President
Iajuddin Ahmed: Restore Faith in
Bangladesh
Justice, Drop Choudhury Case
Dr.
Richard L. Benkin writes from USA
The
assumption of the Caretaker government under President
Iajuddin Ahmed provides
Bangladesh with a
small window of opportunity to repair the damage done to
it over the past several years by the outgoing BNP
government.
Effective action even within the Caretaker’s
limited powers can also prevent terrible consequences to
the Bangladeshi people that are now in the offing due to
the previous government’s decision to throw
Bangladesh’s lot in
with the most radical elements in the Muslim
world.
In large
part these consequences are likely to come from the
United
States, which
imports 70 percent of Bangladeshi garments and related
goods; but similar concerns are being voiced now in such
places as Canada,
Britain and the
European Union,
Australia, and
elsewhere.
But President Iajuddin Ahmed and his government
can correct that with a considered, rational, unbiased,
and unafraid analysis of the
facts.
Mr.
President, your predecessors have been unsuccessful in
their attempts to convince the world that
Bangladesh is
resolute in opposing terrorists. In fact, their actions
in that respect vary so from their words that government
assurances and sporadic arrests are seen as cynical and
disingenuous in Washington and other
capitals.
You, sir, respectfully can change that. Former members
of the BNP government lamely tried to defend their
actions by citing their fear of “how the radical will
react” to justify inaction in the face of terrorist
attacks against
Bangladesh and
Bangladesh
jurisprudence.
The Caretaker government does not have to worry
about radical Islamists bolting from a nationally
destructive coalition; nor does it have to worry about
votes in January (another excuse offered by former
government officials). The best way for
the Caretaker to correct this course is to state clearly
that it will not be working with or appeasing those
whose stated aims are the destruction of Bangladeshi
democracy, the imposition of Sharia, and eternal jihad;
or to re-make
Bangladesh in the
image of failed Taliban-like
states.
Mr.
President, your predecessors have threatened $63 million
in annual US aid by refusing to drop Sedition, Treason,
and Blasphemy charges against Weekly Blitz
editor and publisher Salah Uddin Shoaib
Choudhury.
Begun in the dark of night and expected to remain
hidden from the rest of the world, this unrepentant
travesty of justice has continued to garner more and
more attention in world capitals and in major US (and
soon other) media.
That numerous officials of the former government
admitted that there is no basis to the charges now
heightens the growing world demand to drop them. That the defense
is not allowed even to present witnesses on its own
behalf in such a high profile trial highlights injustice as
opposed to justice in the Bangladeshi legal system. That the
US embassy
sent an observer to the trial who sat with Shoaib’s
defense attorney further indicated the position being
taken by that power. That a judge
with suspected JMB ties has sole discretion over
Shoaib’s fate once again shines a spotlight on both
injustice and the growing power of those whose goal is
to undermine freedom everywhere. The best way for
the Caretaker to correct this growing international
incident is to drop the charges before world bodies
impose international jurisdiction over the matter (as
was proposed previously in other
cases).
Mr.
President, your predecessors allowed outright
persecution—even murder, rape, and torture—of religious
minorities on a regular and pre-meditated basis. The same
treatment has been meted out regularly to those
courageous journalists who have attempted to defend
Bangladesh’s honor by
exposing those acts in contravention of traditional
Bangladeshi values. Once when
confronted about this in
Washington, the
Bangladeshi ambassador tried to hide behind the (false)
claim that the perpetrators were not members of the
government.
But several
US lawmakers
later said that they found the ambassador’s comments
more damning of his country than helpful. Was he, they
asked, justifying such heinous acts and the government’s
refusal to prosecute them? Mr. President,
you can correct such things by making sure that—for the
national good—the police under your control have no
tolerance for such persecution and to elevate minorities
to meaningful positions within the scope of your
powers.
Further, you can acknowledge that the
implementation of Sharia in
Bangladesh would be
an act of violence against the approximately 20-25
million Bangladeshis who are not Muslim—not to mention
Muslims who do not subscribe to that one variant of
Islam.
Mr.
President, the US Congress re-convenes on November 13,
the same day that Shoaib’s trial is set to resume. Members of
Congress are planning something very specific for that
date which will not bode well for US-Bangladesh
relations.
At risk is not only the $63 million in annual aid
(something that has already been broached in at least
two major US newspapers
and among several in Congress). Once awakened to
the danger, Americans can be quite stubborn about not
purchasing goods that come from countries that sit with
their enemies, support radical use of their court
systems to persecute dissidents, persecute minorities,
and such.
If undercurrents in the
US move to
the next stage, they could threaten to put a sizeable
dent in the amount of goods that
Bangladesh can sell
to US companies.
That would have catastrophic results for millions
of your citizens.
Now, to be sure,
Bangladesh is a
sovereign state with the right to act within its borders
as it sees fit.
That is not at issue, but at the same time, the
United
States is also a
sovereign state.
It has the right not to provide its largesse to
nations that support the demise of freedom. American
citizens have a right to demand that their tax dollars
not go to nations that support radicals. And American
consumers have the right to spend their money on goods
from whatever countries they so
choose.
Mr.
President, you can prevent harm to the nation by
undertaking an immediate review of Salah Uddin Shoaib
Choudhury’s case and dismiss it for lack of evidence,
before international outrage forces the same
result.