---

Recently news broke from confidential sources in diplomatic channels stating that the US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Haas, is resigning from the State Department as a show of protest over US policy in Bangladesh during the 2024 general elections. 

The real truth of the matter unfolding in the chambers of the State Department will, most assuredly, never be revealed to the people of Bangladesh. However, from what is clearly visible, there seems to be a repetition of history that is ongoing at the moment.

We all know the story of the Blood Telegram. Penned by Archer Kent Blood on April 6, 1971, it is arguably the most strongly worded expression of dissent in the history of US foreign service, from the last American consul general to East Pakistan to the US State Department. As the liberation war was in full swing, Blood began his telegram with the words, ‘Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy.’

Needless to say, Blood’s diplomatic career never recovered from this noble dissent. However, the underlying spirit of his fiery words still shines through, as the true and lasting interest of the United States in Bangladesh remains ill-defined.

Since then, it has not been easy for US foreign missions in Bangladesh to execute their duties. The head of the mission has often had to operate in challenging environments and under significant personal risk. Whether it be the attack on Marcia Bernicat’s car, the humiliating mockery thrown at Dan Mozena, or the several security compromises and hostilities that Peter Haas had to face, these diplomats have had to struggle to enact a diplomatic doctrine that is sometimes overly aggressive and other times overly ambiguous.

Many believe that US foreign policy in South Asia is viewed entirely through the lens of India. This kind of all-eggs-in-one-basket approach to diplomacy has repeatedly been a detriment to the greater US ambition to become the moral leader of the free world. This approach also means that as long as actual democracy in Bangladesh is inconvenient for India, the US will never be able to apply direct pressure on Dhaka to remedy its authoritarian ways.

But if that was always the case, then we are left with a rather unsettling question. What was the true goal behind all those high-profile diplomatic visits to Dhaka, the sanctions and the visa restriction? Was it all just hollow platitudes about promoting democracy? Or is it the result of a grave miscalculation from Washington? Was it just an attempt to curb China’s growing influence? Or was it some complicated gambit to gain leverage that we laypeople cannot even comprehend? Regardless of the answer, what is true is that the US has ultimately lost a lot of the goodwill it had built up among the people of Bangladesh.

There was a lot of hope among the people of Bangladesh heading towards this new election. The US measures heading up to the general election struck a chord with the repressed voices in Bangladesh. The sanctions on RAB and security forces indicated that there might yet be some sort of justice for all those who have abused their power for their own gain.

Whether this hope had grounds to stand on or not, the truth of the matter is that the people of Bangladesh are sick and tired of the unjust inequality, the rampant corruption, and the lack of freedom in their daily lives. Frustrations reached a boiling point, and the disenfranchised people of Bangladesh found themselves emboldened by international support, mainly led by president Biden’s stated goal of promoting democracy across the world. 

For better or worse, the US ambassador became a sort of figurehead of this seemingly international drive to force the Bangladesh government to finally listen to its people. All indications showed that the people of Bangladesh did not want an election under the ruling party, which has utterly failed to instill trust in public institutions. And yet, it all fell apart.

Despite what the opposition will claim and regardless of Washington’s true intentions, it cannot be stated that the US did not do almost everything in its capacity (barring sanctions) to try and convince the ruling party to hold free, fair and participatory elections. It would never be justified for the US to punish the government if it did not listen. This is a matter of international sovereignty, of course. And yet, their effort paved the way for a mass mobilisation of an opposition that had remained docile and dormant till then. The tactical failures of the opposition to adequately capitalise on this golden opportunity could be a novel in itself. But it would be unfair and ignorant to lay the blame on the US, and especially an ambassador, for how it all turned out in the end.

Though Bangladesh’s foreign ministry made a futile attempt to label the ambassador’s actions as being in breach of the Vienna Convention, the truth of the matter is that the ambassador never did anything without explicit guidance from the State Department. And the State Department backed up his actions every single time.

On the contrary, although this fact is not mentioned much, it must be accepted that one of Peter Haas’s biggest achievements during his term is the immense rise in people-to-people relations between Bangladesh and the US. Because of the actions of the American foreign mission and the State Department, goodwill towards America rose to historic heights. Starting from the free shipment of vaccines during Covid-19, the sanctions on RAB and senior members of security forces for blatant human rights abuse, and the unwavering support for Bangladesh’s independent civil society, Peter Haas became a household name, which in itself is a feat worth admiring. 

Peter Haas held office during one of the most important periods in Bangladesh’s history. The election of 2024 has firmly nailed the coffin on the pretence of democratic rule and laid bare the nature of the current regime for the world to see. However, it also showed the limit of US influence in Bangladesh. The dreaded visa restriction that was all the hype right before the election more or less turned into a paper tiger programme since it was never officially revealed if anyone was banned from the US for interfering with the election.

One can hope that those who yet look forward to a democratic Bangladesh have learned some valuable lessons from all these shortcomings. The foundations that have been laid so far will definitely be used to fuel an even stronger democratic movement in the coming days. And perhaps, in time, history will also recognise the role of Peter Haas in the struggle for a democratic Bangladesh.

Zillur Rahman is the executive director of the Centre for Governance Studies and a television talk show host.

This article was originally published on Newage.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.