Boston University professor Nazli
Kibria pens an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles
Times, in which she warns that Bangladesh’s unchecked ruling party is rife
with terrorist tendencies. She needs only point to the January assassination
of her father, Shah A.M.S. Kibria, a renowned member of the opposition party,
and a former undersecretary-general of the United Nations:
He had traveled from Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, to address a public meeting in the northeastern part of the country on Jan. 27. Hundreds of people had gathered to hear him speak. As he left the auditorium, without any police protection, a series of grenades exploded. My father was badly hurt, but despite the frantic requests of my mother and many of his colleagues in the hours after the attack, the government did not provide him with helicopter transport to medical facilities in Dhaka. His ambulance ran out of gas as it raced toward a hospital, and he bled to death. Four other opposition party members also died in the attack. [Los Angeles Times]
She laments the lack of concern from the U.S.:
Even as the U.S. has expanded its war on terrorism across more and more of the world, Bangladesh has escaped attention. In many ways this is not surprising. Bangladesh has never, since its bloody and triumphant birth in 1971, been seen by the U.S. to be a country of much strategic importance. In the calculations of those who make foreign policy, Bangladesh is greatly overshadowed in significance by its feuding nuclear-power neighbors, Pakistan and India. But in the long term, the price of inaction could be high. Is it prudent to ignore a political crisis in a country of 141 million people, home to the fourth-largest concentration of Muslims in the world? Are we better off dealing immediately with a problem that can most likely be solved through firm international diplomacy or waiting for a later time when we may be contending with a rogue state that lends aid and comfort to Islamist extremists? [Los Angeles Times]
A professor should know the answer to that. History clearly demonstrates that we don’t intervene until after a rogue state becomes an uncontrollable mess. Like with Alabama (circa 1963).
Los Angeles Times: Bangladesh’s lurking terror
Sigh, they’ll hate us when we get involved, and they’ll hate us because we don’t get involved.
Agreed that Bangladesh is a political mess, and kudos for getting the message out via this editorial. But what kind of “firm international diplomacy” does she want? I wish she would have explained that more in the editorial.
And won’t India get all bunched up if we invade her sphere of influence?
I don’t know what it’s like in Bangladesh right now, but using a loaded term like “rogue state” strikes me as a little extreme and words like “intervene” scare me because they usually refer to the kind of short-sighted stop-gap solutions like the invasion of Iraq (not sure if that’s what’s meant here).
I’m not a fan of BNP and certainly not Jamaat-e-Islam, but I don’t think outside countries (whether the U.S. or India) should ever “intervene” unless there’s an emergency like in Sudan. It would be nice if people paid more attention to places like Bangladesh, but the people who need to do so are not national governments, who primarily look after their own interests.
The U.S. government needs to stop doing harm first, which it does by stoking tensions in the region through arms sales, harsh “us vs. them” rhetoric, banning contraception aid, profiling and deporting hundreds, if not thousands, of Bangladeshis in the past few years (which has an economic impact on Bangladesh in addition to being generally inhumane), cracking down on remittance networks, etc. But taking those needs into account would probably be too reasonable and selfless to constitute U.S. policy.
I don’t think outside countries (whether the U.S. or India) should ever “intervene” unless there’s an emergency
I agree. An emergency such as a nation being godlessly and nukelessly non-democratic! You fan your genteel self with your laced hand at such unmentionable horrors, but it could be worse — the nation could have oil!!
And, as with Bosnia/Kosovo, the neighboring democracy & its loudest members – despite constant moralizing and indignation towards the blunt instrument of American Power – barely lifts a finger when it comes to tyranny and mass murder quite literally on its doorstep.
I guess the task in Nepal was comparatively far easier for India to step up do something about – the real test of whether / when the country is a real regional power is when it gets involved in hard, “bad vs. worse” problems like this one as well.
I agree. An emergency such as a nation being godlessly and nukelessly non-democratic! You fan your genteel self with your laced hand at such unmentionable horrors, but it could be worse — the nation could have oil!!
Anyway, if you want a list of countries for the U.S. could appropriately “intervene” in, you should start with Sudan and maybe Burma (I haven’t kept up enough in the past few years to feel sure). Ending negative involvement by the U.S. with other countries’ affairs would be a positive and wholly uncharacteristic first step in other cases. It’s not about being “genteel” as much as recognizing a 200 year old trend in U.S. foreign policy, more generally the way that states conduct themselves outside their borders, and what war does to places.
In any case, you all realize that Bangladesh is a democracy, albeit an imperfect one, right?
Oh, if anyone’s interested in “helping” Bangladesh, a place to start is Andolan, a grassroots community organizing group of primarily Bangladeshi women workers in New York. I’m sure they would have some good suggestions on how to help Bangladeshis in the U.S. and in their country of origin. You could also contact Naeem, who’s currently being maligned in another Sepia Mutiny post.
The problem goes deeper than just terrorist tendencies. One of the ruling coalition members– the Jamaat-e-Islami– was pretty complicit in the Pakistani army’s genocide in 1971 (i.e. the Jamaat represented a pro-Pakistan anti-secession tendency in East Pakistani politics), and since its ascension to power has led the way as far as re-writing history textbooks is concerned (books rewritten since the Jamaat joined the government downplay the genocide, leave ambiguous the question of who was responsible for the killings, and some even go so far as to suggest that the main problem in 1971 was an Indian invasion). The targeting of Sufi shrines and traditional heterodox Bengali forms of Islam has become routine over the last few years (not coincidentally, the Jamaat regards such forms of Islam as heretical).
Another version of this article was published in The Boston Globe a few weeks back. Is the BNP harboring Islamic extremists? The short answer: yes.
The things is, the Awami League, which Ms. Kibria’s father was a member of, also courted Islamic parties when it was in power. It will be interesting to see what the Awami League will do when the shoe is finally on the other foot: will it tackle the problem head on, or like the BNP, deny a problem even exists?
Personally, I won’t hold my breath.
Maybe their leadership should be denied visas..lol
Its better for the US to keep their hands off in terms of an intervention. But they can and should use the diplomatic avenues to isolate this regime!!
I like how the topic header sorta goes like What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?
“its ascension to power has led the way as far as re-writing history textbooks”
Actually, its become something of a tradition these days. Thanks to the democratic process, every 5 years a new goverment will come in and issue sweeping Textbook Reform Laws requiring every educational resource in the country be turned in so the true history of the nation can be revealed and the children be properly educated.
Unfortunately the fun doesn’t end there, because the government’s unreasonable re-writting deadlines force our habitually lazy workforce into titters, and they inevitably fail to meet the publication dates, which results in thousands of pupils across the country sitting in classrooms getting steadily dumber.
That and the continued dominance of powdered milk in the Bengali diet continues to be the sole reasons why Bangladesh has not asceneded to primacy in the region, and why we are plagued with Islamic fundamentalism.
Seriously though, as a native, two points;
A) Islamic fundamentalism is NOT anywhere close to as bad as the world press makes it out to be. However, its still a problem in its infancy, which is absolutely the best and possibly the ONLY time you can solve the problem. (I’m talking long-term problem solving here, not bombing that bridge when we get to it)
B)The current government DOES show absolute contempt for the rule of law, and is having its way with the country. It’s impossible to do business (and I mean everything from a tea-stall to laying the submarine T1 cable across the Bay) without getting your hands extremely dirty… Some might say thats not entirely uncommon for South Asia, but trust me, with the BNP, it’s a whole different ball game. They are in charge, and boy are they ever at large.
My tirade finished, the last thing that needs to happen is for the U.S. to come in. We already are pissed off about your overly nosy ambassador, who likes to make himself heard about the corruption in the country…
You see, we’re a fickle bunch, we know there’s a problem, but god help you if you tell us what to do about it.