I have heard statements that the Non-Alignment Movement is well past its shelf life and is a relic of the cold war since there are no two sides to choose or not to choose. From the actions of NAM members, it seems even they believe it to be so. After the summit in Tehran last year and a statement, nothing has been heard of this organisation. Even the fact that there is little dispute about the validity or place of this organisation in the current world, especially when a purely investment oriented creation like the BRICS generates intense speculation on its viability, shows a clear lack of imagination, vision and enthusiasm for the idea.
When a nation wants to handle foreign affairs, it has a few choices. These are
1) Align with neighbours. But in India's case, a very unstable and not a very supportive neighbourhood, from 1950s to now, means that this is not possible. Generally, this would be the best method, like the US-Canada relation or the Latin American countries coming together, but it is not a comfort that everyone has.
2) Align with those having similar problems, features- The one thing that attracted Jawaharlal Nehru to China was that both India and China were large nations with a long, rich and glorious history that had just been freed from colonial rule. It was only logical at that point of time that India and China should look at each other as friends following a common cause and travelling in the same path. Many criticise Nehru for his overtures towards China in the form of Panchsheel and 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'. But we should ask ourselves, when lost in a new world, won't we feel a sense of relief and camaraderie when we see a mildly familiar face? But unfortunately for India, China was opportunistic and only wanted to expand its territory to assert its superiority. It still does this now through border incursions and no one in their right minds would suggest co-operation and cordial relationship between India and China- it is nothing less than fierce competition for resources, markets and influence, which China is winning. Out goes common interest buddies because there is just competition between them and no co-operation.
3) Align with those following similar principles- On the surface, this looks really good. A match of ideologies and principles and a cursory look at the real picture, it looks quite attractive.A US-India alignment is, to use a tagline, made for each other. The world's biggest democracy with the world's oldest democracy which is also a superpower in all senses. Except that this superpower has a very bad tendency to use this power in very wrong, self-destructive and mischevious ways, from unnecessary wars to snooping and prying open other economies for its own profit while bankrupting the host nation through tough conditions of IMF and World Bank loans, which it controls. If that sounds like mere leftist ideology, what about the idea of allowing investment and products to be exported freely but not services and also workers? Is that happening or is it just ideology? Not a good choice then, aligning with similar principles, and most other democracies are friends with the USA.
What then do we do? What we must understand is that no one is in the game for charity, each nation will only try to advance its own interests (whether these interests are decided by the corporates or the people is a different question) irrespective of the declared intention behind every action- right from alignment of historic allies to natural partners and playing to the crowd by affirming our status as an 'emerging power' or 'serious partner' or 'representing one-sixth of humanity that deserves a place at the high table/security council' and all the rhetoric that is dished up during foreign visit charades. The most significant aspect of the rhetoric are cultural exchanges, foreign student scholarships, soft power (I have had it with this word to be honest! One more 'Soft Phaar' statement and I will puke) and then joint statements about how successful the talk has been, how they will meet again and reaffirmation of strong ties. I really want to watch a discussion live, we are given access to court proceedings and parliament, but not meetings between various nations. Are they as boring and redundant as team meetings or do they really do something?
Usually, it is the commercial aspects that bear fruit and nothing else. By asking India to reform or to change its Intellectual Property laws or promote FDI, no one should be under any delusion why they do it- the real intention is to expand the market and increase profits for their companies. Most international visits are about government lobbying for their own companies without regard to the impact of these on the foreign economies. I am not sure whether those who represent us want to protect our own interests, but whatever I am expressing is based on the assumption that they are really our representatives in every aspect.
So, that takes me back to how and what to do when we choose our friends. Since everything is based on self interest, align with those nations that want to pursue their own interests without it being influenced or dictated by outsiders. This is not an alternate to anything or an exclusivist idea but a way to pursue an independent foreign policy which allows every nation to co-operate with others on a case by case basis where the relations are to the mutual benefit of each other and do not involve an exploitative or domineering angle. We should be allowed to co-operate with Iran on sourcing crude oil, Taiwan on electronics, Middle-east nations on energy and our expatriates, Myanmar on security and trade, USA and Europe on technology, defence immigration and IT, Latin America and Africa on development, poverty alleviation policies etc. Just because we are interacting with one, should not mean we cannot interact with another. We should be allowed to maintain relationships between nations based on merit, mutual benefit and promotion of peace, not based on a narrow definition of who is good and bad and promotion of narrow, selfish versions of development.
This is what NAM has been about, cultivating friendly relations with all countries and taking a stand on global issues based on merit without having to stick to the same side on all issues. We have no permanent friends nor permanent enemies and so being allowed to choose our friends is an important part of what is called 'strategic freedom', a word that is rarely used with full understanding of its meaning.
There will be times when we face a conflict between certain interests and principles. Those have to be dealt on a case to case basis by a balance between interest and principles because the purpose of foreign affairs is to protect and advance the life of our citizens, to be achieved without harming the life of other citizens and nations, which will fulfill our obligations as a rational, fair partner who can be trusted to act in the interest of people of both nations. But the question then comes, what to do when supporting or the co-operation of the dictator is essential to secure our interest? It would depend on our definition of interest because in the long run, the interest of the nation will align itself with the interest of the people and if we support a dictatorship, we are going to lose the people and the friendly relation once people have their say. So in the long term, it would be wise to stick to principles or co-operate with the conditions that we would want you to respect the rights of your people and we are co-operating under exceptional circumstances and we do not condone your rule/actions/governance/policies etc.
These relationships have the following aspects-
1) India cannot compete with China or other nations on the basis of military strength or financial muscle. All it will have is its credentials as a democracy that respects the rights of all citizens and minorities do not have to worry about their survival or opportunities as they are equal citizens. This cannot happen unless we fully implement these with respect to our tribals and the poor.
2) A relationship with India will be based on development for the people and better lives for all sections of society, not just for industrialists or those in power.
3) It will not be an exploitative relationship where we are in it only for the resources and benefits.
This is the path we must follow, a path set out by NAM, which we lost post the cold-war and globalisation, one which will become important since it is no longer going to be one super power but multiple superpowers and division of strengths based on military, science and technology, education, finance, culture, manufacturing, labourers and technocrats
PS- A rebuttal and silly argument for NAM against the criticism that it is an anachronism is that the current global political and economic organisations like UN Security Council, IMF, World Bank and WTO are dominated by a post World War global alignment which is also very much outdated.
When a nation wants to handle foreign affairs, it has a few choices. These are
1) Align with neighbours. But in India's case, a very unstable and not a very supportive neighbourhood, from 1950s to now, means that this is not possible. Generally, this would be the best method, like the US-Canada relation or the Latin American countries coming together, but it is not a comfort that everyone has.
2) Align with those having similar problems, features- The one thing that attracted Jawaharlal Nehru to China was that both India and China were large nations with a long, rich and glorious history that had just been freed from colonial rule. It was only logical at that point of time that India and China should look at each other as friends following a common cause and travelling in the same path. Many criticise Nehru for his overtures towards China in the form of Panchsheel and 'Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'. But we should ask ourselves, when lost in a new world, won't we feel a sense of relief and camaraderie when we see a mildly familiar face? But unfortunately for India, China was opportunistic and only wanted to expand its territory to assert its superiority. It still does this now through border incursions and no one in their right minds would suggest co-operation and cordial relationship between India and China- it is nothing less than fierce competition for resources, markets and influence, which China is winning. Out goes common interest buddies because there is just competition between them and no co-operation.
3) Align with those following similar principles- On the surface, this looks really good. A match of ideologies and principles and a cursory look at the real picture, it looks quite attractive.A US-India alignment is, to use a tagline, made for each other. The world's biggest democracy with the world's oldest democracy which is also a superpower in all senses. Except that this superpower has a very bad tendency to use this power in very wrong, self-destructive and mischevious ways, from unnecessary wars to snooping and prying open other economies for its own profit while bankrupting the host nation through tough conditions of IMF and World Bank loans, which it controls. If that sounds like mere leftist ideology, what about the idea of allowing investment and products to be exported freely but not services and also workers? Is that happening or is it just ideology? Not a good choice then, aligning with similar principles, and most other democracies are friends with the USA.
What then do we do? What we must understand is that no one is in the game for charity, each nation will only try to advance its own interests (whether these interests are decided by the corporates or the people is a different question) irrespective of the declared intention behind every action- right from alignment of historic allies to natural partners and playing to the crowd by affirming our status as an 'emerging power' or 'serious partner' or 'representing one-sixth of humanity that deserves a place at the high table/security council' and all the rhetoric that is dished up during foreign visit charades. The most significant aspect of the rhetoric are cultural exchanges, foreign student scholarships, soft power (I have had it with this word to be honest! One more 'Soft Phaar' statement and I will puke) and then joint statements about how successful the talk has been, how they will meet again and reaffirmation of strong ties. I really want to watch a discussion live, we are given access to court proceedings and parliament, but not meetings between various nations. Are they as boring and redundant as team meetings or do they really do something?
Usually, it is the commercial aspects that bear fruit and nothing else. By asking India to reform or to change its Intellectual Property laws or promote FDI, no one should be under any delusion why they do it- the real intention is to expand the market and increase profits for their companies. Most international visits are about government lobbying for their own companies without regard to the impact of these on the foreign economies. I am not sure whether those who represent us want to protect our own interests, but whatever I am expressing is based on the assumption that they are really our representatives in every aspect.
So, that takes me back to how and what to do when we choose our friends. Since everything is based on self interest, align with those nations that want to pursue their own interests without it being influenced or dictated by outsiders. This is not an alternate to anything or an exclusivist idea but a way to pursue an independent foreign policy which allows every nation to co-operate with others on a case by case basis where the relations are to the mutual benefit of each other and do not involve an exploitative or domineering angle. We should be allowed to co-operate with Iran on sourcing crude oil, Taiwan on electronics, Middle-east nations on energy and our expatriates, Myanmar on security and trade, USA and Europe on technology, defence immigration and IT, Latin America and Africa on development, poverty alleviation policies etc. Just because we are interacting with one, should not mean we cannot interact with another. We should be allowed to maintain relationships between nations based on merit, mutual benefit and promotion of peace, not based on a narrow definition of who is good and bad and promotion of narrow, selfish versions of development.
This is what NAM has been about, cultivating friendly relations with all countries and taking a stand on global issues based on merit without having to stick to the same side on all issues. We have no permanent friends nor permanent enemies and so being allowed to choose our friends is an important part of what is called 'strategic freedom', a word that is rarely used with full understanding of its meaning.
There will be times when we face a conflict between certain interests and principles. Those have to be dealt on a case to case basis by a balance between interest and principles because the purpose of foreign affairs is to protect and advance the life of our citizens, to be achieved without harming the life of other citizens and nations, which will fulfill our obligations as a rational, fair partner who can be trusted to act in the interest of people of both nations. But the question then comes, what to do when supporting or the co-operation of the dictator is essential to secure our interest? It would depend on our definition of interest because in the long run, the interest of the nation will align itself with the interest of the people and if we support a dictatorship, we are going to lose the people and the friendly relation once people have their say. So in the long term, it would be wise to stick to principles or co-operate with the conditions that we would want you to respect the rights of your people and we are co-operating under exceptional circumstances and we do not condone your rule/actions/governance/policies etc.
These relationships have the following aspects-
1) India cannot compete with China or other nations on the basis of military strength or financial muscle. All it will have is its credentials as a democracy that respects the rights of all citizens and minorities do not have to worry about their survival or opportunities as they are equal citizens. This cannot happen unless we fully implement these with respect to our tribals and the poor.
2) A relationship with India will be based on development for the people and better lives for all sections of society, not just for industrialists or those in power.
3) It will not be an exploitative relationship where we are in it only for the resources and benefits.
This is the path we must follow, a path set out by NAM, which we lost post the cold-war and globalisation, one which will become important since it is no longer going to be one super power but multiple superpowers and division of strengths based on military, science and technology, education, finance, culture, manufacturing, labourers and technocrats
PS- A rebuttal and silly argument for NAM against the criticism that it is an anachronism is that the current global political and economic organisations like UN Security Council, IMF, World Bank and WTO are dominated by a post World War global alignment which is also very much outdated.
2 comments:
I wasnt aware that NAM was trashed by its own members. In fact last Tehran summit - the statements released at least - did try to drive home the point that NAM has a very important and active role in "articulating an independent point of view of developing countries on international issues", and that it would try to spearhead a movement for joint global governance. Yes, but as is usual, it remains rhetoric. My point is, at least on paper, our MEA hasnt completely given up on NAM, probably also because we are one among the founding members.
About foreign policy in general - foreign policy is definitely not about charity or wanting to ensure that everybody on the globe is good. It is patently an extension of your national policy, and is guided by pragmatic considerations and opportunistic alliances. It's a race nobody wants to lose, and having an upright backbone may become an impediment - hence the lack of consistency and principled stands on different issues.
And as you rightly said, nobody gives a damn to 'soft power'. It is just a romantic, feel-good term, and to a large extent a hollow pride in one self.
NAM could be the answer, but the question is are they upto it? They all seem too entangled in their own domestic and regional issues, to be able to muster enough courage to stand up and take an independnt view on most issues.
I mentioned all that happens in a bilateral/multilateral meeting/summit is rhetoric and NAM remains just that. No one among NAM nations have trashed it publicly though, those outside do, but even among NAM members there is just reaffirmation and what you had quoted but NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE!
(Not sure whether Riggs meant it, but the degree of formalism is highest when it comes to foreign affairs)
Yes, NAM could be the answer and as you pointed out, many are just afraid, preoccupied or dependent too much on others.
Post a Comment