Why the UN and Human Rights Commission Have Not Banned the Bangladesh Army: A Complex Balancing Act

The United Nations (UN) and the Human Rights Commission have not banned the Bangladesh Army or other national military forces for several key reasons:

1. Sovereignty of Nations

The UN operates under the principle of respect for the sovereignty of nations. This means that the UN generally does not interfere in a country's internal affairs unless there is a clear and urgent threat to international peace and security. The UN can only take significant action, such as sanctions, through the UN Security Council, which requires international consensus and proof of widespread violations.

2. Complexity of Accountability

In cases where military forces are accused of human rights violations, it is often difficult to identify specific individuals or units responsible. Banning an entire army would affect a country's defense capabilities and governance, which could lead to more instability. Instead, the UN and human rights organizations typically push for targeted sanctions against individuals or groups within the military, rather than imposing a ban on the entire force.

3. Investigations and Due Process

Before taking any drastic measures, the UN and human rights bodies usually require a thorough investigation to gather evidence of wrongdoing. Accusations like complicity in terrorism or human rights violations require detailed proof. The process of gathering evidence, conducting inquiries, and then implementing sanctions can be slow and complicated, involving both national and international cooperation.

4. Diplomacy and Engagement

Rather than banning national military forces, international bodies often prefer diplomatic engagement. By working with governments and military leadership, they aim to promote reforms and address issues like human rights abuses. A direct ban could isolate the country and reduce leverage for encouraging positive change.

5. Limited Authority

The UN and Human Rights Commission do not have the authority to unilaterally "ban" a country's military. While they can recommend actions or impose sanctions through the Security Council or international courts, decisions about military sanctions typically require agreement from member states. In cases involving the military, countries often have geopolitical interests that complicate decisions, making bans difficult to enact.

6. Past Interventions and International Politics

In some cases, international actions against military forces—such as sanctions or military interventions—have led to negative consequences like power vacuums, civil wars, or humanitarian crises. The international community is often cautious about such measures, preferring diplomatic and legal routes. In Bangladesh's case, actions like a ban on the military would likely only be considered if there were overwhelming evidence of systematic violations and international consensus on intervention.

What Can Be Done?

While banning an entire army is unlikely, the UN and human rights bodies may still advocate for:

• Independent investigations to establish responsibility.

• Targeted sanctions against individuals or military units involved in specific violations.

• Human rights training and reform within the military.

• Diplomatic pressure to encourage the Bangladeshi government to address concerns.

If human rights abuses continue, the international community could push for more significant actions, but these steps would need broad international agreement and careful consideration of the consequences for both the country and its people.