সময় পেলেই ক্যমেরা নিয়ে বের হই।সেদিন ঘুরতে ঘুরতেু আর কোন ছবিই পাচ্ছিলাম না – হাইকোর্টের কাছাকাছি আসতেই তার দেখা পেলাম। কি দারুণ একটা সাবজেক্ট – লাল চোখ, মাথায় লাল পাগড়ি, মুখ ভর্তি দাড়ি আর গায়ে শতছিন্ন কোট। কিন্তু ছবি তুলতে গেলেই বিপত্তি শুরু – আমারে এই মারে ত ওই মারে, আমি সাংবাদিক, গাঞ্জা খাওায়ার রিপোর্ট করতেই নাকি আমি আসছি। যাইহোক তারে বোঝাতে পারলাম আমি সাংবাদিক না, কিন্ত পরলাম আরেক সমস্যায়। কঠিন স্বরে তার প্রশ্ন তাইলে ছবি দিয়া আমার কাজ কি। নির্ঘাত তাইলে আমার অন্য ধান্দা আছে। শেষ পর্যন্ত তাকে ছবি তুলতে রাজি করাতে পারলাম – শর্ত একটাই, তার একটা ছবি চাই।

ছবি তুলে ভাবছিলাম মানুষ চাইলে কত সাধারন জীবনযাপন করতে পারে – লোকটার রুটি-রুজির কোন চিন্তা নাই। ঘুরে ফিরে টুকটাক কাজ কর্মেই তার বেশ চলে যায়। হাইকোর্টের মাজারে এসে এরা কি যেন খোজে………

গতকাল ছিল ২ আগস্ট। ১৯৯৯ সালের এই দিনে স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের ইতিহাসে অভূতপূর্ব একটা ঘটনা ঘটে। ছাত্রজনতার ধাওয়ার মুখে ইতিহাসে প্রথমবারের মতো কোন বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ক্যাম্পাস থেকে ক্ষমতাসীন দলের সন্ত্রাসীরা প্রাণ নিয়ে পালাতে বাধ্য হয়েছিল। দেড়মাসের জন্য হলেও জাহাঙ্গীরনগর ক্যাম্পাস সম্পূর্ণভাবে আমাদের নির্বাচনী রাজনীতির দুই স্তম্ভ বাংলাদেশ আওয়ামী লীগ আর বাংলাদেশ জাতীয়তাবাদী দলের দুই লুম্পেন ছাত্র সংগঠন ছাত্রলীগ আর ছাত্রদলের নিয়ন্ত্রণমুক্ত থেকেছিল। ১৯৭২ সালে থেকে শুরু করে আজ পর্যন্ত সেই আগস্ট-সেপ্টেম্বরের ঐ কয়টা দিনই আক্ষরিক অর্থে স্বাধীন বাংলাদেশের কোন শিক্ষাঙ্গন লুম্পেনদের দখলদারিমুক্ত ছিল।

ঘটনা অতি সংক্ষিপ্ত। খিয়াল কৈরা এইটা আর এইটা , এই দুইটা পোস্ট পৈড়া আসেন আগে। তাইলে এই পোস্টের এই অংশের সাথে মোটামুটি কমিউনিকেট করতারবেন।

 ১৯৯৮ সালের সেপ্টেম্বর মাসের শেষ সপ্তাহে গণঅভ্যুত্থানের মুখে বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় কর্তৃপক্ষের সত্যাসত্য যাচাই কমিটি ধর্ষণকারী ছাত্রলীগ নেতাদের নাম প্রকাশ করতে বাধ্য হলে ধর্ষণকারী এবং ধর্ষণকারীদের সমর্থনকারী ছাত্রলীগ নেতাকর্মীদের নেতৃস্থানীয়রা ক্যাম্পাস ছাড়তে বাধ্য হয়। ১৯৯৮ সালের সেপ্টেম্বরের ২৭/২৮ তারিখ থেকে একেবারে ১৯৯৯ সালের ৩০ জুলাই পর্যন্ত ক্যাম্পাস একভাবে মুক্তই ছিল। যদিও কিলার গ্রুপ তখন ক্যাম্পাস নিয়ন্ত্রণ করছিল, কিন্তু কেন্দ্রের আর প্রশাসনের সমর্থনের অভাবে তাঁরা তাঁদের প্রত্যাশিত ক্যারিশমা দেখাতে পারছিলেন না। তাঁদের নিয়ন্ত্রণ সেই সময় একভাবে ক্যাম্পাস পাহারা দেওয়া ছাড়া আর কিছুই ছিল না। অন্তত আমার হলে ঐসময় ঠিক এই বাস্তবতাই বিরাজ করছিল। ১৯৯৯ সালের ৩০ জুলাই ছাত্রলীগ নেতা ধর্ষণকারী বরকতের নেতৃত্বে ধর্ষণকারী গ্রুপ তার সমর্থকদের আর সাথে নিরাপত্তারক্ষী হিসেবে তখনকার পত্রিকার রেফারেন্সমতে মোহাম্মদপুরের ইমনগ্রুপের সন্ত্রাসীদের নিয়া জাবি ক্যাম্পাসে ঢোকে। খুব মজার ব্যাপার হৈল ছাত্রলীগের কিলারগ্রুপ এমনিতে ক্যাম্পাসের ভিতরে খুব হম্বিতম্বি করলেও সেদিন ঠিকই বামপন্থীদের সাথে একসাথে আন্ডারগ্রাউন্ডে যাইতে বাধ্য হইছিল। এর মোটামুটি ৪৮ ঘন্টা পরে এই বামপন্থীদের নেতৃত্বে বিশাল গণমিছিলের ধাওয়া খাইয়া বাংলাদেশ ছাত্রলীগের ধর্ষণকারীগ্রুপের সমর্থকরা হল ছাইড়া ভাগতে বাধ্য হয়। ঠিক এইটাই ইতিহাস। এইটা এমনই একটা ইতিহাস যেইটা সম্পর্কে গাফফার চৌধুরী টাইপ আওয়ামী বুদ্ধিজীবিদের অ্যাবসলুউটলি কিছুই বলার নাই। ইতিহাসের রেফারেন্সগুলি এতোই শক্ত যে আ করতে গেলেই আলা জিবলা বরাবর জুতা ফিক্কা মারা হৈবো।

 আমি ঐ ঘটনার প্রত্যক্ষদর্শী না। ১৯ জুলাই থিকা আমি হাসপাতালে। ছিনতাইকারীর কোপ খাইয়া ডান হাত আর বাম ঠ্যাং আকাশে দিয়া চিৎ হইয়া আছি। বর্তমানে সচলদের মধ্যে যূথচারী, সবুজ বাঘ, শশাঙ্ক আর আয়েশা আখতার সেই ঐতিহাসিক ধাওয়ার প্রত্যক্ষ অ্যাক্টিভিস্ট। সবুজ বাঘ সেদিন ঘুষি দিয়ে জনৈক রেপিস্টের জানালা ভেঙে ফেলেছিলেন। কেউ যদি সেই সময়কার ছবিগুলি দেখতে চান তাহলে ডেইলী স্টারের ১৯৯৯ সালের ১-৩ আগস্টের ইস্যু আর স্টার ম্যাগাজিনের যেই ইস্যুটা ২ আগস্টের পরে বের হয়েছিল সেটা জোগাড় করতে পারেন। ঐটা আমার কাছেও নাই। কেউ পেলে আমাকে একটা মেইল কইরেন, পাওয়ার উপায়সহ

 লিখেছেন সুমন চৌধুরী (তারিখ: মঙ্গল, ২০০৯-০৮-০৪ ০৩:৫৮)

 Former students of the university Shahriar Parveen Kakoli and Mozammel Haque also addressed the programme.
   They called on the students to avoid hostility in politics and dedicate themselves for the development of Bangladesh.
   The university administration has expelled 17 students following the July 6 clashes.
   The vice-chancellor of the university, Sharif Enamul Kabir, told New Age on Friday that the administration would review the expulsion order after the investigation committee, formed on July 6, submitted its report.
   The committee was allowed 45 days to submit their findings, he added.

http://www.newagebd.com/2010/jul/10/nat.html

The New Age, 1 May 2010 http://www.newagebd.com/2010/may/01/nat.html

THE Awami League-led government is likely to conclude the production sharing contract, also known as the model PSC 2008, with the trans-national oil and gas exploration company ConocoPhillips, which is the third largest energy company in the US. The model PSC 2008 was initiated by the military-controlled interim government. However, the entire process came to a halt in the face of strong criticism from all quarters, including the Awami League. It was argued that such issues of national interests should be dealt with by an elected government. More than nine months into her tenure, the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, has recently said, at a session of the ninth Jatiya Sangsad, that her government would go forward with its plan to lease deep-sea gas blocks in the Bay of Bengal. She claimed that those opposing the model PSC were undermining her government’s good intention to combat energy crisis. A few days earlier, her energy adviser claimed that the model PSC had been the most transparent ever and could be viewed on the Petrobangla website. The words of the prime minister and her energy adviser tend to suggest that a band of unpatriotic people may be out to malign the government’s effort to resolve the energy and power crisis.

 Meanwhile, the parliamentary standing committee on the power, energy and mineral resources ministry exchanged views with representatives of the National Committee to Protect Oil, Gas, Natural Resources and Power and Port, a citizens’ forum that has been demanding amendments on some critical issues such as share of profit and cost recovery, options for export, measurement point, options for liquefied natural gas and transportation mechanism. But no development has so far been made and the government seems to stick to its stance in the face of all criticisms. Interestingly, the main opposition party has neither rejected nor proposed any amendment to the model PSC. It seems that the government and the main opposition party have reached a consensus on this issue.

 If readers go through the model PSC, most of them would arrive at the conclusion that it is a hard nut to crack. But questions can genuinely be raised how we can offer 80 per cent of the reserve, 55 per cent as recovery cost when we do not even know the actual reserve. A single sentence in the 113-page document has made the PSC a questionable offering. To support the model PSC, examples have been drawn from Myanmar and Nigerian PSCs which have similar profit and cost recovery ratios. Readers will agree that both these countries are worst possible examples. Why we do have to follow countries when one is run by the ‘military junta’ and another with a long history of corruption? Why are we not looking at the PSC that Indonesia has recently awarded to Niko Resources where the latter holds 50 per cent interest?

 Argument has been put forward that Sangu, the lone gas field in the Bay of Bengal, is a very successful example of gas extraction from the sea. But Sangu is located in shallow water which is roughly 49 kilometres into the sea from the Chittagong shore. Petrobangla installed the pipeline through a subcontract awarded to Halliburton. It is to be noted that Petrobangla installed its own pipeline for gas transmission. So, it can be assumed that under model PSC 2008, Petrobangla has to install ‘necessary facilities’, i.e. pipeline for gas transmission, the failure of which will only lead to export in the form of LNG. So Sanjgu can no way be an example of success story for deep-sea explorations.

Again, the model PSC stipulates that (article 30.8) an arbitration tribunal shall conduct any arbitration in accordance with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law rules. According to available information, Bangladesh is still not a member of this UN entity and, therefore, cannot expect to resolve any dispute under its umbrella. Why such a perilous provision has been added? Though Bangladesh has suffered at least two major blowouts, the model PSC seems to have taken the compensation issue very lightly. Bangladesh has bilateral treaty that enables a foreign investor to make any kind of transfer into and out of Bangladesh without any delay. It has been alleged that under the amour of this treaty, Occidental, the US company responsible for the Magurchara blow-out, left Bangladesh without settling the compensation issue. The model PSC must have a provision that if any company is found responsible for such blow-out, it can no way leave Bangladesh before settling compensation issues.

It has been argued that there would be no export of gas from the country. Then what necessitates the provision of export? The answer has also been given – to attract trans-national companies. In view of the current crisis of gas and future demand, the model PSC could provide a purchase guarantee that would make investment of trans-national companies safe and secure. Again, the US Energy Information Administration predicts that the US could face a gap in supply of natural gas of about 6 trillion cubic feet by 2030. The USEIA expects LNG imports to reach 4.36tcf a year by 2030 or about 16 per cent of total US consumption. Interestingly, ConocoPhillips Worldwide LNG was among others to sponsor a study titled ‘Introduction to LNG’. The study was conducted by the Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin. The study suggests that US companies should invest in the LNG value chain so that it is available in the US. So, a correlation seems to exist between ‘LNG’ and ‘export’.

 Any kind of exploration, both inland and offshore requires significant amount of capital, the major share of which involves a very high fixed cost. This creates a barrier to entry for both developing and least developed countries in large-scale explorations. Bangladesh has been a fine example of such a situation. At this point, trans-national companies usually come to rescue us. And we have traditionally failed to monitor activities and guarantee accountability of these companies. The model PSC has been no exception to this trend. The ultimate goal of trans-national companies is to pursue profitability and the strategy of pursuing profitability has often lead to undesirable practices. Here in Bangladesh, such practices are discovered with a regular interval of five years with change in power.

In this regard, it would not be irrelevant to inform readers that an US company, Oceanic Exploration, filed a multibillion dollar lawsuit in 2004 against ConocoPhillips claiming that the latter had bribed high officials of the East Timor government to secure the Timor Sea Treaty and a favourable tax regime. Although the lawsuit was finally dismissed in 2008, it portrays a scenario of games that trans-national companies play in winning contracts. Successive governments have failed to negotiate any such agreement on better terms since resources are located in our territory and trans-national companies may only process these if they have access to resources.

The scope of using energy resources strategically in terms of increasing the bargaining power of our government vis-à-vis trans-national companies seem more limited nowadays. These trans-national companies these days have emerged as mega corporations through merger which has significantly contributed to their increase in terms of size, range of activities and finally economic power in global and local economy. In this context these companies have been able to a great extent to politically influence democratically elected governments in countries like Bangladesh in pursuit of their own interest, potentially overriding public interest. The current government needs to realise that two-thirds majority does not necessarily reflect people’s aspiration towards this model PSC.

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/oct/23/edit.html

 (Published in the New Age on Friday 22 October 2009)

   In the face of the global economic crisis, the first summit was held in Washington on financial markets and the global economy where the G-20 leaders committed to an action plan. It was later renewed and reviewed at the London summit in April 2009. The earlier summit at the London’s Excel Centre made six pledges – to restore confidence, growth, and jobs; to repair the financial system to restore lending; to strengthen financial regulation to rebuild trust; to fund and reform international financial institutions; to promote global trade and investment and reject protectionism, to underpin prosperity; and to build an inclusive, green, and sustainable recovery. Taking into cognisance of the recovery of the world economy, particularly of the developed countries, it seems that the London summit was a success. This was largely due to cut in interest rates, expansionary policy followed by most central banks and concessional finance for the poorest countries by the international financial institutions, particularly by the International Monetary Fund, which was pledged in London an additional resource of $750 billion.

   Still, there are things that can make the developing countries cynical about such a summit. One is the establishment of the Financial Stability Board as a successor of the Financial Stability Forum. The FSB is based in Basel, Switzerland at headquarters’ of the Bank for International Settlement which has a history of playing controversial and dark roles. In addition, the FSB is chaired by Mario Draghi, governor of the Bank of Italy and a former partner at Goldman Sachs. These raise a logical question whether the FSB would be able to serve its mandate to develop and implement strong regulatory, supervisory and other policies in the interest of financial stability.

   The pre-summit London meeting held earlier this September vowed to continue life support package until the world economy regains its health. The London meeting also agreed that emerging nations should have a greater say as regards the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As regards climate change, the meet vowed that they would work towards a successful outcome at the Copenhagen summit in coming December. This meeting did not discuss the issue of resisting protectionism in broad detail which they pledged in the April summit. The London summit was held at such a time when world trade growth was falling for the first time in 25 years. Ever since the recession started rolling down, it has been argued by experts and of course admitted by the developed countries that protectionism has been a ‘historic mistake’ of previous era. But till date the developing world is yet to witness any such action.

  The Doha Development Round vowed to ‘recognise that the integration of the LDCs into the multilateral trading system requires meaningful market access.’ Little has so far been done towards the successful completion of the DDR. The G-20 leaders in London committed themselves to reach an ‘ambitious and balanced conclusion to the DDR’ that would boost the world economy by not less than $ 150 billion every year. Any such positive conclusion largely depends on duty- and quota-free access by the LDCs which has been recognised as the most powerful tool that can make the much debated market access issue meaningful. The upcoming Pittsburgh summit is an opportunity for world leaders to deliver what they had promised in the bygone days. It is time that they avoided diplomatic language and went for some real action.

   The world leaders also reaffirmed their commitment to Gleneagles Commitments and the Millennium Development Goals and agreed on the issue of preferential treatment that it was an effective tool for poverty reduction and economic growth. It is worth mentioning that the United Nations through the MDGs has urged all its members, developed countries in particular to address special needs of LDCs by adopting DFQF market access for LDCs for all exportable. The Gleneagles Commitments emphasised the need for easing the Rules of Origin so that they can be followed in a more flexible way. The US has long been following an unbending policy to allow to 97 per cent of products from LDCs while the rest of the products include clothing and agricultural products which LDCs can produce competitively. Other G-20 countries namely Japan and South Korea also have product exclusion. Although the European Union offers 100 per cent duty- and quote-free access under its Everything but Arms initiative, the Rules of Origin provisions have hindered the LDCs from taking advantage of such an opportunity. So the upcoming G-20 summit has opened up an opportunity for world leaders to deliver on the promises they made.

   Again, worries are there that world leaders are yet to determine a definite figure to help developing countries combat climate change. The early September meeting did not give priority to this issue. World leaders must make progress ahead of the Copenhagen summit with only 90 days in hand. Any triviality will only result in creating mistrust within the poor developing countries. Meanwhile, the European Commission has put forwarded a proposal of $ 21.8 billion in aid to poor developing countries so that they can be pursued to sign a deal at the Copenhagen summit. But money is not the only thing that will fight irreversible impact of climate change, innovative risk management tools should be offered as well.

   The US president Barak Obama will chair meeting of the world leaders that represent 85 per cent of the world economy. In his first speech on the Pittsburgh G-20 summit, Obama asserted that he has chosen Pittsburgh as it stands as an example of ‘how to create new jobs and industries while transitioning to a 21st century economy.’ It has created high hopes both among the US citizens and among the people from around the globe. The US being the driver of the G-20 faces the challenge to re-energise its alliances. It has been recognised by the Obama administration that this goal can be attained by broadening engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. It is time to watch whether the world leaders have moved towards the right direction or have waved another possible catastrophe.

Published in the New Age on 17.09.09

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/sep/17/oped.html

   Now let us have a look at the International Monetary Fund’s role here in Bangladesh. The last caretaker government planned to impose safeguard duties aimed towards supporting local industries by restraining import surge. It was halted by International Monetary Fund’s intervention and disapproval which it apparently claimed was against WTO rules. For least developed countries like Bangladesh, safeguard duty has been a recognised instrument, to protect local industries. In July 2007, the monetary fund welcomed Bangladesh Bank’s contractionary monetary policy which was an outcome of repeated IMF pressure. Needless to mention, the International Monetary Fund has always advocated for similar policies for other Least Developed Countries. In a bid to further strengthen its control over policy formulation, in September of the same year, the multilateral agency proposed to introduce joint audit system for income tax and value added tax which was refused by the National Board of Revenue. Back in April this year, the monetary fund recommended devaluating the taka against the dollar which elicited sharp criticism from different quarters. In a statement in May 2009, the IMF’s Bangladesh Resident Mission termed Bangladesh Bank’s decision to administer lending rates as ‘regrettable’ and said that such ‘rates should be determined through market-based policy interest rates influenced by the central bank’. Such observation is contradictory to the IMF’s policy suggestion that governments should take forceful actions to combat global recession. John Lipsky, the IMF’s First Deputy Managing Director, in a speech in Paris on June 26 said that ‘monetary policy should remain accommodative for the time being’ and recommended clear exit strategy ‘for government intervention in both the fiscal and monetary areas’. The IMF has always sought for contractionary monetary policy for countries like Bangladesh. But when it fails, they seem to come up with a common idea of being ‘accommodative’ for all.

   Just a few days back the Sri Lankan trade minister GL Peiris accused the monetary fund for politicising financial aid when the latter’s executive board was delaying a $1.9 billion bailout fund. Sri Lanka, in a bid to meet her balance of payments deficit in four years, negotiated the deal with the International Monetary Fund. The agency did not make any comment on Peiris’s claim that the bailout was being delayed on the issue of Colombo’s all out war against the Tamil separatists.

   Now let us look back to the mid 1990’s when the soviet communist bloc finally collapsed and the International Monetary Fund took the driver’s seat in priviatising the soviet industrial machine. This was viewed by the IMF and its major shareholders as a success as they only wanted Yeltsin to be re-elected. The election was highly controversial which later awarded the capitalist backed oligarchs to own Russia’s industrial assets. This resulted in the emergence of a mafia syndicate which controlled everything. Corruption scheme nearly cut national output by half causing hunger and despair.

   In April 2006, the IMF and the World Bank jointly commissioned an external review committee headed by Pedro Malan, former Brazilian finance minister to evaluate the relationship between the two Bretton Woods institutions. The report stated that the IMF was not well equipped as a development institution and therefore, suggested that the IMF should stop making development loans to low-income countries, leaving that responsibility to the World Bank. The Malan committee report justifies IMF’s reform movement that started through initiation of policy support instrument in late 2005. The IMF initiated the instrument at a time when many low income countries were about to complete their ongoing arrangements and the third world countries had a relatively abundant stock of foreign exchange. Needless to mention, the Poverty Reduction Grant Facility and the Poverty Reduction Strategy served as useful tools for the monetary fund to intervene into the policy making process of low income countries. Bangladesh was also offered to enter into an agreement to initiate the policy support instrument but both the government and the fund apparently backed due to the sharp criticism across the country. Finally in September 2007, the caretaker government announced that it was of the view that there was no such need for policy support for Bangladesh at that time.

   In May 2006, the IMF commissioned a committee comprising of eminent persons that included among others Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, Guillermo Ortíz, governor of the Bank of Mexico and Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank. This committee was headed by Andrew Crockett, president of JP Morgan Chase International. The objective of this committee was to study ‘sustainable long-term financing’ of the multilateral lending agency i.e. to suggest alternative income sources for the crisis-torn IMF with a projected budget shortfall of $370 million by 2010. It is to be mentioned here that in 2007, the IMF had an operational cost of about $980 million. Large borrowers, for example Brazil, Argentina and Indonesia have cleared their dues indicating no further inclination to renew their arrangements with the agency. The only large borrower is Turkey with two-thirds of IMF’s total lending. The IMF, as the Economist referred to it, has now virtually become ‘The Turkish Monetary Fund’. The Latin American countries are planning to set up a new bank ‘Banco del Sur’ —Bank of the South— under Venezuelan leadership. Thailand and the Philippines have said ‘NO’ to IMF and aim to form Bank of Debtors by excluding the IMF; China and India hardly have any relation with the IMF. Rejecting the IMF and World Bank’s prescriptions, Asian countries like Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, and the Philippines have been very successful in shaping their economies.

   The IMF needs to remain relevant in the changing global financial system and needs to redefine its role as an international financial institution. China has emerged as a major player in the global economy and even making investments in many countries. With an aim to find alternative to the international financial institutions, particularly the International Monetary Fund, fast growing economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China have formed BRIC, aimed at finding alternative instruments or modify the existing ones. BRIC in a recent move announced that they were ready to buy a total of $60 billion worth of IMF bonds that would boost the role of Special Drawing Rights in international finance. There is, therefore, a solid risk that international financial institutions will lose their control over borrowers, particularly the least developed countries.

   In September 2006, Nouriel Roubini, a professor of the Stern School of Business at New York University delivered a lecture at the IMF where he warned that the US consumers were about to ‘burn out’. The IMF in an in-house newsletter covered the story under the headline ‘meet Dr Doom’. Again in September 2007, the IMF organised a seminar on ‘The Risk of a US Hard Landing and Implications for the Global Economy and Financial Markets’ which was addressed by Dr Doom among others. However, Roubini has by now become a prophet for the fund and not quite the Dr Doom as he was initially slated to be. Even after being cautioned about a probable recession, the IMF did not make any indication that a financial tsunami was likely to hit the global economy. Particularly the IMF failed to foresee and prevent outbreak of major financial crisis. The self correcting mechanism theory of the IMF which has always avoided the avenue of stronger market regulation has failed. Yet it is too early to say whether the IMF will lose its relevancy. If the IMF wants to remain relevant in the global economy, however, it must reform itself and reform without delay.

(Published in the New Age on 27.07.09)

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/jul/27/edit.html

Published in the New Age on 1 June 2009

THE Awami League Government appears to be considering the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement with the United States quite seriously. As of yet, the current draft has neither been opened to the public, nor to the experts. However, the agreement has attracted a lot of attention.

   In recent years a growing number of trade and investment framework agreements have been signed between the US and other countries. Many trade experts argue that America is pursuing the bilateral course outside the World Trade Organisation as a means to maintain control over least developed countries under the guise of ‘cooperative effort’. If the least developed countries can be managed through such bilateral treaties, it will be easier for the US to pursue its desired trade policy within the multilateral framework without much resistance. After Sri Lanka (July 2002), Pakistan (June 2003) and Afghanistan (September 2004), Bangladesh is in line to be the fourth country in South Asia to sign such an agreement.

   ‘A Trade and Investment Framework Agreement is a consultative mechanism for the United States to discuss issues affecting trade and investment with another country’ is how the US defines the agreement where the emphasis is on the mechanism of consultation. However, there is no clarity as to what kind of consultations would take place. In view of previous experience, it is not difficult to guess that the relative bargaining strength will be the determining factor in this agreement.

   According to the agreement’s earlier draft, the framework agreement’s objectives are to increase and diversify trade and investment opportunities and to strengthen bilateral economic relationship by increasing commercial and investment opportunities. At the same time it also talks about removal of impediments to trade and investment flows. Traditionally, the US has tried to include human rights, labour standards and environment besides others things in trade agreements. But least developed countries have opposed such inclusion rightly, pointing out that these were protectionist measures. Bangladesh has so far ratified seven out of eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation — the remaining one relates to ratification of convention 138 on minimum age. If there is a framework agreement, there should be a provision to judge international labour standards in accordance with Bangladesh’s own labour laws and that of the UN organisation.

   The US government considers the framework agreement for those that are at the ‘beginning stages of opening up their economies’ to international trade and investment and for economies that are traditionally isolated or relatively closed. The Bangladesh economy does not conform to the first category; the term isolated may refer to the economy of Myanmar but Bangladesh’s trade openness is around 45 per cent of GDP at present which was about 20 per cent at the beginning of the 1990s. The growth rate of openness during the 1990s has been 5.3 per cent and four per cent since 2000.

   It was mentioned in the framework agreement that both countries will expand trade in ‘goods and services’. It should be mentioned that service sector constitutes about 80 per cent of the US economy, while for Bangladesh it is only 48 per cent. The so-called ‘structural change model of development’ may not be applicable in this case. There should be an effective demand for those services in Bangladesh for trade to flourish.

   Bangladesh should also not agree to any clause relating to intellectual property rights which may force Bangladesh to implement them before 2016. All such framework agreements contain a clause which ‘recognises the importance of providing adequate and effective protection and enforcement’ of intellectual property rights. But as a least developed country, Bangladesh is exempted from such obligations till 2016 under the World Trade Organisation. In July 1995 the US and Nicaragua signed a bilateral investment treaty, conditional upon Nicaragua providing adequate and effective protection for US intellectual property rights. Later in January 1998 the US and Nicaragua signed a bilateral intellectual property rights agreement which was to be implemented by July 1999, ahead of Nicaragua’s stipulated deadline to do so under the global trade forum (January 1, 2000). Intellectual property rights have been an economic and political weapon for multinational corporations and for the developed countries.

   By implementing intellectual property rights, Bangladesh will need to extend protection for branded drugs, start patenting plants and animals, computer software and extend copyright protection. As a result, farmers might be forced not to preserve seeds or reproduce fish breeds or livestock. Copyright protection will adversely affect students, universities and libraries. In case of computer software, open source movement has become very popular as a cheap alternative to corporations like Microsoft. Implementation of intellectual property rights may very well lead to corporate monopoly.

   Bangladesh signed a bilateral investment treaty with the US during the despotic regime of HM Ershad, on March 12, 1986. Reportedly, the framework agreement of 2005, in its preamble, acknowledged this treaty. It is still unknown whether the current draft still ‘acknowledges’ this treaty. It has been around 23 years that the previous agreement was signed. Before finalising the framework agreement, the bilateral treaty on reciprocal encouragement and protection of investment needs to be revised.

   Many of our neighboring countries have not yet signed the framework agreement. Two of the Asian giants, China and India, see 21 per cent and 17 per cent of their exports respectively going to the American market. A question can genuinely be raised why neither has such a framework agreement in place.
   In May 2003, the Stevedoring Services of America, a US company, lost a legal battle over building a private port facility in Bangladesh. The Supreme Court ruled that the approval of and follow-up works for construction of two private terminals at Patenga and Narayanganj by the company as arbitrary and illegal. The court verdict observed that the government did not consider applications of two British and Australian companies which were interested in the Patenga terminal. Trade in service has been a major concern from the American side in all the framework agreements. So the proposed agreement raises concern that it could target securing the interest of the Stevedoring Services of America and other US companies.

   The government is expecting funds from the Millennium Challenge Account which is sponsored by the American government. Many argue that the government is proceeding with the framework agreement in haste only to secure access to this fund. Allocation from this fund is made on the basis of three basic indices — corruption, governance and democracy.

   Before finalisation of the framework agreement or any other agreements, the government should duly consider Bangladesh’s interests first. The framework agreement must ensure that Bangladesh enjoys duty and quota free access to the US market. To safeguard the national interest of both the countries, this agreement should contain an article concerning amendment of the treaty through mutual consent. Particularly, the framework agreement should include ‘temporary movement of labour’ — more popularly mode 4 — with regard to movement of natural persons. Parliamentary standing committees have not been formed as yet. Any such treaty should be discussed in the standing committees on foreign affairs and commerce. The commerce ministry may set up a taskforce including representatives from stakeholder groups, trade experts, chamber leaders along with officials from relevant ministries. This committee could then review the draft and seek opinion as well. Participation in negotiations without properhomework may turn out to be catastrophic for Bangladesh.

(published in the New Age on 15.02.09)

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/feb/15/oped.html