Adding Substance To SAARC: India-Sri Lanka Experience
Col. (retd) R.Hariharan
[This article includes extracts from the valedictory address delivered by the author at the International Conference on “India-Sri Lanka Relations: Strengthening SAARC” organised by the Centre for Indian Ocean Studies, Osmania University Hyderabad on November 8 and 9, 2012.]
Introduction
There is a widespread feeling of pessimism among South Asians at the halting progress made by the South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) since its inception in 1985. Though SAARC is world’s largest regional grouping of 1.47 billion people, it has not been able to assert its collective strength like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or the European Union (EU).
But the comparison is a little unfair as both ASEAN and EU were formed in different historical contexts and environments. They were conceived when the world was in the grip of Cold War.[i] The European grouping came about to minimize the impact of twin threats: post war economic privations of Europe and the fear of Soviet Union destabilizing Europe. For ASEAN, the U.S. penchant for building regional alliances to fight Communist threat in Southeast Asia provided the incentive.
When the Cold War compulsions vanished, both the groupings seamlessly focused on other fronts – energy, resources, economic development, environment protection and counter terrorism – to benefit from collective strengths. Both ASEAN and EU streamlined structural frameworks of their members to take the best advantage of global economic liberalization that came about towards of the end of the last century. They coordinated their policies and practices to reap maximum advantage for the members. And this process is constantly reviewed to remove the functional kinks and minimize damages due to external and internal pressures.
On the other hand, SAARC came about without the trappings of ideology and external pressures. Unlike the more prosperous ASEAN and EU groupings, SAARC has the largest number of people below poverty level in the world. Its members have some of the highest population densities in the world. And the region has been the scene of extremism and insurgency from the 1950s when most of the members became free nations. This scourge later gave birth to both Jihadi terrorism and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) who accounted for some of the worst acts of terrorism the world had ever seen. So the growth of SAARC has been stunted from birth.
ASEAN took nearly three decades to gather full momentum; the EU took even longer – nearly four decades – to master its act. Compared to this, the progress made by SAARC in two and a half decades of active existence is not too bad. But the sad truth is SAARC has remained a potted plant. It is yet to make a difference in the lives of South Asians, despite pious speeches made by leaders at every SAARC conference.
Both EU and ASEAN have shown that bonding between members was the key to their success as a group. Their members used the strength of bilateral relations to minimise negative influences during group formation and later in their group operations. This was brought to bear upon in shaping collective responses to issues relating to larger issues of strategic security and terrorism, environmental threats, and global trade and commerce.
The reasons attributed to SAARC’s slow progress are unequal size and relative strength of member- nations, memories of shared history, bilateral problems of members, political and economic compulsions of nations, and differences in responding to external influences – global power play, terrorism, and competing political and economic interests. But these are neither unique nor special to SAARC; both ASEAN and EU also have been facing the same problems since their inception.
India’s domination of South Asia is often cited as the main reason in the way of SAARC’s progress. It is true India’s influence derived from its huge geographical size and economic, political and military power overwhelms the region. And it forms a major part of the historical experience of most the member-nations. They have also been impacted by India’s soft power which has become a part of their religious, social and cultural influences. In this environment, India’s success as a democracy and rise as a dominant economic power have given rise to contrarian feelings of love and hate among SAARC members. The fear of being overwhelmed by India is probably a constant in their security calculus, although its impact on their decisions may not always be negative. These feelings also often influence their internal politics as well the world view. Often India is branded as a bully or “hegemon” (if such a word can be coined) by them.
India appears to be aware of the positive and negative vibrations it generates among other SAARC members. Over the years, India has tried to understand this “contrarian chemistry” and temper its policy prescriptions with some success. However, the bitter India-Pakistan relations, bloodied by wars and skirmishes, continue to hobble the full bloom of SAARC. Recently, with a democratic government staging a painful comeback in Pakistan, there are hopeful signs of improved relations between India and Pakistan.
There was increasing realization among SAARC members, including India and Pakistan, that group’s progress cannot be hostage to the bilateral relations of these two important members. As a result, SAARC had been able to take halting steps to identify areas of cooperation and tried to build upon them and take a few initiatives. It has made progress in evolving outlines for action in five areas of common interest for cooperation: terrorism, economic growth, social issues, energy and environment management, and development of inter-connectivity. It has managed to evolve conceptual frame works in all these areas.[ii]
In particular, the SAARC protocols adopted to combat terrorism in the region are of special relevance as the region has become the epicenter of Jihadi terrorism.[iii] Similarly, SAARC initiatives taken to rationalise economic structures of member countries for collective advantage are encouraging.[iv] But the initiatives have not been fully translated into action except in a few areas. So, overall rhetoric rather than action still dominates SAARC.
To make SAARC vibrant, a qualitative change is required among SAARC members to improve the form and content of bilateral relations among members. It will help create better understanding among members to appreciate the nuances of collective cooperation. In this context, growth of India-Sri Lanka relations during the last three decades is an interesting example of building win-win relationship. In this period, the bilateral relations of both nations have weathered conflict situations without suffering serious damage.
