The first debate between McCain and Obama, the Republican and Democratic candidates respectively in the US presidential election, did not bring out any clear winner. On foreign policy, McCain impressed with his experience and grasp of the issues. Obama looked very much like the bright kid around town, unsure of the issues but eager to learn. McCain however overplayed the foreign affairs card by looking less humble and hence less presidential.
   On the crucial Iran issue, on the point of engagement, I think McCain played the card in a manner that would be more appealing to most Americans and particularly the Jewish lobby. He used Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s threat to wipe out Israel in a manner which appeared to be more appealing in contrast to Obama’s call for direct engagement with Iran’s leaders by underscoring the fact that such a meeting with the Iranian leadership would give them and threat against Israel, legitimacy.
   On Iraq, McCain was able to come out better by using the recent turn of events there to his advantage. He said clearly that for the next president, Iraq would not be a major issue anyway as whatever happened there is a matter of the past and a new and better Iraq from the US’s security and strategic perspectives is in place already. Likewise on Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama failed to put his view across that Bush supported by McCain had made a mistake by leaving Afghanistan and going to Iraq as the al-Qaeda and Talibans in the region have now become stronger and are forcing the US and the NATO forces in Afghanistan to go on the back foot. Obama’s position to take out al-Qaeda and Taliban elements inside Pakistan by unilateral action was put rather undiplomatically and did not come out positively for him.
   On the economy, though, Obama was able to project to the viewers that he has plans and a vision to take the USA out of its current economic problems that have potentials to take the USA down the gutters. McCain just harped upon US $ 800 billion that Obama sought in new spending programmes as a senator to counteract his and Republican Party’s well-known support for heavy federal spending and tax breaks for the privileged. The vision for the economy came from Obama.
   On balance, it was experience against intelligence. As this debate was on foreign affairs where economic issues came in due to the current economic crisis in the USA, McCain was supposed to figure better. He did that on foreign affairs issues –– on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iran –– but due to the inclusion of economic issues, Obama was able to make his mark. They were therefore able to balance each other out on marks in this debate. But although these debates have their value in helping people, especially those who have not made up their minds about the candidates, what must be borne in mind is that a lot of these voters make up their minds without going into the depth of the issues or are unable to do so anyway. They often decide on a candidate on how he looked or his manner of answering a question or whether they think the candidate has enough experience or not. In that context, Obama looked presidential all right as Kennedy did in the 1960 when these debates were televised live for the first time. That time, those who listened to the debates on radio, gave Nixon the winner’s verdict as he had experience on all the issues. But that race was won by Kennedy on TV where despite his inexperience and poorer grasp of issues, he won hands down because of his charisma, his confidence and good looks against Nixon who, despite his better answers on all issues, appeared visibly uncomfortable before the TV twitching and turning that put the voters off.
   This time around, the race between Obama and McCain is like that between Kennedy and Nixon with one notable, very notable exception –– Kennedy was white while Obama is black. If the US voters, the undecided ones, can get over the race factor, then this election could just be a replay of the Kennedy-Nixon contest of 1960s and Obama could very well be the next US president. But I have a nagging suspicion that there may not be enough undecided voters to get over the race factor and Obama may have entered this election at least a decade before he should have.
   Rashed Ahmed
   Gulshan, Dhaka

Ejaz’s report, published in your front page on 25 September, indicates that China may be interested in setting up a nuclear power plant in Bangladesh. However, China has reportedly asked us to examine the Pakistan nuclear power plant set up by them about 20 years back.
   May be the plant has been operating safely. Nevertheless, chances of reactor meltdown of U235-based nuclear fuel cannot be wished away. Should we take up the Chinese proposal, it is imperative that we thoroughly scrutinise in meticulous details all the safety records of Pakistan’s plant. Very important is to verify records of radiation leakage to atmosphere and reactor cooling water as well as all water drained out from the plant. Also if the reactor has ever overheated or the reactor shut down due to safety alarm. All shutdown records must be minutely scanned, and the reasons for shutdown noted and studied.
   These are critical matters of safety, particularly for our densely populated deltaic riverine country, where leakage of radiation-tainted water from the reactor could cause long-term cancer-related health chain reaction for the population which will be beyond our resources to contain.
   Instead of this option why do not we go for a U236-based safe nuclear power plant which has come on stream much after the Pakistan nuclear plant was built by the Chinese? Even China is now building at least one such safe nuclear power plant, based on licences acquired from the builders of U238-based nuclear power plants in Europe and South Africa.
   It was also reported that our last feasibility study for the nuclear power plant was done way back in 1987. A lot of development, particularly on reactor safety and fuel handling among other infrastructure issues, has taken place since then. Will the safety portion of the last feasibility study be made public? Since safety is a matter of public interest and concern, it should not be kept limited to the AEC and the power authorities but should openly be discussed. Also a revised feasibility study is overdue, since cost, safety and various parameters have changed considerably since 1987. Why not do two feasibilities –– one based on U235 and another based on U236 (pebble bed reactor) as reactor fuel –– with emphasis on safety aspects?
   This is a must if we are really serious in setting up a nuclear power plant.
   SA Mansoor
   Dhaka