The New Nation - Internet Edition

Ban on mother-Hilsa catch

THE ten-day ban on Hilsa fishing as announced by the government imposing the restriction along the 7,000 square kilometres of the country's coast, estuary and rivers from October 15 to 24 would, undoubtedly, help increase production and growth of the national fish as stated by the chief adviser's special assistant. According to media reports, the ban covered 20 thanas under the seven coastal districts as around 80 per cent of the gravid Hilsa (mother-fish) spawn during this time in the river estuary. The 'Fisheries Protection Act 1950' provides for punishment for violating the ban.

Since Hilsa contributes for some 13 per cent of Bangladesh's fish output and also accounts for livelihood of several million people involved in fishing and trading, it is imperative to ensure protection of the species. Hilsa production, according to the Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, has become 'bleak' in some 50 rivers of the country and the government should take a long-term plan to maintain its production considering future prospects. In 2007-2008, the Hilsa fish production increased up to 2.90 lakh tonnes as against 1.99 lakh tonnes produced during 2002-2003 following effective measures like enforcing ban on catches for some months of the year under the fishery law as amended in 2005.

The 10-day restriction on Hilsa fishing imposed by the directorate of fisheries by setting up monitoring centres at four points following exchange of views with local fishermen. At the peak of the breeding season, Hilsa fishes proceed from the sea to the coastal areas, estuary and rivers to lay eggs during the full moon, so the ten-day period from October 15 to 24 was selected for the ban putting restriction on fishing with a view to increasing production and growth of the national fish.

Telecommunication guidelines

THE Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) has published the second draft guidelines for Nationwide Telecommunication Transmission Network (NTTN). The guidelines provide a regulatory and licensing framework for applicants seeking licence to develop, build, maintain and operate NTTN. BTRC has sought views from the industry and other interested quarters on various issues mentioned in the guideline.

The move is intended to establish discipline and conformity in the sector. Obtaining licence from the Commission has been made mandatory for providing telecommunication services. The government has the objective of creating NTTN with a view to separating Transmission Network Services (TNS) and Access Network Services (ANS) in future. The guidelines have been designed keeping the above objective in clear view. Cities and towns are cluttered with hazardous overhead optical fibre or cables. Multiple ANS operators have drawn access networks of optical fibre or wires leading to drainage of national resources. NTTN is expected to help de-cluttering the urban areas and minimise the wastage of resources.

The guidelines are for imposing a limit to foreign equity, which will be 60 percent at best. A foreign partner will be required to invest foreign currency directly equal to his percentage without loans from any local bank or financial institution. Mobile operators and broadband wireless access operators already having licence from the Commission shall not be eligible to apply for this licence. Licence holders under the guidelines will have to perform rollout obligations.

BTRC had issued another guideline for sharing infrastructure and transmission capacity about a couple of months ago. It aimed at promoting high quality but cheaper services throughout the country. It is expected that these guidelines would be instrumental to ensuring quality service by bringing an end to the anarchy in the telecommunication sector.

Protecting the sovereign rights of Bangladesh

Barrieter M. A. Muid khan

We, the people of Bangladesh, having proclaimed our Independence on the 26th day of March, 1971 and through a historic war for national independence, established the independent, sovereign People's Republic of Bangladesh … affirming that it is our sacred duty to safeguard, protect and defend this Constitution and to maintain its supremacy as the embodiment of the will of the people of Bangladesh so that we may prosper in freedom and may make our full contribution towards international peace and co-operation in keeping with the progressive aspirations of mankind". (Preamble: Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh)

Despite having the keen interest of the people of Bangladesh to contribute in maintaining the international peace and co-operation, the recent maritime dispute due to offshore drilling by a Korean company engaged by Myanmar Government in the disputed territorial water areas of Bay of Bengal has flagrantly violated the sovereign rights of Bangladesh upon her territorial water. It also undermined the noble purpose of our brave sons and daughters who sacrificed their lives in the liberation war to establish an independent Bangladesh. Therefore, in this article an attempt will be made to establish how Burmese unilateral action to explore oil and gas in the disputed territorial water has violated the UN Charter and what actions should be taken to prevent the neighboring countries (Burma and India) from taking any future unilateral aggressive action to explore oil and gas in the territorial water of Bangladesh.

Myanmar last week started offshore oil and gas exploration activities in the disputed waters of the Bay of Bengal despite Bangladesh's repeated protests. The area, believed to hold huge reserves of natural gas, lies some 50 nautical miles off Saint Martin's Island, and is claimed by both Bangladesh and Myanmar. Media reports state that 4 Korean drilling ships escorted by two Myanmar Junta naval ships started exploration of oil and gas in this disputed water believed to be rich in gas. Bangladesh also moved BNS Abu Bakar, BNS Madhumati and BNS Nirbhoy to the spot. Commander of Bangladesh ship reportedly engaged in dialogue with Myanmar counterpart. They were sent to the disputed Bay waters from a safe range to compel Myanmar to remove its structures and equipment for gas exploration from the area. Bangladesh government conveyed its deep concern to Myanmar government summoning Myanmar envoy twice in Dhaka foreign office. Foreign Secretary of Bangladesh went to Yangon to discuss with Ruling military junta in an effort to pacify tension and resolve the matter through discussion.

Even last year, Burma tried to explore some offshore blocks in co-operation with India were in Bangladesh's waters. The two have been holding talks for years to demarcate their border in the Bay of Bengal, and this week Bangladesh said it wanted a diplomatic solution to the dispute to avoid any confrontation. A technical team from Myanmar, headed by a deputy minister, will arrive in Dhaka to continue the sea boundary talks on Nov 16 and 17. Additional foreign secretary M A K Mahmood, who led the last Bangladesh-Myanmar maritime border delimitation talks in Dhaka, told "We hope the problem can be resolved through dialogue." Burma cannot unilaterally go ahead with the exploration of the disputed deep-sea blocks. Bangladesh's Foreign Adviser (minister) Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury said his government would do everything needed to protect its sovereignty and rightful claims in the Bay of Bengal.

According to an agreement reached at maritime boundary talks earlier this year in Dhaka, Bangladesh and Myanmar committed not to carry out oil and gas exploration until the two countries demarcated their sea borders. Burma is also under an obligation not to embark on any drilling in disputed areas of Bay of Bengal and will resolve the boundary dispute through bilateral discussions as per UN guideline.

Burma's unilateral step to go ahead with the exploration of gas and oil in the disputed deep-sea blocks within the Bangladeshi territorial water, without having any bilateral agreement also violates the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. This convention entered into force on 28th July 1996, establishes a comprehensive legal framework to regulate all ocean space, its uses and resources. It contains, among other things, provisions relating to the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone and the high seas. It also provides for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, for marine scientific research and for the development and transfer of marine technology. One of the most important parts of the Convention concerns the exploration for and exploitation of the resources of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (the Area). The Convention declares the Area and its resources to be "the common heritage of mankind". The International Seabed Authority, established by the Convention, administers the resources of the Area.

Under this Convention, Burma is under an UN obligation to settle its disputes regarding the territorial water of the By of Bengal by peaceful means indicated in the Charter of the United Nations. Part XV of the Convention lays down a comprehensive system for the settlement of disputes that might arise with respect to the interpretation and application of the Convention. It requires States Parties to settle their disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention by peaceful means indicated in the Charter of the United Nations. However, if parties to a dispute fail to reach a settlement by peaceful means of their own choice, they are obliged to resort to the compulsory dispute settlement procedures entailing binding decisions, subject to limitations and exceptions contained in the Convention.

Sending 4 Korean drilling ships escorted by two Myanmar Junta naval ships to explore oil and gas in the disputed territorial water of Bangladesh I clearly a violation of the UN Charter and United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Instead of sending the war ships and 4 drilling ships in the disputed territorial water, Burma could have evoked the mechanism established by the Convention to resolve the dispute. The Convention provides four alternative means for the settlement of disputes: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the Convention, and a special arbitral tribunal constituted in accordance with Annex VIII to the Convention. Myanmar instead of entering in the disputed territorial water to explore oil and gas, should have undertaken any of the above mentioned four alternative means for the settlement of disputes.

Under this Convention, a State Party is free to choose one or more of these means by a written declaration to be made under article 287 of the Convention and deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nation. If the parties to a dispute have not accepted the same settlement procedure, the dispute may be submitted only to arbitration in accordance with Annex VII, unless the parties otherwise agree. In stead of resolving the dispute in a peaceful manner, Myanmar has sent two war ships to support 4 Korean Drilling ships to explore oil and gas in the territorial water claimed by Bangladesh. This unilateral action has clearly violated the sovereign rights of Bangladesh to protect her natural resources lying underneath the territorial water in the Bay of Bengal.

Bangladeshi Law

In 1974, Bangladesh enacted the Territorial Water and Maritime Zones Act through the Parliament. Bangladesh declared straight baselines selecting eight imaginary base points following the 10-fathom line or over 60 ft deep water except west of Elephant Point/St. Martins Island. Bangladesh also claimed 12 nm Territorial water, 18nm Contiguous Zone (24nm allowed under UNCLOS 1982) 200 nm Economic Zone amounting to about 40,000 sq miles of sea area and Continental shelf, (350nm allowed under UNCLOS 1982).

Bangladesh claimed an area covering a "square" whose lateral limits were the meridians of longitude projected from the termini of the land boundaries. The award of offshore blocks was made on the basis of that claim. The basic rationale of our stance was that because of the geomorphologic and geographical peculiarities of our coastline and the concave nature of our coast, the equidistance method of delimitation would result in a cut-off effect introducing distortion in the case of lateral frontier and stressed on the basis of equity. Till 1971, 22 exploration wells were drilled in the then East Pakistan, of which eight gas fields were discovered, but all on-shore. In 1989, the entire country was again divided into 23 blocks, of which, 19 blocks including five off-shore blocks were offered to the IOCs for competitive bidding. With the passage of time, 1988 model PSC was followed and out of 23 blocks eight blocks in the first round bidding were given to the IOCs in 1994 and some of the rest most prospective blocks were leased out during 2000-2001 in the second round bidding. During 1991-1996 five blocks and during 1996-2001 six blocks were given to IOCs and PSC was signed. Although re-evaluation of the seismic, drilling and geo-chemical data of the offshore areas of Bangladesh indicates that there is considerable possibility of finding several economic gas accumulations, not much of exploration works on the 5 offshore blocks -- 7.18, 19, 20, 21 -- and 3 other blocks, which are situated partially at sea and in coastal waters -- 15, 16, 17 -- have so far been undertaken by Bangladesh. It is notable here that the Bangladesh proposal seeking to justify the 1974 straight baseline is not consistent with the UN Convention on the "Territorial sea and Contiguous Zone", Convention on the High Seas, on "Fishing and Living Resources of the High Seas" and Convention on the "Continental shelf" which were all in force during that time (in force since 20th March 1966). The new law of the Sea and other international law have given us the rights to claim sea areas more than the total land area of Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal with all its living and non-living resources.

The Bangladesh proposals seeking to justify the 1974 straight baseline, from the beginning of the discussion on the Third UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), encountered opposition. India's unvarying position on the question was that the boundary must be delimited on the rigid application of the equidistance method ignoring the physical features of our coast. The last round of formal talk across the table with India, appears to have taken place in 1980.

The maritime negotiations between India and Bangladesh commenced when the Government of India in September 1974 protested the proclaimed Bangladesh baseline protruding 21 nm into Indian waters. India also questioned the basic legitimacy of our 1974 baseline and other maritime areas. The protest was in response to award one off shore blocks for oil and gas exploration under production sharing contracts. India claimed that the western most of the six blocks, which had been awarded to Ashland, encroached upon Indian waters. Some of the IOCs left exploration because of the objections raised by India directly to the head offices of such companies about the consequences of oil and gas find as the maritime boundary between two countries has not been delimited.

Since 1974 till UNCLOS 1982, in the corridors of the UN, our astute diplomacy could not convince our neighbouring countries i.e., India and Myanmar or for that matter any country in the world to support our system of drawing baselines other than Vietnam. Finally all our efforts failed to convince the world community participating in the drafting of UNCLOS 1982.The final UNCLOS was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1982 without incorporating our method of drawing straight baselines. Both India and Myanmar took a swipe to our letter and through separate letters to the President of the Conference protested and rejected the Bangladesh baseline claim as unacceptable.

Since 1982, Bangladesh has failed in delimiting maritime boundary in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS 1982. Our neighbouring countries, India and Myanmar also did not complete demarcation of their maritime boundary. As a result, on several occasions, these two countries, kept on doing aggressive exploration of gas and oil in disputed areas adjacent to or even within our territorial water. They also did not care about informing Bangladesh while engaging IOCs to explore even in disputed areas. Bangladesh did not even protest till Engr Mahmudur Rahman did it in 2005. India protested Bangladesh action in 1974. India and Myanmar also protested when Bangladesh at long last took initiative for deep water exploration recently.

Our actions have also raised more questions than these have answered in the last 36 years. We have taken 19 years to ratify the UNCLOS in 2001, and have not yet started to update our laws of the country in line with the UNCLOS. Our 1974 baselines and base points are not consistent with the UNCLOS 1982, and hence we may have to redraw the baseline. We have grossly neglected to redraw the baseline in accordance with the provisions of UNCLOS 1982. No sovereign state would allow us indefinite time to deal with such important issue which is related with our sovereign rights to establish which our great martyrs sacrificed their lives in the 1971 liberation war.

We should not leave our sovereign rights to protect and preserve natural resources lying underneath the Bay of Bengal within our territorial water at the mercy of Burma and India in the new geopolitical scenario. Without having any bilateral agreement regarding the disputed territorial water, Burma cannot enter into the disputed territorial water for the exploration of gas and oil. Also, India cannot get to the area of our Block 21. Burma's unilateral actions to explore oil and gas in the Bangladeshi territorial water without having any bilateral agreement is a clear violation of UN Charter and Convention on the Law of Seas. We should start to resolve the problem regarding the disputed territorial water in the Bay of Bengal through proper diplomatic initiatives with Myanmar and India. If these initiatives become ineffective, then we should take resort to UN Convention and move to international court of justice to resolve maritime dispute. We should immediately engage IOCs to commence exploration in our own water and engage experts to device ways to mark our maritime boundary. We must defend our territorial integrity with all we have. It is a national issue and the entire nation must stand beside government initiative. We must stand firm and be united to defend our hard earned independence and not spare even an inch of our sovereign soil.

Race is an alien idea in Islam

Farish A. Noor

It is odd, to say the least, that after more than fourteen centuries there remain some people who claim to be Muslims but who still have not internalised the universal values of Islam.

Odder still that there remain those who on the one hand can embrace Islam's universal claim of brotherhood, but still cannot get around to understanding the simple idea that Islam and racism do not mix.

Evidence of such discrepancies can be found pretty much everywhere these days. It has, sadly, become the normative cultural norm in so many Muslim societies today that those who are fair are better off and given the privileges that they feel is the natural right of all light-skinned people. It is also interesting to note that Muslims tend to rejoice whenever a white American or European converts to Islam, but seem less enthusiastic in their recognition of the fact that thousands of Africans and Asians are converting to Islam every year.

Furthermore, when it comes to governance and politics, it remains painfully clear that some Muslims still place blood and race above competency and merit till today; and that despite their profession of faith they remain embedded in the stagnant mode of racialised thinking that operates on the basis that some races are better than others.

One such case has popped up recently in multi-cultural Malaysia, where a row was sparked off by the nomination of a Chinese woman - Low Siew Moi - as the head of a state institution linked to the economic management and development of the state of Selangor, the PKNS. Despite the fact that Low Siew Moi was selected by the Chief Minister of the state, Tan Sri Khalid, on the basis of merit, some quarters chose to publicly disagree with her appointment on the grounds that the Malay-Muslims of the state would object to the appointment. But objection on what grounds? On the basis that she is a Chinese woman?

Here the already convoluted waters of Malaysia's racialised politics turns a shade murkier; for among those who objected to the appointment of Low Siew Moi were some members of the Malaysian Islamic Party, PAS.

Malaysia's politics has been defined by racial concerns and the communitarian demands of the various religious and ethnic groups of the country since its independence in 1957.

Over the past three decades, however, the tone and tenor of the country's conservative, right wing ethno-nationalist politics was further coloured by the Islamisation race in the country with the Malaysian government attempting to further inculcate Islamic values into the norms of governance in Malaysia as well.

Ironically, however, Malaysia's Islamisation programme seems to be more concerned with book-banning, fatwas on social behaviour (including the recent revelation that there may be a fatwa on Yoga soon), and moral policing, instead. Where, the Islamic scholar may ask, were the universal values of Islam in the midst of all this social engineering? Did the leaders of Malaysia not realise, or forget, the simple idea that Islam is an egalitarian faith that is colour-blind; and that the concept of 'race' is an alien idea in Islam?

The dilemma that Malaysia is facing now is the same dilemma faced by many other Muslim societies where the defence and promotion of Islam often goes hand-in-hand with the defence and promotion of the communitarian interests of Muslims. In Malaysia's case, where Muslims are overwhelmingly Malay, then this also translates as the defence of Malay interests - to the extent of propagating the ethno-nationalist idea of Malay cultural dominance as well. Now what on earth is Islamic about this?

Here is where orthodox Muslim scholarship has to come in and make its timely intervention: For it has to be remembered that the success of Islam and the success of Muslims are two entirely different things, that may also clash and negate each other at times. The victory of Islam, so to speak, has to be understood as the victory of universal values such as egalitarianism and equality before God.

The victory of Muslims, on the other hand, may at times be understood as political victories that may or may not conform to the standards of Islamic ethics.

The defeat of the Kuwaitis at the hands of Saddam Hussein, for instance, was a case of one Muslim state defeating another: but was this a victory for Islam? Likewise, when Muslims openly and abrasively demand special rights and privileges for themselves at the cost of equality and meritocracy, is this really a victory for Islam?

Those who have criticised and opposed the appointment of Low Siew Moi as the head of PKNS on the grounds that the job should have been given to a Malay-Muslim instead should therefore look closely at themselves and ask: What is it that you are fighting for? Malay-Muslim dominance or a better form of governance that is based on merit and equality? The Islamic scholar will remind you that the latter is Islamic, while the former is not.

In any case, for Muslims to even think in racialised communitarian terms is a misnomer of sorts as such modes of communitarian, sectarian thinking has no real place in Islamic orthodoxy and ethics.