What's new

The West Must Change Its Approach to Bangladesh to Protect Democracy

PlanetSoldier

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 8, 2012
Messages
2,043
Reaction score
0
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Malaysia
Western duplicity regarding Bangladesh is a threat to the latter’s democracy and future



Oscar Wilde once said that democracy simply means the bludgeoning of the people, by the people for the people. One might be forgiven for thinking that this particular statement was penned in 1891 with modern day Bangladesh in mind.

Last week, Adilur Rahman Khan, a human rights campaigner in Bangladesh, was arrested in front of his family in a night raid of his home in the capital Dhaka by members of the Detective Branch. He was charged with “fabricating evidence” against the much-aligned military police outfit, Rapid Action Battalion, and bail was rejected. Public calls by UN, US, UK and EU diplomats for his immediate release have not been heeded.

Khan’s supposed crime was to highlight well-documented abuses by the government including extra judicial killings, torture and enforced disappearances. According to Khan’s civil society group Odhikar, one of the only legitimate national human rights organizations, in the first six months of 2013, 184 people had been killed by the country’s security services.

Arbitrary arrests and intimidation of civil and political critics is the order of the day in Bangladesh, and has been since the election of the current Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, in December 2008. Indeed there are widespread allegations that the current Government has been using the last five years in office not to improve the lot of Bangladeshis, but to try and destroy every pillar of opposition to her rule – real or imagined – political or civil society, in an attempt to cling to power in an election that must be held by 2014. And to win in 2014 would be to reverse a political trend in Bangladesh which has never seen a democratically government re-elected since it became an independent country in 1971. Re-election would also be in stark contrast to current polling estimates.

There are few governments least deserving of re-election than the current Bangladesh administration. In the last ten years Bangladesh has been scored last five times in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, a global barometer of institutional corruption. Most of these rankings have been on the current Government’s watch, and places Bangladesh in the same rogues’ gallery as North Korea, Somalia and Uzbekistan.

However, given the state of affairs in this country of nearly 200 million people, there has been little criticism from Western powers. Instead they have been selective in their criticism of the current Government to the point of contradicting their own stated goals on democratisation and the rule of law. When Khan was arrested, they rightly called for his immediate release. When Nobel Peace Prize Winner Muhammad Yunus was hounded from Grameen Bank, the microfinance institution Grameen Bank he founded and which has improved the lives of millions, they offered only lukewarm resistance. The British Government went so far as to say this was merely “a matter for the Bangladeshi authorities”.

Yet when the Government rounded up political opposition leaders from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami party, those that I represent, and put them on trial before the International Crimes Tribunal, a domestic court tasked with trying those alleged to have collaborated with the Pakistan Military during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, the West was silent. This is despite the kidnapping of defense witnesses in broad daylight, recordings of direct collusion between judges, prosecutors and members of the government at the Tribunal being published by The Economist, and death sentences for most of the accused despite one Judge admitting in his summing up there was little or no evidence at all against the individual on trial.

Those before the International Crimes Tribunal are mainly Islamists, and there is a concern within the international legal community that the message this selective stance inadvertently sends is that more secular moderates – such as human rights campaigner Adilur Rahman Khan – should have the right to fair justice while the others can, quite literally, go hang.

Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami has now been deregistered as a political party. Yet by addressing only selective concerns, and ignoring others, the West is emboldening Sheikh Hasina’s Government to increase the crackdowns on the opposition by any means necessary. When hundreds of thousands took to the streets to protest against the crushing of Jamaat and the defenestration of the opposition, hundreds, possibly thousands, were left dead or injured.

Over the course of the next few months, the West must change course and be bold in its demands of Bangladesh, because to do otherwise puts the future of Bangladesh at stake. It must stop being duplicitous over its rebukes of Hasina’s actions. When her government arrests human rights campaigners, they should rightly speak out. But so should they speak out when a court is being used to kill Islamic opposition leaders without evidence.

Starting with the election the West might publicly call for the reintroduction of an interim government. Introduced six months before each election in Bangladesh for over 20 years, a technocratic government has allowed Bangladeshis to vote freely – and remove every single administration at each and every poll since independence. Under the current Government the caretaker government system has been abolished. Whilst it may be foreign to the West to hold elections under a non-elected, quasi-military government, with widespread allegations of election rigging in Bangladesh, such a draconian step is clearly necessary in Bangladesh. The fear is that holding an election under the current Government would allow them to manage and potentially manipulate the election process to their advantage this time. At the same time, the West should call for the re-registering of Jamaat, so the people of Bangladesh have a wide and fair spectrum of choice at the election, even if the views of that party might grate with governments in Washington and London.

The West should also press for a halt to the sentencing at the International Crimes Tribunal, and call on all political parties to support the formation of a truly international court to try the accused, so the politicization of the Bangladesh trials is halted. Only then will the Bangladeshi people be assured anyone found guilty is found so through credible evidence, and that the innocent will not be put to death for crimes they did not commit.

Along with the many problems that post-conflict societies and States in transition face, the problem of war crimes committed during the 1971 War of Liberation in Bangladesh will continue to be a burden for all aspects of civil society for years to come unless this problem is properly dealt with now. The last two years has clearly demonstrated the destructive force a disillusioned public can have and the way in which it can further divide a nation if a certain part of society feels aggrieved or discriminated against. The manner in which war crimes recovery is dealt with can therefore have a devastating effect on civil society and any societal development will be stifled unless the process is transparent and inclusive.

The West should also loudly call in support of Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank, whose only crime has been to win a Nobel Prize for helping millions out of poverty, even though, according to the Bangladesh’s Attorney General: “If anybody in Bangladesh deserves the Nobel Peace Prize it is Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina :-)azn:)”.

As perverse as the attorney general’s comment might be, it is no more concerning than the selective silence from the West over the affairs of Bangladesh. This must change otherwise silence will become as effective as support. And to be silent when it comes to the current Government in an election year may be as good as witnessing the end of free speech and democratic government in Bangladesh.


The West Must Change Its Approach to Bangladesh to Protect Democracy | The Platform

***************************************************************

The West :devil: .
 
.
Does the "west" mean India or western countries??
 
. . .
The West do not like Muslims. They do not mind seeing Bangladesh remain a vassal state of India, under pro-India Awamli League rule, even if they come to power in a rigged election. So no help should be expected from the West.
 
.
India and Bangladesh are Natural Allies.

No we are not.

We certainly are not.

I don't know what delusion you live in. Sitting in Nagpur you have no idea what is going on here in eastern borders.

Let them kiss China and Pakistan's hands for we all care.

They really don't know the Chinese and rely on what the posters say here.

Let them be happy.
 
.
No we are not.

We certainly are not.

I don't know what delusion you live in. Sitting in Nagpur you have no idea what is going on here in eastern borders.

Let them kiss China and Pakistan's hands for we all care.

They really don't know the Chinese and rely on what the posters say here.

Let them be happy.

You think too much,relax have some fun
 
.
The West do not like Muslims. They do not mind seeing Bangladesh remain a vassal state of India, under pro-India Awamli League rule, even if they come to power in a rigged election. So no help should be expected from the West.

The West is least concerned about democracy.

Look at their key allies: some of the most autocratic states in the world.

They only care about one thing: "How you can serve their interests".

If you can serve their interests, they don't care even if you are ruled by Kim Il Un.

But what do you want to offer them?

What can you offer them for them to show preference to you?

China has reasons to favour you: Rivalry against us. That is all. Nothing else.

You will not realize this now but later.

You think they love Muslims, you are dreaming.

They have the same problem with you as what we have and they won't hesitate to show you their colours

___________________

We may not be your allies being non-Muslims, but understand this: learn to stand on your own.

It will help you in the longer run.
 
.
The West is least concerned about democracy.

Look at their key allies: some of the most autocratic states in the world.

They only care about one thing: "How you can serve their interests".

If you can serve their interests, they don't care even if you are ruled by Kim Il Un.

But what do you want to offer them?

What can you offer them for them to show preference to you?

China has reasons to favour you: Rivalry against us. That is all. Nothing else.

You will not realize this now but later.

You think they love Muslims, you are dreaming.

They have the same problem with you as what we have and they won't hesitate to show you their colours

___________________

We may not be your allies being non-Muslims, but understand this: learn to stand on your own.

It will help you in the longer run.

Thank you for the lesson in geopolitics.
 
.
What can you offer them for them to show preference to you?

China has reasons to favour you: Rivalry against us. That is all. Nothing else.

You will not realize this now but later.

You think they love Muslims, you are dreaming.

They have the same problem with you as what we have and they won't hesitate to show you their colours

___________________

We may not be your allies being non-Muslims, but understand this: learn to stand on your own.

China may not love the Muslim, but they do not have any problem with any single Muslim country either.

We do not have problem with India because of religion, but India's evil policy
 
.
China may not love the Muslim, but they do not have any problem with any single Muslim country either.

We do not have problem with India because of religion, but India's evil policy

Which policy/policies in particular?
 
.
The West do not like Muslims. They do not mind seeing Bangladesh remain a vassal state of India, under pro-India Awamli League rule, even if they come to power in a rigged election. So no help should be expected from the West.

That is absolute fact and West also practice winning side strategy. They will side with winning side. Bangladeshis need to do it on their own. BNP as a political party proved to be incompetent, lack of strategic understanding, dominated by opportunist and unable to shore up movement. It is long over due to think beyond BNP.
 
.
China may not love the Muslim, but they do not have any problem with any single Muslim country either.

We do not have problem with India because of religion, but India's evil policy

What evil policy?

We don't give you our land which your Jamaatis came out suddenly with weird demands?

We don't let your people come in and stay as they want (which has NO LEGAL BASE for us to justify)?

Or that, we freed you from the brutality of Pakistani Army, in the first place? That OUR soldiers died for you?

This,.. this is the evil policy you're talking about?

Tell me, where is the legitimacy?
 
. .
So Bangladeshis want Western governments to set aside any sovereign prerogative that any Bangladeshi government has and get actively involved in Bangladeshi politics? Under the pretext of propagating the popular demand of the people and protecting democratic rights the western nations should bankroll/support/promote a particular political faction? Rarely does one get to see a people so hell bent on diminishing the sovereignty of their nation, in the name of religion or under the pretext of defending themselves from a vastly more powerful neighbor. A rather sad commentary on the state of things.

One of many is making friendship with Awami League instead of BANGLADESH, and engineering the political situation in BD.

Indeed. We should have instead attempted to cultivate a fruitful working relationship with the Hefajotis- who are about as firm in their belief that all we deserve is hell fire as we are in our belief that it is our sole prerogative to endorse whosoever we wish to endorse, or not if the situation demands.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom