How to rethink India’s Foreign Policy!

We’re living through one of the most exiting periods of human history, and that fascinating time is called globalization, a continuous process of to and fro movement of money, goods, ideas and people. This on-going process of globalization throws opportunities and challenges both for today’s Nation-State’s political structure. It can be considered as opportunities when it comes to analyzing the structure of power in global scenario. It’s worthy to recognize that power is no more concentrated within uni or bi-polar world but it’s seen to be distributed among many countries coming from northern and southern hemisphere which, in a way, suggests that power is being democratized through globalization. Growing influence of multi-lateral institutions like G20 validates this observation. Secondly, when it comes to challenges posed by globalization then today’s Nation-State can no more act as a sole carrier of power at international stage; in other terms, they can no more pursue its foreign-policy in traditional fashion as they used to do pre-1989-91 era. In this changing global scenario India, a 66 year old nation-state with growing multi-dimensional influence in today’s world, has to rethink its foreign policy reflecting the reality of the world she lives in.

How do we deconstruct the idea of foreign-policy of a sovereign republic? How is it challenged by today’s globalization? What should be India’s approach in promoting its national interests at international level?

Foreign policy and its fundamentals

Foreign policy is, in general sense, the political project of a country to influence another country or over-all international environment in the context of promoting its national interests. The distinction between inside, the domestic policy and the outside, international environment is the raison d’être of foreign policy. In other words, foreign policy is the reflection of one’s domestic policy. It’s because everything that a country does outside its political frontier is either to satisfy the needs and wants of domestic situation or to present a specific image at the comity of nations. The reason for any political intervention taken or not taken by a specific nation lies broadly under these two reasons. For example, the US entered into Kuwait to drive out Iraqi army in 1992 during the first gulf war. The first objective, as it was projected, was to liberate a weaker state, Kuwait, from the clutches of a relatively stronger state, Iraq which is supposedly the moral responsibility of a super power nation like America to play key role in establishing peace and justice in the international community. But let’s not feel so squeamish about a veiled fact that US went into that region in search of oil to bring business for its domestic oil companies. Thus, America’s intervention responds to both its objectives; first, it’s to project its image of a leader nation championing the cause of democracy and human rights which a super power (even a medium sized power) should always do; and secondly, it was to gain material wealth of petrol to appease its domestic constituency. Any foreign policy decision, therefore, is made by keeping both angles in mind; first, it’s overall gain of power in the form of wealth, natural resources, market or even territory (which is very rare in our post-cold war world); second, it’s equally important to present a justification for that decision in front of the international community as a tool to establish peace, justice, prosperity in the concerned region. Because without providing enough justification of achieving any one or all those three virtuous objectives, even if you’re a super power, your decision or action will not find a legitimate ground at international stage. We’ve plenty of examples since Second World War where any such intervention made by western powers; and, they were justified in the name of establishing peace, justice or self-defense which includes US and western allies’ intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.  

What are the elements that guide a nation, be it US or any medium size power, to formulate its foreign policy in a particular fashion? What are the analytical underpinnings of foreign policy?

According to the traditional form of foreign policy, there’re three arcs around what foreign policy gets unfolded.

Ø  Actors (leader, the political ideology followed by the party in power, and to an extent the opposition party in a parliamentary democracy only);

Ø  Capacity (Instruments of implementing a decision or influencing a country) ex: hard power and soft power;

Ø  Interest and objective (short and long term goal) establishing oneself as a powerful actor in the world order, projecting oneself as an influential nation with an image of championing just cause

Under the very first arc, we keep the actors who make foreign policy decision. It includes temperament and intellectual depth of a head of state; the political party that is in power as to how it perceives national interests; its political party ideology brings different perspective to foreign policy. All these three can be seen clearly in the American foreign policy. As Obama’s approach to foreign relations is completely different from Bush’s one. As the former is completely different person from the latter; secondly, it’s important to underline that Democratic party has always had distinctive approach to achieve any goal in international affairs as compared to its Republican counterpart. The reason for this distinctive approach between them is that Democratic Party relies primarily on liberal and constructivist theory of international relations for formulating its policy whereas the Republicans guided by “neo-cons” are known for laying emphasis on realist perspective of IR which is dependent upon “balance of power” strategy. 

Let’s move on to the second arc of analysis which is the capacity of a nation-state to put in place a decision. It’s mainly constituted by hard and soft powers. Though former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, has been heard using a Joseph Nye’s term “smart power” but that did not attract much attention among the international relation theorists. Hard power is basically represented by all the tangible elements of exercising power which includes the size of an army, its capacity of sophisticated arms, carrier aircrafts, sub-marines etc. We need to understand that in the post-cold war era, this form of power has almost become irrelevant. In present time, actually, soft power is ruling the world. That is represented by the size of a national economy, its capacity to trade, its culture power.  United States exerts exceedingly high degree of influence by its culture power over the entire planet through its Hollywood films, its multi-national companies (like Google and Microsoft), universities and junk food restaurants like Mac-D.

So far as the third arc is concerned, it’s always in the first place to secure its territory, its people, then promoting its national interests on foreign soil, and ultimately to pose herself as a nation championing the cause of democracy and free society (these are the causes that todays’ large number of countries stand for in the democratic word; needless to say this category does not include the Islamic world). Every country desires to be seen as a model land fighting for the cause of the values, ethos its nation hood stands upon.  Basing upon that, a nation drafts its objective of foreign policy. By and large, the objective of a nation is always to belong to an elite club like G7, G20 and permanent member of Security Council of the United Nations, and to influence the  political, economic temperature of the globe.

All these three arcs namely actor, capacity and objective, are to be accommodated according to the international political scenario. This is also true that the latter is created by all these three elements of a super power or a group of powerful nations however public opinion of a powerful democracy like United States matters too up to an extent in molding any critical foreign policy decision. The result of that collective public policy initiated by western block is globalization. It is basically unification of international financial market which took its full momentum since almost two decades ago after the EU came into its full bloom along with India and other developing nations opening up its market for foreign players. Globalization, based on the theory of free market economics, has made the political frontier porous for a free movement of capital and labour. Therefore, state is no more the only actor in international relations. There’re various non-state actors coming in-front for manipulating power; ex: multi-national companies, international NGOs, inter-governmental organizations like IMF, World Bank and many other influential public intellectuals and corporate personalities. In the light of the present scenario where the state losing its sovereign capacity of influencing power in international environment, it can no more exercise foreign policy on its own in traditional form. Hence, how should the policy makers in India put in place its foreign relations to promote her interests?

India’s foreign relations in a globalized world

We observe that in the 21st century foreign policy appears to be driven by neo-liberalism and quite less by realism. In todays’ world guided by implacable force of globalization, India’s biggest export is, and will continue to be its vibrant and dynamic economy. So in India’s case too, it will be very much decided by the degree of robustness that the Indian economy would show to the world. On one hand, India has to continuously grow, and to attract the foreign direct investment towards her land and on the other hand she has to further deepen the network of trade with US, EU and East Asian countries. Market dependency of these countries on India will make the South-Asian region more stable because the peace and tranquility of this region will be in the interest of the western powers. 

That’s true that world is increasingly becoming a market place, and India is very much a part of this game. However, she’s to put a fine balance between market friendly reforms and protectionism. It should always keep in mind the interests of a vast labour pool which lives in this country. 

India’s relations with US: United States is undoubtedly the strongest nation, and will remain one till many decades to come. Economically, it may lose in a few years its first position to China as many financial institutions believe, but it will continue to play the most important role in the political and economic development in world affairs. India needs to strengthen its relations further with the US not just to become only a market for US retail giants like Wall-Mart but should also be able to convince Washington not to consider the anti-outsourcing policy either.

Both political parties, democrats and republicans, follow a different foreign policy approach in asserting US leadership. So, India figures quite differently in their strategy chart. For the Republicans, who base their foreign policy on the Morgenthau theory of “balance of power”, see India as a potential country which is fit to be pit against their economic rival China. Be it economy or defense and security, India figures as an important country with whom they would like to do business in their own national interest. 

For Democrats, India is a unique country with liberalized economy sharing the common value of democracy and pluralism. To them, India represents a romantic experiment of federal democracy where more than one billion people of extreme diverse nature in language, religion, race and more importantly extreme economic inequality live under the umbrella of parliamentary democracy. So, India can, and should play bigger role, as they believe, in the region in promoting the ideals of democracy with a blend of capitalism especially to the third world countries. India has to work strategically to win equal consideration and cooperation from democrats’ side as well to get all her concern better addressed at international forum especially when it comes to dealing with Pakistan and China.

India’s relations with China: amongst neighboring countries, China is a real challenge to deal with not so much because of its jumbo size, dynamic economy but because of its closed political system which does not give any chance to peep into their mind to anticipate as to which way they may go on a particular development. If China were a functioning democracy, then it could have been much easier to deal with the dragon nation but its’ being one party communist system and unfading obsession with territory generate more fear not just for India but also for other neighboring nations which include Taiwan, Japan, South-Korea. Direct dissuasion policy with this giant will neither work nor does India have the capability to do so. So the wise way will be to develop and deepen the trade and economic relation with mutual interdependence that it should create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation than confrontation.  History tells us that the market economy based on free choice and rational leads mind to liberty. Similarly, if it happens then the Chinese would ask for open system of multi-party democratic governance; in that case, it will be one of the most interesting events of 21st century to see as to whether the communist party choses to surrender itself to seemingly rosy but messy land of democracy or it chooses to crush the heads of its own people as they did in 1989 at the Trainmen square. 

  

India’s relations with Pakistan: Indian leaders often show their fake desire to improve the relations with a country which is abnormal in nature because it houses various power centers, ex: army, intelligence agency, religious leaders and lastly, civilian government. Needless to say that army and ISI, these two institutions do not want any friendship with India because any such positive atmosphere of peace with India will ultimately lead to a time where not only their army will get reduced to just a regular defense organization with no political power in hand but even one day the idea of Pakistan itself will be put to question by their own citizens. Although a nation which is so fragile politically, economically should not merit much attention; nevertheless, because of security issues India has to deal with Pakistan, and it  should be done with firmness and arm twisting approach. The central problématique is that the Indians should work upon that how to pressurize that country to close the entire sector of jihadi terrorism. It’s undoubtedly an up-hill task for India that can’t be done without United States’ help. There is no copy-past solution to this migraine like problem. It can only be done in various sub stages, and will take years to complete. The question of concern is that if India has a political will and grand strategy to put that project in place which will solve the entire problem of terrorism. Will US provide its logistic support in dealing with those terror leaders because we know that they’ve very selective approach in dealing with terror network affecting other countries? Will China like to see a Pakistan devoid of terror schools? There’re many questions which will be answered only by time and circumstance that the US and China will go through in coming times. No one has ever thought that US drone attacks will happen in the North Waziristan region to kill jihadi leaders in Pakistan but it’s been going on despite all protests happening in the country itself. Similarly, China too has been witnessing the Islamic terrorism in their Xinjiang region; so, the Chinese have to draw a larger picture of dealing with the root problem of this problem. So far as the Kashmir issue is concerned, Pakistan knows it well that there is only one solution for the Indian Kashmir which is in the interests of Kashmiri people and the entire Indian sub-continent; and, that’s to convert the Line of Control into international border. Seeking friendship unilaterally with a nation like Pakistan who’s no vision for its people, and who runs its foreign policy using tools like cross-border terrorism is not wise but even a kind of political foolishness, and can be equated with an idea of milking a bull. 

    

India’s relations with EU countries: It’s interesting to see that despite having a turbulent political historical past India always shared cordial relations with Great Britain with a degree of mutual trust. In fact, in recent years, in the words of David Cameroon, prime minister of UK both the countries share “special relationship”. One should recollect that earlier the term “special relationship” used to be applied only for US-UK relations. India with other important western European countries namely, France and Germany share pretty friendly relations primarily because liberal economy of India offers new horizon of economic ties for both sides’ benefits; secondly, we share the same value system which is democracy, rule of law and composite culture. There is always a possibility to deepen the relation further, and to take it to a new level which is needed especially in the field of trade, finance, science-technology know-how and cultural cooperation.

India, asserting leadership at world stage

India recognizes the fact that time of Nehruvian moralistic vision of foreign policy is over because since then the world has changed a lot; and, in today’s multi-polar, globalization driven world, India requires to adopt “realpolitik” based pragmatic approach to assert herself at world stage. The relationship with United States is indeed the pivot point for India’s interests in coming decades; but, old allies like UK, EU countries and importantly old friend, Russia, should be kept in equal prominence so far as the mutual cooperation in various fields especially defense, sciences and technology is concerned.  

India does not need to attach much importance to her candidacy for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council. This institution has almost become a “tiger paper” which acts as a subservient to the interests of United States. In order to become part of real centre of global power India should play key role at the forum of G20. This is the platform which anchors the interests of the most industrialized nations of the globe.

India should actively work along with other BRIC partners upon the idea of setting up a development bank for the four nation club. The institution would allow investing massively in infrastructure project in all these four countries which is the need of the hour for them to accelerate the economy and put it on sustainable path for a longer period.

On security front, it’s in India’s interest to develop closer relation with Israel because merely remaining sympathetic with the Palestinian cause, it did not earn her anything concrete. A close cooperation with Mossad, the intelligence agency of Israel, will bring great advantage to RAW in dealing with both kinds of terrorism, home grown and emanating from our neighborhood as well.   

  

The policy of decentralized cooperation in between different federal states of India and with various regions of countries like US, UK, France, Canada and Mauritius should be encouraged to strengthen the ties at regional level. There is a huge number of non-resident Indians living in the western countries can play constructive role in such decentralized cooperation. Thus, foreign policy should not remain restricted to only New Delhi but regional state capitals should also participate so that regional interests could be taken into account as well. Once diplomacy used to be a business amongst heads of state only; but now thanks to decentralization, regional power pole needs to be involved in foreign policy as well. Ultimately, it’ll give a new platform of progress and emancipation to federal structure in India.

It’s in the Indian interest to work upon the cultural aspect of soft power. India being one of the oldest civilizations with a rich culture and history did not place herself strategically to create a window in people’s heart internationally as the Alliance Française for France, the Goethe Institute for Germany, Confucius Institute for China have been doing successfully in spreading the culture of their respective countries in the foreign land. On that model, the cultural cell of Indian embassy should also promote officially the Indian art, music and especially yoga and different schools of meditation. India is perceived in the western hemisphere as one of the fountain heads of eastern wisdom and knowledge. India needs to consolidate that perception not only amongst the foreign public intellectual class but to ordinary citizen as well.  Diplomacy is no longer about winning war and conquering territory but it’s rather getting triumph over hearts and minds of the people of even those countries who’ve not been so friendly with your country.

The author is a graduate from the prestigious institute of “Sciences-Po” of France