& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

It is now the New York Times and the US Congress

Mozammel H. Khan
THIS week the media in Bangladesh focused extensively on an editorial in JL the New York Times (NYT), entitled, "Political Crisis in Bangladesh" and a hearing entitled, "Bangladesh in Turmoil: A Nation on the Brink" in the US Congressional Sub Committee on Asia and the Pacific with Ohio Republican Steve Chabot, Chairman of the Sub Committee on Asia and the Pacific, in the chair. While a newspaper can surely write editorial on any matter it pleases to, but the factuality of the matter and objectivity of the views must be reflected in a newspaper as reputed as the NYT.
The term of reference of the hearing was not clear from the excerpts of the minutes I received from a source (present in the hearing) of the US Congress. According to the minutes, of the 15 members of the subcommittee, five actually showed up for the hearing. So, according to Robert's Rules of Business, which the US Congress follows, if 8 out 15 members are not present in the meeting, its proceedings do not carry any legal validity. Yet, many of the Bangladesh media were dubbing the hearing as the 'concerns of the US government.'
Professor Al i Riaz, who is a Bangladeshi and Professor and Chair, Department of Politics and Government, Illinois State University, Major General (retd.) A.N.M. Munir-uz-Zaman, President of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies and John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch (HRW) participated in the hearing as witness speakers. It is known what criterion was followed to select the speakers. Except for Prof. Ali Riaz, one wonders whether the other two
possess the insight to comment neutrally and objectively on Bangladesh's political situation. HRW is known for its views in favour of the alleged and convicted war criminals, while I, as a keen observer of Bangladesh politics, have never come across any of Munir-uz-Zaman's articles or views pertaining to the current crisis in the country. His irresponsible and categorical but rather absolute partisan testimony does neither speak high of him nor warrant any serious scrutiny of what he said.
The minutes of the hearing contains an important revelation: "The subcommittee chairman, Steve Ghabot, an Ohio Republican, for example, seemed unhappy about his recent visit to Dhaka, where he met both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. He noted sourly that when he complained to Foreign Minister Dipu Moni about the weak standards of the country's controversial war crimes trials, she responded that Bangladesh had established new standards for the trial."
The NYT editorial wrote: "Meanwhile, the Jamaat-e-lslami party, an ally of the BNP, has been banned from participating in the upcoming elections.... trials held by the International Grimes Tribunal in Bangladesh, which was set up in 2009 to try people accused of committing atrocities during the 1971 war with Pakistan, have targeted opposition leaders. The tribunal appears to be yet another tool to stifle political opponents."
First of all, Jamaat-e-lslami was banned by the highest court of the land, not by the government, as the party failed to declare its allegiance to the constitution of the Republic. Would any political party be allowed to function in the United States if it refuses to accept the supremacy of its consti-
tution? In fact, NYT's ridiculous assertions reflect its absolute ignorance of Bangladesh's history of birth or the misinformation fed by its clients. What could be more ignorant than when NYT opined that the trials have 'targeted opposition leaders'? What could be a more ludicrous observation? It was primarily Jamaat-e-lslami and to a lesser extent Muslim League, the political opponents of AL, that collaborated with the occupation forces and worked against our Liberation War. So how can the NYT write that all the accused are linked to political opponents?
To address Congressman Chabot's observation of 'weak standards' of the country's 'controversial war crimes trials,' the congressman must have ignored the fact that Bangladesh is a sovereign state and the trials are being held by a law enacted by Bangladesh Parliament. The law has been given thumbs up by most of the international human rights groups, including EU, and the trials are being held in an open court, incidentally, absolutely opposite to what is happening in Guantanamo. It would not be out of context to remind the US Congressman how a 17-year old by the name of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, has been tried in Guantanamo for his alleged killing of a LIS soldier in the battlefield (war crime!) in Afghanistan? He was not even allowed to hire a Canadian lawyer. The US military used bone-chilling torture techniques. In my limited research I have not come across any war crimes tribunal whose proceedings are so transparent and where the defendants are given VIP treatment.
The writer is the Convener of the Canadian Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Bangladesh.