Faruque Ahmed
Following the peaceful resolution of the maritime boundary with India and Myanmar through UN arbitral process under the cover of UN Convention of Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), questions have been raised as to why Bangladesh and India can’t resolve the common river issues such as Teesta water sharing through such arbitral process.
Experts, however, said common river issues and maritime matters are not the same. The resolution of the disputes in the sea was possible with India and Myanmar because all three countries including Bangladesh were signatories to the UNCLOS laws. But unlike it, the common river issues are governed by UN Convention on International common water sources. Neither Bangladesh nor India is a signatory to this law and therefore they can’t invoke the law jointly or unilaterally to resolve the outstanding river issues. A senior official at Foreign Ministry told this scribe last week that Bangladesh was really fortunate for being a signatory to UNCLOS law with India and Myanmar which paved the way of international arbitration to resolve the issue.
UN convention on common rivers
Many people tend to believe that if India could anticipate earlier that its signing of the UNCLOS law may open the window for involvement of the UN arbitral system to resolve the maritime boundary issues to the benefit of Dhaka, it might have thought twice in doing so. Though Bangladesh has lost around 6,000 sq km of land to India out of 25,692 sq km disputed area in the sea, besides the need for readjusting boundaries several gas blocks, Dhaka in a way feels relieved from troubles in the sea. It will allow peaceful use of the territorial water up to 12 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles as exclusive economic zones extending up to 354 nautical miles or 667 km as the continental shelf having the exclusive right to exploit sea fish and other sea bed resources.
It is also heartening that the new BJP government in New has welcomed the verdict. Bangladesh has also termed it as an example of resolving the issues peacefully with India, besides a step forward to consolidate cooperation and understanding between both the nations. People now wonder if both the countries can resolve the contentious issues peacefully in the sea why it can’t be on the land. The common river issues may be one such area of focus now in the light of success in the sea.
Water resource experts like Inun Nishat, now Vice Chancellor of BRAC University holds the view that Bangladesh should try to use the lessons learned from the sea to resolve common rivers issues on the land. It may work pretty well through negotiations at bilateral level. But Dhaka should also take move at the same time to ratify the UN Convention on International common water sources. It is Dhaka’s right and may work as the last resort.
But without India’s ratification at the same time, the UN law can’t be used to arrange international arbitration on common river issues and especially the Teesta water sharing. So Bangladesh government should take the issue with India and work out a way for jointly ratifying the UN river convention.
UN body’s ratification dilemma
Experts said the UN Convention on international common water sources was adopted in 1997 and Bangladesh lent relentless support to the UN body in framing the law and develop its functioning procedures. Some Bangladeshi diplomats even worked as chairman and vice chairman on sub-committees which had framed the new law.
The US system required ratification of at least 35 member states to the minimum to make the convention effective. Meanwhile more countries have ratified it turning into an international law but for reasons not known to many, Bangladesh retreated to the back bench and so far avoided the ratification.
It is understood that India does not want to ratify the law and similarly does not looks favourably any move by Dhaka to stamp ratification seal on the UN law. Ever since its adoption by the UN body, Bangladesh governments - be it Awami League or BNP, sidetracked the issue taking into account the perceived negative outlook if the Indian government about the law.
For India itself as a sufferer from withdrawal of water by China from the Brahmaputra on the upstream, it is not in favour of using the UN arbitration by going to International Court of Justice. This is another way of seeking UN arbitral system without signing the UN common rivers convention. China is unilaterally withdrawing Brahmaputra river water by building new barrages and diverting it to other uses at India’s expense.
A Foreign Ministry official said India in this case fears if it takes the water issue with China to UN Court of Justice, other victims of water aggression like Bangladesh may follow the same way and Delhi may not have much argument against it.
But according to the Foreign Ministry official, Dhaka may go to the UN Court of Justice to demand resolution of common river issues; at least it is possible under given UN system. In this case Teesta river water sharing has a clear chance given the long stalemate to sign the agreement. Third party arbitration is always a better choice for Bangladesh as it tends to work neutrally free from pressure while in bilateral negotiations India always attempts to impose its desire on the neighbors.
Time for Dhaka to act
In fact, the signing of the convention is entirely a political decision and the successive governments in Dhaka so far had avoided it. It is not clear why the elected governments had so far sidelined issues involving vital national interest. But it clearly shows the nature of Dhaka’s subservient foreign policy instead of pursuing a pro-active diplomacy to protect the country’s basic rights and sensitive interests.
Even the ratification issue had come up for discussion during the last caretaker government and the advisers had reportedly decided to leave it to the future political government for a decision.
Official sources said India is always insisting on strengthening Joint River Commission (JRC) but one does not understand when there is a lack of political will, how the JRC comprising government officials can be effective to resolve the issues. Moreover, some JRC functionaries always feel that any attempt to ratify UN Convention on common rivers may make India unhappy and this may in turn render the commission ineffective.
There is a common perception that Dhaka had lost its legitimate share of Ganges water agreeing to the opening of the Farakka Barrage sluice gates on experimental basis which continues till today. Similarly, sharing of Teesta river water is facing stalemate on the plea that the West Bengal state government is opposed to it. The UN Convention on common rivers has made unilateral blockade of free flow of water to the downstream nations illegal. Besides, inter-river connectivity project to divert water depriving the lower riparian nation is equally a breach of the convention. The construction of barrages like Tepaimukh dam in India’s Monipur state is similarly a breach of the convention because of its devastating effect on agriculture and ecology of Bangladesh.
The UN Convention on International Common water sources has focused rules and procedures for looking into these matters if parties make the joint move asking for arbitral justice. That requires that parties must be signatory to the convention.
Bangladesh should therefore take steps to ratify the convention. There is no alternative to it particularly as a weaker nation living closer to bigger ones.
Source: Weekly Holiday