The 18th SAARC summit meeting in Kathmandu, Nepal, due to take place between November 26 and 27, provides yet another opportunity for us to examine whether SAARC has been of relevance in the past and how it possibly can be of greater relevance in future.
Has SAARC delivered? Has it contributed in any way to make the lives of billions living in the area better? Has it resulted in greater interaction among the SAARC nations? I am afraid the answer to all of these questions is in the negative.
If that is the case, how can SAARC be made more effective? Or indeed, do we need SAARC in the first place? These are questions that the people and leaders of the SAARC countries do need to ponder over.
SAARC was established in 1980s as the South Asian region’s inter-governmental organization with the membership of India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The SAARC charter has explained the rationale of SAARC as follows: “….. in an increasingly interdependent world, the objectives of peace, freedom, social justice and economic prosperity are best achieved in the South Asian region by fostering mutual understanding, good neighbourly relations and meaningful cooperation among the Member States…….”
In 2007, Afghanistan also joined as a full member of the SAARC. Basically, the objective behind formation of SAARC was to emulate from the success of other similar regional bodies such as EU in Europe and ASEAN in South East Asia. While neither EU nor ASEAN has been fully successful in meeting the objectives set by themselves and there are many detractors of such organizations particularly EU now a days, there is no denying the fact that both these organizations and a few more such as MERCOSUR in Latin America have been instrumental in meeting the objectives set for them at least partially.
SAARC, in comparison, has been a non-starter so far. Just to illustrate, the intra-regional trade in goods in the SAARC region remains around five per cent, and in services, barely 0.2 per cent.
Intra-regional investment flows have also been at a very low level. To put these figures in perspective, the intra-region trade in ASEAN is 26 per cent, and in MERCOSUR, it is 15 per cent.
Even this low level of trade among SAARC countries is basically on account of the traditional relationship between some countries such as that between India and Nepal or India and Bhutan, and has not seen any significant improvements because of SAARC.
Indeed, in none of the areas, has the impact of SAARC been visible. While some useful agreements have been signed during previous SAARC summits, their implementation has left much to be desired. The trade agreement – SAFTA-is a case in point.
The reasons for SAARC’s non-performance are multiple, and these factors need to be understood and steps taken to counter these by all stakeholders, if they wish for SAARC to be successful.
Of course, the political tensions between India and Pakistan are an obvious reason. As long as the relations between two biggest member states of SAARC are strained, any action to strengthen SAARC is bound to be extremely difficult. However, unlike the conventional wisdom on the subject, I do not believe that this is the sole problem facing SAARC. Unfortunately most of the SAARC countries have strongly entrenched bureaucracies and interest groups who look at every issue from a myopic and nationalistic view point.
Narrow national interests have invariably triumphed in the region rather than broader regional vision, which of course will also be more beneficial to the individual nations in the long run.
Unfortunately some of the countries in the region have been suffering from political uncertainties and the governments there have not been strong enough to take hard decisions which are required to make any meaningful multi-lateral initiatives.
Lack of connectivity between different SAARC countries is another reason for the lackluster performance of SAARC so far. Trade and other relations between India and Afghanistan are hampered by the fact that they don’t share any border and connectivity through Pakistan, and is dependent upon good relations between India and Pakistan.
Similar is the case between Nepal and Pakistan. Add to this, the poor state of critical infrastructure in practically all SAARC countries, and the fact that any trade or contacts between them seems to face major infrastructural issues apart from the obvious political ones. The lack of security and the terrorist threats in most SAARC countries is another hindrance.
A fundamental fact which distinguishes SAARC from other such groupings also needs to be understood. Most of such other economic groupings, be it EU or ASEAN, are groupings of the economies, which are more or less equal.
Even if some economies are smaller than others, there are three or four equally powerful economies. Unlike any other such groupings, SAARC is dominated by India. India accounts for nearly 60 per cent of SAARC’s population, area or GDP.
Except for Afghanistan, India shares its borders with every country in the region, and again, except for Afghanistan, no other country shares a border with any other SAARC country except India. This obvious asymmetry makes meaningful cooperation that much more problematic.
However, an important reason for non-performance of SAARC, and which has not got its due attention, is also the psychological framework of its various constituents.
Not many countries in the SAARC region identify themselves as predominantly South Asian. Afghans consider themselves more as a Central Asian country, while Pakistan would prefer to be a part of the Middle East. Both Sri Lanka and Maldives think of themselves as much a South East Asian country as a South Asian one. While it may be argued that a country need not identify itself fully with the region for the grouping to be successful, the successful groupings so far, such as ASEAN or EU, have distinct identities which suggest that it is an important ingredient of success. While identification with a region may not be enough for groupings to be successful, they are necessary for its success.
So what can be done? Is SAARC doomed to failure or is there a way forward? One can envision three options for SAARC. Option One is to give up SAARC as a non-starter and start looking for other options such as BIMSTEC or any other new group for economic upliftment of area or leave the members of SAARC to find their alternatives.
Option two will be to go the whole hog and make efforts to make SAARC fully integrated, at least economically. Proponents of single currency for SAARC seem to take this approach. Neither of these approaches is appropriate, given the geo-political situation of today. While SAARC has not met the expectations it has generated, the very fact that it gives opportunities for the leaders as well as the operating level officials to interact regularly and discuss issues of mutual concern is reason enough for SAARC to remain relevant. The problems faced by the SAARC countries are similar and distinct from other regions. The solutions, therefore, are best found with mutual cooperation in the region. For this reason itself SAARC continues to be relevant. At the same time, it needs to be understood, that unfortunately SAARC continues to be affected by the historical baggage it carries. It will be unrealistic to talk of single currency when the two biggest nations of the region are not even on talking terms. The feasible alternative, therefore, is to take small steps. Steps that will further integration, but are workable, given the geopolitical realities of the region. What are these steps?
There is no denying the fact that growth in trade and commerce within the region is an extremely important step in this direction. Agreements for this purpose that have been signed earlier do exist. What is required is to operationalise these. If for whatever reasons some countries are not in a position to do so, it will be better for those countries that can do so to move forward.
To give momentum to this process, one or two projects at the sub-regional level could be identified and vigorously implemented within a specific time frame. These projects, if successful, can show the benefits of mutual cooperation and could persuade the doubting Thomas’s to join in.
What is also required is for SAARC to concentrate its activities in core identified areas and not lose its direction by getting involved in too many activities. Since India is literally the pivot around which SAARC revolves, the major responsibility for making SAARC a success is upon India. It, therefore, needs to show willingness and undertake asymmetric responsibilities where required.
Each SAARC country also has to realize that while the political situation in individual countries may keep on changing, the economic situation does not change so rapidly and, as it exists, requires really serious efforts for improvement.
At the end of the day, it is the economy which matters for the impoverished people of the region. SAARC can and should be the instrument for leaders of the region to improve the economic situation of the people of the region, even if to begin with, it is in baby steps.
—-ANI