China’s rise could be the biggest challenge to an ideas-based global order

Speeches by three leaders at the recently concluded Raisina Dialogue stood out for their pronouncements on globalisation. The first, by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sounded a note of caution about the “gains of globalisation” being at risk. “Economic gains are no longer easy to come by”, said PM Modi, who went on to cite the “barriers to effective multilateralism”. The Prime Minister’s message was direct and simple: that globalisation needs new inheritors who can help promote the projects, regimes and norms of the 20th century. This responsibility would invariably fall on the shoulders of a class of nations that we have come to know as “emerging powers”.

A second perspective on globalisation at Raisina came from former Canadian PM Stephen Harper, who highlighted the role that religion plays in these turbulent times. Harper noted the role that Pope John Paul II, a Pole, played in providing “anti-communists in Poland effective leadership outside the country” in their struggle against the Soviet Union. PM Harper was hinting at the capacity of a religious leader whose tacit support of the Western ethos ensured resistance to entrenched nation-states. In this respect, religion returned to world politics (to destroy the Soviet Empire) in the eighties, long before the rise of the Islamic State. Can tendencies driven by religious sentiment today — whether through the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS, or through the counter-movements against migration in Europe — defeat the globalisation project driven by states?

And finally, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson offered yet another take on globalisation, in balancing his full-throated defence of Brexit with his call for greater economic cooperation with Britain. The “selective” or “a la carte” globalisation that Secretary Johnson pushed for at Raisina reflects the desire of many Western states to preserve its economic benefits while assuaging “nativist” tendencies at home.

What do these three speeches at the recently concluded global conclave tell us about the world today? For one, they concede that globalisation of a certain kind has run its course. This was a globalisation spurred by Western leadership in the 20th century, promoting ideas and institutions to salvage economies that had been devastated after two great wars. The urgency and desire to create those linkages no longer exist in the trans-Atlantic universe, so this period is witnessing selective de-globalisation.

Secondly, the leaders’ speeches acknowledge that globalisation is a victim of its own success. In true Hegelian fashion, the “idea” has been destroyed by its “actualisation”. Globalised economies today promote the free and rapid flow of information, bringing communities, societies and peoples together. These connected networks are by no means homogenous. They are miscellaneous groupings that often have little in common, by way of political heritage or intellectual traditions. As a result, they begin to sense their respective differences quickly and conspicuously. To be sure, the world was just as polarised or opinionated before the Information Age. But digital spaces have made distances shorter, and differences sharper.

Thirdly, their utterances indicated globalisation is in need of new torchbearers, who may not be able to project strength or underwrite stability in the same vein as the United States or Europe, but will preserve its normative roots regionally. These torchbearers will emerge from Asia, Africa and Latin America: they may not be connected by a lingua franca but their political systems will share a common commitment to free expression and trade. Their rise will be neither smooth nor inevitable. If disruptors today find the cost to destabilise the global system rather low, its custodians realise it is expensive to fix the mess they leave behind.

Prime Minister Modi astutely observed at Raisina the dust has not yet settled on what has replaced the Cold War. Russian Parliamentarian Vyacheslav Nikonov, one of the conference speakers, went one step further: “We may not be the number one military in the world,” he said, “but we [Russia] are not No. 2 either”. With the traditional leadership of Western powers giving way to the rise of regional powers, it is anyone’s guess if they will emerge as preservers or destroyers.

Above all, the speeches by Modi, Johnson and Harper at the Raisina Dialogue reflect their desire to couch globalisation in normative terms. The Washington Consensus was not solely about free markets, but also untrammelled expression and political dissent. The room for promoting such norms, for all the reasons mentioned above, is considerably limited today. The rise of China presents perhaps the biggest challenge to an ideas-based global order. Beijing has pursued with transactional vigour and single-minded ambition the setting up of regional financial architecture to bankroll its infrastructure projects. These initiatives place little regard for notions held sacred in the international order.

At Raisina, PM Modi highlighted the importance of these norms for the continued execution of the globalisation project. “Only by respecting the sovereignty of countries involved, can regional connectivity corridors fulfil their promise and avoid differences and discord,” said the Prime Minister.

It should be clear then that there is only one legitimate inheritor to the global liberal order of any consequence: India. New Delhi alone can pursue the expansion of regional and global economic linkages while staying true to the ideals that drive them. The Raisina Dialogue itself was an example of how a global platform can be forged in India, bringing together contradicting opinions and voices from across the world. As the steward of the process, the Prime Minister cited the Rig Veda, inviting “noble thoughts [...] from all directions”. The future of the globalisation project is intimately tied to India’s modernisation and rise. There is no growth without ideas, and conversely, no innovation without prosperity. India is the world’s best shot and perhaps the last shot at achieving both.

Samir Saran is vice president at the Observer Research Foundation

Source: Hindustan Times, 22-02-2017

Even in the worst of times, China is no substitute for the US on global stage

As an old West Asia hand, I could hardly have missed the significance of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s trip to the region a year ago, which included stops in Riyadh, Tehran and, perhaps most significantly, at the Arab League summit in Cairo. With American influence in West Asia fading under US President Barack Obama, and Russia taking on a larger role in regional affairs, the Chinese leader seemed to be signalling that Beijing, too, wanted a seat at the table.

At the summit, he surprised (and delighted) the assembled delegates by announcing China’s support for a Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital. “China firmly supports the Middle East peace process and supports the establishment of a State of Palestine enjoying full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders,” Xi said. “We understand the legitimate aspirations of Palestine to integrate into the international community as a state.”

Read | China’s economy grows at 6.7% in 2016, its slowest in 26 years

Xi’s speech, a sharp departure from China’s long-standing foreign policy practice of eschewing intervention on political matters, set off much speculative discussion among those of my ilk. Could it be that Beijing was finally ready to earn its place among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and actually play a useful role in solving a major international problem? It was just conceivable that China could use its growing economic clout in West Asia to start a new, meaningful process of negotiations between Israel and Palestine, with the approval of Saudi Arabia and Iran — the two other stops on Xi’s trip.

Why should China bother? After all, it had been very well served by its business-only foreign policy. Since a sudden attack of altruism could be ruled out, some West Asia experts speculated at the time that there were compelling economic reasons for Beijing’s venturing into the international political arena. The argument went thus: China depends heavily on West Asian oil and gas, the steady supplies of which depend heavily on the political stability of the region, which in turn depends heavily on American policing; with Washington no longer willing to perform that function, Beijing might reasonably conclude that economic interests required it to shake off its political inertia.

Read | US President Donald Trump to speak to PM Modi as India hopes to build on US ties

There were other signs that China was taking on greater responsibility on the world stage. Its contribution of troops to UN peacekeeping missions had more than doubled, to 2,800 — and Xi had committed to increasing the number to 8,000 troops, or one-fifth of the total. (India’s contribution, in case you’re wondering, comprised 6,750 troops, 900 police, and 60 military experts.) The Chinese president had also pledged $1 billion to create a UN Peace and Development Trust Fund.

I was reminded of the heightened expectations of Chinese leadership last week, when Xi visited the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It was the first time a Chinese president has attended, and the timing was propitious. The audience of global grandees was, much like the gathering at the Arab League, anxious by the American retreat from responsibility for world affairs. And as he did in Cairo, Xi gave the appearance of a man with a plan. China, he said, would champion the cause of globalisation, in the face of strong nationalist, isolationist political movements throughout the West. Beijing would lead the effort to maintain trade and economic stability, and would do its upmost to prevent a trade war with Donald Trump’s US.

Read | Post-truth and alternative facts: Welcome to Donald Trump’s la-la land

The gathering of capitalists was reassured by Xi’s assurance that they could do business as usual in his country, as much as they were charmed by his quoting Charles Dickens — he described the current state of world affairs as “the best of times, the worst of times”, an allusion to A Tale of Two Cities. Many were apparently willing to overlook some of the more egregious contradictions in his speech; you have to wonder, for instance, what the representatives of Google and Facebook made of his claims to China’s “openness”.

Most of the audience for Xi’s speech have by now returned home to their daily routines, and many will have left their heady optimism at the high altitude of Davos. They will also have abandoned any hope that the new occupant of the White House might temper his language and attitudes upon swearing in: Trump has made it clear that he intends to follow through on his “America First” and anti-globalisation agenda. As the jet-lag from the long trip fades away, the Davos set is left with the realisation that China cannot be a substitute for the US during “the worst of times”.

Read | India ranks low as global influencer while US, UK, Japan remain on top: Report

That’s not to say these won’t be “the best of times” for Beijing. There are plenty of scenarios in which Beijing benefits from Washington’s withdrawal from international alliances, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was designed to restrain Chinese ambitions. Trump’s isolationism will also allow China to bully its smaller neighbours. But beyond Xi’s rhetoric, Beijing has not yet demonstrated any interest or ability in being a solver of prickly international problems.Which bring me back to that speech in Cairo. In the year since, China’s trade with Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran has continued to grow. But Beijing has done nothing to move the needle on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Beijing has its seat at the table, but as ever, it is content to sup while others suffer.

Bobby Ghosh is editor-in-chief of Hindustan Times

source: Hindustan Times, 25-01-2017

Barack Obama’s farewell speech: this is how a leader signs off

For the United States of America, the last couple of months have been no less than reality TV drama. You saw two presidential candidates fighting for votes and eventually locking horns in a series of high voltage debates on national TV with a million pair of eyes glued on them. Eventually on result day, Donald Trump trumped and stumped everyone and took over the coveted seat in the White House. Amidst the tornado of events, however, no one forgot Barack Obama.

So, what is it that made the 44th President of the United States of America a charismatic, unparalleled leader? Well, every answer can be found in his final address which is a lesson for all leaders on not just how to lead well, but to also do justice to the responsibilities given to you.

Do your job

Being in a leadership position isn’t as easy as it seems to onlookers. It requires a huge amount of conviction in the goals you’ve set for the greater good. Here’s what Obama says:

“If I had told you eight years ago that America would reverse a great recession, reboot our auto industry, and unleash the longest stretch of job creation in our history — if I had told you that we would open up a new chapter with the Cuban people, shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons programme without firing a shot, take out the mastermind of 9-11 — if I had told you that we would win marriage equality and secure the right to health insurance for another 20 million of our fellow citizens — if I had told you all that, you might have said our sights were set a little too high.”

A leader must continue to inspire despite challenges and roadblocks. To achieve what you set out for may seem impossible, but continuously and actively working towards it will not stop you from reaching your aim. During his tenure, Obama managed to dream the impossible, but did he not eventually succeed? That’s the point he proves.

Strike the right chord

The remarkable eight years that he reigned supreme over Americans and the entire world, Obama was always looked up to just like he still is. After the election results were declared, the one thing everyone was looking forward to was Obama’s speech before he finally and formally puts an end to his era. If not that then whom do you call a true leader? As any leader would or should, he chose his words wisely and kept everyone going. Towards the end of the speech he says, “I am asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about change — but in yours.” There’s a huge round of unending applause by the audience. Deservingly so. Only a true leader can garner such massive love and support.

Be grateful

For someone who is in a position of authority, arrogance can come easy and integrity can be easily compromised, but Obama never let either usurp his mind. A leader’s mettle is also seen in his modesty. As a mark of his humility, he acknowledges his team who had his back the last 8 years, giving their best under his leadership. The POTUS says, “To my remarkable staff, for eight years, and for some of you a whole lot more, I have drawn from your energy… Even when times got tough and frustrating… You guarded against cynicism.”

A good leader will always appreciate and never forget his humble roots too because everyone starts somewhere and your words could just wake someone up and make them find a way to realise their own dream too. Obama reminisces:

“So I first came to Chicago when I was in my early twenties, and I was still trying to figure out who I was; still searching for a purpose to my life. And it was a neighborhood not far from here where I began working with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills. It was on these streets where I witnessed the power of faith, and the quiet dignity of working people in the face of struggle and loss.”

Don’t forget humour

Inject humour to lighten things up. Work shouldn’t forbid you or your people from forgetting that there’s more to life. When Obama says, “You can tell that I’m a lame duck, because nobody is following instructions”, the audience laughs unanimously! The man has a humorous side to him, but that doesn’t make him less serious about the work he does or has done over the last 8 years of his presidential rule. You too have got to remember that you may be working on cracking the toughest deal or in the middle of some of the worst corporate muck, but stay in touch with the lighter side in you. When used at the right times, humour can help you and you team sail through the toughest of days with the minimal amount of stress.

Finally, as the man himself says, “If you’re walking down the right path and you’re willing to keep walking, eventually you’ll make progress.”

The author is co-founder, Work Better Training

Source: Hindustan Times, 15-01-2017

What makes America great?

Presidential inaugurations and commencement ceremonies are usually very emotional events. They are rites of passage that mark both an end and a new beginning in the life of a country or an individual.

As a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, I attend our commencement ceremony every year. Despite this regularity, I still become emotional as I see my students complete a phase of their lives and contemplate their future.

One of the highlights of our ceremony is a video in which several professors and public personalities read, line by line, John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. It is a text written 56 years ago, in a different world, where the Cold War, the threat of nuclear Armageddon, and the challenges faced by so many newly independent poor states dominated policymakers’ concerns. And yet, running at under 14 minutes, it never fails to move and inspire everyone in the audience, including that half of the graduates and their families who hail from other countries, near and far.

To understand why, it is useful to recall a few of the most famous passages. For starters, there was Kennedy’s vow to defend freedom for its friends and from its enemies: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

There was also his commitment to fight poverty: “To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”

And this commitment was part and parcel of hemispheric solidarity: “To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty.”

Finally, there was Kennedy’s ethic of service on behalf of the commonwealth: “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.”

These words’ enduring emotional appeal is rooted in their embrace of a potentially difficult course of action, motivated by a pledge to uphold values shared by citizens of America and the world alike. It was this approach—one founded on a value-based system of rules, not on individual deals —that enabled the US to create and sustain a coalition of countries that could maintain peace and international cooperation.

Fast forward to today. President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign narrative was based on the assumption that the US has fallen from its former greatness. Jobs have moved to Mexico and China because weak leaders negotiated bad deals. Immigrants, mostly illegal, have taken the few jobs that remain, killing and raping in their free time. It follows that the US needs a president who will put America first and knows how to extract the best deals for it at every opportunity, using the country’s full might to advance its interests.

I doubt that an inaugural address based on these ideas will awe and inspire many audiences at commencement ceremonies, especially where many of those in attendance are citizens of other countries. Such a speech will encourage no one to “bear any burden” for the sake of any universal principle or challenge, be it human rights or global warming. It will not exhort us to focus on something bigger than ourselves.

Over the course of history, very few powerful states have developed a sense of themselves as being based not on ethnic heritage, but on a set of values that all citizens can live by. For the US, it was “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. For the Soviet Union, it was international proletarian solidarity—“workers of the world, unite!” The European Union is based on universal values and principles that are so attractive that 28 countries have opted to join it; and, Brexit notwithstanding, some halfdozen more are trying to get in.

By contrast, a great and powerful Russia or China today—or the Third Reich in its time—may be able to garner the support of its citizens; but such states cannot constitute the basis of an international order that others find appealing, because they are based on a vision of themselves that does not encompass others.

The basis of America’s greatness and ability to lead the world stems from universal values that underpin a set of rules that uphold the others’ rights, not an America that tries to base its greatness on a set of deals aimed at getting the better of others. Such an America will find its ability to lead the world compromised by a shortage of goodwill and an abundance of distrust. Other countries will huddle together to protect themselves from the US bully.

If Trump really wants to make America great again, he should ponder how his inaugural address will sound to a global audience 56 years from now. Will it inspire the Class of 2073 the way Kennedy’s address still inspires graduates today?

Source: Mintepaper, 5-12-2016

Fidel Castro, a Case Study of Right, Wrong

There is more to the Cuban icon than standing up as an underdog

El Comandante, the people of Cuba called him, if not just Fidel, adoringly . But there was more to him than cigarchewing, Yankee-munching charisma. He was loved, deeply and mostly , but also despised as a tyrant by his countrymen and Cuban emigrès who understood the downsides of being hauled into jail, their freedoms curtailed, for simply being critics. But the fact remains that Fidel Castro is one of the most influentlial figures in world history . If all it takes to be a leader, an underdog, a David to take on Goliath, Castro would have deserved his halo. Unflinching courage nothwithstanding -and genuine passion, eloquence and leadership -Castro perfected the Potemkin Village, the charade that sells progress in the name of 'standing up to imperialism'.The Cuban revolution did not begin as a communist takeover. The dependence on Soviet subsidy and political support turned that initial narrative. Castro's party got people to inform on their neigh bours. They hauled people into prison. The spirit was kept ali ve despite the system, not be cause of it. Cubans danced through hardships and want.
They developed world-beating healthcare, mass schooling and sporting prowess. But, blood less as it was, Castro's Cuba was anti-humanist, freedom being traded for a 'higher cause' -that has hurt a people for two generations. The Soviet Union collapsed, people expected Cuba to crumble. David stayed proud and defiant, and survived, thumbing his nose at Goliath. And Castro's will and ringing passion egged a nation on, to endure and thus stand up against 'Yankee America'.
Expect the Cuban revolution to disintegrate, with the pace accelerating when Fidel's younger brother, Raul, steps down as president in 2018. Cuba, however, is better prepared than most nations for broadbased capitalist growth, in terms of education and healthcare, even if some fundamentals remain lacking.

Source: Economic Times, 28-11-2016

Cuba after Fidel

Latin America’s last revolutionary leader and towering and charismatic anti-imperialist torch-bearer, came to signify the high point of Cold War ideological hostilities of the 20th century. At home, his policies to promote affordable and accessible health care, housing and education, as well as his standing up to global hegemony, endeared him to the majority, even as his record on human rights came in for serious scrutiny. But these domestic issues played out in the larger shadow of his defiance of American power, which has outlasted that of the Soviet Union. When Castro captured power in 1959, there were few signs that the Marxist radical would emerge a global champion of Third World countries in his nearly fifty-year rule. But the failed 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, by Cuban exiles trained by the U.S., to overthrow his regime began a pragmatic partnership between Castro and the Soviet Union, bringing the Cold War into the western hemisphere. This was the context to Russian preparations to house nuclear missiles in Cuba to threaten the U.S., which took the world to near-catastrophe in 1962. The U.S. misperception of the threat posed by Castro led to CIA plots to assassinate him. As it turned out, he lived long enough to see the rollback of Washington’s decades-long sanctions that crippled the Cuban economy.

×

The clearest example of Castro’s global standing was the clout he commanded in the Non-Aligned Movement. In more recent times, his slogan of “socialism or death” inspired the nationalisation of natural wealth by governments across Latin America as a counter to the appropriation of oil and mineral resources by corporations. Changes in the global economic climate may have exposed the deficiencies of an economic model reliant on riding the commodity cycle. But the process of resumption of diplomatic ties between Havana and Washington under the stewardship of his designated successor and brother, Raúl, is still fragile. U.S. President Barack Obama, who undertook a historic visit to the Caribbean nation earlier this year, sought to build the new rapprochement between Washington and Havana based on the relative distance of current generations in both countries from the painful memories of the past. Clearly, this is the path for President-elect Donald Trump to pursue, assuming that his pre-poll rhetoric would make way for a more reasoned approach once in office. Meanwhile, with incumbent Raúl Castro having announced his intention to step down by 2018, it will be a long transition in Havana.

Source: The Hindu, 28-11-2016

Fidel Castro lived a rich revolutionary life

There is no better description than the word ‘revolutionary’ for the 90-year-old Cuban leader.

With the death of Fidel Castro, the last of the iconic revolutionary figures of the 20th century is now no more. The word, “revolutionary” is a bit too easily bandied out these days to describe leaders, but there is no better description to encapsulate the 90-year-old Cuban leader’s life and achievements.

The son of a rich landowner, Fidel — as he has always been called by his compatriots, his fellow Cubans and many in the Third World — began his political career as a militant student leader committed to social justice and the establishment of a corruption-free government in Cuba. Later, he became part of movements that sought to overthrow Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista who came to power in 1952 through a coup.

Batista was presiding over a system that promoted “casino capitalism”, and oversaw widespread corruption even as the country’s economy was dependent largely on one crop — sugar and had high unemployment and rural poverty. Fidel’s first foray into armed revolution was the attack on the Moncada Barracks in Santiago de Cuba in July 1953, which failed spectacularly but set the stage for his future revolutionary movement that was named the 26th of July movement.

Soon, in the mid-1950s, Fidel, after his release from prison, along with his revolutionary comrades, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, brother Raul Castro, Camilo Cienfuegos, Juan Almeida, among several others sailed from Mexico to the Sierra Maestra to launch a guerrilla struggle. It took them close to half-a-decade and several setbacks and victories later, Fidel was able to attain power after Batista went into exile in 1959.

While the Cuban Revolution was largely an anti-dictator and nationalist armed struggle, Fidel and his associates sought to gradually build a socialist system after coming to power, arguing that a thorough break from the past was only possible through recourse to anti-imperialism and state control of the economy. Ergo, Cuba began pursuing socialism in the early 1960s right next to the United States, which soon severed its ties with the regime after Havana nationalised all major foreign-owned assets in the country. It was the beginning of a long lasting enmity between the two countries as the U.S. sought to overthrow Fidel by instigating armed attacks such as the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, and to covertly assassinate him.

Fidel survived by rousing the Cuban people against the “imperialist” attacks, and the U.S. also retreated itself from overt machinations after the Cuban missile crisis invasion nearly brought a nuclear war as the Soviet Union got involved in the conflict.

After the success of the Cuban revolution, Fidel and his comrades sought to export the “foco” model of guerrilla armed struggle to other countries, both in Latin America and later in Africa. Most of these ended in failures — exemplified by Che Guevera’s lack of success in the Congo and later his death in the jungles of Bolivia.

Fidel survived by rousing the Cuban people against the “imperialist” attacks

Cuba also played a major role in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), having sent Che Guevara to New Delhi to discuss its formation and later when Fidel was the secretary general between 1979 and 1983. Fidel came up with the clearest enunciation of the NAM’s aims as an anti-imperial, anti-racist organisation. Fidel had re-invented himself as a Third World internationalist and an anti-imperialist who spoke for the developing world, inspiring anti-colonial struggles. He sent Cuban forces to participate in anti-colonial wars in countries like Angola (and resulting in the independence of Namibia – then South Western Africa) and was revered by leaders such as Nelson Mandela for these actions and his voice against Apartheid.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro shouts a slogan as he raises his fist during the VIII Ibero-American summit group picture in Oporto.  | Photo Credit: AP

 

Fidel’s Cuba always enjoyed good ties with India, with both countries supporting multilateralism internationally and need for a more democratised United Nations. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described Fidel during his visit to Havana for a NAM summit in 2006, “I had gone there only to greet him, but he engaged me in intense discussion. We covered a whole range of issues, including the future of the international financial system, the future role of NAM, India’s development prospects and how we are dealing with our population, food and energy problems… I felt I was in the presence of one of the greatest men of our times.”

Fidel lived through a five-and-a-half decade-long Cuban economic embargo imposed by the U.S. Cuba’s socialist system emphasised investment in free education and health for its largely peasant population while discouraging free enterprise and nationalising most foreign assets in the country. This emphasis resulted in a mixed legacy. By the 21st century, Cuba had among the most advanced health care systems in the world, a largely well educated and socially conscious population, but a battered economy characterised by low wages and little diversification.

Partially, the collapse of the Soviet Union was responsible for the dire straits that Cuba found itself in the 1990s, resulting in severe shortages of essential goods and supplies, but Fidel refused to give up on socialism, persisting with the social development model till he stepped down provisionally in 2006 and handed over powers to his brother Raul in 2008.

In his last decade, Fidel was an avuncular figure who took to writing regular columns that were published as his “Reflections” in Cuban newspapers. He soon became a symbol of anti-imperialism in Latin America, which saw the rise of the “pink-tide” — a series of social-democratic and “new socialist” regimes across the continent — and which were inspired by the success of the “social model” in Cuba but remained politically liberal democratic systems. Leaders such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa paid rich tributes to his legacy and sought to emulate Cuban successes in health and education while others such as Brazil’s Lula, Chile’s Michele Bachelet worked towards closer ties with Cuba. In many ways, Fidel’s greatest achievement was to inspire a truly independent Latin America that was no longer dependent or under the imperial sway of the northern behemoth, the U.S.

Fidel remained an old-school communist till the end of his life even as Cuba embarked upon gradual economic liberalisation under Raul’s rule, which eased restrictions on the economy and freed it up for limited enterprise led development. U.S. President Barack Obama, in the meantime, revived diplomatic ties with Raul’s Cuba, and even as the embargo continues, ties between the U.S and Cuba have been never better since the Revolution.

During Mr. Obama’s historic visit to Havana in March 2016, he harped on constructive dialogue between the two countries that represented starkly different systems – Mr. Obama called into question, Cuba’s policies on political prisoners, political dissidence and human rights, while Mr. Raul spoke about the U.S’s poor record on economic inequality, race relations and health care. Fidel’s response was an unapologetic defence of the socialist system and his country’s record during what the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm described as the “Age of Extremes”.

It was not surprising to see Fidel railing against the times that were changing. He was a revolutionary of the 20th century who achieved what he set out to do, knowing that “history will absolve him” as he de-classed himself from his roots and led substantial changes that benefited millions in his poor country. True to his self, he seemed to accept that the contradictions unleashed by the system’s very same policies had to bring about fresh change and some degree of reversal of state socialism but it was difficult for him to countenance that the state-socialist model was by design, flawed. At the same time, Fidel, the columnist, wrote about the dangers of unrestrained capitalism to the environment and need to arrest climate change.

Fidel lived a rich revolutionary life as a committed, “cultured” Communist, who offered a stark contrast to the later day apparatchiks of the Soviet Union, present day China or the closed minded dictators of the other surviving “true communist” regime, North Korea.

It is difficult to sum up his life in a few words. With Fidel’s passing away, the era of state-led socialism can now be called to have officially ended. But his ideas on internationalism: a truly democratic world order and solidarity among the people of the third world; a thorough reorientation of the state to promote overall human development; – hold true and important today and for the foreseeable future. The Cuban’s muerte (death) will not just be mourned in his patria (fatherland), but the world over. Fidel is no more, but the revolution he unleashed, persists.

Source: The Hindu, 28-11-2016

BRICS and walls

Contradictions are mounting within. India’s diplomacy could explore alternative groupings.

With the benefit of hindsight, one can learn several lessons from the BRICS summit in Goa. Before this event, close observers of India’s foreign policy in general and of BRICS in particular, Samir Saran and Abhijnan Rej, had emphasised the need “for creating new and agile institutions that can help the group”. Such an objective was ambitious and the Goa meeting has allowed BRICS to work in that direction.

In the final declaration, the members countries not only felicitated themselves for “the operationalisation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and of the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA)”, but agreed to set up a credit agency. Here, BRICS are true to their DNA: Basically, this “geo-economic alliance”, to use the words of Saran and Rej, “perceives power concentration in the hands of Bretton Woods institutions as unfair and seeks to promote alternative models of development”. This is why, like in every summit since 2009, BRICS have targeted the governance of the IMF in Goa. Not only have they asked for a new quota formula that would “ensure that the increased voice of the dynamic emerging and developing economies reflects their relative contributions to the world economy”, but they have also called for the European countries to cede two chairs on the Executive Board of the IMF. For years, the targeting of West-dominated institutions has provided BRICS with a common cause.

But is it still sufficient today? The question is particularly relevant from the point of view of India after the acceleration of its rapprochement with the US in several domains, including economic and defence matters. This rapprochement has been resented by two key BRICS players, Russia and China, which have recently made moves bound to be perceived as provocations by India. Russia, which has already agreed to sell attack helicopters to Pakistan, sent troops to this country in September last for first-ever military joint manoeuvres. The Indian ambassador to Moscow had to convey to Russia New Delhi’s views that “military cooperation with Pakistan which is a country that sponsors terrorism as a matter of state policy is a wrong approach.”. Relations with China were even more tense since, over the last six months, China blocked India’s attempt at joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), made military incursions in Arunachal Pradesh and vetoed in the UN an India-supported resolution designating Masood Azhar as a terrorist. (Azhar is the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammed, one of the Pakistani groups already on a UN blacklist, which has been held responsible for the Uri attack and the killing of 19 Indian armymen).The Goa summit was bound to be “a moment of reckoning”, as Harsh Pant pointed out, precisely because of this context. All the more so as it happened at a time when the Indian government had initiated moves to isolate Pakistan on the international stage in the wake of the Uri attack. On that ground, the glass remained half empty. Certainly, the Indian attempt of isolating Pakistan from other South Asian countries — that had resulted in the cancellation of the Islamabad SAARC meeting in October — found another expression in the Outreach Summit of BRICS leaders of BIMSTEC countries, including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, a clear signal that, in its region, India will look east even more than before. But the final declaration spared Pakistan.

On the first day of the summit, Modi had targeted Pakistan calling it the “mothership” of terrorism: “Terror modules around the world are linked to this mothership. This country shelters not just terrorists. It nurtures a mindset,” Modi said. However, the final declaration did not mention Pakistan, nor key words like “cross-border terrorism” or “state-sponsored terrorism” and the only terror groups named — ISIS, al Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra — were not Pakistani. Russia and China were not on the same wave length so far as this security issue was concerned. This hiatus may be due to Russian and Chinese perceptions that saving the Syrian regime is their priority and that both countries will need Pakistan to fight the Islamist groups listed above if they regroup in Afghanistan after being defeated in the Middle East.

In Goa, China has taken Pakistan’s side more explicitly than Russia, which somewhat bowed to Beijing instead of supporting New Delhi. A day after Modi called Pakistan a “mothership of terrorism”, the Chinese Foreign Ministry declared that their country opposed “linking terrorism with any specific country or religion”. It also said: “China and Pakistan are all-weather friends”.

Such divergences did not prevent India from using the Goa meeting to relate to China bilaterally. For instance, President Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi agreed to hold a dialogue on New Delhi’s bid for membership of the NSG. But China will clearly not help India to isolate Pakistan, as it was already evident from the CPEC project and, more precisely, from the fact that “its” Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (which is much bigger than the NDB) has recently granted a $300 million loan for extending the hydropower plant of Tarbela, jointly with the World Bank. Incidentally, Xi Jinping also used China’s financial resources to relate more effectively to another neighbour of India, Bangladesh: He stopped over in Dhaka on his way to Goa to sign off loans worth $24 bn, with a country to which India has lent $2 bn last year.

The Goa summit enabled India to re-engage Russia (or vice versa). On the one hand, New Delhi and Moscow signed a $4-5 billion deal on the S-400 defence missile system. On the other, “India recognised Russian side’s effort towards achieving a political and negotiated settlement of the situation in Syria”. This joint statement was issued by Vladimir Putin and Modi at a time when the Obama administration was highly critical of the Russian strikes on Aleppo.

The contradictions between India’s policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and the US and its membership of the BRICS, a
grouping dominated by Russia and China, have led observers to think about alternative routes, like the revival of IBSA. In a post BRICS summit article, Samir Saran mentions that IBSA countries have met “on the sidelines” in Goa and that such a grouping (“in many ways more organic than BRICS”) “should engage with both the US and one European power, like Germany, to promote a concert of democracies across continents, bringing advanced economies alongside emerging ones”. More than one European country might support such a move.

The writer is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London.

Source: Indian Express, 22-10-2016

Reimagining BRICS

India has tried to use the multilateral forum to serve its larger strategic ends

With India announcing that all five BRICS member states are united in acknowledging the global threat posed by terrorism, and that those who support terror are as much a threat to us than those who perpetrate acts of terror, the eighth BRICS summit came to an end on Sunday in Goa. The BRICS agenda moved forward a bit with the BRICS leaders united in their “view to establish the BRICS Agriculture Research Platform, BRICS Railway Research Network, BRICS Sports Council, and various youth-centric fora” and agreeing “to fast track the setting up of a BRICS Rating Agency” based on market-oriented principles to “further bridge the gap in the global financial architecture.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that the Goa declaration laid down “a comprehensive vision for our cooperation and coordination, within BRICS and on international issues.” But it was clear from the way India shaped the agenda of the Goa summit that Mr. Modi was working towards a different end game this time, looking beyond the immediate BRICS mandate.

Focus on terrorism

The Prime Minister’s focus, by and large, remained on the issue of terrorism. Without naming Pakistan, he used the BRICS platform to refer to the country as the “mothership of terrorism”, and forcefully argued that a “selective approach against terrorism” would be both futile and counterproductive. In more ways than one, he made it plain to his BRICS partners that this is an issue on which India feels rather strongly and that “BRICS needs to work together and act decisively to combat this threat.”

This message was primarily aimed at China, a country with which India has had differences on the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism against India. Mr. Modi was not very successful in convincing the Chinese leadership to change Beijing’s stance on Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar, who India believes was behind the Pathankot attack this year and the Parliament attack of 2001. China had recently put a technical hold once again at the United Nations and prevented Azhar from being designated a global terrorist, despite JeM being a UN-proscribed terror group.

Recognising the limits of bilateral Sino-Indian engagement, India seems to have now decided to use the leverage of a multilateral platform to put China on notice. New Delhi would be hoping that, by suggesting that “those who nurture, shelter, support and sponsor such forces of violence and terror are as much a threat to us as terrorists themselves”, it might eventually succeed in pressurising China to alter its position. However, with China refusing to budge, it is now hoped that Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi, who the leaders decided would travel to India again, would meet National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and discuss the issue further.

The other change that India introduced to the BRICS agenda was also significant as it underscored India’s changing priorities. India used the summit to reach out to its neighbours by initiating the BRICS-BIMSTEC outreach. Founded in 1997, the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) now includes Nepal and Bhutan apart from Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Set up with the objective of enhancing technological and economic cooperation among South Asian and South-east Asian countries along the coast of the Bay of Bengal, it has been neglected so far by its members.

New Delhi has now decided to lead the regional economic cooperation efforts against the backdrop of Pakistan’s marginalisation in South Asia. The cancellation of the SAARC summit in Islamabad, with Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan deciding to stay away like India, has galvanised New Delhi’s efforts to look at new ways to foster regional cooperation. India’s outreach to BIMSTEC during the BRICS summit is an important signal that New Delhi is serious about its role as a facilitator of economic cooperation in South Asia.

Bilateral ties with Russia

Finally, India used the Goa summit to re-galvanise its long-standing partnership with Russia, which was in danger of losing direction. Russia’s decision to hold military exercises with Pakistan did not go down well with India at a time when it was seeking to diplomatically isolate Pakistan after the Uri terror attacks. Russia, for its part, has been concerned about India’s tilt towards the U.S. In Goa, the two states reaffirmed the strategic nature of their friendship once again. India signed three major deals worth billions of dollars with Russia: five S-400 Triumf air defence systems, four stealth frigates, and a joint venture to manufacture Kamov-226T utility helicopters in India.

Recognising the limits of the BRICS mandate at a time of slowing economies and growing intra-BRICS political divergences, India has tried to reimagine the multilateral forum to serve its larger strategic ends. For Mr. Modi, BRICS is an important platform to showcase to his domestic critics that his foreign policy remains independent of, and not subservient to, the U.S. He has cleverly used the BRICS platform to position New Delhi’s priorities on to the agenda of the forum. How far he succeeds in achieving Indian objectives will determine Indian investment in BRICS in the future.

Harsh V. Pant is a Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi and Professor of International Relations at King’s College London.

Keywords: BRICS, India, Goa BRICS summit, BRICS agenda, Narendra Modi, India's foreign policy

Source: The Hindu, 18-10-2016

To revive an old friendship

The Russia-Pakistan joint exercises raise many questions. New Delhi has to rebuild ties on its strengths and common concerns with Moscow.

The Russian Embassy announced that their first-ever joint military exercises with Pakistan, that were initially to be held in the sensitive Gilgit-Baltistan area this week, would be shifted with due respect to Indian sensitivities. Why is India’s time-tested strategic partner engaging with Pakistan at this juncture? Is there a shift in Russian geostrategy and linkage with China that is impacting Moscow’s relations with India? Have India’s own foreign policy shifts and new relations set off a reaction in Russia? The Russia-Pakistan joint exercises raise many questions.

A Russia on the move

Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has shown assertiveness in international affairs. It has taken a clear position on opposing Western intervention and militarist regime-change policies in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria. Russia has used counter-force in the fight against the Islamic State in backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It retook the province of Crimea that it had gifted Ukraine in 1954 due to (Soviet) historical reasons. This invited unilateral sanctions on Russia from the U.S. and the European Union. Demonised by the West, Russia has become a strategic partner of China and they have significant convergence of interests.

India as an emerging power has developed a strategic partnership with the U.S. There are real and perceived shifts in Indian armament policies where Russia dominated for years. India has opened up to the U.S., France, Israel, all of whom are gradually edging out the Russians in some sectors. Russia-India trade has not grown to great heights despite the encouragement of both states. Yet India has been supportive of Russian positions and has a careful and calibrated response to all Russian actions — in Chechnya, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere, India has supported Russia.

The Russians, on their part, have dutifully backed the Indian position on Kashmir; they share Indian concerns on terrorism; they continue with deep collaborations, providing sensitive technologies, military equipment, nuclear power engines and much more to India. They have a partnership in energy. Yet a Russia dependent on arms and energy exports is constantly looking for new markets and Pakistan is a potential one. The planned exercises were an extension of this search.

Moscow’s Chinese concerns

The reality is that the world situation is one of multipolarity and consequent interdependency, contradictions, compromises and pressures. Countries across the spectrum are building multiple alliances. There is scope for both linkages and dependency. So China, who we think the U.S. is trying to ‘contain’ (and India could get a role in this), has got its yuan accepted as world currency by the International Monetary Fund and the New York branch of Bank of China has been designated as the clearing house for the Chinese official currency, the renminbi. China is leveraging its economy and relationships to build a hegemony (G-2) with the U.S. where both can share international financial domination.

Russia is well aware of this, and has its own concerns about the Chinese dominating Russian markets, exploiting Russian resources, and not backing Russian security concerns. China is enticing countries, including Russia, with its One Belt, One Road plan that will develop huge new linkages and develop trade routes. Pakistan is a satellite state for China. Russia has concerns about Central Asia vis-à-vis China and Pakistan.

In these circumstances, India has to rebuild on its strengths and common concerns with the Russians. They have to revitalise their earlier agreement on sharing intelligence for a joint strategy on terrorism. If India is concerned with state-sponsored terrorism from Pakistan, Russia is concerned with the backing that states are directly or indirectly giving to terror groups in West Asia and Central Asia. India will have to be more forthright in condemning states that on the pretext of regime change or local geopolitics are allowing the growth of terror groups in West Asia.

Balancing new and old allies

Russia and India have common positions and concerns in Afghanistan. Last week the Afghans, in a peace deal backed and welcomed by the U.S. and Pakistan, rehabilitated the mujahideen “butcher of Kabul” and India hater Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. This snubs the Indian and Russian policy of isolating all terrorists and instead has accommodated and compromised with who they wish to label ‘good Taliban’. This policy is an extension of using terrorists for strategic use. Indian and Russian anxieties on terrorism need to converge and bring about some positive outcome.

India has its own military exercises with the U.S. and has signed logistics agreements which can eventually give the U.S. access to Indian naval bases. Is India willing to do the same with Russia? Given the growing U.S.-Russia hostility, has India reassured Russia that this access will not jeopardise Russian interests? If not, it should do so.

India needs to deepen its scientific and technological relations with Russia since a base for this already exists. Often agreements are signed amidst bilateral rhetoric and are not sufficiently followed up. The Russia-India investments in the oil and gas sector and exports to third countries need to be energised. Joint manufacturing needs to be planned. A continuous engagement and follow-up plan need to be made.

India and Russia are engaged in several multilateral efforts that are greatly favoured by Russia such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The BRICS meeting in a few weeks will give a great opportunity for the leaders of these countries to further deepen their engagements. Russia had proposed a Russia-India-China (RIC) forum. India is hesitant about this because of the unresolved issues with China. This has not moved ahead like the BRICS has. Our argument should be, if China can have compromises and contradictions with the U.S., then why not with India? India can use some creative means to build an RIC alliance.

India should use the interdependency and pressure-compromise strategies to leverage its interest to isolate Pakistan. A former U.S. Secretary of State had called Pakistan an international migraine, but then moved on to use it as the U.S. front line in Afghanistan and West Asia. No matter what India gives the U.S., this equation will not change. The U.S. will always have a dual approach to India and Pakistan, because it needs both. Russia, on the other hand, will not. But India has to actively ensure that and not take this strategic partnership for granted.

Leveraging multilateralism

India needs to move on in the international system. In some ways it has, but in other ways it is moving backwards. Its foreign policy is only an extension of its domestic politics. India has to fix its domestic issues to further social cohesion and make special efforts to build bridges between communities. India’s domestic politics has to move towards inclusive democracy, non-militarism, rights and the rule of law. This will give it an edge in the international system. Any dilution would damage it deeply. Indian foreign policy should focus on its strengths of working with the global South, opposing militarist interventions, building norms and depending on multilateralism. India cannot be in denial of its history even as it moves forward.

As far as Russia is concerned, it might appear that there is some strategic shift. But Russia has been pushed into that position. In reality, it knows that India is still its most reliable ally. It has no conflict of interest or anxiety about India as it does about others. India was instrumental in the construction of a multipolar international system. This system has benefitted India and Russia, not to speak of others like China. To retain this, India and Russia need to be active strategic and economic allies. But both will have to make an effort for this.

Anuradha M. Chenoy is a Professor at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, JNU.

Keywords: India-Russia bilateral relations, Gilgit-Baltistan area, joint military exercise, Pakistan-Russia joint military exercise

Source_ The Hindu, 29-09-2016

What’s in a NAM? It was never more than a talking shop

It is time to put the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) out of its misery. It was never more than a talking shop, and there’s little to suggest anyone’s listening — not even among its 120 members.

The NAM summit last week in a Venezuelan island resort is of less consequence, if such a thing is even conceivable, than the 2012 gathering in Tehran. And nothing symbolises its irrelevance than the statement issued at the end of the proceedings: An appeal for the United Nations to be more inclusive. Plainly, the delegates could come up with nothing to discuss in Margarita Island that could not have been more usefully discussed on another island where most of them are headed this week: Manhattan, home to the UN General Assembly.

Indeed, the two most salient things about the NAM summit argue for the group’s dissolution. First, the location: Venezuela, one of the world’s most repressive states, where a corrupt and inept dictator, Nicholas Maduro, had managed to impoverish a small population, despite having access to vast petroleum resources. No self-respecting world leader would attend a $120-million party designed to aggrandise this odious man, which may explain why the most prominent head of state present was Iran’s Hassan Rouhani. (Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe kept him company.)

Which brings me to the second damning aspect of the summit: The long list of absentees. Only eight heads of state bothered to show up, down from an already embarrassing 35 in Tehran. The absentee-in-chief was Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who correctly decided he had more important things to do.

If history shows Modi’s absence was the beginning of the end, it will be the more appropriate because it was an Indian prime minister’s presence that made the beginning possible. NAM was conceived in the atmosphere of excitement and possibility that characterised the 1950s, when the world was emerging out of the long, dark period of colonialism. Newly independent nations dreamed they could make their way in this new world without hewing to either of the big powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, eschewing the icy hostilities of the Cold War and bask in the warmth of Third World (as it was then known) cooperation. The co-founders were India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Yugoslavia’s Josep Broz Tito, and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah were all figures of international consequence, and their collective charisma attracted lesser lights from around the world.

But by the time NAM actually got off the ground, in 1961, the idea had already been undermined. Tito, host of the very first summit, was for all practical purposes aligned to the Soviets. Many members would go on to pick sides in the Cold War, including India.

Thus born under an ill omen, NAM grew into a forum where developing nations could blame all their problems on the big powers, pretending that much of the membership survived on the dole or protection of those very same powers. Long before Margarita Island, the triennial summits were exhibitions of shameless hypocrisy by American and Soviet puppets, all professing complete independence.

Worse still, NAM became a platform for some of the world’s most despicable leaders to preen and posture: The list of secretary-generals includes Fidel and Raul Castro, Mugabe, Hosni Mubarak, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This effectively denied the movement any kind of moral high ground, and rendered risible its rhetorical broadsides against the inequities of the US and the USSR. Nor could it claim, with a straight face, to represent peoples freed from colonial servitude when so many of those people found themselves enslaved by home-grown tyrants.

NAM’s reason to exist ended in 1989, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War. The world was left with a single superpower, the US, but quickly became multi-polar, with China and India emerging as strong magnetic forces in their own right. There would be new kinds of alignments, more likely to be defined by economics and geography than by ideology. To be aligned is now a virtue, a sign of good leadership. Countries, especially small ones, can and should aim for multiple alignments of their interests. There is now no country in the world that can claim to be non-aligned, not even North Korea, which is in many ways a Chinese protectorate.

The oldest joke about NAM is that it was always aligned, and never a movement. But we’ve laughed at this anachronism long enough. The vast bureaucracy that supports the institution is a waste of manpower, and most members could use those resources more gainfully elsewhere. If there are issues that unite the member nations, these would be better pursued by forming a lobbying block within the UN.

As for the pious pablum that passes for the collective statement of resolve at the end of each summit, that too can just as easily be issued from the UN.

Let Margarita Island be the last exhibition of this nonsense. NAM is dead. Let’s have a moment’s silence, not for the useless institution but for the noble idea that died at its birth, and then move on.

(Bobby Ghosh is the editor-in-chief of Hindustan Times. He has spent over two decades covering international affairs, including long stints as correspondent and editor in the Middle East, Asia, Europe and the US. He tweets as @ghoshworld)

Source: Hindustan Times, 21-09-2016