The New Nation - Internet Edition

Challenges ahead after election

THE grand alliance led by the Bangladesh Awami League gained overwhelming majority in the just concluded election of 9th Parliament. This marks another record majority by a single party or alliance. The election has been termed as free, fair and by and large peaceful by many including foreign and local election observers. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which lost the election, complained of irregularities in 72 polling centres of 42 constituencies.

The record-win with 262 seats places the AL-led alliance in a strong position to chart the next course for the country. But the bigger the win the more formidable is the challenge for the winner. The new government to be sworn in soon shall have to establish a democratic polity in the country where the Parliament would be the centre of all national activities. For this the majority party must show the maximum tolerance and respect for the opposition parties and take them into confidence. Creation of a congenial democratic atmosphere both in and outside the parliament depends mainly on the treasury bench. The democratic fabric of the country must be strengthened.

The next government will have to face a host of immediate and long-term challenges. The inflationary situation prevailing in the country needs to be addressed urgently. The country is in dire need of a strong infrastructural development including power and energy. Massive investment in agriculture and industry is pivotal for development of the economy. The spectre of global warming looms large over the horizon. The next government must strive hard to build an efficient administration to face the challenges by enlisting the participation of experts in various fields and must remain free from sycophants. It should prove equal to the challenge of ensuring good governance.

For comprehensive food security

APPARENT success in producing foodgrains notwithstanding, policy planners in Bangladesh will need to start taking steps with no loss of time to ensure the country's food security even in the near future. And this security must be conceived as not only security in terms of increasing foodgrains production. Food security will have to mean self-sufficiency or near self-sufficiency in the future in other foodstuffs apart from cereals.

For example, mustard oil was in the past produced sufficiently to meet the requirements of the consumers fully. But now, locally produced mustard oil meets roughly one tenth of demand and the remaining 90 per cent by importing mainly soybean oil. The same can be said about dry chillies, ginger and other spices as well as various pulses. Now substantial quantities of these have to be imported because of insufficient local production. Thus, import dependence has also developed in relation to these grains. Once the country was self sufficient in milk and fishes. The is now not only largely import dependent in relation to many basic food items but also vulnerable to their price escalations in international markets.

This situation not only causes a drain on the country's modest foreign currency reserve, at times rising prices of imported foodstuffs make it difficult to market them at affordable prices in the local markets. Thus, it is very necessary to make large-scale investments in the non-cereal sub-sectors of agriculture. However, it needs emphasis that all such investments must be made under a comprehensive and strategic framework. Planned cultivation of the non-cereal crops with improved seeds and technologies will have to be tried. Production of fruits and vegetables for meeting the internal consumption needs and then for export, must be aimed at.

2008 has been bad, 2009 could be even worse

Eric S. Margolis

This past year will be remembered by history as the time of the 'Panic of 2008.' It may share the distinction with 1929 as one of the most disastrous years in modern history.

However, next year may be even worse. World hotspots we should be watching in 2009.

*America's $13.7 trillion bubble economy will further deteriorate. After decades of intoxication on the steroids of reckless borrowing and cheap credit, America faces forced drug treatment known in the US as 'rehab.'

The US Treasury's reckless printing of billions and billions must eventually create a storm of inflation. A debased US currency, rising unemployment, and destroyed savings will encourage extremism and political violence in the US and around the world. The ongoing riots in Greece are one example.

The Pentagon may not get $534 billion it wants to dominate the globe and wage the $15 billion per month wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is already backing away from election promises to withdraw US forces from Iraq. There is no end in sight to either conflict.

*Russia is in a surly mood, feeling under siege by NATO. US and NATO attempts to bring Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance risk igniting a truly dangerous crisis. Thanks to the ruinous squabbling of Ukraine's democratic politicians, that wobbly nation courts possible breakup, civil war, even re-absorption into Mother Russia.

*Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, who fought three wars over divided Kashmir since 1947, are again poised for conflict over the Himalayan mountain state. Tensions are rising fast. Pakistan's Army is growing restive at being forced to serve as a mercenary force to support the US war in Afghanistan. The Mumbai massacre last September, likely conducted by Kashmiri separatists, underlines the urgent need to settle this crisis. Kashmir remains the world's most dangerous nuclear confrontation. Between 40,000-80,000 Kashmiris, mostly Muslims, have died since an anti-Indian independence struggle erupted in 1989.

*Iran continues to advance its nuclear programme to the point where it could make weapons, if it so desired. Israel is pushing the US to attack Iran even though US intelligence says Iran has halted weapons programmes. Israel may attack on its own, hoping to draw the US into war against Iran. This would expose US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to heavy attacks and even closure of the Gulf, which supplies around 40 per cent of the world's oil.

*Africa's worst humanitarian crisis is not in Darfur but in Somalia. Half its ten million people face starvation. Somalia's only modestly effective government in the past decade, a moderate Islamic movement, was overthrown by a US-Ethiopia invasion two years ago, creating anarchy and the ongoing wave of Somali piracy. The US and Britain may soon intervene militarily in Somalia and Zimbabwe.

*The 60-year struggle Palestine conflict will continue, dashing hopes for peace. American supporters of Israel's right wing parties, led by Likud, have already blocked efforts by the new Obama administration to press Israel into land for peace concessions. This conflict will keep poisoning America's relations with the Muslim world.

*The aged Hosni Mubarak's long rule over Egypt could end in 2009, igniting a major power struggle.

Egypt could face an Islamic revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood, or a nationalist uprising led by a later-day Gamal Abdel Nasser.

*Iraq will remain a violent, splintered wreck, under some form of foreign occupation. Large numbers of US troops appear set to remain. Meanwhile, Iran is tightening its grip on Iraq.

*Afghanistan will be to President Obama what Iraq was to George Bush. Pentagon plans to double the number of US troops there by spring will intensify the war and spread it ever deeper into Pakistan, which is already a smoking volcano of violence and rebellion. Obama's pledges to expand the war in Afghanistan have deeply dismayed many supporters and suggest his policies may not be so different, after all, from those of Bush and Cheney.

*China's rapidly falling exports, the engine of its near 10 per cent annual growth, are already sparking growing social unrest. If China's 'social capitalism' falters, watch out for an internal explosion.

Watch also for rising tensions in Thailand and Korea, where the death or overthrow of ruler Kim Jong-il, ?followed by 'unanticipated reunification,' scares the wits out of Seoul and Tokyo.

History of massacre after massacre in Palestine

Nizar Sakhnini

Massacres were part and parcel of the Zionist project in Palestine. They aimed at intimidating the Arabs and make them leave the country.

Dozens of massacres were committed against the Arabs starting with the Massacre at Baldat al-Shaikh in December 1947 and not ending with the massacres in Qana in South Lebanon in 1996 and 2006. Another brutal massacre is being committed in Gaza today. Hundreds of Palestinian Arabs have been killed and/or wounded. Given below, is a list of some of the massacres committed by the Zionists since 1947:

Massacre in Baldat al-Shaikh (31 December 1947): Haganah gang members stormed the village of Baldat al-Shaikh in pursuit of unarmed citizens. The death toll was about 600 people, most of whose corpses were found inside the houses of the village.

Massacre in Deir Yassin (10 April 1948): A brutal massacre was committed in Deir Yassin: over 250 men, women and children were killed.

Massacre in Lid (11 July 1948): A commando unit led by Moshe Dayan carried out this massacre. The unit stormed the city in the evening and many of the Arab citizens of the city took refuge from the attack in the Dahmash Mosque. The Zionists reached the mosque and killed 176 civilians who took refuge to the mosque raising the victims of the massacre in Lid to 426 Palestinian Arabs.

Once the slaughter had come to an end, the unarmed civilians were led to the city's sports stadium, where the young men were detained. Then the families were given a mere half-hour to leave the city for the area where the Jordanian Army was located. They were to go there on foot and without food or water, which caused the deaths of many women, children and elderly people.

Massacre in the Village of Eilaboun (30 October 1948): The village was attacked on October 29, 1948. The Israeli forces managed to enter the town at five o'clock am on October 30.

The people of Elabun took refuge in the two local churches where yellow and white flags of submission were flown. Marcos Daoud, the Greek Catholic priest, told the Israelis, "I put my village under the protection of the State of Israel". The Israeli answer was as follows:

1. Thirteen young men were murdered.

2. The surviving young men were taken as PoWs.

3. The women and children were marched off to the Lebanese border under severe conditions, which resulted in many casualties.

4. Looting and desecration of the churches followed the evacuation of the village.

Massacre in Dawayma (15 October 1948): Operation Ten Plagues was launched against the Egyptians in the South. Mass murder took place in many of the towns on the southern front during the October offensive. One of the worst massacres during the offensive took place at Dawayma.

The American Consul in Jerusalem, William Burdett, had heard about the visit of the UN team to Dawayma. After making inquiries, on 6 November, he reported to Washington, "Investigation by UN indicates massacre occurred but observers are unable to determine number of persons involved". Estimates vary considerably but probably about 300 Arab civilians were slaughtered in the town. The Massacre at Qibya (14 October 1953): The fatalities from the massacre numbered 67, including men, women and children, while hundreds of others were injured.

The Massacre at Kufr Qasim (29 October 1956): A curfew was imposed on the village of Kufr Qasim, after which a number of children and elderly people took off to inform the young men who were working in the fields outside the village about the curfew. However, the forces stationed outside the village killed them in cold blood, murdering the young men before they could reach the village. The death toll for this massacre came to 49 civilians, including a number of children and elderly people.

Massacre at Sabra and Shatila (18 September 1982): A plan had been laid to storm the Sabra and Shatila camps for Palestinian refugees in the Beirut area since the first day of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Its purpose was to weaken the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and force the Palestinians to emigrate outside Lebanon.

Before sundown on Thursday, September 16, 1982, the storming of the camps began. The massacre itself, which was carried out by the Lebanese kata'ib (Falangist) militia, continued for approximately 36 hours. During the operation, the Israeli army surrounded the camps, preventing anyone from entering or leaving. In addition, the occupation soldiers set off incandescent bombs by night to facilitate the militia's mission. The Zionist soldiers also provided other logistical services to the Maronite militiamen during the massacre.

Information about the massacre began to leak out after a number of children and women fled to the Gaza hospital in the Shatila camp, where they informed doctors of what was happening. News of the massacre likewise reached some foreign journalists on Friday morning, September 17, 1982. The bloodletting went on until noon on Saturday, September 18.

Three thousand two hundred ninety-seven (3,297) men, women and children were killed within forty hours, between September 16-18, 1982. Among the dead bodies, 136 Lebanese were found; 1,800 victims were killed in the streets and alleys of the camp, while 1,097 were killed in the Gaza Hospital and 400 others in the Akka Hospital.

Commenting on the massacre, Menachem Begin described the Palestinian resistance fighters to the Israeli Knesset as "animals that walk on two legs".Massacre at the Ibrahimi Mosque (25 February 1994): Before worshippers had completed the dawn prayer in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, the blast of hand grenades exploding and the sound of bullet spray filled the mosque. Bullets and splinters from the grenades pierced the heads, necks and backs of the worshippers, wounding more than 350.

The crime began when terrorist Baroukh Goldstein and a group of Jewish settlers from the Kiryat Arba settlement entered the mosque. Goldstein was carrying his military machine gun and hand grenades along with large amounts of ammunition. He stood behind one of the pillars in the mosque and waited until the worshippers had prostrated, then opened machine gun fire on them. Meanwhile, others helped him load the ammunition, which included the internationally banned explosive dumdum lead. Goldstein carried out the massacre at a time when Zionist soldiers had closed the mosque doors to prevent worshippers from fleeing. They also prevented those coming from outside the mosque precincts from coming in to rescue the wounded. Later, others were shot to death by occupation soldiers outside the mosque and at the cemetery during the funeral processions of those who had been martyred in the mosque. The massacre led to fifty deaths, twenty-nine of which occurred inside the mosque.

The Massacre at Qana (18 April 1996): The Israeli artillery and helicopters shelled a shelter inside the Fijian battalion working within the UN forces in south Lebanon, using bombs which explode in the air in order to increase casualties among the ranks of civilians who might try to seek refuge in shelters.

The operation led to the deaths of 160 civilians, most of them women, children and the elderly who were unable to flee towards Beirut and were thus obliged to seek refuge in the shelter at the Fijian Battalion headquarters in the Lebanese village of Qana.

Another Massacre at Qana (2006): During Israel's 'open war' against Lebanon using Hezbollah's kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers as a pretext, another massacre was committed by Israel in Qana. About 54 innocent Lebanese civilians, including about 37 children, were killed through an air raid.

Browbeating will not serve any Purpose

Nasim Zehra

India's post-Mumbai concerns are genuine as is its need to fully investigate the facts that wreaked havoc in its business commercial city.

It would also be legitimate for the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to seek Pakistan's cooperation in tracking down if there is any involvement from across the border. Meanwhile, Pakistan as a neighbour, one presently gripped within with terrorism itself, should feel obliged to help Delhi. And for such cooperation an anti-terrorism mechanism already exists between both the countries.

But all these facts notwithstanding three weeks into the Mumbai tragedy, confrontation looms large in the region. While Pakistan has committed flip-flops on issues like sending the ISI chief to Delhi, violation of its airspace and Masood Azhar's whereabouts, it has remained consistent with its offer to help Delhi to deal with the rising threat of terrorism. Complying with the UNSC Anti-Terrorism Committee's resolution, Pakistan has, however, banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), sealed its office and arrested some of its leaders.

New Delhi has opted to reject the bilateral track for resolving the Mumbai tragedy. Instead, it has made unilateral public demands. The demands are: Pakistan should hand over the 40 men on its terrorist list; and Pakistan should dismantle terrorist infrastructure and destroy the terrorist training camps.

These demands have been consistently backed by a threat of force and diplomatic pressure from the United States and Britain. Meanwhile, China has taken the position that the final outcome of the Indian investigation is still awaited, and it would be useless to jump the gun. Beijing maintains that any finger pointing is, therefore, premature and has recommended a joint Pakistan-India investigation into the terror attacks.

However, Britain and US have supported the Indian position. It has led to the banning of JuD by Pakistan, a successor organisation of Laskhar-e-Tayaba. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked that UK's intelligence agencies be allowed to interrogate Pakistani "suspects" involved in terrorism. The threat of use of force is continuously being upgraded with private Intelligence outfits declaring that an Indian surgical strike is imminent.

Whatever the Delhi's policy-making community may contemplate or advocate as the next step India would take in dealing with Pakistan, one thing is for sure it can't be the option of use of force. Given Pakistan's guaranteed military response to an Indian strike, it has a high risk of escalating into an all-out war. The past military confrontations between the countries confirm this fact. Kargil remained contained since it was not a direct military engagement. Also Pakistan's flawed military strategy and the international community's pressure forced the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the Kargil heights.

Pakistan's response to Indian government's demand list has been rather uncomplicated. Delhi has neither handed any evidence to Pakistan nor to the Interpol authorities. Instead, Indian officials have held meetings with the US Director of National Intelligence and shared 'evidence' with him.

Meanwhile, the only document handed over to Pakistan has been Ajmal Kasab's letter, which he has written in Indian custody. Reportedly, it reads like a confession document and he has asked for Pakistan's legal help in fighting his case.

While Pakistan remains bogged down with terrorism at home, it is unlikely that it can make any substantive move on Delhi's demands. Without any credible and concrete evidence Pakistan must not take action against its citizens. India bases its premise on the fact that Pakistan used to hand over its nationals to the US without following any legal procedure.

A more strident position is that of the BJP, which says it regrets having trusted Pakistan and the peace process it initiated in 2004.

Delhi's headstrong attitude is unwise. India mistakenly believes that it could take the US post-9/11 route for dealing with the problem of terrorism: a brow beating approach, with the threat of use of force.

Delhi must understand that Pakistan and its people want peace. However, Pakistan will fight terrorism within the parameters of international and national law. The post-2007 Pakistan, with a strong commitment to the rule of law and citizens' rights, will play by the rules. Delhi needs to go beyond 'browbeating.'

India needs to adopt a more constructive attitude in dealing with the post-Mumbai crisis. There is no international 'browbeating' route that will yield any results for India. Pakistan must be engaged on the bilateral track.

If Delhi persists in taking the international route at the cost of bilateralism, Pakistan-India relations will be badly hit. If such an unwise approach is prompted largely by political expediency, given 2009 is an election year for India, whether the Congress will get any additional votes is still unclear. What it will certainly not get is security and stability, which is desperately needed.