Editorial
Renata Lok Dessallien weaves yet more lies
THE claim of the outgoing resident coordinator of the United Nations in Bangladesh, Renata Lok Dessallien, that the UN did not send any 'special letter' to the Iajuddin Ahmed-led caretaker government, which is believed to have paved the way for some top officials of the army at the time to engineer a quasi-military takeover of state power and subsequently install, and perpetuate for two years under a state of emergency, an illegal regime, is more than a travesty of truth; it is an affront to the people's intelligence.
On the very day that a state of emergency was declared, i.e. January 11, 2007, her office circulated a media release that said 'should the 22 January Parliamentary Elections proceed without participation of all major political parties, deployment of Armed Forces in support of the election process raises question. This may have implications for Bangladesh's future role in UN Peacekeeping Operations.' The media release also said: 'United Nations Under-Secretary-Generals Mr. Ibrahim Gambari and Mr. Jean-Marie Guehno of the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations respectively, will be contacting Bangladesh's Political, Caretaker Government and Military leaders tonight in this regard.' Evidently, there was clear indication in the media release of impending communication between the UN and the then Bangladesh government.
Dessallien's claim that the 'international community, including the UN, did not interfere in any way' cannot be any farther from truth, either; in the lead-up to the January 11, 2007 changeover, there were heightened activities by the diplomats of certain countries and she was very much in the forefront of the so-called 'mediation', during which the 'mediators' even went to the Dhaka Cantonment to meet the then chief of army staff. These mediators did not even bother to keep their errands, which, needless to say, were in contravention of all diplomatic norms and international conventions guiding relations between states; they confronted the media, both electronic and print, with regular 'updates'. Surely, Dessallien cannot say her involvement in the 'mediation' was of her own volition; she did represent the United Nations and there were no two ways about it.
The timing of her claim is also intriguing, came as it did on the eve of her departure upon conclusion of her controversial assignment in Bangladesh. Over the past three years or so, she apparently did not deem it necessary to come up with such a disclaimer, although a section of the media consistently criticised the unwarranted interference by certain diplomats and UN officials in the country's internal affairs. She also did not bother to come up with a rejoinder to the claim of the former army chief, made in his memoir, that Guenho had called him to say that 'the UN will consider with due importance the withdrawal of the Bangladesh Army from the UN peacekeeping mission' should the 'army play any role' in the eventually-cancelled January 22 elections.
Overall, right from the start and till the very end of her tenure, Dessallien looks to have indulged in falsehood and deceit, which is unbecoming of a UN official and for which the incumbent elected government should have declared her person non grata, all the more so because her antics and those of the diplomats had brought upon the country two years of misrule by a band of apolitical individuals, the cost of which the nation is still paying and may have to pay for years to come. Regrettably, the Awami League-led government has thus far shown a curious reticence about bringing the proponents and exponents of the interim government, onstage and backstage, to task for their misadventure. The only solace for the people seems to be that they may have seen the last of Dessallien. Meanwhile, now that she has made the claim, the UN owes the people of Bangladesh some clarification.
__._,_.___
