Geopolitical exceptionalism vs cooperative inclusive approach

A few questions to the context of the China-brokered Iran-Saudi rapprochement as well as Beijing’s 12-point proposal aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict merit dissection.

Is the Indo-Pacific strategy a solid, selfless alliance of like-minded nations or a purely self-serving transactional relationship that primarily seeks to contain an ascendant China?

If countless cultural, historical and political values underpin the Indo-US partnership, why were then many in Washington — both in private and government’s policy community — shocked when India took an independent position on the Russo-Ukraine conflict and lunged for unprecedented oil, gas and fertiliser imports?

Also, why — instead of being driven by geopolitical exceptionalism — can’t both India and the US be equal-handed on some fundamental issues such as human rights? US experts also concur that their country does selectively engage in unilateralism. That’s undeniable, says Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute, Washington.

The human rights situation in China’s Muslim-majority western province of Xinjiang, Iran and India exemplify this unilateral contradiction. While Washington officials openly criticise Iran’s regime for human rights violations, call out China for the same in Xinjiang, they are extremely hesitant in saying the same about Saudi Arabia, India or even Yemen.

Hardly has Washington spoken out or taken an as vociferous position on what is happening in Kashmir and to the Indian Muslims in general throughout the country, particularly since Narendra Modi became the prime minister in 2014.

Isn’t it disturbing for many in countries that keep censuring China, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey for violations of rights to ignore how the world’s largest democracy (India) is “stripping rights away from its largest religious minority, the Muslims”, asked Weinstein in a recent podcast.

Geo-commercial interests (India’s massive military hardware purchases as well as deals in civilian technologies and aviation with the US and other western nations) essentially serve as a blinder. Very obviously, billions of dollars worth of commercial purchases outweigh the “importance” that most western nations usually accord to human rights. They often call these rights “uncompromising, non-negotiable” elements of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR).

But disagreements with China and Russia obscure this commitment. The continuous barrage of critical, disparaging content on China — both on political as well as human rights counts — underscores this western geopolitical exceptionalism, instead of being more consistent about human rights.

Silence on the miserable plight of Palestinians as well as Muslim and Christian minorities in India — while sort of pontification to China, Turkey and Iran on the hand — does serve as a complicating factor in an increasingly polarised world. Looking the other way from the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians and glossing over the plight of India’s non-Hindu minorities hardly inspires trust. Nor does it make the western advocacy on human rights any credible.

Literal silence in Washington over the systematic, high-handed repression of the leadership of Pakistan’s main opposition party of former prime minister Imran Khan is another case in point: authorities have blindly used discretion to institute hundreds of cases against party leaders and workers. The slew of cases has overnight turned a former prime minister into the worst criminal offender, a rebel, terrorist and a contemner of law.

How can the US administration, for example, hope to endear itself at least with the PTI as a whole — supporters, sympathisers and workers — when it is hobnobbing with the leaders of the ruling coalition, a collection of parties with ideologically disparate agendas?

This situation requires a more equitable, inclusive and indiscriminate approach rather than a one-eyed scrutiny of countries that western nations don’t like.

This is what the Chinese Global Security Initiative (GSI), President Xi Jinping’s brainchild, aspires. It advocates a concept of common security, respect and safeguarding of the security of every country; underlines maintaining security in both traditional and non-traditional domains; and enhancing security governance in a coordinated way. It wants all UN members to commit to all-encompassing security cooperation, dialogue for peaceful conflict resolution, and collective efforts to eliminate breeding grounds for insecurity (root-causes of conflict and insecurity).

It envisions a “common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security arrangement” that is in synch with the Chinese ideal of the win-win cooperation for all based on the cardinal principles of respect for sovereignty, non-interference in internal matters, territorial integrity, adherence to by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, serious regard for legitimate security concerns of all countries, negotiated peaceful conflict resolution, and a commitment to water-proof cooperation as far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned. The Ukraine Peace Plan by China reflects the desire to douse political fires in hotspots through mediation and engagement rather than adding fuel to them.

Exceptionalism will only aggravate conflicts and sharpen divisions. An inclusive, non-confrontationist approach anchored in the UN Human Rights regime — as articulated in the GSI — can, on the other hand, not only prevent aggravation but also serve as a connector. Stoking disagreements, fueling conflicts for self-serving or coalition interests and selective censure of countries involved in systemic or political human rights violations, is a certain recipe for more discord.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 4^th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.