Round The World

New Delhi, 18 September 2020

Dealing with China

REASSESSING THE DIMENSIONS

By Dr. D.K. Giri

(Prof, International Relations, JMI)

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh spoke for 30 minutes in Parliament on 15 September on the border face-off with China. In a discussion on national television, I was asked what I thought of the speech and where I stand as an independent political analyst. I responded by asserting, “I stand with the country” and then commented on the Defence Minister’s statement. Rajnath Singh is an old hand in governance, deeply experienced and extremely articulate. Having said that I commented, his statement to Parliament was “esoteric, evasive and laconic”.

Disappointing, that he did not say a word about what Government of India is intending to do in order to restore the status quo ante pre-May 2020. He was full of platitudes on diplomacy and sentiments about the Army, and those 20 soldiers who laid their lives on 15 June. There is hardly any divergence of opinion or emotions about our Army. Hence esoteric.

Indubitably, no one is itching for a war unless it is imposed, although there is a slender voice doing the rounds that we should give the Chinese a bloody nose even if we get one in retaliation.  Diplomacy based on dialogue, negotiations and international campaign is any day a better option than war, however limited. But in diplomacy, what is our bargaining chip? This is what the focus is in this piece!

Foreign policy is a strategy of a State vis-à-vis other States or international entities and that achieving specific goals defined in terms of national interest, so said Plano and Olton in the International Relations Dictionary. Interestingly, there are key determinants which define our national interest which in turn strengthens those determinants. It is not one or a set of factors but it is function of interplay of several factors under different circumstances that make a foreign policy. There are also external stimuli which a country reacts to and domestic determinants that shape and anchor a foreign policy. While external factors are not necessarily under the control of a country the indigenous ones are.

In the formative years, immediately after Independence, our foreign policy was based on anti-colonialism, peace and progress, non-alignment, political traditions, security imperatives and above all, the personality and the outlook of the leader. Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, who was both Prime Minister as well as Foreign Minister and through his talents, experience and personality dominated the foreign policy in the beginning. What happened to America’s foreign policy after Nixon resigned in Watergate scandal?  What is happening to China under Xi Jinping!

Until the advent of BJP into full power with a majority government led by Atal Behari Vajpayee, Nehruvian foreign policy was followed under the slogan of ‘Continuity and change’. In this, there was in fact only continuity and no change except the tweaking of the concept of non-alignment to say ‘genuine non-alignment’ under brief Janata period.

Nehru alone dominated the foreign policy arena until 1964, or till his death. Nehru was considered an idealist, less of a pragmatist. Vajpayee added his personal weight both as a Foreign Minister in Janata government and then as Prime Minister. He had announced, “Nothing stops India and United States from becoming natural allies”. Manmohan Singh widely considered a weakling, at least by his critics broke tradition, took great political risk, and signed the nuclear deal with United States in 2005. The Leftists allies of his government withdrew support although the government survived with the backing of Samajwadi Party.

Yet our super confident and highly rated Prime Minister Modi has not signed so far any substantive agreement on either economy or security with the world’s biggest power, the US despite overtures by the latter. True that he has built a personal rapport with maverick President Donald Trump through two big public rallies in the US and in India. A solid bilateral agreement on trade or security was expected out of such public display of friendship and partnership.

Both normatively and in praxis, the comprehensive national power of a country is the key determinant. The power consists of a strong economy, sound political order, peace, harmony and unity in a country. Our economy, even before the pandemic, was crumbling. There are lots of statistics in the public domain including the government sources to show the pathetic situation of the economy.

Realist German political thinker Hans J. Morgenthau once profoundly commented, “Indian poverty is a major weakness in its foreign policy”. Certainly, a weak economy is a constraint. On the other hand a country can use its economic might to influence international politics like China does. With seven to eight per cent growth in the first decade of this century our foreign policy was drawing world attention whereas the economic weakness of a former super power like Russia has fettered its foreign policy.

Sadly, we do not see any credible initiative in fixing it. When China is shunned by major economies for its dubious role in the Covid episode originating from its soil, India as the second largest population was expected to be the natural destination for relocation of companies. Yet only a small number of the companies are headed towards India.

Paradoxically, we are fighting China but our economy is hooked to the trade with it. Even at present, in Covid times, and the border face-off, our trade with China is growing more than with any other country. Our security strategy is making us spend heavily on procuring armaments. A study on the links of Disarmament and Development says how the cost of one fighter aircraft could run our schools for years; likewise the cost of a missile could run our old-age homes for years together. Therefore, in order to be able to invest in development of people and infrastructure, we need to have a different security strategy.

Our political traditions, ethos and systems have been our greatest strength. Drawing on Buddha, Ashoka, Gandhi, Tagore we have won the confidence of the world. Our political diversity and pluralism has connected us to the world of democracy, human rights, civil liberties, dignity and solidarity. But of late, we are witnessing disharmony and discord in the society which is certainly affecting our foreign policy. Remember, the proposed visit of Shinzo Abe to Assam in December 2019 which did not happen due to riotous situation in the State following the imposition of NRC. It was expected that a big trade investment treaty would have been signed if the visit took place.

James N. Rosneau, the American political scientist said that foreign policy is credible and effective when public officials are accountable to the citizens. Also when there is harmony between the Executive and the Legislature. Is it the case today in our country? Look at the state of Pakistan from 1947 to 1989 because of political instability caused by military coups. So to downplay India’s politics of pluralism and democracy will undermine our national interest and its articulation in our foreign policy.

Finally, the talk of participating in a multi-polar world is impractical. Deepening convergences with USA, while managing differences with China, and soft-balancing major powers are a throwback to the days of non-alignment. Juggling several balls in the air at a time is easier said than done. Maintaining strategic independence in an interdependent world is a tall order. A NATO like alliance is a greater bulwark against aggressive and expansionist neighbours like China. So, our foreign policy determinants have to be reassessed. Is the government on the ball! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)