Boundaries, connectivity and killing
Former Ambassador Barrister Harun ur Rashid talks to PROBE News on an equity-based solution to the maritime boundary question, the need for connectivity and the killing along the border
Bangladesh, Indian and Myanmar, all three countries have resorted to arbitration to resolve the crisis over the maritime boundary. Could you shed light on the progress being made in this regard?
We started negotiations with Indian and Myanmar on this issue from way back in 1974. We want the maritime boundary to be demarcated on a fair and just basis. There are international laws in this respect. These laws have been drawn up regarding exclusive economic zones and the continental shelf.
We have three maritime boundaries. One is the territorial waters which is 12 miles. Then there is 188 miles of the economic zone. We can then go on for another 150 miles. That means from the base line to our continental shelf, we have 350 nautical miles.
Anyway, we have been having talks with India and Myanmar about this issue since 1974. Unfortunately, the method by which they want to determine the maritime boundary will be extremely harmful for us. They want this to be determined on the basis of equidistance. This simply cannot be applied in our case. It may be all right in the case of India-Sri Lanka or Australia-East Timor, but not with us. India and Myanmar are side lateral countries so the maritime boundary cannot be determined according to the equidistance line.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982 does not mention equidistance. In fact, it speaks of an equitable solution based on negotiations between two countries. Now an equitable solution can come about through various methods; why should we adhere to one?
Could you tell us just how strong is the case for Bangladesh's claim regarding the maritime boundary at the international level?
Myanmar has gone to the International Tribunal and India has gone for arbitration. In an arbitration there are five arbitrators. Three will be from the International Tribunal, one from Bangladesh and one from India. In the International Tribunal, there are 21 judges. The two parties will give two judges. So there will be 23 judges in all. Myanmar has agreed to go to the tribunal but India has said it will go for arbitration. The arbitration will be held in Hamburg of Germany.
Bangladesh submitted its claim against Myanmar on July 1, 2010 with the International Tribunal. Their response will come in December.
Our Foreign Office has formed a cell in this regard. The government has appointed Rear Admiral Khurshid Alam (retd) as head of this cell. He has publications regarding maritime boundary. He is an experienced man.
As for the arbitration, Bangladesh has appointed a former Oxford Professor Alan Vaughn Lowe as its arbitrator. He is a professional lawyer too. India has appointed the former Legal Advisor of their External Affairs Ministry Nibhasan Rao. And the International Tribunal has put forward their three arbitrators from Germany, Australia and Italy. We have been asked to submit our claim for arbitration in May 2011. India will give their response in May 2012. The cell in our Foreign Office is working simultaneously on both. Based on past experience of other countries, I am optimistic because the law does not speak of the equidistance method.
Is it enough to let the law take its course, or is there need for lobbying too?
The matter no longer depends on political will. It now is in the hands of the legal system.
How far can we depend on the foreign lawyer appointed by Bangladesh?
He has conducted cases for several other countries. He is an experienced Professor of Oxford so we can rely on him.
Our government has signed many bilateral agreements with India. Some people claim that several of these agreements are contrary to our national interests. Do you think so too?
Bangladesh's population is on a steady rise. We have limited land. India and China are rising. We must improve our economy. Where 45% of our population is poor can hardly get two square meals a day, what are we to do? We must lay stress on economic development.
It is lucky that we are geographically located between China and India, two rising countries. We have to get as much as we can out of them. For this we need connectivity. For example, we could have a route from Chittagong to Kunming through Myanmar. Then in Nepal they have brought their rail line right up to the border. We have to convince India to let us take a road up till Nepal so we can have connectivity there too.
But does reality say that India will give us this opportunity?
India has agreed to allow Bangladesh transit to Bhutan and Nepal. It has changed its non-cooperative attitude of the past.
You say that India and China are rising countries. So should we maintain ties with both countries?
We have to strike a balance. We can't simply lean towards one direction. If India is practical and pragmatic, it will understand that Bangladesh will strike this balance and has no alternative but to do so.
BSF killing continues unabated on the Bangladesh-India border despite the matter being discussed by the Prime Ministers of the two countries. What is your view on the matter?
I really feel terrible about this, 101 Bangladeshis were killed along the border till mid-July. When I raise the issue with the Indian High Commission people here, they claim that the killings took place in their territory. They officially have told me that they first issue a warning, if that is not heeded, then they shoot. But there is a language problem here. BSF probably speaks in Urdu or Hindi which ordinary Bengalis don't understand. So they don't keep the orders and get shot. That is what they say. I tell them that they shouldn't be shooting in the first place. If need be, they can make arrests. Why should they kill anyone? The two Prime Ministers agreed to stop the loss of lives, but the killing simply continues. This is most unfortunate. Most people in Bangladesh are furious about this. I cannot find any justification for this border killing whatsoever.
I suspect that the political decisions taken by Delhi are not followed by the state governments and agencies. But BSF does not belong to a state. There is a clear lack of coordination between political will and the agencies.
__._,_.___
