Erkin Öncan
Kanwal Sibal, a distinguished figure in Indian politics and a former Foreign secretary, possesses extensive diplomatic experience, having served as an ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France, and Russia. In a conversation with Harici, he delved into India’s stance on the concept of multipolarity, the expansion of BRICS, the role of the G20, and Indian politics.
One of the most prominent subjects in global politics is the idea of a ‘multipolar world.’ It contends that the existing unipolar system led by the United States is no longer tenable. Instead, nations aspire to establish a world order where no single entity holds complete supremacy, and interactions occur among equals, representing the sole legitimate system. However, this substantial transformation is not unfolding quietly. Present-day conflicts, notably the Ukraine war, color revolutions, political maneuverings, and analogous developments, serve as the tumultuous birth pangs of this emerging world order.
Amid this discourse, a glance at current crisis headlines reveals China and Russia prominently positioned in opposition to the United States. India, a pivotal contributor to the formation of this new world order, charts a distinctive course compared to Russia and China, despite their established partnerships.
Kanwal Sibal, a prominent figure in Indian politics and a former Foreign Minister with a wealth of diplomatic experience as an ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France, and Russia, engaged in a dialogue with Harici, unraveling India’s positioning concerning multipolarity, the challenges of BRICS expansion, the transformation of the international order, and the role India might assume.
‘The stakes in geopolitical negotiations’
Sibal brought to mind that 23 nations have formally expressed their interest in joining BRICS. He believes that a set of criteria should be delineated for the admission process, underpinned by a consensus. Concurrently, Sibal underscored the pertinence of geopolitical negotiations in this progression:
“Though clearly a lot of geopolitical bargaining would have been involved because countries like China and Russia and even India would have their preferences with regard to like minded countries who should be eligible for joining the group.”
‘China wants to create an alternative international order’
Commenting on the leading BRICS countries, Sibal said the following about the position of China, Russia and India:
“China is very active on the international stage through the Belt and Road Initiative and wants to reach out to various corners of the world to create partnerships which would then challenge the Western hegemony which has been a factor of international life for the last few centuries and particularly after 1945, which is essentially a US built international order. So China wants to create an alternative international order which can be built on the East view of countries which share China’s geopolitical interests and are interested in strengthening ties with it.”
‘Russia sees the expansion of BRICS as a move towards multipolarity’
“Russia, as you know, especially after the Ukraine conflict, is now more vocal than ever about promoting multipolarity. And Russia very clearly sees the expansion of BRICS as a move towards multipolarity. So, it wants to expand BRICS and include countries that can be credible in terms of promoting multipolarity, which means key countries in the region that is commonly referred to as the global South.”
‘India will not want BICS to become a purely anti-Western group’
“India will naturally want to have much more balance within BRICS in terms of expansion and will not want BRICS to become a wholly or mainly or largely anti-Western grouping because that does not serve the purpose of the international community which is already fragmented. And if you create another grouping that is openly anti-Western, then you will further fragment the international community. So India will want to include countries that will provide a certain geopolitical balance.”
New memberships and shortcomings
Sibal believes that the countries admitted to BRICS membership ‘create some imbalance’, noting that the majority of these countries are located in West Asia or the Middle East region.
Reminding that Ethiopia is a center for China’s influence in Africa, Sibal said that Ethiopia was invited to membership on geopolitical grounds with the support of Russia.
“A more plausible candidate in Africa would clearly be Nigeria. But Nigeria says it has not applied for membership,” Sibal said, adding that the absence of any Asian country in the enlargement is also noteworthy:
“The other missing element in this enlargement is the absence of any country from Asia. Indonesia attended the summit but Indonesia was not included. The Indonesian president said they withdrew their candidacy at the last minute because they wanted to think more about the pros and cons of membership. Whatever the reasons for Indonesia’s exclusion, the fact is that Asia is missing from this enlargement. So the enlargement process is not over yet.”
‘India has absolutely no reservations’
Sibal also said that ‘India has no reservations’ about the accession of new countries because his country already has good relations with these countries:
“India has absolutely no reservations because India has strategic partnership with 5 of these countries. Five of the leaders of these countries were the chief guests at our Republic Day celebrations in India. We also have a very long standing relationship with Ethiopia, one of the biggest beneficiaries of India’s credit lines in Africa.”
‘It is a fact that BRICS has some disadvantages’
Speaking on the impact of the differences between India and China on the alliance, Sibal said:
“On the divisions within BRICS, it is true that BRICS has some disadvantages because of the serious differences between India and China. On the other hand, if you look at the expansion, we now have other countries that are at odds with each other. We have Iran and Saudi Arabia, we have Egypt and Iran with difficult relations. Argentina and Brazil are rivals in Latin America.
So I think BRICS will have to live with these differences between the Member States and see if they can agree on certain general international principles that will help to move beyond bilateral differences and help to promote a more democratic and egalitarian world order and move towards real multipolarity.”
‘Developing countries fear confrontation with the US even if they don’t join sanctions’
Underlining the use of finance as a weapon and how the dollar is effectively used in the international order, Sibal said, “We have seen how the dollar is very effectively used as a geopolitical tool to force countries to follow the dictates of the West in terms of foreign policy and relations with certain countries. And developing countries, even if they don’t agree with the logic of the sanctions and the sanctions policy, they are very afraid of confronting the US and being excluded from the US financial system. Because they have a great interest in the United States, which is the largest economy in the world, and international trade is still done in dollars, not currencies. These countries may not be anti-Western, but they will want a change in the international system where other countries can have a reasonable say in international governance. And if you don’t follow that agenda, you shouldn’t be sanctioned or penalized.”
‘There is a Lack of Consensus in the UN Security Council’
Regarding the sanctions imposed on Russia in light of the Ukraine conflict, Sibal also expressed his view, stating, “Who will hold the US accountable for its sanctions? Thus, as I mentioned, there is an imperative need for systemic change to render international governance more democratic and equitable. Notably, even within the UN Security Council, there exists a lack of consensus, indicating its inefficacy. Remarkably, all major powers represented in the UN Security Council are also members of the G20. Therefore, if these nations struggle to collaborate within the United Nations, it raises legitimate questions about their ability to work harmoniously within a smaller forum like the G20. Regrettably, the same disparities, challenges, conflicts, and confrontations are likely to permeate the G20 discussions.”
‘India did the best, thought wisely’
Commenting on India’s position in these international crises, Sibal said:
“India did its best, it thought well and very wisely. It was clear from the very beginning that it was not going to bring the two sides together, that the reasons for rivalry, conflict, and animosity were very deep. That is why India rightly said that it would focus on the concerns and agenda of the Global South. So ahead of the G20 foreign ministers meeting, India invited the leaders of the Global South to a virtual conference and 125 leaders of the Global South participated. We duly noted all their preferences, expectations and concerns.
And we reflected them in our discussion agenda at the G20. We also added some of our own ideas on disaster, on infrastructure, on global health issues, on the digital economy, on inclusive growth issues, on women’s empowerment issues, especially on the digital transformation of economies and how that can help developing countries to move forward.
We hope that the concerns that India has put on the table will be followed by the Global South, Brazil and South Africa.”
‘Let’s not forget that the G20 is still a US product’
“In this way we are trying to balance the agenda of the G20 to some extent. Let’s not forget that the G20 is still a US creation. In fact, after the 2008 financial crisis, there was a Western-led group, including the G7. Because they could not manage the economy on their own, their concerns about the world economy and financial stability were so great at that time that they invited some emerging economies to join. But this is still a Western-led group. But what India is trying to do is to make it more balanced as a group where the discussions are dominated not only by the concerns and agendas of the West, but also by the concerns and expectations of the South.”
‘There will be no immediate revolutionary change in the chip’
Commenting on India’s position in the ongoing ‘chip wars’ between the US and China, Sibal said that he ‘doesn’t think there will be an immediate revolutionary change’ in terms of his country’s supply chains and said, “India is focused on building chip manufacturing capacity in India. We have a system called the PLI scheme where the government will contribute 50% financing to any project for chip manufacturing in India. So this is the biggest hub. And one or two American companies have decided to set up some basic facilities in India. We are talking to Taiwan to see if there can be a joint venture in the private sector for cheap production. I think progress on this is slow, but it is clear that the US also wants to develop its own chip industry. They have the chip action or whatever it’s called. They want to reduce their dependence on China. They will be willing to help India to some extent as an alternative source for a certain category of chips. But this is something we can only achieve in the medium to long term.”
Sibal emphasized that the religion-based conflicts in Manipur are also a ‘fomented’ problem and said that ‘foreign interference does not want a strong India’, and explained the following about the conflicts in the region
“India has 1.4 billion people. Manipur is in one corner, a small corner of India bordering Myanmar and as you know there is a lot of turmoil in Myanmar. There is a conflict between various tribes and the central government and the army. So we came across many tribes from Myanmar who have connections with the tribes in Manipur. Besides that, there is now a very serious drug problem in the hills of Manipur. The drugs come from Myanmar and the government has tried to eradicate it and this has given an opportunity to people who are involved in drug trafficking, poppy cultivation and everything else to try to destabilize the situation.”
‘A highly complex and challenging situation’
“This prevailing scenario is indeed fraught with intricacy. Furthermore, in Manipur’s hilly regions, a legacy of India’s colonial past includes the Christianization of these indigenous populations. As a result, the conflict that initially revolved around drug trafficking and related issues has morphed into a complex Christian-Hindu matter. The indigenous hill tribes find themselves in opposition to the plains-dwelling tribes, leading to the unfortunate burning of both temples and churches. The Indian Government has responded by deploying a significant number of troops to stabilize the situation. It is a highly intricate and challenging circumstance.
In addition to these complexities, external interference has exacerbated the situation. This external meddling takes advantage of India’s vulnerabilities, providing fertile ground for disruptive activities. Lobbies in the West play a significant role in fueling these issues. It is crucial to note that India maintains strong state-level relations with Islamic nations like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia.”
Sibal emphasized, “India’s vast population of 1.4 billion ensures that issues may arise in various corners of the country. Unfortunately, such issues are often exploited by vested interest groups to create a false impression that these problems are pervasive throughout the entire nation. This is far from the truth,” Sibal concluded.
‘The government wanted to cut out the middleman’
Speaking about the agrarian reform steps in the country, Sibal said that there is definitely a need for reform in agriculture and that the Modi government’s privatization steps in the agriculture sector were not aimed at ‘giving agriculture to foreigners’, but to cut out the middlemen who benefit from the current situation:
“The government wanted to cut out these middlemen, and because we have become a digital economy, farmers can connect themselves digitally to any corner of India. So the government told them to sell what they have where they can get the best price in India.
But the middleman, who is very powerful, also has a lot of money power. They took action and started this agitation. The rest of India had no problem with these agrarian reforms. In Punjab, rice and wheat are bought by the government at fixed prices. This is a great thing for the people because they have a guaranteed buyer in the government. If the producers are affected by any natural causes, they get compensation, they continue to ask the government for a price increase for their products.
So what the government wanted to do was to force them to move towards more sophisticated agricultural products that would bring them more money. Now that India is becoming more and more a consumer society, there is a market for these things as well, rather than just producing rice and wheat. Rice consumes huge amounts of water and this has had a serious impact on water levels in Punjab.”
‘Taken up by Anti-Indian Diaspora abroad’
“In a concise summary, this issue evolved into a highly political matter and subsequently garnered attention from anti-Indian groups abroad. Notably, this support was particularly prominent in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where a significant Punjabi diaspora resides. These groups actively promoted and financially backed the cause. Following multiple rounds of discussions with these entities, the government recognized that progress was unlikely. Given Punjab’s sensitive location bordering Pakistan, a region where Pakistan has long been involved in promoting Sikh separatism, the government made the strategic decision to withdraw the reform bill primarily due to heightened security concerns. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that these reforms will need to be addressed at some point in the future.”
