Home arrow Archives arrow Round the World arrow Round The World-2018 arrow Trump-Putin Summit: TAKEAWAYS FOR INDIA!, By Dr D. K. Giri, 20 July 2018
 
Home
News and Features
INFA Digest
Parliament Spotlight
Dossiers
Publications
Journalism Awards
Archives
RSS
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trump-Putin Summit: TAKEAWAYS FOR INDIA!, By Dr D. K. Giri, 20 July 2018 Print E-mail

Round The World

New Delhi, 20 July 2018

Trump-Putin Summit

TAKEAWAYS FOR INDIA!

By Dr D. K. Giri

(Prof. International Politics, JMI)

 

The meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was watched by the entire world. One reigning superpower, and one former, Russia, have the military power to determine the fate of the world. Although Russia has diminished after the break-away of the Soviet Union, no one, including the US could ignore it and its power of resilience.

 

Obviously, Russia has gone down economically and has been hit by the sanctions imposed. Yet it still calls the shots on its foreign policy as the rest of the world could not resist Russia’s actions in Ukraine or Syria. Neither tangible military solution nor durable security can be ensured without Russia whenever it is involved. Therefore Trump, at odds with his country’s attitude towards Russia, is reaching out to Putin.

 

What could be the fallout for India from the summit? India is “coming close” to the US and has been a close ally of Russia and former Soviet Union, the whole of the 20th century. New Delhi had begun with non-alignment as the main principle in its foreign policy with a pro-Soviet tilt, as was evident in the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and its intervention in Afghanistan in 1979 etc. Apparently, New Delhi has diluted or discarded its non-aligned position in moving closer to Israel, the US and Japan and so on, but non-aligned posturing keeps coming back in its  approach, as it obsesses with playing a balancing role in world politics.

 

Will India maintain the non-aligned position with a pro-US tilt now, or as one observes, New Delhi would play a balancing role, which is in a sense, pro-active non-alignment.

 

A word on the summit. Although watched keenly by the world, no earth-shattering common understanding was expected of the meeting and nothing substantial came out of it. Additionally, worst fears and speculation didn’t come true either. Many observers believe that Trump would raise Crimea’s terrible accession to Russia, discuss Russia’s meddling in US elections, which ‘helped’ Trump to win. It was also anticipated Putin would raise the issue of sanctions against his country. None happened and no agreement signed. Yet, the summit seemed to have been a success. There were many winners.

 

Trump and Putin seem to have discussed and agreed, in principle, on three things. One, they will not interfere in each other’s internal affairs, which has been a bone of contention between the two countries. Second, they would have agreed on potential cooperation in Europe, Middle East and Asia, especially ending the Iran and Saudi Arabia proxy war, finding a solution to control war-torn Syrian imbroglio. Third, they would have agreed on nuclear and conventional arms countries, as well as the current cyber warfare.

 

In the one-to-one meeting they would have touched on things that have not come out in their joint press conference or joint-communiqué etc. However, current issues such as nuclear disaster, terrorism, Syria, Russia’s military exercise in Baltic-Sea figured in their bilateral delegation meetings. They agreed to set up an expert body which will work on improving American-Russian relationship.

 

What was, however, noteworthy was the run-up to the meeting queered mainly by Trump, and the friendly, harmonious end to it. Experts conclude there was a dramatic run-up and successful conclusion of the summit, but the middle was void. Yet there was more than one winner. Putin scored big as he was not asked on Ukraine or his alleged manipulation for Trump's elections. His political status went high as Trump sought him out and blamed his own country, the US for deterioration in Russia-America relations. The summit gave an impetus to Putin in renewing his contract with the West, G-7, NATO, EU, etc.

 

The second winner is world peace and security. If both the US and Russia have a shared approach towards it there would be less fear of violence and disruption.

 

Despite heavy criticism of Trump's worldview, he thinks a friendly relation with Russia will be good for the US and rest of the world.  His reaching out to North Korean President Kim Jong-Un was much appreciated. He expects similar approval at home for his outreach to Putin, reservations of his political establishment notwithstanding. 

 

What should be India’s concerns and challenges viz the Summit? India was decidedly moving closer to America. But with Trump taking over the presidentship, and his deconstruction of Europe, disruption of the conventional approach, dismantling of NATO etc seem to have rattled India. New Delhi is wary of the ‘demolition man’ Trump and his unpredictability. Therefore, perhaps, it is seeking to relate strategic autonomy from the west.

 

Interestingly, it is not too hard to discover a ‘method in Trump’s madness.’ He has a purely transactional approach hinging on ‘America first’ principle. He is reversing the trade deficit the US has with other countries, mainly China. He is telling Germany, which pays millions of dollars to Russia for the gas pipeline, that Americans send their tax payers money to defend Berlin from Russians. Trump is saying Europeans should pay up for their own security as Americans cannot subsidise NATO. He is telling off India for imposing non-reciprocal tariffs and to the Pakistanis for spending American money in supporting terrorism.

 

Without holding a brief for Trump, one could concede that he is speaking for America first. He doesn’t want to show economic generosity to other countries for being a “superpower.” His predecessors maintained a generous attitude towards smaller countries and lesser powers. Trump is not them. The other problem with Trump is that, while he strikes the right notes for his country, he is unsteady, impetuous and unpredictable. He will talk tough about a country and its leader, but melts at personal meetings, as it happened with Kim Jong-Un. New Delhi needs to take into account Trump’s personality. Many consider him an aberration in American politics, but he is a reality. The ‘Trump World’ exists.

 

How should India react to Trump? Deal with Putin? Will New Delhi play the balancing role, revert to a non-aligned stance in some form or the other?

 

Confused by Trump’s ‘blow hot and cold’ approach, New Delhi seems to have stepped back a bit from its pro-America stance. It is attempting to befriend China, like the recent ‘informal’ summit between Modi and Xi Jinping, and win over Russia by buying S-400 anti-missile system from it in the face of American opposition. The US would like India to buy its THAD and is quoting CAATSA (Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) to deter India. New Delhi maintains that CAATSA is the US law, not by a UN resolution, and is not bound by it. But it is a technical arrangement, not a political-strategic one. 

 

Can India run with the hare and hunt with the hound? Or it takes a position whether it is with Americans broadly, or not? Why is India active in ‘Quad’ comprising US, Japan, Australia and India, which is meant to surround and check China? Why is New Delhi resisting, boycotting, Chinese projects in the region, the BRI etc? Why is New Delhi not able to settle border disputes with China, Pakistan in a bilateral framework? India will have to maintain its own security or will have to lean on friends and partners to enhance its power of deterrence.

 

In an ideal world one could have good, healthy and normal relations with each country but it is not. One will have friends and foes. New Delhi will have to choose friends and identify foes. If Russia is embracing the dragon (China), then it is an adversary’s friend is also an adversary. In the past, Soviet Union would not have joined hands with China if India was opposed to it? Putin's Russia is a different kettle of fish. Is New Delhi not able to see the transition? It is the economic-military powers of a country that counts. Russia is a military power, China is an economic power and both are authoritarian regimes, whereas the US is both military and economic power and a democracy. Is the choice not obvious?---INFA

 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

< Previous   Next >
 
   
     
 
 
  Mambo powered by Best-IT