Filed under: International Affairs
A hobby horse of mine in international development matters has been the lack of focus on or coverage of remittance flows to the developing world – that is, the money transfers from migrants working in the developed world to their countries of origin. For example, in a normal London high street the newsagent offering money transfer services probably provides a bigger flow of cash to the developing world than your local Oxfam shop does. And up to a fifth of GDP in countries like Jamaica, Lebanon and Jordan is made up of remittances from their ex-pats.
So l am glad to see that the World Bank has begun to do regular research into this unsexy area of the world economy and that the Economist in its 19 February edition (‘Trickle-down economics’) has taken notice of this, in the context of the slump in the world economy. The Economist notes that flows from remittances are themselves likely to fall, maybe up to 6 per cent globally, but that private-capital flows such as equity and lending by foreign banks have already dropped by 50 per cent. With official development assistance also likely at best to be capped by developed countries cutting their public expenditure, this clearly suggests that remittances are a much more reliable source of cash for the developing world.
In the meantime, the main transmitters of these critically important cash flows, the money transfer agents, find themselves facing over-regulation by the Financial Services Authority, if the presentations and discussions at the annual conference of the UK Money Transmitters Association that I attended today are anything to go by. It’s a real pity that the FSA did not keep a better eye on our banking friends in the City over the past decade or so, and then just maybe we would not be where we are with the economy at this moment. Surprise, surprise, instead of going for the big players in the money markets the FSA has gone for small players instead – the money transfer agents who have played such a crucial role in providing cash to the developing world.
February 26, 2009
Last night I received news of a friend’s resignation from the BBC Appeals Advisory Committee after he had seen the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Gaza crisis appeal, which was rejected by the BBC as compromising its political neutrality, broadcast on Channel 4. (Resignation letter here.)
He argues persuasively that the DEC is itself a non-political body that provides an objective and transparent mechanism for international charities to debate and collectively decide on national media appeals, and that this external governance structure provides the BBC with more than enough protection of its political independence.
He notes that the BBC has in the past broadcast humanitarian appeals that have been potentially politically controversial. Live Aid appeals for aid to Ethiopia were broadcast in the 1980s despite concerns about the Mengistu regime, as was the 1982 DEC appeal by Sue Lawley for Palestinian and Lebanese victims of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the stated purpose of which was to drive out the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
I find it worrying that the BBC is unable to make the distinction between political bias and statements of fact, as pointed out by the Times editorial on Monday the 26th of January: “The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Israel. That is a biased statement. The death and suffering in Gaza is entirely the fault of Hamas. That is a biased statement. There has been death and there is suffering in Gaza. That is a simple statement of fact.”
So, as you can imagine, l’ll be sending a letter of complaint to the BBC.
January 27, 2009
Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East have sent a letter to Foreign Secretary David Miliband calling for action to stop the killing of civilians in Gaza. I am among the 53 signatories, who include Labour MPs, MEPs, peers and members of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly.
Dear David
Re: Gaza crisis
Three hundred people have lost their lives in Gaza over the last three days. In any conflict and any battle in today’s world such a wide scale loss of life would be met with deep despair and a sense of failure.
We are writing together with the new organisation Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East to thank you for your clear statement that the number of lives lost in Gaza over the last few days is unacceptable. We fully support your call for a cessation of violence and ask that you also make a statement as soon as Parliament resumes. We will be calling for an urgent debate, which I hope you will support, to enable the voice of the House of Commons to be heard.
The Israeli Defence Force has entered Gaza with extreme force and without apparent concern or apology for the loss of civilian life. We urge you to endorse the statement by the UN Secretary General that the Israeli government’s actions are “excessive”. On Monday the UN estimated the number of deaths at 320, of whom 62 were women and children, against two deaths on the Israeli side. More recent estimates have put the death toll at 347 with more than 800 wounded.
This development is deeply concerning both in itself and in the longer term. We believe that there can be no military solution and would further suggest that excessive military force of this kind is bound to be counterproductive and will inevitably sharpen the sense of injustice in the region.
The conflict in Gaza should not be seen in isolation. We are concerned by the continuing expansion of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem , by the confiscation of Palestinian land, by the proliferation of checkpoints and by other restrictions on Palestinian movement. In relative terms, the West Bank is peaceful at present, but further tensıons are being stoked up which could foreseeable overspill into violence.
As we enter this bleak period, probably the most dangerous since 1967, we ask you to continue to send a clear signal from this country that excessive military force is counterproductive and will not resolve the conflict. We also ask you to do all in your power to bring about an immediate ceasefire and to ensure that humanitarian aid is urgently allowed into Gaza. As a High Contracting Party to the Geneva Convention we also ask you to ensure that the UK takes a leading role in requiring international law to be upheld.
Yours sincerely
Martin Linton MP, Chair, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Rıchard Burden MP, Chair of Policy Committee, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Phyllis Starkey MP, Vice-chair, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Janet Anderson MP
Roger Berry MP
Roberta Blackman-Woods MP
Frank Cook MP
Michael Connarty MP
David Drew MP
Paul Flynn MP
Hywel Francis MP
Roger Godsiff MP
Nia Griffith MP
Peter Kilfoyle MP
Mark Lazarowicz MP
Tom Levitt MP
Judy Mallaber MP
Christine McCafferty MP
Andrew MacKinlay MP
Nick Palmer MP
Jim Sheridan MP
Andrew Slaughter MP
Dr Howard Stoke MP
David Taylor MP
Joan Walley MP
Mike Wood MP
Jim Dobbin MP
Peter Soulsby MP
Lyn Brown MP
Brian Iddon MP
Jim Devine MP
Hywel Francis MP
John MacDonnell MP
Neil Gerrard MP
Lord David Lipsey
Baroness Brenda Dean
Lord Andrew McIntosh
Baroness Rosalie Wilkins
Richard Simpson MSP
Frank McAveety MSP
Marlyn Glen MSP
Alan Davies Welsh AM
Murad Qureshi GLA
John Biggs GLA
John Austin MP
Christine Chapman AM
Eric Ittsley MP
Rob Morris MP
Baroness Anne Gibson
Harry Cohen MP
David Chaytor MP
Lord Alf Dubs
Virendra Sharma MP
Sara Linton, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East (Acting Secretary)
Michelle Harris, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
Mark McDonald, Labour Friends of Palestine & the Middle East
January 2, 2009
A source of major embarrassment for me since my election to the London Assembly in 2004 has been that the government in my ancestral home was a right-wing alliance between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Islamist political party Jamaat-e-Islami. So it was with much trepidation that l sent off over the Xmas break to assist the opposition in the general election there on the 29th of December. Little did l expect to see the landslide that resulted against this right-wing alliance, as Bangladeshis voted in their millions for the progressive secularism offered by the Awami League.
The election had been delayed by two years after the BNP-Jamaat alliance had attempted to rig the elections with a false electoral roll, providing an opening for the military to intervene and impose their caretaking government of technocrats. So there was great enthusiasm for a return to democratic rule. On the morning of the 29th of December, even before the polling stations opened at 8.00 am, people were queuing up to cast their vote. By the end of the day over 80 per cent of the Bangladeshi electorate had voted in what turned out to be one of the most peaceful elections in the country’s history, when people had feared much worse.
The BNP-Jamaat alliance tried to garner votes with their campaign to “save Islam“ but the electorate overwhelmingly rejected the claim that Islam was under threat. They turned instead to the Awami League, who promised to counter militancy and religious extremism and establish a liberal democratic society. This was particularly evident among the first-time voters who made up 30 per cent of the electorate. They were a key element in the political tidal wave that swept away the BNP-Jamaat bloc, with the Awami League and its allies winning 263 of the 299 seats in the Jatiya Sangsad, the Bangladesh parliament.
I spent polling day in Sylhet, the area of the country that most Bangladeshis in the UK come from. The district has 19 seats and the crucial battle was in Sylhet I with a contest between two former finance ministers, Saifur Rahman of the BNP and Abdul Muhith of the Awami League. On the morning of election day the Awami League were confident that they would win 12 seats, but when the results were announced in the evening they had taken all of 17. The real bonus was the election of Shafiqur Chowdhury of the Awami League, an NRB (non-resident Bangladeshi) from London, in the Sylhet II constituency, where he defeated a BNP “tough guy” by a majority of over 3,000. The Sylhet results proved to be no isolated victory, as at the same time news came through that we had won all 20 seats in the capital, Dhaka.
The voters had also overwhelmingly rejected alleged war criminals like Nizami and Saeedi, who contested the election on the BNP-Jamaat ticket. This was the result of successful campaigns in the vibrant civil society of Dhaka. These defeats brought the loudest cheer of the evening when the results were announced in the Hafiz Centre, Sylhet Town. Some will say that the trial of these war criminals is the first step to the recovery of a wounded nation and expectations are high that the government will finally deal with this albatross around the neck of the nation, once and for all.
The Bangladeshi electorate has left no one in any doubt what their choice is here, giving a near fatal blow to the Islamist political parties. Plainly put, this is an overwhelming mandate against religious fundamentalism in Bangladesh. The “Talibanisation” of the country, which some commentators aboard had identified as a threat in the past few years, is hardly a realistic prospect now, if it ever was. This is not to deny that the political assassinations that were attempted, such as the August 2004 grenade attack on a rally addressed by Awami League leader Sheikh Hasina, were dark chapters in the life of the previous government, but it would take a lot more than that to Talibanise the Bangladeshi democratic spirit.
The shift towards secularism will clearly have some impact on politics within the Bangladeshi community in the UK, which have for some years taken a predominantly conservative-religious form. This is now badly out of kilter with politics “back home”, which are represented by those of us from a secular-progressive background. Policy wonks in government at local, regional and central level should take note of this development urgently and not be taken for a ride by those supposedly representing the community.
Overall, the Bangladesh general election was a resounding endorsement of democracy and an emphatic victory for pluralism in the world’s second largest Muslim-majority country. Thus, for some, the vote was as historic as the vote in December 1970, which led to the liberation of Bangladesh from Pakistan. That was the election l watched as a small kid when my parents attempted to settle back in our ancestral home. So politics in Bangladesh have now come the full circle, back to where we should be, with the political optimism that greeted the formation of a new state nearly four decades ago now reborn in the 21st century.
Awami League supporters cheer election results
January 1, 2009
Last month the Better Air Quality in Asia (BAQ) biennial conference was held in Bangkok. It highlighted one of the most pressing issues for the mega cities of Asia – the need to improve air quality while urbanisation increases apace and along with it energy consumption and vehicle growth. Air quality in Asia is certainly improving but is still far above World Health Organisation limits. Particulate matter (dust) is the main pollutant of concern while ozone is increasingly becoming a problem.
While the BAQ conference was taking place, one particular Asian capital faced some very severe air pollution problems – Delhi with its winter “fog”, which came early this year. One of the first things that strikes visitors to India is the low-lying soup that hangs over its capital, as the early morning moisture mingles with fumes and dust to form a cloud that lasts all day. As a result, Delhi has been ranked as one of the worst polluted cities by the World Bank.
This fog often delays flights at the Indira Gandhi International Airport because of the poor visibility, which at the peak of winter falls to just 50 metres. Hospitals are also recording an increase in patients with respiratory problems, with doctors prescribing oxygen nebulisers for young children suffering “bad air” asthma attacks. We even find professional Delhites leaving the city to spare their children from pollution-related illnesses.
India’s fast expanding economy and growing prosperity have led to an increase in the number of cars that clog Delhi’s roads. Delhi is now estimated to have 5.5 million cars, an increase of over 57% in eight years. This steep rise in car use has rolled back the gains achieved by introducing compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, particularly among buses and motorised rickshaws. The problem also faces cities like Kolkata and Dhaka, where similar gains from CNG have been made, only to be negated by the huge growth in car ownership.
The Central Pollution Control Board of Delhi has suggested two explanations for what it calls “the smoke phenomenon”. While it maintains that levels of sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen considerably over the past eight years (though the latter is still above the prescribed level), it argues that adverse meteorological conditions mean pollution is not dispersed and collects at lower levels. Secondly it suggests that a rise in particulate matter has been registered, put down largely to construction work for the Commonwealth Games and Delhi Metro.
We in London have faced similar problems. It is over half a century since the Clean Air Act of 1956 cleared London skies of smog. Faced with major air pollution – and in particular, the Great Smog of 1952, which killed some 4,000 people in London – the government of the day applied mandatory Smokeless Zones to British cities. Within just three years, the use of coal disappeared from our larger cities and Londoners breathed more easily. So effective legislation can make a big difference.
Asian cities have two central challenges to be considered. First, how can cities realise their economic and social development goals while at the same time minimising the use of fossil fuels, directly associated with air pollution? And if fossil fuels are used in the future, how can their combustion be carried out in the most clean and efficient manner? Moreover, we need the right mix of technology and demand management in reducing air pollution.
Advances have been made in technologies like fuel economy, energy efficiency and the use of cleaner (low sulphur) fuels in the last 20 years, which allow for considerable reductions in air pollution levels. But there is a danger that reductions achieved through these cleaner technologies will be offset by the rapid growth in the number of emission sources, as we have already noted is the case in some south Asian cities. Cleaner technologies will need to be combined with non-technological, demandmanagement approaches of which the most obvious is investment in public transport.
Murad Qureshi AM
Deputy Chair of Environment Committee
London Assembly
London
Published in the Economic & Political Weekly, India’s premier journal for comment on social affairs and research in social sciences (pdf here) and in China Daily.
December 24, 2008
Next page
Previous page