I support India having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

In a thought-provoking interview with Diplomatist, Ambassador Derek Shearer reflects on India’s evolving role in global diplomacy, particularly its position within the Global South. Drawing from his vast experience as U.S. Ambassador to Finland and his expertise in international relations, Shearer offers candid insights into the dynamics of India’s strategic partnerships, especially with the United States. He challenges the relevance of the Global South framework, suggesting that India’s foreign policy should focus on fostering ties with democratic nations rather than aligning with autocratic regimes. Shearer emphasizes the importance of India leveraging its Soft Power—through culture, literature, and arts—as a tool for enhancing its global presence.

How did your experiences in diplomacy shape your understanding of international relations?

My Yale University studies in Russian and Chinese history, economics, and language certainly informed my approach to working as a professional diplomat. My practical experience as a diplomat, particularly as a US ambassador to Finland, deepened my understanding of international relations, especially how history, economics and politics shape diplomatic possibilities and outcomes, not academic theories or catch-all concepts.

In Finland, an understanding of the country’s relationship with Russia was necessary to appreciate what Finland could and could not do diplomatically.

As the US ambassador as the Cold War ended, I saw new possibilities for strengthening Finland’s ties to the US and to the West. I publicly supported Finland’s decision to join the European Union which was as much a security vote as an economic one. I stood alongside the Finnish PM at the headquarters of YLE, the Finnish national broadcasting company, as the vote count was announced and the country became a member of the EU. I also supported Finland’s decision to co-produce the F-18 Hornet fighter jet as a way to strengthen Finland’s national security and as a first step towards joining NATO. I testified before the Finnish Parliament saying publicly that Finland is welcome to join the alliance but that it is a decision for the Finnish people to make. I understood Finland’s history of “strategic neutrality” and that public opinion in the 1990s was not ready for Finland formally to join NATO. However, Finland did participate in NATO’s Partnership for Peace. I went out of my way to introduce Finland’s military leadership to American military leaders, including taking Finnish security officials to spend a night on a US aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean and to visit military headquarters in the US. I hosted a visit by US Secretary of Defence William Perry to Helsinki where he took a sauna with the Prime Minister and discussed security issues in post-Cold War Europe.

With the cooperation of Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, I initiated a summit meeting in Helsinki between President Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin to discuss Russia’s relationship with NATO. Of course, it was Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine which dramatically shifted Finnish public opinion and finally allowed its political leaders to join NATO.

I was an active public diplomat, promoting American Soft Power through music, sports, and culture, hosting visits of popular singers, musicians, athletes and authors to Finland. I recognized the influence that Soft Power can have in improving people-to-people relations that extend well beyond traditional government to government diplomacy. At Occidental College, I teach courses on Soft Power and Public Diplomacy and on Sports and Diplomacy, as well as conventional international security.

All of these experiences and other work that I did for the US government as a diplomat informed and deepened my teaching and practice of diplomacy as well as the quality of my published articles on US foreign policy and diplomacy.

I have learned that all countries should pursue what Secretary of State Clinton calls Smart Power—a combination of traditional Hard Power (military and economic strength) and Soft Power. Certainly, I would recommend this approach to India.

What are the key areas of mutual interest between India and the United States that can enhance their strategic partnership in the context of global affairs?

The US and India have a mutual interest in a rules-based, human rights approach to international relations and in strengthening international organizations such as the UN.  In terms of national security, both countries share a concern about the rise of China and its turn towards authoritarianism and a more assertive foreign and military policy abroad. Our two countries also share a concern for global stability so that all countries including India and the US can prosper in a peaceful global economy—and of course, a shared concern over the increasing environmental disruption caused by climate change. India should, but currently does not seem to share the US concern about the rise of authoritarianism and expansionism in Russia under Putin or the ways in which Iran and its surrogates are fostering conflict in the Middle East. I highly recommend Anne Applebaum’s short book Autocracy Inc. as required reading for all Indian diplomats.

I support close security cooperation between the US and India in Asia. As Finland strengthened its security by co-producing the F-18 Hornet and now purchasing the F-35, I recommend that India cooperate with General Electric to produce advanced fighter engines for Indian aircraft and to improve cooperation and interoperability between Indian and US forces in Asia. India’s historic purchase of Russian weapons should be wound down.

In your opinion, how has India’s position as a leader in the Global South evolved in recent years, and what factors have contributed to this shift?

I don’t think that the concept of the Global South is useful in formulating a country’s foreign policy. The Global South is a geographic catch phase not actually descriptive of actual political and economic alliances and networks. Saying that India is a leader in the Global South has no real meaning or utility for the country. What is important is for India to have strong, vibrant relations with South Africa, for example, but not necessarily with corrupt autocratic governments in Africa or similarly a healthy diplomatic and economic relationship with Brazil but not with the current oppressive government in Venezuela.

With the rise of China as a dominant force in the region, what role do you think India plays in counterbalancing this influence within the Global South?

India’s “counterbalancing” of China is not a contest in the so-called Global South and should not be approached as a zero-sum game. India should put itself forward in all regions as a dynamic, strong democratic nation which is modernizing its economy, strengthening its security relationships with other democratic countries, and promoting what is the best of Indian culture through its Soft Power.  Indian literature, food, music, sports and art are world-class and can be used effectively through a strong program of global Indian public diplomacy. Look at how South Korea has spread its Soft Power influence.

With on-going conflicts around the world, how should India position itself as a mediator or facilitator in international disputes, especially in the context of its relationships with neighbouring countries?

India should do its best to seek diplomatic solutions to its disputes with Pakistan and not respond with anger and military adventures even to Pakistani terrorism. Certainly, Indian diplomats should be on the lookout for opportunities to support conflict resolution and ends to civil wars and dangerous border disputes but there is no magic approach or position other than garnering a reputation for honest brokerage and imaginative diplomacy.

What are your thoughts on India’s role in international organisations such as the United Nations and BRICS, particularly concerning its advocacy for developing nations?

I support India having a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and India playing an active and useful role in all UN organizations including peacekeeping. I think that BRIC is not a good fit for India because two of its members, Russia and China, are anti-democratic autocracies and countries whose foreign policies, especially Russia, are focused on promoting chaos and conflict in the international system. Why would India want to be seen as a close partner to such countries, particularly because one of them, China, sees itself as India’s rival. Neither are trustworthy allies.

Looking ahead, what are some strategic recommendations you would make for India to enhance its diplomatic presence and influence in the Global South?

India should not limit its strategic thinking to the so-called Global South. As mentioned, this is not a useful way for India to organise its diplomatic efforts. The focus should be on strengthening diplomatic relationships and Soft Power influence with key and like-minded countries such as South Africa and Brazil—and of course, with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other Asian and Southeast Asian countries, as well as with the EU and NATO.

However, India cannot enhance its diplomatic presence and influence if it suppresses its Muslim minority at home and embraces Hindu nationalism while silencing the press and domestic critics. This path is similar to what Xi and Putin have embraced for their countries and is not a model that India should follow.  India should embrace and promote the Soft Power of all its citizens, build and modernize its economy, and seek stronger security relationships with democracies, not autocracies.