Last spring, I went to visit my aunt in India who was at the time organizing the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit for that year. She worked in the Bangladesh government, was adamant about the mission of SAARC, and would often come home telling me the woes of work over afternoon chai.
Created in 1985, “…SAARC provides a platform for the peoples of South Asia to work together in a spirit of friendship, trust and understanding. It aims to accelerate the process of economic and social development in Member States… Cooperation in the SAARC is based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, noninterference in internal affairs of the Member States and mutual benefit.Summits, which are the highest authority in SAARC, are to be held annually [link].”
SAARC to the South Asian region has served as a tool to create a unified regional dialogue as well as present a South Asian perspective into the international markets. I thought it was interesting that as my aunt was working on creating a cohesiveness of South Asians in South Asia I was working to create a cohesiveness of South Asians in America. It looks as if though these two may be getting a little more intertwined.
The US is expected to formally apply for membership as observer of the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)…US Under Secretary John Wright is to formally apply for membership to Dhaka, the current chairman of SAARC. Member counties decided at the last SAARC meeting to include Afghanistan in the regional grouping and invite Japan and China as observers.[link]
The role of an “observer” in SAARC has yet to be defined, much less the U.S.’s role should the SAARC countries vote them in. Why did SAARC decide to allow “observers” to get involved, after 20 years? I see this either having the potential of being really good or really bad. On one hand, allowing the U.S. into the summits as an observer is granting the U.S. permission to ‘big brother’ and watch over the South Asian countries. The work that had previously been behind the closed doors of South Asian solidarity is now going to be observed, which has the potential of compromising the integrity of the summits. On the other hand, some would say SAARC was just a front group anyways, and maybe the invitation of observers will not only push SAARC to be more effective, but further the region into the international economic dialogue.
Official sources said the terms and conditions for new membership and observer status would be finalised at the first meeting of the Saarc Standing Committee, comprised of the foreign secretaries of the member states, on April 10-12 in Dhaka.[link]
Until the observers role is defined at this meeting, it looks like we’ll just have to wait and see.
my, my, arent we quite the nationalistic freak.
i dont think there exists quite the harmony internally, and disharmony externally in the region, as some may/would like/dreaming of.
not being an indian, i can only surmise based on what indians have told me about just how much internal SAARC is going on. and unless ur a b’deshi or pakistani, u should refrain from asserting what would, and what would not go against their very basis for existence. very tall sentiments, very low probability.
I think the sooner we get rid of the “south asian” mentality, the better.. India (just by itself) by population and diversity is comparable to the European Union. A developed India would be like what EU wants to be in the future, single currency, single defence force (NATO) etc..
We (Indians) already have it thanks to the English.. Just concentrate on economic development within India.. having safe and secure borders. It is sad that Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims decided to have their own political arrangement. but it is their wish and they got what they wanted.. Let’s move on and not repeat the crap of “same culture” etc.. etc.. If that’s so why did they decide to split in the first place??.
And if you’re an Indian Punjabi, you have more in common with Punjabis across the border than you do with a Tamil.
Culturally, yes, but not politically. Not politically. Examine how you’d feel if a gora American made statements about having more in common with a gora Canadian across the border rather than someone like you who was born and raised in America.
And I find it necessary to add as clarification – I have no issue with SAA solidarity in America (to each their own). I just take offense to the sort of sentiment revealed by statements above: 1) it delegitimizes India and 2) it misses the whole point of the aspiration to pluralism at the heart of the idea of India (especially funny when progressives miss the point).