Limitations of Saarc
I MIGHT have foregone the opportunity to write on the 14th Saarc summit recently held in New Delhi but for the following short but meaningful paragraph in its declaration: “The Heads of State or Government emphasised the need to develop, at an early date, a roadmap for a South Asian Customs Union and a South Asian Economic Union in a planned and phased manner.”
As even an elementary student of regional economic cooperation can see, the paragraph, despite the caveats contained in it, has far-reaching implications not only for economic cooperation within South Asia but also for the geopolitics of the region. The paragraph, therefore, deserves close scrutiny and analysis with a view to highlighting its implications for Pakistan, particularly in its capacity to take decisions in economic and political fields in its best national interest if a South Asian Customs Union or a South Asian Economic Union comes into existence with Pakistan as its member.
The history of the European Union illustrates the journey from a customs union, in which member-states trade freely among themselves with a common external tariff, to an economic union which involves the coordination of fiscal and monetary policies of the member-states in addition to their external trade policies. An economic union, for all practical purposes, implies the amalgamation of the economies of the member states into a single unit with uniform fiscal, monetary and external trade policies and free mobility of labour and capital.
Thus, as a regional economic grouping evolves into an economic union, more and more decisions about economic issues are taken at the regional level rather than at the national level. In short, there is a transfer of sovereignty from the national governments to the regional authorities in the management of internal and external economic issues.
Needless to say that since economic decisions cannot be divorced from political issues, pressure builds up soon in an economic union to coordinate political and security policies of the member states. That is the stage where the European Union is today with the debate on the common foreign and security policy and the EU constitution.
Every regional economic grouping cannot aspire to reach the ambitious goal of economic union or even the target of a customs union. The process of economic integration involved in the establishment of a customs union and even more so in that of an economic union presupposes certain essential conditions which must be fulfilled if it has to produce the desired results. Those essential conditions are cultural and civilisational affinities, absence of serious disputes, non-existence of hegemonic tendencies, geographical proximity and economic complementarities among the member states of the regional economic grouping.
The first three conditions act as facilitators in the process of economic integration which involves difficult decisions in the fields of production, trade, consumption, employment, investment, redistribution of wealth and social welfare. The last two conditions, that is, economic complementarities and geographical proximity, not only facilitate the process of economic integration in a regional economic grouping, they also determine the extent of advantages that can accrue from it.
Even a cursory glance at the history and the ground realities in South Asia shows that Saarc does not fulfil most of the conditions essential for its successful evolution towards an economic union or even a customs union. The peoples of South Asia mainly belong to two different civilisations, that is, Islam and Hinduism. They are, therefore, culturally far apart as the history of the Pakistan movement clearly shows. There are also serious disputes between the member-states, the most important being the one on Kashmir between Pakistan and India which has bedevilled relations between the two countries and hindered progress in regional cooperation.
There is little doubt that India entertains hegemonic ambitions in South Asia. If there are any doubts in the minds of Pakistan’s policymakers about India’s quest for hegemony in South Asia, New Delhi’s past conduct in dealing with its South Asian neighbours especially Pakistan and the following quotation from an article by C. Raja Mohan, a member of India’s National Security Advisory Board, entitled “India and the Balance of Power” in the Foreign Affairs issue of July-August, 2006 should help remove them:
“India’s grand strategy divides the world into three concentric circles. In the first, which encompasses the immediate neighbourhood, India has sought primacy and a veto over actions of outside powers. In the second, which encompasses the so-called extended neighbourhood stretching across Asia and the India Ocean littoral, India has sought to balance influence of other powers and prevent them from undercutting its interests. In the third, which includes the entire global stage, India has tried to take its place as one of the great powers, a key player in international peace and security.”
Finally, economic complementarities are weaker in South Asia than those in the ECO region which also has the advantage of cultural affinities, absence of serious disputes and non-existence of hegemonic ambitions on the part of any ECO member state. Little wonder that the intra-regional trade as a percentage of total trade is higher in the case of the ECO region compared with the corresponding figure for the Saarc region. Pakistan should, therefore, choose the ECO as the forum of choice for the establishment of a customs union or an economic union.
The most important advantage of a regional economic organisation is the increase in the gross domestic product of its member-states as a whole through free trade which leads to a more efficient allocation of resources at the regional level.
A regional economic organisation also enables the member-states to tackle more effectively than would otherwise be the case issues such as water management, environment, energy and trans-border crimes and diseases which cannot be handled at a purely national level and that, therefore, require regional cooperation.
Other advantages of a regional economic grouping include the ability of the member states to speak effectively with one voice at international forums during negotiations on important international economic issues. Finally, the establishment of a single market within a region encourages the inflow of foreign investment and technology.
As member-states engage in regional cooperation, they establish positive linkages amongst themselves thus producing a peace dividend. This has been an important outcome of the process of economic integration which has taken place in Europe in the form of the European Union.
The decision taken by the Saarc leaders at the 14th summit to prepare the roadmap for a South Asian Customs Union and a South Asian Economic Union in one go is an example of the lack of realism in assessing the true potential of Saarc which for reasons given earlier would remain limited even under the best of circumstances.
It is amazing that this decision with far-reaching implications for Pakistan’s future destiny was taken when Pakistan and India have yet to resolve serious differences on the implementation of the Safta agreement, when India shows no signs of giving up its hegemonic designs, when serious Pakistan-India disputes continue to bedevil their relations and when Pakistan continues to face a serious threat to its security from India.
Even on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in New Delhi, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz had to raise with his Indian counterpart the issue of alleged Indian involvement in the tribal insurgency in Balochistan.
In the case of Pakistan, the decision also negates the very rationale for the creation of the country under which the Muslims of South Asia sought a separate homeland for themselves because they felt that from the point of view of culture and civilisation, they were a separate nation and, therefore, entitled to take decisions about their political, economic and social life free from the domination of the majority community.
The move towards a South Asian Customs Union and more so a South Asian Economic Union would unleash economic and political forces which would result in decisions about Pakistan’s economy and ultimately even political and social life being taken at some regional forum dominated by India through the sheer weight of its huge size. The natural outcome of this process would be the gradual establishment of Indian hegemony in South Asia. India would, thus, have achieved through the process of regional cooperation what it has failed to achieve through coercive means.
Saarc can play a useful role in promoting regional cooperation in South Asia by increasing regional trade which is the raison d’être of all schemes of regional cooperation. It can also encourage regional cooperation in such areas as water management, environment, energy, transportation, communications, cross-border crimes and diseases, etc. Its very existence and the opportunity that it provides to the leaders of the member states to meet each other help in defusing tensions and promoting mutual understanding in South Asia.
These are not minor advantages and must be kept in view in any assessment of the future potential of Saarc. However, because of the various drawbacks from which it suffers, it is not an organisation of choice for Pakistan for establishing a customs union or an economic union. If Pakistan makes the mistake of relying on the Saarc for these purposes, it would either be frustrated in the achievement of its objectives or it would gradually lose its separate national identity in the huge Indian mass.
The writer is a former ambassador.
E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com
Growing religious extremism
THERE are clear signs that religious extremism has arrived in Islamabad. Two cleric brothers in occupation of Lal Masjid, built on state-owned land, have created a virtual state of siege in a part of the capital.
They have vowed to enforce Shariah in the country and have announced the establishment of a Shariah court in the mosque premises for this purpose.
Pakistan is an Islamic country and, therefore, its government is responsible for enforcing and implementing the fundamental principles of the declared state religion.
No one is entitled to make laws on his own authority for this purpose and nobody is obliged to abide by them as it may have ominous implications for the country and its people. Large numbers of Pakistanis, regardless of their ideological beliefs and political affiliations, therefore, have condemned the bizarre behaviour of the two radical clerics in the strongest possible terms.
Several prominent ulema, belonging to different schools of thought, who are also staunch exponents of enforcing Shariah in Pakistan, have voiced their disapproval of the antagonist behaviour of the self-styled Islamic reformers who think that theirs is a noble cause. A big question mark, however, hangs over the government’s tolerant attitude towards the delinquent behaviour of the radical mullahs despite the fact that its writ was eroded by them in the capital itself. This has fuelled all sorts of speculations.
A dispassionate study of growing religious extremism in the country reveals that in spite of its ideological character, Pakistan did not fall prey to the influence of religious extremists for many decades after 1947. However, over the years, this menace steadily came to the surface and a handful of extremists started to make their influence felt by trying to get people to subscribe to their ideology.
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that left the people of Pakistan completely bewildered and traumatised aggravated the situation even further. In the wake of the Afghan war, a number of organisations with militant overtones spread across the country. With the passage of time, they became politically and economically strong and as a result well-entrenched.
Successive governments ignored the fact that the country could be sucked into a destructive vortex if these extremists, harbouring dogmatic views, attempted to make society subject to their whims. Instead of evolving a policy to effectively deal with the scourge of militant extremism that was fraught with deadly consequences as history has shown too often, the ruling elites, both military and civilian, sought the support of these very renegade religious outfits with a view to promoting their personal agenda and adequately rewarded them for the same. Thus, the ruling elites themselves contributed to the rise of religious extremism in the country.
These extremist groups, with the explicit blessings of successive governments, have been promoting their narrow and perverse interpretations of the Holy Quran and also spreading their radical beliefs in the country. There is much to suggest that despite President Pervez Musharraf’s attempts to purge the country of extremism, particularly in the wake of 9/11, they continue to operate with more intensity and total impunity.
It is important to note that the struggle against religious extremism in Pakistan has remained ineffectual because of the lack of attention by the government to disaffected young people who have caused the ranks of the extremist outfits to swell. There is a significant rise in religious extremism and intolerance throughout the world, which is basically attributable to an unjust economic, social and political system.
Religious extremism has become a major threat to the continuation of civilised life in Pakistan. It also poses a serious threat to the country’s territorial integrity. The menace of extremism is not an ephemeral phenomenon and will not automatically recede with the passage of time and, therefore, every enlightened citizen in the country should make a determined effort to fight this menace on an individual as well as collective level.
Civil society can also contribute significantly to the eradication of religious extremism by creating awareness in the country about the true spirit and teachings of Islam.
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was in favour of making Pakistan an Islamic state, albeit a liberal, tolerant and democratic one. He was convinced that such a state must be free from all traces of extremism as any deviation from this goal could spell disaster for the country and even endanger its existence.
Regrettably, the leaders who ruled Pakistan after Jinnah ignored this stark political reality. Their myopic policies that were intended to win over a predominantly illiterate but religious population to gain political power gave impetus to the extremists in a variety of ways.
It is also pertinent to mention that a genuine democracy in the country offers the best hope of dealing with religious extremism as well as other political and economic problems. Democracy expands participation in the political system of the country and leads to close cooperation between civil society and the state. Needless to say, democracy automatically results in good governance and is a precondition for civilised living.
The writer is a former ambassador.
French elections
If one scene encapsulates the tensions ahead of the first round of the French presidential elections on Sunday, then it is one that is acted out every day in a backstreet in Paris where Nicolas Sarkozy has his campaign headquarters.
It is in an area of Turkish immigrants and bourgeois bohemians – not groups known for their love of Mr Sarkozy and his pledge to introduce "selective immigration".
The street is too narrow for the convoys of cars generated by his campaign, and residents are subject to frequent identity checks from riot police at both ends. Every time they look up, Mr Sarkozy's reluctant neighbours glance in bewilderment at his slogan: "Together, everything is possible."
This is France's most important election in three decades. It pitches Mr Sarkozy, a small man who like Napoleon is only too conscious of his lack of stature, against a socialist candidate in Ségolène Royal who is petrified of using the word left. There is a variety of political flavours in between, including François Bayrou, who, unlike Mr Sarkozy, puts voters at ease with centrist charm, but can call on few people to form a credible government.
France is bracing itself for a political shock. The opinion polls are so close, and the number of undecided voters so large, that various combinations of protest votes could push Ms Royal into third place.
If it happened, it would be the second time in five years that the French left failed to get into the second round, after the defeat of Lionel Jospin by the National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002. The Socialist party, which still bears the fratricidal scars of what happened five years ago, would probably break up.
To scare socialists into voting for a candidate about whom they harbour deep doubts, François Hollande, Ms Royale's partner, warned this week that without their support she could be knocked out in the first round. If you think you have the luxury of registering a protest by voting instead for Mr Bayrou or even Mr Le Pen (there are some who say a socialist revolution would come faster under a far-right candidate), then think again, Mr Hollande said.
Mr Sarkozy's people have been feeling contradictory emotions. They are proud of a man who has been able to dominate the notoriously fractious right. Mr Sarkozy is a one-man election machine, keen for power and able to project himself single-handedly into public debate. But his team are also conscious that the rightwinger has the ability to frighten voters.
He has already declared war on the broadcast media, which expect to become a target of his possible presidency. Mr Sarkozy has done nothing to dispel concerns about his judgment. Yesterday he compared himself to Gramsci, saying he could win power with revolutionary ideas.
On Tuesday he reached for the memory of Pope John Paul II to shed light on the deep Christianity of his campaign.
Ms Royal's strategists claim that this election is still winnable, after 12 years of drift in which France has refused to accept reform.
But with despair one insider has described her as an unidentified flying object, unable to take advice, suspicious of colleagues and supremely alone in her attempt persuade the French people.
On one thing many are agreed. France's multiple crises – its burgeoning public debt, its high level of youth unemployment and its failure to integrate immigrant communities - are not crises of the past but of the future. If, with its back to the wall, France turns sharply to the right, Mr Sarkozy will act quickly.
He will push through the most divisive reforms in the first three months and bring the defeated left out on to the streets. He has not retreated the claim he made as interior minister that rioters in the suburbs were a "rabble" who should be dealt with by the application of a high-pressure hose.
In France's overheated state, it would take much less than a President Sarkozy to set off another wave of social unrest.
—The Guardian, London
| © DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007 |
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.