Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Showing no respect for the mood of the nation, and one that is already bleeding from the wounds inflicted on it by some fanatic suicide bombers, the extreme Islamist elements running the International Khatme Nabuwat Movement openly and loudly issued threats of marching to the Dhaka Central Jail to willingly embrace detention in a bid to exert pressure on the authorities so that they declare the Ahmadiyya community as non-Muslims. Visibly hyped up by the provocative words of the leaders from a podium, young bigots actually began the march and when stopped by the police, confronted them with bricks and sticks. The unruly activists also damaged nine vehicles at Baitul Mukarram and Tejgaon area. The battle left scores on both sides injured at the end of the day.
   What appears puzzling is when the intent of the International Khatme Nabuwat Movement became quite apparent, why, despite the intimidating words, the administration did not take any preemptive action to stop the fanatics from congregating at the city centre? Why did the administration let the bigots hold the meeting in the first place, let the leaders deliver their intimidating lectures and then allow the frenzied bigots to bring out a large rally chanting provocative slogans against another sect that caused them no harm? Instead of dispersing the converging followers and their leaders before they reached the venue, the law and order authorities decided to sit pretty at a distance, allow the leaders feed the followers with venom and then swoop down on them only when they brought out a procession to go towards the central jail.
   There are other questions that come to mind. Why do all brands of Islamist fanatics select the Baitul Mukarram mosque located at the city centre to demonstrate all sorts of anti-Islamic and anti-social activities? Has the mosque been leased out to them for scheming and plotting against the state and the people? Should not the mosque be a place of worship and spiritual attainment rather than a venue for spreading hatred and malice against others belonging to different faiths? It is unfortunate indeed that the administration made no attempts to stop the latest incident from taking place. If the meeting had been stopped much earlier in the day or if arrests of the main instigators had been made the previous night, the fanatic elements would have got the message that the government is serious about putting an end to the rise of obscurantist elements in the country and help create an environment of tolerance and respect as far as the diversity of religious beliefs and rights is concerned.
   We must recall here that because of a lack of action against the Islamist fanatics, like the JMB and others, at the proper time, today the bigots are going about killing people in the country with impunity. The killers grew in number and strength while the government slept in a cocoon of complacence, trusting its partners perhaps more than was thought right. Today, if the government does not take ruthless and firm steps against outfits like the International Khatme Nabuwat Movement, it will have to take them in future. But by then, it will prove to be too late. Too much of havoc will have been caused.

On Christmas Day . . .

This morning we observe not just the birth of Jesus Christ but the glory that he brought into the world through the spirituality he sent coursing through all our lives. As one of God’s chosen ones, Jesus let men everywhere know of the love that the Creator of the universe bore towards all and the immense capacity He had for mercy. Throughout the ages, the message that Jesus spread all around him and all the suffering he went through in his search for enlightenment, which enlightenment he meant to suffuse the lives of people in need of faith with, has been heard with deep feeling. It is that message which Christians and all other people believing in the work of God, in the ability of men to be inspired by God as they go about remembering the noble purpose behind the creation effected out of the chaos, reinforce today.
   In these fraught times, the message of Jesus Christ serves the very special purpose of bringing people across the world together in a reassertion of the need for man’s spiritual revival. The spirit can only feel uplifted when it understands the need that the spirit in other people are faced with. In this age of mediocrity, of a clashing of egos that has little meaning (for egos have always rested on a base of hollowness), it is only faith that can sustain the essential goodness of the heart, the basic nobility of the soul, in men and women all over the world. This morning, as church bells ring out from all corners of Earth, it will be the endeavour of all men who believe in the profundity of Creation to add fresh new spurts of meaning to that goodness and that nobility. Never was man in such need of belief as he is today. It is faith that rises above the parochial and goes beyond the narrow confines of a particular set of beliefs. Christianity, like all great religions we have been privy to, speaks of the love between God and men, of the great engineering that goes on to keep people across continents and across the many social mores and conventions cognisant of the metaphysical nature of the world around them. Prayers, in that sense, cannot be a mere ritual. They are a reminder to the one who prays that he or she has not forgotten the idea that life is all about deep, purposeful living through keeping up some essential links with the mystery the nature of which escapes our understanding. We are only human, after all. But when we pray, we realise the working of that mystery which we know we cannot probe deeply enough. That is where God and our belief in him come together. We rise from our prayers content.
   On Christmas Day, it is time for us to look into our souls. And then we observe the colours we have applied to the colours that the Creator of the Worlds put into His inimitable art we have known as life.
   Here is wishing everyone a merry Christmas!

Ministers from 149 countries’, who met at the WTO meeting in Hong Kong had their own agendas, as was expected. It was widely known, and long ago, that these differed from each other, sometimes substantially, sometimes marginally. There were also common interests which allowed groupings of countries to take united stand and negotiate as a bloc. The biggest grouping has been the least developed countries (LDCs), numbering forty. Bangladesh was once the leader of this group and though the leadership has now been passed onto Zambia, Bangladesh continues to be a prominent member. Being least developed, these countries are in need of special concessions and facilities in the emerging world trade system. These concessions and facilities are necessary to help them develop their economics and to benefit from the process of globalization. If the LDCs are to narrow the burgeoning gap, in standard of living between them and the developed countries, either big dollop of aid has to be given to them by the rich countries or their share of trade, particularly exports to rich countries, has to be increased. Since aid flow is shrinking, inspite of promises being made by rich countries at various summits, foreign trade is the only effective means for poor countries to address issues like poverty, disease and growing social discontent and political instability.
   Poor countries import a whole range of goods and services but export only a few. While increasing the items in the export basket depends on diversification, having access to the markets of the rich countries depend on duties on imports and subsidies paid to local producers by their governments. Both of the latter reduce the competitiveness of poor countries, making their export items dearer. In addition to duties, there are non-tariff measures resorted to by rich countries to restrict the entry of goods from other countries. The restrictive measures in general affect both developed countries and poor countries but the former having a wider export base can absorb the loss in potential exports. The poor countries, dependent on a few items, do not have this opportunity. Besides, developed countries have substantial internal market to support their domestic producers which the poor countries lack. The importance of enlarging the export market for the poor countries, therefore, cannot be overemphasized.
   The WTO was set up to institutionalise the freeing of world trade system that was being reformed on ad hoc basis through GATT, beginning with the Kennedy Round in The Sixties. Its first meeting in Seattle was a disaster, brought about by anti-globalisers’ demonstration. The next meeting in Cancun had a lackluster performance failing to reach any agreement over reduction of duties, abolition of subsidies on agriculture and opening up of services sector. In the meeting in Doha, agreement was reached on the agenda and on the basis of this the Doha Round, by which the subsequent negotiations came to be known, was expected to come up with a draft agreement covering all the aspects of a new international order in trade and aid. The draft was slated to be discussed and agreed upon in Hong Kong ministerial meeting in December 2005, which has just been concluded.
   The interest of Bangladesh in the draft agreement was mainly centred on having duty free and quota free access to the market of the rich countries, particularly America and the EU. Most of the other members of LDC group had similar objective in the negotiation, though those from Africa were more interested in withdrawal of subsidy to let in their agricultural exports. A few countries that are considered as ‘developing’, like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, had reservation about allowing duty free market to Bangladesh in respect of garment and textiles. America and EU were also known to have serious objection to this but the submission of the Trade Bill in the America Congress raised hopes that LDCs like Bangladesh would be given enough concession to allow their garments and textiles to have a fair share of the American market. When the draft of the agreement for consideration of the ministers in Hong Kong included 100% duty free entry of garment and textiles from LDCs to the markets of developing and developed countries, hopes of Bangladesh were raised and there was near jubilation. The Bangladesh delegation left for Hong Kong in a triumphant mood.
   In Hong Kong Bangladesh and other LDCs like Combodia, were in for a rude shock. It was found that the 100 percent duty and quota free provision was whittled down to 97 percent, with 3 percent earmarked for items of export that could be excluded from the duty free, quota free provision. Since garment and textile was placed within the exclusionary 3 percent, Bangladesh’ major item of export was put at a serious disadvantage. The 97 per cent duty free and quota free access has no immediate relevance for Bangladesh as the items included there do not figure significantly on the prevailing export regime of the country. Bangladesh would have to diversity the export basket before it can avail of the facility and that means developing the economy on a broad front, something that can happen only in future, if at all. For countries like Bangladesh, it is the short-term i.c. the immediate future that will see the benefits or loss from the world trading system devised by WTO through the Doha Round of tariff reduction and other trade expanding measures. The exclusion of garment, textiles and leather goods, the most import items of Bangladesh’s export, implies that the country would not benefit from foreign trade now or in the near future. It is a loss that can hardly be compensated by potential and uncertain benefit in future.
   When the exclusionary clause was revealed, The Commerce Minister, threatened to use veto if Bangladesh’s interests were not addressed adequately. In the event, he did not use veto, nor Bangladesh forged any alliance with other LDCs who were affected by the 3 percent exclusionary clause to drive a hard bargain. Bangladesh could form an alliance with countries sharing the same interests and could negotiate from a position of strength. It took a belated initiative at such an alliance of 14+ least developed countries, but it was half-hearted and not carried through vigorously. It was vital as a bargaining counter because, LDC as a group under Zambian leadership, became more pre-occupied with African interests and failed to represent an united front upholding the interest of all members. In contrast, grouping of G-20, led by India and Brazil, G-20, remained not only united but increasingly gained in their bargaining strength. The need and importance of bloc negotiation in multilateral forum cannot be over emphasized. Bangladesh belonging to LDC, had an established forum but could not utilise it. On the other hand it was opposed by Sri Lanka and Pakistan, members of SAARC countries (It does not bode well for SAFTA). This was a failure in economic as well as political diplomacy. Evidently, Bangladesh was not prepared for all eventualities and had devised no fall back alternatives. Lack of adequate preparation and analysis of the possible scenarios was palpable in the quality of participation by the Bangladesh delegation.
   It is being stressed by some quarters that all is not lost yet and Bangladesh can retrieve its position through the bi-lateral negotiations that will now take place before the agreement is signed by 2006. In these negotiations with America and the EU, the particular items in garment and textiles that can be exempted from duty will be decided. There are different tariff lines within the exclusionary 3 per cent. In tariff line ten there are only 40 to 50 items out of a total of 538 that can be considered for tariff reduction or waiver. In tariff line eight, on the other hand, there are no item that can be considered for tariff reduction or abolition. America has already made it clear that it will exclude high value and competitive items of garments and textiles, availing of the 3 percent clause in the draft agreement. These are the items that Bangladesh at present exports to American market and which it was expecting to not only retain but also to increase in volume. This now seems most unlikely. Japan also has already indicated that it will place leather and leather goods within the three percent exclusionary clause, shutting off another booming export item of Bangladesh. Bi-lateral negotiation with Japan to cadge any concession is not likely to succeed, either.
   Economics is ultimately guided, even controlled by politics, which is why it was once known as political economy. If Bangladesh can use its political influence in the bi-lateral negotiation, there is a wisp of a chance that some concessions can still be wangled from the rich countries. It will depend on the political leverage that Bangladesh has at the moment, particularly in relation to America. If America considers, Bangladesh as an important ally, it may consider to include some high value garment within the 40-50 items under tariff line ten. It remains to be seen whether it actually thinks so.
   In Hong Kong, the poor countries as a whole failed to have an agreement that would have given them a fare share of the world trade. The rich countries did not budge from their policy of giving farm subsidy and only agreed to abolish export subsidy on agricultural products and that too, only by 2013. The 97 percent duty and quota free access for products of poor countries is also hedged by qualification like ‘if the countries importing them thinks that they are is a position to do so’. It is apparent that the rich countries have conceded almost nothing but have got what they wanted i.e. increasingly more access to the market of developing and least developed countries. To-gether with the trade liberalisation reforms effected through the conditionalities of the World Bank, the WTO Rules will effectively turn the poor countries into the colonies of the rich world. The resultant rich-poor divide will neither contribute to the growth of the global economy, nor to world peace. Globalisation benefiting the few and immiserizing the many, cannot last long.