Abstract
South Asia is the least integrated region in the world, despite the existence of multilateral organisations like South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMST-EC). Various reasons have been put forward for the lack of integration in the region. It has been argued that South Asia suffers from major fault lines in the political, sociocultural and economic sectors, because of intrastate or interstate problems like: (a) political conflicts between the countries of South Asia; (b) balance of power equation; (c) different political systems and different levels of democratisation; (d) different domestic decision-making structures; (e) communal violence; (f) nationalism; (g) different socio-economic development; which have hindered the regional integration. Indo-Pakistan conflict has been made responsible for the lack of progress in the SAARC. However, the regional organisations without Pakistan like Indian Ocean Rim–Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC), BIMST-EC and the Mekong–Ganga Cooperation (MGC) are also facing with the same problems of lack of achievement and institutional stasis. Since India is a member of all these organisations, it has mostly been said that India’s hegemonic position in the regions has affected regional cooperation. Given the economic position of India in the regions, India can easily reap the economic advantages of regional cooperation by exclusively entering into bilateral agreement with the countries, rather than participating in regional multilateral agreements. Why then India has entered into different regional agreements? Secondly, why other countries of the region have not tried to cooperate in South Asian regional cooperation excluding India? Mr. Arndt Michael tried to address these questions in the book under review by studying and examining four regional organisations in South Asia and its neighbouring regions, namely: SAARC, BIMST-EC, IOR-ARC and MGC.
It has been identified by the author that all of these four organisations have so far exhibited comparable deficiencies and have failed to achieve a greater level of integration. There is a gap between rhetoric in favour of regional cooperation and institutional reality in these regions. There is also the problem of overlapping membership in these four organisations. Several countries of South Asia are also member of thematically similar regional arrangements.
Mr. Michael examined the genesis and evolution of regional multilateralism from a normative standpoint by using the vantage point of India’s foreign policy ideas, norms and values and Indian way of responding to and implementing regional multilateralism, which he considers as an external international norm. It has been argued that although the original initiative for the formation of SAARC, IOR–ARC, BIMSTEC and MGC always came from smaller states, India’s foreign policy culture and norms, which is firmly rest on Panchsheel principles, concept and policy of non-alignment, paradigm of bilateralism and focus on past civilisational achievement and on civilisational-historical continuity, has influenced regional multilateralism in South Asia and in the neighbouring region. In author’s words, ‘process of norm localisation transformed the global norm of regional multilateralism to a specifically Indian style multilateralism’ (p. 111). For India, traditional conceptions of sovereignty and independence—that is, political realism—have always remained vital for regional cooperation and therefore, it has always ensured that regional multilateralism is based on this political realism. India’s state identity and Indian cultural idiosyncrasies shaped a very peculiar form of regional multilateralism which is named by author as Panchsheel multilateralism (pp. 111, 181). Author argues that as a result of India’s emphasis on ‘Panchsheel multilateralism’ ‘genuine regional multilateralism’ cannot be detected either in South Asia or in the Indian Ocean, the Bay of Bengal and the Mekong–Ganga area. Panchsheel multilateralism cannot enable cooperation beyond Free Trade Area and regional cooperation only in sectors dealing with low politics such as culture and education (p. 188). According to the author, regional multilateralism to be successful must have 13 key features, such as: minimum of three independent states, voluntary formation, equal voting rights, working together to achieve specific goals and projects, coordination of national policies, rejection of unilateralism in agreed fields and inclusive approach, diffuse reciprocity, institutional set up, common identity building, institution building, regional geographical clarity, possibility of discussing bilateral issues and absence of normative hegemon. Absence of any of these elements can make regional multilateralism weaker and less robust. Unfortunately, Panchsheel multilateralism ‘exhibits a shallow degree of institutionalisation and the lowest degree of commitment and interdependence of interstate cooperation. It lacks institutional robustness, cannot fulfil the archetypal aims of regional multilateralism, and is bound to remain in state of underachievement’ (p. 17).
Mr. Michael has also identified the phenomenon of competing regionalism in his study of South Asia and adjacent regions. The four organisations mentioned above overlap in membership and geographical area and thus reciprocally compete for political and economic resources, which result in competition among the organisations. The author argues that by founding the IOR-ARC, BIMST-EC and MGC alongside the SAARC and by deliberately excluding certain countries from joining these organisations, India has started a process of competing regionalism (p. 183).This process however, has led to a weakening of all organisations, rather than further strengthening integration in the regions.
The book under review argues that as a hegemon India will always influence the institutional set-up of the organisation and the potential for its independent evolution. Hence, regional multilateralism in South Asia and beyond will never follow the same paths as the European model. According to the author, India has until now, sacrificed regional multilateralism on the altar of national pride. Therefore, author suggests for a more proactive role of India as well as a genuine and lasting Gujral style way of dealing with regional cooperation and a concomitant process of norm localisation and norm sublimation that is benign towards regional multilateralism (p. 192). A paradigm shift in the perspectives on regional multilateralism and a new normative set-up is required in this regard to achieve the aspired success in the regional cooperation.
It is true that India must play a bigger role to make the regional integration a success story, but the author has put too much burden on India by stating that, ‘India alone will determine the future course of regional multilateralism in South Asia, the Indian Ocean Rim, the Bay of Bengal, and the Mekong Ganga’ (p. 192). Author has rightly mentioned that the rhetoric of promoting regional multilateralism has never been followed up by determined action by the Indian leaders. However, same thing can also be said for other countries in the region too. In other words, responsibility to achieve success in regional integration should also be borne by other countries of the region.
The author has clearly mentioned at the very outset that the book examines—the genesis and evolution of regional multilateralism in South Asia and beyond—from the vantage point of India’s foreign policy. As far as arguments made on the impact of India’s foreign policy on the discourse are concerned, they are totally justified and valid. However, there are various other factors and issues with some of the member countries of these organisations which also affect the growth of regional cooperation. The book under review has totally ignored those factors and as a result gives an impression that India is solely responsible for the slow progress of all the four regional organisations mentioned above.
Nevertheless, the book provides a rich analysis of India’s contribution in the discourse, the development and the institutional designs of regional multilateralism. The value of the book also lies in its detail discussion on the origin and evolution of the SAARC, BIMSTEC, IOR-ARC and MGC as well as a comprehensive analysis of ‘India’s Cognitive Prior’.