The nation was relieved and happy when the Finance Minister gave the
welcome news that the World Bank was near to making the positive announcement about
financing the Padma Bridge based on negotiations in which “they have given to
some of our demands and we have given to some of theirs.” When the WB statement
was finally released, there was little in it to suggest that they gave to any
of our demands while we agreed to all of theirs and more. In fact, the Bank
agreed to re-engage only after the government fulfilled the three remaining
conditions following the removal of the Minister, the Adviser and the senior
bureaucrats.
Nevertheless, the revival, even though conditional, is great news
for Bangladesh. It ended a long period of uncertainty and senseless exchanges
by the leaders of this government against the WB. In her anger, the Prime Minister
accused the WB of corruption; her Ministers carried out a tirade against it in
the media after it cancelled the loan. The government threatened to let
Malaysia finance the project at costs that would have been considerably higher
where those who came forward to build the bridge did not have any experience in
bridge building! The Prime Minister also promised to build the bridge from
domestic resources. She appealed to people’s national spirit to show the WB
what Bangladesh is capable of doing. One senior leader of the party asked the
Chatra League to engage in collecting money for the bridge, some Taka 2300 crores
in all. As a consequence, a student was killed in Rajshahi.
In fact, even a day or two before the WB revived the loan; the
Prime Minister was insisting that her government would build the bridge for
road transport and exclude the railway line to save costs leaving no one in
doubt that she would not accept the WB if offered again. Her Adviser Dr.
Mashiur Rahman while appealing to the media for his life and holding out on
resigning said a day before the WB revived the loan that from what he has seen
of the demands of the WB, he saw no reason for the loan agreement to be
activated. His words hinted strongly at the difficult and humiliating nature of
the WB’s demands.
Dr. Mashiur Rahman was both right and wrong. He was right in
assuming that the loan would not be revived because from the exchanges he read between
the Government and the WB, he saw no reason for the Bangladesh government to succumb to the demands of the WB. He was of
course wrong to assume that the Prime Minister and the Government would not accept
the conditions. In what can only be called a somersault, the Government removed
the Minister; the Adviser and the 2 bureaucrats to meet the first of the 4
tough conditions set by the WB for its re-engagement; a first time that the WB
dared to demand a sovereign country to remove a Minister (an Adviser of
Ministerial rank and senior bureaucrats) for a loan and succeed with such an
outrageous demand.
The government then also
agreed to meet the WB’s remaining demands, namely, “(ii) appointing a special inquiry and
prosecution team within the Bangladeshi Anti-Corruption Commission to handle
the investigation; (iii) agreeing to provide full access to all investigative
information to an external panel of internationally recognized experts so that they
can give guidance to the Bank and co-financiers on the progress, adequacy, and
fairness of the investigation, and; iv) agreeing on new implementation
arrangements that gives the Bank and co-financiers greater oversight of project
procurement processes; “ to reactivate the loan. Thus the agreement reached in
Washington between WB and the Government is dependent on the satisfactory implementation of the three
remaining conditions as stated in the pen-ultimate paragraph of the statement:
“The Bank has agreed that, upon satisfactory implementation of the agreed
measures by the Government and with the support of the Bank’s governing bodies the
Bank will engage anew in the Padma Multipurpose Bridge.”
The Finance Minister and others congratulating themselves for the
loan revival should therefore spare few moments and read the WB statement
carefully. The Bank has not only made its re-engagement conditional, it has
flagged its seriousness on the allegations of corruption that has already
delayed the project by 10 months. That seriousness has been scribed in the
final paragraph of the statement: “The World Bank remains vigilant to any signs
of corruption in the Padma Bridge project, and our determination to take a
strong line against wrongdoing will never waver.”
The second and third conditions in the Bank’s statement are
significant. It has taken away the independence of the ACC and with it a little
of the country’s sovereignty. The international panel of experts will now have
full access to the progress of the ACC’s investigation and report to the WB
that will decide on its “progress, adequacy and fairness.” The Bank did not
waste any time to stamp its authority over the ACC on the issue of corruption. It has already expressed its intention to sit
with the ACC team when it questions those accused of corruption that will
include former Minister Abul Hossain and Dr. Mashiur Rahman. The fourth condition
will give the Bank and its co financiers control over procurement process leading
some analysts to conclude that the Padma Bridge will be a turnkey project based
upon the Bank’s authority and control over it.
The decision of the Bank to re-engage will now mean that their
allegations of corruption will be
resolved either way. What if the allegations turn out to be
correct? A pro-AL guest said in a recent TV talk show that one of the areas
where the WB relented was to accept the demand that the Prime Minister made;
that once the new agreement was signed, the WB would not again withdraw
funding. It was a poor defense against those who are suggesting that the
government accept humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan. If the
allegations of corruption are found
incorrect, then the question of the WB withdrawing the loan would be
irrelevant, what the Prime Minister demanded and the WB accepted
notwithstanding. If however the allegations are correct, then the issue would
not be whether the WB would withdraw from the project or not; the issue would
be whether the Prime Minister would have the moral right to remain in her
position.
Therefore the government and the ruling party should tread with
caution in complementing themselves at this stage for there are hurdles ahead
that would need to be crossed before claiming credit. The government must now,
first, cooperate with the WB for a fair and transparent inquiry to the
corruption allegations to prove it is correct and the Bank wrong, and second,
demand a formal apology from the WB after proving its stand. Even though the
past cannot be written off and the humiliation that Bangladesh suffered regained;
it would be a moral victory for Bangladesh. The government now owes to itself
to clear the allegations of corruption because if it cannot prove the WB wrong,
its own credibility to the people would be gone given the fact that it has now
accepted a number of humiliating conditions to reactivate the loan.
At the time of filing this report, the signals out of Washington
are disconcerting. A WB statement from Washington said: "Media reports
have quoted senior Bangladeshi government officials misrepresenting the World
Bank’s position concerning the Padma Multipurpose bridge project.” The WB
reminded the Bangladesh Government that the loan will be activated only after
the agreed conditions for revival were implemented, particularly the Bank’s
concerns on issues of corruption that remains paramount. Unfortunately, the
ruling party leaders and government officials are more concerned with playing
to the gallery and are not focused upon the seriousness of the WB’s concerns or
the conditional nature of the loan that could jeopardize it again.
The writer
is a former Ambassador to Japan.
No comments:
Post a Comment