The New Nation - Internet Edition

THE economy of the country ravaged by inflation and disasters is in dire need of an investment and business friendly atmosphere. This was reflected at a recent view exchange meeting between the National Board of Revenue (NBR) and the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI). In the meeting, leaders of the apex body of the business community placed a number of suggestions before the NBR chairman for creating a smooth ground for economic activities. In response, the NBR chairman expressed his intention 'to establish an investment, business and tax-friendly atmosphere in the country under a knowledge-based tax administration'.

Stressing the need for giving protection to local industries and making them competitive in the global market, chamber leaders suggested that NBR should follow a realistic duty policy on raw materials, intermediate goods and finished products. Protection of local industries is indispensable for the economic growth of the country. It can be mentioned that the contribution of the industries sector to foreign exchange earning is the highest. Without due protection of the industries the whole national economy will be in jeopardy. And only a rational revenue policy, among others, can help them function smoothly. The NBR chairman assured the business community leaders of a logical and fair tax system in the country.

The NBR is going to issue a 'Citizen Charter' very soon with a view to ensuring transparency of its activities. The Charter is intended to inform the people about the progress of NBR's performance. Transparency and accountability is essential not only for good governance but also for gaining confidence of the business community. It can be recalled that, due to a fear factor following the anti-corruption drive of the present government, the business community showed reluctance to do investment, import and export business and other economic activities. It is hoped that transparency and accountability as assured by the NBR chairman would help remove the fear.

The NBR chairman opined in favour of working in consultation with business leaders and sought suggestions and recommendations including analytical information from them. It is expected that this policy along with the formation of the Better Business Forum and others would bridge the gap between the government and the business community and would enhance mutual understanding. NBR should improve its revenue collection system to encourage the business community to invest in different sectors. The government should review issues related to investment considering the sluggish trend in domestic investment. The revenue policies should also be such that the business community does not turn its face away and instead feels encouraged to pay their taxes duly.

THE election defeat of Australian Prime Minister John Howard was greeted with what AFP news agency called 'savage glee' by his enemies and even homage to the 68-year-old leader was often with criticism. 'We have our country back', wrote Sydney Morning Herald columnist Alan Ramsey celebrating the end of nearly 12 years of conservative Liberal Party's rule. 'John Howard's Australia died with his government on Saturday night,' Ramsey said, describing the government as 'the nastiest, meanest, most miserable self-absorbed' in living memory. Similar sentiments were expressed by Paul Keating of Australia's centre-left Labour Party at the election defeat of Howard who had succeeded him as prime minister in 1996. 'When it was clear the Howard government had been defeated, many Labour supporters around me said 'you must be so happy'. But my emotion was not happiness, rather, it was relief-relief that … feeling of alienation in your own country was over.'

The Australian paper said in an editorial that Howard who faces the humiliation of losing his own parliamentary seat in the Sydney electorate he has held for 33 years, had been 'wrong to stay on'. 'But sympathy for the end of a 33-year parliamentary career including 11 years as prime minister cannot disguise the brutal truth that the outgoing leader has sabotaged both his own political legacy and his party's future for the foreseeable future.' It was pointed out that by trying to hang on to power he had left his party 'in probably the most dangerous position in its history'. New leader Kevin Rudd, 50, a day after sweeping veteran Prime Minister Howard from power in a stunning election landslide, said he would immediately begin work on fulfilling campaign pledges which included tackling global warming and withdrawing combat troops as 'a new era dawned for Australia' after polls ended the rule of President Bush's closest remaining ally in the Iraq War.

'I would say to those people that we will be a government for all Australians and that I will always govern in the national interest,' the new leader said at his first press conference. His party scored its biggest victory since Second World War achieving an estimated six per cent swing in the vote that should give it 88 seats compared to 60 for Howard's Liberal coalition in the 150-seat parliament, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Prime Minister-elect Rudd will be hailed for pledging to reverse Australia's policy as pursued by Howard and ratify the Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Australia's ratification will leave the US President Bush isolated as the only remaining major world leader to have refused to sign up to the UN treaty. Howard, as a staunch Bush ally, had refused to sign, making Australia a fellow 'pariah state' in the global climate change debate. Global warming became a top worry with Australians as the driest continent on earth suffered its worst drought in 100 years.

Sultan Mohammed Zakaria

This is very interesting to notice that President Bush, all on a sudden, starts walking anti-clockwise direction of his past policy. A hawk who never knew anything besides war and war of words suddenly turns into a peace-broker! This move, however, raises some doubts among critics. Is this a groundwork for introducing another war in the Middle East? Is this the preparation of Israel and the US of so-called pre-emptive aerial attack on Iran's nuclear sites? The fear remains high. It would be interesting to see the following issues.

The US in the last several years is recklessly trying to halt Iran's uranium enriching process, which Iran relentlessly claims only for the peaceful purpose for generating nuclear energy and also could be what Israel-US-West ally says a process to be used for making atomic and plutonium weapons at the end. On the other hand, US arch-foe, Russia is trying the reverse, reinvigorating Iran's efforts in building more nuclear sites including supplying further needed raw uranium. The show came into intensity level during last two years. The US was looking to use UN Security Council to go ahead with Iran venture instead. Iraq experience barred the US go unilaterally and pushed them to think that way. But a number of US initiatives supported by the Western Powers were blocked by two other permanent members of the Security Council -- Russia and China -- who have a very good economic interest in Iran. Yet, the US unilaterally imposed more rigid sanctions on Iran and continually considering of attacking the Islamic Republic. Recently, President Bush ordered his military officials to attach strategic bombs (bunker bluster) with its B52 bomber which, some people worries, aim to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel, on the other hand, remained furious on the issue as if Iran, by any means, acquires nuclear weapons, its total security system and the role it played as a military threat in the region will be no longer. Its persuasion efforts worldwide to halt Iran from this process seemed very relentless.

Iran is also aware of the threats from the US and Israel. Therefore it is trying to uphold its military capacity by adding more sophisticated and strategic weapons and missiles into the stocks. Iran is also becoming a major political player in the Middle Eastern region by patronising Lebanese guerilla group Hizbullah and Hamass in the Palestinian territory and maintaining a strong tie with Syria, another arch-rival of Israel. Last-year-war between IDF (Israeli Defence Force) and Hizbullah group proved how stronger it became. Only a couple of months ago Hamaas took control over Gaza territory showing further strategic defeat of Israel and the US. The growing relation among Iran, Russia, and Syria relation sent a bloodcurdling signal to Israeli dominance in the region against the US-Israel tie. Further, the final blow was the failure of the US to impose more sanction against Iran using UN Security Council Resolution in the recent months.

All these trying render somewhat gloomy future of Israeli dominance in the region which in other words poses greater threat to the US mightiness in the Middle East. Another important issue is US military-industrial complex and the neo-cons of American conservative political clique. Their war venture in Iraq simply bounced back both in home and in abroad. Now they look for another adventure. Critics say it is Iran.

However, the abased US credibility in the international arena makes it quite impossible to form an alliance against Iran. Even war on Iraq was added another stigma on their fate which may hinder any effort of advancing with any of such hawkish ideas. Moreover, Afghanistan and Iraq war lowered the US image to historic low among the Muslim countries. Right at this point, when the US got nothing to ahead on Iran, they put the idea of Annapolis on the table. They are trying to kill more birds with a single stone. Playing a peace accord drama, increasing their credibility among Muslims, and make other Arab countries hostile against Iran. They invited almost all stakeholders regarding the Israel-Palestine issue and Middle East crises letting aside Iran, Hamaas and Hizbullah. Both Hamaas and Hizbullah are supported and deemed to be financed by Iran and have a substantial strength to foil any Middle East peace attempt. Both are excluded from the talk. Iran was not invited at all. Now what you guess? Alienating Iran from Arabs? Let's have a look at the comment of Ehud Olmert, Israeli President, while delivering the speech at Annapolis on 27th of November: "There's quite a lot that separates us (Israel and Arabs)," "Nevertheless, there is also a great deal that we share. Like us, you know that religious fanaticism and national extremism (Iran? Because many Arab Countries too feel threat of Iranian regime which they consider may introduce greater religious movement in the region) are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence, for bitterness and ultimately for the disintegration of the very foundations of coexistence based on tolerance and mutual acceptance." (NewYork Times, 28, November, 2007). He uttered about the fear of religious fanaticism and national extremism which are a perfect recipe for domestic instability and violence in the Middle East. Critics claim that is the clear indication to Iran and mean that it is the sole agent of these ideas which create a major threat not only to Israel but its Arab neighbours too! Unfortunate many

Arab rulers share the same view in this regard. That is the focal point of the talk we assume. The US will introduce a long (and never ending) endured 'final' peace talks among Arab countries and will go for military solution for Iran. The peace talks only will confuse Arab nations who, after Iraq war, seemed not to extend cooperation to the any US move to attack another Middle East country. And after the Annapolis talks, US will have a moral weapon on Arab countries that will push them to rally behind any US attempt in the region whether it is attack on Iran or something else. If they likely to impede the US attempt, US will pose threat to pull out their support from the so-called negotiation.

Now, it is finally Arab nations to realise their forthcomings. If Annapolis can bring any positive result for the fate of the millions of Palestinian people and the rest of the Middle Easterns, that would be unhesitatingly a real milestone. But previous failure attempts in this regard and the prevailing geo-political moves of the US (as one of their Congressmen observed President Bush is 'beating the drum of another war') make us more suspicious. If current US move is to implement their any hiding plan, it will only bring catastrophe in this region. And the only deterrent to further US hawkish move is the stark vigilance of the Arab nations on how the US really behave after the talks. If they can, I believe, they will contribute much to avert another war in this war-torn region or else it will be the ultimate collapse of the world order and the humanity as a whole.

Tarequl Islam Munna

The Sundarbans nature reserve in Bangladesh's south-west is one of the last untouched places on Earth - and home to the largest population of tigers left in the wild. But the trees in the Sundarbans have suddenly started dying. And not just that: they have started dying in a way nobody has seen before, from the top down.

Nobody is sure what the cause is, but the country's leading scientists think the trees are dying because, in recent years, the water has turned from fresh to salty. The Sundarbans is a massive mangrove swamp, and the sea has begun encroaching. What we are seeing may be one of the first casualties of rising sea levels caused by global warming. "Nobody can say for sure whether it is climate change because there haven't been proper in-depth studies," says Professor Ainun Nishat, one of the country's leading environmentalists, and one of those involved in the UN's recent climate change report. "But this is the sort of effect rising sea levels will have on Bangladesh. We are fighting climate change on the front line. But the battle has to be integrated across all countries." Then there were the deaths of thousands of fishermen off Bangladesh last summer. The Bay of Bengal was unusually rough. Usually, the authorities only issue a storm warning to fishermen to stay at home once or twice a year. Last year, four warnings were issued in the space of two months. Every warning meant the fishermen lost valuable days at sea. When the last warning came, they could not afford to stay ashore and went to sea anyway. Officially 1,700 drowned, but many Bangladeshis believe the real number may be closer to 10,000.

"Was it climate change? We don't know," says Dr Nishat. "Was it unusual? Yes."

The weather in Bangladesh is going crazy. Last month, a freak tornado struck. Tornadoes occur regularly in Bangladesh - but usually only in the tornado season, in April. A tornado in February is almost unheard of.

Also, there were the strange events of 2004, when the tides in the estuaries of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers stopped ebbing and flowing. The water level just stayed at high tide. The same year, the capital, Dhaka, was hit by floods so severe the ground floors of most buildings were under water, and a catfish was caught in one of the government buildings.

And in 2005, the country had no winter at all. Westerners tend to assume the whole of the subcontinent is hot all year round; in fact, Bangladesh, like much of northern India, gets quite cold in winter. Except that it didn't last year. Winter never came - with serious effects on the year's potato crop. This year, too, it has not been as cold as usual.

"We have a saying, in February, even the tigers feel the cold," says Arun Karmaker, the environment correspondent for Prothom Alo newspaper. "But these days, a visitor to Bangladesh would find it hard to believe."

Bangladesh is particularly vulnerable to climate change. The entire country is basically one vast river delta, and that has always left it at the mercy of weather extremes. The villages of the south-east may often lack electricity or clean water, but a cyclone shelter is never far away. In Dhaka, the rent for a typical first-floor apartment is £52 a month. On the ground floor of the same building, it is just £37 - because the ground floor gets flooded almost every year.

But the country's climate experts say the weather is growing more extreme - and becoming unpredictable. And this is in the most densely populated country in the world, if you don't count city-states or small islands, home to 147 million people. That leaves a worrying question: what happens to those 147 million people if parts of this already overcrowded country become uninhabitable due to rising sea levels.

The problem is, nobody really knows just how much effect climate change will have on Bangladesh. "We still don't have a proper study of the impact of global warming here," says Mr Karmaker. "Up till now, no one has done one." The classic scenario of climate change disaster in Bangladesh is of rising sea levels flooding most of the country, forcing as many as 40 million people to flee. Scientists have measured small rises in the sea level at various points around the coast, and almost all of Bangladesh lies less than 10m (30ft) above sea level.

But what is less well known is that Bangladesh has a defence against that scenario: a huge series of dykes made of boulders that stretch along the entire coast - a literal fortification in the battle to survive climate change. The dykes were put up to protect against the storm surges Bangladesh periodically suffers from, but should be high enough to withstand the predicted rise in sea levels.

But that doesn't mean Bangladesh is safe from climate change, says Dr Nishat. "The dykes create their own problems," he says. "By trapping rainfall on the inside, they could end up causing flooding. And they do nothing to stop salinity spreading through our water."

It is not just the Sundarbans that is already suffering the effects of rising salinity. Farmers in coastal areas who used to grow rice have switched to farming prawns, after the water in their paddy fields got too salty. The country has just developed a new strain of rice that will grow in salty water. For a country where agriculture makes up 21 per cent of GDP - and with 147 million people to feed - rising levels of salinity are a serious threat. Already, Bangladeshi farmers can only produce 8 tons of rice per hectare, compared to 17 tons in China.

But it could be more serious than that, Dr Nishat warns. "The direction of the monsoon has changed in the last few years," he says. "The depression that brings the rain used to advance north across Bangladesh. Now it is heading west." That could have devastating implications in the event of a tropical cyclone, he says.

Bangladesh has suffered cyclones many times. But Dr Nishat says the change in direction of the monsoon may mean any cyclone spends more time gathering pace over the Bay of Bengal.

"When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005, it was only a category three hurricane while it was over Florida," he says. "It was when it headed across the Gulf of Mexico that it turned into a category five. It gathered heat from the sea. And the Bay of Bengal is hot."

Flooding could also be a problem - not from rising sea levels, but from the increasingly erratic rainfall. "We are used to flooding here, we need it for our agriculture and people are used to being knee-deep in water," says Dr Nishat. "But now we are seeing extremely high rainfalls - more than people can easily cope with, and it damages the crops. In 2004, we saw 352mm [14in] of rainfall in a day."

But if the classic scenario is of Bangladesh flooding, there is a risk that climate change may bring drought instead. Already, the north-west of the country faced an unprecedented drought last year, when the monsoon rains failed, and had to resort to pumping ground water for irrigation. The irony was that the north-west was experiencing a drought even as the north-east was suffering its heaviest rainfall ever.

"What I'm worried about is the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas," says Dr Nishat. Bangladesh relies on the annual melting of snow in the mountains to feed its rivers. "At the moment, we're probably seeing a slight increase in the river flow because of it. But what happens in two to five years when the glaciers are gone?"

The Bangladeshi government is taking the problem seriously, according to Dr Nishat. "Things are much better than they used to be," he says. "We used to go to the Environment Ministry and they'd say: "Climate change? That's the West's problem, they're making all the carbon emissions. What does it have to do with us? Now they understand that it affects Bangladesh."

But, he says, problems are still caused by turf battles between ministries, and the country's lack of joined-up government.

With its own annual carbon dioxide emissions only 172kg (380lb) per capita, compared to 21 tons in the US, Bangladesh has some reason to feel aggrieved to be suffering the effects of climate change before others do.

What is happening in Bangladesh may be a warning of what is to come, but the country is not the only one facing the dangers of climate change. "People always come to Bangladesh to talk about rising sea levels," says Dr Nishat. "Have you considered that London is the same height above sea level as most of Bangladesh? You have the Thames barrier, and we have our dykes. By the time Bangladesh is flooded, you will have lost London."

(Author: Conservator, wildlife and environment, in taking positive environmental action around the world to conserve the nature and ecological balance on behalf of World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF), Correspondent, Today's magazine NC. USA. )