Ranking Higher Educational Institutions
Ranking the universities is a crucial task. It entails one’s thinking on how to rank the universities. What should be the criteria--- results, research, number of students, size of the university, infra-structure, quality of teachers or students, graduated students’ employment history, the age of the university should come under ranking criteria. To rank a university these points need to be taken into consideration very critically or some of these in a cluster to be considered. These criteria differ from university to university and from public to private universities. However, ranking has to be done with a view to developing the standard and quality through competition, which remains quite absent at present. University Grants Commission should shoulder the vital task regarding this issue. Actually, question arises what the UGC does in connection with ensuring quality of education of the universities. A strong body comprising education experts of various levels and categories needs to be established as third eye to monitor the overall performance and general activities of the universities. Topmost importance should be given so that no political colour can touch the body. But how far can it be ensured?
According to the survey/research of The Times Higher Education (THE), top two hundred universities have been identified on thirteen criteria. Unfortunately, none of these two hundred universities exist in the South-Asia , let alone Bangladesh. Top of the list stands Harvard University, second position goes to California Institute of Technology, third Massachusetts Institute of Technology, fourth Stanford University and fifth category goes to Princeton university. It is more interesting that all the top five universities stand in the United States. Oxford and Cambridge occupy combine sixth position. In Asia University of Hong Kong tops the list but it stands 21st in the world standard. Second Asia University of Tokyo, third Pohao university of South Korea, fourth National University of Singapore and fifth Peking University of China. All these universities fall between 25 and 35th in the global ranking. The universities which publish less than fifty articles in the international standard journal have not been counted. None of the universities of Bangladesh stands even in the 1000th in the global ranking. What a shame for us. I don’t know whether it will sensitize the authorities concerned of the educational arena or not.It clandestinely shows how much less importance is given to research in our universities. Importance is given whether students have gone to welcome our leaders coming from foreign visit contributing to already unbearable traffic jam. When students don’t go there due to their examinations and other appointments they are detained by the student cadres of a particular party. How beautiful! Being a citizen of an independent country and studying in the highest seat of learning is to endure the detention of unruly student cadres, then there remains no place in the world to show the face. Definitely the position of our universities will stand hundreds of miles away from world ranking. Yes, our universities would occupy the top ten ranking if the criteria reverse. The contribution of present day student politics and how strong and expert our students are in using various sorts of arms including local lathies and also toll collecting from various sources to fatten their income. Some of our leaders once expressed that our student organization is enough to face the opposition. How beautiful! It is true that in many western countries political parties have research wings comprising of party intellectuals. On the basis of their research party decisions are made. What happens in our country?
There is no particular ranking among the private universities in Bangladesh, not among the public universities. Comparatively sound academic atmosphere prevails in Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology and almost uniformed quality of students get admission here who value more academic affairs than political games in the campus. And the general universities more or less get plagued with various ills mostly originated from student politics. University Grants Commission conducted a ranking survey in 2004 only in private universities which ranked North-South University as first. But it hardly imprints any significance as the general beliefs and notion convince us all that North-South University occupies the first ranking university because of its academic excellence, faculties and brilliant productions. Another one is vying with North South that is BRAC University.
The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings system published their annual ranking result for 2010-2011 on September 16 in collaboration with new ranking data provider Thomson Reuters. They collected data from more than 50 leading figures in the sector from 15 countries across every continent and through ten months of extensive consultation. The guiding principles THE followed in ranking the world universities are-----Teaching: the learning environment worth(30%) of the overall ranking score, Research: Volume, income and reputation (worth 30%),Citation: research influence (worth 32.5%)Industry income: innovation (worth(2.5%) and International mix: students and staff worth 5%.Scoring should be
-on research and innovative activities
--on the quality of teachers
--on the number of students admitted each year
--on campus quality and status (including libraries and all other facilities
-overall score ( DS Oliur Rahman September 24, 2010)
I think students’ employment status in the job market should be taken into consideration. Student’s entering the job market for the last five to ten years must be taken into consideration as it amply indicates the standard and imparting knowledge to the learners by the universities keeping pace with the present day world. Number of unemployed and low-employment matters much to the ranking
Once cadet college authorities expressed their dissatisfaction over not the brilliant cadet’s joining the armed forces and commented that cadet colleges were not coaching centers. Coaching centers just prepare the students for the examinations but educational institutions give holistic education to the learners, which contribute to their mental and psychological development. So, only result that means how many first classes or higher grades have been awarded to the learners may not be the only standard to rank the universities. Most of our private universities impart just the commercial subjects without giving them education in humanities. They don’t study literature or social science or science, just BBA and MBA and subjects like this, which can make a learner a businessman or business dealer, not a holistic man. Ranking the universities must receive these points.
With possible exception our private universities don’ t have any open campus to practice any physical games or sports or any kind of outdoor games and to roam about in the campus freely. Library facilities, gymnasiums, open theatre stages prove to be absolutely absent phenomena in private universities which the ranking between public and private universities, therefore, tend to be different.
Ranking of universities on some set and assumed criteria should be the order of the day. Private universities have mushroomed to respond to the fast expanding demand of tertiary level education without hiding some commercial or social status purpose may have the secret reason behind it. Different authorities to make regular surveys on academic and higher education related activities need to be emerged or to address the ebbing trend of quality education and hence creating a competition among the private universities. The set criteria must be well known to all so that any kind of lobbying and influencing and even corruption cannot happen when ranking will be done. Maintaining discipline in the campus must stand as one of the significant factors of ranking a university as discipline plays a key role to ensure a sound academic environment. In a chaotic campus students cannot give full attention to act of learning. Rater it stands in the way of imparting education normally.
BRAC offers a scholarship to the poor but meritorious students. So far it has distributed ‘ Medhabikash’ scholarship to twelve hundred students since its inception in 2005. On the basis of experiences gained through the process BRAC has decided to expand its scholarship program along with increasing the amount. Necessarily it is felt the amount of scholarship should vary according to the institutions students belong to. Hence, ranking plays a key factor. The Director of BRAC Education Program, Dr. Safiqul Islam , asked us to submit him the ranking of the higher educational institution of the country which really has thrown us into a perplexed situation as no such ranking has been done reasonably. It is greatly felt that it should have been.
It has been greatly felt that there must be a body or an organization to rank the higher educational institutions in the country, which should carefully and reasonably know how to differentiate between the technical such as BUET, KUET, CUET, RUET and general educational institutes. Then again medical colleges and agricultural universities and colleges and the general colleges offering honors courses should have separate ranking system. Until and unless the ranking is done nothing is understood which institution is teaching what and what sort of or amount of contribution it is giving to the nation. Very much traditionally institutions are being run year after year without any definite aims and objectives. No responsibility rests upon anybody. No competition among the institutions as it is found in the private schools and colleges and accordingly they vie with each other promising to offer better education and educational facilities. In respect of university and colleges such arrangements and competition must bring desired result. Under the initiative of the Ministry of Education an independent body must be formed to rank the higher educational institutions of the country on the basis of complex issues keeping the dividing line between private and public, college and universities.
Md. Masum Billah
Program Manager: BRAC Education Programme, PACE
Cell:01714-091431
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010. Show all posts
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The growing divide between Tel-Aviv and Washington
The growing divide between Tel-Aviv and Washington dangles hope for Middle East Peace
Earlier this month the Palestinians reluctantly agreed to US-mediated indirect talks with Israel but the planned negotiation collapsed two days later when Israel announced plans to build 1600 new settler homes in east Jerusalem during a visit by US Vice-president Joe Biden. This illegal announcement angered not only Biden and Hillary Clinton but also the US president Barack Obama himself. The whole world salutes Obama for his present stance against the Israeli policy. The peace loving people of the entire globe now observes the whole situation with much anxiousness and with keen interest how US is going to deal with the affair ultimately. It is true that America’s tough stance against Israel‘s expansion theory and state anarchy will definitely be cornered. The Palestinians have said Israelis construction of settlement is the main obstacle to reaching a peace deal because it is carving off parts of their promised state. Netanyahu imposed a ten-month halt on new construction in the West Bank in November, but the move was rejected by the Palestinians because it did not include east Jerusalem, public buildings and projects already under way. The murder of a Palestinian politician in Dubai recently was committed by Israel. The recent expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in London by the British government over a forgery of British passports that would camouflage the killers is a broad hint of the levels to which Israel has stooped in defense of its questionable national interest. The White House’s tit for tat policy when Netanyahu went to meet Obama clearly indicates US really wants real peace in the Middle East. The recent incidents clandestinely retain many messages for Israel.
Netanyahu returned from Washington on March 26 after a tense visit that appeared to deepen a bitter row with the administration of president Barack Obama over the bundling of Jewish settlements in annexed Arab east Jerusalem.” The Prime Minster’s position is that there is no change in Israel’s policy on Jerusalem that has been pursued by all governments of Israel for the last 42 years. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was even at pains to renew administration warnings that Israel- Palestinian tensions harm US security interest in the Middle East. The lack of progress to wear Middle East peace is clearly an issue that is exploited by our adversaries in the region. Gates said adding it does affect US national security interests in the region. The US appears in no mood to blink first in its tense showdown with Israel after reportedly handing prime minster Benjamin Netanyahu a blueprint to kick start moribund peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu put on a brace face as he flew home to a storm of derision on March 26 having failed to resolve a bitter row with Washington over settlement holding. He insisted ahead of his departure that the two close allies had made progress but his trip served to illustrate the growing divide between Israel and Washington on Jewish settlement activity. Despite meeting with US president Barck Obama and other top officials, Netanyahu appeared unable to tamp down the row over the construction of 1600 new settler home in annexed Arab east Jerusalem .
A senior minister warned that Israel would ‘liquidate’ the Islamist Hamas-run government in Gaza following deadly weekend clashed that killed two Israeli soldiers. “Sooner or later we will liquidate the military regime of the pro-Iranian Hamas which control the Gaza Strip. Finance minister Yuvai Steintz , from the governing rightwing Likud party told public radio. He continued “I am not setting a timetable but we will not tolerate this regime continuing to strengthen itself military and providing itself with an arsenal of rockets that threaten our territory.” Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on March 27 ruled out holding even indirect talks with Israel unless it freezes settlement construction in the West Bank including mostly Arab east Jerusalem. “We cannot resume indirect negotiation as long as Israel maintains its settlement policy and the status quo.”-he said. All these indicate that the black cloud is gathering in the sky once again. Israel still seems to be firm in its illegal decision and hopes to receive backing from its so long closest allies. But the world hopes not to see Middle East peace shattered any more by the questionable steps of Israel.
Israel captured east Jerusalem during the 1967 war and annexed it shortly after in a move not recognized by the international community. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The long standing crisis in this region must come to an end and USA will take stern and legal steps for establishing sustainable peace in the region is the hope of all.
Md. Masum Billah
Program Manger : brac Education Program, PACE
10th floor, brac Head Office, 75, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212.
Cell: 01714-091431, 9355253(home)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Earlier this month the Palestinians reluctantly agreed to US-mediated indirect talks with Israel but the planned negotiation collapsed two days later when Israel announced plans to build 1600 new settler homes in east Jerusalem during a visit by US Vice-president Joe Biden. This illegal announcement angered not only Biden and Hillary Clinton but also the US president Barack Obama himself. The whole world salutes Obama for his present stance against the Israeli policy. The peace loving people of the entire globe now observes the whole situation with much anxiousness and with keen interest how US is going to deal with the affair ultimately. It is true that America’s tough stance against Israel‘s expansion theory and state anarchy will definitely be cornered. The Palestinians have said Israelis construction of settlement is the main obstacle to reaching a peace deal because it is carving off parts of their promised state. Netanyahu imposed a ten-month halt on new construction in the West Bank in November, but the move was rejected by the Palestinians because it did not include east Jerusalem, public buildings and projects already under way. The murder of a Palestinian politician in Dubai recently was committed by Israel. The recent expulsion of an Israeli diplomat in London by the British government over a forgery of British passports that would camouflage the killers is a broad hint of the levels to which Israel has stooped in defense of its questionable national interest. The White House’s tit for tat policy when Netanyahu went to meet Obama clearly indicates US really wants real peace in the Middle East. The recent incidents clandestinely retain many messages for Israel.
Netanyahu returned from Washington on March 26 after a tense visit that appeared to deepen a bitter row with the administration of president Barack Obama over the bundling of Jewish settlements in annexed Arab east Jerusalem.” The Prime Minster’s position is that there is no change in Israel’s policy on Jerusalem that has been pursued by all governments of Israel for the last 42 years. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was even at pains to renew administration warnings that Israel- Palestinian tensions harm US security interest in the Middle East. The lack of progress to wear Middle East peace is clearly an issue that is exploited by our adversaries in the region. Gates said adding it does affect US national security interests in the region. The US appears in no mood to blink first in its tense showdown with Israel after reportedly handing prime minster Benjamin Netanyahu a blueprint to kick start moribund peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu put on a brace face as he flew home to a storm of derision on March 26 having failed to resolve a bitter row with Washington over settlement holding. He insisted ahead of his departure that the two close allies had made progress but his trip served to illustrate the growing divide between Israel and Washington on Jewish settlement activity. Despite meeting with US president Barck Obama and other top officials, Netanyahu appeared unable to tamp down the row over the construction of 1600 new settler home in annexed Arab east Jerusalem .
A senior minister warned that Israel would ‘liquidate’ the Islamist Hamas-run government in Gaza following deadly weekend clashed that killed two Israeli soldiers. “Sooner or later we will liquidate the military regime of the pro-Iranian Hamas which control the Gaza Strip. Finance minister Yuvai Steintz , from the governing rightwing Likud party told public radio. He continued “I am not setting a timetable but we will not tolerate this regime continuing to strengthen itself military and providing itself with an arsenal of rockets that threaten our territory.” Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas on March 27 ruled out holding even indirect talks with Israel unless it freezes settlement construction in the West Bank including mostly Arab east Jerusalem. “We cannot resume indirect negotiation as long as Israel maintains its settlement policy and the status quo.”-he said. All these indicate that the black cloud is gathering in the sky once again. Israel still seems to be firm in its illegal decision and hopes to receive backing from its so long closest allies. But the world hopes not to see Middle East peace shattered any more by the questionable steps of Israel.
Israel captured east Jerusalem during the 1967 war and annexed it shortly after in a move not recognized by the international community. The Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. The long standing crisis in this region must come to an end and USA will take stern and legal steps for establishing sustainable peace in the region is the hope of all.
Md. Masum Billah
Program Manger : brac Education Program, PACE
10th floor, brac Head Office, 75, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1212.
Cell: 01714-091431, 9355253(home)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
SAARC ministerial meeting emphasized five principles
SAARC ministerial meeting emphasized five principles
Of recent the Saarc ministerial meeting has taken place in the city of Dhaka. The meeting took place at such critical moment when we are really confronted with new and undeniable change of climate which threatens our very existence. The horror of the Sidr that occurred on November in Bangladesh and the very recent Nargis in Myanmar which was declared to blow over Bangladesh bear the burning examples of natural wrath infuriated by unreasonable human behaviour towards nature. The south regions of Bangladesh are really vulnerable. Many a time people of these parts became the victims of natural wraths in its dangerous pictures and forms. Our big neighbour India is not less vulnerable to natural disasters. The concerted efforts of Saarc members must foster the notion of climate change. The member states first start from within to develop environment-friendly behaviour. This meeting should strive to uphold our basic rights to climate –resilient development in the Saarc region. The Chief Advisor said, “ Saarc can occupy a high moral ground on this issue and put pressure on the developed countries and must remind them individually and collectively that procrastination is not an option.”. really Saarc stands as an effective forum to keep the developed countries under pressure to minimize the environmental hazarders which they play the key role in inviting them at the cost of poor countries’ unbearable loss.
The points talked about in the ministerial meetings include deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emission by developed countries with effective timeframe, commitment period, provision of adequate additional resources by developed countries to tackle climate change adaptation needs in addition to regular overseas Development Assistance Arrangements and development of insurance mechanism as a tool of risk reduction compensation for climate victims , facilitating effective access to and funding assistance for the transfer of environment friendly technologies for the developing countries as well as for adaptation and mitigation of sharing the environmental burden equally. Each point calls for serious consideration and attention of the industrially developed countries and our healthy existence on earth is closely related to it.
“The adverse effect of global warming would derail all our efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It will unleash the tragedy in human history far graver than the’ Black Death’ or the atrocities or World War II.”, warned by the environmentalists.Many developing countries are already pursuing effective adaptation strategies to cope with climate change. Bangladesh is one bright example. But adaptation is a costly proposition. Saarc countries should speak in one voice to ensure that developed countries commit new and additional resources to support our adaptation efforts.Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon ( BAPA) said with warning “ Climate change would jeopardize the right to food. Regional food production is likely to fall as a result of increasing temperature, which causes grain sterility , desertification and also rise in the sea level.” This well founded warning must make us all concerned. Already the food crisis has gravely threatened the world people. It is getting intense with further natural calamites some parts of the globe face at almost a regular interval.
IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel of Climate Change) predicted that .50 metre to 2 metre sea many rise by 2050. this may be taken as serous warning for the developing countries in particular and developed countries in general. The only difference lies in the fact the developed countries can face natural disasters as they have adequate measures and resources. But the developing ones become seriously affected by any sort of climatic phenomenon. But the whole globe must undergo its adverse effect. So, it is the imperative of all to give a serous thought to this issue. Developed countries hardly take the climatic issues seriously as they don’t have to suffer so intensely as the developing countries do from time to time. So, the developing countries both individually and collectively approach the industrially developed countries to reduce the emission. our chief Advisor has rightly said, “ To demonstrate the world that together they can tackle the threats of climate change through a cooperative and collaborative arrangements in South Asia and let Saarc be a model of cooperation for combating climate change.” G-77 grouping of 134 developing countries have long been demanding for additional one percent of GNP of developed countries industrial countries for tackling the adverse effects of climate change but the industrially developed ones seem to turn a deaf ear to it. For making this planet habitable for all, the industrially developed countries must give a serous thought to this issue as it concerns the whole humanity, animal world and plant life.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253(home), 01714-091431(cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Of recent the Saarc ministerial meeting has taken place in the city of Dhaka. The meeting took place at such critical moment when we are really confronted with new and undeniable change of climate which threatens our very existence. The horror of the Sidr that occurred on November in Bangladesh and the very recent Nargis in Myanmar which was declared to blow over Bangladesh bear the burning examples of natural wrath infuriated by unreasonable human behaviour towards nature. The south regions of Bangladesh are really vulnerable. Many a time people of these parts became the victims of natural wraths in its dangerous pictures and forms. Our big neighbour India is not less vulnerable to natural disasters. The concerted efforts of Saarc members must foster the notion of climate change. The member states first start from within to develop environment-friendly behaviour. This meeting should strive to uphold our basic rights to climate –resilient development in the Saarc region. The Chief Advisor said, “ Saarc can occupy a high moral ground on this issue and put pressure on the developed countries and must remind them individually and collectively that procrastination is not an option.”. really Saarc stands as an effective forum to keep the developed countries under pressure to minimize the environmental hazarders which they play the key role in inviting them at the cost of poor countries’ unbearable loss.
The points talked about in the ministerial meetings include deeper cuts to greenhouse gas emission by developed countries with effective timeframe, commitment period, provision of adequate additional resources by developed countries to tackle climate change adaptation needs in addition to regular overseas Development Assistance Arrangements and development of insurance mechanism as a tool of risk reduction compensation for climate victims , facilitating effective access to and funding assistance for the transfer of environment friendly technologies for the developing countries as well as for adaptation and mitigation of sharing the environmental burden equally. Each point calls for serious consideration and attention of the industrially developed countries and our healthy existence on earth is closely related to it.
“The adverse effect of global warming would derail all our efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. It will unleash the tragedy in human history far graver than the’ Black Death’ or the atrocities or World War II.”, warned by the environmentalists.Many developing countries are already pursuing effective adaptation strategies to cope with climate change. Bangladesh is one bright example. But adaptation is a costly proposition. Saarc countries should speak in one voice to ensure that developed countries commit new and additional resources to support our adaptation efforts.Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon ( BAPA) said with warning “ Climate change would jeopardize the right to food. Regional food production is likely to fall as a result of increasing temperature, which causes grain sterility , desertification and also rise in the sea level.” This well founded warning must make us all concerned. Already the food crisis has gravely threatened the world people. It is getting intense with further natural calamites some parts of the globe face at almost a regular interval.
IPCC (Inter-governmental Panel of Climate Change) predicted that .50 metre to 2 metre sea many rise by 2050. this may be taken as serous warning for the developing countries in particular and developed countries in general. The only difference lies in the fact the developed countries can face natural disasters as they have adequate measures and resources. But the developing ones become seriously affected by any sort of climatic phenomenon. But the whole globe must undergo its adverse effect. So, it is the imperative of all to give a serous thought to this issue. Developed countries hardly take the climatic issues seriously as they don’t have to suffer so intensely as the developing countries do from time to time. So, the developing countries both individually and collectively approach the industrially developed countries to reduce the emission. our chief Advisor has rightly said, “ To demonstrate the world that together they can tackle the threats of climate change through a cooperative and collaborative arrangements in South Asia and let Saarc be a model of cooperation for combating climate change.” G-77 grouping of 134 developing countries have long been demanding for additional one percent of GNP of developed countries industrial countries for tackling the adverse effects of climate change but the industrially developed ones seem to turn a deaf ear to it. For making this planet habitable for all, the industrially developed countries must give a serous thought to this issue as it concerns the whole humanity, animal world and plant life.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253(home), 01714-091431(cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Post Mushrraf Pakistan and its relations with USA
Post Mushrraf Pakistan and its relations with USA
Pakistan and the Indo-Pak subcontinent have witnessed a rare incident which was quite unimaginable to the people of this region several months back. Pakistan generals easily steps down and army does not back the former generals really a rare happening in Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan has started its step towards public rule frowning to the military one. Sherry Rehman, information minister of the Pakistan People’s Party said the resignation of Mushrraf was a victory for democratic forces. Today the shadow of dictatorship that has prevailed for long over this country that chapter has been closed. Sudden change from military cultured politics and regime to public representative ruled country must see a serous jolt first. Even then, it is a good omen.
The leaders of the main parties in the coalition held meetings but had not been able to bridge their differences on modalities for reinstating the judges who were deposed by Mushrraf during last year’s emergency. During the meeting they also failed to give any attention to the future of Mushrraf. Though many expected the meeting would give decision about what was going to happen to Mushrraf next. Sharif said he had no personal differences with Mushrraf who had deposed him as Prime Minister, arrested him and exiled him but added this did not mean Mushrraf should meet the same fate. Reporters have suggested that the PMI-N is no longer insisting on the trial of Mushrraf following his resignation, largely due to intervention by Saudi Arabian interlocutors. Yet more uncertainty is his political opponents had not announced whether they would grant him immunity and it was also unclear whether the man who towered over Pakistan’s political landscape would be allowed to remain in the country.
Pakistan has started experiencing sporadic turmoil and anarchy in different parts of the country just after the resignation of president Mushrraf A suicide bomber blew himself up on August 19 at a hospital in a northwestern Pakistan town that has been plagued by sectarian violence, killing at least 23 people. In another violence five soldier and thirteen Taliban militants were killed in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan. The suicide attack happened as Shai Muslims gathered to protest over the death of a man in suspected sectarian attack in the troubled town of Dera Ismail Khan. Ther are 23 confiremd dead and up to 20 wounded there .
Mushrraf’s departure from the presidency is unlikely to have a significant impact on how Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are controlled. Experts say “a 10-member committee and not just the president makes decisions on how to sue them and only a complete meltdown in governance still a distant prospect in Pakistan could put the atomic bomb in the hands of extremist.” “Pakistan nuclear assets are not one man’s property”. Maria Sultan, a defense analyst and director at the London-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute commented Any political transition in Pakistan will have no effect on Pakistan’s nuclear assets because it has a very strong custodial control. The committee known as the National Command Authority is served by a military dominated organization with thousands of security forces and intelligence agents whose personnel are closely screened. The nuclear facilities are tightly guarded.The reality is that Pakistanis government exits on different levels. One of the levels it exists and works at is in the control of its nuclear weapons. Said Patrick Cronin, director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington .
Some diplomatic sources in Washington described President Bush as Musharraf’s last holdout in the US capital. Others in the Bush administration including Vice-president Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had long given up on Mushrraf. But Bush remained faithful to the person he considered a close ally and a personal friend.
The person who played a key role in persuading Mushrraf’s supporters in the Bush administration to stop backing the Pakistani leader is the US ambassador in Islamabad, Anne W Patterson. Ambassador Patterson argued that if Washington continued supporting Mushrraf it would end up stoking massive anti American feelings in Pakistan.
She also held a series of meetings with coalition leaders particularly PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari, and received assurances from them that Mushrraf’s departure would not undermine primary US interests in Pakistan and that Islamabad would continue to fight al –Qaeda and Taliban militants in Fata, as it did before. Chairman of the US joint chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen also stayed engaged with the Pakistan, making three trips to Pakistan after the February 18 elections, including a secret visit in July.In his meetings with chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani, Admiral Mullen sought and received direct assurance from him that Musharraf’s departure would not reduce Pakistan’s role in the war on terror.In Washington, Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani used his contacts on Capitol Hill and in the US administration to win over influential lawyers and key officials. He received considerable support from his friends on Capitol Hill. These facts indicate that America’s relation with Pakistan will not change. It came to the realization of Bush that he can no longer save Mushrraf.America will retain her interest as usual in Pakistan. Mushrraf was not matter with them. But the Pakistanis want that the US should not be seen as interfering in Pakistan’s domestic political dispute.
US policy towards Pakistan in this changed scenario gets reveled through the statement of Condoleezza Rice. She says , “ Mushrraf was friend to the United Sates and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism. Even now Pakistan is engaged in a massive operation against the militants in tribal areas along the country border with Afghanistan.” It can be deduced from her comment that they are still confident to wage the war against terror which they did involving Musharraf. We, Bangladeshis, don’t want terrorism, talibanism and American imperialism also in Pakistan. We just want to see that the wind of spring blows over Pakistan making the country healthy.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01714-091431(cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Pakistan and the Indo-Pak subcontinent have witnessed a rare incident which was quite unimaginable to the people of this region several months back. Pakistan generals easily steps down and army does not back the former generals really a rare happening in Pakistan. Yes, Pakistan has started its step towards public rule frowning to the military one. Sherry Rehman, information minister of the Pakistan People’s Party said the resignation of Mushrraf was a victory for democratic forces. Today the shadow of dictatorship that has prevailed for long over this country that chapter has been closed. Sudden change from military cultured politics and regime to public representative ruled country must see a serous jolt first. Even then, it is a good omen.
The leaders of the main parties in the coalition held meetings but had not been able to bridge their differences on modalities for reinstating the judges who were deposed by Mushrraf during last year’s emergency. During the meeting they also failed to give any attention to the future of Mushrraf. Though many expected the meeting would give decision about what was going to happen to Mushrraf next. Sharif said he had no personal differences with Mushrraf who had deposed him as Prime Minister, arrested him and exiled him but added this did not mean Mushrraf should meet the same fate. Reporters have suggested that the PMI-N is no longer insisting on the trial of Mushrraf following his resignation, largely due to intervention by Saudi Arabian interlocutors. Yet more uncertainty is his political opponents had not announced whether they would grant him immunity and it was also unclear whether the man who towered over Pakistan’s political landscape would be allowed to remain in the country.
Pakistan has started experiencing sporadic turmoil and anarchy in different parts of the country just after the resignation of president Mushrraf A suicide bomber blew himself up on August 19 at a hospital in a northwestern Pakistan town that has been plagued by sectarian violence, killing at least 23 people. In another violence five soldier and thirteen Taliban militants were killed in a tribal region bordering Afghanistan. The suicide attack happened as Shai Muslims gathered to protest over the death of a man in suspected sectarian attack in the troubled town of Dera Ismail Khan. Ther are 23 confiremd dead and up to 20 wounded there .
Mushrraf’s departure from the presidency is unlikely to have a significant impact on how Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are controlled. Experts say “a 10-member committee and not just the president makes decisions on how to sue them and only a complete meltdown in governance still a distant prospect in Pakistan could put the atomic bomb in the hands of extremist.” “Pakistan nuclear assets are not one man’s property”. Maria Sultan, a defense analyst and director at the London-based South Asian Strategic Stability Institute commented Any political transition in Pakistan will have no effect on Pakistan’s nuclear assets because it has a very strong custodial control. The committee known as the National Command Authority is served by a military dominated organization with thousands of security forces and intelligence agents whose personnel are closely screened. The nuclear facilities are tightly guarded.The reality is that Pakistanis government exits on different levels. One of the levels it exists and works at is in the control of its nuclear weapons. Said Patrick Cronin, director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington .
Some diplomatic sources in Washington described President Bush as Musharraf’s last holdout in the US capital. Others in the Bush administration including Vice-president Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had long given up on Mushrraf. But Bush remained faithful to the person he considered a close ally and a personal friend.
The person who played a key role in persuading Mushrraf’s supporters in the Bush administration to stop backing the Pakistani leader is the US ambassador in Islamabad, Anne W Patterson. Ambassador Patterson argued that if Washington continued supporting Mushrraf it would end up stoking massive anti American feelings in Pakistan.
She also held a series of meetings with coalition leaders particularly PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari, and received assurances from them that Mushrraf’s departure would not undermine primary US interests in Pakistan and that Islamabad would continue to fight al –Qaeda and Taliban militants in Fata, as it did before. Chairman of the US joint chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen also stayed engaged with the Pakistan, making three trips to Pakistan after the February 18 elections, including a secret visit in July.In his meetings with chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani, Admiral Mullen sought and received direct assurance from him that Musharraf’s departure would not reduce Pakistan’s role in the war on terror.In Washington, Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani used his contacts on Capitol Hill and in the US administration to win over influential lawyers and key officials. He received considerable support from his friends on Capitol Hill. These facts indicate that America’s relation with Pakistan will not change. It came to the realization of Bush that he can no longer save Mushrraf.America will retain her interest as usual in Pakistan. Mushrraf was not matter with them. But the Pakistanis want that the US should not be seen as interfering in Pakistan’s domestic political dispute.
US policy towards Pakistan in this changed scenario gets reveled through the statement of Condoleezza Rice. She says , “ Mushrraf was friend to the United Sates and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism. Even now Pakistan is engaged in a massive operation against the militants in tribal areas along the country border with Afghanistan.” It can be deduced from her comment that they are still confident to wage the war against terror which they did involving Musharraf. We, Bangladeshis, don’t want terrorism, talibanism and American imperialism also in Pakistan. We just want to see that the wind of spring blows over Pakistan making the country healthy.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01714-091431(cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
What is the real solution of Kashmir Problem?
What is the real solution of Kashmir Problem?
Jammu and Kashmir burned and now Kashmir has been numbed by stringent curfew. Jammu has witnessed an intensely communal violent agitation for over eight weeks over the cancellation of an order transferring 100 acres of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. This is pitting Jammu against Kashmir, ethnic group against ethnic group, Hindus against Muslims in dangerous ways. BJP has politicized and exploited the agitation cynically. It imposed an economic blockade which closed the Jammu-Srinagar highway for weeks causing serious public suffering.
The two agitations have deepened communal polarization and strengthened both Hurriyat and Hindutva. Any decision of Jammu and Kashmir along religious lines is a recipe for the separation of the Kahsimris Valley from India. It will freeze two opposing identities a ‘Muslim Kahmir, and a ‘Hindu Jammu’.Jammu recently witnessed 10,513 protests and 359 serious incidents of violence is which 28 government buildings, 15 police vehicles and 118 private vehicles damaged. Several hundred persons were injured, 17 killed, 72 Gujjar homes burnt, 117 police personnel, 78 civilians injured. Schools, colleges, government offices, hospitals were paralyzed.
A matter of almost trifling significance has been allowed to swell upto this present development.A plan to build bathrooms and shelters for Hindu pilgrims visiting a shrine in Kashmir.But several deaths and violent clashes have transferred the protests into one of the worst political crisis to hit the Himalayan region threatening to sever the bonds between the predominantly Muslim region of Kashmir and Hindu majority India. Even during the last two decades of a brutal separatist rebellion in Kashmir and India’s harsh military response, the region remained firmly tethered to the rest of India through its coexistence with the predominantly Hindu region of Jammu united in the state of Jammu-Kashmir.The traditionally good relations between the two regions were a rare bright point in the long troubled religion that has otherwise been a flashpoint for Hindu-Muslim conflict and the rivalry between India and Pakistan.
Now surging violence has laid bare long buried animosity. Hindus in Jammu say they are tired of the union and blocked the main road linking them to Kashmir to make their point. And most Kashmir’s say a divorce would suit them too. “It used to be Jmamu and Kashmir now its Jammu vs Kashmir, said an editorial Cartoon in India newspaper. As day after Prime Minister Manomohan convened an emergency meeting with the leading politicians in a bid to end the crisis but failed to quell the unrest and agitation.
A lack of political leadership threatens to allow seating Hindu-Muslim tensions and separatists anger in revolt hit-Indian Kashmir to spiral out of control. Kashmir is now witnessing its biggest anti-India demonstrations in years which has been posed at a very delicate stage. Hundreds and thousands of people massed in Indian Kashmir’s main city Srinagar to demand ‘azad’ or freedom and protest against New Delhi’s rule.. “The political process has not been able to defuse the situation and new were at a very critical point where we have a very disturbing communal divide” Uday Bhasker, security analyst said.
Neerja Chowdhury said “The New Delhi and Kashmir administrations were causing napping. The government was simply out of cynic with the mood in Kashmir, the implications of the land transfer on the psyche of the people in Kashmir and the impact of the revocation in Hindus. The controversy has wiped out the huge gains made politically in the region in the last seven to eight years.” She noted referring to Indian claims that military was on the wane and peace was being restored. Analyst B. Raman, a former Indian intelligence officer criticized the government’s inept handing and the BJP’ Hindu Nationalist Bhratiy Janata Party’s cynical exportation of the crisis.” What militants failed to do in Kashmir since 1989 the government and the BJP have achieved for them.” dividing the region along religious fault lines.” I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Kashmir valley referring to a longstanding demand by Pakistan and rejected outright by India.”
Kashmir has nineteen year old revolt which left at least 43000 dead. Demonstrators violated the strict curfew restrictions which had been imposed from August 24 to discourage separatist rallies during which residents have openly paraded green Islamic flags and chanted pro-militant and anti-Indian slogans Thousands of troops were deployed moving to the venue where protesters had planned to rally, Srinagars Red Square, with fencing and barbed wire blocking entry points so that people could not gather.The square is where Indian first Prime Minister Jawharalal Nehru in 1948 promised Kashmiries the right to decide their future in a referendum on self-determination. He said it was his promise to the whole world. But the subsequent rulers of India derailed the matter inviting serious turmoil. Kuldip Nayar, the leading columnist of India commented on this present situation of Kashmir in this way“Some said the land allotment was meant to change the demography to turn the Muslim majority state into a Hindu one. This allegation is not true because New Delhi, even under BJP-led government has never tried to put Hindus from other states into Kashmir. The law prohibits non-Kashmiries from purchasing land in the state. Jawharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister , was categorically said in his pronouncement that no outsider would be allowed to settle down in the state. “( D.S 14.8 said Kuldip Nayar in the article’ The Siege Within’)
Actually, India gets afraid that the separation of Kashmir will encourage other parts of India where separatists are struggling for self-rule and freedom. Definitely it’s a serous issue for its freedom and sovereignty. So, India very strictly keeps the Kashmir valley in its grip. Continuous armed forces’ torture and repression has vitiated the atmosphere of Kashmir. It is also true that Kashmir has been given a separate status. Government employs special budget for the development and industry for this region to quell the people. Pakistani instigation, religious sentiment and the frequent torture of the Indian forces have made the people revolt against Indian rule. Hindus also have become fed up with this kind of forced and pretended friendship. India must take very pragmatic approach to find a real peaceful solution. Only repression and the language of arms can never bring sustainable peace in this region.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Jammu and Kashmir burned and now Kashmir has been numbed by stringent curfew. Jammu has witnessed an intensely communal violent agitation for over eight weeks over the cancellation of an order transferring 100 acres of forest land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board. This is pitting Jammu against Kashmir, ethnic group against ethnic group, Hindus against Muslims in dangerous ways. BJP has politicized and exploited the agitation cynically. It imposed an economic blockade which closed the Jammu-Srinagar highway for weeks causing serious public suffering.
The two agitations have deepened communal polarization and strengthened both Hurriyat and Hindutva. Any decision of Jammu and Kashmir along religious lines is a recipe for the separation of the Kahsimris Valley from India. It will freeze two opposing identities a ‘Muslim Kahmir, and a ‘Hindu Jammu’.Jammu recently witnessed 10,513 protests and 359 serious incidents of violence is which 28 government buildings, 15 police vehicles and 118 private vehicles damaged. Several hundred persons were injured, 17 killed, 72 Gujjar homes burnt, 117 police personnel, 78 civilians injured. Schools, colleges, government offices, hospitals were paralyzed.
A matter of almost trifling significance has been allowed to swell upto this present development.A plan to build bathrooms and shelters for Hindu pilgrims visiting a shrine in Kashmir.But several deaths and violent clashes have transferred the protests into one of the worst political crisis to hit the Himalayan region threatening to sever the bonds between the predominantly Muslim region of Kashmir and Hindu majority India. Even during the last two decades of a brutal separatist rebellion in Kashmir and India’s harsh military response, the region remained firmly tethered to the rest of India through its coexistence with the predominantly Hindu region of Jammu united in the state of Jammu-Kashmir.The traditionally good relations between the two regions were a rare bright point in the long troubled religion that has otherwise been a flashpoint for Hindu-Muslim conflict and the rivalry between India and Pakistan.
Now surging violence has laid bare long buried animosity. Hindus in Jammu say they are tired of the union and blocked the main road linking them to Kashmir to make their point. And most Kashmir’s say a divorce would suit them too. “It used to be Jmamu and Kashmir now its Jammu vs Kashmir, said an editorial Cartoon in India newspaper. As day after Prime Minister Manomohan convened an emergency meeting with the leading politicians in a bid to end the crisis but failed to quell the unrest and agitation.
A lack of political leadership threatens to allow seating Hindu-Muslim tensions and separatists anger in revolt hit-Indian Kashmir to spiral out of control. Kashmir is now witnessing its biggest anti-India demonstrations in years which has been posed at a very delicate stage. Hundreds and thousands of people massed in Indian Kashmir’s main city Srinagar to demand ‘azad’ or freedom and protest against New Delhi’s rule.. “The political process has not been able to defuse the situation and new were at a very critical point where we have a very disturbing communal divide” Uday Bhasker, security analyst said.
Neerja Chowdhury said “The New Delhi and Kashmir administrations were causing napping. The government was simply out of cynic with the mood in Kashmir, the implications of the land transfer on the psyche of the people in Kashmir and the impact of the revocation in Hindus. The controversy has wiped out the huge gains made politically in the region in the last seven to eight years.” She noted referring to Indian claims that military was on the wane and peace was being restored. Analyst B. Raman, a former Indian intelligence officer criticized the government’s inept handing and the BJP’ Hindu Nationalist Bhratiy Janata Party’s cynical exportation of the crisis.” What militants failed to do in Kashmir since 1989 the government and the BJP have achieved for them.” dividing the region along religious fault lines.” I reckon we should hold a referendum in the Kashmir valley referring to a longstanding demand by Pakistan and rejected outright by India.”
Kashmir has nineteen year old revolt which left at least 43000 dead. Demonstrators violated the strict curfew restrictions which had been imposed from August 24 to discourage separatist rallies during which residents have openly paraded green Islamic flags and chanted pro-militant and anti-Indian slogans Thousands of troops were deployed moving to the venue where protesters had planned to rally, Srinagars Red Square, with fencing and barbed wire blocking entry points so that people could not gather.The square is where Indian first Prime Minister Jawharalal Nehru in 1948 promised Kashmiries the right to decide their future in a referendum on self-determination. He said it was his promise to the whole world. But the subsequent rulers of India derailed the matter inviting serious turmoil. Kuldip Nayar, the leading columnist of India commented on this present situation of Kashmir in this way“Some said the land allotment was meant to change the demography to turn the Muslim majority state into a Hindu one. This allegation is not true because New Delhi, even under BJP-led government has never tried to put Hindus from other states into Kashmir. The law prohibits non-Kashmiries from purchasing land in the state. Jawharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister , was categorically said in his pronouncement that no outsider would be allowed to settle down in the state. “( D.S 14.8 said Kuldip Nayar in the article’ The Siege Within’)
Actually, India gets afraid that the separation of Kashmir will encourage other parts of India where separatists are struggling for self-rule and freedom. Definitely it’s a serous issue for its freedom and sovereignty. So, India very strictly keeps the Kashmir valley in its grip. Continuous armed forces’ torture and repression has vitiated the atmosphere of Kashmir. It is also true that Kashmir has been given a separate status. Government employs special budget for the development and industry for this region to quell the people. Pakistani instigation, religious sentiment and the frequent torture of the Indian forces have made the people revolt against Indian rule. Hindus also have become fed up with this kind of forced and pretended friendship. India must take very pragmatic approach to find a real peaceful solution. Only repression and the language of arms can never bring sustainable peace in this region.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Will Georgian conflict further escalate?
Will Georgian conflict further escalate?
‘No tank, no Russian solder has left Georgia till August 19 though it was supposed to have begun on August 18 according to the peace deal brokered by France to end the conflict between Russia and its southern tiny neighbour Georgia. Russian troops entered Gori, an important and strategic Georgian city, on August 14 after the two sides signed ceasefire that called for their forces to pull back to the positions they held before the fighting started. Hundreds killed since hostilities broke out. The United Nations estimated that 1180000 Georgians have been uprooted. Russia says some 30000 residents of South Ossetia fled into the neighbouring Russian province of North Ossetia. To help these displaced people aid is flowing into Georgia but humanitarian groups said that lawlessness and banditry made it impossible to distribute it in the worst hit areas. Bush warned this situation in this language, “We will use US aircraft as well as naval forces to distribute relief goods.”
Paramilitary and criminal groups are taking advantage of the uncertainty and the lack of administration and police. Watkin, UN resident coordinator described the situation as “In terms of security it is very similar to what happened after the invasion of Iraq.” On August 14, a visit to Gori by UN security officials on a mission to assess the security situation ended in disarray when they were held up at gunpoint and had two of their UN-marked vehicles stolen. People fleeing the conflict zone have told AFP of widespread looting, arson and murder and several journalists in Gori have been robbed at gunpoint.” We have access to everywhere except the neediest areas” Daniela Cavin, a regional spokesman for the EU’s humanitarian department told AFP.“ We don’t know how many people are in the conflict zone. All those that were able to leave have left but the ones have stayed are the most vulnerable.”“ In principle we should be able to get access but the security situation doesn’t allow us to go in at the moment. We are pushing to have that access”.”—Jessica Barry, a spokeswoman of humanitarian group said.
Georgia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 break up of the Soviet Union.“ One can forget about any talk about Georgian territorial integrity because I believe it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkahzia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Goergian state”---- Foreign minister of Russia Lavrov said.
The United States expressed its reaction to the conflict. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew on August 14 to France and then to Tbilisi to reinforce US efforts to rally the world in defense of a free Georgia. She told in Washington “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed.” She continued, “Russia’s six day old military action in Georgia is a throwback to darker Cold War times.” Bush says, “US stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and inside that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.” Actually their message goes like this that Russia has perhaps not accepted that it is time to move on to a new era in which relations between states are on the basis of equality and sovereignty and economic integration.
Human Rights Watch further reported that they witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. They saw armed Ossetia militia members in camouflage fatigues taking furniture, TV sets, heaters and other household goods out of houses in one village. The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions with no means of survival, no help, no protection and nowhere to go. Any sort of conflict invites untold miseries to millions who don’t have any link or belonging to it. The world leaders must realize it genuinely. Each conflict originates from their ego and petty interest. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rightly said “It is completely unacceptable for the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Georgia- to be put into questions.” Like all other truths it is equally true that The problems in the Caucasus cannot be solved militarily.”
It shows a ray of hope that in the midst of continued tension Georgian president Mikeil Saakashvili called for talks with Russian president to prevent a ‘definite estrangement’ between the two sides. It is true that Russian relations with European Union will seriously damage if Moscow fails to fully implement the peace deal it signed with Georgia. Sarkozy emphasized in their telephone call, “Withdrawal without decay of all Russian military forces which have entered Georgia since August 7”. The two presidents agreed on “development as quickly as possible of international Overseas from Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Georgia says Russia is meddling in its internal matters. Russia argues it cannot stand aside because many of the people in the breakaway are now its citizens and supporting the separatists. Georgia accuses Russia of playing double standard role. Russia is suppressing its own separatists in Chechnya while encouraging the separatists of Georgia. Russia has become more involved when Georgia expressed his interest to join Nato. The Russian army announced that it had liberated the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvaki as Georgia declared a state of war. South Ossetia broke from Georgia in early 1990. It has since been a constant source of friction between Georgia and Russia. South Ossetia has long sought unification with North Ossetia which is inhibited by the same Ossestian ethnic group but ended up across the border in Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991.
The present conflict between these two neighbours could widen to bring in the other Soviet republics, United States and Europe. Perceiving the fact, the United States and European Union are leading a diplomatic push to prevent all out war between Russia and Georgia. USA calls on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircrafts and missiles , respect Georgia’s territorial integrity and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil. But a Russian defense official’s indication of ‘complete withdrawal from Georgian proper is not imminent’ baffles us. Still we hope to see peaceful solution to the present conflict.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
(He regularly writes on various national and international issues)
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
‘No tank, no Russian solder has left Georgia till August 19 though it was supposed to have begun on August 18 according to the peace deal brokered by France to end the conflict between Russia and its southern tiny neighbour Georgia. Russian troops entered Gori, an important and strategic Georgian city, on August 14 after the two sides signed ceasefire that called for their forces to pull back to the positions they held before the fighting started. Hundreds killed since hostilities broke out. The United Nations estimated that 1180000 Georgians have been uprooted. Russia says some 30000 residents of South Ossetia fled into the neighbouring Russian province of North Ossetia. To help these displaced people aid is flowing into Georgia but humanitarian groups said that lawlessness and banditry made it impossible to distribute it in the worst hit areas. Bush warned this situation in this language, “We will use US aircraft as well as naval forces to distribute relief goods.”
Paramilitary and criminal groups are taking advantage of the uncertainty and the lack of administration and police. Watkin, UN resident coordinator described the situation as “In terms of security it is very similar to what happened after the invasion of Iraq.” On August 14, a visit to Gori by UN security officials on a mission to assess the security situation ended in disarray when they were held up at gunpoint and had two of their UN-marked vehicles stolen. People fleeing the conflict zone have told AFP of widespread looting, arson and murder and several journalists in Gori have been robbed at gunpoint.” We have access to everywhere except the neediest areas” Daniela Cavin, a regional spokesman for the EU’s humanitarian department told AFP.“ We don’t know how many people are in the conflict zone. All those that were able to leave have left but the ones have stayed are the most vulnerable.”“ In principle we should be able to get access but the security situation doesn’t allow us to go in at the moment. We are pushing to have that access”.”—Jessica Barry, a spokeswoman of humanitarian group said.
Georgia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 break up of the Soviet Union.“ One can forget about any talk about Georgian territorial integrity because I believe it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkahzia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Goergian state”---- Foreign minister of Russia Lavrov said.
The United States expressed its reaction to the conflict. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew on August 14 to France and then to Tbilisi to reinforce US efforts to rally the world in defense of a free Georgia. She told in Washington “This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbour, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed.” She continued, “Russia’s six day old military action in Georgia is a throwback to darker Cold War times.” Bush says, “US stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and inside that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected.” Actually their message goes like this that Russia has perhaps not accepted that it is time to move on to a new era in which relations between states are on the basis of equality and sovereignty and economic integration.
Human Rights Watch further reported that they witnessed terrifying scenes of destruction in four villages that used to be populated exclusively by ethnic Georgians. They saw armed Ossetia militia members in camouflage fatigues taking furniture, TV sets, heaters and other household goods out of houses in one village. The remaining residents of these destroyed ethnic Georgian villages are facing desperate conditions with no means of survival, no help, no protection and nowhere to go. Any sort of conflict invites untold miseries to millions who don’t have any link or belonging to it. The world leaders must realize it genuinely. Each conflict originates from their ego and petty interest. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has rightly said “It is completely unacceptable for the legitimacy of the democratically elected government of Georgia- to be put into questions.” Like all other truths it is equally true that The problems in the Caucasus cannot be solved militarily.”
It shows a ray of hope that in the midst of continued tension Georgian president Mikeil Saakashvili called for talks with Russian president to prevent a ‘definite estrangement’ between the two sides. It is true that Russian relations with European Union will seriously damage if Moscow fails to fully implement the peace deal it signed with Georgia. Sarkozy emphasized in their telephone call, “Withdrawal without decay of all Russian military forces which have entered Georgia since August 7”. The two presidents agreed on “development as quickly as possible of international Overseas from Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Georgia says Russia is meddling in its internal matters. Russia argues it cannot stand aside because many of the people in the breakaway are now its citizens and supporting the separatists. Georgia accuses Russia of playing double standard role. Russia is suppressing its own separatists in Chechnya while encouraging the separatists of Georgia. Russia has become more involved when Georgia expressed his interest to join Nato. The Russian army announced that it had liberated the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvaki as Georgia declared a state of war. South Ossetia broke from Georgia in early 1990. It has since been a constant source of friction between Georgia and Russia. South Ossetia has long sought unification with North Ossetia which is inhibited by the same Ossestian ethnic group but ended up across the border in Russia after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991.
The present conflict between these two neighbours could widen to bring in the other Soviet republics, United States and Europe. Perceiving the fact, the United States and European Union are leading a diplomatic push to prevent all out war between Russia and Georgia. USA calls on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircrafts and missiles , respect Georgia’s territorial integrity and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil. But a Russian defense official’s indication of ‘complete withdrawal from Georgian proper is not imminent’ baffles us. Still we hope to see peaceful solution to the present conflict.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE
(He regularly writes on various national and international issues)
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Emergency in Thailand
The state of emergency has been imposed in Thailand. This is the third time in eight months that authorities have imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok. The move bans public gatherings of more than five people and empowers the police and military to detain suspects for up to thirty days without any charge. However, the police said the rally outside Abhisit’s offices swelled to 15000 after the declaration with its leaders sounding defiant tone. “ I don’t care for this state of emergency , it’s just paper dirtied with ink. Protest organizer Nattawut Sikuar told the crowd. The demonstrators’ political hero Thaksin later addressed them by telephone from exile. “ I will closely monitor the situation and if there is any violence , I will return to Thailand immediately . I will not allow them to use force.”
Pro-Thaksin protesters took to the street two weeks ago demanding Abhisit’s quit. They say he came to power illegitimately in December. The chaos in Bangkok is a virtual replay of crises last year that ended up forcing out two premiers loyal to Thaksin who was toppled in a military coup in 2006 and remains in exile. Police said they earlier arrested the former pop singer turned protest leader Arisman Pongreungrong at his Bangkok home, on the charge of inciting protesters to kidnap the prime minister and cause unrest in the country. Thaksin remains in exile to avoid a two-year jail term for corruption but has rallied supporters and incensed the government –with almost rightly video and telephone speeches from an unidentified foreign hideout. He has made a series of speeches by telephone and video in recent weeks to incite anti-government street rallies loyal to him and his allies in the previous administration. Speaking to CNN from an undisclosed location, the fugitive tycoon Thaksin said that soldiers who were seen earlier firing rounds into the air to disperse his rioting supporters in Bangkok had killed many. They trapped the people. Many people died. They even take the dead bodes up on the truck and take them away. They are trying to confuse everything. Thaksin says. “You try to lie to the whole world. You try to lie to the people but it’s impossible.”
Thailand’s deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban appealed directly to soldiers and police to act to enforce state of emergency. Suthep, the minister assigned to implement emergency measures announced hours earlier, urged the security forces to get tough as they appeared reluctant to deal with anti-government protesters. “Police and military, you must carry out your duty to your best ability and restore normalcy as soon as possible’ he said in an address broadcast live to the nation. “ I will take all responsibility for all your actions “he added. “These are not constitutional demonstrators. They have injured senior officials.” The army has generally shied away from confronting protesters since action against riots in 1992 left dozens dead, and police moves against anti-Thaksin demonstrators last October left two dead.
Red-clad protesters loyal to Thaksin were earlier seen standing atop a pair of armoured cars driven by soldiers down a Banglai highway. Armed soldiers and tanks have been deployed across the capital and surrounding areas to crack down on protesters demanding Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s resignation and fresh elections. Protesers armed with sticks and paving slabs earlier smashed a car they instantly thought was carrying the prime minister.
The bizarre scene unfolded after a state of emergency was declared to quell the demonstrators, sending tanks and armoured vehicles fanning into the streets of the capital backed by scores of troops. But it was not clear whether the soldiers deployed to enforce the security measure were sympathetic to the demonstrators cause or just giving them a friendly lift. But things became clear that the army has repeatedly been reluctant to use force during months of political turmoil despite the orders of their political masters. The protesters who want prime minister Vejjajiva to quit, have capitalized on this apparent ambivalence to wreck an Asian summit in the beach resort of Pattaya , and then caused chaos in the capital over the weekend.
However, the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra at last withdrew their movement on April 14 and vacated the street after the army had started operation. Two protesters have been killed and more than hundred were injured by army action. Arrest order has been issued against Thaksin and his thirteen senior leaders though Thaksin in exile. A summit of ASEAN leaders was aborted in the Thai beach resort of Pattaya on April 11 when hundreds of supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra descended on the venue to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Obviously it was an embarrassing sight in full view of the world and it drew a shame to Thailand’s embattled government. Of course it was not quite unexpected. Thaksin’s elected government was overthrown and given the questionable way in which his two immediate successors, both his loyalists, were hounded out of office. One was removed by the judiciary on the dubious ground of having engaged in a conflict of interest by taking part in a television show. The other, a brother –in-law of Thaksin, had to quit when followers of the opposition then led by Abhisit Vejjajiva stormed the prime ministerial home and kept it occupied for months. The final act was a siege of Bangkok’s two airports. The chief of the army staff then made it publicly known that the wanted the prime minister to quit. Yes, the prime minister left power and Abhisit Vejjajiva, the preset prime minister , did not win an election but was sworn in as the new prime minister which obviously goes democratic norms and practice and the present crisis originated from this issue. The developing countries share this same practice that in any political turmoil they use armed forces. Armed forces are the sacred and neutral institution in any country. They must not be made to face any political crisis to make them debatable. Yes, only in any serious national crisis which touches all groups of people and only national interest is concerned, then the armed forces should be invited and used. The situation of Thailand seems to be totally political but the banning of ASEAN summit touches the national prestige which compelled the government to use armed forces. In any mature democracy, the use of police and para-military should be used to respond to any political turmoil of the country. Army should be the last resort and it should be only in the extreme national interest.
We want to see quite normalcy prevails in Thailand. We also want to see a free and fair election through which people will give their verdict who will be their next prime minister. Democracy means the reflection of people’s will and its real implementation.
.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: BRAC Education Programme, PACE
( The writer regularly writes on various national and international issues)
Phone: 9355253 (res), 01714-091431 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
The state of emergency has been imposed in Thailand. This is the third time in eight months that authorities have imposed a state of emergency in Bangkok. The move bans public gatherings of more than five people and empowers the police and military to detain suspects for up to thirty days without any charge. However, the police said the rally outside Abhisit’s offices swelled to 15000 after the declaration with its leaders sounding defiant tone. “ I don’t care for this state of emergency , it’s just paper dirtied with ink. Protest organizer Nattawut Sikuar told the crowd. The demonstrators’ political hero Thaksin later addressed them by telephone from exile. “ I will closely monitor the situation and if there is any violence , I will return to Thailand immediately . I will not allow them to use force.”
Pro-Thaksin protesters took to the street two weeks ago demanding Abhisit’s quit. They say he came to power illegitimately in December. The chaos in Bangkok is a virtual replay of crises last year that ended up forcing out two premiers loyal to Thaksin who was toppled in a military coup in 2006 and remains in exile. Police said they earlier arrested the former pop singer turned protest leader Arisman Pongreungrong at his Bangkok home, on the charge of inciting protesters to kidnap the prime minister and cause unrest in the country. Thaksin remains in exile to avoid a two-year jail term for corruption but has rallied supporters and incensed the government –with almost rightly video and telephone speeches from an unidentified foreign hideout. He has made a series of speeches by telephone and video in recent weeks to incite anti-government street rallies loyal to him and his allies in the previous administration. Speaking to CNN from an undisclosed location, the fugitive tycoon Thaksin said that soldiers who were seen earlier firing rounds into the air to disperse his rioting supporters in Bangkok had killed many. They trapped the people. Many people died. They even take the dead bodes up on the truck and take them away. They are trying to confuse everything. Thaksin says. “You try to lie to the whole world. You try to lie to the people but it’s impossible.”
Thailand’s deputy prime minister Suthep Thaugsuban appealed directly to soldiers and police to act to enforce state of emergency. Suthep, the minister assigned to implement emergency measures announced hours earlier, urged the security forces to get tough as they appeared reluctant to deal with anti-government protesters. “Police and military, you must carry out your duty to your best ability and restore normalcy as soon as possible’ he said in an address broadcast live to the nation. “ I will take all responsibility for all your actions “he added. “These are not constitutional demonstrators. They have injured senior officials.” The army has generally shied away from confronting protesters since action against riots in 1992 left dozens dead, and police moves against anti-Thaksin demonstrators last October left two dead.
Red-clad protesters loyal to Thaksin were earlier seen standing atop a pair of armoured cars driven by soldiers down a Banglai highway. Armed soldiers and tanks have been deployed across the capital and surrounding areas to crack down on protesters demanding Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s resignation and fresh elections. Protesers armed with sticks and paving slabs earlier smashed a car they instantly thought was carrying the prime minister.
The bizarre scene unfolded after a state of emergency was declared to quell the demonstrators, sending tanks and armoured vehicles fanning into the streets of the capital backed by scores of troops. But it was not clear whether the soldiers deployed to enforce the security measure were sympathetic to the demonstrators cause or just giving them a friendly lift. But things became clear that the army has repeatedly been reluctant to use force during months of political turmoil despite the orders of their political masters. The protesters who want prime minister Vejjajiva to quit, have capitalized on this apparent ambivalence to wreck an Asian summit in the beach resort of Pattaya , and then caused chaos in the capital over the weekend.
However, the supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra at last withdrew their movement on April 14 and vacated the street after the army had started operation. Two protesters have been killed and more than hundred were injured by army action. Arrest order has been issued against Thaksin and his thirteen senior leaders though Thaksin in exile. A summit of ASEAN leaders was aborted in the Thai beach resort of Pattaya on April 11 when hundreds of supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra descended on the venue to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Obviously it was an embarrassing sight in full view of the world and it drew a shame to Thailand’s embattled government. Of course it was not quite unexpected. Thaksin’s elected government was overthrown and given the questionable way in which his two immediate successors, both his loyalists, were hounded out of office. One was removed by the judiciary on the dubious ground of having engaged in a conflict of interest by taking part in a television show. The other, a brother –in-law of Thaksin, had to quit when followers of the opposition then led by Abhisit Vejjajiva stormed the prime ministerial home and kept it occupied for months. The final act was a siege of Bangkok’s two airports. The chief of the army staff then made it publicly known that the wanted the prime minister to quit. Yes, the prime minister left power and Abhisit Vejjajiva, the preset prime minister , did not win an election but was sworn in as the new prime minister which obviously goes democratic norms and practice and the present crisis originated from this issue. The developing countries share this same practice that in any political turmoil they use armed forces. Armed forces are the sacred and neutral institution in any country. They must not be made to face any political crisis to make them debatable. Yes, only in any serious national crisis which touches all groups of people and only national interest is concerned, then the armed forces should be invited and used. The situation of Thailand seems to be totally political but the banning of ASEAN summit touches the national prestige which compelled the government to use armed forces. In any mature democracy, the use of police and para-military should be used to respond to any political turmoil of the country. Army should be the last resort and it should be only in the extreme national interest.
We want to see quite normalcy prevails in Thailand. We also want to see a free and fair election through which people will give their verdict who will be their next prime minister. Democracy means the reflection of people’s will and its real implementation.
.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: BRAC Education Programme, PACE
( The writer regularly writes on various national and international issues)
Phone: 9355253 (res), 01714-091431 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
What D-8 and G-8 promise?
What D-8 and G-8 promise?
The first week of July this year witnessed two significant summits organized by both developed and developing countries known as D-8 and G-8 groups which were held in Malaysia and Japan respectively. The first one was the significant gathering of government leaders of some of the largest Islamic countries Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt and Nigeria. And G-8 summit was glorified by eight leaders of the world’s eight richest top industrial powers namely USA, Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, Russia and France and Canada. Leaders of these richest top industrial powers vowed to act to bring down soaring oil prices and food prices but failed to bridge deep difference with poor nationals on how to fight climate. But climatic issue at least sensitized them.This group wrapped up three days of talk in a secluded mountain resort in Japan by inviting leaders of growing emerging economics such as China and India for a special session summit on global warming. Bush hailed the summit as very productive as he said” I’m pleased to report that we have had significant success.”
Leaders from D-8 group of developing nations on 7 July adopted an ambitious 10-year blueprint substantially increase trade between the countries.’ The leaders have agreed to the roadmap’ a Malaysian Foreign Ministry Official involved in the negotiations said. The pact said, “It is a guideline for a vision and framework for enhancing cooperation. It covers sectors from investment, agriculture, energy, tourism, transportation, banking and finance. Malaysia’s central bank governor Zeti Aktar Aziz said the D-8 nations were now on track to achieve their goal of boosting their intra-grouping trade by 10 to 50 by 2018. The trade agreement from 2008 to 2018 details economic nations will pursue over the next decade.
To further promote economic ties, the D-8 members agreed to simplify visa procedures for business people from member states which will design to facilitate economic and trade relations. This point was raised by our Chief Adviser Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed who said, “ D-8 should take tangible measures so that people of the grouping could travel every country without visa. Against the backdrop of current global food crisis, we should establish a Food Fund to enhance our collective food security.” The D-8 forum was actually established by eight Organization of Islamic Conference member countries to share development and population characteristics to promote economic cooperation and development especially in agriculture, industry, energy and trade to enhance cooperation in areas such as trade, investment, rural development, human resource development, science and technology, agriculture and heath to improve the economic status of member states. The summit is held once in every two years discussing various economic issues facing the bloc countries. Last year total D-8 trade was $1 trillion and intra-trade was about $60billion. We believe this cooperation will open more opportunities for us. We should believe that the forum will continue to enhance economic cooperation in the true sense of the term in the present perspective of the changing global situation which has made severe hard days for the member states of the group mainly because of sky rocketing prices of commodities.
Our chief adviser Fakruddin Ahmed said in the summit, “ We need to develop mechanism not only to address short term supply of stocks but also strengthen cooperation to increase agricultural productivity.” He continued to call for establishing a D-8 Free Trade Area alongside making progress in forging a preferential Trade Agreement. Trading among these countries amount to 498$ which accounts only 9% of world trade. The figure definitely shows a poor picture which calls for reasonable enhancement. We should collectively explore and implement capacity building progress to ensure scarcity of the member states.” These important issues were touched and discussed in this the sixth summit of D-8 group.
The largest Asian business tiger Japan hosted the G-8 summit which comprise Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States and the key issues discussed and decided some key points. In respect of climate change which is one of the most burning issues of the present time. G8 leaders agreed on the need for the world to cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming by at least 50 percent by 2050 and for each nation to set its own target for a nearer term. But the European Commission president Jose Mnael Barroso defended the summit outcome. He said, “It is quite wrong to see this in terms of a confrontation between developed and developing countries. Of course, we accept the lions’ share of responsibility but this is a global challenge which requires a global response.” We also think so but the greater responsibilities go with these industrially developed countries. The initiative and pragmatic steps must be taken by them. Of course,this statement is a step forward from last years’ call to consider seriously such long-term cuts. But environmentalists and developing countries denounce the deal as toothless. Still we hope for the best. At least the rich countries have started to think of the point.
The leaders expressed ‘serious concern’ about rising food prices. They called on nations with sufficient food stocks to release some of them to help others cope with soaring prices and said it was imperative to remove export restrictions.” G8 leaders also called for an increase in oil production and refining capacities to help rein in soaring crude prices.
The nations renewed a commitment made three years ago to double aid for Africa to 25 billion dollars by 2010 and to look to further assistance after 2010. The leaders set a five-year deadline to commit 60 billion dollars in finding to help the continent fight disease, including pledging 100 million mosquito nets by 2010 which officials hoped would prevent thousands of deaths from malaria. They also vowed to resist protectionist pressures and expressed “strong will” to work toward a breakthrough in free trade talks.
G8 leaders voiced “grave concern’ about the violence –marred re-election last month of the president Robert Mugabe. They warned of further action including financial measures against individuals behind the violence and recommended a UN special envoy. The leaders urged Iran to end its uranium enrichment activities in line with UN Security Council resolutions and called on Tehran to respond positively to international mediation. They urged North Korea also to abandon nuclear weapons and cooperate in the verification of its dossier of nuclear programmes.
When the G-8 nations account for two-thirds of the world’s gross domestic product, it attaches utmost importance to boost world economy tilting towards the developing nations which are limping in poverty. Their discussion and promise must come true. As these leaders lord it over the decision making process of the globe, they must show a rational and neutral attitude towards all. Iran, India, North Korea and Israel must receive the same treatment from them. Their double standard role does not dangle any tangible solutions to the burning issues the globe.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
The first week of July this year witnessed two significant summits organized by both developed and developing countries known as D-8 and G-8 groups which were held in Malaysia and Japan respectively. The first one was the significant gathering of government leaders of some of the largest Islamic countries Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Egypt and Nigeria. And G-8 summit was glorified by eight leaders of the world’s eight richest top industrial powers namely USA, Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, Russia and France and Canada. Leaders of these richest top industrial powers vowed to act to bring down soaring oil prices and food prices but failed to bridge deep difference with poor nationals on how to fight climate. But climatic issue at least sensitized them.This group wrapped up three days of talk in a secluded mountain resort in Japan by inviting leaders of growing emerging economics such as China and India for a special session summit on global warming. Bush hailed the summit as very productive as he said” I’m pleased to report that we have had significant success.”
Leaders from D-8 group of developing nations on 7 July adopted an ambitious 10-year blueprint substantially increase trade between the countries.’ The leaders have agreed to the roadmap’ a Malaysian Foreign Ministry Official involved in the negotiations said. The pact said, “It is a guideline for a vision and framework for enhancing cooperation. It covers sectors from investment, agriculture, energy, tourism, transportation, banking and finance. Malaysia’s central bank governor Zeti Aktar Aziz said the D-8 nations were now on track to achieve their goal of boosting their intra-grouping trade by 10 to 50 by 2018. The trade agreement from 2008 to 2018 details economic nations will pursue over the next decade.
To further promote economic ties, the D-8 members agreed to simplify visa procedures for business people from member states which will design to facilitate economic and trade relations. This point was raised by our Chief Adviser Dr. Fakruddin Ahmed who said, “ D-8 should take tangible measures so that people of the grouping could travel every country without visa. Against the backdrop of current global food crisis, we should establish a Food Fund to enhance our collective food security.” The D-8 forum was actually established by eight Organization of Islamic Conference member countries to share development and population characteristics to promote economic cooperation and development especially in agriculture, industry, energy and trade to enhance cooperation in areas such as trade, investment, rural development, human resource development, science and technology, agriculture and heath to improve the economic status of member states. The summit is held once in every two years discussing various economic issues facing the bloc countries. Last year total D-8 trade was $1 trillion and intra-trade was about $60billion. We believe this cooperation will open more opportunities for us. We should believe that the forum will continue to enhance economic cooperation in the true sense of the term in the present perspective of the changing global situation which has made severe hard days for the member states of the group mainly because of sky rocketing prices of commodities.
Our chief adviser Fakruddin Ahmed said in the summit, “ We need to develop mechanism not only to address short term supply of stocks but also strengthen cooperation to increase agricultural productivity.” He continued to call for establishing a D-8 Free Trade Area alongside making progress in forging a preferential Trade Agreement. Trading among these countries amount to 498$ which accounts only 9% of world trade. The figure definitely shows a poor picture which calls for reasonable enhancement. We should collectively explore and implement capacity building progress to ensure scarcity of the member states.” These important issues were touched and discussed in this the sixth summit of D-8 group.
The largest Asian business tiger Japan hosted the G-8 summit which comprise Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States and the key issues discussed and decided some key points. In respect of climate change which is one of the most burning issues of the present time. G8 leaders agreed on the need for the world to cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming by at least 50 percent by 2050 and for each nation to set its own target for a nearer term. But the European Commission president Jose Mnael Barroso defended the summit outcome. He said, “It is quite wrong to see this in terms of a confrontation between developed and developing countries. Of course, we accept the lions’ share of responsibility but this is a global challenge which requires a global response.” We also think so but the greater responsibilities go with these industrially developed countries. The initiative and pragmatic steps must be taken by them. Of course,this statement is a step forward from last years’ call to consider seriously such long-term cuts. But environmentalists and developing countries denounce the deal as toothless. Still we hope for the best. At least the rich countries have started to think of the point.
The leaders expressed ‘serious concern’ about rising food prices. They called on nations with sufficient food stocks to release some of them to help others cope with soaring prices and said it was imperative to remove export restrictions.” G8 leaders also called for an increase in oil production and refining capacities to help rein in soaring crude prices.
The nations renewed a commitment made three years ago to double aid for Africa to 25 billion dollars by 2010 and to look to further assistance after 2010. The leaders set a five-year deadline to commit 60 billion dollars in finding to help the continent fight disease, including pledging 100 million mosquito nets by 2010 which officials hoped would prevent thousands of deaths from malaria. They also vowed to resist protectionist pressures and expressed “strong will” to work toward a breakthrough in free trade talks.
G8 leaders voiced “grave concern’ about the violence –marred re-election last month of the president Robert Mugabe. They warned of further action including financial measures against individuals behind the violence and recommended a UN special envoy. The leaders urged Iran to end its uranium enrichment activities in line with UN Security Council resolutions and called on Tehran to respond positively to international mediation. They urged North Korea also to abandon nuclear weapons and cooperate in the verification of its dossier of nuclear programmes.
When the G-8 nations account for two-thirds of the world’s gross domestic product, it attaches utmost importance to boost world economy tilting towards the developing nations which are limping in poverty. Their discussion and promise must come true. As these leaders lord it over the decision making process of the globe, they must show a rational and neutral attitude towards all. Iran, India, North Korea and Israel must receive the same treatment from them. Their double standard role does not dangle any tangible solutions to the burning issues the globe.
Md. Masum Billah
Programme Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253 (home), 01715-401267 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Terrorism, Transit and Commerce figured in the Indo-Bangla Talks
Terrorism, Transit and Commerce figured in the Indo-Bangla Talks
New Delhi hosted a two days foreign secretary level meeting between India and Bangladesh, two strategically important neighbours, when Indian government was facing the confidence vote over the issue of nuclear deal with the United States originated from the withdrawal of support from the Manomohan government by the Left Front. We do believe both the representatives attended the meeting with every intention to find out the possible solutions to the problems existing between the two unequal neighbours. But the seemingly good intentionally held meeting was marred by one of the chronic issues i.e, border skirmish. Even then, we hope for the best.
Terrorism now stands as a global phenomenon occupying the position next to environment. The South Asian nations are severly affected by it along with other ills. So,
fighting terrorism topped the agenda in the meeting where Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Touhid Hossain voiced in the same tone “Terrorism has to be tackled resolutely. We discussed how to meet together.” India has blamed several recent bomb attacks on the Bangladesh based Islamic group Harkat-ul-Jehad –i-Islami. However, Bangladesh has denied any involvement by its citizens. It is obvious that the security of the two South Asian countries is intertwined. India shares 2500mile border with Bangladesh and Indian officials believe that some 20 million Bangladeshis are in India illegally. India and Bangladesh are looking forward to work together against terrorism and today’s meeting has helped build our ‘ trust and understanding’ between the two neighboring states. India must be convinced that Bangladesh never allows let alone encourage terrorism. The rise of terrorism during the last several years in the land of Bangladesh was hastened by some international issues, not by any internal factor. However, the government has dealt with it severely. The execution of the top leaders of the terrorist group amply proves the intention and attitude of the government towards terrorism. Moreover, living with peace and amity with its neighbors signifies the foreign policy of Bangladesh and she attaches utmost importance to further develop the diplomatic ties with India. Definitely, no reason will support the hosting of any terrorist group inside Bangladesh which works against Indian Territory. However, if such germs are discovered by India, Bangladesh will take stern action against it and work together with India to vanish it. This has been reiterated by the Bangladesh foreign secretary.
India is our biggest neigbhour and commercial partner, big friend but sometimes we are also afraid of her as we sleep with big elephant. The occasional border skirmishes, huge commercial gap, water sharing, wire fencing etc create doubts about our relations. But we never forget the staunch support and involvement of India to achieve our freedom though it brought big political gain to India as well. The response to India to our natural calamites and the exchange of cultural and historical ideas, the influx of Bangladeshi students to India and the recently introduced Moitree Express between these two important South Asian neighbors bear testimony to the sign of friendship. The further strengthening of this relation will further benefit these two neighbours. From this understanding emanated this secretary level meeting. “The discussions were very useful and led much greater understanding of each others position” claimed Menon. Bangladesh appealed to India on to share intelligence in order to reduce cross-border terrorism and said it won’t allow its territories to be used for attacks on its western neighbours.“We did not shy away from discussing all issues.” Terrorism is a global problem and we have a mechanism for cooperation. We will continue that” Bangladesh foreign secretary Touhid said. Both the representatives told that they covered the issues related to security, infiltration, terrorism and cross-border crimes. In the midst of their talks and hopes the intrusion of Indian Border Security Forces (BSF) into Bangladesh territory and killing of two Bangladesh Rifles personnel at Chapinawabgonj just gives a bitter experience and an wound which we believe, need to be heeled permanently.
This Hydrabad House meeting also aimed at making Bangladesh agree to give India transit facility. But Bangladesh delegate did not concede to the point. As it is a big national issue, it must be decided by the elected government. Besides, it is related to several other issues. The Secretary General of BNP Khan Dakar Delwar commented regarding the transit issue in this way “ After getting the transit facilities nobody can inspect what they are transporting nor can resist them. They are desperate to have transit facilities for military intervention. Though many people suggest for developing friendly relation with India, Bangladesh had never been treated as a friend by India in the past.” Of course, we have mixed reaction in this regard. India has never seen friendly relation with us cannot be said unilaterally. Though some incidents and issues convince us the doubtful and crucial relations of India with us, we still hope greater positive response from her. Again some also place the argument in this way Why India didn’t allow passage of trucks to and from Nepal through a small Indian corridor? Why the people of Dahagram and Angorpota had to endure daily insult while coming to the mainland or return to their home through a corridor only a few hundred yards long? When India cannot show liberalism , how can she expect the same from her neighbours?
First half of this year Bangladesh witnessed 32 of her unarmed citizens were killed in BSF firing, in the same period 22 other Bangladeshis were injured and another 22 were abducted. This cross border problem must be resolved through discussion. The regular flag meeting and genuine interest to resolve the issue must come from Indian side. If India considers her neighbours weaker and treat them according it goes beyond the real diplomatic norm and philosophy. As a big member of this region, India will have to take the initiative of all the un-resolving issues with her neighbours.
Some positive and hopeful aspects evinced from the meeting. Two diplomats agreed that a committee would be formed to settle water disputes between the two countries. Work on Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement (BIPA) was in an advanced stage of finalization and would be concluded in the near future.Technical Committee on Embankment Protection of Rivers would meet shortly. The BIPA would provide national treatment for foreign investment, most faourved nation treatment for foreign investment and investors, free repatriation or transfer of returns on investments and recourse to domestic disputes resolution and international arbitration for disputes.
The bilateral investment promotion pact, which really took off after India lifted ban on the flow of investment form Bangladeshi citizens and corporate houses in November last year is expected to give a push to investment from both sides, official sources said. The ban on investment from Bangladesh had been imposed for security reason and although it was lifted nine months ago, investment proposals from Bangladesh would still need prior clearance of the foreign Investment Promotion Board even if they are meant for sectors which India has put on the automatic route. Several big Indian companies including the Tatas whose three billion dollar investment proposal for Bangladesh is hanging fire for more than four years and the Essar Steel have evinced keen interest in pulling their money in India’s eastern neighbour .Bangladesh urged India to reduce the huge trade deficit of nearly two billion dollar by allowing greater access of Bangladesh products to the Indian markets. Toudhid emphasized the need for two way trade. He requested expediting the completion of export the remaining five lakh tones of rice to Bangladesh. He also requested his counterpart to consider completely withdrawing restrictions on the export of rice from India. Actually business deal depends on ‘give and take’ policy though it is determined by the necessity of time also. The mutual response will bring positive outcome for both sides.
Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Pinak Ranjan Charraborty while talking to the journalist termed the water sharing issue between these two countries as “an economic issue, not political at all.” If it so, our biggest neigbour and business partner India must understand our pain that we suffer for want of water. Bangladesh foreign secretary said Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor will soon visit Bangladesh. We hope his visit will give momentum to boost our diplomatic ties erasing all burning issues.
Md. Masum Billah
Program Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253(home), 01714-091431 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
New Delhi hosted a two days foreign secretary level meeting between India and Bangladesh, two strategically important neighbours, when Indian government was facing the confidence vote over the issue of nuclear deal with the United States originated from the withdrawal of support from the Manomohan government by the Left Front. We do believe both the representatives attended the meeting with every intention to find out the possible solutions to the problems existing between the two unequal neighbours. But the seemingly good intentionally held meeting was marred by one of the chronic issues i.e, border skirmish. Even then, we hope for the best.
Terrorism now stands as a global phenomenon occupying the position next to environment. The South Asian nations are severly affected by it along with other ills. So,
fighting terrorism topped the agenda in the meeting where Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and Bangladesh Foreign Secretary Touhid Hossain voiced in the same tone “Terrorism has to be tackled resolutely. We discussed how to meet together.” India has blamed several recent bomb attacks on the Bangladesh based Islamic group Harkat-ul-Jehad –i-Islami. However, Bangladesh has denied any involvement by its citizens. It is obvious that the security of the two South Asian countries is intertwined. India shares 2500mile border with Bangladesh and Indian officials believe that some 20 million Bangladeshis are in India illegally. India and Bangladesh are looking forward to work together against terrorism and today’s meeting has helped build our ‘ trust and understanding’ between the two neighboring states. India must be convinced that Bangladesh never allows let alone encourage terrorism. The rise of terrorism during the last several years in the land of Bangladesh was hastened by some international issues, not by any internal factor. However, the government has dealt with it severely. The execution of the top leaders of the terrorist group amply proves the intention and attitude of the government towards terrorism. Moreover, living with peace and amity with its neighbors signifies the foreign policy of Bangladesh and she attaches utmost importance to further develop the diplomatic ties with India. Definitely, no reason will support the hosting of any terrorist group inside Bangladesh which works against Indian Territory. However, if such germs are discovered by India, Bangladesh will take stern action against it and work together with India to vanish it. This has been reiterated by the Bangladesh foreign secretary.
India is our biggest neigbhour and commercial partner, big friend but sometimes we are also afraid of her as we sleep with big elephant. The occasional border skirmishes, huge commercial gap, water sharing, wire fencing etc create doubts about our relations. But we never forget the staunch support and involvement of India to achieve our freedom though it brought big political gain to India as well. The response to India to our natural calamites and the exchange of cultural and historical ideas, the influx of Bangladeshi students to India and the recently introduced Moitree Express between these two important South Asian neighbors bear testimony to the sign of friendship. The further strengthening of this relation will further benefit these two neighbours. From this understanding emanated this secretary level meeting. “The discussions were very useful and led much greater understanding of each others position” claimed Menon. Bangladesh appealed to India on to share intelligence in order to reduce cross-border terrorism and said it won’t allow its territories to be used for attacks on its western neighbours.“We did not shy away from discussing all issues.” Terrorism is a global problem and we have a mechanism for cooperation. We will continue that” Bangladesh foreign secretary Touhid said. Both the representatives told that they covered the issues related to security, infiltration, terrorism and cross-border crimes. In the midst of their talks and hopes the intrusion of Indian Border Security Forces (BSF) into Bangladesh territory and killing of two Bangladesh Rifles personnel at Chapinawabgonj just gives a bitter experience and an wound which we believe, need to be heeled permanently.
This Hydrabad House meeting also aimed at making Bangladesh agree to give India transit facility. But Bangladesh delegate did not concede to the point. As it is a big national issue, it must be decided by the elected government. Besides, it is related to several other issues. The Secretary General of BNP Khan Dakar Delwar commented regarding the transit issue in this way “ After getting the transit facilities nobody can inspect what they are transporting nor can resist them. They are desperate to have transit facilities for military intervention. Though many people suggest for developing friendly relation with India, Bangladesh had never been treated as a friend by India in the past.” Of course, we have mixed reaction in this regard. India has never seen friendly relation with us cannot be said unilaterally. Though some incidents and issues convince us the doubtful and crucial relations of India with us, we still hope greater positive response from her. Again some also place the argument in this way Why India didn’t allow passage of trucks to and from Nepal through a small Indian corridor? Why the people of Dahagram and Angorpota had to endure daily insult while coming to the mainland or return to their home through a corridor only a few hundred yards long? When India cannot show liberalism , how can she expect the same from her neighbours?
First half of this year Bangladesh witnessed 32 of her unarmed citizens were killed in BSF firing, in the same period 22 other Bangladeshis were injured and another 22 were abducted. This cross border problem must be resolved through discussion. The regular flag meeting and genuine interest to resolve the issue must come from Indian side. If India considers her neighbours weaker and treat them according it goes beyond the real diplomatic norm and philosophy. As a big member of this region, India will have to take the initiative of all the un-resolving issues with her neighbours.
Some positive and hopeful aspects evinced from the meeting. Two diplomats agreed that a committee would be formed to settle water disputes between the two countries. Work on Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement (BIPA) was in an advanced stage of finalization and would be concluded in the near future.Technical Committee on Embankment Protection of Rivers would meet shortly. The BIPA would provide national treatment for foreign investment, most faourved nation treatment for foreign investment and investors, free repatriation or transfer of returns on investments and recourse to domestic disputes resolution and international arbitration for disputes.
The bilateral investment promotion pact, which really took off after India lifted ban on the flow of investment form Bangladeshi citizens and corporate houses in November last year is expected to give a push to investment from both sides, official sources said. The ban on investment from Bangladesh had been imposed for security reason and although it was lifted nine months ago, investment proposals from Bangladesh would still need prior clearance of the foreign Investment Promotion Board even if they are meant for sectors which India has put on the automatic route. Several big Indian companies including the Tatas whose three billion dollar investment proposal for Bangladesh is hanging fire for more than four years and the Essar Steel have evinced keen interest in pulling their money in India’s eastern neighbour .Bangladesh urged India to reduce the huge trade deficit of nearly two billion dollar by allowing greater access of Bangladesh products to the Indian markets. Toudhid emphasized the need for two way trade. He requested expediting the completion of export the remaining five lakh tones of rice to Bangladesh. He also requested his counterpart to consider completely withdrawing restrictions on the export of rice from India. Actually business deal depends on ‘give and take’ policy though it is determined by the necessity of time also. The mutual response will bring positive outcome for both sides.
Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh Pinak Ranjan Charraborty while talking to the journalist termed the water sharing issue between these two countries as “an economic issue, not political at all.” If it so, our biggest neigbour and business partner India must understand our pain that we suffer for want of water. Bangladesh foreign secretary said Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor will soon visit Bangladesh. We hope his visit will give momentum to boost our diplomatic ties erasing all burning issues.
Md. Masum Billah
Program Manager: Brac Education Programme, PACE and regularly writes on various national and international issues.
Phone: 9355253(home), 01714-091431 (cell)
Email: mmbillah2000@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
