A lot.

India has come under increased fire by international human rights groups for its lack of action during Sri Lanka’s war against the Tamil Tiger rebels (LTTE).  Some have even called India complicit in the killing of 20,000 Tamil civilians in Sri Lankan due to its provision of arms to the Sri Lankan government, its “unwavering diplomatic support” for Colombo and its unwillingness to use its influence to forge a ceasefire.  Among the most vocal critics are Indian Major-General Ashok Mehta, a former commander of Indian peacekeeping forces in Sri Lanka, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

In the long run, India is unlikely to be affected by these criticisms.  After all, Sri Lanka’s civil conflict has relatively little geopolitical bearing on other parts of the globe.  (Although this point can be debated, as Sri Lanka does occupy a key geostrategic shipping and naval position and Colombo will attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit for the first time next month as an observer.) Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if the more influential National Congress Party in New Delhi will change its policies toward its southern neighbor, especially given India’s large population of at least 60 million Tamils, the rumors that many LTTE rebels might have escaped into India, and the call by Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama’s call for India to be an “important partner” in reconstructing the island nation.

Photo Credit: AP.

Arvind Subramanian, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and Center for Global Development, published a good commentary in the Business Standard arguing that India can learn from China’s strong public finances –  a sound fiscal position is crucial for establishing international influence. “The lesson for superpower-aspiring India from superpower-arriving China is simple: A strong fiscal situation, undergirding the ability to respond to a crisis, is an essential ingredient for any global leadership role.”

“Even before this global crisis, China was building up its superpower credentials courtesy of its size, spectacular growth, and integration, not to mention its military might. The crisis has allowed these credentials to be consolidated further. China has moved beyond being the superpower-to-be. One important reason for this consolidation relates to China’s public-sector balance sheet…

“The one major country that has had the ability to take short-term action to offset the effects of crisis without remotely jeopardizing its long-run economic strength has been China. Its public debt will remain at close to 20 percent of GDP after the crisis while the corresponding number for the United States is estimated to be close to 75 percent of GDP. China seems to be the one fiscal safe haven even as all the other powers wobble under the weight of their fiscal burden. As the mighty fall, China is standing economically and fiscally tall…

“So when India goes through its next growth spurt, it should be mindful of avoiding the mistake of the previous one. Good boom-time fiscal management provides the firepower for times of bust. The reasons for doing so are and must be overwhelmingly domestic. But there may also be strategic, external benefits from doing so. Fixing the fiscal roof when the sun was shining was China’s way out of this crisis and way to solidifying its superpower status. That is a lesson that strategically minded Indian policymakers should take away from China’s experience in the crisis.”

Photo from Getty Images.

“One can date precisely China’s debut as a great power,” writes Fareed Zakaria in the latest issue of Newsweek. “It was the evening of Aug. 8, 2008 – the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. The event perfectly symbolized China’s rise, a spectacular and expensive feat of mass organization, directed by the country’s highly competent government. We might look back a few years from now and date India’s coming-out party to May 18, 2009, the day its most recent election results were announced.”

“But the global significance of the election – and the reason it might usher in a new age for India on the world stage – was not the fact of it, but the results. Over the past two decades, India has been consumed by its internal divisions: of caste, ethnicity and religion. This has made it difficult for the government in New Delhi to mobilize national power to any purposeful end in global affairs…That’s bad for India and bad for the world. This could all change now. For the first time in three decades, a single party – the Indian National Congress – was given a clear and broad mandate…

“The great challenge for the 21st-century world is to find a way to bring India, China and Brazil into the international system. This task is often seen as a Western one. But equally important, the emerging powers must assume their international roles and act responsibly on the world stage. That means taking a global – and not narrowly national – perspective on issues like terrorism, energy, the environment, trade, disease and nonproliferation. This election has empowered an Indian government that – compared with all the alternatives – is the most likely to adopt a responsible approach to its world role.”

The makeup of India’s new government was the best possible result for those wanting India to emerge as a great power on the international stage. Unencumbered by a fractious coalition, the Congress Party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have the mandate to initiate domestic and international changes. As the strongest country in South Asia – given the country’s size, growing economy and military power – India needs to address issues of regional concern and the tenuous ties with some of its neighbors. To start, India ought to find a way to lower and resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir – the region cannot be ignored.

(An interesting podcast by the Council on Foreign Relations highlights India’s role in democracy promotion. “In a major departure from its traditional noninterventionist approach to diplomacy, India has embraced democracy promotion as part of its foreign policy agenda over the past few years.”)

But that doesn’t mean it will be easy. Even though it is not burdened by the same unwieldy parliamentary coalition, the new government is still constrained by a dire fiscal situation. Poverty, inequality, poor infrastructure, insufficient education and inadequate healthcare would challenge the strongest governments.

Image from the Economist.

Who will emerge stronger after the crisis? China or the United States? The New America Foundation and Foreign Policy hosted a debate on Tuesday about how the Great Recession will alter the global balance of power. “Which economy is poised to recover from the deepest recession since the 1930s? Who will be on top? Who will fall behind?”

Michael Lind, senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The Next Big Thing: America, argued that “the predictions made about the imminent appearance of this post-American multipolar world order are premature…the US may lose less than other major countries.”

Flynt Leverett, senior fellow at the New America Foundation and co-author with Ian Bremmer of The Age of Disorganization, disagreed. Mr. Leverett said, “The United States is going to continue to have…a unique measure of military hegemony. But in virtually every other arena of international power the trend lines before this crisis were for a decreased US power and I think that trend is only going to accelerate coming out of this crisis.”

The event was moderated by Susan Glasser, executive editor of Foreign Policy.

Photo from Chris Hondros/Getty Images and clip from the New America Foundation.

The presidents of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan met in Tehran on Sunday to discuss shared challenges and how the countries could work together to address regional issues. President Hamid Karzai, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and President Asif Ali Zardari agreed to jointly tackle extremism, terrorism and drug trafficking. Although largely devoid of specific measures, the summit set a tone of cooperation for future dealings. In its coverage, The New York Times noted that the meeting was “the latest sign of Iran’s emergence as the regional power.”

On a related note, the EastWest Institute recently released a threat assessment of Iran’s nuclear and missile potential. Representing the views of both Russian and American scientists, the analysis found that Iran “could produce a simple nuclear device within one to three years” and barring outside assistance it “could develop a nuclear warhead for ballistic missiles in six to eight years.” But it will take the country at least ten to fifteen years to “independently master the technologies necessary for advanced intermediate-range ballistic missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles.” The panel concluded that “the missile threat from Iran to Europe is thus not imminent.”

On the other hand, everything we know about Iran could be wrong.

Photo from Abedin Taherkenareh/European Pressphoto Agency.

North Korea performed a nuclear test this weekend which, according to various seismic tests, amounted to a blast of somewhere between 4 and 20 kilotons (possibly larger than the US’ bombing of Hiroshima in 1945).  The significance of the test cannot be discounted, as Pyongyang’s 2006 blast was a mere 1 kt.  With increased missile technology, more bellicose language towards the West, and the breakdown of 6-party talks, nuclear North Korea continues to raise its threat against the West (and even more so against its neighbors Japan and South Korea). The test quickly put North Korea back in the headlines - a place it wants to be.  US President Obama responded quickly, vowing quick action against Pyongyang while working with friends and allies to stand up to the threat.  Many international thought leaders have called North Korea a real “test for Obama“.  The UN also issued a fast statement, condemning North Korea and pointing out that the test violated a 2006 UNSC resolution.  US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice announced that Pyongyang will “pay the price” for its actions against the international community.

Strong statements of disapproval aside, what is to be done?  The idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of Kim Jong-Il and his military cronies is generally accepted as an apocalyptic situation.  North Korea’s weekend blast certainly measured high on the kiloton scale.  It also set off a series of commentary from various international publications and blogs, both liberal and conservative, that point to Beijing as the ultimate controller of the situation.  It’s no surprise: the key, according to many, is China.

So, what exactly are some global analysts writing about China’s role in the North Korea crisis?

Let’s start with Judith Miller of Fox.  In an article entitled “The Key to Reining In North Korea? It’s China, Stupid…” she explains that because of Beijing’s energy dominance over Pyongyang (China provides “between 80-90 percent of North Korea’s power, 90 percent of its crude oil and all of its diesel fuel. Between 70 and 80 percent of North Korea’s food imports come through China.”), China has what it takes to force North Korea into submission and to get it to return to talks with the US.  If that doesn’t work, Miller explains, then the US might have to explore a military option.

Mark Urban for the BBC writes that “China is in the driving seat over North Korea” essentially because no other nation is in a naturally comparative position.  He also explains that unlike other international issues that require UNSC cooperation with reluctant Chinese and Russian partnering such as Iran, Zimbabwe or Sudan, the issue of North Korea does not have any large division between Washington and Beijing.  It is in the mutual interest of the US and China to curtail North Korea’s nuclear activity… after all, it was China who has been central to the 6-party talks   However, China, not the US, is the nation with the real power to do so.

Stuart Whatley of the Huffington Post writes that “China is the variable to watch in this geopolitical equation, not North Korea.”  Whatley explains that it is China’s growing and increased international clout from its standing of financial power and comparative fiscal robustness that puts Beijing in a good place to deal with North Korea and drive a diplomatic agenda.  In addition, since China is North Korea’s main trading partner, it has the most to lose or gain from any joint international action, such as a decision over sanctions.  Since China and the US have respectively played “good cop/bad cop” on North Korea for the past several years, it only makes sense that Pyongyang will be more receptive to actions from China.  However, if the US and China can actually coordinate their policies, it will be much more effective and potentially successful in getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear program.

Investigating Beijing’s mindset a little more deeply, Mark MacKinnon of Globe and Mail, illustrates China’s position as a quieter one that wants to tone down sharp and reactionary language toward Pyongyang.  Beijing is in a bit of a crisis over what to do about North Korea.  While China certainly wants the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it also craves stability there.  For Beijing, the best way to go about dealing with North Korea is to diffuse the crisis quietly, and not to provoke Pyongyang even more.  After all, it seems that Kim Jong-Il might not last too much longer, and his potential successor will quite possibly try to secure more positive relationships with allies and enemies alike.

It’s not just analysts and bloggers who point to Beijing’s indispensability over the North Korea issue.  US politicians are also clearly aware of China’s importance.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced this while on a trip to Beijing today:

“The Chinese must use their influence to help bring North Korea to the table for the six-party talks. Today’s announcement makes that need all the more urgent.”

So what will China do?  So far, Beijing has publicly done little about the weekend’s nuclear test in North Korea.  Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu announced yesterday that “Beijing has two main objectives - a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, as well as safeguarding peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”  As is likely the case, what really happens might be confused and shrouded under various covert diplomatic channels.  No matter what China’s role is, I would expect the imprisoned US journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to play an increased role as collateral from Pyongyang.  I also expect South Korea and the US in particular to give up a few more concessions before North Korea returns to any talks with the Americans.  The real question is what Beijing will do, perhaps surreptitiously, that will cause Pyongyang to shift in its actions.

Image: North Korean Propaganda from 2003.

206. On Friday, Manmohan Singh was sworn in as India’s prime minister. Mr. Singh is the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to return to office after serving a full five-year term. The Congress Party unexpectedly romped to victory by a big margin in the world’s largest exercise in democracy. Instead of an unwieldy and unstable coalition, the Congress Party won 206 parliamentary seats (Congress and its allies won 262 seats).

In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Congress alone commands about 75 percent of the votes needed to maintain a majority and “that means they have a good chance of lasting out their five-year term without too much drama.” The strong mandate and what should be a stable parliamentary majority will allow Congress to act more decisively and implement necessary policies and reforms.

Photo from Reuters and graphic from the BBC.

Nandan Nilekani, Co-Chairman of Infosys and author of Imagining India, spoke with Fareed Zakaria about India’s economic potential on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS. Nilekani argues that India’s democracy is a strength in economic development, the country’s population is an asset not a liability and its “strategic opportunity is unrivaled.” When asked whether he would bet on India or China for the next 25 years, Nilekani chose India.

“I would bet on India. I think the structural advantages – the fact that we will have this young population when China starts aging, the fact that we paid the democracy deficit (so that’s behind us now), the fact that it’s much more of a bottom-up economy…fundamentally the strategic advantages we have are unparalleled. There is no other country on the planet which has the strategic advantages India has, and therefore it is a challenge of execution.”

And on a funnier note, Jon Stewart interviewed Nilekani in March on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart said that people in the United States believe “either China or India will be [their] new overlords.”

Clips from CNN and Comedy Central.

United States President Barack Obama recently nominated Republican Utah Governor Jon Huntsman Jr. as the next ambassador to China. President Obama reached into the Republican ranks for a key foreign policy position and likely removed one of his strongest potential challengers in the 2012 presidential campaign. During the announcement, Obama said that “the United States will best be able to deal effectively with global challenges in the 21st century by working in concert with China.”

“With a vast population, a growing economy and far-reaching influence, China will have a crucial role in confronting all the major challenges that face Asia and the world in the years ahead…

“We will launch a new era of partnership between our two nations that will advance our shared dreams of opportunity and security in America, in Asia and around the world…I can think of no more important assignment than creating the kinds of bridges between our two countries that will determine the well being not just of Americans and Chinese, but also the future of the world.”

Clip from CNN.

Yesterday, the Czech Republic hosted a joint EU-China summit that was originally scheduled for December.  The meeting was delayed then because of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s meeting with the Dalai Lama.  This time, China made clear to tell the EU to stay out of its internal business.  2 main topics were on the agenda: the massive trade imbalance between Beijing and Europe (Imports from China to Europe are 3 times the value of goods shipped to China by the EU), and climate change (carbon caps).  In the end, both sides issued a joint communique which didn’t amount to much.  Other than agreeing to meet again in Beijing later in 2009, and agreeing to work towards a China-Europe Clean Energy Center, a China-EU Science and Technology Partnership Scheme, and a China-EU SMEs Cooperation Point of Consensus, there was not much else that surfaced other than vague diplomatic platitudes.  In addition, one positive element was included for economic relations: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao agreed to send a Chinese purchasing mission to the EU in order to narrow the trade gap between his nation and the European trading group.  Clearly, the EU, represented by the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus, President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso, and Secretary-General of the Council of the EU/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, did not want to strain relations with Beijing, given the diplomatic tension of 2008 over Tibet.

While the Chinese press has hailed the summit as a positive development for China-EU relations, other global publications disagree.  Deutsche Welle explains that China and the EU failed to reach “common ground” on a variety of issues including human rights, North Korea, global warming and the EU’s arms embargo against China.  Reuters, echoes this with a scathing evaluation of the summit, describing it as having “fanfare but little substance“.

In any case, the summit can be viewed as a victory for China.  Beijing escaped from discussions of human rights, Tibetan rights, and military policies that have been reiterated time and again over the past few years.  The EU and China were able to improve some of their ties.  The real question will be if the EU-China summit in Beijing later this year will have any more substance or results.

Photo Credit: Xinhua.