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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

The BNP has a penchant for harming its own cause and helping its opponents. Otherwise, there is just no way to explain the appointment of the two new Election Commissioners, particularly the controversial SM Zakaria. The utterances of Zakaria to the press upon assuming this post should leave no one in doubt that he is eminently unsuitable to hold this post.
   The news leaked in the press about the other newly appointed Election Commissioner is equally depressing for those who may be looking for an Election Commission fit to conduct a free and fair election. The recent actions of the CEC himself have left a very bad impression about the EC to the people. With these two appointments, the Election Commission can claim many things but one thing that it cannot is neutrality.
   The atmosphere within the Commission after the appointments of the new Election Commissioners reminded everyone of a circus. The free flow of sweets and garlands made the EC look like the headquarters of some political party. If any one had sense in that Commission, this stupidity should have been avoided at all costs. What disappointed people most was the Prime Minister’s public statement in favour of the fun that the appointments of the two Commissioners heralded at the EC. The PM’s claim that the elections would be free and fair with the latest changes in the EC sounded surreal.
   I guess Bangladesh has come to a stage where our entire leadership, including the PM and her colleagues as well as the top level bureaucracy, needs to take some crash course in what is governance. It is no longer a question of good or bad governance for Bangladesh; the issue today is whether people upon whom our lives and our futures depend have any idea of what is called governance. Our leadership is ensuring that we end up as a banana republic sometime very soon for there is no other way of evaluating what else could have prompted the Prime Minister to choose these two commissioners and then claim that this will ensure free and fair elections. Looks like common sense has taken leave of our politicians.
   Rashed Ahmed
   Gulshan, Dhaka

The recent last minute decision by US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns not to visit Dhaka was clear proof of Dhaka’s standing with the United States as a country of importance or the lack of it. Mr. Burns of course did not drop Delhi, Islamabad or Colombo which places us a clear fourth in the USA’s preference for us as a South Asian country.
   To compensate for slapping us in the face, the US is now sending an assistant secretary to Dhaka, one who as press reports suggest, is a frequent flyer to Bangladesh. Ms. Christina Rocco is, so the papers tell us, going to come on a three-day trip to Bangladesh. The newspaper reports also inform us that during her visit, Ms. Rocco would be holding talks with M. Morshed Khan, the Foreign Minister, and the Adviser for Foreign Affairs.
   I am not really attuned to diplomatic practices. Therefore, I kept wondering about a lot of things from these two developments, namely Mr. Burns’ decision to drop Dhaka from his itinerary while keeping the other three South Asian destinations intact and Ms. Rocco’s fourth visit to Dhaka when she would be holding talks with our foreign minister. Let me share my concerns with your readers. Why did Mr. Burns drop Dhaka while keeping Colombo, Islamabad and Delhi on? While Islamabad and New Delhi can be explained for practical reasons, keeping Colombo on and dropping Dhaka cannot. Unless there are reasons that we do not know. To me this seems a major failure of our diplomacy. From South Asia, heads of state or government from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have all had invitations to Washington and made those visits, some more than once . The Pakistani prime minister is going to visit Washington very soon and this is not his first visit. Unfortunately our Prime Minister has now completed four years in office and is still waiting to make that illusive trip to Washington. This does not speak much of the efforts of our Foreign Ministry really. That brings me to another issue that is worrying me. I have seen on TV that in New Delhi, Mr. Burns has held official talks with the Indian foreign secretary as his counterpart. But from reports that came out on Rocco’s visit, she would be holding official level talks with the foreign minister! Surely something is amiss here.
   While on the subject of foreign affairs, let me indulge a bit on another foreign ministry issue that I read with the one on Rocco. The foreign minister, while announcing the visits of our prime minister to India and Pakistan, told a newspaper reporter that there was no uncertainty, complexity or confusion over our PM’s visit to India, going on to add that Bangladesh and India are moving ahead very positively and our relations are excellent. Unless we are missing something here, was it not the same foreign minister who a year ahead had blasted India in the press for being negative over the entire range of our bilateral relations? We would really like to know by what magic he or his Foreign Ministry has retracted such negativity to suddenly become so positive. Does the Foreign Ministry know what the Water Ministry knows about India’s utterly negative and recalcitrant stand on the water issues that are at the core of our bilateral relations or about the role India played against us at the WTO talks last month in Hong Kong?
   Shahjahan Ahmed
   Dhanmandi, Dhaka

Off late the print, TV and all other information media are saturated with news of the so called A-bomb threat to the US from Iran, thanks to the limitless US propaganda machine operating at top gear.
   It is being done by the same lying and war mongering neocons who destroyed Iraq based on lies and more lies. Now they are doing a carbon copy job for Iran! How long can this humbug go on? Are the neocons trying to fool all the people all the time?
   It seems the US war machine needs an armed conflict every now and then to ensure wresting control of the oil resources of the Middle East as its monopoly. When will the world wake up from being fooled by the new empire builder, that is the USA? Maybe never! After all, the UN is nothing but a talking shop as far as the US is concerned. It can be strangled and killed by a veto any time. Iraq has also proved that Americans care a fig for world opinion. They are trying to establish that “might is right”!
   A third world citizen
   On e-mail

AWS Chowdhury’s view point on the subject (New Age, Jan 16) unfortunately touches the issue only superficially. It is only a theoretical view point than anything based on pragmatic realities of Bangladesh. The whole issue of cost effectiveness has been summarily swept aside in one sentence; and I quote ‘Cost, in fact, is negligible, if industrialization is vital’.
   Further, the strict operational discipline and safety protocol involved in nuclear power generation has not been mentioned. Given the generally slack technical discipline in Bangladesh industrial practice, the likelihood of a nuclear accident is a real possibility that needed serious discussion and elucidation.
   The costly and difficult subject of disposal of radio-active waste has been ignored. The writer only says, ‘. . . the problem of radioactive waste material disposal could remain as an unsettled issue in a developing country like Bangladesh’.
   Pragmatically speaking, apart from the very high capital cost of a nuclear power plant, the technology and costs of making the nuclear fuel rods in themselves are a very expensive process. If we have to import the fuel rods, then there are other more cost effective and safer fuels available for import.
   Discussion on the comparative direct variable costs for power generation based on different fossil fuels compared to nuclear fuel has not been provided.
   Regular safety inspection by IAEA and disposal of nuclear wastes will be a sizable cost of operation not needed for fossil fuels.
   Lastly, one cannot simply ignore our sizable potential steam coal resources. It is a traditionally cheap fuel for power generation. Given modern dust arrestors, release of carbon and other elements to the atmosphere can be strictly controlled.
   This writer has real life experience of operating it very effectively in Chittagong Steel Mills located close to Chittagong airport.
   There the release of darkened smoke, sulphur and carbon dust particulate matter in the atmosphere was a critical factor for safe landing of passenger aircraft, which was maintained without any problem.
   On top of it, luckily for us, the sulphur content of our coal is much less than traditional steam coal used in power plants
   and lower than the sulphur content of the heavy fuel oil used for steel making in Chittagong Steel Mills!
   Given these facts of life, and the proven cost effectiveness of coal as a fuel for power generation, the thought of nuclear power generation in Bangladesh today cannot be viable. Realistically speaking, how can we use our local coal if not for power generation? Nuclear power generation may be looked into as an option possibly fifty to seventy five years hence, when the technological and cost parameters may change advantageously in favour of nuclear power. Maybe, by that time, other cheaper and cleaner power sources will have become available.
   SA Mansoor
   Gulshan, Dhaka

About 10 years ago a military officer Lieut. Ferdous infamously got media attention as an abductor.
   This military officer abducted an ethnic hill woman leader named Kalpana Chakma. She was Organisational Secretary of Hill Women's Federation (HWF), a women’s organisation based in Chittagong Hill Tracts(CHT).
   Lieut Ferdous abducted Kalpana from her house in the remote village Lailyaghona under Baghaichari Thana in Rangamati district on 12 June 1996.
   At that time he was a lieutenant. The abduction news got media attention and the then AL government had formed an inquiry committee. Though the committee submitted the result but up until now the Govt. did not publish it in the media. As a result, Kalpana still remains untraced. We are in total darkness as to her whereabouts.
   But the accused military officer Lieut. Ferdous is still serving in Bangladesh Military.
   We have come to know that at present he is a full-fledged Major in charge of Laxmichari camp at Baghaichari Thana in Rangamati district (ref.
   Swadhikar news bulletin no.36, UPDF's mouthpiece). We ask: Why the military authorities did not suspend him and give him punishment? Why he was given promotion? He has been accused of abduction and he must be handed over to the law enforcing authorities.
   But, instead of doing that, the authorities promoted him to the rank of a Major!
   Now the question is: should law be different for the helpless? Is it different for the ethnic Jumma peoples who have no constitutional recognition? Can the military authorities impose semi-military rule under the 'operation Uttaran'? We have many more questions like this? And we want answers.
   Mithun Chakma
   Secretary, Democratic Youth Forum (DYF A progressive Youth Organisation Based in Chittagong)

Iran is being made ready for a slaughter; the appetite is not satisfied after Afghanistan and Iraq. All the right noises are being raised, all the right moves are on. The script by now is all too familiar. Iran must be punished for its nuclear ambitions, its suspected motives, its intentions.
   The ‘international community’ is losing patience. Who needs evidence? Who needs patience? Another instance of ‘we don’t care what the facts are’. The IAEA as also the United Nations remain at best ambivalent and at worst compliant. And unlike in Iraq, this time the Europeans appear more ‘gung-ho’ than the chief executioner itself. They are ready to atone for their mistake in the case of Iraq.
   Thus referral of Iran to the UN Security Council by the IAEA looks imminent; a Council resolution condemning Iran with economic sanctions looks more probable than ever.
   Israel, jittery of Iran’s perceived intentions and perceived as the lone remaining ‘threat’ to Israel, with scant regard for what is called the United Nations and the inventor of ‘pre-emptive’ strike ( it destroyed Iraq’s atomic reactor in 1982), has its fingers on the trigger if and when ‘diplomacy’ fails to convince Iran to give up its rights.
   Questions come to mind. What are the so-called sovereign rights anyway? What is national sovereignty itself? By a twist of irony, might has become the only right. It pays to flout international laws, treaties, conventions if you can get away or exercise uncontested power. When might is right, all other rights become mere rhetoric.
   Had it not been such, how are perceived intentions before established evidence subjected to punishment? In Iran’s case, never mind the belligerent rhetoric by is president, it has rightly perceived a clear threat coming from its nuclear armed neighbours, the presence of hostile occupation troops close to its borders, and public threats issued by a hostile state to launch unilateral punitive strikes on its soil. Did anyone in the ‘international community’ sound worried or protest in disgust?
   Yet Iran is being virtually readied for slaughter in the name of the United Nations, the ‘international community’. And, lo and behold, in the name of civilization a country with a civilization going back tens of centuries is threatened with destruction.
   All of the above said, there is one caveat. Iran is no Iraq and certainly not another Afghanistan. Iranian people are proud of their ancient civilization, are united, are without deep sectarian divides, command a territory with great depth to suck invaders into an unending inferno. A vast majority of the world’s people, Iranian people in particular, will keep their fingers crossed hoping that restraint will triumph over the din of war drums.
   Or could it be inevitable in history that ‘empires’ in their last throes show a propensity to reckless military expeditions?
   Husain
   Dhaka

The US air strikes carried out on the 13 January 2006 on the remote Pakistani village of Damadola was a clear act of terrorism. Out of the 18 civilians killed, 10 were women and children. It seems US terrorism inside Pakistan is becoming routine. Earlier on 7 January 2006, at least eight civilians were killed by the US helicopter attack. To be precise, such acts are state-terrorism or primary terrorism as opposed to the usual secondary-terrorism of individuals or groups. The bombings were indiscriminate and without warning, like the routine bombings of the defenceless Iraqi cities or the Palestinian villages and towns.
   Subsequently, the US tried to mitigate the severity of the crime, by claiming that they were targeting al-Qaeda members. Even if the alleged al-Qaeda members were present, that does not automatically give the US the right to bomb houses inside foreign territory, with total disregard for the innocent civilians. Is the US above the law? And is inflicting collateral damage with impunity an automatic entitlement for the leader of the free world? The air strike was a clear violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. According to international law it was an act of war. So where is the UN now? Where is Kofi Annan?
   The US decision to bomb the village must have been based on credible ‘intelligence’. In that case, why not surround the area with armed forces, and then give the innocent civilians in the village a safe passage to vacate, and demand the surrender of the alleged al-Qaeda members? For sure the US has more than adequate resources and firepower to take on a small band of men lightly armed. If this route had been pursued, the al-Qaeda members would have been taken prisoner or they would have died resisting the US firepower. Taken alive they might have provided valuable information; if they had died, that could be argued to have prevented future attacks on the US. Either result would have yielded benefits for the US.
   However, instead of attempting to seize the alleged al-Qaeda members, the US decided to kill them by bombing the place. Why did the US opt for the least beneficial route in terms of the “war on terror”? The decision can be explained by the following reasons:
   a) The US leadership does not have any interest in taking the al-Qaeda men alive, because they wish to keep the “war on terror” an open-ended war, until their real interests are satisfied. Hence, the invincible and ubiquitous image of an al-Qaeda threat persists and continues to grow in their propaganda.
   b) An additional reason is: the US forces are largely cowards, as for sure, the high altitude bombing is the easiest option, the risk is minimal for the US soldiers and simultaneously utmost danger is posed to the Pakistani civilians. Also, the US soldiers may have become the victims of their own propaganda, as al-Qaeda is constantly magnified. Some are wacky enough to believe that al-Qaeda fighters would somehow transform into giant human (‘suicide’) bombers like some Godzilla figure.
   c) Despite possessing huge material advantages, the US preferred to hit from a safe distance, inflicting collateral damage. With slightly greater risk, the US forces could have engaged in close combat to surgically target the al-Qaeda fighters and substantially minimise civilian casualties. Hence, the decision to bomb shows the clear US apathy towards the lives of the ordinary Pakistanis. Iraq is another example of that apathy, where they have murdered 30,000-100,000 civilians looking for those mythical WMDs.
   Pervez Musharraf responded by making a nation-wide television address. He defended his collaboration with US foreign policy on the grounds that it was preventing open US aggression against Pakistan. This is the same argument he used at the very beginning, when Afghanistan was attacked but it still has not stopped the Pakistanis and other innocent Muslims being killed by the US firepower.
   Even with open assistance from Musharraf, the US continues to arm India favourably, and has allowed the pro-Israeli elements to inspect all the nuclear assets of Pakistan. Such information inexorably will end up with Israeli intelligence (Mossad), and eventually with Indian intelligence. Musharraf has excelled in showing subservience to the US, he promised the US that the nuclear weapons are guarded. Such is the absurdity of the situation, instead of using the nuclear weapons to protect the country, the country is protecting the nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence has become a nuclear burden for Pakistan!
   Therefore, Pakistan’s security has worsened in relative terms, which is serious, as it makes her more vulnerable to an attack. This erosion of security is natural and expected, when a country allows a foreign power to use it as a base. What guarantees has the US provided that it will not attack Pakistan in the future directly or through a proxy like India? The same guarantee their British cousins provided to the rebellious Arabs, who fought against the Ottomans. Instead of independence, the Arabs were made more dependent, by dividing them into weak despotic states, mini-states, some of the oil-fields turned into pathetic micro-states.
   The colonial powers consumed the cheap oil, the Arab sheiks and their tribes got fatter than the camels and the West in turn ‘rewarded’ the Arabs collectively with the grand prize of Israel for their obedience (treachery)! Similar division of Iraq is taking place according to the policy of divide and conquer, just look at those people who are rushing to aid the US in this matter. So prepare for the future US-led liberation of Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and Kashmir. Then divide these territories further along the sectarian lines of Sunni and Shi’ites.
   Mass anti-US demonstrations followed the US bombings, but why exclusively blame the US, when it was Musharraf, who opened up the country for the US forces to use it as a military base. When a paid assassin kills, it is not the assassin or the weapon that should be blamed but the one who paid the assassin - the primary cause. The Americans are like the assassin with a deadly weapon, but it was Musharraf who allowed these assassins to use the country for target practice; and we all knew who the US was going to use for their target practice. Hence, the ultimate blame lies on Parvez Musharraf, the primary cause.
   The families should demand compensation for the murder of their loved ones, according to the laws of Pakistan, where the crime was committed. In addition, the masses should call for the removal of US bases from the region to prevent future strikes and to protect the sovereignty of Pakistan. Finally, demand impeachment of Musharraf for treason, and for complicity in the murder of the Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan by the US forces. The masses ought to raise questions about the weakening of the security of Pakistan, which is dependent on strength and independence of the nation and its leadership. Certainly, Musharraf as a leader has shown neither strength nor independence. The age-old colonial system inherited and run by the feudal lords continues to bleed the country. It is time to reflect on the fundamental questions: why Pakistan was created, where it is today and where is Pakistan heading towards.
   Yamin Zakaria
   London, UK