Fishing for natural gas
by Winford James
February 22, 2004
The most striking thing about the flying fish crisis is that, though the matter is in the public domain, the public does not know either what the Bajans are unhappy about or what the position of our government is on that unhappiness. On the face of it, it seems the Bajans want more access to the surplus of our flying fish stock through a unilateral redrawing by Trinidad and Tobago of an established sea boundary with Venezuela, but when you consider the apparent tenuousness of their case and their extreme actions of imposing trade measures and taking an unclear matter to an international court for arbitration, there is a very strong indication of something much bigger underneath. It can't be the fish they are after, my suspicions tell me; the fish doesn't have the economic (or long-term political) purchase. Could they be after something else in the waters - like natural gas?
Now Bajan fisherfolk have been fishing with impunity in Tobago's waters for years, but now that some punishment is applied to two of their number, their government reacts as if it has gone crazy clean. It highlights the fact that Trinidadians own some of the ascending heights of the Bajan economy. It points to the prevalence of Trinbagonian goods on Bajan supermarket shelves. It reminds Trinidad and Tobago of how Barbados has been generous to Trinbagonian exports. It threatens trade measures. And you scratch your head and wonder what that kind of reaction has to do with the arrest of two trespassing fishermen. It is as if the fishermen were sent into our waters to clear the way for the reaction.
I cannot help being suspicious. I ask myself: Is PM Arthur making sure he makes the right noises in anticipation of a general election to keep the votes of his fishing constituency? Or, is he now so tired of Barbados' (and the rest of the Caribbean's) reliance on Trinidad for energy that he is looking to break that dependence? Has he calculated that now is the time to test Trinidad and Tobago's rich advantage in the waters by forcing a determination of the boundaries of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Barbados vis-à-vis that of Trinidad and Tobago?
God knows the boundaries of each EEZ are unclear. By international law, each state is entitled to an EEZ not exceeding 200 nautical miles adjacent to it, but we all know that our Caribbean island-states are so geographically or, perhaps more accurately, hydrographically close to one another that it is impossible to have 200-mile EEZs for each of them. The various EEZs will always overlap. In any event, the establishment of the boundaries depends, by law, on delimitation agreements between competing states, which agreements apparently do not exist.
Barbados claims that the 1990 boundary treaty line between Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela is illegally drawn and, accordingly, that it and Guyana are robbed of some of their waters. But if you saw a hydrographical representation of that treaty line, you would have to wonder about the sense of the claim. The line curves between Trinidad and South America from east to north and it is closer to Trinidad, Tobago, Grenada, Venezuela, and Guyana than it is to Barbados from both its eastern and northern 'points'. Further, even if you were to extend its northern point, the line would pass clear of Barbados and be even closer to St. Vincent! So, visually, the claim doesn't seem to make sense.
Barbados apparently wants Trinidad and Tobago to unilaterally change the line, but, if so, it is asking us to do something that we cannot do under international law. We simply cannot by ourselves facilely change a line that has been established in a bilateral agreement under international law.
Assuming Barbados wants access to more of our flying fish, article 56 of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea gives a state sovereign rights to resources within its EEZ, while allowing other states rights to surpluses after an allowable catch has been determined by the owning state. So that if Barbados wants (a part of) our surpluses, it seems it has to enter into negotiations with us. Apparently such negotiations have been going on but have been taking so long to reach an agreement that Barbados' patience has run out.
Why has no agreement been reached with Barbados but one has been reached with Venezuela? It appears that while Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago both had something to offer in their tradeoff, Barbados apparently had nothing to offer to Trinidad and Tobago in exchange for greater access. Hence the strange noises it has been making. We must remember that it is Barbados that wants access to Trinidad and Tobago waters, not the other way round.
Barbados is right: arbitration is the surest way of settling the dispute. But the law lays down a number of conditions, including both parties in the dispute agreeing on the arbitrator and other terms and conditions. The question that arises, however, is: Can the arbitration be effected to produce two winners, rather than a winner and a loser?
Archives / Winford James Homepage / Previous Page
^^ Back to top
|