Round The
World
New Delhi, 28 December 2010
2010 Diplomatic
Footprints
LAUNCH PAD FOR MORE
TIES
By Monish Tourangbam
Research Scholar,
School of International Studies (JNU)
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
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|