What was said behind the diplomatic rhetoric?

Speculations abound over the recent four-day Bangladesh visit of a high-powered team led by the US Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights, Uzra Zeya. Uzra Zeya was also accompanied by the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Donald Lu. Donald Lu had visited Bangladesh earlier this year.

The US team spent four days in Bangladesh to discuss the forthcoming election and the human rights situation. During their stay, they held meetings with the prime minister, the law minister Anisul Huq, home minister Asaduzzaman Khan and foreign secretary Masud Bin Momen. They visited the Rohingya refugee camps and met with certain members of the civil society.

It is clear from media reports that the election and human rights features prominently in these meetings. Everyone is well aware that this was the agenda of the visit. Given the US interest in Bangladesh’s election, the measures adopted so far and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s angry response, it is clearly understood by all that there was no other purpose to the visit.

As in the aftermath of any important meeting, everyone has been searching for indications about what the future may hold. Whenever diplomats are involved in any meeting, it is only natural their words are analysed minutely. And that is what happened this time too. The government says that the purpose of this visit was to clear up “misunderstandings on certain issues”. They claim this has closed the distance between the two sides. The government and its supporters have also said that the US officials have been reassured by the words of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and of her government. The US wants a fair election and the government has all along being saying the election will be free and fair, so there is no scope for any differences.

Speaking at a press briefing, Uzra Zeya said that she had heard strong words of commitment from Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the other ministers. She said she had also had discussions with the foreign secretary about free, fair and peaceful elections. Government supporters interpret this as support for the measures taken by government.

Uzra Zeya did not say anything different from what the US has been saying for the past few months. US state department spokespersons Matthew Miller said the same in reply to a question by journalist Mushfiq Fazal Ansari during a press briefing on 10 July. He said that Bangladesh’s prime minister Sheikh Hasina had repeatedly expressed her commitment to a free and fair election. He said that as Bangladesh’s friend and partner for over 50 years, the US also expressed this hope.

Earlier while speaking to journalists on 24 May about the new US visa policy in context of Bangladesh, he had said, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had given her commitment about free and fair elections. He said that they had declared the visa policy to support that commitment.

The government and the ruling party are repeatedly highlighting this commitment. They had highlighted this during assistant secretary Donald Lu’s visit in January. According to a news item appearing in a certain newspaper, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu, had carried back the message of the commitment given by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for a free, fair and credible election. (Samakal Online, 16 January 2023). It may be recalled that during the talks between Bangladesh’s foreign minister AK Abdul Momen and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on 10 April 2023, Bangladesh had reiterated this message.

After all this, the US diplomats crossed back over the Atlantic to say that they had heard the commitment. It may be noted that they said that they had heard the Bangladesh prime minister’s commitment, but they are not saying that they are reassured. It is not a question of diplomacy, but of common sense – if anyone is reassured and confident, why will the same questions be asked again and again? So those who interpret Uzra Zeya’s words as satisfactory, may enjoy a sense of complacence, but there is no reason to hope that the consequences of this will be positive.

It may also be noted that other than one meeting with the civil society, all the meetings were with the government. If they had confidence in the government’s words, it would be natural for them to meet with the opposition and express their objections to the opposition’s actions. From the list of attendance at the meetings that were held with the US team, it is clear that no matter what the government may say, they have clearly understood the significance of this trip.

The meeting to which I am drawing attention is the one held at the Gulshan residence of Salman F Rahman. The meeting lasted for about two and a half hours. Present at the meeting from the Bangladesh side were law minister Anisul Huq, state minister for power Nasrul Hamid, state minister for foreign affairs Shahriar Alam, foreign secretary Masud Bin Momen, Bangladesh ambassador to the US Mohammad Imran and chairman of the national human rights commission Kamal Uddin. These persons are not only high ranking in the government, but their proximity with the centre of power in Bangladesh is well established.

A question did enter my mind as to why the head of the human rights commission, which claims to be an independent institution, was present as part of a government team. Some of those at this meeting met with the US team earlier, separately. We need to understand the urgency and the significance of their meeting them again in a group.

The question now is, what sort of message has the Uzra Zeya visit given? We can look at certain words used in Uzra Zeya’s written statement and its content. During talks, the US expressed the ‘need’ for a free and fair election. The Bangladesh government and the ruling class will pay attend to the word ‘need’. It is not just a ‘hope’, but a ‘need’. In reply to questions from the media, she said as part of its global human rights policy, the US wants free and fair elections in Bangladesh. In her written statement she had said that Bangladesh future growth depended on a strong democracy and everyone’s participation in the election. She said that the US would continuously support and assist an inclusive and democratic Bangladesh.

Does that mean all this is becoming compulsory in order to receive US cooperation? We need to recall that the US state department counselor Derek Chollet, while visiting Bangladesh in February this year, had told the media that US assistance will become restricted if the democracy of Bangladesh or any country is eroded. These two statements are made by two different persons, but the common stance is of the US state department. Uzra Zeya’s written statement gives a reminder of how the US has stood by Bangladesh in the Rohingya crisis and how much funds it has provided. It also stated that a situation conducive to the repatriation of Rohingyas hadn’t been created. That means the US does not eye positively the repatriation efforts being made at Chinese initiative.

The US area of cooperation with Bangladesh is extensive. Trade is one of the main parts of this cooperation. Derek Chollet had said, when the US companies invest in any country, they want transparency, rule of law and accountability.

From this we need to determine what reaction there should be to any particular circumstance in the future. Head of the recent US delegation, Uzra Zeya, told newspersons they want the parties to hold dialogue in order to resolve the political differences, but the US is not involved in that. This is not the first time that a call for dialogue has been voiced.

After the new visa policy was taken up on 24 May, Donald Lu spoke to Zillur Rahman about the new visa policy in an interview on Tritiyo Matra, saying that they wanted the new policy to contribute to the efforts of the government, the opposition, and the civil society for a dialogue and an environment for a free and fair election in the coming year. That does not mean they will not play any role. They want to play and effective role, and on 24 May, Matthew Miller said that they supported a free and fair election and they were ready to take action to this end.

During his Dhaka trip, Donald Lu had referred to the Human Rights Watch report which had mentioned progress made in RAB’s behavior. After that, much of the news media and many analysts came to the conclusion that the US would not take any further steps. But then in May the visa policy was announced and now a high level meeting has taken place.

Those analyzing Uzra Zeya’s visit now, surely are aware that diplomatic language is something different. If it is not understood, this will have a negative impact on relations, unwarranted incidents may arise. It is important to keep watch on what lies behind the diplomatic words jargon.