An Interpretation of Strategic Autonomy and Neutrality that Raises Serious Concerns
On July 11, US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti stated, “I know India likes its strategic autonomy and I respect that. But in times of conflict, there is no such thing as strategic autonomy.”
Speaking at a dialogue organized in Delhi, he also said in the context of close India-US ties, “Don’t take the relationship for granted, but enjoy it every day.”
While the second quote got more media attention, probably the first one has more important implications.
Both quotes have been taken from the report from the Tribune (Chandigarh edition, July 12, 2024) which appeared as lead news on front page under the title ‘Can’t take ties for granted : US envoy after Modi’s Russia visit’.
It is not correct that strategic autonomy does not exist in times of conflict. In fact any country that pursues autonomous and free foreign policy needs it most in the context of various conflict situations in world, particularly the most important ones. In such contexts a country often would like not to take sides with either of the two fighting sides and would like to see the pursuit of peace in terms of its own understanding of the situation and not in terms of someone else imposing anything.
So if someone says that strategic autonomy does not exist in times of conflict situations then this cannot be accepted as the reality is that the exercise of strategic autonomy is more important in conflict situations.
In the context of the biggest and the most worrying conflict of recent years—the Ukraine conflict– India has stated that it is not taking sides and it would be very willing to contribute to peace within its limitations. What is wrong with that?
Should the USA tell India to change its policy in the context of this conflict? It should not. It is not even a direct party to the conflict which is Ukraine-Russia war. Of course many observers see this as a proxy war of the USA but that is a different matter and the USA denies this.
Who is responsible for this war which is very costly in human terms and should without doubt end as early as possible? Everyone knows that Russia invaded in early 2022, but before that there was the violation by the USA and its allies of the promise made to Russia of not expanding NATO even an inch eastwards, an instigation of the coup in Ukraine in 2014 which ousted a democratically elected leadership and then the thwarting of a peace agreement about to be clinched at a very early stage of the Ukraine conflict. So instead of only blaming Russia it is much more justified to consider a more comprehensive view in which all those who are to be blamed are indicted. Over 100 senior diplomats, statesmen, academics and other experts belonging to the USA and western ally countries have repeatedly warned that US Ukraine policies are needlessly provocative towards Russia and are leading to very serious conflict situations.
So various countries which look at this balanced picture and take their decisions on this conflict accordingly, exercising their strategic autonomy, are doing the right thing and there is no need for them to change their policy.
In the days up to the Bangladesh liberation war the USA had consistently sided with Pakistan and put pressure on India not to act in contrary ways, despite the fact that several hundred thousand people were being killed in the most horrible ways by the Pakistani army and its collaborators in East Pakistan. If India had merely followed US instructions, then several hundred thousand more people could have been killed. But India followed an independent policy and as a result the life of several hundred thousand people could be saved and the liberation of Bangladesh could be secured.
Even in several conflicts where the USA was itself a party such as Vietnam, Iraq etc. and where several million innocent people were killed in very painful ways, it would have been completely unjust to support US actions and freedom and autonomy of policy was very important for taking a stand based on justice. Millions of people within the USA and its ally countries also opposed these wars of the USA.
If we look only at the wars of just the 21st century, Brown University’s estimates tell us that in the various (not all) conflicts of the War on Terror during 2001-2020 nearly 0.9 million people died directly and 4.5 million people died if indirect deaths are also considered. Most of these deaths were of innocent persons and could easily have been avoided if a more balanced approach to curbing terrorism had been considered.
Hence as the USA has been very frequently acting in violation of the considerations of world peace, it should not always expect its friends and friendly countries to side with it or to follow its instructions in the context of various conflict situations. These countries should carefully consider the different situations and take independent decisions based on their assessment, thereby exercising their strategic autonomy in the context of conflict situations as well.