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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

This year the SSC result showed an increase in the winners of GPA-5, a happy development in itself. But disappointment awaits many of the winners when they go to seek admission in the college because of limited seats in the ace institutions they would prefer. This year in the SSC exam more than twenty-four thousand students made the top grade GPA-5. As the choicest colleges together do not have as many seats, some will have to opt for lesser institutions. As the process of admission test and interview has been dropped, institutions which will be deluged with applicants will also face difficulty in selecting students.
   The problem of college enrolment is nothing new; it worsens this time because the improved performance of students in SSC is not matched by expansion of capacity in the leading colleges. The top scorers would naturally prefer Dhaka College or Notre Dame for boys, and Holy Cross and Viqarunnessa for girls, or their closest substitutes in terms of quality of teaching and reputation. There are about a dozen top ranking colleges in Dhaka with a total enrolment capacity for about nine thousand students. Expansion of seats indefinitely may not be possible. The solution therefore lies in raising the teaching standard of the lesser institutions, as far as possible, to a competitive level.
   In fact, there is no dearth of colleges in the country but the ‘good’ colleges are too few and hence the scramble. It is not expected that all colleges will have the same standard. But there are two points to be considered here. Firstly, why is the number of colleges which offer acceptable quality of teaching so small – maybe less than 50 countrywide. Secondly, while uniform standard is not possible, the yawning gaps between institutions in the standard of teaching should not be acceptable. The private colleges are also very largely financed by the tax payer’s money and so these colleges must be accountable for their performance. Their performance may not be of the top rank but it must be of an acceptable level. We further note that from year to year the number of the ‘elitist’ colleges does not increase and the choice of students and guardians remains as limited as before. What the country needs is more even standards and a more horizontal spread of educational facilities.

Bush-Blair duo sidetrack Lebanon crisis

The absence of a clear call for the cessation of hostilities in the Middle East was all too apparent in the joint press conference of US President Bush and UK Prime Minister Blair held at the end of the latter’s visit to Washington, on Friday night. Obsessed in his crusading zeal to fight till the last in his unwinnable ‘war on terror’, Bush summarily dismissed Blair’s plea for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon and Blair obsequiously surrendered to his soul-mate.
    President Bush’s bundling together of issues related to Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and the humanitarian disaster in Darfur, in the same press conference intended to make his position clear on Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, left no doubts as to what his views are. On the other hand, his criticism of Syria and Iran as sponsors of the Hezbollah in Lebanon gave away his clear intention to use this conflict to his country’s advantage by tagging it to the US’ ‘War On Terror’ as a way to discredit Iran in the UN Security Council over its nuclear technology programme. Prime Minister Blair was in tune with the US policy, urging the need for Lebanon’s government to reclaim control over areas of the country’s south from where rockets are being fired into northern Israel.
   For purposes of clarity we want to state that the Iran-issue, of US-making, is extraneous to the conflict in the Middle East that centres around Israel. That the Israeli government, through its current offensive, is hoping to scupper the momentum gained towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict is in little doubt. What is more alarming is that perhaps this escalation of hostilities, and a goading of the Hezbollah by Israel, is part of a strategic effort to enforce a regime change in Iran, Syria and Palestine where, to the horror of Israel and the US, radical forces have come to power through free and fair elections.
   It is also important for the EU to ask itself whether it will fall into line with US and UK policies on Israel’s violence, given that these two countries are the principal suppliers of weapons to the Jewish state. On Israel’s ongoing war with Lebanon, no matter how tough President Bush and Prime Minister Blair talk, it is clear that they are on the backfoot. As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrives in the Middle East today, she will be striking a three-way deal, with Israel, the Lebanese government and the Hezbollah in a hope to stop the rockets raining down on their ally Israel. There is talk that she will offer the Hezbollah the return by Israel of the occupied Sheba’a Farm areas, and will offer to back the Lebanese Army with an international force in reigning the Hezbollah in, hoping to secure UN backing for its long-term agenda. The imperative for the international community will be to test the commitment of the US and the UK in a deal for long-term peace. The EU especially needs to assert its own views on the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, instead of falling into line with US policy.

As is well-known, there are two kinds of emergencies: the loud ones and the quiet ones. Cyprus became a loud emergency, drawing immediate attention of the international community in 1963 when the constitution establishing the Partnership Republic of Cyprus based on equality of political rights was abrogated by the Greek Cypriots. As in any other loud emergencies, the lives, properties and livelihoods of people in Cyprus were under threat; majority of these belonged to Turkish Cypriots. Though toll of human lives took place on both sides, the casualties of Turkish Cypriots were many more, 6000 according to an estimate. Turkish Cypriots were uprooted from 116 villages and forced to flee and live in clusters, when the Partnership Republic collapsed. The culminating point in this political crisis came in 1974 when the Greek extremists seized state power through military takeover. Turkey, as one of the guarantor powers, intervened in 1974 militarily to protect the Turkish Cypriots. The Cyprus crisis passed from the ‘loud’ into a ‘quiet emergency’ phase after the Turkish intervention, as stability was restored. But the intervention was not meant to be permanent: it was only a stop-gap arrangement until a comprehensive political settlement was reached between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. As long as the island remained divided the ‘quiet emergency’ prevailed, calling for a permanent settlement. The ‘emergency’ nature of the situation did not expire with the declaration of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in l984 because both sides were committed to re-unification, but on their own terms.
   It was at this point that the high offices of the United Nation’s Secretary General’s (UNSG) mission became crucial. After four and a half year’s negotiations with both parties within the framework provided by the high offices mission of the UNSG, a plan for unification of the divided island was formulated. The Annan Plan, as it came to be called, envisaged a bi-zonal, bi-communal Federation with equal rights for both the constituent states. The Plan was put to referenda on 19 April 2004 simultaneously in the north and southern part of the island. The Turkish Cypriots supported the Plan with 64% vote but the Greek Cypriots said a resounding ‘no’ with 74% of votes. Had the Annan Plan been accepted by the Greek Cypriots, the Partnership Republic or the Republic of Cyprus would have come into being, ending the forty three years of separation. It would have restored the principle underlying the original constitution but with geographical division and political sovereignty exercised in two distinct territories. It would have been a federation giving the island unity in statehood while preserving political equality of the two communities.
   The island of Cyprus continues to be geographically and politically divided and from this stems a host of problems, social, economic and diplomatic. The present situation harms both the Greeks and the Turkish Cypriots, though not to the same degree. The Republic of Northern Cyprus has been internationally isolated for lack of recognition, it also suffers from economic embargoes and restrictions, imposed on it at the instigation of the Greek Cypriot state in the south. The status quo is also not to the advantage to the southern neighbour as they cannot use the port facilities in the northern part and in Turkey, in addition to problems over property. Thus, while the division of the island into two separate states without a common political framework (a federation) hurts the Turkish Cypriots both politically and economically, it also hurts the south, though to a lesser degree. It is not a situation that is favourable to either side and herein lies the silver lining. The commonality of some interests give some hope that even after the collapse of the Annan Plan matters will not stand still and initiatives will be taken by the international community and the Turkish and Greek Cypriots to break the stalemate and reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement. But the emergency that now exists being ‘quiet’ in nature, the sense of urgency to address it may not be strong or continuous. Since neither Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, nor the Greek Republic of Cyprus can take initiatives beyond a certain limit, outsiders enjoying neutrality with both have greater leverage in this regard. Of these, the UN is undoubtedly the pre-eminently superior and influential body. The European Union, too, can play a significant role, if it is objective and neutral.
   Unfortunately, the EU lost much of its influence and effectiveness in contributing to the solution of the Cyprus problem by taking a number of wrong decisions. Firstly, knowing that the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ represented only ‘half’ the island and UN efforts at reaching a comprehensive settlement would continue even after the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots, the EU should not have been in such a haste to admit the Greek Cypriot Republic as a member. Membership in EU took away some of the incentive of the Greek Cypriot leaders to seriously desire a rapprochement. Secondly, by declaring embargo on exports for the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and banning international air flights to and from the TKNC, the EU’s neutrality was undermined. Recent developments have strengthened the suspicions of the TRNC and Turkey that EU is biased against the TRNC and acting under influence of Greece and Republic of Cyprus, both members of EU. Before the accession negotiation with Turkey started in Brussels last month, the EU all on a sudden inserted a new condition for membership negotiation, requiring Turkey to allow Greek Cypriot ships or airlines to use its ports. The EU should have realised that if Turkey accede to this there will be little incentive left for the Greek Cypriots for a comprehensive settlement. Legally speaking this will also mean recognition of the Greek Cypriot Republic by Turkey at the expense of TRNC. Turkey took a tough stand and did not go to Brussels for the accession negotiation before the Cyprus issue was delinked from her membership negotiation. While attending the thirty second anniversary of the Turkish Peace operation in Cyprus on 20 July Prime Minister Recip Tayyip Erdogan categorically declared that Cyprus was a political problem which should be dealt with by the UN, as has been done so far. He observed that Turkey’s membership in EU had nothing to do with Cyprus. This has been a reasonable stand by Turkey both in view of the bias demonstrated by the EU and the nervousness felt by the Turkish Cypriots over the pressure tactics used by Greece and Greek Cyprus through EU.
   The separation of the role between the EU and the UN, however, need not be absolute. The EU still can contribute to the political solution of the Cyprus problem but for this it must have goodwill for both sides and a neutral stance. If it is not possible for EU to be an active participant in the negotiation for a comprehensive settlement, the least it can do is to lift the trade embargos and other restrictions. It should do this on humanitarian grounds because the embargo and restrictions are hurting innocent men, women and children. The embargo hurts the TRNC as a political entity but not so much as to make it surrender its right of self -determination. Therefore, the humanitarian considerations should override the legal and political ones. Continuing with the embargo and restrictions, the EU will only tarnish its image and appear as an insensitive and inconsiderate body. Even if a political settlement is for the long haul, allowing TRNC to trade with EU members will not be unprecedented as seen by the case of Taiwan. The EU has shown its willingness to relax the embargo on trade and other restriction and to grant economic aid but nothing has come out of this due to objections from Greece and Greek Cyprus.
   Given the nature of the problem, a comprehensive settlement of Cyprus issue may not be around the corner. The priority at present, therefore, is to lift economic sanctions on TRNC, allowing it to be integrated in the global economy, benefit from it and contribute to it, as other countries are doing. As a reciprocal measure Turkey can allow Greek Cypriot ships and planes to use its facilities without recognising the Greek Cypriot Republic, and in fact indications to this effect have already been given by Turkey. If the EU moves along this direction instead of demanding unilateral concession from Turkey for the benefit of the Greek Cypriots, its stature and reputation as a dynamic and progressive body will have been established. It can then even participate in the negotiation for comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem under the high offices mission of the UN Secretary General. The pressure exerted by Greece and Greek Cyprus should not be allowed to undermine its obligations as an international body. After all, following the referenda on 14 April, 2004 the EU council took a decision ‘to put an end’ to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots which became a part of ‘acquis communitaire’ of the EU. It also promised economic assistance for the Turkish Cypriots at that time amounting to 133 million euro. These overtures remain unimplemented because of objections from Greece and Greek Cypriots who are bent upon to bring Northern Cyprus to its knees.
   The negotiation for a comprehensive political settlement leading to a federation in Cyprus may take time but there should not be any let up in efforts in this regard. The key role here, of course, will be played by the UN, in continuation of past efforts. it is encouraging that the idea of Technical Committees, originating with the Turkish authorities, was taken up by the UN and the Special Representative of the Secretary General presented to both parties ten issues to be discussed in the Technical Committees to address day to day matters that concern people on both sides. Though both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders agreed to the idea of discussion in technical committees in February 2006, the Greek Cypriot authorities later tried to wriggle out saying that substantive matters related to comprehensive settlement should also be included in these talks. To assure the Greek Cypriot leaders the UNSG observed in a letter that these technical talks would not be a substitute for any negotiation for comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. He also put the record straight saying that his meeting with the Greek Cypriot President in Paris in February this year did not lead to any agreement but was merely an exchange of views followed by suggestions. Before the proposal for technical committees was made, Turkey presented a 10-point Action Plan to the UN Secretary General taking a pro-active role in the backdrop of the collapse of the Annan Plan.
   Through the Action Plan Turkey has drawn the attention of the UNSG to continue taking a leading role for a new initiative with a view to removing problems of day to day nature and convening a high-level meeting under UN auspices with the participation of all parties. When finalised, and agreed to by all sides, the Action Plan will be submitted to the UN Security Council. It is encouraging that the UNSG, the EU Enlargement Commission, the governments of the UK, America, Italy and Spain and OIC have shown interest in the Action Plan. If Greece and the Greek Cypriots could join the UN-sponsored talk on Kofi Annan’s Plan in March 2004, there is no reason why they cannot join now a similar a high-level meeting to discuss the Action Plan prepared by Turkey. There are even more compelling reasons to agree to hold discussions through technical committees, an idea endorsed and submitted formally by the UN representative in Cyprus to both sides. The Presidents of Northern and Southern Cyprus have recently met to discuss about the technical committees, though the Greek Cypriot side has some reservations about the scope of discussion. If seen as a step by step progress there is much to be said in favour of these committees. The important thing is to keep the ball rolling and prevent ‘negotiation fatigue’. Turkey has been doing the utmost in this regard, but other countries, including Bangladesh, need to take an active interest in the Cyprus problem till it is resolved. An unresolved problem involving two communities living in the same land is a challenge to the international community. It can be ignored or soft-pedalled only at the cost of globalisation for peace and shared prosperity.
   The loud emergency in Cyprus was over in 1974 but the quiet emergency remains, affecting both Greek or Turkish Cypriots. The international community and the two protagonists cannot allow this to simmer indefinitely. The loss and suffering from ‘quiet emergencies’ may not be dramatic, but they affect the lives and welfare of people, nevertheless. It will be a failure of statesmanship and pragmatism to allow political stalemate to continue simply because of stubborn attitude, old prejudices and myopia. With a policy of give and take both sides can reach a win-win situation. Both Greece and Greek Cyprus should realise that if TRNC could survive under isolation and embargo for over two decades it can do so for ever. This, however, will not be without a price for the people in the island. That the price for Turkish Cypriots will be higher should not be a matter of satisfaction for the Greek Cypriots. Price, unnecessarily paid, is undesirable and harmful, irrespective of the amount involved.