The Daily Star: What are your thoughts on Bangladeshi culture?

Ambassador Butenis: What I enjoy here is the dancing. Even in my embassy, where I first saw it, every event has to have a fashion show and a talent show. Everyone likes to sing, dance, or show-off their wedding sarees. When you drive through the streets you see the factory workers and women in their colourful salwar kameezes and sarees, and it leaves a real impression on me that Bangladesh is a place for colour.

We had a program called the ambassador's fund for cultural preservation, through which we have been able to make a real impact. We supported the Dhamrai metal casting studio, and I've bought some pieces myself so I can remember it. We sponsored a group of Baul singers; in fact, I was so impressed with their performance at our embassy that I have hired them to perform at my farewell later this week.

We have also funded traditional Bangladeshi boat-making, because those skills are some areas that are in danger of being lost. I have also been interested in the art scene, and I've bought a few lovely pieces that I admire.

The fact that this is a Muslim country points out to me how Islam differs from country to country, and how people respond differently to their religion. Here, it's just a very lively, warm welcoming society, and that will stay with me.

What was your perception about Bangladesh before you arrived here?

I have served in South Asia before. I have done two tours in Pakistan and I spent two years in New Delhi. South Asia itself, to a certain extent, was familiar to me. But each country is so different.

What I did appreciate in Bangladesh was how politically aware and conscious Bangladeshis are, much more so than in the United States. Not just the elite, but everybody. Everyone knows what's going on, and whether they like it or not. That makes me hopeful of a return to full democracy here.

Did your experience on the ground change this perception?

I learned a couple of things that I hadn't expected. One was the interest in democracy, and the awareness of rights. I did learn how volatile public opinion is here. People had warned me that Bangladeshis would tell me how people changed their minds overnight, and you do.

I saw that with the effort, I thought it was an effort, to send the two ladies in exile; the period when there seemed to be pressure on Khaleda Zia to leave, and definite pressure on Sheikh Hasina not to come back. I remember a BBC report about this period, where the reporter concluded that Bangladeshis were indifferent. All this went on, and life kept going on as normal.

But, within a matter of days, things changed. All of a sudden, there was sympathy. People said, look, they're Bangladeshis and they should face charges. Things changed overnight, and that's interesting. It makes it hard to predict how things will go.

Now that you mention it, what are your thoughts on the "minus-two" theory?

I'm not going to comment on that. I will say, as I have said before, I think political parties have to change. I don't know if they understand that or not. They say they do. I think it will be hard, and it is hard, for political parties to change with the current leadership in place.

Last night (June 13 at the American Alumni Association dinner) you mentioned that you endorsed a withdrawal of the ban on politics. A lot of people are saying that it may be a little premature. Why do you so strongly endorse the withdrawal of the ban?

Because I think that you can't reform politics without getting buy-in from political parties. Political parties are a key element of any democracy. I'm not speculating on how many there should be here. Point is, you have two parties, particularly the Awami League with deep roots, which have dominated the politics in this country for 50 years so. Whatever changes they make, they have to be engaged at some level.

I was told that a few years ago our USAID folks had a program on political party reform. They invited middle-level members from four major parties. They asked these people, what don't you like about your party?

These workers said that things were very autocratic; decisions were made only in Dhaka. We don't have input. We don't like the use of money. We don't like muscle because we find it intimidating. But nobody listened to us. This is what they said several years ago. They're still paying, it's still a problem. But you have to get their buy-in. That's what I'm saying.

I really do think even the Election Commission is ready to talk to the parties. They put out their proposals for reform. The parties are afraid they can't even discuss things, fearing they might be violating the ban. We have a kind of a paralysis right now. I don't think anything imposed is going to work, frankly.

What are the perceptions that you are leaving with, after spending 14 months here?

Part of me wants to say, "who knows?" Because it is so hard to predict where we are going to go. I remember discussing the possibility of military intervention with the parties before the state of emergency.

There were plenty of rumours about martial law etc. The BNP thought it would never happen. The Awami League thought that if the army comes in and cleans up the voter list, why not? My response was, why would the army come in and clean up the mess the parties made, and hand it back? If the political parties could not even predict that we would be here, neither could I. I do think there will be several things that will be constant that may guide this government.

The interests of certainly the US and other friends of Bangladesh in supporting the return to a fully elected government, for example. That's a constant. We are watching, as you know, and some people think we are taking too much interest. But we are very much aware of the need to keep the focus on elections.

We are concerned about human rights violations. I'm not suggesting that this government is particularly unique; human rights violations have been a part of Bangladesh's history. The friends of Bangladesh, the US among them, will continue to speak out privately and publicly on these issues. I think you can count on their support for elections. Everybody felt the relief when the state of emergency was declared, because we had been spared political violence and disaster.

My point to the parties is that you are all to blame. It' not just the one-sided elections that was objectionable, it was also the oppositions' avowed response to it. It was just not boycotting, it was that they wanted to stop the elections. Nobody wanted to see that. That's been another one of my constant themes.

Why do you have to resort to violence? Bangladeshis are very articulate, you love to talk and analyse. You are very sophisticated in your analysis. Why do we have to get to violence? I think people are relieved with the state of emergency, but I think there has to be a constant focus on moving back to a fully elected government.

What are your experiences through the period, regarding US involvement? I mean, last night you said that you had urged political actors to reach a compromise during the political crisis between October and January. Did you have a formula for such a compromise?

No, no. This is just another myth that I'm sure will live on long after I'm gone. Again, I'm speaking for the US, but I think other missions representing democracies would agree. Our only interest was to avert a disaster.

All I ever did, and I did it constantly, was to beg people, and ask them "can't you compromise?" Can't you come up with a solution that would be acceptable to the opposition, so they would participate in elections to ensure that it was fair.

I'm not making a judgement on whether it was rigged or not. The point is that they said it was. That was their basis for saying they would not participate. The government, the BNP ... well not them, but the government would always say, constitutionally this is the only thing left to us.

I would say to them, for every position you use the constitution to uphold, someone else can use the same constitution to argue the opposite, and I'm not impressed with that. That's no disrespect to the Bangladeshi constitution, but I have to believe that they could've come to a compromise.

Nobody was willing to do it. We tried. I was the promoter, and was trying to facilitate a dialogue early in September. I had no idea whether the political parties were serious. They agreed to talk, I had no idea if they were genuine, but I chose to accept that they were trying and I tried to facilitate that. They had several hours, and it really didn't go anywhere. That was really disappointing.

You said you begged?

Yes.

In what sense; could you please elaborate?

Well, I said can't you avoid this? Can't there be a compromise? Isn't there a way out? Why are we inflexible here? My message was constant, and I had no secret agenda. Simply: This is not good for Bangladesh. Why do you want to go ahead with one-sided elections which people will find impossible to believe in. You may not even get to the vote, because the opposition is already calling for the people to stop the election. That's my point. I did not have a formula for compromise, that's not my job. My job was to say, "Please, can't you sit down and work this out."

Did you have any other suggestions?

No. I did not get into ... I didn't have a list of people who could be acceptable as the chief adviser. I didn't walk around with a copy of the Bangladeshi constitution, citing articles the way you all do, like the politicians do.

I saw my job as trying to help a friendly partner nation avoid a political disaster. Not to dictate or to suggest. So my message was the same no matter who I spoke to: "Come up with a compromise. I think that's what people want, can't you do it?"

What were your activities during that time?

I just spoke to a lot of people. I talked to everybody… the political parties, the government, the business community, the civil society, I talked to journalists...everybody.

The military?

I talked to everybody.

At the dinner last night, you also mentioned that you were "discouraged to see that the country's political leadership was perfectly ready to let a disaster unfold." What does that tell you about Bangladesh's political leadership?

I think sometimes the political parties feel that they own politics, and that anybody who wasn't a politician had no right to even offer an idea. I remember their reaction to the civil society, and to some suggestions by people from the NGO community. "Who are they? We are the politicians."

Then it really struck me that everybody had the right to have an opinion. Answer the question? Why are you objecting? We thought about Professor Yunus. We thought about his effort to form a political party ... and the scorn that the parties reacted with ... it was with the attitude, "this is for us, and your only option on voting day is to vote for A or B." That is shocking to me. I think that was the mindset.

Has that changed?

I don't know.

Last night you also mentioned that you thought it didn't apply to "behind-the-scenes" efforts to launch a political party.

I think there are people in the government who are definitely looking for an alternative to the return of ... looking to an alternative from elections with the same old parties. There is discussion going on that people are being pressured to leave their parties and join this third party. I think there is a lot of activity there, which is being allowed to go on. I think the other existing parties should be allowed to operate.

You don't think there is double-standard?

That's not for me to comment.

US perceptions on South Asia. re: terrorism, geopolitics. Where does Bangladesh fit in?

Bangladesh has, unfortunately, its own home-grown terrorism with Bangla Bhai and JMB. Initially, this is before I got here, the US felt that the then government took a long time to acknowledge that there was a problem. But, that changed. They took action and arrested the top leadership, who were sentenced and executed.

I'm encouraged that this government continues to look for the money trail, and the people who supported these folks and allowed them to operate. I am also encouraged that the law enforcement agencies are still following leads and finding arms caches. I think that's smart. I don't think terrorism can be ended overnight. Bangladesh must remain vigilant, and we will do what we can to support that. Give training, exchange information, etc.

Why is Bangladesh important to the US?

You have a large population. You're in a key position in South Asia. You are a Muslim-majority democracy that we'd like to see return to the full fold. You have a society that is amazingly open and welcoming to other cultures. Yet, you're proud of your own culture.

There's so much potential for being a bridge to go beyond the region. The big obstacle is politics. We are supportive of this caretaker government, and I think they are going in the right direction. We are going to continue to speak out, mostly privately and sometimes publicly, where we think it's going wrong.

You have met several Jamaat-e-Islami leaders during your stay here, as did your predecessors. They are reported to have strong links with militants and are openly fundamentalist on many religious issues, including the Ahamadiyyas. Why does the US continue to engage with this political group in light of the aforementioned features?

I've said this before. We talk to everybody. We are supposed to be in touch with all elements of society. For two reasons: one is, get their viewpoints; secondly, get them on the park and maybe change their minds and maybe engage them in debate.

With Jamaat, they are a recognised party, they remain a political party and they claim to adhere to democratic principles. Certainly, any activity like anti-Ahmadiyya movements, we will protest. Anybody who has evidence linking individuals to terrorism should make it public, so they can be prosecuted. But they are part of the political landscape.