Platform for distorting the UNCLOS convention

THE EDITOR: May I convey appreciation to the Sealy Foundation for responding positively to quench the widespread national thirst for information/perspectives on the current TT/Barbados imbroglio by arranging a panel discussion at the National Museum last Thursday. My only regret is that having regard to the complexity, the preciseness and the considerable time necessary to adequately grasp and appreciate the fundamentals and nuances of the current Law of The Sea, the panel selected was manned by two well-intentioned laymen namely a reputable marine biologist (Professor Julien Kenny) and an engineer (Dr Winston Riley).

During the presentations I felt transported to Bridgetown because so many misinterpretations were used to put forward positions misleadingly favourable to and innocently supportive of the positions/arguments put forward by Barbados. I saw a foreign imported map being used showing the maritime divisions in the eastern Caribbean based on the median line without any explanations on whether line was either applicable or measured from our archipelagic baselines and what inequities if clearly reflected. The conclusion was conveyed to the unsuspecting audience that the application of the median line method constituted the mandatory, initial first stage of marine boundary delimitation when this approach is nowhere sanctioned and given primacy in UNCLOS. This is exactly the issue Barbados has submitted to the Tribunal for determination.

I heard the thesis being advanced that the median/special circumstances, a rule that was in fact 1958 law and now abandoned in the UNCLOS was the way to effect current delimitation problems but no mention of the most important concept of equitable criteria. To a member of the panel Barbados was a geographically disadvantaged state (GDS) when it does not meet UNCLOS criteria. One panelist (Prof Kenny) emphasised and repeated that there was no legal basis (legislation) to arrest Barbados fishermen fishing outside of our 12-mile territorial sea in the EEZ when Act No 24, Sections 26 to 28 clearly imposes a punitive prohibition on foreign fishermen fishing without licences. This comprehensive Act contains detailed provisions on powers of arrest, confiscation of catch and the institution of criminal proceedings.

I failed to appreciate why a potential secession of Tobago impacted on the drift of the discussion if not to raise unnecessary fears. No mention was made of the relevant Bajan legislation that restricts them to the notional median /equidistance boundary but that ours is to be determined by agreement/international law. What therefore were the two Bajan fishing vessels doing in our flying fish grounds off the sister isle if not intent on provocation? To hear that Point 22 of the 1990 Treaty was fixed having regard to Venezuela’s claim over the Essequibo Region was baffling misinformation. I can go ad infinitum regrettably enumerating the long list of distortions that blemished the best intentions of the Foundation.

The distinguished, packed audience consisting also of many young students, four former TT ambassadors, knowledgeable professionals regrettably may have assimilated misinformation in spite of my frequent interventions (to the annoyance of the panelists) to correct some of them. My further regret is that a noble Foundation dedicated to perpetuate the humanity/memory of the late Sealy provided a platform for mediocrity. Better could have been done to dignify his revered legacy/memory rather than create an opportunity for indulgence in misleading pronouncements and a perversion of the UNCLOS.  Oh how I missed that evening, the late Lennox Ballah, law of the sea guru and national hero.

STEPHEN KANGAL
Caroni