A Regional Power Promoting Democracy? India’s Involvement in Nepal (2005–2008)

According to the theory of “democratic peace,” India, as the largest democracy in the world and as South Asia’s predominant regional power, should be expected to promote democracy in neighboring countries. However, New Delhi lacks any official democracypromotion policy, and its past record on democracy in the region is mixed at best. Against this background, the paper analyzes the substantial role India came to play in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005–2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi’s traditional policy of noninterference in its neighbors’ internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion. The analysis shows that India’s involvement in Nepal was the product of short-term stability concerns rather than being an indicator of a long-term change in strategy with the intention of becoming an active player in international democracy promotion.democracy promotion, India, Nepal, regional power, peace process, democratization

Empire, Hegemony, and Leadership: Developing a Research Framework for the Study of Regional Powers

Regional powers are often conceived of as “regional leading powers,” states which adopt a cooperative and benevolent attitude in their international relations with their neighbors. The paper argues that regional powers can follow a much wider range of foreign policy strategies in their region. Three ideal-typical regional strategies are identified: empire, hegemony, and leadership. The paper is devoted to a theory-led distinction and clarification of these three terms, which are often used interchangeably in the field of international relations. According to the goals pursued, to the means employed, and to other discriminating features such as the degree of legitimation and the type of self-representation by the dominant state, the paper outlines the essential traits of imperial, hegemonic, and leading strategies and identifies subtypes for better classifying hegemony and leadership.regional powers, empire, hegemony, leadership, strategy

India and the Civil War in Sri Lanka: On the Failures of Regional Conflict Management in South Asia

The paper provides an assessment of India’s role in the final years of the civil war in Sri Lanka (2003-2009). In particular, it looks for explanations for India’s inability to act as a conflict manager in its own region, which is in contrast to predominant assumptions about the role of powerful regional states. It also seeks to explain the surprising turn in India’s approach to the conflict, when in 2007 New Delhi began to rather explicitly support the Sri Lankan government— in disregard of its traditional preference for a peaceful solution and its sensitivity for the fate of Sri Lankan Tamils. While historical and domestic pressures led to India’s indecisive approach during the years 2003-2007, starting from 2007 regional and international factors— most notably the skillful diplomacy of the Sri Lankan government and the growing Chinese presence there—induced New Delhi to support the government side in order to keep some leverage on Sri Lankan affairs. The analysis of the Sri Lankan case opens several avenues for further research in the fields of regional conflict management and foreign policy analysis.India, Sri Lanka, conflict management, civil war

A Regional Power Promoting Democracy? : India’s Involvement in Nepal (2005–2008)

According to the theory of “democratic peace,” India, as the largest democracy in the world and as South Asia’s predominant regional power, should be expected to promote democracy in neighboring countries. However, New Delhi lacks any official democracypromotion policy, and its past record on democracy in the region is mixed at best. Against this background, the paper analyzes the substantial role India came to play in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005–2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi’s traditional policy of noninterference in its neighbors’ internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion. The analysis shows that India’s involvement in Nepal was the product of short‐term stability concerns rather than being an indicator of a long‐term change in strategy with the intention of becoming an active player in international democracy promotion.Als größte Demokratie der Welt und gleichzeitig als dominierende Regionalmacht in Südasien, könnte man erwarten, dass Indien in seinen Nachbarstaaten Demokratieförderung betreibt. Die Theorie des demokratischen Friedens geht davon aus, dass es im Interesse einer Demokratie wie Indien liegt, von Demokratien umgeben zu sein, da somit die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Kriegen sinkt. Dies ist jedoch bei Indien nicht der Fall: Neu‐Delhi geht pragmatisch mit autoritären Staaten um und hat keine offizielle Politik der Demokratieförderung. Das Papier geht der Frage nach, inwieweit Indiens substanzielles Engagement im Friedens‐ und Demokratisierungsprozess in Nepal in den Jahren 2005‐2008 eine Abkehr von Neu‐Delhis traditioneller Ablehnung von Demokratieförderung darstellt. Die Untersuchung ideeller und zielorientierter Grundlagen in Indiens Außenpolitik und die Analyse des indischen Engagements in Nepal führen zu dem Schluss, dass wir es mit keinem radikalen Wandel zu tun haben. Indiens Bemühungen in Nepal sind nicht als langfristiger Strategiewandel, sondern als reaktiver, kurzfristiger Politikwechsel zu verstehen, der primär auf die Stabilisierung des Nachbarstaats abzielte

Regional powers and their strategies: empire, hegemony, and leadership

Regional powers are often conceived of as ‘regional leading powers’, states which adopt a cooperative and benevolent attitude in their international relations with their neighbours. The article argues that regional powers can follow a much wider range of foreign policy strategies in their region. Three ideal-typical regional strategies are identified: empire, hegemony, and leadership. The article is devoted to a theory-led distinction and clarification of these three terms, which are often used interchangeably in the field of International Relations. According to the goals pursued, to the means employed, and to other discriminating features such as the degree of legitimation and the type of self- representation by the dominant state, the article outlines the essential traits of imperial, hegemonic, and leading strategies and identifies sub-types for better classifying hegemony and leadership

Reluctant powers? Rising powers' contributions to regional crisis management

Rising powers have often been characterised as 'reluctant' when it comes to their contributions to global governance. However, also within their regions they have sometimes pursued indecisive, muddling-through policies, including in the field of security. This paper addresses the puzzling issue of rising powers' reluctant approach to regional crisis management. It conceptualises reluctance as entailing the two constitutive dimensions of hesitation and recalcitrance, and it seeks to approach a theorisation of reluctance that focuses on a combination of international expectations and domestic preference formation. The empirical analysis addresses instances of regional crisis management by the democratic rising powers India and Brazil during phases of domestic political stability under the Modi (2014–2018) and the Lula (2003–2011) governments, respectively. The analysis of India's crisis management efforts in Afghanistan and Nepal, and of Brazil's leadership of the MINUSTAH mission and its approach to the civil war in Colombia, reveal that reluctance emerges if a government is faced with (competing) expectations articulated by international actors as well as with a range of domestic factors that lead to unclear preference formation

Populism and International Relations: (Un)predictability, personalisation, and the reinforcement of existing trends in world politics

As populists have formed governments all over the world, it becomes imperative to study the consequences of the rise of populism for International Relations. Yet, systematic academic analyses of the international impact of populist government formation are still missing, and political commentators tend to draw conclusions from few cases of right-wing populism in the Global North. But populism - conceptualised as a 'thin' ideology based on anti-elitism and anti-pluralism - takes different shapes across world regions as populists combine it with different 'thick' ideologies. To reflect such diversity and gain more systematic insights into the global implications of populism, we focus on cases of populist government formation in the Global South. We find that populists in power are not, per se, more belligerent or less willing to engage globally than their non-populist predecessors. Factors like status seeking or a country's embeddedness in international institutions mitigate the impact of populism. Its most immediate effect concerns procedural aspects: foreign policymaking becomes more centralised and personalised - yet, not entirely unpredictable, given the importance of 'thick' ideologies espoused by populist parties and leaders. Rather than changing course entirely, populists in power reinforce existing trends, especially a tendency towards diversifying international partnerships

Go South! India “Discovers”: Africa and Latin America

In August 2012, India’s first dialogue with the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños, CELAC), founded in 2010, took place in New Delhi. Following India’s “rediscovery” of Africa, this demonstrated India’s interest in forging closer political ties with Latin America. Since the 1990s, India has been globalizing its foreign policy. Having initially focused on Southeast and East Asia, India has looked to extend its relationships with Africa and Latin America in recent years. The driving force behind India’s diversification of foreign policy to the global South is, on the one hand, economic interests, and, on the other, the quest for recognition of India’s ascent to great power status. India’s renewed engagement in Africa began with Indian businesses’ investments in the raw material sector. Through a number of development activities and with the participation of Indian soldiers in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations, the Indian government has been signaling to the international community its readiness to act as a responsible (potential) great power. Security policy interests are the reason for different kinds of security cooperation with East African states in the Indian Ocean region – an area India considers to be part of its extended regional neighborhood. Indian-owned businesses have become increasingly active in Latin America since the beginning of the twenty-first century. This is, however, not only due to the region’s resource wealth, but also to its potential as a market for Indian products and as an investment location. Foreign policy has only recently started to follow the economy, as shown by New Delhi’s hosting of the India-CELAC Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue in 2012. India remains, however, far behind China. Despite India’s growing engagement in Africa and Latin America, these regions are not of primary importance in the overall context of Indian foreign policy, which is still very much focused on security threats that spill over from the immediate regional vicinity

Populism and Foreign Policy: The Case of India

What kind of foreign policy do populists execute once in power? Based on the existing literature, we conceptualize populism as a set of ideas whose two core elements are anti-elitism and antipluralism. From this we develop a set of hypotheses regarding both substantive aspects of foreign policy as well as foreign policy-making processes of populist leaders in government. An analysis of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's foreign policy record serves as a first plausibility probe of our hypotheses. We find that our concept of populism carries most explanatory value in the procedural aspects of foreign policy making as well as in its communication, less so in those aspects relating to the goals or substance of foreign policy. Whereas foreign policy under Modi's populist leadership is highly centralized and personalized, the traditional foreign policy establishment, including most notably the Ministry of External Affairs, has lost some of its previous authority. Engaging the Indian diaspora abroad emerged as another characteristic of populist foreign policy making. By contrast, the case of India does not confirm our hypothesis regarding a preference of bilateralism over multilateralism, nor does populism necessarily preclude investing in global public goods

Nach dem Bürgerkrieg - welche Zukunft für Sri Lanka?

Am 19. Mai 2009 verkündete die srilankische Regierung ihren Sieg über die Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) und den Tod des Anführers, Velupillai Prabhakaran. Damit ging der seit 26 Jahren andauernde Bürgerkrieg in Sri Lanka vorerst zu Ende. Die srilankische Regierung von Exekutivpräsident Mahinda Rajapaksa ist stärker denn je, nachdem sie nicht nur die LTTE besiegt hat, sondern auch auf der internationalen Ebene ihre Ziele erreichen konnte: Am 26. Mai lehnte der UN-Menschenrechtsrat die Forderung ab, mutmaßliche Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch Regierungstruppen und LTTE aufzuklären. Rajapaksa spielte verschiedene Staaten – vor allem China und Indien – erfolgreich gegeneinander aus und schaffte sich dadurch während der militärischen Offensive und für die Phase des Wiederaufbaus große Freiräume. Die menschenrechtliche Lage in Sri Lanka ist weiterhin beunruhigend. Etwa 300.000 tamilische Flüchtlinge sind in vom Militär überwachten Lagern untergebracht, zu denen internationale Hilfsorganisationen keinen Zugang haben. Eine Hexenjagd nach mutmaßlichen Unterstützern der LTTE hat eingesetzt. Die Regierung nutzt ihre gestärkte Position, um sich politischer Gegner zu entledigen. Nach der Entscheidung im UN-Menschenrechtsrat haben westliche Länder noch geringere Einflussmöglichkeiten auf Sri Lanka. Das in dem Inselstaat einflussreichste Land bleibt China. Um sich nicht vollständig von diesem verdrängen zu lassen, bemüht sich die Regionalmacht Indien um gute Beziehungen zur srilankischen Regierung. Dazu ist sie zunehmend bereit, auf ihre traditionellen protamilischen Forderungen zu verzichten. Ein dauerhafter Frieden ist nur möglich, wenn es zu einer Versöhnung zwischen singhalesischer Mehrheit und tamilischer Minderheit kommt. Dazu müsste die Regierung die Aufarbeitung der jüngsten Vergangenheit zulassen und im Rahmen einer Dezentralisierung den Tamilen breite Autonomie gewähren. Die bisherige singhalesisch-nationalistische Einstellung von Präsident Rajapaksa und die geringen Möglichkeiten der Tamilen, ihre Interessen angemessen zu vertreten, machen eine solche Lösung jedoch unwahrscheinlich