Editorial
Hasina’s fears are not without reason
Although the interim government has claimed that the most recent restrictions imposed on the movements of former prime minister and Awami League president Sheikh Hasina, who was barred from going to Chittagong on Thursday to visit the victims of the recent landslides and then forced to postpone a private trip to the United States on Friday, are for the sake of proper investigation into the two extortion cases that were filed against her on June 13, Hasina herself has expressed an apprehension that the cases against her have been filed to keep her out of the next general elections and thereby to force her out of the political process. This paper, which believes in the rule of law that necessitates equal rights for all and the equal application of the law for all citizens, has consistently maintained that all corruption suspects, be they civil servants or former heads of government, should be prosecuted by the state through the due process of law and duly punished if found guilty of such charges. Hence, if after proper investigations the state wishes to pursue the cases against Sheikh Hasina, and if she is found, through proper trials, guilty of the crimes that she has been accused of, this paper will unfailingly support, for the sake of upholding the rule of law, the implementation of any punishment that is handed down to her by the courts.
However, given this military-backed government’s earlier attempts at keeping Hasina outside the country and of trying to send another former prime minister and Bangladesh Nationalist Party chairperson Khaleda Zia into exile, thus expelling the country’s two top political leaders from national politics, we have reason to find substance in Hasina’s apprehension. This anxiety, on our part, is made worse by the government’s visible enthusiasm for introducing a political order that would leave both Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia out of the equation. While we feel that the democratisation of the political parties in this country is absolutely imperative, we also believe that democratic reforms within the parties must be initiated and carried out by the parties themselves. It is absolutely vital that the members and activists of the Awami League and the BNP are allowed to select their leaders and drive their own reform agendas, rather than such decisions being taken and then forced upon the parties by an unelected government of non-politicians. Any imposition of external decisions and programmes relating to reforms on the parties, we feel, will not only fail to result in their much talkedabout and much desired democratisation, but will rather aggravate the existing chaos within the parties and create a political vacuum in the country, neither of which can have any positive impact on the flourishing of democracy within the parties and in society.
Autonomy for BTV, Bangladesh Betar
Freedom of the media, whether financed and owned by the public or private entrepreneurs, is a natural corollary to a democratic order; it is not a gift from any ruler and should not await the flashing of any ‘green light’ from any powerful quarters. As reported in New Age on June 16, the Bangladesh Television and then the Bangladesh Betar, the two state-run electronic media, will be granted autonomy by the government after getting the green light from the chief
adviser, Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed.
To return a democratic right to where it belongs is a constitutional obligation and should not be seen as a grant from any individual. Even then, if the interim government can succeed where the former political governments had failed, it can claim all plaudits. The report says that a statutory body consisting of competent people will be formed to administer the two channels once the permission is given by the chief administrator.
Like separation of judiciary from executive, autonomy of the state-controlled media is an agenda which leaders talk about while in opposition but forget entirely when inducted into power. The BTV, the Bangladesh Betar and the state-run news agency Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha have never enjoyed any autonomy, regardless of whether the government was democratic or autocratic, military or civilian. It is never too late to correct this democratic anomaly.
The two news media are run on people’s money and should air programmes that address the people’s needs, views and feelings. This is especially true in this information age when the people’s right to know must be upheld and there is a worldwide competition to provide unbiased news and critical analyses. Neither of this is possible if kowtowing to the government of the day is the guiding principle of a media. To say that since the government is financing the two media the government has the right to control them has no basis in logic whatsoever, given that the government also finances the judiciary and the Election Commission. The BSS which is a government-controlled news agency should also be freed in the same way. Like every organisation the government can have its own pubic relations department, and it already has one in the shape of the PID. However, engaging in public relations and controlling the news are two very different things.
Although we wish the government success, we have a lurking doubt that the human material that the transformed BTV and Betar will inherit can be reoriented towards the new direction. The decades of sycophancy have so conditioned the minds of these people that they can recognise only one colour. Agreeing that job protection is a top imperative, the staffing and recruitment of officials and staff of these institutions must also be reviewed.
SUNDAY COLUMN
Palestine crisis
Hasnat Abdul Hye
The current situation, preceding and following the dismissal of Haniya Government, is nearly that of a civil war for which both Israel and America are responsible. Hamas has rejected the declaration of emergency by President Mahmud Abbas and has claimed total control in Gaza
The crisis in Palestine has taken a turn for the worse. Mahmud Abbas, the president of Palestinian Authority has dismissed the Hamas-led government and appointed Salam Fayad as the new prime minister, replacing Ismail Haniya. A state of emergency has been declared by the president to restore order and peace in the West Bank and Gaza that have been in the grip of violence and bloodshed caused by savage internecine attacks. At the same time alongside armed members of Fatah and Hamas groups, innocent civilians, including children and women, have died in indiscriminate firing by Israeli forces. Most recently five children died in Rafa township of south Gaza when Israeli tanks opened fire, ostensibly at a Hamas target. Gaza has been targeted for shelling by Israeli tanks and rocket firing by Israeli helicopter and jets almost continuously in recent weeks to stop rockets being fired from there. Hamas has claimed that rockets were fired in retaliation of acts wanton aggression by Israeli forces in Gaza. They have never been the first to fire, it has been claimed. Circumstances prove they are saying the truth.
When Hamas emerged as the winner of majority seats in the parliamentary election held early last year, it marked a great change in the politics and peace process with which the occupied territory had been associated so long. With its militant background it was apparent that the Hamas-led government was going to take a hard-line against Israel. Being untarnished by stain of corruption, as Fatah had become, Hamas enjoyed greater popularity and had more public support to pursue its policy regarding Israel. The result in the parliamentary election with Hamas winning the majority seats was disturbing for the Fatah group, Israel and America. Fatah was miffed at being trounced by a rival group, Israel smarted under the shadow of its arch-enemy that had captured official power and America felt uneasy at the victory in election by a group which had been branded as ‘terrorist’. Since Hamas won in a free and fairly held election, none of these parties could deny it the right to form government. America shrewdly put the condition that unless Hamas recognised Israel, renounced violence and agreed to abide by all the agreements reached with Israel, recognition would not be given to the Hamas-led government. Under American pressure the European Union also attached the same conditions in exchange for its recognition.
The Hamas government under Ismail Haniya refused to buckle down under pressure. It remained steadfast in its demand for withdrawal of Israel to the pre-1967 border. The demand did not amount to a refusal to recognition of Israel permanently. It was clear that according to the Hamas position withdrawal by Israel must come first and then the issue of recognition would be considered. It was a tactical move that should have led to a change in the rigid stand taken by Israel and America. But both countries wanted Hamas to follow in the footsteps of Fatah in recognising Israel first. Refusal of Hamas to oblige them was seen not only as intransigence but also a sign of its belligerence towards Israel. The fact that by deciding to participate in election Hamas had begun shedding its militancy in favour of democratic process in governance and opted for negotiated peace was completely ignored by America and Israel. That a militant group, enjoying the mandate from the majority of the constituency, cannot make a reversal of its policy overnight was also overlooked conveniently. The re-incarnation of Hamas as a political force was either lost on America and Israel or they refused even to think of it. It was they who were being obstinate and arrogant, and not Hamas.
The position of Hamas has not been different from the Arab countries which have recently formally offered recognition to Israeli in return for its withdrawal from occupied territories, settlement of the Jerusalem status and Palestinian refugee issues. Recognition is the bargaining chip and no sensible party can barter away this for empty promises and vague assurances about the future. Once Fatah swallowed the bait, it was treated with contempt by Israel and its leader Arafat was ultimately confined to his office, like a prisoner. Hamas has taken a lesson from history and it cannot be blamed for its insistence that Israel should deliver first before it can expect its adversary to show sign of change in its policy. The initiative has to come from Israel first because it is the aggressor and is the party that has illegally occupied the land in the West Bank and Gaza. But at the same time, Hamas has demonstrated flexibility in its policy several times by declaring cease-fire though Israel has not given importance to this and continued on its policy of indiscriminate attacks against Palestinians. It is in retaliation of these savage attacks from land and the air that Hamas has resorted to rocket firing from time to time. The rockets used by Hamas are so crude and weak that they are nothing more than nuisance. Until a woman died recently, fatalities in rocket attacks had been absent. It is not difficult to understand that rockets used by Hamas are meant to show that Palestinians will not be at peace with Israel as long as it occupies their land. They are not weapons of death and destruction but simply carry a message from Hamas on behalf of Palestinians in the occupied land. Hamas does not want the Israeli occupiers to believe that normalcy prevails and occupation is a fait accompli. Rockets are the symbol of their resistance, nothing more than that.
The attitude, policy and rhetoric of Hamas may seem to be tainted with militancy and belligerence. But this is a facade, a camouflage and even a ploy. Circumstances have compelled Hamas to take a hard-line and appear as intransigent. In effect, after their decision to participate in election they have modified their strategy; they are now not only brandishing stick, there is also carrot in offer, which should not be ignored. Unfortunately, America, in its blind support for Israel, has not taken proper notice of the change in Hamas’ policy and appreciated the fact that they now represent the will of the majority. Instead of withholding recognition from Hamas government, America should have worked with it and help it change its policy in tandem with change in Israeli policy. By stopping all aid to the Palestinian Authority, America only made the Hamas more hardened and determined in its attitude and prevented it from getting into the mainstream of politics and the peace process. Moreover, both America and Israel have tried to exploit the differences between Hamas and Fatah as a result of which bloody clashes took place, taking the lives of members of both the groups as well as of civilians. The current situation, preceding and following the dismissal of Haniya Government, is nearly that of a civil war for which both Israel and America are responsible. Hamas has rejected the declaration of emergency by President Mahmud Abbas and has claimed total control in Gaza. Since Fatah has a poor presence in Gaza, there cannot be an effective enforcement of the decision of Mahmud Abbas. If he tries to do so there is going to be more of bloodletting and more chaos. There is a possibility that Gaza and the West Bank may split which would suit Israel fine.
America and Israel have supported the decision of Mahmud Abbas openly and immediately. They consider this as a step in the right direction to get rid of the rule by the terrorist group, Hamas. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, has supported the move by President Abbas saying that as the leader of the Palestinian people he has taken a right decision to establish his authority. It is ironical that America, which was keen to introduce democracy in the middle-East, should support the dismissal of a democratically elected government. By their support to Mahmud Abbas and Fatah, America and Israel has shown that they are not interested in a peace process where parties take part as equal partners. They want to have a weak and submissive interlocutor to negotiate with because terms can be dictated to such a party. Hamas was not going to be such a pliant participant in the negotiation for peaceful settlement with Israel. It was marked for destruction from the inception of its entry into the political process in occupied Palestine. Popular mandate obtained through democratically held election did not make it more acceptable to America and Israel, not to speak of being legitimate. When the Arab League mediated between Hamas and Fatah and paved way for a unity government under Ismail Haniya, America and Israel must have felt great annoyance and even exasperation. It is not difficult to understand why and how the agreement and the Unity Government have unraveled, creating the violent and chaotic condition, plunging the occupied territory into a virtual civil war. As the two groups, Hamas and Fatah, clash with each other, both weaken further. When they remain engaged in mortal combat, Israel grows stronger and becomes more adamant in its occupation of Palestinian land. Unwittingly, Fatah and its leader are now acting out a role scripted by America and Israel. It is not a role that promotes the cause of Palestinians. The Arab League that mediated between Hamas and Fatah and made the Unity Government possible should act immediately. A deep conspiracy has derailed their mediated settlement. The conspirators cannot be allowed to walk away with victory.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
