Talking in major global spaces

The 79^th session of the United Nations General Assembly began on September 10. As is usual, the General Debate began two week’s later on September 24 with the addresses of Brazil and thereafter the US President. Countries participate in the General Debate at either the highest political level or that of Foreign Ministers or other senior dignitaries. This was so on this occasion too. Prior to the General Debate, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres organized a two-day ‘Summit of the Future’ on September 22 and 23. Not surprisingly, Guterres suggested that this Summit should focus on the themes of climate change, sustainable development, peace and security and the digital divide among others.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi took part in the Summit but he left it to External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to make India’s statement in the General Debate. Jaishankar utilized his stay in New York also to have a number of bilateral meetings with his counterparts as well as participate in the G20 Foreign Minister’s meeting. He also addressed the Asia Society.

Modi and Jaishankar articulated India’s known positions during their New York stay. They stressed the need for the alignment of international governance structures with current geo-political and geo-economic realities. Modi emphasized that the contentious issues of the world, including those which have become violent, need to resolved through dialogue and discussions. In Modi’s words to the Summit of the Future: “Success of Humanity lies in our collective strength, not in the battlefield”. Modi also correctly spoke at the Summit of the need to bridge global divides for humanity’s future demands that all countries take a holistic approach based on the idea of “One World”. The fact is that these divides include that in the area of digital technology which is evolving at such a bewildering speed that unless corrective action is taken to bridge it a vast swathe of humanity will be left behind. That will only lead to despair and desperation among large sections of the Global South. It will also result in its further comparative impoverishment.

These can lead to breeding grounds of unrest and violence. Naturally, nothing can justify violence but the anger that exclusion breeds should never be ignored. It is this anger which the great poet Iqbal so eloquently expressed when he wrote “Jis khet se dehkan ko maiassar na ho rozi, us khet ke har khosha-e-gandum ko jala do”. Thus, Modi’s commitment “India will continue to work in thought, words and deeds to protect the rights of all humanity and for global prosperity” was timely. However, how many countries, especially those that are advanced, will be willing to follow India’s commitment? It also cannot be ignored that so long as there are nation states they will inevitably be governed by their national interests and these come in conflict with those of others. Often it is difficult to reconcile these conflicting interests.

Unlike in his UNGA address in 2022 Jaishankar wisely did not delve into the minefield of Indian history in his speech this year. He took a forward looking approach focusing on Indian achievements in the socio-economic field and on what needs to be done to make the world more equitable. At times he was combative in pointing out the inadequacies of the advanced world. As he put it “The UN is a testimony to the agreed principles and shared objectives of the world order. Respect for international law and commitments are among the foremost in that regard. If we are to ensure global security and stability, then it is essential that those who seek to lead, set the right example. Nor can we countenance egregious violations of our basic tenets”. The problem is that no major power is willing to “set the right example”. All talk about what needs to be done but the gap between that they preach and practice has always remained great and there is no likelihood that it will disappear.

UNGA statements in the General Debate are not only directed to the international community but also to domestic audiences. This means that if a country targets another, as on this occasion, Pakistan severely criticised India, the targeted country has no alternative but to respond. Jaishankar did so effectively and at length. He particularly and correctly pointed out that the national choices that Pakistan had made over the past decades had led it into a chasm of its own making. As he put it “the ills it sought to visit on others consume its own society”.

Jaishankar’s speech at the Asia Society was a sober analysis of the current state of the world. He said that it is undergoing ‘rebalancing’ and was becoming multipolar and plurilateral. There is nothing novel in these ideas for they represent the conventional thinking among international relations academics. It is entirely true that many centres of power are emerging and they have the capabilities to impact their immediate neighbourhood. At the same time the power differential between the two principal powers—the US and China—and the others is enormous. It is unlikely that other powers, including India, will be able to get close to the capabilities of these two countries in the near future. India is poised to become the 3^rd largest economy in the world by the end of this decade. However, at present the Chinese economy is five times larger than India’s. While India will reduce this differential in the years to come it may still remain substantial. This of course does not mean that China will be able to dictate terms to India because India has developed adequate strategic capabilities.