Chapter 1

Evolving role of SAARC

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is a regional grouping comprising of eight statesAfghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka. Nine Countries, Australia, China, European Union, Iran, Japan, Myanmar, Mauritius, South Korea and U.SA hold Observer status. 1

SAARC is a manifestation of the determination of the peoples of South Asia to work together towards finding solutions to their common problems in a spirit of friendship, trust and understanding and to create an order based on mutual respect, equity and shared benefits. The main goal of the Association is to accelerate the process of economic and social development in member states, through joint action in the agreed areas of cooperation. The idea of regional cooperation was first mooted in November 1980, 2 when Bangladesh proposed to institutionalize regional cooperation. SAARC was finally established on December 7-8, 1985, at the First SAARC Summit at Dhaka,3 after four years of consultations among the member countries. The establishment of SAARC reflected the shared desire of the people of South Asia, to overcome multi-faceted common economic problems of the region through mutual cooperation. The primary objective of SAARC, as stated in its charter, was to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of life.4 To achieve this goal, the charter called for endeavors; to accelerate economic growth, social programs and cultural development in the region; to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance; to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one anothers problems and to promote active
1

Madhavi Bhasin, SAARC I Evolution, at http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/05/04/saarc-i-evolution/,accessed on 02-072012 2 Pakistan and SAARC, at www.mofa.gov.pk/mfa/pages/article.aspx?id=16&type=4 accessed on 03-07-2012 3 ibid 4 ibid

collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields.5

Almost sixteen years have passed since the inception of SAARC. Though this time frame for attaining maturity for any regional organization is not much, nonetheless the performance of SAARC is generally viewed as far below its existing potential and the expectations of the masses of the region. A major explanation in this regard lies in the fact that the relationship among the member states has often been marked by mistrust, misunderstanding and even hostility. Since India alone adjoins all SAARC members and has common borders with them, all bilateral disputes are only between India and its neighbours.6 In the last fifty years, India and Pakistan have fought three bloody wars, two of them over Kashmir, which remain unresolved even today. There are outstanding bilateral problems, which essentially need a political response, such as those that exist between Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal with India. 7 Article X (2) of the SAARC Charter does not allow bringing bilateral contentious issues under discussion, therefore leaving no room for any political dialogue for improvement in overall political environment through this regional organization.8

SAARC was created in an environment of mistrust and reveals unstated apprehensions regarding the formation of a regional grouping, within the member countries. Each member had some specific expectations from the organization in line with its individual national agendas. 9 For example, India the largest country in the region, was apprehensive in joining the organisation on

5 6

ibid Dr. Subramanian Swamy, SAARC in the New Millennium, Foundation for Research on International Environment press, New Delhi, India, 2001, p. 74 7 ibid 8 ibid 9 S. M. Ikram Ullah, The Role of SAARC in Achieving Political and Economic Stability and Cultural Development, South Asian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, July 1999, p. 39.

grounds that Bangladesh may have been pushing the idea on behest of the US to counter the former Soviet Unions influence in the region. At the time of SAARCs inception, the two superpowers were fiercely engaged in the Afghan conflict. India was an ally of the former Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Pakistan was an active ally of Washington and a front line state in the US proxy war against Moscow. Therefore, Indian apprehensions were not totally groundless. India also believed that this forum would be used by the smaller states of the region to gang up against India and collectively they could undermine Indian regional and strategic interests.10 All the states bordering India have bilateral problems with it, of different magnitude and nature. India joined the grouping reluctantly because it did not want to be seen as a stumbling block towards regional cooperation and integration. And also, did not want to be isolated from the regional grouping.11 Therefore, in view of its apprehensions, it was on Indias insistence that two principles were accepted as a condition for Indias joining the association; one, that the organization would not discuss contentious bilateral political issues and two, that all the decisions would be taken on the basis of unanimity. 12 The principle of no discussion on bilateral issues has influenced negatively the dynamics of regional cooperation, thus reducing the effectiveness of SAARC as a viable vehicle for economic progress and regional integration. According to J.N. Dixit, former foreign secretary of India, India initially was not at all serious about SAARC. Only after the sixth summit, which was held in Colombo in 1991, did New Delhi start to take the grouping seriously.13

On the part of Pakistan, there were apprehensions in the minds of the then policy makers that this forum may further Indias hegemonistic designs for the region in an institutionalised manner, and
10 11

ibid Kamal Thapa, SAARC at the Crossroads, Spotlight Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 22, December 15-21, 2000.at qbase.co.in/pu/sites/default/files/ijsas09032011.pdf, accessed on 04-07-2012 12 ibid 13 ibid

may become detrimental to Pakistans vital national interests.The smaller countries of the region sought to address, through this forum, concerns regarding their economic and security interests. The smaller states of South Asia, at that time, were finding it extremely difficult to secure their political and economic interests vis--vis India, at bilateral levels. Further, it was expected by the smaller states that in a multi-lateral framework they would be able to have a voice in South Asian affairs.14 Therefore, there was a desire on the part of the smaller states to create a regional forum similar to ASEAN and the European Community, to deal on equitable terms with the bigger states in the region.

It is clear that the underlying motives of all the South Asian states to enter into a regional cooperation framework were essentially political in nature.15 However, the stated objectives of the creation of SAARC had to do more with the socio-economic cooperation than addressing political issues. There is a general perception that, over the years, in South Asia the outstanding bilateral contentious issues are the basic hurdles in establishing mutual trust among the members of SAARC.16 There can be no substantial progress in any field unless cooperation is based on sincerity and trust. And trust can only be developed in the region when bilateral disputes are satisfactorily resolved, or there are sustained conflict resolution efforts. Currently, the pressure to include bilateral, contentious political issues in SAARC deliberations is increasing with the passage of time, which have never allowed SAARC to take off. Mahendra P. Lama, Associate Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University writes:

14 15

ibid Mahendra P. Lama, SAARC: Shallow Regionalism, Political Abstinence and Economic Advocacy, BIISS, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2000, p. 9. 16 ibid

Indias quiet but shrewd diplomatic maneuverings to keep away the political issues from the SAARC forum have always been in stark contrast to Pakistans obsession to raise such issues. Over the years, Pakistan has been able to galvanize and garner some sustained support in this regard from at least some of the member countries Unlike the argument that once political issues are brought to the SAARC forum, it may totally be mesmerized by and submerged into petty political scoring, there are fresh and newer arguments emerging against such thinking. In other words, the urgent need and usefulness of raising political issues in the SAARC forum have started finding favor among a significant portion of the South Asian elite that include politicians, economic stake holders, former diplomats, bureaucrats and academics. Their main contention has been that by constantly evading political issues, SAARC has pushed itself to a farcical corner and rendered itself as an unrealistic and disoriented forum. In this context, the 11th Summit would have been a watershed. The ball has been set rolling by the Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga who spoke at length about the inevitability of gradually inserting political issues in the SAARC discussion forum in the last 10th Summit in Colombo.17

There is a consensus among all members of SAARC, except India, to include bilateral contentious issues on the SAARC agenda, at least at the level of summit and foreign ministers meetings. Only India is averse to this idea and seeks the resolution of such issues on a bilateral basis. In this regard, the Indian former Prime Minister I. K. Gujral, when he was the foreign minister, introduced a five-point doctrine, generally known as the Gujral Doctrine, to deal with its neighbours.18 This doctrine spells out the underlying apprehensions of India its neighbours and reveals its desire to dominate, a concept resisted by all other countries. However, in practice the political developments in South Asia demonstrate, flagrant violations of these principles by
17 18

ibid ibid

India and its unwillingness to solve bilateral issues with its smaller neighbours in adherence with these principles. Also, India is adamant against a third party for mediation in complex and contentious issues like Kashmir, which can not be solved bilaterally, given the historical experiences and inflexible positions of the countries involved. 19 This approach towards resolution of bilateral problems has adversely affected creation of an environment conducive for regional cooperation.

Moreover, the Gujral Doctrine supported the creation of sub-regional groupings such as the proposed growth quadrangle in South Asia, comprising India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan, while excluding Pakistan and Sri Lanka, the two countries with which it has the most serious problems.20 Such short-sighted proposals have created a feeling of discomfort, in the countries being excluded from the groupings. For example, Professor Kanti Bajpai of the JNU, opined that what sub-regional grouping intended to do could be done bilaterally. He was of the view that floating of the new sub-structure in SAARC would alienate Sri Lanka and Pakistan.21 Indias persistent efforts in seeking Pakistans isolation by initiating such propositions has seriously undermined SAARC and regional cooperation.22

Yet another example of such contradictory behaviour of India is that, the 11th SAARC Summit scheduled in Katmandu in December 1999, was abruptly put off on the insistence of India that it would not share the platform with General Pervez Musharraf, who toppled the elected government in Pakistan in October 1999.23 It may be recalled here that, at the time SAARC was created, General Hussain Mohammad Irshad and General Zia-ul-Haq were the rulers of
19

MD Nuruzzaman, SAARC and sub-regional cooperation: domestic politics and foreign policies in South Asia, Contemporary South Asia, Vol. 8, No. 3, November 1999. p.319. 20 ibid 21 ibid 22 ibid 23 Reschedule SAARC summit, The Kathmandu Post, December 14, 2000.

Bangladesh and Pakistan, respectively. Never before did India have any problems dealing with military regimes at the SAARC forum. Interestingly, later, General Pervez Musharraf was extended an invited by the Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee to visit Delhi and Agra in June 2001, for a summit.24 A Nepalese newspaper editorial, while commenting on the postponement of the summit note: The Indian governments stand on this issue appears more than dubious. If it were that zealous to reinstate democracy, then why has India been maintaining a deafening silence in the case of Bhutan and Maldives? This inconsistent approach towards its neighbouring countries only speaks about Indias calculated move to intensify its age-old enmity with Pakistan. Despite the huge outcry from other countries, India is sticking to its guns, putting South Asias regional meeting in a state of doldrums. The postponement of the summit is likely to have debilitating effects on the regions trade and commerce. More than anything else, bilateral differences between India and Pakistan have stalled the summit indefinitely. This is by no means justified, since neither India nor any SAARC member has the right to jeopardize the future of this regional grouping.25

Indian Prime Minister Vajapyee himself said, while giving his inaugural address at the 10th SAARC Summit, that all governments should ensure that there are no delays in the SAARC process and that agreed time-tables for our various programmes are adhered to.26 The sheer fact is that the postponement of the 11th SAARC Summit had an adverse impact on furthering the agenda of SAARC. Such inconsistent attitudes by some members have achieved nothing but crippling the SAARC as a viable regional organisation.
24 25

ibid ibid 26 Attempts at Regional Cooperation in South Asia, World Affairs, Vol. 3, No. 1, January-March 1999, pp.19-20

Notwithstanding the snail pace progress of SAARC and the political realities it has been confronted with since its inception, it has emerged as the only forum in the South Asian context, where the leaders of the member countries are brought together, despite their intense political inhibitions and insurmountable national reservations on certain political issues. 27 SAARC provides a unique opportunity for informal bilateral discussions among the leaders and officials of member states on the sidelines. 28 While commenting on the sidelines mechanism of discussions, SAARC Secretary General Nihal Rodrigo said: The Male Summit can be viewed as a landmark in that the heads of state/ government recognised that the promotion of peace, stability and amity, and accelerated socio-economic cooperation may best be achieved by fostering good-neighbourly relations, relieving tensions and building confidence, and agreed that a process of informal political consultations would prove useful in this regard. There is of course no formal institutionalised process for discussion of bilateral political disputes among member states within the existing framework of SAARC. The SAARC Charter very clearly precludes discussion of what the Charter describes as bilateral and contentious issues. However, political discussions do take place, including on some bilateral issues, but this is between the countries directly concerned, informally and on the fringes of summits and council meetings. These discussions are, of course, not part of the Agenda of SAARC meetings and collective discussions of these issues, i.e., where all member states formally debate them, do not take place.29

Thus, these sideline meetings facilitate a deepening of the understanding of the contentious issues in an informal manner and at times has proved to be helpful in critical decision-making.
27 28

ibid ibid 29 ibid

For example, the understanding reached at the 10th SAARC Summit in Colombo, between India and Pakistan, greatly reduced tension between the two countries, which had been heightened after the nuclear explosions by both the countries in May 1998, and facilitated the signing of Lahore Declaration in February 1999.30

The other achievement of SAARC, worth mentioning and which has indirectly affected the political climate of South Asia, is that it has significantly contributed in bridging the gap among the non-state actors and civil-societies of the regional countries. While SAARC is a governmentled organisation, in recent years, following summit directions, SAARC has helped facilitate greater involvement and interaction among representatives of civil society throughout the region.31 SAARC has been successful in putting in place schemes designed for the promotion of people-to-people contact, such as, the SAARC Audio-Visual Exchange Program, the SAARC chairs, fellowships and scholarships, SAARC Volunteer Exchange program etc. it has also helped to bring the private sector of South Asia together, by linking the national Chambers of Commerce and Industries into an apex SAARC Chamber of Commerce and Industries, which provides pertinent practical inputs to the Associations economic agenda. SAARC has encouraged and recognised a number of professional groups and specialists in different fields. 32 Efforts to reconvene the 11th SAARC Summit have been initiated by the Citizens Commission for South Asia (CCSA). The first meeting of the Commission was held in December 2000, in Kathmandu, where former Prime Minister of India I.K. Gujral had also taken part.33 The activism on the part of the non-governmental actors and members of the civil society

30 31

Mahendra P. Lama, op. cit. p.2 Nihal Rodrigo, Secretary General SAARC, Popular perception about SAARC oscillates between two extremes, The Weekly Telegraph, Kathmandu, at http://www.telegraphnepal.com/headline/2011-11-04/expand-and-strengthen-the-saarc-regional-body:sa-experts-at-nepal-seminar,accessed on 04-07-2012 32 ibid 33 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari, SAARC: The Security Route to Regeneration, Strategic Studies, Vol. XX, No. 4, Autumn 2000,p.7

is reflective of the fact that these groups can contribute positively towards regional cooperation by influencing their respective governments. This is an encouraging trend growing under the umbrella of SAARC, which, given bilateral tensions, would not have been possible otherwise.

Since the May 1998 nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, a new dimension has been added to the South Asian security milieu, which needs immediate attention of all the regional states. With their nuclear and missile capabilities, both India and Pakistan must consider the security requirements of the whole region, as any nuclear exchange in the wake of a war, or accident may impact directly or indirectly on the other neighbouring countries.34 Dr. Shireen M. Mazari while pointing to the new realities of the region has said that, there is an urgent need to restructure and enlarge the scope of SAARC; and both India and Pakistan need to recognise that in order to attain regional nuclear stability, they will have to have a SAARC component to any mutual stability regime. Pakistan is said to be looking for a breakthrough on the Kashmir stalemate with India, through third party mediation. Now, while the Indians would be unwilling to US intervention with all the power politics that involves and with the UN seeming to opt for a strangely low key sideline posture, SAARC would seem to be the natural third party to intervene.35

With sixteen Summits, a host of cooperation programs, Regional Conventions on a variety issues ranging from terrorism to narcotics, initiation of a free trade area, agreement on a social charter and opening of permanent membership for Afghanistan and observer status for other countries,36 SAARC has recently witnessed an eventual adolescence. But the process of regional consolidation has not been without challenges. Several deferred summits, limited intra-regional
34 35

ibid ibid 36 Madhavi Bhasin, op.cit

trade, continued Indo-Pakistan tensions, incomplete national integration process, reversal of democratic process in most countries, perceived role of extra-regional actors and the continued threat of terrorism and intra-regional security threats demonstrate the multiple challenges yet awaiting regional agreement and response.

After four rounds of trade negotiations, the SAARC members concluded a preferential trading agreement in 2002, referred to as SAPTA (South Asian Preferential Trading Agreement). Framework 37Agreement for free trade SAFTA was signed in 2004, yet to be fully implemented. According to Dr Saman Kelegama is the Executive Director, Institute of Policy Studies of Sri Lanka, the signing of SAFTA was in itself an achievement.38 SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism was signed in 1987 and came into force in 1988 following its ratification by all Member States. A Terrorist Offences Monitoring Desk was established in 1995 in Colombo to support the implementation of the convention by collecting, assessing and disseminating information on terrorist offences, tactics, strategies and methods. An Additional Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism was signed in 2002 but which came into force on 12 January 2006 following ratification by all Member States. 39 Finally a Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in August 2008 but has yet to come into force pending ratification by all Member States.

Conventions have also been signed in other areas including Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Trafficking in Women and Children, and Child Welfare in South Asia. An Agreement on Food Security Reserve is also in place. A Natural Disaster Rapid Response Mechanism has been created to adopt a coordinated and planned approach to deal with natural
37 38

ibid ibid 39 ibid

disasters under the aegis of the SAARC Disaster Management Centre. 40 An inter-ministerial agreement was signed for the establishment of the South Asian University during the 14th SAARC Summit, in New Delhi, 04 April 2007. 41 The South Asian University (SAU) is envisioned as an institution that will advance a sense of South Asian community within the region by bringing together the future generation of students in the pursuit of academic excellence as they prepare for the challenges of the new millennium. SAARC Social Charter was signed at the 12th Summit in 2004. 42 Issues covered under the Charter, such as poverty alleviation, population stabilization, empowerment of women, youth mobilization, human resource development, promotion of health and nutrition and protection of children are central to the welfare and well being of all South Asians. These are just a few areas where SAARC has succeeded in bringing the South Asian states together.

In 25 years SAARC has evolved several institutional arrangements and agreements to deal with regional issues; the framework of cooperation exists in theory. Genuine activation and implementation of these agreements requires political will on the part of national leaders. SAARC as an institution cannot be termed as a failure; it provides the South Asian states with the opportunity to discuss common problems and coordinate the resolution process. National anxieties and rivalries have disallowed SAARC from promoting deeper regional cooperation. Member states have failed SAARC rather than vice-versa.

40 41

ibid ibid 42 ibid