There have been as many as 160 allies in the trading world covering 55 percent of the global trade of $ 6.3 trillion in 2004. Some are bilateral like the US-Singapore free trade area, some are regional like 25-nation European Union (EU), 3-nation North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), 10-nation Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and a few are multi-lateral like 148-nation World Trade Organisation (WTO), 21-nation Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 30-nation Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 35-nation ASEAN-EU Meet (ASEM). These trade blocs have attained different levels of five-tiered economic cooperation. These in ascending order of cooperation are: 1) Preferential Trading Arrangement e.g., 7-nation SAARC PTA, 2) Free Trade Area e.g., NAFTA, 3) Customs Union e.g., 3-nation (Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania) East African Community, 4) Common Market e.g., WTO and 5) Economic Union e.g., EU.
Among all these trade blocs across the world, the rule-based institution WTO was formed in 1995 after long 47 years of protracted negotiations with a great hope, aspiration and enthusiasm to integrate the global trade under an umbrella. Recently, bilateralism and regionalism have come to the forefront as the WTO has taken a back seat. Other multilateral groups also prefer to engage in specific issues focusing on their bloc’s interest.
Bangladesh like other countries including India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka who have colonial experiences in recent past was sceptic to any trade pact. Joining of most of the developing countries in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations in 1986 was considered as a moral boosting for Bangladesh to enter into cross-border trade pact. The seven SAARC countries entered into SAPTA i.e., preferential trading arrangement in late 1993 indicating a positive shift from the original charter of SAARC which was founded in 1985. Within a span of eight months after signing SAPTA, Bangladesh signed WTO agreement on 15 April 1994 along with 124 founder members of the WTO. One may ask, did Bangladesh do sufficient homework or preparation before signing of the two important trade pacts? The answer would be rhetoric. But the fact is that Bangladesh was a bit jubilated at that time to enter into trade blocs.
The quest for bilateralism and regionalism has gained additional momentum with the comment of the then US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick soon after the collapse in WTO negotiations in Mexican seaside resort, Cancun in September 2003. He said, “The United States will favour bilateral and regional trade deals with individual blocs or countries, instead of the multilateral accords bartered with all the WTO’s 146 (now 148) members.” The US has already signed FTA with Singapore and Qatar and is on the verge of FTA discussions with Thailand and other Middle East and central Asian countries. Free Trade Bloc of American Hemisphere involving 34 nations is also on the cards. 2005 has been set as the deadline for the FTA of the America’s Agreement to create the world’s largest free trade area with a market of some 800 million people and $ 3.5 trillion in trade annually.
The Latin American trade bloc ‘Mercosur’ involving Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay with Chile and Bolivia as associate members and NAFTA involving the US, Canada, and Mexico are functioning effectively. ASEAN involving Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam with 530 million people and annual trade worth $ 800 billion and the expanded EU involving 25 European countries with 450 million people and trade of over $ 2 trillion annually are also advancing properly. ASEAN will reach full-scale FTA by 2010 and has targeted entering FTA with China by 2010, with India by 2011 and with Japan by 2012. All are set to launch FT talks with South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. They are preparing a road map to create a European-style single market by 2020.
In East, South and Southeast Asia, most economies within or outside the regional groups have been showing strong performances since 2002. According to ADB Report 2004, GDP growth for Asia reached 6.3 percent in 2003. Average inflation remained low at 2.3 percent. Current account surplus was 4.2 percent of GDP. Foreign exchange reserves rose to $ 1.3 trillion in 2003. Obviously, China, India, Thailand and Vietnam have been playing major role in these significant performances. The regional economic development has been achieved due to sharp increase of intra-regional trade and increase of importance of consumer demand in most of the regional countries. Intra-regional trade has been increasing sharply mainly with the emergence of Chinese buoyant economy. China’s import from the region was $ 38 billion in 1995 and reached to some $194 billion in 2003. So, China has become the single largest export market of the major regional countries. Similarly, China is increasing export to the regional countries with a faster rate as it has been maintaining average annual export growth rate of 16.9 percent since 1995. With the increase of the intra-regional trade, an economic dynamism has been prevailing in the region that brings benefit to the regionalism in the years to come. As a result, the region has achieved enhanced growth in most of the economic indicators in 2004 despite impact of SARS virus and tsunamis.
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sector Training and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), another trade bloc in South Asia, initiated in 1997 with four countries and now comprises seven countries: the four original members Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Thailand and three new ones, Myanmar, Nepal and Bhutan. It is now holding FTA talks under the FT framework agreement signed at the 6th BIMSTEC Ministerial meeting held in February 2004. Having a combined population of 1.3 billion people, the trade volume within the group is only 4 percent of the group’s total transnational trade amounting to about $ 250 billion. Under the framework agreement, it was agreed that the three developing countries of India, Sri Lanka and Thailand would cut import tariffs on products on a “fast track” list to zero no later than 30 June 2009, while the other four LDCs would do the same in 2011.
With this backdrop, the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) was signed in the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad from 4-6 January 2004, with a view to bolster regional trade and economic cooperation and grab mutual opportunities and potentialities. The five countries of SAARC are also in BIMSTEC where Pakistan and Maldives have been replaced by Thailand and Myanmar of ASEAN. This overlapping may complicate customs appraisal at the early stages of implementation of the FTAs. Any way, having a population of 1.35 billion, the intra-regional trade of SAARC is currently limited to about 4 percent of global trade amounting to about $152 billion. It indicates that the intra-regional trade has remained stationary even after the formation of SAPTA. But the pace of economic growth in India has been at a blistering average of 9.7 percent a year from 1993 to 2003. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have the average of 5.3 percent and 4.8 percent a year respectively during the same period. Pakistan although faced stagnation in 1990s, has been maintaining 4.3 percent growth average since 2000. These indicate tremendous possibilities to share the individual trade growth within the region.
SAPTA agreement will come into effect from 1 January 2006. It has six core elements: 1) Trade liberalisation programme, 2) Rules of origin, 3) Institutional arrangement, 4) Safeguard measures, 5) Special and differential treatment for LDCs and 6) Dispute settlement mechanism. The salient features of the FTA are: non-LDC (India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) will reduce tariff to 20 percent within 2 years and 0-5 percent within next 5 years and 0-5 percent for the products of LDCs within 3 years. On the other hand, LDCs will reduce tariff to 30 percent within 3 years and 0-5 percent within next 8 years. Contracting parties shall eliminate all quantitative restrictions (QRs) to the products included in the Trade Liberalisation Programmes (TLP). TLP does not apply to the sensitive lists which shall be negotiated by the member countries and will be reviewed after every four years with a view to reducing the number of items in the sensitive list. It is interesting to note that India does not need to take extra initiative for SAFTA as it will have to cut in peak customs duties and QRs within next five years to reach the levels prevailing in ASEAN countries. Rather, it will match India’s FTA deal with ASEAN by 2011.

The unpardonable act
Zafar Alam Sarwar

Terror in any form is not acceptable to human mind, and so is, and has always been, the response of Islamabad to any act of terrorism anywhere in the world. Government of Pakistan condemned outright a series of explosions, which killed at least 50 and injured more than 70 people in New Delhi on the evening of Saturday. An official spokesman called the blasts “barbaric and criminal.” “The attack in a crowded marketplace is a criminal act of terrorism”, said the strongly worded condemnation issued by the Foreign Office the same evening. “The people and government of Pakistan are shocked at this barbaric act and express sympathy with the families of the victims. We hope that a thorough investigation will be carried out and the perpetrators of this act of terrorism will be brought to justice,” the Foreign Office spokesperson’s statement said, and added: “Pakistan strongly condemns the terrorist attacks in New Delhi, which have resulted in the loss of a number of innocent lives.”
The first bomb went off at around 05:30 p.m. local time in the area of Pahar Ganj near the New Delhi railway station, which was crowded by Dewali and Eid shoppers. Tourists also frequent the area. The second explosion took place at Sarojini Nagar market in the south of New Delhi. The third one placed in a suitcase in a bus went off in south Delhi’s Okhla locality. The blasts, according to police, occurred in a span of an hour. Police Commissioner Paul said the explosive, which went off in Pahar Ganj, had been planted either in a motorcycle or a rickshaw. Nobody, no group or no organization whatsoever claimed responsibility for the explosions till Sunday. Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil said it was “too early to jump to conclusions as regards who was behind the attacks. But about an hour after the blasts he said “these were definitely not accidents because three explosions cannot take place simultaneously without any planning.”
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, terming the blasts a “cynical attack on innocent civilians”, asserted that India would win the battle against terrorism. It is very relevant to recall here the great role Pakistan has played so far in countering successfully the advancing menace of terrorism, repeatedly acknowledged by the world community, especially by the United States of America. Pakistan was in the forefront of the war on terrorism launched by the USA soon after the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11 in 2001. The savagery was blamed on some unidentified terrorists in the wake of criticism of the US administration for its slack security. Many raised their fingers at Israel and floated arguments in favour of the theory that the radical Jewish lobby active in the USA was behind the premeditated plan.
President General Pervez Musharraf, who at that time controlled administration of the country as its chief executive, decided in consultation with relevant heads of government departments, to support the USA as a friend in need. Pakistan has stood firm in the coalition against terrorism. Nevertheless, Pakistan sincerely urged other partners to think also about the major causes of what steadily spread in the region and across the world later as terrorism. Pervez Musharraf voiced his country’s concern time and again, which was appreciated by several European including France and the UK. Wisdom, sanity and foresightedness have not vanished from the well-times idea. Coalition partners need to ponder it now, and so should be done by India. Such an exercise by the countries facing terrorism, in harmony with each other without any bias and emotional outburst, will help determine the root-cause of terrorism everywhere in the world.
One has to distinguish terrorism from struggle for freedom from the yoke of any form of imperialism. World history is witness to the fact that sometimes peoples engaged in legal fight for freedom from illegal occupation of their land by others and assertion of their right to self-determination already acknowledged by the United Nations Organization have no means other than taking up arms to achieve their objective. Didn’t Americans do it against Britain? If Mahatama Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah were against armed struggle against the British in the sub-continent and instead began a constitutional war on the foreign occupiers what the other freedom fighters were doing. Who formed the Azad Hind Fauj? Was that without the backing of the masses? The fact of the matter, one thinks, is that the people of Kashmir occupied by India are following in the footsteps of the leading freedom fighters of Indo-Pak sub-continent like Gandhi and Jinnah as well as George Washington of America.
Pakistan has supported the cause of Kashmiris on the basis of human rights and principles on which the UNO was established in 1945. And that does not mean in any sense that it approves of any terrorist activity. Pakistan herself is victim of terrorism. One can glance over the record of bomb blasts and casualties during the last 15 years in Lahore, Pindi Bhattian, Gujranwala, Sheikhupura and Rawalpindi. The terrorists have not spared Balochistan province of Pakistan. Who is behind such explosions? New Delhi government is in the know of it.
The question is: how India should counter it? Pakistan met the challenge and dealt terrorism with an iron hand in the interest of mankind and world peace. India would be doing a good service to humanity by joining hands with Pakistan sincerely to contain terrorism and extremism. After all, the Indian rulers, like their counterparts in Pakistan, will have to be wise, considerate and adjust themselves to the new modern conditions of time and demands of enslaved peoples. Uncalled for remarks against neighbours do not carry weight, let alone any positive impact. Such an act in the wake of ongoing peace process and confidence-building measures draws one’s attention from what Pakistan considers as the pardonable act of terrorism.
Surprisingly, some Indian TV channels obliquely blamed Pakistan. An old journalist, introduced to viewers as Mr. Malik by BBC, opined the blasts were pre-meditated. He hinted at the possibility of some banned jehadi outfit being behind Saturday’s incident. A Pakistani newspaper’s correspondent based in New Delhi in his report filed the same evening said the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party pointedly declined to take sides. One may recall the BJP had rushed to see involvement of Kashmiri freedom fighters in May this year when bombs exploded at two cinema-houses in Delhi. Sikh militants were eventually blamed for those attacks.

A battle between liberty and authoritarianism in Britain
Charles Kennedy

A crucial division of opinion is opening up between the party of civil liberties and the party of authoritarianism in Britain. Liberal Democrats are on the side of civil liberties. Labour — which had a proud libertarian tradition when Roy Jenkins was home secretary in the 1960s — is now the party of authoritarianism. The prime minister embodies a shift that is becoming a defining issue of our politics. We take for granted our freedom in this country, but at our peril. Walter Wolfgang, who heckled the foreign secretary at the Labour party conference, was ejected and detained under terrorism legislation. Our judicial system is based on certain presumptions - the first of which is the presumption of innocence. The onus is always on the prosecution, not the defence, to prove its case. Second, anyone accused of a crime has the right to be judged by his fellow citizens on a jury. Third, no one should be detained for more than a very short period without being charged. And fourth, judges are there to interpret the law independent of interference from the executive.
These are safeguards that have developed over hundreds of years in order to secure our individual rights. It is customary, in a democracy, to assume our elected leader will uphold them together with the independence of the judiciary. Yet Tony Blair — a lawyer — has attacked them all. He has questioned the principle of innocent until proved guilty, promoted the concept of summary justice and now wants to lock people up without charge. His attitude appears to be that the judiciary should be an arm of government — there to do his bidding. But the day that judges start to act on the instructions of politicians is the day when we cross the line from a free society to a totalitarian state. This authoritarianism is wrong-headed and dangerous.
The current legislation going through parliament — ID cards, religious hatred and the anti-terrorism bills — highlight how Blair, faced with a threat, instinctively seeks to curtail rather than preserve our freedom. He says the anti-terrorism legislation is a vital response to “the new terror threat”. Certainly, the July 7 bombings highlighted some legal loopholes that need to be plugged. That is why we are supporting the proposed new offence of acts preparatory to terrorism. But the prime minister doesn’t stop there. He is trying to push through imprisonment without trial for 90 days and an offence of “glorification”. Neither of these is necessary. Once the other new offences are in place, the police will have sufficient powers to hold suspects. And what on earth is the preposterous offence of “glorification” as a means of incitement? How do you define it? It’s a gratuitous attack on our freedom of speech.