After much debate on the theme, worry about completing preparations in time and the controversies surrounding the Indian PM Narendra Modi’s now cancelled visit to Janakpur and Lumbini the 18th Saarc Summit is currently underway in Kathmandu. Darshan Karki spoke to Arjun Bahadur Thapa, Saarc Secretary General, about Saarc’s shortcomings, the role of the Saarc Secretariat, and expectations from the Summit.

Why does Saarc remain the least integrated regional body, unlike the European Union (EU) and Asean, despite almost three decades of its existence?  

First of all, our history is shorter than that of other regional bodies so it will take time for integration. In addition, agreements that could help integrate the region have only been signed and implemented recently. For instance, it has only been eight years since the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (Safta), which is aimed at boosting integration through trade, was implemented in 2006. Likewise, there is the Saarc Agreement on Trade in Services, which was implemented in 2012.

Furthermore, a railway agreement, motor vehicles agreement, and an agreement for energy cooperation—all of which will help integrate the region—have recently been finalised. Whether they will be agreed upon by the member states or not will be known at the Summit.  

Still, what has hampered growth in intra-regional trade despite Safta?  

This could be because the provisions within Safta are not so attractive. For instance, if the rules of origin were a bit relaxed; the tests carried out in one country were valid in another; the sensitive lists of goods were reduced (which all countries have not done) the region could be more integrated.

Speaking of integration, some say that building on bilateral relations will help the region come closer while others are of the opinion that it is precisely this focus on bilateral ties which has pushed back the agenda of regional integration. What do you think?

Focus on bilateral ties does not hamper regional integration. In Saarc, it is not compulsory that the issues discussed in it or projects be of relevance to all eight member nations. Sub-regional projects, for example, issues that concern only say three nations are also approved. So it’s not true that bilateral relations have overshadowed multilateral ties.

India, for instance, has removed all but 25 items from its sensitive list for LDCs [Least Developed Countries].This is a huge achievement.

Nonetheless, it was Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to Saarc leaders to his oath-taking ceremony that gave some impetus to the regional body, even as the Saarc Secretariat has been around for so long. Why the lack of initiative to invigorate things on its part?

The Saarc Secretariat does not interfere in any political event, like bringing the leaders of member nations together. It is not its job to do so. It prepares documents for various delegations, conducts studies based on the mandate of member states, and  provides various services during conferences and meetings. It acts as a liaison among member states. Its role is definitely limited. It has no political role like that of UN, which holds negotiations between and among nations.

Should the Saarc Secretariat have a greater role?

Yes. For instance, there are now talks of project-based cooperation with Observers. Under this, the Saarc Programming Committee has recommended that all the projects by Observer nations be discussed with the Saarc Secretariat. So it seems as if member states also want to give the Secretariat a greater role.

How can Saarc capitalise on the interest of Observers?

Among the nine observer nations [Australia, China, the European Union, Iran, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Myanmar, and the US] the EU, Australia, China, Japan and South Korea are already working in close collaboration with Saarc member states on various areas of development, like providing training in agriculture. Saarc welcomes them to develop projects. And if the member nations think that they are feasible, their cooperation is always welcome.

Talking of the upcoming Summit, given the history of the event, do you think it will be any different from the previous ones, which have almost always been overshadowed by India-Pakistan relations?

I think there is greater understanding among member states now. One good sign is that all the countries in South Asia currently have democratically elected governments who have the people’s mandate. So our regional leaders are very flexible and are motivated by the need to do something for the region. I think the Summit will create a conductive environment to take Saarc forward.

What makes you so hopeful? Saarc Summits are often described as mere talk shops.

I do not believe that Saarc is only a talk shop. Many good things have happened through Saarc in areas of poverty alleviation, trade, human trafficking, children’s rights, nutrition, sanitation, and security. There has been policy harmonisation as member states have to make enabling legislations based on agreements made in the Summit. So one cannot say that Saarc has not done anything.

So what is the broad vision of Saarc?

The Saarc’s objective is to raise the living standards of people living in this region by any means possible.

But why don’t we see Saarc’s role in doing so? For instance, Nepal has greatly reduced absolute poverty in the last two decades. This seems to have taken place regardless of Saarc’s vision.

There are Saarc Development Goals (SDGs), which mention poverty alleviation. It has 22 goals and 65 indicators encompassing poverty, health, education, environment, etc. All the eight nations have strived to achieve those goals and thereby, made progress.

But we talk of achieving or having achieved Millennium Development Goals, never SDGs. Isn’t this indicative of something?

No, we do talk of SDGs too.

Lastly, talking of Saarc preparations, could things have been done any differently, causing less problems for the public?

All logistics related to the event is handled by the Government of Nepal. So though I cannot speak for the Nepali government, some inconveniences might have been caused to the public due to security concerns surrounding the event. It must have been absolutely necessary to do so.