Diplomatic Testimony and Institutional Silence during the 1971 Bangladesh Genocide; A Communication Analysis of American Diplomatic Documents, 28 March–10 April 1971
| Publication Type | Journal Article |
| Publication Year | October 2026 |
| Author(s) |
Ferhat Atik |
| Journal Name | Journal of Genocide and Liberation War Research |
| Volume, Issue | 9 (English) July 2026 |
| Pagination | 53-77 |
| Article Type | Paper |
| DOI | doi.org/10.68002/2692 |
Keywords: Bangladesh genocide; diplomatic testimony; institutional silence; collective dissent; framing
Attachment
Abstract: How can an institution receive explicit reports of mass violence while limiting their implications for its own conduct? This article examines five American diplomatic records dated between 28 March and 10 April 1971 to analyse the relationship between testimony, acknowledgement, and responsibility during the Bangladesh genocide. Through a qualitative reading of reporting, collective dissent, senior discussion, and departmental response, it distinguishes four communicative operations: naming violence, assessing credibility, assigning obligations, and regulating circulation. The documents reveal disagreement not simply over information, but over the policy consequences that information should carry. Reports identifying targeted violence were answered through arguments concerning uncertainty, sovereignty, citizen protection, and appropriate channels. Yet departmental statements, evacuation measures, invitations for policy proposals, and an expressed convergence of views complicate any claim of complete institutional suppression. The article therefore understands institutional silence as a selective limitation of acknowledgement and consequence, rather than an absence of speech. Its contribution is an explicit analytical distinction between receiving testimony and allowing testimony to reshape institutional responsibility. The findings remain confined to the selected exchange and do not substitute American diplomatic perceptions for Bangladeshi experiences or establish a comprehensive causal explanation of United States policy.