The New Nation - Internet Edition

Harnessing renewable energy

THIRTY-two thousand biogas plants have been installed in the country out of which Institute of Fuel Research and Development (IFRD) has established twenty-two thousand. 25 other organisations are involved in the expansion of the biogas technology. Among them, Grameen Shakti alone shares more than 60 percent of the biogas plants. According to media reports, GS has so far installed 4,500 plants and has set a target of establishing five lakh units across the country by 2012.

Biogas plants are self-reliant energy systems using locally made and easy to operate equipment. Biogas is economically and environmentally sustainable. These plants use raw materials like cow dung, poultry droppings, hyacinth and night soil to produce gas. Their operation costs are minimal and thus is affordable for the common people. This gas serves as an alternative to fuel wood. Other than cooking, it is used for lighting rooms with gas lantern and generating electricity for household appliances like light, fan, radio, television and even irrigation pumps. The by-product of the plants is used as organic fertiliser.

Efforts must be made to connect maximum number of households to biogas systems. The energy and power scenario in the country is in an alarming state. The proven reserve of gas is supposed to exhaust in another three years. In that case, power production and industries will seriously be affected. The coal that could meet a large part of the energy need of the country is still to be extracted. The authorities should therefore plan for using solar energy, wind power and tidal energy for producing electricity. These resources are inexhaustible and constantly renewable. One advantage of producing electricity from renewable energy sources is that no transmission line is needed.

For bilateral free trade

BANGLADESH is seriously considering to have bilateral free trade agreements with close neighbours and some other countries. Government officials, trade policy analysts and business leaders have emphasised on such relations with India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Similar accords with Nepal and Bhutan as well as Russia and Turkey are also on the cards. The move is very much timely as the Doha Round trade negotiations have collapsed and SAFTA is advancing at a snail's pace.

In view of the realities of global and regional trade, Bangladesh cannot wait for the regional agreement. The authorities must go ahead vigorously with the initiative. It is supposed to take Bangladesh along the right track. Parties under free trade agreements are supposed to benefit from the exhaustive list of items to be traded. It will help know each other's demand and supply situation to take up production and export plans. Such agreements are likely to check cross-border smuggling.

Joint efforts of public and private sectors are needed for free trade as per agreement. The Adviser for Commerce has said bilateral free trade accords should be reached on the basis of joint homework of public-private partnership. Private sector should contribute inputs in trade negotiations. The concerned agencies of the government including the missions aboard must be activated fully for the purpose. Trade balance with other countries, especially with China and India, are against Bangladesh. Mutual trade accords are expected to help ease the situation. There must be regular monitoring of trade for the sake of follow-up measures. Gaining a favourable trade balance is not just a matter of negotiation skills, it is the outcome of a host of policy actions including industrialisation, increased production and export diversification. Bilateral free trading agreements are expected to promote them.

India wants a friend here if war breaks out in the north

Sadeq Khan

The Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor left Bangladesh after a warm and successful 6-day visit. It is a prompt return visit by the Indian army chief after 6-day visit of Bangladesh Army Chief General Moeen U. Ahmed in India last February. Dr. S. Kapila, a geo-strategic analyst belonging to South Asia Analysis Group and presumably linked with the Research and Analysis Wing (intelligence body RAW) under the Prime Minister of India, characterised the promptness of the return visit to Bangladesh by the Indian army chief as a diplomatic message.

The essence of the message, according to Dr. Kapila, is that "India (as a rising regional and potential global power) is investing in building substantive relationship with Bangladesh." He noted that this was a visit by an Indian army chief for "military to military contact" after a lapse of seven years.

The last visit was in 2001. "All Indian Army chiefs routinely visit a number of foreign countries once during their tenure of office as part of high-level military to military contacts supplementing other Indian foreign initiatives." General Kapoor's Bangladesh visit followed closely the recent Foreign Secretary-level talks in New Delhi between Bangladesh and India. Dr. Kapoor therefore considers this visit particularly significant and also significant from the Indian paint of view is that "succeeding the visit of Indian Army chief would be joint discussions between the Home Secretaries of India and Bangladesh to sort out issues of border incidents and infiltration."

He did not mention the transit demand of India through Bangladesh, but since it was on priority agenda for India at the foreign secretaries-level meeting, inclusion of the issue was indeed implied. Elaborating on the impasse of conventional Indian positions with relation to Bangladesh, Dr. Kapila noted: "General Deepak Kapoor could then be left free to discuss, explore and suggest newer and deeper initiatives to further the 'ushering in a new era of close cooperation in Bangladesh-India military cooperation' as highlighted by the Bangladesh Army Chief during his visit to India in February, 2008."

Dr. Kapila interpreted the quoted overture of the Bangladesh Army chief and also the Foreign Office responses of the Caretaker Government of Bangladesh as a welcome change from the Indian point of view, "to more nuanced policy approaches to India" than earlier governments. He further noted: "India's policy establishment needs to factor-in its strategic and political calculus the centrality of Bangladesh Army chief and the Bangladesh Army in Bangladesh's policy establishment and governance." Dr. Kapila took credit for identifying earlier in his analyses that: "Bangladesh-India strategic partnership is an idea and a strategic imperative whose time has come to be implemented by both countries. In South Asia, in terms of relative stability, Bangladesh offers more promising (dividends) than Pakistan.

Bangladesh, therefore, deserves a higher priority than Pakistan in terms of strategic and political effort by India's political establishment, diplomats and the strategic communityt. (Bangladesh's) war of liberation itself was a strategic partnership between Bangladesh liberation stalwarts and the Indian nation state."

So far so good, and the Indian Army Chief's visit was not much of a departure from the dotted lines of policy analysis by Dr. Kapoor from the Indian point of view.

But Dr. Kapoor somehow wishfully concluded that there are "pointed indicators" from the Bangladesh side that a new "Bangladesh trend to craft its relationship with India based on strategic realities rather than pan-Islamism". By pan-Islamism, Dr. Kapila meant the active membership and involvement of Bangladesh in the organisation of Islamic countries.

A Bangladeshi former diplomat knowledgeable in the evolution of strategic thinking and current developments of strategic partnerships of all kinds questioned the validity of that finding of Dr. Kapila. He noted that 70 per cent of Bangladesh's foreign exchange remittances come from Islamic countries of the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Scope of manpower exports of Bangladesh is highest in these countries and there are hardly any hiccups in the relationship of Bangladesh with other OIC member states. Relationship with India, on the other hand, is handicapped by barbed-wire fences and trigger-happy BSF "head-hunters" along the Bangladesh border, not to speak of long-standing disputes and distrust accruing over water sharing and border delineation problems over the years.

Bangladesh draws strength from its membership of OIC in the international order. India, on the other hand, has yet to offer relatively favourable access to its domestic market for Bangladeshi goods.

The Bangladesh diplomat, however, recognised on the strength of his own private information from sources in Bangladesh mission in India, that General Kapoor was more pragmatic and persuasive in his approach than his predecessors or his counterparts in the Indian security establishment with regard to Bangladesh. He said he understood from his sources that General Kapoor was invited last month to a meeting of the Indian Cabinet Committee of National Security. The Cabinet committee was considering a special report from the Research and Analysis Wing about troubles in Northeast India.

The report suggested that Bangladesh should be pressurised to hunt and hand over Northeast Indian separatists hiding in its territory. If Bangladesh does not cooperate, India should back Chakma malcontents in Bangladesh and stir up tramples in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. When asked for his opinion, General Kapoor is said to have outright rejected the suggestion. He is said to have pointed out that India was maintaining military-to-military contact and cooperative with China and Myanmar, and engaging in joint military exercises with them. In the national interest of India itself, better military-to-military relationship with Bangladesh should be cultivated so that the rear ground of India in any event of war in the north remains friendly and free from aggravation.

Subway to ease traffic congestion

Engineer Shafiqul Alam

Solving the problem of Congestion in a mega-city like Dhaka is not an easy task to some extent if we Compare with other cities of America or city like Bangkok. Rather it is easier to solve if one looks at the traffic flow pattern & city area of Dhaka. At present we are living in a stage of acute fuel crisis (not only now, we always import a huge amount of petroleum) where the price is very high in spite of huge subsidy given by GOB & that's why the solution should be something that consumes less fuel than any other system.

A few months ago in an article I read that trams, trolley or BRT would make similar or even better performance than that of underground mass transit at a hundred times less cost. Very interesting! Tram-it is totally an obsolete mode of transport at low speed (almost we can walk) caters only a few passengers. Recently I have visited India and in Calcutta each tram is getting only 10-15 passengers, where the electricity is always wasted. Moreover trams are creating more congestion as it is moving on the same road that is for other transports as well. On the other hand BRT is always liable for pollution. If fuel consumption of BRT is considered with MRT for catering the same number of passengers then it is found that metro rail is far more efficient & it is absolutely impossible in Dhaka to make comfortable movement by BRT.

Going underground is a different & nice experiencetsome think that if he or she goes to the underground he/she would not be able to experience what is happening over the ground or throughout the city (missing monuments, malls etc etc) which is a nonsense thinking. The city dwellers are already well aware of the city & its life style or what so ever. Foreigner would enjoy to know the city & that's why they should use the surface transport. In London there is 500 km of subway & getting very good numbers of passengers. Go & ask the people whether they love to use subway or not? Definitely the answer would be yes.

In Calcutta metro all most 8-10 lacs of passengers are traveling everyday by only 16.45 km stretch (North-South connector), which is under extension for another 8.5 km (after the completion of that extension, the line would be able to cater about 12-15 lacs of passengers per day). Meanwhile the much talked construction phase of line from Hawra to Saltlake (East-west connector) beneath Ganga by TBM has inaugurated on last 30th June. Interesting point is JBIC is providing loan there & that loan is disbursed from the portion of Dhaka subway (JBIC was agreed in principle to provide soft loan for Dhaka Subway in 2005). Calcutta metro would be able to cater about 25-30 lacs of passengers per day when the new line would be completed.

Let us talk about Sky-train (LRT), during the comparative study for any transport plan all over the world it has been found that LRT can cater less than half of the passengers than that of metro rail (MRT) & speed is also less than half of metro rail. Even in case of elevated metro rail the speed is much less what I have already seen in Delhitthe average speed is 50 Kph beneath the ground where as that is 25 Kph in the overground. This is because of the elevated structure which is always vulnerable to collapse in case of high speed mass transport. For elevated structure it is absolutely true that it can absorb only vertical load but no lateral movement.

People always love to compare Dhaka with Americatfine. The American cities are the largest cities of the world (probably 7 largest cities are in America out of 10 of the whole world) & the percentage of roads are much more than Dhaka. This point should be kept in mind. In Bangkok the sky-train is not efficient as the lines are not covering the business zone. Anyway they have planned for 91 km of heavy metrotplease check.

In the recent past China has constructed subway of km after km & decided to cover most of the cities & the question is why? Two new lines have been added with the existing lines in Beijing to save the environment from pollution, why they did not go for BRT(unacceptable due to heavy pollution in the form of chemical emission responsible for warming) & or LRT(it is also free from pollution)?

There is a wrong thinking throughout the city that STP has been approved but the fact is STP is neither a authority nor a Government engaged entity. It is just a consultancy firm. The past Government did not approve STP because the plan has a baskets of projects but no commercial calculation that means just one side of the accounting i.e. cost was calculated without return. The present GOVT has also not approved STP, they have just told that metro rail is taken from the plan. Anyway the first thinking of metro rail was initiated by a local firm named Contech Ltd. back in May 2002 by a press conference, then GOVT. had invited tender & being the lowest bidder there the firm was kept waiting due to the absence of Private Infrastructure Guidelines. In October 2004 the Guidelines was published by the the then Government. The experts of STP came to light in 2004 by the consultancy of world bank & Mr. Louis Berger of America to just delay the project of the local firm. In the later part of 2006, PICOM (private Infrastructure Committee) the head body for private infrastructure development, approved the project & subsequently it was forwarded to the CCEA (Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs), in the mean time the the then GOVT. handed over their power. After 1/11, Cabinet asked a NOC from the honorable the then communication Adviser Maj. Gen M. A. Matin. Mr. Matin then critically gave time to STP for about 4-5 months but he found that STP is simply a waste of time and money (3.2 billion $) without route details, stations & IRR (Internal Rate of Return). Then Mr. Matin gave every one a scope including monorail, sky-train (even those were without tender) in presentation. After that a high powered technical committee was formed to evaluate the most effective project headed by the Honorable VC of BUET. The committee gave their opinion in favor of underground metro rail of Contech Ltd. (by Cut & Cover method with a cost of 6200 crore & that would be increased a bit) & Mr. Matin gave a NOC to the Cabinet, later that is approved in the CCEA in presence of Mr. Matin. Now the project is in the stage of implementation. The Advisers council in principle agreed that some projects of STP would be approved including metro rail. Another thing was included in that meeting & that was to construct expressway after subway but there was no proposal. Basically no credit goes to STP because their recommendation was different * LRT * BRT * Expressway * Link roads * Pedestrians * Over-bridge etc. then finally metro rail by TBM (with huge subsidy from GOB).

Everyone is suggesting to engage local firm in coal exploration but there is no proposal, then how? At the same time a local firm has been engaged at their own cost for last 6 years for establishing subway but no-one has appreciated that, why? Even i have seen that some tell Contech as a thai firm.

If we look at the implemented projects to improve traffic movement then we would find some unsatisfactory scenario- * Development of pedestrians (waste of money as there is no subway then why the people would walk? When subway is in operation then people would use pedestrians to reach the stations.) * Over-bridge (people feel psychologically stressed to climb upward & that's why over-bridges remain empty in a hot-humid Dhaka.) * Development of road dividers (waste of money-road dividers are made wide & road space has been wasted) * Beautification (waste-its a congested polluted city, so congestion & pollution should be removed first) * fly-over (the mohakhali, its a matter of thinking for next hundred years that who have conducted feasibility?) * Signaling system (waste of money--30-45 seconds are not good enough for the vehicles to pass that & that's why during red light vehicles move) * training programmer for traffic personnel (waste- wrong concept) * CCTV (Waste of money-visualization of traffic congestion can never solve congestion). Huge public money has been wasted by these worthless projects of our authorities but they have not yet completed eastern bypass & without this there would be no subway line in the eastern zone.

Recently I have read somebody is suggesting not to allow to park in the roads, then where did the people park? Why the high-rise buildings have no underground parking? Then what is the function of RAJUK?

However, Dhaka is the most densely populated mega-city in the world with the very high growth rate & it has its own traffic flow pattern completely different from America or so & so. Considering trade, commerce, education etc everyone's first preference is Dhaka. For example-to become an engineer, the first choice is BUET. In this way the population is increasing. In this context the metro rail is the only viable solution as at present there is acute crisis of fuel & congestion as well as pollution is very high. With the introduction of metro rail people would be able to live in the sub-urban areas by lessening load in the metropolis. After that heavy tax should be imposed on cars during the peak hours. More over GOB should emphasize on the private sector. If they can go for VOIP with the companies related to trading or construction, then why not others?

Talking with Teheran and drawing diplomatic red lines

Anatol Lieven And Trita Parsi

The Bush administration's decision to open direct contacts with Iran is to be welcomed, but precisely because it marks such a break with previous US policy, it also carries a great danger. This is that hard-liners in the American and Israeli governments will treat this Western proposal as a last chance for the Iranians, to be followed by an attack if Teheran fails to accept it.

Meanwhile, it is already clear that much of the Iranian establishment interprets the latest Western conditions not as a final red line, but as yet another pink line, a vague basis for further negotiations. In consequence, it is unlikely that the Iranians will agree to a complete suspension of uranium enrichment within the six-week deadline set by the West.

Apart from anything else, Iranian leaders know that as long as they stop short of weaponisation, neither the Europeans nor much of the US uniformed military will approve an attack on Iran, with all its potentially devastating consequences for Western security. An attack will open up disastrous splits not only between the United States and Europe, but possibly within the US security establishment itself.

If we in the West are to set a genuine red line that the Iranians can recognise as such, two interlinked things are necessary. This line needs to be rooted in international rules that the Iranians themselves have formally recognised, and it needs to have the full support not only of the Europeans, but of the Russians, Chinese and Indians as well.

In other words, our red line must be strict, verifiable adherence to the terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NTP, accompanied by a list of detailed, concrete and severe sanctions that leading members of the international community undertake to impose if Iran breaks the treaty and moves to weaponisation.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty - with all its flaws - must therefore be treated by the West as an asset rather than a burden.

According to Hans Blix, former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the idea that Iran's past violations and secretiveness has cancelled out its right to uranium enrichment under the treaty is a "thin legal argument." Even officials of the US State Department are privately beginning to admit Iran's right to enrichment, and the dead end into which the current strategy has led the West.

On the other hand, the nonproliferation treaty does provide the West with a very strong legal ground to pursue what should be our red line: to place a verifiable cap on Iranian enrichment and other nuclear capabilities well short of weaponisation.

This is a red line that all states of the UN Security Council agree on, and which Iran itself has always said that it accepts. Through the NPT, Teheran can be held to its own oft-repeated position that it does not want weapons and that its programme is for peaceful purposes only.

Russia, China and India all strongly dislike being forced to support what they regard as unilateral and illegal American pressure on Iran, but equally, strongly oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons.

The NPT therefore gives the West a strong basis on which to go to these countries and say: We will go back to the letter of the NPT and allow strictly limited and inspected Iranian enrichment if you will sign a binding international agreement setting out in public, in detail and in advance the sanctions that you and the other signatory nations will impose if Iran moves towards weaponisation.

These threats should include removing Iran from all international organisations, ending outside investment, imposing a full trade embargo, ending - as far as possible - all international flights to Iran, and inspecting all transport headed to that country.

By way of an additional incentive, Russia or China might be allowed to appear to take the diplomatic lead in this mater, boosting their regime's international status and domestic prestige. On the other hand, Russia in particular should be clearly warned that if Iran did weaponise and Moscow failed to impose the sanctions that they had promised, the results would be an increase in anti-Russian policies by the West across the entire spectrum of our relations.

Such a deal is the best that we can realistically hope for. The Iranian establishment has talked itself into a position where it would be virtually impossible for Teheran to abandon enrichment altogether.

As for an attack on Iran, this would at best only delay the Iranian programme, while catastrophically undermining American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and indeed the entire US position in the Muslim world. A settlement along these lines, on the other hand, would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and open the way for a resumption of the aid that Teheran provided in 2001 against Al Qaeda and the Taleban, which we badly need and which the Bush administration spurned.