Will SAARC come of age?

The 18th Summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) concluded in Kathmandu, Nepal with an outcome far below expectations. The theme of the summit was 'Deeper Integration for Peace and Prosperity', underscoring a focus on enhancing connectivity between the member states. Of the three connectivity agreements on the agenda, only the one on energy has been signed. The remaining two will be worked on, and hopefully signed after six months at the meeting of the SAARC foreign ministers.

Overall, there have been no major breakthroughs at the Summit. No significant move was discussed, let alone resolved, on the issue of fighting terrorism which was the main concern of most of the SAARC leaders, particularly India, Afghanistan, and Nepal. Moreover, there were no important decisions on investments and financial arrangements intended to push the economies towards "deeper regional integration", which was projected as the main theme of the summit.

Why did the Summit fail to produce desired results? Although no member state expressed its impressions in so many words, but recapitulating the proceedings of the summit, people of the South Asian region find themselves hostage to the intransigence of the two most populous countries of the region.

Whether intended or not, Pakistan's reluctance to agree on the connectivity issue seems to be a response to India's undoing of promised bilateral talks and expanding its economic engagement in Afghanistan and blocking India from emerging as a competitor to Pakistan.

In addition, Pakistan has been pleading for China's greater role in South Asia. Most of the other smaller South Asian countries are also supportive of elevating China's status from that of an observer, to either a full member or a dialogue partner. Almost all of India's neighbours are attracted to China, both for the lure of greater economic resources, as well as strategic potential of keeping India in "balance". China has also been keen to play a greater role in South Asia. Its South Asia policy is driven by a sense of vulnerability in Tibet and Xinjiang, by the growing potential of a 1.6 billion-strong South Asian market, and by its trade and maritime interests in the Indian Ocean.

Ever since it was admitted in SAARC as an observer in 2006, China has vastly improved its economic and political engagement with the SAARC countries. At the Kathmandu Summit, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin promised a Chinese investment of $30bn for infrastructure development in South Asia and 10,000 scholarships for young South Asians, as a mark of China's commitment to the region.

India is also prepared for an intensive economic engagement with China at the bilateral level but is not ready or willing to open its strategic space in the region for Chinese presence and influence. It is not too happy to admit China as a SAARC member or even elevate its status in SAARC. India is resisting pressure from its SAARC neighbours on China on the ground that SAARC has still to achieve internal cohesion and consolidation.

India's unexpressed fears are on two counts. As a full member, China will get a veto in SAARC affairs as SAARC decisions are taken unanimously. China may, therefore, block projects that may offer strategic and economic advantage to India. After all, China did restrain both the Asian Development Bank and lately even Japan, from supporting projects in India's north-eastern province of Arunachal. China is also opposing Indian oil exploration projects in what it considers disputed waters off Vietnam in the South China Sea.

While individual SAARC countries, especially their affluent sections, may have done well, the region as a whole continues to be mired in poverty, disease, illiteracy, ignorance and religious, ethnic and communal hatred.

The intractable problem of Kashmir gave the ruling elites of India and Pakistan the excuse to engage in a hostile arms race and deflect their attention from the most pressing problems they needed to address. Kashmir has been a flashpoint for more than 60 years and the main cause of a lack of trust between the two countries, often leading to cross-border proxy wars and violence.

The India-Pakistan stand-off on the first day of the Summit threatened to jeopardise the entire event as Pakistan seemed to be in a mood of blocking all India-led proposals. But the next day things changed when the two Prime Ministers met privately at the retreat session which led to Pakistan agreeing one out of the three proposed agreements and they also shook hands publicly during the closing ceremony and this 'transient peace' in the relation was believed to have been brokered by the Nepalese side as a face-saving act for the Kathmandu Summit.

Overall, there have been no major breakthroughs at the summit and no significant move on fighting terrorism which was presented as a main concern by most of the SAARC leaders, particularly India, Afghanistan, and Nepal. Also, there were no important decisions on flow of investments and financial arrangements to push the economies towards "deeper regional integration", which was projected as the main theme of the Summit.

Generally, SAARC's activities have been sluggish and frustratingly slow. In its 30 years of existence, it failed to hold 11 annual Summits for political reasons. India has described the 18th Summit as a success, at least for its umbrella agreement on power sharing. However, any unbiased evaluation of the Summit may not make Indian policy makers happy, particularly for the failure to clinch the key connectivity proposals.

Whether Pakistan so intended or not, its reluctance to accede to the connectivity agreements seems to be a response to India's breach of promised bilateral talks. It also indicates its persisting resistance to India expanding its economic engagement with Afghanistan and blocking India from emerging as a competitor to Pakistan in Afghanistan.

There were some successes too, as the Summit did set the target of forming a regional economic community in the coming 15 years. But for now, some experts believe, this plan sounds more rhetorical than concrete, just like all the talks about removing poverty, fighting terrorism and speeding connectivity etc. The Kathmandu Declaration, which the Summit produced, lists a lot of other lofty goals like developing a "blue economy" (ocean-based economy) for the region, monitoring cyber crimes, good governance, reinforcing cultural heritage, universal health coverage, food security etc. It remains to be seen how effective the actions and implementation on these promises will be.

Inevitably, the underperformance of the Summit has raised some serious doubts about the future of the 30-year-old regional cooperation organisation. Will it ever come of age or will it die prematurely? Or, has it outlived its utility? Although the gesture expressed through the contrived handshake and the exchange of bonhomie between Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan sent a sigh of relief across the subcontinent living in the shadows of a looming arms race, it has all but failed to rise up to the expectations of a quarter of the world's humanity in advancing harmonious coexistence and enhanced collaboration for prosperity.