|
 The time has come to revisit the very concept of SAARC and set it on a new course to make it more viable. In its 25 years of existence, leaders of the South Asian regional cooperation group called SAARC have managed to assemble 16 times to discuss how they can bring about better cooperation between their countries. Previously, there were leaders of seven nations engaged in this activity; now there are eight, with Afghanistan having been added to the fold on the behest of India.
Regretfully, SAARC leaders have spent most of these 25 years merely talking to each other and doing very little in practical terms. There is not a single genuine development to this day that these eight nations can claim to have jointly achieved for the collective betterment of the people of South Asia. Despite such a dismal track record, there are many other nations, large and small, that desire to jump onto the SAARC bandwagon either as full members or at least as observers.
Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping as a member on April 3, 2007. In April 2006, the U.S. and South Korea made formal requests to be granted observer status. The European Union also indicated interest in being given observer status and made a formal request to the SAARC Council of Ministers meeting in July 2006. In August 2006, the foreign ministers of the SAARC countries agreed in principle to grant observer status to the U.S., South Korea and the European Union. On March 4, 2007, Iran requested observer status, followed shortly by the entrance of Mauritius.
The People's Republic of China has shown great interest in joining SAARC. Pakistan and Bangladesh support China's candidature but India was against such a prospect, at least in the beginning. There is a feeling within SAARC that if China is allowed entry, it will serve to balance India's overbearing presence. Later, India also showed its willingness to let China in and, during the 2005 Dhaka summit, it agreed on granting observer status to the People's Republic of China along with Japan. Subsequently, at the 14th summit, Nepal along with Pakistan and Bangladesh, announced their support for the membership of China which, though seeking greater involvement in SAARC, probably considers it too early to apply for full membership.
Indonesia has indicated its willingness to become an observer and is supported by Sri Lanka. Iran, which borders two SAARC members - Pakistan and Afghanistan - and has cultural, economic and political relations with these two nations, has also said it wants to become a member. On 22 February 2005, the Foreign Minister of Iran, Kamal Kharrazi, indicated Iran's interest in joining SAARC by saying that his country could provide the region with "East-West connectivity". On 3 March 2007, Iran asked to join SAARC as an observer.
Further afield, Russia is interested in becoming an observer and is again supported by India. Myanmar, on the other hand, has expressed an interest in joining as a full member and is also backed by India. Myanmar's military regime officially applied for full SAARC membership in May 2008 but the country is currently restricted to observer status. South Africa has also participated in some meetings.
With such magnetism to show off, the 16th SAARC Summit held in Thimphu, Bhutan, in April, was full of lofty rhetoric but it again failed to contribute anything in substantial terms to the joint good of South Asia, except serving as a convenient meeting ground for the prime ministers of the two perpetually estranged nations - India and Pakistan. In fact, the one continuing feature that has marked SAARC summits throughout its life so far is its function as a useful platform for the meeting of top leaders of India and Pakistan to discuss bilateral issues. The sad outcome is that while such high profile two-way meetings at this multilateral platform have served to sideline more important issues of a joint nature, India and Pakistan have also not succeeded in eking out any mutual benefit from such opportunities.
As was expected, the 16th Summit too did not produce any miracles. No progress took place on SAFTA (South Asia free trade agreement). The rising interference of superpowers such as U.S.A. and China in South Asia was not an issue of concern for the leaders of the subcontinent. The leaders did feel though that bilateral issues are creating hurdles in the progress of the region and its 1.5 billion people but no concrete step were being taken to overcome those issues.
As is customary for SAARC summits, the 16th edition also underlined the need for dialogue and conversation among the members to resolve their differences, since SAARC offers an open forum for expression of views and visions regarding South Asia's present and future potential role in international political and economic affairs.
Perhaps, it is for this reason that SAARC has been described more as a talk-shop than anything else. A measure of this was the fact that the 16th SAARC summit concluded with a collective vow to plant "10 million trees over the next five years" to build a "green and happy South Asia." Considering the organization's part record, even the declaration about planting of trees does not generate much confidence in the people about the organization's efficacy.
What a difference would it have made had the member nations come together at the recent summit to celebrate SAARC's 25th anniversary with a list of proud achievements on the road to "peace, stability, amity and progress" rather than staring at a blank slate?
Considering that SAARC has run into a blind alley, perhaps the time has come to question its very raison d'etre. Rather than going around in circles, it would save a lot of time, effort and money of all member states, if the basic framework under which this organization was created were to be revisited. Having a regional cooperation body for South Asia is not the only medicine that the doctor ordered. It's a prescription that may have worked for other regions, and a good example is the ASEAN, but it may not necessarily be as effective for South Asia where member nations, at least the bigger ones, seek solutions to their basic problems not from within but from outside.
The countries of the region created this regional cooperation organization to promote respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and peaceful settlement of all disputes. But 25 years on, the big two among the eight members, who should have set examples for other members and could have taken advantage of the environment of amity and bilateral positivism that was inherent in the driving spirit of SAARC to settle their disputes, have hardly demonstrated any 'respect' for each other.
The time has come, therefore, to draw some useful and practical lessons from the experience of the past two and a half decades. The key need is to take a hard look at the SAARC scorecard so far and, building on whatever has been achieved at least in some areas, lay down a new and more viable framework so that the concept of South Asian regional cooperation can be put on track instead of becoming mired in suspicion and mistrust. Perhaps the possibility of adding more nations to the club can also be explored to compensate for the lack of parity that has been a negative trait of the organization so far and, in many ways, an important reason for its failure. 
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
