|
Why price hike of rice worries people
M. Abdul Latif Mondal
The harvesting season of Aman rice has just ended. The price of rice in the market generally shows a downward trend during the harvesting period. But the price of Aman rice started showing upward trend in the market from mid-February while the Aman harvesting season was still on. In the first week of March, the price of coarse rice in the retail market was between TK 20 and TK 22 per kg. Fine quality rice was selling at TK 28 to TK 29 a kg. Available information suggests that the price of rice is higher than that of any previous year at this time. The price spiral of rice is causing sufferings to the people of low and middle-income groups.
In his first address to the nation over radio and television on January 21, Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, Chief Adviser to the reconstituted non-party caretaker government (CG), outlined a number of measures, which include, inter alia, controlling the price hike of essential commodities, including foodstuff. Since then he has been asking the high civil and military officers to take effective steps to keep the prices of essentials at a tolerable level. But unabated rise in the prices of the essential commodities, including food items, is one area where his government is yet to deliver the intended outcome.
Official sources and media reports suggest that in the past two plus weeks, prices of almost all essential commodities spiralled. Then the question that arises is: why do the people of Bangladesh always remain worried about the price hike of rice? This may be attributed primarily to the following reasons.
First, Preliminary Report on Household Income & Expenditure Survey (HIES)-2005 of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) shows that the share of the food expenditure as percentage of consumption expenditure at national level was 53.81 per cent. The figure however varied between rural and urban areas of the country. In rural area, 58.54 per cent consumption expenditure accounted for food, whereas the same was 45.17 per cent in urban area. What is more important is that rice costs about 70 per cent of the total expenditure of the rural poor on food.
Second, Poverty Monitoring Survey 2004 of the BBS shows that at the national level monthly income of the households increased from TK 4812 in 1999 to TK 5302 in 2000. The increase is 10.2 percent. But, the income of the poor household reduced in 2004 from 1999. The decrease was significant particularly for the rural poor households. Household income for the rural poor decreased from TK 3006 in 1999 to TK 2786 in 2004. So, the price hike of rice seriously affects the rural poor who constitute 85 per cent of the 60 million people living below the poverty line.
Third, the Agricultural Census of 1996, which is so far the latest, showed that the percentage of landless people increased from 56.52 per cent in 1983-84 to 67.36 per cent in 1996. Various studies show that the marginal farmers also join the landless people to purchase rice from the market for their sustenance within two months or so from the date of closure of the harvesting period of rice. In the absence of any anti-hoarding law, the landlords, big farmers and hoarders store rice during the harvesting season to make windfall gain in non-harvesting period when there is insufficient supply of rice to meet the demand. Such seasonal higher price of rice brings financial hardship for the low and fixed income groups.
Fourth, of all the food items, the importance of rice is the supreme. Rice is the staple food of Bangladesh. Rice provides about 93 per cent of the country's total cereal intake and more than 70 per cent calorie intake. Since rice alone accounts for about 70 per cent of the total spending on food in poor households, rising price of rice thus significantly lowers their real income. Further, cooked rice mixed with green chili and salt is the food for many of the ultra-poor who constitute 20 per cent or so of the 60 million people living below poverty line. Price hike of rice forces the poorest to reduce their consumption of rice, endangering their very lives.
Last but not the least, in our male dominated society, women and children in the poor households have less access to food compared to adult males. The situation worsens when the price of foodstuff, in particular of rice, spirals. In the absence of necessary intake of calories, more than 70 per cent of which come from rice, women and children in the poor households suffer most. According to the much talked about Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) titled "Unlocking the Potential" that the immediate past BNP-led alliance government adopted in 2005, maternal mortality rate continues to be high at 320 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2001. The under-five mortality death- rate stood at 83 per thousand live births in 2000. Apart from loss of lives, there is a heavy loss in work output associated with malnutrition.
Considering the importance of rice in our total food, there is no alternative but to accelerate the growth rate of rice production to keep pace with the annual population growth rate at 1.5 per cent. Moreover, production of wheat and non-cereal food items such as vegetables, pulses, fish, meat, eggs, fruits etc have to be sufficiently increased to reduce pressure on rice. All this requires certain urgent measures which, inter alia, include: (a) arresting loss of productive fertile agricultural land at an alarming rate of about 82,000 hectares a year to non-agricultural uses and abuses; (b) raising budgetary allocation for agriculture to the level of its contribution to the ADP; (c) strengthening research on agriculture to increase per acre yield (according to a 1994 study of FAO, the average level of yield realised in Bangladesh is much below the levels achieved by other countries); and (d) increasing subsidy in agriculture sector.
The Constitution of Bangladesh (Article 15) has given the responsibility on the State to make provision for the basic necessities of life, including food, for its citizens. Since rice is the most important item in our total food and per-capita income in Bangladesh is one of the lowest in the world, no government in the country, whether elected or not, can avoid the responsibility of making rice available to the people, particularly the poor living below the poverty line, at affordable price, on the plea that the government does not control the prices of essentials, including rice, in a free market economy.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
US policy on Iran turns 180 degrees
Barrister Harun ur Rashid
The Bush administration has at last changed its policy towards Iran. In the span of two weeks, the US has at last agreed to high-level contacts with Iran and Syria in a regional conference on Iraq on March 10 in Baghdad.
As recently as January 12, the US Secretary of State Dr. Rice repeated what has been a refrain of Bush foreign policy-a refusal to bestow on Iran and Syria the legitimacy of diplomatic engagement with the US as long as Iran and Syria do not agree to US's lofty demands.
The hawks in the Bush administration never believed in negotiation with other countries because they believed in hard military power to resolve the inter-state disputes. One of the glaring examples is the Iraq war. The Bush administration ignored the UN because it did not suit its agenda.
The Iraq war has given a lesson to the Bush administration, especially the neo-conservatives that military power does not resolve issues. Rather it tends to complicate the situation and the result is that Iraq is in a mess. The US Republican administration looks vulnerable with a lame-duck President while the Democrats took power in both Houses of the Congress. President Bush's gung-ho approach to resolve inter-state disputes got a battering in Iraq, alienating most of the countries of the world including its allies, such as European powers.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently aptly remarked that the tendency of many countries to become nuclear powers, such as North Korea and Iran, was the outcome of aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration.
For example, if Iraq had nuclear bombs, the US would not have possibly attacked Iraq in 2003. To protect their countries from invasion of the US under the so-called doctrine of "pre-emptive attack", many countries have resorted to or are considering acquiring nuclear arsenal silently and secretly and they believe such acquisition can only prevent the US from the attack. Can anyone blame them?
Iran's nuclear programme
The Middle East is in turmoil from Beirut to Tehran. Israel has become the dominant power with its nuclear arsenal. Israel with the support of the US, does not want any country in the Middle East to acquire nuclear weapons so as to lose its superiority. Israel was able to destroy Iraq's nuclear ambition in 1981 by attacking the Osirak reactor in Iraq.
Now Israel wants to destroy Iran's nuclear plants and the US has adopted an aggressive role together with European powers towards Iran. The Security Council had already imposed some limited sanctions on Iran.
On 2 March, the major powers agreed a framework of a tougher UN resolution against Iran. The new resolution was to be drafted under Article 41 of the UN Charter, which would authorize the Security Council to take all necessary measures, except military ones, to enforce the UN resolution.
Iran has refused to abide by the UN resolution on the ground that its nuclear programme is peaceful and Iran has the right to generate energy from nuclear plants within the ambit of the 1970 Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However the US does not believe the veracity of Iran's position. It thinks that under the guise of peaceful nuclear energy, Iran will manufacture nuclear weapons that will destroy Israel's superiority in the region.
The Policy change
Why did the Bush administration change its policy towards Iran? There are several reasons and some of them deserve mention.
First, within the Bush administration, there has been a tug-of-war between the advocates of engagement, represented by moderates and those who have sought to isolate enemies, such as Iran, Syria and North Korea. It seems that advocates for diplomatic engagement with Iran and Syria have won over the hawks, led by the Vice-President Cheney.
Second, the Iraq study group report by Baker-Hamilton suggested for a dialogue with Iran and Syria to stabilize Iraq. Some insiders say that Rice has persuaded the President to make a move to engage Iran for Iraq's stability.
Third, the last November results of the Congress led the Democrats victorious, occupying the majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Iraq's situation has been in sharper focus by the Democrats. They have plainly signaled the President to change the policy in Iraq. Iraq situation cannot be changed unless Syria and Iran cooperate. This is a reality and hard truth.
The sooner the Bush administration realizes the reality on the ground the better it is for the Middle East. Iran is a regional power and one cannot ignore Iran in bringing stability in Iraq. Political observers say that one cannot expect miracles here and there has to be sustained effort of diplomacy. Successful diplomatic engagement requires patience and tact and very extensive follow-through.
Former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN Geneva
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
KALEIDOSCOPE
Money, money makes
the world go round...
Nasrine R. Karim
In 1880, the American people elected Republican James Garfield President. Garfield understood how the economy was being manipulated. As a Congressman, he had been chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee. After his inauguration in 1881, he slammed the Money Changers publicly: "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
Within a few weeks of making this statement, on July 2 of 1881, President Garfield was assassinated.
It seems the American Revolution, a detrimental blow to the British Empire, was the "starting gun" for the wealthy bankers to covet world control. By the 1800s, the banks of England and France (controlled by the Rothschild family and very close business associates of the Rockefellers) effectively commanded the policies of these nations. Through consolidation with other banking or industrialist families, the control of worldwide monetary systems became the focus. This was necessary to implement this in order to succeed in their plans of fiscal domination. The world is now bearing witness to the fruition of more than two hundred years of "friendly" coercion.
Naturally other powers including that of the Church had to be decimated as well as the French, British, and Germanic Empires. Once the control was taken from these forces, the bankers could slither into the driver's seat with their financial control.
It is well known that under the British, French, German, and Spanish Empires the colonies saw plunder of untold wealth. The same wealth of the colonies was placed under the control of, and into the hands of "trusted" bankers.
In the late 1830's, Andrew Jackson took control of U.S. finance by balancing the Federal budget and defeating a charter renewal for the Second Bank (in charge of printing U.S. dollars.) The ambitious bankers were probably very unhappy to let America out of their control. This happens when there is a strong political will to do the "right" thing. (Logically, the money people would wish the U.S. to be split into states existing as individual nations, which could then be pitted against one another, causing wartime borrowing which increases the lender's wealth.)
Britain and France, and the "banks" surrounded the United States when the South seceded. Few believe the North could have maintained the Union if France and Britain entered the war. Lincoln, in dire need of aid, requested help from the Russian Tsar - a staunch opponent of the money powers for some reason. Russia immediately sent ships and troops to the United States, which offset the French and British pressures. This scenario had the potential to erupt into the first "World War;" Britain and France backed down to avoid such a massive showdown and the United States was left on her own.
As the teachings of Dean Ruskin: that an elite should rule over the common man. The wealthy grew wealthier as railroads expanded and petroleum began powering industry. Russia and the U.S.A. were still only remotely influenced by the banking powers that dominated the rest of the industrial nations. However it all changed in the 1900s.
In 1913, ignoring the warnings of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson before him, and without a sunset clause, or any control mechanisms save for a mere presidential power to appoint a chairman, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Bank into existence.
Financial power
This granted supreme financial power to wealthy banking families again. Woodrow Wilson, often "advised" by Colonel Edward House, would claim later in his life, "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world- no longer a government by free-opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
With control established over the nations that dominated most of the world, the banker's next logical goal had to be the softening up of the two largest nations which stood apart: the United States of America and Russia.
With America under "control", the bankers could now concentrate their attention on Russia. "Order from chaos." Was the motto! World War One provided a large dose of chaos.
The First World War began in 1913, as the nations of Europe were entwined in treaties, and the international bankers began massive lending to both sides of the conflict... especially the Allies. As the war progressed, and Russian fatality began to amass, Russian morale dwindled. New York City bankers including J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller heavily financed the Bolshevik Revolution. William Boyce Thompson, one of the ten directors of the Federal Reserve Bank, both financed and advocated the Bolshevik Revolution.
Why were the U.S. money powers behind the "workers revolution?" It was perhaps better to deal with a centralised government that dictated every aspect of life itself. Moreover, the Socialist Dictatorship ensured no private enterprise would arise to compete with the money powers already in place...
Russia had a huge supply of raw materials and great growth potential. Apparently President Wilson personally granted the passport of Leon Trotsky, who held the fort in Russia until Lenin arrived in his sealed, private train. The rest is history.
Later, we saw the "modern" bankers help create havoc in the Soviet Union break it up into small states and to what is now the Russian Federation.
Going back to history, Prescott Bush's Union Bank (G.W. Bush's grandfather) was entwined with Hitler's financing, IBM provided an early "computer" system based on punch cards to help keep track of inmates in concentration camps, and Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey sold the Nazis oil. The same clique of international bankers funded the next crisis - World War Two. This war provided enough of a jolt to herd the U.S. into an international institution - the United Nations.
David Rockefeller donated the land in Manhattan for the United Nation's Headquarters. The United Nations attempted to secure Israel as a "homeland for the Jews." One of the first objectives was to control Jerusalem. It seems the wealthy bankers seized the opportunity and used the plight of the Jews as an excuse to accomplish this goal they desired for centuries.
Jews equated to Nazis
Thus the Jews have become mere pawns in their global strategy. Whenever anyone criticizes Israel, they are equated to Nazis and labeled "anti-Semitic." The Israeli have provided a shield for the "international bankers" and their agendas. These bankers really have no religion or country... they are what they are - Money is their religion.
The Muslim world is now bearing the full brunt of American military might and, as each new nation is conquered, pipeline construction begins. This battling will not stop until a maze of pipelines is in place... It's blatantly obvious that forces of the New World Order are to be in place. Money and Power.
Ariel Sharon, speaking to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, once said, "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."
This was one of the most scandalous and arrogant statements that inspired tremendous resentment. What Sharon was truly saying was that the forces of World Government, concentrated in the government of Israel, are masters of the United States government. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or religion- is has to do solely with power and money. The Americans give Israel an estimate of US$ 3 billion in aide annually. Why? Any supporter of the "global" agenda who claims any religious ties is merely masking himself behind virtue... and the supposed "Jews" who rule Israel are no exception!
This lightning trip through portions of history was meant to shatter some illusions of the past - of factions battling one another or of Communists versus Capitalists. Opposition & altercation is often manufactured in order to pit sides against one another, to divide and conquer/rule. Remember history; let us try to read between the lines. It is simply Power Play.
The U.S. and Russia, at the start of the twentieth century, were the most powerful nations not yet controlled by the global bankers.Look at them now! We know who lost out...
In order for these potential "rulers" to take control of the world, the dominating world powers had to be brought to their knees. Through political manipulation they've engineered most of what we refer to as "modern history" since the industrial revolution through their slick "customer service."
World banker David Rockefeller is very clear: "The States, the peoples, the governments and the economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations."
In Rockefeller's book, "The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management," (written by Holly Sklar, but at the discretion of Rockefeller), Rockefeller does not hide the fact that his network of organizations, banks, corporations or governments works at the whim of his financial influence.
That is a scary book!
^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE
|
