[DJ Sahastra]

A well-researched analysis on the reasons for SAARC postponement by India.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/02/07/d50207020326.htm

Saarc postponement: Why?
Harun ur Rashid

The 13th Saarc Summit has been postponed twice. The first postponement was due to the natural cause of devastating tsunami of December 26 which resulted in the death of thousands of people and massive destruction of property in Saarc member countries India, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. The second postponement appears to be entirely due to the perceived unstable political situation in Nepal and Bangladesh.
The postponement of the summit does not augur well for the image of the Bangladesh government. The timing is unfortunate for the government because the assassination of Kibria has raised concern in the international community as to where the country is going and why under the current government. The postponement of the summit strengthens the negative perception of the Bangladesh government.


It also puts back many ideas for regional cooperation, particularly in economic areas, that India has been insisting on for other member countries, including agreement on some elements of South Asia Free Trade Agreement, proposal of bilateral FTA, transit rights and introduction of single currency in South Asia among member countries. The summit would have been the "catalyst" for resurgence of economic activities within the South Asian region as Saarc enters the third decade of its existence.


On February 2, Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh decided not to attend the summit in Dhaka to be held on February 6-7. India's External Affairs Secretary Shyam Saran explained why Prime Minister Singh would not be able to attend.

He reportedly said: "The decision has been taken against the background of recent developments in our neighbourhood which have caused us grave concern."

He used the term "neighbourhood" implying Nepal and Bangladesh. He obviously referred to the volatile political situation in Nepal as the 63-year old King dismissed the government on February 1 and took control of the country himself, contrary to the system of Constitutional Monarchy. Further, Saran was quoted to have said in a press release issued by the Indian High Commission in Dhaka that "the security situation in Dhaka has deteriorated in recent days following the fatal attack on the former Finance Minister of Bangladesh."

India has not been seen to be enthusiastic in attending the summit in Dhaka as it had shortened the duration of the summit to the minimum possible. Whether it is due to security or other reasons, it is difficult to pinpoint.


The Saarc summits have never been held regularly. The 12th summit in Pakistan had to be postponed because India's then Prime Minister was not comfortable to meet with the Pakistani military President at a time when their state of bilateral relations was low because of the Kashmir situation.


The 13th Summit met a similar fate. Although two reasons were cited by India, there appears to be other reasons, some of which may deserve mention below:


First, Saarc had a limping start from the very beginning (1985). It is a forum of regional cooperation in name only. Political misunderstandings and distrust underlie the implementation of the objectives of regionalism. There seems to be no glue sticking together all the member countries. India does not feel comfortable sitting with the other member countries because of perceived absence of democratic traditions in those countries. Essentially, there is no golden common thread binding the member countries

Second, India is strategically located in the middle of South Asia and almost all member countries are its neighbours. Although neighbours maintain the "correct" political relationship with India, there is a murmur of complaints against India on many unresolved bilateral issues. India is regarded as a "bully" by others, whether the perception is right or wrong, that is another matter. India suspects that other countries may gang up against India's policy towards them.


Third, The Nepali King's dramatic action to dismiss the Prime Minister without calling him to face confidence motion in Parliament appears to be a "dictatorial" one and arguably such action has no justification under constitutional monarchial system where the King reigns but does not rule the country. Naturally India is gravely concerned with the situation because Nepal comes within the security parameters of India.


Fourth, India's offer of assistance to the democratic government in Nepal to address the Maoist insurgency has become irrelevant because of the change of political situation. India does not wish to help a monarch who has been consistently accused of indulging in factional politics, destroying the edifice of a democratic government under constitutional monarchy.


In fact, India perceives some "hidden agenda" in the King's action in dismissing for the second time the parliamentary government and taking charge of the country. Recently Nepal, believed to be under pressure from China, has shut the door on Tibetans fleeing through Nepal to India. The Dalai Lama's office in Nepal has been closed.


Fifth, The King's action raised concerns in the US, the UK, and the UN. Secretary General Annan is quoted to have said that the King's action is a serious setback for the country. The US which provides Nepal's army with weapons, has came out with a statement that it is "deeply troubled" by the apparent step back from democracy. In London, the Foreign Office summoned the Nepalese Ambassador to convey its "grave concerns" over the King's action.


India claims to be the largest democratic country in the world and is proud of its democratic and secular principles. In light of the international concern over events in Nepal, the Indian Prime Minister's sitting face-to-face with the Nepali King who was scheduled to attend the summit would not go well internationally. This would convey that nothing had been politically wrong in Nepal and imply the acceptance of action of the King in dismissing the government. Such position is also not acceptable to India and to Nepali political leaders, some of whom have been arrested.


Sixth, the assassination of Mr. Kibria, an important member of Awami League and an MP, strengthens India's perception that the current government in Bangladesh is not doing enough to contain intolerant conduct of some extremists towards opposition political leaders and other religious sects including the Ahmadiyyas.

The report of the New York Times on January 23 by its reporter Eliza Griswold who traveled to Bangladesh has been damaging indeed. She concludes: "The global war on terror is aimed at making the rise of regimes like that of the Talibans impossible, in Bangladesh the trend could be going the other way."

Although the government dismissed outright the report of Times, it does not impress people outside the country because Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the US counter-terrorism chief of State Department, Ambassador Cofer Black expressed concern on the emergence of unacceptable level of intolerance in Bangladesh.


Finally, under the prevailing situation in Bangladesh, Prime Minister of India does not want to give the impression that democratic principles of moderation, compromise, and tolerance have been sailing smoothly in Bangladesh. His action to not attend the summit could be for both domestic and external reasons. His non-attendance will give a strong negative signal to donor countries of Bangladesh.

It is not what Bangladesh government perceives it to be. Its countless denials of the current intolerant situation in society must be demonstrated by determined actions. The two violent incidents of grenade attacks -- one on August 21, 2004 and the other on January 27, 2005 -- have generated serious concern among friends of Bangladesh.


What counts is how the rest of the world looks or views Bangladesh under the current government. Perception of a country is derived from a multiplicity of contacts and interactions that Bangladesh has with the rest of the world at different levels, governmental and private, and in different spheres. Perception derived from one sphere spills over to another and they cannot be separated. The sooner the government takes visible actions to hold the culprits accountable, the better is for Bangladesh's image around the world and among its friends.


Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.