The New Nation - Internet Edition

Improve vigil over banks

OPTIMISTIC claims of developments in the banking sector have become questionable in the backdrop of the takeover last year of a private commercial bank, the Oriental Bank, by the Bangladesh Bank (BB) as it looked about to collapse. The takeover by the BB, for the time being, saved a tottering financial institution from closing down and hedged the interests of its depositors. But this form of a bail-out by the government of what is essentially a private failing, cannot be a shining example.

Banking rules followed in most countries would have allowed such a failed banking institution to meet its natural death. At any rate, now that BB has taken over the Oriental Bank out of a consideration of there not being panic in the money market, it should at least concern itself with what went wrong also in its own supervision mechanism that allowed the corruptions in the Oriental Bank to balloon out of proportions. Unbelievable and very shocking cases of what amount to defalcation of private deposits kept in this bank were detected only in the last minute.

But the pertinent question is, why it took BB authorities so long to find out that the rot in this bank that had reached such a state for taking action. Surely, the same did not happen overnight. Why they failed to take timely steps to prevent the slide long before it was brought to the brink of disaster? The central bank will absolve itself of the blame for not being proactive in its guardian-like role. It is thought by experts that ill developments such as the ones in the former Oriental Bank are also plaguing some other banks in varying degrees. Only more timely and decisive actions from BB can stop their rot from spreading dangerously further.

Redrawing the PRSP

THE interim government is working on preparation of the second version of the lender-driven 'poverty reduction strategy paper' (PRSP). The finance adviser the other day presided over a 'citizens consultation' meeting in southern divisional headquarters in Barisal, one of the areas worst affected by severe cyclone Sidr. The obvious reason reportedly was for accommodation of the views of the Sidr-affected people in the development document since the damage caused has changed the development perspective of the region for many years as mentioned by officials.

The PRSP consultation meeting was considered part of pre-budget consultation with cross sections of people following the recent one held in Chittagong where citizens put forward various suggestions for the budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year to be announced in June next. The government enters into a new chapter of the strategy paper euphemistically named as 'Unlocking the Potentials: National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction' which is set to expire in June after one-year extension following completion of three-year period. The PRSP document was effective from 2004-2005 fiscal year to get access to lending from international financial institutions although the external assistance has been reduced to 2.5 per cent of Bangladesh's GDP in recent years.

The government is yet to finalise the assessment of the present PRSP that was launched for achieving the millennium development goals set by the United Nations for stamping out the curse of poverty from the planet. Multilateral lenders and bilateral donors which are sympathetic about reconstruction of the cyclone Sidr-affected areas, earlier stressed that the government's policymakers should get inputs from the survivors to assess their real needs and draw suitable projects accordingly for the region. A proposed multi-donor trust fund for climate change mitigation and adaptation may also be linked to the programmes targeting the country's southern part, which is considered more vulnerable to sea level rise salinity and natural calamities.

Friends should remain above controversy

M.T.Hussain

I wonder if the retired Indian army General JFR Jacob has not turned into a foe from his earlier position of being a friend of Bangladesh? Or am I wrong to read him correctly?

General Jacob had a big contribution in bringing to an end in matter of 14 days the 1971 war of Bangladesh that could otherwise escalate for a much longer time as is known well that earned him not only immense credit but also gratitude of many. Unfortunately his recent demand rhetoric during the visit to Dhaka for 'trial of war criminals' not only demeaned his own position but also made him controversial in the estimation of many in Bangladesh.

Well, the issue of trial of war criminals is talked about of late here in Dhaka in a limited circle of particular political persuasion and not certainly by all and sundry. The fact is that both the topmost leaders of this country of 1970s, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman had settled and sealed the matter for good. Although the Sheikh at the beginning in January 24, 1972 passed an order for the trial, but soon deterrent surfaced as soon as the Constitution of the country was framed and adopted formally on the 16th December 1972.

The Constitution provided basic fundamental rights to all citizens that made the trial inconsistent with the basic citizenship rights, specifically, as in articles 26, 31 and 32. No doubt, an amendment of the Constitution was made on the 15th July 1973 in a hara-kiri for expediency to continue the trial for specific charges like murder, arson, rape etc as in later on provided in the new Article 47A in the First Amendment. Amazingly, however, all crimes committed by criminals of all shades were not in reality prosecuted but only in some cases of escape-goats selected vindictively as nothing but hunting for 'witches'.

Such contradiction and one-sided view turned fair trial of criminals impossible. That is why nearly 30,000 of nearly 37,000 detained in prison since after the 16th December 1971 without specific charge were 'forgiven' and freed in late 1973. Among those of the rest 7,000, some political high profiles were also set free by specific order of the Sheikh by early 1974. The government of the Sheikh had to do so particularly after signing treaty in mid 1973 of the three parties involved in the war, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan that as well immediately afterwards followed freedom of the 195 Pakistan army men listed as war criminals and sent from and by India honorably to Pakistan without any charge whatsoever, the Sheikh himself boasted for the act in high sounding rhetoric, 'We know how to forgive'. How could then anyone in moral terms bring up again the issue of trial of the local fries in all likely only to be for renewed witch hunting?

Loosing all moral ground thus in the matter, when the Sheikh was toppled from political and state power in mid August 1975 in a successful army coup d'etat, and Ziaur Rahman was saddled to the to pmost position in Bangladesh rule, he had just only formalised the end of the trial by completely repealing the so-called Collaborators Act of 1972 that remained inconsistent with the fundamental citizenship rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the country. Not only this, he had to release all those convicted for the alleged crime in 1971under the repealed act for obvious logical following.

Whether Zia was right or wrong in this matter may be debated. But he had not only internal compulsions for integrated mobilisation of all citizens for nation building but also for external reasons impinging on the leader and the country. He was proved right as he could move forward in uniting the nation for development through his courageous attempt to burry the 1971 divide for good. The division through driving wedges of hatred in the body of the new nation immediately after independence by the Collaborators Act was condemned right then by many wise men and women just as one example in point was the then septuagenarian politician of the Awami League fame Abul Mansur Ahmad in his powerful item "CHANDE KALANKA" (See A.M.Ahmad, Amar Dekha Rajneetir Panchash Basar, 1995 Edn. pp.607-09).

There was no question in the last three decades by any quarter whatsoever to begin the trial of 'war criminals' until of late during this Caretaker Government (CG) whose main and constitutionally obligatory only task is to hold a credible election for the 9th parliament. If the trial question needs at all to be brought afresh in total disregard of the past actions taken both by the Sheikh and Zia, it cannot be the task of the CG in anyway, but could be considered by the next parliament.

Should the matter is taken up by this CG, the election road map is likely to be foiled. Further lacuna would be obvious invitation of extra-constitutional force, as I can see, in the vacuum to take on the power.

The supplementary claim in a quarter for pursuing the question of trial in the UN and the International Court of Justice at Hague seems ridiculous in the proposed case as it had already been lost for at least one reason that the 195 listed criminal as mentioned above could in no way be brought to the deck even at the cost of severance of diplomatic relations with the country concerned. I would feel that the issue if at all attempted to be revived that would open many Pandora's Boxes only at big losses for Bangladesh.

One must wonder if General Jacob was fully aware not only of internal divisive dangers inherent in the issue but also external pressures to bear on, particularly from the Muslim nations or the members of the OIC.

General Jacob by sensitizing the issue has created a renewed division among the people of Bangladesh that has, in addition, unfortunately cost him his earlier image and fame of being a friend to now a foe.

A new deal for global food policy need

World Bank Group President Robert B. Zoellick outlined a plan today for sovereign wealth funds to invest one percent of their holdings in equity in sub-Saharan Africa as a way of tapping long-term global liquidity to boost investment opportunities and development.

Zoellick said there was an urgent need to counter immediate threats in response to the current global crisis while laying the foundations to maximize opportunity and hope for all over the longer term. He urged developed countries to provide immediate support to help the world's poor facing skyrocketing food prices, called for a global trade deal to be agreed as soon as possible, and detailed an initiative to help countries manage their wealth earned from high energy and mineral prices in a more inclusive way.

In a speech hosted by the Center for Global Development ahead of next week's Spring meetings of the World Bank Group and the IMF, he said the Bank Group will work with sovereign wealth funds to create a "One Percent Solution" for equity investment in Africa - a continent with opportunities and the potential to become an alternative pole of growth as China, India and other countries are today.

"Today, sovereign wealth funds hold an estimated $3 trillion in assets. If the World Bank Group can help create the platforms and benchmarks, the investment of even one percent of their assets would draw $30 billion to African growth, development, and opportunity," he said.

Zoellick said sovereign wealth funds offered opportunity, "not something to fear", adding that "the sovereign funds need transparency and should be guided by best practice to avoid politicisation. But I bel ieve we should celebrate a possibility that government-sponsored funds will invest equity in development."

And with food prices soaring, Zoellick also advocated a New Deal for Global Food Policy.

"The World Bank Group estimates that 33 countries around the world face potential social unrest because of the acute hike in food and energy prices. For these countries, where food comprises from half to three quarters of consumption, there is no margin for survival."

Zoellick said the immediate priority was for the United States, the European Union, Japan and other developed countries to provide the United Nations' World Food Program with the $500 million it needs for emergency food supplies. For its part, the Bank is assisting by backing feeding and cash programs for vulnerable people and public work for food programs.

But he said a New Deal for Global Food Policy also required a shift from traditional food aid to funding to help build local food markets and boost farm production and so help create a "Green Revolution" for sub-Saharan Africa.

"We will almost double our own lending for agriculture in Africa from US$450 million to $800 million and can help countries and farmers manage systematic risks, including through financial innovations, to counter weather variability, such as drought."

Zoellick also warned the time was "now or never" for breaking the Doha Round impasse and reaching a global trade deal.

"This moment of decision is not only for the Doha Round. It is for trade itself. Powerful voices across the political spectrum, incl uding in my own country, are calling for, and rationalizing, protectionism. This economic isolationism signals a defeatism that will reap the losses, not the gains, of globalization."

Zoellick said the Bank Group was also working to help developing countries seize the opportunities of high prices for energy and minerals, while at the same time ensuring the benefits for resource rich countries were inclusively spread among their people.

He said the Bank was building on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which encourages resource rich countries to publish and verify company payments and revenues from oil, gas and mining so their citizens can hold them more accountable. An EITI++ would expand this approach to include such areas as the awarding of contracts, improving economic management, and investing revenues effectively in sustainable development.

"By broadening the beneficiaries of resource development, we can advance inclusive and sustainable globalization.

Anti-corruption and transparency will strengthen citizens' confidence in their governments; respect for the environment will add to sustainable growth and effective access to mineral and energy resources will strengthen the sustainability of globalization's benefits for other economies," said Zoellick.

He said a planned EITI++ would be launched in Guinea, adding that the successful development of Guinea's rich resources could strengthen sustainable development for the entire region.

-World Bank

Freedom to abuse?

Afia Khan

ONCE again the 'freedom of expression' bug has smitten the West. Though Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, feminists and even Blacks have managed to inoculate themselves against its abuse, with the Western media becoming more mindful of their sensitivities, Muslims frequently find themselves exposed to its most virulent strain.

Somehow, it has become politically correct and morally commendable in the West to subject Muslims and their religion to the most vulgar and inane insults in the name of this freedom. However, the several simultaneous and sudden attacks by Western media and politicians on Muslims in recent days seem to be as synchronised as they are insidious.

So when the far-right Dutch politician Geerth Wilders, who openly claims to be a Mossad-affiliate, makes an incendiary anti-Islam film and launches it on the Internet, the self-styled champions of freedom of expression come out to defend it, although the movie purportedly seeks to ban a religious book.

Even more curious is the fact that the Netherlands, far from taking any action against Wilders, asks the EU to hold a high-level summit in anticipation of the film sparking violence in the region. For its part, the EU also reportedly assures the Dutch government of supporting it in the cause of 'freedom of expression.'

Similarly, it is difficult to understand how 17 Danish newspapers recently decided to simultaneously republish highly offensive anti-Islam cartoons, despite having known that these cartoons had sparked worldwide protests and uproar when they were first published by the Jylland Posten newspaper two years ago.

Like Netherlands, the Danish government has also showed its aversion to taking any action against the newspapers. In fact it has said it will itself stand guard over 'freedom of expression.'

It would be only pertinent to raise the question that if Denmark is such a passionate advocate of freedom of expression, why does it have punishments written down in its penal code against libel and blasphemy.

It is important to note that these provisions are not limited to violations against the Christian or Jewish faiths only, but to all people living legally in the country. Thus # 140 of the Danish penal code states:

"Anybody who publicly mocks or insults any in this country legally existing religious community tenets of faith or worship, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4 months." The Danish government could have also taken action against newspapers over the publication of the offensive cartoons under other sections of its penal code, such as # 266b that states:

"Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Sec 2. When meting out the punishment it shall be considered an especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the character of propaganda."

However, its is highly unlikely that the Danish government or the EU would heed the plea of the Islamic world, even though Muslims have so far not resorted to any unseemly acts of violence in their protests.

In the sam vein, Germany may also lack the political will to prevent the staging of a play based on Salman Rushdie's novel Satanic Verses in Portsdam on Sunday.

Most Muslims believe that such insults and expressions of hate almost certainly would have been treated differently had they been directed against the Jewish community. Europe has strict laws against anti-Semitism, which no votary of freedom of expression could think of violating.

Even noted academicians who have slightly divergent views on the genocide of the Jews during World War II, either in the manner or the extent described by the current Western scholarship, get the tag of 'Holocaust denier.'

Over a dozen countries in the world, including all the great votaries of freedom of expression, like France, Germany, Austria and Switzerland, consider a partial disagreement with the official account of the holocaust fit enough to be deemed a criminal offence for which a person can be jailed for years.

David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Roger Garaudy, Jean Marie Le Pen, Nick Griffin, Ahmed Rami, Pedro Varela, Carlos Porter, Siegfried Verbeke, Jurgen Graf, Hans Schmidt, Erhard Kemper, Ingrid Weckert, are just some of the scholars, politicians and activists who have been victimised, tried, or jailed for holding differing views on the holocaust than the official historical account. These people should have known the fate of Julius Streicher at the trial of German war criminals at Nuremberg. Streicher, the publisher of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Stürmer, had argued in his defence that he had not killed anyone, but had merely published a newspaper. However, for causing incitement to genocide, Streicher was hanged to death in Nuremberg on 16 October 1946.

Therefore, freedom of expression has almost become the exclusive preserve of Western powers.

For example, when religious symbols were recently banned from French public schools mainly to prevent Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in class, an exception was introduced for Jews and Christians that allowed them to wear of crosses and Stars of David.

However, in the post-Iraq war scenario the credibility of Western values is eroding rapidly. Even in the US, the so-called trustworthiness of its mainstream media that is virtually owned by four conglomerates has come under severe strain, especially after its role in misleading the country into the Iraq war and their diregard of the 9/11 truth movement. A CBS/New York Times poll conducted in October 2006 found out that 84 per cent of Americans do not think the US government is telling the truth about the 9/11 attacks. An earlier poll conducted by CNN put the number at 89 per cent.

Yet, the mainstream US media does not publish the 'evidence' of the alleged cover-up and dismisses members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as loonies.

Many members of this movement are noted public figures, scientists, former senior military and government officials, reputed academicians, scholars, TV and radio talk show hosts etc, who have suffered persecution for expressing their views. Therefore, before presenting itself as the proponent of free expression, Western zealots should first take a look at the hollowness of their claims.

For starters, they should understand that the principles of freedom of expression do not extend to hate campaigns, and that it is time to address the offence and not its reaction.

(Afia Khan is a Dubai-based journalist who can be contacted at afia_khan@yahoo.com.)