The new world is not structured around the United States; it is multipolar, heterogeneous, global, and has different centres of power, says Thierry de Montbrial, president of French Institute of International Relations, a leading French think-tank, in a conversation with Trithesh Nandan. About India, Montbrial feels that the country is growing economically, which is good, but lacks the aspirations to run the global governance system.

The following are the excerpts of the conversation that took place at Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi where Montbrial had come to speak on ‘Stakes of global governance’.

There are tensions in global governance, especially between the old and new rising powers in the world.

Montbrial: The world is changing extremely fast. Balance of power of the nation states, both politically and economically, is changing. Also, interdependence is growing very fast as a consequence of globalisation; the real question about governance is how to establish degree of coordination which is necessary to make the system relatively stable. This necessarily leads to tension because there is redistribution of laws, and it has a number of implications. In my view the new world is multipolar, heterogeneous and global. There is a move to redraw, redesign the new global governance mechanism. In the meanwhile, the balance of power is going to shift. Some former actors are going to see their power reduced and new comers, especially emerging countries, are going to seek more powers. That is, indeed, the source of major tension. The world cannot be structured around the United States any more. The world needs a new form of non-alignment.

Who are the new emerging powers in your view?

Montbrial: When I describe the multipolar world, I refer to such countries as China – even though it may have some important potential problems. My conclusion is that China is openly driving for power. Then there is Japan – which is still a major economic powerhouse and we cannot underestimate its role. Russia – in spite of all its difficulties, I believe Russia is still a power. It is very difficult to imagine any major problem in European countries or Euro-Asian continent to be solved without the cooperation of Russia. I also believe European Union (EU) to be another power even though in many ways it is a soft power; at the same time it a new political unit. The EU is not the authoritative power. India is also a centre of power but the question about India is (whether it is) aiming at something more than the regional role. It is clear that India is now one of the major economic actors. But on the political side, it is the question to be discussed as India is not interested in running global affairs. I hardly see any countries from Latin America or Africa, though Brazil is an important actor from the Latin American side. It meets some attributes of power on economic grounds, but politically speaking it is doubtful.      

Why is India not interested in running global governance system or world affairs? What are the reservations you see in the Indian mindset? 

Montbrial: First of all, India is a good democracy, which needless to say is a positive thing. But we know that democracies face more difficulty than the authoritarian regimes to design great political strategies. Though India is a regional power and important power in the world, I think it is quite busy with its neighbourhood, especially Pakistan which keeps it engaged on the North-West side. It is not coming out from that subcontinent mindset. Also, the economic concentration of India also keeps the country quite busy within itself.

Where do you see India going from its current position?

Montbrial: India is a country of miracle. I do not have much expertise about Indian governance, but from what I know I believe India is a subcontinent with huge diversity. The frequently asked question is: how can an entity with so much diversity exist?. For the last six decades, the democratic system has done wonderfully well to protect its traditions. The democracy in India runs deep and the Indian subcontinent no longer is insular to any part of the world. Today the sub-continent is open, liberalized and connected with the rest of the world. But the deepening of Indian national identity will probably be the most interesting evolution to watch out for in the next few years.

But India is still weak in many respects. Many experts feel that India will not even achieve the halfway targets of Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by 2015. Do you see that affecting the rise of India?

Montbrial: Look, celebration and success are two basic ingredients of nation building. India is on a successful path or track of growth, and this should be a source of pride for the country. You are also competing with other powers, such as China. Competition is a source of strength.

Do you think that India should be given a chance as the permanent member with veto power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)?

Montbrial: I intend to say 'yes' with two observations. One there should be clear understanding of what it means to become a member of UNSC, like contributing to the world stability. Second is that India considers itself the regional power and (if it) wants to promote prominently bigger picture, it should have a plan for that.

Recently, the World Bank raised the stake of India’s voting power from 2.77 percent to 2.91 percent. Do you see that as a positive change?

Montbrial: My answer is yes, even though it is at the cost of European Union. The reality of running world governance is different now as running global governance should be reflected in today’s world. The more India is given a chance in these kinds of institutions; it will have bigger say in the world perspective. I think it is good. 

Coming to your understanding of the new form of non-alignment, what is your view on that?

Montbrial: The concept of non-alignment has changed what India had proposed and played as an important role in the Bandung conference in the 1950s. Though I speak about the multipolar world there is one pole which is considered to be above than the others that is the United States. To some extent, the European Union is close to the US on many issues. But my point is that it is quite visible now some of the emerging countries are starting to be outspoken on major world issues which they did not have their say traditionally or did not have their say openly. I think that the countries like Brazil took the initiative to deal directly with Iran even though it was flawed initiative is the signal of important evolution, which I called it as new non-alignment. In the next few decades we are going to see more and more like that and the emerging countries will influence the core issue of the international affairs. It is shift of centre of gravity which is not necessarily anti-Western move. I see emerging countries more and more coming on the international scene and make their presence felt.

So now the global system cannot be structured around the United States any more?

Montbrial: After the collapse of the USSR, there was this illusion that the United States would be the guardian of the world order and monopolar world. But this illusion collapsed under the President George W. Bush presidency in 2008 when few banks collapsed in the US which led to financial crisis. Look at the rise of emerging nations which I have already enumerated.