To establish our maritime rights

According to Dr M Habibur Rahman, Professor of Law and Jurisdiction at Rajshahi University and Visiting Scholar at the Max Planck Institute of International and Comparative Law, in Germany, it is crucial that we follow the right procedure and present all the supporting facts and figures in good time (by 2011) to the UN tribunal on the Law of the Sea, and also argue our case convincingly to establish Bangladesh's maritime rights. Some activity on the part of the government has reportedly started though the details are yet to be make public. Professor Rahman, who has studied and written widely on maritime regimes, felt that this vital issue was not being treated as seriously as it should be, nor was it handled competently enough,considering the fact that only a 'desk' in the foreign ministry has been assigned the job of looking after such a complicated and challenging problem. That was in October 2009, when the professor spoke at length about Bangladesh's case in an interview with a contemporary, at a time when India and Myanmar were both laying claims over substantial portions of the Bay of Bengal, which, if granted, would turn Bangladesh into a virtually sea-locked state, unable to benefit from the immense resources lying in the yet-to-be-tapped maritime zone. Our two neighbours meanwhile have been girding their loins and were earlier found with their exploratory rigs in the disputed zones, according to some reports. According to a UN survey undertaken in the Bay of Bengal during the Pakistan period, the states in the region could enjoy considerable riches for centuries to come if only they could cooperate and exploit the potential lying in the bosom of the sea. Soon after independence, Bangladesh had taken some moves towards that, but faced strong opposition from India when BPC (Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation) sought to sign deals with six IOCs (International Oil Companies) in 1974, to drill for oil or gas. In 2009, Myanmar joined India in protesting Bangladesh's deals to lease out some of its gas blocks, claiming they fall within their maritime zones. The two states, on either side of Bangladesh, have cut almost diagonically on the south-east and south-west into our maritime area, to mark their claims. They have even published maps to that effect ! If their claims are conceded, Bangladesh would be crippled in multiple ways, leaving no more than a trough-like portion of the Bay of Bengal for us, and to all intents and purposes, denying our right of passage over the seas, in addition to depriving Bangladesh of most of the bounties in the zone. Bangladesh's geographical position being what it is, puts us at considerable disadvantage, says Prof Rahman. The relentless load of silt deposited by the mighty rivers hinders big ships from anchoring at the ports. Then again, we have a concave coastline ----- whereas the coastlines of India and Myanmar are convex ---- with the Bay encroaching substantially into the land and determining the livelihoods of at least one fourth of the population living along the coastline. This, according to the professor, presents an exceptional case and gives Bangladesh the first call on the sea's resources, as per international law. International law permits a state to extend its Special Economic Zone seaward to a distance of 200 nautical miles from its baseline, as defined by article 57 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS). The Continental Shelf extends farther, 350 nautical miles or more. A state's territorial waters however is only 12 nautical miles from the baseline. So, Bangladesh cannot get an equitable share of the Bay of Bengal if the baseline is measured from the 'exceptional' coastline that we have. The sea here is far too shallow and the coastal configuration itself makes the principle of equidistance inapplicable. Under these special circumstances, Prof Rahman suggests that other methods need to be applied to determine Bangladesh's case, such as counting the baseline after a depth of ten fathoms, where ships can enter comfortably.The North Sea maritime dispute in 1969, he mentions, was settled with similar methods among Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, in the spirit of fairness to all contending parties. The International Court of Justice had noted then, 'Treaty practice, as well as the history of Article 63 of the draft convention on the Law of the Sea, leads to the conclusion that equidistance may be applied if it leads to an equitable solution, if not, other methods should be employed.' Delimitation of maritime zones by agreement remains the primary rule of international law in cases where two or more states make competing claims over resource-rich zones that meet and overlap, experts point out. The negotiating process is the fundamental procedural principle for peaceful settlement. But, in Bangladesh's case, is it likely to work without the higher jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice? How far has our Foreign Ministry succeeded in its expressed intention of going for 'compulsory arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to ensure our sovereign rights to the natural resources of the Bay'? Is it being handled with all the urgency and competence required?