SEABED RESOURCES OF BANGLADESH :Triangular tugs in the Bay Sadeq Khan In the early fifteenth century, Chinese naval diplomacy was extended to the-then Bangla Sultanate (1412-14 A.D.) and friendly Chinese fleet, larger than armada, made a spectacular calling in the Bay of Bengal (The Chinese Ming Emperor, however, decided to end naval diplomacy in favour tributary arrangements in the east and silk route silver trade in the west of the Middle Kingdom). In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, attracted by the riches of Suba Bangla (it is estimated that Suba Bangla accounted for over 12 percent of the civilised world's GDP at that time), European maritime powers rendered the Bay of Bengal a theatre of naval battles. The British won, as the East India Company gained better access in the territory and amidst the subjects of the Nawab of Bangla-Bihar-Orissya, successfully manoeuvring the ruling elite and the trading community. Seabed geopolitics Bay of Bengal is again becoming a theatre of potentially conflicting interest of geopolitical actors, regional and global alike. The object of interest this time appears to be embedded in the Bay itself, the littoral state powers having but territorial right and collateral security interest. This heightened interest of geopolitical actors in the Bay is centred primarily on the prospects of "biogenic" hydrocarbon finds (as distinct from usual "thermogenic" hydrocarbon deposits) in deep sea bed, indicated by large gas deposits in Dhirubhai 1 and 2 off Krishna-Godabari estnary by India and in A-1 and A-3 blocks off Rakhaine coast of Myanmar. Controlling interest in exploration and exploitation of such prospective hydrocarbon deposits, albeit with necessary arrangement with and accommodation of rightful claims of littoral states under UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, has been evinced principally by three major contenders. India, by virtue of its being a littoral state both from its eastern coastline as well as from its naval base in Andaman islands, is a contender in situ. Neighbouring China with is Myanmar connections, is fairly advanced as a contender well placed. United States through a multinational has shown interest in contracting all the deep sea hydrocarbon exploration blocks claimed by Bangladesh in its territorial sea, maritime economic zone and continental self expanse, subject to UNCLOS award of its maritime boundaries. For deciding the best course for Bangladesh in such triangular tugs, what may be confusing for the ruling elite of Bangladesh and its trading community is the paradigm shift in geopolitical power balance effected by the crisis of capitalism in the globalising process, coupled with change of focus in superpower strategy of war on terror. G. Parthasarathy, an Indian strategic analyst writing in the Daily Pioneer on October 1, ruefully identified this paradigm shift as follows: Paradigm shift "India-US relations saw a remarkable turnaround in the last two years of the Clinton Administration and throughout the eight years of the Bush Administration. The 2002 Bush National Security Doctrine resulted in the US regarding India as a partner in areas ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to climate change and global economic issues. The policies the Obama Administration has pursued since it assumed office on such issues give the impression that it regards India as a target, rather than as a partner. Including provisions in the UN Security Council Resolution (on signing of NPT) of September 24 which are at variance with the letter and spirit of the 123 Agreement (between India and the US) and the subsequent NSG (nuclear Suppliers' Group) waiver only accentuates misgivings and suspicions in India. Similarly, the threats held out about trade sanctions against countries that do not toe the US line on climate change, by Democratic Party Senator John Kerry, smack of crude intimidation. Given the Obama Administration's approach to relations with China, can one see any prospect of the type of swift and effective India-US cooperation that followed the Indian Ocean tsunami? These misgivings and suspicions will have to be addressed when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits Washington, DC." Another disillusioned Indian blogger, Ranjit Goswami, wrote on October 9 in Blogger News Network: "How much has India (and whole of South Asia) prospered relatively in (1) infrastructure, biggest of which is education; (2) regional collaboration, and (3) social justice over the last two or three decades? The world has been more concerned about Sub-Saharan Africa (and good to see they score better compared to South Asia in many parameters of HDI) whereas South Asia has further created problems of its own. "India does not feature prominently in ASEAN or in discussions when many Asian nations talk about a common currency following the euro. Domestic disillusion "Following the same path has not solved domestic problems, neither has Indian stature in AfPak, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or even with China, has gone up in recent years? One can even include Iran and Myanmar in South Asia, and again indecisiveness of India has acted against Indian interest (or broader interest of humanity) there. "No one globally notices India as a responsible nuclear power (unlike Pakistan or even China), however what they notice is India has not signed the NPT. I often heard from Indian Diaspora in African continent that whenever, due to a natural calamity, some country there is affected - India takes years to send food grains/relief materials (due to bureaucratic delays) whereas assistance from China reaches them in days. "Columnists (or bloggers) live with critics and one such feedback (by one Andrew) in BNN read like: 'This is why India has no friend in the world because India is always so selfish. If India becomes a superpower, it will be the most selfish country too.' "India doesn't have friends to count on in the world or even within South Asia (or broader Asia). And leave aside the blowing Indian mainstream media, in the grassroots levels, India may not have many friends of its domestic policies too if the Naxal problem is indeed as deep as it's popularly projected (25% of Indian districts). "It's time probably India re-looks at its South Asian policies." And ahead of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Washington at the invitation of US President Barack Obama, American policymakers on South Asia were accused by Indian writers of deliberately muddying geopolitical waters in the regional theatre. As Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar, formerly of the Indian Foreign Service and now an acclaimed global analyst, observed in Asia Times Online on November 21: Hu-Obama statement "(One wonders why Washington) got a pithy paragraph inserted into the summit statement by US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao: The two sides welcomed all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. They support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan. The two sides are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region. It is not in India's DNA to accept minders or mentors - Western or Asian. Delhi lost no time brusquely rejecting mediation." Bhadrakumar also surmised that Beijing might have been prompted by a tit-for-tat motivation: "Beijing may have an affair to settle with Delhi - the Dalai Lama's recent visit to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its territory. Most certainly, it was not in India's interests to have raised the dust. It remains unclear what good purpose was served by the visit and what may have been lost. In what may be the first Chinese response, the top Kashmiri separatist leader in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has been invited to visit Beijing. He said he accepted the invitation and hoped to give Chinese diplomats and other officials a 'perspective' on the situation in J&K. This is the first time ever that Beijing has invited any separatist leader from J&K to visit China." Kashmir reverberations Reuters reported the fall-out from Srinagar, November 21: "It (China) has a direct link with Kashmir as certain parts of Kashmir, including Aksai Chin, are under its control," Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, told thousands of Muslim Friday worshippers last week. "I believe that China is not a party to the Kashmir conflict but it has stakes as far as peace in the region is concerned." Farooq, also the chief priest of Kashmir, said he is planning to visit China soon. "Hurriyat welcomes the approach adopted by China and America jointly in terms of addressing the issue of Kashmir in South Asia," he said. He was referring to a joint statement issued by the United States and China after President Barack Obama met his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, which included a line of support for the improvement of India-Pakistan relations. New Delhi said in response it does not need any external help to improve ties with neighbour Pakistan. People's Daily Online commented from China: Chinese experts say China isn't interfering in the dispute over Kashmir between India and Pakistan, despite a separatist leader of the India-controlled part of the region applying for a visa to visit China. And the experts stress that China criticism of India for extending an invitation to the Dalai Lama has nothing to do with the border dispute. Officially, China said that China is not interested in mediation between India and Pakistan, and conflict resolution between India and Pakistan should remain essentially bilateral. So did the United States, whose under-secretary for political affairs William J. Burns, clarified: "Of course, we all share an interest in stability and peace between India and Pakistan. ..... The pace, scope, and content of the peace process is for Indian and Pakistan leaders to decide." Conciliating contradictions Ambassador Bhadrakumar also wondered how the US and China, whose interests in the region are "patently at odds," could conceivably work out a common approach in South Asia policy bypassing Delhi. He identified the following areas of Sino-American clashes of interest in the region: "Washington Post reported that state-run China Metallurgical Group Corp paid a bribe of $30 million to the Afghan authorities concerned for receiving a $2.9 billion project to extract copper from the Aynak deposit in Logar province. The MCC is reportedly all set to bribe its way into another massive mining deal - an iron-ore deposit west of Kabul known as Haji Gak - and Sinochem, a Chinese state oil company, is similarly bidding for access to oil and gas deposits in northern Afghanistan. Yet The Times of London picked up a recent testimony by Milton Bearden, a former Central Intelligence Agency station chief in Islamabad, to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "The other regional players [read China] are busily setting the stage for exploitation of Afghanistan's natural resources, while the US remains bogged down with the war. This should change." Indian countermeasures On the other hand, Bhadrakumar noted that India was also taking significant countermeasures: "Delhi hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, just a week before a visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US. India may get back into the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and Manmohan may visit Tehran in February. Most important, Iran invited India to join the Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan regional format, and Delhi showed interest. Again, Manmohan will be visiting Moscow in early December - his second trip to Russia in six months. The traffic from Delhi to Moscow has become heavy - one presidential visit, two prime ministerial visits and visits by the foreign minister and the defence minister." He concluded: "Indian strategists are finally catching up with the transformative realities in the world order and realising that Delhi's one-dimensional foreign policy riveted on the idea of working 'shoulder-to-shoulder' with Washington as 'natural allies' on the global scene is a hopelessly archaic notion. It becomes embarrassing to look back and survey that India has held over 50 military exercises with the US in recent years. Obama prefers a 'demilitarisation' of US-India ties, with cooperation mainly focused on American arms manufacturers tapping into the massive Indian arms bazaar. For the first time in the post-Cold war era, Delhi elites too are not going overboard with excitement over an impending prime ministerial visit to the US and are able to maintain equanimity and poise. ..... On Thursday (Nov. 19), the Indian government tabled legislation in parliament under the misleading title 'Civil Nuclear Liability Bill', the sole purpose of which is to provide access for the US nuclear industry to the Indian market, which promises to offer over $100 billion in business in the coming five to 10 years." Lessons learnt No doubt Manmohan Singh-Barack Obama meeting in Washington this week may be followed by words and actions to smooth over many irritants. Our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is going to Delhi at the invitation of Dr. Manmohan Singh next month. The lesson from the scenario for our Prime Minister is not to hurry into any deal in Delhi that might bracket her with one arm of the triangle, but to keep equidistance with (or equally close audience) for all the players to obtain best possible bargains for Bangladesh. |
__._,_.___