We have to make a law declaring Hate of Non Moslims and India illegal so, you can not propagate all this B.S. and muzzled for good.
---------
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> Indian bid to use Bangladesh as corridor is illegal
>
> M. Shahidul Islam
>
> Curving out an access through the sovereign turf of another country
> without any `codified' legal instrument is prohibited by customary
> international law. As a legal tangle is set to turn much of what is
> being done with respect to Indian connectivity through Bangladesh
> worthless and illegal, the two governments should focus into
> fashioning the requisite bilateral deals to avoid being hounded and
> implicated in the future.
>
> The decision following the February 12-13 meeting in Dhaka of the
> officials from the two countries to set up a joint committee to look
> into the possibility of transhipment of Indian goods at `any point' in
> Bangladesh offered a new window of opportunity to give a second
> thought to this complicated matter.
> Lack of legality
>
> First, as it is, there is no existential legal instrument to cover the
> allowing of Indian vessels in `any port' of Bangladesh unless a new
> agreement/protocol is signed and ratified by concerned authorities.
>
> Second, many other de facto mandates, accorded to India, to turn
> Bangladesh into an Indian corridor do not have legal basis either, and
> stems largely from a combination of verbal directives, declaration
> made in the joint communiqué, or, from Memorandum of Understanding
> (MoU); all of which are in collision with the 1972 and 1980 bilateral
> agreements, which are the core instruments of customary international
> law governing such thorny bilateral matters.
>
> Customary international laws are drawn from the pool of consistent
> conduct of nations acting in the belief that the laws require them to
> act that way. Actions of states not in conformity with such principles
> are often deemed as arbitrary and illegal and may be susceptible to
> non-compliance by one or both the signatories. The Statute of the
> International Court of Justice acknowledges the existence of customary
> international law in Article 38(1)(b), and, its tenets are
> incorporated into Article 92 of the UN Charter.
>
> Misuse of power
> Yet, there is evidence that some high officials and advisers in
> Bangladesh are acting in extreme secrecy to allow India many
> opportunities not backed by the required legal instruments. A recent
> declaration by Tripura's Food and Civil Supplies Minister, Manik Dey,
> added to such concerns further and proved how authoritative power is
> being misused in Bangladesh.
>
> Dey told reporters on February 11 that, "After getting the green
> signal from Dhaka, FCI (Food Corporation of India) has initiated the
> process to transport food grains and essentials for the (Indian) north
> eastern states using Bangladeshi port Ashuganj and roadways connected
> to the NE."
>
> Who in Bangladesh gave such a green signal is unknown, but these are
> disturbing signs with far-reaching implications for Bangladesh's
> sovereignty and national security.
>
> No legal basis
> The legal basis of trade connectivity between the two countries ought
> to be governed by the Bilateral Trade Agreements of March 1972 and
> October 1980, which has been abandoned. The water transit protocol,
> signed in November 1972, is embodied in Article V111 of the 1972
> agreement, and allows flying, docking and movement of some Indian
> vessels across the Bangladesh water at specific `ports of call.'
> The protocol is operable subject to renewal in every two years. As the
> current duration of it ends on March 31, 2012, the Indian delegation
> is desperate to have five-year duration for the protocol.
>
> This too is illegal. The demand to extend the protocol for five years
> cannot be fulfilled due to the protocol itself being an integral part
> of the 1972 and 1980 trade agreements and renewable in every two year
> period. To change the protocol's duration, the agreement(s) must be
> amended first. The 1972 agreement - and by implications the 1980
> agreement too – having the status of a treaty, it will involve an act
> of the parliament to bring about the required amendments.
>
> Wrong advice
> Also evident is the fact that the government is ill advised. Dr.
> Gowher Rizvi, an adviser to the Prime Minister on international
> affairs, told the Hindu newspaper of India on September 6, 2011 that
> the land connectivity – and the transit – stems from the 1974
> Indira-Mujib agreement. A focused review of the 1974 agreement,
> however, reveals that, none of the five articles of the agreement is
> remotely related to the transit issue.
>
> Solely related to resolving the boundary dispute, the status of the
> 1974 agreement was filliped into a treaty in Bangladesh due to Dhaka's
> expeditious ratification of it, and, the amendment brought to the
> Constitution in order to offer to India the Berubari enclave so that
> the Tin Bihga corridor could be regained by Bangladesh to ameliorate
> the sufferings of the stranded Chhit Mahal inhabitants. India never
> ratified the treaty.
>
> That notwithstanding, in all probability, Dr. Rizvi must have referred
> to the Bilateral Trade Agreement of 1972. Signed on March 28, 1972,
> the comprehensive Trade Agreement had one year of initial duration,
> with a commitment for periodical renewal. Article V of the Agreement
> states: "The two governments agree to make mutually beneficial
> arrangements for the use of waterways, railways and roadways for the
> two countries and for passage of goods between two places in one
> country through the territory of the other."
>
> That may sound like agreeing to allow corridor to India, but the 1972
> agreement has subsequently been supplanted by a new Trade Agreement
> signed on October 4, 1980, which must have bypassed the adviser's
> attention. Although the new agreement replaced with Article VIII the
> exact language used in Article V of the 1972 agreement, yet, in order
> to insure legal correctness, a new Protocol on Inland Water Transit
> and Trade was signed on November 8, 1983.
>
> That precedent being so handy, why then the Bangladesh government is
> cruising ahead with a multi-modal connectivity scheme without signing
> any new protocol? The only basis seems to be the commitment made by
> the Prime Minister during her visit to India in 2010. In specificity,
> paragraph 22 of the joint communiqué promised to add Ashuganj-Silghat
> (India) as new ports of call. From a legal standpoint, the PM's
> commitment cannot be sustained and fulfilled unless a new protocol is
> signed, for, the parent protocol does not have those two destinations
> as ports of call.
>
> These legal prerequisites aside, a high-powered committee formed by
> the Bangladesh government to examine in details the transit-related
> issues reported on December 2, 2010, that, `Bangladesh currently
> lacked the infrastructure for transit with India, Nepal and Bhutan and
> would need at least three years to have an adequate infrastructure in
> place.'
>
> Political stunt
> The formation of the committee, as is evident now, was a political
> stunt for public consumption. Disregarding its recommendations, the
> government had already allowed India the first regular transit
> transport to pass on October 18, 2011 from Akhaura to Agartala.
> Routine movement of Indian goods on the same route continued ever
> since.
>
> For instance, during the first week of what the Bangladesh government
> touted as the `trial run' for Indian transiting, the Indian Ship
> `Homibaba' carried 305 tons of steel from Kolkata Port to Ashuganj,
> from where they were ferried by road to Agartala. Another ship carried
> 621 tons of iron sheets three days later.
> Between October 12-15, 2011 alone, 9 oversized trucks, each loaded
> with 17 and half tons of iron sheets, ferried to and from Ashuganj and
> Agartala and mauled the feeble infrastructure in their path. The anger
> in the disaffected community is too conspicuous to bypass attention.
>
> These actions not only constitute an infringement of customary
> international laws, they are perilously detrimental to Bangladesh's
> national security and sovereign integrity.
>
> [Author is a practitioner of international law and a member in good
> standing of the International Bar Association (IBA) and the American
> Society of International Law (ASIL)].
>
> http://www.weeklyholiday.net/Homepage/Pages/UserHome.aspx
>
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/