The New Nation - Internet Edition

Fertiliser crisis to affect yield

INADEQUATE use of non-urea fertilisers during this peak season from mid-August to September will affect the current Aman cultivation significantly across the country as media reported recently quoting agronomists and experts. Prices of non-urea fertilisers, including the triple super phosphate have more than doubled. This will ultimately push further the already high price of rice in the market. The use of fertilisers accounts for about 30 per cent of the total production cost of transplanted Aman while it is about 50 per cent for Boro paddy, according to Bangladesh Rice Research Institute scientists who fear that inadequate use of fertiliser will affect the yield.

Whatever production target is set by the government, inadequate use of non-urea fertilisers by the farmers would certainly have negative impact on its achievement. The government has targeted to produce about 136.59 lakh tonnes of Aman on about 58.20 lakh hectares of land during the current fiscal year. The production cost of paddy per hectare, meanwhile, rose to Tk 38,129 this year from Tk 27,688 last year because of price hike of fertiliser.

The farmers have to apply non-urea fertilisers like TSP and MOP every season as maintenance doses, because if the fertilisers are not applied for 2 to 3 years, there will be soil-mining which will cause gradual yield decline. Organic compost fertiliser is good for maintaining soil condition but it does not contain all necessary nutrients for the crops, according to a BRRI scientist. Nutrients mainly nitrogen, phosphate and potash are less in compost than the chemical fertilisers, and it is quite impossible to make up the shortage of nutrients using only compost fertiliser.

For further increasing remittance

IT is no overstatement to say that remittances sent home by Bangladeshi workers overseas is providing an invaluable support to the economy. But experts are of the opinion that the potentials of earnings from remittances have been only partly exploited. They say that there are opportunities to further increase the flow of remittances provided government goes for proactive policies and implements them within a time-frame. The first requirement appears to be the creation of wider facilities so that overseas workers find it convenient to send remittances home through the official channels.

Most of the time, expatriate workers who are not accustomed to banking consider it easy to rely on the hundi operators. With some proactive steps from Bangladeshi banks and money changing houses abroad, this hundi culture can further decline. Therefore, there is need for both expanding the official remitting capacities abroad and steps to attract expatriate workers to those. Bangladesh missions abroad must be made truly active to carry out their representative role for the workers. They should engage sincerely with foreign employers and others so that the latter are obliged to settle their dues as contracted with the workers.

Internally, government should set up more training institutes for young people seeking employment abroad to give them the skills that have demand abroad. This step will increase the supply of skilled workers and they would be earning notably more than the mainly unskilled ones who presently go abroad. The activities of a section of manpower exporting firms found engaging in malpractices should be brought to an end. The nationalised commercial banks (NCBs) may extend loans to workers going abroad on easy terms of repayment so that they do not face hardships in paying the fees of manpower exporters.

Politics is a game of wits and profits

Abdur Rahim

Bangladesh politics may take a turn for the better in the coming days . The High Court order to grant bail to Begum Khaleda Zia and welcoming of the decision by the Acting Awami League President Zillur Rahman is no doubt a positive sign of decent behaviour of politicians we expect from them. It raises a ray of hope in the minds of the people that in the future the politicians would follow a decent role avoiding the old belligerent attitude towards one another, creating a social unrest and causing immense loss of lives and properties. Under a disturbed situation, a third force emerges and seize the state power. Politicians of all shades of opinion then suffer from ignominious treatment for their alleged misdeeds while in power. Some of them might be punished by the court of law for their actions inconsistent with their authority and rights; others might be acquitted from the accusations. Nonetheless, politicians as a whole had to undergo a process of legal battle under such circumstances. Some of them even had to go in hiding and living as fugitives at home or abroad. By no means this is desirable for a person who might have contributed significantly to the liberation of the country. On the other hand, one is not supposed to misuse one's authority and accumulate wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, while nearly half of the population of the country live below poverty level.

Time has come to pinpoint the real culprits responsible for, among others, illegally withdrawing huge amount of money from banks in collaboration with bureaucrats and a particular brand of business tycoons-turned -politicians and getting away without repaying the loans. Legal measures had failed to compel the bank dacoits to fulfill their undertakings. Law seems either was too lenient to the power elite or indifferent in realising public money from the powerful defaulters. Time and again it was reported that a section of powerful people owe to the commercial banks a sum of Tk. 26000 crore (Twenty-six thousand). Exemplary punishment should be given to those people. Alas! law does not spare poor people and small businessmen when they fail to repay their loans timely. As a result, people in general become frustrated and welcome change of a government elected through popular vote. People's attitude towards their elected government takes a 'U' turn as and when the law-makers become law-breakers and under various pretexts use their sacred position to their self aggrandisement

Smart people join politics, among them the smarter ones take the driving seat. Like any other game, in politics victory and defeat are also concomitant factors. Furthermore, many unwritten rules dominate the game.

The fate of a political party is not only judged by its own policy, it depends more on how the team leader tactfully handles the situation at critical moments and difficult times. A large party having a huge mass support may suffer ignominious defeat for sheer misjudgment of the captain.

Politicians mainly those who held powerful positions in the government at different time, have been subjected to humiliation after one/eleven for their alleged wrong-doings. The country seems heading for a general election by the year-end. This is a welcome move. But many people are apprehensive of clashes between the rival political forces if proper precaution is not taken by the caretaker government well in advance by apprehending hoodlums and known miscreants who work on hire for any party paying them according to their demand.

Undoubtedly, people like to be treated well by the properly elected representatives, but not cheated by their representatives in the Parliament.

Politicians as a whole should behave in a manner befitting in a democratic system and they must take a lesson from their past mistakes as well as misdeeds. True, no system of government is perfect but no alternative to democracy has been invented as yet.

Pakistan is a very recent example, a military dictator who ruled the country for long nine years had to bow out of power after losing public support, even in a divided nation. Most trusted man of the most powerful country of the world could not save Mosharraf. On the other hand hero of the Second Great War Sir Winston Churchill had to concede defeat to the Labour when his economic policy proved not beneficial to the people of war-torn Britain.

Further, there are examples that show corruption charges and sex-scandals against a number of cabinet ministers were responsible for fall of governments in the cradle of Westminister- type democracy. But one thing should be kept in mind that in Britain, government changes but not the system.

In retrospect, we see a dismal picture of the democratic process right from the Pakistan time. It took nine years for adoption of a constitution after the nation was formed in 1947. The Constitution which was highly unbalanced and against the interest of the majority people in the then East Bengal also was not allowed to properly function. On the eve of general election scheduled to be held in 1958, state power was usurped first by Iskendar Mirza, then by Army Chief General Auyb Khan. Nine years of Ayub's dictatorial rule ended when he, in the wake of mass protest against his rule, had to handover power to General Yahyia Khan who after assuming power gave a general election throughout Pakistan. But he didn't honour the election result when Awami League under the leadership of Sheikh Mubur Rahman secured absolute majority in the Parliament. That was the turning point leading to the movement for liberation of the then East Pakistan. At the end of a successful liberation war Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation with much hope and aspiration. But the people within a very short time were disillusioned when things went wrong so far as the administration and economic situations are concerned. Law and order situation went beyond the control of the government. Imposition of emergency provisions by the government failed to arrest the situation from further deterioration. Meanwhile, the new country saw the worst famine in 1974 and many people died as a result. Due to the restriction on the media, the actual figure of the lives lost in the famine could not be ascertained.

At that juncture, one party rule was established abolishing the multi-party parliamentary system and BAKSAL was formed as a result. However, table turned upside down after a military coup in mid-August, 1975. Multiparty parliamentary system was restored immediately after but the post of President remained in vogue. This arrangement continued till 1991 when

BNP government was formed after Ershad government's demise. The Constitution was amended with unanimous vote in the Parliament making the Prime Minister, the executive head. This system more or less functioned well and three elections were held subsequently, and governments formed as a result had finished full- five year terms, of course, not without being threatened to quit power before completion of the term. BNP and Awami League - two arch rivals could not stand each other when one won the election and the other lost. That took a serious turn when the nation was poised for the fourth parliamentary election on 22 January, 2007 following the end of term of the BNP government in October, 2006. The two parties differed on the issue of formation of the caretaker government which was supposed to hold general election within three months from the date of taking over the administration.

The current President, as an alternative, provided in the amended constitutional provision, took over, in addition to his existing position, as the head of caretaker government. That evoked further clashes resulting in a number of gruesome murders on Dhaka city streets in the glare of the TV cameras. The President was then obliged to form the present caretaker government which has to hold the next general elections by the end of December this year. The caretaker government meanwhile completed dialogue with all but the BNP led Four Party Alliance for fixing the date for the general election.

The power of oil at work

John Defterios

If some perhaps have not understood what Abu Dhabi is up to before, they got a double dose of what this emirate and the capital of the United Arab Emirates is planning.In a span of just two days, "Team Abu Dhabi" announced a planned purchase of Manchester City Football Club, paid a record transfer fee for Brazilian footballer Robinho and threw $1 billion dollars into the movie business.

The Ruler of Abu Dhabi and President of the U.A.E. Shaikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in place for nearly five years, is pursuing a wide-ranging investment strategy that is pretty hard to miss. Let's call the first batch, brand driven investments, a stake in Ferrari, the purchase of the Chrsyler Building in New York, the opulent Emirates Palace Hotel and the soon to be Guggenheim and Louvre Museums.

The second batch fit into what those in government call a cluster development strategy. GE, EADS and the Carlyle Group match that description. Which leads us to the question where do Manchester City and the one billion dollar movie fund imagenation Abu Dhabi fit in?

Chasing football properties is a sport in itself throughout the Gulf. Dubai International Capital a sovereign fund has tried and stumbled twice. Gulf flagship carries Emirates and Ethiad are big sponsors of Arsenal and Chelsea with Gulf Air involved with Queens Park Rangers. Football is wildly popular in the region and buying a club makes a mark no doubt.

The name Suleiman Al Fahim was the initial public face on the $360 million dollar purchase, which by the way is not expected to close until September 15. The entrepreneur and star of his own reality television programme was immediately being compared to Roman Abramovich, the Russian owner of Chelsea. The story according to those familiar with the deal is that this is really the work of Sheikh Khalifa's brother Shaikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan who has shared a desire to buy an English club for more than a year.

The owner of the Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister of Thailand, knew there was interest in the club and put his long time London representative Pairoj Piempongsant on the case to get a deal done. It looks like they will net about $100 million on their short-term investment. If all goes as planned, Abu Dhabi can say they are the first from the region to land an English club, but it does not mean this will be a big score for the emirate.

The five-year investment by the Abu Dhabi Media Company into imagination immediately puts the group on the map in Hollywood. Edward Borgerding a former Walt Disney executive launched this project and hopes the investment will lead to "a technology transfer of the best of class in production and business executives that will migrate to Abu Dhabi and open up production offices in Abu Dhabi itself."

A look at the math has the group spending about $25 million per film with a target of 40 films. This is small by Tinsletown standards and seems designed to limit the downside risks in a business known for drilling a lot of dry holes.

We will know a lot more about the success of all these investments in about a decade, but it all sounds like the California Gold Rush of the mid-1800s. What was a pretty quiet corner of the U.A.E. will no longer remain that way. The government's sovereign fund the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, or ADIA, has been around for more than three decades. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who knew this group manages nearly a trillion dollars.

One hundred dollar oil is only adding to that pot of funds. Abu Dhabi is now the third largest producer within OPEC at 2.8 million barrels a day, having discovered oil in 1958.

That is projected to grow to 4 million barrels a day in a few years. Right now they are bringing in about $100 billion a year from oil alone.

Natural gas is another revenue stream. You can say the emirate is sitting pretty, but not sitting idle.

Terrorism and counter-terrorism

Richard Barrett

Aweek ago the European Court of Justice annulled the implementation within the European Community of the United Nations sanctions regime against Al Qaeda, the Taleban and their associates. Although the court's judgment affects only a Saudi businessman, Yassin Abdullah Kadi, and the Al Barakaat International Foundation, which brought their cases to its attention, the Sept 3 ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences, well beyond the jurisdiction of the court itself.

The main finding of the court was that the implementation of the sanctions had inadequately respected the rights of the parties concerned, in particular their right to be heard and their right to effective judicial review.? It also found that the individual's right to property had been unreasonably restricted.

This is hardly the first time that national or international counterterrorist action has been questioned in the courts. There is an inevitable tension between protecting the rights of the individual terrorist, or suspected supporter of terrorism, and protecting the security of the community at large.

But as is widely recognised, if counterterrorism action causes the erosion of individual rights, it is likely to give more fuel to terrorism than to the efforts to prevent it.

In June this year the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1822, which specifically addressed concerns that its sanctions against Al Qaeda and the Taleban paid insufficient regard to the rights of the people it affected. The Council decided to review the approximately 500 names on its list within two years; it decided to provide a narrative summary of the reasons behind the listings, and it strengthened its demand that UN member states notify newly- listed parties of their listing in a timely manner.

Certainly these changes will satisfy some critics, though undoubtedly not all. But the new resolution is not just procedural tinkering: It is a reflection by the Security Council of the fact that effective measures to counter terrorism must be fair, transparent and supported by the public at large.

It will now be up to the European Council to try to devise a new regulation for implementing the sanctions within the three-month grace period allowed by the court.

The issue of legitimacy is of concern not only to counterterrorists. Terrorists, too, must convince themselves, their sympathisers and prospective recruits that their acts are legitimate and justifiable.

While debates on the meaning of defensive jihad, or the circumstances in which the killing of women and children can be considered forgivable, may seem ridiculous to the nonterrorist and irrelevant to those who just seek violence, Al Qaeda leaders have always tried to explain and justify their acts. If they cannot convince their ?supporters that their fight is legitimate according to the religion they claim to ?defend, they have no defence against the accusation that they are merely a group of violent ?criminals.

Al Qaeda leaders are not religious scholars and they are sensitive to criticism from others whose religious knowledge is better respected. Criticism of Al Qaeda from these quarters has been considerable over the last 12 months, and despite Al Qaeda's attempts at rebuttal, its spurious claims of legitimacy have been widely exposed. Although the short-term consequences may not be great, Al Qaeda's standing, particularly among the tribes on the Afghan-Pakistan border, depends in large part on respect for its finer understanding and practice of religion. In due course, the disdain of the rest of the Muslim world may seep through to affect these areas as well.

The battle for legitimacy is essential to Al Qaeda's future. Without it, there is even less likelihood that the leadership will find the secure base that it so desperately needs.

At present its main hope lies in forging a lasting alliance with the Taleban in Pakistan, and maintaining a relationship with the Afghan Taleban under Mullah Omar, in the expectation that sooner or later one group or another will gain control of enough territory to allow it to rebuild an international network of foreign fighters under its direct ?wcontrol and plan new attacks across the world.

The battle for legitimacy between terrorists and those who seek to defeat them is not as one-sided as it should be. The international community must continue to undermine the specious claims of Al Qaeda, while strengthening the legitimacy of its counterterrorist actions.The ruling of the European Court will force further action towards this end, but the Security Council has already taken steps along the road.