Submit your Article

Geneva: World Trade Organization(WTO) members have held intensive discussions on the response to the Covid-19 pandemic including the IP response to the pandemic, and trade and food security.

The 12^th Ministerial level meeting of WTO is underway in Geneva since June 12. Trade ministers of more than one hundred countries are attending the session.  A Nepali delegation led by Minister for Industry, Commerce and Supplies Dilendra Badu is attending the conference. 

On June 13, there were thematic sessions on pandemics and looming food crises in the world. Due to the war between Russia and Ukraine, the supply of food grains has been badly hit resulting in high inflation across the world which has taken a central stage at WTO.

On the WTO response to the pandemic, Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala noted the broad convergence on the Draft Ministerial Declaration on the WTO response to the COVID-19 pandemic and preparedness for future pandemics and on the need to resolve the five outstanding brackets, indicating areas still under discussion, in the TRIPS waiver decision.

On food security, the director-general stated that there was widespread support for the Draft Ministerial Declaration on Trade and Food Security — “almost a convergence although there are some members whose needs have to be addressed”. WTO is likely to make some declarations on looming food security on June 15.

Timur Suleimenov, First Deputy Chief of Staff of the President of Kazakhstan and MC12 Chair, said that listening to members over the past two days reaffirmed his belief that “credible MC12 outcomes are within our reach.”

 “I think there is a general sense that we can actually achieve in MC12 and that it is even closer than we thought at the beginning of the Conference,” he added.

At the thematic session on the World Food Programme (WFP),  according to WTO, members discussed the Draft Ministerial Decision which pledges not to impose any export prohibitions or restrictions on foodstuffs purchases for humanitarian purposes by the WFP, noting that the WFP takes procurement decisions on the basis of the principle of “do no harm” to the supplying country.

The facilitator, Betty Maina, Cabinet Secretary for Industrialization, Trade, and Enterprise Development of Kenya, said the draft decision gained massive support from almost all members with the exception of two. She said it has been a very productive meeting which underscored the commitment of WTO members to deal effectively with global crises, including the current food crisis.

She noted that she, the DG, and the agriculture negotiations chair, Ambassador Gloria Abraham Peralta of Costa Rica, will consult with these two members, with a view to achieving consensus on the text. She emphasized the consultation will not entail any change to the current draft texts.

“My intention was to get an early agreement on these texts so that we could focus on the Draft Ministerial Decision on Agriculture where more work remains to be done,” she said.

Geneva(June 12)-- 

Director-General of World Trade Organization Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala has said that the world is grappling with uncertainty and crises on multiple fronts.

Addressing the 12^th WTO Ministerial Conference that began in Geneva on June 12,  she further added that the war in Ukraine and the inherent international security crisis that comes with it, the health, economic, environmental, and geopolitical crises.

This is a time to demonstrate that multilateralism works. A time to demonstrate that the WTO can deliver for the international community, and the people we serve, she said. 

 The meeting attended by more than 100 trade ministers is deliberating multiple issues relating to the world trade system. The Ministerial-level meeting has taken place after the five years.

The WTO director-general said while many members took some important steps forward in Buenos Aires – for example on using trade as a vehicle for women's economic empowerment – that meeting didn't really deliver.

 Stressing the value of the multilateral trading system as a global public good which over the past 75 years has delivered more prosperity than every international economic order that came before it, DG Okonjo-Iweala noted that at a time when the multilateral system is seemingly fragile “this is the time to invest in it, not to retreat; this is the time to summon the much-needed political will to show that the WTO can be part of the solution to the multiple crises of the global commons we face.”

Now, more than ever, the world needs WTO members to come together and deliver, she said. 

Citing WTO economists' estimations of real global GDP lowering by about 5 percent if the world economy decouples into self-contained trading blocs, she stressed the substantial costs for governments and constituents in a scenario where WTO members are unable to deliver results and where they allow or even embrace, economic and regulatory fragmentation.

To put this in perspective, the financial crisis of 2008-09 is estimated to have lowered rich countries' long-run potential output by 3.5 percent, she further added,  and the 5 percent estimate represents just the start of the economic damage. Additional losses would come from reduced scale economies, transition costs for businesses and workers, disorderly resource allocation, and financial distress, she said. 

Also, trade decoupling would entrench the development setbacks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, making it much harder for poor countries to catch up with richer ones. “This would be a world of diminished opportunities, even greater political anger and social unrest, and intense migratory pressures as people leave in search of better lives elsewhere,” she added.

Various thematic sessions will take place during the Ministerial Conference to respond to ongoing emergencies, particularly the COVID-19 pandemic and the food crisis.  Ministers will also have the opportunity to engage in other thematic sessions on fisheries, agriculture, WTO reform, and the e-commerce work program and moratorium.

Geneva: Minister for Industry, Commerce, and Supplies Dilendra Prasad Badu has said that Least Developed Countries(LDCs) have been facing multiple challenges in their process of socio-economic development.

Addressing the LDC Ministerial Meeting in Geneva on June 12, he said that supply-side capacity constraints, low level of productive capacity, inadequate investment, insufficient trade infrastructures, and digital divide among and within the countries are some of the challenges.

He further stated that the non-tariff barrier, among others, has been posing challenges in benefiting from the multilateral trading system. Furthermore, LDCs are in dire need of bridging the digital divide to participate in and benefit from e-commerce and digital economy in the changing global context, he said.

Badu is in Geneva to attend the 12^th Ministerial Level meeting of the World Trade Organization which began on June 12. The three-day summit will deliberate on various global trade issues. He further added that the meeting will be an opportunity to build our common position and make collective voices heard and addressed in the areas of our interest and priority.

Least developed countries are pushing for preferential rules of origins, service waiver, duty-free and quota-free market access, and flexibilities in the broader areas of agriculture, and fisheries, and supporting the recovery from the pandemic. Similarly, the reformation of WTO is another priority agenda of LDC. 

Geneva, Switzerland: The 12th Ministerial Conference(MCC12) of the World Trade Organization commenced in Geneva on Sunday.

Trade ministers from across the world are participating in the meeting to review the functioning of the multilateral trading system, make general statements and take action on the future work of the WTO.

The Conference is co-hosted by Kazakhstan and chaired by Timur Suleimenov, Deputy Chief of Staff of Kazakhstan's President. Kazakhstan was originally scheduled to host MC12 in June 2020 but the conference was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The meeting of the global body will discuss WTO’s response to the pandemic, fisheries subsidies negotiations, and agriculture issues and implications of the Russia-Ukraine war on the world economy.

The least developing countries including Nepal will raise the hosts of the agenda collectively. WTO Director-General, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and Sandagdorj Erdenebileg of the UN High Representative for Least-Developed Countries signed a partnership agreement on June 11 in Geneva aimed at strengthening cooperation to boost the participation of least-developed countries in the global trading system.

DG Okonjo-Iweala said on the eve of MC12, we are joining hands with the UN to give renewed hope to the most vulnerable group of countries of the international community – the LDCs. …  LDCs have a special place in the multilateral trading system.

He said: “Over the last decade, our members have provided increased trade opportunities to expand LDC exports and the WTO remains the main forum to achieve the Doha Programme of Action targets in the area of trade."

Erdenebileg, Chief of Policy Development, Coordination, Monitoring and Reporting Service at the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS), said that improved trading situation for vulnerable countries has the potential to transform millions of lives through better jobs and stronger economies.

He said: “That is why trade is an essential element of the Doha Programme of Action for LDCs for the decade 2022-2031. With this renewed commitment between the WTO and UN-OHRLLS, the vital trade targets in the new Programme come closer within reach."

WTO Deputy Director-General Xiangchen Zhang said, “It is a historic moment. We have always worked closely with the United Nations, and today we are bringing our cooperation in support of trade development in LDCs to the next level.”

“Integrating least-developed countries into global trade is our institutional priority. And it is our shared responsibility to make sure that the opportunities offered by the global trading system reach the most vulnerable, those who need them most,” he added.

Ali Djadda Kampard, Trade Minister of Chad and Coordinator of the WTO's LDC Group, said that this partnership marks an important milestone as the international community is joining hands to help us boost our participation in global trade.  He added that the start of MC12 tomorrow will be a defining moment for the entire membership.

That's why the LDC Group has been actively engaging in the work of the WTO and we remain committed to ensuring results at MC12. A success at MC12 will set us on the right path towards reinvigorating the WTO and realizing our broader development objectives, he added.  There are at present 46 LDCs on the United Nations list, 35 of which are members of the WTO. Eight LDCs are in the process of joining the WTO. They are Bhutan, Comoros, Ethiopia, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Timor-Leste.

Nepal is one of the leading countries to take the membership in WTO and is actively participating in the WTO mechanisms and dialogues. Nepali delegation led by Minister for Industry, Commerce, and Supplies Dilendra Prasad Badu is scheduled to attend the meeting.   Minister Badu is accompanied by secretary Ganesh Prasad Pandeya and other high-level government officials. Minister Badu is scheduled to address the meeting.

ApEx is beginning a 10-part InDepth series titled ‘Nepal’s Energy Myopia’ starting with a roundtable on the issue this week. The larger goal of the series is to take a deep dive into Nepal’s energy sector and unearth the opportunities and challenges and to question assumptions. For the roundtable, we welcomed five guests with expertise in different aspects of energy production and consumption to share their views on the series title.

Deepak Gyawali, Ex-Minister of Water Resources 

During the Panchayat regime, there used to be proper planning and sound vision for the energy sector. There was a sound projection of how our demand increases with time. Such planning and projection works are rather haphazard these days. There is no study involved. 

The role of the private firms and foreign investors in Nepal’s energy sector increased significantly after the 1990s. Energy development licenses were issued to them willy-nilly, without carefully studying their projects and conditions. 

Our per capita energy-consumption of around 300 units is the lowest in South Asia. This means we will need a lot of energy in the coming days. We have to switch to clean energy sources for cooking and transport, which means more hydropower. This cannot be achieved without the right vision. The fact is that the vision we had during the Panchayat period was scrapped after the restoration of democracy. 

When it comes to investing in hydropower, we should concentrate on Nepali investors. Foreign investors seek more guarantees, want to put more risks on the government, and take home more profit. We must ask ourselves whether Nepal is really benefiting from their investment in hydropower. Existing policies make electricity more expensive, not cheaper.  

The private sector should also introspect: does it seek to make profit by selling electricity after project completion or during the construction phase itself? 

We have some targets in the energy sector but they are fundamentally wrong, with the focus on the sale of electric vehicles and other things. We are not focusing on what amount of fossil fuel we want to displace through such measures. In the past 14 years, we have failed to introduce the amended Electricity Act or to create a basic framework on how federal, provincial, and local governments should work in the energy sector. The entire sector is a mess. There are many areas where we can use clean energy including the ropeway, which consumes less energy than other means of transport. But we have not taken any initiative towards this end.  

Bhushan Tuladhar, Clean energy campaigner

Certain clean energy targets have been fixed in Nepal, which is a positive thing. For example, Bagmati province has vowed to completely switch to electric vehicles by 2028 in its five-year plan.  Likewise, the Ministry of Energy has set some targets in its white paper on the much-needed transition from traditional to clean energy.  The Nationally Determined Contribution prepared by the government has pledged a net-zero energy system by 2045. There have been some serious studies while fixing these targets. But to achieve these goals, Nepal needs a clear path, which is missing. 

For example, we have pledged that 25 percent of the vehicle sales in 2025 will be electric. But we lack a blueprint for this. In the absence of a clear roadmap, inconsistent policies and provisions appear in the annual budget, creating confusion. 

Vague policies also discourage the private sector from investing. There is no clarity in our long-term plan on hitting targets in transport, cooking, and other sectors. What we need is a continuous campaign on the switch to clean energy. All state mechanisms, particularly local governments, must be mobilized in this, backed by a national commitment and of course a clear roadmap. 

Our constitution mentions a clean environment as a fundamental right of citizens. But international studies show that every year approximately 42,000 Nepalis die from air pollution. There is a need for a revolution in our cooking system.  Instead of exporting electricity to India, we must utilize it in cooking. About 67 percent of Nepalis still use the smoky biomass to cook. We need to launch a special campaign to switch to clean energy in our kitchens. 

Madhusudhan Adhikari, Executive Director, Alternative Energy Promotion Center  

There is a misconception in Nepal that energy means electricity. The contribution of electricity in our energy mix is less than 10 percent. In other words, when we discuss energy in Nepal, we are debating on that 10 percent. We are not sufficiently utilizing modern and clean energy. We have the Energy Ministry, which functions more like a hydroelectricity ministry.  This means there is no clarity of vision.  We are investing our time, energy, and mind only in hydropower. We have to look at other sources of energy as well. Recent technologies are focused on other energy sources besides hydropower. So, in the future, hydropower could become the most expensive kind of energy. 

There are also questions over whether our rivers are fit for hydroelectricity, given our problems with floods, landslides and other natural disasters. Even in hydropower, we are focusing on the run-of-the-river projects, with no attention being paid in building storage projects. Similarly, Nepal Electricity Authority is just focusing on power import and export. There are also many flawed provisions in our energy policy and our understanding of energy consumption is all wrong. 

Our main target at this point is to lower fossil fuel imports. But we lack dedicated institutions and targeted effort to switch from conventional to clean energy.  To check chronic pollution, electric cars should be made mandatory in Kathmandu after certain years. 

High cost of production is a big barrier to the growth of Nepal’s energy sector. We should have a policy to decrease the cost of energy production.   

Prakash Chandra Dulal, Executive Committee Member, Independent Power Producers’ Association, Nepal 

The new laws formulated after the restoration of democracy in 1990 guaranteed the private sector’s role in the energy sector. Nepal has some plans to develop the sector. For instance, the hydropower strategy promulgated in 2002 talks about the production of cheap electricity and encourages exports. Similarly, the document talks about the private sector’s role in hydropower development. We are not completely private entities but operating under the BOOT (build, own, operate, and transfer) model. The law talks about providing various facilities to hydropower projects. But then we have failed to build projects at low cost and to export electricity. Policy inconsistencies caused by frequent government changes is part of the problem. 

The 15th plan prepared by the National Planning Commission talks about rapid production of hydroelectricity to boost the country’s energy sector and decrease the import of fossil fuels. Our policies are good; the problem is in implementation. Frequent government changes and with them a change of direction are a big impediment. Clearly, there is a need for the upgradation of the electricity supply system to encourage electricity-use in cooking. The federal, provincial, and local governments should come up with a clear plan on this. 

For instance, municipalities and rural municipalities could declare themselves free from LPG gas and fully switch to electricity. To do so, all three levels of government should provide subsidies.  With proper planning, local governments can implement this scheme within five years.

Sushil Pokhrel, Managing Director, Hydro Village Pvt Ltd 

One-fifth of the world’s energy comes from hydropower. It has played a big role in the growth of countries like Bhutan, Norway, Canada, and the US. They are role models for us.  Many countries have undergone economic revolutions through hydropower, so it is not wrong to advocate for it here in Nepal as well. The private sector has a high potential in hydropower. We have invested trillions of rupees. Scores of small and big hydropower projects are currently underway. With an integrated legislative framework or a one-door policy, there is no doubt we could have attracted more investment in hydropower.

But investing in Nepal’s hydropower projects is not enough. Foreign investment is low because of some flawed policies, for instance our failure to offer foreign investors an exit strategy. Established global companies are not investing in Nepal’s energy sector due to the country’s murky policies and regulations. If we fail to ensure minimum requirements, it will be difficult to attract investors. The hydropower sector has contributed a lot to Nepal’s social and economic transformation. 

Power production is expensive due to lack of basic infrastructure, which is the government’s responsibility to build. We have to invest energy and resources to build infrastructure. Likewise, our notorious red-tapism scares away prospective investors. Investment process should be made clear and free of any ambiguity. 

Another important issue is an investment-friendly climate. Nepal is not the only lucrative country for hydro-investment. We have to fix our issues to encourage more investment. After all, it is not just big businesspersons and investors who have stakes in hydropower projects. Even those of more limited means have a direct sake in it. 

The CPN (Maoist Center) won 122 mayors and municipal chiefs in the May 13 local elections–16 more than its 2017 tally. The party had contested the elections as part of a five-party alliance alongside the Nepali Congress, CPN (Unified Socialist), Janata Samajbadi Party, and Rastriya Janamorcha. The primary objective of this alliance was to mount a challenge against the CPN-UML with its formidable organizational strength. 

While the Congress emerged as the largest party, the second spot went to the UML. The Maoist Center came a distant third. Whatever the election outcome, top Maoists leaders are of the view that the current five-party alliance should be continued until the parliamentary elections. 

At the same time, talks about a left alliance, particularly between the UML and Maoists, do not die down. In fact, there is a strong sentiment among the second-rung leaders of both the Maoist Center and UML in favor of a left alliance. 

In this context, Kamal Dev Bhattarai of ApEx talked to senior Maoist leader and party chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal’s close confidant Haribol Gajurel. 
How do you evaluate the party’s performance in local elections?  

The five-party alliance was formed to fight the authoritarian bent of the UML, whose leader tried twice to dissolve a  democratically elected parliament. Broadly, the alliance has been successful. The local election was a battle between progressive and regressive forces. The regressive force has been weakened. The Maoists had expected to win around 150 seats but then the alliance didn’t work as planned in some places. 

Will the current alliance endure until the parliamentary elections? 

Regressive elements are trying to undermine the republic and the federal setup. So the continuity of the current left-democratic alliance is necessary in order to rout them.  The five parties are in discussion on how to make the alliance even more fruitful in the parliamentary elections. 

There are rumors of Maoist Chairman Dahal being offered the post of prime minister if he agrees to a left alliance? 

These rumors are aimed at confusing the people. The party’s rank and file is unhappy with the leadership of KP Oli who failed to keep the erstwhile Nepal Communist Party united. As a result, the previous communist government could not stay in power for the full five years. It is also important to consider that Oli’s UML faced a defeat in the recent local-level elections.  

So the offer of premiership to the Maoist party is nothing more than a UML ruse to neutralize the growing resentment within the UML party and divert attention of party leaders and cadres.

So you then see no chances of a left alliance? 

Personally, I don’t, at least not until Oli abandons his regressive and authoritarian bent. Oli has assigned some of his leaders to convince the Maoist party on a left alliance. But there hasn’t been any progress. Right now, the Maoist Center doesn’t see a solid basis for such an alliance. 

But this is not to say that there aren’t leaders inside the Maoist party or the UML who genuinely believe in the sanctity of the left alliance.  

What about reports about China again pressing left parties to come together? 

China is always in favor of left unity in Nepal. By China, I mean the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), not the Chinese government. It is no secret that the CCP wants to see the left forces of Kathmandu working together.

An insurrection of sorts is brewing in the CPN-UML. KP Sharma Oli, the all-powerful party leader and two-time prime minister, is being called out for his poor leadership.

This week, speaking in a TV interview, Ghanashyam Bhushal, one of the party leaders, blamed Oli for the UML’s poor showing in the May 13 local elections. Bhushal not only told his interviewer that Oli must be held to account for the UML’s poor electoral performance. He also called on the party leader to step down on moral grounds.

This was probably the harshest criticism of the UML chief following the 2021 party-split. Oli’s fierce critics like Madhav Kumar Nepal and Jhala Nath Khanal—both former prime ministers—have left the party and registered a new one.

Such is the power and popularity of Oli inside the UML that barring some pointed remarks by Bhim Rawal, another senior UML leader, Oli has enjoyed unprecedented sway among the rank and file.   

Bhushal’s remarks against Oli haven’t gone unnoticed in the party. The UML’s Central Disciplinary Commission, led by Keshav Badal, has already recommended action against him. Now, it is for the party’s central committee to decide whether Bhushal should face the music for criticizing Oli.

Badal says Bhushal must be punished for trying to besmirch the party’s image.

“Every party member must respect the party’s ethics and discipline,” he says. UML’s Vice-chairman Ishwar Pokhrel describes the issue as “an internal matter” and not a subject of public discourse. “We will arrive at an appropriate decision after discussions in the party,” he says.

But the Bhushal episode has made one thing crystal-clear: the UML is struggling to maintain healthy intra-party democracy.

The UML disciplinary body’s recommended action against Bhushal has drawn mixed reactions from in and outside the party.

Some UML leaders say the party is clearly in need of an opposition voice to maintain healthy check and balance and to keep the leadership on the right track, particularly after the departure of senior leaders like Nepal and Khanal.

Oli maintains a strong grip on the party and speaking against him has repercussions. Even top leaders don’t dare criticize Oli these days.

As the UML is the only big party in Nepal not to have a strong in-party opposition to its top leadership, says a party leader requesting anonymity, Bhushal is trying to position himself as a strong and legitimate opposition voice.

“After Madhav Kumar Nepal’s exit, Bhim Rawal tried to occupy that space by challenging Oli for UML leadership at 10th general convention. He failed and perhaps Bhushal now believes it is his turn to stake claim as Oli’s main in-party ideological opponent,” says the leader. 

Bhushal had also gone against the will of some senior leaders and vied for the post of the party’s vice-chair at the general convention. 

Some UML leaders believe Bhushal is being treated unfairly and that taking action against him for criticizing Oli does not reflect well on the image of a democratic party like UML. But there are others who argue that although Bhushal’s attempts at democratizing his party are admirable, he does come across as an opportunist, given the nature of his past spats with Oli.

When Oli became prime minister for the second time in 2018, Bhushal was one of his most vehement critics in the UML. In order to placate Bhushal, Oli then offered him a position in his cabinet, which the latter accepted in a heartbeat.

That Bhushal, someone who railed against ideological and policy-level flaws of the then Oli government, accepted the ministerial berth cannot be forgotten, says the UML leader.  

“And when the dispute inside the then Nepal Communist Party (NCP) was at its peak, it was Bhushal who provoked Madhav Kumar Nepal and Pushpa Kamal Dahal to revolt against Oli,” says the leader.

Journalist Sitaram Baral, who has closely followed Nepal’s left politics for two decades, says Bhushal is trying to send a message to Oli that his working style and leadership are not helping the party. “I believe Bhushal is in favor of a broad left alliance and he sees Oli as the main obstacle towards this goal,” he says.

But whatever Bhushal’s end-game, Baral believes he has raised an important question of democracy inside Nepali political parties.     

Otherwise, dissent tends to be suppressed and attempts are even made to sabotage the political careers of dissenting leaders. This tendency, some political analysts say, is one of the main reasons for the repeated splits we see in Nepali political parties. The break-ups, first of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) and then the UML, are cases in point. 

At the same time, maintaining healthy intra-party discipline is also a big challenge for political parties. 

Political analyst Lokraj Baral says Oli may have an authoritarian bent, but his critics like Bhushal and Rawal have also displayed opportunistic tendencies, making it difficult to trust them entirely.    

“They instigated Madhav Kumar Nepal to fight Oli and when the party broke up, they chose to remain in the parent party. Such behavior is also bound to weaken intra-party democracy,” he says.

Instead of speaking with the media, Bhushal should have raised his objections against Oli from within the party, Baral adds.  

“At the same time, Oli should learn to listen to the grievances of his party leaders,” he says. “It is amply clear that some UML leaders are displeased with Oli but afraid to speak up.” 

Afghanistan, a member country of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), has been facing a humanitarian crisis following a Taliban takeover in August last year.  

One of the SAARC’s major objectives is to ensure food security for the people of the region through its Food Bank. The purpose of this bank, which was established in 2007, is to ensure enough food stock for each member country. 

But when Afghanistan plunged into a crisis, the regional body didn’t take any initiative to deliver food to the stricken country. The SAARC countries including Nepal did offer some humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan on an individual basis, but not collectively. This incongruity has also been evident in the Covid-19 pandemic. The regional bloc of eight South Asian countries was ineffective in dealing with the crisis wrought by the coronavirus. The SAARC, as a regional body, could have purchased medical equipment as well as vaccines to protect the populations of member countries. 

In March 2020, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a joint virtual meeting with heads of the state and government of the SAARC countries, where he made some lofty proposals, such as regional air ambulances and visa-free schemes for the doctors and nurses of the region. But these proposals have made no headway. 

These two recent instances have raised questions about the SAARC’s continued viability. It’s been well over three decades since the formation of this regional body and, with each passing year, it seems to be losing its relevance and legitimacy. 

Probably for the first time since its establishment, SAARC is facing an existential crisis and many have lost all hope of its revival. 

Says Moonis Ahmar, an Islamabad-based expert on South Asian affairs, in the prevailing circumstances, it is hard to think of the SAARC as a viable organization. 

“Even in major crises like the pandemic, Sri Lanka’s economic meltdown, and serious environmental challenges, the role of SAARC is nowhere to be seen because of the absence of leadership to take a stand on such issues,” he says.  

The challenges for SAARC continue to mount. 

India-Pakistan tensions are obviously the primary reason for SAARC’s ineffectiveness as a regional body. But there are other causes too, which have been explored throughout this ApEx series. One might even argue activating the regional body will now be tough–even without India-Pakistan hostility.

The international community is yet to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. In September 2021, a meeting of SAARC foreign ministers planned on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly was canceled due to differences among member countries over the participation of Taliban representatives. 

The prospect of any high-level SAARC meeting appears slim for now. Before the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, at least some meetings of various regional mechanisms were taking place and there was a semblance of activity. 

Lack of progress on the South Asian Free Trade Agreement and differences in South Asian satellites and motor vehicle agreements are other issues that have imperiled SAARC. Instead of promoting regionalism, member countries have preferred working at the bilateral level. Meanwhile, the agreements on strengthening regional cooperation, connectivity and economic prosperity are increasingly being sidelined.   

Over the years, there have been more than 30 vital agreements among member countries on a range of issues–their implementation remains in limbo. 

Some regional experts, however, say that the SAARC is still relevant. Even though summit-level meetings have been stalled, they argue, activities under the SAARC rubric continue.  

Despite this prevailing pessimism, they suggest continued utilization of the various platforms under the SAARC. 

Laliufar Yasmin, a Dhaka-based foreign policy expert, accepts that given the moribund situation of the SAARC, questions are being raised about its viability. 

“However, I believe the SAARC is still relevant for a host of reasons. For one, it has created South Asia as a political and a cultural region,” she says.  

The SAARC, she argues, works as a form of public diplomacy for South Asian countries even at a time of difficult political relations among its member states. 

“South Asian Games, South Asian Olympic Council, and South Asian Football Games have continued and showed the resilience of South Asian brotherhood. This may not seem to be enough, but they have survived the test of time,” she adds.  

Yasmin, who admits to being a believer in a world of complex interdependence, hopes SAARC will emerge as “a true forum of cooperation by pursuing public diplomacy.” 

But one can’t take much heart from her argument, especially when the meetings of SAARC mechanisms have also been affected in recent times. Several important agreements signed at the summit level have failed to take off. 

Don McLain Gill, a Manila-based geopolitical analyst and author, says the SAARC’s revival is “a long and arduous road.”  

“This is not to say that SAARC should be completely forgotten,” he says. “That there could be a SAARC meeting at the peak of the pandemic suggests some potential in reviving regional cooperation, especially when threat perceptions align toward non-traditional security issues,” he says. 

Given this functional, albeit selective mechanism, he adds, the SAARC can still be utilized as a platform for certain issues. “In order to provide South Asian states options and alternatives to work together on mutually agreed-upon issues, both regional and sub-regional platforms must be equally prioritized,” he suggests. 

Conventions/Agreements signed so far 

• SAARC Charter (December 1985)

• Memorandum on the Establishment of the SAARC Secretariat (November 1986)

• Agreement on the Establishment of the SAARC Food Security Reserve (November 1987)

• Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (November 1987)

• Regional Convention on Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (November 1990)

• Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement, SAPTA, (April 1993)

• SAARC Convention on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion of Child Welfare in South Asia (January 2002)

• SAARC Convention on Preventing & Combating Trafficking of Women & Children for Prostitution (January 2002);

• SAARC Social Charter (January 2004)

• Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) (January 2004)

• Additional Protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism (January 2004)

• Agreement on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters (November 2005)

• Agreement on the Establishment of SAARC Arbitration Council (November 2005)

• Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation and Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (November 2005)

• Joint Declaration on the Admission of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan into SAARC (April 2007)

• Agreement on Establishment of the SAARC Food Bank (April 2007)

• Agreement on the Establishment of South Asian University (April 2007)

• SAARC Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (August 2008)

• Protocol of Accession of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to Agreement on SAFTA (August 2008)

• Agreement on the Establishment of South Asian Regional Standards Organization (SARSO) (August 2008)

• Charter of the SAARC Development Fund (SDF) (August 2008)

• SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services (SATIS) (April 2010)

• SAARC Convention on Cooperation on Environment (April 2010)

• Agreement on the Establishment of the SAARC Seed Bank (November 2011)

• SAARC Agreement on Multilateral Arrangement on Recognition of Conformity Assessment (November 2011)

• SAARC Agreement on Implementation of Regional Standards (November 2011)

• SAARC Agreement on Rapid Response to Natural Disasters (November 2011)

• SAARC Framework Agreement on Energy Cooperation (Electricity) (November 2014)

(Source: SAARC Secretariat)