Shyam Saran:

It is said that the logic of geography is unrelenting and proximity is the most difficult and testing among diplomatic challenges a country faces. Therefore, in defining one’s vital national and security interests, a country’s neighbourhood enjoys a place of unquestioned primacy. The intertwining of domestic and external interests has acquired a new intensity. Technological change is creating a more globalised world where nation states and national boundaries can no longer provide the untrammelled autonomy that is associated with national sovereignty. We are faced with the emergence of sub-nationalism and ethnic exclusivity even while a more interconnected world requires mutual understanding and tolerance. South Asia is not immune to these global trends.

On what basis does India define its neighbourhood policy? Most recently, did our reaction to events in our neighbourhood, or our decision to seek postponement of the SAARC Summit, conform to an intelligent and well-considered neighbourhood policy? South Asia is a compact unit, of sub-continental proportions, but occupying an easily identifiable geographical space, enjoying a broad cultural unity and a wide range of intra-regional economic complementarities. Several factors have engendered a sense of siege both among States in our periphery and in India itself. The sub-continent is now home to several independent and sovereign states and this is a compelling political reality. As a democracy, India would welcome more democracy in our neighbourhood, but that too is something that we may encourage and promote; it is not something that we can impose upon others. We must also recognise, regrettable though this may be, that the countries of South Asia, while occupying the same geographical space, do not have a shared security perception and, hence, a common security doctrine. This is different from EU or ASEAN.

Keeping this in mind, our approach to SAARC was the only one logically sustainable — we set aside our differing political and security perceptions for the time being, and focus attention on economic cooperation. Our expectation was that the very dynamic of establishing cross-border economic linkages, drawing upon the complementaries that existed among different parts of our region would eventually help us overcome the mutual distrust and suspicion which prevents us from evolving a shared security perception. In fact, there is deep resistance with SAARC to doing anything that could be collaborative. On the other hand, some members of SAARC actively seek association with countries outside the region or with regional or international organisations, in a barely disguised effort to “counterbalance” India within the Association or to project SAARC as some kind of a regional dispute settlement mechanism. India would not like to see a SAARC in which some of its members perceive it as a vehicle primarily to countervail India or to seek to limit its room for manoeuvre. There has to be a minimal consensual basis for cooperation under SAARC, and that is the willingness to promote cross-border linkages, building upon intra-regional economic complementarities and acknowledging and encouraging the obvious cultural affinities that bind our people together. If there continues to be a resistance to such linkages within the region, even while seeking to promote linkages outside the region, if the thrust of initiatives of some of the members is seen to be patently hostile to India or motivated by a desire to contain India in some way, SAARC would continue to lack substance and energy.

India already has a set of bilateral relationships with its neighbours. What can SAARC offer as an additionality to this set of relationships? Clearly, the creation of a free market of 1.3 billion people can be a significant additionality for all SAARC members. Currently, intra-regional trade accounts for only 5% of SAARC’s total foreign trade and this needs to be addressed. But the mere lowering of tariffs and pruning of negative lists do not add up to a true free market. The political lines dividing South Asia have also severed the transport and communication linkages among member countries. Transit routes, which would have created mutual dependencies and mutual benefit, have fallen prey to narrow political calculations. Unless we are ready to restore these cross-border linkages and transportation arteries throughout our region, SAFTA would remain a limping shadow of its true potential. India constitutes not only a vast and growing market, but also a competitive source of technologies and knowledge-based services. Countries across the globe are seeking mutually rewarding economic and commercial links with India. Should not our neighbours also seek similar links with it? Do countries in our neighbourhood envisage their own security and development in cooperation with India or in hostility to India or by seeking to isolate themselves from India against the logic of our geography? Some neighbours have taken advantage of India’s strengths and are reaping both economic and political benefits. Others are not. If globalisation implies that no country can develop in an autarchic environment, is this not true even more for countries within a region? If SAARC is to address the aspirations of the peoples of South Asia, then these questions will need honest answers. (To be continued)

Saran is India’s Foreign Secretary