Reformed multilateralism

(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)

It is an established principle that if you get the "big picture’ right you will be less troubled by ‘details’ - even when some of them look unsettling at first sight. It is a sign of the civilizational confidence of India that it has for its G20 Presidency adopted the motto – ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’, which means ‘the whole world is one family’.

Nothing can be more comprehensive and higher as the global mission for a world conference, than this thought embracing the entire human race. A basic advantage here - from India’s point of view - is that any ‘small thinking’ will show itself to all, producing, if anything, a certain degree of embarrassment for the dissenter. It is in line with this approach that India favours reformed multilateralism as a desirable idea to define international relations.

In one word, this is multilateralism that produces a positive environment with no negative fallout at all. It goes to the credit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi that his foreign policy is marked by a consistent adherence to three seminal ideas that add up to this kind of multilateralism.

First is India’s belief in a multipolar world. This helps to diffuse the danger of the reappearance of the Cold War, which was basically the product of a bipolar world order.

The multiplicity of major powers makes it more likely that they would make a competitive contribution for improving the world economy and global peace - in their keenness to project a good image for themselves internationally.

It is India’s independent foreign policy that made Prime Minister Modi the first world leader to reach out to both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and advise them upfront to stop the armed conflict in favour of negotiated peace.

Through the year-long Ukraine-Russia confrontation, India has retained its image as a world counsellor for peace because it has maintained that ‘this is not an era of war’, abstained from anti-Russia resolutions in the UN, and also did not endorse the supply of war equipment and arms to Ukraine by the US-led West in the proxy mode that had only prolonged the war-like situation.

India maintains that the concerns of both Russia and Ukraine have to be addressed in order to work out a peace pact between the two neighbours. Significantly, India has in this period maintained the best of relations with the US, the UK, and Europe and, with strategic finesse, has checked the drift of the world towards another Cold War between the US on the one hand and the Russia-China combine on the other.

The second point about India’s foreign policy that paved the way for a reformed multilateralism is that the latter is a natural by-product of India’s preferred option of going in for bilateral relations, which were mutually beneficial to both sides in terms of economic and security interests. This policy, effortlessly pursued by the Modi regime, ensured that bilateral relations were not at the expense of any other country.

The Sino-Pak axis, on the other hand, follows an opposite philosophy as it is geared towards executing plans ‘against’ India. The unholy alliance between a Marxist dictatorship and a fundamentalist regime is driven by hostility towards this country and is a perpetual threat not only to the security of South Asia but to that of the entire democratic order.

In upholding the case of Pakistan in Afghanistan, China has in fact entered into a give-and-take arrangement with Pakistan on the Taliban Emirate and even gone along with the Pak-sponsored faith-based terrorism that threatened global security.

Western democracies led by the US must realise that the motivation of faith that Islamic extremists and radicals brought to bear on the new global terror has created a perpetual danger for the entire world. This threat had to be countered jointly by all peace-loving countries through the exchange of intelligence and coordinated action.

Extremism in the name of Islam can enforce an ‘asymmetric’ war because the motivation here was strong enough to produce ‘suicide bombers’ to take down the opponent. India, with its transparent advocacy of ‘all religions being given equal respect," provides a standing counter to the ‘supremacist’ outlook of a particular faith; in the process, it is best placed to act as the anchor of world security against the new threat of radicalization.

Even as the agenda of the G20 is exclusively about economic growth and the elimination of the crippling gulf between the North and South, security concerns plaguing the world have also to be addressed during India’s presidency of the event.

It is a matter of great satisfaction that G20 outreach is designed to fulfil the task of shaping both the global economy and world security. To go about it in a mission mode carries the stamp of the Modi government, which in fact was living up to the 'sabjan sukhaye sabjan hitaye' philosophy.

Finally, 'multilateralism' is not 'alignment"; it is in fact a negation of the latter. An alignment is always 'against' somebody or some country. Reformed multilateralism does not create conflict, and India goes for it with that mindset.

India is an active participant in the Quad because this forum stands for the "maintenance of rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific"—it is not against any particular country but against unwarranted aggressiveness wherever it came from. It needs to be mentioned that India’s bilateral relations with the US, Japan, and Australia are on the upswing independently of the geopolitical objective of the Quad.

If India also sees in it a preemptive arrangement to counter any hostile encroachment in the Indian Ocean, there is nothing wrong with it. Since China seeks to ‘win a war without fighting a battle’ through the strategy of salami slicing, India has every right to expose and put down that hidden agenda of the adversary and do whatever it takes to counter it.

India is working for the return of sanity in international relations and is set to improve upon the traditional thinking of somehow preserving national interests even when that meant not caring for the global commons. India has an opportunity to play this profound role on the world stage, and it is a matter of pride that Prime Minister Modi had the political will to rally international opinion in favour of maintaining global peace so that the cause of economic advancement of the world as a whole could be served.

In a way, the slogan "Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas' at home is in complete sync with the G20 call of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam'. If it can establish the feasibility of reconciliation between national growth and human advancement across the globe, the G20 would be achieving an unprecedented mission where the world would truly be one—eliminating the menace of conflict and divisions forced in the name of religion, region, and race. This would be happening for the first time in the post-Cold War era. Think 20 is providing the much-needed ideation for the G20 events to enable the latter to fulfil this mission.

Bilateralism expanding into multilateralism without causing harm to any national entity is perhaps a political philosophy whose time has come; it shows the determination at the national level to do what is right. While every nation has to have military strength to safeguard its sovereignty, seeking prosperity and gains through the export of arms and economic destruction of a rival has its limitations - those with such a mindset should realise that.

Some countries will always be richer than others, but they all must work towards a sustainable human existence in order to minimise conflict and violence that detract from the idea of making the world a better place for everybody.

The good news is that India's approach steers clear of the ideological contradictions that have marred international and national politics so far and shows a new light to the world on the strength of its civilizational moorings.

Democracy ultimately is rule for the people, and whether it is the regional setting that produced the Ukraine-Russia armed conflict or an alliance like the Sino-Pak axis that was driven by malice against India, the vision set by the thought of universal good and human dignity would win the battle for the people.

India has set this higher mission, and there is every hope that at the end of India’s G20 Presidency it will make a difference to the world. The world could do with injecting some ‘philosophy’ into "realpolitik’.

To sum up, India has come of age as a major power influencing geopolitical trends. It is an advocate of world peace but also a believer in a firm rebuttal of the attempts of a few to disturb it for their own vested interests or hegemonist traits. It looks upon multilateralism as a constructive pathway to economic well-being that would keep the international community from armed conflict and destruction.

Competitive success in the economy may bring advantages, but these should not lead to the temptation of usurping other 'territories' or ‘subjugating’ people. Prime Minister Modi’s pithy reminder that this is not an era of war has made an impact on the world and certainly checked the trend of third parties covertly adding fuel to the fire in an ongoing conflict.

Peace brings in long-term gains, while wars produce losses for all parties. A complication in the times we live in has arisen because of the advent of proxy wars that technology, particularly social media and cyberspace, has aided. It enabled covert offensives to succeed in creating a sense of victory in combat because violence and destruction went undetected or remained unattributable in specific terms. Multilateralism has therefore served not only to facilitate mutual economic advancement but also to highlight the importance of the exchange of intelligence for countering terrorism and other forms of proxy war.

It stands to reason that liaison at the level of national security advisors, so successfully achieved by India, is becoming the bedrock of India’s international relations and foreign policy strategies. This confirms the reality that global security presaged the world’s economic development and that the two had to be pursued with equal vigour. (IANS)