The future of Saarc

THE Saarc after achieving too little in the first two decades wants to infuse a new life in the regional organization in the next decade. Today, it is the weakest regional organization in the world though it covers a population of 1.5 billion and its problems are numerous and demand urgent solutions.

Nevertheless, a new member, Afghanistan, has been admitted into the seven-nation body and China’s and Japan’s request for observer status or as dialogue partners has been favourably viewed. That means the powerful states see a bright future for the Saarc if it moves in the right direction.

If Saarc, which came into existence through the initiative of the former Bangladesh president Ziaur Rehman in 1985, has not made much headway, it is not because of some basic fault in the organization or structural weaknesses, but because of the sharp political differences among its members. Its barren record is principally the result of the lingering dispute on Kashmir between India and Pakistan which has caused “a trust deficit” in their relations according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. The Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh agrees with that view, but differs on the modalities for eliminating that.

“We should take issues head on and come up with solutions”, says Shaukat Aziz. Dr Singh and other Indian leaders do not agree to that “head on” approach and prefer a step-by-step approach. The Indian leaders also do not like conducting India-Pakistan peace negotiations through the press, which the Pakistan leaders love doing. Instead they prefer quiet diplomacy including back stage diplomacy through trusted assistants. And the Indian leaders have shown distaste for open diplomacy quite often.

While the Saarc leaders have remained preoccupied with their own disputes, numerous new challenges have come up to face them in the form of increasing terrorism in various ways and the rapid spread of poverty which fuels that terrorism. As the population of the region has risen to 1.5 billion people, it contains 60 per cent of the poor people of the world with their varied problems linked to acute poverty. And now with Afghanistan joining Saarc, the number of the poor in the Saarc region has further increased.

The Dhaka summit, which has issued the Dhaka declaration, recognizes poverty as the greatest threat to the region. So it has declared the next decade, 2006-2015, as the decade of poverty alleviation in the Saarc region. A poverty alleviation fund was earlier suggested by Pakistan with a capital of 300 million dollars which is more of seed money. The funds required to fight poverty are vast and should be made available on a continual basis.

Of course if the Saarc utilizes these funds in a proper manner, international donors will be willing to make larger contributions, as they are already doing in case of its member countries. The issue is how to dovetail the national policies and programmes for poverty alleviation with the overall Saarc programme and make the whole operation smooth and truly productive.

The other threat to the region, which the Dhaka declaration underscores, is an increase in terrorism, which is menacing all the member states including Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. The declaration wants the Saarc members to ratify the additional protocol to the convention on terrorism adopted by the organization as early as 1987 and cut off the funds to terrorist groups. It was also decided at Dhaka to have annual meetings of home or interior secretaries of the Saarc member countries.

The Dhaka declaration stresses there should be no double standards in the approach to terrorism. It seeks enhanced political cooperation between members for peace and stability in South Asia. At a time when terrorists are crossing international borders easily, such cooperation is essential to reduce the efficacy of terrorist attacks.

The need for political cooperation was stressed at the summit by Begum Khalida Zia, Prime Minister of Bangladesh, who saw the political disputes cutting across vast areas of cooperation between member states. Political cooperation is essential as the lack of it stands in the way of economic cooperation, which is avidly sought by all but largely in vain. One of the major achievements of Saarc has been the agreement to usher in South Asia Free Trade Area (Safta) from January 1, 2006. But now it appears the free trade agreement may not become a reality by that date, which the whole of Saarc was looking forward to. Mr Shaukat Aziz says that Pakistan is for free trade with India. But that was not possible unless there is a headway in the negotiations on Kashmir dispute.

Until the composite dialogue resumed between India and Pakistan early last year, Pakistan had insisted that the Kashmir issue should be settled before large-scale bilateral trade begins. Pakistan now wants some real progress in the talks so that Kashmir is not side-stepped. But India which wants a gradualist approach to the solution of the major disputes between the two countries does not agree to such pre-conditions for normal trade between the two neighbours.

The other members of the Saarc want the free trade area to become a reality from January 1. And they were eagerly looking forward to that. They ardently hoped that the South Asia Preferential Trade Agreement (Sapta) with its large number of specified items for import duty relief could soon lead to a free trade area. And they will be disappointed if the Safta is not launched on January 1. How will Pakistan appease them?

The Dhaka summit was not conspicuous for any major achievements, nor was it a landmark summit. Major decisions taken on poverty alleviation and on combating terrorism were already taken a year earlier at Islamabad. The Dhaka summit, which met after two postponements primarily confirmed or underscored what had been agreed earlier.

Mr Shaukat Aziz came up with seven points to strengthen the Saarc and make it a goal-oriented, dynamic and pragmatic organization focusing on implementation of decisions and making it able to deliver what it promises or what its charter proclaims. He wants an expansion and intensification of economic and commercial cooperation. He suggested to promote cooperation in the field of energy to maximize the use of available energy and minimize the waste.

The prime minister sought cooperation for environmental protection and sustainable development with particular focus on conservation and management of water and natural resources. He also stressed on cooperation in joint projects to alleviate poverty, promote health, education and agriculture. He asked for an improvement in infrastructure especially region-wise transportation and larger communication links, advocated greater cooperation and coordination in monetary and fiscal policies of Saarc member countries and offered to host a finance ministers’ conference before the end of the year.

Dr Manmohan Singh, before he left for the Dhaka summit, had voiced his fear of failed states in the Saarc region, not to alarm member states but to caution them against the chaos prevailing in some of them. Observers said he was referring to particularly Bangladesh and Nepal, which faced serious political and economic problems. In the face of such fears, the cooperation between Saarc members should increase, more so when one failed state could destabilize its neighbours. But such cooperation is not coming forth in adequate measure.

Dr Singh made a number of offers to the Dhaka summit to make the Saarc strong and popular. He offered the facility of daily air service to major Indian cities from Saarc countries on a reciprocal basis. He proposed setting up of a food bank with storage facilities in various towns to meet the food shortage in the region. He wanted a Saarc university as a centre of excellence and offered to host it in India if others agreed.

He proposed a Saarc textile and handicraft museum to project the textile wealth of the region and its great traditions. He was keen on transit facilities for member states so that they can trade easily with the West and Central Asia. He offered such facilities in India so that there can be a larger volume of trade in the region. It might take twenty years to reconnect the subcontinent and then reconnect it with its Asian neighbours, he said urging larger volume of trade between Saarc countries and others in the region.

Begum Khalida Zia said that the leaders in South Asia were approaching the problems “with the mindsets and perceptions from the past”. They have been talking of going far beyond Safta in their economic cooperation and have been urging an economic union. But Begum Zia said an economic union needed an enabling political and economic environment which of course is missing at the moment. Old discords stand in the way of new agreements and if new agreements are reached such as Safta, they are not implemented or are implemented partially.

Meanwhile Pakistan, after having signed a free trade agreement with Sri Lanka is seeking similar agreements with Bangladesh and Nepal.

Clearly political crowbars stand in the way of far larger accomplishments. In India and Pakistan the people, traders and industrialists want more trade with each other, but the leaders have serious reservations and in some cases are too cautious to move ahead fast. India spurns all suggestions from Pakistan for a roadmap for settling the problems between the two countries. If it is not ready to make major concessions on Kashmir, it is not eager to even settle the Siachen or Sir Creek issues or the dispute over the three dams India is building. This is too discouraging for the people of the region, particularly Pakistan.

And after nearly two years of the composite dialogue since it was resumed, the third round is to begin in January. Will that round be any better keeping in view that the previous two rounds had small achievements to speak of? The contacts between Dr Singh and Shaukat Aziz at Dhaka did not produce any great results either. But the two leaders have decided to continue the talks and keep the temperature low in the hope of better results in the future.

Intelligent design

HOW many of you have heard of Dover, Pa? I hadn’t until televangelist Pat Robertson declared that God has left Dover because it rejected the teaching of “intelligent design” in its public schools.

In case you’re wondering, Dover is just down the road from Welgelstown and 50 miles from Lancaster. According to its last census, it has 902 males and 913 females. The median income is $45,250 a year.

I give you these facts because, no matter how small a town is, Robertson claims he can bring down the wrath of God on it.

These are his own words after Dover defeated the teaching of intelligent design in its schools: “I would like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God. You just rejected him from your city.”

Later on he said, “God is tolerant and loving , but we can’t keep sticking our finger in his eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin. Maybe he can help them.”

This is not the first time Robertson has gotten embroiled in controversy. Last summer he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. He also blamed the tornados in Kansas and Oklahoma on God’s wrath. In 1998, he warned Florida that it would suffer hurricanes if it didn’t reject homosexuality.

What to make of all this?

One theory getting a lot of play in my circle of friends is that recent natural catastrophes are occurring because Pat Robertson really is God.

Intelligent design teaches that the universe was created by a higher power, who is responsible for the people who live in it. We call this superpower God because we have to call it something.

The theory is accepted by those who believe in the Bible. The world was created in six days, Adam and Eve were the first human beings and could have stayed in the Garden of Eden forever if Eve hadn’t been talked into eating a forbidden apple by a snake.

Intelligent design has always been with us, but for the first time it has a name: Pat Robertson.

We suspected this when he used his powers on the “700 Club” to smite his enemies. He pretends to speak for God when in fact he is God.

He doesn’t let on his true identity because, if he did, people would think he was insane.

In order to do God’s work, Pat has to ask for contributions from his viewers. Even God can’t get time on radio or television for nothing.

Because of his power — Hurricane Katrina didn’t come out of thin air, you know — Pat is getting more believers with each catastrophe and more media coverage.

Yet it is the people who oppose him who make him so much more powerful.

There are other televangelists who think they’re God. Jerry Farwell immediately comes to mind.

What I’m saying is not the last word on the subject.

The test will be in Dover, Pa. If a devastating blizzard hits the town this winter and everyone gets down on their knees and prays, and God isn’t there, we can blame it on Charles Darwin. Or global warming. —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

A deepening divide

THIS time last year — just after George W. Bush had won his second term — you would have thought the second Civil War was about to break out. I lost count of the number of times I heard the phrase “a country divided.”

At first sight, last week’s elections seemed to furnish further evidence that the red-blue divide is deepening.

None of the four propositions Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed was radically conservative. They were mainly designed to weaken the entrenched opposition he faces in California from the Democratic Party machine and the public-sector unions. That not one of them passed tells you something obvious but important: A majority of Californians are Democrats. So while it seemed like a nice idea two years ago to have another Republican movie star as a blue state governor, what worked for Ronald Reagan in the 1960s now looks hopeless.

Add to this the looming battle over President Bush’s second-choice nominee for the Supreme Court, Samuel A. Alito Jr. — a judge whose conservative record is already causing liberal pressure groups to prophesy a return to the antebellum South — and it looks like the US cultural cleavage is deepening.

Or does it?

One of the most striking things to a newcomer to the United States is how very like one another these allegedly divided Americans appear to be. If you fly the 2,588 miles from San Francisco to Miami, as I did last week, the thing that hits you is how fundamentally the same these two places are.

To prove my point, ask yourself where you would end up if you flew the same distance eastward from London. The answer is Baku, Azerbaijan. If an Australian flew 2,500 miles north from Perth, he’d be just short of Kuala Lumpur. Only consider the immense cultural differences that separate these places and you realize at once that the most amazing thing about the United States is not its polarization but its homogeneity.

That’s also borne out by serious scrutiny of public opinion. In their book, “Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America,” Morris Fiorina, Samuel Abrams and Jeremy Pope comprehensively debunk the notion that American society is deeply divided. On numerous issues, which just don’t get debated because consensus is taken for granted, Americans have quite similar views. Even on the issues about which the political class gets excited — abortion, homosexuality, religion — it’s amazing how much middle ground there is.

This makes sense for two reasons. First, look at the electoral map that breaks down last year’s presidential election by county. There are very few parts of the United States that are bright red or true blue. Most of the nation is what you get when you mix the two colors together: a soggy purple.

The other proof is to compare American liberals with their European counterparts. Whether the issue is the economy or God, the former are significantly more conservative.

And that’s why the real story last week wasn’t Schwarzenegger’s setbacks in California. It was Mike Bloomberg’s landslide victory in his race for reelection as mayor of New York.

New York City is scarcely a Republican stronghold. Its many minorities traditionally have been reliable Democratic votes. Yet Bloomberg has demonstrated in this election that it’s now possible for a GOP candidate to win votes across the racial and ethnic spectrum. He won the backing of nearly a third of the Latino voters and, even more remarkable, one of every two black voters.

Almost as interesting was the case of the Democratic candidate who knew how to win on “values.” Challenged on his opposition to capital punishment by his rival in the Virginia gubernatorial race, Timothy M. Kaine responded that his personal views were rooted in his Catholic faith but that he would nevertheless enforce the law if he were elected. As a former missionary, Kaine had cast-iron credibility. Expect more faith-based Democratic campaigns in next year’s congressional midterms.

That said, it’s much too early for the Democrats to start preparing for power. Some unsuccessful Republican candidates are privately blaming their defeats on Bush’s dismal recent performance. Seemingly unable to win his “war on terror” in Iraq, and not much more impressive in the “war on weather” back home, Bush is suddenly unloved.

When this happens to a British prime minister, there is a frenzy of speculation about leadership challenges. Not in the United States. Here, barring impeachment or assassination, every president has his sell-by date, and Bush’s is the end of 2008.

No one knows who will succeed him, but despite all the talk of impending civil war, it won’t be a new Abraham Lincoln. John McCain is a potential contender and, despite his denials, Bloomberg may have just entered the lists. For victory three years hence will surely go to whichever candidate appeals most to the nation’s big purple centre. — Dawn/Los Angeles Times

Delayed response & mismanagement

IN the heady democratic days of the 1990s, Pakistan was considered to be a failed state. A failed state with nuclear weapons brought it close to receiving the ignominious title of a rogue state.

With fundamentalism being supported in the region and at home, most donors, foreign powers and Pakistan’s more permanent and intrusive institutions, such as the military, were all agreed that Pakistan’s state had failed to deliver on the basic needs of its citizens.

General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999 was justified by some on this premise, and on the promise that the military would stop the rot and would deliver where all others had failed. The military government’s handling of the post-earthquake situation has put that myth to rest, and has again demonstrated that Pakistan’s state and its institutions continue to fail.

A minimalist definition of state failure can best be stated to be a situation where the institutions of the state fail to deliver on their fundamental responsibilities, where they are expected to provide justice, human and territorial security, and a bundle of basic services and goods including at least water, sanitation, health and education. A slightly more expanded definition must include the state’s ability to provide and encourage numerous forms of representation and, hence, dissent.

Along with this, one ought to expect at least some protection guaranteed and supported by the state, of minorities — whether religious, social or economic — and all segments of excluded citizens, of which women would probably be the most important in the context of Pakistan and other developing countries.

In most countries, the notion of the state includes institutions like the judiciary, the executive, the bureaucracy and other institutions such as the military and other law enforcement entities. In democracies, an elected government and an independent judiciary with a non-politicized military under the control of the elected government, constitute the main institutions of the state.

Whether it is privatization, health policy, the choice of chief justice or foreign relations, in democracies the most fluid institution of the state and that which influences all others, that of government, makes key decisions. In the end, however, it is the electorate which is the most influential actor which determines choice of government and hence governmental and state policy and direction.

In Pakistan, however, with the excessive dominance of the military, the state, the government and many other supposedly ‘independent’ institutions, are all seen as being determined and run by this one institution. Even during the 1990s, Pakistan’s democratically elected governments were forced to concede extensive space to the military in areas as diverse as the amount available for development (on account of what was first taken as the defence budget), and of course, with regard to foreign policy. This charade of who really ran the show and controlled the state was put aside in 1999, and today there is no dispute that the all powerful, pervasive, omnipresent military, controls all the institutions of the state.

A month after the earthquake, numerous facts have emerged which reveal the weakness of Pakistan’s political and state institutions. While the military is the largest and most organized of Pakistan’s institutions, it is also a key constituent of the government, and for this reason, was the one force whose responsibility it was to react immediately in providing immediate relief and help, particularly medical support, in the areas which were devastated.

Moreover, along with the well-organized institutional structure of the military, it is the only organization which has the required hardware — helicopters, ambulances, jeeps, manpower, etc. — which would allow it to intervene in any natural or man-made crisis or disaster area.

However, what emerges from an evaluation of the response to last month’s disaster, is that it was private groups, many organized, others simply volunteers, who provided immediate relief to people in the remote and inaccessible regions where the casualties were high, while the military was hindered by its command and order structures.

Many NGOs, charities and, importantly, Islamic relief organizations as well as many so-called jihadi groups, were the first to reach these areas and provide support and relief. The army entered the scene much later.

Visits to the earthquake affected area and the experiences of volunteer groups and NGOs in the region unambiguously show, that there has been a great deal of disappointment, anger, and downright antagonism towards the role of the military by its inability to respond to the crisis immediately. Pakistan’s political economy and its history is such that there has been a persistent reliance on the state and its institutions (including the military in such special situations) and the mindset of people is that they expect help from government and the state.

The failure of the state and its institutions to provide this help in these regions has caused this antagonism to emerge. If it was not for Islamic groups, volunteers and NGOs, the death toll and misery would have been far higher.

Another factor that has emerged is that the trumpeted ‘success’ of the Musharraf regime, his local government system of district government, has been exposed for the flimsy, apolitical, dysfunctional, system that many had felt it always was. The local government system along with its elected representatives, is part of the rubble along with the entire physical structure of the area.

While official immediate relief has been slow in coming, civil society actors and political groups have also criticized the military establishment and government for not responding to the immediate and subsequent fiscal and financial aspects of the crisis. The military and the government have been active in soliciting international aid for the reconstruction efforts which are said to cost $10-12 billion. Yet, Pakistan’s president has categorically rejected any proposal to reduce Pakistan’s high defence budget.

Moreover, a week after the earthquake, Pakistan’s military signed a deal worth $1 billion with Sweden to buy six early warning aircrafts, in addition to its existing $3 billion deal to purchase US F-16s. Clearly, even in times like these, there has been no appropriate response to a crisis of immense proportions.

The Pakistani state’s response to the devastating earthquake has revealed that despite the continued global appreciation for Pakistan’s role in the war on terror, Pakistan’s military rules an alienated society failing to respond to local demands and needs in times of crises. With very different sets of priorities, its obsession with its notion of ‘security’ continues to undermine real human security in Pakistan. State failure, now with the military ruling the state, continues unabated.

The writer is a social scientist based in Karachi.

Email: azaidi@fascom.com