NATIONAL9 [IN FOCUS (Spotlight Weelky)]

Whither SAAARC?

By PRAKASH CHANDRA LOHANI

In the cold war period grouping had strong military dimension along with economic and political considerations.After the end of the cold war economic considerations are becoming increasingly important.

SAARC started in 1985 with the objective of improving the economic and social condition of the people in the South Asian Countries in a framework of mutual trust, understanding and beneficial collaboration in the economic, social, cultural and technical fields among nations in the region. During its first few years India had an ambivalent attitude towards the new effort. There was the apprehension that the smaller countries in the region will use it as a forum to curtail the policy option of Indian in its dealings with the neighboring countries. However, with winds of liberalization spreading across the globe along with a broad convergence of economic policies the perception associated with the cost and benefit of economic cooperation associated with the cost and benefit of economic cooperation within the SAARC region has begun to and benefit of economic cooperation within the SAARC region has begun to change.The change has been almost drastic in the case of India. When Mr.Inder Kumar Gujral was the prime minister India even expressed its willingness to consider the idea of forming South Asian Economic Union if other countries in the region so desired.At that time other nations including Nepal thought that it would be wise to think of this bold vision once countries in the region successfully make the transition from South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA) to South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA).

Impediments : In spite of good intentions and a certain display of political will to move forward rapidly in the area of economic cooperation the impediments in the process are serious and can net be wished away. Foremost among them is the conflict between India and Pakistan on Kashmir issue for it limits the capacity of both countries to reconcile regional interest with national interest with national interest. In fact the future growth and development of SAARC as an institution true to objectives outlined in its character implies that both India and Pakistan will overcome domestic political obstacles and show the political will and courage to seek a solution to the border issue. If the new Kargil syndrome continues to become the trend of the further including the build up of sophisticated nuclear weaponry and delivery systems as follow up of the "big bang" seen last year SAARC may even loose its relevance even though the cost of non cooperation will become visibly obvious in an increasingly globalized wold. Rationality, after all, is not the only human characteristic; absurdity is another. As Thomas Hobbs once observed "the privilege of absurdity is a phenomenon that characterizes no other creature but man." In our region it is not yet clear that the two large nations of the SAARC region have forsaken the privilege. In this scenario, ignoring SAARC and looking towards other regions by both India and Pakistan should not be considered as far-fetched and difficult.

Apart from the border problem between India and Pakistan another consideration affecting the future of SAARC is the distribution of the gains of trade.Regional groupings in the past have often failed because inadequate attention was given to the issue.For SAARC this point is all the more relevant given the asymmetry in the size of the member nations. Countries in the SAARC region range all the way from one of the largest to one of the smallest nation on earth. In a membership that does not exceed seven there are two landlocked, two sea-locked, tow nuclear and two non-democratic states. Indeed the seven nations among themselves could easily highlight the whole range of problems associated with development. In this setting if SAARC is to be a vehicle for maximizing the static and dynamic gains from trade the regulatory framework that is visualized should allow some degree of safeguard to the domestic producers of the smaller member states. In this context, the Gujral doctrine, that was willing to consider some degree of non-reciprocity in India's economic relations with neighboring nations had kindled new hope and optimism in the future of SAARC. One does not hear about the doctrine any more. It is to be hoped that the content of the doctrine if not its name continues to find some space in India's orientation towards SAARC in the future.

SAARC vision : The SAARC vision for the next twenty years has been outlined int he report of the GEP submitted in June 1998.The basis thrust of the report is increased cooperation among member nations in the economic and social sectors leading to the establishment of South Asian Economic Union by the year 2000. It is a vision that is something grand, noble and worth striving for.A vision of this scope however, has to be related with the values, structures and decision processes that define the totality of the momentum that is desired. Vision, values and structures have to be viewed in a holistic manner so that contradictions come into light before they assume serious proportion and the gap between what is desirable and what is feasible remains into focus without being swept away in an avalanche of political rhetoric that sometimes has no relevance to ground reality. In this context does it really make sense to consider some grand vision of economic cooperation in South Asian while quietly developing nuclear weapons and preparing for a possible war in the near future? Are the values for solving inter-state relationship consistent with the vision?

In the future track two (interaction and dialogue among non-governmental institutions of member countries) of SAARC will continue to have its relevance and it must proceed even more vigorously than in the past. As far as track one (interaction, dialogue and understand among members states) is concerned, a new effort towards maintaining consistency between vision and values will be necessary. As a part of this effort both India and Pakistan should seriously consider the possibility of signing a document that solemnly declares that war will not be used as an instrument to find a solution to the border problem in the future. Policy makers who believe in the realist theory of international relations and in the logic war is a continuation of diplomacy through less peaceful means will immediately cry foul this suggestion. But one should face the fact that it is not possible to have the cake and east it too. If the South Asian vision is to be taken seriously renunciation of war to solve the border problem between India and Pakistan is a prime condition. Could one possibly think of a European Common Market with both France and Germany every ready for military conflict? In fact, if the South Asian vision is to turn into a reality a new perspective and boldness from the leaders of the region is needed which, unfortunately has been forthcoming.

In the approach suggested above is not feasible another option could perhaps be considered. In order to turn the SAARC vision into reality both India and Pakistan could consider freezing the border issue until 2020 and then go for a referendum without compromising their present position. Perhaps a problems that the present generation finds insurmountable could be solved by the next generation with a different mind set conditioned by the beneficial effects of economic integration as outlined in the SAARC vision 2020.

If politician in South Asia continue to remain in the past and retain a war like mind set as at the present SAARC will not be an instrument of what could be labeled as core transformation of the economic and social reality of the region. In this scenario, SAARC will be limited to cosmetic and at best peripheral transformation meaning changes along the margin rather than at the core.

Lohani is the former foreign minister and vice chairman of the National Democratic Party.