Gandh brandi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
An Unnecessary Defense Pact
Asif Nazrul | 25 March, 2017 01:47 a.m.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's state visit to India is slated for April 7. Bangladesh Prime Minister's visit to India in itself important. However, this tour has become more important and sensitive due to the possibility of signing a memorandum of defense cooperation with India. The Friendship and Cooperation Agreement with Bangladesh-India, 1972 had some similar defense-related provisions which has been criticized from time to time in Bangladesh. The 25-year agreement could've been renewed after it expired in 1996 yet Awami League government who came to power in 1996 did no do so. So why now? Characteristically wild speculation is mumbling aplenty in both countries.
Specially in Bangladesh this has become a source of discomfort and fear.
This fear is not unfounded. The main reason is the ambiguity of the defense agreement. In this regard, a draft idea of what the MoU could entail was published in an English-language daily a few days back. But how accurate it is or how final it is or is it even the total MoU could be anybody's guess. Again, according to the published draft, how much of the agreement (for example, the purchase of military equipment from India, joint patrolling, training and institutionalization of information sharing) is beneficial to Bangladesh or even compatible with our defense doctrine at all, is a matter of debate.
There are more reasons for discomfort with the memorandum with India.
In the past, in the name of friendship and cooperation with India, the two countries of Nepal and Bhutan had agreed to some humiliating conditions. For example, Nepal's compliance with its 1950 treaty means that the country cannot buy arms from another country without India's approval, not to mention Indian prioritization for development and improvement of Nepal's natural resources. Original Bhutanese treaty had similar provisions, along with obligations for the tiny country's foreign policy to be "guided" by the larger nation. Recently Nepal has proposed amendment to its agreement, but India did not respond. On the other hand, the renewal of the agreement with Bhutan in 2007, hailed by the enthusiastic press for giving more freedom to Bhutan for its foreign policy and military equipment purchases, is not indicative of Bhutan-India same position.
These testify that Indian policymakers have a habit of pushing more restrictive agreements with her neighboring countries. Even in the writings of various Indian military strategists and defense experts (e.g. Subramaniam Swami, Bhavani Sengupta), the reflection can be seen. Bangladesh compared to, Nepal and Bhutan is in many ways stronger than the landlocked countries, her inception both more glorious and dignified.
But that doesn't mean India doesn't lack the power to persuade a relatively unfavorable defense deal to Bangladesh. At present, India's influence in world affairs has infinitely increased, while because of weakened mandate crisis the bargaining power of Awami League government has decreased. The govt. could also be trying to calm the nerves of a reportedly dissatisfied Indian side after our recent submarine purchase from China. Indian policy makers will try to take advantage of this situation. So, a discomfort for the defense cooperation MoU is not unnatural.
2.
Fortunately according to news reports, the Bangladeshi government is in light of the discomfort and aware of the issues. They have not agreed to an outright agreement but to put pressure on the country's compliance with a memorandum of understanding.
According to the law of international agreements, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is quite much weaker than an Agreement (Agreement / Treaty) in establishment of international relations. The obligation to carry out the agreement is much less in a memorandum of understanding. Although memorandum of understanding is not something to throw away either. The MoU is quite questionable in the vested interests of Bangladesh from our standpoint. For example, the import of arms from India, as alresdy mentioned. Historically India is basically an arms importer. As an exporter, she is not much internationally recognized. Historically stocked with relatively advanced Chinese weapons and equipments, why the obligation for buying Indian arms and equipments for the defense forces?
Memorandum of Understanding also includes military training, military observers and defense-related intelligence sharing. In the past, despite established agreements, 'harmless' intel on river water was not shared by India, whereas Bangladesh, by Indian insistence shared many such data accordingly. In this circumstances, how would military intel-sharing could be used favorably for our country?
In the case of regularized training and further institutionalization of exchange between the two countries, shouldn't the countries' own defense and foreign policy distinction be taken into consideration?
In the event of future hostilities with infinitely stronger India will not the agreement will become risky?
The biggest question is, why so many years after independence such a defense cooperation with India may be required?
Which country is the source of our security concern (war or border conflict, or using the land border to provide shelter to extremists)?
If the memorandum of understanding for the needs and interests of India's comfort then what are we getting in exchange for Bangladesh?
How much of a $50 million loan from India to buy Indian arms be logical?
3.
There are many things to be said about India-Bangladesh trade. Bangladesh is bordered with India almost entirely. As a result, there is much interest with our relation with India, which is not present with any other country, is not even possible.
But decades of Indo-Bangladesh relationship has yet to produce favorable balance of mutual interests; moreover Sheikh Hasina's government after 2009 has taken a variety of measures for Indian benefit, yet India has not appropriately replied. Sheikh Hasina's government for the most part largely eliminated India's security vulnerability by aggressively taking out separatists and extremist groups given refuge during the previous BNP administration. Not to mention, provided economic benefits to India with the use of our land and ship ports, let Indian institutions and citizens almost freely take part in economic activities and earn income, signed a low tarriff transit agreement with India, continued unequal trade, continued to maintain a consistent international diplomacy with India.
The temptation of carrot in a stick aka the Teesta River Water agreement has been kept alive for many years. The tendency to Blame the lack of fruition of this agreement to West Bengal head Mamata Banerjee is obvious in Bangladesh too. But it's actually not true. India's central government can side-step Mamata and make a deal with us according to Indian constitution (more from Mizanur Rahman Khan, Prothom Alo, on 15 March 2017). I think, the local BJP of West Bengal, ambitious to form a government is not pursuing this agreement for its own interests. To the BJP, ensuring the rights of Bangladeshi people, is not more important than the support of voters in West Bengal. So even after all we have done for India, there is no justification in hanging out the Teesta water-sharing agreement after years and years.
The question is, even if the Teesta pact comes to fruit, does that mean we have to accept unbalanced trade pact, unequal transit agreements or any potential uneven defense agreements in return? No. Because even sharing of Teesta river and other international rivers is subject to International Water and Environmental laws and our right under the 1996 Ganges treaty. Guaranteed safety of the citizens of the border, is also our right according to the UN Charter. Indian transit, maritime and port usage, connectivity or defense cooperation are not anyway India's rights. Only expected benefits of various cooperation or friendship with another country.
The sad thing, India has taken advantage of that friendship, but the country hasn't put out. So the anxiety in signing any new agreements or any military pact with a country which seldom listen to these rights even after decades, is not blind anti-India sentiment, but a logical reaction. Bangabandhu's blood runs in the veins of our current Prime Minister. Can she convey this to her next visit to India? Create a path to the establishment of a balanced and meanigful relationship?
*Asif Nazrul, Professor, Department of Law, University of Dhaka. Machine translated by Yandex and edited by Sybaris Caeser
Asif Nazrul | 25 March, 2017 01:47 a.m.
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's state visit to India is slated for April 7. Bangladesh Prime Minister's visit to India in itself important. However, this tour has become more important and sensitive due to the possibility of signing a memorandum of defense cooperation with India. The Friendship and Cooperation Agreement with Bangladesh-India, 1972 had some similar defense-related provisions which has been criticized from time to time in Bangladesh. The 25-year agreement could've been renewed after it expired in 1996 yet Awami League government who came to power in 1996 did no do so. So why now? Characteristically wild speculation is mumbling aplenty in both countries.
Specially in Bangladesh this has become a source of discomfort and fear.
This fear is not unfounded. The main reason is the ambiguity of the defense agreement. In this regard, a draft idea of what the MoU could entail was published in an English-language daily a few days back. But how accurate it is or how final it is or is it even the total MoU could be anybody's guess. Again, according to the published draft, how much of the agreement (for example, the purchase of military equipment from India, joint patrolling, training and institutionalization of information sharing) is beneficial to Bangladesh or even compatible with our defense doctrine at all, is a matter of debate.
There are more reasons for discomfort with the memorandum with India.
In the past, in the name of friendship and cooperation with India, the two countries of Nepal and Bhutan had agreed to some humiliating conditions. For example, Nepal's compliance with its 1950 treaty means that the country cannot buy arms from another country without India's approval, not to mention Indian prioritization for development and improvement of Nepal's natural resources. Original Bhutanese treaty had similar provisions, along with obligations for the tiny country's foreign policy to be "guided" by the larger nation. Recently Nepal has proposed amendment to its agreement, but India did not respond. On the other hand, the renewal of the agreement with Bhutan in 2007, hailed by the enthusiastic press for giving more freedom to Bhutan for its foreign policy and military equipment purchases, is not indicative of Bhutan-India same position.
These testify that Indian policymakers have a habit of pushing more restrictive agreements with her neighboring countries. Even in the writings of various Indian military strategists and defense experts (e.g. Subramaniam Swami, Bhavani Sengupta), the reflection can be seen. Bangladesh compared to, Nepal and Bhutan is in many ways stronger than the landlocked countries, her inception both more glorious and dignified.
But that doesn't mean India doesn't lack the power to persuade a relatively unfavorable defense deal to Bangladesh. At present, India's influence in world affairs has infinitely increased, while because of weakened mandate crisis the bargaining power of Awami League government has decreased. The govt. could also be trying to calm the nerves of a reportedly dissatisfied Indian side after our recent submarine purchase from China. Indian policy makers will try to take advantage of this situation. So, a discomfort for the defense cooperation MoU is not unnatural.
2.
Fortunately according to news reports, the Bangladeshi government is in light of the discomfort and aware of the issues. They have not agreed to an outright agreement but to put pressure on the country's compliance with a memorandum of understanding.
According to the law of international agreements, Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is quite much weaker than an Agreement (Agreement / Treaty) in establishment of international relations. The obligation to carry out the agreement is much less in a memorandum of understanding. Although memorandum of understanding is not something to throw away either. The MoU is quite questionable in the vested interests of Bangladesh from our standpoint. For example, the import of arms from India, as alresdy mentioned. Historically India is basically an arms importer. As an exporter, she is not much internationally recognized. Historically stocked with relatively advanced Chinese weapons and equipments, why the obligation for buying Indian arms and equipments for the defense forces?
Memorandum of Understanding also includes military training, military observers and defense-related intelligence sharing. In the past, despite established agreements, 'harmless' intel on river water was not shared by India, whereas Bangladesh, by Indian insistence shared many such data accordingly. In this circumstances, how would military intel-sharing could be used favorably for our country?
In the case of regularized training and further institutionalization of exchange between the two countries, shouldn't the countries' own defense and foreign policy distinction be taken into consideration?
In the event of future hostilities with infinitely stronger India will not the agreement will become risky?
The biggest question is, why so many years after independence such a defense cooperation with India may be required?
Which country is the source of our security concern (war or border conflict, or using the land border to provide shelter to extremists)?
If the memorandum of understanding for the needs and interests of India's comfort then what are we getting in exchange for Bangladesh?
How much of a $50 million loan from India to buy Indian arms be logical?
3.
There are many things to be said about India-Bangladesh trade. Bangladesh is bordered with India almost entirely. As a result, there is much interest with our relation with India, which is not present with any other country, is not even possible.
But decades of Indo-Bangladesh relationship has yet to produce favorable balance of mutual interests; moreover Sheikh Hasina's government after 2009 has taken a variety of measures for Indian benefit, yet India has not appropriately replied. Sheikh Hasina's government for the most part largely eliminated India's security vulnerability by aggressively taking out separatists and extremist groups given refuge during the previous BNP administration. Not to mention, provided economic benefits to India with the use of our land and ship ports, let Indian institutions and citizens almost freely take part in economic activities and earn income, signed a low tarriff transit agreement with India, continued unequal trade, continued to maintain a consistent international diplomacy with India.
The temptation of carrot in a stick aka the Teesta River Water agreement has been kept alive for many years. The tendency to Blame the lack of fruition of this agreement to West Bengal head Mamata Banerjee is obvious in Bangladesh too. But it's actually not true. India's central government can side-step Mamata and make a deal with us according to Indian constitution (more from Mizanur Rahman Khan, Prothom Alo, on 15 March 2017). I think, the local BJP of West Bengal, ambitious to form a government is not pursuing this agreement for its own interests. To the BJP, ensuring the rights of Bangladeshi people, is not more important than the support of voters in West Bengal. So even after all we have done for India, there is no justification in hanging out the Teesta water-sharing agreement after years and years.
The question is, even if the Teesta pact comes to fruit, does that mean we have to accept unbalanced trade pact, unequal transit agreements or any potential uneven defense agreements in return? No. Because even sharing of Teesta river and other international rivers is subject to International Water and Environmental laws and our right under the 1996 Ganges treaty. Guaranteed safety of the citizens of the border, is also our right according to the UN Charter. Indian transit, maritime and port usage, connectivity or defense cooperation are not anyway India's rights. Only expected benefits of various cooperation or friendship with another country.
The sad thing, India has taken advantage of that friendship, but the country hasn't put out. So the anxiety in signing any new agreements or any military pact with a country which seldom listen to these rights even after decades, is not blind anti-India sentiment, but a logical reaction. Bangabandhu's blood runs in the veins of our current Prime Minister. Can she convey this to her next visit to India? Create a path to the establishment of a balanced and meanigful relationship?
*Asif Nazrul, Professor, Department of Law, University of Dhaka. Machine translated by Yandex and edited by Sybaris Caeser
Last edited:
