The Hindu Business Line : Summits of symbolism

IN 1992, THE Narasimha Rao government, in which Dr Manmohan Singh was the Finance Minister, launched the `Look East Policy' that, in the words of Dr Singh, "was not merely an external economic policy, it was also a strategic shift in India's vision of the world and India's place in the evolving global economy... " Thirteen years later there has been some success in attaining that goal, with South-East/East Asian nations showing a strong willingness to allow India into their economic club. If proof was required, it was available at the meetings of the countries of this neighbourhood in Kuala Lumpur over the past few days where India was accepted as an important player in the region.

Yet, the entire exercise was mired in symbolism with no specific decision of economic significance. Take, for instance, the India-Asean summit meeting, the fourth in the series.. Though Dr Singh made six proposals to forge a closer relationship with the 10-member Association of South-East Asian Nations — including setting up English language training facilities, organising an IT ministerial and industry forum in 2006, and holding a technology summit also next year — no headway was made on New Delhi's negative list vis-a-vis an India-Asean Free Trade Agreement, which is in the works. The dissatisfaction on the Asean side suggests a lot of stiff bargaining ahead if the FTA is to take off; this is apart from the effort New Delhi will have to make to assuage the fears of Indian industry of being swamped by cheap Asean imports.

Among other things, Dr Singh discussed civil nuclear cooperation, energy security issues, reform of the UN Security Council and measures to tackle terrorism and avian flu with the Asean group and at bilateral meetings with South Korea and Japan from the East Asia grouping (the first East Asia summit brought together the Asean countries plus China, Australia and New Zealand, besides India). As the East Asia summit declaration stated in an omnibus paragraph on the objectives, the focus would be on "promoting development, financial stability, energy security, economic integration and growth, eradicating poverty and narrowing the development gap in East Asia, through technology transfer and infrastructure development, capacity building, good governance and humanitarian assistance and promoting financial links, trade and investment expansion and liberalisation." For New Delhi, however, as Dr Singh made clear, the focus remains on a pan-Asia free trade zone, whose building blocks would be the FTAs with Asean and other economies not excluding Japan, South Korea, Australia and even China.

It may have little to show in terms of practicality, but this exercise has raised hopes. Sure, FTAs are efficient economic frameworks for the consumer everywhere, but national farming, industrial and service sector interests cannot also be allowed to be overrun by cheap foreign competition without being given a reasonable chance to prepare themselves for the assault. More than the India-Asean meet, the inaugural East Asia summit was high on symbolism. It now remains to be seen how well New Delhi, standing on the threshold of the Asian Century, uses the anointment in the best interest of the nation.