Uneasy Lies the Crown of India, and the Kyrgystan Question as Seen by the SCO

Last time I wrote about India, it was in connection with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and how it and Iran were then-observers.

How things change!

As I write this, India is facing the prospect of being a fully-fledged member, where Iran has been royally snubbed!:

In previous summits, the Iranian leader had been warmly welcomed. Last year, SCO leaders congratulated him on a disputed election victory.

In any event, the ban is formal and no country has yet to be admitted. For years experts noted, the admission of new members has been part of SCO discussions and expectations were high.

Media in India and Pakistan welcomed the new membership rules as a success for their countries.

Now the issue will be turned over to diplomatic experts from the various countries, but in some member states, doubts are being raised over the danger of bringing the Indo-Pakistani dispute into the organisation.

Even if India does not say it, I can understand why India, in so many ways, would feel uneasy having Pakistan so closely allied to it in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation--and it's all about Kashmir.

All that said, I believe it would be premature for Russia, China, and some of the other -"stans" (Kazakhstan; Tajikistan; Krygyzstan) to think that having those two countries could destabilise the almost-decade-old regional grouping. This is because the issue of international terrorism predicated on Al-Queda (and less on Kashmir-terrorism) seems to be the more relevant off-late.

Truth be told, I have a serious problem with India and Pakistan joining SCO as members, especially when they seem to be putting little effort into the establishment and development of SAARC. I have less a problem with Pakistan which clout I think would NOT be as great as that of the emerging hegemon-India.

Anyone who has forgotten the "BRIC" alliance of Brazil-Russia-India-China will notice that Pakistan will not feature there anytime soon!

But to be more specific about why the SCO is featured here in this post, let me just say that when I heard of the outbreak of ethnic violence in Uzbekistan, it did not even strike me at all that the country had played host to a summit (as I didn't know!), but the country did ring a bell with me over the SCO.

I re-call that the SCO has been instrumental in formulating a so-called "Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure"--something that made me giddy with excitement a while back. In so many ways, this has resonance with why Pakistan might want to be allied to it.

The Uzbekistan/Kyrgyzstan is not being portrayed as a terrorist problem--more of an unfortunate ethnic one. I find it regrettable given these two countries belong to the increasingly-powerful SCO. I had hoped to read more substantive things coming therefore from the SCO. All I have read so far is this from Pakistan's Daily Times when it writes:

The SCO [has] called for restoring stability in restive Kyrgyzstan through dialogue. Nearly 100 people have died after ethnic riots erupted in southern Kyrgyzstan. SCO’s member states pledged that they are willing to provide necessary support and assistance. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said, “We have a sincere interest in overcoming as quickly as possible this stage of interior disturbances in Kyrgyzstan. We also support the establishment of a modern government that is able to solve the country’s pressing social and economic problems.”

Watch this space as I follow the travails of the SCO in the restoration of peace in this region.

This might well prove to be a test-case for the SCO!

Monday Analysis: Of Regional Designs (ASEAN / SCO / East Asian Community / ECOWAS / SADC / IGAD )

The reason I have not been writing much here has been because I have been having an internal dialogue with myself what I'm really doing with all this reading and analysis on regional integration.

One day last year, my boss caught me printing some stuff about the social dimension of some regional integration initiative, prompting him to ask whether it was just for my "edification" (Not for the first time, I was likened to Kafka who is reputed to have written a novel when working in an apparently-dull job!). Truth be told, in many ways it is, but all this cannot just be for the blog--I aspire to get bigger things out of this enterprise than mere writings left in cyber-space.

My belief in regional integration in so many ways is about a world predicated on arrangements that are conducive to a more peaceful world. No doubt, man is a social animal whose genius finds expression in thinking, thought, and possibilities for a better world. I sincerely believe that "better world" can be found in regional designs.

I am heartened by the fact that 2010 is the Year of Peace and Security for the African Union, as well as the year that the Pan-African organisation will seek to operationalise the African Standby Force. I still cannot get over the fact that challenges notwithstanding, the AU has emerged since 2002 as a formidable actor in the set-up of the "regional designs". I hate to say it, but if you even have observers looking at the AU model on human rights as one that could be replicated for East Asia, I believe something must be going right for the AU!

That said, there remain challenges. One of imperatives is one of them.

Over the weekend, I was grappling with what imperative could be ascribed to SADC. I have yet to determine what comes to mind when one thinks of SADC--except power-sharing. From Zimbabwe to Madagascar, I think there has got to be more about the 14-member grouping than that, surely? If any of you know, I would be happy to report and update accordingly. I make a lot of noise about ECOWAS here, so it might be odd if you did not know. For ECOWAS, it's on conflict management, prevention and resolution, and I suspect IGAD might be going the same way, though to a lesser degree. Though I did read somewhere that the Early Warning System was pioneered by the six-member grouping established in 1986.

In South East Asia, Indonesia has been unhappy about talk of the East Asian Community on account of the fact that it believes it cannot happen without Asean. I hope to convey these frustrations over the next couple of weeks. In so many ways, I can empathise with the de jure hegemon that hosts the secretariat of Asean. Asean has been around since 1967--long without Japan. For that country to suddenly swan about talking about an economic community is almost to thumb the nose of ASEAN that has some commendable experience. As they say, though, the devil is in the detail, and I do hope to be reading a bot about the detail.

On the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, there are some interesting developments. I read a paper the other day that explored the possibility of the SCO being a force for good in the region. For the regional grouping that has Russia and China as key countries, this is certainly a grouping to watch out for. It has well-established structures and organisms that are not to be sneezed at. Interestingly, it has been around since 2001. The paper argued that in Afghanistan, the SCO might have a constructive role to play, so one should look out for it there. Also contrary to Western fears, it is not positioning itself to counter Western influences, at least explicitly in the region.

I guess all we can do is wait and see! In the meantime, might I recommend that you visit Stuart Hastings "towardsunity.org" website (http://www.towardsunity.org to obtain insights into where the intrepid regional integrationist has been travelling to. Last time I read him, he was just going to Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia, that is also the host of the ASEAN secretariat.

In all this, I derive some hope that the regional designs I talk of will find great expression in the following theories below I have propounded elsewhere many times:

First, there needs to be identification of imperatives of each region. Simply put, what is unique about a particular region that that region can capitalise on to bring to bear in the conception of an AU government? So, we can say, for example, that ECOWAS's sub-regional imperative is that of conflict prevention/resolution /management, given its experience with Liberia/Sierra Leone/and the instrumentality of ECOMOG. SADC's might be a different one; the EAC's might be on, say, regional infrastructure. For example, § A paper from UNU-CRIS cites that: “the AU has been the first regional organization to establish a clear relationship with the UN as it is consciously aspiring to closely coordinate, if not integrate, its mission planning and execution of peace and security action with the prevailing structures/plans of the UN”.


Secondly, there needs to be comparative approaches. By this I mean what best practices are there from each of these regional communities that can best be put to good use in any conception of an AU government? This means that ECOWAS's peacekeeping/peace enforcement wing ECOMOG could be analysed for use in a regional organisation like SAARC that has experienced problems over Kashmir/India and Pakistan. What is it that ECOMOG has been able to do in enforcing peace that SAARC can learn from?

Thirdly, there needs to be collaboration, as exemplified by the donation of $1m by the Arab League to the African Union's peacekeeping forces.
from: http://ekbensahinghana.blogspot.com/2009/01/unbearable-lightness-of-being-west.html

Rejoinder to "Alan"--On Why Nato's "Raison d'Etre" is Elusive

Just because it's been a while since I wrote an entry does not mean I have not been blogging. I have four other active blogs, which I contribute to; this has merely gone on the back-burner--till now.

I want to get back to the blog entries here by re-posting a comment I wrote in reply to one "Alan" who queried my article on the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Nato. You can find it below. If, Alan, you do see this finally, I would be happy for us to exchange more for the purpose of learning from each other. Thanks!

Alan--many thanks for the education. Perhaps suggesting in this post that I only read a wikipedia article and formed an opinion would be doing a disservice to what I actually have been doing, which is reading around other academic articles and sites about the SCO.

I understand theimpression it might give, but I appreciate the value of research, and would do more than wikipedia. I hope the fact that I have set up this blog itself suggests a lot of reading goes on beyond wikipedia!:-)

That said, I believe in the light of what you have said, it is too early to make such categorical statements--as like life, comparative regional integration is about humans establishing mechanisms and whatnot that make policies work or not; in that respect, it's about shades of gray.

I don't pretend to be an expert on either Nato or SCO, but what I do know about the discipline of comparative regional integration is this: there are complementarities in each regional grouping that must be highlighted and popularised, as there are imperatives.

To date, I have failed to see the imperative of Nato--helping AU peacekeepers in Sudan? Helping in Afghanistan? AT least the piracy issue has given it some raison d'etre! All that said, there is no gainsaying that SCO is a force to reckon with, and will continue to serve as a counterweight to Nato in many respects...

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO): A Contender to Nato, A Substitute to SAARC?

Any discussion on regional integration in Central Asia will inevitably prompt a discussion of key actors like SAARC; ASEAN and SCO.

These days, I don't mince my words on SAARC; I humbly suggest that the 8-member regional group that was established in December 1985 better get its act together or, like Nato, dwindle into irrelevance.

I spent the better part of the weekend reading through wikipedia's rendering of the Shangai Cooperation Organisation, and have to say I was pretty impressed. I couldn't for the life of me understand how an organisation that was established in 2001 had, eight years down the line, a Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS), yet SAARC that has been 23.5 years in existence had no such structure to fight terrorism when Pakistan, a member, had since 2001 been the bane of the organisation's development insofar as security of the region was concerned!

Remember that discussion on sub-regional imperatives that I've been banging on about? Looks like the gutsy SCO has plenty of that!

Some observers claim that SCO is everything and nothing in the sense that it is a security/political/cultural organisation that comprises non-democracies. Security and political aspects are important because Russia and China are key members, along with some members of what I call the "Stan Family", comprising--Kazakhstan; Kyrgyzstan; Tajikistan; and Uzbekistan. You might have guessed that there are no anglophone countries--unlike the ASEAN Regional Forum, which comprises the USA and Australia.

To top off the fear and loathing of SCO, Iran and India are observers.

I cannot help but wonder why India does not also put some of its efforts into re-dynamising SAARC, as it remains the putative hegemon of that part of Asia. I guess to each his own?

In the specific context of regional integration in Central Asia, observers writing about SCO believe it to be a great contender to Nato. One Michael Bendetson, writing in The Tufts Daily is one of them:

After analyzing NATO’s past actions and future plans in Afghanistan, it appears that only the United States is living up to the lofty expectations established by the

organization. European members are pledging their moral support; however, the future of NATO will depend on the alliance backing up their word with strength. If the majority of members continue to project an image of weakness, the alliance will falter.

He goes on:

In addition to the pressure of internal fragmentation, the power of NATO is being challenged in all areas of the globe. When the Cold War concluded in 1991, NATO was the strongest alliance in the international arena. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had been dissolved, and NATO had been left unchallenged. Unfortunately, a lot has changed in two decades. The most significant of these changes pertains to the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

The question of Nato is relevant here because as observers have been writing, the elements of Russia and China as powerful members within SCO are equally united in ensuring that Nato does not expand to that part of the world. With the SCO firmly ensconced in Central Asia, desires by Nato to expand eastwards further will be seriously inhibited.

As for Afghanistan, the less said about it the better! It joined SAARC in April 2007, with SAARC playing no central role in its development. However, in November 2005, the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group was established as a platform to help Afghanistan for reconstruction.

Latest news indicate that the SCO can continue to play a role in Afghanistan, and it makes sense as a stable Afghanistan can only augur well for the rest of the SCO members.

Whatever the case may be; and whatever Western leaders will propound, it is clear that any progressive and critical look at regional integration in Central Asia will continue to encompass a greater role of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Selling SAARC to the World...what exactly?

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation was established in December 1985 and, according to wikipedia:

is the largest regional organization in the world by population, covering approximately 1.47 billion people.

It comprises eight countries, with the latest being Afghanistan that joined at its 14th Summit in New Delhi, on April 3 and 4th.

You sometimes wonder whether these countries join for the sake of joining the organisations, or whether there is actually something fundamentally fuelling a desire to be part of a project that works. I can perhaps understand why the latter would be interested given its relative isolation in the Grand Scheme of International Politicking, but why join a grouping that doesn't seem to have a future?

If that sounds harsh, try reading Pakistan's Daily Times article,which paints a rather despondent view of the largest regional organisation in the world. The key word is...Kashmir:

India rolled forward with radical visa concessions to all including Pakistan. Pakistan sat there and watched, its outlook marred once again by an obsession with Kashmir although there was no need to be so costive about it. Pakistan can show its internal political audit that it was giving nothing away on Kashmir while going ahead with the free trade negotiations. Suddenly the inventiveness of General Musharraf is gone and Shaukat Aziz is changing his stripes. Pakistan must be the rare country that uses a banker prime minister to block trade

I quite like the idea of a visa concession. West Africa's ECOWAS has it, as exemplified by the comment on the Mali Embassy website in the US:

No visa is required for ECOWAS countries' citizens, citizens from Algeria,Cameroon,Andorra,Monaco,Chad, Gambia,Morocco, Mauritania,and Tunisia( a valid identity card or passport are acceptable

The editorial maintains Sri Lanka talking about a common currency!

It seems to me that sometimes when leaders sit in these regional organisation meetings, they scan the horizon on what is working, or seems to be working, without taking into account any practicalities for their respective region. So, because the EU has adopted a common currency, and anglophone West Africa is talking about it, it's a good idea? Not necessarily!

Besides, for all ECOWAS' problems, especially with the linguistic divide that has marred progress many a time, one thing that ECOWAS has transcended is this view espoused by some leaders of SAARC (in bold):

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz is known for his smoothness but said things quite out of character for a banker.

He said outstanding political issues should be sorted out first before free trade materialised between the two countries — a brief given by the establishment.

But he must have wondered why he was losing India’s capital investment in Pakistan along with the Arabs of the Gulf

Frankly, this attitude will get policy-makers nowhere if they want to fast-track regional integration. Harmonising laws under a supra-national authority may be problematic to some--on account of the loss of sovereignty--but ultimately, these outweigh the politics that exist within any region. Are we saying, also, that the EU is not without its political problems? Far from it! SAARC needs to move--and very quickly.

ECOBANK, the West African bank (supported by ECOWAS), has made great strides from being a regional bank to now envisaging a transformation (slow-and-sure) into a "Pan-African Bank". It made it, and is going places. That was back in 1985.

SAARC was established in the same year. Its achievements are nothing to write home about. Sometimes I wonder with distractions like ASEAN and Russia's Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, small wonder with the slow progress. Russia, for example, does not seem very enamored by the regional grouping:

The world seems to be keen on SAARC but not its old members. At the global level, some countries are realistic about the limitations of the organisation. Russia, for instance, is not keen, and is of the view that SAARC “is still evolving and has a long way to go”. In fact, Russia points to the possibility of the SAARC states pulling out of the prison of South Asia and breathing more freely in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

All that said, it is not so much a matter of SAARC wanting to move as in needing to move and very quickly. Like, now!