IR BASICS

India’s Role in Global Affairs

India’s Foreign policy had to deal with two influential factors:-

(1)    To maintain a stable external environment for the country to continue the socio- economic. Uplift of its millions of people and to complete its nation- building tasks.

(2)    25 years of 6 % economic growth has developed capacity within the country to play a larger role on the world stage.

It filled well will the started objective of India’s FP for facilitating the deviate of unipolar world, away from the dominance of one or two countries.

It India was an observer country at the high table of G-8 Industrialized countries, in the changed new reality the G-8 itself has become ineffective. So with the birth of G-20 India has an expanded role to play.

As even the existing political institutions prove inept in managing the global transformation, there would be greater demands for change at institutions like the UN. India would have a prime place in lead role in that change.

India’s narrow pursuance of elitist (national Interest) has made it a camp follower of the USA and the west, the primary practitioners of politico- military power at the world stage. As just another member in the band wagon, its foreign policy is not being able to garner enough traction that could contribute to accretion of its national power.

IR BASICS AND TERMINOLOGY

International relations (IR) (occasionally referred to as international studies (IS), although the two terms are not perfectly synonymous) is the study of relationships between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), international nongovernmental organizations(INGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). It is both an academic and public policy field, and can be either positive ornormative as it both seeks to analyze as well as formulate the foreign policy of particular states. It is often considered a branch of political science (especially after 1988 UNESCO nomenclature), but an important sector of academiaprefer to treat it as an interdisciplinary field of study. Apart from political science, IR draws upon such diverse fields as economics, history, international law, philosophy, geography, social work, sociology, anthropology, criminology, psychology, gender studies, and cultural studies /culturology. It involves a diverse range of issues including but not limited to: globalization, state sovereignty, international security, ecological sustainability, nuclear proliferation, nationalism, economic development, global finance,terrorism, organized crime, human security, foreign interventionism and human rights

Geopolitics, from, refers broadly to the relationship between politics and territory whether on local or international scale. It comprises the practice of analysing, proscribing, forecasting, and the using of political power over a given territory. Specifically, it is a method of foreign policy analysis, which seeks to understand, explain and predict international political behaviour primarily in terms of geographical variables.

One region that most would agree clearly exhibits geopolitical tensions is Central Asia, though one could find wildly different reasoning behind such a claim. Some might argue, as Rudolph Kjellén would, that Russia and China are expanding into the region and attempting to absorb weaker states like a biological organism. Followers of Halford Mackinder would see continued competition over part of the Heartland. Henry Kissinger defined geopolitics as an approach that focused on finding equilibrium: Russia, China, India and the United States must therefore be acting to balance each other in the region. Thomas P.M Barnett recently drew the ‘Pentagon’s New Map’ of strategic interests, what the US has called “the arc of instability”: Central Asia features prominently. Finally, Colin Gray takes the broadest view by claiming that all politics is in fact geopolitics because politics always occurs within a particular geographical context.

Geostrategy: Geostrategy, a subfield of geopolitics, is a type of foreign policy guided principally by geographical factors as they inform, constrain, or affect political and military planning.

The term "geo-strategy" was first used by Frederick L. Schuman in his 1942 article "Let Us Learn Our Geopolitics." [T]he words geopolitical, strategic, and geostrategic are used to convey the following meanings: geopolitical reflects the combination of geographic and political factors determining the condition of a state or region, and emphasizing the impact of geography on politics; strategic refers to the comprehensive and planned application of measures to achieve a central goal or to vital assets of military significance; and geostrategic merges strategic consideration with geopolitical ones." It is recognized that the term 'geo-strategy' is more often used, in current writing, in a global context, denoting the consideration of global land-sea distribution, distances, and accessibility among other geographical factors in strategic planning and action..

Polarity refers to the distribution of power in the international community. A unipolar world has one hegemonic (dominating) state that holds a significant amount of power economically, militarily and politically. A bipolar world occurs when two states hold such dominating power which inevitably results in confrontation between the two parties (ex. Cold War). A multipolar world occurs when there are multiple states dominating and cooperating on the international stage.

Nonpolarity is an international system with numerous centers of power but no center dominates any other centre. Centers of power can be nation-states, corporations, non-governmental organizations, terrorist groups, and such. Power is found in many hands and many places.

At the core of the balance of power theory is the idea that national security is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed so that no one state is strong enough to dominate all others.^[1] If one state gains inordinate power, the theory predicts that it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors thereby providing an incentive for those threatened to unite in a defensive coalition.

During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and NATO, and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. These creations in particular and liberal internationalism in general, however, would always be criticized and opposed by American ultraconservative business nationalists from the 1930s on. In his 11 September 1990 Toward a New World Order speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, President George H. W. Bush described his objectives for post-Cold-War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states:

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

SOFT POWER AND HARD POWER:-In order to understand and contextualize recent developments, it may be useful to highlight some of the important differences between hard andsoft power. In terms of international policy instruments, the former is associated principally with the armed forces, and the latter with diplomacy, specifically public diplomacy.

When the two are compared, the constraints on their effective combination may become clearer. Here are some of the basic distinctions:

Definitions: Hard power is about compelling your adversary to comply with your will through the threat or use of force. Soft power is about attracting your partner to share your goals through dialogue and exchange.

Objectives: Hard power seeks to kill, capture, or defeat an enemy. Soft power seeks to influence through understanding and the identification of common ground.

Diplomacy: The term "diplomacy" refers to the interaction between nation-states. Traditionally, diplomacy was carried out by government officials--diplomats--who negotiated treaties, trade policies, and other international agreements. 

Nine Tracks of Diplomacy in logo

The nine tracks of diplomacy as mentioned on "Multi-Track Diplomacy, A Systems Approach to Peace" are:

§  Track 1 – Government

§  Track 2 – Nongovernment/Professional

§  Track 3 – Business, or Peacemaking through Commerce.

§  Track 4 – Private Citizen, or Peacemaking through Personal Involvement.

§  Track 5 – Research, Training, and Education

§  Track 6 – Activism, or Peacemaking through Advocacy

§  Track 7 – Religion, or Peacemaking through Faith in action.

§  Track 8 – Funding, or Peacemaking through Providing Resources.

§  Track 9 – Communications and the Media, or Peacemaking through Information

Check book diplomacy, or chequebook diplomacy, is used to describe international policy openly using economic aid and investment between countries to carry diplomatic favor.

Australian think-tank the Lowy Institute estimated last year that China had pledged more than US$600 million since 2005 in "soft loans" offering long interest-free periods to nations such as Tonga, Samoa and the Cook Islands. China's interest in the Pacific stems mainly from a race for diplomatic influence with Taiwan, which Beijing still regards as part of its territory although the two sides split at the end of a civil war in 1949.

Back channel diplomacy (BCD) refers to official negotiations conducted in secret among the parties to a dispute or even between a party and a third party intervenor, which complement front channels, and are potentially at variance with declared policies. Aspects of secrecy in negotiation have been the subject of descriptive and prescriptive literature. Research specifically focused on the strategic interaction of multiple channels of international negotiation—front and back channels—did not exist.

But, in the contemporary world, civil society activists, academics, politicians, corporate business representatives and persons well versed in the conduct of international relations play an increasingly important role in influencing and moulding the foreign and security policies of nations. In the present day, therefore, contacts between designated Government representatives are very often complemented by inputs resulting from meetings between non-official representatives of countries. On many occasions, when Governments wish to avoid publicity, or seek to informally ascertain the positions of others, before entering into the realm of official and formal talks, they utilize informal channels, using trusted and reliable individuals and institutions for planning out their negotiating strategies. Equally, when civil society institutions feel adequately concerned about situations getting out of hand, they take the initiative for contacting counterparts abroad, to ascertain whether they can contribute to easing tensions, or promoting cooperation. Such moves are the basis for what is now popularly known as Track 2 Diplomacy.Track 2 Diplomacy has an invaluable role to play when traditional instruments of negotiation, mediation and conflict management become ineffective and need to be supplemented. 

 Economic diplomacy is the art of serving economic security and strategic interests of the country by the use of economic instrument in conduct of State to State relations.  There is nothing new or unethical about it.  Politics no longer drives economics. Economics must drive politics. Economic considerations must remain in the forefront of efforts to achieve foreign policy goals.  Some of the basic objectives of economic diplomacy in brief are – promotion of trade and investment, achieve objectives in multilateral trade negotiations, energy security and realization of political objectives through economic action.  Some selected tasks for the practitioners of economic diplomacy could be:

·          Influence economic and commercial policies of the host-country to make them most conducive for the country’s national interests which include those of business and other stakeholders.

·         Work with rule-making international bodies for shaping their decisions in the interest of the diplomat’s own country.

·         Forestall potential conflicts with foreign governments, economic actors and NGOs so that risks of doing business etc. are minimized.

·         Use multiple fora and media to enhance and safeguard the image, capability, reputation and credibility of their own country and enterprises.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropoleclaims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous population.

NeoColonialism  the economic and political policies by which a great power indirectly maintains or extends its influence over other areas or people.

Difference Between Colonialism and Imperialism

Though both the words underline suppression of the other, Colonialism is where one nation assumes control over the other and Imperialism refers to political or economic control, either formally or informally. In simple words, colonialism can be thought to be a practice and imperialism as the idea driving. Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over other regions. It means exploiting the resources of the conquered country for the benefit of the conqueror. Imperialism means creating an empire, expanding into the neighbouring regions and expanding its dominance far.

Confidence building measures (CBMs) or confidence and security building measures are actions taken to reduce fear of attack by both (or more) parties in a situation of tension with or without physical conflict. The term is most often used in the context of international politics, but is similar in logic to that of trust and interpersonal communication used to reduce conflictual situations among human individuals. CBMs emerged from attempts by the Cold Warsuperpowers and their military alliances (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Warsaw Pact) to avoid nuclear war by accident or miscalculation. However, CBMs also exist at other levels of conflict situations, and in different regions of the world although they might not have been called CBMs.  confidence-building measures can be crucial tools in preventive diplomacy.

Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur