Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Join the growing list of international bloggers in a day of support for the brave people of Burma. Sign up here and just post one banner post on October 4, 2007 with the words "Free Burma!".

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh, Taylor Marsh, Daily Kos and Never In Our Names]

Bangladesh has its own illegal immigration problem. The country plays host to approximately 200,000 refugees from the bordering country of Burma. The refugees belong to the Rohingya minority, a persecuted Muslim population who are being methodically ethnically cleansed by Burma’s ruling military junta. They live in Bangladesh under desperate conditions, battling for scarce jobs and resources in the already desperately poor south eastern region of Bangladesh. It is just one of the silent tragedies of the forgotten people of Burma.

Burma, or Myanmar as the ruling military junta would like to be called, is one of the most brutally repressed countries in the world. It has been under military rule since 1962. An impoverished country of 50 million people, Burma boasts an army of over 400,000 active personnel. It’s yearly military budget stands at an estimated 7 billion dollars and is greater than Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Burma has the 12th largest standing military in the world and spends an astounding 19% of its annual gross domestic product on the military. While the junta leaders live in luxury the rest of the population lives on less than $1 a day. Burma is the most corrupt nation on Earth.

The Burmese military is at war with its own people. It is so fearful of its own people that it has moved the capital of the country. In 2005 the military junta built a new capital, Naypyidaw, about 320 kilometers north of the former capital, and Burma’s largest city, of Rangoon. Naypyidaw is secretive and under tight seal. Cell phone networks do not work there and the civil servants are housed in military built apartments while the junta live in luxury villas. Pictures of Naypyidaw are hard to come by.

On September 6th the military junta in Burma declared that General Maung Aye, second in command in Burma, was postponing his upcoming visit to Bangladesh where he was expected to expand on the new found common ground with the military rulers of Bangladesh. This was the first signal from the junta that they were anticipating the August protests over high fuel prices to get significantly worse. Ten days later, on September 16, thousands of revered Burmese monks joined the protesters on the streets of Buma’s cities. The monks led the protesters to the doorstep of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi’s home, where she has been held under house arrest and solitary isolation on and off for nearly 2 decades. The legitimate prime minister of Burma, and the embodiment of hope for the Burmese people, came out briefly to pray with the monks and the protesters. It was the first time the Burmese people saw her in four years.

However, as always hope was short-lived for the brave people of Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was whisked away to a notorious prison in the Burmese interior and the Burmese military began the slaughter. In 1988, after similar protests, the military slaughtered 3000 citizens. This time the military claims to have only killed 10 people. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher. In 1988 the military junta claimed that only a handful of protesters were killed.

Today the Burmese people are cut off from the rest of the world. The internet, the lifeline connecting the Burmese people to the world, has been severed by the junta. The streets of Rangoon have been cleared of protesters and the blood has been cleaned from the pavements - protesters have been "disappeared" and the monks have been locked away in their monasteries. Into this surreal quiet arrived Ibrahim Gambari, the UN special envoy for Burma. In a "surprise" move the junta allowed Mr. Gambari to visit with Aung San Suu Kyi for about an hour.

This is familiar ground for Mr. Gambari. Last year he visited Burma twice and was similarly allowed to meet the Nobel laureate. On his return from his first trip in May 2006 Mr. Gambari penned an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune entitled "A crack in the Burmese door":

For a number of years now, the military leaders of Myanmar, formerly called Burma, have seemed impervious to international calls for democratic reform. A special UN envoy for Myanmar, Rezali Ismail, was prohibited for more than two years from even stepping foot in the country.

Last month, something seemed to change. Myanmar’s locked door popped open a small crack.

…

It is premature after one brief mission to come to any conclusions about the extent and depth of Myanmar’s current opening. Sustained engagement may be the only way to arrive at a fuller assessment of the prospects for democratization, development and reconciliation.

It will, of course, be up to the Security Council to decide on a course of action. Myanmar is hardly alone as a country for which the international community, in trying to influence the course of events, finds itself debating the relative merits of diplomacy versus pressure,or a combination of both.

Though some may be tempted to lose patience with the diplomatic track, I believe we have no option but to persist.

Nothing changed. The world moved on and the Burmese people were left to contend with their oppressors on their own.

Unlike previous visits this time Mr. Gambari has been unable to meet with the leaders of the military junta, including Senior General Than Shwe. This may be significant. There are already unconfirmed but credible reports that some generals, including Than Shwe, have sent their families abroad. It may signal a coup within the junta or fear within the junta that the protests may lead to the regime’s collapse. However, in a country where the military controls everything the prospects of freedom for the Burmese people are dim. If freedom comes it is likely to come at the cost of significant Burmese blood.

Burma’s two main backers, India and China, continue to feed its oversized military in order to squeeze a few extra dollars from the already impoverished Burmese people. While China and India continue to back the junta, there is little hope of a bright future for the Burmese people. While the sight of saffron-clad monks has captivated the world’s attention for this week, if the junta’s crackdown is successful the world will forget and move on once again.

Mr. Gambari will likely go home empty handed, save a token visit with Aung San Suu Kyi. The endless UN visits will continue as the junta appeases the foreigners by returning to the status quo. Mr. Bush will cynically thump his chest about military oppression in Burma while he offers full support to the military regime next door. China and India will continue to profit from the subjugation of the Burmese people.

Nonetheless, we who care about the brave Burmese people will not forget their plight. Even as the world moves on.

 [Sign the MoveOn.org petition to add your name to supporters of the brave Burmese people.]

[U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs John Gastright speaks about the Bush Administration’s strong support of the military government of Bangladesh at the Heritage Foundation on September 28, 2007. He took questions after his speech. The last question is from me. The full video of all the speakers is available here. ]

Yesterday I attended an event entitled "Bangladesh: Democracy at a Crossroads" at the Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. The speakers at the event were Congressman Joseph Crowley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for South Asian Affairs John Gastright, and three Bangladeshi speakers (Wali-ur Rahman, Major General Muniruzzaman, and Dr. Ali Riaz).

I will update this post with my impressions of the event a little bit later. In the meantime, please view the videos above of John Gastright’s speech and question and answer session. Gastright’s discussion of the situation in Bangladesh was the most extensive public presentation of the Bush Administration’s position on the military takeover in Bangladesh to date. It is now clear that the Bush administration strongly backs the military regime in Bangladesh.

On September 27, 2007 the Chief Advisor of Bangladesh’s military government Fakhruddin Ahmed addressed the United Nations General Assembly (transcript of his speech). It was a disappointing speech. This unelected technocrat, the civilian face of Bangladesh’s military government, chose to speak for the military rather than the people.

Following are some choice excerpts:

1. "Bangladesh reaffirms its unflinching commitment to universal and inalienable human rights. Any society committed to democracy requires the recognition and enforcement of human rights, and in Bangladesh the fight against corruption and the strengthening of the rule of law go hand in hand with the protection of human rights"
2. "On the domestic front, we have taken stern measures against militant groups and their patrons"
3. "Bangladesh represents an effective model of civil-military cooperation in crisis prevention." 

1. Bangladesh military has suspended all fundamental rights. It has jailed over 250,000 people. It is arresting citizens without any due process and without charge. It has beaten and tortured students, professors and journalists. It has intimidated the press, shut down television channels, provided "guidelines" to television stations as to who can be guests on talk shows, and it has banned publication of information that the military does not like.
2. While the military cracked down hard on protesting students in August, it has allowed Islamists to hold multiple demonstrations on the streets of Bangladesh. The military bowed to Islamists by banning a harmless cartoon and then proclaiming that the cartoon represented a "conspiracy" against Bangladesh. The military forced the editor of the Prothom Alo newspaper to apologize multiple times to the leader of the Islamists for publishing the cartoons.
3. The military is in charge of Bangladesh.  Military men have now been established in all major civilian ministries in the Bangladesh government. Civilians in Bangladesh take orders from their military bosses.

While in New York Fakhruddin Ahmed also spoke at the Asia Society. Dr. Ahmed was asked about the recent arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman for drawing a cartoon that elicited feigned outrage from the Islamists and the government. One attendee described the exchange as follows:

American think tank representative challenges FA on his statements about press freedom and mentions Arifur Rahman. Whole room goes silent. FA’s response (after awkward pause - only time he showed discomfort the whole evening): “You don’t realize that things could be a lot worse. We would have been within our rights to have much tighter controls on media, not that we have any controls at all - press is totally free. I understand that “some journalist may have been apprehended” and often this is for his own protection. But this is nothing that would not have happened at another time as well”.

There was a harsh silence after his response. That was one of the last questions and the American was surrounded by grateful BDs as the event closed thanking her for asking the qn. I wonder if they were scared to do the same, but it was clear that she represented the thoughts of a large # of the audience.

I am now convinced that Fakhruddin Ahmed has no idea what "freedom of the press" means. I also recall it was the KGB who used to arrest people for their own protection.

At another event at Columbia University, Fakhruddin Ahmed also gave a speech and took a limited number of questions. An attendee described some of the Q&A session:

arrest of cartoonist Arifur Rahman (asked by Dr. Austin); imprisonment and harassment of university teachers, students and others and Bangladeshi refugees in India . In his response although Dr Fakhruddin maintained that his government is “respectful” (?) of the freedom of press, he clearly avoided the issue of cartoonist Arifur Rahman’s arrest. But the question regarding imprisonment and persecution of university teachers, asked by a young South Asian student, shattered the image which Dr. Fakhruddin created of his government through his sugar-coated speech. It was interesting to notice, how Dr. Fakhruddin’s face turned grumpy as the question was asked. And his answer to this particular question was old rhetoric: that it was initially a “minor” incident that was magnified later through some anti-government agents in order to destabilize the country.

There was nothing minor about the protests in August. Tens of thousands of people marched and the government response was swift and brutal.

It appears that Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed came to America to sell the military regime to the world. We were looking for someone to represent the people of Bangladesh at this year’s UN General Assembly; instead we got an apologist for the military government.

It has been a brutal night in Burma. Yesterday the Burmese military killed nine of its own citizens. Overnight the military attacked monks in their monasteries - many have been beaten and carried away. Aung San Suu Kyi, the embodiment of hope in Burma, has not been seen since the crackdown began.

There are reports coming out of Thailand that the family of General Than  Shwe, the leader of the military junta, has left Burma for Thailand. If the reports are true, then Than Shwe may consider his situation in Burma to be precarious. He may be overthrown by another military man or the regime may itself be in danger. However, in the past, the Burmese military has not hesitated to suppress protests by killing thousands. Dangerous days lay ahead for the Burmese people. Democracy in Burma is being earned today with the blood of brave monks and citizens.

Bangladesh’s neighbor Burma, long forgotten by the world, wakes today to another day of protest, danger, and hope.

Today the Democrats in the Senate, led by Joseph Lieberman, laid the groundwork for war with Iran. They passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that will pave the way for war with Iran:

It is the sense of the Senate–

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi’a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

The vote was 76-22 in favor of this very dangerous resolution.

My senator, Jim Webb, voted against this resolution. He said of this resolution:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. … .. … We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

We have been on a long slide to war with Iran. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker has been warning since last year that we are being led into another war. Today the Democratic Congress obliged. I wrote early last year:

I recall quipping to a friend a few weeks ago that I thought the way out of Iraq for this Administration was through Iran. What I meant at the time was that since this Administration had haplessly shifted the center of gravity of Iraqi politics to Iran, without Iran having to fire a shot, that the only way to exit out of Iraq with "credibility" was to attack Iran. Iran then becomes a continuation of a larger war "on terror" and it can then not be said that Iraq was lost since it will only become an unfinished chapter in a larger war.

It appears that the Iraq exit strategy is being implemented.

While America does gyrations over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s verbal fisticuffs at Columbia University, the Congress today took a significant step toward war with Iran. The sad part is this is not even major news on any of the mainstream media outlets.

This time no one can blame George W Bush. This war is owned by the Democrats.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

Today Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) released its Corruption Perceptions Index for 2007. The Daily Star newspaper in Bangladesh announced the news with the headline "Bangladesh improves on its graft image: Climbs up to 7th position from bottom of TI’s corruption index." Indeed Bangladesh this year tied for the 7th lowest spot on the index and in 2006 Bangladesh tied for the third lowest spot. However, both in 2006 and in 2007 Bangladesh received a CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) score of 2.0. In other words, Bangladesh showed no improvement in corruption between 2006 and 2007. Bangladesh’s ranking improved only because seven countries of the world became more corrupt this year (Cambodia, Central African Republic, Papua New Guinea, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea and Laos all reported worse scores this year than in 2006) and four new countries with worse corruption than Bangladesh were added to the list of countries surveyed (Afghanistan, Tonga, Uzbekistan and Somalia all were new entrants at the bottom of the list).

The new Transparency International report must come as alarming news to Bangladesh’s "corruption" fighting military government. An "anti-corruption" drive launched in January by Bangladesh’s military rulers apparently has had no effect. So, today the TI representative in Bangladesh scrambled to give reasons for the lack of improvement. First he found the silver lining in the report:

"This also proves that at least corruption is not increasing in Bangladesh," said Muzaffer, referring to the country’s five-year stint in topping the index of corrupt countries.

He further explained:

Pressed on why the score remains the same despite the anti-corruption crackdown by the caretaker government, Muzaffer said Bangladesh could have fared worse if the positive results achieved between January and July this year did not offset the worsening corruption data of 2006.

Explaining why the score remains the same, TIB Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman said, "Included in this year’s index were data collected until the end of July 2007, which means CPI 2007 was relatively more influenced by the data from 2006."

He added that since business surveys provide the data, ‘it is quite likely that a perceived sense of insecurity and uncertainty that is widely believed to have prevailed among the business community in wake of the post 1/11 anti-corruption drive in Bangladesh, might have prevented the possibility of a better score’.

TIB also said it is too early to say how Bangladesh’s score will be affected by the ongoing institutional reforms undertaken by the current government in separating the judiciary, and in reforming the Election Commission, Anti-corruption Commission, and the Public Service Commission.

Referring to the arrest of those associated with corruption in the past and the signing of the UN Convention against Corruption, TIB said the effectiveness of these measures will determine Bangladesh’s score in 2008 and beyond.

"It might well be that only in the years to come the positive impact of such reforms would be more clearly discernible," Iftekhar added.

The TI representative argues that 2006’s corruption was so bad that the "anti-corruption" drive from 2007 has only so far overcome the negative data. He also blamed the perception of the business community in the wake of the "anti-corruption" drive for the low score. I am compelled to remind the TI representative in Bangladesh that the TI index tracks the perception of corruption, not corruption itself (hence the name Corruption Perceptions Index). Therefore the perception of the business community is not a mitigating factor to explain away the CPI score, it is the score.

The military government has used the "anti-corruption" drive as justification for its political purges. It has been repeatedly stated that corruption must be tackled before free and fair elections can be held. Chief Advisor Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed boasted to Time magazine earlier this year that because his government did not suffer from "political patronage" they were better corruption fighters:

A nonparty caretaker government doesn’t suffer from the burdens of political patronage. Whether or not the political parties could have done so, I do not know. But they certainly lacked the political will and the courage in the past.

The impression that has been created is that Bangladesh was becoming more and more corrupt under successive democratic governments, and therefore an intervention was in order. However, a look at how Bangladesh fared between 2001 and 2007 in Transparency International’s own numbers tells a startlingly different story [Click the graph below for an enlarged image]:

The graph includes data from 2001 when TI first started tracking the CPI score for Bangladesh. According to TI, the 2001 CPI score is an outlier and TI cautions that it is only based on a small number of surveys and should be viewed with caution (however, I have left the data in for completeness). You will notice that Bangladesh improved every year on the CPI score except in 2007. From 2001 to 2006 Bangladesh was under democratic rule, and contrary to the meme that has been nurtured by Bangladesh’s military government, Bangladesh improved steadily. If past trends had continued, 2007 should have shown an improved CPI score. However, the military government’s "anti-corruption" drive has instead stopped Bangladesh’s slow climb out of corruption.

The TI data for 2007, though surprising at first glance, is not wholly unexpected. In June of this year, I wrote a short article for Himal Southasian magazine about the fallacy of the military government’s "anti-corruption" drive. That issue of Himal magazine however was banned in Bangladesh. In the article I wrote:

While the reduction of corruption, rampant in Bangladesh, is a laudable and important goal, it is far from clear that an anti-corruption drive by an unaccountable government can indeed be successful. On the contrary, all the conditions exist today for the further corruption of the political system in Bangladesh. The World Bank often uses the following formula for parsing corruption: C = M + D – A, where corruption (C) equals monopoly power (M) combined with discretion by public officials (D) minus accountability (A). According to this formula, the current caretaker government’s monopoly over all instruments of state power; its powers of arbitrary arrest without warrant, and its detention of citizens without due-process rights; and the limitations it has placed on the press as the citizens’ watchdog, all conspire to undermine the government’s stated goal of reducing corruption.

The crucial element of fighting corruption – accountability – is conspicuously missing from the current framework. Though the leaders of the caretaker government may have good intentions, the government itself, operating under a state of emergency, is institutionally stacked against them.

What we are seeing today in the TI data is the result of an unaccountable government’s "anti-corruption" drive. As with all military government’s in the past, the results are predictable. It is no coincidence that at the bottom of TI’s list this year is Burma, one of the world’s longest ruling military dictatorships.

Bangladesh has been, and remains, a very corrupt nation. However, corruption in Bangladesh is systemic and cannot be solved by decapitating the political leadership, and it certainly cannot be done by an unaccountable military government. There is no question that individuals in past governments in Bangladesh have engaged in massive corruption. But that corruption has not been limited to democratic governments. Perhaps the most corrupt leader Bangladesh has had was the military dictator Hussain Mohammad Ershad. Until institutions in Bangladesh become more transparent, until governments in Bangladesh become more accountable, and until power in Bangladesh ceases to be concentrated amongst the few, Bangladesh will continue to struggle with rampant corruption. Rounding up politicians in the name of an "anti-corruption" drive may grab headlines, but the deeper damage caused by the application of draconian laws and the complete disregard for the rule of law by this government is breeding even more corruption.

One thing is certain. The longer an unaccountable military regime rules Bangladesh the more corrupt Bangladesh will become. Bangladeshis have been forced to give up their essential liberties with the promise of "free and fair elections" and a "corruption-free" future. As long as the military rules Bangladesh, the people are likely to get neither.

After the army deployed across the country yesterday and moved Aung San Suu Kyi from her home to a notorious prison, the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters has begun in Burma:

Burmese police have used batons to beat back protesters including monks at the Rangoon pagoda used as a rallying-point for marchers, eyewitnesses say.

They baton-charged a crowd of civilians and monks outside the Shwedagon Pagoda as demonstrators readied for a ninth day of protest marches.

Police and troops have been ringing Buddhist monasteries in the city.

Analysts fear a repeat of the violence in 1988, when troops opened fire on unarmed protestors, killing thousands.

The military regime in Burma is a ruthless entity well capable of firing on its own citizens. Dark days may lay ahead for the Burmese people. I salute their bravery and pray for their safety.

The banner reads "Shut down Prothom Alo, the friend of Jews and Christians. Hizb ut-Tahrir, Bangladesh".

Click to see E-Bangladesh’s photoblog of Islamists on the march in Bangladesh.

Sid at Serious Golmal adds some perspective. For more background, here’s my post on Hizb ut-Tahrir from last year.

[Cross posted at E-Bangladesh]

Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed, the civilian face of Bangladesh’s military government, has arrived in America. For the first time in sixteen years Bangladesh will be represented at the UN General Assembly by an unelected technocrat. While Dr. Ahmed lacks a constituency back in Bangladesh he should feel quite at home in New York. In January Bangladesh experienced its first UN-instigated (if not backed) coup when the most senior UN official in Bangladesh, Renata Lok Dessalien, warned that there would be "implications" for the Bangladesh army’s participation in UN peacekeeping missions if it took part in the scheduled elections. Later in the day Bangladeshi generals dutifully obliged by walking into the Bangladeshi President’s office and demanding that power be handed over to technocrats chosen by the military. Apparently participating in a rigged election is far worse than participating in a coup, according to the United Nations. Thus was installed Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed as the Chief Advisor of Bangladesh’s "caretaker government".

In New York Dr. Ahmed is now amongst his constituents. The Bangladesh military government has taken a number of steps recently to prepare the ground for this trip. On September 9, Dr. Ahmed declared on national television that the military government was easing the ban on indoor politics. Less than a week later Dr. Ahmed granted an interview to the BBC to discuss the military government’s "commitment" to a "roadmap" toward democracy. It was yet another interview granted by the Chief Advisor to a foreign news outlet without granting a single interview to the Bangladeshi press. The headline out of the BBC interview was that Dr. Ahmed declared that Bangladesh was not under military rule. Dr. Ahmed also made the incredible claim that his government believed in freedom of press and had not imposed any restrictions on the media:

About the closure of talk shows on private TV channels at the instruction of a government agency, he said the government believes in freedom of mass media and they had not imposed any restrictions on them.

Fakhruddin said the government accepted and was benefited by criticisms made at the talk shows. However, he admitted that an advisory was given to the TV channels after the Dhaka University incident last month, which he said is a temporary measure.

"We’ve given full freedom for last seven-eight months. There is no dearth of goodwill or sincerity in ensuring freedom of the media," he said, adding that the criticisms are very important but those must be objective and constructive.

Dr. Ahmed neglected to mention, amongst other things, the intimidation of the media by army personnel, the very well-documented beatings of journalists, the recent arrest of a cartoonist, and the talk-show "guidelines" handed down by the military government to television channels. The press in Bangladesh has been mostly bludgeoned into submission while the Chief Advisor maintains his government "believes" in freedom of the press.

The interview to the foreign media was just in time for the visit to Bangladesh by John Gastright, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary for South Asian affairs. In Bangladesh Gastright offered support for the military government in Bangladesh and said that the U.S. looks forward to "full democracy" in Bangladesh. To underscore the point that Bangladesh was not being ruled by the military, Mr. Gastright, in an act of diplomatic jujitsu, met with General Moeen U Ahmed, Bangladesh’s army chief:

About his meeting with the army chief, Gastright said he had an excellent meeting with Gen Moeen U Ahmed, where he congratulated the chief of army staff on the important role the joint forces are playing in support of the caretaker government.

"I welcomed General Moeen’s repeated assurances that he and the army do not have any political ambition," Gastright said.

John Gastright got what he came for in Dhaka: an assurance from the military that the military camps all around the country, the military officials heading civilian departments, the military detaining and torturing people, the military intimidating and shutting down media outlets, the military beating students and journalists, the military arresting university professors, and the military chief making political speeches - all of it - did not mean that the military was running the country. It was indeed a "Silent Coup", as the Economist put it back in January.

Mr. Gastright’s support for Bangladesh’s military government was not surprising, nor was it new. In August, representing the Bush Administration Mr. Gastright appeared in front of the U.S. House Foreign Relations Committee and offered support for Bangladesh’s military government, as well as the military government of Pakistan. In his prepared testimony, he stated:

From the beginning, the new Caretaker Government stressed that it sought to restore, not replace, Bangladesh’s democracy, by undertaking a comprehensive reform aimed at leading the country toward free, fair, and credible elections. The government insisted that it would not be rushed in this difficult task. Initially we were troubled that this dramatic shift in government might signal a hidden agenda to indefinitely delay a return to democracy and conceal a secret military coup. We articulated these concerns to the new Caretaker Government immediately, calling for a roadmap to elections to be announced as soon as possible and advocating a lifting of the ban on political activity.  We also insisted that, while we applauded the anti-corruption effort, it would enjoy our continued support only if conducted with respect for international standards of human rights and with due regard for due process under the law of Bangladesh.  Thus far the Caretaker Government has been open and responsive to our views, and has taken steps to address each of our concerns.

During testimony it was revealed that Mr. Gastright gets his information on the progress of the Bangladesh military government from Farook Sobhan, the special envoy of the Bangladesh military government. However, Mr. Sobhan had not briefed Mr. Gastright adequately. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on South Asia Congressman Gary Ackerman spelled out his doubts in his opening statement:

In Bangladesh, a care-taker government backed by the Army has delayed elections until sometime next year and has instead arrested one former Prime Minister, is threatening to arrest another and has imprisoned hundreds if not thousands of politicians and business leaders on vague charges of corruption.  While I believe that neither of the two major parties in Bangladesh have brought any great good to the Bangladeshi people, I’m hard pressed to understand how an extra-constitutional process brings about political reform.  From where I sit this looks remarkably like what Musharraf did in Pakistan – clear the field of the mainstream parties and inadvertently open the door to the Islamist parties, some of whom have particularly odious associations with known terrorists and terrorist organizations.  The Administration has previously described Bangladesh as a moderate Muslim democratic state.  After the care-taker government gets done however, describing Bangladesh as moderate and democratic will strain credulity.

Under withering questioning from Congressman Ackerman, Mr. Gastright, who had earlier stated that all was well in Bangladesh was now not too sure:

Ackerman: In your statement you note that the steps taken by President Ahmed are all actions permitted by the Bangladesh Constitution. It is my understanding that the state of emergency that was declared cannot exceed four months without further parliamentary review. Since there is no parliament to review the current state of emergency that’s lasted beyond the four months, under what legal authority is the current government of Bangladesh proceeding?

Gastright: I’ll have to get back with you sir. I’ll have to bring that information back to you sir. I don’t have it.

Ackerman: Do we believe its proceeding under legal authority?

Gastright: The information I have is that the current caretaker government is a constitutional entity.

Ackerman: Proceeding under legal authority?

Gastright: Yes sir.

Ackerman: But we don’t know under what theory.

Gastright: The best information I have is that the constitution of the country provides for a caretaker government and that this falls within that construct.

Ackerman: But I was correct in saying that they have outlived their constitutionally approved life.

Gastright: I am not aware of that sir. I’ll have to investigate and I’ll have to get back to you.

While the chief adviser is likely to have a fairly productive stay in the United States, especially after the support he has recently received from the US government through its visiting assistant secretary of state, John Gastright, his over-enthusiasm for speaking to the international media and gain support from the international community is certainly interesting. It is becoming increasingly clear that this administration, which hardly has any constitutional legitimacy any more, is seeking credibility and legitimacy from the international community to remain in power in this country. It is no secret that several foreign diplomats stationed in Dhaka played a direct role in bringing this military-driven government about, and has tried over the last several months to prop it up. That perhaps explains the chief adviser’s obvious gratitude to our international ‘partners’ and his tendency to explain his government’s actions to the international community through the international media rather than to the people of this country through the local media.

…

While the political mix here at home becomes more complicated by the day, the Fakhruddin administration and its backers are busy pandering to the west. That they feel a greater accountability to the international community than to the people of this country is not only unfortunate but will ultimately prove counterproductive. General Musharraf of Pakistan is only now realising that the staunchest of international allies, including the United States, are of little use when the people in one’s own country come clamouring for change. Our administration should learn from that, and realise that its credibility and that of all its actions depends almost entirely on the holding of credible and acceptable elections to the ninth Jatiya Sangsad within a reasonable period of time. If it fails to do that, or worse, if it intentionally weakens democratic institutions and short-changes democracy, the support of the west will hardly give it the legitimacy or the protection that it will need.

On Wednesday Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed will address the United Nations General Assembly ostensibly on behalf of the people of Bangladesh - a people that are today living under military rule and without their fundamental rights. Dr. Ahmed will be at the podium at the General Assembly because the military, not the people, sent him there. This Wednesday he can either speak for the people of Bangladesh or speak for the military. Bangladesh waits to hear what he has to say, and on whose behalf he says it.