Posts by GeetaMadhavan:

Retaining India’s strategic autonomy

September 9th, 2015

 

By Dr Getta Madhavan.

 



There is a constant attempt by Western, especially American, strategic analysts and think tanks to disentangle the seemingly complex threads of India’s foreign policy. The political establishments of the United States and other major Western powers have lately shifted their policies vis-a-vis India in an endeavour to draw India closer to them as part of their ongoing attempt to re-align the balance in South and South East Asia. This part of their strategy developed since the emergence of China as a formidable  Asian economic superpower.

They have developed deep concerns over China providing military and other infrastructural assistance to the smaller nations in this region and thereby exerting its influence over them. Therefore ,  India is seen as perhaps the only nation that can in reality “stand up” to China and it is in this context that they have formulated and devised agreements signifying  partnership with India.

This does not mean that India is in any way an economic or military equal to China but India is seen by them  as capable of counteracting China’s policy of  wooing  the smaller nations and creating a band of allies to secure and sustain  Chinese supremacy in the region. The Chinese “One Belt One Road “ initiative that focuses on connectivity over sea and land ensures a bigger role for China in international affairs and this too  has posed a major challenge for Western power balance and  trade.

Therefore, there is an effort to prod India to be a more assertive player in the region. However, India’s foreign policy is not to be directed by the vested interests of others and it is in this frame that India retains its strategic autonomy much to the chagrin of these powers.

Although China has on several occasions acted in manner that has raised India’s concerns, these actions have not been construed as posing imminent danger to India. Besides, India has been perceptive in identifying that while there are areas in which there may be divergent interests and even conflicting views like border issues, autonomy of Tibet and several other matters related to trade, demographic profiling  and river-water sharing, there are also areas where Chinese and Indian perceptions definitely converge.

Economic cooperation between India and China will set off a new momentum in the region, a momentum that could be discomfiting to other powers outside the region. While China views the US as an extra regional power jostling for continual supremacy in the Indian Ocean, India views both the United State and China as participants in India’s economic future.

Therefore, maintaining strategic autonomy is imperative for India to ensure it is not subject to any initiative or action that is detrimental to India’s self interest. For instance, in the Indian Ocean region, India has shown great restraint in not allowing extra regional powers to dictate its initiatives and actions. India is not party to the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) , a political commitment between nations spearheaded by the United States  that gives powers upon receiving “reliable”  intelligence to board ships, inspect  and seize on the high seas. India has been critical of such “Initiatives” the lie outside the purview of the United Nations and  is  a violation of the freedom of the high seas.

Respecting the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity is apparent in India’s policy  in the region : whether it is supporting the right of a change of leadership by the people of Sri Lanka, the decision to desist to interfere in the long and painful transition of the political establishment in Nepal, the rejection of military intervention in Maldives – India has respected the need for the people of these countries to choose their own leaders.

Foreign policy has been directed in a manner in which India is seen as neither a threatening hegemonic regional power by its smaller neighbours nor as a weak power that is reluctant to lead.  Often this has lead to criticism from within India and outside,  and seen as India’s reluctance to exploit the situation, to support leaders who seem favourable to India or to play an active role in regime change. Some writers   cite China as a clever opportunist which rushes into the vacuum created in countries in turmoil-  as in an unsettled Afghanistan and Nepal and criticise India for being slow to seize opportunities to its advantage.

International law principles to which India consistently adheres do not support interference in the internal affairs of nations. Besides, innumerable interferences by major powers masquerading in the guise of humanitarian interventions have led to global disquietude and human suffering rather  than alleviated the miseries  they set out to mitigate.

It is in this context that India prefers, when called upon, to offer logistic help and aid in building infrastructures by which strife ridden countries can reconstruct their economies rather than reestablish and rebuild by direct political interferences.  Obviously this does not suit those powers who want India to be their lynchpin of their South Asian policies and who seek to conduct the containment of Chinese expansion into global trade through India. Were India and China to form strong economic alliances it would send   the western dominated markets into a spin.

It is a pity that some members of the strategic community of India now propogate  a view that the citizens should play a greater role in formulating foreign policies. Nothing could be more dangerous than that for a nation as diverse as India. Undoubtedly,  the needs and expectations of the citizens are  responsible for domestic policies and they are major participants in the decisions that affects every facet of their daily lives. Formulation of  foreign policies, however, should not become matters of public debate as other primal and parochial considerations will affect the outcome.

A sovereign nation’s acts of comity with other nations are based on national interest and cordial relations are sustained by an understanding between them to create a climate  where they can exist peacefully. An asymmetrical situation can lead to rancour among nations and this especially true of India which is surrounded by several geographically smaller nations that are economically dependent on India. There are many levels of interactions in diplomacy and when devising a foreign policy with its neighbours big and small , India has been sensitive to issues relating to water sharing, energy requirements, climate change and numerous other factors.

To open these issues for public debate will not work in India’s interest because national interest will be held hostage to self interest of the states within India. Foreign policy is not always about domination and posturing, about deciding what is good for the other country driven by self aggrandizement. Foreign policy is the art of balancing the absolute interests of one’s own country with friendliness, comity and goodwill towards neighbouring countries.

India’s foreign policy should never be driven by internal considerations alone nor dominated by external influences. Strategic autonomy, as practiced by India, is what will always keep it in an assertive  position without pushing it into a situation of becoming merely a loyal vassal to any other major western power.

Comments Off on Retaining India’s strategic autonomy

Time to Reinforce Sovereignty

August 16th, 2015

 

By Dr. Geeta Madhavan.

 

 



Ever since the term global village became fashionable and the idea of a shrinking world became universally accepted as a positive move, the concept of sovereignty has been considered as outdated and archaic. Subsequent to  the two devastating  World Wars   the United Nations Organization  was established to uphold the  common goals  of humanity and to ensure that all nations would act in the best interest of all mankind and have common purposes in matters affecting global issues .

Therefore ,those who considered the element of  sovereignty as essential for the creation ,existence and identification  of nations were often questioned for upholding the theory and criticized for being antiquated in a world that was promoting  and celebrating multilateralism.  Nations which had thus far acted independently for their self-gain seemed to agree to act in concerted moves to promote multilateralism.

Following the two devastating World Wars, nations sought to come together to build a safe world ensuring  peace and security for all mankind. The outcome of this excitement was that countries and their leaders began to believe that for the general wellbeing of all people , nations should no longer think solely in terms of national issues and that global concerns should be paramount in framing national policies.

Elated analysts regarded these actions as the end of the narrow reading of the principle of sovereignty as recognized by international law.  The world, it seemed, had moved beyond national self- interest and finally recognized  inter- dependence for existence, even when these other countries lay beyond their regions and were not in geographical proximity to each other.

The concept of sovereignty, however, is the essence of the existence of nations. Sovereignty is the ultimate power, authority and jurisdiction of the ruling entity over a territory and its people. The ruling authority may be created or may exist in diverse forms as monarchy, autocracy, democracy or any other form. A sovereign authority is recognized as the power which can administer its own territory and create laws without external influence subject  to equity and justice and with regard to the established principles of international law.

In that sense, it means that no foreign power has any authority within the territorial limits of a country or upon its citizens within that territory.   It is based on the simple theory that nations  have a right to rule their territory and a duty to protect their territorial integrity and ensure the safety and security their  citizens and within that reasonable power, can do all such actions as required to ensure it.

Along with these powers international law  placed upon nations the responsibility to ensure that no such actions take place within their territory that cause damage to others. The power is further restricted by those principles that recognize and govern those areas regarded as “common heritage of all mankind” e.g. the high seas.

The backlash for the erosion of the unassailable doctrine of sovereignty is evident now, though many still do not accept the absolute need to maintain the principle in international relations. It  is impossible to reject   the need to restrict the immunity of the State authorities in all actions, especially in issues that deal directly with basic civil, political and human rights.

However, the interference of strong global powers in the guise of supporting self determination and freedom in the internal affairs of less strong and strife-torn nations can hardly be accepted as acting for global good. The unilateralism of the two super powers with least regard to the cultural , ethnic and religious diversity of the nations facing internal strife and conflict has led to the situation the world is in today. While countries tried to grapple with extremism and violence political, ethnic or religious; the operations conducted by these powers have exacerbated the conflicts as is apparent around the world today.

Although the operations have been termed as humanitarian interventions and securing freedom for those suffering under repressing regimes and have also  been explained as curtailing impunity of the state, it is rather clear  that these actions have invariably  resulted in  a vacuum into which non state actors like terrorist and extremists have comfortably settled in. Afghanistan, Iraq , Ukraine are  countries that are disarray  and while the world has tired itself out with their problems , for the people  of these countries the terrible sense of hopelessness persist albeit in another form.

Therefore, relegating the principles of national sovereignty to multilateralism and consigning it to textbooks of international law has proved to be a threat to the existence of less powerful and smaller nations. Global strategies have shown that the autonomy assured to every country under the principle of territorial sovereignty have been consistently eroded by hegemonic powers.  These powers have over a period of time used the diluted sovereignty concept to serve selfish interests. Therefore, it has been made easier for the US, Russia and others to act either unilaterally (or with allies cobbled together) to justify their incursion into the territory of other nations.

Developed countries have also used the whittling down of the principle of sovereignty   to extend their influence and increase their hold on global economics and trade to benefit themselves and their allies. They did this by the creation of international institutions that had at their inception apparent laudable principles but in reality were skewed in favour of the technologically advanced and economically strong nations.

Thus emerged world financial institutions and global trade organizations that have ensured markets for the advanced nations but have left the newly emerging economies of Asia and the resourcefully rich but ravaged post colonial African countries in a defensive economic position. With state sovereignty on the wane and the ability to create regulations within its territory curtailed by global economic issues, it would seem that   multinational corporations have emerged as the new policy makers.

In the new era   global strategies policies and foreign relations of nations are, therefore, driven not by sovereign authorities acting in national interests but by trade linked priorities of major state-owned or private corporations.

Every country has not only an interest in the use of all natural  resources  but also has an obligation in its rightful exploitation .Environmental concerns and ecological interdependency are real but the manner in which nation chooses to  deal with the resources within its territory cannot be dictated by other powers.

International law in its general principles and various cases brought by nations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has   reiterated that no nation can allow such action takes place within their territory that causes damage to others. The power is further restricted by those principles that recognize and govern those areas regarded as “common heritage of all mankind” e.g. the high seas and outer space. Most nations are parties to agreements that ensure sustainability of the environment and even non-signatories are bound by obligations under international law.

Sovereignty, the ability of nations to rule themselves should be reinforced.  To resolve several of the issues that concern nations today dealing with problems of internal strife and conflicts or with failing economies, these  countries should be allowed to act with autonomy restricted only by obligations recognized by international law;  and not by the imposition by other countries of what they deem as good for that country.

 

 

 

Comments Off on Time to Reinforce Sovereignty

Debate on Death Penalty

August 4th, 2015

 

By  Dr Geeta Madhavan.

 

 

Every hanging opens up a huge public debate on abolishing or retaining capital punishment in India.  It throws up a plethora of reasons for the imposition of death penalty as well as for its continued existence or for its abolition… There are three schools of thought on this subject: those who vociferously support it; those who virulently oppose it and those who are ambivalent and choose one side or the other depending on whether they consider it punishment enough or not – depending on how heinous the crime seems to them.

A reading of Oscar Wilde’s Ballad of Reading Gaol or watching a cleverly edited news channel documentary on Death Row prisoners can highlight the despair of the condemned persons and stir up further deliberations on capital punishment. Its  often reflections  about the particular condemned  individual  which  starts the debate and most of the rhetoric whether from the political establishment or the media confuses the average citizen about  whether that person should be hanged  or not.

Various elements influence the debate which are not consistent with the actual reasons and are based on extraneous factors.  Unfortunately, most of the debate is also emotional and is rarely based on whether the imposition of the death penalty should be an act of judicial responsibility which is subsequently fulfilled by the State. While many Western countries have legally abolished capital punishment, there are also many countries where capital punishment exists in their legal procedural codes but they have not meted out capital punishment for a long time. In practice, therefore it is considered to have been abolished.

The creation of the entity of the State had at its primary role the protection of its citizens.  It was created with the primal need for the people to be subjects of a sovereign power whose duty it was to protect the people and ensure their well being. Thus it became incumbent upon a State to create a system of acceptable behaviour that later became rules and were codified by the State as laws.  These not only dealt with how a citizen of that State should conduct himself but also how a State is bound to conduct itself for the benefit of its citizens.

Statehood, therefore, does not inhibit itself to mere governance but stretches itself into protection of all the people who live within its territorial limit. It also has a responsibility towards its own people beyond its geographical territorial limits. The State is thus vested with the right to take the life of such people who threaten its existence, threaten peace and threaten the safety and security of its people.

Thus a State is permitted to kill people, creating under its law the enforcement machinery for this purpose in the form of military, Para-military, police and such other forces with specific powers in specific instances tasked to take life. It is in this same manner that a State creates the right to inflict capital punishment.

In its duty to protect its citizens, a State can by due process of law require to take the life of those it deems as an existing threat or a possible future threat. However, this is not an unlimited power to be used at will. Thus it makes capital punishment not only acceptable but also a necessary duty imposed upon a State as part of its obligations for proper governance.

The argument for the pursuance of capital punishment is perfect if such argument is based on the basis of a just and fair judicial system bereft of human frailties. In reality, however, the studies have shown that it is the marginalized, the discriminated against and the vulnerable who end up on death row more often than those with recourse to knowledge of law and its nuances.

In an ideal situation where the State, the judicial process and the enforcement authorities are not dogged by human fallibility based on prejudices and pre conceived notions, a fair system for justice can exist. Enough studies have been done worldwide to show mismanagement of justice and the miscarriage of justice based on gender, social and racial discriminations.

The other argument is that a State is not a sanctified entity; it is made up of people who govern and are governed.  Private and social prejudices often play a role in societies. In most countries a person brought before law who cannot afford a legal counsel is provided one by the State so that the accused has all means to defend him.

In reality, however, the legal incompetence or disinterest of the court appointed legal officers works against the interests of the accused. In India in most cases, the free legal aid system is not adept and efficient to the extent it should be, to protect the interests of the accused. It is therefore rather difficult, despite a robust and largely impartial judiciary in India, to categorically reach the conclusion that there is no miscarriage of justice. However, these by themselves cannot be reason enough to abolish capital punishment in its entirety but should be reasons to strengthen the judicial system and to assuage the fear that a State will not be impose capital punishment arbitrarily.

A State is bound by duty to ensure the protection of all lives and not just the life of a single individual. Retributive justice is an essential component of the Statehood .Often a weak argument is placed that crime does not stop because of the existence of laws that prescribe punishment. One cannot even begin to imagine the crimes that will be committed in the absence of laws!  Just as the laws that prescribe punishment for crimes deter potential criminals, capital punishment deters those who will act with impunity if capital punishment does not exist.

Those who argue that retributive justice does not act as a deterrent fail to accept that the fear of death upon conviction does indeed deter potential offenders against violence directed towards the State and its people. It is not argued that capital punishment ought to be used at all times but when all the appeals  provided for  clemency have been rejected  because of the nature of the crime , capital punishment cannot be termed unnatural, unnecessary or  barbaric .  All human beings do not adhere to natural justice or to the higher principles of good and evil.  It becomes mandatory for a Sate to impose punishment on those who violate norms and disregard the sanctity of all human life.

In the argument for abolition of capital punishment it is important to remember that clemency is the prerogative of the State. It is not an unassailable right of the accused to demand compassion.  In cases where high treason has been committed against the State and in “rarest of the rarest “cases capital punishment has been justified.  The Supreme Court of India has been extremely clear that exceptional circumstances demand capital punishment. It is rather strange then to note that jurists, social activists and other prominent persons seem appalled when capital punishment is ordered and when clemency petitions are rejected by the judiciary and the executive.

No State can and should tolerate treason, subversion, sedition or any such act that threatens security or the territorial integrity of the State . No such act should go unpunished by which the lives of its people are endangered and concerted attack against the lives of the citizens cannot go unpunished. A State is deemed weak if it cannot protect its people and if it cannot protect them from internal enemies, there is scant hope that it will be able to use hard power in the case of a military attack upon it.

Originally published: http://geetamadhavanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.in/

Comments Off on Debate on Death Penalty