The New Nation - Internet Edition

Bangladesh's LDC status

ACCORDING to a recent forecast made in a UN report as appeared in the national press, Bangladesh will require 17 years more to graduate from LDC (Least Developed Country) to a middle income country if its 6.5 per cent real economic growth is sustained. The UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) report pointed out that Bangladesh fared well in GDP growth, export-import and external finance, but was not doing good in poverty reduction, income inequalities, capital formation, foreign direct investment and progress towards millennium development goals (MDG) in 2006 compared with other LDCs.

Bangladesh was 'relatively less dependent on aid' compared with other LDCs and was among the 'biggest receivers of workers' remittance', it said on the basis of data for 2006. Out of the total 50 LDCs, 19 saw more than 6 per cent GDP growth in 2006 and Bangladesh ranked 15th with a real economic growth of 6.5 per cent in that year. Bangladesh's position with respect to gross capital formation, gross domestic savings and the resource gap of 4.6 per cent remained weak. The UNCTAD has suggested that Bangladesh and other LDCs should ensure maximum contribution of external funds to the priorities set out in their respective development strategies.

Bangladesh is second only to Angola among the five largest LDCs exporters. The country's food import bill increased by 43 per cent from 2000 to 2006 and high import cost caused growing trade deficit along with some other LDCs. In March this year international prices of wheat and rice were more than 50 per cent higher than their levels from a year earlier. In Bangladesh, wheat and rice retail prices increased by more than 80 per cent over the period between 2006 and 2008 which had significant repercussions on the poverty situation.

Disclosure of wealth uncertain

FEW people having undisclosed wealth have come forward to avail the latest amnesty given to disclose the same. In the current budget, the Finance Adviser announced that individuals could declare their legal undisclosed income by paying a penalty in addition to the regular tax. This opportunity is open from July 1 to October 31. Three more months are to go before expiry of the period. The National Board of Revenue (NBR) chairman sees it as a likely cause of little response from taxpayers. He thinks that taxpayers may declare their undeclared wealth along with the submission of income-tax returns in September.

All undisclosed wealth are not illegal. Whenever, one pays taxes under the provisions of the amnesty his wealth is supposed to become legal. The main purpose is to pump the once undisclosed money into the open economy by legalising the same. But the whole thing gets upside down when NBR chairman hesitates to give legal recognition to the disclosed money on the plea that some other government organs might raise questions about the source of the money; but amnesty allows one to declare incomes without any explanation.

The government policy thus appears to repel people from declaring their incomes. Rigorous drive to detect tax evasions before expiry of the amnesty period will simply be counter-productive. Such contradiction in the policy may be one cause of the reported non-response. Such a policy will lead to hiding of the undisclosed wealth. It would widen lack of confidence of the business community. Persuasive policies during the previous five amnesties helped achieve higher payment of taxes. Coercive measures bring temporary results, but do not pay ultimately.

The people in an economy 40 percent of which still remaining in the informal sector need to be persuaded over time to develop the habit of voluntary disclosure of income.

The missions lack vision

Sudhirendar Sharma

The political controversy may have subdued its release but not its contemporary relevance! It is however another matter that the much awaited National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), released in June 2008, has turned out to be a listless compilation of predictable ideas that lack depth, vision as well as urgency. Making a case for the right of emerging economies to development for alleviating poverty, the action plan places economic development ahead of emission reduction targets.

It might disappoint those who believe in scary picture of climate change and consider emission reduction to be the panacea for reducing the impact of global warming. The Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, under whose aegis the action plan has been drafted, is firm that the country would not cross the per capita emission levels of the industrialized west any time sooner. Consequently, the report makes no commitment to cut country's carbon emission at the cost of its projected development.

In doing so, the action plan gives a spin in favour of the rights of the poor to emission equity and climate justice. Why should an average US citizen spew 20 tons of carbon dioxide annually into the atmosphere when his counterpart in India averages only 1.2 tons? In the absence of a firm link between global warming and anthropogenic emissions, the action plan reaffirms individual's right to emit carbon dioxide (through enhanced energy consumption) for attaining a reasonable standard of living.

But there is more to climate change than per capita emission only! India's cumulative carbon dioxide emission at a whopping 1.5 billion tons, which is a quarter of the US's current emissions, can tip the climate balance against the poor. Whatever be the source of emissions, the glacial melting in the Himalayas is threatening to impact food and livelihoods security of over 1.4 billion people across the sub-continent. Projected sea-level rise, flash floods and unexpected droughts will only add to the woes of the poor.

At the current levels of per capita emission there is undoubtedly a strong case for promoting sustainable development but doing nothing about reining in emissions may not be a good idea as cumulative emissions do matter now, and in future too. The action plan seems seized on the matter but the prescription lacks scientific rigor. Not only does mission-mode of addressing climate concerns seems inadequate, the gap between `good intentions' and `planned actions' is incoherent and at times paradoxical.

The proposed eight missions focusing on solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable habitat, water, the Himalayan ecosystem, green India, sustainable agriculture and knowledge gathering on climate change reflect bureaucratic inertia as well as political naivety. Can increased subsidy on petroleum, current obsession with coal and enhanced emphasis on hydro power (to meet the power deficit of 150,000 MW) be without altering existing land use and without compromising on country's green cover?

The suggestive nature of the report desists from identifying prevailing actions that may need to be either modified or summarily done away with. Further, to sustain the predicted eight per cent growth the country will not only have to increase its power-generating capacity but simultaneously build ecosystem resilience to cushion dramatic aberrations in weather too. The compensatory forestry is one wrong proposition that justifies fresh plantations, in lieu of more resilient natural forests with higher carbon sink ratio.

Such contradictions abound in the action plan, which reflects woefully little on the mechanisms to reduce carbon footprints. Unless our long neglected alternate energy sector is pepped up with additional funding and new technologies, the country's capacity to generate green energy (solar, wind & biomass) will remain robust on paper only. But if economic slowdown is anything to go by, funding for new investments in alternate energy and desire for technology transfer will inevitably remain squeezed.

Seemingly, compiled in haste the action plan lacks strategic directions on some of compelling issues like resource mobilization and technology transfer. Far from presenting a comprehensive approach to addressing the issue of climate change, the NAPCC adopts a sectoral approach that lacks vision and leadership. In nutshell, the report raises more questions than answers on the issue of climate change mitigation. Unless a public policy report of such significance is put into public domain it will remain yet another document of good intentions, tagged for the archive only.

(Dr Sudhirendar Sharma is a Delhi-based development analyst.)

When you are in Paris

Bouthaina Shaaban

WHEN you leave the Middle East and land in any Western capital, you feel that you have rid yourself of the political climate and reached a planet where politics is not the food and drink of the inhabitants there.

That is because on this planet people are in the pursuit of a better way of life and they do not even want to know of the sufferings of the people you had just left behind in the turbulent Middle East. Their pretext for their lack of interest is that listening to the suffering of people is not going to alleviate this suffering and, therefore, it is better to speak about a more promising future, and they are right in this because their future seems to be a lot more promising than ours.

They are bent on creating new political entities which allow their citizens more freedom, better opportunities and stronger political and economic presence on the world stage. But these very politicians who are caring at home wear different gloves when they move to discuss things in our region. They refer to our region as if it is a land with no people; a land with plenty of oil, interesting history, amazing wealth and no people to invest in these fortunes.

After all, this was the logic of past colonialism that suffered the pain to travel further a field in order to civilise those people who had no inkling of civilisation. That is the only reading of events which prompts someone like the Secretary of States, Condoleezza Rice, to say on July 4, the US Independence Day, that she is "proud of the US decision to invade Iraq" and that "the Middle East had improved since President George W. Bush took office". The question is, is Rice proud of the two million women who were widowed because of the American war on Iraq, or is she proud of the three million children orphaned, one million killed, and five million displaced in Iraq? Or is all this none of her business and she is proud of the huge American base-embassy and of the many lasting American bases in Iraq which are there to stay? Or is she proud of the flow of Iraqi free oil to the US at the time the price of oil is becoming record high and of the history looted from the land of Mesopotamia and of the final liquidation of Iraqi scientists and intellectual capital?

But in order not to blame others and exonerate ourselves from the responsibility of what is happening to us, we should talk less about politics and get engaged in the real making of politics. And the real making of politics means to address points of weakness and consolidate the points of strength which we possess.

It is high time that the Arabs start making politics instead of talking about them. The making of politics means to benefit from the experiences of others, to do away with the entry visas among Arab states and reach agreements on political and economic issues which make the lives of Arab people better, their entity stronger, and their status on the international arena more respectable. It is true that Arab countries won their official independence half a century ago, but real work on citizenship and national interests still needs to be matured and completed.

Paris was hosting over forty presidents and heads of states on the day of the Bastille, 14th of July, but the first group of parade were the students of the French Political School, in an important signal to say those are the future of France and they are most important. When are we going to be totally dedicated to the future of our countries and peoples regardless of what the West wants from us, or of what foreign forces plan and, sometimes, conspire against our region and people.

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

The double-edged sword of the Web

Jonathan Alter

A READER logging on as KellyB last week posted a comment on a Politico.com story covering the funeral of former White House spokesman Tony Snow: "Rest in peace, Tony. You were a kind, decent soul on this earth for too short a time. May God always watch over your family." But KellyB couldn't resist amending the gracious condolence with this: "Politico.com - The Official Water Carrier of Barack H. Obama's Campaign."

How cordial. After a decade of waiting for the first "Internet election," it's finally here, and we're adrift from all the old-media moorings. "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one," the great critic A. J. Liebling wrote more than half a century ago. Today, of course, we're all press lords, or can be. But the "crowd-sourcing" of news cuts both ways. Like democracy itself, it can cleanse, correct and ennoble. Or it can coarsen, spread lies and degrade the national conversation.

Everything about the Web is double-edged. It's hard to believe, but YouTube wasn't even around in 2004. Now it (or other streamed video) is a godsend for anyone who wants to follow politics closely. But YouTube is also a pixilated guillotine for any public figures inclined to show a little humanity (that is, fallibility or a penchant for inconvenient truth-telling) when they step out of their house. Colin Powell told me recently that he's even had to put up with picture takers in the men's room.

Blogging is a good news/bad news story, too. Daily Kos held a convention last week in Texas full of self-congratulation. Like Thomas Paine and the ideological pamphleteers who provoked the American Revolution, bloggers help enliven and expand public debate. They are indispensable aggregators of political news.

But we're finding this works better for keeping on top of daily flaps than for learning genuinely new information. Bloggers rarely pick up the phone or go interview the middle-level bureaucrats who know the good stuff. It's a lot easier to chew over breaking stories and bash old media. Where do they get the information with which to bash? Often from, ahem, newspapers.

Which are shrivelling this year. Talk is cheap and reporting is expensive. Anyone can sit at home pontificating in PJs (I've done it myself), but it costs nearly $1.5 million a year for a bureau in Baghdad. As newspapers lay off hundreds of reporters in the face of assaults on their classified advertising by the likes of Craigslist, who will actually dig for the news? A few sites (e.g., TalkingPointsMemo.com) are getting into the game. But eventually, Google and other search engines will have to form consortiums to subsidize the gathering of news. Otherwise there won't be anything worth searching for.

Print is moving rapidly in exactly the wrong direction. Take Sam Zell, new owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times. In the name of "productivity," he wants print reporters to file a lot more stories that are much shorter. Just about the only comparative advantage print journalism retains is in well-reported stories too long to be comfortably read online.

Two ironies of the new age: the Netroots demand transparency from everyone except themselves. They still usually prefer to shoot from behind a rock of anonymity. That way KellyB doesn't have to defend her (or his) unfair rap against Politico.com. Until this changes and the culture of the Web demands that people identify themselves, online political power will not extend beyond small-donor fund-raising (a hugely positive development this year). That's because members of Congress respond only to e-mails with names and addresses from their districts.

The second irony is that people often prefer rumours to facts.

They so distrust the mainstream media that they may believe, say, lies about Obama's being a Muslim that reach their IN box from their cousin's friend's brother, whose nephew got it from his mother-in-law, who can't recall where it came from in the first place, over the careful reporting of a reputable news outlet.

But how to explain the venom of so many comment sections and e-mails? Like senior citizens suffering from dementia, Web users often fall prey to "disinhibition"- the lack of a filter for their most brutal thoughts. In the campaign, this takes the form of an umbrage explosion, where a day rarely passes without someone's taking grave offence over something.

In the pre-Web era, this was less of a problem. The New Yorker cover satirically depicting Obama as a flag-burning Muslim and Michelle as a gun-toting radical would have been seen by only a few hundred thousand subscribers, almost all of whom would have gotten the joke. Instead, in today's 24/7 news cycle, it was seen by tens of millions of people. It was the knowledge of such a big audience for the cartoon-other Americans who "wouldn't understand" - that fuelled the over-the-top fury of the Obama supporters. You can't erase a powerful image from someone's mind any more than you can unring a bell.

One would have hoped that the presence of millions of little Press lords on the Web would mean a much greater range of stories. Instead, Web traffic closely tracks the latest cable obsession. Even last week's spectre of bank runs for the first time since the 1930s couldn't shift the focus from umbrage to substance. For two days, the Obama-New Yorker flap (and yes, I covered it, too) obliterated everything else in the media universe.

The good news for Obama (or for John McCain when he makes a gaffe) is that all these weekly flaps quickly pass. When flaps came monthly or quarterly in a campaign, they lingered in the system. Today's media feeding frenzies are the equivalent of junk food, leaving everyone immediately hungry again. The immediacy and ubiquity of the Web intensifies the binge-and-purge cycle, but it also makes it commonplace. Most voters don't notice or remember for long.

The umbrage and venom and brilliant crowd-sourced insights are all preserved forever in archives, but there's too much of it for anyone to track. By the end of this first Internet campaign, we'll know everything. And nothing.

Jonathan Alter is a Newsweek columnist.