|
It’s all gloomy at Davos
With a greater number of politicians in the forum taking part in the latest conference (compared to previous years), it can only be hoped that the forum does not become a club of the wealthy countries, like that of the G-7 and G-20. If this does happen, countries such as Bangladesh will need to look for alternative platforms (such as the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations) to articulate their concerns, writes Hasanuzzaman
THE latest annual meeting of the world leaders and chief executives of global corporate giants, under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, started on January 28, 2009 against the backdrop of a global economic downturn. The theme of this year’s meeting is ‘shaping the post-crisis world’, linking it symbiotically to the ongoing global financial crisis. At the outset, it is worth mentioning that the year 2008 witnessed dramatic changes on the economic front – many economists referred to the Great Depression of 1929 to get the attention of the policymakers to attend to the crisis which is far from being over. How far can the latest meeting in Davos accommodate the ideas that are put forward to attend to the ongoing crisis remain a matter of grave concern.
The World Economic Forum is best known for its annual meeting which brings together top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most critical issues facing the world, including health and the environment. However, this year’s meeting has not been able to attract the same number of high-profile businessmen as in previous years, because most of them have been part-owned or at least bailed out by taxpayers. Nevertheless, of importance here to note is that two important international leaders – Russia’s prime minister Vladimir Putin and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao – have already expressed concerns (they were the speakers on the first day of the meeting) against the backdrop of the ongoing global financial crisis.
Whilst Russia was more concerned with the volatility in the US dollar rates and its worldwide usage as reserve currency, China was apprehensive of the sluggish US demand, which had already hurt her exports, although China’s premier targeted a growth rate of 8 per cent in 2009 for his country’s GDP. The issue of dollar denominated reserves gained new momentum with the global financial crisis in 2008. At present, the US dollar continues to dominate official foreign exchange reserves, and it is urgent that the excessive dependence on what is essentially the only reserve currency is reduced at least to an extent that allow for other currencies to enter the reserve currency market. If not, the continuation of dollar denominated reserves can prove perilous for the world economy in the medium to long run.
The issue of oil is also being discussed in Davos. The bosses of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and top energy firms have stated that the price of oil has to rise between $60 and $80 per barrel in order to protect the investments that have been already made. As a result of the global financial crisis, demand for oil fell sharply in 2008 and, subsequently, OPEC had to cut its production several times. Furthermore, it may be useful to highlight here that OPEC’s members are even on track to meet the lower targets by mid-February. Speculators were blamed for the volatility in the price of oil and, quite intelligently, Mukesh Ambani, chairman of India’s Reliance Industries, called for global regulation to make energy markets transparent, ‘where one knows whose money it is, who is buying and selling’.
So where do developing countries, such as Bangladesh, stand in the context of the global financial crisis and the World Economic Forum? In the context of the economic forum, where it is now fashionable to pillory the bankers, it can be safely stated that countries such as Bangladesh will not be able to fully express their concerns in the context of the ongoing global financial crisis, though, it is worth stressing here that the crisis has even had an adverse impact on the performance of a small country like ours. The country’s export earnings (as recorded till December 2008) were less than 10 per cent of the export income that was received a year ago, in December 2007. In terms of services export, Malaysia laid off 45,000 workers amid fears that its economic crisis will eventually lead to more job losses for the locals. Furthermore, the price of shrimp price dropped by $1 per pound in late 2008, which has had severe repercussions for the 10 million people who are directly or indirectly involved with the business in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, foreign aid flows to the country has not been hampered. The caretaker government received $830 million worth of assistance during the first half of the current fiscal year, which was $ 8 million higher than that of the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year (2007-08).
So what is at stake? First and most importantly, the legitimacy of the World Economic Forum is poised at a critical balance. The word that is being recurrently used by observers and participants themselves in Davos to describe the mood of the latest WEF meeting has been ‘gloomy’. With a greater number of politicians in the forum taking part in the latest conference (compared to previous years), it can only be hoped that the forum does not become a club of the wealthy countries, like that of the G-7 and G-20. If this does happen, countries such as Bangladesh will need to look for alternative platforms (such as the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations) to articulate their concerns. In the context of the ongoing financial crisis, its affects have started to surface in the Bangladesh economy and although the World Economic Forum would have been an ideal platform to voice the country’s concerns, it is in no way capable of dealing with these microeconomic issues. Perhaps, a World Social Forum (which is now taking place in Brazil, concurrently with the economic forum) would prove more beneficial for countries such as Bangladesh!
Hasanuzzaman is a researcher at the Centre for Policy Dialogue.
For Palestinians, Obama’s message
is crystal clear
by Ramzy Baroud
When former president George W Bush departed for his final trip home, that very moment represented an end of a long and unbearable nightmare, one that Bush epitomised until his last day in office.
Americans may decry what we can finally dub as the ‘Bush legacy’, for it brought economic ruin, but also pushed the country into avoidable, if not completely preventable, wars, disgracing the collective history of a nation that for long imposed its sense of moral authority on the world.
But the new president is set to change all of that. True, Barack Obama is duly warning of hyped expectations, but, frankly, he can only blame himself for the eagerness and hope, realistic or otherwise, that has engulfed the nation, even the world over. During his presidential campaign he made many promises, the gist of which is that an Obama administration would be everything that the Bush administration was not. That was enough for ‘Obamaniacs’ to sing and dance the world over.
One cannot expect that Obama has a magic solution for everyone’s problems, everywhere. In fact, one must be realistic and simply ask Obama to remedy the problems and conflicts that were introduced or provoked, financed and sustained by his own country.
Regarding the Middle East, Obama seems to have hit the ground running, or so we are told. Shortly after his inauguration, he appointed former senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region. Mitchell ‘will bring a wealth of experience and credibility to the job,’ said CNN.
Once again, Obama is clearly attempting to delineate an early policy that differs from Bush’s. The latter was affiliated with the infamous Guantanamo Bay, the ‘gulag of our times’, according to Amnesty International; thus, Obama ordered it closed, a year from now that is. Bush was blamed for his late arrival to the Middle East peace process scene; thus, Obama makes it clear that the peace process is a priority for his administration.
But the question is how different will Obama truly be when his administration is done carrying out a few symbolic gestures to appease the ever-eager public?
Naturally, a new administration, promising a new era, requires a new language. Although inundated with lofty terminology, the outlines of Obama’s new administration seem, in some instances, a mirror image of Bush.
These are remarks made by Obama (not Bush), on January 22, and seen as the first major statement by his administration regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: ‘Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats. ..Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognise Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements. Going forward, the outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.’
Funny how Obama started his statement with ‘let me be clear’. He cannot possibly be any clearer as he spent endless hours for many months assuring Israel and its supporters, while condemning Palestinians without any reservation or remorse.
Those who counted on Obama to bring a just peace to the Middle East must’ve had their hearts broken watching the man charging against Hamas’s terror, as thousands of Gazans were killed and wounded, including 430 children in the matter of three weeks as a result of Israel’s barbarous attacks, using mostly American weapons (and full, unqualified US backing.)
And yet, Obama found it fitting to explain that his administration’s foreign policy is not only ‘critical in terms of projecting ... America’s power, but also America’s values and America’s ideals.’ Of course, it was Palestinian trust in those ideals that led them in droves to the polls in January 2006 and subsequently to their starvation and carnage in Gaza. It is no wonder that Palestinians are unimpressed.
Aside from Obama’s unparalleled clarity, thus far, on his utter and ‘unconditional’ commitment to Israel, he, along with his officials, continue to borrow similar vague slogans that were used enthusiastically by the Bush administration: national security, national interests, spreading of American ideals, values, and all the rest.
Commenting on such sloganeering, Howard Zinn, one of America’s most celebrated historians, said, ‘We have to think about these words and phrases that are thrown at us without giving us a time to think. And ... we have to redefine these words, like “national security”. What is national security? ... having military bases all over the world (or).. having healthcare, having jobs.’
Americans will have four years to determine how Obama and his administration define these tired slogans, ones that also include democracy and ‘terrorism’ (is the latter an exclusively Arab tendency, never an Israeli, no matter how many the latter kills?)
Meanwhile, Palestinians in Gaza hardly have the leverage of time as tens of thousands remain homeless and destitute. More, they have little hope and expectations on Obama or even Mitchell, despite his ‘wealth of experience and credibility’.
‘Obama won’t bring my husband back to life,’ Leila Khalil, a Gazan woman, whose husband was killed during Israel’s bloody offensive, told AFP. ‘He was martyred and left me with six children to feed on my own.’
Obama’s also made himself ‘clear’ regarding the fate of Leila’s husband, and thousands like him: ‘For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.’
Luckily, Leila no longer has a TV set to listen to Obama’s remarks. It was, along with her home, pulverised by Israeli missiles, courtesy of the United States. For Gazans, and most Palestinians, things cannot be any clearer.
Znet, January 30. Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com
New Zealand: right shift and after
by Nehal Adil
WHEN the other Anglo-Saxon countries had rightist governments, New Zealand used to have a leftist one. But when the United States and Australia have apparently moved left and Canada is on the same way with the charismatic Michael Ignatieff elected as the Liberal Party leader, New Zealand has moved to the right in the last elections.
From the Bangladeshi perspective, New Zealand is not a small country. It is thrice the size of our country, with only four million people, which is a third of those living in greater Dhaka. Yet a thriving Bangladeshi community has posted its cultural presence not far off the South Pole. The long rule by the leftist labour government provided Asians comparative security compared to the racist persecution of the Howard regime in Australia. That is why many Bangladeshi professionals moved there whenever they had the chance.
New Zealand is closer to Chile and South America than Bangladesh or Asia. Yet with English as the lingua franca, it is linguistically and culturally closer to us – which is not something of pride as it evokes our colonial past. The Bengalis have their own language and culture that the white New Zealanders came to realise.
Compared to its population, New Zealand has played a positive role in our economic development. It has taken immigrants from all over the world from Chile to South Africa or Timor. But 15,000 in a country of 150 million, it is meagre.
Despite that Bangladesh has precious linguistic and ethnic connection with South Pacific and the Maoris, the original inhabitants of New Zealand. The present UNESCO representative is from Samoa, closely connected to the Maoris.
You can find the word kea for kea bird, matai for headman, marae and so on. The pakeha or white chauvinism is in decline. Auckland, the major city has a non-white majority. The Asians – Chinese and Indians – under the shadow of world economic crisis are moving upward.
Is the right wing shift of the New Zealand government to stop that progress? A third of New Zealand has already become non-white over the last two decades and with present demographic trend the country could well turn into a non-white majority, even with a New Zealander ‘Obama’ taking office.
The new rightist government has picked up a quarrel with Pacific countries. Its envoy has been expelled from Fiji. There is a tendency to enforce a dominant Anglo-Saxon politics in the Pacific.
One has to carefully watch over it to uphold the rights of the South Pacific who have been colonised for centuries.
The labour government had always shown sympathy for the Maoris. But many Maoris considered it merely rhetoric. That is why they turned to the conservatives. Now, there are two Maori ministers in the cabinet and Maori rights are getting stronger affirmation.
Auckland today is a coloured majority city with many Chinese and Indian shops and what is called the Pacific Islander gang.
In the changed context of an Obama administration committed to nuclear disarmament, it is hardly likely that New Zealand will lift its ban on nuclear weapons.
While the conflict with Fiji is unwanted it must be viewed in the context of democracy and human rights. One must not ignore that New Zealand had the first welfare measures in the 1880s and it is a land of highest social equality even surpassing that of the Scandinavian countries.
The plights of Bangladeshi Rohingyas played out in the New Zealand media as two Rohingyas were rescued from the Australian coast. And it is said that they were heading to Ava Tari or Ao Teora (land of long white cloud), the present-day New Zealand, with paddle boats as did their ancestors.
The South Pacific connection brings New Zealand closer to Asia than Europe. Yet the new New Zealand government behaves more as a European one. In the absence of George W Bush, John Pyne is behaving like the new stick master. It was vivid in the South Pacific Forum meeting in Port Morsby. He demanded expulsion of Fiji, whereas Kevin Rudd, the Australian prime minister, said he had come to discuss and not to punish anybody. Rudd mentioned the great richness of South Pacific culture.
Bangladesh too should develop relations with South Pacific nations. New Zealand, despite Jon Pyne, remains an important player there.
Professor Dani
Professor Dr Ahmed Hasan Dani — the eminent Pakistani historian, archaeologist, linguist and expert in Buddhism in South and Central Asia — passed away in Islamabad on January 27. In the ‘50s and ‘60s he worked in Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) and made valuable contributions to Bengal history and architecture. He resented (West) Pakistani attitude towards the Bengali.
May his soul rest in peace.
M Emad
Oxford, UK
Gaza appeal and BBC
Perhaps the BBC should publish the Gaza appeal. But the public should not condemn it too harshly. It is the BBC that provides the most impartial news on Gaza in the first place. The editors at the BBC have for more than half a century managed to be the most impartial news organisation in the world. They know more about what they should or should not do than anyone else. Perhaps they are wrong this time. We can have a dialogue. But to condemn the BBC on this issue is simply wrong. In addition the greater the condemnation the more difficult it will be for the BBC to change its position.
Ezajur Rahman
Kuwait
Opposition walk-out
I have read that the opposition party has walked out from the parliament because of a dispute over sitting arrangements. I can’t believe it! The whole thing appears to me as childish.
Waheed Nabi
Sheffield, UK
Obama presidency
In order for President Obama to really bring a lasting change, he will have to hold to account those that got the US in the fix that it is in. George Bush literally placed the US on a path to self-destruction, and most are afraid to say it, which in my opinion is acting as co-conspirator. Silence is the shield of Satan, and telling the truth is the sword of righteousness. Why are so many Americans afraid to call a spade a spade? Bush betrayed his country, and destroyed several others for the interests of a small few.
Zahir
Via e-mail
* * *
President Obama gave an interview to an Arab network where he talked about relations with the Muslim world. The interview was noteworthy because of his respectful attitude towards the Muslim world. Some critics thought the interview was too apologetic for the Bush policies, although they were mostly supporters of those policies.
Shima Salehin
USA
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a. JS unanimously okays war crimes trial move: Hasina terms it a national demand (New Age, January 30)
b. Jalil raises allegation of torture by DGFI (New Age, January 30)
c. Maternal and neo-natal death rate highest in poor nations: UNICEF launches State of the World’s Children 2009 Report (New Age, January 30)
d. National security will be hampered if South Asian Taskforce formed: Nizami (New Age, January 30)
e. Govt eyes Tk 18 per kg rice (New Age, January 30)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent 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
|
|
