Recent revelations of a meeting between US officials and BNP’s senior leader, Rumeen Farhana, have sparked widespread concern and controversy. Allegations of BNP involvement in arsons and attacks on police, coupled with Farhana’s past advocacy for burning buses and refusal to express remorse for tragic incidents, have ignited alarm among civil society members and minority groups.
The disclosure of this meeting has prompted various stakeholders, including war heroes, academics, anti-war crimes campaigners, and rights activists, to question the intentions of local embassy staff. Farhana’s statements condoning bus burnings and her lack of regret for a bus helper’s death have amplified these concerns, leading to intensified scrutiny of the meeting’s purpose and implications.
It may be mentioned here that, on May 24, 2023, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken through a press release announcing visa policy for Bangladesh said:
Today, I am announcing a new visa policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) (“3C”) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to support Bangladesh’s goal of holding free, fair, and peaceful national elections. Under this policy, the United States will be able to restrict the issuance of visas for any Bangladeshi individual, believed to be responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process in Bangladesh. This includes current and former Bangladeshi officials, members of pro-government and opposition political parties, and members of law enforcement, the judiciary, and security services. The United States notified the Bangladeshi government of this decision on May 3, 2023.
Actions that undermine the democratic election process include vote rigging, voter intimidation, the use of violence to prevent people from exercising their right to freedoms of association and peaceful assembly, and the use of measures designed to prevent political parties, voters, civil society, or the media from disseminating their views.
The holding of free and fair elections is the responsibility of everyone—voters, political parties, the government, the security forces, civil society, and the media. I am announcing this policy to lend our support to all those seeking to advance democracy in Bangladesh.
India conveyed its opposition to the United States’ (US) visa policy targeting Bangladeshi citizens, stating that it views the policy as counterproductive. The Indian government asserts that this “restrictive approach” would not contribute to the facilitation of free and fair elections in Bangladesh, but rather, it could lead to unintended negative consequences that undermine regional stability and security.
Although the actual agenda behind the US visa policy has always been questioned by many quarters, following ongoing terrorist acts of BNP-Jamaat nexus which is continuing since October 29, instead of condemning such acts and imposing visa restrictions on leaders of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami as well as their leftist allies, Washington and its embassy in Dhaka are rather playing the role of silent spectators. US Ambassador Peter Haas, who has violated Vienna Convention by openly interfering in Bangladesh’s internal affairs has also become silent since BNP-Jamaat began notorious activities in the country with the ulterior agenda of destabilizing law and order situation and pushing the country towards uncertainty. It is essential to mention here that out of 22 local staffs at the US Embassy in Bangladesh, majority of them were affiliated with BNP-Jamaat politics during their student life.
Critics have questioned the claimed political impartiality of the US envoy, citing instances of alleged favoritism towards BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami leaders. Additionally, the envoy’s silence on certain praise directed at them and repeated meetings with Jamaat leaders before instances of violence have fueled skepticism about the objectivity of these diplomatic engagements.
The announcement of possible visa sanctions on journalists by the US envoy has further stoked tensions, sparking a heated debate between different ideological factions. Civil society members emphasize the pivotal role of media in combating terrorism and raising awareness against religious intolerance, arguing against measures that might hinder press freedom.
Amid allegations of violence linked to BNP members, the envoy’s call for “unconditional” dialogue as the sole path for elections has drawn criticism for disregarding evidence and potentially endorsing impunity for attackers.
The perceived bias in the envoy’s engagements, coupled with the reluctance to offer condolences for martyred intellectuals, has led to reinforced impressions of favoritism among critics. Human rights activists, anti-war crimes campaigners, and academics question the timing of the meeting, especially amidst escalated tensions fueled by calls for violence from BNP and Jamaat.
However, amidst these concerns, minority community leaders reject claims of state-sponsored persecution under the current government, asserting that opposition factions have ensured impunity for numerous violent incidents across the country.
Political analysts also raise questions about the implications and efficacy of US sanctions, particularly in light of historical relations between the US and past military-backed regimes in the country.
The recent US-BNP meeting and its fallout have raised profound ethical and diplomatic dilemmas, touching upon issues of political bias, human rights, freedom of the press, and the complexities of diplomatic engagements in a politically charged environment. The nuances and implications of these interactions warrant a careful and critical examination, considering the diverse perspectives and concerns of all stakeholders involved.
