Unpacking regional non-cooperation
The geography of South Asia is partially to blame for lax trade relations among member countries
The writer is a research scholar at an Islamabad-based foreign policy think tank. He can be reached at ilyasakbarkhan@gmail.com
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) was established in 1985 with the lofty ideal of ‘promoting the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and improving their quality of life’. How far has the organisation delivered on its promises? Upon close scrutiny, contemporary South Asia finds parallels with sub-Saharan Africa in terms of the prevalence of poverty, disease and illiteracy. Trade among Saarc members amounts to just five per cent of the region’s total trade and FDI flow within the region is the lowest in the world.
Tariff and non-tariff barriers are said to be partially responsible for the dysfunctional working of Saarc. Trade volume among Saarc countries remains almost static, hovering around the same five per cent. Trade within the region, especially between the two largest countries, India and Pakistan, remains dismal. This is said to be because of the lack of complementarities between tradable items of member countries as far as their respective manufactured goods are concerned.
Moreover, when states lack political will, they find sufficient excuses to be uncooperative. Non-tariff barriers are one such tool in the hands of member states. Saarc has not been able to work on infrastructure projects for regional connectivity. For example, it takes 35 days for a container to reach Delhi from Dhaka since it must first go to Colombo or Singapore. The same container could reach Dhaka in just five days had there been direct road/rail connectivity between the two destinations.
The geography of South Asia is partially to blame for lax trade relations among member countries. India constitutes 60 per cent of the total South Asian landmass, population, GDP, foreign exchange, gold reserves and armed forces. This ‘unequal geography’ is not helpful for the success of Saarc as its smaller members are wary of domination by India. Unsurprisingly, all these countries have unresolved disputes with Delhi. Consider this: Saarc was founded in 1985. Its charter provides for an annual summit of heads of states of the member countries. Simple mathematics will tell us that Saarc should be boasting of having held 31 summits so far. But that is not the case. Only 18 have been held. Most were postponed because one minor neighbour of India or another refused to participate due to their bilateral issues with India.
In contrast, policymakers in Delhi blame Islamabad for the dismal performance of Saarc. Due to their conviction that a regional grouping such as Saarc in which Pakistan is a member will not make substantial progress, they are now focusing on sub-regional groups such as Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, which consists of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand and Sri Lanka. This group sets goals for itself that are very similar to those of Saarc. Pakistan is kept out, and Afghanistan can naturally not be a member as it can have access to India only through Pakistan.
The fact that China happens to be the immediate neighbour of most Saarc countries is also an aspect that may impede the efficiency of Saarc. Although both India and China consider South Asian connectivity and trade in their best national interests, they do not want to concede a leadership role to the other. Beijing and Delhi find themselves in competing global power blocks, with contending visions for the economic and strategic shape of the world. Furthermore, India perceives China’s eagerness to economically aid smaller individual countries of Saarc as a move to weaken India’s influence in South Asia, which undermines Saarc fraternity.
For Saarc to achieve its aims, India should take measure to reassure its smaller neighbours that it does not aim to dominate them. Political disputes between Delhi and Islamabad, and between India and the other members of Saarc, must be resolved. An environment of amity and collaboration between India and China ought to develop so that the two do not see each other as strategic competitors in the Saarc region. Upon these conditions, Saarc may emerge as a successful tool for regional integration in South Asia.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2017.
Tariff and non-tariff barriers are said to be partially responsible for the dysfunctional working of Saarc. Trade volume among Saarc countries remains almost static, hovering around the same five per cent. Trade within the region, especially between the two largest countries, India and Pakistan, remains dismal. This is said to be because of the lack of complementarities between tradable items of member countries as far as their respective manufactured goods are concerned.
Moreover, when states lack political will, they find sufficient excuses to be uncooperative. Non-tariff barriers are one such tool in the hands of member states. Saarc has not been able to work on infrastructure projects for regional connectivity. For example, it takes 35 days for a container to reach Delhi from Dhaka since it must first go to Colombo or Singapore. The same container could reach Dhaka in just five days had there been direct road/rail connectivity between the two destinations.
The geography of South Asia is partially to blame for lax trade relations among member countries. India constitutes 60 per cent of the total South Asian landmass, population, GDP, foreign exchange, gold reserves and armed forces. This ‘unequal geography’ is not helpful for the success of Saarc as its smaller members are wary of domination by India. Unsurprisingly, all these countries have unresolved disputes with Delhi. Consider this: Saarc was founded in 1985. Its charter provides for an annual summit of heads of states of the member countries. Simple mathematics will tell us that Saarc should be boasting of having held 31 summits so far. But that is not the case. Only 18 have been held. Most were postponed because one minor neighbour of India or another refused to participate due to their bilateral issues with India.
In contrast, policymakers in Delhi blame Islamabad for the dismal performance of Saarc. Due to their conviction that a regional grouping such as Saarc in which Pakistan is a member will not make substantial progress, they are now focusing on sub-regional groups such as Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation, which consists of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand and Sri Lanka. This group sets goals for itself that are very similar to those of Saarc. Pakistan is kept out, and Afghanistan can naturally not be a member as it can have access to India only through Pakistan.
The fact that China happens to be the immediate neighbour of most Saarc countries is also an aspect that may impede the efficiency of Saarc. Although both India and China consider South Asian connectivity and trade in their best national interests, they do not want to concede a leadership role to the other. Beijing and Delhi find themselves in competing global power blocks, with contending visions for the economic and strategic shape of the world. Furthermore, India perceives China’s eagerness to economically aid smaller individual countries of Saarc as a move to weaken India’s influence in South Asia, which undermines Saarc fraternity.
For Saarc to achieve its aims, India should take measure to reassure its smaller neighbours that it does not aim to dominate them. Political disputes between Delhi and Islamabad, and between India and the other members of Saarc, must be resolved. An environment of amity and collaboration between India and China ought to develop so that the two do not see each other as strategic competitors in the Saarc region. Upon these conditions, Saarc may emerge as a successful tool for regional integration in South Asia.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 21st, 2017.