The New Nation - Internet Edition

Stop chemical fruit ripening

A MOBILE court the other day seized six hundred maunds of mangoes allegedly ripened with calcium carbide. Two mango traders were arrested and punished for their involvement in this. A section of traders resort to this type of activities harmful to public health in order to make quick profit. Ripening of bananas with chemical substance is an old practice. Pineapples and tomatoes are also artificially ripened. It is not unlikely that many other fruits are ripened and vegetables preserved with harmful chemical substances.

Mangoes and other varieties of fruit are important sources of nutrition for the common people. But the application of chemicals not only makes them poisonous, but also breaks down the organic composition of vitamins and other micronutrients. Such fruits and vegetables may cause serious harm to the human body. Chemicals have the potential to damage vital organs of the body. The poisons used in fruits and vegetables may even cause cancer. Mangoes ripened through the application of chemicals are easily detectable by observing their colour. Mangoes of the Fazli variety never look yellowish when they are ripe. But the new generation of people not aware of this feel attracted by the colour of the fruit and get deceived.

An unscrupulous and greedy section of traders do the practice and cause irreparable damage to human health. The guilty persons must be punished severely to prevent further spread of such a harmful practice. Some of them may not be aware of the harmful effects of chemicals and insecticides on the human body. They need to be made aware of the danger and imbued with sense of moral responsibility to the society. Mass awareness and social resistance are the most effective deterrents to such dangerous activities. Vigilance at the wholesale markets should be strengthened to stop the practice.

Fuel oil subsidy, related issues

A SPECIAL committee formed to consider issues of subsidy and related matters recommended readjustment or increases in the domestic prices of fuel oil in phases. The people witnessed the phase of implementation of such recommendations recently as prices of fuel oil was increased. But the upward readjustment of fuel oil prices can compound problems for the economy giving rise to more problems than what would be sought through reduction of subsidies.

In some cases, subsidies are a far better evil than straightforward measures to cut them down. The projected liabilities to be borne on account of keeping unchanged the rate of fuel oil subsidy in the current year's budget would not be more than 5.6 per cent of the GDP, according to an estimate. Not paying this amount of subsidy can invite on the economy a far greater havoc than what gains are expected from cutting subsidies. While maintaining subsidies, all out efforts should be made to reduce the import of fuel oils.

A good short-term measure would be rapidly helping the switchover to CNG from fuel oil by the country's transportation sector. The CNG conversion enterprises in the private sector can be made more interested to do their work with greater enthusiasm if the government reduces the various taxes on them. Such fiscal incentives will enable the conversion companies to carry out their works at reduced costs. This, in turn, would encourage speedy conversion of transports to CNG.

The development and use of non-conventional sources of energy, such as solar power, must be stepped up with a sense of urgency. The use of coal and natural gas should be similarly promoted fast. Gas exploration and production activities should be accelerated to increase the availability of gas. These measures would help cut dependence on imported fuel oil.

Bioterrorism induces public panic

Md. Zamir Uddin Khan

At present we are living in the age of science. In this modern time everything is changeable with the development. As the science and technology has brought a lot of benefits to ease our life but we have found some bad cultures also with the advancement of knowledge. One of the most dangerous among these is the competition of making mass destructive weapons to practice power among the countries of the world. The malpractice has turned to its worst stage when the use of bio-weapons has been started. In this case various micro organisms like bacteria, viruses or other germs (agents) or toxins are used intentionally to cause illness or death in people, animals or plants. Sometimes this is spread by a modification of these micro-organisms which causes a great harm to the whole environment. There is a cause of using micro organism in such destructive activities and it is the unique characteristics of micro organisms of quick reproduction. By applying some genetic modification the micro-organisms are further strengthened so that these become more destructive for a particular human community. The act of using micro-organism as a weapon to destroy a human community is generally called bioterrorism.

INTERPOL defines it as "Bioterrorism refers to the intentional release of biologic agents or toxins for the purpose of harming and killing humans, animals and plants with the intent to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population to further political or social objectives." It can be further generalized as it is the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents like bacteria, viruses or other germs or toxins found in naturally-occurring or in a human modified form to cause illness or death in people, animals or plant. The persons or groups who are associated with bioterrorism are known as the bioterrorists. Why micro organisms are used as weapon?: Now the question comes that for what reason terrorists or attackers prefer the bio-weapons for destruction other than the modern weapons. The answer is very simple and that is the biological agents ate typically found in nature and it is easy to change these genetically to increase their ability to cause disease, make them resistant to current medicines, or to increase their ability to be spread into the environment. Biological agents can easily be spread through the air, water and in food. As it is very difficult to trace the criminal who spread it and so the terrorists favor it to spread the panic among people and to make their demand fulfilled. Some bioterrorism agents are contagious and some is very easy to spread such as anthrax which is possible to spread by even a letter. So to evade detection and to avoid risk criminals prefer the biological agents to cause much destruction to human and the environment as well. Types of bioterrorism agents: Based on the severity of illness and the time of spreading bioterrorism agents are separated in three categories. These are category A agents, category B agents and Category C agents. Among these, category A poses the highest risk and category C poses comparatively lowest risks among the categories. These are given in the following as the snapshots. Category A: These are the agents including the highest risk to the public and national security. The special features of category A agents are-

Theses are very much contagious and can easily be transmitted from person.

These result high death rates and severe deterioration of health.

These cause public panic and social disruption and require special action. Anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulism, tularemia and viral hemorrhagic fevers are the category A agents which are used in bioterrorism. Category B: The agents of this category is comparatively less risky for health and life comparatively with category A. the characteristics of category B agents are- ·

These are moderately easy to spread.

These cause less illness rate and death.

These require a proper clinical surveillance for the affected people. ·

These affects firstly to the animals and then from the animals humans become infected. Brucellosis fevers are the category B agents which are mainly infectious in nature. Category C: Category C agents are the pathogens that have a high possibility of massive use in future by genetic engineering for having the special features as-·

These are easily available.

These can be easily produced and spread..·

They have potential for high morbidity ad mortality rates and major health impact. Nipah virus, Hantavirus and multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis (MTB) are the category C agents. How it is threat to the environment: As the micro organisms used for the bioterrorism agents are very contagious that is why it affects the animals, human being and plants. Thus these bioterrorism agents can destroy the bio-diversity of a particular area which if is occurred in a large area may cause deforestation and the environment may lost its balance which may cause a massive human and animal death. Thus this may be a cause of the ruin of civilization. So, early intervention and preventive system should be adopted to combat the bio-terrorism. Some hatred incidents of bioterrorism: The use of biological weapons has been more rare than the use of chemical weapons. In the 14th century, plague-infected cadavers purportedly were catapulted into an enemy camp in the Russian Crimea. In colonial America, the British delivered blankets from their smallpox infirmary to Native Americans, hoping to infect them with the disease. In the 20th century, the only extensive military biological attacks were by Japan against China in the late 1930s and 1940s. The Japanese dropped plague and other bacteria from airplanes over several towns, causing outbreaks of disease. Until 2001, the only known terrorist use of a biological weapon in the United States occurred in 1984. Members of the Rajneesh cult in Oregon placed salmonella bacteria in the salad bars of several restaurants.

At least 750 people became ill, although none died. Conclusion: The use of bio-weapons indicates the barbarian and colonial mentality of the countries using it. These are very much harmful for the human being and the environment. Global opinion should be formed to stop the use of bio-weapons because it is the way of self destroying for the mankind. The international conventions and treaties should be strictly followed to stop and ban the use of it and to restrict the research in laboratories.

It's the oil, stupid!

Noam Chomsky

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq - questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of their country.

Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP - the original partners decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies - to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalisation during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and Russia.

"There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract," Andrew E. Kramer wrote in The New York Times.

Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne writes in the London Guardian, was imposed under British rule to "dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."

Later reports speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge.

The demand could hardly be more intense. Iraq contains perhaps the second largest oil reserves in the world, which are, furthermore, very cheap to extract: no permafrost or tar sands or deep sea drilling. For US planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.

That these were the primary goals of the invasion was always clear enough through the haze of successive pretexts: weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's links with Al-Qaeda, democracy promotion and the war against terrorism, which, as predicted, sharply increased as a result of the invasion.

Last November, the guiding concerns were made explicit when President Bush and Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki signed a "Declaration of Principles," ignoring the U.S. Congress and Iraqi parliament, and the populations of the two countries.

The Declaration left open the possibility of an indefinite long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq that would presumably include the huge air bases now being built around the country, and the "embassy" in Baghdad, a city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. These are not being constructed to be abandoned.

The Declaration also had a remarkably brazen statement about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq, which means its oil resources, must be open to foreign investment, "especially American investments." That comes close to a pronouncement that we invaded you so that we can control your country and have privileged access to your resources.

The seriousness of this commitment was underscored in January, when President Bush issued a "signing statement" declaring that he would reject any congressional legislation that restricted funding "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

Extensive resort to "signing statements" to expand executive power is yet another Bush innovation, condemned by the American Bar Association as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." To no avail.

Not surprisingly, the Declaration aroused immediate objections in Iraq, among others from Iraqi unions, which survive even under the harsh anti-labour laws that Saddam instituted and the occupation preserves.

In Washington propaganda, the spoiler to US domination in Iraq is Iran. U.S. problems in Iraq are blamed on Iran. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sees a simple solution: "foreign forces" and "foreign arms" should be withdrawn from Iraq - Iran's, not ours.

The confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme heightens the tensions. The Bush administration's "regime change" policy toward Iran comes with ominous threats of force (there Bush is joined by both US presidential candidates). The policy also is reported to include terrorism within Iran - again legitimate, for the world rulers. A majority of the American people favours diplomacy and oppose the use of force. But public opinion is largely irrelevant to policy formation, not just in this case.

An irony is that Iraq is turning into a US-Iranian condominium. The Maliki government is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran. The so-called Iraqi army - just another militia - is largely based on the Badr brigade, which was trained in Iran, and fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war.

Nir Rosen, one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in the region, observes that the main target of the US-Maliki military operations, Moktada Al Sadr, is disliked by Iran as well: He's independent and has popular support, therefore dangerous.

Iran "clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as 'illegal armed groups' (of Moktada's Mahdi army) in the recent conflict in Basra," Rosen writes, "which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer."

"There is no proxy war in Iraq," Rosen concludes, "because the U.S. and Iran share the same proxy."

Teheran is presumably pleased to see the United States institute and sustain a government in Iraq that's receptive to their influence. For the Iraqi people, however, that government continues to be a disaster, very likely with worse to come.

In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon points out that current US counterinsurgency strategy is "stoking the three forces that have traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states: tribalism, warlordism and sectarianism." The outcome might be "a strong, centralised state ruled by a military junta that would resemble" Saddam's regime.

If Washington achieves its goals, then its actions are justified. Reactions are quite different when Vladimir Putin succeeds in pacifying Chechnya, to an extent well beyond what Gen. David Petraeus has achieved in Iraq. But that is THEM, and this is US. Criteria are therefore entirely different.

In the US, the Democrats are silenced now because of the supposed success of the US military surge in Iraq. Their silence reflects the fact that there are no principled criticisms of the war. In this way of regarding the world, if you're achieving your goals, the war and occupation are justified. The sweetheart oil deals come with the territory.

In fact, the whole invasion is a war crime - indeed the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows, in the terms of the Nuremberg judgment. This is among the topics that can't be discussed, in the presidential campaign or elsewhere. Why are we in Iraq? What do we owe Iraqis for destroying their country? The majority of the American people favour US withdrawal from Iraq. Do their voices matter?

Journalistic imperatives

Ramzy Baroud

The world of journalism, like any other profession, can be muddled with a plethora of distractions, self-interests and agendas that certainly do not serve the cause of a free press. Outside as well as inside pressures and interests often compromise the very essence of the journalist's mission.

In general terms, a journalist should hold her or himself accountable to some basic guiding principals, the attainment of which are at times extremely difficult: to relay the story the way the journalist sees it, not the way she or he is expected to see it; to avoid sensationalism, and to adhere to as much objectivity as possible.

A journalist is a conveyor of information, whether that is regarding a car accident on a highway or the news of a village that was wiped off the map in Afghanistan.

Regardless of what story is being told, a journalist must consult his or her conscience in the way the story is conveyed, without fear and without regard for anyone's vested interests. On a practical level, there comes a time when a journalist has to take sides; when one's moral responsibility compels one to take the side of the victim, the weak, the dispossessed and the disadvantaged.

Through many years I have found, to my dismay, that often the authentic story is the least of anyone's concern. A poignant example of this is the Western media's representation of the Mid-East- based Al-Jazeera network. At their inception, various Western powers and their respective media initially welcomed Al-Jazeera, as it, at that time, seemed primarily focussed on exposing the dirty laundry of Arab regimes. It was encouraged, celebrated and often used to highlight the intolerance of Arab states to freedom of expression rights.

It was only after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the deadly war on Afghanistan, and later Iraq, that Al-Jazeera was transformed from being an "island" of democracy and freedom to a derided mouthpiece of terror. The fact is nothing has really changed in the way Al-Jazeera conducts its reports, a process that entails including all involved parties to make a case for themselves and "grilling" all those involved, largely with the same journalistic standards. It was truly unfair that Al-Jazeera was reduced from a complex media body to an "Osama bin Laden network".

This type of reductionism is beneficial, however, to some, for it diverts debate from issues of great import to that of pointing fingers and making what is immaterial the essence of discussion. That said; there are many in the West who enjoy Al-Jazeera's presence and have borrowed heavily from the network to make a case for their opposition to war.

But it must also be said that within Al-Jazeera itself similar agendas and interests cloud the presentation of many issues. Al-Jazeera is a very complex structure, with many internal pushes and pulls, many within who have their own self-serving agendas, just like anywhere else. It's not a cohesive political structure and is indeed subject to its governmental and personal interests. But again, it was wrongly viewed with reductionism, exaggeration and hype.

While many would find that alternative forms of media are the answer to such growing problems as these, current media trends testify to the fact that more is not always better and that advanced technologies, while they may advance certain aspects of communications and allow disadvantaged groups greater access, also create useless competition and misinformation.

But for the most part, today's media-those outlets particularly manifested through large media conglomerates-are establishments with clear political agendas, explicit or subtle, but unmistakable.

In a recent article I wrote, "Managing consent: the art of war, democracy and public relations", I tried to trace the history of that relationship between the state, the corporation and the media. In a more recent article, "Media language and war: manufacturing convenient realities", I attempted to further refashion the discussion to more contemporary periods, using Iraq as the centrepiece. Generally, I think that the media is willingly used-or allows itself to be used-for political agendas and for state propaganda, a role that can only be described as fraudulent.

Nonetheless, the huge gap left open by subservient corporate media called and allowed for the development of alternative means of communication, some with their own agenda but widespread enough to balance out.

At the end of the day, members of the press must answer to themselves, fellow citizens and those whom they represent in their reports. Making waves and making enemies in this line of work does not necessarily mean you are doing anything wrong.

On the contrary, you may indeed be on the right track. It is when you speak out on issues that cause discomfort or offence that you truly find your integrity as a writer. You learn quickly that you cannot necessarily have friends in high places and at the same time maintain the trust and respect of those on the ground.

In my own experience, there are moments-if rare-when I feel gratified; when I know that I have raised enough awareness regarding a certain topic, moving it from the rank of the negligible to that worthy of attention. I felt exhilarated when one of my articles resulted in a fiery statement from an embassy, demanding that my articles be blocked from that country's newspapers.

I very much like it when a newspaper in Nigeria, or a Burmese opposition newspaper, for example, runs my articles regarding matters in their respective countries. Such endorsements may perhaps raise some eyebrows, but they are also indication that you are on the right track.