Will Asia’s future be the same as Europe’s past? It was a question asked for decades, on the basis of which Asian politicians were asked to learn from the European catastrophe of a century ago. We can revive that thought today with the question, will the future of Asia be the same as the present of Europe? Recent events have brought questions of the changing world order and international security to the forefront of foreign policy debates.
At the heart of the European crisis is the pursuit of supremacy. We don’t need to tell full history here. It is a historical fact that the end of the Cold War did not greatly facilitate the participation of the other side in the post-war endowments and key institutions. In fact, the post-Cold War world order structure was one-sided and the core interests of the so-called ‘defeating power’ (Russia) were sidelined. This situation of advantage for one and loss for the other had been developing for three decades. The warning in this regard was not taken seriously before reaching an explosive state in February 2022.
What are the lessons for the Indo-Pacific today, the Indo-Pacific? The first lesson is the design of the security framework, and the underlying idea that the world cannot be monopolized by a single group of nations. The responsibility for creating a stable system lies in the combined efforts of the emerging powers and the established forces. This effort should be based on a balance of mutual interests. It is also important how efficiently all the different interests are stitched together. That’s why we have embassies abroad and armies of historians and strategists to help us understand when strategic rigor is wise, or when we have to stand firm to defend an idea or security commitment, Or when moving forward together would be the best option.
Unlike Europe, Asia’s security architecture is full of diversities, even including conflicting views, differing concepts and conflicting groups. That’s why we have traditional military alliances consisting of one leadership and multiple members, who have also accepted the loss of strategic autonomy in exchange for security guarantees and membership in close security groups or communities. We also have a flexible security understanding or partnership in which we are unable to force nations to break away from their earlier commitments. We do not find their military installations and security forces adapted to a particular group of information exchanges. We actually have neutral nations or groups that have tended to develop good relations with major competing forces and advance their foreign policies. And finally, we have a big country like India, which has been moving forward by following independent foreign and security policies. Due to its different policies, India is able to ensure bilateral and multilateral partnerships in many factions and institutions.
For decades, it was believed that in the absence of a European-style security system, Asia would lag behind. But now it seems that the diversity or complexity of Asia actually creates a system in which the countries of Asia are able to strike a valid, stable and active balance even among the big powers. Once we understand that the mutual economic dependence of so-called rival powers like US-China, China-EU will not end, then we know the way forward. It is certain that the natural relations built for decades in the Indo-Pacific region will continue and will continue to influence the economy and the destiny of the people. When we understand this world order of interconnectedness and most related, then the arguments in support of any possible system-building become more powerful.
Now let’s talk about India’s point of view. Some observers believe that the current events in Europe have greatly influenced India’s foreign policy. However, only those who agree with this conclusion view India’s role in Asia as a sentient country to the West. On the contrary, the current crisis has proved the fundamentals of India’s foreign policy quite right. One of these principles is the ability to partner with great powers and have a strong belief in oneself. Had India been more involved in the competition, both its capability and confidence could have been lost. Today a multipolar world accepts such an attitude or point of view as natural and prudent.
Today, India’s fundamental interest lies in striking a lasting balance in the ongoing war of supremacy in Asia. It is in our interest to strengthen relations with all the countries bordering China and make better communication with them. It is well for us to develop links with countries in continental Eurasia, the coastal countries of Southeast Asia and the countries of Russia’s eastern region, including the Arctic. Simultaneously, increasing the modernization and industrialization within the country; We will be further strengthened by investing in mixed economic and digital sectors. None of our important areas should be monopolized by any one national authority or private institution. Our strength lies in advocating a pluralistic system at the ideological and regulatory level. What is needed is a mechanism that acknowledges the diversity of the Indo-Pacific region.
Clearly, no such effort is seen in the Cold War or the ‘Great Game’ that divides the world into factions. In fact, this effort does not promote an Asia that will look like the Europe of yesterday or today.
(These are the author’s own views)