A thankless reading

I read the Washington Times article written by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition Begum Zia to fathom the recent parliamentary fury. Since the credit line proffers the name of Begum Zia, I shall assume that the author takes full responsibility of writing what appears to be an appeal to the US government to save democracy in Bangladesh.
It was with equal interest I read the trail of comments that followed the online version of the article; they were made by our fellow citizens who are divided in their opinions like a forked tree. I shall focus primarily on the content of the article with the hope that the reader can come to her/his own conclusion about the piece.
The title, “The Thankless Role in Saving Democracy in Bangladesh,” is ambiguous as the identity of the “thankless” one is not revealed. The subtitle (Corruption and stealing threaten a once-vibrant nation) makes “national vibrancy” a thing of the past. It appears that the author wants to highlight the fact that she has not been “thanked” enough for saving democracy; however, throughout the piece she wants to portray her political rival Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina as the “thankless” one who has not given the US its due for “fostering” democracy. The author seems to hint that both democracy and national vibrancy are lost in the “corruption and stealing” quagmire.
The article begins with a rhetorical question: "Will 2013 be a watershed in US-Bangladeshi relations?" The OED defines 'watershed” as: (1) an area or ridge of land that separates waters flowing to different rivers, (2) an event or period marking a turning point in a situation. The “watershed” text cleverly employs words to separate meanings flowing to different directions. The convoluted meaning of the word “watershed” becomes clear in the third last paragraph when the author urges the US and its allies "to keep Bangladesh from slipping away from democracy." The repeated use of passive voice helps the author to disperse her meanings.
"My country has been independent ... since 1971, when the United States was one of the first nations to recognise our right to self-determination." It is not clear how Bangladesh earned its independence and what the role of the US was during 1971. Then a warp drive is undertaken to jump to the present time to claim that the US is "sitting idle" while Bangladesh is shifting its "allegiance" to other "growing world powers."
Realising that such an accusation might hurt US ego, the next paragraph tries to do damage control by stating that the US, through its agencies, has stopped the $2 billion Padma Bridge project "demanding an inquiry into ministerial corruption." The author seems to identify the corruption probe as a “punitive measure” for the “shifty allegiance.” Padma Bridge is described as the "largest single infrastructure project in Bangladesh for 40 yearsl;" again, it is not clear who initiated and tabled the project in the last 40 years!
Then the focus shifts to the humiliation of Nobel laureate Dr. Yunus, allegedly by Sheikh Hasina. Citing the attorney general, the author argues that the humiliation is due to Hasina's covetous claim to the Nobel prize. "Most Bangladeshis would disagree that Ms. Hasina has any claim on the prize. Just ask the families of some 300 people who have been registered as missing since 2009 at the hands of Ms. Hasina's Rapid Action Battalion." Interestingly, “most Bangladeshis” who would question Hasina's Nobel ambition are reduced to a sample size of family members of 300 missing men, including one trade union leader Aminul, as well as the "political leaders and their supporters" who are accused of "atrocities" during the war of independence. The author seems to give her opponent the full credit for Rab action.
The next paragraph mentions how the US ambassador for war crime has "condemned" Bangladesh for "trying only opponents of the regime." According to state.gov web site, the ambassador-at-large Stephen Rapp had regretted that some of his suggestions such as the definition of “crime against humanity” and “camera trial” were not met. However, those suggestions cannot tantamount to what the author describes as “condemned.”
The trial of the war criminals is depicted as a personal whim with no reference to those who lost their near and dear ones in 1971. This allegation sets the tone for the next accusation: the country is moving away from democracy to oligarchy. It is the personal will of Sheikh Hasina that is stopping the transition of power through the “caretaker government.” Hasina is portrayed as the stumbling block against regional democracy, “fostered” by the US. The people of Bangladesh, the article argues, stand a “chance” of expressing their voice under a caretaker government only. Why does Begum Zia think of “election” as a “chance?” Is she not sure of her own proposal? Of course, she knows all too well that the defeated party following each election held under the caretaker governments has dubbed the polls as either “subtly” or “grossly” rigged.
To keep democracy intact, Begum Zia thinks that the action of the US and its allies must be "strong": these actions include the withdrawal of "general preferences for trade" and the sanction on "travel" of those "who undermine democracy." The author urges these visible actions to show to “our public” how the US is committed to its “democratisation mission.” Finding democracy unsafe under Hasina, she urges US and its allies to “speak” action. The author thus launches her attack on an individual as if to detect the root cause of the country's endangered democracy. Her solution seems to imply Iraq or Libya-like action.
It seems the author has no faith in the people of Bangladesh who have given her the mandate to voice out these concerns in the national parliament or at least in local talk-shows. She relegates the trial of the war criminals to mere personal vendetta. She asks for stern punishment such as the annulment of trade facilities which will affect not only the country but also many of her party colleagues including her sons. The article is a classic example of media spin-doctoring; the only thing that is missing in the words of the head of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party is nationalist feeling!
The writer is a senior visiting Fulbright postdoctoral fellow at UCLA. He teaches English at the University of Dhaka.