WHAT has gone wrong with Saarc is a question that keeps agitating our minds at all levels attracting discourse and scrutiny both within and outside our region. From any account of what we have been doing and what we have not been able to do and why, we would find it difficult to disagree that within the framework of Saarc there is still a big gap between promise and performance and between aspiration and accomplishment.

The only “consensus” that we seem to have developed at the “regional level” is the acknowledgment of the grim reality that Saarc, during the two decades of its existence, has not lived up to the expectations of its member-states. It has neither “improved the quality of life” in our region, nor “accelerated the economic growth, social progress and cultural development” of its member-states.

Saarc’s common vision upholding the high ideals of peace, stability, good-neighbourly relations and mutually beneficial cooperation in South Asia remains unfulfilled.

The problems besetting its member states and those hampering the implementation of plans and programmes remain unaddressed. South Asia remains one of the world’s poorest regions with a closed economy, despite some progress towards trade liberalization in the 1990s. The vast majority of our people still live in grinding poverty and sub-human conditions. Economic growth indices, with rare exceptions, are static, if not going downward. The only upward growth is seen in inflation which keeps soaring.

South Asia’s imports and exports constitute a much smaller share of the GDP than in Latin America or East Asia, while the tariffs are among the highest in the world. Protectionism continues to limit mutual market access. Intra-regional trade is non-consequential representing only four per cent of the total trade, as against 62 per cent in the European Union, 55 per cent in the Nafta area and 35 per cent in Asean. The collective share of the Saarc region in world trade is just one per cent.

No comparisons, however, need be drawn between the various regional organizations as each one represents a different set of problems and priorities. In particular, one must guard against the temptation to cite the EU example as a model for South Asia.

The European Union has a long history that stands out in sharp contrast to other regions trying to integrate economically. It had qualitatively a more conducive political and economic environment with western Europe building on the ashes of the war a new edifice of mutual cooperation. It did not rest on any laurels and carefully crafted its institutions and mechanisms to achieve its goals. This whole process had started in 1951 and took more than half a century to reach its present form.

Likewise, the history of Asean bears no parallel with the evolution of regional cooperation in South Asia. Like the EU, Asean was conceived in the context of Cold War compulsions as an attempt to forestall any extra-regional security threat and to link the non-communist economies of this region with global capitalism. “Asean entered the global economic expressway when the going was fast and smooth.”

Another advantage that Asean had over Saarc was the geo-political harmony of its member-states which were also smaller in size and had a comparatively more efficient and centralized system of decision-making.

Saarc comes closest to the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), headquartered in Tehran, which after the break-up of the former Soviet Union, was transformed in November 1992 from a small trilateral entity including Iran, Pakistan and Turkey (originally called RCD or Regional Cooperation for Development) into a major regional organization of 10-member states with the inclusion of the six newly-independent former Soviet republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus as well as Afghanistan.

Like Saarc, the ECO’s real potential as a regional cooperation organization remains captive to the geopolitics of the region. With Afghanistan still in turmoil, there is no prospect of an early breakthrough towards meaningful economic integration in this part of Asia.

Despite many commonalities in the region, South Asia continues to suffer from endemic political instability and socio-economic malaise. With some notable exceptions, our countries also lag behind in developing genuine democratic norms, the rule of law and good governance through universally acclaimed principles.

At the last Saarc summit in Islamabad in 2004, our leaders were unanimous in observing that despite having “some notable achievements” to its credit, Saarc had been unable to forge a genuine regional cooperation with an integrated economic understanding among its member-states. Indeed, South Asia still remained afflicted with what the prime minister of India described as a “complex and troubled colonial legacy.”

There were even suggestions that South Asia, which is home to one-fifth of humanity was out of step with other regions of the world, which were able to transcend their differences and disputes and embark on a steady course to economic growth and development.

Their anxiety was reflected in last year’s Islamabad declaration, which formally called for the strengthening of the Saarc secretariat and augmenting its capacity to promote regional cooperation in South Asia.

In recent years, the debate on Saarc’s performance has focused on the need for an “enabling environment” free of mistrust and hostility, without which no regional arrangement anywhere in the world has worked. There is a general sense of relief on the emerging India-Pakistan rapprochement, with everyone hoping that it will augur well for the stale-mated process of regional cooperation.

But the India-Pakistan equation with all its ramifications is not the only factor that has adversely impacted on Saarc’s performance. Its capacity to deliver on its ambitious agenda has also been conditioned by its systemic limitations and operational handicaps. There is a strong desire in the region now to see the association re-oriented both structurally and operationally, so that its effectiveness as a dynamic vehicle of regional cooperation is enhanced.

After two decades of Saarc’s low-yield performance, it should be abundantly clear to us that ambitious ideas of establishing an economic union or a monetary union in South Asia will remain elusive unless we are able to address the political environment in our region through mutual trust, confidence-building and conflict resolution.

The major stakeholders in the political environment of our region perhaps now seem to realize the indispensability of durable peace and tranquillity in South Asia and are seeking to grapple with their bilateral issues. The India-Pakistan composite dialogue process, hopefully, will reach its logical conclusion.

At the regional level, we need to adopt an institutionalized approach by establishing a regional political forum, called “South Asia Regional Forum” not only to reinforce the process of “confidence-building, preventive diplomacy and the peaceful settlement of disputes” within our region but also to institute inter-regional cooperative and dialogue partnership relationships with relevant counterparts to promote regional and global peace and security.

No doubt, trade is an important element of regional cooperation. Saarc must pursue the free trade goal. The conclusion of the Framework Agreement on South Asia Free Trade Area (Safta) at the 12th Saarc summit in Islamabad was a welcome development. It is, however, seen only as the beginning of a long and arduous process. Our region’s trade architecture has inherent “speed breakers” if not “road blocks” in the form of restrictive trade barriers. The foremost challenge will, therefore, be in their removal and creation of an environment that allows the free and fair promotion of trade in the region.

A regional approach does offer a number of real advantages in terms of increased trade and investment, improved terms of trade, greater efficiency and competition, lower costs of production with free internal movement of labour and capital, a freer and larger market with expanded production and economies of scale, monetary stability, and bargaining strength in tariff negotiations with other parties.

The success of Safta will, however, depend on the fairness and equity with which this process is carried forward. Free trade tends to become a boon for the stronger trading partners, allowing them to dominate the marketplace. Special effort with proper safeguards and concrete practical steps, especially on the part of the region’s sole predominant economy, would be needed to prevent any negative fallout of the free trade arrangement. Trade liberalization that does not ensure equitable benefits to all countries of the region with special deferential treatment for the small and LDC member-states might be difficult to sustain.

Needless to say, that our foremost priority should be to ensure that we have our regional perspective clearly before us, our goals and priorities pragmatically defined and our wherewithal appropriately geared towards the realization of our declared objectives. This would require an attitudinal change both at the national and regional levels to move away from our “declaratory stance” to “implementation mode”.

We need to realize that the “business as usual” approach will not work. Besides political commitment and deeper engagement on the part of all member-states, a new result-oriented normative framework and operational culture consistent with our regional ground realities is needed to infuse “new life within SAARC.”

The real challenge, however, lies in moving from the realm of ideas to implementable plans of action. South Asia needs an exceptional impulse to keep pace with the changing times. This fresh regional impulse, must spring from within South Asia. Only then will our peoples be able to harness the full potential of the South Asian region and to join the worldwide quest for economic growth and development.

We also need a range of remedial measures, both conceptual as well as functional, to bring about the needed change in Saarc’s culture. These measures could be broadly categorized as “systemic re-orientation, enabling environment and structural reinforcement.”

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

LIVING in the rarefied atmosphere of Islamabad I hardly go to Lahore. I do not even go for Basant, the annual bash when Lahore really lets its hair down and which is fast becoming an international event. But it is my home town and supposedly the cultural capital of Pakistan, and I am deeply interested in its welfare.

So when I heard some time ago that that a body called Care About Lahore (CAL) had been formed for the protection of old buildings in the walled city, my interest was at once aroused. Caring citizens had also joined hands some years ago and set up the Lahore Conservation Society to make efforts for the preservation of old structures within the walled city. It was not to interfere, except to make pertinent suggestions, with the work of the Archaeology Department which concerns itself with historical monuments. It was also to take up the task of looking after very old private buildings.

Such bodies owe their existence usually to the enthusiasm of one or two persons who inspire others to action. May be the moving spirit of the Conservation Society is no longer around. Maybe they are disappointed by lack of matching enthusiasm in their companions or a cold response from the authorities. Whatever the reason, the society has not been heard of for a long time.

Now probably to keep alive the hopes of people who love the walled city, this new body has come into being. The avowed aim of CAL’s members — all volunteers — is to preserve buildings in the oldest part of Lahore, as also to address the many civic problems that plague the sprawling provincial metropolis. I hope CAL has the good sense to associate with its activities members of the old Conservation Society who did a lot of fine work in their time. Since I do not visit Lahore I am hoping that CAL is keeping itself alive.

It may sound bizarre but the best person to contact in this connection is the Aga Khan Prize-winning architect Nayyar Ali Dada, who, incidentally, was sent to jail by former Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif for the collapse of the roof of Alhamra Hall II. It was a most deplorable action, taken without holding any enquiry, and was all the more regrettable because Mr Sharif otherwise did so much for Lahore. Rulers in Pakistan are like that.

As far as I can recall, Nayyar Ali Dada was not the sole personality behind the old Lahore Conservation Society, but, along with Khwaja Zaheeruddin, another famous architect, was certainly one of its founders. He and Khwaja Sahib should be able to guide CAL and enthusiastic members of the now moribund society.

They would include some bright young people who were then studying in the National College of Arts and who did some excellent practical work in the walled city, like drawing up a comprehensive list of buildings to be preserved because these were in various stages of neglect or disrepair.

Lahore is in urgent need of care if it is to survive the ravages of a rapidly burgeoning urbanisation and increasing pollution and the juggernaut of development that ride roughshod over valuable old buildings. The trouble with Shahbaz Sharif was that, although a go-getter, he had no eye for antiquity and heritage, and good as his contribution was to modern Lahore, I think he was left cold by the need to preserve, protect and repair old buildings.

According to a newspaper comment, volunteers of Care About Lahore hope to resurrect the walled city encircled by its thirteen gates and develop it as a major tourist attraction. Given the unique architecture and the embellishments of the houses lining the narrow alleys, it is rather a tall order, though a most commendable plan. This badly neglected portion of the city is in dire need of rescue because of the crumbling wood-work and the ever-growing encroachments that have already destroyed substantial segments of a priceless heritage.

Mention of tourism in this context takes my mind back some 40 years ago. As an officer of Punjab Information I was deputed to show a couple of female state guests from Europe around Lahore. The two ladies did not care for The Mall, nor even for Anarkali which they characterized as a conversion of the picturesque old into the garish new, and wanted me to take them inside the walled city. This was what I had originally wanted, having sensed their proclivity, and I was happy that the suggestion came from them.

Once in the walled city, they were simply enchanted by its old world charm and didn’t want to come away for there was so much of the quaint to see and admire, including the life-style of the denizens. I had almost to drag them away from the magical influence of ancient Lahore.

Mobilization of private effort towards such causes needs to be encouraged by the government which is handicapped by shortage of both trained personnel and adequate resources to take up a task of this magnitude on its own. Actually interested and committed private individuals can do much more in this area than government officials.

What can be further stressed in this connection is that Lahore is not the only ancient city in the country or in Punjab that needs the loving attention of conservationists. Multan is equally full of relics of old days and abounds in beautiful buildings hundreds of years old. There are also other towns like Bhera and Chiniot that are an antiquarian’s paradise.

But the sad fact is that the feeling for antiquity comes from a western education, making one conscious of culture as a life-giving necessity. For the average citizen in Pakistan, uninitiated in love for something called the heritage, which is simply not there in the national psyche, old buildings have nothing precious about them and should be torn down to make way for plazas and shopping arcades. What is to be done about this attitude? Who will, and who can educate a whole nation?

LAST week it appeared that the focus in Pakistan was on the population issue. First, the prime minister inaugurated the “population summit” in Islamabad where he highlighted the link between the demographic growth rate and the economy.

Two days later came the “corporate summit” in Karachi organized by the Human Resource Development Network (HRDN), a non-profit organization that, to use its own words, brings together key stakeholders in the development process for forging partnerships. The Karachi moot was designed to draw in the corporate sector into the population welfare net.

The idea is appealing, considering the fact that in the capitalist world of today which glorifies the market, the private sector is seen to be the dominant engine of growth, as once pointed out by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. Corporations control the national resources and it is time big business assumed its social responsibility as well.

So far its role has been more charity oriented and, according to Shahnaz Wazir Ali, the chairperson of the philanthropy commission, who was present at the meeting, only a small section of the corporate sector is actually donating to such causes. In a study her commission is in the process of conducting, it has found that quite a large number of companies say they have never been approached for donations. Needless to say, many of them have not considered it important enough to take the initiative to help a social cause.

While it would be a positive move if companies were to help the organizations working in the population field which are always short of funds, it is also important that companies’ managements are made aware of the problem the country faces on account of the high fertility rate. The hosts of the meeting played their cards well. They shed ample light on what was happening in Pakistan and how the population boom would adversely affect the country’s economy which would hit the corporate sector as well.

There were plenty of statistics that were thrown in to underscore the disastrous scenario which can be expected if nothing is done to slow down the population growth rate which today stands at 1.9 per cent. The implications of a high fertility rate have been highlighted by the media for decades. With 153 million people, Pakistan has added 111 million in the last 42 years. At the present rate, its population is expected to double by 2040. Today, 65 million people are living on less than $ 2 a day. The country has 3.7 million child workers.

It has been reiterated on numerous occasions that the country’s development has been retarded because the rapid pace of population growth has neutralized whatever progress has been made. According to the HRDN, Pakistan’s GDP has increased 273 times from Rs 20 billion in 1950 to Rs 5,458 billion in 2004, but the per capita income has increased only 61 times.

Similarly, the number of primary schools has grown from 44.000 in 1961 to 156,000 in 2004, but we have 30 million more illiterate people than what we had 45 years ago. Despite a 100 per cent increase in jobs in the country from 1971 till 2004, unemployment has increased nine fold in the same period.

What is startling is that the corporate sector by and large does not seem to be informed about and sensitized to the social needs of the people. Thus a textile mill owner attending the meeting expressed shock at the information that was presented saying he was not aware of this at all. But one would find this lack of knowledge shocking considering that the media is flooded with information on the population problem.

The organizers of the summit presented the advantages of a small, educated and healthy population from the perspective of the corporate sector. The workers would be better skilled, would not take sick leave so frequently, their families would be happier and they would be better workers and so on. Similarly, it was emphasized that fewer consumers with better purchasing power and education would constitute a more attractive market than a large but impoverished population.

With the corporate sector in Pakistan not playing the social role expected of it, there is need to strategize its induction into human development projects. The impression one has is that there is more concern for maximizing profits rather than the well-being of the people.

In a social welfare state the business sector would have been heavily taxed and the revenues used for the social development of the people. But Pakistan is not a social welfare state, neither does the government have the commitment or the funds to undertake the social responsibility of providing the people education, health and family planning services.

The meeting decided to set up a working group to evolve a strategy to bridge the gap between the corporate sector and the public sector in population planning. It would be interesting to see how this experiment in public-private partnership in the population sector evolves.

A few suggestions would not be out of place in this context. The corporate sector should adopt a holistic approach because family planning does not work in isolation. It must be backed up with education and health facilities. Hence the corporate sector should undertake the responsibility of providing education to the children of all its workers, arranging adult literacy classes for the uneducated labour, health care for all the workers and their families, and with that family planning services (information and motivation as well as contraceptive facilities) should also be brought in.

It is important that these facilities are actually set up and a company should not absolve itself of its responsibility by handing out a cheque to one of the NGOs working in the field. Of course, they may still contribute but their own workers should be seen as their own responsibility.

If a company does not have a manpower big enough to justify separate institutions, it may join hands with some other smaller concerns to set up a school and a clinic for their workers. It is important that all these aspects are treated holistically because each of them — especially education and low infant mortality — have a positive effect on fertility growth.

One item missing conspicuously from the corporate summit’s agenda was the status of women. Although there was the picturized story of Bholi — a young woman who had suffered because of poverty and lack of education and health care — what didn’t emerge from the discussions and statistics was the little esteem women in Pakistan enjoy that is confirmed by the gender inequalities rampant in the country.

This is one major cause of the failure of the population programme in the country. Until the public’s perception of the commodification of women is not changed, the girl child will never be valued and the parents’ quest for a male offspring will continue, however dynamic the family planning services offered in the corporate sector may be.

There is need for a mobilization campaign to change perceptions and behaviour. This must be underpinned with a programme that focuses on the importance of recognizing the rights of women as human rights. The corporate sector is no different from the rest of the country. One can well ask how many female CEOs we have in Pakistan and what percentage of the workforce comprises women?