Manish_P wrote:chetak wrote:...
says minhaz merchant
Chetak ji, could you please elaborate on what the author means by strategic self-interest? I am not clear on how it is independent from strategic autonomy.
Manish_P ji
The Non-Aligned Movement was established in 1961 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia through an initiative of the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghanaian President Kwame Nkrumah, and Indonesian President Sukarno. All rogues and dictators in one form or another as can be seen from this august list
they railed and pontificated, mainly against the west and imagined that they were on a higher plane both intellectually as well as morally
the stated objective of the Non-Aligned Movement was to ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics."
Being part of the NAM, neverwho liked to pretend that he was the champion of the non-aligned and also a colossus of sorts on the world stage and he followed this concept of strategic autonomy. He did not seek membership in any pact, be it defence or economic unlike the pakis who were aligned with the amerikis and were members of SEATO and CENTO (the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) were considered necessary in the postwar period to protect member countries from Communist aggression and conspiracy). Those memberships alone brought great economic and military benefits to the pakis and the benign amerikis turned a nelson's eye towards many illegal pursuits of the rogue paki regimes, notably in the areas of nuclear proliferation and unleashing of terrorists on India, whereas India lost out economically as well as GDP growth wise because of its insistence on non alignment/strategic autonomy.
Remember the many jibes about the "Hindu rate of growth"
Even though India later signed the Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, we brazenly stuck to and also projected the hypocritical narrative that we were non aligned maybe because we were not a part of the Eastern/soviet bloc which included Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania
India has once again renewed this treaty very recently, like maybe in the last week or month or two
Strategic self-interest is what the amerikis have been doing since the end of the second world war. In the ameriki case, it is the ruthless pursuit of their supreme national interest and is based on their grand narrative of ameriki exceptionalism "American exceptionalism is the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations. ... being perceived both domestically and internationally as superior to other nations or having a unique mission to transform the world".
India does not have a grand narrative because the vital importance of such a concept is not clearly understood and the commie historians have done their very best to ensure that such a concept for India has been buried very deep and attention has been diverted away from it.
It is very important that we should have our very own grand narrative for India too.
just remember how the amerikis simply steamrollered their way into eyraq and afghanistan, tolerated no narrative other than their own, and forced the other white guys to follow them into the geopolitical minefields based on just the one sole narrative.
In India's case, strategic self-interest is the conscious moving away or distancing the country from this useless and impotent pursuit of the chimera of non-alignment, a policy that only brought us ridicule and caused most of the western world to ignore or isolate us.
So, one may see India enter into short term understandings and adjustments, including the seeking of other countries' accommodating India's interests and India herself accommodating other's interests on a time or situation, constrained basis.
This has been necessitated by the amerikis withdrawal from afghanistan and the cataclysmic changes in ameriki's perceived ability to project and sustain its now radically reduced geopolitical primacy in setting the narrative and geostrategic dexterity in global power projections and the active management of the balance of power equations.
Also. the global loss of trust that has resulted from the intemperate military withdrawal while ceding vital strategic space to the scheming pakis and more importantly to the paki puppet master china via the subterfuge of the taliban fronting the jihadi victory has caused a rethink in the strategic thinking of many affected countries.
also
India-Russia Friendship Renewed
India-Russia Friendship Renewed
Kanwal Sibal
Thu, 15 Jul 2021
Minister Jaishankar’s visit to Russia from July 7 to 9 was important in the context of the new instabilities surfacing in the international system, the increasingly strident US-China rivalry, the unabashed aggressiveness of China in pursuing its ambitions, the threat of a melt-down in Afghanistan with the Taliban expanding territorial control with consequences for regional security, the political, economic and social impact of the corona virus pandemic exposing another failure of multilateralism in combating a collective threat facing the international community. In addition, the visit was important in removing perceptions that India was neglecting its ties with Russia and leaning too far towards the US.
Although Russia is also an Asian power with a long border with China, gaps have developed between it and India on Asian security, China’s assertiveness in the region, the emergence of the Indo-Pacific concept and the Quad. The deepening of Russia’s strategic ties with China, both being targeted as adversaries by the US and subject to sanctions, and Russian fears that the US was once again creating political and military blocs and drawing India into them, accounts for the differing Russian and Indian perspectives on developments in Asia.
Russians have enough experience of geopolitics to understand India’s motives and concerns, and hence our continuing attempt, as was evident in Jaishankar’s visit, to convey our thinking to the Russians to reach some understanding. If Russia is strategically drawn towards China because of US policies, India is drawn towards the US because of Chinese policies.
The joint press conference by Ministers Jaishankar and Lavrov indicated that good ground was covered. Jaishankar was quite effusive in his remarks, calling the talks “as always very warm, comfortable, comprehensive and productive”. Lavrov noted that the two paid special attention to prepare the content for the upcoming Russia-India summit this year. Jaishankar expressed confidence that when it takes place, “the development, the progress in our cooperation will be very much on display”. He noted that a new dimension had been added to ties by the agreement to hold the 2+2 Dialogue of Foreign and Defence Ministers later in the year.
Both Ministers underlined the agreement to produce the Russian vaccine Sputnik V in India. With the EU playing politics over its approval, its acceptance and production in India is a big boost for the Russian vaccine internationally too.
Trade and economic cooperation between India and Russia remain a weak point in ties, though in some areas progress is being registered. On June 29, the construction of the 5th unit at Kudankulam began. Lavrov stressed the need for an updated investment protection agreement prior to formulating any programme of trade, economic and investment cooperation to be realised by 2030.
A working group had been set up to explore talks for forming a free trade area between India and the Eurasian Economic Union. Jaishankar noted that energy cooperation had grown very significantly in the last few years, reflected both in new potential investments and long term commitments in the field of oil and gas. Greater inter-regional cooperation particularly with the Russian far east was being discussed.
Jaishankar’s speech at the Primakov Institute carried several subtle messages. It reminded the Russian audience that India was no longer one that the Russians were familiar with in Soviet days, and to some extent even now. It had changed in the last 25 years and was now the sixth-largest economy, a nuclear weapon power, an IT Centre, a reservoir of global talent and an active shaper of global debates. Its interests and influence had grown well beyond the Sub-Continent and was often perceived as first responders in crisis situations.
Whereas Lavrov during the visit did not mention “multipolarity”, Jaishankar dwelt on the theme quite extensively in the context of America no longer in a position to shape the world order as before-as its withdrawal from Afghanistan implies- and China’s bid to reshape that order with “Chinese characteristics”, not to mention Russia extending its strategic sway in some vital regions. Jaishankar made the point, no doubt in the context of China’s ambition to dominate Asia, that a multi-polar world must logically have a multi-polar Asia as an essential constituent. With an eye on China, he also emphasised that “it should be our effort to discourage unrestrained pursuit of balance of power and resist domination in all forms.”
Indirectly explaining conceptually India’s choices, Jaishankar said that “the operating principle of a multi-polar world is the legitimate pursuit of flexibility without seeking exclusivity. After all, the latter is antithetical to the very logic of multi-polarity.” Eschewing the phrase “strategic autonomy”, he said that “an important reason why India and Russia readily accept multi-polarity is their strong sense of independence. Perhaps, such self-confidence is a natural outlook for large polities with a long history, a rich culture and a deep-rooted identity.” The use of such language of self-confidence shows the change of India’s equations with big powers.
Jaishankar explained that the “world of convergences that the multi-polar and re-balanced international order has created …will be less structured and more fluid, leaving open the possibility of differences even among those who are together. The inclination would be to look at pragmatic and result-oriented cooperation on defined issues. To some extent, the weakening of multilateralism has contributed to this”. All this to explain the rationale of the Indo-Pacific, stating that India that now sees much of its trade eastwards, and its interests and reach today extend well into the Pacific, with its major partners located there, including cooperation with the Russian Far East.
Jaishankar alluded to the shift of global growth eastwards, with its consequences for the international order now getting visible. India and Russia, he said, need to work together to ensure the stability and diversity of the world, which included an insistence on honouring agreements and observing laws and, on the economic side, the realization of the importance of resilient and reliable supply chains. All this with China in mind.