Back to Brussels Blog homepage
EU-India ties need a boost
September 22, 2008
Something unsatisfactory hangs over the summit that the leaders of the European Union and India will hold in Marseilles on September 29. These are two of the world’s most important power centres, and they share much in common, such a commitment to democracy and respect for a rules-based international order. But their partnership, though friendly, lacks real substance. It is marked by misunderstandings and friction as much as enthusiastic co-operation.
When the EU published its first ever Security Strategy in 2003, it identified the US as its closest ally and and five other powers with which it sought ”strategic partnerships” - Canada, China, India, Japan and Russia. Among those five, ties with Russia are under the greatest strain. But it is with India that the EU has its most under-developed relationship.
True, bilateral trade has more than doubled since 2003 and totalled more than €55bn last year. But the EU-Indian negotiations on a free trade agreement, which started in June 2007, are making slow progress and will not be concluded by the end of this year, as once hoped.
The EU frequently complains about India’s restrictive trade barriers and regulatory regime and say access to important sectors such as aviation, banking, insurance and telecommunications is difficult for foreign investors. India, for its part, rejects both the EU’s demands for more cuts in industrial tariffs and the EU’s stance on global climate change, saying it is a developing country that is under no obligation to slow its modernisation.
Wider strategic co-operation between India and the EU is affected by India’s view of itself as an emerging power that aspires to a bigger global role. The EU says it welcomes this, but when India lays claim to a seat on the UN Security Council - a perfectly reasonable request - it rapidly falls victim to the subtle national rivalries at play on this issue in the EU between France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.
That issue aside, however, there ought be more intense co-operation between the EU and India on issues ranging from counter-terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to food security and failed or failing states. On Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and China, there is much the EU and India can and should do together. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Is it April 1 already? I thought I read something about the EU ?commitment to democracy?. Or maybe that refers to continual voting until the politicians get the answer they want?
Posted by: Freeborn John | September 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Report this commentThe first and obvious emerging Market for Europe is the Russian Federation, a complementary market for the European Union, next door with an economy growing over 7% a year.
As transport prices incrase the Euro-Russian link has a lot of room for growth because the Russian Market is much closer than China or India with over 100 million people at the same distance of Berlin as Spain…
Posted by: Enrique | September 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Report this commentRussia has the fastest falling populationinthe world and an economy the size of S.E.England that is reduced to a basic supplier of commodities. Russia has grown only becuase of the high price of oil which is now falling.
India really is growing but despite the hype it is still very much a 3rd world economy. There are business opportunitites there, for example in off-shoring service industries. The EU should perhaps push India to reduce tarrifs on the services we export but other than that it is not obvious that Brussels has any role to play in relations with India which could not be better performed directly by national governments. We need to get the EU out of foreign policy as much as possible.
Posted by: Freeborn John | September 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentAt current prices Russia´s GDP is 20% larger than India´s.
At PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) Russia´s GDP is already larger than the United Kingdom or France according to the World Bank…but 30% smaller than India´s.
Anyway, much closer as a Market, and with a per capita income five times larger than India´s.
But Europe should look for both Markets as they are essential and in both the links are just at the beginning.
Posted by: Enrique | September 22nd, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentIndia is the best long term political and economic investment for both the United States and the European Union. Cultivating a strong alliance with India is necessary for the continuation of democracy and civil liberties into the twenty second century. Our leaders need to stop taking the attitudes of overseers and look after the best interests of both countries, rather than just our own, if any viable relationship is to be formed.
Posted by: Hieronymus | September 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 pm | Report this commentThanks to centuries old cultural ties, Indians find it easier to do business with continental Europe through the UK. Since UK is the gateway to continental Europe, Indians tend to be coloured by British perceptions on how difficult it is to do business with continental Europe. Also, many of the services offered by India are English language dependant and does not interest continental Europe. www.winnowed.blogspot.com
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | September 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 am | Report this commentOutside the Euro and Schengen the UK is NOT gateway to continental Europe.
Once Indians know about how apart from Mainstraim Europe is the UK (outside the Euro-Eurozone, outside the SEPA-Single European Payment Area, outside Schengen-free circulation of people…) they will look for new gateway/s…after all in any European country they can find millions of people who speak English as well as Indians do.
Posted by: Enrique | September 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am | Report this commentEver been to India Enrique? I was there earlier this year at the same time that Gordon Brown visited the country. I was struck by the televised ?UK-India? debate attended by government and business leaders (e.g. Richard Branson, Arun Sarin of Vodafone, Karan Bilimoria of Cobra Beer, etc) and academics. What struck me most was the almost unquestioned assumption by both Britons and Indians of what might be called the Anglo-Saxon orthodoxy of open markets and individual entrepreneurship. Richard Branson made a strong case for the British and Indian governments dismantling precisely the kind of protectionist measures that president Sarkozy of France still seems to believe in 250 years after their debunking by Adam Smith. Nobody on the Indian side questioned the orthodoxy of liberal economics when the rise of India can be dated to precisely the point in time at which they abandoned protectionist instincts and opened up to the globalising world? The only mention of the EU was by Gordon Brown himself who suggested access to the common market was one reason why Indian companies might want to invest in the UK.
President Sarkozy visited India one week after Brown, selling nuclear technology and the other wares of a dirigiste state. The Indian press was only interested in his visit to the Taj Mahal sans Carlo.
Following these experiences I was left with the strong impression that the UK shares more of a common political and economic culture with far-away India than it does with all those European countries that still bang-on about their ?social model?.
Posted by: Freeborn John | September 23rd, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Report this commentI don´t think there is anything essentialy “Anglo-Saxon” in open markets and individual entrepreneurship taking into account that until Thatcher the United Kingdom was more Socialist that most nations in Europe…so we could say socialist dirigiste trade-unionist control of Scargill etc was the real “Anglo-Saxon” orthodoxy or is it the present one?
Was the Britain of 1970, more Socialist and interventionist than the rest of Europe, represenative of “Anglo-Saxon” orthodoxy and the present one is just a short term experiment?
Come on.
A common Colonial past is important as it built thousands of relations between invididuals and government officials, the same way it happens with Spain in LatinAmerica or France in North Africa.
But it is true inside the European Union there is a division of tasks: France leads trade negotations in North Africa, Spain in South America, Germany in Eastern Europe, the UK in North America and former Commonwealth…
Posted by: Enrique | September 23rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentEnrique: A more accurate description of the role of the EU in trade negotiations would be that it subordinates the British interest in achieving low tariffs on the export of services (e.g. to countries like India) to the French interest in protecting an agricultural sector that is responsible for about 1-2% of GDP.
It would be far better for the UK if we could achieve something like the Canadians are currently negotiating, i.e. free trade and people movement with the EU in addition to that which they currently have with the US and Mexico via NAFTA. This would open up new tariff-free markets for British goods and services, liberate us from the worst excesses of the undemocratic political union and allow us to negotiate in future in pursuit of British rather than French interests at the WTO.
Posted by: Freeborn John | September 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm | Report this commentEnrique:
UK has a more positive attitude towards Indians and do not project traditional colonial racist images like the rest of Europe with its ‘fetish’ for understanding other cultures. This is done through its ‘own’ distorted lens of prejudice and xenophobia. Denmark’s prime minister who was voted on a far-right platform criticized India for human rights violation. I think India should have protested after the leadership talked about christian massacres as a national shame. In light of the treatment of its own minorities this is disgraceful for the Indian delegation to accept it. Indian intelligentsia is very critical of the atrocities and condemned it in no uncertain terms. The attacks are deplorable and I hope the EU elite follows Indian press to learn that the voices raised have been across the social spectrum and we have a robust liberal secular intelligentsia and grass-roots civil society. But the acerbic remarks from EU leaders about ‘national shame’ were surely uncalled for!! There are lots and lots of Indians who are apalled and hurt by these incidents and the EU elite should have praised the sincerity of their efforts and emboldened their stance. I think this is a serious problem with continental EU where cross-cultural friendships and solidarity are non-existent but more interpretation through ‘collective’ terms like nation. Social democracy with its emphasis on solidarity unfortunately aggravates the situation, since the solidarity ends with the borders of caste, religion and color. WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE…NOT TO EVOKE THE NATIONAL IMAGE OF INDIA Vs EU BUT A KIND OF GLOBAL CONDEMNATION OF ATTACKS WITH A SHARED PLATFORM ALONGSIDE INDIAN CIVIL SOCIETY AND INTELLIGENTSIA. One day continental EU will pay a very heavy price if it pushes the liberal amongst the Indians and other nations by ‘collective’ thinking and will alienate a lot of Indians who feel offended by these kind of remarks attributing to an entire nation. Surely India has its unfortunate share of violent bigotry.
Its a tragedy that India is not firm in its international dealings like China because its whole focus is trade and trade. Let the developing world follow the instance of China with its tough scathing stance when criticized by EU.
Posted by: Chris | October 1st, 2008 at 6:21 am | Report this comment