Caution is key
Dhaka should remain cautious about future deals pursuant to framework agreement with Delhi, says M Humayun Kabir, a former diplomat and vice-president of the Bangladesh Enterprise Institute
by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury
The government should remain cautious about 'actions' to be taken and 'agreements' to be signed pursuant to the framework agreement signed with India, M Humayun Kabir, vice president of Bangladesh Enterprise Institute, a think tank, said.
'What made us concerned is the last line of the framework agreement, which said, "actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to this agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination",' he said in an exclusive interview with New Age on September 15. 'According to this line whatever would be done under this agreement in the future cannot be terminated, making this agreement apparently permanent.'
'I do not understand what the purpose of the sentence is and why Bangladesh agreed with this provision,' he said.
Kabir, also a former foreign secretary, said Bangladesh's experience in implementation of agreements signed with India was 'not good'. 'Many things were agreed. The full agreement on land boundary, which was signed by two prime ministers (Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) in 1974, was never ratified by India.'
He hoped that the new protocol (signed on September 6, 2011) would not face the same fate.'
Kabir, who was ambassador to the United States and high commissioner to Australia and New Zealand, also raised questions about Bangladesh's benefit from allowing transit to India. 'We have gotten a proposal to give transit to India, Nepal and Bhutan. My question is where our transit is.'
Giving an assessment on the visit of Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to Dhaka on September 6-7, he said any such high-profile visit carries two things—symbolism and substance.
In terms of symbolism, the bilateral visit of an Indian prime minister held after 12 years after the bilateral visit of Atal Behari Vajpayee in 1999 is undoubtedly symbolic.
There was intense parley from both sides preceding Singh's visit. Several Indian dignitaries including external affairs minister SM Krishna, home minister P Chidambaram and national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon visited Dhaka. From the Bangladeshi side, foreign minister Dipu Moni and the prime minister's advisers Mashiur Rahman and Gowher Rizvi visited New Delhi.
Bangladesh is in transition to democracy. Both the Indian Congress-led UPA and the Bangladeshi Awami League-led alliance came to power with huge mandates. It can be said that the parties are close in ideological affiliation.
Another visible symbolic act was Singh's visit to various places including the National Memorial in Savar, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Memorial Museum and Dhaka University.
From the angle of symbolic import, then, this visit was a big success.
'We also need to weigh up the visit from another, what I would call 'important', perspective—from the view acknowledging the fact that how India-Bangladesh relations evolved did not carry much attention in Delhi in the past.'
Commenting on how Bangladesh has gotten a reasonable amount of attention in Delhi, and this has manifested in the statements made by think tanks and coverage in the Indian media, he said, 'I must say it is a big shift.'
'Now for how I look at the message that we got from Manmohan Singh, who repeatedly said India considers Bangladesh "a good partner" and Bangladesh has made and can make "significant contribution" to the country.
'In reality, India's ambition is to become a global power and they require Bangladesh at their side to accomplish it. Making a good bond between the two countries would not only help India, it would also help Bangladesh if she (Bangladesh) can properly nurture the bond.
'In terms of substance of the visit, Bangladesh has received something. It also has not received something. Let's look at the framework agreement signed during the visit. It is interesting as there are elements that are forward-looking. For the first time India has agreed to basin-based management of common rivers. This provision is a significant development, particularly for Bangladesh. Now we are required to work on it.
'The framework agreement also talks about trade, security, environment, technology and people to people contact where there are many opportunities for both sides. But what made us concerned is the last line of the framework agreement, which said, "actions taken or agreements reached pursuant to this agreement shall not be affected by its expiry or termination." According to this line, whatever would be done under this agreement in the future cannot be terminated as if it were permanent.
'I do not understand what the purpose of the sentence is and why Bangladesh agreed to this provision. I think the government should remain cautious about "actions" to be taken and "agreements" to be signed pursuant to the framework agreement.'
On the protocol to 1974 Land Boundary Agreement, Kabir said this is definitely a progress as problems along the border can jeopardise peaceful relations between the two countries. 'We do not want to see terrorists lurk along the border. We also do not want human trafficking and smuggling of narcotics. Good border management is a desirable kind of thing.'
'However, our experiences are not good. Many things were agreed. The full agreement on land boundary, which was signed by two prime ministers (Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman) in 1974, was never ratified by India. I hope that the new protocol (signed on September 6, 2011) would not face the same fate.'
Several memorandums of understanding, which were signed during the visit, might help us to move forward in terms of bilateral relationships.
But there are areas where Bangladesh could make some more progress, Kabir said.
Regarding the Teesta water-sharing agreement, which could not be signed this time, he said, Bangladesh's position on Teesta has been consistent for long. 'We were asking for a certain amount of waters for rivers and the balance of water should be equally shared. We were very close to that kind of understanding; it has almost finalised.'
About Bihar's chief minister Nitish Kumar's demand for reviewing the Ganges water-sharing treaty signed between Bangladesh and India in 1996 on the plea of 'gross injustice' meted to the Indian state, he said there is provision In the Ganges agreement that both sides can review it after every five years.
'The countries have come half way through the 30 years' life of the Ganges agreement. There is a provision for review. But neither Bangladesh, nor India, has so far asked for review. If I understand that means that both sides are happy so far with existing flow of waters which has been shared.'
'Maybe Nitish Kumar has some other ideas…I think it could be part of local politics as the Ganges also flows through Bihar and lots of political elements are involved in it,' he said.
Asked whether he expects a guarantee clause in the Teesta treaty, he said, 'we would love to have a guarantee clause (in the agreement) to get a guaranteed amount of water for us.'
About transit for passage of goods between two places of India, he said, 'we are looking at the issue from a very narrow angle.'
'Transit carries certain larger connotations in terms of both vertical and horizontal aspects as connectivity is now an economic resource.'
'We have gotten proposal to give transit to India, Nepal and Bhutan. My question is where our transit is.'
'Should we not have the equal right to ask for use of some of the other states' lands to get transit for whatever destination we want to reach?'
'As a Bangladeshi, my point is, I am giving. But, where is that which should be mine? From that point of view I would rather flip the argument—yes, I am giving. But I would also ask for exchange. You come. But I would also ask for same kind of facilitation from you or beyond.'
Asked whether allowing passage of goods between two places of a country should be considered as 'corridor,' he said, 'yes, there are technical and political arguments on transit and corridor issues.'
He observed that the government was shifting many times on its positions about transit.
'We were told that it (transit) will bring huge economic benefit to Bangladesh. We were told to be courteous by not asking for fees. Then somebody told us that we should not make it a political issue, which was already decided. Finally, we have heard that it is a non-issue, as if it is not an issue at all!'
'I think it is important to let the nation know what we are doing, what exactly that is and what the cost benefit is for us. Because we are giving, the most important strategic capital we have is where we must maximise our profit from all possible aspects.'
About the MOU signed for cooperation between the two state-owned televisions, BTV of Bangladesh, and Doordarshan of India, he said, 'it is good we are not available in India. The point is how many people would want BTV. There are many other channels outside. I would love to see that our private channels are also allowed to get access in India. It is better than nothing.'
Describing India's decision to allow duty free access for 46 Bangladeshi textile products, he said, 'this is a good beginning. We have heard that the Indian government has already issued SRO allowing access to these 46 products. However, we would also need to remain careful about the barriers. In India, there are non-tariff and para-tariff barriers.'
'I also hope that India would open up its market for all products from Bangladesh as there is still a big gap in trade between the two countries. It would help to create jobs in Bangladesh, in addition to demonstrating goodwill of India.'
'I look forward to more robust economic interests in India for Bangladesh, because, the economic relationships should form the backbone of our new relationships.'
About Manmohan Singh's assurance that 'India would not take steps on the Tipaimukh project that would adversely impact Bangladesh', he said, 'the statement is good. But let us see. The project has received clearance from the environment ministry of the central government (of India). I would prefer to see how things evolve.'
Asked about the management of Singh's state visit from two sides in the context of the trust deficit between the two countries, he said the top political leaders expressed their commitments. 'However they could take all the stakeholders on board.'
'It should be the people who would be the beneficiary of the relationships. So the people (in general) and the representatives of the people in different fields, including the social, economical and political realms, should be incorporated in the process.'
Asked about his perception about who deals with foreign affairs in general and Indian issues in particular, Kabir said the foreign ministry should be more utilized. 'It has institutional memory, skills, knowledge, expertise and the capacity to contribute if they are supported by political mandate anywhere on any issue. The foreign ministry has the best available resources. It still can deliver.'
Asked about the necessity of a well thought-out foreign policy, he said the government is required to prepare a foreign policy. 'Policy means when we have a goal and when we systematically try to build blocks to reach that goal.'
'In the new global context, there are lots of new ideas, new actors and new tools. There is scope for extensive use of public diplomacy. Mission systems should be improved. Close coordination of the foreign ministry with other ministries is also required. Forward and backward linkages are to be strengthened. Our best efforts and capacities should be utilized to advance our foreign policy objectives.'
Asked about whether the country requires a specific policy on relationships with India, the country surrounding us from three sides, he said, 'definitely. India is transforming. It will continue change. So understanding India is necessary to bargain with it and to know how it is behaving with other neighbours. Then we have to set our foreign policy framework.http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/special/34954.html
__._,_.___