The Saarc opportunity

The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (Saarc) has missed holding its summits 11 times in the past which were otherwise required to be held annually according to the Saarc Charter. Preparations are afoot for the 18th Saarc summit due in November 2014. The upcoming summit will take place after a lapse of two years. There have been some important developments in the region in the meantime, including the agreement for the drawdown of Isaf troops in Afghanistan and the installation of new leadership in Afghanistan, India, Nepal and Pakistan.

A discussion has been going on in the region about the need to establish a regional system for the protection of human rights. Human rights experts such as Hina Jilani in Pakistan, Mizanur Rehman in Bangladesh, Henri Tiphagne in India and Subodh Raj in Nepal have been pleading, at various forums, with persuasive arguments in favour of this demand.

According to Insec, a civil society organ in Nepal, the Nepalese government is considering making this recommendation a part of the agenda of the summit. This encouraging response to a consultative process rekindles the hope that a South Asian convention on human rights could be adopted and a regional human rights commission and court could ultimately become a reality.

Saarc has made sluggish progress compared to Asean, the African Union, the Organisation of American States and the European Union, as it started off with weak unanimity of purpose. Its founding charter (1985) was a brief document that spoke of “common interests” of the member countries rather than “common heritage” and “common aspirations” which the other regional charters embodied.

Secondly, the Saarc region lacked a consistent agreement on democratic ideals. Two major countries – Bangladesh and Pakistan – were twice under military rules during Saarc’s 29 years of life, while Nepal and Bhutan struggled with democratic transition from monarchies. The political environment was marred by armed conflicts, which also arrested the institutional growth of Saarc and reduced possibilities of inter-cooperation particularly in the first 16 years of its life. Despite all this, it has made important strides in developing instruments concerning human rights since 2002.

Saarc passed the Convention on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Women and Child for Prostitution, Convention on Promotion of Child Welfare in South Asia in 2002, a Social Charter in 2004 and the Charter on Democracy in 2011. So there are some human rights norms in place which incorporate native wisdom and contextual approaches along with universal standards. However, there isn’t a body that can entertain complaints about violations, give binding decisions and oversee implementation of human rights standards.

The reluctance in progressing with regional human rights system was primarily due to apprehensions about national sovereignty and fear of Indian hegemony. While India certainly could have performed better in confidence-building measures with Pakistan, these fears were also superficial as multilateral relations manifestly add to national sovereignty rather than taking it away normally.

Countries in other regions have also dealt with issues of influence of members owing to an imbalance of size and resource. When the US and Canada, while still part of the Organisation of American States (OAS), opted to stay out of the Inter-American Court system the Latin American countries allowed this because they provided much needed resources for the system as well as neutral political ground which other OAS countries could use.

Cuba has stayed out of the OAS since inception and Venezuela has abandoned its jurisdiction of Inter-American Court in September 2014 – which means hegemonies, if any, can be tackled in multiple ways. Thus having countries of different resources and size does not necessarily mean living in hegemonic relations in a regional system, as much as staying out does not translate into enhanced autonomy and sovereignty.

For instance, South African presence in the African Union meant strength rather than weakness of the regional system. The smaller countries of Eastern Europe make substantial political and economic gains by joining the human rights system of the European Union. Moreover, despite the present uneasiness of members of the union about powers of the European Human Rights Court, the European consensus on foundational values of universal human rights was not undermined. In fact, nations and regions are increasingly adopting mechanisms and standards of human rights to advance their objectives in development and stability.

A Community Court of Justice established by the Economic Community of West African States has been fully functional since 2004 and has remarkably contributed towards upholding human rights standards. Though with limited functions so far, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation also established an Independent Commission on Human Rights in 2012, while Asean did so in 2009. Therefore, Saarc is the only region without a proper human rights mechanism.

Saarc is home to over 1852.40 million souls or 23 percent of the world population, living on merely 2.96 percent of global land. The region needs systems and forums to resolve the complex issues facing it. The leadership of Saarc countries should ensure that the upcoming summit takes place without fail and it moves on to establishing an effective regional human rights system enabled by a clear mandate and resources to entertain individual complaints and that it has powers to issue binding judgements on the matter of protection of human rights.

A regional human rights system could assist the national human rights institutions in member countries. The system can also strengthen and complement initiatives such as establishing a Saarc development bank, cooperation on counterterrorism, and resolution of disputes over water resources as well as help control human trafficking.

A Saarc human rights system can eventually help create an environment for inter-state dispute resolution. While the International Court of Justice can be approached for treaty interpretation, establishing a separate permanent body for conflict resolution and peace building could bring tranquillity, stability and prosperity in the region.

Those trying to keep the government in defensive mode certainly lack understanding of Pakistan’s importance in global governance. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should use the opportunity of the Saarc summit to make a valuable and lasting contribution.

Email: jacobpete@gmail.com