From Financial Express, August 14, 2012

India’s global strategy

A recent 70-page report by a distinguished group of Indian thinkers on the nation’s foreign and strategic policy in the 21st century has generated considerable debate. Provocatively titled “Nonalignment 2.0”, the document ranges over economics and politics, internal concerns as well as those of external relations. The breadth of scope is breathtaking and, despite the early disclaimer that it does not intend to prescribe specific policies, there are numerous specific prescriptions, as well as more general guidelines and exhortations. At the end of it, though, I was left feeling like I do after reading India’s five-year plan, national water policy, or similar documents. Ultimately, the clear strategic direction is missing. Indeed, the title itself hints at this problem. Here is my own take.

Nonalignment was a useful way of navigating the cold war world, and provided, in some circumstances, a counterweight to both of the opposing cold war powers. Ultimately, though, it had limited usefulness, because it was a defensive strategy. It did not address the fundamental challenge of all governments that claim to serve their citizens, namely, to increase their well-being, both material and non-material. National security is a necessary component, but far from sufficient. What really mattered, it turned out, was domestic political capacity and national choices of economic systems. For countries that could manage internal conflict, global economic engagement and a sufficient degree of market friendliness paid off.

The world is no longer divided as it was 25 years ago, but asymmetries of power remain. The United States dominates in many respects, but China is flexing its muscles in numerous ways. The N2.0 report seems to view these two countries as the new Scylla and Charybdis that India’s global strategy must navigate. What is wrong with this perspective?

First, it is important to re-emphasise that what India primarily needs is rapid, sustained, inclusive economic growth. Foreign policy should put this goal first. Besides all the domestic problems that India needs to fix on the economic front, India needs deeper engagement with the global economy. But which parts of it? China is way ahead of India in almost every dimension of international economic integration. India needs capital and knowledge from the rest of the world. But China is not a trustworthy source of either of these things—deeper economic engagement with China will be asymmetric and risky, at least for now. Luckily, on this front, India has many options besides the United States, for investment and technology, including the stronger economies of Europe, and especially the miracle economies of Asia: Japan, South Korea, Singapore and, yes, Taiwan. India’s foreign policy should clearly serve its economic development, with clear strategic intent.

Why is China not trustworthy? Because of geography, it is in strategic competition with India in terms of conventional territorial and resource motives. Because of history, it has a point to prove to the West, and seeks to be a true global power, befitting its heritage and self-image. These strategic drivers for China make it a prickly partner and collaborator. This is true for India just as it is true for almost every East and Southeast Asian nation. This does not mean that India cannot manage accommodation and some engagement with China. Indeed, it must. Some of that necessity is a function of shared boundaries, and the classic needs of national security. India has to be nice to China, but has to be so from a position of strength, unlike the 1950s.

India has many other neighbours, none of them in the same category as China. India now has an opportunity to be good to all of these, no matter how problematic they are. A lynchpin of India’s global strategy should be economic generosity to its smaller neighbours, no matter what their problems or responses.

To make this work, India has to do better with domestic security. Besides economic growth, India needs better governance, valuable in itself, and not just for the economic benefits that it brings. More specifically, India needs to improve its physical infrastructure. Roads, airports, telecommunications and energy are such obvious aspects of internal security, beyond their economic benefits, that it is unbelievable that they have been so neglected. In this respect, global strategy starts at home.

So my take is that one should jettison labels, particularly ones that mislead in understanding the present world situation. The big story is the rise of China. India is a bit player in this story. Its strategy should be to avoid getting knocked down as China rises. This means pursuing its global economic interests, without the old moralising, in an eclectic manner, but with clear strategic intent. Building key parts of its infrastructure, and nourishing and educating its people effectively will serve its national security as well as its economic development. Seeking economic engagement with the many countries that have knowledge and capital to offer should drive foreign policy. This is a clear and simple global strategy for India.