Russia-India-China (RIC) Trilateral: Significant Outcomes
STORIES, ANALYSES, EXPERT VIEWS
India convened the ‘Third Regional Security Dialogue on Afghanistan’ on November 10. The national security advisers/ secretaries of the National Security Councils of Iran, Russia and the five Central Asian Republics joined the Indian NSA at, what the ministry of external affairs said, was to be a “high-level” dialogue to “deliberate upon measures to address the relevant security challenges and support the people of Afghanistan in promoting peace, security and stability”. The joint communique mentioned Afghanistan, the fight against the Covid pandemic and reforming global multilateral systems, like the UN Security Council.
But the context in which the Russia-India-China (RIC) meeting took place, writes Jyoti Malhotra (senior consulting editor at ThePrint) was “fascinating” and “interesting.”
India - Russia ties have survived the ‘embrace between Moscow and Beijing’
“First of all, the RIC interaction comes near the eve of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India on 6 December; this is the first time that the Russian leader is travelling abroad to another country for a bilateral meeting in person since the pandemic began…..so his trip to Delhi is significant because he decided to come despite rising Covid cases back home. Apart from the RIC curtain-raiser last week, India and Russia will engage in a 2+2 foreign and defence ministers meeting’…….a joint commission meeting will look at upping the trade and economic part of the relationship.”
The visit, significantly is perhaps Putin’s way of saying that ties between “Delhi and Moscow has survived the China-Soviet split as well as the current embrace between Moscow and Beijing and that Russia would like to continue to invest in a strong, powerful and independent-minded India.”
Engaging with China despite border standoff
The second reason for the RIC dialogue’s importance, writes Malhotra “is that Jaishankar was meeting his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, albeit in a virtual setting, one year after their Moscow encounter when both leaders were said to have come to some sort of understanding on Ladakh…….” Some observers say that India agreed to buffer zones inside the LAC on the Indian side, but there has been no formal announcement on this. In fact, reports of a “Chinese village” in Arunachal Pradesh have only added to the tension with China.
The interesting part, therefore “is that Jaishankar still went ahead with the RIC meeting. Some would point to the hypocrisy of it, which is that India is talking to a Chinese leader when that Chinese troops are not allowing Indian soldiers to patrol parts of its own territory; others would say that India would have been persuaded to go ahead with hosting the interaction so that all the decks were cleared when Putin comes to town……”
Important to see ‘how India leverages its proximity with Russia’
Third, “the soporific nature of the RIC meeting also gives India an opportunity to ask what kind of power it wants to be…….Today, in the post-Cold War world in which China is rising and the US is trying to balance ties between Beijing and Moscow – another virtual summit between Biden and Putin is likely soon – India must also learn to expand its own influence in a variety of directions. A sign of maturity is also learning not to choose, but ably playing all sides…..
"New Delhi’s growing proximity to the US today is a cause for celebration, but it can also be used as leverage with Moscow – and vice-versa. The China factor is key to that proximity, but what will be interesting is whether New Delhi is able and willing to play the game so as to deepen the fissures between Moscow and Beijing.
“What will, indeed, invest the Russia-India-China triangle with a frisson of excitement is how India leverages its proximity with Russia to push the envelope both with China as well as the US……”
Increasing role of the NSA
Vivek Katju (retired Indian Foreign Service officer) dwells on another aspect of the RSA, which is the enhanced role being played by India’s National Security Advisors (NSA).
The MEA statement on the outcome of the meeting was sedate. Not so low-key, says Katju “was a background briefing given by a senior National Security Council Secretariat official prior to the meeting.”
The official emphasized that the NSAs’ meeting was not to be a run-of-the-mill gathering of diplomats but a dialogue of “security czars” to take practical measures. The term, “security czar” writes Katju “reflects both the significant and increasing influence of the NSA’s office and the primacy of its present incumbent in the formulation and the management of India’s security and foreign policies. The use of the word, ‘czar’, is troubling. It shows a mindset which may be in keeping with the spirit of these times but is hardly in accordance with the tenets of India’s constitutional and political system.
“The word, ‘czar’, writes Katju “denotes an all-powerful and authoritarian leader. Certainly, any adviser, howsoever influential, would not seek to arrogate to his person the role of a decision-maker. That role lies only with the elected executive, which is responsible to the people through Parliament. The role of consultants, advisers and civil servants is to give their professional views; they must avoid wading into politics even if they hold ‘political’ appointments……..Traditionally, Indian civil and uniformed services, advisers and consultants have kept within the limits of their mandates. In Pakistan, it has been otherwise…..”
Role of the ministry of external affairs has suffered: Over the past two decades, recalls Katju “the institutional framework of security and foreign policy making has become more complex. In these years, the role of the NSA has got consolidated and that of the NSCS, which does the staff work for the National Security Council through the NSA, has become augmented. Interestingly, the NSA and the NSCS have gained influence in respect to India’s neighbourhood. It is now widely perceived that both are playing a more active role not only in policy-formulation but also in its execution with all the neighbouring countries. Consequently, it is believed that the role of the ministry of external affairs has suffered. It may not be so but perceptions and beliefs on where power and influence are located impact the approaches of partners and adversaries in international relations……
“By convening a meeting of the regional and the Russian NSAs on Afghanistan, the Indian system, once again, profiled its role and that of the NSCS in the management of critical areas of the neighbourhood. It is true that an effort was made to ensure that the MEA was not totally kept out of the loop but that only profiled its marginalization.”
