The New Nation - Internet Edition

Uzbek cotton ban and RMG

BANGLADESH spinners and readymade garment exporters, according to a recent newspaper report, are set to face a blow as leading Western buyers have decided to stop importing garment products made of Uzbekistan cotton on which the industries of Bangladesh mainly depend. Shipment of Bangladeshi garment wears made of cotton imported from Uzbekistan will be rejected by several European buyers on the ground that the Central Asian country uses child labour in cotton production. Uzbekistan, the world's third largest cotton exporter, supplies 65 per cent of the total demand of the Bangladeshi spinners. Turkmenistan, Pakistan, the USA and India are the next significant suppliers, having between four and nine per cent shares in the Bangladesh market.

Marks and Spencer, a leading retailer of Bangladeshi garments in Europe and US, banned the apparels made of Uzbek cotton two weeks back, the report said quoting an official representing the company in Dhaka. Tesco, another UK-based leading retailer of Bangladeshi apparels, took similar decision one week back banning import of garment made of Uzbek cotton from September next. An official of Tesco was quoted to have said that they decided not to import apparels made of Uzbek cotton a week back and planned to reject any shipment from Bangladesh from September. What the officials of both Tesco and Marks and Spencer wanted to say is that they want child labour to be eliminated from their entire supply chain claiming that they had communicated the matter to their suppliers in Bangladesh.

Marks Spencer and Tesco work with several dozens of Bangladeshi garment suppliers who make shipments of several hundred millions readymade garments including kids wear and sweater that are sold in retailers' shops in the European and American markets. The president of the Bangladesh Textile Mills Association refused to accept the allegation of the buyers saying cotton harvest in Uzbekistan is a traditional festival where all Uzbeks including their children take part in plucking cotton. The International Cotton Advisory Council, the highest international forum of cotton producers and users, also endorsed the cultural aspect.

Sudden ban on Uzbek cotton will bring 'uneven and unethical pressures' on Bangladesh spinners, and then apparel manufacturers, said a leader of the Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association. It would be difficult for Bangladeshi spinners to divert sources of cotton from Uzbekistan within a short span of the period. The report mentioned also the views of the representatives of buyers saying the decision was unlikely to be reviewed; rather many more buyers from Europe and the United States would join the ban very soon. Cotton is an internationally traded commodity and its sources are not always easily identifiable. Bangladesh textile manufacturers and garment exporters have urged the foreign buyers to reconsider the decision considering both the setback here in the textile and garment sector of Bangladesh and the difficulties to be faced by Uzbekistan in exporting its cotton. Instead of putting any ban, negotiations might help find solutions for all concerned amicably.

Urgency of using surface water

THERE was a time when the majority of people in the country who collected their waters from ponds and water bodies for meeting their consumption needs. But such surface waters also were found to be contaminated in some cases that led to gastro-intestinal and other diseases on drinking the same. Thus began the era of lifting underground water through hand tubewells as their waters were considered safe for drinking. The entire landscape of Bangladesh was dotted with tubewells. Then followed the phase of sinking deep tube-wells to extract water for irrigation as the country gradually transformed from rain-fed agriculture to more intensive crop cultivation.

But these developments are found to be not without a price. The hand tubewells that pump out drinking water now contain more than the permissible level of arsenic all over the country. Arsenic was also detected in waters pumped out by deep tubewells. Arsenic-laden water can cause serious diseases including cancer from long time use. Arsenic in waters of deep tube-wells can similarly contaminate crops irrigated by such waters. Again, excessive lifting of underground water on a regular basis at so many places is causing the ground water table to go down. There are too many places where the excessive withdrawal of ground waters have disturbed the soil layers. Lands are facing subsidence conditions in many places including Dhaka city. The cities have turned specially vulnerable to earthquakes because of this land subsidence factor. Thus, from the protection of human health to preventing the disfigurement of land and its calamitous effects, point to the urgency of using surface waters to a far greater degree than is the case now.

But plans will have to be prepared and implemented on a high priority basis to that end. All future water supply plans for the cities should aim to treat and supply surface waters. Conservation of flood water and rain waters must be targeted on a large scale for irrigation activities. Even it is relevant for Bangladesh to start thinking of desalinisation plants to collect fresh water from the sea. Projects of this type should be reserved for the future. But planning and fund mobilisation for them should start early in right earnest. Besides, it is also important to maintain the quality of river water by regulating the discharges of all kinds of effluents in them. This should be ensured before river waters are sought to be used on a large scale.

Law of emergency and related questions

Md. Monirul Islam

My father, died on January 17, 2008, often said-'never bow down your head to the unlawful mean but if it is imposed by incumbency, that's an exceptional case'. But in this period of emergency, when the restrictions on even religious activities like milad, mahfil (religious discussions) etc. were imposed by the authority; he stated his revulsion on it.

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration that may suspend certain normal functions of government, may work to alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors, or may order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.

It can also be used as a rationale for suspending civil liberties. Such declarations usually come during a time of natural disaster, during periods of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war (therefore, in democratic countries many call this martial law, most with non-critical intent).

In some countries, the state of emergency and its effects on civil liberties and governmental procedure are regulated by the constitution, or a law that limits the powers that may be invoked during an emergency or rights suspended. It is also frequently illegal to modify the emergency law or Constitution during the emergency.

Though fairly uncommon in democracies, dictatorial regimes often declare a state of emergency that is prolonged indefinitely as long as the regime lasts. In some situations, martial law is also declared, allowing the military greater authority to act.

Some political theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, have argued that the power to decide the initiation of the state of emergency defines sovereignty itself. In State of Exception (2005), Giorgio Agamben has criticized this idea, arguing how the mechanism of the state of emergency deprives certain people of their civil rights, producing his interpretation of homo sacer.

In the United Kingdom the Monarch (The Queen) or the Privy Council or a Senior Minister of the Crown can make emergency regulations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 if there is a serious threat to human welfare, the environment, or in case of war or terrorism. These regulations last for seven days unless confirmed otherwise by Parliament.

In the United States, there are several methods for government response to emergency situations. A state governor or even a local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is quite common at the state level in response to natural disasters.

Although the President, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to declare a state of emergency, the National Emergencies Act limits the President's ability to declare emergencies by requiring that they expire within two years unless specifically extended, and that the President specify in advance which legal provisions will be invoked.

The United States is officially in an ongoing (effectively permanent) state of emergency declared by several Presidents due to multiple problems. An example is one which began on January 24, 1995 with the signing of Executive Order 12947 by President Bill Clinton.

In accordance with the National Emergencies Act, the executive order's actual effect was not a declaration of a general emergency, but a limited embargo on trade with "Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process." This "national emergency" was expanded in 1998 to include additional targets such as Osama bin Laden, and has been continued to at least 2008 by order of President George W. Bush.

The U.S. Constitution says, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Constitution also provides an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of "public danger." These are the only emergency provisions in the Constitution.

The article (141A) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh provides that 'If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security or economic life of Bangladesh, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency: provided that such Proclamation shall require for its validity the prior counter signature of the Prime Minister.

Presently, our country is under an 'Emergency Law' but it has not been put into practice with the obligation as provided in our constitution. Grave emergency existed and the security or economic life was jeopardized with the subversive impetus of 11 party-alliances until 1/11 came. To destroy the economy of Bangladesh, Mohiuddin, the mayor of Chittagong declared to tarnish Chittagong port from where a bulky part of our economic activities is worked. Only for seeking interests beyond state well-being, they adopted this policy of subversion.

Law of emergency might also be declared, according to our constitutional provision, if external aggression or internal disturbance occurs for country's concern. Internal disturbance centering on election was located fiercely with the mayhem approach between two alliances i.e. BNP led four party alliances and AL led eleven party alliances. A leader of eleven party alliances made a tremor of civil war among the people of the country although this sort of state-configuration was more blatantly induced by them.

The fact of external aggression didn't come into sight as an absolute format viz- invasion, but this impulsion starkly lay a hand on almost the internal affairs of country that was not okay in the question of sovereignty. The march of foreign diplomats, according to several so-called philanthropists within the state, was taken as positive fashion but it worried the genuine aficionado of state.

We may assume that the emergency became emergence to tackle the above state of affairs and the emergency gained its validity in upholding those rough circumstances. Since 1/11, the 'Law of Emergency' functioned; but not properly, because of the existence of govt. psyche's unlawful move in formulating party or even separate political wing on the way of the process of the de-politicization to oust two major dominant parties-BNP and AL and their leaders.

In this parlance, Govt. attempt of twos' access (Dr. Muhammad Yunus and Ferdous Ahmad Koreshi) and twos' ousting (Khalida Zia and Sheikh Hasina) was the daily circulation of all the local, national and International newspapers, journals. And army's influence in politics and the speech of army chief on some crucial and sensitive issues like the father of the nation, the announcer of our independence, the question of their recognition and the case of war criminality etc symbolized the 'dual role' in Bangladesh politics and foreign newspapers, from the inception to present of this govt. considers the government the army backed government.

The motorcycle race by Ferdous Ahmad Koreshi's party workers in the name of allocating relief for the flood affected people was the grand example of violating the 'Law of Emergency'. It was also intensified with the move or procession of Awami League workers when they were accumulated arrogantly to warmly receive their party leader-Sheikh Hasina in airport in the time of her arrival in Dhaka from London.

Presently, the issue of arresting the teachers of the University of Dhaka and their release highly fascinates the people of Bangladesh and in this process of their release, so many agitations were observed in country's scenario which ultimately is to be deemed as the greater violation of the 'Law of Emergency'.

For a simple statement of Hannan Shah-the advisor of Khaleda Zia was arrested for violating the 'Law of Emergency'. But the combined procession of teachers and students for releasing detained teachers of D.U violates the law of emergency, doesn't it? Wasn't this procession larger than that of the statement of Hannan Shah?

Now the students of Jahangirnagar University have declared the movement for the release of students who were arrested on August 21. If this process continues, the 'Law of Emergency' will lose its adequacy and furthermore, when it would be imposed on the people of the state, how much it will act is the question? In a sense, rule of law would be gone into confusion and it might be the constraint in establishing good governance in Bangladesh that we dreamt.

It is an observation that those who brought the 1/11 for their convenience, they are violating the rules of 1/11 i.e. 'Law of Emergency' whenever the situation is going against them. Dual approaches for the convenience never carry the bright future for Bangladesh.

It's the high time of tarnishing the surface of difficulties to take the thinking of upcoming election of 2008 in mind and it's the time to move beyond the 'Law of Emergency' as if it were not violated.

Otherwise, if the sleepy flame of anger among the people of country might be functioned, no emergency would be worked here and it has the possibility of slurring this sanctified "Law of Emergency'. This opinion is to be taken in mind of incumbency regarding the prospect of Bangladesh.

'Law' or 'Law of Emergency,' although it works against civil liberties in some cases, must be obeyed but its continuity for long time in most cases get the people consider the tedious thing of this implication. With these consequences, the law-abide people like my father will also reveal their repulsion on this mind-numbing thing. Now, 'Law of Emergency' is not emergence for Bangladesh and so, it should be withdrawn.

Suharto : The man who led the new order with American help

Farish A Noor

THERE are strongmen, and then again there are really strong strongmen. Indonesia's former president Suharto falls into the latter category and though the man was finally deposed after waves of student demonstrations that rocked Indonesia in May 1998, he remains - despite his ailing health - firmly planted on the map of Indonesian and Southeast Asia's regional politics till now.

Observers of Indonesian politics have already put their pens to paper and have begun to write the obituary to what has to be one of the most important (if not notorious) and enigmatic of Asia's leaders of the 20th century. Indeed, so long and extensive was Suharto's period of rule in Indonesia that the man has been elevated to the level of a national icon, seen as a hero for some and as one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen by others. Suharto's imminent passing marks the end of an era, a period that spanned the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the Second World War and the Cold War the quickly followed suit.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that with the passing of Suharto, the age of strongmen-politics will come to an end. Suharto's own record and personal life story reads as an epic tale of the small man made good, of the poor peasant boy who was at the right place at the right time and consequently was picked by History to play a crucial part in the drama of nations.

Born in 1921 in a humble village in Central Java that was even then teeming with an overcrowded population suffering from illiteracy, poverty and lack of development, he joined the Dutch colonial army just when the star of Dutch colonial rule was waning and the Japanese were about to occupy the country. Suharto's military career then took off under Japanese military rule where he learned fast enough how men in uniform could run a country and reduce civilian politicians to pen-pushers and redundant rubber stamps. He also earned his stripes by fighting against the Dutch in the independence war of the mid-1940s, and made his name as one of the young nationalist-patriots of his time, very much in the same mould as Aung San, father of the Burma's Aung San Su Kyi, who was likewise a Japanese-trained military man and nationalist.

But Suharto's moment only arrived when it became clear that Sukarno's ailing government and his feeble attempts at introducing what was then termed 'guided democracy' had failed in Indonesia. Following the failure of the 1965 coup, Sukarno unleashed the army and senior officers like Suharto (then commander of KONSTRAD, the Indonesian army's special forces) on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). The anti-communist purges that followed were the bloodiest massacres in Indonesian history, with anything between half a million and one million people killed in the name of anti-Communism.

What was clear from the time that Suharto really took over power in 1970, however, was that the 'New Order' he instituted after Sukarno's disgraceful downfall was supported, financed, trained and protected by none other than Indonesia's new strategic ally, the United States of America. Successive American Presidents like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon and Jimmy Carter spoke about human rights and democracy in their struggle to discredit the Soviet Union then, but the same standards were not applied in many an American allied state such as Indonesia, Philippines and South Vietnam. This was the era of Asia's strongmen: Indonesia's Suharto, the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and even Vietnam's Bao Dai were propped up by their friends and allies in Washington and while the struggle against Communism was being fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia, scant regard was paid to the plight of those who were the victims of these military regimes.

The end of the Cold War marked the end of these strongmen, for the game was up and as Eastern Europe was brought into the fold of the Free Market, it became less and less palatable for Western heads of states to dine and chat with Asian and African mass-murderers and tyrants. Suharto's fall in 1998 during the East Asian economic crisis marked the final chapter of a long and painful history where such great and powerful men were made all the greater (and consequently dangerous) thanks to the weapons and military training given to them and their counterparts at army bases such as Fort Bragg in the US.

Today as the Bush presidency winds down to an abysmal flop and the last futile gestures of appeasement are made by Bush to the leaders of the Arab world, the pitiful story of the rise and fall of Suharto serves as a timely corrective reminder of the mistakes of the 20th century. Sadly as recent developments have shown in places such as Lebanon, many Western governments remain on the lookout for local strongmen whom they can call their loyal boys and dogsbodies. Yet for all the economic prosperity that Suharto brought to Indonesia in the 1980s, the country remained one of the most unevenly-developed, corrupt and violent in the world. A minority of Indonesians lamented the fall of Suharto in 1998 and were worried about the power vacuum that was created in his absence, but that precisely proves the point that such dictatorial rule only cripples and hobbles a nation in the long run.

Suharto was and remains one of the most historically important figures of Asia in the 20th century, but like all great men he leaves in his trail a long shadow that shrouded the rest of his nation in darkness.

(Dr Farish A. Noor is Senior Fellow and Research Director at the Rajaratnam School of International Studies of Nanyang Technical University, Singapore.