In mid-August, India hosted the third Global South Summit bringing together 123 countries virtually for discussions on inclusive growth, climate resilience, digital innovation and equitable global health access. While these topics were the focus of the discussion, the Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar informed the media that issues such as reforming global governance architecture, sovereignty, strategic autonomy and interference were also raised by leaders participating in the discussion.
This comes on the heels of the Bangladesh crisis. The crisis next door sparked a discussion on who New Delhi’s true friends and enemies were, particularly in the Indian Ocean region—perceived as the country’s sphere of influence. While analysts and commentators discussed theories and the possible role of various intel agencies in the protests and ouster of the former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, Western academia was quick to dismiss them as unfounded conspiracy theories. All the while referencing the ousted Sheikh Hasina government as one supported by New Delhi.
Hasina’s statement that a “white man” approached her for a military base and to carve a “Christian state” out of parts of Bangladesh and Myanmar a few months prior to the ouster, increased the spectre of doubt of Western influence. These theories cannot be quickly dismissed as conspiracies. Washington and Beijing’s interest in a strategic port and/or a military base in the Bay of Bengal, on the Coco Islands off the coast of Myanmar and St Martin’s Island of Bangladesh add credence to these speculations.
Also read: India redefined Third World as Global South. Then China got triggered
Against Western interference
What appears as paranoia of nations in the so-called Global South is not dumbfounded. Once bitten, post-colonial societies are twice shy of foreign actors and their potential interference in domestic affairs. Understandably, “strategic autonomy” and “non-interference in domestic affairs” feature in the official statements, such as the ones from the Global South Summit, BRICS meetings, and even in bilateral meetings of nations such as Saudi Arabia and China.
The Indian government did not attribute the protests nor the ouster to any one foreign government. It was largely strategic analysts and civil society that came to this conclusion. However, among other nations of the ‘Global South’, it is not just their social media or influencers taking up the cause of Western interference. It is governments and policymakers. In the last decade, nations in the region, from Saudi Arabia and Turkey to Vietnam and Mexico, have issued warnings to their peers in the Western world for their alleged involvement in fomenting chaos or influencing public policy.
Most recently, there has been public outcry over the establishment of a US-funded Fullbright University in Ho Chi Min City in Vietnam, alleging the university was fomenting a colour revolution in the country. In Mexico, the outgoing leader, Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared a pause in US Embassy relations over their alleged involvement in Mexico’s domestic affairs.
Increasingly, even nations that are positioned as supply chain alternatives to China do not hold back from challenging the West’s interventionist policies—characterised by international scholars as liberal hegemony.
Also read: From 1962 to Ukraine—three lessons for India’s non-alignment policy
Reevaluate non-alignment
New Delhi has reason and incentive to lead efforts against liberal hegemony—not necessarily all by itself but through partnerships and new groupings. In the emerging multi-polar world order, not all poles are made equal. The US and China are far ahead of the other regional poles such as India, in terms of technological advancement, GDP per capita and military prowess. Beijing is an adversary, and Washington, to a large degree, a wary partner. This warrants a renewed non-alignment movement.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, most nations in the ‘Global South’ have bought into the promise of prosperity through trade and commerce and dropped fealties to ideological battles. However, the rivalry between the US and China, in trade and over geopolitical issues such as Taiwan, among others, calls for nations staying non-aligned between the two to band together. While India’s pre-existing dispute with China made it a natural partner for the US, multiple episodes over the last few years indicate that Cold War-era differences cast a shadow over the US-India bilateral relationship.
This calls for a more pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, as adopted by many in the same boat as India.
Nations have found novel ways of using the ongoing tensions between the US and China to their benefit, while managing the two poles. New Delhi is beginning to realise that it must do the same. Even the recommendations in the recent economic survey would suggest so.
The chief economic adviser to Prime Minister Modi, Anantha Nageswaran’s recommendations in the economic survey report were noteworthy. He advocated for increased foreign direct investment from China, even while working on import substitution measures. Furthermore, the adviser to the PM suggested India be more plugged into the global value chains by allowing Chinese companies to participate in the Indian market to subsequently export to Western markets. In other words, the adviser was asking India to be more like Southeast Asia or Mexico, which have acted as a gateway to Chinese companies.
New Delhi’s relationship with the other major pole is not all good either but needed for 21st-century advancement. Its bonhomie with Washington is a recent phenomenon, largely developed in the last two decades. The Cold War-era differences remain and as recent events in India’s neighbourhood would suggest, Indians at large are wary of Washington’s involvement in its sphere of influence.
Also read: Modi has exhumed Nehru’s Global South. Which fails the test of geography, geopolitics and economics
Increase and reform engagement
As the US and China fight for influence in the region—even adopting the age-old imperialist policy of divide and rule—it is vital for India to engage nations beyond just its region of influence. As National Security Advisers of BRICS nations gather in Moscow, India should not only solidify its place in multilateral initiatives such as BRICS+ but also revive and transform its traditional non-alignment policy into multi-alignment by creating a ‘Global South’ alliance that uniquely addresses the concerns of the region, while working with advanced nations for technological expertise and commercial opportunities.
A revitalised Bandung Conference that brought together Asian and African leaders in 1955 is what the doctor orders in 2024. To that end, the Global South Summit organised by New Delhi is a start.
Akhil Ramesh is Director of the India Program and Economic Statecraft Initiative at Pacific Forum. He can be reached at akhil@pacforum.org. Views are personal.