SAARC Tanks: No Agreements Signed After Pakistan's Objections

[hit&run]

KATHMANDU: When Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the SAARC summit this morning, his assessment of the group's accomplishments was frank. "As SAARC we have failed to move with the speed that our people expect and want. Nowhere in the world are collective efforts more urgent than in South Asia; and, nowhere else is it so modest," Mr Modi said.

Barely an hour later, his concerns proved warranted. Pakistan blocked key proposals backed by India and other countries to integrate energy grids and free up road and rail movement, seen as crucial for improving cross-border trade, which remains minimal between SAARC countries.
RELATED
India Will Support Surveillance of Polio-Free Countries: PM Modi
India Can Connect SAARC Students Through e-Libraries: PM Modi
At SAARC, PM Modi Announces Business Visas, Satellite For Region

It was decided that no agreements would be signed, ensuring the first SAARC summit in three years has turned out to be a whopping non-achiever.

Three agreements had been prepared ahead of the summit, two on improving road and rail connections and one on making it easier for countries in the power-starved region to trade in electricity. None will proceed because of Pakistan's objections.

In its 30 years, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has delivered negligible results for economic ties and development among its eight members - Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Despite a free trade pact since 2006, South Asian nations conduct only 5 per cent of their total trade with each other, and there are few transport and power links among them.

Experts agree that cooperation between New Delhi and Islamabad is key to the success of SAARC. This gathering comes just weeks after some of the worst cross-border violence in Kashmir - 20 civilians were killed last month. Mr Modi is holding meetings on the sidelines of the summit with all SAARC leaders except Mr Sharif.

The Pakistani Prime Minister has said the ball is in India's court because Delhi cancelled talks earlier this year after the Pakistani envoy consulted Kashmiri separatists ahead of a scheduled dialogue between the Foreign Secretaries of both countries.

Why Pakistan will have constipation if SAARC countries will be better connected?

The blot of South Asia a minion state of China suffering from poly-master abuse Pakistan has been deliberately making SAARC ineffectual and dysfunctional so that it can justify entry of China in the group.

Now it should be clear to all those lotus eater hallucinating Indians like Mani Shankar et al that stable Pakistan is not in our interest.

 

[Nicky G]

SAARC was always a non-starter. I understand that India wants to extend its influence in the region to counter China but I don't see this particular medium succeeding. I'd much rather rely on bilateral relations in that regard.

Why Pakistan will have constipation if SAARC countries will be better connected?

The blot of South Asia a minion state of China suffering from poly-master abuse Pakistan has been deliberately making SAARC ineffectual and dysfunctional so that it can justify entry of China in the group.

You answered you question, Pak wants China in and will do what it feels is required. Apart from irritating India because of their refusal to continue the utterly useless talks with Pak.

Now it should be clear to all those lotus eater hallucinating Indians like Mani Shankar et al that stable Pakistan is not in our interest.

The likes of Mr. 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible' are far too gone to change their tune.

 

[Srinivas_K]

The efforts are already on the way the connectivity between Nepal, Bhutan, BD , Myanmar and Srilanka will be improved but with another name.

As always Pakistan has its own strategic interests that do not coincide with SAARC nations or S.Asia.

 

[hit&run]

SAARC was always a non-starter. I understand that India wants to extend its influence in the region to counter China but I don't see this particular medium succeeding. I'd much rather rely on bilateral relations in that regard.

There is nothing non starter in Geo politics, we have just witnessed Pakistanis showing their true color one more time. A good nation can use adversary's flip flops to its advantage. Saying it as a non starter is a bad propaganda even if it is a non starter like you have said.

You are absolutely correct about bilateral-ism, I agree.

The likes of Mr. 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible' are far too gone to change their tune.

No they are still relevant, because they sit in an ambush to gain every thing they have lost on single low of present government. To decieve troll and misconstrue is their specialty. They represent all the defeatists of India and can contaminate innocent minds who are yet not immunized with inability to read between the lines.

 

[DingDong]

Modi in his speech clearly indicated if "few" don't agree then India will talk to "many" others and seal the deal.

 

[amoy]

Such an accusation of Pakistan paralyzing SAARC to justify China's entry is unfounded.

Rather than on the multilateral SAARC, India could have done it on bilateral basis for integration of energy grids and connectivity free from Pakistan's "objection". In the regard of connectivity China is moving ahead with Nepal (e.g. railway), and BD respectively overland, outside of SAARC. Such an agreement is merely paperwork, more tokenism of "solidarity" than substance. In fact India's started a lot in Nepali hydropower projects (PSA). Can't blame your own inaction on others.

 

[DingDong]

Such an accusation of Pakistan paralyzing SAARC to justify China's entry is unfounded.

Rather than on the multilateral SAARC, India could have done it on bilateral basis for integration of energy grids and connectivity free from Pakistan's "objection". In the regard of connectivity China is moving ahead with Nepal (e.g. railway), and BD respectively overland, outside of SAARC. Such an agreement is merely paperwork, more tokenism of "solidarity" than substance. In fact India's started a lot in Nepali hydropower projects (PSA). Can't blame your own inaction on others.

Except Pakistan none of the other SAARC nation advocated inclusion of China, tells a different story than you have been trying to portray. Nepal's economy is joint to the Indian economy by hip and Bangladesh government owes us a lot for our support during difficult times. China has surrendered in Nepal, Bangladesh is drifting away.

 

[amoy]

Except Pakistan none of the other SAARC nation advocated inclusion of China, tells a different story than you have been trying to portray. Nepal's economy is joint to the Indian economy by hip and Bangladesh government owes us a lot for our support during difficult times. China has surrendered in Nepal, Bangladesh is drifting away.

I'm glad India is doing fine with NP and BD. It just proves my perspective that bilateral cooperation on one-on-one basis is usually easier than mutilateral, with or without a talking club SAARC.

On a pragmatic note, NP or BD can't be expected to drift with one single partner. Naturally they'd welcome what comes their way in their favour, be it from China or from India.

India has to show what's in it (SAARC) for other members more than a summit.

 

[hit&run]

Such an accusation of Pakistan paralyzing SAARC to justify China's entry is unfounded.

Rather than on the multilateral SAARC, India could have done it on bilateral basis for integration of energy grids and connectivity free from Pakistan's "objection". In the regard of connectivity China is moving ahead with Nepal (e.g. railway), and BD respectively overland, outside of SAARC. Such an agreement is merely paperwork, more tokenism of "solidarity" than substance. In fact India's started a lot in Nepali hydropower projects (PSA). Can't blame your own inaction on others.

India is doing or contemplating bilateral agreements with every neighbor including Pakistan. Pakistan was given MFN status decade ago. Your advice is nothing but an advice for sake of advise.

The same way China's role in UN is mere paperwork, tokenism than substance ?

 

[Nicky G]

There is nothing non starter in Geo politics, we have just witnessed Pakistanis showing their true color one more time. A good nation can use adversary's flip flops to its advantage. Saying it as a non starter is a bad propaganda even if it is a non starter like you have said.

You are absolutely correct about bilateral-ism, I agree.

Not sure how my point comes off as propaganda, bad or otherwise; my sentiment was more general in the sense that India's goals would be met in much more effective manner by the bilateral route than the likes of SAARC. You seem to partly agree with my position though.

Multinational engagements such as the SAARC either become dominated by one or a group of superior powers or are rendered dysfunctional in absence of such forces. I'd argue most such engagements the world over would fall into these categories.

Its not my position that India should not engage in SAARC or similar initiatives, merely that it should not rely on them to achieve its strategic goals.

No they are still relevant, because they sit in an ambush to gain every thing they have lost on single low of present government. To decieve troll and misconstrue is their specialty. They represent all the defeatists of India and can contaminate innocent minds who are yet not immunized with inability to read between the lines.

Again, my point was not whether they are relevant or not, its that they are far too obstinate or far to invested to alter their stance based on this recent development.

The track 2 nonsense is a cottage industry that thrives and will unfortunately continue to do so merely because their cover, peace is always appealing to the public at large.

 

[DingDong]

I'm glad India is doing fine with NP and BD. It just proves my perspective that bilateral cooperation on one-on-one basis is usually easier than mutilateral, with or without a talking club SAARC.

On a pragmatic note, NP or BD can't be expected to drift with one single partner. Naturally they'd welcome what comes their way in their favour, be it from China or from India.

India has to show what's in it (SAARC) for other members more than a summit.

There is just one troublemaker in SAARC, and it has been misusing it's VETO (all decisions have to be unanimous). India has already said that we will move ahead and seal the deals with willing parties if a few try to halt the progress.

If SAARC fails to survive it will not be India's responsibility. If SAARC fails to survive it might actually benefit India.

 

[hit&run]

Not sure how my point comes off as propaganda, bad or otherwise; my sentiment was more general in the sense that India's goals would be met in much more effective manner by the bilateral route than the likes of SAARC. You seem to partly agree with my position though.

Multinational engagements such as the SAARC either become dominated by one or a group of superior powers or are rendered dysfunctional in absence of such forces. I'd argue most such engagements the world over would fall into these categories.

Its not my position that India should not engage in SAARC or similar initiatives, merely that it should not rely on them to achieve its strategic goals.



Again, my point was not whether they are relevant or not, its that they are far too obstinate or far to invested to alter their stance based on this recent development.

The track 2 nonsense is a cottage industry that thrives and will unfortunately continue to do so merely because their cover, peace is always appealing to the public at large.

It is good to see new members are bringing Ideas worth reading. If I may apologies in advance for not being able to answer your posts because of personal reasons, I was/am in agreement with your overall POV.

The real work post SAARC summit for India is to develop its economy and have better things to offer to its neighbors. We have endured enough demage during Sonia Gandhi and its courtiers lead government as far as our relationship with neighbors are concerned. It is time to fill those potholes, Pakistan will remain a bit of distraction all the time and we can live with it.

 

[amoy]

There is just one troublemaker in SAARC, and it has been misusing it's VETO (all decisions have to be unanimous). India has already said that we will move ahead and seal the deals with willing parties if a few try to halt the progress.

If SAARC fails to survive it will not be India's responsibility. If SAARC fails to survive it might actually benefit India.

Yes, no-signing does hurt SAARC's image/prestige but has no bearing on your grid and connectivity plans. IMO the integration of power grid and "free up road and rail movement for improving cross-border trade" is meaningless for Pakistan, because Pakistan borders only with AFG and India and anything of grid or cross-border virtually has to go via a hostile India to other members.

 

[brational]

Interesting developments, But the fact is, SAARC is nothing but India. Barring Afghanistan, all countries are well linked with India(sharing borders), Road/Rail links are already in place/can be established among these countries without a SAARC agreement and Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal shall use each other's infra. Srilanka and Maldives are well linked by sea. So Pakistan's stand is a loser's stand. Pakistan's business with SAAARC will not grow and this is what I perceive from the stand.

On Afghanistan's part, Chabahar will give her the access to SAARC and the rest of the world. Pakistan is acting smart and flying with POK, otherwise every SAARC countries would have been connected with Afghanistan with surface transport, making Pakistan a marginal player in SAARC. So Pak is trying to part with Afghanistan by making Afghanistan isolated from the regional grouping.

All points in the agreement can be taken care of bilaterally except land and rail access to and fro Afghanistan.

So Paki Stand is not a big deal to deal with.

 

[Nicky G]

It is good to see new members are bringing Ideas worth reading. If I may apologies in advance for not being able to answer your posts because of personal reasons, I was/am in agreement with your overall POV.

The real work post SAARC summit for India is to develop its economy and have better things to offer to its neighbors. We have endured enough demage during Sonia Gandhi and its courtiers lead government as far as our relationship with neighbors are concerned. It is time to fill those potholes, Pakistan will remain a bit of distraction all the time and we can live with it.

No issues.

True. The more that India has to and is willing to offer its neighbours, the less likely they are to drift away to other regional powers.

Yes, no-signing does hurt SAARC's image/prestige but has no bearing on your grid and connectivity plans. IMO the integration of power grid and "free up road and rail movement for improving cross-border trade" is meaningless for Pakistan, because Pakistan borders only with AFG and India and anything of grid or cross-border virtually has to go via a hostile India to other members.

I am bit confused here. So according to you, Pak has problems because of anything that goes via a 'hostile' Inida but has no problems importing electricity from the same 'hostile' India?

Besides if its meaningless for them, why oppose it when it may benefit others? Wouldn't that be just petty?

 

[hit&run]

Yes, no-signing does hurt SAARC's image/prestige but has no bearing on your grid and connectivity plans. IMO the integration of power grid and "free up road and rail movement for improving cross-border trade" is meaningless for Pakistan, because Pakistan borders only with AFG and India and anything of grid or cross-border virtually has to go via a hostile India to other members.

Are you that stupid or pretending to be. Opposing the agreement has to have sound logic behind it not the kind of spin you are giving here. By sabotaging something benign and subtle as this agreement was Pakistan has tanked this whole summit, spread the negativity among members and risked the whole group itself. By signing the agreement Pakistan wasn't promising the investment, would still had the privileges to ahead with any of the endeavors of its liking.

 

[shekhar]

No issues.

True. The more that India has to and is willing to offer its neighbours, the less likely they are to drift away to other regional powers.



I am bit confused here. So according to you, Pak has problems because of anything that goes via a 'hostile' Inida but has no problems importing electricity from the same 'hostile' India?

Besides if its meaningless for them, why oppose it when it may benefit others? Wouldn't that be just petty?

Can't v make diff agreements between india & other saarc countries...excapt tht asshole #-----stan...sepreatly..y waste such opportunity

 

[brational]

No issues.

True. The more that India has to and is willing to offer its neighbours, the less likely they are to drift away to other regional powers.



I am bit confused here. So according to you, Pak has problems because of anything that goes via a 'hostile' Inida but has no problems importing electricity from the same 'hostile' India?

Besides if its meaningless for them, why oppose it when it may benefit others? Wouldn't that be just petty?

Getting Electricity from India is a bilateral issue, where signing an agreement means Pakistan has to adhere to the uninterrupted connectivity. Pakistan is more concerned about Indian Trucks reaching Afghanistan than making money from trade and commerce, job, tax collection and so on.

 

[amoy]

Are you that stupid or pretending to be. Opposing the agreement has to have sound logic behind it not the kind of spin you are giving here. By sabotaging something benign and subtle as this agreement was Pakistan has tanked this whole summit, spread the negativity among members and risked the whole group itself. By signing the agreement Pakistan wasn't promising the investment, would still had the privileges to ahead with any of the endeavors of its liking.

It's stupid to assume all members would take it as "benign". Every member of course has its own "logic" to act in its own interest. That's why multilateral coordination is often hard.

Don't sound menacing as if it were a sin not to buy anything u sell.

 

[brational]

Are you that stupid or pretending to be. Opposing the agreement has to have sound logic behind it not the kind of spin you are giving here. By sabotaging something benign and subtle as this agreement was Pakistan has tanked this whole summit, spread the negativity among members and risked the whole group itself. By signing the agreement Pakistan wasn't promising the investment, would still had the privileges to ahead with any of the endeavors of its liking.

Pakistan deliberately sabotaged the agreement considering their interest in Afghanistan. Pakistani policymakers perceived that Indo-pak bilateral issues wont get resolved in their lifetime so why allow other countries and India the benefit to use Pakistan's infra to reach Afghanistan.
POK's geography has made Pakistan so bold, Pakistan is playing cards sitting on our land. POK is the SAARC's land link to Central Asia and Europe. Even China's interest in Pakistan will vanish if India reclaim POK.

India must start pursuing POK so that Pakistan realize it's potential as nothing but a failed terrorist state.