Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Today the Washington Post reports on another example of the Bush administration’s disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. While Katrina victims suffered the Bush administration failed to make use of the massive outpouring of aid from foreign countries:

As the winds and water of Hurricane Katrina were receding, presidential confidante Karen Hughes sent a cable from her State Department office to U.S. ambassadors worldwide.

Titled "Echo-Chamber Message" — a public relations term for talking points designed to be repeated again and again — the Sept. 7, 2005, directive was unmistakable: Assure the scores of countries that had pledged or donated aid at the height of the disaster that their largesse had provided Americans "practical help and moral support" and "highlight the concrete benefits hurricane victims are receiving."

Many of the U.S. diplomats who received the message, however, were beginning to witness a more embarrassing reality. They knew the U.S. government was turning down many allies’ offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina’s victims.

Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.

The failure of the Bush administration to respond to Katrina is consistent with its inept handling of almost all other crises that has faced this government - Iraq is but just one other example. They have consistently emphasized public relations and politics over performance. Everything is a talking point and reality is its victim.

And everything has an excuse:

In a statement, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said that the U.S. government sincerely appreciated support from around the world and that Katrina had proved to be "a unique event in many ways."

"As we continue our planning for the future, we will draw on the lessons learned from this experience to ensure that we make the best use of any possible foreign assistance that might be offered," Casey said. [Emphasis added by me.]

It is the same excuse. Somehow the latest failure is always something that is "unique" or "new". To say that this is a failure of imagination by the Bush administration would be kind. It is not a failure of imagination; it is a failure of will and a failure to harness the collective experience, knowledge and capabilities of the United States government. It is the "best and the brightest" run amok. The collective arrogance of the Bush administration has led to a failure of execution and a failure to capture hearts and minds at home and abroad.

It was not always so.

Let me tell you a story of a disaster that you have probably never heard of and the overwhelming American response that you should know about.

In late spring of 1991 a US Navy Amphibious Task Force (ATF) returning from the Persian Gulf war was diverted, on order of President George H.W. Bush, to the Bay of Bengal.

A Bangladeshi citizen, rumor has it, on seeing the ATF approach from the sea, called them "Angels from the Sea." Thus began Operation Sea Angel, one of the largest military relief operations ever undertaken.

Less than two weeks ago, on the evening of April 29 1991, Cyclone Marian, a storm with top sustained winds of 160 mph (Category 5), made landfall as a strong Category 4 storm (155 mph) along the coastline of Bangladesh. The resulting 20 foot high tidal wave killed over 138,000 people and left over 5 million people homeless. Marian was one of the deadliest tropical cyclones on record.

The new democratically elected government in Bangladesh, overwhelmed by the massive scale of the devastation, requested urgent assistance from foreign countries. While relief goods had been stockpiled before the cyclone, most of Bangladesh’s lift capability and almost all of the infrastructure had been wiped out by the force of nature’s onslaught.

The United States responded on May 10 1991 by launching Operation Sea Angel, a relief operation that involved over 7000 US soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen. The man leading the effort, Lt. General Henry Stackpole, declared, "We went to Kuwait in the name of liberty, and we’ve come to Bangladesh in the name of humanity."

Operation Sea Angel was massive in scale and massively successful:

Within 24 hours of a request for support from the government of Bangladesh, Operation Sea Angel was launched, and advance teams from the III Marine Expeditionary Force arrive in country for initial liaison. Operation Sea Angel began on 10 May and involved over 7,000 US soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen. A fifteen-ship amphibious task force composed of Amphibious Group 3 and the 5th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, homeward bound from five months of operations in the Persian Gulf, was diverted to the Bay of Bengal to assist. Over the next month, 6,700 Navy and Marine Corps personnel working with U.S. Army, Air Force, and multinational forces, provide food, water, and medical care to nearly two million people. The relief efforts of U.S. troops are credited with having saved as many as 200,000 lives.

…

Two days after the President’s order, LtGen. Stackpole arrived with a small CJTF element. A Special Operations Forces (SOF) Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) arrived later that day. The next day five UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters arrived from Hawaii, along with a Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit. Other joint assets continued to flow into the area, as required. Fifteen soldiers of B Company, 84th Engineer Battalion, already deployed to Bangladesh to construct schools, were diverted to Chittagong. The bulk of US forces were from the ATF consisting of the 4,600 Marines of the 5th MEB, 3,000 sailors of Amphibious Group 3, and 28 helicopters. The MEB also brought four Landing Craft Air Cushioned (LCAC) vehicles, which proved invaluable in delivering aid to isolated islands. Immediately upon his arrival in the capitol city of Dhaka, LtGen. Stackpole began an assessment of the situation, and identified three critical concerns: First, the intelligence needed to adequately assess the situation was unavailable; Second, the problem of distribution quickly became apparent, and was considered the most pressing by the Joint Task Force (JTF) staff; Finally, the issue of Bangladeshi sovereignty required that the GOB be clearly viewed by the populace as being “in charge”.

LtGen. Stackpole proceeded to develop a Campaign Plan consisting of three phases. After initial survey, liaison, and reconnaissance, Phase I (one week) entailed initial stabilization of the situation (delivery of food, water, and medicine to reduce loss of life). Phase II (two weeks) entailed restoring the situation to the point where the Bangladesh government could take control of relief efforts. Phase III (two weeks) was the consolidation phase in which the Task Force would depart and the Bangladesh government would take complete control of all relief efforts.

…

In the final analysis, Operation SEA ANGEL proved to be unique in several respects. It was almost entirely sea-based, with no more than 500 service members on shore at night. It was conducted in a benign environment; no weapons were carried by US forces, except for some sidearms carried by guards of cryptographic materials. It was also the first time that a Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) was used as a joint task force nucleus. Finally, a unique effective command and control structure was used to synchronize the efforts of US, British, Bangladeshi, and Japanese nongovernmental organizations, and other organizations such as the US Agency for International Development (AID) and a Chinese assistance element.

The US effort not only saved lives, but it also won hearts and minds. A Bangladeshi human rights blogger, Rumi Ahmed, who lived through the events recollects in a post commemorating the events:

The first American I have ever met was a soldier, probably a member of US marine corps. I saw him in Bangladesh. He was dispatched to Chittagong, Bangladesh after the deadly storm of April 29 1991. I was hustling across [t]he crowded lobby of Chittagong medical college hospital when I spotted an area where the crowd is a little denser than the rest of the lobby. A well built Caucasian man in battle gear, sun burnt skin, walking across carrying a Bangladeshi toddler on his shoulder. The toddler, clearly a victim of the recent cyclone, was vomiting all over the marine’s body.

The soldier was in Chittagong as a part of operation sea angel.

In response to Rumi’s post, it is heartening to see comments from some of the American servicemen and women who took part in Operation Sea Angel. Sixteen years after they first won hearts and minds, they continue to do so.

In just over one month the United States military executed what would become a blueprint for successful relief operations. The success of Operation Sea Angel contributed to the establishment of military doctrine on relief operations and on inter-agency coordination during joint operations, both of which provided ample lessons learned that could have been applied to Katrina and Iraq.

Operation Sea Angel demonstrated the tremendous soft power of the United States. It also demonstrated the lighter side of force projection. It showed the capability of the United States government to respond to natural disasters anywhere in the world when there is will within the executive branch to commit the resources necessary to recover from a humanitarian crisis. The United States military overcame significant barriers of lack of infrastructure, broken communications lines, challenges due to massive flooding and collapse of levees, lack of coordination between local and central governments, and the demands of a large population on the brink of starvation and in need of immediate relief.

All of those lessons learned from Operation Sea Angel could have and should have been brought to bear on Katrina. Instead George W Bush fiddled while New Orleans sank and while people pleaded for their government to rescue them. The richest country in the world, under competent and less arrogant leadership, was able to come to the aid of one of the poorest countries in the world in a time of need. Yet, faced with a challenge within its own homeland, the United States government, under incompetent and arrogant leadership, failed to come to the aid of its own citizens. That is simply inexcusable.

George Tenet is pissed. His reputation has been soiled. The Medal of Freedom is weighing on him.

Tenet complains to CBS:

A former U.S. spy chief accused President Bush’s administration of ruining his reputation by misusing a "slam dunk" comment he made during a White House meeting ahead of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Former CIA Director George Tenet told CBS Television’s "60 Minutes" that the administration leaked his comment as opposition to the war grew when no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

"You don’t do this. You don’t throw somebody overboard just because it’s a deflection. Is that honorable? It’s not honorable to me," Tenet said in an interview to be broadcast Sunday.

Tenet said his comment did not refer to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but related to what information could be used to make a public case for the war. [Emphasis added by me.]

George Tenet discovers the truth a week before his book is to be published:

He said the most difficult part was continuing to hear senior administration officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refer to his comment as though they had to hear him "say ’slam dunk’ to go to war with Iraq."

"You listen to that and they never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. ‘Look at the idiot (who) told us and we decided to go to war.’ Well, let’s not be so disingenuous," Tenet said.

"Let’s everybody just get up and tell the truth. Tell the American people what really happened," he said.

I am shocked, shocked, that President Bush fixed the facts to advance his policy:

Bush told Woodward then that Tenet’s "slam dunk" assurance had been "very important" as he weighed decisions about the invasion.

In the television interview, Tenet takes special exception with Bush’s comments, telling "60 Minutes" that he will "never believe that what happened that day informed the president’s view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of this war. Never!" White House planning for the invasion had been far along by then, Tenet said, with military and logistical plans near completion.

The rats are jumping from a sinking ship. Those who took us to war on delusions and illusions are finding redemption in book deals.

A country is destroyed. Four million people have been displaced from their homes. Perhaps over a half a million people are dead. American soldiers continue to die on a senseless mission.

Slam dunk.

[Via Drishtipat]

The military government in Bangladesh has given up trying to exile two former prime ministers due to pressure from within the country and from the international community.

There is breaking news from bdnews24.com and the Daily Star from Bangladesh:

Dhaka, April 25 (bdnews24.com) – The military-backed government Wednesday lifted the ban on Sheikh Hasina’s homecoming and said there were no restrictions on Khaleda Zia’s movement.

In a statement, the home ministry said the ban on Hasina’s return was temporary and the authorities have decided to lift it because of "views from the media and other quarters".

In another statement, the ministry said the government had never put pressure on Khaleda to leave the country.

This comes on the heels of the Bangladeshi press and courts showing some backbone and on the heels of this exchange at the State Department Press Briefing yesterday:

QUESTION: Sean, two questions on Bangladesh, please. The (inaudible) in Bangladesh has cancelled elections and also is trying to establish dictatorship just similar to in Pakistan by General Musharraf. And a Vice Prime Minister is under house arrest in Bangladesh, second one fled to London and she has not been allowed and she has been told you cannot return to Bangladesh. What’s the Secretary feel now as their human rights and dictatorships and also democracy that we’re talking about around the globe?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the situation in Bangladesh is one that we’re watching quite closely. There is a caretaker government in place and we have urged that caretaker government to move as expeditiously as possible to elections so the Bangladeshis can exercise their right to vote and choose who is going to lead them in the future and hopefully be able to put these past incidents behind them. It is a case where if not handled properly and if the caretaker government doesn’t take the right decisions, then this — there is a real possibility that this can threaten Bangladeshi democracy and nobody wants to see that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I’m sorry.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, that’s it.

QUESTION: Anybody from the U.S. Government in touch with Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in London?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know our embassy has been in close contact with them and several months ago, Nick Burns talked to them.

The Daily Press Briefing is currently featured in the State Department web site under the title "Daily Press Briefing: Bangladeshi Democracy at Risk?"

How do you spell P-R-E-S-S-U-R-E"?

There is reason for optimism today for Bangladesh and the future of democracy there.

Update (4/25/2007 5:30 pm):

• BBC News and the International Herald Tribune report on the military government’s U-turn.
• Sheikh Hasina was just interviewed [interview starts at 19:50 minutes into the audio] by the BBC World Service Newshour radio program. In the interview Hasina sounds exhausted but thanks the Bangladeshi and foreign press, Bangladeshis at home and abroad, foreign leaders for putting pressure on the military government. IBN live has more.
• The Daily Star has more on the pressure put upon the military government.
• The Daily Star also has the following editorial (a bold act from a newspaper that only last week was all but cowed):

The ban on Sheikh Hasina’s entry into the country and the apparent fetters on Khaleda Zia’s movements have been withdrawn.

We welcome this change in the direction of the government’s policy; for it is the fundamental right of the two leaders to live in their own country. Exile holds no answer to the political problems facing us. On the contrary, it can exacerbate them.

We have been observing with concern over the last several days government being enmeshed in a nontransparent, shortsighted, confusing, and boomerang of a policy exercise pertaining to consigning of the two political leaders — Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia — to exile. A chronology of events will prove our point.

Closely on the heels of two advisers to the government denying that any force was being applied on the two ladies to leave the country when Sheikh Hasina set off from the USA to return to Bangladesh earlier than scheduled to face extortion and murder charges levelled against her she was requested by an adviser to stay back for a few more days. Then a press note was issued by the government debarring her entry into Bangladesh and instructing the airlines not to carry her home. She was in effect not given a boarding pass to travel to Dhaka by British Airways. Then in a tell-tale sequence a warrant of arrest was issued by the metropolitan magistrate a few hours before the BA flight from London. Once it came to be known she was not flying home the warrant was withdrawn for six months to carry out further investigation. It was injudicious and farcical, making a mockery of the legal system.

As for Begum Khaleda Zia the government faced a ruling by the High Court in a Habeas Corpus writ to produce her in court by April 27 to prove that she is not confined to her home.

Bangladesh’s image abroad took a drubbing in the way the two ladies have been handled. Credibility of the government has also taken a tumble on the issue.

With the change of policy a great amount of uncertainty would have ended. We think now the government should move full speed ahead about preparation for election. We think the only durable solution to our problems can come through transfer of power to an elected government, but one that comes through a genuinely free and fair election. Let us now concentrate fully on that.

The military in Bangladesh has suffered a setback in its systematic plan to dismantle democracy in what was the world’s 5th most populous democracy. There have been a number of fast breaking developments in the last 48 hours. Early yesterday the military was poised to forcibly send one former prime minister, Khaleda Zia, into exile while preventing another former prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, from returning to Bangladesh. Over the weekend the military had also secured an arrest warrant against Sheikh Hasina on "murder charges". Simultaneously the military accused Hasina of being a "fugitive" while banning her from returning to the country.

But the military may have overreached. The drama over the weekend unfolded on three continents.

The first crack in the military’s plan occurred when the Bangladesh High Court responded to a Habeas Corpus petition filed on behalf of Khaleda Zia protesting the military government’s action restricting her to her house without charge. The High Court has ordered the military government to explain in writing within five days why the court should not order the government to produce Khaleda Zia in court to prove that she is not under house arrest. This apparent challenge to the military rulers by the Bangladeshi judiciary effectively postponed Zia’s forcible removal from Bangladesh. To make matters worse for the military, while a chartered plane hired to fly Zia out of the country and into exile in Saudi Arabia waited on the tarmac at the international airport in Dhaka, the Saudi Arabian government refused to grant Khaleda Zia a visa unless she was brought to the Saudi embassy in Dhaka and affirmed that she was leaving Bangladesh on her own free will. Sensing the shifting winds, Khaleda Zia is now refusing to leave Bangladesh and be exiled.

Meanwhile in London, Sheikh Hasina was denied passage on a British Airways flight back to Bangladesh on orders of the Bangladesh military. The drama at Heathrow finally resulted in widespread press coverage in the western media and around the world. Following the lead of the Bangladesh High Court, a lower court in Bangladesh suspended the warrant against Hasina citing lack of evidence and an incomplete investigation.

In London the British Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, raised the issue of the banning of Sheikh Hasina with the Bangladesh military government’s foreign affairs advisor. US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was reportedly a little more blunt with the Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States. He said, "The interim government in Bangladesh has become occupied with unnecessary issues although its prime business is holding a free and fair election…It is unacceptable to the international community."

Suddenly, with mounting international and domestic pressure, the military finds itself back on its heels. Today the Bangladesh Election Commission, now led in part by a retired military officer, unexpectedly struck a conciliatory tone. Speaking for the Commission, Brig Gen (retd) M Sakhawat  declared that the ban on politics may be lifted on May 8th.

Two government advisors, who earlier had been quite vocal about their zest for "fixing" Bangladesh with army muscle, have suddenly gone silent:

Two influential advisers of the interim government, Barrister Mainul Hosein and MA Matin, yesterday did not speak to the media about politics, unlike they usually do.

They declined to say anything about the prevailing political situation despite repeated requests from the journalists. Earlier on a number of occasions the two had talked about different political issues including reforms of the parties and the role of the past governments.

Reporters waited for Communications Adviser MA Matin for several hours on the corridor to the shipping ministry conference room yesterday. But when they got hold of him, he refused to talk about the fate of Awami League (AL) President Sheikh Hasina and BNP Chairperson Khaleda Zia or about the other political developments.

He, however, briefed them about a meeting on various development projects in the shipping sector.

Meanwhile, Law Adviser Mainul Hosein met a scrum of newspaper and TV reporters as he came out of a meeting at the information ministry.

"We are a non-political caretaker government and so I should say nothing about politics," he said when the newsmen wanted to know the latest about the probability of Khaleda going into exile and the arrest warrant against Hasina.

"I don’t know," he replied curtly when asked if the government had requested the British Airways not to carry Hasina home.

As to whether Khaleda Zia would be produced before the court, the law adviser said, "The court will decide on the matter."

"The political situation is difficult and I do not have answers of all the questions," he observed when a journalist wanted to know how come the government seeks Interpol’s help to get back crime suspects or convicts from abroad while on the other hand, bars another accused from returning to the country.

The two men, who had only recently spoke with such disdain about the politicians, are now more concerned with their own uncertain futures.

Fourteen leading intellectuals of Bangladesh have signed a statement calling the military’s purge of the political parties and the plan to exile the two main political leaders "shortsighted and injudicious". The press in Bangladesh, which had been under threat of banning from the military, have suddenly found their voice again. They are now openly defying the military’s orders to not report on Sheikh Hasina’s views. They are also suddenly writing articles critical of the military government. The leading English newspaper of Bangladesh, The Daily Star, having relocated to new servers, is now freely reporting on the events in Bangladesh.

Overnight the supposed "popularity" of the military regime seems to have collapsed.

Still these are dangerous times. As the Economist pointed out last week, the military has no exit strategy in Bangladesh. If the military does go back to the barracks, the general who had taken the reigns of power, General Moeen U Ahmed, is likely to lose his job and perhaps his freedom. The fear of prosecution might force the generals in charge to shed the thin veneer of "civilian rule" and impose full-bore martial law on Bangladesh. There is no easy way back to civilian rule if the current army rulers were to lose control. The situation is ripe for another coup in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is now at a crossroads. The courts, the press, and leading voices in Bangladesh have begun to challenge the military. They will need international support and protection to avoid a possible crushing blow from the military. There are still one hundred and fifty thousand people behind bars and held without charge or bail. Human rights abuses are common. Torture and mysterious death in army custody is still the norm. The move to exile the political leaders may have finally exposed the army to international scrutiny; however, that has not yet translated into what should be the goal of all defenders of freedom and democracy - that is, the right of the people to live in freedom and without fear of persecution. That goal remains still elusive. The army is still not back to the barracks.

The democratic spirit in Bangladesh is strong. May it survive this assault upon it.

Late Updates:

BDNews24 reports that a petition has been filed with the High Court challenging the ban on Sheikh Hasina:

A writ petition was filed with the High Court (HC) Tuesday challenging the validity of the government press note that barred former prime minister Sheikh Hasina from returning home. The petition asked the government to remove hurdles from her return path. The petition moved by Hasina’s lawyers said stopping her from returning to her country was unconstitutional. The hearing was set for Sunday. Justice Abu Nayeem Md Mominur Rahman and Justice Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury notified Hasina’s lawyers that the hearing of the petition will be held Sunday.

International Herald Tribune reports that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have refused to accept Khaleda Zia into forced exile:

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have refused to allow Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia into their countries, complicating a plan by Bangladesh’s government to exile her, news reports said Tuesday.

The New Age and the News Today newspapers reported that the Saudi embassy in Dhaka has refused to grant her a visa because the embassy was not convinced that Zia was leaving the country of her own volition.

The embassy did not accept Zia’s signature in the visa application form, saying it does not prove that she wants to go to the kingdom, the News Today said.

Saudi embassy and Bangladeshi officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

The government also tried to convince Kuwait and Qatar to take Zia but those attempts also have failed, the News Today report said.

An op-ed in The Guardian comments on the military regime:

Bangladesh is rapidly moving from being the world’s fifth largest democratic state, to the world’s largest state of total uncertainty. Since January 11, when the military stepped in to avert certain chaos and cancelled January’s scheduled but highly contentious general election, imposing a caretaker government under a state of emergency, the caretaker government, whilst initially very popular here, is beginning to look less military-backed and more military-run.

…

But in spite of the highly extra-constitutional nature of the caretaker government, the 150,000 people estimated to have been detained, the 60 or so people who have died in military custody, the suspension of fundamental rights, the abandonment of due process and the gagging of the media from making any serious criticism, it is the erasure of all signs of democracy that is beginning to cause alarm amongst Bangladesh’s civil society.

The honeymoon is over. To suspend the political process and attempt to lock out or away political leaders without currently offering any alternative is dangerous. Elections are hoped for by the end of 2008 but there is no set timeline and Lieutenant General Moeen Ahmed, who led the coup and is being seen as de facto leader of the country, has stated that he doesn’t want Bangladesh to revert to an elective democracy that might lead to the same problems as before. Increasingly it is feared that any election will be designed to achieve a pre-set goals.

…

Yet, currently the electoral commission isn’t even allowed to communicate with parties; they have operationally ceased to exist. The longer true politics is banned and the democratic past is denied, the greater the opportunity for Islamic extremists, who are already prospering in rural areas, to take advantage of the vacuum. This is the worst-case scenario for western governments who currently have maintained "satisfaction" with the caretaker regime.

With all politics banned until it will suit the style desired by the military, one wonders when Bangladesh’s civil society might have the courage to publicly speak out of turn. This year marks the 30th anniversary of Charter 77, and although the situation in Dhaka today is radically different to Prague in the 70s, the actions of the Chartists, which they maintained was not organised political opposition and therefore legitimate, offers an interesting precedent.

Something must be done to arrest the attempted "normalisation" of a highly abnormal environment. The Chartists were able to ostensibly highlight their government’s denial of the Helsinki Accords, but this caretaker regime hasn’t committed to anything other than elections when they feel the time is right. Nearly 150 million people have no power, no means, let alone right of protest, and currently no political alternative to go back to, no matter how much maligned. If Bangladesh, a country that’s history is characterised by fighting for freedom, slips back under military dictatorship yet again, then it will be more than its own people made to feel morally bankrupt.

[Cross posted from the Daily Kos. I sent the following letter to Senator Kennedy last night. I sent similar letters to Senators John Warner and Jim Webb, and Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia.]

Dear Senator Kennedy,

A few months ago I wrote a diary on the Daily Kos thanking you for coming to the aid of the Bangladeshi people in our time of need more than three decades ago. I ask you today to lend the people of Bangladesh your voice once again. Though the danger last time was greater, the threat remains the same. Once again the people of Bangladesh find themselves at the mercy of the military. In 1971 the struggle was to create a secular democracy in a Muslim majority country where Bengalis, regardless of their religion, could live without fear of persecution. Having created that democracy, the struggle today is to defend that democracy, with all its flaws, against the grip of unaccountable military leaders.

Bangladesh has been under a state of emergency since January 11, 2007. Since then the military has taken control under the guise of a civilian technocratic “interim government”. Fundamental rights have been suspended, 150,000 people have been put behind bars without charge or bail, freedom of expression and press has ended, political activity has been banned, and criticism of the military government has been declared illegal. The military man in charge, General Moeen U Ahmed, has declared that Bangladesh does not need “elective democracy” – instead he suggests a new form of “democracy” based in part on Islam. The military is systematically dismantling remnants of democracy under the guise of an “anti-corruption” drive. Just over this weekend, the military has tried to forcibly send one former prime minister, and leader of one main political party, into exile while preventing another former prime minister, and leader of the other main political party, from reentering the country from England.

According to news reports, the United States Ambassador to Bangladesh, Patricia Butenis, has offered encouragement to the new military government to carry on their political purge. There has been no protest from the State Department over the dismantling of the world’s 5th largest democracy and one of the few, if not the only, examples of democracy in the Islamic world.

Bangladesh was founded on secular principles and Bangladeshis have always resisted religion based politics. However, as the New York Times pointed out in its editorial last weekend, military governments in the Islamic world tend to give power to Islamists. This has been the case in Pakistan. It was also the case in Bangladesh the last time the military wrestled power in the coup of 1975 – then the country was briefly declared to be the “Islamic Republic of Bangladesh”. That time it took the people of Bangladesh 16 years to send the military back to the barracks.

Bangladesh has not been a perfect democracy. The last government was accused of rampant corruption. Nonetheless, Bangladesh has proven that it is capable of holding its democratically elected leaders to account at the ballot box and in the courts of law. This time should have been no different. The military, however, saw their opportunity to move in to “fix” the problems of Bangladesh. In doing so, they have further corrupted the system and have set Bangladesh back once again.

Yet, it is not too late to send the military back to the barracks. The United States wields enormous influence in Bangladesh, both political and economic. I urge the United States Congress to stand with the people of Bangladesh in defending the democratic experiment there. A democratic Bangladesh surely is in the national security interest of the United States. I humbly request your help to give voice to Bangladesh’s democratic traditions because the people of Bangladesh are currently unable to voice their concern.

There are many other crises in the world. I understand that the crisis in Bangladesh is one amongst many, and certainly not the most pressing to the United States. I hope you will find the time to read this appeal for help. I was extremely humbled when you not only read, but replied to, my previous diary on Daily Kos. I hold out the hope that you will get a chance to also read this appeal. I am also forwarding a copy of this appeal directly to your office via email.

Sincerely,

Mash

Resources:
The New York Times Editorial from last weekend
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/opinion/15sun2.html?ex=1177387200&en=ec71cc288bf4a63f&ei=5070

The Economist article on the political purge in Bangladesh
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9027087

My post on the military takeover
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/15/16911/5514

The BBC news report on the barring of the former prime minister
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6581651.stm

My previous Daily Kos diary on Senator Kennedy
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/10/01830/5686

From BBC News:

Bangladesh’s ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been prevented from boarding a flight home from London after the Dhaka government barred her return.

The military-backed interim government has asked all international airlines not to carry her.

It says she will be arrested over the deaths of four protesters during a riot last October if she returns home.

Sheikh Hasina has vowed to return to Bangladesh to clear her name and participate in elections.

Speaking on leaving Heathrow airport in London, Sheikh Hasina said the Bangladeshi authorities had sent a letter to British Airways, telling them not to carry her or they would not be allowed to land in Dhaka.

"I am ready to go to jail if necessary but I want to go back to my country," she said, adding that she would now consider her next moves.

Sheikh Hasina, who leads the opposition Awami League, left Bangladesh in late March, a few weeks after the interim government declared a state of emergency.

Update (4/22/2007 8:45 PM):

Item 1: A court in Bangladesh has issued an arrest warrant against Sheikh Hasina on the charge of murder, conveniently on the same day she attempted to fly back. They have branded her a "fugitive". This will allow the government to confiscate her property and assets in Bangladesh. If you are as confused as I am that the military government should brand her as a "fugitive" while at the same time barring her from returning to the country to face the charges, then you have now tasted a little bit of the doublspeak that military dictatorships are capable of.

British Labour Party MP Emily Thornberry accompanied Sheikh Hasina to Heathrow Airport earlier today when she was denied passage on British Airways. She negotiated unsuccessfully with British Airways at Heathrow. She has also said that she will raise the issue of Hasina’s banning with British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett and also in the British parliament.

Item 2: The High Court in Bangladesh has responded to a Habeas Corpus petition filed on behalf of Khaleda Zia protesting the military government’s action restricting her to her house without charge. The High Court has ordered the military government to explain in writing within five days why the court should not order the government to produce Khaleda Zia in court to prove that she is not under house arrest. This has thrown a wrench into the military’s plans to send Zia into exile - Zia remains in Bangladesh and plans to ship her to Saudi Arabia have at least for the moment been postponed. It appears that, while the lower courts appear to have already buckled, the High Court is challenging the military at least at some level. This could get real ugly real soon.

At this moment, according to sources from Bangladesh, the immediate past prime minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, is being forcibly expelled from Bangladesh by the military. News reports from Bangladesh suggest that reporters are amassed at the international airport in Dhaka awaiting the former prime minister. Sources from Bangladesh tell me that three cars with tinted windows have arrived at the airport carrying the former prime minister, her youngest son, and two daughters-in-law. They are to be forcibly deported to Saudi Arabia. This is the latest sign that the army in Bangladesh is systematically dismantling democracy and the major political parties in the country. Still, there is radio silence from Washington and words of encouragement to the army from the American Embassy in Bangladesh.

Khaleda Zia is poised to leave Bangladesh after the army blackmailed her by arresting her youngest son. Another former prime minister and leader of the other major political party in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, is being prevented from entering Bangladesh. She is currently in London and trying to enter Bangladesh. Already British Airways has refused to fly her to Bangladesh after the Bangladesh army told all airlines that they would not be allowed to land in Bangladesh if she were on board.

Meanwhile protests have broken out in a number of cities in Bangladesh as the economic and political situation continues to deteriorate. News reports, currently under the watchful eyes of the military, indicate a major clash has taken place between the armed forces and jute mill workers who took to the streets demanding back pay.

The future of Bangladesh hangs in the balance this weekend. Will Bangladesh, which was the world’s fifth largest democracy and one of the world’s most populous Muslim majority nations, be able to repel the onslaught of the military on its democratic system and its constitution? The military, until now, has been able to consolidate its grip on power, under the guise of fighting "corruption", with the tacit support of the United States and the United Kingdom. Will the US and the UK continue to back the military as it openly destroys an important Muslim democracy, one that only recently the United States highlighted as a model for democracy in Muslim countries?

There are signs of movement, at least in the United Kingdom. Former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has met with Lord Avebury, the Vice Chair of Parliamentary Human Rights group at the House of Lords in the UK. He expressed concern about the ongoing human rights violations in Bangladesh and the plan to exile the political leadership of the country. The British High Commission in Bangladesh has sought clarification from the Bangladesh government regarding the exile attempts. No such clarification has been sought by the Bush Administration.

In the event Sheikh Hasina attempts to return by air to Bangladesh, the Bangladesh military reportedly has drafted the following plan of action:

Phase 1

Two BAF F-7BG AC will escort out the aircraft from the BD airspace to further south towards the Bay of Bengal.

Phase 2

If the Phase 1 fails,the DAC air traffic control will not give clearance to the aircraft carrying Hasina to land and following Phase 1.

But it is important that the aircraft does not land at the first place. The whole action can be performed legally under all international laws and charters.

It is allowed under international law to deny entry to any aircraft to one’s airspace. Iran has recently denied entry of an aircraft carrying Iraqi PM. US homeland security regularly excercise this option to prevent people from coming to the US who it believes to threaten us national security.

The Bangladesh army is carrying out its plan to dismantle democracy in Bangladesh with brutal precision: fundamental rights have been suspended; 150,000 people have been arrested and many are being tortured; political activity has been banned; freedom of the press has been taken away; and, the political leadership is being exiled.

Democracy in Bangladesh is dying. It is time for the United States to either stand with democracy or stand with dictators. If there is any hope of sending the army in Bangladesh back to the barracks peacefully, it is the United States who must exert some pressure. The United States holds enormous sway over Bangladesh, both economic and political. Without such pressure it will be left up to the people of Bangladesh to fight the men with the guns. The Bangladeshi people have in the past and will continue to fight for their right to live in a free and democratic country. They have succeeded twice before in dislodging military dictators. The first time it was at a cost of 3 million lives, the second time it took 16 years. This time the people of Bangladesh could use a helping hand from the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, the United States.

Overnight the new military rulers of Bangladesh took decisive steps to consolidate their hold on power. On the heels of charging the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, with murder, the military declared today that she will not be allowed into the country.

In a official press note barring Hasina from returning to Bangladesh from the United States, the megalomaniacs who have taken over what was the world’s fifth largest democracy announced:

Some reliable sources have informed the government that Awami League President Sheikh Hasina, now on a personal visit to the United States, might return to the country on April 23, 2007. It should be mentioned here that in the recent past, the law and order had been disrupted while national security and the economic climate had been jeopardized in a period of anarchy brought on by non-stop and irresponsible agitation and disorderly acts of Awami League and other political parties under her leadership. Inevitably, it all led to declaration of the state of emergency.

Besides, she has made provocative and malicious statements against the present caretaker government and law enforcement agencies at different meetings and in national and international media while staying overseas.

Under the circumstances, if Sheikh Hasina returns, she might seek to make provocative remarks like she did before, and create further hatred and confusion among the people. This might deteriorate the country’s law and order, disturb the prevailing stability and threaten public safety and economy. Also to be noted, Sheikh Hasina herself is concerned about her security and has pleaded with the government through her party for special security arrangements. For the above-mentioned reasons, the government has decided to take some cautionary steps regarding her return. However, those measures are temporary.

Immigration at air and land ports, different airlines and the other authorities concerned have been informed to that end. The foreign, civil aviation and tourism ministries, civil aviation authority and the inspector general of police too have been requested to take necessary steps.

The military also ordered the press in Bangladesh not to report on any comments made by the former Prime Minister:

The government through its Press Information Department and other agencies has instructed all newspapers not to carry any comment of Sheikh Hasina. An SMS received from an army major said: "You are requested not to telecast/print any views/comments of Sheikh Hasina from today till further order." It may be mentioned that Hasina’s comment on the government’s ban on her return was aired by BBC Bangla Service which has been heard by the radio’s audiences in Bangladesh.

Earlier in the week the military arrested the son of the immediate past Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Khaleda Zia, on charges of graft. The very next day they released him after extracting a promise from Mrs. Zia that she would leave the country with her sons for exile in Saudi Arabia.

This latest thuggery comes after the arrest of over 150,000 people in an "anti-corruption" drive since last January. All those arrested are being held without bail and without due process under emergency powers the military government has granted itself.

Sheikh Hasina has vowed to return to Bangladesh in spite of the orders barring her entry. It remains to be seen if she will be successful.

The military strongman who has taken control of Bangladesh, Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed, is systematically purging the two most popular political parties in Bangladesh. Together these two parties enjoy overwhelming support in Bangladesh and have both held power after close elections during the past 16 years of democratic rule in Bangladesh.

The Economist weighed in earlier this week on the purge taking place in Bangladesh:

In the latest dramatic twist to the political crisis in Bangladesh, authorities have charged Sheikh Hasina Wajed, a former prime minister, with murder and have also severely restricted the movements of her arch-rival, Khaleda Zia. The moves come amid an intensifying campaign by the military-backed interim government to sideline the country’s two main political parties and their leaders. Although such efforts, combined as they are with a massive crackdown on corruption, seem likely to prove popular initially, the self-styled "caretaker" administration also appears to be entrenching itself to a degree that suggests it has designs on more permanent power. The probability of a return to outright military rule—rather than the stealth version arguably in effect already—is therefore increasing. Simultaneously, the chances of democracy being restored any time soon are declining.

…

As with all cases in which military or military-backed governments suspend democracy for the supposed good of a country, the latest purge of the political class raises all-too-evident concerns about what happens next. There is little doubt that corruption is prevalent in Bangladesh, and that rivalry between the AL and the BNP has not served the public interest. However, the implicit argument behind the current state of emergency—namely that corruption needs to be reduced before elections can be held—is flawed in that the intractability of the problem provides the interim government with a ready-made excuse to defer the restoration of democracy indefinitely. Also, there is no guarantee that the caretaker leaders and their allies will be any less corrupt than those they have replaced.

…

The prospect of a period of extended emergency rule raises all manner of concerns, however. If reports that the authorities have arrested more than 150,000 corruption suspects are accurate, then it is fair to worry whether human rights violations are not likely to occur on a large scale. Any delay in holding elections would also be unpopular with the public, which no doubt had its fill of authoritarian rule in the 1970s and 1980s. The government recently said it would try to hold elections by the end of 2008, but this timetable looks ambitious: the reforms needed to allow elections to go ahead are likely to take at least 12 months to complete, after which monsoonal weather may prevent polling taking place until the following year.

A further concern is that the current crackdown is likely, at some stage, to lead to a backlash against the interim government as some of those who have been detained—many of whom are politically influential—are released. This may take the shape simply of efforts to reverse the policies of the current administration, but there is also a strong chance that it could result in an increase in violence. Despite the interim administration’s claims that its objectives are honourable, the draconian measures it has taken in the name of improving stability could, like those of most such regimes, have just the opposite effect.

By trying to exile the leaders of the two biggest political parties in Bangladesh, General Moeen, who just today gave himself a promotion [link is in Bengali] for his fine work, has very clearly shown his hand. The stated goal of the military takeover was to cleanse the country of corruption. Now they have abandoned all such pretenses of a corruption drive in favor of open bullying of the political parties and the crushing of Bangladeshi democracy. There can now be no doubt that this is a takedown by force of one of the few shining examples of secular democracy in a Muslim majority country. The Bangladesh military, along with their Islamist allies, have orchestrated a coup d’etat with the tacit support of the United States government.

Before the military takeover, in a speech at Dhaka University on December 17 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh, Patricia Butenis, publicly cautioned against a military takeover:

Any extra-constitutional arrangement imposed on the people of Bangladesh, such as military intervention, would not address the basic weaknesses afflicting the current political process, would likely lead to great turmoil and disappointment, and should be stoutly resisted by all defenders of democracy.

Well, I have taken up her call to "all defenders of democracy" to "stoutly resist" this military takeover. As I respond to her call, I look back to see silence from Mr. Bush and contradiction from Ambassador Butenis. Yesterday, the Bangladeshi newspaper The Daily Star reported the following:

US Ambassador Patricia Butenis has appreciated Chief Adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed’s address to the nation, particularly for mentioning a timeframe for holding the general election, and said the US government is satisfied with the caretaker government’s performance.

…

She said the US government is observing the caretaker government’s activities positively.

…

Appreciating a number of pragmatic initiatives and actions, the US envoy said the caretaker government has attained a lot of achievements in a short time and is enjoying tremendous popular support.

Citing a survey carried out by the US Coast Guard, Butenis said the Chittagong seaport is now working properly as clockwise which is laudable.

Now, there is little doubt that the military government has put the press in Bangladesh on a short leash. So, it is possible that the Ambassador may have been misrepresented in the article. However, in the absence of any corrections from the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka or the State Department, its reasonable to assume that the Ambassador’s views have been fairly reported. The deafening silence from Washington as an Islamic country of 150 million people has its democracy gutted by the military, combined with words of encouragement from the Ambassador, can only help to embolden the Generals in Bangladesh.

So this is Mr. Bush’s freedom agenda. When a lone "journalist" named Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury was arrested in Bangladesh, then under civilian rule, on charges of sedition and then released on bail, free to publish to his heart’s content, the neocons persuaded the United States government to pressure the Bangladeshi government to drop all charges against the man and cancel his upcoming trial. Bangladesh was threatened with aid cut-off if it did not buckle to American pressure. The United States House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that Bangladesh drop all charges against this man. The State Department highlighted this man’s cause. All because he was being given full due process by the democratically elected government of Bangladesh.

However, when the current military dictators arrest 150,000 people and lock them up without trial, force one former Prime Minister into exile, threaten to bar another from entering the country, engage in wholesale torture and killings, suspend all fundamental rights and due process, trample on the secular democracy that was Bangladesh, the United States State Department does not comment at all, the White House ignores the collapse of democracy, the U.S. Ambassador encourages the thuggery, and the United States Congress couldn’t be bothered by the whole episode.

No wonder the laughter is deafening when the United States preaches democracy to the Muslim and Third Worlds.

[Via mcjoan]

In the aftermath of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, some have revealed themselves to be subhuman.

There is this from John Derbyshire at the National Review:

As NRO’s designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn’t anyone rush the guy? It’s not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness’ sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

 

 

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren’t very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can’t hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren’t bad.

 

 

Yes, yes, I know it’s easy to say these things: but didn’t the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It’s true—none of us knows what he’d do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I’d at least take a run at the guy.

College classrooms have scads of young men who are at their physical peak, and none of them seems to have done anything beyond ducking, running, and holding doors shut. Meanwhile, an old man hurled his body at the shooter to save others.

Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that.

When Kip Kinkle opened fire in Thurston High School a few years back, he was taken down by students, led by one who was already wounded. Why didn’t that happen here?

Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.

* The murderer has been identified by law enforcement and media reports as "a young Asian male."

* The Virginia Tech campus has a very large Muslim community, many of which are from Pakistan (per terrorism investigator Bill Warner).

* Pakis are considered "Asian."

…

Why am I speculating that the "Asian" gunman is a Pakistani Muslim? Because law enforcement and the media strangely won’t tell us more specifically who the gunman is. Why?

Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students.

And finally this from Ms. Schlussel after the Chicago Tribune reported that the shooter had the words "Ismail Ax" written in red ink on one of his arms:

Hmmm . . . Ismail–the Arabic name for Ishmael–considered the father of all Arabs and a very important figure in Islam.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, right? Doesn’t mean anything. Right.

Maybe "Ismail Ax" is the name of a friend of his. Or maybe he wanted to remind himself to buy an Ax for his friend Ismail for next Ramadan. Or I’m sure we’ll hear some other similarly absurd "explanation." We’ll see.

So, if I understand it correctly, the subhuman speculation is that the Virginia Tech students are cowards and the shooter must be connected to Islam somehow.

Mssrs. Derbyshire and Blake simply have no shame.

Ms. Schlussel embarrasses herself yet again. She goes for a two-fer on her first post, by pointing the finger at Muslims and then using the racial slur "Paki" to refer to Pakistanis. There’s a Muslim hiding under every rock in Ms. Schlussel’s hateful world.

Incidentally, the Washington Post reports that the shooter had "Ismale Ax" tattooed on his arm, not "Ismail Ax". Here’s some wild speculation for you, Ms. Schlussel. How about an anagram, how does "I Axl same" sound to you? I figure the shooter writes about being abused and writes about Guns N’ Roses songs in his plays. Axl Rose fits the bill just fine: he claims he suffered child abuse and he and Guns N’ Roses sang the song ‘Mr. Brownstone‘.

———————————-

Here in Virginia people are shaken by the massacre at Virginia Tech. Its hard to not run into a Hokie in Northern Virginia - at the workplace, in the neighborhood, everywhere. Almost everyone here either has a child studying at Virginia Tech or knows someone who has a child studying at Virginia Tech. The day after the massacre our thoughts remain with the victims - the sons and daughters of Virginia.

———————————-

Some on the blogosphere however could not help themselves. Within hours of the tragedy they had sunk to subhuman depths.

Subhuman.