Democracy Returns in Bangladesh

Sheikh Hasina Wajed's Awami league won the Bangladesh elections on 30th December 2008 with an overwhelming majority. As a winner of the first parliamentary elections in seven years, she has urged her defeated rival, Khaleda Zia, who leads the rival Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) to accept the results. Hasina has offered cabinet posts to the BNP in return for cooperation. "I think she should accept the people's verdict because this election is a free, fair and transparent election," said Hasina. The Awami League leader said: "We call upon all who participated in the election, that in a parliamentary election, we can all work together. I'm ready to work with everybody."

Bangladesh Awami League has secured more than 260 seats in parliament, while BNP won 31. In 2001 elections, the BNP had got landslide victory. The BNP-led alliance has complained of rigging at more than 200 polling stations.

Backdrop
In the aftermath of the the withdrawal of the state of emergency on 17 December 2008 by the Caretaker Government, and the restoration of rights that had been fully or partially curbed in Bangladesh during the past two years, Bangladesh Election Commission set a new date of 29 December for general elections. The polls were earlier planned for 18 December but Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), one of the country's two main parties had refused to participate saying that it needed more time. The BNP of former prime minister Khaleda Zia wanted the elections to be deferred to the month of January, 2009.

She has been country's Prime Minister thrice. She is the wife of slain President
General Ziaur Rahman, one of the sector commanders of Liberation War Sector Commander and announcer of Independence declaration on behalf of Bangabandhu in 1971.

Its main rival, the Awami League Party of Sheikh Hasina has termed the delay in holding the elections as unfair. Hasina too has been the Prime Minister thrice.

Due to the military take over, the election due for early 2007 under neutral care taker government were postponed. Months of strikes and street violence forced the army to step in and postpone the elections in 2006. The current caretaker government declared a state of emergency and locked up both party leaders on corruption charges. The declaration of state of emergency on 11 January 2007 and postponement of the general elections was necessitated by the violence between rival political groups from late October 2006 to early January 2007.

Even the last general elections of October 2001 were marred by violent clashes between members and supporters of opposing political parties.

However, it must be remembered that human rights groups like Amnesty International has noted that between January 2007 and August 2008, more than 200 persons died in what police, Rapid Action Battalion and army units deployed to maintain law and order have portrayed as "crossfire" but are suspected to be extra judicial executions.

The Hindu minority group has also been a target of electoral and communal violence. Student groups of the main political parties have been among the main perpetrators of political violence in Bangladesh. These groups include Bangladesh Chattra Dhal (BCD, affiliated to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party), Bangladesh Chattra League (affiliated
to the Awami League)and Islami Chattra Shibir (affiliated to Jamaat-e-Islami).

The partial withdrawal, on 3 November 2008, of the ban on political rallies was not implemented until 12 December. Journalists and human rights defenders have suffered during harassment, intimidation or abuse. Some of them claimed to have been tortured while in custody.

Right to Information Ordinance promulgated in October 2008 is likely to have a positive impact on freedom of expression when it comes into operation in early 2009.

Fear of attacks against minorities, including Hindus and Ahmadiyya community is a real concern. Electoral violence during and immediately after the parliamentary elections of October 2001 comprising of sporadic attacks against minorities. Crowds of assailants, whom journalists and survivors described as members of the Bangladesh
Nationalist Party (BNP)-led coalition, which won the elections, drove hundreds of Hindu families off their land, and in some cases burnt their homes, apparently on grounds of the Hindus' perceived support for the opposition Awami League party. Besides these minorities, Bengali settlers and indigenous communities especially in Chittagong Hill Tracts also need proper state protection.Statements by Jamaat-e-Islami and Jatiya Party (Ershad) that they will introduce blasphemy laws are of serious concern.

Bangladeshi newspapers reported that dozens of Hindu women had been raped and at least one Hindu man was hacked to death.

Bangladesh had a brief spell of credible democracy after independence in 1971, but went off-track after the death of founder president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in a 1975 military coup. Following a coup in 1977 army chief General Ziaur Rahman father of
Khaleda Zia declared himself as President in 1978. BNP of Khaleda Zia ruled the country from 1976 till the unfortunate murder of its founder in 1981.

General Ershad ruled the country from 1982 to 1991. BNP won the general elections and ruled the country from 1992-96. Khaleda Zia led alliance ruled the country from 2002-2006.

In exile, Sheikh Hasina became the leader of the Awami League. She returned to Bangladesh on May 17, 1981. Sheikh Hasina led Awami League ruled from 1996 to 2001. She is eldest and one of the surviving daughters of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who was killed with his entire family on August 15, 1975. She survived because she was on a visit to West Germany.

After years of rule by army generals in and out of uniform, Mujib's daughter Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia, the widow of slain president Ziaur Rahman, alternated as prime minister over a 15-year period ending in late 2006.

Mobilization of 50,000 troops by the Caretaker Government ensured peaceful elections in the country.

Interestingly, both the Prime Ministerial candidates were held in prison for a year on charges of alleged graft and abuse of power till recently.

Hasina

SHEIKH HASINA is the survivor of assassination spent six years in exile

She is the eldest of the five children of Bangabandhu, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was born on Sept. 28, 1947, at the place of her fathers birth-Tungipara in Gopalganj.
In 1968, she was married to an eminent scientist, M.A. Wazed Mih. They have a son and a daughter. Sheikh Hasina graduated from the University of Dhaka. She was active in student union. When the Bangabandhu was assassinated on Aug. 15, 1975, the assassins killed every member of his family they found in the house. Sheikh Hasina and her younger sister Sheikh Rehana escaped the fate of the rest

Alternatives to US Domination: Prof. Mahmood Mamdani

At the Press Club of India on 30 December 2008 an unusual lecture on 'The World before and after 9/11: alternatives to US domination' by Prof. Mahmood Mamdani, the author of Good Muslim Bad Muslim: America and the Roots of Terror traced the origin of political Islam in South Asia to the political struggles of 1857. His wife Mira Nair, the Film Director was also present along with the academia and media persons.

Mamdani referred to the influence of Jamaluddin Afghani of Iran, Abu ala Mawdudi and Syed Qutb on political Islam and said, "When I read Syed Qutb’s ’Milestones’, particularly the introduction where he says he wrote it for an Islamic vanguard, I thought I was reading Lenin’s ’What is to be Done?’ When I read the main text, particularly Qutb’s distinction between friend and enemy, a friend as one with whom you must use persuasion but an enemy as one who needs to be dealt with by force, I was reminded of Mao ze Dong’s distinction in his essay ’On the Correct Handling of Contradictions among the People”. Mamdani stated that Pakistanis are Hindus with Muslim names.

Given the widespread presence of language of politics in religion, he argued that the text must not be split from the context as is being done in the post cold war era. Sadly, even the international human rights discourse is not contexualising the crises. .
Terror is violence against civilians but it has a political base. Violence of Hamas is seeking reforms in the same way as African National Congress sought end of apartheid as a pre-condition for end of violence.

Illustrating from the developments in African nations, South Africa was cited as an example of deglobalizing conflicts because global powers have short-term stakes and they can run away at their whims and fancies but regional approach is long-term based because there is no escaping from the neighborhood. In spite of Pearl Harbor, World War Two was fought in Europe and Asia, not in the US. The Cold War was not fought in Europe, but in Southeast Asia, in Southern Africa, and in Central America. Right up to September 10, the US and Britain compelled African countries to reconcile with terrorist movements in the name of reconciliation - as in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone, and in Angola.

He evinced his strong dismissal of the tendency to distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims. Elsewhere he poses a question,"How do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? and has ridiculed the theorizations to the effect that terrorists of September 11 did not just hijack planes, they hijacked true Islam. In any case, Jihad is a struggle against external enemies of Islam, which is the Islamic version of the Christian notion of "just war". Mamdani says, "Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction."

In an article written for Social Science Research Journal, he has referred to the scenario in 1985 wherein Ronald Reagan met Afghani leaders of the Mujaheddin and introduced them to the media present at the White House lawn saying, "These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America's founding fathers" in order to harness one version of Islam in a struggle against the Soviet Union in the aftermath of US defeat in Vietnam and the collapse of the Portuguese empire in Africa in 1975. US cultivated terrorism in the struggle against regimes it considered pro-Soviet. It partnered with apartheid South Africa, which was accused by the UN of perpetrating "a crime against humanity." This partnership bolstered a number of terrorist movements: Renamo in Mozambique, and Unita in Angola to paralyze government. Very soon, US inspired terrorism shifted its focus to Central America, to Nicaragua and El Salvador.

It was in this and in the post Iranian Revolution of 1979 context that Afghanistan policy became its strategic intervention and roped in pro-American Islamic lobby. as well.

US administration hoped to turn a religious schism inside Islam, between minority Shia and majority Sunni, into a political schism to contain the influence of the Iranian Revolution as a minority Shia affair. Towards this aim it forged a US/Saudi (Wahabbism)/Pakistani/Mujaheddin (Taliban) alliance as alternatives to secular nationalism. and Israeli intelligence created Hamas as an alternative to the secular Palestine Liberation Organisation. These were covert and overt military interventions.

It is noteworthy that military issues are political issues which the Israeli way of hitting back with disproportionate force or the US way of pre-emptive war against terror or Saudi way of war on indecency does not recognise. Unless the political roots of military issues are taken cognisance of the shift from criminal justice to political justice is not possible.

Even terror has a political base but when a nation state has militarize, it downplays the political dimension but the same state when it chooses to demilitarize, it highlights the political aspect. It must be noted that political violence is political and criminal violence is social. Therefore, solutions to current military crisis must lies in the political domain. Violence cannot be its own explanation. The political development in the aftermath of Madrid bombing provides an alternative solution.

Underlining that Pakistan is a fragmented power, the South Asian crisis has a regional
dimension and it merits a regional solution. Taking the route of Israel-US-India nexus will have both internal and external costs for India.

It is a fact that South Asia as else where perhaps has been a witness to a regime of rampant impunity even for those who were involved in crimes against humanity.

In a context where violence has been privatized and there is a proxy war underway, the challenge lies in demilitarizing society. India can take the initiative in this regard not US even under Barack Obama who was initially a peace candidate but later he became an advocate of "right war".

Mamdani concluded, violence must be historicized. Language of justification cannot explain itself. It is understandable if a weak regional power seeks the help of global power but it is not understandable if strong regional power does the same.

Turkey, Egypt call on Israel immediately to stop Gaza air strikes

Turkey and Egypt has called on Israel immediately to stop bombs and killings in Gaza, killing more than 300 Palestinians.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and his Egyptian counterpart Ahmed Ali Aboul Gheit made a call for immediate cease-fire in Gaza.

Babacan and Gheit held a joint press conference following a tete-a-tete meeting at the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Monday.

"We discussed the developments in Gaza and exchanged opinions on the situation in the region," Babacan said. "In our meeting today, we evaluated what Turkey and Egypt, two influential countries in the region, can do," Babacan said.

"A large number of Palestinians lost lives due to Israel's attack on Gaza. More than 300 people have been killed and hundreds of others were injured in Israel's attacks," Babacan said.

"The developments in the region may hurt the regional stability. The peoples of the region are in a mood of anger. The tenseful atmosphere must be softened. We support the decision of the United Nations (UN) Security Council on Gaza two days ago. We call on Israel to immediately stop its military operation in Gaza," Babacan said.

On the other hand, Hamas should not be involved in activities that would justify Israeli attacks, Babacan said.

The people of Gaza are in a difficult position, Babacan said.

We can not remain indifferent to the situation in Gaza, Babacan said.

Calm between Israel and Hamas must be re-established and a cease-fire must be immediately implemented, Babacan said.

"Extremely dangerous"

Egyptian Foreign Minister Gheit said that he came to Ankara after a phone conversation between the presidents of Turkey and Egypt.

"The situation in the region is extremely dangerous. We condemn Israel's operations in Gaza," Gheit said.

Egypt, for the past six months, has been trying to establish calm between Israel and Palestine, Gheit said.

Clashes began again as the agreement facilitating calm was not renewed, Gheit said.

"The solution (in Gaza) lies on re-establishing a cease-fire. The two sides must end armed clashes. Calm must be re-established," Gheit said.

"We want the re-establishment of cease-fire and calm, the opening of border gates at Gaza and humanitarian assistance to reach the Palestinian people," Gheit said.

Gheit said that he brought a verbal message to Turkish President Abdullah Gul from the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=34014

‘Terrorism, Rule of Law & Human Rights’: Chief Justice

International conference of jurists on ‘Terrorism, Rule of Law & Human Rights’

Speech by Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice of India

Dr. Manmohan Singh / Sh. H.R. Bhardawaj / Esteemed colleagues / members of the bar / Ladies and Gentleman,

From our recent experience, we have learnt that terrorist attacks against innocent and unsuspecting civilians threaten the preservation of rule of law as well as human rights. Terrorism can broadly be identified with the use of violent methods in place of the ordinary tools of civic engagement and political participation. It has become an increasingly recurrent strategy for insurgent movements as well as identity-based groups to make their voice heard through armed attacks and bomb blasts in place of public dialogue. Independent India is no stranger to the problem of tackling armed terrorists and has faced long-running insurgencies as well as sporadic attacks in many parts of the country.

However, in the age of easy international travel and advanced communications, terrorist networks have also assumed cross-border dimensions. In many instances attacks are planned by individuals located in different countries who use modern technology to collaborate for the transfer of funds and procurement of advanced weapons. This clearly means that terrorism is an international problem and requires effective multilateral engagement between various nations. For the international legal community, this poses a doctrinal as well as practical challenge. I say this because from the prism of international legal norms, prescriptions against violent attacks have traditionally evolved under two categories – firstly, those related to armed conflict between nations and secondly those pertaining to internal disturbances within a nation. While the conduct and consequences of armed conflicts between nations – such as wars and border-skirmishes – are regulated by international criminal law and humanitarian law, the occurrence of internal disturbances within a nation are largely considered to be the subject-matter of that particular nation’s domestic criminal justice system and constitutional principles.

It is often perceived that these doctrinal demarcations actually inhibit international cooperation for cracking down on terrorist cells with cross-border networks. In the absence of bilateral treaties for extradition or assistance in investigation, there is no clear legal basis for international cooperation in investigating terrorist attacks – which are usually classified as internal disturbances in the nation where they took place. Since there are no clear and consistent norms to guide collaboration between nations in acting against terrorists, countries like the United States have invented their own doctrines such as ‘pre-emptive action’ to justify counter-terrorism operations in foreign nations. However, the pursuit of terrorists alone cannot be a justification for arbitrarily breaching another nation’s sovereignty. In this scenario, one strategy that has been suggested is that of recognising terrorist attacks as coming within a new ‘hybrid’ category of armed conflict, wherein obligations can be placed on different countries to collaborate in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist attacks that have taken place in a particular country. This calls for a blurring of the distinction between the international and domestic nature of armed conflict when it comes to terrorist strikes.

Another suggestion that has been made in this regard is that of treating terrorist attacks as offences recognised under International Criminal Law, such as ‘crimes against humanity’ which can then be tried before a supranational tribunal such as the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the obvious practical problem with this suggestion is that prosecutions before this Court need to be initiated by the United Nations Security Council (UN SC) and the latter body may be reluctant to do so in instances of one-off terrorist attacks as opposed to continuing conflicts. Yet another practical constraint that has been brought to the fore with the Mumbai attacks has been the question of holding governments responsible for the actions of non-state actors. While one can say that there is a moral duty on all governments to prevent and restrain the activities of militant groups on their soil, the same is easier said than done. For example, several terrorist groups are able to organise financial support and procure weapons even in Western nations where it is perceived that policing and criminal justice systems are relatively stronger than the subcontinent.

Coming to the domestic setting, I must state that the symbolic impact of terrorist attacks on the minds of ordinary citizens has also been considerably amplified by the role of pervasive media coverage. In India, the proliferation of 24-hour T.V. news channels and the digital medium has ensured that quite often some disturbing images and statements reach a very wide audience. One of the ill-effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses. While it is fair for the media to prompt public criticism of inadequacies in the security and law-enforcement apparatus, there is also a possibility of such resentment turning into an irrational desire for retribution. Furthermore, the trauma resulting from the terrorist attacks may be used as a justification for undue curtailment of individual rights and liberties. Instead of offering a considered response to the growth of terrorism, a country may resort to questionable methods such as permitting indefinite detention of terror suspects, the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the denial of the right to fair trial. Outside the criminal justice system, the fear generated by terrorist attacks may also be linked to increasing governmental surveillance over citizens and unfair restrictions on immigration.

In recent years, the most prominent example of this ‘slippery-slope’ for the curtailment of individual rights is the treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay who were arrested by U.S. authorities in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. It is alleged that they have detained hundreds of suspects for long periods, often without the filing of charges or access to independent judicial remedies.

For its part the US Administration has defended these practices by asserting that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have safeguards such as appeals before Military Commissions, Administrative Review Boards and Combatant Status Review Tribunals. A follow up to the same in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, led to the ruling that the terror suspects could not be denied the right of habeas corpus and should be granted access to civilian courts. The rationale for this was that the various military tribunals did not possess the requisite degree of independence to try suspects who had been apprehended and detained by the military authorities themselves.

Even in the United Kingdom, the House of Lords in the Belmarsh decision ruled against a provision in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001 which allowed the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects. This ruling prompted the enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2005 which was fiercely debated and the British Parliament accepted a 42-day period as the maximum permissible for detention without charges, subject to judicial checks. Evidently, the judiciary in these two countries has played a moderating role in checking the excesses that have crept into the response against terrorism.

In some circles, it is argued that the judiciary places unnecessary curbs on the power of the investigating agencies to tackle terrorism. In India, those who subscribe to this view also demand changes in our criminal and evidence law - such as provisions for longer periods of preventive detention and confessions made before police officials to be made admissible in court. While the ultimate choice in this regard lies with the legislature, we must be careful not to trample upon constitutional principles such as ‘substantive due process’. This guarantee was read into the conception of ‘personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by our Supreme Court. The necessary implication of the same is that all governmental action, even in exceptional times must meet the standards of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and non-discrimination. This implies that we must be wary of the use of torture and other forms of coercive interrogation techniques by law enforcement agencies. Coercive interrogation techniques mostly induce false confessions and do not help in preventing terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the tolerance of the same can breed a sense of complacency if they are viewed as an easy way out by investigative agencies.

The apprehension and interrogation of terror suspects must also be done in a thoroughly professional manner, with the provision of adequate judicial scrutiny as mandated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is required because in recent counter-terrorist operations, there have been several reports of arbitrary arrests of individuals belonging to certain communities and the concoction of evidence – such as the production of similarly worded confession statements by detained suspects in different places. The proposal for the admissibility of confessional statements made before the police is also problematic since there are fears that such a change will incentivise torture and coercive interrogation by investigative agencies in order to seek convictions rather than engaging in thorough investigation.

In this regard, the role of the judiciary should not be misunderstood. Adherence to the constitutional principle of ‘substantive due process’ is an essential part of our collective response to terrorism. As part of the legal community, we must uphold the right to fair trial for all individuals, irrespective of how heinous their crimes may be. If we accept a dilution of this right, it will count as a moral loss against those who preach hatred and violence. We must not confuse between what distinguishes the deliberations of a mature democratic society from the misguided actions of a few.

Thank You!


December 13-14, 2008
New Delhi

Failure of the WTO & UN Model

Today, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy called off his latest attempts to push through a conclusion to the Doha Round of WTO expansion by suspending his call for yet another “mini-Ministerial” meeting this month in Geneva.

Talks aimed at building enough consensus to justify the potential mini-Ministerial broke down this week over additional US demands that developing countries, particularly China and Brazil, reduce their tariffs on certain sectors of industrial goods in their economies to zero. This “market access” demand was even more extreme than the US position in July, which was already viewed by developing countries as too aggressive, given the lack of relative ambition in US and European offers on agriculture.

What is needed now is a significant roll-back of WTO rules so that our government can provide solutions to the Food, Financial, and Economic Crises – and so that governments worldwide can develop a new set of rules to discipline predatory and speculative global investors that have wrought such damage on workers, farmers, and the environment in countries around the world, say community groups that have been hit hard by WTO rules which have negative impact on their ability to make a decent living. We need our government to take the lead in calling for the dismantling of WTO rules that interfere with our government’s ability to regulate global commerce for the benefit of sustainable development and poverty reduction,” they say.

The world has changed significantly since talks were first launched in Doha, Qatar in 2001. The current global economic model, of which the WTO is a major institution, is becoming widely discredited as multiple crises caused by the failures of this model have wrought significant damage in the global economic system worldwide.

Negotiations to expand the WTO through the Doha Round were supposed to have concluded years ago, but several Ministerial-level meetings, as well as ongoing talks in Geneva, have failed to reach consensus. Most recent efforts to conclude the Round during this summer’s mini-Ministerial in Geneva ended in a stalemate over agricultural issues – not surprising in the midst of a global Food Crisis in which liberalization of agriculture (including the reduction of tariffs in developing countries, leaving them exposed to extreme volatility in the commodities markets) played a major role.

But more than any other moment in the WTO’s history, the emerging crises in the financial markets and the real economy worldwide are exposing deep structural flaws in the global economy and the rules of the WTO, which would only be exacerbated by a potential WTO expansion.

A lack of adequate regulation and liberalization in the financial markets is widely agreed to be a primary cause of the growing Financial Crisis. Yet in the WTO negotiations on services, rich countries are seeking further deregulation and liberalization of the financial markets. It is without logic that the Lamy had pushed for a conclusion to the WTO expansion agenda as a solution to the global financial crisis, when its actual policies would, by any sensible estimation, contribute to further global financial instability.

As well, the crisis in the real economy exposes the need for policy space, particularly in developing countries which did not cause the crisis, to protect their industrial sectors from a downturn in global demand. Developing countries’ accession to radical US demands in the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations would have left them more exposed to even further job loss and foreclosed development opportunities.

Importantly, many of the solutions widely agreed to be necessary to pull economies out of the crisis, such as nationalization of failing industries, direct fiscal stimulus and increased global financial services regulations, are currently prohibited by WTO rules, and would have been further curtailed by WTO expansion.

Therefore, governments should be discussing a permanent suspension of the Doha Round WTO expansion talks, as well as setting new talks aimed at rolling back many of the most pernicious provisions of the WTO – particularly those that set the stage for the emergence of the Food, Financial, and Economic Crises. Only then can new ideas about a completely different set of global rules be developed – rules that would truly discipline predatory and speculative corporate behavior and ensure that global finance and global trade serve the needs of the real economy towards sustainable development for the future.

UN Failure to Address Climate Crisis

Addressing the Poznań climate conference that constitutes the half-way mark in the negotiations on an ambitious and effective international response to climate change, to be agreed in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 and to take effect in 2013, the year after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, “Together, we face two crises: climate change and the global economy. But these crises present us with a great opportunity—an opportunity to address both challenges simultaneously. Managing the global financial crisis requires massive global stimulus. A big part of that spending should be an investment—an investment in a green future. An investment that fights climate change, creates millions of green jobs and spurs green growth. We need a Green New Deal.” He added, “It is an idea that was embraced with enthusiasm at the recent development conference in Doha, Qatar, and at the meeting of finance ministers in Warsaw which concluded this past Tuesday."

Amid evident pessimism at the Poznań, Poland conference due to the powerful resistance of global business, now that the 14th Conference of Parties (CoP 14) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has come to end, it is clear that gulf of differences still need to be bridged.

Most influential politicians

These statesmen have had a powerful impact on global politics, economics and the chemical industry. How will they play their hands in 2009?

Gordon Brown, UK prime minister

Brown has been at the forefront of global economic rescue attempts, including bank bailouts and fiscal stimulus moves with the G20 group of industrialized and developing nations.

Barack Obama, US president-elect

The 44th president of the US faces the challenge of dealing with the worst recession in a generation. Many fear he will rewrite US energy policy with potentially expensive alternatives and increase regulations. He is already calling for immediate action to curb emissions.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California governor

He has rallied world leaders to call for action on global warming. In November, he convened the Governors' Global Climate Summit, where 12 other US governors and regional leaders in Mexico, Canada, Brazil, India and Indonesia pledged to work together.

Vladimir Putin , Russian prime minister

Continues his influence on Russia in his new role as prime minister, and keeps a firm grip on the country's oil and gas resources. Shook up the world with Russia's invasion of Georgia.

Wen Jiabao, Chinese prime minister

From snowstorms to earthquakes from the UN General Assemblyto the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Wen has shown the world that China is workingto cope with the natural disasters andthe global economic crisis.

Vaclav Klaus, Czech Republic president

Czech President and Euroskeptic Klaus blocked adoption of the EU's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (Reach) legislation by the Czech Republic's parliament in August, claiming implementation of the stringent environmental regulations would be too expensive for companies when held up against the likely health and safety benefits for consumers in his country.

Defending VS Achuthanandan

Defending VS Achuthanandan is almost like defending sanity

After revealing its true colours by covering Hotel attacks and ignoring Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus Teeror Attack, media reveals its bias by unfairly targeting VS Achuthanandan, Chief Minister, Kerala.

Achuthanandan is the man of the masses, media likes only man of certain classes.

Unlike CPI (M) state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan, Achuthanandan is known for his honesty.

Prakash Karat should have stood by Achuthanandan when media, opposition and vested interests misrepresented his visit to a martyr's house. Interestingly, Karat chose to remain silent when Singur and Nandigram happened in West Bengal. Unlike Buddhdev Bhattacharya, Achuthanandan is not a psuedo communist. Unfortunately, political parties of all ilk find such people inconvinent.

Achuthanandan deserves praise for the eviction of encroachers from Munnar hill station. In the first phase of the eviction, about 16,000 acres of government land, encroached by rich people were taken back.

In 50 years of the state's history, not a single government has succeeded in taking back even one cent of encroached land from the encroachers.

As a result of the Munnar eviction operation, about 24 suites, constructed illegally on encroached government land, and given out for exorbitant rents had been demolished, which had been appreciated by the people of the country.

Clearly, Pinarayi faction is facing difficulty with the impeccable and honest functioning of Achyutanandan government.

Pinarayi fears that his name would figure in the CBI report on the SNC Lavlin case, a multi-crore scam related to the renovation of three power projects in Kerala.

SNC-Lavalin power scandal is one of the biggest financial scams that rocked Kerala. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India report indicted a CPI (M) -led government of the mid-1990s for a Rs 374.50 crore loss to the exchequer. Three hydel power stations had to be upgraded, tenders were invited and was finalised to an Indian consortium and a Canadian MNC. The foreign company quoted Rs 2.42 crore per MW, the Indian consortium –BHEL and L&T– sought Rs 1.25 per MW. The contract went to the higher bidder, contrary to normal practice.
Kerala State Electricty Baord had signed an MoU with SNC-Lavalin in August 1995. Under the provisions of the MoU, the funds for the renovation were to be arranged by SNC-Lavalin from the Export Development Corporation, Canada, and the Canadian International Development Agency. The Board did so, ignoring the CEA's recommendation that immediate replacement of the generating units at the Pallivasal power station was not called for as the plant was in fairly good condition.

In January 2007, Kerala High Court odrdered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. In February, 2008, CBI informed High court of Kerala that the investigation was progressing and said that former Electricity Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and G. Karthikeyan would be examined at the appropriate time.

As long as Achuthanandan is there, Vijayan and other beneficiearies of the scam know that he will not come to their rescue. What the Economic Times refers to as "civil war" in Kerala prior to parliamentary elections, must be understood in this backdrop.