The New Nation - Internet Edition

Gas crisis obstructs investment

GAS shortage with no immediate solution in sight poses a serious threat to the country's industrial development. Bangladesh is at a critical juncture of economic development when there is a grave need for investment and industrialisation that the government has been trying to attract. But unless necessary infrastructure is developed investment proposals would come but never materialise. As is reported in the media, concerned authorities have advised some domestic conglomerates to wait for another three years before investment in gas-based industries. Some top business organisations recently unveiled big investment plans with the probable production capacity of two million tons of hot rolled (HR) steel sheet and 8 lakh tons of high-grade mild steel rod. These plants would meet the country's entire demand for HR sheets. But the state-owned Bakhrabad Gas Distribution and Transmission Limited stopped committing gas supply for any new plant in the Chittagong region, which already suffers from a shortfall of 65 million cubic feet of gas per day against the daily demand of 305 mcft.

But how such a situation could develop affecting the industrialisation process? The existing recoverable gas reserve is estimated to exhaust by 2011. It was expected that successive authorities would initiate exploration activities in time. They failed to do so before the problem turned into a crisis. Just about eight years ago some quarters were found much enthusiastic about exporting gas. How do they explain their position now when generation of power is threatened by shortage of gas, let alone installation of new gas-fuelled industries? This shows their utter ignorance and shallow knowledge about the gas situation. Misuse and pilferage of this vital natural resource is another story. It is high time to accelerate gas exploration and development activities to overcome the crisis.

Malnutrition of children

PHYSICIANS and nutrition scientists told a recent seminar in Dhaka that in a global perspective child malnutrition is the highest in South Asia. It is well understood that Bangladesh is a South Asian country and its child health situation is not any better. But the Health Ministry should make available, a specific picture of the child nutrition situation without which the people remain in the dark. From the experts' disclosure it has come to light that death of one-fifth of the children of below five years of age of this region takes place due to malnutrition. It is unfortunate that children here suffer from malnutrition and then again many of them die of it. This manageable situation has taken a form of fait accompli. The fact remains that the child nutrition situation in this part of the continent was even worse until the 1990s. Over the last some years the situation has slightly improved. Now the task should be to continue with the upward trend and not at all to falter.

Child nutrition, no doubt, depends on economic solvency of the family and the society. But other factors are also involved. Breastfeeding for at least first six months of the child is considered best for the overall growth of the child. Psychiatrists and spiritual preachers are of the opinion that breastfeeding strengthens the relationship between the mother and the child and makes the child a soulmate of the mother which is the best and mightiest bond of human relationship. But urban educated mothers on different pretexts avoid breastfeeding. Erroneously, these mothers observe a practice which is detrimental to their children's physical health and mental growth. By doing so this group of mothers deprive the inherent right of the child to drink her mother's milk. These mothers need to be positively motivated to observe breastfeeding.

Even amid scarcity mothers' awareness about nutritious food can help address the problem to a great extent. They, therefore, need to be first educated and then persuaded to know about the proper food to feed their children. To develop a nation of quality human beings the future citizens should be brought up as healthy and wise beings.

Why too many cooked stories about Bangladesh?

Taslima

Not so long ago, for about 30 years in fact, every story about Bangladesh had Jewish refugee Kissinger racist insulting quote. It stopped when some of us pointed out to US media that it was a deliberate insult like quoting Nazi Germans racist cliche about Jews in every report to do with Jews. And then every Bangladesh report quoted the population figures and percentage of impoverishment. In recent reports, a phenomenon started in India, they talk about a "largely destitute population"- as quoted by Barbara Elk in the Washington Post not so long ago. And then reports about global warming has given Indians to whisper and shout that the destitute are flooding into India as India is now the new America ( except that India has half the poorest people, and amongst the most destitute, in the world!). No reporter sees propaganda, racism or irony or cheek in the Indian fabrications. The fact remains India suffers massive and brutal internal instability, and needs to build wire barriers with her all neighbours to keep its rebellious nationalities under effective control.

Bangladesh image is so bad that even nations with hardly a leg to stand regard themselves lucky. Even Afghanistan regards Bangladesh as destitute, even though its people are at the mercy of America and Europe for every thing, including nearly free mobile phones. Afghanistan has hardly any industry, food, hospitals or even education. Afghan life expectancy is less than 40. Bangladesh life expectancy is 64 and rising.

What of the people of Bangladesh themselves? They regard themselves- correction: every other Bangladesh person, bar themselves and their immediate family, as destitute, disaster prone, corrupt, illiterate, diseased. Unbelievably, Bangladesh writers even today give out pseudo- anthropological description of Bengali people as: "short, blackish, of Dravidian origin". We all seem to have very low opinion of ourselves and freely communicate such beliefs to foreigners. One has to ask who has planted such a seed of inferiority complex on a whole nation of 160 million.

Such is the leper-like colony image of Bangladesh that hardly anyone, in any part of the world, has any respect for our talent as lovers, artists, managers, chefs, journalists, doctors, poets, designers or workers. How did we allow this to happen to us when we have so many diplomatic missions round the world and we have a 8 million strong probash? How did it happen to a Bengali nation so seemingly proud of its 3,500 history and all the greatness it has produced in the last hundred years, in cinema, music, literature, medicine, sciencet?

Sri Lanka has been in a brutal bloody civil war for over 30 years, between Buddhist Sinhalese themselves- an issue largely hidden today ; and then between Hindu Tamils and Buddhist Sinhalese.

Despite the extreme violence and suicide attacks (Hindus still hold the world record for the most suicide attacks) the investors have kept coming, aid has kept flowing in,t and no one has been allowed to caricature Sri Lanka or the Sinhalese as violent or anything else. In fact Sri Lankans and their diplomats have been the most proactive in crushing every story in the international media (including stories about sexual exploitation of little boys for tourist dollars) which they dislike by actively putting out their own viewpoint and bombarding the international media with corrections or smooth talk. With the result that international media, and the BBC, ensure that civil war is reported with great care. There has been no adverse effect on the international image of the nation or the Sinhalese ethnic group. In fact the Muslim Gulf Arab even helped to fund a an airline and hotels to help tourism!

Nepal's brutal ethnic and class war has been spared adverse news coverage, especially in British dominated media, because Britain employs Gurkha mercenaries in its army.

Afghanistan is spared all the cliche in use for Bangladesh. Almost every Bangladesh story filed by Reuters, AFP, AP carries the same insulting/ demeaning sentence/s. Remarkably, such stories are republished verbatim without any rewrite! This is the simpleminded and naive Bangladesh elite we have in control of our destiny.

India, with all the tragedies and brutalities its numerous ethnic, caste and religious groups suffer daily is the lucky country. It's the darling of international media, including Arab run media.

Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Republic of Pakistan ended in 1971 when 3 million Bengali people were killed in retaliation for electing a Bengali leadership to run the state, long run for the Punjabi Army) has been the luckiest country of all. It is a state which exists for an Army and an ethnic group.

The state has been both the installer of fanatical talibans using Saudi aid and then become an active killer of the very same Pathan talibans by the thousands when it was politict. It's dominant population can play the Islamics and the moderate or even atheist depending on the who has come forward with the latest tranche of Dollars. One remarkable feature is the active manner its advocates at home and abroad have close ties with the the military families.Today, as on so many other occasions, the Sheikh of Qatar's Al Jazeera has been running disparaging reports on Bangladesh. Hana G?, the reporter, showed the world viewers very distressing pictures of people suffering in hospitals, Dhaka as a bleak place, repeated that Dhaka was the 2nd most polluted, that Dhaka is going to be a dead placet.

One has to ask why is no one objecting to the demeaning pictures of people of Bangladesh and the place called Bangladesh in most of Sheikh of Qatar's news channel? How is it possible for a foreign news channel to just walk into a hospital or a bustee in Dhaka. How often have you seen pictures of bustees in Karachi?

I know some of my Bengali people will say to me it does not matter. Sadly it matters. And it matters even if your nation has three Nobel Prizes: Tagore, Sen, Yunus.

A Gujarati or a Tamil may not have a Nobel Prize winner but they will claim Sen and Tagore; and shine in the glory. What does it matter that an Arab or a African can't tell one Indian from another. But they all can tell the difference between india and bangladesh. get it? no!

One last point. Transparency International labeling is a libel and a lie against our nation. Bangladesh is not even the 40th poorest but the Turkish media keeps telling Turks that Bangladesh is the 3rd poorest. And Dhaka is not the 2nd most polluted but someone has cooked it any way. Let's now get Bangladesh critics, academics, diplomats and media to analyse the spread of falsehood against an entire nation. Let them research all the names of people who are cooking Bangladesh. Let Bangladesh internet and Bangladesh media publish their names and origins.

Mixed priorities

Ramzy Baroud

JUST days after the Hamas-Fatah clash last June in Gaza, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas looked firm and composed as he shook hands with members of his new emergency government. He made sure his move appeared as legitimate as possible, issuing decrees that outlawed the armed militias of Hamas, and also suspended consequential clauses in the Palestinian Basic Law, which had thus far served as a constitution.

The Basic Law stipulates that the Palestinian parliament must approve of any government for it to be constitutional. Abbas simply decreed that such a clause was no longer valid, effectively robbing Palestinians of one of their greatest collective achievements - democracy.

This system, when truly representative, is indeed precious and meaningful. Considering the impossible circumstances under which Palestinian democracy in particular was spawned and nurtured - military occupation, international pressure, extreme poverty - it was also deeply historic. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that followed the US occupation in Iraq, Arabs showed themselves as ultimately capable of carrying out democratic process.

Unfortunately, the achievement of democracy cannot guarantee its preservation.

Almost immediately after Hamas' sizable election victory in January 2006, both local and international forces scrambled to suffocate and reverse the outcome of this vote. Conceited intellectuals wrote about the incompatibility of Islam and democracy, politicians decried Hamas' victory as signalling the encroachment of militarism and extremism, and world leaders clambered to affiliate themselves with the 'legitimate' Abbas, as opposed to the 'illegitimate' Hamas. Indeed, it was a mockery.

For Israel, the clash between Abbas' Fatah and Islamic Hamas was a golden opportunity, one that is comparable to the benefits gleaned from another opportune moment, the terrorist attacks of September 11. The latter was recently - and not for the first time - described by Israeli Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu as good for Israel (Haaretz, April 16).

The Palestinian fight was also good for Israel; no longer would the nuisance of Palestinian democracy compete with Israel's self-ascribed "only democracy in the Middle East." More, Palestinians were once again depicted as the unruly mob, incapable of producing responsible peacemakers and creating an environment of 'security', which the state of Israel so often claims to covet.

As for Abbas and his ministers, they knew too well that the newfound American-Israeli fondness for them was conditional. After all they are the same people, holding the same position and playing the same roles that they have always played. They are the ministers, aides, friends and officials of late Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who were, like their president, repeatedly shunned. They also understood well their new appeal in representing the antithesis to Hamas. Rather than rejecting the role of the stooges, Abbas' cabinet ministers played along.

Suddenly the conflict that was hitherto seen as one between Israel and the Palestinians became one between Abbas and his supporters (Israel and the US) on one hand, and Hamas alone on the other. The problem as reported in mainstream media ceased being about settlements, occupation, and violations of international law, but rather about the anti-democratic 'forces of darkness' in Gaza as opposed to the forces of peace and civilization in Ramallah and Tel Aviv. To re-enforce these highly deceptive images with 'action', Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated their quest for illusive peace. This started in Annapolis and was followed by regular, although equally futile 'rounds' of talks in Israel. Few expected such meets to yield any meaningful outcomes; they were clearly intended only to further isolate Hamas and underscore the Abbas-Israeli alliance.

In order for the show to go on, Hamas and Fatah will not be allowed to reconcile, at least not until Israel and the US decide to change tactics. Of course this doesn't mean that there is no basis for reconciliation. Palestinian factionalism equals capitulation in the face of a harsh, emboldened enemy. Recently we have seen the 2005 Cairo Agreement, the 2007 Mecca Agreement and the March 2008 Yemen Agreement. But to win the approval of Israel in the West Bank - and to avoid the tragic fate of Gaza - Abbas is not interested in the points of agreement, but rather in the points of discord. Aljazeera reported that Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah member who signed the Hamas-Fatah memorandum in March, was chastised openly for keeping Abbas "in the dark", regarding the nature of the agreement. Al-Ahmad insisted that Abbas knew exactly what the agreement stipulated. It seems that a document that merely highlights a course of action towards full reconciliation between the two parties was too much for Israel to accept. Not even the blood of over 120 Palestinians in Gaza, who were killed in the matter of six days in early March, seemed a strong enough motive to override Israel's threats of Palestinian unity signalling the end of the futile 'peace process'.

And, of course, there is the money trail. Just days before the Yemen fiasco, the US had agreed to transfer $150 million in support to the Palestinian Authority as "part of past pledges to boost President Mahmoud Abbas' government." Boost against whom? Surely not Israel.

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad reportedly said it was "the largest sum of assistance of any kind to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority by any donor in one tranche since the Palestinian Authority's inception (in 1994)." Heart-rending indeed, Mr Fayyad, but one must wonder how much of the money will go to feed the starving in Gaza, or rehabilitate the refugee camps of the West Bank?

While such noble efforts by the UN's John Dugard, former US President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have brought much needed attention to the plight of Palestinians and Gazans in particular, PA officials are too busy attending donor's conferences and issuing empty statements which few even bother to read. They act as if they are a neutral party caught in the middle of religious fanatics and Israel. Their fight no longer seems even remotely related to Palestine or its people. These are hardly the qualities of any liberation movement or leadership anywhere, in any period of history, recent or otherwise. Neither Abbas nor Fayyad are likely to be the exception.

(Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London)

US vote: Do they have any sense of proportion?

Debbie Menon

SOME say Barack Obama's race speech, A More Perfect Union, might hurt him. Even if it doesn't, there will be plenty to do their best to see that it does. If anyone hasn't heard this speech, I recommend they do.

This was a speech he had to maket one way or the other. A lose-lose, win-win situation. For people like us, it was a winner. But for many, they will turn it into a losing speech.

I don't recall ever hearing a speech like this from Hillary Clinton or John McCain, or any other presidential candidate in the past eight years. Franklin Roosevelt was the last speaker who could have spoken of the things that Obama does, in the manner in which he articulates them.

When was the last time you heard a politician say he 'loved America' as if he meant it? Most of the others sound as sincere as a sailor speaking to a strange lady over their fourth beer in some waterfront saloon.

Obama not only addresses one of the most destructive and divisive issues in America, as he mentions to confront, but addresses hope for a better tomorrow in a time when few people hold out much hope at all for even a tomorrow.

The State Department said it was trying to determine whether three contract workers had a political motive for looking at Obama's passport file. What does motive matter, except to belabour or prove some irrelevant point?

The State Department said it would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined or the two companies for which they worked. Blackwater? Carlyle? Wanna wager? Apparently, the inspector general is investigating.

Now, they will take it to an 'official investigation' where there is little chance that the perpetrators and their grandchildren will live long enough to read the conclusions of the board, if it is not classified as involving 'national security' and buried deep.

The disclosure of inappropriate passport inquiry recalled an incident in 1992, when a Republican political appointee was demoted over a search of presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport records. After a three-year, $2.2 million probe, a federal counsel exonerated officials in the incident, saying that while some of the actions investigated were 'stupid, dumb and partisan,' they were not criminal.

Does no one within the beltway or the Press has any sense of proportion? In another shameful instance, the gossip and news website The Drudge Report posted the photograph of Obama in a Kenyan headgear on its front page. I have seen dozens of photographs of US presidents, vice-presidents and Congress members wearing funny headdress for a photo-op with some foreign head of state.

I always thought it absurd, and childish, but I never considered it might imply lack of much except a concept of the ridiculous; certainly this is not another flap-pin challenge, which one must pass in order to become President? George had his Bomber Jacket, allow Barack his burnoose or whatever it was. I think I recall seeing photos of Hillary draped in an Israeli flag, but we hear no mention of it!

At one point, in her initial Senate campaign in New York in 2000, she said that, she was supported by a group with virulent anti-Semitic views. She did not mention that, at the same time, she was supported by a group who advocated virulent 'Semitic' views? I use 'Semite' and 'anti-Semite' in the inaccurate manner in which these groups themselves define the terms.

I think her medical coverage plan involves 'affordable' insurance for 'everyone,' which is a misleading misnomer anyway. It is still a medical insurance industry sales pitch, which supports a helluva immense and expensive legal industry. I have always believed that the millions of dollars Americans pay in income tax are sufficient to provide everyone a full suite of medical care, not at 'government expense,' but at their own. Privatisation of America, as Reagan preached, is corporatising and robbing America blind. And they are blind; blind and ignorant! New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, has endorsed Obama calling him a 'once-in-a-lifetime leader' who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

'As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation,' he said. In the meantime, Hillary was pulling ahead of Obama in the Pennsylvania polls, amid controversy over the statements by his former pastor. Only in Dumberica something a pastor said would determine who could lead the country. I refer to my title question. Do they really have a sense of proportion? And I extend it to the entire country!

Obama, sidesteps very neatly the Israeli/AIPAC issue with which Rev. Wright came head-to-head but, no astute politician wishes to shoot himself in the foot and, condemnation, or even the least criticism, of Israel or AIPAC at this point in the game would be tantamount to driving a stake through his own heart. It is a matter best dealt with after the election, and then we will see if he is the man. I think he is.

Gov. Richardson backed Obama despite (or because of?) his ties to the Clintons. He served as UN ambassador and energy secretary in the Clinton administration. Last month, Richardson and Bill Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence. But Richardson backed Obama saying: "Obama will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.' 'There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander-in-chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally' Richardson said. And that is what all this is about. And this is what makes all the difference!

Obama is definitely his own man, adept at thinking and chewing gum, while still walking fast. He sounds like a free man, who does not need the support of the Senatorial sheep, lives his own life, and stands out among the commonplace, which makes him unique amidst a cage au sheep, and worthy of the vote. A perfectly healthy fast charging dark horse with the potential to plant some new Democrat roots in that rotted hotbed. All Hillary Clinton brings is a lot of dead and dying transplants from the last failed flowerpot.

Whether Obama has the guile and connections to make a difference, or a change, we shall have to wait to see if he gets the vote. But, he is the only one who I think will even try! He has not been around long enough to become part of the problem.