Deadly Delays
By: Dr. Richard L. Benkin
I was one of the few Americans in Dhaka last January when elections were canceled and a State of Emergency declared with the backing of the military. Like almost everyone—both Bangladeshis and foreigners—I greeted the new government with hope. It seemed that this just might the way for Bangladeshis to make a clean break from their tragic history. I still harbor the same confidence in Bangladesh’s current leaders, but three months after their takeover, I wonder if they have not dissipated the large amount of political capital they were given in January. The United States imports about 70 percent of Bangladeshi garment exports, and there is a trade bill with a Senate committed that should be an easy pass; but it is not. The tariff relief it would have awarded Bangladesh—already a weak substitute for the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) the Bangladeshis really want—is in severe jeopardy.
The new government has embarked on ambitious anti-corruption and anti-radical programs to their credit, but they continue to misread the importance Americans and others place on the false prosecution of Weekly Blitz editor Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Mr. Choudhury’s prosecution has attained a high profile in the West—the source of Bangladeshi aid and the market for Bangladeshi exports--where delays in dropping the admittedly baseless charges are seen as stopgaps for appeasing radical Islamists and undermining the War on Terror. Moreover, they seem to say that the new government is not so serious about human rights reform and the use of the Bangladeshi judiciary to silence dissidents, journalists, women, and minorities.
Prior to the State of Emergency, every one of the western democracies had come out publicly against holding the elections that were scheduled that month. This seemingly odd turn of events should have tipped off even the dimmest bulb that things had reached a point of no return. The impending elections were transparently rigged; and if the BNP should hang its head in shame for shedding all but the shell of Bangladeshi democracy, the Awami League also contributed its share of stupidity to the situation. For even after it had won over every serious nation to its side, the AL in the form of its leader Sheikh Hasina declared her intention to increase rioting in the streets and shut down the country. No wonder it was almost impossible to find a Bangladeshi who was not happy about the new regime (aside of course from those who expected to benefit from the corruption gravy train that had come to be a signature of Bangladeshi politics).
It is no surprise that the previous government completely mishandled the Choudhury case. It was beholden to its Islamist partners who were determined to make Mr. Choudhury an example for other Muslims who might decide to oppose them. It tried to fool the Americans with interminable and whispered plots to end the matter without taking a stand against the Islamists, while touting invisible credentials as allies in the War on Terror. Its Washington embassy was feeding Dhaka a regular diet of misinformation to ignore the growing outrage over the Choudhury case as little more than a temporary nuisance. Thus, when the US Embassy presented Dhaka with a Congressional resolution demanding they drop the charges “immediately,” it was incredulous.
And why shouldn’t the government have expected as much? After all, it had made persecuting journalists something routine, and there was never much outrage over it before. But Mr. Choudhury had somehow captured the West’s imagination. He began his efforts by extending a friendly Muslim hand to Jews and Christians; a friendly Bangladeshi hand to Israelis and Americans. His combination of Bangladeshi pride and resoluteness in opposing international Islamists encouraged us. And he was unabashed and public when so many other Muslims who oppose Islamists do so quietly.
Thus, Mr. Choudhury’s supporters looked to Dhaka’s new leaders with anticipation. Previous officials admitted that the charges remained only to appease Islamists, to whom the government was no longer beholden; and the esteemed international human rights attorney Irwin Cotler had identified eight violations of Bangladesh’s own law in the prosecution. Dr. Cotler’s clients have included Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov. Surely, Bangladesh’s leaders do not want to see their country placed along side of Apartheid South Africa and Soviet Russia.
When Congress passed the Shoaib resolution, I passed Dhaka a cue about its potential consequences. An article published in several Bangladeshi papers noted that the Republican floor leader for the debate and someone who supported the resolution “wholeheartedly” represents the district with largest importer of Bangladeshi goods in America. It was ignored. While the previous government responded to US concerns with damning duplicity and dissembling; this government has responded with delays. But movement on trade is not waiting; and what should have been a smooth trip through Congress for Bangladesh now appears to be in jeopardy.
Senator Gordon Smith, Oregon Republican, proposed a bill that would give tariff relief to several countries, Bangladesh among them. This sort of thing normally sails through Congress easily, but because Bangladesh remains defiant of a House Resolution passed by an overwhelming 409-1, the measure faces some difficulty. Already several organizations have been lobbying Senators for specific language requiring Bangladeshi action. Some Senators are getting angry telephone calls from their constituents. If Bangladesh wants to reap the rewards that the US is offering, it is time for it to put this false prosecution to rest.
Today’s leaders in Bangladesh seem to have a keen sense of what will benefit the country and its people, but have not acted. There are several ways to drop the charges via the courts or the administration. And the world knows it. If despite resolutions by the US, the EU, Australia, and others the government maintains these false charges, their only conclusion will be that the leaders in Dhaka lack the will to make it happen.
The new government has embarked on ambitious anti-corruption and anti-radical programs to their credit, but they continue to misread the importance Americans and others place on the false prosecution of Weekly Blitz editor Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Mr. Choudhury’s prosecution has attained a high profile in the West—the source of Bangladeshi aid and the market for Bangladeshi exports--where delays in dropping the admittedly baseless charges are seen as stopgaps for appeasing radical Islamists and undermining the War on Terror. Moreover, they seem to say that the new government is not so serious about human rights reform and the use of the Bangladeshi judiciary to silence dissidents, journalists, women, and minorities.
Prior to the State of Emergency, every one of the western democracies had come out publicly against holding the elections that were scheduled that month. This seemingly odd turn of events should have tipped off even the dimmest bulb that things had reached a point of no return. The impending elections were transparently rigged; and if the BNP should hang its head in shame for shedding all but the shell of Bangladeshi democracy, the Awami League also contributed its share of stupidity to the situation. For even after it had won over every serious nation to its side, the AL in the form of its leader Sheikh Hasina declared her intention to increase rioting in the streets and shut down the country. No wonder it was almost impossible to find a Bangladeshi who was not happy about the new regime (aside of course from those who expected to benefit from the corruption gravy train that had come to be a signature of Bangladeshi politics).
It is no surprise that the previous government completely mishandled the Choudhury case. It was beholden to its Islamist partners who were determined to make Mr. Choudhury an example for other Muslims who might decide to oppose them. It tried to fool the Americans with interminable and whispered plots to end the matter without taking a stand against the Islamists, while touting invisible credentials as allies in the War on Terror. Its Washington embassy was feeding Dhaka a regular diet of misinformation to ignore the growing outrage over the Choudhury case as little more than a temporary nuisance. Thus, when the US Embassy presented Dhaka with a Congressional resolution demanding they drop the charges “immediately,” it was incredulous.
And why shouldn’t the government have expected as much? After all, it had made persecuting journalists something routine, and there was never much outrage over it before. But Mr. Choudhury had somehow captured the West’s imagination. He began his efforts by extending a friendly Muslim hand to Jews and Christians; a friendly Bangladeshi hand to Israelis and Americans. His combination of Bangladeshi pride and resoluteness in opposing international Islamists encouraged us. And he was unabashed and public when so many other Muslims who oppose Islamists do so quietly.
Thus, Mr. Choudhury’s supporters looked to Dhaka’s new leaders with anticipation. Previous officials admitted that the charges remained only to appease Islamists, to whom the government was no longer beholden; and the esteemed international human rights attorney Irwin Cotler had identified eight violations of Bangladesh’s own law in the prosecution. Dr. Cotler’s clients have included Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov. Surely, Bangladesh’s leaders do not want to see their country placed along side of Apartheid South Africa and Soviet Russia.
When Congress passed the Shoaib resolution, I passed Dhaka a cue about its potential consequences. An article published in several Bangladeshi papers noted that the Republican floor leader for the debate and someone who supported the resolution “wholeheartedly” represents the district with largest importer of Bangladeshi goods in America. It was ignored. While the previous government responded to US concerns with damning duplicity and dissembling; this government has responded with delays. But movement on trade is not waiting; and what should have been a smooth trip through Congress for Bangladesh now appears to be in jeopardy.
Senator Gordon Smith, Oregon Republican, proposed a bill that would give tariff relief to several countries, Bangladesh among them. This sort of thing normally sails through Congress easily, but because Bangladesh remains defiant of a House Resolution passed by an overwhelming 409-1, the measure faces some difficulty. Already several organizations have been lobbying Senators for specific language requiring Bangladeshi action. Some Senators are getting angry telephone calls from their constituents. If Bangladesh wants to reap the rewards that the US is offering, it is time for it to put this false prosecution to rest.
Today’s leaders in Bangladesh seem to have a keen sense of what will benefit the country and its people, but have not acted. There are several ways to drop the charges via the courts or the administration. And the world knows it. If despite resolutions by the US, the EU, Australia, and others the government maintains these false charges, their only conclusion will be that the leaders in Dhaka lack the will to make it happen.
Courtesy: Weekly Blitz www.weeklyblitz.net
