|
Diplomatist: With the forthcoming 12th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit slated for early January 2004, there is both hope and dejection gaining ground. If the recent SAARC ministerial summits of Health and Information Ministers in New Delhi provided some optimism, the uncertainty about the visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Islamabad for the summit was indeed worrying. Nevertheless, there is every possibility that the summit will take place. Going by the past eleven summits, please share your thoughts about the forthcoming summit?
Prof. Muni: The Summit issues will be the same. The real question is whether SAARC will proceed or not on the basis of Indo-Pak cooperation. It seems the Indian government has taken a policy — I think it is a right decision —that not attending the Summit will be tantamount to blocking the SAARC process. Therefore, the wise step is to attend the summit and let the SAARC grow as much as it can without forcing anything on Pakistan or without having anything to deal with Pakistan bilaterally.
Thus, the main issue in this summit will be the continuing tension between India and Pakistan and its impact upon SAARC. In all possibility, the SAARC process would not be obstructed so that some of the pending issues like trade and economic matters can get going if other countries are for them.
It is possible that Pakistan will still be very hesitant to come on the board on economic issues but this should be taken as a part of it. There has been, of late, some positive indications that Pakistan has decided to expand the list of goods it imports from India or trades with India. But the key issue will be the Pakistani attitude in economic matters to India and one of the basic barometers would be whether Pakistan will give the MFN status to India or not.
You have raised the Pakistan issue. The country still continues to be a factor in the onward movement of SAARC, especially in the eyes of New Delhi…
Yes, the greater onus of SAARC’s progress lies with that country. Whether Pakistan really is willing to be part of this economic grouping is for that country to decide. India is more than willing to open up economic linkages with Pakistan. This is the thrust of India’s approach to SAARC. We got into SAARC only because of the fact that we have mutual economic interests and similar cultural identities rather than harp on the political and contentious issues, which has been hampering cooperation.
Incidentally, Pakistan is in a big dilemma. The dilemma is whether it should relate more with West and Central Asia or with South Asia. Unless Pakistan resolves this dilemma, we don’t see any possibility of Islamabad coming closer to SAARC. India seems to have no such problem. It has shown that it can relate to SAARC, Central Asia or ASEAN. But so far as India is concerned the main stumbling bloc is Pakistan’s political attitude. Pakistan thinks that greater interaction with India will one, harm its identity, and second, blunt its hostile policy towards this country. It has a lot to do with their internal political and economic structure rather than with the principle that they need to collaborate with one of their neighbours.
How does one reconcile the political and economic dilemma in the SAARC region?
Well, SAARC is not for political issues unless it is reformed and changed. It is purely for economic purposes. The SAARC charter disallows bilateral and contentious issues for discussions. This decision was taken not without any reason. The simple reason is: there are no bilateral issues between India’s neighbours. There are bilateral issues between India and one of the neighbours. To discuss bilateral issues in SAARC as demanded by some members is unrealistic to my mind. It is here that India is hesitant and rightly so.
During all SAARC summits, bilateral issues have been discussed informally. Bilateral issues cannot be discussed formally for there is a divergence of attitudes of the members on issues not related to them. Instead, these countries want to create some leverage through them.
The region has so many cultural and other similarities. But every member has some differences with India. So where exactly is the problem, apart from the trade issues?
The exact problem is of exchange, cultural exchange or greater level of people-to-people and cultural cooperation. The issue of visas is also one. Prime Minister Vajpayee had some time ago given some indications for some unilateral concessions in these matters. We should not wait for Pakistan or any other member for such unilateral measures.
Let New Delhi issue visas free to academics and journalists, for instance. If Pakistan does not reciprocate, let it not. If Pakistanis are willing to come to India, let India facilitate their coming. Such bold decisions are needed.
As far as cultural ties with other countries are concerned there is absolutely no problem. But there again, we have to look into the issues of visas, airline contacts. We hardly have any direct flights to the SAARC capitals except Kathmandu. Also why not allow other private flights to these countries like, recently, in case of Sri Lanka. We have allowed much more such connectivity with the ASEAN countries, so why not with our neighbours? It will facilitate the free flow of people with whom culture will flow.
You mean to say India is justified in announcing unilateral moves to ease tension in the region…
I do not see any problem why India should not take any unilateral decisions. This is in regard to Pakistan. And in the case of others, we are not obstructing it. We need to invest. We do not have enough air facilities. Let us do our part like renewing the air link with Dhaka or building up the land bridge with Sri Lanka. The ferry services have been destroyed by LTTE. The bus services with Dhaka should have been there for the last 30 years.
If India has no major problems with other countries except Pakistan, bilateral issues still exist with other members. That can scuttle any little progress being made for SAARC…
Bilateral issues like border disputes, insurgency troubles, which are still lingering between the South Asian members, should not come to the SAARC table. These are to be handled by the respective agencies in the region. For instance, the insurgency issue can be handled by the security agencies of these countries.
There are no two neighbours with whom you will have no such issues. Even after solving the Maoists or the LTTE problems, some others will rise. If the ULFA problem is solved in the east, some other groups will rise. These issues will always be there. So what we have to work on is bilateral security and political issues should not be allowed to impinge adversely on the cooperative issues and this should be made possible.
Free Trade Area in the region is still a problem for some member countries like Nepal and Bangladesh…
I do not think SAFTA is a problem with the small countries. The instances say something else. Nepal and Bhutan already have free and full trade agreement with India. We have already signed a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka. Bangladesh is keen to sign such an agreement with India though there are some technical hitches. In terms of basic approach to the trade issues there is no such serious problem among the members. There are of course political factors, which keep cropping up. The problems that these smaller countries have with India are the adverse trade balance. They have a negative trade balance wherein India is selling more to them than the other way round.
I think India should liberalise the Indian market for them to the extent possible.
Actually, the problem of trade imbalance in the region is of a problem of economies in these countries. If these economies cannot produce products at a price level where they become attractive to the Indian market there is no point in saying that you have an adverse trade balance or politicising the trade issues.
One cannot ignore the structure and diversity of the economy and the kind of factors that has made the economy robust in India. You cannot replicate this in other economies. The issue of trade balance cannot be easily undone unless economic restructuring takes place in those countries.
In recent years there has been a move towards sub-regional cooperation in the region. The implication is that SAARC has failed to deliver its goals and objectives. What do you have to say?
Sub-regional cooperation within the SAARC region cannot be a hindrance for SAARC itself. For the record, such arrangements are inbuilt and have been permitted by the SAARC Charter itself.
There is already a sub-regional cooperation called the Growth Quadrangle involving India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh to develop the eastern region to harness common resources like water, though not much progress has been achieved due to political and funding problems. Objections have come from Pakistan and Sri Lanka that they are being left out. But the real question is one of economic factor of compatibility or areas having convergence of interests. And if few countries have such interests, they should be allowed to proceed.
And the economic arrangement between India and ASEAN vis-à-vis SAARC or a move towards BIMSTEC…
ASEAN is different. We are talking about SAARC. India’s economic ties with ASEAN and such other groupings have to be viewed differently. One thing should be clear that SAARC economies are not enough to meet the demands of India’s growth. At present India is not having more than four per cent of trade within the region. India cannot simply remain confined to the SAARC region. The same is the case with other members. They have to go and cooperate with other countries. We are living in a world of globalisation. India like any SAARC member has to change with the changing world scenario without deliberately scuttling SAARC’s economic potential to reach its rightful place.
Considering Pakistan to be a hurdle for SAARC, there is a suggestion to leave out Islamabad for some years and let other members make some real efforts for forward movement in the South Asian grouping. Do you think this could be a desirable alternative?
Leaving out Pakistan will not help SAARC. It will not be SAARC then. It is for Pakistan to decide whether it wants SAARC to make progress. I think the present Indian position is fairly valid: let us do as much as we can do without forcing or requesting Pakistan to come on the board. If Pakistan is not interested, then SAARC will die its own death eventually.
What are your expectations from the forthcoming summit?
Frankly, I do not see any dramatic decision to be taken in the coming summit. I will be happy if the Indian Prime Minister goes to Islamabad and attend the summit so that he can discuss — at least for the sake of discussing — some old issues.
|
