Amnesty International (AI) has caused fury and rage in the minds of
Bangladeshis with its latest statement in support of two war criminals
awaiting death – SQ Chowdhury and Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed.
The way it tried to defend these two criminals is surprising, given
AI's long track record, which is not always stone-paved (its false claim
of babies being killed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq is just a reminder).
More shocking and surprising was the manner in which it tried to insult
our war of independence by saying that “pro-independence forces also
committed serious crimes”.
We understand AI's anti-death stance. But this time its statement is
questionable and looks like a deliberate and motivated attempt to slur
the war crimes trial process with false information.
Let's scrutinise the AI statement paragraph by paragraph.
In its second paragraph, the statement claimed that our International
Crimes Tribunal (ICT) failed to meet international standards. It is a
sweeping comment without elaboration which should be waved away with
similar vagueness. But still we can elaborate.
Our ICT had been most fair to the defendants if we compare them to
Nuremberg trial or Tokyo trial. The defendants had all the rights to
appeal. The trials were open to all and the accused were given adequate
time and facilities to prepare their cases. In the beginning, there were
some concerns about the process which were later addressed. For
example, the provision for review appeal was incorporated.
After these were done, the US Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes,
Stephen Rapp, who closely observed the trial process, had concluded by
saying “the best way in the world to find the truth is the judicial
process where the evidence is presented, where witnesses are
cross-examined, where both sides have an opportunity to be heard and
that is what is being done here (Bangladesh). It is the process that the
American government strongly supports.”
AI statement's third paragraph is also motivated and travesty of
truth. The trial of these two criminals started in 2012. So, how could
AI say make the comment that "in the government's haste to see more war
crimes convicts executed…” Where does the AI see the haste? Rather we
would say justice had been delayed, in this case long 44 years.
AI's comment on the trial of Mojaheed is also incorrect and reflects
its serious misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about our war of
independence. Bangladeshis all know what role Mojaheed and his killer
force Al-Badr played during the war. Mojaheed, as the second-in-command
of Al-Badr, must bear the responsibilities of all killings, raping and
other atrocities committed by his force. It was clearly established
before the court that Mojaheed himself called his force as the “angel of
death” (reported in Dainik Sangram, Jamaat's party paper, on April 24,
1971). And he said: “Al-Badr is the Azrail (angel of death) to the
Indian agents.”
During the trial, a witness said he saw Mojaheed in a torture cell
where hundreds of freedom fighters were killed. He also heard the war
criminal say to a Pakistani army officer about a few freedom fighters
who should be shot dead.
But AI preferred not to go through these evidence before making its own conclusion.
In case of SQ Chowdhury's case, AI's allegation also does not hold
water. AI said a witness testified that a person who could corroborate
his statement was dead when in fact the individual was very much alive
and had even submitted a signed affidavit to the court to prove it.
Here, AI simply bought what SQ Chowdhury's defence wanted all to
believe. The facts are that the witness described a touching tale of how
his family members were killed by Chowdhury and how he survived. He
also said how he took shelter in another person's house and saved his
own life.
When the defence asked him where the 'another person' named Danu Mia was, the witness said he had heard that Danu Mia had died.
About a year later, SQ Chowdhury's defence produced an affidavit by
Danu Mia well after the time to do so expired. The defence had plenty of
time to examine the investigation officer's report to marshal its
defence and name Danu Mia. But it did not do so.
Whether Danu Mia was dead or alive does not undermine the atrocity
that was committed that day, but AI's statement put such a twist that it
might seem the merit of the incident depended on Danu Mia.
The most nefarious comment AI made is about our war. It suddenly
commented that “serious crimes were also committed by the
pro-independence forces, but no one has been investigated or brought to
justice for them”.
We believe AI, in supporting the war criminals, had forgotten the
history of war crimes trials. It needs to juggle up its memory on the
Nuremberg trial or Tokyo trial.
On the European front, the bombing of Dresden was a debatable issue
as British and American aircraft dropped 3,900 pounds of bombs on the
cultural city. It was a non-military target. And yet the Nuremberg trial
or any other trial did not deal with the Dresden issue.
Similarly, Tokyo trial did not deal with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Any war trial is by the victors. And naturally atrocities of the
defeated forces are tried in international tribunals. So when AI
suddenly brought to the fore the question of 'crimes' by pro-liberation
forces, it revealed the political nature and thereby the intention of
the statement.
AI put a new spin to its statement when it held a press conference
later to deny that it had not demanded release of SQ Chowdhury or
Mojaheed nor had it wanted trial of pro-liberation forces. AI's this
explanation is at best reviled on the street because whatever it said in
support of Chowdhury and Mojaheed actually amounts to seeking their
release. Otherwise why should it say that miscarriage of justice is to
happen through their executions? Similarly why should it raise the issue
of 'serious crimes' by pro-liberation forces unless it seeks justice
for them?
In making a highly politically biased statement AI actually has
undermined its position as an advocate of human rights and damaged its
reputation.