How beneficial can be Bangladesh-India transit facilities?

Transit facilities among European States have been in practice for hundreds of years. Even during the Cold War, Eastern European goods transited through Western Europe. The idea behind granting transit facilities is to facilitate consumer goods move through various countries so that people get benefits out of it.

The political boundaries of "nation-State" based on the Westphalian doctrine of 1648 has been wearing out since the 90s because of economic globalisation. The today's world has moved into a post-Westphalian era, with the globalisation process creeping up on the nation-states.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

We call this era of "economic globalisation", not "economic internationalization". The term "global" has a different connotation from that of "international". The term "international" considers nation-states as building blocks that influence international affairs, while the term "global" recognises that, besides nation-states, there are other actors such as transnational corporations, on the world stage, that influence global economic activities.

What changes do we notice in the period of economic globalisation?
First, for business purposes, the boundaries that separate one nation-state from another are no more real than the equator. They are merely convenient demarcations of geographical and political territory. They do not define business requirements or consumer trends.

Second, transnational corporations constitute now the main global economic force. They own or control economic activities in more than one country by engaging in foreign direct investment. They sprawl across national political boundaries and act in different ways to maximise profits.

Third, global business has changed the pattern of economic relationships. With transnational corporations moving industries to places with the cheapest labour, governments no longer have much control over their economies. For example, more than 30 companies, such as Motorola, IBM, Hewlett Packard, have set up soft ware programming offices on a 1,000 metre plateau in Bangalore, 320 kilometres west from Chennai (Madras), where the employees do some of the best information technology work in the world.

Finally, products have global components and thereby the finished products may be called "global products". For instance, what is the nationality of a Reebok sneaker, which has a African name, is made by an American company in South Korea, and displays the Union Jack (British symbol) as a label?

All these indicate that this is an era of not only of transnational enterprises, but also of goods transiting through various countries.

At this time when one era is closing down and another is opening up, India and Bangladesh cannot be silent spectators.

How can Bangladesh and India ignore such global trend for economic benefits?
Transit refers to the passage across another country's territory using its own surface transport, while transshipment refers to the same movement using the transport of transiting countries. For example, if India uses its transport through Bangladesh to dispatch its goods to northeaster states, it will be known as transit, but if India uses Bangladesh's transport, it will be called transshipment.

Whether it is transit or transhipment, the issue is whether goods can pass through one another's territory.

Transit or transhipment through Bangladesh or India's territory has not received as serious attention as it should from the authorities until today. This facility should be viewed invariably as part and parcel of economic development of the region. Transit facilities will act as catalyst in economic resurgence or rejuvenation of this economically moribund eastern region of South Asia.

Misplaced security concerns
Whenever this issue has been raised, political considerations come to play under the pretext of security concerns. It seems that authorities are imprisoned in their old mind-set of "sovereignty" of their territories and of unnecessary concerns of security. When informal trade, including smuggling of goods worth about US$1.3 billion per year, takes place between India and Bangladesh, no one raises question of security. Informal illegal trade is being conducted in front of the eyes of authorities at the border.

Security concerns play well in the mind, of people of both countries because political leaders seem not to attempt to clarify the situation. Furthermore security concerns are raised because of lack of trust between the two countries. To build trust, unremitting efforts are required to remove misgivings of each other. There needs to be efforts from all sections of society in both countries to make greater use of their resources, national and collective, in increasing their economic strength, to spread the benefits widely among people of both countries.

Misgivings to each other foster in a climate of suspicion. The poorer the people, the easier is to spread misgivings among them. In Europe, authorities can hardly make a case of security concerns in transit facilities because they are aware of the benefits of transit facilities.

What are the issues relating to transit or transhipment?
At the outset, a question may be raised: Whether this facility should be bilateral or regional one?

In other words, whether this multi-transit facility ( including transiting through rivers) should be confined only to India and Bangladesh or should also embrace Nepal and Bhutan of the eastern region, so that the whole eastern region could be the "engine of economic growth" of the neglected region of South Asia.

If it works well, it can be extended to Myanmar, Thailand and even to China. In the west, it can be extended to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran through India.

The next question: Does the transit facility give benefit to people?

Empirical evidence suggests that it shortens time and reduces costs of the products, and therefore it is hugely beneficial to people , not only because they get cheaper goods but also there will be more employment opportunity for them because of economic growth.

Another relevant question: Are there any technical constraints for providing transit facilities?

Apart from political considerations, the only technical constraint appears to be the mobilisation of adequate funds for building roads and bridges linking the countries involved. If there can be a viable "silk route" through Central Asia from China to Europe in ancient days, there seems to be no physical constraint in building transit routes connecting the countries in the region.

Who are the stakeholders?
Apart from the authorities that will receive huge earnings for providing transit facilities, transport sectors, business community, infrastructure builders including engineers and construction companies, and investors appear to be stakeholders.

They should mobilise public opinion in both countries through intellectual and media efforts to drive home the actual benefits accruing to people of both India and Bangladesh owing to transit facilities.

The apex bodies of the chamber of commerce and industries of both Bangladesh and India may cooperate and coordinate their action-plans to push the idea to people and to the governments so that it may become a reality.

This challenge must be taken up seriously by private sectors with a view to turning the eastern region of South Asia into a vibrant economic force at the dawn of the 21st century.

Sub-regionalism and transit facilities:
Since in the past SAARC or ESCAP has failed to proceed successfully in the matters of transit facilities in South Asia, it raises a question whether sub-regional cooperation is the pragmatic way to move forward in granting transit facilities.

Sub-regionalism or sub-regional cooperation is based on proximity of areas and common economic interests. It is suggested that northeastern states, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan should actively pursue sub-regional economic cooperation to improve quality of life of millions of people.

Given the rise of industrial power in China and the "Kunming Initiative", the eastern region of South Asia could be the hub of economic activities in future.

Conclusion
In the realm of contemporary history, larger power (in this case India), has always played a leading role in concretising the idea into action in cooperation with the countries concerned. India should take initiative in granting transit facilities to Nepal, Bangladesh and Bhutan so that these countries may fully benefit from the facilities. Nepal and Bhutan can use Bangladesh ports, besides Kolkata port. India may be able to get their goods to northeastern states.

During the Cold War, an absence of war was considered a success. At the dawn of the 21st century, there is a different definition of success. It is judged by interactions within the regional countries to enhance their economic gains so that foreign direct investment flows to the region, comparable next to those to China (in 2004 China received US$65 billion foreign direct investment as against US$ 5 billion to India).

The scenario reminds that of what Charles Dickens, in A Tale of Two Cities, at a time of great change in Europe in 1859, wrote:
" It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness....
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us."

Should the people of Bangladesh and India voice similar sentiments as of Dickens? Or should they grab the opportunity to break the shackles of old mind-set and begin a new beginning to show to the world that people of South Asia have risen from long "Rip Van Winklean" slumber?

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.