By Akshay
More
Why are
we discussing this issue? India’s
decision to sign a strategic partnership with east African country of Rwanda,
after Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Rwandan President Paul Kagame in
Gandhinagar this week
Over the past two decades, India has upgraded over 30
bilateral relationships to strategic partnerships. Let us try to understand
what the term ‘strategic partnership’ means, and what is the rationale and pros
& cons of the above trend.
Plausible
Definitions of ‘Strategic Partnerships’
* The Oxford Dictionary defines strategic as anything
relating to long term interests and goals; a strategic partnership, by
extension, would relate to long term shared interests and ways of achieving
them.
* It defines a bilateral relationship more important
than others, but stops short of an actual alliance. The term “strategic”
further implies a future convergence of interests in areas that are vital:
security, defence and investment.
* Strategic partnerships are commonly associated with
defense or security related issues, but a survey of formal strategic
partnerships around the world reveal they can also be quite a hold-all,
covering a wide range in bilateral relations, from defense to education, health
and agriculture, and quite commonly, economic relations, including trade,
investment and banking.
* “Strategic partnerships” are declarative instruments
of policy for India – an effort to “underline its commitment to build a
longer-term relationship … by deepening ties and promoting convergence in
external policies on issues of mutual interest.
Some scholars of international relations theory have
argued against a set definition, arguing that each agreement belongs to a
specific time and context, and thus has its own meaning. Some have even argued
that the phrase is nothing more than nomenclature, and parties use it to
project a higher status to their ties. "Strategic partnership" is
merely declaratory. No formal document has been signed by India that defines
what the term means and what binding obligations India and its strategic
partner are accepting in terms of their bilateral relations or external action in
general.
Cons of so many Strategic
Partnerships
Critical
Analysis of Rwandan Decision: Rwanda
is a land-locked country with 90 per cent of its population engaged in
subsistence agriculture. It is also still recovering from the mass murder of
large sections of its Hutu population in 1994, though the country has
registered remarkable progress and growth in the last few years. While it may
therefore be an important destination for India’s development assistance, it is
difficult to see how it qualifies as a “strategic partner”, particularly given
that India is yet to set up a full diplomatic mission in the country; the last
time New Delhi even sent a delegation to Kigali was in 2012. Given all of this,
it would seem that the government’s move was more about window-dressing the
relationship than imbuing it with any meaningful substance.
Is there
any Differentiation? The nomenclature ‘strategic
partnership’ also begs question: if all the countries on the list are
strategically important, what does this mean for countries on the UN Security
Council such as the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China, or others such as
Japan, Australia, and some of the neighbours who genuinely contribute to India’s
security and economic interests and who have also signed strategic-partnership
agreements with New Delhi?
Moreover, why does India – at least formally and
rhetorically – grant the same level of diplomatic elevation to its relationship
with China as it does to its relationship with the United States and Japan?
(Note: All three are strategic partners)
Mistrust
of Outsiders: The “strategic
partnership” model is often deeply frustrating for outsiders looking towards
India. American experts have a perception that India’s so-called strategic
autonomy in this regard can be seen more as dilly-dallying – a criticism that
echoes from the days of outright non-alignment. India remains partially
tethered to the underlying strategic logic of non-alignment, even though its
policymakers see a clear hierarchy in its foreign relations today.
Pros of
so many Strategic Partnerships
After the declaration of a strategic partnership,
India doesn’t immediately fast-track relations to expand along all axes – it is
rather more prone to take its time and weigh the pros and cons of deeper
engagement very seriously.
The “strategic partnership” model downplays
non-alignment in favor of “strategic autonomy.”
Another misconception about India’s strategic
partnerships is that they all entail the same level of engagement. In reality,
there is a hierarchy that is well appreciated by the foreign policy community
in India. In a report issued by a group of experts (including Sibal) from the
Foundation for National Security Research in New Delhi called “India’s
Strategic Partners: A Comparative Assessment,” the authors methodically rank
India’s top strategic partners with a corresponding score out of 90 points. In
the final ranking, Russia comes out on top with 62, followed by the United
States (58), France (51), UK (41), Germany (37), and Japan (34).
It allows a nation that has not entirely shed its
non-aligned roots to experiment with comprehensive diplomatic engagement like
never before. It’s a form of beneficial ambiguity for India: the foreign policy
equivalent of a first date. If things go well, India may be likely to take
things more seriously and ultimately begin using that long-dreaded A-word
(alliance).
Way Ahead
Clearly, a more cogent policy with clear-cut criteria
for strategic partnerships must be considered by the Ministry of External
Affairs, with the focus on countries with which there is a long-term vision on
securing India’s needs, coupled with a convergence of strategic interests.
Note:
Some of
India’s Strategic Partners: US,
France, UK, Germany, the European Union, Japan and Australia on the one hand,
and Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan and Iran
What
gives India its heft as indicated by willingness of a myriad number of
countries to engage deeply with it?
* India's arrival on the global stage as a growing
economic power;
* The acknowledgement of its democracy and its shared
values with the democratic world;
* Its neighbourhood, with the Afpak region on one
side, China on the other;
* As well as it having the second largest population
in the world.
Multiple ‘Strategic
Partnerships’ is in a way extension of Non-Alignment Policy. Discuss.
India has been historically non-aligned. Whether it
was an ideology or a strategy or both can be debated. It did not suit India's
national interest to get embroiled in Cold War rivalries. Its interest was to
maintain good relations with countries from both blocs and get benefits from
both, which it did.
It is still in India's interest to be on friendly
terms with all countries and create beneficial partnerships wherever it can.
Earlier, it was more difficult because of Cold War
antagonisms that put pressure on countries to choose sides. Today it is easier
as such distortions in international politics have disappeared.
Our "strategic partnerships" with countries
in all the continents, some great powers and others not, some highly advanced
economically and others developing or emerging economies, some established
democracies and others with authoritarian regimes, is compatible with our
philosophy of engaging with countries with a variety of political and economic
profiles, without any desire to get caught in rivalries or threaten peace and
stability.
In a sense, this is an extension of non-alignment in
the context of the new world of globalisation, interdependence, connectivity
and multi-polarity.
Some call this "multi-alignment", but this
is not an accurate description as India is not entering into multiple
alliances. Others, more accurately, call this "strategic autonomy" as
the concept conveys independence of decision making in a flexible mode.
