& 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

BNP on govt's role in Copenhagen

In public positioning on an international issue it should show greater maturity
WE cannot but help being surprised at
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)’s statement on what it termed complete failure' of the government to project Bangladesh's case at the UN climate summit and its inability to utilise the opportunity of leading vulnerable and least developed countries in Copenhagen. Such a reaction not only reveals a lack of information but also reflects a lack of basic understanding of what went on in the climate conference; indeed, what was the climactic inter-play of international diplomatic currents and cross-currents that shaped the final outcome as it emerged.
We accept that the opposition has a right to criticism; in fact, one of its major obligations to the electorate is to point at the government's failings and pitfalls. But to be credible it ought to be substantiated by facts, not reeled off as mere generalisations. Especially, insofar as international conferences of such complexity and magnitude as that in Copenhagen went, there is no room for any knee-jerk reaction or criticism for criticism's sake. It ought to have been well informed and grounded in reality and based on facts and understanding of the basic dynamics building around the mega event.
In another remark, the former prime minister and leader of the opposition went so far as implying that the prime minister was pleading with a begging bowl. Demanding funds for adaptation to climate change can in no way termed as such.
The BNP statement has faulted Bangladesh delegation for not bringing up Farakka and Tipaimukh issues in the conference. We are at pains to understand how such bilateral concerns could have been conceivably raised in a multilateral forum. As for the Ganges water sharing accord, the BNP-led government was at the helm, for five years of the accord; and what is its track-record of success as far as articulating Bangladesh's grievances over the release of its share by India? For that matter, what initiative did it take to review the accord for which a clause exists, far less any effort to rewrite it? On the Tipaimukh question, Bangladesh and India are busy discussing it bilaterally on the basic premise of 'nothing would be done to harm Bangladesh's interest'. It seems set to come up during Sheikh Hasina's visit to India early next month. To raise it at Copenhagen would have grievously compromised our position in the coming summit.
We are very happy to note though, the BNP is taking an energetic interest on climate change issue. The party has, considerable resource base with experts, environmentalists, economists and negotiators, aside from its experience in governance for two terms. They can and should tap in on such a repository of knowledge so that they can prepare a well-formulated position paper on the issue to go public with and try and win support for it.
Principally, we think that a true measure of its concern over climate change and what Bangladesh's negotiating position ought to be can be gauged if the party takes its place as the opposition on the floor of the House. Only the other day the opposition leader vowed once again for making the parliament effective but in order for such a statement to sound credible, this one time at least, she owes it to the nation to end her boycott of IS. She should have her say at the right forum on the climate change thereby contributing to Bangladesh's negotiating positioning in the context of the inadequate Copenhagen outcome.