Q1. What is the state of the Italy-India relations and the meaning of Modi being invited to the G7 – is there a partnership between the two PMs?
A: Yes, of course. There is a new framework, definitely new energy. The March visit of PM Meloni to India was very important. There’s a sense in both governments that things are happening. And, in diplomacy, when the direction is positive, people tend to get more activated. Trade and investments are strong and growing. And in terms of interactions between our prime ministers, they clearly find their positions as convergent and even aligned on many important issues.
Q2. One of them is the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. But is IMEEC going to impacted by the Israel-Hamas war? Does it remain a priority?
A: Whenever there are big ideas, there will also be challenges. Developments have taken place recently which has made its realization seemingly hard. However complicated things are, and they are right now quite complicated, there is no question that the IMEEC has its own very sound logic. And that logic is that you have these two major production and consumption centers at either end - the Indian economy and the European economy. Historically, a lot of the trade between them went through the Arabian Peninsula, through that region which covers the IMEEC. So to me, the logic has not changed at all. Everything that, let us say, we discussed in September remains as relevant now as it was at that point of time.
Q3. Of course war in the Middle East is something to overcome for IMEEC to fly. What’s your take on the war? Do current events make a two state solution more or less likely?
A: I’m not sure we can really have a basis for such a judgment. What we do know is that the only realistic solution for the long standing problems in that region is a two state solution. And a two-state solution which can best come about through direct negotiations between the parties concerned. I can ask you a counter question. Is there a better solution today or a more likely solution? I don’t think so.
Q4. There is a debate about double standards in the west on this issue. Some observers in emerging countries say - what is being condemned and sanctioned by the US when it’s Russia to do it, the same behavior is essentially condoned when it’s Israel to do it. Some in emerging countries say the West is being hypocritical. Do you agree?
A: I’ve never heard this argument put in this way. But now that you mention it, let me say that I think the two situations are very different.
Q5. But has there been a debate about double standards?
A: Yes. I think much of the double standards argument really revolves around Europe’s own attitude. And the issue started well before October 7. A lot of it comes out of the fact that in the past, there were problems in other regions and essentially, European countries took the view that it was not for them to worry about. So long as Europe is safe and secure and nothing happens to the European way of life, it was for others to figure it out. And there was even a strong advocacy of what was called ‘change through trade’. Our German colleagues were particularly enthusiastic about such an outlook. The view was when there were issues, say, in Asia or in Africa, Europeans felt they were not going to get very agitated about it. But when something happened in Europe, European countries wanted an expression of global solidarity. And the much of the world felt that their interests also needed to be taken into account. That said, we have also moved beyond this phase. European countries were crucial in ensuring that at the New Delhi G20 Summit, we not only focused on SDG and climate action, but also in resourcing our action. In my meetings in Italy and earlier in Portugal, I found willingness to partner with India in third country projects, especially in Africa. In a globalized era, it is important that we all behave in a truly globalized manner.
Q6. All mature democracies, except Israel, have applied sanctions on Russia. No emerging country, including India, has, What is the lesson to be learned for this episode?
A: There is a basic question regarding the sanctions themselves. What are these sanctions? Essentially, these are leverage that you can say advanced economies have by virtue of the mechanisms, power and tools that they have built up over many years. So they use them when it suits them. And again, it’s not like they go to a body like the United Nations and seek its legitimacy. They use this when they feel their interests are at stake. But many parts of the world, to be very honest, don’t have that kind of acceptance for the concept of sanctions. It is made out as though the entire world agrees on sanctions. That is not really the case.
Q7. Do you think emerging countries wanted to teach a lesson to mature economies?
A: This is less an issue to be judgmental and more one of who has the capability. Remember, when it comes to sanctions, there is a history. When the struggle against apartheid really picked up, it was actually the developing world which wanted sanctions on the regime in South Africa and advanced economies that were resistant. So, in a way, the case of a certain tool is very much dependent on who’s using it, who’s justifying it, who’s feeling the pressure. There’s also a view sanctions have not been an effective instrument, as there are so many workarounds. That is a different debate.
Q8. Meloni was caught in a scam phone call as saying there is fatigue around the Ukraine war and a way out is needed that would fit both parties, «without destroying international law». Do you agree?
A: Since the conflict began, we’ve seen different efforts by different countries in regard to a solution in Ukraine. I’m not sure what I would prescribe. My Prime Minister at a meeting last year in Samarkand, when he met President Putin, said publicly that in this day and age, we don’t think war is a solution. So I put it to you more as a common sense proposition. The average person would say, look, at some point people will have to sit down and talk. India is always ready to help.
Q9. India is a prominent member of the BRICS. What is this club all about? Is it designed as a counterweight to the G7?
A: It’s a very unique gathering. It has two members from Asia, a member from Europe, one from Latin America. When it started, about two decades ago, these were significant powers in the world who felt that they were not getting their fair share of say from the international system. The feeling was Western countries were dominating and not letting non-Western countries exercise their influence and their rights.
Q10. Is it a non-West grouping?
A: Yes, absolutely. But let me make it clear that it’s not necessarily an anti-West grouping. We, in India, don’t see ourselves as an anti-Western country. At the last summit in Johannesburg, we had 29 countries who wanted to join the BRICS. Clearly, those 29 countries seem to think there is some value, that they also today feel that there are gains to be realized by joining these other five or now eleven countries. This is something the Western world should reflect on. I think it’s important for developed countries to find ways of responding to the interests of the developing nations. India can help in this regard.
Q11. So what is the message of your visit to Italy and Europe?
A: It is a positive and constructive message. We are political democracies, pluralistic societies and market economies. To de-risk the global economy and create resilient supply chains, our cooperation is critical. In the G20, we showed that India could be a bridge between East and West as well as North and South. On global issues like climate action, counter-terrorism or maritime security, we work closely together. In the digital age, India and Europe can help build a trusted global workplace. As India’s interests expand, our convergences with Italy and Europe grow strongly. Italy has supported the five key recent international initiatives of India. My goal is to build on this foundation and move our ties to a higher level.