Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Wolfgang-Peter Zingel
(South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University)
- Location:
- 25H79
- Start time:
- 23 July, 2014 at
Time zone: Europe/Zurich
- Session slots:
- 3
Short Abstract:
There has been little cooperation among the South Asian states so far. Bilateral relations are strained and SAARC has a limited mandate. Attempts at bilateral, intra- and extra-regional arrangements - political, economic social, ecological and strategic - would merit more academic attention.
Long Abstract:
The founding of the South Asian Regional Cooperation (SAARC) by India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives in 1985 was to create a forum for discussion rather than an instrument for regional integration. After more than a generation, Afghanistan joining and the creation of a dozen of SAARC institutions in the fields of common interest, SAARC is still discussing only common, non-bilateral and non-contentious issues, reflecting the fact that the region is home to two of the most dangerous conflicts in the world. There is no other regional cooperation where two members are nuclear powers, engaged in low intensity warfare and from time to time at the brink of a nuclear showdown, and where civil war and cross-border terrorism is raging.
In pre-colonial and during colonial times the region, or at least a great part of it, had been under common rule. Neighbouring regions along the borders often have more in common than with the other regions of their own country.
The member countries share natural resources, the most important is water. Kashmir, to quite an extent is a conflict over water and water power.
As not much progress from SAARC is expected, member countries have been looking for other alliances within and outside of South Asia, especially with a view to Southwest and Central, but also to East and Southeast Asia.
The panel is to look at the various economic, social, political, ecological and strategic aspects of cooperation among the states in South Asia.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury (Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata)
Paper short abstract:
The concept of sovereignty in the post-colonial South Asia is antithetical to the concept of supra-nationality. Against this backdrop the proposed study will focus on the logistics of regional cooperation in South Asia.
Paper long abstract:
The objectives of the proposed paper are two-fold: a) to understand the structure and process of decision-making in the SAARC and b) to examine how, in South Asia, the question of state sovereignty comes into conflict with the concept of supra-nationality, the basis on which a regional organization actually works. In fact, it would perhaps be difficult to imagine a functioning regional institution without some amount of supra-national authority. In that sense, an effective regional cooperation may not be realized without a redefinition of sovereignty.
Apart from the colonial past, the nation-building process and the concomitant national security perspective in the post-colonial era have shaped the concept of sovereignty in this region in a particular manner, which seem to be antithetical to the concept of supra-nationality. Although the structure of SAARC was fashioned largely on the ASEAN model, the founders of the SAARC deliberately ruled out the "consensus building procedure" of the latter. Instead they prescribed the procedure of "unanimous decision making". The colonial past and the incidents of partition made them skeptical about the newly achieved sovereignty. Therefore, they did not have any intention to compromise the state sovereignty for the sake of supra-nationality of the proposed regional organization. Against this backdrop the paper intends to study the logic of regional cooperation in South Asia.
Arndt Michael (University of Freiburg)
Paper short abstract:
The paper examines the genesis and evolution of SAARC, BIMST-EC, IOR-ARC and MGC by using the theoretical perspective of norm localization. It focuses especially on India and traces the impact of India's foreign policy on the discourse, development and institutional designs of regional multilateralism.
Paper long abstract:
While successful processes of regional multilateralism are taking place in all corners of the world, South Asia and its neighbouring regions have not been able to successfully cooperate in a regional framework. At present, there are four regional organizations or initiatives: the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral-Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC), the Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC) and the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC) Initiative. The paper attempts to provide an answer to the question why all four organizations have not been able to succeed in their respective fields of inter-state cooperation and have failed to provide a functioning framework of cooperation. In short, the focus of the paper is the genesis and evolution of regional multilateralism from a normative standpoint by using the vantage point of India's foreign policy and the latter's "cognitive prior", i.e. Indian foreign policy ideas, norms and values, and the particular "Indian way" of responding to and implementing an external international norm. The global norm which serves as the analytical point of reference for the paper is regional multilateralism. The paper will examine the process of the localization of regional multilateralism and its implementation in the four specific regions. With this approach - at the interface of international relations, comparative politics, political ideas and political economy -, the idiosyncrasies of regional cooperation in the South Asian region can be portrayed in a new scientific manner.
Veena Ravikumar (Lady Shri Ram College)
Paper short abstract:
The Delhi Dialogue IV of 2012 envisaged India and ASEAN as partners for peace, progress and stability. The paper is about tracing and analysing the footsteps that led to contemporary India-ASEAN relations.
Paper long abstract:
The Delhi Dialogue IV of 2012 envisaged India and ASEAN as partners for peace, progress and stability. Equally important was the evolving security architecture in the Asia-Pacific and finally the building networks of knowledge and science.
India's foreign policy, crafted with the background of two super powers asserting themselves was to find its own role and emerge as a truly independent nation with a truly independent foreign policy. The establishment of an Indian decision making structure was built upon an idealistic and moral principle, of the world around. Non-alignment became the main pillar of Indian foreign policy.
The liberal reforms of 1991 brought out a new thinking with its 'looking towards the East'. India not only began looking eastwards but also acting on it.
India emerged in the 1990s with a fresh approach in its foreign policy objectives and willingly established ties with ASEAN nations. India became a sectoral dialogue partner of ASEAN in 1992. In 1995 India was invited to become a full partner. In 1996 the Asian Regional Forum included Indian membership; annual meetings have been held since 1992.
India's democratic and secular values, English speaking professionals, handicrafts, food and its vast movie industry constitute considerable soft power in the country's policy and relations with ASEAN. Education networks in medicine, sciences, and social sciences enhance the ties. Moreover the Indian diaspora is a crucial actor in India's influence. 6.7million people of Indian origin live in Southeast Asia, sending home increasing amounts of remittances.
Daniel Haines (University of Bristol)
Paper short abstract:
Conflict and cooperation are rhetorical tropes in discussions of Indus Basin water-sharing in India-Pakistan relations. In order to understand the 1960 Indus Water Treaty’s importance, this paper argues for more nuance in analysing the political possibilities that such rhetoric opens and forecloses.
Paper long abstract:
Sharing water resources in the Indus Basin, split between India and Pakistan in 1947, helped sour relations between these hostile neighbours until the signing of the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. The Treaty has since garnered a reputation for stability in an otherwise unsteady binational relationship. But did the Treaty represent meaningful cooperation? Literature on transboundary water-sharing focuses on a binary distinction between inter-state cooperation and conflict. This paper moves the debate forwards, critiquing what we these terms mean. The case of the Indus waters dispute negotiations, and the treaty that followed, demonstrates that physical control over water flows was only one aspect of hydropolitics. The way that politicians, engineers and international experts rhetorically framed conflict and cooperation also created and foreclosed possibilities for political action in domestic and international arenas.
This paper is based on material from government, diplomatic and private papers in Indian, Pakistani, US and UK archives. It argues that initial proposals for 'cooperation' between India and Pakistan stimulated negotiations. Then, during the 1950s, Indian and Pakistani representatives increasingly rejected collaborative water resources development, until the 1960 Treaty rested on partitioning the Indus river system between the two countries. But in a final twist, the Treaty appeared in 1960s discourse as a starting point for broader 'cooperation' between India and Pakistan. Understanding the gap between what the Treaty provided for, and the way that policymakers sought to use it to promote certain kinds of international politics, helps us assess an aspect of India-Pakistan relations that remains vital today.
Inayatullah Baloch (SAI,Heidelberg University)
Paper short abstract:
Pakistan and Iran share a commom border from Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea, populated by various Baloch tribes on both side, which had influence to relations between the two countries since 1947. The paper sets out to look at ethnicity as a factor in the delicate relations.
Paper long abstract:
Pakistan and Iran share a commom border from Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea, populated by various Baloch tribes on both sides, which had influence to relations between the two countries since 1947. The paper sets out to look at ethnicity as a factor in the delicate relations. The role of ethnicity in foreign policy has not been discussed by academic writers. In recent years there have been some attempts to study non-state actors' role in foreign policy. Therefore, an attempt is made to explore the influence of Baloch national movement on the foreign policy of Pakistan and Iran, only to be understood against the background of the history of Baloch national movement.
Dietrich Reetz (Zentrum Moderner Orient)
Paper short abstract:
The paper explores the discourse and practice of the Pakistan government addressing the challenges of tension and conflict with a new turn towards inclusion.
Paper long abstract:
While the situation remains tense in the region and insecurity high in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Pakistan government of Nawaz Sharif is trying to break new ground. It is associating itself with an "Afghan solution" for Afghanistan and is exploring the potential of talks with the Pakistan Taliban. At the same time it is addressing the demand for minimizing tension and conflict with all regional neighbours and powers.
The paper will seek to disaggregate the various options and factors involved to promote a long-term solution: what are the expectations and what the options for the Pakistan government, what the obstacles; can a regional solution work and what role a national consensus can play.
For this purpose the paper will address the political discourse and strategic narrative of the Pakistan leadership on regional politics, security and cooperation.
Wolfgang-Peter Zingel (South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University)
Paper short abstract:
Despite a South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation, regional trade preferences and a regional free trade, neighbouring states rarely enjoy good relations. The reason for the sorry state of relations to quite an extent is a matter of economics and natural resources.
Paper long abstract:
Despite a South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation, regional trade preferences and a regional free trade, neighbouring states in the region rarely enjoy good relations. The reason for the sorry state of affairs to quite an extent is a matter of economics and natural resources. Partition of 1947 not only meant establishing two new states and a painful exchange of population, it created also two economies that became more and more separated. Easily overlooked is the impact of and on natural resources: As a lower riparian Pakistan depends on water that is controlled by its neighbours (India and Afghanistan). The upper riparians not only control the flow of water (in the case of India within the framework of the Indus Water Treaty), they also enjoy first access to hydro-electric power. Kashmir, therefore is as much about control of natural resources, as it is about people and territory. Pakistan, on the other side, controls the transport ways to West and Central Asia; in the case of Central Asia, however, only together with Afghanistan. Similarly the relations between Bangladesh and India are overshadowed by the dispute of the waters of the Ganges and other rivers and India's demand of transit rights. Transit rights is most important for Nepal and Bhutan; for Sri Lanka and the Maldives it is fishing rights. When it comes to discussing socio-economic cooperation in South Asia, economic and ecological relations have to be taken in consideration.