The New Nation - Internet Edition

Obama fails to woo Iraqis

BITTERNESS has gone so deep among the war-weary Iraqis that even a cigarette-seller in Baghdad could not trust Barak Obama and termed his pledge of US troops withdrawal from the war-torn country as 'a mere political stunt.' 'The American policy would not change with the change in the presidency, especially the military policy', the 43-year-old cigarette-seller Ali told international news media AFP a day after Obama's recent visit to Baghdad. Senator Obama pledged 'to declare an end to the Iraq war from the first day of his presidency if he wins in November, and to withdraw most US combat troops within 16 months of entering the White House.'

The London-based Reuters news agency also in two dozen interviews across Iraq soon after Obama's visit summed up that many of the Iraqis wearily replied in his favour for being black who 'would rather understand their plight'. An Iraqi doctor in northern Kirkuk said: 'He (Obama) is much better than others because he is black and black people were tyrannised in America. I think he will feel our sufferings.' But Iraqis voiced their scepticism at Obama's pledge to end war. The Iraqis are embittered with the Americans for occupying their country since the 2003-invasion by the Bush administration.

Obama criss-crossed volatile areas of the war-torn country during a two-day trip a week ago to meet US military commanders and troops stationed there and Iraqi leaders, obviously, to apprise himself of the latest situation of the prolonged war launched by outgoing President George W Bush. His visit as senator, the second to the country after the first one in 2006, was intended to bolster his foreign policy credentials and counter accusations from Republican presidential rival John McCain that he had not seen conditions in Iraq for himself. Obama refers to himself as black and often talks of his multi-cultural background.

Chemicals endanger fish resources

FISH is the cheaper and main source of dietary protein for the nearly 150 million people of Bangladesh and will be depended upon in the diet for all aspects of nutrition by an even bigger population in the future. But this source of nutrition is already under a threat due to dwindling reproduction of various species of sweet water fishes. Bangladesh in the past was home to four or five hundred species of fishes. The number has dwindled down to two hundred and fifty such species with the others becoming extinct. But even the supplies of the species which are still seen, appear to be fast shrinking.

The main reason for the extinction as well as dwindling supplies, is the spread into water bodies of chemical substances such as pesticides and insecticides used in agriculture. According to a newspaper report, nearly thousands of tonnes of such chemicals are used in agricultural lands and nearly 50 per cent of the same pass into water bodies. The chemicals are poisonous for the fish and the environment. The situation calls for immediate stringent regulations so that the same can be prevented from passing into water bodies which are the natural breeding and feeding grounds of fishes.

In many countries, farmers are practicing the safer natural ways of pest control without using insecticides and pesticides. The same should be encouraged in Bangladesh. At least, the use of chemical insecticides and pesticides should be regulated severely. The laws and their enforcement should be strictly ensured. Besides, enforcement of law related to fish catching, and punishing of those netting fish fries and posing hazards to the water bodies, will have to be stepped up with a greater zeal. All adverse interferences in the free and healthful breeding of fishes in their natural habitats must be stopped.

Indo-US pact will send irritant wave Around

Md. Masum Billah

An agreement unveiled between India and US three years back (2005) which allows the US to set nuclear plants and related technology to India once it has separated its civil and military programmes and accepted a certain level of UN inspection. India needs International Atomic Energy Agency( IAEA) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approval before the US Congress has a final vote before Washington goes into presidential election mode. US ambassador to India David C. Mulford said, "Washington was actively on its way to getting the deal through before time runs out." They seem to be in a hurry to implement the deal which germinates confusion and doubts in the other nuclear sensitive countries and peaceful world as well.

India is sending out envoys to lobby for the final international clearances needed to finalize the controversial nuclear energy deal .The diplomatic offensive comes after the ruling coalition survived a hard-fought confidence vote in a parliament sparked by left-wing and communist oppositions. Senior cabinet ministers and foreign ministry officials had left New Delhi to solicit the support of members of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).Science Minister Kapil Sibal is travelling to IAEA headquarters in Vienna while foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon is in Germany to persuade Berlin, a member of the influential NSG that regulates nuclear commerce to back the pact. Another senior government envoy Shyam Saran, was in Ireland, anther NSG member while National Security Adviser M.K.Nayayanan will head abroad this weekend. The parliament has given Dr.Singh and his government the the ticket to carry on with implementing the pact.

The government survived a chaotic parliamentary confidence vote on July 22, 2008 clearing the way for it to forge ahead with a civilian nuclear energy deal with US. Prime Minister won the backing of 275 deputies against 256 who oppose his congress-led government mainly left-wingers and Hindu nationalists. Singh needed just a simple majority to survive and see through the last year of his mandate.

Had he failed, the world's largest democracy would have headed into-early elections with his opponents emboldened. It gives government green signal to move forward with a pact with Washington designed to bring India into the global loop of nuclear commerce after decades of international isolation. "This has sent an important message to the world that India is ready to take its rightful place on the committee of nations." -Singh. said. His officials continued, "Now we have crossed a major bridge that is the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal. Now we will move ahead on economic and social reforms-government officials gave an impassioned defense of the deal during two days of special debate arguing that the countries' 1.1 billion people badly need alternative source of energy to avert an impending fuel crunch."

Left-wingers triggered the vote by withdrawing their support for Singh earlier this month. The main opposition Hindu Nationals BJP had argued the deal would tie traditional neutral India too closely with the US. Non- align Movement by some pioneering world leaders among them Nehru stood prominent. This deal will trample the ideology of Nehru.

They also argued it would compromise the country's nuclear weapon program and the ability to keep ahead of main regional rival Pakistan who is also possessing nuclear weapons.

It will surely stimulate and give impetus to Pakistan to further go ahead with their nuclear plan. China, the rival of India, who also wants to take prominent position in the world and spread its authoritative hand over its neigbours will be encouraged to develop such kind of pact to counter America and India. She may do the same pact with Pakistan which will be very strategic. Indirectly this pact sends an irritant wave not only to South Asia but also whole world.

It is very strange that the policy of the US to secure India's cooperation on a number of issues involving Iran, including its capability to reprocess nuclear fuel in spite of the fact that Iran as an NPT signatory, has the right to enrich uranium for use in light water reactor. But Iran has already undergone three international bans. It is continually threatened and pressurized by the US and its allies whereas India is actively helped and encouraged shows the double dealing behaviour.

This agreement aims to give India its rightful place in the world on parity with other powers. "Ananda Sarma, Junior Foreign Minister said. Rahul branded by critics as a political novice said" I decided that it is important not to speak or member of a political party but to speak as an Indian.

The problem of energy security reflects itself among all Indians. Energy is responsible for allowing us to grow us at nine and the growth allows us to help our poor." India, home to over a billion people and with an economy stemming along with 9% growth, is seen by virtually every MP from all parties in the Lok Sabha as nothing than an emerging superpower.

Indo-US relation, there is strong affirmation that America was never loyal to India. The ghost of American let down still haunts India. But America broke the ice successfully because of its vested interests. The American military Industry sees India as huge potential market and the same are true of the nuclear deal industry and other.

Ron Somers, head of the Indo-US Business Council says India's nuclear energy market has estimated the need of US$100 billion in foreign direct investment creating 2,70,000 American jobs in high technology and manufacturing over the next decade. India in return will chalk up less than 2.5% of nuclear power generation it needs 2015 at a hefty cost of natural resources if the deal comes through.

"America has dictating presence in the Middle East and some Asian countries. White House strategy reveals that it needs a huge presence of military and infrastructure to rule the rest in Asia and undermine their economy of the continent. India can not only be trusted to support America's interest, but also can serve as a vital location for operation in the continent "- Billy I Ahmed, a researcher of international politics, comments.

Bush telephoned to Singh saying "I look forward to continuing work with your government to strengthen the US India strategic relationship" India is is hopeful of getting support of Nuclear Suppliers Group and wrapping up its nuclear accord with US by September. Science and Technology Minister Kabil Sibal said before leaving Finland and Sweden-two difficult countries.

They are known for strong non-proliferation sensitivities and have serious reservation about the use of nuclear energy on safety and environment grounds. Both India and US are up and doing to immediately go into nuclear operation in defiance of domestic and international desire which will trigger the tension and irritations in South Asia and the whole world. Dr. Singh reminisces his childhood in this way, " Everyday I have tried to remember that the first ten years of my life were spent in a village with no drinking water supplier, no electricity, no hospital, no road and nothing that we today associate with modern living. I had to walk miles to school. I had to study in the dim light of kerosene oil lamp." Really this is the typical scene of rural India and her neigbhouring countries. What role this nuclear pact will play to bring positive change to this typical scence?

Environmentalists' nightmare

Paul Kennedy

THERE are many losers in our brave new world of costly gas and pricey foodstuffs - the poor almost everywhere, the lower-middle classes, the airline industry, food-importing societies, etc. And now one further casualty is emerging. It is the environmentalist dream of achieving a more sustainable, balanced and equitable global society. That vision of a harmonious Earth finds itself under threat from all sides.

To some readers, this might seem an odd conclusion to draw. Are not sky-high oil prices curbing our spendthrift ways? Isn't this driving us towards more clever alternative sources of energy, towards solar and thermal power and wind and wave power; in all, towards greater energy-preservation measures?

Well, yes it is. But at the same time it is also driving the public and politicians to adopt policies that the environmentalist movement has opposed, often successfully, for the past 40 years. Desperate to soften the blows inflicted by oil that's hovering around $140 or more a barrel, and to head off social and political discontents, governments are turning to measures that chill most environmentalists' hearts.

This list of reversals is long. While individual families in the north are returning to wood-burning stoves, communities in the tropics are intensifying slash-and-burn forestry, and in India the poorest of the poor remain reliant upon dung-burning and supplies of dubious kerosene. At a larger level, there are congressional pressures in the United States to increase drilling and extraction in environmentally delicate zones offshore, along the North Alaska slopes, and even in a great swathe of upper New York State. Many governments are making a major return to nuclear power, with dozens of new reactors being planned, thus joining the numerous coal-fired plants under construction.

Of course, environmentalists will fight back, but one wonders if their organising powers will be sufficient in these troubled times - sufficient, that is, to beat back the contrary pressures, arguments and campaigns: the arguments concerning national security and the need to 0 reduce dependence upon insecure foreign energy sources; the pressures for increasing fuel subsidies in developing countries; and the campaigns to reduce oil and diesel taxes by the fishermen, truck drivers and small industries in industrialised countries.

Until fairly recently, there existed a strong argument that a large hike in fuel taxes could help reduce our fondness for gas-guzzling SUVs (as well as enhancing government revenues). Except in the most liberal and affluent constituencies, it would be a foolhardy politician who advanced such a proposal today.

Then there is the highly controversial move to increase that alternative-energy "flavour of the month," ethanol, particularly in its least sensible form, that of producing the fuel from corn. Not only is it far less efficient than the sugarcane-to-ethanol process, and not only does it benefit the agricultural and business special interests backing it to a disproportionate extent, but it also has - at least in the case of the United States - a bad displacement effect.

With farmers in the American Midwest turning virtually into monoculturalists, converting thousands of acres of soybean and wheat crops into corn, the price of the former is correspondingly driven up by the reduced supply. This is no longer - perhaps never has been - a matter of being hurt in the wallet; when the rising cost of soybean imports causes Chinese farmers to slaughter their pig flocks and engage in violent protests, the ripple effects become political as well.

This brings us to the second assault upon environmentalists' assumptions: the hope that we are moving to environmentally nicer (read: "organic") food production, with local farmers being paid decent prices (read: "fair-trade goods") by grateful, healthier consumers.

Not only is the energy crunch driving many of those farmers and fishermen to the wall, but spiraling food costs in general, along with the rising demand from a billion more affluent Asians, are also leading to the revival of calls for measures that environmentalists have always loathed.

There is no doubt that the arguments for genetically modified food production stand a much better chance of acceptance nowadays than, say, 10 years ago. Weighing the undeniable dietary needs of 6.5 billion people (by 2050, perhaps 9 billion people) against the fears and often unproven claims of chiefly middle-class liberals regarding genetically modified food products points to the likely outcome.

It is that the demand for food will outweigh apprehensions about the method of production. The same is likely to be true in response to the calls by certain large agrochemical companies for the greater use of fertilisers and pesticides. Each contender in this debate will claim to have science on its side, and will deploy its own experts. Yet, at the end of the day, political and security considerations could well outweigh health and environmentalist concerns.

Already, and as a further twist to this story, insecurities about food supply have led protectionist agricultural lobbies from France to Japan to argue that their high-tariff policies against foreign foodstuffs have been well justified, because it is only by keeping those barriers that the nation can be assured of having bread and apples on its breakfast tables in times of crisis.

Such self-interested claims can only worry development economists, who have argued that the best way in which, for example, Europe can help Africa to prosper would be to permit the uninterrupted import of foodstuffs and thus boost the livelihoods of millions of African growers of fruit, olive oils, cereals, wine and other produce. Whatever the strength of that contention, the chances of it happening, and of establishing a regime of global agricultural free trade more generally, are slimmer now.

We have not talked in detail about the growing possibilities of political and social turmoil as a consequence of costlier fuel and pricier food - something about which the World Bank and the World Food Organisation has been warning and which at last the G-8 nations have placed high on their agendas. All we have done here is to point out that these two relatively new trends are likely to erode even further many of the gains and assumptions held by the environmentalist movement.

Intensified oil drilling, the return to nuclear power, the pressures upon forests, the favouring of corn-based ethanol, the increased possibility of a turn to genetically modified farming, and the boost to First World agricultural protectionism - all of this must make for glum reading among The Friends of the Earth. And they should make glum reading others, too.

Of course, environmentalists will resist, and over the longer term excruciatingly high-energy prices will probably stimulate some wonderful alternative technologies. To readers living in highly educated, environmentally conscious (and well-off) communities from Seattle to Stockholm, and enjoying smart new technologies being introduced every year, this article may seem unduly bleak.

Yet they in turn may fail to recognise how special and privileged their own position is compared with that of the bulk of humanity. Right now the massive increases in fuel and food costs are leading to calls for a lowering of standards on many fronts. Should such calls prevail, our world is probably going further away from the environmentalists' dream of how humankind might order itself.

Perhaps that dream was unrealisable in the face of our continued demographic expansion, the huge surge in demand for more goods and services that accompanies it, and the depletion of key material stocks and reserves. Whether or not that be so, the unpleasant truth nowadays is that things are getting tougher, rather than better, for the advocates of a cleaner, gentler planet.

Paul Kennedy is the J. Richardson Professor of History and the director of International Security Studies at Yale University, US. He is currently writing a history of World War II

Breaking the Gordon knot

William Rees-Mogg

Current British politics provides a striking contrast between then and now. A year ago, Gordon Brown had been Prime Minister for only three weeks, the Labour Party was scoring figures in the high 30s in the opinion polls and the Conservatives thought themselves threatened by an early General Election, which most of them expected to lose.

The City was just beginning to discuss some obscure financial problems in sub-prime mortgages in the United States and share markets had only just begun to show some nervousness.

No one expected the credit crunch that was to turn savage; no one foresaw the run on Northern Rock; no one thought Bear Stearns was at risk, let alone the American mortgage giants Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation); oil was $70 a barrel.

As far as Brown was concerned, it must have seemed all was well with the world: he could happily delay his decision on whether to cash in another Labour majority in an autumn General Election. He was admired for the confidence with which he handled crises such as the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

He was doing the job he had always wanted. 'Look here, upon this picture, and on this,' as Hamlet said to his mother.

Then Labour was an assured Government under an assured Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister is surrounded with political and economic problems and personal and party unpopularity.

In the past three months Labour has suffered a succession of humiliating defeats: disastrous losses in the local elections; Boris Johnson being elected London Mayor; the loss of the Crewe and Nantwich by-election to the Conservatives; a fifth place in the Henley by-election; and then last week the loss of Glasgow East to the Scottish National Party.

Labour could well be panicked by this arctic drop in the political temperature. To the outsider, Labour seems to be immobilised, like a rabbit caught in the headlights of a car. The Glasgow result, with a swing of more than 22 per cent to the SNP in one of the safest of Labour seats, seems to rule out more than it rules in.

Brown cannot now call a General Election. The by-elections and the polls tell the same story. At an early Election, Labour would lose Scotland to the SNP and England to the Conservatives. The Conservatives would have an overall majority in the new Parliament. David Cameron would become the Prime Minister with the prospect of more than one term in the office. Brown would have to resign.

If he cannot win an early Election, Brown may have no option but to go right on to the end of the road, and go to the polls in May or June 2010. This is an almost equally depressing course.

If Brown had the gift of oratory like David Cameron - and, indeed, Tony Blair - he would be looking forward to this autumn's Labour Party Conference where he could make a great conference speech and rally his troops. He would be like Henry V before Agincourt: 'He which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart.'

Unfortunately, Brown's range of roles does not run to the heroic. If he does succeed in making a rallying speech at the conference, it would be for the first time. Normally, his speeches have all the excitement of a finance director addressing his company's annual meeting. In the current situation, Brown will be judged on his conference speech; if it is dull, it will not help that it is worthy.

Next year there may be still more by-elections. So far, each by-election defeat has been more damaging to Labour than the previous one. The Tory victory at Crewe and Nantwich was indeed very damaging, but the loss of Glasgow to the SNP was a catastrophe. That has opened the way to Labour's loss of Scotland, and without Scotland there might be little left of Labour's power base. So far, SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond has outmanoeuvred Labour in almost every battle. It is like Napoleon defeating the Austrian generals.

With or without by-election defeats, there will be losses for Labour in the local and European elections of 2009. Labour must expect its worst losses in the European elections. No doubt the Government hoped the Irish would vote 'Yes' to the Lisbon Treaty in their recent referendum. But they did not, and there is little prospect of a second Irish referendum voting 'Yes' in the near future.

Brown promised to hold a British referendum in the 2005 Labour manifesto, but he has not kept to it. Labour won the last Election on a false prospectus. More than 80 per cent of British voters still want to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. That is still a live issue, and it damages Labour.

There are indeed a number of senior figures in the Labour Party who might hope to minimise the party's losses, saving at least a few seats. Brown might find the incessant strain of unsuccessful office too much for him. Jack Straw, Alan Johnson or Harriet Harman might do better than the younger men. Ed Balls would be a disaster as leader. Even this limited choice will not really arise until autumn 2009.

If there is no new leader, there will be continued unpopularity and successive defeats, let alone the looming recession, until Labour is finally turned out of office in 2010.

That is a miserable prospect for everyone, for the country as well as for the Prime Minister. Perhaps now for Labour 'things can only get worse'.