Non Alignment 2.0 vs Nonalignment Redux : Which view do you support

karthikP

First of all, I am back here after a long time. Great to see new active members having really fruitful discussion. Barring a few stray events, of course.

I am sure most of you would have read about Non-Alignment 2.0.

You must have also read about Non Alignment Redux, a US thinktank response to the former.

What are you views on it. I would especially request @valkyrie724 to post his opinion on it, since he often seems to post matters on Global Security and Foreign Policy.

The issue is of immense importance for GS Mains 2012 as well as Political Science Optional Subject

karthikP

For those who have not heard about either of the terms, I would implore you to read upon an article on Non Alignmnet Redux in the Hindu.

Indian Express also covered it on the same day. You must also read the Indian Express Article on the same.

valkyrie724

Welcome KarthikP...
Regarding that NAM2.0 it has made it amply clear to the world about our needs as a nation by taking into account present globalisation trend.
To me report appeared to take into account closer threats or challenges more rather than longer cherished chauvinistic goals of becoming superpower.

valkyrie724

Regarding redux that us think tank analysis report on nam2.0... It seems a bit critising India for not giving a due weightage to US and also Israel. Its their perspective... But one think is very clear that India has maintained a safe distance from US atleast in papers.
RONALD REGAN said it once "to become an enemy of US is dangerous but to be its friend is suicidal"...lol
so India seems to be justified to have a friendship with a distance.

valkyrie724

Certain grounds of discontent in Nam2.0 are as--
1. Non alingnment world still retained in strategic doctrine.
2. No special chapter on US and even on Israel.
3. Globalisation has been taken as opportunity to build defence and space capabilites. It has been taken as a window of opportunity which is sensitive eniugh to close with change in political climate.( additionally saying it opened for India with Kargil War and supplemented by 9/11)
4. India still going for strategic autonomy... Vehemently critisized by think tank because of rising chinese threat. India labelled impracticle on this.
5. Welfare state and democracy considered as strategic objective..welcomed by think.tank.

valkyrie724

I have tried to give max. Detail about it .. Further discussion is welcomed too.

karthikP

Thank you for the quick reply, @valkyrie724 .

Non Alignment 2.0 has been interpreted differently by different thinkers. In India it has been widely criticized.

NAM 2.0 today talks about being non-aligned again - this time the choice is between USA & China as opposed to NAM 1.0 which was between the West & the Soviet Block.

NAM 2.0 is no different from the already established foreign policy of India - align to none, and maintain sovereignty. A good analysis and a realist critique of the NAM 2.0 document is given here

Tellis has criticised NAm 2.0 as it re-iterates non-alignment. Quoted from hindu:-

The desired end is the same for all. Tellis contends that the original idea of nonalignment was about the “means” to get there by staying clear of both blocs. It was a method for the madness of the Cold War. Nonalignment 2.0, however, “conflates the ends and means” of nonalignment and resurrects the concept with “avoidance of sharp choices.” That in short means not choosing the U.S.

What NAM Redux wants is - Indian to choose to align. And since its a US centric view - the idea is to align with the US.

Note that word "report" in the entire article refers to NAM 2.0 report and not Tellis's Report.

Again, quoting from the Hindu :-

Ironically, even though the [NAM 2.0] report regards China as the greatest challenge for India and agrees there is a meeting of minds with the U.S. on this perception, it advises against a closer partnership with Washington. “By so doing, Nonalignment 2.0 fails to appreciate the central paradox of our times: Strategic autonomy is best achieved through a set of deep strategic partnerships among friends and allies,” Tellis concludes.

According to Tellis , India can’t afford “allying with none” given the differential of power with China and the report’s own analysis.

Tellis also warns about the Indian NAM 2.0 thinkers idea that US needs India more than India needs USA :-

it exaggerates India’s geopolitical importance and bargaining capacity. Tellis finds this “solipsism” dangerous because it presumes that the U.S. needs India more than India might in case of an eventuality vis-à-vis China. He finds it counterproductive because the smugness prevents genuine cooperation with the US.

Tellis is not wrong when he says that India has more in common with USA than it has common with China.

karthikP

Strategic texts from China as well as from India have often talked about keeping a distant strong friend to fend from the enemy in the neighbourhood.

This is because while USA has supported India on both UNSC issue & NSG issue, while China has almsot opposed India on both issues, not to metion the usual India China border issues.

Tellis concludes cleverly saying that -

Finally, the question is would India realise its power and potential when the U.S. is preeminent or another country? Washington is a cheerleader for a stronger India while China busily strings pearls around.

Thus asking India to lean to the USA, for that is in its best interest.

valkyrie724

Good explanation @kartikP..

Ziel

Tellis is not wrong when he says that India has more in common with USA than it has common with China.

if I've understood this correctly, we are closer to US than China, still we refuse to get 'aligned' with it as we advocate an 'independent' foreign policy?

because if we get aligned, we might have to take future decisions considering US' interests every time, which might encroach on our 'independence' ? say we want to enter into friendly relations with China.

@valkyrie724 your comments are also welcome Sir

valkyrie724

@khajoor.. Yes u r right
i have already mentioned about US through statement of Ronald Regan-- that it is dangerous to be enemy of United States and it is suicidal to be its friend.
And it is well accepted in the policy circles of India. Moreover we do have our policy of non alingngment to any block... This had been bed rock of our foundation itself.