The New Nation - Internet Edition

CHIEF Adviser Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed in his address to the nation Saturday evening assured steps soon to start dialogue with the political parties and expressed the hope that the political parties would make good use of this situation to turn themselves into democratic and corruption-free institutions. Disclosing a decision taken at the Council of Advisers in this regard the other day, the Chief Adviser also aired the government's plan to withdraw restrictions on indoor politics from the rest of the country outside the capital. The government would consider relaxation or even withdrawal of the state of emergency in phases in keeping with the environment and the requirement. He reiterated the pledge to stage the transition to true democracy within this year in keeping with the roadmap already announced for elections by the end of this year or even earlier if possible. The address marked the first anniversary of the caretaker government led by him.

The assurances are backed by solid work done during the past one year when the government reformed some vital institutions like the Election Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Anti-Corruption Commission, completed separation of the judiciary from the executive, made progress in the preparation of voter identity card and national ID card. The Chief Adviser also made mention of the start of dialogue by the Election Commission with political parties to finalise reform of the electoral law and the process. Giving a run-down of the accomplishments of the government Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed listed the steps taken to hold trial of people accused of corruption, and said that the measures made the people feel happy that none is above the law. He gave a down-to-earth analysis of the economic situation, the hardship faced by the average citizens because of price hike of essentials and steps taken to address those. The damages and destruction caused by successive floods and cyclone Sidr and measures taken to recuperate the losses of crops as far as possible spread over a large part of his address.

The address was by and large well received by the political parties which are for election and withdrawal of the state of emergency although some parties most affected by the anti-corruption drive expressed skepticism. While the draft law and rules on electoral reform are on the anvil, the most challenging task before the government, however, would be to hold dialogue with political parties with a view to ensuring free, fair and credible elections. The process of dialogue started by the Election Commission has been halted by a legal process pending in the court of law about who should be invited from the BNP to join the same. This controversy would surface again when the proposed dialogue with political parties would start. Then again, there is an open opposition from the Awami League to dialogue with the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh. Finding ways clear of these obstacles would not be an easy task. Yet the government should succeed in its tasks to put the country back on the track of democracy by proving itself equal to the challenges, including price stabilisation, that lie ahead.

ACCORDING to a recent print media report, exporters from our nearest neighbour have dumped 73,462 tonnes of sugar into Bangladesh market in the last five months from July to November. Import of sugar from India increased five times during the period compared to the same period of the previous financial year as revealed by official figures. 'Indian exporters are dumping a large quantity of substandard sugar in Bangladesh posing serious threat to consumers health,' the media reported quoting the industry sources and consumer rights activists. Allegations are there that violating the antidumping suits filed with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by Australia and Thailand, these exporters are exporting substandard sugar to different countries including Bangladesh. Reportedly, the consumer rights activists demanded immediate blocking of such spoilt sugar reportedly having 'intolerable level of hydrous', a deadly toxic chemical in order to save consumers and the local industries as well.

Bangladeshi importers procure sugar mainly from small Indian mills, which use toxic hydrogen peroxide for whitening the product and thus produce hydrous. The government has given clear instruction to the authorities concerned, particularly the customs at the ports, to carry out tests on every consignment of sugar in laboratories before giving clearance for import. But these orders have not been carried out properly at the land port, as the land port has neither enough space to store all import consignments nor testing laboratory facilities. The state-owned Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation (BSFIC) and the private sector sugar refineries also urged the National Board of Revenue (NBR) to immediately ban the import of toxic sugar through the land ports that lack testing facilities.

The local sugar producers made a representation to the NBR with the request for the government to raise duty on the import of refined sugar to check entry of substandard sugar. If the government did not immediately raise import duty on finished sugar, local sugar industry as a whole would collapse. At the same meeting with the NBR, the BSFIC also conveyed similar concern adding that there was $65 subsidy on every tonne of sugar exported to Bangladesh. Moreover, interest free export loans were being provided to make finished sugar cheaper than even raw sugar in international market. An increase in dumping of sugar threatened the first generation refiners that started operations just one and a half years back, the media quoting a raw sugar refiner reported. The government, on the other hand, has retained import duty on finished sugar at Tk 5,000 per tonne and lowered duty on raw sugar by Tk 1,750 per tonne to Tk 4,000 in the current fiscal year. The sugar industry owners demanded duty on finished sugar at the rate of Tk 10,000 per ton. If anti-dumping measures are not taken, local sugar industry would never be viable to fight subsidised and substandard imported sugar. Sugar exporters of Thailand and Australia, the world's two leading sugar-exporting countries, also lodged similar complaints with the WTO.

Aijaz Zaka Syed

IF A picture is worth a thousand words, this one takes the cake. The picture in question is snapped by Reuters' photographer Jason Reed. It shows a young Democratic Party supporter displaying the Boston Herald front page in New Hampshire with a picture of Hillary Clinton and a banner headline screaming: SHE'S SO YESTERDAY.

With a poster page and headline like that you don't have to say anything else. Not even a news report needs to accompany such a headline that strikes you like a thunderbolt.

Hillary is indeed so yesterday. This view remains unchanged despite her performance in New Hampshire this week where she got 39 per cent of votes against Obama's 37 per cent.

And when I say she is so yesterday, the allusion is not to her 60 years or those laugh lines and crowfeet fast advancing on her tired face. Trust me, I've never been biased against age. I know we all age and I am not getting any younger either. But if the former First Lady is increasingly seen as passé, credit goes to no one but herself. Her entire campaign has been handcuffed to the past from the word go. It has been stuck in the time warp of those eight years when Bill Clinton was the president.

She has been resolutely and shamelessly cashing in on the immense popularity of her hubby. Bill Clinton remains popular despite his adventures in Oval Office that hadn't exactly been part of his presidential duties. Americans are forced to look beyond l' affaire Lewinsky because the Clinton presidency was indeed one of the most successful ones. So you have Hillary talking all the time about what the Clinton presidency did for America, rather than what she would do, if elected president.

She has been too sure of her presidential candidature and making it to White House for her own good. And she has been constantly talking about HER experience and qualifications for the top job.

But pray what experience are we talking about here? Does presiding over the White House kitchen and making occasional changes in the menu qualify her for the top job? Or is there really some truth in rumours that it was Hillary, not Bill, who actually ruled the country from White House between 1992-2000? Hillary belongs to the past because she is stuck in the past - forever looking backwards. And if Hillary Clinton is America's past, Barack Obama is its future.

If Hillary's campaign sounds like an old wives' tale going on and on about what THEY had done for the country, Obama comes across as an Old Testament prophet charting out a path out of the wilderness for his people.

If Hillary talks of the past, Obama speaks about America's future. Ms Clinton is determined to destroy anyone who comes between her and White House. She has accused Obama of all sorts of things - from inexperience to dangerous political immaturity, dismissing him as a political upstart who doesn't belong in White House.

In total contrast, Obama talks of hope, unity and progress for America of his dreams. His supporters have watched in dismay as he has repeatedly refused to join in the dirty games played by opposition. His response to this vitriolic campaign of character assassination and political one-upmanship has been almost Gandhian.

Even his debates with Ms Clinton have been so civil and restrained that he has ended up disappointing his supporters, who want him to hit back with the ferocity that has been the hallmark of the Clinton campaign and slay the giant.

But Obama clearly knows what he is doing. He is what you would call a marathon man, conditioning himself for the long haul and saving his energy for the final lap. If his stunning victory in Iowa is any pointer, this strategy seems to be working just fine.

On the other hand, the Hillary campaign appears to be suffering from what can be described as overexposure. Unfortunately for her, she has been on campaign trail for far too long. She unveiled her mission for White House way back in 2000, soon after her husband exited it. And all these years, she has revelled and basked in the glory of being described as America's first female president.

But somewhere along the way, she got too smug and too sure of her White House prospects. And for their part, the Americans too seem to have grown tired of the Hillary Clinton presidency, even before it's inaugurated. They are suffering from the Clinton fatigue. And if Hillary crashed down to third place in Iowa, she knows who is to blame.

Little wonder Obama has captured the imagination of the world's most powerful democracy in such a remarkably short period. Remember, he is only 46. And he hasn't been very long in politics either.

He is completely refreshing not only in his age and looks but also in everything he stands for and believes in.

There is more to Obama than his rock star charisma. He is everything that Hillary Clinton is not. And I am not talking about the colour of his skin or his extraordinary background - a Kenyan Muslim father and white Christian, all-American mother.

The importance of being Barack Obama does not lie in the colour of his skin or in the fact that he grew up in a Third world, Muslim country most Americans can't even pronounce or in the distinction that he is the youngest presidential candidate.

All these things matter of course. However, what really distinguishes Obama from all those too-good-to-be-true plastic dummies like Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani and holier-than-thou mannequins like Hillary Clinton is the earthy substance that this Illinois senator is made of. Whatever Obama is, he is original and a man of flesh and blood you can touch and relate to.

He offers a worldview that is based on the values that once inspired America's founding fathers-values like democracy, justice, freedom, equality and the rule of law and the values that are universal in nature and are celebrated by all great civilizations.

While his rivals in the Democratic Party as well as the Republicans have bent left and right and somersaulted whenever it suited them trying to be all things to all people, Obama has stood up for his beliefs and fought for his convictions.

Even as Hillary has constantly changed her stance on critical issues such as Iraq, Iran and immigration and healthcare, Obama has consistently opposed the unjust war on Iraq and the one the neocons are itching to inflict on Iran.

Obama has chosen to unite the Americans, rather than divide them along partisan lines, and without making any ideological compromises. While Democratic and Republican candidates have always looked at the Americans as Us and Them and as Red and Blue states, Obama says there are only United States.

Pardon me, my patient readers, if this sounds like a campaign speech for the man who could be America's first black president with Hussein for a middle name.

But Obama's origins and phenomenal evolution as the first presidential candidate whose appeal transcends narrow partisan, religious, racial and class affiliations never ceases to fascinate me. This guy is a true phenomenon, if there was ever one. With his blood ties to Kenya as well as white settlers in the US, Obama represents both sides of American slavery: the slave masters as well as the enslaved. Perhaps, even he doesn't realise what he embodies and epitomises.

In a country that has a long history of inhuman exploitation of African Americans and where blacks had to literally fight for their rights, as basic as going to the same schools and sharing public transport with white Americans, Obama's race for the White House is indeed path breaking.

It's not as if the African Americans haven't had a go at White House in the past. They have. Only no one has come as close as Obama has. He has brought about a revolution whose impact will continue to be felt long after his departure.

We in the Middle East and the larger Muslim world have watched this elaborate electoral process in the US, whose outcome could influence us all, in fascination and total awe. However, it's Candidate Obama who interests us more than the election itself. With his unique background, here's someone who can bridge the divide between the white and black Americas as well as between the West and the Muslim world.

And if anyone can restore America's relations with the rest of the world repairing its battered image across the globe, it is Barack Hussein Obama. It would be a historic tragedy if he loses this race to the White House. It will not be America's loss. It would be a loss for all of us.

(Aijaz Zaka Syed is a senior editor and columnist of Khaleej Times.)

Adnan Gill

Even weeks after Benazir Bhutto's death, there are still allot of speculations thrown around about what caused her death? Like a bunch of gossiping housewives everyone who matters is busy leaking information to support their version. Ms. Bhutto's party wants to believe, she died from a bullet wound fired from an exotic weapon with a laser-pointer, so they are releasing information that supports their version. Government of Pakistan is still not sure whether they want to support the 'lever theory', 'shrapnel theory', or the 'bullet theory'. So they keep on leaking all sorts of witness accounts and circumstantial evidence. For their part, the Scotland Yard is feeding their media with their own leaks.

At this point, it would be fair to say that only God knows exactly what caused Ms. Bhutto's death? Upon Ms. Bhutto's widower Asif Zardari's wishes no autopsy was performed, most of the forensic evidence was lost when the crime scene was hosed down a few hours after the December 27 assassination, and no eye-witnesses were interviewed. But according to whatever circumstantial evidence is available to the public-in the form of eyewitness accounts, photos, and videos-government's 'lever theory' appears to be the least plausible one.

Days after Ms. Bhutto's assassination, the British TV Channel 4 News released a set of pictures and an amateur's video which raised serious doubts about government's account of what might have caused Ms. Bhutto's death. The pictures showed a clean-shaven male of reasonably young age wearing sunglasses and unbuttoned vest shadowing Ms. Bhutto's vehicle. In the next series of the pictures, the same male suspect could be clearly seen, within the kill-zone (10 feet) of the vehicle, taking aim and shooting at Ms. Bhutto with a handgun.

The video clip showed the same person, in quick succession, firing at least three shots, immediately a bomb blast followed. This video along with another video clip gave other vital clues too.

It showed, the suspect shooting from approx. 8 o'clock/250° of Ms. Bhutto's position, and from a lower vantage point. As the suspect fired his handgun, for a split second, Ms. Bhutto's hair and scarf could be seen lifting, and then immediately afterwards her head could be seen dropping to her right and forward direction (to her 1-2 o'clock). Other videos suggested the bomb blast was centered farther away from the shooter, at approx. 7 o'clock of Ms. Bhutto's position; because the singeing of the paint and the shrapnel pattern could be observed on the left and backside of her vehicle.

In another series of pictures released by the Interior Ministry one can see a blood stained lever situated on the rear and right side of the sunroof hatch. According to government's version, this is the liver that penetrated Ms. Bhutto's skull.

It is imperative to note that she fell forward and to her right, and NOT backwards and to her right. It is also of equal importance to make a note that the bomb blast doesn't take place till after her head couldn't be seen projecting through the sunroof.

Collectively, these observations seriously undermine government's 'lever theory' for the following reasons:

1. Since, the bomb blast took place after Ms. Bhutto's head dropped through the sunroof, therefore the concussion from the shock wave would have first moved her vehicle (in approx. 2 o'clock direction), rather than her head.

Resulting whiplash effect should have moved her head to the rear and to her left. Considering, the direction the shock wave traveled, it should have been the rear-left lever that should have mortally wounded Ms. Bhutto and not the rear-right lever.

2. Due to gravity, an object drops at the velocity of 9.8 m/s2. The distance between Ms. Bhutto's head and the lever couldn't have been more than 2 feet. From that height, if an object of same weight and density, as of Ms. Bhutto's skull, is dropped on a similar lever, it wouldn't even make the slightest penetration; not to talk of a 5 x 3 cm gash as claimed by the government investigators.

3. Even, if Ms. Bhutto's head came in contact with the lever at the velocity of 9.8 m/s2, unless her head was already bleeding, a fraction of a second does not give enough time for the bleeding to start and leave such a high amount of blood on the lever. The odds of enough blood rushing through a layer of hair and scarf in a split-second are next to nil.

Government's version would have been more believable, had they claimed to have found hair, skin, bone, and/or brain tissues/residues on the lever, instead of finding blood. In all likelihood, the bloodstains were left by someone's blood soaked hand as he/she might have attempted to close the hatch.

Regardless, how one dissects and looks at the circumstantial evidence, the 'lever theory' fails to hold the burden of proof. Unless, the government presents new overwhelming evidence to suggest that the collision between Ms. Bhutto's head and the lever delivered the mortal wound, the 'lever theory' could be safely ruled out.

Considering the available evidence, the 'shrapnel theory' also looks very weak. Pictures and numerous videos clearly show Ms. Bhutto's head was already inside her vehicle before the blast took place. Therefore, (theoretically) her head should have been out of the trajectory of any shrapnel flying at the supersonic speeds.

However, the possibility of fatal gunshot wound cannot be ruled out. The British paper, The Observer, disclosed that the doctors never looked for the entry wound on Ms. Bhutto's neck.

It reported, "The doctor [Mohammad Khan] was asked, 'Did you examine the other side of her head?' He said, 'I didn't have time. They all thought there would be an autopsy,' the government official said." Therefore, the existence of entry wound cannot be ruled out. Typically, trauma caused by a bullet has an entry wound (which almost always has a narrow puncture opening), and an exit wound (which almost always has me - competitively - much larger opening).

Even in the absence of a postmortem report, we know for sure, that at least, there was an exit wound which in all of likelihood resulted from a bullet. Hence, one can safely argue that Ms. Bhutto's death was caused by a bullet wound.