Defence of EEZ: Pakistan's resource rich 5th province.

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

We need more missile boats and patrol boats .

 

[Penguin]

lol In Pakistans case its always a 'militarily regulate' and not 'regulating the military' .Military makes the key decisions..

That doesn't matter for the treaties that are entered in to by a country: even under a military regime, you still have a distinction between civilian and military activity (e.g. civil aviation and military aviation). It is the activity that is regulated.

 

[knight11]

This is a very bad article. Is nobody planning to analyse it and its claims and its language?

Sir, can you do us that favour.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

Also, I doubt having an ADIZ would legitimize shooting an unidentified flying object (lol) down in international airspace

Here is an actual incident that took place over the High Seas...

U.S.S.R. vs. France

During the war between Algeria and France, the later established an identification and defence zone which extended approximately 60 km, from the Algerian coast into the Mediterranean Sea, and forbade overflight above this zone. On Feb,9,1961, the U.S.S.R., aircraft on which Mr. Brezhnev was travelling to Morocco, entered the French ADIS. It was intercepted by three French fighter planes and twice warned by international radio signals to leave the area. Since there was no response to these signals, the fighter planes fired in front of the aircraft to force it to leave the zone, which it eventually did.

No, ' regulating military' (as opposed to ' regulating civilian' ) refers to the object (that which you are regulating), rather than the method ('militarily regulate' is regulated by military i.e. it answers the how of regulation: regulated by the military or using military means). That is a fundamental difference and not semantics.

The civilian air traffic is also monitored by military and providing protection to this is the responsibility of the member state. This is why Flight Plan is required for all International flights. This also fulfils the criterion of Search and Rescue...

Under Law of Sea there is freedom of traffic and the right of innocent passage to military Ships. However this is not available in Air Law... Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation only deals with Civil aircraft. For military aircraft it is the prerogative of the member state to allow on case to case basis. The Civilian aircraft flown by military personal or carrying military personnel are treated as military aircraft.

But has nothing to do with resources of the sea, surface or below surface or seabed, which is what EEZ is about. ADIZ does not give any sovereignty and has no basis in treaty.

ADIZ is for the protection of the activities that are being done in these resources over the surface or underneath.

The core issue is Pakistan might identify the ships that are going to pass and also restrict future projects that India intend to incorporate like underwater sea cables for internet, under water oil pipeline etc... This brings in a fear that Pakistan would cut off India from procuring Oil specially during the times of a War.

Then there is also a possibility that if Pakistan becomes the member of GCC Pakistan Navy would be protecting the boundaries till ADEN.

How this would be done? You would know better...

lol In Pakistans case its always a 'militarily regulate' and not 'regulating the military' .Military makes the key decisions..

This is true for all countries of the world when you consider how one is going to protect its territory and civilians.
The US would go to what ever length it take to arrest people who take lives of US citizens... Israel has given Commercial Airline Pilots the right to shoot to kill any person on board the aircraft that is a threat...

 

[Penguin]

Here is an actual incident that took place over the High Seas...

U.S.S.R. vs. France

During the war between Algeria and France, the later established an identification and defence zone which extended approximately 60 km, from the Algerian coast into the Mediterranean Sea, and forbade overflight above this zone. On Feb,9,1961, the U.S.S.R., aircraft on which Mr. Brezhnev was travelling to Morocco, entered the French ADIS. It was intercepted by three French fighter planes and twice warned by international radio signals to leave the area. Since there was no response to these signals, the fighter planes fired in front of the aircraft to force it to leave the zone, which it eventually did.

There was no fire aimed at the aircraft therefore. Nor was it shot down.

The civilian air traffic is also monitored by military and providing protection to this is the responsibility of the member state. This is why Flight Plan is required for all International flights. This also fulfils the criterion of Search and Rescue...

Under Law of Sea there is freedom of traffic and the right of innocent passage to military Ships. However this is not available in Air Law... Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation only deals with Civil aircraft. For military aircraft it is the prerogative of the member state to allow on case to case basis. The Civilian aircraft flown by military personal or carrying military personnel are treated as military aircraft.

Now you're explaining to me what I already (have shown to) know. Not quite sure what the point of your post / reply to me is...

ADIZ is for the protection of the activities that are being done in these resources over the surface or underneath.

Uhm, no it isn't, see prior posts by myself and others. ADIZ is a cold war relic. When bombers came over to nuke far away places. It has no basis in law or any treaty. There is no coupling with EEZ as set out in UNCLOS.

The core issue is Pakistan might identify the ships that are going to pass and also restrict future projects that India intend to incorporate like underwater sea cables for internet, under water oil pipeline etc... This brings in a fear that Pakistan would cut off India from procuring Oil specially during the times of a War.

Then there is also a possibility that if Pakistan becomes the member of GCC Pakistan Navy would be protecting the boundaries till ADEN.

How this would be done? You would know better...

Why are you defensive towards me?

There is nothing in UNCLOS that would allow one state to cut off the shipping routes for another state at sea. UNCLOS deals does deal with exploration and exploitation rights in the EEZ, as well as the resource management duties (e.g. environmental issues), so there can be a claim to the resources in the EEZ without the claim of the EEZ being part of the territory of the sovereign state.

Innocent passage etc. refers to territorial waters. Beyond territorial waters you have international waters. EEZ used to be ECONOMIC exclusion zone and todayis Exclusive ECONOMIC Zone, this is not MILITARY. An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/Maritime-Security-Private-The-Concept-of-Innocent-Passage

During war, other established maritime law and laws of armed conflict (also) apply.

 

[ACE OF THE AIR]

There was no fire aimed at the aircraft therefore.

The Aircraft was USSR Air Force One. If it was fired at the aircraft and target was destroyed this would have flared up to a full WAR without the support of NATO.

Interception of Civilian Aircraft is done first by radio calls in international frequencies and if there is no reply then a warning short fired over the right wing on the aircraft. If there is no response then the aircraft can be destroyed. This is the Procedure that is defined under ICAO Annex 2 Rules of the Air .... Interception of aircraft.

Now you're explaining to me what I already (have shown to) know. Not quite sure what the point of your post / reply to me is...

It was in reply to your answer... It seemed you were unclear on how Civil Aviation is regulated.
To clarify my reply... Civilian aircraft are required to obey both Civilian Air Traffic Controllers and also comply with instructions given to them incase they have been intercepted by Air Force aircraft. Further more ADIZ does not fall under the ambit of Civil Radar but under Military Radar hence it is mandatory for all aircraft to identify them selves by providing the identification clearance no.

This is very important in the case of Pakistan and India.

Uhm, no it isn't, see prior posts by myself and others. ADIZ is a cold war relic. When bombers came over to nuke far away places. It has no basis in law or any treaty. There is no coupling with EEZ as set out in UNCLOS.

Historically it was meant for the purpose you are stating. But as countries are Sovereign they have used this for their own protection like the French had made ADIZ over the territory of an other Sovereign State Algeria which extended over International Waters.

Now EEZ is allowed under UNCLOS and ADIZ under Customary International Law. Both these laws are accepted by International Court of Justice.
This is the dilemma of International Law that it is not consistent like Constitutional Law or the Acts of Parliaments.

Why are you defensive towards me?

How did you come to this conclusion?

The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone
http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/Maritime-Security-Private-The-Concept-of-Innocent-Passage

During war, other established maritime law and laws of armed conflict (also) apply.

All these rights are provided for those countries that is not considered as enemy. There is a proverb : Every thing is fair in Love and War...How many times have one seen a war that is fair? What UN aims for is that no country should end up in a situation where it has no option other than war , so for this very reason it has left many things unclear. Hence even if these conventions are signed and ratified still the member state can make national law which could render these non-effective. This is also known as Parliamentary Sovereignty.

 

[war&peace]

When I heard the news of extension of Pakistan' sea boundaries EEZ by UN, I was really happy because I knew what it entailed and how we can use it strategically and benefit both politically and economically by controlling the trade and exploring the resources....a great blessing for Pakistan. For example, we can charge Indian/Iranian ships heavily to offset any benefit they could get via Chabahar trade if they continue to challenge or pose threat to Gawader and CPEC:

 

[Joe Shearer]

In general, it comes as a shock to an unaware Indian to read a position paper like this one, and to grasp the single-minded obsession with India, the differences with India, either present or possibly to be encountered in the future, with the nature of the encounter being entirely military, and entirely based on one side winning all that the other side loses, with no possibility whatsoever of contemplating any situation which is not the diplomatic and border equivalent of the unpleasant monkey tricks at the Wagah checkpost. This article was written by a flag officer of the Pakistan Navy. If his perception of the situation is so limited and jejune, it is difficult to see any mitigating circumstance in the strategic thinking of the officer cadre in general, whether military, naval or aerial.

The idea of recognizing a nation state’s special rights over sea space outside territorial limits and calling it Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a relatively new one. In earlier times, a country’s sovereign territorial waters extended up to the distance where cannon shots landed in the water from the coast and was generally taken as three nautical miles. As gun ranges improved, this limit was extended to twelve nautical miles.

The introduction is unexceptionable, and is a straightforward narrative of historical developments. It is significant that there is no mention of conditions prior to the gunpowder age; there was, in fact, no clear thinking in this regard, and the general rule was that each nation guarded what it could; as for the rest, and unfortunate victims of sea raids and sea raiders, the terse Latin tag ‘Vae victis!’ said it all.

In a bid to secure resources of adjoining seas after WW-II, countries began to claim jurisdiction beyond the twelve miles limit. United States of America was the first country to proclaim exclusive jurisdiction beyond traditional territorial limit of twelve miles, while Chile and Peru were the first to put a figure of 200 nautical miles on their claims of maritime zones.

In the notes on the claims of the United States, it may be noted that the US had already been attacked at two remote locations under its sovereignty, Pearl Harbour and the Aleutian Islands, and also suffered the conquest of its military client, the Philippines. While there was nothing that an additional jurisdiction brought to the defence of the continental US, this may be seen more as a knee-jerk than anything else.


Chile and Peru, on the other hand, had gone to war on their conflicting claims on each other’s territory, and their extensions of claims to control the seas abutting their coastlines were extensions of their old rivalry.

In 1982, United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) was formally adopted which recognized the concept of EEZ as an area beyond the territorial sea, subject to special legal regime established in Part V of the convention, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal States and the rights and freedom of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of the treaty

UNCLOS has been hailed by lawmakers of all nations. From the historians’ point of view, this represents a low-water mark in the history of free passage and open trade, which reached its glorious peak in the period between the seventh century and the seventeenth century in the Indian Ocean, all the way from Zanzibar at one end to Malaka (once known as Molucca) at the other. Nobody needed a passport, boat-building for the region was based on dhows, pilots were skilled and depended on handed down documents as well as formal training during a period of apprenticeship, and the seas were as peaceful and conducive to beneficial international relations as simultaneously the land behind the coasts saw the Arab conquest, the fall of the Sassanians, the gradual crumbling of the Byzantine Empire, the destruction of the civilisation of central Asia at the hands of the Mongols, their raids into Europe, and their check by the Mamelukes of Egypt, the continued unspeakable cruelty of Timur, the invasions of Khorasan, named so after invasion, and the destruction of the border kingdoms of India, the invasion and subjugation of north India, the foundation of several dynasties of Sultans and finally the coming of the great Mughals. On the west, the glittering empire of the Abbasids was locked in battle with the even more glittering empire of the Ottomans, under whom the nomadic Turks consolidated their hold on the soldier-mines of Anatolia and used it as a springboard into southern and eastern Europe, ending with two sieges of Vienna.


And all this while, the ships plied peacefully, interrupted by occasional clashes, some artificially tinctured, such as the one that first brought Arab attention to the Sind.


In one sentence, UNCLOS represented the final surrender of the eastern conventions governing maritime commerce, and imposed a one-sided legal regime developed and refined by Europeans, for Europeans.

This definition made a clear distinction between territorial sea and EEZ, wherein while the former conferred full sovereignty over waters adjoining its coast up to twelve nautical miles limit, the later conferred ‘sovereign rights’ below the surface of the sea. The sea surface however could be used by other states for ‘innocent passage’ of their flagged vessels

In 1994, UNCLOS came into force after ratification of requisite number of sixty countries and to date approximately 162 countries have joined it. It is interesting to note that US has not ratified UNCLOS even though it recognizes it as codification of customary international law.

There is no doubt that UNCLOS was needed when it was negotiated and instituted, if for no other reason than to protect the weaker, less belligerent nations from the intimidatory tactics of their unsought rivals: the Europeans into the Indian Ocean, then into the Pacific, the Americans into the Pacific from the other direction, the Japanese against all of south-east Asia, and into China as well, though more on land than on sea, until it seemed that any nation with a strong navy could impose any regime that it wanted to on its hapless neighbours. It is just that an immediate descent to warfare was not a default option in earlier centuries.

 

[Samlee]

In general, it comes as a shock to an unaware Indian to read a position paper like this one, and to grasp the single-minded obsession with India, the differences with India, either present or possibly to be encountered in the future, with the nature of the encounter being entirely military, and entirely based on one side winning all that the other side loses, with no possibility whatsoever of contemplating any situation which is not the diplomatic and border equivalent of the unpleasant monkey tricks at the Wagah checkpost. This article was written by a flag officer of the Pakistan Navy. If his perception of the situation is so limited and jejune, it is difficult to see any mitigating circumstance in the strategic thinking of the officer cadre in general, whether military, naval or aerial.



The introduction is unexceptionable, and is a straightforward narrative of historical developments. It is significant that there is no mention of conditions prior to the gunpowder age; there was, in fact, no clear thinking in this regard, and the general rule was that each nation guarded what it could; as for the rest, and unfortunate victims of sea raids and sea raiders, the terse Latin tag ‘Vae victis!’ said it all.



In the notes on the claims of the United States, it may be noted that the US had already been attacked at two remote locations under its sovereignty, Pearl Harbour and the Aleutian Islands, and also suffered the conquest of its military client, the Philippines. While there was nothing that an additional jurisdiction brought to the defence of the continental US, this may be seen more as a knee-jerk than anything else.


Chile and Peru, on the other hand, had gone to war on their conflicting claims on each other’s territory, and their extensions of claims to control the seas abutting their coastlines were extensions of their old rivalry.





UNCLOS has been hailed by lawmakers of all nations. From the historians’ point of view, this represents a low-water mark in the history of free passage and open trade, which reached its glorious peak in the period between the seventh century and the seventeenth century in the Indian Ocean, all the way from Zanzibar at one end to Malaka (once known as Molucca) at the other. Nobody needed a passport, boat-building for the region was based on dhows, pilots were skilled and depended on handed down documents as well as formal training during a period of apprenticeship, and the seas were as peaceful and conducive to beneficial international relations as simultaneously the land behind the coasts saw the Arab conquest, the fall of the Sassanians, the gradual crumbling of the Byzantine Empire, the destruction of the civilisation of central Asia at the hands of the Mongols, their raids into Europe, and their check by the Mamelukes of Egypt, the continued unspeakable cruelty of Timur, the invasions of Khorasan, named so after invasion, and the destruction of the border kingdoms of India, the invasion and subjugation of north India, the foundation of several dynasties of Sultans and finally the coming of the great Mughals. On the west, the glittering empire of the Abbasids was locked in battle with the even more glittering empire of the Ottomans, under whom the nomadic Turks consolidated their hold on the soldier-mines of Anatolia and used it as a springboard into southern and eastern Europe, ending with two sieges of Vienna.


And all this while, the ships plied peacefully, interrupted by occasional clashes, some artificially tinctured, such as the one that first brought Arab attention to the Sind.


In one sentence, UNCLOS represented the final surrender of the eastern conventions governing maritime commerce, and imposed a one-sided legal regime developed and refined by Europeans, for Europeans.



There is no doubt that UNCLOS was needed when it was negotiated and instituted, if for no other reason than to protect the weaker, less belligerent nations from the intimidatory tactics of their unsought rivals: the Europeans into the Indian Ocean, then into the Pacific, the Americans into the Pacific from the other direction, the Japanese against all of south-east Asia, and into China as well, though more on land than on sea, until it seemed that any nation with a strong navy could impose any regime that it wanted to on its hapless neighbours. It is just that an immediate descent to warfare was not a default option in earlier centuries.

If This Is Rebuttal I Am Sorry To Say It's An Extremely Pathetic One

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan has nearly 990 kilometers long coast line. With the acceptance of Pakistan’s claim early this year by UN commission for extension of its continental shelf from 200 to 350 nautical miles, its ‘sea bed territory’ has increased by another 50,000 square kilometers to 290,000 square kilometers. This is more than the combined area of Sind and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) provinces.

We come now to consideration of the way in which these developments have any impact on Pakistan. Unfortunately, even south Asian nations with ongoing rebellion raging in parts of their territories are dazzled at the prospect of unthinkable wealth emerging from the seas. A Hindu parallel comes to mind, but it would be culturally indecipherable and meaningless to other groups, and hence may be dispensed with.


Our Admiral is immediately dazzled by the expansion of territory, especially at the expansion occurring within the jurisdiction of his rather churlishly ill-treated service. The rest of the article simply reduces to two points, reiterated again and again: we can really get to screw those bloody Indians, and they can’t do anything about it because the law is on our side this time; and, we now get a strategic depth that we did not get in sixty years of huffing and puffing from the senior service (in Pakistan).

If This Is Rebuttal I Am Sorry To Say It's An Extremely Pathetic One

No doubt.

An immediate consequence of this extension in Pakistan’s EEZ has been the negative impact on proposed Iran-Oman-India pipeline estimated to cost nearly $ 4 billion and capable of transporting nearly a trillion cubic feet gas over the next two decades. It was planned to be 1,300 kilometers long and 3400 meters under the sea and was to run from Chahbahar in Iran andRas al Ratan in Oman to Porbandar in India with a compression station on Murray Ridgewhich now falls in our extended EEZ.Routing of the pipeline further south in deeper waters would disturb the cost-benefit ratio and pose complex technical challenges.

The good Admiral speeds up to a canter with his next paragraph: the consequence of UNCLOS that immediately strikes his mind is a vindictive blow to Indian interests – it is completely irrelevant that this does no good to Pakistan, it is enough that it allows a good kick at the Indians. It is not spiteful alone, it is intended to enlist the sympathy of what the Admiral thinks is the influential part of Pakistani society.

 

[Penguin]

The Aircraft was USSR Air Force One. If it was fired at the aircraft and target was destroyed this would have flared up to a full WAR without the support of NATO.

Interception of Civilian Aircraft is done first by radio calls in international frequencies and if there is no reply then a warning short fired over the right wing on the aircraft. If there is no response then the aircraft can be destroyed. This is the Procedure that is defined under ICAO Annex 2 Rules of the Air .... Interception of aircraft.



It was in reply to your answer... It seemed you were unclear on how Civil Aviation is regulated.
To clarify my reply... Civilian aircraft are required to obey both Civilian Air Traffic Controllers and also comply with instructions given to them incase they have been intercepted by Air Force aircraft. Further more ADIZ does not fall under the ambit of Civil Radar but under Military Radar hence it is mandatory for all aircraft to identify them selves by providing the identification clearance no.

This is very important in the case of Pakistan and India.


Historically it was meant for the purpose you are stating. But as countries are Sovereign they have used this for their own protection like the French had made ADIZ over the territory of an other Sovereign State Algeria which extended over International Waters.

Now EEZ is allowed under UNCLOS and ADIZ under Customary International Law. Both these laws are accepted by International Court of Justice.
This is the dilemma of International Law that it is not consistent like Constitutional Law or the Acts of Parliaments.

How did you come to this conclusion?


All these rights are provided for those countries that is not considered as enemy. There is a proverb : Every thing is fair in Love and War...How many times have one seen a war that is fair? What UN aims for is that no country should end up in a situation where it has no option other than war , so for this very reason it has left many things unclear. Hence even if these conventions are signed and ratified still the member state can make national law which could render these non-effective. This is also known as Parliamentary Sovereignty.

I'm not going to debate you just for the sake of debating, which is what you seem intent on doing. For I see not what point(s) you are attempting to make. I have been the one here pointing out ICAO etc. So, thank you and good bye.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In 1995, Pakistan had blockeda proposed deep-sea pipeline from Oman to India because it crossed our EEZ. This forced India to adopt a route outside of our previous 200 nautical miles limit of EEZ and for which detailed design, equipment trials and procurement of long lead items were planned during 2013-15. We need to keep an eye on these developments and not be taken by surprise as India might try to dispute our fundamental sovereign rights over the sea bed in the extended EEZ.

.
But it gets even more racy and titillating. We are reminded that an earlier pipeline was blocked from going through the earlier, curtailed version of the EEZ, and sent back for re-design to allow for a detour deeper south, a detour now made fruitless by the wonderful workings of the international lawyers, not to mention the lurking thought (never explicated but always present, ready for another ‘neutral’ party to point towards) Providence firmly supportive of the Navy in a way that it has signally failed to favour the Army.


So sad.


The fact that this has nothing of benefit to Pakistan is cheerfully ignored. Doing India down is reason enough, and bugger free trade or better international trade results.

India is already violating the spirit of UNCLOS by requiring 24 hours prior notice for ships carrying hazardous and dangerous cargos like oil, chemicals, noxious liquids, and radio-active material to enter its EEZ. In other words it is clearly endeavoring to ‘territorialize’ its EEZ.

Then, in keeping with the author’s sense of syncopation, a singularly nonsensical point – that India requires notice of ships carrying undesirable materials vulnerable to accident of the sort that wiped out whole seas of marine life when super-tankers have come to grief. There is not even a passing thought about the pauperisation of the Somali, by the indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste in their fishing zone, leading to the rapid growth of piracy as a cottage industry, which blossomed into an international business of mammoth proportions.


None of that crosses this very limited horizon. Anything will do to beat India with.

And watch for the moment when he shoots himself in the foot with this one.

Like neighboring Iran and India, Pakistan too has claimed authority to regulate military activities in its EEZ especially where the use of explosives orweapons is involved. In addition, we also require foreign aircraft to file flight plans before transiting over the EEZ. These claims reflect our legitimate security interest in the zone but in order to be taken seriously, it should now be followed by robust military capacity as well as pursuit of objectives through psychological measures, media warfare and legal means to dissuade adversaries from undermining our national interests.

All this effort, all the huffing and puffing by a state that has been handed a huge parcel of marine real estate, when it does not have even the capability to expand its fishing fleet. But that comes later. For now, what is blissfully entertaining is the word picture of a minute service confronted with the electric possibility of being heard in the counsels of state after those in authority have realised how much negative energy can be deployed at such short notice.


A dream come true.

 

[Samlee]

.
But it gets even more racy and titillating. We are reminded that an earlier pipeline was blocked from going through the earlier, curtailed version of the EEZ, and sent back for re-design to allow for a detour deeper south, a detour now made fruitless by the wonderful workings of the international lawyers, not to mention the lurking thought (never explicated but always present, ready for another ‘neutral’ party to point towards) Providence firmly supportive of the Navy in a way that it has signally failed to favour the Army.


So sad.


The fact that this has nothing of benefit to Pakistan is cheerfully ignored. Doing India down is reason enough, and bugger free trade or better international trade results.



Then, in keeping with the author’s sense of syncopation, a singularly nonsensical point – that India requires notice of ships carrying undesirable materials vulnerable to accident of the sort that wiped out whole seas of marine life when super-tankers have come to grief. There is not even a passing thought about the pauperisation of the Somali, by the indiscriminate dumping of toxic waste in their fishing zone, leading to the rapid growth of piracy as a cottage industry, which blossomed into an international business of mammoth proportions.


None of that crosses this very limited horizon. Anything will do to beat India with.

And watch for the moment when he shoots himself in the foot with this one.


All this effort, all the huffing and puffing by a state that has been handed a huge parcel of marine real estate, when it does not have even the capability to expand its fishing fleet. But that comes later. For now, what is blissfully entertaining is the word picture of a minute service confronted with the electric possibility of being heard in the counsels of state after those in authority have realised how much negative energy can be deployed at such short notice.


A dream come true.

Do You Realize You Have Not Challenged One Statement on Point Of Facts Just Passed Useless Commentaries Heck Your Past
Attempt At Justifying Annexation Of Junagadh Was Better

 

[Joe Shearer]

This huge stretch of sea space can justifiably be called the fifth province of Pakistan. It is rich in hydrocarbons, fish, and other sea bed resources. In order to benefit from this gift of nature, Pakistan must undertake serious initiatives to acquire deep sea exploratory vessels which are capable of probing beneath the sea bed and evaluating data to determine presence of various natural resources.

Unless there is knowledge andinformation about what lies beneath the seabed under our jurisdiction, there is unlikely to be serious urge to extract this vast reservoir of national wealth. Outsourcing this task to other countries is not the answer as information on complete and authentic data on these resources is too precious to be shared with other countries

After the genuflection – or, if culturally undesirable, the sajjida – to strategic interests, an afterthought: the possibility, not to be ruled out, that there might be benefits in all this to the Pakistani people, apart from the rich benefits to the Pakistan Navy. We now have frank confessions that some homework is needed, some elementary exploration is needed, that torpedoes are not subtle enough scientific instruments, that scientists might have a role to play. Perhaps a post-retirement offer to the likes of Z. A. Qasim? Not to the man himself, who died at nearly 90, after a career replete with path-breaking and with a grateful nation’s honours.


The confessions continue with an embarrassed debarring of allowing the scientific work to be done by furriners.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sea food is another precious resource where our fish production in the marine sector, extending up to 35 nautical miles from the coast, is nearly 70 percent whiles the remaining 30 percent is obtained from inland sector. There is no reliable data on the quantum of fish resource beyond 35 nautical miles limit in the EEZ which is routinely transgressed by modern ‘floating factory’ type fishing trawlers from other countries.

This lack of research, this total lack of interest in oceanography, is now going to change. Overnight.


The inability to spot or to interrogate floating factories is irrelevant; that they exist and that they make a profit in Pakistani’s territorial waters.


Incidentally, the good Admiral has elsewhere mentioned that the exclusive economic zone relates to the sea-bed, and not to the intermediate layers of the sea. Even then, accepting that Pakistan has a right to fish in its neighbouring waters greater than anybody else, some cursory interest would help the argument.


A country that has no interest in harvesting the sea-catch really has no business worrying about the activities of possible factory-ships.