The New Nation - Internet Edition

SOUTH Asia and Africa, as scientists have warned, would be 'hardest hit' by an agrarian crisis that is brewing because of global climate change. As reported from India's southern city of Hyderabad where the scientists sounded the stern warning at a conference held at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 'An agrarian crisis is brewing because of climate change that could jeopardise global food supplies and increase the risk of hunger for a billion poorest of the poor', AFP news agency reported recently quoting the scientists. The crisis of South Asia and Africa would shift the world's priorities away from boosting output year after year to bolstering the resilience of crops to cope with warm weather. Rice, the staple for billions of people, is 'most vulnerable to global warming'. It is the world's most consumed crop and it makes everything else pale in comparison', one expert remarked at the conference on the impact of climate change on farming organised by the research institute.

According to the news agency report, the rice yield could fall quickly in a warmer world unless researchers find alternative varieties or ways to shift the time of rice flowering and the scientists have stressed the need of adequate fund for research. Environmentalists and agricultural scientists are mounting pressure on governments to act quickly to stem carbon emissions responsible for climate change, ahead of next month's global summit in Indonesian island resort of Bali. Bigger budgets are required to combat damage already done and cope with risks into the future. According to the crop research institute, one billion of the world's poorest are vulnerable to the impact of climate change on agriculture from desertification and land degradation to loss of biodiversity and water scarcity.

'Climate change will generally reduce production potential and increase the risk of hunger', said Martin Parry, co-chair of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice-president Al Gore. Where crops are grown near their maximum temperature tolerance and where dry land, non-irrigated agriculture predominates, the challenge of climate change could be overwhelming, specially on substance farmers.

Experts from 15 international agricultural research institutions attended the three-day Hyderabad conference in the run-up to the Bali summit demanding action by governments before it is too late. Researchers would have to concentrate on 'drought-proofing' crops and developing heat-resistant varieties to cope with the problems as the world is rapidly nearing its tolerance threshold for rising temperatures. The people continue to wait for crises to stimulate change, Simon Best, chairman of the crop research institute, remarked concluding - we are already facing the beginning of a crisis, let's not wait longer.

ACCORDING to a report published in a national vernacular daily, 16 per cent of the population in Bangladesh are still using salt without the necessary iodine fortification. More worrisome is the information that 51 per cent of the salt producers are not ensuring the mixing of adequate quantity of iodine in their produce. Thus, it can be said that more than 50 per cent of the population remain vulnerable to iodine deficiency in their diets in varying degrees with all the attendant health problems to be caused by this phenomenon. Iodine deficiency in food in Bangladesh had made the government with support from international agencies to launch a vigorous campaign to motivate salt processors to mix iodine with their produce in appropriate doses since the seventies. Iodised salt thus started to be packed and sold at higher prices.

Iodine ought to be present in salt for getting the optimum nutritional benefit from salt. Salt without iodine is also well utilised by the human body for metabolism purposes. But salt fortified with iodine is necessary to meet an important nutritional need. Lack of iodine in the salt leads to serious health problems such as mental impairment specially for children, thyroid gland problems, child mortality, abortion, among others. All of such serious health problems can be avoided if salt is taken in the daily diet fortified with iodine. But it is sad that although the knowledge of the consequences of iodine deficiency has been with us for a long time, the consumption of salt without iodine in it continues in the country.

Clearly, the ensuring of iodine fortification of salt should now be looked upon as a law enforcement problem. The health ministry should take the initiative to warn the negligent producers of salt to make sure the iodine deficiency is not there in their products with immediate effect. They should be subjected to prompt legal penalties for failing to heed the warning. The authorities concerned should also regularly test salt sold in the market to ascertain whether it is iodised or not as is required for helping people not suffer the nutritional deficiency. Diseases arising from iodine deficiency are easily preventable. But the diseases can endanger public health on a large scale causing substantial costs in the form of treatment at individual and family levels. But these health hazards can be so easily precluded from happening only by ensuring that iodine in right proportions is present in salt. Those companies charging extra prices on the plea of making salt iodised but actually sell non-iodised salt should be given exemplary punishment in the interest of public health safety. Regular monitoring of the quality of salt sold in the market thus appears to be urgent to ensure this.

Dr. Abdul Ruff

After seven years of exile in Saudi Arabia and Britain, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has landed in Pakistan on Sunday the 25th November for the second time within a month after the unsuccessful landing on September 10 from London when he was sent back to Saudi Arabia from the airport. Sharif has now come back to a rapturous welcome from his supporters in Lahore. "I am here for the sake of democracy and the people of Pakistan," a visibly jubilant Sharif told an emotionally charged crowd outside Lahore airport. Sharif claims that he has trust in people of Pakistan and is confident that he would return to power.

It is interesting to see that Musharraf has now allowed Sharif back into the country and there are reports that he is the "likely" candidate for the prime-minister ship. But, Sharif had been saying that all along Musharraf is unacceptable to him "with or without uniform," but his younger brother said on Friday that they have no grudge against anyone and, without naming Musharraf, said they would be working together for the betterment of the country.

Some media say that Sharif is coming back after a deal with Musharraf, who was recently in Saudi Arabia, and would be contesting the elections against another former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who came back October 18 ending her eight years of self-exile. Media also have come out with fresh information that Sharif had not met Musharraf recently in Riyadh and he has no such understanding with him. Accordingly, Sharif told that his return was "not the result of any deal" with Gen Musharraf, referring to reports that he had come home under an arrangement with the military ruler. Sharif, as per the reports available afterwords, later said the deal was only for five years. Media reports have thus confused the people as much as it is possible. Sharif has filed his nomination from Lahore, but says he would bycott the poll, if emergency is lifted by 09 January.

Nawaz Sharif, found guilty of fraud and corruption, along with his 19 family members was sent into exile to Saudi Arabia by President Pervez Musharraf in December 2000, almost a year after his government was overthrown in a bloodless coup in October 1999. In 2005 he was allowed by the Saudi authorities to leave the country and went to London with all his family members.

Sharif started his political career in 1980 when he was made a provincial minister during military ruler Zia-ul-Haq's era. In 1985, he contested the non-party polls and was elected member of the Punjab assembly and became Zia's handpicked chief minister. In 1988, when Benazir became prime minister of the country, Sharif was chief minister in Punjab and gave tough time to her - denying her protocol during her visits to Punjab. Benazir, because of Sharif's attitude, had to shift the national day parade venue from Rawalpindi to the federal capital.

However, after Benazir's government was sacked by then president Ghulam Ishaq Khan, Sharif became the prime minister but could not survive under Khan and his assembly was also dissolved. This gave Benazir another chance to become prime minister in 1994, but again she was sacked by her own handpicked president Farooq Leghari on corruption charges.

In the 1997 general elections, Sharif's party returned to parliament with two-third majority, giving him a chance to amend the constitution and remove presidential powers to dissolve parliament. Sharif also authorized the testing of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, despite tremendous international pressure, days after Indian tests in May 1998. In October 1998 Sharif forced then army chief Jehangir Karamat to resign who, according to him, had tried to intervene in politics and replaced him with Pervez Musharraf who was then at number five in the army seniority list. Sharif, according to observers, thought that being an Urdu-speaking officer Musharraf might not have strong footings within the army but this assumption proved to be wrong.

Musharraf was on a visit to Sri Lanka when on October 12, 1999 Sharif dismissed him and appointed another general as army chief. Reports suggested that Sharif government was about to knock Musharraf off. But Musharraf's colleagues revolted against the civilian government and put Sharif under arrest until the army chief landed at Karachi airport after which took over the power and put Sharif and several of his colleagues in jail before sending him into exile in December 2000.

Sharif's return to Pakistan was his second attempt in the past three months to end his exile. Sharif also said that emergency conditions imposed by General Musharraf on 3 November were "not conducive" to free and fair elections. On 26 Nov, the last day for filing nominations, Sharif filed nomination papers for the country's general elections from Lahore, but insists that he might boycott the poll, but reiterates that he would not stand for election unless President Pervez Musharraf lifts the state of emergency. Earlier, the former prime minister told the BBC by mobile telephone from his plane that it was unlikely that he would be able to work with Gen Musharraf, as his ultimate objective was to rid Pakistan of military rule. "I am here to play my role and also make my own efforts to rid the country of dictatorship," Sharif said.

Another former Premier Benazir Bhutto also has filed papers in her Larkana constituency for a regular seat, apert from other nominations for two more seats. She, too, has left open the possibility of a boycott. Both state that they would boycott elections to be held on 9 January, if emergency is not lifted.Bhutto has now filed papers for two more parliamentary seats. Two bombings killed more than 130 people at a homecoming parade in Karachi for Ms Bhutto last month. Sharif and Bhutto are both demanding an end to the emergency and other steps they say are essential for a fair vote. They also want to see sacked judges reinstated. "The issue is those actions he took on November 3 have to be reversed if we are to hold free and fair elections," Sharif said.

Musharraf reiterated that military rule in Pakistan would continue until the country gets back to stability and peace. He imposed emergency rule on 3 November in order, he said, to rein in the judiciary, nuclear weapons and deal with a growing threat from Islamist militants. Lifting emergency or shedding uniform would further destabilize the nation. The West and its allies are looking forward to Musharraf shedding his uniform and lift emergency. That would, considering the tensed atmosphere in the country and region, revert the county back to chaos.

Reports suggest that Musharraf's party might have an edge over the rival parties in the fray. The most likely outcome could be even a hung parliament with no party winning a clear majority, analysts say. Musharraf would then need the help of religious parties or one or other of his old rivals. The media expect Musharraf to be driven to the army's general headquarters on Wednesday to hand over his position as head of the army to his successor, Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiani.

The West that has invaded Islamic nations under the "terrorism" pretext, apply constant pressure to appease the opposition. The most serious pressure on President Musharraf to give up his uniform has come from the United States, his main international backer. Washington has grown concerned in recent months at the army's inability to rein in pro-Taliban militants and by Gen Musharraf's growing unpopularity. It had been backing talks between President Musharraf and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who heads the country's largest political party, for a power-sharing deal. US-led western media harp on the themes of democracy and rule of law and say that as a civilian leader, President Musharraf would still have considerable powers, including the power to sack a civilian government. And, hence, they want Musharraf to lift the emergency.

Gen Musharraf will be sworn in for another term as president this week and night still be in uniform. That is quite understandable. Benazir considers Sharif as a serious threat to the prospects of her PPP party and an imminent contender for the Premiership on which she also eyes. Both are keen to recapture the reign in Islamabad at any cost. It is believed that Gen Musharraf is hoping that Sharif will be able to dent Benazir Bhutto's prospects in the forthcoming parliamentary elections. Certainly both don't think in terms of genuine service to nation.

President Musharraf should ponder seriously over the future scenario once emergency is lifted and uniform is shed only to appease the opposition, West and western media. Have the real reasons disappeared so as to cater for the needs of those sections that seek to destabilize the nation, brutally terrorize it and loot and squander the resources again? It has become a sheer habit of the USA to deliver lectures on "democracy" without understanding or hiding the goals of genuine democracy in the world! Russia and China, two UNSC-5 veto members don't buy that, but Pakistan can be bullied easily! Is it not funny?

M. Mizanur Rahman

The geographic position of deltaic Bangladesh is flannel shaped. It is naturally cyclone prone zone. Every sensible person though knows this since the beginning from the unknown ages up to the modern times but no permanent disaster management plan has since been adopted to outdo its service against such known catastrophe. This sort of disaster, more or less, has been visiting this poor country almost every year. The impoverished people of Bangladesh are the prey of this formidable demon, as if there is no way to solve this problem. We are rather happy to see an excuse as saying that this is the scourge of God or global problem beset with the change of atmosphere. Man has no power to overcome such tremendous disastrous effects of natural calamity.

However a person of modern scientific advancement can hardly agree with this opinion. There is no sign of nature on earth that cannot be identified or scanned by the modern scientist whatever intricate that might be thought. As a matter of fact. we are not tapping our own resources from among our science researchers to explore such an important aspect of national interest where the question of life and death of our teeming millions of people arises time and again. Its economic growth has been diminishing and agriculture outputs reduced to negligible margin. Our foreign dependence is increasing beyond limit every time. We are yet to tap our vast resources. Our people unlike any other developed countries are apt to stand against every challenge of the adversity facing the nation. They need only the able and worthy leadership who can sacrifice his/her meritorious genius and labour selflessly for this poor nation to enrich it.

It is always observed that post-cyclone relief is always rushing to the scene of occurrence along with foreign assistance en-masse. But the nation lacks preparedness beforehand to face this calamity except some warning signals communicated to respective areas to wake up the people. This however never minimised the devastating effects of overwhelming speed of the cyclonic storm. Where is the nationwide Civil Defense preparedness? Anyone who is trained in Civil Defence knows the technique at least how to save him/herself along with his/her relatives. But ill luck to us if you make a nationwide survey you can hardly hear the name of Civil Defence and its activities among the people. Even in the last hair-raising effects of SIDR cyclone we never heard the name of it in any media that civil defense volunteers at work anywhere. Why? Should 'Civil Defence' remain inducted as dead-end there in Fire Brigade for namesake at poor people's exchequer? Where is its vast voluntary service in the wake of national crisis? Every person of the nation needs Civil Defence training to meet the emergency because it gives at least self-defense before any remedial service reach the scene of incidents.

During the period of last Tsunami that lashed the shores of the Indo-Pacific regions, very luckily Bangladesh was saved. We also heard of the movement of tectonic plates beneath the oceans of the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic zones.

We also heard of its disastrous effects in earthquake phenomena. Our shore is adjacent to that and as such we cannot make ourselves any exception. Our only means of safety is early preparedness to face the onslaught of the tremendous disastrous force of nature. Should we be caught unaware of it? Or should we remain idle having heard the signals from our weather bureau or seismic center and pray the salvation to Almighty Allah with two hands chained together? We have also been experiencing mild earthquake jolts often form our Bay of Bengal shores. In case of sudden serious outbreak of earthquake what would we do? The people of all walks of life will be affected.

Here also the technique of training in Civil Defence activates the civil defence trained people. Hence prevention is better than care. We cannot always boost on foreign assistance in all respect. Our own strength of mind and heart with courage and fortitude is immense. Let us take care of us ourselves minimising any alien help as a proud nation.

Joyce Njeri

THE recent announcement by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he will not be attending the Portugal Summit because Robert Mugabe has been invited to it is, to say the least, laughable.

I say laughable because Mugabe's problem is mainly with London, and issues to do with the two countries have nothing to do with other trading partners. And as preparations for the December European Union-Africa gathering of more than 80 African and European leaders get to an advanced stage, many cannot fathom the reason why they should be embroiled in Britain-Zimbabwe fights.

It's still fresh in our memories that plans for the last EU-Africa trade summit meeting in 2003 collapsed because of the Mugabe dispute. There's so much at stake in Europe's relations with Africa that the issue of Zimbabwe should not be allowed to derail the summit for the second time.

Of course, Brown's worries are obvious. The Prime Minister fears that if Mugabe goes to Europe he will hijack the summit, turn it into a public relations triumph, and exact revenge on the British, who have headed the campaign to isolate his regime.

The British have turned Mugabe into such an ogre that they themselves have become hostage to their own propaganda. Truth be told, Mugabe's critics do not have a moral right to criticise his policies because Zimbabwe's economic and political woes, partly blamed due to Mugabe's land reforms, have a lot to do with its former colonial power, Britain.

Let's not forget that the British government failed to honour an agreement that was entered way back in 1979, where it pledged to rectify post-independence imbalances in land ownership between blacks and whites. The meeting in London hosted by former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher agreed to help Zimbabwe carry out a land redistribution exercise, but later when the Labour Party came to power, they withdrew from the programme.

Of course many other nations in Africa that were colonised by Britain up to date have huge swathes of land still being occupied by the colonisers, and here, I have to point out that Africans appreciate the work they are doing to promote agriculture and the general economies of the respective countries. But Mugabe sought to use his own way and reclaim the parcels of land. Whether his move was wise is debatable, since he's just a victim of broken promises from Britain.

Granted, the 83-year-old Zimbabwean leader has his own flaws and shortcomings, just like other leaders in their respective countries but Brown's stubborn insistence on the old British vendetta against him is now outdated. Other African and European countries attending the summit have also been irritated by Brown's sentiments, saying that he is failing to see the bigger picture.

For instance, African Union, the voice organ of the 53 countries that make up the African continent, is demanding that Zimbabwe be treated the same as everyone else. Ghanaian President John Kuffuor, who is the Chairman of Africa Union, recently complained about leaders introducing matters that are 'extraneous' to the Lisbon summit.

On the other hand, Zambia's Levy Mwanawasa, who currently chairs the Southern African Development Community (SADC), has gone a step further and made it clear that he and other leaders will not be in Lisbon if the Zimbabwean leader is not invited. According to news reports, Germany and the summit host country Portugal have also intimated they don't agree with the British government's reasoning on this matter.

African leaders as well as their European counterparts should ensure that the summit does not fail. Zimbabwe is an African state and we are defending principles here. After all, the upcoming summit would be of greater benefit to Europe than Africa. This is so because it's common knowledge that the main issue on the table to be discussed is the increasing trading shift of some African countries to China. The European Union bloc has traditionally been Africa's most important and valuable trading partner but in recent years, China's booming economy has seen her making commercial inroads in Africa.

Therefore, Gordon Brown should not drag Britain and Zimbabwe issues to this all important summit that will benefit both European and African countries.

(The writer is a Sub-Editor with Khaleej Times).