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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

Press reports (New Age, September 2) indicate Israel has said no to Bangladesh (and Malaysian) peacekeepers for the UN mission in Lebanon. Let our foreign office mandarin sort out the implications and follow up on the subject. But at least two questions come to mind — why was it necessary for our permanent representative at the UN, New York, to offer troops and go beyond to suggest two battalions when as it appears now the nuances and the intricacies of composition (European or Asian or other) were not clear?
   Israel’s objection earlier seemed to be the absence of diplomatic recognition of Israel by the contributor country. But that is not the case since Israel has no objection to Indonesia, which does not have diplomatic relations.
   Secondly, is it for the UN Secretary General or for Israel to decide how the UN peacekeeping mission is composed? Is there some pressure or gentle persuasion that guides the Secretary General on this mission? There has been much noise especially coming from Tel Aviv about the inclusion of ‘robust’ troops (read NATO) or European countries.
   Does this reflect a truth that lesser countries are all right in Africa or Asia but unwelcome or unqualified to be in proximity of Europe? Some sceptics might even see a subtle plot to surround the Middle East region with NATO or equivalent military personnel under the benign umbrella of the UN. NATO troops in Afghanistan, US troops in Iraq, and now Europeans keeping peace (in effect eliminating any threat to its occupation and incursions into neighbours) might be fuelling the fodder of suspicion.
   The UN has had a poor standing with Israel for all these past years; its credibility stands severely damaged by its inability to enforce compliance with its resolutions on Israel-Palestine conflict festering till today.
   UNIFIL (in Lebanon) observers have been ignored, ridiculed and even shot at and killed by Israeli forces.
   All these do not inspire confidence. The standing of the UN, when it loudly demands compliance from, and issues ultimatums to, weak or politically cornered countries, falls low; that to be lowered even further.
   Really, it is not how ‘robust’ the peacekeepers are, it is how robust the UN itself wishes to be or is allowed to be by those who hold it in captivity. Bangladesh took a principled stand on the Lebanon war; a commendable one that will bring dividends in due course. No need to rue the exclusion if it comes to that, just as no need to abandon certain principles to earn condescending approval either.
   Husain
   Dhaka

The recent Bangladesh High Court order stripping off the judicial power of a lower court judge awarding a wrongful death sentence to an innocent man should be an eye-opener verdict not only for Bangladesh but also for the entire world (New Age, August 30). The court also ordered stern action against the police officer in charge of investigation.
   It is not just in Bangladesh but also in many parts of the world that people are sometimes awarded extreme harsh sentences for crimes, which they did not commit. In 1994, Sheikh Zuliqar (alias Joy) Rahman, a Bangladeshi citizen living in Sweden, was given life imprisonment for the alleged murder of an elderly lady. Death penalty does not exist in Sweden. During the trial, Joy Rahman pleaded innocence, but in vain. No hard evidence was produced against him. The Swedish authority needed a guilty person and the brown-coloured Joy Rahman, who was assisting the lady in her household chores, became a natural choice primarily because of racism highly prevalent in Sweden. During the trial the Swedish prosecutor hurled plenty of racist abuses towards the Bangladeshi culture. After languishing eight long years in jail, the Supreme Court of Sweden finally found him not guilty. On several occasions in recent times, Joy Rahman has requested an apology from the Swedish government for causing him and his family members immense amount of pain and humiliation. But the Swedish government has turned a deaf ear to his request. Joy Rahman received a token financial compensation from the Swedish authority. But nothing can substitute the agony, sufferings and humiliation, which he had undergone as a prisoner in Sweden, which claims to be the world champion in human rights.
   Unlike the Bangladeshi Court, the Swedish Supreme Court did not issue any strong orders for the judges at the lower court for awarding a life sentence to an innocent. Therefore, it is expected that this verdict should not only resonate in Bangladesh but also in the entire world where probably many innocent persons like Shah Alam Babu and Joy Rahman are languishing in jails.
   Laila Ali
   Uppsala, Sweden

As a concerned citizen, I just want to know the following facts about the Asia Energy deal:
   1. Who struck the deal with Asia Energy?
   2. Why wasn’t it transparent?
   3. Who had benefited from the deal?
   4. How could Asia Energy enlist at international stock markets if they had not signed any agreement?
   5. Who received the kickbacks and bribes?
   6. Who in Phulbari, Dinajpur had the sole clout to sell Bangladeshi interests?
   7. What parties or dalals were acting on behalf of the government to screw Bangladesh?
   8. What was Mamdudur Rahman’s role and on whose instructions does he work?
   9. Which international banks were credited by Asia Energy?
   It is time we got these answers fast. Otherwise there will be myriad of Asia Energy like scenarios all over Bangladesh till the perpetrators of crimes like Kansat, premeditated political killings, and, rapists and killers looming at large in Bangladesh and abroad under the cover of a power group in Bangladesh are brought to justice.
   Wasim Rajin
   On e-mail

National committee member secretary Prof Anu Muhammad must be a satisfied and content man today. The Phulbari incident has brought the government to its knees, a government which would at this juncture be more than willing to project itself as a populist government, especially when the general elections is around the corner. The government has ceded to the six point agenda of the anti-AEC movement, National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Mineral Resources and Electricity, and has promised that AEC shall not be allowed to proceed with open-pit mining.
   Sitting here in the US, being a Bangladeshi citizen who has migrated to the US in search of a decent job, opportunities of which are totally absent in Bangladesh, the turn of events could have pained me, and for that matter, any logically-disposed Bangladeshi no further.
   On one hand, we see sweeping geo-political changes, all driven by the new and ever-evolving paradigms of modern economics, where mere national boundaries have all but crumbled to give way to progress riding on globalisation of business facilitated by liberalisation of economic policies of the developing nations. Traditional rivalries amongst countries have melted down in the face of pragmatic economic issues, because it is only such progress which can facilitate nations, aspiring to alleviate chronic issues like eradicating poverty, illiteracy, increasing employment, addressing factors which cause social unrest, to move forward on the path of progress. The only way forward then for governments of such countries is to facilitate industrialisation through public funding and promoting entrepreneurship internally and through facilitating Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in sectors which lack the technology or the factors of production.
   Quite on the opposite end of the spectrum, is our country. We have continued to be insular and totally cross-eyed in our approach. Our attempts at promoting entrepreneurship have yielded but an apology of an industrial growth rate. Garment manufacturers have been successful, but they have been so not because but DESPITE of the government policies. Our efforts to invite FDI have seen inflows, which are next to nothing. Interested investors have been treated with disrespect, and their proposals have been so maligned, and intent so questioned, as if they are some barbarians out to loot Bangladesh.
   Why is it that we treat FDI the way we do? Any investor would seek a fair return on his investment, especially so when he undertakes to take a humungous risk by undertaking to invest in an alien land. He commits to invest as per the laws of the land. In doing so, the country earns taxes, provides opportunities for employment, takes advantage of the ripple effect such as development of associated businesses, there is an increase in its GDP, and so on and so forth. We therefore should not be overtly concerned if the investor then wants to take out of the country a fair return post all the dues and taxes as per the land of the law. But how do we handle FDI? A case in point here is the basket of investment proposed by Tatas, whose reputation as a fair business house is well-known across the globe, yet our enlightened citizens have not left much unsaid regarding the investment, some even going as far as to say that they are rogue elements out to destabilise Bangladesh.
   The final straw is the treatment being meted out to AEC. In spite of sovereign contracts with the government, because of some unruly elements, or possibly because of political gains, a situation has arisen where things have come to such a pass that the investor finds himself in an impossible situation. The ramifications of such an incident are not going to be confined to Phulbari, or to Bangladesh. Indeed, the whole global investing community, which includes bankers and financiers, have taken note of the appalling turn of events. Bangladesh, as an investing destination, I am afraid, will find itself derated several notches, given the rabid response of the people instigated by some unscrupulous elements and the government’s almost impotent response to such a situation. It may be pertinent to mention here that a communist nation like China today is the destination for the largest FDI inflows in the world! In the final analysis, Bangladesh may find it tougher, if not impossible to invite further attention to itself from the international community as an investment destination going forward from here, and such incidents would have yet again proven that it is only clear vision, which is above petty vote-bank politics, that can ever hope to get Bangladesh going on the path of progress.
   Till then, the likes of Prof Anu Muhammad may cry foul and decry FDI, and will continue to have a free hand to subvert the progress of Bangladesh. The real enemy of the state lies within, not outside Bangladesh.
   Shahid Ahmed
   Detroit, USA