speech by shri brajesh mishra, council of foreign relations ny cross post

[Guest guest]

Speech by Shri Brajesh Mishra, National Security Adviser of India, at the

Council of Foreign Relations, New YorkIndia, United States and the New World

Order: Prospects for CooperationMay 07, 2003Ladies and Gentlemen,It is a

privilege to be here today with you to exchange views on India-US relations.At

the same time, you have put me in a bit of a spot by asking me to talk about

the New World Order! Frankly I think it is still very much an evolving process.

Are recent events a continuation of the post-Cold War readjustment of the world

order, or do they signal a re-ordered "post-9/11" world order? The jury is

still out on this, and the verdict will emerge only in the future.I will,

therefore, make some brief remarks on what I see as elements of the emerging

world order and then talk about the India-US relationship in that

framework.History tells us that after a great war, the victorious forces seek

to redesign the world order. But history also warns us that unexpected events

and the interplay of diverse forces can divert or derail this effort.Just look

at the previous world order. At the end of World War II, the victorious Allies

sought to guarantee collective security through the United Nations and its

specialized agencies.This blueprint for a New World Order did not last for even

a decade. The UN Security Council was paralysed by the confrontation between the

Eastern and Western blocs. Instead of multilateral cooperation within the UN,

the Cold War became the world's strategic paradigm for four decades after World

War II.With the fall of the Berlin wall came the next quest for a New World

Order. Political leaders across the globe spoke about a new window of

opportunity for peace and cooperation.But optimistic hopes for the end of

conflict were soon belied. Countries disintegrated under the onslaught of

ethnic nationalism and religious extremism. The myth of self-correcting market

forces was exploded by the East Asian financial crisis and similar afflictions

in parts of Europe and Latin America. Conflicts claimed more casualties during

the decade of the 1990's than during the entire Cold War. Terrorism was

beginning to announce itself on the world stage as a non-state actor of

worrying proportions.And then came September 11 2001, demonstrating the reach

of global terrorism and its ability to bridge the asymmetry in power and

strength between the terrorist and his victims. The coalition, formed to fight

this scourge, achieved its immediate purpose of restoring a popular government

in Afghanistan, but its composition does not enable it to tackle global

terrorism comprehensively since not all its members have a firm commitment to

this objective. The military action in Iraq involved another "coalition of the

willing", and in the process opened up divisions within the UN Security

Council, European Union and NATO.Today, we hear two prognostications of the

evolving new world order. The first is of a unipolar world with the United

States taking the principal decisions on international political and economic

issues. According to this theory, the dominance of U.S. power would drive the

impulse to unilaterally shape the world in its image, brushing aside any

dissenting opinion. The other model is one of a world comprising multiple

political poles, suggesting that a certain level of tension between the poles

will maintain an equilibrium in which the dominant pole can be kept in some

checkWhile pondering on the viability of the model of a unipolar world, we need

to recognize that the post Cold War order has been profoundly influenced by

globalisation. Inspired by – and now itself driving – the technologies of the

information age, it affects every aspect of human and group activity –

political, economic and social. No country or society has remained immune from

this phenomenon. The consequences of globalisation cannot be localised within

national boundaries.Demographic changes and migration patterns; the movement of

natural resources – particularly energy and water; and issues like climate

change pose challenges transcending national boundaries. Even States with the

most advanced technical means are increasingly unable to fully control

international flows of disease, illicit drugs, funds and weapons. The

international information networks of terrorism and the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction among its state and non-state practitioners can

only be countered by close cooperation between democratic societies through

regular information exchanges and intelligence sharing.Today, a regional

epidemic like SARS becomes a global problem overnight. The ongoing arguments

about whether more real-time information might have halted its spread prove the

point of global interdependence.Such global inter-dependence means that even a

unipolar power needs cooperative action in pursuit of its various objectives.

The current crisis over North Korea is an example.The question is also one of

resources. If a terrorist network is smashed in a failed or failing state – as

Afghanistan was under the Taliban – there would obviously be costs for the

reconstruction of the state. The external assistance for Afghanistan's

reconstruction is now about $250 million a year; it would need to be increased

and sustained over many years. The cost of restoration after the last Gulf War

was higher, and that of Iraq's reconstruction is expected to be much, much

higher. No single world power, however rich, would want to take on this kind of

financial burden, at the expense of its taxpayers. On the second model, we

should realize that in the real world, an arrangement not in conformity with

geopolitical realities cannot be sustained. It is an unquestionable fact that

USA is the pre-eminent power in the world today. The American commentator,

Fareed Zakaria, recently pointed out that USA spends as much on defence as the

entire rest of the world put together; and this amount is only 4% of its GDP.

The US economy is as large as those of Japan, Germany and Britain put

together.It would make poor political or economic sense for a country – or a

group of countries – to set itself up as an alternate pole in opposition to

USA. Most countries advocating a multi-polar world also affirm that they attach

great importance to relations with USA. What they seek is an ethic of plurality

and consensus which would ensure that collective decisions give due weightage to

their legitimate interests and concerns. It is a non-confrontationist model, not

based on outmoded concepts of balance of power, spheres of interest and military

blocs.Nearly sixty years ago, after the end of World War II, America was in a

similar position of political, military and economic pre-eminence. Then, a

mature American communitarian impulse inspired the creation of a multilateral

global architecture. The United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, the

World Bank and the IMF are all products of this internationalism. The challenge

today is not to demolish these edifices, but to address their shortcomings, some

of which are serious. The United Nations system of collective security has not

always functioned effectively. It needs reform. The Security Council needs

reconfiguration. But we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater. As I

pointed out earlier, even a powerful unipolar power requires multilateral

agencies, which can maintain political, financial and economic order. A

reform is also required in the current non-proliferation architecture to make

it serve the real purpose for which it was created. Restrictive regimes deny

access of several countries to dual-purpose goods and technologies, without

either rewarding responsible behaviour or punishing irresponsible

proliferators.Deterrence, prevention and defence are accepted elements of a

national security strategy. But today, the international terrorist is often an

irrational individual, ready to sacrifice his and innocent lives for an

extremist cause, acquiring weapons of mass destruction and using unorthodox

techniques to overcome asymmetries of strength. There can be no deterrence

against irrational behaviour. Prevention and defence are also almost

impossible. In such cases, extraordinary measures have to be taken in the

interests of security. This is where a smoothly operating world order with a

functioning consultative mechanism can help to provide legitimacy.It is from

these strands that a new world order would be woven. What we need is a

constructive and continuing dialogue on the management of global

inter-dependence.In the world order defined by the Cold War, India and US were

not really allies though, to be fair, nor were they enemies. India-US

relations reflected a lack of engagement, coupled with wariness and a

periodically recurring suspicion whenever the shadow of the Cold War fell over

our region.In the post-Cold War world (and even in the post-9/11 world order),

the situation is dramatically different. We have shared geo-political interests

and economic opportunities, which can bind an enduring partnership. This was the

perception that led Prime Minister Vajpayee to declare, nearly five years ago,

that the two countries could be "natural allies", which have yet to fulfil the

promise of their cooperation. We know that President Bush fully shares this

vision for an enduring India-US partnership. The US National Security Strategy

released by the President last September states, "The United States has

undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a

conviction that US interests require a strong relationship with India. We are

the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by

representative governments. India is moving towards greater economic freedom as

well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through

the sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting

terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia." This is a succinct

statement of our complementarities and convergences.It is particularly

refreshing that our two countries are now looking at the full scope and breadth

of the Indo-US relationship. To speak very frankly, what really stunted the

growth of our bilateral relations in past years was the tendency to look at

India's role only within a South Asian canvas and to see South Asia solely as

the theatre of an India-Pakistan zero sum game.India has broken free of these

limiting confines, which the Cold War ideologies sought to impose. It has land

borders of well over 3000 km with China and Southeast Asia. It has maritime

borders with Indonesia and Thailand. Its exclusive economic zone spans the

waters almost from the Persian Gulf to the Straits of Malacca. As your National

Security Strategy recognizes, it straddles the commercial sealanes and the oil

routes from the West to all of East Asia.Our cultural and trade connections

have historically extended along the Silk Route through Central Asia into

Europe; and along what could be termed the Buddhist trail through Myanmar,

Indochina, China and Southeast Asia to Japan.Today, India has a population of

over a billion people, upwardly mobile on the economic ladder. In terms of

purchasing power parity, it is the world's fourth largest economy, averaging an

annual growth rate of over 5% since 1980 – the highest ever achieved over a

comparable period by any democracy in the world. I might also mention that this

growth rate was maintained through the turbulent period a few years ago when the

so-called "Asian crisis" seized a few Asian economies.Our economic fundamentals

remain strong. Inflation is within the reasonably low single digits. Over the

last few years, India has been attracting foreign direct investment at an

annual rate of nearly 1.7% of GDP. American companies in India sometimes

complain about operating conditions, but statistics show that they all have

very healthy balance sheets. The inflow of American investments into India has

grown significantly in the last few years. The case of Enron's Dabhol Project

is sui generis. It is not so well known that the financial exposure of Indian

entities exceeds the foreign funds deployed in the project. It is more a case

of an economically unviable project than a foreign investment venture turned

sour.I have set out these facts in some detail, illustrating India's wider

political, economic, security and strategic interests, to reiterate that to

view India solely through a South Asian prism would be an analytical error. In

our view, the world made this mistake in May 1998, in its reactions to India's

nuclear tests. Our security concerns, which prompted that decision, are better

understood today.We must acknowledge that USA was among the first countries to

temper its reservations about our nuclear tests with an understanding of the

larger picture of India's political concerns and economic potential. The visit

of President Clinton to India in March 2000 – less than two years after the

tests – was in that sense a landmark event. After this opening, President Bush

has personally led the effort for a complete transformation in relations.Given

its past history, the Indo-US relationship needs to liberate itself from a

number of misconceptions and prejudices of past years. I think we have made

considerable headway on this path with good impact on our relations. Our

leaders are in regular touch with each other on the phone and through letters.

Regular exchanges of visits at the political and senior official levels have

resulted in a harmonisation of our position on a number of issues.Nowhere is

this engagement more visible than in defence and security. Indian naval vessels

took on the responsibility of escorting US vessels through the Malacca Straits

last year. Joint exercises involving US Special forces and Indian paratroopers

in India and Alaska, largest ever combined naval exercise in the Malabar

series, institutional linkages between civilian, military and defence

institutions of our Ministries of Defence, discussions on missile defence,

purchase of defence equipment etc are some new developments. Working groups

have been set up on counter-terrorism, the Defence Policy Group has been

revived and a joint forum on cyber-terrorism established to pursue defence and

infrastructure protection projects.India was one of the first countries to

declare support to the USA in its global war against terrorism after the

horrendous events of September 11, 2001. We extended unwavering support to

operation `Enduring Freedom'. We worked closely with our American and other

colleagues in the Bonn process for restoration of representative government in

Afghanistan and continue to participate in Afghan reconstruction efforts. On a

diverse range of other subjects, India's interactions with USA and its

reactions to US statements or actions have been governed by a pragmatic

understanding of realities, rather than doctrinaire ideologies. I might

mention our prompt and positive reaction to the New Strategic Framework

unveiled by President Bush in May 2001, our support to the many welcome

elements in the energy and climate change policies enunciated by the President

and our convergent positions on the International Criminal Court. There are a

number of other areas where we have been able to find common ground for joint

action.This does not imply that there are no longer any differences between our

two countries, but there is certainly a realisation that there is far more that

unites us than divides us. We have had differences including over issues like

our nuclear programmes, but a sustained bilateral dialogue with a frank

exchange of concerns has led to a far better mutual understanding on these

issues.I have been saying very candidly that a trinity of issues – high

technology commerce, civilian nuclear energy cooperation and collaboration in

space can take the Indo-US relationship to a qualitatively new level of

partnership. India has consistently followed responsible policies on

non-proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies and has strict export

control regimes for dual-use technologies. The sharp contrast with others in

our near and extended neighbourhood is evident for all to see. We believe that

our discussions with our American partners on this subject are on the right path

and hope that the road to free high technology commerce will soon be cleared of

the hurdles of misconceptions.We have to cover the same path for civilian

nuclear cooperation and collaboration in space. Here again, I have to say that

the obstacles come from remnants of cold war thinking and are not in consonance

with our mutual interests. India has repeatedly asserted – and this is

acknowledged internationally – that its nuclear and missile development

programmes are entirely indigenous. We have not violated any of our bilateral

commitments or international obligations. We will continue to restrict the

development of these programmes to the minimum levels required for our national

security.When the world has recognized this reality, it defies logic to place

obstacles on civilian applications of our nuclear programme and developmental

projects of our space programme. These are areas where there are huge

commercial possibilities for American companies (and companies from other

countries).We have, of course, undertaken that we would put all nuclear power

projects of foreign collaboration under safeguards. I am aware that some US

regulations and laws are constraining factors, but rules and legislation can be

amended to respond to changed situations. Let me also put the nuclear energy

issue in an environmental perspective. If the huge additional power required

for India's ambitious development plans is to be generated from fossil fuels,

the consequent drastic increase in carbon dioxide emissions could have

disastrous effects on the global environment. This is, in fact, the logic for

our decision to increase the percentage of nuclear power in our energy

output.In sum, therefore, the political leadership in both countries sees value

in building upon the natural links between our two democracies in a globalising

world. The India-U.S. relationship is not a single-issue relationship. Our

friendship is based on a broad range of shared values, beliefs and interests.

Societies of this size and complexity, by their very nature, cannot agree on

all issues. Our disagreements are now increasingly discussed with the candour

and confidence injected by the recent transformation of our bilateral

relationship. Both combating terrorism and forging a new world order demand

close and solid partnerships among democratic societies, which value freedom,

pluralism and entrepreneurship. These are the values that unite India and the

United States. To fulfil this potential, we have to ensure that the firm broom

of cold logic decisively sweeps out the cobwebs of Cold War misconceptions and

blinkered mindsets. We are working hard at it.Thank you.