Strategic Partnership

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.