Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s latest three-nation trip — to Brussels, America and Saudi Arabia — comes after a gap as he has absorbed mounting Indian public perception that domestic governance was being neglected due to copious foreign trips. The focus of global attention too has meanwhile shifted to new issues since Mr Modi’s term began in 2014.
The Brussels visit is primarily for the India-European Union (EU) summit which has been inordinately delayed due to Italian pressure to first resolve the trial of their sailors in India for the murder of Indian fishermen. It now has another dimension imparted by last week’s twin terror attacks in Brussels by Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
By going ahead with the visit, Mr Modi expresses solidarity with Europe and counters the message of hatred and sectarianism. The long negotiated free trade agreement with Europe may be near fruition but the Brexit debate in the UK, rise of the far Right parties in Europe and mounting xenophobia, besides the economic slowdown, will inhibit the evolution of trade and economic relations with the EU. During his visit to the UK in November 2015,
Mr Modi had unwisely inserted himself into the British debate on EU membership. He re-engages a paranoid and less tolerant Europe. The US visit is for the fourth Nuclear Security Summit on March 31-April 1, initiated by President Barack Obama in 2010 when he was still ambitiously planning to drastically cut nuclear arsenals globally, reduce the stock-piles of fissile material and enhance security of facilities handling them.
Since then Mr Obama was first distracted by the success of Arab Spring, the popular street movement that overthrew entrenched dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Then his government stood mute as the wave degenerated into deadly civil war in Syria, drawing Russia and Iran to support the Shia regime of Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad ruling over a Sunni majority population.
US intervention, when it came, was through surrogates aided by its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, leading to the disastrous rise in Syria and spread to Iraq of the malevolent new successor to Al Qaeda called ISIS/D’aesh. Direct US intervention created an alliance of nations to deploy air assets against ISIS. The net result has been a deluge of Syrian refugees into EU nations.
Maureen Dowd in the New York Times calls Mr Obama’s Cuban and Latin American sojourn his “Last Tango”, as he dislikes confronting or meaningfully engaging a Republican-dominated Congress, relishing undertaking what he can do alone. Nevertheless, US Presidents have been known to accomplish much in the foreign policy domain in their last year rid of the constraints of re-election.
The Washington summit is being held against the backdrop of highly partisan US presidential election debates. Republican front-runner Donald Trump undermined it by suggesting in an interview that Japan and Republic of Korea should consider acquiring nuclear weapons for self-defence as the US is over-stretched shielding them. In a similar vein he concluded that Saudi Arabia without US protection will cease to exist.
Thus, while the summit can review past promises by participants, Mr Obama as outgoing President wants it to define his legacy. Five main instruments for enhancing global nuclear security exist today, i.e. the United Nations, International Atomic Energy Agency, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT), Global Partnership, and the UN Security Council 1540 Committee.
On the positive side, highly enriched uranium, potentially weapons grade, was removed from 12 nations; 24 research reactors were either shut down or converted to low enriched uranium; and security was upgraded at 32 buildings handling or storing fissile material. Also, the Iran nuclear deal brings the Iranian programme under international supervision to ensure its civilian character.
However, the continued defiance by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the unbridled expansion of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, combined with rampant terrorism, raises the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Despite recent Chinese sanctions to bring DPRK to heel, strategic ambiguity in China-DPRK relations raises suspicions over Chinese motives. Similarly, US tolerance of Pakistani duplicity — presenting itself as a victim of terror and stabilising factor for Afghanistan while abetting terror selectively and multiplying its nuclear arsenal — is inexplicable.
Mr Modi’s visit to Saudi Arabia betrays ignorance of the ongoing Shia-Sunni contestation in the entire region to India’s west. India must maintain equidistance from the Gulf Cooperation Council members and Iran. Having hosted the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, contact with Iran should have preceded hugs with Saudis. Perhaps upcoming state elections again stymie a coherent policy towards the Islamic world. In any case, the state of play amongst the Saudi ruling family, with younger princes from one branch dominating governance, demands a cautious approach as internal tumult may yet follow if the oil price remains low and war in Yemen a stalemate.
Inevitably, the much smaller diaspora event in Brussels will hog the limelight. Terror attacks in Brussels and Lahore will cast a shadow on it, and would have over the likely Modi-Sharif meet too but for the fact that Mr Sharif has cancelled his trip to Washington. The UN is planning this year in September a high-level segment on the refugee crisis, preventive diplomacy and the Syrian imbroglio.
Mr Obama is also expected to host a special session on UN peacekeeping operations, which with a $9-billion-per-year budget, 110,000 deployed personnel and 16 ongoing operations, is one of the UN’s largest undertakings.
To figure as a global power Indian policy must gear itself to addressing global dilemmas. Hurtling from multilateral to bilateral meetings without a grand strategy, particularly if domestic politics are out of sync with external posturing, will enhance neither Indian prestige nor influence.
