UN-Embraceable you

Embraceable you

The latest issue of the Economist takes a comprehensive yet in question report on India and Bangladesh relations. There are a few serious allegations in the report, which may be permitted only unanswered. The first paragraph asserts that helped India Awami League with cash and advice in 2008 General elections. The publication has bothered even to book this open claim with evidence. I take more seriously the "cash" part. There is no harm in taking advice from a rising democracy, especially when the whole world to this specific set of governance is. But "Cash" is a different story at all: it undermines not only the credibility of a democratically elected Government, but also colors the objectivity of the report.

The Awami League has historically good relations with India, and now logically tries to cement these relationships to various agreement on sensitive issues, which were an obstacle to the peace of South-East Asia. By claims that the current Government has the "cash" from India to support come to power, the report is in fact try undermine peace efforts in the region. The Economist has decided to publish this report at a time when both countries contracts finalization to resolve long-standing issues and broaden the horizons of cooperation. The sensitive handles ensure the resolution of issues such as border disputes, sharing of water, electricity procurement for Bangladesh, transit routes and proportionally balanced trade. These offerings benefit equally Bangladesh economy and as first steps towards a South Asian Union be taken.

For transit routes, the report has cites the fears of the "military types" that such system could provoke reprisals from separatist outfits to India. Above all, what are "military type"? Are they people with a military background or simply a handful of people with a military setting? And secondly, so that helps India transit routes to the seven sisters in fact Bangladesh outsourcing, the fight against of the problem of militancy, because have separatist groups in North East India of deep links with underground movements in Bangladesh. Such links have repeatedly played into the hands of militant, you will be a conduit for arms and safe havens.

Coming back to the Economist, delete the purpose of this report tests the sweeping comment about lack of transparency in the upcoming 1971 war crimes. It is obvious that the report was created with the intention of highlighting this issue only. For a Western magazine page with an Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami, an eye opener should be. This is the very party that has proved links with religious fighters in the country, this is the very party that has hired lobbyists by third-party contacts in the West against his cause, and this is the very party that supports known war criminals. Hardly any questions or claims regarding the impartiality of the war crimes tribunals in Cambodia or Rwanda were raised. Also in the issue of the Armenian massacre on one side Western media with the victims, not EU candidate Turkey. But for Bangladesh, sympathies surprisingly against the perpetrators of the 1971 crimes against humanity.

Jamaat-e-Islami is a coalition partner of the Bangladesh nationalist party of Khaleda Zia opposition. So, the BNP will quite obviously never continue these studies. Therefore, remains only the Awami League, the victims of this heinous crime to closure. The Economist is no qualms about stating no signs, that "the"
(in_Vorbereitung) war crimes trials of the events of 1971 are a way of Justice less than used as to crush opposition Islamic party, Jamaat-e-Islami ". The publication also lack of sensitivity 1971 showed journalistic use of the term "Events" for the Holocaust. Although it is, that the mass atrocities studies have rarely free of political controversy, they have still meaningful results, both in terms of the closure of the victims and bring the perpetrators to justice as produced in the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and Cambodia etc.. Also, I agree with international experts, that "ultimately the quality of the evidence before the Court, the success or failure of the Tribunal of Bangladesh test". And also "is based on comparative experience, produce a study, which is not considered legitimate, the weak results, the vulnerable to further challenge across the Board."

So must focus on the crimes and victims, and not on the political affiliation of the suspects to stay. Not the attempts, but the suggestion of the Economist, that these experiments a witch-hunt in reality are at risk, the validity and the effectiveness of the rule of law and justice. Despite the policy, this problem can not the fact that it will be ignored widespread desire to simply put the war criminals to justice. This was one of the big election 2008, obligations of the Awami League before the elections for the party backed up massive public votes.

But as the Economist just at the beginning of his report, that Awami League won the polls by questionable means, it only goes to prove what many in Bangladesh destabilize as a Western conspiracy to the region. It can be no doubt that the attempts includes only the situation would worsen a painful episode of the history of the country, and also the reversal of the process.

The Economist report is nothing more than to create a fade effort atmosphere of fear and uncertainty about events, to bear the enormous value for the future of Bangladesh. Journalism is the only media propaganda to bottleneck peace efforts in South Asia.

Source: e-bangladesh.org

Read More on prothom alo dhaka