The New Nation - Internet Edition

For gas exploration deals

ONLY seven international oil companies (IOCs) have submitted bids for 15 offshore blocks, though 24 companies had earlier purchased promotional and data packages. No tenders were submitted for 13 blocks. Petrobangla floated international tenders in mid-February inviting bids from local and foreign companies. Only one bid has been submitted for each of about half a dozen blocks. For each of the remaining blocks 2 to 4 papers have been submitted. Block No. 10 received as much as four proposals. No bids were submitted for blocks on which India and Myanmar have also made claims. The government has set October 2008 for signing contracts after completion of evaluation and approval from the concerned authorities.

Before having final deals the legal status, work experiences and competence of the bidders must be ascertained. No work orders should be given to IOCs that do not have the requisite qualification. This is a must to avoid repetition of the blunders that were made at Magurchhara and Tengratilla gas fields. In a situation of fast depleting gas reserves on one side and high demand from industries and the power sector on the other, the process of gas exploration needs to be expedited. The situation may pressure the government to have hasty business deals with parties. But such deals, if done without careful evaluation, may prove to be counter-productive. If bidders are found incompetent, the authority must cancel the bidding.

More than two-thirds of the companies that purchased tender forms refrained from submitting bids. International companies like Niko, Chevron and Unocal are not in the bidding. It may be indicative of their unwillingness to commit investment.

The policy and decision makers thus must not act hastily in reaching deals.

Conspiracy to ruin poultry?

THERE is a serious allegation that 'backyard poultry is being destroyed in the name of containing bird flu', which the authorities concerned should look into immediately and take the required steps in order to save this sector involving large numbers of people across the country. Speakers at a recent discussion meeting in the city said that culling of chickens in the name of containing bird flu in the developing countries including Bangladesh is nothing but 'a conspiracy to destroy the backyard poultry'.

The participants at the discussion on 'Bird flu situation in Bangladesh and our responsibilities' observed that culling of backyard poultry on pretext of controlling bird flu is what they called 'a part of an international conspiracy to destroy fowls reared in farm houses that would deprive not only farmers, but also affect rural economy greatly. Undoubtedly, the allegation is very serious in nature and deserves to be addressed by the government without any delay with a view to hooking the real culprits working behind here as part of that conspiracy. In the name of containing bird flu some donors reportedly want to destroy the traditional sources of food and help large companies capture the total production system.

Instead of protecting and promoting donor-assisted industrial poultry, the government should go for rural economy based poultry policy for poverty alleviation and develop country's overall economy. About 16,36,303 poultry and 21,84,430 eggs have been destroyed so far in 47 districts under the bird flu campaign and according to the Bangladesh Poultry Industry Association the culling of fowls caused huge loss of about Tk 5,000 crore to the industry - too big an amount for a country like Bangladesh to afford in these difficult days of depressing global economy.

Access to information and the empowerment of people

Amanullah Khan

Article 39(2)(a) of Bangladesh Constitution guarantees the right of every citizen to freedom of speech and expression "subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by law with a view to safeguarding the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality and preventing contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. This right representing the mother of many other rights that flow from it is upheld by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which proclaims "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression that includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

I will briefly touch on some aspects of the agenda and the emergency regime in Bangladesh in this context.

The theme set by UNESCO for this year's World Press Freedom Day begins with freedom of expression that carries with it an onerous responsibility which we may tend to overlook in our over-zealous quest for self-expression. Responsibility requires that while we express our views and opinions, we must have regard for and respect the sensitivities, sentiments, culture and customs of others and be careful not to cause any offence to them in much the same way as we expect others to respect our feelings. Tolerance and restraint are essential components of freedom of expression which should not be abused, misused or treated as a licence.

Secondly, access to information doesn't mean just any kind of information a large part of which may be redundant, superfluous, useless or even inaccurate, unreliable and biased or vitiated. It is only quality information that is vital in empowering people. Furthermore, free flow of information may not suffice in itself, it must also be easily and readily accessible to the general public who should possess the means to put it to practical use and convert it into tangible and specific benefits and be able to apply to it their real-life situations in order to solve their problems and cater to their needs.

The question of who owns and controls the information is also of relevance. In cases of citizen journalism and community radio, both the tools and the media products are owned by those who operate them, i.e. the ordinary people at the grassroots. A handful of media giants who own a major part of media outlets in the US and other parts of the West control the flow of information and set the agenda for the consumers. In most of the developing countries, the governments have a monopoly over and strictly regulate the media using them mainly as their propaganda tools. All such manipulations over regulation and abuses deprive the people of empowerment that is made possible through dissemination, exchange and sharing of information without any impediment. Pluralistic and democratic media with public service contents help the process of empowerment of people. The community radio now being licensed by the present government in Bangladesh represents the most cost effective and influential broadcast media tool to give power and voice to the powerless and the voiceless.

In the existing scenario of emergency rule in Bangladesh, one may wonder that while the successive elected governments lacked the political will to replace a legacy of the British Empire, the Official Secrets Act, with the Right to Information Act for a protracted period of time, the present Caretaker government with its sweeping powers is able to formulate a draft Right to Information Act ready to be adopted. The draft act being debated in public forums has been hailed as a landmark law that will lead to establishing an open, transparent and accountable government in Bangladesh notwithstanding a few drawbacks that have crept into it like long-winding and circuitous process involved in acquiring the information from any government department and the control/cap on getting information on defence-related matters.

The government ruling the country today has repeatedly described the media as the second parliament in the absence of a functioning Parliament. Though under the provisions of the Emergency Rules, some fundamental rights guaranteed in the country's Constitution have been suspended with restriction imposed on publishing materials, considered sensitive and inflammatory, the government appears to welcome constructive criticism and suggestions to improve its workings short of delivering any damning condemnation of it which is quite understandable. Barring a few exceptions like TV live talk shows airing opinions critical of the emergency rule, the government is generally perceived to be tolerant of non-conformist views. In fact, a cursory glance at any Bangladesh newspapers may convince a reader that the press here is as free, vocal and robust as ever, of course with certain ground rules in force following the clampdown of an emergency to quell the violence and bloodshed that had erupted and subsequently to purge politics and administration of endemic corruption.

This government is credited with introducing a number of fundamental reforms long overdue like separating the Judiciary from the Executive organ. framing proposals for reform of electoral laws and signing the UN Anti-Corruption Convention. The government is also committed to holding the general elections on schedule designed to restore the Parliamentary democracy in Bangladesh and the EC is doing a good job of it with a few setbacks that may not hopefully disrupt the ultimate countdown.

Every citizen of Bangladesh expects that the country will return to a democratic rule with full civil liberties including press freedom restored at the earliest possible time. On the occasion of the World Press Freedom Day, for our countrymen, there is hardly any desire more cherished that democracy, freedom of expression and speech that will ensure good governance and transparency, As for the media practitioners, while there may not be much to celebrate or rejoice about, it is a time for them to renew their commitment to continue the unrelenting struggle to win ever more and larger press freedoms in the face of curtailment or denial of such freedom by state and non-state actors who feel threatened by the free press.

(The article is based on an address given by the author at a seminar in Dhaka organised by Singapore-based AMIC and UNB in collaboration with UNESCO, PIB and ULAB to mark the World Press Freedom Day 2008. The author is the Chairman of UNB and AMIC Representative in Bangladesh)

Who is really running Russia?

Eric S. Margolis

LAST February, as millions of fascinated viewers watched on TV, Russia's new leaders, 55-year old Vladimir Putin and 42-year old Dimitri Medvedev, showcased their new duumvirate by confidently strolling from the Kremlin across Red Square to attend a concert of the rock band, Deep Purple. Forget 'Swan Lake.'

Decked out in hip black leather jackets and tailored jeans, they symbolised the new, youthful, self-assured Russia of 2008. The grey homburg hats and dumpy, ill-fitting suits of the Communist era were a thing of the past.

This week, Dimitri Medvedev, Putin's long-time protégé and hand-picked successor, was inaugurated president of Russia. Putin, who heads the United Russia Party, the nation's largest, became prime minister. Just to remind everyone that in spite of the rock concerts and cool haircuts, Russia remains a warrior nation with a glorious military tradition, the Kremlin also staged the biggest military parade since 1990. Impressive, certainly, but the whole world was asking, 'who's the boss of Russia?' Good question. My view: Putin, who laments the Soviet Union's collapse as the 'greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,' may be replicating the old USSR's power structure. The Soviet Union had two parallel governments. A civilian one, with a president, legislature, and ministers; and a mirror structure run by the Communist Party. Real power was held by the Party's General Secretary and Politburo who made all important policy decisions, and the security organs. The civilian government was charged with implementing them.

We can envisage a similar dual arrangement in Moscow wherein Putin fills the role of the old Soviet General Secretary and Medvedev that of Soviet presidents.

The business-minded Medvedev is former head of Gazprom, Russia's giant energy firm. He will likely become the nation's energy czar and focus on economic development and raising living standards. Putin, formerly of KGB's elite First Directorate, will focus on foreign policy and rebuilding Russia's military and diplomatic power.

Theoretically, their roles should be reversed, with the president handling security policy and the prime minister domestic issues. But it's hard to imagine former spy chief Putin digging through farm reports and industrial statistics.

Vladi and Dimi, as they are known, are sitting on a bonanza. Russia has 20 per cent of the world's natural gas reserves, and at least 7 per cent of proven oil reserves, some 75 billion barrels. However, Russia's huge reserves are in remote regions and will require vast investment to further exploit. Even so, as energy prices soar, Russia grows wealthier and more powerful by the day, a sort of Saudi Arabia with snow.

Interestingly, Russia today commands far more influence over Western Europe than it did when 100 Red Army divisions threatened the continent to the point where France actually began re-arming the Maginot forts. Russia's Gazprom now account for nearly 40 per cent of Germany and Ukraine's gas consumption, 33 per cent of Italy's, 26 per cent of France's heating needs, 70 per cent of Austria's, and almost all of Eastern Europe's gas. Moscow does not need tanks to threaten or influence Europe. If the Kremlin turns off the gas export tap, as it recently did to late-paying Ukraine, Europeans will shiver in the winter cold. Washington is deeply alarmed by Russia's growing energy clout. Until recently, the US controlled much of world energy through its domination of the Mideast. Now, Russia is challenging America's Oil Raj and Washington is struggling to develop new pipeline routes to circumvent Russia's fast expanding pipeline network.

Prime Minister Putin can look back on his eight-year presidency with satisfaction. He mercilessly crushed the life out of the Chechen independence struggle, as he promised. Thanks to high energy prices, in part caused by the US invasion of Iraq, he doubled Russia's national income, restored pensions, and restored national pride. He thwarted the Clinton administration's attempts to establish political and economic US tutelage of post-Soviet Russia, and pulled Russia out of bankruptcy.

Putin and Medvedev must continue dealing with Washington's violation of secret, 1990-1991 agreements with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev not to advance NATO any further east in exchange for Moscow freeing Eastern Europe.

In spite of Putin's crushing democratic government and free expression, his approval ratings run over 60 per cent. If Putin and Medvedev can avoid falling out, and continue fruitful teamwork, they are well placed to restore Russia as a global power and turn this long-suffering nation into tomorrow's economic success story.

(Eric S. Margolis is a veteran American journalist and contributing foreign editor of The Toronto Sun)

Need for a new perspective

Ziad Asali

PEACE is not easy. Achieving it requires summoning the deepest forms of courage. It means examining one's darkest prejudices that dehumanise and demonise the other. The quest for mutual recognition of humanity and dignity is an arduous task.

The question facing both Israelis and Palestinians is: Do they prefer to cling to the pain of past injuries and the suffering of their forefathers, or will they determine to move forward and build a better future for their children?

While there have been all too many shrill voices lamenting the grievances of decades and centuries between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a harmony that strums through us all. When we fight for peace, we fight not against each other, but together and for all of us. This means accepting that there are like-minded people on the other side and making common cause, and building peace with them.

Israelis and Palestinians live in the same land with divergent national narratives, and both want and need sovereignty and self-determination. The only means to reach a reasonable accommodation is to have two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace. No other solution has any serious prospect of ending the conflict and creating a modus vivendi. The two-state solution, for all its faults, is the only way out of the cycle of violence and hatred that has plagued Israel and the Palestinians since 1948.

This idea enjoys the support of solid majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians, and of the international community. In many ways we have never been closer to realising this goal. And yet, the only realistic hope for the future is in serious jeopardy due to the actions of extremists, driven by nationalist fantasies or religious zealotry.

Extremists on both sides feel time is on their side. Some Israelis delude themselves that Palestinians over time will become exhausted or new generations will forget their national identity.

They believe they will win complete control of the entire area between the river and the sea. Meanwhile, some Palestinians are under the illusion that Israel is an artificial foreign imposition akin to the Crusader states that cannot last and will eventually collapse. They too believe that time is their greatest weapon, and that the best strategy therefore is to never compromise.

We cannot afford to sacrifice generation upon generation in order to test the validity of these competing metaphysical visions and certainties about the trajectory of history.

These dangerous delusions are most damagingly expressed in the expansion of Israeli settlements and by the use of terror by Palestinian groups. Settlements threaten a peace based on two states by strengthening rather than loosening Israel's grip on the occupied territories-greatly complicating the process of creating a Palestinian state.

They also erode Palestinian confidence that Israel is interested in allowing a viable, contiguous state of Palestine to be born. Similarly, the use of terror by Palestinian extremist groups makes Israelis question whether Palestinians would ever accept Israel and agree to live with it in peace and security.

It is up to both peoples to decide whether they will allow themselves to be driven by extremist agendas, or to pursue what is plainly in their national interests. Their past trespasses against each other, both real and imagined, have to give way to the recognition that Israelis and Palestinians clearly now need exactly the same thing: An end of conflict based on two states.

I do not believe that the conflict should be seen any longer as pitting Israelis against Palestinians, but must be re-conceptualised as a struggle between those who are committed to ending the conflict based on two states against those on both sides who persist in clinging to hostility. Those who are prepared to recognise each other's dignity and self determination in two sovereign states share a common purpose, and have more in common with each other than with their compatriots who are bent on conflict for generations to come.

At 60, Israel is a technologically and politically sophisticated state with a diverse population and vibrant economy. Israelis deserve a peaceful country with security and economic progress. Palestinians deserve no less.

(Ziad Asali, MD, is president of the American Task Force on Palestine. This article first appeared in Arab News and is distributed by the Common Ground News Service)

Opinion: A design to imbalance ecology

Ariful Huq

India is going on with the Tipaimukh Dam project on the river Barak without taking into consideration the interests of Bangladesh, a stakeholder in the Barak-Surma-Kushiara-Meghna river basin. A cross section of the people of the Surma valley the other day demonstrated against the project and termed it as contrary to the UN Watercourses Convention, 1997. They observed that it would spell catastrophic disaster to the riverine civilisation of the basin both in India and Bangladesh. The demonstrators urged the Indian authority to immediately refrain from going ahead with the controversial project.

The Barak is an international river. It is an integral part of the greater Barak-Surma-Kushiara-Meghna river system and is the cradle of the riverine civilisation in the region. This river is a source of water for the Surma, the lifeline of the Sylhet region. Being the lower riparian country, Bangladesh is going to suffer the most as a result of unilateral withdrawal of water by India. Any big project like this presupposes environmental, economic and social impact assessment to see the likely effect over the region. This study must cover the whole river basin extended over both India and Bangladesh. But nothing like this is known to have been done. Bangladesh has already suffered much because of the similar withdrawal of the Ganges water. Withdrawal of water at the Tipaimukh will have no less adverse effect. The lower part of the river in Bangladesh is likely to die for lack of the minimum flow during the lean period. Ecology of the lower region in Bangladesh including crops, plants and forest will be harmed seriously. But, on the other hand, during the monsoon when India will wide open the sluice gates of the dam to let the excess water roll down the river, it would create flash flood causing havoc over the lower regions.

The Indian part of the Barak basin is also likely to be affected, as has been the case in some West Bengal districts as a result of the Farakka Barrage.

It is expected that India would be respectful to international laws governing the water management of the common rivers and would drop the project. She should do this in the interests of friendly and good neighbourly relationship with Bangladesh.

Only a project conducive to the interests of both the countries can be adopted jointly by India and Bangladesh. However, the unfortunate part of this bilateral good relationship is that the Delhi lords suffer from a rigid psychic state and they tend to play a big-brotherly game with their small neighbours. The end result of this has not proved to be too good for them or India.