The diplomat who many held responsible for Imran Khan's downfall in Pakistan, Donald Lu, came to Bangladesh, ate fuchkha, praised the tasty snack, returned home, leaving the ruling party basking in smug complacence. While Donald Lu did discuss the issue of corruption with the government representatives, the issue of the two countries working together came to the fore.
Foreign minister Hasan Mahmud went as far as to say that Donald Lu's trip to Bangladesh had sent BNP's head reeling, because the US wanted to take relations with Bangladesh further ahead. But then in the midst of all this, the sanction slapped on former army chief General Aziz Ahmed (retd), based on allegations made three and a quarters years ago, gave rise to a fresh bout of unease.
The US earlier had imposed such restrictions on Bangladesh's law enforcement agencies (RAB and SAWT) and seven of its top officers, but this time they have taken action against a person who was placed very high on the list of important persons of the state.
Some may argue that since he has retired from service, this measure taken by the US will have no palpable impact. But the problem is, the allegations levelled against him were regarding actions taken during his tenure as army chief. The matter perhaps is best explained by General Aziz himself, when he said the sanction may be personal, but he had been in an important position during the Awami League government. So this matter demeans the government to an extent too.
The restrictions placed against General Aziz and his family have not been imposed under the US visa policy declared before the elections. The US government does not declare the names of those sanctioned under the visa policy. So last September when Washington declared that they had imposed visa restrictions on those impeding free and fair elections, and that these included members of the law enforcement, and of the ruling and opposition parties, we did not get to know anyone's name. We still don't. But General Aziz's name was made public.
In face of widespread controversy, General Aziz had said, after he retired from service, a press briefing on behalf of the family would be held to clear the matter. That never happened. In fact, Al-Jazeera won seven international investigative journalism awards for that report.
The action taken against General Aziz was imposed under Section 7031 (C). What is there in this section? The sub-head of this section in the Foreign Relations and Related Program Appropriations Act is: Anti-Kleptocracy and Human Rights.
It states: "Officials of foreign governments and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has credible information have been involved, directly or indirectly, in significant corruption, including corruption related to the extraction of natural resources, or a gross violation of human rights shall be ineligible for entry into the United States."
It is clear from this that this law is not applied in the case of general allegations of corruption. The term ''kleptocracy" has been used to stress the nexus between corruption and power. In the US state department's statement that disclosed this action, it stated that General Aziz's " actions have contributed to the undermining of Bangladesh’s democratic institutions and the public’s faith in public institutions and processes."
They went on to state more specifically: "Aziz Ahmed engaged in significant corruption by interfering in public processes while helping his brother evade accountability for criminal activity in Bangladesh. Aziz also worked closely with his brother to ensure the improper awarding of military contracts and accepted bribes in exchange for government appointments for his personal benefit." It may be recalled that his three brothers were convicted on charges of multiple murders. One fled abroad and he played a significant role behind the scenes in getting them pardoned from punishment.
After news of the US sanction was made public, General Aziz spoke in interviews with around a dozen journalists, expressing surprise at such action and claiming that he was innocent.
In such an interview he told The Daily Star that the Al-Jazeera video had been aired in 2021, so the restrictions could have been imposed then. Why now? Referring to that official trip to Washington, he said though 9 NGOs had demanded that no events be held with him, all the scheduled programmes took place. The human rights groups had raised questions then about the programmes and many had been taken aback.
Why the sanction now? Officials of the US department of defence and department of state can answer that question. Could it be that such a significant step was taken because Washington's expectations were not met during Donald Lu's trip? But it won't be unjustified to conjecture that they had wanted to see whether the Bangladesh government investigated the allegations or not. Now they can say that since the Bangladesh government did not carry out any investigations despite the serious nature of the allegations, they were forced to take such action.
It may be recalled that when Al-Jazeera aired the investigative report 'All the Prime Minister's Men', many persons in the government declared that they would sue the TV channel. In face of widespread controversy, General Aziz had said, after he retired from service, a press briefing on behalf of the family would be held to clear the matter. That never happened. In fact, Al-Jazeera won seven international investigative journalism awards for that report.
In the statement regarding General Aziz, there are reflections of US assessment of three issues regarding Bangladesh. These are, in their consideration, the efficacy of democratic institutions has been harmed, there was been corruption and abuse of power in government institutions, and the system to endure accountability for crime, or the rule of law, has become ineffective. And all of this has come about through a person or persons who are powerful.
At a juncture when the US wants Bangladesh to be party to its Indo-Pacific strategy and, in order to thwart China's possible expansion, it is no longer steadfast to its strict stance regarding free and fair election, it is only natural to be curious about what impact this special measure against the former army chief will have on the relations between the two countries.
It is to be noted that the government did not have such a strong reaction this time as it had in the case of the sanctions against RAB. It may be because there are no elections in the near future and so the government is not worried about any political impact. The foreign minister's remark that this was a matter "of the army" is to be considered too because after the allegations were made, two statements were issued by the army headquarters, but were rejected.
Earlier, the ruling party and the government had more or less managed to tackle the political fallout of the sanctions against RAB and SWAT. While members or those two forces may have been somewhat harmed, there was no big problem. But the problem is, once sanctions are imposed, it is not easy to have them lifted, as has been proven several times. It has been just under two decades that GSP facilities were withdrawn, and down till today, no amount of lobbying has managed to reverse the decision.
There is no good news for those who had hoped that the sanctions against RAB would not last long because of RAB's tackling terrorism. The Leahy Act against SWAT is also still in effect. If the list of such sanctions continues to grow longer, will the economic and political harm remain at a tolerable level?
* Kamal Ahmed is a senior journalist
* This column appeared in the print and online edition of Prothom Alo and has been rewritten for the English edition by Ayesha Kabir