The New Nation - Internet Edition

Sugarcane output shortfall feared

AS reported in the media, sugarcane cultivation across the country may face massive decline this year as the government failed to supply adequate fertiliser to farmers. The government, according to reports, could not supply 'two-thirds of the required fertiliser' to farmers by June, which is the high time to use fertiliser in fields. As per assessment made by the Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation (BSFIC), till June some 21,000 tonnes of urea fertiliser were to be distributed among the sugarcane farmers while the corporation received only 12,180 tonnes, which is 42 per cent less than the assessed requirement.

Apart from urea, the corporation assessed TSP fertiliser demand at 16,000 tonnes and MOP at 14,000 tonnes, but it delivered only 7,680 tonnes of TSP, which is 52 per cent less than the requirement and 1,960 tonnes of MOP, which is 84 per cent less than the demand. Sugar mills have agreements with farmers of the respective mill areas on supplying inputs including fertilisers for cultivation of sugarcane and deduct the prices from the price of sugarcane supplied to the mills. The BSFIC procures fertiliser from the Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation for distribution among the farmers.

Sugarcane farmers association say, as most of the farmers rely on the mill authorities for fertiliser, they would face 'debacle' this year due to dearth of supply. Inadequate use of fertiliser may affect both the quality and quantity of sugarcane. In view of the situation, it is apprehended that the country's 14 state-run sugar mills under the corporation would get inadequate supply of sugarcane in the coming crushing season and that would ultimately lead to decline in sugar production.

Enrolment of foreign students

THE number of foreign students in Dhaka University has declined over the years. It is mainly due to inadequacies of facilities for foreign students on the campus. Those enrolled in the past also faced very many problems. Sessions-jam, political unrest and the failure of faculty members of different departments to guide foreign students are quite pronounced.

It is reported in the press that the enrolment of foreign students turned quite uncertain due to the fact that there is no full-fledged admission office for foreign students in Dhaka University. Other universities and academic institutions in Bangladesh also show no interest in admitting them. That being so, more effective arrangements for extending academic services to foreign students have to be made with necessary support services including scholarships. If necessary, a set quota of seats in different departments and faculties of universities may be earmarked for foreign students. So far, foreign students opted for enrolling themselves.

It is worth noting that academic activities have turned quite pro-active to the needs of the countries concerned. The upcoming generations of people in all countries have to obtain proper education and training for upgrading their knowledge and skills. They are expected to contribute positively to the growth and development of their countries. Foreign universities usually try to select intelligent and meritorious students for enrolling them from countries including Bangladesh. The decline of foreign students possibly speaks of the academic standard and chaos that are disincentives for them to study in Bangladesh.

Conservation of heritage sites for development of tourism

Mohammad Shahidul Islam

Bangladesh is a country with a colorful cultural legacy and rich in archaeological wealth- dating back to the Muslim and pre-Muslim period when Hindu and Buddhist rulers ruled this land which is now Bangladesh.

The rich cultural heritage of the country is yet to be projected and exploited to attract tourists. If proper efforts are made to develop cultural tourism - a new Bangladesh would emerge and will glow brighter among the countries of the world.

Most of the people in Bangladesh are not aware of our rich culture and heritage. Its importance for our national identity and existence are also overlooked. Development of tourism based on culture and heritage, can help develop image of the country as well as make the people of our country conscious in this regard.

Before initiating heritage tourism, we need to put serious effort on conservation of heritage sites. If we take initiatives to conserve our heritage, it will bring numerous benefits to the nation. In addition to creating new jobs, new businesses and higher property values, well-managed tourism will help improve the quality of life.

Of course, we are to ensure that tourism does not destroy the very heritage that attracts visitors in the first place. Furthermore, tourism is a competitive, sophisticated, fast-changing industry that presents its own challenges. Heritage tourism is a resource-based industry and one that can be a sustainable industry, though it does put demands on the infrastructure- on roads, airport, water supplies, and public services like police and fire brigade.

For promoting successful heritage tourism, we need to form an experts' committee to conserve heritage sites. The committee should make some immediate recommendations which be forwarded to the concerned authorities.

Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation, the national tourism organisation, must be also involved in the process. The recommendations may be:

A wide-ranging development plan for heritage sites should be programmed.

Development plans must look for the suggestions and guidance of heritage experts, social scientists and environmental experts.

Participation of local people of respective heritage site should be ensured in the scheme.

The need for deeper and broader participation and awareness building among the citizens and civil society at large should be thought of.

Publications in a variety of formats targetted at different users may include books, reports, brochures, guides, maps, and audio-visual products - have to be taken.

Identifying the need to develop human resource potential and capacity building skills, assistance of UNESCO and concerned ministries to train the personnel concerned must be considered.

The question here is no longer whether we need heritage conservation -the question is indeed how to prioritise heritage conservation as an important aspect of a country's overall development including tourism, and to set up an appropriate framework for its integration and implementation within existing systems of development and management.

Let us look why most of people in the country are not aware of heritage tourism. First one cannot encounter this word in their books throughout his or her education and second the word tourism itself is not explored nationally. The cliché "Bangladesh is a land of rivers/birds" should not go singly rather it should be associated with " Bangladesh is a land of tourism."

It is only a single word that is enough to identify the whole nation's vivid past. It embodies the core of a country from past to present, from north to south, from east to west. The recent good news of Dr. Muhammad Yunus winning Nobel Peace Prize has made us really easy to get identified by others as Bangladeshi.

We can now proudly raise our head in the world. Heritage tourism can be also another such means for Bangladesh to raise its image across the globe.

Spirit of possibility in a fertile region

Dr N. Janardhan

A SENSE of tentative hope hangs in the air in the Gulf region following the recent shift in Washington's policy towards Iran, as well as the relative gains being achieved in Iraq. Though the region's dilemmas are far from fixed, these set the stage to explore a theme that resonated at the University of Exeter's Gulf Conference few weeks ago, which marked 30 years since the Gulf Studies programme began there.

In an academic coincidence, highlighted by Prof. Tim Niblock, while 1978 (when the first conference was held) marked five years into the first oil boom (1973-82), 2008 is five years into the second oil boom, given that prices began to rise in 2003.

For academics, the Gulf region was gripped by a "spirit of optimism" 30 years ago - buoyed by high oil prices, governments brimmed with plans that had the potential to transform the economies and societies not only in the region, but also in the developing world, which was an opening for them to become a force to reckon with internationally.

However, by 1981, the spirit of optimism was replaced by the "spirit of Armageddon", which was characterised by the region "entering the period of wars, conflicts presaging descent into wars, and aftermath of wars, which has dominated so much of the history of the Gulf region since thent(Further,) all three major wars in the world in the last three decades have been fought in the Gulf (along with the Arab-Israeli wars, the Middle East has had the highest per capita war in the world in six decades), and there have been conflictual reverberations coming from the 'arc of crisis' allegations (the presumed encirclement of the Gulf) in the early 1980s, the Afghanistan conflict, the 'war on terror', and the side effects of ongoing conflicts in Palestine and Lebanont"

The fall and instability in oil prices, as well as the consequent low revenues during the next two decades added to the woes.

These two eras transpired to usher in the reigning "spirit of possibility" where "it is possible to develop and implement visions of transformative and far-reaching change" - which cannot be compared yet to the spirit of optimism, but has certainly and positively moved away from the spirit of Armageddon.

This new spirit is characterised, first, by high oil prices. Unlike political reasons, which fuelled the first oil boom, it is largely economic factors - driven by the need to fuel economic growth in the developing countries - that have resulted in unforeseen oil price rise, resulting in overflowing treasuries for the Gulf countries. This phenomenon is unlikely to see a quick reversal of fortunes like in the past.

After earning $364 billion in 2007, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are projected to earn about $1.3 trillion in oil revenue in 2008 and 2009. The International Monetary Fund's Institute of International Finance estimated that the GCC public and private overseas wealth reached $1.8 trillion at the end of 2007.

A Goldman Sachs report titled "The GCC Dream" projected the 2050 per capita GDP for the region at $63,250, which compares with leading industrial countries. If problems such as inadequate human resources can be addressed, the per capita income level could touch $78,800.

The report also estimates that the projected cumulative oil and natural gas revenues for the GCC countries during 2005-2030 would amount to $5.5 trillion. This would help the region's GDP hit $5.5 trillion by 2050, overtaking Britain and Germany.

It is obvious that the GCC countries have learnt a lesson after squandering oil wealth during the 1970s. Thus, for the first time, high oil price is accompanied by economic diversification. Economic reform is also encouraging private sector growth, which in turn is capable of providing competitive and underprivileged nationals with opportunities to take up challenging jobs, rather than rely just on the public sector.

Socially, in order to sustain the diversification process in the long run and tackle the unemployment problem, the region is attempting to tread the "knowledge economy" route - "one in which the generation and exploitation of knowledge play the predominant part in the creation of wealth," where human capital is the chief source of economic value, and education and training the main tools.

Even politically, contrary to the opinion that political reforms are usually on the region's agenda only during low oil prices, the GCC countries have made noticeable progress since 2003, gradually expanding the participation of both the political actors and electorate - Oman allowed all citizens above the age of 21 years to vote in the consultative council elections in 2003; Saudi Arabia held its first municipal elections in 2005; Kuwait weathered a gender-sensitive society to grant women the right to vote and stand for public office in 2006; Bahrain elections the same year saw the opposition groups, which boycotted the 2002 polls, successfully participate; the UAE elected half its Federal National Council members in its first elections in 2006; and Qatar is bound to conduct elections sooner or later after announcing recently that two thirds of its parliament members will be elected.

Further, all the GCC countries, except Saudi Arabia, now have women ministers.

The second factor driving the spirit of possibility is the "failure of others", especially on issues related to Iraq and Iran.

This exposed "the limitations of externally-initiated solutions" to regional problems and reinforced the wisdom in exploring local solutions to local problems - as seen in Qatari and Saudi diplomatic initiatives that have contributed positively to Lebanese, Yemeni, Iraqi and Iranian crises, among others.

The third factor is what some describe as the "real strategic shift" in the region's foreign policy. Owing to the failure of the United States in the region and the shift in the economic power centre from the West to the East, the GCC countries are building ties with a host of alternatives, particularly in Asia. For the doubters of the Gulf's 'look East' policy, "the extent to which there are real options is not the issue. It is the perception which is important, as it is this which creates an openness to envisaging new possibilities."

It would not be imprudent to suggest that the ongoing changes are bound to further alter the region's socio-politico-economic foundations, giving momentum to the spirit of possibility, which could translate into a Fertile Gulf.

(Dr. N. Janardhan is a UAE-based political analyst specialising on Gulf-Asia affairs, and can be contacted at njanardhan71@gmail.com )

The more things changet

Ramzy Baroud

US presidential hopeful Barack Obama's three-day visit to Israel, and one quick stop in Ramallah carried just one surprise; that he wished to meet with Palestinians at all. Those who count on Obama to drastically shift US foreign policy in the Middle East, can rest assured that there will certainly be a few cosmetic changes, here and there, but nothing substantial.

True, Obama had promised some degree of withdrawal from Iraq, and a level of communication with Iran. But even these promises are ambiguous and can be easily modified to fit political interests and lobby pressures at any time. Any military deployment in Iraq, now we are told, would be matched with greater military build-up in Afghanistan, a sign that the militant mentality that motivated the war hawks in the Bush administration is yet to change, and the valuable lesson that bombs don't bring peace, is yet to be heeded.

But even talking to Iran is an indistinct promise. To begin with, various officials in the Bush administration have already been talking to Iran, in less touted meetings, but they have engaged Teheran nonetheless, especially in matters most pertinent to US, not Israeli interests, i.e. the Iraq war. More, in what was widely seen a "a shift of policy", senior US diplomat William Burns joined envoys from China, Russia, France, Britain, Germany and the EU in their talks with Teheran in Geneva, on July 19. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praised the US participation and the "respect" the US envoy had shown during the meeting.

Obama's statements to assure Israel on his proposed talk with Iran are most alarming. He has tirelessly repeated that the "military option" remains on the table to ensure Israel's security. Isn't this the exact same policy trademark infused during the Bush administration, which eventually led to the war against Iraq? The US will exhaust every diplomatic channel, but the "military option" remains on the table, was the jest of the message repeated by the warmongers of the White House throughout Bush's terms. Does one need any proof of why such an attitude is not reflective of well-intentioned diplomacy?

What is equally dangerous in Obama's utterings is that he might be, and is already, feeling pressured to balance his seemingly soft attitude towards Iraq and Iran, by exaggerating his country's pro-Israel stance in a way that will derail any possibility for a peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, at least during his term. In fact, ominous signs of that pressure, and his succumbing to it are ample, the last of which was his statement, prior to his visit, that occupied Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that negates international law and the consistent tradition of various US administrations, including Bush's.

One need not repeat what Obama has said during his visit to Israel, for such rhetoric is becoming most predictable. His 'commitment' to Israel and to the ever "special relationship" that unites both nations were generously invoked.

Obama promised to do his utmost to keep Israel secure, and to stop Iran from obtaining the atomic bomb. As for Palestinians, he seems keenly interested in engaging their non-democratic forces, and shuns those who dare to challenge his country's biased official line that has contributed in a myriad of ways to the ongoing conflict.

Obama insists on disregarding the US official blind spot that has continued to destabilise the Middle lEast for generations. If he is indeed interested in straightening the distorted course of his country's foreign policy in the region, then he is certainly viewing it from an Israeli looking glass, the same as used by the Bush neo-conservative clique, which led America into an unrivalled downfall in Mesopotamia.

But Obama is not alone. If he wins the presidential race, he will join a growing club of Western leaders who refuse to see commonsense, and behave erratically, even against the wishes of their own people.

Starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to Israel last March, to French President Nicolas Sarkozy's in June, to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's in July, no one has failed to deviate from the predictable mantra: Israel first and foremost. True, some like Sarkozy, dared voice some criticism of Israel's settlement policy in Jerusalem - one that Obama cannot dare repeat even in private - but the underpinnings are still the same, Israel, a country of a few million remains the most valuable concern that the West has in a region of hundreds of millions.

Those leaders' brazen 'commitment' to Israel, regardless of the consistently brutal policy carried out by the latter, is surely bizarre to say the least; bizarre, and in fact non-Democratic.

An international poll, conducted by www.worldpublicopinion.org examined the views of people from 18 countries, including France, the UK and the United States. The findings of the poll were released on July 1, and were most telling. In 14 countries "people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Just three countries favour taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favours taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 per cent favour taking neither side."

The entire hoopla about the "common cause" and "special relationship" and "promised land" and the fear-mongers of the Armageddon crowd, like the rest failed to sway the views of the great majority of Americans.

Why then, doesn't the "candidate of change," Obama, listen to his people and truly change his government's destructive path on Palestine and Israel? Why doesn't the UK's Brown and France's Sarkozy listen to their people considering that an equal percentage in both of their countries - 79 per cent - is beseeching them to do the same? These results are of course consistent with public opinions in Western countries for years. Shouldn't these leaders respect the cannons of democracy in their own countries before lecturing others?

Following his Israel trip, Obama kick-started a European tour that took him to Germany, France and the UK. The moods were described as "cheerful" and the expectations as "high", everywhere the senator went including Israel. As for Palestinians, it's more of the same: the same arrogant demands, same unfair policies, and ever-historical; bias.

In the southern Israeli town of Sderot, a widely grinning Obama received a T-shirt that read, "Sderot loves Obama." Obama, of course, didn't visit the Gaza concentration camps to find out what Palestinian there thought of him, considering his ardent defence of Israel's brutal policies against the Strip in recent years. One can only imagine what a Gazan T-shirt to Obama might have read.