SAARC leaders lack regional perspective
Professor Amena Mohsin
Professor Amena Mohsin tells New Age
by Shahidul Islam Chowdhury
EXCLUSION of management of common rivers, including the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, from the declaration was a setback for the 17th summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, held in the Maldives on November 10 and 11, says Professor Amena Mohsin.
Apparently, SAARC leaders do not treat people of South Asia as regional citizens and consider their issues from as regional issues, she said in an exclusive interview with New Age on Tuesday.
Amena Mohsin, who teaches international relations at Dhaka University, believes Article 10 of the SAARC Charter should be scrapped so that the member states can take up bilateral and contentious issues for deliberations.
'There is hardly anything bilateral these days,' she said. 'You can no longer compartmentalise issues as bilateral or multilateral.'
She doubts if the Indian decision on shortening its sensitive list on trade would bring much benefit for Bangladesh and other SAARC members.
SAARC needs to move beyond rhetoric and ritualistic declarations, and start taking tangible actions, she said.
Excerpts:
Do you think the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation has lived up to its potential insofar as serving the people of the region is concerned?
SAARC has the potential to do better but has thus far not done enough to make itself a true regional body keeping the people on board.
We need to keep in mind that it is not a military alliance and can thus take up soft-security issues such as promoting and protecting certain rights in consultation with the people of the region.
It is also pertinent to note that, while the governments spend money to hold summits that produce hardly anything substantial, they have no budget for the people's participation in the SAARC process.
Do you subscribe to the view that rivalry between the two regional powers — India and Pakistan — has undermined the SAARC potential?
Relations between India and Pakistan are not the only equation in the region. India has problems with all of its neighbours including Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka besides Bangladesh. It is okay to have problems but what important is how such problems are resolved in a conflict-prone region.
SAARC leaders seem to believe that the presence of democratically elected governments in the member states enhances the prospect of the association's success. Is it reasonable?
Democracy is definitely better than military rule. However, we need to keep in mind that democracy is a culture and people develop it over the years.
Despite problems in Bangladesh's political culture, I must say that the people continually challenge politicians in general and major political parties in particular. Yes, the opposition political parties are not playing their role in the parliament now. The same has been the case in the past. Still, they, too, need to go to the people.
The problem is that the SAARC leaders do not to seem to have learned to treat the people of the region as regional citizens and consider their issues as regional issues.
In the last 17 summits, the SAARC leaders have made a number of decisions but none of these has been fully implemented in the 26 years since the inception of the association? Why is it so?
The SAARC leaders make decisions disregarding the fact that the association is yet to take an institutional shape. Moreover, the leaders can only offer a vision but its realisation depends essentially on the bureaucrats. The question is: are the bureaucrats in the region efficient enough to implement the decisions made by the SAARC leaders?
We have somehow managed to politicise the bureaucracy. Individuals with political links become ambassadors although, in most cases, they do not have the requisite experience and understanding of foreign policy and foreign affairs.
There have been enough talks and enough declarations in the name of summits. However, there is hardly any enthusiasm among the people about SAARC. We need tangible actions.
In the 16th SAARC summit in Thimphu in 2010, South Asian leaders decided to form the South Asia Forum to take views from people working in the private sector. The forum had its first meeting in New Delhi recently with representatives 'selected' by the governments attending. Will such selections be representative?
It is a kind of political attitude in the region. I think the selection should be open, transparent and contributory.
In the just-concluded 17th summit in the Maldives, SAARC leaders stressed the need for bringing reforms in the SAARC process. Will reforms help make the regional body active?
I think they should abolish Article 10 of the SAARC Charter. According to Article 10, SAARC member-states cannot take bilateral and contentious issues for consideration.
There is hardly anything bilateral these days. You can no longer compartmentalise issues as bilateral or multilateral. How could you possibly tag terrorism as a bilateral issue?
They have also talked about creating scopes for a greater role for SAARC observers.
The observers including China should be allowed to play a greater role in the SAARC process. What is the use of making the observers onlookers? It could give the impression that they are monitoring and thus undermine the SAARC spirit.
Moreover, the observers may lose interest in SAARC if they do not get anything in return. We need to bear in mind that no lunch is free lunch.
There should be a process to select a SAARC observer. There should also be provisions to review the status of SAARC observers. Why should a non-performing country or organisation be kept as an observer?
How do you want to see China in the SAARC process?
China is a SAARC observer now. I think China should be made a full member of SAARC. It would help maintain equilibrium and create scopes for more voices in the regional body.
What is your view about harmonisation of academic standards and professional degrees?
I am confused about this issue. It is not clear to me. I think recognition of a degree is possible. How can you harmonise academic standards and professional degrees when course curriculum, way of teaching and teaching facilities are different? It should be worked out, not by politicians or bureaucrats but by academicians.
In the Maldives summit, SAARC leaders decided to make the South Asian Free Trade Area Agreement operational for economic integration of the region. They also decided to make substantial reduction of 'sensitive list' at the earliest and early resolution of non-tariff barriers, harmonisation of standards and customs proceedings. India announced shortening of the 'sensitive list' from 480 to 25. Will these decisions be beneficial for Bangladesh?
I'm not an expert on trade. However, if India's decision to shorten the negative list is for the least developed countries and not specifically meant for SAARC member states, how will it bring benefit to Bangladesh? Yes, it will increase competition for the Indian market. I do not mind that as it would help increase our competitiveness. What I need to understand though is if we are ready for the competition.
I think India could open its market for five years for the South Asian countries and after that they could fully open the market.
Here Indian diplomacy is to be appreciated for the way they have dealt with the issues.
The last summit also decided to create scopes for greater connectivity in the region.
I am for connectivity. I am, however, sceptical about who is going to be benefited from such connectivity.
To me, people's connectivity is much more important for free flow of ideas and exchange of knowledge. That's why SAARC members should relax their visa regimes.
On opening connectivity for trade and goods, I must say that you cannot 'box' what is 'trade' and what is 'politics', as trade has also become a political issue nowadays.
About 'sensitive lists', we need to understand whose sensitivity are we talking about? The government or the people?
If they talk about governments' sensitivity, I should say that those days for 'close diplomacy' are over.
The issue of joint management of common rivers, which was mooted by Bangladesh, was included in the final draft approved by the SAARC council of ministers at the summit. But the top leaders dropped it during the retreat at the request of India. What is your view about the decision?
It is very unfortunate. It is unexpected, especially when the leaders were talking about connectivity and bringing reforms in the SAARC process. It is a setback for the summit.
The prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, stressed the need to redeem political commitments of the member states. What message is there in this statement?
It is an acknowledgement of the fact that most of the member countries, their politicians and bureaucracy lack political commitment to SAARC even after 26 years of its inception.
The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said the member states have to learn to trust each other and to learn from each other. How do you assess this statement?
I think the politicians need to come down to people now, to learn from them (people), to desensitise sensitive issues by making them transparent to the people.
__._,_.___
