Foreign policy involves much more than it appears to. It is often believed that if national interest is projected balanced with the interest of other states, and security of the state is ensured, a foreign policy can be constructed. The reality is more complex. Almost every aspect of a country’s internal politics impacts foreign policy. And a country’s security includes all aspects of development and rights. For example, how a country treats its minorities can influence not only foreign policy but the very international system and regional policy as well. Moreover, each country in the world has an instance of this minority-foreign policy synergy.
Take for example our neighbouring South Asian countries. Sri Lanka’s policies of excluding their Tamil minorities for decades caused an internal civil war, almost destroyed their relations with India, and the entire world condemned their human rights violations against their minority. Bangladesh’s marginalisation of their minorities, especially the Hindus and the tribes of the Chittagong Hill areas, threaten their internal fabric and have been consistently condemned by India, the US and EU. Pakistan’s creation and projection as a one-religion state, as everyone knows, is the root cause of its failure in governance, security, development and foreign policy. It has made the army stronger, civil institutions weaker and led to a spurt in terrorism.
If all these states had on the other hand had a policy that is inclusive and respected the basic plurality of their historical and multi-ethnic and multi-religious traditions, they would not have alienated their minorities into revolting. Moreover, any policy that does not recognise minorities and give them equal citizenship rights is also linked to these states associating their minorities with the “enemy other” or hegemonic outsider states. Thus, the religious majority see the Hindus of Bangladesh and Pakistan as closer to India, as they want to see India as a state for Hindus, and themselves as “pure” Islamic states. This itself is a myth. Because there is no such thing as any pure ethnic or religious community that can be completely contiguous to statehood. There are variations and local specificities to all majorities and minorities. In fact, states are actually made up of multiple minorities.
Take India itself. India has stood the test of time as a nation state more because it is somewhat democratic, in that it gives a choice to the electorate, because the army has not had to greatly intervene against ethnic minorities or groups. Despite some horrific religion-based pogroms, the majority of people would like to keep religion outside the political and foreign policy spheres. Minorities have citizenship as well as community rights, even though these need to be improved.
If one was to do a quick assessment of failed states, the primary reason would be the attempt to create a strong “nation” based on a conceived majority and majoritarian nationalism. Let us take some recent examples: Yugoslavia broke up because of Serbian nationalism and imposition. Czechoslovakia broke up as ethnic groups did not want to live together. Ukraine is going through a civil war on account of ethnic differences, most of the African countries that witnessed state failure, from Sudan to Somalia and Syria to Libya, has one major reason: the refusal of the regime, often backed by majoritarian forces, to grant equal citizenship rights to minorities. The alienation of minorities leads to not only civil war, internal repression, severe human rights abuses, rise of terrorism and ultimately failed states. This is waiting to happen in Israel, and any other state that imposes its religious tenets on statecraft and keeps out minorities.
This kind of politics has a deep impact on international politics. And each of the example cited above and the impact of that crises has had international ramifications. For example, the break-up of Yugoslavia then and Ukraine civil war now is impacting all of Europe, keeping it in prolonged crises, and creating the deepest crises in the EU. The mistreating of minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, was a setback to the entire ASEAN. The problem of Tibetan minorities and the fear of the strong Chinese state to give them religious rights and autonomy within China’s statehood without questioning Chinese sovereignty is the nation’s biggest weakness in its human rights record and takes away from its legitimacy as an international player. Similarly, India’s use of armed forces to keep law and order and rule in its northeast and Kashmir is a setback to its foreign policy aims of being an international great power.
Recently, president Obama has been giving lectures on the need for India to maintain its multi-religious tolerance and plural heritage. Some analysts have argued that the American president should not lecture others. But the same analysts went overboard in welcoming the India-US strategic partnership. The point is that if India wants to have strategic partnerships with superpowers, it must respect human rights, especially of the minorities, and recognise that India’s real history is based on such tolerance and on waves of different communities becoming part of this subcontinent. Any attempt or any project by any state, whether it is India, Pakistan, Russia, France or the UK, to construct and impose a nationalism which in any way excludes, suppresses, marginalises its minorities is bound to fail. It will destroy not only its internal fabric and give rise to conflicts and threats, but also hamper any kind of development, security and social harmony.
Minority rights are thus an integral part of foreign policy. Even if minority rights are threatened in a small part of the globe, as they were in Sri Lanka or Nigeria, they spill over and cause deep regional disturbance. They have an impact on international peace and security. They are a setback to human development and human security. These ideas have been repeated in many international bodies, but sadly, many theorists and practitioners of foreign and security policy refuse to understand this. There is an attempt to obfuscate international discourse on these issues. If this is not recognised, the world will continue to be unsafe as more states will break up and more minorities rebel against states that do not give them basic rights.