Editorial
Government must critically investigate
Chevron’s Lawachharra survey
The controversies and mysteries surrounding the fire that destroyed a portion of Lawacharra National Park, and the subsequent series of allegations and counter allegations which have seen two key government departments take contrary positions, is a cause for serious alarm. An investigation by the government, led by the ministry of forests and environment, concluded on Monday that workers of the US-based oil company Chevron — carrying out a seismic survey in the forest — may have caused the fire, New Age reported on Tuesday. These allegations have drawn vehement denials not only from the Chevron but also the state-owned oil and gas company Petrobangla, who claim that the investigation committee had not featured scientists who understand the processes involved in such surveys. Since then, however, local people from the areas around the forest have organised themselves in protest against the underground explosions that the survey work reportedly involves, on the grounds that they are causing serious damage to their houses, some of which have developed cracks, New Age reported on Saturday. Chevron is yet to clarify this issue, implying that it will be willing to compensate for the damage but yet to come up with a concrete commitment. What is clear from reports is that the oil company failed to inform local communities about the 9,000 odd underground explosions it had initiated in that area.
In the view of this paper, both Chevron and the relevant authorities in the government have shown a characteristic and unacceptable disregard for accountability and transparency in the secretive way it had initiated its survey work, unbeknownst to the local people. We know from past experience that the corporate power of energy companies often enables them to exercise such a degree of influence on governments in the third world — Bangladesh is a good example — that they can run roughshod on the precautionary measures and public awareness procedures required as a standard for their work anywhere in the world. The local people who live in the Bhanugach-Kamalganj area around Lawachharra know this from bitter experience of the blowout at the Magurchharra Gas Field in 1997. In fact, so far does the influence of oil companies extend that they have time and again managed to co-opt a section of respected academics in the country’s environmental movement, who remained surprisingly silent on issues of environmental damage by such companies.
In the view of the murky waters that are veiling the real damage that the seismic surveys have caused in Lawachhara National Park, we demand that the government show its accountability to its own people and step forward to set up an independent and qualified investigation team that will make its findings public. While the country’s energy needs are an utmost priority and there is a strong case for a logical and reasoned response to oil and gas exploration, any corporate entity or government department that disregards the interests and safety of the public to carry on such work should be halted in its tracks.
Extortionary oral saline prices
require government scrutiny
The long dry spell of stifling heat has predictably set off a mass outbreak of diarrhoeal diseases across the country. Judging from the death toll and the number of patients being admitted to specialised and general hospitals, this seasonal illness is taking on menacing proportions. This water borne disease is one of the leading reasons behind mortality of children under five years of age across the world.
The most common treatment, thanks to years of relentless mass media campaigns, to prevent fatality from diarrhoea is intake of oral rehydration saline made from sachets marketed by different companies and generally available at drugstores across the country. But according to a report in New Age on Saturday, this saline is not available in all the areas even in the capital. More worryingly still, the prices of these sachets have increased for the second time in a single week with diarrhoeal diseases showing little signs of letting up.
According to the report the retail prices for each sachet, generally enough to make about half a litre of the saline, have doubled over the last few days. The report quotes retailers claiming that the wholesalers were charging more. In both the cases—the retailer and the wholesaler—as the report points out, there is a violation of the stipulated maximum retail price. The volatility of prices, especially during times of crisis when this product is in high demand along with the reported unavailability at certain points of Dhaka, are ominous signs to say the least.
This is not the first instance of price escalation of essentials drugs during times of crisis. There had been a similar trend in the market in the wake of the twin floods last year when there was an outbreak of waterborne diseases especially diarrhoea, common after such natural calamities. Considering that there have not been any visible or effective actions from the authorities concerned and the consistent recurrence of price hike, it only indicates that this crucial sector is not sufficiently regulated or governed. Similar to the virtually unregulated market of essential foods, it appears that the drug business is also vulnerable to profiteering, exploiting people’s misery and desperation.
We have pointed out severally in these columns that this sector requires more attention and strict regulation which have apparently not been heeded. The incumbents must act immediately and decisively to prevent such predatory trends which only tax the masses further and do not contribute to the welfare.
When evidence should overcome ego
Could it be that after all said and done the party fears the American electorate is not ready for a black president? Does it feel that a black is not electable, not yet at least? Thus what the super delegates would be led to
determine in August remains shrouded in uncertainty for they have the queer prerogative to vote against popular verdict of the primaries. Is that the last hope the Clinton campaign is left to bank upon? Dr Zakir Husain asks
THE people of Indiana and North Carolina have spoken – they gave Barack Obama a convincing win and Hillary Clinton a defeat as clear as it could be. Hillary’s regaining the much-claimed momentum did end in a whimper. Evidence, like it or not, speaks louder than rhetoric; like it or not, evidence should demolish ego and vanity.
That goes for even a very stubborn contender and tenacious fighter like Hillary Clinton. Yet, Clintons cling on to stay on the nomination race because it seems they have come to believe the White House presidency is their manifest destiny.
Even evidence to the contrary fails to dissuade Clinton from dropping out of a losing race to boost her party’s chance to win the prize so well deserved by the party. People in the primaries, the young, educated and erudite in particular, have given Barack Obama a lead he clearly deserved and won. He won in spite of the rough weather his campaign faced at the hands of a crafty, no-holds-barred Clinton campaign. The Jeremiah Wright induced embarrassment of Obama, the alleged elitist/liberal tilt of Obama, and his readiness to engage Iran and Syria in diplomatic dialogue were exploited by Clinton as weakness and subversion. Yet, these apparently failed to dent support for Obama, as evidenced in his thumping win of North Carolina primary.
Hillary’s ‘experience’ was advertised as a huge advantage. But that experience was largely as the White House housewife and not in strategic decision making; thus that did not convince nor inspire the discerning voters who knew otherwise.
Obama, in spite the handicaps of being a black and not a seasoned insider to Washington establishment, commands an unbeatable lead by the number of states won, the number of committed delegates and, of course, the number of popular votes in the state primaries.
Yet, the nomination hangs in doubts. Between now and the Democratic Party convention in August what if anything could go wrong?
Plenty. Skeletons could tumble out of the wardrobe. For a start, it is not inconceivable that yet another deadly ‘leak’, an old ‘skeleton’ or two, a juicy sleaze or scandal, against the hitherto unstoppable Obama, could emerge in course of heated no-holds-barred campaign propaganda. The American elections to high public offices are notoriously susceptible to exposure of moral ‘lapses’ dug out from the past, or even the obtuse reference to personal or political scandal. That could harm a candidate more than a lapse or ambivalence around substantive political or economic issues. Right now, America faces some very serious economic and political issues, thanks largely to the past eight years of Bush presidency. America has bankrupted its treasure and squandered its moral prestige. To the discerning and the conscientious, these are of much greater relevance and urgency than a candidate’s presumed family scandal or minor moral ambivalence. Yet, such issues are being attempted to be sidelined.
General elections are fought and won not exclusively on matters of state and abiding national interest. Elections are fought with money and ‘muscular’ or manipulated media propaganda. America is no exception. With the huge money and well-oiled machine for media and publicity, American elections are uniquely susceptible to craft and cunning, maneuver and methods and, of course, who outspends whom.
So there are many slips between the cup and the lips; many unknowns between now and the August convention.
Yet, what is a puzzling unknown is why Hillary Clinton remains so stubborn and oblivious to evidence against her winning the trust of majority? It baffles observers within her own party and those outside.
It is also confounding if not incomprehensible to outside observers why the Democratic Party seniors and wise guys committed to the unity and good of the party, to win the presidency are not forcing the nomination issue, are not calling for early withdrawal of the losing candidate. This nomination race is proving so distracting, so divisive, and could eventually be so damaging. This race before it ends could seriously threaten the chance of the Democrats winning the real contest by defeating the Republican nominee John McCain in November.
Why the Democratic Party poised so close to rout a much-damaged Republican rival remains on a self-destructive course? Why the party chooses to be drifting or apparently sleep walking, determined as if to commit involuntary suicide?
This close to November, the only clear and present danger to the Democrats is their unwillingness and inability to resolve the nomination now rather than later. Yet, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, the party is letting itself be a party to continuing indecision, unable to make that bold and timely strategic choice that could define a victory. The only clear course is to make the nomination and unite to fight a robust election contest.
Nevertheless, could it be that after all said and done the party fears the American electorate is not ready for a black president? Does it feel that a black is not electable, not yet at least? Thus what the super delegates would be led to determine in August remains shrouded in uncertainty for they have the queer prerogative to vote against popular verdict of the primaries. Is that the last hope the Clinton campaign is left to bank upon?
All said and done this Clinton vs Obama campaign has the marks of a contest of personal ego and vanity. Barack Obama brings with him a modest background, mixed ethnic parentage, and the story of a minority community member valiantly surging ahead to fulfil the American dream of opportunities to all. Obama’s ego is modest and muted.
The Clintons could well be privileged to be born with a super ego and to nurse that ego with unconcealed vanity. Privileged to do so in this case; never mind the party, for it appears that the Clintons count for far more than the Party beholden to them. The party’s prospect for win is secondary it seems.
If the Democrats choose to remain faltering and undecided now, if they dither and drift in indecision, that is their choice.
However, in a cruel if not bizarre irony, by doing that the party would betray the choice of the millions of working Americans who believe a time for change has come. The primary polls have given a loud and clear message it is a time to chart a new course, and unite the country to heal the wounds of war at home and abroad. Above all else, millions wish to repair and restore the image of America as a leader of ideas and human rights rather than a predator ready to swallow anyone not ready to be bullied or bought.
Yet, the Democratic Party could lose the elections by lack of will and action now. Should the party sacrifice victory at the altar of an individual candidate’s ego or vanity?
Like never before, the young and the working class Americans have been energised; they went to register in polls in unprecedented numbers. They could be the ultimate losers.
Lest we forget, America with deeply entrenched two-party system leaves no room for a third alternative. The American electorate is left with a spurious choice. The two parties – Republican and Democratic – differ more in slogan and rhetoric but less in content and intents when it comes to foreign policy and worldview. So the next incumbent, be he/she be Democrat or Republican, might have not much significant to offer in conduct of foreign affairs.
The American Empire is already overstretched; in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ‘coalition of the bullied and bought’ is in shambles. A new war drumbeats of which are getting ever louder by threats to Iran seems eminently probable. That would leave the new administration a hard task of extricating the Empire from yet another quagmire. It is, therefore, outrageous to hear Hillary thundering warning to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran by nuclear bombs.
With America possessing enough nuclear bombs to obliterate the entire planet several times over, that kind of recklessness could make America the last empire on this planet as well. That kind of bravado is astounding even in an election campaign in a country where the media and establishment insulate the American electorate from the real world.
Not that a change of guard at the White House this time would necessarily change the deeply structured power and interest groups that drive the country. Yet, a victory for change and for people’s voice for change they have begun to believe in could make a critical difference.
Let us not forget a change in the White House might not necessarily bring about a radical shift in domestic policy; in foreign policy a change would be even less pronounced. However, there could be a respite, albeit a temporary reprieve, from the mayhem of mass murder and destruction we saw and continue to see in Iraq and Afghanistan. A more circumspect approach to a few other flashpoints like Iran and Syria or even North Korea would not be inconceivable like it is now. Finally, it could bring to an end the war without end that Bush so callously started since 9/11 and remains so infatuated with much like the fantasies of a juvenile deeply insecure and thus outlandishly macho.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
