Brussels and Strasbourg, not London

Are what matter in ties with the European Union

Subhash Agrawal

Europe has historical ties with India, perhaps older than with either China or Japan. Trade has existed for centuries, major European powers fought each other over our territory, one of them eventually ruled here for two centuries, and India contributed greatly to both world wars. In fact, over 50,000 Indian soldiers died in the European theatre alone during World War II. At one point India was considered by most Europeans to be one of the most important diplomatic postings.

But despite historical ties and a degree of mutual familiarity, at least among the elite, India-Europe relations have never really prospered beyond the banal and polite. The reason, aside from the Cold War, was because both sides viewed each other through an Anglo prism. In fact, due to limited energy, budgets and goals after the war — rebuilding their economies in 40s and 50s, coping with a surge of nationalist sentiment in their respective colonies in the 50s and 60s, or managing the transition to economic and monetary union in the 70s and 80s — many European countries had little desire to formulate an independent foreign policy on South Asia, a region far removed from their interests. Most simply relied upon British and American briefings, and thus imbibed a degree of wariness with India even when it was not warranted.

The Indian n-tests in 1998 caused further damage to Indian image in a continent where anti-nuclear feelings run long and deep. Europeans were simply unmoved by the ’threat from China’ argument — in fact, most Europeans do no even know that India shares a border with China - and many countries sent a strong signal by cancelling development aid and high-level delegations. The European Union’s (EU) reaction to Pokharan was less strident than that of Australia or Canada but also more genuinely anguished. But that may now be history, unless of course India messes it up again. In a larger sense, Europe has all but forgotten the nuclear tests — the agenda of the last G-8 summit did not even mention it, and the summit before that listed Indian n-test fifth in priority, after Kosovo and Chechnya. India-EU ties are guided by a couple of new factors. One, Jaswant Singh’s efforts at quiet and dignified diplomacy are paying off and there is a realisation that India, despite its chaotic democracy or dragging reforms or pesky ways, is a far more stable Asian country than most others.

Whether as posture or tactics, India has received varying degree of support from European capitals on its stand on a Security Council seat or cross-border terrorism or Kashmir. In fact, on terrorism, there is now ample support to India, what with Europe’s own past experience which has recently been renewed - in early April, five suspected members of Osama bin Laden’s network were arrested in Milan and a plot unearthed to attack the European Parliament in Strasbourg and the US embassy in Rome. Second, there is a subtle but growing US-EU rift that can help India carve a place for itself. There is increasing mention in Europe of a growing ‘continental drift’, of a growing cultural gap due to diverging sets of values, mostly due to the death penalty, gun laws and religious fundamentalism in America. This drift, real or perceived, may widen with arrival in the White House of what is seen as a cowboy crowd.

A couple of weeks ago, The Observer in London led its comment page with the headline ‘The Future is Europe, not America’. The argument was summed up in its concluding line that future winners will be countries “which do not place the stock market at the centre of business affairs” but those with powerful education systems and social structures.

Not just culture but also policy. The Kosovo campaign has left Europe with muddled aims, few exit options, huge peacekeeping costs and a disastrous involvement. The National Missile Defence (NMD) plan and US-abandonment of the Kyoto protocol have caused further anger. A 28-strong-group of members of European Parliament, led by former French Premier Michel Rochard, recently released a policy paper called The New Federalism in which the authors argue that Europe has to move closer to fight and defend its values. This requires an “aggressive global stance” to give a counterweight to the US, which according to the paper is “drunk with power”.

Henry Kissinger had predicted in the early 1970s that a united Europe would adopt an anti-American mould as the only way to achieve a sense of identity. Calling it anti-Americanism may be a stretch, but after decades of focus on economic integration it appears that Europeans are set for a final push towards a unified EU - including a common foreign and security policy - which will entail a fundamental re-negotiation of the transatlantic relationship. One sign of this new independence is the EU’s curious reaction to the US-China spat over the spy plane: the only statement from Brussels has blandly called it a bilateral issue.
India and the EU are well positioned to discover each other again, but that will require Indian officials and media to give less importance to London and more to Brussels. Why does London, not Brussels, Paris or Berlin, house India’s largest diplomatic mission in Europe? Why does the India media not have any full-time correspondents anywhere in Europe outside the UK?

Subhash Agrawal is an analyst of Indian political and business trends. He is the editor of India Focus, a political risk report for international investors