The New Nation - Internet Edition

THE countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) have taken a far-sighted decision to establish a regional food bank with contribution from each member country. It is intended to build a buffer stock of food to combat emergency food crisis. The vulnerability of the South Asian countries to climate change impacts has made the creation of this food stock really imperative. The South Asian region as a whole is not self-sufficient in food grains production. The countries depend much on import of food grains to meet the shortfall. Moreover, these countries are under serious threats of natural disasters. Devastating floods are almost an annual affair in Bangladesh. Cyclones from Bay of Bengal hit Bangladesh or India almost every year. Rise of the sea level by even 40 centimetres as a result of the global warming is apprehended to inundate some 16 percent of the low-lying areas of Bangladesh with saline water. The Maldives also faces similar risk.

In a word, the whole region will have to bear the brunt of climate change. Such disasters will create food shortage in the affected areas. As a consequence of the recent floods and cyclone, Bangladesh faces this year a shortage of at least 19 lakh metric tonnes of food. Some other aspects of the world food situation underscore the need for building the stock. Although world food production shows an upward trend despite decline in some countries due to drought and other climate change impacts, the availability of grains for consumption by humans in the least developed countries is falling. This is because grains are used as animal fodder in some countries and for production of bio-fuel in some others. Prices of foodgrains in the international market are record high. So, the countries of the region should prepare to face the impending challenge of food crisis. It is in view of such threats that the 2007 SAARC Conference held in New Delhi in April took the decision to establish the SAARC Food Bank.

According to the relevant provisions, the member countries are required to raise and maintain the food stocks in their own territories and send the same to other countries when and where circumstances would so require. As per the agreement, the SAARC member nations should be able to get food loans from the food bank and return the loaned food when the situation would improve. Promises for a total of 2.41 lakh metric tonnes of foodgrains have so far been made. But, according to media reports, it has not been possible to commission the food bank, as some of the member countries are yet to finalise their commitments. They should come up to build the said food stock immediately. But the stock proposed is insignificant to meet the challenge. The proposed Food Bank should try to build a bigger stock which is expected to serve as a bulwark against any unexpected food crisis.

HIGH economic growth in the new year must be the singular aim of the government as an effective response to the myriad of economic problems faced by the country. But an economy will grow only when it is backed by ever increasing investment operations. Such operations are for setting up new industries, expanding the old ones and for the creation of new services. Whatever the nature of the enterprises, the same can be set up and operated when there is an adequate energy supply. The first in the order of such energy in the Bangladesh context is power followed by gas. Good power supply is indispensable to run existing industries and the newly commissioned ones. Entrepreneurs will not risk setting up new industries without reasonable assurance of uninterrupted power supply. Gas directly powers many industries in Bangladesh. It is used also to generate electricity or as the raw materials for some chemical industries.

But, according to recent reports published in some national dailies, power supply improved marginally in 2007 and this makes the outlook for greater power availability in the new year not a hopeful one. The power sector, it is to be noted, experienced the worst disaster like countrywide blackout twice within the span of a month while load shedding of more than 1,500 mw was a regular phenomenon almost throughout the outgoing year. In 2007, there was noted virtually no increase in power production as generation remained between 3,400 mw and 3,600 mw. No new power plant came into operation during this period. A press conference of the ministry of power on Monday was told that summer time load shedding in the new year is projected to be some 650 mw on a daily basis. Thus, the reality is that hardly any change for the better in power supply is expected in 2008.

The energy crisis is likely to deepen in the new year as the foreign companies at present engaged in the production of gas in Bangladesh are threatening to decrease production if their arrear bills are not immediately paid. They have already decreased supply to the national gas grid at least in two cases. Gas is at present utilised in Bangladesh to a great extent to generate power. Thus, dwindled supply of gas to the power generating units, can only lead to further shortfall in power generation. All of these developments and more in the power sector, are indeed, full of portents for the national economy. The government should take up a crash programme in the new year to increase energy availability for keeping the wheels of the economy churning well for achieving the aspired economic growth rate, employment generation and poverty reduction.

Dr.Abdul Ruff

Pakistan was created in 1947 with a clear mandate for establishing an Islamic society to fully cater for the genuine aspirations of Muslims that are denied in India. But the Islamic state continued to face threats and other problems from India as well as from within. In stead of development, the county was shackled with infightings and countering "terrorism". As per the accounts, former premier of Pakistan Bhutto died on Thursday, December 27, 2007, when an attacker shot her, piercing through the bullet-proof vehicle and then blew himself up before a suicide bomber detonated his explosives, as she left a political rally in Rawalpindi, a city near the capital where Pakistan's army has its headquarters. On 30 December, her PPP party named her 19-year-old son Bilawal its symbolic leader, while her husband was said to take effective control. Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal will take her place as the leader of Pakistan's biggest opposition party to help "maintain its unity".

The senior allies, British and US governments had been pushing Bhutto, a moderate Muslim seen as friendly to the West, to form a power-sharing agreement with Musharraf after the election - a combination seen as the most effective in the fight against al-Qaeda, which is believed to be regrouping in the country's lawless tribal areas.

The security situation is precarious in Pakistan and around. Knowing the serious danger to Benazir's life Musharraf gave her full protection and even her residence was surrounded by security agencies. She and her party objected and major part of security was withdrawn by the government. Lifting of emergency seemed to have made the life of Benazir a closed chapter.

It was the second suicide attack against her since her tumultuous homecoming from an eight-year exile in October. Bhutto had accused elements in the ruling party of backing militants to kill her - claims that could gain more traction now despite government denials. At the very least, the government appears to be losing its grip over Pakistan. "Conditions in the country have reached a point where it is too dangerous for political parties to operate," a political analyst said.

Despite being in mourning, Bhutto's political party and that of Pakistan's other major opposition leader want the polls held on time, perhaps sensing major electoral gains are possible amid sympathy because of Bhutto's death and accusations that political allies of President Pervez Musharraf were behind the killing. Many in the PPP argued that there should be no delay, in part because the party would benefit from a sympathy vote in the wake of Bhutto's assassination on Thursday. But officials of President Musharraf party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), have hinted the election could be put off for a few months.

Bhutto's party also appealed to the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the country's other major opposition leader, to reverse an earlier decision to boycott the polls. Sharif's party later agreed. The two leaders had a long telephonic conversation and talked about evolving a joint strategy to foil the rigging plans. She had also sent flowers and a cake to Sharif on his birthday on December 25.

Elections in Pakistan appeared set to be delayed by several weeks despite demands by the party of slain opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and other politicians that they take place as scheduled on Jan. 8. The Election Commission said it had recommended an unspecified delay in the parliamentary polls following unrest triggered by Bhutto's assassination last week. It said its final decision would be made soon.

With the leader of the largest opposition party assassinated, people are asking whether the elections should be held as planned in January. Even if President Pervez Musharraf decides to go ahead with the vote, there is uncertainty over whether it could generate the kind of national goodwill needed to pull the country out of crisis. The security situation may get worse if supporters of Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) riot against the government.

The sudden death of Ms. Bhutto, triggered by bombs, evoked loudest protests in Pakistan and abroad. The unfortunate tragedy has been viewed differently by various people depending on their attitude to Pakistan and Islam in general. But one common element is strikingly overt in the media writings about the tragic death. USA-led West and many other countries in the East stated that democracy is assassinated in Pakistan. They say that ability of militants to wreak havoc with their ruthless tactics is once again demonstrated. That way of looking at the incident is to dilute the emotional fever people have suffered now. Really democracy is in danger in Pakistan. As American, Indian and Pakistani media trumpet now around? Fingers are already being pointed at the administration for failing to prevent the assassination of a former prime minister.

The other key opposition leader, Nawaz Sharif - whose government was ousted in the 1999 coup that brought Musharraf to power - quickly announced he was boycotting the parliamentary elections, which are meant to usher Pakistan toward civilian government after years of military dominance. Sharif, a longtime rival of Bhutto and also facing serious corruption cases, sounded a defiant note after the assassination of Bhutto, and her supporters rampaged across Pakistani cities. "We will take the revenge on the rulers," a tearful Sharif said after he rushed to the Rawalpindi hospital where Bhutto was pronounced dead.

Musharraf is under pressure to keep the security situation steady and to prevent Ms Bhutto's assassination from snowballing into another crisis of legitimacy. Fingers are already being pointed at the administration for failing to prevent the assassination of a former prime minister in the high-security garrison town of Rawalpindi. The president's credibility is also at risk because the largest opposition party has been thrown into disarray so close to the elections, creating a void in the system.

Not only Indian and many other nations envying Pakistan, but the West considered the death of Bhutto a sever bow to democracy in Pakistan.

It is a known fact that US strategists have devised long-term strategy as Vision of 2030 for USA as the superpower: to most of the Islamic world by hook or crook. With the fall of USSR in the late 1980s, after a prolonged 'Cold war' strategy, the USA turned to other enemies, the Islam. The Sept 11 strategy, accordingly, was well planned, minutely practiced and tactfully executed. That, as expected, gave the USA legitimacy to embark on its invasion schedule in Afghanistan and Iraq under various pretexts. Now Iran, Syria and some are in the hit-list. Rest is already history.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a severe, and potentially crippling, blow to international hopes that Pakistan might emerge into a state of stability. The risks of Pakistan imploding have once again increased. It is a further setback for the US "war on terror", which has as part of its strategy in the region the restoration of democracy in Pakistan to offer an alternative path, away from militancy and extremism. The strategy is very much at risk.

Leading US newspapers urged the Bush administration to reassess its backing of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and support "democracy" following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The New York Times said that American policy must now be directed at building a strong democracy in Pakistan that has the respect and the support of its own citizens and the will and the means to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

"The days of Washington mortgaging its interests there to one or two individuals must finally come to an end," it said. USA basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by USA, but Musharraf needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face, according to former CIA officer and employee of the National Security Council.

USA Today argued in an editorial that the US hope was that Bhutto could recapture the job after parliamentary elections in January and strengthen democratic institutions, helping to keep Pakistan's nuclear weapons away from its large radicalized Islamic population. "That strategy was left in ruins by Bhutto's tragic assassination," USA Today pointed out.

Charismatic, striking, smart, ambitious and resilient, and a canny political operator, Benazir Bhutto, 54, was reared amid the privileges of Pakistan's aristocracy and the ordeals of its turbulent politics. Ms. Bhutto, "daughter of East", the prime minister of Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and from 1993 to 1996, is the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, took over the leadership of her father's party and became the first woman leader of an Islamic country when she was first elected prime minister in 1988 at the age of 35. She served a total of six years in office before being dismissed in 1996 amid widespread charges of corruption against herself and her husband. She took up residence in London.

In the summer of 2007, with the encouragement of Washington, she entered into power-sharing talks with Gen. Pervez Musharraf. But no deal was reached, and Ms. Bhutto returned to the country in October in an ambiguous position, not quite allied with General Musharraf and not quite opposed. When he imposed emergency rule in November, she waited several days before denouncing the move. She wrote in NY Times on November 07, 2007: "It is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more dangerous not to. The moment has come for the Western democracies to show us in their actions, and not just in their rhetoric, which side they are on"

Zardari, 51, is known for his love of polo and other perquisites of the good life like fine clothes, expensive restaurants, homes in Dubai and London, and an apartment in New York. He was minister of investment in Ms. Bhutto's second government. Indeed, one of Ms. Bhutto's main objectives in seeking to return to power was to restore the reputation of her husband, especially after his prison term, said Abdullah Riar, a former senator in the Pakistani Parliament and a former colleague of Ms. Bhutto's.

Pakistan since its establishment in 1947 has been under the constant threat and snub of India. Every plan Islamabad undertook, therefore, had reflected that fear, India nuclear weapons thus posed a final threat to Pakistan which also considered its own nuclear option seriously at the cost of developmental projects and had nuclear facility soon. Two major wars it had to fight with India crippling its growing economy enormously. Benazir considered India the top most threat to Pakistan and its genuine interests.

Actually, India, ill-focused on Pakistan in all respects keeps snubbing her in all international forums as a habit. India started developing its nuclear program in 1961 or '62, maybe even earlier. My father was a minister in 1962 and he tried to get Pakistan to also start a program from 1962.In 1974, when the Indians detonated the nuclear device, my father announced at a press conference that Pakistan will develop a bomb "even if we have to eat grass."

She also revealed how impoverished Soviet scientists tried to sell enriched uranium to Pakistan in 1990 and how, in the process of rejecting their offer, she may have alerted vested interests in her own country to the existence of an international nuclear black market. Zia-ul Haq tried to tell everybody that he was not doing it for America, but for Islam and after defeating the Soviet Union he was going to defeat America and make Islam the greatest power in the world.

Bhutto was against the so-called "fundamentalist" element in the world. She claimed that fundamentalist elements colluding with the military regime were actually responsible for trying to export nuclear technology. According to her, Dr Khan is just a scapegoat.

Bhutto, who was prime minister between 1988 and 1990 and again between 1993 and 1996, takes credit for introducing a policy of nuclear restraint that she said was covertly undermined by these "Jihadi" elements. Her worry was that India with Russian weapons would nuclear attack Pakistan any day.

During her two terms in the office of Prime Minister in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zhulfikar Ali Bhutto who recently landed in Pakistan after ending her self exile and making a deal with General Musharraf regime, acquired wealth and cash worth a few hundred million dollars, most of which is located in Europe and Middle East. She in fact has institutionalized corruption and nepotism in Pakistan is such a way that it could not be altered even by the military ruler Musharraf.

T.A.M. Nurul Basher

Very recently, primarily on the occasion of the victory day of 16th December, a call is being made from many quarters to hold trial of the war criminals. Although the sector commanders are in the forefront, other political parties specially Awami league and the left leaning parties are most vocal in this respect and they are mounting pressure on the present government. to hold the war crime trial immediately. However the present Caretaker government or interim government. is of the opinion that they have been thrust on to power at a point of national crises when the country was falling apart centering upon the general election of 22nd Jan 2007 for the 9th Parliament. In the view of the present government. their priority is to create a congenial atmosphere to hold a free and fair election through which the nation can expect a good government who would be benefactor of the people and not so to some specific looters of public fund. Bangladesh has many a serious unresolved issues from the very inception of it in the year 1971. A government such as this one whose tenure is limited and who have fixed agenda to resolve the crises at hand, may not have the time and opportunity to address so many issues as priorities.

I believe they have a point. The present government. came to power through proclamation of state of Emergency by the President. Some legal experts opine that this government. has passed its mandated time of 90 days or 120 days the time frame provided by the Constitution and thereby the government. has lost its legality. In a democracy what people say is law. Therefore this government. is legal so long it derived the popular support and that support shall continue so long the government. performs according to the priority decided by the people. This government. came to power at a time of crises. What crises for? Was it that the general public were asking for war crimes trial, or was it for taking action against institutional corruption which have perforated the whole national fabric from the very day the 1st independent Bangladesh government. set its foot on the Bangladesh soil.

It is true that the AL government enacted a law to try the war criminals and they started the trial. But subsequently it stopped. We really need to have an inquiry as to why it stopped and did not revive in the next 36 years until now. In my view the war crimes trial was rendered unimportant by the activities of the Bangabandhu led AL government. which found its priority not in the effort to create congenial atmosphere for good governance but in the act of loot, plunder and tyranny over the very people who fought the bloody Liberation War themselves without Bangabandhu but put him on to the throne out of emotion and love for him and definitely with great expectation of nation building. People were ready to give up everything in their possession and even eat grass if he asked so.

But alas! Bangabandhu disappointed the nation. He supported his lieutenants who destroyed the country. The only person (Mr. Tajuddin Ahmed) who could have been of some value and who spearheaded the exile government. during the period of Liberation War, was ousted unceremoniously. The result was disastrous.

Subsequent governments. were no better with the exception of the 1st military cabinet of general Zia. Zia tried his best to have government. of reduced corruption. In his cabinet he included the national talents like Dr. Rashid, Engr. B. M. Abbas AT, Prof. Dr. Shamsul Haque, Dr. Fasihuddin Mahtab etc. This government was praised home and abroad as a good government and brought some stability and reduced corruption. (I am personally aware of his effort to address corruption as I involved myself in a case to unearth corruption under his support in which we were successful though at the end some of us had to loose our jobs and President Zia could not help).

After the sad murder of Gen. Zia, the reign of state craft fell in the hands of Gen. Ershad and the country started to taste what organised and institutional corruption is. Even though he was ousted by the so called democratic parties through people's upheaeval for democracy, the parties BNP and AL, coming to power, found this tree of corruption sown and nourished by Gen. Ershad, as a government vehicle to perpetuate their own desire to gain fruitfully. The business of state power became a grand way to become rich in no time. It was an uphoria specially during the last BNP-Jamat coalition government. and the fight between AL and BNP reminded us the fight between the mediaval kings where one survived only through the bloody elimination of the other. In fact there is some basis on which the parties were so bitterly at logger heads.

Both the parties tried their utmost to destroy the state machinery and clutch the administration into their hands. They destroyed the civil service, the judiciary the police force, the taxation department and the education system. The whole country lost its perception as to what is honesty and what is not. A Frankenstine monster of corruption was created by our stallwart political leaders starting from Gen. Ershad in 1981 till Madam Khaleda Zia and her son Tarek Rahman. Bangladesh was like a lake of poison (the poisonous serpent Kalio Nag who lived in the Kalio Daha, lake of poison, drank poison and vomited poison. The serpent was killed by Lord Sri Krishna). We sank in poison of corruption, we drank it and we vomited it.

Amidst such a scenario the Emergency was declared and the present government. supported by the Armed Forces came to power. The aim of this government. is to free the Bangladesh lake from poison of corruption. This task is far more important than addressing the issue of trial of war criminals, which has remained suspended for 36 years. Let the government. do what they have come to do-eradicate corruption for now and for future.

We need to ponder why we have not been able to try the war criminals most of whom were the members of the defeated Pakistani Army. Even though Pakistan was defeated, Bangladesh was still weak compared to India and Pakistan. Let it be clear to everyone that our importance to India who played the part of victorious dominant force was much less compared to Pakistan. The scenario has not changed till today, we are the weakest of the three break way sub-continental nations. We can be strong and respectable only if we can create a non-corrupt society, a task the present government. has undertaken. Prudence dictates that we should not distract them otherwise.

How far the government. has been successful could be questioned. Success has not been enormous but not unsubstantial though. Creation of the independent Anti Corruption Commission, Election Commission and separation of Judiciary are great steps undoubtedly. ACC and EC has progressed in their own way quite successfully even though much is yet to be done. However, we are far away from getting the fruits of justice until the judiciary is managed by the right kind of persons. Though I praise the government. for addressing the issue of corruption and misgovernance and gaining limited success, I would like to caution them that they are still toying with the tail of the multi-headed serpent, the heads of whom are still to be eliminated.

I like to make my views clear about the issue of war crimes trial. It is not that I do not support it, I do but I do not think neither the time is right nor the government. is the right one. As to the utterance of Mr. Muzahid stating that there was no war criminals before and neither there are now, is not true. There had been war crime and we had and still have war criminals amongst us. Mr. Muzahid may say he or his party was not involved. Can he explain the intelligentia killings? Does he have an explanation who killed them? Such things are pointed towards them and they need to come clean. They accepted the invitation by the Pak military to from a government. in 1971. Even though they were powerless in the face of the strong Pak army, they cannot avoid their total responsibility. Nor it is acceptable that they can not identify any person who committed this crime. Jamat needs to accept responsibilities (even though partial) and apologize for their error of judgment and face the consequences thereof.

As to the comment by the pro-Jamat ex-civil servant Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan that the war of 1971 was a civil war and not a freedom struggle, I have the following to say. Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan has established himself as an honest person in the society and no one doubts about his knowledge on taxation having been retired as NBR chairman. But he needs some home work to comment on politics. Freedom fight if successful creates a new nation while civil war is a bloody struggle through which governments and government policies are changed. Lt. Col George Washington defected from British American Army, waged a war of liberation against the British and founded a country what is known today as the United State of America. Civil war during President Abraham Lincoln established civil rights of blacks and made them free from slavery. Subash Bose's INA seiged the British Indian garrison of Imphal. It was a freedom struggle and not civil war. Bloody French revolution threw away monarchy and established democracy and peoples right while the country remained the same as France before and after. It was a civil war. The first Indian freedom fight of 1857 was a freedom struggle and it was neither sepoy mutiny as in the eye of the British nor was it a civil war. It failed to succeed and could not free India. Our brief but bloody skirmishes within our army and civilians combined on 7th November 1975 was a civil war. The War of 1971 on Bangladesh soil was a freedom fight and not a civil war even though it was through Indian assistances, and started between Pak Army and Bengalees and constitutionally Bengalees were part of Pakistan.

Something else of far more importance and consequence I like to remind Mr. Shah Abdul Hannan and his favourite party Jamat-e-Islami. This is about our Liberation War. Our freedom fight is of great importance. I like to draw a history of not so distant past. Pakistani politicians would call the Punjabis and Pathans as the martial race while the Bangalees were not, are short in height and less fair in complexion compared to them and therefore they were destined to rule over Bangalees please note the comment of Gen. Yahia Khan when he said to an American journalist, 'Us kala admiko ham power nehi dengi'. The reason they were martial race and we are not came from the British rule who introduced the concept of martial race and conferred the title to some section of population of undivided India. In 1857, the first War of Independence. (Sepoy mutiny for the British) was fought and it was the Bengal Army which revolted and took control of the Redfort under the command of General Bakth Khan.

Please note the Bengal Army did not include Bengalees only, the members were from all parts of India. After the British were routed out of Delhi and its vicinity they came back to assault Delhi with the help only of Punjabis, Pathans and Gurkhas. Out of a team of 8 engineers who exploded the Kashmiri gate of the Red fort 6 were Punjabis. Thus the Punjabis and Pathans were martial races in the eyes of the British and the name continued during Pakistan period.

I do not like to undermine the patriotism of Punjabis and Pathans today. They have given the proof of their patriotism when they fought in the INA against the British, the majority of the INA forces being Punjabis, Sikhs and Muslims.

Therefore, we needed to prove ourselves that we are not so unmartial and a freedom fight and its victory was essential to set the historical record right. Freedom fight of 1971 is therefore our pride and our identity. In the sub continental perspective, we are a force to recon with. Any Bangladeshi citizen who do not like to recognise freedom struggle denies his/her own identity.

To sum up this discussion it would be my recommendation that the war crimes trial be defered to be executed by the next elected government to come.