Failing the foreign policy test

Indias approach to the Myanmar problem speaks of the deep cynicism that passes for foreign policy realism in New Delhi.

Children join a

IF the real test of the short-term success of a nations foreign policy lies in its neighbourhood, rather than in distant lands or remote or rarefied international fora, then Indias policy has been something of a failure in recent years just when the countrys global profile has undergone a sea change.

Nothing illustrates this better than New Delhis policy somersaults over Nepal until it recognised the inevitability of the absolute monarchys end. Only slightly less serious has been its failure to anticipate or influence major developments in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka and, more recently, to stand in solidarity with the movement for full democratisation in Pakistan.

However, these lapses pale into the shade when compared with Indias reprehensively passive and callous posture towards the pro-democracy movement in Myanmar the greatest such mobilisation since 1990 which holds the potential to overthrow one of the most repressive and barbaric military regimes anywhere in the world.

What is the current Burmese crisis all about? Simply put, underlying it is popular disgust with an extraordinarily predatory regime, which has brutalised 47 million people with a huge 490,000-strong army for decades, which has bankrupted a country endowed with magnificent natural resources, which routinely practises arbitrary detention, slave labour and torture, and which has had no compunctions about gunning down and disappearing dissidents.

The people of Myanmar have risen in revolt against the junta. It is the duty of the international community to support them and protect them against a lawless government which is accountable to nobody and shows no regard for the cares and concerns of the larger world. If human rights are inherent to flesh-and-blood people, then concern for them must be universal.

Only the most consummate practitioner of Machiavellian realpolitik or the diehard cynic with deadened sensibilities could remain unmoved by the sight of barefoot monks refusing alms offered by soldiers in protest against the ruling junta, or of the Army opening fire against a column of peaceful demonstrators. The scenario evocatively reminded the global public of the Gandhian legacy of Indias great struggle against colonial rule close to the Mahatmas birth anniversary.

Yet, just as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi were extolling the virtues of Gandhian non-violence, the new Chief of the Army Staff, Deepak Kapoor, spelt out his ground-level interpretation of Indias approach towards Burma in his maiden press conference.

He said that the happenings are Myanmars internal affair but we have good relations with its government and we should maintain these. General Kapoor stressed that the support of the Myanmarse military is vital to the success of Indias counter-insurgency operations in the northeastern region.

Ergo, as far as Myanmar is concerned, out go romantic notions such as democracy, human rights, and peaceful resolution of disputes, from which other things follow including the injunction against violating the impunity of non-combatant civilians, and respect for international law and covenants on civil and political rights. In realpolitik, everything is par for the course, and nothing is forbidden, so long as it promotes the national interest (for example, counter-insurgency). It was especially deplorable that the Army Chief made this pronouncement bearing strong policy implications.

This represented an intrusion into the prerogative of the executive and was wholly out of order for a military commander. Yet, General Kapoor was following in the footsteps of his predecessor Gen. Joginder Jaswant Singh, who, too, was given to making expansive policy declarations, including one that vetoed a solution to the Siachen glacier issue with Pakistan.

Kapoors statement may appear to be a crude version of the supposedly sophisticated, nuanced position of the Ministry of External Affairs. But it is not. It accurately reproduces the core of the Ministrys stand, minus a few platitudes such as India hopes to see a peaceful, stable and prosperous Burma and a broad-based process of national reconciliation and political reform. The bottom line is the same. As an establishment journalist put it, in New Delhis view, a hundred thousand monks are hardly going to be able to overthrow the military regime.

Had the Ministrys approach been really different from the Armys, it would have summoned the Burmese Ambassador to India to the Foreign Office or issued a statement deploring the killing of innocent people in Myanmar without mincing words. It did nothing of the sort.

In fact, India did not even pull the considerable leverage it has over the Yangon regime to help fix the visit to Myanmar of United Nations Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari, including getting him permission to fly to the new capital Naypyidaw, where he first met the acting Prime Minister, and after days of waiting, the top junta commander, Gen. Than Shwe. In fact, China pushed for this.

It is only when External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee sensed the international mood on Myanmar during his October visit to New York that he suggested that Myanmar consider conducting an inquiry into the unconscionable use of force in Yangon and other cities.

In New York, Pranab Mukherjee stressed that Indias interests lie in a stable and peaceful periphery which is necessary if India is to grow rapidly and transform itself. He was at pains to oppose economic sanctions against Myanmar. He said: I do not subscribe to penal sanctions at all times. We should instead try to engage the country concerned in negotiations. Sanctions .. should be the last resort because [they are] counter-productive. Instead of correcting the errant rulers, they end in the suffering of innocent people.

This was a weak, pusillanimous, and conditional statement devoid of reference to principle or doctrine. It came after more than 40 (and according to one estimate, 200) protesters had been killed by the junta, and thousands detained. It repeated shop-worn cliches about the limitations of sanctions in favour of constructive engagement, a strategy first advocated by the West vis--vis Apartheid South Africa, where it manifestly failed.

What constructive engagement with Myanmar might mean was revealed by Union Petroleum Minister Murli Deoras visit to that country to discuss a gas deal, right at the height of the state-sponsored violence.

Pranab Mukherjees national interest statement derives from the view that democracy or protection of the life or limb of Myanmarese civilians is not a worthy cause in and of itself. The double standards which contrast this with Indias fervent rhetorical advocacy of democracy in the United States -led bodies like the Concert of Democracies are both rigorous and astounding.

Indias stand on the Myanmarese question is neither spontaneous, nor ethically grounded, nor even driven by an internal process of policy deliberation. It is impelled largely by international pressure, spearheaded by the U.S. This does not speak of a proactive approach worthy of an emerging power with an independent foreign policy orientation.

This passivity marks our media too: In contrast to the international press, hardly any Indian journalist has filed reports from within Myanmar or from its borders.

Indias position on Myanmar is determined by four parochial considerations: Securing Myanmars help in fighting insurgencies in the northeastern region; exploiting Myanmars natural gas reserves; containing Chinas influence in Myanmar; and promoting stability in Indias periphery, itself a derogatory term for our neighbourhood.

All four considerations are dubious. Myanmar has only extended limited, selective cooperation in preventing some northeastern groups from establishing camps on its soil. Prominent among them is the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang), with whom Myanmar has a ceasefire agreement anyway.

But the Myanmarese military has at best taken token and desultory action against the United Liberation Front of Asom, the Peoples Liberation Army and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) of Manipur. At any rate, the border region has never been fully sanitised of insurgents.

The larger point is that Myanmar has shrewdly played Chinese interests off against Indian interests, while milking both countries for military and economic assistance and holding out the lure of gas, teak and other natural resources. India has walked into this trap.

Indias famed interests in Myanmars gas warrant critical scrutiny and introspection, not celebration. It should embarrass us all that four Indian companies figure among the Dirty 20 corporations implicated in the exploitation of Myanmars gas reserves at the expense of human rights violations and environmental destruction. Among them are the public sector ONGC Videsh Ltd and the Gas Authority of India Ltd.

The human rights and environmental consequences of these petroleum and gas companies activities have been detailed at length by EarthRights International, the Shwe Gas Movement and the Arakan State Human Rights Commission. Put simply, they are horrifying.

The argument that India should invest in Myanmar and develop close relations with its military regime to counter Chinese influence is a non sequitur and hence unconvincing. A large country like India can and has to live with military relationships between some of its neighbours and other powers. India has done so successfully during periods of Pakistans close military relations with the U. S. and China. This did not, and should not, generate a panic response. Such relationships are not a zero-sum game.

More important, those who demand that India must see itself as a countervailing force to China essentially advocate the launching of a new Asian Cold War. This can only have disastrous consequences for Indias long-term security. An arms race with China that too with a strong nuclear component will sharply raise Indias already bloated military expenditure. The economic burden will be massive. Once you are sucked into an arms race, you no longer make your own strategic decisions autonomously. They are made for you by your adversary.

Finally, promoting stability, defined independently of regime legitimacy, is a recipe for freezing a situation of iniquity and oppression. Surely, Indias long-term interests do not lie in a neighbourhood which has a series of stable but tyrannical regimes. We long deluded ourselves that Nepals monarchy would guarantee stability only to find the pro-democracy movement shattering that dangerous myth.

In the ultimate analysis, a foreign policy divorced from morality, or counterposed to it, cannot serve national, leave alone universal, purpose. In the past, although not consistently, India tried to marry the two. Jawaharlal Nehrus advocacy of non-alignment, decolonisation, peace, nuclear disarmament, and redressal of North-South inequalities was one such attempt. It gave India a much higher global stature than was warranted by its military or economic power. It also contributed to a better world.

In the mid- and late 1960s, too, India stood its ground in opposing the U.S.-led Vietnam War despite its dependence on Washington for financial aid, and worse, its ship-to-mouth existence in regard to wheat supplies. Similarly, India continued to support the anti-apartheid movement and the African National Congress (ANC) in the face of all kinds of economic and political arguments about losing its influence with the West. Ultimately, the ANC triumphed. India was proved right.

Again, India earned the respect of the world by awarding the 1993 Nehru Memorial Prize for International Understanding to Aung San Suu Kyi, three years after she had won 90 per cent of Parliament seats in an election and was arrested to be detained ever since.

The pertinent point is, any broad-horizon foreign policy calculus must recognise that India has a plethora of options in any given situation. Indeed, these have multiplied with Indias growing economic power. To imagine that they have shrunk for example, to a zero-sum game in Myanmar vis--vis China is to impose upon ourselves an artificial narrowing of our horizons.

This can only demean India and detract from her potential to contribute to making the world a better place. At the end of the day, just as Indias domestic achievements will be measured by the world on the strength of her success in overcoming mass deprivation and building an inclusive society, her foreign policy success will be judged by her contribution to the larger world.