The European Union needs to update its regional strategy for relations with South Asia in order to take into account the fundamental geo-political changes in the region and anticipate its possible role in these developments as well as other forthcoming far-reaching economic and trade challenges.

The new strategy and a Summit to move the process forward are warranted in view of dramatic improvements in relations in recent months that could place the countries of the region at a crossroads toward desperately-needed reforms to overcome severe economic and security problems.

Although the phenomenon of “summit fatigue” and the apparent meagre results of other summits might mitigate against the concept, such an effort might symbolically go part of the way toward correcting an imbalance to the detriment of South Asia and in favour of East Asia, which has had the advantage of participating in the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) biannual summits since 1996 and has developed a three-pillar process of economic, political and cultural consultations and activities. Foreign Ministers of the EU and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have been meeting on a regular basis, although awkwardly handicapped by the question of Myanmar-Burma’s participation. There are also summits of EU-Mercosur, African-Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states and with Mediterranean states in the Barcelona process.

The drafting of the EU’s India Strategy Paper might have been one occasion to suggest an upgrading of regional relations, such an offer could be launched at anytime, especially in view of the increased EU involvement in the region in Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan recently. A recent Asian strategy paper issued by the EU Commission envisaged a series of initiatives to assist the newly-revived South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), but the relationship should be significantly upgraded.

The process could be launched by a gathering of Foreign and perhaps other Economic-Finance or Development Ministers in Europe on the margins of an EU General Affairs Council to begin a structured process of discussion of some urgent topics with this South Asia region of some 2 billion population, many living in poverty. Some of these urgent problems, cited by Ambassadors from the region and others, include the trade in textile products following the dismantling in 2005 of existing international agreements, the important but threatened shrimp, seafood and rice exports from these countries to the EU, poverty reduction and sustainable development issues, investment and infrastructure needs, energy resources and supply issues and general capacity building. On the political and security agenda, there are persistent or latent tensions or outright conflict situation that might benefit from some EU input and examples of European experiences at confidence-building. Problems of refugees, ethnic or religious minorities, the process of democracy and human rights and also attention at capacity building. Global issues including proliferation, drug and human trafficking, SARS-AIDS and migration are also important ones for the two regions. A project in the latter area could be directed to develop the capacity of the SAARC Secretariat similar to the effort directed by the EU toward the ASEAN Secretariat. And a meeting and action plan formulated by the EU and SAARC chambers of commerce as well as think tanks and civil society would also be a natural part of the process.

In general it could set in motion and give a certain impulse to activities that at present do not benefit from such high-level visibility and stimulus and signal that there exists a concern and awareness in a Europe perceived as being inward-looking.

This symbolic gesture will, of course, not suffice to address or resolve the existing problems and challenges but it seems as a necessary start and ingredient for any serious approach.

Many in South Asia decry the fact that when the region began its process of independence more than a half-century ago, it was more integrated and more developed and industrialised than its neighbours in Southeast Asia, but the situation has been overturned in the meantime. They attribute it to political and security tensions and conflicts, short-sighted and self-serving elites and a number of other development deficiencies. But some burden of responsibility probably lies with the former colonial powers in the region that seem to have cut and run, leaving some benefits but not adding permanently to the development of the region.

The improved and more propitious climate for relations and cooperation in South Asia would seem to be an appropriate time to redress the illogical situation that finds the EU dealing with only part of Asia in the ASEM process. In time, perhaps a new process with South Asia could be incorporated into a broader ASEM.

Regional capacity-building and integration is an area in which the EU has a wealth of useful experience and achievement to share and should not be reticent in doing so. And South Asia, if it is to develop as a viable presence in a changing world could benefit from such a relationship. It may not be easy to organise overnight, but both sides should make the effort.

This does not automatically translate into EU involvement in regional security problems, such as Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan or others which are best handled by the parties themselves. But the European experience could be a useful reminder of the means to pacify a warring region through the creation of a web of relations, interdependence and mutual self-interest.