From:
Tensions in a simmering dispute over drilling rights in the Bay of Bengal were stoked last week after lawyers from Foley Hoag filed two international arbitration claims on behalf of Bangladesh against neighboring Burma and India. After Bangladesh brought in its legal guns, the real guns started to come out.
At issue between the three countries, each of which border the world's largest bay, are competing claims to exclusive zones thought to contain huge deposits of oil and natural gas. Bangladesh's claims to the strategic energy reserves have raised the ire of its neighbors, particularly Burma. In response, Burma began moving troops along the 200-mile border between the two Southeast Asian nations.
According to Foley Hoag partner Paul Reichler--whose international exploits have been covered before in this space (click here, here, and here)--the arbitration claim was meant to avoid violence, not cause it.
"The buildup by the Burmese armed forces actually began before the notice of arbitration was served," he says. "But it certainly seems to have intensified since then and hopefully they won't be a precursor to any unfortunate incidents."
Foley Hoag began advising Bangladesh in March, Reichler says. The three countries conducted negotiations over the next few months to try and resolve their differences, but the talks eventually broke down. On October 8, Bangladesh sent complaint letters to India and Burma indicating its intent to sue to protect its maritime boundary.
Reichler, who two years ago scored a big win for Guyana in a similar dispute with Suriname (represented by lawyers from Cravath, Swaine & Moore), says that maritime boundary disputes are on the rise. The reason: advances in technology and new drilling techniques have made tapping offshore energy reserves more economically feasible.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which Bangladesh's arbitration was brought under, allows countries to claim an exclusive zone up to 200 miles offshore. Countries can also lay claim to additional undersea territory if it's part of a continuous continental shelf that extends from the shoreline.
But Reichler says the Bay of Bengal complicates traditional definitions of maritime boundaries. Several major rivers feed into the bay--the Ganges River Delta in Bangladesh is the largest of its kind on earth--and sediment from runoff causes the continental shelf to extend far offshore into areas claimed by Bangladesh, Burma, and India.
With the Bay of Bengal only being roughly 400 miles across, Reichler says that the claims by the three countries to territorial waters converge at various places, thus leading to the underlying dispute.
Reichler says the disputed claims have made it almost impossible for foreign oil companies to drill in the area, a tremendous setback to a developing country like Bangladesh that could use both the revenue and energy produced from such drilling.
Burma and India have 30 days to respond to Bangladesh's arbitration claim by nominating their own arbitrators, Reichler says, adding that he has yet to hear from lawyers for either country. If the countries agree to arbitration, parties will have another 30 days to nominate three mutually agreed upon arbitrators for a panel of five. (Banglandesh has nominated noted international law specialist Vaughan Lowe from Oxford.)
Foley Hoag partners Andrew Loewenstein and Lawrence Martin are assisting Reichler in the arbitration along with international law and arbitration experts James Crawford from Cambridge and Payam Akhavan from McGill.
Reichler says he's not worried that Burma, considered a pariah state by the West, won't participate in arbitration proceedings. (While the military junta that runs Burma changed the country's name to Myanmar 20 years ago, the U.S. and some other Western countries that have imposed sanctions against the regime haven't formally recognized the change.)
"If they don't take part in the process, it will go on without them," he says. "So it's in their best interest to do so, unless they want their prospects for an international boundary acceptable to them to be lowered."
The president of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which sits in Hamburg, will appoint an arbitrator for Burma should it choose not to participate. A copy of Bangladesh's arbitration claim was not yet publicly available out of concern that parties in Burma might not have received notice.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bangladesh-Myanmar tension escalates
From:
Even as tension escalates between Bangladesh and Burma, the Bangladeshi Army Chief Lt Gen Abdul Mubin visited Alikadam in Bandarban district, near the border with Burma, on Monday evening to review the latest situation, border sources said.
A source on the Burma-Bangladesh border said, the Army Chief made a surprise visit at about 3 p.m. and spoke to army officers.“The Army Chief arrived in Alikadam yesterday and talked to army officers stationed here. Both Burma and Bangladesh have mobilized more troops and the situation is tense,” the source told Mizzima.
Another source on the border said at least 700 Bangladeshi soldiers have been positioned near the Burma-Bangladesh border since Monday.A report by the Dhaka-based Daily Star, quoting defence sources on Monday said, tension between Burma and Bangladesh has escalated with the Burmese military regime bringing in tanks, artillery, 13 warships and a frigate on Sunday.
The Bangladesh Ministry of Defence as well as the army and the Bangladesh Military Intelligence (BMI) have all refused to comment on the situation saying “We are not authorized.”Tin Soe, Assistant Editor of the Chittagong-based Burmese News Agency the Kaladan Press Network on Tuesday said, Bangladesh, which already has its border security forces the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) deployed in the region are bringing in at least four army battalions.“Our sources in the military said Bangladesh is bringing in at least four army battalions and the Burmese are said to be reinforcing with about four to five battalions,” Tin Soe said. He said a Bangladesh navy frigate, which is normally stationed in Chittagong is now patrolling the area.
The Daily Star on Tuesday, quoting a naval officer stationed in Chittagong, reported that a frigate of the Bangladesh Navy BNS Abu Bakar is patrolling the sea near the disputed area where Burma had tried to set up rigs last November for exploration.Meanwhile, sources said Burmese soldiers have begun work on fencing the border in Maungdaw Township of Arakan State.
Sources said while the Burmese military government has suddenly increased military presence along the border in recent days, it is still not clear whether Burma is bringing in more troops for fencing the border or because of its maritime dispute with Bangladesh.
Even as tension escalates between Bangladesh and Burma, the Bangladeshi Army Chief Lt Gen Abdul Mubin visited Alikadam in Bandarban district, near the border with Burma, on Monday evening to review the latest situation, border sources said.
A source on the Burma-Bangladesh border said, the Army Chief made a surprise visit at about 3 p.m. and spoke to army officers.“The Army Chief arrived in Alikadam yesterday and talked to army officers stationed here. Both Burma and Bangladesh have mobilized more troops and the situation is tense,” the source told Mizzima.
Another source on the border said at least 700 Bangladeshi soldiers have been positioned near the Burma-Bangladesh border since Monday.A report by the Dhaka-based Daily Star, quoting defence sources on Monday said, tension between Burma and Bangladesh has escalated with the Burmese military regime bringing in tanks, artillery, 13 warships and a frigate on Sunday.
The Bangladesh Ministry of Defence as well as the army and the Bangladesh Military Intelligence (BMI) have all refused to comment on the situation saying “We are not authorized.”Tin Soe, Assistant Editor of the Chittagong-based Burmese News Agency the Kaladan Press Network on Tuesday said, Bangladesh, which already has its border security forces the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) deployed in the region are bringing in at least four army battalions.“Our sources in the military said Bangladesh is bringing in at least four army battalions and the Burmese are said to be reinforcing with about four to five battalions,” Tin Soe said. He said a Bangladesh navy frigate, which is normally stationed in Chittagong is now patrolling the area.
The Daily Star on Tuesday, quoting a naval officer stationed in Chittagong, reported that a frigate of the Bangladesh Navy BNS Abu Bakar is patrolling the sea near the disputed area where Burma had tried to set up rigs last November for exploration.Meanwhile, sources said Burmese soldiers have begun work on fencing the border in Maungdaw Township of Arakan State.
Sources said while the Burmese military government has suddenly increased military presence along the border in recent days, it is still not clear whether Burma is bringing in more troops for fencing the border or because of its maritime dispute with Bangladesh.
Myanmar building tunnel in Arakan to house fighter jets!
From:
The Burmese military junta has been constructing a tunnel bunker in Ann Township in Arakan State since the beginning of this year for storing fighter jets, said a military source. The tunnel is located in Mae Daung Mountain, located ten miles north of Ann where the Western Command is stationed.
According to a local source, a military air base has also been under construction Ann Town for the last few years but is now complete, and fighter jets are now landing at the base. The tunnel is intended to be connected with the air base but no further information about the tunnel is known, one analyst said.
The Burmese military junta has been constructing many underground tunnels throughout Burma with the help of North Korea, but there is no detailed information on the tunnel in Arakan, or whether North Korea is assisting in the construction.
According to the military source, this is the latest military build-up in Arakan State. Prior to this, the regime built other military infrastructure, including Kyauk Pru Navy Base, Ann Air Base, and Kyaun Thaya Radar Station.
The Burmese military has been increasing its strength in Arakan State because it is in a strategic location on the Bay of Bengal, which is rich in natural resources.
The Burmese military junta has been constructing a tunnel bunker in Ann Township in Arakan State since the beginning of this year for storing fighter jets, said a military source. The tunnel is located in Mae Daung Mountain, located ten miles north of Ann where the Western Command is stationed.
According to a local source, a military air base has also been under construction Ann Town for the last few years but is now complete, and fighter jets are now landing at the base. The tunnel is intended to be connected with the air base but no further information about the tunnel is known, one analyst said.
The Burmese military junta has been constructing many underground tunnels throughout Burma with the help of North Korea, but there is no detailed information on the tunnel in Arakan, or whether North Korea is assisting in the construction.
According to the military source, this is the latest military build-up in Arakan State. Prior to this, the regime built other military infrastructure, including Kyauk Pru Navy Base, Ann Air Base, and Kyaun Thaya Radar Station.
The Burmese military has been increasing its strength in Arakan State because it is in a strategic location on the Bay of Bengal, which is rich in natural resources.
Friday, October 9, 2009
South Asia-the failed region!
FROM:
South Asia is in a sorrow state – much of its own making. India is in a sorrow state – as yesterday (8th October, 2009) Naxals killed 17 policemen in Maharashtra and in Kabul, another attempt to blast Indian embassy resulted in similar number of deaths.
What’s happening in India? What’s happening in South Asia? And why?
Not long ago, Indian media was gung ho on ‘India superpower’ topic. I was one of the few skeptics – not because I am less or more patriotic. It’s something similar to the views one Singapore-based Indian fund manager once said: whenever in his TV interviews he states Sensex may correct more than many other markets, he has been perceived as a non-patriotic.
The last two years may or may not have seen decoupling conclusively – however one decoupling that has happened conclusively is comparing India along with China in global forums and media. President Obama would be visiting Asia next month – India does not feature in the list of nations.
India, like China, deserves to be a superpower if counted by its population only. However sadly, in global stage, population numbers don’t count. And India still struggles to get a seat in the UNP5.
Question is: how much has India (and whole of South Asia) prospered relatively in (1) infrastructure, biggest of which is education; (2) regional collaboration, and (3) social justice over the last two or three decades? The world has been more concerned about Sub-Saharan Africa (and good to see they score better compared to South Asia in many parameters of HDI) whereas South Asia has further created problems of its own.
It was comforting to see Rahul Gandhi recognizing part of the Naxal-problem, true with some political color, when he attributed lack of governance and improvement of quality of life as the root cause. On the Naxalite menance, Home Minister Chidambarm is again right when he said that agitation and terrorism by Naxalites is hampering further progress of these backward regions. But that’s the obvious well-known problem, and not the solution. In-spite of that problem, we need to find a solution going beyond the chicken and egg story of vicious cycles of poverty to destructive agitations.
Externally too, India does not feature prominently in ASEAN or in discussions when many Asian nations talk about a common currency following the Euro.
The ‘easy and acceptable’ Indian view of above would be India faced tremendous challenge from inside out (diversity along with terrorism leave aside corruption) and outside in (unfriendly neighbors). The best example of the inside problem is the presence of elements like Raj Thackeray in Indian politics, whom media projected recently and who proudly showed his concern for Maharashtra by speaking in Marathi in national channels. Credits must be due to both Raj Thackeray and those channels!
The other view could be – can something else work because following the same path has not solved domestic problems, neither has Indian stature in AfPak, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or even with China has gone up in recent years. One can even include Iran and Myanmar in South Asia, and again indecisiveness of India has acted against Indian interest (or broader interest of humanity) there. The reason is primarily Indian indecisiveness.
Best example of that is found when no one globally notices India as a responsible nuclear power (unlike Pakistan or even China), however what they notice is India has not signed the NPT.
The best example of this indecisiveness is epitomized in many an external relationship. I often heard from Indian Diaspora in African continent that whenever due to a natural calamity, some country there is affected – India takes years to send food grains/relief materials (due to bureaucratic delays) whereas assistance from China reaches them in days. It helps in creating public opinion.
Columnists (or bloggers) live with critics and one such feedback (by one Andrew) to one of my earlier related columns in BNN read like: ‘This is why India has no friend in the world because India is always so selfish. If India become a superpower, it will be the most selfish country too.’
For deliberate reason, I avoided the next sentence that Andrew had in his feedback. However as one sees how India stands in regional and global forums, one can’t but avoid noticing that India doesn’t have much friends to count on in the world or even within South Asia (or broader Asia). And leave aside the blowing Indian mainstream media, in the grassroot levels, India may not have many friends of its domestic policies too if the Naxal problem is indeed as deep as it’s popularly projected (25% of Indian districts). Naxals may be one such dividing force, India actually has many more. And surprisingly, all these happen in the land of Mahatma Gandhi!
I could not help but write a painful spoof article on that sometime back (India warns Iraq with Cold War rhetoric). One can replace Iraq with AfPak today whereas India again remains the common contender.
It’s time probably India relooks at its South Asian policies – ensuring militants are never helped by neighboring countries trying to settle scores with India (or any other countries). A true spirit of partnership rather than outdoing each-other is what is needed in all of South Asia, including India. A stable Pakistan is in India’s interest and so is for Pakistan. A strong China can be for India’s interest and as the largest power in South Asia, respecting India’s rightful positions can be of China’s interest. And all these interests can benefit 20% or more global people who live in South Asia. Even it is time that the west (the US, EU) involves local powers (India and also China) in solving their problems in AfPak.
India should also ensure that domestic imbalances are taken care from its roots rather than parliamentarian speeches and faulty policy-implementations. That probably demands reviewing how the Constitution works in grass-root levels.
India and whole of South Asia indeed needs a lot of genuine help from rest of the world – for the betterment of South Asia and for the betterment of the world. The rest of the world should not find faults with South Asia – due to its inherent unique historical characteristics. They should rather try genuinely to resolve same.
Lastly – this article needs a disclaimer. ‘India – a failed state’ may raise a lot of eyebrows within India and unnecessary criticism by being ‘not in the same page’ (or for South Asia). One such example comes to mind when a recent UN discussion talked about comparing caste based differentiation with racism and applying same to India. Many in India viewed that would embarrass India. But the truth is something deeper (and as stated by Rahul Gandhi again when he said he doesn’t believe in caste) and may be in grass-root Indian culture. Can we ask the UN to help us resolve that problem rather than finding fault with our historical diversity or even denying the problem? Can we ask UN to help us in improving literacy rather than lecturing alone (and spare the public-private mode there)?
The objective of the article is to ensure India should never be anywhere close to a failed state and South Asia should never look like a failed region. But recent events are indeed disturbing. By taking the worst possible scenario, it’s time to re-think how India as the largest country in South Asia and as one deeply affected formalizes her internal policies and external relationships. India, due to her stature in South Asia, definitely owns a significant responsibility in bringing peace, stability and growth in the whole region. However lately we only see failures. And the blame games can’t continue.
The best thing one can learn from the media in the west is to critically self-evaluate oneself rather than glorifying oneself (what China so far does). Indian media would probably do more justice to India by critically (and not superficially) examining the effectiveness of India’s external and internal policies, if anything like that at all exists. And that goes for countries in other South Asian nations as well.
One can learn from failures, alternatively one can sink further in those failures. If Russia and the US can do business leaving aside cold war memories, if the US and the communist China can do business for mutual benefit; why can’t China, India (and if need be with Pakistan, Bangladesh and others) do business for mutual benefit?
It’s time to think outside the box for the problems that India and whole of South Asia faces. That genuine out of the box thinking must start from India, percolate to the other South Asian nations and finally to the rest of the world.
South Asia is in a sorrow state – much of its own making. India is in a sorrow state – as yesterday (8th October, 2009) Naxals killed 17 policemen in Maharashtra and in Kabul, another attempt to blast Indian embassy resulted in similar number of deaths.
What’s happening in India? What’s happening in South Asia? And why?
Not long ago, Indian media was gung ho on ‘India superpower’ topic. I was one of the few skeptics – not because I am less or more patriotic. It’s something similar to the views one Singapore-based Indian fund manager once said: whenever in his TV interviews he states Sensex may correct more than many other markets, he has been perceived as a non-patriotic.
The last two years may or may not have seen decoupling conclusively – however one decoupling that has happened conclusively is comparing India along with China in global forums and media. President Obama would be visiting Asia next month – India does not feature in the list of nations.
India, like China, deserves to be a superpower if counted by its population only. However sadly, in global stage, population numbers don’t count. And India still struggles to get a seat in the UNP5.
Question is: how much has India (and whole of South Asia) prospered relatively in (1) infrastructure, biggest of which is education; (2) regional collaboration, and (3) social justice over the last two or three decades? The world has been more concerned about Sub-Saharan Africa (and good to see they score better compared to South Asia in many parameters of HDI) whereas South Asia has further created problems of its own.
It was comforting to see Rahul Gandhi recognizing part of the Naxal-problem, true with some political color, when he attributed lack of governance and improvement of quality of life as the root cause. On the Naxalite menance, Home Minister Chidambarm is again right when he said that agitation and terrorism by Naxalites is hampering further progress of these backward regions. But that’s the obvious well-known problem, and not the solution. In-spite of that problem, we need to find a solution going beyond the chicken and egg story of vicious cycles of poverty to destructive agitations.
Externally too, India does not feature prominently in ASEAN or in discussions when many Asian nations talk about a common currency following the Euro.
The ‘easy and acceptable’ Indian view of above would be India faced tremendous challenge from inside out (diversity along with terrorism leave aside corruption) and outside in (unfriendly neighbors). The best example of the inside problem is the presence of elements like Raj Thackeray in Indian politics, whom media projected recently and who proudly showed his concern for Maharashtra by speaking in Marathi in national channels. Credits must be due to both Raj Thackeray and those channels!
The other view could be – can something else work because following the same path has not solved domestic problems, neither has Indian stature in AfPak, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or even with China has gone up in recent years. One can even include Iran and Myanmar in South Asia, and again indecisiveness of India has acted against Indian interest (or broader interest of humanity) there. The reason is primarily Indian indecisiveness.
Best example of that is found when no one globally notices India as a responsible nuclear power (unlike Pakistan or even China), however what they notice is India has not signed the NPT.
The best example of this indecisiveness is epitomized in many an external relationship. I often heard from Indian Diaspora in African continent that whenever due to a natural calamity, some country there is affected – India takes years to send food grains/relief materials (due to bureaucratic delays) whereas assistance from China reaches them in days. It helps in creating public opinion.
Columnists (or bloggers) live with critics and one such feedback (by one Andrew) to one of my earlier related columns in BNN read like: ‘This is why India has no friend in the world because India is always so selfish. If India become a superpower, it will be the most selfish country too.’
For deliberate reason, I avoided the next sentence that Andrew had in his feedback. However as one sees how India stands in regional and global forums, one can’t but avoid noticing that India doesn’t have much friends to count on in the world or even within South Asia (or broader Asia). And leave aside the blowing Indian mainstream media, in the grassroot levels, India may not have many friends of its domestic policies too if the Naxal problem is indeed as deep as it’s popularly projected (25% of Indian districts). Naxals may be one such dividing force, India actually has many more. And surprisingly, all these happen in the land of Mahatma Gandhi!
I could not help but write a painful spoof article on that sometime back (India warns Iraq with Cold War rhetoric). One can replace Iraq with AfPak today whereas India again remains the common contender.
It’s time probably India relooks at its South Asian policies – ensuring militants are never helped by neighboring countries trying to settle scores with India (or any other countries). A true spirit of partnership rather than outdoing each-other is what is needed in all of South Asia, including India. A stable Pakistan is in India’s interest and so is for Pakistan. A strong China can be for India’s interest and as the largest power in South Asia, respecting India’s rightful positions can be of China’s interest. And all these interests can benefit 20% or more global people who live in South Asia. Even it is time that the west (the US, EU) involves local powers (India and also China) in solving their problems in AfPak.
India should also ensure that domestic imbalances are taken care from its roots rather than parliamentarian speeches and faulty policy-implementations. That probably demands reviewing how the Constitution works in grass-root levels.
India and whole of South Asia indeed needs a lot of genuine help from rest of the world – for the betterment of South Asia and for the betterment of the world. The rest of the world should not find faults with South Asia – due to its inherent unique historical characteristics. They should rather try genuinely to resolve same.
Lastly – this article needs a disclaimer. ‘India – a failed state’ may raise a lot of eyebrows within India and unnecessary criticism by being ‘not in the same page’ (or for South Asia). One such example comes to mind when a recent UN discussion talked about comparing caste based differentiation with racism and applying same to India. Many in India viewed that would embarrass India. But the truth is something deeper (and as stated by Rahul Gandhi again when he said he doesn’t believe in caste) and may be in grass-root Indian culture. Can we ask the UN to help us resolve that problem rather than finding fault with our historical diversity or even denying the problem? Can we ask UN to help us in improving literacy rather than lecturing alone (and spare the public-private mode there)?
The objective of the article is to ensure India should never be anywhere close to a failed state and South Asia should never look like a failed region. But recent events are indeed disturbing. By taking the worst possible scenario, it’s time to re-think how India as the largest country in South Asia and as one deeply affected formalizes her internal policies and external relationships. India, due to her stature in South Asia, definitely owns a significant responsibility in bringing peace, stability and growth in the whole region. However lately we only see failures. And the blame games can’t continue.
The best thing one can learn from the media in the west is to critically self-evaluate oneself rather than glorifying oneself (what China so far does). Indian media would probably do more justice to India by critically (and not superficially) examining the effectiveness of India’s external and internal policies, if anything like that at all exists. And that goes for countries in other South Asian nations as well.
One can learn from failures, alternatively one can sink further in those failures. If Russia and the US can do business leaving aside cold war memories, if the US and the communist China can do business for mutual benefit; why can’t China, India (and if need be with Pakistan, Bangladesh and others) do business for mutual benefit?
It’s time to think outside the box for the problems that India and whole of South Asia faces. That genuine out of the box thinking must start from India, percolate to the other South Asian nations and finally to the rest of the world.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Bangladesh snowballing into crisis?
From NEW AGE editorial:
THE principal cause of discord and discontent within the ruling Awami League and the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, as pointed out in a report front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, seems to centre the question of accommodating those leaders in the policymaking forums who are perceived to have either tacitly endorsed or hobnobbed with the military-controlled interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed in the early days of its tenure.
In other words, the two major political parties of the country remain tangled in the legacy of the unconstitutional administration that, in its tenure of nearly two years, kept the fundamental rights of the people suspended under a crippling state of emergency and also attempted, abortively, to redraw the political landscape. The debilitating impact that the emergency regime has had on the political process could very well be measured by the growing tension, if not outright conflict, within and between the Awami League and the BNP.
It is needless to say that such inter- and intra-party conflicts have left the political process eminently vulnerable. As if to highlight such vulnerability, there have already been allegations and counter-allegations in the corridor of power about a brewing conspiracy towards the ouster of an elected government. The prime minister herself as recently as on Sunday evening, at a reception in New York, warned of a re-enactment of January 11, 2007-like changeover in her call to the main opposition leader for end to her party’s boycott of parliament.
It cannot be overemphasised that confrontation between the two major political parties in late 2006, which threatened to the send the country hurtling down the path of prolonged political uncertainty and social disorder, created the opportunity for certain apolitical and political quarters to fish in the muddied water and eventually engineer an extra-constitutional intervention in the political process. Regrettably, within eight months of the country having come out of the dark phase in its history, the intra-party power struggle threatens to lead it towards yet more uncertainties.
The two topmost political leaders need to realise that the situation, as it stands now, may be more complicated than it was before the January 11, 2007 changeover, with intra-party tension thrown into the mix. It is not that the two leaders are not aware of the gravity of the situation; their recent statements tend to indicate that they are. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have sincerely tried to resolve the standoff, both between and within the parties, with decisive and definitive steps.
Although the Awami League has dealt with the so-called ‘pro-reform’ leaders in its own way, the issue remains far from being resolved. On the other hand, the BNP has thus far been more or less indecisive, although there have been indications that it may address the issue soon. Overall, both the AL and BNP leaderships have allowed the standoff, both within and between their respective parties, to procrastinate, perhaps to a point that it threatens to deal a debilitating blow to the political process.
It’s about time they confronted the problems head on before they snowball into a crisis.
THE principal cause of discord and discontent within the ruling Awami League and the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, as pointed out in a report front-paged in New Age on Wednesday, seems to centre the question of accommodating those leaders in the policymaking forums who are perceived to have either tacitly endorsed or hobnobbed with the military-controlled interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed in the early days of its tenure.
In other words, the two major political parties of the country remain tangled in the legacy of the unconstitutional administration that, in its tenure of nearly two years, kept the fundamental rights of the people suspended under a crippling state of emergency and also attempted, abortively, to redraw the political landscape. The debilitating impact that the emergency regime has had on the political process could very well be measured by the growing tension, if not outright conflict, within and between the Awami League and the BNP.
It is needless to say that such inter- and intra-party conflicts have left the political process eminently vulnerable. As if to highlight such vulnerability, there have already been allegations and counter-allegations in the corridor of power about a brewing conspiracy towards the ouster of an elected government. The prime minister herself as recently as on Sunday evening, at a reception in New York, warned of a re-enactment of January 11, 2007-like changeover in her call to the main opposition leader for end to her party’s boycott of parliament.
It cannot be overemphasised that confrontation between the two major political parties in late 2006, which threatened to the send the country hurtling down the path of prolonged political uncertainty and social disorder, created the opportunity for certain apolitical and political quarters to fish in the muddied water and eventually engineer an extra-constitutional intervention in the political process. Regrettably, within eight months of the country having come out of the dark phase in its history, the intra-party power struggle threatens to lead it towards yet more uncertainties.
The two topmost political leaders need to realise that the situation, as it stands now, may be more complicated than it was before the January 11, 2007 changeover, with intra-party tension thrown into the mix. It is not that the two leaders are not aware of the gravity of the situation; their recent statements tend to indicate that they are. Unfortunately, they do not seem to have sincerely tried to resolve the standoff, both between and within the parties, with decisive and definitive steps.
Although the Awami League has dealt with the so-called ‘pro-reform’ leaders in its own way, the issue remains far from being resolved. On the other hand, the BNP has thus far been more or less indecisive, although there have been indications that it may address the issue soon. Overall, both the AL and BNP leaderships have allowed the standoff, both within and between their respective parties, to procrastinate, perhaps to a point that it threatens to deal a debilitating blow to the political process.
It’s about time they confronted the problems head on before they snowball into a crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)