Saarc revitalized

Ever since Saarc's inception in 1985, it has been held hostage to Indo-Pakistan differences. Now for the first time in 18 years, evidence of a new mood, following improvement in relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, has given rise to the hope that the Saarc may at last become an operative organization for economic growth and prosperity in South Asia.

Several factors have been responsible in the past for not allowing the Saarc to enhance regional cooperation in economic, technological, cultural and social sectors. To begin with, none of the member countries of the Saarc, including India, could develop a deep commitment to the Saarc or even had the conviction that it could play an important role in the well-being of the region. Indian apprehension has been that the organization may be used by its smaller neighbours as a platform to exert pressure on New Delhi on issues that are dear to them.

One of the achievements of Islamabad summit is that, because of Pakistan's positive attitude towards Safta and other contentious issues, the feeling in the Indian camp appears to be that Saarc has now been transformed from a platform against India into an organization which holds out the promise of common good for the region.

The asymmetry between India and other Saarc members in terms of demography and economic and technological development has been another negative factor. The situation was further compounded by bilateral disputes between member countries - between Nepal and Bhutan, India and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India, and most important of them all, India and Pakistan.

As if this were not enough to derail regional cooperation in South Asia, India's big brotherly and domineering attitude in the past made its smaller neighbours apprehensive about their sovereignty, national security and identities. The overlapping ethnic, linguistic and religious phenomena in South Asia further increased their sense of insecurity. Pakistan, for instance, became keen on assuming an Islamic identity and began to consider itself a part of West Asia rather than South Asia. Bangladesh started looking towards Malaysia and Indonesia. Even Sri Lanka at one time was more eager to be a part of Asean rather than Saarc.

In order to allay fears of India's smaller neighbours, the Islamabad Declaration specifically lays emphasis on "the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, national independence, non-use of force and non-interference in the internal affairs of the states and peaceful settlement of all disputes."

The Declaration also underlines the importance of enhancing political cooperation. It reaffirms the pledge to promote good neighbourly relations and "recognizes the importance of informal political consultations in promoting mutual understanding and reinforcing confidence-building process among member states."

What has, therefore, been achieved by the Islamabad summit is simply remarkable. The adoption of Islamabad Declaration, social charter and the additional protocol to regional convention on the suppression of terrorism in addition to the unexpected progress on Safta (South Asian Free Trade Agreement) are no doubt notable achievements. But the most significant accomplishment of the Islamabad summit is the change of mood - the transition from mistrust to trust, from discord to concord and from tension to peace.

The progress on Safta by the adoption of a framework for regional free trade zone was a historic event. Under the agreement reached, tariffs between member countries of the Saarc will be reduced by the beginning of 2006, which will no doubt, boost trade in the region. The decision to make SAFTA operational in just four years time is a courageous decision to mould the Saarc forum in line with other trading blocs like the Asean and European Union. The major credit for this bold move should go to Pakistan.

By deciding to go along with other Saarc members in adopting a framework for regional free trade zone, Pakistan made a crucial policy shift - it has reversed its hitherto followed policy that it will not have any economic cooperation with India till the Kashmir dispute is settled. Significantly, both Pakistan and India refrained, for the first time, from raising any controversial issue at the Islamabad summit - Pakistan did not mention Kashmir and India did not make any direct reference to cross-border terrorism.

According to Prime Minister Jamali, while political disputes cannot be divorced from economics, the imperatives of geo-economics can no longer be ignored either. Therefore "building of economic synergies" can proceed simultaneously with resolution of differences and disputes.

Stressing the need for collective efforts to confront problems facing the South Asian region, the Pakistan prime minister made a significant observation in his banquet speech: "we have our share of arguments. But we also have a sense of belonging and togetherness." These are, indeed, courageous, wise, and long-awaited words. The only regret is that, true to our traditions, we have taken too much time in reaching this conclusion.

While dealing with the subject of regional economic integration, a word of caution is necessary. It is true that developed as well as developing countries have started looking at regional economic integration as a means of strengthening their international competitiveness. But any talk of economic union or common South Asian currency at this stage can at best be a wishful thinking.

A prerequisite to all these objectives is a genuine free trade agreement, followed by a customs union, with common external tariffs, and a common market with free cross border movements of labour and capital. It is doubtful if any Saarc member, including India, will agree to free cross border movement of labour at this stage. Regional economic integration should be the ultimate objective of the Saarc. But in view of the challenges involved, it will be advisable to hasten things slowly.

It may be recalled that it is not the first time that the Saarc countries have agreed to set up a free trade area. Two previous such attempts failed to achieve the desired result.

However, there are three reasons for being optimistic this time. The first is that bilateral relations between New Delhi and Islamabad are now set for improvement.

The second is that for the first time, the Saarc leaders have succeeded in adopting a framework agreement on SAFTA containing specific schedule for the lowering of tariffs. Thirdly, the genuine concerns of three least developed countries of Saarc(LDCs) - Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan - have been adequately met.

Calling the Islamabad summit historic will not be an exaggerated expression. It has changed the Saarc mood from simmering tension to constructive cooperation. Its other notable achievement was to bring home the importance of regional economic integration in a world where bilateral and regional trade pacts have become economic necessity.

However, Saarc still faces many daunting challenges that must be met if the dream of South Asian economic integration is to become a reality. The first and foremost is to maintain the current momentum in improving bilateral relations between Pakistan and India. For that it is necessary that a meaningful effort is made to resolve all major political disputes between the two countries. Unless this happens, the needed atmosphere of trust and confidence will not come about.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

Snowmobiles on the leash

The biggest defeat that President Bush had in 2003 was when a federal judge ruled he couldn't increase the number of snowmobiles permitted in Yellowstone National Park.

The snowmobile industry wanted to allow 1,000 vehicles a day; the judge said they could only have 500.

The beauty of snowmobiles is that they blot out the sound of silence in Yellowstone. They keep you from hearing the birds and seeing any wildlife of consequence. The roar of the engines can constantly be heard in the park.

They mean jobs for the industry and its lobbyists, and political contributions for George W.

The judge's decision caused the White House to cancel its next photo op, when the president was to lead a convoy of snowmobiles through Yellowstone, where he would talk to a 12-year-old boy who just got a snowmobile for Christmas. He was then slated to address our brave snowmobilers on what their vehicles have done to win the war. Bush was then going to present his audience with a wild turkey, shot by Dick Cheney in Jackson Hole.

Snowmobilers represent the most important voting bloc in the country. The average owner is 41 years old, married and has children living at home. Ninety-four per cent consider snowmobiling a family sport. They use their snowmobiles on marked trails and also for ice fishing.

Do you have to take steroids to drive a snowmobile? No, but in some states you have to submit to a urine test just before you turn on the engine. If they can't drive their sleds over rough, virgin land, Bush will hear about it in 2004.

Snowmobilers come from all walks of life, from lawyers to Hell's Angels. They love to race and yell at each other. They have the same spirit as NASCAR drivers. Occasionally, if they try to go over 60 mph, they crash, but that is a risk their insurance companies have to take. As the White House has said in court, you can't make an omelet if you don't crack a few snowmobilers' heads.

The judge's ruling couldn't have come at a worse time for lobbyists. The ones who assured their snowmobile clients that they would have a banner year are now eating slush.

Former U.S. Rep. Harvey Wonk III, one of Washington's leading lobbyists, who has four senators and 15 congressmen in his pocket, was in shock."We thought we had a sure thing," Harvey said. "The secretary of the interior was for us. All the president's environment people were on our side. The limit on snowmobiles was Clinton's idea and everyone knows what he thought of snowmobiles."

Harvey continued, "Why make people suffer because their sleds scare off a few a owls in Yellowstone National Park? The snowmobilers will be afraid to come and no one will buy T-shirts. The only ones to win are the antelopes, mountain lions, bison and coyotes."

I told Harvey, "You paint a dark picture of the future. Doesn't the Second Amendment of the Constitution protect the right of all Americans to own a snowmobile?"

"Yes. That's what the Founding Fathers had in mind."-Dawn/Tribune Media Services

A significant breakthrough

Ideologically, I do not agree with the BJP because it is as much polarizing the society as the Muslim League was doing before partition. Still Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who heads the BJP-led government in India, must get the credit for not only unfreezing relations with Pakistan but for spanning the distance with President General Pervez Musharraf despite the fact that the latter had authored the Kargil war script and sabotaged the Lahore peace accord.

Vajpayee's contribution is substantial: he rose above personal hurt and the damage the Pak-sponsored terrorists had caused to India, including the attack on Parliament House. This required courage, conviction and consistency which Vajpayee showed in abundance.

A meeting between the two leaders was a foregone conclusion although the media on both sides made it look a mystery. Once Vajpayee agreed to attend the Saarc summit at Islamabad, it was obvious that at some stage he would meet Musharraf. How could he have come back without meeting him when Vajpayee wanted to see whether his initiative would mature or not? Even otherwise, it would have been a slap on the face of Islamabad which it would not have forgiven or forgotten.

It is apparent that Pakistan had given some assurance on the dismantling of terrorists' camps before Vajpayee left Indian shores. That is why Vajpayee's principal secretary Brajesh Mishra met many officials in Pakistan. He wanted to make sure that Vajpayee's pre-condition for the stoppage of cross-border terrorism was met before India would agree to a dialogue.

Musharraf, after two attempts on his life, is serious in taking action against the terrorists and the organizations which the ISI encouraged at one time. Yet the worse part is that there are so many freelancers now that the mere Islamabad's assurance cannot eliminate terrorism. This may have been the reason why Vajpayee had talks with some religious leaders who had egged on the terrorists in the name of jihad. Musharraf must have requested Vajpayee to do so because the meetings took place in the midst of Saarc summit sessions.

The two countries can bottle up the Kashmir valley if the terrorists refuse to give up violence. The killings in Jammu came up for discussion at Islamabad and it was pointed out that one of the assailants was a Pakistani national. Islamabad has promised full inquiry, denying the participation of a Pakistani.

That New Delhi would agree to a dialogue on Kashmir was clear when Brajesh Mishra was included in the delegation. Vajpayee depends on his judgement. Mishra had prepared the ground to some extent before Vajpayee arrived in Pakistan. Will the dialogue lead to a solution is difficult to say? But the dialogue, when it begins in February, will be properly structured and include several matters besides Kashmir.

There is no doubt that unlike the talks in the sixties between Swaran Singh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then foreign ministers, the proposed dialogue will be more meaningful. New Delhi is more conscious than before that the LoC will not be acceptable to Islamabad as an international border.

After the Bangladesh war when I met Bhutto in 1972, he had in mind a Trieste-like solution of Kashmir. It is worth considering. Under an agreement signed between Italy and Yugoslavia in October 1954, the Free Territory of Trieste (a disputed land since the World War II) was divided between the two along the existing demarcation line, with minor changes.

The agreement also guaranteed facilities of free travel between the two countries. This proposal was mooted between Mrs Indira Gandhi and Bhutto at Shimla but he said he could not sell it to his country after the loss of East Pakistan.

The Kashmir problem is difficult to solve because both countries have painted themselves into a corner that does not give them exit without losing face. Vajpayee seems to have explained to Musharraf the difficulties New Delhi faces in having an exclusive solution for the Muslim-populated valley. That explains why Vajpayee said in a press interview that Pakistan must appreciate the problems India has to cope with. His point that some part of Kashmir has been given away by Pakistan to China is pertinent.

Islamabad's objection to take up the matter with Beijing is understandable because its dependence on China is total. When America is pressing Musharraf to make up with India, he feels all the more dependent on China.

However, he cannot afford to annoy Washington. This is his predicament. Problems will go on cropping up, as Vajpayee says, and both countries should go on solving them 'peacefully and patiently'. It is apparent that Pakistan has raised some problems other than Kashmir. One of them is the Indus Water Treaty. Islamabad has already approached the World Bank regarding a power project which is coming up in Kashmir.

India's effort all along has been that Pakistan should confine itself to peaceful methods while seeking a solution to the problems between the two countries. This is what Lal Bahadur Shastri emphasized at Tashkent when he met Ayub Khan in January 1966 after the 1965 war. Ayub was not agreeable to give up arms when it came to sorting out problems with India.

When Shastri threatened to depart from Tashkent, the Soviet Union moved in. First, it put pressure on Shastri not to insist on the renunciation of force because that was understood in the charter of the UN whose member Pakistan was. When Shastri said, "You will have to look for another prime minister," Moscow relented. It then worked on Ayub who was in no position to return empty-handed.

Even then when the talks were resumed Ayub brought a four-line draft which he hoped would satisfy Shastri. The draft contained only a general statement on the efficacy of finding a solution to Indo-Pakistan problems through peace. Shastri was not satisfied and suggested an amendment which Ayub had to accept. In his own hand, the then Pakistan President made the necessary changes, including the phrase: "Without resort to arming." (The corrected draft in Ayub's own hand is in the archives of India's Foreign Office.)

No doubt, there has been a welcome breakthrough at Islamabad. But it is going to be a long haul. Vajpayee and Musharraf understand this. They are not hastening the process. In the past, the accords between India and Pakistan have been an event, celebrated immediately and regretted later.

Any settlement will have to be evolved. That the two sides seem to have appreciated this is a plus point. Both governments should, however, see that people-to-people contact grows.

For that it is necessary to relax visa restrictions. Buses, trains or planes mean nothing if people on one side cannot travel to the other side freely. Even if Pakistan drags its feet on this point, India should unilaterally take steps to make visa only a formality. The South Asian free trade agreement (SAFTA) will help break trade barriers. Still no conciliation between the countries will be lasting if it is not underpinned by the people.

There is so much suspicion, so much lack of faith on both sides that every rumour is considered a fact and every fear a reality. If mistrust does not go, the best of agreements would come to naught. Even a small problem will be magnified. Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is suspicion. Until that goes, India and Pakistan will continue to be distant neighbours.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.