__._,_.___
When Nixon first declared war on drugs in 1971, there were fewer than 500,000 hard-core addicts in the nation, most of whom were addicted to heroin. Three decades later, despite the expenditure of $1 trillion in tax dollars, the number of hard-core addicts is shortly expected to exceed five million. Our nation has become the supermarket of the drug world, with a wider variety and bigger supply of drugs at cheaper prices than ever before. The problem now not only affects every town on the map, but it is difficult to find a family anywhere that is not somehow affected. (pp. 158, 159)
The Chang Mai factory the CIA prevented me from destroying was the source of massive amounts of heroin being smuggled into the US in the bodies and body bags of GIs killed in Vietnam. (p. 165)
My unit, the Hard Narcotics Smuggling Squad, was charged with investigating all heroin and cocaine smuggling through the Port of New York. My unit became involved in investigating every major smuggling operation known to law enforcement. We could not avoid witnessing the CIA protecting major drug dealers. Not a single important source in Southeast Asia was ever indicted by US law enforcement. This was no accident. Case after case was killed by CIA and State Department intervention and there wasn't a damned thing we could do about it. CIA-owned airlines like Air America were being used to ferry drugs throughout Southeast Asia, allegedly to support our "allies." CIA banking operations were used to launder drug money. (pp. 165, 166)
In 1972, I was assigned to assist in a major international drug case involving top Panamanian government officials who were using diplomatic passports to smuggle large quantities of heroin and other drugs into the US. The name Manuel Noriega surfaced prominently in the investigation. Surfacing right behind Noriega was the CIA to protect him from US law enforcement. As head of the CIA, Bush authorized a salary for Manuel Noriega as a CIA asset, while the dictator was listed in as many as 40 DEA computer files as a drug dealer. (pp. 166, 167)
The CIA and the Department of State were protecting more and more politically powerful drug traffickers around the world: the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, the Bolivian cocaine cartels, the top levels of Mexican government, Nicaraguan Contras, Colombian drug dealers and politicians, and others. Media's duties, as I experienced firsthand, were twofold: first, to keep quiet about the gush of drugs that was allowed to flow unimpeded into the US; second, to divert the public's attention by shilling them into believing the drug war was legitimate by falsely presenting the few trickles we were permitted to indict as though they were major "victories," when in fact we were doing nothing more than getting rid of the inefficient competitors of CIA assets. (pp. 166, 167)
On July 17, 1980, drug traffickers actually took control of a nation. Bolivia at the time [was] the source of virtually 100% of the cocaine entering the US. CIA-recruited mercenaries and drug traffickers unseated Bolivia's democratically elected president, a leftist whom the US government didn't want in power. Immediately after the coup, cocaine production increased massively, until it soon outstripped supply. This was the true beginning of the crack "plague." (pp. 167, 168)
The CIA along with the State and Justice Departments had to combine forces to protect their drug-dealing assets by destroying a DEA investigation. How do I know? I was the inside source. I sat down at my desk in the American embassy and wrote the kind of letter that I never myself imagined ever writing. I detailed three pages typewritten on official US embassy stationary—enough evidence of my charges to feed a wolf pack of investigative journalists. I also expressed my willingness to be a quotable source. I addressed it directly to Strasser and Rohter, care of Newsweek. Two sleepless weeks later, I was still sitting in my embassy office staring at the phone. Three weeks later, it rang. It was DEA's internal security. They were calling me to notify me that I was under investigation. I had been falsely accused of everything from black-marketing to having sex with a married female DEA agent. The investigation would wreak havoc with my life for the next four years. (pp. 168-171)
In one glaring case, an associate of mine was sent into Honduras to open a DEA office in Tegucigalpa. Within months he had documented as much as 50 tons of cocaine being smuggled into the US by Honduran military people who were supporting the Contras. This was enough cocaine to fill a third of US demand. What was the DEA response? They closed the office. (p. 175)
Sometime in 1990, US Customs intercepted a ton of cocaine being smuggled through Miami International Airport. A Customs and DEA investigation quickly revealed that the smugglers were the Venezuelan National Guard headed by General Guillen, a CIA "asset" who claimed that he had been operating under CIA orders and protection. The CIA soon admitted that this was true. If the CIA is good at anything, it is the complete control of American mass media. So secure are they in their ability to manipulate the mass media that they even brag about it in their own in-house memos. The New York Times had the story almost immediately in 1990 and did not print it until 1993. It finally became news that was "fit to print" when the Times learned that 60 Minutes also had the story and was actually going to run it. The highlight of the 60 Minutes piece is when the administrator of the DEA, Federal Judge Robert Bonner, tells Mike Wallace, "There is no other way to put it, Mike, [what the CIA did] is drug smuggling. It's illegal [author's emphasis]." (pp. 188, 189)
The fact is – and you can read it yourself in the federal court records – that seven months before the attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, the FBI had a paid informant, Emad Salem, who had infiltrated the bombers and had told the FBI of their plans to blow up the twin towers. Without notifying the NYPD or anyone else, an FBI supervisor "fired" Salem, who was making $500 a week for his work. After the bomb went off, the FBI hired Salem back and paid him $1.5 million to help them track down the bombers. But that's not all the FBI missed. When they finally did catch the actual bomber, Ramzi Yousef (a man trained with CIA funds during the Russia-Afghanistan war), the FBI found information on his personal computer about plans to use hijacked American jetliners as fuel-laden missiles. The FBI ignored this information, too. (p. 191)
Michael Levine is a 25-year veteran of the DEA turned best-selling author and journalist. His articles and interviews on the drug war have been published in numerous national newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and Esquire.
Learn about Mr. Levine's books and radio show at http://www.expertwitnessradio.org.
Govt drops plan to make CNG-run autorickshaw after strong opposition from an Indian automaker Indian Hero Honda frustrates Atlas step The government has shelved its plan to manufacture CNG-driven three-wheelers after strong opposition from an Indian automaker, officials said. State-owned Atlas Bangladesh took the step to make CNG (compressed natural gas) auto rickshaws within the country because of its huge demand in the transport sector. Hero Honda, which supplies its parts to assemble the popular motorcycles in Atlas's plant, formally obstructed the initiative. The Atlas's board of directors recently decided not to go ahead with the project as it might "sour" relations with the motorcycle maker. "We've dropped our CNG project," AFM Saifuzzaman, managing director of Atlas Bangladesh, told the FE. Earlier, industries minister Dilip Barua announced that Bangladeshi company would manufacture CNG three-wheelers. "We're looking for prospective investors from China and India for the project," he told an annual performance meeting of his ministry. Atlas chief said it got offers from China and India for the project.He said: "Hero Honda asked us not to manufacture any CNG three-wheelers in the plant where its vehicles are being assembled." Atlas, formed in 1966 under private management, is a publicly listed company, which had planned to make 500 units of CNG three-wheelers at the initial stage. Currently the state enterprise mainly assembles all brands of Hero Honda, grabbing the second position in the country's booming car market. It also makes limited number of Mishuk, also a three-wheeler. Uttara Motors, a private group, is the largest importer of CNG-three wheelers in the country. |
BSF kills 33, injures 67 Bangladeshis last year Indian Border Security Force (BSF) killed at least 33 Bangladeshis and injured 67 others last year along the borders of southwestern (S-W) region. Another 64 Bangladeshis were abducted by BSF during the period. Thirty-three of them are still in different Indian jails, according to information gathered from BDR, police and through newspaper reports. The death figures were 36 in 2009, 47 in 2008, 33 in 2007, 62 in 2006 and 104 in 2005. Satkhira border was the most troubled spot last year where 13 Bangladeshis were killed. Twelve of them were cattle traders. Of the dead, 18 were killed in BSF firing while the rest in torture. Nine Bangladeshis were killed along Jessore border while five in Jhenidah border, two in Meherpur border, 13 in Satkhira border, three in Kushtia border and one in Chuadanga border. According to sources, eight of them were farmers and the rest were cattle traders. BSF picked two BDR personnel while they were chasing a gang of smugglers at Kalapara border point in Chuadanga on December 10, 2010. They were later freed. BSF also opened fire at different frontiers. At least eight such firing incidents took place during the period when BSF fired 26 rounds of bullets. Of them, two took place in Jessore border, 16 in Satkhira, three in Chuadanga and two in Kushtia border, one in Meherpur border and two in Jhenidah border points. Incidents of killings and abductions continued though BSF at high profile meetings agreed to show restraint. BDR and BSF signed several agreements to maintain peace on borders and resolve 'major disputes through discussion', BDR sources said. A series of flag meetings were also held at different border points during the period. "Though both sides agreed to take 'effective measures' to keep border peaceful, BSF continues to kill Bangladeshis," a high official of BGB in southwestern region said, seeking anonymity. Lt Col Sultan Ahmed, Commanding Officer (CO) of 35 Rifles Battalion Chuadanga, a few days ago told this correspondent over phone "We always urge them to show tolerance on issues, particularly involving innocent civilians,". Local people alleged that BSF have been creating panic on the border. Even farmers are afraid of cultivating their lands close to borders, they said when this correspondent visited several spots in different bordering areas of Kushtia and Meherpur. BSF picked five children while they were playing near the border in Daulatpur under Kushtia frontier on October 18 last year. Indian authorities returned them through flag meeting after two days, Arif Hossain, a local claimed. "They (BSF) do not allow any adult Bangladeshi to come near the border even during day time," a BDR personnel told this correspondent when he visited the bordering area in Kushtia. "Smugglers on both sides of the border are active at different points. This is also a major cause of BSF firing," a BOP (Border Observation Post) commander at Thotarpara border point in Bangladesh said. Cross-border movement of smugglers prompts not only BSF but also BDR to fire, he added. BSF brutality The Indian border guards have broken an arm and both legs of a Bangladeshi youth. Shahjahan Ali, 25, was caught by Border Security Force (BSF) early Saturday near Masudpur when he was trying to cross the border. He was severely tortured and left unconscious. Bangladeshi border guards and locals recovered him around 12.30pm and took him to Rajshahi Medical College Hospital. Shahjahan told bdnews24.com that BSF men beat him with a rods and sticks. Deputy commander of the 39 Rifles Battalion Maj Tarek Mahmud told bdnews24.com that Shahjahan's left arm and both legs had been broken. "He was trying to go to India for travelling. Men from 151 BSF Malda battalion's Shuvapur camp captured him. They left him near Shingnagar border." http://bdnews24.com/details.php?id=184601&cid=2 |
Hello Hello
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12180193 BBC,13 January 2011 Last updated at 14:31 GMT Hindu holy man Aseemanand in custody over India blastsSwami Aseemanand (left) allegedly wanted revenge for attacks by Muslim militants on India Continue reading the main story Related storiesAn Indian court has remanded in custody a Hindu holy man accused of a string of bomb attacks previously thought to be the work of Muslim militants. Swami Aseemanand allegedly admitted to placing bombs on a train to Pakistan, at a Sufi shrine and at a mosque. He has also allegedly confessed to carrying out two assaults on the southern Indian town of Malegaon, which has a large Muslim population. He has been remanded in custody for the four attacks until 27 January. HeadwayPolice say that Mr Aseemanand gave them details of his role in the mosque attack in the city of Hyderabad in 2007 in addition to attacks on a graveyard in Malegaon and a Sufi shrine in Ajmer. Continue reading the main story THE FOUR ATTACKS
Several Muslim men were arrested for those attacks - and some reports said that they had been tortured. Most are still in custody. Mr Aseemanand was arrested in November after being in hiding for two years, police said. According to India's Tehelka magazine, which has obtained a copy of his 42-page confession, he told his interrogators that the attacks on Muslim places were in response to attacks by Islamist militants in India. It quotes him as saying that many of those involved in the bombings were members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - the right-wing parent organisation of India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. The bomb attack on the Samjhauta (Friendship) Express train travelling from India to Pakistan in February 2007 killed 68 people. Many of the passengers who died in the incident were Pakistanis returning home. The 2008 blast in the town of Malegaon killed seven people and left more than 100 injured. A female Hindu priest, Sadhwi Pragya Singh Thakur, and a serving Indian army officer were among 11 people who were arrested in connection with the attack. In May 2007, at least 14 people were killed in an explosion during Friday prayers at the Mecca mosque in Hyderabad. It is one of India's biggest mosques, and there was rioting afterwards. And in October 2007, a bomb attack on a famous Sufi Muslim shrine in the city of Ajmer - in the state of Rajasthan - killed two people. Anger over leaksMost of these blasts were initially blamed on local militant groups and several Muslim men were arrested for alleged involvement. But correspondents say the police were unable to make much headway in their investigations. Opposition politicians were angered recently after leaked diplomatic cables suggested Rahul Gandhi, widely tipped as a future Indian PM, believed Hindu radicals might pose a greater threat than Islamist militants. According to Wikileaks, Mr Gandhi told a US envoy last year there was some support among Indian Muslims for militants such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. But he told ambassador Timothy Roemer the greater threat could come from the growth of radical Hindu groups. |
Reports say that Sherry Rahman a Pakistani Human Rights activist and a crusader against the infamous blasphemy laws is under threat of being killed after a mullah proclaimed a fatwa that she is an enemy of Islam and therefore must be assassinated. It's evident that criminal justice system isn't working in Pakistan out of fear that this may bring black lash from the Islamic extremists. Societies that tolerate and appease such medieval barbarian actions end up being consumed by those actions. The elites of Pakistan, if there is any, have found it prudent to run to the wilderness than killing the rampaging wild animal. Life saving logic but eventually life threatening. It's amazing how ignorance has taken over a civil society in the midst of 21st century. Nobody ever conceived that interpretation of a faith can be that lethal.
Akbar Hussain
Meherjaan: The woman's story of 1971 war |
TUNIS, Tunisia – Tunisia's president has left power for good, the president of the country's Constitutional Court said Saturday, declaring that the leader of the lower house of parliament will assume power until elections are held in two months.
It was the second time power has changed hands in this North African country in less than 24 hours.
Massive street protests over corruption and unemployment forced President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to flee the country Friday night after 23 years of iron-fisted rule. Saudi King Abdullah's palace confirmed early Saturday that the ousted president and his family had landed in Saudi Arabia, saying the kingdom welcomed him with a wish for "peace and security to return to the people of Tunisia."
When Ben Ali left, Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi stepped in briefly with a vague assumption of power that left open the possibility that Ben Ali could return.
But Constitutional Council President Fethi Abdennadher said Saturday that Ben Ali has permanently vacated his position and lawmaker Fouad Mebazaa has up to 60 days to organize new elections.
Ben Ali's ouster was the key demand of a month of protests that have swept the Mediterranean nation known for its sandy beaches, desert landscapes and ancient ruins.
While the protests were mostly peaceful, after Ben Ali's departure rioters burned the main train station in the capital of Tunis and looted shops.
An Associated Press photographer saw soldiers intervening Saturday to try to stop looters from sacking a huge supermarket in the Ariana area, 30 kilometers (20 miles) north of the capital. Shops near the main bazaar were also looted.
A helicopter circled low over the capital, apparently acting as a spotter for fires or pillaging. Gunfire crackled anew Saturday morning.
The debate and dilemma of transit
The pros and cons of granting transit to India have been debated over the years, but several vital issues remain hazy. The Transit Study Group delves deeper to find the answers
by M M Ali and Altaf Parvez, Transit Study Group, Dhaka
From the nineties India has been asking Bangladesh for transit and now, finally, they are on the verge of actually getting it. However, it hasn't been smooth sailing and controversy prevails. Innumerable questions hover around the issue and until and unless these questions are resolved, it will not be easy to grant transit to India. Unless all the irritants are settled, it will neither be possible to run the process properly nor will it be possible for Bangladesh to gain optimum benefits for transit. With this in mind, the Transit Study Group (TCG) analysed the various controversies and debate which surround the transit issue.
1. What does India want?
There are three forms of geographic cooperation in the movement of goods -- transit, transshipment and corridor. Each form has a different significance. Which form is India and Bangladesh taking up in this regard? Transit means the interstate transportation of goods and passengers over a particular land or water route in accordance to specific agreement and regulations. While the term 'transit' is being used in the agreement between India and Bangladesh, its nature is more on the lines of corridor facilities. If Bangladeshi vehicular movement is held up during the movement of the transit vehicles, then this is certainly corridor-type facilities. Bangladesh is to grant India this facility, but it is not a landlocked country. Normally by corridor it is meant giving a certain country control over a certain part of the territory. While Bangladesh at the moment isn't granting this control to India, India is being given unilateral use of the route. Again, as India is transporting the goods at its initiative, it cannot be called transshipment either.
2. How prepared is Bangladesh for transit, transshipment or corridor?
Whether it is transit, transshipment or corridor, whatever facilities are to be granted, the question is whether Bangladesh's road and rail infrastructure is prepared for this. Everyday experience tells us about the present state of Bangladesh's road infrastructure and how fit is it is to accommodate the country's own transportation of goods and passengers. Under these circumstances, just what will the state of affairs be if hundreds of Indian vehicles start plying the existing roads?
According to various media reports, if transit is granted, about 1500 trucks of 15 tons each will ply the transit route. Added to that is the 750 Bangladeshi trucks presently using the possible transit routes. That means a total of 2,250 trucks will use the route every day, triple the present load.
About eight routes are being considered for transit. Other than the Banglabandha-Tamabil and Banglabandha-Akhaura routes, Dhaka is included in all the six remaining routes. How far are our roads in general, and Dhaka roads in particular, ready to take on this extra load of trucks? And when India uses the transit route, it will be plying extremely heavy container-carrying trucks, much heavier the average truck. These trucks will be unable to change lanes and when these massive vehicles will go down the road, all other vehicular traffic will have to be halted.
3. How will the cost of transit infrastructure be met?
Given the various meetings at a top policy-making level between Bangladesh and India, implementing the transit deal is now apparently only a matter of time.
Where the present road system is hardly adequate enough to bear the local vehicles and passengers, how can it take on the extra load of Indian goods at the same time? There can be any alternative arrangement of time coordination, that is their vehicles can ply when our vehicular movement is down to a minimum. Then there will have to be large parking lots along the route for the Indian trucks. The construction of such parking facilities, the maintenance of these, plus ensuring security at these sites, all will entail huge costs. Who will bear the costs? Also, how practical will it be to use such huge plots of land for parking in such a densely populated country as Bangladesh?
There are certain Bangladesh officials who are so enthusiastic about granting India transit, that they contend that Bangladesh will bear all the transit infrastructure expenses. For instance, merely at the possibility of giving transit to India, recently the Chittagong Port Authority has implemented 18 projects at the cost of 2,100 crore taka (The Daily Star, December 29, 2010). An interview with Musharraf Hossain, Member (Finance), Chittagong Port Authority, reveals that simply to facilitate the possible parking of Indian vehicles, a 150 crore taka transit yard is being constructed. Residents of the adjacent densely populated area are being evicted for the purpose.
Then there are instances of the opposite too. When Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina visited India and held talks with her Indian counterpart Dr. Manmoham Singh concerning transit on January 12 last year, plans were laid to declare Ashuganj as a Port of Call and to set up an Inland Container River Port there at a cost of 36.23 million dollars, construct second Bhairab Bridge and Second Teesta Bridge at a cost of 120 million dollars and develop the road infrastructure at Ashuganj for another 34 million dollars. India would basically use this route to transport heavy machinery to Agartala where they would be setting up a large power plant. However, an on-the-spot survey of the area in November 2010, shows there are no signs of any development there and the local residents do not have an inkling of anything in this regard. (Read PROBE Issue 20, Vol 9) In fact, one rainfall leaves the roads there unfit for even local vehicle movement, let alone the proposed 28 and 32-wheeler container trucks bearing heavy machinery weighing 60 to 80 tons. Bangladesh's Inland Water Transport Authority hasn't even set up any proper office there. Does that mean India will be running the entire show?
While Bangladesh is spending its own resources to facilitate transit for India (Chittagong Port, for example) and handing over transit facilities even without any infrastructure development (Ashuganj Port, for example), in Myanmar India is pouring in its investment to develop the road infrastructure in the hope of winning transit facilities there.
Once 'transit' begins in our country, immediately there will be the need for regular rail and road renovation which will call for manpower and investment. Over the past decade, India has kept up the pressure for transit but has made no move whatsoever to help in infrastructure development. China, on the other hand, has made significant investment in this sector. Despite having no direct communication interests here, China has constructed about seven or eight large bridges in Bangladesh. India has set no such example. On the contrary, it has submerged Bangladesh into a large debt by mans of a loan in August 2010 purportedly for investment in transit preparations. Bangladesh got this loan from the Indian Exim Bank. Bangladesh will use this 100 crore dollar loan to construct infrastructure for the movement of Indian goods, and yet it will have to repay each and every penny of the loan, along with interest. Not only that, another condition of the loan is that all the equipment used for the infrastructure development will have to be procured from India. And while Bangladesh is being forced to swallow this loan, the press reports that the World Bank has cancelled a loan agreement of 175 crore dollars with Bangladesh as the funds were lying unutilized ('Rajkut', Kaler Kantha, December 1, 2010). For long it had been said that India was giving the 100 crore dollars as 'assistance', but now it has been revealed that this is a loan.
4. Who will be responsible for the security setup of the transit process?
Security is vitally interlinked with transit, transshipment or corridor, whichever Bangladesh is granting to its neighbour. The nature of the goods being transported must be scrutinized and monitored on a regular basis and security must also be provided for the safe transportation of the goods. Bangladesh lacks facilities for both types of these security measures in its existing road infrastructure. So the question naturally arises, when will this security setup be put in place and who will operate it? It is a vital question as to who will be in control of security and who will bear the costs involved.
5. Which route will be used for transit?
Even thought eight different routes are under consideration for Indian transit, the people of this country have no idea whatsoever as to which points Indian vehicles are likely to enter Bangladesh, which routes will be used and from which points will they exit Bangladesh to re-enter India.
6. What will Bangladesh get in exchange of granting India transit facilities?
As it is still not clarified as to whether Bangladesh will be giving India, transit, transshipment or corridor facilities, it is still unclear what fee Bangladesh will be given in return for this facility. In fact, recently there were differences of opinion among the policy makers as to whether India will have to pay any fee at all. We know for certain that India is presently spending about one hundred billion dollars transport goods through the places for which they want transit, such as the Shilliguri corridor. But there is no information on how much India will be saving in using Bangladesh territory to transport their goods and if any understanding has been reached in this regard.
Presently tea from Assam travels about 1400 km to Kolkatta to be exported around the world. It is about 1650 km to travel from that point to Tripura. Yet if transit is granted, the travel distance between Assam and Tripura will be only 400 km. This will be a huge boon for Indian economy. It is only natural for Bangladesh to expect to benefit from this, yet in June last year it was clear that the Bangladeshi policymakers are prevaricating over the issue. NBR had issued an SRO determining a fee for transit, but within just a few days it was withdrawn. The SRO has fixed a 10,000 taka fee per container and a 1000 taka fee per ton of open goods. Even though this is much, much less than what India is having to pay to transport goods over its own territory, it apparently seems that our policy makers are unwilling to impose this fee. In fact, any attempts to increase the existing fee for the river transit being presently used by India have been thwarted. In 2009-10 when large volumes of Indian goods were being transported by Bangladesh's river-ways, Bangladesh received only a paltry 4.5 crore taka as fees (The Financial Express, November 13, 2010). Finance Minister Abul Mal Abdul Muhith, speaking in the secretariat on November 2, 2010, had said, "No fees will be imposed on transit." This certainly was a surprising statement, considering certain quarters over the last decade or more have been spewing out rhetoric about how many billions of dollars Bangladesh will earn through transit.
7. Who will take responsibility for the environmental harm caused by transit?
Bangladesh is a densely populated country already suffering from a myriad of environmental problems. Till now there hasn't been any study as to what environmental harm will be caused by the transit provision. In the present global scenario, in Bangladesh as well, when any large project is taken up, first a study is carried out on the impact the project is likely to have on the environment. It is a mystery as to why this issue has been totally sidestepped in the matter of granting transit to India.
Another question that looms large in this respect is whether India will play any role in the rehabilitation of persons displaced by the transit route or pay any compensation for possible environmental harm brought about by transit. For example, Indian company ABC Construction has been awarded the contract to construct the road from Ashuganj via Akhaura to Agartala in India. This is for the transport of heavy machinery and goods known as ODC or Over Dimensional Consignment. In ABC Construction's hurried initiative to expand the 49 km road, a nearby canal will be permanently filled and the area will face serious water-logging. (For details see PROBE News Magazine November 5-11, 2010).
There is even a proposal to take the railroad through the world heritage site of the Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest, to facilitate transit and the use to Mongla Port to carry India goods.
In is also a matter of concern as to whether the list of goods for transit will be kept open or whether it will be specified. The area which India is wanting transit is a virtual war zone. India has to regularly send arms, ammunition and weaponry to those areas rife with independence struggles of various ethnic groups. It should be settled whether this transit route will be used to transport such equipment. After all, this is likely to lead Bangladesh to become the target of ire of these ethnic groups.
8. How will transit-related health risks be addressed?
From the European, Central Asian and particularly the African experiences, we note that transit bring along with it great health risks. If hundreds of vehicles travel from India through Bangladesh every day, certain health problems are bound to crop up. Top on the list is HIV/AIDS. India, according to official reports, had six million identified AIDS affected persons. This outnumbers AIDS patients anywhere else in the world. The main cause of concern is that the three regions of India with the highest prevalence of AIDS, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland, near the Bangladesh border. In fact, at one end of the transit route sought by India is these three states. To make matters worse, it is the truck drivers in India who are mostly the AIDS virus carriers and they are the ones who will be entering Bangladesh. The question is, are we at all aware of these serious risks? Has any precautionary action been taken whatsoever? Has Bangladesh any plan whatsoever of setting up the required facilities for the health check of the drivers using the transit route?
9. How prepared is Bangladesh to deal with the smuggling and drug trade, an inevitable fallout of transit?
Again from the experience of Europe, Central Asia and Africa, we see an inevitable fallout of transit to be smuggling and illegal drug trade. As it is, our trade ties with India is infested with smuggling. There have been no statements so far as to how transit will exacerbate this situation and what preventive measures can be taken in this regard. As things stand at present, Bangladesh is facing the menace of phensidyl being smuggled over the border into the country and it is a serious challenger for the authorities to tackle this. Phensidyl has become such a serious business for the Indians now that all along their side of the Bangladesh border so far 132 Phensidyl factories have been identified. Though the Border Guard of Bangladesh (BGB) has approached the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) with these facts and figures, no measures have been taken to resolve the matter. In West Bengal alone there are 52 Phensidul factories. According to a study of Family Health International, India earns 347 crore rupees through smuggling drugs to Bangladesh alone (News Today, December 29, 2010). At least 32 different kinds of unlawful drugs enter Bangladesh from at least 512 points from India.
The existing scanning mechanisms which Bangladesh has at the moment for its road and railways, is totally inadequate to deal with this problem. Will more scanning mechanisms be installed if transit begins? Who will control these scanning setups? Where will they be installed? None of these questions have been answered so far. In fact, no separate authority has even been formed to look after the entire matter of transit.
10. When there are so many unresolved bilateral issues, why is only transit being brought to the table?
Whether it is transit, transshipment or corridor, what the facilities may be, the basis of this must be a mindset of bilateral cooperation. It would only be expected that Bangladesh will receive equal trade benefits in exchange of granting India transit. This would include expanded entry of Bangladeshi goods in the Indian market as well as facilities to transport goods from Bangladesh over Indian territory to Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc.
There are several other unresolved issues Bangladesh has with India – determining the maritime boundary, demarcation of the land borders, killing of innocent Bangladeshis by BSF along the border, water sharing, Farakka Barrage and Tipaimukh Dam. All these are matters of grave concern for Bangladesh.
Then there is the trade imbalance between Bangladesh and India. According to Bangladesh's Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI), the trade imbalance between the two countries in 2009-10 was about 3.6 billion dollars and this gap is rapidly and steadily growing.
India is singularly Bangladesh's biggest trading partner. India's business in Bangladesh is four billion dollars, while Bangladesh exports only 3.6 million dollars worth of commodities to India. According to the Export Promotion Bureau, India exports about 2,086 items to Bangladesh, while only 168 items can enter the Indian market from Bangladesh. ('Rajkut', Kaler Kantha, December 1, 2010). Basically Bangladeshi goods can't enter the Indian market due to the non-tariff barriers. Negotiations have been on in this connection over the last eight years, but things haven't moved an inch in Bangladesh's favour. Any Bangladeshi commodity entering the Indian market has to undergo laboratory tests. India has made this mandatory. It takes anywhere between 40 to 50 days for the results of this to emerge. India does not recognize laboratory tests run in Bangladesh. When our policy makers sit for negotiations, they fail to voice these concerns of our business sector. The main agenda is transit, whether it will be given to India or not. But it is imperative that the public be informed of what Bangladesh will be given in exchange of extending transit facilities.
Many are of the opinion that transit is simply a matter of economics. They feel that political issues should not be dragged in. But from global experience it is learnt that without the real picture of friendship between two countries and with the give-and-take mentality, economic cooperate cannot go too far. How far are Bangladesh's national interests actually being upheld with the old irritants being brushed aside and transit being brought to the forefront?
Towards the end of the nineties, in a similar hurried manner, and keeping the people in the dark, the Ganges water sharing treaty was signed. But a decade on, Bangladesh is yet to receive its fair share of water. All of the bilateral agreements signed between Bangladesh and India in the past have had the same fate. So even on a regional level the big question is, why is Bangladesh sitting with India alone to discuss the issue of transit instead of dealing with this issue multilaterally with interest South East Asian countries. There are many similar questions for which no answers are being given. Instead, certain quarters within the government are impatient to hand over transit facilities to India. Certain quarters in the private sector too are giving full support to the matter, particular our larger business associations. If transit is granted, India will take goods to its northeastern states, just when the market there has opened up to Bangladeshi commodities. So when our business bodies rally in support of transit, one wonder to which country do they belong and where their allegiance lies. Will not the trade imbalance between the two countries simply intensify?
11. Are the government committees for transit at all capable of formulating the required guidelines?
The Transit Study Group) feels that given the global realities of today, the exchange of trade facilities and the involvement in inter-state communication management is inevitable and unavoidable. In such cases, all countries carry out the necessary studies and evaluation, and weight the pros and cons. Transit trade facilities is a universal model, but no country enters such an agreement without bargaining, negotiating, studying and evaluating and without prior preparation. Bangladesh cannot be an exception in this regard. Only landlocked countries have the special right for transit and use of port of neighboring countries. As for other countries, transit is based on mutual understanding, cooperation and proven friendship.
It is a matter of concern as to whether Bangladesh has come to any understanding regarding transit, whether it has driven a good bargain, whether there has been cooperation and whether answers to the relevant questions have been resolved. It is important that the people ponder of these issues, ask questions and be given answers. This process of question and answer must be neutral and in keeping with present realities.
The government has created five sub-committees regarding transit. The heads of these committees had been lobbying in favour of the handing transit over to India, sans bargaining. There is S Rahmatullah, the head of the committee to determine the route and expense of transit. Then there is the head of the committee for the economic analysis of transit, Sadeq Ahmed. CPD's Executive Director Mustafizur Rahman is head of the committee to determine the important issues pertaining to transit. As these persons had long been vocal in favour of giving India transit over the past decade or so, can these people actually produce any neutral and professional results? How can political leaders get neutral and professional research results and take responsible decisions? Therein lies our concern.
Transit Study Group
The Transit Study Group is basically a multidisciplinary group. It comprises journalists, doctors, lawyers, environmentalists, tax experts and other professionals. The objective of the group is not to oppose transit, but to conduct an in-depth study of the issue and to come up with recommendations in keeping with national interests. This can provide valuable input to the relevant policymakers in their decision-making regarding transit.