Can Bimstec Replace Saarc?

For years now, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has remained effectively paralyzed. Summits are suspended, initiatives are stalled. As a result, the promise of South Asian regional cooperation has quietly faded.

Why did this happen? The answer is not unknown. The India-Pakistan rivalry has repeatedly blocked the process. One bilateral conflict has held an entire region hostage.

This is where the current debate begins.

In this vacuum, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is being projected as an alternative platform. Many policymakers argue: If SAARC cannot move, let us move on. Let us work through BIMSTEC instead. 

At the same time, another view persists: SAARC should not be abandoned. Given Bangladesh’s pioneering role in initiating the concept of regional cooperation and hosting the first Summit in Dhaka, it should try to revive the platform. This idea also gained some traction during the interim government period in Bangladesh.

So, we are thus left with two questions: Can BIMSTEC replace SAARC? And can SAARC itself be revived? Both require sober reflection.

SAARC was established in 1985, as I mentioned, with strong backing from Bangladesh, and it aimed to promote economic growth, social progress, and collective self-reliance in South Asia. On the other hand, BIMSTEC was launched in 1997, again with Bangladesh as a key promoter, and sought to connect South and Southeast Asia through practical cooperation in trade, connectivity, and development.

SAARC’s Limits and BIMSTEC’s Test

It is abundantly clear that SAARC did not fail for lack of vision, but because politics intervened. If I am candid, regional cooperation needs a minimum level of trust. That trust has been missing. Without it, no institution can function. So, the problem is more of a structural, not merely functional.

This makes revival difficult. Calls to revive SAARC may be politically appealing, but without changes in the underlying tensions, they risk becoming slogans rather than strategy.

BIMSTEC, by contrast, offers a different configuration. It avoids the most difficult fault lines and focuses on functional cooperation. It has made some progress -- the adoption of its Charter, the Bangkok Vision 2030, and the connectivity master plan signal a move toward structure and implementation.

For Bangladesh, this is encouraging. Investments in infrastructure -- such as the Padma Bridge and the expansion of Chattogram Port -- align very much with BIMSTEC’s connectivity agenda. These are not just national projects; they have regional implications.

Improved connectivity can reduce transport time and costs, strengthen supply chains, and open new markets for Bangladeshi goods and services across the region. If this vision materializes, the Bay of Bengal could emerge as an important economic corridor, with Bangladesh as a bridge between the two regions. But caution is necessary.

BIMSTEC is still a relatively young and lightly institutionalised organization. Many of its plans are still on paper. Progress on key areas, including the BIMSTEC Free Trade Area, has been slow. Institutional capacity is limited, and implementation gaps continue.

These are not minor issues. In fact, they are the same weaknesses that once undermined SAARC.

The real risk is not failure -- it is over-expectation. As SAARC has stalled, BIMSTEC has become the default alternative. Yet expectations are rising faster than delivery. Without visible gains -- faster trade, better connectivity, pooled energy -- confidence will eventually erode.

 No Shared Regional Identity

There is also a greater challenge.

Regional integration is not only about infrastructure. It is about people. It requires a feeling of belonging -- a common identity. The Bay of Bengal region does not yet have that. Its countries differ widely in political systems, economic capacity, governance standards, and historical experience.

Development gaps, market size asymmetries, and varied regulatory regimes make cooperation all the more difficult. These differences do not necessarily make cooperation or cohesion impossible, but they do make it more challenging. Without a feeling of common interest and shared belonging, regionalism remains merely transactional. It delivers projects, but not community.

So, can BIMSTEC replace SAARC? Only partially, and only conditionally.

It can provide a more functional platform, less bound by political deadlock. It can advance sectoral collaboration and assistance Bangladesh’s development goals. But it cannot completely replicate SAARC’s original vision.

What Should Bangladesh Do?

For Bangladesh, the choice is not binary. Reviving SAARC is desirable but depends on forces beyond its control. BIMSTEC, on the other hand, offers space for practical progress.

The sensible approach is to remain pragmatic -- to work where results are possible, while continuing to support larger regional cooperation when conditions allow. In the end, institutions do not succeed because of declarations. They succeed because they solve problems.

Can BIMSTEC make trade easier?

Can it improve connectivity?

Can it help address climate and security challenges?

And can it begin to build a sense of regional community?

The Bay of Bengal once connected this region. It can do so again. But hope is not enough. BIMSTEC will not succeed simply because SAARC failed. It will succeed only if it delivers. I think the message for Bangladesh is pretty clear: stay pragmatic, and keep expectations realistic.

The question remains: Are we ready -- or are we simply shifting our hopes from one platform to another?

Md Mustafizur Rahman was a career diplomat serving the country for over three decades in various capacities, including as the High Commissioner to India.