The New Nation - Internet Edition

Making best use of Boro harvest

THE harvest of the Boro rice crop has commenced all over the country. The harvest would be completed well before the end of this month hopefully leaving the country with a record output. The government looks forward to steering the country into a safe zone of food security by storing up the additional Boro produce through procurement. The plans are there to procure some 1.2 million tonnes of rice and three tonnes of paddy to build a buffer stock to meet any adverse situation in short and medium terms.

Procurement of the locally produced food grains is seen as extremely important in the backdrop of the soaring international prices. The best option for Bangladesh is to have its own reserve of food grains. But some ominous signs are there that the government may not meet its procurement target. Some mill owners are going for their own private procurement of the harvested Boro rice and paddy. The millers are offering prices for rice and paddy to farmers at higher than government offered prices. They are also buying directly from the homesteads of farmers and paying them immediately in cash. Local agents of the smugglers are reportedly doing the same exercise.

Therefore, the government needs to take immediate steps to counteract the moves of the hoarders and smugglers. It may have to increase the procurement prices which should be at least at par or somewhat higher than the ones provided by the hoarders and smugglers. The government should also buy from the farmers' doorsteps and pay them instant cash after the purchases. In sum, government will have to match or more than match the offers being made by the private buyers to farmers. Only then, it can expect its procurement programme to succeed.

Case for river dredging

THE riverine transportation system is in a pitiable state for years. The general trend in waterways is a continued shrinkage. In 1971, the length of the waterways of Bangladesh was 28,000 kilometres, which now has come down to less than 7,000 kilometres. During the dry season this length further shrinks to nearly 4,000 kilometres. The length of waterways has reduced not because this mode of communication is becoming obsolete but because the rivers have lost navigability due to lack of dredging. People still favour river communication for many reasons. There are some destinations where people cannot reach without river routes. In some areas river route is quicker and cheaper. Because of this many people still prefer waterways to carry their goods.

Siltation of rivers has not only reduced the length of water routes in the country restricting communication. It has also caused harm to the economy and the environment contributing to floods almost every year or intermittently. All this is due to the absence of river dredging. According to available statistics, there are only 18 dredgers in the country and all of them are not engaged in regular dredging. Some of them are owned by different government bodies and they use these for their own limited purposes. Only seven BIWTA old dredgers are for river dredging. But as they are old and not adequate to dredge rivers where necessary water transportation has been seriously crippled.

The BIWTA authorities say they lack the necessary number of dredgers. The new national budget will be announced next month. The government may earmark appropriate amounts of money for the BIWTA in the next budget to import modern dredgers to protect the river routes of the country from siltation.

Upholding democratic culture in political parties

MAS Molla

The governments of Bangladesh have been democratic since March 1991. But the type of democracy being practiced has not been satisfactory at all. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) came out victorious in 1991 general election not because the party was more democratic than others or there was very good prospect of doing good to the nation; even not because Begum Zia herself has been a great leader but because she is the wife of Late President Ziaur Rahman who was a charismatic leader. So it was Zia's 'charisma' that led BNP's victory. Next time in 1996 general election, the Awami League (AL) came out victorious, again not because the party's democratic records were very good or the nation expected a social or economic boost through the agency of this party; even not because its leader Sheikh Hasina herself has been a leader of great public acclaim but because she is the daughter of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman-the founder President of the country. So this victory was also due to Mujib's charisma.

By this time both Begum Zia and Sheikh Hasina themselves developed 'charisma' and they are the 'symbols of unity' in their parties though there are more expert politicians in both the parties. So both AL and BNP politics is driven by charisma, not by political expertise or by mission of public welfare. In any kind of talk, the expert politicians in the parties have to show respect by using 'deshonetri' (leader of the country) or 'jononetri' (peoples' leader) while referring to these two symbols of unity. If these charismatic leaders were satisfied with the position of 'symbols' and considered expert opinions of 'uncles' or 'senior brothers' the parties could be run much better. If the leaders practiced democracy inside the parties, most of the party leaders being 'elected by party members', rather than 'selected by the single leader', we could have been lucky to have a true democracy in the country. The democratic culture inside the parties would be transferred through convection to the entire political culture of the country.

Unfortunately, we could not reach even the first level; let alone arriving at the second demanding level of democratic culture. Therefore Khaleda Zia (being everybody's 'Madam') feels free to 'appoint' or 'dismiss' the party Secretary General (SG) as if the SG is her personal secretary. Sheikh Hasina is also free in declaring in open meting that a man like Jainal Hazari is an invaluable asset of her party; she needs no consensus inside the party executive committee before saying so! May be the AL party constitution is rather democratic as regards electing the executives, but BNP seems to be simply a family property- all playing a merry-go-round encircling the 'Madam'. Therefore BNP and Zia's family seems to be almost synonymous.

We all know the Caretaker Government (CG) provision, first by consensus and then by constitutional provision worked well only twice (in 1990-'91) and in 1996. Most people were so happy with those two CGs that if there were any provision for those to work for full five years, the people would be happier. But the CG of 2001was constituted with persons of AL's partisan choice so that the party could perpetuate power. But the CG just after taking oath started working independently; that was a headache for AL stalwarts and they started expressing dissatisfaction. The CG of 2006 was just a puppet of BNP (again, thus formed to perpetuate power to establish a feudal state where the princes and their friends could have garden home and enjoy beauty of deer, staying very much in their home campus) and it was shamelessly working for the mentor party. Only few advisers stood erect but lastly fell down being hopeless of contributing anything good.

Having this background, the interim government of CG-design backed by the armed forces just on taking oath on January 11, 2007 planned some reform agenda so that the political parties themselves practice democracy that can have positive impact on the overall democratic culture of the state. Peoples' aspirations were being expressed by some senior leaders of both BNP and AL, and even some new-comers were found trying to form parties promising that they would practice better democracy; some efforts died down, some are still in the field.

However, to my view, both BNP and AL reformists came up with some impractical reform plans. Few BNP leaders are still hoisting their faltering flag, while all AL reformists have been clever and slowly joined the line behind Sheikh Hasina again. This gesture inspired her to declare 'no election' if she is not released- a U turn from her sagacious earlier position.

It seems that all reform agenda are being sacrificed to the deity of unflinching charisma. The cause, I think, lies in two wrongs from two sides. The reformists of both the major parties put forward very radical reforms that I commented before as 'impractical'. The two ladies are the undoubted symbols of unity in the parties, in absence of those the parties are bound to break into pieces because there are many having almost equal political expertise in both the parties. So party chairmanship might have better been kept unquestionable and the said symbols could hold that position as long as they are supported by the party executives; no time line like two terms is feasible. The reform should have been in curtailing some authoritarian and rather feudal provisions in the parties, like 'appointing' the general secretary or other leaders in the stem or the branches of the party concerned. All executives need to be elected by the workers of any party, taking into account also the supporters' view. The other reform could be distribution of major posts like the Prime Minister or Leader/ Opposition Leader of the House. In principle, Leader/ Opposition Leader of the House should be capable parliamentarians- not the symbols of unity who don't have enough expertise or even the proper attitude to run the Parliament.

The other wrong is from the CG and EC. The advisory committee of the interim government has been trying so many changes that are actually beyond an interim government's capacity. The CG or EC should not have any agenda (hidden or expressed) like the infamous 'minus two formula'. I understand that since EC wants reform, it will prefer the reformist faction of BNP. But it cannot put any force on the factions to come united (can only say that a united BNP would be appreciable). If smaller new parties can come as distinct parties, why are only two factions of a major party not welcomed by the EC? The factions may or may not unify, it is their jurisdiction, not the EC's. The EC had an informal talk with the apparently larger faction as well; hope this will continue during the formal talks also as long as there are factions.

I don't have any urge to the leaders rallying round charisma because they seem to be the real opportunists (at best they can be termed 'fearful beings'; breaking away from the reformists faction, some BNP standing committee members lined up directly behind the 'appointed' SG just because they don't have the courage to take risk of bringing forward the needful reform agendum) having no mission of serving the people; have only the dream of perpetuating power and of establishing a feudal society where all praises are for the king or the queen. My urge both to the reformist groups of political parties, to the government and to the EC is to compromise on some lofty reform agenda so that the few essential ones can be materialized. If they fail, the political culture would be back to square one. Should they let the people fall into the abyss of charismatic darkness again? In no way all the reform efforts should be sacrificed to the deity of charisma!

Terrorism or resistance?

Claude Salhani

FORMER US president Jimmy Carter set out to prove a point after meeting twice with Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based leader of Hamas, and his deputy, Moussa Abu Marzouk. Carter hoped to convince the Palestinian Islamist movement to renege on violence and to join the peace process.

The two Hamas leaders are considered terrorists by the United States and Israel and of being responsible for attacks that have killed hundreds of civilians in the ongoing Middle East conflict.

The Bush administration and the Israeli government opposed Carter's initiative on the grounds that terrorism must not be rewarded by treating its representatives as legitimate interlocutors in peaceful negotiations. But in defying US and Israeli warnings against meeting with Hamas, Carter has demonstrated that there can be a difference between "negotiable" and "non-negotiable" terrorism. The principle of refusing to talk to terrorist groups is a noble one; this article should not be misunderstood as anything but a strong condemnation of terrorism and those who resort to its use. Terrorism should not and must not be rewarded.

Yet the harsh reality is quite different. Recent Middle East history reveals a very different picture. The unfortunate truth demonstrates great contradictions between the official stance adopted by governments - that of not negotiating with terrorists - and the facts revealing that terrorism seems to have paid dividends. A few examples: Israel's fight for independence from British mandated Palestine; groups such as the Irgun, were labelled terrorists by the British; that did not prevent one of its leaders, Menahem Begin, to become prime minister. And the question may be raised as to whether the Palestinians would have gotten as far as they have, politically, had they not resorted to the use of terrorism?

Following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 tens of thousands of Palestinians were parked in refugee camps set up by the United Nations and strewn across the Middle East. Anyone with an ounce of foresight who has spent more than a few minutes - let alone several years - in one of these wretched camps could realise they were ideal breeding grounds for extremism, read here terrorism. Calls to settle the Palestinian issue went unheeded. Israeli leaders until recently refused to admit the existence of such a thing as a Palestinian people.

The international community chose largely to ignore the problem, wishing it would simply go away. Except it didn't. Instead, the Palestinians took their problem to the international community by exporting terrorism to Europe. Although they did not invent airline hijackings, the Palestinian resistance certainly took it to new heights, to bring attention and international recognition to their cause. Would the Palestinians have ever been able to establish the basis of what hopefully will be a legitimate state in the West Bank and Gaza had it not been for the struggle began by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the subgroups it spawned, and their use of violence?

Would Israel have ever conceded in allowing the PLO leadership, including its archenemy Yasser Arafat, to enter the Palestinian territories were it not for the Intifada? It is quite understandable from an Israeli perspective that Carter's meeting with the Hamas leadership is seen negatively. Hamas, after all, continues to call for the destruction of Israel, refusing to recognise Israel's right to exist. However, the Palestine Liberation Organisation had adopted the same stance until not very long ago. It was through negotiations - not through violence - that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority leadership were convinced to alter their charter and their stance regarding Israel, made to recognise the right of Israel to exist; and accept to engage with Israel in peaceful dialogue.

And although Israel says it does not engage terrorists in negotiations, the Israelis have been involved in talks, albeit via Egypt's good grace, with Hamas for the liberation of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured and detained by Hamas. Similarly, the United States, who also says it will not negotiate with terrorists, has managed to make peace with Sunni groups in Iraq who until just a few months ago were fighting alongside Al Qaeda against US forces.

The pertinent question should not be whether one engages or not with terrorists in the hope of bringing about a peaceful resolution to a longstanding violent conflict. Rather the challenge should be how to prevent terrorism from developing and flourishing in the first place. That should be the major preoccupation of all governments today.

And if any leader, past or present, can contribute towards a peaceful resolution, no matter how small that contribution may be, that action should be encouraged and not censured. A distinction must be made between "negotiable terrorism," such as with Hamas, where a peaceful resolution is still possible and "non-negotiable terrorism" such as Al Qaeda, with whom there can be no dialogue.

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst based in Washington

The war on media front

Dr Bouthaina Shaaban

WHEN the Israeli army killed James Miller, the British producer who was making a film about the Palestinian children under Israeli occupation, the Israelis, at the time, claimed that the Palestinians killed him.

Miller was holding a white flag and going out of the house with British journalists when he was shot on the neck by Israeli snipers who are well trained to carry out such assassinations. Today, after five years that were spent in a legal and media battle by the family of Miller it has become certain that the Israeli soldiers killed him although the Israeli judicial system exonerated the commander of the unit, then.

The difference between the story of James Miller and the stories of other journalists, producers and cameramen killed deliberately by Israeli snipers or missiles, the latest of whom is the Palestinian cameraman, Fadel Shana, who was working for Reuters and was killed by the Israelis on April 16, 2008, is that the family of James Miller had the resolve and the resources to pursue the Israelis for their crime whereas most Palestinians who live under the Israeli occupation do not have such means.

In addition to shuttering the cameras of Miller, Shana and scores of others so they do not record their horrid crimes and transmit them to the world, the Israelis use these killings to terrorise other journalists and cameramen so they daren't get close to record their crimes against humanity. So no close ups of the Palestinian infants and children killed by the Israeli soldiers.

That was their reason for crushing the body of Rachael Kouri, the American peace activist, so that international support that dares to come to the Palestinian territories is terrorised, and the Palestinians are left alone to be killed in the dark by the Israelis with no pictures and documentary evidence to highlight these crimes.

This is precisely the reason that forced the representatives of "civilized" and "democratic" countries like the US, France and Belgium to walk out of the UN Security Council when the Libyan representative Ibrahim Al Dabashi described the state of Palestinian people as "no different from a Nazi camp", although it has become common knowledge that the Israelis use these experiences in oppressing and terrorising the Palestinian people.

Lest these "democracies" are accused of cracking down on the free media, they release this kind of information in fifty or a hundred years, when the public opinion has shifted focus to something completely different.

Within this framework we should understand what was published in the New York Times on April 20 by David Barstow under the title: "Message Machine: Behind Military Analysts, The Pentagon's Hidden Hand".

The article explains how the Pentagon used "Military experts" in the summer of 2005 in a campaign to generate favourable news coverage of the administrations wartime performance when it was confronted with fresh waves of criticism over Guantanamo Bay. "The effort", the paper says, "has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air".

Anyone who follows such a topic will find dozens of examples in a controlled media - coverage that points in one direction whereas events and reality point at a completely different direction.

It is no exaggeration to say that this discrepancy between events and the news or the analysis circulated about these events has become a major cause for the suffering of humanity. There's no escape from the wars in which people are slaughtered, lives are destroyed and childhood assassinated without having the ability to make any of that reach the media.

The latest example of this discrepancy is the controversy that has taken place between former US president Jimmy Carter and Condoleezza Rice. Rice said that the administration had "warned president Carter not to go to the Middle East region, and in particular not to get in touch with Hamas."

In a statement issued by the office of Carter in Atlanta we read: "President Carter respects Rice and believes that she is an honest person, but she continues, probably, unintentionally, to issue inaccurate statements"; Carter's statement added: "No one in the State Department or any other official has asked president Carter not to go to the Middle East, and no one ever suggested to him not to meet with Hamas".

To see that the falsification of facts has reached the highest echelon of American diplomacy is certainly a source of concern, especially as the US is claiming to embark on an effort to reshape the Middle East and the world.

The question is what is the criteria of this reshaping? Is it based on the premise that you can kill and destroy any country or any people so long as you take precautions not to let any one know what you are doing?

Is this the reason why so many journalists and cameramen were killed in Iraq and Palestine in an unprecedented victimisation of the media? This means that the media has become as important as the story they are trying to tell. But who is using them, and how, and to what purpose?

Dr Bouthaina Shaaban is Syria's Minister of Expatriates. A professor of English literature, she taught at Damascus University and abroad for several years, until 2002.