TAKEAWAYS FROM ASEAN FOR SAARC

In the month of August, the year 1967, five South East Asian countries signed the Bangkok Declaration which created a new regional group called the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It now has grown to become a group of ten nations consisting of Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. With ideas to accelerate economic growth, social progress, and cultural development, ASEAN has largely been successful in creating a platform for dialogue and conflict resolution among its members by facilitating ideas of constructivism through approaches like ‘ASEAN Way’ that promotes informal talks in helping maintain regional stability. On the other hand, The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was founded in 1985 with a similar aim to promote collective growth and development in the South Asian region that had India and its neighbours as members. SAARC as an institution, the idea of which was first thrusted by the former Bangladesh President Ziar-Ur-Rehman, in contrast to ASEAN has seen limits on its effectiveness due to various historical and political animosities among its members primarily between India and Pakistan.

Despite the geographical proximity, the two regional entities have adopted distinct sets of approaches to regional integration given the unique challenges they face. Beyond these challenges, unlike SAARC, ASEAN has been able to establish itself as a coveted model of regional integration. Scholars like Rajeesh Kumar enumerates SAARC as an example of retarded regionalism that continues to operate but without making any progress towards its mandate. To record, the SAARC leaders have not met since 2014 while the ASEAN leaders compulsorily meet twice a year. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to make a comparative study (in a few areas) of the two groupings to help look into various takeaways for SAARC from ASEAN for its revival.

Economic sphere:

Despite being a very diverse region and a theatre of instability, ASEAN’s achievement in economic integration has had a significant mark in the world. The history of the establishment of the ASEAN Free Trade Area can be traced to 1992 and its primary consideration was to boost intra regional trade and investment flows. This led to the formation of  the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 that aimed to create a single market and production base facilitating flow of goods and services effectively along with enhancing ASEAN’s economic advancements globally by attracting foreign investments. ASEAN adopted a pragmatic (Kishore Mahbubani described ASEAN as an example of pragmatic regionalism) and inclusive approach to regional cooperation through persisting theories of liberalism which emphasises the role of international institutions in fostering cooperation and interdependence among the member states. ASEAN’s ability to trust and build confidence among the member states have helped them foster better trading practices for economic development. ASEAN’s combined GDP is today approximately placed at USD 3.0 trillion which makes it the fifth largest in the world after US, China, Japan and Germany.

In a similar attempt to encourage economic development and improve trade relations within the region, SAARC nations signed agreements like the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA). However, due to various disagreements and particularly between India and Pakistan, SAFTA has failed to realise its cause and to boost trade within the region.  SAFTA accounts for only 6 percent of global GDP (in terms of purchasing power parity), 2 percent of the world’s goods trade and 3 percent of global Foreign direct investments. Most economies of South Asia are also currently facing various political and financial deficiencies and their concerns exacerbated more by power shortage, archaic labour laws, inefficient custom procedures and trade regulations etc.

Conflict management:

Despite external and internal discrepancies on border issues and otherwise, ASEAN is known to have managed crisis well and resolved conflict within the region.  The organisation has effectively addressed various challenges, such as territorial disputes and regional security issues. The grouping has majorly promoted dialogue and cooperation among member states which has become important in maintaining stability in the region as it emphasises on constructivist theory of collective understanding in shaping international relations. Additionally, signing of various agreements and treaties have a strong bearing on regional cooperation which includes ASEAN concord, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the Zone of Peace, Treaty of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone etc. Self-restraint, de-escalation and non threatening behaviour have been the main ingredients of conflict management in ASEAN. Bilateral conflicts in the region have never led to ugly proportions as they usually do in the SAARC. ASEAN’s Conflict management approaches fall in the conflict prevention category.  Although there is no doubt that arriving at a consensus has not been an easy task altogether, the lack of complete unanimity has been managed by the strategy of consensus minus x. This scheme allows the member states to abstain or opt out and let those in favour to proceed without any resentment. An example of the same is regarding the ASEAN Free Trade Area which allowed the mature economies to proceed with the scheme while giving time to the CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam) members time to adapt itself to the reforms before opening their economies. 

Whereas, the disputes between the South Asian countries have manifested themselves in outright wars (India and Pakistan), low intensity conflicts (India and Bangladesh), and in the Indian military presence in Sri-Lanka and Maldives, cross border terrorism (Kashmir), a deliberating arms race between the region’s nuclear rivals, and hostile propaganda. Indo -Sri Lankan relations have been no less acrimonious, ranging from India's intervention in the island nation’s ethnic conflict to competing maritime claims (Katchatheevu island issue). The region continues to have deep rooted historical anonymities which undermines the idea of shared identity to shape relations in the international scenario ultimately leading to it being called an ineffective body. SAARC has played no role in managing the conflicts in the region and its progress has been marred because of them, as seen in the case of stalled summits and cancelled meetings. Thus many scholars opine that SAARC has been largely unable to create a South Asian identity and thus categorically failed at both the political and economic front. 

Extra-regional actors as contributing or constraining force:

In Southeast Asia, the role of the US has been quite noteworthy. It has also elevated its relationship with ASEAN to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and has largely supported ASEAN since its inception and continues to contribute to its regional stability. ASEAN states are very considerate of their autonomy in the regional matters and therefore have developed a multi-pronged approach when it comes to engage with other powers in the region and across the globe and has actively engaged in formal dialogues with them. Indonesia, which is the largest nation in the region, despite its weariness to outsiders has not been unduly restrictive in engaging with the other powers. The concept of ASEAN centrality ensures that the other engaging powers respect its role and interests. However the recent developments with China aggressively investing in the region through its Belt and Road Initiative possess a threat to ASEAN’s unity with few countries wanting to categorically see the economic opportunity only. To this, many scholars have also warned the regional grouping of getting into a debt trap. Challenge also hovers when China illegally claims part of territories of many ASEAN states in the South China Sea. The issue exacerbates when China refuses to adhere to the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and few unaffected member states exclaim this to not be a priority for them. 

SAARC countries on the other hand are very much driven by the ideas of security dilemma and identity crisis and its paralysis is very much seen as a result of the same. With the inclusion of Afghanistan in SAARC in 2007, the United States saw more possibilities of conflict rather than hopes for stability. Smaller countries have mostly viewed India as a bullying big brother in the region. SAARC was created to initially challenge regional hegemony and this also remains a major reason for why many countries of SAARC are tilting towards China to counter balance India. To acknowledge India as the heavyweight regional power has never been accepted by the member states and also by the external mentors. There have also been instances where the United States and China have supported Pakistan in its bid to balance India.

Conclusion

SAARC and ASEAN, despite the geographical proximity and being driven by similar ideas of better regional cooperation, their approaches differed vastly. ASEAN’s successful cooperation should serve as a roadmap for SAARC. ASEAN through dialogues and collaboration among its member states looked into the potential capabilities of the region in order to grow and foster regional cooperation. However, SAARC’s potential largely remains untapped. ASEAN’s unique way of negotiation through dialogue mechanisms and conflict resolution serves as an example to bring stability and cooperation in the region. With a broader motive of inclusivity SAARC can reignite its journey towards enhanced regional cooperation by trying to foster trust among member states, implementing pragmatic economic policies, adopting conflict prevention strategies and better institutionalisation of external engagement. While it remains no secret that the greatest roadblock to SAARC’s reengagement is Pakistan and its sponsoring of terrorism, many experts also maintain that should India demonstrate political willingness and function as a hegemonic stabiliser, Pakistan’s churlish behaviour will become marginal.