SAARC---------SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COOPERATION:

Based on the seven important nations of the South Asian region the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation was formulated in the year 1983.The countries which agreed on the mutual cooperation in the economic ,social and cultural fields include Pakistan,India,Nepal,Bhutan,Bangladesh,Sri Lanka and Maldives.The idea of Saarc was promoted on the objective of teh resolution of common problems with regional collaboration.This Organisation has established and enabled teh countries to develop a greater understanding and an atmosphere of peace and security.

The idea of SAARC was propunded first by President Zia Ur Rehman of Bangaldesh who expressed his earnest desire to hold a joint meeting of the seven states in order to establish an appropriate machinery for the promotion of cooperation among them.

However the intial response of the two major countries i.e.,India and Pakistan was not that appreciable.India feared that the smaller nations may gather up against it while Pakistan was worried about the domination of India over teh organisation.But later on considerations both the countries agreed with the idea and gave their respective consent for teh esatblishment of the organiation.

Unfortuntely,President Zia ur Rehman was unable to hold a summit in his life,but Bangaldesh did succeed in holdinag a joint level meeting of Foreign Ministers who later advised their governmants to hold meetings.The foreign Ministers worked together and succeedded in holding a summit at Dhaka on the 7th and 8th of December 1983 and hence SAARC came into existence.

The major achheievments of teh organisation since then have been tremendous as it has contributed alot in relaseing tensions at the regional level.Although initially its progress was slow but later SAARC's role as a major regional organisation increased.It has developed understanding among the states,suppressed terrorist activities through taking common steps for teh promotion and establishment of peace and security.

SAARC's SAVE programme is also a notable contribution by the organisation as it has enabled in the exchange of both cultural and technological skills relating to teh mass media and coomunication.Not only this but it has also promoted teh understanding of the respective cultures and traditions of the respective countries abroad.

Tourism is also a significant department where SAARC program has played a major role.The member countries have also devised modialities for confronting major issues such as poverty,drug trafficking and terrorism.

No doubt SAARC has played a pivtol role in the development process of the region and has also promoted mutual understanding at various levels and it is hoped that this organisation will continue to work with collaboration and harmony in future.

A new turn for Saarc

THE 13th Saarc summit in Dhaka, which ended on a positive note, gives rise to hopes that the regional body will now be revitalized. True, the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (Safta), regarded as the central pillar of the Association and scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2006, may not materialize by then, but it has not been abandoned either, and the leaders who met in Dhaka reiterated the need to strengthen transportation and communication links across the region to accelerate economic growth and integration. This may take time and political will to bring the agreement into conformity with the weaker economies of the region. Yet the decisions taken at the summit at Dhaka last week might provide Saarc with the energy to mobilize its strength for the task ahead. The most noteworthy development is the expansion of Saarc. Afghanistan has been admitted as the eighth member of this body. With China and Japan being admitted as observers, Saarc will become a larger grouping that should have a positive impact on its working. While these two economic giants will, hopefully, reinvigorate the organization that seems to have been hamstrung by its inter-state conflicts and inertia, the entry of Afghanistan will give it a new dimension.

It is the political aspect of this expansion of Saarc that is more exciting. India and Pakistan, the two largest members, have dominated its working to such an extent that their bilateral ties had virtually come to determine the direction in which Saarc was to move — that is, if it were to move at all. China and Japan will now be influencing not just economic activities in the region but also political developments here. If this helps dilute the rivalries and polarization among the traditional competitors in South Asia, this may act as a catalyst to make the grouping more dynamic and active. Afghanistan is important for another reason. Given the devastation caused there by war for over two decades and the role the country has acquired in any policy in the region to check terrorism, no move to pacify and conciliate South Asia is feasible without Afghanistan’s active participation in it.

Apart from the membership issue, Saarc’s leaders agreed on a number of key questions — the declaration lists 53 points on which decisions were taken — that will be of significance to the grouping. Some of them are no more than an expression of hope but it can create the momentum for better things to come. For instance, the declaration speaks of more people-to-people contacts: it reminds the UN that its secretary-general to be elected next year has to be an Asian in accordance with the geographical rotation formula and Sri Lanka has already named a candidate. But the more tangible issues that were decided upon appear to be more promising. For instance, the summit ratified the additional protocol (signed at the Islamabad summit in 2004) to the Saarc Convention on Suppression of Terrorism. The convention was signed in 1987 at Kathmandu. This will enhance their cooperation in the fight against terrorism since they have now agreed not to finance terrorists and to exchange information and coordinate the functioning of their intelligence agencies. This is a major move, for if the mechanism is set up and the South Asian countries actually join hands to root out terrorism, there is no reason why the level of violence cannot be brought down. One hopes that Saarc members will move towards the institutionalization of a common anti-terrorism approach.

Similarly, another area where Saarc can play an effective role and where the first step has been taken is that of dealing with natural disasters. The existing machinery, namely the Saarc Meteorological Research Centre and the Saarc Coastal Zone Management Centre, will be established in India on a priority basis as agreed in the Saarc ministerial meeting. Much can be done in this respect to avert extremes of disasters through early warning systems — the more coordinated they are, the more effective they will prove to be — and one expects Saarc members to act without delay to address the question of disaster management on a cooperative basis. The experience of a number of South Asian countries has shown that when natural disasters strike, human suffering can be alleviated considerably if the countries in the region work together to address the crisis.

One hopes that Saarc will now move on from being the paper grouping it has so far been to becoming an effective mechanism for political and economic cooperation. The only exception has been in the cooperation professional bodies in the member countries have forged to work together. Whether journalists, lawyers, doctors or other professionals, they have managed to work together in their own fields to improve the area of their activity. But without greater understanding between the governments of the South Asian countries, Saarc cannot be as effective as regional groupings in other parts of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saarc winds its way
By Najmuddin A. Shaikh


IT is premature to suggest that the Saarc summit which ended in Dhaka on Sunday was a failure even though on superficial analysis it will be seen by many as having yielded little by way of positive results for the regional forum and even fewer for Indo-Pakistan relations. Such an analysis will question even the importance for the organization of the agreement reached on the admission of Afghanistan to SAARC and the agreement on joint efforts to combat terrorism.

It will also question Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s statement that his talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were productive because keeping the dialogue going was a bonus, and that “the India-Pakistan relationship is such that any extent of dialogue and discussion can only help”.

On the face of it the admission of Afghanistan was positive. There was Indo-Pakistan agreement and no reservations on the part of the other members. The problem arose because Nepal’s monarch, incensed by the adverse Indian reaction to his dissolution of parliament and assumption of all powers, sought to make Afghanistan’s admission conditional on the granting of observer status to China.

While the problem was resolved ultimately by an agreement that rules would need to be drawn up at a special session of the Saarc standing committee on how observer status could be granted, the Indians probably believed that Pakistan had egged on Nepal to take the position it did and that all Saarc members would welcome China’s association with the organization as a means of offsetting India’s weight. They would have seen in the same light Shaukat Aziz’s statement that Pakistan believed Saarc should be an inclusive organization.

The fact, however, is that the Chinese case for observer status is strong. After all observer status was granted to India, Pakistan and Iran in the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) though India shares no borders with the SCO members, and even Pakistan, its ties to Central Asia notwithstanding, could make a case for admission only if Afghanistan became a member of the SCO. It is perhaps inevitable that China, Japan and perhaps other countries or organizations like the EU will in the coming years, become observers or dialogue partners of Saarc, and some Indians will view this in an unfavourable light.

In the long run, however, it is of benefit to all countries of the regions that Afghanistan, the bridge between South and Central Asia, is now a member, and that China will have observer status enabling a strengthening of bonds between Saarc and the SCO. It is noteworthy that now there will also be a greater bond between the ECO, the regional grouping that brings together Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian states and Saarc as both Pakistan and Afghanistan are members..

Similarly, putting a positive spin on the Manmohan Singh-Shaukat Aziz dialogue and projecting it as progress on the peace process seems overly optimistic, given the rejection of Pakistan’s proposal for the demilitarization of some districts of Kashmir and Manmohan Singh’s reiteration of the Indian contention that Pakistan has not lived up to its promise to prevent the use of the territory it controls for terrorist activity against India.

The bridging of the gap between the two sides was probably not helped by Mr Aziz’s reported statement to the Indian prime minister that Pakistan believed in free trade with India but this was not possible unless there was progress on the Kashmir issue. This would appear to indicate that Pakistan was opposed to the conclusion of the Safta and that blame for the failure to reach a final agreement at Dhaka on this subject could be laid at Pakistan’s door.

It seems, however, that apprehensions among the smaller Saarc members, rather than Pakistan’s reservations, blocked Safta and that an agreement has been reached to try and resolve these problems through intensified negotiations in the coming months and to set the new deadline of July 1, 2006, for bringing Safta into force. Shaukat Aziz has also secured, it seems, Manmohan Singh’s agreement that India will look into and eliminate the non-tariff barriers which have restricted Pakistan’s access to the Indian market. Despite the absence of an agreement at Dhaka, regional trade, and therefore Indo-Pakistan trade, could become freer in the next few months.

The programme for signing the agreement on shipping and port services is on track, with talks on the subject being scheduled for December 9 and 10. Siachen and Sir Creek are to be the lead items for discussions between the two sides in January. It is India rather than Pakistan that has been the obstacle in the past to the resolution of these two problems.

On Kashmir itself the disagreement on what Pakistan has or has not done, and the rejection of the demilitarization proposal is a negative development that was to be expected. Manmohan Singh had come from New Delhi where only a few days earlier a horrendous terrorist attack had devastated two large shopping areas and caused many deaths. Indian newspapers were full of reports on the external linkages of the perpetrators of the attack. The climate was hardly propitious for acknowledging a diminution in cross border movement. The day the conference ended the Indian public was reminded of the dangers that India faces elsewhere. The Naxalite attack on the jail in Jahanabad — a city in the troubled state of Bihar — was probably successful only because security forces had been deployed for election duty elsewhere in the state but that did not detract from the seriousness of the incident in which no external hand could be discerned. But there is hope that if there is no repetition of the Delhi tragedy forward movement is possible.

The new chief minister in Indian-held Kashmir has spoken of the fact that he would insist on the reduction of the Indian military presence in Kashmir but only after violence has ceased. There appeared to be a hint in his statement that he would be prepared to talk to the “separatists” to secure such an end to violence.

During my recently concluded visit to India for a conference I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with retired but influential members of the Indian establishment who grudgingly acknowledged that the erection of the fence along the LoC and the installation of sensors had led to a sharp decline in cross LoC movement. While there were some who were willing to give credence to reports that 15,000 infiltrators were poised to come across, most did not question the fact that most of the “insurgents/militants” were Kashmiris.

Given the Delhi terrorist attack it would have been foolhardy to expect that the momentum on “softening of borders”, one of the subjects of the conference, would not be affected but overall it did seem that while making all the right noises about the need for dismantling the “infrastructure of terrorism” that existed on Pakistan or Pakistan-controlled territory many Indians felt that this was an idea that needed to be pursued.

There continued to be scepticism about the degree to which the Pakistan government was willing or able to control or eliminate the jihadi groups. The attitude seemed to be that Pakistan was right is saying that such groups posed a problem for Pakistan’s own internal stability and that Pakistan was, therefore, determined to eliminate them but this determination was not being reflected in the actions on the ground. Nevertheless one could detect a willingness to move ahead on the idea of the “softening of borders” and therefore, as a necessary corollary, the thinning out of troops in Indian-held Kashmir.

It should be noted by our policymakers that while the demand for reducing Indian troops is justified, the Kashmiris would most benefit from such a reduction if it were to take place in the urban areas rather than in the districts where the Indian security establishment claims risk of infiltration and militant activity is greatest.

While advocating to our own policymakers a modification of the changes within Indian-held Kashmir that they should be seeking from the Indians I would also advocate a change of stance by the Indians on Siachen and Sir Creek. I got the impression that the present rigid stance on Siachen — an agreement on redeployment of forces in the area must be accompanied by signed maps showing the present position of the forces — was being dictated by the Indian armed forces.

Ostensibly, the justification was that Pakistan could not be trusted and may seek to occupy the posts that India withdrew from if there was not a signed agreement on the present positions but in reality their stance flowed from the desire to have something to show for the enormous wastage of resources in the 11 years that have passed since the Indians moved into Siachen.

An Indian friend seemed to agree that if Pakistan and India were to move forward, it would only happen if such arguments could be set aside by political leaders who looked beyond the immediate situation. He suggested that “likely possibilities” rather than “hypothetical possibilities” should guide policymaking.

In the present instance there was a hypothetical possibility that Pakistan would occupy posts vacated by India but the “likely possibility” of this happening was virtually non-existent. In fact the likely possibility was that both sides would be able to move forward to making the area a zone of peace. My own view suggested that an unconditional redeployment would in fact move both countries closer to the vision of making boundaries irrelevant in the entire disputed region.

If indeed India wishes to inspire confidence in its neighbours and to overcome the “trust deficit” in Indo-Pakistan relations of which Shaukat Aziz has spoken and which Manmohan Singh has acknowledged, it is for India to take the “leap of faith”. It is the larger country, the less vulnerable country and has by all accounts the resources to reverse course if things go wrong.

This applies in a somewhat different fashion to the Sir Creek as well. There India should make it clear that it will be guided in its actions towards its neighbours by the rule of law. Current Indian insistence that the boundary in this area should be the middle of the Sir Creek is justified on the international law principle of “thalweg”. But the thalweg principle which calls for the middle of the navigable channel to be the boundary wherever a waterway divides two countries requires that the waterway be navigable and is based on the idea that both countries should be able to avail themselves of the use of the navigable channel for shipping traffic.

The fact is that Sir Creek is not and has never been a navigable channel and on this there is no disagreement. If the Sir Creek is not a navigable channel there is no case to be made for the application of the thalweg principle to determine the boundary and no reason to question the validity of the agreement reached between the Gujarat and Sindh provinces of British India to treat the eastern bank of the creek as the boundary.

To sum up, the Saarc summit was not a landmark event but it was not as bad as it could have been. Indo-Pakistan relations have not moved forward as they should have but they have not deteriorated. Forward movement will need not only the overcoming of the psychological “trust deficit” but concrete measures on India’s part when the negotiations on Siachen and Sir Creek resume in January. In the meanwhile, we should welcome small moves even while pressing for troop reductions which bring a greater interchange between the Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


The future of Saarc
By Sultan Ahmed


THE Saarc after achieving too little in the first two decades wants to infuse a new life in the regional organization in the next decade. Today, it is the weakest regional organization in the world though it covers a population of 1.5 billion and its problems are numerous and demand urgent solutions.

Nevertheless, a new member, Afghanistan, has been admitted into the seven-nation body and China’s and Japan’s request for observer status or as dialogue partners has been favourably viewed. That means the powerful states see a bright future for the Saarc if it moves in the right direction.

If Saarc, which came into existence through the initiative of the former Bangladesh president Ziaur Rehman in 1985, has not made much headway, it is not because of some basic fault in the organization or structural weaknesses, but because of the sharp political differences among its members. Its barren record is principally the result of the lingering dispute on Kashmir between India and Pakistan which has caused “a trust deficit” in their relations according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. The Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh agrees with that view, but differs on the modalities for eliminating that.

“We should take issues head on and come up with solutions”, says Shaukat Aziz. Dr Singh and other Indian leaders do not agree to that “head on” approach and prefer a step-by-step approach. The Indian leaders also do not like conducting India-Pakistan peace negotiations through the press, which the Pakistan leaders love doing. Instead they prefer quiet diplomacy including back stage diplomacy through trusted assistants. And the Indian leaders have shown distaste for open diplomacy quite often.

While the Saarc leaders have remained preoccupied with their own disputes, numerous new challenges have come up to face them in the form of increasing terrorism in various ways and the rapid spread of poverty which fuels that terrorism. As the population of the region has risen to 1.5 billion people, it contains 60 per cent of the poor people of the world with their varied problems linked to acute poverty. And now with Afghanistan joining Saarc, the number of the poor in the Saarc region has further increased.

The Dhaka summit, which has issued the Dhaka declaration, recognizes poverty as the greatest threat to the region. So it has declared the next decade, 2006-2015, as the decade of poverty alleviation in the Saarc region. A poverty alleviation fund was earlier suggested by Pakistan with a capital of 300 million dollars which is more of seed money. The funds required to fight poverty are vast and should be made available on a continual basis.

Of course if the Saarc utilizes these funds in a proper manner, international donors will be willing to make larger contributions, as they are already doing in case of its member countries. The issue is how to dovetail the national policies and programmes for poverty alleviation with the overall Saarc programme and make the whole operation smooth and truly productive.

The other threat to the region, which the Dhaka declaration underscores, is an increase in terrorism, which is menacing all the member states including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The declaration wants the Saarc members to ratify the additional protocol to the convention on terrorism adopted by the organization as early as 1987 and cut off the funds to terrorist groups. It was also decided at Dhaka to have annual meetings of home or interior secretaries of the Saarc member countries.

The Dhaka declaration stresses there should be no double standards in the approach to terrorism. It seeks enhanced political cooperation between members for peace and stability in South Asia. At a time when terrorists are crossing international borders easily, such cooperation is essential to reduce the efficacy of terrorist attacks.

The need for political cooperation was stressed at the summit by Begum Khalida Zia, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, who saw the political disputes cutting across vast areas of cooperation between member states. Political cooperation is essential as the lack of it stands in the way of economic cooperation, which is avidly sought by all but largely in vain. One of the major achievements of Saarc has been the agreement to usher in South Asia Free Trade Area (Safta) from January 1, 2006. But now it appears the free trade agreement may not become a reality by that date, which the whole of Saarc was looking forward to. Mr Shaukat Aziz says that Pakistan is for free trade with India. But that was not possible unless there is a headway in the negotiations on Kashmir dispute.

Until the composite dialogue resumed between India and Pakistan early last year, Pakistan had insisted that the Kashmir issue should be settled before large-scale bilateral trade begins. Pakistan now wants some real progress in the talks so that Kashmir is not side-stepped. But India which wants a gradualist approach to the solution of the major disputes between the two countries does not agree to such pre-conditions for normal trade between the two neighbours.

The other members of the Saarc want the free trade area to become a reality from January 1. And they were eagerly looking forward to that. They ardently hoped that the South Asia Preferential Trade Agreement (Sapta) with its large number of specified items for import duty relief could soon lead to a free trade area. And they will be disappointed if the Safta is not launched on January 1. How will Pakistan appease them?

The Dhaka summit was not conspicuous for any major achievements, nor was it a landmark summit. Major decisions taken on poverty alleviation and on combating terrorism were already taken a year earlier at Islamabad. The Dhaka summit, which met after two postponements primarily confirmed or underscored what had been agreed earlier.

Mr Shaukat Aziz came up with seven points to strengthen the Saarc and make it a goal-oriented, dynamic and pragmatic organization focusing on implementation of decisions and making it able to deliver what it promises or what its charter proclaims. He wants an expansion and intensification of economic and commercial cooperation. He suggested to promote cooperation in the field of energy to maximize the use of available energy and minimize the waste.

The prime minister sought cooperation for environmental protection and sustainable development with particular focus on conservation and management of water and natural resources. He also stressed on cooperation in joint projects to alleviate poverty, promote health, education and agriculture. He asked for an improvement in infrastructure especially region-wise transportation and larger communication links, advocated greater cooperation and coordination in monetary and fiscal policies of Saarc member countries and offered to host a finance ministers’ conference before the end of the year.

Dr Manmohan Singh, before he left for the Dhaka summit, had voiced his fear of failed states in the Saarc region, not to alarm member states but to caution them against the chaos prevailing in some of them. Observers said he was referring to particularly Bangladesh and Nepal, which faced serious political and economic problems. In the face of such fears, the cooperation between Saarc members should increase, more so when one failed state could destabilize its neighbours. But such cooperation is not coming forth in adequate measure.

Dr Singh made a number of offers to the Dhaka summit to make the Saarc strong and popular. He offered the facility of daily air service to major Indian cities from Saarc countries on a reciprocal basis. He proposed setting up of a food bank with storage facilities in various towns to meet the food shortage in the region. He wanted a Saarc university as a centre of excellence and offered to host it in India if others agreed.

He proposed a Saarc textile and handicraft museum to project the textile wealth of the region and its great traditions. He was keen on transit facilities for member states so that they can trade easily with the West and Central Asia. He offered such facilities in India so that there can be a larger volume of trade in the region. It might take twenty years to reconnect the subcontinent and then reconnect it with its Asian neighbours, he said urging larger volume of trade between Saarc countries and others in the region.

Begum Khalida Zia said that the leaders in South Asia were approaching the problems “with the mindsets and perceptions from the past”. They have been talking of going far beyond Safta in their economic cooperation and have been urging an economic union. But Begum Zia said an economic union needed an enabling political and economic environment which of course is missing at the moment. Old discords stand in the way of new agreements and if new agreements are reached such as Safta, they are not implemented or are implemented partially.

Meanwhile Pakistan, after having signed a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka is seeking similar agreements with Bangladesh and Nepal.

Clearly political crowbars stand in the way of far larger accomplishments. In India and Pakistan the people, traders and industrialists want more trade with each other, but the leaders have serious reservations and in some cases are too cautious to move ahead fast. India spurns all suggestions from Pakistan for a roadmap for settling the problems between the two countries. If it is not ready to make major concessions on Kashmir, it is not eager to even settle the Siachen or Sir Creek issues or the dispute over the three dams India is building. This is too discouraging for the people of the region, particularly Pakistan.

And after nearly two years of the composite dialogue since it was resumed, the third round is to begin in January. Will that round be any better keeping in view that the previous two rounds had small achievements to speak of? The contacts between Dr Singh and Shaukat Aziz at Dhaka did not produce any great results either. But the two leaders have decided to continue the talks and keep the temperature low in the hope of better results in the future.

How not to run Saarc
The organisation needs fewer high-sounding proclamations : Imtiaz Alam

With greater pump and show in an imperial setting and high protocol the 13th Saarc Summit has concluded in Dhaka with yet another declaration of so many proclamations and innumerable platitudes. Yet leaving certain thorny issues unsettled that are too crucial to the implementation of framework agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta) from January 1. The most significant outcome of the summit is that while Afghanistan has been included in Saarc, China and Japan are accorded an observer status. Twenty years after its creation, Saarc has still not taken off. The question is: How to run Saarc in its third decade?
Saarc has now hundreds of decisions, dozens of agreements, many a protocols, 13 summit- level declarations and numerous charters and framework agreements ranging from free-trade area to social charter, poverty-alleviation strategy to cultural integration. Pick any summit declaration, including the 13th Saarc Summit's, the range of subjects has been all-embracing -- leaving just bilateral disputes and conflict resolution mechanism or security issues out of its ambit. Despite tremendous unanimity of views, so explicitly and ritualistically expressed by the heads of state and government at every summit meeting, it is interstate differences and disputes that continue to prohibit any significant movement on the road to regional cooperation. And this is precisely what has been excluded by Saarc to run free of bilateral tensions, but without much success.
Given a lack of movement at the multilateral level, member-states are more inclined to take a bilateral course of creating bilateral free-trade areas. There are also trilateral (India-Bhutan- Nepal), quadrilateral (Bangladesh-India-Nepal-Bhutan) and multilateral (BIMST-EC: Bangladesh-India-Myanmar-Thailand-Sri Lanka) arrangements. This is what the experts describe as "spaghetti," a multiplicity of contracts that hinders the growth at the Saarc level. Although Bilateral Free Trade Areas (BFTAs) are working, such as that between India and Sri Lanka, trilateral and other multilateral agreements are not. The reason is similar, i.e., bilateral disputes. For example BIMST-EC, from which Pakistan was excluded on the ground of its being a non-Bay of Bengal state, and trilateral and quadrilateral arrangements are also not working due to bilateral disputes, such as those between Bangladesh and India and Nepal. Yet Saarc has so far resisted the inclusion of bilateral issues on its agenda or creation of a mechanism to address bilateral disputes on a forum, as on the lines of Asean.
However, this inner imbalance heavily favours India against its small and medium-sized neighbours and has kept Saarc hamstrung due to suspicions among the smaller neighbours of a huge India. Interestingly, Saarc was initiated to bring the smaller states in a relatively more assured position to deal with their bigger neighbour. But neither could smaller members overcome their apprehensions, nor would India take the lead in accommodating the concerns of its partners, except for the brief stint of a weak prime minister, I. K. Gujral. To make the prospects of Saarc worse, Indo-Pakistani disputes and tensions continued to overshadow the regional undertaking. Although Saarc helped smaller members amplify their voice, and the least develop countries' concerns are being addressed under Safta, the creation of a free-trade area in the region is still handicapped by India's over-protectionism and ambitious demands by the LDCs.
Despite the signing of three agreements in Dhaka to facilitate free trade, Safta is unlikely to move ahead as planned without sorting out multiple bottlenecks. And if lessons are not learnt from the failure of the South Asian Preferential Trade Area (Sapta), Safta will meet the same fate.
If one looks at the pledges and decisions taken by the Saarc summits - and they are infinite and most commendable - one must ask where the resources, mechanisms and implementing agencies are that will match the gigantic tasks set for the Saarc Secretariat, which is not even an efficient post office. The principle of rotation and low-level functionaries on deputation from the respective foreign offices are not supposed to handle extremely specialised and professional jobs and with little resources. Nor could officials from the respective ministries efficiently handle the extra burdens in their annual or periodical meetings. The bigger jobs of harmonising standards, rationalisation of tariffs, removal of non- and para-tariff barriers, rules of origin, creation of mechanisms for settlement of disputes and coordination of macro-economic and monetary policies cannot be done with the available structural and institutional arrangements.
In fact, Saarc, in its high-sounding proclamations, has spread out so much that it loses sight of achieving the most palpable. Unlike the European Union, which started with a limited area of coal and steel, and Asean, which decided to put disputes among member-states on the backburner, Saarc followed a more-talk-less-work approach, without either handling the bilateral disputes or successfully putting them aside. In the course of two decades it has been deciding to do many things without completing a single task. Thanks to its ritualistic character, what it has done is that it is creating institutions with no functional significance. The member-countries that have not yet allowed free movement of people across their borders, to say nothing of goods, are not destined to create a dynamic regional enterprise.
Take the demand of the South Asian Free Media Association's (Safma) for the inclusion of its proposal to allow free movement of journalists and free flow of media products across the region. Despite repeated communications for the last five years, the issue could not be included in the agenda of the last three summits, even though the proposal had been receiving approval at the top political level. This time, however, thanks to the personal interest of Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri and the support given by Bangladeshi foreign minister M. Morshed Khan and the Indian minister of state for external affairs, E. Ahmed, the three countries assured Safma's Saarc Journalists Summit-II on Nov. 11 at Dhaka that a decision had been taken by the Council of Ministers to exempt accredited journalists working with credible media organisations from visa, like certain other categories. How, who and when this will be done is still not clear.
If Saarc has to become a dynamic and functional regional vehicle for cooperation, it must focus on specific areas that can provide a palpable foundation to kick-start the regional interactivity. For example, let it start by becoming a union of energy, communication, information and tourism and to move onward to a free-trade area. Of course, as the bilateral disputes could not be put aside and they are quite serious and range from bilateral trade to cross-border disputes and terrorism, a forum on the lines of Asean's may be created to find solutions to bilateral problems. A simultaneous approach needs to be evolved without making one track a hostage to the other plank. Instead of making the Saarc process handicapped by the bureaucracies, which are more interested in procedure than substance, technocrats and experts should be hired for various jobs on a competitive basis. A most efficient and interactive mechanism needs to be evolved to benefit from the inputs of civil society, such as chambers of commerce on trade and investment, media bodies on free flow of information.
Instead of arranging high-profile Saarc summits, the heads of government and state must meet, and too often, in a businesslike manner. And these meetings should not be postponed on one pretext or the other. The captains of industry, communication, energy, media and tourism should be given greater say, rather than the bureaucrats concerned, in pushing the economic and cooperative agendas forward. Most importantly, all impediments in the way of free movement of the people and free flow of information should be removed. The bigger economies need to take into account the vulnerabilities of LDCs. What is immediately needed is that all differences over the implementation of Safta should be promptly sorted out to make the next decade of Saarc meaningful and fulfilling. To start with, let's make Saarc a union of communication, tourism, energy and information along with creating a free-trade area.

__________________
[COLOR=Blue][B]The best way to predict the future is to invent it[/B][/COLOR]

Breathing life into SAARC
by Praful Bidwai

Such is the uninspiring record of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (Saarc) that few people who live in this part of the world have high expectations from its annual summits. These are seen as mere rituals, at the end of which the seven leaders present issue fairly inane declarations and platitudinous statements. Indeed, even the summit meetings don't assuredly take place on an annual basis: military conflicts, bilateral disputes and distrust between any two member-states can derail them. In its 20-year life, SAARC has only held 13 summits.

Even so, the last one, in Dhaka, had raised some hopes -- for two reasons. First, it was the first top-level meeting after India and Pakistan launched their peace process nearly two years ago in Islamabad. So it was not unreasonable to expect that the regional cooperation agenda wouldn't become a hostage to their bilateral rivalry, as it often did in the past.

Secondly, Saarc is about to begin implementing the South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta) agreement barely six weeks from now. This potentially exciting development could have made Dhaka qualitatively different from past summits.

But that was not to be. The 13th summit ended with the same inanities and pious declarations of optimism as most other Saarc meetings, which tediously reiterate old pledges and promises. This time, mutual rivalry between Pakistan and India wasn't the main stumbling block, although the "trust deficit" referred to by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, and its correction, promised by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, did play a role. Yet, nothing was done to try to come to grips with that issue on the sidelines of the summit. It was other bilateral factors, including tensions between Nepal and India, and between India and Bangladesh, that mattered far more in Dhaka.

Bilateral issues are not meant to cast their shadow over Saarc. But India-Bangladesh and India-Nepal relations did just that. Manmohan Singh's reference to the "external linkages" of the Delhi bomb blasts of Oct. 29 only lengthened the shadow. At any rate, it did nothing to lift the spirits of the summiteers. Nor did his later statement that India cannot choose its neighbours. "We have to do business with governments that are in power… Therefore, using harsh language in public is not the best way, I think, to promote dialogue and understanding."

Safta will become operational in January, but only as a truncated agreement which will have limited impact on the region's economies. As matters stand, Safta has more holes than a Swiss cheese -- in the form of exceptions and lists of "sensitive" items in respect of which the least-developed countries can claim protective treatment. The lead in demanding these exceptions was taken by Bangladesh, backed by Nepal and the Maldives.

Bangladesh is wary of "free trade" because it stands to lose a million jobs thanks to the abolition of textile export quotas. The region's more advanced economies did little to reassure or help their poorer neighbours through offers of improved access to their markets. India and Pakistan could have unilaterally offered duty-free access to goods, and lowered barriers to imports of cheap fabric from them, with which to make garments for export to third countries. This didn't happen.

In the event, two developments, both formally external to Saarc's core, came to dominate the summit: the impending entry of Afghanistan into the Association as its eighth member, and the beginning of a process to finalise the guidelines for according the status of observers to non-regional states, in which both China and Japan have expressed interest.

The case for making Afghanistan a full member of Saarc is so compelling that no one even countenanced raising an objection. There are countless and close historic and cultural ties between Afghanistan and other countries of the region. Afghanistan's political emergence from the dark period of Taliban rule makes it an attractive candidate for membership.

Association with Saarc could also persuade many Afghans to look at South Asia, rather than Central or West Asia, as its "natural" neighbourhood. Short-term issues like the fragility of the Karzai government -- with its near-clientelist relationship with the United States -- should concern us far less than the long-term importance of making Saarc more capacious without making it unwieldy.

Yet, some Saarc states evidently have reservations about letting Afghanistan in. Or else, Nepal wouldn't have made such a big fuss over linking that issue with observer status for China. A motive probably weighing with Kathmandu was to "fix" India. The King of Nepal is annoyed with India. India has followed a pretty incoherent and inconsistent policy on Nepal. It has not taken a firm stand for the restoration of democracy and the supremacy of the elected government over all administrative organs, including the army. But India hasn't tailed the king or bought into his apologies for an executive monarchy.

In Dhaka, King Gyanendra, unsurprisingly, didn't lose his chance to irritate India. By trying to link Afghanistan with China, he also asserted Nepal's unique geopolitical location between China and India and emphasised his friendship with China.

India, for its part, adopted a dilatory tactic on the China issue. Since the Saarc charter does not specify the criteria or procedures for observer status, New Delhi proposed a formula whose implementation might take time. India is being unduly defensive about China. India is itself building a strong economic relationship with China. Their bilateral trade has more than doubled in two years -- to their mutual benefit. India shouldn't feel uncomfortable with a China that similarly builds close relations with India's neighbours. India needn't try to hedge China in by insisting that Japan too come into Saarc as an observer.

There is an independent case for close Sino-Indian relations as well as regional economic integration across South, Southeast and East Asia. China has proposed some kind of Asian economic community, which builds on the expansion of the existing FTAs or common markets, in which India and Pakistan will play a vital role along with Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, and South Korea and Japan.

Ultimately, the future of India and Pakistan lies in cultural, social and economic arrangements rooted in Asia, not in the West. It should be a matter of grave concern, if not shame, for us that South Asia remains one of the few regions of the world which has no economic bloc or cooperation agreement worth the name.

We live in an age where FTAs and PTAs are growing in importance and already account for one-half of world trade. If South Asia is to flourish as a region, it must quickly get its economic act together -- through trade and investment, and equally, through actual transfer of resources to combat poverty, improve health and literacy, and empower people.

This will make one clear demand on India and Pakistan, Saarc's Number One and Two. They must stop looking for incremental advantages or parochial gains for themselves in Saarc. Rather, they, India, in particular, must take a broad, enlightened, expansive view of the region and announce unilateral measures. As argued earlier in this column (July 16), unilateralism of the strong is the key. It alone can breathe some life into Saarc.

__________________
[COLOR=Blue][B]The best way to predict the future is to invent it[/B][/COLOR]

Which option to choose: Saarc or ECO?


THE evolution of the European Union into a dynamic association of European states cooperating for common economic, political and security goals is enviable.

From its modest start as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the phenomenal economic prosperity that Europe has achieved since then has encouraged the growth of regional organizations in other parts of the world. In Asia, Asean, Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), GCC and Saarc readily come to mind as examples of regional organizations striving to promote cooperation among the member states in economic and other fields.

While regional cooperation per se is desirable, it is a mistake to assume that any association of regional states can evolve on the lines of the EU or can achieve similar results. In fact, the challenges and the potential of regional organizations vary according to their economic circumstances, cultural and historical backgrounds, geographical location, intra-regional political relations, their world outlook and their vision of the future.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the 13th Saarc Summit concluded in Dhaka again with pious declarations of strengthening regional cooperation but without any real headway on the major issues facing it. The organization remains mired in political disputes among the member states and bogged down by fears of India’s hegemonic designs in the region in both economic and political fields. The resultant lack of trust does not create a propitious climate for the promotion of regional cooperation. Cultural divergences among the member states, particularly between India and Pakistan, add to the list of negative factors militating against regional cooperation in Saarc. In fact, it would be correct to say that Saarc was born with genetic defects which simple declarations cannot eliminate.

It is astonishing that in the debate in Pakistan on regional cooperation, we tend to gloss over the necessary conditions for its success. The main reason for this tendency is an inadequate comprehension of the rationale and the prerequisites for a successful programme of regional cooperation leading to regional integration on the lines of the European Union.

The ability of a regional organization to reap fully the economic and political benefits of inter-state cooperation is determined by the following pre-requisites of a successful scheme of regional cooperation: * Community of interests: There must be a feeling of common identity and common destiny (common goals and aspirations) among the member states.

* Economic complementarities: The economic benefits of regional cooperation will largely be determined by complementarities among the economies of the member states.

* Geographical proximity: Obviously the ability of member states to trade and cooperate with one another will be facilitated if they are located in close proximity to one another geographically.

* Cultural affinities: This factor again facilitates regional cooperation by promoting a feeling of common identity among the member states. It is a major positive factor for regional cooperation within the EU as all of its current members trace their cultural roots to Greco-Roman-Christian civilization. It also explains the EU’s reluctance to admit Turkey, a major Muslim country, in its fold.

* Absence of serious disputes: The presence of serious conflicts among the member states like the Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India can act as a major obstacle in the progress of regional cooperation.

* Non-existence of hegemonic designs: As shown by Saarc’s experience, the fear of hegemonic designs of a member state also blocks progress in regional cooperation.

As the process of regional cooperation evolves from programmes of cooperation in various economic fields to the establishment of a free trade area and then to the creation of a customs union leading to an economic union, the economies of the member states are gradually integrated resulting ultimately in the establishment of a single market where goods, capital and people can move freely and in the harmonization of economic and monetary policies. Further, since economic issues cannot be totally separated from political and security issues, there is an inevitable pressure to coordinate foreign and security policies in keeping with the process of integration taking place in the economic field.

These developments lead to several important consequences. Firstly, the decision-making powers on issues of common interest are gradually transferred from national capitals to the headquarters of the regional organization as the process of regional economic integration takes place. Secondly, the bigger state or states tend(s) to dominate the decision-making process of the regional organization. Even if there are checks and balances to counter this tendency, it is likely that the bigger state or states because of their political and economic strength bigger state or states will ultimately dominate the region and the regional policies.

Thirdly, there is an inevitable contradiction between the process of regional integration whose contours will ultimately be defined by the dominant member state(s) and the maintenance of the national identities of the smaller member states. These likely consequences explain the opposition of several Latin American countries to the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) advocated by the US.

It is in the backdrop of the foregoing, that we must examine the current euphoria about Saarc among the policy-making circles in Pakistan some of which have gone to the extent of calling for an economic and monetary union within the Saarc region. Apparently, they are neither aware of the pre-requisites of regional integration nor are they conscious of the long-term consequences of this process for Pakistan in the context of Saarc.

Regional integration within the framework of Saarc would negate the very rationale for the creation of Pakistan because, as explained above, the process of regional integration would submerge Pakistan’s national identity in the bigger and dominant Indian identity. Further, India, because of its preponderant weight within the organization, would in due course dominate the decision-making process in Saarc affecting Pakistan’s economy and even foreign policy as the two cannot be totally segregated. This would be undesirable because, as the history of Pakistan-India relations indicates, there is neither a community of interests nor cultural affinity between India and Pakistan.

After all, it wasn’t that long that the forces of the two countries were facing each other along the common border. India’s goal is to establish its hegemony in South Asia and the Indian ocean region. We are opposed to this Indian ambition. We want a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people while New Delhi considers Kashmir as its integral part. The world-views of India and Pakistan are also widely different if not contradictory.

In fact, Pakistan’s cultural roots lie in the member states of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and the GCC. The following quotation from the Quaid-i-Azam’s reply to Gandhi’s denial of Muslim nationality should suffice to bring out the cultural divergence between Pakistan and India:

“We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a hundred million and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law we are a nation.”

This is not an argument for creating tensions in our relations with India or for writing off Saarc. In fact, we do need to develop tension-free and good-neighbourly relations with India. We also need to resolve peacefully the outstanding disputes with India.

Similarly, as far as Pakistan is concerned, Saarc does have a role to play for the promotion of regional cooperation in a limited framework, including trade on a level playing field basis but not for the purpose of regional integration through the establishment of economic and monetary union. The establishment of such a union would mean that India would achieve its long-cherished aim of negating the very existence of an independent and sovereign Pakistan without having fired a shot.

For Pakistan, it is the ECO which meets all the prerequisites of regional cooperation leading to regional integration. The organization has a vast potential for the expansion of regional economic cooperation as it is based on the solid foundation of economic complementarities, common cultural heritage, geographical proximity and the absence of serious disputes and hegemonic designs among its members.

It is a sad commentary on Pakistan’s foreign policy that it is precisely this organization with promising prospects for regional cooperation for our country, which has received little attention from our policy-makers during the past several years, partly because of the fiasco of our Afghanistan policy of the 1990s lasting till 9/11. The changed environment in Afghanistan provides Pakistan with an opportunity for creative diplomacy for exploiting the full potential of the ECO for regional cooperation in collaboration with other member states, including Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Republics and for safeguarding our long-term national interests.

By Javid Husain

__________________
[COLOR=Blue][B]The best way to predict the future is to invent it[/B][/COLOR]

SAARC IN BRIEF
• Introduction
• Objectives
• Charter

Introduction

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) comprises the seven countries of South Asia, i.e. Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

It is an Association based on the consciousness that 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 which are bound by ties of history and culture.

The idea of regional cooperation in South Asia was first mooted in May 1980. After consultations, the Foreign Secretaries of the seven countries met for the first time in Colombo in April 1981. This was followed by a meeting of the Committee of the Whole in Colombo in August-September 1981, which identified five broad areas for regional cooperation.

The Foreign Ministers of South Asia, at their first meeting in New Delhi in August 1983, adopted the Declaration on South Asian Regional Cooperation (SARC) and formally launched the Integrated Programme of Action (IPA) initially in five agreed areas of cooperation namely, Agriculture; Rural Development; Telecommunications; Meteorology; and Health and Population Activities.

The Heads of State or Government at their First SAARC Summit held in Dhaka on 7-8 December 1985 adopted the Charter formally establishing the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Objectives

• To promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to improve their quality of life.

• To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realise their full potential.

• To promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia

• To contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another’s problems.

• To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields.

• To strengthen cooperation with other developing countries.

• To strengthen cooperation among themselves in international forums on matters of common interests, and to cooperate with international and regional organisations with similar aims and purposes.

The Charter of the Association provides for the following:

The Summit

The highest authority of the Association rests with the Heads of State or Government, who meet annually at the Summit level. To date, eleven Summits have been held: Dhaka (1985), Bangalore (1986), Kathmandu (1987), Islamabad (1988), Malé (1990), Colombo (1991), Dhaka (1993), New Delhi (1995), Malé (1997), Colombo (1998) and Kathmandu (2002).

The Council of Ministers

Comprising the Foreign Ministers of Member States, the Council is responsible for formulating policies, reviewing progress; deciding on new areas of cooperation, establishing additional mechanisms as deemed necessary and deciding on other matters of general interest to the Association. The Council is expected to meet twice a year and may also meet in extraordinary sessions by agreement of Member States. It has heldtwenty-three regular sessions. To mark the First Decade of SAARC, a Commemorative Session
of the Council was held in New Delhi on 18 December 1995 during the Sixteenth Session of the Council of Ministers. Informal meetings of the Council are also held on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly Sessions in New York.

The Standing Committee

The Standing Committee comprising the Foreign Secretaries of Member States is entrusted with the task of overall monitoring and coordination of programmes, approving of projects and programmes, and modalities of financing; determining inter-sectoral priorities, mobilising regional and external resources, and identifying new areas of cooperation. It meets as often as deemed necessary and submits its reports to the Council of Ministers. The Committee has held Twenty-eight regular sessions and three special sessions. The Fourth Special Session of the Standing Committee being held in Kathmandu on 9-10 July 2003.

The Standing Committee is authorised to set up Action Committees comprising Member States concerned with implementation of projects involving more than two but less than seven Member States.

The Standing Committee is assisted by a Programming Committee (which is not a SAARC Charter body) comprising senior officials to scrutinize the Secretariat Budget, finalise the Calendar of Activities and take up any other matter assigned to it by the Standing Committee. The Programming Committee has also been entrusted to consider and submit to the Standing Committee recommendations for action on the Reports of the Technical Committees, SAARC Regional Centres and the SAARC Audio Visual Exchange (SAVE) Committee. The Programming Committee has held twenty-three sessions.

The Technical Committees

At present, there are seven Technical Committees functioning in various fields under the agreed areas of cooperation. The Technical Committees formulate specialized programmes and projects in their respective fields under the SAARC Integrated Programme of Action (SIPA). They are also responsible for monitoring the implementation of such activities and submit their reports to the Standing Committee through the Programming Committee.

Six meetings of planners have been held so far, i.e. one in 1983 and five annually from 1987 to 1991. These meetings initiated cooperation in important areas such as trade, manufactures and services, basic needs, human resources development, database on socio-economic indicators, energy modeling techniques, plan modeling techniques, and poverty alleviation strategies.

Schedule of 12th SAARC Summit 2003-2004:

• Twenty-forth Session of the Programming Committee, 29-30 December 2003, Islamabad

• Twenty-ninth Session of the Standing Committte, 31 December 2003 - 1 January 2004, Islamabad

• Twenty-fourth Session of the Council of Ministers, 2-3 January 2004, Islamabad

• Twelfth Meeting of the Heads of States or Government, 4-6 January 2004, Islamabad

__________________
kareiN meiN ney kesi ebaadateiN
rahi aetaqaaf mein chasm-e-num
kaeiN rath-jugouN ki dukhi huwee
na hi buth miley naa pari milee

merey charagarh mere hum-navaa
naa pari milee, na hi buth miley
naa hee en buthouN ka Khuda mila