BNP's reaction to Copenhagen Summit
I would refer to your editorial which appeared on the December 26 issue of your daily on BNP's reaction to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change. The tone and content of the editorial has indeed dismayed me, as much as it would have dismayed others who had closely followed the events in the Danish capital.
A well respected Latin American leader has in fact catalogued the drama that unfolded in the closing hours at Copenhagen as participating leaders ran against time to literally thrash out a deal that in the end did precious little to provide real solace to those who were hoping against hope for a deal that would address their real concerns. This has since been publicised. A reading of that would most definitely dent your defence of the dynamics of the Copenhagen meet and its outcome.
There is absolutely no denying that universal concern on climate change and the consequent global warming and sea level rise has all along centered on what has caused this phenomenon. The answer is simple: unchecked emission of carbon by the industrialised world over the last century in the name of development and maintaining a certain life style. Its impact on geographically low lying countries like Bangladesh would be catastrophic unless major polluters, which include some countries now in the process of rapid industrialization, do something about it with due sense of urgency and seriousness. Scientific research over the years clearly testify to this. It is here that Bangladesh delegation to Copenhagen, including the prime minister, had failed to highlight the frightening concerns of the developing and most vulnerable countries and only sought compensation funds.
This is exactly what the BNP had brought out in its reaction post Copenhagen, no more and no less. Even Begum Khaleda Zia's remarks to the media while the meeting in Copenhagen was in progress had clearly warned of our representatives being distracted by short term, uncertain and undefined monetary considerations and in the process miss out on the need to focus on the causes, and not just the effects, of climate change. So what was wrong with that?
That Copenhagen failed in achieving anything meaningful in terms of carbon emission cuts is now a globally recognised fact. Blame game between and among participating countries was fast and furious even before the ink on the 'accord' had dried. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called it a failure. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was almost equally candid in expressing his disappointment. Sweden's Environment Minister called it a disaster. US President Barack Obama has since joined the chorus of critics, albeit, qualifying it as a first step. Only very recently Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said that leaders were able to make only limited progress at the Copenhagen Summit and that no one was satisfied with the result. In this gloomy backdrop, our prime minister's choice to hail the meet as a success is indeed most baffling, and an insult to those who know and those who care. It was also most insensitive to those unfortunate millions who risk losing most from sea level rise.
BNP's comments on the outcome and our government's role was precisely on these lines. What prompted your critical editorial is indeed most surprising, or is it?
BNP's reference to Farakka and the proposed Tipaimukh dam also has to be seen in this context. More than just a bilateral issue, these are most serious environmental issues of immediate concern. Any Bangladesh government that misses this point, or worse, remains silent on it when the occasion arises to raise it, would be doing a great disservice to our people. The environmental, ecological, economic and social impact brought about by the Farakka Barrage is out here for all to see. What Tipaimukh dam and the Fulertal barrage could do is also quite evident, and Copenhagen was all about environment.
Killing of unarmed and innocent Bangladeshis by the Indian BSF with alarming regularity is a bilateral issue, the unresolved land boundary demarcation and the sufferings of those living in the enclaves is a bilateral issue, the widening trade gap between Bangladesh and India is a bilateral issue. The impact of the Farakka and Tipaimukh is a different ball game altogether. I wonder how you could have missed this point.
The editorial missed out, or chose to miss out, the concluding part of BNP's reactions, which stated clearly that while there should be no let up on drawing up appropriate adaptation measures, it called for forging a national consensus on this very vital issue as we prepare for the next round of meeting in Mexico in 2010.
Your comments that BNP's "knee jerk" reaction stemmed from ignorance and lack of understanding of the issues sounded like an echo of the comments of the State Minister for Environment. Such uncanny resemblance is indeed worrying. One hopes it is coincidental. My understanding of responsible journalism is that it is all about objectivity and non-partisanship. Echoing a government Minister's politicised comment, even if coincidental, runs the risk of getting tainted as towing the government line. One expects a newspaper like The Daily Star to steer clear of such a course.
Comments