Incumbents (Awami League) need to back out of TICFA with US
THE way that the draft Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement literally whizzed through the cabinet on Monday tends to suggest that the Awami League-led government is in a hurry to enter into a bilateral treaty with the United States before the upcoming general elections, thereby raising suspicion that it may be seeking Washingtons blessings to retain power.
Such suspicion may not seem far-fetched if the push for TICFA is juxtaposed with the passage of certain amendments to the anti-terrorism law in parliament last week. As we have argued in these columns, the definition of terrorism in the law and certain provisions incorporated therein through the latest amendments, e.g. the stipulation that photographs, and video and audio clips used in Facebook, Twitter, Skype and other online social networks would permissible as evidences in the court of laws, seem dangerously aligned with the US perception of terrorism and its so-called global war on terror.
The amendments also authorise the Bangladesh Bank to suspend bank account/s of any person upon request from foreign countries, which could only pave the way for undue external interference.
[Note: could have major impact on remittance inflow)
Then, of course, there is the possibility that the AL-government may be trying to pacify Washington, especially given the latters express disapproval and indignation with the way the former essentially muscled out Professor Muhammad Yunus from the Grameen Bank. Overall, there seems to be a strong case against the incumbents of currying favour with the US at expense of undermining the concept of a states sovereign equality.
Almost predictably, the government has cited similar agreements that the US signed with 90 countries and Bangladesh signed with 42 countries in defence of its push for the agreement. The commerce secretary was quoted in a report published in New Age on Tuesday as claiming that, when the bilateral forum was set up in line with the agreement, the authority of a country to take unilateral decision over any trade-related issues would be reduced. The argument sounds somewhat tenuous, given Washingtons predilection for unilateralism in respect of economic sanctions to accounts freeze to even invasion of a sovereign country.
Moreover, such bilateral agreements appear to strengthen Washingtons hands when it comes to bypassing multilateral arrangements such as the World Trade Organisation. Although its own brainchild, Washington does sometimes finds the WTO restricting, to a significant extent, its unilateral tendencies when it comes to issues related to global trade and investment.
Whats worse, TICFA, as and when signed, would certainly weaken Bangladeshs capacity to bargain, and also undermine its legitimacy to represent the least developed countries, at WTO negotiations.
Worse still, the TICFA provision for protection of intellectual property rights under the WTO could have a devastating impact on many sectors in Bangladesh, particularly its pharmaceutical industry.
It is difficult to believe that the incumbents are not aware of adverse geopolitical and economic consequence that TICFA poses for Bangladesh; after all, these issues have been debated over and over since the initiative was first taken in 2002. Therefore, its apparent eagerness to sign the agreement could only be explained as its willingness to compromise national sovereignty, perhaps in the hope that it would help retain power for another term, especially when its popularity has started eroding like anything. Yet, the incumbents literally froth at the mouth when talking about its commitment to protecting national sovereignty. If they really mean what they profess, the incumbents should back out of TICFA and also scrap the latest amendments to the anti-terrorism law, if not the law itself, so that Bangladesh does not get dragged into the USs war on terrorism.
Incumbents need to back out of TICFA with US
THE way that the draft Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement literally whizzed through the cabinet on Monday tends to suggest that the Awami League-led government is in a hurry to enter into a bilateral treaty with the United States before the upcoming general elections, thereby raising suspicion that it may be seeking Washingtons blessings to retain power.
Such suspicion may not seem far-fetched if the push for TICFA is juxtaposed with the passage of certain amendments to the anti-terrorism law in parliament last week. As we have argued in these columns, the definition of terrorism in the law and certain provisions incorporated therein through the latest amendments, e.g. the stipulation that photographs, and video and audio clips used in Facebook, Twitter, Skype and other online social networks would permissible as evidences in the court of laws, seem dangerously aligned with the US perception of terrorism and its so-called global war on terror.
The amendments also authorise the Bangladesh Bank to suspend bank account/s of any person upon request from foreign countries, which could only pave the way for undue external interference.
[Note: could have major impact on remittance inflow)
Then, of course, there is the possibility that the AL-government may be trying to pacify Washington, especially given the latters express disapproval and indignation with the way the former essentially muscled out Professor Muhammad Yunus from the Grameen Bank. Overall, there seems to be a strong case against the incumbents of currying favour with the US at expense of undermining the concept of a states sovereign equality.
Almost predictably, the government has cited similar agreements that the US signed with 90 countries and Bangladesh signed with 42 countries in defence of its push for the agreement. The commerce secretary was quoted in a report published in New Age on Tuesday as claiming that, when the bilateral forum was set up in line with the agreement, the authority of a country to take unilateral decision over any trade-related issues would be reduced. The argument sounds somewhat tenuous, given Washingtons predilection for unilateralism in respect of economic sanctions to accounts freeze to even invasion of a sovereign country.
Moreover, such bilateral agreements appear to strengthen Washingtons hands when it comes to bypassing multilateral arrangements such as the World Trade Organisation. Although its own brainchild, Washington does sometimes finds the WTO restricting, to a significant extent, its unilateral tendencies when it comes to issues related to global trade and investment.
Whats worse, TICFA, as and when signed, would certainly weaken Bangladeshs capacity to bargain, and also undermine its legitimacy to represent the least developed countries, at WTO negotiations.
Worse still, the TICFA provision for protection of intellectual property rights under the WTO could have a devastating impact on many sectors in Bangladesh, particularly its pharmaceutical industry.
It is difficult to believe that the incumbents are not aware of adverse geopolitical and economic consequence that TICFA poses for Bangladesh; after all, these issues have been debated over and over since the initiative was first taken in 2002. Therefore, its apparent eagerness to sign the agreement could only be explained as its willingness to compromise national sovereignty, perhaps in the hope that it would help retain power for another term, especially when its popularity has started eroding like anything. Yet, the incumbents literally froth at the mouth when talking about its commitment to protecting national sovereignty. If they really mean what they profess, the incumbents should back out of TICFA and also scrap the latest amendments to the anti-terrorism law, if not the law itself, so that Bangladesh does not get dragged into the USs war on terrorism.
Incumbents need to back out of TICFA with US
