What ails SAARC?

Hussain Mohi-ud-Din Qadri

Since its inception in 1985, the South Asian Association of Regional
Cooperation (SAARC) has been a non-starter. Given the sorry figure cut
by the organization in implementing its charter it has rightly been dubbed
as a debating club without any ability to address the challenges that the
countries of the region face. Even the level of progress in the areas of
economics and mutual trade has been less than expected. Keeping this
track record in view there is a need of an earnest effort to review the
charter of SAARC, identify the hindrances and offer a reform strategy to
bring the aims of the organization in line with the demands of the times.
All the South Asian countries should understand the international security
climate following 9/11 catastrophe. The American conduct in post-Nine
Eleven period has brought about fundamental policy shifts in the security
arrangements across the world. The reduction of the position of UN to
insignificance by the US during its Iraq campaign illustrated new power
dynamics. The old security and economic alliances underwent a process of
serious review with growing realization among the countries that they
should look for new alignments for greater economic and physical
security. This reappraisal process was not confined to the countries at the
wrong side of the US; rather the long-standing American allies are also
the part of this review process. Now the focus of international community
is towards regional alignments with greater stress on economic and
security cooperation. Thus the policy of regionalism and bilateralism finds
a newfound space in the foreign policy formulations of the countries; the
aim being to reduce dependence on the US. Resultantly the old alliances
have been reviewed and weaknesses overcome, while new alignments
have taken place. But unfortunately South Asia remains unaware of and
unresponsive to these challenges mired in old mindset of archrivals.
There should be no doubt about the fact that the establishment of SAARC
was a much-needed step in order to enhance the regional cooperation
among the member states. The natural conditions, international climate,
geography of the region, history and culture also warranted a combined
effort to pool together natural and human resources for achieving better
living standards for millions of people who otherwise are condemned to
perpetual misery and poverty. But in the effort to set up such an
organization and demarcate its area of activity, some structural gaps were
left, which in spite of the passage of some 18 years, have refused to be
bridged thus keeping the organization unresponsive to the growing
challenges. At the time of initiation of the SAARC, the thought in the
minds of its founding fathers might well have been to bring all counties to
negotiating table, hoping that the structural flaws would be overcome
once the member states started interacting. However the exclusion of
bilateral and contentious issues from charter of the SAARC has been one
of the major factors inhibiting the growth of the organization.
This factor alone has given space to India and Pakistan to hold the whole
organization hostage to their mutual recriminations with rest of member
states constrained to move the organization forward on their own. Given
the huge gulf of perceptions characterizing the mutual relationship
between Indian and Pakistan, there is a least possibility that SAARC would
be able to play an effective role unless the member countries share the
realization of modifying its charter in a way as to use good offices of
SAARC for discussions and dialogues on bilateral issues and facilitate their
solutions. Some people might argue that the exclusion of contentious
issues from the SAARC charter and its unadulterated focus on economic
cooperation is justified by the depth of differences existing among certain
member states and that enhancement of economic cooperation can still
be possible without reference to disputed issues. They may give examples
of certain regional groupings, which include politically rival countries. But
what is lost sight of in this process of argumentation is the fact that the
member countries happen to share some collective values and threat
perceptions. Furthermore, the world has undergone gigantic change in
last few years. The old period marked by ideological polarization has
given way to the policy of realism. From absolute and maximalist
positions, the counties are now moving towards more flexible and
minimalist stances in their foreign policy objectives. This also applies the
countries of the SAARC.
Secondly the SAARC charter denotes that all member countries are
represented on the platform on the basis of equality. But in actuality it is
not the case. India by virtue of its size, position and economic strength,
has been trying to play the role of a big brother whose authority should
go unchallenged. It has invariably been trying to browbeat the rest of
countries into submission. But it is Pakistan that has refused to be
subjugated, while the other South Asian countries rightly nourish
grievances against India caused mainly by its hegemonic designs. This
Indian attitude violates the principle of equality as enshrined in the
SAARC charter thus rendering the organization impotent. If SAARC has to
become dynamic organization, it should apply the principle of equality and
should not allow any single country to dictate its own terms for
engagement.
In the 14th SAARC summit held last year in New Delhi also included the
following paragraph in its Declaration: "The Heads of Stat or Government
emphasized the need to develop, at an early date, a roadmap for a South
Asian Customs Union and a South Asian Economic Union in a planned and
phased manner."
In the next article, I would try to explore the areas which need immediate
cooperation of the member countries of the South Asian region for greater
good.