12-01-2021

TuESDAY, jAnuArY 12, 2021
4
There’s no great rush for a JCPOA 2
Acting Editor & Publisher : Jobaer Alam
e-mail: editor@thebangladeshtoday.com
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Make easier the
owning of houses
Owning a house or a piece of land in Dhaka city is
probably the greatest aspirations of individual
families who form the city's current population of
over 15 million people. But some 65 per cent of these
families live in rented dwellings of various types. And the
costs of rented premises have been far outpacing the
growth in income of households.
House rent has only gone on rising sharply without a
pause in recent years. Similarly, land prices as well as of
apartments offered by developers in the city have
skyrocketed in contrast to couple of decades ago. Thus,
even for those in the middle class bracket --who earn on
average one lakh taka per month-- owning a house or a
piece of real property has become like chasing an
unrealistic ambition.
All of these hard facts of life were stated in a
publication sometime ago by Power and Participation
Centre (PPRC), a non governmental organization. The
gist of it were published in a report in a daily newspaper
although these are hardly new revelations to the non
privileged ones in the city who are compelled to pay a
lion's share of their earnings on rents only.
No easy solutions are in sight for the problem is
mainly tied up with inflation. The current rate of
officially estimated inflation in Bangladesh is some 6
per cent whereas the private but reliable estimates are
notably higher. Till inflation can be kept on a leash over
the long haul while economic growth, earnings and
savings of people are allowed to increase significantly
over time, this chasm between the demanded price of
real property and the ability to buy them by ones who are
not super rich, will not be bridged.
Meanwhile, government may opt for some stop gap
measures. It can increase the activities of the
government operated House Building Finance
Corporation (HBFC) to help the extension of its
activities among a larger number of clients. More
important would be HBFC scaling down its interest rate
charged on loans to a substantially lower amount.
As a government body with public welfare in mind, it
should not be so commercially operated but with the
spirit of functioning only a little above the break-even
point to maximize not profits but welfare. HBFC itself
can perhaps acquire long term loans at nominal interests
from the World Bank (WB) and other international
agencies for boosting its resources and lend the same to
people by passing on the benefits of the same to them
through charging lower interest. It should also provide
loans to buy lands.
Government should be also prepared to take some
fiscal measures like decreasing amply taxes to be paid
while transferring ownership of land in order to help
reduce land price. Government's policies should
similarly help the realtors to be enabled to develop less
costly housing units for selling of the same at relatively
lowered or affordable prices to their buyers.
Reportedly and according to the association of real
estate developers, REHAB, thousands of built flats
cannot be handed over to buyers because these
cannot be served with gas and power connections due
to shortages of both. Thus, the real estate developers
as well as buyers are facing difficulties as their
liabilities have sharply accumulated . It is imperative
that government should take very urgent measures to
supply gas and power to this sector on a highly
preferential basis .
There are also other things to be done. For example,
the registration fee for real estate is already considered
as very high. The inability to pay such high fees
frustrates many otherwise intending buyers from buying
real estate. REHAB and its customers say that it should
be maximum 5 per cent to really create a big enough
stimulus among the prospective buyers to press ahead
with their buying plans.
REHAB leaders are of the view that unless a section of
the income tax rules which in the past provided for not
questioning the source of wealth in relation to buying of
houses, if this rule is not reintroduced, then potential
clients will continue to shy away from buying flats or
houses. So, they are pleading for its abolition.
In the case of cement the import of which is subjected
to restrictions, REHAB has asked for a withdrawl of such
restrictions along with lower duties on the imported
cement so that the housing and construction sector can
benefit from adequate availability and reasonable price
of this basic building material.
Government provides cash incentives for some export
products to provide incentives to exporters to export
more and earn more foreign currency . REHAB leaders
are for similar giving of cash incentives to them as they
make sales of real property to Bangladeshis living
abroad.
The cash incentives will give a spur to selling real
estate among overseas buyers leading to growth in the
industry. The sales, on the other hand, will also add to
the country's foreign currency reserve. REHAB has also
demanded that government should explore the ways and
means of extending long term housing loans at nominal
interests to encourage greater housing and construction
activities.
In the Middle East, the first half of 2021
is promising to be busy for the Biden
administration. The new White House
must navigate the complex regional and
geopolitical mazes inherited from the
previous administration's patchwork
transactionalism and unilateralism that
intensified the crises now threatening to
further destabilize the region.
Conventional US wisdom that foreign
affairs take a back seat in favor of urgent
needs at home will simply not suffice.
Four years of inattention have weakened
the multilateral frameworks that the US
must rely on to broker desperately needed
resolutions in the Middle East and
elsewhere. Restoring faith and trust in
multilateralism will go a long way to
securing US foreign policy objectives -
particularly those focused on nuclear
diplomacy with Iran.
The Biden administration's plans for a
nuclear deal with Iran have divided
analysts and stakeholders alike. Three
schools of thought have emerged: A
return to the original 2015 Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
an amended "JCPOA-plus," or an entirely
new agreement. Of the original P5+1
(China, France, Russia, the UK and the
US, plus Germany), the Europeans have
indicated support for a return to the 2015
deal as a starting point to resume
diplomatic engagement. Biden has
signaled he will seek amendments to the
2015 deal aimed at curbing Tehran's
ballistic missiles programs and regional
adventurism, echoing concerns from
Washington's Gulf Arab allies. The
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) is calling for an entirely new
agreement, specifically to prevent Iran
reaching sufficient capacity to produce
enough highly enriched uranium using its
gas centrifuges.
The landscape in 2015 was vastly
different, and the circumstances that led
to the original JCPOA no longer apply.
There were no Abraham Accords to
dissuade Israeli missile strikes against
Iranian targets; reprisals by Tehran would
hit nations that have normalized relations
with Israel. Russia and China were not as
close to Tehran as they are now, and
neither country has signaled its support
(or lack thereof) for the incoming
administration's plans to revitalize
nuclear talks. Moscow and Beijing are
now more likely to weigh their own
interests against those of a multilateral
coalition, given their deeper ties to Iran.
Meanwhile, Iran's nuclear program has
continued apace even under sanctions,
rendering them useless as leverage in any
renewed discussions. Even with a
moderate leadership, Iran is estimated to
have amassed more than 2.5 tons of
highly enriched uranium. In addition,
Washington walking away from the 2015
deal has emboldened denials and lack of
transparency regarding newly built
nuclear research facilities.
Iran's nuclear program has continued
apace even under sanctions, rendering
them useless as leverage in any renewed
discussions.
hAFED AL-GhWELL
Any new deal will seek greater access to
such facilities, halving the quantity of
uranium and limiting enrichment to 20
percent, but there is little chance a
government led by hardliners will agree to
such terms. A presidential election looms
in 2021 and should Iran's hardliners gain
more power and influence, Tehran will
push for harder bargains such as restoring
On the other hand, six months is a lifetime in geopolitics and not doing
anything could further entrench non-cooperative attitudes and embolden
hardliners seeking to capitalize on a lull to shorten the timeline until iran
develops its first nuclear warhead. So the White house must act quickly to
set the frameworks around an eventual deal, while also avoiding getting
locked into an over-ambitious timeline.
DAViD SiMMOnS
access to some frozen overseas assets in
return for scaling down its nuclear
ambitions.
Unfortunately, allowing access to those
funds risks directing them toward missile
programs in Lebanon and Syria,
especially if Washington addresses
Tehran's regional adventurism. Iran will
definitely be pressured if the US offers
generous backing of the Iraqi government
and military conditional on weeding out
Iranian influence. Additionally, the
Abraham Accords offer an avenue for the
development of regional missile defense
infrastructure to counter Iranian missiles
launches from Yemen, Lebanon, Syria
and Iraq.
Overall, while the circumstances, stakes
and potential signatories have changed,
there is still room for the Biden
administration to engineer a new nuclear
deal that may or may not look like its 2015
predecessor. However, while the prospect
of an Iranian hardliner winning in June
2021 is concerning, the US still has some
room and leverage to maneuver, and
should therefore not rush into another
hasty deal. Instead, there could be a series
of interim, short-term agreements,
narrow in scope and less time-consuming
to negotiate, so as to allow for confidencebuilding,
set realistic expectations and
encourage consultations among allies.
Alternatively, the Biden administration
could choose to do nothing for six months,
to get the lay of the land after Iranians
choose a new president. That would afford
more room to ramp up responses to
domestic crises such as the pandemic,
economic stimulus and political
polarization. After June, the White House
would have had time to consult with other
signatories and regional allies to develop a
framework for incremental steps aimed at
preserving US leverage while
incentivizing Iran to agree rather than
reject terms.
On the other hand, six months is a
lifetime in geopolitics and not doing
anything could further entrench noncooperative
attitudes and embolden
hardliners seeking to capitalize on a lull to
shorten the timeline until Iran develops
its first nuclear warhead. So the White
House must act quickly to set the
frameworks around an eventual deal,
while also avoiding getting locked into an
over-ambitious timeline.
It will not be easy to navigate the evercomplex
maze of nuclear diplomacy but,
unlike with North Korea, there is
sufficient room and opportunity to arrive
at a mutually acceptable settlement.
Source: Arab news
The Capitol offense: one Canadian's view
Supporters of US President Donald
Trump enter the US Capitol's
Rotunda on January 6, 2021, in
Washington, DC. Demonstrators breached
security and entered the Capitol as
Congress debated the a 2020 presidential
election Electoral Vote Certification.
Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP
The cliché "love-hate relationship" was
not coined specifically for Canadians'
interaction with Americans or, to a much
lesser degree, vice versa, but that
relationship is certainly unique. One of the
most famous quotes of Canada's most
famous prime minister, Pierre Trudeau,
compared his country's proximity to the
US to a mouse "sleeping with an elephant."
To be sure, the Canadian identity has
often been defined as little more "not
Americans" (sometimes beginning with
the additional words "at least we're"), but
the more honest among us might admit
that in the main, we are Americans, albeit
distinguished by a decent health-care
system, an indecent climate ("10 months'
winter and two months' poor sledding"),
Tim Hortons, Coffee Crisp, and the letter
zed.
However, distance can sharpen one's
perspective, and it is in that sense, as a
Canadian who has lived outside his
homeland for 20 years, I will attempt to
explain why I found the images coming out
of Washington this week particularly
distressing.
I moved to Asia in 2000, just before the
startling Supreme Court-mandated
installation of George Bush Jr into the
White House and, not long afterward, the
MOVING into the new year, two
incidents have once again
highlighted the state's chronic
inability to protect its marginalised and
vulnerable people. The vandalisation of a
Hindu Samadhi in Karak on Dec 30
illustrates how the majority still fears and
treats the minorities. Similarly, the
reluctance of Prime Minister Imran Khan to
visit Quetta to condole with the families of
slain Shia Hazara miners adds to the
perception that the country's power elites
have little empathy for the people or a sense
of responsibility towards them.
However, the Supreme Court of Pakistan
has tried to heal the wounds of the country's
non-Muslim citizens by taking suo motu
notice of the Hindu temple's vandalisation.
Apparently the last hope for the religious
minorities, Pakistan's superior courts are
trying their best to protect the former's
constitutional rights. As majoritarian and
less tolerant thinking increasingly comes to
prevail in society, the power elites not only
share the same mindset but also tolerate and
even protect the collaborators of hatred and
"war on terror" and consequent invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq that reshaped -
many would say distorted - Asian
geopolitics thereafter.
Like many young Canadians in the
1970s, I opposed the Vietnam War, but
was not sufficiently astute politically to
understand how deeply war-making
figured in the American psyche. And like
many peaceniks of that era, I dared to hope
that America's humiliation in that conflict
would force it to reinvent itself as a true
City on the Hill, the "beacon of democracy"
it had always claimed to be but, for much
of its history, it was not.
But the "war on terror," and especially
the deafening drumbeat and cacophony of
lies that culminated in the US attack on
Iraq in 2003, was revealing in many ways.
It put in focus the warlike nature of the
American national psyche, and put in
clearer contrast how that psyche differed
from its Canadian counterpart.
Now, that is not to give comfort to those
Canadians who refuse to see the hypocrisy
that has dominated their country's
national identity for most of its history. It
has always had, for example, a flourishing
weapons industry that has grown fat on
America's wars. Its peace advocacy and
diplomacy have nearly always been
somewhat weaker than claimed, and far
weaker than they could and should have
been.
Its malignant behavior toward its nonwhite
minorities, particularly its own
aboriginal First Nations and ethnic
Japanese during World War II, have
mirrored and sometimes outdone the
racism for which its southern neighbor is
Democracy was a worthy project, one that the Americans empowered
more than any other society, and it accomplished many great
things while it lasted. But it was always doomed; humans tell
themselves they want to be their own bosses and not be pushed
around, but they melt like Popsicles in the summer sun at the first
sign of crisis and yearn to be told what to do.
infamous.
However, I think it is fair to say that in
Canadian society, to a degree not seen in
the US for the most part, non-violence is
the default stance, which I would argue has
not only kept Canada out of most of
America's wars, has spilled over into
domestic policies such as socialized health
insurance, abolition of the death penalty,
relatively low rates of violent crime, and
rational gun laws. Canadians' reputation
as a people who relish peace at home and
abroad is therefore largely valid and, in
practice, deserved.
Why, then, would I be bothered by the
sight of what happened in DC this week?
Negotiating with the weak
MuhAMMAD AMir rAnA
violence.
The government and its institutions,
including the civilian law-enforcement
agencies, hesitate to proactively tackle cases
of religious hatred. They may have multiple
excuses for this, but their indifferent and
irresponsible attitude has been intensifying
the scourge of religious hatred in society.
A review of the academic work that has
been done to understand the power
dynamics in Pakistan from political and
socio-economic perspectives, suggests that
the 'mindset' that controls the levers of
power here has limited skills of negotiating
with the people at the margins. The security
institutions have effectively dealt with
religiously motivated terrorist groups and
severely damaged their strongholds inside
the country.
During the peak years of the war against
terrorism, state institutions had brokered
several deals with the terrorist groups.
However, none of the deals survived for long
and as a last resort the terrorists were
countered with full kinetic force. These deals
were different and part of the political
strategy to blunt the destructive edge of the
terrorist groups.
The 'mindset' of the power elite here has
limited skills of negotiating with people at
the margins.
However, state institutions are still
struggling to negotiate with the Pashtun
Tahaffuz Movement. The same can be said
for Balochistan where political dialogue has
not moved forward during decades of
conflict.
It is easy for state institutions to use a
coercive approach in negotiation. If the
other side is aggressive and supports
violence, it becomes much easier for the
state to deal with them. However, the Indian
subcontinent also has a tradition of nonviolent
movements, which continue to
reincarnate themselves in the form of
political movements and socio-religious
movements. But power also has an ego,
which prevents it from negotiating with the
weak, but it also fears that the process will
empower the weak and make them equal to
the stakeholder.
It is obvious that the weak party has no
Isn't it par for the course?
Yes and no. Yes, American democracy
has been in a perilous decline that began
long before Donald Trump got it into his
orange-hued head to move into the White
House. But the fact that the American
brand of politics exists at all is a
remarkable feat, and so is how that system
has been wielded across the globe to
reshape world governance.
Some of the changes forced on the world,
and the way it was done, are obviously
regrettable, but many of them are not. On
balance, the achievements of the American
people have outstripped those of everyone
else, in every field from technological
innovation to medical breakthroughs to,
yes, the furtherance of decent governance
and human rights.
Brits, Chinese, and of course Canadians
like to crow over the self-inflicted disasters
Americans have endured especially since
the mid-1940s when they imposed on the
rest of us the post-World War II "world
order" - low points such as the Red Scare,
the civil-rights clashes, Watergate, the
Vietnam and Iraq wars and, more recently,
the reign of the military-industrial
complex and consequent decay of the
social contract.
But now, we see those images. And we
recognize how they are the inevitable
culmination of the long decline of one of
the greatest societies, maybe the greatest,
in history. And we must ask, will they
emerge victorious yet again, or is this really
the end?
Source: Asia times
option except to remain submissive and
follow the dictates of the strong majority.
However, the awareness of rights and the
dream of an egalitarian state never dies in
communities, especially among more
educated and politically awakened ones like
the Hazaras in Quetta. The power elites feel
uncomfortable whenever the Hazaras
protest against the murder of members of
their community. The protests grab the
attention of local and international media,
and the state, which is trying hard to
improve its international image. The
government tries to pacify them, but it does
not heal their wounds.
The improving security statistics offer the
country an encouraging outlook as terrorist
incidents have been declining for the last
many years. However, though terrorist
violence in the year 2020 declined over 36
per cent from the year before, the militants
were successful in carrying out at least 146
terrorist attacks across Pakistan, including
three suicide blasts.
Source: Dawn