South Asian Identity will be formulated by South Asian societies rather than South Asian States Prof. Swaran Singh

We formally hear Sri Lankan statements that they will not allow their space to be used by China for military purposes. But suddenly, a submarine pops out to anchor and is full of political symbolism Human activity, from trade to the exploitation of resou

In the coming years, Asia is deemed to play a crucial role in the world order with its fast growing economies. Against this backdrop, The

spoke to Prof. Swaran Singh from Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi to explain some recent trends of the region. Singh is a Professor of International Relations at Jawaharlal Nehru University (New Delhi), a Visiting Professor at the Research Institute of Indian Ocean Economies (Kunming, China) and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of National Security Studies of Sri Lanka. He is also the President of the Association of Asia Scholars and the General Secretary of the Indian Congress for Asian and Pacific Studies. Excerpts from his interview follow.

Q It has been said that South Asia would define the 21st century and the future of the world. What sets this region apart from any other region?

We say that the invention of the steam engine in the 19th century led to naval fleets, making some countries great powers. Then, in the 20th century, we had the nuclear revolution, which created superpowers of two countries. The source of power in the 21st century however, is with the people and 1/4th of the human race is in South Asia.

This is going to be a distinct strength of the region, whether the citizens are in South Asia or all over the world. It doesn’t matter where they are, because they are closely linked to South Asia due to its ancient culture and a history going back 5000 years. So even when our nationals travel to other places, they are rooted in the culture and traditions of this region. They continue to be South Asian even if they have lived abroad for three generations. Our population is what will make South Asia an important region in the world and define how we grow as a race.

The enormous capability that each person has and how productive they will be to society is enormously different to what it was and the time and space shrink is making us more connected.

Q Starting off with current events. The attack on Mosul has started in an attempt to capture key areas held by ISIS. Asia has felt the presence of this group through its attacks, like with what Pakistan has been experiencing for the past week and through its recruitment. Will the recapture of land from ISIS have any effect in Asia?

The capability of Al Qaeda to recruit from anywhere in the world has catapulted when it comes to ISIS. They are able to recruit people from almost 50 countries. The rise of ISIS and the violence in our societies is partly due to restlessness since we are not comfortable in adapting to change. This leads to the overreaction of people and nations and is a result of the technological infusion. It does have a direct impact on South Asia since we are all connected. They can recruit from South Asia and those who are recruited may bring back agitation to the region.

Q Another prevailing issue is maritime piracy. The Malacca Strait overtook Somali waters to become the most dangerous waterway in 2014. Asia itself is unique compared to Africa, since almost every country has access to an ocean. Should the initiative of combatting piracy be spearheaded by one nation or should each nation engage in it on its own?

As human activity increasingly expands in enormous volumes, there is only a limited amount of land we have. So human activity, from trade to the exploitation of resources, has shifted from territory to waters. We are also shifting in terms of global activity from the North Atlantic and Europe to Asia, and Asia has far more connections to oceans. Our understanding of life therefore has to shift from territory to oceans.

With this shift I don’t think we have a choice in doing things individually. Nation states were created only 350 years ago. Now with this whole time and space shrink, we are becoming even more connected. So we must all pool our resources to deal with this problem. We are talking about a blue economy to attain the sustainability of the human race via the oceans which are not the ownership of any country. These are shared territories, so we all have to work together.

Q In relation to working together to solve problems, let’s look at SAARC. Many are doubting its effectiveness and relevance in the 21st century. We saw these issues highlighted when the 19th summit had to be postponed due to a border dispute. What is the benefit of regional organisations in South Asia? Will SAARC ever have any benefit in the future in this contentious region?

First of all as I said, we would always be connected, so we would have to operate at a regional level. It is not a matter of choice. Secondly, all regions have contentions. Europe had wars. Mexico and USA have conflicts. So we are not unique in having problems. True, the India- Pakistan issue derails some initiatives.

On whether SAARC is delivering, I think we are too ambitious at times. The EU which is far more advanced in human development, took 50 years to grow. We are only 27-yearsold. If you look at SAARC’S achievements, we have a common understanding in combatting terrorism long before Western countries even became aware of it. Look at the anti-climate change initiatives. I agree that we have been lacking in the implementation of all this but we have taken initiatives, set up secretariats and task forces. We are not as developed as the rest of the world, therefore implementation remains our limitation, but SAARC will deliver. The whole inclusion of observers is a reflection of South Asian confidence in allowing others to come in.

Q The issue with the 19th summit was the Jammu-kashmir problem. 13 years after the ceasefire between the two States, the agreement is in serious trouble with analysts stating that this is because Pakistan needs to regain the prestige lost after the surgical strike on POK launch pads. Will the situation ever resolve itself?

My answer is of a freelancing academic and I don’t speak for any Government. I think we will find a solution because one day we will simply forget it. We have fought each other for 70 years and killed millions but have gained nothing, and increasingly these issues will become less important compared to others, especially with the shift from terraferma to oceans, outer space and virtual space. Old obsessions with territories will gradually go away. We were conscious of territorial sovereignty after colonization. Officially we may not say we are giving territory to each other but one day we may just forget about it.

Q You said that borders would disappear, however Asia can be regarded as the capital of nuclear weapons, with China, North Korea, India and Pakistan increasing their arsenals. Is this a threat to the region and the world?

During World War II there was a race as to who would build the bomb first and ensure survival. This initial madness is no longer there. The number of nuclear warheads is rising, yes, but the estimates made then were that there would be 50 countries. That’s not the case with countries now, who are even giving up their weapons. India, Pakistan and China have not entered into a mad race but are instead letting scientists take their own time in development.

We still think there is some excitement in having nuclear power but most other states haven given it up.

When I was studying, we used to talk about the end of the human race and there were movies like ‘Armageddon’, but now we don’t even hear about it. Therefore just like borders, nukes too will gradually have less importance. We are now talking of climate change as a bigger threat. Hopefully, we will learn that nuclear science is destructive and such a focus is being seen in India and China.

Q Nuclear weapons equals North Korea. How do we deal with this nation, especially with South Korea having internal problems themselves with their President being impeached. What should be Asia’s response?

From the moment nuclear weapons were discovered, the USA was obsessed with being master of them. When it came to North Korea it outsourced the responsibility to China, who became the Convenor of the Six Party Talks which were supposed to resolve the problem. USA understood that North Korea needed an Asian solution and this meant that China was the most important country, since it has been the strongest ally of North Korea.

We cannot call North Korea’s bluff. The reason for them having these capabilities however, is internal. For the regime to stay in power, they have to concentrate on nationalism and distract people from real internal issues. So to solve the problem of North Korea, we have to inject some means of development into the country and the country most capable of doing this is China. Other countries can work alongside China, like the Sunshine diplomacy of South Korea, to raise the development levels of North Korea.

Q Speaking of China, it seems to bring about the need of a police force to police the police with her South China Sea expansion policy. This is a country that blatantly disregarded a judgement from a tribunal in the Hague on this matter. Can Asia collectively do anything?

There is no doubt that China has achieved unprecedented economic growth in the last three decades. That has given them unusual leverages which multiply with a one party rule. That is the reality. We need to look at what is feasible, not purely what is desirable. The most interesting example is the 12th June judgement coming from the Arbitration Court in the Hague, which was on a case being filed by the Philippines. However, the petitioner, President Duterte himself doesn’t care about the judgement. He made visits to Beijing and has said that they could take the island so long as they provide investment and aid. Therefore China has different leverages. We cannot always assume that institutions will deliver. We have to be sensitive to the fact that the Chinese have also had some of these claims for a long time, since the Ming dynasty. It is open to interpretation whether we agree with the claims or not. Other countries like Japan and the Philippines are also building islands. So legalistically, everyone is breaching the norm. Moreover, when China signed UNCLOS, they had already made a reservation to the clause making arbitration obligatory, as did two dozen other countries.

Q Let’s look at a threat where the petitioner does mind. The Chinapakistan Economic Corridor which is a 46 billion dollar investment has been called unacceptable by Prime Minister Modi. Is it a threat to India?

It is not a threat to India but it is definitely a project impinging on India’s national security interests. This has been an unusual relationship from the beginning, with a completely atheist State engaging a religious republic. President Xi Jinping promises 46 billion dollars of overall investment in Pakistan which has about 250 billion dollars of an economy in total. Therefore, 46 is a lot.

In addition, this is the only time in history where a country has wanted a 10,000 strong force to protect its engineers and assets. Why do you need such an investment for an economic project? Who are the enemies there? China is very conscious about internal opposition that may erupt as well as any Indian opposition. Ours is based on a legalistic position where, according to international law, a country cannot be investing in foreign territories which it believes are disputed territory, and China is such a country.

Q Most of the world is condemning President Trump for his proposed border wall with Mexico. However India itself has fences with Pakistan and Bangladesh. What is the need for such a construction? Are they even effective in stopping immigration?

A wall or a fence is only a temporary solution which shows that you are unable to manage your relations. I am doubtful whether the wall will become a solution. Despite the fences we have, people are still coming across. Mexico and USA also have a fence but they still have drugs coming to the North and arms going to the South. It is not a one-sided problem.

Fences are not 100% effective due to the geography surrounding them. There could also be human errors and flaws that allow people to overcome fences. They are therefore merely crisis management tools and don’t solve problems. This is in light of the shift from territory to other spaces like virtual and outer space. You cannot place borders in those places and stop the flow of people or knowledge. It is better to handle things without a wall since it reflects a failure to manage.

Q Moving on to relations with Sri Lanka. Leaving aside all diplomatic language, in all honesty, how much of a threat is China’s investment in Hambantota especially after the submarine issue? Sri Lanka does act as a road block in the naval exercises of India.

If a nation knows and understands a threat to its wider security, it will take action to resolve the issue. So, a problem arises if things occur that India does not understand. For example, we formally hear Sri Lankan statements that they will not allow their space to be used by China for military purposes. But suddenly, a submarine pops out to anchor and is full of political symbolism. This is different from just moving around. Because Sri Lanka is a good friend of India, India would perhaps expect to know of it in advance. If we think it is a threat, we know how to respond. But when a very country close to us suddenly shows such activity, it is a surprise. Even the Hambantota port that is being created with the 99 year lease, turning debt into equity, and the large industrial zones are all part of the assets China is creating, which could impinge on the wider understanding of security. Confidence has to be built. If a country is thinking of changing policy, they can do whatever they want but other countries that assume they are also partners would like to be taken into confidence.

Submarines are also fundamentally offensive weapons. When they start showing up in Pakistan and Bangladesh, that makes this one popping up to be perceived by India in a different way. But that’s also okay as long as neighbours keep each other in confidence, because whenever there is a trust deficit, even the smallest thing can become an overreaction. We have a trust deficit with China. So no matter what happens, we read into it.

Q Forty years down the road, what will the South Asian region look like post-trump and post-brexit? We already have repercussions with the USA cancelling the TPP, which has heavily affected Japan.

Since we are talking long-term, I think some of these near term trajectories will not be relevant. Trump as an individual is not important but the rise of Trump as a trend is. This is visible in France, Germany and the Philippines. Democracies which are the most fashionable forms of government are seeing the masses throwing up new leaders, and even if a leader is from an elite class he has to carry the sentiments of the base.

The base is empowered today because of technology, so they determine the politics. That will be the trend of the future. The economic and social models of lifestyle we have created will change. More pressure will be exerted now on ensuring sustainability on environmental issues and going back to national frameworks. These trends may come up and trigger new tensions. When the USA starts withdrawing from the global road, China will fill those shoes. There are discussion whether the TPP should invite China now to fill the vacuum. There will always be other countries willing to fill the vacuum but the fundamental change is that human beings will be far more mobile, travelling and working from around the world. They will also be far more capable. Therefore, the identity of South Asia will be formulated by South Asian societies rather than South Asian States. States will have to re-engage other stakeholders such as the media, NGOS and civil society. South Asia will go back to its societal identity and we may see it becoming far more cohesive.

Just like borders, nukes too will gradually have less importance. We are now talking of climate change as a bigger threat If a country is thinking of changing policy, they can do whatever they want but other countries that assume they are also partners would like to be taken into confidence