Dr Jaishankar is a diplomat par excellence, and Indian foreign policy is in his reliable hands. In fact, Dr Jaishankar is inspiring an Indian foreign policy discourse that is brilliantly astute and lucid, leaving little room for foreign policy ‘gaslighters’ to manoeuvre.
This was visible at the Munich Security Conference, 2022. On Saturday, Indian External Affairs Minister Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar sat with the foreign ministers of France, Australia and Japan and discussed a wide range of foreign policy issues with a focus on the Indo-Pacific. However, the highlight of the event was the nature of questions posed to Dr Jaishankar by the panel moderator, and his shrewd eloquence while politely dismantling the implied premise of those queries.
How is India contributing to European Security?
Lynn Kuok, the panel moderator, started with a rather provocative question, “We just heard about how France and European generals are contributing to Indo-Pacific security, but since we are in Europe, I’d like to ask you how India is contributing to European security.” She pointed out how India has spoken out “vociferously against China” but abstained from voting on Ukraine in the United Nations Security Council.
She went on, “Could you please help me understand if India’s position is that different principles should apply in different parts of the world?”
Of course, if the panel moderator were honest with herself she would have known that India’s China problem is different from the current tensions between the West, Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, the question does represent a leading Western assessment, no matter how simplistic, of India’s stand on Ukraine and Dr Jaishankar made sure to give them an answer.
Also Read: From Pakistan to Russia-Ukraine, Quad Meeting Served India a Huge Diplomatic Victory
The Indian EAM was quick to point out that the “situations in the Indo-Pacific and the Transatlantic” were not analogous and said, “certainly the assumption in your question that somehow there’s a trade-off and one country does this in the Pacific so in return you do something else— I don’t think that’s how international relations work.”
Dr Jaishankar stressed that the two regions have distinct challenges and “if there was a connection, by that logic, you would’ve had a lot of European powers very early taking very sharp positions in the Indo-Pacific and we didn’t see that. We haven’t seen that since 2009.”
He went on and highlighted the fact that France, Germany and the Netherlands pivoting towards the Indo-Pacific are very recent developments, while the problem in the Indo-Pacific is not recent.
“You really need to look at that question again,” Dr Jaishankar concluded.
But Lynn Kuok pressed on, asking, “So you disagree that principles, international rules-based order, international law should apply across the world uniformly?”
To this, highlighting the hypocrisy of Western nations, Dr Jaishankar retorted, “No, I would say principles and interests are balanced and if people were so principled in this part of the world, they’d have been practising their principles in Asia or Afghanistan before we have actually seen them do.”
While Western thinkers insinuate a simplistic requisite that India must pay for the Indo-Pacific security push made by the United States and its Western allies against China, Dr Jaishankar has rightly resisted the flawed premise by way of which India should adopt a radical stand against Russia mirroring that of the United States to express its loyalty and gratitude. With such a suggestion, the strategists forget that it is as much, if not more, in the West’s interest to contain the Chinese threat as it is in the interest of India. So, Western intervention in its current form in the Indo-Pacific does India no undue favours and does not warrant unconditional support from India in other theatres.
https://youtu.be/HMPq4GQbMw4
Has the Galwan clash pushed India closer to the West?
Another flawed question tossed at the foreign minister was about the June 2020 Galwan clash between the Indian Army and the Chinese PLA, where a significant number of casualties were seen on both sides. Lynn Kuok seemed to suggest that India pivoted towards the West as a consequence of the border clash with China. She asked if the event meant a “decisive and enduring shift towards the West.”
Again, this has been a view of amateur watchers of India-China relations, especially those without a primer on history, and it is also a view that China itself likes to propagate.
Dr Jaishankar caught the flawed basis of the question yet again. He outlined the situation with China at the border. “It’s a problem we are having with China… that for 45 years there was peace, there was stable border management. There were no military casualties at the border since 1975. That changed.”
Slamming China, Dr Jaishankar said that India had agreements with China not to bring forces to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de-facto border with China. “The Chinese violated those agreements,” he went on. “The state of the border will determine the state of the relationship.”
Dr Jaishankar then proceeded to question the premise of Kuok’s question, saying, “Obviously, relations with China are right now going through a very difficult phase. But I would honestly question your question, that therefore our relations with the West are better.” He pointed out that India’s relations with the West were “quite decent” before June 2020. “So again, I’d challenge that correlation you’re making.”
‘The Quad is not a post-2020 development’
As a follow up to her question on China and the West’s ties with India, the panel moderator sought to assert that India strengthened bilateral relations with Quad members “at the very least” as a post-Galwan answer to China but Dr Jaishankar reminded the audience that the “incarnation of the Quad” started in 2017 and that it is not a post-2020 development. India’s relations with the Quad partners “have steadily improved in the last 20 years,” he said, adding, “Again, as I said, you are making it seem like cause-and-effect. I would challenge that.”
The entire course of the conversation indicates that the agenda at hand was to show India’s position on the Russia-Ukraine tensions as hypocritical and manoeuvre India into perceivably admitting the same. Lynn Kuok, who comes from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank, sought to do her job first by posing a direct question on whether India believed in “different principles for different parts of the world” and when that did not throw Dr Jaishankar off, she seemingly sought to establish the notion that the West had done undue favours for India in the Indo-Pacific and so, in turn, India should return the love in Europe. But that ‘trap’ too did not reap any success with India’s astute foreign minister.
Words are the weapon of a diplomat, especially a foreign minister– and how he or she wields them can make or break a country’s justification of its foreign policy stands. Any unsuspecting rookie would have taken the kind of bait laid out for Dr Jaishankar, but his words were calculated to the T and his stand was not compromised at any given time.
Read all the Latest Opinion News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment