Chair: Major General Dipankar Banerjee, Director, IPCS
Speaker: Dr Jean-Yves Haine, Research Fellow For European Security, IISS

Major General Dipankar Banerjee

Recent years have witnessed some developments in Indo-EU relations, especially after the signing of the partnership agreement last year. It is not substantive, yet thee is movement in particular areas like economic cooperation, terrorism and energy issues. But, there is little strategic content. There has to be flexibility among EU member countries to allow greater entry of Indian firms into their markets as in the coming years Indian companies are likely to expand rapidly and look to tap into potential European markets.

Jean-Yves Haine

The need for an active bilateral relationship between the EU and India is evident, but there is very little of it now. This is a tricky issue. An absence of an active bilateral relationship between India and the EU must be examined. Why should both countries indulge in building relations? Now, the relations are more formal than substantial. One of the foremost reasons is that the EU is still developing as an economic body and hence security issues are not on the top of its agenda. Second, the EU is also speaking in different voices from within. During the Iraq war, only the US and UK had a dominant voice in the UN. Even within the EU, only France and Russia voiced their combined opposition. There were only few attempts at making new alignments. There was no consensus within the EU over the Iraq war.

The third significant reason for inactivity between India and the EU is the shadow of the US that looms large over this relationship. The EU is obsessed with dealing with the US. This coupled with India's emphasis on its 'Look East Policy' and improving relations with the US has led to the neglecting of Indo-EU relations. As for the US, it is slowly shifting its focus away from the EU in the 21st century. Even today, the US State Department has many officials who are experts on European matters, but in the next 10-15 years there will hardly be any expert on Europe in the US administration. Significantly, before 11 September 2001, the primary areas of importance for the US were Europe, West Asia and Asia, respectively. But, after the 9/11, the order of importance has changed dramatically. Now, the order is West Asia, Asia and Europe, respectively.

The fourth reason for poor relations is the dismal state of affairs within the EU. The recently signed strategic document of 2004 between the various European nations only mentions the different threats and strategic partners like the US and China. Unfortunately, India hardly gets a mention. Fifth, the constitutional crisis that led to a volatile market, especially after the Dutch 'No' to the Constitution; huge inequalities in the standard of living in various European countries and immigration issues have left the EU looking disjointed and preoccupied.

Further, EU institutions have been unable to smoothly coordinate and this has aggravated problems within the EU. The EU Commission and EU Coordination Council lack coordination and have been plagued by distrust. The economic power of the EU is ebbing away. This is because the decision-making process is slow and tardy. Rapid crisis management processes are absent. Sixth, the EU process orientation is another significant reason for deteriorating relations with India. Lot of time is spent on pondering the process of implementation. There is hardly any thinking on the outcome.

Yet, the EU also stands for many good values. Unlike the US, the EU does not subscribe to notions of pre-emption and regime changes for democracy. It still stands for good global governance and the rule of law. Unfortunately, the EU has only followed events and not shaped them.

Another point to ponder is why a strategic partnership with India has to be developed? There are four main reasons as to why such a partnership is a necessity:

1. Common strategies: Both, the EU and India have many common values and hence they must formulate common strategies for minimum nuclear deterrence and to eliminate nuclear weapons. There is hardly any dialogue within the EU on how to eliminate nuclear weapons. There was divergent opinions on the Iranian issue within the EU. France wanted to keep the nuclear club exclusive and hence wanting to deal with Iran effectively, while Germany refused to come to the table if the military option was to be discussed. The UK followed the US line. Constructive negotiations were not held with Russia on this issue.

2. Terrorism: The EU and India face problems of terrorism by radical fundamentalists regularly. Interestingly for the EU, the fight against terror is more a home grown threat than any international or foreign threat. The EU has been both, a base and target, for terrorists. The prevention of such violent acts is extremely difficult. As for the recent cartoon controversy, the protests against them were deliberate and targeted. It was used to fuel passions among a section of societies by a few religious leaders. This was done to showcase their capability to threaten European governmental institutions.

3. Global Energy Market: The EU is more dependent for energy requirements on West Asia than the US. The latest ten new East European entrants into the EU are 80-100 per cent dependent on Russia for their energy supplies. This could create a dangerous situation. Along with this factor, the rising demand for energy makes it imperative for both India and the EU to cooperate.

4. Economic Partnership: This partnership has to grow in the coming years. Both, the EU and India, have democratic setups and this could be used as the focal point to attract investments and trade vis-à-vis China, which has a different form of governance. Thus, the democratic set-up should ensure a smooth flow of trade. The EU's protectionist policy, especially its agricultural subsidies will be a battle ground for the next 10 years.

The EU is not yet a major power and it has existed as a union for had only five years. The interests of 25 different states have to be condensed in order to formulate a consistent and consensual policy. Until then, the EU will not be a major attraction for other countries. The EU is restricted to its region. It is still solving its own problems and its external focus will expand gradually.

Question & Answer

Question: Can the European constitutional process be revived?
Answer: This Constitution got a negative response from three major countries within the union. Hence, it has been emphatically rejected.

Question: Is effective multilateralism as an EU policy feasible in the future considering that it has focused on unilateral policies in recent years?
Answer: Here, unilateral policy means that the UK has followed more or less what the US has followed in recent years, while France and Germany have had different views on various issues. The EU as a body will have an influential say in future international forums if it encompasses effective multilateralism as an instrument of foreign policy. Sending NATO troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan as part of the 'war on terror' was largely possible because there were no individual national interests at threat for the EU nations.

Question: How does India engage or look to take the relationship to a higher level with the EU, which has many contradictory voices within?
Answer: It is true that there are differing voices within the EU and it has to develop mechanisms within to deal with such problems. As far as India is concerned, it has to deal with the EU at large rather than looking to initiate relations with individual European countries.

Question: How does one look at the India-EU partnership in the context of India-US and India-Russia-China cooperation?
Answer: The EU has not developed any framework as of now regarding its partnership with India. Yet, it must look to create a consistent policy towards the region in order to manoeuvre some space for itself to become an active player in Asia.