The case of Himalayan handshake and indispensable partnership

India engaged with the world’s second and third largest economies over the past two weeks. The Chinese premier Li Keqiang made his first stop in India on his four nation itinerary. The visit happened weeks after Chinese military pitched tents 19 km inside Indian territory in early April. The incident attracted international attention and set rolling diplomatic manoeuvres between India and China. The standoff was resolved just in time to salvage the state visit of External Affairs minister Salman Khurshid to China and recently concluded visit of Mr Li to India.

China’s relationship with India has not been smooth in the past decades. Much like China’s strained relationship with its other neighbours in South China Sea, its relationship with India is soured over a border dispute (both countries fought a brief war in 1962, which India lost). Despite the border issues and lack of mutual trust both countries do significant amount of trade between them. China is India’s largest trade partner with total trade in 2012 at USD 66 billion (a decline of 12% over 2011). While trade is a good sign of cooperation and stability between the two countries, the fundamentals of a lasting peaceful coexistence are missing. Both countries accuse each other of encircling eachother with strategic assets in its immediate neighbourhood. The long standing border dispute, one of the main reasons for lack of trust is not heading towards a solution. China and India are rapidly building up their military and naval powers much to the dislike of each other.

The hand across the Himalaya

Given the strained relationship of India and China the visit of premier Li should have been used to start a process of easing the tensions. Sadly the visit ended with lot of politically correct statements and eight uninspiring documents signed by the two sides. Of these eight documents only two were of any real value. The first is the work programmes of three working groups for services and trade promotion, economic and trade planning and trade statistical analysis. The second is sharing of information on Brahmaputra (a river in north eastern India, which originates in Tibet) during flood seasons. The other six documents deal with Kailash Mansarovar yatra (a Hindu pilgrimage in Himalayas now under Chinese control), meat quarantine, sewage treatment, irrigation, translation and publication of classical work and identifying sister cities. Mr Li however reiterated that the handshake across the Himalaya is now stronger than before. When two fastest growing emerging economies sign agreements on sewage treatment and meat quarantine it can hardly be seen as a handshake. It was more of a nodding from a distance than a real handshake.

The more interesting visit is however that of India’s prime minister Mr Manmohan Singh to Japan. Japan, like many other countries in the region shares an uneasy relationship with China which goes back to the days of imperialist Japan. On top of that both countries have seen loud sabre rattling over a group of uninhabited islands (Senkaku to Japanese and Diaoyu to Chinese) recently. In fact the situation there is much more volatile than that between India and China. The rise of Mr Shinzo Abe, a nationalist as the prime minister of Japan has made matters worse for China. He has taken an aggressive stand against the long stagnation of the economy and is projecting himself as a man who wants to restore the lost glory of Japan.

Lets do it together

At the end of the visit India and Japan agreed on various issues ranging from civil nuclear energy cooperation, possible technology transfer of an amphibious aircraft the US-2, funding for urban infrastructure, funding of Chennai – Bangalore industrial corridor, a high speed train between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, educational grants and so on. This kind of cooperation will have a long lasting impact on the bilateral relationship and will create opportunities for both countries in the near future. India with its growing economy and younger population is a large market for Japanese investments. 

At present Japan is the second largest foreign investor in China with a total investment of USD 70 billion. A survey by Japan export trading organisation last year showed that India is emerging as the most preferred alternative site for Japanese investment. Japanese companies are facing problems in China due to the political relations of the two countries. Industry experts say that even if a small fraction of the Japanese investment in China moves to India it will create many jobs and boost industrial production.

The difference between the two visits is stark. The Chinese visit can at best be considered as a step towards an attempt to forge good relationship. The Japanese visit on the other hand is graduation of a long relationship into that of a natural indispensible partnership.  

India and its oil policy

India’s foreign policy has ruffled a few feathers of late. Largely restrained and reactionary the Ministry of External Affairs has been working overtime to secure India’s energy interests. The global oil markets are going through a rough patch. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz; South Sudan stopped oil production in early January, loss of Syrian oil because of embargoes, drop in exports from Yemen due to strikes and closure of North Sea rigs due to repairs; all this has lead to a situation of panic in the global oil market. The Economist reported that all these disruptions have shaved off 1.25 million barrels a day of crude output globally. The situation might improve later in the year with most of the production resuming, however this is a clear signal to net oil importing economies that a small disruption in the supply chain can cause serious troubles at home.

India imports 80% of its fuel requirements and offers subsidies on diesel, kerosene and cooking gas. The provisions towards fuel subsidy in the budget of 2012-13 are Rs. 43,580 crores (USD 8.5 billion, at Rs 51.15 for a Dollar). Any increase in crude price will have a huge impact on India’s fuel bill. With a fast growing economy India cannot afford to be caught in a situation where its energy requirements are compromised with. At present India imports a lot of oil from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia being the largest exporter, followed by Iran. Together Saudi Arabia and Iran contribute one third of India’s imports, making India heavily dependent on these two countries. With uncertainty looming large over the region, India has rightly decided to revisit its global oil policy.

To diversify its oil basket India has started exploring other options. There are three instances where India has taken a stand contrary to its established foreign policy. The overseas arm of ONGC has engaged in off-shore exploration in South China Sea. China for long has claimed sovereignty over most of the South China Sea sighting historical evidences. In later 2011 and early 2012, China has raised concerns over Indian expeditions in the region. China also terms the Indian endeavours as provocative and urges restrain. So far the Chinese statements on this matter have been restrained and a direct reference to India is not made. On the other hand Chinese neighbours like Vietnam (which claims the oil reserves to be in its Exclusive Economic Zone), Taiwan, The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand all have territorial disputes over the South China Sea. Some political commentators describe this region as the most dangerous point of conflict in the region. India’s attempt to seek commercial and strategic foothold in such a region is clearly unprecedented.

In early days of April 2012, India appointed as special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, again a departure from India’s established foreign policy. For the first time India has categorically mentioned its oil needs as the prime reason for appointing a special envoy. Press statements quote ministry officials saying, "There were three main reasons to send a special envoy - ensure our oil interests are protected, communicate our support for the peace initiative between the two nations and strengthen our technical support to them." India is also challenging the Chinese claims of setting up an alternate pipeline through Kenya in less than two years time.

Lets talk crude

Of all attempts made by India to secure its energy needs the manoeuvres with Iran are the most interesting. International pressure on an Iranian oil embargo is such that it is impossible to pay for Iranian oil through conventional means of bank transfers. The US and EU have banned the payment mechanism in place in Dubai and have delisted all Iranian banks from the SWIFT facility (an electronic funds transfer facility). India as maintained that it will not stop its oil imports from Iran (so have China, Russia, South Korea and Japan). India is now exploring mechanisms to pay for Iranian oil in Rupees. There are technical difficulties in doing so (including many from the Iranian side), however India and Iran are trying to work together to find a solution. In the mean while government of India has announced tax breaks for exports to Iran done in Rupees. The Indian exports will be used to pay for Iranian oil.

These may be considered as bold steps by the Indian government, especially given the fact that they might annoy India’s two largest trade partners, the US and China. But these steps are also testimony to the fact that India is slowly but surely asserting itself in the global geopolitics. The far reaching implications of these actions are not clear as of now, however what is clear is the short term gain. India might get cheap oil from Iran, since less people are buying from it. This might prove to be a breather for a government which is unpopular with masses and high oil price is one of the reasons.  

Incredible India Diplomacy

A new avenue

India has tried aid diplomacy, back channel diplomacy and the much talked about cricket diplomacy. These might have worked at a government to government level with different success levels. What is still lacking is India’s effort to establish people to people contact, not just with its immediate neighbours but also with its near abroad. India’s relationship with its neighbours has not been smooth. Wars, political tensions, illegal crossing over, etc have kept India away from its neighbours (it is slowly changing of late).

Attempts like SAARC hardly helped in increasing people to people contact. India has its overseas cultural unit known as the Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR). It provides scholarships, organises cultural events and institutionalised chairs in various countries across the world. Awareness about India has increased in the past few years (more because of its economic fortunes than ICCR), flow of people into India and is still limited. Tourism statistics available for the year 2009 suggest that India received under a million tourists from the SAARC countries. That is just 17% of its total tourist arrivals. India’s near abroad has not been any better, contributing a mere 10% of India’s total tourist arrivals (see chart).

Is India listening?

So what is wrong with India? In the past couple of years India ran the most successful ad campaign abroad. The “Incredible India!” campaign proved immensely popular in western countries and won several awards. It also helped boost India’s tourist arrivals in the years followed by the campaign. Having done so much, India’s immediate neighbourhood has largely ignored it. Attracting its neighbours will serve dual purpose for India. An increase in tourist arrivals will give a boost to the industry in terms of higher foreign exchange receipts and increase people to people contact.

Buddha and places associated with his life can be the key to India’s potential to attract its neighbours. There are several sites in eastern Indian states of Bihar, Jharkhand & Uttar Pradesh, which are significant due to various important incidents in Buddha’s life. India’s Buddhist tourism if developed properly has the potential to attract 1.4 billion people from Bhutan to Japan. Countries like Indonesia and Thailand practice a religion, which is a mix of Buddhism and Hinduism. That makes all of India available for them to explore.

India’s ministry of tourism needs more than just feasibility reports to develop Buddhist tourism. The three states (Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh) where Buddha spent most of his life are the least developed in modern India. Basic infrastructure like surface and air connectivity, utilities like water and electricity and good hotels are conspicuous by their absence. Given the deep religious affiliation of the eastern countries a marketable product from India will be appreciated by Buddhists in East Asia. The potential is huge but there is no political will to extract it. Private investments can quickly create infrastructure and put the region on the international tourism map.

Given the cultural and linguistic differences between India and rest of East Asia, Buddhist tourism can be one common link, which can connect the people. Once people get to know a country better, it opens a lot of doors. Cultural exchanges, identifying common ground, increased confidence due to familiarity of a country will go a long way in indirectly attracting investment in India and exporting products and services to East Asia. It is time India uses tourism diplomacy to win over the neighbours.

Of encirclement and counter-encirclement

Look! the dragon is coming

In the past few years India has constantly expressed its deep concern for what is termed as the “string of pearls”. A term coined by the US defence department with reference to China’s active involvement in ports across the Indian maritime borders. China has engaged in developing ports in Sittwe in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan. This has given China access to India’s maritime boundaries and a future where China might have its naval bases at these ports. This is indeed alarming for India, especially when China is also building up its military capabilities with Intercontinental ballistic missiles and a refurbished aircraft carrier. China’s cosy relationship with Pakistan is another eye sore.

China is also becoming aggressive in the South China Sea with maritime disputes with all its neighbours (and in East China Sea with Japan). If all the disputes were to be resolved to China’s satisfaction it will virtually claim sovereignty over the entire South China Sea, hence controlling the shipping lanes vital for trade among South East Asian countries and between South East Asia, Far East and India.  Western countries including America have shown their concern over the increasing China presence in Asian region.

And look what the elephant was up to

This all looks extremely serious and at times worrying. But if seen from a neutral point of view, there is nothing alarming in the present situation. China is the second largest economy of the world (although a distant second to America), is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has grown in the global pecking order in last few decades. It is only natural for an emerging country (and in some areas emerged) to expand its influence in its neighbourhood and near abroad. America has done this after the second world war, the UK did it till it came under sever financial strain after the two world wars and India is doing its bit post liberalisation.

Stop encircling me

While India’s concerns may sound valid, a deeper look reveals that most of this is self inflicted. India has played cold to the opportunities arising in its immediate neighbourhood. The state owned enterprises of India are inefficient and struggle to perform on the home front (barring a few like ONGC, an oil exploration firm). Expecting them perform abroad will be naïve. India after months of delay and going back and forth on a joint venture power plant in Northern Sri Lankan city of Trincomalee, has finally agreed on the terms and conditions of an agreement which it intends to sing later this month. The first power plant went to China.

Hambantota, the much talked about strategic foothold of China was initially offered to India. Lack of interest by India proved to be China’s gain and it is now developing an integrated project including a sea port, an airport, a city centre, a stadium and a convention centre. If every thing goes well Hambantota will welcome its first ship six months before the deadline. Meanwhile a USD 300 million project of Colombo port expansion has been awarded to another Chinese company (no Indian company bid for the project). Given all the inefficiencies the Indian system has and does little to eradicate, can China really be blamed for encircling India?

The counter circle

Across the border, China too has its own concerns about India trying to encircle it, especially in its strategic neighbourhood. The first and oldest issue is of Tibet. India has given refuge to Dalai Lama ever since he fled to India following the Chinese annexation of the kingdom. India has also allowed Dalai Lama to establish a Tibetan government in exile, which virtually undermines Chinese sovereignty (however India officially maintains one China policy). More recently India has become extremely active in Afghanistan by means of its non military aid to rebuild the country. This has upset Pakistan, which sees Indian presence as an attempt to encircle it. Deep running friendship between China and Pakistan has prompted China to share Pakistan’s vision on Indian involvement in Afghanistan.

In the past decade India has refreshed its Look East Policy and has forged closer relationships with its South East Asian neighbours. The most important regional force in the region is the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). India has rapidly risen to a summit level partner in 2002 from a sectoral dialogue partner in 1992. India’s bilateral trade with ASEAN has increased dramatically from a paltry USD 2.9 billion in 1993 to USD 40 billion in 2009 (ASEAN forecasts bilateral trade to cross USD 70 billion by 2012). India also entered into a free trade agreement with ASEAN in 2009, giving it greater economic access in the region.

In 2000 India along with five other South East Asian countries (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam) formed the Mekong Ganga Cooperation (MGC). MGC was formed as a group of six countries, focusing on tourism, culture, education and transportation. The bloc failed to take off and in 2003 was replaced by Thailand initiated Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy or ACMECS, essentially the same countries as in MGC minus India. Not withstanding the fact, China might still see it as Indian entry into its backyard.

India has improved its bilateral relationships with Japan and South Korea in the past few years. India is increasing its naval footprint by conducting joint exercises with Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, The Philippines, New Zealand, etc. It also carried out an exercise with America and Japan in the Pacific in 2007. In 2008, India and Japan signed an agreement on joint patrolling of the Asia – Pacific region.

Whose circle is it anyways?

The situation might look worrying when seen through the patriotic lenses; however both India and China seem to do their bit to secure their economic and strategic interest in the region. On 25^th August Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-develops-cold-feet-on-talks-with-Japan-US/opinions/9726482.cms) reported that India has developed cold feet on a planned joint naval exercise with Japan and America. Undisclosed officials in the establishment say that India does not want to antagonise China. However, China has not lodged a formal protest regarding the planned exercise. Such an approach by India can be interpreted as being intimidated by a superior military neighbour.

Pre empting a non existent crisis should be replaced by confidence building measures. Both India and china are a growing power in their own right and have significant interest in each other’s affairs. Imagining a conventional war between the two is far fetched, if not hysterical. Both countries are busy fighting domestic problems and expanding their business interests. A war will set both countries back by a few decades. India and China should shed some of their fears (more in case of India) and enter into closer relationship by more people to people contact. In 2010 a paltry 600,000 tourists were exchanged between India and China. It is a shame for neighbours whose combined population is above 2 billion.

India and its global ambitions

Yes, no, maybe…

The weeks that followed the fall of Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the chief of International Monetary Fund and the subsequent world tour by Ms Christine Lagarde to drum up support for her election to the office, India joined the chorus of developing countries to have adequate representation. The bloc of developing countries (India, China, Brazil, Mexico, etc) was challenging the tradition where IMF was always headed by a European. Briefly Mr Agustin Carstens, governor of Mexico’s Central Bank tried to rally support from developing countries including India. However, none of the developing countries managed to arrive at a consensus and Ms Lagarde, was eventually elected to the office. In the mean while China decided to support Ms Lagarde’s candidature in return of a larger responsibility for China in the IMF.

India is often viewed as unprepared when it comes to multilateral decisions which have global implication. We have seen this in case of the EU-India free trade agreement, WTO’s Doha round and more recently the climate change summit. Long winded processes which seem to take for ever, due to lack of preparedness or vested interests or some time misplaced sovereign pride. India which has done remarkably well on bilateral fronts is severely lacking on multilateral fronts. That being the case, India’s global ambitions are only growing. For the past two decades India has been pressing for a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with a permanent seat for itself. India along with Brazil, Germany and Japan formed an interest group known as G4 to push for the reform and subsequent expansion of the UNSC. All countries on the permanent council support India’s candidature; however any reform in the near future is a remote possibility.

Running the extra lap

It is a well acknowledge fact that India has arrived on the global scene in the past two decades. It has acquired an enviable position of upholding democratic values and churning out a fast growing large economy from a country which was on brink of sovereign default. Most of the recent global initiatives of India have been largely trade and commerce centred. The world is yet to see India take an assertive and sustainable step in global diplomacy, some thing that the established and emerging world powers have already shown. India has traditionally shied away from any matters which can potentially (some times falsely assumed) upset its diplomatic equilibrium.

In the past India has given the excuse of having its hands full with housekeeping activities and establishing order with in the country. In the past two decades much has changed, both within India and outside. Indian diaspora is now much more active around the world, Indian trade and commerce has spread to once far off countries and Indian views are listened to around the world. India’s inclusion in the G-20 has further raised its profile. India’s contribution towards handling of the recent financial crisis has proved its abilities as a mature economic power to the world. Both the developed and the developing world see India in a different light now. It’s no longer an aid seeking and famine struck country of the 60s.  

The tiger sleeps on

With so many changes, India has surprisingly lagged in international diplomacy. It has always taken a reluctant and meek stand on matters of international importance. The latest being the abstention from the UNSC resolution 1973 approving a no-fly zone over Libya. India’s excuse was that armed intervention should be the last resort after the efforts of UN appointed envoy fail, which was not yet implemented. In a situation where a despot is hell bent on killing his own countrymen an armed intervention is more of a humanitarian effort than military one. People opposed to UNSC resolution can argue that past military interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan) have proved anything but useful. For every person sighting Iraq or Afghanistan there is Rwanda and Srebrenica where armed interventions have brought an end to genocides. No-fly zone over Libya was the best possible action at a time when Mr Qaddafi was killing his own country men. India missed the boat.

On other sensitive issues like nuclear proliferation too India has no consistent stand. India’s concern on nuclear proliferation ends at Indo-Pak border. To some extent India’s reluctance stemmed from sanctions imposed by the west after its operation “Smiling Buddha” in 1974. But in the aftermath of international recognition of India as an official nuclear power (in shape of Indo-US nuclear deal) it should now take a firm stand on the issue. It should have a clear policy on Iran and North Korea. So far nothing has come forth.

One thing that India has failed to leverage to its benefit is its unparalleled achievement in nurturing and maintaining democratic standards. India should play its democratic card at international forum to establish itself as a mature country, which believes in fair play and respects public involvement. This will help it balance against its biggest rival, China. While the Tibetan government in exile has its seat in New Delhi, India does not use it like China uses stapled visas for people living in Indian states of Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh.

Its time India metamorphose itself into a country which has more than just cheap labour, growing auto market and consumers hungry for foreign products. Time has come that it takes on the world stage with confidence. It should stop bothering itself with myopic electoral gains while shaping its foreign policy. India has already lost time in catching up on the lost opportunities. The present reactive policy of India should shift to proactive and a widely thought through policy, which can support India’s claim to international institutions like UNSC, IMF or possibly G6 (G5 + 1).