DHAKA: Thousands of members of three youth and student bodies belonging to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party marched toward the Indian High Commission in the country’s capital on Sunday to denounce attacks on a diplomatic mission and alleged desecration of Bangladeshi flags in India.
The protests came a day before India’s foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, is due to visit Dhaka amid growing tension between the two neighbors in recent months.
It will be the first high-profile diplomatic visit by an Indian official since the fall of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who is in exile in India, in August.
Bangladesh, which is predominantly Muslim, has accused the majority Hindus in India of attacking the Assistant High Commissioner’s office at Agartala in the Indian state of Tripura and desecrating Bangladeshi flags in Kolkata in West Bengal state.
India said it regretted the attacks and pledged to take action against those responsible. Bangladesh’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs also summoned the Indian High Commissioner and protested formally.
On Sunday, thousands of supporters of the BNP, which is headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, marched toward the Indian High Commission, but police stopped them by setting up barbed wire fences. They later allowed a team of six leaders of the three associate bodies of the party to hand in a letter to the High Commission.
The BNP last ruled Bangladesh in 2001-2006 in partnership with the Jamaat-e-Islami party. In the absence of Hasina, Zia’s party is the main force and it is expected to win the next election if it happens sometime soon.
Hasina, whose party is seen as more secular than the BNP, is highly regarded by India as a trusted friend. Most Hindus in Bangladesh are considered to be supporters of Hasina’s Awami League party.
The BNP supporters chanted slogans such as “Delhi or Dhaka? Dhaka, Dhaka!” and “Agents of India, be careful, be careful!” They also carried banners reading “We have friends overseas, but not masters.”
The protesters said India has been trying to instigate communal riots in Bangladesh to achieve political mileage since the ouster of Hasina, who fled to India following a mass uprising that ended her 15-year rule. Hasina’s party is struggling to get back on the streets while Hasina herself is facing arrest warrants on charges of crimes against humanity involving the deaths of hundreds of protesters during the uprising in July and August.
Over the past few weeks, some smaller Islamist groups and the BNP have protested against India over the attacks in Tripura and urged the interim government, led by Nobel peace laureate Muhammad Yunus, to officially raise concerns.
The situation started becoming tense after authorities in Bangladesh last month arrested a prominent Bangladeshi Hindu leader and jailed him, pending further legal procedures.
India had earlier officially raised concern over allegations of attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh after the fall of Hasina. Yunus and his close aides said the reports were exaggerated.
Bangladesh has been navigating crucial challenges since August amid mob violence, rising commodity prices, street protests and an unstable economy. The presence of Islamist groups has been visible more than ever in recent months.
The police are demoralized because many of their colleagues were killed in the protests and law and order remains a major concern, with rights groups also calling for ensuring press freedom. About 700 inmates including many criminals and radical Islamists still remain at large after jailbreaks during the political chaos in August.
Yunus has been urging people to stay calm, promising improvement.
Supporters of Bangladesh Nationalist Party march in protest at attacks in India
https://arab.news/g7jvu
Supporters of Bangladesh Nationalist Party march in protest at attacks in India
- Bangladesh has accused Hindus of attacking its assistant high commissioner’s office in Agartala, desecrating Bangladeshi flags in Kolkata
- The protests came a day before India’s foreign secretary, Vikram Misri, is due to visit Dhaka amid growing tension between the two neighbors
Trump’s Iran war violates international law, experts say
- Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the attack on Iran “had no justification under international law“
- “The US probably could have prevented any Israeli attack on Iran by virtue of the leverage afforded by critical US military support,” said Finucane
WASHINGTON: The United States insists it attacked Iran to curb “direct threats” from the Islamic republic, but legal experts say the dangers cited by Washington do not justify war under international law.
US and Israeli forces launched a massive air campaign against Iran on February 28, with Washington saying it aimed to curb nuclear and missile threats from Tehran. Yet the war has also decapitated the country’s government, and President Donald Trump is now demanding “unconditional surrender.”
The White House laid out Washington’s justification for the war during a news conference this week.
“This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose (an) imminent and direct threat,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday.
She went on to cite Iranian sponsorship of “terrorism,” its ballistic missile program and its alleged efforts to “create nuclear weapons and nuclear bombs.”
But Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at the University of Notre Dame, said the attack on Iran “had no justification under international law.”
“The law is clear that international disputes are to be resolved using peaceful means — negotiation, mediation, the intervention of international organizations,” said O’Connell, an expert in international law on the use of force and international legal theory.
The Trump administration has offered “vague mentions of imminent attacks by Iran and to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” while the UN Charter “requires, at the least, that evidence of a significant attack by Iran be underway,” she said.
- ‘Even less plausible’ -
“No shred of such evidence has been provided. Nor is there any right whatsoever to start a war over a weapons program.”
While Leavitt cited threats from missiles and militants, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a different justification for the war earlier in the week: fears that an Israeli attack would trigger reprisals against US forces.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the International Crisis Group’s US Program, said there were several issues with Rubio’s explanation, including that the Trump administration has since offered other rationales for the war.
“The US probably could have prevented any Israeli attack on Iran by virtue of the leverage afforded by critical US military support,” said Finucane, who previously worked in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the US Department of State.
The Iran war is not the only legally dubious military intervention by the Trump administration.
In early September, the United States began carrying out strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and later the eastern Pacific — a campaign that has killed more than 150 people.
The US government has yet to provide definitive evidence that the vessels it targets are involved in drug trafficking, and legal experts and rights groups say the strikes likely amount to extrajudicial killings.
Trump also ordered strikes on Iranian nuclear sites last year, and sent US forces into Caracas in early January to seize leftist Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, who is now on trial in the United States.
Finucane said Trump’s Friday demand for “unconditional surrender” by Iran “further undercuts prior justifications for US military action.”
“The administration has not even bothered to argue that Operation Epic Fury complies with international law, but certainly statements like this make any such argument even less plausible,” he said, referring to the Iran operation.
