Thorn Rimmed Spectacle

WHEN the charter of the 14-member Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation( IOR -ARC ) was adopted in Port Louis, Mauritius, on March 6, the birth pangs of thisgrouping finally bore fruit. But it will not be the end of the contentiousness that hasmarked the initial years of this grouping.

The idea of cooperation among Indian Ocean Rim countries was first suggested by PikBotha, then South African foreign minister, during a visit to New Delhi in 1993.India hadinitially not shown much interest. It was only after Australia became active that NewDelhi decided it couldn’t let another country take the initiative in an area likethis. And since then it has handled the negotiations quite well.

Apart from the charter, two other important things happened at Mauritius. First, it wasdecided to set up a secretariat in the host country. To allay fears of members likeAustralia and Indonesia that the secretariat will turn into some unwieldy, bureaucraticset- up, the name given is ‘pilot mechanism’ for coordinating, servicing andmonitoring policy implementation as well as for administrative matters.

The other important thing was the formation of a working group to go into all issuesrelating to membership and forms of association— observership, guest status, dialoguepartnership— of the IOR -ARC .

The charter places no technical bar on the possibility of any Indian Ocean Rim countrybecoming a member. But the formation of this working group, in effect, means admission ofnew members has been deferred for another couple of years, something India wanted. WhileIndia has been pushing for a smaller grouping, Australia and some other countries havecalled for expanding the membership.

The membership issue is perhaps the most contentious issue before the association now.Eight countries— Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Thailand, Egypt, Seychelles, Japan andFrance— have informally let it be known that they are interested in being membersorbeing associated in some way. France’s claim is based on the Reunion Island beingits territory.

India has good reasons for not favouring an expansion of membership. New Delhi hasargued that a large membership will destroy the effectiveness of the organisation rightfrom the beginning and turn it into another talking shop. A smaller organisation can func-tion better and have a "practical, achievable and modest work programme", whichcan develop over a period of time.

Rahul Roy- Chaudhury of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis goes a stepfurther: "Freeze the membership for three years like the APEC has done. That way,there won’t be any tension over membership and the association can concentrate oneconomic cooperation and making itself viable".

He argues that a lot can be done to increase intra-IOR trade. Presently it is just 20per cent of the entire Indian Ocean trade, whereas the intra- Asia- Pacific trade is 66per cent of the total Asia- Pacific trade. So there is tremendous scope for expansion,says Roy- Chaudhury. Indian officials also cite the example of the European Union andASEAN , which began as fairly small bodies, achieved something and then expanded further.

Besides, the IOR is full of countries which have disputes with each other. SaudiArabia- Yemen, Saudi Arabia- Iran, India- Pakistan and now Iran and Pakistan (overAfghanistan).

Pakistan, say sources, has been lobbying hard among member- countries for formalinclusion in the grouping. Islamabad sees India standing in the way of its membership. NewDelhi’s hesitation stems from its experience in SAARC , which has failed to turn intoan effective body essentially because of the Indo- Pak dispute. However, India has neversaid that it does not want Pakistan in the IOR -ARC .

India had gone along with an expansion— from the original seven members to14— after the first meeting of the Indian Ocean Rim initiative in Mauritius in March1995. The core group, chosen by Mauritius (with help from India), represented seven sub-regions of the Indian Ocean. The countries were— India, Australia, Mauritius,Singapore, Kenya, Oman and South Africa. The seven new members were— Sri Lanka,Indonesia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Tanzania, Yemen and Malaysia. But that left out manycontenders, like Iran, Pakistan and Thailand. In fact, observers say partly why India waskept out of the EU- ASEAN meeting last year was that Thailand was peeved with itsexclusion from the IOR initiative.

But India is in a slightly tricky situation. It has been a driving force, along withSouth Africa and Australia, of this initiative. It wouldn’t be averse to Iran orThailand becoming members. But two things stand in the way. One, its stated objection tomaking the organisation too big. Two, if Iran gets in, Australia will press forPakistan’s membership.

The other contentious issue that threatened to split the IOR - ARC even before it gotgoing was regional security. Australia wanted regional security to be part of the agenda.It felt economic cooperation could make no headway in the absence of security cooperation.India and South Africa stoutly opposed this.

NEW DELHI was deeply suspicious of Australia’s intentions. Indeed, as an Indianofficial once remarked, New Delhi saw Australia as the ‘Trojan Horse’ of thewestern strategic alliance, bringing with it the latter’s military and securitybiases. Says Roy- Chaudhury: "By bringing in the regional security angle, theassociation will de facto legitimise the American presence in the Indian Ocean. TheAustralians won’t be able to cater to regional security needs and will rely onanother country and that will be the US. The US military and naval capability in theIndian Ocean and the Persian Gulf is well known."

India had lobbied hard to isolate the Australians on this issue and at one point eventhreatened to withdraw if regional security was included in the agenda. India’s otherobjection to bringing in security was that it could split the organisation and thus stymieconsensus- building on issues. Experts say while issues related to military security maybe out, Australia hasn’t given up on trying to push in issues of a non- militarynature.

In fact, within three months of the formation of the IOR initiative in Mauritius,Australia hosted a meeting in June 1995, which came to known as the Perth Initiative. AsRoy- Chaudhury says: "In contrast to the Mauritius initiative, this was a‘second track’ event", attended by officials in their personal capacities,business persons and academics from 23 countries, including both India and Pakistan. Theissues discussed included economic cooperation and other subjects like environmentalmatters, women’s issues, maritime cooperation and, not the least, regional security.

As things stand now, ideas from the second track are supposed to feed the firsttrack— that is, the IOR -ARC activities. But it is not as simple as that. TheAustralians told the ministerial meeting in Mauritius this time that the governmentinitiative (or the Mauritius initiative, which also has a business forum and an academicgroup) appeared to be in competition with the business and academic activities. The Indianofficials presumed that the Australians meant the business and academic activities underthe second track, though it was never clearly stated.

Since the IOR -ARC seeks to bolster economic cooperation, a specific work- programme of10 projects has been identified to facilitate and promote trade. India has offered tocoordinate four of these: Indian Ocean Rim Business Centre, IOR -ARC chair and associatefellows, trade promotion programme and investment facilitation and promotion. Otherprojects include human resources development cooperation, tourism promotion anddevelopment, technology enhancement in the Indian Ocean region and so on.

The track two also has several projects, many of them of economic nature. But there areothers related to information technology, environment and energy and mitigation ofmaritime natural disasters, on which work is going on. A meeting of the second track isscheduled to be held in Durban next week.

There is a feeling among some experts that some of the second track projects are doingbetter than those of the first track. Therefore, they argue that some of the first trackprojects (not those being coordinated by India) need to be pushed faster. There has alsobeen a suggestion to merge the two tracks. India will never accept that. India, firstly,does not think much of the second track and, secondly, it would mean accepting that allthe 23 countries, including Pakistan, can be part of the IOR -ARC .