Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05NEWDELHI1426
2005-02-24 13:43:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy New Delhi
Cable title:
FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON INDIA
how-toThis record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001426
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2015
TAGS: PREL ECIN KDEM NP BG PK CE IN SAARC
SUBJECT: FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON INDIA
Classified By: Acting DCM Geoff Pyatt. Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 001426
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2015
TAGS: PREL ECIN KDEM NP BG PK CE IN SAARC
SUBJECT: FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON INDIA
Classified By: Acting DCM Geoff Pyatt. Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
1. (C) Summary: In a carefully considered February 14 speech on New Delhi's South Asia policy, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran unveiled a more muscular approach toward India's neighborhood that reflects the GOI's shifting view of its role in the world. Departing from the standard GOI line on the primacy of national sovereignty, the address made a clear link between bad behavior next door and the consequences for India. As did then-Foreign Minister Sinha's September 2003 remarks on neighborhood relations, Saran laid heavy emphasis on economic integration in South Asia. The Foreign Secretary, however, went further making democracy a
SIPDIS prerequisite for regional cooperation. Although he declared his intention not to single out particular countries, Sri Lanka was the only neighbor to escape unscathed. End Summary.
Democracy's the Word
--------------
2. (U) In a departure from traditional Indian rhetoric, Saran's deliberately hyped February 14 speech highlighted the ""drift away from democratic freedoms in some countries of our neighborhood."" Arguing that a more democratic environment in South Asia would lead to greater regional cooperation, Saran said that although the GOI will engage with any ruling government, ""our sympathy will always be with democratic and secular forces."" Although India would like to see more democratic regimes in bordering countries, ""it is not something we can impose upon others,"" and is not something for New Delhi to decide. Saran also made an explicit connection between the neighbors' internal affairs and the impact on India. The Foreign Secretary said his country's ""destiny is inseparable from what happens in its neighborhood.""
3. (C) Interpreting Saran's message, MEA Joint Secretary V Ashok (SAARC) explained to PolCouns and Poloff two days after the speech on February 16, that New Delhi needs to see democracy in South Asia in ""deed, not only word."" India had to be clear in conveying this, because pro-democracy groups in the neighboring countries ""look to India as an example."" Echoing Saran, Ashok concluded that there was a point beyond which ""democracy ceases to be a purely internal matter, and neighbors' problems become India's problems."" Drawing a real-politic explanation for Saran's Wilsonian rhetoric, Ashok argued that that lack of democracy among the neighbors would inevitably breed instability that could spill across India's borders.
Economic Cure-All
--------------
4. (C) A prominent theme in the Foreign Secretary's remarks was that South Asia should see India as an opportunity, not as a threat, and that it was India's diplomatic challenge to convey that message. Praising ""some neighbors"" for having developed economic cooperation with India, Saran scolded others for ""seeking to isolate themselves from India."" Rather than see India as ""besieging"" them, they should recognize that regional economies will benefit from integration. He pledged New Delhi's willingness to open its markets and invest in cross-border infrastructure, noting that with Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan India has accepted a non-reciprocal relationship. But, he said during the question period, ""the hand we extend must be grasped by the neighbors."" The MEA's Ashok put it more bluntly, cautioning that if the rest of South Asia does not recognize the economic benefits in cooperating with India, ""India has other options such as ASEAN and the Bay of Bengal Initiative"" (BIMSTEC).
No More Mr. Nice Guy
--------------
5. (C) Saran's presentation of India's policy towards its neighbors contrasted with the approach then-Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha laid out in a September 2003 address ""We Approach our Neighbors in a Spirit of Fraternity"" (as opposed to Saran's ""India and its Neighbors""). Like Saran, Sinha compared South Asia unfavorably to ASEAN and the EU, emphasized the potential ""mutual economic benefit"" the region could experience, and asserted that India's commitment to SAARC was ""undiluted and undiminished.""
6. (C) Where the two departed was in Saran's connection of economic integration to democracy. While Sinha never once uttered the word, Saran's speech was littered with references to democracy. The Foreign Secretary also coupled democracy and economic development in a recipe for improved regional security, observing that South Asia does not have a shared security perception. A year and one half earlier, Foreign Minister Sinha also requested the region's respect for India's security, asking that they ""be sensitive to our security concerns."" Saran made the same point more starkly, commenting that ""India cannot and will not ignore such conduct and will take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard its interests.""
Equal Opportunity Offender
--------------
7. (C) Despite his declared intention not to focus on individual countries, Saran slipped in references to India's neighbors in the context of New Delhi's concerns about them.
Among the Foreign Secretary's barbs were: ""India would certainly welcome more democracy in our neighborhood"" (Nepal, Bhutan); ""transit routes, which would have created...mutual benefit, have fallen prey to narrow political calculations"" (Pakistan); and ""hostile propaganda and intemperate statements"" (Bangladesh). The only neighbor Saran praised was Sri Lanka, as a country that has ""taken advantage of India's strengths,"" and has reaped not only economic, but political benefits as well.
Comment
--------------
8. (C) Clearly disturbed at recent events in Nepal and trends in Bangladesh, the Foreign Secretary was much more assertive in expressing specific displeasure with India's neighbors and in making an explicit connection between the internal developments in the region, and the impact on India than Sinha did in 2003. Delivered to a standing-room only crowd eager to hear where India's South Asia policy was going following King Gyanendra's coup in Nepal and the cancellation of the SAARC Summit, Saran's speech fueled the criticism that New Delhi is trying to throw its weight around in the region.
India's next steps with Nepal will be the first test of a policy that simultaneously acknowledges the need to work with whichever regimes are present next door, while insisting on democracy. This new missionary current reflects an important departure from an Indian political consensus that traditionally has been strong on democracy at home, but completely agnostic about the character of governance among India's relationships abroad. How seriously this new doctrine is applied, will tell us much about India's changing view of its international role and New Delhi's willingness to jettison the third-world view that guided past GOI foreign policy.
MULFORD
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/23/2015
TAGS: PREL ECIN KDEM NP BG PK CE IN SAARC
SUBJECT: FOREIGN SECRETARY EMPHASIZES NEIGHBORS' IMPACT ON INDIA
Classified By: Acting DCM Geoff Pyatt. Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
1. (C) Summary: In a carefully considered February 14 speech on New Delhi's South Asia policy, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran unveiled a more muscular approach toward India's neighborhood that reflects the GOI's shifting view of its role in the world. Departing from the standard GOI line on the primacy of national sovereignty, the address made a clear link between bad behavior next door and the consequences for India. As did then-Foreign Minister Sinha's September 2003 remarks on neighborhood relations, Saran laid heavy emphasis on economic integration in South Asia. The Foreign Secretary, however, went further making democracy a
SIPDIS prerequisite for regional cooperation. Although he declared his intention not to single out particular countries, Sri Lanka was the only neighbor to escape unscathed. End Summary.
Democracy's the Word
--------------
2. (U) In a departure from traditional Indian rhetoric, Saran's deliberately hyped February 14 speech highlighted the ""drift away from democratic freedoms in some countries of our neighborhood."" Arguing that a more democratic environment in South Asia would lead to greater regional cooperation, Saran said that although the GOI will engage with any ruling government, ""our sympathy will always be with democratic and secular forces."" Although India would like to see more democratic regimes in bordering countries, ""it is not something we can impose upon others,"" and is not something for New Delhi to decide. Saran also made an explicit connection between the neighbors' internal affairs and the impact on India. The Foreign Secretary said his country's ""destiny is inseparable from what happens in its neighborhood.""
3. (C) Interpreting Saran's message, MEA Joint Secretary V Ashok (SAARC) explained to PolCouns and Poloff two days after the speech on February 16, that New Delhi needs to see democracy in South Asia in ""deed, not only word."" India had to be clear in conveying this, because pro-democracy groups in the neighboring countries ""look to India as an example."" Echoing Saran, Ashok concluded that there was a point beyond which ""democracy ceases to be a purely internal matter, and neighbors' problems become India's problems."" Drawing a real-politic explanation for Saran's Wilsonian rhetoric, Ashok argued that that lack of democracy among the neighbors would inevitably breed instability that could spill across India's borders.
Economic Cure-All
--------------
4. (C) A prominent theme in the Foreign Secretary's remarks was that South Asia should see India as an opportunity, not as a threat, and that it was India's diplomatic challenge to convey that message. Praising ""some neighbors"" for having developed economic cooperation with India, Saran scolded others for ""seeking to isolate themselves from India."" Rather than see India as ""besieging"" them, they should recognize that regional economies will benefit from integration. He pledged New Delhi's willingness to open its markets and invest in cross-border infrastructure, noting that with Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan India has accepted a non-reciprocal relationship. But, he said during the question period, ""the hand we extend must be grasped by the neighbors."" The MEA's Ashok put it more bluntly, cautioning that if the rest of South Asia does not recognize the economic benefits in cooperating with India, ""India has other options such as ASEAN and the Bay of Bengal Initiative"" (BIMSTEC).
No More Mr. Nice Guy
--------------
5. (C) Saran's presentation of India's policy towards its neighbors contrasted with the approach then-Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha laid out in a September 2003 address ""We Approach our Neighbors in a Spirit of Fraternity"" (as opposed to Saran's ""India and its Neighbors""). Like Saran, Sinha compared South Asia unfavorably to ASEAN and the EU, emphasized the potential ""mutual economic benefit"" the region could experience, and asserted that India's commitment to SAARC was ""undiluted and undiminished.""
6. (C) Where the two departed was in Saran's connection of economic integration to democracy. While Sinha never once uttered the word, Saran's speech was littered with references to democracy. The Foreign Secretary also coupled democracy and economic development in a recipe for improved regional security, observing that South Asia does not have a shared security perception. A year and one half earlier, Foreign Minister Sinha also requested the region's respect for India's security, asking that they ""be sensitive to our security concerns."" Saran made the same point more starkly, commenting that ""India cannot and will not ignore such conduct and will take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard its interests.""
Equal Opportunity Offender
--------------
7. (C) Despite his declared intention not to focus on individual countries, Saran slipped in references to India's neighbors in the context of New Delhi's concerns about them.
Among the Foreign Secretary's barbs were: ""India would certainly welcome more democracy in our neighborhood"" (Nepal, Bhutan); ""transit routes, which would have created...mutual benefit, have fallen prey to narrow political calculations"" (Pakistan); and ""hostile propaganda and intemperate statements"" (Bangladesh). The only neighbor Saran praised was Sri Lanka, as a country that has ""taken advantage of India's strengths,"" and has reaped not only economic, but political benefits as well.
Comment
--------------
8. (C) Clearly disturbed at recent events in Nepal and trends in Bangladesh, the Foreign Secretary was much more assertive in expressing specific displeasure with India's neighbors and in making an explicit connection between the internal developments in the region, and the impact on India than Sinha did in 2003. Delivered to a standing-room only crowd eager to hear where India's South Asia policy was going following King Gyanendra's coup in Nepal and the cancellation of the SAARC Summit, Saran's speech fueled the criticism that New Delhi is trying to throw its weight around in the region.
India's next steps with Nepal will be the first test of a policy that simultaneously acknowledges the need to work with whichever regimes are present next door, while insisting on democracy. This new missionary current reflects an important departure from an Indian political consensus that traditionally has been strong on democracy at home, but completely agnostic about the character of governance among India's relationships abroad. How seriously this new doctrine is applied, will tell us much about India's changing view of its international role and New Delhi's willingness to jettison the third-world view that guided past GOI foreign policy.
MULFORD