The New Nation - Internet Edition

Photo voter list database

THE Election Commission Secretariate the other day gave an encouraging information about the progress of voter registration and voter list printing. The number of voters registered as on 13 June 2008 was 7.68 crore, which is 97 percent of the estimated voters of eight crore. The whole country has been divided into 523 voter registration units out of which data collection process has been completed from 432 units; work is going on in 80 locations while work is yet to start in 11 others. Printing of three copies of draft voter list and five copies of final voter list has progressed to some extent. Project officials hope the final voter list would be complete by October 2008. Sincere and tireless efforts of Bangladesh Army have helped the gigantic task to be accomplished within a year since its initiation in August last year.

A correct voter list is a prerequisite for holding fair and credible elections at different levels. Due to lack of a credible voter list, it was difficult to hold fair elections in the past. Elections based on such a list is expected to be free from irregularities. This database will be of other uses as well. It will serve as a source of information for issuing national identity card, which will help avoid lapses in different official works like issuing passports and opening bank accounts. Therefore, the list needs to be under a regular process of updating with necessary insertion and deletion of records. The database is expected to make identification of criminals and intruders from outside the country easy. The list reportedly contains about two percent mistakes. Regular updating would help correct those within a short period of time.

DOE unable to pursue law suits

AN esteemed vernacular daily from Chittagong has reported that the Chittagong Division Environment office appears to be in a shambles with the 19 law suits it has lodged against different public and private bodies and individuals on charge of degrading the environment by cutting hills. The director of the office has frustratingly admitted that due to unavailability of qualified and able officers law suits had to be filed by petty employees as plaintiffs who have no knowledge of law and procedure. Efficient lawyers are also not available to conduct the suits. The environment office needs to rely only on PPs and APPs who have little time to give for the environment-related suits. The director has disclosed that the responsible individuals and corporate bodies are strong in manpower, money and legal support. The environment office thus feels helpless with the cases.

There have always been many human actions in Chittagong that are harmful to the environment. Among such actions, hill cutting is the worst which brought disaster in June 2007 killing many people and destroying countless homesteads in landslides. The cause of the slide in hills was indiscriminate cutting of their bases. After the June incident of 2007 the local environment office prepared a list of 134 individuals and organisations responsible for cutting of the hills. In that list Chittagong City Corporation came out as a leading accused. The acting Mayor of the city has told newsmen that the environment office in its law suit has not given enough instances of hill cutting by the corporation. Such a situation is wholly unacceptable. The Environment Ministry should enable the Department of Environment to effectively pursue law suits against violators of environmental law and rules.

None should be displaced

Sheikh Rakib Uddin

History does not offer any exact date, year and even a century when the refugee problem, now one of the burning global issues, began in the world which saw the movement of the human beings first along the banks of the river Tigris in Mesopotamia, now known as Iraq in 1,000 BC. But it is generally accepted the issue--the displacement of the human beings from their hearths and homes?-originated when they, split into classes, started to live in separate regions and zones. Throughout the history people hade to abandon their homes and seek safety elsewhere to escape persecution, conflict and political violence. This has happened in every region of the world in all ages and centuries. Now a number of countries including Bangladesh across the world have been tackling the problem, one of the human issues, arising out of the inhuman acts and brutality. The scenario is painful and tragic. The lives of the million people around the globe continued to be blighted by violence. In some parts of the world states have collapsed as a result of internal conflicts depriving their citizens of any effective protection. Elsewhere the human security has been jeopardised as the authorities concerned have refused to act properly in serving common interest. This is a clear picture of the present state of the world refugees who are forcibly displaced from their homes. The problem of the forced displacement is one of the pressing challenges now confronting the United Nations.

The refugee problem was first internationally taken up by the League of Nations after the first World War. Before that the problem was locally managed. The situation aggravated during the second World War when the situation forced by the millions of people in almost all the continents to abandon their homes and leave their countries.

The turning point came in 1950-51 to deal with the problem in a global manner when the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) was established with its headquarters in Geneva. Now the UNHCR looks after about 20 million of the total 22 million displaced people in the world. Some eighty percent of them are in the civil war-torn African countries.

The UNHCR which in cooperation with the host governments provide the refugees with safety, security, housing and food, also negotiate their voluntary repatriation process when it is requested for. Of the quarter million Rohingya Muslims who from Myanmar came to Bangladesh in 1991 because of the state persecution, 2,30,000 have returned voluntary to their motherland according to the tripartite agreement--UNHRCR, Bangladesh and Myanmar--signed in Dhaka in August this year. The rest are still living in the camps in Ukhiya and Teknaf in Cox's Bazar of Bangladesh as the Myanmar government have refused to take them back. The government has renewed its gesture to settle the human problem once and for all when the UNHCR High Commissioner visited Bangladesh about two months back.

Who are refugees? According to 1951 UN Convention on the State of Refugees, refugees are those who owing to well founded fear of being persecuted, for reasons of race, religion and nationality and members of a particular political party flee their homes and take shelter in other countries for safety, security, food and lodging. During the war of liberation in 1971 more than 10 million people from Bangladesh who were forced to leave the country and take shelter in West Bengal of India were treated as refugees. A quarter million Rohingya Muslims from Arakan state of Myanmar who fled to Bangladesh in 1991 are refugees.

There are three ways, as laid down by the Geneva Convention, to solve the refugee problem. First, is their voluntary repatriation to the country from where they have been evicted, the second local integration in the country where they are staying currently and third is their resettlement in a third country.

To conclude here, I quote a historical comment on the refugee problem by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, 'None should be oblige to flee from their own country in order toi stay alive. None should be displaced because others want to seize their land, occupy their homes and control their territory."

Legalising occupation: Bush's 1st maneuver in Iraq

Ramzy Baroud

When US forces descended on Baghdad five years ago, they seemed unstoppable. Military arrogance had reached an all time high, and it seemed only a matter of time before the same frenzied scenario took place in Teheran, Damascus, and elsewhere.

As it turned out, festivities began dwindling almost as soon as they were pronounced. One could argue that the day Saddam's status was toppled was the very same day that the US army faced its real battle in Iraq, one that continues to hinder long-term strategic planning, if not the once-touted US Middle East project altogether.

Five years of continuous and unrelenting blood baths may have toned down Bush's expectations. The lonely crusader who once vowed to fight tyranny at any cost is now trying to secure a treaty that would indefinitely secure US interests in Iraq. His administration may essentially be hoping to achieve what it regards as the best possible outcome of a worst possible situation.

Co-opting the UN has helped secure temporary legitimacy to the occupation. The international body, once rendered irrelevant, became a major hub for American diplomacy seeking to legitimise its occupation in a country that refuses to concede. Even willing Iraqi leaders, perfectly rehearsed elections and mass suppressions have failed to bring the desired stability and validation.

Of course, White House, State Department and US military spokespeople ventured into endless predictable talk about democracy, freedom, liberty and security in order to woo an increasingly agitated American public. But US action on the ground spoke of another reality: an imperial quest, with monopoly on violence and disregard of international law, the national sovereignty of Iraq and near total disregard of the human rights of its citizens.

Now the Bush administration is ready to crown its Iraq travesty with a long-term strategy that would turn Iraq's occupation into a lasting one. The US is 'negotiating' a treaty with the Iraqi government, one that would replace the UN mandate and legalise the US occupation of Iraq permanently.

Basically, time is running out for Bush. If no treaty is reached by the end of the year, his administration could find itself pleading to the Security Council for another extension of the mandate. This would be an embarrassing and dangerous scenario for US diplomacy because it would allow Russia and China to re-emerge as important players wielding fearsome veto powers.

By signing a long-term treaty, the Bush administration would pre-empt any action by a future Democratic president of Iraq.

When the UN Security Council voted unanimously to extend the US-led multinational forces in Iraq in November 2005, the US celebrated the decision as a sign of international commitment to Iraq's political transition.

John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN at the time, had repeatedly lambasted the UN and now saw "the unanimous adoption of this resolution (as) a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a federal, democratic, pluralistic and unified Iraq." After this the Pentagon said the "US planned to cut the numbers of troops next year." Since then, the opposite has actualised. Iraqi troops failed their first serious test - in failing to crack down on Al Mahdi army - and US forces grew in numbers.

In order for the US to sign a long-term strategic treaty with the Iraqi government, it needs a level of stability. The US military should be able to macro-manage Iraq as troops relegate to their permanent bases - 50 according to a report by Patrick Cockburn in the UK Independent - while their Iraqi allies give an illusion of sovereignty in dealing with day-to-day life in Iraq. The US' dilemma is that this coveted stability is nowhere in sight.

Since late 2007, officials in the US, the UN and Iraq have asserted that they have no intention of seeking another UN mandate. The US-Iraq treaty is thus the only option that will legalise the American occupation. The idea of the treaty is to give the impression that the relationship between the two is not that of the occupied and the occupier, but two sovereigns with mutual interests and equitable rights.

Iraqis are, unsurprisingly, furious about US expectations from the treaty. According to Cockburn, "Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country."

Iraqi cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh was quoted by Iraqi TV as saying that government will not compromise on Iraq's sovereignty and is committed to "safeguarding Iraq's full sovereignty in line with international resolutions."

Although it is difficult to believe in Prime Minister Al Maliki's commitment to 'full sovereignty,' one cannot underestimate the pressure he faces at the parliament - fractious alliances, nationalists from various backgrounds, unstable Shia front, sceptical Sunni leadership. Aljazeera reported on how two of these legislators testified to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that, "US troops should leave Iraq before talks on a long term security pact could be completed."

Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, the founder of the National Dialogue Council wants talks delayed "until there is a new administration in the United States," the exact scenario that the Bush administration is hoping to avoid. The US wants an agreement by July, one that would be hard to reverse even by a Democratic president.

To avoid embarrassment, "it's entirely possible that the Bush Administration, sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of Prime Minister Maliki to submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord." (Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation). "If Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition from parliament, he would instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he has left as an Iraqi leader," which would lead to more violence in Iraq at the eve of US elections. "Not a pleasant scenario," asserts Dreyfuss.

One can argue that no pleasant scenarios are possible in Iraq at any time under a US military presence. Iraq's past treasures were squandered immediately after its 'liberation' by US forces, and its present is daunted by bloodshed and uncertainty. The Bush administration now wants to ensure that the country's future is also compromised by violence, humiliation and war.

Placing Cricket above politics

Dr.Abdul Ruff

It was a historic win against India for Pakistan in Bangladesh. In a dramatic move, Pakistan beat India by 25 runs on 14 June in tri-series final as Pakistan batsmen Salman Butt and Younus Khan cracked centuries to help Pakistan post a challenging 315-3 in the triangular one-day series final against India in the match in the final tie of the Kitply Cup at the Sher-e-Bangla National Stadium in Mirpur, Bangladesh. Pakistan, thrashed by India by a record 140 runs earlier in the tournament, however, raised their batting performance when it mattered most as both Younus and Butt put the attack to the sword during a 205-run stand for the second wicket.

Left-handed opener Butt scored 129 before retiring hurt and Younus hit 108 in a magnificent display of strokemaking on a flat track after their team had elected to bat in the day-night match. Younus, who failed to open his account in the previous two games, made amends in the big match, dominating the Indian attack with bold shots on both sides of the wicket. He was instrumental in stepping up the run-rate after Pakistan managed just 75 in the opening 20 overs. Younis too soon notched up his fourth ODI century, which came off 92 balls.

The openers were sluggish but gave a confident start with under fire Kamran Akmal took the charge initially. But when Irfan Pathan, called up by skipper Dhoni in the eight over in the place of Ishant, who hardly found his rhythm for bowling, justified captain's belief having Akmal there was relief in Indian camp of making progress in the finals. Unpredictable Pakistan , alas, roared in style as they piled up a gigantic 315 for three after having a dismal start.

Boys form Islamabad won both the finals match and the series, while Salman Butt is the Man of the Series and Younis Khan is the Man of the Match. The Pakistanis were the better side on the day and they edged out India in what was a fabulous game of cricket. The bowlers stuck to the plan all the time and the fact that the Pakistanis picked up wickets at regular intervals (at crucial stages) always kept them ahead in the hunt.

Indian bowlers, who were pretty disciplined earlier two matches broke down mentally. An upbeat Salman then gradually went on to complete his seventh century. A century against archrivals India is always feelings like sweet dream and the dream came true for both the batsmen. Salman Butt took the pride first. Younis took the same pride after just three overs pushing Ishant to fine-leg. His fourth century came in a more devastating way. He played a 99 ball-108 runs knock clattering eight fours and three huge sixes.

Salman seemed more confident after grabbing his century as he struck a six immediate after the century. After surviving from the catch, Salman Butt picked the pace and seemed to build a solid platform alongside Younis Khan. The duo reminded the 90's brand cricket when the side saw the first 20 overs before going onslaught. It was the same Pakistan side who dominated India at the same style in the last decade. Misbah-ul Haq and Butt started the boundary and over boundary galore in the stadium which brought up for the crazy Pakistani fans to a musical moment.

The duo however could not break Zaheer Abbbas and Mohsin Khan's record against India in 1982 for the second wicket but equaled the record after sharing 205 runs.

Salman Butt suddenly cramped his leg shin at that moment and forced to retire hurt when he was 129. On the way to his 136 balls knock the prominent opener smacked a dozen of boundaries and three sixes. Shahid Afridi and Shoaib Malik then pushed the innings to 315, their highest against India in Dhaka and a remarkable an memorable in recent cricket history of Pakistan after the hey days of Imran Khan and gave the bowlers a nice platform to match their bating spree.

Yes, the most unexpected of now and , perhaps , almost a miraculous thing has happened in Dhaka on Saturday, when India, pretty sure of clinching the finals and the series, lost to Pakistan, even though Pakistan did falter towards the end of its bating.

Shoaib Malik's prayer to win the toss came to a success as a sluggish wicket got turn later. Many Indians expected that the Indians were the more deserving of the two sides to win this Tri-nation series but the performance on the big stage counts the most. The Pakistani fans had much occasions to cheer up repeatedly though the scenario in the first 20 overs was not in their favor.

The outcome of the final match was PAK: 315/3 in 50 overs IND: 290/10 in 48.2 overs. This Pakistan's total 315 was always chaseable but the Indians just couldn't make it, in spite of the fact that Pakistan did offer a truly a pressure cooker situation at the end. Indian commentators asked Shoaib Malik to state that a win against India is always special and when it comes in a Final, nothing gets better than this.

Even then the chronic weakness of Pakistani players got exposed when they could not score well for the last 5 overs; In fact its anticipated as they crossed 300 mark that they would reach 330 plus every easily, but they could not go beyond 315.

Pakistan plundered 90 runs in the last 10 overs after Butt and Younus set the stage for the final onslaught. Pakistan played too slow and got only a few runs. As usual, towards the end of the match the Pakistani boys let only chances decide the fate of the game or, as if they lose self confidence and leave the matter to God.

There could be a few strong points or reasons for the thrilling end: Pakistan won the toss; Pakistan elected to bat first in stead of fielding in order to "chase" the target set by India: Pakistan would snot have chosen the target if it had set 300 plus runs ; Pakistani batsmen wee in "form" and they bowled reasonably well. Then, the cricket mafia did not support India for a change; Bets. Those who betted on India have lost billions of dollars and those who chose Pakistan just for the fun of it have got paid handsomely, perhaps more than the cricketers would get.

Indian media blamed complacence of Indian crackers for the rout. More than Pakistan, India faltered early in their chase and eventually folded for 290 in 48.2 overs, and, as an India electronic cries out, "failed to climb the run-mountain as Pakistan shoved a 25-run defeat down India's throat to lift the cricket tri-series title" and " despite dominating the tournament with characteristic ruthlessness, the Indians failed when it mattered most and choked in the final to allow an under-pressure Pakistan avenge their league match defeat and run away with the silverware". Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir (40 off 33 balls) in red hot form so far, could not quench the Indian thirst.

Pakistan would not have won if they opted for fielding or they lost the toss, in that case Indian would certainly have chosen to bat first. Indian media had no doubts that India would clinch the finals and had seemingly prepared the headlines accordingly to blast the news as :India thrash Pakistan" or Indian cricket glory onward march" Pakistan ends pathetically" or something like, but when match was turning to welcome Pakistani players, it looked to them as if after all costly advertisements for a Hindi masaala movie starring Aamir Khan for which crores of rupees have been spent , the cassette release was done in a full fanfare show spending more crores of ruppes, the screen shows Aitabh Bachhan in the lead cast. That was the kind of rude shock the Indian spectators and media felt watching the end of the match. Poor guys!

The Pakistani boys were the better unit this time, they bowled and fielded with a lot more discipline than their neighbors and as a result, they emerged champions in yet another final against India. Pakistan win by 25 runs and with this win, they win the Tri-Nation series.

But Musharraf has yet another short in arms that his boys have dome a marvelous job in Bangladesh defeating India that has just defeated the cricket world champions the Aussies in their now turf Australia and recently practice training with the help of leading cricketers drawn form the cricket world.

After all the excitement, elation and euphoria, the titillating and sensational IPL matches brought, India is shattered! Indian electronic media particularly relaying the latest scores on Tri-series were literally in tears that Pakistan was winning even before Indian stated its bating, making the listeners go on crying even louder. Why Indians are made to do that by the Indian media in sports. After all it is not a cross-border-war between Indian and Pakistan?

As a key strategy, Indian journalists and others quickly switch over to Pakistani scene when confronted with extremely uncomfortable questions about Indian genocide and brutality against Muslims in India and Kashmir. Many Indians simply say in Pakistan Muslims are no better or, there things are not very good either, or in Arab world Muslims are very bad guys, etc., but they never try to reason why Hindus are so arrogant, their media so irresponsible and governments so snit-Muslims. They think by being cunning they could divert the public attention from crucial anti-Islamic issue. Indians consider the defeat in Bangladesh at the hands of Pakistani tigers is historic and the result shame cannot be easily erased by Hindus who breathe anti-Islamic air. For other normal Hindus it does not matter at all, after all in games Indian cannot win all matches and tournaments every where all the time. After all It is not Indian Muslims or Kashmiris the Indian teams face in sports ground.