In my view
Our well-wishers
The overriding consideration should be to get the maximum out of a non-renewable natural resource that has multiple uses. There is a basis for taking the decision objectively now. The Gas Utilization Committee's recommendations appear sensible and sound. But before a decision is taken, the report should be made available to cross-section of the people and their opinions should be invited through mail, personal interviews and, of course, round table conferences.
The old timers will remember the story they were told when young. It does not make the rounds anymore, like many other stories, having been overtaken by television, video games, internet and other blessings of the electronic age. Visuals are in, stories are outdated. But this story has to be told to remind those who heard it long ago and for the benefit of those who are not likely to know it, ever. It is about a Brahmin who bought a goat from the market and was walking it home.
On the way some crooks saw him and hatched a plan. One by one they sidled up beside the Brahmin and expressed shock that he should be taking a dog by a leash. When he heard the same expression of shock and surprise from the fourth man in quick succession the Brahmin started feeling embarrassed and become doubtful about the creature that was following him. Eventually, he let it go. The four rogues had a feast that day having hoodwinked the gullible Brahmin.
The people who are coming from abroad to advise us to export gas without further delay are not rogues. They are important persons known for their ranks and many achievements in their respective areas. But like the rogues in the story they come in the guise of well-wishers. The strategy is also the same. They have come one after another without raising any suspicion about a concerted plan to pursuade Bangladesh to change her mind on gas export. It is a modern version of the psychological assault resorted to by the four unsavoury characters in the story. For them the reward may not be a feast but those who are sending them will take care of that suitably in recognition of the services rendered.
The first to try talking us out of our resolve to hold on to the only mineral resource we have was, of course, the man who is now one heart beat away from the White House, Dick Cheney. As the senior executive of the oil company that employed him, he made frequent visits to Bangladesh to take stock of the gas reserve and prepare the ground for early export. His arrivals and departures in an executive jet was a regular fixture in Zia International Airport in the not too distant past. Election as Vice President left his mission unfinished but it was never out of steam. Joined by another member of oil industry's favourite club, Bush Jr. in the White House, Dick Cheyney's mission to Bangladesh was not to be derailed.
But even before the Texan cowboy's conquest of the White House, through chicanery in Florida's vote counting, the oil lobby found a willing accomplice in Bill Clinton. He came to Bangladesh during his South Asian trip only for a day. In the tight schedule of that brief visit, he exhorted Bangladesh government to be ready and willing to export gas. When told that export would be feasible after ensuring reserve for fifty years' domestic requirement he argued that new energy technology would emerge within that period making gas less attractive or make it just another among many alternative energy sources. The South Asian junket was a lust hurrah for Bill Clinton and his family to 'do India' i.e. visit the touristic places. Visit to Bangladesh was not to keep the balance but in all probability was undertaken at the behest of the oil lobby whose largesse find its way to all parties' coffers. In any case, Bill Clinton's visit and advice regarding gas export was the second episode in the unfolding drama over gas reserves in Bangladesh. His visit, of course, was preceded by his energy secretary, Bill Richardson's several trips. Bangladesh was suddenly being courted with all ardour by the greatest power in the world, like an earnest suitor. The effect produced was as flattering as it was confounding.
With the change of guard in the American administration, pressure on behalf of the oil companies came through institutions like World Bank, which together with the UN, has become the dignified errand boy of America. But the oil lobby is not so unimaginative as to use the same dramatic personae in this passion play. How about pressing into service a few heavy weight economists? -- they must have wondered. In spite of their devotion to a dismal science and their chronically lacklustre performances economists seem to be still enjoying indulgence of a wide swathe of educated people, if for nothing else, for their role in post facto analysis. So when Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow came to Dhaka representing an environmental outfit, intellectuals, particularly economists, went head over heels. One of his former students was so ecstatic that he publicly welcomed him through a newspaper article. But this being beside the point let us ask: what was the mission of Kenneth Arrow in Dhaka? It was ostensibly about sustainable development, the other side of environmental concern. But lo and behold! Before long he was talking about gas and the desirability of exporting it. Why would a Nobel laureate be interested all on a sudden in gas export by Bangladesh? Because the oil lobby wanted him to be, that is why. Nobel laureates are also ordinary mortals and they need fund, well, for research, particularly sustainable development.
Hot on the heels of Kenneth Arrow (did he hit the bull's eye? He ought to have, with a name like that!) now comes Jeffrey Sachs. He is not a Nobel laureate yet, but will be one one of these days, what with the connection and network that he has build up so methodically. From the point of view of this lampoon, Jeffrey Sachs has one thing, and a very important thing, in common with Kenneth Arrow: he is also involved with sustainable development (beg your pardon, if you cannot sustain interest in this threadbare subject any longer). Among other things, he is the Director of Columbia University's Earth Institute (mother earth, open up!) and in that capacity "heads a huge, inter-disciplinary effort to keep poor countries build sustainable economies" (what a relief, these words in Time magazine's write-up dated January 6, 2003). But instead of sending wrong signals to the starry-eyed beneficiaries ('stakeholders', is the currently fashionable jargon) he makes it plain that instead of going through the beaten track, Earth Institute (post-modernists beware!) does not seek to treat soil depletion, climate change, epidemic disease and social upheaval (euphemism for terrorism) as distinct phenomena. As the write up in Time magazine mentions, "the 800 scientists of the Institute (it is multi-disciplinary, remember?) study the links among such problems and work to translate their insights into actions." Don't sit agape while reading this and don't hold your breath either. Translating insights into acion is no child's play and it takes time, my dear. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Sachs comes on a whirlwind tour of Bangladesh to bedazzle and oblige his fellow travelling economists (of lesser ilk unfortunately) with generous photo ops and shoulder rubbing. But watch his words carefully. He, too, has spoken about opening up new competitive areas, including energy (where else can Bangladesh be competitive? RMG? Forget it, Sacchs said in so many words in the roundtable). So in the strategy to achieve the Millennium Development Goal of Bangladesh energy has become a very important factor. Discarding the binary position of "on the one hand --", so favourite with economists, Sacchs put it bluntly to his audience: "there is no sense in keeping energy under the ground for 20 years (20? Who reduced it from 50?), what is important is to do things transparently (while being steamrolled!). Use it and develop it -- it is very important to generate power and boost export". Now that sounds like the words of an experienced well-wisher.
All the more endearing, because he was giving his advice free, with no consultancy fee attached (he is of course already paid by, ah! well, you know by whom).
It is obvious that we have reached a stage in this alternatingly blunt and subliminal persuasion where gas can no longer be kept hanging fire, literally and figuratively. We have to take a decision soon to put an end to this interminable coaxing and cajoling by people who must be at a loss working out their opportunity cost (what they would be earning elsewhere if they were not on this mission in Bangladesh). More importantly, decision will be forced on us by default and we would be no better off than the poor Brahmin in the story. It, therefore, makes immense sense to have our wit about and calculation ready for an homegrown decision that promotes both short and long run interests. The overriding consideration should be to get the maximum out of a non-renewable natural resource that has multiple uses. There is a basis for taking the decision objectively now. The Gas Utilization Committee's recommendations appear sensible and sound. But before a decision is taken, the report should be made available to cross-section of the people and their opinions should be invited through mail, personal interviews and, of course, round table conferences, so beloved these days. Remember what Jeff Sachs said on Monday: "what is important is to do things transparently". Now, these are the words of a real well-wisher. Can't say if he had his tongue in the cheek when the words were spoken.
Hasnat Abdul Hye is a former secretary, novelist and economist.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments