U.S. Position in the subcontinent: Bangladesh, 
care of India?" 
An op-ed page article in anti-West Bangla language newspaper 
"Inqilab" by Mobaidur Rahman opines (3/22): 
The American suggestion came at a time when the Indo- 
Bangladesh relations are under tension.  Delhi has alleged 
that Bangladesh has allowed some Indian rebel groups to 
establish their bases inside Bangladesh and anti-Indian 
activities are being launched from these bases.  The SAARC 
summit in Dhaka was postponed at the request of India. 
Bangladesh has always rejected these allegations. 
In fact, Ms. Rice is implementing Indian agenda through her 
remarks.  Why are they doing this?  Are there not any other 
issues between India and Bangladesh besides the so-called 
fundamentalism and alleged support to the Indian rebels? 
Fundamentalism and Indian rebels are not issues to the 150 
million people of this country.  Before her visit to India 
and Pakistan, several points on the Indo-Bangladesh border 
became tense and border polices of the two countries 
exchanged fire. 
India and Bangladesh have issues that have remained pending 
for 30 years.  These issues include the demarcation of the 
Indo-Bangladesh border, water sharing and the ownership of 
an island.  Without touching these, why the lone superpower 
U.S. and regional superpower India are concerned with only 
two issues.  India's interest is understandable, but what is 
the U.S.'s interest?  It is not understandable to many.  To 
me, it is the result of many calculations and equations. 
The objective is the contain China in the coming days.  The 
U.S. will not do it directly.  It will make India more 
powerful and contain China through India.  To do this, it 
needs a peaceful situation in India's northeastern region 
involving six provinces bordering Bangladesh and Kashmir on 
the Pakistan border. 
------------------------- 
2. Wolfowitz's Nomination 
------------------------- 
"U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense For the Post of the World 
Bank President: A Controversial Person Should Not Be 
Nominated" 
Pro-Islamic Bangla language newspaper "Naya Diganta" 
Editorially comments (3/22): 
President Bush has nominated U.S. Deputy Secretary of 
Defense Wolfowitz for the post of the World Bank president. 
Wolfowitz is known and criticized as the main planner of the 
American military campaign in Iraq.  As a result, his 
nomination has created a sharp international reaction.  Some 
aid agencies have criticized the nomination of such a 
controversial person. 
U.S. presidents nominate persons to the position according 
to their wishes.  Any nomination by the U.S. President to 
any important position is to be approved by the Senate, but 
not in the case of the World Bank.  Congressional hearing is 
not needed for the nomination for the post of the World Bank 
President.  As a result, the World Bank becomes an 
instrument of the U.S. to fulfill its wishes and dominate 
the world economy.  This fear intensifies with the emergence 
of the U.S. as the lone superpower and its attempts to 
extend influence in the name of globalization. 
-------------------------------------------- 
3. Cancellation of Narendra Modi's U.S. Visa 
-------------------------------------------- 
"Move Against Modi" 
Independent English language newspaper "New Age" editorially 
comments (3/22) 
The decision by the American authorities to cancel Gujarat 
Chief Minister Narendra Modi's visa is perhaps a good one in 
the long term. It is that because we think there ought to 
come moments when someone ought to be able to point out 
plain wrong committed by individuals. Whether or not Modi 
had a role to play in the riots of a few years ago is yet to 
be decisively noted. But there is hardly any question that 
as the most powerful man in the state, he did not take the 
kind of moves that were expected of him once Hindus and 
Muslims went after one another. The fact that Modi has 
continued to be chief minister through re-election does not 
alter the fact that he did not take moral responsibility for 
the carnage and did not consider resigning. 
 
There are tales aplenty of politicians amassing wealth in so 
many poor societies. There are bureaucrats in countries 
whose involvement in economic wrongdoing has made life 
difficult for tens of thousands. It is in such cases that 
civilized societies must act, through denying the corrupt 
the right of travel to foreign lands and the like. The 
action against Narendra Modi is a good beginning. It should 
be sustained, and expanded to include other areas. 
THOMAS