Threat identification and resolution

There is a school of thought that not only describes three great civilisations -- Greek, Egyptian and Roman -- as slavery based civilisations, but has also ascribed their eventual demise on being based only on sword and not on values.
This sweeping generalisation denies the contributions made by these civilisations to art and culture in its various forms, and the values imparted by them. The Greek philosophy that flowered between 600 and 200 BC, in the words of one eminent scholar: "foreshadowed many theories of modern science, and many of the moral ideas of the pagan Greek philosophers were incorporated into Christian moral doctrine. The political ideas set forth by the Greek thinkers influenced political leaders as different as the framers of the US Constitution and the founders of various of 20th century totalitarian states."
It is difficult to disown Socrates' description of the soul as a combination of an individual's intelligence and character. Equally Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Ethics have continued to exercise the intellect of the global community till today. While the power of the sword brought coherence among disparate elements that the Greeks and the Romans ruled, for that was the order of the day, it would be incorrect to conclude that the foundation of the three civilisations rested only upon the might of the sword.
Consequent to the disappearance of these civilisations, in the opinion of one school of thought, arose religion-based civilisations, that of Muslim, Hindu, Christian, and Judaism. These civilisations have continued to survive till today because these are based on a "cluster of human values."
Interestingly, the school notes that all four religion-based civilisations were born in Asia, and two, Hinduism and Buddhism, were born and nurtured in South Asia. It would, however, be too optimistic to think that the sword would become irrelevant in the present-day context and that the commonality of the "cluster of values" would protect us from inter and intra-regional conflict.
As Samuel Huntington wrote in his oft-quoted thesis: the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or economic, but cultural: "A civilisation is a cultural entity …[a] civilisation is the highest cultural grouping of the people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species."
Though Huntington has put economic differences at a lesser level of non-military security threat (NTS) it would be unwise to give total credence to Huntington's premise because economic disparity between people of the North and the South, inter-regional and intra-regional disparity, and disparity within the country, are more likely to deepen the possibility of conflict that no "cluster of values" can dissipate.
Therefore, be it Adam Smith's dominant self-interest; competitive efficiency based on social Darwinism; Newton's principles of natural law; utilitarian views of greatest good for greatest number; transition of Western political economy from feudalism to mercantilism to industrial democracy and promotion of globalisation of trade through competitive efficiency and communication, the Western politico-economic superiority over the rest of the world has come to stay.
Then again the West would be well advised to be aware of NTS like climate change, cross-border environmental degradation and resource depletion, natural disasters, irregular migration, food shortage, human and drug trafficking, and other forms of transnational crimes.
If Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech is anything to go by, then the culprit is decidedly the West, and primarily the US which should sign on to the Kyoto Protocol without delay. Indeed, Gareth Evans' "responsibility to protect" takes a hundred and eighty degrees turn, because the survival of not any system or country is at stake -- what is at stake is the world itself.
The UN Environmental Program Report published hours ahead of the Oslo ceremony awarding the Nobel Peace Prize noted that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh face especially severe risk from climate change led by glacial retreat in the Himalayas that will threaten the water supply for millions of people. Sea level rise and cyclones will threaten the coast line of the Bay of Bengal and change in monsoon rains will hit agriculture.
According to one report: "These dynamics will increase the social crisis potential in a region which is already characterised by cross-border conflicts (India/Pakistan), unstable governments (Pakistan/Bangladesh), and Islamism." US State Department in a recent report stated that more than a billion people in Asia can face reduced water availability by mid-century.
One, therefore, has to be aware as to where the threat lies to the welfare of the people of not only of this generation but of the ones following us as well. The incidence of poverty in Bangladesh is about 40% of the total population. One wonders whether we have taken proper lessons from the devastation caused by Cyclone Sidr.
Would holding of an election, giving us electoral democracy with fragile or even embryonic state of the institutions supportive of democratic structure, give us the answer to the inequities that have been our lot for decades? Does Bangladesh have the economic strength to withstand such dreaded events without external assistance, should these recur? Would electoral democracy necessarily give us the discipline essential for export-driven and investment-friendly economic development?
Discounting the obvious differences in the size of population and that all three are island states, did South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan make a mistake in the early years of their development by following the policies of Park Chung-Hee, Lee Kwan Yew, and Chiang Kai Shek?
Our current leaders have repeatedly stated that elections will be held on schedule to bring about representative democracy. One only hopes that the reports crowding our media of the tears flowing down the face of the cyclone affected people would cease and others waiting for decades to get out of the poverty trap would be able to do so. Growth that is iniquitous and morally insupportable is no answer for the trials and tribulations of Bangladesh.
Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.