& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

SAARC leaders must come out of mental straightjacket

Brig Gen Shahedul Anam khaN ndc, psc (Reto)
***The moot point is whether we can continue to fulfil SAARC agenda, which is growing by the day, without bringing in changes to the SAARC charter, particularly insofar as it relates to bilateral issues. This is a matter that our leaders must address, and to do that objectively they need to free themselves of the mental straightjacket they have been in for so long.***
HAVING been in a state of torpor over the past several years, SAARC appears to have arisen from slumber and is about to make a move forward. This optimism stems from the fact that we are going to have a second SAARC Summit on the trot, in Jan 2005 in Dhaka. This is indeed heartening.
Admittedly, there is not much that the regional organisation, whose birth was viewed with wary eyes, has to show for its achievements over the last twenty years. That, it has endured the pitfalls of a seminal growth, is an acknowledgement of SAARC's continued relevance to the countries of South Asia.
While it is futile to apportion blame on any one for SAARC's failure to achieve less than it might have, it will be worthwhile for our policy makers to delve into the reasons for our inability to exploit the full potentials of
the regional organisation in the last twenty years.
Skeptics were prepared to write SAARC off as only a talking shop, having nothing more to do than hold meetings, some of which did not always eventuate. In the nearly twenty years of existence of SAARC, the Jan 2005 Summit will be only the thirteenth. Some of the summit meetings had to be postponed because of the unwillingness of either of the two prima donnas to
attend.
There is no plausible answers to the question whether, as one analysts asks, "SAARC must remain satisfied with the fact that the leaders get to see each other once in a while and sign on some trivia that their officials manage to cook up? " Some cynics were quick to juxtapose SAARC with various other regional organisations like the ASEAN, while lamenting its poor performance.
SAARC does not in any way bear comparison with ASEAN because of certain fundamental differences between these two organisations. It must be borne in mind that ASEAN's
birth was motivated by extra regional compulsions, wherein there was a definite perception of threat. There was a degree of external input in the security perceptions of the ASEAN states. The threat came to be defined both in terms of ideology as well as in substantive physical terms. There was, unlike in SAARC, a modicum of symmetry in ASEAN, with no one country exercising or perceived to be exercising its predominance over others.
Fortunately for SAARC, need for physical security of the South Asian states had very little, if at all, to do with the conceptualisation of the regional body. In fact, rhapsodic though it sounds, 'collective self-reliance' was the motive force behind the concept of SAARC. The motivations were internally generated which makes the need for its success all the more imperative. But its momentum was regrettably stunted by the state of Indo Pakistan relations.
Also, the fact that three of the countries of SAARC were a single political entity not so long ago, with shared history and values, and,
unfortunately some sad experiences, have perhaps had much to do with the wariness in their relationship that in turn affected performance of the Association.
While some of the less confident wondered at the efficacy of an organisation composed of the poorest of the global indigents, SAARC's founding fathers put their confidence in the Association on their belief that even poverty, when shared, becomes more endurable.
Thus, there is a need for introspection, but more importantly there is an even more pressing need to move ahead with the agenda that we have set ourselves to achieve in SAARC.
But, while one wants SAARC to move on, one cannot but wonder whether or not SAARC might do well to have more dynamism infused in its workings. One criticism that is leveled against it is its inherent inability to address bilateral issues.
It was perhaps a need of the time, when the association was being conceptualised, to have a caveat on addressing bilateral matters. However, one finds it difficult to under-
stand the logic of some countries for desisting from attending summits because of matters arising out of purely bilateral issues, yet calling for such matters to be kept out of the purview of the Association.
The matter regarding lack of dynamism of SAARC came out starkly during a two-day regional conference on SAARC organised by the BIISS in Dhaka last week. The overwhelming view was that realpolitik predicates all our actions.
Unfortunately, it is politics that drives economics and all other agenda, when ideally the reverse ought to be the case. Issues that are regional in nature, have bilateral nuances, making it well nigh impossible to come out of the political sphere.
The important thing to remember is that when other regional organisations have adapted to the changing global scenario, SAARC seems to be constrained by the mental straightjacket of its leaders. More than actual poverty, we suffer from, what one erudite scholar of South Asian scenario calls, 'poverty of thoughts.'
One has to glance around us to see how, for example, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, formed in 2001 with the Central Asian Republics, Russia and China, having primarily a security bias, have expanded its scope, to include economic cooperation, poverty eradication and trade.
That is why one was dismayed at the reluctance of the SAARC Standing Council of Ministers to even consider Pakistan's proposal, to have a fresh look at the Charter in order to enhance its scope, in its recent meeting in Islamabad.
Our predilection of holding on slavishly to a charter formed almost a quarter century ago gives one the impression of being hostage to our own mental privations.
The moot point is whether we can continue to fulfil SAARC agenda, which is growing by the day, without bringing in changes to the SAARC charter, particularly insofar as it relates to bilateral issues.
This is a matter that our leaders must address, and to do that objectively they need to free themselves of the mental straightjacket they have been in for so long.
The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, 'The Daily Star'