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