The New Nation - Internet Edition

Unimplemented recommendations

AS appeared in the media recently, only 4 out of 31 recommendations so far made by the Regulatory Reform Commission in last eight months were implemented, rerunning the history of scores of such proposals going unheeded in the past. Two other recommendations were partially executed, while 'little or no progress' has been made on the remaining 25 as the media quoted commission sources to have admitted. The implemented touched upon the peripheral details, leaving 'the bureaucracy as cumbersome and time-consuming as in the past', reveals an analysis of the commission's progress report.

The commission, set up on October 30, 2007 to suggest ways to ease the regulatory regime blamed for hindering the private sector growth, made its recommendations in phases up to April 22 this year. And that's all, as if it confined its activities usually in making recommendations only, and not keeping watch on their timely implementation for which the commission was formed. The first set of recommendations, dealing with people's access to government rules, came after the commission's first meeting held in November last and the second meeting held in January this year recommended online registration with Board of Investment (BoI), uniform fees or charge for registration of investment projects and reforms in BoI to make it dynamic.

The commission proposed that as the Bangladesh Bank should alone take decision regarding foreign private loans and that any proposal for such loans can be sent through any schedule bank besides suggesting amendments to the Post Office Act of 1898 and change the process of land registration. Since the independence in 1971, almost all the governments formed administrative reform commissions, which later came up with dozens of proposals. The last one submitted its recommendations at the fag end of the Awami League regime (1996-2001). But few of their recommendations were implemented.

Population and agricultural productivity

AGRICULTURE continues to be too vital for the food security and macro economic stability of Bangladesh. Growing imports of food products with the rising forex reserve has been possible. But such imports climbing higher and stressing the reserve on a regular basis, could seriously strain the country's macro economic stability. Experts are not satisfied with the progress in agricultural productivity. The only success story is in the area of rice production. The annual average of rice production was some 11 million tonnes in 1971 which has increased to 26 million tonnes in recent years. The population also doubled to 150 million during the three decades.

Still, in recent years, foodgrain production was found short of total effective demand by at least half a million tonnes on average which had to be met by imports. The population would likely increase by some 20 million in the next twenty years and food grain production must at least rise proportionately. But agricultural lands are being put increasingly into non-agricultural uses. Some 20 per cent agricultural lands have been lost from this process during the last 10 years, according to one estimate.

In such a situation, only increasing the per hectare yield of foodgrains seems to be the way for Bangladesh to keep on matching higher demands with adequate supplies. The present average output per acre is about 3 tonnes per hectare which must be raised to 5 tonnes as has been the case in Korea and Japan. The Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) has so far invented 47 new high yielding varieties of rice. But only a handful of them have been popularised although there are at least a dozen varieties which can yield substantially higher outputs than the ones which are being cultivated. The new varieties of seeds developed by the BRRI should be put to widespread field level applications.

Security concerns of India

Shamsuddin Ahmed

Who poses the greatest security threat to India? Maoist, Pakistan's secret agency ISI or communalism?

BBC on August 30 quoted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as saying earlier that "the Maoist insurgency is the single biggest threat to India's security." Chief of Indian Army Gen Joginder sharing the concern of the Prime Minister had said, "Indian Army is keeping a close watch on Maoist rebels operating in the country's eastern, central and southern states," in the wake of rising attacks and violence that posed a serious security threat.

The Indian Home Ministry published a report on August 29 raising security concern of the region. The report identified ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) of Pakistan as the biggest security threat to India. The report also involved perceived "insurgent groups of Bangladesh are working under the shadow control of ISI."

Communal problem remains endemic in India. Apart from Kashmir where Muslims are subjected to persecution, communal violence frequently flares up in different states when the minority communities are butchered shaking the very roots of secular India. Orissa is the latest example where scores of Christians have been killed since communal violence erupted on August 23. Tens of thousands fled homes and 45,000 Christian schools have been closed across India.

The Indian Home Ministry report, believed to be based on intelligence gathered by its agencies, should naturally raise serious security concern for not India alone but all the countries of the region. For, the ISI plans is said set to use terror groups for launching attacks with chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological weapons, the affect of which will certainly travel beyond the Indian territory.

"Terror groups backed by Pakistan's ISI spy agency could use chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological weapons against India, initiating a form of 'super terrorism', said the report.

It said ISI has been expanding its networks in India from Jammu and Kashmir to down south. "Active terror modules are mushrooming in Bihar, Assam and West Bengal where the sleeper cells have been assigned with specific targets."

The report cautions that ISI moles may also use aircraft, buses or other means which are commonly available to cause heavy casualties. "Various insurgent groups active in Bangladesh are under the shadow control of ISI … South India too is an important part of the overall ISI game-plan since it is being targeted to recruit unemployed youths," added the report.

Bangladesh Foreign Ministry ridiculed the report. "It's a fantastic nonsense," said a senior official requesting anonymity, as he is not authorised to speak to the press. "There is no insurgent groups in Bangladesh." He cited a number of recent tragic incidents in India, which, according to the media reports, have caused either by Maoists, ULFA rebels or VHP.

Mr Jagmohan, a former governor of Jammu & Kashmir and former union minister gave a resume of the rapid growth of Maoist raising security threat to India. He wrote under the heading 'Maoist movement has entered a stronger phase' (February 2, 2008), "Three major groups - Maoist Communist Centre, People's War Group and CPI (ML) - have merged to form a united outfit called CPI (Maoist). It affirmed, "The revolution will be carried out and completed through armed agrarian revolutionary war; that is, protracted people's war with the armed seizure of power remaining as its central and principal task, encircling the cities from the countryside and thereby finally capturing them."

CPI (Maoist) declared, "It supports the struggle of the sub-nationalities for self-determination, including the right to secession."

The concern of security threat has redoubled in India following the Maoist election victory in next door neighbour Nepal. Former Foreign Minister Mr Jaswant Singh on June 2 cautioned, "Indian Maoists of the red-corridor are known to have close contacts with Nepalese Maoist. A collusion of the Maoist of the two countries would pose greater security threat to India."

Indian Institute of Conflict Management reports that Maoists have gained grounds in 192 districts of 16 States. They are well organized and more active in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh states.

At least 12 police officers were killed early this week in mine blasts planted by the Maoists rebels in a remote area of Jharkhand.

Communal strife has posed no less a threat to the security of India. Protracted independence struggle in Kashmir has led to the persecution of Muslims. Communal violence frequently occurs across the country have shaken the very basis of secular India. The 2002 pogrom of Gujarat is still fresh in many Indian minds. More than 1200 Muslims were killed, women rapped, homes torched and shops plundered evoking worldwide condemnation.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad and its militant wing Bajrang Dal preaching Hinduata have posed threat to life and property of the minorities. The latest example is Orissa where scores of Christians have been killed since August 23. A Catholic daily published from New Delhi reported on September 1, "Tens of thousands of Christians persecuted by VHP and Bajrang Dal fled homes for fear of lives. Some 45,000 Christian schools and most of the Churches have been closed. A priest from Bhuvenswar dashed to New Delhi and pleaded in vain with the President and the Prime Minister to stop the carnage. "For 8 days killing of Christians and torching their homes continued …We will have no option but to raise Suraksha Vahini (militia force) for our security," the priest told the newsmen. He declined to give his name saying he is under threat of life by VHP cadres.

Bush's new world order on test again

Ramzy Baroud

The series of unfortunate and costly decisions made during the two terms of the Bush administration, combined with economic decline at home, might devastate the US's world standing much sooner than most analysts predict. What was difficult to foresee was that the weakening of US global dominance, spurred by erratic and unwise foreign policy under Bush, would re-ignite the Cold War, to a degree, over a largely distant and seemingly ethnically-based conflict -- that of Georgia and Russia. Who could have predicted a possible association between Baghdad, Kabul and Tbilisi?

But to date the decline of US global power to the advent of the Bush administration, or even the horrific events of 11 September 2001, is not exactly accurate. The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union and the unravelling of the Warsaw Pact -- especially as former members of that pact hurried to joined NATO in later years -- empowered a new breed of US elite who boasted of the economic viability and moral supremacy of US-styled "Capitalism and Democracy". But a unipolar world presented the US leadership with an immense, if not an insurmountable task.

While 9/11 and a gung-ho president presented a convenient opportunity to reassert US global dominance, action was taken the moment the Soviet Union collapsed. Such efforts, however, were not accentuated until 1997, with the establishment of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank from which many neo-conservative policy advisors operated. Their aim was "to promote American global leadershipt [which] is both good for America and good for the world." William Kristol and Robert Kagan, PNAC founders, were inspired by the Reaganite policy of "strength and moral clarity". But that supposedly inspiring model was justified on the basis of the Cold War, which no longer existed. Fashioning an enemy was a time-sensitive and essential task to justify the repositioning of US power to reclaim domains that were left vacant with the disappearance of the bipolar international system, which existed since World War II.

Even the PNAC's more recent report, Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, published in 2000, appeared of little relevance and urgency. It expressed the "belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the pre-eminence of US military forces". The report would have been another neglected document were it not for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, which turned it into a doctrine defining US foreign policies for nearly a decade.

The wars and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq were aimed at strengthening the US hand in protecting its interests and managing its international affairs. Afghanistan's position was strategic in warding off the growth of the rising powers of Asia -- aside from its military and strategic value, it was hoped to become a major energy supply route -- while Iraq was to provide a permanent US military presence to guard its oil interests in the whole region and to ensure Israeli supremacy over its weaker, but rebellious Arab foes.

The plan worked well for a few weeks following the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Since then, the US has learned that managing world affairs with a decidedly military approach is a recipe for disaster. Faced with foreign occupation, Iraqis fought back, creating a nightmare scenario and promising US defeat in their country. The US's original plan to exploit the country's fractious ethnic and religious groupings also backfired, as shifting alliances made it impossible for the US to single out a permanent enemy or a long-term ally. In Afghanistan, the picture is even more bleak as the country's unforgivable geography, the corruption of US local allies, resurgence of the Taliban, and the US-led coalition's brutal response to the Taliban's emboldened ascension, has rendered Afghanistan a lost cause by any reasonable military standard.

But the trigger-happy mentality that has governed US foreign policy during the Bush years is no longer dominant and has been since challenged by a more sensible, dialogue-based foreign policy approach, as championed, reluctantly, by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The change of heart is not entirely moralistic, however, but largely pragmatic. According to a survey conducted jointly by Foreign Policy magazine and the Centre for a New American Security, published 19 February 2008, 88 per cent of present and former US military officers believe that the demands of the Iraq war alone have "stretched the US military dangerously thin". Although not "broken", 80 per cent believe it is "unreasonable to expect the US military to wage another major war successfully at present", as reported by CNN. Such estimation is not too different from similar assessments provided by top US military commanders, most of who found their way to early retirement for similar reasons.

The new military limitations faced by the US in the Middle East have also resulted in the weakening of US political sway and standing. More, its regional allies have also suffered one blow after another: Israel in Lebanon, Georgia in South Ossetia, US allies in Venezuela and other South American countries, etc. Indeed, it is a matter of time before a challenger to US global hegemony arises and tests US resolve under new circumstances. While growing US involvement in Eurasia and its missile defence shield was considered part and parcel of the neo-con plan for "rebuilding America's defences", it was considered by Russia a threat to its national security.

The Georgian invasion of South Ossetia represented a golden opportunity for Moscow to send an unmistakable message to Washington. By crushing the US-Israeli trained Georgian army, Russia declared itself a contender to unchallenged US global dominance, which had lasted for nearly two decades. Countries such as Iran and Syria are quickly warming up to the new Russia, as the latter seeks to rebuild its own alliances and defences.

The nature and the direction of the US-Russian confrontation are yet to be determined with any reasonable preciseness. Internal and external factors for Russia itself (corruption, the oligarchs, and its ability to court a stable alliance) will all prove consequential in the current confrontation. What is clear, however, is that the upcoming US president will find himself face-to-face with a drastically altered world order, one that is defined by military pandemonium, national and global economic decline, and the rise of new powers, all vying to fill a widening, chaotic power vacuum, provided courtesy of the Bush administration.

Fighting back the suicide bombers

Moeed Pirzada

FIRST we see the images of blood pools, scattered limbs and charred torsos on our TV screens, then we watch the histrionic cries of the survivors and then we hear that ludicrously reassuring news-item that the head of the bomber has been found and the police have started their forensic investigations.

Suicide bombings and these gory scenes have now become part of our tortured consciousness.

And just like Iraq, unless the figure of dead and dying is a good double digit most of us listen, as if in sleep walking, and continue with our daily routines. Perhaps there is nothing unusual about it; we are getting used to, we are getting desensitised. This is human nature but then the terrorists also realise this and they aspire to kill more of us to make their own impact.

Naturally the bombings outside the gates of the Pakistan Ordinance factories in Wah Cantt - some 30 kms from the twin cities of Pindi and Islamabad - demanded attention for they were deadly: more than 70 killed and well above 100 injured. But these were important for another reason: they now represent the continuing trend of our military under attack and a growing impression that the Pakistani military is unable to defend itself.

This may be a false impression. Terrorists at Pakistan Ordinance factories - just like the attacks at the Bagram Air Base in 2007 and the Indian embassy in Kabul in August this year - have chosen to attack the easily targeted workers outside the gates of an otherwise protected premises. Many across the world will remember that the 2007 attack at the Bagram Air base, in Afghanistan, was timed with the presence of the US Vice-President Dick Cheney inside the base to send the message that he was under attack though the possibility of Taleban ever reaching him was infinitely remote. Nevertheless the symbolic value of such attacks is unmistakable.

Maulvi Umar, that ubiquitous spokesman, of that shadowy outfit, Tehrik-e-Taleban Pakistan (TTP), while admitting responsibility for these attacks cited them as retaliation on "killer factories" for the military operations in Bajaur agency. Taking his words along, these bombings then serve at least two distinct purposes: One, they serve to expand the political space of the TTP as a defacto representative and champion of the rights of the tribal people in Bajaur. Second, it sends the message, that Pakistani military, even in its heart, is not safe from the counter reach of the Taleban.

Both are important strategic moves of long term consequence and implications however I want to focus on the second one for it has serious international dimensions - which is my area of interest. Pakistani state possesses nuclear assets and, despite popular apprehensions or even targeted propaganda, many professional analysts in the West - for instance Michael Kreppon of Stimson Center in the US in recent Senate testimonies - have argued that Pakistan's nuclear assets are safe as they are guarded meticulously by the military. But if terrorists can continue to demonstrate their ability to knock at the gates of compounds presumably protected by the military, then it is bound to erode even this argument.

Who controls Baitullah Mehsud? Who provides him sophisticated encryption technology? How has he survived so long despite being accused of the murder of Benazir Bhutto and despite throwing a gauntlet to the country's military? These and many other questions are already on many minds, if not on lips. But now with the attacks on Pakistan Ordinance factories and their international implications, we may add: who inspires his strategic vision?

But let's come back to the issue at hand: ironically with every suicide bombing there appears a rather customary assertion by police or government officials that no defence is possible against a determined suicide bomber. This apologetic assertion by the police has a wider context. Given the nature of discussion we have on the war against terrorism in the media, most people in Pakistan, despite their growing despondency, also expect that some kind of political compromise or formula may suddenly end the suicide bombings. The dramatic lull after the February elections only reinforced this impression.

Unfortunately this may not be true at all. Any political negotiations with the Islamists, presumably if it is possible, will not only be a long drawn affair but will only succeed if, at the same time, suicide bombings become less effective, less potent as a destabilising weapon. And that will not happen by smart politics but by enhancing the policing abilities against the suicide bombers by developing indigenous standard operating procedures (SOP's).

A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this piece. However, when we reflect on the last few years it appears that whereas Pakistani security apparatus has relied upon increased projection of dumb authority and fire power it has failed to develop the simplest of the procedures like: fool-proof identifications of people and vehicles that relate to an area; training security personnel in the use of information systems; developing physical profiles of suicide bombers like dress codes and behavorial patterns; minimising crowds at places that may constitute targets and so on.

It is true that neither a ready-made solution is available nor a perfect control possible; but the mental inertia and incompetence of Pakistan's security apparatus have hugely contributed to the situation in which we find ourselves. For instance, the inability to protect a small planned city like Islamabad, or the diplomatic enclaves should be taken less as an evidence of the intelligence or determination of the suicide bombers but more as a failure of Pakistan's security agencies to improvise, to meet the new challenge they are confronted with.

Police forces operating in dense civilian populations, with their resource constraints, may be limited in their ability to devise and implement procedural improvisations. But Pakistan's military has no real excuse. It has to take the responsibility to protect its premises and installations; this is the minimum it can do to ensure the people of Pakistan that islands of security are possible and exist from where a counter control can be exercised. Every good General ought to know: winning a war starts from the mind.