But the problem is that their past history does not suggest that they are very trustworthy. They do not always mean what they say or say what they mean. People say, if you have a friend like America you don't need an enemy. You cannot blame them if you look at America's track record. Events in Iraq and Afghanistan are glaring examples of America's unpredictable nature. During the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hossain was America's best friend but now he is their worst enemy. It is the same with the al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, once an ally, is now the most hated enemy.

The US administration's declared policy, especially after the 9/11 incident, is to wage a war against terrorism, more appropriately Islamic terrorism, be it in their own land or anywhere else in the world. Another declared policy of the US (at least outwardly) is to help other countries establish democracy. But their handling of these issues in some countries in the Middle East, or in Pakistan or Bangladesh does not always reflect this policy.

The US government's best friend in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia which is ruled by a monarch and which is alleged to be the mastermind behind the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism, if not Islamic terrorism, in many countries including Bangladesh. The US attacked Iraq which was probably the only secular state in the Middle East having at least a semblance of a democratic set up. General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a military dictator who has been ruling the country after sending into exile the elected president, has been, and still is, a good ally of the Bush administration.

Now let us consider the case of Bangladesh. When the people of this country were fighting the liberation war of 1971 against the occupying Pakistan army, the US government sided with the military junta of Pakistan and helped them with arms and ammunition. But that did not help Pakistan retain control over its eastern wing.

In only about nine months' time the then East Pakistan emerged as an independent state, known as Bangladesh, under the able leadership of its undisputed leader Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. In about three years' time Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the father of the nation, along with his close political associates and family members, was brutally killed in a military coup, paving the way for military, or quasi-military rule, for years to come. Many a quarter at home and abroad point to the CIA as being behind these killings.

And now, when the future of democracy is in grave danger, mainly because of the total mismanagement, rampant corruption, utter disregard for democratic norms by the ruling class, and the unprecedented rise of Islamic militancy, let us see what the US government officials have to say.

Richard Boucher, the American Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs, at a news conference in Dhaka prior to his departure from Bangladesh earlier this month is reported to have said that they do not have enough proof confirming Jamaat's connection with the Islamic militants.

But many of the Islamic militants who have so far been arrested and interrogated by the police following the August 17 bomb blast and for subsequent attacks on courts and other government premises, killing several persons including two judges, openly confessed their alleged links with Jamaat.

A report, run by the Washington Post in its August 2 issue stated: "While the United States dithers, a growing Islamic fundamentalist movement linked to al-Qaeda and the Pakistan intelligence agency is steadily converting the strategically located nation, Bangladesh, into a new regional hub for terrorist operations that reach into India and Southeast Asia."

Boucher is also reported to have clarified, in that conference, his government's position regarding the January 2007 general election in Bangladesh, which has, for various reasons, become the focal point of attention for people at home and abroad: "Bangladesh has had three successful elections in the past and I hope that the next one would be successful too."

He is also reported to have said that the United States was interested in the workings of the electoral process in Bangladesh, but not in its outcome. The message is loud and clear. Reform or no reform, fair or unfair, they will be happy as long as the election is held on time and the constitutional process is continued.

No wonder Begum Khaleda Zia, in a public rally organized by her party at Bashkhali last Tuesday, emphatically declared that it did not matter whether the Awami League-led opposition parties agreed or disagreed, the election would be held on time, and under the same chief of the caretaker government, as per the existing provision of the constitution.

Let there be no illusions in the minds of the Awami League leaders and their allies that the US government, or for that matter any western power, is interested in, or is in a position to help this country overcome the mess created by us just prior to the election 2007.

The only way they can possibly achieve their goal of ensuring a free and fair election is by uniting all the pro-liberation, secular, and democratic forces under one umbrella, and starting a large-scale mass movement.

Capt. Husain Imam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.