What is meant by strategic autonomy
Strategic autonomy denotes the ability of a state to pursue its national interests and adopt its preferred foreign policy without being constrained in any manner by other states.
In its pure form, strategic autonomy presupposes the state in question possessing overwhelmingly superior power.
This is what would enable that state to resist the pressures that may be exerted by other states to compel it to change its policy or moderate its interests
Diplomatic tensions between India and the US
Eric Garcetti, the United States Ambassador to India, said, “In times of conflict there is no such thing as strategic autonomy; we will, in crisis moments, need to know each other.” referring to India-China meet
When Mr. Modi was in Russia, on the eve of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington, the Joe Biden administration had expressed its “concerns” publicly
While the overall trajectory of the strategic partnership between India and the U.S. seems steady, stress points have appeared in the relationship in recent years.
Of these, the most consequential was India’s refusal to toe the western line vis-à-vis Russia on the Ukraine war
There are two elements in this concept to strategic autonomy
The first is the inherent conviction that a nation is capable of taking decisions that serve its interests.
The second is that the nation should have the will and the resources to take those decisions even in the face of high pressure.
So, if India is not able to take autonomous foreign policy decisions during the times of “conflict” and “crisis moments”, as Mr. Garcetti has said, it is not exercising its strategic autonomy
India initially stayed equidistant to both the capitalist and the communist blocs.
But after the U.S. formed new treaty alliances in Asia and China moved closer towards the U.S. after breaking up with the Soviet Union, India began building stronger ties with Moscow, but without forfeiting its strategic autonomy.
And when the Soviet Union and the communist bloc collapsed by 1991, India chose greater integration with the global economy and closer strategic partnership with the West.
Challenges in balancing with major powers
From India’s point of view, the global order is again changing.
The U.S. remains the world’s most powerful country but the world order is no longer unipolar.
China, already the world’s second largest economy, is rising as a strong competitor to America’s global primacy.
Russia is challenging the western security architecture in Europe, militarily.
In West Asia, a shadow war between Israel, an American ally, and Iran, a close Russian strategic partner, is heating up.
In an anarchic order, India wants to strike a balance between great powers without joining any alliance system.
And for this, maintaining its strategic autonomy is essential
Russia is the source of over 40% of India’s defence imports, and 86% of the Indian military’s equipment is of Russian origin.
This cannot be undone overnight.
Russia is also an important partner in continental Asia where India works with Eurasian powers for economic progress, connectivity and tackling security challenges
To be sure, Russia’s deepening ties with China alter the essence of India’s historical partnership with Moscow.
But it is also an opportunity to recast the India-Russian partnership as a more equal bilateral partnership where both sides would be mindful of each other’s sensitivities
If India were part of any alliance systems, such as Germany, for example, which had to silently accept the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline which it part owns, India would not have the strategic space to pursue its partnership with Russia, while staying a closer partner of the West
COMMENTS