THE only positive decision taken by the 13th summit of Saarc nations in Dhaka was to accept Afghanistan’s request to join the regional organization as its eighth member. It will not be wrong to claim that Afghanistan’s request was based on sound and valid grounds mainly because of the country’s geographical proximity to South Asia and traditional historical links with most of the countries of the region.
On the reported request of China and Japan to let them join Saarc as associate or dialogue partners, there were apparently differences among the members. At present there is no precedence to allow distant countries to join regional grouping. The summit is stated to have decided to set up a three-member secretariat committee to devise a feasible mechanism for a non-regional country to be associated with Saarc.
The Chinese request it appeared lacked immediate approval from several countries on technical grounds.
Apart from the membership issue, which evoked lively interest in the summit, there is nothing much in the summit declaration that can be regarded as new. Most of it was a verbose expression of intent. The summit reiterated the need to clear the way for implementation of decisions in trade and commerce, and in the economic, cultural and social sectors. It voiced once again its determination to find ways and means for poverty alleviation and finalization of the existing draft decisions which have remained under discussion in several summits.
While there can be no difference of opinion on the objectives of promoting and facilitating economic, trade, and social and cultural relations, for one reason or another Pakistan and India have not been able to sort out the issues that block the way to the achievement of these laudable goals. The two are the dominant members of the grouping, and their failure to work out details for implementation of approved proposals and resolutions have invariably held up action plans for several years.
Often the rest of the five poorer and smaller members have been heard grumbling over this. The indifference of the bigger partners to the needs of the smaller is stunting progress.
As almost invariably in the past, this time too Pakistan and India were locked in intense bilateral acrimony over the unresolved Kashmir dispute. The leaders of both countries gave vent to their lingering grievances against each other in their respective press talks outside the conference hall. The exchange of tough words in public at a time when the two countries have been engaged for more than a year and a half in a steady dialogue to resolve the Kashmir dispute and other vital contentious issues caused particular dismay. Such public outbursts can influence the future course of the comprehensive India-Pakistan dialogue which has already yielded many good results and agreements on confidence-building measures of public interest.
The bilateral dialogue has persuaded the two contenders to break away from encrusted attitudes concerning the Line of Control in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir. For the first time in more than 50 years the sacrosanct dividing line has been opened to allow Kashmiri divided families to meet. Exchange of relief goods for earthquake sufferers has also been permitted across the borders.
It was sad to see immediately after the two-day summit the leaders of India and Pakistan again engaged in a spat, both accusing each other of lack of trust. “There is clearly a trust deficit in ties between the two countries,” Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said while responding to media questions in the context of the Kashmir dispute.
“Saarc is mired in conflict, you cannot deny it”, he said, and added: “The truth is we need to take issues head-on and come up with the solutions whether it’s Pakistan-India or other countries in the region.”
He observed that Kashmir had remained the core issue which was a matter of concern for Pakistan. However, the Pakistan prime minister said his meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was a bonus in keeping the dialogue going in the right direction.
Dr Manmohan Singh in his media talk said: “Using harsh language in public is not the best way to promote dialogue and understanding. I don’t think anything great is achieved by conducting this dialogue in the full glare of the public.” Without naming any country, Mr. Singh said the blame for the bloodshed on the eve of Diwali in his country was by perpetrators who came from outside India.
The fear is that this public exchange of tough language on Kashmir — which was not an agenda item at the Saarc summit — may have had an adverse impact on the future course of the on- going comprehensive dialogue, which is scheduled to be resumed in January. One hopes that such fears will turn out to be baseless and the “irreversible” nature of the push for peace in South Asia will not falter.
