BIMSTEC : Should it be an alternative of or supplementary
to SAARC?
Shiva Prasad Tiwari
(Source of the graphic : The Annapurna Post)
Fourth summit of the Bay of
Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation
(BIMSTEC) concludes in Kathmandu today. On the eve of the summit, that took place in
Nepal for the first time, there have been many news and analyses in Nepali
media about this organization. Most of them have argued that India has been
trying to promote BIMSTEC as an alternative to SAARC. Some have even claimed
that SAARC has already been in deathbed and it is very difficult to revive it. How much water do these claims hold? Will it
be beneficial for Nepal, India, Sri Lanka and other South Asian states to replace SAARC with BIMSTEC? Can
these organizations be not supplementary to each other?
Similar Objectives
Out of eight and seven member
states of SAARC and BIMSTEC respectively, five -Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka- are members of both organizations. India is the most powerful and influential
member of the both organizations but has lately been trying to promote BIMSTEC
at the cost of SAARC. Some of India’s intellectuals and policy makers have even
suggested that India should take initiative to replace SAARC with BIMSTEC. Prior
to fourth summit in Kathmandu, Nepal, BIMSTEC has been a relatively
dormant regional organization.
According to the charter of SAARC
signed during its establishment in December 1985, the objectives of this
organization are- to promote welfare and improve quality of the life of people
of this region; to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural
development and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity
and realise their full potentils; to promote and strengthen collective self
reliance among the countries of South Asia; to strenghen mutual trust and
understanding among each other; to actively cooperate with each other in the
economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields and to cooperate
with other developing countries and international organizations about the
issues of concern of the region. The institutional structure of SAARC has been
designed to translate SAARC’s objectives into reality. The organizational
structure of SAARC comprises of the Summits of the heads of the states or governments
every two years, Council of Ministers, Standing Committee, Programming
Committee, Technical Committees, Working Groups and Expert Groups. There are
also SAARC regional centres about agriculture, energy, trade, climate and
tuberculosis headquartered in different SAARC coutnries. South Asian University
(SAU) in New Delhi in India is most probably the one of the most outstanding
examples of SAARC undertaking that has succeeded in bringing students from
different countries together.
BIMSTEC does not have charter yet but
according to declaration signed by four founding members of this organization
(then called BISTEC) in Bangkok in 1997, it focused more on trade,
investment and technical cooperation. It also aimed at forstering cooperation in
economic, social and cultural sectors. The declarations of third summit of
BIMSTEC held in Nay Pyi Taw in Myanmar in 2014 aimed to ease the visa regime in
order to make the travel citizens of members states easier. This was a
clear indication that this organization also aimed at increasing interactions
in people’s level. They also agreed
to enhance cooperation in the fields of agriculture, environmental protection,
sustainable development and disaster management.
Intellectuals and think tanks having
access to insights of India’s government have said that India is seriously dissatisfied
with the functioning of the SAARC and has found a viable alternative in
BIMSTEC. India has strong culture of
interaction among intellectuals, politicians and policy makers. Hence,
articulations of India’s intellectuals and think tanks can offer important clues
about India’s intentions.
C. Raja Mohan a reputed Indian
analyst, considered close to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
government wrote an article in the
‘Indian Express’ in September 2016,
after it was decided that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi would not take part in SAARC Summit of November of that
year to be held in Pakistan. Some incidents in conflictual India-Pakistan
relations had prompted India to take such decision. Raja Mohan argued that irrespective of the course
India’s relations with Pakistan would take in the future, India was in search
of viable alternative to SAARC. He argued that Modi government was thinking of
revitalising BIMSTEC as an alternative. Though, BIMSTEC was established in 1997, it
was not so active. It did not even have
the charter in 20 years of its establishment.
It’s secretariat was established in Dhaka only in 2014 after 17 years of
its establishment. These indicate that this organization was not taken seriously.
Joyeeta Bhattacharjee in an ‘issue
brief’ prepared for India’s established think tank ‘Observer Research
Foundation’ in January 2018 has compared prospects of SAARC and BIMSTEC. She has
concluded that India should promote BIMSTEC as SAARC has not been able to
function well due to conflict between
India and Pakistan. Similarly in an issue brief prepared by N Chandra Mohan for
the same organization in November 2016 argued that BIMSTEC would be better
platform than SAARC for regional cooperation for India and hence it should aim to revitalize this organization.
Other Indian scholars and think tanks also have made similar arguments.
India and Pakistan had been
hesitant and suspicious about establishment of SAARC right from its inception.
They were afraid that this brainchild of then Bangladeshi president Ziaur
Rahman and supported by smaller countries of South Asia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the the Maldives could be
used by these ‘smaller’ countries to set agenda against their interests.
In international politics,
generally powerful and influential states have greater and more significant
roles in establishment, sustenance and functioning of international and
regional organizations. Though smaller countries of South Asia took initiative
and leading role in establishment of SAARC, the activity and inactivity of
India and Pakistan has had significant impact in efficiency and functioning.
SAARC has been shadowed by the deep and apparently unmanageable conflict
between these two powerful states of South Asia. Out of eighteen summits of
SAARC in three decades of its establishment, eleven were postponed and most of
them due to conflict between India and
Pakistan. This is enough to indicate the degree of impact the conflict between
these states has had upon this regional organization. The nineteenth summit of
SAARC which was supposed to happen in Pakistan in November 2016 has not been
held until now due to India’s unwillingness to participate citing various
incidents of Pakistan’s roles in destabilizing India.
Seven north-eastern provinces of
India- Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal
Pradesh, often clubbed as seven sisters,
are backwards in terms of economic and
infrastructure development vis-à-vis other states. Many of these states had to
pass through ethnic conflicts for decades and some of the dissidents had even
demanded from separate statehood. Indian state has been time and again accused
of neglecting these states. India’s ‘Look East Policy’ plans to establish
territorial connectivity with South East Asia via its problematic North-East
through multiple and developed means of connectivity. This, India hopes will uplift
the economy of these seven sisters at par with ‘mainland’ India.
It is difficult to transport goods
to these ‘landlocked’ seven states of India’s north-east from sea ports of West
Bengal and other states of India. The distance would have been much shorter and
cost of transportation could have been significantly minimized if it could use
ports of Bangladesh and Myanmar. To make infrastructure projects for such
purposes also agenda setting through multilateral platforms like BIMSTEC would
be more effective and easier to enforce rather
than through bilateral negotiations. The cooperation in such infrastructure and
transportation of goods can have spillover effects in other sectors of economic
interactions.
Mutually beneficial for India and Thailand
Thailand has pride in not being
colonized even in heydays of colonialism and is an influential power in South-east Asia. It wants to extend its trade and
influence to South Asia and for that has come up with its ‘Look West Policy’.
Many analysts have said that BIMSTEC can be a platform for positive sum gains for
‘Look East Policy’ of India and ‘Look West Policy’ of Thailand and hence it has
brighter prospects.
Though there are minor conflicts
between BIMSTEC member states they have not spoilt overall bilateral relations between them. India has accused Pakistan of trying to bleed it with
thousand cuts by using state sponsored terrorists and has tried to name and
shame and isolate Pakistan in
international forums. India will have strategic gains by promoting BIMSTEC of
which Pakistan will not be a member.
Keep SAARC alive
The new government in Pakistan
under the leadership of Pakistan Tehereek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader and former
renowned cricketer Imran Khan has been able to spread a message of hope in
Pakistani people. The new government which came with a promise of ‘Naya
Pakistan (New Pakistan)’ has been trying to win hearts general people by
massively cutting the expenditures of politicians elected to government
offices. Pakistan’s new Prime minister Khan has said that improving relations
with India remains his priority. According to analysts and news reports, in the
recent general elections in Pakistan, political parties had promised to improve
relations with India rather than exploiting anti-India sentiments. It is
peculiar in a nation that harbors deep anti-Indian sentiments right from its
birth. The analysts have claimed that Pakistan’s political parties have now
realized that people are not ready to vote for them merely on the basis of
anti-Indian rhetoric. However, Imran
Khan’s good intentions only will not be sufficient to improve multidimensional
and complicated conflict with India. Religious groups and Pakistani Army have
important say and significant influence in Pakistani politics and foreign relations
and in relations with India. Similarly, there are deep rooted anti-Muslim and
anti-Pakistani sentiments in India’s right wing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya
Janata Party which is in government at present. Due to these reasons, it is
difficult to speculate that India and Pakistan will have good and smooth relations
in short span of time. However, if the relations between these two South Asian
powers improve dramatically, which is not unusual in international power
politics, SAARC may revive again. However, probability of this optimistic
scenario is very slim.
Though SAARC has not been able to
function as per objectives, it has developed an institutional structure in its
life span of more than three decades. SAARC has also been in minds and psyche
of general people of SAARC. History has shown that International Organizations
may change their names, their number of members may fluctuate, objectives and
scope may change, but once they get establish, they rarely die. In
context of SAARC, smaller states such as Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka which
took initiative and supported establishment of SAARC might try their best to
save their brainchild which has survived for relatively a long time in spite of many
difficulties.
India might have wanted to revitalize
BIMSTEC as an alternative to SAARC. It
might use its influence over other states using various instruments at its
disposal. However, it will be wiser on the part of smaller states of South Asia
to use both organizations as complementary rather than understanding them as
alternatives. Hence, Nepal and other ‘smaller’ South Asian states would do better
by playing active role to revive and revitalize SAARC. To be active in BIMSTEC and have proactive role in keeping SAARC alive will certainly be better for Nepal’s
status enhancement. Nepal’s
international status which was enhanced significantly during short rule of
Prime Minister BP Koirala and during the Panchayat era has been eroded worryingly
in last few decades.
-This write up is my translation of my article titled ‘BIMSTEC
ma SAARC lai nabirsaun(Do not undermine SAARC in BIMSTEC) published in the
Annapurna Post Nepali national daily on
Friday, 31 August 2018 (15 Bhadra 2075 BS). This is my own translation. It is not a literal translation. Some
descriptions which were not there in Nepali version are here.
