The evolution of strategic perceptions between the United-States of America and the European Union regarding BRIC’s rising:

The Indian case

 

 

In the world, India is considered as an emerging country and in South Asia as a powerful regional country. To sum up, India seems to be a potential world power and this due to some attributes: India is one of the few nuclear powers in the world and one of the main rising economies with the second biggest world’s population after China. During the twenty-first century India will perhaps be the first populated country in the world due to its demographic growth.

Throughout the twentieth century, the list of the world's great powers was predictably short: the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and northwestern Europe. “The twenty-first century will be different. China and India are emerging as economic and political heavyweights: China holds over a trillion dollars in hard currency reserves, India's high-tech sector is growing by leaps and bounds, and both countries, already recognized nuclear powers, are developing blue-water navies”[1].

“Today, the distribution of power in the world is very different. According to Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, by 2010, the annual growth in combined national income from Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- the so-called BRIC countries -- will be greater than that from the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy combined; by 2025, it will be twice that of the G-7 (the group of highly industrialized countries)”[2].

The USA and EU have to cope with this new internatinal context.

On the one hand, this shift poses a new challenge to the USA. They have to cope with a new situation and new role player for the next century. After the end of the bipolar world and the fall of USSR in 1989-1991 and with the end of the USSR, emerged new regional challenges which lead to a multipolar world. India is one of them.  

And, on the other hand European Union throught the main European countries (Great Britain, France, and Germany) become, little-by-little, a role player in the international relations. For instance, on some matters such as trade or negotiation of international treaties, European countries are expressing themselves and acting through a common voice embodied by a single institution: the European Commission. 

From a realist perspective, State’s power is the referential in international relations. The rise of emerging countries induces changes. The US and the EU have to deal with those changes in the distribution of power. While the European Union is the result of an agglomeration of interests: constructivism.  

What are the differences between the USA’s and the Europe’s perceptions of the BRIC; in particular what are their perceptions of India’s increasing power?

How can we explain the differences visions of emerging country power?

 

 

 

I)              United States approach to India

 

Since 1990, the world situation is unipolar with the American hegemony. Due to its world position, the USA has a particular perception of BRIC’s rise. How do they consider the India’s rising power in South Asia? How has their perception evolved during the last two decades?

 

A)   1990 to 2001: India a competititor for United States

 

During the Cold War, India had good relations with the USSR. India was part of the non-alignment, with a planified economy. After the fall of USSR, India had to adapt its relations with the new powerful country - the United States. After the Cold War, the USA considered, India as a peer competitor, like China for several reasons.

Firstly, India is in favor of multilateralism for a multipolar world. India wants to be considered as a regional power in South Asia.    

“The first is that empowering countries on the rise means disempowering countries on the wane. Accordingly, some members of the European Union have been less than enthusiastic about aspects of the United States' strategy. To be sure, the EU has made its own bilateral accommodations and has been happy to cooperate with emerging countries in response to American unilateralism. But European states have been less willing to reduce their overrepresentation in multilateral institutions”[3].

This quotation illustrates the differences between the Eurpean Union and the United States strategy.

If we consider the realist international theory, the USA which is the hegemon, considers the other countries which revendicate regional influence as competitors. India is one of the countries that claim a multipolar world, against the “arrogant” USA.  

 

The second point, which lead the USA to consider India as a “peer competitor” is the relations between Indian and Pakistan during this 1990’s decade. Pakistan was the USA’s ally during the Cold War and developed nuclear weapons during the 1970’s. Since their independance in 1947 India and Pakistan have had difficult relations regarding the Kashmiri region. India as Pakistan’s enemy might threaten American interest. Indeed, Pakistan is an ally for the USA, thanks to american military bases in the country. “The United States has reached out to India as well. For most of the 1990s, the United States was primarily concerned with managing India's dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir and defusing potential nuclear crises even though Pakistan is a significant U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.”[4] 

 

As a consequence, the European Union and the United States made objections to India’s nuclear tests in 1998. India was considered as a pariah state. India did not respect International right, and did not participate t this international right. India never signed the non proliferation treaty. In 1998 India was disappointed by ccidental reactions. 

“New Delhi was frustrated by Washington's objections to its 1998 nuclear tests and grew tired of being viewed by Washington strictly through the prism of South Asian security”[5].

The USA considered India in terms of regional and worldwide security. During the nuclear tests made by India and Pakistan, regional peace was threatened by the eventuality of a nuclear attack. At the same time, as explained by the realist theory, the United States could not accept the risk of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation is a danger for the superpower. In that way, the USA had to intervene besides India to control their use of nuclear power. Nuclear proliferation gives the capacity to destabilize a region and more widely, the world. “And after India's May 1998 nuclear tests, then Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott engaged India's then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh, in 14 rounds of talks over two and a half years. Talbott's negotiations with Singh were Washington's first truly sustained strategic engagement with the Indian leadership”[6].  

 

As a result for the USA India was considered after the cold war as a “peer competitor”. The USA feared a potential regional power with the atomic weapon in the region that could threaten their ally Pakistan and contest American hegemony in the world through multipolar world revendications.

However this perception changed in 2001, consequently to the 9/11 attacks, making a new international deal. 

 

 

B)   2001 to 2008 : a partnership in order of the balance of power

 

After 9/11 attacks, USA’s perception changed. India and the USA were fighting the same threat: Islamic terrorism. The 13th December 2001, Indian parliament suffered a terrorist attack. Still India has to fight Islamist terrorism, as a consequence to its occupation of Kashmir. At the same time India and the USA defended the same democratic values.

This gave to the USA the opportunity to integrate India in the world system they build, on the war on terror.    

 

How can we explain such evolution regarding this evolution between the USA and India?

Constructivism theory can explain such evolution, it deals with the perception between actors. The constructivism theory can explain USA’s vision regarding India. Indeed, both cuntry can be considered getting the same identity, in that way they have the same interest. According to the constructivism theory countries identity is more important than interest. Countries need an identity before getting interests. India and the USA shared the same démocratic values, the same identity[7]. As a result, India and the USA have common interest especially regarding the war on terrorism. 

Also, accrding to the construtivism theory, perception between countries has an important impact; the USA changed their perception of India. India was considered as a competitor, but the USA changed their approach to India. As a result India became then an ally.

Giving the realist theory, the USA set the agenda and choose international rules. India decided to follow the American agenda, and, doing so, integrated the international system.  “Incorporating emerging powers while placating status quo states is no simple feat. But the task should appear less daunting when it is understood that success will benefit ascendant states as much as it will the United States. It will bring ascendant states recognition and legitimacy to match their new power. Granted, they will have to accept a multilateral order built on U.S. principles. But they -- especially China and India -- have grown phenomenally by doing just that. Now that they are concerned with sustaining their current high rates of economic growth, emerging powers share some interests with the United States on issues such as the security of energy supplies and the prevention of global pandemics”[8].

It is a mean for the superpower to keep the situation under control and especially to have a look on India’s actions.

By integrating India in the world system, the USA planned to establish a balance of power in South Asia based on the opposition between India and China. “The rise of a democratic and increasingly powerful India represents a singularly positive opportunity to advance our global interests. That is why building a close U.S.-India partnership should be one of the United States' highest priorities for the future. It is a unique opportunity with real promise for the global balance of power”[9]. This quotation is a relevant on the realist theory dominance in the USA. Their goal is the “balance of power” in South Asia. 

 

As a result, the new partnership between the USA and India increased their economic and strategic cooperation. In the 1970’, India did not sign the Non Proliferation Treaty, but has recently been known and recognised as a nuclear power. As a consequence, the American government accepted to improve the Indian civil nuclear program. “The U.S.-Indian relationship has warmed considerably over the past five years. In November 2006, the U.S. Department of Commerce arranged its largest-ever economic development mission to India, expanding the commercial dialogue between the two countries. Last year, they also concluded a bilateral agreement to cooperate on civilian nuclear energy -- a de facto recognition by the United States that India is a nuclear power. The agreement reinforces India's commitment to nonproliferation norms in its civilian nuclear program, but it keeps India's military program outside the orbit of inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Critics of the deal have warned that it threatens the NPT. But the Bush administration argues that India is emerging as a great power, the nuclear genie cannot be put back in the bottle, and because India is a democracy, the genie will do no harm. According to the 2006 National Security Strategy »[10].

As hegemon, the USA can act unilaterally way and decide which country to integrate in the international system. India is an instance, of the American policy regarding emerging countries after the Cold War.

 

 

 

II)            Relations between India and European Union

 

The European Union appears little-by-little as a new potential role player in the international relations. Since 1990’s the European Union got more importance with state representation. The European Union’s goal is to create a comon foreign policy for their members. Emerging countries in the 1990’s offered an opportunity to create a common foreign policy. India is one of those countries. India’s integration in the international system gave an opportunity to develop cooperation. Following the constructivism theory, the european countries needed to build the european identity before to defined the European interests.    

 

A)   Characteristic relations based on

 

According to the constructivism theory, the European Union before 2000’ decades did not have identity. The EU relations with India can illustrate the European indentity through democratic values shared and a tolerance culture due to their multiculturalism[11]. Constructivism theory explain why the European Union and India.

The most important aspect of UE/India relations is the strong economical link. The European Union is indeed the first investor in India. But there is no political link. On a commercial aspect or regarding developing cooperation, EU’s role cannot be ignored. However, the European identity needs to be defined for it to be able to be exported  [12].

 

The first Summit between the EU and India was held in Lisbon, Portugal on 28^th June 2000. The EU was represented by the Prime Minister of Portugal Antonio GUTERRES in his capacity as President of the European Council assisted by the Secretary General / High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier SOLANA, and the President of the European Commission Romano PRODI. India was represented by the then Prime Minister Atal Behari VAJPAYEE.

India and the European Union defend the same world vision - a multipolar world. “India and the EU believe that a multilateral approach, in which the UN plays a central role, is the best way to address global challenges such as development which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable; effective management of globalisation; terrorism; drug trafficking ; organised crime; natural disasters; pandemics; and energy security”[13].

Neither the EU nor India are world’s leaders, that is why they want to promote multilateralism in international relations[14].

 “We, based on the shared universal values of democracy and the respect for human rights, rule of law and fundamental freedoms, stress our commitment to promote socio-economic development and prosperity, as well as international peace, stability and security. We also derive strength from our traditions of diversity, plurality and tolerance. [...] They reaffirm their strong commitment to the settlement of disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with international law, bilateral agreements and the principles of the United Nations Charter. In this context, both sides agree to pursue regular contacts, within the framework of the political dialogue, to address security issues of common concern”[15].

This quotation illustrates the European Union’s action plan. It cannot use the military means. In that sens, Europe and India want to put emphasis on their peaceful stances. The American realist author Robert Kagan, explains the difference between the USA and the European Union by the lack of means on the European side. They are not able to act militarily[16]. The lack of a military force can explain the difference of politic between the USA and the EU.

 

B)   European Union and India cooperation

 

The liberalism is based on a same vision of the State’s interests, which tends to a harmonious distribution of power. One of the strongest liberals’ arguments lies in the democratic peace theory. The European actions are turned towards “cooperation”. For example, in the fields of economics, society, environment and academic. The Lisbon plan is an example of European political action, according to the liberalism theory:

“• Priority 1: Contributing to the elimination of poverty by helping communities at risk to

be better prepared for natural disasters. Action: EC-India Disaster Preparedness Support

Programme in India, € 10 million.

• Priority 2: Creating an enabling economic environment. Action: EC–India Trade and

Investment Development Programme, € 15 million.

• Priority 3: Supporting civil society. Action: EU-India Think-Tank Network, € 3 million.

The NIP 2004-2006 consists of:

• Priority 1: To assist India in eliminating poverty and building its ‘human capital’ Action:

‘State Partnership for Progress’, € 160 million.

• Priority 2: Facilitating academic exchanges. Action: EU-India Scholarship Programme, € 33 million”[17].

 

On a realist point of view, the European way of cooperation illustrates the fact that the European Union is not able use a hard power. Hanns Maull, considered that the European Union cannot be taken into account as a classic power. It exercises its power mostly through the representation of what European Union symbolises rather than what it does[18]. The European Union’s foreign policy regarding emerging countries is based on seducing using soft power[19] unlike the USA. 

The European Union Foreign policy is based on a liberalism way, because it cannot act following the realism theory. As a conclusion, the European action regarding India rise in international relations is a mix between constructivism and liberal theories.

 

 

Conclusion

 

USA and Europe faces the international relations evolution resulting from the USSR fall and emerging regional power countries. However, USA and Europe don’t act on a common way. They propose different kind of partnership to India, an emerging country. The European Union and the United States do not have the same way of thinking about the emerging countries. Means and position in the world can explain thse differences. India is not seen on a same way by the USA r European Union.

For the United States the goal is to convince them to get into the international system and be a balance of power against China’s rise. Whereas the European Union defends the international law and a peaceful world based on multipolar relations. That is due to the different position occupied by the United States and the European Union. The USA have to defend their hegemon, and a unipolar world, that is not the case of the European Union.

The reason is a difference of means; the USA can use “hard power” whereas Europe prefers “soft power”. The European Union is following the liberalism and the constructivism theory, whereas the USA are following a realist theory due to their position.

As a result, the USA want to integrate and control the rise of India, whereas the European Union wants to participate on common program. The European Union wants also to increase it economical relation with India.

In a short term, this partnership will be strengthened to the detriment of the EU/India cooperation. India is not yet strong enough to be able to go alone but can prepare itself behind the umbrella of US protection.

India has to choose its own way, and the partnership will show India’s world pretentions.

 

 

 

Par Ludovic Van Egroo

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Books and revue :

 

- « Théories des relations internationales », Dario Battistella, Presses de sciences po, 2003

- « Paix et guerre entre les nations », Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 1962.

- « Clash of civilization », de Samuel Huntington (1996).

- « La Puissance et la Faiblesse », de Robert Kagan (2003).

- « Choice », Zbigniew BRZEZINSKI (2002).

- « Stratégie de l’Inde pour le XXIe siècle » ; Olivier Guillard, Institut de Stratégie comparée, ed Economica, 2000.

- « Europe and the new balance of global order », H. W. Maull, International Affairs, n° 81, 4, 2005.

- « Inde, Chine à l’assaut du monde, Pascal Gauchon », Rapport Antheios 2006, Collection Major, ed 2006.

- « INDIA AND THE EUROPEAN UNION: THE CHARADE OF A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP », Christophe Jaffrelot, Director of CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS.

 

Web Site :

 

http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:NF7205944:EN:HTML : official documents from European commission.

http://www.ipcs.org/India.jsp : Institut of Peace and Conflict Studies. 

http://www.bridge-mag.com :

http://www.hcss.nl : the Hague Center for Strategic Studies.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/ : Globalization's New Logic: the Rise of Developing-World Multinationals, Simon Roughneen | 07 May 2008

http://www.foreignaffairs.org : foreign affairs’ newspaper.

http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/

 

 

Official documents :

 

- INDIA Country Strategy Paper, 2007 – 2013, from European Commission.

- EU-INDIA JOINT PRESS COMMUNIQUE, Marseille, 29 September 2008.

- Fifth India-EU Summit, The Hague, 8 November 2004, Joint Press Statement.

- « Le traité de lisbonne et l'action extérieure de l'union européenne », Federico Santopinto GRIP Groupe de Recherche et d’information sur la paix et la sécurité 2007/05.

- U.S.-India Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy October 2, 2008. http://www.state.gov/p/sca/ , USA departement of states website.

- Secretary's Travel to India, New Delhi, India, Secretary Rice (Oct. 4). http://www.state.gov/p/sca/ , USA departement of states website.