The Hindu : Living with the new world order

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, May 02, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Living with the new world order

By Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

There is no room for sentiment in diplomacy... The only basis for a stable relationship with another country, particularly a strong one, is mutuality of interests.

THE CURRENT international scene is simultaneously interesting and dull for the same reason. The foreign policy of nearly every country has a simple agenda — to be in the good books of the sole superpower, the United States. Everyone needs American help — Europeans for security (Bosnia, Kosovo, etc), Russia for many reasons, China to get into the WTO, Indonesia to fight the Abu Sayyaf, Nepal to tackle the Maoists, India to pressure Pakistan and for several other purposes, the Palestinians to survive. Only in the case of Israel, the U.S. seems to need it more than the other way around. America has come close to being the indispensable power. Even terrorist movements recognise the need to win American understanding for their cause.

After the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and of the Soviet Union a year later, and the consequent end of the Cold War, there was a five-year period when many developing, non-aligned countries lamented the disappearance of the Soviet Union which had provided the `balance' to international relations. Despite the occasional heightened tension in the world, resulting from the conflict between the two opposing blocs and systems, countries around the world had got used to the stability provided by the Cold War. They felt familiar, almost comfortable with it. The Soviet Union was always there as a dependable ally in support of many of the causes dear to the poor, non-aligned countries such as decolonisation and disarmament. It is, however, well to recognise that while on colonial issues it was the non-aligned countries which found the Soviet Union a helpful ally, on disarmament issues it was the Soviets who used the former in their propaganda offensive against the West. The Soviet Union did not have colonies in the classical sense and was, therefore, more than happy in joining the Afro-Asians in the anti-colonial movement.

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed, its constituent units lost no time in asserting and gaining their independence from Moscow. As for disarmament issues, the Soviets exploited the understandable fears of the "have-nots" with whose vocal help they mounted campaigns against those aspects of military balance in which they were at a disadvantage.

The Cold War happened to end at a good time. Decolonisation had more or less been achieved. The only people whose legitimate aspirations had remained unfulfilled were the Palestinians, but they quickly adjusted to the new realities. After initially feeling the loss of Soviet political support, which in any case had brought them no concrete advance towards their goal, the Palestinians decided to take their chances with the Americans and with moderately good results at least in the beginning. As for disarmament, Mikhail Gorbachev had already compromised on several contentious issues. When Russia replaced the Soviet Union, disarmament largely disappeared from the international agenda.

Once the Cold War era ended, the world did not remain in the transition mode for long to find a new equilibrium. The new world order has turned out to be one in which the U.S. has come to occupy and wield a dominant influence including at the United Nations. People in most countries, and not only in developing countries, resent this development. However, it might be worthwhile to reflect on what the world might have been like if the other side had won the Cold War. The Soviet Union was never a complete superpower. It had some of the attributes — large territory, sizeable population, enormous military arsenal. But it lacked some essential aspects such as the political cohesion of its people and the willing cooperation of its allies. While the Americans intervened overtly and covertly in different areas of the world, they never had to send in their tanks to keep errant military allies under control.

We see the consequences of the victory of the West. The principles of market capitalism are governing the economies of all countries; democracy has become the objective, though not yet the fact everywhere, respect for individual human rights has become universal. What would a Soviet victory have meant? Establishment of communist regimes everywhere? Centrally-planned economies in all developing countries? "East Europeanisation" of Western Europe? It is doubtful if any of these things would have happened. The Soviet Union would have survived a little longer and the peoples of Eastern Europe would not have achieved their liberation for some more time. At least in retrospect, it ought to be recognised that there was a moral dimension to the Cold War. But we, the non-aligned countries, need not feel bad; our participation on the side of the West would have made no meaningful difference to the speed of the Soviet Union's demise, though we may still be bearing the consequences of our tilt towards the East.

India's emergence as an independent nation coincided almost exactly with the onset of the Cold War. The abandonment of the socialist economy and the introduction of economic reforms happened at the same time as the end of the Cold War. Are there any lessons for us in the diplomatic history of the past 55 years?

One of the important lessons is that we need to be pragmatic, calculating, almost cynical in the conduct of our foreign policy. There is no room for sentiment in diplomacy. We should never have to feel "let down" by our "friends", as Pakistan so often has. We must realise that the only basis for a stable relationship with another country, particularly a strong one, is mutuality of interests. It is always helpful, of course, if we can invoke high principles such as shared values, etc. But the crucial element is commonality of interests. This can and ought to be done while maintaining our self-respect and dignity. Then there is the penchant for playing the leadership role. Fellow non-aligned, developing countries played on our weakness for leadership and we readily obliged, often alienating the very countries we needed at other fora. The urge to play a role on the world stage did not bring any leadership recognition from others and harmed our national interests.

One other conclusion we can draw is that we have to preserve flexibility in the management of our foreign relations so that we can take advantage of an opportunity that might suddenly present itself. For example, if it would suit our purpose to let some country try its hand in bringing down tension with our neighbours, we should welcome it instead of clinging to slogans of no outside interference, etc. Perhaps the most important lesson is that we must single-mindedly pursue policies, which will bring economic benefit to us. Given the hostile environment with which we are surrounded, we will have to maintain a strong defence capability, but even for that we need a strong economy. A robust economy is imperative to deter potential trouble from across our borders as also to realise the vision of eliminating poverty from our country. Diplomacy can play a big part in this campaign.

(The writer is a former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations and U.N. Special Coordinator for Gaza.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion