Salah Uddin disappearance - Prothom Alo interview of caretaker

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go here to see INDEX of posts on Salah Uddin disappearance

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a translated extract from an interview with the caretaker of the building where the BNP leader Salah Uddin Ahmed was picked up, allegedly by law enforcement authorities, published in Prothom Alo on 13 March 2015. A more extended interview was carried in New Age. To read other evidence supporting the allegation that Salah Uddin was picked up by law enforcing authorities can be found in the Index above.

"The security guard Akhter Islam yesterday said that on Tuesday at 9.15 at night, a number of vehicles and men came to the house. There were three cars standing outside the house. After some time, at about 10 pm they came in and said that "we are from DB. No problem.’ And so some of them came inside the house and Akhter said ‘Why have you come here’, and they replied, ‘You will learn about that later.’  

Akhter said that at that time, two of the men slapped him and he saw a gun with them and he was scared. So they asked Akhter to sit quiet and they went to the second floor. Akhter said, ‘Probably it was the maid that opened the door. The men were there for about 20 or 25 minutes. When they were coming down, he (Saladuddin) was blindfolded and two of them were holding him each side.’ Then they took him in  amicrobus and left. 

Akhter also said that 4 days before the arrests, the tenant of the second floor brought Salauddin as a guest. They left the flat leaving Salauddin there. After the police took Salauddin, the maid also did not show up. 

Another security guard from another building; said: ‘At around 9.15 pm that night, 4 people came to him and asked him about the house number. So he showed them the house. Two of those men were carrying arms." He thought they were from the police or the RAB."

Salah Uddin disappearance: New Age interview of caretaker

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go here to see INDEX of posts on Salah Uddin disappearance

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the interview of a key witness in the alleged abduction of the BNP leader Salah Uddin by law enforcement agencies. It was published in New Age on 16 March 2015, and is copied below. A similar interview was taken by Prothom Alo. Links to other evidence supporting the allegation that the law enforcement agencies were involved are in the Index above.

SALAH UDDIN PICK-UP

Caretaker gives account of what he saw 

March 16, 2015  

David Bergman and Taib Ahmed 

On Tuesday night, Akhter Ali, 42, was sitting in the doorway of a small room in the parking space of a block of flats located in Sector 3, Uttara.
It was nearly 9.30pm, and he was cutting vegetables for his evening meal.
For the last three months Akhter had worked as one of the two caretakers to the building where four flats had been built.
It had been a routine life as a caretaker in Uttara until then.
As he peeled vegetables, a few people entered the parking space through a small opening of the large security gates.
‘I challenged them and asked what they wanted, but they shouted back, “Shut up. Don’t say anything. We are from the detective branch,’’ Akhter Ali told New Age on Saturday night at the building where it happened.
‘They pulled up their shirts and showed their detective branch badge attached to their belts, and I could also see two pistols,’ he said.

Sukhranjan Bali disappearance - 'Witness alleges state abduction'

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go here to see INDEX of posts on Salah Uddin disappearance

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the article, published on 16 May 2013, containing the statement from Sukhranjan Bali, a witness at the International crimes tribunal, where he confirms that he was picked up from outside the tribunal gates on 5 November 2012 and kept in a detective branch office for six weeks before being pushed over the Indian border where he was arrested by the Border Security Forces.  This article was published in the New Age newspaper on 16 May 2013, but the link no longer works, so it is being reproduced below, particularly in light of the recent Salah Uddin disappearance.

To read more about the Bali abduction see this and this

------------------

War Crimes Trial
Witness alleges state abduction 

A witness at the international crimes tribunal in Dhaka who defence lawyers claim to have been abducted from outside the court in November 2012 by law enforcement agents has been found in a Kolkata jail.
Sukhranjan Bali, a Hindu man from the southern district of Pirojpur, has confirmed that on the morning of November 5, 2012 he was taken from outside the tribunal gates by Bangladeshi law enforcement officials as he was on his way hoping to give deposition on behalf of Jamaat-e-Islami leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee.
In a statement given whilst in detention in India, Bali says that he was "abducted from the court premises in a police van and was taken to an office in Dhaka" which he later thought belonged to the Detective Branch of the police because of words on a paper stamp which he saw on the desk.

Further evidence supports law enforcers role in BNP leader disappearance

The car park of the building from where
Salah Uddin Ahmed was taken

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to  March)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (04 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (07 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
The US shift on Bangladesh (22 Feb)
Why the UN, West must share blame  (23 Feb)
BNP's last, best and only hope (07 Mar)
'Democracy not come from petrol bombs' (13 Mar)
Caretaker: law enforcers took BNP leader (16 Mar)

Excellent piece of reporting by my colleague Muktadir Rashid at New Age, who interviewed members of the security committee and residents in Sector 3 of Uttara in Dhaka about what happened on the night of 10 March, when BNP Joint Secretary, and till then spokesperson of the party, went missing, and was allegedly picked up by law enforcement agencies. The article is published in New Age today, and the relevant parts are reproduced below.

This report should be read alongside the interview of the caretaker of the building which was also published in New Age, a few days back

To read about 19 BNP activists picked by and disappeared in December 2013, over a two week period,  click here

Wife worried, says law enforcers not cooperating 

Muktadir Rashid

….. Meanwhile, more witness accounts said that ‘uniformed’ Rapid Action Battalion personnel had asked security guards working in Rajlakkhi neighbourhood at Uttara about the location of road 13/B in Sector 3 on the night Salah Uddin had gone missing.
Residents in the area also told New Age they had seen a double-cabin van marked ‘Dhaka Metropolitan Police’ and a white ‘Noah’ microbus parked at the southern end of the 70-metre long 13/B road.

Political crisis 2015 - Caretaker claims police took Salah Uddin Ahmed

Salah Uddin Ahmed was according to caretaker picked up
by Detective Branch officers. Police deny it

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to  March)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (04 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (07 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
The US shift on Bangladesh (22 Feb)
Why the UN, West must share blame  (23 Feb)
BNP's last, best and only hope (07 Mar)
'Democracy cannot come from petrol bombs' (13 Mar)

This is an article that appeared in New Age on 16 March about the alleged pick up of Salah Uddin Ahmed, BNP joint secretary and, for the last six weeks, spokesperson for the party on 10 March. Ahmed had been the person issuing statements concerning 'hartals' on behalf of the BNP, and he has not been seen since he was allegedly taken away from where he was in hiding.

To read about alleged unlawful killings by the police since the political crisis, click here. to read about 19 BNP activists allegedly picked up by law enforcement officers in a two week period in November/December 2013 in Dhaka, see here

----------------------------

Caretaker gives account of what he saw 

David Bergman and Taib Ahmed 

On Tuesday night, Akhter Ali, 42, was sitting in the doorway of a small room in the parking space of a block of flats located in Sector 3, Uttara.
It was nearly 9.30pm, and he was cutting vegetables for his evening meal.
For the last three months Akhter had worked as one of the two caretakers to the building where four flats had been built.
It had been a routine life as a caretaker in Uttara until then.
As he peeled vegetables, a few people entered the parking space through a small opening of the large security gates.
‘I challenged them and asked what they wanted, but they shouted back, “Shut up. Don’t say anything. We are from the detective branch,’’ Akhter Ali told New Age on Saturday night at the building where it happened.
‘They pulled up their shirts and showed their detective branch badge attached to their belts, and I could also see two pistols,’ he said.

Political crisis 2015: 'Democracy cannot happen through petrol bombs"

Md Salim at the burns unit of the DMCH  

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to  March)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (04 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (07 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
The US shift on Bangladesh (22 Feb)
Why the UN, West must share blame for crisis  (23 Feb)
BNP's last, best and only hope (07 Mar)

Here are four stories from Dhaka Medical College Hospital's burn unit which emblems the sheer inhumanity of the men who have been throwing petrol bombs into vehicles causing serious injury and often death. In the vast majority of cases, it is reasonable to assume these incidents are the responsibility of opposition picketers, or those working for them.

Md Al Malum's Story

Md Al Malum, DMCH

21 year old Md Al Malum, was lying on his back, with his heavily bandaged arms sticking out, cross-like, from his body. He comes from Tangail, and his parents were with him in the ward when I visited. His mother stays in the hospital all the time with her son, and sleeps by the side of the bed. I first asked Malum about how it happened: 

“I was a helper on a cargo truck and on 18th February we were going from Tangail to Bhuapur. The 18th was itself not a strike today, but a strike had been called for the next day. At 7.45 in the evening I finished loading the truck at Bhuapur and we started on the trip back.

"I had just started the journey when suddenly men appeared and threw a petrol bomb on the ground in front of the truck so the driver had to stop. Another person then came up to the driver’s window and asked “Why are you driving a vehicle during a hartal’. and then threw a bomb into the vehicle through the side window. It looked like a bottle with petrol in it with a flame at the end. A fire then started in the cabin and my clothes caught fire. I jumped out of the truck, and rolled myself on sand on the side of the road.

Daily Star: In the government's cross hairs

To see articles on current political conflict in Bangladesh, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important that journalists and those concerned with free speech and the independence of the media in Bangladesh support the Daily Star and in particular its editor Mahfuz Anam who are under attack for publishing a picture of a wall poster of the banned Islamic organization Hizb-ut Tahrir under the heading 'Fanatics raise their ugly heads again' along with a caption:

“Taking advantage of the current political crisis in the country accompanied by wanton violence, banned extremist Islamist organisation Hizb-ut-Tahrir published and pasted posters in the capital in an attempt to foment unrest within the armed forces. This poster was found pasted on a wall in an alleyway near Bangla Motor intersection yesterday.”

[Also read: Some Facts about the Editor Council's statement on Press Freedom]

First a lawyer lodged a case  against Mahfuz Anam and two journalists over the article suggesting that it was 'instigating' a breach of the peace, and a court on 15 February asked the police to investigate the matter.

Then three days later, on 18 February the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, was asked the following question in parliament:

"A nondescript poster in one corner of Banglamotor has been blown out of proportions on the pages of Daily Star. Carrying the poster of a banned outfit in the paper is surely helping it to propagate its cause."

And she responded, in the following way:

"We will move against those who help the Hizb-ut-Tahrir by publishing their posters in the paper …. "I don’t care whether they have written positively or negatively but by blowing up the visual image of this nondescript poster at a corner of Banglamotor which would have attracted no attention, the paper has helped the radical cause."

So much then for the independence of the executive and the judiciary!

Some facts about the Editor's Council statement on media freedom

Toufique Khalidi, editor-in-chief of bdnews24.com has recently written a vituperative article attacking a recent statement by Bangladesh's Editor's Council which had raised concerns about freedom of the media in country.

The article, 'Why I do not agree with the Editor's Council'  states that the Council's statement is 'a blatant example of hypocrisy, double standards, and personal agenda-driven exercise.' It is a very personalized attack, in which he states that he has 'no respect for some of these editors' some of whom he  argues have 'have never been professional journalists in the real sense of the term.' The final half of the article is just a stream of consciousness that deserves no serious attention, and is not directly relevant to the editor's council statement.

Khalidi's first set of concerns revolve around an apparent conflict of interest, since some of the members of the editors council are, he says, also shareholders of their papers, and are therefore members of the Newspaper Owners Association of Bangladesh (NOAB). This is an interesting point - but in the context of this statement made by the Editor's Council it is unclear what is the particular conflict of interest about which Khalidi is concerned. One could more appropriately allege that there was a conflict of interest had the editors not made a statement critical of the government (in order to protect their financial interests as owners) rather than making one, as they have done here.

Moreover, Khalidi's concern about editor's 'conflicts of interest' since they are also owners  would have had more force if he himself was not (and perhaps still is) a part owner of bdnews24.com whilst at the same time being an Editor-in-Chief of the website. At the bottom of his article Khalidi describes himself as the Editor-in-Chief of bdnews24.com, but perhaps he is actually writing as an owner of the company? **

Political crisis 2015 - BNP's last, best and only hope?

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to  March)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (04 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (07 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
The US shift on Bangladesh (22 Feb)
Why the UN, West must share the blame for the crisis  (23 Feb)

Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s last, best and arguably just about only hope of the Awami League agreeing to hold a dialogue about a new interim election no longer rests with political forces inside the country.

It also does not rest with the United Nations, and the ‘Western’ International community which, for reasons set out earlier (see: ‘West, UN must share blame for Bangladesh crisis’) are far from willing right now to challenge the current government.

Ambassadors and High commissioners based in Dhaka will go no further in their conversations with the political parties than talk about the need for ‘confidence building measures’ The word ‘dialogue’ - yet alone the word ‘elections’ – is not, at present even part of their talking points with the political parties.

Silencing people in Bangladesh

Avijit Roy, killed by Islamic extremists
in Dhaka on 27 Feb 2015, with his wife
Rafida, who was seriously injured
in the attack

Attempts to silence journalists, writers and bloggers in Bangladesh come from all political directions, but in this country, at least, it is only religious extremists, seeking to silence those who write in support of secularism, atheism or rationalism, who go so far as to attack and kill.

Religious zealots don't just want secularists to stop writing critically about religion. They want to kill them. And too often they are successful.

The vicious murder on Thursday of Avijit Roy (who wrote for the humanist, rationalist secular blog of Mukto-Mona) was preceded by the fatal attacks on the poet and writer Humayan Azad in February 2004 and the blogger Ahmed Rajib Haider in February 2013. And in January 2013, Asif Mohiuddin also escaped death after being attacked by religious zealots.

So, when considering freedom of speech in Bangladesh, and how different individuals and groups within the country seek to silence those who write about this or that subject, it is important to keep in mind that it is only the religious fundamentalists that kill.

Sure, it is right to be critical of others* (including the government) who from a different perspective try to silence speech and writing in Bangladesh -  whether it be to stop publication of writing critical of the government, or of commentary on the International Crimes Tribunal, or questioning aspects of the official narrative of the 1971 war, or whatever if may be.

And, it is certainly very unpleasant to have criminal or other cases filed against you, or be abused on social networks,  or have attempts made to destroy your reputation or have other things done to make one's life difficult (which of course the religious extremists may also try to do)

But these 'silencers' do not attack or kill people. They don't seek to physically harm you.

And that is an important distinction to remember.

------------------------

* Please note that 'others' does not include, or in any way refer to, the judiciary.

Surveillance in Bangladesh - Legal challenge to surveillance laws withdrawn unexpectedly

This is the fifth in the series of articles on surveillance in Bangladesh.

The other articles published by New Age can be found here:

- Phone operators pay for government's surveillance 

- Telecom operators retain 6 months of SMS

- RAB seeking purchase of mobile phone spy tool

- Govt spent Tk 8.2 crore software to spy on  computers

To read articles on 'Bangladesh Political crisis, 2015' go here

----------------------------

Legal challenge to surveillance laws withdrawn unexpectedly

David Bergman

A High Court public interest writ challenging the constitutionality of legal provisions which introduced widespread phone surveillance in the country was unexpectedly withdrawn a year after the court had issued an order asking the government to set out why the provisions should not be set aside.

The order, passed in May 2006 by Justice Md Awlas Ali and Justice Zinat Ara asked the government why the law ‘should not be declared to be ultra vires, void and without legal authority and … of no legal effect.’

However, four months after a state of emergency was declared, and before the government responded to the court order, the petition was withdrawn without any reason given.

Md Assaduzzaman, the lawyer for the petitioners told New Age that, ‘I went to court in April 2007 to withdrawal the writ petition after receiving instructions from my client not to continue with the case.’

Surveillance in Bangladesh - Telecom operators retain 6 months of SMS, other info, for law enforcers

This is the third in the series of articles published in New Age about surveillance. This was originally published on 16 February 2015. 

You can access all five of the articles from this page
-------------------

Telecom operators retain 6 months of SMS, other info, for law enforcers 

David Bergman 

Bangladesh’s six mobile phone operators are required to keep copies of all SMS messages sent by their subscribers for at least six months so they can be easily accessed by intelligence and law enforcement agencies, New Age has learnt.
In addition, the operators keep all ‘Call Related Information’, which includes details of all calls to and from a mobile phone, including the geo-location of the phone when the conversation took place.
‘We are required to keep this information according to the terms of our operating licence … At present we are required to keep SMS’s for six months,’ Nurul Kabir, the secretary general and chief executive officer of the Association of Mobile Telecom Operators of Bangladesh told New Age.
‘After six months the information becomes difficult to retrieve. The operators have it in backup servers, and can pull it off, but it can be difficult,’ he said.

Surveillance in Bangladesh - Phone operators pay for govt’s surveillance system upgrade

This is the third in the series of articles published in New Age about surveillance. This was originally published on 15 February 2015. 

You can access all five of the articles from this page
---------------------------

Phone operators pay for govt’s surveillance system upgrade 

David Bergman

The country’s six mobile phone companies have paid for a multi-million dollar ‘upgrade’ to the government’s mobile phone surveillance system which allows intelligence and law enforcement authorities to directly record thousands of ongoing mobile phone conversations, New Age has learnt.
The upgrade, which will also allow greater access to mobile phone messages sent through e-mails and social networking sites, is being provided by the German company, Trovicor, one of the world’s leading suppliers of high end surveillance equipment and monitoring centres.
New Age has been told that the phone operators between them paid 20.1 million euros (Tk18.5 crore) for the upgrade – with the larger phone operators companies paying a larger share than the smaller ones.
Nurul Kabir, the secretary general and chief executive officer of the Association of Mobile Telecom Operators of Bangladesh told New Age that the mobile phone operators had to pay for the surveillance system as it was ‘part of their license conditions’.

Surveillance in Bangladesh - RAB seeking purchase of mobile phone spy tool

This is the second in the series of reports published in New Age about surveillance in Bangladesh. This was originally published on 2 November 2014

You can access all five of the articles from this page
-------------------------

RAB seeking to purchase powerful mobile phone spy tool 

David Bergman

The Rapid Action Battalion is seeking to purchase a powerful mobile spy tool which can obtain details of all mobile phone numbers operating in a particular locality, according to a UK based privacy right organisation, Privacy International, which has published a copy of the procurement document on its website.
Known as an ‘IMSI catcher’, the equipment masquerades as a mobile phone base station and logs the telephone numbers of all the mobile phones in a particular area.
‘[IMSI] Catchers allow [law enforcement authorities] to indiscriminately gather data from thousands of mobile phones in a specific area and at public events such as political demonstrations,’ the Privacy International website states.
IMSI stands for International Mobile Subscriber Information.
The international non-governmental organisation is lobbying the Swiss government authorities to prevent a company, NeoSoft, from exporting the surveillance equipment to Bangladesh so that, ‘RAB’s capacity to engage in indiscriminate violence’ is not ‘augmented with indiscriminate surveillance technology.’
‘Such a technology in the hands of an agency as reportedly unaccountable as the RAB is extremely concerning,’ it said.

Surveillance in Bangladesh - Govt purchased Tk 8.2cr software to spy on private computers

This is the first in the series of articles published in New Age about surveillance. This was originally published on 1 November 2014.

You can access all five of the articles from this page

Govt purchased Tk 8.2cr software to spy on private computers 

David Bergman 

The government has purchased surveillance software from a private European company which allows the country’s intelligence and law enforcement bodies to remotely intercept audio, video and written communications from privately owned computers, Wikileaks has revealed.
According to confidential records and information, leaked from the company and published last month on the Wikileaks website, the Bangladesh government has since December 2012 paid €831,060 (Tk 8.2 crore) to the German company FinFisher to purchase this ‘surveillance malware’.
The website does not state which particular Bangladesh law enforcement body or intelligence agency purchased the licenses, but the company only sells this software to government agencies.
According to the records, the main software license purchased by the Bangladesh authorities is called ‘FinSpy’.

Political Crisis 2015 - Why the UN and the West must share the blame

Oscar Fernandez-Taranco, UN Asst Sec Gen in
Bangladesh, December 2013

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to 5 Feb)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (4 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (7 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
The US shift on Bangladesh (22 Feb)

This is my op-ed in today's New Age looking at the responsibility of the United Nations and the West for the current political quagmire - in their failure to make sure that the Awami League government followed through with its clear commitment to them, during and after the UN envoys's visit to Bangladesh in December 2013, to hold a dialogue and elections after the 5 January 'constitutionally-required' election

UN, west must share blame for Bangladesh crisis 

by David Bergman 

In conversations that took place in the weeks before the country’s January 2014 election, United States diplomats warned Indian government officials that their support for uncontested elections in Bangladesh would store up trouble for the future.
Events unfolding now in Bangladesh suggest that — at least on this point — the United States was spot on.
Even those who think that the Awami League did nothing wrong in holding the elections without the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s participation must acknowledge that the country is now reaping the consequences of an election in which only the Awami League and its allied parties took part, leaving over half of the country disenfranchised.
Principal responsibility for this situation lies with the Awami League — if only because it started the ball rolling by unilaterally removing the election-time caretaker-government provisions from the constitution.
But the BNP must also take its fair share of blame for failing to respond to overtures from the Awami League for a compromise.
But what about the so-called ‘international community’?
Before the election, the vast majority of the international community (composed of the United Nations, and ‘western’ countries) were all pushing hard for an agreement between the two political parties and so carry no blame for the January 5 elections.
To the extent that the international community helped Bangladesh in going ahead with the one-sided elections, it was India and Russia that must shoulder responsibility.
However, when one considers why, a year on from the elections, Bangladesh, is in such a quagmire, the United Nations and western countries are far from blameless.
Although in the days after January 5, they all issued strongly worded statements criticising the elections, these international actors quickly became content with the status quo and took no concerted action to press for new elections.
Let us first look at the United Nations.
In December 2013, the UN secretary general sent Oscar Fernandez-Taranco to Dhaka to try to facilitate dialogue between the country’s two main parties and broker some kind of political deal.
The details of the meetings are not fully known, but diplomats confirm that the Awami League negotiators told Taranco that the holding of the January 5 elections was simply a ‘constitutional necessity’ and that immediately after the poll the party would initiate talks with the BNP to discuss holding a new election. This was a commitment given not just to the United Nations but to other diplomats.
The day after the elections, the United Nations issued a statement in which the secretary general ‘regretted that the parties did not reach the kind of agreements which could have produced a peaceful, all-inclusive election outcome… [and] called on the political parties to resume meaningful dialogue and to urgently address the expectations of the people of Bangladesh for an inclusive political process.’
This is a strong statement, and presumably written with Awami League’s commitments to Taranco in mind..
Did the United Nations do anything to make this happen, to ensure that the Awami League government followed through on its commitment? According to one diplomat, some ‘desultory’ contacts between the United Nations and Bangladesh government officials did take place but ‘they certainly did not press.’
So having received a commitment from the Awami League to enter an immediate dialogue with the opposition concerning the holding of new elections, the United Nations did practically nothing to make sure it happened.
The United Nations made no further public statements calling for an election and there were no more visits from Taranco.
Next, let us look at the European Union.
A day after the United Nations posted its election statement, the EU’s high representative Catherine Ashton stated that the EU had ‘repeatedly called on all parties to create favourable conditions for transparent, inclusive and credible elections. The high representative, therefore, regrets the fact that such conditions did not materialise and that the people of Bangladesh were not given an opportunity to express fully their democratic choice.’
The EU statement asked the parties to ‘engage in genuine dialogue to agree on a mutually acceptable way forward to strengthen democratic accountability and to hold transparent, inclusive and credible elections, putting the interests of the people of Bangladesh first.’
What did they do after that? Apparently not very much. Perhaps, EU officials reminded the Bangladesh government of its commitment to hold a new election at various meetings, but nothing much else.
Significantly, the European Union had the option of considering the use of an important lever — threatening the temporary suspension of the country’s GSP facilities.
The EU’s GSP regulation states that ‘preferential arrangements… may be withdrawn temporarily’ if there has been ‘serious and systematic violation of principles laid down in any of the 27 listed United Nations and International Labour Organisation conventions.
Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, one of the listed conventions states, ‘Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity… without unreasonable restrictions… to vote… at genuine periodic elections… guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.’
A ‘General Comment’ published by UN’s monitoring UN Human Rights Committee states that the right to vote ‘lies at the core of democratic government based on the consent of the people’ and that states must take steps to ensure that ‘citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy’ it.
It adds that ‘Genuine periodic elections… are essential to ensure the accountability of representatives for the exercise of the legislative or executive powers vested in them’ and are required to ensure that ‘the authority of government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors.’
Arguably, the elections in Bangladesh on January 5, particularly in the context of a broken government commitment to hold dialogue with the opposition allowed the EU to use its lever.
There were certainly grounds for the EU to consider that the elections were in breach of this international standard; voters in 153 out of 300 constituencies had no opportunity to vote; in most of the other 147 seats, voters had to choose between candidates from the same party alliance; and there was a low turnout, in some constituencies only 10 per cent.
However, not many weeks after the election, the EU clarified that it would not use this lever, and that it was in fact ‘business as usual’ with the Bangladesh government.
Other individual government’s also made strong statements after the election — and then did practically nothing.
Australian’s government’s minister for foreign affairs Julie Bishop stated, ‘It is vital that the people of Bangladesh are able to express their democratic will and exercise real choice. The government and the opposition must take up their shared responsibility to hold a new, fully contested and transparent election as soon as possible.’
Canadian’s foreign minister John Baird ‘urge[d] all parties to reach an agreement soon that would allow the next election to be truly participatory, with results that all Bangladeshis will see as credible.’
The Federal Republic of Germany stated that ‘These elections are an extremely poor reflection of the electorate’s will’ and ‘urge[d] the Bangladesh government and all political parties to overcome their differences in the interest of the country and to work together to bring about inclusive, peaceful and credible democratic elections.’
The French government called ‘on all parties to… encourage the main political forces to resume dialogue within the framework of the country’s democratic institutions.’
And Kamalesh Sharma, representing all Commonwealth countries stated: ‘[I]t is critical that Bangladesh moves quickly to find a path forward through dialogue to a more inclusive and peaceful political process in which the will of the people can be fully expressed.’
Whatever action these countries took to pressure the government, it was very limited indeed.
One country, the United States did take more steps in trying to keep the pressure on the Awami League government. After issuing a strongly worded statement — calling on the parties to ‘engage in immediate dialogue to find a way to hold as soon as possible elections that are free, fair, peaceful, and credible, reflecting the will of the Bangladeshi people’, it specifically called for elections to take place by June 2014. And, alone amongst all the countries it kept up the pressure for some months But for sometime now the United States has been toeing the same line taken by the rest of the international community so that the recent press statement given by the United States’s new ambassador to Bangladesh, Marcia Bernicat did not even mention the word ‘elections’.
The failure of the United Nations and independent states to apply concerted pressure on the Awami League government forcing it to act on its commitment to the United Nations in holding new elections is a significant factor explaining why Bangladesh is in the current quagmire.
Why then did the international community not do more?
One reason is that it has allowed India to dictate international policy towards Bangladesh. This is most obvious in relation to the United States, which has a strategic alliance with India (where India insists on dictating policy towards Bangladesh), but it also informs the way other countries view the country.
Another reason is a concern about the involvement of the Jamaat-e-Islami in the main opposition alliance.
Whilst countries are critical of many aspects of the Awami League government, they have greater concerns about the election of a government comprising an Islamic fundamentalist party. Whilst they would have preferred that proper elections had taken place in 2013, they are uncertain about pushing for an election which could result in a BNP-Jamaat government.
Thirdly, the international community thinks it has limited levers — and the levers that they do have, to be ‘too big’. For the EU to play its GSP card, without the government succumbing to the pressure, could create a huge risk to the economy, diplomats say. And for the United Nations to play its peace keeping card — threatening the removal of Bangladesh army perks — would not necessarily result in the elections that are being sought, and would in any case be difficult for the United Nations at a time when it needs Bangladeshi army peacekeepers.
And finally, the countries had another justification for not acting — the lack of an apparent popular ‘movement’ against the elections. Though, the lack of any ‘movement’ was principally due to the BNP calling off its protest on the basis of the Awami League’s commitment to holding new elections!
Bangladesh right now is far from being the first country to have suffered due to international ‘realpolitik’. But that is certainly what has happened over the past year — and as a result, in allowing the Awami League government to simply consolidate coercive power after the elections, and in failing to press systematically for new elections, the United Nations and western countries must share significant responsibility over the country’s current crisis.
David Bergman is a contributing special correspondent at New Age.

Political Crisis 2015 - the US shift on Bangladesh

Ambassador Bernicat's press conference, Feb 2015

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
Analysis of the deaths (updated to 5 Feb)

Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
No clean hands (4 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (7 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)
The UN  gingerly puts toe in the water (12 Feb)
Why the  UN, West  share the  blame for 
current crisis (22 Feb)  

How much can change in a year?

The day after the 5 January 2014 elections, the US statement Marie Harf, the State Department's Deputy Spokesperson, issued a statement which made the US government's position very clear - There must be new elections. It read:

The United States is disappointed by the recent Parliamentary elections in Bangladesh. With more than half of the seats uncontested and most of the remainder offering only token opposition, the results of the just-concluded elections do not appear to credibly express the will of the Bangladeshi people. 

While it remains to be seen what form the new government will take, United States commitment to supporting the people of Bangladesh remains undiminished. To that end, we encourage the Government of Bangladesh and opposition parties to engage in immediate dialogue to find a way to hold as soon as possible elections that are free, fair, peaceful, and credible, reflecting the will of the Bangladeshi people.

Political crisis 2015 - UN gingerly puts its toe in the water

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
- Analysis of the deaths (updated to 5 Feb)

- Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
- Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
- 'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
- Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
- No clean hands (4 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (7 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)
Economic basis to the current  conflict (12 Feb)

Amongst all the other major crises in the world, perhaps the UN is - finally - recognizing that Bangladesh could well join them.

On the 11th February (Wednesday, US time), Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General was asked a question about Bangladesh, and she said this

…. the [former] Assistant Secretary‑General in charge of [Political Affairs] Oscar Fernández-Taranco has been tasked by the Secretary‑General to liaise with the Government and he's doing just that.

It also emerged that Taranco was meeting that afternoon with Nisha Biswal, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, though it was not confirmed whether or not Bangladesh was on the agenda.

See below for the whole question and answer.

It is not much - and it is notable that the spokesperson does not mention that he is in 'liaison' with the opposition - but it is a start, and it does seem to be a development from what was said by the UN spokesperson on 5 Febuary (see end of post). Taranco, as many will remember, came to Bangladesh in December 2013 before the 5 January elections to try to work out a compromise between the parties.

At the time I wrote: 

The visit by UN Assist Secretary General has taken place. Taranco succeeded in getting BNP and AL leaders to meet three times - but there have been no substantive gains from this process, no deal anywhere near the horizon. However, the establishment of new lines of communication may well help in the future and could (after the 5 January elections) be helpful for getting new negotiations started between the parties. However, those hoping for any deal before 5 January 2014 - should just stop hoping!

Well, I did not think then it would take quite so long for Taranco to reappear on the scene

Political conflict 2015 - 'Economic basis to conflict'

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
- Analysis of the deaths (updated to 5 Feb)

- Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
- Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
- 'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
- Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
- No clean hands (4 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (7 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)
'Its the Elections, Stupid' (10 Feb)

In December 2014, before the explosion of violence in Bangladesh, BRAC University's Institute of Governance Studies organized an international conference on 'Political Economy, Accountability and Governance'

At one of the very early sessions, the economist Professor Mushtaq Khan, based at London's SOAS gave a short response to a couple of papers looking at the relationship between governance and economic success (little relationship, they found).

Musthtaq Khan is one of the most interesting and insightful thinkers on Bangladesh (indeed someone said of Mushtaq that 'in full flow [he] is a thing of beauty"!) and I mention him now as in his short comments at an early session of the conference he referred to the economic basis to the political conflict between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (without referring to them by name).

And what he stated was rather prescient.

A transcript of what he said is set out below, but in summary  Mushtaq raised the question (as a hypothesis) about whether political stability in Bangladesh is dependent on the country's two corrupt political parties exchanging power every five years, as one party staying in power for any longer does not 'include enough people in its patronage structures …. In our kind of political settlement ... the only guarantee of political stability … is to give [all members of the elite] a chance "to eat".' The word "eat" here is of course used as a euphemism.

Political Crisis 2015 - 'It's the election, stupid'

See also in the 'Political Crisis 2015' series:
- Analysis of the deaths (updated to 5 Feb)

- Criminal responsibility and the killings (20 Jan)
- Extrajudicial killings (20 Jan)
- 'Treacherous Waters" (22 Jan)
- Understanding the crisis (25 Jan)
- No clean hands (4 Feb)
Law Enforcement 'Unlawful killings'  (7 Feb)
'International Crisis Group report' (10 Feb)

This article was published in New Age on the 9 February.

It's the elections, stupid 

The most proper, obvious and urgent response to the current political crisis in Bangladesh is to condemn the violence. 

First, the murderous arson apparently undertaken mostly by opposition pickets, or their hired goons, which has killed more than 50 members of the public and seriously injured many others. And then, if you are fair minded, the apparently unlawful killings by the law enforcement authorities which number about 20 opposition activists or pickets. 

But then what?