The New Nation - Internet Edition

On coaching and private tuition

STUDENTS of different educational institutions are found enrolling themselves in coaching centres in the capital and other towns and cities. It is reported in a newspaper, that at least one thousand coaching centres have been set up in Dhaka city by teachers of schools and colleges and faculty members of public and private universities. The coaching centres usually charge fees at high rates. Teachers of kindergartens, schools and universities work in coaching centres mainly for earning money beyond the salary received from their respective institutions where they are employed full time.

Schools for education of children at the primary and the secondary education levels have been set up all over the country. The number of colleges, universities for science, humanities engineering, technical and medical education have also been increased. Their facilities including laboratories, libraries, and hostels for students have been expanded for meeting the increased demand. It is worth noting that the campus of the Dhaka University, termed also as the Oxford of the East, is quite big. Beyond the public universities and colleges, private entrepreneurs have also set up universities and colleges for education. Enrolment of students in all these academic institutions have increased.

The authorities concerned have literally failed to monitor the work of the coaching centres and their teachers. Some students paying fees at higher rates also opt for buying fake certificates. In the late seventies, the government had banned notebooks from which students used to take help on how to answer questions. Now, coaching centres and private tutors have taken their place. The authorities concerned may rethink the whole issue to free the society from the unfair practices perpetrated in the name of imparting education.

Recovery of all railway lands

RAILWAY lands are government owned, but these lands over the years have been illegally encroached and occupied. According to a report published in this paper on Saturday, 2,500 acres of prime land of the Bangladesh Railway is under the occupation of local land grabbers causing the state-run organisation to incur a loss of Taka 400 crore annually. As it is, Railway (BR) owns vast tracts of land all over the country. A big government establishment since the British and Pakistani periods it continues to be so now. But it has been dispossessed of its land all over the country and which have not been recovered.

The government, now, should swing into action to recover 'all' of these lands over which the BR has ownership claims. The incumbent government's drive to recover government-owned lands has not covered the BR. Therefore, in the remaining part of its tenure, the government may turn its attention vigorously towards freeing the BR lands from illegal occupation.

The restoration of the authority of the BR over all the lands owned by it would be a big plus point. BR is found to be strapped for funds and has been a losing concern for some years. It stands a chance of considerably improving its financial position by utilising well the recovered lands which can be commercially let out to deserving entrepreneurs at sizeable amounts to its coffers. Even for its own development, rehabilitation and welfare schemes, recovered lands can play a useful role. Like in the cases of all other government-owned lands that have been freed from illegal occupation, the recovered railway lands, too, must be secured from reoccupation.

Tea with politicians

Dr. M. S. Haq

I read with interest ambassador James E. Moriarty's letter in a Dhaka based English Daily regarding his recent meeting with certain Bangladeshi politicians over a tea. The letter is self-explanatory. I believe the ambassador has discharged, through that meeting, not only a part of his diplomatic accountability to the US government but a part of his government's accountability to people of Bangladesh, among other things. I also believe he has done that with a clear purpose, as well as goal and in an open manner - without disturbing or affecting otherwise peace, security, stability and integrity of Bangladesh. It is fine.

Bangladesh is probably aware of the fact - domains of diplomacy have in recent times undergone drastic changes and reformations in quantitative, qualitative and other terms in pursuits of for example dealing with or coping with or both: increasing thrusts and competitions of the information age and technological environments; growing scarcities of usable scarce resources; and existing and evolving challenges, as well as opportunities of a progressively re-integrating world at local, national, global and other levels.

Interesting though, moves are ongoing towards an increasingly borderless world for common good, per se.

A brief analysis of for example, present day physics, chemistry, biology and engineering (used in a deeper sense) of diplomacy and the world of diplomacy would reveal - among other things and relative to time, space and other variables - -

1. diplomacy has assumed now-a-days a greater and more substantive role than that in the past when it comes to dealing with matters such as war and peace; development and environment; accountability and better governance; transparency and informed decision; popular participation and democracy; trade and technology; conflict mongering and conflict resolution; truth and media speculation - the Discovery TV channel transmitted last evening (26 July 2008) the story of Bangladeshi honey hunters of Sunderban under the title Discover India; commitment and human rights.

Further diplomacy is increasingly becoming a powerful tool for facilitating change for better or change for worse or a mixture of both or otherwise at local, national, global and other levels.

Despite those and other related developments, gaps between the demand side and the supply side of diplomacy in qualitative, quantitative and other terms are widening day by day, threatening for example foundation related strengths and institutional effectiveness of diplomacy at local, global and other levels;

2. roles of diplomacy as antidotes (in certain ways) to for example the culture of isolation, the practice of tunnel vision (as applicable) and the regime of terrorism, as well as extremism have been attaining additional dimensions at various conceptual, operation and other levels of human endeavors and interactions, per se;

3. domains of diplomacy apparently possess a great amount of yet to be harnessed potential for facilitating the initiation, management, maintenance and promotion of peace, security, progress and prosperity - under certain circumstances, though - in an increasingly unpredictable world. Closely relating to it - is the fact diplomacy is being used against for example, well-beings of humans or other living beings or both - again under certain circumstances. It will not be out of place to mention here diplomacy could be instrumental in triggering corruption or promoting corruption (or both) and de-accelerating corruption - either directly or otherwise and among other things;

4. diplomacy-at-work is becoming, inter alia and as appropriate, more stressful, more strenuous, more patience-intensive, more innovation, as well as invention-starved, more interdependent, more inter-disciplinary, more tolerance-driven, more frustrating - when the ray of hope for success starts diminishing - per se, more time consuming, more luck and uncertainty-driven, more variable-laden, and more thankless human enterprise than that in the past;

5. diplomacy has got several faces - both covert and overt - when it comes to say, its (I mean, diplomacy) nature, scope and result-orientation during peace times and in emergencies;

6. contemporary research, development and engineering (RDE) activities in areas of existing interfaces between human elements and diplomacy and vice versa, the application of resultant findings of RDE to relevant operation areas and the management of lessons and best practices in pertinent areas do not appear to be adequate for creating say, the future of diplomacy at local, global and other levels through the 21st century; and

7. unholy alliances of, and unproductive interferences in each other's territories by, power, politics and diplomacy are being instrumental in inter alia lingering dispute resolution, making dispute resolution more complicated and all the more difficult, as appropriate.

Successes and failures of diplomacy have - over the years and in an average sense - produced mixed results, outcomes and impacts when it comes to combating challenges, harnessing opportunities, sustaining gains and building upon gains, to mention a few. There exist instances of attempts towards for example hiding evils designs or continuing evil activities or both under civilized and smart covers of diplomacy - advances pertaining to anti-people nuke programs in Iran, North Korea and other countries bear testimony to that. Also, there exist instances of attempts towards for example promoting common good again under civilized and smart covers of diplomacy - the Bush administration's success in Indo-US nuke deal bears testimony to that. Congratulations to both the US and India!

The last word - the time is ripe now for Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and other concerned countries to rise to the occasion when it comes to: one, liberating the countries from narrow perceptions of present day diplomacy at least for the sake of facilitating continuity and growth therein + creating, sustaining and promoting awareness and understanding among the people and the media (print, electronic, others) about for example true faces of present day diplomacy, powers of present day diplomacy, benefits of present day diplomacy, present day jurisdictions of diplomacy and limitations of present day diplomacy + building and promoting pro-diplomacy mindset and ownership in pursuits of say, better for all + using diplomacy more judiciously than that at present; two, internalizing and utilizing mechanics and dynamics of diplomacy to a humanly possible extent in pursuits of making efforts and initiatives - towards protecting, preserving and promoting respective competitive, comparative and other advantages - more solid, more competitive and more result-driven than those at present; three, making more friends and utilize more influential friendships in pursuits of achieving mutual, as well as common good; four, enhancing, sustaining and promoting capacity, capability and entrepreneurial skills for maximization of developmental outcomes (used in a wider sense) via diplomacy and vice versa; and five, mustering the best possible ways and means for dealing with say, aggressive diplomacy not as a threat to national sovereignty but an opportunity for progress and prosperity; to mention a few. Let us help ourselves to help the universe.

By the way, ambassador Moriarty did not, I believe, commit a crime by sourcing inputs from various political party leaders on the country's present political and other situations via the tea party - enabling his team and himself to present the case of Bangladesh to for example the US state department in a timely, relevant, wholesome, objective, realistic and intelligent manner.

International law inadequate to address Darfur crisis

Ramzy Baroud

The crimes committed against innocent people in Darfur represent a shameful episode in the history of Sudan and its neighbours, including Chad, which has played a dubious role in sustaining the seething conflict. Equally disgraceful is the politicising of the bloody conflict in ways that will ensure its continuation.

The decision of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) prosecutor-general, Luis Moreno- Ocampo, to file an arrest warrant for Sudan's current President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, and the international responses to his decision, demonstrate both the politicising of the crisis and the selectiveness of international law.

Consider this bizarre twist. The US Congress passed a resolution, on 22 June 2004, declaring that the violence in Darfur was state-sponsored genocide. The resolution-named the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act-was signed into law by President Bush in October 2006.

Between the vote and Bush's signature the United Nations conducted a sweeping investigation-unlike Congress's rash decision which was based almost entirely on lobby and interest group pressure-declaring, in early 2005, that both the government and militias were systematically abusing civilians in Sudan's western province. It insisted, however, that no genocide had taken place.

The US is not a signatory of the ICC-understandably so, given that many legal experts deem the war crimes of invading and occupying Iraq as the worst since World War II. Although the ICC is, in theory, an independent body, it often investigates or provides legal opinions on cases passed on by the United Nations Security Council which is dominated by the United States, its vetoes and foreign policy interests.

It is anomalous that Moreno-Ocampo's request adhered to Congress's political labelling of the conflict in western Sudan and not that of the United Nations' own comprehensive and less politicised report.

Equally interesting is the response of the US and other governments, as well as regional and international bodies to the decision.

The US, which like Sudan doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, was pleased by the court prosecutor-general's move. "In our view, recognition of the humanitarian disaster and the atrocities that have gone on there is a positive thing," said US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack.

China and Russia-both of which have immense and growing economic interests in Africa-found the decision unhelpful and called for restraint. It's not only the Sudanese government that they wish to woo but other African states, alarmed by the court's move which is likely to worsen the tribal war and jeopardise the safety of the people of Darfur and the numerous humanitarian missions and workers in the region. (The UN has already declared its intent to pull back staff from a joint UN-African Union mission, one welcomed by the Al-Bashir government and which is credited for contributing to the slight improvement in the situation there).

The African Union, often discounted, if not entirely undermined, by Western political institutions, has called on the ICC to suspend its decision until the crisis in Darfur is resolved. In fact, intense efforts have succeeded in bringing warring parties to the negotiation table and extracting important concessions that, with international support, could bring the crisis to an end. But the call made by AU chairman, Tanzanian Foreign Minister Bernard Membe, is unlikely to be heeded as economic and political interests in Darfur are too significant for Western countries to allow Africa's own leaders to meddle.

While some human rights organisations and many media pundits, largely based in Western capitals, welcomed Moreno-Ocampo's request-conveniently ignoring the hypocrisy of the decision and the mayhem and instability it will create in the already fractious region-others in Africa and the Middle East are not impressed. African and Middle Eastern media decried the selectiveness and rigidity of international law when the conflict concerns poor countries, and its blindness and flexibility when the perpetrators of crimes are countries that wield military and economic might, and often the power of veto.

The ICC was established in 2002, immediately before the US aggression against Iraq. Interestingly, the ICC's jurisdiction-for obvious reasons-doesn't include the crime of aggression. Equally telling is that the court has so far investigated just four conflicts-in Northern Uganda, Congo, Darfur and the Central African Republic. One cannot help but wonder if only Africans are capable of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

It's this selectiveness that makes Moreno-Ocampo's request a textbook example of the inner-workings of international law. It exposes governments like the US and Britain which condemn war crimes and authoritarian regimes in Sudan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere while perpetrating war crimes of their own, aiding and abetting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere, as hopelessly addicted to double standards.

For Moreno-Ocampo's decision-and the entire international legal apparatus in the West-to be taken seriously, impartiality and fairness are essential. They are qualities, however, that remain conspicuously absent, vetoed, or otherwise shunted, into the sidings of history.

Regardless of whether the ICC judges will honour Moreno- Ocampo's request to issue an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president the Darfur conflict cannot be settled by selective justice, self- serving politics or contract-seeking oil corporations. Justice in Sudan, or anywhere else for that matter, cannot be obtained through such practices which are at best "unhelpful" and at worse could be used by the international order's self-appointed policemen to further legitimatise their destructive policies of "intervention"-economic sanctions, war, and the rest.

Mediterranean Union, seen from Washington

Claude Salhani

Just over a year after his election to the French presidency Nicolas Sarkozy has fulfilled one of his electoral promise, that of establishing a union for the Mediterranean, a project that was dear to his heart.

Washington, however, has still not fully grasped what this new union is meant to achieve, and quite possibly neither have much of the Europeans or the rest of the group's members, for that matter. There are suspicions among some observers that one of Sarkozy's (ulterior) motives in bringing together the existing members of the European Union and the countries of the Mediterranean basin in this new alliance is to keep Turkey out of the EU.

The French president is quite adamant about keeping Turkey out of the Brussels club, a move that finds much support in other European capitals, such as Vienna for example, but a policy highly criticised by the George W. Bush administration in Washington. Indeed, Washington's continued insistence that Ankara be admitted into the EU has begun to irritate more than a few Europeans.

Nevertheless, the new union, which kicked off in great pomp and circumstance in Paris just before the Bastille Day - July 14 National Day celebrations - brings together a majority of European countries and those of the Mediterranean basin, including longtime enemies, Syria and Israel. And although there were no direct contacts between Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, indirect talks did take place thanks to the good graces of the Turkish prime minister.

While many questions remain unanswered, Sarkozy's brainchild nevertheless managed to convene no less than 43 nations, representing nearly 800 million people; an impressive market, if that is the intended aim of this project. Overall a good start, but what happens next? Well, other than the next meeting scheduled for November.

Other than that, indeed very much remains unresolved including where the Secretariat General of the Union is to be based, or for that matter, which country will be the first to chair the new Union. In the greater scope of things, those are rather trivial details that can easily be agreed upon.

Perhaps the more pertinent questions are if the Union for the Mediterranean is intended to play a political role in the region, particularly in the Middle East, where numerous crises are brewing - Israel and the Palestinians, Iraq, Iran and its nuclear desires, Syria and its Lebanese desires and the issue of the divided Cyprus.

In fact, is the new Union meant to tackle the region's problems in tandem with the European Union, or is it meant to supplement the EU? Is it intended to replace US influence or back it up? Will it have the clout it needs for example to mediate in the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, without the political support of the United States?

Can any of the European countries or those of the Mediterranean basin be in a position to provide Israel the safety guarantees it requires from the United States before it can reach any lasting peace agreement with the Palestinians? Similarly, are any of those 42 other countries capable of applying pressure on Israel, to nudge it along into a peace treaty, the way Washington might? Again, the answer is unlikely.

Or, is the Union for the Mediterranean intended to appease Turkey, if the French president succeeds in keeping Ankara out of the Brussels club?

Regardless of what its critics may say or what reservations they may hold of this latest of political clubs, Sarkozy can walk away from the first reunion with a feather in his cap. Apparently, President Bashar Al Assad of Syria promised his Lebanese counterpart, General Michel Suleiman, that Syria and Lebanon would exchange diplomatic missions, something Damascus has long been reluctant to do.

(Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and a political analyst in Washington, DC.)