Conference Report
Report on
“India’s Role in a Multi-Polar World”
March 25-26, 2010
New Delhi, India
The Foresight India symposium on India's role in a multi-polar
world took place in New Delhi on 25-26 March. The forum
was organised by the Indian Council of World Affairs in
cooperation with the Foresight initiative, a programme
led by the Alfred Herrhausen Society, the international
forum of Deutsche Bank in partnership with the London-based
think tank, Policy Network.
The forum brought together leaders, policy-makers, scholars
and others from over fifteen countries to discuss and
analyse India’s role in an increasingly interdependent
and multi-polar world. Key international participants
included, amongst others, Daniel Benjamin; Coordinator
for Counter-Terrorism, US State Department; Wu Jianmin;
President of the China Foreign Affairs University and
former Chinese Ambassador to the UN; Sergei Karaganov,
Chairman of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defence
Policy; James Purnell, former UK Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions; and Par Nuder, former Swedish Finance
Minister. (Please see enclosed the programme and participants
list for further details).
Welcoming the delegates, Sudhir Devare, Director General,
ICWA, referred to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s
remarks at the G-8 Summit in July 2009 in which he had
said that “India as the largest democracy in the
world and an emerging economy that has achieved the ability
to grow rapidly, remains deeply committed to multilateralism.”
DG further said that at a time when Asia is witnessing
an extraordinary growth of major powers, India’s
active role in the multi-polarity of Asia will be of significance.
The symposium opened with a session on India
at the crossroads: understanding the multiple transformations.
The discussions provided an introductory overview and
examined four key issues: recent changes in India and
the different visions for its future; the factors that
drive Indian foreign policy; the impact of India’s
self-perception and historical evolution on Indian foreign
policy; and the external perceptions of India’s
rise. K.S. Bajpai suggested that after
the end of the Cold War, India, like many other states,
is still trying to work out its goals and aims. Domestic
pressures, anti-imperialism, and pacifism have been guiding
factors of Indian foreign policy over the years. Sunil
Khilnani said that India needs to find a new
positive conception of power. Historically, in the 50’s
and 60’s, given the context of imperialism, India
utilised the power to resist the powerful. As India itself
acquires more power, this is changing but the process
will be slow and complex. Edwina Moreton
outlined some of the external perceptions of India as
weary of entanglements, unkeen on friendships and too
keen to cut bilateral deals. She suggested that the choice
before India, as many other countries, was whether to
be a capable, dynamic and problem-solving power or not.
K.P Fabian asserted that India’s
past will continue to influence its behaviour and India
should be open to the world while retaining its identity.
Kapila Vatsyayan suggested that there
was much that India and other developing countries had
to offer to the globalisation process. In the lively discussion
that followed, one of the key themes that emerged was
the role that democracy plays in India, whether it is
just a domestic concern, a source of soft power or if
it provides a greater value orientation in its foreign
policy.
This was followed by an intervention by the actress and
film-maker Nandita Das, who explored
the complexities of Indian identity and discussed both
the positive and negative impacts of globalisation on
culture and society.
The second session on Sustaining economic
globalisation: building a fair regime analysed
three key themes: the implications of the financial crisis
and rising anxieties in the advanced economies for the
future of economic globalisation; the role of special
provisions and differential treatment in the international
trade regime for emerging economies such as India; and
the reform of the global economic governance architecture
to reflect the changing balance of power. Andre
Sapir argued that the emerging economies had
weathered the financial crisis much better than the advanced
economies. The shift to the G-20 is a necessary and welcome
shift but it is still to be seen whether it will be able
to fulfil its promise. Raymond Vickery
discussed the dilemmas of what fair means, saying that
things to have be fair to the ‘aam aadmi’
or ‘common man’ in India but the equivalent
of that is the middle class in America. He suggested that
there is need for greater engagement, such as happened
with negotiations on the TRIPS agreement. Sanjaya
Baru asserted that there is a paradigm shift
taking place where production moves to Asia and the question
is how well the OECD countries can accommodate to this
shift. He argued that if we do not revitalise global institutions,
they may be replaced by regional ones, which could be
a dangerous process. A.N. Ram suggested
that India presented an uncompromising voice for a more
equitable international economic order. In the discussion
that followed, there was much debate about the issue of
global imbalances and the role of the IMF. Many urged
that the task ahead was to find new ideas and paradigms.
The third session on Transnational terrorism:
regional dimensions of a global challenge analysed
the challenges presented by transnational terrorism in
the South Asian region. It explored the role that international
involvement has played in the region and the potential
for increasing the role of local and regional actors.
It also examined possible ways forward in the on-going
conflict in Afghanistan. Daniel Benjamin
said that the Obama administration realises the importance
of local and regional actors and that is the reason it
is investing in capacity-building. Tackling the challenges
requires efforts by all the states and actors involved
and this includes Pakistan. Leela Ponappa
argued that we need to agree on the gravity of the threat
presented by terrorism in South Asia also at the global
level. Integrating action at the local, regional and global
level is required as all dimensions are intertwined. Bernd
Mutzelburg suggested that South Asia is unprepared
to deal with the threat presented by terrorism due to
the absence of a regional security architecture. While
history and hostilities make this architecture difficult,
it is necessary. Sergei Karaganov asserted
that international involvement has largely not been successful
and needs to be more modest and humble in its aims and
approach. Prem Shankar Jha called for
a regional approach to tackling the challenges in Afghanistan,
and said that India was the country with the biggest responsibility
to undo the scars of partition and that people need to
be persuaded about this. Harald Kujat
highlighted that most Europeans do not support the war
in Afghanistan and the challenges this presents for NATO.
In the following discussion, there was much debate on
the need for a political solution, which would be more
important than military strategies.
The second day of the symposium opened with a discussion
on the possibility of a global grand strategy in a multi-polar
world. Stephen Krasner asserted that
the preponderance of power still lies with the United
States and that a grand strategy structured around the
idea of responsible sovereignty was possible. Responsible
sovereignty would entail two key elements i.e. effective
domestic governance and providing global public goods.
Amitabh Mattoo questioned the relevance
of the concept of a grand strategy in the current global
disorder, and suggested that what was needed was a combination
of many ideas. He suggested that even though India’s
grand strategy is not articulated, it can be said to be
structured around three key pillars, which are the search
for space, strength and stability.
Minister Shashi Tharoor addressed the
forum and gave an eloquent overview of global governance
and India’s role in the world today. Today there
are both forces of convergence such as trade and forces
of disruption such as conflict. Due to increasing interdependence,
no area can remain isolated and global governance has
become even more vital. India has a long history of internationalism
and realises the interconnected nature of the world. Its
policies are changing in the context of the changing global
environment, and now, instead of only non-alignment, it
follows a multi-alignment approach participating in a
wide range of forums and cooperating with many different
countries across the world. At the same time, he stressed
the need for reform of the global governance architecture
including the UN and international financial institutions.
The fourth session on Ensuring resource security:
from a local problem to a global challenge? analysed
the process of ensuring access to essential resources.
The discussions examined the need for strengthened international
mechanisms; efforts to facilitate innovation; and the
extent to which growth models and consumption patterns
will need to adapt. Ligia Noronha suggested
that the impact of climate change and the economic rise
of new powers has increased the challenges of resource
scarcity. However, scarcity could lead to better cooperation
and there need to be flows from the local to the national
to the global and back. Qingguo Jia discussed
how water was a severe domestic problem in China as the
North faces drought but China has not yet decided on the
controversial Western canal project. He asserted that
whatever decisions China makes will also take into consideration
impacts on India and other countries in the region. Fyodor
Lukyanov asserted that there is great need for
a governance system in the field of energy that will be
acceptable to all actors, both producers and consumers.
Ajay Shankar argued that the debate on
resources was inextricably linked with the debate on development,
and that one needs to realise the efficacy of the market
mechanism although national and international action and
intervention will also be necessary. Saideh Lotfian
said that Iran faces challenges due to environmental degradation
and the costs of petroleum and therefore nuclear energy
is viewed as a big potential. In the debate that followed,
the need for better cooperation and coordination mechanisms
was emphasised.
The concluding session of the symposium on Forging
common futures: India’s role in a multi-polar world
examined external expectations of India as well as Indian
visions for its role in the changing international order.
James Purnell, in an interesting example,
called on India to be more like Google and embrace and
promote its democratic values. Wu Jianmin
asserted that China welcomes India’s rise as there
is Asian solidarity and the economies of both countries
are complimentary. However, there continues to be mistrust
and there needs to be greater communication and exchanges
between the two countries. Charles Kupchan
asserted the importance of regional orders, as more breakthroughs
are seen at the regional level and that diplomatic engagement
was the key to peace. Vasily Mikheev said
that India should lead in both regional and global governance
and said that although Russian-Indian relations had lost
pace, there is now an attempt to revive ties. Arundhati
Ghose said that the debate between interests
and values was not very relevant as both would guide India.
She also stressed that while India is a democracy at home,
democracy can not be imposed on other countries. G.
Parthasarathy argued that India’s key role
was to successfully conduct its experiment as a pluralistic
and democratic nation-state, and through this, it could
be a beacon. The Indian economy is reliant on consumer-led
growth and what India seeks is the stability of its borders.
There will be rivalries, but also cooperation in today’s
increasingly multi-polar world.
|
