The 15th SAARC Summit: Expectations and Challenges

The South Asian countries will soon gather for the annual regional ritual – Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The 15th SAARC Summit is due to take place in Sri Lanka on 2nd-3rd August 2008. Since its inception in 1985 the SAARC is struggling to survive and promising to thrive. The regional forum was inaugurated to strengthen socio-economic cooperation among South Asian countries thereby laying the groundwork for political trust-building. Unfortunately, the programmes of socio-economic and cultural cooperation have been hijacked by political differences and the SAARC is struggling to manage regional animosities.

The upcoming Summit will as usual be conducted in a challenged regional environment. Almost every member country is caught in a whirlwind of political crisis. Nepal, Pakistan and Bangladesh are being managed through interim political arrangements paving the way for new governments to take control. Bhutan and Afghanistan are experimenting with the modern democratic practices marking an important phase of political transitions within each country. The Left parties in India have withdrawn support from the Congress-led UPA government which is expected to prove its majority before the Summit commences. Maldives is expected to witness the first ever multi-party elections this year. The host, Sri Lanka, is facing a challenging security situation as the LTTE has renewed its assaults against the Singhalese dominated government. Some groups of media activists in Sri Lanka have even threatened to boycott the Summit in protest of the increasing attacks against journalists in the country. It seems ironical that in the midst such national political crisis, SAARC has designated 2008 as the ‘Year of Good Governance’.

The national challenges are further complicated by the deteriorating regional strategic environment. The induction of the Marxist forces into mainstream politics in Nepal is expected to embolden Left wing groups in the region arousing heightened security concerns. Attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, for which Pakistan is being blamed, has created a strategic quagmire for the three states. India is also concerned about the increasing supply of arms to the Sri Lankan government by China and Pakistan. The Armed Forces Division of the Bangladesh has received instruction from the Office of the Chief Advisor to allow surveys by U.S. Marine Corps along the Indo-Bangladesh border for identifying the movement of extremists and terrorists across the border. Such growing influence of extra-regional actors in South Asia is expected to be a cause of concern for India.

India’s relations with most regional states are either strained or are being re-defined in response to changing national and regional realities. The Maoist led government in Nepal is intending to scrap the 58 year old Indo-Nepal Peace and Friendship Treaty and review all existing bilateral arrangements. In 2007, the India-Bhutan Treaty of 1949 had been updated to replace the clause where Bhutan is expected to be guided by India in regard to the former’s external relations with the need for ‘friendly cooperation’ on the issue. The government of Bangladesh has out rightly rejected India’s demand to sign a five year agreement on allowing transit rights to North-East India at the sidelines of the upcoming Summit. India’s National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan has gone to the extent of demanding the scrapping of Pakistan’s ISI following its alleged involvement in the recent attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

The repercussions of global developments on the region are expected to further burden the SAARC process. The U.S. is reinforcing its strategic presence in Afghanistan following indications of the resurgence of the Taliban. U.S. army personnel are pressing for attacking suspected militant camps inside Pakistan. The member states are expected to refer to the ongoing discussions on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, especially when India had for several years favored the infamous ‘Indira Doctrine’ of minimizing external involvement in region. After attempting to remain insulated from global power politics for more than two decades, SAARC is in need to develop responses on the direct involvement of global actors with the regional states.

The agenda of the Summit compounds the prevalent national and regional and global challenges making this a crucial meeting of regional Heads of States. The theme of 15th SAARC Summit is ‘Towards a South Asian Union: Growing Together”. For realizing the goal of a Union in South Asia, psycho-political issues of leadership and perceptions have to be continuously addressed, rather than rhetorical referrences at Summit meetings. The rising food and oil prices are expected to dominate the Summit proceedings. This would generate additional pressures for operationalizing the SAARC Food Bank, which is yet to be ratified by four member states. The 14th SAARC Summit had emphasized on commencement of the implementation phase of the SAARC programmes and hence the progress on the SAARC Development Fund and South Asia University is expected to be placed before the Colombo Summit. SAARC has for long projected a selected theme for each Summit, supported by elaborated plans for realizing the proposals. The follow-up on issues of combating terrorism and promoting connectivity, highlighted during the previous Summit, is expected to be included on the agenda for reconsidering proposed goals and strategies.

Expecting great results from SAARC is a clear defiance of political reasoning. It is important to realize that SAARC is a forum of countries that are still under-going the process of state and nation building and hence it is an inherently challenged group. Nevertheless, the member countries have to make an honest attempt at collectivization of mutual efforts for gaining maximum benefits. Contrary to popular expectation, existence of SAARC cannot positively impact regional relations, but a positive transformation in regional perceptions can stimulate the activities of SAARC.

Attacks on Indian Embassy in Kabul: Global and Regional Implications

The July 7th car bombing incident at the Indian Embassy in Kabul is expected to have major ramification for global politics in general and South Asia in particular. More then 60 Afghan nationals died in the blast along with five members of the Indian diplomatic staff.

This blast is a continuation in the recent series of incidents arousing security concerns in Afghanistan. The Government in Afghanistan has been pointing fingers at Pakistan for the deteriorating situation in the country. The Foreign Minister of Afghanistan Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, has clearly stated that ‘the terrorist enemy behind these operations, which are sustained by a complex set of networks and infrastructure located behind the border of Afghanistan, cannot be defended by military operations inside Afghanistan alone.’ These incidents have aroused concern among the U.S. military personnel striving to bring stability to Pakistan. According to President Bush June 2008 has turned out to be a very challenging month for the Allied security forces in the country. A military out-post in the north-eastern province of Kunar was attacked by insurgents on July 13, killing nine U.S. soldiers. The U.S. has already mobilized additional security measures for coping with increased incidents of bombing in Afghanistan. The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln has moved from the Persian Gulf into the Gulf of Oman so its warplanes can fly missions over Afghanistan. The U.S. has also been pressurising the Pakistani government to employ more resources to deal with the militant extremists within the country. But the challenges in Afghanistan are mounting at an alarming pace.

The recent bombing will have major ramifications for the South Asian region as well. It is expected to strain relations between India and Pakistan. India’s National Security Advisor M. K. Narayanan has stated that India has ‘fair amount of intelligence’ on the involvement of Pakistan’s spy agency ISI in July 7th attacks. With the SAARC Summit due later this month, the incident can adversely impact the already challenged process of regional cooperation. SAARC will have another stability- challenged member in the presence of Afghanistan at the up-coming Summit. The attack on the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan for which Pakistan is being blamed has come to involve three SAARC members in an unwanted standoff just few weeks before the annual Summit opens on.
The U.S. aided states (like Afghanistan and Pakistan) appear to be posing greater threat to global peace than the rogue states. The nascent processes of the SAARC forum cannot be expected to put on course the screwed of policies a global superpower.

South Asia: Moving from Programmes of Cooperation to a Cooperative Programme

Regionalism in South Asia is celebrated through the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). But, in practice regionalism rarely functions through the activities of SAARC. Regionalism in South Asia is viewed as a tool to manage the structural dynamics of the region and not as a mechanism to address regional concerns. The purpose of a regional dialogue is to discuss common problems and evolve remedial measures to which all parties can contribute and reap comparable benefits. But, in practice regional dialogue in South Asia is an exercise in one-upmanship where the regional blame-game is exhibited at its worst.
The Charter of SAARC does not categorize the forum as an explicit political or economic or strategic grouping. Its imprecise character was considered an asset; a flexibility which could adapt to emerging demands. The initial phase justified this approach, given the recent origin of the nation-state system in South Asia. But South Asian countries have not worked towards evolving a specific mandate for the regional forum. Even 22 years after its formation the SAARC programme remains as amorphous and vague as it was in 1985.
Regionalism refers to intensifying political, economic or strategic processes of cooperation among states. Such intensification and coordination of activities is not visible in the SAARC. There has been multiplication of institutional structures and proliferation of regional meetings, but few successes in terms of specific action-based programmes. Regional dialogue is dominated by the negative agenda of thrusting the responsibility for the regional challenges on specific national policies, rather than evolving a mutual approach to address the concerns.
The political goal of cooperation, namely, a political union, may be an ambitious objective for many regional groupings, but convergence of certain political practices which have regional and extra-regional implications could surely be on the agenda. Likewise, an economic union may qualify as the ultimate step in economic cooperation, but a free trade area is a more realizable target. A common defense system for a region is yet a far dream, but a coordinated defense strategy for strategic concerns has been evolved by regional groupings around the world.
If South Asian cooperation is measured against these political, economic or strategic yard sticks, the record would be extremely unimpressive. The saddest part is not that SAARC has not achieved the desired results in these spheres, but surprisingly SAARC has not even taken the initial steps in that direction. The strongest defense in favor of SAARC is its ability to survive despite widespread regional animosity. But, this defense is now being extended as a rationale for the existence of SAARC. To insulate SAARC from undue challenges, comparisons with the accomplishments of EU and ASEAN are discouraged. But by depriving SAARC activities a minimum denominator for genuine evaluation, its aspirations are being condensed.
SAARC claims to keep political disagreements out of the regional agenda to allow a congenial climate for dialogue. But, in fact the process of cooperation is challenged by the political uncertainties in the region. By ignoring regional realities SAARC cannot claim to create regional harmony. Moreover, if political disagreements are not discussed across the table, these would lead to greater regional tensions. SAARC defeats the very purpose of a regional forum. SAARC could personalize the process of political dialogue in the region so as to address the specific political contentions without appearing too intrusive with regard to bilateral relations.
Each state in South Asia has specific economic interests to safeguard. The process of economic cooperation needs to take cognizance of these concerns while forging regional economic agreements. Such concerns voiced by some member states are usually projected as mischievous attempts to disrupt the process of economic cooperation. The purpose of economic cooperation is safeguarding the interests of all parties rather than merely achieving a few institutional targets.
According to Barry Buzan, security interdependency means that two states make a hostile or friendly pairing and their behavior is regularly interactive. Buzan has emphasized on one security interdependency in the region, namely India and Pakistan. And this security interdependency has come to dominate the regional strategic discourse for over two decades. For evolving a viable regional security dialogue it is imperative that security concerns of the region are discussed beyond the India-Pakistan framework. Issues of political assassinations, sectarian violence, democratic instability, armed insurgency are challenges faced by all states in South Asia. A regional analysis of such threats and remedial measures needs to figure in the regional security dialogue.
Instead of the lengthy deliberations made at recent SAARC Standing Committee and Council of Ministers meetings in December 2007, the 15th SAARC Summit will merely need to comprehend the above stated facts. SAARC claims to have entered the implementation phase; the focus should now be on framing, refining and implementing general conventions of cooperation in the region, rather than implementing isolated programmes of cooperation. Hopefully in future, the member states will more actively invest to build a culture of cooperation in South Asia.

The article was also published at http://www.ipcs.org/South_Asia_articles2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=2481&country=1016&status=article&mod=a

SAARC – A Case of Perceptual Divergence

Four blind men decided to help each other in collectively exploring the world around them. They ventured to the zoo and came across an elephant. Each one decided to touch, feel, comprehend and then communicate what the elephant looked like. One man held the tusk and explained, “The elephant is like a heavy drain pipe!” The other touched the legs and declared, “The elephant resembles the trunk of a strong old tree!” The third felt the ears and claimed that the animal was fan shaped and the fourth examined the tail to conclude that the elephant was a hairy textured flute like creature.
Each of the men was right in their assessments given the specific examination they had made. The different and partially erroneous judgments were the result of two vital facts. The first was that all four of them were visually handicapped and hence needed to rely on each other’s assistance. Secondly, each of them examined the elephant from only a specific angle and did not assimilate the different viewpoints to create a holistic picture.
The eight members South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) presents a similar case. SAARC is a regional grouping of developing countries in South Asia facing similar political, economic and nation-building challenges. This similarity in the nature of problems makes cooperation among them necessary and desirable. Hence the South Asian countries decided to initiate regional cooperation as a system of collective help. But like in the case of four blind men, their endeavor did not prove to be a success. The expectations from and approach towards cooperation has varied among the member countries. Though the respective national positions may be tenable but the cultivation of a shared perspective essential to guide the regional programme is missing.
The common regional problems do not lead to a commonality of approach among the countries because each views and assesses the problem from a purely nationalistic perspective which creates divergence in final analysis. The usual approach in SAARC has been to make the member countries conscious of the common challenges that they have to encounter. The existence of these challenges is not something that emerged after SAARC was formed and will survive even if SAARC withers away. For example state building is a common challenge for South Asian countries, but each national unit faces the challenge at different levels. In India the issue may involve greater participation of the people in state functioning. Issues of judicial activism, right to information, coalitional power sharing dominate the democratization discourse in India. While in Nepal the efforts are focused on shaping the political institutions for ensuring democratic stability and in Pakistan the debate over the form and substance of democracy holds sway. Hence though the nature of the challenge is similar its specifities are different which lead to obvious differences in remedial suggestions.
In international economic negotiations though South Asia appears to support the collective demands of the South, there are several divergence in their specific demands. In global negotiations on agriculture one common demand is the provision of Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism, in Non-Agricultural Market Access (Nama). On this issue the South Asian Less Developed Countries (LDCs) are more concerned about compensation for the likely preference erosion resulting from multilateral tariff reduction. Although, the development-related problems of South Asian countries are common, the negotiating strategies are not similar. While in agriculture India and Pakistan have both offensive and defensive interests, the remaining countries have largely defensive interests. Another difference is that LDCs and Sri Lanka are net food importing countries and may face negative consequences of dismantling of farm subsidies. In Nama, the divergence is sharper. LDCs want some compensatory package in lieu of the likely preference erosion. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka have expressed their reservations over such a package. In services, too, there are divergences. India is more aggressive on services compared with its neighbors, because of a robust growth in services sector in the 90s, which grew at an average annul rate of 9%, contributing to nearly 60% of overall growth rate.
All countries of South Asia face massive challenges from demands of ethnic, regional and religious conglomerations. The specific demands of each state in the region are different and require unique corrective measures. The Nepalese political process has recently facilitated the Maoists to join mainstream politics under certain conditions, while the Sri Lankan government is struggling to respond to the aggressive onslaughts of the LTTE. In dealing with issues of unemployment and poverty some sub-regions in South Asia are prioritizing micro-financing while others are keen on attracting greater amounts of foreign direct assistance.
The reassertions by regional states about their handicap has not changed the situation in the region. It’s like the four blind men promising to help each other to explore the world better in the hope that their collectivity would counter their handicap. But as long as they stick to their exclusive interpretations a holistic view of the animal will not emerge. Likewise the South Asian countries need to evolve strategies for complimentary analysis which will create a common vision rather than individual assessments which can rarely be fitted together.
The story of the four blind men went a little further. Having failed to assist each other in picturing the elephant, they called their acquaintances, who were visually fit to guide their endeavor. With the instructions from friendly sources the blind men were able to picture the elephant. However, the caveat is that since all four were blind they had no way of confirming their findings and excessive faith on the group of outsiders could mislead them. Moreover, the group of outsiders could only help the blind to piece their vision together and not re-vision their specific assessments. Similarly SAARC has opened doors to outsiders, but the same caution holds good.
Finally did the blind men succeed in correctly picturing the elephant?
Time only can provide an objective answer.