Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Politicians, GDP and the nation
   The Manila-based Asian Development Bank in its annual Asian Development Outlook (ADO) 2006 released in Dhaka the day has clearly apprehended that Bangladesh’s annual GDP is likely to slow down in the next fiscal year (FY2006-07), which begins from 1 July next because of political uncertainty and national election. The regional development outfit projected a six per cent growth of gross domestic products (GDP) during FY2006-07 as against a likely 6.5 per cent growth in the current fiscal year ending in June next.
   The ADB’s Dhaka office brings out a Quarterly Economic Update four times a year and in each issue it always mentions how the confrontational nature of national politics in Bangladesh, punctuated with frequent and at times prolonged general strikes is adversely affecting the nation’s economy (for which the politicians, while in opposition, do not mind). It was subtle attempts by ADB to convey a message to the country’s political leaders that the peculiar nature of extremely partisan politics in Bangladesh was actually holding it back from achieving economic progress and they should try to change it. But it never seemed to have any profound impact on the thinking of the politicians while out of power; though while in power, they appear equally concerned.
   Keeping in line with this and the experiences it has gained during the three successive elected governments’ rule since1991, the ADB’s ADO appropriately reduced its projection on the country’s GDP growth for next year because the political volatility that gains currency in every election year. If everything goes well, the next parliamentary polls will be held in January next, depending of course, on how the electoral reform issues now under discussions are sorted out at the end.
   While releasing the ADO 2006, the ADB’s country director Ms. Hua Du however, succinctly told the media: ‘We need higher than 6.5 per cent (GDP) growth to reduce poverty rapidly.’ What she meant was that without a sustained higher GDP growth annually of say at least 8 percent, the level of poverty couldn’t be reduced. It is no secret that Bangladesh needs a sustained 8 percent or over annual GDP growth to break the back of the poverty and also to be able to meet the millennium development goals (MDGs) by 2015. Finance Minister Saifur Rahman himself has lately been mentioning in many of his speeches that sufficient investment is needed to achieve annual 8 percent growth without which the MDGs would remain illusive.
   While discussing GDP growth, it would not be out of context to mention that a number of multilateral agencies including the World Bank, ADB and a few others as well as some of the ministers, including Law Minister Moudud Ahmed, have pointed out that considering the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals, achieving 8 percent GDP for Bangladesh wouldn’t be a big deal. They say this because the country has been recording around 5 percent GDP growth for the last one decade or more despite the fact that two to three percent of GDP was being lost annually due to corruption, frequent power stoppages, as well as problems relating to communication including the lack of proper functioning of the ports. This has, of course, got something to do with good governance. However, this has proved beyond any shadow of doubt how peoples’ ingenuity and resilience helped the country to overcome numerous problems that the political leadership failed to resolve and achieve a rate of GDP growth that the world has come to respect.
   Analysts believe that all that the country needed from the opposition politicians is to try and focus on their own political programme and convince the people that they were better prepared to solve the problems that the country was facing than the party in power and therefore should solicit votes in the next elections. They also should stop plotting from the day after the election result was announced to topple the ruling party by hook or by crook. This strategy does work only up to a point at the expense of the country and its people because they are the ones who have to face violent disturbances and absorb the economic losses inflicted by the opposition’s programmes but the ruling stalwarts who have the state apparatus at their disposal are conveniently spared.
   This has been happening relentlessly regardless of the party in power or in the opposition because every time the government changes, the new opposition deals with the new government by retaliating with the same treatment that they had experienced during their time in the government. So while the government has changed after the last three elections, the people did not gain much; for them it is back to square one.
   
   Problems galore
   Apart from the locally inflicted political volatility, violence and frequent strikes other factors such as continuous rising prices of oil, steel, coal, capital machinery (accounted for 30 percent of all imports last year) and other products are also crating havoc for the government to maintain the price line of both imported and manufactured products. These are pushing inflation and putting pressure on microeconomic stability.
   The Board of Investment (BoI) Executive Director Mahmudur Rahman, who is trying to do a good job, was apparently not happy at the ADB’s projection of the country’s GDP growth to 6 percent in FY2006-07. His argument was that because of ‘sound economic indicators’ the economy would at least keep growing at 6.5 percent. But the ADB’s low GDP projection for next year was also backed by sound reasons.
   Apart from political violence and confrontational politics that is unlikely to undergo any change in the near future, the ADO 2006 has advised the government to address three major ‘barriers’ that could adversely affect the country’s export competitiveness. The first is the weaknesses in governance and includes corruption and a weak state of law and order, which vitiates the business environment and long-term growth.
   The second is poor physical infrastructure such as power, gas supply, ports facilities and telecommunications also significantly increases production cost, impedes productivity growth and affects export competitiveness. The ADO’s third major barrier, though also relating to high cost of doing business blames steep bank borrowing charges that it says may not be sorted out easily without solving the long-standing structural and other problems.
   Like the problems mentioned, there are also signs of hopes that need proper care and nurturing for getting the desired result. Two good things are happing almost simultaneously. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has been rising quite fast and has already exceeded US$776 million during FY2004-05 while BoI chief Mahmudur Rahman is expecting it to touch $1 billion mark during the current FY2005-06. BoI chief is also hopeful that the FDI flow would double in the next fiscal and ‘continue to be so for five subsequent years.’
   This could be true and ADO sort of agrees with him. It says: ‘FDI … can pick up significantly if ongoing negotiations over several large investment projects prove successful.’ It also pointed out that flagship companies like Microsoft, Orascom and Singapore Telecom have recently begun to invest in the country. The government has also received a host of large FDI proposals from different big names such as Tata Group of India, Asia Energy of UK, Dhabi Group of Dubai and Kingdom Group of Saudi Arabia. ADO notes: ‘The BoI estimates that total foreign investment proposals are worth about $10 billion, well in excess of historical levels.’
   The other one is taking place quietly: remittances from Bangladeshi workers abroad have exceeded all past records and during FY2005-06 it is likely to reach US$4.5 billion. Both rising FDI flow and increased remittance will substantially lower the pressure on balance of payment and help the economy to sustain its macroeconomic stability.
   The foreign investors are a very sensitive lot and they become suspicious on political uncertainty and violence, frequent general strikes, lack of infrastructure facilities such as a good communication system, smooth functioning of ports, regular power and gas supply and of course an enabling environment. The government of the day has to be in a position to deliver what it promises to the investors.
   This is one vital issue that needs an understanding to be established between the government and opposition to maintain the FDI flow. They should do it for their own political survival or for their enlightened self-interest. The present government is led by BNP but the next parliamentary polls due in January next may catapult a new party in the government as it did twice in 1996 and 2001. Any such understanding between the ruling and opposition party may result in achieving two things almost immediately. First, it could ensure a sustained 8 percent annual GDP growth rate because of increased FDI flow and secondly, it could also help the government of the day to ensure good governance and reduce corruption and improve the state of law and order situation. It may be difficult but quite possible.
   But without any such political understanding and with an opposition determined to scuttle anything that the government is working on to keep afloat, no government of any party can possibly deliver anything. And the result will always be negative. The time has now come to ask the politicians whom they are working for? Are they working in the interest of the nation and the people or for own interest? They must come out with a clear answer.

IT is widely known that almost all foreign countries encourage their friends and well-wishers in the United States, to lobby on their behalf so as to take advantage of the multiple centres of power in that country. But, by all accounts, the most powerful and effective lobby in the United States is the pro-Israeli lobby.
   In fact, the whole issue of Israel has come to be shrouded in mystery. Therefore, any effort to enquire into the activities of pro-Israeli lobbies in the US is considered taboo, especially because of the passions generated on account of the pain and suffering inflicted on the Jews during the Holocaust. This has resulted in an absence of credible research on the subject, notwithstanding the tradition of objectivity in most academic circles in the US.
   It is, therefore, a matter of some surprise and considerable interest that two research scholars — John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the Kennedy School of Government at the Harvard University, collaborated to produce last month, an extremely well researched and highly convincing study, entitled The Israeli Lobby and the US Foreign Policy. It goes to their credit and is evidence of their moral strength as well, that they should have dealt with this sensitive issue frankly and yet credibly. It should therefore be of interest to scholars worldwide, more so to those who appreciate the intricacies of the power game in Washington.
   The authors recall that the centrepiece of the US Middle East policy since 1967, has been its relationship with Israel. The general perception in the United States being that the bond between the two countries is based on ‘shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives’, when in reality it is neither.
   In fact, as the authors explain, the overall thrust of US policy in the region is due primarily to the extremely intelligent and highly organized manipulation of American institutions by the ‘Israeli lobby’. This has resulted in the US providing massive economic assistance, military arms and unquestioned political support to Israel, that is not only unprecedented, but whose scale is not even known to the average American. Till 2003, American assistance to Israel is calculated at well over 140 billion dollars. Moreover, the terms of US aid to Israel are such that it can do virtually whatever it wishes, including the use of money for building Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
   The most powerful and best known pro-Israeli lobby in the US is, of course, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which claims that the US and Israel ‘have formed a unique partnership to meet the growing strategic threats in the Middle East’ and that this provides significant benefits for both countries, though an impartial examination of the record reveals that Israel is ‘a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.’
   American politicians and scholars cite the following factors in support of Israel: it deserves US support because it is weak and surrounded by powerful enemies; it is a democracy in the midst of authoritarian regimes; the Jewish people deserve special treatment for having suffered from past crimes, and Israel’s conduct is superior to that of its adversaries. All these reasons, while convincing on the surface, are mere assumptions, which have come to be accepted as facts, on account of the powerful propaganda that accompanies them. The authors prove conclusively the flimsy nature of these claims.
   What makes organizations such as AIPAC so powerful that few politicians, scholars or journalists are willing to challenge it? Not only does AIPAC include very rich, highly educated and extremely influential American Jews, but also enjoys the unstinted support of virtually all the prominent Christian evangelists, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and more importantly, some of the best known names in Congress, such as former majority leaders Dick Armey and Tom DeLay. Even more significantly, these highly influential public figures claim that Israel’s rebirth is part of Biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda, on account of their belief that pressuring Israel is contrary to God’s will.
   Given the critical role played by the American legislature, AIPAC spends a lot of time and money in cultivating Congress. It not only extends political support, but arranges for campaign funds, favourable media coverage and even organises voter turnout for those members who toe the Israeli line. However, when, though rarely, a legislator demonstrates the moral courage to advocate even-handedness, AIPAC can unleash the full array of its weapons to destroy his career. Dozens of Congressmen have suffered this fate, though Charles Percy, a highly respected senator, is the most famous victim of such a campaign. Not only was he publicly targeted by the lobby for daring to mildly criticize Israel, but his defeat was welcomed officially by AIPAC president Thomas Dine as a ‘message’ for other American politicians. Nothing could have had a more chilling effect on any aspiring politician.
   When it comes to the executive branch, AIPAC has succeeded in ensuring a foothold in both political parties, by arranging for massive donations to the presidential candidates, as well as galvanising voters, specially in important states, where the Jewish vote though small, can be critical. At the same time, AIPAC is also prepared to punish any candidate who gives the slightest hint of favouring an evenhanded US role in the Middle East, as happened when AIPAC organized a negative campaign against the Democratic Party presidential candidate, Howard Dean, even though he was quite hawkish on Israel.
   More worrying is the fact that AIPAC succeeds in getting many of its officials, with pronounced pro-Israeli views, appointed to senior positions in the US administration. There are many such cases, the best known being that of Martin Indyk, a former deputy director of AIPAC, who became President Clinton’s point man on the Middle East. No wonder, at the Camp David talks, the Palestinians complained that it was like ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams — one displaying an Israeli flag and one an American flag.’ Of course, it has become far worse in the Bush administration, with many more pro-Israeli individuals appointed to important and senior positions.
   Most Congressmen are either in the debt of or in awe of the pro-Israeli lobby. Thus, AIPAC can get three-fourths of the US legislators to sign on the dotted line, on any letter addressed to the US president. This has led AIPAC to claim on its websites, that many of the initiatives taken by Congress are at its behest. In fact, however important or senior he may be, no one is immune from AIPAC’s criticism and hostility, as evidenced by the manner in which Secretary of State Colin Powell was targeted by the Israeli lobby.
   The media, for obvious reasons, remains of special interest to the pro-Israeli lobby, with some of the best-known columnists and commentators supporting Israel ‘reflexively and without qualification’. Even national newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and even the New York Times, are always espousing pro-Israeli positions. Times’s executive editor, Max Frankel, once acknowledged that he always wrote editorials from ‘a pro-Israel perspective’.
   When it comes to the most important US policy initiatives, specially those relating to the Middle East and the Gulf, the administration takes its cue from AIPAC. For example, it is now acknowledged in the US that the main driving force behind the Iraq war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with close ties to Israel’s Likud party. As far back as 1998, this group had published two open letters to President Clinton, calling for Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. As luck would have it, many of them came to occupy extremely sensitive positions in the Bush administration.
   To them, 9/11 came as a godsend opportunity to promote their views. Only 10 days after this tragedy, they wrote to Bush, declaring that even if there was no evidence to link Iraq directly to the 9/11 events, the administration should make a determined effort to remove Saddam from power. No sooner had Baghdad fallen, that the same people began calling for a regime change in Syria and Iran. In fact, even before the Iraq war, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was claiming that the invasion of Iraq was not enough, and that there was the need for regime change in Syria and Iran as well.
   Given the above it is not surprising that these two research scholars reached the disturbing conclusion that this lobby’s efforts have resulted in Israel being given a ‘free hand to deal with the Palestinians’. This has brought about a situation where the US finds itself in conflict with an increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world. In this manner, the lobby, while promoting Israel’s influence in the US, has created major strategic problems for the United States.
   Not only has the Palestinian issue introduced Islamic radicalism around the world; it has also become a breeding ground for ‘terrorism’. And, by being, ‘the guardian angel’ of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, the US has become ‘complicit in the atrocities perpetrated against Palestinians’. Such a policy weakens America’s moral standing and reduces the effectiveness of its support for democracy and respect for human rights. But much worse could be in store if the lobby succeeds in persuading the administration to opt for a regime change in Iran and Syria.
   It is, nevertheless, a sad reality that given the continuing influence of the neo-conservatives in Washington, the prospects of peace are extremely dim. In fact, the neo-conservatives even welcome such an outcome. Lest we forget, Robert Kagan and William Kristol wrote in the aftermath of 9/11 (Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002), that ‘Afghanistan will prove but on opening battle. This war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries of varying intensity. It could well require use of American military power, in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilization that everyone has hoped to avoid.’
   There is no doubt that notwithstanding the tremendous advances made by Israel in science, technology and agriculture, its security continues to be ensured by foreign powers, primarily the US. To this day, it lacks a solid foundation, for it is devoid of legitimacy. But sadly, the Jewish state is unable to grasp this reality and continues to depend on forces outside the region for its survival.
   Secure in America’s support, Israel refuses to negotiate with the Palestinians, on the basis of equality. Its elite may be of European origin, but the country is now part of the Middle East. It cannot continue to function as an extension of the West in the heart of Islam. The correlation of forces is shifting between the two sides, not militarily, but politically. Israel must cease to be a European enclave and begin the process of assimilating itself within the region where it is located.
   The writer is a former ambassador, Pakistan

I never understood the logic behind the claim our politicians make that they cannot fix things or make things work because the previous administration has broken things really bad. If they think they cannot fix things then why did they want the job in the first place? No one forced the job on them. They fought hard to get the job. When they fought for the job they knew what the condition of things was. It is precisely because they claimed that they can do a better job than their predecessors that the people gave them the job. Then why cry blaming the past administration for their failures? Our current electricity minister is a fine example of total incompetence. He claims that he was stopped from working by some other people in the administration and his hands were tied but still he did not quit or resign although he could not fulfil his duties. Instead he went to hajj and blamed the poor consumers for increased demand for electricity! The same thing happened with fertilizer. The administration claimed there was enough fertilizer in the country but it was not being distributed properly. So who is supposed to fix the distribution anomaly? Incompetent management is the hallmark of our ill educated politicians.
   And the culture of blaming others for one’s failure runs from the top to the bottom. Instead of taking responsibility for one’s own mismanagement or shortcomings the easy way out is to blame everyone else. Like the communications minister on television blamed the pedestrians (the consumers he is supposed to serve) for not using the bridge crossings. I would like to ask if the minister himself ever tried to use one of these bridges. When I went to Dhaka I used to visit my grandmother in the Diabetic Hospital by walking to the hospital from Elephant Road. I tried to use the overbridge crossing between PG and BIRDEM but it was very dangerous as there were holes in the bridge and also it was extremely filthy, human waste and dead animal carcasses was lying in my way. A similar situation characterised the overbridge between New Market and Gousia market. There were holes in it. Also women did not feel safe on them as people harassed them on these bridges. These issues could very easily be resolved if the authorities paid a little attention by placing some police patrol on these bridges and doing a little maintenance instead of waiting for it to fall down and then taking on the cost of rebuilding the whole thing.
   Oh, wait! Why would they do that as they can make more money off a new construction instead of a maintenance contract? It seems that the idea that the ministers/politicians are supposed to be service providers to the electorates/consumers is totally missing from our consciousness. It seems the politicians think the people are their subjects and as such the people should be delighted with the little that the politicians do for the poor people. This idea is so accepted in our society that when the leader of the opposition and the leader of the government were both present together in Parliament for one day in probably a decade there was jubilation with a feeling among the media! Why should we be so thrilled or go so ecstatic if someone does his or her job once in a decade? Get up. Stand up, people, and make the politicians account for their actions and make them take responsibility for their actions.