Wednesday’s India-EU summit, attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and EU Council president Charles Michel, will be remembered for fewer reasons than can be counted on fingertips. It was a digital summit (which is now the Covid19-imposed normal) and both sides of the virtual table presented their views, hoping some of them would serve to catalyse what Mr Modi described as a “long-term strategic perspective… (and) action-oriented agenda”.
While Ms Leyen and Mr Michel stuck to predictable platitudes (“as power dynamics shift, the EU wants to play a stronger role in Asia, and across the globe”), Mr Modi did not hesitate to repeatedly allude to the elephant in the room: the People’s Republic of China which continues to mount increasing “pressure on a rules-based international order”. He also made it abundantly clear that from India’s perspective, any significant post-pandemic shift in the global order would have to be ‘humanity centric’ and mindful of rules-based multilateralism.
But if the signing of a civil nuclear agreement on the eve of the 2020 summit triggered hopes of the EU robustly declaring greater solidarity with India in contesting, confronting and containing an increasingly belligerent China, they were belied by the cautiously nuanced comments of Ms Leyen and Mr Michel. The latter’s post-summit media briefing was remarkably devoid of any genuine enthusiasm.
In sharp contrast, Mr Modi was blunt in iterating that he views India as a “natural partner” of EU because New Delhi values “democracy, pluralism, inclusiveness, rules-based multilateralism and freedom”. There was a faint echo from the other side of the aisle. Mr Modi also stressed that now is the time for democracies to commit themselves to greater cooperation. Whether the EU unambiguously reciprocates this view remains unclear.
Just how cautious and nuanced were the EU’s views, as stated during the meeting, is evident from Mr Michel’s post-summit comment: “The Chinese aggression was discussed with India. We are in favour of a peaceful solution. PM Modi informed us of the latest developments with China and we support the efforts to maintain a channel of dialogue.” That is not even half a condemnation and stands out in stark contrast to the position taken by the US.
There is clearly a divergence between India and the EU on their respective approach to China. It’s an uneven landscape that separates the two. This despite the fact that the EU is India’s largest trading partner – in 2019, trade accounted for €80 billion (11.1% of total Indian trade), equalling that with the US and continuing to remain ahead of China. The EU has been pushing the envelope since 2007 for a free trade agreement with little or no progress so far on that front.
Yet, blaming India for the delay, or non-closure of a deal that would be hugely beneficial for the EU, especially for its massively subsidised farm and dairy sectors, would be misplaced. India understands the importance of transactional relationships (‘shared principles and values’ are just so many words, no more) but India is understandably reluctant to sign a deal that is prefaced by self-righteous pontification on how India conducts its affairs as a sovereign state and a functioning democracy which, like any other democracy anywhere else in the world, is imperfect and still evolving.
The EU has been spectacularly soft on China’s many transgressions at home and abroad. Apart from token criticism of the brazen denial of basic rights to a million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, the EU has done precious little. A resolution moved in the European Parliament calling for sanctions on individual officials in China and demanding that the Chinese Government should “immediately end the practice of arbitrary detentions without any charge, trial or conviction” (both laughable suggestions) was met with Beijing trashing the proposition. The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement asking the EU to “abandon its double standards on counter-terrorism” and stop “interfering in China's internal affairs… The people of Xinjiang and the Chinese people have a greater right to speak (about the situation in Xinjiang) than those who are far away in Europe”.
It has often been pointed out that for all its professed concerns for human rights and associated issues, the EU has quietly acquiesced to Chinese excesses since 1989 when an arms embargo was placed on China following the Tiananmen Square massacre. We have not heard a pipsqueak on Tibet or, more recently, Hong Kong where a new draconian security law that only a ruthless authoritarian state can draft, has descended like darkness at noon. In recent days, Germany has removed the flag of Taiwan from its official website, replacing it with a white rectangle and stripping the democratic Republic of China of its identity lest the totalitarian People’s Republic of China be offended.
Frankly, India should have made it transparently clear to the EU where it got off on its hypocrisy and duplicity; that European interference in its internal affairs was and remains both misdirected and uncalled for. During Wednesday’s summit, the EU’s interlocutors once again raised the issue of India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (which does not impact even a single citizen of India of any faith). “It was an important topic,” Mr Michel said, “We raised it with PM Modi. We trust the Indian institutions and the Supreme Court will have a role to play. We stressed the need to have a strong dialogue on the issue of human rights.”
The EU has filed an interlocutory petition in the Supreme Court of India, contesting the Citizenship Amendment Act, which is an affront to India’s sovereign rights, its Parliament and its constitutional democracy. The EU would not even so much as countenance the thought of dragging China to the Hague since it would be barred from approaching any Chinese court of law, leave alone filing an interlocutory petition.
Truth be told, the EU would appear to tilt in support towards an opaque, punishing totalitarian regime that flaunts Mercedes cars and thumbs its nose at the liberal world order, while tilting in opposition to a democracy that functions transparently on the strength of law and subscribes to a rules-based global order.
It would, however, be wrong to suggest that the India-EU relationship is blighted with impossibilities, not the least because the EU does not get to decide the sum and substance of India’s bilateral relations with individual EU member-countries, nor does it speak for all of Europe. India is willing to build upon the foundation that exists and scale up a relationship it values. It is for the EU to respond robustly.
The EU could prove its stated position that it values this relationship by investing in India’s digital future. Ms Leyen tweeted, replicating what she said during the meeting, that “India is a natural partner for the EU in pushing forward our digital transformation. I have, therefore, proposed to PM Modi to organise a high-level EU-India digital investment forum in which our business leaders can discuss concrete opportunities for cooperation.”
The big tech firms are in the US, not in Europe and definitely not in the EU. While a business jamboree is not a bad idea, there are limited B2B opportunities to explore. On the other hand, the EU can make a substantial contribution to India’s digital future by investing its sizeable pension funds in a green economy, in green cities and in green renewable energy. The EU can also make an important contribution by collaborating with India on framing norms, rules and laws governing digital public goods and data.
The proof of the pudding, as the cliché goes, is in its eating. Let the EU break free from pandering to the Communist Party of China and its chief commissar. Let the EU cast its lot, openly, robustly, with the world’s largest democracy, notwithstanding its many imperfections and inadequacies. For, if the EU accepts India as a “natural partner”, it must also concede that sleeping with China is tantamount to sleeping with an ‘unnatural partner’. It must choose between being India’s ally and China’s hand-maiden. There cannot be a halfway house in this relationship.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
