The unfortunate typical instinct of many Bangladeshis these days is to despise the surroundings from which they draw their sustenance. There are over 180 countries in the world and conditions in many of them are far worse than Bangladesh such as in Somalia, Eritrea, etc --where regular famine, pestilence, war and crimes-- make decent living almost impossible. For people of such countries, fatigue in bearing with conditions in their countries and losing faith in them, may not be so unpardonable. But Bangladesh, though far above such countries in the hopelessness league, suffers from the too transparent greed of too many of its people who are suffering from the delusion that their country is not worth living and turning their back on it as the most pragmatic thing to do. They want to become part of the American dream, the Canadian dream, the Singaporean dream, etc. and the Bangladesh dream is perhaps the last, the least or not at all in their scheme of things.
But no country that is great today was naturally made great. In some cases, they faced very adverse, very disquieting conditions of resourcelessness, destruction and other retarding factors. But the one outstanding factor based on which these countries made a turnaround and are today in the front rank of nations , was the resolute identification of their people with the best interests of their country and working tirelessly and unswervingly for the same and putting considerably the advancement or betterment of their countries above self. The Koreans, the Japanese-- and there are other examples of people who triumphed over adversity in the last century-- did not generally want to become part and parcels of other lands but set out to transform, to reform, to develop their own countries and their strivings were crowned with success that gave meaning and nobility to their lives.
A celebrated American President urged his countrymen not to ask what the country could give them but what they could give the country. Such an appeal to patriotism would invite derisive laughter among many of the present generations of well educated and qualified Bangladeshis who have become adept at most unconscientiously betraying Bangladesh after making the most out of their birth and upbringing in it. Bangladeshi doctors, engineers and other professionals who get their education, training and other facilities at the expense of the taxpayers of their country hardly feel any twinge of conscience while selling their services permanently to their foreign masters. But clearly such people need to be told by their otherwise adoring relatives and others how small minded they really are and the nihilism of their existence without purpose and ideology.
A campaign is in full force by these people to justify their escapism and irresponsibility. They cite the smallness of Bangladesh to cover up for their crimes of not doing their duties on behalf of the country. They want to paint a doomed picture of Bangladesh burdened with its population, its poverty, its present squalor and other negatives. But we want to tell these people loudly and clearly that Bangladesh is not small. Unlike them who bit the hand that fed and nursed them, we wish to stand by our motherland to pay our debts for the blessings it bestowed on us and for which we are grateful. We do not look at the negatives painted by them as negatives but as positives.
Yes, Bangladesh is not small, it is big and so big that some big countries would pale into insignificance before it. We are the seventh biggest country in the world with 150 million people. We do not consider our vast population as a source of weakness but strength. We will form a vast market some day to be among the most lucrative in the world. Our vast population, already on the move-up from various push-pull factors, will create great wealth early in the present century to take us to great heights of national greatness and individual contentment. The signs of Bangladeshis being galvanised into such a huge workforce are evident though the short-sighted ones may not see it or recognise it. Goldman Sachs leads the world in investment banking. According to an assessment by it, Bangladesh would be among eleven countries of the world to play to play an important role in the global economy by the year 2050. Goldman Sachs made this prophecy based on its evaluation of economic developments in countries round the world in its report titled 'the next eleven'.
A continent size country is barren today and it has to entice away people from other countries to it because it is indigenously short of people and needs migration of people from other countries to help expand its economy and harness its resources. We are, thank God, not dependent like it and are greater in that respect.
Who says Bangladesh is small? How many countries have such distinctions or leads the world such as our possessing the world's longest natural and unpolluted sea beach, the world's greatest mangrove forest, world renowned culinary skills, a culture and civilisation that dates back thousands of years in contrast to leading countries in the world today whose civilised histories are but several centuries old.
Bangladesh in antiquity was a land of plenty, finery, artistry and excellence. It was among the few distinguished lands in the world then for its prosperity and high civilsation. Colonial interventions and other ill developments had upset our fortunes and stalled our progress. But this is temporary. The titanic struggle for independence gave us an opportunity afresh to restore our national greatness.
Nothing but unflinching patriotism is necessary to realise the vision.
The claims made in the Channel 4/CNN documentary report ‘Bangladesh – The Drowning Country’ showing that due to climate change Bangladesh will soon face inundation from the sea causing displacement of millions is both preposterous and contrary to scientific evidence. The further linkage between the catastrophe caused by Cyclone Sidr and a rise in sea levels is again sensationalist and illogical. There have been many cyclones of far greater severity during the last 100 years but never has there been any links shown to climate change or to a rise in sea levels. Indeed there is an increase in the salinity of river waters caused by the sea intruding into Bangladesh but this is because of the reduction of water coming down from India. New Delhi has adopted the policy of diversion and withdrawal of water from several transboundary rivers which has severely affected the environment and ecosystem in downstream Bangladesh. It might also be added that India by implementing its policy of withdrawal and diversion of river water is acting contrary to international law. The frequent seasonal flooding of Bangladesh is similarly caused by the untimely release of water from dams and barrages on the Indian side without adequate warning to its downstream neighbour. It has been convenient for experts in India and the West to blame all these ‘natural’ disasters on climate change.
These issues should have been thoroughly addressed and explained in the documentary report aired on Channel 4 and CNN. Clearly the American and British news media have uncritically accepted the Indian version of the environmental consequences of its water policy now affecting Bangladesh by completely excluding the Indian government’s responsibility for the disaster. The cause of the environmental degradation in Bangladesh is not climate change but the arrogant and reckless policies of the Indian government.
1. The world has markedly changed since the collapse of Soviet Union and transformation of China into a capitalist economy. Along with the rapid global economic transformation India rose as a contender in global economic theatre and broker in power relations becoming the `natural ally' of USA and Israel. These radical changes have set into motion processes undermining aspirations of the relatively weak political communities in South Asia, particularly Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives. In total disregard to the specific structural needs of least developed countries the neo-liberal economic policies implemented through World Bank, IMF and WTO have further undermined the economic sovereignty of these countries. These countries needed to `adjust' their economies to gain a strong position within the international division of labour in order to enhance their capacity to compete in the global economy. The multilateral and bilateral institutions did the opposite.
2. In this context new power alliances developed, globally as well as within these countries either to dismantle or to recast these states to fit into the logic of the global Empire. It has been blatantly argued that that these states are either `failed' or in the process of being `failed'; since such `failed state' are security problem regionally as well as globally, the political proposition was global and regional powers must intervene in Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Maldives. These policies have gained significant momentum but so far stalled by the people determined to defend their sovereignty and succeeded in various degrees depending o the political history and cultures f these states.
3. Advent of two new doctrines called `clash of civilization' and `war against terror' have further jeopardized the political existence of these states. In both cases Islam has been particularly targeted as a religion `breeding terror' and Muslims as poor and impoverished population easily drawn to terrorist outfits. It has become a major challenge for the people of Bangladesh to demonstrate their commitment to liberty, social and economic justice and democratic state building in such a hostile global and regional environment. The sole global super-power has unilaterally taken the role of judge, jury and executioner in their relentless hegemonic pursuit to create so-called `new world order'. United Nation has been relegated to the role of abettor to any adventurous scheme taken by United States. As a result, the world has become less secured for geographically smaller and militarily weaker countries like Bangladesh. India's sole desire to control their backyard, reduce Bangladesh to serve its political, military and economic interest has reinforced by the new global alliance with USA and Israel and is being consolidated through various economic, security, defence and most importantly, nuclear deal. The present strategy of US and Israel to select at least one regional power as their ally and dominate target nations in the region will further deteriorate the situation. We have long been witnessing implementation of this strategy in Bangladesh. Therefore, it is no surprise that US supported multi-lateral agencies like World Bank and IMF always advocate in favour of India in various bi-lateral issues like granting corridor, giving market access, etc. by Bangladesh to her giant neighbour. To further their joint interest the diplomats of these countries have been speaking in one voice since 2001 regarding internal matters of Bangladesh in complete disregard of international law and convention on bilateral diplomacy.
4. The above context is important to understand the formation of National Interest Group and its challenges to build Bangladesh into a democratic polity and enable her exercise sovereign political power to thwart all external intervention and aggression in order to ensure social and economic justice to the people. It is urgent to ensure stability and peace in Bangladesh, which is extremely important for the region as a whole and crucial for the international community.
5. Despite our understanding of the complexity of the situation and the urgent tasks to be accomplished, it is beyond the capacity of National Interest Group to address all issues we briefed above to contextualize our initiative. We obviously cannot undertake to solve the complex scenario that is still evolving. Nevertheless, to become strategically effective in creating environment of dialogue, understanding and constructive engagement, NIG has undertaken a specific task for immediate implementations: highlighting blatant interventions by the diplomats into our internal political affair. Intervention in the politic affairs of Bangladesh has already alienated the people of Bangladesh from any constructive democratic engagement and the situation may deteriorate further if we cannot stop it.
6. At the time of formation of National Interest Group (NIG) in March 2008 we the organizers clearly spelt out our mission of monitoring the behaviour of foreign diplomats accredited to Bangladesh. Accordingly we have compiled our first quarterly report for the period April-July and pleased to launch the same today, the 30th July 2008. During this period we have found that diplomats from US, UK, EU and India in particular, have been most active and consistently flouted both Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations by blatantly interfering into our internal affairs. They have publicly spoken on our governance, political process, anti-corruption drive, election procedure, foreign policy, economy and even security matters. The present un-elected, weak government has tolerated this interference without any protest in most of the times. In one or two occasions where they have shown courage of protesting as in the case of Indian Border Security Force incursion into Bangladesh territory and killing of both BDR jawan and innocent civilians, the nature of protests have been extremely meek.
7. Unfortunately our politicians belonging to all leading political parties like BNP, Awami League, Jamaat, and Jatiya Party are also encouraging the diplomats to freely violate international norms by attending regularly to close door meetings at various foreign diplomats' residences and discussing their internal grievances with the foreign host. Extent of political bankruptcy of our major political parties were reflected when some of them forcefully defend such attendance in such meeting claiming that this is acceptable international norm (Ref# Amar Desh 17th July 2008). We can take this statement as representative position of all the political parties, since no one so far has made their position clear in this respect.
8. Our media also has to take their own share of responsibility for the present sorry state of our sovereignty. They in fact instigate diplomats and visiting foreign dignitaries to make derogatory remarks about Bangladesh by asking leading questions. The media space created by such exercise has already become threat to our sovereignty and security because diplomats use this space to dominate public opinion to realize the foreign policy objectives of their respective countries.
9. A classic example of double standard was displayed by the attendance of a leading English newspaper editor in one of such meeting along with politicians at the residence of US ambassador Mr. James F. Moriarty (Ref# New Age on 17th July). Surprisingly on the same day `The Daily Star' published an editorial titled `US envoy's tea party; raising question of diplomatic propriety' criticizing both our politicians and US envoy for meeting behind closed door and discussing our internal matters. While we are aware that there are occasions when professional necessity may dictate the media to meet some diplomat, the overall performance of the media is so dismal in this regard and against the interest of the peoples of Bangladesh that one can hardly distinguish between professional assignment and other questionable relations of media with the diplomatic enclaves in Baridhara - Gulshan. NIG urge upon the current rulers, political leaders and members of the media to uphold the honour of the country by refusing to attend this type of meeting at the residence of diplomats. We also take this opportunity to remind diplomatic corps about their obligations under Vienna Convention and desist from interfering into the internal matters of Bangladesh.
Despite the more or less "elections of compromise and convenience" to 4 city corporations and 9 municipalities, the Emergency Government ought to get pretty worried because nothing else seems to be going their way. One mentions the phrase "elections of compromise and convenience" because without some sort of compromise with the AL, this election would not have been possible and it is convenient to both the AL and the Emergency Government; both can maintain their political positions without committing anything for the next bout of elections in the very near future. The AL's position in favor of the city corporations and municipality election has forced the BNP and the Jamaat to tacitly agree to this election, inspite of their public position against it.
Both the Emergency Government and the AL have been hyping up the city corporation and municipality election as a "test case" but if one really analyses the situation, one will quickly come to the conclusion that city corporations and municipalities being semi-government organizations are capable of functioning by themselves without public representatives sitting at their heads. Infact the "public" is quite happy with the way things are because they don't have to pay heavy bribes to these "public representatives" every time they have to go to these places to get some job done or to obtain some service.
The real test comes a little later when the Emergency Government will try and push through the upazilla elections scheduled for October this year. The BNP is dead against the upazilla polls and the AL is still undecided about it. The political dialogues initiated by the Government have not gone anywhere near convincing either the AL or the BNP to unequivocally commit themselves to any elections under the Emergency regime; neither of these parties are in a position to go to any elections with their chairpersons and other top leaders in jails facing a plethora of corruption charges. If the Emergency Government lets these politicians out through such means as bails and the Truth Commission, it would be belying everything it has said so far about anti-corruption, good-governance and qualitative changes in politics. Than of course, there is the unbridgeable political divide between the AL and the BNP which the Emergency Government has done nothing to resolve and in any elections that "divide" might well lead to conflict and violence as they have always done in the past.
The Emergency Government has in fact failed to alter the political landscape in any substantial and sustainable way. Under the circumstance, if the Emergency Government's manipulation of politics, such as the upazilla election fails, it will have to cancel the national elections and face widespread domestic unrests as well as international condemnation. One way or the other the "exit" of this government is going to be painful for the beleaguered people of this Country - for the people of Bangladesh there is really no "exit strategy" in sight.
THE issue of maritime boundary and deep-sea exploration for oil and gas has added new dimension to our relationship with both of our neighbours. Bangladesh, which has hardly any other natural resources besides gas, have no alternative than to maximize the resources of the sea. But in this effort, India and Myanmar are laying unjustified claims on our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf (CS) without having an iota of regard for the spirit and tenets of International law. India and Myanmar unilaterally ignored Bangladesh's claim of maritime boundary and EEZ announced in 1974, and we continued to watch this grabbing of sea areas without doing anything mentionable.
The importance of oil and gas as an economic resource is very well known and is vital for the survival of 150 million people living in an area of only 147,000 sq km, and the rising oil prices have further aggravated our condition. Gas is a major source of revenue and employment for our expanding industrial growth. Bangladesh, though very late, announced third round bidding to award its 28 deep-sea and shallow water blocks to IOCs. It is now learnt that out of the 20 deep-sea blocks, some IOCs have only submitted bids for 8 deep-sea blocks which are not at all disputed by the neighbours. Myanmar has influenced major oil companies not to participate in the bidding and issued letters to a number of prospective bidders asking them not to sign PSC in the disputed blocks.
India, besides warning IOCs about the consequence of their investments, has also protested not to award the offshore blocks without resolving the issue of boundary. Whatever may be the strategy of our government about this bidding, it has backfired on us as there has not been a positive response and none of the Oil majors like Chevron, Exxon-Mobil or Shell submitted bids, rather they stayed away because of concerted efforts by India and Myanmar. What is important to note that there was hardly any reasonable bid for disputed blocks showing total regard to the Indian and Myanmar claims by the IOCs and this is going to strengthen the position of India and Myanmar as they have been successful in totally disregarding our EEZ claim of 1974.
Oil and gas exploration in the Bay of Bengal started in 1974; Petrobangla conducted the first-round bidding, in which 47 IOCs took part. Petrobangla signed 6 production-sharing contracts with Atlantic Richfield, Union Oil, Ashland, Canadian Superior Oil, BODC and Ina Naftaplin. Ashland was allocated the western block down the Sunderban area and India objected for such exploration to then Bangladesh Government and also wrote to the head office of Ashland Company on the plea that it will not allow exploration and exploitation of any gas or oil find since the maritime boundary with Bangladesh had not been demarcated. Soon after the protest, the Ashland Company left Bangladesh waters and the then government accepted the fait accompli. None of our governments took any tangible steps toward solving the maritime boundary problems and rather showed utter negligence towards our legal scope to nullify the Indian protest and also increase our geographic area by about two to three times that of Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh passed the “Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act” in the Parliament in 1974 but subsequent declaration of unique depth metric baselines by the Ministry again evoked strong protest from India stating that the baseline had intruded 21 nautical miles (nm) inside Indian waters. Even at that time our government in power neither tried to solve the problem through discussion nor could it ensure continuation of exploration by the IOC in the face of Indian protests.
We again had a historic opportunity during drafting of UNCLOS from 1973-1982 to include the system of the adopted baseline of 1974 in the related articles of UNCLOS and to convince other countries about deleting some of the articles which would not be in favour of Bangladesh in subsequent delimitation with our neighbours. However, we failed miserably to act on either count. Not much of exploration work on the five offshore blocks have so far been undertaken except discovery of Sangu gas field with about .848 TCF of recoverable gas. Petrobangla in their subsequent bidding awarded eight contracts to the IOCs related to land areas. No Bangladesh government after 1974 ever made any real effort to explore in the deep waters of our claimed EEZ and hardly showed any real concern for delimiting maritime boundary.
India, under the New Exploration Licensing Policy, offered 55 blocks (24 deepwater blocks beyond 400m bathymetry) for exploration to the IOCs in the Bay of Bengal in 2006. The map published by India clearly showed that blocks D-23 (8,706sqkm) and D-22 (7,790sqkm) have overlapped Bangladesh's block 21 declared in 1991. Once the attention of the Ministry was drawn to such reports, it said that it is hard to say for sure how much the Indian blocks actually overlapped Bangladesh territory as the map can be deceiving and does not specify the exact geographical position of the Indian blocks. But visually it is found that the Indian blocks appear to have overlapped our block 21. Due to strong pressure from the media about such floating of international tenders by India encompassing our blocks of EEZ, Bangladesh finally lodged official protest against the 'encroachment' through the Indian High Commissioner. It is really unfortunate to find that our Ministry did not know when India declared the blocks and nor did we register any protest with the IOC about the consequences of such exploration in an area which we claimed to be ours since 1974. We should have pursued the case with India with the aim of stopping exploration legally in D-22, 23 and registered our strongest protest with the concerned IOC as India had done in 1974 and again in 2008.
Myanmar on the other hand made significant gas discovery in A1 and A3 gas fields/block, in Rakhaine coast that lies in the Bay of Bengal, offshore from the Myanmar town of Sittwe and is only about 100 km from Teknaf coast of Bangladesh. Daewoo of Korea, which is the operator of A1 and A3 gas fields with gas reserves of around five to six trillion cubic feet owns 40% stakes whereas two Indian Companies - Gas Authority India Ltd and a subsidiary of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation - hold 30% and the remaining 30% is held by Myanmar. It has already agreed to export gas to China and India. China has offered to construct a pipeline from A-1 and A-3 gas fields in the Bay of Bengal to the Chinese border, a distance of around 900 km and also signed PSC with Myanmar to explore oil and gas in three offshore blocks. What is very disturbing to note is that we hardly knew Myanmar had already declared blocks overlapping our blocks in the EEZ areas which we have claimed in 1974. Myanmar also stopped our survey vessel to work in our EEZ areas. Finally the Ministry called the Myanmar Ambassador drawing attention of his government to the news items published regarding allocation of undemarcated areas to conduct survey for exploration of oil and gas in the Bay of Bengal. Besides, we also lost another opportunity to route the tri-nation gas pipeline through Teknaf as the agreed MoU for open access pipeline had provisions for injection and siphoning off gas from Bangladesh and Indian gas fields. In the wake of serious gas supply situation, Bangladesh also proposed to Myanmar for importing gas from the adjacent off shore gas field. But Myanmar government appeared to have regretted to consider the proposal saying that it has already committed to export most of its gas to China and India although gas pipeline to China and India will be much longer than that to Bangladesh.
Under the UNCLOS 1982, Bangladesh is entitled to claim 200nm of sea area as its EEZ and all living and non-living resources within these areas are exclusively the property of Bangladesh. Out of this, the first 12 miles are called Territorial Sea (TS) and the next 188 miles are its EEZ. Bangladesh must also claim another 150-mile or more from the limit of the EEZ based on the geo-physical characteristics of the seabed as the extended CS. However, to claim the CS, we have to complete various surveys as prescribed by the UN and submit our claim before 2011. India and Myanmar arbitrarily drew the maritime boundary under equidistance principle, which in effect is allowed only up to 12 miles of TS.
Thereafter the UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 are very clear contrary to the claim of both countries that the maritime boundaries of EEZ and CS have to be delimited by agreement in order to achieve equitable solution taking relevant circumstances like general configuration of the coast, concavity of our coastline, natural prolongation, disparity in length of the coastline, economic factors/dependency patterns, existence of natural resources, comparative socio-economic conditions, etc. into account. Law allows solution through mutual negotiation so that unilateral claim may not cause severe deprivations to entire social process of Bangladesh or even going to the arbitration courts.
In our case probable deposit of mineral resources is divided by the division line of the zones of the EEZ and CS. The part of the deposit which is located on one of the sides of the division line is fully or partially exploitable by Indian and Myanmar installations which are located on the other side of the line. In such cases we cannot maintain our own rights to the mineral resources of the subsurface of our claimed EEZ and CS as they can simply siphon off our oil and gas and other resources.
It is now evident that India and Myanmar have intentionally intruded into our EEZ and exploring oil/gas there by demanding an equidistant line, which is not supportable by the UNCLOS and Geneva Convention. India has mapped out a line up to Andaman incorporating Bangladeshi EEZ and CS waters. Similarly, the Myanmar line enters our sea area beside block 18 and allows her to grab vast offshore areas of Bangladesh. But this has not been done today or yesterday, rather it happened in the '80s. Bangladesh officials since 1980, have always told us through the media that we have good bilateral relations with both of our neighbours and the dispute will be resolved in line with the relevant international laws and bilateral relationship as they are repeating the same sentences to day. But such diplomatic words did not bring any good results to our core maritime boundary problem and there was hardly any initiative to solve this important issue. This happened partly because of total ignorance about the importance of “Sea Bangladesh” and partly because of our complex bureaucracy terming this issue as very sensitive and trying to hide reality under the garbage of sensitivity for the last 26 years.
We even could not establish the fact that neither India nor Myanmar has legitimate right for exploration on our claimed waters as the maritime boundary with Bangladesh is not yet resolved. Now it would not be right to blame various groups objecting to the bidding process as they have become apprehensive about the failure of successive governments for non bidding of the deep sea blocks in the last 30 years, inaction of the ministries not registering protest with the IOCs and the government of India and Myanmar at the right time for an acceptable solution and most importantly having scandals like Scimitar, Niko and handing over Petrobangla gas field to IOC in recent times.
Even in our past dealings we have hardly shown any urgency to solve the problem of maritime boundary and if the issue is allowed to go in hibernation then we will be losing our own waters and exploring rights to the neighbours just because our government never felt the importance of delimiting the 650km long maritime frontier on both sides of our waters in the spirit of equality and respect for each other's legitimate interests.
The dissemination of news, views and opinions without the influence or censorship of government, intelligence agencies or major news networks - based in Bangladesh, focused on South Asia but with the global community in mind. An alternative source of information with the objective of propagating new ideas and perspectives on current events that have the potential to influence national politics and the global political, economic, military and strategic scene.
About Me
Name: MBI Munshi
Location: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Want to be a friend. You can link up with me on Facebook using my profile name Mohammad Munshi.
