It would be better for Bangladesh not to go for any stringent emission reduction movement. It should rather play a vital role on behalf of the LDCs (Bangladesh is also a member of the LDC group comprising 49 countries) by targeting adaptation needs and required financial and technological support, writes Mohammed Abdul Baten

WHATEVER the condition of the ongoing negotiations at the Copenhagen climate conference, the global climate system is now changing more rapidly putting at risk particularly the developing world due to its low institutional and adaptive capacity in the face of climate change. It is no longer a myth that Bangladesh will be affected by the impacts of climate change. Recurring cyclones (Sidr and Aila hit Bangladesh in 2007 and 2008 respectively), salinity intrusion, associated land degradation in the Southern region, drought in the northern region and prolonged flood in the central region underlined Bangladesh’s position as the worst victim-to-be of climate change.
   It is an undeniable fact that millions of people are risking their lives because of irresponsible consumption of the natural resources by the western world. This is high time for us to raise our voice and seek compensation from the developed world for the climate injustice. What would be Bangladesh’s position in Copenhagen, which is supposed to provide safeguards for Bangladesh and other countries against the impacts of climate change, without compromising with sustainable development?
   Many researchers and activists, nowadays, are campaigning and presenting information in different public arenas to raise awareness and advocating for setting agenda from Bangladesh perspective for the Copenhagen climate summit. The current article will further highlight some of the issues.
   Recently, many researchers are arguing in favour of setting greenhouse gas emission target to 350ppm and advising Bangladesh to support the movement. Scientific researches (mostly done in western countries) show that greenhouse gas concentration has already reached its peak, and if the emissions are not reduced to a certain level then the global climate system will reach an irreversible state when different climate change-induced disasters will be a regular phenomenon. However, if we analyse the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent movements without opposing the scientific warning, we will find that it depicts a bleak picture of climate change movement.
   The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Although Australia has agreed to work in consonance with the Kyoto Protocol, their performance till now is unsatisfactory. The achievement of the first commitment period (2008-2012) is not signalling a better future in terms of emission reduction which was a commitment in the Kyoto Protocol. Under the circumstances, demand for atmospheric greenhouse gas reduction limit to 350ppm is somehow overambitious. Though they have announced voluntary reduction strategies, China and India are arguing whether they should curb their development or not. Targeting 350ppm, developed countries are now advocating mitigation action ‘common for all’, which is against the Bali Action Plan, where the article 1 b(i) and (ii) have assigned ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ to developed and developing countries. Therefore, China, India, Brazil and some other developing countries alleged that such stance of developed countries in favour of emission reduction is likely to impose restrictions on the emerging developing countries. They further claimed that developed countries were now trying to make business in the name of mitigation. Some western agriculture, energy and motor companies have begun to promote products labelling ‘environment friendly’ or ‘climate friendly’.
   Bangladesh is a part of G77 along with other 130 developing and least developed countries including China. Therefore, supporting 350ppm greenhouse gas emission target for advanced developing countries would eventually create tension among powerful member countries like China, India and Brazil. It would be better for Bangladesh not to go for any stringent emission reduction movement. It should rather play a vital role on behalf of the LDCs (Bangladesh is also a member of the LDC group comprising 49 countries) by targeting adaptation needs and required financial and technological support.
   The prime minister of Bangladesh is trying to draw attention of international communities by presenting Bangladesh’s sufferings due to climate change and advocating the need for adaptation in different international conferences. She is demanding a separate fund for LDCs outside the existing financial mechanisms (Current financial mechanisms through GEF are complex and not friendly to low-capacity countries like Bangladesh). She has insisted on quick disbursement of funds for adaptation and mitigation in victim countries. Bangladesh would do well if it continues to raise voice in this regard in Copenhagen and becomes the leader of the coalition.
   As a lower riparian country, Bangladesh is greatly dependent on rivers for its agriculture, life and economy. Most of its rivers originate from the Himalayas and cross Bangladesh on their way to the Bay of Bengal. However, the worrying news is that the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting faster than any other part of the world and could disappear completely by 2035 (IPCC 4th Assessment report, 2007), which is raising the water level in the rivers and consequently that in the Bay of Bengal. Due to about one metre rise in the water level the flood intensity has increased manifold in the central and northern region of Bangladesh. Moreover, tidal surge is likely to inundate one-fifth of Bangladesh, particularly the whole southern region. Such rise in water level will displace millions of people from their homes.
   A study, carried out by Unnayan Onneshan, shows that climate-induced floods and cyclones will potentially displace 49 million, 63 million and 78 million people in 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively and thus the victims will become ‘climate refugees’. Bangladesh can demand a separate fund for rehabilitation of such climate refugees other than regular development assistance from the developed countries. Moreover, Bangladesh can raise the issue of declaring the climate refugees as ‘Universal Natural Persons’ [The movement of natural persons is one of the four ways through which services can be supplied internationally. Otherwise known as ‘Mode 4’, it covers natural persons who are either service suppliers (such as independent professionals) or who work for a service supplier and who are present in another WTO member to supply a service] and giving them the right to safe migration to less populated developed countries.
   In addition to rise in sea level, some parts of Bangladesh will face drought due to water shortage. The situation will be aggravated by construction of dams at Tipaimukh on the river Barak (flowing over Bangladesh with the names Surma and Khusiara) by India and on the river Tsangpo (known as Brahmaputra in Bangladesh) by China. On the one hand, Bangladesh has been experiencing problems of a huge proportion from the regular impacts of climate change and withdrawal of water through dams from the major rivers by neighbouring countries will destroy the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people on the other. Therefore, Bangladesh can speak of inclusion of options under the climate change convention for not constructing any dam by the upstream countries over any international river to keep it open as a means of climate change adaptation. Hopefully, this provision, if included, will help Bangladesh attain a successful, equitable and fair distribution of water of international rivers.
   Technology transfer is an important part of adaptation and mitigation actions as acknowledged by the Bali Action Plan. In the name of intellectual property rights, developed countries are creating barriers to smooth transfer of climate-friendly technology to the developing countries and trying to make money by selling the technology as argued by many developing countries. Bangladesh can demand exemption or liberalisation of IPR rule for LDCs, particularly most affected countries like Bangladesh.
   Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation is an agenda item in Copenhagen, based on the fact that deforestation is contributing about 20 per cent of global total carbon emission every year. Under the REDD, there is a provision for providing incentive to the indigenous communities for protecting existing natural forests. As a country of more than 40 indigenous communities with their overwhelming dependency on forests for habitat and livelihood, Bangladesh can benefit from the scheme. A debate on adopting a definition of indigenous people, whether it would be solely ethnic or native, under REDD, occurred in the last Bangkok meeting. Bangladesh can propose to use ‘native’ in lieu of ‘indigenous’ so that wider native forest protectors, mainly rural communities, (Homestead forests managed by rural communities are now major source of forest products in Bangladesh. Moreover, the total tree-covered area under homestead forests would be more than government-managed reserve forests) can benefit.
   What will happen in Copenhagen? Will it be a ‘legally binding agreement’ or a ‘politically binding agreement’? Even though we have to wait till the midnight of December 18 for the final decision, many people are sceptic about any deal in Copenhagen. Whatever the decision is, we believe Copenhagen will be the commencement of our united action for a healthy planet, where all the people have fair and equal right to all its resources. Let us hope that at least for the survival of humanity, we all will come out of the uncertainty of ‘to be or not to be’ and an effective climate deal ‘will be’ enacted in Copenhagen.
   Mohammed Abdul Baten is a researcher at Unnayan Onneshan, an independent think-tank based in Bangladesh

by Mohammad Amjad Hossain

Ignoring the growing opposition to the surge of US troops in Afghanistan to continue an unwinnable war on terror, President Barack Obama has decided to send 30,000 more troops, following a month-long strategic review, to escalate the war into a civil war because majority of Afghans do not want to prolong the war there. Escalation of war in Afghanistan is a tragic decision. With causalities increasing and little signs of success to contain the influence of Taliban, the war in Afghanistan has been receiving sceptic views from the Americans and Democratic Party members.
   Addressing Americans from the US military academy at West Point in New York on December 1, President Obama spelled out his comprehensive strategy that includes training of the Afghan police and military, providing security and economic opportunities to Afghans and driving out Taliban from the stronghold provinces. The president has focused his attention on Afghanistan and Pakistan to break Taliban’s strength and disrupt, dismantle, defeat and deny safe haven to al-Qaeda. Obama administration is now treating Pakistan and Afghanistan as two countries but one challenge. The president’s long-awaited surge would bring the number of US troops in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 by next summer. The president also requested the NATO allies to contribute more troops. President Obama has set aside any exit strategy from his plan. He, however, committed to end the war in Afghanistan by 2011. He informed the Americans that this war would cost $30 billion more. This is an unparalleled decision in that it aims to end the conflict and withdraw in the same breath.
   The president’s assertion that the US would support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver service to the people should not remain rhetoric. It should be an effective tool to bring benefits to the Afghans. As of now the Afghan government has not yet received funding on priority basis for good governance and economic development. Only 5 per cent of $38 billion US aid went to bolster good governance there during 2001-2008.
   A lively debate in the congress, radio and TV channels on Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan is on. Needless to say, this strategy is a departure from the past eight years of the Bush-Cheney administration. During those eight years public discourse was subjected to fear and secrecy. The administration was not honest with the Americans with regard to the attack on the twin tower of the World Trade centre in New York.
   It is most unfortunate that politicians do not take lessons from history, although history repeats itself. Historically, no foreign power has ever succeeded in winning the heart and mind of the Afghans. Afghanistan has remained subjugated by foreign power since 332 BC. Neither Alexander the Great, nor 14th century’s Turko-Mongol conqueror Tamerlane (Timur), nor the British and Russian could control the tribal areas. Pakistan has no control over the tribal areas since independence. Known as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), these areas are administered federally. Now the United States becomes another invader of the 21 century to control the Afghans. NATO forces have also joined hands with the US troops to defeat Taliban insurgents in a bid to bring back normalcy in Afghanistan but without success. According to CNN correspondents, war machines of Taliban group remain intact ever since war on terror began by Bush administration in 2001. War in Afghanistan is likely to replicate the war in Vietnam which lasted for long 8 years causing a huge loss of 58000 American soldiers and money. The President, however, did not subscribe to this view. Many analysts are of the opinion that there are similarities as well as differences between Vietnam and Afghan wars. Afghan war would be the longest-drawn war by March next year. Casualties in Afghan war as of now are not comparable to that of Vietnam War. As many as 1,524 soldiers of the coalition force have lost their lives in Afghanistan as of December 1, 2009.
   Since the Afghan war began, it has cost $196.1 billion American taxpayer’s money and caused 911 deaths of American soldiers. Another 2,606 soldiers were wounded. The UK spent $6.6 billion while Canada $6.2 billion. Moreover, 3.7 million Afghans have been rendered homeless, who have taken shelter as refugees in the neighbouring countries over the past two decades. These neighbouring countries have now closed their borders with Afghanistan to refuse to take Afghan refugees.
   It is unfortunate that Obama did not listen to good counselling of Democrat President John F Kennedy, who is on record to have said, ‘If you choose to take the United States to war, you should assume that the results will be more complicated, more difficult to control, more damaging politically, and altogether more horrible than you or your advisers can imagine.’ Vietnam War is a glaring example to justify the statement. So is the war in Iraq that caused a huge loss of American taxpayer’s money and American soldiers. Majority Americans are sick and tired of war in Afghanistan with no signs of ending the war. Timetable set by President Obama appears to be too short to achieve success and at the same time too long to hold the support of the taxpayers of America.
   Mohammad Amjad Hossain, a retired Bangladesh diplomat and past president of Nova Toastmasters International Club, writes from Virginia

by Nehal Adil

AFTER staging the summit of the Americas in Port of Spain this year, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago staged the Commonwealth summit. Trinidad and Tobago is a small country with a population of only 1.2 million. Its founding father Erik Williams was a leading figure in the movement for the liberation of the colonised peoples. The eleven states of the Caribbean are tiny but they are called the pearls of the Americas. Their heritage is part of the heritage of the black America with slavery, oppression and human rights violations, poverty and disease and now threat of physical elimination by climate change.
   The French president, Nicola Sarkozy, who is known as a global dramatic figure like Gaddafi and Chavez turned up there, though France is not an English-speaking country and was never part of the British Empire. He sought nearly the same status as the British queen, who is traditionally the host. The British Commonwealth has already thrown out British of it; it is now simply called the Commonwealth of Nations. Sarkozy did not come to join the Commonwealth; he had enough drama to turn to, but as a guardian angel to save the world’s small states threatened by the rising water level in the oceans because of global warming.
   Britain while decolonising its empire in the West Indies and South Pacific left them as mini states as not to demand any voice in international forums. Of the fifty-three commonwealth countries thirty-seven are such mini states populated by Blacks, Asians and the Pacific islanders. Rising sea level could grab Trinidad and Tobago itself. But countries like Tuvalu in the Pacific and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean are more vulnerable. They are just a few metres above sea level. Some parts of them already go under sea under high tide. Though a bigger entity, Bangladesh is no less vulnerable. Possibly that is the reason that the Bangladesh prime minister, leaving a national religious holiday at home, made her time to the summitry.
   Paul Kagame, whose land Rwanda up in the Kilimanjaro mountains has no chance of getting drowned in the sea, got it admitted in the Commonwealth although Rwanda is a French speaking country. Kagame is known for his unpredictability along with Chavez, Gaddafi and Sarkozy. Same time Kagame re-established diplomatic relations with France and the French Community representative in a colourful ceremony in the Rwandan capital Kigali paid glowing tribute to the military dictator. The military dictator of English-speaking Fiji was ostracised. That is commonwealth justice. Son of a Marxist Leninist refugee from Rwanda to Obote’s Uganda, Kagame joined the guerrilla movement against the western supported Hutu government in Rwanda. In the sixties at an Afro-Asian student conference in Kampala I met a Rwandan exile in Kampala. Che Guevara was then reported to be in Congo triangle and Kagame was an admirer of Che. I do not know whether Paul is his son.
   Paul Kagame became a favourite of President Clinton who started befriending people like Yasser Arafat, Jerry Adams and Mandela. With American support he took over Kigali. It was under the shadow of Rwandan genocide for which Kagame blamed the French. But then the clock turned 160 degree when he made a peace deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo. The same American media started calling him corrupt and dictator. Overwhelming majority black and Asian countries by voting non-English speaking Rwanda to the Commonwealth had given a slap to such propaganda and given Sarkozy a new Napoleonic victory.
   When Sarkozy went to attend the Amazon summit in Brazil nobody attended except his host Lula. It was because French Guyana’s neighbours Surinam and Republic of Guyana did not appreciate the French occupation of French Guyana. But in Port of Spain, Sarkozy made a real impact in company with Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, and the Danish prime minister, the host of the ongoing climate conference. The British queen, a non-political personality, was silent about this drama.
   Obviously, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who wants to create a new image of Britain from the Blairite warmongering image that his country had earned wanted to show a new face but he sternly warned Pakistan about Afghanistan. People of South Asia, including India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, constitute sixty per cent of the Commonwealth’s population. They have been humble enough to be accustomed to such warnings. That is why their leaders attend the commonwealth conferences.

ME peace

We are talking about the tiny nation armed to the teeth with undeclared nukes that is backed up by the only superpower unconditionally, populates illegal settlements with non ME immigrants and has turned Gaza into the largest open air prison on earth. Maybe we shouldn’t turn a blind eye towards the actual scenario even if we want peace to be restored for both the people.
   Samir Khan
   Via e-mail

---