Launch pad for more ties By Monish Tourangbam In the year that went by, India’s foreign policy has been largely dictated by its effort to secure more partners around the world. Especially in the Asian continent, evident from the regularity of high-level diplomatic visits. It has been New Delhi’s intent to create a zone of friendship around. With the phenomenal rise of neighbouring China with which India has not had the best of relations, the Manmohan Singh Government has been serious about increasing India’s foothold.
As the world takes baby steps toward securing the still fragile global economic recovery, the importance of countries like India has undoubtedly risen. In the changed circumstances, the salience of groups like the G20 of which India is a primary member, have dramatically increased. Moreover, the country’s economic performance and the opportunities in store for any country to do business with India have increasingly attracted attention,.
Significantly, it is in this context, that the visit from the leaders of all the five permanent members of the UN Security Council assumes importance. The Russian President Medvedev’s recent visit completed a full circle. His visit followed that of Britain’s David Cameron, the US President Barack Obama, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and China’s Premier Wen Jiabao.
Apart from the symbolic importance, all the leaders who came calling in 2010 were men on a mission. They meant business and concluded their visits conversing on a host of issues concerning both sides and re-assessing the relations besides inking a lot of agreements spanning a lot of areas.
Among the P-5 members, India has had the most complex and difficult relationship with its neighbour and rising power China. The two countries share a protracted border dispute and do not see eye to eye on a number of vital issues, including the culpability of Pakistan for heightened anti-India terrorism.
But, this does not take away the kind of traction that India has been able to gain in its relationship with the major powers in the elite club of the Security Council. Apart from China, all the other four countries in the P-5 including the US which had been dilly-dallying has come out strongly in favour of a permanent seat for India in an expanded Security Council in the future.
China has maintained a rehearsed and rather lame assurance. The most that Beijing continues to say and one that was repeated in the joint communique recently is, “China attaches great importance to India’s status in international affairs as a large developing country, understands and supports India’s aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations, including in the Security Council.”
But New Delhi should not be hugely concerned about this because it also emphasizes Beijing’s insecurity of a rising India. Besides, the issue is not something that will pay immediate dividends. It serves like a secure investment that paves the way for understanding in a number of other strategic issues.
The fact that Britain, France, Russia and the US supports India’s aspirations for a permanent seat does not mean that the reform would happen in the near future. However, it surely gives the message that for these countries, New Delhi is a responsible international player and the presence of India in the club would not be a liability for them.
In the field of civilian nuclear energy, India has come out quite a winner. The exception again is the Chinese side that concentrates on doing nuclear business with Pakistan, a country with a shoddy non-proliferation record. Wherein its own nuclear scientist A.Q.Khan was exposed as a czar of the nuclear black market.
Otherwise, major countries, including erstwhile skeptics have come around to either signing or at the least discussing the possibility of cooperating with New Delhi in the field of civilian nuclear energy. Nuclear commerce with India is the buzz in the international system and the niche and cooperation that follows it should be used as a launching pad for extending cooperation in other areas.
In fact, the India-US ‘123’ agreement really served as the ignition, which combined with the Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver (NSG) led to the windfall. France came out as one of the earliest and strongest supporters of India joining international nuclear commerce. The synergy between Russia as a major energy producing country and India as a major energy consuming country is the catchphrase for India-Russia cooperation in this field. Indeed the results are encouraging.
Undoubtedly, as expected, the Nuclear Liability Bill has raised some concerns among foreign countries hoping to invest in India’s nuclear energy market. The good part is that countries wishing to do business with India have not taken strong positions against the Bill. This gives New Delhi some space to negotiate as to how its domestic concerns can be balanced with the demands of international nuclear commerce. This issue has to be worked out in a graduated manner that will not hamper the vital interests of any side.
Also, as the issue of terrorism becomes ubiquitous in all bilateral and multilateral, New Delhi, intends to make other major power acknowledge the seriousness of this threat in the Indian context. Whereby, we saw a general pattern where the burgeoning economic partnership between India and China did not translate in optimistic gestures on other issues of core interest.
Apart from the Chinese Premier, other leaders of the P-5 including President Obama were quite categorical in their condemnation of the existence of safe havens across the border. True, be it Britain, France, Russia or the US, there will be differences and opposing viewpoints on many issues, expected in any broad-based relationship, but at this juncture there seems to be no conflict of interest on any core issue.
But, on the Chinese front, there are some hardcore issues that could seriously impede the relationship. Adding to the inevitable competition between the two rising powers in the same geographic region, China through the stapled visa issue has continuously poked at the question of India’s sovereignty.
This time around, India took the right move towards a restraint aggression by diverting from the norm and not making any reference to Chinese sovereignty on Tibet and the ‘One China’ policy, so dear to Chinese ears. The burgeoning economic relationship between New Delhi and Beijing is often flaunted as the hallmark of ties but in this department too, all the huge bilateral trade figures are nothing more than a chimera until the trade imbalance is not corrected.
So, as 2010 came to an end and India’s stature in the international system became more cemented than ever, its ties with the major powers of the world increased in some substantial areas. But as a country that aspires to sit at the high table of diplomacy and make its viewpoints counted in international decision-making, India should be more pro-active in its foreign policy making.
The milestones achieved last year should serve as launch pads toward substantial engagements in the years ahead. And an opportunity to better assess the loopholes that could hinder India’s ambitions in the future. INFA
Wednesday, November 27, 2024