Raisina Chronicles: India’s Global Public Square
S.Jaishankar | Samir Saran
The Raisina Dialogue has become a feature today in the calendars of leaders around the world. It is a must-attend for all who seek to move the needle, disrupt the status quo, defend their beliefs, and create what shall be. India’s flagship conference on geopolitics and geo-economics enters its 10th year. In that time, it has emerged as a global, inclusive, and wide-band forum of international importance, transcending borders and ideologies, ages and agendas, hashtags and echo chambers. It is India’s ‘global public square’—located in New Delhi, incubated by the world. Its purpose is to preserve and promote the often-challenged art of dialogue and of working through differences. In keeping with Indian Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi’s vision of delivering public goods for the benefit of all humanity, it is indeed a platform that serves this planet.
Raisina has been crucial in propelling discourse, nurturing collaboration, and fostering a sense of shared responsibility. It is a venue for celebrating diversity in all its shapes and forms: of thought, of approaches, of beliefs, of politics. It has captured the age-old Indian premise that within us all lies a desire and power to do good. Each view must be heard, and each suggestion must be considered. Pluralism, confabulation and heterogeneity is what makes us resilient and anti-fragile; and what drives the evolution of individuals and of societies. This is India’s own story as well; an enormous diversity that rests on a powerful timeless unity. or this reason, Raisina provides a rare opportunity for leaders and diplomats, scholars and policymakers, journalists and academics, teenagers and seasoned thinkers, business folks and civil society—to all come together to debate, deliberate, disagree, and discover shared futures and common pathways.
Pluralism, confabulation and heterogeneity is what makes us resilient and anti-fragile; and what drives the evolution of individuals and of societies.
On this occasion, we celebrate the Raisina Decade: a period during which the Dialogue has helped build regional partnerships and transcontinental collaborations, while responding to global challenges. For three days every year, it has brought a fractured and polarised world together. This volume chronicles this journey, and reflects on its unique strengths and attributes. And this is best done by bringing together how it is perceived by eminent participants from different parts of the world. These are the thoughts of those who have themselves experienced Raisina and have contributed ideas, who have listened and spoken there and who appreciate the difference it has made.
The Making of Raisina
The imperative of dialogue in polarised times is self-evident. And it has gained salience precisely because the promise of globalisation has been visibly broken. Most have lost faith in the once-inviting prospect of a world where different customs and cultures are welcomed, where different perspectives are appreciated, and where different interests are accepted. This came about because a few were able to ultimately control the process of globalisation at the expense of the many. Global realities were recast in the image of these narrow circles, to suit their interests and needs. What was meant to usher in a brave new world—more diverse and inclusive than the one before—became instead an instrument for manufacturing consent. This has prompted multiple pushbacks. Some intellectual and others political. Its cumulative result is apparent to all today when we see how the global landscape has fragmented.
The flipside of the predicament is the extraordinary concentrations of manufacturing technology and capabilities that emerged to partner these interests. With the passage of time, every aspect of this new dominance is being leveraged. So, it should not come as a surprise that global conversations have also felt its impact. Hierarchies and architectures that had receded with history have resurfaced. And along with them, a different form of discourse and messaging.
The guardians of the international order and the established multilateral frameworks repeat outdated mantras that lack credibility.
The influence on mindsets has also been profound. Anxieties about quality of life and reliability of supply chains have made many societies looking inward. Domestic priorities understandably prevail over international cooperation; individual interests supersede collective endeavours. Meanwhile, the guardians of the international order and the established multilateral frameworks repeat outdated mantras that lack credibility. The truth is that the self-appointed custodians of the world of today are divorced from its continuance. These original architects have also lost the wherewithal to convene all stakeholders and shapers. It was therefore important for new protagonists to step in, contribute and gather. This is why India, under the leadership of its Prime Minister, felt it necessary to invest in a global arena for ideation and deliberation. At the Raisina Dialogue, panels are hosted by leaders in politics, business, media, and civil society. Heads of state and foreign ministers sit next to aspiring engineers and business studies graduates. It is a space where the East and the West, the North and the South, and countless regional competitors can—and do—share a stage. Patience is prioritised over polemic, understanding over assertion, and balance over subjectivity. It is a truly global public square with an Indian postal code.
Offering an India Way
This year, while the world gathers in India for the Raisina Dialogue 2024, the relevance of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) is increasingly evident. In today’s fractured world, this mantra is a sorely-needed acknowledgement of the inherent unity of humankind and the impact we have on each other. In this context, the India Story resonates in many corners of the globe because of the similarity of problems and the viability of solutions. The deep and persistent development challenges India is addressing offer a template of action for others to adopt and adapt. It is incumbent on India to be generous with sharing its journey, its experiences and learning, its struggles and solutions.
Through its G20 Presidency, India shared with the world a credible synthesis of nationalism and internationalism. This was based on the conviction that a major nation which effectively addresses the needs of its people can only serve humankind better. Certainly, that has been the case with India, whether we think of it as a First Responder, a Pharmacy of the World, an example of Digital Delivery, a source of trusted talent as well as an innovator, manufacturer and a supply chain link. In each case, progress at home was reflected in greater contributions abroad. By ascending the global economic hierarchy with a view to emerge as third by 2028, India is not only transforming the most populous society but also becoming an additional engine of global growth. This is much needed in an era of fairer re-globalisation that is more focused on strategic autonomy. And the challenge of harmonising the local with the global is one that is addressed by drawing on India’s own heritage and outlook.
Every success and failure, every experience and innovation—have relevance for someone somewhere in the world. Raisina is a platform for such discourse, mirroring the innate pluralism of India.
The Raisina Dialogue reflects the conviction that our journeys must be open to all. It advocates an open architecture for governance, for policy, for story-telling. Every success and failure, every experience and innovation—have relevance for someone somewhere in the world. Raisina is a platform for such discourse, mirroring the innate pluralism of India. Consequently, its annual gathering is a meeting ground for a great variety of people, perspectives, and topics.
Why Bharat Matters
The change that we have witnessed in the last decade has not just been a quantitative expansion. This transformation has been one equally of thought processes, self-confidence and self-reliance. It draws on generations of heritage and culture, thereby creating greater self awareness about our identity. There is a greater seriousness too in realising visions and achieving goals. Not least, a clear sense of what we were and are is essential to decide where we want to go. Mediating effectively between tradition and technology has always been key to the quest for modernity. Today, the ability to delineate our own path and expanding our decisional space are characteristics of our progress. The combination of all of these has helped to make India much more Bharat.
Confronted with an uncertain world, this means drawing on our own experiences and arriving at our judgements in the search for solutions. Conflicting pulls and pressures will press us to take positions that may not always be in our best interest. They could be presented as global norms or natural choices. It is here that independent thinking arrived at through detailed discourse can make a difference. When it came to the Indo-Pacific, we embraced a strategic concept that is clearly to our benefit. And joined a mechanism that promoted both global good and national interest. That such steps were a departure from the past was not a discouragement. Similarly, when it came to the Ukraine conflict, we articulated the concerns of a large part of the world on its economic consequences. By contesting a narrative that served a particular region, we were also able to soften the impact on our own people. Bharat means having the courage to be contrary when needed, contributive when required, and confident at all times.
Confronted with an uncertain world, this means drawing on our own experiences and arriving at our judgements in the search for solutions.
Raisina is the venue where such conversations happen. It is the living, dynamic bridge where the world comes to understand us, and where we communicate with the world. Raisina is the vehicle for this dialogue, where the world absorbs Bharat and Bharat in turn shapes the world.
The Raisina Dialectic
The Raisina Dialogue stands out currently as a broad-based forum that engages freely in debate, discussion, and disputation. The coming together of diverse perspectives in a productive collision often results in new insights and solutions. There are particular reasons for the energy and effervescence that characterises its activities. They emanate from its interdisciplinary nature, inclusive participation, equitable agenda and democratic ethos.
Raisina is designed to reap the dividends that flow from the interactions of different disciplines and methods of thinking. Such cross-sectoral discourse is of utmost importance for breaking down silos and enhancing understanding. Diplomats must speak to scholars and academics, while international relations thinkers should engage business leaders. It is common to see leaders in politics, business, media, and civil society share a stage for discussion. Rigid policy conversations are shaken up with the introduction of freer scholarly interventions. This holistic approach makes discussions more complete, more comprehensive, and ultimately more effective.
Inclusiveness is at the heart of the Raisina spirit. The Dialogue welcomes views from across the globe that have not found space in traditional and established arenas. It allows conversations of a different kind because the voices themselves are different: These are younger; they are more diverse; they are from geographies that are often ignored or from institutions which cannot break into the international pecking order. They are more representative of the way the world actually looks. As a result, Raisina becomes a place for discovering new talent, new ideas, new perspectives, new people. It acts a springboard, a gateway, an all-access pass for these new protagonists and narratives to be allowed entry into the traditional forums.
Diplomats must speak to scholars and academics, while international relations thinkers should engage business leaders.
Concerns of equity and fairness pervade the choice of topics for the panel discussions. Most international forums concern themselves with the first billion people of the world. Raisina is that exception where discussions focus on the interests of the next seven billion. Matters of food security are given as much prominence as the battles between tech platforms. Questions of regional development, energy access, public goods, and employment are as important as concerns of war and peace, anti-trust regulation, and the quest for the ideal liberal society. Past empires are now talking back and demanding their place at the table. The Global South has been noticeable in that regard, be it in its self-perception or its self-confidence. Raisina reflects this reality because it has consciously moved beyond privilege. It is not merely an active gathering but also a very contemporary one.
As a Dialogue that is greater than the sum of its parts, its conversations take place, not merely during the three days of the conference but also in the periods before and after. It is a zone where ideas are incubated; where solutions are assessed and reassessed; where visions clash, compete, contest, cooperate. New sentiments are articulated, and outdated perspectives discarded. Discussion is frank and usually honest; they could be provocative but are always constructive. Through its reputation and impact, this approach is now becoming the new normal.
A Decade of Dialogue
As the Raisina Dialogue enters its tenth year, it is fair to say that we have come a great distance. What started as a hundred people in a room has become India’s premier conference and a forum of international note. This dialogue has captured global imagination precisely because it happens to be in a New India.
The success of Raisina has also been driven by the support, leadership, and commitment of the Indian Government. The Prime Minister himself has made it a point to be present at each inaugural session of the Dialogue since its second edition in 2017 and has delivered an address once in-person and once virtually. By attending the Dialogue but foregoing the microphone, the Prime Minister has reminded the world that many times, to listen is more important than to speak. He has elevated the act of being in a Raisina audience as learning from other experiences, grappling with other perspectives, absorbing the vantage points that others have brought. He has personally demolished the hierarchy between the speaking class on the one hand and the audience members on the other. Raisina is as much about being a listener as it is about being a speaker. It is a reminder that every idea demands careful consideration, that debate is the food for life itself. Where difference is never shunned because it is the basis of working harder to come together.
The Prime Minister himself has made it a point to be present at each inaugural session of the Dialogue since its second edition in 2017 and has delivered an address once in-person and once virtually.
To commemorate a decade of dialogue, this volume brings together essays written by eminent voices from across the world as well as speeches delivered at Raisina by world leaders and heads of states.
Raisina Chronicles opens with a Foreword by Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Prime Minister of Greece. Greece and India, both ancient cradles of democracy, are discovering each other again in the 21st century. Mr. Mitsotakis advocates for open discussion as a means to bridge global divisions, proposing the integration of the Indo-Pacific and the Mediterranean as a path towards greater global unity and cooperation.
In her essay, Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark, discusses the interconnected crises facing the planet, encompassing climate, environment, health, and military conflicts. In such a world, the India-Denmark Green Strategic Partnership exemplifies successful collaboration, addressing climate goals and creating a model for global impact. She stresses the importance of global cooperation and of reinvigorating our commitment to tackle shared challenges. In the next piece, Tanja Fajon, Deputy Prime Minister of Slovenia, reflects on the 2023 Raisina Dialogue, praising its diverse discussions on global challenges. She discusses the urgent need for international cooperation, advocating effective multilateralism and UN reform. Lauding the inclusion of youth and women in Raisina discussions, she expresses optimism about India-Slovenia cooperation.
Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, stresses the importance of forums like Raisina for strategic thinking amidst escalating security challenges. She underscores Australia’s partnership with India, citing shared history and the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, praising collaborative efforts in economic, climate, and educational initiatives.
In his essay, Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Saudi Arabia, writes about the deep-rooted cultural ties between India and the Arab world, which have now evolved into a robust strategic partnership. Trade relations have flourished, with India being the Kingdom’s second-largest trading partner. He is confident that the Saudi-Indian partnership promises a prosperous future for both nations. Kwame Owino, CEO of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and Jackline Kagume, Constitution, Law and Economy Programme head at IEA, emphasize the African Union’s (AU) admission to the G20 as a significant step for global economic governance. They highlight the AU’s potential for pushing for global institution reforms in an effort to counteract the trend of de-globalization.
Chairman of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Tadashi Maeda touches upon India’s economic growth, its partnership with Japan, and the significance of the Indo-Pacific region. He stresses enhanced India-Japan cooperation amidst global challenges. Admiral Sir Antony Radakin, the Chief of the Defence Staff of the United Kingdom (U.K.), explores the changing dynamics between the U.K. and India in the 2020s and highlights the U.K.’s interest in the Indo-Pacific; to expanding partnerships in maritime, air, and land security; and to promoting defence collaboration with India.
Advocates for targeted strategies to increase the representation of women in leadership, highlighting the systematic barriers and biases women face in entering senior finance roles.
Nitya Mohan Khemka, director of PATH and lecturer at the University of Cambridge, advocates for targeted strategies to increase the representation of women in leadership, highlighting the systematic barriers and biases women face in entering senior finance roles. She concludes: women leading development banks is not just about gender equality but also crucial for efficient and effective development financing. Camila dos Santos, International Relations Advisor at Rio de Janeiro City Hall, discusses the crucial role of addressing gender inequality at the G20 summit, paying particular focus to the disproportionate burden of unpaid domestic and caregiving work borne by women, especially those from marginalized groups. The imperative for comprehensive public policies in support of caregiving is foregrounded.
Admiral John Aquilino, the Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, reflects on the significant impact of the Raisina Dialogue in shaping multilateral engagements, particularly in advancing the U.S.-India relationship. According to him, Raisina has played a crucial role in fostering collaboration, leading to milestones such as the Quad’s revival and defense agreements between the two nations. A Raisina regular, General Angus Campbell, Chief of the Defence Force of Australia, and Greg Moriarty, Secretary of the Department of Defence of Australia, emphasise the deepening defense and security partnership between India and Australia and highlight India’s pivotal role in Australia’s strategic vision for the Indo-Pacific. General Yamazaki Koji, former Chief of the Joint Staff of the Japan Self-Defense Force, praises the Raisina Dialogue for its role as an ‘ideas arena’ and emphasises the deepening Japan-India defense cooperation with the end of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.
In their piece, Rosa Balfour and Zakaria Al Shmaly, director of and research analyst at Carnegie Europe respectively, argue that the European Union’s foreign policy reflects double standards, that the Global South’s perception of the EU stands in contrast to the EU’s self-perception, and the EU needs to reform policies to improve its engagement with the Global South. Anirban Sarma, Deputy Director at the Observer Research Foundation, makes the case that India has, over its G20 Presidency, raised a significant level of awareness about digital public infrastructure (DPI) and its transformative potential for financial inclusion and tech-enabled development. He argues that India’s DPI model, the India Stack, has revolutionised public service elivery and serves as a framework whose appeal transcends the Global South.
Amrita Narlikar, President and Professor at German Institute for Global and Area Studies, argues for preserving globalisation by fundamentally rethinking its direction and scale, highlighting its benefits and inherent problems. She critiques the current model’s security, sustainability, and ownership deficits, and proposes “The Bharat Way” as a path towards a more secure, inclusive, and sustainable globalisation.
Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister of Sweden, addresses geopolitical tensions, emphasises the need for global trade agreements, and explores the impact of new technologies, climate change, and global health challenges. He highlights India’s influential role in global discourse, with the Raisina Dialogue serving as a vital platform for fostering diverse perspectives on pressing issues. Scott Morrison, former Prime Minister of Australia, refers to the enduring friendship between Australia and India. Reflecting on the Raisina Dialogue, he underscores the importance of appreciating India’s perspective and aligning Western strategic outlooks with India’s role as a leader in the Global South. Marcelo Ebrard, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, shares thoughts on the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region, particularly India, with whom Mexico has strengthened diplomatic relations over 70 years. He praises the Raisina Dialogue for addressing global challenges and promoting dialogue, inclusion, and lasting solutions.
Mohammed Soliman, director of the Strategic Technologies and Cyber Security Program at the Middle East Institute, analyses the Middle East’s complex dynamics, juxtaposing the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict with the stability offered by the Abraham Accords and other minilateral formats.
David Petraeus, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, looks at Raisina as a metaphor for India. He argues that the dialogue encapsulates India’s complex stance, embracing both Quad and BRICS affiliations, reflecting its unique role and evolving identity. As India grows in influence, the Raisina Dialogue becomes an increasingly important global gathering.
And finally, concluding the Raisina Chronicles, is former Prime Minister of Canada Stephen J. Harper, with an essay titled, “India Takes Its Rightful Place in an Evolving Global Order”. Mr. Harper highlights India’s significant global role, emphasising its influence on Indo-Pacific stability, SDG progress, global democracy, and climate change. He commends the Raisina Dialogue as a vital platform showcasing India’s confidence and significance in an evolving world order.
The Raisina Chronicles is not just a compilation of contributions from eminent leaders to mark a decade of dialoguing at Raisina Hill; it is also a report card of a decade of world affairs. The original Essays and selected Addresses delivered at the Dialogue in this publication collectively offer some crucial insights. First, that a dialogue out of India matters, because it brings a unique capability and commitment to the imperative of discussions and deliberations. Second, Raisina’s journey is a reflection of Bharat’s emergence. And as its engagement with the world evolves, we at the Dialogue will have to continue to innovate and upgrade. Finally, now that the Dialogue is a global good in the assessment of many, it will have to enter the second decade of its existence more aware of its wider responsibility.
Read the full volume here.
The US needs a new paradigm for India: ‘Great Power Partnership’
Samir Saran | Kaush Arha
The US-India partnership is unprecedented in its scope. It holds the promise to substantially augment both nations’ security interests and to shape the world to their mutual advantage. The coordination and collaboration between the world’s longest standing democracy and its largest democracy will have far-reaching regional and global implications. This strategic alignment requires sustained forethought and concerted action—as well as a new realist paradigm and lexicon. Prioritizing pragmatic and principled interests and values will lead to the formulation of a novel US-India strategic framework and vocabulary unshackled by past preconceptions.
The era of great power competition calls for Great Power Partnerships. Size matters. As the United States engages in competitive or adversarial relationships with Asian and Eurasian powers China and Russia, it is prudent for it to seek a Great Power Partnership. Conversely, India is engaged in localized hostilities with its neighbors China and Pakistan, and finds its one-time friend Russia reduced to being a dependent of China. Realpolitik calls for the largest American and Asian nations, as democracies, to forge a Great Power Partnership to their mutual advantage.
But the US-India partnership represents a strategic convergence between emerging allies driven by shared interests and values. Both countries realize that they are stronger together in deterring Beijing’s hegemonic designs, which are inimical to both US and Indian interests. India shares the longest disputed land border with China and confronts the hostile China-Pakistan axis along virtually its entire western, northern, and eastern land borders. Meanwhile, China’s major foreign policy goal is to displace the United States as the paramount power in the Indo-Pacific and upend the US-led rules-based international order.
The US-India convergence extends beyond deterring the Chinese Communist Party. It smooths India’s path to achieving its “rightful place” among the world’s leading nations. In turn, the United States has, in India, a partner of size to shape world affairs to their collective advantage. Traditional security assurances and treaty provisions underlie the United States’ closest alliances, including those with NATO nations, Israel, and Japan. India has strenuously shunned alliances over the last seven decades. But realism will compel the two nations to increasingly act in concordance, whether they choose to institutionalize their converging interests into a formal treaty or alliance with reciprocal commitments or not.
The two countries have rightly termed this “the most consequential relationship of the twenty-first century.” US and Indian leaders have also referred to it as a “comprehensive strategic partnership”—the same label the United States uses for Vietnam and Indonesia. India deserves a category of its own: Great Power Partnership.
Areas of collaboration
Both countries are in the midst of a consequential election year, with India’s six-week national vote beginning on April 19 and the United States voting this fall. But these essential ties run deeper than any one administration on either side, even though the continuity of Indian administrations has been critical.
Still, to make this new Great Power Partnership paradigm stick will require more than rhetoric. The two countries need to make rapid advances along four fronts.
- Defense co-production. It is in both countries’ interest to help India become the premier naval force and logistics hub across the Indian Ocean, as well as the munitions factory and backstop for a free and open Indo-Pacific. US-India collaboration on co-producing jet engines and armored vehicles should expand to include autonomous weapons with the goal of making the United States and India the bulwarks of the democratic defense industrial value chain.
- Space collaboration, development, and exploration. In India, the United States has an ambitious, capable, and complementary partner with technical competence coupled with a cost-effective model for space endeavors. India’s space program will gain greatly in ability and ambition from close collaboration with US public and private actors. India offers scale and affordability to amplify US space investments and share the benefits with the Global South.
- Development and governance of the digital economy driven by artificial intelligence (AI). The United States and India, as the world’s preeminent digital start-up nations, share an innovator’s perspective for digital governance. In contrast, a regulator’s perspective is more prevalent in Europe. It is in both countries’ interests to coordinate on shaping international AI digital governance that fosters responsible innovation and application.
- Winning the hearts and minds of the Global South. India and China offer diametrically opposing visions for the Global South. China wants to enlist emerging nations into a countervailing bloc against the existing rules-based international order. India wants to enhance Global South representation within the existing international order to better reflect demographic and economic realities. The US-India partnership advances both India’s stature among the Global South and US outreach to the region. It is essential for both US and Indian interests that the Global South embraces and strengthens the rules-based international order. India is well-positioned to lead this effort.
Deepening the partnership
As democracies, the United States and India have a common interest in bolstering and modernizing the rules-based institutions that govern world affairs. Indeed, in the twenty-first century, the United States and India may shape a new international order as the United States and Europe did in the twentieth century. The largest American and Asian countries bear the responsibility to ensure that the twenty-first century international order equitably represents the Med-Atlantic, the Indo-Pacific, and the Global South—reinforcing their shared values of liberty and dignity for all.
The partnership between the United States and Europe is buttressed by cultural affinity and institutional solidarity through shared membership in NATO, the Group of Seven (G7), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and other groupings. The US-India partnership does not yet boast either cultural affinity or institutional solidarity at comparable levels, despite the rising force of the Indian diaspora in US society. In time, it can and should develop both.
India is projected to become the world’s third-largest economy by the end of the decade. The United States should lead the effort of inviting India to become a member of the G7 and the OECD. For their economic security, the United States and India should prioritize binding the Indo-Pacific nations to their collective economies more than that of China.
The United States and India have made great strides in coordination through multilateral institutional arrangements. These include the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology, the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (better known as the Quad). The frequency and scope of joint military exercises and intelligence sharing are also on the rise. US-India strategic dialogues on defense and economic coordination need to expand in depth and breadth to regularly engage functionaries in each respective administrative structure to facilitate greater interoperability and knowledge sharing.
The United States and India should also devote singular attention to advancing stronger institutional solidarity and people-to-people connections. Enhanced engagement between middle America and middle India holds the key. The United States is reinvigorating its domestic manufacturing across digital and industrial sectors while confronting a shortage of skilled technicians. India boasts a surfeit of graduates with technical skills looking for better employment. A US-India science and technology mobility agreement with prescreened skilled individuals from both nations would facilitate greater knowledge sharing and co-development between the two digital economies.
The US-India Great Power Partnership enjoys strong tailwinds, but its success is not inevitable. The relationship requires a considered understanding of the cultural, demographic, and political drivers at work in the two complex democracies. All too often, US-India discourse in bureaucratic circles and media outlets is prone to reflexive skepticism and mistrust. Both sides need a more reflective discernment of each other’s society and political system. In this area, the US and Indian business communities are leading the way with a strong sense of cooperation and comprehension. Overcoming what Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has described as “hesitations of history,” a constructive Great Power Partnership could advance core US-India interests and values going forward.
This article originally appeared in Atlantic Council.
Begging will not de-risk Brussels from Beijing
Samir Saran | Gautam Chikermane
Not narratives, not rhetoric: what the EU needs is to wake up from its strategic slumber and act on its China addiction
A new report by the European Union (EU) Chamber of Commerce in China and the China Macro Group, yawning its way between decoupling and de-risking, will be splashed in the media, discussed ad nauseam in think tank convenings, laughed at in Beijing, and laid to rest in the garbage bins of empty rhetoric. Titled “Riskful Thinking: Navigating the Politics of Economic Security”, the report is undergirded by the naive assumption that its 11 recommendations for China will be implemented.
The report effectively resorts to begging for China to adhere to the rules-based order. It recommends that Beijing steer clear of excessive self-reliance but allows considerable latitude for discussing the scope of the word ‘excessive’. It implores the world’s second-largest economy to increase transparency on laws that limit market access, blissfully forgetful of the opaque regime that helped incubate such laws in the first place. Then it urges China to define a common language on de-risking, ignorantly assuming that Chinese polity serves the interests of the EU.
Europe is being suffocated by the rules-based order of its own making—Beijing has weaponised the EU’s rules against itself, thereby asphyxiating its companies, consumers, and citizens.
Trade protectionism, Beijing’s erratic policy shifts, and the quest for localisation find themselves among the other appeals. In a cringeworthy moment, China is even requested to “Refrain from punishing companies for the actions of their home governments.”
Nothing in what is sought is inappropriate. Rather, what is bothersome is that it is being voiced in a 34,000-word, 56-page report that sees a US$19.35-trillion large grouping of 27 democratic nations bend before a US$18.56-trillion authoritarian regime. Besides an amused smile from the Chairman of Everything, Xi Jinping, for exposing the EU’s toxic dependence, this report will achieve little else.
On the other hand, the seven recommendations for the EU, may—and it is a big ‘may’—wake the grouping, and perhaps even the continent, from its strategic slumber. The most important among these is the one around rethinking supply chains of critical inputs and export control frameworks. Yet, here too, the report is unable to imagine a world without China. “Continue to proactively engage with China and reject calls for disengagement,” it recommends. Further, it seeks to remind the actors in this game—chambers of commerce, China-focused think tanks, and businesses—about de-risking but fails to define why this should be paid heed to this time around.
Finally, the report offers nine recommendations for European businesses. Being an industry chamber, some of them are better phrased and informed. For instance, it seeks to pre-empt legislative changes and political risk. It calls for conducting detailed supply chain reviews and risk assessments, as well as intensifying due diligence to determine exposure to potential shocks. It urges companies to monitor areas of risk such as public backlash or sudden changes in market conditions. But when it urges corporations to be prepared for emerging global regulations, it neglects that all ‘global’ regulatory actions are enfeebled by a Beijing that regularly refuses to abide by them.
The recent report sees a US$19.35-trillion large grouping of 27 democratic nations bend before a US$18.56-trillion authoritarian regime. Besides an amused smile from the Chairman of Everything, Xi Jinping, for exposing the EU’s toxic dependence, this report will achieve little else.
Overall, the report, like several before it, illustrates the risks that European businesses face in China and assumes that a benevolent Beijing knows the problems and will do something to fix them. Worse, it details for the benefit of China exactly how dependent the EU is on its markets, its investments, and its manufacturing.
Given that collective economic security shaped by national issues is a subset of collective national security designed for a common cause, carving out an agenda of mutualism will be impossible for the EU. It is not the same as the EU coming together and taking a collective defence/security stand against Russia at the time of conflict (and not prior to it), for instance.
China is appraised as a commercial venture, and it is unlikely that commercial entities will bear the cost of national security until it is too late and too high for them and others. And then they will; just ask the German Industry about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But most businesses work on hindsight and not foresight when it comes to security issues as they have a false belief in their ability to shape outcomes.
When the Stuttgart-based Mercedes-Benz, for instance, decides to deepen investments in China, despite the EU scrambling for an exit strategy, it shows how strongly the corporate tail of a company is wagging the national security dog of an entire continent. That 19.67 percent of the Mercedes stock is held by two Chinese companies (9.98 percent by BAIC Group, and 9.69 percent by Li Shufu) is not only influencing decisions in one of EU’s most high-profile companies but also weakening the EU hand on strategic affairs between Beijing and Brussels. Worse, instead of finding ways to get out of China, the report states that European companies find that decoupling, i.e. “detaching completely from the Chinese market” from China is a risk.
The impassioned quest for benevolence from the Emperor seems to be the European approach towards China. Transborder calls for ‘alms’ must not pass off as strategy—they are not.
So, while China has weaponised everything, from trade and investments to technology and culture, the EU remains trapped in the pincer of its strategic-commercial constraints on the one side and the rise of ‘wokism’ with a Confucius colour on the other. It is being suffocated by the rules-based order of its own making—Beijing has weaponised the EU’s rules against itself, thereby asphyxiating its companies, consumers, and citizens. Against these democratic constraints and strategic confusions, the Beijing model is unambiguous in its direction and its action.
Take a step back and what you see from the Beijing-Brussels midpoint—New Delhi—is a feeble EU approach to China. Blissful in its strategic slumber, lying on the bed of post-World War II prosperity, with eyes wide shut, Brussels remains addicted to Chinese goods, Chinese markets, and Chinese manufacturing. It appears nothing will change, even as Beijing runs circles around the EU, watching it squirm, and awaiting the next round of periodic rhetoric, even as it plans a deeper dive into the strategic vitals of the EU. The impassioned quest for benevolence from the Emperor seems to be the European approach towards China. Transborder calls for ‘alms’ must not pass off as strategy—they are not.
From the vantage of New Delhi, it is not only the possibility of Russia joining the dragon’s choir that is imminent and worrisome; it is rather the European opera halls hosting this choir that present a clear and present danger. The most important learning from this document for those reading it from outside is scary. If the lesson of its energy dependence on Russia, and the consequent decapitating impact on its security in recent years, has not taught the EU ‘Strategy 101’, nothing ever will. Isn’t it time to reconcile to this simple fact: that the EU is a non-strategic actor and, without radical rethinking—always will be?
The original article appeared in ORF Website, March 30, 2024
Rethinking climate governance
New approaches should reduce the cost of capital, bridge the technology divide and develop new pathways to cooperation.
Climate change is the most salient example of a challenge that demands global cooperation to solve. Yet, this necessity has so far failed to translate into a cooperative mechanism that can withstand geopolitical shocks, partly because trust in the current approach is eroding.
The challenge: global frameworks haven’t kept emissions from rising
In 2023, the world breached the critical 1.5°C average temperature rise barrier for the first time. It is now visibly evident that the impacts of human activity on the climate are no longer a thing of the future. Climate-induced natural hazards are now among the foremost threats to lives and livelihoods, as witnessed by the devastating floods in Libya, East Africa, Italy, Yemen and Pakistan in 2023 alone. The Global South is particularly vulnerable, with some estimates suggesting that the gap in economic output between the world’s richest and poorest countries could be as high as 25 per cent compared to a world without climate change. The future looks even bleaker, with predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggesting that if current emission pathways are maintained, average temperatures could rise 3.2°C by 2100.
Yet the global climate governance framework has failed to deliver. Despite various landmark agreements in Rio (1992), Kyoto (1997) and finally Paris (2015), emissions have continued to rise. Trust has broken down between developed and developing countries, given that the former have not only refused to make binding commitments on emission reduction, but have also failed to deliver on whatever meagre promises they did make – for example, to provide $100 billion annually to the developing world by 2020.
However, the fact is such tussles distract from the real scale of the problem. The final text at COP27 noted that between $4 and $6 trillion needed to be invested annually in renewables and decarbonisation solutions if the world was to stay on track to its Paris commitments. Even less ambitious targets, such as the 2022 Report of the High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, noted that annual investments would have to be between $2 and $3 trillion annually, with at least $1 trillion of that being foreign private investment. Instead of identifying solutions to raise and target flows of this scale, global governance has lost its way fighting over small, insignificant change.
The $100 billion figure has been left behind by events. It is now necessary to think in trillions. For that to happen, the debate needs to be reframed away from questions of guilt and compensation and towards obligation and opportunity. Fortunately, restructuring climate investment as an opportunity is entirely possible given that the technologies to combat climate change are becoming increasingly cost-effective: The IPCC estimates that the global average cost of renewable energy has dropped by up to 85 per cent since 2010. As a consequence, over 80 per cent of climate projects in the developed world are financed by the private sector, which sees a clear business case for green investment in those geographies.
However, investment in the Global North alone will not address a global problem. Only around 25 per cent of global climate finance currently flows to the Global South, although the developing world is where vast new investments in infrastructure and energy access are actually needed. The prohibitive cost of capital in the emerging world means that, in contrast to the developed world, only 14 per cent of green investment originates from private savings.
A new approach for rethinking climate governance
The differentials in the cost of capital between the Global North and South are prohibitive and the largest constraint on private investment flowing into climate action where it is most needed.
There is now a need to rethink global climate governance. The fundamental imbalance is this: While the developed world has been the key contributor to historical emissions, future emissions will be concentrated in the developing world. For instance, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates one-quarter of global energy demand growth between 2019 and 2040 might come from India alone. This energy growth is natural if crippling energy poverty in countries like India is to be addressed. The advantage for policymakers is that much of the energy infrastructure in these countries is yet to be built, and there is an opportunity for new, greener development that does not mimic carbon-intensive pathways adopted by the developed world. Development is energy-intensive, but it does not have to be carbon-emitting.
It is necessary to not just increase the amount of private capital deployed in the Global South, but also to ensure the scope of such investment is widened to include adaptation. Scaling up private investment into renewable energy, particularly grid-scale solar power, is easy to at least imagine. Yet other use cases for climate capital are no less important and need to be financialised. Traditional water conservation methods, regenerative agriculture, drought-resistant practices and seeds, low-cost community infrastructure like bunds to protect against sea level rise and salination – all these can no longer be financed out of public finances alone and must be seen as priority targets for private capital. Finally, the technology needed to scale up green energy solutions also remains concentrated in the developed world and China, requiring the Global South to often pay a heavy premium for using these technologies. Resolving these inequities and addressing the geopolitics around those imbalances will be imperative for achieving the Paris targets and necessitate a radical re-imaging of global cooperation around climate action.
Fortunately, climate action aligns well with the national development strategies of much of the emerging world. The Indian G20 Presidency highlighted the need to place green development at the heart of the climate action agenda. For the global energy transition to be successful, the right conditions need to be created for the Global South to use this transition as a means to eliminate energy poverty, create new economic opportunities and resolve existing gender and health inequalities. The outcome from COP28 in Dubai has kindled renewed hope for multilateral climate cooperation. For the first time there is a clear consensus on the need to transition away from all forms of fossil fuels. The operationalisation of the loss and damage fund and the decision on the global adaptation goal also sends a strong message that adapting to the impacts of climate change is now just as important as mitigation. Yet, the decisions from COP28 fall short of outlining a clear pathway for providing the means of implementation necessary for effective climate action in the Global South. Going forward, ambition must be combined with equity if the United Arab Emirates consensus is to be implemented.
The following are proposals to reimagine global climate governance:
Reduce the cost of capital: The global financial architecture needs urgent reform and re-targeting. Much climate investment requires capital upfront, with savings paying out over long tenures, sometimes in decades. The differentials in the cost of capital between the Global North and South are prohibitive and the largest constraint on private investment flowing into climate action where it is most needed. Ending this problem will need a vast expansion of guarantees and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)-like schemes.
Traditional reasons for this spread in capital costs are related to the political risks of investing in developing countries. Sovereign risk is, of course, real, but it is also often exaggerated. Certainly, reducing the spread of sovereign risk is a vital task for international financial reform. Climate risk is the greatest threat to the stability of the international financial system. Sovereign risk cannot be allowed to outweigh climate risk.
Bold new initiatives are needed to address the question of sovereign risk delaying climate action. For example, it may be necessary to produce internationally administered pools of capital that directly discount the cost of capital for projects and platforms related to climate action.
India’s experience with digital public infrastructure has shown that there are other possible approaches. The creation of global public goods need not be cost-intensive. A global pipeline of 10,000 climate projects, each with a clear timeline, risk-reward payoff, and carbon scoring – which together might mitigate a significant proportion of future emissions – would represent such a global public good. A green infrastructure database on such a scale would allow for the much faster and more transparent mobility of green capital.
Thus, the mandate and lending patterns of multilateral development banks (MDBs) must be changed if they are to tackle the climate change. These entities can be instrumental in channelling greater financial flows to the Global South by taking on some of the risks that prevent private capital flows to these geographies. While the key areas for reform have been identified by several independent committees, there is a need for clear, time-bound action. An independent committee under the Indian G20 Presidency has put forward a roadmap for MDB reform, aiming to make the provision of global public goods a pivotal mandate alongside existing priorities. This roadmap must be made more ambitious, along the lines suggested above.
Bridge the technology divide: The lesson of the pandemic for the developing world was that even lifesaving technology in a health emergency may not flow quickly enough between the Global North and the Global South. It is natural, therefore, to ask how technological diffusion will work in the climate space.
The global understanding of intellectual property in the health sector is that patent protection is vital for innovation but also that, on occasion, governments may have the duty to override protections in the face of emergencies. The right to issue compulsory licences is rarely invoked but is a vital part of the international property rights landscape. A similar mechanism needs to be deliberated on for climate tech. The presence of the possibility of compulsory licenses also ensures that many companies have the incentive to be good global citizens and provide voluntary licences that spread access to lifesaving technology while preserving a satisfactory share of their profits. Regulators and global institutions need to be able to create a parallel set of incentives for climate tech.
Fortunately, emerging economies are also seeing the emergence of a home-grown cleantech ecosystem driven by start-ups looking to disrupt traditional energy systems. This innovative sector might solve the problem of scaling up climate tech, but home-grown innovation continues to suffer from a lack of available public funds to incentivise research, reduced access to cutting-edge tech and a shortage of early-stage risk capital to bring certain technologies to commercial scale. Creating the right mechanisms to connect available risk capital in the Global North to cleantech ecosystems in the emerging world will be essential to bridging this innovation gap. Voluntary licensing can play a role in this mechanism as well.
Repositioning the start-up sector in the emerging world towards climate goals is a matter of allowing for potential rewards through the creation of risk funds. A simple $100 billion climate tech fund that would disburse money to 120-odd companies in the Global South, including start-ups with clear roadmaps for scaling up climate tech, would greatly multiply the mitigation effect per dollar of its money.
Spotlight the climate-health-gender nexus: The climate conversation needs to be made personal, especially for the vast populations of the Global South. Women, for example, are most affected by climate change and serve on the frontlines of adaptation. They should lead the effort to counter it. Female leadership in the climate field is both practical and essential. Creating women-led projects investing in female leadership will allow for the conversation about climate to move from an elite 30,000-foot discussion to one related to the real requirements and concerns of households.
Women are also the most likely to bear the health impacts of climate-related hazards.
For countries across the world, public health systems will have to adapt and shift scale in response to new climate-related risks. Putting health at the centre of the climate conversation will also allow for a further personalisation of climate policy. It will create new reasons for and loci of climate action.
Multilateral forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the G20 must better acknowledge and differentiate impacts of climate change on health outcomes across genders and craft women-led initiatives to mobilise societal support for political action. It is essential to establish appropriate mechanisms that include and build capacities of this key population segment to shape global and national action on climate.
Build new pathways for cooperation: While traditional multilateral mechanisms – such as the UNFCCC and other organs of global climate governance – may have fallen short at times, there is nevertheless an opportunity for global action that transcends geopolitical divides. India’s approach to its G20 presidency prioritised consensus in contested times. Even at the height of geopolitical polarisation, every major country is nevertheless moving, for its own reasons and out of a sense of responsibility, to take national action on mitigation and adaptation. In other words, climate action is the location of “inadvertent cooperation” between great powers and the driver of greater regional dialogue as well.
It can and should be viewed as a mechanism for restoring global stability and trust in multilateralism – if, that is, parties live up to their own commitments. This inadvertent cooperation should be captured and energised through new partnerships, institutions and dialogues. Countries with the coincidence of capabilities and concerns can collaborate in smaller groupings for faster and more ambitious action. UN-led discussions may suffer from “zero-sum” approaches and offer outcomes with only minimal ambition. They offer a suitable location for the mutual blame game, but global climate action must proceed nevertheless and build on the national action and inadvertent cooperation that is already visible.
This co-authored article with Danny Quah was first published on the World Economic Forum (WEF) as part of its White Paper on ‘Shaping Cooperation in a Fragmenting World’.
Samir Saran 