Lord Avebury- A Policy of Appeasement?
A Policy of Appeasement? I was recently having a discussion with a friend about the International Crimes Tribunal in Bangladesh. He couldn’t understand why liberals and multiculturalists were being critical about the trial’s developments. This criticism is part of a growing trend for supporters of the tribunal. I wouldn’t like it to become a split. People have become fixated on the lack of support and naïve pandering to Islamists by western politicians.
Islamists based in the Europe and the US, who have strong Jamaat affiliations, have been lobbying to try to derail the war crimes trial by trying picking out the trials faults and non-conformity with international standards for trying crimes against humanity. It is just little things, but it will not stop the tribunal. United Nations teams have pointed out recommendations, but Bangladesh’s procedures are generally in line with international standards.
Naivety, not malice, has allowed British politicians to be used by Islamists to pour scorn on the tribunal. This is true. However, I would like to defend, well perhaps that is strong word, I would like to try and clear up a few issues.
Lord Avebury’s name always comes up in these discussions, ‘Why did Avebury meet with Jamaat lobbyists in parliament?,’ and ‘Why is he helping them?’. I would like to defend Lord Avebury. He has been one of the most influential and vocal supporters of democracy and human rights in Bangladesh from within the British parliament.
Avebury has been calling for the trials for decades. He’s helped raise the issue of war crimes way before radical Islamism became a fashionable topic. He has helped to raise Bangladesh’s profile in European and American circles. His objectivity and lack of party affiliation sometimes irritates those who would like to feel they’ve got him in their corner. But, he won’t pick sides. He supports justice and accountability even if it makes people think that he lacks loyalty, but he will never close rank. It’s a liberal flaw. We don’t do tribalism.
Avebury has supported the need for the trials and ending the culture of impunity in Bangladesh. He wants human rights abusers and murderers tried for their crimes. However, he does not support the death penalty. This is a major issue for him and I suspect is the main driving force behind his reluctance to be triumphant about finally succeeding in getting justice for the horrific crimes which were committed during 1971. Lord Avebury is a Buddhist, he takes his religious duties seriously. Pacifism is a central tenet of his beliefs. I would also suspect that as a Liberal he is also reluctant to put his support behind any trial were the guilty are likely to punished with the electric chair, a firing squad or the hangman’s noose.
I’ve also had first hand experience of Lord Avebury’s lack of due diligence. However, he’s one of the most trustworthy and objective people I know, but he does not have the nose for sniffing out when he’s being used. He sees good in everyone- friend to all, malice to none. It’s his major character flaw or perhaps it’s his strength. However, if we are to shun Lord Avebury for making a mistake of raising legitimate concerns we are going to ostracise one of the most prominent supporters of justice for 1971. His long commitment to democracy, human rights and justice in Bangladesh is without question. The death penalty has become a thorny issue for international supporters, but with Avebury we are with a friend. He’s critical, he’s a liberal- it’s part of his makeup.
12 comments
Perhaps we should call it “Acute Liberal Appeasement Syndrome” (ALAS)!! Alas, Bangladesh’s war trials!
Perhaps, but there is little point in trying to argue when we are all committed to justice for the victims of 71. Liberals are always going to wobble when it comes to the death penalty. Joy Bangla!
Chris,
I see your point, but I am sure you would agree that death penalty is not the only issue some of our liberals are miffed about, as there is a whole discourse of “due process politics” which is now abused by certain groups of liberals, sometimes with the direct help of known Jamat fronts. Let’s not forget about that. This is what disappoints me most. The sooner we pin-point the real nature of these liberal oppositions, the sooner our government and even certain allies will be able to snap out of the naivety that currently exists. Just three months ago, ICSF members have exposed a dubious House of Lords seminar arranged by Mr Avebury and his All Party Parliamentary Group, which a known Jamat front in UK helped organise. We all know how that ended. See here: http://icsforum.org/blog/admin/war-criminals-and-house-of-lords/
I have recently talked with Lord Avebury. He admited that there would be some problem for west talking against death penalty, when they were almost silent against the death penalty of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s killers lately. So, if the people of Bangladesh wants death penalty, nobody would say anything, he added. {It is the part of the conversation with me and Lord Avebury last week]. We had a long discussion on War Crime Tribunal and human rights situation in Bangladesh. I would say that sounds were positive. Some more works need to do.
//Sabbir Khan
By the way Chris, I am totally agreeing with you about Lord Avebury. Thanks.
//Sábbir
@ Mr Khen#3,
I hope your ‘optimism’ about Mr Avebury is well-founded!
With due reverence to all Mr Avebury has done in the past in support of the 1971 trials and CHT, let me first state that this discussion is not about Mr Avebury personally, but about the brand of politics he CURRENTLY decided to represent, demonstrating extremely poor judgment on his part. Unfortunately, this particular brand of politics (arguing about ‘due process’ etc with the help of war criminal lobby) is no friend of Bangladesh’s tribunal.
It is not about vilifying Mr Avebury, but being very clear and vocal about his current activities. It is about NOT encouraging or white-washing those activities under any pretext. It is also about maintaining distance and asking tough questions to him when he decides to hobnob with known representatives of the war criminal lobby. Surely, one does not need to be shoulder to shoulder with these dubious folks just to raise concerns about due process! Never once did we see Mr Avebury apologising or even acknowledging some of his very questionable activities. Forgive me, but as far as I can see, Mr Avebury is showing no signs of being bothered about getting shunned by the pro-71 progressive lobby of Bangladesh. Rather, some of our staunch pro-71 allies are showing desperate signs of being too afraid to be in the bad-book of Mr Avebury and the power lobby he represents in UK. Otherwise, I fail to see, why some of them would keep quiet about his current roles and affiliations.
History of Bangladesh bears testimony to the fact that not everyone is consistent in their actions or struggle for justice. We have seen too many somersaults to let someone’s past history cloud our judgment in determining where they currently stand or whose purpose they actually serve, whether willingly or by implications.
Well, if the particular brand of politics (arguing about ‘due process’ etc with the help of war criminal lobby) is no friend of Bangladesh’s tribunal, then one could obviously ask that…
1. WHY AND HOW THE WAR CRIMINAL LOBBY COULD COME CLOSE TO THIS POSITION LIKE USING LORD HOUSE AND AVEBURY AGAINST TRIBUNAL?
2. WHAT THE PRO-LEBARATION LOBBY OR GOVT. DID TO NUTRALISE THE WAR CRIMINAL LOBBY IN ABROAD?
3. WHO CREATED A VACUUM BETWEEN LORD AVEBURY AND PRO-LIBERATION LOBBY IN UK AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?
4. WAS IT WISE TO SAY ALMOST OPENLY BY THE PRO-LIBERATION ACTIVISTS AND POLITICIANS IN UK THAT LORD AVEBURY BECOME A JAMAYATI AND HE TOOK A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM JAMAYAT? HOW A PERSON WOULD FEEL AFTER HEARING THIS ALLEGATION AGAINST HIMSELF WHO EVEN HELPED SHEIKH HASINA IN CRISIS TIME?
There are many questions which would never be answerd ever. But one thing is very clear that some of us are working intensionally disarming the liberation group/lobby in abroad, which would interpret that they are actually helping Jamayatis.
So,
I’m at a loss. Lord Avebury has made a mistake, a major error of judgement. He does not support Jamaat politics at all. He is widely respected by Awami League leaders for helping them in times of crisis. Just ask the likes of Saber Hossain Chowdhury.
If we are to look at Averbury’s case obejectivly. Yes, his work with Jamaat goons in the House of Parliament was a propaganda success for them. It was very damaging.
So, we should come together and rise above petty politics to concentrate on making sure this tribunal works.
Irene Khan and other liberals have recently come out supporting the tribunal so I really don’t know where this animosity has come from?
Let me just reiterate why I am engaging in this discussion. I hope you would agree that leaving strategic stances unscrutinised is more harmful than occasional disagreements between the allied fronts. Now that we all are shouldering the mammoth task of trying the war criminals, we do need to have this healthy space for dialogue, debate and even occasional disagreements. Surely we all know – unscrutinised alliances, be they strategic or ideological, are usually the weakest ones.
Now and always, Joy Bangla!
Chris,
I do agree with you that we should come together and rise above petty politics to concentrate on making sure this tribunal works, and even to repair the damage that already has left it’s footprint behind.
As senior, it might be some difficulties for Lord Avebury to say sorry for his mistakes and we should have understanding for that, but if he understands his faults, then he will comeback to the right track again I believe. [Lord Avebury might be deceived by the Jamayatis on the Tribunal issue, who knows!!].
Overall, we shouldn’t blame only Mr. Avebury for all mistakes. We should also pointout our faults or failures. Plitics should be faced politically and nobody should act like an investigative agency. Otherwise, situation would be out of control again and Jamayatis will get again a propaganda success.
Let’s try to seize the card from UK Jamayatis hands and put it back on the proper place again. We are already on the track and things already has started moving!! Joy Bangla!!
@ Sabbir Khan (comments #6 and #8),
You wrote:
I am not sure who exactly said this ‘almost openly’ here! As far as I know, someone did validly ask him about funding of the ‘Justice Concern’ event. He was also asked why he felt it necessary to get even ‘mere clerical and other supports’ (in his words) from a shoddy outfit, when he had the whole resources (clerical or otherwise) of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) at his disposal. Regrettably, he failed to give satisfactory answers to both these questions. I do not know how others view it, but in my opinion, through leaving the issue vague, Mr Avebury not only made his stances (some of which may have had some validity) controversial, but also severely compromised the integrity and impartiality of APPG, not to mention the representatives of reputed institutions like HRW, AI and IBA who also attended the event by his invitation.
Since you have raised this point of throwing unjust allegations, I now recall someone “accusing publicly” IBA (and by implication Mr Avebury) of mercenary behaviour. Let me draw your attention to an article (link) by Nirmul Committee’s Mr Shahriar Kabir where he did actually dubbed IBA (International Bar Association) as a ‘hired’ organisation. Hired by whom, I wonder. This, in my opinion is a very serious insinuation by Shahriar Kabir since we all know – last year it was Mr Avebury who actually sought IBA’s review on the 1973 Act after being approached by Jamat in London. Are you prepared to criticise Mr Kabir as well? or, should I assume that it was actually statements like Mr Kabir’s that you were referring to in this quote of yours?
You also wrote:
I am not sure what is that supposed to mean. Let’s not be ‘disrespectful’ and lay it all on someone’s ‘old age’. By ‘senior’ if you have meant his position as a Lord, then I must say that this sounds rather alarmingly servile to me. I thought we left our colonial ghosts far behind!! And since when someone becomes ‘too senior’ to admit his mistakes? What have old age and position got to do with our legitimate expectations on crucial strategic position?
Surely, none of us are expecting him (or anyone like him) to apologise PUBLICLY. It is not a question of ego. Just mending his ways would suffice.
You wrote:
So, what about us who are not involved in any party politics? How are we to know what some ‘trusted’ people are up to? I think some of our pro-liberation allies should better do their own investigations before jumping on to the ‘reverence bandwagon’ or before attending one of those cosy little tea-parties that Mr Avebury throws every once in a while for war criminals and pro-liberation leaders alike. I remember ICSF volunteers doing one of such investigations in the past and thank goodness for that. Living in UK for all these years, I would never have believed that Mr Avebury is capable of associating himself with Jamat in this way. This is about our history, our genocide, our victims, and more importantly, our justice. If we do not investigate and point out these dubious liaisons, who will? Frankly, I cannot understand why investigating and exposing the nature of someone’s affiliations should cause you concern!
You wrote:
So your point is – government created a vacuum, therefore, Mr Avebury decided to hobnob with the war criminal lobby! What kind of excuse/reasoning is that? Is he a mindless object that can be pushed around from one court to another? And by the way, the last time I checked, this trial was about Bangladesh and its three million victims, not about Awami League or any other political party for that matter. So why dissatisfaction with one political party/lobby will push a responsible and ‘senior’ human rights activist like him to choose a Jamat lobby that clearly stands against everything that is humane and just? Should we be in a competition of ‘who stays close to him’ most? This I think is a naive view of things, to say the very least.
the lord is a gentleman. he is neutral. meeting anyone does mean nothing. Bangladesh must have this trial. this is a symbolic issue and we must not forget the great liberation war..
Facebook Comments