|
Feature
By M. Rashiduzzaman
Three controversial steps by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina--the New Delhi-backed CHT-accord with the separatists, an uneven water-treaty, and, the proposal for giving transshipment facilities to India have spurred the perception that Bangladesh surely behaved like a "soft state" in dealing with its big neighbor. But wait a minute! Of late, the Indian press has been spinning the same kind of misgiving---is India a "soft state"? Only last year, following the military coup there, Pakistan was characterized as the "soft state"---some even called it a failed state. But the present anxiety of India acting like a weak state comes in the backdrop of the Kargil episode, the deteriorating Kashmir situation and more importantly the hijacking of an Air India plane that ended in New Delhi's dramatic capitulation to the terrorists. All the major South Asian states, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka could fit into the paradigm of soft states proportionate to their respective level of institutional slump, governance crises, escalating domestic conflicts, and their relative unimportance in the global strategic arena. Which one is softer than the other? And in what respect? Generally speaking, the national states, in recent decades, have been weaker than ever before, and it's not a wringing rhetoric. Indeed, the old concept of omnipotent sovereignty is dwindling, and indeed, the ecology of the statehood itself has been shifting---sovereignty is no longer the Holy Grail, and the state-power is migrating to a variety of non-state institutions.
In the parlance of international politics, power should match power---a state is soft when it cannot effectively defend itself against an invading country or fail to resist diplomatic or economic pressure mounted by an external power, be it a neighbor or a distant state. A successful state should also be able to deal with the centrifugal tendencies within its border. There is a kaleidoscope of views about the weakness of the state apparatus in Bangladesh, which could stretch itself from the domestic to the international arena. Whether we like it or not, the future of the CHT may become the litmus test for the Bangladeshi state-apparatus including the military resources. For those who opposed the CHT deal, Dhaka's hasty acceptance of a New Delhi-brokered agreement was more in India's strategic interest, which demonstrated the Bangladeshi weakness before the rebels and India's pressure while the military successfully contained the separatist insurgency.
There are other vital security challenges to be taken into consideration. The military in Bangladesh has withdrawn from politics, but the armed forces' national security role remains paramount. Without a viable military deterrence, a state hardly inspires political prestige in the global or regional arena---it becomes a pliable "lamb state". I am not suggesting that India is planning an impending attack on Bangladesh, but any future unraveling in the neighboring Indian (northeastern) states could be a calamitous security threat to Bangladesh, no matter how much of friendship New Delhi might cherish towards the political leadership in Dhaka and the vice versa. Already there are Indian allegations that the separatists from the northeastern states had their sanctuaries inside Bangladesh although the authorities in Dhaka have denied such charges. It is dangerously simplistic to count on the goodness from across the border, and ignore the national strategic capacity. Both theoretically and practically, the military is the ultimate weapon of the state power. Even with a political settlement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) being implemented, the porous ness of the peace accord periodically reveals itself, but the worst may not have unraveled itself yet.
I cannot predict how will the strategic calculations between Bangladesh and India will exactly work---I don't know who can, but by its size, capability and weapon acquisitions, the Indian military is a formidable machine that will grow phenomenally in the next few years to come. Closely related to this is India's mind-boggling nuclear arsenal---India could easily bully the smaller non-nuclear countries in the region, and there are lessons to be drawn from the history of asymmetrical equation between the atomic weapon and non-atomic weapon states. Dimly aware of its importance, it is frequently argued that Bangladesh, a very poor country, could not afford a substantive military force. More than once, the top leaders were unable to confirm, in public, if Bangladesh had any long term security planning. Even a perceptively strong state cannot expect to solve all international disputes (and internal rebellion) through peaceful means, and when the chips are down the military power becomes the last resort. As of now, there is no solid international guarantee for the so-called soft states, and the Kuwait example of being saved from a brutal aggression is a rare phenomenon unless the superpowers are involved. An empowered United Nations, the global guardian angel for the smaller nations, is not anywhere near although some form of global governance through a central planetary authority in the future could not be dismissed out of hand. But let us think of the reality now. Thanks to the unstoppable forces of globalization spreading its tentacles all over the world, the sovereignty of the small states will, in the years to come, continue to be in a melting pot, and the traditional political demarcations will be under a threat, some subtle, some abrasive. The future political posture in Bangladesh can only ignore that reality to its peril.
The state-based governance arrangement in Bangladesh, like most other nations, is being eroded by global political economy, information technology, and the non-governmental organizations (NGOs), domestic and international. The Bangladesh government's agenda is no longer an exclusive expression of the groups and leaders in power---the transnational associations, and the non-state actors frequently claim rights over the head of the traditional governance structure. From time to time, Bangladesh has come in direct confrontation with what has been taken as the donor countries' and funding agencies' intervention in domestic politics---interestingly, both the ruling party and opposition groups have grumbled against it over a period of time. In such disputes between the NGOs and the government, it is the Bangladeshi authorities that frequently yield to the non-state institutions, and it is usually a quiet retreat for a poor nation with few leverages.
But a state is also weakened by a variety of internal dissensions, and for that the leaders, intelligentsia and finally the civil society are largely liable. We are aware of the inflexible bitterness that divides the political parties and their leaders in Bangladesh---a lot is being said and written on this uncompromising battle with no end in sight. But that is not the only fault line that divides the nation. In some ways it is more disturbing that the civil society in Bangladesh has an ozone-layer size hole in it---and sadly, there is no visible effort to repair it. Seldom will you find a university, school, college, club, professional association, cultural forum and intellectual establishment where the members are not only fighting along personal, partisan and factional lines, but they wallow in calling each other "enemies" of Bangladesh, sometimes openly, sometimes tacitly. Few of the important leaders, and not even the members of the intellectual community are coming forward to mend the "We" versus "They" divide, potentially, the most damaging of all the divides in Bangladesh. The nation is bifurcated by a form of political frisking in the name of nationalism, patriotism and proven or unproven charges where history is used as a tool of power and a punishing device for the opponents. You cannot build a strong state by tainting numerous people with motivated allegations, nor can you achieve national strength by purveying a notoriously one-sided history.
How do you transform a weak state into a strong one? No single recipe of course! The weak vs. strong differentiation of states is not meant to be a frozen caste system among the nation states---a weak state could conceivably become strong, and the strong state may also become spongy. You could find weak states among the practicing democracies, but the non-democracies are not the best specimen of strong states either---indeed, they proved to be potentially unstable. Both Bangladesh and Pakistan have made sudden and sharp turns and twists between democracy and military regimes, which made the global community wonder if they were close to the failed statecrafts. In case of Pakistan, in not so distant past, democratic hopes were raised by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's assertiveness as an elected leader, but the blazing expectations were douched again when General Pervez Mosharraf fired the elected government and established a military-led non-elected regime. Whatever the military rulers may say or do in order to legitimize their take over, their action has only generated more questions about Pakistan's future. For more than one reason, it seems that the military has become the ultimate guardian of the state of Pakistan. That may be acceptable to many Pakistanis, but eventually, the military-led state is not a strong state. Bangladesh had its own share of military regimes, but that did not necessarily make the state a strong one. Nor does a state become strong when its charismatic leader's towering height dwarfs all others; such hypnotic leadership spell is all but transitory even though one spell may last longer than the other, as we have seen in several countries. Bangladesh has successfully reinstated the Westminster form of democracy, and there are even two strong parties---one balancing the other.
Those are good indicators of a working statehood---yet the leaders have been unable to take advantage of a mutually respectful two party system. Much to our dismay, the Bangladeshi national parliament is on the brink of an impasse; it's the victim of the tumult and bitter standoff between the ruling party and the opposition. The politicization of the civil bureaucracy has a long history in Bangladesh, but that process has recently reached the dizzying depth. As a result, the good governance has taken a back seat. For such a degradation of institutional environment, the political leaders have to shoulder the ultimate responsibility. The best ways to be a strong state is to build national unity, bridge economic gap, acquire military deterrence capability and cultivate a partnership among the political leaders and groups.
__________
[This article was also published in the Daily Star on February 2, 2000]
The writer teaches Political Science at Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey, USA. His e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By Sylvia Mortoza
Attempts to find a solution to the arsenic problem - solutions that would not only be effective but also cost-effective has turned people's attention to the use of aluminium sulphate as coagulant. The amount of aluminium sulphate in water is recommended as 300 mg/L as coagulant (reducing agent). The ideal pH range is 7-8. Initial 30-sec rapid mixing, 10-min slow mixing for flocs, and 1-hour retention time prior to filtration (a cotton cloth may be used for filtering). The use of a similar amount of bleaching powder (premixed) works as an oxidising agent to complete the other half of the electrochemical reaction. The reported result is an 80% removal of arsenic and 97% removal of iron.
The presence of iron (III) helps the process, thus the process is named as iron-cum-arsenic removal using a precipitation-coagulation method.
Long believed to be harmless, and as the people of Bangladesh have been using it for water clarification for years, particularly in those areas where the iron content is high, aluminium sulphate was thought to be culturally acceptable for reducing arsenic in groundwater. With evidence fast accruing that its use for water clarification could be dangerous, we now have to ask ourselves just how harmless it really is?
However, aluminium is the third most common element in the Earth's crust and this fact alone has made it acceptable and is used to forward the claim that aluminium salts cannot pose an environmental hazard. The fact is different for, even under normal environmental conditions, the toxic effects of aluminium are responsible for enormous ecological damage and economic losses throughout the world. It is also implicated in a number of devastating human morbid conditions as well as being a recognised complicating factors in renal dialysis. Of specific concern are the natural consequences of acid rain, the effects of development activities in areas with naturally-occurring acid-sulphate soils and the impacts resulting from the use of aluminium salts in industrial processes such as water treatment.
When mixed with water, aluminium sulphate has a strongly acidic reaction:-
Al2(SO4)3 . 14H2O + 6H2O = 2Al(OH)3 + 6H+ + 3SO42- + 14H2O The hydrogen ions released combine with alkalinity anions (HCO3-, CO32-, and OH-) to produce carbon dioxide and water and lower the pH (Boyd, 1979). Provided that the pH can be controlled by adding sufficient cations (in the form of lime slurry in water treatment practice), the hydroxide remains as a colloidal solid, and acts as a filter for particulate matter in the raw water supply. However, if the pH drops to around 5 or less, the hydroxide redissolves, producing a clear extremely acidic solution.
This is of primary importance to us so before we dismiss it "out of hand" we should also be aware of some of the other applications in common use that involve aluminium. For example, aluminium hydroxide is a component of many anti-perspirant formulations. Although exposure to aluminium salts on the skin of mammals has long been considered to present little or no risk of absorption or of surface damage, hence the widespread use of aluminium hydroxide in anti-perspirants, transdermal transfer of aluminium from aluminium chloride solution across the skin and into the hippocampus in the brain of mice has been recently demonstrated. (Anane et al., 1995).
Aluminium also forms an important constituent of "ant-acid" remedies for the relief of stomach acidity. In its latter use, the possibility that it might be taken with drinks containing chelating agents such as citrate and sugar might cause some surprise, since the ability of the chelated aluminium to pass into the blood stream is undoubtedly an important mechanism which permits the element to by-pass the supposed cellular barrier to absorption (Kruck and McLauchlan, 1988). The fact that aluminium in public water supplies and various medicines can pose a threat to public health has been known for more than 60 years (Betts, 1926).
Over the past decade, interest in the possibility of a link between aluminium and a number of encephalopathies has grown, fuelled particularly by attempts to discover the cause of the increasing frequencies of Alzheimer's disease, commonly called senile dementia, in western populations.
Empirical evidence to support a link between average levels of aluminium in drinking water and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in Norway was provided by Flaten (1986), and more convincingly in England and Wales by Martyn et al (1989). The latter reported that the frequency of Alzheimer's Disease is increased by 50% when the average level of aluminium in the public water supply reaches 0.11 mg/l.
Higher average aluminium concentrations were not however, found to result in a further increase in the frequency of the disease. To place this in context, the Maximum Admissible Concentration (MAC) which is accepted in the European Community for aluminium in public drinking water is 0.2 mg/l.
But as the accumulation of aluminium in areas in the brain in which neurofibrillary tangles develop was demonstrated by Perl and Brody (1980), and in senile plaque by Candy et al (1980), both features are diagnostic of Alzheimer's Disease, and as aluminium also appears to be implicated in similar neuritic tangles in Down' syndrome, and to be one of the factors in the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis complex of Guam and the Kii Peninsula of Japan, it could be we are risking people's health by advocating the use of aluminium sulphate in arsenic reduction.
Although there is some evidence that some of the factors involved in these encephalopathies and in aluminium toxicology may be genetic, nevertheless the wide use of aluminium sulphate in the treatment of arsenic-contaminated groundwater is of concern as exposure to aluminium from water sources is far more common than has been acknowledged. The gene which produces the protein has been identified and is located on chromosome 21. However as the main source of aluminium which can enter the blood is from drinking water we cannot also pass this off as simply a genetic problem.
When aluminium sulphate is dissolved in water, it forms remarkably complex semi-solid hydroxides, releasing sulphuric acid as it dissolves. If enough aluminium sulphate is added to water, the acidity of the water may increase to such a level that these compounds are redissolved. The process of flocculation using aluminium sulphate is not entirely stable as changes in the water quality can disturb the formation and management of the hydroxide sludge blanket. This may disintegrate suddenly, releasing large quantities of semi-solid aluminium hydroxide into the water supply. If this water is drunk, then hydrochloric acid released from specialised cells in the stomach immediately dissolves the hydroxide, forming an ionic solution of the chloride.
Discovery of the dangers of using aluminium sulphate for water treatment processes came as a result of the contamination in 1988 of the public water supply to the town of Camelford in Cornwall, England when the solution used in the purification of drinking water was accidentally discharged into the treated water tank at the Lowermoor Water Treatment Works. This water treatment works supplied more than 7,000 properties and at least 20,000 local consumers and tourists in North Cornwall but despite the repeated reassurances that aluminium in the drinking water posed no health hazards, many people in Camelford did in fact suffer from persistent medical problems, some of which are still so severe that the victims are no longer able to lead a normal life, or operate their businesses.
An argument frequently put forward to deny that orally administered aluminium can be harmful is that the widespread use of antacids, (which may contain up to 50 times the normal daily intake of aluminium in a single dose), causes no observable harm. In fact the gut wall is by no means such an effective barrier as this optimistic view would suggest; children with renal failure who are on oral treatment with aluminium hydroxide certainly can develop hyperaluminaemia, and dialysis encephalopathy may develop despite the fact that they may not be undergoing dialysis (Griswold et al, 1983).
Aluminium is mainly present in unprocessed foods as a relatively insoluble aluminosilicate, or else associated with chemicals such as tannin which form complexes which are very resistant to digestion. Such foods do not provide a significant quantity of aluminium which can be absorbed into the bloodstream. However a wide range of processed foods often contain relatively simple ionisable aluminium salts. For example sodium aluminium phosphate and sulphate added to baking powders may account for as much as 15mg of aluminium per cake, equivalent to two to three times the normal adult daily intake.
The health risks of using aluminium sulphate in the purification of public water supplies is a potential health hazard and as it is also linked to the water fluoridation controversy, because the formation of the fluoro-aluminium complex appears to present yet more risks to brain chemistry, in those areas where we have flouride, this is of added concern. Obviously the risks from aluminium poisoning cannot be easily brushed aside for, although the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority claims only traces of aluminium could be absorbed from the gut, regardless of the quantity swallowed, and even this would be rapidly removed from the body, this is simply not true, as an investigation immediately after the incident by Dr Richard Newman, a local GP and Doug Cross demonstrated.
These two eminent researchers found marked short-term increases in mouth ulcers, upper gastric tract complaints, diarrhoea, severe lethargy, nausea and vomiting.
Mild arthritics reported substantial increases in the pain of their condition, and there was also an increase in reports of more persistent non-arthritic bone pain and of skin rashes (Cross and Newman, 1988). About four months after the incident, Newman noted that a number of his patients reported memory problems and impaired concentration and judgement (Newman 1990). After substantial lobbying by CSAP, arrangements were made for specialists to examine a small number of victims who appeared to be particularly seriously affected. Bone biopsies of two residents showed a discrete band of aluminium deposition consistent with a single, short-lived exposure (Freemont, 1990). Taylor (1990) found that 21 of 31 post-incident referrals showed significantly increased blood aluminium levels up to one year later; these included those patients who also had evidence of aluminium deposition in their bone.
Cognitive impairment in a group of 11 Camelford referral patients complaining of impaired memory was found to be consistent with minor brain injury (McMillan - 1990), and this was not attributable to emotional factors. Three-quarters of 32 referral patients had significant memory deficits, which had severely impaired their ability to run their businesses or had adversely affected their styles of living (Wilson - 1990).
Newman considers that there are at least fifty additional cases which have not been examined by the clinical psychologists.
There is now convincing evidence of a direct link between aluminium in drinking water and the incidence of Alzheimer's disease, even at levels that are less than half the recommended EC maximum level, therefore using aluminium sulphate for reducing arsenic in groundwater and using aluminium pans for cooking, especially for cooking acidic foods, is liable to result in excessive contamination by the metal. As aluminium in drinking water is either dissolved or readily brought into solution, its bio-availability may therefore be much higher than aluminium from other sources.
Although no studies have been undertaken on the effect of adding aluminium sulphate to arsenic-contaminated groundwater, the evidence demands we proceed with caution.
The literature on aluminium-related toxicity hazards now clearly indicates a probable causal link between environmental aluminium and a number of serious, irreversible neurological conditions - and as we are already ingesting arsenic from groundwater, we should proceed with great caution for the weight of scientific opinion today is that aluminium in drinking water is far more 'bio-available' than that in food, and that some people are genetically less competent in dealing with it when it does enter the blood. There is also evidence from Camelford that aluminium overload, even from relatively short periods of acute exposure, can lead to persistent neurological damage which can dramatically reduce the ability of individuals to cope with the problems of domestic and commercial life.
The various biochemical pathways responsible for absorption of aluminium from the gut, transfer through the body, and accumulation in bone and nerve tissues have been documented in a recent review of the mechanisms of aluminium neurotoxicity. (Kruck and McLaughlan, 1988). Autopsies of victims of Alzheimer's disease have revealed excessive amounts of aluminum and silicon in the brain, this suggests that excessive amounts of aluminum in the diet, combined with a lack of several essential minerals, directly or indirectly predispose one to Alzheimer's disease. The threshold level for increased Alzheimers in relation to aluminium in drinking water is only half of the EC Maximum Admissible Concentration (MAC) - 0.2 mg/l.
The problem is that aluminium hydroxide - the floc that separates out when the sulphate is mixed with water - is amphoteric - i.e., it dissolves in both alkaline and acidic solutions. When aluminium sulphate mixes with water it releases both aluminium hydroxide solid AND sulphuric acid.
If too much aluminium sulphate is added, the acidity due to the sulphuric acid becomes so high that the hydroxide re-dissolves. This gives a clear - and apparently pure-looking - solution which people think is safe to drink. It is not!
Since so many people are already vulnerable to arsenic poisoning, as well as iodine deficiency, it is totally unacceptable to discount exposure to a known neurotoxin - and one with such devastating results - on people already under severe environmental challenge. Experts say quite emphatically that exposure to environmental aluminium is one of the great disasters of our time, and one which will eventually become much more widely accepted as the evidence continues to accumulate. Faced with one disaster already, we do not want to be faced with another. The presence of fluoride in water contaminated with aluminium can be even worse for it can lead to a very dangerous condition - exposure to the alumino-fluoride complex. This is extremely worrying because it links to the very severe damage that can be caused by free radicals. The question that now needs answering is - will the use of aluminium sulphate for reducing arsenic in water have an adverse effect on the people who are already suffering from arsenicosis, especially those who have reached the point of no return?
Acknowledgements:
1) Doug Cross - Environmental Analyst and Consultant.
2) Sabir Majumder Ph.D.
|
