The Political-Economy of the South Asian Economic Union

#10 by mohar11 on December 30, 2005 1:52pm PT

You and me both.. :)

Loudoun county: Fewer farm animals than Fauqier county, cheaper housing than Fairfax county.

I`m only afraid Fauqier will say: Farm animals, but no AOL..

8/arjun

Hmmm.... Fairfax county is doing all that......May be I should lobby my county [Loudoun] to open an office in Bangalore.....

SUMMARY:

A beggar country, completely dependent on US aid, will trade with india only if india gives them something for free!


ANALYSIS:

Usual bevakoofy nonsense, just clothed in long-english words. A culture with an excessive sense of self-entitlement and importance (contrary to facts on the ground) can go nowhere. Generating jihad is one thing, creating wealth and education is another.

#4 by mohar11 on December 30, 2005 12:56pm PT


Until then - India has better things to do.....


Yup..It`s not like there`s a shortage of willing trading partners..Here we have my former county opening a trade office in India, lobbying Indian companies to invest in Fairfax...

Fairfax`s Point Man in India
Prasad Tagat Touts the County`s Corporate Pluses

By S. Mitra Kalita
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 2005; Page D01

BANGALORE, India -- Most Indians have never heard of Fairfax County. Prasad Tagat aims to change that.

Calling himself a ``brand ambassador`` for Fairfax County, Tagat is in charge of luring technology companies from here -- India -- to there -- Northern Virginia. Hired in 2004, Tagat attends breakfast meetings and networking luncheons throughout India armed with glossy brochures and folders provided by the county. He recites statistics about the Fairfax school system and the number of Hindu temples in the county.

`` What is, then, the future of the South Asian Economic Union? The answer to that question comes from the political rather than economic realm. South Asian Economic Union, like the European Union, is hypothesized to bring peace to this volatile region. After the end of the second world war, for example, it was inconceivable that Germany and France would ever enter into an economic arrangement--much less a union--of the kind that they find themselves in today. Some have argued that the biggest benefit of the EFTA and EU is that it has diminished the prospect of another war between these traditional European rivals to a virtual impossibility. Similar factors were at play when ASEAN was founded in the 1960s as the smaller countries in South East Asia region vowed to cooperate amongst each other to guard against possible invasion by larger players in the region ( e.g. China, Korea, and Japan). That seemed to have worked thus far as well. ``

In the long run India can hold well against the big players - USA, Europe, Japan, China etc.
Having said that it does not hurt to have an economic pact with all the smaller neighbors.

The real issue is what are the roles/interests/agendas of various interest groups in Pakistan and Bangladesh ? There are too big for all of them to be ptoadies and oodles for the Indian government. That is a question that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have to formulate largely on their own.

Can Indians make the kind of sacrifices (made by larger EU members e.g. Germany and France) needed to make this arrangement a reality? Can India really prove themselves worthy of leading a group of skeptical countries without actually making them feel that they are being led?


Let me translate that from pakispeak to English, for those uninitiated in paki-isms:

If India is willing to hand over Kashmir to us on a platter, Pakistan will be magnimous enough to trade with India, an economy 10 times it`s size with a higher per capita income..a trade relationship that will benefit Pakistan more than India giving Pakistani businesses access to a market size they can only dream of.

Please...feel free to trade with China...

behram1 #1

`` The optimistic view of a South Asian economic union like the EU, amongst nations of South Asia is flawed for several reasons. Muslims of South Asia look towards Iran and Saudi Arabia for political and spiritual guidance, but more towards the former. Also, Iran has a huge circle of influence amongst Central Asian “stan” countries. ``

As South Asian Muslims become wiser they will realize the high oil prices Iran and Saudi Arabia charge hurt their economic well being. Not to mention they prop up corrupt elites in those states.

`` Furthermore, because of its bigger economy, India will naturally strive for unchallenged leadership of this economic union. There will be huge economic disparities too. ``

Tell me a land border that two South Asian countries share with each other.
Burma with Bangladesh
Pakistan with Afghanistan

This is if you want to call Burma and Afghanistan South Asian countries.

`` Also, the only country that India could claim to have good neighbourly relations with is Nepal. This doesn’t say much for a country that dreams of becoming a regional super power. ``

Explain to me exactly what problems India has currently with Burma, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka.

[..Can India really prove themselves worthy of leading a group of skeptical countries without actually making them feel that they are being led? ....]

A resounding NO..... if other SA countries are ``skeptical`` as you said - then let`s not waste time on any kind of union - it won`t work.... And on top of that - if the potential members of the proposed union also ``feel`` bad about being led by india - then we are too early for this project........ first the members have to grow up and shed their infantile stupidity of ``feeling bad about being led``.....and accept the reality that India is going to be the undisputed leader of the pack....

Until then - India has better things to do.....

[...Can India show the kind of magnanimity befitting of an emerging super-power...]

Emerging super-power? let`s not jump the gun yet..... India is a developing country and will remain so for foreseeable future - and going by the shenanigans of its current breed of m0r0nic ``leaders`` - India will remain a ``developing`` country for a long time to come....

That said - ``magnanimity`` is the wrong word.... because we are talking about ``Economics`` here..... there has to be give and take - of ``equal`` measure where both parties are getting something that works for them......Only then a successful relation can be built between multiple parties....For example - if Bangladeshis want more market access in India - they would have provide transit access to Indian goods..... they cannot expect India to be ``magnanimous`` and give unilateral goodies.....

Any ``economic union`` that starts with an assumption of ``magnanimity`` on part of any member is bound to fail..... I am surprised to see this sentiment being professed over and over again - most notably by pakistanis..... Such mindset is completely flawed to begin with..... Which is probably why any such economic union has never taken hold in south asia.... and will never happen as long as other potential members of the union are looking for ``free`` goodies from india.

India cannot afford to be ``magnanimous`` - even if it were a super-power. No country can really afford to do so.....

EU and Nafta worked not because of the sacrifices, mostly political that you are referring to, but because member nations alreeady had a history of trading and commerce between them, some of which was quite significant. The amount of trade between the SA nations is paltry until there is economic dependency between countries getting into such unions is foolish.


US already had moved significant production to MExico and Latin America. Capex into new projects was already flowing through to emerging markets within the proposed NAFTA region. US was a big market for the products made in these countries. Economic dependency. It is a much easier sell than trying to set up an economic union when there is a legacy of economic interdependecy.

It would work wihtin South Asia, probably around 5-10 yrs time when there will be a clear leader within the region, India. Both in terms of economic might and also socio political influence that such might warrants.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005 12 30 story_30-12-2005_pg3_7

Economic union

Sir: The commentary from the Indian lobby makes it seem as though all is suddenly well amongst South Asian countries. This is not and cannot be the case for some time.

The European Union comparison, that some make, is flawed. It came by as a consequence of World War II that had devastated the European countries. In the early 1980s when Britain was included, its prime minister Margaret Thatcher made sure that the union would be expanded to include more countries. Presently there are 25 countries in the European Union. Some believe that Britain wanted more members so that any centralised decision-making should become hard — thereby defeating the original theme of a federal Europe.

The optimistic view of a South Asian economic union like the EU, amongst nations of South Asia is flawed for several reasons. Muslims of South Asia look towards Iran and Saudi Arabia for political and spiritual guidance, but more towards the former. Also, Iran has a huge circle of influence amongst Central Asian “stan” countries.

Furthermore, because of its bigger economy, India will naturally strive for unchallenged leadership of this economic union. There will be huge economic disparities too.

Also, the only country that India could claim to have good neighbourly relations with is Nepal. This doesn’t say much for a country that dreams of becoming a regional super power.

BEHRAM B ATASHBAND