A dangerous precedent
BOOKS authored by retired Bangladeshi military officers have been few and far between. However, in a departure from past practice, we have the benefit of the army chief's insight through the two books that he published in the last two years, the latest appearing last month. It is a departure in the sense that although we have had books on strategic issues written by serving generals in the last few years, the two by the CAS deal not only with contemporaneous issues, the latest one particularly deals with very sensitive political matters, and I hasten to add that the CAS must be prepared for the flak and riposte from those that may have also witnessed the developments, and may perhaps have a different account to narrate.
It is not my intention to critique the book, or indeed the actions of the CAS leading to 1/11. Many will question the discretion of a service chief indulging in exposé of political events that are likely to have a long-term effect on our politics, while still being in harness, particularly when he himself had influenced the unfolding of some of those. He has done the people and the country a great favour by letting us in on many unknown facts, particularly on the manner in which threats and intimidation were brought to bear on a national institution like the armed forces by outside agencies.
We are not new to the agony of external pressures in our internal politics. Most of them have come in the form of veiled threats and coercion. These have been applied to force the government to modify policies ranging from withdrawal of subsidy on agriculture to modifying the plan of a strategic bridge. Sometimes the government had to wilt in the face of such pressures. And those that had the audacity to stand up to these pressures suffered the inevitable consequences.
One account in the book that cannot escape our notice is the way in which 1/11 came about. The manner in which external pressure was brought to bear on internal politics, and on the government of the day in Jan 2007, has brought in a new dimension to international relations. While in the past it was internal compulsions that shaped external policies, one now has to shape internal events to meet the diktats of our friends and also of international institutions, as revealed by the army chief, even of the UN.
To quote from the excerpts of the book appearing in various newspapers: "At one time representatives of several powerful countries met me and conveyed to me that if the army supported an election that was not participated by all the political parties they would request the UN to withdraw Bangladesh from UN peace missions."
If that is not a threat then what is. If that is not a violation of the relevant provisions of the convention that guide the behaviour of diplomats then what is.
The threat was eventually carried out when, on the morning of January 11, 2007, the UN Undersecretary General for Peacekeeping Affairs (USGPA) conveyed to the CAS directly that an election that was not participatory was not acceptable to them, and that the UN would seriously consider withdrawing Bangladesh army from UN peace missions should the army support such an election.
This has set a very dangerous precedent. The UN has been created by sovereign states and must run as per the dictates of its members. The UN is in no position to dictate the politics of a sovereign member state through threats and intimidation, more so when the USGPA's message amounts to provoking the armed forces to go against the government of the day.
I ask whether Mr. Guhino, the USGPA, has not violated his charter of duty by making the threat, and did he not violate the norms by talking directly to a service chief, and whether he, as in-charge of UN peacekeeping, was the right man to talk on political matters? In a civilised world this is called blackmail!
If the UN had any reservations about the election was there not the established channel of communications to convey their position? When one hears so much about keeping the armed forces away from politics, here we have the most important international organisation provoking the army of a member state to get involved in it.
Let there be no doubt that the postponement of the 2007 election was a good thing for the country, and one that had been welcomed by most. However, what is a matter of anxiety is the way that was brought about. It is a dangerous precedent because, given the political wisdom of our politicians, there is no guarantee that a similar political impasse will not occur in future, and who knows that pressure will not be brought once again on the army to act under coercion.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments