Can SAARC take a blance path to Regional Integration

Can SAARC take a balanced path to regional integration?
By Ameen Izzadeen

Regional integration is largely a myth. Absolute regional integration totally wipes out the identity of the state and gives birth to a new political unit in the form of a confederation, union, grouping or even a new mega state. In the unification of Germany, the formation of the United States of America, the creation of the Soviet Union and the birth of independent India, there is evidence to show how states formed into mega states through a process of integration, changing the world map. Colonisation, invasion, occupation and the use of force by a powerful state against a weaker nation are also tools of integration.The fear that weaker neighbours feel regarding a powerful regional bully also leads to regional integration. The long-defunct United Arab Republic —a union between Egypt and Syria from 1958 to 1961 — is a classic example that shows how factors such as fear, economic benefits and political ideology contributed to both integration and disintegration. The fear of a Communist takeover of South East Asian countries was one of the reasons that held together ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations).But under normal circumstances, governments and nations have vested interests and nation-states will not dismantle voluntarily for the sake of integration.If the collective interest of two or more states far outweighs the national interest of the individual nation-state, then there is inducement for integration.But in terms of the prevailing political order, integration does not mean the formation of new mega states or confederations. Integration has assumed a new meaning in the form of greater cooperation in the fields of trade, communications, social welfare, transportation and other such areas where nations see there is greater advantage to be accruing to them through regional unity. In this form of regional integration, there is little or no threat to a state's sovereignty. Therefore, there is a tendency among states to form or join regional groupings.It is in this context that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) came into being and has survived the test of time. But the undercurrents that flowed beneath the surface of regional cooperation in the years prior to the formation or SAARC, have also survived. SAARC is essentially an economic bloc, a grouping that was formed with the stated intention of uplifting the living standards of South Asia's poor. But the undercurrents that prevailed in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, when the idea of South Asian regional integration was being mooted, told a different story.It is no secret that India's South Asia policy is guided by a doctrine similar to the United States' Monroe doctrine — which simply states that no outside power can interfere in the affairs of states in the backyard of a superpower. This vital policy doctrine of India was named the Indira Doctrine after the former Indian Iron Lady and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, for it was she who added flesh to India's South Asia policy. Since independence, India has been formulating its South Asia policy on the assumption that it was the natural heir of Britain to rule the waves of the Indian Ocean.Obviously, India's neighbours — particularly Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka — resented New Delhi's claim for hegemony in the region and had been looking for a mechanism to check India.Sri Lanka's then President, J. R. Jayewardene, a political realist to the core, thought that by joining ASEAN, Sri Lanka, the first South Asian state to liberalise its economy, could not only gain immense economic benefits but also check India's hegemonic designs on Sri Lanka. But India outmanoeuvred him and warned ASEAN against any move to enrol Sri Lanka.But the old fox, as President Jayewardene was referred to by both his friends and foes, outfoxed India and embraced the idea of South Asian regional cooperation no sooner it was first mooted by Bangladesh's then military President Zia-ur-Rahman, another South Asian leader who resented India's hegemonic South Asian policy.It is naïve to assume that India was unaware of the moves by its neighbours to trap it in a regional grouping, which would seriously undermine its geostrategic objectives. This explains why India was circumspect and did not jump at the idea of South Asian regional cooperation. It joined SAARC only after it had studied the pros and cons from its own national interest perspective, especially in the light of its Indira Doctrine, which continue to this day.It is amidst these undercurrents that SAARC set sail from Bangladesh in 1985. President Jayewardene addressing the inaugural summit in Dhaka said, "We are setting this ship afloat today. There may be mutiny on board, I hope not. The sea may be stormy but the ship must sail on and enter the ports of poverty, hunger, unemployment, malnutrition, disease and seek to bring comfort to those who need it."Twenty-three years after these words were spoken, those steering the ship can still see the port from which they began their voyage while in the ports of poverty, hunger, unemployment, malnutrition and disease the arrival of the ship is eagerly awaited.But don't dismiss SAARC as a total flop. It has some achievements to its credit. For instance, the SAARC Secretariat website proudly claims that there is complete integration in agriculture and rural Development; telecommunications, science, technology and meteorology; health and population activities; transport and human resource development.Though the areas look many, they belong to four main categories. Sadly, the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA), which many hoped would inject new life into SAARC, is not on the list, although SAFTA is supposed to have come into being in January 2006.SAFTA's lack of progress was a classic example of how member-states give precedence to their national interest over the collective interest of the region. The arduous process that led to SAFTA speaks volumes for the mutual suspicion and undercurrents in the grouping, especially between India and Pakistan. Pakistan and India are looking at SAFTA not only from an economic point of view but also from a strategic point of view. Neither country is willing to offer sweeping concessions to the other. India says that it is Pakistan's unwillingness to grant India the most favoured nation status that is blocking the full implementation of SAFTA.There is a viewpoint in India's neighbourhood that the biggest beneficiary of SAFTA will be India as it could swamp the whole of South Asia with cheap Indian goods while other South Asian countries will find it difficult to compete in the Indian markets.Sri Lanka, frustrated by the lack of progress the talks on SAFTA were making, promoted a different mechanism — bilateral Free Trade Agreements between South Asian nations. The credit for initiating this practical approach should go to Sri Lanka's much respected foreign minister, the late Lakshman Kadirgamar. His initiative has borne fruit with Sri Lanka signing FTAs with India and Pakistan, and other South Asian countries also taking steps towards FTAs.In fact, the present trend in regional integration appears to be FTAs and RTAs (Regional Trade Agreements). According to World Trade Organisation (WTO) statistics, RTAs and FTAs have grown by one hundred percent between January 1995 and April 2002.But again, FTAs between South Asian states are not without their problems. There are still areas of disagreement. For instance, many in Sri Lanka believe that India is adopting subtle protectionism under pressure from its industrial and agriculture lobbies. They cite opposition from India's garment and tea industries to exports from Sri Lanka, notwithstanding the FTA. Perhaps, India would have acted differently if it had followed the Gujral doctrine, which called for concessions to India's weak neighbours in trade agreements.India's protectionist attitude was blamed for the failure of last week's Doha rounds of WTO talks in Geneva. India's external trade policy is a fine example of how countries would not agree to any deal inimical to their economic or national interests.The challenge before SAARC is to find a working formula to balance the collective interest of South Asia against the national interest of individual nations. One proposal is to bring in China as a full member. China could qualify to be a South Asian nation as it borders India and Pakistan. China's presence will make SAARC the world's most powerful trade bloc — not only because the grouping will represent nearly 40 percent of the world's population but also because it would allay fears of Indian hegemony.

Sri Lanka Breaking News-Daily Mirror Online