Saarc summit: The issue of transit and transshipment

Reportedly the Indian Prime Minister said: "I will go to Dhaka to participate in the Saarc summit and hope the summit will give a new fillip to economic and cultural integration of our north-eastern region."

Obviously one of the ways of providing a fresh impetus to achieve the objective of

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

"economic and cultural integration" of the north-eastern region includes the facilities of transit /transshipment from the rest of India through Bangladesh to India's north-eastern states (the so-called seven sisters -- Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura).

Not a new issue
This issue of transit/transshipment is not new, and has been on the table since the creation of Bangladesh. The difficulty has been that the transit and transshipment issue through land and railway often is linked with national security and consequently has been a politically charged issue.

Each country looks at the issue from a different perspective because in the background lurks another significant issue -- whether the two countries are anchored within a broad framework of political, strategic, and economic relationship.

What are the issues?
Although, since 1972 Bangladesh has permitted India to use Bangladeshi rivers as transit routes for its goods to India's north-eastern states, a question is often raised as to whether and to what extent the national security of Bangladesh is impinged in providing transit or transshipment facilities to India through roads and railways (Chittagong port is just 75 km from south Tripura).

Another common question asked is: what does Bangladesh get in return? Is it money only? Or should the transit/transshipment issue be tagged along with resolution of other pending bilateral issues?

Other issues that deserve mention include the following:

The first question is whether transit/transshipment is confined to between Bangladesh and India or whether it is among the Saarccountries. This means whether the issue is to be considered at a bilateral or a multi-lateral level.

I would argue that since the economy of South Asia is gradually integrating with the global economy, the issue of transit/transshipment needs to be considered a multi-lateral one. This will mean that all countries in South Asia should be able to send their goods though another country.

The second question is whether transit/transshipment is to be restricted to land or should include water and railway as well. In other words, whether transit/transship-ment will mean any transit/transshipment passage through land, water, and railway. During the British period, all the three facilities existed and the infrastructures may again be re-opened or re-constructed and run in the region.

The third question is related to the existing infrastructure. One may easily argue that the existing infrastructure in Bangladesh is totally inadequate. New highways, expansion of facilities of ports and facilities of night navigation in inland waterways and inland ports in Bangladesh are required to be built.

Obviously, Bangladesh alone cannot afford to build the new infrastructure in all three modes of passage. With regard to road, there is also a question as to whether this transit/transshipment through Bangladesh can be integrated as a part of Asian Highway.

It seems that in any case, a regional fund, either through Saarc or at inter-governmental level will have to be set up to build infrastructure on all three modes of passage -- roads, water and railways.. Another related issue is whether the private sector would contribute to the fund because they are one of the stakeholders.

This is not difficult. One can follow the example how European countries or North American countries and Mexico are managing inter-country trasit/transship-ment passage for their goods and materials.

The fourth question is the environmental impact on Bangladesh. How far, and to what extent, the environment will be degraded is an issue, and an environmental impact study needs to be undertaken to minimise the damage caused by use of transit/transshipment through Bangladesh.

The fifth and final question is what impact the transit/transshipment will have on the flow of services and the movement of labour in the region. The flow of labour is very sensitive and has many ramifications, including movement of militants within the region.

Political and economic relations inseparable
The territorial boundaries are distinct features of sovereign nation states, created by the 1648 Westphalian Treaty. The international borders between Bangladesh and India have been drawn up by colonial masters in 1947 before they left.

The boundaries do not take into account the realities on the ground. Many ethnic communities and natural terrain have been split up between the countries. The borders are porous and it is easy to cross over the international boundary without often even realising it.

In inter-country relationships, political and economic relations are two sides of the same coin. Those who suggest that an economic relationship can be developed, irrespective of political relations, appear to be idealists. Political relations precede economic relations. If there is a vacuum or tense political relationship, economic relations do not grow. This is a hard reality all over the world. For example, Washington does not do business with oil-rich Tehran, even at the time of soaring oil prices in the US.

Many political observers believe that Indo-Bangladesh relations have solid human and historical basis. The ties of history are so pervasive that relations between the two countries exist independently of governments and their policies.

The bilateral relations have so many facets that it is difficult to apply the normal tests in judging the nature of their relations. There is no adequate reason why Indo-Bangladesh relations cannot but be friendly if interests of both countries are recognised and addressed.

Conclusion
During the time of economic globalisation, it is high time that the leaders of South Asia address this vital issue for the benefit of people in the region. The unexploited possibilities of transit/transshipment cannot be isolated from other areas of cooperation, such as water resources development and regional trade.

If transit/transshipment facilities are not negotiable to include Pakistan at the first instance, one can reasonably consider the concept of sub-regionalism as a first step of transit/transshipment that will include eastern India, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan, because of their geographically contiguity. The idea makes sense to many economists of both Bangladesh and India.

This entire eastern region of South Asia, so far neglected, could be revitalised by granting transit/transshipment facilities so that in future it can integrate with the larger regional processes Asean and link up with China's economy.

The Saarc summit in Dhaka (November 12-13) provides an excellent opportunity for the leaders of South Asia to discuss and set up a task force to consider all the aspects in the matter and submit a report within a specified period.

The bottom line is that nature of economic relations between Bangladesh and India is multi-faceted and the various strands of political and economic cooperation cannot be separated.

The success of addressing the issue requires political leaders to have a high level commitment to regional cooperation and willingness to compromise and to take a long- term view. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said: "A leader is a dealer in hope."

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