COOPERATION BETWEEN INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA IN THE WIDER INTERESTS OF INDIAN OCEAN REGION AND THE WORLD

[Paper presented to the Fifth Indira Gandhi Conference, New Delhi, November 19-22, 1995]

The independence of India, the largest colonial country, in 1947 and the transformation of South Africa, the bastion of racism, into a democratic State in 1994, were the two major landmarks in the struggle for the emancipation of nations which changed the map of the Indian Ocean littoral. The march of liberation in the half century between these two great events made possible the establishment of co-operative relations among nations in the region in the interest of their peoples rather than those of external imperial Powers.

The concept of the Indian Ocean community emerged with the liberation of South Africa and the resumption of relations between India and South Africa. In August 1994, when the two countries signed a trade agreement, their trade ministers agreed to work out the details of an Indian Ocean trading area.

The project happily received support from other nations in the region, and fruitful preparatory meetings have been held with the participation of governments, business community and academic scholars.

These discussions have dealt almost wholly with economic co-operation, exchange of technology and human resource development. There seems to be general agreement to keep political and security issues outside the Indian Ocean Rim Initiative, at least for the present.

Experience shows, however, that while economic Cupertino can promote political Cupertino, it cannot flourish unless accompanied by active efforts towards stability, peace and security, and respect for human rights. Equally, economic Cupertino requires a degree of consensus on social issues.

India and South Africa, as initiators of the project, will need to give serious consideration to joint efforts to promote the environment for fruitful economic Cupertino.

On January 25, 1995, during President Mandela's visit to India, the two countries not only agreed on extensive Cupertino in various fields, but laid down shared ideals - peace, democracy, secularism, nuclear weapon-free and non-violent world, and international security, particularly in Asia and Africa. They affirmed common determination to fight against all forms of racial discrimination, terrorism and religious "extremism", as well as illegal trade in narcotics, arms and cultural objects,

President Mandela emphasised on several occasions during his short visit the importance of the shared ideals and the commitment to fight for them. He said at the luncheon hosted by the Prime Minister of India on January 25:

In his Rajiv Gandhi Foundation lecture the next day, he elaborated:

Speaking at the President's banquet in the evening, he said that the "unique and special partnership" between South Africa and India "is, above all, premised on building a future that will benefit our peoples and the nations of the Indian Ocean Rim."

On the same day, at the ceremony for the unveiling of the statue of Pandit Nehru in the Indian Parliament, he said:

This vision of President Mandela - partly inspired by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the role India played in international affairs under his leadership - should be constantly kept in mind in developing bilateral relationship between India and South Africa and in building economic Cupertino among nations on the Indian Ocean rim. The ideals should not be allowed to become empty platitudes as often happens to preambles of international agreements and formal statements of Heads of State.

The wider interests of humanity need to be underlined because the end of colonialism and the cold war have not brought peace and security to Asia, Africa and the rest of the "third world". Nor has there been progress toward the democratisation of international relations. "Power politics" reign supreme despite the pious statements emanating from the dominant Powers.

India and South Africa are uniquely qualified, by joint efforts to promote the unity of the developing countries and rally support of public opinion in the rest of the world for this purpose. They occupy strategic positions in the two sister continents of Asia and Africa. The freedom movements of the two countries - with populations of varied origins, speaking many languages and professing many faiths - have set an example of unity in diversity. Their struggles for freedom, which attracted world-wide interest and support, thanks to the statesmanship and moral stature of their leaders, have shown that human solidarity is stronger than greed and narrow national interests, and that the human spirit can overcome power politics. They are endowed with human and material resources, as well as valuable experience in international Cupertino. They have co-operated for many years in the Non-aligned Movement and other fora, and have a common outlook on world affairs.

Asian solidarity, Pan-Africanism and Arab nationalism - as movements for freedom and international Cupertino - exercised significant influence in the struggles of Asian and African countries for emancipation. It was that spirit which moved India to risk Western hostility for espousing freedom in Indonesia, Indo-China and South Africa; enabled Nasser's Egypt to resist pressures by big Powers and overcome the triple aggression in 1956 to support freedom of Algeria and other countries; and persuaded the "frontline States" in southern Africa, despite devastation by South Africa, to refuse to betray the black people of South Africa. Asian-African countries have thus set inspiring examples of solidarity - and the task now is to rebuild such solidarity for the new challenges in the current world situation.

India, under the leadership of Pandit Nehru, was able to exercise great influence in world affairs - despite its military weakness and economic difficulties - because it opposed "power politics" and sought to rally public opinion. Pandit Nehru not only espoused an international outlook but educated the people of India in international affairs so that there was a consensus on foreign policy. His views appealed to the public in neighbouring countries and exercised an influence on their governments. They also had found a response among large segments of public opinion in Western countries.

India did not seek to impose "leadership" - which can only be earned by service and contribution to common welfare - but helped smaller countries to play a role in the United Nations. Indeed, it bore the brunt of Western pressure because of its opposition to colonialism and war and thereby protected the smaller countries of the region from undue pressures. It thereby promoted consensus among nations for concerted action not only in their national interests but in the interests of international Cupertino and peace.

Among India's earliest initiatives were the Asian Relations Conference and the Conference on Indonesia which brought together countries in the region which had long been separated by domination of different colonial Powers.

South Asian countries were able to act together. The foreign policies of the governments of India and Pakistan were parallel, despite serious bilateral disputes.

This unity was threatened when the Western Powers, especially the United States, sought to establish military alliances and blocs in the region, ostensibly against Communism, at the risk of creating and accentuating conflicts even when a gruesome war was going on in Indo-China and a threat of conflict between China and the United States hung over the continent and the world. Religious fanaticism was encouraged as a bulwark against communism by secret services which even got involved in drug trade.

Under the initiative of India, the South Asian States ("Colombo Powers") convened the Asian-African Conference in Bandung in 1955. It agreed on principles of inter-State relations, affirmed Asian-African solidarity and helped in reducing international tension. But the great promise of the "Bandung spirit" was soon frustrated by the triple aggression against Egypt, United States intervention in Vietnam and later the Chinese invasion of India.

India, along with Egypt and Yugoslavia, then helped found the Non-aligned Movement with a broader geographical scope and greater cohesion. The NAM made a great contribution not only to freedom and peace, but also to international Cupertino in a number of areas. Non-alignment - with all it meant in positive terms - became the policy of most newly independent countries, except for a few which were unable to get out of the grip of external military alliances.

In 1971, countries in and around the Indian Ocean - concerned over the military activities of external Powers in the Ocean and anxious to extend the "zone of peace" - were able to obtain a resolution by the United Nations General Assembly declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace for all time. The Assembly called upon the Great Powers to enter into consultations with the littoral States to halt further escalation and expansion of their military presence and to eliminate any manifestation in the area of Great Power military presence, including nuclear weapons.

Next year, the Assembly established an Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, with the participation of the governments in the region as well as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and major maritime nations. The Committee, in its labours for over two decades, has been unable to make any progress because of the attitude of the major Western Powers which, in fact, increased their military presence in the Indian Ocean. France, the United Kingdom and the United States withdrew from the Committee in 1989, opposing in particular the provision of the 1971 Declaration calling for the dismantling of military bases and installations.

The Ad Hoc Committee made a series of attempts to persuade them to rejoin the Committee - including a visit to the three capitals by its Chairman, Mr. Herman Leonard de Silva of Sri Lanka, this year - but without success.

The withdrawal from the Committee, which took place after the end of the cold war, raises the question whether the Western Powers are perhaps not now extending their desire for hegemony as it is no more challenged by the Soviet Union.

Western military bases and movements of naval vessels in the Indian Ocean continue, despite the end of the cold war and the disintegration of military alliances in the region.

Western military presence in the gulf has greatly increased. Their planes constantly overfly Iraq and pressure is being exerted to isolate Iran. Regional organisations are bypassed in dealing with inter-State disputes in the region in contravention of the spirit of the United Nations Charter, while the Great Powers vie with each other in selling arms to the countries in the region.

Another major problem in the region is the absence of any improvement in relations between India and Pakistan. This has led to an arms race, retarding economic development of both countries, while terrorist groups threaten a wider and catastrophic conflict.

These problems cannot be solved by acrimonious debates in a forum for economic Cupertino in the region, and any attempt to inject bilateral disputes into such a forum would only frustrate progress. At the same time every effort should be made to deal with these problems so as to ensure a conducive environment for economic Cupertino.

There are three tasks which deserve urgent and serious attention of India and South Africa, as well as other like-minded States in the region.

1. Improving the status of developing countries in the United Nations and other multi-national institutions, and contributing to a "new world order in which democracy, peace and prosperity prevail everywhere".
2. Promoting peace and security in the Indian Ocean region.
3. Ensuring that economic Cupertino in the region will be directed towards improving the lot of the poorest segments of the population, protecting the environment and promoting equality.

During the cold war, the United Nations Security Council, with the five-Power veto, was often paralysed and the non-aligned nations, which constituted a majority of the membership, were able to exercise considerable influence on the work of the organisation through the General Assembly and other organs.

Since the advent of the Reagan administration in the United States in 1981, the United States and its allies exerted enormous financial and other pressure on the United Nations and its agencies, as well as their member States, to weaken the influence of the poorer nations. The United States managed to dominate the United Nations, especially since the collapse of the other "super-Power" and the economic dependence of Russia and China. It activated the Security Council and several "peacekeeping operations" (misnamed in some cases) were launched with mixed results.

Non-aligned nations lost their influence. This was evidenced by their votes for Western proposals even when they made statements criticising them as unwise or disastrous.

This domination by a single "superpower" is, however, highly unstable since power does not endow superior wisdom and has its severe limitations in dealing with distant local conflicts, and also since economic power is more diffused than military power. An attempt is being made to enlarge the permanent membership of the Security Council, with the addition of Germany and Japan, so that a coalition of richer nations would become even more dominant. Power politics - involving both military and economic power - would be enshrined and sanctified. As other nations, including India and South Africa, also desired permanent membership, perhaps as a status symbol, compromise proposals are being discussed to give some developing nations a second class status and relegate the rest to a third class status and thereby divide the poorer countries.

It is essential that countries like India and South Africa reject any co-option and press for the democratisation of the United Nations and other international institutions so as to unite the developing countries and secure for them a greater voice in international affairs.

The international outlook of the Indian national movement, under the influence of Pandit Nehru, which inspired President Nelson Mandela, was based on a denunciation of power politics. Neither India, nor South Africa with its sad experience, can support a reform of the United Nations based on power politics nor seek recognition as "regional powers" with the blessings of the big Powers.

As regards peace and security in the Indian Ocean region, it must be recognised that the Non-aligned Movement - unlike the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in its earlier years - has not had any success as a mediator. India has not played a significant role as a neutral mediator in bilateral disputes in the region.

Indian diplomacy, under the direction of Pandit Nehru, sought to avert or end conflicts arising from colonial domination or external intervention in the region. In dealing with tension in the Pacific, and wars in Indo-China and the Suez, India did not disguise its support to nations in the region which were subjected to external aggression; it tried to facilitate the withdrawal of external Powers from the morass they had sunk into and thereby restore peace.

An effective approach to the problems in the region at the present time may be that adopted in 1955: to secure acceptance by governments of certain basic principles of inter-State relations as at the Bandung Conference; and obtain United Nations endorsement, as well as widest public support in the region, to ensure that governments act in accordance with those principles.

The declaration of the Bandung Conference and the agreements between India and South Africa contain a number of principles, but they need to be supplemented in the light of current problems in the region. For instance:

1. Military bases of external Powers and their military forces on the soil of countries of the region should be removed in the absence of a threat from outside the region. There should be no sale or supply of arms - "legal" or "illegal" - beyond reasonable needs of national security.
2. All governments in the region should commit themselves to resolve bilateral disputes solely by peaceful means and no government should refuse to negotiate in good faith. There should be no provocative movement of military forces or incitement of public feeling against the other State, and no interruption of diplomatic or trade relations or the free movement of peoples between the two countries.
3. Any support for terrorist groups - including facilities for travel, training and transfer of funds - should be prohibited. No group which resorts to kidnapping or the killing of innocent civilians should be treated as a freedom movement.

(It may be recalled that President Nassau of Egypt proclaimed the slogan "No Arab should fight an Arab" - and that it had a very positive effect in the Arab world for many years. A similar declaration by Asian and African States would be an enormous contribution to peace.)

Discussions on economic Cupertino in the Indian Ocean Rim have so far been largely divorced from social objectives. They have been in the context of "globalisation" of economy and free reign to market forces. While businessmen and academic experts were invited to consultations on the IORI in Mauritius and Perth, no invitations were extended to trade unions or women's groups or organisations concerned with environment. The agenda appears to be set by the new thinking in the Western countries, especially among neo-conservatives.

Until the end of the cold war, the competition with Communist States persuaded the capitalist West to institute a number of measures toward a "welfare State". Certain elements of socialism were absorbed in the West to create a more humane and egalitarian society, while socialism became discredited in the Communist States because of denial of human rights and other aberrations. These measures have now come under attack and the Western States face serious social problems so that their example is not one to be emulated blindly.

Experience in India, as well as in several countries which followed IMF guidelines, shows that if economic reforms are divorced from social needs, they can create tensions even if the growth rate is high, and that the reforms may be overturned by a revolt of the dispossessed.

India, soon after its independence, decided to work towards a "socialistic" form of society, without being dogmatic about socialist ideology. There has been no repudiation of that goal.

The liberation movement in South Africa is also wedded to socialistic goals, though it has discarded some former objectives such as nationalisation of mines. It is taking bold steps toward gender equality, widest popular participation in government, upliftment of the poorest sections of the population, promotion of human rights, reduction of military forces etc.

India and South Africa would be remiss in fulfilling the aspirations of their own peoples if they did not try to secure wider acceptance of their social goals.

While India and South Africa have agreed on Cupertino toward common ideals, there has been little consultation on joint action by them. They have not co-ordinated their positions in the United Nations. The "special relationship" which President Mandela spoke about is not yet a reality.

This is not a matter for governments alone. Public organisations, the media and even individuals can play a crucial role. India and South Africa have numerous public organisations active in various fields. But while hundreds of businessmen travel between the two countries exploring opportunities for trade and investment, there is yet little exchange of experience and views between leaders of public organisations, members of Parliament etc.

Talk of a "special relationship" would remain an empty platitude in the absence of closest contacts and consultation at all levels for shared objectives.

Power politics are against the vital interests of India and South Africa and all other developing countries, and are not in the interests of the majority of developed nations. In fact, as in the case of colonialism and apartheid, they are not in the long-term interests of the big Powers. The purpose is, therefore, not to confront the big Powers - a course which is not an option for India or South Africa at present - but to build the broadest coalition of like-minded States, as well as public opinion all over the world - for a non-violent, non-nuclear world in which "democracy, peace and prosperity prevail everywhere."

In the long struggle against apartheid, the South African liberation movement, assisted by India, was able to secure support from most governments and peoples of the world - including almost all the smaller Western countries and large segments of public opinion in the more recalcitrant Western States - and thereby force the apartheid regime to negotiate a transfer of power to all the people. It was such a coalition which had earlier prevailed in ending the Vietnam war.

India and South Africa, it is hoped, will co-operate in building such a coalition to deal with the urgent tasks in the interests of the peoples of the Indian Ocean region and the world.