Geopolitics, India, international affairs, Writing

4 pathways to cooperation amid geopolitical fragmentation

The world is experiencing geopolitical turbulence. Wars are raging across the Middle East, Europe and Africa; 2023 marked the largest ever single-year increase in forcibly displaced people.

In addition to these security challenges, the world faces a warming planet and fragile global economy that can only be addressed through joint action.

Despite this daunting picture, there are ways the international community can still work together. Experts from the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Geopolitics tell us how, in a new report entitled Shaping Cooperation in a Fragmenting World.

The report offers innovative pathways towards greater global cooperation in four areas: global security, climate action, emerging technology and international trade.

Below are the key highlights, as outlined by our experts.

1. Global Security – advancing global security in an age of distrust

By Bruce Jones, Ravi Agrawal, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Karin von Hippel, Lynn Kuok and Susana Malcorra

The starting point must be to recognize that distrust is, in the short and medium term at least, a baked-in feature of geopolitical reality.

Managing this and forging responses to global challenges despite it requires recognizing that collaboration is possible even under conditions of intense distrust: the US and the Soviet Union repeatedly proved this during the Cold War.

Third parties are key to managing the distrust through quiet diplomacy (often at or through the UN), brokering offramps, de-escalation and crisis avoidance. So-called “middle powers” have in the past played a key role in great power conflict prevention and de-escalation and are an important part of this moving forwards.

Although this term has, until recently, been confined to Western countries, shifts in the global balance of power mean that it extends beyond the West to “rising” powers elsewhere.

A standing mechanism that links the western major and middle powers with the non-Western ones (Brazil, India, South Africa, the United Arab Emirates and so on) would create a diplomatic mechanism that could straddle the increasingly bifurcated worlds of the G7, Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad) and the expanded BRICs.

2. Climate Change – rethinking climate governance

By Samir Saran and Danny Quah

There is now a need to rethink global climate governance. The fundamental imbalance is this that while the developed world has been the key contributor to historical emissions, future emissions will be concentrated in the developing world. It is necessary to not just increase the amount of private capital deployed in the Global South, but also to ensure the scope of such investment is widened to include adaptation.

Similarly, the technology needed to scale up green energy solutions also remains concentrated in the developed world and China. The mandate and lending patterns of multilateral development banks should be changed and the start-up sector in the emerging world should be repositioned towards climate goals.

At the same time, multilateral forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the G20 must better acknowledge and differentiate impacts of climate change on health outcomes across genders and craft women-led initiatives to mobilize societal support for political action.

3. Emerging Technology – taming technology together

By Samir Saran, Flavia Alves and Vera Songwe

The prolific pace of advancement of frontier technologies and its pursuit by a multitude of state and non-state actors, with varied motivations, has opened a new chapter in contemporary geopolitics.

To ensure that efforts at tech regulation and stemming their proliferation succeed, countries will be required to undertake innovation in policy-making, where governments take on board all the stakeholders – tech corporations, civil society, academia and the research community.

Similar to the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle developed by the UN for protecting civilians from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, the international community must create a regulatory R2P obligation for states to protect civilians from the harms of emerging technologies.

And the Global South must convene a standing conference of the parties (COP) for future technologies, along the lines of COP for climate change negotiations.

4. International Trade – expanding and rebalancing trade

By Nicolai Ruge and Danny Quah

Strengthening and rebalancing the trade system requires expanding the trade agenda, not limiting it. The broader the benefits delivered by trade, the more firmly it will be aligned with national and global priorities.

Trade that is designed to deliver on globally shared priorities as defined by the UN Sustainable Development Goals will gain the trust of governments and citizens and be “fenced off” from geopolitical rivalry rather than disrupted for near-term political wins.

To rebuild global trust in the benefits of the multilateral trade system, it is of paramount importance that the Global South – and particularly least-developed countries – are not cut out of the growth and development pathways that participation in international trade provides.

Mechanisms must be in place to ensure they are able to take advantage of new opportunities created by shifts in global value chains.

How can these pathways be successful?

Throughout the report , one common factor emerged as key to enhancing cooperation across these four domains: inclusivity.

To address challenges in global security, climate change, emerging technology and trade, the international community must prioritize diverse voices and involve actors that have previously been on the margins of multilateral fora.

With this approach as a North Star, building cooperation is possible.

This publication originally appeared in World Economic Forum.

2024 Elections, international affairs, world order, Writing

2024: The year that changed democracy?

The Indian general election will go beyond reaffirming the power of democracy; it could make 2024 the year that took democracy home to the people of the world.

Over 50 nations will hold elections in 2024, causing an unprecedented churn in political mandates, governing institutions, and international affairs. No continent will be exempt.

Globally, national progress is being assessed feverishly and people’s voices are coalescing into verdicts. Indeed, 2024 will be consequential for democracy and the world order.

This is the first time in the digital age that major democracies will go to polls in the same year. The key electoral attributes of individual participation, mass mobilisation, political messaging and outreach will soon assume centre stage. But so will the inescapable elements that pervert democratic processes—online misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda. If the United States (US) election of 2016, with its deluge of fake news, was a watershed event, it may pale in comparison to what 2024 portends.

Globally, national progress is being assessed feverishly and people’s voices are coalescing into verdicts.

Among the most significant and keenly watched elections will be India’s. The world’s largest democracy—and arguably the world’s longest-running pluralistic society, given that the ancient doctrine of “dharma” was, in a sense, India’s original unwritten Constitution—will deliver a fresh mandate in the era of ChatGPT, deepfakes, and vlogs.

What is unique about the Indian general election is, quite simply, that it involves India. The country is one of the fastest-growing economies. It has completed a remarkably successful tenure as president of the G20. It is the single most development-obsessed geography, with its vision of inclusive development encompassing all of the Global South. One of India’s first interventions as G20 president, for instance, was to host the ‘Voice of the Global South Summit’, where it engaged with 125 other developing nations to understand their concerns and to shape its priorities at the G20 accordingly.

India is also one of the world’s most advanced digital societies. It has consolidated its position as a global tech-enabled services hub; its world-class model of digital public infrastructure (DPI) is being adopted and adapted by advanced and developing countries alike; and it is the highest-ranked country internationally in terms of AI skill penetration and talent concentration.

The key electoral attributes of individual participation, mass mobilisation, political messaging and outreach will soon assume centre stage.

The upcoming election will witness the interplay of India’s democratic urges, developmental aspirations, and technological sophistication.

During its G20 presidency, India rightly laid claim to being the “mother of democracy”, and re-emphasised democratic principles as an Eastern virtue. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointed out at the G20 Parliamentary Speakers’ Summit, millennia-old Indian scriptures mention the prevalence of assemblies, open debates, and democratic deliberations, “where collective decisions were made for the betterment of society”. This democratic concern for the greater good underpins the civilisational attribute of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ (One Earth, One Family, One Future) that has guided India’s internal and external engagements.

India’s economic prowess, digital achievements, and diplomatic capabilities, coupled with its democratic credentials, make it the North Star of the Global South. Developing nations engaged in political and socio-cultural soul-searching need no longer choose between an unrelatable West and an authoritarian China. An Indian approach and example, more attuned to the needs of developing and emerging economies, is at hand.

It is the single most development-obsessed geography, with its vision of inclusive development encompassing all of the Global South.

The great Indian election: Delivery versus narratives

Today, India is on the verge of becoming a US$ 5-trillion economy. The International Monetary Fund says India could cross this milestone in 2026-27. Since the mid-2010s, the country’s GDP per capita has risen swiftly—from around US$ 1,600 per capita in 2014 to over US$ 2,612 today. Yet, the Indian leadership has advocated for a shift from a “GDP-centric worldview to a human-centric one”, and a liberal, people-focused economic vision that ensures personal growth and well-being.

This vision is in evidence across India. Over 99.9 percent of Indian adults have an Aadhaar digital identity today, transforming their ability to access public services. The country operates the world’s largest financial inclusion programme, serving over 500 million individuals, with 55.5 percent of these bank accounts belonging to women. And 30 million Indians make online financial transactions every day using the homegrown Unified Payments Interface and galvanising the global digital economy.

As the election of 2024 nears, other changes are palpable as well. Between 2006 and 2021, India lifted 415 million people out of poverty. A long-standing Indian focus on women-led development has reaped dividends: women now occupy 36 percent of senior and leadership positions at mid-sized businesses in India, surpassing the global average by 4 percent. Since 2013, the infant mortality rate has dropped from 39.082 to 26.619, and maternal mortality from 167 (per 100,000 live births) to 103. The country’s food grain production touched a record 315.7 million tonnes in 2021-22, bolstering food security.

The country operates the world’s largest financial inclusion programme, serving over 500 million individuals, with 55.5 percent of these bank accounts belonging to women.

These are inspiring stories. These are the reports of progress Indian citizens would like to wake up to every morning. Yet global media narratives mislead and distort and deliberately draw attention to cleavages and fault lines that any multicultural society, anywhere in the world, has to manage. A cursory look at leading Western media outlets—print, television, and digital—shows that they have chosen to position themselves as the ‘Opposition’ to Prime Minister Modi in these coming elections.

In 2019, Time magazine branded Prime Minister Modi as “India’s divider-in-chief” and wondered—misguidedly, as it turned out—if “the world’s largest democracy [could] ensure another five years of a Modi government”. The New York Times proclaims shrilly that “Since Mr. Modi took power in 2014, India’s once-proud claim to being a free democratic society has collapsed on many fronts”. The Washington Post believes that India appears to be “sliding into authoritarianism”. And the BBC—citing an Oxfam report—laments that the “richest 1% own 40.5% of India’s wealth”, failing to note that even as India creates wealth at the top it spurs mobility at the bottom, and is thus intrinsically different from the nature of European oligarchy.

PM Modi has been identified as one of the world’s most tech-savvy leaders. His government is using technology to deliver benefits to citizens and to communicate its goals at a population scale. There are thus two competing forces at work—on the one hand, the use of digital platforms by the global media to position itself as the anti-Modi coalition; and on the other hand, the use of technology by the Indian leadership to deliver transformational growth and attract people to their proposition.

There are thus two competing forces at work—on the one hand, the use of digital platforms by the global media to position itself as the anti-Modi coalition.

The Indian election will help us decisively evaluate the influence of the global media on domestic affairs, and answer two central questions. Can media narratives trump delivery, or will good governance and last-mile success trump narratives? And would we have been guilty of overhyping the role of the media if, in the end, lived experience and on-ground delivery win?

South rising: Why Indian democracy matters

Democracy is not a Western endowment and need not have a Western texture and tonality. Indeed, democracy for India is—as it is for much of the Global South—about promoting inclusive growth, infrastructure investments, climate action, women-led development, the mass adoption of environment-friendly lifestyles, and the establishment of DPI that universalises public service delivery, among other interventions. These are the building blocks of equity, without which there is no meaningful democracy. India has delivered in each of these areas. Its advocacy of women-led development at the G20 was accompanied by the passage of a landmark bill that reserves one-third of the seats in the lower house of the Indian parliament and state legislative assemblies for women. It is working on multiple fronts to meet its pledge of achieving net zero by 2070; its pathbreaking LiFE (lifestyle for environment) movement is gaining traction worldwide; and a broad spectrum of nations are partnering with India to build their DPI.

The country has co-opted big tech platforms as part of its growth story and upheld Indian laws while rebuffing sometimes anarchist Southern Californian ideas about freedom of expression.

India also recognises that for the deeply heterogeneous societies of the developing world, online safety is far more important than evangelical and absolutist free speech. Even as American platforms strive to homogenise the global understanding of free speech, India has wisely defended its Constitutional scheme of “reasonable restrictions”. The country has co-opted big tech platforms as part of its growth story and upheld Indian laws while rebuffing sometimes anarchist Southern Californian ideas about freedom of expression.

Collectively, these characteristics make democratic India a lighthouse for countries of the rising South. Since the pioneering ‘Voice of the Global South Summit’ at the outset of its G20 presidency in January 2023, all the way to the New Delhi Leaders’ Summit in September 2023, India has been hailed as the legitimate spokesperson of the Global South. At such a juncture, the Indian general election—the biggest democratic exercise on the planet—will go beyond reaffirming the power of democracy; it could make 2024 the year that took democracy home to the people of the world.

Source : ORF Website

Global South, India, Writing

How India can become the bank for the Global South

Today, India is poised at the moment and GDP that China was in in 2007. Does it have the same gumption?

In 2007, China’s GDP was about $3.6 trillion. Today, India’s GDP is $3.7 trillion — perhaps more. This parallel is crucial to understanding the big moment that Indian diplomacy, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is recognising. A moment, if supported by India’s people, its companies and the state apparatus, will reshape the global order. An appreciation of this moment and putting its lessons into concrete actions is the big legacy of 2023 as India concludes a transformational diplomatic year — the year of its G20 stewardship.

Look back at history. In 2007, China was not yet the geoeconomic behemoth it is now. But with a GDP lower than India’s today, it became the go-to nation during the global financial crisis a year later. Every nation sought to deepen relations with Beijing, and to create a special place in their diplomacy for the People’s Republic. Its leaders were the toast of Davos and at business salons. China provided institutional and geoeconomic responses — a development bank, a cross-continental lending programme that galvanised infrastructure accretion without the legacy constraints of Western agencies, and a series of economic projects that eventually coalesced into the Belt and Road Initiative.

It is true that some of these have run into trouble. Nevertheless, the fact is China used its economic promise in 2008 to gain oversized economic and political influence that continues to stand it in good stead. It did this by offering itself as a vital additionality to the global order. At a time when the US was struggling to recover from the financial crisis and the Eurozone was tearing itself apart, it was China that promised stability and economic dynamism. The world wanted and needed an additional engine of growth and an additional source of investment. And so it also welcomed an additional centre of geopolitical power.

India is poised at a similar moment and with a similar GDP. Does it have the same gumption? As we enter 2024, this is the framework within which Indians must understand their place in the world today. The recent past teaches us that an India-sized economy of about $4 trillion can exert a huge influence. With vision and skilful diplomacy, it can carve a space for itself alongside economies that are four or five times large, like the United States, the European Union and China.

This is a real Indian opportunity in 2024, as Europe stagnates, the US turns inward and China deals with internal problems and its share of the global economy that is shrinking in nominal terms. The agenda for India’s next government must simply be this: Demonstrate India’s potential, and the additionality that it can provide for global growth, institutions, and security.

Additionality does not require extraordinariness. After all, China’s growth in recent years has not been extraordinary. But it had momentum, and that is what India has today. It has its own trajectory and the motive force, one better suited to a green and digital future. If China had mass manufacturing, the growth engine of the 2010s, India has its platform economy, the dynamo of the 2020s.

But additionality must have attributes. What Beijing offered 15 years ago was not an inchoate promise. There was a system, a schema, to the China proposition. This roadmap excited China’s partners. An entire future-focused architecture served as the loudest possible announcement that a $4-trillion economy would punch with the weight of a $15-trillion one.

Also, a new cooperation architecture needs to be put in place because India, in a very short while, will be spending serious money globally. The private sector is mobilising to support connectivity, supply chains, and resource resilience projects across the world. But public development finance will also grow alongside, and indeed, faster than India’s economy.

This is the substance behind India’s additionality. Even if we assume India grows at only 10 per cent a year in current dollars, below its recent benchmark, it will be a major new source of development finance. If India slowly but steadily raises its development cooperation budget to less than 0.5 per cent of its GDP by 2030, it will still have put around $70 billion into the global system. India is already the voice of the Global South; it will become the bank of the Global South.

This finance needs to be undergirded by India’s unique proposition, its own roadmap, and its own offering to the world. It urgently needs an outward-focused development finance corporation that can catalyse projects globally. It needs a bank, its own version of the China Development Bank, that will focus on global corporate needs beyond just trade finance. And it needs an imagery that is understood by others.

India’s government has shown this ambition at home. The prime minister’s Gati Shakti initiative links disparate infrastructure projects with a common vision. Similarly, we need an external engagement approach. Together with like-minded partners, India needs maps plotting priority infrastructure, connectivity routes, business and trading hubs and developmental projects. It needs to do this boldly and determinedly, identifying vital regions and sectors where it will resolutely plant the Tricolour. 2024 is the year for inking a world map described by India’s vision for its role in the world.

Source : Indian Express, December 13, 2023

climate change, COP28, Global South, international affairs, Writing

Controversies aside, COP28 is a real chance to put Global South at centre

As the world reels from the impact of the hottest year on record in 2023, the attention of the global community turns to COP28 for solutions to the climate challenge. While the previous decades of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations have failed to deliver effective and equitable climate action, this year’s COP in the UAE is a unique opportunity to move from empty promises to real action.

Real action on climate requires pragmatism. It would centre the specific needs of energy-poor countries in the Global South. It would recognise that the energy transition for much of the world is just that: a transition, in which legacy fuels are both rendered more efficient and used to finance the scale-up of renewables. Sermonising western COP presidencies have rarely understood the basic needs of the developing world.

While COP28 might have attracted concern for naming a president-designate who also runs a large fossil fuel company, the fact is that this is cause for optimism. Dr Sultan Al Jaber does indeed run Abu Dhabi’s national oil company — but he also founded the renewable energy giant Masdar, which pioneered efforts to spread green capital across multiple countries and geographies. A pragmatic climate solution for the Global South would similarly prioritise the spread of enterprise, of solutions, and of technology.

Dr Al Jaber and COP28 have a hard task ahead of them. Estimates indicate that nearly all developed nations, with only two exceptions, are significantly off-course in meeting their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This stark deviation stands as the primary obstacle preventing the realisation of the Paris Climate Goals. Those most culpable for the climate crisis persist in evading their responsibilities. Responsibility for climate finance is even more important. Developing economies will require around $2 trillion annually to meet emission targets and cope with the impact of climate change. In stark contrast, the world has fixated on bickering over a meagre $100 billion annual target for financing from the developed world. We are currently fighting over bicycles when what is required is a Mercedes.

The UAE COP is well placed to establish a new pathway that places the Global South at the centre. It also comes at a time when there is already momentum around Global South led multilateral cooperation. In particular, the Indian G20 Presidency has already demonstrated the ability to build consensus around such a climate agenda. Notably, the inclusion of the Green Development Pact in the New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration creates a cohesive narrative around climate action as a catalyst for sustainable and inclusive growth. India has highlighted a few priority action areas which must now be taken forward in the coming year, and COP28 is an ideal starting point.

First, reducing cost of green capital in the developing world is crucial, as these can be nearly seven times higher than in OECD countries. The IMF estimates that emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) have accounted for 80% of global growth since 2008. However, only 25% of climate finance has flowed to these geographies. By design, the current international financial architecture prevents growth from being green. It is imperative to create a global inventory of green projects with a guarantee that each project can access capital at a similar cost. This guarantee can be facilitated by a transnational institution similar to the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). Response to a planetary crisis must not be compromised by perceived political risks.

Second, COP28 must look to institutionalise climate action as an explicit mandate for Multilateral Development Banks, aligning with the MDB reform agenda put forward during the Indian G20 Presidency. The recently expanded BRICS grouping can also be utilised to further the reform agenda. The newer capital-rich members of the grouping should be galvanised to create a line of funds for Green Transitions within the New Development Bank. This can serve as a boutique model which can increase pressure on West-controlled institutions to accelerate their efforts.

Third, progress must be made on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) with a focus on identifying concrete instruments to meet the distinct adaptation finance needs of different regions, particularly for the most vulnerable communities. Furthermore, the GGA should serve as a platform to underscore the repercussions of climate change on health and gender, identifying integrated strategies to tackle these interconnected crises. The Loss and Damage Fund must also be operationalised with concrete financing commitment from the developed world.

Fourth, innovation in climate technologies in the Global South must be encouraged. In particular, green startups should be supported by creating effective knowledge sharing mechanism within the UNFCCC and establishing a social impact fund to support promising green projects.

Finally, it is crucial to diversify and make green technology value chains accessible to all. Presently, China holds disproportionate control over the raw materials and technologies vital for green energy. It is critical to break free from this monopoly and ensure that Beijing does not wield a veto over our green future.

Source : Times of India, December 3, 2023

India, international affairs, Writing

The New Suez Moment? India’s G20 and the Tectonic Transition

The world moulded by the Delhi Summit will be one of people-focused principles, and agile, trust-based partnerships

It has been 14 years since the world’s leaders met at Pittsburgh and declared that the G20 was the world’s “premier forum for international economic co-operation”. In all these years, the G20 has broadened its horizons and extended its mandate, but it has never, till India’s presidency, offered a new vision for multilateral economic governance. This is not surprising. The Pittsburgh Summit, held in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis, had a single-minded focus on saving a financial system distant from the streets of Mumbai or Mombasa. An organisation built for crisis management could not be expected to advance a wholly new vision for global governance.

The Pittsburgh Summit, held in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis, had a single-minded focus on saving a financial system distant from the streets of Mumbai or Mombasa.

In recent years, the G20 has been a lukewarm affair with political leaders largely being relegated to talking heads. Since February 2022, there has been a real risk that the G20 agenda would, given its crisis management lineage, attempt to become a forum for addressing the war in Ukraine. The New Delhi Summit has not only course-corrected, but it has also given this group a new lease of life. The “bankers’ G20” has been replaced, now and forever, with a “people’s G20”.

India’s achievement in producing a consensus, and a communiqué, has rightly been hailed. The G20 may not be a politico-security forum, but as all the meetings preceding the leaders’ summit demonstrated, there was no getting around Ukraine. New Delhi and Prime Minister Modi were up to the task. The United Nations Security Council, with only five vetoes, has failed to simply reaffirm the basic values of the UN Charter. But with India’s stewardship, the G20—a body with 20 vetoes, not one—was nudged into reminding us that “all states must refrain from the threat or use of force to seek territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state”.

The United Nations Security Council, with only five vetoes, has failed to simply reaffirm the basic values of the UN Charter.

But what is even more important than India’s ability to deliver a consensus is that India’s G20 has humanised global governance. From climate finance to women-led development, India has taken up issues that so many struggle with and championed their solutions. In an era where populism has been simply wished away as a residual by-product of elite globalisation, India has used that same channel of multilateral cooperation to try and help the world’s underserved.

Partners in democracy: The US and India

India’s leadership, and the new direction it has given the G20, should come as no surprise. The world of 2023 is vastly different from the one in 2009. And India’s ascent to global deal-making has implications for the other great powers of the world: The United States (US), China, and India’s emerging-economy peers.

The Pittsburgh Summit was hosted by the world’s only superpower. Since then, a generation has passed. Attitudes have darkened. The superpower that, with such enviable confidence, steered the Pittsburgh agenda has turned its back on internationalism. It has raised gates to trade and walls against immigrants, and it now forces its money and energy to stay home rather than travel the world.

The superpower that, with such enviable confidence, steered the Pittsburgh agenda has turned its back on internationalism.

But the global system abhors a vacuum, whether of leadership or ideas. Time fashions its own alternatives. And, so, another vast democracy has risen to shoulder responsibility. As Capitol Hill recedes, Raisina Hill has stepped in. To be sure, it seems the US is shepherding India’s rise.

It is the rare succession in power in which its new wielder is welcomed by those who came before. But India’s vision for a renewed multilateralism is one that is welcomed by the US, for it is in America’s own interest as well. The tango amongst democracies was visible to all at the G20 Summit in Delhi. President Biden made it a point to be standing next to Prime Minister Modi at any and every opportunity.

It is easy to see why. Trump’s assault on multilateralism offended the US’ oldest allies in Europe; his open contempt alienated the developing world. The US, still reeling from those four years, has been flailing to reach out to powers old and new. It appears now to have found a way.

The US will find it useful to work with India not just on new, 21st-century issues, but to manage some of its 20th-century relationships that have become more tenuous today.

This is, indeed, a Suez Moment. As, in 1956, an older power found it needed a newer one to make a difference in the world, the US today has understood that certain geographies and actors require that India play a leading role. In that sense, the Delhi Declaration presaged a tectonic transition in global affairs. Biden, at least, has concluded that India’s leadership is good for America. This will not be hard to sell back home. Some progressives in his party might carp, but India enjoys a wide spectrum of support in US politics.

The US will find it useful to work with India not just on new, 21st-century issues, but to manage some of its 20th-century relationships that have become more tenuous today. Its relationship with Saudi Arabia is an excellent example; India plays a bridging role, allowing for new agreements on infrastructure and connectivity. And India’s presence in the room allows the US, Brazil, and South Africa to have a conversation among friends.

Joe Biden is proving he can put into practice ideas from Barack Obama’s presidency that had remained merely slogans. The US is, indeed, “leading from behind” under Biden. Ten years ago, that phrase might have sounded patronising or might have been a façade for the exercise of imperial power. But today, as the world has changed, it is a real formula for effective international relations.

India’s G20 presidency: Development for all

India’s formula for multilateralism has been welcomed by emerging economies from Brazil to Egypt to South Africa. They recognise that India can be trusted to steer the ship of multilateralism in the direction of their priorities. India’s leadership is not built on solitary, hoarded power. Nor is it the sort that Delhi demonstrated in the 1950s, while navigating between two brooding superpowers. Some thought the ‘Trump slump’ in multilateralism and America’s turn inwards would doom international cooperation. Instead, the sheer volume of cooperative activity has skyrocketed, albeit of a different nature from traditional multilateralism, and with novel arrangements.

India’s formula for multilateralism has been welcomed by emerging economies from Brazil to Egypt to South Africa.

The framework that time has fashioned and India has embraced is one that relies neither on the caprices of America nor on vassalage to China. It consists of multiple informal, mutually beneficial, and purpose-driven partnerships, built on agreements between sovereign governments that are based both on principles and on centring their peoples’ needs. In a sense, these attributes mirror India’s foreign policy approach over the last few years. Over the past decade, India has pioneered a multilateralism that is built around limited-liability, flexible partnerships: From the Quad to I2U2 to BRICS.

After the Delhi Summit, the emerging world knows that India’s achievements are commensurate with the breadth of their shared aspirations. Look at the scope of the commitments taken on by the G20 under the Indian presidency—from biofuels to the reform of international development banks. There is not one that is not of great—in some cases existential—importance to the developing world. And in all these initiatives, India is either a catalyst or a driver.

Global leadership today must take on the task of reshaping the world’s economy to the benefit of those who seek to still benefit from globalisation in a new avatar. Fortuitously, IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) will be in the chair of the world’s most multilateral grouping for another two years. And they have supported each other admirably. Just as India aided Indonesia in the last-minute scramble for agreement at Bali last year, the emerging market democracies came together to make a Delhi consensus possible.

Global leadership today must take on the task of reshaping the world’s economy to the benefit of those who seek to still benefit from globalisation in a new avatar.

But even among these nations, India is first among equals: With the largest population, greatest economy, and highest growth rate. It also has a geography that makes it impossible to ignore. The task of leadership cannot be avoided, and India has stepped up to do its duty. India matters. And India delivered. In that sense, the Delhi G20 is the intellectual and political successor to the Pittsburgh G20.

In Pittsburgh, 14 years ago, China’s GDP was the same as India’s today. It was growing fast—a country increasingly open, reformist, and dynamic. What a difference a generation makes! Today, an unstable China, struggling with its own woes, is a source of concern for all. It is a cause of anxiety, rather than a source of strength. Few nations can look to it and expect a stalling China to power their growth stories in the coming decades.

Another generation from now, the world would have changed again, but this time thanks to India’s rise. The world moulded by the Delhi Summit will be one of people-focused principles, and agile, trust-based partnerships. It will be one in which, for the first time in human history, global governance will be directed towards the needs of the majority of the global population. India’s foreign minister, Dr S Jaishankar, said it best. This G20, he told us, was making the world ready for India and India ready for the world.

This article is an updated version of a previously published article in the World Economic Forum.

G20, G20 India, Writing

Rescripting Globalisation: A Tide that Lifts All Boats

India has changed the tone and texture of the G20. What was once a summit meant merely for technocrats and policy wonks has become a people’s festival

As the world’s leaders gather in New Delhi, it is clear that India’s G20 presidency will be remembered as a historic pivot in global governance. The 2023 G20 slogan — “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” or “The world is one family” — exemplifies a typical Indian melding of tradition and contemporary concerns.

For a G20 summit that is about reviving, reforming, and defending globalisation, vasudhaiva kutumbakam has taken on a meaning beyond hospitality to visitors from across the world. Translated into the rallying cry of “One Earth, One Family, One Future”, it emphasises the interconnection of cultures across geographies, and, as in families, reminds us of our obligation to those left behind, those yet to benefit from globalisation.

Of the many priorities India is taking forward in its stewardship of the G20, three serve to illustrate how the concerns of the Global South have come to occupy centre stage. The first principle is the democratisation and decentralisation of the global economy. “One Earth, One Family, One Future” should be seen especially in the backdrop of recent geo-economic developments that threaten our interconnected futures. Muscular industrial policy has staged a return in geographies that were once the strongest votaries of globalisation.

The United States has passed an Inflation Reduction Act that, in its specifics and motivations, looks little different from the nativist “Make America Great Again” agenda that preceded it. The European Union is girding to introduce a carbon border tax. At best, the rest of the world sees this as an attempt to regulate external markets on European principles. At worst, it looks like open protectionism of a sort the EU has historically attacked when it comes from much poorer countries. Correcting this drift away from the pure principles of globalisation — in which all benefit, but the poor benefit the most — is a priority for the developing world.

The second is reform and restoration of global finance. Since the 2008 crisis, financial globalisation has ceased to operate properly. The purpose of finance is to take savings and deploy them in projects, sectors, and geographies where they will garner the greatest returns. Where are those projects, sectors, and geographies today? As various agencies including the International Monetary Fund estimate, over three-fourths of global growth in the coming years will be in emerging economies.

International finance is, however, still focused on serving the old trans-Atlantic geographies. Wealth creation has been disconnected from growth creation. A financial sector that indulges merely in the perverse redistribution of wealth within societies rather than in enabling global growth that raises all boats is simply unfit for purpose. This G20, under India’s presidency, and those that follow, will aim to fix development and infrastructure finance so that capital can flow to the places where it can best stimulate growth — benefiting all of us, across the world.

Third, and most important, India has changed the tone and texture of the G20. What was once a summit meant merely for technocrats and policy wonks has become a people’s festival. The people’s G20 has a purpose: To amplify the issues that matter to the billions who have been, for too long, ignored by those technocrats and wonks. Dialogue on urgent issues — food, health, jobs, adaptation to climate change — has brought hundreds of millions of Indians, and billions beyond our shores, into the ambit of the global governance discussion. From now on, every presidency will include such perspectives, regions and demographics. India’s proud contribution to the G20 is a diversity that will shake the tree of global governance.

In the past, G20 summits have been remembered for activists outside the venues, protesting against the idea of global governance itself. There is always a place for dissent. India, as a vibrant democracy, knows this better than anyone. But the only answer to such activism is the creation of a wider group that can argue against it. The people’s G20 correctly recognises that democratised global governance and a reformed globalisation can enthuse a wider group, and thereby answer the concerns of those activists who sought to disrupt previous G20s. The warm embrace given to the G20 in India by Opposition-run state governments and marginalised groups is an indicator that there is nothing political or partisan about this hope. India has found a wider, deeper and more expansive response to the malaise of global governance.

This historic turn towards the Global South marked by India’s G20 has begun to redress decades of reductionism. The Global South is no longer a pejorative. India’s G20 has reclaimed this description and shown that our self-image is of a group seeking green growth, tech-first growth, women-led growth, and inclusive growth. Scholarship from richer countries may have been dismissive of the developing world and its aspirations. But today the Global South is seen as wanting more than just handouts. India’s vibrant scholar community, India’s deft diplomacy and, indeed, India’s warm hospitality have reclaimed our identity. For the first time, the Global South is the pathfinder for a greener, digital and equitable growth. This is the developmental legacy of the people’s G20, and of India’s presidency.

Uncategorized, Writing

Samir Saran: “India no quiere verse atrapada entre el binario Estados Unidos-China”

El analista indio analiza en conversación con EL MUNDO la situación geopolítica actual, el impacto del auge de Pekín en el Indo-Pacífico y la estrecha relación de India con Rusia

Bisagra entre Oriente y Occidente, India es un actor de primer orden en el tablero geopolítico. Es ya el país más poblado del planeta, dispone del tercer mayor presupuesto de defensa, es una potencia nuclear y ha sabido mantener cierto equilibrio en sus alianzas con Moscú y Washington, al tiempo que refuerza su importancia estratégica en el Indo-Pacífico frente al auge de Pekín y estrecha lazos con otros países no alineados del llamado Sur Global.

“Nos vemos como los garantes de la seguridad y la estabilidad en la región; tenemos que ser políticamente firmes para impedir que China socave no sólo la integridad soberana de India, sino también la de nuestros vecinos”. Son palabras de Samir Saran, presidente del Observer Research Foundation (ORF), comisario del Diálogo Raisina y presidente del Consejo del Secretariado Indio del T20, sobre el estado de la seguridad en el Indo-Pacífico, en conversación con EL MUNDO en Madrid, tras participar en una mesa redonda organizada por la Fundación Consejo España-India.

“Las conversaciones”, subraya, “importan ahora más que nunca”. En su calidad de comisario del Diálogo Raisina, Saran afirma que “se ha puesto demasiado de moda ‘cancelarse’ el uno al otro” cuando discrepan distintos actores geopolíticos. Por eso, tal y como advierte el analista, Nueva Delhi no se dejará atrapar entre los binarios del orden mundial actual: “India no está en el bando de nadie”.

El orden mundial actual está marcado por el tira y afloja geopolítico entre Rusia y Occidente, con el telón de fondo de la guerra en Ucrania, la creciente rivalidad sino-estadounidense y el paso del multilateralismo a la multipolaridad. ¿Qué lugar ocupa India en este tablero mundial?

A India no le gustaría ser necesariamente una de las piezas del tablero, sino más bien uno de los artífices de la partida de ajedrez. Nos gustaría ser un país con agencia política, dispuesto a asumir la responsabilidad de ayudar a diseñar y elaborar lo que surja de este periodo de turbulencias geopolíticas que usted ha esbozado, y creo que ésta es la transformación que hemos visto en las últimas décadas. Sin embargo, India es consciente de las realidades a las que todos tenemos que encarar, en concreto el paso del multilateralismo a la multipolaridad. El primero ha funcionado bien cuando ha habido una o dos superpotencias, pero aún está por probar con cinco, seis o incluso siete centros de poder diferentes. Es decir, el multilateralismo aplicado a un mundo cada vez más multipolar es un proyecto aún por emprender. Pero cuando suceda, India quiere ser uno de los países que ayuden a crear esa arquitectura de gobernanza mundial que sea capaz de acomodar esta nueva realidad de multipolaridad.

¿Y cómo se posiciona India en un mundo multipolar?

India no quiere verse atrapada entre los binarios que nos ofrece el orden mundial actual. Queremos poder forjar el camino que mejor nos convenga -que convenga al 16% de la humanidad-, el que nos permita crear un mundo que responda a las necesidades de los millones de jóvenes indios que aspiran a mejorar su calidad de vida. Por eso, considero que India se ha puesto del lado del ‘Equipo India’.

Históricamente, India se ha escudado en una postura de “no alineación” con ningún bloque, siendo ‘la amiga de todos’. ¿Es esto viable hoy?

India no tiene reparos en denunciar las acciones políticas de nadie. Que no estemos alineados no significa que seamos neutrales. El siglo pasado, nuestro país fue miembro fundador del Movimiento de Países No Alineados, que no era algo que se pretendiera valorar como algo estratégico. Se trataba de un colectivo de países que no comprometían su capacidad de decisión en función a los ‘bandos’ a los que pertenecían. Pero hoy sí es estratégico. La “no alineación” de hoy es una postura que no sólo adoptan países individuales, sino también organizaciones internacionales, como la Unión Europea. Si el mundo avanza hacia el binario de Estados Unidos frente a China, Bruselas no quiere estar ni en el bando estadounidense ni en el chino. Quiere hacer negocios con ambos, al igual que India. Y, desde luego, India no pertenece a ningún bando. Se le puede llamar “no alineación”. Se le puede llamar “multi alineación”. Incluso se le puede llamar “alineación estratégica”, pero India no está en el bando de nadie.

¿Cómo interpreta entonces la abstención india en las votaciones del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU?

Según algunos países, como China y el Reino Unido, al abstenernos en las votaciones del Consejo de Seguridad hemos actuado contra Rusia, pero sin “alinearnos” del todo con Occidente. Pero nuestro voto no es un mensaje a Europa ni a Estados Unidos. Nuestro voto es un mensaje a Rusia: queremos que acabe la guerra.

Pero si India realmente quisiera que acabara la guerra, no se habría abstenido en la votación…

Rusia ha sido históricamente nuestro más firme defensor en el Consejo. Cada vez que se proponía una resolución adversa contra India, los rusos la vetaban. Ahora, para un país que nos ha prestado tanto apoyo en el plano internacional, una abstención india es un voto negativo que les dice que no nos estamos de acuerdo con lo que han hecho. Y pudimos hacerlo porque no pertenecemos al ‘Campo A’ ni al ‘Campo B’. Pero, ¿es esto un reflejo de nuestra relación con Rusia? Por supuesto que no, nuestra relación con Moscú va más allá de este incidente. La gente buena hace cosas terribles, las naciones honradas a veces se comportan como villanos. Pensemos en Estados Unidos en Irak. ¿Cuántos de nuestros amigos estadounidenses votaron en contra? ¿Cuántos se abstuvieron? Tal vez uno. Todos siguieron adelante con la destrucción; siguieron adelante con una clara violación de todos los principios del derecho internacional y de las normas internacionales porque a veces los buenos países tienen un momento de locura. Pero no ‘cancelamos’ a Estados Unidos, no dejamos de hablar con ellos por lo que hicieron. Por eso, hay que entender que nuestra relación con Rusia precede a la guerra. Es mayor que el conflicto.

¿Y la relación con Rusia por el gas?

Cada Estado tiene que cuidar de su pueblo, por eso todos han mantenido relaciones con Moscú en el sector energético. No se puede culpar a los indios por comprar energía a un país al que también se la compran. La energía no es un quid pro quo. La energía no influye en mi voto en la ONU. Es una mercancía que busco. Y, por cierto, hay que dar las gracias a India. Si no compráramos nuestra energía a Rusia, los precios del petróleo se habrían disparado. Hemos hecho un servicio al resto del mundo al poder adquirirlo, refinarlo y devolvérselo para que sus coches funcionen. Al fin y al cabo, los mercados energéticos son eso: mercados. No son acuerdos gubernamentales ni tratados. Se basan en los principios de precio, acceso, demanda y oferta. A eso es a lo que hemos respondido.

India asumió la presidencia del G20 el pasado diciembre bajo el lema ‘El mundo es una sola familia’. Sin embargo, en la reunión de ministros de Asuntos Exteriores celebrada en marzo en Nueva Delhi, el titular indio no logró convencer a EEUU, Rusia y China para que emitieran una declaración conjunta sobre la guerra. ¿A qué retos se enfrenta India en lo que queda de mandato?

El mundo debería alegrarse de que el año pasado fuera Indonesia quien estuviera al frente del G20, y que este año sea India y el siguiente Brasil. Esta troika de países en desarrollo garantizará que el foro no muera. Si alguno de los miembros europeos hubiera estado al mando cuando estalló la guerra, el G20 se habría convertido sin duda en G19, G18 o incluso G17. Así que, si el foro sigue siendo solvente, será algo que estas presidencias, que casualmente están alineadas juntas, habrán conseguido. Por tanto, uno de los principales objetivos es garantizar que el G20 continúe como idea, como grupo, como foro para resolver algunos de los problemas más cruciales que se han visto eclipsados por la invasión rusa de Ucrania. Aunque no hubo una declaración conjunta, lo que sí conseguimos fue una declaración de efectos acordada entre todos los miembros. Pero si queremos ser ambiciosos en la búsqueda de soluciones tangibles sobre el clima, la tecnología y otras cuestiones financieras, tenemos que encontrar una respuesta a los dos párrafos sobre los que no llegamos a un consenso. De lo contrario, tenemos que ser lo suficientemente astutos como para darnos cuenta de que quizá necesitemos idear un nuevo formato para la resolución de conflictos, en el que tengamos un conjunto de tareas acordadas que llevar adelante y una secuencia de análisis divergentes de la situación política actual, que también podamos hacer constar, estemos de acuerdo o no.

Pekín no sólo compite por la hegemonía mundial frente a Washington, sino también por el control del Indo-Pacífico, donde India ha reivindicado su papel como proveedor de seguridad. ¿Qué percepción tiene de China?

Hace tres años, en una entrevista para un periódico indio, dije que China era a la vez un país moderno y medieval, una especie de Reino Medio, por así decirlo. Es moderno porque su patrimonio es fruto del auge de la tecnología, la fabricación y las cadenas de suministro. Sigue creyendo que es el Reino Medio y que el mundo debería girar a su alrededor, pero su mentalidad es medieval. Cree en el control estatal sobre la innovación, las empresas y sus ciudadanos. Y esa seguiría siendo una valoración justa de China hoy, tres años después. No he cambiado de opinión.

¿Es posible el diálogo con China?

China sueña con un mundo en el que sea uno de los principales centros de poder, y el único en Asia y el Indo-Pacífico, un modelo de unipolaridad que India rechaza tajantemente. Hay que impedir que China socave la integridad soberana india, pero no podemos desear que desaparezca. Tenemos que sacar músculo político para hacer frente a sus amenazas. Tenemos que desarrollar una fuerte capacidad militar para impedir que se aventuren en nuestro territorio. Pero, sobre todo, tenemos que mantener un diálogo sensato con Pekín: ha de ser una condición previa para una coexistencia sostenible.

¿Qué importancia tiene la alianza Quad para las relaciones estratégicas de India en el Indo-Pacífico?

Se subestima el impacto de esta alianza. Somos cuatro países muy distintos, cada uno con un planteamiento distinto de la política interior y exterior, pero aun así compartimos la misma valoración del balance de poder del Indo-Pacífico: China está alterando la paz. Y hemos sabido dejar de lado nuestras diferencias para tratar de contrarrestar el auge de Pekín en la región. Al manifestarse así estos cuatro actores, el Quad se ha convertido en el catalizador del surgimiento de otras agrupaciones, como AUKUS, que tratan de impulsar mecanismos de gobernanza regional. Para nosotros, el Quad representa la confirmación de un Indo-Pacífico multipolar que no está dispuesto a dejarse moldear por el modelo de unipolaridad que China ofrece.

¿El Quad busca competir directamente con China o pretende entablar relaciones y cooperar con ella?

Si consideramos los países que componen el Quad y sus respectivos acuerdos comerciales bilaterales con China, podemos ver que cada uno de ellos tiene a China entre sus tres o cuatro principales socios comerciales. Así pues, estos cuatro países son actores geopolíticos que son capaces de tomar decisiones racionales: no quieren ‘cancelar’ a China, pero tampoco van a dejarse intimidar por ella. Estas son las bases de compromiso que se han puesto sobre la mesa.

Source : July 13, 2023, EL MUNDO

https://www.elmundo.es/internacional/2023/07/13/6423317efdddff46058b45be.html

India, international affairs, Russia and Eurasia, US and canada, Writing

Partnerships Matter: That City on the Hill; A Ship Adrift; A Lighthouse in the Tempest

India is the breakout partner for the US, defying what may once have seemed an improbable relationship.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first state visit to the United States (US) came at a pivotal moment for global politics. It took place as communities across continents grappled with extreme economic volatility, polarised and sometimes violent public, and a breakdown of an unwritten yet impactful consensus on the benefits and utility of globalisation and global integration.

As Air India One touched down in New York for the first leg of Mr Modi’s visit, the Russian special military operation (invasion) in Ukraine was entering a new round of bloodletting. The European Union was just one incident away from further mayhem. The US was witnessing its most vicious conflict of recent time, the Battle of Pronouns. The liberal order, so assiduously crafted over the past seven decades by the transatlantic alliance, was neither liberal nor an order; it was simply adrift.

Once a proud people whose every whim became a global fad, it was now a country divided by identity, perverse politics, and an enduring uncertainty about the future beyond 2024.

Pax Americana was now just a nostalgic musing. The country that was identified by South Block’s brains trust as India’s most consequential partner in this century, was unrecognisable. Once a proud people whose every whim became a global fad, it was now a country divided by identity, perverse politics, and an enduring uncertainty about the future beyond 2024. Elections that are celebrations of pluralism elsewhere were now viewed with trepidation and anxiety.

In the last decades of the Roman Empire, life may not have been too different. A bloated sense of virtuosity and entitlement, obsession with gender and sexuality, and condescension towards those different to you were some among the common attributes. Add to that the always present dark underbelly of American society—racism. This was now all pervasive and normalised across the political spectrum, either as nationalist fervour or ‘woke’ swag.

And American media was taking it to the industrial scale through its partisan and uninformed reportage on its own people and on others. Orientalism was justifiable as freedom of expression was somehow a divine endowment that fed its preferred echo chambers. Cancel culture was popular culture. Newspapers once again became pamphlets, and gun culture was the manifestation of a society determined to shoot itself in the foot. The Supreme Court of the United States was indicted in its collaboration to disenfranchise half its population and become part of the political circus.

The Supreme Court of the United States was indicted in its collaboration to disenfranchise half its population and become part of the political circus.

Maybe it was time for another democracy and plural society to step in. It was the right moment for the US to hear PM Modi’s assertion that “India has proved that democracies can deliver […] regardless of class, creed, religion and gender” and “there is absolutely no space for discrimination”. This assertion has weight. It comes from a man leading a nation with more diverse communities, cultures, and customs than any other on the planet. The man who is committed to carry the largest democracy forward and cognisant of the challenge of defending pluralism in a world where disorder is the favoured operating system.

The state must serve the streets, not surrender to it was the Modi proposition.

For India, despite the recent developments, America was still the best bet. A superpower in decline was easier to negotiate with and seek bargains from. A people most like its own were easier to disagree with and yet, collaborate to build a basis for the broadly similar future we would share. Of course, as it did this it would need to develop a thick skin and rebuff the commentariat from the Beltway and challenge SoCal’s technology platforms that would promote hate, cancel speech, supress dissent, and amplify irrationality depending on the politics that mattered to them.

India’s cultural and constitutional realities would need to be protected even if it meant throwing the harsh end of the rule book at some technology behemoths and meddlesome institutions cloaking themselves under thew garb of virtuosity. The challenge for India was to do both even as it set about expanding the strategic content of its partnership with the Biden team. And it had to do this while seeking to preserve its geopolitical space in a world where choosing sides was an obsession.

Assertiveness and confidence defined PM Modi’s body language as he strode down the steps of Air India One. A day earlier, he had announced India’s position on Moscow: “We are not neutral. We are on the side of peace”—a message to both Russia and to the ‘neocons’, who had grabbed the media space and headlines recently. He also expressed confidence about bolstering India-US cooperation at forums like the G20, the Quad, and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity. On American soil, he looked every inch the global leader who had put the idea of strategic alignment with the oldest democracy on steroids. This commitment was what he brought to the White House and raised the partnership five notches higher in tandem with President Biden who, despite domestic noise, turned up with his own resolutions.

First, India and the US have elevated their technology partnership to new heights. Both leaders hailed the launch of the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies in January 2023, recommitting their countries to the creation of an open, accessible, and secure technology ecosystem. Defence cooperation received a major boost with a landmark agreement for the joint production of fighter jet engines in India. In the domain of civil space exploration, NASA and ISRO will undertake a joint mission to the International Space Station in 2024. And a Semiconductor Supply Chain and Innovation Partnership has been launched to galvanise both countries’ semiconductor programmes. In each case, India is the breakout partner for the US, defying what may once have seemed an improbable relationship.

Second, the wide-ranging defence deals—that also included the joint adoption of a Defence Industrial Cooperation Roadmap and the launch of the US-India Defence Acceleration Ecosystem—are not merely commercial transactions but indicative of a definite strategic direction. The co-production of jet engines; exercises in collaborative research, testing, and prototyping; and joint def-tech innovation all have implications beyond the deals themselves. They provide international stability and fortify India’s position as a strong, progressive nation. For the US, they act as investments in the Indo-Pacific construct and in a country that is now a geopolitically robust actor.

India is the breakout partner for the US, defying what may once have seemed an improbable relationship.

In a sense, the transfer of GE F414 jet engine technology and the sale of General Atomic predator drones in a government-to-government deal constitutes strengthening the frontline of democracy in the emerging geopolitical contest against authoritarianism. These platforms will be deployed where it counts; in contrast, constructs such as AUKUS are contingency planning.

Third, the rousing reception of PM Modi’s speech at the US Congress—and the 15 odd ovations he received for his celebration of the values of democracy, the unity of cultures, women’s empowerment, sustainable development, and technological advancement—more than drowned out the axis of drivel represented by the half-dozen members of Congress who chose to boycott his address. These were ad hominem voices that revel in false reason and pandering to perverse vote-banks. Their naysaying cannot undermine the stature of an Indian Prime Minister. The applause that reverberated through Congress was a vindication of Indian leadership, and of the PM’s belief that the “[India-US] relationship is prime for a momentous future, and that future is today”.

Fourth, the massive crowds of the Indian diaspora who gathered outside the White House to welcome PM Modi represented an evolution of the human bridge between the two countries. Even as they jostled for space and waved Indian and American flags, they stood for a community that sees both New Delhi and Washington, DC as its own and that will play a catalytic role in nurturing the partnership. Our domestic debates and contests will layer and colour the bilateral relationship, even as our domestic resolve will add steel to the partnership.

The applause that reverberated through Congress was a vindication of Indian leadership, and of the PM’s belief that the “[India-US] relationship is prime for a momentous future, and that future is today”.

The fifth and final “notch” has to do with continuity. The ties between the world’s oldest and largest democracies are enduring. From President Bush to Biden, with Obama and Trump in between, and from PM Vajpayee to Modi, with Manmohan Singh in between, we have seen heads of government on both sides staunchly committed to this relationship. Across parties, this has resulted in an abiding vision of a bipartisan future.

But it is now essential as well to recognise this partnership’s vitality for world affairs, its global impact on inclusive growth and development, and ultimately, on peace and prosperity. As the joint statement by the US and India puts it, “No corner of human enterprise is untouched by the partnership between [these] two great countries, which spans the seas to the stars.” It is time to invest in a global blueprint of this concert.

The present is muddy, the future is shared, and the possibilities are limitless.

Global South, Writing

How to Reset Relations Between Europe and the Global South

It’s a fact that countries of the Global South, while not supportive of Russia’s war against Ukraine, also blame NATO and the West for its global impact. Europe needs to change its approach.

Samir Saran and Shairee Malhotra

The Russia-Ukraine war is a turning point for the European Union, as this conflict has challenged the EU’s fundamental premise on security. Yet, while the Western alliance’s—comprising the United States, Europe, and its allies—support for Ukraine has strengthened, many countries of the Global South, representing 85 percent of the world’s population and 39 percent of its GDP, have not aligned with the Western understanding and narratives about the war or with the assessments of its origins and implications.

In several United Nations resolutions that sought to reprimand Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, countries of significance across Africa, Asia, and Latin America abstained; a few countries of the Global South even voted against them. Hardly any of these countries joined the Western sanctions against Russia, laying bare a wide global divide.

The battles being fought on the ground are as critical to the EU’s future as the battle of narratives. In a sense, the larger battleground is the Global South, and the prize is the hearts and minds of its countries. It appears this gulf in perspectives is only widening. For a variety of reasons, the Kremlin’s propositions are not being dismissed by many in the Global South, and, in some cases, they have found resonance. This is despite European leaders such as the EU’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reaching out to the Global South.

The perception that the positions taken by nations of the Global South are simply a case of neutrality is rather limited. Many countries—including India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Brazil, South Africa, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates—are neither anti-West nor pro-Russia, but they lack broader sympathy for Europe for a variety of reasons, despite their strong and all-encompassing ties with the continent. Attitudes are being shaped more by assessments of the past relationship with Europe than by the war.

It would be helpful to confront some of these hard truths.

Misperceptions

Berlin, Paris, and Brussels should be mindful of what defines the priorities of these countries, including their geographies, histories, interests, dependencies, conflicts, security concerns, and economic imperatives. Countries do not view the current situation from the European standpoint, but from their own circumstances and lived experiences. Even as all these factors vary for different countries in different continents, a shared reality creates underlying patterns—and colonialism is one such all-engulfing shadow.

For Europeans, contemporary history may have begun on February 24, 2022. For other parts of the world, the hostilities in Ukraine are part of a continuum of violence that has spanned decades. For example, there is India’s long-standing and occasionally violent management of the aggressive and nuclear-armed China-Pakistan axis on its borders, for which Europe seems to have no empathy. Indeed, apathy is on full display when Brussels, Berlin, and other European capitals humor Pakistan-based and backed religious radicals and insurrectionists, and privilege their trade and economic ties with China even as a belligerent Beijing seeks to redraw the political map in the Himalayas.

Memories of the Western retreat during the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst hoarding vaccines at the expense of less privileged citizens in the developing world, are still fresh. The warm reception accorded to Ukrainian refugees compared with xenophobic attitudes toward Afghan and Syrian refugees further contributed to the decline in moral standing. To make matters worse, populist white supremacist movements are now mainstreamed across the continent, even as voices from Europe sermonize to others about their democracies and societies.

The West’s long history of reckless interventions and exits in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has also resulted in widespread resentment. The current war is being contextualized within the West’s own previous actions, resulting in allegations of hypocrisy and double standards. Russian President Vladimir Putin is exploiting this disillusionment. For many smaller countries that suffered centuries of collective humiliation through European colonial rule, “neutrality” is also an act of defiance and an assertion of sovereignty. This is exacerbated by the fact that former European colonial powers are yet to acknowledge and address many historical wrongs. In sum, there is a huge mismatch between Europe’s self-perception as a bastion of values and what the Global South believes.

Broadly speaking, countries in the Global South are against the war, particularly since they are the ones suffering from its disruptive impact the most. However, even if Russian actions may be more to blame, many believe European sanctions are responsible for the crisis of the three Fs—food, fuel, and fertilizers—with their take on the war being shaped by the hardships they are subjected to. With a preference for peace, many in the Global South view the West’s continued arming of Ukraine and the aggressive rhetoric of its leaders and commentariat as counterproductive. For the rest of the world, while Ukraine has been invaded by Russia, the resulting global suffering is blamed equally on Russia and NATO. That’s the hard truth.

European capitals should recognize that the Global South’s neutrality has not translated into substantial political or material support for Russia. Instead, countries such as India have provided significant humanitarian support to Ukraine and are likely to assist in reconstruction. They have publicly and privately called out Moscow, despite needing to engage with the Kremlin for their defense sector and energy needs. India is not the only one having to do this. However, European policymakers appear insensitive to these concerns that predate the current war. Europe is as much a realpolitik actor as anyone else, even if it prefers to cloak its actions in normative vocabulary. Just as the EU’s security and economic compulsions dictate its choices, the same goes for countries of the Global South.

The hierarchy of concerns goes together with the hierarchy of decision-making. For decades, countries of the Global South have called for equitable representation in multilateral institutions like the UN, which continue to be defined by the legacies of colonialism and hegemony. The failure to reform these institutions has enabled perceptions that a Western-dominated order—that perpetuates imbalances—is under attack, not global order per se.

Doing Things Differently

The reality of the Global South’s positions on the Russia-Ukraine war is complex and warrants deeper reflection. Europe should reflect deeply as to why it is confronted with such reticence while being among the most generous donors of development assistance. Despite the West’s potential to offer better alternatives and opportunities than Moscow and Beijing, it is struggling for influence in the Global South.

European capitals could be attentive to conflicts transpiring elsewhere and adopt a proactive, principled, and fair approach to them as well. Setting a good example always helps. It is also time for Europe to interact with the Global South on equal terms and abdicate its patronizing and condescending approach. All countries are independent sovereign states with agency, and “lecturing” rather than having a dialogue is unhelpful. This needs to change when it comes to matters of war and peace as much as it needs to change for trade and climate change.

There is also a sense of disappointment that plurilateral forums—such as the G20—that can work to respond to the concerns of developing countries, have been hijacked by the posturing over the war at the cost of other critical challenges. It would strengthen the partnership between the North and South if the sanctity and purpose of forums discussing the climate challenge, development concerns, and economic issues could be preserved.

Recently, in the case of Europe’s ties with India, a greater mutual understanding of strategic choices and robust dialogue has ensured continuous cooperation despite differing positions. This is a good model for others as well.

Becoming Part of the Everyday Conversation

It would be useful for Europe to enhance outreach and adopt better messaging so that the Global South does not view the war as a European issue, but rather one with global implications. A world that does not respect the UN Charter would be anarchic and would intensify security concerns everywhere. This could be particularly existential for smaller and less powerful countries, as these kinds of wars could set precedents that the great powers can get away with anything in their apparent spheres of influence.

European capitals should also throw their weight behind reforming global multilateral institutions to create a more level playing field. Countries of the Global South are emerging rapidly and demanding their rightful seats at the international table. If Brussels and Berlin want non-Western nations to play a stronger role in stabilizing the rules-based global order, they must create stakeholders that believe in such an order. In 2022, Chancellor Scholz emphasized that Berlin could not expect countries in the Global South to not aspire for affluence, but it could instead work on sharing technologies to enable countries to achieve growth in a climate-friendly manner. This laudable approach is one that must be encouraged.

Finally, if European capitals wish to push the needle of opinion in the Global South in their favor, they should engage intently with strategic communities and think tanks that play a role in shaping narratives and policy in this vast and heterogenous region. Europe needs to be part of the everyday conversation, not the demanding guest that turns up when it wants something.

Source : Internationale Politik Quarterly, June 30, 2023

climate change, Commentaries, Economy and Growth, Gender, international affairs, Sustainable Development, Writing

Think20 India: Bridging the Ingenuity Gap

India assumed its G20 Presidency in the midst of global flux. Post-pandemic recovery efforts were uncertain and uneven; the Ukraine crisis had resulted in supply-chain bottlenecks and consequent global stagflation; and the perennial onslaught of the “elephant in the room”— global warming and climate change—had only exacerbated the challenges.

While unveiling the logo and the theme, PM Modi posited the country as an architect for a forwardlooking and result-oriented agenda for the world and the G20 as an exemplar of change, a vision for sustainability and growth, and a platform engaging with all that matters to the global south. Prime Minister’s vision, of drawing on India’s age-old ethic of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, strongly reiterated that inclusiveness and global cooperation would undergird India’s G20 Presidency.

A framework of 4Ds delineates India’s identification of its priorities as President—the promotion of decarbonisation, digitalisation, equitable development, and the deescalation of conflict. This approach is reflected across the thematic areas of Think20 (T20) India—the G20’s official Engagement Group for think tanks—which is often referred to as the “ideas bank” of the G20. The exchange of perspectives among high-level experts, research institutions, and academics that the T20 facilitates lends analytical depth and rigor to the G20’s deliberations. The T20, thus, institutionalised what Thomas Homer-Dixon calls “ingenuity” or the “production of ideas”, and helps bridge “the ingenuity gap”, i.e. the critical gap between the demand for actionable, innovative ideas to solve complex challenges and the actual production of those ideas.

The 4Ds are closely oriented towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As such, these framing ideas or principles are reflected across the T20’s seven Task Forces, which deal with ‘Macroeconomics, Trade, and Livelihoods’; ‘Our Common Digital Future’; ‘LiFE, Resilience, and Values for Well-being’; ‘Clean Energy and Green Transitions’; ‘Reassessing the Global Financial Order’; ‘Accelerating SDGs’; and ‘Reformed Multilateralism’.

Constitution of Think20 Task Forces

The T20 Mid-Year Conference took place in Mumbai on 10-12 May 2023. Three hundred attendees and Task Force members from across the G20 countries deliberated on the seven selected themes and took stock of the T20’s achievements thus far and the road ahead. Two particular elements of T20 India’s research and engagements stand out—its focus on mainstreaming gender and promoting gender equality, and its efforts to ensure that the African continent is an integral part of all conversations. India, being the second of four successive emerging economies to lead the G20 (Indonesia, India, Brazil, and South Africa will have been G20 Presidents between 2022 and 2025), has not only been a prominent voice of the Global South but has specifically put forth the unique developmental imperatives of the African landmass.

A key activity at the Mid-Year Conference was to finalise the Task Force Statements, which are vision documents about the Task Forces’ areas of engagement. The T20 Communiqué, a summary of recommendations to feed into the G20 process, is being drafted based on these statements and will be launched at the Think20 India Summit in Mysuru in August 2023. Moreover, as the term of the Indian T20 crosses its mid-point, it has already hosted over 50 events across the country and beyond and published over 125 Policy Briefs (PBs) with many more in the pipeline. These briefs are the outcome of processing raw ideas and producing them as actionable inputs.

The ethos of ‘Jan Bhagidari’ (or broad-based civic participation in governance) has underpinned the Indian Presidency’s efforts to take the G20 and its ideas to constituencies such as the youth, women, businesses, and civil society. Recognising the youth and women as essential partners in development and growth, the Mumbai Conference engaged actively with these target groups, and over 100 students from schools, colleges, and universities across Mumbai and Pune took part in the event.