UNP, majority sentiment and prospect
of war without end in Sri Lanka
Due in large measure to the leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe the UNP has not joined the bandwagon of war. Instead it relies on a political approach to conflict resolution in contrast to the position of the
government, and maybe even most of the people at the present time. So long as Ranil Wickremesinghe maintains his position and his principles, and is supported to do so, his leadership offers the country another chance not to be trapped in a war with no end, writes Jehan Perera from Colombo
My experience with several wars in Vietnam has led me to the firm belief that terrorism cannot be removed by force and that deep listening is more powerful than bombs. Terrorism is born from wrong perceptions. The terrorists have wrong perceptions of themselves. They have wrong perceptions of us. That is why they want to destroy us, to punish us. If we know how they think, how they perceive things, we can help them to remove these wrong perceptions. The work of removing wrong perceptions is the foundation for transforming violence and terrorism and fostering peace. We have to listen to other political leaders in Europe, in Asia, because our feeling, our thinking, may be characterised by a lot of wrong perceptions. Our wrong perceptions lead to conflict, suffering and war.
Thich Nhat Hanh, on the US War against Terror. Art of Power (2007), p162
THE difficulties encountered by the government in the battlefields of the north have recently induced its spokespersons, including President Mahinda Rajapaksa, to extend the timeframe for the successful conclusion of the war. Nevertheless, there appears to be a majority agreement that the government has been remarkably successful in prosecuting the war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and needs more time to complete its mission of destroying it. This is the view that is publicly articulated by those in the public eye whose views are deemed to be influential and is possibly the view of the silent majority as well. It may explain why the people as a whole appear to be extremely patient in the face of 25 per cent inflation, abductions, political thuggery and other infirmities of governance.
The fruits of success of the government’s military approach are visible at all levels of society and in the vast majority of the country that is under government control. The local government elections in the Batticaloa district, parts of which were under LTTE control until recently, has been a major triumph for the government. The majority agreement seems to be that the elections in the east are a step in the correct direction as it would both restore institutions of democracy and further marginalise the LTTE. Even the opposition parties that boycotted the Batticaloa elections that took place earlier in the month appear to be reconsidering their stance in the light of the forthcoming Eastern Provincial elections that have been set for May.
Whenever discussion takes place in public there seems to be agreement that what the government is doing to defeat the LTTE is necessary even if it is also extremely costly. Many business elites who have been traditional supporters of the opposition UNP, on account of its more market-friendly economic policies, have both tacitly and openly acknowledged the correctness of the government’s policy on the war. Although the tourist hotels in the south are almost empty, the workers there say that they are prepared to sacrifice so that the LTTE problem may be finished off, once and for all. The inevitable conclusion from this is that there is a mighty swell of public opinion that stands behind the government’s war against the LTTE.
UNP’s dilemma
In the face of this tide of righteous nationalism those who question the costs of war and the possibility of things not going quite according to plan are being socially and politically ostracised. Even the envoys of friendly foreign countries that have greatly assisted Sri Lanka in the past, and continue to do so today, such as the United States and India, are also at the receiving end of brickbats. This is for objecting to human rights violations in the course of the war and for asking that a viable political solution be manifested even on paper to begin with. Those who do not agree with the government’s assessment and who point to a different reality are denounced as having hidden agendas or as being traitors. In these circumstances of triumphalism that is backed by every appearance of public support, the role of the opposition parties has become extremely difficult.
On the one hand, the opposition parties need to be mindful of the mood of the electorate. There is also the need to be supportive of government initiatives that are in the national interest. On the other hand, the opposition parties have to be true to their own analyses of the prevailing situation. They also need to give expression to views that are not a part of the dominant mainstream. The silenced voice today is that of the Tamil people, whether living in Colombo or the north and east. In the face of continuing detentions, abductions and disappearances, Tamils living outside of the north and east also will often deem discretion to be the better part of valour. The Tamils of the north and east are either silenced through terror or have little real choice, as at the recently concluded Batticaloa elections.
As the largest opposition party, and as the party that is closest to being a truly multi-ethnic and cosmopolitan party, the UNP appears to be facing this common challenge to all opposition parties with great difficulty, and amidst much criticism. The majority of its electoral support has always come from the Sinhalese ethnic majority who, today, appear to be firmly in support of the government’s military campaign against the LTTE. The powerful breakaway faction of the UNP led by its former deputy leader, Karu Jayasuriya, and consisting of many of its brightest stars, appear to have been politically sensitive to these realities. It appears that the prevailing tensions within the UNP have led it to a largely quiescent public position with regard to support for the war and an imposed solution that derives from it. This has led to severe criticism of the UNP leadership, and particularly of its leader Ranil Wickremesinghe.
Fundamental shift
Obtaining conditions of peace in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and politically dynamic country requires a measure of consensus not only within the largest community, but also between the different communities. It is unlikely that the Tamil people who have been displaced in their tens of thousands, and been abducted, killed and had their children forcibly recruited in their hundreds, would acquiesce in a solution that is imposed on them by government and majority power. It is unlikely that the Tamil political consciousness that has sought power sharing, autonomy and equal rights for over fifty years can ever be suppressed. It is more likely that in the absence of a negotiated political solution that the Tamil people deem is just to them and to others, resentment will permeate the community. In such a situation the LTTE will retain sufficient Tamil support both locally and from the expatriate Tamil community to continue to survive to fight, destabilise and impoverish Sri Lanka for the foreseeable future.
At the present time, however, the rest of the polity, which is larger by far, seems to be of the view that the government’s military campaign is successful and needs to be taken to the finish line. In such a situation it is difficult to stand up and say no, especially if one is a politician who is expected to be close to the pulse of the people. Despite these majoritarian pressures, the UNP under the leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe has made a fundamental shift away from going along with forces of nationalism, be it Sinhalese, Tamil or Muslim, even at the cost of losing successive elections. The leadership that Ranil Wickremesinghe has provided in the past decade has been, publicly and consistently, to stand for a political solution to resolve the ethnic conflict without resort to the horror of war. Holding to this position in the face of strong popular support for war requires an extraordinary degree of political vision and commitment.
The Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, who headed the Buddhist Peace Delegation to the Paris Talks during the Vietnam War has written thus: ‘We may be clear about the need for change in our country. But we need the courage to express ourselves even when the majority is going in the opposite direction. We should be supported by our loved ones and by our colleagues who agree with us. A change of direction can only happen when there is collective awakening. Individuals and small groups can spark a change in consciousness’ (Art of Power, p161). Due in large measure to the leadership of Ranil Wickremesinghe the UNP has not joined the bandwagon of war. Instead it relies on a political approach to conflict resolution in contrast to the position of the government, and maybe even most of the people at the present time. So long as Ranil Wickremesinghe maintains his position and his principles, and is supported to do so, his leadership offers the country another chance not to be trapped in a war with no end.
Jehan Perera is media director of the National Peace Council in Colombo, Sri Lanka. jehanpc@sltnet.lk
Biofuel: a threat to food security
and environment
Biofuel may play a role in curbing climate change; however, it could also create food insecurity and environmental hazard in many developing countries, writes Arif Mohammad Faisal
PRODUCTION and use of biofuel has increased globally in recent times because of soaring fossil fuel prices and concerns over sustainable energy supply for the future. Biofuels can help reduce global warming by curbing greenhouse gas emission and create employment opportunity and increased income for the rural poor in many developing countries. The Kyoto Protocol’s clean development mechanism offers potential for funding biofuels projects in developing countries resulting in an increase in biofuel production in these countries. However, sceptics argue that benefits may be offset by increased food insecurity for the billions of hungry people in poor countries and may create serious environmental problems.
Biofuels, which are made from crops and other plants, e.g. corn (maize), palm oil, sugar cane, Jathropa (a biofuel yielding plant), have been seen by many as a cleaner and cheaper way to meet the world’s soaring energy needs than greenhouse gas emitting conventional fossil fuels. The most common use for biofuels is automotive transport. Biofuel can be produced from any biological carbon source. The most common by far is photosynthetic plants that capture solar energy. Many different plants and plant-derived materials are used for biofuel manufacture. In the preparation of biofuel, agricultural crops like sugarcane, sugar beet, maize, etc are produced and then converted into ethanol by yeast fermentation. It can also be done by producing oil yielding plants such as Jatropha, Pongam seed or rape seed and then oil are heated to reduce their viscosity and they can be directly burn in diesel engines.
‘Conventional fossil fuels still account for more than 95 per cent of the global transportation fuel market, biofuel production is gradually increasing 15 per cent per year, a rate over ten times that of fossil fuel.’ Brazil is the world’s largest producer of sugar-based ethanol, producing about 16 billion litres a year and the US, the world’s biggest oil user, is the second-largest biofuel producer. Brazil plans to increase biofuels share from 37 per cent to about 60 per cent by 2020. In 2005 the US pledged to nearly double ethanol production by 2012, and the European Union has recently announced that biofuels will meet 10 per cent of its transportation fuel needs by 2020. According to a recent UN energy report on sustainable bio-energy, global biofuels production has doubled in the past five years and will likely double again in the next four years. Some of the countries that enacted new pro-biofuel policies in recent years are Australia, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Thailand, etc. In China the government is making E10 (a fuel mixture of 10 per cent ethanol and 90 per cent gasoline) blends mandatory in five provinces that account for 16 per cent of the nation’s passenger cars. In Southeast Asia, Thailand has mandated an ambitious 10 per cent ethanol mix in gasoline starting in 2007. India is extending plantations of Jatropha and the Indian sugar ethanol programme sets a target of 5 per cent bio-ethanol incorporation into transport fuel.
However, not everyone, particularly the developing countries, is enthusiastic about the booming of biofuel production. Critics are highlighting the potential environmental and social costs of biofuels, including the consequences of increased food insecurity on the billions of poor of the developing countries.
Impacts on food security
Worldwide around 852 million people are without enough food to eat on a regular basis and 2 billion more face intermittent food insecurity (SOFI 2004). Progress in reducing poverty and hunger has been limited in many developing countries in recent years despite the development efforts. However, the percentage of hungry people in the world has declined. ‘Still more people around the world die of hunger than of AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis combined.’ International Food Policy Research Institute projections suggest that the number of food-insecure people in the world would rise by over 16 million for every percentage increase in the real prices of staple foods. That means that 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by 2025.
In general, poor people spend a much bigger share of their overall expenditure on food than they do on energy. A recent study by IFPRI revealed that both urban and rural poor in a selected number of developing countries spend between about 50 and 70 per cent of their expenditure on food and about 1 and 10 per cent on energy. A country study (Ahmed et al 2007) revealed that a Bangladeshi five-person household living on one dollar a day per person typically spends its 5 dollars as follows: 3 dollars on food, 50 cents on energy and 1.5 dollars on non-food items. A 20 per cent increase in both food and energy prices would require that they cut or reallocate 70 cents of their expenditures – and doing so from their 1.5 dollars in initial non-food expenditures would be extremely difficult given the quasi-fixed costs of housing, school fees, transport, and so on (von Braun, J and Pachauri, RK; 2006). As a result, cuts will likely be made to food expenditure, exacerbating diet quality and micronutrient malnutrition.
The IFPRI projects that, given continued high oil prices, the rapid increase in global biofuel production will push global corn prices up by 20 per cent by 2010 and 41 per cent by 2020. ‘The prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds, and sunflower seeds, are projected to rise by 26 per cent by 2010 and 76 per cent by 2020, and wheat prices by 11 per cent by 2010 and 30 per cent by 2020.’ In the poorest parts of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where cassava is a staple food, its price is expected to increase by 33 per cent by 2010 and 135 per cent by 2020. The projected price increases may be mitigated if crop yields increase substantially or ethanol production based on other raw materials (such as trees and grasses) becomes commercially viable. But unless biofuel policies change significantly, neither development is likely. The production of cassava-based ethanol may pose an especially grave threat to the food security of the world’s poor. Year 2007 began with tortilla riots in Mexico and ended with grain riots in China due to high energy prices and ethanol production drove up corn and grain prices. Several studies by economists at the World Bank and elsewhere suggest that caloric consumption among the world’s poor declines by about half of one per cent whenever the average prices of all major staples food increase by one per cent. When one staple food becomes more expensive, people try to replace it with a cheaper one, but if the prices of nearly all staples go up, they are left with no alternative.
Many of the crops currently used for producing biofuel require high-quality agricultural land and significant inputs of fertilisers, pesticides and water. In most cases, biofuels crops are grown on food-crop land. A study by the International Energy Agency assessed the impact on cropland if the US and the EU expand biofuel production according to current plans. The results show that up to 43 per cent of cropland would be needed for biofuel production. Jatropha is being pushed as one of the new smart crops for African small farmers to produce fuel, and the impact is already being felt around the continent. In Tanzania thousands of farmers growing rice and maize are already being evicted from fertile areas of land with good access to water, for biofuel sugar cane and Jatropha plantations on newly privatised land. This topic is internationally controversial, with good and valid arguments on both sides of the ongoing debate. Prices on a number of food types used for biofuels have doubled in the past couple of years. If the use of food crops for biofuels (corn) increases, commodity prices will increase, making these crops less accessible to the poor. There are those that say biofuel is not the main cause. Some say the problem is a result of government actions to support biofuels. Others say it is just due to oil price increases. Whatever may be the cause, the impact of food price increases is greatest on poorer countries. There are other challenges as well. Like any innovation, increased production of energy crops has the potential to exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities by concentrating benefits on the well-off.
Without technologies to improve productivity, the price changes would adversely affect poor, net-food-purchasing households and would probably exceed the possible income gains by many small farm households. In general, biofuels that use food sources are costly to the poor and raise prices on the basic foods that already represent a large share of poor people’s household spending. Therefore, the crop subsidies that encourage the production of biofuels from certain food sources have a welfare burden on the poor as well as on producers of those crops in other countries.
Impacts on environment
One of the arguments in favour of biofuels is that they could positively affect net carbon emissions as an alternative to fossil fuels. However, the rapid growth of biofuel industry have unintended impacts on the environment, e.g. it can lead to deforestation, a loss of biodiversity, and excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides, thereby degrading the land and water that poor people depend on.
Large-scale biofuels production can threaten ecosystem, as seen recently with palm oil plantations in Indonesia that are encroaching on forests and edging out the endangered orang-utan population. In Brazil, the Cerrado, a vast forest with rich biodiversity, just south of the Amazon, is coming under pressure as sugarcane cultivation expands.
In October 2007 Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen published findings that the release of nitrous oxide from rapeseed oil, and corn (maize, contributes more to global warming than the fossil fuels they replace. However, the Crutzen paper goes on to say that crops with less nitrogen demand, such as grasses and woody coppicing, will have positive but lower climate impacts. In February 2008, two articles were published in Science concluding that clearing land for biofuel production produces twice as much greenhouse gas than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had previously estimated.
In some locations such as Indonesia and Malaysia, deforestation for palm oil plantations is leading to displacement of indigenous peoples. Also, extensive use of pesticide for biofuel crops is reducing clean water supplies.
In terms of economic impact, global biofuel expansion will affect prices, crop and energy markets, labour and land markets. If it moved into a larger production scale, macroeconomic variables, including exchange rates, will be affected.
A policy alternative
Still the issue of producing biofuel in the developing country is a sensitive issue where land is very scarce and poor spend the lion’s share of their income on food. Before going into commercial production of biofuel, the socio-economic and environmental issue should be taken into consideration including food security issue. Besides these, there are other concerns regarding efficiency. First, biofuels must be produced in a way that results in an output of energy greater than the amount of energy used to produce them – that is, they should have a highly positive energy balance. Second, biofuel production must be managed in a way that substantially reduces greenhouse gases compared with petroleum. Biofuel crop production can be a suitable alternative if designed in a participatory manner with those whose livelihoods will be affected.
There is recent advancement in the production of biofuel. Second-generation technologies can solve the food security issues as ethanol is produced from residues such as stalks and leaves. Third-generation bio-fuel is also promising as it is produced from algae which will not pose any threat to food-crop production. The development of cellulosic ethanol could dispel some of these concerns, but additional research and investment are needed to make this technology commercially viable and environmentally sustainable. Cellulose conversion technologies will open up enormous potential for broadening the kinds of feedstock that can be used for biofuel to include trees and grasses that produce large amounts of usable biomass per hectare and that can be grown in areas where biofuel crop is less likely to compete with agricultural production for food and feed supplies. These technologies will enable greater use of existing agricultural waste and crop by-products and will also encourage growth of dedicated feedstock plantations, including tall grasses like switch grass and Miscanthus, and plants rich in non-edible oils like Jatropha curcas and Pongamia pinnata (Karoch) that grow in low-rainfall areas and on poor soils. Ponagamia pinnata is a common tree abundantly grown in haor areas of greater Sylhet. Pongamia and Jatropha are non-food crops and can be also grown in marginal, degraded or unproductive land of the country. These two plants can be potential biofuel for Bangladesh as they do not compete with food crops. The degraded land most likely holds considerably less carbon than plantation, even on the soil and other below-ground biomass. In this case, the change in land use will offer not only benefits resulting from displacing fossil fuels, but also carbon benefits and other ecosystem benefits. In Brazil, for example, environmental regulations now require 25 per cent of the plantation area to be left in natural vegetation to help preserve biodiversity and provide other ecosystem services.
In addition, in many low-income developing countries, farmers are unaware of the opportunities presented by biofuel production and thus risk missing out on the potential benefits. Public-private partnerships could help raise awareness of these opportunities among farmers in low-income countries.
The future of biofuels is uncertain, depending largely on the price of oil, agriculture and energy policies, and technological developments. The potential social and environmental risks associated with biofuels must be carefully weighed when deciding how much to produce, what types of land will be used and in what types of feedstock to invest. One can be certain that ethanol and biodiesel cannot solve all of the economic and environmental problems associated with fossil fuels. In that case we can explore and adopt improved technology and invest more in CNG transport, LPG vehicle, battery-electric car, hydrogen fuel cell buses, etc to meet energy balance for automobile. Measures that reduce overall demand for energy, such as increasing the fuel economy of automobiles and expanding mass transit options in cities, will also be necessary.
Without a holistic policy framework, biofuels opportunity can go terribly wrong for the poor in the country. Only in the presence of appropriate agricultural, economic, trade, energy and social policies will biofuels contribute to energy security without jeopardising food security of the poor. In conclusion, a framework will be required for policy and action needed to achieve win–win outcomes in terms of economic development, energy security, and food security for the billions of poor.
Arif Mohammad Faisal is a programme associate at the UNDP under its energy and climate change cluster. The views expressed in this article are of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the UNDP
Shame on Ashraful!
After the humiliating defeat against South Africa, Ashraful still thinks it’s just bad luck and he is batting well. He reportedly also said that it is the live telecast that puts extra pressure on them. He may not thrash the cricket ball in the field, but recently he tried to use the cricket gear to punish a fan who was booing him. Asraful has learned to use his cricket gear as baton and make the silliest excuses for his action in press conferences. He is an ideal candidate for police. He should quit cricket and pursue his promising career in the police force.
Saif
Dhaka
* * *
What Ashraful did is absolutely embarrassing and can no way be expected from the captain of the national team.
If he doesn’t have the temperament to accept criticism then how can he be leading the team to victory in nerve-wrecking games?
Zubair
Banani, Dhaka
* * *
According to New Age sports report of March 17, Jalal, the fan, who was slapped by captain Ashraful later apologised to the captain and promised not to boo the cricketer in future. One of Jalal’s guardians also apologised to Ashraful on behalf of the poor fan who was heartbroken at the terrible performance of the Tigers, especially the captain.
I really don’t get it. Why should the fan apologise to Ashraful when the captain of our national team himself is the offender here? It was Ashraful who failed to show any maturity on and off the field which raises serious question about his capability to lead the team.
Shouldn’t Ashraful be apologising in public for the shameful act he has committed? And shouldn’t he also be reprimanded like banning him for the next three matches?
Shanto
Dhaka University
Illegal or irregular
The famous amuse me at times as they enjoy hair-splitting. Speaker Jamir Uddin Sircar (who is a barrister) has said that the present government is irregular but not illegal. Another example of hair-splitting. Could he explain to an ordinary person like me what is the difference between illegal and irregular.
Waheed Nabi
Sheffield, England
|
Next on Quick Comments
|
a. Govt now plans railway corporatisation (New Age, March 17)
b. Interim govt irregular, not illegal: Sircar (New Age, March 17)
c. Role of army should be for short term with specific reason: Seghal (New Age, March 17)
d. Pinak’s comment on rice goes beyond diplomatic norms: Shawkat (New Age, March 17)
e. Ashraful lashes out! (New Age, March 17)
f. Protesters across the world condemn Iraq war (New Age, March 17)
g. Tibetan riots spread (New Age, March 17)
|
‘Quick Comments’ (letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com) seeks the readers’ instant reaction on different national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
