The New Nation - Internet Edition

Fire at Lawachhara Park

CHEVRON, a US energy giant, suspended its three-dimensional (3D) seismic survey following a fire incident at the Lawachhara national forest in Moulvibazar district on Saturday. The survey is being conducted on an area of 150 sq km of which the Lawachhara forest covers nearly 16 percent. According to Petrobangla, the fire broke out for unknown causes from an adjacent area. Environmentalists blamed Chevron for the fire but a high ranking official of Petrobangla, echoing the opinion of Chevron, claimed that normally the seismic survey does not cause fire as very small quantities of explosives are used at a depth of 22 metres from the earth's surface. Investigations are on to indentify the causes of the fire.

The outbreak of fire at Lawachhara national forest is not the first such incident in Bangladesh. Before this a devastating explosion at the Magurchhara gas field caused heavy damage that ultimately led to the abandoning of the field. There were two gas field blowouts also at Tengratila. Occidental Limited was involved with the first blowout and Niko wih the second and the third. Before taking up any development project detailed environmental impact assessment is mandatory. Safety of lives and properties should be ensured and damages to the environment avoided. But, in case of the fire at Magurchhara such assessments were not made and mitigation measures were not taken. The Tengratila cases were also not dealt with adequate care. Primary forests are normally spared all over the world when survey operations and gas exploration are carried out. Bangladesh has only 9 percent of its land area covered as against 25 percent needed for a healthy environment. So, protection of forests demands utmost attention. Further damage to forests will have serious negative impacts on environment, ecology, human health and the national economy.

Surplus potato storage

THIS year the country's potato production has reportedly increased to 8 million tonnes from last year's 5 million tonnes, but now the increased production has come as a serious storage problem to both the growers and the businessmen. The surplus potato production this year in the backdrop of severe food crisis is a boon. The country's 338 cold storages have the total capacity for only 2.2 million tonnes. Terming the potato production as 'significant', the agriculture adviser recently said by ensuring better prices to farmers, the level of production of potato would have to be maintained. Otherwise, the growers would feel frustrated and the production obviously, would decline.

Every year the national consumption of potato is estimated at around 4 million tonnes. Due to lack of cold storage facility the surplus potato needs to be properly utilised. Potato is a staple food in many European nations. Export of a considerable quantity of the surplus potato could also be attempted as an alternative step. Potato production has been in surplus not only in Bangladesh but throughout the world and the worldwide production this year has been about 320 million tonnes.

Bangladesh produces 2.3 per cent of the world's total potato production. As the price of potato was rather high in the domestic market for last two years farmers felt encouraged to go for more cultivation this year yielding the huge surplus. The government as part of its programme has increased the daily consumption of potato by the members of the defence forces, as the food item is rich in carbohydrates with highest protein content and also rich in Vitamin C. The UN has declared 2008 as the 'International Year of the Potato' to create awareness about the importance of the crop in addressing issues of global concern, including hunger, poverty and threats to the environment.

Use renewable resources, reduce pressure on nature

Mohammad Shahidul Islam

The bountiful nature has endowed with us profuse resources to live with. But we human beings make use of these resources for our convenience and we make the environment dirty for pollution. This will for sure transform earth to a non inhabitable place. It is our responsibility to safeguard the natural resources so that our successor can live a halcyon life.

Despite the warnings being given about the harmful effects of global warming and other environmental problems, most individuals are doing very little about it today. Global warming, deforestation, acid rains, the endangerment of various species etc have gone completely out of control in many areas around the globe. Various methods and suggestions are being offered to reduce the effects of these altogether and if possible, eradicate it completely. Did we know that recycling done on an everyday basis could actually help our planet Earth on a large extent? This can begin even at home. The benefits of recycling are many, from reducing the effects of industrial production to saving energy.

Everyone can definitely help the environment by recycling the things we use. We can recycle almost everything we use. It is better to buy recyclable items so that they can be recycled and a new material can be manufactured out of the scrap. If everybody of us keeps this in mind the emission of greenhouse gases and the other pollutions can definitely be controlled.

Recycling has many other advantages too. We can save the power by recycling the used products. Manufacturing a new product requires power and energy. When we recycle, we can save a large quantity of energy and power. Also manufacture involved the use of non renewable resources. By recycling we preserve these resources.

The waste materials are dumped into landfill sites. These sites will bury these products. This is good when all the waste materials are degradable.

But a great percentage of our wastes are non bio degradable. These pollute the land and will affect the underground water. When the non bio degradable products are burned they emit gases that deplete the ozone layer in the atmosphere. This will result in more ultraviolet radiations reaching the living atmosphere which is very dangerous.

The end products of the recycling process are used as raw materials for the manufacture of other products. Getting these raw materials from the recycled products will preserve the environment as the resources that are used in the manufacture will be more. The recycling process requires investment in machineries and man power. New technologies have to be evolved to recycle very many products that we are using. Though this initial investment is requires, the long time effects are great as the environment is protected form depletion and pollution.

Recycling can start from reusing the products. Instead of buying use and throw products we can buy reusable products. This will considerably reduce the amount of waste we are dumping to the landfill sites. For example we can use the juice bottles as storage containers so that we can reuse the product for a long time.

If every home employs reusing concept then at least 30% of pollution can be controlled.

Everybody must know the nearest recycling plant and should have the habit of submitting the wastes to these plants at least once a week. This will greatly help the environment as more and more products can be recycled when more and more products are accumulated in the recycling plant. When we purchase a product we must think of the extent to which it can be recycled.

Recycling plastic is very complex compared to the other materials that we use. Plastic products pose a great threat to the environment. Despite of this fact, plastic is used by everybody and for anything. When your purchase is small don't prefer getting plastic bags from the shop. This will save millions of plastic wastes that are dumped to the land.

Bio degradable plastic products are available and we can easily use them. The best help would be to sort the plastic wastes according to the types and submit them to the recycling plant.

When we purchase products for our home prefer buying recycled products and recyclable products. The recyclable products may cost more because of the recycling process that has been done. But getting those products will surely help the environment.

Recycling is important because the energy used to recycle a product is less than the energy used to create something new. Our health also benefits from recycling, as it removes pollution and harmful substances from the waste stream. This is not all; we have to remember that the raw materials on Earth will not last for a lifetime, it is thus important to save them! Everybody can lend a hand for recycling to help the environment.

Leadership decay in Bangladesh

Md. Monirul Islam

Many veterans in Bangladesh demonstrate their enthusiasm in erecting appraisal on 'Leadership Trend and Tendency' in which Prof. Dr. Ataur Rahman, outstanding in this field ubiquitous world landscape, amongst them, extraordinarily elucidates leadership approach which shakes not only the concentration of Bangladeshi scholars or leaders but outer countries also. Likewise an academician, his valor in this pitch daringly strokes the leaderships of Bangladesh and in most cases; leaders didn't apprehend it eagerly although Prof. Rahman's annunciations might be the catalyst in transforming their misappropriations triggered by themselves in the past history of Bangladesh.

Generally, leaders are whoever led a particular affair. For their payment well to the members/people of that affair bestows their entity as charisma or charismatic leaders. Dr. Ataur Rahman said, 'What is at the core of their power or influence is often described as charisma---an exceptional quality to influence people-galvanizing them into action". And members/people based on their charisma moves to fulfill the appeal of leaders' call in this concern. In this context, Prof. Rahman said, 'When they speak, we find ourselves mesmerized by their words and drawn by their sense of urgency. They seem to posses a certain indescribable energy that inspires and motivates-we are moved to follow them'.

The implication of Dr. Rahman's words was located when AL workers showed their arrogance on October 28, 2006 for their naked dance on dead body that was done with the call made by a party head of a party in Bangladesh. In the travel of state leadership of Bangladesh, Dr. Rahman finds out two charismatic leaders and he states, 'we can identify only two leaders-Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman-who can be termed as truly charismatic leaders, and whose ideals and institutions continue to inspire the country's political, economic and social agenda'.

In the journey of Bangladesh, leaders who came to the state scenario as ruler are discussed by Dr. Rahman and he notes some of their lacks along with their good governing system in various periods of Bangladesh. Basically, my write-up will find out the state backwardness caused by leaders' unskilled leading procedure that is widely called the 'Leadership Decay' in reference with the Dr. Ataur Rahman's scholarly annunciation about the leadership of Bangladesh.

Mujib's Regime: Charismatic but backfiring: Unfortunately, in the aftermath of independence, the populist regime of the country's founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, could not realize the expectations of the people against the insatiable demands of narrow elite propped up by the regime. Mujib's decision to create a single party system "BAKSAL" as "Second Revolution" might be inspired by his perception of political condition of that time and complex motives, but it backfired.

The failures of political leadership in terms of creation a value-framework and durable state structure to administer economic and social programs led to the alienation of the regime form the masses and eroded its legitimacy to the point of being subjected to violent change. Thus, Mujib's regimes were signed as an inefficient in its nature although problems in surviving state were more vehemently located. Later, Mujibur Rahman was assassinated with the atrocious move originated with elitist conspiracy and some scholars stated it (Mujib's assassination) was the consequence of framing BAKSHAL

Zia Regime: Charismatic but fewer spread: We all know that Ziaur Rahman came from the military background and he faced enormous dilemmas in making transition from military rule to multi-party democracy in Bangladesh. But his commitment was unwavering, and he made it possible despite jostling for power within the military and opposition from interested quarters as stated by Prof. Rahman.

But in the present perspective of Bangladesh, army's ingress in politics wouldn't be tolerated by the people along with its (People) so-called psyche branded with civil society workers, intellectuals etc. Zia's deep commitment to the cause of bigger developments of the country has taken him under a well heeled entity-'patriot' despite his root from the military. Prof. Ataur Rahman, from the rational point of view, is admiring Ziaur Rahman whereas Abdul Gaffer Chowdhury, a renowned writer in spite of having his intellectual identity not only in Bangladesh but all over the world, considered Ziaur Rahman one of the autocratic rulers in the Bangladeshi scenario. Probably, Chowdhury's argument is from partisan line.

Ershad Regime: Impulsive but Eroding-

A bloodless take over of the government by the military under Lt. General H.M. Ershad in March 1982 changes the political process in Bangladesh. Many people appreciated Ershad's leadership ability to improve economic performances of Bangladesh and the 'tolerant' nature of Ershad's long years of authoritarian rule. According to Dr. Rahman, '..his personal pitfalls, some serious miscalculations and volatile nature of Bangladesh politics led to negative perception of his leadership and collapse of the regime'.

Sheikh Hasina Regime: Populist but haughty: The downbeat points of Hasina regime is revealed by Professor Rahman in the way that 'the governance record, as evidenced in the successive Human Development Reports, was not satisfactory. The operation of Public Safety Act illustrated the Awami League government's conscious policy of muzzling the opposition.

The Awami League could not resolve any serious problem with inefficient leadership at various levels. The older generation of leaders could not deliver. The younger could not get any guidance or motivation. In the end, Sheikh Hasina's leadership degenerated into non-performing, less inclusive, and more flamboyant regime that was defeated by BNP-Jote government in 2001 parliamentary election'. Besides, AL leaders' arrogance, in most cases, chucks the nation into grave inconsistency.

Khaleda Regime: Strategic but mishandling : Mr. Ataur Rahman's annunciation on Khaleda's term is concerned with the defeat of election in 1996. He, in this regard, stated 'the defeat of her party in 1996 was mainly due to her inability to resolve the dilemma of democratic politics: how to contain a desperate opposition without restoring to violence and coercion.

In the second phase of Khaleda Zia's leadership faced enormous challenges. In this context, Prof. Rahman stated 'these came mainly from the context of governance and conduction a parliamentary system of democracy in an atmosphere of mistrust that continued in Bangladesh politics since the inception of the country'. Besides these, in this era of her regime, Begum Zia's associates were highly mishandled by indoor or outdoor explicit and tacit forces. So, leaders are in jeopardy i.e custody.

It seems to me, Prof. Ataur Rahman's realization and his wise-crack uttering truly carries the leadership's exact approach located in various ages in Bangladeshi politics. Concisely, according to Mr. Rahman, this leadership decay took place based on elitist conspiracy, propaganda war, audacious and capricious move of leaders and immoral disposition of leadership etc.

So, it might be the magnetic learn for the Bangladeshi leadership for the prospective governance of the country that by which they will erect a potential Bangladesh for its people. Ethics of leadership, in this concern, is very imperative. Only this tool may bestow the tangible statesmanship for the country. My today's effort would be ended with the judicious annunciation of Prof. Rahman-t'engaging in the deep moral reflection required to ensure that one's actions do respond to the public interest and do aim at creating a peaceful and just society'.

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)