Sabbaha Ali Khan Colince, a member of the central committee of the Workers Party of Bangladesh, gave Harici an assessment of developments in the country and the current situation: “Anti-freedom, far-right parties dominated the protests. The radical conservative Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party are trying to form a new government in cooperation with the military and with the support of the United States. The majority of young people taking part in the protests are unhappy with this situation”.

Bangladesh, the South Asian country that declared independence from Pakistan in 1971, has been rocked by events that some call a ‘people’s movement’ and others a ‘coup’. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, 76, who has ruled the country since 2009 after her first term from 1996-2001, fled the country as a result of the events and sought refuge in neighbouring India.

Before her resignation this week, Hasina was one of the world’s longest-serving female leaders and a symbol of ‘secularism and democracy’ in the country, leading the Awami League, the party of her father, Mujiburrahman, who was deposed and killed in a 1975 coup. But despite being returned to power in recent elections, Hasina’s government has frequently been rocked by social movements and protests. With allegations of corruption on top of inflation and livelihood problems, Hasina’s government has suffered a serious loss of confidence.

The government’s introduction of preferential quotas for relatives of veterans of the country’s 1971 war of independence against Pakistan, which provided many jobs in the public sector, caused a huge backlash among young people, especially students, who are struggling with unemployment. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and more than 30 million young people are unemployed.

The student-led protests were joined by opposition parties, including the radical conservative Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and local sources say the opposition parties have taken control of the streets.

While Hasina did not back down in the face of the growing protests, more than 200 people were killed in the protests, which were met with a heavy-handed police response. Withdrawing the quota request was no longer enough to save Hasina.

Following Hasina’s resignation on Monday, military chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman announced in a televised address to the nation that he had taken temporary control of the country and that troops were trying to quell the growing unrest. General Zaman also said Hasina was in talks with leaders of leading political parties other than the long-ruling Awami League to discuss the way forward.

Bangladeshi President Muhammad Shahabuddin dissolved parliament on Tuesday, meeting one of the main demands of protesters following the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, and announced that 84-year-old Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus would head the interim government.

Yunus, a banker popular in the West, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his work in microfinance, which he said would help reduce poverty in Bangladesh.

In 1983, he founded the Grameen Bank with the aim of alleviating poverty through microcredit. The bank has grown rapidly, with branches and similar models now operating around the world. Yunus and the Grameen Bank were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 after lending a total of around $6 billion in housing, student and micro-enterprise loans.

However, critics have viewed Yunus and the Grameen Bank with scepticism. The banker Yunus has been criticised on the grounds that high interest rates impoverish borrowers and that lenders make large profits on small loans. Yunus claimed that his aim was ‘not to make money, but to help the poor’.

Hasina, who resigned, had repeatedly criticised Yunus for ‘sucking the blood of the poor’ during her tenure. Yunus has been charged with ‘tax irregularities’ and most recently in June with embezzlement.

While it is notable that Muhammad Yunus, who is seen as close to the West and educated in the US, has come to the fore as a result of the protests, there are widespread assessments that the protests against Hasina were instigated by the US and other Western countries.

The US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu, who visited the country in 2023, said that Bangladesh was ‘rapidly sliding into authoritarianism’ and held separate meetings with opposition leaders and ‘rights groups’.

In the run-up to the January elections, the US banged the ‘democracy’ drum and issued harsh criticisms and warnings to the Hasina government. After the elections, although Hasina’s Awami League party won 223 of the 300 seats in parliament, both the US and the UK criticised the elections as ‘not free and fair’.

In May, the US government imposed sanctions on retired Bangladeshi army chief Aziz Ahmed and his close family over corruption allegations. The move was seen as an attempt by Washington to influence the Bangladeshi government.

India, on the other hand, criticised the US’s tough stance against the Hasina government and warned that it could push Bangladesh closer to China. Indeed, the Hasina government has been trying to strike a balance between its historic friend and neighbour India and China, which is preparing to make major investments in the country.

Following the recent events, the European Union called for ‘an orderly and peaceful transition to a democratically elected government with full respect for human rights and democratic principles’, while the US called for an interim government. “The people of Bangladesh deserve a government that listens to their voices, respects their will and upholds the honour of their nation,” US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Cardin said in a statement.

We spoke with Sabbaha Ali Khan Colince, a member of the central committee of the Bangladesh Workers’ Party, about these debates and the current situation in the country. A former president of the Students Unity of Bangladesh, Colince was one of the student leaders who led the youth movements in the country.

Speaking from the capital Dhaka, Colince said that the student protests began with socio-economic demands and that the quota system had created a huge backlash among young people struggling with unemployment. Colince explained that the quota system places certain people in certain positions within the state, adding that it excludes other qualified candidates and creates an unfair competitive environment. However, he also said that although this situation had triggered the protests, it was not the only reason. According to Colince, increasing corruption and mismanagement within the government had become apparent. Colince said that in a country struggling with high inflation, rising unemployment and dwindling foreign exchange reserves, the government was focusing on protecting the interests of a small number of business interests and businessmen within the party instead of protecting the interests of the people. He added that Hasina had resorted to repression and police violence rather than reforms to address public discontent.

Colince said that despite this, the protests were gradually moving away from economic demands and reactionary, anti-freedom and anti-democratic political parties were dominating the protests. The left parties failed to organise the response adequately and the radical Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami and the  Bangladesh Nationalist Party took the lead in the protests, Colince said, stressing that army chief General Waker-Uz-Zaman only met and consulted with these parties after taking over. We had reported that General Zaman had announced that he had met with representatives of all parties except the Awami League, but Colince said the army chief had met only with Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, ignoring other leftist parties. “The army’s attempt to form a government with anti-freedom, reactionary parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party is against all the values that the youth of Bangladesh stand for. It is against the spirit and principles of Bangladesh’s progressive war of liberation and independence” said. He stressed that the majority of the protesting youth were uncomfortable with this ‘army-conservative-nationalist’ combination trying to dominate the country.

Commenting on discussions about possible US involvement in the protests, Colince said that the US had instigated the protests through Jamaat-e-Islami and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Noting that the US had supported these parties before the elections, Colince said, “It is now very clear that the US has a hand in these events. “Unfortunately, I foresee a reactionary, anti-freedom, US-backed government for Bangladesh in the near future,” Colince said, adding that banker Mohammad Yunus, who has been appointed to head the interim government, is also known as an ‘Americanist’.

Sabbaha Ali Khan Colince, leader of the Bangladesh Workers’ Party, said he had not lost hope in the long term and that he had faith in the country’s labour and youth movement and its tradition, which was modelled on Bangladesh’s libertarian, democratic and progressive struggle for independence in 1971 and its principles.

Photos of the Workers Party Bangladesh’ demonstrations against Israel.

The renowned Spanish political scientist and intellectual, Juan Carlos Monedero, is in Venezuela, and we have had the opportunity to interview him exclusively. Monedero studied Political Science at the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM) and completed a doctorate at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Since 1992, he has been a professor of Political Science at the UCM.

In addition, the Spanish intellectual has been general coordinator of Izquierda Unida, in Spain. From 2014 to 2015, he founded and was part of the “Podemos” (We Can) party; However, shortly afterward he disassociated himself from the political space, although he maintains a bond of friendship and shares a common history with the leaders of said political party.

In Venezuela, he was an advisor to President Hugo Chávez and, currently, he is also an advisor to President Nicolás Maduro, who usually invites Monedero to different activities, given the support and defense of the Bolivarian Government, which Monedero has shown both inside and outside Venezuela. 

He has collaborated on political debate programs, such as: “La Tuerka” on Tele K; “Fort Apache”; “Las Mañanas de Cuatro” in ‘Al Rojo Vivo’, by La Sexta; “On the border”, on Público TV; among others. Monedero has published numerous articles and books, the latest: “Politics for the Indifferent.”

Within the framework of the Venezuelan presidential elections, held on July 28, and especially the violent events that occurred in the following days to try to ignore or try to not recognize the electoral results, we talked with Monedero about various relationship topics and this is what he told us.

The Venezuelan opposition claimed that they won the elections. The US and the EU announced that they would not recognise the election results won by Maduro. Venezuela is again at the forefront of the world agenda. How do you evaluate this situation?

The Venezuelan opposition has been claiming that they won the presidential elections since 1998, when Hugo Chávez first came to power. On this occasion, both the United States and the European Union have not recognized that the electoral results show Edmundo González as the winner, but rather what the United States and the European Union want is to see the result clearly. That is, and let’s think that the president of Argentina himself, Javier Milei, who initially recognized Edmundo González, has now said that María Corina Machado has not yet been able to prove that Edmundo González was the winner. 

It seems evident that the United States, the European Union and some Latin American countries with extreme right-wing governments, such as Argentina, have realized that the information that has been published on María Corina Machado’s website is false and constitutes a lie, a great farce. Therefore, we are at an impasse where it seems sensible that it is the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) of Venezuela that can elucidate what is happening, because the TSJ is the highest body in the country to elucidate an electoral dispute of these characteristics. .

What seems evident is that, unlike other times, the US and the EU have not recognized Edmundo González as president, something that did not happen with Juan Guaidó in the past. In addition, the West is in the paradox that if it recognized Edmundo González as president of Venezuela, who they would stop recognizing is not Maduro, but Juan Guaidó.

Do you expect a new foreign intervention led by Washington and involving some countries in the region and Europe? 

Regarding a new foreign intervention that involves countries in the region and Europe, I think that is practically impossible. Not only because the Western world is embarked on a war in Ukraine, which Russia is winning, and the tension in the Middle East with the genocide in Gaza, and now with the aggression in Lebanon. This scenario represents a very complicated front for the United States that I believe cannot, nor does it wish to aggravate this context with a confrontation in/with Venezuela.

Of course, and unfortunately, there are sectors that certainly want a war in Latin America. For example, those who sell weapons, the sectors of the so-called “reconstruction” would be delighted for Venezuela to burn, they would sell weapons and then hire them “to rebuild” the country in exchange for stealing their oil and natural wealth for life. But I don’t see the opportunity, especially because the BRICS would not agree, Brazil, China, Russia, India, South Africa would not agree, nor would Iran, by the way. Mexico would not agree, and there would be no support for an exit of that type.

We hear calls from the opposition for the Bolivarian Army to rise up against President Maduro. Is it possible that the Venezuelan army responds positively to this call?

When the opposition to Maduro calls on the Venezuelan Army to rise up, they are committing a crime. This is consistent with what the Venezuelan opposition has always been doing and it is also consistent with something that I think is new, which is the isolation of María Corina Machado, a woman disqualified from holding political office, a woman who knows that her possibility of governing in Venezuela can only be from the ashes of Venezuela. 

Machado is not going to be the candidate for anything, she cannot be, legally she can’t be. At some point, another right-wing candidate will emerge, like Manuel Rosales, for example, who will prevent her from claiming to be the leader of the Venezuelan opposition. However, she insists on dragging those 5 million votes into the abyss. 

The call to the Army, I reiterate, is a crime and it does not make any kind of sense that the woman who sent that army to potentially fight against the United States, by requesting an invasion of Venezuela by the North American army, now asks that same Venezuelan Army that rises up against Maduro. 

I think that this call to carry out a military coup d’état is nonsense, and is part of this lady’s dissociation.

Some leaders, such as Lula, traditionally known as an ally of Bolivarian Venezuela, have expressed some doubts about the recent elections and have called on Caracas to explain the detailed results. How do you interpret this? Does the Brazilian government want to move more in line with the US in Latin America?

I don’t think Lula has allied himself with the United States, quite the opposite. I believe that the role of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia is holding back the recognition of Edmundo González by the United States, because USA does not have the strength to achieve that recognition, without the support of other countries.

What Lula has proposed is that Brazil is going to accept the result established by the institutions and the institutions are the National Electoral Council (CNE) and, now for administrative litigation, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ). And Lula, like López Obrador, has said “we are going to recognize what the official authorities say”. And if everything goes as one assumes, that is, that the CNE has presented the Electoral Acts that are valid as a result of the elections, those Electoral Acts are coming from machines audited before, during and after the electoral process; the Acts that the political parties have recognized as valid; Acts that during the past 32 elections have been recognized as valid, that is, those that come out of the polls in Venezuela. All this will be clarified, and there will be no doubt that Nicolás Maduro has been re-elected president of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

It is worth remembering that the ballot boxes in Venezuela are machines. This is something that the Western world that votes in physical ballot boxes has not completely understood. The ballot box in Venezuela is the machine, and the result that comes out of the machine is sacred and inviolable. I tell you, when this result comes out and also coincides with that of the reservations that the different parties have, there is no choice but to recognize the result. 

Therefore, this is what the president of Mexico, López Obrador, President Lula, and the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, and so on, are looking for, that the elections be resolved peacefully and that the country can run in peace, prosper economically, get Venezuelan emigrants to return, etc. The opposite can only be the desire of dissociated people who see only a personal chance in a war. I hope that Venezuela can move peacefully like the rest of the countries in the region.

Guy B. Roberts, one of the most influential figures in the Trump administration, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Deputy Secretary General at NATO, spoke to Harici: “There is a very powerful Jewish lobby in Washington with access to the highest levels of government.  Consequently, there remains strong support for Israel despite allegations of Israeli atrocities in Gaza.”

Under former President Donald Trump, Guy B. Roberts served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs and was former Deputy Secretary General at NATO for weapons of mass destruction defense.

Guy B. Roberts answered Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the upcoming US Presidential elections, conflicts in the Middle East and US foreign policy.

How do you see the killing of Ismael Haniyah, the leader of Hamas? There are discussions that the assasination came after Netanyahu’s visit to Biden and there might be a kind of deal or Biden’s permission for this killing considering such an act would exterminates all possibilities of a ceasefire, deal or peace. After the attack to Hezbollah leader and Hamas leader now, Türkiye raise the concerns about the wider regional war. What is your take on this?

I believe this is a dangerous escalation that could very well result in a massive response.  It is imperative that  there be a halt to this cycle of attack and counter attack.  Otherwise, there will be no end to the violence that will spill over into future generations.

It is hard to negotiate with someone you assassinate!  It isn’t clear yet as to who instigated the attack in Iran.  It could have been a faction within either Hamas or the PLO who do not want a ceasefire or settlement negotiations.  I do, however, assume it was the Israelis.  I fully expect a kinetic response any day now and we will be no closer to resolving the tragedy that is Gaza.

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent address to Congress has sparked significant protests besides support by the majority of Congress members. What are your thoughts on the implications of his speech for US-Israel relations and the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape considering the disproportionate acts of Israel against the civilians in Gaza? How do you assess the current regional crisis triggered by Israel’s recent attack on Lebanon? What are the immediate geopolitical repercussions for the Middle East? Considering the historical tensions between Israel and Lebanon, how might this recent escalation affect the stability of neighboring countries and the broader region?

There is a very powerful Jewish lobby in Washington with access to the highest levels of government.  Consequently, there remains strong support for Israel despite allegations of Israeli atrocities in Gaza.  The question of civilian casualties is a tough one.  On the one hand, under the law of armed conflict combatants can only use proportionate force to achieve their military objectives.  On the other hand, the principle of distinction requires combatants to separate themselves from civilians during combat.  As I see it the Israeli are using is proportionate force and Hamas is hiding among civilians while fighting.  Sorting that out will be a challenge.

As long as Hamas and the PLO and others continue to advocate the total destruction of Israel there will never be a just peace.  Israel is here to stay.  If they would accept that all things are possible and I believe Israel would agree to just about anything.

Given your experience in national security, what are your expectations for the upcoming US elections, and how do you foresee the results impacting US foreign policy and defense strategies?

It is unlikely that foreign policy will have primacy in the election.  There may be some debate about providing less support to our NATO allies especially after James David Vance’s statements criticizing our support for Ukraine.  The American public is divided on continuing support to Ukraine as is our NATO allies.  China’s hegemonic aspirations will be the major foreign policy issue.  Key issues in the campaign will be illegal immigration, abortion, and inflation.  The current defense budget has bipartisan support totalling about 7% of the US budget.  Increasing the defense budget is an issue that will wait until after the election.

With recent news about an assassination attempt on former President Trump, how do you think such incidents affect national security and the public’s trust in the security apparatus? Secret Service has received a serious criticism and what is the latest public perception? Democrats think that the attack has nothing to do with Biden’s campaign and devilizing Trump. What is your take on this?

There was a hearing in Congress yesterday where the Secret Service was roundly criticized.  Some see a cover-up and a conspiracy.  I’d prefer to wait until the full investigation is completed by the FBI.  Meanwhile, Trump will capitalize on the attempt for votes in November.

How do you assess the current state of US-Türkiye relations, particularly in the context of NATO and regional security and Ankara’s position of “balance policy”?

There are two parts to this question.  At the working level I’ve seen nothing but professionalism and enthusiastic cooperation between Turkish officials and NATO and the US in particular.  At the political level there is a number of tension points that strain Turkey’s relationship.  These include Cyprus, Armenia, Kurds, and the 2 million refugees from Syria.  These are big issues that don’t lend themselves to easy answers.  Water and oil and gas reserves off the coast are additional flashpoints.  The US should do more to be attentive to Turkish concerns and issues.  It is not helpful that President Erdagon is seeking rapprochement with Syria and being sympathetic with Russia.

What potential scenarios do you foresee in the upcoming US elections, and how might different outcomes influence America’s strategic priorities in terms of defense and international alliances?

As I stated, foreign policy issues, unless something happens like an all out war between Israel and Hezbollah, will take a back seat to the things that concern Americans most.  Those are illegal immigration, abortion, inflation and possibly climate change.  China will likely be the only broad foreign policy issue and some small side issue of getting NATO allies to do more for their own defense.

What should be the top priorities for the next administration regarding nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs? How can the US ensure it remains prepared for modern security threats?

The main challenge is stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program before they have one.  Several countries (Turkey, Saudi Arabia) have publicly stated that they will seriously pursue such a capability under that circumstance.  The US needs to do more to assure allies that its integrated deterrence posture is sufficient to protect them from a NBC attack.  Russian use of riot control agents against Ukraine in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Syria’s use of mustard and chlorine bombs demonstrate how fragile these prohibitions are.  I remain very concerned about the potential consequences of using biological agents (COVID) and the massive consequences of their use.  Nations working together to build bio surveillance networks will be a key challenge in the next decade.

What are the policies which will be sustained in the American politics no matter what the election results are?

Abortion, growing isolationist views, economic issues, nuclear modernization and defense budgets…

Given the current geopolitical landscape, do you foresee the United States continuing its strategic pressure and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region? If so, what are the key objectives and potential repercussions of this policy for both the U.S. and the countries within the region?

In the 1950s we had a defense organization called SEATO (Southeast Treaty Organization) to provide collectsive security in the region.  It didn’t work out and was dissolved.  I see the US leading an effort to create a similar type arrangement.  We already have defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore.  We have partner relationships with Thailand and Brunei and good cooperative arrangements with Vietnam.  The US continues to increase its military presence in Guam, the Marianas, Solomon Islands in an attempt to counter Chinese territorial claims and influence in the region.  Whether the US can build up its presence and influence remains to be seen in light of the debate next year over US defense budget.  A recent bi-partisan Congressional Commission concluded the US cannot defend against two simulaneious wars land needs a major plus up in the budget to do so.