From 'values to value': Raisina Dialogue highlights pragmatic diplomacy

This year's Raisina Dialogue underscored the importance of pragmatic diplomacy in a fractured world

A key takeaway from last week’s Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi is that countries struggling to navigate current geopolitics have little option but to pursue diplomacy with only national interests in mind. 

Held over March 5-7 amid a raging war in West Asia, the international security conference, annually hosted by the Ministry of External Affairs and the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank, also highlighted how the West-led global order, in place since the end of World War II (1945), has collapsed. During the closing session of the conference, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri asked if the developing world was given a voice in shaping the so-called rule-based order. 

Calling for the reform of global institutions and rules, he said, he isn’t making a case for India but “it is a scandal that Africa does not have a larger voice at the global table”. More than half the decisions concerning the continent are taken at the United Nations Security Council without an African voice in a “decision-making role”. 

While the United States (US) is the sole superpower, China is challenging it through economic, technological, and military means despite significant gaps. 

Stephen Harper, former Prime Minister of Canada, said that the first thing he heard from people outside the US and China was the “increasing concern about the geopolitics that the two powers are engaging in” and the understanding that the two countries were unapologetic and not seeking anybody’s consent. 

He said the world today was much more fractured and riskier than before. 

For middle or emerging powers, including India and Canada, the choice is simply to adapt or even band together. Although many speakers touched on both topics — diplomacy and the world order — across different panel discussions, the closing session, titled “convergence before consensus”, seemed to best encapsulate the new pragmatic approach. According to Misri, the answer lies in getting past the mental block “created by this craze called shared value”, and while shared values are important, they are not sufficient for partnerships when solutions are needed, and that the time has come to move to “shared values” in relations between or among countries. 

Comfort Ero, president and chief executive officer, International Crisis Group, a Western nonprofit, said at the same session the middle powers had demonstrated their ability to put on the table that “you have a choice as a sovereign nation”. 

“Because if you can’t safeguard your choice, as a sovereign nation, it becomes hard to think about what the value looks like, what the rules look like.” Philippe Varin, chairman, International Chamber of Commerce, France, said, without naming the US, tariffs had been weaponised. 

He said the World Trade Organization (WTO), which is in a bad shape, should remain and reform, because even the developing world would be impacted. He said if the WTO were to disappear, the emerging and developing countries could lose 5 per cent of their gross domestic product. 

Varin said last year, there were 3,000 violations of the WTO rule of the law (rules) by countries around the world. “Business needs predictability, stability and legal certainty.” 

The panel was asked to examine whether accidental partnerships might eventually lead to stable cooperation, or further intensify underlying contradictions. The answers led to an understanding that countries with political differences or land disputes might still collaborate on investment priorities and those competing over technology could work on the climate crisis. 

For instance, India and China have coordinated positions on climate change at international forums in the past.