Trascript of the conversation of External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar with Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar at Carnegie Endowment, Washington DC
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Minister, we're delighted to have you here at Carnegie. Welcome, and I look forward to our conversation.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Thank you, Tino, and I'm really very pleased to be here. Thank you.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Terrific. Let me start by asking you about multipolarity. We have often talked here at Carnegie about how the world has changed relative to 10, 20 years ago. You've mentioned often that there is a multipolar moment that has already arrived. You also sometimes use the term multi-alignment to describe India's relationship to the world, and that comes on the heel of many decades in the past when India referred to non-alignment. So I'd love to hear from you what multipolarity means to you and what multi-alignment means and how it's different from non-alignment.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Just to complete it, I also use the word multi-vector so that you can go in different directions at the same time. So there's a multi-family out there. But if you stop and think about it, it's actually common sense. I was in the UN for the UNGA last week, and if you use the UN as a metric, there were 51 countries who started the UN, not all independent like us. There are 193 now.
Now, if 140 countries, 150 countries gained independence since the Second World War, and then their economies, because gaining independence really meant that that kind of squeeze which the colonial powers were putting on them was no longer there to that extent, once they started their own production, their own consumption, their own economic growth, then it's only a matter of time before all of this starts to play into a redistribution of where economic activity is in the world.
So if you look at, say, the top 20 economies in 1950, and look every 20 years, how that's changing, you can actually see multipolarity beginning to form. And I would still say it's emerging. I think this is because if you use GDP as a measure, you get one set of prominent countries. If you use technology as a measure, you get another. If you use military capabilities as a measure, so it's not a single determination that one can make, but there is no question that, there's ultimately a smell test. In the 1980s, when I first came here to Washington, so many more decisions would be made by the United States and Soviet Union, and often the two together. In the 1990s, I'd say late 90s, perhaps, so many more decisions were made by the United States alone. Today, if you were to look at any big global issue, it's important to have to carry other countries along, and that, to me, is an indication of how the world has changed, how much more multipolarity has become.
It's not just become more multipolar, it's also become more regional, and that's a subset of that multipolarity, that you would have problems where you would often leave it to the countries of the region because the ability of the major powers to get involved in everything is less. The ability of the regional powers to contest the getting involved in everything is more. So you can have crisis, which essentially end up as something where not everybody gets involved, not the big powers necessarily get involved. So now look at it from the perspective of a country like India. If we have more decision-making centers, more players of influence, more combinations in a way, then obviously you want to work with as many of them as possible.
So you try to optimize your positioning and your relationships, which is why multi-alignment or multi-vector, and again, it depends on the issue. There would be a set of issues where, let's say the US is a very natural partner. There may be issues where the US may not, and some other set of countries may be. So how do you, and as you get bigger, interestingly, your agenda increases, so the need for partners also grows.
So to me, that rebalancing accelerated by globalization, leading to multipolarity, leads a country like India to look at multi-vector and multi-aligned policies, and that's essentially what we're trying to do.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: And how is that different from the non-alignment of the 1970s, for example?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: It's different for two, three reasons. One, obviously our interests were more defensive then. Our capabilities were less. Our contributions were less. I mean, let me give you a kind of example. You have these Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, okay? We are affected, all of Asia is affected because it's the main shipping line. Now, maybe 40 years ago, we would have said something about it.
Today, apart from saying something about it, you also send your ships and say, okay, we will make sure that we contribute to an international effort to secure the sea lanes. So the difference between the earlier era was it was more defensive, it was less capability-driven. It was also less active in actually pursuing outcomes. So here you have a dog in every fight as you get bigger. So you can't say, I don't like it, and I will stay away. You may not like it, but you've still got to work on it in some fashion, directly or indirectly. And I think the willingness to take risks also increased, because once you want an outcome, you can't be passive.
So it's far more active, capability-driven, and I would say more willing to make choices. Because one of the characteristics of the non-aligned period was also there was a certain reticence about saying, OK, on this issue, I need to work with you, and therefore I'm willing to do that. I think that reticence is less. I mean, where our stakes are involved, we have no doubts. You would not have had a quad in the non-aligned era. You would have a quad in a multi-alignment era.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: That's very helpful and leads logically to the next question, which is perhaps even in a multi-vector or multi-polar world, there is still room to recognize that the US plays a very special role in that world. And as a practical matter, one could point to the presence of the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank here. One can point to the role that Washington still plays, for example, in patrolling international sea lanes. One can point to the role of the UN.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: You don't have to convince me. I'm not into declinism.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: I'm getting set up to ask you the following question. You know, the tech industry in California. So with what aspects of that kind of US leadership is India comfortable, and with what aspects of that is India perhaps concerned or might question it?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Look, there is no question that the United States still has a very unique position in the world order. For reasons of polemics or mind games or posturing, people may suggest otherwise. But even the people who suggest otherwise know the truth. At the same time, it's also a reality that the kind of dominance that the United States had in the 1950s, 60s, or in the 1990s, 2000, it doesn't. So it's a kind of half empty, half full situation.
Now for us, which part works for us? Much of it does. I gave you the example of Quad. If you look today on technology issues or maritime safety security or supply chain issues or even the manner in which international institutions should be, I mean, there will be a lot which would be common with the United States. Obviously, there would be some because look, we are a developing country, our political history is different. Our actual interests in some cases are trade interests or climate action interests may be different. So there would be areas of differences. But if you ask me, saying net net, where do you come out, I think we come out very overwhelmingly on the side of a strong relationship, which is why actually the story, if one looks at Indian foreign policy for the last, say, two to three decades, it's really been a story of steady growth of India-US relationship. Because I think successive administrations on both sides, going back, I would say, maybe to late Clinton, Clinton-Vajpayee, I would pick that as the inflection point. I think since then, it's been steadily on the up.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: So picking up on that, the US and India are among the world's leading countries with democratic forms of government. And here in the US, our democracy, which includes much debate about many issues, sometimes features political leaders in the US making comments about democracy in India. And that has sometimes provoked a crisp response from the External Affairs Ministry, perhaps pointing out that there are members of the Indian diaspora in the US that might have concerns or complaints about racism or about gun violence. I wonder how you think about that dynamic and what potential possibilities you might see for constructive dialogue between the US and India on these issues.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: There's one, the reality, and two, the handling of the reality. What's the reality? The reality is the world is very globalized. And as a result, the politics of any country doesn't necessarily stay within the national boundaries of the country. Now, the United States, of course, makes a special effort to ensure it doesn't. That's part of how you've conducted your foreign policy over many years.
Now, in a globalized era where there are also global agendas, there are players who like to shape not only the politics of their own country or their own region, but try and do it globally. And social media, economic forces, financial flows, all these give you opportunities to do that. How do you shape the narrative? So you have a whole industry here. So you write up reports about people. You rank people, you spotlight countries. That's the game.
Now, as I said, that's the reality. So what happens with that reality is it's part of the overall competition, a competition among countries and competition among political forces. And when it is a competition, you expect others to do what they will. It's your right to do what you will. And that's playing out in a way. But if you look at a state to state, government to government level, we think it's important that democracies are mutually respectful. It cannot be that one democracy has a right to comment on another, and that's part about promoting democracy globally. But when others do that, then it becomes foreign interference. Foreign interference is foreign interference, irrespective of who does it and where it is done. So it's a testy area. And my personal view, which I have shared with many counterparts, is, look, you have every right to comment. But I have every right to comment on your comment. So don't feel bad when I do.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Understood. And of course, building on your point, the complexity of how countries get interconnected reflects in part the diasporas that exist, and the fact that the US is an immigrant country. So there are many, many people of South Asian origin here, and they have different perspectives. I guess that also highlights another dimension, perhaps, of India's role in the world that I want you to comment on a little, which is how India and the Indian government sees its relationships with diasporas, not only in the US, but around the world.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: You know, we have roughly about something like 18-19 million Indian nationals who live abroad. These are people with Indian passports. And probably about 14-15 million people of Indian origin who would have had an Indian passport or would have hailed from India at some point of time, because this goes back to the last century when people didn't have passports. Now, when a country has this 30 million-plus constituency out there, it needs to have some kind of thinking. You know, how do you relate to such a large number of people? Because these numbers are only going to grow. When you referred in your initial remarks to technology, I mean, I feel today, looking at the current era, if India has something to bring to the table, because there are two ways by which you make space for yourself in international, in the global order. One is to rise quantitatively, which is the GDP growth etc. But one is also to make yourself important or relevant or indispensable to the global order. You know, people do that by having a resource or having a technology or taking responsibilities. I think there what India can do is definitely bring the people factor, the talent factor into play. And you can do that because of technology. But today's era of technology is going to require trained people, trained talent on a scale for which there are very few suppliers in the world and we are one.
So when I contemplate a global workplace, when I look at greater mobility of people. And for me, today, mobility is probably the most frequent conversations I have with my counterparts. I mean, I met 60-odd ministers in the UN. At least 25, 30 of them, in some form or the other, would have brought up mobility of people. So we have to have a policy for the global workplace. We have to have a policy for what happens when you have these communities outside. How do you maintain their connection with the mother country? They will also have their own needs and requirements, and sometimes their own interests. There will be cases where there would be hate crimes against their places of faith, which has happened here recently. So then, how do you stand up for them? So there will be issues where we have to stand up for them. There will be issues where you have to do some advocacy. There will be issues where it's important to maintain their culture and their identity and their tradition and their heritage. And I think it kind of comes as a package. And in the last decade, that realization has been very sharp. So the diaspora aspect of our foreign policy has been really far more prominent than it was in the earlier era.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Let me build on your comments about technology and ask you about the role technology is increasingly playing in India's domestic affairs and internationally. I have noticed that if I draw a through line between the domestic and the international, India's interested in extending the scope of connectivity to hundreds of millions of people who previously lacked access to electricity. Now they've leapt forward and can use QR codes and mobile technology to do payments. India's playing an increasingly prominent role in discussions of digital public infrastructure, discussions of computes and AI. How do you see India's relationship to the tech issue and the role that it plays, particularly in security as well as development?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: It's a sort of very open-ended question. So let me limit it to two comments. I think what is happening in India, what has happened in India over the last decade and continues to happen in terms of deployment of technologies for governance, for service delivery, for public social welfare is actually an extraordinary story. What it has enabled us to do is to take up challenges which were either not addressable at all or if so on a very small scale and then use technology to really massively expand it.
So when you are able today to have a system with a backbone of a digital identity of people and then are able to figure out their entitlements and then are able to deliver on those entitlements knowing that it's going to the right set of people, then it's a totally different world out there. If 10 years ago, I had sat with you and said that, look, in the coming 10 years, we will be able to deliver 40 million homes to people and know exactly which people we're going to give it to, you wouldn't believe it. I wouldn't believe myself. If you say that, look, we have today equivalent not of a food stamp but like a food support system which covers 820 million people. Or you have, you know how important, everybody struggles with health access. It's a big issue in this country as well. So to create at our level of income, remember, we're still a $3,000 per capita income country. At $3,000 per capita, if you can optimize your health system using technology. And actually, today, I think our health coverage is about 600 million. So we can contemplate doing things which we could not have done till we developed a digital public infrastructure. So that would be one.
A completely different example, or actually not completely, slightly related, I would say look at something, a big issue in international politics which is the semiconductor world, how do you create the supply chains for it, how do you make sure they are reliable, they are trusted. And I think today, India is in a sense gearing up for that world. And we want to come in also as a technology player, including on the hardware side. That if Apple phones is today making so much of its production in India, if we are, after years of neglecting this domain, today we have a serious semiconductor mission of which our crucial partner is the United States.
So when we see a lot of what is happening in this country, but it's just that the particular segment of that industry with us is different than yours. But I would say there too, we can make a big difference, because at the end of the day, technology is not impersonal. Technology means people. Technology means designers, it means engineers. It means somebody's mind has got embedded in a chip. So it is, I think, something which we can make a big difference on.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: I note that also in your UN speech, you noted that for all the promise and possibility of technology for India and the world, there's also always a darker side and risks, and that suggests to me a balanced approach to the international discussion about technology. Since you mentioned trade, it does make me think of China and the complex relationship that India and China have. I note that just recently, China surpassed every other country in its trade relationship with India, and yet tensions with China persist, and I would love to hear how you see the strategic picture with respect to China and what India's trying to achieve in its relationship with China.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: You know, when it comes to trade, correct me if I'm wrong, I think China accounts for about, globally, about 31-32% of global manufacturing. I think that would be the right number. And a lot of that has happened because over multiple decades, the international business, which is primarily Western-led, has chosen to collaborate with China for mutual benefit.
So today, for any country, if you are into any kind of consumption or even into any kind of manufacturing, sourcing out of China is something which is inevitable, because if you are consuming, if you are not manufacturing and consuming, that's probably where you get a lot of things the cheapest. And even if you are manufacturing, a lot of your components and your semi-process materials come out of there. So what happens is that, in a sense, trade with China at one level is almost autonomous of the political, of the rest of the relationship. So I don't think it's just a question of numbers. You also need to look at what is it which you are trading, because there would be countries who would be more sensitive to their exposure. There would be countries who wouldn't care.
So I think for us today, because we were earlier on digital, on technology, we are very sensitive to our data flows. You know, it's often, to me, a little perplexing that people debate so deeply how their data must be secured at home, but are less concerned about what happens when the data leaves your borders. So in a much more data-sensitive world, in a much more technology-sensitive world, I think it's important to look at what your exposures are, how do you mitigate it, how do you balance it, how do you diminish the risks.
Separately from that, in terms of our own relationship with China, I think it's a long story, but the short version is that we had agreements on how to keep the border peaceful and tranquil, and those agreements were violated by China in 2020. Some of them, because we have forward deployments of our militaries, there are resulting tensions, and until those forward deployments are addressed, the tensions will continue. If the tensions continue, it casts a natural shadow over the rest of the relationship. So our relationship hasn't been great for the last four years.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Another element of China's role in the world, of course, is the discussions that play out between the US, China, the European Union, BRICS countries around international economics, and this brings me to ask you a little bit about de-dollarization as a possibility for the world. At times, India has expressed interest in an alternative currency that can serve as a reserve mechanism, and I wonder how you see that right now, what you see as the role of the dollar and these discussions about international economic policy.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: No, I think you have us confused for someone else here, because we have never actively targeted the dollar. That's not part of either our economic policy or our political or our strategic policy. Some others may have it. What I will tell you is a natural concern we have.
We often have trade partners who do not have dollars to trade. So we now have to look at whether we forgo dealings with them or do we find some settlement which works otherwise. So there's no, I can say, malicious intent vis-a-vis the dollar in doing this. We're trying to do our business. Sometimes you make it difficult in the use of dollars. So we have some trade partners with whom trade in dollars becomes difficult because of your policies. So we have to obviously look for workarounds.
But for us, again, look, as we spoke about rebalancing, we spoke about multipolarity, obviously all of this is also going to reflect on currencies and economic dealings. So it is the era of American dominance is also an era of dollar dominance, an era of certain hedging and a certain spread. Other factors will come into play. I mean, it will be more competitive even in currencies. But I won't take it quite, at least vis-a-vis us the way.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: I understand, I wanted to give you the chance to address. And by the way, when you say you, I know you mean you, the United States, not you, Carnegie, to be clear. We have limited control over international economic policy so far, at least. But staying with that theme, the Modi government now has had 100 days or so since sort of the next period in election. And I wonder how you see its emerging economic priorities and where you think progress is most likely and where you think the challenges are.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Well, there's a lot that has happened in these 100 days, partly because we had planned for it. But if I were to pick three issues which would be, I think, of interest to everybody else, it would be - we have cleared an initiative to create 12 major industrial nodes across the country with the idea that there are zones which are prepared to attract domestic and global manufacturing, which in a way underlines our determination to become stronger in the era of manufacturing and also to contribute more to global supply chains. Associated with it, but in addition, also a whole series of new infrastructure projects, new ports, new railways, new roads, many of them conduct sort of complementary to these nodes, which will again make it easier to do business, easier for living. So it's part of overall development, but it would certainly enhance our competitiveness in the international economy. And the third, which I come back to you again, the people. In fact, in our system, when you present your budget, is you have something as the equivalent to the State of the Union along with it. The finance minister, she lays out what are the policies of the government. And if you look at this year's budget, which was presented after the election, the focus was very heavily on upgrading human resources. How do you create more skilling institutions, How do you make people more employable in a way, so if you have a better plug and play manufacturing possibility, improved enhanced infrastructure, larger volumes of human resources to deal with, I think collectively that would be a direction we are going. And I mean, there's a lot to do because look in the last 10 years, for example, in education, we would have pretty much in higher education doubled the number of educational institutions. In the last 10 years, on average, we were actually creating two new colleges a day. But it's not enough. So because partly the scale of our challenge, partly because we had not addressed it as effectively as we should have in the past.
So we want to make ourselves much more relevant to global supply chains. I mean, that is for us a very big objective. And so in the digital era, add to it, we want to also enter that as a trusted player who has the ability to collaborate with other countries. So we are in the middle of a nationwide 5G rollout. But an Indian 5G stack, for example, we think has an international appeal and potential which we need to exploit. So I would pick this among the 100 days as a set of policies which would be of interest, I think, to the audience.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: We have our own kind of digital public infrastructure here at Carnegie in that we have questions from the audience that will show up in this iPad and I'll ask you about them in a minute. But I want to maybe, for me, ask you one last question that in a way goes back to where I started. I started by mentioning an enduring peace and Carnegie's own mission, but also the connection between peace and the prosperity that we hope to see around the world by helping countries deliver for their people. And I can't ignore and nobody here can ignore that there is a hot war playing out right now. In fact, there are several in the world, in the Middle East, in Ukraine. And I want to ask you a bit about Ukraine because India has played an interesting role in trying to prospect for possibilities for communication. And yet, my own read is that there's also been a bit of a skepticism about how much this gets played out through a grand bargain of multiple countries versus just some honest communication back and forth notwithstanding the brutality that's playing out there. So, how do you see India's role in dealing with Russia, Ukraine, and all the complexities that are particularly given India's very long-term relationship with Russia?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: You know, I'm glad you used the word communication because I think, at the moment, that perhaps is the best description for what we are currently trying to do. Here's, if I can roll it back up, here's our thinking on this issue.
Our public position is we do not believe that differences or disputes between countries can be settled by war. A second public position is we do not believe that we're actually from the battlefield going to get a decisive outcome. So, if you take two, then three is if you're not going to get a decisive outcome, at some point, in some form, there has to be a negotiation. If there is a negotiation, whenever we get there, then obviously there has to be some preparation or some exploration and some communication between the participants, which is primarily Russia and Ukraine.
So, with these propositions in mind, we started after, in this third term, some explorative discussions. It started between Prime Minister Modi and President Zelenskyy, first in Italy, on the sidelines of the G7. Then, during Prime Minister Modi's visit to Moscow. Then, after that, the trip that we made to Kiev, after which our National Security Advisor went back to Moscow, after which Prime Minister met Zelenskyy last week in New York, and in between, at different levels, I or our National Security Advisor or some other people, we keep talking to both sides as well. We are very measured and circumspect about what we are doing. We are not hyping it. Our effort is to have communications, have a conversation, take anything of interest we hear to the other side, communicate that in good faith, if there are reactions or ideas on that side, take it back. We're not, it's really, the intent is to be helpful and to some extent, I mean, if we have to keep other people sort of informed, I mean, where it is necessary, we do that as well. So there are not many countries, look, we are into a third year of a war. There are not many countries today who have still the ability to go to these two capitals, talk to the two leaders and then go back to the other one with that. I think in any conflict, if the intention at some point is to end the conflict, it is such endeavors are useful. I would say they're even laudable.
So, you know, but again, please do understand, we are not promising anything, we're not suggesting we have some grand bargain or a peace plan. We are simply trying to do something helpful, reflecting the widespread anxiety in the world that this conflict is actually making everybody's life very difficult.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: It's a perfect segue into a question from the audience about something we were just discussing before we came out here, Minister, and it's about the escalating violence in the Middle East. So how does India see its approach to Israel policy, Lebanon, the wider conflict, possibilities and risks?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Well, look, if one looks at the current situation, I think it would be right to start off with October 7th. We regard October 7th as a terrorist attack. We understand that Israel had a need to respond, but we also believe that any response by any country has to take into account international humanitarian law, that it must be careful about any damage or any implications for civilian populations. And that given what has happened in Gaza, it is important to have some kind of international humanitarian effort out there. And we are very much concerned at the possibility of a broadening of the conflict, not just what happened in Lebanon, but also I referred earlier to the Houthis and the Red Sea. And to some extent, anything that happens between Iran and Israel.
So again, it's one thing to be concerned. I'm sure you can say that for a lot of countries. If as part of that concern, you can end up doing something about it. Again, don't underestimate the importance of communication in difficult times. If there are things to be said and passed on and passed back, I think those are all contributions that we can make, and we do.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Terrific. We have a question about the Pacific Islands and the Act East approach that the Prime Minister has made a cornerstone of his foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific. What is your sense of how India regards the Pacific Islands and their role in India's sort of perspective around the world, and how do you see India's approach to these regions?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Well, you know, we have a historical connect with one Pacific Island, which was Fiji. Because during colonial times, a lot of Indians were transported there as indentured labor. But again, as part of a longer term foreign policy vision. I mean, we are today trying to operate in the immediate, the medium, and the longer term. We have created a forum of Pacific Island countries, India-Pacific Island, which has had three gatherings. Our idea is every five years, at least, you try and meet. And we just had one last year in Papua New Guinea. But today, with every one of the Pacific Island nations, we have some kind of development program going there. There would be an Indian project there. Somebody would be getting trained there. Something would be happening in health or education or IT out there. They would be sending their people to India. Many of them have set up embassies in India.
So we feel, as part of our Global South solidarity, that these smaller countries, they were, by the way, countries many of whom got their vaccines from us during the COVID. So, and they have some very peculiar problems, you know. For some reason, there's a big kidney issue there. So there are dialysis facilities are greatly wanted. So we are trying to address a lot of their socio-economic needs and build a long-term relationship with them, just as we are with the CARICOM at this side. And we feel that these are good expressions of Global South solidarity. They are actually doing good in the world, which often people underplay. And for us, as a long-term, you know, I can imagine a time, I mean, it may not be my time, but at some point, India too would be a global power. And if you are, you don't turn on the switch one fine day and say, oh, okay, today I'm going to be bigger than I was yesterday. I think you need sort of a long sort of landing strip here to prepare for that.
So I think what we are doing, I'm convinced, will in a sort of, at the moment, we are working on a 2047 plan. That's 100 years of our independence. When I think of where in India would be in 2047, I think it's very important that with these, what would be considered distant regions, we have actually much closer ties.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Building on that and coming closer into India's immediate neighborhood, there's a question about the South Asia region and how the region has experienced a certain degree of shocks recently. There are concerns over Nepal-China ties, Maldives-China ties, tumultuous elections, Sri Lanka has seen itself in Bangladesh. Say a bit about how India's approach to its immediate region is evolving.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: You know, structurally, our relationship with our neighbors would be much stronger than it has been since independence. And the reason is very simple. If you look today at how much more regionalized we have become, if you look at the power grids, the fuel flows, the rail lines, the airways, the ferries, the waterways, there's actually a tremendous change that with every one of these countries, if I were to use, look at it, where was it five years before, 10 years before, 15 years before, you can see an enormous shift in terms of how much more closely we deal with each other. And even in terms of movement of people, I mean, there would be, say, you mentioned Bangladesh, I think every year we get about, we issue about a million and a half, 1.5-1.6 million visas every year in Bangladesh. So you actually have much more trade, much more economic activity.
Now, we have to recognize, the world has to recognize that they also have their politics. There will be ups and downs there. As a bigger neighbor, sometimes we end up being part of the political debate. It's not unusual. I'm sure something like that must have happened to you, to the US, and what happens in this broader region. So we have to factor it in. And my own sense is the best way of dealing with that is rather than get overexcited by immediate events, you allow the stability factors to play out. You respond with a degree of sobriety and responsibility to anything that happens.
And where China is concerned, I mean, there are two factors here. One, that China itself, for some countries, is also a neighbor. So in a sense, there would be a few cases where China is a neighbor or a near neighbor. So politics is competitive. And I tell my colleagues in the foreign ministry, saying, look, prepare to compete. I mean, this world's not going to give you anything on a platter. So if you want to maintain your position, you want to improve your position, do the hard work, do the investments. Build those relationships and that's what we'll do and I'll tell you one thing. At the end of the day, I'm very confident. I mean, every few months or every, you know, I keep getting these stories about how one particular relationship is tanking and I urge you a few months later to look at that relationship. And it doesn't. And it won't.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: How does India view rising concerns and tensions over Taiwan, which is an issue that is much debated here in the United States?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: For us, I think, you know, the international economy today is actually very fragile. And I, as part of my responsibility, travel a lot to parts of the world, which has had a very hard time in the last five years, where people have seen a visible sort of drop in their quality of life. I mean, you mentioned Sri Lanka. You know, it's a country, I've lived in that country. I've been going there from time to time. I think part of what explained, you know, the political shifts there was actually the trauma that they underwent as a result of, you know, yes, there were some causal factors were within their control. Maybe some of the choices were not smart. But some of it was not.
Now, what the lessons of tensions or conflicts, I mean, what we saw in Ukraine, what we're seeing in the Middle East, that in a globalized world, conflicts and tensions anywhere are going to cause problems everywhere. That it might, it's no longer regional. It can't be, oh, it's out there, and it's just between, you know, those guys. It's going to come at everybody in some form or the other.
So I would say today, there is a huge, you know, when we do these Global South Summits, we've done three of them so far. The Global South is extremely concerned about new factors of stress, tension, anxiety, more pressures on the system because they are at the bottom of the chain. I'm part of them. We feel the pain. So I do think today people want, you know, they want reassurance. They want stability. They want, they don't want sort of sharper, I mean, life is tough enough. I mean, nobody wants more anxiety.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: And that leads perhaps to a question about the new Japanese Prime Minister's call for something like an Asian NATO. How do you think about that possibility?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Well, look, I mean, he's Japanese. This is a country which has a treaty, treaty relationship with the United States. So I guess when countries have that history and that strategic culture, their lexicon and their thinking would be along that direction. We have never been a treaty ally of any country. We don't have that kind of strategic sort of architecture in mind. I mean, so it would be his point of view, I guess from where they are coming, I can see, you know, a certain evolution that he's concerned but it would not be ours. I mean, we have, as I say, a different history and a different way of approaching the world.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: When I think about the relationships that India has cultivated, I think about the technology relationship with the US and certainly one, perhaps, signature feature of the India-US relationship in these two governments has been a deepening of the technology ties. When the discussion turns to artificial intelligence, of course, there are a whole range of issues from semiconductors to compute, how much of it is sovereign data, the human capital piece that you mentioned. But I just note to highlight the enormous change happening in that field right now. If we fed into any number of AI systems simply a of what would a conversation between the Indian External Affairs Minister and the President of Carnegie sound like, the system could have generated something like this. Not as good as what we're doing, perhaps, but the technology is changing quickly. How do you see the cooperation between India and the US on this AI technology and where do you want it to be in the next few years?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Look, I see very strong possibilities because, as I have mentioned, there is a technology convergence. There is a certain, and this is important, in a digital, in a data-driven world, I think the issues of privacy, of security, of what are systems, what is law, what is allowed, what is not allowed, what are you comfortable doing, what are you not comfortable doing, I think all these become very important.
So, I see a certain convergence here. This is not a transactional convergence. It is one too, but I think there's also, underlying it, a kind of a, a comfort and a belief convergence. Think about it. Would you feel the same if your personal data, where does it reside, who has access, which company is looking at it? You would make a difference. It wouldn't be, you wouldn't be agnostic about it.
So, to some extent, I'm extrapolating it into the world of AI as well. There would be partners of comfort. There would be enterprises, in a way, with whom you would say, okay, I can work with these guys. Maybe I'd have a problem with those guys. So, we have, I mean, to me, this is an area where our conversations, and on the ground, our cooperation with the United States has grown a lot. And interestingly, it has done with Europe as well. Europe has a mechanism called the Trade and Technology Council. It has it only with the US, which was the original one, and then it decided to have one with India.
So, I think there is a commonality here. Definitely, for us, the US would be the major partner, but I can imagine other partners who could be part of something like this, and Europe would, to my mind, very much fit the bill. To some extent, Japan would as well. So, that same level of your assumptions and your postulates at a very basic level would be similar for you to have those which might be not so easy with those who don't have the same postulates.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: We have only a few minutes left, and I wanna appreciate that we've covered a great many topics. We've talked about technology, strategic security issues, diplomacy, international economics. That raises a question from somebody in our audience about how you think about trade-offs, where perhaps it's difficult to achieve all goals, and in particular, how you've thought about situations where there might be some tension between security strategy on the one hand and international economics on the other hand.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Look, whoever asked that question is a very grounded person, because that's my life. How do you make trade-offs? Because there is no relationship where it's all one way. I mean, nothing is completely bad, and nothing is always great. So, life is, and it's, you're constantly, in a sense, searching for the good, for the optimal. You would like the perfect, but it's very rare to actually have that situation. I would, you know, in a way, if you were to say, okay, what's the trade-off between something economic and something security? I can understand why somebody would ask that question, but I put it to you today that actually many more things economic have become more secure. That if you look back at the COVID era, did not the ability to meet your health needs become a security issue? Look at the Ukraine conflict. For many countries, the ability to access food is a security issue, because, you know, you had riots and even, you know, government's and regimes collapsing because of food problems. So, what is the definition, you know, it's partly globalization and the leveraging, if people leverage market shares, economics is no longer just economics. If technology gives you an interpenetrative ability and strong dependency, it's no longer just technology.
I would argue that in the last five years especially, maybe a little bit more, almost everything, I mean, the world has seen the weaponization of everything or the possible weaponization of everything. And if something can be weaponized, then it's no longer what the original domain was. Anything weaponized means it's now part of a security calculus. So I would argue today that we live in a much more security-sensitive world when we make choices, when we do our calculations. What would have been much more limited or unidimensional earlier, today I would factor in, you know, what does that exposure mean? What does this dependency mean? Do I actually allow another country or another company to come and have, you know, it can be as a supplier, as a consumer, as a service provider, every one of these can be, and it's not hypothetical, I mean, just look at the history of the world in the last 10 years. It's a history where, you know, even bananas have been weaponized.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: You mentioned that the person who asked the question was well-grounded. We like, we're very well-grounded people here at Carnegie. Last question, you've been external affairs minister for five years, give or take. What do you find most interesting and fulfilling in the position? What do you find most challenging?
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: That depends on whether you want me to stay on the job or not.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: You can decide.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Look, for me, in my own country, it's a unusual situation because, you know, we've only twice had an experience of someone from the diplomatic world actually becoming a minister. It's got a big advantage, which is like you know the trade well. You've done it for a very long time. You bring with you all the networking and the experience and the granularity of the business.
The challenge is to kind of now say, okay, I'm not just in charge of an embassy or even in, you know, sort of running institution. I'm actually, there's a sort of a bigger, bigger vision. And I think certainly for us in the political world, you are much more integrated. We have a, I guess everybody does, you have a sort of a cabinet system. So you tend to hear much more other domains and see how you can, you know, advance them, how you can factor them into your calculation. So actually, your world widens.
It's quite honestly, I mean, in many ways, it's when you come into this with all that years of experience behind you, it's something you like doing. So I mean, I get up every day. I don't lack energy in what I do for the rest of the day. But there are the challenges which go with it. You know, I mean, in many ways, you have to take calls. You are either the last person or the second last person taking the call. I have a Prime Minister who on some issues I would go to. And it's a different responsibility. I mean, because it could be evacuation operation, it could be a border situation, it could be a judgment call, and the rest of the system, in a sense, relies on your judgment. And that means there's then a responsibility which comes that, okay, you know, you are, it's your sort of thinking which matters. So it's been, I would say, a very interesting, very challenging five years. I've had only one predecessor, my immediate predecessor, who actually had completed five years in office. The turnover period in our part of the world is a little higher. So let's see how it goes.
Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar: Okay, thank you very much, and we look forward to having you back at Carnegie sometime.
Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs: Thank you.
0 Comments