The New Nation - Internet Edition

UN for higher food yield

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has underscored the urgency of increasing world food production by 50 percent within 2030. He said nations must minimise export restrictions and import tariff for improving vulnerable people's access to food and increasing food availability to the poor. He also called for increasing food aid and supplying agricultural inputs. Pope Benedict XVI termed hunger and malnutrition as unacceptable in a world that has sufficient production levels, the resources, and the know-how to put an end to such tragedies.

By 2030 world population is expected to increase by 50 percent. The goal of food production is likely, at best, to keep the balance of food and population at par. If seeds, fertilisers and other inputs are not duly available, food production may fall behind. But scarcity of food was not the only reason behind the recent food crisis. Lack of equitable distribution of agricultural products was one of the causes. Ban emphasised on reducing restrictions on food trade internationally. Monopoly control of seeds and technology is incompatible with the aim of increased food production. Diversion of cereal to biofuel production should be avoided to ease food crisis.

What is true for the world in respect of food situation is all the more true for Bangladesh. Food production should be higher to achieve self-sufficiency. Steady supply of seeds, fertiliser, diesel and electricity should be ensured for this. Bangladesh has 30 distinct agro-ecological zones which have been identified on the basis of physical formation, soil, land elevation in relation to flooding and agro-climatology. It is possible to shift to round the year cultivation in accordance with the specificity of the zones. Such a shift in crop pattern would reduce the chances of damage due to natural calamities.

Capturing DNA from trees

RESEARCHERS of the New York Botanical Garden, best known for its orchid shows and colourful blossoms, are about to lead a global effort to capture DNA from thousands of tree species. Participants from various countries at a meeting at the Bronx garden last month laid the groundwork for how the two-year undertaking to catalogue some of the Earth's vast biodiversity would proceed. The project is known as 'TreeBOL' or tree barcode of life. As in a similar project underway focusing on the world's fish species, participants would gather genetic material from trees around the world

The resulting database will help identify many of the world's existing plant species, where they are located and whether they are endangered. The results are crucial for conservation and protecting the environment as population and development increases. 'We know so little about the natural world, when it comes down to it, even though we've been working on it for hundreds of years', the project coordinator was quoted as saying. In order for the database to be useful, the same section of DNA must be used in all the samples so comparisons can be made across species.

The undertaking is massive as trees make up 25 per cent of all plants and there could be as many as 100,000 species. Part of the work is to figure out which section to use, as well as other logistical issues among the more than 40 participating organisations across the world. What is to be viewed significantly is that the genetic database will not be completed for two years. Little anticipates making headway in some specific areas such as the flora of the northeastern US and parts of Malaysia, India and South Africa as well as endangered tree species in the meantime.

Setting terms with the major political parties

Mohammad Hasmat Ali

Bangladesh is passing a very critical stage at this time. The businessmen, investors, professionals, foreign concerned authorities and even the general people are worried for this hard time. The problem is acknowledged by government also. The statements of top the country's rulers are clear that they are passing this time and they are trying to overcome this problem.

The background of the problem is with a long and successive history. Since independence, we have been facing hard times in the form politically, economically and other ways. The victory over the Ershad Government by the then opposition gave a hope of good future for Bangladesh through ensuring a sound democratic environment in all sectors and all spheres. Joint movement by almost all political parties against the autocratic Ershad was giving a positive hope for the nation. But After some years, the whole country became fire for a caretaker government. The politics got a new fuel to fire. The inflexibility of the then BNP-led government made the situations tougher. A valueless election took place and declared invalid later on. Again the new government lead by AL came into power in 1996 and they were doing generally what a political government naturally does. Again in 2001 BNP-led Joint government came into power with vast majority. That majority made the government untouchable and uncontrollable.

The problems of our country remain intact. The country was facing its highest political, economical, trade, foreign aggression, cultural challenge. The policies it made became worthless. Deficiency in balance of trade, threats and interference of foreign donors and agencies, poverty, social security of the citizen, image of the country all were under serious questions.

The unnecessary govt. expenditures, wastage of resources, poor plan for human and natural resources management, poor and surrendering foreign policy, rivalry relationship with political parties, corruption, politicization in all potential sectors are some among the main weaknesses of our governments from Independence to till now. In spite of that there are some positive developments in our country like the improvement in mass education, poverty reduction, GDP, foreign investment etc.

Since the independence, among the different problems we are facing, the main is political crisis. The politics outside parliament, undue politicization in power, political rivalry relations, poor respect to other political ideology, negative reaction to other party's suggestion or demands, destructive political programs to meet the demand form the government, poor accountability and transparency regarding the sources and uses of funds, poor political morality, lack of productive and sincere commitments to the country, political blindness are some common features of our political system. They rarely want to see the face of other political leaders closely. They never think that there are other political parties with ideologies. They believe that that they are the only party in the right way. It is rarely seen that the demand of the opposition in the parliament is accepted by the government.

The government rarely pays heed to the opposition and opposition never supports the plan of the government. Keeping the power or trying to go to the power are common wishes of the political parties. The 1/11 is the result of that political unrest in the country, though it is said that this is a pre-planned revolution. The plan can only be made well in a country where such features are available.

The development of our lovely Bangladesh is not possible without the development of the political crisis. We have to solve these problems. We must cultivate a new political culture where there will be some major common goals for the country, respect to each others, love for all, understanding in common issues, caring and attractive political programs to settle the demand, the promise to build the country rather than destruction, the application of highest political morality with patriotism.

The political problems are created by political parties in Bangladesh. We are responsible for it. The solution must be made by the political parties. The sick person should have medicines by himself. If others take themselves medicine on behalf of the sick person, there will be no result.

The caretaker government is trying to remove political weaknesses. Though, they have limitations over this issue. To make the country free from political crisis, they are taking some initiatives like dialogue with political parties. The dialogue was expected to be arranged at the beginning of taking the power. By this time the parties which represent for major population of the country declared that they will not participate in dialogue with the government until their demands are settled. But the government is busy with schedules for meeting with social, businessmen and other political parties (which are familiar in names, no influence on politics at all).

So it is estimated that the political problems are not going to be solved. New problems are going to be started. The government cannot deny that the political crisis of Bangladesh can be removed if the two major parties AL and BNP have a good wish and agree to solve through understanding and realization. It is hoped that the political parties realize the problem of the country. They should handle this problem in future. They will be the leader in future again. So they should declare their correction programs for politics and mechanism of ruling the country. Then the job the government will be easy. They can organize a program and declare their plan for future politics.

There is no way but to manage, motivate, and convince the major political parties for our chronic political problems. There may be no alternative to this solution. If the government really has good will and wish, it must solve political problems by political parties which have the ability to create problems and solution. No solution will be come out if government avoids them and seek alternative untested, unpopular and unable parties. Minus theory, avoiding theory, threatening theory and punishment theory will enlarge and extend the problems. Let the political parties realize, feel and move for the country. Let the country stand on it. Let us build a peaceful political environment for ourselves by our political parties. I believe a theory, major political parties can solve the political and other crucial problems only. Political parties mean major role playing political parties not the parties with name only. Let's all realize this hard reality.

US Poll 2008: Candidates united on foreign policy

Dr.Abdul Ruff

Now that Obama Barack has won the Democratic nomination for facing the Republican McCain in the Presidential finals, the battle scenario is becoming clearer and world would witness a lot of rhetoric war between them. But there is very little difference in their respective foreign policy.

It seems the presidential hopefuls would pursue the official line of external behavior and would not condemn the official policy of the USA or criticize the decision of the Bush administration to invade Afghanistan and Iraq or its plan for future invasions in Islamic world. It seems even if Bush administration in collusion with the Pentagon, now focused on war with Islam-and not exactly on terrorism, invades a few more countries in Islamic world, the US leaders, cutting across the political divide, would support that as a matter of backing the so-called US national as well as global interests. Not only the leaders, but even the media in the USA and the rest of the West would fall in line, but only condemn the Muslims as "fundamentalists" and "terrorists" and the like. That is the essence of US foreign policy today. Since the White House hopefuls are unaware of what has been going on in economic and security issues in USA and world they have changed their views on some of these major issues.

As the battle for Democratic nomination for Presidency is coming to a close soon, both the democratic and the lone Republican John McCain have firmed up their views in unity on foreign policy issues, though they have meager differences in articulating domestic policies. One does not know if the bush administration has diverted the attention of the world and US voters from Afghani-Iraqi failures by raking up the economic issue. But the three remaining presidential aspirants have similar approach to world problems, US position on Mideast, especially Afghanistan and Iraq.

Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

USA tries to say that Iraq that is brought under brutal control of the US forces and machinations and is now less violent than it was a year ago, but economic worries have pushed the five-year-old war from the top of voters' concerns. Hard-core advocates for and against the Iraq war are losing leverage as Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, having secured their nominations, appeal to centrist voters who will decide the fall presidential election.

Unfortunately, none of the presidential aspirants has asked the Bush administration to quickly withdraw the forces form both Afghanistan and Iraq and save the lives of Muslims as well as Americans, but on the contrary, continue to terrorize the Americans by saying that the small scale "terrorists" from Islamic world would any time attack again the USA fully though equipped with defense shield on major cities as well as key economic and security points. They only talk in terms of the troop count down, and they also want Iraq stabilized, but they don't know how. Although some members of Congress say a U.S. withdrawal would force Iraqis to solve their Pentagon, which still say "terrorism" needs to be contained, outrightly rejects any of such things. Meanwhile countries like Indonesia have indirectly blamed USA for the "terror attacks" on USA and its "allies".

Republican McCain caught some supporters and opponents by surprise last week when he stated for the first time that he believes the Iraq war can be won in less than five years. McCain insisted he was not setting a timetable for troop drawdowns, something he has strongly opposed in the past. But the speech triggered a degree of head-scratching in conservative circles, and rebukes from Democrats. McCain recently suggested 2013 as a possible end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Many saw it as a switch from his earlier denouncements of timelines, although McCain insists it was not. That means he wants to war to go on.

However, Democrat Obama continues to tell he will remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Even some of Obama's strongest supporters think he is likely, if elected, to take a more deliberate approach to turning Iraq's security over to Iraqi forces. A slower disengagement process would subject Obama to "extraordinary pressure" from infuriated anti-war groups within his entourage, noting they have helped him outmaneuver Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary season. Whatever the pace, however, many feel Obama would have to withdraw substantial numbers of U.S. forces from Iraq because the Army is nearing a breaking point. But he does not want to withdraw forces in hurry. Meanwhile, more troops are badly needed in Afghanistan, which Obama calls a must-win war against the so-called "al-Qaeda" and its allies. Public see the scenario other wise. They say either McCain or Obama will have to reduce troop levels in Iraq in 2009 because the Army and Marines are being stretched dangerously thin.

McCain wants to win a military victory, but also "he's not interested in destroying the institution." Bush thinks a partial withdrawal could result in "the worst of both worlds: enough Americans there to serve as targets, but not enough to keep the country safe." When the next president confronts Iraq, said Rice, Obama's adviser, "you've got bad options and worse options."

Among important world powers, Russia has some how found a place in the debates of front racers. Russia was, perhaps is still, an axis of evil, according to the Neocons. However US policy of ridiculing Russia is kept alive in the political discourses of Republican and Democratic candidates. Senator McCain, the Republican hopeful with a good shot of winning the election, stands alone in ridiculing Moscow's policies. McCain has practically included Russia in a new axis of evil, along with North Korea, China and Iran. McCain's advisers are openly lambasting President George W. Bush for being too chummy with President Vladimir Putin and promise that Moscow will be treated a lot more harshly in a McCain presidency, causing considerable concern among U.S. foreign policy experts.

A politician who opposed Russia in every manner, McCain's rhetoric, asking the world to renounce Russia form the developed democracies list, might inflame international tensions linked to U.S. actions over Iraq and Iran. The proposal by McCain to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight industrial countries will never happen, because other G8 members would oppose it. The NATO's decision to extent the military cover right up to the Russian borders has irritated Moscow and the McCain camp's rhetoric, to some extent, is pushing the world toward a new Cold War.

The other two presidential front-runners, Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have not offered a positive-thinking agenda for Russia either, pledging to be tougher with Russia than Bush and endorsing further NATO expansion by accepting Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. All three presidential contenders have promised to expand the Bush administration's effort to "spread democracy," a policy that an overwhelming majority of Russians see as a thinly veiled smoke screen to strengthen the U.S. position in the world at the expense of Russia.

McCain also talked about an idea to form a league of democracies that would exclude Russia and China. For McCain the Americans do not need the Russians and the Chinese to cooperate on nuclear nonproliferation and a climate change treaty. Ut he doe not know that sidelining them with the creation of this new body would do nothing to smooth over cooperation in other areas. Moreover, how would Washington's Middle East allies like Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia react to such a democratic grouping?

On several global issues the USA requires Russian help to solve the problems reasonably well. Former military man McCain would like to depend entirely on the Pentagon and CIA on foreign policy matters, like Bush has been doing now quite miserably and shabbily. McCain also recently suggested that the United States should follow the French example of generating 80 percent of France's electricity with nuclear power. However, some experts say more than 700 huge nuclear power plants would have to be built by 2050 -- more than one plant per month-to satisfy McCain's desire to be like France.

Importance of Russia for the world for resolving many of the contentious issues across the borders and regions has to be properly realized by White House. On economic matter Russia could be isolated, but in security their assistance is absolutely essential. ABM Treaty has to be revived and USA has to get back to that in order to resume the denuclearization talks. None of the major security problems faced by the United States and the rest of the world could have been solved without cooperation from Russia. Many including Brzezinski, who consider Russia to be little more than an evil genius, echoed this sentiment. Can they all be wrong?

The Bush administration last month signed a deal permitting reactor fuel to come from Russia, where would the United States get all the uranium required to fuel 700 nuclear power plants if its next president bashed Russia day and night? Does McCain now asking to skip Russia in world affairs really believe that Russia would take his dictates lying down? Perhaps it is McCain's fanciful thinking to decide the world issues without Russia and he said it just for fun.

Why the Middle East does not matter any more

Jonathan Power

OSAMA bin Laden has made Al Qaeda's position crystal clear in his latest tape released on May 16th. He said the fight for the Palestinian cause is the most important factor driving Al Qaeda's war with the West and that was the primary reason for 9/11.

It sounds topical enough given the amount of attention that the Washington is presently giving the Israel/Palestinian peace quest. But in truth Bin Laden may well be behind the curve.

A two state solution can no longer be a viable political goal, because: a) in terms of the demographics a Muslim majority in Israeli-controlled territory is less than a decade a way, b) the Israelis have effectively created a single state encompassing both Jews and Palestinians.

To all intents and purposes it imitates the South Africa of Apartheid days, a unitary state with a minority group attempting to rule by oppression over a minority.

The only way to bring peace is to do what the white South Africans did under President F.W. de Klerk. As he once explained it to me, he felt compelled to negotiate with the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela, not because of the outside world's sanctions, but because he realised that South Africa was becoming unlivable for all and a way had to be found for the minority to live safely under the rule of the majority.

Perhaps it's time overdue for the US and Europe to make clear that the preservation of Israel as a pure Jewish state is no longer of strategic concern whose interests must be preserved at all cost, by money, by political muscle and, in case of a showdown, by the support of the force of arms. If this penny can be made to drop in the Israeli mind and the Jewish diaspora then, as did the white South Africans, it would be time to sit down with the Palestinians and work out how to hold an election in a unitary state.

But first, for this to happen, the West has to shed its notion of the whole of the Middle East being strategically important. In an important essay last year in Prospect magazine Edward Luttwak from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, made a convincing argument for this.

Israel and Palestine are not at "five minutes to midnight", he argues. "It is the same old cyclical conflict which always restarts when peace is about to break out, and always dampens down when the violence becomes intense enough."

In strategic terms the Arab-Israeli conflict has become almost irrelevant since the end of the Cold War. The conflict has had no impact on oil prices since the 1973 Saudi embargo, the last time the "oil weapon" was wielded. Continuously, the West seems to have bought the Israeli argument that they are up against the threat of the combined armies of the Arab world. But military expenditure in all the Arab states, apart from Saudi Arabia, has fallen rapidly since the 1973 war. Even when Egypt was aided by massive Soviet military purchases and gifts in the 1960s it was quickly defeated in both 1967 and 1973.

The West made the same mistake of overestimating Iraqi military power in the 1990s. Saddam Hussein's divisions were counted as if they were well trained German Panzers. But when the war came the Iraqi air force fled to Iran and the tanks became target practice for the Western invaders. The second Gulf War had an even more farcical rationale (but it wasn't that funny) with the assumptions that well sanctioned Iraq had built a terrifying arsenal of ultra modern weapons of mass destruction.

Even with non-Arab Iran and its acolytes, Hezbollah and Hamas, we are whipped into hysterics of "fear of the terrorist". Yet their activities are very localised, unlike the Palestinian strikes of the 60s and 70s, and Iran's special international terrorist department has produced only one major bombing in the Middle East and that was in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Compared with what the Soviet Union threatened the West with and with what Hitler actually did, this is derisory. Even if Iran is developing nuclear weapons to say that the people of Iran patriotically support the endeavour is a large overstatement. Persian nationalism is a minority position in a country where half the population is not even Persian. Clever diplomacy would play to these cleavages.