There are now some alleged war
criminals of Bangladeshi origin in UK.
Now imagine what will be the reaction of the Economist if Bangladesh
expresses its “intention” of abducting them from UK
to place them in trial within the framework of International Court of Justice.
I am sure even before Bangladesh
attempts to take on such a mission- the Economist would urge the ‘global” community
to put a blockade on Bangladesh
so that “she comes to her senses” and “comply to the international standards”.
Last month however, in an article
on Bangladesh, the Economist wrote-
“In 1961 Israel
kidnapped Adolf Eichmann from Argentina
and put him on trial for crimes committed 20 years earlier. Eichmann had been
secretary at the Nazis’ Wannsee conference that led to the Holocaust. His trial
in Jerusalem was a
model of meticulous process. The prosecutor was Israel’s
attorney-general; the defence lawyer, a leading German attorney; the
proceedings were broadcast. They were everything the Holocaust was not: open,
subject to evidence and challenge, and legal.” Now why should then there be
a double standard for Bangladesh???
You may (for obvious reasons)
take the article as a propaganda against Bangladesh’s
International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). Economist knows it. So it attempts to
refute it with high-sounding phrases such as, “The Economist has no sympathy for the views of Jamaat or
its backers. But justice does not exist solely for those with a particular
approved outlook.” This statement indicates that the Economist is aware
that the article has indeed demonstrated “sympathy for views of Jamat” (Jamat
is an Islamist terrorist outfit). Economist wants to mask its position by
chanting that “justice does not exist solely for those with a particular
approved outlook.” Don’t forget that the Economist just praised an action taken
by a state for “kidnapping” an accused from another independent state for an alleged
crime “committed 20 years earlier”. Thus the bias of Economist towards Jamat cannot
therefore be hidden. Unfortunately this means Bangladesh cannot dare to take up
any adventurous means to bring back some of the accused now dwelling abroad -
come to think of it so far Bangladesh has not expressed any such intention of
kidnapping as well.
It is not clear why the Economist is
against Bangladesh
while she is merely bringing the accused who are dwelling within her border to
justice? For the Economist it is a question of justice not being served as – “The
government has interfered in the court’s deliberations. Public discussion of
the proceedings has been restricted.” The truth is just the reverse. A quick Google-search
is enough to demonstrate that there is no restriction on public discussion on these
proceedings (it also makes you wonder Why on Earth Economist raised such a
flimsy claim?!?). In fact the media attention is unprecedented over these
proceedings ever since the tribunal initiated its activities. The Economist brings
in the issue of government’s interference as most of the readers are expected
to believe it (Economist assumes that readers are willing to believe that “in a
country such as Bangladesh-
these interferences are normal”). However, please note that this so called
theory of interference is based on accusations brought by paid-defense lawyers
and Jamat for no other reason but to undermine the credibility of the trial. It is true that the role
of the government is not neutral when the interest of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
is considered. Government’s initiative to organizing the tribunal to bring the
war criminals to justice outrages Jamat! But this in no way raises question
regarding the neutrality of the tribunal. The government has not interfered
with courts’ deliberations- it expressed urgency in getting justice at the earliest.
The national parliament of Bangladesh,
like any other democracy, has framed and updated the law of the tribunal to
make the process “open, subject to evidence and challenge, and legal”.
This law and legal process have agitated Jamat- but for no justifiable cause
these had also saddened Economist. It wrote, “Sadly, most Bangladeshis are
cheering on the tribunal’s flawed proceedings.”
When I wrote “Tribunal
in Bangladesh
sets Justice as the Priority”- I refuted many of the negative propagandas
of Jamat-e-Islami Bangladesh
and I find that it is valid also for of the Economist. The dark
grammar of sickening violence of jamati brotherhood is an article which shows
whom (a terrorist outfit which is now deploying its killing-squad to spread fear and anarchy in Bangladesh) the Economist is defending and the cost that Bangladesh
is paying in her pursuit for justice. The double standards will have to be abandoned
before justice comes into the focus of the media merchants such as the Economist.
