foreign aid and foreign aggression

[Force_Recon]

how much do we owe to other organisations and countries?what is our total debt?arr ki amader GDP ir koto percent?

I think we shouldn't take too much aid.It makes us vulnerable,we have to follow the wishes of the foreigners.

[SenSeTransp()rt]

Well, there are many aspects regarding this subject.

First of all, maybe at certain matters our economy is really strong, but that alone will not be sufficient enough to provide us clearance from other sides.

As corruption has laid a deep scar in many spaces and layers through which only improvement of our country can be expected, its really hard to grow up with all that drawbacks.

Foreign countries have their own policies, we have many treasures and properties, natural. We can't use them, moreover they can't. So, they offer us help in percentages to dig it out and share it, ofcourse even after deserving the lion's share, we get nothing.

But, something called power has reigned upto the world, and we even after knowing it, can't help it. We need foreign help, no one can deny that.

Yea, in some cases we are independent. But, in other, we may be, but its lowered by the action of some personnel. Our country is becoming vulnerable day by day.

I agree, we shouldn't take too much aid, but, we are in a position that we have to take. We can't stand up with what we are strong.

[Force_Recon]

even we have to we have to make sure its small.

[}|Serial_Killer|{]

lol ..

amader i mean jonoshadhron er ato aid na hoileo cholbe I guess. But aid na ashle mathay abri porbe mp /minister der .....

oi aid r tk r 70% e to oder pet e jay .

amar dharona , amader tax, export and other sources theke amra dhire dhire ai dependency katai uthte parbo ..... jodi poltician ra honest hoy ...


but aita to theoretically impossible

[Force_Recon]

http://thedailystar.net/2006/11/15/d61115020529.htm

Diplomacy, Dhaka-style
Harun ur Rashid

Many people in Bangladesh are surprised and puzzled as to why foreign diplomats, especially from the US and the European countries, have been involved in election matters that are essentially an internal affair of the country. Diplomats are rarely involved in internal matters such as the election to the parliament of a sovereign country.


Functions of diplomatic missions
The functions of diplomats have been codified and described in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 3 of the Convention, for ready reference is quoted below:


"The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:


(a) Representing the sending state in the receiving state;

(b) Protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;

(c ) Negotiating with the government of the receiving state;

(d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state, and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state; and

(e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending state and the receiving state, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations."

If we examine carefully, it is clear that the above (d) sub-clause allows a diplomatic mission to ascertain the "conditions and developments" in the receiving state and to report to its home government. Full stop.

This means that a diplomatic mission can only ascertain and report the conditions of the receiving country to its home government. Any other action a diplomatic mission takes would obviously raise serious concern among the majority of the people in Bangladesh. This is because it would be seen as direct interference in the domestic matters of Bangladesh, which is not permissible under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.


Every citizen in the country wants a free, fair and peaceful election in accordance with the constitution and laws. The political leaders understand that. A foreign diplomat urging leaders of the political parties to ensure the same is perceived by many in the country to be just a "photo opportunity."

The question raging in the minds of the majority of the people is whether a diplomatic mission is permitted to perform the kind of functions that some of the diplomatic missions are vigorously carrying out, with fanfare in the media, in election matters in Bangladesh.


It is assumed that diplomatic missions know their position in terms of the rules of the Vienna Convention, therefore, the question is: why are some of them involved in the internal matters of Bangladesh?


Why are they doing so?
Are they doing so for protecting their national interests? It appears to be so, and some of the reasons that deserve mention are as follows:

First, confrontational politics in the country has made it easier for foreign diplomats to involve themselves as "wise persons" in a domestic matter. The major disagreements that currently exist between major parties with regard to conducting fair, free and peaceful election lead to a common-sense conclusion that violence is most likely to erupt among party supporters during election time. It is sad that diplomats have to advise the political leaders to shun violent politics.


Second, Bangladesh is an aid receiving country and, therefore, they think they have political leverage on Bangladesh. This implies that they think they have an "implicit right" to interfere in domestic matters because their aid and loans are provided to the country for economic and social development. Since the aid or loans are their tax- payers' money, they argue that financial contributions should reach the target. Political instability and violence would impede achieving the stated goal.


Third, the development agenda for many aid-giving countries and international financial institutions shifted dramatically during the last ten years. They want strong institutions and good governance for economic and social development in a country. It is not incorrect to say that aid-giving nations see that some governments in developing countries, including Bangladesh, are characterized by the use of political power to serve a network of supporters of the country's leaders.


Furthermore, Bangladesh is perceived as having weak government institutions. Endemic corruption, coupled with distorted values, has sapped the vitality and integrity of many institutions in the country. The essence of strong institutions is enforcement of rule of law, irrespective of the social status of a person.


Fourth, many proponents of the 1990s Washington Consensus (emphasis on fiscal discipline, privatization, and public spending for health, education and infrastructure for economic growth) now say that they understand the importance of strong institutions, rule of law and good governance in economic development. Milton Friedman, dean of orthodox free market economists, in 2002 revised his view in underscoring the importance of making the transition from socialism to free market. He wrote: " I was wrong. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization."

Fifth, some of the aid-giving countries think that weak states, or failed states, are a threat to global stability. They argue that weak states are the source of many of the world's most serious problems, from poverty to Aids to drugs to terrorism.

Sixth, Bangladesh could not show itself to be free of terrorist activities because of a few extreme militant organisations. It is commendable that some of the principal militant leaders or actors have been arrested, and that some of them have been convicted.


Finally, the concept of sovereignty has undergone changes. Since the international community is an inter-connected world, a country's instability, or political vacuum, invariably has an adverse impact on others. The newly developing concept of international public policy tends to diminish sovereignty of a country, and there appears to be no reasonable excuse for a weak, or a failed, state not to endure interference from other states in domestic matters.


For example, weak states such as East Timor or Solomon Islands in the Pacific have led to serious instability in the area, and Australia had to send troops to calm the situation. Australia was concerned that political instability and violence in the island-states would de-stabilize the region, including Australia.


It is reasonable to assume that weak or failed states are the source of many of the world's serious and intractable problems, such as terrorism. Conducting war on terrorism is the primary goal of many Western states.


It seems that, prompted by the considerations stated above, some foreign diplomats have been engaged in involving themselves in an entirely internal matter of Bangladesh. It is the political situation in the country that allows them to interfere in a domestic matter. Bangladeshis have to blame themselves for creating this situation.


Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

[Force_Recon]

http://thedailystar.net/2006/11/15/d61115020529.htm

Diplomacy, Dhaka-style
Harun ur Rashid

Many people in Bangladesh are surprised and puzzled as to why foreign diplomats, especially from the US and the European countries, have been involved in election matters that are essentially an internal affair of the country. Diplomats are rarely involved in internal matters such as the election to the parliament of a sovereign country.


Functions of diplomatic missions
The functions of diplomats have been codified and described in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 3 of the Convention, for ready reference is quoted below:


"The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:


(a) Representing the sending state in the receiving state;

(b) Protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;

(c ) Negotiating with the government of the receiving state;

(d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state, and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state; and

(e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending state and the receiving state, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations."

If we examine carefully, it is clear that the above (d) sub-clause allows a diplomatic mission to ascertain the "conditions and developments" in the receiving state and to report to its home government. Full stop.

This means that a diplomatic mission can only ascertain and report the conditions of the receiving country to its home government. Any other action a diplomatic mission takes would obviously raise serious concern among the majority of the people in Bangladesh. This is because it would be seen as direct interference in the domestic matters of Bangladesh, which is not permissible under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.


Every citizen in the country wants a free, fair and peaceful election in accordance with the constitution and laws. The political leaders understand that. A foreign diplomat urging leaders of the political parties to ensure the same is perceived by many in the country to be just a "photo opportunity."

The question raging in the minds of the majority of the people is whether a diplomatic mission is permitted to perform the kind of functions that some of the diplomatic missions are vigorously carrying out, with fanfare in the media, in election matters in Bangladesh.


It is assumed that diplomatic missions know their position in terms of the rules of the Vienna Convention, therefore, the question is: why are some of them involved in the internal matters of Bangladesh?


Why are they doing so?
Are they doing so for protecting their national interests? It appears to be so, and some of the reasons that deserve mention are as follows:

First, confrontational politics in the country has made it easier for foreign diplomats to involve themselves as "wise persons" in a domestic matter. The major disagreements that currently exist between major parties with regard to conducting fair, free and peaceful election lead to a common-sense conclusion that violence is most likely to erupt among party supporters during election time. It is sad that diplomats have to advise the political leaders to shun violent politics.


Second, Bangladesh is an aid receiving country and, therefore, they think they have political leverage on Bangladesh. This implies that they think they have an "implicit right" to interfere in domestic matters because their aid and loans are provided to the country for economic and social development. Since the aid or loans are their tax- payers' money, they argue that financial contributions should reach the target. Political instability and violence would impede achieving the stated goal.


Third, the development agenda for many aid-giving countries and international financial institutions shifted dramatically during the last ten years. They want strong institutions and good governance for economic and social development in a country. It is not incorrect to say that aid-giving nations see that some governments in developing countries, including Bangladesh, are characterized by the use of political power to serve a network of supporters of the country's leaders.


Furthermore, Bangladesh is perceived as having weak government institutions. Endemic corruption, coupled with distorted values, has sapped the vitality and integrity of many institutions in the country. The essence of strong institutions is enforcement of rule of law, irrespective of the social status of a person.


Fourth, many proponents of the 1990s Washington Consensus (emphasis on fiscal discipline, privatization, and public spending for health, education and infrastructure for economic growth) now say that they understand the importance of strong institutions, rule of law and good governance in economic development. Milton Friedman, dean of orthodox free market economists, in 2002 revised his view in underscoring the importance of making the transition from socialism to free market. He wrote: " I was wrong. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization."

Fifth, some of the aid-giving countries think that weak states, or failed states, are a threat to global stability. They argue that weak states are the source of many of the world's most serious problems, from poverty to Aids to drugs to terrorism.

Sixth, Bangladesh could not show itself to be free of terrorist activities because of a few extreme militant organisations. It is commendable that some of the principal militant leaders or actors have been arrested, and that some of them have been convicted.


Finally, the concept of sovereignty has undergone changes. Since the international community is an inter-connected world, a country's instability, or political vacuum, invariably has an adverse impact on others. The newly developing concept of international public policy tends to diminish sovereignty of a country, and there appears to be no reasonable excuse for a weak, or a failed, state not to endure interference from other states in domestic matters.


For example, weak states such as East Timor or Solomon Islands in the Pacific have led to serious instability in the area, and Australia had to send troops to calm the situation. Australia was concerned that political instability and violence in the island-states would de-stabilize the region, including Australia.


It is reasonable to assume that weak or failed states are the source of many of the world's serious and intractable problems, such as terrorism. Conducting war on terrorism is the primary goal of many Western states.


It seems that, prompted by the considerations stated above, some foreign diplomats have been engaged in involving themselves in an entirely internal matter of Bangladesh. It is the political situation in the country that allows them to interfere in a domestic matter. Bangladeshis have to blame themselves for creating this situation.


Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

[Force_Recon]

http://thedailystar.net/2006/11/15/d61115020529.htm

Diplomacy, Dhaka-style
Harun ur Rashid

Many people in Bangladesh are surprised and puzzled as to why foreign diplomats, especially from the US and the European countries, have been involved in election matters that are essentially an internal affair of the country. Diplomats are rarely involved in internal matters such as the election to the parliament of a sovereign country.


Functions of diplomatic missions
The functions of diplomats have been codified and described in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 3 of the Convention, for ready reference is quoted below:


"The functions of a diplomatic mission consist, inter alia, in:


(a) Representing the sending state in the receiving state;

(b) Protecting in the receiving state the interests of the sending state and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law;

(c ) Negotiating with the government of the receiving state;

(d) Ascertaining by all lawful means conditions and developments in the receiving state, and reporting thereon to the government of the sending state; and

(e) Promoting friendly relations between the sending state and the receiving state, and developing their economic, cultural and scientific relations."

If we examine carefully, it is clear that the above (d) sub-clause allows a diplomatic mission to ascertain the "conditions and developments" in the receiving state and to report to its home government. Full stop.

This means that a diplomatic mission can only ascertain and report the conditions of the receiving country to its home government. Any other action a diplomatic mission takes would obviously raise serious concern among the majority of the people in Bangladesh. This is because it would be seen as direct interference in the domestic matters of Bangladesh, which is not permissible under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter.


Every citizen in the country wants a free, fair and peaceful election in accordance with the constitution and laws. The political leaders understand that. A foreign diplomat urging leaders of the political parties to ensure the same is perceived by many in the country to be just a "photo opportunity."

The question raging in the minds of the majority of the people is whether a diplomatic mission is permitted to perform the kind of functions that some of the diplomatic missions are vigorously carrying out, with fanfare in the media, in election matters in Bangladesh.


It is assumed that diplomatic missions know their position in terms of the rules of the Vienna Convention, therefore, the question is: why are some of them involved in the internal matters of Bangladesh?


Why are they doing so?
Are they doing so for protecting their national interests? It appears to be so, and some of the reasons that deserve mention are as follows:

First, confrontational politics in the country has made it easier for foreign diplomats to involve themselves as "wise persons" in a domestic matter. The major disagreements that currently exist between major parties with regard to conducting fair, free and peaceful election lead to a common-sense conclusion that violence is most likely to erupt among party supporters during election time. It is sad that diplomats have to advise the political leaders to shun violent politics.


Second, Bangladesh is an aid receiving country and, therefore, they think they have political leverage on Bangladesh. This implies that they think they have an "implicit right" to interfere in domestic matters because their aid and loans are provided to the country for economic and social development. Since the aid or loans are their tax- payers' money, they argue that financial contributions should reach the target. Political instability and violence would impede achieving the stated goal.


Third, the development agenda for many aid-giving countries and international financial institutions shifted dramatically during the last ten years. They want strong institutions and good governance for economic and social development in a country. It is not incorrect to say that aid-giving nations see that some governments in developing countries, including Bangladesh, are characterized by the use of political power to serve a network of supporters of the country's leaders.


Furthermore, Bangladesh is perceived as having weak government institutions. Endemic corruption, coupled with distorted values, has sapped the vitality and integrity of many institutions in the country. The essence of strong institutions is enforcement of rule of law, irrespective of the social status of a person.


Fourth, many proponents of the 1990s Washington Consensus (emphasis on fiscal discipline, privatization, and public spending for health, education and infrastructure for economic growth) now say that they understand the importance of strong institutions, rule of law and good governance in economic development. Milton Friedman, dean of orthodox free market economists, in 2002 revised his view in underscoring the importance of making the transition from socialism to free market. He wrote: " I was wrong. It turns out that the rule of law is probably more basic than privatization."

Fifth, some of the aid-giving countries think that weak states, or failed states, are a threat to global stability. They argue that weak states are the source of many of the world's most serious problems, from poverty to Aids to drugs to terrorism.

Sixth, Bangladesh could not show itself to be free of terrorist activities because of a few extreme militant organisations. It is commendable that some of the principal militant leaders or actors have been arrested, and that some of them have been convicted.


Finally, the concept of sovereignty has undergone changes. Since the international community is an inter-connected world, a country's instability, or political vacuum, invariably has an adverse impact on others. The newly developing concept of international public policy tends to diminish sovereignty of a country, and there appears to be no reasonable excuse for a weak, or a failed, state not to endure interference from other states in domestic matters.


For example, weak states such as East Timor or Solomon Islands in the Pacific have led to serious instability in the area, and Australia had to send troops to calm the situation. Australia was concerned that political instability and violence in the island-states would de-stabilize the region, including Australia.


It is reasonable to assume that weak or failed states are the source of many of the world's serious and intractable problems, such as terrorism. Conducting war on terrorism is the primary goal of many Western states.


It seems that, prompted by the considerations stated above, some foreign diplomats have been engaged in involving themselves in an entirely internal matter of Bangladesh. It is the political situation in the country that allows them to interfere in a domestic matter. Bangladeshis have to blame themselves for creating this situation.


Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

[Force_Recon]

elections err age onek interference hoise.
I laughed when Anwar Chowdhury said UK will give us twice the annual we received if we hold elections.

[dIsTiNG]

Khat Indian ra ei nia hasa hasi kore je "BD chole, khae, Paade onner kothae.". Do We? Nop.

Poora desher manush akrokom ar politician thief ra arek rokom. Ami shunechi BD ke Developing nation er status dae US and EU er kichu country. But, BD want to keep itself in Under developed status. Why they keep want to be begger for whole life?

Do we want this? no... Politicians want this. They want to foreign aid, not us. Those foreign aid are making us poor to poorer.

[}|Serial_Killer|{]

Amader Total Market akhon India r dokhol e. jeikhanei jan India pura capture kore rakhse. R ase china r dokhol e. aitay obosshho bolar kisu nai echnology field shara duniya tei china capture korse. infact america o threat er upor ase. kintu jama kapor, khaoa daoa shob e amader indian.

ar pathetic bapar hoilo , BNP r neta ra bole , desh india niye jabe , desh ke tara bachabe, kintu ami ekta list dekhsilam paper e , bnp r onek mp e india r pochur company r franchise khuila boisha ase ai desh e.

politician der ai hypocracy dur na hoile , bangladesh soon kauro ongo rajjo hoye jabe.