Daily Sun
6 January, 2013
M. Serajul Islam
A
lot of things that happened with the letter of the Turkish President Abdullah
Gul and the visit of the Turkish NGO are still shrouded in mystery. Reports on
both that appeared in the media have indicated that a Turkish NGO appeared in
Dhaka out of nowhere taking advantage of the “visa on arrival” rule of the
Bangladesh immigration, misused it and
met leaders of the BNP and Jamat as well as government officials, including the
Minister of Law, and also visited the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)
premises on an agenda that is highly sensitive in Bangladesh, namely the trials
of those accused of committing crimes against humanity in 1971. On the Turkish
President’s letter to President Zillur Rahman, reports mentioned that he
requested the latter for clemency of the Jamat leaders now under trial for
crimes against humanity before the ICT.
The
NGO, Cansuyu Aid and Solidarity Association, was in Dhaka between 20 to 24
December. The President’s letter was delivered through the Turkish Embassy in
Dhaka on 23 December. The two events that were related on their focus on the
sensitive issue of the trials before the ICT upset and angered the Government
of Bangladesh immensely and no doubt rightly. The Bangladesh Ministry of
Foreign Affairs summoned the Turkish Ambassador and handed him a note
expressing the displeasure of the Government over the two issues. Officials of
the Ministry on conditions on anonymity revealed its contents to the media. The
note expressed annoyance at the letter of the Turkish President seeking
clemency for the accused in the war crime trials, calling the contents of the
letter interference in Bangladesh’s internal affairs. It also expressed
displeasure at the visit of the NGO. It was also said in the media quoting MFA
sources that such a visit with which the Turkish Ambassador was involved could
lead to the latter being declared as a persona non grata.
Nevertheless,
the letter and the visit have serious potentials for damaging Bangladesh-Turkey
bilateral relations because it has not been handled in an effective manner. Therefore
it would be appropriate to look into the affair objectively to evaluate the
possible consequences. Clearly, Turkey has committed a serious breach in the
friendship that exists between it and Bangladesh by choosing to handle an issue
so deeply sensitive to Bangladesh in such an offensive and immature manner.
Before the President addressed the letter, he should have considered that the
demand for the trials is an internal matter where the trials are considered
necessary to punish those who assisted the Pakistani military in 1971 in
committing genocide in Bangladesh.
It
is also a matter of great surprise that the Turkish President would seek
clemency for the accused when the trials are not yet over. How did he know the
accused would be found guilty and then handed death sentences? It is extremely
surprising that the Turkish President chose to make the request before the ICT
passed the sentences and the President of Bangladesh has had the chance to
review these sentences. He has not just interfered in internal affairs of
Bangladesh; he has tried to pre-empt the judicial process of the country and
also the powers of the President of Bangladesh!
These
issues notwithstanding, it is difficult to be reassured by the assurance given
by MFA sources that the handling of the letter and the NGO affair will not affect
adversely the “excellent bilateral relations” between Bangladesh and Turkey. As
a result of the way the matter has been handled by those responsible, both the
Turkish President and Turkey has been revealed in very bad light in the media
that will not make Turkey very happy. While we have heard about what was in the
note that the Acting Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh handed to the Turkish
Ambassador, we do not know what the Turkish Foreign Ministry handed to the
Bangladesh Ambassador to Ankara. Surely, the Turkish note was not one of
courtesy; Turkey must have expressed some tough views on how Bangladesh handled
the matter.
Letter
from a Head of State to his/her counterpart in another country is not supposed
to be a public document unless both sides wish to reveal it. In this instance,
surely the Turkish side has not wished it to be made public. The contents were
leaked from the Bangladesh side. Given the adverse publicity the letters
received in the media in Bangladesh, surely the Turkish Government would not be
pleased with the way the letter was leaked and the issued handled on the
Bangladesh side. It is not just that the President of Turkey has been
humiliated in the media; Turkish history has also been brought into play to
show Turkey and its President in bad light in Bangladesh. Even an effigy of the
Turkish President has been burnt.
The
correct way to have handled this issue would have been for the President of
Bangladesh to react to the letter outside the media through the diplomatic
channel. In fact that would have been the only sensible way to deal with the
matter. In that letter, the government
of Bangladesh could have articulated all that has been said undiplomatically by
all and sundry in the media a manner that has not helped the Bangladesh cause
in creating the right opinion abroad on the trials before the ICT. Instead, it
has given Turkey enough reason to feel offended. Further, the government should
have thought twice before going before the media for a different reason. It
should have waited and inquired through the diplomatic channel why the Turkish
President chose to wrote the letter; whether Turkey was acting in collusion
with other Muslim counties in the matter.
As
for the case of the NGO, the matter is very different. It has been complicated
by the Bangladesh government again by poor handling by mixing it with the
letter from the Turkish President. An
NGO is an NGO and if one has violated any law of the land, it should have been
treated at a much lower level. If the delegation has taken advantage of the
visa on arrival system, it was legal for them to have done so. Apart from that,
if they have met the BNP/Jamat leaders, one fails to see how this would be
offensive. They have also met the Law
Minister and visited the ICT. Why were they allowed these privileges? Clearly,
there has been a serious breakdown of coordination and intelligence in handling
the visit of a foreign NGO for which Turkey should not be taken to task but our
own authorities.
Now
that the issues are out in the media due some poor handling on our side that
has also reflected our poor diplomatic skills, the government should be
prepared for the consequences to successfully fulfill the national demand for
the trials before the ICT. If the
Turkish President has guessed correctly that the accused before the ICT would
be handed death sentences, the government should be prepared for more letters
and perhaps stronger actions from our friends in the Middle East who, going by
the letter of the Turkish President, do not see the war crime trials in the
same way we in Bangladesh see, if death sentences are handed to the accused. Turkey
is not just a Muslim country; it is also a European nation and has influence
there as well where capital punishment is unacceptable by law. Therefore, the
government should prepare itself for diplomatic offensive to prepare our
friends in the Middle East and Europe about the need for the trials; the
fairness of it and the consensus in Bangladesh for the trials. Taking shelter
under what the MFA has said it its note that the matter is an internal affair
of Bangladesh will not be enough. We need to consider that we have named the
tribunal trying the cases as International Crimes Tribunal and thus opened
these trials as legitimate concerns of the international community.
The
government could have used the letters as an opportunity to deal with Turkey and
through Turkey with the Muslim world and Europe to explain in a transparent
manner the need for the trials, the evidence against the accused and the
fairness of the trials. By some poor diplomatic handling, the government has
messed up the opportunity and ended with one more external problem added to its
long agenda of such problems.
The writer is a retired career
Ambassador and Secretary.
No comments:
Post a Comment