Opinion The Mexico challenge

The term “swing state” originates in US domestic politics. It refers to the handful of states that,because of their mixed orientation,can tip the outcome of presidential polls. They are the states that matter most.

Internationally,there are countries that occupy a similar position: Brazil,Indonesia and Turkey,in addition to India. They share four defining attributes. All possess large and growing economies. All occupy strategic locations. All boast democratic governments. And critically,none has fully embraced the existing international order,rejected it,or offered a detailed alternative.

These four powers have emerged as global swing states because the international order has come under new strains. Established after World War II,the order advances a core set of principles: collective security,freedom of navigation,free markets and human rights. Although imperfect,the order has facilitated wealth creation,contained threats to peace and enabled the spread of democracy. But it now faces unprecedented challenges with China’s ascendancy,the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran,the standstill of global trade talks and the West’s financial difficulties. The choices made by rising democracies will have much to do with whether the international order endures or fragments.

India is a quintessential global swing state. In some areas,India trends towards becoming a supporter of the existing international order. It appears increasingly committed to contributing its new naval assets to the defence of the maritime commons. While remaining outside the NPT,India has moved closer to harmonising its policies and practices with the guidelines of the NSG,and seeks membership in all four multilateral export control regimes.

On other issues that speak to the nature of the international system,however,India’s positions remain more ambiguous. New Delhi has expressed opposition to further sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. And its human rights approach remains conflicted. New Delhi abstained from voting in the UNSC on the Libya resolution and on occasion touts a history of non-intervention. Yet it is also one of the 10 founding members of the Community of Democracies and a leading co-founder of the UN Democracy Fund.

India’s emergence as a global swing state calls for new thinking in New Delhi. Focusing on internal economic development and limiting the intensity of India’s international involvement holds understandable appeal at a time when domestic challenges appear to be mounting. But India is too pivotal to pursue some form of non-alignment without negative consequences: the order that has provided a conducive backdrop to its rise will fray without its support. In the long run,this would be far more detrimental to India’s continued ascendance than the attention and resources needed for robust global engagement.

Upholding international order will strengthen India’s position closer to home. Given that India resides in a region with fragile states,New Delhi may need to militarily intervene in a country on humanitarian grounds. A more forward leaning approach to protecting civilians today will create a precedent that India can refer to tomorrow.

New Delhi’s behaviour will affect how America approaches the other global swing states. The US-India nuclear deal reflected a leap of faith by Washington that carving an exception for India into the international non-proliferation regime would pave the way for New Delhi to uphold the global order. This was the right bet to make,and has yielded short-term dividends,but the long-term impact remains uncertain. The actions India takes will influence whether Washington is willing to make similar — if smaller — bets on the other rising democracies or whether it will favour a more transactional approach.

While this G-20 summit will pass quickly,India’s status as a global swing state will endure. The choices it makes will shape the international order to come.

The writer is transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund,US
express@expressindia.com