India and dawn of a multipolar world

Once upon a time

Throughout the post war period and until the fall of Soviet Union, the world order was bipolar. At one end was the capitalist United States with its European allies and on other was a socialist Soviet Union with its European members behind the “iron curtain”. There was a third but insignificant pole, the nonaligned group of mainly poor countries. The third pole or the third world eventually became synonymous to poverty and to this date, the term “poor countries” and “third world countries” are used interchangeably.

The world order changed in the post-Soviet era. The cold war came to an end and Russia descended into an economic nightmare. The “shock therapy” Boris Yeltsin administered to the markets resulted in crony capitalism and hyperinflation, wiping out savings of common citizens. The world ceased to be bipolar and America more or less dominated the global landscape. Meanwhile elsewhere in the world, new equations were being written. China had started to show signs of tremendous economic potential and India opened up for investment.

The dragon, the elephant and the pivot to Asia

The fall of Soviet Union seemed to have perfectly timed with events elsewhere. The next two decades proved that the world was no longer unipolar (as America would like to believe) or even bipolar. The rise of third world has created a multipolar world. The first world saw a decline, both in economic and military power. America ended up being entangled in a bloody mess in West Asia while its European allies struggled with recession and plummeting defence spending (most of the NATO members fall short of the 2% targets on defence spending). China rose to prominence, both in economic and military terms. India, despite its bureaucracy and lethargy turned out to be of immense interest to western world. President Obama shifted his interest to “pivot to Asia”. President Putin safely installed himself as a long term ruler of Russia and opened up another power centre with his plans to counter the European Union. The mess in Ukraine is a fine example of EU – Russia power game.

With a multipolar world inevitable, where does India stand in the scheme of things? In his just concluded visit, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, “India is an emerging democratic superpower”. It is hard to say whether he was referring to India’s vibrant democracy or referring to India as an emerging superpower in literal terms. Whatever the case be, India is attracting more attention than ever. The biggest advantage (or disadvantage) is India’s proximity to China. It assures, no one should feel threatened with the “peaceful rise” of China. But the territorial disputes with almost all its neighbours and a claim to almost all of South China Sea has always betrayed the assurance China gives on its peaceful rise.

Will the Buddha smile?

From Myanmar to Japan, countries are deeply suspicious of China’s expansionist threat. India comes as a natural counterbalance due to its economic potential and to some extent military deterrence. Since a few years Asian countries have tried to cosy up to India in an attempt to send a message to China. It is unlikely that India will play a role of a military superpower, the way America has played in the past or the way China intends to. The situation however provides for a very good opportunity where India can secure its national interest and open up new opportunities for its businesses abroad and invite businesses to India and create employment.

Are you thinking what I am thinking?

Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Myanmar, all at some point have shown keen interest in doing business with India. Most of the time the reason behind such warmth is a mix of business interest and a rising China. Under the previous administration of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India did not seize the opportunity. The incumbent has shown a clear departure in foreign policy from his predecessor. In the first one hundred days in office the Prime Minister has travelled to Bhutan, Nepal and Japan. He sent his minister for foreign affairs, Sushma Swaraj to at least half a dozen countries in the same period. His Australian counterpart recently concluded his two day visit, which also saw an agreement on civil nuclear partnership.

All this will prove useful only if the visits are turned into concrete business opportunities. The equation of supply and demand will dictate the market, as usual. The world needs India as a counter balance to rising China. India needs the world to set manufacturing base in India and new markets for Indian businesses. The equation is perfect.

If one were to put a red flag on power centres of the world today, there would be one too close to another. America, the EU, Russia, India, China and Japan are all trying to make space for their ambitious plans or are struggling to hold on to what they fear losing.

Territorial expansion died in twentieth century (still thriving in Russia). Today the struggle is about control over resources and markets. The fear of a not so peaceful China rising will bring countries together. India has as much to watch out for as far away Japan. The big question is, “will India stand up to the occasion”?

India at the United Nations Security Council - You propose, I oppose

India has been a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seven times since 1950. Its current membership will end in December 2012. This membership period is perhaps the most interesting period in India’s history of UN membership of the Security Council. January 2011, started off with a wave of unprecedented string of uprisings in North Africa and Middle East. What started in Tunisia as a rebellion against the corrupt regime soon spread to the entire region and came to be known as the Arab Spring. Sadly as the Arab Spring gave way to Arab summer and winter, India watched the events from the sidelines or sat on the wrong side of the voting table.

The very first opportunity came up in shape of the Libyan crisis. As the Arab spring entered Libya hundreds of civilians became target of organised massacre by Mr Gaddafi. In middle of March 2011, Gaddafi forces announced a massive crack down on rebel forces in Bengazhi (second city of Libya), which immediately deteriorated the situation. The UNSC proposed to adopt a resolution (resolution number 1973) to enforce a no fly zone. The Libyans wanted UN intervention, the members of neighbouring Arab countries supported UN action, India however chose to abstain. The argument used to justify abstention on voting was more of a lame excuse. India said that the report prepared by the special envoy to Libya was not made available and the secretariat has not made an assessment of the report. In such a situation it will be unfair to take military action. India suggested political efforts to handle the situation, while a city of 650,000 people was under imminent danger from forward marching Gaddafi forces.

The second opportunity came when the case of Mr Gbagbo came up for discussion. Mr Gbagbo disputed the victory of Mr Ouattara, his political rival who won a presidential runoff election in November 2010. Mr Gbagbo’s refusal to hand over power to the legitimate winner (the election was monitored by international observers) started a spate of political violence. Thousands of people were killed by supporters Mr Gbagbo and hundreds of thousands fled their homes. The scale of violence was grave enough to be termed as the second civil war of Côte d’Ivoire. The UNSC adopted a resolution sanctioning military intervention to save civilians from the ongoing killings. The situation in Côte d’Ivoire was clearly an anathema to India’s democratic values. India was not a member of UNSC at the time the resolution (sanctioning military intervention) was adopted. However, India voted against another resolution (on 31^st March 2011) referring the case of Mr Gbagbo to the International Criminal Court. In its speech on the voting floor India came across as a country which preferred restrain even as thousands of civilians were killed or displaced.

Let there be no vote

Yet another opportunity presented itself with intensifying of conflict in Syria. The Human Rights arm of UN, The Human Rights Council on 23^rd August proposed to adopt a resolution to send an independent international commission of inquiry to Syria to investigate alleged violation of human rights. Syrians have been experiencing government crackdown ever since the protests first started on 26^th January 2011. Thousands were killed, tortured and arrested by August 2011. In its response to the resolution India said, “India’s traditional position on country specific resolutions is well known. We do not regard spotlighting and finger -pointing at a country for human right violations as helpful. We believe that engaging the country concerned in collaborative and constructive dialogue and partnership is a more pragmatic and productive way forward...” India abstained from voting.

Beware of the foreign hand

Three crucial votes and India played the spoilsport in all three. India however was not the only country sitting on the wrong side of the table. Russia and China consistently opposed most of the resolutions (it took a lot of effort to make them support the no fly zone over Libya). On careful analysis all the three resolutions were also an instrument of regime change. The UN on behalf of its member states and with support of NATO forces successfully changed regimes in Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. For countries like Russia and China this is their worst fears coming true.

Both Russia and China are accused of large scale human rights abuses, restricting free press, restriction on free movement of people and above all murdering democracy. While the Arab world was blossoming in its Arab Spring, China put extra policemen on the streets to stop a Jasmine revolution. Election results in Russia were predefined and Mr Putin decided to grab power for two more terms. Elections in China happen every decade without a single vote being cast. With political opponents and dissidents being sent to prison on frivolous charges both Russia and China are the hotspots of absolute power. They would be the last ones to support any such resolutions, which are aimed at altering the political framework of a country.

On the contrary India is a shining example of democracy. Human right records put India much ahead of Russia and China, India enjoys a free press and people are free to move within the country. With all the good players on its side India still lost the game. What went wrong with India? There can be many reasons as to why India behaved the way it did. The reasons can be traced back to the cold war and beyond.

As a young democracy India preferred to not align with any of the military blocs during the cold war. Acting on the principle of non interference India together with Egypt and what was then Yugoslavia started a Non Align Movement. This was a bloc of recently independent colonies in Asia and Africa (mostly poor). This bloc came to be known as the third world (the West and Soviet being first and second). India wanted to shed its colonial baggage and march ahead. However, later on India did suffer from some setbacks where the Western bloc meted out a raw deal to India. The non cooperation of the West in the Kashmir issue at the UN and later a war with China demonised it. India opposed whatever the West proposed. This also led to India’s proximity with the Soviet Union during later years of the Cold War.

Though India has emerged out of the “Hindu rate of growth” in economic terms it still is stuck in the cold war days when it comes to diplomacy. It still finds the concept of “sovereignty” extremely touchy and sometimes misunderstands it. Political veterans still refer to the “foreign hand” when situations go out of control (be it inflation or FDI in retail). India still feels threatened by the West and its ideas. However, India aspires to be the member of UNSC. But the question is, is India ready for that position? 

Indo – Russian tango

Freezing cold Soviet Union was India’s best friend during the Cold War. India imported a lot from Moscow, from wheat to fighter jets. Times changed, Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union, India ushered into green revolution and later into an economic revolution. What remained unchanged all along was the love between India and Russia. There are many reasons why the cosy relations never soured. Bitter experiences with the western countries (especially America) in the past and common strategic interest in the region were the two main forces behind the strong bonding in the past. In recent years, India’s growing defense market and booming economy are the main reasons for the Russians to maintain status quo. Some where the shared values of clinging on to power and big ticket state corruption too bind the two countries together.

Mr. Singh at the Kremlin

The doors are open, but what is on offer?

December witnessed yet another flurry of activities in the South Block secretariat (where the ministry of external affairs is based). Prime Minister Singh was on a three day state visit to Moscow. The visit did not generate much interest in Indian media due to lack of any significant development or announcements. The 36 point joint statement on Ministry of External Affiars’ website is bland. Most of the points talk about “expressing satisfaction” on status quo. The only thing worth a mention is the deal offering licensed production of 42 Sukhoi – MKI 30 jets by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in India.

Prime Minister Singh also assured his counterpart about starting operations at the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in a couple of weeks. The power plant is being built with Russian collaboration. Ironically, Mr. Singh also congratulated Mr Putin (president in waiting) on winning the Duma elections by his United Russia Party. The election results (widely believed to be heavily rigged) prompted widespread protests by Russians in Moscow and other major cities. Mr Putin ordered the army into the main city square to stop the protests. International observers have complained of widespread fraud in the elections, which gave just under 50% of the votes to the ruling United Russia Party. Observes say that the figures may be inflated by as much as 20%. Mr Singh has undoubtedly embarrassed the Indian democratic values by his gesture.  

The other things the tow countries discussed were of mere ornamental value. Russia’s support to India’s candidature of permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, countering terrorism, encouraging people to people contact, space collaboration, etc were reiterated for the umpteenth time. In the context of the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, the countries reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of searching the way to overcome crises in the region in compliance with law, exclusively through peaceful means, avoiding violence and outside intervention, through broad, inclusive national dialogue on democratic reforms, taking into account the legitimate rights and aspirations of the peoples of the region. This effectively means being a bystander and watching from the sidelines, without contributing to the cause.

Opportunities passing by

What India should focus on apart from the ornamental details are some serious issues like finding synergies post Russia’s entry into WTO, leveraging the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to get a strong hold in the fast emerging Central Asian market and closer cooperation in filed of energy. Kazakhstan has suddenly found itself flush with unexpected oil and gas reserves in the North Western oil field of Karachaganak and yet to be commissioned offshore oil field Kashagan in north Caspian Sea. The proposed comprehensive economic cooperation agreement between India and Belarus-Kazakhstan-Russia Custom Union will greatly help the Indian energy needs for its growing economy. The SCO in recent years has gained importance in Central Asian business and strategic affairs. China’s undying hunger for natural resources and energy has got the countries in the region closer to it. Oil pipelines now traverse the harsh terrain to enter China and trade has increased seven folds in as many years. China is aggressively pushing for a free trade agreement for the six member trade bloc.

It is time India revived its own Regional trade bloc, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and aggressively look for a foothold in activities in its near abroad.