Banner Advertiser

Saturday, April 9, 2011

[ALOCHONA] Wrong-minded modernization: Cycle rickshaw bans



Wrong-minded modernization: Cycle rickshaw bans

A new wave of rickshaw bans has just occurred in Dhaka. How appropriate were those bans? How sound are the arguments against Cycle rickshaw?

The Cycle rickshaw has for decades been attacked by the media and others in Bangladesh as being slow, causing traffic jams and thus congestion, being an inhuman occupation for the pullers, and holding Dhaka back from modernization. Just how true are those claims?

First, does the experience with Cycle rickshaw bans to date suggest that such bans effectively reduce traffic congestion? On the contrary; even government reports show that Cycle rickshaw bans do nothing to improve traffic, and sometimes traffic speed even further deteriorates following rickshaw bans. In addition, people's travel cost as well as time increase. Are VIP roads free of traffic congestion? Will the government blame Cycle rickshaws for congestion until there are no Cycle rickshaws left, and then what will they blame? Cities around the world with no Cycle rickshaws  waste millions of dollars in lost time and wasted fuel due to traffic jams caused entirely by cars. Why are we so eager to join them?

Are Cycle rickshaws slow? Government reports indicate that in many cases, it is faster to walk than to take a bus. Average car speed in many Asian cities is no greater than the speed of a Cycle rickshaw. The fact that cars can on empty streets move faster than Cycle rickshaw is meaningless in Dhaka traffic situations, except in the danger it implies: when cars race on empty roads, they regularly kill pedestrians. How many fatal accidents are caused by Cycle rickshaws ? Meanwhile, congestion makes cars slow; too many cars cause congestion. Cycle rickshaws  not only do not kill pedestrians, but they play a very important role in reducing pollution, as they themselves are completely emission-free vehicles, even when stuck in traffic.

It is not just the (potential) speed of a vehicle that matters; vehicles also take up space when parked. Cars are typically parked for most of the day, so the road or other valuable urban space they occupy is the space not only on the streets when moving but space for parking space. Imagine taking a series of short trips around Dhaka by car: everywhere you go, you must park the car somewhere. Although many apartment units now have car parking, they do not allow visitors to use the spaces, even if the lot is empty. So parked cars clutter the streets. As an alternative, we could work on turning our city into a series of high-rise parking lots (as Bangkok has done, much to the detriment of its liveability), or we could maintain a city with many urban amenities by reducing car parking and making conditions good for taking short trips by rickshaw, which require little space when parked and in any case spend most of the day carrying people about.

How inhuman is the business of pedaling a Cycle rickshaw? It might not be a profession most of you reading this article would like to have, but neither is it likely you would wish to spend hours a day standing in water, bent at the waist, transplanting rice. The measure of whether a profession is inhuman is not whether or not we are willing to engage in it, but rather what those working in it feel about it and what their alternatives are. Cycle rickshaw pulling is a huge source of needed jobs; the pullers themselves clearly prefer it to begging or starving. Further, unlike many other professions, it is fairly well-paid, involves a good deal of independence, and gives the pullers a chance to choose their hours and to rest when they wish. It is thus far less inhuman than many other professions. What is inhuman is denying people the right to earn a living.

How well can we manage without the Cycle rickshaw in Dhaka? It is important to remember that many trips taken are short. Does it make sense to wait 10-20 minutes for a bus in order to travel 3 kilometres? What if you have many destinations: say a woman taking her child to school, going to a shop, visiting a relative, going home, then going back to pick up her child? If she had to buy separate bus tickets for each trip segment, the expense would be exorbitant. No wonder 41% of trips to take children to school occur by rickshaw; it is a safe, convenient, and affordable form of door-to-door transport.

As for walking as an alternative, we are all for it: but first there needs to be a better environment for walking. The problems faced by those on foot in Dhaka are numerous: footpaths in bad condition, often occupied by parked cars, and used at times by motorbikes; lack of safe street crossings; bad smells due to the lack of public toilets; lack of safety at night; and the exposure to continual fumes and noise from the traffic on the streets.Cycle rickshaws  provide a fairly pleasant alternative to the dismal business of walking in Dhaka; it is unfair to the middle class to take away that option in the assumption that they should either buy a car or suffer on buses, which themselves involve a number of obstacles to comfortable travel and of course only operate on certain routes, causing problems for those traveling with children, carrying heavy items, and so on.

Speaking of the popularity of Cycle rickshaws , it is helpful to compare the percentage of trips that occur by rickshaw versus car. No measures have been taken to ban cars from narrow lanes, despite the obvious fact that cars create congestion in the lanes, blocking the easy movement of hundreds of people traveling by Cycle rickshaw. Far from it: the building code is insisting on the provision of ever more car parking, providing incentive for ever more cars, even on narrow streets. But how popular is the car versus theCycle rickshaw?

According to the latest government figures, for overall trips in the Dhaka Metropolitan Area and Dhaka City Corporation, 4-5% are made by car versus 29-39% by Cycle rickshaw. While men make 32% of their trips by car, that figure is 47.4% for women. As mentioned, 41% of trips to school occur by rickshaw; only 4% are taken by car (yet cars already create hideous congestion around schools and during the times when children go to and from school). While car use is far higher among the wealthy (here defined as those earning over 50,000 taka per month), at 18% of trips, that figure is still dwarfed by rickshaw trips: 35% of trips taken by the wealthy are by Cycle rickshaw. That is, Cycle rickshaws  account for twice the number of trips as cars even among the wealthier, and up to ten times as many trips overall. If it is so important to ban vehicles due to the congestion they create, why on earth is it the rickshaw that is being banned?

Finally, are Cycle rickshaws an antiquated vehicle that should be relegated to the past, or instead a glowing emblem of modernity? The most modern, attractive, liveable cities are mostly in western Europe. A significant portion of trips in those cities – say, 30-50% or more – occurs by bicycle. European cities, as well as growing numbers of cities in Australia and North America, promote the bicycle in order to reduce traffic congestion, fumes, noise, and travel expense, and to increase the attractiveness and liveability of cities.

What after all is a Cycle rickshaw but a three-wheeled bicycle (imagine trying to cycle through Dhaka...no wonder people prefer Cycle rickshaws !). Given the related catastrophes of climate change, peak oil, obesity, and lack of physical activity, governments around the world are trying to get people out of their cars. It is the low-income cities of the world that are heading in the opposite direction, laying out the red carpet for cars while making life difficult and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists. Why are policymakers in Dhaka insistent on making things worse for the city rather than better? If we really want to reduce traffic congestion, we must do what city after city around the world has been forced to do: actively work to reduce travel by car and increase travel by other means.

Years ago, an international transport expert referred to Dhaka's modal share as "enviable": few cars and many rickshaws. Rather than appreciate what we had and work to make things even better, we are instead working to increase traffic congestion, noise, fumes, and expense, and to make moving about the city more difficult for the non-car-owning majority.

It is also interesting to note that the latest rickshaw bans occurred after government decisions to limit car use through a variety of measures. To the best of our knowledge, none of those measures have been implemented to date, while other measures to encourage car use continue. What was done instead, despite significant media attention over the last few years to the problem of private cars, was to ban rickshaws from various streets. Clearly the decision was based on prejudice, not any technical understanding of the situation. It allows the government to say that it is doing something to improve traffic, while only making matters worse, because politically it is difficult to put into places measures to reduce the vehicle preferred by a tiny portion of the most wealthy and powerful.

But it is wrong to believe that only Cycle rickshaw  pullers are upset by the bans. Dhaka residents have long suffered for the various bans that have been put into place over the years: witness the long lines of people attempting to go to and from New Market by Cycle rickshaw, or the anger of women in focus groups discussing the rickshaw bans on Mirpur Road. Of course people want safe, convenient, comfortable transport. People also vote. It is not wise to anger the masses through such wrong-minded decisions.

It is time to raise our voices in support of smart traffic planning: to ensure that all people, not just those with a car, can move about safely and conveniently; that non-polluting modes are given priority; and that international experience in addressing traffic congestion is put to good use here. It is time to say no to further rickshaw bans, to overturn the recent ones, and to work together to make Dhaka a city in which people can move about safely, comfortably, and conveniently on foot, on 2- and 3-wheeled bicycles (rickshaws), and on public transport. We would all benefit from the improved air quality, safety, and convenience.

               
Syed Saiful Alam
Environmental Activist
+8801552442814
shovan1209@yahoo.com
Dhaka.Bangladesh



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Why the Oil Companies Decided Qaddafi Has to Go



Why the Oil Companies Decided Qaddafi Has to Go

By JEAN-PIERRE SÉRÉNI

The few people Colonel Muammar Gaddafi did business with regarded him as unpredictable, inconsistent and temperamental. President Ronald Reagan described him in 1986 as the "mad dog of the Middle East", sent the Sixth Fleet to bomb his country and imposed a strict oil embargo. Gaddafi was a pariah, yet 20 years later, he had put Libya back among the world's top crude oil exporters, thanks mostly to US oil giants.

Clearly he must have behaved more rationally in his dealings with the oil sector than in other domestic and foreign policy initiatives, perhaps because he was less involved. International oil companies also learned how to operate – and make a lot of money – in Libya's unstable, even hostile, business environment.

Libya became independent in 1951, as the product of a union between waning British imperialism and a Saharan Muslim order, the Senussi, whose leader became Libya's king. Libya had long been known as the "empty kingdom" and was destitute, since its only export was scrap iron collected from Second World War battlefields.

Explorations by Italian geologists in the 1930s, continued by US army experts, suggested that there might be oil under this vast country of 1.7m sq km. Libya's 1955 Petroleum Law broke with the usual Middle Eastern practice of granting concessions to a single company, such as Anglo-Iranian in Iran, Aramco in Saudi Arabia and the Iraq Petroleum Company in Iraq. Libya instead offered many concessions, limited geographically and, in duration, to five years. Once oil was struck, this proved a wise decision.

Some 10 companies joined the initial oil rush, and in 1961 oil was shipped for the first time from the terminal at Marsa el-Brega. In less than five years, production passed an unprecedented million barrels a day, and 19 companies, including Exxon, Shell, BP and ENI, were operating there; by 1968 there were 39. This new model for oil exploitation gradually went global.

Playing the oil companies

When Gaddafi took power in the coup of 1969, he was determined to get a higher price for his crude. On the advice of Saudi Arabia's first oil minister Abdullah al-Tariki (the "red sheikh", sacked by King Faisal for his outspokenness), he played one oil company against another, pitting the biggest, Esso, against a small independent, Occidental. He cut their daily production by half to try to force them to pay his government a higher price. Esso was able to replace its losses with production in other countries, but Occidental had no wells outside Libya. It was in a weak position, especially since the world's seven biggesplus the US company Gulf Oil, and the European/UK companies Royal Dutch Shell and BP.refused to let it have a single barrel. "It has put all its eggs in one basket," the Libyan negotiators sniggered. The company accepted the price increase. With the Suez Canal closed, the Achnacarry cartel followed suit in September 1970, and at a stroke, prices and taxes rose by 20 per cent.

Other oil exporting countries learned from this that it is better to deal with several operators than one, and to balance the majors with smaller companies without alternative resources. After that, independent and European state oil companies broke into the global oil scene.

Gaddafi and his Revolutionary Command Council, taking their cue from Egypt's president Gamal Abdel Nasser, were determined to make the nation wealthy again. But they also had to consider bad precedents, too, such as the Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq, removed from power by the CIA in 1953 because he had dared to take on the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company; and the Algerian president Colonel Houari Boumedienne, who nationalized French-owned oil wells in 1971 only to be subject to a costly embargo.

Libya's actions were surefooted. The shah of Iran's soldiers occupied Abu Musa and the Tunb islands in the Gulf in December 1971, just before British forces withdrew from the region. To punish Britain for allowing this to happen, the Libyan government nationalized BP's assets. The pretext was flimsy but the stakes were high: BP owned the majority of the Sarir oilfield, the biggest in Libya. After a stormy legal battle, an agreement was signed restoring complete control of the oilfield to Libya. Every confrontation ended the same way: foreign technicians were harassed, work on platforms slowed and productivity was badly hit. Gulf, Philips, Amoco, Texaco, Socal and others abandoned the oilfields, and Libya, in disgust. The Libyan National Oil Company (NOC), which had been formed on the US model, had no trouble taking them over, and in a decade, national revenue quintupled, reaching $10,000 per capita in 1979.

Trouble starts

Politics were the problem. The US State Department published its first list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1979, and Libya figured prominently, because of its support for radical Palestinian groups. The US soon closed its embassy in Tripoli, and banned US citizens from buying Libyan crude. Then in June 1986, all trade with the Jamahiriya (Gaddafi's new national term, from the Arabic words for republic and the masses) was declared illegal. When Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, and the French UTA flight 772 was attacked in November 1989, international sanctions were imposed on Libya, affecting the oil industry. These added to problems such as the fall in the global price of crude, the expense of big construction projects and some disarray in the domestic economy. (That was the result of attempting to follow the recommendations of the Green Book – Gaddafi's long and abstruse anarcho-collectivist tract, the "guide of the Revolution" preaching a third universal theory, halfway between capitalism and Marxism.)

Even though NOC easily found new markets in Europe, Turkey and Brazil to replace lost outlets in the US, the embargo ended its plans to develop oil exploration, petrochemicals and natural gas; these were put on hold for lack of western capital, technology, expertise and equipment. There were networks to bypass the embargo through Tunisia and Egypt, but it was expensive to pay off criminals on both sides of the Mediterranean. A nail or a screw cost five or six times as much in Libya after 1986. The oilfields were getting old, and it was essential to restart exploration if production was not to halt.

The period 1992-99 was difficult: economic growth slowed to just 0.8 per cent a year and per capita income dropped by 20 per cent. Discontent also grew, and there were uprisings in eastern Libya (Cyrenaica) and several attempts to overthrow the regime. Gaddafi had no choice but to give in. He handed over to the UK the Libyan intelligence agents accused of the Lockerbie bombing, and paid generous compensation to the families of the 270 victims (and a little less to the 170 victims of the UTA flight). After 9/11, Libya supported the US "war on terror", and in 2003, a few days after US tanks entered Baghdad, Gaddafi publicly renounced any ambition to develop nuclear weapons.

On November 13, 2003 the last international sanctions were lifted, and Libya's oil industry revived. Gaddafi wanted to double production rapidly, to over 3m barrels a day (the same as Iran), and make Libya an influential member of Opec, the cartel that sets oil prices. In August 2004 NOC auctioned 15 exploration licenses, starting an oil rush.

In all, 120 companies were interested, including several US and British oil giants that had left Libya in 1986 without being nationalized; 11 of the 15 blocks were given to US companies (Occidental, Amerada Hess, ChevronTexaco). Gaddafi's strategy was again to favor US companies over European ones such as Total, despite the fact it had supported Libya through the period of sanctions. International oil companies were impatient to get into Libya even though the contracts were harsh: $133m to be paid on signing, and a minimum of $300m to be spent on exploration. In return companies would keep at most 38.9 per cent of production, more likely just 10.8 per cent.

So why is there such a lasting, mutual fascination between Libya and oil companies, big and small, given that conditions there are so difficult? Libya's crude is excellent in quality, and its oilfields are close to Europe's refineries, among the biggest in the world. Libyan oil currently represents around 15 per cent of consumption in France, although less than 10 per cent in the European Union. But the main reason is that the balance of power has shifted. In 1960 the British and US oil majors controlled most of the production outside the communist world. The national companies of producer countries have replaced them. They now own their mineral resources, and control access, even if they still need international companies to prospect for new oilfields.

Looking for oil is risky and expensive, so it requires huge capital and technical expertise. National oil companies have neither. Most of the money they earn is spent elsewhere (the Gaddafi family, with six sons and one daughter, takes more than its share) and their sphere of activity remains confined within their borders. So despite expulsions, revolution and nationalisation, the renewal of ties is inevitable, with or without Gaddafi.

Translated by Stephanie Irvine

Jean-Pierre Séréni is a journalist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sereni04082011.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Ashfaqur Rahman on Bangla-India relations



Ashfaqur Rahman on Bangla-India relations



 

http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-04-10/news/145500


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Stock market top players



Stock market top players



http://www.dailykalerkantho.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Hotel&pub_no=486&cat_id=1&menu_id=13&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Software&pub_no=344&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Software&pub_no=344&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=2


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Why did India help in 1971?



Why did India help in 1971?

By Shah Mohammed Saifuddin

Unlike our other neighbours India has a special place in our history because of its help in our liberation war. When the Pakistani military was murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed people and raping the women of the then East Pakistan, India came forward with its helping hand and contributed to arming and training the mukti bahini. Almost 10 million people took shelter in India, especially in the states adjacent to East Pakistan border. Nobody in Bangladesh questions the fact that we got help from India but many question the nature of the help. Was it selfless help or India had a strategic interest in helping Bangladesh?

With a view to find out the truth we have to analyze what India gained from our freedom struggle and its attitude toward Bangladesh after our liberation war. Let us examine the entire thing from strategic, economic, and political point of views.

Strategic point of view

India's peculiar geographic position constituted a major threat to its national security. Due to the geographic location of then East Pakistan, the seven sisters were completely isolated from the mainland. A small corridor, popularly known as chicken neck, was the only passage that could be used for traffic movement. Militarily, India was pretty vulnerable especially due to Chinese presence along the border. The war that was fought between India and China taught India the lesson that faster troops mobility is the only way to win a war. So, India needed transit facility through East Pakistan to transport troops and logistics faster to defend its vulnerable North Eastern states. Besides that, Pakistan was playing a vital role in instigating the insurgents in Assam and elsewhere to break up the entire region. The Indian military strategists were out of options and didn't know how the North Eastern region would be saved. The Hawkish politicians in India came to the conclusion that breaking up Pakistan is the only way to save the militarily insecure North Eastern region. By doing so,

•They could weaken Pakistan and reduce the threat level.

•Recapture the Pakistani portion of Kashmir

•Create a new state that would be militarily and economically weak and provide the much needed transit for troops and logistics transportation

•Project India as a regional superpower and warn all elements inimical to India's security that India had the power to defend itself.

Economic point of view

India also had an economic objective to dismember Pakistan. India was a country with huge population and needed additional resources to uplift its economy. The economic cooperation with Pakistan was all but encouraging. Besides that, the water resources of the Himalayas were needed for India for irrigation and power generation. Due to Pakistan's strong military, India was unable to use the resources unilaterally. Despite being a third world nation, Pakistan was a huge economic market that was able to absorb millions of dollars worth of Indian commodities. But the hostility between the two nations retarded the possibility of a robust economic cooperation between the two nations.

Indian policymakers thought that if they could break Pakistan and create a new and weaker Bangladesh then they would be able to gain unrestricted access to its economic market. India knew that as a new nation, Bangladesh would need cheap industrial products to revive its economy. So, there was a tremendous potential for economic cooperation between the two nations. India also wanted to get transit through Bangladesh to transport raw materials for its North Eastern states. The economically backward North Eastern region needed more investment and various products to energize its economy. So, the Indians thought Bangladesh would be much more beneficial for Indian economy than East Pakistan. The economic calculation was very accurate because India managed to sell hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cheap products to Bangladesh both legally and illegally. They destroyed the thriving jute industry of Bangladesh to build their own right after our independence.

India flooded the local Bangladeshi market with its products and offered millions of dollars more as loans to buy Indian commodities. We were reduced to a trading nation and almost destroyed the very basis of our own industry. India encouraged smuggling along the Indo-Bangla border so the government of Bangladesh had to close the border to stop the rampant smuggling to save the local traders. India never wanted an economically prosperous Bangladesh rather it wanted to use us as a market for its own products and in the process make us dependent on them.

If we look at the present situation, the lopsided trade relation between the two nations speaks volume of the Indian intention to help us in 1971. Bangladesh is an open market economy and allows duty free access for Indian products to our market. But India follows a restricted policy when it comes to importing Bangladeshi products and imposed numerous tariffs and para-tariffs on the Bangladeshi goods. The yawning trade imbalance is a testament to the fact that India never wanted an economically self-sufficient Bangladesh.

Political point of view

Former Indian foreign secretary Mr. Dixit said, "We helped in the liberation of Bangladesh in mutual interest, it was not a favour,"

His statement is clear evidence that India did not help Bangladesh on humanitarian ground. India had a long-term strategic plan to dismember Pakistan for its own gain. India had cultivated deep political relation with the disgruntled elements within the erstwhile East Pakistan. [1] As per a senior RAW intelligence officer, "Bangladesh was the result of a 10 year long promotion of dissatisfaction against the rulers of Pakistan".

This goes to prove that helping Bangladesh was not an instantaneous decision of India rather it was a carefully designed strategic plan that was executed in pinpoint precision.

One of the top bosses of RAW, K. Sankaran Nair, was responsible for training the erstwhile East Pakistani officers in guerrilla warfare. He also established excellent relation with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The relation was maintained via a RAW operative Mr. Banerjee. RAW even funded the 1970s election, in which Sheikh Mujib emerged as the winner [2].

But after the liberation, things did not go the way India had planned. Mujib was assassinated and Awami League was ousted from the power. General Ziaur Rahman came to power and adopted an anti India foreign and defense policy to drag Bangladesh out of Indian sphere of influence. He established good economic and political relation with America and China. He also repaired relations with the Middle Eastern countries and created a huge opportunity for the Bangladeshi workers in the Arab nations. Money started to pour in and the economy got better. He amended the constitution to give it an Islamic flavour in a country where 90% people were Muslims. The Indian policymakers observed the political development in Bangladesh and clearly understood that things were getting worse as far as Indian interest was concerned.

In the meantime, General Ziaur Rahman took various measures to upgrade the military. A close defense relation was established between Bangladesh and China. This irked the military establishment of India. They considered it a hostile act and found it hard to digest. The disgruntled elements in Delhi decided to create a rebel group in Chittagong hill tracts to keep Bangladesh under pressure and drain as much resources of this newly born poor country as possible. Shanti bahini played havock with the lives and properties of the people in CHT. General Zia quickly decided to populate CHT with Bengalees to maintain the territorial integrity of Bangladesh. In the meantime, India forcefully occupied South Talpatty disregarding Bangladesh's request for a joint survey to determine the ownership of the Island. [3] General Zia was assassinated in 1981 and many observers believe that RAW had a hand in the incident.

General Ershad came to power in 1982 and more or less followed the same foreign policy as General Zia. But Ershad knew he should not annoy India beyond a certain limit so a tendency to keep India in good humour was obvious in his India policy. During his tenure, he agreed to abolish the guarantee clause from the water sharing treaty signed by General Zia. It went against our national interest because after abolishment of the guarantee clause, India reduced the water supply even further and that affected our agriculture and ecology. But the fact of the matter is even General Ershad couldn't take a fully pro-Indian stance due to public pressure. He had to continue the military modernization and amended the constitution to declare Islam as the state religion. This drew ire from the top leaders of India. Ershad didn't even try to take any initiative to give transit to India fearing wide spread protest across the country.

Actually, the Indian leaders knew that the only party that was able to meet the Indian strategic demands was Awami League. They never stopped keeping relations with Awami League and provided all sorts of logistis support to Sheikh Hasina. According to some well-informed observers, India provided Tk. 300 crore to Awami League to win the 1996 election(Weekly Shugondha, 26th April, 1996). India's clandestine support for a particular party is a testament to the fact that India had a strategic reason to help Bangladesh in 1971.

If India's help was altruistic in nature, India would have tried to win the hearts and minds of the people of Bangladesh but they never felt the need to do that and continued with their policy to clandestinely help bring Awami League to power. Even today, India leaves no stone unturned to malign Bangladesh. The Indian foreign ministry spends millions of dollars to hire foreign journalists to make fictitious reports to portray Bangladesh as Taliban sympathizer. Fortunately, Bangladesh took quick action to hang a few mis-guided Mullahs who were creating some disturbances. Bangladesh even signed various treaties to help the international community to combat terrorism.

More can be written to prove that India's help in 1971 was not an altruistic one rather it was for gaining strategic advantages. India has an ambitious vision of becoming a world power but how can they achieve their goal if they cannot convince their neighbours that their intentions are benign? Using force to subjugate the weaker neighbours is not the way to go to establish a relation based on mutual trust and respect.

References

1.RAW: Top-Secret Failures, p: 5
2.Ibid. , p: 8
3.Limits of Diplomacy: Bangladesh, Partha. S. Ghosh

http://bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=173793

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Re: 60 players of stock market



Darbesh, Falu, Aziz Khan etc

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Sports&pub_no=344&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=0

http://www.bd-pratidin.com/?view=details&type=gold&data=Sports&pub_no=344&cat_id=1&menu_id=1&news_type_id=1&index=2

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
60 players of stock market



http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2011-04-09/news/145352



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] French ban on full veil comes into force on April 11



French ban on wearing a full veil in public comes into force on April 11.plz follow the link:
 
http://www.parisvisionnews.com/apps/blog/
 
M.A.Mannan AZAD
 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Chittagong Hill Tracts



Chittagong Hill Tracts



http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2011/04/10/76279


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Arab uprisings: implications for Bangladesh



Arab uprisings: implications for Bangladesh

image Bangladeshi refugees who fled Libya line up for food distribution at the Choucha refugee camp, near the Tunisian border town of Ras Jdir. — AF

In these days of high food and commodity price, Bangladesh is fumbling for any sort of adjustment and coordination among different sectors. It is also struggling with its numerous internal problems and gradually the entire condition is just deteriorating. In this situation, the countries on which our economy is highly dependent, especially for remittance, the highest earning sector for the country, are now plunged into a sea of difficulty, which is ultimately affecting our economy adversely, write Ashraful Azad and M Mizanur Rahman

IN THIS era of globalisation when each and every country in the world is connected by the same thread, a slight change in one country has an impact on other countries, especially if the countries have economic relations or dependency. Again, after the cold war, political economy took a new turn and dimension which ultimately gave birth to a new idea of neo-colonialism in the world. So, the political uprising, especially in the Middle East and Sudan, has fed the thinkers with some new thoughts on some upcoming, of course still imagined, days for the political economy of Bangladesh.

In spite of the democratisation of most of the countries of the world, resource-blessed Arab lands stayed in the hands of autocrats. Democratic cultures, most importantly freedom of expression, have been suppressed with cruelty. And the Western powers, who claim to be the torchbearers of democracy, openly fostered the regional strongmen. The biggest lobbying groups of the West, namely arms producers and petroleum tycoons, managed political recognition and arms supply for the authoritarian rulers in exchange of valuable oil revenue and silence on the Israel issue.

But the lesson of history is that none can keep the people silent for an indefinite period. People just waited for a chance. And the moment has come. Protest began in Tunisia when an unemployed graduate set himself on fire as the police did not permit him to sell vegetables without a permit. After days of protests, the Tunisian president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali fled his country on January 15 after ruling it for 23 years. Then 18 days of heated protests ended the 30-year long rule of the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak.

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is now fighting for survival after 42 years' autocracy. There is no doubt that he will be toppled soon. The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, are using the army to suppress popular uprisings. The situation is almost the same in other major Arab cities. Can bullets stop such popular revolts? Except the blind supporters of the autocrats, everybody will say no. Many have found secret US diplomacy encouraging these revolts. If the United States really wants democracy in the Middle East, where was it in the previous years? The US has not dictated but followed the events. US policymakers know that not supporting the movements will deprive them of good relations with the future governments. Whatever the events, we can assume that most of the Arab governments will be changed more or less in favour of the people.

Now let us analyse how these uprisings are influencing and will influence Bangladesh. The influence is mainly economic. Bangladesh is dependent on Middle Eastern countries, mainly for remittance inflow and oil import. Some political impacts may come in future which is going to be pointed out later.

Around 60 lakh Bangladeshis live in the Middle East. Remittance from these expatriates is the biggest source of foreign money inflow of the country. Recently the amount has surpassed the largest export item, ready-made garments, accounting for about $11 billion in 2009-2010 of which $7.22 billion was sent from the Middle Eastern countries. But since last year, manpower export has been declining. According to labour and employment minister Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, manpower export had fallen 21 per cent. He said 385,000 Bangladeshi workers had gone abroad in 2010 compared to 475,000 in 2009. According to the expatriates' welfare and overseas employment ministry, only two Bangladeshi workers received permission to go to Iraq in January 2011 against around 2,288 workers in 2010. Libya took 12,132 workers from Bangladesh in 2010 but is yet to hire a single worker this year. The trend is also same for other worker-receiving countries. The reason behind this trend is a different discussion. But the already downward movement of manpower export has been exacerbated by recent uprisings. Of the 95,194 Bangladeshi workers in Libya (expatriates' welfare and overseas employment ministry data, as of January 2011), 22,047 were brought back from February 28 to March 15, 2011 following the fighting between rebel and government forces. The future of other workers is uncertain as most of the construction works where Bangladeshi workers were involved remain stopped due to fighting. If the same kind of fighting begins in other Arab cities, the fate of migrant workers will be filled in darkness. Thousands of Bangladeshi families are dependent on them and the money for reducing large international trade deficits come from the labour of these workers. How will the government of Bangladesh manage this loss? It is urgent for the government to think about it and find an escape strategy if the situation deteriorates.

Another issue of concern for the Bangladesh economy is the rising price of oil. On March 27, the price of a barrel of crude oil was about $106, the highest since the peak $147 during the 2008 crisis. As a result of the Middle Eastern strife, the increase in oil price alone can lead to global economic slowdown similar to the ones seen during the Arab oil embargo in 1972, the Iranian revolution in 1978 and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Since the end of last year, the price of oil rose to $23 per barrel or about 25 per cent. Because of the uprisings, the price is going high everyday. In any emergency, Saudi Arabia can fulfil the scarcity with its spare capacity. If the Saudi regime faces fierce protests which is a near possibility, who will come to save the world? Yes, the disturbances will be settled. But until that period, the economies have to face danger as the world economy is already plunged by the Japanese tsunami and nuclear crisis.

In 2010, Bangladesh consumed 82,340 barrels of oil per day. So, it is not hard to calculate how much the economy of Bangladesh has to pay as a result of oil price hike. This will surely halt the pace of growth and extract more money from the consumers who are already in a critical situation with the increase in commodity prices.

In these days of high food and commodity price, Bangladesh is fumbling for any sort of adjustment and coordination among different sectors. It is also struggling with its numerous internal problems and gradually the entire condition is just deteriorating. In this situation, the countries on which our economy is highly dependent, especially for remittance, the highest earning sector for the country, are now plunged into a sea of difficulty, which is ultimately affecting our economy adversely. So, now is the time to develop a more integrated and adjusted economy for its survival forgetting political or personal interests.

__________________________

Ashraful Azad is working in research communications and M Mizanur Rahman is a development researcher and an assistant director at D.Net.

http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/14793.html



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] US Human Rights Report on Bangladesh Judiciary



US Human Rights Report on Bangladesh Judiciary



Dhaka, Apr 8 (UNB)- US Human Rights Report-2010 released in Washington Friday said the Bangladesh law provides for an independent judiciary, but in practice a longstanding temporary provision of the constitution placed the executive in charge of the lower courts, judicial appointments, and compensation for judicial officials.

"Legislation from 2007 separating the judiciary from the executive remained in effect throughout the year," it says.
 
Despite ostensible separation of the judiciary from the executive, the report says the political authority made judicial appointments to the higher courts and allegedly influenced many judicial decisions on politically sensitive cases, including decisions regarding bail and detention for political opponents of the government.
It says on April 11, the AL government appointed 17 additional judges to the High Court Division of the Supreme Court triggering protests from the pro-opposition Supreme Court Bar Association leaders.

The opposition argued that two of the appointees had criminal records that included murder charges and ransacking of court premises. Outgoing Chief Justice Fazlul Karim refused to administer oaths to the judges, which drew criticism from government leaders.On September 26, the government appointed A.B.M. Khairul Haque as the new Chief Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, superseding two senior members of the Appellate Division.Opposition party leaders criticized the appointment, stating that Haque was chosen because of his perceived loyalty to the ruling party.

According to a set timeline, Haque was scheduled to step down from the Chief Justice position in May 2012 when he would assume responsibility for heading a constitutionally mandated caretaker government that would be responsible for conducting the next round of parliamentary elections.About prison conditions, the report says prison system conditions remained life threatening at times due to overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and lack of proper sanitation.Human rights observers stated that these conditions contributed to custodial deaths. Unlike in the previous year, there were no accounts of security forces holding detainees in temporary or military detention facilities.

According to Odhikar, 46 persons died in prison and 109 persons died in the custody of police and other security forces during the year.According to the government, the existing prison population at year's end was 69,650, or more than over 200 percent of the official prison capacity of 29,240.Of the entire prison population, approximately one-third of the detainees had been convicted. The rest were either awaiting trial or detained for investigation.

It says due to the severe backlog of cases, individuals awaiting trial often spent more time in jail than if they had been convicted and served a maximum sentence. In most cases, prisoners slept in shifts because of the overcrowding and did not have adequate bathroom facilities.During the year the government ordered the release of 1,000 prisoners to help ease overcrowding. Some human rights groups expressed concern over the methods used to determine which prisoners qualified for the release.
Political and personal connections often influenced the conditions that a prisoner would be placed in.

In general the government did not permit prison visits by independent human rights monitors, including the International Committee of the Red Cross.
On torture and other cruel punishment, the report says although the constitution prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment, security forces including the RAB, and police frequently employed torture and severe physical and psychological abuse during arrests and interrogations."Abuse consisted of threats, beatings, and the use of electric shock," the report says, quoting human rights organizations, it says security forces tortured at least 22 persons.

The report says the government rarely charged, convicted, or punished those responsible, and a climate of impunity allowed such abuses by the RAB and police to continue.


http://www.unbconnect.com/component/news/task-show/id-45213

__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Fwd: Bangladesh relaxes norms for India to erect border fence



------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Subject: RE: Bangladesh relaxes norms for India to erect border fence
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>


The Lhendup Dorjis would prefer to get Bangladesh annexed to India for their personal gain of wealth and power, but they forget what happened in the end to Mir Jafar, Kazi Lhendup Dorji, etc. "Lhendup and his wife Elisa spent their last years in Kalimpong repenting their past deeds", wrote Sudheer Sharma.
 
However, the parties, which claim that they are not Mir Jafars or Lhendup Dorjis, are also not opening their mouths, or even if they do at times, are not translating their concerns in deeds, i.e. in meetings, demos and movements, on the urgent issues of border killings, occupation of border areas, transit of unchecked ODCs through Ashuganj, Farakka, Tipaimukh, CHT, attack on the defence forces through BDR massacre, etc. 
 
We must strengthen our patriotic campaign to unite the people to safeguard our national interest, create momentum to come out of the political morass and oppose the politics of convenience and opportunism of those who prefer to bow their heads down to foreign powers. Tahrir square has proved yet again that when the people are united, the foreign powers cannot save their puppets! 
  

Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:36:46 +0600
Subject: Bangladesh relaxes norms for India to erect border fence
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:

Bangladesh relaxes norms for India to erect border fence

Agartala, April 8 (IANS) Dhaka has allowed New Delhi to erect fencing along the 'zero line' of the international border so that Indian homes and farms located close to it are not impacted, a Tripura minister said here Friday.

The Indian government has been erecting the barbed wire fence along the 4,095-km India-Bangladesh border in West Bengal, Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya and Mizoram to check trans-border movement of militants, prevent infiltration and prevent border crimes.

As per international norms, the barbed wire fencing has to be built 150-yards inside India from the zero line of the border."For erecting the fence (at 150-yards from the border line) along the 841-km of the 856-km India-Bangladesh border with Tripura, over 8,730 Indian families' homes, paddy fields, lands, farms and other assets had fallen outside the fence (making them) vulnerable," Tripura Revenue and Finance Minister Badal Choudhury told reporters.

He said: "(Due) to stipulated distance for putting up the fence, over 19,359 acres of land, including farmland, have fallen outside the fencing in Tripura alone."

"Following Tripura government's persistent demand, New Delhi appraised Dhaka about the problems in erecting the fencing at the 150-yards from the boundary and the Bangladesh government has allowed India to erect the fencing at the 'zero line' in certain stretches to save Indian properties and congested human habitations."

"The 150-yards norms have been followed in erecting fence along the India's border with Pakistan," Choudhury added.The minister said that to rehabilitate the 8,730 families who were affected, the Tripura government had sent a Rs.93 crore project to the central government in 2004, but the latter was yet to sanction any funds for it.The minister said after erection of the fencing, the trans-border movements of militants, infiltration and border crimes have been reduced to a large extent.

A section of villagers in Tripura's border areas affected by the border fencing work have continued with their agitation since early February to demand that they be settled.

Main opposition Congress legislator Subal Bhowmik, who has been spearheading the protest, told reporters: "The Left Front government in Tripura has remained quiet despite the fencing-affected people protesting for the past 10 years for their settlement." The locals have formed an organisation called "Simanta Bhumi Suraksha Committee (border land protection committee) with Bhowmik as its president.


http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=231691



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Ruts in the corridor route



Ruts in the corridor route

From free transport corridor to energy corridor, is Bangladesh gripped in a psychological twist?

by K Mahmud, Altaf Parvez and MM Ali

Though talking about regional or sub-regional connectivity in public, the ruling elite in Bangladesh has in effect granted and operationalized a transport corridor with India through the country without any fee. So far no official announcement has been made to that effect. Haste and secrecy over such an issue propagated over the years for its economic dividends, not to undermine 'significant implications', evokes questions concerning the deal.

Questions have arisen on whether legitimate grounds of convergence of genuine interests between the two peoples and their states motivated the Bangladesh authorities for the transport corridor, or whether there has been any degree of coercion.

Secrecy over the contents of the MOU that allowed transport corridor is maintained not only in Bangladesh but it seems to be equally applicable in India. Both the countries have introduced the right to information acts, both have their respective parliaments. There has been no report of any recent debate over the issue in either parliament nor has there been an attempt in any country to inform their people about the content of the MOU invoking the right to information act.

An understanding of the developments and dynamics of bilateral relationships between Bhutan-India, Nepal-India on one side and Nepal-Bhutan on the other side at this particular stage is essential for an assessment of the scenario into which Bangladesh is being dragged. This will also unfold the agenda behind the proposed regional connectivity and bring into light the immediate implications of the transport corridor between Bangladesh and India.

An in-depth analysis of bilateral relationships of India and its two landlocked neighbours and the relationship between the two adjacent landlocked countries in the region will also help understanding why the Indian ruling elites were in such a haste to operationalise the transport corridor through Bangladesh.

The elite attitude in Bangladesh with regards to the issues mentioned above is no less important. Positions taken by those at the centre of power, commanding the state machinery and those outside it but waiting for an opportune moment to take over the reins, will reflect whether there is any consensus among the elites irrespective of political divide in the country on the transport corridor issue.

The free transport corridor between Bangladesh and India became effective on March 29 as four trailers of equipment crossed the borders between the two countries traveling 48 km land route from Ashuganj river port in Bangladesh and reached Agartala in the north eastern region of India. The modality under which the corridor has been made operational has not yet been made public.

Whether Customs at Ashuganj river port or Akhaura border post are equipped with necessary logistic support to scan the huge loads of hardware being received and sent, also seems to have been kept confidential.

Soon after the signing of the November 30, 2010 MOU on transport corridor between Bangladesh and India, 16 diversion roads were built to facilitate heavy-duty trailers carrying equipment for Palatana Power Station in Tripura. These diversions were constructed to avoid 15 risky bridges and culverts between Ashuganj river port and Akhaura reports say (The Daily Star March 31, 2011).

At a speed of five km per hour, each trailer carried a load of around 80 tons. The traveling time to cross the 48 km stretch of road in Bangladesh corridor will require about 10 hours. The first consignment, took more time for its passage through the corridor due to a mechanical failure at a pontoon bridge after the first trailer embarked. As the trailers remained stuck on the pontoon bridge over Anderson Canal and along the diversion road near Brahmanbaria, the city witnessed traffic congestion while movement of vehicles along Sylhet-Comilla highway remained restricted for sometime during the period.

Since March 9, ships carrying 16 consignments ranging between 20 tons and 285 tons reached the Ashuganj port from Kolkata. A total 96 consignments of hardware for the power station will be sent from Kolkata to Tripura using the river ways and the road corridor through Bangladesh.

An MOU allowing a multimodal but single purpose 'transport corridor' through Bangladesh was signed in Dhaka on November 30 2010, for a period up to June 2012.

Shipping Minister Shahjahan Khan, Secretary of the Ministry Abdul Mannan Howlader, Secretary RHD, Mozammel Haque Khan along with some senior government officials of Bangladesh besides Sushil Singhal, First Secretary, High Commission of India in Dhaka, AK Hazarika, Director (Onshore), ONGC and SK Dube, MD, OTPC were also present during the MOU signing ceremony.

The foreign ministry remained totally sidelined and was not even represented at the MOU signing ceremony.

Quoting foreign ministry officials, reports published in Dhaka (The Independent December 31, 2010) claimed that the ministry was 'not even consulted' regarding the MOU on the transport corridor. The MOU, according to them, was 'faulty' and needed to be 'modified in future'.

Important cabinet ministers in Bangladesh continue to defy the term 'transport corridor' with regards to land route facility provided to India through Ashuganj-Akhaura road link. The ONGC, however, clarified the ambiguity over the issue mentioning the stretch of road in Bangladesh as 'transport corridor'.

On December 15, 2010, two weeks after the signing of the MOU, an official press release issued from ONGC headquarters in New Delhi mentioned the passage through Bangladesh as 'transport corridor'.

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC) is India's state-owned oil and gas company and its subsidiary OTPC signed the MOU with Roads and Highway Department of Bangladesh. Set up as a commission on August 14, 1956, the ONGC was later turned into a corporation with Indian government holding its 74.14% equity stake. OTPC is a joint venture of ONGC with a nominal share of the state government of Tripura.

Without mentioning a single word on the terms of reference of the MOU, the press release talked about its 'significant implications' and gave details of its work programme through the corridor facility provided by Bangladesh.

"OTPC will incur the required expenditure for the (i) development of a Roll-On, Roll-Off (Ro-Ro) Jetty at Ashuganj port, (ii) construction of around 16 by-passes on water bodies (culverts, rain / storm water rivulets & two major rivers and (iii) repair, strengthening & widening of road between Sultanpur and Akhaura border. The work on all the required infrastructure has since commenced and is expected to be ready by mid February, 2011," the ONGC press release said.

"The transport corridor through Bangladesh 'will facilitate the transportation of two gas turbines, two steam turbines and about hundred ODC (Over Dimensional Cargo) items required for the OTPC's ambitious 726.6 MW Combined Cycle Gas based power plant at Palatana, Tripura," the press release said.

Reviewing the project implementation status in the Board meeting of OTPC held at New Delhi on December 13, 2010, the press release quoting. RS Sharma, CMD, ONGC and Chairman, OTPC said, "The other significant implication of this MOU is the opening up of the new and a much convenient route for the growth of trade between the two countries through an easy access between north-eastern states of India and Bangladesh. This will also usher in the development of closer ties between the people of two countries."

The MoU for transit corridor was signed by RK Madan, Senior Adviser (Business Development, ONGC) & Director, OTPC on behalf of ONGC/OTPC and Azizur Rahman, Chief Engineer, Roads and Highways Department represented the governments of India and Bangladesh respectively.

Is Bangladesh gripped in a psychological war?

Promises of sub-regional connectivity with dreams of earning millions, the passage through Bangladesh has now been reduced to a transport corridor with only one country and that too without any fee. Earlier stories publicized huge earnings to the exchequer from transit fee.

Soon after executing the free transport corridor for India, stories on prospects of getting huge energy from our neighbours seem to be receiving circulation. Is it another new twist of tremendous opportunity centering connectivity or yet another revelation of the transport corridor episode? Can it also be a part of a massive campaign of psychological onslaught against Bangladesh?

"India needs the help of Bangladesh to get the environment-friendly and cheap electricity, and Bangladesh should extend its hand for that," said Dr. Mashiur Rahman economic advisor to the Prime Minister on March 31.

Customers of power produced in northeastern states will be in mainland India but it is not possible to send the electricity through the 'chicken neck'.

Linking Bhutan and Nepal again like the previous regional connectivity issue the technocrat advisor said, "There are huge potentials of producing hydroelectricity in northeastern states of India, Nepal and Bhutan, and through regional cooperation Bangladesh can be a beneficiary to it."

Dr. Rahman's latest revelations testify the 'significant implications' of the transport corridor besides providing a new dimension to the psychological war that is tormenting the country.

The debate over transit and corridor issue in Bangladesh received a new twist when the Indians demanded that the passage through land route of the country should be provided for free under Article V of the WTO.

Shipping Minister Shahjahan Khan speaking in favour of fee waiver said, since Indians were constructing the road connection Bangladesh needed direly, why should they pay fee?

Dr. Mashiur Rahman technocrat advisor for economic affairs to the Prime Minister speaking in favour of the waiver of fee from Indian vehicle went to the extent of saying, "Had our country been an uncivilised one or our leaders been illiterate then we could have asked for the fees, but that's not the case."

He was speaking as the chief guest at the concluding session of the dialogue titled 'Cooperative Development, Peace and Security to South Asia and Central Asia: Strengthening India-Bangladesh Relations' in the city on March 31. Interpreting the WTO principles in own style he also said, "Transit facility should not be used for augmenting revenue rather to pass on the benefit to the customers."

"It's a non-starter if we think that by giving transit facility, Bangladesh is actually providing subsidy to Indian export," he added.

Favouring withdrawal of fees earlier, Dr Rahman wrote a letter to the Shipping Minister to stop collecting fees from ships carrying Indian consignments of hardware for the Palatana power project.

Subscribing to the advisor's views, National Board of Revenue (NBR), the concerned government agency, stopped collecting fees for Indian goods using passage through Bangladesh. The stoppage of fee collection was termed not 'waiver' but 'suspended' by the NBR.

The waiver introduced following Dr. Rahman's letter will continue till "further decision", according to newspaper reports. The text of the technocrat advisor's letter to the Shipping Minister and the grounds of waiver on movement of Indian goods, however, have not yet been made public. 

In an interview with The Daily Star he quoted a few lines from the definition of 'transit' given in UNCTAD Technical Note 8, avoiding some other crucial points from the same note.

Borrowing definition from the Technical Note, Dr. Rahman in his own style gave the definition of transit during his interview. We however are producing the same segment of as per the technical note: "In the WTO context, goods are defined to be in transit when the crossing of the territory of another WTO Member constitutes only part of the journey between departure and final destination country, whether or not transshipment, warehousing, breaking of bulk or change in transport mode are involved."

What is important here are the next few lines, in which setting few conditions for transit it says, "GATT Article V therefore only refers to so-called through-transit, i.e. transit in the GATT context, normally involves at least three states. It should be noted that in the context of Customs transit regimes (see UNCTAD Technical Note on Customs Transit), other parts of a journey are also defined as constituting transit, notably inward transit (from a Customs office of entry to an inland Customs office), outward transit (from the inland Customs office to the Customs office of exit) and interior transit (from one inland Customs office to another in the same country)."

Trade facilitation negotiation that began in 2004, seeks improvement and clarification of Article V of the WTO along with Articles VIII and X. The process of negotiation while in process already agreed that "the results of the negotiations shall fully take in to account the principle of special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries" and that "the negotiations shall further aim at enhancing technical assistance and support for capacity building." 

During the negotiation process countries concerned in the WTO also involved its researchers, academics, business leaders, professionals, government officials and journalists. Bangladesh is no exception to this.

Sachin Chaturvedi, an Indian expert involved in the negotiation process wrote in his findings that Article V 'has limited relevance in the case of Bangladesh, as it is not bordered by any landlocked country'

Along with Chaturvedi many from Bangladesh also participated in the trade facilitation discussions and also carried out researches for the purpose and also earned good amount. Are they not aware of the implication of Article V? This group of researchers and academics, considered to be the conscience of the nation, at this stage, however, seem to be maintaining conspicuous silence.

Those who talked about enriching the exchequer by billions from transit fee also went into hibernation once the Indians started demanding passage through Bangladesh under Article V of the WTO and without any fee. Before taking the discussion ahead let us see the provisions of Article V:

Article V of GATT: Article V of the GATT 1994 provides for the freedom of transit of goods, vessels and other means of transport across the territory of another WTO via the routes most convenient for international transit.

It stipulates the following principles of freedom of transit:

(i) equal treatment independent of flag of vessel origin, departure, entry, exit, destination or ownership of the goods, vessels;

(ii) prohibition to make traffic in transit subject to unnecessary delays or restrictions;

(iii) prohibition to levy customs duties, transit duties and other transit related charges (except for charges for transportation or those commensurate with administrative expenses entailed by transit, or with the cost of services rendered);

(iv) level of charges levied should be reasonable to the conditions of traffic),:

(v) Most favoured nation treatment with regards to charges, regulations and formalities.

Finance Minister AMA Muhith and Foreign Minister Dr. Dipu Moni on a number of occasions publicly ruled out waiver of fees on movement of Indian goods through Bangladesh saying that those would be 'country's income'.

Political leaders, in the opposition camp failed to capitalize on this visible rift in the ruling establishment. Those who earlier claimed to 'lay down their lives to prevent transit to India' also seem to have lost their strength and wisdom to question the legitimacy of such demands. It is time they realize that an effective study on the norms and practices across the globe and their comparison with the deal that Bangladesh had signed is now needed. It is also important to make public the terms of reference under the MOU. Mere rhetoric and lip service is not going to be effective this time around.

Whether India has legitimately sought passage through Bangladesh under Article V of the WTO or misinterpreted it to its own advantage can be understood from a World Bank publication under the title 'The Transit Regime for Landlocked States: International Law and Development Perspectives'

Freedom of transit provided in Article V of WTO is 'not a right that any state can exercise in other transit states without their consent,' the book observes making a threadbare discussion on 'Principles, Doctrines, and Theories Influencing the Right of Access to the Sea'.

'To be eligible to claim this right the demanding state must fulfill certain eligibility criteria,' the book points out adding 'The criteria are considered fulfilled for LLS specifically due to their geographical position and economic dependence, which together create a presumption in their favor of a right of transit'.

Observers question how India has fulfilled the eligibility criteria with Bangladesh before seeking free passage through its territory. Perhaps those in favour for waiver of transit fees are in better position to answer.

The writers are members of the Transit Study group

http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=6972



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___