& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

From economic globalisation to armed expansionism

QAZI KHOLIQUZZAMAN AHMAD
WITH this write-up I express my solidarity with the 12 April 2003 World Peace March against invasion of Iraq.
The economic globalisation process initiated in the late 1970s and accelerated from the early 1990s has made the world more divided instead of integrating it, which was the stated goal. The divide between the developed and the developing worlds has accelerated in terms of, for example, share of wealth (as of 2000, 86 per cent of the world's wealth was controlled by 20 per cent of the world's top wealthy people, the proportion having increased from 80 per cent prevailing 10 years previously -- see UN Secretary General's Millennium speech); access to technology, particularly information technology; and human capability. Obviously, the poor cannot succeed in competition against the rich. Power begets power and wealth begets wealth, particularly in an iniquitous order. In the process of the machinations of the rich and powerful, the weak and poor fall by the way side. Inequality has not only increased inter-nationally but also within countries. The rich and the power elites have reaped benefits from their connections and cooperation with the controllers and managers of the unequal international system. Widespread and deep-seated poverty persists around the developing world. The access of the poor countries to resources from international sources is becoming increasingly constrained, given the intensifying inward-looking stance of the developed countries. The agreed opening of markets by the developed countries to the exports of the developing countries has not materialised. Prospects of official development assistance are becoming increasingly bleaker. Free market-focused conditionalities associated with grants and concessional funds received from multilateral and bilateral sources have, not infrequently, proved inimical to the interest of the poorer segments of the societies of the reforming developing countries. Moreover, the 'supervisory' attitude of certain so-called development partners is showing ever-sharper teeth, encroaching upon the sovereignty of the concerned countries. The basic message of the now ruling free market neo-liberalist order has been: open up your economy or you are condemned. Condemned many countries around the world have been, but not because they have not opened up their economies but because they did so the way they had been enjoined to.
Reforms are of course needed, but the necessary ones should be designed and carried out on the basis of the realities facing the particular country in question -- and not following a standardised externally dictated package. Bangladesh has been an active participant in the globalisation process, but neither has the country's economic growth accelerated much, nor has its poverty been reduced significantly.
Now, another body blow has been dealt to the global order, with the US-UK armed invasion of Iraq. In this case, the Bush doctrine appears to be, according to a statement the US Presi- dent made sometime ago: if you are with us it is fine; if not, you are against us. This means that everybody must comply with what the only prevailing superpower says. Otherwise, their rightful voices would be construed as inimical to the US. In other words, it is the interest and attitudes of the US and its few allies that must prevail. They have the muscle power; they can therefore violate the international law and the UN principles. They can attack a sovereign country -- illegally, without UN sanction. This is exactly what they have done to Iraq. Innocent people have been killed, including women, children, and journalists. Hotels, hospitals, residential areas have been bombed. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. It has now clearly emerged that the allegation that Iraq had such weapons was a figment of imagination or a deliberately fabricated pack of lies, just to concoct an excuse to invade Iraq, control its huge oil resources, and establish a hegemonic foothold in the Middle East.
Peace loving people around the world have been protesting this naked aggression by the most powerful nation of the world, now the only superpower, against a sovereign country, which has been rendered poor, weak and vulnerable, despite its huge oil resources, by long standing economic sanctions. Never before such a flagrant disregard of expressed public opinion around the world has been witnessed. It was not unexpected that Iraq would be over-run and occupied. But this may be a 'victory' from the short-term perspective. Over the longer run, this armed victory might turn out to be a nightmare for the 'victors'. But, for the foreseeable future, this aggression against Iraq constitutes a very dangerous precedence.
Incidentally, according to newspaper reports (The Daily Star, 8 April 2003), 1976 Economics Nobel Laureate US Professor Milton Friedman has said that the Iraq war is stimulating the global economy rather than hurting it. Obviously, this is to be led by the US economy, which accounts for over 40 per cent of the global economy. He may be right. The armament industry may lead this stimulation. But the question is: is, then, the killing of innocent people including women and children through an illegal invasion of another country justified if that acts as an economic stimulant? Does one have to conclude that more countries may therefore be similarly attacked? Indeed, according to newspaper reports (The Daily Star, 10 April 2003), the US Administration has asked Iran, Syria, and North Korea to learn appropriate lessons from what has been done to Iraq. This is a Dark Age scenario: show allegiance or face annihilation.
Television footages have shown people in Baghdad looting television sets, chairs, tables, and other goods -or whatever they could lay their hands on. This is undesirable. But such things can happen where law and order breaks down, particularly where the people have been acutely suffering from well over a decade as a result of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. But the big looting has taken place in the case of the country (Iraq) itself, which has been robbed of its sovereignty.
Twelfth April 2003 is thus a historical day of the highest significance for humanity as it witnesses a globally organised protest against the hegemonic aggression of the US-UK combine against a sovereign people, which calls for a return to sanity, the rule of law, and respect for the UN principles.
Dr. Qazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmad is President, Bangladesh Economic Association (BEA)