A Silent Coup

Posted on January 19, 2007 by Mash

 

Army on the streets of Bangladesh

 

As Bangladesh comes to grips with the State of Emergency that it is now under, I continue to be concerned about the coup that has taken place. Now there is talk in Bangladesh of this unelected government staying in power for six months or perhaps a year. In the mean time, they will fix the ills of the country – at least that is the promise.

Bangladeshis are heatedly debating the benefits or the need for democracy. There is a lively discussion taking place at Drishtipat about whether Bangladesh is better off under military rule. As most of you know, I fall into the pro-democracy camp.

The Economist weighs in today about the coup that no one seems to want to talk about:

WHEN Iajuddin Ahmed, Bangladesh’s president, declared an army-backed state of emergency on January 11th and cancelled the election due on January 22nd, neither he nor the foreign governments quietly cheering him on used the word “coup”. Yet that is what it looks like. The army, in the tradition of “guardian coups” from Fiji to Thailand, has stepped in with the usual list of apparently noble goals. The interim government it is backing will enable credible elections, clean up the country’s extremely politicised civil service, fight corruption, fix the country’s power crisis and keep food prices in check—and then return to the barracks.

The president stood down as head of the caretaker government that had been supposed to oversee the elections. He was replaced by Fakhruddin Ahmed, a former central-bank governor and World Bank official. The technocratic administration he heads has so far sent the right signals. A drive against corruption—in which Bangladesh regularly nears the top of world league tables—is under way. The national-security chief, the top civil servant in the power ministry and the attorney-general have all been ousted. A start has been made in separating the judiciary from the executive.

 

But restoring democracy remains a tall order. The political system has collapsed. The army insisted the president step in before the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which headed a coalition government for the past five years, could rig the election and secure itself another term.

…

Although the state of emergency has supporters even among some liberal democrats, it is a high-stakes gamble. Authoritarian rule is unlikely to appeal for long, however fed up voters are with the two big parties and their mutually-loathing leaders. The main beneficiary from the failure of mainstream politics is an extremist Islamist fringe.

It remains to be seen whether democracy will return to Bangladesh any time soon. The Caretaker Government has already started to go well beyond its constitutional mandate. It currently has public support because the people are looking for solutions to the rampant corruption that has plagued the country. However, unelected governments have a logic of their own – and fairly quickly such governments’ perception of the public good becomes skewed.

Already a crackdown on "criminals and other disruptive elements" has started:

Bangladesh police used emergency powers to arrest nearly 2,000 people, as the president on Thursday swore in the final members of the council that will organize elections he delayed to quell violent protests.

Police announced they arrested some 1,968 people in raids across the country since Wednesday — part of a nationwide crackdown that officials say is targeting criminals and other disruptive elements that could affect the elections.

Security forces have detained more than 6,000 people since the state of emergency was declared on Jan. 11, according to a police statement.

I wonder how long before the definition of "disruptive elements" is broadened. Forgive me if I am wary of crackdowns by the military – I still recall the Pakistani army’s crackdown on "miscreants" on March 25, 1971.

History will teach us nothing.

 

Posted in Bangladesh | 4 Comments

Breaking News: Michael Ledeen Is Dead

Posted on January 16, 2007 by Mash

Jon Swift reports exclusively that, according to his sources, Michael Ledeen is dead. TBogg also is tracking this breaking news. Crooks & Liars features the news in its round-up.

So, I’m thinking it must be true. I called my double super secret source deep in the bowels of the Iraqi government and this is what my source reports:

Michael Ledeen was in fact present at Saddam Hussein’s execution. He was one of the masked hangmen who wrapped the noose around Saddam’s neck.

After Saddam was hanged everyone broke out in a fit of breakdancing. In an unfortunate and tragic accident, Mr. Ledeen, while dancing with joy, accidentally fell through the hole in the gallows platform and plummeted to his death. The whole incident was captured on cell phone video by Iraq’s national security advisor Dr. al-Rubaie.

Later, while still shocked from losing such a hero of the Iraqi people, the freedom-loving Iraqis showed their gratitude to Mr. Ledeen by showering his body with flowers and candy.

I have been unable to confirm this story further. Since then, my source deep within the bowels of the Iraqi government, or Deep Shiite, has disappeared.

Please stay tuned for updates as they become available.

 

Posted in Humor | 2 Comments

Losing To Iran

Posted on January 16, 2007 by Mash

Target IranThe Bush Administration is spiraling down into a major conflagration in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. To some extent, it is traveling on auto pilot. Left to its own momentum of inaction and massive overreaction, this Administration will almost certainly embark on a war with Iran.

It has been on this course for a long time.

Last Spring when Seymour Hersh first stirred up the pot, I wrote the following:

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 is now becoming apparent that the way out of Iraq, for this Administration, is indeed through Iran.

The eternally confused cheerleader of the Iraq invasion, Kenneth Pollack, was quoted in the New York Times stating the obvious:

“The administration does have Iran on the brain, and I think they are exaggerating the amount of Iranian activities in Iraq,” Kenneth M. Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, said Sunday. “There’s a good chance that this is going to be counterproductive — that this is a way to get into a spiral with Iran that leads you into conflict. The likely response from the Iranians is that they are going to want to demonstrate to us that they are not going to be pushed around.”

Mr. Pollack is half right. The Administration does have Iran on the brain, but Iran is not likely to respond so easily to such provocations. I think the latter statement is a little bit of wishful thinking on Mr. Pollock’s part.

Last week, in a confusing and contradictory speech, Mr. Bush went squarely after Iran (and threw Turkey a much overlooked bone regarding the Kurds):

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge.

This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.

We will expand intelligence sharing, and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Since then his loyal surrogates – Bob Gates, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley and Dick Cheney – have spread out across the world beating the drums of war.

Mr. Cheney, emerging from his secure undisclosed location, found it easy to replace "q" with "n" in his doomsday messages:

“So the threat that Iran represents is growing,” he said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Mr. Hussein. “It’s multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region.”

We can expect the bombs to start flying when the threat from Iran goes from "growing" to "grave and gathering".

This latest bravado is not only a signal by this Administration of defeat in Iraq; it is also a signal of defeat to Iran. The United States has been outmaneuvered by Iran, both in Iraq and on the nuclear issue. Having lost the war on the geo-political battlefield, the Bush Administration’s only option left is to lob missiles and drop bombs. The Bush Administration is out of its depth when it comes to foreign policy. Its only weapon, which it has so far failed to wield effectively, is the military option.

Mr. Bush’s plan to interdict Iranian agents inside Iraq is ill-conceived and naive. Iran’s power in Iraq does not come from supplying IEDs or other weapons to attack American troops. The Sunni Iraqi insurgents, those who make up the bulk of the force attacking American troops, are not supplied or supported by Iran. Most of Iran’s support structure in Iraq has been decades in the making. It is not limited to a few agents supplying arms to Shia militias. Iran has been, for decades, supporting Shia parties in Iraq. The most prominent of these are the SCIRI and the Dawa party – both of which hold the reigns of power in Iraq. They control many of the key ministries, including the Ministry of Interior. SCIRI’s Badr Brigade has become fully integrated into the Ministry of Interior and regularly carries out its death squad activities under official sanction. The SCIRI and the Dawa party were founded and trained by Iran in the 1980s. Most of the leaders of the two parties were exiled in Iran, if not Syria, for much of the last two decades – and a significant number of these leaders speak Persian as well as Arabic. When the SCIRI and Dawa party leaders speak of foreign interference in Iraq’s internal affairs, they are not talking about Iran, they are talking about the United States and the Sunni Arab countries.

Iran’s support does not end with the Shia. Iran has also been supporting elements within Iraqi Kurdistan since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war. Iran’s roots in Iraq run deep and wide. It is fortified each year with millions of Iranian pilgrims who descend upon the Shia holy sites in Iraq. So, when Stephen Hadley asserts that the United States is resisting Iranian "hegemony" in the region, he is remarkably naive. Iran already has hegemony over much of Iraq, and the odds of the United States countering that hegemony are slim to none.

The irony is that when Mr. Bush talks about going after death squads in Iraq, he is talking about going after Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Iran would like nothing better. Although al-Sadr is Shia, he is also an Arab nationalist. He is against partitioning Iraq to form a southern homeland for the Shia. By going after al-Sadr, once again Mr. Bush would be doing Iran’s bidding. To add further to the mess of Mr. Bush’s policy, Mr. Bush’s latest best friend in Iraq is Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI. al-Hakim also happens to be Tehran’s man in Iraq, and for an independent Shia homeland in the south. By eliminating al-Sadr’s influence and positioning SCIRI to take over the leadership in Iraq, Mr. Bush will have ensured Iranian dominance of Iraq.

The political outlook in Iraq does not look good for Mr. Bush. The die was cast on this course when the first American bombs started falling on Iraq in 2003. There is now only one option for Mr. Bush to avoid defeat in Iraq – and that is to attack Iran. Mr. Bush and his coterie of advisors certainly knows their machinations in Iraq will not effectively counter Iranian "hegemony". So, they are going through the motions and getting ready to go for the jugular.

Mr. Cheney warned yesterday about Iran:

They are in a position where site astride the Straits of Hormuz, where over 20% of the world’s supply of oil transits every single day, over 18 million barrels a day.

There is really one solution to Mr. Cheney’s geographic quandary. That solution is to wipe Iran off the map so they no longer sit "astride the Straits of Hormuz".

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq | 3 Comments

Debbie Does Drawings

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Mash

A drawing of Debbie Schlussel by Mash. (c) 2007 by Mash. All rights reserved.See the drawing on the left. It is a drawing of Debbie Schlussel. It was drawn by me. If you want to use this picture, you must first get my permission. I am copyrighting it: (c) 2007 Mash!

I know what you are thinking – you are thinking that I should quit my day job and become a famous artist. Yes, I have thought of it many times…

My favorite wingnut, she to whom I am strangely attracted, the one and only Debbie Schlussel has threatened to sue Taylor Marsh for using one of her pictures.

 

 

Her Debbieness threatened in her ever gentle way:

It has come to my attention that you posted a copyrighted photo of mine on Huffington Post. Unfortunately for you, I am the exclusive copyright holder of that photo, and I don’t recall licensing it out to you for use. Therefore, you are in violation of my copyright, and I give you 24 hours to remove it before I have my lawyers prepare suit. As you may know, federal copyright law provides up to $150,000 in damages per incident for wanton violation of a copyright. As you are now–and should have been prior to this letter–aware, you are in violation of my copyright, and any use heretofore is wanton. Please take down the photo immediately, and cease and desist from using it in the future.

Additionally, you note on your site that I was critical of Barack Obama’s last name. Reading is fundamental. And if you bothered to read, I’ve never said a thing about the surname Obama. Perhaps you have a problem with it and are projecting it upon me. Please stop that too.

I await your response that you have taken down my copyrighted photo.

Debbie Schlussel

Doesn’t she have a way with words!

As most of you know, I have taken up Debbie’s cause before. I pleaded with you a few months ago to support Debbie fight the illegal Mexicans by not eating meat. Those guys were coming over to this here country and packing our meat. And she was going to show them!

But you guys simply laughed it off. For example, Robbie ridiculed the effort by saying:

Too bad for her. I have a porterhouse steak in the fridge I’m going to marinate for a barbecue tomorrow afternoon.:d

That was not the kind of support our randomly capitalizing friend was hoping for.

So, this time, let’s all get serious and let’s all get behind her. I urge everyone to draw your own picture of Debbie Schlussel to show her how much you care about her. I know some of you will want to use mine – but GET YOUR OWN!!! Give a fellow blogger a helping hand and draw, I say.

Feel free to drop by at Taylor Marsh’s blog and tell her how you really feel about our Muslim-loving friend.

Don’t worry Debbie, I’m with you in your lonely fight to protect the rights of innocents EVERYWHERE.

Islamically yours,

Mash the Muslim

 [Update 1/15/2007 11:16 pm: Cujo has taken up the challenge and taken his artistic skills for a spin: behold another lovely artist’s rendition. jhutson offers up another interpretation. Bob Geiger offers some commentary on candy, backsides and wingnuts. Finally Roxanne wants to know who the hell is Debbie Schlussel.]

[Update 1/16/2007 5:00 pm: Robbie comes out of retirement to draw his masterpiece. Wally dabbles in Debbie doodles. TBogg tries to predict the future.]

Posted in Humor, Media | 14 Comments

Bangladesh: A Republic, If You Can Keep It

Posted on January 15, 2007 by Mash

 

Advisors being sworn in by the President

 

A State of Emergency has been declared in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has, by a quirk in its Constitution, been legally transformed into a dictatorship. A democracy of 125 million people is now at the mercy of a handful of unelected rulers and the military.

Bangladesh has given up a lot of essential liberty for a little bit of temporary security – it remains to be seen whether it deserves or will get either.

Bangladesh was scheduled to hold national parliamentary elections on January 22, 2007. However, those elections were postponed and a State of Emergency was declared by the President on January 9th. Now Bangladesh faces an uncertain future.

Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy with a largely ceremonial President. An unusual aspect of Bangladesh’s political system is that Bangladesh’s elections are held under a non-partisan Caretaker Government.  This is to ensure free and fair elections. The Caretaker Government system was added to the Constitution in 1996 after widespread public protests in response to a fraudulent election held in February of that year. Later that year, Bangladesh held its first free and fair elections under the Caretaker Government.

Late last year, the five year term of the government led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), a center-right party allied with right wing Islamist parties, ended and the prime minister, Khaleda Zia, handed over power to a Caretaker Government. However, the handover did not go smoothly.

A Caretaker Government consists of a Chief Advisor and up to ten other Advisors who ensure that the executive functions of the government continue to function properly while assisting in the preparation for an election to be held within 90 days of assuming power. Under the Bangladesh Constitution, according to Article 58C, the Chief Advisor is to be appointed according to the following rules:

(3) The President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:

Provided that if such retired Chief Justice is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Chief Justices of Bangladesh retired next before the last retired Chief Justice.

(4) If no retired Chief Justice is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired last and who is qualified to be appointed as an Adviser under this article:

Provided that if such retired Judge is not available or is not willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall appoint as Chief Adviser the person who among the retired Judges of the Appellate Division retired next before the last such retired Judge.

(5) If no retired judge of the Appellate Division is available or willing to hold the office of Chief Adviser, the President shall, after consultation, as far as practicable, with the major political parties, appoint the Chief Adviser from among citizens of Bangladesh who are qualified to be appointed as Advisers under this article.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, if the provisions of clauses (3), (4) and (5) cannot be given effect to, the President shall assume the functions of the Chief Adviser of the Non-Party Care-taker Government in addition to his own functions under this Constitution.

Amid protests from the opposition parties, Iajuddin Ahmed, the BNP appointed President, failed to follow the rules for choosing a Chief Advisor and instead himself assumed the functions of the Chief Advisor by directly invoking Article 58C(5) of the Constitution.

After appointing himself Chief Advisor, he appointed and then ignored the remaining Advisors. As the opposition protests increased, he ordered the army onto the streets, ostensibly to protect the elections. The opposition parties, led by the Awami League, demanded the resignation of the Chief Advisor (President) and the postponement of elections. They argued that the national voter list was manipulated to enable the BNP to retain power in another fraudulent election. The opposition argued that the Chief Advisor (President) was biased and should step down.

Eventually, as the opposition parties boycotted the elections and began a program of nationwide strikes, international pressure began to build up on the President. The United Nations, the European Union, and other international election observers withdrew support for the elections and urged its postponement. Finally, under immense pressure, Iajuddin Ahmed resigned as Chief Advisor on January 9th. However, before he resigned he declared a State of Emergency.

The Bangladesh Constitution has an unfortunate provision for declaring a State of Emergency. Under normal circumstances a State of Emergency cannot be declared without the consent of the prime minister and it must also be presented to the parliament for approval at the earliest possible time. Article 141A(1 & 2) lays out the procedure for declaring a State of Emergency:

(1) If the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists in which the security or economic life of Bangladesh, or any part thereof, is threatened by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, he may issue a Proclamation of Emergency:

Provided that such Proclamation shall require for its validity the prior counter signature of the Prime Minister.

(2) A Proclamation of Emergency-

(a) may be revoked by a subsequent Proclamation;
(b) shall be laid before Parliament;
(c) shall cease to operate at the expiration of one hundred and twenty days, unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution of Parliament:
Provided that if any such Proclamation is issued at a time when Parliament stands dissolved or the dissolution of Parliament takes place during the period of one hundred and twenty days referred to in sub-clause (c), the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which Parliament first meets after its re-constitution, unless before that expiration of the meets after its re-constitution, unless before that expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by Parliament. [Emphasis added by me.]

However, when there is a Caretaker Government, there is no parliament and no prime minister. There is a provision in the Constitution which gives the President authority to act on his own under a Caretaker Government. Article 58E states:

Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 48(3), 141A(1) and 141C(1) of the Constitution, during the period the Non-Party Care-taker government is functioning, provisions in the constitution requiring the President to act on the advice of the Prime Minister or upon his prior counter-signature shall be ineffective. [Emphasis added by me.]

 Article 58D of the Constitution spells out the normal functioning of the Caretaker Government:

(1) The Non-Party Care-taker Government shall discharge its functions as an interim government and shall carry on the routine functions of such government with the aid and assistance of persons in the services of the Republic; and, except in the case of necessity for the discharge of such functions it shall not make any policy decision.

(2) The Non-Party Care-taker Government shall give to the Election Commission all possible aid and assistance that may be required for holding the general election of members of parliament peacefully, fairly and impartially.

It was not envisioned that a Caretaker Government would do much more than ensure the functioning of government and move quickly toward an election. It was certainly not envisioned that a State of Emergency would be declared during the tenure of a Caretaker Government. However, taken together, Article 141A(1) and Article 58E give the President almost dictatorial powers under the Caretaker Government. This President, Iajuddin Ahmed, used that combination of Articles to unilaterally declare the State of Emergency.

The State of Emergency that was declared also suspends basic rights normally guaranteed in the Constitution. Article 141B of the Constitution states:

While a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, nothing in articles 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 shall restrict the power of the State to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would, but for the provisions contained in Part III of this Constitution, be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall, to the extent of the incompetence, cease to have effect as soon as the Proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceases to have effect. [Emphasis added by me.]

Articles 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42 of the Constitution collectively guarantee freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of procession or occupation, and the right to property. In other words, these articles collectively guarantee rights that underpin democratic societies. Thankfully, Article 41, the freedom of religion, cannot be suspended under a State of Emergency.

Having declared the State of Emergency and called out the army, Iajuddin Ahmed resigned as Chief Advisor and then appointed a private citizen, a former central banker named Fakhruddin Ahmed (no relation to the President), as the Chief Advisor. This appointment once again violates Article 58C of the Constitution. A further 5 Advisors have now been appointed.

Bangladesh is in uncharted constitutional waters. According to the Constitution, the elections must be held within 90 days of the previous government leaving power, barring an act of God. The elections have been postponed and there is no constitutional provision to reschedule the elections. The President is now not accountable to the parliament or the people. The State of Emergency, according to the Constitution, will expire in 120 days. However, there is nothing preventing the President from declaring another State of Emergency to extend the current one. Since he has no prime minister to countersign his declaration and no parliament to check the State of Emergency, the President under the Caretaker Government has unlimited power.

Bangladesh is now at the mercy of one unelected President, one unconstitutionally appointed Chief Advisor, and 5 other unelected Advisors. Bangladesh is also now at the mercy of the military. Bangladesh has a long and brutal history of military coups and takeovers. It now stands at the mercy of the military once again. What has occurred in Bangladesh is nothing short of a constitutional coup d’état.

The hard earned democracy in Bangladesh may be slipping away. Already rules have been passed by the Caretaker Government to curb fundamental rights, the press has been threatened, and the military and the paramilitary forces have begun raiding suspected political criminals and corrupt leaders.

The optimistic observer will say that these measures are temporary and the State of Emergency will soon be lifted and a free and fair election will be held. However, all decisions now depend on unelected leaders and the military. This ruling group may choose to steer the country out of this crisis or may choose to hand over power to the military – it remains to be seen.

If Bangladesh comes out of this period of uncertainty, it will surely need to revisit the provisions in the Constitution that allow one man to control the fate of the country, without any checks or balances. Today, Bangladesh is barely a republic, and it is very much in doubt whether the people of Bangladesh can keep it.

 [Disclaimer: My father was one of three Election Commissioners during the first free and fair elections held in June of 1996 under the Caretaker Government.]

Posted in Bangladesh, Politics, Society | 4 Comments