"India will not become a second China" - former NL ambassador to India
The Ambassador Series (1/4): India
In The Ambassador Series, Teer Strategy explores the future of the Netherlands in a rapidly changing geopolitical arena. The world is in flux. Small and mid-sized countries are challenged in this movement. I ask four former ambassadors posted respectively in New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Washington:
How can the Netherlands remain a prosperous country with an open society and democratic political system in the 21st century?
Fons Stoelinga (67)
Career
2019: Book publication: “India, land van de toekomst” (i.e. ‘India, land of the future’)
2012 – 2018: Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to India
2009 – 2012: Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Italy
1995 – 2000: Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to Mali
1979: Entry into the foreign service
In your book you write: ‘With the fall of communism a new political world order with the US as the only superpower, China as a quickly rising power and Russia as a disrupting factor rather than a direct threat came about.’ Now that in 2020 China has become the world’s definitive second power, President Trump openly doubts America’s security commitments to Europe and with an agitated Russia at the European Union’s borders, how should the Netherlands position itself?
I think that the two most important trends of the last five years are:
1 - Much earlier than anyone expected, China is projecting its power (economic, political, military) in an assertive (at times aggressive) way. It is one of the few mistakes the Chinese made, but a crucial one: before it would have been “too late”, they have now woken up the West (and part of “the Rest”).
China now competes with the West by proactively proposing its own model. It will be getting more difficult for the West to convince other countries of the supremacy of “our model”. Cambodia is an example of what that means for the process of democratization. The question is: is this the end of the spreading of democracy and freedom over the World? Is the “free world” under threat?
“China now competes with the West by proactively proposing its own model.”
2 - The first phase of globalization (1990-2015) has spread prosperity more evenly over the World. Since five years, the second phase of globalization is spreading also poverty more evenly over the World: Globalization phase-2 leads to a split in Western societies between the educated, who profit from globalization (because they are flexible) and the uneducated and undereducated, who are stuck in their job and country (because no flexibility for them). Trump and Brexit are the consequences of this division in society and Trump arrived at the scene the moment China started posturing. The political elite in the West does not have an answer yet, other than blaming Russian fake-news campaigns.
Considering these changes, what foreign policy should the Netherlands pursue?
The Netherlands is part of the EU, so our strategy, our actions will be in close coordination within the EU. If our free World is under threat, wouldn’t it be logical for Europe to engage with potential allies to defend that freedom?
“The EU and India are in the same boat: both will be soft powers. And the EU and India are part of the free World.”
Within another ten, fifteen years, there will be two hard power- super powers: the US and China, who will be economic superpowers with the military means to impose their “solutions”. Then there will be two soft power- super powers: the EU and India, which will also be economic superpowers. The EU has more or less chosen for the soft power scenario (by counting on the US for military protection), while India has not invested enough in its military capacity because of rampant corruption in the first decade of this century. So, the EU and India are in the same boat: both will be soft powers. And the EU and India are part of the free World. And the EU is India’s main source of foreign direct investment and trade.
In European and Dutch foreign policy circles, however, India does not feature heavily. What is the reason?
The EU doesn’t have India on its radar screens because the EU is busy with itself: Brexit and the undermining of the judiciary and press-freedom in Poland and Hungary. And busy with issues in its direct environment: North Africa (migration), the Middle East (migration and terrorism) and Russia which is perceived as the biggest threat. The Indians do not understand why the EU considers Russia the most important threat and isolates Russia to the degree that it will be driven into the embrace of China, which the Indians consider the biggest threat to freedom in the World.
“The Indians do not understand why the EU considers Russia as the most important threat and isolates Russia to the degree that it is driven into the embrace of China, which the Indians consider the biggest threat to freedom in the World.”
As far as India is concerned, they prefer to have relations with each of 27 EU-member states rather than with the EU itself. They consider the EU as a kind of UN, which continuously points out shortcomings in the Indian society and economy and does so from a moral high ground. As if the EU is above any criticism. And if India for once asks the EU a question, for example “what the EU thinks of India’s membership of the UN Security Council”, it gets five different answers.
What role can India play in strengthening the Netherlands’ position in this more uncertain world?
The US (already under Obama) considers India as having the critical mass for joining in creating a counterweight to China – to defend the free world. And India under Modi recognizes that only with the US they will be able to counterbalance Chinese pressure. But India does not want to alienate its traditional friend Russia, so good relations between the US and Russia under a Trump-2 government would be welcomed in New Delhi.
The EU is not part of these developments. For Europe there will be no other option than to continue the security arrangements with the US and at the same moment try to become more independent from the US. The only real change could come if the relationship between the EU and Russia changes radically (for the better).
You use phrases like ‘the free world’ and “the spread of democracy” that were especially in vogue during and directly after the Cold War. In Today’s geopolitical set-up, however, some advocate a less judgmental approach. That is, to accept autocracies as they are. Should Dutch foreign policy hang on to its idealistic aims?
Yes, but in a coalition with all the other free countries in the World like Japan, South Korea and India for example. The days are over that we can present “our western model” as the supreme model. We have undermined our standing in the World enormously by what happened in the last thirty years in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and the Middle East in general.
Should the Netherlands then prioritize its relationship with democratic states over authoritarian states?
Yes. If we could rate countries according to their democratic content, the Dutch would give themselves a 9.5 (on a ten-point scale), India a 7.5, Russia a 4.5, Saudi Arabia a 2 and China a 2. However, we do not treat these countries accordingly. We give the impression to (sometimes slightly) more democratic countries that it actually does not make a difference for us. So, India accuses the West of criticizing its society because towards India such criticism can be made. They know that towards China the West stays silent, because criticism has economic consequences. As for Russia, the West is overreacting, which is not in our long-term interests.
“Doing trade with China has been taking place in a mechanism that generates for China the financial means to govern the World.”
Does such an idealistic foreign policy not hurt the national interest?
Yes, but doing trade with China has been taking place in a mechanism that generates for China the financial means to govern the World. China moved itself into a position where it created every year huge surpluses in its business with the West. And China used these funds for strategic reasons, for example shoveling unsustainable debts on countries just to bail them out later at the expense of their sovereignty (e.g. Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Maldives and Pakistan). If this would continue, China would become unstoppable. The only way to prevent that is to take action on trade and services. If that is the reason behind the present US-government’s China trade policy, it would mean that they have understood that (but in any case, they do not follow it up in an effective way).
You write that ‘in the way that the Chinese nowadays use North-Korea to keep Japan and South Korea in check, they will use Pakistan to confine India.’ Can you give an example of that?
Correct. That is already happening. In the UN, China blocks initiatives to put Pakistan-based terrorist groups on the list of “UN declared terrorist organizations”. It is a card China uses against India. How can you protect foreign terrorists and put innocent Muslim Uyghurs in prison camps in fear for domestic terrorism?
You also say you suspect half a billion Indians live in poverty. Chinese officials would argue that their country better guarantees human rights because in China hundreds of millions more have risen from extreme poverty during the last decades. Do they have a point?
There is a hierarchy of human needs. Once the highest needs (concerning survival) have been satisfied the next echelon becomes crucial. Being able to feed your children (and yourself) is on the top of the list. Like having a roof above your head. Same with human rights: once people’s basic rights (access to food, health, education etc.) have been fulfilled, people want to have – and should have – the freedom to think, speak, the freedom of identity etc.
This plays out in India and China in opposite ways: China can be praised for having lifted so many people out of poverty and we should encourage China not to step back from – and not be afraid of – working towards democracy and freedom.
“In India, the country with the highest number of poor, poverty was not an issue in elections.”
In India, at independence, half of the population was poor (300 mln. people). Now still half is poor (but now that means: 600 mln. people). All those years the intellectual elite of the country, who like (most of) us thinks, reads and speaks politically correct, has neglected poverty. In the country with the highest number of poor, poverty was not an issue at elections. The hundreds of millions of extreme poor Indians gave Prime Minister Modi the biggest mandate possible (in the April 2019 elections). But the political correctness has gone out of the window.
But does India live up to these human rights such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’? In 2019 India fell ten places on the democracy index of The Economist Intelligence Unit. Observers lament rising Hindu nationalism and the new citizenship law Prime Minister Modi is pushing, which they say will take away citizenship from parts of India’s Muslim population. Is India not becoming more like China?
It is the hundreds of millions of extremely poor, who have given prime minister Modi his exceptionally strong mandate in the election of April 2019. So now that Modi so clearly became the Prime Minister of the poor instead of the PM of the Hindus, he had the opportunity to distance from fanatic Hindu extremists. But he did the opposite and introduced migration laws that discriminate against Muslim migrants.
“The bottom line: whatever we think of Modi’s Hindu nationalism, India – with its strong institutions – has the checks and balances to prevent a government to take disproportionate power.”
But India is a democracy and the people of India reacted. Since the national elections of April 2019, Modi’s party BJP lost all three state elections: in Maharashtra (pop. 115 million), Jharkhand (pop. 32 million) and Delhi (pop. 20 million). So, the bottom line: whatever we think of Modi’s Hindu nationalism, India – with its strong institutions – has the checks and balances to prevent a government from taking disproportionate power. India will not become a second China.
Will the COVID-19 crisis change the developments you laid out?
The image of China in the West has become more negative. But concerning all other countries, what happened fits the Chinese storyline that the West's model of considerable individual freedom is not successful in fighting climate change, pollution, COVID-19 and poverty. They cleverly turn the tables on us. And the World is watching.
You have decades of experience in the foreign service and saw the world change. What qualities does a Dutch diplomat in the 21st century require to successfully operate in the world?
The Embassy of the Netherlands in a country is the lobby-office of all Dutch interests (political, economic, cultural, societal, individuals) there. The Ambassador is not more (and not less) than the Chief Lobbyist. And the tool kit of every lobbyist is his or her network of contacts.
So, from the moment the Ambassador arrives, he or she should start to get to know all persons and institutions in that country who are, or who could ever become, relevant for Dutch interests. Once you have that network in place, there are no limits to what you can do.