The New Nation - Internet Edition

Reducing trade imbalance

THE Indian Prime Minister has assured the Chief Adviser of reducing trade gap between the two countries. He hinted at more imports from Bangladesh and removal of non-tariff barriers further. The Chief Adviser of Bangladesh called on him in New Delhi on Tuesday and requested for the same.

India is one of the biggest trade partners of Bangladesh. Machinery and industrial raw materials imported earlier from developed countries are now brought mainly from India and China. Bangladesh is reportedly one of the 10 largest importers of all goods and the third largest importer of finished products from India. According to sources, Bangladesh's present trade deficit with India is more than US$2 billion. Informal trade makes the deficit even higher.

That Indian Prime Minister gave the above assurance is a welcome gesture. Bangladesh must properly utilise the scopes that might be created. It must strengthen its own economic base of production for export. A clear assessment of what can be exported to India must be made with a view to increasing the export volume. India is a big economy and has the capacity to flood Bangladesh's market with a small percentage of its products. Bangladesh must remain alert against turning into a dumping ground.

Mechanisms must be evolved so that Bangladesh can export a sizeable quantity of its finished products to India. Bangladesh produces some specialised exportable items like Zamdani saree and Tangail saree. But due to lack of adequate patronisation, artisans and technicians in the trade are reportedly migrating to other countries including India. Bangladesh must extend necessary support to those sectors to avoid loss of comparative advantage on those products. India is also a big importer. India has assured removal of non-tariff barriers. Bangladesh should pursue the reduction of tariff barriers for allowing access to more products. All efforts must be made to see that assurance of the Indian Prime Minister is turned into action.

Challenge facing capitalism

BRAZIL'S President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has reportedly said that the recent global financial crisis is real, but for the first time the world is trying to find a solution. The crisis is a 'challenge to capitalism', he remarked adding 'for the first time, you have a crisis attacking the core of rich countries and capitalism itself.' It did not start in the periphery, in the poor countries. It started in the centre of world capitalism, the United States.

The Brazilian leader blames the United States and its deficient market regulation. The recent tumble in stock market and slide in the currency compelled Brazil's central bank to pour billions into the market to shore up the real. The key factor in this crisis is 'confidence'. What the United States and Europe have done is not sufficient to control the sharp end of the crisis as Brazil's finance minister suggested - 'They have to do more.' Brazil has a 'solid financial system, a growing economy, a domestic market that other countries don't have, and 200 billion dollars in reserves. Situation, however, could change for a contraction of the world economy and a fall in commodity prices.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has forecast advanced economies would contract next year for the first time since World War II and called for government spending to battle the crisis. Global stocks, meanwhile, fell as world economies showed 'deepening distress' and the downward trend, extending through Asia into Europe, followed another grim development in the United States, the world's biggest economy, undermining hopes that coordinated action by governments around the globe could keep the world downturn from getting worse. Only Canada might be able to resist the downturn. Meanwhile, the global financial crisis has cast fresh doubts in IMF's effectiveness in monitoring the world economy.

New political platform with old pledges

Abdur Rahim

Not surprisingly, another political platform has sprung up in country's already volatile political arena infested with various interests groups, ostensibly to serve the people and the country with 'dedication and honesty'. Announcing formation of the new platform, physician-turned politician Dr.Badruddoza Chowdhury on Saturday criticised the two existing political alliances for failing to fulfill the hopes and aspirations of the people.

The people, he said, could not trust the old political leaders who had only served their own personal interests sacrificing the cause of the common people. Politicians, convicted or charged with corruption could never fulfill their pledges given to the electorate, said the former President of the country during the early period of the last BNP-led Four-party Alliance Government.

It may be recalled, the former head of state was obliged to quit his post when he had incurred displeasure of the BNP stalwarts following a controversial statement of his on the occasion of Shaheed Ziur Rahman's death anniversary.

With a view to giving the country the taste of a new leadership, he said, like-minded political parties joined hands, bypassing the two alliances and the new alliance partners would participate in the ensuing parliamentary election. The mentionable parties in the new-born front are: Kamal Hossain's Gonoforum ; Kader Siddique's Krishak-Sramik Janata League; Kalallan Party of (Retd) Major General Ibrahim. Besides, some other less-known political organisations, it is claimed, have backed the formation of the front, yet to be named. Kamal Hossain who also holds views that are identical to those of Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury was conspicuous by his absence from the new front launching function. However, Gonoforum was represented there by Advocate Subrata Chowdhury, a less known political figure as the General Secretary of the party that could hardly make a dent in the national politics after its formation quite a long time ago, by breaking away from the Awami League. Internationally acclaimed jurist Kamal Hossain didn't go along well with the Aawami League Chief Sheikh Hasina on many policy matters. However, both Dr. Badruddoza and Kamal Hossain did join the great alliance known as 'Mohajote' formed at the fag end of 2006 under the leadership of Awami League to contest in the election that was scheduled to be held on 22nd January, 2007. Retired Col. Oli Ahmed, then a partner of Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury in the L.D.P also joined the Mohajote to fight the common enemy-the the BNP-led Four -Party Alliance.

But afterwards L.D.P fell apart and Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury revived his dissolved Bikalpadhara while Oli became the sole leader of the L.D.P. that was formed with some disgruntled former B.N.P leaders including a former Speaker Shaikh Razzaque Ali, former minister in the Ershad government Syed Deedar Bakht and former state ministers Alamgir Kabir and Jahanara Begum.

Meanwhile, the announcement of formation of a new front has given rise to many speculations. Some quarters, consider it as a pressure tactics for bargaining with the Awami League-led alliance to secure more nominations and a guarantee for some important posts in the government to be formed after victory of the alliance in the upcoming polls. Another speculation is, in the event of non-participation of the election by the BNP-led alliance, the new front might contest the election and subsequently perform the role of as opposition in the Parliament.

The proposed alliance is yet to take a shape as the political situation remains fluid because of uncertainty about holding of the election on the announced date - December 18, next. All possible efforts are being made by the present caretaker government to convince the BNP-led alliance to take part in the polls. Firm on its seven-point demand, the BNP leaders say they would join the polls after their demand was met.

It may be recalled that a big unmanageable alliance ends up with internecine quarrel leading to intervention by a third force. The United Front of 1954 formed with many heterogeneous political parties had crushed the then all powerful Muslim League government in East Pakistan but soon afterwards fell apart mainly into two factions one led by KSP Chief Sher-e-Bangla A.K. Fazlul Huq and the other faction by Awami League leaders Ataur Rahman Khan and Sheikh Mujib. Initially, the provincial government was formed under Sher-e-Bangla's leadership but subsequently the cabinet was dissolved following the promulgation of Section 92A. After the lifting of the 92A, the provincial cabinet was alternately formed by KSP and Awami League but under threat of serious clash, which ultimately occurred ; Deputy Speaker Shahed Ali died as a result of the physical fight between the two groups in the Provincial Assembly then located at the present Jagannath Hall old building.

Political activities were banned and a large number of political leaders and workers were arrested, and many went underground to avoid apprehension. Iskandar Mirza ,widely known as a ruthless administrator was then made Governor of East Pakistan.

Pakistani rulers took advantage of the division in the United Front that uprooted Muslim League in East Pakistan in the 1954 election. Uncertainty prevailed in Pakistani politics for long two years. However, a constituent assembly was elected in 1956 by the members of all the five Pakistan provincial assemblies, with a view to framing a long-overdue constitution of the country. Awami League won 12 seats in the Assembly. Horse trading of elected representatives helped the ruling clique in consolidating its grip in the national politics. At one stage, Awami League leader Hossain Shaheed Sarwardhy became Prime Minister of Pakistan and contrary to the demand of the East Pakistan for parity in all affairs, announced that 98 per cent of the demand was met. That was the turning point in the division of the old political organisation, led by Moulana Bhashani. Bhashani was obliged to leave Awami League and later he formed in 1957 an organisation named National Awami Party (NAP) with other popular opposition leaders of West Pakistan, including Gaffar Khan, Mia Iftekharuddin , G.M.Sayed and Gafur Baluch. The convention held in Dhaka for formation of NAP came under severe attack from the Awami League which was ruling the province with Ataur Rahman Khan as the chief Minister. However the command of the party was at the hands of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, General secretary of the party.

The advent of Ayub Khan in the Pakistan politics in October, 1958 sealed the fate of democracy and with it the unity of Pakistan. For ten years of rigorous rule, Ayub Khan had to surrender his post to his deputy Yahiya Khan in the face of opposition protests against Ayub's regime.

The history of Pakistan would have been different had the military junta of the country honoured the results of the 1970 general election in which Awami League became the single majority party in the Parliament. Instead, the Pakistani rulers resorted to inhuman suppression of innocent people of East Pakistan, ultimately forcing them to rise in revolt and secure independent sovereign Bangladesh.

In retrospect, we see that it was possible to fight against a common enemy for a common cause under one banner. In 1954 the people gave a verdict through election against the Muslim League. Although the United Front that spearheaded the fight with three legendary politicians-Sher-e-Bangla A.A.K.Fazlul Huq, Moulana Bhashani and Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy - in the forefront won the battle but lost the war. They subsequently fell apart, paving the way for consolidation of the grip of the military-aided Pakistani power elite over East Pakistan. The scenario was however different in 1970. The Awami League was the lone winner in the polls from East Pakistan. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's PPP had emerged as the single largest party in West Pakistan. In the long run, the two top leaders of the two parties became the heads of the two separate independent states.

We find at home and abroad that alliances of different political parties don't last long and they fall apart when interests of one party come in clash with the dominant faction of the alliance. In Pakistan, Newaz Sharif's Muslim league left the coalition government headed by PPP's Gilani; and the Left Front in India withdrew their support from the Congress-led Government headed by Monmohan Singh. Far away, in Zimbabewe, a power-sharing arrangement brokered by the Western diplomats between the sitting President Mugabe and his rival Svangaria didn't succeed.

The BNP-led Four Party Alliance however did complete their full term of five years in power (2021-2006). Similarly Awami League succeeded in remaining power for the full term (1996-2001). The Awami League had the backing of Ershad's Jatiya Party and JSD leader A.S.M. Rob. In both these cases, the leading two parties had overwhelming majority in the Parliament as such others had to be satisfied with two cabinet posts in each government.

New permutation and combinations are being observed in view of the upcoming parliamentary election. While some heavyweight politicians like Kamal Hossain, Dr. Badruddoza Chowdhury are keeping safe distance from the Awami-led grand alliance, some other relatively less prominent politicians are looking for a berth in the Mohajote.

Under the changed circumstances, Mohajote has lost its image that was created in 2006. But Ershad is consistent in his support to the Mohajote.

Meanwhile, although yet undecided about participation in the election, the BNP has also attracted many new parties to its fold.The PDP chief Ferdous Quraishi wants to wage a movement alongside BNP demanding shifting of the election date. However, situation will be clearer as and when all the major parties come to an understanding about fixing of the election date.

As of now BNP is firm on its seven-point demand, including withdrawal of emergency, to facilitate their participation in the election.

All of us under star-spangled banner

Barkha Dutt

I huddled closer to the journalist on my right, both of us finally looking up from our Blackberries to take in the extraordinariness of the moment. He wasn't anyone I knew, but then this was a night built on the intimacy of strangers, all connected by a strange, electrifying energy.

There were dozens of us, all crammed together on a tiny wooden riser that was beginning to heave under the weight of our excitement. Right below us, hundreds of thousands of people were yelping with joyous disbelief, as an unassuming man held the tiny hand of his little daughter and walked out into the world's embrace.

Oprah was leaning on the shoulder of a man she didn't know either and openly weeping as Barack Obama made his acceptance speech. And I have to confess to more than a tear or two of my own.

The morning after the twin towers fell in September 2001, Le Monde had carried a front page editorial called, 'We are all American,' to capture the collective sense of tragedy that united the world. Well, on November 5, 2008, on an unusually warm night for Chicago, we were all American again.

This time our dots were connected by the power of change and the possibility of hope.

The real story of Obama's presidency was the fact that so many people still believed in a better future and in their own ability to forge it. This is what made Chicago's catharsis that night ?compelling enough to move anyone to tears.

Obama's speech, at first, may have seemed smaller than the moment; even somewhat anti-climactic. He held a quiet, understated tone in glaring contrast to the hysteria whipped up around him. But it was the same restraint that has defined his campaign and on a night like this made him seem naturally presidential.

And yet, this is a man who has broken every rule of politics as we know it. He has defied the conventional wisdom of the political game.

That may be why - outsourcing issues and manufactured controversies on Kashmir notwithstanding - we Indians are riveted by him. He is wholesome yet audacious and thus both believable and inspiring.

A young Black man who saw the White House for the first time in 1984 is today President in a country that, as the Los Angeles Times describes it, "was founded by slave owners and seared by civil war". How can a story like that not have universal resonance?

But Obama's appeal goes well beyond the racial barriers he has broken through. In fact, there are two things that separate him from the pack and make him different from any politician we have known anywhere.

He has ended the politics of pity and victimhood and he isn't scared to show vulnerability.

An African-American President in a country that barely has any people of colour in the House or the Senate may have been what marked this election as historic.

But what makes the story truly remarkable is the fact that Obama was able to take his campaign well beyond race. Other than an exceptionally complex and blunt speech in March this year, race was never a big part of the campaign.

Though his book talks about how "to think clearly about race requires us to see the world on a split screen - the America we want while looking squarely at America as it is", Obama also rubbishes hardliners in his own community who refuse to recognise how much has changed and for the better.

His definitive address on racial issues acknowledged the legitimacy of White anger and was indulgent of the understandable extremism of some in his own community, while simultaneously distancing himself from it.

Confronted with the inflammatory hate rhetoric of his old pastor, Obama said, "He's like an old Uncle I don't always agree with," telling his supporters that we all had someone like that in our families. And it's true; we do. It's just that we have never heard a politician mirror our own lives and yet seem better than us. America will debate for years whether Obama is "Black enough" or whetherhe dressed up colour in a sanitised rhetoric.

But either way, he has ended the ghettoised separation of the Black people and changed their self-image from victim to victor.

In the opening chapter of his book, he rejects a politics that is "based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood ?generally". It is this, I suspect, ?that has catapulted him to universal stardom.And yet he warns you that he won't be perfect.

This, after all, is a President who once did drugs. The point isn't so much about the morality of smoking pot. It's more the contrast with an erstwhile President that makes Obama's candour so compelling.

After Bill Clinton's laboured lies and "I didn't inhale" obfuscations, Obama's upfront admission made him seem all grown up.

"I think that, at this stage, my life is an open book, literally and figuratively," he said. "Voters can make a judgment as to whether dumb things that I did when I was a teenager are relevant to the work that I've done since that time."

And yes, "I did inhale," he said, "That was the point."It seems almost unbelievable that a politician running for office can concede to that and still be embraced in an overwhelming affirmation of belief.

The thing about Obama is that he makes you believe in that old cliché: be true to yourself.

In a cynical, crumbling world, that alone is a miracle. That's why Oprah cried. And so did the rest of us ?who were lucky enough to watch a night that will change America and the world.

No, neo-colonialism is not the answer

Farish A. Noor

I recently had a conversation with an Indonesian political analyst in Singapore, where I am currently based.

In the course of our discussion about the state of Indonesian politics, he let slip a statement that I felt terribly uncomfortable with. While lamenting the state of Indonesia's convoluted politics, he opined thus: "I wonder if Indonesia's problems could be solved if we allowed a foreign government to run our country?"

Now, talk like this usually sends shivers up my spine. We will recall that up to the late 1990s, it even became fashionable to talk about the necessity for the re-colonisation of Africa. This sort of nonsense was all the rage in some American political magazines and journals, and of course this neo-colonial bile was dressed up in the discourse of altruism and universal humanism, as if the colonisation of any country was an altruistic act between fellow human concerned about the fate of others. Never mind the fact that the ones doing the colonising would be the same Western powers and the ones being colonised would be the same hapless denizens of the Third World.

It is true that Indonesia's political situation at present is a mess to say the least. With the next elections almost half a year away, the political parties - and there are more than 35 of them, at the last count - are already campaigning in earnest. Vast amounts of money are being spent (or rather wasted) on publicity campaigns and electoral drives that are designed to puff up the already inflated egos of political aspirants than to do any real good to the people. On top of that the political discourse of parties like Hanura and Gerindra seem full of fluff and froth as the leaders have little to say on how they will actually set about changing things for the better. But in the case of Indonesia, as it is with the other countries of Southeast Asia, the perennial problem is the same: Aspiring elites want to speak for the people and represent them, but they don't even know what the people want. The political disconnect between the elites of Jakarta and the masses across the archipelago is mirrored in the disconnect we see among the elites of Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Manila and Bangkok too. Why?

Answering this question may also lead us to the answer to the earlier comment about the need for Indonesia to be re-colonised for its own good. The bottom line is that the governmental structures of Indonesia - as it is for Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and many other post-colonial societies remains rooted in the structures of colonial rule. Now colonial rule was unique in the sense that the colonial governments could govern with scant attention paid to the colonial subjects themselves, hence the 'success' of British colonial rule in Burma, Malaya and Singapore and Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia. The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and American colonisers who governed Southeast Asia were not answerable to their colonial societies, but rather the metropolitan capitals of London, Hague, Paris and Washington. Thus British Malaya, Burma and Singapore were governed at a long-distance, with orders from London being enacted and executed in Malaya. Likewise, orders from the Hague were put to work in Indonesia. At no point was this metropole-colony relationship an equal or reciprocal one. Today the structures of colonial rule persist with colonial laws such as Malaysia's Internal Security Act still in place; and the ruling elite of Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries are likewise distanced from their own people. Like the colonial masters of the past, they view their own fellow citizens with incredulity, and fail to understand how plural and complex their societies really are. The 'success' of colonial rule - if you could call it that - was that it blanketed the real pluralism and differences in these colonised societies and made them look homogenous.

Today, Southeast Asia's internal pluralism and difference are coming to the forefront in no uncertain terms. Indonesia's complex political landscape merely mirrors the complexity of Indonesia's plural society, a fact that was thinly disguised during the three decades of Suharto's centralised authoritarian rule. But we need to remember that the manifold forms and modes of socio-political activity we see in Indonesia today, that includes also the new 'radical' groups like the Majlis Mujahidin Indonesia, the Hizbul Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and even mainstream Islamist parties like the PKS are the genuine expressions of Indonesian pluralism too.

The MMI, HTI and PKS are not from Mars or Sweden: they are part and parcel of Indonesian society and the products of the same political processes that created the political elite in Jakarta who do not understand them.