In a press release on February 19 the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) announced that the 9th edition of the Raisina Dialogue (RD) will be held on February 19-23 in Delhi. MEA stated that “it is India’s flagship conference on geo-politics and geo-economics, committed to addressing the most challenging issues facing the international community”. It also informed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would inaugurate RD 9 while Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis would be the chief guest and would deliver its keynote address. While mentioning the focus of this edition of RD—’Chaturanga: Conflict, Contest, Cooperate, Create’ as well as its six themes, MEA’s press release referred readers to the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), one of India’s leading think-tanks, internet link.
The ORF link while spelling out the details of RD 9 and its themes also stated “The conference is hosted by the Observer Research Foundation in partnership with the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. This effort is supported by a number of institutions, organisations and individuals, who are committed to the Mission of the Conference”. MEA supports a great number of seminars and conferences of the academia and think-tanks on foreign and security policy and diplomatic issues. This is also one of MEA’s such endeavours but it is qualitatively different. Its object is to make India also a place where a respected annual conference is held where subjects of international significance are discussed by some of the world’s leading thinkers, practitioners and leaders. It would have been a matter of satisfaction for ORF and MEA too when Mitsotakis said that RD has been transformed from a regional event “into a global public square for dialogue and exchange of ideas”. It is noteworthy that the MEA press release was silent on the issue of which organization was the real host of RD 9
The subject of RD 9 was well chosen. The world is in conflict, both kinetic and ideological. The Ukraine war is completing two years to the date. For it is on this day—February 24—that Russia invaded Ukraine. Its armies crossed over into Ukrainian territory and headed for the capital Kiev. By this act Russia, which as a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council has to be committed to the maintenance of international peace and security itself endangered it. The West reacted with fury and the Ukrainians rose to defend their sovereignty. Clearly, Russia’s initial aim to bring about regime change in Kiev and also capture sufficient territory to bargain for the ‘independence’ for the country’s eastern and some southern areas which are inhabited by large Russian speaking people were not met. However, Russia has been able to expand its hold in these eastern and southern parts and essentially the conflict is moving into becoming a ‘frozen’ one. Whatever may have been the provocations by the West and Ukraine too—and there certainly were these—the invasion was not justified.
Indian strategic thinkers have been advancing the idea that it is wrong to think that what happens in the advanced world—including conflicts—should not have greater global priority than that which ails the developing countries. This is, in theory, a correct proposition but it cannot be so in practice. This is simply because the repercussions of conflict and change in the developed world or in current phraseology—the Global North—are far more consequential than those which occur in the developing countries, now collectively referred to the Global South. The only exception would be in the area of health. This is because a new infection may arise in the Global South which would inevitably spread rapidly throughout the world because of modern means of travel.
RD 9 also focused on ‘create and cooperate’. Its sub-themes looked into, inter alia, the current inadequacies of the institutions of global governance and the impact of the latest technological developments, including in the area of artificial intelligence on societies and polities. The fact is that the United Nations and its associated institutions to uphold the world order put in place by the victors of the Second World War are no longer valid, especially in the context of maintaining international peace and security. For instance, the exclusion of India as a veto holding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is completely unjustified because of this country’s current and growing influence and ability to project power if it wants to do so. India’s absence, therefore, hinders what it can really contribute in this area of global governance.
The inaugural session speeches, including Matsakatis’s keynote address, revealed the great and growing anxieties in societies and polities because of how artificial intelligence can be, for example, misused in the electoral processes of various countries. In addition, it can also be abused to invade peoples’ privacy and also cause social unrest and turbulence. The innovators of systems which rely on artificial intelligence are themselves aware of these dangers and want governmental regulation. The fact is that there is need for international cooperation in this field but it is unlikely that it would be easily forthcoming. This is because artificial intelligence would inevitably give great power to those countries who develop intrusive systems based on it. Altruism has never worked in international relations though all countries, including the powerful, speak eloquently in favour of a democratic and a rules-based world order. However, these fine sentiments hold only so long as the interests of the countries are not at stake. Then these interests are given primacy. That is why the chance of the creation of a global governance institution to oversee the growth of artificial intelligence is difficult to foresee despite the dangers of artificial intelligence. And, even if one is created will it be effective?