The Bangladesh Today (04-02-2018)

EDITORIAL
SUNDAY,
fEBrUArY 4, 2018
4
A race to the gutter
Acting Editor & Publisher : Jobaer Alam
Telephone: +8802-9104683-84, Fax: 9127103
e-mail: editor@thebangladeshtoday.com
Sunday, february 4, 2018
Saving the wetlands
around Dhaka
N
otwithstanding
the apparent gloss and glitter of
its high rise buildings, Dhaka is now a seriously
endangered city. The once natural drainage
system of the city with its many natural canals plus the
surrounding wetlands that also helped the purpose of
retention of drained waters and their gradual drainage,
are largely things of the past.
Only a few natural drainage canals remain though in
heavily encroached conditions. The areas of the
wetlands have also shrunk from the activities of real
estate developers and other encroachers. Compared to
their earlier non encroached sizes, the extent of the
wetlands today are far smaller. Thus, any sensible
person can see the imperative of saving these wetlands
and remaining canals from grabbing in the name of
developing them not to speak of trying to set them free
from their present encroachments as well.
The city of over 15 million turn into a flooded one in
almost all of its parts even after a short period of heavy
rains. It acquires the appearance of a city flood as water
fails to drain off for days from the choked conditions of
the city. Thus, the Detail Area Plan (DAP) for the city
proposed that at least 21 per cent of the city's present and
projected areas must be reserved as water bodies where
no real estate development activities would be
permitted. But this meritorious proposal triggered the
wrath of the developers . They made it transparent that
they would be prepared to go to any lengths of
misconduct, piling of pressure and other tactics to have
the DAP changed in their favour.
Therefore, the responsibility becomes greater for the
government to be even more firm in their commitment
to DAP. DAP has been drawn up in the interest of a
planned Dhaka, to save it from collapse due to all kinds
of unregulated activities specially from real estate
developers. The best interests of residents of the city
cannot be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of a limited
number of greedy developers.
However, it is also true that developers' interests
cannot be so bluntly ignored either. Over the years, they
intruded into the wetlands from a policy vacuum on the
part of the government and no enforcement measures
whatsoever against the same. They have also invested
huge sums of money in partial attempts to develop the
areas of the wetlands they intruded. In some cases, they
have even taken money from private persons as plots
sold to them. Therefore, the reasonable course would be
government making some compromises in areas of the
wetlands where the developers have already gone to
work. But government's policy from now on should be
one of sending very convincing signals to the developers
that they have proceeded this far but won't be allowed to
move further . This means that their further intrusion
into the wetlands would be absolutely prevented in each
such case from now on by the sternest application of the
law.
A wise coexistence of man and nature was visible at the
initial days of development of Dhaka. Until 1950,
development of the city took place on the higher terrain
and the encompassing rivers, networks of canals and the
wetlands were harmoniously used for transportation,
defence, fishing or agricultural purpose.
Vast tract of wetlands at close proximity to the central
city has been attracting private developers since 1980s.
After construction of the Western Flood Embankment,
unplanned development stretched rapidly toward the
low lying areas violating all the laws and regulations.
Designated flood zone at the south and west of Dhaka
are also experiencing the similar fate. It should be kept
in mind, even after completion of the Eastern
Embankment, a sizeable percent of land should be kept
as retention area for storm water storage (according to
the study of JICA).
It was evident from catastrophic floods in 1988, 1998
and 2004 in the city that the poor discharge capacities of
the existing natural drainage channels are responsible
for the longer duration of floods. City dwellers
experienced the severity of rain flood during the month
of September 2004. Entire city collapsed at that time for
poor drainage system of the city. Low-lying lands around
Dhaka works as natural retainers of storm water, acts as
natural drainage network and certainly help to keep
balance in ecosystem. Land filling activities in those
restricted areas have been going on even after enactment
of the Water Body Conservation Act 2000 which
prohibited any kind of development in the wetlands.
It is a myth that today no wetland remains for
conservation. Expert studies show that Dhaka is still left
with 19.3% of wetland, which requires immediate
attention. Wetlands are like living beings. Once they are
destroyed, they cannot be brought back to life again.
Programme for restoration of wetlands of Dhaka can be
termed as the life saving drug for the survival of our
beloved city and its surroundings. Development
authorities in collaboration with experts, NGOs, media
personnel and civil society must undertake a dynamic
role to protect the wetlands. Natural resource
conservation always requires active participation of, and
therefore must include, the local inhabitants.
ICan’t say I'm a big fan of the
Supreme Court's current trend of
taking on suo motu cases regarding
everything wrong in Pakistan.
In fact, if our judiciary were to clear
their backlog of 1.8 million cases
pending before it, our litigious
country would breathe a sigh of relief.
The whole business of granting stay
orders at the drop of a hat needs a
thorough judicial review: just
consider the fact that TV channels
charged with contravening the Pemra
code of conduct have filed no less than
600 stay orders with various courts,
thus rendering the regulatory body
totally impotent. Meanwhile, they go
their merry way, vilifying their
targets, and occasionally putting their
lives at risk.
Fortunately, there are a few
exceptions like the recent unmasking of
one of Pakistan's most popular anchors,
by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, who
took notice of his bizarre accusations.
By claiming that the main accused in
the brutal Kasur rape and murder of
little Zainab was at the centre of an
international child pornography ring,
the anchor's allegations could have
derailed the investigation. As it is, the
State Bank almost immediately
debunked his claim that the killer had
37 bank accounts.
Even after his claims have been
discredited, the anchor in question is
still defending himself on his channel.
In one incoherent broadcast, he
rejected the oft-repeated charge that he
had no journalistic background but had
parachuted into senior broadcasting
positions at large media houses.
Naming well-known TV anchors and
broadcasters abroad who had no
degrees in journalism, he sought to
Imagine that you, like me, are a typical
product of Western liberal
democracy, and are invited to give a
lecture to a group of Chinese students in
Beijing or Shanghai on its benefits.
Ignoring the fact that, in reality, the
Chinese government would never allow
such a lecture, ask yourself: What would
you say?
First and foremost, it would be
advisable to acknowledge that you do not
speak from a position of moral
superiority. Western civilization in the
first half of the 20th century was not very
civilized. Human rights were trampled.
Class war destroyed entire political
systems. There were large-scale violent
conflicts and much ethnic cleansing.
Given this history, Westerners are in no
position to lecture on civil liberties or
humane values. It is also worth noting
that the global march toward democracy,
which seemed nearly inexorable after the
fall of the Berlin Wall, now seems to be
reversing. According to Stanford
University's Larry Diamond, several
countries that were democracies at the
beginning of this century have since
shifted to different systems.
Of course, elections alone do not a
democracy make. Consider those cases
when elections empower a majority
ethnic or religious group, which then
rides roughshod over minorities - an
outcome that has been seen all too often
in the Balkans, for example. Then there
place himself in their ranks.
Often anchors peddle half-baked
opinions as facts.
In fact, the subject one studies at
university has nothing to do with
journalistic standards and ethics. In
reputable TV channels like the BBC and
CNN, presenters and anchors, no
matter how famous and well paid, have
to stick to the script written and cleared
by the news desk. If the story is
controversial, additional vetting is
called in. In Pakistan, however, anchors
are the public faces of TV channels, and
are extremely well rewarded. Some
among the very popular ones have a
direct link to the owners, bypassing the
normal professional and managerial
hierarchies other journalists are
subordinate to. They thus produce their
own scoops, and sprinkle their stardust
on the channels they work for.
But this constant battle to top the
popularity chart often becomes a race to
the gutter. Although the chief justice
has set up a joint investigation team to
further probe the anchor's accusations,
are the cases when the election of a leader
is treated as if it somehow legitimizes the
subsequent emergence of dictatorship.
This has been the case in Russia, which,
since President Vladimir Putin's first
electoral victory in 2000, has become a
Potemkin democracy. This year, another
election, neither free nor fair, will give
Putin another term in office. In a real
democracy, free and fair elections are
complemented more broadly by the rule
of law, due process, an independent
judiciary, an active civil society, and
freedom of the press, worship, assembly,
and association. In fact, it is theoretically
possible - though unlikely - for political
systems to have all these elements
without elections at all. (The political
scientist Samuel Finer, in his
irfAN hUSAiN
it appears that there is not much to look
into. Had there been any evidence,
surely the anchor would have presented
it by now to his increasingly sceptical
audience.
However, he is not alone. Not that
long ago, another senior anchor pushed
a claim by a so-called inventor that he
had discovered the secret of making a
car that ran on water. Evening after
evening, the anchor would lament
about how a Pakistani genius was being
Even after his claims have been discredited,
the anchor in question is still defending
himself on his channel. in one incoherent
broadcast, he rejected the oft-repeated charge
that he had no journalistic background but
had parachuted into senior broadcasting
positions at large media houses. Naming wellknown
tV anchors and broadcasters abroad
who had no degrees in journalism, he sought
to place himself in their ranks.
chriS PAttEN
ignored by the scientific establishment.
Finally, his persistence paid off, and the
miracle car was publicly tested.
Surprise, surprise, the whole thing was
a hoax.
In most such cases of false claims and
accusations, no apologies or
explanations are ever forthcoming,
either from the anchor or the
management. And Pemra, as we have
seen, has been made a spectator to this
unprofessional conduct through a spate
of stay order notices so easily granted
by our courts.
Print journalism, by contrast, has
comprehensive study of different sorts of
government, found just one society that
was liberal but not democratic: colonial
Hong Kong.)
Democracies depend on institutional
software, not just hardware. The people
who make them work accept a set of
norms that often do not have to be
codified. The problem comes when the
people - or, worse, their leaders - refuse to
adhere to democratic norms
Democracies depend on institutional
software, not just hardware. The people
who make them work accept a set of
norms that often do not have to be
codified. The problem comes when the
people - or, worse, their leaders - refuse to
adhere to democratic norms. That is what
is happening today in the United States,
higher standards for the verification of
stories. One reason is that reporters are
in a chain of command, and, for the
most part, no newspaper staffer can
bypass the editor to approach the
owners. In reputable publications like
this one, their stories are normally
subjected to cross-checking and factchecking.
Much to my occasional irritation, the
editor of these pages and I don't always
see eye to eye with changes that appear
in my published columns. But more
often than not, I see that the alterations
have been made due to either policy
concerns, or where I have made a
genuine mistake. The odd argument
aside, my editor and I are literally on
the same page.
This kind of back and forth is only
possible because the deadlines in print
journalism aren't as tight as they are in
TV where vicious rivalries and 24/7
rolling news often force ill-considered
decisions, and the news editor's role is
severely curtailed. The results of this
kind of journalism on the run are
clearly visible in the shape of mindless
discussions and poorly informed
debates that have become the norm.
Half-baked opinions are peddled as
facts, and the same talking heads are
invited to offer the same views night
after night. Unproven accusations are
thrown around liberally, while most
anchors encourage the most
outlandish comments without
challenging them.
In this environment of mediocrity
and cut-throat competition, it is no
wonder that unethical so-called media
professionals flourish.
Source : Dawn
in defense of democracy during challenging times
North Korea, if not stopped, will
build an arsenal with multiple
nuclear missiles meant to threaten
the United States homeland and blackmail
America into abandoning its allies in Asia.
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un will
sell these weapons to state and nonstate
actors, and he will inspire other rogue
actors who want to undermine the USbacked
postwar order.
These are real and unprecedented
threats. But the answer is not, as some
officials of the administration of United
States President Donald Trump have
suggested, a preventive military strike.
Instead, there is a forceful military option
available that can address the threat
without escalating into a war that would
likely kill tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands of Americans.
When I was under consideration for a
position in this administration, I shared
some of these views.
Some may argue that US casualties and
even a wider war on the Korean Peninsula
are risks worth taking, given what is at
stake. But a strike (even a large one) would
only delay North Korea's missile-building
and nuclear programmes, which are
buried in deep, unknown places
impenetrable to bunker-busting bombs. A
strike also would not stem the threat of
proliferation but rather exacerbate it,
turning what might be a North Korean
moneymaking endeavour into a vengeful
effort intended to equip other bad actors
Democracies depend on institutional software,
not just hardware. the people who make them
work accept a set of norms that often do not have
to be codified. the problem comes when the
people - or, worse, their leaders - refuse to adhere
to democratic norms. that is what is happening
today in the United States, as President Donald
trump challenges some of the foundational rules,
norms, and principles of American democracy.
against the US. I empathise with the hope,
espoused by some Trump officials, that a
military strike would shock Pyongyang
into appreciating US strength, after years
of inaction, and force the regime to the
denuclearisation negotiating table. I also
hope that if North Korea did retaliate
militarily, the US could control the
escalation ladder to minimise collateral
damage and prevent a collapse of financial
markets. In either event, the rationale is
that a strike that demonstrates US resolve
to pursue "all options" is necessary to give
the mercurial Kim a "bloody nose".
Otherwise, he will remain undeterred in
his nuclear ambitions.
Yet, there is a point at which hope must
give in to logic. If we believe that Kim is
undeterrable without such a strike, how
can we also believe that a strike will deter
him from responding in kind? And if Kim
is unpredictable, impulsive and bordering
on irrational, how can we control the
escalation ladder, which is premised on an
adversary's rational understanding of
signals and deterrence?
Some have argued the risks are still
worth taking because it's better that people
die "over there" than "over here" [in
America]. On any given day, there are
230,000 Americans in South Korea and
90,000 or so in Japan. Given that an
evacuation of so many citizens would be
virtually impossible under a rain of North
Korean artillery and missiles (potentially
laced with biochemical weapons), these
Americans would most likely have to
hunker down until the war was over.
as President Donald Trump challenges
some of the foundational rules, norms,
and principles of American democracy.
Trump threatens (as Richard Nixon
once did) to use his power to pervert the
rule of law to target his opponents - most
notably Hillary Clinton, whom he wants
"locked up." He assaults the freedom of
the press, implicitly encouraging
supporters to attack journalists, say, by
tweeting a (since-deleted) parody video of
himself body-slamming a man with a
CNN logo on his head. He attempts to
subvert America's system of checks and
balances. And he seems to place a higher
priority on advancing his family's own
commercial interests than the interests of
the American people.
While some parts of America's
democratic political system - for example,
the judicial check on executive authority -
have proved resilient, others are breaking
down. But Trump is a consequence of this
breakdown, not its cause.
The real problem is that the Republican
Party has, over the years, become a
hollow instrument of lobbyists and
extremists, and both Democrats and
Republicans seem to have abandoned
their commitment to governing by
consensus. As a result, the constitutional
brakes that America's founders created to
prevent the election of a huckster like
Trump have failed.
Source : Asia times
Giving North Korea a ‘bloody nose’ risks hurting the US
Victor chA
Some may argue that US casualties and even a wider war
on the Korean Peninsula are risks worth taking, given
what is at stake. But a strike (even a large one) would only
delay North Korea's missile-building and nuclear
programmes, which are buried in deep, unknown places
impenetrable to bunker-busting bombs. A strike also
would not stem the threat of proliferation but rather
exacerbate it, turning what might be a North Korean
moneymaking endeavour into a vengeful effort intended
to equip other bad actors against the US.
While the American population in Japan
may be protected by US missile defences,
the US population in South Korea, let
alone millions of South Koreans, has no
similar active defences against a barrage of
North Korean artillery (aside from
counterfire artillery). To be clear: The US
president would be putting at risk an
American population the size of a
medium-sized US city - Pittsburgh, say, or
Cincinnati - on the assumption that a crazy
and undeterrable dictator will be rationally
cowed by a demonstration of US kinetic
power. An alternative coercive strategy
involves enhanced and sustained US,
regional and global pressure on
Pyongyang to denuclearise. This strategy is
likely to deliver the same potential benefits
as a limited strike, along with other
advantages, without the self-destructive
costs. There are four elements to this
coercive strategy.
First, the Trump administration must
continue to strengthen the coalition of
United Nations member-states it has
mustered in its thus far highly successful
sanctions campaign. Second, the US must
significantly up-gun its alliances with
Japan and South Korea with integrated
missile defence, intelligence-sharing and
anti-submarine warfare and strike
capabilities to convey to North Korea that
an attack on one is an attack on all.
Source : Gulf news