The Current State Of The Foreign Ministry

PROFESSIONALISM has no match in formulation and implementation of a country’s foreign policy. The slightest mistake in formulating and conducting foreign policy can make the country vulnerable to attack by foreign powers. Therefore, it should be formulated keeping in mind a country’s interests while avoiding any attitude that might be construed as a hostile or unfriendly act of the government. Foreign service officers and political entities who head the foreign ministry should be well-acquainted with the nitty-gritty of the foreign policy.

Recently, the foreign ministry saw an influx of people from other areas who do not seem to be acquainted with the ins and outs of the country’s foreign policy. Half a dozen ambassadors come from a different sector, some of them placed in important countries, including Russia and Britain. Germany, an important donor country and second highest export destination of Bangladeshi products, remains without an ambassador for quite some time. I recall the generous contribution of the German government and NGOs when severe floods affected Bangladesh in 1998.

At that time I was in charge of the Bangladesh embassy in Bonn as the ambassador was on leave. The permanent representative to the United Nations is also represented by a non-diplomat — an American citizen of Bangladesh origin. His recent meeting with the exiled Tibetan Dalai Lama raised eyebrows in the political circles in Beijing. If no appropriate explanation is given to the Chinese authorities, the relations between Bangladesh and China will grow cold. Bangladesh needs China much more than China needs Bangladesh. Our country should maintain balanced relationships with the two Asian giants, China and India, in the interests of the country.

Sex scandals involving diplomats at the ambassador level has seriously damaged the image of the foreign ministry. In June this year, the Bangladesh ambassador to Japan, AKM Mujibur Rahman, was called back to Dhaka on such a charge. Japan has been playing a very important role in developing the infrastructure of Bangladesh since pre-liberation days of the country, apart from turning out to be our largest donor country. In the recent past, another diplomat, Hasib Aziz, was called back to the foreign affairs ministry for taking an Uzbek woman as a second wife without seeking permission from the government. He later married two others.

The latest incident involving someone with a non-diplomatic background was that of the ambassador to Nepal, Neem Chandra Bhowmik, which turned out to be a very serious matter. Apart from the scandal, the former applied physics teacher of Dhaka University was accused of meddling in the internal affairs of Nepal. There has been allegation of corruption against him while offering scholarships to Nepalese students selected by the Bangladesh government. As reported, he lacks mannerism and diplomatic etiquette in dealing with foreign government.

There has been serious allegation against the Bangladesh ambassador, as reported in the news media, that he gave ride to retired Indian general Jacob to different meeting places in his official car flying the Indian flag. It is an unbelievably disgraceful affair. No action has yet been taken despite requests from the Nepalese government for calling him back. Needless to say that Nepal is a very important country in the region for Bangladesh. Also, allegation of corruption against the Bangladesh high commission in Britain needs to be looked into by the foreign ministry.

Both the prime minister and the foreign minister have toured many parts of the world by now, the achievements to which are not much visible. After Bangladesh has allowed transit facilities to India from Akhaura to Tripura, India will succeed in establishing link with its seven landlocked sister states through Bangladesh territory, apart from using Bangladesh sea ports. It may be recalled here that following our independence, the Chittagong Port was under a mine cleaning operation by Russian naval units, due to which Bangladesh had placed a request to use the Calcutta Port for transhipment for the time being. The request was denied by the Indian government at a time when friendship between the two countries was at its highest peak as India had assisted our freedom fighters to liberate the country from Pakistan’s subjugation.

Speaking recently at Bangladesh strategic study institute, the visiting Indian foreign minister reportedly said that Bangladesh would enjoy trade relations with the Indian landlocked states. The possibility of such scenario is bleak as these areas are low income. The entire north-eastern part of India is infested with insurgency. For all practical purposes, the government of India has no hold on Nagaland. Arunachal Pradesh has become controversial since China claimed 16 districts of the state.

Apart from this, the Indian authorities are in the process of demarcating the border by constructing barbed wire fences along Bangladesh borders without consulting the Bangladesh authorities, which should be considered an unfriendly act. Killing of Bangladeshi nationals by India’s Border Security Force is increasing without any serious protest from the Bangladesh side. Without resolving water sharing issues, India is reportedly ready to construct Tipaimukh dam, in spite of protests from the local people. Although the government of India verbally assured that no damage would be done to Bangladesh if it is constructed, experts are of the opinion that there would be tremendous adverse effect on Bangladesh, it being the lower riparian country. In a way, much more harm would be inflicted on Bangladesh than was by the Farakka barrage. Since China is going ahead with a project to divert waters from the River Brahmaputra in Tibet to arid Xinxiang region, apart from building hydroelectric power plant, India is taking initiative to make a dam to preserve waters from Brahmaputra, causing damage to Bangladesh. Brahmaputra is an international river and the interest of lower riparian should be looked into.

The non-recognition of Kosovo by the Bangladesh government may have irritated the United States which took the initiative to recognise Kosovo. There are similarities between the birth of Bangladesh and that of Kosovo from the subjugation of Serbia. It is understood that the Russian influence has deterred the recognition of Kosovo by Bangladesh. Possibly, the issue is linked with the construction of the atomic energy plant by Russia at Rooppur in Pabna. The treaty between Bangladesh and Russia is likely to be signed when the prime minister pays a visit to Russia this year. This would be her second visit to Russia.

The ministry of foreign affairs suffers from a shortage of manpower to run it effectively. With the departure of the ambassadors to China and France, there will be a vacuum in the ministry in respect of foreign language oriented diplomat. The post of additional foreign secretary remains vacant till writing of this article. The director general is looking after the territorial desk. No director general, however efficient, can handle the territorial desk without gaining a clear perception thorough training abroad. Each territorial desk is different from the point of view of geography, history and current affairs from other desks. From the desk officer to the director-general level, the ministry needs specialisation in the area to make judgment on significant issues which might affect the national interest of the country. Research work on important developments around Bangladesh and international platform is very important in formulating foreign policy. The ministry lacks a full-fledged research wing. It may consider introducing a course for non-diplomatic ambassadors before posting them abroad.

A state can be governed by a person uninitiated in politics, but foreign ministry could not be run by non-professional diplomats. The government should pay much more attention to the ministry of foreign affairs as it stands as the first line of defence for the country.

Maritime Border: Where Do We Stand Now?

BANGLADESH on February 26submitted its claim to the United Nations over its extension of continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal according to Clause 76 (8) of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Seas 1982, known as UNCLOS III. Bangladesh and its neighbouring countries, India and Myanmar, have ratified this convention. Myanmar submitted its claim on the Bay of Bengal on December 5, 2008, India on May 11, 2009. Before Bangladesh put its claims, it floated tenders to explore some deep-sea blocks in its continental shelf in April 2008. India and Myanmar put objections to those tenders claiming the areas are owned by them. Bangladesh took this matter to UN in November 2009 to settle the disputes over the ownership as per UNCLOS III.

The Law of the Sea

THE present day Law of the Sea is the outcome of United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS I of 1958, UNCLOS II of 1960 and UNCLOS III of 1982. According to Articles 3 and 15 of UNCLOS III, every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines in the line of low water tide along the seashore of a state. As per Article 17, ships of all states, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. Article 33 gives authority of a state on certain other matters to further 12 nautical miles called as contiguous zone. Article 55 allows an exclusive economic zone, an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, where the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources. As per Article 57, this economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines. The UNCLOS III of 1982 in its Article 76 gives rights to the coastal states to own some more areas beyond the economic zone called the continental shelf.

Continental shelf

AS PER Article 76 sub-article 1, the continental shelf of a coastal state comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of its land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin. As per sub-article 3, the continental margin comprises the submerged prolongation of the land mass of the coastal state, and consists of the seabed and subsoil of the shelf, the slope and the rise. As the limits of sea boundary prolongs towards the deep sea, disputes should arise between adjacent states on their boundaries and claims over their natural resources. To resolve the disputes sub-article 4(a) of Article 76 gives clarifications that the coastal state shall establish the outer edge of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines by either, i) a line delineated where the thickness of sedimentary rocks is at least one per cent of the shortest distance from the foot of the continental slope; or ii) line delineated in accordance to fixed points not more than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the continental slope. Article 76 limits the continental shelf on the seabed, drawn in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) (i) and (ii), not beyond 350 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, or not beyond 100 nautical miles from the 2,500-metre isobath, which is a line connecting the depth of 2,500 metres.

Disputes with India and Myanmar

BANGLADESH in 1989 divided its mainland and territorial waters into 23 blocks for gas and oil exploration. In 2008, eight blocks under exclusive economic zone and 20 blocks under continental shelf were tendered inviting interested parties for exploration. But objections were raised from India and Myanmar over claims on those deep-sea blocks. A recent discovery of huge hydrocarbon reserve in the continental shelves of India in Orissa, and Myanmar in Rakhaine states triggered these disputes with Bangladeshi claims. Bangladesh needs to solve this problem as per Articles 59 and 76 of UNCLOS III.

Article 59 of UNCLOS III says, in cases where the convention does not attribute rights or jurisdiction to the coastal state or to other states within the exclusive economic zone, and a conflict arises between the interests of the coastal state and any other state or states, the conflict should be resolved on the basis of equity and in the light of all the relevant circumstances, taking into account the respective importance of the interests involved to the parties as well as to the international community as a whole. As per this article, Bangladesh’s claim of equity should be based on all relevant circumstances, particularly the basis of sedimentary rocks deposited from its mainland.

Bangladesh with its Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974 was rather unaware of its rights in the deep sea. Following the equidistant formula for setting limits of the territorial sea between adjacent states, Bangladesh extended its boundary limits in 1989 by straight lines and remained content with its exclusive economic zone. In 2006, when India floated tender for offshore exploration in the Bay of Bengal, the Bangladesh government only got concerned, as the media reported that India has encroached into its EEZ block number 21 (see http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers19%5Cpaper1877.html).

India signed a production sharing contract with Australian company Santos on March 2, 2007 for oil exploration in the block NEC-DWN-2004/2. The Myanmar government awarded the offshore blocks AD-8 to China National Petroleum Corporation of China and AD-9 to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India, in addition to block AD7 to Daewoo of Korea.

As India and Myanmar started their aggression into Bangladesh waters, the Bangladesh government also started preparing for third round bidding for oil and gas exploration in the deep sea with a fresh production sharing contract. By April 2008, Bangladesh delineated its outer boundary of the continental shelf and floated tender for exploration on eight shallow water and 20 deep sea blocks. India and Myanmar quickly opposed this move claiming Bangladeshi tenders were on their blocks. But Bangladesh navy was active to put pressure on Santos not to encroach into Bangladesh waters. The navy was also deployed, in a similar move, to thwart attempt by Daewoo rigs to explore in the AD7 block of Myanmar (The Daily Star, November 14, 2008).

This area would fall under the Bangladesh deep sea block No DS-08-13 about 60 kilometres off St Martin’s Island.

The Bangladesh government took a commendable step in November 2009 by approaching to the UN to resolve its sea boundary dispute with neighbours as per its convention. Another commendable step was taken in February this year, when it put forward its claim of sea boundary to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, known as CLCS. Though this claim was not made public, it is known that the claims were made in accordance with the Article 76 and its Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 (a) and (b), 5, 6 and 7. Clauses 4 and 6 of Article 76 set out specific formula to establish outer edges of the continental shelf of a country. The claim submitted has an executive summary and an outline map which has references fixed points defined by coordinates, and straight lines joining them not exceeding 60 nautical miles in length. These are required as per the Clause 7 of Article 76. Bangladesh claim is also supported by technical and scientific data prepared with the support of the navy, Geological Survey of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Corporation, Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration and Production Company, Space Research and Remote Sensing Organisation and Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Authority.

The offshore blocks NEC-DWN-2004/1 and NEC-DWN-2004/2 and part of D31 of India, and blocks AD7, AD8, AD9, AD10, AD11, AD12, AD13 and AD14 of Myanmar fall under the waters of Bangladesh as per UN Convention, is illustrated in the map.  Bangladesh has taken a rightful step for winning its sea boundary by diplomacy rather than war. In the name of equity, India and Myanmar are now trying to pursue Bangladesh for a negotiated settlement. But the matter is now under the disposal of the UN Commission, where it is to be settled according to the convention set by the international community. Any attempt of bypassing the convention would be a matter of objection from it. Against this backdrop, our present stand in claiming our sea boundary appears to be just and very strong. We should not make any delay now in updating our Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act of 1974 according to the UNCLOS III of 1982.

BCL Finds new targets

ATTACK on, and assault of, teachers at public universities and colleges seems to have become the favourite pastime for the Bangladesh Chhatra League, the ruling Awami League’s associate body of students, in recent days. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, activists of the Chhatra League confined the proctor and a hall provost at Rajshahi University, assaulted a hall provost at Chittagong University and locked up the academic building at the Noakhali University of Science and Technology on Tuesday. Just over a week back, on August 8, Chhatra League activists swooped on teachers at the Bangladesh Agricultural University, leaving at least 20 of them injured. Little wonder then that, according to another report also front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, teachers of some public universities and university colleges feel insecure as some BCL leaders and activists have become increasingly ‘violent’ in recent times. With the admission season just round the corner, these teachers have all the more reasons to feel vulnerable; after all, BCL leaders and activists have shown since the AL-Jatiya Party government assumed office in January 2009 that they are not used to being told ‘no’ when it comes to admission and recruitment of candidates of their choice to public educational institutions and government offices respectively.

The public universities and the University Grants Commission are ‘concerned’ about an increased number of attacks by Chhatra League leaders and activists on teachers, so was the UGC chair, AK Azad Chowdhury, quoted in the New Age report as saying. The current president of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association and a former general secretary of the association also condemned the assault of teachers, not in one voice though. The DUTA president questioned the role of some teachers during the skirmishes at the agricultural university. On the other hand, the pro-vice-chancellor of the National University went to the extent of defending the BCL elements, saying ‘there is no reason to think that teachers are always innocent.’ So, a united front among teachers, at least in the articulation of concern over, and protest against, BCL atrocities against their colleagues across the country looks improbable.

Even if the teachers’ community protested against the attack on and assault of some of their colleagues, it was unlikely to have any effect whatsoever. When tough talks against BCL violence and vandalism by key functionaries of the government, including the prime minister herself, have thus far failed to make the BCL troublemakers behave, there is hardly any guarantee that mere protests by teachers, no matter how united they are, which they do not appear to be, would make any difference. Ultimately, it is the government, and also the ruling party, that needs to act decisively and demonstratively. Regrettably, however, neither the government nor the ruling party has thus far displayed hardly any sincerity to follow up the warnings by their top leaders with commensurate actions. There have been some expulsions from the Chhatra League on disciplinary grounds and even a couple of arrests but these actions proved neither sustained nor deterrent enough.

As we have commented in these columns again and again, unbridled atrocities by BCL troublemakers across the country ultimately undermine the credibility and authority of the government and the ruling party, which may already be in a precarious position. Hence, they need to act now, and act decisively and demonstratively.

Bangladesh’s Political Insanity?

IN RECENT days, the Economist of the UK seems to have taken more than a casual interest about the sad state of politics inside Bangladesh, which has been a nasty partisan one with an illiberal democracy for the past two decades. While such an interest may be a boon to stir a healthy debate about the health of a failing democracy, I was not happy with the partisan tone of the analyst who wrote on August 13 under the pseudonym Banyan. It is absurd to take such pieces seriously when we even don’t know who has written the piece.

The politics in Bangladesh has been abused by those in power with a winner-takes-all attitude. This trend was neither started by the ruling Awami League when in 2008 it swept to power in a landslide, nor will it probably end with its fall. The ruling party never learns how to compromise and build consensus across the aisle on the parliament floor. It carries out partisan policies and takes draconian measures, all aimed at marginalising its opposition, hoping that such would ensure its victory in the next election, only to find that they are rejected by its electorate. This is the most important lesson which the leaders of the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, often accused of entertaining dynastic ideas, have foolishly tried to be oblivious of. There is a name for such an attitude. I call it insanity!

True to Gopal Krishna Gokhale’s remark more than half a century ago that ‘What Bengal (comprising of today’s Bangladesh and the state of West Bengal in India) thinks today, India thinks tomorrow,’ the Bangladeshi people are probably the most politically conscious of all the people living in South Asia. They have never made a mistake when they went to the polls to disrobe a political party while replacing it by another. They were not wrong when they voted for the Jukto Front in 1954 and the Awami League in 1970 as part of what was once East Pakistan. Minus the military period of 1975-91, nor were they wrong in any election held ever since December 16 of 1971, when Bangladesh emerged as an independent nation. They were not wrong when in 1946 they overwhelmingly voted for Pakistan in what was then British India. There were not wrong either in December of 2008 when they voted for the coalition led by Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League.

Unfortunately, this piece of essential history, that has defined much of the Bangladeshi character, its sense of intellectual superiority and political correctness, is often forgotten by the new leaders that came to power since 1975.

If today’s leaders of major political parties had respected their electorate and learned that bitter lesson that Bangladeshi people don’t like the aspiring pharaohs, nawabs and princes, the arrogant snobs and the extremist zealots, the thugs and robbers that spoil and rob their wealth, we would have been spared of this insanity and it could have been a big plus for the failing health of democracy in Bangladesh. If they had learned that ‘the politics of Bengal is in reality the economics of Bengal’, they probably would have cared more for improving the economy rather than coming up with chauvinistic political agendas and narratives that have brought nothing good but harmed the economy of the country through mindless strikes and counter-strikes.

And probably, there has never been a better time in the last two decades to changing this paradigm than after the election of December 2008, dubbed by most outside experts as the fairest poll in the country’s four-decade history. There was that wave of national optimism that the newly sworn prime minister would use her party’s popularity to strengthen democratic institutions and pursue national reconciliation, putting an end to a vicious cycle of nasty politics between the Awami League and its major rival, the BNP. But that hope seems to be scuttled by allegations that she had used the huge mandate for partisan advantage. Her opponents say that she has been more interested in sanctifying her late father’s (Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the founding president of Bangladesh) image and solidifying her party’s position than real changes that are necessary to either change Bangladesh from an illiberal democracy to a liberal democracy or improve her economy from its 7 per cent GDP growth rate to a healthier double-digit one.

There is no denying that power is abused in every illiberal democracy, let alone autocratic, anti-people regimes of our planet. It is this abuse at the top which leads to unfathomable corruption and crime spreading like a virus in every public sector. And, in this regard, Bangladesh has plenty of examples with filthy rich politicians, their beneficiaries and benefactors. She has her share of ‘untouchable’ ‘princes’, a few ‘disposable’ godfathers, and many sycophants. Thus, when the erstwhile military-controlled caretaker government came to power in 2007, putting some of these thugs behind the prison cells, people started celebrating and dreaming once again (much like the independence day celebration of 1971) that their days of sad past living under the thugs and criminals were over. It only took a few months to have the rude awakening that ‘whoever goes to Lanka becomes a Ravana.’ The caretaker government was no saint!

Bangladesh’s history is, therefore, a sad tragicomedy played by political actors who come and go through the swinging door of politics, never to learn from its bloody past that has witnessed so many assassinations. As my sagacious father would say it would require seven layers of soil to be exchanged before anything good to come out of this unfortunate land! A sad commentary, and yet, probably a correct one, for an unfortunate people!

Politics and, more correctly, the political leaders have betrayed the Bangladeshi people too long by choking their legitimate aspirations to live in a crimeless and corruption-less society. They forget about accountability for their misdeeds, which is a cornerstone of democracy. Thus, when swept out of power, they cry foul with new government inquiries and ensuing legal actions, which may put them behind the prison walls. When in power, they seem to fancy that this day of hardship would never visit them. What a selective amnesia!

No one should ever think that they are above the law. I have no sympathy for criminals and corrupt guys. The government owes its people the simple task of ensuring checks and balances by prosecuting them in a free trial. The process ought to be fair and transparent and cannot be seen partisan-like where the ruling party’s thugs dodge the long arms of the law and justice while their counterparts in the opposition are prosecuted. The opposition leaders simply cannot cry foul when their kith and kin and buddies are charged for money-laundering and other crimes.

The Economist writer Banyan’s claims about the reasons behind the troubles with Dr Yunus are too childish to be taken seriously. Sheikh Mujib was a towering figure in the politics of Bangladesh, and as shown in the 2004 poll (when the BNP was in power), conducted on the worldwide listeners of BBC’s Bengali radio service, was voted the ‘Greatest Bengali of All Time’ beating Rabindranath Tagore, another Nobel laureate, and others. It is doubtful that Dr Yunus or anyone in our time would be able to eclipse that image of Sheikh Mujib.

Banyan is seemingly against the current war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh and finds witch-hunting in the government’s efforts to try the alleged criminals. He forgets that the ruling party had a mandate to close this sad chapter of Bangladesh by trying those accused of committing one of the worst crimes of our time, which has killed some three hundred thousand Bangladeshis. (Note: while no serious effort has been taken inside Bangladesh to count the number of those killed during the war of liberation, some recent research findings do suggest that the actual figure was well below three million—the commonly accepted figure in Bangladesh.) During that sad chapter the roles of some politicians now belonging to the opposition was anything but humanly. They were monsters, torturing and killing their fellow Bangladeshis like rats and mosquitoes. One cannot but wonder what message Khaleda Zia was delivering to our people when she allowed such murderers to join her party and become ministers!

Accusations have been made in the Economist that the war crimes tribunal proceedings in Bangladesh are not fair. I am not aware of any war crimes tribunal that has not been accused of being imperfect. Even the Nuremburg Trial has not been spared of such accusations and has been called ‘politically motivated’ since it was carried out by the opponents of the Nazis. As to the shoddy trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1962 in Israel, the least said the better. And yet, in spite of such accusations, no one would dispute that each of these trials was able to do justice.

I don’t see why today the Bangladesh government would fail to carry out its national obligation by trying the alleged war criminals fairly. As I wrote last year, such trials should never be abused for witch-hunting the opposition, and I am assured that the commission’s office is not abused. The defenders would have all means to defend themselves against the charges. As to the treatment of the accused, I am also told that they are treated humanly, and much better treated than what the US and the UK governments have done with their shoddy trials of suspected terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11. Let’s face it, compared to how those suspects like KSM and others in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan are treated, the suspected war criminals in Bangladesh are getting a five-star celebrity treatment!

What Banyan forgets is that our world needs more, and not less, of war crimes tribunals so that no one, not even Bush and Blair, Rumsfeld and Cheney, can dodge their accountability for crimes against humanity. [It is good to hear the recent courageous verdict by Judge Hamilton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit who refused to grant former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and others immunity from lawsuits which ‘would amount to an extraordinary abdication of our (US) government’s checks and balances that preserve Americans’ liberty.’ The case is important because it makes clear—for the first time—that government officials can be held accountable for the intentional mistreatment of American citizens, even if that conduct happens in a war zone. (Sadly, there remains no accountability for the abuse, and torture, of foreigners by American jailers and interrogators, which Rumsfeld and President George W Bush personally sanctioned.)]

Banyan tries to make fun of the use of ‘sir’ for the current prime minister. Is Banyan aware of the fact that many successful female CEOs don’t like the term ‘madam’ for them, and insist that they be addressed ‘sir’? Banyon may like to check out with PepsiCo’s CEO—Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi.

Banyan’s article has distorted some facts. No one has been prosecuted for criticising the amended constitution. Opposition leaders have simply been warned as they threatened to throw away the constitution and thus implicitly encourage unconstitutional means to take over power. Violence is not the way to solve anything, and surely not a constitutional problem. There is a place for such a debate. It is parliament. That is where the BNP and other opposition party members ought to debate.

As noted above, the article in the Economist does little good to steer a healthy debate about politics in Bangladesh and for curbing its nasty partisan politics.

Democracy is worthless without a viable opposition. The majority rule need not be a winner-takes-all process which marginalises opposition. The leaders in Bangladeshi politics ought to show more maturity and compromise. The two decades that they have ruled Bangladesh alternately as prime ministers should have been sufficient to move forward and grow up. A healthy, respectable dialogue between the political leaders with a firm commitment towards good governance, checks and balances, accountability and respect for the rule of law can be the starting point, if they truly care about building a viable, thriving, healthy democracy in Bangladesh. They can either embrace the lessons of history or choose to end in its dustbin. The choice is surely theirs to get out of political insanity.

Source:

New Restrictive Measures On Media Soon

The government is now working on a new stringent ‘Private Broadcasting Policy 2011’ to be announced soon in an apparent move to control any dissenting voice.

Expression of views in the media is therefore coming under increasing government scrutiny making it more difficult for the media practitioners to ensure freedom of expression complying with the government regulations. Once the new restrictive policy comes in force, it will adversely affect press freedom.

Meanwhile, as a part of this restrictive policy, two politicians and a programme moderator of Ekushey TV has already been summoned to a High Court bench last week to explain their remarks on the judges in a case relating to Islami Oikya Jote leader Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini. They have been asked to appear before the court on August 18 to explain. The politicians include BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia’s advisor Ahmed Azam Khan and a central leader of Bangladesh Samajtantrik Dal (BSD) Raziquzzaman Ratan and the moderator of the talk show Anjan Roy.

The suo-moto rule was issued by the High Court bench of justices A H M Shamsuddin Chowdhury and Gobinda Chandra Tagore on the three in this regard. Deputy attorney general A B M Altaf Hossain brought the issue before the notice of the court.

It is also happening at a time when the editor of weekly Shirshaw News is already under police custody on charges allegedly for money extortion. Earlier, the Amar Desh Editor Mahmudur Rahman was put in jail for almost one year in a contempt case. A senior reporter of the daily was sent to jail for one month despite his pleading guilty to avert the sentence.

While airing public opinion, media outlets like TV channels, radio and newspapers have to take extra care now whether their views are likely to cause any unwilling slander to the government or the judiciary.

“We are at a fix,” said a news editor of a popular channel expressing the volume of pressure in running the daily news programme.

It may be recalled that the two politicians reportedly said, “The judges wrote an essay on cow while writing on river,” Altaf Hossain told reporters later on. The talk show participants apparently made the reference as the judges brought BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia in their comments in a judgement on a case relating to a charge of contempt on the constitution made by Amini.

The court has also directed the ETV authorities to submit a compact disc (CD) of the programme before it on Aug 12.

Police earlier arrested Akramul Haque, editor of the weekly ‘Shirshaw News’ on charges of three money extortion cases. The fact was that he printed some reports on irregularities of a state minister responsible for the ministry of forest and environment.

The government action initially came on Haque in the form of cancellation of 10 accreditation cards of the newsmen working for his weekly and its online version. As they were agitating for restoration of the accreditation cards, three cases were suddenly lodged against him, one by a secretariat employee, another by a businessman having false address at Kolabagan and the third one at Ashulia thana in the outskirt of the city.

The secretariat employee, affiliated to the ruling party,lodged the case at least one week after the cancellation of the accreditation card and Haque wondered how he could demand money inside the secretariat when his permission to enter into the building complex was snatched earlier.

The veracity of the Kolabagan businessman also could not be ascertained as the presence of the complaint could not be identified in the given address. The third case at Ashulia was reportedly lodged in the same day as the one lodged against him at Bangladesh secretariat address.

Haque’s family wondered how all such things could happen when the government’s anger on him directly resulted from some critical news reports published in his weekly in the recent past. Moreover the cancellation of the accreditation cards of 10 newsmen and his arrest have in fact knocked out the weekly and its online version from functioning sending about 40 newsmen out of job.

Meanwhile, the new Private Broadcasting Policy 2011, is lying with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the ministry of Information for vetting, has formulated a comprehensive guideline on what private TV and radio stations can’t telecast in greater interest of state security.

It said they will be barred from airing programmes which could cause deterioration of relations with friendly nations. Under the new policy, once adopted, TV and radio stations will also be barred from telecasting footage that may show disrespect to the members of the armed forces, law enforcing agencies and public servants engaged in punishing criminals.

They can’t telecast programmes which may bring dishonour to father of the nation in one hand and heap praise and sympathy to ‘rogue elements’ and people having no moral character. Programmes distorting the country’s history also can’t be telecast.

Besides, “no programme on campaign on behalf of a country having conflicts with Bangladesh can be aired to result in influencing the issue. Again programme on a campaign against any friendly country can’t be telecast which may hamper the country’s relations with that country”.

Private satellite TV channels backed by the opposition parties will not be allowed to air programmes portraying India as not a friend of Bangladesh. They will not be able to release secret government documents or military documents, the disclosure of which may endanger the state’s security.

Among other things, it will also prohibit showing footage of rape, adultery, violence against women and children and scenes of violence, severe injury, blood stains, horrible pieces and other distasteful incidents. TV channels and radio stations will be asked to follow the new guidelines in addition to Censorship of Films Act 1963, the policy outlines said.