02-18-2005, 07:25 AM
This will be a counterpoise to EEC and be a powerhouse, an engine for world growth. Expand ASEAN/APEC/SAARC into a network that creates an Indian Ocean arc from south africa through Straits of Hormuz and Straits of Malacca upto Tasmania. This should be principal geopolitical priority, next only to liberation of Tibet and reclaiming Manasarovar as the cultural capital of Greater India (cf. George Coedes, Hinduised States of Southeast Asia).
Kalyanaraman
Chennai, Feb. 17, 2005 Express News Service (Page 3, City Express)
Economic cooperation along the Indian Ocean
An economic community comprising of countries along the Indian Ocean
was necessary to enhance trade in the region, said S. Kalyanaraman,
(former) Senior Executive of the Asian Development Bank, Manila, here
today.
Delivering a lecture on 'Indian Ocean as an Economic Community', he
said, 'A union of nations along the Indian Ocean for economic
cooperation in lines with the European Union is the need of the hour.'
Elaborating on his theory, the senior executive outlined certain
features of the countries in the rim of the Indian Ocean which could
make it an economic powerhouse if cooperation between the countries
were to be enhanced.
The relevance of the region in the world could not be neglected as the
region alone accounted for around 30 percent of the total population
of the world. With an enormous economic resource and a highly
professional manpower, the South_Asian region along the Indian Ocean
was knocking at the doors of world power, he added.
While the European nations took 40 years to build a common platform,
the countries along the Indian Ocean could achieve it in around 10
years. This he added, was due to the existence of organisations like
SAARC and ASEAN which could be used to enhance the cooperation and
hence build an arena for a bigger union.
Kalyanaraman felt that India could be a key player in such an
atmosphere as the country was today leading in fields like IT, nuclear
technology, satellite communication, education, rail and power.
He also felt that the creation of a union would hasten the dreams of
creating a free-trade zone in the region. This could be achieved by
building international highways as in Europe, which would connect
nations across Asia.
Around 150 students from the Department of Economics attended the
lecture, which was conducted by Agurchand Manmull Jain College.
GEO-POLITICAL AFFAIRS
From Containment to Cooperation:
Indian Ocean Perspective
Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN looks at the various options available to the
Indian Ocean Rim nations
The fast-fading 20th Century, leaves behind a trail of traumatic
events and catastrophies. The first half of this century witnessed the
harrowing experiences of the First and Second World Wars, and the
second half depicts a frenzied disposition for arms race between the
two Super Powers - USA and former USSR - each trying to knock out its
adversary from the power arena of the globe. Mainly on account of
mismanagement of geo-economic imperatives of power preponderance, USSR
contributed to USA's emergence as the lone super power, when the
cold-war era formally received its burial after over four decades of
hopes shattered and promises unfulfilled, symbolized in the
aspirations of the founders of the United Nations in San Franscisco in
June 1945. The United Nations charter had envisaged a new
international order to free humanity of the scourge of war, and build
a road towards stability, righteousness and 'healing'. Such lofty
ideals met a cold response and peace remained hostage to a
sensibility, where overriding passion for geo-political power,
culminated into doctrines of confrontation and containment.
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and
biological - was the obsessive commitment of nations for the elusive
and narrowly conceived goal termed 'security'. Ironically, these
weapons were not closet weapons. Many of these were used in nearly
hundred and fifty (150) additional wars escalating human casualties to
a staggering figure of over 20 million. The propensity to kill people
was so over-bearing that more than half of the world scientists and
engineers during the cold-war, period consumed their 'creative' skills
towards research and production of instruments of death. An Urdu poet
of repute Akbar Allahabadi had lamented:
Jan hi leney ki hikmat mein taraqi dekhi
Maut ko roknay walla koi paida na howa
(All ingenuity was towards perfecting skill of killing human beings,
none was born to arrest death)
Had the misdirected pursuits been channellised towards positive ends
of health and happiness for humanity, the world would not have been as
dangerous an abode to live as it is today. For the developing
countries, the cold war epithet is hardly relevant and appropriate.
There were hundred and twenty (120) conflicts of varying magnitude
during this era, e.g., in Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, India, Pakistan and others - all within
the orbit of the Third World countries. Big powers, through a tacit
understanding avoided coming to a frontal blow. Their 'stooges' were
made to fight through proxy wars and skirmishes. After all, the
affluence of the developed world maintained through massive arms trade
was only possible if the developing nations served as their ever
increasing market. Moreover, the salesmanship required that the
lethality of sophisticated weapons are demonstrated on soils other
than their own.
'Containment', says, Gaddis, is 'the term generally used to
characterize American policy toward the Soviet Union during the
post-war era, as a series of attempts to deal with the consequences of
that World war II Faustian bargain: the idea has been to prevent the
Soviet Union from using the power and position it won as a result of
that conflict to reshape the post war international order, a prospect
that has seemed, in the West, no less dangerous than what Germany and
Japan might have done had they had the chance. George F. Kennan coined
the term in July 1947, when he called publicly for a 'long-term,
patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive
tendencies'1. There was inherently a Machiavellian design contained in
the Containment concept. Truman made no attempt to camouflage its
crudeness and said it quite bluntly: 'If we see that Germany is
winning the war, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we
ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as
possible.'2. No wonder, as a natural concomitant to this dehumanized
sensibility, peace remained elusive even though the war was won. A
former ambassador to Soviet Union, William Bullitt, said it best in a
1948 Life magazine article entitled: 'How we won the war and lost the
peace.'3
Doctrines and concepts, if conceived for the furtherance of power,
dominance and hegemony can only serve as dissolvent of peace, and
humane order. Containment served as an anti thesis to holistic nature
of peace and security. The UNICEF in 1992 laid down a new paradigm for
assessing progress of nations: 'The day will come when the progress of
nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor
by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by
the well-being of their peoples: by their levels of health, nutrition
and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their
labours; by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect
their lives; by the respect that is shown for their civil and
political liberties; by the provision that is made for those who are
vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded
to the growing minds and bodies of their children.'4
It is indeed a redeeming feature of the post-cold-war era, which took
its birth on July 1, 1991, when the Soviet Union and its erstwhile
satellites formally abrogated the Warsaw Pact, that search for
alternative doctrines and constructs began, where geo-economics
assumed a greater salience over geo-politics. Not completely
by-passing the imperatives of military power, the geo-economics is
conceived as a new arsenal to combat chaos and conflicts in the world.
There is a marked realization that threat of weapons and arms -
nuclear or otherwise, are not the only threats. No less volatile and
dangerous are the threats such as poverty, ethnic and racial strifes,
political instability, drug and environmental degradation.
The conflicts today, occur more among people within nations as opposed
to conflicts between nations, as was the trend in the past. During the
nineties there is a reawakening to what President Roosevelt, had very
passionately proclaimed in the Congress of the United States, on
January 6, 1941 - the Four Freedom Concept: Freedom of Speech, Worship
and Freedom from Want and Fear. The last two freedoms have remained
unfulfilled. He had elaborated these two as follows: 'The Third
freedom from want which translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure every nation a healthy peace time
life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.'5 'The fourth ...
translated into world terms, means a world wide reduction of armaments
to such a point and in such thorough fashion that no nation will be in
a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any
neighbour - anywhere in the world'.6
Freedom of Fear can only be ensured if disarmament is vigorously
pursued and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Not only
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are to be feared, and
recognized as 'immoral', but even the conventional weapons fall into
the same category. The death toll in Hiroshima, as a consequences of
the first savage demonstration of nuclear weapons was approximately
1,40,000 and added to this was 70,000 in Nagasaki - the total loss was
around 2,10,000 of human lives. As per Human Development Report 1994,
use of conventional weapons have been instrumental to deaths over 20
million.7 Light weapons, have contributed to the massive proliferation
of terrorism. Availability of conventional and light weapons, have the
inherent risk that where tensions and conflicts exist, these are
likely to manifest in aggression and war.
Freedom of Want entails fulfilment of Fundamental Economic Rights as
contained in the UN Charter. This is essentially a survival issue.
Poverty, population pressures are the gravest challenges facing
humanity. People are increasingly awakening to their basic and human
rights and they cannot accept the 'status quo', which in essence, is
an exploitative order. They rise in rebellion to the kind we have seen
in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine and Kashmir. The ruthless
rulers have a pathological predilection to suppress through brutal
violence. But it is increasingly becoming a patent reality that
military interventions compound problems. They do not resolve them.
The world is now moving fast towards regionalization, globalization
and integration. There constructs are not impositions, but fundamental
imperatives of a new paradigm of existence, which places premium on
peace and prosperity of nations. It is a new vision which hopefully
aims to salvage humanity from the debilitating and morbid impact of
hegemonistic constructs like confrontation and containment. These are
flickers of hope and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This
is a parting gift of the ongoing century, which has had a nightmarish
impact on the minds of the people of the impoverished world.
Peace and prosperity - necessary adjuncts to each other - are built on
the solid rock of cooperation. Nations therefore, cognizant of the
imperatives of geo-economic compulsions, deemed it expedient to shun
their narrow shell like national identities to coalesce into wider
regional economic groupings. Gaining economic resilience required
mustering of a collective force. The European countries got themselves
interwoven into European Union (EU). They even went steps ahead to
integrate themselves into a cohesive economic community with the glue
of a common currency. Nations who develop an attitudinal
predisposition to construct infrastructure of a network of
communication and a facilitative climate of growth, hardly ever go to
war with each other. Europe, ravaged through two horrendous world
wars, learnt it a hard way, the futility of living atomized existence
and breeding ethnocentric prejudices and hatred against each other.
EU-idea is a strategic leap forward toward a new dimension of security
- the economic deterrence.
As evil often tends to become contagious, positive and bright ideas
have inherent propensity to produce snow-ball effects. Regionalization
of nations was one such idea. It is a basic intermediary step towards
globalization, which is the final destiny of humankind. The emergence
of North American Free Trade Arrangement (NAFTA) is a regional bloc,
comprising USA, Canada and Mexico. Attempts are in hand to bring in
some Latin American countries within its fold and a wider western
Hemisphere grouping is in the offing. Concurrently the US President
Clinton, realizing the immense economic potential of the countries
around the Pacific region comprising around two billion people, took a
bold initiative to integrate America into partnership with the Pacific
community, where over forty percent of the international trade occurs
and is the lucrative abode half of the world's total production and
services. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was thus a giant
step towards economic integration. Atlantic and the Pacific regions
had thus become the hub centres of economic bonanza. It was but
inevitable that Indian Ocean countries would also seize the
opportunity to bring into effect a collective bloc. The time for this
idea had came, and the organization called the Indian Ocean Rim
Association for Regional Cooperation (IORAC) ultimately came into
being in 1995, but the idea was first mooted by South African Foreign
Minister in 1993. Although it was a brilliant idea but crudely
executed. In the first inter-governmental conference in March 1995,
the seven countries participated and they became the Founder Members -
Mauritius, Australia, South Africa, India, Oman, Kenya and Singapore.
An exclusive club approach was adopted, which is grossly incongruent
to a cooperative paradigm. The membership was extended to fourteen
countries in the subsequent meeting at Mauritius in May 1996, and the
new countries admitted were Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Yemen.
It is indeed revealing and also ironical that India did not recommend
Pakistan from the South Asian conglomeration of nations. It opted for
Sri Lanka, as every member among the seven Founders, had the right to
select only one from its region. The inclusion of Sri Lanka was indeed
a wise step, but to leave Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh and the rest, was
a strategic blunder, as it would contribute to misgivings and
apprehensions and sow seeds of dissent. In the first place, the very
modality of selecting or nominating a country is repugnant to
democratic ethos and values. The propriety demanded that an
'inclusive' approach should have been adhered to from the very
beginning to promote greater integration and forging a climate of
trust, which is a basic pre-requisite to galvanizing nations into
becoming a community of achievers. India's obsession for hegemony, and
exhibiting a dominating posture, is the road-block to Indian Ocean Rim
Countries' prosperity and progress, despite its vast potentials to be
in step with the Atlantic and Pacific nations. A number of countries
in the Indian Ocean Rim expressed their willingness to include
Pakistan and other left over countries, but for India's authoritarian
defiance and obduracy the expansion idea could not get through. It is
time that India is made to realize that through its intransigent
approach it will deprive the people of the region of the colossal
dividends of economic cooperation. Just as non-governmental
organizations - the academic and business networks - named the Indian
Ocean Research Network (IORN) and the Indian Ocean Rim Consultative
Business Network (IORCBN) in the Track Two sphere, are broad-based and
inclusive the Track I should reflect the same spirit. The exclusive
mind-set which is restricted only to fourteen members, living close to
fifty littoral and land-locked countries is a retrogressive step and
must be dispensed with the earliest.
The land-locked countries need special deal. The sea has so far
dominated in determining the affluence of nations around its rim. It
is reported that approximately 95% of global trade is carried out
through the sea.8 The Great Game was essentially very selective in
sharing affluence. It is time that the destiny of land locked
countries be changed through constructing infrastructures like roads
and railways and linking them with the rim countries. Relevant in this
context is the idea of strategic linkage with Eurasian Continental
Bridge, which has been elaborately spelt out in my monograph - China
and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia by General Beg, during his
address at 21st Century Forum at Beijing, China.9
In the end one would like to reiterate what
James Grant said: 'Individually, yes, we can do some important things.
But we are setting out to do something that is beyond the powers of
any of us individually. But what we have been demonstrating is that,
when we work together, we really can begin to change the face of
global society, the face of the world.
Notes and References
1. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York, Oxford Univ
Press 1982. P.4.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid p-5.
4. UNICEF - The Progress of Nations 1993.
5. Quoted in World Goodwill Commentary, freedom from fear and want:
Disarmament, Peace and Security. No. 21, Jan 1996. World Goodwill,
120, Wall Street New York NY-10005, USA, p-3.
6. Ibid. p-3.
7. Capturing the Peace Dividend. Human Development Report 1994. UNDP.
Oxford Univ. Press 1994 p-47.
8. Faringdon Hugh Strategic Geography, Rontledge, London 1989, p-42.
9. Aslam Beg, China and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia, paper
presented in the First Conference of the 21st Century Forum sponsored
by National Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative
Conference (CPPCC), Beijing China, September 4-6, 1996, Monograph
printed by FRIENDS Publications.
10. James Grant at the Sixth Bellagio Conference in New Delhi, India.
February 1994.
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/indian-ocean.htm
See also:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/iorarc/
http://www.iornet.com/
http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilater...iorarc.htm
http://www.geography.laurentian.ca/cb/ge...ration.htm
http://www.europaworld.org/week208/indianocean21105.htm
Kalyanaraman
Chennai, Feb. 17, 2005 Express News Service (Page 3, City Express)
Economic cooperation along the Indian Ocean
An economic community comprising of countries along the Indian Ocean
was necessary to enhance trade in the region, said S. Kalyanaraman,
(former) Senior Executive of the Asian Development Bank, Manila, here
today.
Delivering a lecture on 'Indian Ocean as an Economic Community', he
said, 'A union of nations along the Indian Ocean for economic
cooperation in lines with the European Union is the need of the hour.'
Elaborating on his theory, the senior executive outlined certain
features of the countries in the rim of the Indian Ocean which could
make it an economic powerhouse if cooperation between the countries
were to be enhanced.
The relevance of the region in the world could not be neglected as the
region alone accounted for around 30 percent of the total population
of the world. With an enormous economic resource and a highly
professional manpower, the South_Asian region along the Indian Ocean
was knocking at the doors of world power, he added.
While the European nations took 40 years to build a common platform,
the countries along the Indian Ocean could achieve it in around 10
years. This he added, was due to the existence of organisations like
SAARC and ASEAN which could be used to enhance the cooperation and
hence build an arena for a bigger union.
Kalyanaraman felt that India could be a key player in such an
atmosphere as the country was today leading in fields like IT, nuclear
technology, satellite communication, education, rail and power.
He also felt that the creation of a union would hasten the dreams of
creating a free-trade zone in the region. This could be achieved by
building international highways as in Europe, which would connect
nations across Asia.
Around 150 students from the Department of Economics attended the
lecture, which was conducted by Agurchand Manmull Jain College.
GEO-POLITICAL AFFAIRS
From Containment to Cooperation:
Indian Ocean Perspective
Columnist Dr SM RAHMAN looks at the various options available to the
Indian Ocean Rim nations
The fast-fading 20th Century, leaves behind a trail of traumatic
events and catastrophies. The first half of this century witnessed the
harrowing experiences of the First and Second World Wars, and the
second half depicts a frenzied disposition for arms race between the
two Super Powers - USA and former USSR - each trying to knock out its
adversary from the power arena of the globe. Mainly on account of
mismanagement of geo-economic imperatives of power preponderance, USSR
contributed to USA's emergence as the lone super power, when the
cold-war era formally received its burial after over four decades of
hopes shattered and promises unfulfilled, symbolized in the
aspirations of the founders of the United Nations in San Franscisco in
June 1945. The United Nations charter had envisaged a new
international order to free humanity of the scourge of war, and build
a road towards stability, righteousness and 'healing'. Such lofty
ideals met a cold response and peace remained hostage to a
sensibility, where overriding passion for geo-political power,
culminated into doctrines of confrontation and containment.
Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and
biological - was the obsessive commitment of nations for the elusive
and narrowly conceived goal termed 'security'. Ironically, these
weapons were not closet weapons. Many of these were used in nearly
hundred and fifty (150) additional wars escalating human casualties to
a staggering figure of over 20 million. The propensity to kill people
was so over-bearing that more than half of the world scientists and
engineers during the cold-war, period consumed their 'creative' skills
towards research and production of instruments of death. An Urdu poet
of repute Akbar Allahabadi had lamented:
Jan hi leney ki hikmat mein taraqi dekhi
Maut ko roknay walla koi paida na howa
(All ingenuity was towards perfecting skill of killing human beings,
none was born to arrest death)
Had the misdirected pursuits been channellised towards positive ends
of health and happiness for humanity, the world would not have been as
dangerous an abode to live as it is today. For the developing
countries, the cold war epithet is hardly relevant and appropriate.
There were hundred and twenty (120) conflicts of varying magnitude
during this era, e.g., in Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua,
Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda, India, Pakistan and others - all within
the orbit of the Third World countries. Big powers, through a tacit
understanding avoided coming to a frontal blow. Their 'stooges' were
made to fight through proxy wars and skirmishes. After all, the
affluence of the developed world maintained through massive arms trade
was only possible if the developing nations served as their ever
increasing market. Moreover, the salesmanship required that the
lethality of sophisticated weapons are demonstrated on soils other
than their own.
'Containment', says, Gaddis, is 'the term generally used to
characterize American policy toward the Soviet Union during the
post-war era, as a series of attempts to deal with the consequences of
that World war II Faustian bargain: the idea has been to prevent the
Soviet Union from using the power and position it won as a result of
that conflict to reshape the post war international order, a prospect
that has seemed, in the West, no less dangerous than what Germany and
Japan might have done had they had the chance. George F. Kennan coined
the term in July 1947, when he called publicly for a 'long-term,
patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive
tendencies'1. There was inherently a Machiavellian design contained in
the Containment concept. Truman made no attempt to camouflage its
crudeness and said it quite bluntly: 'If we see that Germany is
winning the war, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we
ought to help Germany and in that way let them kill as many as
possible.'2. No wonder, as a natural concomitant to this dehumanized
sensibility, peace remained elusive even though the war was won. A
former ambassador to Soviet Union, William Bullitt, said it best in a
1948 Life magazine article entitled: 'How we won the war and lost the
peace.'3
Doctrines and concepts, if conceived for the furtherance of power,
dominance and hegemony can only serve as dissolvent of peace, and
humane order. Containment served as an anti thesis to holistic nature
of peace and security. The UNICEF in 1992 laid down a new paradigm for
assessing progress of nations: 'The day will come when the progress of
nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor
by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by
the well-being of their peoples: by their levels of health, nutrition
and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their
labours; by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect
their lives; by the respect that is shown for their civil and
political liberties; by the provision that is made for those who are
vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded
to the growing minds and bodies of their children.'4
It is indeed a redeeming feature of the post-cold-war era, which took
its birth on July 1, 1991, when the Soviet Union and its erstwhile
satellites formally abrogated the Warsaw Pact, that search for
alternative doctrines and constructs began, where geo-economics
assumed a greater salience over geo-politics. Not completely
by-passing the imperatives of military power, the geo-economics is
conceived as a new arsenal to combat chaos and conflicts in the world.
There is a marked realization that threat of weapons and arms -
nuclear or otherwise, are not the only threats. No less volatile and
dangerous are the threats such as poverty, ethnic and racial strifes,
political instability, drug and environmental degradation.
The conflicts today, occur more among people within nations as opposed
to conflicts between nations, as was the trend in the past. During the
nineties there is a reawakening to what President Roosevelt, had very
passionately proclaimed in the Congress of the United States, on
January 6, 1941 - the Four Freedom Concept: Freedom of Speech, Worship
and Freedom from Want and Fear. The last two freedoms have remained
unfulfilled. He had elaborated these two as follows: 'The Third
freedom from want which translated into world terms, means economic
understandings which will secure every nation a healthy peace time
life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.'5 'The fourth ...
translated into world terms, means a world wide reduction of armaments
to such a point and in such thorough fashion that no nation will be in
a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any
neighbour - anywhere in the world'.6
Freedom of Fear can only be ensured if disarmament is vigorously
pursued and implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Not only
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are to be feared, and
recognized as 'immoral', but even the conventional weapons fall into
the same category. The death toll in Hiroshima, as a consequences of
the first savage demonstration of nuclear weapons was approximately
1,40,000 and added to this was 70,000 in Nagasaki - the total loss was
around 2,10,000 of human lives. As per Human Development Report 1994,
use of conventional weapons have been instrumental to deaths over 20
million.7 Light weapons, have contributed to the massive proliferation
of terrorism. Availability of conventional and light weapons, have the
inherent risk that where tensions and conflicts exist, these are
likely to manifest in aggression and war.
Freedom of Want entails fulfilment of Fundamental Economic Rights as
contained in the UN Charter. This is essentially a survival issue.
Poverty, population pressures are the gravest challenges facing
humanity. People are increasingly awakening to their basic and human
rights and they cannot accept the 'status quo', which in essence, is
an exploitative order. They rise in rebellion to the kind we have seen
in Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine and Kashmir. The ruthless
rulers have a pathological predilection to suppress through brutal
violence. But it is increasingly becoming a patent reality that
military interventions compound problems. They do not resolve them.
The world is now moving fast towards regionalization, globalization
and integration. There constructs are not impositions, but fundamental
imperatives of a new paradigm of existence, which places premium on
peace and prosperity of nations. It is a new vision which hopefully
aims to salvage humanity from the debilitating and morbid impact of
hegemonistic constructs like confrontation and containment. These are
flickers of hope and there is a light at the end of the tunnel. This
is a parting gift of the ongoing century, which has had a nightmarish
impact on the minds of the people of the impoverished world.
Peace and prosperity - necessary adjuncts to each other - are built on
the solid rock of cooperation. Nations therefore, cognizant of the
imperatives of geo-economic compulsions, deemed it expedient to shun
their narrow shell like national identities to coalesce into wider
regional economic groupings. Gaining economic resilience required
mustering of a collective force. The European countries got themselves
interwoven into European Union (EU). They even went steps ahead to
integrate themselves into a cohesive economic community with the glue
of a common currency. Nations who develop an attitudinal
predisposition to construct infrastructure of a network of
communication and a facilitative climate of growth, hardly ever go to
war with each other. Europe, ravaged through two horrendous world
wars, learnt it a hard way, the futility of living atomized existence
and breeding ethnocentric prejudices and hatred against each other.
EU-idea is a strategic leap forward toward a new dimension of security
- the economic deterrence.
As evil often tends to become contagious, positive and bright ideas
have inherent propensity to produce snow-ball effects. Regionalization
of nations was one such idea. It is a basic intermediary step towards
globalization, which is the final destiny of humankind. The emergence
of North American Free Trade Arrangement (NAFTA) is a regional bloc,
comprising USA, Canada and Mexico. Attempts are in hand to bring in
some Latin American countries within its fold and a wider western
Hemisphere grouping is in the offing. Concurrently the US President
Clinton, realizing the immense economic potential of the countries
around the Pacific region comprising around two billion people, took a
bold initiative to integrate America into partnership with the Pacific
community, where over forty percent of the international trade occurs
and is the lucrative abode half of the world's total production and
services. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was thus a giant
step towards economic integration. Atlantic and the Pacific regions
had thus become the hub centres of economic bonanza. It was but
inevitable that Indian Ocean countries would also seize the
opportunity to bring into effect a collective bloc. The time for this
idea had came, and the organization called the Indian Ocean Rim
Association for Regional Cooperation (IORAC) ultimately came into
being in 1995, but the idea was first mooted by South African Foreign
Minister in 1993. Although it was a brilliant idea but crudely
executed. In the first inter-governmental conference in March 1995,
the seven countries participated and they became the Founder Members -
Mauritius, Australia, South Africa, India, Oman, Kenya and Singapore.
An exclusive club approach was adopted, which is grossly incongruent
to a cooperative paradigm. The membership was extended to fourteen
countries in the subsequent meeting at Mauritius in May 1996, and the
new countries admitted were Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia,
Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Yemen.
It is indeed revealing and also ironical that India did not recommend
Pakistan from the South Asian conglomeration of nations. It opted for
Sri Lanka, as every member among the seven Founders, had the right to
select only one from its region. The inclusion of Sri Lanka was indeed
a wise step, but to leave Pakistan, Iran, Bangladesh and the rest, was
a strategic blunder, as it would contribute to misgivings and
apprehensions and sow seeds of dissent. In the first place, the very
modality of selecting or nominating a country is repugnant to
democratic ethos and values. The propriety demanded that an
'inclusive' approach should have been adhered to from the very
beginning to promote greater integration and forging a climate of
trust, which is a basic pre-requisite to galvanizing nations into
becoming a community of achievers. India's obsession for hegemony, and
exhibiting a dominating posture, is the road-block to Indian Ocean Rim
Countries' prosperity and progress, despite its vast potentials to be
in step with the Atlantic and Pacific nations. A number of countries
in the Indian Ocean Rim expressed their willingness to include
Pakistan and other left over countries, but for India's authoritarian
defiance and obduracy the expansion idea could not get through. It is
time that India is made to realize that through its intransigent
approach it will deprive the people of the region of the colossal
dividends of economic cooperation. Just as non-governmental
organizations - the academic and business networks - named the Indian
Ocean Research Network (IORN) and the Indian Ocean Rim Consultative
Business Network (IORCBN) in the Track Two sphere, are broad-based and
inclusive the Track I should reflect the same spirit. The exclusive
mind-set which is restricted only to fourteen members, living close to
fifty littoral and land-locked countries is a retrogressive step and
must be dispensed with the earliest.
The land-locked countries need special deal. The sea has so far
dominated in determining the affluence of nations around its rim. It
is reported that approximately 95% of global trade is carried out
through the sea.8 The Great Game was essentially very selective in
sharing affluence. It is time that the destiny of land locked
countries be changed through constructing infrastructures like roads
and railways and linking them with the rim countries. Relevant in this
context is the idea of strategic linkage with Eurasian Continental
Bridge, which has been elaborately spelt out in my monograph - China
and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia by General Beg, during his
address at 21st Century Forum at Beijing, China.9
In the end one would like to reiterate what
James Grant said: 'Individually, yes, we can do some important things.
But we are setting out to do something that is beyond the powers of
any of us individually. But what we have been demonstrating is that,
when we work together, we really can begin to change the face of
global society, the face of the world.
Notes and References
1. John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, New York, Oxford Univ
Press 1982. P.4.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid p-5.
4. UNICEF - The Progress of Nations 1993.
5. Quoted in World Goodwill Commentary, freedom from fear and want:
Disarmament, Peace and Security. No. 21, Jan 1996. World Goodwill,
120, Wall Street New York NY-10005, USA, p-3.
6. Ibid. p-3.
7. Capturing the Peace Dividend. Human Development Report 1994. UNDP.
Oxford Univ. Press 1994 p-47.
8. Faringdon Hugh Strategic Geography, Rontledge, London 1989, p-42.
9. Aslam Beg, China and the Post Cold War Paradigm in Asia, paper
presented in the First Conference of the 21st Century Forum sponsored
by National Committee of the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative
Conference (CPPCC), Beijing China, September 4-6, 1996, Monograph
printed by FRIENDS Publications.
10. James Grant at the Sixth Bellagio Conference in New Delhi, India.
February 1994.
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/indian-ocean.htm
See also:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/iorarc/
http://www.iornet.com/
http://www.dfa.gov.za/foreign/Multilater...iorarc.htm
http://www.geography.laurentian.ca/cb/ge...ration.htm
http://www.europaworld.org/week208/indianocean21105.htm