Even After a Ninth Revision, Foreign Ministry Statement Remains Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies

Opinion

Dear Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

I noticed that you have issued statements on your website and social media expressing your anger over Sheikh Hasina’s speech at an event in New Delhi today (August 5). I also noticed that you have already amended that statement nine times. Nine times! People naturally expect that after the ninth amendment, at least something will stand in order. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

So in the interest of verification, and to provide some relief to the officer in charge of preparing the tenth draft, I am trying to help —

[One]

You are deeply disturbed that Sheikh Hasina, a “fugitive convict”, is able to speak to her supporters from abroad. Quite a surprising position! Because, your own Prime Minister Tarique Rahman himself did exactly this for seventeen years in the UK — both a fugitive and a convict. During those years, he spoke to supporters through countless meetings, rallies and online events. Did you still condemn it then? I don’t remember.

I suspect the answer doesn’t depend on policy, it depends on who is in power now. So which is true — was it unacceptable then, or has it only become unacceptable now? Please come to a conclusion. If necessary, you can also talk to Mr. Rahman about the matter.

[Two]

The wording is important. Your statement says that Sheikh Hasina was convicted of “genocide.” In reality, she was not. The International Criminal Tribunal (ICT) convicted her of “crimes against humanity,” not genocide. How reasonable that verdict is is a different question. But under international criminal law, genocide and crimes against humanity are two completely different crimes, with different elements and standards of proof. This is not a trivial technical difference.

It’s a bit like confusing murder with robbery, and hoping no one notices. It’s good to remember — part of diplomacy is precision. It can save you a lot of embarrassment in the future.

[Three]

Spelling is also important. Your statement calls Hasina a “genocider.” The conventional and correct term is “génocidaire.” I understand that the word “genocider” sometimes comes up in informal language online. But one would expect an official government statement to be at least a little higher quality than what is “trending” online. Especially after nine revisions!

[Four]

You forgot to mention one uncomfortable point. Your statement presents Sheikh Hasina’s sentence as if its legal validity were beyond question. That would certainly make your job easier, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, several leading international human rights organizations have already raised serious fair trial flaws in the ICT’s trial process. Whether you agree with that criticism or not, it does not do your credibility any good to assume that it is nonexistent.

There is now considerable consensus that the trial against Hasina was politically motivated and fell far short of internationally recognized fair trial standards.

[Five]

Finally, the narrative of the events of July in your statement has become so one-sided that it now reads more like the first draft of a film that never reached the second stage, and whose credibility has already been lost, than a true historical account. The interim government, and subsequently the BNP government, abandoned any significant claim to be an arbiter of impartial accountability when they granted blanket impunity to perpetrators on one side of the conflict.

Those of us who have actually worked on ICT cases have seen it firsthand — investigators and prosecutors have suppressed different aspects of the investigation to impose a single, biased narrative, even threatening lawyers and defendants with death penalty charges if they try to challenge that government-sanctioned narrative. This is not how a credible criminal trial is supposed to work.

It is a different matter to dismiss the counter-narrative of the July events as non-existent. But it is time to rid the world of your one-sided history. The July events should not be used as a shield behind which the real perpetrators are protected, and accountability is demanded only from their political opponents.

Anyway, I wish you all the best for the tenth draft. I have full confidence that everything will be fine the tenth time.

Dr. Raihan Rashid
Writer, Researcher and Lawyer.